(1906) editor of the Ontario Natural Science Bulletin. 
He said: ‘ ‘My observations on C.hirsutum lead me to be¬ 
lieve that the so-called species C. parviflorum is a mere 
form of C.hirsutum and not even worthy of designation 
as a variety. While a sweet scent is usually found in the 
smaller forms and not in the larger I cannot connect this 
odoriferous quality with either a dorsal ly or laterally flat¬ 
tened labellum. The smaller form is here usually found 
in the drier and shadier situations and the larger in the 
wetter and more open locations. At the same time I 
have found small, sweet-scented plants among the larger 
ones in open bogs.” 
It is interesting to note that Klugh also reversed the 
usual habitat attributed by most botanists to C.parvi- 
Jlorum and C.pubescens. 
In 1906, Knight (Rhodora 8: 93) made the most 
constructive suggestion offered up to that time by say¬ 
ing: ‘‘I have long doubted their specific distinctness”, 
and reducing C.pubescens to C.parviflorum var. pubes- 
cens, “. . . in order that its exact relationship be better 
expressed.” In his very interesting paper, Knight said: 
‘‘Study of the plants growing in the field and also of 
some under cultivation in the garden would seem to 
prove that we have at best a species, C. parviflorum 
Salisb., which would appear to be our small flowered 
plant which has commonly passed under this name, while 
the larger flowered form would appear to require the 
name, Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens , 
He continued by citing experimental and observational 
data supporting his convictions: “On May 30,1901, Mr. 
F. M. Billings found a clump bearing eleven flowering 
stalks which could be referred under the description in 
the current manuals to no other species than Cypripedium 
pubescens. They agreed perfectly with the descriptions in 
size of flower, compression of lip, shape of foliage and 
[7] 
