Cockayne. — Kon-floivering New Zealand Species of Rubus. 325 



Art. XL. — On a Non-flawering New Zealand Species of Rubus. 

 By L. Cockayne, Ph.D. 



[Bead before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, dth October, 1909.] 



In the summer of 1898 the late Mr. S. D. Barker, of Christchm'ch, dis- 

 covered one plant of a species of Ruhus growing on the floor of the taxad 

 forest at Inchbonny, near Lake Brunner, Westland. He brought away 

 some rooted pieces, which, planted in his garden, soon became well esta- 

 blished. One piece also he very kindly gave me. This latter I managed 

 to grow, and was soon able to distribute plants amongst certain of my 

 friends ; while one example was planted, in 1903, in the rock-garden attached 

 to Dr. Chilton's laboratory, Canterbury College, where it is noAv growing 

 luxm*iantly. 



The species appeared to me amply distinct from any other Now Zealand 

 form of the genus, so I gave it the provisional name of Rubus Barheri, 

 intending to describe it as soon as it should flower. For this event I have 

 waited year by year, but up to the present time no blooms have appeared, 

 although the original specimens were evidently taken from an adult plant. 

 Thinking that perhaps the shady station under which it was growing 

 at Canterbury College might afiect its blooming-capability, I cultivated 

 several examples under different conditions of dryness and exposure, but 

 without changing its habit ; also, a shoot was tied to a support, so as to 

 imitate the liane form, but this Ukewise did not flower. As it is now" nearly 

 twelve years since the plant was brought into cultivation, I have come to 

 the conclusion that it may never flower, and that the parent will be also 

 flowerless. 



Rubus Barkeri is non-climbing, and closely related to R. parvus, Buch., 

 so far as habit and leaf -form go, the latter species also being abundant in the 

 same neighbourhood. Possibly the species under consideration is a recent 

 break from R. parvus, the new characters having originated by mutation. 

 Equally possible is the chance of its being a hybrid between one or other 

 of the species of Ruhus, especially R. australis and R. parvus, though this 

 view is somewhat discounted by the non-climbing habit. Both supposi- 

 tions are supported by the fact of the one plant alone having been found, 

 while its rapid vegetative increase favours the belief in its incapacity to 

 bloom. 



Whether the non-flowering depends upon the environments hitherto 

 provided being unsuitable, as is the case with certain non-flowering plants 

 in Europe* and elsewhere, or whether the species is actually unable to 

 bloom, the future alone will determine. In any case, the behaviour of the 

 plant up to the present is of interest, and seems worthy of record. The 

 rooted pieces, as stated above, were taken from an adult plant, and should 

 have bloomed readily and quickly had the parent been of a normal flowering 

 habit. 



Other species of Rubus indigenous to New Zealand behave abnormally 

 in their blooming. R. schmidelioides, as I have shown, f has a juvenile 



* See Kerner, " Pflanzenleben " (English translation), vol. ii, pp. 453-63. 

 t " Report on a Botanical Survey of the Waipoua Kauri Forest," p. 28, 1908. 



