Kirk. — On the Nativity in N.Z. o/* Polygonum aviculare, L. 315 



Art. XL. — Further Notes on the Nativity of Polygonum aviculare, L., in 

 New Zealand, in reply to Mr. Travers. By T. Kirk, F.L.S. 



[Head before the Auckland Institute, 2Srd December 1872.] 



In the fourth volume of the Transactions 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. XXXIX.) 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, fii'st, 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 Cryptogamia, might have overlooked these plants, though the fact would still 

 remain a singular one. * * * It is still more remarkable too that neither plant is 

 mentioned by D'Urville, who collected in 1822, by Eraser in 1825, by Allan 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 esj^ecially 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. 



