A  common question that we find ourselves asking in the field, or see  others asking the same question on social media. Humans must have  started categorising living things into species well before they moved  out of caves. On encountering a large mammal they would want to know if it was good to eat (a deer perhaps), or likely to eat them (sabre-toothed tiger). As they became more sophisticated they would have had different hunting tactics for different species. With plants it would be necessary to identify which were good to eat, which were  inedible, which made them sick, which were poisonous. Different trees produce timber of varying qualities for different uses; and so on. It was in the 17^th century that Gaspard and Johann Bauhin, Swiss botanists, systemically categorised plants into species, pioneering a binomial of genus and species. This was developed further by Carl Linnaeus in Systema Naturae, first published in 1735 and going through many editions in his lifetime. Linnaeus was consistent and systematic. He identified families and classes of organisms, and placed them in a logical hierarchy. This system is still the bedrock of taxonomy today.

But what defines a species? Looking at it one way, it is that type specimen locked away in a museum somewhere. The usual answer is that a species will only breed with the same species. But you get hybrids, so you need to add `to have reproductive offspring`. Thus mules and ligers are explained away. Add to this, does this breeding refer to natural hybridisation, or forced hybridisation as an experiment? Our experiences of wild orchids tells us that things are not as simple as this, and anyway, how do you explain new species arising over the ages? Evolutionary theory states that organisms have random mutations to their genetic code. If this mutation is lethal then it goes no further, but if it has a beneficial effect, no matter how small, that mutation will over time become part of that species make-up. To me this begs the question `how many of these mutations are required to make the present day representatives a different species to the ancestral population that lacked these mutations?` We can never know unless in some isolated valley a population of the ancestors are found. Which takes me to more usual examples of speciation. Small populations of a species can find themselves isolated from the rest of the population. This may be geographic such as on an island or only growing on mountain tops. It may be temporal, such as in Europe those in southerly climes flower earlier than their northern cousins. It may be, in the case of flowers, that those growing in different areas have different insect pollinators. The main population and the smaller colonies will inevitably diverge, each accumulating different mutations within their own group. But again, at what point can a new species be claimed? Saying that an organism can only reproduce with individuals of the same species falls over when we look at some wild orchids. Some are quite adept at hybridisation between species, and then back-crossing with either parent, but we do accept that the parents are different species.

Another evolutionary mechanism has been used for speciation by orchids; notably the Dactylorhiza genus. Germ cells from one species that have not undergone chromosome reduction in the final stage of meiosis are fertilised by similarly affected cells of those from a different, but closely related species. A rare event, but it has given rise to a good number of representatives from the Dactylorhiza genus growing here in the U.K. and across the world. Are these but hybrids, or are they bone-fida species in their own right, even if they same parental species are involved? I am firmly of the opinion that they are new and different species. They can be identified and differentiated, yet they freely hybridise with each other. I am talking in British terms of the Southern, Northern, Narrow-leaved, Irish, and possibly the Hebridean Marsh Orchids. Clearly though not all orchid experts can agree on this with some still referring to the Southern Marsh Orchid as D. majalis Ssp. integrata and so on. To those they are all one species with many sub-species. While they will have their reasons for this I have my reasons for having them as separate species, and I will ask you to remember my mention of ancestral species. Both Northern and Southern Marsh Orchids have an Early Marsh Orchid and a Common Spotted Orchid as the original parents donating 2n gametes, yielding a 4n polyploid offspring. But the Southern Marsh orchid seems to have arisen in southern Europe during the last interglacial period, while the Northern Marsh Orchid arose most likely somewhere in the U.K. within the last 8-12,000 years. The parent populations were distanced by time and geography, and so different sub-populations of the parents were involved.

However the species and taxonomy thingy is also muddied when new knowledge or thinking comes into play. The Dutch Helleborine (for want of a better name) has been down-graded from species, Epipactis neerlandica, to sub-species, and is now widely considered an eco-type. Prof. Bateman is currently revisising his own classification of Dactylorhiza praetermissa Ssp. schoenophila to a local form or or even eco-type. In my lifetime of orchid interest I have seen the Fragrant Orchid becoming three distinct species, and the Burnt Orchid divided into two sub-species. Species have even jumped genuses. The Frog Orchid has abandoned Coeloglossum in favour of Dactylorhiza, while the Green-winged Orchid has jumped from Orchis to Anacamptis. Have we arrived at the truth or are we just getting closer with the taxonomy of orchids? What do I understand about these breakdowns in species? Here the experts appear to disagree. I see an eco-type as a plant that is as it is because of the environment in which it grows. It is not embedded into it`s DNA, but that made be modified by methylation of certain bases as studied in epigenetics. But we see sub-divisions of species with the same orchids described as sub-species in one book and as varieties in another. Personally I would like to see sub-species status applied to marked differences between populations whenever they appear, variety applied to more locally restricted populations, and form used when there is a notable aberration with an otherwise typical population.

