1909] Ames,— Nomenclatorial Changes in Corallorrhiza 105 
Florida and westward into Texas. Furthermore, C. Wisteriana is 
extremely rare northward. When I prepared the monograph of that 
species for the first volume of Orchidaceae I examined many specimens 
to ascertain its geographical range, and found none from farther north 
than Georgia and Alabama, with the exception of the type, although 
in the literature devoted to it I found several reports of more northern 
localities almost all of which were without much doubt based on 
erroneously identified material. With the exception of a very ques- 
tionable report for New England, the only northern station which 
deserves serious consideration is the type station near Philadelphia. 
No authentic material has ever been found in New York that I have 
been able to discover, while C. multiflora is common there. In the 
distribution of the species prepared for Gray’s New Manual I judged 
that Pennsylvania and southward was the only statement warranted 
by my investigation. Rafinesque’s second note would seem to refer to 
a plant of not uncommon occurrence in New York, otherwise he 
would not have named three stations and then have indicated, by 
“ &c.," that others were known to him. Besides it would be most 
remarkable if in 1817 C. Wisteriana were common in the vicinity of 
New York and at the present time unknown from there. 
It is also noteworthy that Rafinesque makes no mention of Phila- 
delphia in either of his notes. In view of this Prof. Greene's remarks 
with which he concludes his brief reference to C. maculata in Leaflets 
(1: 237) are of interest. He says: ‘‘As a frequent plant in woods on 
the outskirts of the Philadelphia 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 
that time." 
In the seventh. volume of Torreya on page 78, Homer D. House 
takes exception to Prof. Greene's conjectures about the locality from 
which Rafinesque's plants of C. maculata were obtained and calls 
attention to the second note relative to the species in which Rafinesque 
referred definitely to the localities on Long Island. House concludes 
his brief account in the following words: ‘This (the Long Island 
station) gives a definite type locality for the species and it would be 
interesting to know whether the species is still to be found in the 
localities indicated by him (Rafinesque).” 
In view of the foregoing discussion, in which I have laid especial 
stress on the season of flowering and on the geographical distribution 
of the two species under consideration there is no evidence which in 
