158 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



but the type. The second, var. angiisfifolia, is according to the type in 

 Bebl/s herbarium in the Field Museum at Chicago, collected by II. H. Bab- 

 cock, Chicago (No. It, f.; [sheet 6996, C.]) and the male co-type of the 

 same collector (No. 2^, [sheet 6991, C] distinguished from the typical 

 glancophylla by foliis anguste lanceolatis, lanceolatis vel elliptico-Ianceolatis, 

 infcrioribus 2.5:0.5 ad 4.5:1.2, superioribus 6.5:1.7 ad9:2.3, in surculis ad 

 1^.5 :2. 8 cm.magnis, basi acutis ad obtusis, apicc subito breviter acuminatis. 

 It can hardly be regarded as more than a form but it ought to be mentioned 

 that the male flowers which I examined did show a dorsal gland which I 

 luive not seen in specimens of the typical form. Bebb's third variety, 



if^ 



The 



type was collected by C. F. Wlieeler, July 30, 1879, on the sand dunes of 

 Little Traverse I?ay, Michigan, and is preserved in the herbarium of the 

 Field JNIuscum [shc<^t No. 3459]). A typo praccipue diffcrt foliis minoribus 

 magis obovatis 1:0.5 ad 3.5:5:0.8 cm. magnis, basi sensim cuneatis, apice 

 subito breviter acutis, utrinque satis nervatis, subtus reticulatis. This 

 specimen seems to represent an ecological form, and further observations 

 must prove whether it can be regarded us more tlian a form of var. glauco- 

 vhuUa^ probably connected by intermediate forms with f. ana usti folia. 



5. S. adenophylla Hooker, Fl. Bor.-Am. it. 146 (1839). — Andersson in 

 Ofv. Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Fiirh. xv. 125 (1858); in Proc. Am. Acad. Sci. 

 IV. 64 (Salic. Bor.-Am. 20) (1858); in Walpers, Ann. Bot. v. 750 (1858); in 

 Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Ilandl. vi. 164, t. 8., fig. 95 [mala] (Monog. Salic.) 

 (1867), in De Candolle, Prodr. xvi." 254 (1868). — Bebb apud Babcock in 

 The Lens ii. 249 (Fl. Chic. Suppl.) (1873); apud Wlieeler & Smith, Cat. PI. 

 Mich. 73 (1881); apud Watson & Coulter, Gray Man. ed 6, 485 (1890). 

 Britton & Brown, 111. Fl. i. 504, fig. 1203 (1896); ed. 2, i. 597, fig. 1464 

 (1913). — Britton, Man. ed. 2,319 (1905).— Griggs in Proc. Ohio State 

 Acail. Sci. IV. 309, t. 14 (Will. Ohio) (1905). — S. syrticola Fernald in Rho- 

 doraix. 225 (1907). — Robinson & Fernald, Gray's New Man. 324, fig. 654 



(1909). 



Hooker gave an excellent description of this well marked species. An- 

 dersson only knew the type which had be(Mi collected in Labrador (at an 

 uncertain place, prol)ably in the south) by ^lorrisson. Bebb, in 1873 and 

 1890, referred to it specimens from the Great Lakes. Fernald, howe\'cr, in 

 1907, stated that a careful study of Hooker's original description of *S. ade- 

 nophylla and of Andersson's fuller description of tlie type material shows 

 that the shrub of the Great Lakes can have no close connection with S. 



adiHophylla, He, therefore, proposed his new N. syrticola. Unfortunately, 

 Fernald, did not see Hooker's type of whicli I liave before me an excellent 

 photograph and some fragments from the Kew Herbarium, Hooker placed 

 his species next to 8. .^pcciosa and »S. Barrattiana, and not in the Cordatae 

 group to which according to Fernald his S. .s'ljrticola belongs. Barratt's sec- 

 tion CincTcac to wiiicli Hooker referred S. adenophylla, comprises, however, 

 a nuuiber of very diilVrcut species (as for instance besides the two mentioned 



