

REVISION OF THE BRITISH WILLOWS. 



393 















. 



■ 



I 









V 



Just as in other hybrids a number of specimens will not fit 

 the varieties defined by botanists, but present intermediate cha- 

 racters, so in Sails amhigua there is a continuous series of forms 

 stretching from S. aurita to S. repens, and showing various degrees 

 of combination of the characters of the two species. Hence, as 

 it is impossible to say of all examples to which variety they 

 should be placed, the expediency of retaining any varietal names 

 seems doubtful. 



In Britain the distribution of S. ambigua is not well worked 

 out, nor does the plant seem to be thoroughly understood. 

 Though possibly not abundant, it probably occurs wherever S. 

 aurita and S. repens grow at all commonly together, and as these 

 species have been found almost throughout Britain, are very 

 frequently associated, and flower at the same time, it is likely 

 that S. ambigua has a wide distribution. It can often be re- 

 cognized by the leaves alone, but most easily when these are 

 intermediate. In le^s intermediate forms the greater silkiness 

 of the pubescence serves to distinguish it from S. aurita, and the 

 greater rugosity of the surfaces and less silky pubescence from 



S. repens. 



Wi 



(S. repens X S. cinerea.) 



A willow found by Mr. F. J. Hanbury on sea-cliffs near Mel- 

 vich, in Sutherlandshire, July 1886, has such a strong resemblance 

 to S. repens that it might well be passed over as a curious variety 

 °t that species. The pubescence of the leaves is, however, 

 different, being less silky and more crisped ; the leaves are more 

 uniformly larger, as, perhaps, are also the catkins, and thus it 

 appears to be a hybrid of S. repens with one of the Caprece. The 

 smoothness of the leaves indicates that S. aurita is not one of 

 the parents, and their resemblance to one specimen in Wimmer's 

 examples (Coll No. 245) of S. cinerea-repens suggests the probable 

 parentage. These Melvich specimens are, however, nearer 8. 

 repens than most of Wimmer's. If more adult specimens as 

 re gards the leaver, and less mature as regards the catkins ( $ ) 

 could be obtained, they might very probably show greater diff- 

 erences from 8. repens. At the same time the plant appears to 

 e > with little doubt, S. cinerea-repens, Wimro. 

 A specimen (in Mr. A. Bennett's herbarium) from Holme Fen, 

 unts (where cinerea and repens are the " most frequent wil- 









h 



Though 



* 



















■ 





