











t 









REVISION OF THE BRITISH WILLOWS. 389 



small form of Salix Caprea ; but the leaves are obovate, conspicu- 

 ously stipuled, rather rugose, and not so pubescent as in Caprea. 



Much resembling this last are specimens, also flowerless, from 

 Glen Dole, Clova (B. Day don Jackson). Their leaves are much 

 like some of Wimmer's specimens, but in the absence of catkins 

 it is impossible to say whether the plant is S. capreola or a 

 variety of S. Caprea . 



The probable identity of Smith's specimens of S. aquatica with 

 auritax Caprea has been already mentioned under S. cinerea, and 

 I rather suspect that Leefe's No. 38 (Fasc. i. " S. cinerea var. /3, 

 Koch ; S. aquatica, Sm."), from Yorkshire, is possibly another 

 form. Andersson thought that in the leaves at least the relation- 

 ship of this specimen was with S. laurina ( = Caprea xphylicifolia), 

 but from this opinion Ward (who collected the plant) strongly 

 dissented. The plant is a very puzzling one, but, from the shape 

 and veining of the leaves and the pubescence of the younger ones 

 (the older being subglabrous), it may possibly be Caprea X aurita. 

 The catkins (J) are large and not much is to learned from them. 



In continental Europe 8. capreola, like S. Reichardti, is not a 

 common species. Wimmer, who describes five forms, attributes 

 to it a wider range of variation than does Andersson, and from 

 its hybrid origin this it should naturally present. Like other 

 hybrids, its characters consist in a combination of those of its 

 parents ; and as these are more or less variable, so also will be 

 he resulting combination. Each specimen, therefore, which is 



supposed to belong to S. capreola must be judged on its own 

 merits. 



Group 5. Eepentes 

 8. Salix repens, L. 



■' 









• re P en * is one of the most variable, in all its parts, of Euro- 

 pean willows, and hence several species were made out of it by 

 e earlier salicologists. These supposed species were soon re- 

 used to the rank of varieties ; but even as such they cannot be 

 ained, since none of their characters are to be relied on. It 

 J course, possible to find specimens which agree with the 

 escnptions ; but, on the other hand, many examples combine in 

 emselv e8 the characteristics of several forms, and cannot be 

 ^iactorily referred to one more than to another. 



principal modifications Wimmer gives a. argentea, b.fusca, 







. ■ 







■ ■ 



