ORCHIDACEiE 



H. unalas- Neottia macrophylla Hook.f., Fl. Brit. Ind. 6: 130 (1890) 

 censis jjj p^j.^ 



Spiranthes macrophylla iyooA\/.,Fl. Brit. Ind. 6: 130 (1890) 

 inpart; JTra'Tis/.jOrch.Gen.etSp. 1 : 631(1899) as syn., not *Spr*^?z^. 



Platanthera unalaschcensis Kurtz, in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 

 19: 408 (1895); Kranzl, Orch. Gen. et Sp. 1: 631 (1899). 



Montolivaea unalaschensis Rydb., in Mem. N. Y. Bot. 

 Card. 1:107 (1900). 



Piperia unalaschensis Rydb., in Bull. Torr. Bot. CI. 28 : 270, 

 635 (1901), Fl. Col. 88 (1906); Piper, Fl. Wash, in Contr. Nat. 

 Herb. 11: 208 (1906).— P. Cooperi Rydb., in Bull. Torr. Bot. 

 CI. 28: 636 (1901).— P. lancifolia Rydb., in Bull. Torr. Bot. 

 CI. 28:637 (1901). 



^^ unalascensis* 3. Sp. labello oblongo acutiusculo convexo dis- 

 colore integerrimo sepalis patulis obtusis breviori, spica glabra, 

 scapo aphyllo, foliis radicalibus binis oblongis obtusis. Ins, A leut." 

 Spreng. he. eit. 



The most conspicuous difference between Habenaria unalas- 

 censis and H. elegans is the comparative lengths of the spurs 

 and lips. In H. elegans the spurs are usually long and slender 

 and as a rule conspicuously longer than the lips. In H. unalas- 

 censis, on the other hand, the spurs are shorter than the lips. 



The foUage of this species is very variable. Usually there are 

 no leaves at the flowering season. 



Habenaria Cooperi appears to be a luxuriant form of H. 

 unalascensis. The type specimen in the Gray Herbarium is in 

 a poor state of preservation, but the flowers which remain on 

 the plant are sufficient to make comparisons possible. The label- 

 lum is broader than usual, and the scape is very stout, yet these 

 characters are not sufficient to warrant specific distinction when 

 attention is given to the normal variation of H. unalascensis. 



[ 120 ] 



