164 THE ORCHID REVIEW. _ (jJuiv-Avcust, i913, 
xX maculata. The latter was recognised on the Continent over half-a- 
century ago, and described as follows :— 
ORCHIS AMBIGUA, A. Kern, was described in 1865 (Verh. Zool.-Bol, 
Gesell, Wien, xv. p. 205, t. 2, fig. 1-3), the author remarking that he found 
three examples in 1852 in a wet meadow near Oberndorf, on Mt. Jauerling, 
Lower Austria, with O. maculata and O.incarnata. It has since been found 
in Germany, France, and Switzerland, and now a plant has been found in 
Hampshire, by Mr. D. G. Lowndes, in July 1917, and recorded as 0. 
maculata X incarnata? (Rep. Winch. Coll. Nat. Hist. Soc., 1915-17, p. 13; 
with plate). Only the spike is shown in the photograph, but the flowers 
seem quite intermediate in shape. 
ORCHIS BRAuUNII (latifolia x maculata) has already been dealt with 
pretty fully (O.R., xx. pp. 201-2; xxiii, pp. 367-8, fig. 45), but further 
materials have come to hand. For example, Mr. H. Essenhigh-Corke, 
Sevenoaks, has submitted to Kew specimens of the hybrid, together with 
both parents, and he remarks: “ In a meadow near here there are hundreds 
of Orchises in bloom, and I have made an attempt to decide upon the two 
types, latifolia and maculata. Out of about sixty specimens examined at 
random it seems that three distinct varieties may be found in this meadow, 
and in about equal proportions, and pretty constant.” Examples of each 
were sent, and their characters were carefully defined, with the final remark 
that he made the intermediate one to be a hybrid between the other two—@ 
quite independent contirmation of the facts. It recalls a visit paid to Vem 
tongimps Mill Moor, Cornwall, some years ago, when we found numerous 
intermediates, and some diverging in the direction of either parent. This 
hybrid is both common and widely diffused—for the localities in which the 
two parent species grow together are very numerous—and to this fact we 
attribute the confusion into which the history of O. latifolia has fallen. 
ORcHIS LATIFOLIA, L. (Sf. Pl., ed. 1, p. 941) was based on several earlief 
records, including O. palmata palustris latifolia longis calcaribus, C. 
Bauh. Pinax, p. 85, the only figure cited being Vaill. Paris, t. 31, fig. 15: 
These records again include O. palmata palustris latifolia, Moris. Pl. Hiss 
Oxf., ili. p, 498, sect. 12, t. 15, fig. 3, and Palma Christi mas, Gerarde Herb. 
p- 220, fig. 1, both of which represent the Marsh Orchis with broad 
unspotted leaves, so that thereis not the slightest doubt about the plant 
intended. And Gerarde’s figure dates from 1597, and is believed to be 
earliest British record of the species. Modern figures include O. latifolia, 
Sm. Engl. Bot., t. 2308, and O. incarnata, Syme Engl. Bot., ix. P- 100, f 
1385 (not of Linn). Under this we include the West Drayton plant, and 
now O. pretermissa, Druce. The confusion we believe arise s from hybridity; 
and from the fact that the name O. latifolia has often been ap plied to the plant 
with spotted leaves. Mr. Druce, for example, speaks of the leaves of 0. 
4 
E 
2 
4 
3 
i 
5 
