Checklist of the orchids of the Crimea (Orchidaceae)

Abstract

A new nomenclature checklist of the Crimean orchids with 49 taxa and 16 hybrids is proposed. Six new taxa are added and ten taxa are excluded from the latest checklist of the Crimean vascular flora published by YENA (2012). In addition, five nomenclature changes are proposed: Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf. subsp. taurica (Fateryga & Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov., Orchis mascula (L.) L. var. wanjkovii (E. Wulff) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov., Anacamptis ×simorrensis (E.G. Camus) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr. nothosubsp. ticinensis (Gsell) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov., ×Dactylocamptis uechtritziana (Hausskn.) B. Bock ex M. Peregrym & Kuzemko nothosubsp. magyarii (Soó) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov., and Orchis ×beyrichii Kern. nothosubsp. mackaensis (Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov. Moreover, a new variety, Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. var. viridis Fateryga & Kreutz var. nov. is described.

Full text

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 407
J. Eur. Orch.
46 (2): 407 - 436. 2014.
Alexander V. Fateryga and Karel C.A.J. Kreutz
Checklist of the orchids of the Crimea (Orchidaceae)
Keywords
Orchidaceae, checklist of species, new nomenclature combinations, hybrids,
flora of the Crimea.
Summary
Fateryga, A.V. & C.A.J. Kreutz (2014): Checklist of the orchids of the Crimea
(Orchidaceae).- J. Eur. Orch. 46 (2): 407-436.
A new nomenclature checklist of the Crimean orchids with 49 taxa and 16
hybrids is proposed. Six new taxa are added and ten taxa are excluded from the
latest checklist of the Crimean vascular flora published by YENA (2012). In
addition, five nomenclature changes are proposed: Epipactis persica (Soó)
Nannf. subsp. taurica (Fateryga & Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat.
nov., Orchis mascula (L.) L. var. wanjkovii (E. Wulff) Fateryga & Kreutz stat.
nov., Anacamptis ×simorrensis (E.G. Camus) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.
Dietr. nothosubsp. ticinensis (Gsell) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov.,
×Dactylocamptis uechtritziana (Hausskn.) B. Bock ex M. Peregrym
& Kuzemko nothosubsp. magyarii (Soó) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat.
nov., and Orchis ×beyrichii Kern. nothosubsp. mackaensis (Kreutz) Fateryga
& Kreutz comb. et stat. nov. Moreover, a new variety, Limodorum abortivum
(L.) Sw. var. viridis Fateryga & Kreutz var. nov. is described.
Zusammenfassung
Fateryga, A.V. & C.A.J. Kreutz (2014): Eine Übersicht der Orchideen der
Krim (Orchidaceae).- J. Eur. Orch. 46 (2): 407-436.
Eine neue nomenklatorische Liste der Orchideen der Krim mit 49 Taxa und 16
Hybriden wird vorgestellt. Sechs Arten sind neu für die Krim. Zehn Taxa, die
noch bei YENA (2012) in seiner Checklist aufgelistet wurden, kommen auf der
Krim nicht vor und wurden gestrichen. Fünf nomenklatorische Änderungen

408 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
werden durchgeführt: Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf. subsp. taurica (Fateryga
& Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov., Orchis mascula (L.) L. var.
wanjkovii (E. Wulff) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov., Anacamptis ×simorrensis
(E.G. Camus) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr. nothosubsp. ticinensis
(Gsell) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov., ×Dactylocamptis uechtritziana
(Hausskn.) B. Bock ex M. Peregrym & Kuzemko nothosubsp. magyarii (Soó)
Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov. und Orchis ×beyrichii Kern.
nothosubsp. mackaensis (Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov.
Schließlich wird eine neue Varietät, Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. var. viridis
Fateryga & Kreutz var. nov. beschrieben.
Резюме
Фатерыга, А.В. & К.А.Й. Кройтц (2014): Чеклист орхидей Крыма
(Orchidaceae).- J. Eur. Orch. 46 (2): 407-436.
Предложен новый номенклатурный чеклист орхидей Крыма,
насчитывающий 49 таксонов и 16 гибридов. По сравнению с последним
чеклистом сосудистой флоры Крыма, опубликованным ЕНОЙ (2012),
добавлено шесть таксонов и исключено десять. Предложено пять
номенклатурных изменений: Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf. subsp. taurica
(Fateryga & Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov., Orchis mascula
(L.) L. var. wanjkovii (E. Wulff) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov., Anacamptis
×simorrensis (E.G. Camus) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr. nothosubsp.
ticinensis (Gsell) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov., ×Dactylocamptis uechtritziana
(Hausskn.) B. Bock ex M. Peregrym & Kuzemko nothosubsp. magyarii (Soó)
Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov. и Orchis ×beyrichii Kern. nothosubsp.
mackaensis (Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat. nov. Кроме того,
описана новая разновидность Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. var. viridis
Fateryga & Kreutz var. nov.
* * *
Introduction
The Crimean Peninsula is situated between 44°23' and 46°19' of northern
latitude and 32°30' and 36°40' of eastern longitude. The distance from the most
northern point of the peninsula to the most southern one is 207 km; that from
east to west is 324 km. The area of the Crimea is about 26,900 km2 (BAGROVA
& al. 2001). The peninsula is divided to two main orographical parts: a large
flat part on the north and mountain part on the south. The Crimean Mountains

