112 
disthiuutoh’s report for 1952 
JntijUis I'ornis ami liyl)imls are i)lajited, aJid liave been propagated vege- 
tatively, so that tliey represent raniets of a single clone.” — 11. D. 
Melkle. 
Saiix puryarcn L. x vivi huilis L., c? • 79, C’uiuberland ; It. Eden 
below Etterby Scaur, Carlisle, April 17th (Itef. No. 22a. 52) and June 
5th 1952 (22b. 52).— C. W. Muirhead, conf. 11. D. Meikle. 
Sulix cinercd L. (S. aquatica Sin.). 28, W. Norfolk; fen carr, by the 
Ketlam llrook and River Nar at Pentney, April 4th and September 9th 
1952 (Ref. No. 2JJ7). Sir J. E. Smith was familiar with the Norfolk 
willows. In his English Flora, iv, 164 (1828), he is writing on their 
specific definitions and states : “Eull thirty years have 1 laboured at this 
task, ten of them under the instructive auspices of my late friend Mr. 
Crowe.” Crowe had estates in Norfolk. Smith described his Salix 
aquatica as extremely common in wet habitats, with ‘‘leaves about two 
inches in length . . . serrated about the middle and towards the ex- 
tremity; narrowed at the base .... of a dull greyish-green . . . glaucous 
ami minutely downy underneath”. These characters are typical of a 
West Norfolk willow abundant in fens, carrs, and by river-sides. It 
appears to differ from S. atrocinereu Brot., in that the reddish-brown 
hairs of Brotero’s Portuguese plant are absent. Although we have some 
sallows with this characteristic indumentum most of our West Norfolk 
plants appear to approach the descriptions of the continental S. ciiierea 
but differing mainly in the quantity of the greyish-green indumentum. 
F. Buchanan White in his lievi'siuii of the British }Yilloms (1889) sug- 
gested that there might well he in Britain an insular form of S. cincrea 
and the differences between it and the continental plant would become 
gi-eater by separation. He was not familiar with .S', atrocinerea , as he 
had seen but one plant, although he noticed a difference in the male 
catkin of that plant compared with the British plants of S. citrerea. 
In their Mon. des Saules de France, A. and E.-G. Camus describe S. 
at rocinerea Brot. as possessing ‘‘examines assez longuement sendees dans 
tons les echantillons que nous avons vus”. Manifestly our plant does 
not have connate stamens. E. E. Linton in The British WUlou's (1913) 
treated S. atrocmerea as conspecific with .S', cinerea L. About 1932 J. 
Fraser considered the British plant to be S. atrocinerea Brot., and 
stated: ‘‘.S', cinerea- L. is not British”. In the new Flora of the British 
fsles these two species are segregated, but the differences as observed in 
the field in this vice-county appear to be largely relative differences and 
are rarely satisfactory. — E. L. Swann. ‘‘1 am in comxilete agreement 
with Mr. Swann’s comments. The specimens do represent S. cinerea L., 
but (S', atrocinerea Brot. is scarcely more than a variety of this. Both 
‘species’ are variable and the British cinerea is .seldom so well-marked as 
Continental material, while S. atrocinerea produces variants which ap- 
proach cinerea. No doubt the two plants are distinct, but not neces- 
sarily as species.” — R. D. Meikle. 
