24S TlIK JOUHXAL OF TSOTAXY 



species, otherwise than to the plant to wliich he himself referred it. It 

 is worth noting: that Ehret, who certainly knew the plant, of which 

 he gives a full description, and was the lirst to figure it satisfactorily, 

 heads his paper : " An Account of a Species of Ophris, supposed to he 

 the Plant which is mentioned by Gronovius in the Flora Virgin ica, 

 p. 185, under the name of Ophris scapo niido " etc. and proceeds to 

 show that his plant differs from the detailed description by Clayton 

 wliich Gronovius quotes as a synonym of his s])ecies. The excellence 

 of Ehret's figure is noted by Solander (MSS. xviii. 350, where is a full 

 description of the plant in a hand — not Ehret's — which I do not 

 recognise) : "Dr. p]hret figuram optime delineatam in ejus collectione 

 habet" : this would seem to refer to a finished drawing for which we 

 have the sketch. 



Ehrefs figure was taken from a specimen sent liim in a letter by 

 Peter CoUinson, in whose garden it " blew," for the first time in 

 England, in 175S : Collinson had " received it from Mr. Bertram of 

 Plula(lel})lna " — /. e. John Bartram. We have in the volume of 

 Ehrefs sketches (no. IJjS) the sketch for the plate, with a note-: 

 " Received of Mr. P. Collinson in a letter June 20, 1758 " : there 

 is a specimen in Herb. Banks from Collinson's garden with a MS. 

 name by Solander, mider which the plant was described in the 

 Solander MSS. /. c. Andrews (Bot. Repos. t. '6^^), not knowing of 

 Ehret's paper, described and figured it in 1800 as "perfectly new in 

 our gardens " from a specimen sent to the Marcjuis of Blandford from 

 Philadelphia in 1796. It had, however, in a dried state, been sent 

 previously to Plukenet by Banister, who was in Virginia 1679-89: it is 

 described in the Amaltlieum (705) p. 162, n. 8, as " Orchis Lilifolius 

 minor Floridana, floribus amoene purpureis amplis." Plukenet's label 

 on the specimen in his herbarium (Herb. Sloane, xcii. f. 100 j is w^orded 

 somewhat differently : " Orchis parvus bifolius Floridanus fiosculis 

 amoene })urpureis ])eramplis." The reference to the size of the flowers 

 is comparative with that of the preceding species (n. 7) in which tltey 

 are described as " ])arvus " : on the plate of L. lilifolius (Phi/fo- 

 f/raphia, t. ccccxxxiv. fig. 9) reference is made to "fol. 162, jd. 7. 

 Amalth." but this is evidently an eiTor, as Plukenet has attached the 

 name of n. 7 — "Orchis minor Floridana floribus parvis in spica brevi 

 rarius dispositis "" — to a specimen (apj)arently of a Hahenaria) in 

 H. S. xciv. f. 30. The figure in Phyfo(jraphi(( is not in this instance 

 taken from the specimen, and is not very satisfactory. 



The history of the confusion in British books is easy to trace. 

 Ophrys I Hi folia was included by Linnaeus in his Flora Anqlica 

 (1751) and by Hudson in* his first edition (1762): in his second 

 edition (1778) he retains the name I Hi folia but places the British 

 ])lant as a variety — p. Loeselii. Withering in his first edition (1776) 

 and Relhan (1785) also retain the name; but the accurate Stokes in 

 the second edition of Withering (1787) names our ])lant Loeselii, 

 adding: "It seems to be very clear that O. lilifolia has never been 

 found in this country " : quoting Hudson as " comprehending O. lili- 

 folia and O. Loeselii as varieties of one species," he says " the reasons 

 for tliis opinion remain to be assigned." Finally Smith (Eng. Bot. 

 t. 47 : 1792 ?), referring to Stokes's observations with approval, writes : 



