178 Rhodora [SEPTEMBER 
typified name O. hybrida Michx. because, in taking up this earliest 
valid specific name, “ Dr. Blake has hardly improved nomenclature— 
surely not in the opinion of our genetical friends—by the substitution 
of the name ‘hybrida.’ " Under the generic name Oenothera this 
specific name is, naturally, unfortunate but “No one is authorized 
to reject, change or modify a name (or combination of names) because 
itis badly chosen," etc. (Internat. Rules, Art. 50) and under the 
generic name Kneiffia, which Pennell maintains, it could not be very 
embarrassing to " our genetical friends, " since they have not specially 
concerned themselves with that subgenus (or genus). As a result of 
his objection to the name Oenothera hybrida Michx. Pennell made a 
special search of literature in *the hope of finding for this species 
some appropriate name." This he feels that he has found in O. 
tetragona Roth, Catalecta, ii. 39 (1800), a name which antedates by 
three years Michaux's publication. Pennell has seen no specimen 
but is satisfied that "the full description would apply to the plant 
here considered." Whether Roth had a plant which is conspecific 
with O. hybrida Michx. (the Kneiffia fruticosa of the Illustrated Flora) 
is certainly very doubtful. Roth calls for a plant with dichotomus 
branching (Caulis . . . dichotomus), a habit not shown in any 
material I have seen; Roth calls for oval, obtuse, entire, recurved 
leaves about 3 inches long and 1 inch wide (Folia . . . oualia, 
obtusa, integra, . . . plerumque recurua, tres vncias circiter 
longa vnciamque in medio lata), but the Illustrated Flora correctly 
describes our plant with "Leaves lanceolate, ovate-lanceolate or 
oval-lanceolate, acute or obtusish . . . repand-denticulate, or 
rarely nearly entire," while Pennell's key-characters describe his K. 
tetragona with “Leaves lanceolate.” Roth knew perfectly well that 
his O. tetragona did not have lanceolate and repand leaves, for in 
contrasting it with O. tetraptera Cav. he said: “Foliis oualibus, 
integris; nec lanceolatis, a basi ad medium vsque pinnati fidis." 
Similarly in distinguishing it from O. fruticosa he said: “Foliis 
oualibus, obtusis; nec lanceolatis, acutis." And surely the spreading- 
ascending leaves of O. hybrida are not well described as “recurva.” 
The calyx-tube of O. hybrida is very slender, well described as filiform, 
but Roth described the calyx-tube of O. tetragona as cylindric (cylindra- 
ceus . . . crassitie pedicelli) and emphasized its thickness by 
contrasting it with that of O. fruticosa: * Calycis tubo cylindraceo; nec 
filiformi, angustissimo." Other points, such as the crenate petals 
