71. AMENTIFERA. 561 
Salix aurita, Linn. 
Provinces all. Native. 
Lat. 50—61. Cornwall, Wight, Kent.—Orkney, Shetland. 
Zones 1234. Highlands to 700 yards. Humber to 550 yards. 
Census 18 87 72. Ireland 9. British type of distribution. 
Europe all, except Finmark. 
Russia 6- 4321. West-asia? Siberia. 
—. N.B. This Willow was accidentally left out at its proper place 
in the series of native species, at the foot of page 315. 
Salices segregate, etc. 
Salix is another genus much like Rubus and Rosa, in being 
inconveniently numerous in uncertain species and little-known 
varieties, in individualities about which most botanists must 
“agree to differ.” David Don enjoyed telling an anecdote of 
somebody having offended the estimable William Borrer, by a 
remark that ‘all sensible botanists eschewed Willows, while the 
crazy ones had each their own ideas about the species.” And 
perhaps the most sensible among us are those who rest content to 
look at Willows in the wilds, and take least heed of their names 
and arrangements in books. Unfortunately, this prudent course is 
not the one open to those who profess to describe or to topograph 
all plants british or seemingly british. Twenty-three Salices 
(reckoning in the omitted aurita) have been treated in the 
Synopsis, as quasi-specific groups or aggregate species; their 
indicated distribution taking in the subordinate segregates, at least 
to some extent, and thus not always strictly representing that of 
the assumed type form apart. Except in those cases where 
the supposed typical segregate has itself acquired a distinctive 
name, one currently in use, it is too often impossible to decide 
positively that the type-form was the one really intended by a 
familiar name; say, by the names alba, purpurea, triandra, fragilis, 
cinerea, repens, nigricans, or phylicifolia. In finding these names 
connected with general habitats, or even with special localities, 
recorded in books, the question arises and too often must 
remain unanswered, ‘ whether (Say) vitellina, ramulosa, amyg- 
dalina, Russelliana, aquatica, argentea, Forsteriana, Davalliana, or 
various other secondary segregates were intended, either along with 
the primary segregate or even solely and exclusively of the latter?’ 
Tn here looking to the segregates, apart from each other, not 
united into groups, it becomes necessary to fall back on the 
English Flora of Smith, with its predecessor the Flora Britannica, 
as the real starting ground from which subsequent English 
writers have proceeded, aided. of course by the plates and descrip- 
tions in the original series of English Botany. (Of that earlier 
edition no copy is before me to refer to while writing.) I cannot 
make out that Hooker, Babington, Bentham, or even Boswell-Syme 
have subsequently written under the advantage of very complete or 
Ac 
