298 
77. AMENTIFERJS. 
ish. Stam. 5 — 14. Antk. 1-celIed. Fertile fl. in a lax 
catkin. Scales large, leafiike, 3-lobed, 2-flowered. Styles 2. 
Nut ovate, 1-seeded. 
Tribe I. SalicinecE. 
1. Sa'lix Linn? Willow. 
I. Pedunculate laterales. 
Catkin and its leafy stalk deciduous together, lateral, appearing 
•with the leaves. Scales of xmiform colour. 
* Scales of the catkins soon falling. 
i. Pcntandra (Bore.). Stam. more than 2. L. glossy, glabrous. 
Trees or large shrubs. — Stipules soon falling. 
1. S. pentan 'dra (L.) ; 1. ovate-elliptic or ovate-laneeolate 
acuminate glandular-sen-ate, " sti}). ovate-oblong straight equal," 
stam. 5 or more, caps, ovate-attenuate glabrous, stalk twice as 
long as the gland, style short, stig. bifid —i". £. 1805.— Height 
6 — 20 feet. Top of petioles glandular. L. fragrant. — River-sides 
in the North. T. V. VI. Bay-leawd Willoio. E. S. I. 
t2. (S". cmpidata (Schultz ?) ; 1. oblong-lanceolate acuminate 
glandular-sen-ate, stip. half-cordate ohlique, "stam. 3 or 4," caps, 
ovate-attenuate glabrous, stalk 3 or 4 times as long as the gland, 
style short, stig. emarginate. — Loudon's Arboretum 14;39. ■ S. 
Metjeriana WiUd.— Height 20— J50 feet. Top of the petioles 
glandular. — Near Shrewsbury. T. VI. E. 
\\. Fragihs (Boxr.). Stam. 2, distinct. L. glabrous.— Trees. 
3. S.frag'ilis (L.) ; 1. lanceolate pointed serrate, stip. f-cordate, 
caps, obovate-lanceolate stalked glabrous, stigmas rather tliick 
bifid. — a. S. dccipiens (Hortm.) ; caps, tapering, st^-le longer than 
the cloven stigmas. E. B. 1937. Branches smooth, highly po- 
lished, reddish brown ; young shoots often crimson.— /3. S. jra- 
gilis (L.); caps, oblong-ovate, style short, stigm. bifid. E.li. 
1807. Branches round, very smooth, brown, brittle in tlie spring. 
Crack Willow.— y. S. Russelliana (Sm.) ; caps, stalked lanceo- 
late-acuminate, style as long as the bifid stigmas. E. B. 1808. 
Branches polished, round, smooth. . Ij. gi-aduaUy attenuate, 
' I have ventured to place many plants as varieties wliich were con- 
sidered as distinct by my able friend Mr. Borrer. I do so with hesita- 
tion, being very imperfectly acquainted with many of them, but follow 
the example of most modern botanists. It is probable that many of 
the lowland species are not truly natives of Britain, but evidence is 
wanting by which to detcrmiue their respoetive claims. 
