57 



Virginia, August 27, 1903, No. 373. There arc no specimens 

 referable to this species in the collections at the New York Bo- 

 tanical Gardens. Botanists believing in the validity of the genus 

 Onagra would call this i^lant Otiagra argil lie ola. 



In view of the abundant literature which has appeared within 

 the last few years on variations produced in Oenothera bieiniis 

 under cultivation, the inquiry naturally suggests itself whether 

 the species above described may not be such a variation onl)'. 

 Of course, it is now impossible to determine how or when it 

 arose, but as it exists now it is as true a species as could be 

 desired. Locally it is a plant of great abundance, and technically 

 it has numerous distinguishing features, as shown above. 



P'ield botanists naturally get well acquainted with variations 

 in Oenothera biennis, and know within general lines what may be 

 looked for, but in addition to the above plant (of whose specific 

 rank, I feel sure) I have collected another form of Oenotlicra, 

 which for the present must be referred to O. biennis, although 

 often very distinct. This plant, which grows in sunny situations 

 in low grounds along the Missouri Riv^er around Kansas City, 

 Missouri, in many respects bears a strong resemblance to Oetio- 

 tliera crnciata Nutt. of the east, and I have often been tempted 

 to refer it to that species. It differs, however, in having (i) an 

 abruptly narrowed capsule, (2) short buds, (3) shorter, less acu- 

 minate sepals, (4) inconspicuous sepal tips, (5) less pubescent 

 capsules, and (6) broader, more obcordate petals. I cannot 

 resist the belief that this form may be a mutant produced natur- 

 ally in much the same manner as Prof, de Vries secured mutants 

 in cultivated plants. Tliis belief is based upon its distinct and 

 largely constant characters, while at the same time it seems 

 always to occur in the vicinity of more typical plants. If this 

 belief is well founded, it answers an inquiry propounded by 

 authors as to the occurrence of these mutants in nature, and in 

 this light points to an interesting field for observation. 



Less noticeable variations in O. biennis are of common occur- 

 rence around Kansas Cit}'. Indeed, as a whole the species 

 seems to be in a very variable state in that neighborhood, and 

 certainly a long-continued series of observations on plants pro- 

 duced from seeds collected there would \-ield interestinsf results. 



