PIPER—BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM AND BERBERIS REPENS. 443 
“On the other hand, he knew evidently Menzies’s specimen, part of which, 
the upper left-hand corner, might almost do for Pursh’s figure, and comparing 
it with his new species he might very well say of it that it belongs ‘to a very 
distinct species,’ that is, distinct from his species. 
“TI have not seen Nelson’s Nutka specimen (B. pinnata), but do not think 
that Lindley could have had it in mind and written ‘ Menzies’ instead of ‘ Nel- 
son.’ Incidentally, I might remark in this place that we have also Menzies’s 
specimen of B. nervosa which is cited by Hooker. 
“J might finally add that we have a branch of B. aquifolium from ‘ Hort. 
Lambert. Lambert had it, therefore, evidently in his collection. There is 
no date or any other evidence to show when the specimen was taken; it may 
have been when Pursh was in London, in which case he would have seen it— 
but why did he not add his ‘V. V.? There are neither flowers nor fruits with 
it, which, of course, does not exclude that it flowered or fruited. Thus, it is 
just possible that Pursh not only saw it but saw it in fruit, with ‘ berries dark 
purple, eatable.’ ”’ 
De Candolle 12 had before the publication of Berberis repens Lindl. 
examined the Nelson specimen in the herbarium of Banks, and ap- 
parently also the Lewis specimen in the Lambert Harbarium. The 
former he regarded as perhaps specifically different, but described it 
as Mahonia aquifolium % nutkana. Tn his description of Jf. agui- 
folium he quotes partly from Pursh and partly from Nuttall. It 
will be recalled that Nuttall’s description was based wholly on plants 
cultivated by McMahon from the seeds brought back by Lewis, that 
is, the plant later named Berberis repens Lindl. Perhaps this con- 
fusion in the descriptions, rather than the Lewis specimen, may have 
influenced De Candolle to consider the Nutka plant distinct. 
Torrey and Gray** were strongly influenced by Lindley’s state- 
ments, though they were aware of Sweet’s contradiction above quoted. 
They included both the shiny-leafed and the elaucous-leafed plants 
as varieties of one species. In reference to the glaucous-leafed plant 
they write: “The former [i. e., B. repens Lindl.] is moreover the 
plant originally brought to the United States by Lewis, and described 
and figured (chiefly) by Pursh, and cultivated in gardens under the 
name Berberis aquifolium; so that it ought, in accordance with the 
rule in such case, to remain the original name.” In a footnote these 
authors also write as follows: “The separate leaflets attached to 
Pursh’s specimen in herb. Lambert, one of which is figured in his 
plate, are said in Brit. fl. gard., under Mahonia diversifolia, t. 94, to 
belong to that species. There is little doubt, however, that they were 
taken from the specimen of Menzies in herb. Banks.” 
In reference to Torrey and Gray’s treatment of the two plants, 
Lindley comments "* as follows: “ People in this country will be sur- 
™ Reg. Veg. Syst. 2:20. 1821. “Bot. Reg. 25:5. 1859. 
wR. N. Amer. 1:50. 18388. 
