JVE0TT7E.E— EPIPACTIS 73 



Icnow why nearly all authors considered E. viridiflora a mere variety of E. latifolia. 

 In June, 1920, I went to Thorenc above Grasse, where Mile Camus (joint-author of 

 her father's monograph of European orchids) had told me E. viridiflora was frequent. 

 I found that, so far from being self-fertHising, it had a conspicuous rostellum, was 

 freely visited by wasps (the pollinia being removed from almost every flower) and 

 showed no signs of self-pollination. I at once sent specimens to Mile Camus, who 

 identified them as E. viridiflora. Dr KeUer of Aarau, joint-author with Dr Schlechter 

 of the latest monograph of European orchids, kindly sent me specimens of E. viridi- 

 flora from some Swiss stations, which showed similar characters— the reverse of those 

 of E. leptochila. They evidently were nothing more than a variety of E. latifolia. It 

 was clear that E. leptochila was not the continental E. viridiflora. 



Miiller had said that in E. viridiflora the poUinia were deposited standing erect upon 

 their bases on the front of the stigma. This seemed impossible, as in Epipactis the 

 anther leans forward face downwards over a shallow cup (clinandrium) on the top 

 of the column behind the back of the stigma, depositing the pollinia lying on their 

 sides in this cup. Later I found an Epipactis at Thorenc at once recognisable as 

 MiiUer's plant. I found to my surprise that only the lower part of the stigma faced 

 forwards as in Epipactis, the upper part curving backwards at right angles and quite 

 roofing over the cfinandrium, its edge pushed underneath the base of the anther, 

 nearly reaching the back of the column. The anther was erect, and its broad base 

 projected forwards well over the surface of the stigma (which here faced upwards) 

 and deposited the poUinia erect on their bases just as Miiller described. His plant 

 was not E. viridiflora Rchb., but an unsuspected new species to which I gave the 

 name E. Muelleri in honour of his researches. It has since been found in Savoie, 

 Switzerland! (Evans), Germany (Hoppner) and the Pyrenees (Mile Camus). Ascherson 

 and Graebner's statement that viridiflora had no rostellum and was self-fertihsed was 

 not based on observation, but solely on MiiUer's most interesting paper {Verh. N.H. 

 Verein des prems. Kheinlands, 1868). For E. Muelleri, see J.B. p. "loi (1921). E. lepto- 

 chila was therefore raised to specific rank, as it was clearly neither E. viridiflora nor 

 E. Muelleri, and there was no other European Epipactis under wliich it could be 

 reasonably placed. 



The late Mr C. E. Salmon, F.L.S., examined large numbers of E. leptochila in 

 Gloucesterslaire, and was convinced that, though varying in a few minor details, they 

 belonged to this species, the reproductive organs and the form of the epicliile 

 remaining constant. He particularly noted the tall robust stems (1-5), ovate lower 

 leaves, and large wide-open flowers. The side view of the reproductive organs 

 exactly matched PI. K, fig. i, ,^ 1, p. 220 (/.£. PI. 553). The rostellum was practically 

 useless— in no case could the pollinia be withdrawn on a pencil as is so easily done 

 with E. latifolia (J.B. p. 21 (1921)). 



