Geographic Range and Internal Distribution of the Mosses Indigenous to New Zealand.

By William Martin.

Pioneer research into the bryophytic flora was also conducted by Dr. Lyall, surgeon to the survey ship Acheron, between the years 1847 to 1851; and in 1876–7 by Dr. Sven Berggren, a Swedish botanist of note, whose moss collections exceeded 3000. In 1861–2, Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay, the Scottish cryptogamist, while on a health trip to New Zealand, spent several months studying the cryptogamic flora of Eastern Otago. His major results were published six years later in Contributions to New Zealand Botany, wherein are listed 44 mosses from the Dunedin area.

New Zealand students of the moss flora, active in the latter half of the century, include W. Colenso, J. B. Armstrong, J. Buchanan, T. Kirk, W. Bell, R. Brown, T. Naylor-Beckett, D. Petrie, and others, who either published their results in the Trans. N.Z. Institute or forwarded their material to W. Mitten, V. F. Brotherus, Carl Müller, C. Warnstorf, or other authority. The combined results of their labours were subsequently collated by H. N. Dixon, and, after critical review, were published by the New Zealand Institute in a series of six bulletins entitled Studies in the Bryology of New Zealand. Herein were enumerated some 469 species under a modernised nomenclature.

During the present century bryological research has been continued by D. Petrie, W. Gray, L. Cockayne, K. W. Allison, Mrs. E. A. Hodgson, Miss L. B. Moore, F. B. Matthews, V. Zotov, R. Mundy, G. O. K. Sainsbury, the writer, and others; and their combined labours have thrown quite a flood of light on problems of distribution. Most of the material collected by the above workers has passed through the hands of H. N. Dixon, of England, or of G. O. K. Sainsbury, of Wairoa, or of both, which gives additional assurance that the records are based on correctly identified material.

Since Dixon's review of the moss flora, completed in 1928, numerous papers have been published which have added considerably to the catalogue of indigenous mosses, and it may be expected that the ultimate list will not fall far short of 600, as predicted by J. D. Hooker a century ago. The total species listed by Dixon in the Studies was 469; the present list enumerates 493 species and 51 recognised varieties, to which must be added the numerous species and varieties of Sphagnum, a genus omitted from the present statistical review on account of the uncertainty attending the identification of many New Zealand species. The estimated total inclusive of the Sphagnaceae now stands at 513 species and 54 named varieties, or a grand total of 567.

(a) Published Literature.

All available literature, involving most of the publications and papers that deal with the New Zealand moss flora, has been read, and named localities have been credited to each moss referred to, under its present-day name. Synonyms are very numerous and make the tabulation of locality records rather difficult and tedious. In all, some 1950 published locality records (marked 0 in Table V) have been listed and credited to the Botanical Districts to which the localities belong. The Botanical Districts are those of Cockayne (Vegetation of New Zealand, 2nd Edit., pp. 380–400), the sub-districts of Thames and Banks Peninsula being treated for convenience as independent districts. The boundary between the Eastern and Western districts is here regarded and treated as co-incident with the Provincial boundary, this being the line of separation between the mesophytic, sub-tropical rain-forests of Westland and the xerophytic, subantarctic beech forests of Canterbury. Records for Mount Cook and Arthur's Pass are credited therefore to the Eastern and not to the Western Botanical District.

All available literature concerning the moss floras of Tasmania. Australia, South America, Subantarctic Islands, and Pacific Islands has been consulted, and the presence of New Zealand mosses noted. Similarly, American, European, and British Moss Floras have been searched, but it must be stressed that the specific identity of many exotic and indigenous mosses can only be finally established after critical comparison by competent authorities.

(b) Herbarium Material Examined.

The herbarium at the Dominion Museum in Wellington contains a large part of Colenso's and Kirk's mosses and the major portion of those collected by Dr. Donald Petrie. Though this latter botanist nowhere refers to his mosses in his numerous botanical papers, it is to be noted that he was an ardent collector of the mosses, with very many discoveries and interesting “finds” to his credit. From this herbarium 150 mosses proved to have been collected from Botanical Districts from which there were no previous records. A similar examination of the material housed at the Auckland Memorial Museum provided a further 100 “first records,” and the Otago Museum Herbarium at Dunedin 40. At Auckland the Cheeseman and Berggren collections are housed, while those of J. Buchanan and in part those of T. Kirk are preserved at Dunedin.

