MR. A. BENNETT ON EPIPACTIS ATRORUBENS. 189 
Helleborine atrorubens. Druce, Dill. Herb. Jour, of Botany 
(1907), p. 115. 
And I restore the earliest name by writing : 
Helleborine rubiginosa — i.e., Epipactis. 
Helleborine, a. rubiginosa, Crantz., Stirp. Aust. (1769), 
p. 467. 
My motive in writing this note is — Has the Norfolk plant 
been gathered since 1837 ? If so, has the fresh plant been 
studied, as it is useless to study dried ones unless the flowers 
have been specially dried to show the proportions one to 
the other of the parts of it, and the structure of the labellum. 
The figure in Eng. Botany Suppl. t. 2884, July 1, 1844 (third 
ed. t. 1481) is a very good one. and so are the figures of the 
flowers in the FI. of Hereford, p. 298, contrasting the Hereford 
and the Yorkshire and Carnarvon examples. 
The Norfolk specimens were gathered in July ; the months 
of August and September are given for latijolia ; this corre- 
sponds with a note, “ said to flower a month to six weeks 
earlier than E. latijolia.” 
Dr. Windsor* has an interesting note on this plant. He 
remarks : “ About the year 1810 I collected, at the request 
of Sir J. E. Smith, recent specimens of this plant for the 
inspection of himself and Mr. Sowerby ; the former thought 
it might be the parvifolia of Ehrhart, but Mr. Sowerby in- 
formed me that he could not decide upon it being a distinct 
species.” The E. parvifolia of Ehrhart was a plant distributed 
by Ehrhart in his Decades Herb. Linnaei, No. 120, 1792 ; 
but which he had previously in his Beitrage z. Naturkunde, 
iv. (1791), p. 42, named E. microphylla. 
The Eng. Botany plant figured was gathered “ Below 
Giggleswick Scar (27. 7. 1843) in W. Yorkshire, it is there 
called ‘ Oval-lipped Helleborine.’ ” 
According to the Rev. W. W. Newbould (July, 1867) 
there are no specimens of Norfolk Epipactis in Sir J. E. 
Smith’s Herbarium at the Linnean Society. 
* ‘ Phytologist,' 1857, p. 13. 
