306 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



and the fact that they are spreading, i. e. neither erect nor reflexed. 

 It gives no character not found in ericetorum, and agrees exactly as 

 to habitat and early period of flowering. It is true that it does not 

 specitically mention the narrowness of the mid-lobe of the lip, but 

 " labellum longitudine latitudinem sequante " is a fair equivalent of 

 Linton's " lip sub-orbicular," and implies the greater breadth of the 

 side-lobes. No doubt Grisebach laid too much stress on the brevity 

 of the spur, which according to Dr. Stephenson varies from 4-10 mm., 

 but some British specimens gathered by me had the spur much shorter 

 than the ovary. On the whole, a more faithful description of erice- 

 torum could hardly be given than Grisebach's diagnosis of elodes, and, 

 had it been known and accessible, there can be little doubt that 

 ericetorum would have been assigned to it in the first instance. 

 Published in 1845, it is long prior to Linton's O. ericetorum, and 

 even to Webster's O. maculata var. praecox (1886) ; and our plant 

 should therefore in future be known as Orchis elodes Griseb. or 

 O. maculata var. elodes, according to the view held as to its specific 

 or varietal status. 



The question whether elodes is a distinct species or a mere variety 

 of maculata depends partly on the degree of systematic accuracy 

 desired. Linnseus was convinced that all forms of the modern genus 

 Ophrys were varieties of one species, O. insectifera L. ; Reichenbach 

 f. recognised that Ophrys contained several species, but was content 

 to accept Crantz's composite species JSpipactis helleborine, embracing 

 latifolia, rubiginosa, violacea, and microphylla, which would hardly 

 satisfy a modern student of the genus. When the generic characters 

 are strong and obvious, as in Ophrys and JEpipactis, and the specific 

 ones relative^ much less marked, there is a tendency to undervalue 

 the latter and regard them as merely varietal. There was every 

 excuse for Linnreus's view of Ophrys, for he believed that every species 

 was a separate creation ; and as he clearly saw that all forms of 

 Ophrys must have sprung from one common origin, he had no choice 

 but to regard them as belonging to the same species. The case is 

 different now that it is recognised that species have been evolved 

 from a common ancestor. The difference between a species and a 

 variety is mainly one of time. If the common ancestor is distant, 

 and especially if it is now extinct, two plants may justly be con- 

 sidered as specifically distinct, but if the variation is only in minor 

 points from a still existing species, the one can onl} r be regarded as a 

 variety of the other. If the differences between maculata and elodes 

 ai*e sufficient to justify the belief that they sprang from a distant 

 common ancestor, and that no plant now exists which could have 

 given rise to both, they would both appear to be equally entitled to 

 specific rank. 



It cannot be denied that there is a strong family likeness between 

 maculata and elodes. No Continental botanist previous to Grisebach 

 (1845) appears to have noticed the latter plant, and no British writer 

 till 1886, when Webster proposed it as a new species (O. prceco.r) 

 before the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, and it was promptly turned 

 down as a variety of maculata. Nevertheless, there is hardly any 

 part of the plant which does not show some difference from the corre- 



