THEIR NOMENCLATURE. 445 
more closely allied than are flavicornis and lactea. For instance, 
it would seem to my expectations more likely that Reichenbachiana 
should evolve from a seed of Riviniana, than that lactea could 
evolve from a seed of flavicornis. It may be said that ‘English 
Botany’ virtually shews five species, which are treated as three 
only in the ‘Manual.’ But this is simply a question of degree; 
since all five are recognized in the ‘ Manual,’ editions fifth and 
sixth, and are there distinguished either as species or as varieties. 
In making Reichenbachiana the type for sylvatica, instead of the 
more robust and abundant Riviniana, Professor Babington fol- 
lowed his too frequent course of steering as wide of nature as he 
well could get; certainly not from an inability to understand 
nature, but in adhesion to some pet writer on the Continent. To 
prefer foreign writers before those of our own country, looks 
learned and may be held optional; but to prefer the artificial 
arrangements in foreign books, before the living nature we see 
around us at home, is surely something short of wisdom. 
This historical sketch of Viola canina brings us again to the old 
difficulty. How are we now to know, when seeing the name of 
canina in a list of plants or connected with a locality, what exactly 
is intended by the name? (1). Is it the all-inclusive canina of 
Bentham’s ‘ Handbook’ and of the ante-Smithian botanists? If 
so it may intend any one of the five species or sub-species of 
‘English Botany.’ (2). Is it the canina of Smith, made up from 
sylvatica with the large examples of flavicornis added in? If so, 
it may intend any of the three sub-species, exclusive of lactea. 
(8). Is it the canina of the ‘Manual,’ latter editions only, or of 
‘English Botany,’ edition third? In this case, how are we to 
know whether it intends flavicornis or lactea, as the plant of the 
locality? The name of Viola canina has come to signify only 
‘this,’ ‘that,’ or ‘the other species.’ How curiously exact and 
clear are we making our botanical nomenclature ! 
4, Hypericum quadrangulum, Auct. (say, of DC. prodr.)—The 
segregates of this have been more confused by false-naming, than 
by changeability of division in England. It affords an equally 
