Cockayne. — The Terms "Species" and " Variety" in Botany. 69 



name is then no guarantee that the species is that of the author in question. 

 Thus Celmisia discolor Hook. f. of the Flora Novae-Zelandiae is not the 

 C. discolor Hook. f. of Kirk's Students' Manual. Veronica salicifolia 

 Forst. f., which, as stated above, was originally defined from one or 

 at most two true-breeding groups of individuals, is certainly not the 

 V. salicifolia Forst. f. of any subsequent New Zealand botanical author. 



Much more could be written regarding the non-uniformity of the term 

 " species " as used, not in the Manual only, but indeed in floras in general. 

 As to how such inconsistencies have arisen, and why they are not only 

 tolerated but perhaps necessary, demands, in the first place, a consider- 

 ation of how the flora of New Zealand has reached its present stage ; and, 

 secondly, an historical examination of the species-question, and a consider- 

 ation of the relations between a species and its subdivisions in the light 

 of modern knowledge. 



History op the Conception of the Term '' Species ' : in the New 



Zealand Flora. 



The New Zealand flora has attained its present standpoint from the 

 labours of many men, no two of whom have had exactly the same conception 

 as to the limits of species and varieties, so that each has been more or less 

 a law unto himself. Happily, one of the greatest taxonomists the world 

 has ever seen, Sir Joseph Hooker, revised in a searching manner the work 

 of the earlier botanists, while for many years he was virtually the sole author 

 who dealt with New Zealand material. This led to a uniformity of treat- 

 ment in his Handbook of the New Zealand Flora, published in 1864—67, 

 which otherwise would have been lacking. At the same time, it must 

 be pointed out that Hooker had at his disposal dried material only, 

 together with the notes of various collectors regarding variation, &c. 

 which certainly must have been of very unequal value. In his 

 conception of the limits of species Hooker, as is essential for any 

 botanist dealing with the plants of the world, or of very wide areas, 

 favoured the creation of large aggregates.* This, as already pointed out, 

 is a reasonable and, in many respects, an excellent course to take ; but, in 

 order to make it available for really finding out the prevalent forms of the 

 species, varietal names are essential. These Hooker used to some extent, 

 it is true ; but the comparatively small amount of material at his disposal, 

 the lack of knowledge regarding the great majority of the plants as they 

 grew naturally, and an acceptance of that general belief, dealt with farther 

 on, that varieties were not stable, made these Hookerian varieties, in many 

 cases, of slight taxonomic value. 



For example, Leptospermum scoparium Forst. is split up into var. a — erect, 

 leaves lanceolate ; var. /?, linifolium— erect, leaves narrow, linear-lanceolate *, 

 var. y, myrtifolium — erect, leaves ovate, spreading or recurved ; and var. 8, 

 prostration — prostrate, branches ascending, leaves ovate or orbicular, 



* See the classical Introductory Essay to the Flora Novae-Zelandiae, which demands 

 as much attention now as it ever did, notwithstanding that it appeared more than 

 sixty-four years ago. Hooker's explanation of his wide conception of species is put 

 forth at considerable length : it must be read in its entirety, and so here but few quota- 

 tions are given. He also explains the standpoint of those admitting much smaller 

 species, and is quite sympathetic, declaring that " there is much to be said on both 

 sides of the question,*' and that truth can only be arrived at through the joint labours 

 of workers of the two schools. 



