1923] SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON HYBRID BERBERIS 219 



After all I cannot regard B. Guimpeli and B. spathulata as different 

 from typical B. chinensis. Berberis serotina of Lange, too, of which I have 

 had the type before me, agrees well enough with it. On Lange *s plate 

 the styles of the fruits are too long, and other characters of the flowers, 

 too, are not correctly represented. Some specimens, however, collected 

 at the Forsthave at Charlottenlund on September 29, 1867, have a very 

 short style while it is wanting entirely on specimens collected in 1874. 

 These forms with a very short style resemble certain forms of B. crataegina 

 which have been very imperfectly known. 



As to the native country of B. chinensis we are now sure that it is not 

 identical with any species from China or eastern Asia, and that it cannot be 

 separated from what I called B. iberica in 1905. I do not know the precise 

 locality where the type of B. iberica was found; the indication " Caucasus " 

 being a rather uncertain statement. Already Lindley (in Penny Cycl. 

 iv. 261 [1835]) stated that B. iberica "mostly resembles'' B. sinensis* 

 his B. sinensis being B. Poiretii. Rightly he identifies Watson's plant of 

 the Dendrol. Brit, with B. iberica, and Hooker f. in 1881 (1. c.) says that 

 "a Caucasian plant received from St. Petersburg, and bearing this name, 

 resembles it entirely in foliage, but the flowers are more umbellate towards 

 the end of the raceme." It seems that it was first introduced to Paris, 

 in Hort. Lemmonier, as De Candolle states in 1821. Tournefort may have 

 brought it from Asia Minor as early as 1702. The type of B. sinensis 

 var. paphlagonica Schneider was collected by Sintenis (no. 3446) in the 

 Wilajet Kastambuli. As I have not seen the specimens mentioned by 

 Boissier et Buhse (Aufz. Reise Transkauk. Pers. Ges. Pflanz. 8 [I860]) 

 from northern Persia and referred to B. vulgaris iberica. 



The next hybrid Berberis I wish to deal with in this note is a cross be- 

 tween the well known Japanese B. Thunbergii and B. vulgaris. It seems 



best to give first a good description of B. Thunbergi , and an enumeration 

 of its garden forms. 



Berberis Thunbergii De Candolle, Syst. Nat. n. 9 (1821); Prodr. 1. 106 

 (1824).— Hooker f., Bot. Mag. cvm. t. 6646 (1882).— Keisuke Ito, Fig. 

 Desc. PI. in Kois. Bot. Gard. II. ed. Matsumura, t. iv, c. textu (1883). 

 Andre in Rev. Hort. 1894, 173, f. 66.— Sargent in Gard. & For. n. 52, f. 

 90 (1889).— Mouillefert, Traite Arb. I. 157, t. 3 (1891).— Saint-Paul in 

 Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. vm. 1, tab. col. (1899). — Kawai in Bull. 

 Coll. Agr. Tokyo, iv. 109, t. 9, fig. 18 (1900).— Shirasawa, Icon. Ess. For. 

 Jap. ii. t. 17, figs. 18-31 (1908).— Silva Tarouca & Schneider, Uns. 



Freiland-Laubg. ed. 2, 115, fig. 112 (1922). 



B. cretica Thunberg, Fl. Jap. 146 (17S4), non Linn6. 

 B. Thunbergiana Schultes, Syst. Veg. vn. pt. 1, 6 (1829). 

 B. sinensis Koch in Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat. Bot. I. 252 (1864), excl. synon., 

 non Desfontaines. 



B. chinensis Franchet et Savatier, Enum. PI. Jap. I. 22 (1875), non Poiret. 

 B. sinensis var. angustifolia Matsumura, Ind. PL Jap. pt. 2, 128 (1912), pro 

 parte, non Kegel. 



