LIPARTS LTLITFOLIA ASB L. LOESELTI 217 



reason for doubting the identity of Clayton's no. 260 with Gronovius's 

 " Epidendrum caule erecto," etc. Clayton's number, though not his 

 name, is cited on the label of Gronovius's specimen and his diagnosis, 

 so far as can be judged, was based upon Clayton's plant, to which 

 Clayton's description — " Bifolium potius Orchis floribus pallide ruben- 

 tibus, calcare longo donatis " — sufficiently applies. The lip of this — 

 its most conspicuous feature — is described b}^ Ehret (Phil. Trans, liii. 

 82, t. iv.) as "of a pale red colour, marked with red veins"; the 

 sepals are described as " of a bloody-red colour," and in his original 

 sketch, to be referred to later, bear out this description. Chapman 

 (Fl. S. United States, ed. 3, 479) calls the lip brownish purple and 

 the published figures bear out this statement : Dryander's statement 

 that the tiowers are white is, I think, an incorrect inference from 

 the appearance of the dried plant. 



It seems strange that Linnyeus should cite Gronovius's " Ophrys 

 scapo nudo " etc. as a synon^nn of O. lilifolia and should have over- 

 looked his "Epidendrum caule erecto" etc.: for Gronovius's own 

 specimen of the former, as Dryander points out, is certainly 

 O. Loeselii. 



In view of the specimen named by himself in his herbarium, 

 there seems no reason to suppose that Linnseus had not the right 

 plant in view when he described his O. lilifolia, although his 

 description hardly differentiates it from O. Loeselii, to which his 

 synonymy (including the citation from Gronovius, judging from the 

 specimen so named by him) belongs. The distribution he gives — 

 " Habitat in Yirginse, Canadse, Suecise paludibus " shows the same 

 confusion, for O. lilifolia is not European — a fact which excludes 

 from that species the specimen from Celsius, referred to in Dryander's 

 note, and also the entry, based upon this, in Fl. Suecica ed. 2, 316, 

 where the name is misprinted " latifoliar That Linnseus himself 

 was doubtful as to the identity of the European and American plants 

 is shown by the note appended to his description of O. lilifolia — 

 " Planta virginica sexies major nostra te, ab structura eadem, notabilis 

 flore : petalis exterioribus linearibus." 



It is interesting to note the gradual progress of differentiation of 

 the two species. In the Si/sfema (ed. 11, 1244, 1760) the omission 

 of synonymy obviates confusion : in ed. 12, ii. 592 (1767) where the 

 name is misprinted linifolia, the true plant is precised by the citation 

 of Ehret's figure, but a new element of confusion is introduced by 

 the introduction of a variety /3 based on Epipacfis foliis hinis ovatis 

 etc. of Haller (Act. Helvet. iv. 120, 1760). There can I think be 

 little doubt that this was Loeselii ; in tiny case the locality — " inter 

 Gottingam et Pirmont" -excludes the American plant. In Gmelin's 

 edition of the St/sfema ( " editio decima tertia, aucta, reformata," 57, 

 1791) Ehret's figure is the only citation for the species. Willdenow 

 in 1805 describes lilifolia quite clearly, but quotes Gronovius's 

 " Oplirys scapo nudo " etc. in synonym}^ : in view of the fact already 

 pointed out that Gronovius's specimen thus labelled by himself is 

 Loeselii and that he describes lilifolia, of which we have also his 

 named specimen, under another name, there seems no reason for 

 assigning his brief descriptive phrase, which applies equally to both 



