shown above would have designated these two species as 'hybrid' or 'garden products.'
It is true, of course, that similar finality of evidence with regard to O. Lamarckiana has not yet been obtained, but it does not seem 'unlikely' that it may come to hand when we are able to organize a search for it as well-directed as for the species named. Collectors are few in the region to be covered, and it might be many years before it could be traced to its habitat, even if it occupied a large area. To those interested in suppositions, however, the following from Miller ('Figures of the Most Useful and Uncommon Plants described in the Gardener's Dictionary exhibited on Three Hundred Copper Plates Accurately Engraven after Drawings taken from Nature,' Vol. II., 1760) will suggest the need of caution in the matter. He says regarding the "Tree Primrose with oval spear-shaped indented Leaves, and Flowers proceeding from the Wings of the Leaves on the Upper Part of the Stalk":
This plant is also a Native of North America; but "was the first species of the Genus which was brought to Europe, so is more commonly seen in the Gardens than any of the other species. In some Parts of Europe, this is spread about from the Gardens in such Plenty, that it might be supposed a Native there. In a small Wood near Haerlem in Holland this Plant covered the Ground insomuch that many skilful Persons supposed it was a Native of that Place. But it may be easily accounted for; because the Gardeners who live near that Place, are chiefly Florists, and they annually change the Earth of the Beds in their Gardens; so by carrying out of their old Earth from their Beds, in which many of the Seeds were scattered the Plants came up there; and those being suffered to scatter their Seeds, had filled the whole Wood with the Plants.
This differs from the first Sort, (described and figured as O. biennis) in having broader Leaves; the Stalks grow taller, and the Flowers are much larger. Both these Sorts will thrive in the Smoak of London better than most Plants.The appended descriptions and the plate (No. 189, dated 1757) very fittingly characterize O. biennis and O. Lamarckiana, and as the descriptions were made before O. grandiflora, the only known species which might be confused with O. Lamarckiana, was discovered, this evidence is serious enough to give one pause in ascribing a hybrid origin to the last-named. Meanwhile the mutation-theory, based on the conception of unit-characters, will neither stand nor fall by suppositions or proof as to the ancestry of O. Lamarckiana. If this plant and all of its derivatives were obliterated from our records, the facts in our possession well warrant current conclusions as to unit-characters and their appearance and disappearance in hereditary strains in saltatory fashion.
A certain literary freedom of expression is well illustrated by the following citation from a recent article by Dr. Jordan in this magazine, in which he says:
