1920] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON AMERICAN WILLOWS. X 79 



1979, fr. ; St.) ; Vicinity of Mount Whitney, August 8, 1897, same coll, (No. 2501, st. ; 



St.) 



Nevada. Ormsby County : Snow Valley, 2460-2615 m„ June 24, 1902, C. F. 

 Baker (No. 1162, f., m.; A., Cal., G., N.). Washoe County: Divide, south of 

 Slide Mountain, in granite, about 2500 m., A, A. Heller (No. 10928, fr.; A., C, G., 

 M.); ridge above Bowers, about 2200 m., same date and coll. (No, 10937, fr.; St.); 

 about Marlette Lake, 2460 m., July 10, 1902, C. F. Baker (No. 1294, fr. ; Cal.). 



According to Jepson S. Lemmonii is also known from the Wasatch Moun- 

 tains in Utah, but I have not seen any material from that region. Rydberg 

 states that the species occurs as far east as Idaho. What I have seen from 

 Idaho bearing the name S. Lemmonii did not at all belong to this species. 

 This is the case, too, with Cusick's No. 1835 from eastern Oregon which 

 (at least partly) seems to consist of male and female specimens of different 

 species- His No. 1836 mostly represents the following variety. 



Lemmonii, var. Austinae 



Watson 



Bot. Cal. II. 88 (1879); in Bot. Gaz. xvi. 106 (1891). — Bebb described 

 S. Austinae from specimens collected by IVIrs. R. M. Austin at Indian Val- 

 ley, Plumas County, California. In Bebb's herbarium I have found only 

 one specimen by this collector under S. Austinae (sheet 3388). Bebb did 

 not put a name on it but he made sketches of the male and female flowers 

 on the sheet. It is identical with other sheets in Herb. C. (Herb. Patterson) 

 and in Herb. C. U. In 1891 Bebb stated that '*the leaves described belong 

 to S. Lemmonii, and in some (though not all) of the specimens male aments 

 of S, lasiolepis were intermixed." But " there yet remain the fertile aments 

 not identificable with any willow of the Pacific Coast region as at present 

 understood." If we take sheet 3388 in C. which well fits Bebb's description 

 for the type it can be said that the leaves are not distinguishable from those 

 of S. Lemmonii. The male and female aments, however, may well belong 



to one species, and the male aments are not identical with those of S. lasio- 

 lepis. Bebb does not describe the male flowers, but his sketch on the sheet 

 shows glabrous filaments. A close investigation of the flowers revealed 

 to me the fact that the filaments are hairy for about a fifth of their length 

 and are often slightly connected at the base. The flow^ering branchlets are 

 glabrous, orangc-colored, and slightly shining. Those of the male speci- 

 men are hardly pruinose while the glaucous bloom is rather conspicuous 

 on the branchlets of the female specimen which are of the same color. This 

 glaucous bloom seems to be the main character to distinguish var. Austinae 

 from S. Lemmonii. It is also to be seen on the specimens collected by 

 Cusick in eastern Oregon (No. 1306 and 1836) which are named S. Lem- 

 monii, and on a piece without number in Bebb's herbarium (sheet 7760 in 

 C.). Pruinose twigs I also observed in Grant's No. 290 from Tuolumne 

 County, the leaves of this specimen having stomata in their upper epider- 

 mis. After all I suppose that S. Austinae can best be considered a variety 

 of S. Lemmonii but certainly a thorough study of more copious material is 

 needed than I have been able to investigate. From the specimens enumer- 

 ated below I have drawn the following diagnosis. Frutex vel arbor parva; 



