Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 34 (1896).djvu/505

 THE SALIX LISTS IN THE 'LONDON CATALOGUE.* 471 from the same two species do not all turn out exactly alike, not even in the same sowing. In a crop of S. repens x viminalis seedlings, there are eight or ten plants, the foliage of most of which show some differences by which the plants can be distinguished. Still more have such differences appeared in a small crop of 8. aurita x Lapponum, which was raised from crossing a male and female plant of the same hybrid. This fertilisation was made to test whether a hybrid could reproduce itself with any constancy; and the result in this case showed a good deal of variation as the result. It is not surprising, then, that S. Moorei and jihe 8. herhacea x phylicifolia artificially produced do not agree exactly. The former is a hybrid on the herhacea side, retaining a dwarf creeping habit ; the latter is on the phylicifolia side, having a strong tendency to ascend and become a small bush. There is a similar discrepancy between the foliage of the two ; but the catkins (female) have much in common, and there is no essential feature forbidding a common descent. The result of the investigation is that 8. Moorei = herhacea x phylicifolia^ and replaces 8. Grahami in Dr. White's list ; while 8. Grahami in turn replaces 8. 8om.merfeltii Ands. (under 8. Myrsi- nites) = 8. herhacea X Myrsinites ; and 8. herhacea x nigricans dis- appears, and has yet to be discovered as a natural hybrid. From the "Addendum" list 8. herhacea x nigricans? must also be erased, and replaced by 8. herhacea x phylicifolia {8. Moorei). 1409 herhacea X aurita (Margarita F. B. White). The Eev. E. S. Marshall has found this hybrid in E. Perth (89), a very different-looking form from the Mid- Perth (88) plant ; consequently the comital distribution is 2 instead of 1. There is a specimen which I take to be the same hybrid in the Borrer Herbarium, at Kew, labelled "A Myrsinites? . . . Caithness? 1808"; but since the county is queried, it is open to question whether this can be reckoned as an additional county. 1410 reticulata L. There are four hybrids given in Dr. White's list under this species ; two of them are entered in the Addendum List, out of regard for Dr. White's opinion ; but, in accordance with the alphabetical arrangement there adopted for hybrids, they appear one under 8. Lapponum and the other under 8. nigricans. I have not seen specimens of either ; a plant supposed to be 8. Lapponum X reticulata, from Glen Fiagh, has grown in the garden (No. 50) for years, but not flowered, and the evidence of 8. reticulata in it has not become more apparent. It is therefore not reckoned. The remaining two supposed reticulata hybrids are omitted. They were described from imperfect specimens, one {sejuncta) from scrappy leaf- specimens only, the other (soluta) from female specimens not in good condition, with a good deal of uncertainty as to either parent ; and I rather approve of the intention expressed at the close of their description : — " This apparently very distinct plant I pro- visionally name 8. soluta, but I am unwilling to place either it or the other (viz. ;S'. sejuncta) in the list till they have been rediscovered " (Journ. Linn. 8oc. xxvii. 444). 1411 purpurea L. On this group there is little to add to what has been said above, since the differences between the two lists lie