178 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [JuLy-Avucust, 1918. 
connecting forms in which no distinct line of difference can be drawn—the 
lighter the colour of the flowers, the slenderer the stalk, and the greater 
the tendency to spotted leaves; but this rule is not without exceptions. 
By O. latifolia I understand the commoner form of the Marsh Orchis, 
without spots on the leaves, and with rosy purple flowers. 
Mr. D. Moore, Glasnevin, replied (p. 25) that most British botanists 
regarded O. latifolia and O. maculata as truly distinct species, which was 
his own opinion, adding: ‘‘ It must, however, be conceded by those who 
have seen these plants growing extensively under very varied circumstances 
that forms do occur, especially on the side of O. latifolia, which are very 
intermediate. The longer spur, more deeply three-lobed lip, with the three 
sepals of the flowers spreading, and the solid stem are pretty constant 
marks for distinguishing O. maculata from O. latifolia, though I have seen 
forms (he was speaking of Irish localities) where all these marks did not 
hold good.” 
Another correspondent enquired (p. 200) about a variety of O. latifolia 
called the Kilmarnock Orchis, and Miss F. Hope, Wardie Lodge, 
Edinburgh, replied (p. 214), giving details of size and methods of culture, 
but she enquired, ‘‘ Why is this Orchis called maculata superba? for so it 
is known in the nurseries here, and some affirm that it is a distinct species. 
My impression has always been that it was a selected plant picked 
up wild. Oddly enough, I asked no questions when, sixteen years ago, 
I carried off then and there our original clump (some six or sevel 
bulbs) from the little fourth-rate nursery garden at Kilmarnock. We grow 
no other O. maculata, and from that original clump hundreds have been 
raised.’’ This note carries the history of the plant back to 1862. 
Finally, to complete the record from the four kingdoms, we find a 
Welsh locality, for Webster, who grew the Kilmarnock Orchis, remarked 
(Brit. Orch., p. 58): ‘‘ On several occasions I have found plants in the bogs 
of Carnarvonshire, that I consider equally as good as the variety just 
referred to; indeed, on growing the two plants side by side, I, as well as 
many others, found it impossible to detect a difference.” And he adds: 
“That it is a sport or hybrid between the two plants, is admitted by all 
—on the one hand, closely resembling O. maculata in colour of flowers 
and markings of the leaf, and O. latifolia in habit, general appearance 
and situations in which it is found growing.” 
We also find a much earlier record of the Sevenoaks locality (seé P- 164); 
for it is the same plant that Mr. Day figured in June, 1884, as O. latifolia 
(Orch. Draw., xlili. t. 17), a splendid specimen having been received ag 
Mrs. C. K. Knight, of Sevenoaks. Mrs. Knight wrote: «Thave } 
: Ola 
considerable opportunity to study O. latifolia and O. maculata 1m differen 
districts, and though it is not difficult to distinguish between the two tyP! 
ee : 
72S TRS TS EAS ASL Sy Sy i NR ge eng ENT SORRY pn Reet See tat 