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 409
stretch for 180 km from south-west to north-east (from Sevastopol to
Feodosiya) and consist of three main ridges. A total of 47 landscape types can
be recognized in the Crimea; eight belonging to the flat part of the peninsula
and 39 to the mountain one. These landscapes comprise seven major habitat
zones: semi-desert steppe and saline lands, true steppes (mainly tilled),
premontane forest steppes, forests of the northern mountain slopes, mountain
meadows and yayla (= alpine meadow) steppes, forests of the southern
mountain slopes, and submediterranean vegetation of the south coast
(BIODIVERSITY SUPPORT PROGRAM 1999: map 2). According to the latest
review (YENA 2012: 201-204), the vascular flora of the Crimea includes 127
plant families, 760 genera and 2,536 species and subspecies, including 106
endemics, 156 neophytes and 12 extinct taxa.
The history of the study of the Crimean orchids covers more than 200 years.
The first significant floristic contributions to the knowledge of the Crimean
vascular flora (including orchids) were published by such famous botanists as
PALLAS (1795), MARSCHALL VON BIEBERSTEIN (1808), and VON STEVEN (1857)
(YENA 2012: 146-150; HAHN 2012: 9-59). However, the first comprehensive
review of the Crimean orchids which should be noticed specially was
published by WULFF (1930: 77-124). He listed 44 species with two additional
varieties and 10 hybrids; this list was an excellent basis for further
contributions. NEVSKI (1935: 589-730) listed only 38 orchid species in the
Crimean flora, combining several pairs of closely related taxa with each other.
Additional corrections to Wulff’s list were published by PRIVALOVA
& PROKUDIN (1959: 72-80) who added one species, namely Spiranthes spiralis
(L.) Chevall., and excluded two others which had been in their opinion
incorrectly identified. The next important list of the Crimean orchids was
published as an identification key of the vascular plants of the Crimea
(RUBTZOV 1972: 96-103); this also listed 38 orchid species. Four years later
SMOLYANINOVA (1976: 10-59) listed 44 species and 3 additional subspecies of
Orchis mascula (L.) L. In comparison with WULFF (l.c), she also added
Epipactis atrorubens (Hoffm.) Besser and excluded S. spiralis. PROKUDIN
(1987: 405-412) listed 42 orchid species in a key for the vascular flora of
Ukraine. Both RUBTZOV (l.c.) and PROKUDIN (l.c.) did not add any data on new
findings of any taxa but obviously used mainly the data already published by
WULFF (l.c.). The different numbers of species in their lists were only the result
of different opinions regarding the taxonomy of several problematic species. In
SOBKO (1989: 73-177) 42 species of orchids were listed for the Crimean flora.
A further new species for the flora of the Crimea was Neotinea ustulata (L.)
R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase discovered by ALEKSEEV (1993: 101-
102). All data on the Crimean orchids available up to the end of the 20th
century were summarized by GOLUBEV (1996, republished in 2008: 77-78) and

410 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
POPKOVA (2001: 39-53). Their lists were identical and contained in total 47
species. Both lists were synoptic and made without any critical review of
available herbarium material; both lists were therefore similar to the data
provided by SMOLYANINOVA (1976: 10-59) but with N. ustulata and without
Orchis mascula (L.) L. subsp. pinetorum (Boiss. & Kotschy) E.G. Camus
which had been listed in the regional flora since WULFF (1930: 98). Other
subspecies of O. mascula were regarded as separate species.
At the beginning of the 21th century three new orchid species were added to
the flora of the Crimea: Himantoglossum affine (Boiss.) Schltr. (YENA & al.
2008: 472), Epipactis purpurata Smith and Epipactis condensata Boiss. ex
D.P. Young (EFIMOV 2008: 72-77). However, the first was later synonymized
with Himantoglossum caprinum (M. Bieb.) Spreng. (SRAMKÓ & al. 2012: 21-
24; MOLNÁR & al. 2012: 8-10). The record of N. ustulata and the erroneous
record of Orchis signifera Vest = Orchis mascula subsp. speciosa (Mutel)
Hegi, published by SMOLYANINOVA (1976: 44) were not included in the Red
Book of Ukraine (DIDUKH 2009: 203-211) which listed 45 orchid species for
the Crimea. After that, the most recent comprehensive, but still synoptic, list of
the Crimean orchids was published by YENA (2012: 146-150), where a total of
50 species and subspecies were listed. This list was based on GOLUBEV (2008:
77-78) but excluding Orchis mascula (L.) L. subsp. wanjkovii (E. Wulff) Soó
(which was reduced to O. mascula s. str.) and adding S. spiralis, two Epipactis
species listed by EFIMOV (2008: 72-77) and Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf.
The latter species was added to the flora of the Crimea for the first time under
that name although had previously been listed by WULFF (1930: 116) under the
name “Epipactis latifolia (L.) All. var. latifolia f. gracilis Dager.” now
considered conspecific with Epipactis albensis Nováková & Rydlo which does
not grow in the Crimea. Several new floristic findings and taxonomical
opinions (mainly relative to the genus Epipactis) were not included into
Yena’s list because they were published later (FATERYGA & KREUTZ 2012:
201-202; HAHN 2012: 33-37; KREUTZ & FATERYGA 2012: 713-715; FATERYGA
& al. 2013: 652-654; FATERYGA & al. 2014: 24) or related only to the new
variety Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. var. orientalis Kreutz (KREUTZ
2011: 276-278) (Yena’s list was restricted to species and subspecies).
The purpose of the present paper is to revise the list of Crimean orchids
thereby published by YENA (2012: 146-150). In addition all known orchid
hybrids occurring in the Crimea are listed (Yena’s list did not include hybrids).

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 411
Materials and methods
This study was made on the basis of our field observations during the period
2003-2014 and by studying of six herbarium collections in Russia and
Ukraine: the Herbarium of the Crimean Agrotechnological University in
Simferopol (CSAU), the Herbarium of the Nikitskiy Botanical Garden in Yalta
(YALT), the Herbarium of Vernadskiy Taurida National University in
Simferopol (SIMF), the Herbarium of the Karadag Nature Reserve in
Feodosiya (PHEO), the Herbarium of Komarov Botanical Institute of the
Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint-Petersburg (LE), and the National
Herbarium of Ukraine in Kiev (KW). All possible literature sources cited
above were also examined.
The taxa included in the checklist are arranged in alphabetical order. There are
four additional sections after the main checklist.
“Notae” contains comments to several taxa including the names used by YENA
(2012: 146-150), new taxonomical and nomenclatural combinations, and
other information.
“Addenda” contains new taxa added in comparison with the list published by
YENA (l.c.) with their relevant references.
“Excludendae” contains the annotated list of excluded taxa, again in
comparison with the list from YENA (l.c.).
“Hybrids” contains a list of all orchid hybrids listed for the flora of the Crimea
in literature or added by our field observations.
Results
A total of 44 species with five additional infraspecific taxa (two subspecies and
three varieties) are today present in the Crimea.
Anacamptis coriophora (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
Anacamptis morio (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
subsp. caucasica (K. Koch) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr.
Anacamptis palustris (Jacq.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
subsp. elegans (Heuff.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. var. orientalis Kreutz
Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.) Druce
Cephalanthera longifolia (L.) Fritsch
Cephalanthera rubra (L.) Rich.
Coeloglossum viride (L.) Hartm.
Comperia comperiana (Steven) Asch. & Graebn.

