1920] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. IX 21 



ux as a synonym to his coniferay but Michaux 



is S. tristis. 



loepi mentions a Salix spec 



(1791) S.flara. This plant may be identical with S. hiimilis, but I am not 

 able to decide which Willow Schoepf meant in speaking of " foliis . . . tenuis- 

 sime serratis." This sentence has been omitted by Gnielin. Walter, in 

 1788, proposed a S. occidentalis with *' foliis integris subtus tomentosis." 

 This is apparently nothing but 5. humilis because he also describes S. tristis 

 as S. alpina, :Muhlenberg (and Willdenow) in 1803, has besides S. tristis 

 a S. conifera which according to Willdenow is the same as his conifera of 

 1796 and that of Wangenheim. Muhlenberg's diagnosis, however, fits S. 

 hnviilis best; and he also proposed at the same time S. discolor as a new spe- 



cies. 



Muhlenberg's t. vi. which he refers to S. tristis i 

 mifera (= S. humilis). Possibly part of Muhl 



S. tristis really applies to S. humilis, because he speaks of '' caule pedali- 



if^ 



Muhlenberg 



Miihle 



referring to it also S. incana Michaux as a synonym. This last species, 

 however, is S. Candida Fluegge. I think that S. tristis Muhlenberg for the 

 most part represents the true tristis, and only pro parte minima is to be re- 

 ferred to S, humilis, Pursh's S. Muhlenberg iana is the same as S. humilis 

 except the synonyms S. alpina Walter and S. tristis Muhlenberg, pro parte. 

 Pursh also has a S. recurvaia which commonly (see Barratt, Andersson, Ball 

 and others) is regarded as a (at least doubtful) form of S. humilis. Pursh 

 says '' S. foliis obovata-lanceolatis acutis integerrlmis margine glandulosis 

 glabris subtus glaucis, junioribus sericeis, stipulis nullis, amentis praecoci- 

 bus recurvatis, squamis apice nigris, pilis longitudine ger minis, germini- 

 bus ovatis, brcvi-pedicellatis sericeis, stylo brevissimo, stigmatibus bifiiis." 

 " In shady woods in the mountains of New Jersey and Pennyslvania." 

 " A low shrub; branches brown, smooth; buds yellow." I hesitate to iden- 



tify it with S. humilis. 



fuscata 



612 [1814] ) might be connected with S. humilis, Barratt (1840 under no. 

 12) has a Willow named S. fuscata which " grows In pools and swamps and 

 on wet banks. It furnishes excellent twigs suitable for fine basket work. . , ." 

 He puts it in his section Griseae ; and Torrey in 1843 (FI. N.Y. ii. 207) in 

 describing S. petiolaris sericca says: '' I suspect that S. fuscata Pursh must 

 be united with " S, grisea and S. sericea'' Pursh however lays stress upon 

 the *' dark brown or black tomentum" w^hich covers the branches of the 

 preceding year, and the fact that the young leaves are pubescent and the 

 old ones obovate-lanceolate and I suspect that it may have a closer relation- 

 ship with S. humilis than with S. sericea or S. petiolaris^ of which it has been 

 made a synonym by Andersson (1867). 



Barratt (1840) discusses S, Miihlenhergiana at considerable length, and 

 uses that name for S. conifera Muhlenberg (not as Willdenow did for .S. 



tristis Mulilenberg). 



if. 



