384 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [way 
larly to all botanists, since this work presents especially the botanical aspects of 
the evolutionary theories; most former works of similar character have had a 
strong zoological bias, which has resulted in a most imperfect consideration of 
tanical material.—H. C. Cow Es. 
MINOR NOTICES 
Monograph of Oenothera.—Lfévem1fs has issued another fascicle of his 
monograph of the genus Oenothera, which includes the Onagras O. Lamarckiana, 
O. biennis, O. grandiflora, and related forms. His work on most of the species 
has been entirely from herbarium material, with the result that the process of 
“lumping” rather than “splitting” the species is carried to an extreme. Num- 
bers of species are combined into larger groups, for which new names are proposed. 
For example, O. pyramidalis Lévl. is to include O. rhombipetala Engelm. and 
Gray, O. heterophylla Spach, and several others. Similarly,.O. polymorpha Lévl. 
includes QO. mollissima L., O. longiflora Jacq., O. nocturna Jacq., and a number 0 
others. The “lumping” process reaches an extreme, however, in the treatment 
of O. biennis, O. Lamarckiana, and related forms. All are gathered into one 
comprehensive ‘‘species,” O. communis Léveillé, having three ‘“‘races’’: biennis 
L., Vriesiana Lévl., and japonica Guffroy. The last is a Japanese form with 
triangular seeds. The race Vriesiana includes O. Lamarckiana and all its 
mutants, and one or two other species. The race biennis L. includes such well- 
recognized species as O. muricata L., O. parviflora L., O. Hookert Torr. and Gr., 
O. Oakesiana Robb. and Wats., O. strigosa Rydb., O. cruciata Nutt., and a 
number of others. Many. of these have been shown to come true in cultures, and 
the types are sufficiently distinct to be easily recognizable even as very young 
seedlings. The present O. biennis L., after excluding all the segregates, is prob- 
ably still considered sufficiently “polymorphic” by most American botanists., 
EVriEs has emphasized the necessity of differentiating between elementary 
species and Linnean species, the latter only being recognized in the floras and 
manuals, and the elementary species being enumerated in their subordinate rank. 
But the indiscriminate ‘‘lumping” practiced here far surpasses the necessities 
of even the manuals. é ‘ : 
Having thus combined this host of forms into one ‘‘species”’ (O. communis), 
LEvEILLE proceeds to argue that mutation accounts for the origin of races, but 
that the origin of species is another problem. He states that he grew O. Lamarck- 
iana and several of the mutants in his garden for five years, from seeds of 
DeVries, and reports various wonderful transformations of one form into another. 
DeEVRIEs’s investigations have been verified abundantly by later careful workers, 
so that Lévertué’s statements need not be taken seriously, especially since he 
made no attempt to prevent crossing. He naively states that the plants were 
grown in two separate gardens, and that, in one case at least, the forms were 
sufficiently distant to prevent crossing!—R. R. GATES. 
s Livetié, H., Monographie du genre Oenothera (with the collaboration of CH. 
GUFFROY). pp. 339-408. Le Mans. 1go9. 
