8 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. ii 



The name S. stagnalia, so far as I know, has later been mentioned only by 

 Bebb (1879) witli a ? as a synonym of S . fl av escen s ; it is not to be found in 

 Andcrsson's or Ball's writings or in the Floras of Howell or Rydt)erg. Nut- 

 tall describes the leaves as " ol)longo-lanceolatis, obtusis integerrimis basi 

 cunealis," and " scattered beneath with a minute brown pubescence, which 

 con:municatcs a somewhat rusty appearance to the leaves; they are about 

 \\ inches long and 5 to f of an inch wide, and in the bud covered with long 

 silky hairs." 



Tn lHr)7,Ben[ham's S. hrachystachys was publislied from ;;ro;;t' Monterey in 

 California, and a little later (1858) Andersson described his S. capreoidcs as 

 well as Bentluim's species. Bentham's type is Hartweg's No. 1957 of which 

 I have seen a photograph and a fragment from Herb. Kew, and a co-type in 

 Herb. G. Andcrsson's species is l)ascd on Coulter's No. 656 (he quotes the 

 number in 1867) to which he adds in 1858, " et Oregon (Herb. Hook.) " 

 without indicating the collector. This specimen may be identical with 

 Cooper's male piece from Astoria which I have seen in Herb. G. Andersson 

 has written on this sheet " S. {hrachystachys) capreaefunnis." The specimen 

 belongs to the i>ubescent form mentioned later. In 1867 and 1868 Andersson 

 does not again mention this specimen. 



In my opinI(;n, the tyi)cs of S. hrachystachys and S. capreoidcs belong to 

 the same form. ]?cbb, in 1879, quotes both names as synonyms ])ut he says 

 (1882) that both have to be regarded as " striking modifications " of the va- 

 riety (of S.favcscc7is) which he calls Scouleriana. 



Andcrsson's treatment of these intricate forms has to be studied very 

 carefully to understand the confusion which resulted from it. He ignored 

 Nutlall's names S. flarescens and S. stagnalis, and he, too, rejected S. Scou- 

 leriana as a specific name. In his monograi)h (1867) he gave the following 

 arrangement of forms under 5. hrachystachys to the type of which he re- 

 ferred specimens of Hartweg, Coulter and Scouler: subspec. * S. Scouleriana 

 with the forms — tenuijnlis And. (syn. S. Scoidcriana Ikrr.) and — crassi- 

 jiilis And. (syn. S. capreoidcs And.) ' In 1868, Andersson repeats this but 

 changes the subspec. Scoidcriana to var. /3 Scoidcriana with 1° ienuijulis 

 and 2° crassijuUs. His f. tcyiuijuUs is nothing but tyjiical S. Scouleriana be- 

 cause he quotes as tiy-pes the specimens of Scouler and Tolmie. In 1868 he 

 adds a specimen collected by Wrangel in California which I did not see, and 



seems to belong to what I take for typical flarescens. Andcrsson's 

 var. crassijuUs is identical with his S. capreoidcs, and therefore with S. 

 hrachystachys sensu stricto. 



In 1879' Bebb commenced liis investigation of S. Scouleriana, rejecting 

 tliis name and taking up S. flarescens Nutt. When he, in 1882, again dealt 

 with the sj}ccics of California he proposed to keep the name S. flarescens for 

 the mountain form (Rockies, Sierra Nevada, mountains of Oregon and 

 Washington), and proposed that the form of the coast, " shoiild be arranged 

 as a variety of that species for which the old name Scouleriana might well 



' Tlic reprint of I^ebb's treatment of the Willow.s of Walson's Fl. Cal. .ippcarcdin 1879. 

 though the second volume of Watson's work was not published until 1880. 



whicl 



