184 THE ORCAID REVIEW. [JUNE, 1907. 
C. pubescens. When studying the plants in their natural habitat in Maine 
he has repeatedly found many that were intermediate between C. parvi- 
florum and C. pubescens in character, and in most instances plants readily 
referable to one or the other, sometimes to both forms, were growing with 
these intermediates. He also shows that all the characters relied on to 
Separate the two break down on comparison. Even the dwarf, small- 
flowered plant of the Rocky Mountain region, which looks at first distinct 
from both, shows no essential differences. The writer concludes that 
“‘unless the numerous specimens possessing characters of both forms can 
be accounted for on the grounds of hybridism we ought to regard them as 
different phases of the same species.” 
Miss Grace G. Niles, in her charming book, Bog-trotting for Orchids, 
devotes a coloured plate to each species, and remarks (p. 59) that the 
larger species grows in the Hoosac Valley, high on the steep sides of the 
Domelet, while the smaller one seeks the deepest parts of the Swamp of 
‘Oracles and Aurora’s Bog. But she also records them as growing side by 
side in the Swamp of Oracles, and adds (p. 57)—‘‘I observed a marked 
intergrading.” A few lines earlier she had remarked that there seemed to 
to be three different forms, though only two are recognised, but they 
appeared to “‘intergrade frequently.” And she concluded:—‘“ Close 
association of habitat has probably something to do with this cross- 
fertilisation of the two species.” 
Mr. J. R. Churchill speaks of collecting both species at Williamstown, 
Mass., ‘with specimens quite intermediate between the two ” (Rhodora, 
1. pi: 26). 
On reviewing the evidence, and after again comparing the plants, I think 
they must be forms of a single species, depending upon vigour and the 
conditions under which they grow. The two are said to extend over the 
same wide area, and it is not at all like a case of natural hybridisation 
where the parent species are themselves quite distinct. In fact the most 
closely allied, or representative species generally grow in different geogra 
phical areas, and the parents of most natural hybrids are not the most 
closely allied species in the genus. 
There remains the question of name. Knight proposes to call them 
C. parviflorum and var. pubescens, the former being the earlier specilic 
name. The two appeared independently, C. parviflorum, Salisb., in 1797 
and C. pubescens, Willd., in 1895, but C. hirsutum, Mill., appeared still 
earlier, in 1768 (Gard. Dict. ed. 8, Cyp. n. 3) and, though not very well 
defined, it clearly represents C. pubescens, and has indeed been adopted 
for that in several recent works. The correct names will therefore be 
C. hirsutum and var. parviflorum, which, fortunately, are quite appropriate: 
R. A. ROLFE- 
ts A 
hee ee SNe oe as a eer eae ead ras 
ai 
‘ 
‘ 
