1564 ARBORETUM AND FRUTICETUM. PART III. 
has been supposed, in allusion to the leaves of the kinds of which it is con- 
stituted turning black in drying, but to mark their affinity to S, nigricans 
Smith, a well-known individual of their number. (Borrer in Eng. Bot. 
Suppl., t.2795:) In this case, it may be supposed that the characters of S. 
nigricans Smith are pretty well representative of those of each of the kinds 
of the group. Some of the characters of S. nigricans Smith are described 
below, No. 108. According to Mr. Borrer (Eng. Bot. Suppl. t. 2729,) it 
is doubtful, in application to almost every kind of the group, whether it 
is a species or not. 
It is shown, under the preceding group, that Mr. Borrer professes 
‘himself not acquainted with all the kinds of that group and this; and 
that he may, therefore, have placed some of them wrongly. It may in- 
terest the lovers of broad grounds of distinction in species to know 
that Koch, who has applied this principle to the willows, has included 
several of the kinds in this group, which are treated below as distinct spe- 
cies, in one species. Under his species S. phylicifolia, he has cited S. phy- 
licifolia Lin. Sp. Pl. ii. 1442., Willd. Sp. Pl., iv. p. 659., exclusively of the 
synonyme of Smith, Wahlenb. Fl.Lapp., No. 482. ; S. stylosa Dec.; S. stylaris 
Seringe ; S. hastata Hoppe ; and S. hybrida Hoffm.; as synonymes: and the 
following as being still the species, under a more or less varied form, — S. 
nigricans Smith, S.Ammanniana Willd., S. Andersonidna Smith, S. spiraezefolia 
Willd. ex Link, S. rupéstris Smith, S. Forsteridna Smith, S. hirta Smith, S. 
cotinifolia Smith, and S. wlmifolia Hort. Berol. He has intimated, besides, 
that several of the kinds distinguished by Schleicher also belong to this 
species. Dr. Lindley, in his Synopsis of the British Flora, where he has 
followed Koch wholly, has added to Koch’s S. phylicifolia the kinds S. 
damascéna Forbes and S. Borreridna Smith. Relatively to the principle of 
rendering species in the willows thus comprehensive, Mr. Borrer makes the 
following remark in Eng. Bot. Suppl., t. 2702.:— ‘“ We have repeatedly 
disclaimed all dogmatical decision as to what are species among the willows ; 
nor have we ever denied the probability that many of those which, in the 
present state of our knowledge, we think it expedient to propose as distinct 
may be, in reality, mere seminal varieties or hybrids. This being admitted, 
the further admission can scarcely be withheld, that those botanists may 
possibly be correct in their views who regard, in some instances, as species 
what we are accustomed to regard as sections of the genus.” Mr. Borrer 
has added, “ Of these facilé princeps is Koch, whose lucid De Salicibus 
Europeis Commentatio displays a most intimate acquaintance with his 
subject.” With regard to the details of Koch’s adjudication of the above- 
cited species S. phylicifolia, Mr. Borrer gives the following corrective 
notices, which, for the sake of accuracy, we give below: — 
Under S. damascéna Forbes, Eng. Bot. Suppl.,t.2709.,it is remarked, “Koch 
would, no doubt, refer S. damascéna, as he does its affinities, S. Andersoniana, 
S. nigricans, &c., to Wahlenberg’s S. phylicifolia ; but those botanists would 
scarcely have appropriated the name to willows of this set, had they been 
aware of the fact that the original Lapland specimen of S. phylicifolia in 
the Linnzan herbarium is indubitably, as was long since stated by Smith, 
the S. phylicifolia of Eng. Bot., t. 1958. This last is united by Koch, with 
numerous affinities, to S. arbascula of Wahlenberg, which he regards as the 
S. arbascula of the Linnzan Flora Suecica.”’ Under S. tenuifolia Smith this 
remark occurs in Eng. Bot. Suppl., t. 2795. :— “ S. tenuifolia and S. rupés- 
tris are so nearly allied, that we cannot undertake to point out satisfactory 
distinctions; yet Koch places S. tenuifolia under S. arbiscula, and S, ru- 
péstris under S. phylicifolia.” Under S. petrae‘a Eng. Bot. Suppl., t. 2725., 
is this remark : — “ It is surely by error that Koch has placed S. petre‘a 
under his S. arbiscula, with S. phylicifolia of Smith ; and not under his own 
S. phylicifolia, with S. Ammanniana and its affinities.” 
es 
