I think it is worth to clarify this silly situation. Two taxons are mixed, first is x brasiliensis, second is bicolor ssp. brasiliensis.I found few pics, as you can see, there is a mistake even on pics of net.1st is a ssp. of bicolor, 2nd is a x brasiliensis, 3rd is a mislabeled x brasiliensis, but not a straight ssp. of bicolor.
He says that the whole use of the term ‘braziliensis’ is confusing (as we noted above) and needs more future clarification. There is a difference in the subspecies (ssp) version and the hybrid version. And is almost convinced yours is ssp braziliensis alba.
The confusion stems from the fact that the natural hybrid is indeed correctly named x brasiliensis, but this is not the same taxon as Catt. bicolor ssp brasiliensis. The subspecies of bicolor are minasgeraisensis, bicolor and brasiliensis. People have suggested that the subspecies of bicolor could be elevated to individual species and if this occurred, a new epitaph would need to be made for Catt. bicolor ssp brasiliensis as it would conflict with existing natural hybrid Catt. x brasiliensis. All of the bicolors are very clear that they have no side lobes. If it has any hint of sidelobes it isn't a bicolor. Personally, I've come to the belief that bicolor is likely an evolutionary widely spread species that has collapsed down to separated biomes with modest to minimal gene flow today and each of these populations has had some introgression with other colocated species which has contributed to the modest morphologic differences between the subspecies. The lack of sidelobes if very dominant in crosses and blunts the sidelobes when crossed with other species that have large sidelobes - gutatta, tigrina, etc. and this trait is very different from all other bifoliate Cattleyas. Genetically it has been suggested that minasgeraisensis is a natural tetraploid population.