372 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, etc. 



At tlie meeting of tlie Linnean Society on November IGth, the 

 first commmiication was by Mr. A. J. Wilmott, entitled ''Orchis 

 latifolia, Linn., from the Ishmd of Oland, Sweden, obtained from the 

 station in which it was found by Linnseus in Iv-il.'' It was pointed 

 out that O. latifolia L., 1753, was a general name for Marsh Orchids, 

 but in 1755 this name was limited without varieties, and separated 

 from O. iiicarnata and O. sambucina. The diagnosis is general, and 

 comes from Linnaeus's article in Act. Upsal. 1740, where it applies 

 mainly to unspotted-leaved plants. The plant referred to as " it. oel. 

 48 " was 0. sambucina, but the " 0. palmata palustris non maculata " 

 of " it. oel. 48 " was prater missa. This is referred by Linnaeus in 

 MS. notes to Fl. Suec. (ed. 1) no. 728 var. (728 being referred to 

 under O. latifolia), and is what remains when O. sambucina has been 

 separated. The herbarium specimen is also 0. prater missa, match- 

 ing one brought back by Mr. Edwards from the identical spot 

 in'^Oeland. The plant of the ' Hortus Gliffortianus ' which grew 

 around Haarlem might possibly be O. prcetermissa, but Linnieus said 

 " Variat foliis maculatis & immaculatis," which indicates that hybrids 

 with O. maculata, or perhaps 0. majalis, were included. This was, 

 however, his earliest work on the subject, being published in 1737 

 before he saw Vaillant's orchids or travelled in Oeland. The Vaillant 

 plant referred to, seen in situ by LinniKus in 1738, was the most 

 common one round Paris with unspotted leaves; also probably 

 0. 2)r(Btermissa. Of the Bauhin plants, the " type " of 1753 and 

 the var. /3, which are respectively the var. a and " type " of his 1740 

 l^aper in Act. Upsal., are both unspotted-leaved plants, the " non- 

 maculata" and "latifolia" of the pre-Linnean authors; most likely 

 both were forms of O. jircetermissa. Tlie var. e of the Sjyecies 

 Flantarum was probably 0. majalis, for the figure in Kudb. Elys. 

 is good majalis. All of this indicates that by O. latifolia Linnaeus 

 had primarily in mind O. prcetermissa. But Linna3us, in his desci-ip- 

 tion of 1755, says that the leaves are slightly spotted. This may 

 refer to the decay spots on the plant in his herbarium, for this note 

 was made when he described O. incarnata in the MS. notes in his 

 copy of the Flora Suecica, ed. 1, or it may refer to the hybrid forms 

 with spotted leaves which occur where O. prater missa and O. macu- 

 lata occur together. The description of O. incarnata refers to the 

 form so named by British botanists to-day. Linnaeus knew O. pra- 

 ter missa, and included it under n. 728 of Fl. Suec. ed. 1, which 

 became O. latifolia. It seems fairly clear that by O. latifolia 

 Linnaius in 1755 understood O. prater missa, ])^v\ya^s including the 

 hybrid with maculata. Certainly he did not intend 0. majalis 

 lleichb. 



At the same meeting Mr. T. A. Sprague gave a description of 

 twin-leaves and other abnormahties in the Ash, Fraxinus excelsior. 

 Specimens were shown of the following abnormalities: — 1. Fasciated 

 stems, with dichotomous branching. 2. Bud-variation, with narrow 

 caudate-acuminate leaflets. 3. Accessory leaflets ; one or both leaflets 

 of a pair replaced by sessile or stalked bifoliolate pinnae. 4. False 

 accessory leaflets, by suppression of the internode above the lower 



