Go to National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa
Volume 57, 1927
This text is also available in PDF
(3 MB) Opens in new window
– 11 –

The Present Taxonomic Status of the New Zealand Species of Hebe.

[Read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, 2nd December, 1925; received by Editor, 31st December, 1925; issued separately, 9th October, 1926.]

1. Introductory.

The progress of plant-ecology in New Zealand of recent years has revealed clearly the weakness of much of the taxonomic work of the past. Ecological research has necessitated a far more intensive and better-directed study of the individual plants as they grow naturally than has hitherto been adopted. The time has thus arrived when systematic botany must avail itself of the fairly definite methods developed in field studies of the living plants, coupled, as far as may be, with experiment, and abandon the almost exclusively indoor speculations of the herbarium.

Nowhere can this need be better established than in Hebe, and the appearance of a new edition of Cheeseman's Manual of the New Zealand Flora seems to provide a fitting occasion for the examination of that supra-polymorphic genus in the light of the knowledge already gained in the field and garden, and for a statement of the methods we propose for adoption in future work. The standpoint on which our remarks are based is that detailed by the senior author in certain of his publications (Cockayne, L., 1917, 1918, and 1923), and followed in his papers, “Notes on New Zealand Floristic Botany” (1916, 1917, 1918, and 1925), for the most recent of which the authors of this paper are jointly responsible. Some further explanation, however, seems desirable.

The “herbarium” or “artificial” method of classifying Hebe has proved definitely inadequate. This is clear from Cheeseman's words (1925, p. 777): “The arrangement and limitation of the species, and the preparation of the necessary diagnoses, has proved to be a most difficult and perplexing task, and I am far from satisfied with the result.” Notwithstanding this rather pessimistic utterance Cheeseman's painstaking work has laid a foundation for future advances, and has done all that the herbarium method was capable of, considering the limited material, and insufficiency of field-notes at his disposal.

We are, however, firmly convinced that Hebe and other polymorphic genera are separable into definite easily-recognizable groups by the “natural” method of field-taxonomy we here outline. It

– 12 –

should also be equally possible to put the intermediate forms into definite groups. As a result a close approximation should be made to achieving the true function of a flora—the recognition of all wild plants and their status.

As is well known the term “species,” as used at present in floras, includes several concepts not clearly differentiated, and the placing of a particular form into any one species often becomes very much a matter of taste. As our fundamental field-unit we here take, with Lotsy (1916, p. 27), the jordanon, which may be defined as “a group of externally alike individuals which breed true when bred among themselves.” A jordanon that is not closely related to any other jordanon is easily recognizable in the field as an “invariable species,” and such we term a “simple species,” e.g. Hebe cupressoides. More often groups of closely-related jordanons are met with and such groups we term “compound species,” as the more familiar terms “aggregate species” and “collective species” have now a wider and vaguer connotation. Jordanons that are sufficiently distinct to allow of effective diagnosis we call “varieties.” It should be emphasized that as so defined the variety is of as much importance as the species. Compound species to which in the past taxonomy has attached “intermediates” we term “linneons.” Lotsy (loc. cit., p. 27) uses the term linneon “to replace the species in the Linnean sense, and to designate a group of individuals which resemble one another more than they do any other individuals.” As modified by us the term linneon is used to include not only groups of allied jordanons but of the hybrids between them as well. In its widest sense it includes two or more closely related species, their jordanons, and hybrids of all categories. This is what in practice the so-called “Linnean species” have become, coupled, not seldom, with what we later define as “epharmones.” The intermediates we consider to be “hybrids.” Unfixed forms, due to habitat conditions, which change when these are sufficiently modified we call “epharmones.” Of course, strictly speaking, the “normal form” is as much an epharmone as any other, and sometimes it would be difficult to say which form should be classed as the “normal” one, but in practice this seldom occasions any difficulty.

Hebe salicifolia, as diagnosed in the Manual ed. 2 (p. 790), is a linneon in which the work of the senior author—followed by Cheeseman—has gone a good way towards separating the varieties of the naturally compound species from the hybrids and epharmones. We use the term “form” where it is convenient to waive the exact status of an individual or group, or where that is unknown. With Bailey (1924, p. 25) we use the term “cultigen” for a form of unknown origin found only in cultivation.

In brief, the work of taxonomy is to resolve the linneon into its components; and plainly by the herbarium method it is impossible to surely decide whether individual plants are simple species, jordanons of a compound species, hybrids, or epharmones. At best it can but make shrewd guesses. In the field, on the contrary, many individuals of a population can be examined, and it can be seen how far they fall into natural groups, whether such occur unchanged in various localities, whether they apparently reproduce their like, and

– 13 –

whether a diverse progeny appears when different jordanons, varieties, or simple species occur in close proximity. Intelligent choice can be made of individuals likely to provide further light by experimental cultures.

The most difficult field-work is the recognition of the actual jordanons. This demands the co-operation of many students; herbarium and living material will be of the greatest service, not collected at random, but critically selected, labelled with the habitat and locality, one piece alone being taken from any one individual. These specimens should be accompanied by notes stating what known species of Hebe are present. Indeed excellent material can be obtained by a collector who cannot put “a name” to any of his specimens provided he accompanies his collecting with intelligent notes on the lines here indicated, stating e.g. which of his specimens are of forms pretty constant in the area. Such material should replace those worthless scraps so frequently sent by collectors for identification. Still worse are specimens from cultigens. Unfortunately the last-named abound in gardens, and many have received garden names—so easy to give, so difficult to get rid of. Few proceedings are a greater hindrance to accurate taxonomic progress than this indiscriminate naming of garden plants. Almost any form of Hebe is easily raised from cuttings, so that a hybrid of unknown origin again and again masquerades in gardens as a good species, and simulates such, since all the individuals almost exactly match one another.

During the whole period of our field studies, but for the last few years to a more intensive degree, we have devoted a considerable time to studying Hebe as it grows wild. The results so far reached prove that there are many true-breeding races or jordanons; that where hybridization is possible hybrid populations, sometimes of extreme diversity, occur; and that from such plant after plant could be selected which, if sent to a taxonomist working on the herbarium method, would be described as species of particular distinctness, or, if cultivated in gardens, would appear absolutely constant. As shown in the next part of this paper we have also been able to find distinct varieties of common species, previously unrecognized, by means of the natural method. Finally, in some cases, we have seen polymorphy in process of being extended in certain compound species, but without experimental breeding methods the new forms arising cannot be placed in any system of classification.

2. List of the Species ofHEBE, TOGETHER WITH Critical Remarks.

In what follows a species usually is transferred to Hebe only when, on the strength of field observations, we are pretty well convinced it is valid. So-called “species” based on insufficient or faulty evidence we cite as Veronica, though of course they do not belong to that genus but to Hebe. Groups of hybrids are accorded names made up of a combination of the specific names of the parents in an abbreviated form with a suitable ending, e.g. all forms of Hebe elliptica×salicifolia belong to×Hebe ellipsala Ckn. et Allan. Where a hybrid has ranked as a species that occupies a position mid-

– 14 –

way between the parents the specific name is retained, with the accepted×sign of hybridity, e.gHebe amabilis (Cheesm.*) Ckn. et Allan as hyb., which stands midway in the×H. ellipsala series. We go into this method of nomenclature more fully in section 3 of this paper.

Where a species has been described by the original author from herbarium material only, and he had never seen it wild, an asterisk precedes the name. It is remarkable how many species are of this unsatisfactory character.

1. *Hebe speciosa(R. Cunn. ex A. Cunn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica speciosa R. Cunn. ex A. Cunn. in Bot. Mag. (1836) Sub. t. 3461.

Although a compound species any form is recognized with ease, and the jordanons are evidently few in number. Many artificial hybrids with H. speciosa as one of the parents are in cultivation, but none have been found wild.

(a.)var.brevifolia(Cheesem.)Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica speciosa R. Cunn. var. brevifolia Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 500.

This is the form which grows wild at the North Cape and with which Cheeseman was personally acquainted. In the account of his visit to that locality (1897, pp. 363, 374) he dealt with it as the type, but—and this is very suggestive—he calls attention to the effect of shade or full exposure on its growth-form, so it is not unlikely that the variety may be merely an epharmone.

[* Veronica carnea J. B. Armstg. as var. hort. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13 (1881) 351.]

This is evidently an artificial hybrid cultigen with Hebe speciosa as one of the parents. It is widely cultivated and ranks in gardens along with the true species of Hebe.

2. *Hebe Dieffenbachii (Benth.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Dieffenbachii Benth. in D.C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 459.

Hooker remarks (1864, p. 207) “I have seen but one specimen,” so probably this was the case with Bentham. Cheeseman evidently based his description of the species on the well-known, extremely common cultigen which, however, is evidently descended vegetatively from one individual which itself may be of garden origin. At any-rate, L. Cockayne saw nothing to nearly match it in Chatham Island and Cheeseman calls attention to the “considerable range of variation” in Cockayne's specimens. Evidently, the species is compound, but of its jordanons nothing is known. Forms of more erect habit are cultivated in gardens.

3. Hebe Dorrien-Smithii (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Dorrien-Smithii Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 44 (1912) 51 of Proceedings.

[Footnote] * Cheeseman of course is responsible only for the specific name and not for the nature of the group, for to him the latter was a true species; in fact we are not at all sure that his name should be cited—the differences between the two conceptions of the group being so wide.

– 15 –

The original description, drawn up from living material in Cockayne's former New Brighton garden, though a “type specimen” is referred to, frankly treats the species as compound. There is great diversity amongst the individuals and every sign of the crossing of distinct jordanons. Really the species is a linneon and fresh observations are demanded before an analysis can be made separating it into its constituent jordanons or even species and their hybrids. For instance, the “type,” No. 8005, Herb. L. Cockayne, may quite well be a hybrid that may never be seen wild again, and if so the name would be invalid!

[*Veronica Barkeri Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 31 (1899) 421.]

We are not changing the name to Hebe since the description was drawn up from an individual cultigen of unknown origin. The shrub is very common in gardens and is recognizable at a glance, all individuals having been produced vegetatively. We unhesitatingly remove it from the New Zealand flora.

4. Hebe Adamsii (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Adamsii Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 2 (1925) 786.

We know nothing of this. It is not mentioned by Cheeseman in his account of his journey to the extreme north of the North Island (Cheeseman, 1897), during which he must have collected his specimens, nor is it dealt with in the first edition of the Manual. From the description it appears to be a distinct plant, and as its author speaks of it as “not uncommon” and says nothing regarding “variation” the species is possibly valid.

5. Hebe Bollonsii (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Bollonsii Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 44 (1912) 50 in Proceedings.

Apparently a distinct simple species. No polymorphy was noted by its author, nor do specimens recently collected by W. R. B. Oliver show non-uniformity, except such as is environmental. Cheeseman states he found it abundant on the Hen and Chickens Islands in 1880, but he neglected to mention it in the first edition of the Manual.

6. Hebe obtusata (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica obtusata Cheesem. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 213.

We have seen only a few plants of this species in its habitat, so can say nothing of its status. Petrie has described a hybrid between this and Hebe salicifolia under the name×Veronica Bishopiana (Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1926) 15), but apparently from only one individual, since his description might well apply to an “invariable” species, and there is only the one specimen in his herbarium.

7. *Hebe macroura (Hook. f. ex Benth.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica macroura Hook. f. ex Benth. in D.C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 459.

