SEPTEMBER, 1923.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 259 
PARAPACTIS EPIPACTOIDES, w. zimm. - 
By Colonel M. J. GopFERY, F.L.S. 
iJN 1868 Hermann Miiller described and figured a Westphalian Epipactis 
which he identified with E. viridiflora Reichb., and pointed out the 
following unique characters: (1) the upper part of the stigma is turned so 
far back that it is partly tucked wnder the base of the anther, nearly reaching 
‘the back of the column; (2) the anther thus projecting over the stigma, 
the pollinia are deposited on its upper surface standing upright on their 
flattened bases; (3) the flower is thus automatically fertilised by its own 
pollen; (4) there is no shallow cup (clinandrium) on the summit of the’ 
column for the reception of the pollinia, asin FE. latifolia; (5) there is no 
ostellum, and, therefore, no viscid matter to attach the pollinia to a 
visiting insect’s head. 
The curious fact that Reichenbach’s description of E. viridiflora 
‘entirely failed to mention any of these really extraordinary characteristics 
‘does not appear to have raised any doubt in Miiller’s mind as to the identity 
of his plant with E. viridiflora Reichb. He evidently thought he was 
metely giving a more detailed description of an imperfectly known plant. 
Miller’s Westphalian Epipactis had in fact nothing to do with E. viridi- 
flora Reichb., but was a plant which had never been previously named or 
‘described. 
In the Journal of Botany, 1913, p- 344, Messrs. Wheldon and Travis 
‘announced the discovery on the sand-dunes of the Lancashire coast of 
Helleborine (Epipactis) viyidiflora, and in J. B., 1918, p. 1, Dr. T. and 
T. A. Stephenson described and named another form of the same plant 
from the Isle of Wight. In July, 1918 (J.B., t919, p. 37) I found a wood- 
dand form which appeared to belong to the same species. I was, therefore, 
keen to see continental specimens of E. viridiflora Reichb., and in 1920 
went to Thorenc, above Grasse, where Mdlle. Camus told me it grew in 
plenty. To my surprise I found it showed none of the characters of Miiller’s 
plant, but that it was identical in the construction of the flower, and the 
method of cross-pollination with E. latifolia, of which it was manifestly 
only a variety, being indeed so considered by nearly all continental authors. 
It became quite clear that the British plants had nothing to do with E£. 
‘wiridiflora Reichb., their mechanism and method of fertilisation being 
essentially different from those of E. latifolia. At Thorenc, however, I 
found one small colony of an Epipactis which agreed in every point with 
Miiller’s description. I therefore named it E. Muelleri (J.B. 1921, p. 101). 
My only doubt was as to whether it did not constitute a separate genus 
‘G.c: p. 104), as differences in the reproductive organs furnish Eee: 
wather than specific characters. Dr. Keller however warned me that - E.. 
