It’s Reigning Violets

Violet flowers, so very recognizable, hide secrets that have to be revealed if the flowers and species are to be understood.  The fortunate reality is that most people know a violet, genus Viola, when they find one.  It’s a group anciently a part of human cultural awareness.  The very word we borrow from Latin ‘viola’ is cognate to the Greek ‘Ion’, the name Dioscorides used for these plants in his 1st Century herbal.  Indeed, violet flowers were so well known for their calming fragrance and regal color that the plant name itself became the term we use for hues of rich purple. 

Knowing you have a Violet in hand might not get you much further in understanding however. There’s no shortage of that word popping up in a web search, from the names of people to books and commercial products.  Even keeping to botany and avoiding (for the moment) cultural symbolism, the Wikipedia entry for genus Viola is broad ranging, including extensive history reminding us that over 600 species are accepted for this nearly world-wide group.  North America harbors well over 70 species, and many non-native violets have become naturalized.  Weakley, et al, list 59 species plus varieties and hybrids for The Flora of the Southeastern United States (2023), and 24 species are pictured in an image-based website, The Southeastern Flora.  Florida Plant Atlas, however, reports just 13 species for the state, all of which are present in the Central Panhandle.  

Even with our comparatively restricted number of species, Violets in the Apalachicola flora can be challenging, showing significant vegetative variability.  Little & McKinney (2015 in print, accessed website 2024), in their useful introduction to the genus in Flora of North America , caution students the “dimensions of leaves and stems often increase substantially between early spring and late summer … Stem, leaf, and flower size vary with environmental factors such as aspect, light, available soil moisture, and other edaphic conditions.”

There’s the need to conquer some firm-specific terminology to gain familiarity with the group.  Most violets (70% of North American species) show a cover-all-your-bets reproductive strategy, producing “normal” flowers available for pollinators, but also (often later in the growing season) producing flowers that self-pollinate without opening.  The general term for flowers available for pollination, “open” flowers, is chasmogamous – ‘chasmo’ relates to an opening, a rift, or a ravine, while ‘gamous’ references a pairing or marriage.  The closed flowers are termed cleistogamous – ‘cleisto’ signifiying closed, or secret.  All but two Florida plants (Viola labradorica and the introduced V. tricolor) are described as producing cleistogamous flowers, which invariably form on pedicels that reach out close to the ground.

Violet flowers share numerous specializations.  The anthers, though not connate (melded together) are “connivent” – which means they grow closely together, nearly adherent, forming a sheath around the pistil.  The variously-textured style and stigma protrude from that sheath, and will either take a beak-shape, in which case the term ‘rostrum’ comes into play, or the stigma is enlarged, capitate. Though studied as important characteristics, these differences aren’t used in the keys that guide you to species descriptions in Flora of Florida.  

Violets generally produce 3-carpellate fruit that open as dry capsules.  Depending on which species is under examination, seed will either be ‘carunculate’ or not, which is therefore called ‘ecarunculate’.  Carunculate seed bear a fleshy aril, or ‘elaiosome’ (which means an “oil body”) that entices ants to collect and relocate them.  Such ant-dispersed seed are termed ‘myrmecochorous,’ with reports suggesting well over half of the violet species use this strategy.

And, of course, there is the foliage – the heart-shaped leaf we associate with most violets, and redbud. Botanists will often use the term “cordate” for this shape, but that more specifically applies to the base of the leaf. The shape, in this instance is broadly ovate, with a cordate base. Most people will accept cordate, or even “cordiform” as the jargon for what might simply be called “heart-shaped.” Not all violets follow this convention. Both Viola palmata and V. septemloba can have such pronounced lobing as to perterb the overall cordiform outline. The common Viola vittata produces attenuated lance-like leaf blades with no basal lobing. At least one plant in Florida, Viola tripartita, so rare to encounter, has leaves that are basically compound, or at least 3-parted.

Observing these plants more closely in nature, and attempting to cultivate specimens so as better to understand their nature, a few realizations have surfaced. The leaves of many violets seem well-adapted to growing from beneath a layer of leaf litter. New foliage emerges as something of a spear, the blades not unfurling until growing tips have found a course through the litter into the open. If you harvest a plant that has grown in a layer of litter, the etiolated petioles will be obvious. Some violets even appear to maintain the capacity to lengthen petioles when temporarily submerged, explaining especially-long petioles of some specimens I encounter. This might dampen enthusiasm for petiole to blade ratios as useful characters.

Another revelation has been the duration of flowers, but I’d need to keep records to document this observation. Anecdotally, however, I’ve noted a flower of Viola septemloba that remained in good, fresh condition for 5 days. And in the line of casual observation (not to be treated as fact, just circumstance), I discover that violet buds might be tasty – not as much for humans as for other critters, either birds or mice. In my small allotment of study plants, it’s disappointingly common to discover that an oncoming bud has been nipped. Many reasons have been given for evolution of cleistogamous flowers in Viola; harvesting of buds hoisted above foliage would provide some evolutionary pressure.

