334 Harper: BoTANIcCAL ExPLORATIONS IN GEORGIA 
this species, intimately associated with S. rubra and S. Drwmmon- 
dii. It was immediately recognized as a plant which I had seen 
six years previously in a similar locality about a mile away, where 
it was associated with the same two species. At that time (1895) 
the possibility of finding a species not in the standard text-books 
had never occurred to me, and I referred it to one of the other 
species. In thinking over the matter a few years later I came to 
the conclusion that it must be a hybrid between the two species as- 
sociated with it, but last summer I was convinced that this could not 
be the case, as the resemblance of S. Catesbaei to S. rubra is 
rather remote, and it has some characters not possessed by either 
of the other two. Elliott says of S. Catesbaet that it can be con- 
nected with no other species than S. fava; but I have noticed a 
very close and probably hitherto unsuspected relationship between 
S. Catesbaei and S. Drummondii. The leaves of these two are of 
almost exactly the same size and shape, differing principally in 
coloring, and I fancied that I could almost detect an intergradation 
between them, for many of the leaves of S. Catesbaei had the 
upper parts of the leaves faintly white-spotted, like those of S. 
_Drummondii but in lesser degree. The inner surface of the hood 
was also pubescent with stiff reflexed hairs, as in S. Drummond. 
| But all had the iridescent purple spot in the throat, a character 
which is shared only with S. fava. If my plant was a hybrid, S. 
fava could hardly be one of its parents, for that species is not 
sini to occur within 27 miles of this place (and in all my 
travels in Georgia I have never yet seen it west of the Flint River, 
though it is abundant east of there). 
If the flowers of my plant could be obtained its affinities would 
mn See known, but strangely enough, I have never been able to 
oom ce ee of flower or fruit on it. The flowers of 
with billow pe tue oa Beery Sgures, two flowce 
belong with the other ol tea ee ee nese probes 
of S. minor. Elliott says fas ia ie ne 2% ‘a ins 
a in ac bade “oe of S. Catesbaei are unknown 
several very doubtful specim : se ire — pried 
either without flowers = gr saad % ce tage Seana 
e flowers are detached and may not 
have been collected with the le 
: aves, and besi Id 
that their color is lost. sides they are so 0 