As defined by Bentham this was a simple species, but in the Handbook Hooker enlarged its conception so as to include specimens collected by Colenso (but not “on the authority” of that collector as stated

– 16 –

in the Manual ed. 2., p. 788) near Whangarei and Cook Strait. In the Manual ed. 1, Cheeseman still further extended the conception of the species, adding V. Cookiana Col. and a var. dubia (now Hebe obtusata). In 1919 L. Cockayne restricted the species to the coastal plant, or plants, of the East Cape Botanical District, and this procedure was later followed by Cheeseman in the Manual ed. 2. As thus restricted, judging from field observations, the species still appears to be compound, but its jordanons will not be easy to distinguish, since they appear to cross readily with the variety of Hebe salicifolia which so frequently grows in their company.

8. *Hebe Cookiana (Col.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Cookiana Col. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 20 (1888) 201.

This has apparently only been collected by H. Hill. We know it only as a garden plant of most distinct appearance since it is descended vegetatively from one individual. We admit the species with hesitation. From the Sugar-loaf rock near New Plymouth we collected abundance of a Hebe closely related to H. Cookiana, but hesitate to deal with it for the present. In Petrie's herbarium (now under the charge of Mr. W. R. B. Oliver and housed in the Dominion Farmers' Institute, Wellington) this is referred to H. macroura.

[*Veronica divergens Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 502.]

This is most likely a hybrid. H. J. Matthews informed us that he saw it growing alongside H. elliptica where Townson first collected it—so far its sole locality. Probably H. salicifolia would also be present. In Petrie's herbarium it is represented by a number of distinct forms having racemes of the “salicifolia” type but differing in length and with the flowers closer together. Some have leaves of the “elliptica” type and others those of H. salicifolia, but much shorter. There is a form in cultivation which clearly suggests a hybrid origin.

9. *Hebe ligustrifolia (A. Cunn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica ligustrifolia A. Cunn. in Bot. Mag. (1836) sub. t. 3461.

Up to the publication of the Manual ed. 1, all New Zealand botanists, including Cheeseman himself (1882, p. 317), had accepted H. ligustrifolia in the broad sense defined by Hooker in the Handbook of the New Zealand Flora which included not only the species under consideration but what is now H. leiophylla and various narrow-leaved hybrids with H. salicifolia as one of the parents. As for H. ligustrifolia in the restricted sense we can make no definite statement, for we have seen only one wild plant which could have been referred to it. Cheeseman's personal knowledge was not much greater, since he collected it in only two localities, nor did he know at the time of collecting that it was that species (1897, p. 374, where this species is not mentioned). In fact, it was not until these specimens were examined by N. E. Brown of Kew and compared with Cunningham's “type” that he restricted the species to that defined by A. Cunningham. Cheeseman also speaks of “intermediates” between H. ligus-

– 17 –

trifolia and H. salicifolia, but no localities for these really interesting plants are given. Evidently critical field observations are demanded before the species can be accepted without doubt; also, what is Cunningham's type?

10. *Hebe pubescens (Banks et Sol. ex Benth.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica pubescens Banks et Sol. ex Benth. in D. C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 460.

Judging from certain specimens collected at Mercury Bay—the original locality for the species—by Mr. C. E. Christensen, and from notes that excellent observer took relating to many plants he examined in situ, it is clear that there is a mixture of plants differing considerably in hairiness—the most important characteristic—and even in the colour of the hairs. It seems probable that there is a definite simple or perhaps compound species and hybrids between this and the local form of Hebe salicifolia. We have succeeded in “rooting” cuttings from the different forms Mr. Christensen so kindly sent us, and hope in due course to sow seed taken from each plant.

11. Hebe breviracemosa (W. R. B. Oliver) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica breviracemosa W. R. B. Oliver in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 42 (1910) 170.

This was originally referred by Cheeseman to H. salicifolia (1888, p. 171), but in the Manual, ed. 1, he suggested it might be a distinct species. Oliver (1910, p. 70) says nothing about “variation,” so it is probable that it is a simple species. Further, there is no other Hebe on the Kermadecs with which it could cross.

12. Hebe salicifolia(Forst. f.)Pennell in Rhodora 23 (1921) 39.

This is a very large linneon with many jordanons between which there are numerous hybrids. In nature certain of the jordanons cross readily with the following, and probably other species: H. angustifolia, elliptica, laevis, leiophylla, macrocarpa, macroura, parviflora, pimeleoides var. rupestris, pubescens and subalpina.

(a.) var. communis (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica salicifolia Forst. f. var. communis Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 47 (1916) 201.

Cheeseman gives this as a synonym of the type but according to our system of nomenclature in a compound species each variety, including the type, should have a name, so Hebe salicifolia should never be cited, unless there is no varietal name for the particular form, as it does not exist in nature but is an abstraction only; citation must include the appropriate varietal name if there is one.

(b.)*var. stricta(Hook. f.)Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica salicifolia Forst. f. var. stricta (Banks et Sol. ex Benth.) Hook. f. in Fl. Nov-Zel. 1 (1853) 191.

We adhere to this variety with considerable hesitation, for it is certainly a mixture of jordanons. How uncertain Cheeseman must have been in regard to it is clearly shown by the fact that in the Manual ed. 1, he spoke of it as “abundant throughout,” i.e. North and South and Stewart Islands, but in edition 2, basing his opinion

– 18 –

on virtually the same material, he restricts var. stricta to Auckland, Northern Wellington, Hawkes Bay and Taranaki, while he follows L. Cockayne in referring his South Island material to var. communis. The real “var. stricta” is the original plant collected by Banks and Solander, which, according to their plate, represents a form with a rather open raceme. Our var. stricta is based on a much wider conception and includes many forms—possibly distinct jordanons—of the Auckland botanical districts which do not match any of the other recognized varieties.

(c.) var. longiracemosa (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica salicifolia Forst. f. var. longiracemosa Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 49 (1917) 61.

This occurs without evident polymorphy throughout the southern part of the Egmont-Wanganui Botanical District. Cheeseman (1925, p. 791) records it also from the Volcanic Plateau, East Cape and South Auckland districts, but whether all the plants so included match the type we do not know, though some in Petrie's herbarium appear to do so.

(d.) var. paludosa (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica salicifolia Forst. f. var. paludosa Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 201.

This distinct jordanon, more distinct indeed than many accepted species, confined to the western part of the Western Botanical District forms a striking series of polymorphic hybrids with var. communis, so that from herbarium material it could never have been made a variety, except by guess-work, or had there been only specimens of the type, all taken from one plant, it would doubtless have figured as a distinct species. Cheeseman includes the variety of the Mount Egmont subalpine-scrub in var. paludosa, but we can express no rational opinion till we have compared living material of both side by side.

(e.) var. Atkinsonii (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica salicifolia Forst. f. var. Atkinsonii Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 200.

This is the common, perhaps the sole variety of southern Wellington and the Marlborough Sounds. It is, however, a compound variety made up of several jordanons which hybridize, but the group is clearly marked off from any other variety of H. salicifolia by its juvenile form with deeply toothed leaves and its strong tolerance of rock as a habitat. Its affinity is perhaps more with Hebe macroura and were it not likely that it may be Forster's type of H. salicifolia we would unhesitatingly accord it specific rank. Before L. Cockayne discovered the plant under discussion in abundance on the shores of the Marlborough Sounds he had considered it a valid species and given it the M.S. name of Veronica Atkinsonii.

[var. Kirkii (J. B. Armstg.) Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 504.]

Cheeseman cites Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13 (1881) 356 as the place of publication by Armstrong, but the description there is merely a copy

– 19 –

with additions of the original description in the New Zealand Country Journal 3 (1879) 58. Cheeseman saw Armstrong's type; he also cites a specimen from H. H. Allan as V. Kirkii, but that is certainly var. communis×Hebe leiophylla, apparently a common enough hybrid in the North-eastern and Eastern Botanical Districts. Veronica Kirkii J. B. Armst. (loc. cit.) thus becomes×Hebe Kirkii (J. B. Armstg.) Ckn. et Allan as hybrid which, as seen further on, is one of the group×Hebe leiosala Ckn. et Allan.

(f.) var. angustissima (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica salicifolia Forst. f. var. angustissima Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 50 (1918) 184.

This is omitted in the Manual ed. 2. Since becoming fully aware of the enormous number of Hebe hybrids we had felt sure that the variety was H. parviflora×salicifolia. In order to see if such were the case the junior author made a critical examination of the Hebes in the Otaki Gorge, where var. angustissima was originally collected and found—to his surprise—that it was quite constant, that there was another jordanon with rather broader leaves and that Hebe parviflora was absent. We therefore uphold the variety, but extend its content by adding the broader-leaved jordanon and making the taxonomic variety a compound one. The description needs no emendation, the term “lineari-lanceolatis” being still true for the form of the leaves.

13. Hebe gigantea (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica gigantea Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 34 (1902) 319.

In the Manual ed. 1, this was considered a variety of Hebe salicifolia. It is apparently a simple species, no polymorphy having been observed amongst the wild plants, but certainly no one has carefully studied them. It differs from all other species of Hebe in being a true forest tree; and from all the varieties of H. salicifolia in its long-persisting, pubescent juvenile form (not merely the juvenile leaves as stated by Cheeseman) with the earlier leaves coarsely and deeply toothed and the stem usually purple in colour.

[Veronica Parkinsoniana Col. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 21 (1889) 97.]

This is probably the ordinary form of Hebe salicifolia found in the neighbourhood of Dannevirke. Cheeseman, however, gives it in the Manual ed. 2 as a synonym of the type, which is Hebe salicifolia var. communis, but which we are not at all sure occurs in North Island.

[Veronica rotundata T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 530.]

L. Cockayne (1917, p. 61) brought forth strong evidence that this is a garden hybrid, the original specimen coming from what is now Newtown Park, while the plant is common in gardens. Although Cheeseman supported Cockayne's view the “species” is still maintained in the Manual ed. 2. It should undoubtedly be removed from the flora.

– 20 –

14. *Hebe macrocarpa (Vahl) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica macrocarpa Vahl in Sym. Bot. 3 (1794) 4.

This, as defined by Cheeseman, is a linneon, the analysis of which needs extended study in the field. Cheeseman speaks of a “typical state,” but we think he means by this the commonest wild form and not the plant or plants on which Vahl founded his species. The group is at once recognized by the large flowers and capsules of its members.

(a.) var. latisepala (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica macrocarpa Vahl var. latisepala Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 505.

We have always followed T. Kirk in treating this as a species, but are not too sure of our ground, which should be tested by breeding experiments.

[var. affinis Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 505.]

Cheeseman does not supply the essential information as to the associated plants where this occurs, but only the locality— “Headlands in the Waitemata and Manakau Harbours and the adjacent coasts.” He remarks of it, “apparently a passage-form into V. salicifolia and “might be referred to either species.” He states it to be one of the “many intermediates” between H. salicifolia and the “typical state” of H. macrocarpa. Evidently these two species cross and var. affinis occupies a midway position between the two, as may be clearly seen in Petrie's herbarium. For the group of hybrids we propose the name×Hebe macrosala, and for var. affinis as defined by Cheeseman in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 505,×Hebe affinis (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan as hybrid.

[*Veronica myrtifolia Banks et Sol. ex Benth. in D. C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 460.]

