

428 BR. F. BUCHANAN WHITE'S 



Var. or Subspecies Salix helvetica, Vill. 



AVhilst Aridersson considers 8. helvetica, Vill., to be a variety 



of S. Lapponum, Wimmer treats it as a distinct species, placing it 



in his ninth tribe, whereas S. Lapponum is in the fifth. At the 



same time he says that it must be left to the Swiss botanists to 



decide whether it is a variety or hybrid of 8. Lapponum or a dis- 

 tinct species. 



S. helvetica combines to a certain degree the characters of 

 8. glauca and 8. Lapponum. From the latter it differs chiefly by 

 the leaves being always or finally glabrous above, by the catkins 

 being on distinct leafy peduncles, by the styles being bifid or 

 subbifid, and by the paler scales. One or other of all these cha- 

 racters may occasionally be seen to a certain extent in true 



S. Lapponum, but yet S. helvetica seems to merit varietal or sub- 

 specific rank. 



From a comparison of specimens and descriptions, I had 

 already come to the conclusion that Smith's S. glauca (which is 

 not the Linnean species) was the same as 8. helvetica, when I 

 noticed that \V alker- Arnott had apparently expressed what is 

 practically the same opinion. As a synonym under his variety 

 ft of S. arenaria (=& Lapponum) he mentions 8. glauca, Sm., and 

 in the notes he says : " For our var. ft we give no stations because 



we have no reason to believe it indigenous, it is commonly 



cultivated . . . and is common in Switzerland, where we believe our 

 var. a does not occur." Though he is wrong in the latter opinion, 

 yet S. helvetica is evidently the Swiss plant he had in view. 



Whilst, therefore, there is no doubt that Smith's S. glauca is 

 the same as S. helvetica, Vill., it is not quite certain that it is a 

 British plant. Smith gives as localities "in the Highlands of 



On the Clova mountains ; Mr. G. and 

 Mr. D. Don. Hooker." Walker-Arnott says that "Mr. Dons 

 specimens now before us from the Clova Mountains are the 

 same as S. arenaria, E. Bot. ;" and Babington states that Smith's 

 specimens came from Mr. Crowe's garden. On the other hand, 



Mr 



there is before me a specimen in Edin. Univ. Herbarium labelled 

 by Winch "Salix glauca, Ben Lawers." This agrees with 

 the plant cultivated by Mr. Leefe as 8. glauca, Sm., " re- 

 ceived many years ago from the Cambridge Botanic Gardens;' 

 and both are, without doubt, referable to 8. helvetica. If 

 Winch's specimen really came from Ben Lawers (and I see no 





■ 











- 



















■ 







