74 MUTATIONS, VARIATIONS, AND RELATIONSHIPS OF THE OENOTHERAS. 



Tha Linnsean description reads as follows: "OE. fol. lanceolatis planis, 

 caule purpurascente muricato. Similis parviflorae, sed Fructus os non S-fidis. 

 Caulis puncta rubra sparsa. Canada." (L. Syst., ed. 12, 263. 1767.) 



Based on this description and without reference to any later interpretation 

 of the species, the following specimens are placed here : 



Maine. — York, Bicknell, 1896; Cape Neddick, Bickiiell, 1896; South Harpswell, Stevens, 

 1905. 



Massachusetts. — Ipswich, Morong, 1872; Nantucket, Bicknell, 1899. 



New York. — Long Island, Edgemere, Bicknell, 1902 and 1904; Coney Island, Vail, 1904; 

 Staten Island, New Dorp, Kearney, 1894. 



0. muricata L. raised from seed received from Professor De Vries from the 

 Holland sand-dunes resembled these American plants, but were not abso- 

 lutelv identical. This should also be said for some plants that were raised 

 from seed collected by Professor De Vries near Chicago, Illinois, in 1904. 

 Undoubtedly 0. muricata has a wider distribution in the northeastern States 

 than can be noted here. 



In addition to these quite a number of plants that apparently are referable 

 to this species are preserved in the herbaria of the New York Botanical 

 Garden and of Columbia University. They are as follows: 



Canada. — Province of Quebec, New Carlisle, Williams & Fernald, 1902; Rimouski 

 County, Collins & Fernald, 1904; River Ste. Anne des Monts, Collins & Fernald, 1905; 

 Anticosti, Jupiter River, Macoun, 1 883. 



Massachusetts. — Provincetown, Hollick, 1901; Nantucket, MacDougal, 1905. 



Rhode Island. — Block Island, Hollick, 1897. 



The Nantucket, Provincetown, and Block Island plants are probably 

 stunted specimens merely, but the Canada specimens are quite remarkable 

 in that the mature plant still preserved the remains of the rosette of the pre- 

 vious year at the base of the stem and in general appearance ; even to the bent 

 habit of the upper portion of the stem they can be easily identified with the 

 plate and description of 0. muricata in Flora Danica, pi. 1757, 1823. 



An attempt was made to raise some plants from seed taken from Messrs. 

 Collins & Fernald's specimen from River Ste. Anne des Monts, 1905, but it 

 was not very successful. The plants were quite persistently biennial and in no 

 case was a normal central stem secured, and the rosettes in the garden were 

 very much larger than those on the herbarium specimens. The Canada plants 

 are evidentlv a more northern form of the Long Island plant (plate 22). 



The habit of the rosette of the previous year remaining at the base of the 

 flowering stem of the second year's growth is one that is also claimed for his 

 species 0. ammophila by O. Focke (1904). 



The plate of 0. muricata published by Murray (Nov. comm. soc. reg. Sci. 

 Goett., 6: 24, pi. i, 1776) appears to have broader leaves than the American 

 plants enumerated here. 



