130 



sixty-five years since that date — a total of over three and a half 

 centuries — exists solely as a clon. 



The question arises whether this clon, the H. fulva of Linnaeus, 

 is represented among the wild daylilies and is itself typical of a 

 natural species. Botanical and horticultural explorations and 

 studies in Japan and China, beginning about the year 1700 and 

 continuing to the present date, have revealed various fulvous day- 

 lilies, but the exact counterpart of the H. fulva of Linnaeus has 

 not been discovered as a wild plant. Nor does there seem to be 

 any conclusive evidence that it has been included among the day- 

 lilies recently in cultivation in the Orient. On certain of the ful- 

 vous daylilies found, there were bestowed such names as H. fulva 

 var. Kwanso, H. disticha Donn, H. disticha var. flore-pleno, H. 

 lonijltuba Miq., H. fulva var. longituba Maxim., H. fulva var. 

 angustifolia Baker, and H. fulva var. maculata Baroni. Thus the 

 rather marked differences between the various fulvous daylilies 

 found in the Orient and the H. fulva of Linnaeus were recog- 

 nized. However, conservative botanical treatments, such as that 

 of the Index Kewensis, have included all the various forms men- 

 tioned above in the one species, H. fulva. These rather diverse 

 forms are to be recognized as valuable material for use in breed- 

 ing, especially since the fulvous daylilies seem destined to play an 

 important role in the development of new red-flowered daylilies 

 valuable for garden culture. 



It is time to review the different fulvous daylilies in respect to 

 their identity and interrelationships. The knowledge now avail- 

 able regarding their natural distribution in the Orient is meagre 

 and inadequate. An attempt may be made to recognize the types 

 of them that are now known both as wild and as cultivated, and to 

 comment on their botanical relationships and their horticultural 

 status. In doing this the botanical status and the horticultural 

 status of each should be clearly considered. Those that are 

 merely clons should be recognized as such. Possibly this may 

 lead to a better understanding of what the wild species are like. 



The horticultural name "Europa Daylily" is here suggested for 

 the single-flowered fulvous daylily which has been in continued 

 cultivation in Europe at least since the first description of it by 

 Lobel more than 350 years ago. This is historically the Linnaean 

 type of the species Hemerocallis fulva. But this particular plant 