Walking through Keys and Descriptions:

Several contemporary floras are available with keys to guide identification of species in genus Viola, including both native and introduced violets. Older works would indicate these are treatments of “spontaneous” violets, a useful disclaimer indicating the flora attempts to cover all plants that reproduce and persist in an area, regardless as to whether or not they are thought to be native.  Viola tricolor and V. inconspicua are non-native but spontaneous species included in the ISB Florida Plant Atlas. Whether you might term them “ruderal” or “introduced” or even “invasive” becomes a matter of their impact on local ecosystems.  Others, Viola tripartita, Viola villosa, and Viola labradorica, though native to extensive areas of Eastern North America, are just faintly native to Florida, having very limited distribution along the northern edges of the state, as the southern limit of a more cool temperate range.

Wunderlin & Hansen (Flora of Florida, 2015) rely mostly on vegetative and simple floral characters to distinguish our species, treating ten of the thirteen Viola species listed in the ISB Florida Plant Atlas website.  There is, however, an updated key in the web-based Florida Plant Atlas, and you’ll encounter more extensive keys on-line for the Flora of North America project, as well as Weakley, et al Flora of the Southeastern US.  In general, the initial dichotomy for all keys to Viola separates the “caulescent”  from the “acaulescent,” splitting the genus into two large groups.

 In Florida, five species: Viola tripartita, V. bicolor, V. tricolor, V. walteri, and V. labradorica. are known for producing vertical to sprawling stems along which leaves are spaced – thus considered caulescent (having well-developed stems with leaves at the nodes).  The remaining eight species – Viola primulifolia, V. vittata (identified as V. lanceolata in Florida Plant Atlas and Flora of Florida), V. palmata, Viola septemloba, V. villosa, V. cucullata, and V. sororia, cluster their leaves in a rosette, formed at the growing tips of short, thick rhizomes.  Over the entire continent, in Flora of North America, 30 species are described as caulescent, while 43 are acaulescent.

Parsing Florida’s caulescent plants, Wunderlin & Hansen peel off Viola tripartita as the only yellow-flowered spontaneous violet, also said to have entire (versus lobed or pectinate) stipules.  The remaining four plants with cauline leaves fall into two groups. Viola rafinesquei (V. bicolor) and V. tricolor pair off as producing miniature pansy-like flowers, which most people call Johnny JumpUps, though the native V. rafinesquei is more appropriately called the Field Pansy, while the European V. tricolor is the historical Johnny JumpUp.  These plants would be found mainly in disturbed areas and meadow settings and are marked by flat-faced flowers ranging in tones from pale blues and creams to bawdily multicolored forms popular in horticulture. 

The other two, Viola walteri and V. labradorica have more typically violet-shaped flowers, with V. walteri sprawling in the litter of deciduous forests, while the second, V. labradorica, is recorded only from Leon County, distinguished as the sole blue violet in the Panhandle that has erect stems with cauline leaves.  A plant called Viola labradorica is commonly sold in the horticultural trade, but it isn’t always the identical to the species typifying this name, and you have to wonder about specimens encountered in the Tallahassee area, where gardening is extensive.

This leaves us with several species most people might recognize as “normal” violets.  Two, which invariably produce white flowers, Viola vittata and V. primulifolia, are classified in Viola Subsection Stolonosae, which tells us they produce stolons (strawberry-like growth that establishes new rosettes). Viola vittata is a relatively miniature denizen of sunny, wet places, hunkering close to the ground in clustered colonies.  By far the most common violet you’ll encounter in the Apalachicola region, it’s simply called the Bog White Violet, or the Southern Water Violet.  This plant is everywhere, tolerating full-sun in wet to very boggy soils, especially abundant in clearings and along edges, such as mowed verges.  In mid-February, the Bog White Violet seems the most common small white-flowered plant I encounter.  Viola primulifolia, which I’ve seen flowering in clearings near streams (early March), also prefers wet soils, establishing small colonies through very obvious stolons. It isn’t rare to find plants with foliage suggesting hybridization between the two species.

Rosette-leaved, blue-flowered violets constitute the remaining kinds you might encounter.  Three are included in Wunderlin & Hansen (2015), three other taxa have been added to the ISB Plant Atlas, and some people use the Weakley, et al (2023) key, that suggests a doubling of that number.  Florida Plant Atlas lists Viola palmata, V. septemloba, V. inconspicua, V. cucullata, V. soraria, and V. villosa.  A list of segregate species you might accept would include Viola affinis, V. langloisii, V. floridana, V. hirsutula, V. edulis, V. calcosperma, and V. emarginata.

Take heart, we can pare this down.  Viola palmata and Viola septemloba form a pair of species distinguished from other cespitose (read acaulescent) violets in Florida in producing variably lobed leaf blades, from simple heart-shaped type (early in the season) to basally-lobed, to deeply incised versions, the more mature leaves being distinctly palmately lobed, with up to 9 divisions (though 7 lobes are a common morphology, as the name “septemloba” suggests).  You’ll find these plants mostly in woodland settings, both along edges as well as scattered throughout the understory.  They bear comparatively larger flowers topping more erect peduncles than our Common Blue Violets.  Nurseries here sell similar plants, but those are typically the non-native, more northerly Viola pedata. Plants akin to this pair, recognized as separate species in Flora of the Southeastern United States (FloSUS) include the widespread Viola edulis and a Florida Atlantic Coast curiosity, V. chalcosperma, a plant known only from its type location near Jacksonville.

