84 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



7. S. subcoerulea riper in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club xxvii. 400 (July, 1900), ^ 

 excl. speclm. Torreyi No. 489. — Ball in Coulter & Nelson, New Man. 

 Rocky Mts. Bot. 136 (1909). — Wooton & Standley in Conlr. U.S. Nat. 

 Herb, XIX. 161 (Fl. N. Mex.) (1915). — Henry, Fl. S, Brit. Col. 99 (1915).— 

 Rydberg, Fl. Rocky Mts. 197 (1917). — S. cuneata Nuttall, N. Am. 

 Sylva I. 60 (1843), pro parte, non Turczaninow. — S. pelUta Andersson in 

 Svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. vi. 139 (Monog. Salic.) (1867), ex parte. 

 Ball in Trans. Ac. Sci. St. Louis, ix. 81 (1899), pro parte. — Howell, Fl. 

 Northwest Am. 021 (1902). — Jones, Willow Fam. 25 (1908), pro parte. — 

 Rydberg, Fl. Rocky Mts. 197 (1917), pro })artc. — S. chlorophylla, var. 

 pellita Andersson in De CandoUe, Prodr. xvi.^ 244 (1808), pro parte.— 

 S. sUchensisy var. angustifoUa Bebb in Watson, Bot. Cal. 87 (1879), quoad 

 synon. — ^S. Covillei Eastwood in Zoe, V. 8 (October, 1900). — S. pachno- 

 phora Rydberg in Bull. Torr. Bot. CI. xxxi. 403 (1904); Fl. Colo. 95 (1906); 

 Fl. Rocky Mts. 197 (1917), — S. sitchcnsis Biper in Contr. U.S. Herb. xt. 

 216 (Fl. Wash.) (1906), quoad specim. Sandbergii & Leibergii No. 72, non 

 Sanson. — S. glaucops Jones, Willow Fam. 16 (190H), pro parte, non An- 

 dersson. — S. maerocarpa argcntea Jepson, Fl. Cal. 342 (1909), i)ro parte, 

 non Bebb. — This species was first mentioned by Nuttall (1843) as S. cu- 

 neata which, however, is a mixture of S. siicJiensis Sanson and S. suhcoeridea 

 so far as I can judge by his descrij)tion. Nuttall says that the branches arc 

 *'at first villous and downy, but at a later period brown, and sometimes 

 quite blue, with a glaucous bloom." He, apparently, did not collect fruit- 

 ing material of 8. subcoerulea but only of S. sitchensis, but he distin- 

 guished narrow-leaved and broad-leaved varieties, the first j)robably 

 being S. subcoerulea. He found his plants *' growing in clumps near the 

 rocky margin of the Oregon [Columbia] at its confluence with the Wahla- 

 mef [Willamette], a region from which I have hitherto seen only S. sitch- 

 ensis, but a Willow witli pruinose twigs and leaves which are "always clad 

 beneath with a whitish close tomentum, producing all tlie briUiant display 

 of the finest velvet '* can be nothing but S. subcoerulea which also in a rather 

 young state has been mistaken for S. sitchcnsis by such an acute ol)scrver 

 as C. V. Piper, who probably relied on Bel)b's determination of Saudberg & 

 Leiberg's No. 72 from Hangman Creek, Spokane County, Washington, May 

 24, 1893 (fr. im., W.) as S. sitchensis but the sliglitly pruinose branchlets and 

 the aments at once point to S. subcoerulea. W. N. Suksdorf collected the 

 same form near Si)angle, Latah Creek, July 17, 1889 (No. 9306, st.; A.). 



The pubescence of the species is indeed very similar to tluit of S. ^^7- 

 chensis but that species differs widely in every other resi)ect, and never has 

 pruinose twigs. From S. pellita with which S. subcoerulea had been mixed 

 by Andersson, it differs by the characters given in the key. S, pacJuiophora 

 Rydberg of which I have seen the type cannot, in my opinion, be distin- 



^ This name has already been used by Gandogcr (Fl. Vaiv. xxi. 13ft [1890] for a quasi sub- 

 species of S. niijricans Smith, and cannot l>c applied to our species according to the Pliiladelphia 

 Code. The International Rules however seem to allow the use of the later S. subcocridca be- 

 cause Gandoger's subcoerulea, like most of his countless m^w names, represents nothing but a 

 mere synonym. If S. subcoerulea is rejected the name S. Covillei Eastwootl has to b^^ tak?n up. 



