fold when it is realized that H. psycodes and H. fimbriata 
are so similar that they are distinguishable only by arbi¬ 
trary rules. In the preparation of the Orchidaceae for 
Gray’s New Manual a conscientious effort was made to 
ascertain the distinctive characters of these two species. 
Although every conspicuous character was carefully stud¬ 
ied it was found that the most reliable distinction was 
the depth of the fringe on the divisions of the labellum; 
in H.psy codes this being one-third the depth of the divi¬ 
sions or less, and in H.fimbriata one-third or more.” 
In its present condition the problem may well be 
expressed in the words of Gibson (Our Native Orchids 
(1905) 63): * ‘In the bother of mentally calculating wheth¬ 
er a certain specimen of purple-fringed orchis is a large 
specimen of H. psycodes , or a small one of H. grandi- 
fiora , one is distracted from an enjoyment of its beauty, 
and is tempted to feel a trifle of impatience at the nam¬ 
ing of names, and to wish one were back in the Garden 
of Eden, where, according to the little boy’s version, 
‘Adam called the elephant an elephant because it looked 
like an elephant’.” It would be pleasant, indeed, to fol¬ 
low Adam’s method of naming things, but taxonomy 
would not, in the end, benefit by such a system. 
In 1901, Andrews described, as follows, a plant which 
he said was a hybrid between H.psycodes and H. lacera 
(Michx.) Lodd. (in Rhodora 3:246): ‘‘Lower leaves as 
in H lacera length to 15 cm., width to 3 cm., ratio 5- 
7:1. Raceme oblong, loosely fewer-flowered. Flowers 
white tinted rose to light rose-purple. Sepals round-oval, 
obtuse, lateral deflexed, plane, vertical. Petals cuneate- 
spatulate, obtuse or slightly retuse, denticulate above, 
slightly surpassing upper sepal in ratio of about 6:5. 
Average width of lip about 12 mm. Divisions narrow- 
cuneate, deeply cleft as in H. lacera , few, averaging 
twice as many as in lacera , capillary, long. Arms of col- 
[59] 
