352 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [may 



du tube calicinal."'* This description wholly agrees with the 

 fruits of the present species, especially if we remember that 

 Lamarck based his description on a comparison with the only 

 other large-flowered form he knew, O. longiflora. The short fruits 

 at once distinguish o\ir species from the allied types, such as O. 

 suaveolens Desf. and O. grandiflora Ait., which have thin and pro- 

 portionally long fruits.'^ 



This character of the fruits shows that the description of the 

 Encyclopedic has been based upon specimen A and not upon the 

 other one. For, although B lacks fruits also, it belongs to an 

 elementary species which has long and narrow fruits, as we shall 

 soon see. Here I might point out that in systematic researches 

 of this kind, more value is to be attached to published diagnoses 

 and descriptions than to the material preserved in a herbariimi. 

 The older systematists, as a rule, did not take much care of their 

 material, even if they were very careful of their descriptions.'' 

 The herbarium specimens are often found without their names and 

 without any indication concerning their origin. The rule "de- 

 scriptio praestat herbario " appKes in our special case, even as it 

 does in many others. In our case, the description is relatively 

 complete and clear, while in the dried specimen only part of the 

 characters are represented. 



For all these reasons I cannot agree with Davis, who says 

 (p. 519) that I made an incorrect determination of the material of 

 my cultures, when I identified it with Lamarck's plant of 1796. 

 The authentic specimen of Lamarck and the description in the 



'' Encyclopedic mfithodique, Botanique par Lamaeck, Tome IV, 1 796. pp. 550- 

 S54, "Onagraire." Twelve species of this genus are enumerated, O. longiflora being 

 no. 4, 0. corymbosa no. 11, and O. grandiflora no. 12. A copy of the diagnosis of this 

 last one may be found in my Mutation theory (p. 441) and in the article of Davis. The 

 article in the EncyclopHie is not signed and was probably written by Poieet, who 

 prepared many articles in vol. IV, and wrote the whole of the later volumes. In 

 the herbarium of Paris some of the specimens may be seen quoted with the authority 

 of PoiRET, as, for example, on the sheet of O. suaveolens Desf., where above that name 

 is^written Oenothera grandiflora Poiret Encyclopfidie. (Cf. pi. 3p of the article of 

 Davis.) 



^1 UOenothera grandiflora de I'herbier de Lamarck. Rev. Gdn. Botanique 

 25: 1914- 



'* Cf. BONNEIT, op. cit. p. 138. 



