1919] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. VI 91 



mens from the Rocky Mountains, cited by the author, the discrepancy is 

 greater/' Later, in 1891, IJebb declared tliat "'it was a mistake to arrange 

 the httle willow collected on a high mountain near Donner Pass by Dr, 

 Torrey, as a variety of S. sitchensis,^'* and that it belonged to S. pellita. Ball 

 (1899) expressed the same opinion, in both cases S. pellita meaning S. sub- 

 coerulea to which as I have already explained on p. 82 Lyall's specimen 

 belongs. I have before me Torrey's No. 489, and all the specimens enumer- 

 ated below which apparently represent the same form. Almost all of them 

 are female, but fortunately Eastwood's Nos. 1202 and 1212 are males and on 

 a specimen of Congdon's I have also found a male ament. These specimens 

 show that the flowers always have two distinct stamens, the filaments of 

 which are mostly free, and the anthers obviously golden-yellow. This fact 

 proves that var. anguslifoUa cannot be united with S. sitchensis nor with 

 S. Coulieri notwithstanding the extreme similarity of the pubescence of 

 the leaves with that of S, sitchensis. On the other hand it is certainly not 

 identical with S. suhcoerulea but may after all be best placed in the same 

 section. 



A, A. Heller's specimen from Butte County, west branch of the North 

 Fork of the Feather River near Stirling, circ. 1000 m., June 7, 1913 (No, 

 10832, fr. ; A., G., M., N.) is so much alike typical S. sitchensis which other- 

 wise seems to be absent from CaHfornia (unless some forms referred by me 

 to 5. Coulter i prove to belong to it) that I cannot decide whether it ought to 

 be taken for 8. Jepsonii as long as male flowers from the same locality are 

 unknown. There is a specimen from Nevada, Churchill County, Carson 

 Sink Region, alt. 1400 m., July 15, 1908, P. B. Kennedy (No. 1777, fr.; M., 

 Reno), distributed as S. Scouleriana, which in the shape of the fruits and 

 stigmas, somewhat longer than the very short style, points indeed to this 

 species but otherwise can hardly be distinguished from S. Jepsonii. The 

 leaves partly show an obscure glandular dentation. This Willow comes 

 from a region which is not yet sufficiently explored. 



In 1909 Jepson (Fl. Cal. 342) described a S. sitchensis f. Ralphiana from 

 Sequoia National Park, Giant Forest, Marble Fork of the Kaweah River, 

 Tulare County, 2300 m., June 24, July 2, 1900, W. L, Jepson (No. 690 f.; 

 Jeps.). The type is before me, and it shows that the character of the 

 pubescence is rather intermediate between that of S. sitchensis and S. Coul- 

 ieri, and in all the flowers which I have examined I have found a distinct 

 dorsal gland. The leaves measure up to 9.5:2.2 cm., and the aments uj) to 

 6: 1.4 cm. This form apparently is closely related to S. Jepsonii or comes 

 nearer S. Coulteri. It needs further study of young female and male 

 material. This also applies to W. R. Dudley's No. 2837 from Bear Creek, 

 Grant National Park, July 29, 1900 (fr.; St.). 



b. THE SPECIES OF SECTION SITCHENSE3 



In 1891, Bebb (in Bot. Gaz. xvi, 105) proposed the sect. Sitchenses for 

 S. sitchensis Sanson because this Willow differs from all the other American 

 species (except S. Uva-ursi Pursh) in having only one stamen. In 1903 