412 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Corallorhiza trifida Châtel.
Cypripedium calceolus L.
Dactylorhiza iberica (M. Bieb. ex Willd.) Soó
Dactylorhiza incarnata (L.) Soó
Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) Soó
Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz subsp. levantina Kreutz, Óvári & Shifman
Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz subsp. orbicularis (K. Richt.) E. Klein
Epipactis krymmontana Kreutz, Fateryga & Efimov
Epipactis microphylla (Ehrh.) Sw.
Epipactis muelleri Godfery
Epipactis palustris (L.) Crantz
Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf. subsp. persica
Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf.
subsp. taurica (Fateryga & Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz
Epipactis turcica Kreutz
Epipogium aphyllum Sw.
Goodyera repens (L.) R. Br.
Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br.
Himantoglossum caprinum (M. Bieb.) Spreng.
Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. var. abortivum
Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. var. rubrum H. Sund. ex Kreutz
Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. var. viridis Fateryga & Kreutz
Listera ovata (L.) R. Br.
Neotinea tridentata (Scop.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
Neotinea ustulata (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
Neottia nidus-avis (L.) Rich.
Ophrys apifera Huds.
Ophrys mammosa Desf. subsp. taurica (Aggeenko) Soó
Ophrys oestrifera M. Bieb.
Orchis mascula (L.) L. var. mascula
Orchis mascula (L.) L. var. wanjkovii (E. Wulff) Fateryga & Kreutz
Orchis militaris L. subsp. stevenii (Rchb. f.) B. Baumann & al.
Orchis pallens L.
Orchis provincialis Balb. ex Lam. & DC.
Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl.
Orchis purpurea Huds.
Orchis simia Lam.
Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich.
Platanthera chlorantha (Custer) Rchb.
Steveniella satyrioides (Spreng.) Schltr.
Traunsteinera globosa (L.) Rchb.

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 413
Notae
Anacamptis morio (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase is only
represented by A. morio (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp.
caucasica (K. Koch) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr. This subspecies is
quite variable in its floral morphology (fig. 1-2). Different forms were
obviously incorrectly misidentified for two different taxa, A. morio (L.) R.M.
Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp. morio and A. morio (L.) R.M.
Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp. picta (Loisel.) P. Jacquet & Scappat.
Our observations did not confirm the presence of both taxa in the Crimea. Only
A. morio subsp. caucasica was also listed by HAHN (2012: 26).
Anacamptis palustris (Jacq.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase is only
represented by its subspecies A. palustris (Jacq.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon &
M.W. Chase subsp. elegans (Heuff.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
(fig. 3). Previously it was incorrectly identified for two different taxa,
A. palustris (Jacq.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase and Anacamptis
laxiflora (Lam.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase due to the variability
of its floral morphology. Also only the subspecies A. palustris subsp. elegans
is listed by HAHN (2012: 27).
Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. is only represented by A. pyramidalis (L.)
Rich. var. orientalis Kreutz (KREUTZ 2011: 276-278) (fig. 4). The presence of
the typical variety in the Crimea requires further investigation.
Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) Soó requires further taxonomic investigation.
There are two different forms in the Crimea: a form with white-yellowish and
one with pink or purple flowers. The form with pink or purple flowers occurs
only at the south coast of the Crimea while the white-yellowish form is
additionally present on the northern slopes of the Crimean Mountains and in
their foothills. Both the white-yellowish and pink or purple forms growing at
the south coast (fig. 5-6) differ from the white-yellowish plants growing in
different habitat zones (fig. 7-8) by having somewhat broader leaves (like
those of D. romana (Sebast.) Soó subsp. georgica (Klinge) Soó ex Renz &
Taubenheim) as well slightly larger flowers. However, the length of the spur of
all plants in the Crimea is normal for typical D. romana.
Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf. subsp. taurica (Fateryga & Kreutz) Fateryga
& Kreutz comb. et stat. nov.
Basionym: Epipactis taurica Fateryga & Kreutz, J. Eur. Orch. 44 (1): 201
(2012).
Comments: This subspecies differs from typical E. persica only by a robust
stem, rigid and erect leaves, brighter coloration of the lip, and rarely by a
completely green pedicel (fig. 9-10); other important characters in the floral
morphology are identical. The two taxa grow in different habitats in the

