202 Transactions. 



to be of doubtful validity, I propose to make a few remarks upon them 

 in this place. 



Haloragis alata, Jacq. 



Schindler adopts the specific name of erecta, which was published by 

 Murray, under the genus Cercodia, in 1780, whereas Jacquin's name of 

 H. alata did not appear until the following year. If the rules adopted 

 by the Vienna Congress are to be accepted, the earliest specific name must 

 be maintained, no matter in what genus it originated, however much we 

 may regret the necessity of changing an old-established name like that of 

 H. alata. 



Haloragis cartilaginea, Cheeseni. 



In the Manual I reduced this to the position of a variety of //. alata, 

 a view I am still inclined to hold. Dr. Schindler treats it as distinct. 



Haloragis tetragyna, Labill. 



Schindler considers that the Australian and New Zealand plants com- 

 bined under this name by Hooker and Bentham are in reality distinct. 

 Through the kindness of Dr. Maiden, who has forwarded me an excellent 

 series of the Australian forms, I have been enabled to make a detailed com- 

 parison, and find that the New Zealand plant can usually be distinguished 

 by its smaller average size, shorter and less pointed leaves, with fewer serra- 

 tures, and larger and narrower fruit. As the name tetragyna must be re- 

 tained for the Australian plant, to which it was first applied. Dr. Schindler 

 proposes to adopt Buchanan's name of H. aggregata for our species. But 

 this is inadmissible, for the following reasons : (1.) Because there is an 

 earlier specific name of incana — Cercodia incana, A. Cunn., Prodr., n. 528 

 (1839) ; Haloragis incana, Walp., Rep. ii, 99 (1843) — which consequently 

 takes precedence. (2.) Because H. aggregata is referable to H. depressa, 

 and not to the series of forms included by Hooker under H. tetragyfia. 1 

 possess one of Buchanan's type specimens, and there is another in Mr. 

 Kirk's herbarium, both being clearly the same as H. depressa. Fuither, 

 the plate of H. aggregata given by Buchanan (Trans. N.Z. Inst., iv, pi. 13) 

 undoubtedly represents H. depressa, the fruit being shown to be tetra- 

 gonous, with smooth interspaces betAveen the ribs, exactly as in H. depressa. 

 In H. tetragyna the interspaces are muricate or rugose. I hold, therefore, 

 that the name to be used is H. incana, Walp. 



In this place attention may be drawn to the remarkably distinct plant 

 called by Hooker var. difficsa. This differs from the typical H. incana in 

 the slender, much branched, procumbent or prostrate stems, and in the 

 smaller, broader, and more obtuse leaves, with fewer serratures. These 

 characters are constant throughout its entire range, which extends through 

 almost the whole length of the Dominion, whereas typical H. incana has 

 never been found to the south of Whangarei. I therefore think that it 

 should receive the rank of a species, a view which has also been adopted 

 by Dr. Cockayne in his report on the vegetation of Stewart Island (p. 57). 

 Dr. Cockayne proposes the name of H. diffusa, but that is preoccupied 

 by an Australian plant — H. diffusa, Diels in Engl. Bot. Jahr., xxxv (1904), 

 447. As the plant was excellently described and figured by Solander in 

 his manuscript " Primitise Florae Novae Zealandiae " under the name of 

 Cercodia procumhens, I would suggest that it should bear the name of 

 Haloragis procumhens. 



