EPTPACTIS YIKIDIFLORA RETCIT. 41 



differences between these plants are of sj)ecific rank. For, indeed, to 

 the eve trained by observation of the living plants, the three species 

 are recognizable at a glance in most stages of their growth. 



Max Schulze (Orchid. Deutschl. No. 54) considers that E. vio' 

 lacea is a good species, but thinks that E. latifolia and E. viridi- 

 ilora can hardlj be distinguished, though he admits that their 

 extreme forms are so different as to suggest two species. He says 

 that numerous intermediate forms occur, in which all the leading 

 characteristics show great variation, so that it is difficult to tell 

 whether a plant belongs to one or the other. This is a recrudescence 

 of the old idea, which dies so hard, that two recognizably different 

 plants, if intermediate examples occur, must belong to one and the 

 same species. Sir J. D. Hooker {Life and Letters, ii. 34) Avrote to 

 Darwin (Oct. 2, 1862) "The dismal fact you quote of hybrid trans- 

 itions between Verhascum Tkapstis and nigrum , . . . and its bearing 

 on my j^ractice of lumping species through intermediate specimens, is 

 a very horrible one .... Your orchid book has convinced me that 

 such cases must be abundant." It is curious that Schulze should 

 have followed this time-honoured practice, for he knew and described 

 many hybrid orchids. Perhaps the frequency of intermediates 

 between E. latifolia and viridijiora blinded him to the probability 

 of their hybrid origin. He appears to have overlooked the fact that, 

 as viridijiora is self-fertilizing, we might reasonably expect that any 

 hybrid between itself and latifolia should also be self-fertilizing. 

 Its offspring would be partly like itself, and partly tending to 

 resemble more closel}?" one or other of the original parents. In this 

 way a number of intermediate plants might arise, and a great range 

 of variation occur, where the two species grow together. A parallel 

 case occurs with the self -fertilizing Ophrys apifera. J. T. Moggridge 

 states (Journ Linn. Soc. viii. ]). 258) that Oplirys Scolopax appears 

 under two forms. He says, referring to the latter, " At Mentone I 

 never saw any tendency to self-fertilization, but all the spikes of a 

 large bundle sent me from Cannes were so Avithout exception. 

 It is a remarkable coincidence that at Mentone the Bee Ophrys is 

 scarce, and at Cannes very abundant. So, within 30 miles of one 

 another, we have one spot where self-fei-tilization is in full action, 

 and another, where it is, as far as I am aware, unknown." Evidently 

 at Cannes hybrids have occurred between the insect-fertilized O. 

 Scolopax and the self -fertilized O. apifera. and their offspring, taking 

 after the latter parent, are self -fertilizing also. There is nothing to 

 prevent the self-fei-tilizing hybrid from multiplying freely and 

 becoming abundant. Tlie correctness of this supposition appears to be 

 confirmed by Moggridge himself, who says that the difference 

 between the self-fertilizing O. Scolopax of Cannes, and the insect- 

 fertilized Scolopax of Mentone is brought about " by a very slight 

 bend in the anther-cells, which are prolonged into a beak of variable 

 length in tlie case of the self-fertilizing blossoms." This prolonged 

 beak is one of the most striking features of O. apifera, and betrays 

 the parentage of the Cannes Scolopax. 



The fertilization of leptochila differs somewhat from that of 

 dunensis. In the latter the poUinia are extremely friable, and, even 

 Journal of Botany. — Vol. 57. [FEBErAET, 1919.] e 



