Juty-Avcust, 1920.) TIE ORCHID REVIEW. 103 
| Rises | ORCHIS ELATA. Per] 
ROBABLY the finest Orchis of the O. latifolia set—not even excluding 
p the handsome Madeiran O. foliosa—is the one known as O. latifolia 
Glasnevin var., of which-a well-grown clump, bearing a dozen spikes, is 
now one of the features of the Kew rockwork. It is also in fine condition 
at Glasnevin, as we know by a spike received from Sir Frederick W. Moore, 
who remarks: ‘“ There were good plants of it here when I came in June, 
1879. I always understood it had been found in Co. Dublin by my father.” 
After the note on its history was given (O.R., xxvi. p. 130), a careful 
comparison with the Algerian.O. Munbyana was made, which convinced us 
of the identity of the two, and we now suspect that the native Dublin plant, 
- the one called O. latifolia var. praecox, is different from that called Glasnevin 
var. This view is strengthened by a remark made by Sir Frederick Moore, 
that the latter ‘‘ does not seed about.’’ And he adds: ‘‘ The most prolific 
seeder we have is O. latifolia, a quite good variety which comes up every- 
where in the grass and in pots, of which I send you a good average specimen, 
a seedling that came up ina pot inthe Alpine yard.” This free-seeding 
character was reported of the variety przecox as long ago as 1876, of which 
full details are given in our note. This brings us to Orchis Munbyana, since 
identified with the earlier O. elata, which is almost a lost species. 
OrcHIS ELATA, Poir., was described as long ago as 1789 (Voy. en 
Barbarie, ii. p. 248), as a handsome Orchis, often over two feet high, with 
spikes, some eight inches long, of violet-coloured flowers. It was said to be 
abundant on the plains of Mazoule. In the Algerian herbarium of the late 
Giles Mumby we find specimens so labelled, which were collected at Maison 
Carree; also others labelled O. latifolia, collected in the marshes of 
Harratch. The latter became the type of O. Munbyana, Boiss. et Reut. 
(Pugill. Pl. Nov., p. 112). Munby had enumerated both (Fl. Alger., p. 99), 
citing O. foliosa, Lindl. Bot. Reg. t. 1701, as synonymous with O. latifolia ; 
an obvious mistake, but we cannot distinguish O. Munbyana from O. elata. 
The subsequent history of the latter is almost a comedy. Lindley called it 
Gymnadenia elata? (Gen. & Sp. Orch., p. 277). Reichenbach included it 
under QO. incarnata as var. algerica (F/. Germ., xiii. p. 53); and Klinge, ina 
monograph of the section Dactylorchis, includes both it and O. Munbyana 
under what he calls O. orientalis subsp. africana (Act. Hort. Petrop., xvii. 
pt. 1, p. 186), both the species and subspecies being new names of his own 
creating, while both O. latifolia and O. incarnata are treated as different. 
Cosson calls it O. latifolia var. Munbyana, while Camus has it as O. 
incarnata subsp. elata var. Munbyana. 
How O. elata came into cultivation now becomes doubtfal, but there is 
