Ball — Notes on Some Western Willoivs. 73 



and varieties of iS. arguta and S. lucida thereon. Nuttall's 

 work, which he surely must have seen before he published 

 his monograph, he ignores entirely, although it contained 

 figures and descriptions of two forms. 



Recollecting that the Californian specimens were young and 

 the Oregon and British Columbian specimens were mature, 

 there is nothing in any of the descriptions to show that what 

 has been regarded as the var. lancifolia is other than the 

 S. lasiandra of Bentham. Several specimens from different 

 parts of California are practically identical with those from 

 Oregon and Washington. In fact the most pronounced 

 variation I have yet seen is in Greene's 753 from Yreka, 

 Calif. In view of these facts the recent raising of the variety 

 Lyallil {lancifolia) to specific rank, by Mr. Heller, is to be 

 deplored. In the first place it may be remarked that Dr. 

 Sargent was in error when he stated (Gard. & For. I. c.) 

 that Lyall's specimen from the lower Fraser river " was first 

 described by Andersson (Sal. Monog. 34) as Salix lanci- 

 folia, and in 1868 (DC. Prod. 16-: 205) as Salix lucida. 

 j3 macropJiylla ."" A closer inspection will show that the 

 Fraser river specimen was described in both works as 

 S. lucida macrophylla and that a Vancouver Island specimen 

 was in both places made the basis of S. lancifolia., as I have 

 shown above in the synonymy. It will also be noted that the 

 leaves of the Fraser river specimen which were *' 6-9' long, 

 2-3' wide " in 1867 had shrunk to only " 5-6' long, 2' wide " 

 in 1868. However, Mr. Bebb assures us that they are only 

 his variety lancifolia after all. Mr. Heller, in order to estab- 

 lish its title to specific rank, says: *' I have collected what 

 is said to be Salix lasiandra near Lewiston, Idaho, and the 

 varietv caudaia at the original station near Santa Fe, New 

 Mexico, and this western Washington plant is very differ- 

 ent from both. As described in the ' Silva ' it certainly has 

 suflacient characters to make it worthy of specific rank, for 

 it is said to differ in its ' longer leaves, tapering from the 

 rounded or subcordate base, usually white on the lower sur- 

 face, and often seven or eight inches in length, in its more 

 glandular petioles, and the rather narrower and less hairy 

 scales of the pistillate aments.' " Now the original stat- 



