Kirk.—On the Nativity in N.Z. of Polygonum aviculare, L. . 315 
Art. XL.—Further Notes on the Nativity of Polygonum aviculare, Z., in 
ew Zealand, in reply to Mr. Travers. By T. Kırg, F.LS. 
[Read before the Auckland Institute, 23rd December 1872.] 
In the fourth volume of the Z’ransactions I had occasion to point out the 
inaccurate and misleading character of the statement on which Mr. Travers 
based his opinion respecting the nativity of Polygonum aviculare, as expressed 
at page 336 of the third volume. I am now indebted to the courtesy of that 
gentleman for a copy of a paper (see Art. XX XIX.) read by him during the 
present session of the Wellington Philosophical Society, on which I am 
desirous of offering a few remarks. 
Mr. Travers does not attempt any defence of the grounds upon which his 
theory was previously based, but still considers the plant to have been 
introduced, first, from the alleged absence of any reference to it by the earlier 
botanists, and secondly the possibility that seeds may have been brought 
amongst those of cultivated plants, or in other ways by the early missionaries, 
or by the whalers and trading vessels that visited the islands prior to the 
commencement of systematic settlement. The statements under the latter 
head occupy the chief portion of his paper, and may be dismissed with few 
words. Such a “ possibility ” has never been disputed, but is a very different 
matter from the real question at issue, and would have equal force if adduced 
to support the alleged introduction of other plants whose nativity has not yet 
been called in question. 
To prevent misconception I quote the passages in Mr. Travers’ paper 
respecting the absence of mention of this plant by the early botanists :— 
“ Now it would be somewhat singular that, if these plants (Polygonum aviculare and 
var. dryandri) really belonged to the indigenous flora, they should have been over- 
looked by Banks and Solander in 1769, by the Forsters and Dr. Sparrman in 1772, by 
Anderson in 1777, and by Menzies in 1791. I admit, however, that Anderson, whose 
collections were very limited, and Menzies, who devoted himself almost exclusively to 
the Oryptogamia, might have ene these plants, though the fact would still 
arone. * * It is still more remarkable too that neither plant is 
mentioned by D’Urville, —_ TER in 1822, by Fraser in 1825, by Allan C Cunning- 
ham in 1826, nor by Lesson in 1827,” (see p. 311). 
The value to be attached to the argument based on the above statement 
depends upon the completeness and extent of the collection made by each 
botanist, and especially on their having included those plants common to 
Europe (particularly to the British Islands) and New Zealand. It is therefore 
desirable briefly to consider the number of species recorded by each in 
connection with the localities visited. 
