82 AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 



moved. In my thought, that designation under which I lelt 

 it was V. ohliqua, Hill? This written out would be " V. ohliqua, 

 Hill, perhaps." At that time, as clearly as now, was I well aware 

 of the universal manual-makers' proclivity for universal dog- 

 matism in nomenclature and elsewhere; the certainty that he, 

 the scientific would-be-iniallible, will never admit that he is in 

 doubt, will never consent to a cjuestion mark after a binary name, 

 in any of his books of botanic dogmatism. If I had indited — 

 if I had edited and published — a monograph of violets covering 

 this ground, or a manual containing our Potomac Valley violets, 

 I should have written V. ohliqua and some other names with those 

 honest unassuming question marks; so averse am I to pretense 

 of truth where in reality there is only doubt. 



On the second page of Mr. Bicknell's article is much positive, 

 even very forcible and emphatic language in defense of Hill's 

 figure as having had for its original a violet which he, Mr. Bick- 

 nell, can with perfect confidence demonstrate. He is more ardent 

 for the defense of said figure than I was strong in my "onslaught" 

 on it as worthless, and inasmuch as appeal is frankly made by 

 Mr. Bicknell to others who, as he says, must judge, it is I think 

 to be regretted that a reproduction of Hill's figure was not then 

 and there given. It is the vision of this much written of figure 

 that will convince — perhaps some one way and some another. 

 I believe it has been that old engraving which has persuaded 

 others more recently, as it aforetime persuaded me, not to identify 

 with it except hypothetically any violet of this country that we 

 know. 



I am now ready to oft'er some conciliation. That opinion 

 as to the worthiness of the old V. ohliqua figure to be taken as 

 a definite token of one specific type, to which I gave strong negative 

 expression seventeen years ago, and that directly opposite opinion 

 which Mr. Bicknell now puts forward, are not so squarely contra- 

 dictory as at first reading, and without explanation, they will 

 seem; for I had one species in view, and Mr. Bicknell has another; 

 and the two are very dissimilar. 1 hat which I was comparing 

 with that old i:)icture is much farther from any approach to answer- 

 ing the rc(iuirements of the old picture than is this which Mr. 

 Bicknell is comparing with it. What I had before me was that 

 afterwards published by Mr. Pollard, and with my knowledge 

 and approval as V. communis; which same also I, a very few 



