No. 599] SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION 



689 



The results will, I think, show that Lamarckiana-like forms of 

 (Enothera may be synthesized by simple crosses between wild 

 species provided the parent species are selected with care. I 

 believe that as the isolation of (Enothera types proceeds a num- 

 ber of different crosses will be found to give similar results, but 

 this is the first successful combination that I have been able to 

 study experimentally. My earlier work 2 with (Enothera grandi- 

 flora Solander and certain American wild types was planned at 

 a time when grandiflora on historical grounds seemed to be a 

 more important type in relation to the problem of the origin of 

 (Enothera Lamarckiana than it does at present. That work was 

 not so successful as the later in producing Lamarckiana-l&e hy- 

 brids for the reason that the parent species did not have as 

 favorable characters for the end in view. 



In spite of the recent paper of De Vries, 3 to which I have re- 

 plied 4 in brief, my conviction is unshaken that Lamarck's plant, 

 grown in the botanical gardens of Paris about 1796, was a form 

 of (Enothera grandiflora Solander and can not be identified with 

 the Lamarckiana of De Vries 's cultures. On this view (Enothera 

 Lamarckiana Seringe must pass into the synonymy of (Enothera 

 grandiflora Solander. Neither am I convinced that other speci- 

 mens in the collections of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle in 

 Paris, particularly sheets of Andre Michaux and Abbe Pourret, 

 may be referred to (Enothera Lamarckiana. I believe that the 

 plant with which we are concerned in the experimental garden 

 had a later origin and must bear the name of De Vries as its 

 sponsor. At present our first certain date of the progenitors ot 

 (Enothera Lamarckiana De Vries appears to be about I860, when 

 the seed firm of Carter and Company in London introduced tne 

 plant to the trade. . . 



Both De Vries and Gates have accepted my suggestion tnat 

 Carter and Company obtained their material of Lamarckmna 

 from some English station and not from Texas, as they state^ 

 We have no evidence that Lamarckiana ever grew in Texas and 

 to me there is no evidence that it was ever native to America. 



^ Davis, B. M "Some Hybrids of (Enothera biennis and 0. 9™ndiflora 

 that Resemble 0. ZZarLi^a," Amer. Nat., XLV, 

 "Further Hybrids of (Enothera biennis and 0. grandiflora that Kesemoie 

 0. LamarcJciana," Ibid., XLVI, 377-^27, 1912. ^Tciana 



s De Vries, Hugo, "The Probable Origin of (Enothera Lamarc 

 Ser.," Bot. Gas., LVII, 345-361, 1914. n?nnlhera 



* Davis, B. M., ' ' Professor De Vries on the Probable Ongin of (Enothera 

 Lamarckiana," Amer. Nat., XLIX, £9-64, 1915. 



