182 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
the generic distinctness of Cabalus from Rallus was ever called 
in question. Both sternum and shoulder-girdle are markedly 
ocydromine. The coraco-scapular angle is stated by Hutton to 
be a right angle; from the figure it appears to be considerably 
more—dquite as large, indeed, as in the Weka.—I am, etc., 
T. JEFFERY PARKER. 
Otago University Museum, Ist June, 1882. 
OCCURRENCE OF CELMISIA RAMULOSA. 
S1R,—In his interesting paper, “A Trip to Lake Hauroto,” 
Mr. Paulin refers to Celmtsia ramulosa as being rare. ‘This 
plant does not appear to be so rare as generally supposed, and 
its area of distribution is certainly tolerably large. It was dis- 
covered on the mountains near Dusky Bay by Dr. Hector and 
Mr. Buchanan; is now reported by Mr. Paulin as growing on 
the mountains lying between the Waiau and the West Coast ; 
has been found on Mount Pisa by Mr. Petrie ; and on Mount 
Cardrona by myself—I am, etc., 
P. GOYEN. 
Invercargill, 3rd June. 
[A plant very similar to this Hauroto species was gathered 
on Mount Peel, Nelson Province, by Mr. T. F. Cheeseman. 
That gentleman sent specimens to Sir J. D. Hooker, who con- 
siders it a new species, and intends to describe and figure it in 
“Tcones Plantarum.” Mr. Cheeseman’s plant is, however, larger 
in all its parts than Mr. Paulin’s—ED.] 
ON SOME BOTANICAL CRITICISMS BY MR. KIRK 
IN THE: TRANS. SZ INSTITUTE 
Str,—The establishment of a bi-monthly Science Journal in 
New Zealand meets a long-felt want, not only in the more fre- 
quent opportunities given for the publication of original work, 
but also for criticism, for the latter will always prove a valuable 
aid to science when fairly used. The following notes on certain 
criticisms by Mr. Kirk in the last two volumes of the “ Trans. 
N.Z. Institute’ would, if held over till the publication of the 
next volume of that work, have proved out of time, and this is 
the only plea that I can urge for asking space for the present 
aper. 
, etoniae with the earliest of Mr. Kirk’s criticisms in the 
“Trans. N.Z. Institute,” vol. XIII., page 85, will be found the 
following under the head of Agrostis muscosa, n.s. :—“In the 
‘Handbook of the N.Z. Flora’ this species is confused with 
Agrostis subulata (Hook, fil) Fl. Ant. c. liiii Buchanan has 
fallen into the same error in his ‘Indigenous Grasses of N.Z.’” 
From the above remark it is evident that Mr. Kirk has missed 
the intention of Hooker to abandon this antarctic grass as a 
species, having proved it to be only a variety of Agrostis muelleri, — 
