112 
IOWA ACADEMY Oi<’ SCIENCE 
Yries, however (1909, p. 4-12), assures us that the original specimens 
from which the description was drawn agree exactly witli the 0. Lam- 
arcliiana used in his cultures, although he says that they hy no means 
represent the mean type of the species in every respect. 
De Candolle in the Prodromus (111:46) in 1828 segregates 0. grandi- 
' flora Ait., 0. suaveolens Desf., and 0. Lamarckiana Ser. from 0. hiennis 
L. 0. suaveolens is recognized as probably referable to O. grandiflora 
Ait., as DeVries has shown to be the case (1895 p. 587), under O. kieio 
nis L. are cited as figures FI. Danica .5:pl. 446 (which seems to represent 
a race of the '‘European hiennis”) and Miller’s Gard. Bid., pi. 189, Fig. 
2. which I have already referred to as prol)ably a race of our present 0. 
hiennis, or perhaps a hybrid between 0. hiennis and 0. Lamard'iana. 
The 0. Lamarckiana of the Seringe Mss, as is well known, was the 0. 
grandiflora of Lamarck’s Dictionnaire. Ibider 0. grandiflora Ait. De- 
Candolle cites 8ims in Curt. Bof. Mag., 46 pi. 2068 (1819), to which I 
may n,ow refer. 
Sims' distinguishes a form (A) which he characterizes as “Caule, foliis, 
germinibusque glabris” and a form (B) “caule et germinibus, subpu- 
bescentibus, foliis calycibusque villosis. ” The plate refers to the (B) 
form. I formerly considered that this plate represented 0. Lamarckiana 
rather than 0 . grandiflora, on account of the rather narrow leaves and 
the stout sepal tips. A direct comparison of the measurements of the 
plate with those of a culture of the Alabama 0. grandiflora from seeds 
obtained from Prof. S. lil. Tracy, makes it evident, however, that the 
two agree in practically all their characters and measurements, even in 
the rather narrowly cuneate petals with spaces between them. The last 
character is more conspicuous in flowers blooming late in the season. Re- 
garding the difference between his two forms, Sims says, “Except in the 
slight pubescence of the stem, germen and tube of the calyx, and the soft 
villous leaves, our plant differs in no respect from Oenothera grandiflora, 
of which, therefore, it must be considered as a mere variety.” He then 
says it is a native of Carolina. In cultures of 0. grandiflora races from 
plants naturalized on the Lancashire coast of England, I have found dif- 
ferences similar to those between Sims’ forms. Other series of races are 
found to exist, differing from each other less than the present 0. grandi- 
flora and 0. Lamarckiana in the strict sense differ from each other. IMy 
recent cultures indicate that, however they may have originated, num- 
bers of such races occur and breed true to their peculiarities. AVhen self- 
pollinated they behave as “pure lines.” AVhat their behavior in crossing 
may be is as yet unknown. 
