268 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
fifteen years ago, flowering specimens of two species collected by 
me on the Great Barrier Island were forwarded to the Colonial 
Museum, with flowering specimens of Santalum—see “ Trans. N.Z. 
Inst., I, pp. 148 and 151.” Some time afterwards I came to 
reside in Wellington (1874). Having occasion to refer to the olives 
in the herbarium of the Colonial Museum, I found all the species, 
whether in flower or fruit, mixed with each other, as well as with 
Santalum, and, at Mr. Buchanan’s request, arranged them cor- 
rectly. I mention these small personal matters with extreme 
reluctance, and simply because Mr. Buchanan’s reckless asser- 
tion leaves me no alternative. 
Stilbocarpa polaris. 
Mr. Buchanan takes exception to my statement that of three 
species of this plant from the Auckland Islands cultivated in the 
Colonial Botanic Garden, side by side with one from Stewart 
Island, two of the former had made a close approach to the latter, 
having lost the stout brown bristles on the leaves, which had 
become smooth instead of plaited. The fact is past dispute none 
the less, and is very suggestive. 
It will certainly not add to Mr. Buchanan’s reputation for 
critical ability that he considers Mr. J. B. Armstrong “only did 
what any observant botanist would have done” in describing the 
Stewart Island plant as a distinct species on characters drawn 
from the leaf alone, for that gentleman “had not been able to obtain 
either flowers or fruit.” He states that his plant has “a closed, 
not open, sinus,” wants the stout bristles of the Auckland Island 
plant, and has a terete-petiole, while the latter has a “flattened 
and deeply channelled petiole.” 
An examination of hundreds of specimens of the Stewart 
Island plant shows that the sinus is invariably open, except in 
immature leaves. The petioles are irregularly terete, while those 
of the Auckland Island plant, although compressed (semi-terete, 
“Hand Book N.Z. Flora, p. 100”), are certainly not flattened, 
neither are they “deeply channelled,” a faint groove only being 
discernible on the upper surface, rarely extending the whole 
length of the petiole, and sometimes obliterated entirely ; it can- 
not be detected in the dried specimens ; further the petioles of 
the young leaves are terete as in the Stewart Island plant. I 
have already shown that in some cases at least the stout bristles 
disappear under cultivation. So far as the leaves are concerned 
the differences are simply what might be expected from different 
climatal conditions. I can only express my regret that any. 
botanist should dream of making a new species on characters 
derived from organs liable to such excessive variation as the 
leaves of araliads, especially those of the herbaceous section. 
At the same time it is possible that the fruit of the Stewart 
Island plant may afford characters of sufficient importance to 
warrant its separation. During my stay on Stewart Island I 
examined numerous specimens of fruit in an immature condition, 
but unfortunately had to leave the island before mature fruit 
