No. 577] NOTES AND LITERATURE 



61 



Eastwood and M. Gagnepain who compared the two specimens 

 reported to me that they were very similar. Both were undoubt- 

 edly known to Lamarck since the two sheets bear his hand- 

 writing, and it is quite possible that Lamarck based his descrip- 

 tion on both specimens. 



The general morphology of these specimens presents several 

 features that are not those of the Lamarckiana of De Vries's 

 cultures. Chief among these are (1) the approximate branches, 



(2) the foliage of narrower and more distinctly petioled leaves, 



(3) the inflorescence more open and with narrower bracts, (4) 

 the buds more slender and tapering, and apparently with more 

 attenuated sepal tips, (5) the long delicate hypanthium. In 

 these features the specimens are closer to 0. grandiflora than to 

 Lamarckiana. Such morphological characters, it is true, might 

 vary somewhat under different conditions of growth and with 

 the time of collection whether early or late in the season. The 

 pubescence should give us the stronger evidence of relationship 

 since pubescence would be little if at all affected by growth con- 

 ditions or by season. Of the pubescence on one of these speci- 

 mens I have Gagnepain's statement that it is close to that of 

 grandiflora, but it is only fair to say that no Oenothera specialist 

 has reported upon such a comparison as is desired. 



Lamarck's description of the capsules of his plant as short and 

 glabrous is a point of great importance. The capsules of De 

 Vries's Lamarckiana are certainly not glabrous but they are 

 short. In my contention that Lamarck's plant was a form of 

 0. grandiflora Solander I was at first forced to assume that 

 Lamarck must have described immature or partially pollinated 

 capsules. I have, however, this summer <zrown Oenotheras from 

 Mississippi which have the rosettes, habit, foliage, inflorescence, 

 and flowers of grandiflora, but which developed glabrous short 

 capsules essentially of the same relative proportions as those of 

 Lamarckiana. It is immaterial what is the origin or genetic 

 history of these plants; systematically speaking they represent 

 short-capsuled forms of O. grandiflora. Thus we now know of 

 f/rai>di/!nra-\\ke types which even as to their capsules agree with 

 the description of Lamarck. De Vries does not seem to be dis- 

 turbed by the fact that the material of his cultures presents 

 capsules with a heavy puberulent and pilose pubescence while 

 Lamarck's description specifies a capsule "glabre." 



In summary I must say that my opinion remains unchanged 

 with respeet to the affinities of the plant described by Lamarck, 