There has to be rules in taxonomy, otherwise we would have chaos. Even so, these only apply to a new species. For identification purposes you can seemingly refer to any pre-existing taxon, make a case and hope that your pronouncement gains acceptance. What you can and cannot do is not fully understood by amateurs and makes me think of a more critical example (* see bottom of page). Thus there is enough difference of opinion on many classifications to confuse the enthusiast who just wants to go out and see as many different species and types as is reasonable. Does precedence in Latin naming really mean something important to me? When I see a Early marsh Orchid I do not muse as to whether D. latifolia is more valid than D. incarnata. These early descriptions were written way back when, and we often see things differently now. The original type specimens will be brown and brittle now, and not much use for deciding what is what anyway. Anyway, these rules are way too complicated for most of us. Prof. Bateman managed to provide an idiots guide to them spread over two lengthy articles in the JHOS recently. The science of taxonomy is fraught with pitfalls, changes, differences of opinion, and is getting much more technical. But see addendum at the end of this article **

Now do not get me wrong here. I do read all the papers I can about the taxonomy of orchids, and even understand much of it. I find them interesting and informative - even if they do demote some of our endemic orchids to pan-European status as sub-species. In that sort of situation I would hope that in some time to come another paper will re-instate them. Perhaps I am a `splitter` more than a `lumper`. I can read these papers and books during the winter months and learn more about orchids and their evolution. But come the summer I want to go out and see orchids. I want to see common types en-masse, or common types in new locations. But, most of all I want to see new types. Note that here I have avoided the word `species`. What I want is a list of all the orchid types of the British Isles and them be able to tick them off one by one. A list of named orchids or orchid types that is independent of taxonomic status, as that is likely to change on a year by year status. Ditch the Latin, defenestrate Linnaeus and go back to good old descriptive English common names. If you are out with your camera and a passerby asks what you are photographing supplying Ophrys apifera var. atrofusca in reply would be uninformative and make you look like supercilious know-all. Replying Brown Bee Orchid would open up the conversation.
One of the drivers for this piece of dialogue was reading about the Baltic system of classification. At first there seemed some logic to it, but on consideration I found it flawed in that an orchid could be raised to species status on appearances alone. This could create more species than envisaged by Deforge. No, you can go appearances (what you observe in the field) to differentiate different taxons, but you cannot create species. Hence you could dispense with the `species` and the rather labile Latin naming. Consequently here is my list of Named Orchids Types of the U.K. and Ireland. Excluded are some previously described variations which are now considered doubtful or extinct.

