April, 1909.] THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. 195 



FURTHER NOTES ON THE FLORA OF WILSON'S 

 PROMONTORY. 



By a. D. Hardy, F.L.S. 



(Read before the Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria, 8th Feb., 1909. 



In the January issue of the Victorian Naturalist, Professor Ewart 

 as Government Botanist, prefaces his remarks on the Wilson's 

 Promontory flora,'" with a criticism of my botanical report of the 

 Field Naturalists' Club excursion f to the Promontory in 

 December, 1905. Such criticism cannot fail to have a stimulat- 

 ing and beneficial effect on the botanical work of the Club 

 generally, and if the present paper is the direct outcome of that 

 friendly attack by the National Herbarium, it is a response which 

 is probably expected and desired. 



Now, in addition to ear-marking with the symbol (H) a 

 number of names in my list as being those of plants not seen by 

 either Mr. Audas or Mr. St. John during their October, 1908, 

 excursion. Professor Ewart suggests that, in a {t\N cases, errors 

 may have crept in, and he specially mentions three species in 

 that connection — viz., Fagus Cuniiinghami, Hook., Glossodia 

 major, R. Br., and Typha a?igustifolia, L., and concludes thus: — 

 " Hence, following the usual Herbarium practice, only those 

 records can be accepted in such cases as definitely established 

 which are supported by actual specimens, so that the accuracy 

 of the naming can be verified in case of need." This concluding 

 sentence, taken with the challenge which precedes it, tends to 

 depreciate my recording of that date, excepting where the species 

 listed are represented by specimens submitted to the National 

 Herbarium. If the supposititious errors, other than those of a 

 clerical nature, were really serious mistakes, the number would 

 still be below the 2 per cent, or 3 per cent, suggested as a fair 

 limit, and I find consolation in the apparent contradiction 

 that while certain of my records have been challenged by the 

 National Herbarium, in the absence of supporting specimens, and 

 in observance of the quoted rule, they are included in the number 

 (364) in Mr. Audas's list, which Professor Ewart states is " the 

 total number of plants recorded for Wilson's Promontory ''" ! 



Presently I hope to show that while the rule may be of the 

 greatest possible use if discriminatingly applied (which means that 

 there are exceptions to almost all rules), it may be somewhat 

 abused by a too rigid application. Of this more anon. First I 

 desire to justify the inclusion of the three species prominently 

 mentioned. 



Fagus Cu7ininghami, Hook. — When including this in my 1906 



* " Biological Survey of Wilson's Promontory, First Report," by Alfred 

 J. Ewart, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.L.S., VicL Nat., xxv., p. 142. 

 t Vict. Nat., xxii., p. 217. 



