

















' 



' 



















REVISION OP THE BRITISH WILLOWS. 367 



fi 



at length pendulous branches and smaller capsules. Linne's 

 * Flora Suecica,' first edition, No. 812, is cited under it, and also 

 S. Russelliana, Sm. " ex spec" The leaves are said to be much 

 narrower, the later ones often notably silky, aud the capsules 

 more evidently pedicellate. In both forms the catkins are de- 

 scribed as making right angles with the branch, aud the ripe $ 

 catkins as pendulous. 



S. viridis is said to have very glabrous leaves, and. the capsules 

 to be " pedicellatis ovatu-subulatis" The catkins are afterwards 

 described as erect, and the later leaves pilose below. Fries adds 

 that it agrees well enough with S. decipiens among the Smithian 

 species. 



In the second edition of the 4 Novitiae ' the capsules of S. 

 viridis are described as " subpedicellatis ovato-subulatis " and 

 as with "pedicello brevissimo ; " and the angles made by the 

 branches are alluded to, viz. 90° in S.fragilis, 60° in S. viridis, 

 and 35° in S. alba. As, however, this work is four years earlier 



Mantis 



dered as superseding that in the former work. 



fi 



th 



guished by the later leaves being silky and catkins pendulous. 

 S. viridis by very glabrous leaves and erect catkins. 



So far, then, as Fries's descriptions go, his S. fragilis, since it 

 has subsessile and ovate-conic capsules, must belong to A X B, 

 and his 8. viridis, from its pedicellate and ovate-subulate cap- 

 sules, to A. The leaves also indicate the same conclusion ; but 



e description of the direction of the branches suggests the 

 reverse. Fries's published specimens (in his ' Herbarium JS T or- 

 n >ale'), bo far as I have seen them, belong — S.fragilis to A, and 

 3. viridis to A x B. From this confusion the chief deduction 

 seems to be that Fries's views were not always the same ; and 

 that, as regards at least the essential part of the descriptions in 

 the " Commentatio," his S.fragilis is the same as Smith's. 



The result, therefore, which we appear to have arrived at is 



this :— - 



1st. That there is no certainty, but absolute uncertainty, re- 

 garding the species which Linne himself had in view. 



2nd. That while Smith, "Willdenow, &c. (and Fries in his de- 

 ^•Ptions) have considered AxB to be S.fragilis, L., Kocb, 

 Wimmer, Andersaon, &c. have taken A to be that species. 



■ 







2 c2 



. 



. 







