juty-Avcust, 1918.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 177 
ane 
a ORCHIS MACULATA SUPERBA. 
E have already indicated the identity of the Orchis maculata superba 
of gardens with the natural hybrid O. Braunii, and we may now 
summarise its very interesting history, in connection with the article on 
British Marsh Orchises (pp. 162-166). 3 
On July 19th, 1866, it is recorded that a First-class Certificate was 
awarded to a robust-growing and finely-flowered variety of Orchis maculata 
called superba, found in Ayrshire, exhibited by Messrs. Osborn, and to a 
similar plant shown by Mr. Williams (Gard. Chron., 1866, p. 590). Messrs. 
Osborne’s plant was figured at t. 308 of the Floral Magazine, when the 
exhibitors remarked: ‘It was found growing wild in Ayrshire, but where 
and by whom we do not know, it having passed into our hands through the 
respected firm, the Messrs. Sampson, of Kilmarnock.” 
Shortly afterwards the history was given by Messrs. Dreghorn & Aitken, 
Kilmarnock (G.C., 1866, p. 659). as follows: ‘‘ This fine Orchis was found 
many years ago within a few miles of Kilmarnock, and was grown for a 
long time in the gardens of the cottagers of the village, where it was found, 
unheeded and uncared for. It is only during the last two or three years 
that its excellence as a hardy border plant have been recognised. It has 
been examined by most of the botanists in this locality, who don't all 
agree as to its being a mere variety of maculata, some inclining to believe 
it a distinct species ; but from the close resemblance which it bears to 
maculata we named it some years ago superba, to distinguish it from the 
common one of that name (maculata).” This appeared under the heading, 
: Orchis latifolia (maculata superba),” the change of name being explained 
in an editorial note: ‘Mr. Boswell Syme reports that this plant seems 
to be the true latifolia, the plant commonly so called and figured under this 
Name in ‘ English Botany’ being O. incarnata. It is a noble hardy 
Perennial, remarkable for its deep colour, and dense spike.—Eds.” The 
temark as to O. latifolia and O. incarnata is erroneous, and the same 
unfortunate transposition of names appears in the same author’s English 
Botany (tt. 1457, 1458). | ge 
Some years later Mr. C. Wolley Dod recorded finding a very similar 
form near Eton (Garden, 1878, ii. p. 7), and he enquired: “ Will any of your 
teaders tell me whether O. latifolia is really specifically distinct from O. 
maculata? In the locality mentioned, near Eton, they grow side by side; 
where the ground lies higher the form is maculata, but where a swampy 
hollow intervenes latifolia (or incarnata) is the prevailing A die The 
€xtremes are distinct enough, but I find amongst them intermediate 
