REPORT FOR I 890. 
311 
1889, and April, 1890 . — Wm. R. Linton. “With the absence of 
stipules from most of the foliage, the aurita is not, at first sight, 
obvious here ; but, on inquiry, I find the specimens are from an 
oldish tree, which accounts for the poor and exstipulate foliage 
specimens.” — E. F. Linton. “I assent. There is rather more of 
the cinerea element than of the aurita present.” — F. Buchanan White. 
Salix aurita , L. x cinerea , L. Near Shirley, S. Derbyshire, April 
and August, 1890 . — Wm. R, Linton. Near Shirley, S. Derbyshire, 
2 1st April and 5th August, 1890 . — Wm. R. Linton. “The latter has 
an unusually long leaf, but both are clearly right.” — E. F. Linton.- 
A. aurita , L. x cinerea , L, Atlow, S. Derbyshire, April and 
August, 1890. My brother and Dr. F. Buchanan White both 
independently named this so. — W m. R. Linton. 
A. aurita , L. x Caprea , L. Near Shirley, S. Derbyshire, May 
and August, 1889 . — Wm. R. Linton. “Just intermediate.” — E. F. 
Linton. 
A. aurita , L. x Caprea , L. Near Shirley, S. Derbyshire, May and 
August, 1890 . — Wm. R. Linton. “Yes, but on the Caprea side; 
may very likely be S. Caprea x aurita- Caprea.” — E. F. Linton. 
S. aurita , L. x Caprea , L. Near Shirley, S. Derbyshire, May and 
August, 1889 .— Wm. R. Linton. “I think right, but very much on 
the aurita side : it may be S. aurita x aurita-Caprea .” — E. F. Linton. 
S. aurita , L. x Caprea , L. No. 89. Near Shirley, S. Derby- 
shire, April and August, 1890 . — Wm. R. Linton. “ A. aurita x 
cinerea rather.” — E. F. Linton. “ I think, with you, that there is no 
A. Caprea in this, and that it must be referred to A. lutescens, Kern.” — 
F. Buchanan White. 
S. aurita , L. x Caprea , L. Near Shirley, S. Derbyshire, May 
and August, 1889 . — Wm. R. Linton. “I don’t see any Caprea in 
this; it is a not unusual form of S. aurita .” — E. F. Linton. 
S. aurita , L. x . Near Shirley, S. Derbyshire, April and 
August, 1890 . — Wm. R. Linton. “A. aurita x Caprea x cinerea ?' — 
E. F. Linton. “ About this there appears to be one thing, at least, 
certain, namely that A. aurita is one of the parents. The other I 
am inclined to think is A. Smithiana (/.<?., A. Caprea x A. viminalis) 
rather than, as suggested, A Caprea and A. cinerea. The style 
evident (although short) even in the youngest catkins, the size (very 
large for the size of the ovary) and structure of the stigmas, and the 
nectary, are quite similar in these parts in some undoubted specimens 
of Smithiana , and seem to indicate the viminalis element. The 
leaves do not show much, if any, trace of that element, but the 
twig leaves in the specimen before me are practically the same as 
those of the supposed A. aurita x A. Smithiana from Shirley.” — 
F. Buchanan White. 
A. phylicifolia , L., var. Weigeliana, Willd. High Force, Teesdale, 
May, 1890. — H. E. Fox. “May be so, but without well-developed 
leaves the variety must remain uncertain.” — E. F. Linton. 
A. phylicifolia , L., var. Borreriana , Sm. High Force, Teesdale, 
June, 1890. — H. E. Fox. “ Not Borreriana ; but representing the 
type well.” — E. F. Linton. 
