1920] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. X 73 



Mont 



Howell, 



n. N.W. Am. 619 (1902). — Piper in Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. xi. 215 (Fl. 

 Wash.) (1906). — Ball apud Coulter & Nelson, New Man. Rocky Mts. 



W 



macrocarpa 



Ball in 



Gaz. Lx. 399 (1915). — Henry, Fl. S. Brit. Col. 98 (1915). 



Nuttall, N. Am. Sylva, i. 67 (1843), pro parte, non Trautvetter. — Bebb in 



Bot. Gaz. X. 221 (1885). — Macoun, Cat. Can. PI. ii. 360 



Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, ix. 80 (1899). 



This Willow was first described as S. macrocarpa by Nuttall from speci- 

 mens collected in Oregon. He does not quote a locality but only says 

 "forming clumps in wet places." According to a co-type in the Gray Her- 

 barium Nuttall had before him a form of var. meleina, but in his description 

 he states that "the branches are smooth and brownish black, sometimes 

 glaucous or whitish." Nuttall's name cannot be used because it is preoc- 

 cupied by Trautvetter. 



As Bebb already explained in 1885 Andersson entirely mistook Nut- 

 tall's species. He "transferred Nuttall's name to a single specimen col- 

 lected by Burke 'ad Hudson Bay,' which Nuttall never saw, and de- 

 scribed a new species of his own, S. Geyeriana, which . . . coincides abso- 

 lutely with S. macrocarpa, Nutt." Andersson's macrocarpa is a species 

 with "capsulis breve pedicellatis, conicis, glaberrimis, stylo mediocri, 

 stigmatibus integris ; f oliis -exstipulatis lanceolatis, integris, subtus pallidi- 

 oribus, utrinque glaberrimis. " It is entirely different from Nuttall's Wil- 



sencea 



as closely related to the Pond Willow 



knowledge 



description, but he had an opportunity to examine those of Nuttall's speci- 

 mens which are preserved in the Hookerian Herbarium. When he de- 

 scribed his S. Geyeriana he based it on Geyer's No. 286 of which the exact 

 locality is unknown. Andersson says "Missouri and Oregon, Rocky 

 mountains." I have seen a photograph of this number and fragments of 

 the female specimen, and also a male ament. The female plant only is 

 S. Geyeriana, while the male ament belongs to S. BebUana. This has al- 

 ready been elucidated by Bebb, and he is right in the statement that An- 

 dersson's description is almost wholly drawn from the female plant. The 

 male specimen is only mentioned in the following sentence (1858) : "Amenta 

 mascula etiam breviora et crassiora stamina magis aureo-fulvis quam in 

 S. vaganti [S. Bebbiana]." In 1868, too, Andersson says: "S. vaganti-^ 

 rostratae valde similis" but to Bebb this comparison seems "unintelligible" 

 because "the affinity of the plant in question — as NuttaU had the sa- 

 gacity to see — is really with S. sericea." I do not quite agree with Bebb 

 because the shape of the capsules is very different in both species. Of 

 S. sericea the mature fruits are short and blunt scarcely longer than 5 mm. 



Gey 



gth 



pedicel 



he fruits of S. Bebbiana 

 286 the typical S. Geyei 