We are down to the final few.  One of those, Viola inconspicua. a non-native and the most recently introduced to our region, is represented in the Florida Plant Atlas solely with photos; no herbarium specimens are included.  Examining the updated key,  Viola inconspicua is readily distinguished in producing narrowly deltate leaf blades that can be basally sagittate to hastate. But you are unlikely to encounter this plant in a natural setting.

This brings us to the more common of the Blue Violets, which make for a challenging complex. With heart-shaped, undissected leaves and archetypal dark to pale violet flowers, Blue Violets are what most people consider the standard woodland type.  These plants are noted for hybrid relationships, and can look very different throughout the seasons and from one location to another.  And they are truly common, found practically throughout Eastern North America, and the most frequently sold native violet in the nursery trade. 

Among these, two plants that are distinct vegetatively are the Carolina Violet, Viola villosa, with its conspicuously pubescent foliage and Viola hirsutula, the Southern Woodland Violet, noted for silvery to grey leaves with contrasting venation. I’ve seen no reports of Viola hirsutula from the Apalachicola region.

That brings us to the tangled core of the complex, plants identified as Viola sororia and its look-alikes. I can certainly appreciate the simplicity in grouping the Common Blue Violets as the single but variable Viola sororia. Even the name fits; “sororia” tells us this is the “sister” violet, and it truly has many sisters..

Not included in the 2015 Flora of Florida key but listed in the ISB Florida Plant Atlas, the Marsh Violet, Viola cucullata, is an identifiable segregate found in wet soils.  Though resembling Viola sororia. according to the Flora of North America (FNA), V. cucullata can be distinguished by its comparatively long petioles and conspicuous sepal auricles, i.e. lobes at the base of sepals that are 4-6 mm long, as compared to the barely visible auricles on sepals of V. sororia. In addition to Viola cucullata, current researchers have elected to recognize V. floridana and V. langloisii, which also have prominent auricles on the sepals. Using this character alone is not convincing. At 1.5 mm in length, the auricles of V. langloisii and V. floridana are reported to be shorter than the 4-6 mm long auricles of V. cucullata but longer than the 0.5-1 mm long auricles on sepals of V. sororia.

In the notes, you’ll find Brainerd’s original description of Viola floridana, which he describes as producing pale lavender flowers held well above the foliage, noting “its constantly uncut leaves on erect petioles and its habitat on well-drained soil seem to mark it as distinct.” He doesn’t mention auricles, but compares the plant to Viola esculenta, which seems to have been subsumed to Viola sororia. If any plants suggest support this description, it might be a population I encountered at Wakulla Springs – see photos below:

The final sister, Viola affinis is distinguished as bearing hairs, a “beard”, on the lower petal, additional to the beard that typifies the lateral petals. In my experience, this condition is variably normal for blue violets I encounter; I haven’t found any living plants in this group with beards as conspicuous as those of the lateral petals.

Alternative Field Identification:  Where does that leave the field naturalist?  Some determinations are fairly straightforward; but the bulk of plants encountered present tough choices. With half of the violets reported in Florida showing very restricted occurrence, decisions are simplified by culling unlikely candidates.  To date, studying plants in the field in the two counties most proximate to me (Franklin and Liberty), I have only run into specimens of Viola vittata, Viola affinis/cucullata/soraria, and Viola palmata/septemloba. I encountered extensive populations of Viola walteri in the forest at the Ed Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, in Wakulla County, and also purchased live plants from Native Nurseries in Tallahassee. Most of my understanding is derived from reading floras and monographs. Detailed below are the plants I expect to find and the characters I would be considering for identification – based on having studied available treatments.

In the Apalachicola region, if you were to encounter a violet with a yellow flower, it’s likely the Threepart Violet, Viola tripartita. The leaves will be cauline, with unusual blades that can be 3-parted.  Native as far north as Canada, the distribution peters out toward the South, and this plant has been reported, infrequently, solely from Gadsden and Liberty Counties.  Unsurprisingly, it’s considered endangered in Florida, and most likely you’ll only locate a plant if given clear site data.

Should you encounter a small, white-flowered violet in masses, that’s going to identify as either the Bog White Violet, Viola vittata, or the Primroseleaf Violet.  The first is our most common violet, with long, narrow, lance-shaped leaves; the second is less frequent and produces rounded leaf blades very distinct from the petioles.  Other violets will generate white-flowered forms, but only in cultivation might you see an entire population.   The plants are easily distinguished, but I’ve definitely encountered considerable variation, even plants with what seem to be hybrid characteristics. Viola vittata, normally, is a very small plant with leaf blades that are attenuate, both basally and apically. In some locations, however, I encounter plants that are fully thrice the normal size. In one location, where I also encountered Viola primulifolia, I documented a plant with leaves that clearly seemed of blended character.

