I propose to retain H. psycodes (L.) Spreng. as such, 
based upon an examination of a photograph of the Lin- 
nean type and upon his description. Also, since it is 
practically impossible to segregate many of the plants 
having intermediate characters into the H.psycodes and 
H.fimbriata categories, and because there seem to be no 
fundamental morphological differences in the plants as 
a whole, I propose to recognize arbitrarily the larger- 
flowered plants as H.psycodes var. grandiflora. Plants 
of H.lacera which are found throughout most of its area 
of distribution are clearly distinguishable as such and 
afford no problem. However, some of those plants found 
in the northern extremes of its distribution have, in some 
cases, been confused with XH. Andrewsii and H. psy - 
codes. 
Considering the above status of the Purple-fringed 
Habenarias, and realizing the great variability which is 
characteristic of hybrid plants, I have deemed it best to 
group all of the hybrids into one polymorphic, hetero¬ 
geneous category instead of trying to distinguish individ¬ 
ual hybrid plants of H. psycodesXH. lacera from those 
of H.psycodes var. grandifloraXH.lacera. I feel confi¬ 
dent that, if the above suggestions are taken into con¬ 
sideration, much of the confusion of the past will be 
clarified and the future treatment of these plants greatly 
simplified. 
With this broader conception of XH. Andrewsii in 
mind, I believe that a reexamination of Lindley’s speci¬ 
mens may possibly disclose that he had in hand one or 
more of the various forms of the hybrid which led him 
to recognize five segregates in this bewildering group of 
plants; but this, of course, is mere supposition. If, how¬ 
ever, one of his type specimens should prove to be the 
hybrid it would become necessary to adopt this earlier 
name and thus relegate XH. Andrewsii to synonymy. 
[ 61 ] 
