A MUCH DESIRED OENOTHERA 



149 



written "my 2320 was taken at the edge of a vacant, unkempt lot 

 in town (Santa Cruz) and may very well have escaped from culti- 

 vation, though none of the plant was in evidence in cultivation 

 roundabout as far as I noticed." 



The writer grew in 1912 a culture of 106 plants from this Santa 

 Cruz material. As young rosettes the culture presented a diverse 

 assemblage; about ^ of the rosettes were iMmarckimia-like, about 



Fig- 2 Fig. .3 



Fig. 2. Mature rosette of Oenothera Lamarckiana De Vries. There are also 

 forms witli broader leaves raore closely clustered. 



Fig, .3. Mature plant of a large-flowered form of Oenothera Lnniarekiana De 

 Vries. 



i had leaves much narrower and more loosely clustered than in 

 Lamarckiana and between these types was a wide range of inter- 

 mediates. The differences became more conspicuous as the cul- 

 ture matured and finally the following types were distinguished 

 in a careful analysis made by Mr. Bartlett: 



Type I. Oenothera Lamarekiana. Leaves crinlcled, stems green with red 

 papillae at the base of long hairs, buds both viscid-pubescent and pilose. 44 plants. 



Type II. Differed from Type I in that the longer flowering side branches were 

 red above, although the main stem was clear green. 5 plants. 



Type III. Differed from Type I only in having red stem coloration. 6 plants. 



Type IV. Differed from Type I only in the intensely red sepals (a character 

 of 0. ruhrinervis) . 2 plants. 



Type V. Differed from Type I in having the red stem coloration of Type III 

 and the intensely red sepals of Type IV. 1 plant, ruhrinervis-like. 



