IS 



DE. E. E. GATES— COTs^TElBUTION TO A 



Virginicmus. But there caa be no doubt tliat Kay's LysimacUa Virginicma altera, 

 folius lafioribiis,Jloribus luteis majoribus is a large-flowered form, though there are no 

 data to decide whether it belongs in O. grandiflora or O. LamarcUana. Similarly, 

 Barrelier in 1714 gives figures of three species of Oenothera which can be identified 

 with practical certainty as (1) 0. biennis, (2) 0. muricata, and (3) O. grandiflora or 

 O. LamarcUana, the last figure applying perhaps equally to either of these species. 



The facts which emerge are that a large-flowered Virginian form, which must have 

 belonged in the grandiflora-LamarcUana series, was recognized as early as 1686 by Hay, 

 while 0. muricata was recognized in 1700 by Tournefort and figured by Barrelier 

 1714 together with 0, biennis and the large-flowered form. Curiously enough, 



in ^.^^. .v.- 



the large-flowered Oenotheras seem to have been lost from English Gardens, for 

 Bartram in 1778 re-discovered O. grandiflora, this time in Alabama, and it then was 

 introduced into England and received its modern name. But O. grandiflora is 

 now known to have survived in Virginia and Carolina as late as 1820, so that there 

 can be no doubt that the early introduction before 1686 was of a race belonging to 

 0. grandiflora or O. LamarcUana from Virginia. 0. grandiflora, therefore, had two 

 introductions into England, one from Virginia and one from Alabama, unless 

 equally probable but not provable) the earlier introduction was O. LamarcUana. In 

 1796, some years after the introduction from Alabama, O. LamarcUana was recognized 

 in Paris as distinct from 0. grandiflora, and thus it had its taxonomic origin. It 

 had long been going under the name 0. biennis. As late as 1860 O. LamarcUana 

 was again introduced into England, this time from Texas, and the plants of DeVries's 

 cultures are descended from this source. It seems, therefore, certain that the naturalized 

 plants on the Lancashire sand-dunes (which contain both O. LamarcUana and O. gran- 

 diflora) had an independent and much earlier origin, yet the O. LamarcUana characters 

 in both cases agree even to the point of identity. 



Of course the question of the origin, introduction into cultivation, and identity of 

 O. LamarcUana has furnished the most absorbing part of this historical work. Has 

 O. LamarcUana orisrinated in Europe or America? Is it a hybrid produced in 



Botanical Gardens by spontaneous crossing, and, if so, what remains of DeVries s 

 mutation theory ? I have pointed out elsewhere (Gates, 1911 d) that all the hereditary 

 behaviour of O. LamarcUana cannot be explained as the result of hybrid splitting. I 

 have also pointed out that if O. LamarcUana originated as a result of crosses between 

 O. grandiflora and 0. biennis in European gardens, the same thing must have happened 

 long previously in the Virginia-Carolina region, where both were certainly originally 

 indigenous. But I have further pointed out that it is of little moment whether 

 O. LamarcUana originated from crosses on this side or the other side of the Atlantic, 

 for it is self-evident that in such open-pollinated forms as O. LamarcUana and 0. gran- 

 diflora, crossing of races must be continually occurring in nature, 

 of the conditions under which the evolution of any open-pollinated group of forms must 

 take place. We must, therefore, assume a mixed ancestry for 0. LamarcUana in any 

 case, many closely related races having taken part in that ancestry. But there is no 



This is, in fact 



■i- 



