EPIPACTIS MEDIA 81 



The fact that he did so qualify it shows that he was not sure of it 

 from his own knowledge, and transferred the responsibility to Koch. 

 Rouy tells us that E. viridijlora is often confused with the variety of 

 atroruhens with yellowish green or green flowers (Fl. de France, 

 vol. xiii. p. 204), and there can be no reasonable doubt that Fries 

 intended his " 6. ^or^^z^s ^7^^^V/^6^^s " to refer to these green-flowered 

 forms of his own JE. media. Koch names the latter E. latifolia 

 /3. ruhiginosa (Syn. Fl. Germ, et Helv. pp. 694-5) and adds: — "Haec 

 quoque occurrit floribus virentibus, ad quam E. viridijlora Rchb. ic. 9, 

 f. 1142, et Serapias latifolia viridijlora Hoffm. referendae sunt." 

 From this it is clear that he regarded Fries's (b) floribus viridibus as 

 referring to green-flowered forms of E. atroruhens, and that he fell 

 into the error mentioned by Rouy of confusing the latter with viridi- 

 jlora. Koch evidently had not arrived at a final and considered 

 opinion as to how many species existed in the genus Epipactis, for he 

 gives atroruhens as a variety of E. latifolia, and admits that fm-ther 

 observations are necessary to determine whether it is a distinct species 

 or not. It is no matter of surprise, therefore, since he was confessedly 

 unable of his own knowledge definitely to se^SiiixtQ E. atroruhens from 

 E. latifolia as a species, that he was also unable to distinguish green- 

 flowered forms of atroruhens from viridiflora, for, on account of their 

 colour, the resemblance of both these latter plants to E. latifolia is 

 more obvious than that of typical red-purple atroruhens itself. His 

 attitude of mind was hesitating, but it is evident that he provisionally 

 regarded latifolia, atroruhens, and viridijlora as one and the same 

 species, and would thus be vevy likely to consider viridijlora as 

 identical with green-flowered forms of atroruhens. Babington was 

 clearer sighted, for he recognized both atroruhens and viridijlora as 

 distinct species, but he unfortunately allowed himself to be misled by 

 Koch, and, abandoning his correct identification of viridijlora, des- 

 cribed the Bomere plant as E. media Fries. This error led on to 

 another, for it blinded him to the fact that the true E. media Fries 

 really did grow in England, and he actually described it as a new 

 species under the name E. ovalis Babington. Fries himself tells us 

 that his E. media " (c) floribus roseo-rubris " is identical with 

 E. atroruhens, so that this fact is beyond dispute. 



I am much indebted to the kindness of Mr. R. F. Burton of 

 Longner Hall, Salop, who, at my request, was good enough to explore 

 the woods of Bomere pool, with a view to ascertain what species 

 of Epipactis still grow there. He says : — " To-day (Aug. 15th, 

 1918) 1 walked over to Bomere pool and right round it, and round 

 Shomere (about 300 yards this side of it). The chief plants, not 

 counting trees, are sphagnum-patches, with nettles, Digitalis, Dog 

 Mercury, blackberries, and bracken on the sides above the sphagnum, 

 containing, as far as I could see, very few Orchidacese. I enclose the 

 only samples of Epipactis in sight." Unfortunately, when these 

 specimens arrived, the flowers were withered, owing to the heat, but 

 on dissection, the position of the anther on the summit of a distinct 

 stalk, its projection over the upper edge of the stigma, and the 

 presence of a V-shaped incision in the wall of the column between 

 the anther and the stigma, were visible, and these are the distin- 