414 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Crimea: E. persica subsp. persica occurs mainly on northern slopes of the
Crimean Mountains, while E. persica subsp. taurica grows on the southern
slopes and foothills.
Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. is represented by the typical variety (fig. 11),
L. abortivum var. rubrum H. Sund. ex Kreutz (HAHN 2012: 41) (fig. 12), and
by a new variety as described below.
Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw. var. viridis Fateryga & Kreutz var. nov.
Diagnosis: As Limodorum abortivum var. abortivum but stem shorter, thinner,
and completely green; inflorescence denser, flowers slightly smaller.
Holotype: Крым, окр. Алушты, близ с. Виноградное, гора Урага, дубовый
лес [Crimea, vicinity of Alushta, near Vinogradnoye village, Mt. Uraga, oak
forest], 29.5.2014, leg. A.V. Fateryga, CSAU, fig. 13. Isotypes (with the same
labels): CSAU (1 sheet) and PHEO (2 sheets). Paratypes: Крым, окр. Ялты,
Мисхор, между трассой Ялта - Севастополь, и нижней станцией канатной
дороги, сосновый лес [Crimea, vicinity of Yalta, Miskhor, between the
highway “Yalta - Sevastopol” and the lower station of the funicular, pine
forest], 28.5.2012, leg. A.V. Fateryga, PHEO (1 sheet); ibid., 28.5.2014, leg.
A.V. Fateryga, CSAU (1 sheet).
Description: Terrestrial plant, erect, 15-40 cm height, with 1-2 stems. Stem
1.5-2.5 mm thick, completely green. Leaves (6-10) bract-like, 2-4.5 × 0.5-0.7
cm, pale-green, much paler than the stem. Inflorescence 2.5-6 cm long and 3.5-
4.5 cm wide, subdense, with 3-12 flowers. Bracts similar to the leaves but
some shorter and narrower, longer than the ovaries. Ovaries 15-20 × 2-2.5 mm,
green. Flowers rather small, perianth spreading. Sepals pale, pinkish-violet,
ovate-lanceolate, 16-18 × 4-5 mm; petals 11-13 × 2.5-3.5 mm, of the same
color with the sepals. Hypochile 5-6 mm long, whitish. Epichile ovate, 11-13 ×
6-7 mm, channeled, sides rolled up and scalloped, violet. Spur 12-14 mm long,
curved at the distal end, purple (fig. 14-17).
Etymology: The epithet “viridis” means “green” and refers to the green color
of the stem and the bract-like leaves.
Habitat: Two-layer oak forest with predomination of Quercus pubescens
Willd. and three-layer pine forests with predomination of Pinus nigra J.F.
Arnold subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe with Q. pubescens in the second
layer.
Altitude: The vertical distribution is 300 to 500 metres above sea level.
Phenology: End of May until beginning of June, after L. abortivum
var. abortivum.
Distribution: Crimean Mountains (south slope of the main ridge between
Alupka and Alushta).
Neotinea ustulata (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp. ustulata
could be regarded as a neophyte. It was discovered only at the end of 20th

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 415
century by ALEKSEEV (1993: 101-102), in spite of extensive botanical
explorations carried out in suitable habitats a long time before. Until now there
is only one known locality where this species grows in the Crimea (fig. 18-19).
Forest reclamation works were carried out at this locality after WW II. These
works provided possibly seed invasion of this species to the Crimea from the
north of Ukraine.
Ophrys mammosa Desf. is only represented by O. mammosa Desf. subsp.
taurica (Aggeenko) Soó (fig. 22-25). The taxonomic isolation of this
subspecies is still problematic.
Ophrys oestrifera M. Bieb. requires further taxonomic investigation. One of its
heterotypic synonyms, Ophrys cornuta Steven is probably a separate species.
In this case, the Crimean form of O. oestrifera could be a separate, possibly
endemic, taxon (cf. DELFORGE 2006: 495). Both taxa differ in flower size and
flowering times: O. cornuta has slightly smaller flowers and flowers later than
O. oestrifera. We did not find any differences in floral morphology between
different populations of O. oestrifera s.l. growing in the Crimea. However,
plants in some Crimean populations flower about 1 to 1.5 months earlier (April
- early May, fig. 20) than in others (late May - early July, fig. 21).
Orchis mascula (L.) L. is represented by the typical variety (fig. 26-27) and a
variety known under the name Orchis mascula (L.) L. subsp. wanjkovii
(E. Wulff) Soó (fig. 28-29).
Orchis mascula (L.) L. var. wanjkovii (E. Wulff) Fateryga & Kreutz stat.
nov.
Basionym: Orchis wanjkovii E. Wulff, Fl. Taurica 1 (3): 97 (1930).
Comments: Plants of both morphotypes (“mascula” and “wanjkovii”) grow
often together within the same habitats. Therefore O. wanjkovii can not be
regarded a separate subspecies from O. mascula. However as “wanjkovii” is
quite different from the typical O. mascula this taxon should be regarded as a
variety.
Orchis militaris L. is only represented by O. militaris L. subsp. stevenii (Rchb.
f.) B. Baumann & al. (fig. 30-33). The typical O. militaris is distributed further
north and is absent in the Crimea.
Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. requires further taxonomic investigation in the
Crimea. There are various problematic forms (fig. 34-35); some of which show
characteristics of P. bifolia (L.) Rich. var. latiflora (Drejer) Kreutz. The typical
P. bifolia is very rare or absent (see also HAHN 2012: 58-59). Other forms can
be probably attributed to P. ×hybrida Brügger (= P. bifolia (L.) Rich. ×
P. chlorantha (Custer) Rchb.) (fig. 36-37). See additional comments on
P. ×hybrida further below.

416 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Addenda
Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz subsp. levantina Kreutz, Óvári & Shifman
(HAHN 2012: 37).
Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz subsp. orbicularis (K. Richt.) E. Klein
(KREUTZ & FATERYGA 2012: 715).
Epipactis krymmontana Kreutz, Fateryga & Efimov (FATERYGA & al. 2014:
24).
Epipactis muelleri Godfery (FATERYGA & al. 2013: 652-654).
Epipactis persica (Soó) Nannf. subsp. taurica (Fateryga & Kreutz) Fateryga
& Kreutz (FATERYGA & KREUTZ 2012: 201). See also “Notae” above.
Epipactis turcica Kreutz (KREUTZ & FATERYGA 2012: 713-714).
Excludendae
Anacamptis fragrans (Pollini) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase =
A. coriophora (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp. fragrans
(Pollini) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase is a misidentification of
A. coriophora subsp. coriophora. This subspecies is quite variable in floral
morphology and its different forms were obviously incorrectly identified for
two different taxa, A. coriophora and A. fragrans.
Anacamptis picta (Loisel.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase = A. morio
(L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp. picta (Loisel.) Jacquet &
Scappat. is a misidentification of A. morio subsp. caucasica. See also “Notae”
for A. morio.
Anacamptis laxiflora (Lam.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase is a
misidentification of A. palustris subsp. elegans. See also “Notae” for
A. palustris.
Dactylorhiza majalis (Rchb.) P.F. Hunt & Summerh. reported from the Crimea
is almost certainly a misidentification of D. incarnata. In particular, most
probably the small form of D. incarnata with broad leaves found by Ch. von
Steven near Alushta (WULFF 1930: 93) was that previously identified as
D. majalis. We did not find the population of the plants referred in Wulff’s
paper and the herbarium specimens collected by Ch. von Steven (LE) could not
be identified without doubt neither as D. incarnata nor as D. majalis. Thus,
there remains a small possibility that D. majalis is present in the Crimea.
However, as this species is distributed mainly much further north-westerly, and

