^$EY BOTltf/g 

 ^ CLUB, 



Botanical Gazette. 



Vol. VII. 



MARCH, 1882. 



No. 3. 



Note on Salix Sitchensis and its affinities.— Among 



some specimens of willows sent from Washington Territory, by Mr. 

 W. N. Suksdorf, my attention was particularly directed to one 

 showing but a single stamen under each scale. There were fertile 

 aments to match, and good leaves accompanying both sexes, so 

 that I had no hesitancy in referring all to Sailx Site hew sis, the fruit 

 of which is quite unique among American willows. Need T say 

 that no time was lost in a critical re-examination of all the staminate 

 Sitchensis in my herbarium, from British Columbia to California, 

 nor how astonished I was to find this peculiarity of a single stamen, 

 constant throughout! At first glance the profusion of stamens in 

 Mr. Howell's specimens appeared to belie any such reduction, but 

 it needed only the most cursory examination with a magnifier to 

 show what an oversight I had been guilty of, at the .very outset, in 

 framing my key totheJJiandra' of the Californian Flora. This brings 

 me directly to remark that we have now a clew to the true charac- 

 ter and affinity of that obscure species, S. Coulteri. It is, in my 

 opinion, simply an extravagant, autumnal growth of Sitchensis, 

 bearing the same relation to the normal development of the species 

 that the serotinous state of the S. hisiolepis (upon which S. Hart- 

 ivegi was founded) does to typical lasiolepis. Considering the ex- 

 cessive variability of the leaves of willows there is nothing in the 

 form, vesture, petioles or stipules to invalidate this view, while on 

 the other hand we have the significant fact that Sitchensis and 

 Coulteri share together the single stamen — a character unique 

 among Pacific coast willows. 



Salix Coulter i is known only from two gatherings, the original 

 one by Coulter, and the other by Bolander, both staminate, with 

 scarcely developed aments appearing in the axils of leaves so old, 

 so thoroughly mature and rigid, that where doubled in pressing 

 they have broken instead of bending. Above there is a younger 

 growth,' such as might appear along with the normal expansion of 

 the aments. Bolander says the tree is "common in Marion county," 

 but if this is true why has the pistillate plant never been collected? 

 If however we find that Coulteri is only an abnormal, secondary 

 growth of what under ordinary conditions would be recognized as 

 Sitchensis, the answer is obvious. Old leaves of Sitchensis, known 

 to be such, I have never seen. I doubt if they exist in any herba- 



