Just tongue-in-cheek quibbling on the correct usage and vocabulary here, since you brought it up. Absolutely no criticism of anyone intended...

Any new publication is an hypothesis. If it is well supported and gains some acceptance it is no longer "hypothesizing" and you may have to consider competing theories. Hypothesis and theory are used almost interchangeably in common use, but are quite distinct if talking about science.

And it is true that any validly published name is correct to use, but it can be ambiguous unless it includes author and year of citation, as the same name may have different definitions at different times. Sophronitis cernua (Lindl.) Lindl. 1838 for instance, but that could also include plants later called Sophronitis alagoensis V.P.Castro & Chiron 2003.

Also, Cattleya cernua (Lindl.) Beer 1854 isn't exactly "current" hypothesizing.

Very nice.

Mine is mounted on a Kool Log that I let dry out between waterings and do not keep water in the log. It has never bloomed and I am thinking of telling it bye-bye! Any words to tell me how this got so beautiful?

How large is it and how much light does it get?

This gets Catt light.

I'm blaming you who have posted about this plant for the fact that I ordered two today. YOUR fault and you know who you are!

That would be NatalieS. Hers is stunning!

You're correct on both counts!

It was outside in several hours of sun each day. Summers are 95+ in the PM. The year before it was in south window.

Your pic is too dark to tell. My leaves have purple/magenta freckles.