BRAINERD: VIOLA PALMATA AND ITS ALLIES 585 
leaves all uncut, as in V. papilionacea, but broadly dilated, trun- 
cate rather than cordate, with densely pubescent petioles, as in 
V. triloba. These pseudo-sororia’s are not uncommon in the middle 
Atlantic states, and are a frequent source of perplexity. Their 
hybrid origin is usually betrayed by their infertility. 
This confusion by Schweinitz of the lines of separation between 
V. sororia and V. triloba was clearly shown by LeConte in his 
classic paper on Viola, published four years later. He had, I 
think, a correct notion of V. triloba, and was confident, as some 
moderns are not, that it differed specifically from both V. palmata 
on the one hand, and from V. sororia on the other. ‘“The points 
of difference’’ he writes, ‘‘can hardly be expressed; nevertheless, 
I do not hesitate to pronounce it to be distinct from them all. 
There is something peculiar in the aspect, or if you please in the 
physiognomy, of each, which cannot be described, but which 
makes them appear distinct at first sight.’’* 
LeConte saw fit to publish this species under a name of his 
own, V. congener; but he adds, ‘‘To this I cannot avoid referring 
V. triloba of Mr. Schweinitz; I always regret to disagree with so 
high an authority, but I have never been able to see between his 
plant and my V. congener any difference that was not accidental.’’} 
If so, then the name Viola congener must lapse in favor of the older 
V. triloba. 
It has already been stated that V. triloba differs from V. palmata 
in having both cut and uncut leaves, and in having the cut leaves 
pedate instead of palmate, the latter character appearing only 
when the leaf is at least 5-lobed. It will then be found that the 
extra lobe on either side, between the basal and the medial, is 
morphologically a part of the basal and not of the medial. Oc- 
casionally the sinus may be deeper between the extra lobe and 
oe basal, than between the extra oe and ae ee hapes per ih one 
*Distérminatio vix erui potest: veruntamen distinctam esse ab omnibus dis- 
cernere non haesito. Aliquid peculiare in aspectu vel si Vis in siognomonia singu- 
larum est quod non describi potest, sed primo obtutu ead reddit. Annals 
Lyceum N. Y. 2: 140. 1826. 
+Huc referre Violam trilobam cel. Schweinitz vitare non queo; semper mihi 
dolet cum auctoritate tam veneranda dissentire, sed nunquam differentiam aliquam ' 
inter ejus plantam, et meam V. congenerem videre potui quae non fortuita fuit. 
LeConte, loc. cit. 141. 