This is referred to in neither edition of the Manual. By Hooker in the Flora Novae-Zelandiae p. 192, it was treated as var. γ myrtifolia of V. macrocarpa and defined as differing from that species in its glabrate racemes and smaller capsules. In the Handbook p. 207, Hooker simply places V. myrtifolia as a synonym of V. macrocarpa. The admirable plate in the Banksian drawings, designed to illustrate the plants collected by Banks and Solander, clearly shows that the species is one of the forms which comprise H. macrocarpa.

15. *Hebe Townsoni (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Townsoni Cheesem. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 45 (1913) 95.

Apparently a distinct simple species distinguished from all other forms of Hebe by the two rows of domatia on the back of the leaf contiguous to the margin.

[*Veronica amabilis Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 506.]

When Hebe elliptica and H. salicifolia var. communis grow in proximity there arises a polymorphic series of hybrids usually included in which, in our opinion is the group placed by Cheeseman under the name V. amabilis. Messrs. G. Simpson and J. Scott

– 21 –

Thomson, working together, collected a considerable number of forms of the hybrids at Blanket Bay, near Port Chalmers, the individuals from which these were taken they labelled with copper discs, and from them cuttings similarly numbered they sent to us and others. Thus, thanks to their botanical zeal, material for the first proper study of New Zealand wild hybrids is available.

For the whole series of Hebe elliptica×salicifolia we propose the name×Hebe ellipsala Ckn. et Allan. The series includes×Hebe amabilis (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan hyb. comb. nov.,×H. divergens (most likely),×H. blanda (Pennell) Ckn. et Allan as hyb., and, if truly a wild plant,×H. Lewisii.

[*var. blanda Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 506.]

Pennell (1921, p. 39, working with herbarium material, erected a species Hebe blanda (Cheesem.) Pennell for Cheeseman's var. blanda of Veronica amabilis.

This is a matter of more than passing interest. The species, as understood by Pennell, includes (1) a specimen collected by Petrie at Port Chalmers (ex herb. L. Cockayne), (2) another collected at Anita Bay (entrance to Milford Sound) by L. Cockayne, and (3) a specimen from southern Patagonia. Now Hebe elliptica also occurs in southern Patagonia and H. Fonkii Phil. is clearly one of the jordanons of H. salicifolia according to Pennell, who compared an isotype collected by Fonk himself with a typical example of H. salicifolia var. communis from the herbarium of L. Cockayne, so that the same hybrid has originated naturally both in New Zealand and subantarctic South America! In order to obtain further evidence on this highly-important point L. Cockayne wrote to Dr. Skottsberg for South American specimens of H. elliptica and H. Fonkii, and for information concerning their ecological distribution and the possibility of their hybridizing. Dr. Skottsberg, to whom our most sincere thanks are due, sent the desired specimens and information by return of post.

The specimen of Hebe elliptica from west Patagonia so sent to us by Skottsberg, were its source unknown, would be considered to have been collected in New Zealand. The specimen labelled Veronica Fonkii seems to us to fit into the conception of×Hebe blanda; it certainly does not belong to the H. salicifolia group; that is to say it is to us identical with the specimen which Pennell considered matched what we now call×Hebe blanda of New Zealand. Skottsberg writes as follows: “First let us turn to the West Patagonian Veronica. It is identical with what Reiche, Dusen, a. o. call Veronica salicifolia and it is Phillippi's V. Fonkii. I have never heard of anyone finding more than one species of this type in South America. V. Fonkii may occur in company with V. elliptica which comes from the same kind of habitat; I think it has never been found except on the shore.” Were it not for the fact that in the herbarium of the New York botanical gardens there are the specimens of two quite different plants, we should have been inclined to throw the hybrid theory aside, so far as the South American plant went, and to conclude a true-breeding South American species was outwardly the double of a New Zealand hybrid. But we cannot help thinking that the South

– 22 –

American botanists Skottsberg mentions would deal with species as “variable” and unite as one forms fairly distinct from one another.

To think otherwise would indicate that the essence of this piece of work we are now putting together was already accepted by the majority of taxonomists and that “variation,” as an explanation of “intermediate forms,” had gone to the wall!

The type of V. amabilis Cheesem. is V. salicifolia Forst. f. var. gracilis T. Kirk in The Forest Flora of New Zealand (1889) 244, t. 120. The plate and description clearly reveal the hybrid character of the plant, which has leaves of the salicifolia type but broader, inflorescences of salicifolia size but with the flowers far nearer to those of elliptica in size and shape. Cheeseman's var. blanda is similar but with still broader leaves which are also shorter; it has been recorded by New Zealand collectors from the Fiord and Stewart districts and by Pennell from the South Otago district, where it is probably common.

Regarding the polymorphy of×H. blanda—not known to Cheeseman—the following extract we have unearthed from L. Cockayne's notebook of October, 1902, is of interest: “Veronicas—There are three species of Veronica on the shore of Anita Bay. Veronica elliptica is the most abundant, and is an extremely variable plant. Collected a number of cuttings for purposes of growth. Veronica salicifolia of usual type is abundant and there is another Veronica intermediate in leaf-form between V. salicifolia and V. elliptica, similar indeed so far as I can judge to the V. Henryi [nomen nudum given by L.C. when at Dusky Sound] of Dusky Sound. This latter also varies considerably.”

[Veronica Lewisii J. B. Armstg. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13 (1881) 357.]

This is stated by Armstrong to have been found on “Downs near the sea in the south of Canterbury,” but the name of the collector is not given, and most probably it was either a cultigen (Lewis was a nurseryman) or came from a different locality than that cited. Armstrong says of it, “exactly intermediate in character between V. elliptica and V. speciosa…. those authors who favour the hybridism theory [Armstrong explained strongly that he did not favour it. nor do we know there was any such theory at that date] as accounting for the variations of species would probably class this as a hybrid, but such an idea is exceedingly improbable in this case, as no plants of V. speciosa have been found within 200 miles of the district where this plant was found, although the whole district has been very carefully botanized [A bold statement if made even now]. Besides hybrids usually show very great variation in the characters of their flowers, but this plant is one of the most constant species in the colony.” The last statement is certainly true enough for the plant in gardens, as all are vegetatively derived from a single original. We consider its hybrid origin certain, and that it has nothing to do with Hebe speciosa.

16. *Hebe chathamica (Buch.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica chathamica Buchanan in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7 (1875) 338, t. 13, f. 1.

– 23 –

As growing wild on the coastal rocks of Chatham Island this is an exceedingly polymorphic linneon, which requires close study and analysis in the field. By such methods only can the status of var. Coviana (T. Kirk) Cheesem. be determined, but at present we cannot uphold it as a variety. There are several distinct forms in cultivation, but fortunately none have received as yet more than nomina nuda.

[*Veronica acutiflora Benth. in D. C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 460.]

All the specimens referred to this in the Manual came from Kerikeri Falls (Bay of Islands), and of them Cheeseman states, “This appears to be a variable plant. Mr. Colenso's specimens have the pedicels and calyces nearly glabrate; in Kirk's and Petrie's they are softly pubescent. So far as is known the species is restricted to a single habitat, where it was originally discovered by Allan Cunningham.” Specimens sent to us by Petrie show considerable diversity. We consider it to be a hybrid, probably between Hebe salicifolia var. stricta and H. ligustrifolia, and do not admit it to the flora as a good species.

17. *Hebe angustifolia (A. Rich.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica angustifolia A. Rich. in Fl. Nouv. Zel. (1832) 187.

We have some evidence that this is a compound species, but the jordanons are probably so close that at present we do not give to any varietal names, but possibly Veronica squalida T. Kirk is a jordanon. Hebe angustifolia crosses freely with any form of H. salicifolia which may be present and for this extensive group we propose, further on, the name×Hebe angustisala. One member of the group has already been deliberately described as×Veronica Simmonsii Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 202, but it is not mentioned in the Manual ed. 2 It, however, consists of a small group of plants which do not differ greatly from one another and one of the parents was H. salicifolia var. Atkinsonii whereas the larger part of×H. angustisala results from a var. communis cross.

[*var. abbreviata Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 53 (1921) 371.]

This was apparently described from specimens taken from one individual and from the brief description seems to be H. angustifolia or H. leiophylla×H. montana or H. Traversii. It is accepted as a valid var. by Cheeseman.

18. *Hebe parviflora (Vahl) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica parviflora Vahl in Sym. Bot. 3 (1794) 4.

Whether this is really Vahl's species we do not know. As defined by Cheeseman it represents a well-defined simple or perhaps compound species considering its wide range. It is in part equivalent to Veronica arborea Buch., this at anyrate a jordanon.

19. Hebe leiophylla (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica leiophylla Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 510.

Before the publication of the Manual this was referred sometimes to Hebe ligustrifolia and sometimes to H. Traversii. It is a well-

– 24 –

marked compound species, with its jordanons very similar to one another, which occurs in the Sounds-Nelson District, the junction of this district with the North-western District, the North-eastern District, the Eastern District—in the two last districts extremely abundant—and, judging from certain specimens in Petrie's herbarium, “the eastern part of Otago,” wherever that may be, but evidently rare. Cheeseman gives Nelson to Otago as its distribution, but it is absent in the North-western (except as stated above), the Western, the Fiord, and we are almost certain the South Otago Districts. It crosses readily with H. salicifolia var. communis; for the series of hybrids we propose the name×Hebe leiosala Ckn. et Allan. and for the form intermediate between the parents×Hebe Kirkii (J. B. Armstg.) Ckn. et Allan as hybrid.

(a.) var. strictissima (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica leiophylla (Cheesem.) var. strictissima (T. Kirk) Ckn. in The Cawthron Lecture 1 (1920) 11.

This we believe to be Veronica parviflora Vahl var. strictissima T. Kirk the locality of which is given as Akaroa where, so far as we know, the only shrub which could fit Kirk's description is the Banks Peninsula form of Hebe leiophylla. This is not constant, but consists of more than one jordanon. Hybrids with H. salicifolia var. communis have not been recorded, but it is most unlikely that such do not occur, and those which come near to var. strictissima might quite well account for much of its diversity.

[*Veronica longiracemosa Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 49 (1917) 52.]

This was based upon a cultivated plant which came from the garden of H. J. Matthews, who explained it had been collected by himself in the Awatere Valley (North-eastern District). Petrie remarks “it shows no signs of being intermediate between any of the larger-leaved species of the genus, and it seems impossible to me that it should be a hybrid.” Cheeseman in the Manual ed. 2, refers it to H. salicifolia var. paludosa. Certainly Matthews's specimen is very like the last-mentioned plant, and if they are identical we think Matthews may have confused his localities, a quite possible mistake, since his garden plants were never labelled according to locality or habitat. On the other hand, the plant might be a form of×Hebe leiosala greatly resembling H. salicifolia var. paludosa. In any case it is not the type of a valid species.

[*Veronica gracillima (T. Kirk) Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 510.]

Hebe angustifolia and H. salicifolia var. communis cross and form a polymorphic series of hybrids including the forms usually placed under Veronica gracillima. These are found not merely “in the vicinity of Westport,” as stated in the Manual ed. 2, but they occur in abundance along the valley of the Buller and its tributaries, and probably throughout the North-western district, excepting its southernmost part, and extend into the western part of the Sounds-Nelson District. For the group we propose the name×Hebe angustisala Ckn. et Allan hyb. nov., while the name×Hebe gracillima(T. Kirk)

– 25 –

Ckn. et Allan as hybrid we apply to the small group of forms intermediate in character between the parents. Such of Townson's original specimens as we have seen show considerable diversity.

20. Hebe insularis (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica insularis Cheesem. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 29 (1897) 392.

