4492 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
tail. The sheet contains four separate specimens, the upper left- 
hand one in flower, but with only one good blossom ; the upper right- 
hand one in fruit, with only one not quite ripe fruit remaining; the 
lower left-hand specimen with two deflorate racemes: the lower 
right-hand one sterile, but with a developed winter bud. The sheet 
is stamped “ Herb. Hooker 1867 ” (the date of the acquisition of the 
herbarium), and is labeled in Sir William Hooker's handwriting 
“ Plains of Columbia, A. M. Berberis acuifolia.” To this is added 
in Planchon’s hand, “Mahonia aquifolia DC. Syst.” A question 
mark has been added after “ aguéfolia” by some unknown person. 
In reference to the locality label on the Menzies specimen, it may 
be pointed out that Menzies did not. collect at all on the Columbia 
River, as he was not with the vessel that explored that river. He 
could easily, however, have collected the specimens at Nootka or at 
almost any place along the shores of Puget Sound where he did have 
opportunity of collecting. As the specimens include both fall and 
spring gatherings, all could not possibly have come from the Co- 
lumbia River, since the exploration of this river by Lieutenant 
Broughton consumed only the interval from October 21 to November 
6, 1792. In a recent letter Dr. C. F. Newcombe, of Victoria, B. C., 
states that there is no mention of Berberis in the manuscript of 
Menzies’s journal now in his possession. Dr. Stapf comments as 
follows: 
“There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the Menzies specimens are 
Berberis aquifolium as you understand it and as represented in the photo you 
sent. Unfortunately, we have no records to show how Menzies’s specimens came 
to be included in William Hooker's herbarium, but we know from the sale cata- 
logue of Lambert's herbarium that the latter contained a set of Menzies’s plants 
and that they were purchased at the sale by William Pamplin, and further 
that at that time (1842) business relations existed already between Pamplin 
and Hooker. It is, therefore, very probable that Hooker acquired the Menzies 
specimens from Pamplin, and that they are actually the set originally included 
in the Lambertian herbarium. We may consequently assume that Pursh, who 
used Lambert’s collection freely, saw the very specimens of Menzies’s collec- 
tion that are now in the Kew herbarium. If this is so, he may have got his no- 
tion of the berries of B. aquifolium being dark purple from that specimen, though 
it does not explain the statement that they are eatable. Where he had it from I 
do not pretend to know—maybe, as you say, from Menzies himself by word of 
mouth. It appears to me indisputable that the plant described and figured 
by Pursh as B. aquifolium is the one represented by the specimen collected by 
Lewis on the 11th April, 1806, and that the name aquifolium has to be applied 
to it. Lindley was no doubt prejudiced by the thought that the seeds which 
Lewis brought home must be of the same species as he collected and which 
Pursh used for his description. But as the figure did not tally with Lindley’s 
plant he concluded that Pursh had made a mistake. It is quite clear that 
Lindley had either not seen Lewis's specimen, or, if he did, looked at it very 
superficially. 
