oitciris rucnsn 
300 
plants at Falaise in Normandy, which I somewhat doubtfully assigned 
to that species. I have also hunted for orchids in several places in 
Switzerland, and in Italy from Ventimiglia to Alassio, near Genoa, 
on the Portofino promontory, both sides of Lago Maggiore, and in the 
country between Pisa and Livorno, but have never seen a trace of 
el odes. It appears to be a Northern plant (“Videtur forma septen- 
trionalis Bclib. icon. xiii. 67 ”). I often found Fuchsii with the 
mid-lobe smaller than the side-lobes. In 1741 Linnaeus went to the 
island of Oeland, and on June 2nd botanised in a marsh near Pella. 
In his journal of this voyage (Iter. Oel. p. 48) he tells us he found 
three orchids there— Orchis sambucina, O. latifolia, and one “com¬ 
monly called” Orchis palmaici maculata. In his ‘Flora Svecica,’ ed. 1 
(1745), immediately after his diagnosis of O. maculata , he quotes 
Act. ups. 1740, p. 14 (his earlier description of the species, in which 
the up is described as barba trilobo crenata interiore minore inte- 
(jerrimo), and It. oel. 48, thus definitely conveying to us that the 
Pella plant was a type of his No. 729. 
On June 19th, 1922, Mr. W. N. Edwards of the British Museum 
(Nat. Hist.) visited the marsh at Pella, where Linnaeus botanised in 
1741. He did not find O. sambucina —perhaps he was too late for 
that,—but he found the other two orchids, and brought home a series 
of O. maculata , which has been passed by I)r. Druce himself as 
“ O. Fuchsii ” Druce. As Linnaeus tells us, by the citation of It. oel. 
48, that the Pella plant was his O. maculata , and this now turns out 
to be “ O. Fuchsii ” and not elodes , perhaps Dr. Druce may now 
wish to reconsider his theory that 0. maculata L. consisted solely of 
O. elodes Griseb. (O. ericetorum Lint.) in the light of this further 
evidence. 
The most reasonable view appears to be that O. maculata L. was 
an aggregate species, embracing all forms and varieties. From this 
elodes was separated as a distinct species in 1845, and has been main¬ 
tained as a race, subspecies, or variety ever since. What is left after 
the separation of elodes is the variable plant which Dr. Druce re¬ 
named O. Fuchsii Druce. This is universally regarded as the type 
of O. maculata L. The citation of the Pella plant by Linnaeus 
makes it sufficiently clear that he held a similar view. The conti¬ 
nental varieties sudetica , J\Ieyeri , etc., are forms of O. maculata and 
not of elodes. 
The idea that Fuchsii and ericetorum might still be retained as 
convenient terms of reference is much to be deprecated. When we 
find that we have unnecessarily given a new name to a plant which is 
everywhere known by the name given to it by Linnaeus in 1753, the 
least we can do is to refrain from perpetuating it. 
