Sims (Bot. Mag. 23 (1806) t. 911) published an illus¬ 
tration of the plant which he knew at the time as C. 
parvijlorum. He stated: “It comes very near to the 
European species, and we suppose has been mistaken for 
the same by Michaux [Flora Bor. Am. (1803) 161]. .. . 
The nectarium or slipper is of plain yellow color without 
veins.” Later botanists referred to Sims’ illustration as 
representing C. pubescens. 
Rafinesque (Med. Flora U. S. (1828) 142) combined 
all the North American yellow Cypripediums into one 
species which he called C. luteum. Along with other 
characters, he said that the staminode was flattened into 
an oblong-deltoid lobe, and that the lip was yellow with 
or without red spots. He added: “Many botanists have 
made two species, C. pubescens and C. parvijlorum of 
this, to which the previous [?] and better name of C. lu¬ 
teum ought to be restored. I have ascertained that they 
form only one species, affording many varieties. ...” 
He also cited eight varieties and gave a short varietal 
description of each. In conclusion he said: “A multitude 
of intermediate varieties or deviations may be seen, with 
undulate or spiral sepals, obtuse or acute lobules, broader 
or narrower leaves,_” Later (Atlantic Journ. 1 (1833) 
178), in spite of his rather broad species concept as shown 
above, Rafinesque described a plant from Arkansas as 
C.bijidum , which form seems to be the same as later de¬ 
scribed by Cockerell and Barker (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 
14 (1901) 178) as C.veganum. Both are now referred to 
C.pubescens by some authors. 
In 1840, Lindley (Gen. & Sp. Orch. PL, p. 525) ad¬ 
mitted that C. parvijlorum and C. pubescens were very 
difficult to distinguish when dry, adding that both were 
closely allied to C. Calceolus. His characters for separat¬ 
ing the two were not very strong, consisting chiefly of a 
difference in size of the flowers. It would seem that after 
[ 8 ] 