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 417
as we did not find it during many intensive searches in the Crimea, in our view
D. majalis should be regarded as absent in the Crimea.
Epipactis atrorubens (Hoffm.) Besser does not grow in the Crimea. The
reports of this species were almost certainly misidentifications of
E. krymmontana, E. helleborine s.l. and/or E. microphylla. Epipactis
atrorubens is distributed much further north (see also EFIMOV 2008: 73).
Epipactis condensata Boiss. ex D.P. Young was listed by EFIMOV (2008: 72-
76) for several localities in the Crimea. However, most of his reports did not
belong to typical E. condensata; instead, they refer to the new described
species, E. krymmontana (FATERYGA & al. 2014: 24). Only several plants from
one locality in Karadag Mountains could be typical E. condensata; however
they can be also assigned to E. turcica. Further investigation is therefore
required at this site in the Karadag Mountains. Another specimen from Mt.
Lapata (fig. 38) which was previously identified as E. condensata by us
(FATERYGA & al. 2014: 27) was re-studied in flower (fig. 39) and then re-
identified as E. krymmontana. The previous incorrect identification was due to
unusual habit of the plant different from the typical one for E. krymmontana
(fig. 40-41).
Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz. is represented by E. helleborine subsp.
levantina and E. helleborine subsp. orbicularis. We did not find any locality
with typical E. helleborine (L.) Crantz subsp. helleborine in the Crimea. Most
of the Crimean populations belong to E. helleborine subsp. levantina (fig. 42-
45), while E. helleborine subsp. orbicularis is known only from one locality
near Yalta (KREUTZ & FATERYGA 2012: 715).
Epipactis purpurata Smith is a misidentification of E. krymmontana
(FATERYGA & al. 2014: 24).
Orchis signifera Vest = Orchis mascula (L.) L. subsp. speciosa (Mutel) Hegi
refers to typical Orchis mascula (L.) L. subsp. mascula. We checked the
habitats of this taxon, referring to the dried specimens on the herbarium sheets
that were identified as O. signifera. On these sites we only found very
polymorphic specimens of typical O. mascula subsp. mascula.
Spiranthes spiralis (L.) Chevall. is known only by literature. PRIVALOVA
& PROKUDIN (1959: 79-80) refer to a single herbarium specimen collected “in
the Crimean Mountains”. They emphasized that the specimen was identified
without any doubt. However, they also suggested that confusion with labels
could also have been taken place. Because of this and the fact that S. spiralis
has never been confirmed for the Crimea by other botanists, and because we
also were not able to find it during our field observations, we have excluded
this species for the Crimea.

418 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Hybrids
Anacamptis coriophora (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase ×
A. morio (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp. caucasica
(K. Koch) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr. Listed by WULFF (1930: 108)
as Orchis morio L. × O. fragrans Pollini. We did not observe this hybrid.
Anacamptis ×timbali (Velen.) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr.
nothosubsp. reinhardii (Ugr. ex E.G. Camus) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius
& H. Dietr. (Anacamptis coriophora (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.
Chase × A. palustris (Jacq.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp.
elegans (Heuff.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase). Listed by WULFF
(1930: 111) as Orchis laxiflora Lam. × O. fragrans Pollini. We did not observe
this hybrid.
Anacamptis ×simorrensis (E.G. Camus) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr.
nothosubsp. ticinensis (Gsell) Fateryga & Kreutz stat. nov. (Anacamptis
coriophora (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase subsp. coriophora ×
A. pyramidalis (L.) Rich.)
Basionym: ×Anacamptorchis ticinensis Gsell, Boll. Soc. Ticinese Sci. Nat. 43:
74 (1948) (Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. × Orchis coriophora L.).
Comments: The previously proposed name ×Anacamptorchis simorrensis E.G.
Camus nothovar. ticinensis (Gsell) Del Prete & M. Tomaselli is not applied to
the hybrid of A. coriophora subsp. coriophora and A. pyramidalis since
A. coriophora and A. fragrans (one of the parent taxon for A. ×simorrensis)
are regarding as two subspecies (not varieties) of the same species
A. coriophora. This hybrid is new for the flora of the Crimea, it was found for
the first time by I.S. Turbanov in Baydary Valley (fig. 46).
×Dactylocamptis uechtritziana (Hausskn.) B. Bock ex M. Peregrym
& Kuzemko nothosubsp. magyarii (Soó) Fateryga & Kreutz comb. et stat.
nov. (Anacamptis palustris (Jacq.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
subsp. elegans (Heuff.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
× Dactylorhiza incarnata (L.) Soó)
Basionym: Orchis ×magyarii Soó, Bot. Közlem. 1934. 31: 227 (1935) (Orchis
elegans Heuff. × Orchis incarnata L.).
Comments: PEREGRYM & KUZEMKO (2010: 655-662) published the
combination ×D. uechtritziana for the hybrid of A. palustris and D. incarnata,
which had been reported from Ukraine. ×D. uechtritziana nothosubsp.
magyarii is the hybrid with A. palustris subsp. elegans as the first parent
species. This hybrid is new for the flora of the Crimea. It was found for the
first time by I.S. Turbanov in Baydary Valley (fig. 47).

