116 
IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 
DeVries (1909 p. 411 footnote)-, in discussing 0. grandiflora, says, 
‘ ^ My investigations in the lierbarinm at Paris have convinced me of the 
identity of the form I cultivate as 0. suaveolens Desf. (0. macrantha 
llort.) with the form described by Desfontaines. Both of them have 
tiowers of the same size as those of 0. biennis.” This is explained 1)y the 
fact that the European 0. biennis has larger flowers than the American 
races, though smaller than 0. Lamarcbiana, wliile the Alabama 0. grand-- 
iflora has flowers which are also, in some cases, distinctly smaller than 
in 0. Lamarclviana. 
Prom the fact that the Oenotheras established on the sand dunes of 
the English coast north of Liverpool include 0. Lamar ckiana and 0. 
grandiflora, where they have freely multiplied and intercrossed since 
at least 1805, and probably much earlier, the conclusion is scarcely 
avoidable that this 0. Lamar cLiana must have been derived from the 
early introduction of these plants from V'irginia, for the Texas pDnt was 
not introduced until 1860. 
At one stage in the progress of tliese historical investigations I thought 
it probable that 0. grandiflora had been introduced into this English 
locality much later, i. e., since the introduction of this plant from Ala- 
bama in 1778. It seems improbable, however, that both 0. Lamar cbiana 
and 0. biennis Avould be taken over from Virginia, and 0. grandiflora 
remain behind. As already stated, I believe that Ray’s species number 
11 belongs to 0. grandiflora. It seems not improbable that the absence 
of later recognition of two large-flowered forms may have been due to 
subsequent crossing in gardens, Avhich is A^ery likely to have occurred and 
which (as I haA^e found from my cultures) Avould tend to obscure the 
distinctions betAveen the two species, by creating intermediates. For 
instance, the statements of Ljndley in Edwards ’ Bot. Register 19 pi. 1604, 
(1833) in which the figure of a plant AAdiich is niost like 0. Lamar cbiana 
Ser. is given under the name 0. biennis var. grandiflora, sIioav that very 
probably the limits between 0. bieyvnis L., 0. Lamarckiana Ser. and 0. 
grandiflora Ait. liad been largely obscured and eliminated by spontan- 
eous crossing in gardens during the long period of their cultiA^ation. * 
Miller, in the Gardener’s Dictionary, in 1807 (Vol. 2 Part 1) cites 
under Oenothera, 0. biennis, 0.' grandiflora, 0. parviflora, 0. muricata, . 
0. longiflora, 0. fruticosa, and others. The plant referred to under 0. 
biennis is described in part as f oIIoaa^s : ‘ ^ Germ sessile, an inch long or 
more ; on the top of this is the tube of the calyx, from an inch to almost 
tAvo inches in length, and narrow, spreading out at the top into four 
acute segments, villose on the outside, an inch in length, l)ent doAAm by 
