LIPARIS LILIirOLIA AXD L. LOESELII 249 



" A confusion, which originated with Linnaeus, has long existed 

 between this plant [O. Loeselii'] and his Ophnis hifolia. We can 

 assure the public, on the authority of his herbarium, that the latter 

 is only found in America, an(^ that the European synonyms, which 

 he has in several parts of his works applied to that species, really 

 belong to ours." 



Stokes {op. cit. ii. 989) refers to " Fl. dan. 877, a very good 

 figure, and much resembles a drawing Mr. Pitchford had taken of his 

 specimen, when he first found it, except that it is larger." This 

 figm-e is lettered Oplirys pahidosa: from the accompanying text it 

 appears that Otto Friedrich Mueller (1730-84-), who was responsible 

 for the fascicle (xv) in which it was published (1782), mismiderstood 

 the species even more completely than Linnaeus had done : he writes — 

 " Conferenti descriptiones Oplir. liliifolice Loeselii et paludoscB 

 Linnaei nimis videntur afhnes nee satis distinctae." 



Withering's note on the same page as to the English localities of 

 L. Loeselii contains an erroneous record which se^ms hitherto to 

 have escaped notice. The note runs: "St. Faith's-TsTewton bogs near 

 Norwich ; a single specimen given to Mr. Lightfoot. Mr. PitcJi- 

 ford.* — None since found either in Norfolk or Suffolk ; but, in 1785, 

 I saw a specimen from Mr. Sole, which was found near Bath. 

 IL\ Woodw:'—\. e. Thomas Jenkinson Woodward (1745-1820), to 

 Avhose " industry and accurac}^ in botanical investigation " W^ithering 

 (pref. p. V.) pays a high tribute. The record, however, was erroneous, 

 as in the following (3rd) edition (1796) the locality " Hinton Moor" 

 is substituted for Bath : the plant does not appear in the ¥lora of 

 Somersefsliire. L. Loeselii was recorded for Glamorganshire by Mr. 

 Eiddelsdell in this Journal for 1905 (p. 274), who calls attention to 

 the interest of his discovery as extending the known distribution of the 

 plant in England. In the Botanical Exchange Cluh Report for 

 1906 (p. 244) Mr. Eiddelsdell distinguishes this as variety ovata, 

 characterized " by the broader, shorter, blunter leaves and fewer 

 flowers ; " a specimen in the British Herbarium of the Natural His- 

 tory Museum (where is also an example fi*om Mr. Eiddelsdell) 

 collected in the same year in Carmarthenshire by Mr. H. H. Knight, 

 presents similar characters. 



It may be of interest to note that we have in the British 

 Herbarium a specimen to which is attached a label in Lightfoot' s 

 hand : " In an Herbarium sold by Lake the Bookseller in Uxbridge, 

 the date of the Collection being' in the Year 1678. From many of 

 the specimens it seem'd evidently to be have [sic] made in the 

 Neighbourhood of Cambridge." this must be one of the earliest 

 specimens collected in England : the first record of the plant for this 

 country is that of Eay, Cat. PI. Cantab. 106 (1660). 



It may be convenient to present in tabular form the nomenclature 

 of each species as it has been presented in, the foregoing notes, with 

 certain additions which may be useful : — 



* Smith (E. B. t. 47) also speaks of the specimen having been " presented " to 

 Lightfoot, but in Rees's Cydopxdia (s. v. Malaxis Loeselii)he says that Pitchford 

 " exchanged his only specimen with Mr. Lightfoot for above 60 of the rarest 

 British plants." 



JouKNAL OF BoTA>'T.— Vol. 55. [September, 1917.] t 