If you find a violet with cauline leaves and a flat, pansy-like flower, that will be either Viola rafinesquei (V. bicolor) or the non-native V. tricolor.  The second plant, Johnny JumpUp, marked by its kalaidescope of colorful petals, doesn’t make cleistogamous flowers and has only been reported as escaped in Santa Rosa, Franklin, and Hamilton Counties.  Somewhat more common, still encountered in disturbed sites, is the Eastern native Field Pansy, Viola rafinesquei, with flowers of evenly pale blue or cream color.

Should you encounter a large-flowered blue violet with a rosette of heteromorphic leaves (blades varying in outline, from nearly undivided to deeply palmately cleft), that most likely will be either the lovely Viola palmata or the similar V. septemloba  At this moment, I haven’t sampled enough populations to differentiate the two taxa confidently Ballard (Viola website) describes Viola palmata as producing varyingly hirsute foliage and ciliate-margined sepals, while leaves of Viola septemloba should be glabrous and the sepals eciliate. Most plants in our area have been annotated as V. palmata, but I’m becoming convinced most will be annotated as Viola septemloba. Closer to the Alabama border, I’ve found plants with roughly-textured leaves that correspond more closely to descriptions of Viola edulis, producing heart-shaped leaves early in the growing season, followed by larger, highly and deeply divided leaves (with a triangular outline) as the season progresses.

You are almost half-way there.  With the remaining violets, all blue-flowered, things get a bit tougher.  

Encountering a blue-flowered violet with cauline leaves and upright stem will be rare.  The native range of American Dogviolet (Viola labridorica) is much further north, and this plant has only been reported from Leon County. However, more commonly you might run into a small violet with both basal and cauline leaves, and the spreading, rooting habit of a strawberry.  The stoloniferous Prostrate Blue Violet, Viola walteri, can be seen forming mat-like colonies with rounded (reniform) leaves and pale to dark blue flowers.  Walk trails at Ed Ball Wakulla Springs State Park in early spring and you’ll find many flowering specimens to study.

Another unlikely plant to encounter is the recenty introduced Long Sepal, or Chinese Violet, Viola inconspicua, now listed in the ISB Florida Plant Atlas.  Collected to date in just six counties, Bay, Wakulla, Leon, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, the plant was brought to Ballard’s attention by Loran Anderson and Floyd Griffith. It should stand out as having distinctly narrowly deltoid leaves with sagittate to hastate bases, and the lateral petals will be beardless.

We get down, now, to the plants that most people would consider everyday violets, the Carolina Violet, Viola villosa, and the Common Blue Violet, Viola sororia, with its sisters, the Marsh Violet, Viola cucullata, the Sand Violet, Viola affinis, the Florida Violet, Viola floridana, and the Louisiana Violet, Viola langloisii.  Uncommonly, in woodlands, you may discover Viola villosa, readily distinguished by its pubescent leaves, with rounded, prominently veined blades.  Most commonly, expect to encounter Viola sororia and its sisters, with their variable, but generally heart-shaped (cordiform) leaves showing no apical lobing, in woodlands and swampy areas, and in locations selling native plants. If you check inside the spurred petal and see a beard (similar to the beard of trichomes on the lateral petals), then feel free to call that plant Viola affinis, because its sisters are all described as having glabrous spur petals. In wet soils of bogs or swamps, you might be fortunate to find Viola cucullata, distinguished ultimately by the large auricles produced from the bases of its sepals and a prominent eyespot. Two other plants, Viola floridana and V. langloisii share the prominent sepal auricle in varying states, but both are said to lack a defined eyespot (which characterizes V. cucullata). Viola langloisii keys out as having leaf blades that are relatively longer than broad, as compared to the wider leaf blades of Viola floridana.

Below I give my outline of An Overly-Simplified Key to Florida Violets:

• 01 – Caulescent
•   02 – Leaves deeply divided (flowers yellow) = Viola tripartita
•   02 – Leaves entire
•      03 – Flowers “violet” shaped
•          04 – Plant creeping = Viola walteri
•           04 – Plant erect = Viola labradorica 
•       03 – Flowers pansy-like
•             05 – Flowers multi-colored, cultivated and escaped = Viola tricolor
•             05 – Flowers evenly cream to pale blue, plant of meadows = Viola rafinesquei
• 01 – Acaulescent
•   06 – Mature leaves cleft, divided, or apically-lobed. Note: All plants in our region are reported as heterophyllous thus the homophyllous Viola pedata, V. brittoniana, V. pedatifida and other very northerly species are not to be encountered). Near to our region, one might encounter Viola emarginata, a plant with winged petioles and emarginate flower petals. 
•      07 – Foliage glabrous, sepals eciliate
•         08 – Spurred petal densely bearded, largest leaf blades more or less as broad as long = Viola septemloba
•         08 – Spurred petal glabrous to sparsely villous, largest leaf blades distinctly longer than broad = Viola edulis & Viola chalcosperma
•        07 – Foliage varyingly hirsute, sepals ciliate (spurred petal glabrous) = Viola palmata
•   06 – Mature leaf blades unlobed apically
•     09 – Flowers white, plants stoloniferous
•       10 – Leaves lanceolate, blade margins mostly entire = Viola vittata
•     10 – Leaves ovate with distinct petioles, margines evenly dimpled (nearly crenate) = Viola primulifolia
•     09 – Flowers blue to purple, plants individual or closely branched
•          11 – Petals internally beardless, leaves lanceolate = Viola inconspicua
•          11 — Petals internally bearded, easily visible hairs at flower center, leaves broadly ovate to rounded, cordate
• 12 – Leaves evidently pubescent, petioles winged = Viola villosa
•            12 – Leaves glabrous to somewhat hirsute, not heavily pubescent, petioles not winged
•              13 – Leaves silvered to grey adaxially, veins in evident contrast = Viola hirsutula
•              13 – Leaves green, perhaps with tinges of purple, veins not contrasting
•                14 – Inner spur petal bearded = Viola affinis
•                14 – Inner spur petal glabrous
•                     15 – Lower sepals without evident auricles = Viola sororia
•                     15 – Lower sepals with evident auricles (calycine appendages)
•                        16- All petals forming a well-defined, contrasting eyespot, auricles well-developed (4-6 mm) = Viola cucullata
•                        16- Eyespot incomplete, faint, or just a flush of color, auricles evident, but not pronounced (1-2 mm)
•                             17 – Plant reported from western Panhandle = Viola langloisii
•                             17 – Plant through much of state = Viola floridana

