THE SALIX LISTS IN THE 'LONDON CATALOGUE.' 469 



this modification of it, is best shown by the quotation of a paragraph 

 on this group from the Revision (p. 415) : — " Before proceeding to 

 notice each of these varieties, I may say that, as the result df the 

 study of a very large series of specimens (many of them authenti- 

 cally named), both British and Continental, I have failed to find 

 such a permanence of characters as will serve to definitely separate 

 one from another. Certain examples can be, without much hesi- 

 tation, placed satisfactorily under one or other of the varietal names. 

 There are many, however, that cannot really be referred to one 

 variety more than to another, and which, combining to some extent 

 the characteristics of each, form connecting links. Of some others 

 little more can be said than that they are modifications of S. 

 Smith iana." 



With this confession of the failure of the arrangement to give 

 satisfactory results, why should so keen an interpreter of willow 

 hybrids have departed from his usual order, and inserted an aggre- 

 gate hybrid with five varieties ? How is this any better than the 

 old arrangement of S. ambifjua Ehrh., for instance, with four 

 varieties — an arrangement of former Catalogues now wisely dropped? 

 Surely an attempt to differentiate the hybrids of S. viminalis and 

 the Caprea is not so hopeless as to justify the retention of this relic 

 of a bygone classification.* At the same time S. stipularis Sm. 

 and S. acuminata Sm. must stand in our list as unsolved hybrids 

 of the viminalis group, together with the three which are more 

 easily recognised and understood, aurita x viminalis, Caprea x 

 viminalis, and ciiierea x viminalis; for the present this arrangement, 

 which is practically Wimmer's, can hardly be improved. 



1406 lanata X herhacea (Stephania F. B. White). The JRev. 

 E. S. Marshall's observations on the origin of S. Sadleri Boswell- 

 Syme {Jouni. Bot. 1894, 212), taken in conjunction with the 

 accurate description of the same willow by Dr. White in the 

 Revision (p. 422), have led me to the conclusion that *S'. Sadleri and 

 8. Stephania are names for different forms of the same hybrid, the 

 former nearer *S'. lanata in general appearance, and the latter nearer 

 ;S'. herbacea. I have yet anotlier form in the garden from Glen 

 Fiagh, Forfar, which is more exactly intermediate, and helps to 

 connect these two described forms. 



1407 Lappomim L. b. helvetica Vill. Forfar and Mid-Perth are 

 the two counties from which specimens of this variety are supposed 

 to have come, but it will be seen on reference to the Revision 

 (p. 428) that the evidence for their being of British origin does 

 not amount to certainty. Hence the ? after the comital number in 

 the alternative list. 



* In a parallel case, viz. the hybridization of *S'. purpurea with Caprece, Dr. 

 White criticizes Andersson for retaining the name Pontederana, which "he 

 makes" to "include the hybrids formed not only with S. cinerea, but with 

 S. Caprea, S. grandifoUa, and S. aurita, since he thinks that there is no sure 

 method of seijarating them. As, however, he has not united these species, it is 

 scarcely justifiable to unite the hybrids if it is at all possible to distinguish 

 them ; and he himself has kept them separate as varieties " [Journ. Linn. Soc. 

 xxvii. 450). Dr. White, in retaining the name S. Svdtltiana for the aggregate 

 viminalis x Caprea, has done exactly what he regarded as "scarcely justifiable" 

 in the case of Andersson with the name Pontedcraua. 



