Notice of Dr. Hooker’s Flora of New Zealand. 339 
usable, and may be still open to question ;* it is that of O. Magellan- 
still a third name, QO. dactea. In this case a more important fact was 
smothered than that of the distribution of O. corniculata, namely, that 
of a very peculiar plant of the south temperate zone being common to 
these three widely sundered localities. 
Many similar instances might be added, for there are several New 
Zealand plants (as Pieris aquilina) that have a different name in almost 
every country in the world: and, partly from changes in nomenclature, 
partly from the reduction of species, | have found myself obliged to 
quote 1500 names for the 720 New Zealand Flowering yess described ; 
obliged me to reduce the synonymy as much as a ia in many ca 
Se€8 {00 much, I fear, for the requirements of working botanists in 
rope. 
Eur 
One thing is clear, and important to be enforced: namely, that 
if determinations of species are to be of any value, especially in 
their bearing on general questions, they must rest solely upon 
observed characters of admitted value, irrespective of all theory. 
We pronounce such and such individuals, from a certain habitat, 
to belong to a distinct species, only because we find them pos- 
sessed of certain adequate distinctive marks. If we at length 
ascertain that particular species are peculiar to particular stations 
or parts of the world, we have a sound and valuable deduction. 
But to assume that certain plants, or certain animals, from widely 
sundered localities belong to different species, notwithstanding 
their resemblance, until the contrary is proved, and e 
hounce this as a principle for general adoption, as has ‘een done, 
is surely a gross instance of reasoning in a vicious cir 
We cannot pentite to condense, and therefore ian the 
Whole of § 4, viz. 
“ The distribution vie species has been effected by natural causes, but 
these are not necessarily the same as those to which they are now ex- 
osed, 
- OF all dhe branches of Botany there is none whose elucidation de- 
Mands much preparatory study, or so exten sive an acquaintance 
with plants and their affinities, as that of their geographical distribution. 
Nothin hin g is easier than to explain away all obscure phenomena of dis- 
* As no identification is proved till all the organs of the anes to be compared 
have been studi ed, there yet a possibility of these three species proving distinet, 
but I do “oa * all pei it; the only difference I can find is * greater re ag 
petals of a New Zealand species, but se 
much both in eis plant and in wets o of the genus that ‘loses all pei ale alue. 
