584 BRAINERD: VIOLA PALMATA AND ITS ALLIES 
misled by Professor Greene, who had confused two things under 
that name. In June, 1906, having “thought out” the matter, Pro- 
fessor Greene named the plant V. perpensa (Leaflets 1: 184). 
I have for three years watched these forms under cultivation, 
and I find no mark of specific difference in petaliferous or apetal- 
ous flowers, in pubescence, capsule, or seed. They seem to differ 
only in the style of lobation. In each form there is a wide range 
of fluctuation, the leaf assuming a different aspect, not only 
with change of environment, but at successsive stages of growth. 
The leaf-forms intergrade where the territory of one form adjoins 
that of another. Specimens from Syracuse, N. Y., have both styles 
of leaf-pattern on the same plant. I am therefore at present dis- 
posed to regard the form of the Alleghanies and that of the Great 
Lakes as but geographical races of the typical V. palmata of the 
south Atlantic Coast. 
The species nearest akin to Viola palmata are V. Stoneana* 
and V. Egglestonii,t both glabrous, both of limited range, and 
both well marked. 
VIOLA TRILOBA was published in 1822 by Schweinitz, with 
some hesitancy, due chiefly to his failure to realize that he had 
widened the scope of Pursh’s V. asarifolia (= V. sororia), so as 
to take into it much that properly belonged to V. triloba. The 
uncut leaves of V. triloba are not easily distinguished from those 
of V. sororia; and furthermore, the two plants are often cohabitant 
and hybridize freely. I infer that Schweinitz encountered these 
hybrids, for he says under V. asarifolia, ‘‘Not unfrequently tufts 
are met with of more than one foot diameter’; and also, ‘‘This 
species is very often found with flowers remarkably variegated. 
with white blotches, in an irregular way.’ Pied flowers and a 
cespitose growth are quite characteristic of hybrids. I have met 
with several crosses of V. triloba with V. sororia or with V. papiliona- 
cea in the highlands of North Carolina,t and with many plants 
eet seemed the by-product of such Reyne, ‘that is, plants gi 
*See Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1903: 678. pl. 35. f. 2; pl. 309. f. 3. 1903; Bull. 
Torrey Club 32: 253. pl. 16. j 
Bull. Torrey Club 37: a oe 545.35. 16TO:n 
tSchweinitz lived for many years in Salem, N. C., and while there prepared his 
admirable paper on Viola in Am. Jour. Sci. 5: 48-81. 18 
