I9I4] DE VRIES— OENOTHERA LAMARCKIANA 359 



partly in mixtures which are known to contain also their hybrids. 

 The specimen of 1807 is designated 0. biennis, but both the flowers 

 have the lobes of their stigma above the anthers, which is a differ- 

 entiating mark of 0. 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, 0. Lamarckiana must be assumed to have 

 been introduced into England about the time of Michaux 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 0. 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 

 the 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 {op. 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 



3' Davts says {op. cit. p. 531) "the identification by Lindley of these plants with 

 O. Lamarckiana Ser. was undoubtedly incorrect," but he does not give any reason 

 for this assertion. 



3' Davis says {op. 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- 

 tion in excellent condition of the three specimens of Lamarck, Pourret, and 

 Michaux, not known to Davis. 



