NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE

ORCHID JOURNAL
______________________________________
Volume 5 September
Number 3 1999
a quarterly devoted to the orchids of North America
published by the
NORTH AMERICAN
NATIVE ORCHID ALLIANCE
* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *
IN THIS ISSUE:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4th ANNUAL NORTH
AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID CONFERENCE, Part 2
COLOR VARIATION AND STRUCTURAL
ABNORMALITIES
IN CYPRIPEDIUM PARVIFLORUM VAR. PUBESCENS
ONLY IN FLORIDA!….and more

199
NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE
ORCHID JOURNAL
Volume 5 September
Number 3 1999
CONTENTS
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR
201

FLORIDA - THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT HERE!

John Beckner
203

CLASSIFICATION, THEORY AND PRACTICE

Robert L. Dressler
214
LOOKING FORWARD:
December 1999
231
A REPORT ON THE USE OF FUNGI TO GERMINATE
SEEDS OF PLATANTHERA INTEGRA,
P. LEUCOPHAEA, SPIRANTHES OVALIS VAR.
EROSTELLATA, AND ENCYCLIA TAMPENSIS
Lawrence W. Zettler
233
THE ORCHIDS OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA
Roger A. Hammer
247
A SPECIAL PLACE
The Slow Empiricist
265
THOSE LADIES OF KENTUCKY;
SLIPPER TYPES THAT IS
Tom Sampliner
269

200
 RECENT TAXONOMIC AND DISTRIBUTIONAL
NOTES FROM FLORIDA 3.
Paul Martin Brown
277
COLOR VARIATION AND STRUCTURAL
ABNORMALITIES IN CYPRIPEDIUM PARVIFLORUM
VAR. PUBESCENS
Ronald A. Coleman
290

Color Plates:
1. p. 295 - Zettler: Platanthera integra; P. leucophaea
2. p. 296 - Empiricist: glass flowers
3. p. 297 - Coleman: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens variations
4. p. 298 - Coleman: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens variations

Unless otherwise credited, all drawings in this issue are by Stan Folsom
Unless otherwise credited graphics (charts, maps etc. ) are created by the
individual authors.
The opinions expressed in the Journal are those of the authors. Scientific
articles may be subject to peer review and popular articles will be examined for
both accuracy and scientific content.
Volume 5, number 3, pages 201- 298; issued September 5, 1999.
Copyright 1999 by the North American Native Orchid Alliance, Inc.
Cover: Polyradicion lindenii by Stan Folsom

201
 NOTES FROM THE EDITOR

This September issue brings you four more

papers from the 4th Annual North American Native
Orchid Conference held last April in Tampa,
Florida. One additional paper remains for the
December issue - A History of the Fakahatchee
Strand by Mike Owens. Please refer to the March
issue for details of my paper on Spiranthes eatonii.

At this time we appear to be back on track

with both the mailing and timing of the Journals.
Starting with this issue we are experimenting with
plastic mailers instead of paper to try to minimize
the damage that has occurred to the paper
envelopes.

Please note several things in this issue:

Your 2000 renewal notice is included
Claims for lost or damaged December 1998 or
March & June 1999 issues must be made by
December of 1999, please
Registrations for the 5th Annual North American
Native Orchid Conference to be held from July 16-
20, 2000 in Olympic National Park, Port Angeles,
Washington are coming in every week, so do not

202
 delay in sending yours if you are planning to
attend.

The Journal is in need of articles for Volume 6

(2000) for the coming year. We do have a very
special 4-part series planned that will enumerate all of
the rare, threatened and endangered orchid species in
North America (north of Mexico) for each individual
state and province. Eventually the four articles will
be available as a special reference publication. Anne
& Ken Wagner are working on this project with me
and it promises to be interesting reading as well as an
excellent reference work.

Please send all correspondence after September 15

to the Florida address.

Paul Martin Brown

Editor

PO Box 772121
Ocala, Florida 34477-2121
352/861-2565
naorchid@aol.com

203
 FLORIDA - THE RULES ARE
DIFFERENT HERE!

John Beckner

Welcome to Florida! We are the only state that

has a current best-selling book based upon its native
orchids! Coming soon to a theatre near you will be the
movie version, now in production under a major
director.

Florida is currently the 4th state in population,

having over 15 million. That does not count the 50
million visitors each year. The infrastructure needed to
support all these people has devastated the
environment. We have perpetual near terminal
pollution and water shortages. So we build and build,
then build more, then invite more people in. We take a
lot of pride in our enormous secret and illegal economy,
the outstanding crime rates, and best of all, the truly
vicious and strange nature of so many of our crimes.
Years ago the state passed severe trespassing laws, the
"Moonshiner Protection act", which mean that if you
jump a fence to view an orchid, you can go straight to
jail - if lucky. Or be shot by the landowner. But some
of the best places to see orchids are on military bases,
with the warning that I have experienced several events

204
where 20 mm cannon R bombs close by added
excitement. We recently visited a fine nature preserve
near the Suwannee that for decades was safe for
biodiversity, because the drug dealers blew up the
bridges and blocked the roads.

North America has a couple of hundred orchid

species. Within a 15 km radius at Monteverde, Costa
Rica there are well over 400 species. In parts of
Ecuador between 200 and 300 species occur in areas of
about the same size. Florida has about 110 taxa of
orchids, vouchered in herbaria, so about half the
continental total. This includes all 30 plus North
American (north of Mexico) epiphytic orchids, only one
of which extends beyond our boundary. The rules are
different here, you need to look up. Of the 110 taxa,
several are natural hybrids, all of them terrestrials, with
only the fringed Platantheras common. We are the only
state or province on the continent with no Cypripedium
species proven - but we have a good lead on where one
has been seen. There are several orchid species escaped
here, and some others occur, undocumented. There are
surely more tropical species here, yet to be found, plus a
few northern species are close by and can be
possibilities. Endemism is nil perhaps, a reflection of
the unstable, highly stressed ecology with recent
colonization.

An analysis of our orchid biogeography is

difficult, for several reasons. Somewhat arbitrary
decisions are needed. There are 14 species. of north
temperate mostly woodland origin. Another l6 species

205
are pineland and bog orchids of the southeastern coastal
plain. These may be a fairly old group, since they tend
to be fairly isolated taxonomically. There are 8 species
with western-Mexican ranges. But there are 7 species
that belong to African groups, with 3 of these species
found there., and there are 2 species with anomalous
tropical Old World ties.

There are about 60 neotropical orchids, clearly derived

from the West Indies. Some are widespread, from
Mexico to Brazil or even Argentina. In a dry pineland in
northernmost Florida is what we call "Species X'. We
have not been able to see good flowers and even the
genus is unclear.

Our orchids are sometimes stable populations,

but many occur as metapopulations, coming and going
dramatically over a few years. We can easily witness and
record this, but we have very little to go on, when we try
to determine the causes. There is a lot of hand-waving
and pseudoscientific verbiage, but real studies are
lacking. Our tropical orchids are overseas disjuncts,
colonizing in the unstable way described by the Theory
of Island Biogeography. The whole environment is so
stressed, so constantly changing in radical ways that
many present orchid colonies must be of very recent
origin. Yet these stresses can cause slow maturation of
plants, or, can pump in such an excess of resources that
some plants grow very fast. Wild habitats of orchids
represent where they happen to grow. There is little
reason to equate the conditions with their optimum
needs. Some common terrestrials that are certainly

206
native are found mostly along roadsides in similar
recently made artificial sites. Taxodium or cypress is
one of our characteristic trees, dominating a major
habitat. It entered the southeastern United States,
including northern Florida, about 8,000 to 10,000 years
ago, reaching the Lake Placid area about 3,000 years
ago. The deep sinkholes in the Fakahatchee prove that
the water level was hundreds of feet lower not long ago.
The almost total absence of pines or of wetland plants
in the peat bog strata that are over 6,000 years old, also
show how dramatic the ecological changes have been.

A few disasters that have shaped our biodiversity!

Ed Petuch has good evidence that the terminal Eocene
extinctions, worldwide, are connected to the immense
crater that lies 1,000 feet below southern Florida. Chris
Barton's studies of the fractal math of hurricanes shows
that a Mach One will hit about every million years.
That means a 1,000 foot high storm surge off the
Atlantic sweeps across to the Gulf. Every 100,000 years
we can expect storms with winds of submach, but still
jet plane velocities. We have lots of local tornadoes
every year. Forest fires are of general occurrence. The
nearest we have to an endemic orchid, Calopogon
multiflorus, is strongly adapted to fire. Last year, Flagler
County had a total evacuation due to fires.

The rules are different here. We grow most of

our garden vegetables and flowering annuals in the
winter. Our thunderheads are twice as high as clouds
elsewhere. We have more lightning than anywhere else
on the planet. On a clear summer day the sun's light is

207
as intense as in the Sahara. Our soils are very poor in
nutrients. We have an ornamental plant industry that is
bigger than our Citrus or fishing. Orchids are so
popular that we have large nurseries phasing out shrubs
and ground covers, so as to concentrate on
Phalaenopsis , Dendrobiums, Vandas, Oncidiums. We
have more orchid researchers, many of them in just two
moderate size cities: Gainesville and Sarasota, than you
can find in most countries or continents. We have
more orchid judges, orchid shows, and other activities
than anywhere. We are the world's exit port to the rest
of the solar system. Phalaenopsis were the only
ornamentals that would thrive and flower well in space
stations.

For reasons that I hope you are beginning to see,

we have a terrible conservation crisis in Florida. Orchids
are useful as indicators of environmental conduits.
Some positive steps are being taken in Florida, but a lot
more are needed and could be achieved. Unfortunately,
not everyone is giving better than lip service. Orchids
can be the basis of benefits to the total conservation
picture. But, in any case, they have such great interest,
so much popularity, that there are many people who
want to achieve things with them.

Orchids are primarily popular because of the

beauty and because of the unusual character of their
flowers. Colors, odors, shapes give us beauty. The
bilateral symmetry the innate human response to faces.

208
 This appears within hours of birth, and remains a
powerful factor throughout our lives-As a child grows,
it wishes to handle things Orchids are mostly in the
convenient size range for this. The need to explore the
adjacent environment, learn how to deal with it, and
thus survive, plus the need to gather in and use
resources such as food, leads children to become
collectors. It speaks volumes about the intellectual
poverty of psychologists that they scarcely mention this
subject. But such giants of the field as Pavlov and later
Humphrey, have written stimulating studies of the
collecting obsession. I rather suspect that any gathering
of orchid people will include at least a few incurable
collecting addicts. I want to stress that this can involve
photographs, books, information, nursery bred plants,
not just the illegal collecting of native plants. In an
increasingly urbanized society, the rat-race drives many
people out-of-doors, to exercise, enjoy natural beauty,
clear the brain with new experiences.

Our economy and society is now nearly

worldwide. The coming century will bring us
extraordinary benefits, and will sometimes extract a
terrible price for them. Exponential growth is not just
bodies consuming resources. Ideas are growing, as are
many other aspects of our lives. The resulting
complexities will grow even more complex. Florida is at
the cutting edge of all this. I have seen well-educated
basically sound minds from the Third World go into
severe culture shock, within hours of coming to Florida.
The rules are different here, the stresses can be harsh.
Make no mistake - in most parts of the world there are

209
growing movements to save our biotic heritage, find
saner social systems, live happier lives. These battles are
NOT lost, are not hopeless. But they are not
guaranteed to win, much less win any easy victories. We
must act, act intelligently, make the right results happen.
Leaving nature alone ensures losses. In the face of
widespread pesticides, for example, the orchid
pollinators are facing extinction. Metapopulations will
vanish, unable to go on, unless the pollinators are
abundant.

Tropical orchids are extensively cultivated in only

a small percent of the species. But the totals are so vast,
that an overwhelming range of orchids are in
greenhouses. They tend to be the larger flowers and
more colorful kinds. The 1% of orchid species that are
native to this continent include some beautiful kinds, by
anyone's' standards. But they are mostly terrestrials.
They are mostly notoriously hard to grow.
Metapopulations again. Although it has long been
illegal to collect wild orchids in Florida, the epiphytes,
often with relatively modest flowers, have been
collected throughout the 20th Century. The plants
often are short-lived. Well, if you can't grow the
orchids of North America, you could take photos. It is
legal, it provides an excuse to head out of town on
weekends, and it provides great prospects to exercise
the Sin of Pride. What fun! It doesn't really accomplish
very much, however. With a checklist to mark off, it has
much the same character as Audubon Society birding.
With sets of pictures to gloat over, it is not very
different from stamp or coin collecting. One thing that

210
does not result is much progress in tough conservation
matters. Yes, some good has resulted, but mostly a lot
of rationalizations.

