Hybrids partake of the nature of both parents, but they incline generally, as in the extreme cases mentioned, to resemble one much more strongly than the other. When a Cattleya or Lœlia of the single-leaf section is crossed with one of the two-leaf, some of the offspring, from the same capsule, show two leaves, others one only; and some show one and two alternately, obeying no rule perceptible to us at present. So it is with the charming Lœlia Maynardii from L. Dayana × Cattleya dolosa, just raised by Mr. Sander and named after the Superintendent of his hybridizing operations. Catt. dolosa has two leaves, L. Dayana one; the product has two and one alternately. Sepals and petals are alike in colour, rosy crimson, veined with a deeper hue; lip brightest crimson-lake, long, broad and flat, curving in handsomely above the column, which is closely depressed after the manner of Catt. dolosa.
The first bi-generic cross deserves a paragraph to itself if only on that account; but its own merits are more than sufficient. Sophro-Cattleya Batemaniana was raised by Messrs. Veitch from Sophronitis grandiflora × Catt. intermedia. It flowered in August, 1886; petals and sepals rosy scarlet, lip pale lilac bordered with amethyst and tipped with rosy purple.
But one natural hybrid has been identified among Dendrobes—the progeny doubtless of D. crassinode × D. Wardianum. Messrs. J. Laing have a fine specimen of this; it shows the growth of the latter species with the bloom of the former, but enlarged and improved. Several other hybrid crosses are suspected. Of artificial we have not less than fifty.
Phaius—it is often spelt Phajus—is so closely allied with Calanthe that for hybridizing purposes at least there is no distinction. Dominy raised Ph. irroratus from Ph. grandifolius × Cal. vestita; Seden made the same cross, but, using the variety Cal. v. rubro-occulata, he obtained Ph. purpureus. The success is more interesting because one parent is evergreen, the other, Calanthe, deciduous. On this account probably very few seedlings survive; they show the former habit. Mr. Cookson alone has yet raised a cross between two species of Phajus—Ph. Cooksoni from Ph. Wallichii × Ph. tuberculosus. One may say that this is the best hybrid yet raised, saving Calanthe Veitchii, if all merits be considered—stateliness of aspect, freedom in flowering, striking colour, ease of cultivation. One bulb will throw up four spikes—twenty-eight have been counted in a twelve-inch pot—each bearing perhaps thirty flowers.
Seden has made two crosses of Chysis, both from the exquisite Ch. bractescens, one of the loveliest flowers that heaven has granted to this world, but sadly fleeting. Nobody, I believe, has yet been so fortunate as to obtain seed from Ch. aurea. This species has the rare privilege of self-fertilization—we may well exclaim, Why! why?—and it eagerly avails itself thereof so soon as the flower begins to open. Thus, however watchful the hybridizer may be, hitherto he has found the pollen masses melted in hopeless confusion before he can secure them.
One hybrid Epidendrum has been obtained—Epi. O'Brienianum from Epi. evectum × Epi. radicans; the former purple, the latter scarlet, produce ×a bright crimson progeny.
Miltonias show two natural hybrids, and one artificial—Mil. Bleuiana from Mil. vexillaria × Mil. Roezlii; both of these are commonly classed as Odontoglots, and I refer to them elsewhere under that title. M. Bleu and Messrs. Veitch made this cross about the same time, but the seedlings of the former flowered in 1889, of the latter, in 1891. Here we see an illustration of the advantage which French horticulturists enjoy, even so far north as Paris; a clear sky and abundant sunshine made a difference of more than twelve months. When Italians begin hybridizing, we shall see marvels—and Greeks and Egyptians!
Masdevallias are so attractive to insects, by striking colour, as a rule, and sometimes by strong smell—so very easily fertilized also—that we should expect many natural hybrids in the genus. They are not forthcoming, however. Reichenbach displayed his scientific instinct by suggesting that two species submitted to him might probably be the issue of parents named; since that date Seden has produced both of them from the crosses which Reichenbach indicated.
We have three natural hybrids among Phalœnopsis. Ph. intermedia made its appearance in a lot of Ph. Aphrodite, imported 1852. M. Porte, a French trader, brought home two in 1861; they were somewhat different, and he gave them his name. Messrs. Low imported several in 1874, one of which, being different again, was called after Mr. Brymer. Three have been found since, always among Ph. Aphrodite; the finest known is possessed by Lord Rothschild. That these were natural hybrids could not be doubted; Seden crossed Ph. Aphrodite with Ph. rosea, and proved it. Our garden hybrids are two: Ph. F.L. Ames, obtained from Ph. amabilis × Ph. intermedia, and Ph.Harriettæ from Ph. amabilis × Ph. violacea, named after the daughter of Hon. Erastus Corning, of Albany, U.S.A.
Oncidiums yield only two natural hybrids at present, and those uncertain; others are suspected. We have no garden hybrids, I believe, as yet. So it is with Odontoglossums, as has been said, but in the natural state they cross so freely that a large proportion of the species may probably be hybrids. I allude to this hereafter.