Petrie. — Botanical Notes. 353 



the base of the leaf is decidedly cordate. The plant seems to 

 me more nearly related to my B. novcB-zealandia than to 

 B. lappaceus, var. multicaulis, to which some authorities have 

 been disposed to refer it. Unfortunately, it has not been found 

 in fruit, although I expressly visited the locality to find ripe 

 carpels. As it was a very dry season, every vestige of the 

 plant had disappeared. B. lappaceus — in its typical form — 

 grows in the same locality. 



3. Haloragis spicata, Petrie. Plate XXVII. 



This species is known only from the locality at the head 

 of Lake Hawea, where it was discovered by me. The ac- 

 companying figure is from the pencil of Mr. John Buchanan, 

 F.L.S., and is in every respect characteristic of the species. 



4. Carex pterocarpa, Petrie. 



I propose this name for the species originally published by 

 me under the name " Carex thomsoni." The latter name is 

 preoccupied, as colonial botanists learned on the publication of 

 the " Index Kewensis." 



5. Carex rubicunda, Petrie. 



This name I propose for my C. novcB-zealandice, a name that 

 also proves to be preoccupied, having been bestowed on a 

 supposed New Zealand species by 0. Bockeler in the German 

 botanical journal " Flora " (1878). 



On the Late Mr. Kirk's " Eemarks on Gunneba ovata, 



Petrie, etc." 



Owing to the recent death of the late Mr. T. Kirk, F.L.S., 

 I shall leave the matters of controversy between him and me 

 as to the relations of Gimnera flavida, Col., and my G. ovata 

 for the botanists of the future to settle. But there are two 

 points in his recent paper (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xxx.) on 

 which I am called upon to offer a few observations. 



Mr. Kirk says I must be under some misapprehension in 

 writing that the authorities at Kew regarded G. prorepens, 

 Hook, f., and G. flavida, Col., as identical species, and he 

 gives as a reason for this statement that he had not sent 

 to Kew specimens of G. flavida until his paper on Guiinera 

 appearing in vol. xxvii. of the Transactions had been written, 

 and the comparison referred to by me could not have been 

 made till then. My statement did not refer to specimens 

 forwarded to Kew by Mr. Kirk, but " to Colenso's type of 

 G. flavida deposited at Kew." The report from Kew to 

 which I made reference reached me nearly two years before 

 Mr. Kirk's paper was written. The report in question is laid 

 23 



