1918] SCHNEIDER—AMERICAN WILLOWS 323 
branchlet of var. acutifolia named by RypBERG S. villosa and 
marked no. 2. Besides these there are 2 sterile branchlets which 
may belong to var. glabrescens; the upper middle one was referred 
by RypBErG to S. villosa, while the small one at the left corner of 
the lower label is without number. Furthermore, there are 3 ster- 
ile branchlets numbered 1 and named S. chlorophylla by RYDBERG 
which indeed look very much like this species or may be refer- 
able to S. pulchra Cham. All the specimens are referred (by 
Barratt?) to S. planifolia Pursh, a very uncertain species which 
may be identical with S. chlorophylla And. 
As already mentioned, ANDERSSON regarded HooxeEr’s S. villosa 
in 1858 as only a variety of S. glauca L. He said: “Haec forma 
speciei maxime vegeta videtur,”’ and in his short description (in 
Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férh. 15:109) we read: “foliis tenuioribus, 
supra (sic!) glaucis, sparse pilosis, elevato-venosis, stipulis subper- 
sistentibus lanceolato-linearibus; amentis sat longis erectis laxius- 
culis, subrarifloris . . . .” The same diagnosis is repeated in Sal. 
Bor.-Am. 22, and in Walp., Ann. Bot. 5:753. 1858. The statement 
“foliis supra glaucis”’ is certainly a misprint for “subtus glaucis,” 
or it may be that a whole sentence has been omitted. Unfortu- 
nately, ANDERSSON did not cite a specimen, but his description 
scarcely fits the Rocky Mountain material collected by Drum- 
MOND. Ten years later ANDERSSON (in DC. Prodr. 16°:281) pro- 
posed a new hybrid S. glaucops,3 which he placed without a number 
between 107. S. glauca and 108. S. desertorum, and of which he 
describes 2 ‘‘modifications,’ namely, var. villosa, being identical 
with his former S. glauca var. villosa, and var. glabrescens, which he 
based on specimens collected by BourcEAv in the Rocky Moun- 
tains, and with which I shall deal later. 
ANDERSSON referred to his S. glaucops villosa not only HOOKER’s 
villosa and his own S. glauca villosa, but also S. villosa Seemann 
(“Voy. of Herald. p. 39.54’’) and “S. cordifolia Hook. Fl. Boreal. 
3It ought to be mentioned that this species has been entirely misunderstood by 
M. J. Jones, Willow Fam. Great Plat. 16. 1908. The author says of his study: 
‘This work, on western willows, is put forth tentatively in order to clear up doubts. 
....” But he certainly succeeded in greatly augmenting the existing confusion in 
regard to many species. There are scarcely 2 willows better ae eer than 
S. glaucops And. and S. subcoerulea Pip., which Jones makes synon 
