114 Dr, Smith's Remarks on 



well figured and defcribed the fpecies, though he erred in confound- 

 ing it with the following. 



2. Salix Helix. 



Rofe Pfil/oiv. 



S. monandra? follis lanceolatis acumlnatis ferrulatis glabris, ftylo 



elongato filiformi, ftigmatibus linearibus. 

 Salix Hehx. Linn. Sp. PI. 1444. Uudf. 427. Dakcb. Hiji. 277./ 2. 

 S. n. 1640. Hcill. HiJi. V. 2. 306. 



Salicis racemi feu nucamenta, rofae et capitula fquamata. Bauh. 

 Hifl. V. \. p. 2. 213. 



In falicetis et paluftribus. Fl. Martio, April!. 



Haller and Ehrhart feem to have led Prof. Hoffmann into the 

 error of confounding this with the preceding, from which it is moft 

 unqiieftionably very diftinft. Mr. Curtis, and feme of our more 

 recent writers, have followed Hoffmann, perhaps without having 

 ever feen the true S. Helix. I am obliged to Mr. Crowe for firft 

 pointing out to me the different heights of the two plants, and dif- 

 ferent fizes of their catkins, and on a critical examination of the 

 female flowers, I was fo fortunate as to find further marks of 

 diftinclion. 



S. Helix rifcs to the height of 9 or 10 feet, and is. a fmall flcnder 

 tree. Even in the form of its leaves it differs from fhe purpurea^ thofe 

 of the Helix being more truly lanceolate and taper-pointed, by no 

 means obovate. From the fize which Haller alcribes to his A?//* 

 «. 1640, I venture to prefume he intended this plant, and not the 

 purpurea^ and therefore borrow from him the chara6ler monandra-^ 

 for I have never feen the male of this fpecies. It is extremely 

 probable moreover^ from the clofe affinity of the two in other 

 3 relpedts^ 



