412 
C. E. Moss. 
and M. Rouy do not give any flower or fruit characters which 
definitely separate the two plants. S. repens var. fusca is the 
prevailing form of the species on the fens of eastern England. 
5. aurita X cinerea Wimmer in Flora xxxi, 330 (1848). 
See p. 361 (1912). This is one of the commonest hybrid-willows 
of the British Isles. One never fails to find several forms of it 
whenever the two species grow together. It was observed on the 
Excursion in Wessenden Clough, near Huddersfield. On the 
alkaline fens of eastern England, 5. aurita does not occur, except 
on the acidic “ Hochmoor ” patches and margins ; and when 5. 
aurita is absent and 5. cinerea is present (as on Wicken Fen, near 
Cambridge), the intermediates or putative hybrids do not occur. 
Orchis maculata L. This is another variable species whose 
forms, as a whole, have not been studied by British botanists, 
although certain isolated ones have been more or less carefully 
described. One form has been named, as “ a sub-species or ... 
species,” O. ericetorum, by the Rev. E. F. Linton. These alternative 
grades which are given to plants by their authors are very trouble¬ 
some to cite; and I think it is a good plan in all such cases to take 
the first suggested alternative as the one to be cited, and to ignore 
the second. This sub-species ericetorum Linton, then, is the form 
which was found in Crowden Clough, and is the usual British form 
on such siliceous and acidic soils. Mr. Druce maintains that it is 
the same as var. prcecox Webster: if so, the varietal name chosen 
by this author is very inappropriate to the particular form which 
is abundant in northern England and in Scotland. A form of 
calcareous soils is var. o'kelleyi Druce, which was met with in 
Ireland, and which I have since found in a Cambridgeshire fen. It 
is one of the characteristics of fens, as opposed to moors, that they 
harbour a considerable number of calcicolous species. The common 
plant of England, on chalky or clayey soils seems to be the var. 
trilohata of Rouy’s Fl.de France xii, 152—4 (1911). Perhaps we 
have other forms also; and certainly we have a considerable 
number of forms which seem to be hybrids of the var. prcecox and 
var trilohatus, and hybrids of each of these with O. latifolia and O. 
ericetorum. 
y uncus hufonius var. ranarius; ff. ranarius Songeon et 
Perrier in Billot Annot FI. Fr. et d'All 192 (1855). I confess to a 
good deal of sympathy with Dr. Ostenfeld in regarding this as 
being not specifically distinct from y. hufonius. The var. ranarius 
should possess outer perianth-segments which are equal to or 
