1918] SCHNEIDER—AMERICAN WILLOWS 325 
by R. S. WrxttAMs, June 11, 1899, a more mature specimen June 12. 
Also collected by SEEMANN on Chamisso Island, 1851, no. 1873, 
and Kotzebue Sound and Norton Sound, 1849, no. 1423.” He 
accompanied his description with the following remarks: ‘“SEE- 
MANN’S specimens, cited below, were named by HooxeEr S. glauca 
var. macrocarpa, but the plant is neither S. macrocarpa of TRaut- 
VETTER nor that of NUTTALL; it is related to the former, but not 
to the latter. S. macrocarpa Trautv. (S. glauca macrocarpa Ledeb.) 
is described as having sessile stigmas and fuscous bracts; it prob- 
ably does not occur in America.” In the original dcscription of 
S. macrocarpa Ledeb. apud TRAUTVETTER (in Nouv. Mém. Soc. 
Nat. Mosc. 2:292. 1832) I fail to find the statement that the stigmas 
are sessile; this part of the diagnosis runs: ‘“‘stylo basin usque 
bipartito, stigmatibus bifidis.””, TRAUTVETTER compares in detail 
S. glauca and S. macrocarpa, and attributes to the latter the follow- 
ing characters: “frutex pedalis prostratus,”’ ‘‘folia majora, acumi- 
nata, juniora jam fere prorsus glabra,’”’ and “pedicellus interdum 
fere longitudine ovarii.” The same statement is given for S. glauca 
8 macrocarpa Trautvetter in LepErBour, FI. Alt. 4:281. 1833. 
Judging by those characters the American form in question cannot 
be identified with this var. macrocarpa, but better agrees with 
what TRAUTVETTER (1832) regarded as typical S. glauca, and 
named S. glauca var. microcarpa Ledeb. in 1833. Here TRAut- 
VETTER says, after having given an ample description of the speci- 
mens from the Altai, “‘exemplaria altaicis simillima Cl. Eschscholtz 
legit ad Cap. Espenberg.”’ 
As already stated, it is difficult to decide at the present status 
of our knowledge of the Old World forms of S. glauca whether some 
of them are identical with the American forms. So far as I can 
judge by TrRauTvETTER’s descriptions and the material I have seen 
from Asia, I am not convinced that the forms of Northwestern 
America can be regarded as representing the typical S. glauca or 
one of TRAUTVETTER’s varieties. A keen and careful observer like 
COvILLE, in 1901, said: “There is a tendency among American 
willow students to exclude Salix glauca from the North American 
flora, but our Alaskan specimens show so close an agreement with 
some European material of this species that I am unwilling to 
