322 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [OCTOBER 
name S. villosa Barr. cannot be used even if the form described by 
Hooker under this name could be recognized as a good species. 
I have been fortunate in seeing photographs and fragments of the 
types of S. villosa preserved at Kew, and also the corresponding 
specimens of BARRATT’s collection in herb. N., and I am convinced 
that Hooker included different forms under his S. villosa. At first 
glance his diagnosis fits well the forms described by RYDBERG as 
S. Seemannii (see later) and the material before me from the Yukon 
Territory, but the character given by HooxeEr in the following 
phrase: “‘rami foliisque junioribus lana arachnoidea villosis’’ seems | 
peculiar tome. I cannot detect traces of a “lana arachnoidea”’ on 
the specimens before me, and furthermore, the specimen collected 
by Drummond (no. 7. Herb. H. and B.) which is regarded as the 
“type” is not characterized by “‘foliis lato-lanceolatis.”’ There is, 
however, a specimen in Herb. Torrey (N.) labeled “‘no. 6. Herb. 
H.B. and T.”’ and “an S. villosa D. Don” in which the lower sur- 
faces of the lanceolate leaves are covered when young with a “‘lana 
arachnoidea,” the prominent rib being nearly glabrous, while the 
lateral nerves are almost hidden by the pubescence. Later the 
leaves become more or less glabrous, and the first or lowermost 
leaves show nothing but a few scattered long silky hairs. The 
petioles are nearly glabrous, and the stipules are very small, hardly 
a fourth of the length of the petiole, very glabrescent, semiovate, 
and denticulate. This does not agree with Hooxer’s statement: 
“stipulis semicordatis petiolo sublongioribus,” which is the case in 
no. 7; and HoOKER’s diagnosis seems to me only explicable if we 
presume that he mixed two different forms. On the same sheet 
with no. 6 is also an old fruiting catkin with a leafy peduncle which 
is identical with those of no. 7. I am not yet sure to what species 
the sterile branch of no. 6 really belongs. 
HOOKER also described a var. “8. acutifolia; foliis magis acutis 
vel subacuminatis,” collected by RicHARDSON at Fort Franklin on 
the Mackenzie River, of which a photograph of the type “no. 70. 
Hb. H.B. and T.” is before me. It consists of 3 pieces of young 
female flowering branchlets. I also saw a sheet with the label 
“no. 58. Hb. H. B. & T.” ex herb. Torrey (N.) marked ‘‘Fort 
Franklin, Richardson,” which contains 2 fruiting and 1 sterile 
