112 



generally of many familiar faces, all combined to throw a sharp 

 contrast with the four previous gatherings — Winchester, Guildford, 

 St. Albans, and Folkestone — and to make the Hampstead gathering 

 appear to be not so successful as most of its predecessors. However, 

 if one reads the admirable Report of the Congress compiled by the 

 able and energetic Hon. Secretary, Dr. Martin, a copy of which is 

 in our Library, this conception is dispelled. 



JUNE 12th, 1913. 



Mr. W. J. Kaye exhibited several living plants of a form of 

 the British spider orchis, which is usually known as Ophrijs 

 aranifera. A long discussion took place as to the specific identity 

 of the form, and also as to the existence and varietal identities 

 of the so-called early, and late, spider orchids. The examples 

 exhibited came from Kent, in the neighbourhood of Folkestone, 

 where the plant was somewhat abundant, and very varied in form 

 and markings. A plant of the bee orchis, O. ojiifera, was also 

 exhibited for comparison. It was pointed out that the spider 

 orchis was shorter, less robust, and less conspicuous in the taller 

 grass than the bee orchis, Ophnja apifera. The middle lobe of 

 the "lip " of the flower was conspicuously projected outwards, and 

 the markings, petals, and dorsal sepal were quite distinctive, 

 while the tuber was decidedly greater in size than in the commoner 

 species. According to Hooker and other writers the late spider 

 orchis was a variety of the bee, (>. apifera, and named var.. 

 arachnites, while the true spider orchis was a distinct species, 

 and the flowers appeared earlier. The plants exhibited were in- 

 termediate as regards time of flowering. It was remarKed that 

 many orchids were prone to hybridize very freely, and varied, 

 immensely in form, colour, and markings. 



Subsequently Mr. Kaye communicated the following notes: — • 

 " I have been to Kevv Gardens and had a long discussion with 

 Mr. Rolfe, under whose care are the Kew collections, and he was 

 immensely interested in the question. After consulting many 

 authorities, he came to the conclusion (a wrong one, I think) that 

 the Kentish specimens were (>. asclier.sonii, Nant., a hybrid 

 between (>. aranifera, the early spider orchis, and 0. arachnites, 

 the late spider orchis. He agrees with me that the latter is 

 not (as according to Hooker and others) a sub-species of (K apifera, 

 but considers it, as some others have done (Hanbury, " Flora o 

 Kent"), as a distinct species. To- some extent I think Eolfe is 



