-
Following Intermountain Vol. 2B (2005), this is Viola utahensis Baker & Clausen. Welsh (2008) still treats under an expanded V. nuttallii which is now being generally recognized as only occurring east of the Rocky Mountains and so does not occur in Utah. This might in fact however be V. purpurea var. venosa (the description and drawing of which in IF Vol. 2B apparently cannot be fully relied upon) because of the deep vein markings.June 4, 2005, Neff's Canyon, roughly 1.5 miles up the canyon, somewhere in the 6500-7000 ft. range, in an open/exposed area among otherwise dense vegetation, Salt Lake County, Utah
-
Following Intermountain Vol. 2B (2005) and with some reservations, this is Viola utahensis Baker & Clausen. Welsh (2008) still treats under an expanded V. nuttallii which is now being generally recognized as only occurring east of the Rocky Mountains and so does not occur in Utah. The leaves however were mainly entire, also weakly crenate.This might in fact however may be V. purpurea var. venosa (the description and drawing of which in IF Vol. 2B apparently cannot be fully relied upon) because of the deep vein markings and also note the lower/basal leaves. The leaves of these related species may be dimorphic and important for identification, more so that characters that have been previously relied on. The upcoming treatment of this genus in the Flora of North America series should be helpful in that regard.May 25, 2008, Neff's Canyon, Salt Lake County, Utah under shade/vegetation, approx. 5,950 ft. elev.
-
Viola utahensis, one of our few yellow-flowered violets. Much of its habitat has been extirpated at the lower elevations which it formerly occupied. On this date at this elevation, only a half-dozen or so plants of this species were located, only three of which each had a single flower.These plants are typically very small; the petals are only about 1 cm long.In Intermountaion Flora Vol. 2B (2005), Viola utahensis is separated from Viola purpurea by its crenate-toothed leaves and glabrous petals (compared to the crenate-sinuate to shallowly lobed/toothed often with fewer lobes per leaf side and bearded lateral petals of V. purpurea).It should be noted that the leaf differences can be subtle, and the lower/more basal leaves of both of these species can look quite different than the upper leaves.Intermountain Flora excluded Viola nuttallii sensu stricto from occurring in Utah and hence did not treat it. It did synonymize one varietal name, V. nuttallii var. venosa under V. purpurea (under which it recognized vars. venosa and integrifolia). It listed no synonymy for V. utahensis which was originally named in 1949 by Baker and Clausen.This is in contrast to the treatment by Welsh et al (2008 and prior) in the Utah Flora series and Arnow et al (1980) in the Flora of the Central Wasatch Front who treated V. utahensis as a synonym of V. purpurea and both of whom also recognized V. nuttallii, separating them based on the pubescent toothed/lobed and often longer leaves with purple veins compared to the usually shorter and entire to somewhat toothed leaves lacking purple veins of V. nuttallii.Welsh makes specific arguments against the recognition of V. utahensis.The Violaceae is under review for treatment in the Flora of North America and until that treatment can be taken into account, and until genetic studies are undertaken, following the Intermountain Flora treatment appears best. No doubt this genus will be undergoing further revisions.April 11, 2014, Bonneville Shoreline Trail corridor, Salt Lake County, Utah, elev. approx. 5,150 ft.
