84 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [FEBRUARY 
O. biennis var. leptomeres,® and once in a cross between this variety 
and typical Oenothera biennis, from which var. leptomeres itself 
doubtless arose by mutation. Sromps has also described O. 
biennis mut. semigigas from the same culture of O. biennis var. 
leptomeres XO. biennis which gave rise to the dwarf. A recent 
letter from Professor DE Vries (dated May 16, 1914) states 
that mutations from O. biennis are still being obtained at 
Amsterdam. 
Stomps™ has just published a second report on mutations in O. 
biennis. He records the origin by mutation, in a pure line, of - 
O. biennis var. sulfurea De V. (long known as a wild component of 
the Dutch flora), together with mut. nanella and mut. semigigas. 
Gates” has likewise announced the discovery of mutations (0. 
biennis lata, O. biennis laevifolia, O. biennis rubrinervis) from O. 
biennis, but has not yet published a full account of his cultures.* 
Finally, DE Vries has obtained two different mutations, O. salici- 
folia and O. salicastrum, from wild seed of a strain of the self- 
pollinating O. biennis “‘Chicago”’ which he collected near Courtney, 
Missouri; and the writer™ has given a preliminary account of 
Oenothera stenomeres mut. lasiopetala,s a hairy-petaled derivative 
of one of the small-flowered cruciate Onagras. 
© Qenothera biennis var. leptomeres Bartlett. Amer. Jour. Bot. 1:242. 1914= 
Oenothera biennis var. cruciata De Vries, not T. & G. 
t Sromps, THEO. J., Parallele Mutationen bei Oenothera biennis L. Ber. Deutsch. 
Bot. Gesells. 32:179-188. 1914 
2 Gates, R. R., Parallel mutations in Oenothera biennis. Nature 89:659-660. 
1912. 
*3 Since the above was written, an account of the cytology of O. biennis mut. /ata 
has been received. See Gates, R.R., and Tuomas, Nesta, A cytological study 2 
conga mut. Jata and O. Sut pana in relation to mutation. Quar. Jou 
cr. Sci. 59: ecigelge 1914. 
™% BartLeTt, H. H., An account of the cruciate-flowered Oenotheras of the sub- 
genus oe be is Jour. Bot. 1:226-243. 1914. 
*s By an unfortunate oversight this name was published in Amer. Jour. Bot. as 
O. stenopetala mut. lasiopetala. The writer had originally used the name O. stenopetala 
or the species which was described as O. stenomeres. After the manuscript had been 
submitted to the editor, a change was made necessary by the publication of O. sfeno- 
petala Bicknell, Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 41:79. 1914. In one place the original name 
escaped notice and was not corrected. It is hoped that the error will not lead to any 
confusion. 
