19141 
GATES— SOME (ENOTHERAS FROM CHESHIRE AND LANCASHIRE 391 
(E. TARDIFLORA 
This name I have used for another race having many peculiar- 
ities and showing more resemblance to Œ. grandiflora in its 
flowers and foliage. It is race No. 52 from the same source as 
the above. А single individual produced in 1909 nineteen plants 
which were fairly uniform. Тһе rosettes contained only a few 
leaves, but large plants were formed, one of which is shown in 
pl.22 fig. 17. Although this photograph was taken on August 
21, the plants with one exception had not begun to flower. The 
leaves resembled those of @. grandiflora. They were large 
with long and acute tips, tapering to the bases, often: bearing 
reddish blotches, sometimes much curled, somewhat crinkled 
along the midrib. The margin was conspicuously serrately 
toothed (see pl. 22 fig. 17). At the end of the season (Septem- 
ber) these plants came into bloom, and pl. 22 fig. 20 shows a 
plant photographed on October 2. The buds resembled those 
of (Е. grandiflora but were small. The bud cones were pointed, 
smooth and rounded, the petals slightly larger than in @. bien- 
nis, or in a few cases much larger. The petals were also deeply 
emarginate, strongly cuneate and narrow; and the bracts were 
very small, narrowly lanceolate and yellowish, giving a peculiar 
appearance to the flowering shoot. The margins of the bracts 
were nearly entire or in some cases distantly denticulate. 
The offspring of the plant in pl. 22 fig. 20 were grown and 
showed the same peculiarities. The race has not been culti- 
vated further. It was doubtless of hybrid origin and was more 
nearly allied to G7. grandiflora than to the Lamarckiana complex. 
CE. RUBRITINCTA 
Reference may be made to one further race which was known 
as type M.’’ It originated from one plant in a sowing of the 
Birkenhead seeds in 1909. It will be understood that scarcely 
two plants from this sowing were alike, but some were much 
more distinct than others. Тһе plant in question was a hand- 
some one with very narrow leaves and bright red midribs. Its 
offspring, grown in 1911, were lost with the exception of one 
plant which was the same as the parent. It is shown in pl. 22 
fig. 16. Тһе basal leaves were very long with long petioles, the 
stem leaves very narrow, smooth, with margin closely repand- 
