CORRESPONDENCE. 183 
(Benth). The specific name subulata being thus open to use was 
adapted in the “ Handbook N.Z. Flora” as Agrostis canina var. 
subulata. The existence of varieties in the “ Handbook of the 
N.Z. Grasses” being objectionable, this little grass was then 
raised to the rank of a species under the name of 4 gvostis subulata, 
Unfortunately the hand-book had then gone to press, and the 
name only was altered, the irrelevant remarks below the specific 
description being entirely overlooked. The species, however, 
being correctly described, the name Agrostis subulata (Buch,) takes 
precedence of Agvostis muscosa (Kirk) by priority of time. 
im Vol. X1V.“-Trans. N.Z. Institute,” page 378, under the 
head Triodia, n.s., will be found the following :—“In his ‘ Indi- 
genous Grasses of N.Z. Buchanan has wrongly referred Mr, 
Petrie’s plant to Danthoma pauciflora (R. Brown), but it is clearlya 
Trisdia.” If Mr Kirk will examine this grass again, he will find 
that the flowering glume is not 3-toothed as in Triodia, but only 
2-toothed, and with a very minute awn between the teeth; all 
species of Tviodia have the generic 3 teeth equal in size. Again 
the description given by Mr. Kirk of Danthoma pauciflora as having 
drooping many-flowered panicles is exaggerated, and incon- 
sistent with Bentham’s description of the species and name, 
“ paucifiova.” There is also nothing improbable in any grass 
becoming reduced in all its parts under the influence of a severe 
mountain climate, in fact Festuca duriuscula is often found in sub- 
alpine situations in New Zealand very small in size, and with 
the flowers reduced to one or two spikelets. But Mr. Kirk’s 
crowning mistake with this grass is his assertion that Danthonia 
paucifilova never has the lodicules ciliate; on the contrary, this is 
the best generic character in Danthoma, and never absent. 
foe ol, XTV..“ Trans. N.Z. Institute,” page 385, will be 
found under Heirochloe alpina (Roem. and Schultes) var. sub-mutica 
a gross blunder on my part pointed out, in mistaking the genus 
Hievochloe for Danthonia. I can offer no better excuse for such an 
error than a lapse of the reasoning faculties—a not infrequent 
occurrence with scientific writers,—and which may be accepted 
for some other writers’ conclusions, unless they can credit them 
to bad microscopes. However, this psychological phenomenon 
of the mind is not peculiar to botanists, as it is also shadowed 
forth sometimes in learned treatises on Maori cave paintings, as 
well as in other abstruse subjects scattered through the litera- 
ture of all scientific nations. 
The next criticism of Mr. Kirk’s will be found under the 
head of Stzpa setacea, R. Brown, “Trans. N. Z. Institute,” vol. 
XIV., page 386, where he says :—‘“ Stipa petriet, of Buchanan’s 
‘Indigenous Grasses of New Zealand,’ must be referred to this 
species, as not improbably it is merely naturalised in Otago, and 
has no claim to be considered indigenous.” While Mr. Kirk 
ignores this grass as a new species, he has probably never seen 
a specimen of it. The grass referred to by him is no doubt Stpa 
setacea, Br., as I have also specimens of that grass from Mr. Petrie ; 
but I have also received from the same gentleman a distinctly 
