1914] DE VRIES—OENOTHERA LAMARCKIANA 359 
partly in mixtures which are known to contain also their hybrids. 
The specimen of 1807 is designated O. biennis, but both the flowers 
have the lobes of their stigma above the anthers, which is a differ- 
entiating mark of.O. Lamarckiana. Moreover, it is the only deci- 
sive detail, all other characters of the figures applying equally to 
both species. If it is allowable to trust to this detail, we should 
be entitled to conclude that the station of Liverpool contained 
both forms as early as 1807, even as it is known to do at the present 
time. In this case, O. Lamarckiana must be assumed to have 
been introduced into England about the time of Micwaux and 
Lamarck, and a common origin for the specimens of their herbaria 
and the wild stations in England becomes highly probable. 
The strain of Carter and Co. has been identified by LINDLEY 
as O. Lamarckiana Ser., and the high authority of this eminent 
botanist confirms my own determination of the same strain, made 
by comparing it with the authentic specimen of LAMARCK.* 
At all events, the adduced facts indicate a very simple history 
of our species, which has come down to us unchanged, so far as 
we know, from the original American habitat. ‘There is no reason 
to suppose that it originated as a garden plant, and none at all 
to subject it to all the doubts ordinarily brought forward against 
the purity of descent of horticultural forms in general, simply on 
ground that some garden plants are of known hybrid origin. 
O. Lamarckiana has remained unchanged through more than a 
century, and has kept as true to its type as any good wild species. 
“It is exceedingly fortunate,” says Davis (of. cit. p. 527), “that. 
the plant which serves as the type of Oenothera Lamarckiana 
Ser. should have come down to us so well preserved that there 
is scarcely a doubt of its identity.” But the identity is with the 
Species as it is still known under that name. Whether the species 
* Davis says (op. cit. p. 531) “the identification by Lryptey of these plants with 
O. Lamarckiana Ser. was undoubtedly incorrect,” but he does not give any reason 
for this assertion. 
__* Davis says (of. cit. p. 530) “that Lamarckiana has come down to us greatly 
modified, that its parentage is far from pure, that it is in fact of hybrid origin.” This 
assertion, which is not based upon any facts, is clearly contradicted by the preserva- 
ton in excellent condition of the three specimens of LaMARcK, Pourret, and 
Micnavx, not known to Davis. 
