82 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



closest relationship. Ball says: **In relationship it lies between *S. chloro- 

 phylla and S. pulchra, geographically, also, it occupies a position between 

 these two species." He states that on a sterile shoot (Applegate, No. 2758, 



Marion 



see 



stipules were present and 4-8 nun. long. I did not 

 on the shoots of such specimens as W. N. Suksdorf's No. 9471, Washington, 

 Skamania County, Chiquash Mts., August 1*2, 188(5, there is hardly a trace 

 of stipules, while on the specimens of Jack cited below, the youngest leaves 

 have ovate-lanceolate stipules of about half the length of the petioles. 



The type of S. pennata was collected by W. N. Suksdorf on Mount Paddo 

 (Adams) in Washmgton, and it also has been fomid in Wasliington by J. G. 



Mt 



oun 



oun 



6. S. pellita .indersson in Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Ilandl. vi. IfJ!), t. 7, fig. 72 

 [excl. fig. sinistra g] (Monog. Salic.) (1897), quasi subspecies S. chlorophyl- 

 lac, pro parte. — Ball in Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, ix. 81 (1809) pro 

 parte. — Fernald in Rhodora vi. 191 (1904). — Robinson & Fcrnald, Gray's 

 Man. 327, fig. 6G7 (1908). — Bntton & Brown, 111. Fl. ed. 2. i. 598, fig. 14G8, 

 (1913).— Rydberg, Fl. Rocky Mts. 197 (1917), pro parte. — .S. chloro- 

 phylla (i. pclliia .\ndersson in De Candolle, Prodromus xvi-' 24 t (18()8), 

 pro parte. — As Fernald (1904) has already explained in his note on "the 

 identity of Andersson's Salix pellita,''' this author mixed two different plants 

 in basing bis new species on specimens from Lake Winnipeg, collected by 

 E. Bourgeau, and also on a Rocky Mountain plant found by Lyall. The 

 first which has to be taken for the type represents an eastern species 

 while the second is S. suhcocridca Piper. Until Fernald pointed out this 

 fact, the eastern form usually has been referred to 8. Candida Fluegge 

 from which, however, S. pellita is easily separated by its dilTerent shining 

 velvety or silky pubescence while S. Candida j)ossesses a "dull whitish 



flocc 



As to the differences between 



S. pellita and S. subcoernlea see under this species. 



When Andersson described S. pellita he made it a quasi subspecies of >S. 

 cklorophylla saying: "Difficile sane est dijudicatu culnum Salicum formae 

 magis sit affinis," and he thought tliat it probably might be a "modiflcatio 

 maxinie tomentosa" of S. cklorophylla "aut e S. cklorophylla et serieea 

 hybrida." As I have already stated I do not yet know what tlie typical 

 S. cklorophylla (id est var. vestita) really is. It came from the same region 

 (Winnij>eg) where It also was collected by Bourgeau, and Andersson's 

 description of it is: " — vestita: foliis initio utrinque, pracvipue subtus 

 tomento argenteo micante obtectis; capsulis fere sessilibus obtusis, dense 



tmos 



turn 



the first name would have to be used for it. From Andersson's remarks 

 quoted above I can only surmise that he was far from having a good idea 



