THE ORCHID REVIEW. 238 
namely, near Paris. Through the kindness of Mr. Arthur Bennett, of 
Croydon, I have been able to examine the specimen, the question submitted 
being whether it was a hybrid or not. A letter from Mr. Reid states that it 
was found on a large moor, which every year about the beginning of July is 
carpeted with a profuse growth of Habenaria bifolia and Orchis maculata, 
with patches of Gymnadenia conopsea and Orchis latifolia, and he has never 
found any other Orchid there, though Habenaria albida grows near at hand, 
but not on the moor. The moor is 600 feet above sea level, and a mile 
north of the College. For the last thirteen years Mr. Reid has, early in 
July, collected hampers of the flowers to send to sick children, &c., in London, 
and it was when thus engaged with his wife and some friends on July 2nd 
that he was much struck by one specimen among a great company of 
O. maculata and H. bifolia. It had all the pose of a butterfly Orchid, and 
the inflorescence at a distance looked most like that species, being rather 
lax and not at all pyramidal in form, yet its leaves were spotted, and the lip 
and spur of the O. maculata type. ‘‘I have seen O. maculata,” he adds, 
‘in all its Protean forms, but have never seen it assume this particular pose, 
so I thought it worth while to get ‘counsel's opinion’ on the subject. It 
looks like a hybrid between the two. I am keeping the root to plant, but 
it is three-lobed, and of the O. maculata type.”” The above explains well 
the general aspect of the plant, and the circumstances under which it was 
found, and it presents such an unmistakable combination of the characters 
of the two species as to leave no doubt of its hybrid origin and parentage. 
Careful comparison of flowers of the three side by side show that in the 
general shape of the flower, the three-lobed lip, and the short spur it 
closely approaches O. maculata, though the flower is rather larger, and the 
colour is greenish white, as in the other parent—not lilac, and not spotted, 
as in O. maculata. 
The French hybrid alluded to was discovered in 1891, on a turfy moor at 
‘Loing, in the Department of Loiret, France, and was named Orchis X 
Chevallieriana, Camus (Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr., XXXVIII., p. 157), which was 
afterwards changed to Orchiplatanthera xX Chevallieriana, Camus ( Journ. 
de Bot., 1892, p. 474), to indicate its being a generic hybrid. That also had 
palmately-lobed bulbs, and flowers most resembling Orchis maculata, but 
the leaves were like those of the other parent, and the spur intermediate in 
character. It was named after the Abbé Chevallier, one of the party who 
discovered it. The discovery of a form of the same hybrid in Great Britain 
—for the plant found by Mr. Reid is clearly a form of the same—is a very 
How far the two differ can only be seen when they can 
interesting matter. 
It is probable that other individuals will be found 
be compared together. 
where the two parents grow intermixed. 
R. A. RoLFe, 
