19^0] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. IX 15 



In 1803, Muhlenberg gave a more detailed description adopting Marshall's 

 name. Willdenow in 1805 changed the name to S. grisea, and retained S. 

 scricca of Villars (1789), which represents a European form very closely 

 related to S. glauca Linnaeus. Pursh (181 1) kept Willdenow's name, but 

 he also has a S. rosmarinifolia which has nothing to do with Willdcnow's 

 plant whom he quotes as author. It is, in my opinion, a form of 8. sericea, 

 growing *' in wet meadows and mountain swamps: Pennsylvania to 



Carolina.'* 



A rather obscure Willow which may belong to S. sericea is S. argentea of 

 Dumont de Courset (1811) which is said to be a North American plant, and 

 of which the author gives the following account: "Arbrisscau dc 2 a 3 pieds; 

 Ics branches et Ics ramcaux bruns, courts et fermes. Feuilles ovalesdanceo- 

 lees, soycuses et argenteesdes deux cotes, plus grandes que celles des es- 

 pcces precedentes [inciibacca, fusca, rosmarinifolia]. Lieu. L'Amerique sept. 

 Cctte espece ne me paroit etre qu'une varicte de la 19 [lanala] ou de la 20 



[l<ippo7iii7n].'^ 



Forbes (1829) does not mention S. grisca. and the plant he figures as S. 



sericea apparently is a form verj^ similar to ViUars' species. He, however, 



has a S. pennsyhanica which probably is nothing but S. sericea. This was 



also the opinion of Borrer, as quoted })y Loudon (1838) under S. grisea. 



Barratt also used this name in 1840, and he, too, cites Forbes' species as a 



synonym. Carey (1848) took up MarshalPs name which has been accepted 



by all later botanists. 



Torrey (1843) made S. sericea a variety of S. petiolaris under the name 

 var. grisea, Andersson (1858) used probably by mistake the name S. 

 grisea and quoted Marshall as the author and Gray's Manual. In Sal. 

 Bor.-Am. Gray corrected this mistake. In 1867, Andersson made S, sericea 

 a kind of subspecies of S, petiolaris and expressed himself as follows in regard 

 to its relationship: '' Est forma sat singularis e nostratibus S. viminali et 

 S. frag Hi subsimilis, ex amerieanis S. petiolari maximc affinis.*' In 1863 he 

 changed the subspecies to a variety of S, pellolaris. 



S, sericea Is certainly closely related to S. petiolaris but it is not difficult 

 to separate the two species, as already stated by Griggs (1905). The clos- 

 est relationship with S. sericea is found in S. coactilis which, however, so 

 far as I can judge by the material before me, differs in the coarser teeth of its 

 leaves, the somewhat larger fruits and in the glabrous pedicel. See also my 

 remarks under this species and under S. petiolaris. 



I have seen material of S. sericea from the following states: New Bruns- 

 wick; Maine (.Vroostook County); Vermont (Caledonia and Lamoille Coun- 

 ties); Massachusetts (widely spread); Xew York (frequent); Pennsylvania 

 (Chester, Bidford and York Counties) ; Connecticut, Rhode Island, Xew Jer- 

 sey, Mar\-\and, District of Columbia, northern Virginia, West Virginia (Ran- 

 dolph and Pocahontas Counties); North Carolina (Polk, Macon, Mitchell, 

 Orange and Durham Counties) ; South Carolina (Oeanee County) ; Kentucky 

 (near Louisville); Ohio (according to Schaffner "general "); Indiana (Ran- 

 dolph, Hancock, Floyd, Grant, Jackson, Hamilton, Lagrange, Knox and 



