470 THE SALIX LISTS IN THE 'LONDON CATALOGUE.' 



1407 Lapponum x cinerea (cmerea-Jimosa Lfestad.). It is un- 

 fortunate that the hybrid name for this willow survives which 

 retains the defunct name of one of the parent species {lii)iosa for 

 La/iponiim). S. cinerea- Lapponum Wimm. is far preferable to the 

 older cinerea-Umosa on this ground. I have not seen any British 

 specimen of 8. cinerea X Lapponiivi. 



1407 Lapponum X nigricans. If the insertion of this hybrid be 

 founded on a gathering by the Rev. E. S. Marshall in Canlochan 

 Glen, Forfarshire, I entirely dissent from the interpretation put 

 upon the specimens.* 



1408 Myrsinites x herbacea (Sommerfeltii Ands.). In the Annah 

 of Scottish Natural Historij for 1894 I have shown that S. Grahami 

 Baker is intermediate between these two species, that all its 

 characters can be well accounted for as derived from their union, 

 and that in fact there is no doubt that -S'. Grahami Baker is <S'. 

 herbacea X Myrsinites. This name, given by Borrer years before in 

 MSS., was published in Journ. Bat. 1867, p. 157, t. 66, and con- 

 sequently antedates S. Sommerfeltii Ands. published in 1868 (DC. 

 Prudr. xvi. (2), 291). 



For convenience I take here into consideration two hybrids 

 placed by Dr. White under 1409 herbacea L. S. Grahami was 

 regarded by Boswell-Syme as a probable hybrid between S. herbacea 

 on the one hand, and (S'. phylicifulia or *S', nigricans on the other. 

 Dr. White narrowed this supposition down to S. Graha)iii being *S'. 

 herbacea x phi/lici folia ; while he expressed his belief that the Irish 

 plant so like Grahami, viz. the 8. Moorei of previous London Cata- 

 logues, was S. herbacea x nujricans. Having disposed of *S'. Grahami, 

 not only by the arguments contained in my paper, but by the 

 artificial production of S. herbacea x phijlici folia, a result which 

 strongly corroborated my view, I was anxious to study 8. Moorei 

 in the garden, in order to judge of the merits of the herbacea- 

 niiiricans theory for myself. By the kindness of Mr. F. W. Moore 

 I was shown, in the summer of 1895, at Glasnevin, both specimens 

 and living plauts of *S'. Moorei ; and later on furnished with a strong 

 rooted piece to grow. The sight of the Dublin specimens and plants 

 first raised doubt in my mind as to the presence of niijricans in the 

 hybrid. *S'. nigricans in composition gives a dulness of colouring 

 to twigs and foliage, and a considerable amount of persistent 

 pubescence ; also overcomes any tendency to red colouring of the 

 inflorescence ; and there is usually some discoloration in the dried 

 foliage specimens. In ^S'. Moorei there is no discoloration of the 

 herbarium specimens; the young leaves are silky, but older leaves 

 have become glabrous ; there is a bright look about the plant, and 

 the catkins have some reddish colouring. The inference is that 

 ;S'. ]\Ioorei is S. herbacea X phijUcifMa, and not 8. herbacea X nigri- 

 cans. If this is the case, it might be supposed that 8. Moorei would 

 correspond exactly with the plant artificially raised of 8. herbacea x 

 phylicifolia, and referred to previously. Hybrids, however, raised 



* Since this was written, the Kev. E. S. Marshall has informed me that he 

 believes the insertion of this hybrid in the British list to have been based on 

 his specimens. It must, I fear, be withdrawn. 