Named Orchid Notes Abv Lady`s Slipper Orchid   LSO Red Helleborine   RH Sword-leaved Helleborine   SLH White Helleborine   WH Very White Helleborine   VWH Lesser Twayblade   LT Common Twayblade   CT Commom Thrayblade The three leaved variation CTh Short-lipped Twayblade Reported from South Wales SLT Birds-nest Orchid   BNO Pallid Birds-nest Orchid   PBNO Marsh Helleborine   MH White Marsh Helleborine The pure white form WMH Pallid Marsh Helleborine Lacking the pink pigments PMH Broad-leaved Helleborine   BLH Youngs Helleborine Perhaps an eco-type of poor soils contaminated by metals YH Dutch Helleborine Another possible eco-type of dunes (and possibly open situations elsewhere) DuH Green Broad-leaved Helleborine var chlorantha or viridiflora (take your pick), lacking flower pigments GBLH Purple Broad-leaved Helleborine var purpurea, with very deep flower colouring PBLH Rosy or White-leaved Broad-leaved Helleborine var monotropoides or albifolia (again take your pick), lacking chlorophyl RBLH Straw-coloured Broad-leaved Helleborine Lacking both chlorophyll and flower pigmentation SBLH Dark Red Helleborine   DRH Bi-coloured Dark Red Helleborine The `Lempet` variety BDRH Pallid Dark Red Helleborine The very pale coloured variety of Hutton Roof PDRH Violet Helleborine   VH Rosy Violet Helleborine var rosea lacking chlorophyl RVH Narrow-lipped Helleborine   NLH Ignored Narrow-lipped Helleborine possible var neglecta as reported from near Princess Risborough INLH Dune Helleborine   DH Tyne Helleborine   TH Lindisfarne Helleborine   LH Green-flowered Helleborine var phyllanthes GFH Pendulous-flowered Helleborine var pendula PFH Southern Green-flowered Helleborine var vectensis which is not confined to the Isle of Wight SGFH Degenerate Green-flowered Helleborine var degenera DGFH Welsh Green-flowered Helleborine Var cambrensis from Kenfig dunes WGFH Westmoreland Helleborine from Hutton Roof WH Confused Helleborine E. confusa reported from a couple of Scottish locations so little hope of seeing one. CH Ghost Orchid   GO Round-leaved Fen Orchid The East Anglian colonies RLFO Oval-leaved Fen Orchid The Welsh colony RLFO Bog Orchid   BgO Coral Root Orchid    CRO Creeping Lady`s-tresses   CLT Summer Lady`s-tresses Extinct but some did grow in the Garden of the Natural History Museum. Is that still going? SLT Irish Lady`s-tresses   ILT Autumn Lady`s-tresses   ALT Golden Lady`s-tresses A chlorophyll deficient form found in the New Forest GLT Musk Orchid   MuO Man Orchid   MaO Yellow Man orchid Lacks any red colouring YMaO Monkey Orchid   MoO Military Orchid The Suffolk plants - larger and more resembling continental specimens MiO English Military Orchid The Berkshire plants EMiO Lady Orchid   LO White lady Orchid  Lacking flower pigmentation WLO Early Purple Orchid   EPO Early Pink orchid Pink form of above EPiO Early White Orchid White form of above EWO Small White Orchid   SWO Lesser Butterfly Orchid   LBO Greater Butterfly Orchid   GBO Chalk Fragrant Orchid   CFO White Chalk Fragrant Orchid Lacking flower pigmentation WCFO Heath Fragrant Orchid   HFO White Heath Fragrant Orchid Lacking flower pigmentation WHFO Marsh Fragrant   MFO White Marsh Fragrant Orchid Lacking flower pigmentation WMFO Friesian Marsh Fragrant Orchid The form reported from Kenfig which otherwise grows on the Friesian islands FMFO Pink Early Marsh Orchid var incarnata PEMO Purple Early Marsh Orchid Purple flowered form of the above PuEMO White Early Marsh Orchid White form of above WEMO Dune Early Marsh Orchid The red flowering var coccinea DEMO Fen Early Marsh Orchid The ivory flowered var ochroleuca of East Anglian fens FEMO Bloody Early Marsh Orchid The blotched leaved var cruenta BEMO Early Frog Orchid Flowering around May, usually low on flower pigmentation EFO Long-bracted Frog Orchid   LBFO Giant Frog Orchid Early form growing up to 30 cm tall GFO Late Frog Orchid Flowering around July time and often with well pigmented flowers LFO Bullfrog Orchid That 30 cm hyperpigmented specimen at Minera BFO Common Spotted Orchid   CSO White Spotted Orchid Lacking flower pigmentation WSO Cornish Spotted Orchid Small and different shaped flowers CnDO Hebridean Spotted Orchid similar to the above and from the Isles HbSO Scottish Spotted Orchid Small and richly coloured from the Uplands SCSO Irish Spotted Orchid var o`kellyi ISO Reep-red Spotted Orchid var rhodochila DRSO Heath Spotted Orchid   HSO White Heath Spotted Orchid Lacking flower pigmentation WHFO Deep-red Heath Spotted Orchid   DHSO Southern Marsh Orchid   SMO Leopard Marsh Orchid variant of above LMO Fen Southern Marsh Orchid var schoenophilaI from fens from south of a line from the Severn to Humber FSMO Yorkshire Narrow-leaved Marsh Orchid I have split these because over the years experts have deemed some populations sufficiently different from others to award them varietal names. I would like to see all these and judge for myself, I have nothing against Mr Pugsley, but do not see why one orchid is awarded his name when all the other names are descriptive. YNLMO Welsh Narrow-leaved Marsh Orchid WNLMO Scottish Narrow-leaved Marsh Orchid SNLMO Irish Narrow-leaved Marsh Orchid INLMO Hebridean Marsh Orchid Recently demoted from species to something in the spectrum of the above. Hybridisation with Northern Marsh Orchids muddies the waters HMO Lapland Marsh Orchid A more hyperpigmented form but nothing to do with Lappland. So-called because of superficial resemablance to D. lapponica LMO Northern Marsh Orchid   NMO Welsh Marsh Orchid Considered a variety of the above ..... but I am not convinced! WMO White Northern Marsh Orchid   WMNO Dense-flowered Orchid   DFO Early Burnt Orchid   EBO Summer Burnt Orchid   SBO Lizard Orchid   LzO Fork-tongued Lizard Orchid Reported from Bristol area FLzO Loose-flowered Orchid Naruralised at Wakehurst LFO Pyramidal Orchid   PO White Pyramidal Orchid Lacking floral pigments WPO Unlobed Pyramidal Orchid   UPO Red Pyramidal Orchid More deeply coloured, from north and west RPO Green-winged Orchid   GWO Pink Green-winged Orchid The pink coloured ones PGWO White Green-winged Orchid   WGWO Small-flowered Tongue Orchid Does this still occur in the SW? SFTO Greater Tongue Orchid A colony in deepest Essex and naturalised at Wakehurst GTO Fly Orchid   FO Green Fly Orchid Lacks flower pigments GFO Wide-lipped Fly Orchid   WLFO Small-flowered Fly Orchid   SFFO Yellow-bordered Fly Orchid   YBFO Bee Orchid   BO Wasp Orchid trolllii WO Brown Bee Orchid atrofusca BBO Bicoloured Bee Orchid bicolor BiBO Belgian Bee Orchid belgarum but named only from where it was first described! BbBO Welsh Bee Orchid cambrensis but named only from where it was first described! WBO Yellow Bee Orchid chloranatha YBO Oval-petalled Bee Orchid fiburgensis OPBO Late Spider Orchid   LSpO Early Spider Orchid   EspO Yellow Early Spider Orchid flavescens YESpO

