The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 65, July 1961 - April, 1962 Page: 146
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
Primrose species, Oenothero triloba (Plate 29) with only an
obscure statement at the end of the "remarks" section (p. 163)
that it is not a "true buttercup." As a native Texan, this reviewer
knew no buttercups except those belonging indiscriminately to
any species of the genus Oenothera. Contact with many other
Texans through the years, has confirmed that with us this erro-
neous concept is overwhelmingly prevalent. But this is the first
time he has ever seen it restricted to a single species; and he is
constrained to believe it not amiss to desire to have the error
pointed out in a generally excellent treatment such as this, which
should correct, rather than propagate, error. A glance at the true
Buttercup (Plate 11) will reveal the striking likeness of the
freshly opened flower to a golden saucer with a rounded pat of
equally golden butter in the center. No flower of any Oenothera
has any such likeness, and there is no reason why poor little
0. triloba should be singled out to bear the onus of the whole
responsibility for this unfortunate, erroneous chore.
Another manifest error in identity is found on Plate 41, called
Rattlesnake-flower (Brazoria scutellarioides) . The illustration,
beyond question, represents a species of Scutellaria. By no means
could it be a "Scutellaria-like" species of Brazoria. Even if it were
Brazoria scutellarioides, it still would not be "Rattlesnake-flower";
that name definitely belongs only to Brazoria truncata whose
flowering axis in bud, just prior to the expanding of the first
(lowermost) flower, is so similar in general outline to a set of
1o-12 snake-rattles as to make the common name quite appro-
priate. Brazoria scutellarioides no more suggests snake-rattles than
does the Scutellaria in the mis-named figure on Plate 41.
Figures illustrating Spiderwort and Dayflower (Plate 2), and
Blue-eyed-grass (Plates 5 and 6) commendably have only generic
scientific names, inasmuch as correct specific determination is
impossible. Yucca arkansana (Plate 3), certainly mis-named, is
a case in point illustrating the hazard, since it would be impos-
sible from the painting, to name the species with any degree of
certainty. That it is not arkansana is clearly manifest by the
relatively broad, stiff leaves with no trace of white fibers ravelling
off the margins. Simply to have called it Yucca would have been
far more preferable.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 65, July 1961 - April, 1962, periodical, 1962; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101195/m1/170/: accessed November 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.