W.M.Canby, who first collected the hybrid near Lewes, 
Delaware, recorded the following notes: ‘‘Habenaria 
cristata X blephariglottis? Intermediate in color, size of 
flowers, openness of panicle, etc. between the two spe- 
cles....in company with H. cristata and H. blephari- 
glottis, July 27, 1878.’ Ames (in Rhodora 10 (1908) 70) 
recognized the plant as a hybrid and named it for the 
collector. Earlier, in 1903, Small (Flora Southeastern 
U.S. (1903) 814) described x H. Chapmanii as a hybrid 
of H. cristata X H. ciliaris. So far as I can determine, 
H. blephariglottis has not been reported or collected in the 
south further west than Mississippi; whereas, H. ciliaris 
occurs in eastern Texas. Although H. cristata has not 
been reported from Texas, I believe it should occur there 
since I have collected the species throughout Louisiana, 
including several parishes adjacent to Texas. The occur- 
rence of X H. Canbyi in Texas and the apparent lack of 
A, blephariglottis in Louisiana and Texas arouses suspi- 
cion as to which species are the true parents of the hybrid. 
Since Small’s type of * H. Chapmanii is undoubtedly a 
hybrid of H.cristataX H. ciliaris or H.blephariglottis and 
since it is impossible, without experimental evidence, to 
determine the true identity of the parent species of either 
of the described hybrids, we should accept the older and 
valid name and consider all of the so-called hybrids ex- 
hibiting intermediate characters between the above spe- 
cies as X H. Chapmanii. 
HAaBENARIA MACROCERATITIS Willdenow = Haben- 
aria quinqueseta (Michx.) Swartz. These two con- 
cepts have been separated primarily on the length of the 
spur; the spur of H. quinqueseta being less than 10 em. 
long, whereas the spur of H.macroceratitis is more than 
10cm. long. I have compared Florida material referred to 
these two concepts with material from the West Indies, 
[ 83 | 
