84 



find Gentiana acaulis mentioned in the 'Flora of Liverpool,' published 

 within these ten years. It is difficult to conceive so showy a plant 

 remaining unseen on a frequented tract of land, which is covered only 

 by a thin and short vegetation. And as three other species of the 

 genus, — campestris, Amarella, Pneumonanthe, — have undoubtedly 

 been collected there, it is likely enough that one of these three has 

 been mistaken for G. acaulis. 



The only other reported British locality, so far as I am aware of 

 any, having been given up as erroneous by general consent, I must 

 still consider the species to have been rightly placed in the " Ex- 

 cluded" list. But I shall be very happy to see it restored "to an 

 honourable place in our Flora" if sufficient ground be shown for such 

 a position ; and equally so of any other species at present among the 

 "Excluded." Certainly the other three species mentioned in Mr. 

 Sidebotham's communication are introduced and imperfectly natural- 

 ized species. 



Hewett C. Watson. 



Thames Ditton, 4th March, 1848. 



Distribution of Viola hirta in Scotland. 

 By Hewett C. Watson, Esq. 



It is curious to observe how long a time an error will continue to 

 be repeated after having been once sent into circulation on influen- 

 tial authority. Mr. Andrew Kerr's communication on Viola hirta af- 

 fords an example of this tendency to the repetition of error, even 

 while the means of correction are ample. (See Phytol. iii. 76). And 

 yet we can scarce be entitled to censure that gentleman for relying 

 upon so high an authority as Sir William Hooker, without looking 

 further into the accuracy of a statement too hastily made by the 

 latter. 



Mr. Kerr introduces a record of his discovery of a locality for Viola 

 hirta, just within the county of Kincardine, by remarking that, "Ac- 

 cording to the ' British Flora' of Sir William Jackson Hooker, Viola 

 hirta has only been found in the vicinity of Edinburgh, and is con- 

 sequently rare in Scotland." Such a statement appears even in the 

 last edition of the ' British Flora,' that of 1842. But Mr. Kerr makes 

 it rather worse, when, in his next paragraph, he converts " vicinity " 

 into " immediate vicinity." I proceed to show how easily the cor- 



