1020 



flavicornis. The leaves of this latter plant (Smith's species) are de- 

 scribed as beiug " obtuse minutely crenate," and the flowers are said 

 to be " half the size of V. canina, of a rather deeper blue." Now the 

 leaves of Forster's violet are represented as quite acute and sharply 

 crenate or rather serrate, the flowers large and with the purple tint of 

 V. canina. Moreover, Mr. Forster states that his violet is the same 

 as Babington's variety " pusilla," which is thus described in the 

 Manual : " leaves roundish-cordate rather acute small, flowers large." 

 Further, Mr. Forster is at variance with Smith in another respect, 

 while writing for the ' Phytologist,' that "The two figures in E. B. 

 and the figure in Dillenius's edition of Ray's Synopsis, well represent 

 the specimen preserved in Smith's own herbarium." According to 

 my sight, the figures in ' English Botany ' are not good representa- 

 tions of Smith's specimens, but are passably good figures of the 

 " dwarf violet ;" and as to the figure of Dillenius, Smith himself writes 

 that "his figure by no means represents the true nature of the stem, nor 

 does it exhibit any of the parts most material for specific discrimina- 

 tion." Add thereto, that Babington places " Forster's violet" as the 

 first variety of Viola canina; intending, I presume, that it is the one 

 which differs least from the ordinary or typical form ; whereas Smith 

 describes his flavicornis as a distinct species, and places another spe- 

 cies (recognized as such by Babington) between it and V. canina ; 

 thus showing that he intends something considerably different. Put- 

 ling these differences and difficulties together, T think they should be 

 deemed more weighty in their aggregate, than the mere assertion of 

 Mr. Forster, that his violet and Smith's flavicornis are not different. 

 I shall add something more to their weight in endeavouring to show 

 that another plant, the " Surrey violet," is the true flavicornis of 

 Smith. 



Secondly, I am confirmed in my reasons for believing Mr. Forster 

 under a misapprehension about Smith's plant, by finding two plants 

 in Surrey (two well marked varieties, if not absolutely different spe- 

 cies), one of which, " the Surrej' violet," corresponds w^ell with Smith's 

 own description of his flavicornis, and also (to my eyes, at least) with 

 the specimens in his herbarium ; while the other, " the dwarf violet," 

 corresponds with the figures and description of " Forster's violet," be- 

 fore cited. The former of these two, " the Surrey violet," agrees with 

 the plant of Smith precisely in those characters by which Forster's 

 violet differs. It has the smaller and more blue flowers, with the ob- 

 tuse leaves ; and it further agrees with Smith's plant in the rigid or 

 coriaceous consistence of its leaves. It is also a persistent variety 



