J 14 " Dr, Smith's Remarks on 



well figured and defcribed the fpecies, though he erred in confound- 

 ing it with the following, 



2. Salix Helix, 



Ro/e Willow* 



S. monandra? follis lanceolatis acuminatis ferrulatis glabris, flylo 



elongate filiformi, il-igmatibus linearibus. 

 Salix Hehx. L'lnn. Sp, PL 1444. Hudf. 427. Balecb, Hiji. 277./ 2. 

 S. n. 1640. Hall. H'lft, v, 2. 306. V Zi 



Salicis racemi feu nucamenta, rofas et capitula fquamata. Baub, 

 HiJ. V. I./. 2. 213. 



In falicetis et paluflribus. Fl. Martio, Apriru 



Haller and Ehrhart feem to have led Prof. Hoffmann into the 

 error of confounding this with the preceding, from which it is moft 

 unqueftionably very diftinft. Mr. Curtis, and fomc of our more 

 recent writers, have followed Hoffmann, perhaps without having 

 ever feen the true S. Helix. I am obliged to Mr. Cro\^'e for firft 

 pointing out to me the different heights of the two plants, and dif- 

 ferent fizcs of their catkins, and on a critical examination of the 

 female flowers, I was fo fortunate as to nnd further marks of 

 diftinclion. 



S. Helix rifes to the height of 9 or i a feet, and is a fmall flender 

 tree. Even in the form of its leaves it differs from ihe purpurea, thofe 

 of the Helix being more truly lanceolate and taper-pointed, by no 

 means obovate. From the fize which Haller afcribes to his Salix 

 «. 1640, I venture to prefume he intended this plant, and not the 

 purpurcj, and therefore borrow from him the character monandra^ 

 for T have never feen the male of this fpecies. It is extremely 

 probable moreover, from the clofe affinity of the two in other 

 3 refpe^fsj 



