"From letter of E..B 



to 7 .in . Povembe r 8, 1913 . 



3. a better mark of distinction 0 etwees v.pubescens and V. eriocar - 

 pa , jo cause not affected "by environment, may be found, I think, in th num- 

 ber of teeth on the lowest stem-leaf. I select this leaf because always 

 present .and usually better developed than later leaves. In 15 such leaves 

 of random specimens of v. eriocarpa the teeth on either siae of the leaf 

 (not counting the apex) averaged 13^; in 12 leaves of y. pubescens the cor- 

 responding value was lS^Vrmking the teeth on a leaf of v. pubescens >j-3 



t ercentjmore numerous than on a leaf of v. eriocarpa . The number of teeth 

 does not change as the leaf expands, and in the latter species Che en- 

 larged summer leaves are as a rule coarsely and sinuately crenate-serra r ,e. 



( See 1 U-7 Brainerd's Violets of Eastern Po. Am., 1910 V. scaoriuscula .; 



compare also Greene's description of his « y_. achlyaophylla , ■ the type 

 of which was collected as late as June. 2 ( .) In Mr. Allen's three speci- 

 mens the number of teeth on the garden plants — 17 — seems to tie about the 

 same as on the plant from the woods. I incline to the opinion that much 

 of what is called "V . scabriuscuia" in modern herbaria is only v. pubescen s 

 growing in the open. 



*Pittonia 5:37. This spurious species is nothing out v. eriocarpa , . 

 ( v. scabriuscuia ) , of which Greene had said f 0 <r lines earlier : » I find no 

 trace in the collection" of violet specimens sent from the herbarium of 



My de,,r Mr.Deane:- 



I . should be verified by as large a number of instances as possible. Of 

 course the preliminary determination of the species under examination 

 should be mad- by the customary criteria. 



. I h pe to reach Boston the first of next week, 



I am glad that your are inclined to teat tile above inference. 



Yours f ai t hfully , 



.1 i dale bury , Dec.' 10, 19] 3. 