Meanwhile, the academic world went off on

other tangents. Fearful of fighting powerful vested
interests, many academics have found safety in
deconstructionism, political correctness, faculty politics,
computers and ivory tower labs emphasizing esoteric
techniques. While government agencies were taking on
increasing responsibilities for the environment, non-
govermental organizations (NGO's) were battling the
interests and rallying a growing popular interest. Much
of the academic world retreated into environmental
irrelevancy, blocking funds and energies for field
biology, demanding students work on which fad is
current, and above all, praying that Congress will not
succeed in its growing mood of choking off all research
unless it serves either immediate military or industrial
needs.

We do not know what pollinates most of our

orchids. We don't know much about the life-cycles of
the pollinators. We know far to little about mycorrhizae,
although Larry Zettler and a few other lonely souls are
doing what they can. We can't even keep Polyrhiza
seedlings alive very long in a greenhouse, once they are
cyeflasked. We don't know why. Why have some once
common orchids all but disappeared? No one knows,
few are trying to find out. Anyone who knows anything
about systems knows that the various rates of activity
are crucial. And that priorities must be set accordingly.

211
Is this being done? Not much. If it can't be refuted, at
least in theory, it isn't science. If it contribute to better
understanding, it really isn't science. To know what little
we do know about any of our orchids, we have to look
at everything recorded under all of its names, not just
the one that is correct under the current code. To know
anything about it, we have b look at all of the closely
allied taxa. So how much does nomenclatural tidying up
matter? How much do arguments about what is a
species or genus (mystical fantasies left over from
Aristotle) matter? How much does it really matter just
where we set the boundaries of taxa? People babble
that we will just put it all on a computer. We have been
looking at the cost of that. Millions of dollars and many
years of work. Both the National Science Foundation
and American Orchid Society have rejected paying for
such. Conservation is urgent.

What will come in 20 years will be too late. I am

speaking of Florida, but obviously matters are equally
urgent elsewhere. I became interested in orchids
through growing a couple of plants while in grade
school. My first real job was after high school hours
plus weekends in an orchid nursery. While in school, I
read Julian Huxley's Evolution: The Modern Synthesis
and Ledyard Stebbins' Variation and Evolution in
Plants. I knew very little about orchids, but I could see
that something was wrong. Facts about orchids did not
always line up with the evolutionary ideas stated in these
books. I decided to find out why. Half a century later, i
see even more conflicts between biological theories and
orchid realities. But I still haven't figured out all the

212
reasons. Douglas Gill's points about deception flowers,
for example, raise major issues.

I studied Botany, worked in nurseries, did plant

indentification's, taught classes, did landscaping, became
an AOS judge, did various things, and kept looking at
orchids, in Florida, and elsewhere. The growing
conservation crisis led the AOS, in 1989, to urge each of
its affiliates to set up a conservation committee. The
well known murder writer Karen Wilson was then the
President of the Florida West Coast Orchid Society and
did dreadful things to push into heading such a group. I
told her to kill people, using a certain orchid. In Circle of
Wolves she wiped out most of the retirees in the St.
Petersburg area, using this. Do NOT ask for details,
which are based on a scientific paper. Anyway, we
became The Orchid Conservation Committee, a not-
for-profit corporation, and have achieved a great deal
for a small group. It can be done. Meanwhile I became
Curator of the Orchid Identification Center files at the
Marie Selby Botanical Gardens. We have now become
a major center for pulling together the immensities of
orchid knowledge. We have major projects on several
continents and are more and more turned to, even by
larger institutions, for various kinds of help.

This is Florida and the rules are different here.

Along with quite an interesting group of friends, I am
out doing things that will matter as time goes by. We
are studying orchid populations, ecologies, working with
other organizations all over Florida and far beyond. We
meet at 6 AM, drive long distances, dodge snakes,

213
wasps, and alligators, fall in holes while wading, and
collapse in bed at 10 PM after a hot shower. We're
having more fun than anybody else. We are making
some things happen. The rules are different here,
because we are rewriting them, to do what we think
needs doing.

This is Florida. Welcome to one of the most

dangerous, troubled place, where needs are urgent.

John Beckner,
John was the keynote speaker for the 4th Annual North
American Native Orchid Conference in Tampa, Florida on
April 10 & 11, 1999.

214
CLASSIFICATION, THEORY AND PRACTICE

Robert L. Dressler

Classification must be one of the oldest human

activities. One imagines that the early cave-dwellers
managed to communicate ideas such as "that fruit is
good," "that animal bites," or "that snake is poisonous."
Even today, the few remaining "primitive" cultures that
live in close contact with nature are able to
communicate very effectively about the flora and fauna
of their area, and especially about those species that they
use in any way. In Papua New Guinea, tribesmen name
most of the same bird species that ornithologists
recognize, though they may sometimes "lump" under
one name a pair of small, insignificant birds that are of
little interest as food, even though the better woodsmen
know that they are really different kinds.

There may be many kinds of classification.

Writers of field guides may group plants according to
their flower color. A landscape architect might class
plants according to their size and the texture of their
foliage. Each of these is a special-purpose classification
that might be quite useless for a different purpose. I
will discuss primarily the phylogenetic classification that
biologists favor, and I will try to convince you that such
a classification has many advantages as a general-
purpose system.

215
 One of the first attempts to offer a written
system of classification was that of Aristotle. The
Greek philosophers were not fond of going into the
field and getting their sandals dirty. For them,
classification was a mental activity that could be done at
home, with a minimum of actual observation.

Later works on classification were written to

show the goodness of God, who created a world of
diversity for the use and convenience of man. Such
books said very little about ugly parasites, such as
Guinea worms, that surely must have been designed in a
different department. Later studies were justified as
attempts to understand God's plan. One is reminded of
the story of the priests who visited Huxley. One of
them asked, "what do your studies tell you about God?"
Huxley is said to have replied, "He has an extraordinary
fondness for small beetles."

Of course, the earlier pre-Darwinian

classifications were not avowedly phylogenetic, yet the
idea of "natural" groups and "artificial" groups
developed among classifiers, ideas that would seem
meaningless except with reference to phylogeny. Pre-
Darwinian writers did sometimes hint at something like
evolution or phylogeny. Erasmus Darwin, the
grandfather of Charles Darwin, was one such writer.
Later, Wallace noted that the most similar species did
not occur together, nor were they scattered at random;
rather they occurred in neighboring areas. It is clear
that the time was ripe for the idea of evolution when

216
Wallace and Darwin presented their idea of natural
selection. Though the time was ripe, the idea of natural
selection was not well received by the public. Had
Darwin or Wallace offered a scheme in which each
species consciously fought to ascend the "scale of
nature," the idea might have been much more popular.
The public felt that "natural selection" was much too
mechanical and rather soulless.

By now, it is clear that the world has existed for

many millions of years, and that there have been
enormous changes, changes that would have been quite
inconceivable to any biblical prophet. The concept of
natural selection has been quite generally accepted by
biologists. Interestingly enough, though, the
introduction and spread of this concept had little effect
on the practice of classification. Systematists continued
to work with no particular theory (or many conflicting
theories), and the practice continued to be about as
intuitive and idiosyncratic as it had been before Darwin
and Wallace.

Some principals of traditional systematics

Before discussing the "revolution" that
systematics has experienced in the last few decades, I
will present some general ideas that developed through
time, some of them still quite valid.
First, one must admit that there are good
taxonomists, mediocre taxonomists and bad ones (as in
all activities, I am sure). It's probably safest not to
mention the names of any living taxonomists in this

217
respect. Perhaps the ideal example for my purpose is F.
Kränzlin, who died years ago. He published a revision
of the genus Telipogon, a group that is very distinctive
and easy to recognize. Yet, in that revision, he
published, as a Telipogon, a species that is now
recognized as a Dimerandra. How this could happen, I
am not sure. On another occasion he published
Macradenia mexicana. The flowers on which he based
that name were actually a species of Cranichis. A list of
Kränzlin's "misfiring in generic target practice" is given
by Garay & Romero-González (1998). We have had
great problems with the genus Oncidium, and many of
these problems are due to a revision published by
Kränzlin. Kränzlin cited Oncidium ornithorrhynchum from
Costa Rica, and the species may well occur in Costa
Rica, though I have seen no material collected in the
wild. The Costa Rican specimen that Kränzlin labelled
as O. ornithorrhynchum is actually what we are used to
calling O. obryzatum. Unfortunately, Reichenbach, who
described O. obryzatum, had earlier described the same
species as O. klotzschianum. I much prefer O. obryzatum,
but according to the rules of nomenclature, we must use
O. klotzschianum. The point here is that many of the
name changes that so enrage gardeners and orchidists,
are simply not our fault. They are due to sloppy work
done in the past.

Defined classes -
The early philosophers felt that classes were
defined groups. Indeed, some feel that the biological
entities we "classify" are not classes at all. Certainly

218
 biological groups are exceedingly difficult to define,
with variation, mutation and developmental quirks all
working to falsify any clear definition. One of the
Greek philosophers defined man as a featherless
biped, then another brought in a plucked chicken and
said "this is man."

Philosophical types -
The Greek philosophers felt that each class is
represented by an idealized "type," with the actual
members of the class approaching the type in greater or
lesser degree. One assumes that the idealized "type" of
dog is somehow more noble and doglike than any
ordinary cur. This idea has little relevance to modern
biology, but some of the ideas of "typology" persist and
are hard to eradicate.

When biologists decided to select a single

specimen as the "name-bearing specimen" for each
species, the word "type" was, unfortunately, chosen,
thus leading to confusion between "name-bearing
specimen" and the philosophical "Typus." The type
specimen is a sort of nomenclatural landmark. There is
no reason for it to be in any way "typical" of the species,
and it may be quite atypical, often simply the first
specimen recognized as being a distinct species. In
practice, species should be delimited on the basis of all
available material. Once one has delimited the species
of a given group, the type specimens should be
consulted to determine the correct names for the
species.

219
 Single feature classification -
If we can identify a species or a genus by a single
feature, that feature is emphasized as a key character,
but neither species nor genera should be based on
single, isolated features. To do so is almost a guarantee
of an artifical classification. One of the most obviously
artificial classifications is the separation of Laelia and
Cattleya on the number of pollinia. The Mexican Laelias
(the true Laelias, as they include the type species of the
genus) are not very closely allied either to the Brazilian
Laelias or to the Cattleyas, while Laelia section
Cattleyodes is very closely allied to Cattleya. The species
are similar in both plant and flower, and natural
"intergeneric" hybrids occur wherever the two "genera"
grow together. Unfortunately, the horticultural world is
accustomed to using Laelia for the L. purpurata complex,
and will resist any attempt to improve the classification.

While some plants may be identified by using

single features, the classification should be based on the
correlation of as many features as possible.

Fundamental features -
Early systematists wasted a good deal of time and
paper over the issue of fundamental features.
Supposedly, some features are fundamental and can
always be given great weight in classification, while
others have minor importance. Unfortunately, the
feature that seems quite "fundamental" in one group
may vary within species of another group. About all

220
that one can say is that good features are those that
work - when they do work.

Parallelism and convergence -

These patterns are of great interest in biology.
Some recent authors have defined these terms quite
exactly but in a rather trivial way. I try to keep
something close to the traditional meaning, which does
deserve recognition and discussion. I use parallelism for
the independent evolution of a similar feature in two
different groups. When the two groups are only
distantly related, the pattern is usually quite obvious. I
use convergence to indicate those cases where
ecological factors have led to parallelism in several
different features, so that the independent groups may
be quite similar in some features. The superficial
resemblances between some American cacti and some
African Euphorbias are a good case of convergence in
vegetative features. We often find convergence
between different plant groups that are pollinated by the
same class of agents. Moth-pollinated flowers tend to
be white or pale green, fragrant at night and often have
long, slender spurs. Fly-pollinated flowers tend to have
dark, lurid colors and (to our senses) very disagreeable
perfumes. Bird-pollinated flowers tend to lack perfume
and have bright pink, orange or red colors, thick
texture, tubular form, and, in orchids, structure that
guides the bird's beak near the rostellum. Again,
convergence in distantly related groups is easily
recognized as such, but convergence in closely related
groups may lead to an artificial classification.

