

390 



DE. F. BUCHANAN WHITE S 



» 



> 



c. vulgaris, and d. rosmarinifolia, Koch (non L.). Andersson, 

 who started in the 'Monographic' with three chief forms (repens, 

 fusca, and arenaria) and one subspecies (Salix rosmarinifolia, L.) 

 maintains in the ' Prodromus ' the latter only, and that as a variety 

 distinguished by its globose catkins and much longer linear leaves. 

 It is doubtful, however, whether it deserves special mention, 

 though in its extreme condition it is well marked. But be that 

 as it may, the S. rosmarinifolia of British lists requires some 

 notice. This made its first appearance in British books in Hud- 

 son's ' Flora Anglica,' 1762. Hudson quotes as a synonym " Sdi* 

 pumila Bhamni secundi Clusii folio, B. Syn. 447," in citing which 



he is followed by Smith ( 6 English Flora '), who, however, gives as 



d 





the authority for that description " Dill, in Eaii Syn. 447, an 

 says of the plant, " Found by J. Sherard. Dill." Though Hudson 

 gives no locality for his plant beyond "Habitat in montosis udis, 

 it seems probable that both Hudson's and Smith's records are 

 founded upon Sherard's specimen in the Dillenian herbarium; but 

 Smith says that it was also " sent by Mr. Dickson, probably from 

 Scotland, to Mr. Crowe." Since Smith's time 8. rosmarinifolia 

 has continued to appear in our books, as, for example, in Hooker s 

 ' British Flora/ ed. 4, 1838, and Hooker and Arnott's ' British 

 Flora,' ed. 8, 1860— in both of which Sherard and Dickson are 

 recorded as the only finders ; Babington's ' Manual,' ed. 8, 1881, 

 where "S. ? " is given as the distribution ; and Hooker's 'Student's 

 Flora/ ed. 3, 1884, in which it is placed as a form of 8. repent, 

 " said to have been found in the last century by Sherard m 

 bogs in Scotland," ll Sherard " being evidently a slip of the pen 

 for " Dickson." In addition to the descriptions the plant has 

 been figured in Eng. Bot. t. 1365 and Sal. Wob. t. 87 ; and Eng. 

 Bot.t. 1306 and Sal. Wob. t. 86 have been supposed to represent 

 a variety of it. Moreover, specimens have been published by 

 Leefe, namely Sal. Exs. i. No. 19, M Salts rosmarinifolia, L., E. B. 

 1. 1365," " Received from Mr. Borrer many years ago, but not as 

 a British species," and No. 24, " Salix rosmarinifolia, L., S. Arbus- 

 cula, Forbes, Sal. Wob. t. 86." 



Through the kindness of Mr. G-. C. Druce, I have been able to 

 examine the willows of the Dillenian Herbarium. In it *•*• 

 " Salix pumila Bhamni secundi Clusii folio," Ray Syn. 417. n. 2, 

 M found amongst Mr. J. Sherard's plants, the place not named,' 

 is a very bad specimen with old $ catkins and young leaves. 





* 













■ 





■ 















. 

































