xxxii Appendix. 
part the author writes : ** P. longissimum, referred to Pseudopanax crassifolium 
by Seeman (Journ. Bot., 1864). * z * Mr. Logan has sent me 
specimens clearly showing that it is the young state of Panaw crassifolium.” 
With the opinion thus expressed by Seeman, and confirmed by the author 
of the “ species," I entirely agree. 
Mr. Buchanan, however, does not accept this opinion, but in Trans. 
N.Z. Inst., vol. IX., p. 529, has applied the name “longissimum " to the 
typical P. crassifolium, and under the name “ crassifolium” has, in part at 
least, described a totally distinct plant. While I fully agree with him in 
considering that more than one species has been confused under P. “ eras- 
sifolium " (Den. and Planch.), it is with regret that I find myself unable to 
adopt either of his conclusions—1st, because Hooker's P. longissimum is, as 
stated by him, clearly identical with P. crassifolium (Den. and Planch.) ; 2nd, 
Buchanan’s P. crassifolium consists of two species—the trifoliolate state of 
the true plant mixed with a totally different plant, one, moreover, quite 
unknown to Banks and Solander. 
Ist. That Hooker's P. longissimum is identical with the true P. crassi- 
folium might be taken for granted on his own statement already quoted, but 
as confirming it, I may point out that, although in Fl. Nov.-Zel. (I., p. 96), 
the leaves of the young plant of Aralia crassifolia are correctly described as 
simple and remotely toothed, in the Handbook all description of leaves of 
this form is omitted under P. crassifolium, and the simple linear form of 
. leaf is transferred bodily to P. longissimum, so that the description of the 
leaves of P. crassifolium commenees with ihe second or trifoliolate stage. 
Further, both plants are expressly said to be common throughout the 
eolony. 
