T H E 
NEW PNYTOIiOGIST. 
Vol. XII, No. 7 . 
July, 1913 . 
[Published July 26th, 1913.] 
THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF (ENOTHERA 
LAMARCKIAN A DE VRIES. 
By Bradley Moore Davis, 
University of Pennsylvania. 
[With One Figure in the Text] . 
am led to write this paper partly for the reason that the problem 
■ of the origin of (Enothera Lamarchiana De Vries has in the 
past few months became far more tangible than formerly, but 
chiefly because it seems probable that certain phases of the problem 
can be solved only by studies on the development of certain English 
(Enothera floras. I have then the hope that a brief outline of the 
situation, as it now appears to me, will be of some assistance to 
British botanists interested in the subject. 
Recent studies 1 clearly indicate that the Lnmarckiana of the 
cultures of De Vries cannot be identified with the plant described 
by Lamarck 2 under the name /Enothera grandiflora from material 
grown in Paris at about 1796 or earlier and renamed by Seringe 3 
(Enothera Lamarchiana. The evidence is very strong that Lamarck’s 
plant ((Enothera Lamarchiana Seringe), was a form of (Enothera 
grandiflora Solander 4 (O. grandiflora “Aiton”) introduced into 
England in 1778 from Alabama. 
This disposition of (Enothera Lamarchiana Seringe as a form 
of 0. grandiflora Solander relieves our problem from association 
with the early date of 1796 and allows us to pass to later periods 
when we may hope for more direct evidence than that furnished by 
old descriptions and figures. The attempts to establish the presence 
1 Davis, B. M. “Was Lamarck’s evening primrose ((Enothera Lamarchiana 
Seringe) a form of (Enothera grandiflora Solander?” Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 
vol. 39, p. 519, 1912. 
1 Lamarck. Encyclopedic MSthodique Botanique, vol. 4, p. 554, ? 1798. 
3 Seringe, N. C. De Candolle, Prodromus, vol. 3, p. 47, 1828. 
4 Solander, D. Aiton, Hortus Kewensis, vol. 2, p. 2, 1789. 
