xii FLORA OF NEW ZEALAND. 
cases the species is the same, and the parent individuals were not even varieties of one another, 
except so far as regards hardiness; in other words, the specific character remains unaltered in spite 
of the change of constitution, just as the climate of one part of the globe disagrees with the human 
race of another, and is even fatal to it. 
Such are a few of the leading phenomena or facts that appear to me to give the greatest weight 
to the opinion that individuals of a species are all derived from one parent: for such arguments as 
the New Zealand Flora furnishes, I must refer my readers to the following chapter. I would agam 
remind the student that the hasty adoption of amy of these theories is not advisable: plants should 
be largely collected, and studied both in the living and dried states, and the result of their dissection 
noted, without reference to any speculations, which are too apt to lead the inquirer away from the 
rigorous investigation of details, from which alone truth can be elicited. When however the oppor- 
tunity or necessity arises for combining results, and presenting them in that systematic form which 
can alone render them available for the purposes, of science, it becomes necessary for the generalizer 
to proceed upon some determinate principle; /and I cannot conclude this part of the subject better 
than by adopting the words of the most able of Transatlantic botanists, who is no less sound as a 
generalizer than profound in his knowledge of details :—“ All classification and system in Natural 
History rests upon the fundamental idea of the original creation of certain forms, which have natu- 
rally been perpetuated unchanged, or with such changes only as we may conceive or prove to have 
arisen from varying physical influences, accidental circumstances, or from cultivation*.” 
Species vary in a state of nature more than is usually supposed. 
The views entertained as to the limitation of species appear to be quite arbitrary: no general 
principles have been discovered for the guidance of the systematist ; and those that are adopted vary 
in kind and in value with every natural group. . It is not therefore surprising that two naturalists, 
taking opposite views of the value of characters, should so treat a variable genus that their conclu- 
sions as to the limits of its species should be wholly irreconcilable. Some naturalists consider 
every minute character, if only tolerably constant or even prevalent, as of specific value; they 
consider two or more doubtful species to be distinct till they are proved to be one; they limit the 
ranges of distribution, and regard plants from widely severed localities as almost necessarily distinct ; 
they do not allow for the effects of local peculiarities in temperature, humidity, soil, or exposure, ex- 
cept they can absolutely trace the cause to the effect; and they hence attach great importance to 
habit, stature, colour, hairiness, period of flowering, etc. These views, whether acknowledged. or not, 
are practically carried out in many of the local floras of Europe, and by some of the most acute and 
observant botanists of the day ; and it is difficult to over-estimate the amount of synonymy and confu- 
sion which they have introduced into the nomenclature of some of the commonest and most variable of 
plants. In such hands the New Zealand genera Coprosma, Celmisia, Epilobium, ete., may be indefi- 
nitely extended. The principles I have adopted are opposed to these: I have based my conclusions 
species from 10,000 are tender. The common scarlet Rhododendron of Nepal and the North-west Himalaya is 
tender, but seedlings of the same species from Sikkim, whose parents grew at a greater elevation, have proved 
perfectly hardy. 
* Botanical Text-book, p. 303, by Professor Asa Gray, of Cambridge University, U.S. 
| 
{ 
{ 
f 
EE 
