582 BRAINERD: VIOLA PALMATA AND ITS ALLIES 
If the segments were not also cut, there would be no distinction 
into palmate and pedate; but they usually are cut, and in two 
widely different ways: either (a) both the middle and the lateral 
segments are again trisected or bisected, or (0) the middle segment 
remains simple, but the lateral segments are cut one or more times, 
the successive incisions being shorter toward the base of the leaf. 
The first way gives the palmate leaf; the second the pedate leaf. 
Abundant illustration of this will appear, as we discuss the never! 
species of the group. 
It is noteworthy in our ten species of cut-leaved stemless 
violets, that those pedately cut are always heterophyllous, and 
those palmately cut always homophyllous. There should be some 
explanation of this correlation, though it is not obvious. Still, as 
regards the six species of the palmata group, may we not regard it 
as an evidence that the two subgroups are genetically distinct— 
the triloba species all descending from an ancestor bearing pedately 
cut leaves at the time of greatest sexual vigor, and the palmata 
species from an ancestor bearing at all times palmately cut leaves? 
There has been some scepticism as to the correctness of the 
commonly accepted interpretation of the Linnaean VIOLA PALMATA. 
His diagnosis is certainly meager and indecisive. But he cites 
several earlier publications, three of which are backed up by extant 
specimens, and one by a published figure. The latter is in Plu- 
kenet’s Amaltheum, plate 447, figure9. The flower of the figure is 
not that of a violet, and is wanting in the dried specimen in herb. 
Sloane, London. Mr. E.G. Baker reports, in the Journal of Botany 
for April, 1898, that the specimen is in part distinctly pubescent, 
and the text of Plukenet informs us that the plant was from 
Florida. Now, the only cut-leaved pubescent violet found in 
Florida is what we have been calling Viola palmata. 
It is quite likely that some of the specimens cited by Linnaeus, 
collected later in Viriginia, were forms of V. triloba. Clayton’s 
793, in Gronovius’ Flora Virginica, p. 182, 1743, is described as 
“foliis variis, aliis integris, aliis incisis.’”’ Linnaeus’s description 
is, ‘‘foliis palmatis, quinquelobis dentatis indivisisque.”” But the 
two Plukenet specimens of the 17th century have no strictly uncut 
leaves; and in the published figure one leaf has seven lobes. Mr. 
Baker, as above cited, says “The plant figured by Dr. Britton as 
