IOWA ACADEMY OP SCIENCE 
93 
be sometimes laciniate, the others obscurely sinuate. A careful study 
of this description, and comparison with the rosette stages of 0. Lam- 
ar cl'iaiia and 0. grancliflora forms, leads me to the conclusion that it un- 
doubtedly could not have referred to 0. grancliflora, because the leaves 
are described as long and narrow, thick and pale green, while in O. 
grancliflora the leaves 'are not only broad and darker green, usually 
mottled with red, but are thin and comparatively delicate. The conspic- 
uous lobes or laciniations at the bases of the leaves of the mature rosette, 
which seems to be characteristic of all the 0. grancliflora forms, might at 
first be thought to be indicated by the words ‘dnferiora quandoque 
laciniata, ” but these words would refer more correctly to the incon- 
spicuous lobes or projections not infrequently found near the base of the 
blade in 0. Lamar ckiana and others of that series. Taking the rosette 
characters tout’, ensemble, they certainly in my judgment picture a plant 
of the 0. T^amarckiana series, while they could not reasonably be held to 
refer to any form in the 0. grandiflora series. Therefore, regarding 0. 
Lamar ckiana as a “Linnaean” species, this form should be included 
within it. On the other hand the description differs in several respects 
from the typical 0. Lamarckiana of cultures. There is no mention of the 
crinkling of the leaves, but I shall show that this is referred to in an 
independent description of what was probably the same form. The 
rosette leaves, if only an inch in width, are certainly much narrower than 
is usual in our 0. Lamarckiana.^ (3) The fact that the hypanthium 
or flower stalk is about three inches long and the flower large, of course 
precludes the plant from being 0. biennis or any other small-flowered 
form. (4) The statement that the bud is quadrangular is important 
because it again eliminates 0. grancliflora as a possibility. The third 
character referred to then distinguishes the plant from 0. biennis, while 
either the rosette characters or the quadrangular buds are sufficient to 
make it certain that the plant cannot be 0. grandiflora. The only other 
species which is a possible candidate for this position is 0. argillicola 
McK. The rosette leai^es of the latter are very narrow but, though its 
flowers are large, several other characters, such as the rounded bud and 
the more or less decumbent stem and branches throw this out of court 
as a possibility. A¥hile the plant described in this earlier account is 
therefore closer to 0. Lamarckiana Ser. than to any other form, and cer- 
^It has occurred to me that these rosette leaf characters miglit compare very well 
with O. laevifolia. Is it possible that O. laevifolia is not a mutant from O. Lamarck- 
iana but has persisted continuously in collections of seeds, since this earliest intro- 
duction? If so, it would probably be the form referred to in the Hort. Cliff. (1737) 
as growing abundantly on the sand dunes of Holland. Against this interpretation is 
the fact that plants growing on the English coast near Liverpool from an early date, 
contain ■ the true O. Lamarckiana as a prominent constituent of the population, but 
are not found to contain O. laevifolia. 