From the description this seems to be a compound species. It is confined to the Three Kings Islands and has only been seen wild by Cheeseman.

[*Veronica venustula Col. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 32 (1895) 393.]

Of this Colenso remarks “allied to V. laevis and to V. buxifolia but differing from them in several characters.” By Cheeseman, who saw only “two small scraps,” it is compared so far as inflorescence goes, with Hebe diosmaefolia, and by N. E. Brown of Kew it was considered “a very distinct species near to V. diosmaefolia.” Probably the collector—A. Olsen—took all the specimens from one plant. Our opinion is that the species is founded on altogether insufficient material and that it either comes into the compound species, Hebe laevis, or is a hybrid between this and H. buxifolia.

21. Hebe diosmaefolia (R. Cunn. ex A. Cunn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica diosmaefolia R. Cunn. ex A. Cunn. in Bot. Mag. (1836) sub. t. 3461.

This is a well-marked compound species the jordanons of which are yet to be defined, but more than one is in cultivation.

[*Veronica trisepala Col. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 15 (1883) 324.]

Cheeseman considered this the type of H. diosmaefolia, whereas Kirk reduced it to a variety of that species, which of course it would be, type or otherwise. It was based by Colenso on specimens taken, presumably from one plant, by A. Hamilton on the Kaweka Range far south of what was considered the southern limit of H. diosmaefolia. What the status of the so-called “species” is we do not know.

Cheeseman in reference to the above, Manual ed. 2, p. 798, considers it the “type” of H. diosmaefolia because it extends throughout “the whole range of the species while the form with a 4-partite calyx is rare in the wild state.” But all this is beside the mark for, rare or otherwise, the type is the plant described by Allan Cunningham which neither Cheeseman nor any New Zealand student of Hebe has seen.

22. Hebe Menziesii (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Menziesii Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 512 (doubtfully of Benth. in D.C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 461.

We greatly doubt whether the species, as defined in the Manual, is Bentham's, which was based on material from Dusky Sound collected by Menzies. As defined by Cheeseman the species is common in the north of South Island and is readily recognizable. It is probably a compound species, as Cheeseman's indefinite diagnosis suggests, e.g. “racemes corymbosely branched, very rarely simple.” One of

– 26 –

us has seen wild hybrids with Hebe salicifolia var. communis in one locality, but they are probably more or less common elsewhere, and F. G. Gibbs considers it crosses with H. buxifolia.

23. *Hebe divaricata (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan sp. nov. = Veronica Menziesii Benth. var. divaricata Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 512.

We consider this a well-marked, easily-recognizable species. Cheeseman devotes five lines of small print to its description, so to him it did not come at all close to H. Menziesii. It is of extremely limited distribution and a companion plant of H. rigidula.

[*Veronica Colensoi Hook f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 209.]

Hooker's species includes a mixture of various mountain forms of Hebe, the greater part of which had compound racemes. Cheeseman, having separated H. Menziesii and perhaps H. rupicola from the mixture, restricted the species to a plant collected on the Ruahine Mountains by Colenso which, according to N. E. Brown, is identical with Colenso's Veronica Hillii. Cheeseman describes the racemes as “simple or sparingly branched,” but Hooker specially refers to the North Island plant as having simple racemes. Obviously the whole matter is far from satisfactory but, as we only know V. Hillii from a dried specimen, we can express no opinion about the validity of a species concerning which Cheeseman must have been far from satisfied since he writes, “If the name [V. Colensoi] is to be retained at all, it should clearly be restricted to Colenso's plant.” In Petrie's herbarium, on the other hand, there are specimens from two different localities which apparently match one another, and a third specimen with branched racemes.

24. *Hebe rigidula (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica rigidula Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 514.

This is an extremely well-marked, and apparently simple species. L. Cockayne (1916, p. 207) wrongly referred to this species a plant he saw in a garden in the Marlborough Sounds, supposed to come from a hill at the back of Wilson Bay, Pelorus Sound.

25. *Hebe rupicola (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica rupicola Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 514.

This apparently simple species is probably confined to rocks in the North-eastern Botanical District, or at its junction with the Northwestern.

26. *Hebe laevis (Benth.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica laevis Benth. in D.C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 461.

The species was based by Bentham on specimens collected near Mount Tongariro by Bidwill. In the Handbook Hooker added specimens collected in the mountains of Nelson to the species, and stated that it passed into V. buxifolia and V. carnosula. This widening of the conception of the “species” by Hooker led—as such procedure usually did—to a conception wider still based on the belief in “variation,” and Armstrong recorded it as fairly common for Canterbury,

– 27 –

Cheeseman as occurring on various mountains in Nelson, Kirk as extending from Nelson to Southland, and Petrie as being in the far west of Otago—but the latter botanist was “not quite certain of the identification of this species.” In the first edition of the Manual Cheeseman, apparently assisted by N. E. Brown, took the bold step of restricting the species to the North Island series of forms of which the original specimens gathered by Bidwill were the type; but though he specially mentions this restriction and declares he has seen no South Island specimens that “satisfactorily match those from the North Island,” he adds specimens collected by Macmahon on Mount Duppa (Sounds-Nelson Botanical District)! We are well acquainted with the species as it occurs in the Volcanic Plateau Botanical District. There it is a compound species and crosses readily with Hebe salicifolia and almost certainly with H. buxifolia. We also think there are forms of the species in South Island, but this requires field observations and garden experiment.

[*Veronica Carsei Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 55 (1924) 96.]

Hebe laevis forms polymorphic hybrids with H. salicifolia when these species come together on the Volcanic Plateau. Veronica Carsei is merely one of the hybrid group, vegetatively closer to H. laevis, but with the inflorescence more like that or H. salicifolia. For the group of hybrids we propose the name×Hebe laevisala Ckn. et Allan, and if×Hebe Carsei forms a fairly distinct subgroup—but not otherwise—that name should be adopted for such. Cheeseman, accepting the species, calls it “a very puzzling plant” related to Veronica Mathewsii.

27. Hebe elliptica (Forst. f.) Pennell in Rhodora 23 (1921) 39.

This is a well-marked compound species made up of at least three jordanons. It hybridizes readily with Hebe salicifolia, and in situations exposed to gales may form prostrate or semi-prostrate epharmones. Judging from a specimen most kindly given us by Skottsberg one of the jordanons is common to Subantarctic South America and New Zealand.

(a.) Hebe elliptica (Forst. f.) Pennell var. crassifolia Ckn. et Allan var. nov.

Ramuli hornotini pallide virides,±3 min. diam., pubescentes; folia conferta ± 2.7 cm. longa, ± 1.5 cm. lata, glabra, supra intense viridia nitentia, ± 2 mm. crassa, sub-succulenta; alabastra cremea, flores albi; bracteae linearo—oblongae sub-acutae; calyx profunde lobatus, lobis oblongis, abrupte acutis; corollae lobi late ovati.

North Island: Ruahine-Cook Botanical District—Kapiti Island, L. J. Wild, H.H.A.; Titahi Bay, Aston, L.C., H.H.A.

This variety appears to be confined to coastal rocks, and as seen wild is so distinct, with its thick, almost succulent, dark-green, glistening leaves, pale-green branchlets, few-flowered racemes of large white flowers, with broad corolla-lobes, that it might be considered preferable to give it specific rank. The thickness of the leaves is due to the great development of water-storage tissue, and in cultivation inland the leaves become much paler and thinner,

– 28 –

but remain abundantly distinct from those of any other jordanon of the compound species, as can be recognized at a glance when these are grown together with it. At Titahi Bay many of the individual plants are attacked by a leaf-bud disease, and a number have died out since the junior author's first examination of the locality in 1924. The Kapiti Island plants have rather narrower leaves, and less pubescent branchlets, but are too close to those of the mainland to warrant separation as a variety, indeed the differences may be merely epharmonic.

[*Veronica Matthewsii Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora (1906) 517.]

If the specimens cited by Cheeseman from the Southern Alps, Milford Sound, and the Humboldt Mountains are one and the same as the garden plant so well known as V. Matthewsii, which has all been raised vegetatively from one individual, then the species is certainly both a simple one and most distinct. But we have never seen anything approaching the garden plant in the localities mentioned, while the latter exactly matches the diagnosis; nor are the wild specimens in Petrie's herbarium at all convincing. For the present we exclude V. Matthewsii from our list of indigenous species, as being unproven.

[*Veronica Balfouriana Hook f. in Bot. Mag. (1879) t. 7556.]

This is merely a cultigen, raised in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, from seed sent from New Zealand, and must be excluded from the flora. A specimen in Petrie's herbarium has the appearance of a hybrid with H. vernicosa as one of the parents.

[*Veronica Darwiniana Colenso in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25 (1893) 332.]

This was founded by its author on specimens he collected “On hills in the interior, Hawkes Bay.” He further states of it, “A primâ facie near to V. Colensoi Hook., but differing in several particulars.” Until the whole group of these glaucous and semi-glaucous plants of North Island are studied afresh we cannot uphold the present as a valid species.

[Veronica glaucophylla Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 31 (1899) 422.]

Although L. Cockayne noted many shrubs growing in the same locality and habitat (Craigieburn Mountains, Eastern Botanical District) more or less similar to the one he described, the diagnosis refers only to a shrub he had brought into his garden, and used as a type. But whether that type was really a species or a hybrid we have not the least idea. Hebes of a similar character grow abundantly in shrubland on the mountains near Hanmer, but they form a polymorphic group. There are certainly present crosses between a glaucous-leaved Hebe and H. Traversii, but it cannot be said, with our present knowledge, that this glaucous plant is Veronica glaucophylla Ckn. Cheeseman did not hesitate to unite all these glaucous-leaved Hebes, together with Veronica Darwiniana, into an aggregate species, but this procedure is an exact example of that artificial taxonomy which we decry. V. glaucophylla, or a near relative, is known in most nursery gardens as V. Colensoi var. glauca.

– 29 –

28. *Hebe Traversii (Hook f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Traversii Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 208.

The species, as constituted by Hooker, is an extensive linneon without a type. In the Manual ed. 1, p. 518, Cheeseman emended the species, selecting as his type the plant figured in the Botanical Magazine t. 6390. Even as emended the species remains a linneon. From field-observations we are certain that there are various jordanons in the conception of the species, that these cross amongst themselves, with the glaucous-leaved species, with H. leiophylla, H. montana, and probably with H. salicifolia var. communis, and other species. We have seen astonishing mixtures in certain pieces of shrubland where Hebe dominates, and suspect that proper analysis would reveal the existence of trihybrids, and even more complicated admixture of “blood.”

[var. fallax Cheesem. and var. elegans Cheesem.—both in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 519.]

We do not know for certain either of these varieties. If var. fallax is common, as we gather from Cheeseman's remarks, it is certainly compound. The other variety is said to be a local plant. Obviously the whole linneon demands searching investigation.

[Veronica rakaiensis J. B. Armstg. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13 (1881) 356.]

Judging from what is almost certainly a co-type in the Herbarium of the Dominion Museum this is identical with or close to Hebe Traversii var. elegans Cheesem. Petrie, however (1917, p. 53), refers a plant collected near Queenstown (South Otago Botanical District) to Armstrong's species, but he compares it with Hebe pinguifolia, to which surely V. rakaiensis has no affinity.

29. Hebe evenosa (Petrie) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica evenosa Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 189.

