178 Rhodora [September 



typified name 0. 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 

 it is 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 0. 

 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 0. 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 0. tetragona did not have lanceolate and repand leaves, for in 

 contrasting it with 0. tetraptera Cav. he said: "Foliis oualibus, 

 integris; nee lanceolatis, a basi ad medium vsque pinnati fidis." 

 Similarly in distinguishing it from 0. fruticosa he said: "Foliis 

 oualibus, obtusis; nee lanceolatis, acutis." And surely the spreading- 

 ascending leaves of 0. hybrida are not well described as "recurva." 

 The calyx-tube of 0. hybrida is very slender, well described as filiform, 

 but Roth described the calyx-tube of 0. tetragona as cylindric (cylindra- 

 ccus . . . crassitie pedicelli) and emphasized its thickness by 

 contrasting it with that of 0. fruticosa: " Calycis tubo cylindraceo; nee 

 filiformi, angustissimo. " Other points, such as the crenate petals 



