104 
IOWA, ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 
the type of 0. biennis, one of the 0. Lamarclviana series of forms, with 
large flowers, and he excluded and ignored all reference to any of the 
small-flowered forms, several very good figures of which were already 
in existence hy the same authors who had figured and described the 
large-flowered forms. In the Hort. Cliff, the synonomy as already given 
(p. 31 MS.) cites in addition to Morison’s Lysimacliia lutea corniculata 
non papposa virginiana major (which is apparently the same as the 
plant which he figures under the name Lysimacliia Virginiana latifolia 
lutea corniculata), Barrelier’s Lysimacliia lutea corniculata latifolia 
lusitanica with his figure 1232 (reproduced in plate 4). Barrelier cites 
as a synonym Tournefort’s Onagra latifolia florihus amplis, which is, I 
believe, 0. grancliflora. The figure itself is indecisive between 0. grandi- 
fiora and 0. Lamar ckiana. Linnaeus, however, in the Hort. Cliff. ■, * 
segregates Onagra latifolia, florihus amplis Tournef. as differing from the 
type of his species. It would, therefore, seem probable that while 
Barrelier considered his species to be the same as Tournefort’s Onagra 
latifolia, florihus amplis, yet Linnaeus decided that Barrelier’s plant 
was the same as Morison’s, and that the species of Tournefort was 
another thing, differing in minor characters. This is in entire accord 
with our belief that the latter species was really 0. grandiflora. More- 
over, the close similarity of the names under which these plants of 
Barrelier and of fMorrison were figured (differing only in using Vir- 
giniana for lusitanica) would indicate that these two forms were the . 
same. At any rate, it is clear that Linnaeus meant by Oenothera biennis 
the large-flowered forms of 0. Lamarchiana series, and it is possible, 
though not probable, that he meant to include 0. grandiflora. 
From this time forward large flowered forms are frequently cited or 
figured under 0. biennis L., and, as we have seen, these large-flowered 
forms were undoubtedly the ones to which the name 0. biennis was orig- 
inally applied. 
0. biennis is stated by Linnaeus to have been brought from Virginia 
about 1614. The source of this statement, which other evidence shows 
must be about true, I do not know, but it lias frequently been quoted in 
other works'. In the Ilortus Upsaliensis, (1748) Vol. I, p. 94, Linnaeus 
says with reference to the plant which he afterwards called 0. biennis 
in the Species Plantarum, “Habitat in Virginia circa 1620, in Europam 
translata, nunc in Belgio, Italia, Gallia, Germania spontanea,’’ showing 
the wide distribution of these forms at that early time, a century after 
their first introduction. 
Miller in the Gardener’s Dictionary, 6th Edition (1752), under On- 
agra cites 12 species. Regarding the first, Onagra latifolia Inst. R. II. 