We are not at all sure we do right in upholding this as a species. In Petrie's herbarium there are evident differences in his specimens. Also, judging especially from the form in cultivation, we are not at all sure that H. evenosa and H. subalpina are not one and the same. A searching study of the Ruahine-Tararua forms of Hebe laevis and this under consideration is greatly needed. The junior author has recently studied a Hebe community on the Ruahine Mountains that has been induced by the burning of subalpine scrub. The bulk of the plants are referable to H. laevis along with some H. salicifolia. Dotted about are plants that might well be accepted as H. evenosa, and they show only minor differences amongst themselves. A hybrid origin is strongly suggested, and the comparative uniformity would not be unexpected in plants of the F1 generation. Selected specimens are being cultivated.

30. Hebe subalpina (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica subalpina Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 31 (1889) 420.

This is a well-marked species, probably compound but, if so, with very similar jordanons. We cannot agree with Cheeseman's remark

– 30 –

“very close to V. Traversii,” for its principal characters are very different, it can be recognized at a glance, comes much earlier into bloom, and is a shrub of an extremely wet climate, whereas H. Traversii is usually of a fairly dry climate. In nursery gardens it generally bears the name Veronica Colensoi var. viridis. It probably crosses with Hebe salicifolia var. communis.

31. Hebe vernicosa (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica vernicosa Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 208.

For many years this species was misunderstood by New Zealand taxonomists with the exception of Cheeseman, who most likely knew the true group from his study of the Nelson flora (1882, p. 317); in fact a form of Hebe buxifolia with twiggy stems and rather narrow, patent leaves was referred to H. vernicosa, the true species having, in part, been described by J. B. Armstrong (1879, p. 58) as Veronica canterburiense (sic). T. Kirk (1896, p. 526), who had consulted N. E. Brown of Kew on the matter, brought the true Hebe vernicosa to the light, stating “it must be remarked that until of late years V. vernicosa has not been understood by New Zealand botanists, V. odora Hook. f. [which Kirk considered a var. of V. buxifolia] having been mistaken for it, an error in which the authorities at Kew appear to have participated for a time.”

Hebe vernicosa is a well-marked compound species made up of several jordanons. Cheeseman's citation of localities: “Mountain districts in Nelson, Marlborough, Canterbury and Westland” is misleading; for though it occurs in the northern parts of the two last, it does not extend to any distance south of Arthur's Pass, e.g. Wall does not record it from Mount Cook, nor Cockayne and Laing from the sources of the Rakaia. Hooker evidently had no type but Cheeseman takes as his type Veronica canterburiensis, as so labelled in the Christchurch botanic garden, where, however, the labels constantly misplaced are misleading, and Armstrong's original labels no longer exist. At any rate, Cheeseman undoubtedly meant the Arthurs' Pass plant, which we cite below as var. canterburiensis, to be his type.

(a.) var. canterburiensis (J. B. Armstg.) Ckn. et Allan var. nov. = Veronica canterburiensis J. B. Armstg. in N.Z. Country Journ. 4 (1879) 58.

This is the sole variety in the vicinity of Arthur's Pass and the adjacent mountains of the Western Botanical District. It is usually smaller and of more prostrate habit than the other varieties of the species. Cheeseman gives a wrong citation for the original publication of the species.

(b.) var. gracilis (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica vernicosa Hook. f. var. gracilis Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 520.

This appears to be the common form of the Sounds-Nelson Botanical District, and it is probably compound. It is certainly not the same jordanon or group of such as var. canterburiensis. Cheeseman speaks of it as a “shade-form,” but whether he means it is more or less confined to shady places but fixed in form, or an epharmone

– 31 –

due to shade, we cannot say, but though growing within the forest, it also is common enough when exposed to full sunshine.

[var. multiflora Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 520.]

Cheeseman knew this merely as a garden plant. Certainly it is common enough in cultivation and constant in form because of its vegetative propagation. Most likely it could be matched from wild plants, but until that is proved the name should not be used floristically.

[Veronica Greyi J. B. Armstg. in N.Z. Country Journ. 3 (1879) 57.]

According to our remembrance of plants cultivated in the Christchurch Botanic Garden under this name the above was a form—far from luxuriant—of Hebe vernicosa. On the other hand Cheeseman states the var. multiflora bears the name V. Greyi in gardens but he is not quite sure if it is Armstrong's species.

[Veronica obovata T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 9 (1877) 502.]

This was based by Kirk apparently on one plant noted by him at Broken River (Canterbury). Cheeseman created a compound species by adding three more plants to the species, and was inclined to think the species, as so constituted, might be combined with H. montana. Considering the great diversity that arises from crossing, all four plants might quite well have been hybrids, and with the death of the original plants, no more specimens exactly matching them might ever be found again. With our present knowledge of the genus we consider that the species is not well founded, and that it should be removed from the flora.

[*Veronica Godfroyana Carrière in Revue Hort. (1888) 455.]

For most of the particulars regarding this plant we are indebted to Professor W. Wright Smith (Regius Keeper, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh) who sent us a copy of the original description. The “species” is not mentioned in either edition of the Manual, but its leaf-anatomy was dealt with by R. S. Adamson (1912) who classed it along with the glaucous-leaved species together with Hebe buxifolia, H. Menziesii and H. montana. The plant is merely a cultigen evidently raised from seed sent from New Zealand. From Carrière's description the original plant apparently came into the Hebe glaucophylla group. The description was drawn up from a plant in the garden of M. Godefroy-Lebeuf at Argenteuil. The senior author has three plants in his garden which he raised from seed collected in the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, which have not yet flowered. All are of a similar type and come well into the conception of Veronica obovata (which see) but they put us greatly in mind of certain wild hybrids between Hebe Traversii, H. montana (certain of its forms) and H. pinguifolia. From the above it seems likely the plant is of hybrid origin.

32. Hebe montana (J. B. Armstg.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica montana J. B. Armstg. in N.Z. Country Journ. 3 (1879) 58.

– 32 –

Armstrong, in redescribing the species in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13 (1881) 354, altered the name to monticola, but the prior name must stand for Hebe. The descriptions given by Armstrong and by Cheeseman differ considerably, the latter having extended the conception of the species to include, apparently, all forms of Hebe resembling H. Traversii, but with a shorter inflorescence. Thus defined, the species becomes a linneon of which the jordanons are not known, and in which hybrids play no small part. Much field work will be required to disentangle the group. Possibly as so much confusion attends the use of the name, it will ultimately be abandoned.

33. *Hebe Cockayniana (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Cockayniana Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 522.

This species was based on specimens from one plant collected by L. Cockayne, not on the Humboldt Mountains, as given by Cheeseman, but in the cirque at the head of the Earnslaw Creek, together with specimens from the North-western Botanical District and one from the Clinton Valley. It apparently comes nearest to H. Willcoxii. Judging from the specimens in Petrie's herbarium the species is probably compound.

34. *Hebe buxifolia (Benth.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica buxifolia Benth. in D. C. Prodr. 10 (1846) 462.

Bentham based his species on specimens from Mount Egmont, but as now recognized it is a huge linneon, made up of many jordanons and their hybrids. The jordanons fall into groups, of which (1) the dense ball-like form, (2) the prostrate form, and (3) the erect sparsely-branched form are distinct enough to form compound varieties. How polymorphic is the linneon appears from the fact that on the Rock and Pillar Range there was noted by L. Cockayne a pure colony, which had established itself after fire, and from which form after form of great diversity could be selected. Evidently there was a mixture of jordanons and their hybrids of various generations. Fortunately we have several of these plants growing well in readiness for taxonomic experiments.

(a.) var. odora(T. Kirk parte)Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica buxifolia Benth. var. odora T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 522, excluding Veronica odora Hook. f.

Cheeseman changed the name to patens, since Kirk had included V. odora Hook. f. in his variety odora, but as Kirk also included one or more forms of Hebe buxifolia, we must uphold his varietal name for the amended variety. It is certainly, however, a compound variety made up of jordanons and their hybrids, and needs further analysis.

(b.) var. prostrata (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica buxifolia Benth. var. prostrata Ckn. in Rep. Bot. Surv. Stewart Id. (1909) 44.

This is not mentioned in the Manual ed. 2, but it is certainly a distinct variety and not an epharmone. Probably it is best not to restrict the name to the type but to group together as a compound

– 33 –

variety all the prostrate non-epharmonic forms of the species, but this matter can be settled only by observations and experiments.

(c.) var. pauciramosa Ckn. et Allan in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1925) 27.

The type is a living plant in L. Cockayne's garden, but the variety is intended to be a compound one, including the erect, sparselybranching forms in general. Were there no transitional jordanons between this and var. odora and its allies, var. pauciramosa is so distinct that it might be considered a species. The whole linneon is, however, so well-marked by the spicate inflorescence, furnished with leaflike bracteoles resembling the foliage leaves, that any variety or jordanon can be at once recognized as belonging to the compound species.

[Veronica odora Hook f. in Fl. Antarct. 1 (1844) 62, t. 41.]

There can hardly be a doubt that plate 41 of the Flora Antarctica vol. 1 represents a common form of Hebe elliptica, and in addition Hooker describes the flowers as having the sweet scent of those of that species. In the Handbook, p. 210, however, he treats V. odora as a synonym of V. buxifolia Benth. Aston collected specimens in Lord Auckland Island that did not match H. elliptica but were nearer to H. buxifolia. These were considered by Cheeseman to be identical with Hooker's var. odora, and he restored the species in Subant. Islds. of N.Z. 2 (1909) 424, and in the Manual ed. 2. L. Cockayne also submitted to Cheeseman specimens collected in Stewart Island that he considered a variety—using the term in a general sense—of V. odora, but this locality is omitted in the Manual ed. 2. There appears to be more than one jordanon of H. elliptica on Lord Auckland Island, which probably hybridize, and it seems to us that the original V. odora, in part at least, belonged to this group, and that there is another species present, evidently quite rare (represented most likely by Aston's specimens), related to H. buxifolia. Possibly, even, Hooker's V. odora is a hybrid form between these. To clear up this involved matter evidently requires a detailed investigation of the Hebes of the island.

[Veronica anomala John F. Armstrong in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 4 (1872) 291. Veronica anomala J. B. Armstrg. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13 (1881) 355 as sp. nov.]

Armstrong père described as a new species a plant from “Head waters of the River Rakaia,” but does not name the collector, although this is given for all the other species described in the paper. “In foliage it much resembles V. vernicosa [meaning thereby slender Hebe buxifolia], and in the corolla has some distant resemblance to V. Colensoi. It may prove to be an hybrid between these two species.” Armstrong fils describes V. anomala as a new species, and gives a description matching that of the earlier one, but with further details. He gives as habitats “Canterbury Provincial District, Rakaia Valley, Mount Cook, and Mount Peel.” He describes the capsule (not seen by J. F. A.)'as “pubescent.” Cheeseman's description in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 523 resembles that of J. B. Armstrong, except that he describes the capsule as “glabrous.” He repeats his description in Manual ed. 2, but accepts only the “Rakaia Valley” habitat as

– 34 –

authentic, attributing the original collection to J. B. Armstrong, and another to E. Stead. He remarks “quite common as a garden-plant, but very rare in the wild state. The few wild specimens that I have seen agree with Mr. Armstrong's description in the total suppression of the anticous lobe of the corolla, but cultivated specimens are variable in this respect.” Were it not that the senior author has seen a specimen collected by E. Stead in the Rakaia Gorge, which he referred to V. anomala, but perhaps wrongly, we should have no hesitation in removing the species from the flora, as it is otherwise only known as a garden plant. The junior author, during a long-extended examination of Mount Peel, failed to find it there, though a narrow-leaved jordanon of H. buxifolia occurs that has some slight resemblance to the garden plant. Nor does Wall (1925) record it from Mount Cook. The plant is amply distinct, but may quite well be of hybrid origin, and at present we do not accept it as a proved species. Even if found wild it would be best treated as a variety of Hebe buxifolia.

