10 THE ORCHID REVIEW. | JANUARY, 1923. 
ORCHIS LATIFOLIA. 
T the meeting of the Linnean Society, held November 16th, 1922, the 
first communication was by Mr. A. J. Wilmot, B.A., F.L.S., entitled 
** Orchis latifolia, Linn. (Marsh Orchis) from the Island of Oeland, Sweden, 
obtained from the station in which it was found by Linneus in 1741.” It 
was pointed out that O. latifolia, L. 1753, was a general name for. Marsh 
Orchids, but in 1755 this name was limited without varieties, and separated 
from QO. incarnata and O. sambucina. The diagnosis is general, and comes 
from Linneus’s article in Act. Upsal. 1740, where it applies mainly to 
unspotted-leaved plants. The plant referred to as ‘‘it. oel. 48” was 
O. sambucina, but the “ O. palmata palustris non maculata” of ‘it. oel. 48” 
was pretermissa. This is referred by Linnzus in MS. notes to FI. Suec. 
(ed. I) no. 728 var. (728 being referred to under O. Jatifulia), and is what 
remains when O. sambucina has been separated. The herbarium specimen 
is also O. pratermissa, matching one brought back by Mr. Edwards from 
the identical spot in Oeland. The plant of the ‘‘ Hortus Cliffortianus”’ 
which grew around Haarlem might possibly be O. pretermissa, but Linnzus 
said ‘‘ Variat foliis maculatis & immaculatis,” which indicates that hybrids 
with O. malculata, or perhaps O. majalis, were included. This, was however, 
his earliest work on the subject, being published in 1737 before he saw 
Vaillant’s Orchids or travelled in Oeland. The Vaillant plant referred to, 
seen 7 situ by Linnzus in 1738, was the most common one round Paris 
with unspotted leaves ; also probably O. pretermissa. Of the Bauhin plants, 
the “ type’ of 1753 and the var 8, which are respectively the var. a and 
“type” of his 1740 paper in Act. Upsal., are both unspotted-leaved plants, 
the “non maculata” and ‘ latifola’’ of the pre-Linnean authors; most 
likely both were forms of O. pretermissa. The var. e of the ‘Species 
Plantarum’ was probably O. majalis, for the figure in Rudb. Elys. is good 
majalis. 
All of this indicates that by O. latifolia Linnzus had primarily in 
mind O. pretermissa. But Linnzeus, in his description of 1755, says that 
the leaves are slightly spotted. This may refer to the decay spots on the 
plant in his herbarium, for this note was made when he described 
Q. incarnata in the MS. notes in his copy of the ‘ Flora Suecica,’ ed. 1, or 
it may refer to the hybrid forms with spotted leaves which occur where 
O. pretermissa and O. maculata occur together. The description of 
O. incarnata refers to the form so named by British botanists to-day. 
Linnzus knew O. pretermissa, and included it under n. 728 of Fl. Suec. 
ed. 1, which became O. latifolia. It seems fairly clear that by O. latifolia 
Linnzus in 1755 understood O. preternussa, perhaps including the hybrid 
with maculata. Certainly he did not intend O. majalis, Reichb. 
ae ee Eee se 