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 419
Neotinea ×dietrichiana (Bogenh.) H. Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H. Dietr.
(Neotinea tridentata (Scop.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase
× N. ustulata (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase). One specimen of
this hybrid (fig. 48) was found by us on Mt. Tyrke Yayla.
Orchis ×haussknechtii M. Schulze (Orchis mascula (L.) L. × O. pallens L.).
Listed by WULFF (1930: 110). We did not observe this hybrid.
Orchis mascula (L.) L. × O. pallens L. × O. provincialis Balb. ex Lam.
& DC. Listed by WULFF (1930: 110). We did not observe this possible triple
hybrid.
Orchis ×penzigiana A. Camus (Orchis mascula (L.) L. × O. provincialis Balb.
ex Lam. & DC.). Listed by WULFF (1930: 110). We observed this hybrid (fig.
49) near Simeiz in vicinity of Yalta.
Orchis ×beyrichii Kern. nothosubsp. mackaensis (Kreutz) Fateryga & Kreutz
comb. et stat. nov. (Orchis militaris L. subsp. stevenii (Rchb. f.) B. Baumann
& al. × O. simia Lam.)
Basionym: Orchis ×mackaensis Kreutz, Orchideeën 51 (3): 72 (1989) (Orchis
simia Lam. × Orchis stevenii Rchb. f.).
Comments: As O. stevenii is regarded as a subspecies of O. militaris,
O. ×mackaensis should be reduced to a nothosubspecies of O. ×beyrichii
(O. militaris × O. simia). This hybrid was listed for the Crimean flora by
WULFF (1930: 109) as O. militaris L. × O. simia Lam. and by HAHN (2012: 54-
55). We found it (fig. 50-51) in the vicinity of Perevalnoye village.
Orchis militaris L. subsp. stevenii (Rchb. f.) B. Baumann & al. × O. purpurea
Huds. Listed by WULFF (1930: 110) as O. militaris L. × O. purpurea Huds. We
did not observe this hybrid.
Orchis ×plessidiaca Renz (Orchis pallens L. × O. provincialis Balb. ex Lam.
& DC.). Listed by WULFF (1930: 110). We did not observe this hybrid.
Orchis ×wulffiana Soó (Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl. × O. purpurea
Huds.). Listed by WULFF (1930: 108), BENGUS & BENGUS (2011: 65) and
HAHN (2012: 56-57). This is a very usual hybrid (fig. 52) which we observed at
several localities.
Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl. × O. purpurea Huds. × O. simia Lam.
Listed by BENGUS & BENGUS (2011: 65) as a probable hybrid with O. militaris
as one of the parent species. We did not observe this hybrid.
Orchis ×calliantha Renz & Taubenheim (Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl.
× O. simia Lam.). Listed by BENGUS & BENGUS (2011: 65). We did not observe
this hybrid.

420 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Orchis ×angusticruris Franch. (Orchis purpurea Huds. × O. simia Lam.).
Listed by WULFF (1930: 109) and BENGUS & BENGUS (2011: 65). This is a very
usual hybrid (fig. 53) which we observed at several localities.
Platanthera ×hybrida Brügger (Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. × P. chlorantha
(Custer) Rchb.). Listed by HAHN (2012: 58-59) as Platanthera sp. This is a
very usual hybrid which we observed at numerous localities (fig. 36-37).
Interestingly, both this hybrid and P. chlorantha can be found in many places
in the Crimea while the typical P. bifolia is very rare. Furthermore, P. bifolia is
in the Crimea represented by many forms, one of which shows characteristics
similar to P. bifolia (L.) Rich. var. latiflora (Drejer) Kreutz. At other places in
the Crimea P. ×hybrida completely replaces P. bifolia and thus it could be
regarded as separate hybridogenous species, P. hybrida. As observed by HAHN
(l.c.), this situation requires further investigation.
Acknowledgements
We thank Sergey Svirin, Pavel Yevseyenkov, Ilya Turbanov (Sevastopol,
Crimea), and Prof. Sergey Ivanov (Vernadskiy Taurida National University,
Simferopol, Crimea) for providing their photos and permission to publish
them. We thank Leslie Lewis (Chepstow, UK) for critically reading through
the text. We also thank Dr. Valentina Fateryga (Karadag Nature Reserve,
Feodosiya, Crimea) as well as Sergey Svirin and Prof. Sergey Ivanov for their
help during the field works.
Bibliography
ALEKSEEV, A.A. (1993): Orchis ustulata (Orchidaceae) - a species new to the
Crimean flora.- Bot. Zhurn. 78(10): 101-102.
BAGROVA, L.A., V.A. BOKOV & N.V. BAGROV (2001): Geografiya Kryma
(Geography of the Crimea).- Lybid. Kiev.
BENGUS, Yu.V. & L.M. BENGUS (2011): Some species and the natural hybrids of
the Orchis genus from environs of the Sevastopol.- In: I.I. SHAMROV (ed.):
Okhrana i kultivirovaniye orkhidey (Protection and cultivation of orchids):
187-194.- KMK Scientific Press Ltd. Moscow.
BIODIVERSITY SUPPORT PROGRAM (1999): Priority-setting in conservation: a new
approach for Crimea.- Biodiversity Support Program. Washington, D.C.
DELFORGE, P. (2006): Orchids of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.-
A&C Black Publishers Ltd. London.
DIDUKH, Ya.P. (ed.) (2009): Chervona knyga Ukrayiny. Roslynny svit (Red book
of Ukraine. Plant kingdom).- Globalkonsalting. Kiev.

