963 



are attenuated towards the point, with two to four inserted on the 

 stem, under the flower; the peduncles and scales of the involucrum 

 are densely covered with the same sort of hairs with glandular bases, 

 as the stem ; the arachnoid pubescence is also more dense ; the ca- 

 pitate glands so conspicuous on the flower in murorum, are very rare 

 in this plant ; the bracteas are ovate-acuminate, same as the upper 

 stem leaves, but narrower in proportion ; the seeds are longitudinally 

 ribbed, with their down rough when fully ripe ; the scales of the in- 

 volucrum are reflected close to the stem. 



James Bladon. 



Pont-y-Pool, August 31, 1847. 



Note on the Viola Jlavicornis of Smith. 

 By Edward Forster, Esq., V.P.L.S. 



In the ' Phytologist ' (Phytol. ii. 855), in the report of the Meeting 

 of the Botanical Society, on the 7th May, you say " Mr. Watson re- 

 marked that small specimens of the ordinary Viola canina had been 

 erroneously figured in the ' Supplement to English Botany ' for the 

 Viola flavicornis of Smith, and that Mr. Babington persisted in re- 

 peating the same in the second edition of his Manual (published that 

 day), although he could not fail to know that the application of 

 Smith's name, ' flavicornis,' to the plant of the Supplement was an 

 eiTor on the part of Mr. Forster." 



Mr. Watson, in his 'Cybele Britannica,' p. 178, under "135d. 

 Viola flavicornis. Smith,''' and "135 c. Viola lactea, .SmzY/A," makes 

 the following statement : " Unfortunately dwarf examples of V. ca- 

 nina, differing from the typical form in size alone, have been repeat- 

 edly mistaken for Smith's V. flavicornis ; and Mr. Forster has done 

 his best to perpetuate this error, by publishing some such dwarf ex- 

 amples of V. canina, under the name of V. flavicornis in the 'Sup- 

 plement to English Botany,' plate 2376" (2736). " And apparently 

 misled by that plate, Mr. Babington has extended the error by refer- 

 ring to the plate as a figure of the true V. flavicorais of Smith, and 

 likewise of his own variety ' pusilla.' He should have omitted the re- 

 ference to 'Stn.,^ the plant of Smith being a different thing, and not 

 agreeing with any of the varieties recorded in the Manual, though 

 coming between raontana and Ruppii of that work." 



Mr. Watson has kindly furnished me with specimens, both of his 



