' 









382 



DR. F. BUCHANAN WHITE S 



oleifolia 



preserved 



This, while rusty on the veins beneath, is covered below with 

 coarse white woolly pubescence, and has the upper surface 

 coarsely hairy ; margins crenate-serrate and slightly revolute. 



The specimens published by Leefe are interesting, not only as 

 illustrating the opinion of the British botanists who succeeded 

 Smith, but also Andersson's earlier ideas ; for at the time that 

 he examined Leefe's examples the hybrid origin of many willows 

 had not been recognized. Leefe's specimens of the first fasciculus, 

 taking them in their order, are these : 



$ 



From 



Yorkshire. Andersson thought that, as regards the leaves at 

 least, this tended towards S. laurina. It is rather a puzzling 

 plant and suggests aurita X Caprea. 



"No. 39. 8. cinerea, Sm. ? " From Yorkshire. Andersson 

 thought that this was near S. Seringeana, Gaud. (—incanaxci- 

 nerea). So far as the specimens go it seems to me S. cinerea only. 



"No. 40. S. cinerea, L., /3, Koch. 8.- aquatica, Sm. ? " 

 Essex. This seems to be cinerea X aurita. 



" No. 41. S. aquatica, Sm ." From Essex. A form of cinerea, 

 says Andersson. This also seems to be cinerea X aurita. 



" No. 42. 8. aquatica, Sm. ? " From Essex. Andersson call* 

 it a subspecies of 8. cinerea. To me it seems certainly a good 

 form of cinerea X aurita. 



f 



From 





oleifolia 



From Essex. A form of cinerea 



? 



according to Andersson. I should call it cinerea x aurita. 



In Fasciculus iv. " No. 84. S. aquatica, Sm.," seems to be S. 

 cinerea, and " No. 103. S. cinerea, L., S. aquatica, Sm.," cinerea 

 X aurita. 



In addition to these specimens I have examined a number ot 

 others which have been distributed by various botanists and 

 labelled 5. cinerea, S. aquatica, and S. oleifolia, as the case may 

 be. These, just as the above, tend to show that there exists m 

 the minds of botanists a considerable vagueness as to how the 

 Smithian names should be applied. As, therefore, there is now 

 no certainty about them, it will be expedient to drop the names 

 aquatica, Sm., and oleifolia, Sm. 



lii 













6. S4XIX ATJBITA, L. 





Contrary 



the case in the majority of British species 







- 







• • 









. 























' 





