[1] Vol. i., p. 212, note.

[2] See ‘Deucalion,’ vol. ii., chap, i., p. 12, Sec. 18.

[3] I am ashamed to give so rude outlines; but every moment now is valuable to me:  careful outline of a dog-violet is given in Plate X.

[4] A careless bit of Byron’s, (the last song but one in the ’Deformed Transformed’); but Byron’s most careless work is better, by its innate energy, than other people’s most laboured.  I suppress, in some doubts about my ‘digamma,’ notes on the Greek violet and the Ion of Euripides;—­which the reader will perhaps be good enough to fancy a serious loss to him, and supply for himself.

[5] Nine; I see that I missed count of P. farinosa, the most abundant of all.

[6] “A feeble little quatrefoil—­growing one on the stem, like a Parnassia, and looking like a Parnassia that had dropped a leaf.  I think it drops one of its own four, mostly, and lives as three-fourths of itself, for most of its time.  Stamens pale gold.  Root-leaves, three or four, grass-like; growing among the moist moss chiefly.”

[7] The great work of Lecoq, ‘Geographic Botanique,’ is of priceless value; but treats all on too vast a scale for our purposes.

[8] It is, I believe, Sowerby’s Viola Lutea, 721 of the old edition, there painted with purple upper petals; but he says in the text, “Petals either all yellow, or the two uppermost are of a blue purple, the rest yellow with a blue tinge:  very often the whole are purple.”

[9] Did the wretch never hear bees in a lime tree then, or ever see one on a star gentian?

[10] Septuagint, “the eyes of doves out of thy silence.”  Vulgate, “the eyes of doves, besides that which is hidden in them.”  Meaning—­the dim look of love, beyond all others in sweetness.

[11] When I have the chance, and the time, to submit the proofs of ‘Proserpina’ to friends who know more of Botany than I, or have kindness enough to ascertain debateable things for me, I mean in future to do so,—­using the letter A to signify Amicus, generally; with acknowledgment by name, when it is permitted, of especial help or correction.  Note first of this kind:  I find here on this word, ‘five-petaled,’ as applied to Pinguicula, “Qy. two-lipped? it is monopetalous, and monosepalous, the calyx and corolla being each all in one piece.”

Yes; and I am glad to have the observation inserted.  But my term, ‘five-petaled,’ must stand.  For the question with me is always first, not how the petals are connected, but how many they are.  Also I have accepted the term petal—­but never the word lip—­as applied to flowers.  The generic term ‘Labiatae’ is cancelled in ‘Proserpina,’ ‘Vestales’ being substituted; and these flowers, when I come to examine them, are to be described, not as divided into two lips, but into hood, apron, and side-pockets.  Farther, the depth to which either calyx or corolla is divided, and the firmness with which the petals