Synonymy of some North American Orchidacee. 307 
dred epiphytic species may sometimes be seen growing in a single 
hot-house. ‘The genus Orchis, as at present constituted, although 
belonging to temperate regions and to the northern hemisphere, 
is almost wholly confined to Europe, and is represented in North 
America by a single species. Excepting this, all our Linnean 
and Willdenovian species belong to Habenaria, as characterized 
by Brown, and to Platanthera and Peristylus of Lindley. Hav- 
ing had occasion recently to examine the specimens upon which 
these and other species were founded, I' was surprised to find very 
gteat confusion in the synonymy ; some of our commonest spe- 
cies having, as it appears, been widely mistaken from the time of 
Linneus to the present day. When we consider how limited an 
interchange of specimens took place between the earlier botanists, 
how seldom they were able to consult each other’s herbaria, 
taking also into the account the brevity in the specific phrase en- 
joined by the Linnaean canon, and the absence of any method of 
distinguishing between authenticated synonyms and the more or 
less probable ones which an author might venture to adduce, we 
shall not wonder at the frequent occurrence of such mistakes. 
Only four North American species of Orchis are described 
by Linneus, viz. O. ciliaris, O. fava, O. psycodes, and O. spec- 
tabilis.. The latter is still retained in that genus. Respecting 
the first, I have no remark to make, except that Linneus’s refer- 
ence to Gronovius, FV. Virg., is to be excluded, as it relates to 
O. blephariglottis. 'To this last the Platanthera holopetala of 
Lindley is perhaps too closely allied, as I have seen apparently 
intermediate specimens from Canada, and also in the Newfound- 
land collection of Pylaie. Sprengel states the flowers of O. cili- 
aris to be red. The two. neragerrine, Linnean species require 
more extended notice. 
Orcuts riava, Linn. has remained an uncertain species quite 
_ down to the present time, no succeeding author having identified 
it. Pursh, indeed, remarks that he has seen the specimen in the 
herbarium of Gronovius; but he failed to recognize it as the same 
with another species desctitied in his work, viz. his O. fusces- 
cens. Nuttall has taken for it a very different species, (appar- 
ently his own O. integra ;) in which he is followed by Elliott ; 
who states, however, that the plant differs much from the original 
escription of. Gronovius. Having examined the herbarium of 
Clayton and Gronovius’s Fl. Virg., through the kind permission 
