6o BOTANICAL GAZETTE [january 



also by F. M. Macoun {I.e. 337). Preble's no. 41 may be more 

 closely connected with S. brachycarpa than with S. niphoclada, but 

 the shape of most of the larger leaves is more elongate-lanceolate 

 in no. 41, where the largest leaves measure up to 4.5: i cm., while 

 those of Macoun's female plant are shorter and broader, and its 

 pubescence is more like in typical S. brachycarpa. In no. 41 the 

 young twigs bear a very thick villose pubescence of long soft hairs, 

 which is far more conspicuous than the tomentum of the forms of 

 S. niphoclada from the west. After all, I am inclined to believe 

 that no. 41 may represent a form of S. hrachycarpacovcv^^kX^hle. to 

 f . poliophylla of 5. glauca acntifolia. We must not forget, however, 

 that we hardly can elucidate those forms without a full under- 

 standing of the true S. desertorum (see I.e. 331). 



I have thought it best to treat those forms at a considerable 

 length, because we know so little of the willows of the Northwest 

 Territories, and I wish to give an impulse to their closer investiga- 

 tion in the field by future collectors. 



21. S. CHLOROLEPis Fern. — I have described {I.e. 339) the var. 

 antimima, which looks rather intermediate between the type and 

 S. brachycarpa, and which on Mt. Albert seems to be connected by 

 hybrids with the latter. There is a small male specimen in Herb. 

 N. collected hy A. P. Low, north of Cape Jones on the eastern coast 

 of Hudson Bay, July 16, 1898 (no. 63272 O.). It agrees well with 

 S. brachycarpa, and has hairy filaments, but I found some stomata 

 in the upper leaf epidermis. We need much more copious material 

 (male and female) from this locality to judge the form properly. 



25. S. GLAUCA var. acutifolia (Hook.) Schn.'^ — Having re- 

 ceived, as already stated, very interesting material from Herb. W., 

 I wish to add the following remarks.'^ There are before me several 



" I stated {I.e. 321) that 2 S. villosa had been published before Hooker described 

 the present form under this name, but there is still a much older S. villosa Hoffmann 

 (Obs. Bot. 15. 1787) which is not registered in the Kew Index, nor can I find this name 

 mentioned by Koch, Fries, Wimmer, Andersson, or v. Seemen. It was sent from 

 Sweden by Thunberg. 



" In the note {I.e. 321) I made an entirely wrong statement in regard to Pursh's 

 Canadian collections. Reljdng on facts given by Harshberger, which he in his turn 

 took from an article in Bot. Gaz. 7:142. 1882, I said that Pursh did not collect in 

 Canada. Professor N. L. Fernald kindly directed my attention to Penhallow's 



