I. In this preliminary note it is shown that the palmate Orchis as described by Linnaeus in Act. Soc. Upsal. 1740, p. 15, no. X, is the same plant as the first palmate Orchis from Oland described by him in his It. Ö1., p. 48. This plant was O. sambucina L. 2. Further on it is shown that the diagnosis of O. latifolia L. in Spec. Plantar. (i753) differs too little from that of Act. Soc. Ups., so that it may be impossible to say that this plant should be other than O. sambucina. 3. The synonyms given by Linnaeus in 1753 with regard to this plant arer a) O. incarnata L. b) unspotted O. majalis Rchb. O. latifolia L. (1753) therefore is a collective species. 4. The plant described by Linnaeus in Flora Suecica Ed. 2 (1755), no. 802, sub O. incarnata, , as is also demonstrated by the plant with this name in Linnaeus’ herbal, is O. incarnata L. ex Fries (Nov. Flor. Suec. Mant. tert. VIII (1845), p. 127), in the sense before 1935. 5. There is no reason why the name of O. incarnata L. should be altered into O. latifolia L. as Mr. Pugsley proposes. 6. It seems to be the best plan to use the name of O. majalis Rchb. in the sense of O. latifolia auct. before 1935, O. latifolia being a nomen ambiguum. 7. Orchis impudica Crantz = O. incarnata L.