544 Druce: Helleborine Hill or Epipactis Adans.? 



No. 4, which = C. longifolia Fritsch. 



No. 5, which = no, lO of the Historia = H. pahistris Schrank. 



~ w 



(This was first recorded as British in LobeFs Illustrationes, 94 

 1655, as "Tertiae Clusii Helleborines similem facie. . . .") 



No. 6, which = no. 12 of the Historia = Cypripedium Calceo- 



his L. 



In the second edition, 242, 1696, Ray inserts a new no. 4, 



" Helleborine latifolio flore albo clauso . . . Found by Dr. Eales 

 near Digges-Well in Hartfordshire/' which was identified by the 

 authors of the flora of that county as C. ensifolia^ but Mr. Britten 

 says the plant representing Miller's Sei^apias latifolia based on this 

 is C. grandiflora. Dillenius (in the third edition of the Synopsis 

 384, 1724) adds to the description of no. 4 " Eadem cum priore," 

 but there is no specimen in his herbarium. Bobart (Plantarum 

 Historia Universalis Oxoniensis 486. 1699) describes seventeen 

 species, which, like those of Ray, contain no specimens of the re- 

 stricted genus Serapias. Tournefort (Institutiones Rei Herbariae 

 i: 436) in 1700, under the name Helleborine, says "est plantae 

 genus," describes it, and adds " His notis addendae sunt radices 

 fibratae." Six species are given, three being species of Cephalan- 

 thera. Tournefort includes Serapias with Orchis^ but keeps as dis- 

 tinct genera Calceolus^ Lhnodoriun^ Ophris (which includes Listera^ 

 Malaxis, etc.) and Nidits avis, showing that despite the unwieldy 

 nature of his genus Orchis^ he really possessed a truer conception 

 of the genera of Orchidaceae than did Linnaeus. 



Therefore prior to Linnaeus (with the exception of Haller) we 

 have practical unanimity among botanists in using the name Helle- 

 borine so as to exclude the tuberous-rooted species now known as 

 Serapias. Unfortunately, Linnaeus (Species Plantarum, 1753) 

 seeing that some of Tournefort's species of Orchis wqy^ generically 

 distinct, established the genus Serapias^ adding, wrongly, the 

 various species of Helleborine of previous authors, a pernicious 

 example unfortunately followed by more recent authors. A con- 

 temporary botanist, John Hill, of Denham, Bucks, a voluminous 

 writer, who was much disliked by other British botanists, and 

 whose volumes have for long remained ignored, published in 1756 

 thd British Herbal. In this work Hill points out with great acumen 

 the errors Linnaeus had made, describes the faulty characterization 



