1S14] 



GATES — SOME CENOTHERAS PROM CHESHIRE AND LANCASHIRE 391 



(E. TARDIFLOEA 



This name I have used for another race having many pecuUar- 

 ities and showing more resemblance to (E. grandiflora in its 

 flowers and fohage. It is race No. 52 from the same source as 

 the above. A single individual produced in 1909 nineteen plants 

 which were fairly uniform. The rosettes contained only a few 

 leaves, but large plants were formed, one of which is shown in 

 pi. 22 fig. 17. Although this photograph was taken on August 

 21, the plants with one exception had not begun to flower. The 

 leaves resembled those of (E. grandiflora. They were large 

 with long and acute tips, tapering to the bases, often bearing 

 reddish blotches, sometimes much curled, somewhat crinkled 

 along the midrib. The margin was conspicuously serrately 

 toothed (see pi. 22 fig. 17). At the end of the season (Septem- 

 ber) these plants came into bloom, and pi. 22 fig. 20 shows a 

 plant photographed on October 2. The buds resembled those 

 of (E. grandiflora but were small. The bud cones were pointed, 

 smooth and rounded, the petals slightly larger than in CE. bien- 

 nis, or in a few cases much larger. The petals were also deeply 

 emarginate, strongly cuneate and narrow; and the bracts were 

 very small, narrowly lanceolate and yellowish, giving a peculiar 

 appearance to the flowering shoot. The margins of the bracts 

 were nearly entire or in some cases distantly denticulate. 



The offspring of the plant in pi. 22 fig. 20 were grown and 

 showed the same pecuUarities. The race has not been culti- 

 vated further. It was doubtless of hybrid origin and was more 

 nearly allied to (E. grandiflora than to the Lamarckiana complex. 



CE. KUBRITINCTA 



Reference may be made to one further race which was known 

 as "type m. " It originated from one plant in a sowing of the 

 Birkenhead seeds in 1909. It will be understood that scarcely 

 two plants from this sowing were alike, but some were much 

 more distinct than others. The plant in question was a hand- 

 some one with very narrow leaves and bright red midribs. Its 

 offspring, grown in 1911, were lost with the exception of one 

 plant which was the same as the parent. It is shown in pi. 22 

 fig. 16. The basal leaves were very long with long petioles, the 

 stem leaves very narrow, smooth, with margin closely repand- 



