Perularia virescens A. Gray in Bot. Gaz. 5 (1880) 63, 
as to name, not as to plant. 
Cocloglossum viride b) bracteatum Richter Pl. Europ. 
1 (1890) 278. 
Peristylus viridis var. bracteata Reichenbach filius ex 
Kurtz in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 19 (1894) 408. 
Platanthera Choristana Krinzlin Orch. Gen. & Sp. 1 
(1899) 1, as to characters of the labellum and fig. in 
Reichenbach filius Orch. Europ. 
Platanthera viridis Lindley sensu Finet in Bull. Soe. 
Bot. Fr. 47 (1900) 284, in part. 
Flabenaria flava var. virescens Fernald in Rhodora 23 
(1921) 148, in footnote, as to name, not as to plant. 
In 1805, Muhlenburg described Orchis virescens trom 
Pennsylvania. He wrote: ‘‘O. labello lanceolato crenato, 
petalis conniventibus, cornu [spur] obtuso scrotiformi, 
bracteis flore longioribus.... Flores virescentes .... La- 
bellum /anceolatum crenatum. Cornu obtusum serotiforme 
brevissimum.”* 
Later, in 1826, Sprengel, in making the combination 
Habenaria virescens, suid that the spur was obtuse and 
didymous. Still later, in 1835, in making the combina- 
tion Peristylus virescens, Lindley wrote: ‘‘ Unknown to 
North American botanists. Is it some state of Peristylus 
viridis, or bracteata?” 
It is strange that Lindley’s question did not provoke 
later botanists to investigate more thoroughly the plant 
or description of the concept in question. It is clear to 
us that the plant originally described as Orchis virescens 
is referable to H. viridis var. bracteata instead of Hl flava 
to which species it has formerly been referred. The com- 
bination of characters attributed to O. virescens —lanceo- 
late (often used for oblanceolate during Muhlenburg’s 
time) lip which may be interpreted as being ‘‘crenato™’ 
at the apex; connivent petals and sepals; short, obtuse, 
[ 65 
