1919] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. V 23 



9. S. Bonplandiana Kunth. — See key, p, 4 and Schneider, 1. c- 17. 

 9b, S. Bonplandiana var. pallida Andersson. — See key, p. 4 and 



Schneider, 1. c. 19. 



9c. S. Bonplandiana var. Toumeyi Schneider, 1. c, 20. — S. Bonplan- 



diana Sudworth in Bull. U.S. Dept, Agric. Div. For, xiv. 121 (XomencL 

 Arb. Fl.) (1897), ex parte, non Kunth. — See key, p. 4. — This willow is 

 often described as " evergreen " but this is not true. It only sometimes 

 keeps part of its leaves until sj>ring, a j)eculiarity that may be observed 

 in other species, for instance in S. lasiolcpis in southern California. So far 

 as I know there is no willow that could be called evergreen. 



10. S, laevigata Bebb in Am. Nat. viii. 202 (1874); in Watson, Bot. Cab 

 IT. 83 (1879); in Bot. Gaz. xvi. 103 (1891); apud Coville in Contrib. U.S. 

 Nat. Herb. iv. 198 (Bot. Death Valley Exp.) (1892). — Sargent, Rep. For, 

 N. Am. 10 Cens. U.S. ix. 167 (1884); Silva N. Am. ix. 113, t. 468 (1896); 

 Man. Trees N. Am. 171, fig. 143 (1905). — Greene, Man. Bot. San Francisco 

 Bay, 299 (1894). — Parish in Zoe, iv. 347 (1894). — Sudworth in Bull. U.S. 

 Dept. Agric. Div. For. xiv. 120 (Nomencl. Arb. Fl.) (1897), inch var.; For. 

 Trees Pacif. Slope, 217, fig. 88 (1908). — Ball in Trans. Acad. Sci. St. 

 I^)uis, IX. 70 (1899). — Jepson, Fl. W. Mid. Cal. 136 (1901); Fl. Cal. i. 339 

 (1909); in Mem. Univ. Cal. ii. 176, t. 56, figs. 4-6 (Silva Cal.) (1910). 

 Abrams, Fl. Los Angeles, 100 (1904); suppl. cd., 100 (1911). — Eastwood, 

 Handb. Trees Cal. 37 (1905). — Jones, Willow Fam, 26 (1908). — Britton 

 & Shafer, Trees N. Am. 187, fig. 144 (1908). — Rydberg, FL Rocky Mts. 

 191 (1917). — Schneider in Bot. Gaz. lxv. 21 (1918). — S. laevigata an- 

 gustijolia} Bebb apud Rothrock in Wheeler Rep. vi. Bot. 374 (1878); 

 in Watson, Fl. Cal. ii. 83 (1879). — S. laevigata var. congeda Bebb, 1. c. 

 (1879). — Ball in Trans, Acad. Sci. St. Louis, ix. 71 (1899). 



A well-marked species obviously the western counterpart of the eastern 

 S. longipesy and closely related to S. Bonplandiana. The typical glabrous 

 S. laevigata corresponds to 5. longipes Wardii while the pubescent type of 

 S. longipes is analogous to/, araquipa of S, laevigata. Here, as in the sec- 

 tions previously dealt with, each species seems to develop a pubescent and 

 glabrous form or variety which usually seem to be connected by intermedi- 

 ates. I have tried to indicate the main differences between the species and 

 varieties of this section in the key. Ball (1899) regarded S. lasiandra and 

 S. nigra as the nearest relatives of S. laevigata but apparently he was not, 

 at that time, acquainted with S. longipes and S. Bonplandiana. 



I have seen S, laevigata from almost every county in California. In 

 Nevada I have seen it only from Lincoln County (Goodding's Nos. 608 and 

 636), and it occurs probably also in Ormsby and Washoe Counties, but all 

 I have seen from those parts of the state are rather uncertain forms of 

 partly hybrid origin. The easternmost point of its distribution is in Ari- 

 zona (Mohave and Yavapai Counties). Rydberg (1917) mentions it also 

 from Oregon and Utah, and I believe it is to be found in southern Oregon 



and southwestern Utah but I have not yet seen material from those states. 



