He cited several examples supporting his opinion. Sheet 
35728 in the Ames Herbarium and an article by Ames 
tend to support Fuller’s claim. The sheet bears a speci¬ 
men and photograph of a plant of C.pubescens which ac¬ 
cording to Ames (Am. Orch. Soc. Bull. 2 (1933) 28) has 
been in cultivation for more than fifty years. The plant’s 
identity has apparently remained the same as when it was 
first transplanted. The plants were growing in partial 
shade in garden loam which was generally enriched with 
leaf mold. It is very probable that this habitat was sim¬ 
ilar to that from which the plant was first taken, thereby 
affording no opportunity for a possible reversal in form 
due to response to habitat. Fuller also disagreed with 
both Knight and Rolfe as to the lack of distinctness of 
each species. He said: “In Wisconsin, C.pubescens must 
be considered of equal rank with C.parviflorum and dis¬ 
tinct. Only few intermediate forms have been observed 
by the author and there is field evidence that these may 
be hybrids.” 
Farwell (Twentieth Kept. Mich. Acad. Sci. (1918) 
197), following Rydberg in part, said that there were 
three distinct forms of Yellow Lady’s Slipper in Mich¬ 
igan, and that as far as he knew no intermediate forms 
were to be found. The species which he proposed and 
their most critical diagnostic characters were: 
1. C.pubescens var. Makasin or C.Makasin : Small 
flowers; sac £-1 inch long, moccasin-shaped, compres¬ 
sion vertical (wider than deep); the staminode linear and 
obtuse. 
2. C.pubescens Willd.: Flower similar to the above 
but with a sac lJ-2 inches long, moccasin-shaped, com¬ 
pression vertical (wider than deep); the staminode ob¬ 
long and obtuse. 
3. C.parviflorum Salisb.: Intermediate as to length 
of sac, sac bulbous or nearly so, slightly compressed lat- 
[ 10 ] 
