94 PITTONIA. 
figured it as a new species under the name of V. flabellifolia, 
Yet any and all these blunderers, learned or unlearned, need: 
only have referred to a certain folio published only fourteen: 
years anterior to Curtis' figure, to have gained the kno 
dark-colored, the others not so. : 
But let us go back to the original data. Of course we 
not determine from Linneus’ description alone what sort 
plant he had in mind when he named it V. pedata. His 
diagnosis of—or rather, his phrase-name for—the species 
only this: Viola acaulis, foliis pedatis, septempartitis ;! 8 
any kind of an acaulescent pedate-leaved violet—and m 
such are known—would answer that description. We or 
know what it was which he meant by V. pedata by the sy 
onymy which heappends; and that refers us to certain earl 
descriptions, and a figure by Plukenet. The first of thes 
onyms given by the Swedish author is “ Viola foliis palmatis 
Gron. Virg. 107.” The second is * Viola Virginiana tricol 
foliis multifidis, cauliculo aphyllo, Pluk. Alm. 388. t. 114: f. 
of his own phrase-name by quoting as a synonym a much 
older and better one, the first ever given, I believe, and bj 
Banister, the pioneer of Virginian botany, whose phrase 
this: “Viola tricolor, caule nudo, foliis tenwius dissectis." 2 
So, then, every synonym which Linnzeus either directly 
by implication gives, brings us to the pansy-like three-c 
ored violet of our southerly districts, as being precisely wl 
! Sp. Pl. i. 933.. 
* Banister, in Ray, Hist. Pl. ii. 1928 (1688). 