221
 Primates, like birds, perceive the bright colors of
bird-pollinated flowers, and this syndrome seems to
deceive us more often than others. The genus Hexisea,
as represented by the very similar H. bidentata and H.
imbricata, is vegetatively very similar to Scaphyglottis but
shows the classic hummingbird-pollination syndrome.
Hexisea has been delimited in various ways. Some
authors include all Scaphyglottis-like plants with "sigmoid"
lip and column foot, which makes a very heterogeneous
group, indeed. I earlier tried to restrict Hexisea to the
Scaphyglottis-like plants with orange or red flowers, but
even this is surely an artificial group. The floral details
of Scaphyglottis sigmoidea and S. arctata are quite different
from those of H. bidentata, as are their vegetative
features. It is probable that Hexisea, by whatever
delimitation, is simply an artifical grouping of
Scaphyglottis species that are pollinated by
hummingbirds or have well-developed nectaries at the
base of the flower.

Angraecum is a group of primarily African moth-

pollinated orchids in the Vandeae. "Angraecum"
philipinensis was assigned to this group, but is now
treated as Amesiella philipinensis, a member of the
primarily Asiatic Aeridinae. Similarly, "Angraecum"
falcatum from Japan is now Neofinetia falcata. In each
case, the Asiatic plant crosses more easily with other
Asiatic plants than with Angraecum, and has the same
chromosome number as the other Asiatic plants.

222
 Monophyletic and polyphyletic -
These two concepts are critical in biological
classification. A "natural," or monophyletic group is
one that is derived from a single common ancestor (a
species, that is) and, in modern usage, includes all
descendents of that common ancestor. An "artificial"
or polyphyletic group is one that is derived from two (or
more) ancestral species. The genus Angraecum, then, is
polyphyletic if it includes either A. falcatum or A.
philippinense. The term "clade" is now commonly used
for a monophyletic group, the term may be used for any
size group, from species to family or order. The
contrasting term, "grade" refers to a "group" whose
members are similar in some feature or features but is
not monophyletic. The term "cladistics" is now used
for phylogenetic analysis, and its practitioners are
known as "cladists."

The traditional orchid classifications remind me

of the old story of the elephant and the blind men.
Each blind man touches a different part of the elephant
and confidently asserts that the elephant is very like a
snake, a fan, a tree, a wall or a rope, depending on the
part of the elephant's anatomy he touches.

Lindley used the pollinia as the main basis for his

orchid classification. Pollinia are certainly important in
classification, but there is some parallellism, and the
exagerated use of number, alone, has led to artificial
classifications, as in Laelia, Brachionidium, Broughtonia, and
other genera. Pfitzer argued that some specimens

223
lacked pollinia, and preferred to use leaf vernation as
the main basis of his classification. Still a great many
specimens lack developing leaves, and I have seen a
single plant of Zygopetalum with conduplicate vernation
on one shoot and convolute vernation on another.
Clearly, this is another important feature, but neither of
these features is, by itself, sufficient basis for a system of
orchid classification.

The modern revolutioon

There has been something of a revolution in
systematic biology during the last half century, though it
has been a chaotic and disorderly process. This has
resulted primarily from the efforts of Willi Hennig, a
German biologist who published from about 1935 until
1962. Hennig did most of his work in entomology, and
it is clear that he wished to develop a theory or a
method of classification. He worked largely in isolation
from other biologists and he had an opaque, difficult
style of writing. Hennig's major work has been
translated to both English and Spanish, but the Spanish
edition, published in Argentina, is a much better
translation. It is by no means light reading, bot the
arguments can be followed. Hennig also delighted in
inventing complex new terms. Unfortunately, many of
his early followers had much the same style. There was
much heated disagreement between Hennig's followers
and traditional systematists, often quite futile discussion
in which each side used the same terms with quite
different meanings.

224
 Hennig's greatest contribution was perhaps the
idea that one can determine phylogeny by the analysis of
living species. The most closely allied species will share
most of their features, while more distantly allied
species will share fewer features. Hennig offered several
principals, some of which seem rather obvious in
retrospect.
1. The common ancestors of living species are not
now living.
2. Living groups are not derived from other living
groups, but from common ancestors.
3. Primitive (ancestral) features are of little value in
analysis. Primitive features may indicate something of a
group's ancestry, but they are not dependable in
determining relationships within the group. For this
purpose, only derived features are useful. This
somewhat counterintuitive idea may be clarified by
figure 1.

Primitive and derived are clearly relative terms,

and the "polarity" of different character states is clearly
critical in phylogenetic analysis. Various ways have
been suggested for determining this polarity, but the
only technique that has survived critical consideration is
"outgroup comparison." Ideally, one compares the
study group with its sister group, or with several
possible sister groups (since the sister group may not be
known until after the analysis). If, as in figure 2, one
character state is found in all (or most) of the possible
sister groups, this state is the probable primitive
condition, with different derived states in each group.

225
 4. Speciation is thought to be dichotomous. That is,
when speciation occurs, the ancestral species disappears
and is replaced by two daughter species. This idea
probably met with greater opposition from traditional
systematists than any other aspect of Hennig's ideas. It
must be emphasized, though, that this is not a theory of
speciation, but an assumption that makes analysis and
the drawing of diagrams much easier. In a study near
the species level with widespread and long-lived species
and many peripheral derivatives, the rigid assumption of
dichotomy might distort biological reality, but at generic
and higher levels, this may not be a problem.
5. Two groups that share a common ancestor should
form a single group, though it may have subgroups.
Thus, common ancestors are included in the groups
derived from them. In the analysis of extant groups,
this usually means that quite hypothetical ancestral
species are included in the groups derived from them.
Nonetheless, this principal may have quite practical
applications. For years paleontologists tried to draw the
line between the "mammal-like reptiles" and the
mammals, but the mammals appeared to be polyphyletic
by every definition. Now we realize that the "mammal-
like reptiles" might better be considered "reptile-like
mammals," and both groups are easily distinguished
back to their origins.
5. Parsimony - Hennig said little about parsimony,
simply accepting it as a basic, scientific principal. Later
cladists have emphasized parsimony as an essential part
of phylogenetic analysis.

226
 It is clear that cladists try to construct a
hierarchical system of classification that reflects
phylogeny as closely as possible. For small groups, one
may do analysis with pencil and paper, but this becomes
very difficult with large groups and large suites of
features. Fortunately, several computer programs are
available to analyse the data. In the early days of heated
discussion between cladists and traditional taxonomists,
the traditional taxonomists were accused of being
subjective and quite unscientific (sometimes quite
justifiably). Amusingly enough, the computer programs
designed for cladistic analysis all include some method
for adjusting the results if the researcher feels this
necessary.

Conclusion
I have tried to give you a summary of the
changes that we have seen in the ideas and practice of
classification during my lifetime. Some feel that plants
have all been classified, and there is no need to waste
time with classification in this day and age. Those of us
who go out and look at plants and try to identify them
realize how wrong this idea is. There are still many
plants that have not been classified, and many of the
classifications done in the last two centuries desperately
need to be redone with modern ideas and techniques.
I have mentioned the superiority of phylogenetic
classifications. These are the only classifications that
can give us more information than we put into them.
That is, if the most of the features sampled support a
classification, then we may expect most of the
unsampled features to agree with the classification. If

227
we find a cancer cure in a rare herb, the best place to
look for another source of the substance is in other
species of the same genus - if we are using a
phylogenetic classification.

Literature Cited
Garay, L. A., & G. A. Romero-González. 1988. Schedulae
Orchidum. Harvard Pap. Bot. 3: 53-62.

Robert L. Dressler, 21305 NW 86th Avenue, Micanopy,

Florida 32667
Dr. Dressler is one of the leading orchidists in the world
today and has authored enumerable papers as well as
several books including the Orchids of Costa Rica and

228
 Legends
Figure 1. The phylogeny of a hypothetical group in
which the primitive state of a given feature is
represented as 0. Four other states have evolved
independently within the group. Any one of the derived
states may be taken as evidence of close relationships,
but the persistence of the primitive state is not evidence
of close relationship.

229
Figure 2. Outgroup comparison. In three hypothetical
closely related groups, the state "A" of a given feature is
found in each group, while another, different state (or
states) of the feature is found in each group. One
would conclude that "A" is the ancestral state for the
feature in question.

230
 LOOKING FORWARD

DECEMBER 1999

Orchids of the Pine Barrens of New Jersey

Facts and tips for Cypripedium acaule

White Fairy-slippers in Alberta

A History of the Fakahatchee Strand

Habenaria quinqueseta and Habenaria macroceratitis

and more!!!!!!

231
A REPORT ON THE USE OF FUNGI TO
GERMINATE SEEDS OF
PLATANTHERA INTEGRA,
P. LEUCOPHAEA, SPIRANTHES OVALIS
VAR. EROSTELLATA, AND ENCYCLIA
TAMPENSIS
Lawrence W. Zettler
Introduction

The use of mycorrhizal fungi to germinate

orchid seed (=symbiotic seed germination) has received
growing interest in North America this decade (Zettler,
1996). Although some species have been successfully
propagated in this manner (e.g., Platanthera integrilabia,
Spiranthes magnicamporum), the vast majority of our native
orchids - common and rare alike - continue to persist
without reliable culture methods. For conservation
purposes, the establishment of artificially-grown,
fungus-infected seedlings into
suitable habitats is desirable for long-term orchid
survival (Zettler, 1997).

This paper will briefly discuss the ongoing efforts

directed at using fungi to propagate three terrestrial
orchids (Platanthera integra, P. leucophaea, Spiranthes ovalis
var. erostellata) and one
epiphyte (Encyclia tampensis) from seed.

Platanthera integra (Nuttall) Gray ex Beck

232
 The yellow fringeless-orchid, Platanthera integra, is
listed as threatened in North Carolina, and is in decline
in South Carolina (R. Porcher, The Citadel, pers. com.).
Along the southeastern coastal plain, the species
inhabits wet meadows and pinelands (Luer, 1975) where
it is vulnerable to habitat destruction and collectors (Fig.
1). In 1995, I had the opportunity to collect seed and
root samples of P. integra from North Carolina’s Green
Swamp, after receiving permission from The Nature
Conservancy. The root-like organs of the species
yielded a fungus that appeared to belong to the
anamorphic genus Epulorhiza (Moore, 1987) -- a genus
frequently isolated from southeastern orchids (Currah,
Zettler and McInnis, 1997). Seeds were obtained from
yellowing, mature capsules, dried over desiccant and
stored in darkness at -7 C. Twenty-eight months
following their collection, seeds were inoculated with
the P. integra fungus by two of my students, Jennifer
Sunley and Tonya Wilson Delaney. To determine if P.
integra was capable of utilizing a broad range of fungal
isolates to initiate seed germination, they also inoculated
seeds with a fungus from the orange fringed orchid, P.
ciliaris (L.) Lindley, and a third fungus from the monkey-
face orchid, P. integrilabia (Correll) Luer, both from
Tennessee. Interestingly, all fungi initiated seed
germination within 42 days, but only the P. integrilabia-
derived fungus promoted seedling development to a
leaf-bearing stage (Zettler, Sunley and Delaney, 1999).
Whether the P. integra fungus is capable of sustaining
seedlings at the Green Swamp to a leaf-bearing stage
and beyond is not known; however, the study does
illustrate a need to recover a wider range of fungi from

233
unrelated orchid taxa from distant regions for
conservation purposes.

Platanthera leucophaea (Nuttall) Lindley

A native orchid in serious need of propagation is

the eastern prairie fringed-orchid, Platanthera leucophaea
(Fig. 2). Historical records indicate the species has
declined 70% across the United States as a result of
habitat conversion to agriculture (Bowles, 1999), and
habitat destruction poses the greatest threat to the
remaining populations (M. L. Bowles, The Morton
Arboretum, pers. com.). Unfortunately, most of the
remaining populations contain fewer than 50 plants, and
very few have more than 100 (Bowles, 1999) leading
some to fear that inbreeding depression is accelerating
P. leucophaea’s decline. Compounding matters, many of
the remaining populations are threatened by woody
plant succession through improper site management,
overcollecting, and draining of adjacent wetlands
(Bowles, 1999).

