Nov.-DEc., r919.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 171 
GYMNABICCHIA SCHWEINFURTHII, Camus (Gymnadenia Conopsea X 
Bicchia albida).—Received from the neighbourhood of Arisaig, Inverness, in 
June, 1898, and recorded as Gymnadenia Schweinfurthii, Hegelm. (O.R., vi. 
p- 238), and as Gymnadenia Conopsea xX albida (Wolley Dod in Journ. Bot., 
1898, p. 352). It was originally described from the Austrian Alps. 
GYMNAGLOSSUM JACKSONII, Rolfe (Gymnadenia Conopsea X Ceelo- 
glossum viride).—Found on downs near Winchester, by Mr. H. A. Jackson, 
and described as Gymplatanthera Jacksonii, Quirke (Winch. Coll. Nat. 
e1t8t, Soc., IQII-13, p. 12, with plate), and afterwards as Habenaria 
Jacksonii, Druce (Rep. Bot. Exch. Club, 1911, p. 33). We do not find a 
continental record. R. A. ROLFE. 
I am much interested in your article at pp. 142-3, but there are one or 
two questions I should like to ask. Is the British Ophrys apifera x 
arachnites really O. Botteronii? I had a beautiful example from Folkestone 
this year, but in did not agree with Schulze’s figure of O. Botteronii. The 
Kentish O. hybrida does not agree well with Reichenbach’s figure, but it 
matches that of O. apiculata, Schmidt. If the rule is to assign the same 
name to all hybrids between the same two species, however much they 
differ inter se, then the name does not always connote the plant. If, on the 
other hand, different names are assigned to different hybrids between the 
same pair of species, where is the line to be drawn? We are on the horns 
ofa dilemma. It seems doubtful whether it is wise to assign a distinctive 
name to a known natural hybrid, because it is not a fixed entity, though it 
was quite natural when they were regarded as new species. My experience 
is that natural hybrids are very rare, that two specimens are seldom exactly 
alike, and that most of them arise from new crossings between the two 
parents. Probably there are some which reproduce themselves, and have 
become more or less stable, and a few have recrossed with one or the other 
of the parents. M. J. GODFERY. 
It seems almost necessary to give a distinctive name, and the rule is 
that all hybrids between the same two species are forms of one, however 
much they vary. We believe that variation is the root of the difficulty in 
the cases cited. One might substitute O. aranifero-muscifera. for O. 
hybrida, but we doubt if anything is gained. In any case we deprecate 
different names for the same hybrid, preferring the addition of varietal 
names where necessary. The identification of natural hybrids is difficult 
enough, but who will tell us what Nature does with them when made? 
Do they disappear as fast as they arise? Do they perpetuate themselves 
by seed, originating hybrid races? Do they recross with the original 
parents, giving secondary hybrids? Are the latter to be assigned separate 
