CORRESPONDENCE. 267 
a variety of A. muellert, either in the “ Indigenous Grasses of New 
Zealand ” or in the “ Manual.” 
Tvodia exigua. 
Mr Buchanan contends that this is the Danthonia paucifiora of R. 
Br., and consequently not a Tviodia. He asserts that “all species 
of Triodia have the generic 3 teeth equal in size,” and that cilated 
lodicules afford “the best generic character in Danthonia, and 
never absent.” I will only remark that both these statements 
are incorrect. In several species of Tviodia the teeth of the 
flowering glume, which I presume are those referred to by Mr. 
Buchanan as the “generic 3 teeth,” are very unequal, and several 
species of Danthonia have non-ciliated lodicules, amongst the 
latter D pauciflora, which it is evident Mr. Buchanan has never 
seen. Happily he can satisfy himself that he is mistaken in this 
matter with but little trouble. An excellent drawing of the true 
plant is given by Hooker in “ Flora Tasmannie,” t. 162. This 
represents a plant with keeled leaves, and a branched, nodding 
panicle.* The dissections show the lodicules, much larger than 
in our plant, of a totally different shape, and not ciliated. I may 
add that both flowering glume and pale differ widely from those 
of Triodia exigua. 
An examination of fresh specimens will, I doubt not, satisfy 
Mr. Buchanan that the supposed awn is a minute middle tooth, 
so that the plant must be referred to Tviodia, an opinion that was 
held by the late General Munro, as I am informed by the late 
Sir Joseph Hooker. 
Hierochloe alpina var. sub-mutica. 
Mr. Buchanan admits having figured this species in mistake 
for Danthonia Buchanani; but it is a matter for regret that the 
admission is not made in a more graceful manner. 
Olea Cunninghamu—Santalum Cunnnghamiz. 
Mr. Buchanan does not deny my statement as to his having 
mistaken Olea Cunninghamii for Santalum, but terms it “ doubtful.” 
In the Canterbury and Otago Museums he will find specimens 
of the Olive, mis-named Santalum, in both cases obtained from 
the Colonial Museum. He asserts, however, that “at the time 
referred to—12 years ago—Mr. Kirk knew as little about our 
native olives as Buchanan did, neither flowers nor fruit of any of 
the species having then been seen.” Had this statement been 
true as regards myself, Mr. Buchanan could not possibly have 
known it ; it is simply a gross misstatement. Not to mention 
that fruit and flowers of these species of olive are described in 
“Flora Novz-Zealandiz,” published thirty years ago, specimens of 
the flowers and fruit of two species were collected by me in 1863, 
the year of my arrival in the Colony. Even as far back as 1867, 
* By a clerical error ‘‘ many” was written for ‘‘few”’ in my reference to this 
plant, p. 379 ‘‘ Frans. N.Z. Inst.. XIV.” To this extent, but no further, Mr, 
Buchanan may fairly object to my description. 
