124 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [AUGUST 
in the Kew herbarium; they belong to three distinct and well 
known species.” BrEBB had received, through BAKER, nothing but 
a drawing and copies of the labels and “‘a few fragments, a capsule 
or two, to show minute characters.’”’ Through the kindness of 
Sir DAvip PRAIN the Arnold Arboretum has received (together with 
a series of photographs of other Salix types of the Hookerian her- 
barium) an excellent photograph of the type sheet of S. subcordata 
and also fragments of leaves and flowers. According to this 
material the fact stands as follows. In the upper left corner there 
are ‘‘two large specimens of S. arctica Pall.’’ which Bess believed 
had been labeled ‘‘almost certainly by some mistake”’ as “‘from the 
Rocky Mts. coll. Drummond” because, as BEBB had explained 
before, ‘‘nothing approximating in character to S. subcordata And. 
has been found.” There are before me, however, the excellent 
specimens mentioned later from the Chilliwack Valley, which, in my 
opinion, are identical with DRumMoND’s plant. Where this col- 
lector obtained his material I cannot ascertain, and so far as I 
know, he did not collect in this part of British Columbia. Beneath 
these two “‘arctica’’ specimens there are 3 (not 2, as BreBB stated) 
pieces, of which the one in the left corner is sterile, while the middle 
one bears female and the right one male flowers. Of both of them 
the Arboretum received fragments which show that they represent 
the same species as the older branchlets above them. BEss refers 
those flowering branchlets to “S. cordifolia Hook.,”’ and he is right 
in so far as HOOKER included in his cordifolia those Rocky Mountain 
forms. But ANDERSSON separated in 1858 just those western forms 
as S. subcordata from the eastern ones, which he then named 
S. alpestris americana (S. cordifolia Hook., pro parte). 
The most critical part of the type sheet is the two sterile right 
hand branchlets which BEBB stated to be “two stunted specimens 
of S. adenophylla, leaves only, habitat not given.’ To those 
branchlets refers Dr. BARRATT’s label: “no. 92, S. cordifolia 8 
serrulata.” Of those pieces the Arnold Arboretum did not receive 
fragments, but, so far as I can judge by the photograph and by the 
corresponding number in Herb. N., they do not at all belong to 
S. adenophylla sensu BrsB (S. syrticola Fern.), but seem to represent 
a form of S. Barclayi, which grows together with arctica subcordata, 
