VIOLA MONTANA L. 259 



" V. Bupiyii All. Flor. Ped. = V. stricta Hornem. ? Koch et anct." 

 PoUini states that he himself gathered it on Monte Baldo. It 

 therefore seems fair to assume that the plant of Monte Baldo 

 described in " Cam. epit. 911 " may well also have been V. elatior. 

 The diagnosis in the Species Plantarum — " Viola caulihus 

 erectis, foliis cordatis oblongis" — does not help much, since 

 although it fits V. elatior perfectly, it does not exclude all the 

 other species. 



There are in Herb. Sloane other plants labelled with various of 

 the names in question. They are: 



H.S. 83, p. 114 — Viola assurgens tricolor Dodon. This is a 

 European specimen collected by Plukenet and is almost 

 certainly the apex of a fruiting stem of V. elatior. 

 H.S. 136, p. 47, as Viola martia surrectis cauliculis. V. erecta 

 coer. d' albj Eyst. arborescens Matth. [i. e. = " Cam. 

 epit.") This is V. elatior: 

 H.S. 311, p. 82, no. 3— one of Uvedale's plants, as V. surrecta 

 purpurea Park., a synonym cited in Eay Hist. This is 

 V. elatior. 

 There are also plants in Sloane's Herbarium which were appa- 

 rently not named by their collectors, but which Sloane himself 

 identifies as " E.H. 1052, 1," i. e. Eay's Historia Stirp. p. 1052, 

 no. ] (1688), called Viola surrecta purpurea Park. Mar. arbore- 

 scens purpurea C.B. Viola assurgens tricolor Ger. Jacea tricolor 

 surrectis caulibus, quibusdam arborea dicta J.B. 



Eay's description is of V. elatior, and the specimens thus 

 referred by Sloane— H.S. 102, p. 115, and H.S. 230, p. 6— are also 

 V. elatior. Gerard (Herbal. 1597, p. 703) and Parkinson (Theatr. 

 Bot. 1640, p. 755) both figure V. elatior. 



It thus seems evident that Linnaeus's contemporaries would 

 without exception have understood V. montana Linn, as being the 

 plant now called V. elatior (or the nearly related V. danubialis), 

 and it was so understood and used by Allioni, Eoth, DecandoUe, 

 Lapeyrouse, Gmelin, Besser, etc., and all authors before Wahlenberg. 

 What then are the reasons given by modern authors in justifica- 

 tion of their use of the name V. montana for V. Buppii ? Becker, 

 Ber. d. Bayer. Bot. Ges. viii, 2, 271 (1902), and Burnat and Briquet, 

 Ann. Conserv. et Jarcl. bot. Geneve, vi, 143 (1902), give " V. mon- 

 tana L. Flor. Suec. 305 (1755) " as the name for V. Buppii All. 

 (Borbas), and Eouy and Foucaud {Fl. France, iii, p. 10 : 1896) 

 quote under V. elatior Fr. " V. montana L. Spec. Plant ? non Fl. 

 Suec. ! " This nomenclature is based on the fact that Linnaeus gives 

 " Alpibus LapponiaB " as a locality for his V. montana and in the 

 second edition of the Species Plcmtarum cites his diagnosis as of 

 " Flor. Suec." Wahlenberg and Fries collected in Lapland a violet 

 which was not V. elatior, but according to Fries a var. of V. canina 

 and according to Becker, etc., their " V. montana," i. e. V. Buppii. 

 This plant was collected by Wahlenberg in fruit only, but was 

 refound by Fries and published in Herb. norm, suec, fasc. x, no. 36. 

 He published his views on the whole matter in Nov. Fl. Suec. 

 pp. 273, 277-9 (1828). Under V. elatior he cites all the important 