35. Hebe decumbens (J. B. Armstr.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica decumbens J. B. Armstr. in N.Z. Country Journ. 3 (1897) 57.

This is an easily recognized, probably compound species. Cheeseman in the Manual ed. 2 considered Armstrong's description “by no means good,” but to us, and we have seen the species in its habitat again and again, it appears satisfactory enough. We have no definite field information regarding its polymorphy but it probably crosses with one or more species and it certainly forms far from a uniform population.

36. Hebe Willcoxii (Petrie) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Willcoxii Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 45 (1913) 272.

This is a well-marked, perhaps simple, species. So far it has only been found at the head of the Routeburn (Fiord District), but a specimen collected by J. Scott Thomson on Cecil Peak (South Otago District) may belong here. No hybrids have been noticed. Petrie and Cheeseman consider it related to H. decumbens but we place it near H. Cockayniana.

37. *Hebe Gibbsii (T. Kirk) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Gibbsii T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 524.

This very distinct, simple species appears to be confined to Mounts Rintoul and Ben Nevis (Sounds-Nelson District). We have not seen it wild. In Petrie's herbarium there is a specimen from H. J. Matthews's garden which appears to be a hybrid with H. Gibbsii as one of the parents.

[*Veronica carnosula Hook f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 210.]

We are not prepared to recognize this as a valid species for the reasons given below, and think that the specimens dealt with by Hooker were quite likely hybrids. In the Flora Novae-Zelandiae 1 (1853) 194 Hooker described his Veronica laevis Benth. var. γ carnosula from specimens collected by Bidwill in “Nelson, mountains, 2—6,000 ft.” In the Handbook he raised the variety to specific rank, basing his description, not on material from Nelson generally,

– 35 –

but on specimens collected by Bidwill on “Morses Mountain 5,000 ft.” (wherever that may be!), together with specimens collected by Monro at the “Upper Wairau.” He states “from V. pinguifolia the ovary and capsules alone distinguish it.” Cheeseman in the Manual ed. 2, p. 811, gives as localities “Mountain districts from Nelson to Otago, but apparently not so abundant as V. pinguifolia,” and says “very closely allied to V. pinguifolia, differing mainly in the rather larger ovate-acute glabrous capsule.”

Now, so far as we know, the linneon called Veronica pinguifolia does not occur in Nelson. What does occur is an astonishing mixture of glaucous-leaved shrubs, ranging from prostrate to erect with leaves of many shapes, and with no real uniformity in inflorescences or flowers. In all cases where we have examined the capsules they have been glabrous, and it is this character alone which marks off the “species” from V. pinguifolia. Such a series must be a swarm of hybrids along with the parents. Without the most detailed field-observations in many localities, checked by breeding experiments, it seems to us altogether impossible to separate the mass of diverse forms into its constituent parts. To say that here we have a “variable” species, and that because the glabrous capsule is a common character we have various “varieties” of V. carnosula leads nowhere, except back into the morass from which we are trying to escape. Much easier, indeed, and quite as logical, would it be to lump together all these prostrate, semi-prostrate, and small erect forms of Hebe into one “variable species,” in which the capsule is either hairy or glabrous! How out of such a mixture would the original collectors select the jordanons rather than their hybrids? To Hooker or anyone working by the herbarium method jordanon or hybrid would be equally material for description, and if very limited in quantity would look quite as uniform, if not more so, than the heterogeneous mass of material he was attempting by the herbarium method to classify.

We have gone into this case at such length, not to belittle the labours of the past, but because it is typical of no small amount of taxonomic work still being carried on, and because on what is stated above hangs the fate of the next “species.”

[Veronica albicans Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 49 (1917) 53.]

This was based by Petrie on a plant he saw in Mr. F. G. Gibbs's garden that had been collected by Gibbs as a chance young plant on Mount Cobb (Nelson) where there is that diversity in Hebe detailed for Veronica carnosula, together with specimens collected by H. J. Matthews on Mount Arthur—another centre of extreme diversity. Petrie's description and specimens he sent to us, together with those in his herbarium, show that the plants he relied on differed in certain respects. It seems most unlikely that from a heterogeneous collection of forms of Hebe both Gibbs and Matthews should have gathered an identical form. To us V. albicans is probably a hybrid, or two hybrids, belonging to the unresolved V. carnosula group. Gibbs had another Hebe in his garden collected at the same time and place. It differed greatly from V. albicans, though sufficiently close for the two to be

– 36 –

merged together as a “variable species,” under the old conceptions governing such.

[*Veronica Biggarii Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 199.]

This was based on a plant cultivated in D. L. Poppelwell's garden, raised from a cutting collected by Popplewell on the Eyre Mountains (South Otago Botanical District). Cheeseman in the Manual ed. 2, included a plant collected on Mount Dick by L. Cockayne, speaking of it as a small variety with shorter rounder leaves. There is evidently present in the mountains bordering Lake Wakatipu a distinct compound species, but as it is by no means certain that the type plant was a jordanon rather than a hybrid, we suggest that the name should be rejected until adequate field observations can be made. Or if it is considered desirable to uphold the group of plants approximating to the type as a species, its content must be increased in the usual manner; in fact Cheeseman led the way in this direction in the Manual ed. 2. Cheeseman groups V. Biggarii along with V. amplexicaulis and V. albicans, but it is certainly far removed from these and comes not very distant from Hebe pimeleoides var. rupestris.

38. *Hebe pinguifolia (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica pinguifolia Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 210.

This is a linneon of probably many jordanons, and their hybrids; and in its widest conception there will be hybrids between H. montana, H. Traversii, and perhaps other species. A vast amount of field work and genetic experiment will be required to arrive at the status of the different members of the linneon. On Mount Misery, not far from the Cass Biological Station of Canterbury College, there is an extraordinary mixture of diverse forms growing in a limited area, which could be studied with ease. Cheeseman gives Otago as a locality for the species, but we do not think it is to be found there.

39. *Hebe Buchanani (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Buchanani Hook. f. in Handk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 211.

This is a well-marked compound species, or, as treated by Cheeseman, linneon. From the southern part of the Eastern Botanical District southwards it is the representative of H. pinguifolia. By Petrie (1896) only the last-named is cited for Otago, but Cheeseman refers most of those forms so-called to H. Buchanani.

[var. major Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 527.]

This may be H. Buchanani×pinguifolia, for Cheeseman says it might be referred to either species.

(a.) var. exigua (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Buchanani Hook. f. var. exigua Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 1 (1906) 527.

This is possibly one of the jordanons, since it is supported by specimens collected near Mount Cook by three collectors and, apparently, it and var. major are the sole representatives near Mount Cook. On the contrary, Buchanan's original specimen from Mount Alta is

– 37 –

what Cheeseman calls “an extreme state” which may quite likely be dependant upon its special habitat. In short, the species is in a most unsatisfactory taxonomic state and badly requires well-directed study in the field without reference to the few specimens at present in herbaria which are a danger rather than an assistance.

40. Hebe Treadwellii Ckn. et Allan in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1925) 27.

This is a distinct species, with green not glaucous leaves, allied to Hebe pinguifolia, but distinguished from all forms of that compound species by several well-marked characters.

[Veronica haustrata J. B. Armstg. in N.Z. Country Journ. 3 (1879) 58.]

This is not mentioned in either edition of the Manual, nor did Armstrong himself include it in his list of the species of Veronica published two years later, but it appears in his catalogue of the plants of Canterbury (1880) and is placed between Hebe buxifolia and H. carnosula, all of which come under his degree of frequency as “local.” What the plant is we have no idea, but certainly it would not be difficult to find specimens answering fairly well to the description. It seems to come nearest to H. Treadwellii and might indeed be identical, but the latter name must stand for the present.

41. Hebe amplexicaulis (J. B. Armstr.) Ckn. et Allan in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1926) 26 = Veronica amplexicaulis J. B. Armstr. in N.Z. Country Journ. 3 (1879) 56—this original citation not in the Manual.

For a long time this was known only as a garden plant, evidently propagated by cuttings from J. F. Armstrong's original specimen from the Rangitata (Eastern Botanical District). In 1911 Cockayne and Laing referred a plant from the Upper Ashburton to this species, but the specimen is not to hand, and we cannot vouch for the correctness of the identification. During the years 1917 to 1921 H. H. Allan found a number of plants on Mount Peel (Eastern Botanical District) that evidently should be included in the conception of the species as a distinct jordanon. This plant is abundant on rocky outcrops on all parts of the mountain up to about 1200 m., and exhibits none but epharmonic differences. He further found a perfectly erect, almost ball-like, jordanon sparingly in the Upper Rangitata. We have treated the compound species in an earlier paper (1925).

(a.) var. vera Ckn. et Allan in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1925) 26.

This is the type plant known in cultivation. We have not seen it wild.

(b.) var. suberecta Ckn. et Allan in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1925) 26.

This is the decumbent or straggling rock-plant of Mount Peel. In cultivation it becomes rather more compact, with less extent of naked branches. It is certainly a distinct true-breeding jordanon.

(c.) var. erecta Ckn. et Allan in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1925) 26.

Only a few plants of this have been noted, but they appeared to be identical in their characteristics.

– 38 –

42. Hebe Allanii Ckn. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56 (1925) 25.

This is a very distinct, and so far as we know simple species. It is closely allied to H. amplexicaulis var. suberecta, and hybridizes readily with it. The intense hairiness of nearly all its parts, and the spreading forked branches giving a flat top to the shrub when fully developed, are its best distinguishing features.

43. * Hebe pimeleoides (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica pimeleoides Hook. f. in Flora Nov-Zel. (1853) 195.

This species, as described by Hooker in the Flora Novae-Zelandiae, is stated to have been collected by Lyall at Port Cooper. That is, it presumably came from the Port Hills. But Lyall and others made an excursion inland to near what is now Culverden, and the plant may have been collected at that time. Hooker remarks of it “A very small shrub, a span high, resembling Pimelea prostrata,” and “A remarkably distinct little species.” In the Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 211, he gives a number of new localities for the species, “stony flats on the Hurumui (sic) mountains, alt. 800–1000 ft., Travers; Southern Alps, amongst shingle and grass, Hopkins, Godley, and Macaulay rivers, alt. 2–4000 ft., Haast,” and says that it is allied to V. pinguifolia, “but more so to V. Lavandiana, etc.”—a remarkable comparison! In the appendix to the Handbook he makes a var. minor, defined as “Smaller, leaves lanceolate, acute ⅙ in. long,” based on specimens collected by Haast on “Shingle beds near Lake Heron.”

Now all the localities and habitats given by Hooker correspond to those where what has always been called var. minor is found (L. Cockayne has actually seen the Lake Heron plant), and we submit that this is the type, and that the larger plant so common in Central Otago, usually considered the type, should be treated as a new variety, for which we propose the name rupestris, since it always grows in rocks. Hebe pimeleoides, as treated by us, is thus a compound species with the following known varieties.

(a.) *var. minor (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica pimeleoides Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 738.