In 1996, I was contacted by Marlin Bowles and

Karel Jacobs of The Morton Arboretum in Lisle,
Illinois, to conduct an intensive, collaborative effort to
propagate P. leucophaea from seed. Upon close
examination, few of P. leucophaea’s seeds appear to
contain viable embryos. From one population, for
example, between 17-25% of the seeds contained
seemingly-viable embryos. This number is considerably
low when compared to seeds of some southeastern
Platanthera species, including the threatened monkey-

234
face orchid, P. integrilabia. Because of this precarious
situation, our efforts are currently directed at obtaining
seed from substantially larger populations where cross
pollinations between unrelated individuals are more
likely. Indeed, preliminary findings suggest that embryo
viability from one such population may exceed 50%,
and efforts are underway to germinate this seed with
fungi. Although this finding seems promising, our data
from previous experiments suggest that P. leucophaea
embryos must overcome one or more dormancy
mechanisms. Recently, my student, Scott L. Stewart,
succeeded in germinating seeds after soaking the seeds
for prolonged (>1 hr) periods in a dilute solution of
household bleach; however, seed germination
percentages were low. We will soon investigate whether
seed germination percentages can be increased by
cold/moist-stratification prior to sowing, as indicated by
preliminary germination studies (Bowles et al. 1998).
Additionally, we will determine if a white light pre-
treatment can be used to increase germination
percentages as observed for P. integrilabia (Zettler and
McInnis, 1994). An attempt will also be made to
isolate fungi from P. leucophaea seedlings that germinate
in the natural habitat using retrievable seed packets
described by Rasmussen and Whigham (1993). Thus
far, mature P. leucophaea plants from populations in
Illinois and Michigan have yielded fungal isolates
tentatively identified as a species of Ceratorhiza, possibly
C. goodyera-repentis (Moore, 1987). Compared to strains
of Epulorhiza, our Ceratorhiza isolates often overgrow
orchid seedlings in vitro, forming dense masses of fungal
mycelium that may or may not prove detrimental to

235
seedling development. We remain optimistic that P.
leucophaea seedlings with a mycotrophic capability will
one day be reintroduced into suitable habitats
throughout the Midwest.

Spiranthes ovalis Lindley var. erostellata Catling

The northern oval ladies’-tresses, Spiranthes ovalis

var. erostellata, is an easily overlooked terrestrial orchid
that inhabits rich, damp forests in shaded humus (Luer,
1975). In central Illinois, the species can be found in
fragmented, large patches of forest between agricultural
fields, but it is seldom seen, even in flower. After
months of searching, my students and I located a single
S. ovalis var. erostellata flowering specimen growing
adjacent to a rotting log in woods just west of Illinois
College.

Upon returning to the site in the fall, all flowers

on the inflorescence had developed capsules, and we
presumed that the flowers were self-pollinated. One
student, Melissa Brooks, decided to attempt seed
germination, and she proceeded to obtain a root sample
for fungal isolations. The roots yielded an unusual
fungus that resembled some strains of Ceratorhiza, but
the fungus remains unidentified. Over 1,000 seeds were
collected from the capsules, and were inoculated with
the fungus in vitro following cold storage.

After 160 days of incubation in darkness, most

(>80%) of the seeds failed to germinate; however, one
of the germinated seeds grew to a substantial size and

236
initiated leaves, suggesting that the fungus was
mycorrhizal with the orchid. Currently, an effort is
underway by University of Illinois - Springfield graduate
student, Andrew Munkacsi, to identify the fungus using
electron microscopy. Additional experiments await our
attention, assuming more plants can be located.

Encyclia tampensis (Lindley) Small

Few studies have been directed at germinating

seeds of epiphytic orchids using fungi because of the
relative ease by which these plants can be propagated on
nutrient media lacking fungi. Nevertheless, all orchids -
epiphytes and terrestrials alike - require fungi in nature
to sustain their life cycles, and this fact alone justifies
the use of fungi to grow epiphytic orchids for
conservation purposes. Consequently, two of my
students, Juliette Burkhead and Jillian Marshall,
attempted to germinate seeds of the commercially-
exploited Florida butterfly orchid, Encyclia tampensis,
using a fungus (Epulorhiza spp.) from the green-fly
orchid, Epidendrum conopseum R. Brown. The fungus was
chosen because of its ability to promote seed
germination and advanced seedling development of E.
conopseum in vitro (Zettler, Delaney and Sunley, 1998).
Seed germination of E. tampensis commenced within 21
days after fungal inoculation, and germination
percentages were high (>99%). After 13 weeks of
incubation, about 2% of the seedlings initiated leaves,
and these seedlings harbored pelotons - fungal
structures indicative of an established symbiosis
between orchid and fungus (Zettler, Burkhead and

237
Marshall, 1999). Curiously, most of the leaf-bearing
seedlings originated from well-spaced seeds within the
Petri dishes. We suspected that the seedlings depleted
the limited fungus/carbohydrate supply thereby limiting
their development. To test this hypothesis, another
experiment was carried out by Jillian Marshall and
Oliver Reid to determine if seedling development could
be enhanced by reducing the number of seeds sown per
dish. Indeed, only 7% of the inoculated seedlings
developed leaves at a high density (200+ seeds per dish)
compared to 74% at a low density (1-10 per dish)
(Marshall, Reid and Zettler, 1999). Based on these
results, epiphytic orchids like E. tampensis may be
candidates for symbiotic techniques, further enhancing
orchid conservation.

Conclusion

The survival of our native orchids in nature will

ultimately depend on the ability of established plants to
spawn seedlings, but this will only result if mycorrhizal
fungi are available for seed germination.

As orchid habitats continue to be destroyed by

humans, the possibility exists that certain types of
mycorrhizal fungi needed by orchids will be lost unless
they too are preserved and utilized in conservation (e.g.,
symbiotic seed germination). Currently, the most
effective means to obtain fungi is to extract them from
living orchid tissues, preferably seedlings, but this
prospect diminishes as orchid numbers continue to
decline (Rasmussen, 1995). Therefore, every attempt

238
should be made to preserve orchids and their native
habitats in order to safeguard mycorrhizal fungi for use
in conservation. Although this paper illustrates progress
being made to propagate four orchid species using
fungi, the vast majority of North American native
orchids await attention.

Acknowledgments

I kindly thank Scott L. Stewart (The Illinois

College) for his helpful critique of this manuscript, and
Paul Martin Brown (Ocala, Florida) for the opportunity
to present this paper at the 4th Annual North American
Native Orchid Conference in Tampa.

Literature Cited

Bowles, M. L. 1999. Eastern prairie fringed orchid

(Platanthera leucophaea) Federal recovery plan.Dept.
of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bowles, M. L., K. Jacobs, L. W. Zettler, and T. Wilson

Delaney. 1998. Seed germination of the federal
threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid
[Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl.]. Illinois
Dept. Natural Resources report.

Currah, R. S., L. W. Zettler, and T. M. McInnis, Jr.

1997. Epulorhiza inquilina sp. nov. from
Platanthera (Orchidaceae) and a key to Epulorhiza
species. Mycotaxon 61: 335-342.

239
Luer, C. A. 1975. The Native Orchids of the United
States and Canada, Excluding Florida. New York
Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

Marshall, J. A., O. B. Reid, and L. W. Zettler. 1999. A

beneficial effect of low seed density on the
development of Encyclia tampensis (Orchidaceae):
First demonstration for an epiphytic orchid.
Assoc. Southeastern Biol. Bull. 46(2): 197 (abstract).

Moore, R. T. 1987. The genera of Rhizoctonia-like

fungi: Ascorhizoctonia, Ceratorhiza gen. nov.,
Epulorhiza gen. nov., Moniliopsis and
Rhizoctonia. Mycotaxon 29: 29-91.

Rasmussen, H. N. 1995. Terrestrial Orchids: From

Seed to Mycotrophic Plant. Cambridge Univ.
Press. Cambridge, UK.

Rasmussen, H. N. and D. F. Whigham. 1993. Seed

ecology of dust seeds in situ: A new study
technique and its application in terrestrial
orchids. Am. J. Bot. 80: 1374-1378.

Zettler, L. W. 1996. Symbiotic seed germination of

terrestrial orchids in North America since 1990 -
a progress report. In: C. Allen [ed.], Proceedings
of the North American Native Orchid Terrestrial
Orchid Propagation and Production Conference,
pp. 43-53. National Arboretum, Washington,
D.C., USA.

240
Zettler, L. W. 1997. Orchid-fungal symbiosis and its
value in conservation. McIlvainea 13(1): 40-45.

Zettler, L. W., J. C. Burkhead, and J. A. Marshall. 1999.

Use of a mycorrhizal fungus from Epidendrum conopseum
to germinate seeds of Encyclia tampensis in vitro.
Lindleyana (in press).

Zettler, L. W., T. Wilson Delaney, and J. A. Sunley.

1998. Seed propagation of the epiphytic green-
fly orchid, Epidendrum conopseum, using its
endophytic fungus. Selbyana 19(2): 249-253.

Zettler, L. W. and T. M. McInnis, Jr. 1994. Light

enhancement of symbiotic seed germination and
development of an endangered terrestrial orchid
(Platanthera integrilabia). Plant Science 102: 133-138.

Zettler, L. W., J. A. Sunley, and T. Wilson Delaney.

1999. Symbiotic micropropagation of the yellow
fringeless-orchid, Platanthera integra, from the
Green Swamp, North Carolina. Assoc.
Southeastern Biol. Bull. 46(2): 258 (abstract).

Lawrence W. Zettler, Ph.D., Department of Biology, The Illinois

College, 1101 West College Avenue, Jacksonville, Illinois
62650-2299 USA. Dr. Zettler teaches botany and
ecology at The Illinois College and directs
undergraduate student research in collaboration with

241
The Morton Arboretum in Lisle, IL where he serves as
a Research Associate. E-mail: lwzettle@hilltop.ic.edu

Fig. 1. The attractive inflorescences of our native

orchids like Platanthera integra’s render these plants easy
targets for collectors, despite the fact that many are
protected by law and rarely survive transplantation.
Photo courtesy of Paul Martin Brown.

Fig. 2. Inflorescences of the eastern prairie fringed

orchid, Platanthera leucophaea --a species threatened with
extinction. Most of the remaining populations contain
fewer than 50 plants. Photo courtesy of Marlin L.
Bowles.

242
243
244
245
246
247
 THE NATIVE ORCHIDS OF
SOUTHERN FLORIDA

Roger L. Hammer

My interests in the native orchids of southern

Florida began when Carlyle Luer’s monumental work,
The Native Orchids of Florida, was published in 1972. It
has taken me over twenty years to track down and
photograph 79 species of orchids in Florida, including
two species new to the flora of North America. This
orchid journey has taken me from the mysterious
Okeefenokee Swamp that straddles the Florida-Georgia
border to Big Pine Key in the lower Florida Keys.
Much of my time, however, was concentrated in Collier
County’s Fakahatchee Swamp, where 46 of Florida’s
native orchids occur. Each trip took me deeper into the
swamp until finally in 1975 I decided to walk the
swamp’s entire 18-mile length, sleeping in a jungle
hammock suspended above the swamp water. Five
days later I struggled up onto the road shoulder of
Interstate 75 and had to hitchhike back to my
Volkswagen van parked along W. J. Janes Memorial
Scenic Drive that bisects a portion of the swamp. After
wading in a swamp for five days, offers of rides were
not soon coming and I couldn’t be choosy when a truck
full of chickens heading for Everglades City stopped to

248
pick me up. I sat on the back of the truck with cages
full of white, squawking chickens and when the driver
dropped me off at the entrance to Janes Drive, I walked
the five miles back to my van, sipping rum and
reminiscing about the thirty species of orchids that I
had seen over the previous five days.

My talk and slide presentation on the native

orchids of southern Florida for the North American
Native Orchid Alliance Conference will cover many of
the native and naturalized orchids found in the southern
half of the state.

Three birds orchid, Triphora trianthophora, occurs

from lower central Florida northward. While not truly a
'South Florida' species, it is included here on the basis
that this conference is being held at the University of
South Florida, which technically lies in central Florida
and within the range of this orchid. Triphora
trianthophora can be quite common in the rich, moist
humus of hardwood forests where it grows as a
saprophyte in association with a fungus. Look for it
around the springs of central and north Florida. A close
relative, least-flowered triphora, Triphora gentianoides, is
much different in its habitat preferences. It occurs most
commonly as a colonial weed in the cultivated yards in
the Kendall-South Miami area of Miami-Dade County.
It is spreading in Florida, however, perhaps in sod, and
has been recently found in southwest Florida.

The common grass-pink, Calopogon tuberosus, is a

common species throughout the eastern U.S. Flowers

249
range from deep rose-pink, to pale pink, to white, and
in the Everglades its flowers can be easily seen
protruding above prairie grasses in March and April.
The plants seen in southern Florida are much larger
than those found farther north and have been referred
to as variety simpsonii by some authors.

Oblong-leaved vanilla, Vanilla phaeantha is a

vining species that has a tendency to send zigzagging
stems high up trees in the Fakahatchee Swamp. It
appears to be restricted to Collier County in Florida but
is also found throughout the West Indies. Large, green
flowers are produced in May, June, and July. It’s much
more familiar relative, common vanilla, V. mexicana,
more widely known as V. planifolia, is naturalized in
southern Florida but is believed to have been
introduced during pre-Columbian times. This is the
vanilla of commerce and it is found as a wild plant in
Florida in Miami-Dade and Collier counties. Green,
ephemeral flowers occur in April and May in Florida.
Yet another species, the worm-vine, V. barbellata, is one
of our showiest native orchids. The plant itself is
nothing more than stout, fleshy, green or orange,
leafless stems, that twine around amongst shrubs in
coastal mangrove-buttonwood associations. In June
and July, large, very fragrant flowers appear. The
flowers sport green sepals and petals with a white lip
fringed with rosy-red. As showy as the blossoms are,
few people have had the pleasure of marveling at their
beauty because they appear at the height of mosquito
season. If you have ever been in the coastal mangroves
of southern Florida in June and July then you will know

250
that in order to talk to someone, you have to throw a
rock through the mosquitoes and yell through the hole!

