1919] 



WILLOWS. V 21 



417 (1863). — Andersson in Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl. vi. 30, t. 2, 

 fig. 21 (Monog. Salic.) (1867), excl. f. angustifolia et var. macrophylla; in De 

 Candolle, Prodr. xvi.^ 205 (1868), ut in 1867. — Macoun, Cat. Can. PI. i. 

 450 (1883), pro parte max. — Newhall, Trees N.E. Am. 76, fig. 38 (1890). 

 Bebb apud Watson & Coulter, Gray Man. ed. 6, 481 (1890). — Britton & 

 BrowTi, 111. Fl. I. 495, fig. 1176 (1896); ed. 2, I. 593, fig. 1454 (1913). — Sar- 

 gent, Silva N. Am. ix. 121, t. 473 (1896), excl. syn. ex parte; Man. Trees 

 174, fig. 146 (1905). — Sudworth in Bull. U.S. Dcpt. Agric. Div. For. xiv. 

 121 (Nomencl. Arb. Fl.) (1897), excl. syn. ex parte. — Ball in Proc. Iowa 

 Acad. Sci. VII. 145 (1900). — Rydberg in Britton, Man. 313 (1901); Fl. 

 Rocky Mts. 191 (1917). — Fcrnald in Rhodora, vi. 1 (1903). — Schneider, 

 Ill.IIandb.Laubh.i. 29, figs. 12k-ki, 13 (1904). — Hough, Handb. Trees, 81, 

 figs. 93 94 (1907). — Jones, Willow Fam. 27 (1908). —Robinson & Fernald, 

 Gray's Man. 321, fig. 644 (1908). — Britton & Shafer, N. Am. Trees, 189, 

 fig. 147 (1908). — Small & Carter, Fl. Lancaster Co., Pa., 92 (1913). 

 Illick in Bull. Dept. For. Pa. xi. 91, t. 29 (Penn. Trees) (1914). — S. (pen- 

 tandra) lucida Andersson in Ofv. Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Forh. xv. 115 

 (1858), quoad var. latifoliam et ovatifoliam pro parte. — The Shining Wil- 

 low is as Fernald (1903) rightly observed " one of the handsomest and easi- 

 est recognized " not only of the New England but of all the American wil- 

 lows. Nevertheless it seems to have been often confused with S. amijgda- 

 loides, S. lasiandra and S. serissima, as the limits of its range as outlined on 

 Hough's map (1907) and given by other authors are not borne out by the ma- 

 terial I have been able to see and by a careful examination of the statements 

 of difl"erent authors. If we commence in the northeast we find as the north- 

 easternmost point of its geographical distribution the valleys of the Exploits 

 and Gander Rivers in Newfoundland. From here the eastern borderline 

 runs south through Nova Scotia to northern New Jersey (Essex and Passaic 

 Counties) and northern Delaware (New Castle County, fide Keller & 

 Brown, Handb. Fl. Philadelphia, 116 [1905]), where it turns to the west 

 along the southern border of Pennsylvania (I do not know of its presence in 

 Maryland and West Virginia or northern Kentucky which regions are in- 

 cluded in its range on Hough's map) through central Ohio and the more 

 northern parts of Indiana and Illinois, appearing In Iowa only in Fayette 

 and Chickasaw Counties (see Ball, 1900), and so far as I can ascertain being 

 absent from northern Missouri, northeastern Kansas and Nebraska (where 

 it is indicated by Hough). From South Dakota I know the species only 

 from a specimen collected in the Black Hills (see note on p. 20), and it is 

 not mentioned by Saunders (in Bull. Exper. Sta. S. Dak. lxiv. 132 [1899]), 

 while from North Dakota I have seen nothing but a specimen of Lunell's 

 from the Turtle Mts. in Rolette County, and Luncll (in Am. Midi. Nat. iv. 

 298 [1916]) mentions no other locality but Willow Creek near Dumseith 

 which is in the same coimty. Therefore I do not understand why Hough 

 includes not only the whole of South and North Dakota but also the north- 

 east corner of Wyoming and the eastern third of Montana in the lucida 

 range. There is likewise no proof that it occurs in Manitoba, Assiniboia, 



