ORCHIS FUCIISII 
307 
realty applied to the Linnean plant, the ericetorum of Linton.” The 
sole ground of this contention is that the mid-lobe is described as 
smaller than the side-lobes. Here he has somewhat changed his 
ground. No longer is O. maculata L. confined to the ( lobo) inter - 
medio angustissimo of Linnaeus, but every description giving the 
mid-lobe as smaller than the side-lobes is claimed as referring to 
elodes. The first of his many quotations is as follows :—“ For 
instance M. Rouy in the Flore de France, xiii. 153 (1912), describes 
it as maculatus genuinus, as having a ‘ labelle faiblement 3-lobe, le 
lobe median plus petit que les lateraux.’ ” Now it is quite clear that 
Rouy here refers to Fuchsii, for the leaves are oblong and rounded 
at the apex, and the spur thick, which is true of Fuchsii but not of 
elodes ; and, moreover, on the next page he describes elodes as a 
separate race, quoting Britain as a habitat, thereby showing that he 
suspected that elodes was identical with ericetorum. 
The following objections arise to the restriction of 0. maculata L. 
to 0. elodes Griseb. (0. ericetorum Linton) :— 
(1) The great monographers of the Orchidacece , Reichenbach fil., 
Schulze, Barla, Camus, etc., and the authors of the two most modern 
and weighty European Floras, Rouy (Flore de France) and Ascher- 
son & Graebner (Syn. Mitt, europ. FI.) all consider O. maculata L. 
to be a single very variable species. As can be easily verified from 
their descriptions, O. Fuchsii Bruce is nothing but their typical 
O. maculata L.—the O. maculata genuina of Reichenbach fil. (Icon, 
xiii. 65) and the O. maculatus genuinus of Rouy and of Ascherson 
& Graebner. They regard elodes as a distinct race of O. maculata L. 
but not as a valid species. 
(2) Linnaeus’s diagnosis of 0. maculata gives “ petalis dorsalibus 
erectis''' 1 ; in his more detailed description he says “ petala 3 exteriora 
erecta .” This duplication is so unusual that it would seem that he 
wished to lay stress on the point. Erect sepals, however, are charac¬ 
teristic of Fuchsii, not of elodes , in which they are spreading, or even 
drooping, as may be seen in Mr. Stephenson’s figures. If “ (lobo) 
intermedia angustissimo ” proves that 0. maculata L. was elodes, 
“ petalis dorsalibus erectis ” equally proves that it included Fuchsii. 
(3) It is contrary to all we know of Linnaeus’s views to suppose 
that he would ever have admitted that elodes was specifically distinct 
from Fuchsii. He considered that Ophrys apifera, aranifera, 
arachnites, mu seif era , etc., belonged to one and the same species, 
which he named O. insectifera. In O. arachnites the lip is undivided, 
in rnuscifera 3-lobed, in ayifera sub-5-lobed, to say nothing of other 
differences very much more important than any between Fuchsii and 
elodes. Yet he wrote “ qui vero has confert cum. congeneribus, 
omnesque varietates simul inspicit primam originem ex una facile 
perspiciat ”—whoever compares all these varieties will easily see that 
they sprang from a common origin. He believed that every species 
was a separate creation, so that all forms traceable to a common stock 
must belong to one and the same species. Flodes and Fuchsii 
certainty sprang from a common stock much less remote than that 
from which the various species of Ophrys are descended. 
