258 



THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



The first two references — Royen, Flor. Leyd. p. 430 (1740), 

 and Dalibard, Flor. Paris, p. 269 (1749) — are both based primarily 

 on that to C. Bauhin, Pinax, p. 199 (1623). Under Bauhin's name 

 we find a number of references, some of which are vague, others 

 not, but the use of the name itself is not open to doubt. In the 

 herbarium of Sir Hans Sloane preserved in the Department of 

 Botany there are three specimens under this name : 



i. H. S. 13, p. 124 — a plant given Mr. Courten by Tournefort. 

 This is V. elatior. 



ii. H. S. 91, p. 186 — one of Plukenet's plants. This is the 

 apex of a fruiting branch of V, elatior. 



iii. H. S. 311, p. 84 — one of Uvedale's plants. This is 

 V. elatior. 



It is thus evident that the name Viola martia arborescens 

 jmrpitrea was uniformly used in Linnaeus's time for V. elatior. 



Royen also refers to V. martia arboresce?is 'purimrea Boerh. 

 Lugd. 1244 (1720). Boerhaave quotes Linnaeus's fourth reference 

 (Moris. Hist. — see below) and also " Jacea tricolor surrectis 

 caulihus quihusdain arhorea dicta," J. Bauh. Hist, iii, 547: 1651). 

 Here we find a good summary of the literature. Bauhin says that 

 he cannot imagine wdiy the plant is called " arborea " or " arbo- 

 rescens," and therefore has not used that name, but he gives a 

 good figure and description of V. elatior. He notes that C. I3auhin 

 in his earlier work erroneously referred V. assurgens tricolor Dod. 

 and V. martia surrectis caulicidis Lobel. to Tricolor erecta, an Jovis 

 ftos TheoijJirast., whereas they belong to his plant (z. c. V. elatioi-). 

 It is interesting to notice that Boerhaave, possibly following C. 

 Bauhin, labelled a plant in his herbarium (H. S. 320, p. 137) 

 with these same three names. The specimen is a form of 

 V. tricolor Linn, and is the only specimen in Herb. Sloane bearing 

 as name any of the synonyms cited in the Pinax which is not 

 F. elatior. 



Before referring to the other specimens in Herb. Sloane we 

 will deal with Linnaeus's reference to Morison's Historia (1680). 

 The description and figure refer undoubtedly to V. elatior, and 

 the specimen in Morison's Herbarium is also V. elatior (see 

 Druce and Vines The Morisonian Herbarium, p. 45 : 1914). The 

 figures of Viola erecta flore ccerideo and Viola erecta flore albo in 

 the Hortus Eystettensis, Ordo V. fol. 5, figs, ii and iii (1613), are 

 both of V. elatior. 



Linnaeus's last reference to "Cam.epit. 911" — i. e. Camerarius's 

 edition (1568) of Matthioli's De Plantis Ejntome — is cited as a' 

 synonym by C. Bauhin, J. Bauhin and Morison, so that it is no 

 wonder that Linnaeus also cited it. The figure given is not good. 

 It might be V. elatior. The stipules are rather large for V. Buppii 

 All. (et Borbas in Koch's Synopsis ed. Hallier, p. 207 : 1890), while 

 they do not look as prominent in the figure as one W'Ould have 

 expected an artist to make those of V. elatior. The locality given 

 is Monte Baldo. This plant is referred by Pollini, Fl. Veron. i, 

 297 (1822), and Parlatore, Fl. Ital. ix, 155 (1890-1893), to 

 ''V. montana L.," i.e. V. elatior , which they keep distinct from 



