
4. Conclusions.*
| 1. |
Cockayne's surmise in regard to the restriction of the habitat of S. saxifragoides is proved to be absolutely correct, though it is possible that the plants of the Mount Herbert district are intermediate or even hybrid forms. |
| 2. |
The “bristles” of Hooker's, Raoul's, and subsequent descriptions are simply glandular hairs, and both species bear them, though in varying quantity and differently distributed upon the leaf in the two cases. |
| 3. |
Both species, in common with S. bellidioides and S. Haastii, have typical hydathodes at the ends of the veins, and both bear purple glandular hairs which are not mentioned in previous descriptions. |
| 4. |
Neither species has the glandular hair or “bristle” as a distinctive character. The two species differ from one another only in respect of the frequency and locality of occurrence of both glandular hairs (“bristles”) and silky hairs. Those differences in degree, being certainly hereditary, constitute true unit characters. The two kinds of hairs are thus unit characters common to the two species, but the abundance or sparseness of such hairs is a unit character peculiar to either species, as the case may be, and their sole distinction, |
| 5. |
As the two groups of individuals keep their individuality, each in its isolated, fairly wide area, they are almost certainly microspecies, and they should be grouped together as an aggregate, with saxifragoides as the name of one, group and some other name for the lagopus group. It would seem advisable that S. bellidioides, S. Haastii, and S. southandicus should also be brought into this aggregate, since they have in common with them the woolly rootstock, marginal hydathodes, and glandular hairs upon the surface and the margin of the leaf. |
| 6. |
Such varieties as the two under consideration, which have every distinguishing character in common, and which differ only in the hereditary degree of intensity, or the distribution of such characters, form a class of varieties (microspecies) different from those which are usually considered such through their possession of one or more quite distinct characters. |
| 7. |
The question whether the remarkable variation of S. saxifragoides can be explained at all is only approached here with extreme caution and |
[Footnote] * Regarding these conclusions I have consulted Dr. Cockayne, and they owe their present for to his suggestions.

-
diffidence. As it is well established that the occurrence of silky hairs in great quantity is a xerophytic phenomenon,* it might be suggested that this character in S. saxifragoides is of climatic origin. The Port Hills, upon which S. saxifragoides flourishes, are nowhere higher than 1,800 ft., and most of the seven or eight high points upon them are between 1,500 ft. and 1,800 ft. in height; while the Akaroa peaks are on the average about 800 ft. higher than this, and Mount Herbert just exceeds 3,000 ft. As a consequence, the rainfall on Banks Peninsula proper is, and presumably has been for ages, considerably greater than on the Port Hills, the annual rainfall at the Convalescent Home station on the Port Hills being 25–52 in., while that of Akaroa is 44–72 in. There is no geological evidence to show that, since the formation of Lyttelton and Akaroa volcanic areas, Banks Peninsula proper and the Port Hills have not always stood in the same relation to one another as at present in respect of altitude, rainfall, and climate generally, though when the level of the whole was higher than at present, as it once undoubtedly was, the rainfall upon the Port Hills might have been more greatly reduced, relatively, than that upon Banks Peninsula proper. It might thus be argued that the drier climate of the Port Hills has directly determined the development of S. saxifragoides as above outlined. If this were the case we should expect to find similar forms developed in other dry localities, but it is doubtful whether any equally suitable situation exists within the limits of distribution of S. lagopus. If the Port Hills form a unique locality in this respect one could understand how S. saxifragoides has such a narrowly restricted range.
Upon this theory S. saxifragoides and S. lagopus would be classed as two varieties of the same plant, differing only in the degree of efficiency reached, under stress, in the development of their xerophytic apparatus.
Presumably, also, the other peculiarities of these two plants, such as the woolliness of the rootstock and petiole, might be assigned to the same general cause. Presumably all the six structures above described upon the leaf of S. lagopus, except, perhaps, the marginal glandular structures, would perform a similar function, though attention has here been confined to those two which characterize the upper surface of the blade of the leaf.
I desire to express my acknowledgements, first, to Dr. L. Cockayne, F.R.S., to whom I owe the original suggestion of this paper, and without whose kindly encouragement and invaluable aid the work could not possibly have been carried out by me; also to Miss E. M. Herriott, M.A., assistant in the Biological Laboratory, Canterbury University College, who made the microscopical examinations of the various structures and described them (as above) in the most able manner; and, finally, to Mr. R. Speight, M.Sc., F.G.S., Curator of the Canterbury Museum and Lecturer in Geology at Canterbury University College, who supplied the geological history of Banks Peninsula here given, and also very kindly photographed for me the plants of Senecio lagopus on Mount Sinclair (Plate XIII).
[Footnote] * E. Warming, Oecology of Plants, pp. 114, 193, 1909.
