1919] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. VI 85 



guished even as a variety. Rydberg Indicates practically no other differ- 

 ence tlian *Hhe sessile and naked aments " which are said to be peduncled 

 and leafy in S. suhcoerulea. Unfortunately the type of the latter has dis- 

 tinctly subsessile amen Is which hardly can be called pedunculate (as Pij^er 

 says in his description) while tlie type of pachnophora has several almost 

 sessile aments but also one with a distinct peduncle bearing a few small 

 leaflets. Rydberg himself states in his description of the aments that they 

 are subsessile. 



As to S. Covillei Eastwood of which I have also seen the type It is rather 

 strange that the author did not herself suspect its extremely near relation- 

 ship or identity with S, suhcoerulea. She believed that Coville & Funston's 

 No. 1427 was identical with her species whiclx, I think, was quite correct, and 

 she herself refers to the fact that this specimen has been regarded by Piper 

 as probably belonging to his S. suhcoerulea. There may be a slight differ- 

 ence between the forms of the typical suhcoerulea from Alberta to Oregon 

 and northern New Mexico, and the Californian 5. Covillei to which certain 

 forms from Utah are extremely alike, but it will need a series of more copi- 

 ous and well-collected specimens than I have at present at Jiand to decide 

 this question. Jepson obviously mistook S. Covillei because he puts this 

 name in the synonymy of S. macrocarpa argentea without having seen tlie 

 type. Miss Eastwood is quite right in saying that her new species ''is so 

 unlike that species that it would be a waste of time to enumerate the differ- 

 ences" because, as she states, S. macrocarpa (now S. Geyeriana) has pedim- 

 cled aments subtented with leaves, and the flowers and tlie long pediceled 

 fruits are entirely different from those of S. Covillei. In determining Wil- 

 lows one IS only too often entirely misled at first, and even by a slow and 

 careful examination it is not always possible to determine the proper 

 identity of the plant. 



I have seen specimens of what I am inclined to call typical S. suhcoerulea 

 (including S. Covillei scnsu stricto) from eastern Oregon (Union County 

 where the type was collected by W. C. Cusick, No. 1302, in the Powder River 

 or Wallowa ^Mountains, in wet meadows near the head of Eagle Creek, in 

 July- August, 1886, and in Harney County), northeastern Washington 

 (Spokane County), Idaho (Idaho, Adams, Canyon, lilaine Counties; LyalFs 

 syntype of S. pellita which came from ''49 N. Lat." may have been col- 

 lected in Boundary County), Montana (Glacier National Park, Flathead 

 and Gallatin Counties) , Wyoming (Yellowstone Park, Sheridan and 

 Albany Counties), northeastern Nevada (Elko County), Utah (Salt Lake, 

 Summit, Piute and San Juan Counties), Colorado (Routt, Larimer, Clear 

 Creek, Lake, Gunnison, Ouray, Montrose, Dolores, Huernfano Counties), 

 New Mexico (Rio Arriba, San Miguel County), and California (Fresno and 

 Tulare Counties), A special form of S, suhcoerulea may be represented by 

 specimens collected by W. N. Suksdorf on Mt. Paddo (Adams) in Washing- 

 ton, July 11, August 28, 1886 (No. 9259, m., st.; A.; and in C. without No. 

 [sheet 2644]). The slender branchlets are hardly pruinose and rather yel- 

 lowish brown becoming purplish later. The leaves are linear-lanceolate, 



