THE SALIX LISTS IN THE 'LONDON CATALOGUE.' 467 



supposed aurita x phi/licifnlin ought to be tested in cultivation by 

 careful observation at different stages of growth. The winter con- 

 dition, ('.//., affords an excellent opportunity for judging supposed 

 hybrids with the Caprav. by the appearance of the floweriug buds. 



1403 pliijlivi folia x Caprea. As in the case of the last, there is 

 much 8. }ihijlicijolia growing by river-sules, and especially in straths, 

 which suggests a cross with Capira, by the woolly hair of the young 

 foliage ; a symptom which usually disappears in cultivation. After 

 examining many specimens of *S'. lanrina Sm. and some living 

 plants, I am unable to agree with Andersson and others that 

 Smith's plant is S. Caprea x plnjlicifolia. The plant that has been 

 cultivated at Kew as ^\ lanrina Sm., Leefe's ii. 88 of the earlier set 

 (" -S. laurina Sm. received from Borrer as the plant of Smith"), 

 and Leefe's Salict. Exs. Fasc. i. 3 (" S. laurina Sm."), all seem to 

 be the same hybrid, and to have no evidence of *S'. Caprea which 

 would not equally bear witness to S. cinerea ; and in the foliage to 

 have leaves which bear much resemblance to cinerea leaves and none 

 to Caprea. Mr. Charles Bailey has in his herbarium three sheets of 

 "S. laurina" which seem to be really ;S'. Caprea X plnjlicifoiia, viz. 

 (1) Wirtg. Herb. PL Sel. FL Bhen. vi. 260; (2) Echb. FL Germ. 

 1020, \V. Hofmeistei) ; and (3) Wimmer 90 (ex hort. Berol.) ; but 

 none of these is British, and they do not represent Smith's plant 

 as handed down to us by Borrer, Leefe, and the Kew Gardens. 

 With these three exceptions, all the laurina Sm, I have noted 

 belongs to S. cinerea x plnjlicifolia, and »S. laurina Sm. is the 

 synonym of this hybrid ; while ti. Caprea x phylicij'olia is uncertain 

 as a British plant. 



1403 ph)/ticifolia X cinerea x Caprea {tephrocarpa F. B. White). 

 Of this I have seen no specimens. 



1403 pJnjlicifniia X Lapponuin (^Lappionuin phi/licifoiia Linton). 

 It is a pity that this hybrid is inserted here, inverting the order of 

 the two parent species for no reason whatever (Journ. But. 1891, 214). 



1403 plnjlicifolia X Myrsi^iites (Xonnanni Ands.). This has 

 been entered in my list for one vice-county, viz. Mid-Berth, on the 

 strength of specimens from a bush discovered by the Kev. E. S. 

 Marsliall, and so named by him and Dr. F. B. White, It may be 

 so ; but the evidence of S. Myrsinites is not very clear, compared 

 with intermediate plants (accidental garden products) i have in the 

 garden of this hybrid, which exhibit both parents about equally well. 

 Unfortunately this bush has not been cultivated. 



1403 phyiicifolia X repens [Schraderiana Willd.). Entered in 

 both lists, but I have seen no specimens which are fairly entitled 

 to be so named ; in two cases cultivation (in the garden at Bourne- 

 mouth) proved years ago that suspected plants have no rejiens in 

 them at all. 



1403 b. and c. See remarks on these in the early part of this 

 paper (p. 462). 



1403 phyiicifolia c. nigricans X Arhuscula {Ivraettliana Briigg). 

 It is perhaps by an oversight, due to Dr. White not having seen his 

 list in type, that 8. Arhuscula x niyricans is placed here, and the 

 corresponding hybrid 6\ Arhmcula x plnjlicifolia under 6'. Arhuscula. 



