1918] SCHNEIDER—SALIX 30 
integerrima, superne viridia, ?nitidula, initio laxe sericeo-villosa, 
dein costa excepta glabrescentia, subtus discoloria, initio distincte 
partim brunnescenti-sericeo-villosa, dein ut videtur satis glabres- 
centia (et ? glaucescentia). Petioli brevissimi, ad 2 mm. longi, 
pilosuli. Stipulae non visae. Amenta mascula coetanea, minima, 
ovata, densiflora, ad 8:6 mm. magna, basi foliis iis longioribus 
obsita, rhachi villosula; bracteae obovato-oblongae, brunnescentes, 
apice rotundatae, utrinque satis laxe crispato-pubescentes; stamina 
2, filamentis liberis bracteam ad 2plo superantibus basi 4 villosulis, 
antheris flavis parvis elliptico-globosis; glandula 1, ovato-rectangu- 
laris, apice truncata, circ. 14 bracteae aequans. 
TYPE LOcCALITY.—Central Mexico: “habite les ravines humides du pic 
d’Orizaba, 4 environ 11 ou 12000 pieds d’élévation absolue” [3400-3700 m.] 
(coll. H. Galeotti, no. 69, ex. Mart. and Gal.). 
RANGE.—Uncertain. 
SPECIMENS EXAMINED.—Mexico: without exact locality, “Penas carg. 
April 1839,” C. Ehrenberg (no. 1280, m.; W., ex Mus. Bot. Berol.). 
The description of cana by the authors is very short and is based on sterile 
material only, and I have not yet been able to compare type material. It 
Tuns: “Canescenti-glauca; ramulis cinereo-subtomentosis, foliis subsessilibus 
oblongis integerrimis acutiusculis glabris subtus glaucis.—Amenta ignota, 
Stipulae non visae, folia pollicaria.—Affinis Salici paradoxa H.B.K.” By 
RowLeE Pringle’s no. 6794 had been regarded as S. cana M. and G., but, as I 
have explained under S. Row/leii, the plant from the Cima de Ajusco does not 
agree with the description of S. cana. This species of which the authors had 
apparently before them adult sterile specimens has “‘folia pollicaria.’”’ Con- 
sidering the younger state, Ehrenberg’s plant agrees well with the statements of 
Martens and GaLeortt. Nevertheless, I am not yet sure about the identity of 
the two plants, especially as we do not know the exact habitat of Ehrenberg’s 
plant. It has been referred to S. cana by such an eminent salicologist as 
V. SEEMEN according to the handwriting on the sheet. 
There remains one more species described from Mexico: 
S. Endlichii y. Seemen in F edde, Rep. Spec. Nov. 5:19. 1908. The 
type was collected by R. Endlich in the state of Chihuahua, “in 
” There is also a S. cinerea Sesse and Mocino, Fl. Mex. ed. 2.229. 1894, excl. syn., 
non L,, described as “Salix foliis oblongis, denticulatis, subtus villoso-cinereis, stipulis 
semicordatis. F.M, Habitat in montibus umbrosis S. Angeli et plurimis Hisp. locis.”’ 
There are 3 different localities bearing the name San Angel in Mexico. The descrip- 
ee much too incomplete to make even a guess at the identity of this obscure 
cles, : 
