- $HORT NOTES 328 
above plant and ordinary O. maculata, the former being, he says, 
nearly a month earlier than the latter. This is, however, not a 
new fact, but ‘one on which the earliest describer laid especial 
stress. This description, which appears to have escaped notice, 
will be found in Mr. A. D. Webster’s British Orchids, p. 54 (1886), 
where it is stated that “the article under the heading of ‘ An 
variety of 0. maculata it is now included as such, although my 
own convictions, based on the above description, are certainly 
strongly in favour of its being regarded as a new and distinct 
species.” Mr. Webster then gives the following full and accurate 
description of the plant under the name “ culata precox 
Tubers palmate, smaller and more deeply divided than 
n O. maculata. Stem 4-7 inches in height with narrow lanceolate 
leaves at the base, the upper portion being thickly beset with long 
or shorter, cylindrical, and pointed at the apex. Bracts linear, 
acute, and exceeding the flowers in length.” This excellent 
e 
re clay @ 
drained portion. Cotripirative cule has yet to be tried upon 
these plants, which may prove to be specifically distinct. In 
Carnarvonshire and Denbigh I can confirm Mr. ebster’s remarks 
Durham and North-west Yorks the 
time of flowering of the two plants becomes more approximate, 
for at Middleton, in Teesdale, I saw bot in flower, although 
— 
. rThere is no reference to the paper in Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb,—Ep. 
Journ. Bor.]} 