Mrs. Britton’s shadow witch, Ponthieva brittoniae,

easily ranks as one of our rarest native orchids. I first
had the pleasure of finding a small colony of flowering
plants on Long Pine Key in Everglades National Park in
1979. Then I had the profound pleasure of showing the
plants to Dr. Donovan Correll, who authored the
cherished book, The Native Orchids of North America in
1950. Dr. Correll had never seen this species in the wild
and referred to it as P. racemosa var. brittonae. He later
agreed that it deserved species status. I also was able to
show the flowering plants to two other botanist friends,
George Avery and Chuck McCartney, and since then
Dr. Correll and George Avery have passed away.
Chuck McCartney and I, however, have made almost
yearly excursions into the same area in hope of finding
the species again but all to no avail. The original colony
was lost to a road grader that slightly widened the road
right where the orchids occurred, wiped out in a
national park by heavy equipment. It is not known if
this plant still occurs in Florida but a recent find in
central Florida may well prove to be this elusive species.

A real harbinger of spring in southern Florida is

the spring ladies’-tresses, Spiranthes vernalis, which
flowers as early as February and usually disappears
sometime in April. It is exceptionally common along
mowed road swales and in open prairies of the
Everglades. It is replaced in the same habitat by the
lace-lipped ladies'-tresses, S. laciniata, in June and

251
July. Both species are wide-ranging throughout Florida
and their white, usually spiraling, flowers held on frail
green stems can even be seen from your automobile
while travelling along roads—even Florida’s Turnpike.
A much rarer species, the southern ladies'-tresses, S.
torta, makes its appearance in June in Miami-Dade
County, and is currently known from just a few
locations, including Long Pine Key in Everglades
National Park and in the Key Deer Refuge on Big Pine
Key. The fragrant ladies'-tresses, Spiranthes odorata, is
another white-flowered species, and it prefers wet soils,
often sending its spikes of fragrant flowers right up out
of standing water. It is generally a fall-flowering species
in the Everglades.

Deep in the shady understory of tropical

hardwood forests of Miami-Dade County are occasional
populations of the speckled ladies'-tresses, Cyclopogon
cranichoides. This species flowers in March, and the
insignificant greenish-brown flowers are difficult to find
in the dappled light of the forest. The rosette of
glistening leaves make up for what the flowers lack in
beauty, but if the flowers are viewed through a
handlens, as Dr. Luer suggests, they are indeed quite
attractive. Paul Martin Brown reports finding this plant
as far north as Ocala in Florida (and formerly in
Alachua County). The tall neottia, Cyclopogon elatus
eluded me for a number of years until a botanist friend,
George Gann, found a few plants in a secluded
hardwood forest in southern Miami-Dade County in
1975. One plant flowered to confirm its identity and
the species has not been seen there, or anywhere else in

252
Florida for that matter, since. Prior to Hurricane
Andrew in 1992 a few suspicious plants were found in a
hammock within Everglades National Park but I have
not been able to relocate them since the storm. The
plants looked like they likely could have been C. elatus.

The scarlet ladies'-tresses, Sacoila lanceolata var.

lanceolata is not at all shy. Husky spikes topped with
orange-red flowers adorn Florida’s roadsides from April
into July each year, and large colonies can even be
found along Florida’s Turnpike. Simply driving along
roadways through Hendry County in May will usually be
rewarded by a view of this striking orchid. Occasional
green-flowered plants can also be seen, although there is
some debate regarding the taxonomy of the green-
flowered form. Luer treated it as a separate variety, and
referred to it as Spiranthes lanceolata var. luteoalba and
currently it is known as forma albidaviridis.. Others feel
it may be a distinct species, although it is always found
in or around typical red-flowered plants. The orange-
red and green-flowered plants are both leafless during
anthesis, but deep in the Fakahatchee Swamp is a dark
red-flowered variety that retains its leaves during
anthesis. It is currently referred to as Sacoila lanceolata
var. paludicola. It’s natural historic range is the
Fakahatchee Swamp in Collier County and is regarded
as our only Florida endemic orchid. But orchid
aficionados have introduced it to both Miami-Dade and
Broward counties where populations still exist today.

One may never think to look for flowering

orchids during winter but a real show stopper blooms

253
through Christmas and New Year in southern Florida
each year. The spurred neottia, Eltroplectris calcarata,
seems to be restricted to Miami-Dade County, although
it had been previously known from Highlands County
as well. The Highlands Hammock population is
believed to have been extirpated by wild pigs. Wild pigs
are a distinct threat throughout Florida to wild
terrestrial orchid populations. Eltroplectris calcarata is an
attractive species with snow-white flowers that resemble
birds in flight.

One of the first non-native species to show up in

Florida abetted by man is the lawn orchid, Zeuxine
strateumatica. This Asian species reputedly arrived in
centipede grass seed shipped from China in the early
1930s. It was first reported from Indian River County
in 1936 and, from that date, spread rapidly throughout
Florida, often appearing as a weed in lawns, flower pots,
and greenhouses. The tightly-clustered white flowers
are produced principally in December and January.

The young-palm orchid, Tropidia polystachya, was

first discovered in Brickell Hammock in Miami-Dade
County in 1897 but by the 1930s much of Brickell
Hammock had been razed to make room for lavish bay-
front homes. Tropidia polystachya was reduced to fewer
than 50 plants isolated in a small remnant of Brickell
Hammock close to Biscayne Bay. Over the years the
population dwindled and in the 1970s the City of Miami
placed a nature trail directly through the largest colony
of orchids, further reducing the known population to
several dozen plants. Hurricane Andrew caused

254
considerable damage to the small hammock and
homeless people quickly moved in, chopping down
trees to form makeshift shelters. The constant foot
traffic has now reduced the population to possibly only
three plants. The small clusters of white flowers are
produced principally in October. Without some help
from concerned people, this unassuming little orchid
could be easily extirpated in Florida.

Michaux's orchid, Habenaria quinqueseta, on the

other hand, is common in a wide range of habitats
throughout Florida and can be common on road
shoulders, in open prairies of the Everglades, in shaded
forests, and in swamps, such as the Fakahatchee Swamp
in Collier County. Spindly, white flowers are produced
from January in southern Florida to August in the
northern counties. A close relative, and easily one of
Florida’s rarest orchids, is the false water-spider
orchid, Habenaria distans, known only from Collier
County. It can easily be confused with H. quinqueseta
but the flowers on H. distans are greenish in color and
fewer flowers are produced atop the stem. Another
similar species is the water-spider orchid, Habenaria
repens, which could qualify as one of the most common
terrestrial orchids of the Gulf states. It prefers rather
wet habitats, including roadside ditches, cypress
swamps, bogs, and wet meadows. Each flower spike is
chockfull of small, spindly, greenish-yellow flowers that
are produced throughout the year.

There are moments that linger in our memory

long after they occurred, and finding crimson

255
lepanthopsis, Lepanthopsis melanantha was one of those
moments for me. I had spent five years searching for
this minuscule epiphyte in the deepest recesses of the
Fakahatchee Swamp in Collier County. Luer notes that
it was first discovered in 1931 and 'since that time, it has
been seen again on only relatively few occasions.' He
goes on to state that 'not only is it diminutive and
secretive in its habitat but it is also quite uncommon in
the most inaccessible recesses of the swamp.' So, not
only was I faced with attempting to find a diminutive
and secretive orchid, but also a very rare one at that.
Finally, in July 1976, accompanied by swarms of
mosquitoes in a remote, particularly deep slough next to
a lake in the interior of the swamp, there was a single
plant in flower on a pop-ash tree. Since that date I have
found only four other specimens. Impossibly small,
crimson flowers are held atop frail stems, and these can
appear sporadically throughout the year.

The Florida butterfly orchid, Encyclia tampensis,

was first discovered near Tampa in 1846 and still today
it is considered to be the most common epiphytic
orchid in the state. Globally it is only known from the
Bahaman Archipelago and peninsular Florida, and here
it can be found in virtually every habitat, from
inhospitable mangrove-buttonwood associations,
hardwood forests, and cypress swamps, to even fire-
prone areas such as pinelands and scrub. The plants
superficially resemble a bunch of scallions, but in the
heat and humidity of summer each year, branched
spikes produce small flowers with greenish-brown
sepals and petals with a snow-white lip adorned in the

256
center by pinkish-purple lines. There is considerable
variation in flower color, particularly in the amount of
pinkish-purple on the lip, and scent. Some smell like
honey, while others are more reminiscent of chocolate.

Prosthechea (Encyclia) boothiana var. erythronioides, the

Florida dollar orchid, is still relatively abundant in
remote coastal forests of Miami-Dade and Monroe
counties, although it was historically even more
widespread, especially in the Florida Keys. Wholesale
collecting has taken its toll and, unfortunately for the
orchid (and the collector as well I suppose), plants
brought into cultivation usually only survived a few
years at best. The August and September flowering
season makes admiring and photographing this orchid a
painful experience due to the intolerable swarms of
saltmarsh mosquitoes that typify its habitat. Bloom
spikes are adorned by interesting flowers with a
greenish-brown coloration mottled with reddish-brown
blotches.

The Florida clamshell orchid, Prosthechea

(Encyclia) cochleata var. triandra, is a well-known orchid in
the nursery trade, and well known to native orchid
enthusiasts as well. Over-collecting has taken its toll on
native populations but it is still abundant in swampy
forests of southern Florida, mostly in Everglades
National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and the
Fakahatchee Swamp. Historically it was a commonly
encountered species in the hammocks of Miami-Dade
County and was reported by John Kunkel Small as
being exceptionally prolific in Matheson Hammock.

257
This was an interesting historical account by J. K. Small
because not a single specimen of this orchid occurs in
Matheson Hammock today. A purplish lip is held atop
yellow sepals and petals, and flowers appear mostly in
fall, winter, and spring. Florida’s populations have three
anthers and are self-pollinating.

In the hardwood forests and swamps of southern

Florida is one of our outstanding reed-type
epidendrums, Epidendrum nocturnum, commonly known
as the night-scented orchid. Spindly, but attractive
flowers are produced periodically from July to
December. The sepals and petals are yellow with a
white, three-lobed lip. The center lobe is long and
narrow, while the two side lobes are rounded and wing-
like. A pungent odor, reminiscent of Vick’s Vaporub,
permeates the air around the flowers and attracts sphinx
moths as pollinators.

Found in piney woods and cypress swamps of

southern Florida is the pine-pink, Bletia purpurea. This
terrestrial species can be rather abundant in some areas
but habitat destruction has taken its toll over much of
its historic range. The plants look very similar to
seedling palms and are often overlooked. In winter and
spring, bright pink flowers are held atop tall, wiry stems,
and seed pods are freely produced because the Florida
populations are all self-pollinating.

A rarity among Florida’s orchids, and a species

seen by very few individuals, is Carter’s orchid,
Basiphyllaea corallicola. It is certainly nothing to write

258
home about, although finding such a rare species is
quite an accomplishment. Small, wiry stems emerge
from cracks in the limestone substrate, and these are
topped by insignificant flowers that never fully open.
The lip is pinkish-purple but a hand lens is required to
fully appreciate the flowers. This species was first
discovered by Joel Jackson Carter, who was a guest of
Alvah Augustus Eaton and John Kunkel Small on an
orchid-searching mission to Florida in 1903. Eaton had
been sent to Florida by Oakes Ames who was working
on the first fascicle of his treatment on orchids. Eaton
was so miffed that Carter made the discovery and not
him, that he wrote a letter to Ames explaining that he
probably would have found it had they not changed
their seating arrangements on the horse-drawn wagon.
Regardless of who saw it first, it is only with incredible
luck that any of them noticed frail stems hiding among
the other vegetation. Only a few other chance
discoveries have been made since the early 1900s, the
most recent being about 50 plants found along the edge
of Addison Hammock at the Deering Estate at Cutler in
1991 and a few flowering plants found on Big Pine Key
the same year. It has not been recognized since.