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 421
EFIMOV, P.G. (2008): Notes on Epipactis condensata, E. rechingeri and
E. purpurata (Orchidaceae) in the Caucasus and Crimea.- Willdenowia
38(1): 71-80.
FATERYGA, A.V. & C.A.J. KREUTZ (2012): A new Epipactis species from the
Crimea, South Ukraine (Orchidaceae).- J. Eur. Orch. 44(1): 199-206.
FATERYGA, A.V., C.A.J. KREUTZ, V.V. FATERYGA & P.G. EFIMOV (2014):
Epipactis krymmontana (Orchidaceae), a new species endemic to the
Crimean Mountains and notes on the related taxa in the Crimea and
bordering Russian Caucasus.- Phytotaxa 172(1): 22-30.
FATERYGA, V.V., C.A.J. KREUTZ, A.V. FATERYGA & J. REINHARDT (2013):
Epipactis muelleri Godfery (Orchidaceae), a new species for the flora of
Ukraine.- Ukr. Bot. Zhurn. 70(5): 652-654.
GOLUBEV, V.N. (2008 [“1996”]): Biologicheskaya flora Kryma (Biological flora
of the Crimea). 2nd edition.- Nikitskiy Botanical Garden - National
Scientific Center. Yalta.
HAHN, W. (2012): Auf den Spuren von Christian von Steven: Orchideen- und
Bestäuberuntersuchungen im Krimgebirge 2011 und 2012.- Ber. Arbeitskrs.
Heim. Orchid. 29(2): 5-63.
KREUTZ, C.A.J. (2011): Beitrag zur Kenntnis europäischer, mediterraner und
vorderasiatischer Orchideen.- Ber. Arbeitskrs. Heim. Orchid. 28(2): 263-
299.
KREUTZ, C.A.J. & A.V. FATERYGA (2012): Two taxa of the genus Epipactis Zinn
(Orchidaceae) new for the flora of Ukraine.- Ukr. Bot. Zhurn. 69(5): 713-
716.
MARSCHALL VON BIEBERSTEIN, F.A. (1808): Flora taurico-caucasica exhibens
stirpes phanerogamas in Chersoneso taurica et regionibus caucasiscis sponte
crescentes 2.- Typis Academicis. Charkovia [Kharkov].
MOLNÁR, V.A., C.A.J. KREUTZ, M. ÓVÁRI, A.N. SENNIKOV, R.M. BATEMAN,
A. TAKÁCS, L. SOMLYAY & G. SRAMKÓ (2012): Himantoglossum jankae
(Orchidaceae: Orchideae), a new name for a long-misnamed lizard orchid.-
Phytotaxa 73: 8-12.
NEVSKI, S.A. (1935): Orchidaceae Lindl.- In: V.L. KOMAROV (ed.): Flora SSSR
(Flora of the USSR) 4: 589-730.- Academy of Sciences of USSR.
Leningrad.
PALLAS, P.S. (1795): Tableau physique et topographique de la Tauride, tiré du
journal d’un voyage fait en 1794.- Saint-Pétersbourg.
PEREGRYM, M.M. & A.A. KUZEMKO (2010): New infrageneric hybrid in the flora
of Ukraine ×Dactylocamptis uechtritziana (Hausskn.) M. Peregrym et
Kuzemko, comb. nov. (Orchidaceae).- Ukr. Bot. Zhurn. 67(5): 655-662.
POPKOVA, L.L. (2001): Orchids of Crimea: biology, ecology and concervation.-
Trudy Gosud. Nikitsk. Bot. Sada 120: 39-53.
PRIVALOVA, L.A. & Yu.N. PROKUDIN (1959): Additions to the 1st volume of
“Flora of the Crimea”.- Trudy Gosud. Nikitsk. Bot. Sada 31: 5-127.

422 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
PROKUDIN, Yu.N. (ed.) (1987): Opredelitel vysshykh rasteniy Ukrainy (Key to
vascular plants of Ukraine).- Naukova Dumka. Kiev.
RUBTZOV, N.I. (ed.) (1972): Opredelitel vysshykh rasteniy Kryma (Key to
vascular plants of the Crimea).- Nauka. Leningrad.
SMOLYANINOVA, L.A. (1976): Orchidaceae Juss.- In: A.A. Fedorov & T.V.
Egorova (eds.): Flora yevropeyskoy chasti SSSR (Flora of the European part
of the USSR) 2: 10-59. Nauka. Leningrad.
SOBKO, V.G. (1989): Orkhideyi Ukrayiny (Orchids of Ukraine).- Naukova
Dumka. Kiev.
SRAMKÓ, G., M. ÓVÁRI, A.V. YENA, A.N. SENNIKOV, L. SOMLYAY, R.M.
BATEMAN & A.V. MOLNÁR (2012): Unravelling a century of misuse:
typification of the name Himantoglossum caprinum (Orchidaceae:
Orchideae).- Phytotaxa 66: 21-26.
STEVEN, Ch. VON (1857): Verzeichnis der auf der taurischen Halbinsel
wildwachsenden Pflanzen.- Buchdruckerei der kaiserlichen Universität.
Moskau.
WULFF, E.W. (1930): Flora Kryma (Flora of the Crimea) 1(3).- Nikitskiy
Botanical Garden. Leningrad.
YENA, A.V. (2012): Prirodnaya flora Kryma (Spontaneous flora of the Crimean
Peninsula).- N. Orianda. Simferopol.
YENA, A.[V.], G. SRAMKÓ, M. ÓVARI & R.[Ya.] KISH (2008): Himantoglossum
affine (Boiss.) Schltr.- In: W. Greuter & T. Raus (eds.): Med-Checklist
Notulae 27.- Willdenowia 38: 472.
Authors’ addresses
Dr. Alexander V. Fateryga Karel (C.A.J.) Kreutz
Karadag Nature Reserve, Naturalis Biodiversity Center
Nauki str. 24, Kurortnoye, Biosystematics group
Feodosiya, Republic of Crimea Wageningen University
298188, Russia Generaal Foulkesweg 37
fater_84@list.ru Wageningen, NL-6703 BL
The Netherlands
c.kreutz@hccnet.nl
For the following figures 1-12, 14-53 their numbering follows the order from
top left to bottom right on every page.

