PIPER—BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM AND BERBERIS REPENS. 441 
sian Herbarium, provided such a specimen existed, if he had com- 
pared Pursh’s plate with Lewis’s specimens. 
Indeed Lindley’s last statement was flatly contradicted in 1831,* 
where in a discussion of Mahonia diversifolia, supposedly from 
Montevideo, Uruguay, described as a new species, the following 
appears: 
“Two leaflets [leaves perhaps intended] of certainly: the same species as 
ours, are preserved in Pursh’s Herbarium, now in the collection of A. B. Lam- 
bert, Esq. pasted on the same paper with the true M. aquifolium, figured by 
Pursh in his Flora Americae Septentrionalis ; and one of those [leaflets] is 
added by the side of his figure. Mr. Lindley’s observations on Pursh’s B. aqui- 
folium are wrong; the very specimen figured by Pursh is now in his Herbarium 
in Mr. Lambert’s collection; the name of B. repens, published in the Botanical 
Register, must therefore be disused.” 
The writer of this paragraph, apparently Sweet, was clearly ac- 
quainted with the Lewis specimen then in the Lambert Herbarium, 
which he recognized as the basis of Pursh’s plate. His statement 
accusing Lindley of error could scarcely have been made so emphatic 
unless he felt sure of his ground and of. the fact that Lindley had 
not seen this specimen. It is also apparent from the last clause that 
Sweet regarded the sheet in the Lambert Herbarium as a mixture 
of two species, by his referring the two leaves to his Mahonia diversi- 
folia and by his implying that the flowering branch is the same thing 
as Berberis repens Lindl. 
At my request, Dr. A. B. Rendle has kindly examined the Bank- 
sian Herbarium, and writes that he finds there no Berberis specimens 
of Menzies, but does find one labeled “ Berberis pinnata” collected 
at Nootka by David Nelson. This is without doubt the specimen re- 
ferred to by Pursh and besides is the type of “ Mahonia Aquifolium 
8 Nutkana” D.C.® It may be the specimen referred to by Lindley, 
who may have written “Menzies” inadvertently. Menzies, however, 
collected both B. aquifolium and B. nervosa, as the specimens are 
cited by Hooker.° Hooker also cites the Nootka specimen of Nelson 
under B. pinnata. Whether any of Menzies’ specimens of B. aqut- 
foliwm were in the Banksian Herbarium when Lindley wrote it is 
probably impossible to determine. As Pursh consulted with Men- 
zies,* he perhaps saw Menzies’ specimens, though he did not cite 
them. It may indeed be that some of Pursh’s statements in reference 
to the fruit were supplied by Menzies. 
The only Menzies specimens that have been located are those at 
Kew, upon which Dr. Otto Stapf has kindly reported in much de- 
* Sweet, Brit. Fl. Gard, II, 1: under pl. 94. 
_* Reg. Veg. Syst. 2:20. 1821. 
* FP], Bor. Amer, 1: 28-29. 1829. 
4“ Pursh, Fl. Amer. Sept. xvii. 1814. 