In contrast to Carter’s orchid is the large, robust

cowhorn orchid, Cyrtopodium punctatum, which inhabits
hardwood forests, riverine mangrove-buttonwood
forests, and cypress swamps of the southern tip of
mainland Florida. Although it was one of the most
sought-after orchids by collectors, healthy populations
still survive in remote areas of southernmost Florida.
Very showy spikes of flowers are produced in March,

259
April and May each year which, from a distance,
resemble a swarm of bees hovering above the stout
pseudobulbs. Each flower is creamy-yellow, mottled
with rich, purplish-brown, and each flowering spike may
bear 50 or more flowers. A plant with a dozen or more
spikes in open flower is truly a sight to behold.

Sometime in the 1950s, a Brazilian orchid known

as Cyrtopodium paranaense was brought into cultivation in
Florida and in just a few short years it had begun to
escape cultivation. Today it is well established in at least
one pineland preserve in southwest Miami-Dade
County where it survives frequent fires. It is a terrestrial
species, forming clumps of pseudobulbs among native
pineland understory plants. In spring or early summer,
erect spikes produce bright yellow flowers. This species
is native to Brazil and was erroneously referred to as
Cyrtopodium andersonii by Luer (1972).

It wasn’t until 1976 when Oeceoclades maculata was

first discovered in Florida and that discovery was in
Matheson Hammock in Miami-Dade County. Since
that time, this orchid has swept South Florida like a
storm. It has successfully island-hopped through the
Florida Keys and has become established well into
central Florida. The attractive two-tone green mottled
leaves look superficially like Sansevieria, and the small
creamy-brown flowers are adorned by a white lip with
two parallel pink blotches. This species is native to
both Africa and South America and may have expanded
its range northward as a result of global warming.
Flowers are pollinated by rain and seed pods are readily

260
produced. It prefers the shade of hardwood forests but
also invades tree orchards as well. It is quite ubiquitous
and is probably in Florida to stay.

Two species of Maxillaria are now known from

Florida. The false butterfly orchid, Maxillaria crassifolia,
was first discovered in 1934 and is restricted to Collier
County. It can be found growing epiphytically in the
more remote watery sloughs of the Fakahatchee
Swamp. It is quite scarce and to see one in flower is
even a bit disappointing. A single yellow flower is
produced at the base of the plant, and is usually
completely hidden by leaves that drop from the host
tree and collect on the orchid’s leaves. The flowers
often do not fully open either, adding further frustration
to orchid photographers. A second species was
discovered by the author in 1987 in a deep pop-ash
slough in a seldom-visited area of the Fakahatchee
Swamp. Several large colonies of the densely-flowered
maxillaria, Maxillaria parviflora were found growing on a
single tree and a herbarium specimen was collected by
Dr. Carlyle Luer and deposited at Marie Selby Botanical
Garden. Half of the multi-trunked tree broke off one
year and now it seems the other portion of the tree has
fallen too, so that may have wiped out this species in
Florida. Very small, clustered flowers are produced at
the base of the leading pseudobulb in September or
October. Hopefully, other plants of this species lie
undetected somewhere in the Fakahatchee. One can
only hope at this point.

261
 The spider orchid, Brassia caudata, is believed to
be extirpated in Florida. It was only first discovered in
1915 and greedy collectors ravaged the few known
populations. A few plants were moved into Everglades
National Park by Dr. Frank Craighead in an effort to
protect the species. The last known plant died in a
hammock on Long Pine Key during the severe freeze of
1977 that brought snow and 17 degree temperatures to
Miami. Large, mottled, spindly, spider-like flowers
emerge in May and June but very few persons have had
the privilege to see this orchid in the wild in Florida.
Our only hope may be that it will get reintroduced to
Florida from the tropics or that there is some
undiscovered population tucked away in some hidden
spot in Everglades National Park.

The most spectacular orchid in Florida may very well

be the mule-ear orchid, Oncidium undulatum. At least it
would get my vote. Huge leaves, which do indeed look
like a mule’s ear, may reach four feet long. Huge
clusters of these plants are truly a sight when seen in its
native coastal habitat, even when not in flower. In May,
if you can possibly stand walking the necessary mile or
two to get through vining entanglements of barbwire
cactus, thickets of poisonous manchineel, Hippomane
mancinella, sweltering heat, stifling humidity, and the
densest swarms of saltmarsh mosquitoes you’ve ever
experienced, then you will be rewarded with one of
nature’s most inspiring sights... flowering mule-ear
orchids. Flower spikes that sometimes reach five feet or
more tower above the huge leaves and each flower spike
produces dozens of flowers. Each flower is a rich,

262
golden mustard color, heavily blotched with deep
reddish-brown, and the lip, sepals, and petals all have
undulating margins. The flowers resemble those of
members of the Malpighia Family, Malpighiaceae, and it is
believed that they mimic these flowers to attract
pollinators.

The leafless orchids in Florida are among nature’s

oddities. The leafless harrisella, Harrisella porrecta, is
nothing more than a small mass of entangled, wiry roots
that cling to small twigs of trees and shrubs. I have
found them on citrus trees in old abandoned groves of
central Florida, and on moss-covered stems of
tallowwood, Ximenia americana, along tramroads in the
Fakahatchee Swamp. Very small green flowers are
produced in late summer and fall, followed by tiny
seedpods.

The Fakahatchee Swamp is the place to find the

other two leafless species as well. The ribbon or thick-
spurred-orchis, Campylocentrum pachyrrhizum produces
flattened roots with orange growing tips seeking
nutrients from the host tree. In August, as many as a
half-dozen flower spikes emerge from the center of the
plant, and these each produce two tight rows of small
pink-and-orange flowers. Fruit resemble miniature
stalks of bananas.

But if an orchid judge had to give a “Best of

Show” for Florida’s native orchids, I would be
disappointed if the award went to any other species than
the ghost orchid, Polyradicion lindenii. When in flower,

263
the ghost orchid is truly a showstopper. A single (rarely
double) flower emerges, principally in July, from the
center of the plant’s roots that radiate outward like
spokes on a wheel. The roots are flecked with white
and have green growing tips. The flower is snow-white
and is best described as looking like an albino frog
leaping skyward. Perhaps Dr. Carlyle Luer said it best
when he wrote 'Should one be lucky enough to see a
flower, all else will seem eclipsed. There, caught
hovering in mid-air, will be a fantastic, fairy-like ghost
frozen in flight.'
Roger Hammer, 17360 Avocado Drive, Homestead, Florida 33030. E-mail:
rlhammer@earthlink.net
Roger is a well-recognized authority on the orchids of southern Florida and is
the author of numerous articles on the subject as well as the recipient of
several regional awards for his conservation and education efforts.

264
265
 A SPECIAL PLACE

The Slow Empiricist

Many people may not be aware of the existence of

a truly remarkable place that houses a collection of
fabulous glass flowers. Yes, I said glass flowers! They
don't look like they are made of glass, however. They
look like the real thing lying in their display cases. They
are the creation of two men, Leopold Blaschka and his
son, Rudolph. They had the fortunate situation of
being born into a family of artisans in the Bohemian
glass blowing tradition. They also lived in the time
when science was influencing the creation of artistic
work. The result was that these gifted gentlemen would
spend five decades from 1886 to 1916 making these
exquisite reproductions of the flora and the insect
pollinators associated with them from an esoteric
medium that one normally doesn't think of as being
scientifically oriented, namely, glass blowing.

The collection is housed at the Harvard Museum

of Natural History in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is
open to the public and you can easily spend several
hours enjoying the large collection. Adjoining the
museum on the same floor are exhibits of minerals to

266
the right of the rooms housing the glass flowers and
zoological specimens to the left of the flowers. There
are also many other cultural exhibits in the building, so
you may want to plan to spend a day there if you have
more wide-ranging interests than just looking at plant
forms and in particular, orchids.

The University has just acquired tools, glass

samples, lampworking bench and personal artifacts
from the Blaschkas' studio near Dresden, Germany,
which add to a better understanding of the processes
that helped create the flowers. Leopold confessed in
1889 that there was no secret apparatus that squeezed
the molten glass into the flower forms. It took having a
background of several generations in the business and
the talent and passion for the medium to produce these
examples of the best in Bohemian scientific art glass.

The Blaschka family can be traced back to the

15th century as levelers and glassmakers. Bohemia
became known as world center for glasswork by the
18th century. When Leopold and Rudolph entered the
scene a fascination with natural history had swept over
peoples' imagination and occupied much speculation
and activity. The Blaschkas, quite naturally, became
absorbed with these ideas and when the scientific
community asked them to create glass models of marine
life to use in college level studies, they began to develop
ways to reproduce the specimens in glass. Glass was a
much more permanent and satisfactory medium than
the earlier examples made from wax and papier-mache'.
This eventually led into the area of flora. Professor

267
George Lincoln Goodale, founder of the Botanical
Museum at Harvard, wanted life-like examples of the
plant kingdom for teaching botany.

The Harvard collection includes 847 species of

plant life, with over 1,000 models. Many of the models
depict members of the orchid family. Often the
specimens included enlarged segments, alongside the
regular sized complete specimen, that showed in
remarkable, accurate detail specific portions of the
flower. Some had cut-away portions that showed the
inner workings of the plant. Pollinators were often
included with the specimens. All these enhancements
enabled students to get a clearer idea of the plant they
were studying.

To get more information about the collection

such as exhibition hours and cost of entrance, you can
go to the Internet and click on http:
//www.hmnh.harvard.edu/exhibitions/glassflowers
where I got some of the information I included in this
article. For guided tour information call (617) 495 2341.
I could continue to rave about the collection and
information you can garner from visiting the museum
but I would rather urge you to include a real life visit to
the museum if you find yourself within commuting
distance, or if visiting the Boston area, of the collection.
I think it would be well worth your time and effort.
The Slow Empiricist

268
If you have enjoyed The Slow Empiricist's articles
in each issue of the Journal you will soon be able
to have a volume of all of the columns he has
written since 1995. There will be 19 different
articles, many with new illustrations and several
with annotations and updates. This special
publication will be given to NANOA members
who renew their membership prior to November
15, 1999. The volume will be included with the
December Journal mailing. Additional copies can
be purchased for $5.

269
 THOSE LADIES OF KENTUCKY -
SLIPPER TYPES THAT IS

Tom Sampliner

If I were a lady's-slipper orchid, I would not

select as growing mates poison ivy and multiflora rose.
Yet this is exactly what my first view of a small
population of these stately, graceful orchids revealed.
Tucked away in the northern portion of the Daniel
Boone National Forest in Kentucky, these largest of the
yellow lady's-slippers lend their beauty to an otherwise
dark unnoteworthy forest. Perhaps the overall
impression is negative not only because of the extensive
amount of aggressive, invasive species, but also because
of the amount of human debris strewn throughout the
area. However, to meet for the first time such an
impressive orchid in flower as Cypripedium kentuckiense,
such distractions are quickly forgotten.

My journey was southward on Saturday, May 22,

1999. I took along a congenial driving companion with
similar photographic goals in mind. Armed with both
written directions and a hand drawn map by an
acquaintance from the North American Native Orchid
Alliance I was confident I would see the species for the
first time. However, as we reached Columbus, Ohio and
the skies opened up with whatever had not been used to
float Noah's Ark, I was less confident on getting
pictures. The rains came in waves one after the other.

270
Each would require lights as bright as possible and
wipers working at the fastest possible speed. Speaking
of the latter, speed, that became a reduction from
normal interstate travel to that of a small side street.
Even that was unsafe for some, as we saw one of those
unsafe at any speed SUV machines flip at a turn on the
interstate ending upside down with the young lady
driving emerging from the passenger's side door
seemingly unhurt though shaky from the experience.
Not an encouraging beginning for a 600+ mile
roundtrip. Just like the heavy downpours, all of this too
would quickly fade from memory.

A wide though fairly dry stream parallels the

country road harboring the orchid site. Completely dry
creeklet beds meander the opposite side of the road
where the orchids are found. The entire area is forested
bottomland becoming thickly canopied to the creek
embankments. For us Ohioans, a noteworthy tree in
goodly supply was the umbrella magnolia, Magnolia
tripetala. This species, along with it's even larger leaved
cousin, Magnolia macrophylla, only penetrate into the
southern one-third tier of our state. The present species
shows off the name engendering clusters of long dark
green leaves near the ends of flowering branches.
Dimensions of the leaves listed in many authorities are
impressive just on paper; lengths of 7-16 inches and
widths of 4-8 inches. The flowers are white, large and
impressive, though purported to be somewhat foul up
close. Here only a few were in evidence and they were
high up.

