1923) SCHNEIDER, NOTES ON HYBRID BERBERIS 229 



<< 



B. vulgaris f. violacea Willdenow, Berlin. Baumz. 34 (1796). 



B. violacea Poiteau & Turpin in Duhamel, Traits Arb. Fruit, n. ed. in. 52, 



t. 59 (1835). 

 ? B. vulgaris sanguinea Schrader in Linnaea, xn. 364 (1838). 

 B. vulgaris a fruit violet Spach, Hist. V6g. vm. 40 (1839). 

 J5. coerulea Hort. ex Jacques & Herincq, Man. I. 52 (1847), pro synon. 

 B. vulgaris lb. cyanocarpa 0. Kuntze, Tasch.-Fl. Leipzig, 170 (1867). 

 B. sanguinea K. Koch, Dendr. I. 394 (1869), pro synon. 

 B. sanguinolenta Hort., ex Koch 1. c, non Schrader. 



A typo ex auctoribus nonnisi fructibus "violaceis" differt. 



Judging by the plate in Poiteau & Turpin's Duhamel it might be a 

 hybrid between vulgaris and chinensis, but it is doubtful whether the last 

 species has already been in cultivation in 1796 when Willdenow described 

 this form. He says nothing but: "hat vielmahl geteilte Stacheln und 

 dunkelviolette Friichte." Probably it is a form of vulgaris with slightly 

 violet fruits. Schrader in Linnaea xn. 366 (1838) in speaking of the 



Var. dubiae" says: "Baccae vere violaceae in nulla violacea Hort. 

 unquam mihi visae, nee tales refert B. violaceo fructu Duh. Arb. Frut. 

 t. 59. — Procul dubio ad aliam aff. sp. referenda est." Specimens named 

 vulgaris violacea from Kew (May 11, 1880, and August 11, 1882, no. 673) 

 were mixed with flowering branches of B. Thunbergii. Otherwise the 

 flowering branches were very similar to those of B. vulgaris, but the fruits 

 were very small, hardly up to 8 mm. long, and somewhat obovoid, much 

 resembling those of var. microcarpa. 



The following garden forms I have not been able to elucidate: 



B. vulgaris 9. longifolia Booth apud Loudon, EncycL Trees 43 (1842). 

 "Leaves longer than those of the species." 



B. vulgaris 10. glauca Loudon, 1. c. — B. glauca Booth ex Loudon, L c. 

 B. (?iberica) glauca Booth ex Gordon in Loudon, The Gard. Mag. n. s. vi. 

 2 (1840). — Gordon says: "This is a distinct but rather slender plant, with 

 small very glaucous leaves, and is nearly related to B. iberica, it was 

 received from Messrs. Booth at Hamburg, but it is in other collections 

 under the incorrect name B. ilicifolia." Loudon (1842) says: "Mr, 

 Gordon considers this plant as related to B. sibirica (sic!); but as it has 

 not yet flowered in the Horticultural Society's Garden this point cannot 

 be determined. 



B. vulgaris 11. mitts Loudon, 1. c. 43 (1842). — "Shoots without spines. 

 Leaves glaucous, rather broader." 



B. vulgaris 7. rotundifolia Kirchner, Arb. Muse. 138 (1864). — "Eine 

 Form mit mehr rundlichen Blattern." 



B. vulgaris var. rotunda Jager, Zierg. 127 (1865). — "Mit runder Frucht." 



B. vulgaris var. cuneata Hort. ex Lavallee, Arb. Segr. 12 (1877), nom. 

 nud. 



B. vulgaris var. parvifolia Regel in Act. Hort. Petrop. II. 413 (1872). 

 B. cretica Hort. ex Regel, 1. c. — B. vulgaris c. B. brachybotrys Koch Dendr. 

 I. 396 (1869). — B. vulgaris c. brachybotrys Koch ex Regel, 1. c, pro synon. 



