ORCHIDACE^ 



cies to species, or so little in accordance with any other dis- 

 tinction, that I feel compelled to reunite the proposed genera 

 after the example of A. Gray and some other recent botanists, 

 although I cannot go so far as to agree with Grenier and Go- 

 dron in uniting the whole genus with Orchis. As it is, I have had 

 to record no less than twenty-eight generic synonyms; and in 

 proposing to distribute the species into the following ten sec- 

 tions I cannot but feel considerable doubts as to the definite- 

 ness of the characters assigned to some of them, these charac- 

 ters being often very difficult to ascertain in dried specimens, 

 the only ones I have had to work upon." 



Of the ten sections mentioned above, nine and ten are repre- 

 sented by Platanthera and Habenaria. Of these sections Ben- 

 tham says: ^^Platanthera and Habenaria proper, comprise the 

 great mass of the genus which most botanists consider as being 

 susceptible of distribution into two great groups ; but the vari- 

 ous characters assigned have broken down in detail, and it would 

 require a much longer study than I have been able to give to 

 them, especially from dried specimens, to ascertain the real value 

 of several apparent distinctions. It would appear, however, that 

 Platanthera might be made to include the great majority of 

 northern temperate species with the lateral processes of the 

 stigmatic apparatus rarely much developed ; and the more tropi- 

 cal species, with these processes usually, but variously, extended, 

 would form the section Euhabenaria, the flowers in the former 

 usually smaller than in the latter."^ 



The species of Habenaria which constitute a very distinct 

 part of the orchid flora of North America are surprisingly few 

 in relation to the territory over which they are distributed. With 



1 For this and the preceding quotation see Bentham, "Notes on Orchideae," /owrn. Linn. 

 Soc. 18 : 333-335, 



[11 ] 