`

If you have made it this far you may be wondering if I am serious or just having a bit of a joke. The answer is Yes and No to both. I`ve had my bit of fun with some of the common names; I was tempted to call the Green Fly Orchid the Greenfly Orchid. I just wanted a list of orchids that I could find and photograph. This list can be added to without any taxonomic head-scratching or email fisticuffs between experts and academics. You can add or remove any you like without upsetting anybody. I am happy to receive any additions from any corner. I have added an abbreviation column, but not really certain that this would ever be useful. As it stands there are 134 named Orchid Types listed and that would count as an Orchid Summer if you found them all in one season. Any takers?

Naturally a list is no use for identification purposes. This list has to be used in conjunction with reference materials; as much as reasonably possible. Bear in mind the age of any printed material because this can be out of date even before release date. I would also caution against Google image searches. Too often this throws up a picture of an orchid that is not the same as you searched for, and not all sources can be trusted. And that includes my blog. I am sure I have made some errors over the years and one day I will find time to do a proper review of all the pages. I do not think I will try to list hybrids, but may adopt this classification for my 2021 outings and onwards.

* as for rules just consider the pronouncements made during the Covid-19 outbreak. Few of us were sure whether they were law, rules to be obeyed, guidelines, advice, recommendations or just the opinion of one of the SAGE group whose ideas were not fed up to government.

** since writing this I have received my copy of Britain`s Orchids by Sean Cole and Mike Waller. They have devoted a section outlining what a species is and it`s sub-divisions. It does make sense and I hope that others follow this, though I do have a couple of reservations. Basically they say a species consists of those plants that will breed with other to the exclusion of others, but they do take into consideration fertile cross-species hybrids and isolated colonies where natural cross fertilisation cannot occur. So the waters are still a bit muddy.
Sub-species live in different habitats and have two morphological features marking them as different from the main species. Ideally there should be a proven genetic difference too. Now this allows for the two sub-species of Burnt Orchid, but not the various Early Marsh Orchids. While I will admit that flower colour can be variable, surely the consistent flower colour of the different Early Marsh Orchids should account for something. Personally I will still see these as sub-species, more deservingly than the Burnt Orchids. The latter do have a genetic difference and flower at different times, but the morphological differences are not as obvious. The two sub-species have similar environmental requirements.
Varieties rank one lower, and these show at least one consistent morphological differences and occur in discrete colonies. That the Early Marsh Orchids only fulfill this rule suggests to me that rule may be wrong; but that is my opinion. Yes, it is unscientific to make the rules fit the facts, but sometimes it could be logical to do so. I am thinking back to when the concept of planet was redefined. It seemed to have been done in order to exclude Pluto from the list because there could be countless similar bodies in the further reaches of the solar system and they cannot all be planets can they? I look at it differently. How can you group small rocky Mercury and gas giant Jupiter together and exclude small rocky Pluto?
One step further down or Forms, and these are the oddly different plants that will occur in any colony. Think of the occasional white form, or those lacking chlorophyll. I think at least I can agree on this subdivision. The authors do point out the differences with the scientific naming of these white forms. Names used include alba, albiflora, leucantha and chloranatha. Woe betide the enthusiast who uses the wrong one. So why not use my system and just add `White` before the simple name?
After this there are the eco-types, or should I say presumed eco-types, because nothing is certain yet. I suppose this is where affinty could be used. Let`s just say Dutch Helleborine for instance, and not worry about true status in the naming heirarchy. You`ve seen it so box has been ticked.