Hooker's variety glaber, though neither Hooker's description nor his citation of the plate suggests this. This incorrect application of the names was followed by Cheeseman in 1906 and in 1925, as well as by all local botanists. An examination of the type material revealed this confusion, and unfortunately makes it necessary to reapply the names as originally intended. The following is intended to clear up the situation concerning these three species, as a preliminary to a revision of the genus now in hand. a. Rubus australis Forst. f. in Prodr. (1786) 40; A. Cunningham, in Ann. Nat. Hist. iii (1839) 245; R. australis Forst. var. α glaber Hook. f. in Fl. Nov.-Zel. i (1853) 53, and in Handbk. N.Z. Fl. (1864) 54; R. schmidelioides Kirk, in Students' Fl. (1899) 126, non R. schmidelioides A. Cunn.; R. schmidelioides Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Fl. (1906) 125 and (1925) 501 (excl. var. coloratus T. Kirk), non R. schmidelioides A. Cunn. Forster's diagnosis is utterly inadequate in view of the multiplicity of forms of Rubus found later on in New Zealand, but his specimens leave no doubt as to the group to which the name should be applied. The specimen in the British Museum of Natural History labelled “J. R. Forster. Herb. Pallas” has two pieces (Text-fig. 2a). In the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, there are (1) a sheet labelled “Forster Herbarium. Presented by the Corporation of Liverpool. R. australis”; (2) a sheet labelled “R. australis Forst. f. No. 567 A. Cunn.,” and further labelled by Hooker, “var. glaber Hook. fil.” These gatherings quite definitely belong to the same species as that of the British Museum specimen, and fix the type of R. australis Forst. f. and var. glaber Hook. f. Cunningham collected his Rubus specimens in the neighbourhood of Whangaroa and the Bay of Islands. He lists R. australis Forst. f. (No. 567) with a fuller description, which along with the specimen above cited, shows that he correctly understood Forster's species. He gives as the locality of his specimens, “margins of forests, Wangaroa.—1826, A. Cunningham.” R. australis Forst. f., then, is the species treated in the floras of Kirk and Cheeseman, and in recent botanical literature generally, as R. schmidelioides. b. Rubus schmidelioides A. Cunn. in Ann. Nat. Hist. iii (1839) 245; R. autralis Forst. f. var. β schmidelioides Hook. f. in Fl. Nov.-Zel. i (1853) 53, and in Handbk. N.Z. Fl. (1864) 54; R. cissoides Kirk var. coloratus Kirk in Students' Fl. (1899) 126, non R. cissoides A. Cunn.; R. schmidelioides Cheeseman var. coloratus (Kirk) in Man. N.Z. Fl. (1906) 126 and (1925) 501. Cunningham gives for his species R. schmidelioides (No. 568) “Forests at Wangaroa and Bay of Islands.—1826, A. Cunningham.” To his description he adds the remarks: “Habitus praecedentis, sed differt foliolis omnino ternatis rugosis venosis subtus (discoloribus) valde ferrugineo-tomentosis, racemoque multo breviore.” There is a specimen in the herbarium labelled “R. schmidelioides A. Cunn. 38/1826. Allan Cunningham's New Zealand Herbarium. Presented by Robert Heward, Esq. 1862. No. 568.” (Text-fig. 2c.) There is another specimen of the same