No interactions present.
In image 1 the spur is darker than the petals and doesn't the Common Dog violet have a pale notched spur ? I would appreciate your advive on this one.
Chris Brooks - www.dragonfly-images.co.uk
My Flickr site - www.flickr.com/photos/ceb1298
I am not sure how reliable the notch is, but photo 3 does not have a darker spur though 1 might do. Perhaps it is the hybrid?! The petal veins are not much branched which might support you.
Thanks Graeme, my belief is that the notch is important. It is present in all the Common Dog Violets that I see in my area. I'll be interested in other peoples comments. Thanks Chris.
It all depends. I think, upon your chosen delineation of each of the two species. The tradition in the UK has been to "force" plants into one or other box, thus allowing plants which in France say would be recorded as the hybrid to be recorded as one or other species. One can hope that that the forthcoming BSBI Handbook on violets will resolve this, or at least give us a firm basis on which to proceed. I often see violets which I fell unhappy about putting a name to and which I suspect are the hybrid (V x bavarica) but I'm waiting for something definitve to hang IDs on.
What an interesting discussion. Good old ISPOT.
BSBI VC Recorder
I'm certainly no expert but I'd have said this was either reichenbachiana or a hybrid, rather than a pure riviniana.
I recently did a Woodland Plant ID course run by the Devon Biodiversity Records Centre and they gave us a couple of additional ID tips for Dog Violets (and apologies for the lack of correct technical terminology here):
1. When viewing the flower from the front, the Common DV has broader petals (giving it a fuller 'panda face' shape), where as Early DV is narrower (more like a 'rabbit face').
2. The little white 'hairs' around the centre of the flower pretty much obscure the orange bit in the middle on the Common DV but that the orange bit is more visible on Early DV (as in the first photo).
Lat/Lng: 51.2, -0.9
OS grid ref: SU7752