156 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



A specimen from South Dakota, Black Hills, South Rapid Creek, sand- 

 stone, about 2050 m., September 16, 1910, J. Murdoch, jr. (No. 4374, st.; 

 C), is, according to Ball, closely related to S. monticola, but I am not sure 

 of its true relationship. 



There are several more specimens before me from New Mexico, Colorado 

 and Wyoming the pedicels of which and in part also the ovaries are more or 

 less hairy, I am unable to understand them at present. There may be 

 hybrids amon^ them, but the variation of S. monticola is far from being 

 sufficiently known. 



4. S. glaucophylloides Fernald in Rhodora xvi. 173 (1914). — S. glauco- 

 phylla Robinson & Fernald, Gray's Man. 323, fig. 652 (1908). non Bebb, 

 sensu str. — Britton & Brown, 111. Fl. ed. 2, 596, fig. 1402 (1913). — This 

 species is, in my opinion so closely related to S. glaucophylla Bebb that I 

 think it best to regard it only as a variety of tliat Willow. Unfortunately 

 the name glaucophylla cannot stand because it was used long ago by Schlei- 

 cher, Besser and Andcrsson for some very different plants. Therefore I am 

 obliged to take up Fernald's name, and to make Bebb^s glaucophylla a vari- 

 ety of it, as I shall explain later. Wlien Fernald proposed his new species 

 he stated that S. glaucophylla differed from it mainly in the foUow^ing char- 

 acters. 1. " Foliage . . . very much heavier or thicker," but in the descrip- 

 tion of S. glaucophylloides Fernald says that the mature leaves are sub- 

 coriaceous. Judging from the copious material before me I do not think 

 that the texture of the leaves is a good character by which to distinguish 

 the tw^o species, because there is hardly a difference between the mature 

 leaves. 2. *' The fruiting aments are much longer " in S, glaucophylla^ but 

 among the specimens which Fernald and I have been able to compare there 

 seem to be no well matured fruiting aments of S. glaucophylloides. All of 

 them gave the impression that the fruits wxre not sufficiently fertilized. 

 Therefore the cai)sules too, as Fernald said, are smaller in >S. glaucophyl- 

 loides and sometimes almost cordate at their base wdiich, however, as a rule 

 is roimded. Those fruits are, in my opinion, not well rii>ened, and good 

 seeds arc wanting. 3. '' The pubescence of the peduncle and rhachis longer 

 and denser " in S. glaucophylla. Tliis character too is by no means of real 

 taxonomic value, and I have seen specimens of both forms which in this 

 respect were entirely alike. This is the case too as to the pubescence of the 

 bracts of the flowers, w^hich according to Fernald are more copiously long- 

 villosc in S. glaucophylla. The best character to separate it from the eastern 

 form is found in the length of the pedicels which, as Fernald states, are 

 " distinctly exceeding the scales and many times longer than the nectaries." 



According to my observations the pedicel even of the best matured fruits 

 (Jack, Montmorency Falls) does not exceed 1,5 mm, in length, while it 

 measures from 2 to 2.5 (-3) mm. in glaucophylla. The styles, too, are a little 

 longer in the western form. Taken all in all, however, the eastern form can 

 hardly be regarded as a distinct species, although not a few of the specimens 

 referred to it need further observation. As Fernald said, S. glaucophylloides 