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 423
Fig. 1-4: Species of Anacamptis.
Fig. 1: A. morio subsp. caucasica, Mt. Dolgorukovskaya Yayla, meadow, 3.6.2012 (phot.
AVF); Fig. 2: A. morio subsp. caucasica,
Lisya Bay, slope of badland, 9.5.2011 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 3: A. palustris subsp. elegans, Baydary Valley, vicinity of Tylovoye village, wet
meadow, 11.6.2010 (phot. S.A. Svirin); Fig. 4: A. pyramidalis var. orientalis, vicinity
of Sevastopol, Balaklava, light forest, 27.5.2011 (phot. CAJK).

424 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Fig. 5-8: Dactylorhiza romana.
Fig. 5-6: Vicinity of Yalta, pine forest, 29.4.2011 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 7-8: Mt. Demerdji Yayla, oak forest, 3.5.2011 (phot. AVF).

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 425
Fig. 9-12: Epipactis persica subsp. taurica and varieties of Limodorum abortivum.
Fig. 9-10: E. persica subsp. taurica, type locality, vicinity of Yalta, Mt. Lapata, pine
forest, 18.7.2014 (phot. AVF); Fig. 11: L. abortivum var. abortivum, Laspi Valley,
24.5.2009 (phot. S.P. Ivanov); Fig. 12: L. abortivum var. rubrum, vicinity of Alushta,
near Vinogradnoye village, pine forest, 29.5.2014 (phot. AVF).

426 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Fig. 13: Holotype specimen of Limodorum abortivum var. viridis [Vicinity
of Alushta, near Vinogradnoye village, Mt. Uraga, oak forest], 29.5.2014,
leg. AVF, CSAU.

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 427
Fig. 14-17: Limodorum abortivum var. viridis.
Fig. 14-15: Type locality, vicinity of Alushta, near Vinogradnoye village, oak
forest, 29.5.2014 (phot. AVF); Fig. 16: Vicinity of Yalta, Miskhor, pine forest,
28.5.2012 (phot. AVF); Fig. 17: Mt. Ayudag, oak forest, 27.5.2013 (phot.
P.Ye. Yevseyenkov).

428 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Fig. 18-21: Neotinea ustulata and Ophrys oestrifera.
Fig. 18: N. ustulata, Mt. Tyrke Yayla, meadow slope, 3.6.2012 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 19: N. ustulata, ibid., 11.6.2012 (phot. CAJK); Fig. 20: O. oestrifera, vicinity
of Yalta, “Mys Martyan” Nat. Res., juniper forest, 26.4.2011 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 21: O. oestrifera, Simferopol district, vicinity of Perevalnoye village, Ayan
Natural Landmark, shrubby meadow, 24.5.2011 (phot. AVF).

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 429
Fig. 22-25: Ophrys mammosa subsp. taurica, Bakhchisaray district,
Mt. Mangup, light forest, 23.5.2011 (phot. CAJK).

430 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Fig. 26-29: Varieties of Orchis mascula.
Fig. 26-27: O. mascula var. mascula, Mt. Tyrke Yayla, meadow, 17.5.2013
(phot. S.A. Svirin);
Fig. 28-29: O. mascula var. wanjkovii, Mt. Baydarskaya Yayla, oak forest,
23.4.2010 (phot. S.A. Svirin).

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 431
Fig. 30-33: Orchis militaris subsp. stevenii.
Fig. 30-31: Mt. Tyrke Yayla, meadow slope, 3.6.2012 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 32-33: Simferopol district, Privolnoye, forest glade, 24.5.2011 (phot.
CAJK).

432 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Fig. 34-37: Platanthera bifolia and P. ×hybrida.
Fig. 34-35: P. bifolia, Simferopol district, vicinity of Perevalnoye village, Ayan
Natural Landmark, shrubby meadow, 10.6.2012 (phot. CAJK); Fig. 36: P. ×hybrida,
ibid., 10.6.2012 (phot. CAJK); Fig. 37: P. ×hybrida, Simferopol district, vicinity
of Perevalnoye village, Kurlukbash Natural Landmark, oak forest, 17.6.2011 (phot.
P.Ye. Yevseyenkov).

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 433
Fig. 38-41: Epipactis krymmontana.
Fig. 38: Vicinity of Yalta, Mt. Lapata, beech forest and yayla, 27.7.2013 (phot. AVF
);
Fig. 39: Ibid., 18.7.2014 (phot. AVF); Fig. 40: Type locality, Belogorsk district,
Zemlyanichnoye, beech forest, 13.6.2012 (phot. AVF); Fig. 41: Ibid., 20.6.2012
(phot. CAJK).

434 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Fig. 42-45: Epipactis helleborine subsp. levantina.
Fig. 42: Vicinity of Yalta, Mt. Lapata, beech forest, 27.7.2013 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 43: Ibid., 18.7.2014 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 44-45: Mt. Chatyrdag, beech forest, 15.7.2014 (phot. AVF).

Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014. 435
Fig. 46-49: Hybrids.
Fig. 46: Anacampis ×simorrensis nothosubsp. ticinensis, Baydary Valley, vicinity
of Kisilovoye village, 3.6.2010 (phot. I.S. Turbanov); Fig. 47: ×Dactylocamptis
uechtritziana nothosubsp. magyarii, Baydary Valley, vicinity of Tylovoye vilage,
10.6.2010 (phot. I.S. Turbanov); Fig. 48: Neotinea ×dietrichiana, Mt. Tyrke Yayla,
11.6.2012 (phot. AVF); Fig. 49: Orchis ×penzigiana, vicinity of Yalta, near Simeiz
village, 30.4.2013 (phot. AVF).

436 Journal Europäischer Orchideen 46 (2): 2014.
Fig. 50-53: Hybrids.
Fig. 50-51: Orchis ×beyrichii nothosubsp. mackaensis, Simferopol district, vicinity
of Perevalnoye village, Ayan Natural Landmark, 19.5.2011 (phot. AVF);
Fig. 52: Orchis ×wulffiana, Cape Aya, 18.4.2014 (phot. S.A. Svirin); Fig. 53: Orchis
×angusticruris, Mt. Dolgorukovskaya Yayla, 3.5.2012 (phot. S.A. Svirin).