452 



6. Species Generally Distributed Over the County. 



Salix interior Roirlee. Sandbar Willow. The willow referred to as 

 the Sandbar willow of various authors suffers various scientific names 

 without much apparent agreement. The record in Britton and Brown 

 is as follows : S. longifolia Muhl. 1803 ; not Lam.' 1778 ; S. interior Row- 

 lee 1900; S. linearifolia Rydb. 1901. Has been confused with S. fluvia- 

 tilis Nutt. (S. Wheeleri (Rowlee) Rydb from N. B. to 111., dif- 

 fers in having the leaves permanently silky.). Gray's 7th Ed. says that 

 S. longifolia Muhl. is the Sandbar willow. Synonym, S. interior Rowlee; 

 S. fluviatilis auth., not Nutt. Hough gives S. fluviatilis Nutt. as the 

 Sandbar willow with the synonym of S. longifolia Muhl. 



Thus the trials and patience of the amateur, and I should also 

 include the expert, are once more exemplified, if not sorely pressed. 

 One wonders in so many cases if no agreement ever will result. At any 

 rate, the species which answers the description of S. interior Rowlee is 

 abundant along the streams of White County. 



This species is not given in the 1911 Report. In Coulter's Catalogue 

 the record is as follows: Salix fluviatilis Nutt., Syn. S. longifolia Muhl. 

 Tippecanoe (Cunningham) ; Putnam (MacDougal) ; Vigo (Blatchley) ; 

 Jefi'erson (J. M. Coulter); Clark (Baird and Taylor). 



Due perhaps chiefly to their tendency to hybridize, the willows are 

 admittedly difiicult of determination. The remaining forms considered 

 as occurring in White County seem to be less confusing. 



Salix nigra Marsh. Black Willow. This willow is more or less 

 abundant in White County. Specimen.^ were taken from Honey Creek 

 Township. Its range is moi e than the total eastern half of the United 

 States. 



Salix amygdaloides Avdern. Peach-leaved Willow. Although hav- 

 ing a large range in North America, from Quebec through Saskatchewan 

 to British Columbia, and through northern Kentucky to the Rio Grande 

 in New Mexico, along the mountains to Oregon and Washington, this 

 species is not mentioned in Coulter's Catalogue, and in the 1911 Report 

 the published record is but from one county, Ko.sciusko (Scott), with 

 the then new record of a .specimen each taken in Lake County by Um- 

 bach and Deam. Distribution in White County uncertain, specimen 

 taken from Honey Creek Township. 



