



REVISION OF THE BRITfSII WILLOWS. 



395 















between their parents, though the leaves are suggestive of Sal? a: 

 nigricans rather than of S. repens. The 6 catkins are stouter than 

 in repens,h\it smaller than in nigricans,the filaments slightly hairy 

 at the base as in the latter, and the anthers with a tendency to 

 become fuscous after the shedding of the pollen, as in the former. 

 The $ catkins are rather slender and, like the c? , furnished with 

 leafy peduncles ; the remarkably slender young ovaries are 

 glabrous or slightly silky towards the top, which passes gradually 

 mto the rather short style ; the stigmas are short and resemble 

 those of repens. The leaves in shape are not unlike some of the 

 forms of repens, and are uniformly small, oval in outline, closely 

 and finely crenate-serrate on the margin, the short tips straight 

 or twisted, the upper surface with adpressed hairs, and the under- 

 side — especially of the younger leaves — densely covered with a 

 silvery silk-woolly pubescence. The branches are rather flexuous, 

 but more divaricate than is usual in repens, at first pubescent, 



afterwards glabrous and shining, and reddish- or yellowish-brown 

 in colour. 







■ 



It is possible that a hybrid between S. repens and S. pliylici- 

 folia (=& Schraderiana, Willd., which is known only as a culti- 

 vated plant) also occurs in Britain ; but more specimens must be 

 seeirtefore it can be recorded. 



■ 





h 







■ 







p 













Group 6. Pktlicifoiia 



The British plants of this group are S. phy lie i folia, S. nigricans, 



* Arou scula, aud several hybrids of these with other willows. 

 a dl8c ussing the group, the first point to be considered is the 



very difficult question of the rank as species of & nigricans and 



* PhUcifolia. 



All authors are agreed as to the intimate alliance of these two 

 ortns, but no recent botanist, with the exception of Bentham, 

 as ventured to unite them, though some have expressed their 

 oubts regarding the specific distinctness. On the contrary, they 

 ave laboured to discover points of distinction which would, at 



* tlmes , serve for the determination of these willows. ITii- 

 ortunately, however, for the student, these supposed distinctive 



racters are not always assigned to the same species, and, 



■ 





■ 























' 











■ 







■ 





■ 





