140 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [FEBRUARY 
rum, 1640) with that in Atprnus (Exot., 1627), says that the petals 
differ, being strongly mucronate in the Theatrum, lightly so in the 
Paradisus, emarginate as in the modern plant in ALPINUS, and that _ 
PARKINSON’s plant is perhaps different (p. 712). I have seen that 
in the Paradisus (the reprint, London, 1904) and can confirm the 
statement as to this. The mucro is so broad and low in some of 
the petals as to give the tips a wavy appearance. The plant is 
a little branched, and it is stated that it may reach the height of 
aman. BAvHIN gives this height also. With regard to the form 
of the petals, DE Vries mentions a similar discrepancy between 
the description by Lamarck of O. longiflora Jacq., and the speci- 
men from LAMARCK found in the herbarium of the Museum d’his- 
toire naturelle at Paris. The description says they were rounded, 
the example shows that they were obcordate.? All tends to show 
that differences, specific or not, existed in the cultivated plants 
at so early date that they must have been present in a wild state in 
America before the introduction into the gardens of Europe. 
By whatever means the plants may have reached Europe, we 
may conclude that the line of transmission of what is now recog- 
nized as O. Lamarckiana up to the time of the publication of 
BAUHIN’s description in 1623 was as follows: from JOANNES 
Morus of England to Prosper ALPINUS at Padua, 1614 or earlier; 
from JOANNES Prevortius of Padua to C. BAUHIN at Basle, 
1619. His description may therefore be pretty safely dated within 
nine years or less of the probable introduction. 
CHICAGO 
? DE Vries, Huco, Die Mutationstheorie 1:316, 317. 1901. 
* 
