REPORT FOR 1889. 
269 
plants that go off into pistillate, and (2) pistillate plants that go off 
into staminate. — E. F. Linton. “Specimens imperfect since there 
are no adult leaves. Hence the species cannot be determined with 
absolute certainty, though it is probably S. cinerea . Monstrosities 
seem to be more frequent in that species than in other willows.” — 
F. Buchanan White. 
Salix aurita, Linn, Androgynous forms. Bradley and Yeldersley, 
S. Derbyshire, May and August, 1889. — W. R. Linton. “Monstrous 
states of A. aurita .” — F. Buchanan White. 
S. phylicifolia, , L., var. Ci’oweana , Sm. Cultivated at Sprowston, 
Norfolk, 10th May and 28th September, 1887. In the 1887 
Report Dr. F. B. White asserted that this was not S. Croweana , 
Sm. (see p. 190)- and went on to state that “the varieties of 
S. phylicifolia and of S. nigricans are of no value, and should be 
dropped from our list.” Does Dr. White know A. Croweana, Sm. ? 
I am of opinion that what I sent in 1887, and what I am now 
sending (the me gathering) is S. Croweana , Sm. Not only did my 
cuttings come from a source where all care was taken against error 
in transmitting a name, but my two shrubs, and the specimens taken 
from them, agree in every particular with the copious description 
Smith gives of this willow. The connation of the stamens, to which 
Dr. White refers, is irregular in my specimens ; some stamens I have 
found connate to above the middle, i.e., more than half; more 
frequently they are connate only at or near the base. Smith says the 
filaments are “ capillary, partially combined, or monadelphous, 
sometimes at the bottom only, sometimes for half or three-fourths of 
their length, occasionally unequal.” Thus the specimens fit the 
description. I think it is probable that some of the vars. of 
S. phylicifolia and of S. nigricans may prove to be hybrids ; but they 
would not therefore be “of no value,” because their hybrid origin 
was ascertained. S. Croweana, Sm., I at present- regard as a variety, 
not a hybrid ; and I send a further supply of my specimens, in order 
to correct what appears to me to have been a mistake in the 1887 
Report. — E. F. Linton. “ I have not been fortunate enough to be 
able to find connate filaments in the specimens submitted to me, 
but since Mr. Linton has had the advantage of having been able 
to examine living catkins, I am prepared to admit that connation 
may sometimes occur. The only character of any importance 
in A. Croweana, Sm. lies in the combined filaments, and this 
combination seems clearly to be as Borrer thought probably “but 
an accidental monstrosity in that individual from which all the 
plants, which he has examined, have originated.” Forbes (Sal. 
Wob. t. 52) figures and describes a further development of this 
abnormal condition. He observed the progressive change of the 
monadelphous stamens into ovaries with style and stigma perfect. 
Wimmer describes similar monstrosities in plants of S. phylicifolia 
in the Berlin Botanical Garden. The “ Croweana ” specimens 
(Smith’s, Ward’s, Leefe’s, Borrer’s, &c.) examined by me are 
rather a heteromorphous lot, and do not agree in their characters. 
The majority are evidently monstrosities of S. phylicifolia , but I 
