are those proposed for the lip by Ames in Gray's New 
Manual of Botany (ed.7 (1908) 306). For C.parviflorum, 
he specified that the lip was 2-3 cm. long; for var. pu- 
bescens , that the lip was 3.5-5 cm. long. The question 
then arises as to where those plants should be placed 
which possess lips less than 2 cm. long or more than 5 cm. 
long. There is also the question of where those plants 
should be placed which possess intermediate characters 
and have lips between 3 and 3.5 cm. long. 
In 1932, Fuller (Rhodora 34: 100) proposed XC. 
Andrewsii as a hybrid of C.candidum Muhl. and C.par¬ 
viflorum. In the same year, Curtis (Rhodora 34: 241) 
also proposedX C.Favillianum as a hybrid of C.candidum 
and C.parviflorum var. pubescens. Upon examining spec¬ 
imens of Fuller’s hybrid (Curtis 1072) and Curtis’ hybrid 
(Curtis 1123) in the Ames Herbarium, I find that they 
approach C. Calceolus very closely, especially as to the 
shape of the staminodes. It is highly probable that these 
so-called hybrids represent a geographical link between 
the form C.pubescens, more commonly found in the East, 
and C.montanum which is confined to the West. As will 
be pointed out later, C.montanum is probably little more 
than a color form of C. Calceolus. Curtis’ conclusive state¬ 
ment (l.c. p. 239) that Fuller “. .. has settled the ques¬ 
tion as to the possibility of a native cypripedium hybrid 
is questionable if not entirely premature. 
In 1933, Wherry (Am. Orch. Soc. Bull. 2:14) treated 
C. parviflorum and C. pubescens as independent species 
because, as he said, they . . differ in habitat and ac¬ 
cordingly in cultural requirements.” Wherry’s physio¬ 
logical basis for the segregation of species of Cypripedium 
does not seem to be in accord with either Knight or 
Morris and Eames. As has been previously pointed out, 
Knight (l.c. p. 93) cited experiments of successful trans¬ 
plantings of both C.parviflorum and C.pubescens to en- 
[ 12 ] 
