1018 



change with any botanical friend to whom it may be acceptable. The 

 larger plants were growing in a beautifully radiating or stellated man- 

 ner, and with their cernuous capsules spreading on every side, pre- 

 sented an object exceedingly pretty. 



A. Croall. 



Ardersier, Inverness-shire, 

 October 23, 1847. 



On the Viola Jlavicornis of Sjnith and others; in reply to Mr. 

 Forster. By Hewett C. Watson, Esq. 



In the * Phy tologist ' for October (Phytol. ii. 963), Mr. Forster has 

 denied the correctness of certain opinions which I had elsewhere set 

 forth, to the effect that a wrong plant has been figured in the ' Supple- 

 ment to English Botany,' plate 2736, under his sanction, for the 

 Viola flavicornis of Smith ; the true plant of Smith, as I understand 

 it, being a different thing (whether a good species or the contrary), 

 and properly represented by a plant which I have distributed from 

 the heaths and commons of Surrey, labelled with the name of V. fla- 

 vicornis. 



Since reading Mr. Forster's paper I have again examined the spe- 

 cimens in Smith's herbarium, labelled "flavicornis" by himself, but 

 only with the same result as before. I still find myself unable to 

 adopt the views of Mr. Forster ; who, be it observed, gives no fact or 

 reason beyond his faith in his own eyes, for contradicting my opi- 

 nions. No doubt that highly respected botanist is well entitled to 

 prefer the evidence of his own sense of sight before that of another 

 person. But since he and J literally have had the same facts under 

 our observation, and have yet formed different opinions therefrom, it 

 is clear that some more reasoning argument must be found in sub- 

 stantiation, than the words of Mr. Forster, " I now boldly venture to 

 assert," which can be received only as the expression of a confident 

 opinion, and not as any argument towards proof of its soundness. 



The differences between us are rather complicated and confusing, 

 because they involve four separate things, all of which have in turn 

 been expressed by the name of " Viola flavicornis." I will first dis- 

 tinguish the four things here, and temporarily employ other names to 

 designate three of them, as the most likely way for avoiding that bias 

 of judgment and confusion of ideas, so likely to arise where several 

 things are called by one single name before they have been proved 



