188 MR. A. BENNETT ON EPIPACTIS ATRORUBENS. 
consulted Mr. Watson’s herbarium at Kew, I have not seen 
Miss Bell’s specimen. 
The genus is a difficult one, and our Floras are by no 
means agreed as to its division. Bentham (1858) admitted 
two species including E. palustris. 
Hooker (1884) has three sub-species under E. latifolia. 
Babington (1904), ed. by Groves, has E. latifolia split 
into four. 
Hooker, after saying he is indebted to Mr. Baker for the 
diagnoses, remarks : “ which coincides with Symes’ and appear 
to embrace the prevalent forms ; they do not however precisely 
accord with those of other countries, nor do materials from 
different parts of England give quite the same results.” 
There is no doubt this is so ; and the Rev. Purchas called 
attention* to the Herefordshire plant as being doubtful, 
rightly, as I believe. Later, in the ‘ Flora of Herefordshire ’ 
(1889), p. 298, he again calls attention to the plant as being 
wrongly named ovalis. I have Hereford specimens, and 
I agree with him. 
The E. ovalis has been recorded from Cos. Clare and Galway, 
Ireland, and fifteen counties in Scotland and England. 
I possess specimens from ten of these, and several Irish 
specimens : and I cannot help thinking some are errors. 
In N. Yorkshire Mr. Baker records it as occurring from 
o to 1550 ft. altitude ; and Dr. Lees in his FI. W. Yorkshire 
{1888), p. 433, says it is called “ Redshanks ” there. 
As to its name, it has passed through a series as most 
British plants have, and many seem as far off being settled 
as ever. 
In Ray’s time (1677) if was knownf as “ Helleborine altera 
atro rubente flore.” 
Epipactis rubiginosa (Cr.), Gaudin, FI. Helv. ii. (1828), 
p. 182. 
E. media , Fries, Mant. ii (1839), p. 54 in part. 
E. ovalis, Bab., Man. Brit. Bot., ed. i. (1843), p. 295. 
E. atrorubens, Schultz, Oest. FI. i. (1794), p. 538. and now 
we have it named. 
* ‘ Journal of Botany ' (1885), p. 201. f Ray, Syn. iii. 1677. 
