1019 ^. 



suflBciently identical to warrant the common designation. The four 

 things are these : — 



1. The plant described by Smith, under name of V. flavicornis, 

 and specimens of which are preserved in his herbarium, so la- 

 belled by himself. For this plant I will here use its undoubted 

 name of " Smith's flavicornis." 



2. A plant figured in the ' Supplement to English Botany,' plate 

 2736, with the sanction of Mr. Forster, also under the same 

 name. For this plant I will here use the name of " Forster's 

 violet." 



3. A plant found on the commons of Surrey, which I have repeat- 



edly labelled by the same name, under the conviction of its 

 being the plant truly intended by Smith. For this plant I will 

 here use the name of " Surrey violet." 



4. Another plant, also found on the commons of Surrey, which I 



have labelled " Viola canina, var. pusilla, Bab.," or " Viola 

 flavicornis, Eng. Bot., not Sm.," as being the nearest represen- 

 tative which I have ever seen of the plant figured in 'English 

 Botany,' and described in the ' Manual of British Botany ' un- 

 der those names. For this plant I will here use the name of 

 " dwarf violet." 

 The differences between Mr. Forster and myself turn on the ques- 

 tion how far these several plants should be considered identical varie- 

 ties or species. We seem agreed that they are not so many as four 

 different varieties, and equally so that they are not to be received as 

 comprehending only one single variety. But we unite them differently. 

 First, Mr. Forster considers 1 and 2 identical, whereas I deem them 

 to be two different and distinguishable plants. Second, I consider 1 

 and 3 identical, whereas Mr. Forster holds them different. Third, I 

 consider 2 and 4 to be the same ; but I cannot clearly see from his 

 paper whether Mr. Forster concurs with this view or not. 



First, then, I propose to discuss the question of identity or other- 

 wise between 1 and 2, that is, between " Smith's flavicornis " and 

 " Forster's violet." As Mr. Forster asserts, on the faith of his own 

 eyes, that these two are truly identical, while I see them differently, 

 it may be deemed incumbent on me to state loherein they differ, and 

 what grounds there are for supposing that " Forster's violet " is not 

 " Smith's flavicornis." My objection to the figure of Forster's violet 

 is, that it represents a plant which differs by no describable charac- 

 ters from dwarf examples of Viola canina, and wants certain charac- 

 ters which Smith mentions in 'English Flora' as those of his V. 