And there we have it.  Stay tuned, substantial monographic work by Dr. Harvey Ballard and associates, beginning in 1985, reconstructs our understanding of Viola systematics. Keys to Viola species and species descriptions with photos are available at the Ohio University website. The recent publication, ‘A taxonomic treatment of violets (Violaceae) of the Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada’ (Ballard, Kartescx,, and Nishiino, 2023) recognizes 58 native Viola species, as well as 8 resident non-natives, and discusses 108 naturally-occurring hybrids. The work covers all species currently reported in the Flora of Florida, though it is clear delineation of those plants will change as the Ballard team expands their treatment to include the Southeast.

Background

As I mentioned earlier, our botanical term Viola, as well as the English Violet, Violette in French, and the Spanish Violeta are rooted in the ancient name for these plants, reminding us Violets have a long history in Western culture. Viola (in Greek, Ion) was known to Dioscorides, who is credited as having authored De Materia Medica, the most significant early European treatise written on medical botany. Transliterated, transcribed, and transformed as practically the only botanical authority over more than 1500 centuries, Dioscorides underwrote Europe’s printed herbal era. Violets, then, were among the first few hundred plants loaded in the discovery crucible where the 600 year history of modern botanical science was forged.

Brunfels (1532) gains credit for generating botanical illustrations from studying living specimens, thus his book title “vivae eicones” – a 16th century version of live photography. His entry informs readers (the audience was medical practitioners who could read and could afford books at the time) concerning the identification, properties, collecting, preparation, and administration of these violets, as well as other plants. Though the illustrations are original, the text leans fully on trusted writers, Dioscorides, Columnella, Virgil, etc.

By 1700, exploration was in full swing, and a series of significant botanists were beginning the process of organizing and cataloging the world’s plants. The highlight that year was publication of Joseph Pitton de Tournefort’s Institutiones Rei Herbariæ, one of the major compilations on which Linnaeus based his writings, which documents over eighty historical names referencing Viola. He introduces the genus with a thoughtful description and provides a botanical plate (Tab 236).

Tournefort’s publications are as glorious as they are important. As the King’s botanist, his work was underwritten and well-regarded. The 1700 Institutiones… recognizes this support (see title page and dedication below).

CITATIONS & NOTES

Ballard, Harvey, John T. Kartesz, and Misako Nishino, 2023. A taxonomic tretment of the violets (Violaceae) of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 150: 3-266.

Brainerd, Ezra (17 December 1844 – 8 December 1924), In the same issue of the Bulletin of Torrey Botanical Club, 1910, Brainerd published his articles ‘Five new species of Viola from the South’ (v.37: 523-528) with two illustrations and ‘Viola palmata and its allies’ (v. 37: 581-588), with an illustration. The first article includes description and related information for two species discovered near Jacksonville, Viola chalcosperma and Viola floridana., two from near Crowley, LA, Viola rosacea and Viola lovelliana, and a fifth one from Limestone Glades west of Nashville, TN, Viola egglestonii.

Brainerd describes Viola chalcosperma as glabrous and heterophyllous, with bearded lateral petals and a “sparsely villous odd petal” (the spurred petal). He chose the specific epithet “chalcosperma”, i.e. copper colored seed to reflect his observation that the seed are “the color of old bronze.” Of course, the curiosity surrounding Viola chalcosperma is that Brainerd documented a handsome population along a large forested slope, but no other specimens corresponding to that material have been collected since. It would be great to know whether or not any plantspeople have launched a search for remnants of the population, or other possible sites. While pursuing his extensive studies of Viola, Brainerd served for 23 years as a very successful President for Vermont’s Middlebury College

In his description of Viola floridana, Brainerd notes the beardless “odd petal”, its erect leaves (at full development), and the long peduncles, much exceeding the length of the leaves. Plants he saw had whitish to pale volet flowers. He does not mention sepal auricles or the stigma. The full description is shown below.:

Little, R. John, & Landon E. McKinney, Landon E.  2015 printed, 2024 online.  Viola, Flora of North America, eFlora version, Vol 6 of printed version.

