HYBRID ORCHIDS 835 



O. latifolia and O. maculata = Fuchsii — the names in the paper 

 are sometimes rather puzzlingly emploj^ed — are regarded "as a di- 

 morphic species on the way to establish two races — a process ahnost 

 accomj^lished in the down forms. The two last are easily distin- 

 guished in their typical forms. Both have lined labels {prcetermissa 

 is spotted), but in macidafa the label is deeply cleft, wdth a long 

 narrow mid-lobe, in latifolia it is more or less bracket-shaped, the. 

 mid-lobe being, however, more pronounced than this description 

 imjjlies. Maculata tends to a solid stem, latifolia to a hollow; 

 maculata tends to spotted leaves, latifolia to ringed ; the leaves of 

 the latter are Avider, blunter, and more fleshy. The colour of the 

 flower in latifolia is generally a deepish purple ; in maculata the 

 gi-ound is lighter, so that the lines are more marked." Mr. McKechnie 

 in a separate paper suggests two theories — or, rather, says that they 

 " suggest themselves "— '•' first, that O. latifolia is originally a hybrid 

 between O. Fuchsii and' O. prcBtermissa ; second, that O. latifolia 

 was originally the marsh form of O. FucJisii.'' The latter, how- 

 ever, he considers the more ]3robable, thus practically agreeing with 

 Mr. McDowall, who, as we have seen, regarded the two as forming 

 one dimorphic species. 



The ]3aper is so interesting that we regret it shoidd not have been 

 published in a medium more readil}' consulted than is the lleport of a 

 school society. 



MENTHA EXIGUA L. 

 By James Brittex, F.L.S. 



SixcE writing a notice of this as "An Overlooked British Mint " 

 (Journ. Bot. 1916, 224-6) 1 have come across a paper by Smith (in 

 Trans. Linn. Soc. iii. 18-22) on "The Botanical History' of Mentha 

 exigua " in which he claims to have elucidated the history of the 

 plant and which incidentally explains the identification by Dryander 

 of the Millerian specimen in Herb. Banks with Cunila imlegioides. 

 This identification was made on the authority of Smith, who in the 

 paper above named, having referred to M. exigua as " only known 

 from Miller's specimen," writes (p. 21) : 



" Every practical botanist will readily conceive my joy, when in 

 the summer of 1793 I found the same plant growing in the garden 

 of my friend Edward Hassell, Esq., of Ipswich, where it was shown 

 to me as an unknown mint. It grew in an American border, and 

 was said to have sprung up spontaneously. As this border had been 

 furnished Avith bog-earth from the neighbourhood of Ipswich, it was 

 to be presumed the roots had been introduced along with it. Here 

 then was Mentha exigua restored to an English Flora, and I made 

 haste to distribute specimens among those who were solicitous to 

 possess such a treasure. The flowers were not advanced enough to 

 determine whether it were really a Mentha ; the root being fibrous, 

 instead of creeping, was very suspicious ; and this circumstance 

 decided it to be no variety of M. Pulegium, though in smell no two 

 plants could be more similar, lioots were sent to Mr. Fairbairn at 