271
 Aside from the previously mentioned obnoxious
pests of Toxicodendron radicans and Rosa multiflora, the
most noticeable shrub was spicebush, Lindera benzoin.
Passage through this area was made quite pleasant as
brushing by the spicebush released the fragrance. of
flowering herbs, the ephemerals were mostly past; one
exception was a substantial amount of Canada violet,
Viola canadensis showing off white petals with dark violet
lines and on the reverse a pink-violet combination of
color suffusion.

It was already afternoon and rather late at that.

Even with an early morning start early, 300+ miles one
way calls for a few stops on the way and the route is not
all freeway.

We were hopeful the wind and rain would offer a

lull or two. My shout of exuberance signified to Fred
Wolf that I had found our quarry, and in prime bloom
no less. An immediate visual impression confirmed the
literature about the stature, if not the elegance, of the
plant. Even the wind, the darkness of the weather and
the dense forest canopy did not stop us from
commencing to document the orchids on film. Granted
these would not be great pictures unless the weather
broke. To enable such a window of opportunity, we
leisurely examined the various specimens as well as the
immediate area. Time passed onward drifting into what
must be dubbed early evening [say does that allow me to
now call these beauties "ladies of the evening"?]

272
 Patience was a virtue this day. The wait opened
up a brief but adequate window of calmness and shafts
of light and brightening that gave us hope for some
keepers from the many pictures we had taken this day.

Before giving you my personal trait additions or

observations of what this one and only population of
the Kentucky lady's-slipper I have ever seen, it may be
appropriate to briefly review what some others found.

Alliance member, Carl R. Slaughter, MD. in his Wild

Orchids of Arkansas, 1993, notes this species can rise to
3 feet in height. In his state, it apparently blooms some
2 weeks later than their other two yellow pouch orchids
- southern small yellow lady's-slipper, Cypripedium
parviflorum var. parviflorum and large yellow lady's-
slipper, C. parviflorum var. pubescens. Having just come
down from Ohio, I know this would not be the same in
our case since the latter two varieties were then
quite priime, while the northern small yellow lady's-
slipper, C. parviflorum var. makasin was not yet even
open. Carl also provides helpful complete range
information going from Kentucky in the north then
south through Arkansas to Louisiana, then west in
scattered sites in both Texas & Oklahoma.1
Another alliance member, Philip E. Keenan in his
book, Wild Orchids Across North America, a botanical
travelogue, 1998, provides in one of the appendices
both a habitat and geographical distribution. His
habitat information may prove useful. Phil sets them
1
See NANOJ 2:

273
forth as being wooded floodplains, marshes and seeps.
The site at issue is clearly the first one. His height and
size comments agree with Carl's

In the October. 1985 issue of the American Orchid Society

Bulletin, Dr. John T. Atwood, the Director of the Orchid
Identification Center at Marie Selby Botanical Gardens,
has written a brief article on the range of this species. In
connection therewith, he had planned a treatment of the
yellow slipper complex for the southeastern United
States. He requested loans of any yellow slippers from
herbaria throughout the southeast. He comments that
specimens with labellum pressed laterally were most
useful, as this shows the deep, almost globular labellum
with a much-flattened top. The large dorsal sepal also
shows off well. Bordering states such as mine, are
encouraged to be on the lookout for this handsome
species, as are residents of Indiana, Illinois, Missouri,
West Virginia and Georgia.

After all, we haven't been introduced all that long ago to

this species; see Cypripedium kentuckiense Reed, a new
species of orchid in Kentucky, Phytologia 48:426-8, c.f.
Reed 1981.

I am not a trained botanist nor can I claim that

observations of one population of a species new to me
are meaningful. However, having set forth those
caveats, here goes what I saw.

In dappled light of the canopied forest, once

your eye picks out the plants, a silvery, pubescent, stout

274
stalk standing the earlier mentioned three feet tall calls
attention to itself. In addition, these specimens
manifest a zig-zag stem, most prominent after the first
sheathing leaves and on up to the top of the flowering
stalk. This trait was present even upon the stems of
those plants not blooming. The leaves were immense;
especially the width dimension. Each dark green leaf
was deeply pleated and so broad in appearance each
seemed to be a great weight upon the stem. The overall
impression made by the visible pubescence, stem zig-
zag and broad leaves is the most striking of any other
slipper orchid I have seen.

Turning to the orchid flower, it too creates a

most unique portrait in the dark woods. We already
know the flower size makes it the largest of the yellow
slippers. Atwood gave us commentary on the pouch
oriface. However, I will presume to comment on the
color and patterns. Each flower's oriface rim was lined
with a seemingly manufactured madder color parade of
evenly spaced dots. The pouch interior design was
equally well planned. The veins along the pouch bottom
were also neatly lined with the same pretty dots. For
whatever reason, I did not see any randomly scattered
dots.

Each pouch was a rich creamy white/yellow.

Each also emitted a pleasant fragrance to my inquiring
nose. The lateral petals and the three sepals exhibited
the same combination of lines, blotches, suffusion of
maroon and green that Sheviak describes so well in
Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum. Thus the degree

275
of maroon suffusion varied considerably among the
specimens being examined.

I have concern for this Morehead, Kentucky site

not only due to the human trespass damage, but also
due to obvious evidence of what I observe to be
browse, presumably by white-tail deer. I did not locate
evidence of what I had been told were holes left by
plant pirates. Perhaps this society or even the Kentucky
Native Plant Society can become unofficial stewards for
orchid locations such as this. After all, if we do not act
to preserve our heritage, who will?

Tom Sampliner

276
277
 RECENT TAXONOMIC AND
NOMECLATURAL NOTES FROM
FLORIDA - 3

Paul Martin Brown

ONLY IN FLORIDA!

Of the 230+ taxa of orchids growing in the wild

in North America (north of Mexico) it is not surprising
that those restricted to a single state or province are
found at the far corners of the continent. California has
several species of Piperia that are endemic, Alaska has
several rarities but Cypripedium yatabeanum, Malaxis
diphyllos and Platanthera tipuloides are found only in that
state/province in North America (although all are
found in Asia). Newfoundland now has two different
species of Dactylorhiza that have appeared in recent
decades and have not been found elsewhere on the
continent and are closely akin to similar species in
Europe. Two of the most striking examples are
Platanthera pallida, which is confined to eastern Long
Island in New York State and Spiranthes delitescens,
endemic to southwestern Arizona. Because of their
proximity to Mexico and the Caribbean, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas and Florida also have several species

278
found only in those states in the United States. The
Mexican species of Malaxis, Hexalectris and several
spiranthoide species are found in Texas and the
Southwest.

But, Florida leads the pack with the most species

to be found singularly within a single state or province.
Of the 113+ taxa found in Florida 68 are not to be
found elsewhere in North America north of Mexico. If
we exclude those species that are universally considered
to be introductions or escapes, regardless of their rarity,
60 species remain. Below is a synopsis of those species,
their distribution and status.
Basiphyllaea corallicola (Small) Ames
CARTER'S ORCHID
southeastern Florida; few sites in Dade & Monroe Counties
Bahamas, West Indies

Beloglottis costaricensis (Reichenbach f.) Schlecter

SYN: Spiranthes costaricensis Reichenbach f.
COSTA RICAN LADIES'-TRESSES
South Florida; Dade County
Central America, northern South America

Bletia purpurea (Lambert) de Candolle

PINE-PINK
southern Florida; widespread and often frequent in the southern counties; a
single site in Brevard County (adventive?)
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Brassia caudata (Linnaeus) Lindley

SPIDER ORCHID
south Florida; formerly in Dade County; extirpated?
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Bulbophyllum pachyrhachis (A. Richard) Grisebach

279
 RAT-TAIL ORCHID
South Florida; single site in Collier County; extirpated?
West Indies, Central America, South America

Calopogon tuberosus (Linnaeus) Britton, Sterns & Poggenberg

var. simpsonii (Small) Magrath
SIMPSON'S GRASS-PINK
Southern Florida; found locally abundant in the open marls of the southern
counties; differs from the typical by it much larger size, habitat and very
narrow inrolled leaves.

Campylocentrum pachyrrhizum (Reichenbach f.) Rolfe

CROOKED-SPUR ORCHID
Southern Florida; known only from Collier County
West Indies, northern South America

Cranichis muscosa Swartz

MOSS-LOVING CRANICHIS
Southern Florida; extirpated??
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Cyclopogon cranichoides (Grisebach) Schlecter

SYN. Beadlea cranichoides (Grisebach) Small
Spiranthes cranichoides (Griesebach) Cogniaux
CRANEORCHIS LADIES'-TRESSES
Florida; widespread records, but with few extant sites; north to Alachua
County
Bahamas, West Indies, Central America, South America

Cyclopogon elatus (Swartz) Schlecter

SYN. Beadlea elata (Swartz) Small
Spiranthes elata (Swartz) L.C. Richard
TALL NEOTTIA
southern Florida; very rare; perhaps no longer extant
West Indies, Mexico, Central America, northern South America

Cyrtopodium punctatum (Linnaeus) Lindley

COWHORN ORCHID
South Florida; formerly more abundant, still widespread in the southernmost
counties
Mexico, Central America, West Indies, South America

Eltroplectris calcarata (Swartz) Garay & Sweet

280
SYN: Centrogenium setaceum (Lindley) Schlecter
SPURRED NEOTTIA
South Florida; rare in Dade & (formerly) Highlands Counties
Bahamas, West Indies, northern South America

Encyclia rufa (Lindley) Britton & Millspaugh

REDDISH ENCYCLIA
East central Florida; a single collection by Small (Brevard County) in 1932;
not seen since then

Encyclia tampensis (Lindley) Small

Florida BUTTERFLY ORCHID
Florida; widespread through the peninsula north to Levy and Volusia
Counties; absent from Marion County

Epidendrum amphistomum A. Richard

SYN: E. anceps Jacquin in part
DINGY-FLOWERED EPIDENDRUM
Southern Florida; widespread in the hardwood hammock of the southern
counties
West Indies

Epidendrum blancheanum Urban

SYN: Epidendrum acunae Dressler
MRS. AMES' EPIDENDRUM; RAMOSE ORCHID
Southern Florida; restricted to very few plants in Collier County
Central America; West Indies

Epidendrum conopseum R. Brown var. mexicanum L.O. Williams

BRONZE GREEN-FLY ORCHIS
Central Florida; apparently not uncommon from southern Marion County
southward
Mexico

Epidendrum floridense Hagsater

SYN: Epidendrum difforme Jacquin in part
Neolehmannia difformis (Jacquin) Pabst
FLORIDA UMBELLED EPIDENDRUM
Southern Florida endemic; rare and local in the southernmost counties
Epidendrum nocturnum Jacquin
NIGHT-FRAGRANT EPIDENDRUM
Southern Florida; widespread in the hardwood hammock of southern
Florida

281
West Indies, Central America, northern + central South America

Epidendrum rigidum Jacquin

RIGID EPIDENDRUM
Southern Florida; widespread in the hardwood hammock of southern
Florida
West Indies, Central America, northern + central South America

Epidendrum strobiliferum Swartz

CONE-BEARING EPIDENDRUM
Southern Florida; known only from Collier County; literaature reports from
Monroe & Lee
West Indies, Central America, northern + central South America

Galeandra beyrichii Reichenbach f.

BEYRICH'S GALEANDRA
Southern Florida; rare in Dade County
West Indies, Central America, northern + central South America

Govenia sp.
Florida GOVENIA
South Florida; Dade Country; extirpated??? Unidentifieable species due to
lack of plant material

Habenaria distans Grisebach

FALSE WATER-SPIDER ORCHID
Southern Florida; rare in Collier County formerly? In Highlands and Lee
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Habenaria macroceratitis Willdenow

LONG-HORNED HABENARIA
Rare in central Florida;
Mexico and Central American

282
Polyradicion lindenii
Ghost orchid

283
 Habenaria macroceratitis
long-horned habenaria

284
Habenaria odontopetala Reichenbach f.
SYN: Habenaria strictissima Reichenbach f. var. odontopetala (Reichenbach f.) L.O. Williams
TOOTHED HABENARIA
Widespread through out all be the panhandle of Florida;
Mexico, West Indies, Central America

Harrisella porrecta (Reichenbach f.) Fawcett & Rendle

SYN: Campylocentrum porrectum Reichenbach f.
LEAFLESS HARRISELLA
Widespread in central and southern Florida;
Mexico, Central America, West Indies

Ionopsis utricularioides (Swartz) Lindley

DELICATE IONOPSIS
Southern Florida; Palm Beach County southward
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Lepanthopsis melanantha (Reichenbach f.) Ames

CRIMSON LEPANTHOPSIS
Southern Florida; rare in Collier County
West Indies

Liparis elata Lindley

TALL TWAYBLADE
Southern Florida; rare and local in Collier Co; very rare in Hillsborough and
Hernando Counties;
Mexico

Macradenia lutescens R. Brown

TRINIDAD MACRADENIA
Southern Florida; Dade/Monroe Counties; extirpated??
West Indies, north South America

Maxillaria crassifolia (Lindley) Reichenbach f.