Little and McKinney provide some useful advise for those studying Viola, and make the effort to explain their terminologies.  Here are some direct extracts (citations have been removed for simplicity, but the sources for information are included in original text on the website):

• The taxonomy of Viola is often considered difficult partly because of hybridization; more than 100 named hybrids occur in the flora area. Hybrids among the blue-flowered, acaulescent species in eastern North America and among other species are well known.
• Other factors contribute to phenotypic variation. The dimensions of leaves and stems often increase substantially between early spring and late summer. Moreover, stem, leaf, and flower size vary with environmental factors such as aspect, light, available soil moisture, and other edaphic conditions
• Branching of stems in perennial caulescent North American Viola species is uncommon… 
• The three annual species in the flora area, V. arvensis, V. bicolor, and V. tricolor, commonly branch from the base of the main stem near or at the crown and from nodes higher on the stem.
• The leaves of acaulescent species develop from the rhizome. In homophyllous plants, all leaf blades are lobed from early season through late season; the depth of sinuses depends somewhat on the age of the plant. In heterophyllous plants, the earliest leaf blades are not lobed; later-season blades are lobed
• Here, the distal portion of the style is called the style head. The shape, size, position of the stigmatic surface, and degree of bearding vary among species. Differences among style heads have been used in Viola classification
• Of the 30 acaulescent species in the flora area, one has a bearded style; of the 43 caulescent species, 35 are always bearded, three are bearded or beardless, and five are always beardless
• Of the 73 species of Viola in the flora area, 60 are known to produce cleistogamous flowers, nine do not, and the condition in four is unknown. 
• The three valves of Viola capsules usually are thick in perennial species and thin in annual species. The capsules of at least some species open relatively slowly, exposing the seeds. As the valves dry, they contract and squeeze the seeds causing them to be ejected (R. J. Little and G. Leiper 2012). Capsules that disperse seeds ballistically are usually on erect peduncles; capsules that passively release their seeds usually point downward (A. J. Beattie and N. Lyons 1975)
• Most Viola seeds possess an outgrowth (elaiosome), or food body, of variable size that is often attractive to ants. S. Lengyel et al. (2010) estimated that over 70% of Violaceae species are myrmecochorous. Studies have been conducted on various aspects of myrmecochory in Viola
• Mature plants are often needed for identification of violets. In preparing specimens of violets, care should be taken to record data on petal and spur colors, and presence and distribution of beards on lateral and other petals, or note if lacking… Measurements of the lowest petal in the descriptions here include the spur.

Marcussen, Thomas, Harvey E. Ballard, Jiri Danihelka, Ana R. Flores, Marcela V. Nicola, and John M. Watson, 2022.  A Revised Phylogenetic Classification for Viola (Violaceae) (the RPCV)  Plants. 150 pgs.  

The RPCV accepts two Subgenera, and includes a Key to Sections and Subsections of genus Viola, also listing currently accepted species. What does that mean for Florida violets? All of our violets are in Subgenus Viola, which comprises 19 Sections. (The segregate Subgenus Neoandinium comprises 11 Sections of Violets native to South America.) Our plants are classified as:

• Section Chamaemelanium: Viola tripartitita
• Section Melanium: Viola tricolor, V. rafinesquei
• Section Nosphinium, Subsection Borealiamericanae: Viola cucullata, V. palmata, V. septemloba, V. sororia, V. villosa, V. floridana
• Section Plagiostigma, Subsection Stolonosae: Viola primulifolia, V. vittata (V. lanceolata)
• Viola, Subsection Rostratae: Viola labradorica, V. walteri

The RPCV utilizes a full range of terminology employed in violet descriptions, defining those terms as follows (terms and definitions quoted directly from RCPV text):

• Arosulate acaulescent: with leaves scattered on stem, not in rosettes. Aerial stems and stolons (e.g., V. filicaulis).
• Arosulate caulescent: with leaves on aerial stems. Rosettes and stolons absent (e.g., V. abyssinica, V. arborescens, V. stagnina).
• Beard: tuft of hairs on the lateral petals (and sometimes upper or bottom petals) located at the throat of the chasmogamous flower, also a tuft of trichomes near the apex of the style in some species or groups. Organs with or without a beard are referred to as bearded or glabrous, respectively.
• Calycine appendage: Appendage at base of the sepal; synonymous with “sepal auricle” or “sepal appendage”.
• Caulescent/acaulescent: with/without aerial stems.
• Flower colour: base colour of the petals in living plants excluding the nectar guides,
• unless otherwise noted.
• Foliaceous: used to describe stipules that are green and often large and leaf-like (e.g., V. elatior, V. raddeana, V. tricolor).
• Papilla: lateral expansion of the cell wall to form a short conical structure up to 3 times as long as wide. For instance, a pad of papillae is found on the lateral petals of sect. Erpetion in place of a beard of trichomes exhibited in some other lineages.
• Rosulate/arosulate: with/without leaves in rosette.
• Rosulate acaulescent: with leaves in rosettes. Aerial stems and stolons absent (e.g.,
• Rosulate caulescent: with leaves in rosettes, aerial stems present. Stolons absent (e.g., V. canadensis, V. riviniana).
• Rosulate stoloniferous: with leaves in rosettes, stolons present. Aerial stems absent (e.g., V. banksii, V. odorata, V. palustris). 
• Stolon: lateral, specialised procumbent stem producing adventitious roots and new plantlets. We restrict the term to taxa in which the shoot axes are differentiated. Trichome: elongate hair-like structure usually more than 3 times as long as wide and typically linear or distinctly broader above the base. 
• Violet: colour of the corolla and petal striation in many species. In the literature, this colour is often referred to, rather ambiguously, as “blue” or “purple”. 

