£2 JOl'RNAL OF TIIE ARNOLD ARBORETOI [vol. ii 



humilis. Barratt ^ asserted that WillJenow mixed different species, and he 

 too stated, that S, Miihlenbergiana Forbes (1829) *' is S. tristis Aiton." 

 Forbes just copies Pursh's description, and tlie leaf represented in his fig. 

 145 may be taken for a small one of S. humilis or a large one of 5. tristis, 

 Barratt's varieties of S. Muhloihcrgiana arc noniina nuda. They cannot 

 be determined without type specimens, Torrey (1843) also used the name 

 Miihlenhi'Tijiana^ and it was Carey who in 1848 reestablished Marshall's 



i-ame S. Luniilis. He cites, in the synonymy, >S. Muhleiihcrgicvia Barratt and 

 8. conijera Muhlenberg. Andersson's (18o8) followed Carey in keeping 

 the oldest name. In his monograph (1867) he proposed three varieties each 

 comprising two forms. He held the same view in the Prodromus (18G8), 

 The first variety is var. grandijolia to which he cites S. conijera Muhlenberg 

 as a synonym. It is said to be characterized by: '* foliis obovato-ublongis, 

 3-4 poll, longis supra medium plusquam 1^ poll, latis, supra nitidis, subtus 

 intense glaucis saepius demum glabratis." Of this variety he distinguishes 

 f. ohiusata (in 1868 f. ohtii^ifolla) with " foliis apice subrotundato oblongo- 



obovatis, subtus non raro dense albo-tomentosis " while in 1868 he says 

 *' foUis . . . subtus aut denudatisglaucescentibus aut tenuiter albo-tomento- 

 sis.'* Besides this there is a f. acuminata (1867 and 1868) with "foliis apice 

 productiori breve acuminatis, tenuloribus, sul>tus tomento evanido glabra- 

 tis, glauccscentibus." lie adds, in 1868, " S. yrinoidi subsimilis, sed differt 

 foHis tenuibus amentis brevibus, capsulis brevius pedicellatis." After all, 

 Andcrsson's var. grandijolia seems to be no true S. humilis but a rather un- 

 certain form of possibly hybrid origin. 



Of his var. longijolia (1867 and 1868) Andersson states himself; '* haec 

 forma est typica/' He proposes three forms of it: the first f. rigidiuscula is 

 (1^67) said to be " jS. discolori quoad folia subsimilis," while in 1868 he says: 

 *' ad S. iristctn appropinquans." The leaves are described as " su])ra opacis 

 sed glabris, subtus intense tomentosis," Generally the leaves of S. humdis 

 are also i)ubescent on th.e upper side, at least on the midrib. Robinson & 

 Fcrnald (Gray's Man. ed. 7, 326) use the name rigidiuscula for forms with 

 leaves wliich are ** very rugose and glabreseent l>eneath. (O. to Ga. and Kan. 

 — Shrub or small tree)." It is more than doubtful to me whether this last 

 form Is the same as Andersson's f. rigidiuscula. I have not been able to get 

 a good idea of the forms to which Robinson & Fernald refer, 



A ndersson's second form of var. /o7(i7?/o?2a is f.^/awca with'* foliis acuminato- 



cus})idatis, supra nitide viridibus, subtus intense glaucis denudatis." In 

 1867, Andersson adds: '* Formis augustifoliis S. lucidae hand absiniilis," a 

 sentence omitted in 1868. I have not seen a form to which this description 

 would fit. The third form is f . tenuis " foliis tenuibus subpellucidis et ideo 

 rufescentibus, subtus vix tomentosis opacis." Here, too, Andersson does 

 not cite a specimen or a locality. The description points to a typical form 

 with young leaves. 



^ He too considers 5. vUlosa Forbes, Salict. Wob. 183, t. 92 (1829) as the same as .S. tristLs 

 Aiton. Forbes, however, says tliat the leaves are "covered with small shining liairs" be- 

 neath, and he gives no clue to its origin. The flowers are wanting, and after all it is a very 

 uncertain species. 



