Davis: LAMARCK’S EVENING PRIMROSE 527 
It is exceedingly fortunate that the plant which serves as the type 
of Oenothera Lamarckiana Seringe should have come down to us so 
well preserved that there is scarcely a doubt of its identity with 
Oenothera grandiflora Solander, introduced into England in 1778. 
SHEET 2. A SPECIMEN OF Oenothera FROM THE COLLECTION OF 
ABBE POURRET 
This specimen (PLATE 38) is of interest for the reason that De 
Vries (1901, footnote to p. 317) believed that it as well as Lamarck’s 
plant agreed with the material of his cultures (‘‘Oenothera Lamarcki- 
ana De Vries’’). Buchet (1912) has recently referred the specimen 
to Oenothera suaveolens Desfontaines = O. grandiflora Solander. I 
am unable to agree with either of these opinions and shall present 
evidence that the plant was close to certain forms of Oenothera 
iennis. 
The sheet bears the label HERB. MUS. PARIS. with the state- 
ment at the bottom ‘Collection de l’Abbé Pourret, extraite de 
l'Herbier légué par M. le Dr. Barbier. 1847.’ On this label, 
in the handwriting of Spach are the names “Onagra vulgaris 
Spach” and “‘Oenothera biennis Linné.” At the left is a list of 
old names representing synonymy, copied by Abbé Pourret, and 
below this list his clerk wrote the name Oenothera biennis L. 
De Vries states that the plant was probably collected by Abbé 
Pourret in the garden of the museum at the time of his visit to 
Paris in 1788. M. Gagnepain, however, is not satisfied with 
the evidence for this view and writes that the history of the sheet 
is unknown to him. 
An examination of the specimen itself (PLATE 38) shows the 
following characters. 
I. STEM AND FOLIAGE. The long unbranched stem bears ellip- 
tical, petioled leaves very different from the sessile or almost 
Sessile, broad-based leaves of De Vries’s Lamarckiana. The ab- 
sence of approximate flowering branches is against any relationship 
to grandiflora. The appearance of the small buds in the axils of 
the lower leaves is characteristic of some forms of Oenothera biennis. 
The pubescence of the stem is described by M. Gagnepain as very 
like the specimen of grandiflora and not at all like the specimen of 
Vries’s Lamarckiana sent for comparison. 
