THE PROBLEM OP THE ORIGIN OP OENOTHERA 



LAMARCKIANA DE VRIES. 



By Bradley Moore Davis, 



University of Pennsylvania, 



[With One Pigure in the Text] . 



{Reprinted from The New Phytologist, Vol. XII, No. 7, 

 yuly, 1913.-] 



I am led to write this paper partly for the reason that the problem 

 of the origin of (Enothera Lamarckiana De Vries has in the 

 past few months became far more tangible than formerly, but 

 chiefly because it seems probable that certain phases of the problem 

 can be solved only by studies on the development of certain English 

 (Enothera floras. I have then the hope that a brief outline of the 

 situation, as it now appears to me, will be of some assistance to 

 British botanists interested in the subject. 



Recent studies ' clearly indicate that the Lamarckiana of the 

 cultures of De Vries cannot be identified with the plant described 

 by Lamarck ' under the name /Enothera grandifiora from material 

 grown in Paris at about 1796 or earlier and renamed by Seringe ^ 

 (Enothera Lamarckiana, The evidence is very strong that Lamarck's 

 plant {(Enothera Lamarckiana Seringe), was a form of (Enothera 

 grandifiora Solander* (0, grandifiora "Alton") introduced into 

 England in 1778 from Alabama. 



This disposition of (Enothera Lamarckiana Seringe as a form 

 of 0. grandifiora Solander relieves our problem from association 

 with the early date of 1796 and allows us to pass to later periods 

 when we may hope for more direct evidence than that furnished by 

 old descriptions and figures. The attempts to establish the presence 



' Davis, B. M. "Was Lamarck's evening primrose {(Enothera Lamarekimia 

 Seringe) a form of (Enothera grandifiora Solander ? " Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 

 vol. 39, p. 519, 1912. 



' Lamarck. Encyclopedic Methodique Botanique, vol. 4, p. 554, ?179S. 



» Seringe, N. C. De CandoUe, Prodromus, vol. 3, p. 47, 1828. 



* Solander, D. Aiton, Hortus Kewensis, vol. 2, p. 2, 1789. 



