289 



ON THE NAME VIOLA CANINA. 



By a. J. WiLMOTT, B.A. 



The object of this paper is to endeavour to determine the 

 species of violet to whicli the name Viola canina sliould be re- 

 stricted. Linnaeus, in founding the species, says (/Sjj. PL p. 935) : — 



"canina. Viola caule demum adscendente, foliis oblongo-cordatis. 

 Viola caulibus adscendentibus fioriferis, foliis cor- 



datis. Hort. cliff. 427; Fl. suec. 716, Rov. 



lugdh. 430; Gron. virg. 182; Hall. helv. 501; 



Dalib. liar is, 269. 

 Viola foliis cordatis oblongis, pedunculis subradi- 



catis. Fl. lapp. '2^11. 

 Viola martia inodora sylvestris. Bauli. pin. 199. 

 Viola ccerulea martia inodora sylvatica, in cacumine 



semen ferens. Bauli. hist. 3, p. 543. 

 Habitat in Europae apricis if.." 



It should be borne in mind that Linngeus in his Species Plan- 

 tarum was making the change from the earlier to the binomial 

 system of naming plants, and therefore his short diagnosis must 

 be considered in relation to the cited synonymy. 



Of the first six references, the only useful description is in 

 Haller's Historia Stirpium Hclvetice, p. 501 (1742). Haller re- 

 marks that the plant has "folia cordata, acuminata, modo longiora, 

 modo latiora." He also says that the flowers are large, inodorous, 

 and that the fruit has very acute keels. These characters indicate 

 that he is describing a " wood violet," and not one of the heath 

 violets. 



In the Flora Lapponica (1737), no. 277, Linnseus refers to 

 J. Bauhin's description, but gives no description of the plant. 



C. Bauhin, in his Pinax (1623), gives a list of synonyms, and 

 finally remarks : " Duplex est, altera major foliis majoribus & 

 rotundioribus : altera minor, foliis mucronatis oblongis ac stricti- 

 oribus." Since the first of these was always taken as the typo, 

 the plant meant by him as V. martia inodora sylvestris was the 

 large wood violet, then often called V. inodora major (Rivinus), 

 and now often called V. Biviniana. 



The last reference given by Linnaius is the most important, 

 for J. Bauhin, in his Historia, iii. p. 543 (1651), gives a really 

 good description of the violet called by him "Viola coerulea martia 

 inodora sylvatica, in cacumine semen ferens." He said that ho 

 gave the good description to enable people to identify the plant, 

 since his figure was unusually bad. Tliis description is referred 

 to by most pre-Linnean writers who do not themselves give a 

 description. I will give some extracts from Bauhin's description : — 

 "Folia circinatie fere rotunditatis — supina parte leviter hirsuta, 

 viridantia, prona vero glabra, dilutius vircntia, fere luteola, inter- 

 dum subpurpurea." The stipules are described as "in ambitu 

 hirsuta," the capsules as " siliqua3 longae." All these points 



