







** 







BEVTSION OF THE BRITISH WILLOWS. 369 



between a and /3 are not so striking, but in good specimens are 

 sufficiently evident. In a the ovary is much wider at the base 

 than in /3 ; and may be described as ovate-lanceolate, that of 

 /3 being lanceolate- subulate. The scales, though variable, are 

 perhaps more usually shorter in a than in /3 ; the catkins, espe- 

 cially when young, rather denser-flowered and stouter; and the 

 styles and stigmas rather thicker. The chief difference, however, 

 is in the shape of the ovary. 



The two varieties show no constant differences in leaf -charac- 

 ters, though I am inclined to suspect that a is generally broader- 

 leafed than /3. 



Whilst both forms occur in Britain — /3, however, being very 

 much the more abundant one — a, so far as I have seen (from 

 specimens and figures), is the only variety found in Continental 

 Europe. In Britain a seems to be decidedly rare. I have found 

 one d plant in Perthshire ; Mr. A. Brotherston has gathered 

 both sexes in Eoxburghshire; and a 6 collected by Mr. T. E. 

 Archer Briggs in South Devon seems also referable to it. 



Since the $ is Smith's Salix Russelliana (of which the $ only 

 was known to him), perhaps /3 ought to retain that name as 

 a varietal designation ; but as the name "Russelliana " has been 

 the subject of so much confusion, the propriety of keeping it up 

 seems doubtful. Moreover, it is possible that Forbes's S. mons- 

 peliensis is the 6 of |8. Specimens received from Kew Gardens 

 with the name S. monspeliensis belong to the var. /3 ; but Forbes's 

 figure (Sal Wob. t. 30) is doubtful, as, though the single flower 

 shows the long scale of /3, the rest of the figure is more like a. 

 The E. R. t. 1808, and Sal. Wob. t. 28, of S. Russelliana re- 

 present fi ; but in both figures the ovary is a little too obtuse at 

 the apex— in the original drawing for the Eng. Rot. figure it is not 

 obtuse. The tf catkins figured in the plates of "j**a<iilis " in 

 3*9- Rot. t. 1807, and Sal. Wob. t. 27, suggest /3 ratner than a, 

 a8 d ° *he single tf flowers of the former, while in the latter they 

 a re like those of a. It is possible, however, that in both cases 

 tney have been taken from S. viridis. With the original drawing 

 the ^ for Eng. Rot. a single catkin is preserved, which, if not 

 *iridis, is the var. a of fragilis. 



Several leaf-varieties of S. fragilis have been described, founded 

 °n the breadth of the leaf, or on the colour of the underside ; but 



y are not of sufficient distinctness or importance to be worthy 

 of retention. 



finally, since in Britain 8. fragilis has been so much confused 







■ 





