AN ORCHID NOTE. 237% 
An Orchid Note. 
Solomon Conrad’s paper of 1829, on Corallorhiza Wisteriana, 
falls short of being the original publication of that species; for 
Rafinisque a dozen years earlier had just made that plant the type 
of a new genus under the name of Cladorhiza. He calls the spe- 
cies“ C?, macu/ata,”in evident allusion to the notably spotted lip of 
the flower. To this organ, the lip, he ascribes three essential char- 
acters. Itis “spotted, elliptic, obtuse, crenate,” which I note as 
a more perfect description of that organ than either Conrad or 
any one else since Rafinesque’s day, in so far as I have read 
seems to have given, None but he mentions the crenulate char- 
acter of it, though the figure in Britton & Brown clearly shows it. 
I here present the fuller account, as to its history, of what I 
should call 
CORALLORHIZA MACULATA. Cladorhiza maculata, Raf. Am. M° 
Mag., i. 429 (1817). 
Corallorhiza Wisteriana, Conrad. Journ. Philad. Acad., vi, 145 
(1829). 
As a frequent plant in woods on the outskirts of the Phila- 
delphia of the early nineteenth century, it might be expected 
that Rafinesque would have been the first to note its character, 
for he was familiar with the Philadelphia region at the time. 
Certain Rosaceous Genera. 
From the view of Potentilla, as afair aggregate of many sub- 
generic types—the view I took nineteén years since'—I have 
long since receded. Mr. Rydberg has taken a middle ground, 
which is logically untenable. But he has brought out several 
new characters for each of several segregate genera, and this so 
clearly that I must concede the untenability of my former 
position. But neither can I conform to his scheme. If Horkelia 
and Drymocaliis, just alike in habit, are distinct, then is Zrido- 
Phyllum, so peculiar in habit, flower and fruit, also an excellent 
genus. If Argentina be separate from Porentil/aitis by habit 
1PrrrontA, i. 95-106. 2 LEAFLETS, i. 188. 