Tournefort, Joseph Pitton (5 June 1656 – 28 December 1708), 1700. Institutiones Rei Herbariæ, Paris

Weakley, A.S. and SE Flora Team, 2023 Website: Flora of the Southeastern United States.

The Flora of the Southeastern United States (FloSUS) includes Florida plants, recognizing several more segregate species, very similar to interpretations of the Ballard team. In diagramming the key, I’ve been able summarize the differences in approach as compared to Flora of Florida. Pertinent to plants encountered here in the Apalachicola region, there are minor differences as well as substantial reinterpretations. Among those, I’ve already indicated recognition of E.L. Greene’s Viola vittata as the name for our Bog White Violet, as opposed to the broader use of the Linnaean Viola lanceolata. The final Character State for identifying Viola walteri in FloSUS describes foliage as conspicuously pubescent. Even Flora of Florida indicates leaves are “finely pubescent” on both surfaces. That description doesn’t fit plants of V. walteri in the nursery trade, which perhaps were selected for lack of pubescence.

To the main topic, the FloSUS key recognizes 58 species, but 108 taxa, many being variants of widespread and variable plants like Viola pedata, V. palmata, and V. sororia. Taxa are grouped in five keys (A, B, C, D, & E), with one plant, Viola rotundifolia, peeled off in the Index. As is reflected in the systematics of Viola (and in every other key), caulescent plants (those with leafy stems) are in Keys A & B, the simple difference being flower color (which can be a bit difficult with white-flowered plants further north). Here, of course, you’ll find Viola walteri, V. tricolor, V. rafinesquei (sometimes called V. bicolor), V. labradorica, and V. tripartita, most of which are not common for this region.

Acaulescent plants (read rosette-forming, rosulate, stemless, etc) fall out in Keys C, D, & E. Key C includes plants that form rosettes, but will generate stoloniferous growth in the late season. For us, this includes the white-flowered Viola vittata (our most commmon violet) and V. primulifolia.

Keys D and E are demanding, at least for me here in Franklin an Liberty Counties. Let’s begin with Key D, which deals with those plants that have divided or lobed leaves. FloSUS manages an even much broader scope of diversity in this regard, breaking these plants into three major clusters—the Pedata types, homophyllous plants in which petals are glabrous within, the bearded flowers with homophyllous leaves, and the bearded flowers with heterophyllous foliage. Only the third category, plants with bearded petals and heterophyllous leaves seems to impact Florida. But that is enough to consider.

Of the bearded heterophyllous sorts, those with prominently-winged petioles almost reach us (V. emarginata in Georgia and Alabama), but I’ve seen no discussions placing those plants as native this far south. Viola edulis and V. egglestonii are reported from Georgia, while a variant of V. edulis (‘Gulf Coastal Plain edulis’) is said to occur in Florida. According to FLoSUS, therefore, of the bearded types one could expect to encounter four taxa in North Florida, Viola palmata, V. septemloba, V. calchosperma (known only from its type location near Jacksonville), and V. ‘Gulf Coastal Plain edulis’. Accepting this observation would expand the Florida Plant Atlas list by two taxa. As to their determination, I haven’t confirmed identification of any material that would allow me to explain the nature of ‘Gulf Coastal Plain edulis’. Keys and descriptions in the Ballard website explain that Viola palmata is expected to produce variably-hirsute foliage and ciliate sepals, while Viola septemloba foliage should be glabrous, and sepal margins should be eciliate.

That leaves us to ponder Key E, which covers acaulescent, non-stoloniferous violets with entire leaves, most of which are basically the typical heart-shape. A few plants showing winged petioles peel off, including our Viola villosa, as well as an oddball non-lobed variant of V. emarginata (a plant more closely related to Viola septemloba) and unlobed forms of Viola sagittata. The remainder are plants often broadly identified as Viola sororia here in Florida, all of which should show pubescence on the inner surfaces of lateral petals.

Viola hirsutula is reported from the Panhandle, a plant with silvery to greyed color to adaxial leaf surfaces, contrasting conspicuously with the venation and heavy pubescence on the inner surface of the spurred petal. The common Viola sororia, is described as having variously glabrous to hirsute foliage, with flowers marked by sepals that lack auricles (basal appendages) and spurred petals lacking a beard of trichomes, but that ignores other very similar plants.

