638 



because it will represent different species, or different combinations 

 of forms, according to the individual who employs it as a name. I 

 propose therefore to substitute in this paper three other names for the 

 three species, such as ought not to confuse any clear-headed reader, 

 and which I will apply comprehensively as designations of the re- 

 spective species, not restrictedly to special forms or states of luxu- 

 riance. The question, whether the second and third are truly and 

 permanently distinct species, may be waived for the present. The 

 three apparent species, each including subordinate varieties, are 

 these : — 



1. Gerarde's Violet = Viola caniua, of Gerarde, Smith, &c. 



2. Dillenius' Violet = Viola flavicornis, of Smith, in E. F. 



3. Smith's Violet = Viola lactea, of Smith, in E. F. 



The authors of all our general floras of Britain, and probably those 

 of all our local floras, up to the date of Babington's Manual, in 1843, 

 applied the name of " Viola canina" to Gerarde's Violet. If includ- 

 ing either of the two other species under the same name, as varieties, 

 Gerarde's Violet was still their type of V. canina. I have myself, as 

 above intimated, no doubt whatever that Mr. Babington's typical idea 

 of " Viola canina" was still a form of the same species (Gerarde's 

 Violet) even to the publication of the second edition of the Manual, 

 in 1847. This has been lately denied by Mr. F. J. A. Hort, among 

 some good remarks on the violets, published in the ' Botanical Ga- 

 zette.' But the internal evidence afforded by the Manual, in con- 

 nexion with other publications of the same author, is amply sufficient 

 to bear out the opinion which I thus express. It is highly probable 

 that Mr. C. C. Babington may have seen cause to alter and correct 

 his views of these three violets since he printed the second edition of 

 the iManual ; and therefore I would be here understood to refer to his 

 views as the author of 1843 and 1847, and not to any modified 

 opinions of the individual botanist of 1849, which he has not yet an- 

 nounced publicly, so far as I know, although they may have been 

 communicated to Mr. Hort. 



If, then, all English botanists have intended Gerarde's Violet, un- 

 der name of V. canina, why ask any question, or make any difficulty 

 about it ? Because continental authorities are applying the same 

 name to a different species, and a different name to the same species ; 

 and because influential English botanists are now proposing to fol- 

 low their example. The grounds for this change and transfer of 



