588 THE PROBABLE ORIGIN OF OENOTHERA LAMARCKIANA SER. 



has accordingly published a photograph (pi 38) and a description 

 of it. It is easily seen that this specimen really comes nearer to 

 our present 0. biennis L. than to anything else. 



The plant which Pourret called 0. grandiflora Lam. is repre- 

 sented on our pi. 11. It agrees wholly with the present 0. 

 Lamarckiana Ser., and in all respects. It was fastened on its sheet 

 by the clerk of Pourret and consists of two flowering spikes and 

 two separate flowers. The stigma lobes are seen spread above the 

 anthers in the normal way. The specimens were picked at the 

 beginning of the flowering period and bear no fruits; obviously 

 they were main spikes. They will be recognized at once as 0. 

 Lamarckiana by anyone who has seen living cultures of this species. 

 As I have quoted in my Mutation theory {loc. cit.), Spach has written 

 on this sheet 'Vnagra vulgaris grandiflora Spach," which remark 

 also proves the identity with 0. Lamarckiana Ser. The printed 

 label says "Collection de I'Abbe Pourret, extraite de I'herbier legue 

 par M. le Dr. Barbier en 1847." The main spike measures about 

 40 cm., the smaller one about 20 cm. 



In my book I have also referred to a specimen of 0. suaveolens 

 Desf. At that time I did not know the Alabama species and 

 believed that 0. suaveolens Desf. and 0. grandiflora Ait. were syn- 

 onyms, as almost all authors did. Therefore I used the two names 

 promiscuously. Last summer, however, I cultivated, side by side, 

 0. suaveolens Desf. from Fontainebleau, collected by Dr. Blaring- 

 hem, and 0. grandiflora Ait. from Castleberry, Alabama, collected 

 by myself with Mr. Bartlett. They proved to be wholly different 

 species. 1) So far as I know, the large-flowered Oenotheras, which 

 are now relatively common in the western departments of France, 

 all belong to 0. suaveolens Desf., at least all the specimens and 

 cultures on which I based my opinion in 1901 did. The specimen 

 of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, which I referred to especially, 

 has been described by Davis from a photograph which is repro- 

 duced on pi. 39 of his paper. Davis, who did not know the 0. 

 suaveolens as a separate species, called it the flotsam of the her- 

 barium (p. 529); it is, on the contrary, the authentic specimen of 

 Desfontaines, bearing on the label the name suaveolens written 

 by Desfontaines himself. The smaller plant, fastened on the same 

 sheet, has another label, saying only 0. grandiflora, and seems 

 to me to have been fastened on this sheet subsequently. The 



i) \J Oenothera grandiflora de I'herbier de Lamarck, loc. cit. 



