umn as in H.psychodes or slightly more acute. Glands of 
pollen-masses slightly oblique, elliptical or slightly kid¬ 
ney-shaped. Pollen-masses intermediate in length, club- 
shaped; stalk J length of mass of pollen or rather more; 
pollen greenish-yellow. Somewhat two lobed projection 
from base of stigma not completely obstructing orifice of 
nectary in middle as in lacera. Spur longer than ovary, 
clavate, much enlarged below. Ovary short or interme¬ 
diate, 9-12 mm. Locality... a very wet meadow in 
Pownal, Vermont, July 22, 1898 (M. W. White & A.L. 
Andrews), Aug. 5, 1901 (A.L.Andrews).” Later, in 
1904, Miss Niles (Bog-trotting for Orchids, p. 258) pub¬ 
lished as Habenaria Andrewsii White the plant Andrews 
had described. 
After examining numerous sheets of the H.psycodes- 
H.jimbriata complex, I have come to the conclusion that 
perhaps the most confusing element in this group is the 
common occurrence of hybrid plants of H.psycodes X 
H. lacera and of H. fimbriata XH. lacera. It is interest¬ 
ing to note that plants which seem to be so obviously of 
hybrid origin as do those which I have observed should 
have escaped the attention of other botanists who have 
worked with them, and it is perhaps due to the abundance 
of these hybrid plants that so much confusion has existed 
in this group in the past. The plants which were first 
described as XH. Andrewsii seem to me less representa¬ 
tive of the hybrid than those shown in Plates I and II* 
The specimens exhibited by these plates are outwardly 
more closely allied to the large Purple-fringed Orchid 
than to the small one. Nevertheless, under the status in 
which I am considering them, all the hybrid plants ob¬ 
served in this study will be treated as XH. Andrewsii- 
In order to do this, however, it will be necessary 1° 
broaden our conception of the hybrid. 
In dealing with the parent species of XH. A ndrewsii, 
[60] 