As already stated we consider this the type, but since in our system of nomenclature a varietal name is required for such in compound species Hooker's name “minor” is retained.

(b.) var. glauco-caerulea (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica glauca-caerulea J. B. Armstrg. (spelling altered subsequently to glauco by its author) in N.Z. Country Journ. 3 (1879) 57.

According to J. B. Armstrong this was collected by J. F. Armstrong in the Upper Rangitata, and by its author in the Waimakariri. We know it only as a most distinct garden plant, always the same, through its vegetative propagation. In the Waimakariri var. minor seems to be the only form, so we suppose that the garden plant is descended vegetatively from that of the Rangitata. Cheeseman gives no localities for either of the varieties, but his description is evidently that of the garden plant. It possibly would be best to exclude this from the flora.

– 39 –

(c.) Hebe pimeleoides Ckn. et Allan var. rupestris Ckn. et. Allan var. nov. = Veronica pimeleoides Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 2 (1925) 813 (varietatibus exceptis).

Fruticulus semi-erectus, patulus, gracilis, ± 45 cm. altus; folia obtusa, quam illa var. minoris majora; inflorescentia item majora.

The specific description of the Manual ed. 2, applies to this, probably compound, variety. There are many differences of a minor character amongst the individuals.

[Veronica Dartoni Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 55 (1924) 98.]

We strongly suspect that this is a hybrid between Hebe pimeleoides var. rupestris and H. salicifolia var. communis. It is not usual for these species to come together, so the hybrids will be scarce.

44. *Hebe ciliolata (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Logania ciliolata Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1867) 737. Syn. Veronica Gilliesiana T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 519.

This is a simple species, and as Cheeseman says, “quite unlike any other.”

45. *Hebe tetrasticha (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica tetrasticha Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 212.

This is a simple species, allied to the next.

46. *Hebe Cheesemanii (Buch.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Mitrasacme Cheesemanii Buch. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 14 (1882) 348, t. 29, f. 2. Syn. Veronica quadrifaria T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 521.

This simple species, though allied to Hebe tetrasticha is clearly differentiated.

47. *Hebe tumida (T. Kirk) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica tumida T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 521.

This is probably a simple species, but our knowledge of it in the field is insufficient to be certain. We suspect that it hybridizes with another, probably undescribed, whipcord Hebe of the same localities in the Nelson mountains.

48. *Hebe tetragona (Hook.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica tetragona Hook. in Icon. Plant. (1843) Pl t. 580.

This distinct simple species crosses occasionally with Hebe laevis. One of the hybrids was erroneously described by L. Cockayne (1912, p. 45) as a fixed or semi-fixed juvenile form of H. tetragona, which it greatly resembles.

49. Hebe Astoni (Petrie) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Astoni Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 40 (1908) 288.

This apparently simple species is amply distinct from H. tetragona.It crosses with H. laevis, and for the group of hybrids we propose the name×Hebe laevastoni Ckn. et Allan.

– 40 –

50. *Hebe lycopodioides (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica lycopodioides Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 211.

Whether the series of plants from many localities described by Hooker as V. lycopodioides consisted of identical individuals or not we, of course, have had no opportunity of finding out. But Hebe lycopodioides as known in herbaria and in the field is a compound species, which badly needs separating into its varieties. The sudden narrowing of the leaf into a short point marks off the compound species from any other of the whipcord Hebes.

51. *Hebe Hectori (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Hectori Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 212.

This is a well-marked, probably compound, species; there appear to be considerable differences in the diameters of the shoots, as also in the leaves.

52. Hebe coarctata (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica coarctata Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora (1906) 531.

We have not seen this in the field. Cheeseman states, “it appears to be intermediate in characters between V. Hectori and V. Armstrongii.” It is confined to the North-western Botanical District.

53. Hebe Laingii (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Laingii Ckn. in. Rep. Bot. Surv. Stewart Id. (1909) 44.

This apparently distinct, simple species has been recorded only from near the summit of Mount Anglem, Stewart Island. Most likely it will be found to also occur in the Fiord Botanical District. In gardens a hybrid whipcord Hebe with no resemblance whatsoever to H. Laingii is frequently cultivated under that name!

54. *Hebe salicornioides (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica salicornioides Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 212.

Undoubtedly as described by Hooker, this contains more than one species, for the Nelson plant is not to be found in the mountains of either the Waimakariri or the Rangitata. Cheeseman has selected the Wairau Gorge plant collected by himself for the type. He states that this “exactly matches one of the type specimens collected by Travers in almost the same locality,” though to Hooker Travers's plant was no more the “type” than those collected far further to the south, which were one or more different species, and perhaps included what is now Hebe Armstrongii. To his type Cheeseman has added a specimen collected by L. Cockayne near Hanmer. This differs in several particulars, and therefore the species as defined by Cheeseman is compound, consisting of at least two distinct varieties, or even species.

55. Hebe Armstrongii (Johnson ex J. B. Armstrg.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Armstrongii Johnson ex J. B. Armstrg. in N.Z. Country Journ. 3 (1879) 59.

The type is the plant so common in gardens, all raised vegetatively from most probably the specimen collected by J. F. Armstrong and

– 41 –

W. Grey (then gardener to T. H. Potts). Four months later T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 11 (1879) 464 based his V. Armstrongii on the same material, together with specimens collected by himself in the Upper Wairau and the “Amuri” (mountains near Hanmer?). Kirk suggested that the “plant” had the appearance of a cross between V. salicornioides and V. Hectori, but he included in the latter species not merely the Otago form or forms, but the plants from Nelson, where H. Hectori does not occur. Cheeseman in the Manual ed. 2, cites all Kirk's material, and adds a specimen collected by Petrie on the Kurow Mountains, and remarks that the species is ‘very rare in the wild state, but quite common in cultivation, where it varies considerably, producing leaf-sheaths much longer than any wild specimens I have seen.” That is, Cheeseman includes in his conception of the species at least two different jordanons. On the other hand, we restrict the species to the Rangitata plant (i.e. the garden plant), but admit it to the flora, for the present, with the greatest hesitation.

56. Hebe annulata (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica annulata (Petrie) Ckn. ex Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 2 (1925) 819.

This is a well-marked simple species related to H. Armstrongii, but a far smaller plant, green, not brownish, in colour, with the leaves rounded at the apex and lacking a terminal cusp. So far it is known only from one station (Takitimu Mountains, on rock at 900 m. alt.); but L. Cockayne noted several plants uniform in structure. In the Manual Cheeseman cites New Zealand Plants and their Story ed. 2, as the place of publication by L. Cockayne, but the name only is there mentioned. We have the type in cultivation.

57. *Hebe propinqua (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica propinqua Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora (1906) 583.

This is a distinct compound species, confined to the South Otago Botanical District, where it grows on flat, peaty ground, sometimes in large colonies. The type is the form so long cultivated in gardens under the name Veronica salicornioides.

(a.) var. major(Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica propinqua Cheesem. var. major Ckn. ex Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora ed. 2 (1925) 820.

This is a much larger and more robust plant than the type, and, as far as we know, much commoner than it.

58. Hebe Poppelwellii (Ckn.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. emend.

Descriptio ut in loc. cit. infra sed foliis interdum angustioribus apicibus fere acuminatis. = Veronica Poppelwellii Ckn. pro parte in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 200.

The original description was drawn up from living plants growing in the gardens of Messrs. D. L. Poppelwell and J. Speden (Gore), but according to Poppelwell such matched wild plants of the Garvie Mountains. Later the senior author collected another Hebe on Mount Dick, which, though extremely close to the type has still more slender shoots, and rather narrower leaves with a distinct bluntly pointed

– 42 –

axpex. This plant we unite with H. Poppelwellii, which thus becomes a compound taxonomic species. To keep separate such closely related jordanons could serve no good purpose. Evidently the group needs further study in the field.

59. *Hebe imbricata (Petrie) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica imbricata Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 48 (1916) 189.

This species was overlooked by Cheeseman in the Manual ed. 2. It comes close to H. Poppelwellii, but is a far stouter plant judging from Petrie's type. Possibly it would be best to still further extend the conception of H. Poppelwellii to include this species, in which case, as Petrie's description appears earlier in the volume in which both species were published, the latter name would give place to Hebe imbricata. This emphasizes further the need for field study of the whole group, and it is not impossible that H. imbricata may be really a cross between H. Hectori and H. Poppelwellii.

60. *Hebe cupressoides (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica cupressoides Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 212.

This is a distinct simple species, so far as is known.

[*Vcronica cassinioides H. J. Matthews ex Petrie in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 47 (1915) 52.]

This is based on a well-known garden plant, and on wild plants of a different origin collected by Poppelwell and Steadman on the Garvie Mountains. Both exactly match in character artificial hybrids made by crossing a Hebe, of the whipcord type and a small-leaved Hebe, e.g. H. buxifolia. Hybrids of a similar form have also originated spontaneously in at least one garden. Most certainly the species as such must be removed from the flora, and the wild hybrid receive a name, while that of×H. cassinioides be restricted to the cultigen.

61. *Hebe Haastii (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Haastii Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 213.

This is a distinct compound species of at least two jordanons. (a.) var. macrocalyx (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica macrocalyx J. B. Armstrg. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13 (1881) 353.

This is such a well-marked jordanon that it may be best, as N. E. Brown has suggested, to treat it as a species. For its diagnosis as a variety Cheeseman uses four lines of small print.

62. *Hebe epacridea (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica epacridea Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 213.

This is a distinct but apparently compound species. It hybridizes with H. Haastii, and probably other species.

63. *Hebe Petriei (T. Kirk) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Petriei T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 517.

This is a most distinct, apparently simple species.

64. *Hebe dasyphylla (T. Kirk) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica dasyphylla T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 519.

This is a distinct but compound species, remarkable, as Cheeseman states, “for the large terminal flower and 5-lobed calyx and corolla.”

– 43 –

It was described by Hooker (Handbk. N.Z. Flora 1864, p. 188) as Logania tetragona. Hooker states that the stamens number five, but no later specimens have been found with more than two.

65. *Hebe uniflora (T. Kirk) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica uniflora T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 522.

This is very close to Hebe dasyphylla, but much smaller in all its parts. Possibly it would be better to unite the two as a compound species. We have not seen it growing wild.

66. *Hebe macrantha (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica macrantha Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 213.

This is a very distinct compound species. Hooker based his species on specimens collected in “Middle Island, Travers; Southern Alps, grassy hillsides, 2500–4000 ft., sources of the Waitaki, etc., Haast.” This is the large-flowered variety, possibly a compound one, extending along the central Southern Alps, for which we propose the varietal name vera.

(a.) var. vera Ckn. et Allan var. nov. = Veronica macrantha Hook. f. sens. strict.

This occurs in wetter localities than the next variety.

(b.) var. brachyphylla (Cheesem.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica macrantha Hook. f. var. brachyphylla Cheesem. in Man. N.Z. Flora (1906) 537.

We fully agree with Cheeseman that this is a distinct variety, distinguished from var. vera, as he says, in the shorter broader leaves, more numerous racemes and smaller flowers. It occurs not only in the North-western Botanical District, as given in the Manual, but also in the wetter part of the North-eastern District. On Mount Isabel, Hanmer, it is a characteristic member of the subalpine-scrub.

67. Hebe Benthami (Hook. f.). Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Benthami Hook. f. in Fl. Antarct. 1 (1840) 60, tt. 39, 40.

This distinct species is confined, so far as is known, to the Lord Auckland and the Campbell Islands.

