EPIPACTIS LATIFOLIA IN BRITAIN 39 



bus roseo-rubris .... E. atrorubens Reich. Ic. f. 1141." Col. 



Godfery in this Journal for 1919 (p. 80), suggests that Fries's 

 (&) viridiflora is really the green form of his (c), which is atro- 

 rubens {atropurpurea), about whose identity there is no doubt. 

 Fries rests on Koch for viridiflora, and Koch (he thinks) did not 

 distinguish the green-flowered atropurpurea from viridiflora proper, 

 and considered that they both belonged to latifolia. However, if 

 we compare the plates of Reiehenbach, whilst 1141 is undoubtedly 

 atropurpurea, 1142 shows a plant with smooth ovaries and less 

 rugged lip-bosses. This may be the same as Reich. Ic. Fl. Germ. 487, 

 which is probably viridiflora proper. 



As to (a) microphylla, Mr. Rolfe (Orchid Review, xxvii. pp. 78 f) 

 thinks that the note " not of Ehrh," is an error, and that this form 

 is E. microphylla Ehrh., figured in Fl. Dan. t. 811, as Helleborine 

 latifolia montana. It is not E. microphylla Sw., as figured by 

 Schulze, Reich. Ic. Fl. Germ. 484, &c : the figure in Fl. Dan. 811 is 

 of a slender plant with broad leaves and a pointed lip, growing in 

 highland woods. This does not look like any form of atropurpurea. 

 Thus Fries's " media " proves to be a complex of two or three 

 distinct species. In this connection we must plead guilty to a rather 

 loose use of the phrase nomen nudum in our previous paper (p. 210). 



Turning now to Babington's identification of Fries's media, it 

 may be said that if, as Col. Godfery thinks, Fries's (b) is the green 

 variety of atropurpurea, Babingtmi was wrong in his use of the 

 name ; for these plants really belong to his ova/is. But if Fries's 

 (b) was true viridiflora, then Babington was right in his identifica- 

 tion, as we shall see immediately, but led us astray by giving a 

 description which did not really apply to the forms. He was simplv 

 handing on the confused description of Fries. 



The whole situation, as far as the British forms are concerned, 

 has been thoroughly cleared up bj r the skill and patience of Col. God- 

 fery, in the article in this Journal referred to above. He shows that the 

 plant named by Babington as E. media was first diagnosed by him as 

 E. viridiflora : specimens recently secured from his original British 

 locality turn out to be true viridiflora. Further confusion arose 

 from the fact that the drawing of E. media, in E. B. S. 2775, was 

 drawn from a specimen of E. purpurata, but coloured like E. lati- 

 folia. It is no wonder that viridiflora was submerged, and Col. God- 

 fery is to be congratulated on his elucidation of the problem thus 

 created. Njow that we are able to apply the criterion of the different 

 form of the reproductive organs, viridiflora can be diagnosed with 

 certainty, that is, in the living state, and many forms hitherto 

 assigned to media must be given to that species, and the rest to 

 latifolia. Of course, when viridiflora has been identified in any 

 district, the possibility of hybrids with other species cannot be quite 

 excluded, in spite of the fact that the former is self -fertilizing ; but 

 we have not hitherto heard of any such hybrids. It is certain that 

 thei*e are none amongst the very various forms the description of 

 which has been the chief object of the present paper. 



