1021 



under cultivation, as Smith remarks of his plant. But Mr. Forster 

 states that this " Surrey violet " is not Smith's flavicornis. 1 am here 

 entitled to ask of him, in my turn, by what characters does it differ f^ 

 I have mentioned points in which his violet differs from that of 

 Smith, — can he shew those by which the Surrey violet differs to an 

 equal degree ? — or to any describable degree ? 



Thirdly, if I were assured that Mr. Forster and Mr. Babington deny 

 the identity which I see between the " dwarf violet " and " Forster's 

 violet," 1 should say that I so regard them as being identical because 

 the figure in 'English Botany,' and the short description in the 

 Manual, both correspond better with that " dwarf violet," than they 

 correspond with the description of flavicornis in ' English Flora,' or 

 with the specimens of it in Smith's herbarium, or with any other 

 British violet known to me. My impression, however, is, that Mr. 

 Forster admits and recognizes the identity of his violet and that which 

 I here call "the dwarf violet;" and that our difference begins only 

 when he would include Smith's flavicornis with them also. 



Lastly, as an indirect corroboration of my own views, I would allude 

 to the circumstance of Mr. Forster and Mr. Babington differing much 

 in their opinions regarding the Surrey violet which I deem identical 

 with the true flavicornis of Smith. Mr. Forster thinks it may be re- 

 ferred to Smith's V. lactea ; whereas Mr. Babington pronounces it to 

 be his montana, which he gives as a variety of V. canina, not of 

 V. lactea. So, also, Mr. Babington places " Ruppii " as the next va- 

 riety of canina, differing very slightly (as he says by letter) from mon- 

 tana, and describes V. lactea as a different species; whereas Mr. 

 Forster writes, " V. Ruppii I have always supposed identical with 

 V. lactea Smith ; scarcely a variety." Thus at any rate, one of these 

 two gentlemen must widely misunderstand the Surrey violet ; and it is 

 my conviction that both are in error. 



I have had these violets under observation for several seasons, in 

 their wild state, transplanted into my garden, and raised afresh from 

 seeds. Whether there are two permanently distinct species, 1 cannot 

 say with any confidence ; but there are two groups or series of varie- 

 ties, which are distinguishable one from the other, although the seve- 

 ral forms of the same group appear to pass into each other by almost 

 insensible degrees. These two groups include the British violets 

 described under the following names: — 



1. Viola canina, sylvatica, pusilla (Forster's flavicornis). 



2. Viola flavicornis {Smith), lactea, Ruppii, montana. 



The first gioup is known by its broader yet more acute leaves, their 

 Vol. II. 6 m 



