1918] SCHNEIDER—AMERICAN WILLOWS 331 
seems to be identical with the typical S. glauca or any of the forms 
of Northeastern Canada. The specimens from Labrador and 
Greenland referred to S. glauca by RyDBERG do not belong to it 
or are at least very uncertain in their relationship. There is only 
one form before me which seems to be closely connected with the 
true S. glauca, and of this I shall say something under S. anamesa, 
after having discussed the types and relatives of S. desertorum, 
S. pseudolapponum, and S. cordifolia. 
2. S. DESERTORUM Richardson, Bot. App. in Franklin, Narr. 
Jour. Polar Sea 753 (reprint p. 25). 1833; ed. 2.765 (reprint p. 37). 
1833; Hooker, FI. Bor.-Am. 2:151. 1839, pro parte; ANDERSSON 
in DC. Prodr. 16:281. 1868, excl. var.; RYDBERG in Bull. N.Y. 
Bot. Gard. 1:272. 1899; excl. specim. Drummond.; BALL in Trans. 
St. Louis Acad. Sci. 9:85. 1899, pro parte.—S. glauca *S. deser- 
torum And. in Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Foérh. 127. 1858.—This is one 
of the most misunderstood willows, and I am sorry to say that I 
have not yet been able to explain it sufficiently. The type was 
collected by RicHARDSON at old Fort Franklin on the Mackenzie 
iver. I have before me a photograph and fragments of the type 
material preserved in the Hookerian Herbarium at Kew, which 
show that the specimens distributed by BARRAtTT under no. 70 are 
identical with it. Unfortunately all the specimens have only young 
flowers and leaves except a few fragments of a fruiting catkin of the 
previous year in the Kew specimen. Hooker (1839) referred to 
S. desertorum also specimens collected by DrumMoND, and BEBB 
(apud Rorurock in Wheeler, Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv. West of rooth 
merid. 6:Bot. 241. 1878) apparently took DRuMMOND’S no. 657 
for the typical S. desertorum, as did BALL (1899) on BEBB’s author- 
ity. RYDBERG (1899) said: “It is evident that Mr. Bess did not 
exactly know the true S. desertorum,’’ and he stated that it is 
Drummonp’s no. 658 that “matches RICHARDSON’S specimens 
exactly.’’ Both of DrumMonp’s specimens are before me. There 
is no doubt that no. 657 belongs to S. brachycarpa Nutt. (S. stricta 
Rydbg.), but I am likewise convinced that no. 658 is not identical 
with RicHARDSON’s type. This number consists of two young male 
and female branchlets, and it differs chiefly by the pubescence of 
the young parts (the lower surface of the leaves, etc.) which is 
