1920] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. VIII 219 



short peduncle often provided with verj^ small leaves. The development of 

 a more or less leafy peduncle is a character of no great stability in certai 



species, and it apparently varies a goo<l deal in S, Iloolccriana. At present 

 it is difficult to make a definite statement as to the true relationship of 

 S, ampUjolia which has the long styles of the Rlchardsoini group while in 

 S. Ilookcrianay S. Piperi, and S. laurentiana the styles scarcely measure 

 up to 1.3 mm. in length. 



Of S. amplijolia I have only seen the specimens already cited by Coville, 



5. S. Hookeriana Barratt apud Hooker, Fh Bor.-Am. ii. 145, t. 18 

 (1839), — Nuttalh N, Am, Sylva, i. 64 (1843). — Andersson in Ofv. Svensk. 

 Vet.-Akad. Fiirh. xv, 119 (1858); in Proc. Am, Acad, iv, 59 (Sal. Bor.-Am. 

 13) (1858); in Walpers, Ann. Bot, v, 747 (1858), — Bebb in Bot. Gaz, xiv. 

 25 (1889); XV, 53 (1890), — Sargent, Silva, ix. 147, t, 485 (189C). —Howell, 

 Fl. N. W. Am, I. 619 (1902), — Schneider, 111. Ilandb. Laubh. i. 48, fig. 26g, 

 27n-o(1904), — Ball aijud Piper &BealtIe, Fl. Norlhw. Coast, 116 (1915). 

 Henry, FL S. Brit, CoL 99 (1915). — The historj- of this species and the 

 origin of tlie tyi>e has been explained by Bebb. I have seen a photograph 

 of the type and fragments from Herb, Kew. According to my observations 

 the type has glabrous ovaries, and the gray pubescence of the leaves is 

 mixed with a few fulvous hairs. Such a mixture often points to a hybrid 

 with S. Scouleriana Barratt, but judging })y the flowers there is no indication 

 of such an influence in the type of 5. IJookeriana. As a rule the number of 



the fulvous hairs in the pubescence of S, Iloolcenana h very small; and it is 



usually difficult to detect them. 



The type was collected by Scouler somewhere at the " N. W. Coast of 

 America " (probably on Vancouver Island), but Hooker quoted in the first 

 place ** near Grand rapids of the Saskatchawan, rare. Douglas/* This is 

 a mistake as shown by Bebb; Andersson repeated the mistake and made it 

 worse by only quoting the obscure Douglas specimen and omitting Scouler's 



plant, I have seen a photograph of Scouler's plant, and it a^ees well with 

 the plate as Bebb explained in 1890- 



The range of S. Hookeriana is restricted to the sea coast from Vancouver 

 Island to Coos County in Oregon. It is according to Howell " plant of the 

 sea coast an<l salt marshes, usually growing on the margin of ponds, but 

 confined in its range to the immediate proximity of the sea/' Professor J. 

 K. Henry at Vancouver, to whom I am indebted for gowl material of the 

 species, has proposed (FL S. Brit. CoL 99 [1915]) a var. laurifolia which he 

 descril>es as folloAvs: ** Stem ascending, twigs stout, as in species; less to- 

 mentose to nearly or quite glabrous, leaves finally shining above, strongly 

 glaucous and more or less pul^escent (not tomentose) beneath; petioles 

 1-1.25 cm. long; capsule glabrous or slightly pubescent at apex. The yel- 

 low leaves are ver^^ striking in the autumn, while in the species the leaves 

 usually blacken. Near S. Piperi from which it differs mainly in the pu- 

 bescence. Forms of S. Hookeriana with leaves approaching those of this 



van and with tomentose twigs are not rare; and there can be no doubt that 



