









BETI8I0N OF THE BRITISH WfLLOWS 



403 





absence of uniformity, moreover, arises from the fact that two, 

 if not three, different hybrids have been confounded under the 

 name of Salix laurina, Sm. 



Adopting Andersson' s view that S. laurina, Sm., is a hybrid 

 between pJiylicifolia and Caprea, the figure in JEng. Bat. t. 1806, 

 the description in the third edition of that work, and the specimens 

 published by "Wimmer {Coll. no. 90) and Eeichenbach (no. 2417) 

 may be cited as illustrating the characters of the species *. In 



most respects 



ifolia 





which, Andersson says, it has often been confounded), but shows 

 its relationship to 8. Caprea, not only in the structure of the 

 2 catkins (the tf is unknown), but in the subarborescent 

 growth, and in the size (and pubescence when it is present) of 

 the leaves. 



From the resemblance of the leaves, S. laociflora, Borr., has 

 been referred to S. laurina (as, e. g., in the ' Student's Flora/ 

 and, with some doubt, by Andersson) ; and it is possible that it 

 may be a state much nearer S. uhulicifolia, though from the 







structure of the flowers it is more probably a form only of that 



species. 



X Salix Wardiana. 









In addition to plants which agree with 8. laurina, Sm., as in- 

 dicated above, others have been published which, while evidently 



.' 





closely related to the 



m, seem to show affinity with S. cinerea 



rather than with 8. Caprea. 

 Amongst these are several published by Leefe, including that 



ago as the plant of 



Mr 







Smith » (Fasc. ii. No. 38), as well as the following: 



Sal Brit. No. 43, found near Richmond 

 and labelled " I should refer it to aquatica. Borrer." Of this An- 



Ward 



derss 



on said "Mihi S. laurinw forma;" and Leefe and "Ward thou b 





. 







this a better verdict than Borrer s. The same plant was published 

 in&rf. Exs. iii. No. 60, as S.phylicifolia, a S. Z<wnV?tf,Sm.,proxima," 

 with the remark that, though desiring to call it after the dis- 























En 9- B °t. t. 1806 is cited by Smith under S. bicolor, Ehrh. (of which he 



■ «8 8. laurina a synonym) ; but S. bicolor, Ehrh., is only 8. pkylicifolia. 



icolor, Forbes, t. 38, though it has Smith's description of his bicolor (lau- 



) appended, seems to be a different plant ; and Wimmer thinks that it 



Presents phylicifolia, though the style is rather short. 















■ 

























