closely allied species confusion was established, and al¬ 
though several authors have endeavored to eliminate it 
there are obstacles which it is probable will always exist. 
Botanists have reported their material under one name 
or the other, and have, with few exceptions, added con¬ 
fusion by unstudied references to literature.” Ames, 
who had an opportunity to examine the type specimens, 
continued: “For example, Lindley described two varie¬ 
ties of H. psycodes which are clearly referable to H.la- 
cera , as an examination of his specimens will prove. In 
his synonymy he refers directly to Orchis psycodes L. 
His Platanthera crispa , on the other hand, which he sug¬ 
gested was a natural hybrid, is equivalent to H.psycodes , 
to which species his material identified as P.incisa should 
also be referred. Lindley’s material of P.fimbriata is con- 
specific with H.psycodes , and his P. grandiflora is simply 
H.fimbriata .” 
In 1929, Morris and Eames (Our Wild Orchids, p. 
164) said: “. . .there is little or no structural difference 
to separate it [iaT. fimbriata (Dryander) R. Br. from H. 
psycodes] ; the greater divergence of the anther cells, the 
denticulation of the petals continued down their lateral 
margins as well as on the apex, even the looser more 
spreading habit of raceme so often found, are distinctions 
that tend to disappear where both forms are much of a 
size.” They retained H.fimbriata , however, as a separate 
species from H. psycodes , basing their retention on the 
difference in the size of the flowers. They said (l.c. 162) 
that in the northeast comer of its range H. fimbriata 
“. . .is so much larger than the Butterfly Orchid [#* 
psycodes] that the two can hardly even be compared, let 
alone confused.” 
Ames, admitting the confusion which existed con¬ 
cerning these two forms of the Purple-fringed Haben- 
arias (l.c. 187),wrote: “The difficulties are increased ten- 
[58] 