Previous to the examination of the herbaria at Auckland and Dunedin, G. O. K. Sainsbury had already generously supplied over 1000 “first records” from his own extensive herbarium, otherwise the figures for these herbaria would have been much higher. The writer's herbarium has supplied an additional 125 first records for various Botanical Districts. A vast amount of corroborative evidence sub-stantiating published records has also been obtained from the herbaria examined.

General Observations Concerning Published Locality Records for Indigenous Mosses.

Records from specific localities are easily placed in their appropriate Botanical Districts. Many early records, however, are merely listed as from New Zealand without precise locality; and still others are recorded as “widespread”, “common throughout the Islands”, “widely distributed”, etc. Such records can be credited to the appropriate islands, but not to any Botanical District. Again, records such as “Otago” or “Auckland”, which incorporate three Botanical Districts, are too indefinite in themselves to permit of being credited to any one of these. Fortunately, in numerous cases corroborative evidence is available. Published records based on doubtful determinations have been ignored, unless subsequently confirmed by a recognised authority. A majority of the “new” species described by Colenso and by Brown are but trivial variants of previously known mosses, but the locality records arc of value, and have been credited to the appropriate species.

Endemic Mosses.

Bellia, Bryodixonia, Hennediella, and Tetraphidopsis certainly and Archephemeropsis and Cryptopodium probably are endemic genera. Orthorrhynchium, if validly distinct from Phyllogonium, is likewise endemic; if also, as has been suggested by Dixon, a South American moss has possibly been wrongly placed in the genus, then Dendroligotrichum becomes an endemic genus also. Of these genera Hennediella is apparently restricted to the eastern side of the South Island, and Bryodixonia to Mount Egmont, but Bellia and Tetraphidopsis are widespread. The other genera are likewise widespread save that Archephemeropsis has not been found north of the Volcanic Plateau or south of Nelson and Marlborough, while Dendroligotrichum is wholly subalpine.

One hundred and ninety-seven (or 37%) of the 533 mosses representing the Bryales are endemic, 45.5% of the Andreales, and probably one-third of the Sphagnales. Of the endemic Bryales, 46 are

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

Botanical Status of Some Mosses Enumerated in Table V.

In a recent paper (1945, pp. 169–186) Sainsbury has reduced Macromitrium retusum H.f. et W. to a variety of M. gracile (Hook.) Schwaegr.; M. recurvulum C.M. to a variety of M. eucalyptorum Hpe. and C.M. and has merged M. petriei Dix with M. erosulum Mitt. and M. rigescens Broth. and Dix. with M. grossirete C.M. Zygodon brownii Schwaegr. and Zygodon sulcatus (Knight) Dixon have also recently been merged with Z. intermedius B. and S. There are, however, a number of other mosses which may ultimately be eliminated as not being specifically distinct. Thus, Mr. Sainsbury informs me, the following mergers may have to take place, viz.: Campylopus pudicus with C. introflexus, Camptochaete brachydictya with C. pulvinata, Bryum billardieri with B. truncorum, B. laevigatulum with B. curvicollum.

In the paper cited above the specific distinctness of Papillaria flexicaulis and P. filipendula, and of Mniodendron comosum and M. comatum is questioned, and Rhacopilum cristatum and R. laetum are regarded as no more than forms of R. strumiferum. It is true that in some genera (e.g., Dicranoloma, Macromitrium, Sphagnum) some of the forms almost defy the taxonomist. Whether these “intermediate” forms are due to “inherent plasticity or variability”, whatever that implies, or whether due to hybridism is difficult to decide. Bryologists, like phanerogamic taxonomists of a previous decade, are loth to admit the frequency of hybridization, but it seems probable that hybridization is more common amongst mosses than is generally supposed. Of course, genetic experiment must be the final criterion.

The claim of several species to be indigenous rests on a single specimen in a foreign herbarium (e.g., Camptochaeta vaga, Meteorium nitens) or on a record without known herbarium corroboration (e.g., Ectropothecium sandwichense). Whether one or two species (e.g., Scleropodium purum) are truly indigenous or introduced or both is not certainly known. Lastly, whether all species listed as endemic are really so must await extended bryological surveys in Australia, South America, and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the really doubtful species of the New Zealand flora form but a small fraction of the whole, and bryological research in this country is probably more advanced than elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere; Tasmania possibly excepted.

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

(Note: The Sphagnaceae have not been included. Owing to the meagre bryological research accomplished over vast tracts of the earth, and to the need for monographical study of many genera, the above figures must be subject to future modification.)