FALSE BUTTERFLY ORCHID
Southern Florida; local in Collier County
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Maxillaria parviflora (Poeppig & Endlicher) Garay

SYN: Maxillaria conferta (Grisebach) C. Schweinfurth ex Leon
DENSELY-FLOWERED MAXILLARIA
Southern Florida; very rare in Collier County

285
West Indies, Mexico, Central America, South America

Mesadenus polyanthus (Reichenbach f.) Schlecter

SYN. Spiranthes polyanthus Reichenbach f.
MANY-FLOWERED LADIES'-TRESSES
Florida; widely scattered in few local sites from Dade to Duval Counties
Mexico, Bahamas, West Indies, Central America

Oncidium floridanum Ames

FLORIDA ONCIDIUM
Southern Florida; local in Dade, Monroe and (formerly?) Collier Counties
BAHAMAS

Oncidium undulatum (Swartz) Salisbury

SYN: Oncidium luridum auct. non Lindley
MULE-EARED ORCHID
Southern Florida; local in Dade, Monroe and (formerly?) Collier Counties
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Pelexia adnata (Swartz) Sprengl

SYN: Spiranthes adnata (Swartz) Bentham ex Fawcett
GLANDULAR LADIES'-TRESSES
Southern Florida; very rare (extirpated??) in Dade County
West Indies, Central America, Mexico, northern South America

Pleurothallis gelida Lindley

FROSTED PLEUROTHALLIS
Southern Florida; local in Collier County
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Platytheles sagreana (A. Richard) Garay

CUBAN GROUND ORCHID
Southern Florida; rare from Higlands County southward

Polyradicion lindenii (Lindley) Garay

SYN: Polyrrhiza lindenii (Lindley) Cogniaux
GHOST ORCHID; FROG ORCHID
Southern Florida; local in southern counties; primarily Collier County
West Indies

Polystachya concreta (Jacquin) Garay & Sweet

SYN: Polystachya flavescens (Lindley) J.J. Small

286
 PALE-FLOWERED POLYSTACHYA
Southern Florida; local in southern counties
West Indies, Central America, northern + central South America

Ponthieva brittoniae Ames

SYN: Ponthieva racemosa (Walter) C. Mohr var. brittonae (Ames) Luer
MRS. BRITTON'S SHADOW-WITCH
Southern Florida; extirpated ??? in Dade County; recent reports from Collier
County need to be verified
BAHAMAS

Prescottia oligantha (Swartz) Lindley

SMALL PRESCOTTIA
Southern Florida; very rare in Dade County
West Indies, Central America, northern + central South America

Prosthechea boothiana (Lindley) W.E. Higgins

var. erythronioides (Small) W.E. Higgins
SYN: Encyclia boothiana (Lindley) Dressler var. erythronioides (Small) Luer
FLORIDA DOLLAR ORCHID
Southern Florida; Dade & Monroe Counties; formerly Collier County
Variety restricted to Florida and perhaps a few of the islands but the species is
widespread in Central America, West Indies

Prosthechea cochleata (Linnaeus) W.E. Higgins

var. triandra (Ames) W.E. Higgins
SYN: Anacheilum cochleatum (Linnaeus) Small var. triandrum (Ames) Saleuda et al.
Encyclia cochleata (Linnaeus) Dressler var. triandra (Ames) Dressler
FLORIDA CLAM-SHELL ORCHID
Southern Florida; widespread in the southern counties
Variety restricted to Florida and perhaps a few of the islands but the species is
widespread in the West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Prosthechea pygmaea (Hooker) W.E. Higgins

SYN: Encyclia pygmaea (Hooker) Dressler
Hormidium pygmaceum (Hooker) Bentham ex Encyclia pygmaea (Hooker)
Dressler
DWARF EPIPENDRUM
Southern Florida; very rare in Collier
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Sacoila lanceolata (Aublet) Garay var. lanceolata

SYN: Spiranthes lanceolata (Aublet) Leon

287
 Spiranthes orchioides (Swartz) A. Richard
Stenorrhynchos lanceolatum (Aublet) Richard ex Sprengel
LEAFLESS BEAKED ORCHID
Florida; widespread throughout the peninsula most common from Orlando
southward
Mexico, Bahamas, West Indies, Central America, South America
Sacoila lanceolata (Aublet) Garay var. paludicola (Luer) Saluda,
Wunderlein et Hansen
SYN: Spiranthes lanceolata (Aublet) Leon var. paludicola Luer
FAHKAHATCHEE BEAKED ORCHID
South Florida; local in Collier County; planted? In Dade and Broward
Counties

Spiranthes amesiana Eaton

AMES' LADIES'-TRESSES
South Florida; single historic collection from Dade County

Spiranthes torta (Thunberg) Garay & Sweet

SYN: Spiranthes tortilis (Swartz) L.C. Richard
SOUTHERN LADIES'-TRESSES
Southern Florida; rare & local in south Florida pinelands
Bahamas, West Indies, Central America

Tolumnia bahamensis (Nash ex Britton & Millspaugh) G.J. Braem

SYN: Oncidium bahamense Nash ex Britton & Millspaugh
FLORIDA'S DANCING LADY
South/central Florida, rare and local near Martin/Palm Beach County line
BAHAMAS

Triphora craigheadii Luer

CRAIGHEAD'S TRIPHORA
Florida; few scattered sites primarily in central Florida

Triphora gentianoides (Swartz) Ames & Schlecter

LEAST FLOWERED TRIPHORA
Southern Florida; widespread and local; some believe that it is adventive
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

288
 Tolumnia bahamensis
Florida's dancing lady

289
Triphora latifolia Luer f.
WIDE-LEAVED TRIPHORA
Central Florida; very rare at only a few locations
West Indies

Triphora rickettii Luer

RICKETT'S TRIPHORA
Florida; if distinct from Triphora yucatenensis Ames restricted to Florida

Tropidia polystachya (Swartz) Ames

MANY-FLOWERED TROPIDIA
Southern Florida; very rare in Dade County; recently refound
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Vanilla barbellata Reichenbach f.

WORM-VINE; LEAFLESS VANILLA
Southern Florida; Dade/Monroe Counties
West Indies

Vanilla dilloniana Correll

DILLON'S VANILLA
Southern Florida; very rare (extirpated??) in Dade County
West Indies

Vanilla mexicana P. Miller

SYN: Vanilla inodora Schiede
SCENTLESS VANILLA
Southern Florida; rare in Martin County; widespread in southern counties
West Indies, Central America, northern South America

Vanilla phaeantha Reichenbach f.

OBLONG-LEAVED VANILLA
Southern Florida; local in Collier/Monroe Counties
West Indies

Paul Martin Brown is the editor of this Journal and a Research

Associate at the University of Florida Herbarium in Gainesville
Florida. He is currently work on a detailed orchid flora of
Florida.

290
 COLOR VARIATION AND
STRUCTURAL ABNORMALITIES IN
CYPRIPEDIUM
PARVIFLORUM VAR. PUBESCENS
Ronald A. Coleman

In mid-July of 1998 I investigated several large

populations of the large yellow lady's-slipper,
Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens in northern New
Mexico. Many flowers were in capsule, and only a few
retained any color to hint at their past glory. I resolved
to return the next year to see them in bloom.
Consequently, as June, 1999 progressed, I waited
impatiently for its end, having determined the previous
year that the last week of June was the best window to
see the yellow lady's-slippers in bloom. I arrived on site
on 26 June, and the timing was impeccable. There were
an estimated 3000 prime blooming plants in three
locations, with at least that number of immature plants
and seedlings. The three locations were different stream
systems separated by about 6 to 10 miles.

Picking which orchid to photograph out of 3000

is a formidable but delightful task. As I studied and

291
measured the flowers, I began to notice extensive color
variation from plant to plant. The typical Cypripedium
parviflorum var. pubescens has a yellow pouch, with yellow
staminode, and tan to rich brown sepals and petals. The
brown color in the sepals and petals is due to pigmented
stripes running their length. The shade and intensity of
the stripes imparts the darker color to the base yellowish
green of the sepals and petals. The stripes are closely
spaced, appearing solid at the apex, but begin to diverge,
and thin to dots near the column. The range of color
here was greater than I have experienced elsewhere, and
some flowers were totally lacking brown pigmentation.
Sepals and petals on those plants varied from a pale
yellow to a pale green. Many shades of color between
the extremes of dark brown and totally lacking brown
pigmentation were scattered about. Some flowers had
just a faint hint of a few lightly colored dots on the
sepals and petals, while others were from 10% to 90%
of the color of the darkest plants. The plants with color
variations were intermixed with fully colored ones, and
were in all three locations. Due to vegetative
propagation, clusters of 10 to 15 plants would have the
same color pattern in the sepals and petals.

The amount of twisting in the petals varied

almost as much as the color, but was not correlated to
the color. Most petals had a corkscrew clockwise twist
when viewed from their tip toward the pouch. The
twisting varied from five complete twists, to only one.
However, a small sample of the flowers had no twists in
the petals, but instead the petals were spread almost flat
except that they had wavy margins.

292
 In contrast to the color of the sepals and petals,
the yellow of the pouch was pretty much the same on
all plants. The red dotting on the pouch varied
however. Most plants had red dots on the inside edge
of the pouch, and few to many red dots on the bottom
of the pouch. Some, but not all, plants had red dots on
the staminode. A few flowers had red dots scattered all
over the front of the pouch.

In addition to color variation, some plants had

varying amounts of structural abnormalities. The most
common abnormality was the presence of two full
sepals instead of the normal synsepal. I have also seen
the mountain lady's-slipper, Cypripedium montanum,
with two sepals instead of a synsepal (Coleman 1995).
Approximately 1% of the total population had two
sepals. One plant with two flowers had a normal
synsepal on the lower flower, and two sepals on the
upper flower. Observed less often was the absence of
one or more petals. Scattered among the many normal
flowers were flowers with only one petal. Equally often
either the right or left petal was missing. At about the
same frequency were flowers without any petals. The
flowers with a single petal were oddly non-symmetrical,
but those without any petals had a sleek symmetry all
their own. Like the color variation, these structural
anomalies were present in about the same percentages
in all three locations studied. These plants were
examined with a 10-power lens, and there was no
evidence of petals being eaten or torn away.

293
 All of these color forms and structural variations
were scattered almost uniformly throughout the three
populations. That type of distribution, along with the
presence on one plant of flowers with and without a
synsepal suggest these variations are genetic within the
population as a whole, and not worthy of recognition as
varieties or forms.

Reference:
Coleman, R. A., 1995. The Wild Orchids of California. Cornell
University Press.

Ron Coleman, 11520 E. Calle del Valle, Tucson, AZ 85749

ronorchid@aol.com
Ron has been a frequent contributor to this Journal as well as the
American Orchid Society Bulletin and Orchids. He is the author of the
aforementioned Wild Orchids of California.

294
YOUR 2000 RENEWAL INFORMATION IS
ENCLOSED WITH THIS JOURNAL.
PLEASE READE IT CAREFULLY AND
RESPOND AS YOU ARE ABLE.

WE HAVE MANY NEW AND EXCITING

THINGS PLANNED FOR THE JOURNAL
FOR 2000 INCLUDING A COMPLETE
LISTING OF ALL OF THE RARE
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES OF ORCHIDS IN NORTH
AMERICA!

YOUR EARLY RENEWAL AND

CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE
ALLIANCE AND THE JOURNAL HELPS US
PLAN FOR THE COMING YEAR.

RENEWALS RECEIVED BY THE 15TH OF

NOVEMBER WILL RECEIVE A FREE
COPY OF THE COLLECTED COLUMNS
OF THE SLOW EMPIRICIST.

295
Plate 1 - Zettler: A Report on Seed Germination

left:
yellow fringeless orchis
Platanthera integra
P.M. Brown

below:
eastern prairie fringed orchis
Platanthera leucophaea
M. Bowles

295
296
 Plate 2 - Empiricist: A Special Place

Two examples of the

glass flowers from the
collection at Harvard
University.

Left:

Habenaria (Platanthera)
psycodes flower

Epidendrum (Encyclia) cochleata showing portions

of enlarged structures

296

297
Plate 3 - Coleman: Variations in Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens

Yellow sepals and petals no petals

red dots on pouch no synsepal

297

298
 Plate 4 - Coleman: Variations in Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens

Normal flower
on right and
no petals on
the one on left

All photos on
Plates 3 & 4 by
Ron Coleman

right petal missing green sepals and petals

299
298