lucid surface of its leaves, which, when they first appear 
in the spring, are of a delicate reddish cast, but become a 
deep rich green towards the autumn. 
It is perfectly hardy, requiring no protection even in 
the most severe weather: it seems disposed to produce 
fruit, in which case it will be easy to increase it; but 
otherwise it will long continue a plant of much rarity, 
because of the difficulty of making it strike from layers, 
the only way in which cultivators succeed in propagating 
either this or B.fascicularis. In the Horticultural Society's 
Garden, where our drawing was made, it grows equally 
well both in peat among American plants, and in common 
garden soil. The flowering season is March and April. 
From B. Aquifolium, we distinguished, at fol. 1176, a 
pinnated Berberry, sold in the Nurseries of North America, 
by the name of B. repens. This very distinct species has 
since been referred to the subject of the present article, 
without being considered even as a variety. They are, 
nevertheless, so different, that it may be doubted whether 
any two species of the genus are more truly distinct. 
B. repens is a dwarf, glaucous-leaved plant, creeping very 
much at its roots, and therefore propagated easily: its 
leaves have a surface destitute of all polish ; the outline 
of its leaflets is roundish-oblong; and there is nothing of 
a repand character in its dentations, which are also much 
less spiny. 
B. Aquifolium is much more like B. fascicularis, a native 
of California and Mexico; but the latter is known by its 
dull-green leaves, glaucous beneath, the leaflets of which 
are always more than 4, smaller, and more taper-pointed. 
As B. fascicularis is constitutionally so impatient of 
cold as to require protection in our mildest winters, we 
cannot help doubting whether the Nutka and other northern 
specimens referred to that species in the Flora Boreali- 
Americana, are not rather small-leaved states of B. Aqui- 
folium, especially as the latter is known to grow in Nutka. 
Had the specimens been named by any Botanist less 
accurate and experienced than Dr. Hooker, we should 
have felt persuaded that such was really the fact. 
J. L. 
