=1.= Garber, _Gar. Mon._, =1=:75. 1859. =2.= Engelmann, _Bush. Cat._, =1883=:16. (VARIETIES OF SOUTHERN ORIGIN). =3.= Bush, _Ib._, =1883=:23. SOUTHERN AESTIVALIS. =4.= _An. Hort._, =1889=:101. V. BOURQUINA. =5.= Munson, _Gar. and For._, =3=:474, 475. 1890. V. BOURQUINIANA; _Southern Aestivalis_. =6.= Ib., _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._, =3=:12. 1890. V. BOURQUINIANA. =7.= Ib., _Am. Gard._, =12=:584. 1891. V. BOURQUINIANA; _Southern Aestivalis_. =8.= Popenoe and Mason, _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =44=:117. 1893. V. BOURQUINIANA. =9.= Munson, _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:20, 22, 27. V. BOURQUINIANA; _Southern Aestivalis_. =10.= Husmann, =1895=:6, 8. V. BOURQUINIANA. =11.= Munson, _Tex. Farm and Ranch_, Feb. 8, =1896=:10. V. BOURQUINIANA; _Southern Aestivalis_. =12.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:428. 1897. =13.= Ib., _Ev. Nat. Fr._, =1898=:81, 83, 114. =14.= Munson, _Am. Gard._, =20=:1688. 1899. V. BOURQUINIANA. =15.= Ib., _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =56=:231, 240, 261. 1900. V. BOURQUINIANA; _Southern Aestivalis_. =16.= Viala and Ravaz, _Am. Vines_, =1903=:178. V. BOURQUINIANA. Bourquiniana greatly resembles Aestivalis and differs chiefly from this species in having thinner leaves and in that the shoots and under side of the leaves are only slightly reddish-brown in color and the pubescence usually disappears at maturity; this pubescence is mostly of an ashy or dun color. The leaves on some of the vines are more deeply lobed than is at all common in Aestivalis. The fruit is considerably larger than that of Aestivalis, sweeter and more juicy. The botanical variety, Bourquiniana, is known only in cultivation. It is mentioned by Garber in 1859 and by Engelmann in 1883. Speaking of Aestivalis the latter says: "Unfortunately the typical forms cannot be propagated by cuttings and there are a number of varieties which, originating from a southern home, are not quite hardy here but on the other hand have the advantage of being readily propagated by slips in some favorable localities. * * * Unfortunately no wild plant from which these varieties might have sprung is yet known but must be looked for in the mountains and hills of the Carolinas and Georgia and only when found in a wild state can we correctly judge of their botanical status."