a2 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JANUARY 
Pinar del Rio, 1911, J. F. Cowell (st.).—Prov. La Habana, San Antonio de los 
Bafios, December 18, 1905, Van Hermann (no. 3332, fr.); Playa de Mariano, 
February 22, 1910, NV. L. Britton and P. Wilson (no. 4521, f.; G., N., W.); 
Batabano, wet coastal Savanna, April 12, 1912, NV. L. Britton, J. F. Cowell, and 
C. dela Torre (no. 13350, st.; N., W.).—Prov. Santa Clara, Cienaga de Zapata, 
March 26 [1860-64], C. Wright (rio. 2132, m., st.; G., M., W.).—Prov. Camaguey 
‘ad las Piedras,”’ February 1824, Poeppig (f.; M.). 
This species, which is well represented in the southeastern and central 
United States by var. Wardii (Bebb) Schn., nov. comb., and by var. venulosa 
(And.) Schn., is said by ANDERSSON to occur also in Trinida[d]. Beyond the 
borders of the United States I have only seen the specimens cited from Cuba. 
It seems to be entirely absent from Mexico, and I shall deal with this difficult 
and variable species in my final book. 
Sect. IV. Lonorrortar And. in Ofv. K. Vet. Ak.-Férh. 15:116. 
1858; in Proc. Amer. Acad. 4:55 (Salic. Bor. Am. 10). 1858; in 
Walp., Ann. Bot. 5:745. 1858; in K. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Handl. 6:54 
(Mon. Salic.). 1867; in DC. Prodr. 167:214. 1868; Bebb in Bor. 
Gaz. 16:103. 1891; Rowlee in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 27:247. 1900; 
Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubh. 1:32. 1904; Ball in Coult. and Nels., - 
New Man. Rocky Mt. Bot. 130. 1909. 
This is a well marked and entirely American section. There are 
no other willows closely related to those of this section, either in 
America or in the Old World. Probably the species of the sect. 
ALBAE Borr. (not of sect. FRaGILES Koch) may represent the nearest 
relatives to the Loncrro.iAr. In Mexico there is only one species 
widely distributed; the other forms of this group mentioned later 
reach our territory only in its most northern parts. It may be 
mentioned that, according to GARTNER (Vergl. Blattanatomie 
Gatt. Salix, Diss. Géttingen, 1907, p. 54) S. macrolepis Turcz. 
from Northeastern Asia shows ‘‘eine so ausgesprochene Aehnlich- 
keit im Blattbau, dass es keinen Augenblick zweifelhaft sein kann, 
dass die nachsten Verwandten von S. macrolepis Arten wie S. 
Hindsiana und S. longifolia sind.” I have dealt with this inter- 
esting Asiatic species in Sargent, Pl. Wilson. 3:102. 1916, but I 
have seen only a poor specimen. Even if GARTNER has examined 
material of the true macrolepis, I am not convinced that similar 
anatomical characters can be taken for a proof of close taxonomic 
relationship in a case where the morphological characters of the 
flowers are, apparently, so different. 
