PLATE 55.—EPILOBIUM GLABELLUM. 
Famiry ONAGRACEA:. | [Genus EPILOBIUM, Linn. 
Epilobium glabellum, Forst. Prodr. n. 160; Cheesem. Man. N.Z. Fl. 185. 
The subject of this plate was first gathered by Banks and Solander in Queen 
Charlotte Sound in 1769, and was again collected in the same locality by Forster 
during Cook’s second voyage in 1773. Forster published the species in his 
* Prodromus ” under the very appropriate name of H. glabellum, which appears 
to have been taken from Solander’s manuscripts, but his diagnosis was much too short 
and scanty for a difficult genus like Hpilobiwm ; and succeeding writers have not 
always properly understood his plant. According to Professor Haussknecht, whose 
splendid monograph of the genus is usually followed by botanists, this was the case 
with Allan Cunningham and A. Richard, both authors mistaking a form of 
E. junceum tor Forster’s glabellum. The matter i still further complicated by the 
wide limits which Sir J. D. Hooker assigned to EF. glabellum. He included in it, 
in part if not altogether, the Austrahan plants now distinguished as 1. sarmentaceum 
and EH. erosum, the South American #, Lechleri and EF. australe, and in addition 
took in several New Zealand forms now considered to belong to other species. It 
is consequently by no means surprising that the species has been much misunder- 
stood. 
The characters which separate H. glabellum from the allied species are the 
numerous erect stems, which are either glabrous or provided with 2 or 4 faint 
pubescent lines decurrent from the petioles; the perfectly glabrous remotely 
sinuate-denticulate oblong or ovate-oblong leaves, which are often reddish or 
purple, and frequently shinmg; and by the lax terminal inflorescence, with 
moderately large flowers, the capsules being glabrous and borne on short peduncles 
which are seldom longer than the leaves. The average or typical state of the 
species, as characterized above, is a very common plant throughout the greater 
part of the Dominion, especially in mountain districts in the South Island, and 
can be recognized without the slightest difficulty. But, unfortunately, it runs into 
numerous varieties the systematic position of which is very difficult to define. One 
of the most conspicuous of these is the plant separated by Haussknecht as a distinct 
species under the name of #. erubescens. It has more rigid stems, with crowded 
and more erect leaves; the flowers are more numerous, and the capsules shorter 
and nearly sessile. It is certainly a well-marked variety, but is connected with 
the type by too many intermediate forms to be retained as a separate species. 
I have not myself seen EH. glabellum to the north of the Waikato River, 
and look upon it as decidedly rare northwards of the East Cape, although common 
enough further south. Haussknecht, however, states that he has examined 
specimens from the Bay of Islands, “between Waitangi and Kerikeri.” It is 
somewhat remarkable that it has not yet been found in Stewart Island, especially 
as Dr. Cockayne has recorded the very closely allied EF. nove-zelandie from thence. 
It should perhaps be stated that EF. glabellum is confined to New Zealand, the 
Australian and South American plants associated with it by Hooker and other 
writers being now regarded as distinct. 
Puate 55. Epilobiwm glabellum, drawn from specimens collected in the Hooker Valley, Mount 
Cook district, at an altitude of 3,000 ft. Figs. 1 and 2, flowers (x 2); 3 and 4, front and back view 
of anthers (x 4); 5, stigma (x 4); 6, ripe capsule (x 2); 7, two seeds (enlarged). 
