Synonymy of some North American Orchidacece. 309 



Orchis fascescens, Pursh ! fl. 2. p. 587 ; Ell. sk. 2. p. 487, 

 vix Gmel. 



Orchis herbiola, Pursh, I. c. (quoad syn.) 



Orchis bidentata, Ell. ! sk. 2. p. 488, 



Habenaria herbiola, R. Br. ! in hort. Kew. {ed. 2.) 5. p. 193, 

 et mid. OQun. 



Habenaria virescens, Sprang, syst. 3. p. 688. (quoad syn.) 



Habenaria fuscescens, Torr. compan. 



Platanthera herbiola, Lindl. ! gen. et spec. Orchid. 



Habenaria (Platanthera) Integra. 



Orchis Integra, Niitt. gen. 2. p. 188. 



Orchis flava, Nutt. I. c, non Liim. 



Orchis flava? Ell. sk. 2. p. 485. 



Habenaria Integra, Spreng. syst. 3. p. 689; Beck, hot. p. 348. 



Habenaria EUioltii, Beck! I. c. 



This last species is very nearly allied to iJ. (Plafanth.) cristata, 

 but is readily distinguished by its subulate spur, entire petals, and 

 nearly entire, crenate, or somewhat sinuately toothed labellum. 

 Its geographical range is from New Jersey to Florida and Louis- 

 iana. 



Orchis psycodes, Linn. — So great is the confusion of the sy- 

 nonymy, and so extensive the series of mistakes in regard to this 

 species, that it becomes at first sight questionable whether the 

 Linncean name should not be altogether dropped. Bat as the de- 

 scription of Linnaeus is perfectly applicable to the species he had 

 in view, and to no other, we are not at liberty to pass by the 

 original name ; still less to apply it to a plant subsequently mis- 

 taken for this species. The O. psycodes is described from a plant 

 collected in Canada, by Kalm, which is still preserved in the Lin- 

 nsean herbarium. This plant I find to be, not the Orchis lacera 

 of Michaux, as is generally supposed, but the Oixhis fimbriata 

 of Aiton and succeeding authors. The synonym of " Orchis 

 jloribus aureis,'''' &c. of Gronovius, must be excluded, as it re- 

 lates to Orchis cristata of Willdenow. The Gronovian plant, 

 however, does not exist in the herbarium of Linnseus, neither 

 does the character and description appear to have been at all de- 

 rived from it. On the authority of the herbarium of Willdenow, 

 and also from the manuscript detailed descriptions of Muhlen- 

 berg, I have ascertained that both the Orchis incisa and the Or- 



