erally, deeper than wide, convex above and below (not 
so in the others); staminode deltoid and acute. 
Farwell was of the opinion that the plant Salisbury 
described had the deltoid staminode of number three and 
the small, flat sac of number one. He asserted that no 
combination of these characters existed as far as he knew. 
He also implied that Salisbury might have made draw¬ 
ings of dried material of number three and a conventional 
sac (perhaps number one) was added which resembled 
C. Calceolus. 
After stating: “The plants \C.parv\fiorum and C. 
pubescens] closely resemble one another ... ”, Wilson 
(The Garden 89 (1925) 360) said: “. . . in Mr. Burrage’s 
plants several masses had both. kinds [of flowers] inter¬ 
mixed, and this supported the previously recorded opin¬ 
ion that not only are they one and the same species, but 
that one variety might pass into the other when influ¬ 
enced by different climatic conditions.” 
A more recent work on North American orchids, that 
by Morris and Eames (Our Wild Orchids, 1929), has 
some very interesting notes relative to our yellow Cy- 
pripediums. The authors stated that although C.parvi¬ 
florum was a bog plant it was . . adaptive and hardy 
enough to have spread from its native swamp to upland 
wood and grassy bank, . . .”. (p. 8) Stating that “Ex¬ 
tremes of the Yellow [Cypripediums] differ so remark¬ 
ably in form and color that many botanists distinguish 
three kinds”, they concluded, “It seems best to include 
them all in a single species of very variable habit. ” (p. 11) 
In the original descriptions no measurements what¬ 
soever were given of C. parviflorum and C. pubescens as 
to the length and breadth of the various parts of the 
plants. However, in time, it was found necessary to cite 
arbitrary measurements in an effort to separate the so- 
called species. The measurements in general use today 
tH] 
