290 THE JOURNAL OP BOTANY 



indicate that the plant is a " wood violet," and not one of the 

 heath violets often called V. canina Keichb. ; hut the question is 

 finally settled when he says, " calcar . . . purpuram utrinque 

 secante fascia alba." Thus Bauhin's plant is definitely not a 

 yellow- spurred " dog violet." 



In conclusion, he remarks that there are two forms, one 

 larger with round leaves, the other smaller " foliis mucronatis 

 oblongis ac strictioribus." The former is clearly the plant now 

 often called V. Riviniana; the latter, V. sylvestris, being the plant 

 called by C. Bauhin " altera minor." 



The only other good description that I have come across is 

 given by Morison in his Historia, in which work the descriptions 

 are usually excellent. This description is referred to in the Hortus 

 GUffortiamts. Morison apparently considered it unnecessary to 

 describe the plant afresh, but used J. Bauhin's description word 

 for word, with the exception of a few alterations in the Latin. 



Thus the Viola canina of the Species Plantarum is by no 

 means the indefinite plant commonly supposed, but is definitely 

 the plant now called V. Biviniana Rchb., or at most an " aggre- 

 gate " of this and V. sylvestris. 



This opinion was held by all botanists up till 1823. Some- 

 times the floras do not give good enough descriptions to enable 

 one to say which plant was really intended, but others again 

 by amplifying their descriptions, or by choosing their references, 

 definitely restricted their plant always to a wood violet, and 

 almost always to V. Biviniana. I might mention Curtis's 

 Flora Lond. fasc. 2, t. 61 (about 1777"'=); Sowerby's English 

 Botany, t. 620 (1799) ; Smith's Flora Britannica, i. p. 246 

 (1800); Smith's English Flora, i. p. 303 (1824); Host (1791), 

 Synopsis Plantarum in Austria, p. 481 ; Eiom et Clermont (1800), 

 Flora cl'Auvcrgne, ed. ii. p. 501 ; De Candolle (1824), Prodromus, 

 i. p. 298 ; Both (1827), Enum. PI. Phan. Germ. i. p. 757. Very 

 many other floras of all parts of Europe give no descriptions, but 

 cite Bauhin's Hist. 3, p. 543, or Curtis's Fl. Lond. or E. B. 620, 

 or some other well-known description of the common wood violet. 



During that time many new names came into ^existence, the 

 dates of those which apply to British plants being as follows : — 



1753. 1798. 1813. 1814. 



V. canina L (T^ Riviniana Kchb.) 



V. lactea Sm. 



V. ericetoriim Hayne (F. canina Echb.) 



V. sylvestnsliit.-^^^y Keichenbachina Jord.) 

 V. star/nina Kit. {V. lactea Keichb.) 



All this time the plant later called V. Biviniana was called 

 V. canina, and Schultes, in his Oest. Fl. (1814), where for the 

 first time describing a new violet under the name V. sylvestris, 

 cites as a reference for V. canina, " E. B. 620." 



In 1823, however, Eeichenbach, in his Plantcs Criticce, made a 



* Clarke, Journ. Bot. 1895, p. 118. 



