IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 
103 
Lysimacliia lutea corniculata latifolia lusitanica Barr. rar. t. 1232. 
Onagra latifolia, florihus amplis Tournef. 
Onagra latifolia flora clilutiore Tournef. 
Crescit in Virginia aliisque Americae locis. 
It is interesting to note that even at this time he says “Copiose crescit ubique 
in cainpis arenosis Hollandiae.” 
2. Oenothera foliis lineari-lanceolatis dentatis, florihus e media caule. 
Onagra angustifolia, caule ruhro, flore minore. Tournef. Inst. 302. 
Onagra salicis angusto dentatoque folio, vulgo Mithon. Fevill peruv. 3, 
p. 48. t. 36. 
Crescit in America meridionali prope Chili. 
Tlie corolla is described as ‘‘flavo rubra. ” I have not attempted to 
determine what South American species this is. Tournef ort ’s Onagra 
angustifolia is evidently wrongly referred to it. 
Linnaeus, in the first edition of the Species Plantarum (1753), recog- 
nizes three species of Oenothera (1:346), 0. hiennis, 0. mollissima and 
O. fruticosa. The second is a South American form which need not 
concern us. Tournefort's Onagra angustifolia cattle rubro, flore minore 
is referred to 0. fruticosa. As already mentioned, the figure of Barrelier 
(990), together with his synonomy, makes it quite certain that the 
plant here designated by Linnaeus 0. fruticosa was in reality what 
we now know under the name of 0. nuricata L. The modern 0. fruti- 
cosa belongs in the sub-genus Kneiffia and has a very different habit, 
much larger flowers and quite different capsules. 
Linnaeus’ citation of 0. hiennis in the Species Plantarum, 1st Edition, 
is as follows: 
Oenothera foliis orato lanceolatis planis. Vir. Cliff. 33. Hort. Ups. 94. 
Gron. virg. 154. Roy. lugdh. 251. Gort. E. gelr. 78. 
Oenothera foliis ovato-lanceolatis denticulatis, floribus lateralibus in 
summo caulis. Hort. Cliff. 144. 
Lysimachia lutea corniculata. Bauh. pin. 245, 516. 
Moris, hist. 2. p. 271. s. 3. t. 11. f. 7. 
Habitat in Virginia unde 1614, nunc vulgaris Europae. 
The fact that Linnaeus cites as an illustration Morison’s fig. 7 (repro- 
duced in plate 2), which is beyond peradventure a large-flowered Oeno- 
thera, and ignores all previously published figures of small-flowered 
species, shows without question that he meant in 0. hiennis to include 
only the larger flowered forms. Further, he recognizes that Morison’s 
plant is the same as the^ Lysimacliia lutea corniculata of Bauhin, which, 
as I have shown, on acount of the ciuadrangular buds and other charac- 
ters, undoubtedly belongs in the 0. Lamar ckiana series of forms, and 
not to 0. grandiflora. Unquestionably, therefore, Linnaeus meant as 
