126 Mr Arber, On the earlier | 
Nelson. Those described as Phénicites ? sp. and Equisetites 2 sp. 
are too imperfect even for generic determination. That figured | 
as Neuropteris sp. is possibly a fragment of a frond of Clado-' 
phlebis, — . | 
Hector’s Records (1870—1886). 
The late Sir James Hector apparently made more than one 
attempt at an account of the fossil floras of New Zealand, but, | 
for some reason or other, they all ended, with one exception, | 
in long lists of nomina nuda. His “Catalogue of the Colonial | 
Museum, Wellington,” 1870, his Progress Report for 1878 (New | 
Zealand Geological Survey, p. viii), his paper in the Trans. and 
Proc. New Zealand Inst. (Vol. x1. p. 536), 1879, and his Appendix | 
to the Official Catalogue of the New Zealand Court, International | 
Exhibition, Sydney, 1879 (being the first edition of his Handbook | 
of New Zealand), all contain long lists, for the most part of new | 
specific names, but without any figures or descriptions. ‘The last | 
but one of these papers was meant to serve as a “ prodromus of | 
a work on the Fossil Flora of New Zealand containing descriptions | 
and figures of about one hundred species.” This work however | 
never appeared *. , 
In the “Detailed Catalogue and Guide to the Geological | 
Exhibits of the New Zealand Court of the Indian and Colonial | 
Exhibition” (London) of 1886, Hector figures (pp. 65—66, figs. 
30 and 30 A) a number of plants without descriptions, in addition | 
to another long list (pp. 31—32) of nomina nuda. 
Despite the lack of descriptions and the rough nature of the. 
figures, I am inclined to accept most of the specimens figured as | 
types duly published, and as species to be reckoned with, though | 
as I shall show here the majority of the names are synonyms of | 
plants previously described. I have seen most of these types, and _ 
I now include a brief revision of this flora here. | 
The first eight specimens were derived from the Clent Hills. 
(Ashburton County) in the province of Canterbury. | 
Asplemites rhomboides. Fig. 30 (1) of Hector’s Catalogue is an | 
inaccurate drawing of a very small fragment of a Thinnfeldia, | 
somewhat recalling Thinnfeldia argentinica (Gein.) from Argentina. _ 
For the present it may be referred to as Thinnfeldia sp. Hector’s | 
specific name cannot stand in relation to Thinnfeldia, since it 
approaches too closely Httingshausen’s 7. rhomboidalis. , 
* There are in existence, however, in New Zealand a large number of copies of — 
lithographed plates, many of which contain figures of fossil plants, and these no 
doubt represent the beginnings of this work. No scientific names appear on the — 
plates and further none of them were ever published, and thus it is quite impossible _ 
to regard these figures as having any scientific status as regards priority of nomen- 
clature. 
