76 Transactions. 



variability is indeed remarkable! "Variability" of this kind is not the 

 work of nature, but of the taxonomist. In order to produce a variety 

 something must vary, and that something must be more primitive than 

 the variant. But in taxonomic practice "variation" has an altogether 

 different meaning from its everyday use. The " type " of the species 

 is assumed to be the primitive form, and the " varieties " modifications 

 of this " type." Of course, this may sometimes be the case and the 

 varieties truly such, but usually no one variety can be considered the 

 parent of the others ; all may possess an equal claim, or, quite likely, 

 the actual ancestor may no longer exist. As seen from the definition of 

 the terms " species " and " variety " by the pre-evolutionary writers, the 

 species was, ipso facto, the primitive entity, and it was assumed actually to 

 give rise to varieties, which, if raised from seed, would sooner or later revert 

 to the specific form. Species formed by evolution may also give rise to 

 " varieties," but in this case, if the varieties are microspecies, neither the 

 most accurate field observations nor even breeding experiments can decide 

 whether " species " or " variety " is the parent. The " mere variety," to 

 use the frequent phrase, is thus of equal rank to the "type'," and in nine 

 cases out of ten it only escaped being constituted the " type " through its 

 later discovery — that is, it is a floristic variety by accident ! 



The " type," another most misleading term, was, with good cause, 

 declared by Hooker to be a " phantom " (I.e., p. xvi). One would naturally 

 imagine a " type " to be the most widespread form of a species in its area 

 of distribution, and in some instances this fortunately happens. Generally, 

 however, the " type " is the form first described, which quite well may be 

 the rarest form of the species. In such a case much commoner forms are 

 later on described as " varieties." Now, these curious usages of the words 

 " variety " and " type " can do but little harm so long as the student of 

 a flora recognizes that they are terms which, though correct enough from 

 the standpoint of special creation, no longer possess the meaning attached 

 to them by the early taxonomists, but one which is quite technical. All 

 the same, " variety " and " type " are established taxonomic terms which 

 can hardly be abandoned, even were it biologically desirable to do so ; still, 

 so far as aggregate species are concerned, it seems much better to speak 

 of them as " polymorphic " rather than as " variable."* 



The term " variety " requires further discussion. In the case of aggre- 

 gates all the varieties should be of equal value. Now, it can be readily 

 conceived that, in process of time, all the varieties of an aggregate species 

 except one may vanish from the face of the earth. This survivor, however, 

 would at once change its rank and be deemed an invariable species. Also, 

 it might not be closely related to any other species, yet the fact of its invari- 

 ability would certainly place it not in the same category as the aggregates, but 

 in that of the microspecies. According to this view, if the supposedly invari- 

 able Agathis australis Salisb. were considered the sole survivor of a number of 

 closely related microspecies, it would biologically rank no higher than various 

 unnamed true-breeding forms of Veronica buxifolia Benth., or the micro- 



* Under this conception a "variety" is a microspecies — a stable entity — but a 

 " variation " is an unstable form depending on its special environment. Moss, in the 

 Cambridge British Flora, now ia course of publication, calls such "variations" forms, 

 and distinguishes them by names. For such fine distinctions, even if advisable, the 

 time is not ripe so far as the New Zealand flora is concerned. 



