![Thumbnail: [Volume 29, 1896 page 422]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_29/thumbnails/rsnz_29_00_0445_0422_ac_02.gif)
Art. XXXVI.—Note on Gunnera ovata, Petrie.
[Read before the Auekland Institute, 7th September, 1896.]
In volume xxvii. of the “Transactions of the New Zealand Institute” (pp. 344, et seq.), Mr. T. Kirk, F.L.S., refers my Gunnera ovata to Gunnera flavida, Colenso, and separates from the former what he takes to be a distinct species, and describes under the name G. mixta. I am unable to accept Mr. Kirk's view that my G. ovata is identical with Colenso's G. flavida. The latter plant is described by the author of the species as having “fleshy drupes,” a character that is quite
![Thumbnail: [Volume 29, 1896 page 423]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_29/thumbnails/rsnz_29_00_0446_0423_ac_02.gif)
foreign to my species, the drupes of which are hard and almost stony, with no fleshy exocarp or covering of any kind. Before publishing my species I had specimens of it compared, through the kindness of Mr. W. T. Thiselton Dyer, C.M.G., director of the Royal Gardens at Kew, with the types of the New Zealand species preserved in the Kew Herbarium. My plant was reported as new and distinct, and was accordingly published in 1891. It was because the species of Gunnera are so imperfectly known and so poorly described in the floras hitherto published that I had this comparison made, and I attached, and still attach, great importance to its results.
As Gunnera flavida, Colenso, was evidently in many respects like my species, I again consulted Mr. Thiselton Dyer, who had my specimens carefully compared with Colenso's type of G. flavida deposited at Kew, with the result that the species were considered distinct, and that Colenso's species was pronounced identical with G. prorepens, Hook f. I entertain no doubt that this view of Colenso's species is correct, and it explains what is otherwise inexplicable, how he described the drupes as fleshy, for that is the character of the drupes in G. prorepens.
Mr. Kirk ignores the fact that Mr. Colenso described his plant as having “fleshy drupes,” and he altogether omits this most important differential character from, his amended description of Mr. Colenso's species. It is evident that Mr. Colenso described and sent to Kew one plant, and some years later forwarded a different one to Mr. Kirk; and there seems to be no doubt that the latter is identical with my G. ovata. That the original plants of G. flavida, Colenso, had “fleshy drupes” is proved by the author's own words; and the proof is confirmed by the fact that his type plant is referred at Kew to G. prorepens, Hook, f., a species which also has fleshy drupes. The constant absence of this character in my species securely establishes its independence.
In these circumstances, I must claim that the identification of my G. ovata with Mr. Colenso's G. flavida is devoid of warrant, and that my plant is quite distinct from the latter, which is no doubt identical with G. prorepens, Hook. f.
Though Mr. Kirk has not seen the ample series of flowering and fruiting specimens I had before me when the description of G. ovata was drawn up, he implies that I had no specimens showing both leaves and fruit. In this he is mistaken, as I had numerous specimens of this kind, and the description of the leaves, flowers, and fruit as given in my character of the species is strictly correct. The typical specimens were gathered in the neighbourhood of the Hindon
![Thumbnail: [Volume 29, 1896 page 424]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_29/thumbnails/rsnz_29_00_0447_0424_ac_02.gif)
School (Otago), where I have had several opportunities of studying the plant in flower and also in fruit. I can therefore say positively that the leaves and fruit as described by me belong to the same species, and even to the same plants, as many perfect specimens in my possession conclusively show. The statement that “G. ovata, as described by Mr. Petrie, consists of two distinct plants” is thus wholly unwarranted. Mr. Kirk no doubt means to say that a number of specimens sent him by me under the name G. ovata contained, in his opinion, two distinct plants, which is a very different thing, and may or may not be the fact.
I expressed no opinion as to whether my G. ovata was or was not identical with the probable fourth species of Gunnera, referred to on page 68 of the “Handbook of the Flora of New Zealand.” I merely quoted Mr. N. E. Brown's opinion. I may now, however, say that that botanist's view is not so unlikely as Mr. Kirk supposes, as the leaves of G. densiflora, Hook, f., as described in the Handbook, present a close resemblance to those of G. ovata. I was not at the time acquainted with G. densiflora, and very properly refrained from indorsing, or even remarking on, Mr. Brown's opinion, which has been improperly ascribed to me.
As to Gunnera mixta, T. Kirk, the leaves described in my character of G. ovata undoubtedly do not belong to it, for the leaves and fruit as described form part of the same actual specimens, and the fruit is acknowledged to belong to a distinct species—namely, my G. ovata or Colenso's G. flavida, whichever be' the correct name for it. Though I have a considerable suite of specimens of the plant distinguished as G. mixta, I have not been able to satisfy myself that it is distinct from G. ovata. Mr. Kirk's description, owing to imperfect material, is far from accurate. He is not aware that the plant is almost as strictly diœcious as G. ovata, and that its inflorescence differs from the latter only in trifling characters. It is, however, difficult to accurately compare the flowers of the species of Gunnera except in the fresh state. The fruit, too, of G. mixta is not well known, though in my species it differs but little from that of G. ovata. But the fruit needs to be examined in the fresh state before the position of the plant can be settled with certainty.