same stalk). Citing observations made while studying 
the plants in their natural habitats in Maine, Knight 
said: “I have repeatedly found many which were inter¬ 
mediate in characters between Cypripedium parviflorum 
and C.pubescens and in most instances plants readily ref¬ 
erable to one or the other form (sometimes both forms) 
were growing with these intermediates.” He mentioned 
several intergradations and said that, in fact, almost every 
combination of characters could be found. He ended his 
most interesting argument with the statement: “Unless 
the numerous specimens possessing characters of both 
forms can be accounted for on the grounds of hybridism 
we ought to regard them as different phases of the same 
species.” 
It is my opinion that Knight’s experimental evidence 
contradicts his final conclusions. If these experiments 
and observations are correctly interpreted it seems to me 
there could be but one conclusion: A multitude of eco¬ 
logical farms but only one species! 
Rolfe (Orch. Rev. 55 (1907) 184) corroborated, in 
part, Knight’s observations. He said: “ C.pubescens has 
much larger flowers, sepals and petals often lighter in 
colour and the lip somewhat compressed laterally, but 
nearly all the books agree that they intergrade and both 
forms are now flowering at Kew [England] out of the 
same batch of roots. ” He continued: “I think they [C. 
parviflorum and C. pubescens] must be forms of a single 
species, depending upon vigour and the conditions under 
which they grow. ” Rolfe also called our attention to an 
obvious fact by saying: “It is not at all like a case of 
natural hybridization where the parent species are them¬ 
selves quite distinct.” 
Fuller (Orch. of Wis. (1933) 65), however, did not 
agree with Knight that reversal of form occurred in each 
of the species after transplanting to a different habitat. 
[9] 