[*Veronica erecta T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 517.]

This is a cultigen described from a plant grown in the garden of the late William Martin, nurseryman, Green Island. It is said to have been collected on Mount Bonpland, Otago, but no subsequent botanist has found there specimens to match the cultivated plant. We remove it from the flora.

68. *Hebe Hulkeana (F. Muell. ex Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Hulkeana F. Muell. ex Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 213.

This is a very distinct compound species that contains, probably, several jordanons that require further analysis. Variously coloured flowers occur on wild plants, including white.

– 44 –

(a.) var. oblonga (T. Kirk) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Hulkeana F. Muell. var. oblonga T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 518.

Cheeseman apparently saw specimens of this, collected by three persons, so it may be a valid variety.

[*var. fairfieldii T. Kirk in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28 (1896) 518.]

Veronica fairfieldii is supposed to be a cultigen from the late Mr. W. Martin's nursery garden at Fairfield near Dunedin. T. Kirk, however, states it came from Fairfield Downs, which, we presume, is somewhere in Marlborough.

69. Hebe Lavaudiana (Raoul) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Lavaudiana Raoul in Choix de Pl. Nouv. Zel. (1846) 16, t. 10.

This is a distinct simple species. It is considerably plastic under cultivation.

70. *Hebe Raoulii (Hook. f.) Ckn. et Allan comb. nov. = Veronica Raoulii Hook. f. in Handbk. N.Z. Flora (1864) 214.

This is a distinct species, but whether simple or compound we do not know. We have noted great differences in size amongst wild plants, but this may be a matter of epharmony only.

3. Description of New Hybrids.

The hybrids here dealt with are not merely small groups of individuals standing midway in their characters between their two parents, but polymorphic swarms of individuals that usually range from forms almost identical with one or other of the parents to those standing midway in character, while the remainder may show almost all conceivable combinations of the clear-cut parental characters, or some of these characters may appear unchanged. Obviously to draw up diagnoses of such groups, as compared with diagnoses of jordanons is impossible, and only particulars of a general kind can be given in a limited space; in other words, though taxonomic rules demand descriptions such are of no real moment. Indeed, the need for such group-names has hardly before been properly realized, and the matter is not really provided for in the present Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. In view of this we have had, perforce, to make our own rules. Such hybrids as are dealt with in the Rules are not highly polymorphic groups of individuals, but groups of individuals of fair, or complete, constancy, usually midway between the parents. For example×Salix capreola is not the name of a heterogeneous group, but of a small group of closely similar individuals; and so with certain hybrids of Primula and other genera, for which definite diagnoses have been given.

In New Zealand taxonomy many hybrids have been described as species, and in most cases the diagnoses given apply only to a small, fairly uniform group—sometimes only to one plant—within the larger swarm. Obviously, to include under such a name the whole polymorphic group of which the “species” formed an insignificant part would go against the intention of the original author, and forms

– 45 –

absolutely distinct from the ordinary standpoint of species would come together. It has seemed to us best to give a new name to such a hybrid group as a whole—indeed, as a hybrid it has no name—, a course permitted by Articles 48, 49 of the Rules, for hybrids and species are certainly not of the “same rank.”* On the other hand, if we use the name of the false species (and there is no law compelling us to do so) we let it stand only for the small group for which it was originally designed. In this way no confusion can occur such as would happen if the name of a definite plant or small group of closely related individuals was given an extremely wide signification. This is especially true of Hebe, since any plant may be broadcast by means of cuttings, and then remains perfectly constant, except for minor epharmonic differences.

We therefore adopt the following procedure:

(1) A name is made for the polymorphic hybrid group by combining the specific names of the two parents, in an abbreviated form, and attaching an appropriate suffix. For the most part an adjectival ending seems most appropriate, e.g. for the group Hebe elliptica×salicifolia we construct the name×Hebe ellipsala. Although we usually place the names in alphabetical order we do not hesitate to reverse them when euphony seems to demand such a course. Where a name is quite short it may be used in full, e.g. for the group Hebe Astoni×laevis we use×H. laevastoni.

(2) Should there have already been described as a species one group of the polymorphic hybrids intermediate in character between the parents that name is kept for the group of hybrid individuals coming midway between the parents. Thus Cheeseman defined a group of individuals that he considered resembled one another, as Veronica amabilis. This we hold is a group of hybrids coming midway between H. elliptica and H. salicifolia, and we maintain the name×Hebe amabilis for this small section of×H. ellipsala, though by the Rules we are not compelled to use “amabilis” but could give a new name.

(3) Should it seem desirable for any purpose to delimit still smaller groups within the major group, we suggest that some such formular plan as that adopted by the junior author (Allan, 1925, p. 288) is appropriate. For×Hebe ellipsala, e.g. the formula for the small groups would run E5, E4, E3, E2, E1, ES, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, Thus×H. ellipsala E5 would refer to a group very closely approximating to H. elliptica, and so through×H. ellipsala ES (a group quite midway between the parents) to×H. ellipsala S3 for a group almost identical with H. salicifolia. Of course such formulæ should not be elaborated over much, nor should be interpretated as expressing anything more than the morphological grouping of the individuals. But it certainly seems preferable to refer to “hybrid forms

[Footnote] * To quote from a letter we have sent to Nature prior to receiving the proofs of this paper, “A hybrid swarm is a totally different biological group to that of a species. In the latter case there can be a “type,” in the former a type is impossible. Further, species deal with definite static groups but hybrid swarms with indefinite dynamic groups, for the hybrids of to-day are being replaced before our eyes by other forms, yet for these the group name will serve.”

– 46 –

of the groups S3-S5” than to “passage-forms into H. salicifolia” or “variable forms,” considering the misleading nature of such phrases.

As justifying our procedure it seems clear that, as stated in the Rules, a name should tell of the history of the species etc., and this our method clearly does. It also tells any student of the flora who knows the specific names the exact parentage of the hybrid. The Rules require a name to be in Latin, but botanical Latin is by no means classical Latin, and to us it would appear to be an exceedingly hypercritical objection to raise the point that our compounded names are not in classical Latin form, and, indeed, we concede the adjectival ending merely for custom sake—we do not really think “ellipsala” has any advantage over “ellipsal.” The method seems to us so simple, practical, and informative that we are sanguine it will be generally approved and followed. Nor is it without a precedent, for there are groups of garden hybrids named in this manner, e.gIris monspur = I. Monnieri×spuria; and in De Candolle's Prodromus the full specific names of certain species of Cistus are joined together to express hybridity. But to use the specific terms in full makes the name unwieldy, and so we have decided that the commonsense plan is to abbreviate them more or less.

1.×Hebe macrosala Ckn. et Allan hyb. nov. (H. macrocarpa×salicifolia).

Frutices altitudine habituque parentium similes; folia tenuia ut in H. salicifolia ad sub-crassa ut in H. macrocarpa; flores aliquatenus forma magnitudineque illos parentium interjacentes; capsulæ ± 5 mm. usque ad ± 8 mm. longæ.

2.×Hebe ellipsala Ckn. et Allan hyb. nov. (H. elliptica×salicifolia).

Frutices altitudine habituque illos parentium interjacentes; folia ± 19 mm. usque ad ± 130 mm. longa, apiculata vel sub-acuta vel sub-acuminata, tenuia vel sub-crassa, elliptica,-elliptico-oblonga, vel oblongo-lanceolata; racemi plerumque in H. salicifolia sed breviores quam in H. salicifolia; flores capsulæque aliquatenus illas parentium interjacentes.

3.×Hebe angustisala Ckn. et Allan hyb. nov. (Hebe angustifolia×salicifolia).

Frutices altitudine habituque parentium similes; folia plerumque plus minusve anguste linearo-oblonga vel linearo-lanceolatæ, ± 7 mm. lata usque ad ± 19 mm. lata; corollæ-tubus aliquam brevis vel longior ut in H. angustifolia.

4.×Hebe laevisala Ckn. et Allan hyb. nov. (Hebe laevis×salicifolia).

Frutices altitudine habituque illos parentium interjacentes; folia ± 12 mm. usque ad ± 100 mm. longa, ovato-oblonga, oblonga, vel lanceolato-oblonga, breviter petiolata vel fere sessilia; racemi aliquanto longiores quam in H. laeve, plerumque breviores quam in H. salicifolia.

– 47 –

5.×Hebe leiosala Ckn. et Allan hybr. nov. (Hebe leiophylla×salicifolia).

Frutices altitudine habituque parentium similes; folia plerumque plus minusve oblongo-lanceolatæ, ± 7 mm. usque ad ± 18 mm. lata; corollæ tubus aliquam brevis vel longior ut in H. leiophylla.

6.×Hebe laevastoni Ckn. et Allan hyb. nov. (Hebe Astonii×laevis).

Frutices habitu illos parentium interjacentes; folia breviora quam in H. laeve sed sub-erecta, non appressa ut in illis H. Astonii; flores fructusque adhuc non visi.

4. List of Literature Referred to, but Excluding such as Deals Merely with Publication of Names.

Allan, H. H., 1925. Illustrations of Wild Hybrids in the New Zealand Flora, Genetica, Deel 7, pp. 287–292.

Adamson, R. S., 1912. On the Comparative Anatomy of the Leaves of Certain Species of Veronica, Journ. Linn. Soc., vol. 40, pp. 247–274.

Armstrong, J. B., 1879. Botany, N.Z. Country Journal, vol. 3, pp. 56–59.

"1880. A short Sketch of the Flora of the Province of Canterbury, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 12, pp. 325–353.

Bailey, L. H., 1924. Manual of Cultivated Plants, p. 25. The Macmillan Company, New York.

Cheeseman, T. F.1882. Contributions to a Flora of the Nelson Provincial District, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 14, pp. 301–329.

—1888. On the Flora of the Kermadec Islands, Ibid., vol. 20, pp. 151–181.

—1897. On the Flora of the North Cape District, Ibid., vol. 29, pp. 333–385.

—1906. The Manual of the New Zealand Flora—the part relating to Veronica, pp. 490–541.

—1925. Ibid., ed. 2—the part relating to Veronica, pp. 776–827.

Cockayne, L.,1912. Observations concerning Evolution, derived from Ecological Studies in New Zealand, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 44, pp. 1–50.

—1916. Notes on New Zealand Floristic Botany, including Descriptions of New Species &c, Ibid., vol. 48, pp. 193–202.

—1917. A Consideration of the Terms “Species” and “Variety” as used in Botany, with Special Reference to the Flora of New Zealand, Ibid., vol. 49, pp. 66–79.

—1918. Notes on New Zealand Floristic Botany, including Descriptions of New Species &c. (No. 3), Ibid., vol. 50, pp. 161–191.

—1923. Hybridism in the New Zealand Flora, The New Phytologist, vol. 22, pp. 105–127.

—and Allan, H. H., 1925. Notes on New Zealand Floristic Botany, including Descriptions of New Species &c. (No. 4), Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 21–33.

Kirk, T., 1889. The Forest Flora of New Zealand, Wellington.

—1896. Notes on Certain Veronicas, and Descriptions of New Species, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 28, pp. 515–531.

Lotsy, J. P., 1916. Evolution by means of Hybridization, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

Oliver, W. R. B., 1910. The Vegetation of the Kermadec Islands. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 42, pp. 118–175.

Pennell, F. W., 1921. “Veronica” in North and South America, Rhodora, vol. 23, pp. 1–41.

Wall, A., 1925. The Flora of Mount Cook, Christchurch.