308 
THE JOURNAL OE BOTANY 
(4) It implies that Linnaeus altogether omitted to describe 
O. Fuchsii, for if his O. v.iaculata does not include it he certainly 
never mentioned it at all. As it grows throughout almost all Europe, 
extending: North to Iceland, such an omission is incredible, and had it 
really occurred would promptly have been pointed out by his critics. 
(5) The synonyms quoted show that Linnaeus intended to include 
O. Fuchsii. O. palmata pratensis maculata Bauhin, pinax, 85, can 
only be the latter—we can hardly believe that Bauhin also omitted 
the commonest of European orchids. Budb. elys. ii. p. 211, fig. 3, 
represents Bauh. pin. 85 ( vide Linnaeus’s Flora suec. i. 729), and 
certainly is not elocles for the lip is narrow, whilst in elodes it is 
nearly orbicular. Vaill. paris. t. 31, fig. 10, is good elodes , but fig. 9 
is a common form of Fuchsii , with erect sepals, angular side-lobes, 
and moderately broad mid-lobe. In Dod. pempt. 240 the leaves are 
broad, the sepals erect, the flower small, the mid-lobe half as wide as 
the side-lobes. It is not elodes. 
(6) Linnaeus seems to have thought O. maculata such a common 
and well-known orchid as to call for little attention, for his herbarium 
contains only one specimen, and that an imperfect one, without lower 
leaves or root. No date or locality is given ; the specimen simply 
bears in Linnaeus’s handwriting “ 12 maculata.” In its crowded 
spike it is impossible to see the exact shape of the lip, and the lower¬ 
most leaves (which differ in Fuchsii and elodes ) are absent. 
Probably there were originally other specimens since lost or destroyed. 
In any case it is not sought to prove that O. maculata L. does not 
include elodes, and the admission that this specimen is elodes would 
not affect the argument. 
(7) It involves (by substitution of another type) a virtual transfer 
of the name O. maculata from one species ( Fuchsii ) to another 
(elodes). The ambiguity thus created has compelled Dr. Druce 
himself to resort to such phrases as O. maculata vera to make his 
meaning clear. As to his statement that the name elodes is still¬ 
born, it is a duly-published name (supported by an unusually clear 
description) which has been in current use for seventy-seven years. 
“ One regrets,” he says, “to see such an untenable name suggested, 
which can only create confusion,” and adds that he had considered 
elodes as an ecjuivalent for ericetorum , but rejected it. But surely 
no author would ever dream of giving the name elodes to ericetorum 
unless the plants had been proved to be identical, which at that time 
was not the case. I leave others to judge which is most likely to 
lead to confusion—to adhere to existing universally recognised names, 
or to assign to O. maculata L. in England a meaning different 
from that which obtains everywhere else, and to give a quite un¬ 
necessary new "name to what is universally regarded as typical 
O. maculata L. 
I have botanised in France at many points from Toulon to Nice, 
including the mountainous regions of Yence, Thorenc, and St. Martin 
Yesubie, at Mantes near Paris, in Savoie, and t throughout the 
Chamonix Yalley, but, though I have seen thousands of Fuchsii, I 
have never seen anything which could be taken for elodes except a few 