The Florida Plant Atlas reports the similar Viola cucullata as present, though representatives are not mentioned in FloSUS.  FloSUS does report versions of Viola floridana throughout the state, and Viola langloisii as present in the western Panhandle.  FloSUS notes Viola affinis present in Georgia, but following the FloSUS key characters, Viola affinis seems well-documented in Florida as well, at least according to a posting by Mark Hutchinson on the Florida Native Plant Society website. Moreover, Flora of Florida notes specimens from across the state have been annotated as Viola affinis. This presents us with four plants in the cult of Viola sororia look-alikes: Viola langloisii, V. affinis, V. cucullata, and V. florida.

Parsing the descriptions and keys, there seem to be few characters that aid in distinguishing these plants. Viola soraria is described as having leaf blades about as broad as long (even broader in some cases), with flowers lacking a beard of trichomes on the lower (nectary-forming) petal. Moreover, V. soraria has faint to inconspicuous auricles on the lower sepals. Viola cucullata and V. languloisii are also described as lacking a beard of trichomes on the lower petal, but distinguished from V. sororia by the lower sepals, which bear prominent auricles. Separating Viola cucullata from V. languloisii requires a noticable contrasting eyespot in flowers of the former. Of the five plants, Viola affinis and V. floridana are distinguished as having a beard of trichomes on the lower petal. They are separated by leaf shape, with Viola affinis producing relatively longer than broad leaf blades. Current trends, both in Ballard’s work and in FloSUS suggest the segregate species will be restored. In general aspect, however, I find the plants very similar and can appreciate the stance taken in Flora of Florida (Wunderlin & Hansen, 2015) that subsumed them all to Viola sororia.

Addressing the issue of Violet variability and identification, Weakley, et al, in their introduction to Viola: ‘Viola has presented numerous problems in taxonomy, distribution, and identification. Particularly troublesome are the so-called “acaulescent blue violets”, including V. sororia, V. sagittata, V. palmata, V. septemloba, etc. They may be difficult to identify due to morphological overlap, or trying to key plants without mature leaves; in some instances hybridization may be suspect, or inadequate morphological characterization of the diversity found in nature and the herbarium continues (new taxa are being found on an annual basis). Leaf maturity is an important feature to recognize – the earliest 1-2 leaves produced in most of these taxa are generally ovate-cordate in outline and may not display characteristic lobing, toothing, or pubescence until more mature leaves are produced, 1-2 weeks later. Specimens thus collected early in the flowering period can present the botanist with a perplexing series of plants that do not key cleanly. A second troublesome group contains the small white violets, including V. blanda, V. incognita, and V. minuscula. These taxa have been dealt with in various ways, but resist a wholly satisfactory treatment, due to apparent hybridization (Russell 1954, 1955). However, recent reviews of these 3 species in the Southeast show that V. blanda and V. minuscula are quite distinct, with V. incognita less so (but this may be due to paucity of specimens from the area). A third difficult group contains V. appalachiensis, V. conspersa/labrodorica, and V. walteri. They have been treated recently by Ballard (1992, 1994) and McKinney & Russell (2002). Despite the problems present in the genus, the great majority of plants encountered in the field may be successfully keyed out, particularly by botanists working within an area of several counties. Violet species are usually quite faithful to one or a few plant community types, so once learned these habitats can be valuable indicators as to which species to expect. Botanists working in larger regions (state, floristic province), however, must be aware of increased morphological variation and potential hybridization. All species possess brownish or reddish nectar guide striae in the corolla throat; these are ignored in the key. Hairs of the corolla throat and on leaf surfaces are important key characters; several plants should be inspected with a 10× lens before deciding the character state. De novo hybrids can be frequent in Viola, but they do not reproduce by the chasmogamous flowers, as reported in several publications by Ezra Brainerd. Their general intermediacy and their proximity to both parents makes hybrids relatively easy to diagnose and to infer their parentage, once one becomes familiar with species in the local area. Hybrids between species of caulescent blue and white rostrate violets, and between species of acaulescent white species, are always sterile F1s and do not produce viable seeds from cleistogamous flowers. However, most hybrids between species of acaulescent blue violets are unusual in being at least subfertile through cleistogamous seeds. Cleistogamous capsules of a few hybrids abort or contain only abortive ovules, while those of most hybrids develop normally but produce a lower proportion of viable seeds (containing some abortive ovules) than the parental species; and very few hybrids (e.g., V. fimbriatula × V. sagittata) show no reduction in viable seed output relative to the parents. Nearly all acaulescent blue violet species (including the new species and some “variants” presented here) differ in size, shape and color pattern of the mature seeds of naturally dehisced capsules—best collected by enclosing developing capsules in a small mesh beg and allowing the capsules to open of their own accord. Brainerd demonstrated that seeds (and their germinated progeny) of F1 and later-generation acaulescent blue violet hybrids recombine morphological traits of the parental species within each cleistogamous capsule. Thus, it is relatively easy to infer hybrid status from a cleistogamous capsule of a suspected hybrid by noting the presence of diverse seed morphologies within it, and even to interpret the parentage when one is acquainted with seeds of other local species.’

Link to the Page: https://botanyincontext.com/its-reigning-violets/