259 
It  looks  different  from  Mr.  Standen’s  Reigate  plants. — 
B. S.M.  Yes,  I  think  this  is  the  same  as  the  Reigate  Hill 
plant,  but  the  specimen  sent  to  me  is  not  sufficiently  well- 
dried  to  allow  one  to  be  certain.  It  would  be  very  helpful 
if  Mr.  Marshall  could  kindly  give  the  points  of  distinction 
between  H.  violacea  and  Epipactis  sessilifolia  Peterm. — 
C. E.S. 
Orchis  laxifiora  Lam.  Guernsey,  July,  1909. — Coll. 
R.  H.  Bunting.  Comm.  W.  R.  Sherrin. 
O.  incarnata  L.  Boggy  ground,  Bransbury  Common, 
N.  Hants.,  v.c.  12,  June  19,  1909.  Specimens  of  this  form 
with  flesh-coloured  flowers  may  be  acceptable  to  some  of 
the  members,  as  they  come  from  the  locality  described  by 
Mr.  C.  B.  Clarke  in  “  Jl.  Linn.  Soc.”  vol.  XIX.,  p.  206.  On 
the  occasion  of  my  visit  I  found  a  fair  quantity  in  bloom, 
but  the  plant  was  not  so  abundant  as  O.  maculata. — Ida 
M.  Roper.  This  looks  right.  It  is  recorded  from  this 
station. — E.S.M. 
O.  latifolia  L.,  var.  ?  Flitwick  bogs,  Beds.,  v.c.  80, 
June,  1909.  Deep  colour;  no  spots  on  leaves;  stem  hollow. 
— D.  M.  Higgins.  This,  I  believe,  is  not  at  all  like  the 
continental  “  O.  latifolia  L.”  which  possibly  we  do  not 
possess  in  Britain.  I  saw  it  growing  in  Switzerland  a 
year  or  two  ago  and  it  struck  me  that  it  was  something 
I  had  never  seen  before.  The  rich  purple  flowers,  and 
broad  leaves  (usually  marked  with  purple)  were  noticeable 
features.  I  think  Mr.  Pugsley  knows  these  plants. — C.E.S. 
I  think  this  is  the  usual  form  (in  Britain)  of  O.  latifolia. 
— E.F.L.  I  believe  that  this  is  a  variety  of  O.  latifolia  L. 
What  we  in  England  regard  as  the  type  (O.  maialis 
Reichb.)  usually  has  the  flowers  deep  crimson-purple,  and 
the  leaves  unspotted.  I  have  myself  only  observed  spotted 
foliage  in  the  var.  brevifolia  Reichb.  fil.,  which  is  not  the 
present  plant.  There  are  no  lower  leaves  on  the  speci¬ 
mens  received  by  me.  M.  Schulze  figures  O.  latifolia 
with  spotted  foliage. — E.S.M.  This  seems  to  me  to  be 
exactly  what  we  in  England  refer  to  O.  latifolia  L.,  and 
not  O.  incarnata  L.  I  find  the  under  surface  of  the  leaf 
a  very  good  character  for  separating  the  two  species  in  the 
fresh  state.  In  latifolia  the  surface  is  duller,  less  smooth 
and  with  fewer,  inconspicuous,  stomata.-E.D.  Although 
this  plant  is  very  different  in  appearance  from  the  extreme 
