So far, I have no reason to believe that Cattleya quadricolor Bateman is a not the valid name for the species.
Am I understanding correctly that you maintain that Cattleya quadricolor Bateman 1864 is the correct name for this species? The information that Jose Izquierdo and I forwarded to you, points into another direction. If Kunth did publish his concept of Cymbidium candidum correctly (Kunth in H.B.K., Nov. Gen. Sp. 1(4): 342 [1816]), if the plant he described is conspecific with what we nowadays know as 'Cattleya chocoensis' or 'C. quadricolor', and if Lehmann did transfer this concept in accordance with the rules to the genus Cattleya (Gard. Chron., III, 18: 466 [1895]), then the species epithet 'candida' precedes Bateman's 'quadricolor' by some 48 years and normally is the valid name. Zappi (Kew Bulletin 50(2): 423-425 [1995]), Van den Berg and allies (Lindleyana 15[2]: 96-114 [2000]) and the scientists working on the Monocot Checklist Project at Kew all seem to be convinced that this is the case as they have all accepted Cattleya candida (Kunth) F.Lehm., Gard. Chron., III, 18: 466 (1895) as the valid name. What information do you have that contradicts the above, and according to you makes 'quadricolor' the proper epithet?
Simon, you wrote :
"there is another Cattleya candida."
Really ! The same name for two species?
It seems you are misinterpreting my words, but maybe this is my mistake and I wasn't clear enough. What I meant to say was that in 1851 again a 'Cattleya candida' was described (so this is the 'other' or the second 'candida', after Kunth's), by B.S. Williams who published his concept in Gard. Chron. 1851: 453 (1851). However, (again) if Cymbidium candidum Kunth (1816) was published correctly, the species epithet 'candida' was no longer available for a Cattleya, making Williams' 'Cattleya candida' an illegal combination. It never could have been legal anyway, as it was not published correctly, and the plant Williams was referring to was Cattleya loddigesii.
By establishing when Cattleya candida was first used to describe a species, we should be able to clarify what appears to be a confusion.
See above, the epithet 'candida' was first used in 1816 to describe a Cattleya.
I do have a copy of the Gardeners' Chronicle mention of Cattleya candida by B. S. Williams. You are right : it lacks a description.
Then, you mentioned "it is a synonym of what nowadays is known as Cattleya loddigesii Lindl., Coll. Bot.: t. 37 (1826)."
That would be the clue, I believe. When was Cattleya loddigesii described under the name Cattleya candida and by whom ?
This I already made mention of in my first posting on this subject; by B.S. Williams, in Gard. Chron. 1851: 453 (1851), but as said before, not legally, and superfluously anyway as Cattleya loddigesii was already published as a name in 1826.
You wrote : "Cattleya chocoense ... is still recognised as such by the RHS". The right spelling for the epithet is chocoensis.
You are right, this is my mistake.
Hoping this helps,
Simon M. Wellinga / SymPhyto - Laboratory for in vitro plant propagation Heerenveen, The Netherlands / EU
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
