CRITICAL NOTES ON CERTAIN VIOLETS. 35 
he had in view for V. pedata. Plukenet’s figure cited is poor, 
so poor that he afterwards published a second, and this an 
excellent one, which Linnzus may not have seen; but even 
the earlier poor figure, as well as the good one, distinctly 
indicates the uppermost petals as dark-colored. 
I shall now present an outline, in chronological order, of 
the earlier bibliography of the species, excluding the pale 
concolorous northern plant which, as I have said, had not 
appeared in Europe in Linneus’ time. 
Viola tricolor, caule nudo, foliis tenuius dissectis, Banist., in 
Ray, Hist. ii. 1928 (1688). 
Virginiana tricolor, foliis multifidis, cauliculo aphyllo, 
Pluk. Alm. 388, t. 114, f. 7 (1696). 
——— foliis palmatis, Gron. Virg. 107 (1739). 
—— inodora flore purpurascente specioso, foliis admodum digi- 
torum incisis, Clayt. in Gron. 1. e. (1739). 
—— PEDATA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ii. 933 (1753). 
—— multifida, Mill. Dict. 8 ed. (1768). 
—— pedata, Hill, Veg. Syst. xxii. t. 58, f. 2 (1775). 
var. atropurpurea, Ging. in DC. Prodr. i. 291 (1 824): 
Fl. des Serres, xiii. 131, t. 1361. 
— 
In view of the fact that all three of the published figures 
which it is possible for Linnzeus to have seen represent his 
V. pedata with a pair of dark-colored petals, and, since all 
the names and descriptions which he cites indicate a Vir- 
ginian plant with tricolorous pansy-like showy flowers, it 1s 
beyond question that several of the later generations of bota- 
nists have been wrong in their assumption that the north- 
ern plant is the plant of Linnzus. To that, therefore, I 
assign a new name, as a variety. 
V. PEDATA, var. INORNATA. V. pedata, Curtis, Bot. Mag. 
t. 89, excluding all the synonymy; also of all more recent as 
authors, but not of Linneus. 
1 Plukenet, t. 234, fig. 3. 
