- I THE JOURNAL OP BOTANY 



still, considering the author's busy life and advanced age (which 

 her friends would hardly have guessed), the amount of in- 

 formation supplied and the freshness of style are remarkable: and 

 it may be added that in this genus, owing to the fugitive colour 

 of the blossoms, the precise determination of dried material is 

 extremely difficult. "In the Cambridge Botanic Gardens Mr. 

 Lynch has kindly allowed the writer to make some necessary 

 experimental tests, especially with regard to the now exploded 

 theory that Vwlce rely on their cleistogamous capsules only for 

 fertile seed " (Preface, p. xiii.). It is suggested (p. 103) " that a 

 t deal of most interesting w 7 ork remains to be accomplished 

 [in connection with intermediates having the appearance of 

 hybrids], which would be more successfully done in situ. 

 Moving these few plants to garden soil and conditions does not 

 tend towards a full knowledge of their characters." This may be 

 true to some extent, and artificial cross-fertilisation affords the 

 only real solution of many problems; yet the cultural experiments 

 of Mr. Beeby and one or tw T o others had encouraging results. 



Although I have paid some attention to our violets, my 

 acquaintance with them is so fragmentary, so incomplete, and 

 so little up-to-date, that for me to attempt a review of this 

 Monograph is (to say the least) rather rash ; and I have only 

 done so, faute de mieux, by the Editor's desire. It should, there- 

 fore, be clearly understood that my comments are mere obiter'dicta, 

 and should not be taken too seriously. 



Mr. F. N. Williams (Prodr. Fl. Brit. Part 10, pp. 574, &c. 

 Sept. 1912) adopts the same nomenclature as is here adopted for 

 his nine species of this group, reducing V. calcarea Gregory, 

 V. rupestris Schmidt, and V. montana L. to varieties, as 

 V. hirta /i calcarea Bab., V. silvestris f3 rupestris Maxim., 

 and V. stagnina /i Kiitzingiana Eouy & Fouc, respectively; 

 the remaining variations and the hybrids being, with one excep- 

 tion, passed over. With regard to the first, Mrs. Gregory herself 

 admits (p. 28) that, although it is a widely different plant in 

 apppearance from V. hirta (type), the two are connected by a 

 whole series of intermediates; but Babington's var. calcarea 

 included forms which clearly belong to V. hirta, and (as a matter 

 of convenience, if not for better reasons) her species may be 

 retained with some advantage. V. rupestris var. armaria (DC), 

 our Teesdale plant, differs greatly from V. silvestris in its habit, 

 foliage, and downy capsules, and seems to me to be much nearer 

 in general appearance to small forms of Riviniana, but quite 

 distinct. V. montana (V. nemoralis Kiitz.) I only know from 

 dried material ; Mrs. Gregory and Dr. Moss kindly took me to its 

 only British station, last June, but we failed to see it (though it 

 fairly plentiful a few years ago), probably owing to the dense 

 overgrowth having prevented it from flowering. The author says 

 (p. 102) :— " I have my doubts as to whether V. montana L. is a 

 good species, and should not be surprised if it turned out to be a 

 hybrid between V. canina var lucorum and V. stagnina:' Its 

 robust habit and general appearance mark it off strongly from 



