82 



TIIE 



[vol. II 



dersson in Ofv. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Forh. xv. 125 (1858). — Gray, Man. 

 ed. 5, 465 (18G7). — Bebb apud Gray, Man. ed. 6, 485 (1889), — Britton 

 Man. 316 (1901). — Britton & Brown, 111. Fl. i. 505, fig. 1204 (189G). 

 Piper in Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. vi. 214 (1906). — Ball in Proc, Iowa 

 Acad. Sci. vii. 153, t. 12, fig. 14 (1900). — S. mijrtilloides [subspec] S. ^edi- 

 cellaris Andersson in Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Ilandl. 96 (1867). — S. myrtil- 

 loides var. jS pedicellaris Andersson in De Candolle, Prodr. xvi.^ 230 

 (1868). 



The history, geographical distribution and variability of this "attractive 

 bog willow" was fully given by Fernald in 1909. I do not wish to repeat 

 what this excellent observer has said, and only the following statements 

 from my own observations may be added. The shape of the leaves of the 

 European S, my rtilloides is not always different from that of the American 

 species. I have repeatedly observed in American specimens (see for in- 

 stance Sandberg's No. 521) round-ovate or ovate-oblong leaves which are 

 broadest near the base and rounded or subcordute at base but as a whole 

 the differences indicated by Fernald hold true. I do not, however, agree 

 with his interpretation of the type. Pursh indeed says: *'foliis . . . utrinque 

 concoloribus" but his plant was collected in April, and he apparently had 

 not seen mature leaves I have seen all tlie specimens referred to the 

 type by Fernald but all of them have leaves with at least a partly more or 

 less glaucescent undersurface. I am not convinced that the plant of Pursh 

 of which no type specimen is in existence has to be regarded as different 

 from the widely distributed form which Fernald has named var. hypoglauca 

 (in Rhodora, xi. 161 [1909]). Pursh's plant came from the Catskill Moun- 

 tains in New York, a region from which I have not seen any material of 

 S, pedicellaris. 



Fernald's var. tenuescens (l.c.162) seems to me hardly more than a form 

 w^ith narrower leaves. There are some specimens from Illinois (Palmer, 

 No. 15561, in A.) and from Indiana (Deam, No. 20118°, in A) which need 

 further observation. 



2. S. prolixa Andersson in Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Ilandl. vi. 94 (1867) ; in De 

 Candolle, Prodr. xvi.^ 229 (1868). — Macoun, Cat. Can. PI. i. 452 (1886). 

 Ball apud Piper & Beattie, Fl. N. W. Coast, 115 (1915). — Of this " forma 

 elegantissima habitu onuiino singulari" I have seen a photograi)h and frag- 

 ments of the type which was collected by Lyall "ad Lower Frazer-River, 

 49 l.b." in 1859. Unfortunately I have misj)laced part of my notes and 

 sketches on it. According to Ball (1915) it chiefly differs from S. pedicel- 

 laris by longer pedicels, and thinner leaves with a coarser reticulation. It 

 is said by Macoun (1886) to be "not unconnnon around Victoria, Van- 

 couver Island, also in the Valley of Thompson River, at Spencers Bridge, 

 B.C." I asked Professor J. K. Henrjs the well-known author of the Flora 

 of Southern British Columbia for his opinion on this species, and he wrote 

 to me in a letter of September 7, 1919, as follows: "As to Salix prolixa 

 Andersson: I have never seen an authentical or typical specimen of this 



