442 Ill. SEGREGATES AND 
not all of them known to him. They still appeared as such so 
late as 1858, in the ‘Handbook’ of Bentham, where the Linnean 
specific name canina is made applicable to the aggregate species, 
which has been treated segregately on pages 108—9 of this 
volume, under the names of sylvatica, canina, lactea, and stagnina. 
Possibly with the exception of stagnina, Mr. Bentham’s use of the 
name is more truly the Linnean one, than is any restriction of it 
to forms exclusive of sylvatica. 
In the ‘Flora Britannica’ (quoting Eng. Bot. t. 445) a severed _ 
species appears under name of lactea. But it seems that Smith 
(perhaps misled by Edward Forster) then confused with his lactea 
the other plant afterwards described under name of flavicornis. 
His words “Folia in hortis cordata evadunt, floresque cerulei” 
were likely suggested by a garden example of flavicornis confused 
with lactea. In the ‘ Flora Scotica’ Hooker went farther astray ; 
for he there transferred the name lactea to the species flavicornis, 
as is shewn by the specimens from Mr. Maughan, which belong 
to the latter. Has any botanist ever found true lactea in 
Scotland ? 
In the ‘English Flora’ the Viola canina minor of Dillenius 
(page 479) and his successors is again raised to the grade of 
a species under the name of flavicornis above mentioned. But it 
can hardly be questioned that Smith himself never clearly under- 
stood any one of his three species of canine violets. His canina 
certainly intended what is now called sylvatica; but along with 
this he seems to have constantly confused the larger examples of 
flavicornis. In situations the most favorable to its growth this 
latter rivals sylvatica in size; and yet Smith particularly dis- 
tinguishes it as a “little plant,” with leaves “scarcely half an inch 
long,” and which remained of the like “humble stature” for 
above a dozen years in a garden. Edward Forster went beyond 
this union by size; clubbing together the little examples of 
sylvatica along with the little examples of flavicornis, to make up 
his idea of the latter species. Again, by Smith or others, the 
lactea has been confused with flavicornis on the one side, and with 
stagnina on the other side. No wonder that we, the immediate 
