VIOLA MONTANA L. 261 



in Lapland. The fact that he could not find it proves nothing. 

 Fries remarks oiV.elatior: "Fieri sane non ipotuit, ut BujJ2n us 

 & Hallerus insuper optime seorsim tractans, hane ad Linn<xanuvi 

 seculuvi notissimam plantain, pro ' nondum descripta ' habuerint." 

 The specimen of V. elatior in Herb. Linn, was there in 1753 [fide 

 B. D. Jackson] , so that Linnaeus himself knew this most distinct 

 species. Why did he say that it grew in Lapland ? He did not 

 collect it there himself, as it is not mentioned in his Flora 

 Lapponica, nor is Lapland mentioned by Bauhin, Morison, etc. 

 But in the Banksian herbarium there is a specimen labelled by 



Banks " V. montana L Alpes Lapponiae Solander." 



Solander's home was in Lapland, which he left for Upsala, where 

 he was Linnasus's favourite pupil (see Pulteney Sketches, ii, 350 

 (1790) ). He left there in 1759 for London, and never went back 

 to Sweden. He therefore presumably possessed the specimen 

 when he was at Upsala, and Linnceus doubtless saw it. It is 

 doubtless this plant that is referred to in S'pec. Plant., and it is 

 even probable that the specimen in Linn. Herb, is part of the same 

 gathering, as it bears none of the signs by which Linnasus usually 

 distinguished specimens from the Upsala garden and from various 

 collectors in Europe and elsewhere. 



Thus it is clear that the whole case founded on Wahlenberg 

 and Fries disappears, the correct references for the two species being 



(1) V. montana Linn. Sp. PI p. 935 (1753) ; Fl suec. p. 305, 

 no. 967 (1755); et herb. ! ; omn. auct. ante. ann. 1821 ; Borbas in 

 Koch S7jno2}s. der Deutschii. Schiv. Fl. edit. Hallier 213 (1890). 



V. elatior Fries Nov. FL suec. 277 (1828). 



(2) V. Ruppit Allioni Fl Ped. ii, 99, iii, t. 26, f. 6 (1785), emend, 

 [inch V. nemoralis Kutz., etc.] Borbas /. c. 207 (1890). 



V. montana (non L.) Becker loc. cit. 1902 ; Burnat et Briquet 

 loc. cit. (1902). 



The plant distributed by Fries {Herb. norm. suec. fasc. x 36 as 

 V. canina v. montana) does not seem to be precisely V. Buppii. 

 The very large stipules suggest some admixture of V. elatior. 



The forms of V. Buppii require further study in the field, 

 especially in the British locality. At Woodwalton it occurs with 

 Viola stagnina Kit. sec. Echb., and a considerable number of other 

 forms, some certainly of hybrid origin, others perhaps more 

 doubtfully so. On the peat cuttings outside the fen it forms low- 

 growing tufts, very floriferous, with decumbent-ascending branches. 

 This is the form described by Allioni and distributed by Reichen- 

 bach (Fl. germ, exsicc. 1770) as Viola Buppii planta genuina, and 

 Rostan (Exsicc. Pedemont. 189) as Viola Bupii (sic). On the fen 

 droves a taller plant grows, varying in height according to the 

 height of the herbage. This appears to be the plant described by 

 Kutzing as V. nemoralis, and our plants agree with those distributed 

 in Kerner's Flora exsicc. austro-hung. (2869 as V. 7iemoralis) from 

 Galicia. It seems to us probable that difference in exposure is 

 alone responsible for these two forms. The plant which has been 

 named V. canina var. crassifolia Gronv. is apparently nothing but 

 this V. Buppii " conditio exposa." 



