00 
THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
ORCHIS FUCHSII Deuce. 
By Colonel M. J. Godfery, F.L.S. 
In the Report B. E. C. 1914 (p. 99) Dr. Druce sought to prove 
that O. maculata L. consisted solely of O. ericetorum Linton, to the 
exclusion of the common Spotted Orchis, which he re-named Orchis 
Fuchsii Druce. As he has rebuked me (B. E. C. Rep. 1921, 314) for 
not adopting his new name, the following is an attempt to reply to 
his criticism. It having been shown (Journ. Bot. 1921, 305) that 
O. ericetorum Linton is identical with O. elodes Grisebach, the latter 
name, which dates from 1846, is used throughout this paper for 
ericetorum. It would be mere insularity to attempt to maintain 
ericetorum in the face of a long prior and generally accepted name. 
Linnaeus’s description of O. maculata runs (Sp. PI. 942) :— 
“ maculata. 12. Orchis bulbis palmatis patentibus, nectarii cornu 
germinibus breviore: labio piano petalis dorsalibus erectis. Act. 
IJps. 1740, p. 14. FI. suec. 729. It. cel. 48. # Dalib. paris. 
274. 
“ O. palmata pratensis maculata. Bauh. pin. 85. 
“ O. palmata montana maculata. Bauh. pin. 86. Vaill. 
paris. t. 31. f. 9, 10. 
“ Sat} r rium basilicam foemina. Bod. pempt. 240. 
“ Habitat in Europae pratis succulentis. 
“ Petala 3 exteriora ere eta ; 2 interiora conniventia. Nec¬ 
tarii lobium trijidum, planum : lobis lateralibus majoribus cre- 
natis : intermedio angustissimo , integerrimoF 
Dr. Druce’s case rests on the last three words—mid-lobe extremely 
narrow, quite entire. In elodes , he argues, the mid-lobe is very 
narrow, therefore O. maculata L. is elodes ; in Fuchsii it is not very 
narrow, therefore Fuchsii is excluded. He also states that the 
specimen of O. maculata in the Linnean herbarium is elodes. 
Extreme narrowness of the mid-lobe is not a constant character in 
elodes, as Mr. T. A. Stephenson’s beautiful drawings clearly show 
(Journ. Bot. 1920, t. 556 ; 1921, t. 559). Is there one of the figures 
of elodes in which the mid-lobe could be truthfullv described as narrow 
in the superlative degree ? In fig. 18, pi. 556, it is actually broader 
than long ! The breadth also varies considerably in different speci¬ 
mens. Four drawings of single flowers found at Winchester in 1917 
were labelled by Dr. Druce “All under Fuchsii ,” and in three of these 
the mid-lobe is actually narrower than in figs. 17 and 18, t. 556, and 
fig. 3, t. 559. The narrowness of the mid-lobe is not always sufficient 
to separate elodes from Fuchsii, for it is sometimes narrower in the 
latter than in elodes. The width of the mid-lobe is an unimportant 
and variable character, of no value as a ground of specific differ¬ 
entiation. 
In his 1914 paper Dr. Druce writes :—“ Had the descriptions in 
the continental floras been consulted, it could have scarcely escaped 
attention that the description of O. maculata in the majority of them 
i 
