![Thumbnail: [Volume 77, 1948-49 page 177]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_77/thumbnails/rsnz_77_01_0249_0177_ac_02.gif)
Polygonaceae.
Polygonum convolvulus Linn. var. subalatum Lej. et Court. In the first record of this variety by Healy (1944: 222), a typographical error occurs, and the varietal name is incorrectly published as var. subulatum Lej. et Court. Additional localities for this variety are: Nelson, H. H. Allan 1292; Christchurch 33836.
P. lapathifolium Linn. Originally recorded by Smith (1904: 206, 222) from Ashburton County; Cheeseman (1906: 1085) says of the species: “Ashburton, W. W. Smith. I have not seen New Zealand specimens.” Later, Cheeseman (1925: 1061) admits the species in New Zealand, and gives the distribution thus: “North and South Islands: Ditches and roadsides, apparently increasing. In immense abundance in the lower part of the Awanui River Flats, H. Carse! Hauraki Plains, W. Godfrey! New Plymouth, W. W. Smith; vicinity of Ashburton, H. H. Allan.” Allan (1940: 87) also admits the species, stating “Infrequent in damp places in both Islands.”
The specimens under this name in the Cheeseman Herbarium have been examined, and are representative of one locality only, namely, Kaiaka, North Auckland; there is an undetermined specimen from Ashburton, collected by W. W. Smith, this being typical P. hydropiper Linn. Carse's specimens from Kaiaka in the Cheeseman Herbarium do not match the descriptions of P. lapathifolium Linn., since instead of the dense, oblong-cylindrical racemes characteristic of this species, these specimens all possess long, lax, distant-flowered racemes, resembling those of P. hydropiper Linn. These specimens appear to be close to P. nodosum Pers., but the treatments of the genus available are not sufficiently full to make certain
![Thumbnail: [Volume 77, 1948-49 page 178]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_77/thumbnails/rsnz_77_01_0250_0178_ac_02.gif)
identification. I have only seen one New Zealand specimen of P. lapathifolium Linn., from a linen-flax crop near Geraldine, R. Mason, January, 1943, 45933. It appears that L. lapathifolium Linn. has been confused with P. hydropiper Linn., and with the failure to meet the species in the field and the virtual absence of specimens in herbaria, it must be regarded as rare.
†Rumex brownii Campd. This Australian species has not been previously recorded from New Zealand, although it has been present in the country for many years. Examination of specimens of this genus in the Plant Research Bureau and Dominion Museum Herbaria show that this species has been confused with the indigenous R. flexuosus Sol. ex Forst. f. and the naturalized R. pulcher Linn., and has been placed in these species. The following key will serve to distinguish these three species:
| 1. Tubercle present on one or all fruit valves | R. pulcher |
| Tubercle absent from all fruit valves | 2 |
| 2. Inflorescence flexuose: fruit valves with acuminate tip and marginal bristles hooked | R. flexuosus |
| Inflorescence not flexuose: fruit valves produced into a long hooked bristle, marginal bristles hooked | R. brownii |
The following material has been examined:
(a) Plant Research Bureau Herbarium—Mount Wellington lavafields, Auckland, D. Petrie, November, 1919 (as R. flexuosus?) 1910; roadside near Westshore, Napier, April, 1945 (as R. pulcher Linn.?) 33928; pasture, Dashwood Pass, Marlborough, May, 1942 (as R. pulcher Linn.?) 45251; Nelson, H. H. Allan, January, 1929 (as R. pulcher Linn.) 1291; Hae Hae te Moana Valley, South Canterbury, R. M. Laing, date not given (as R. brownii?) 1898.
(b) Dominion Museum Herbarium—Whangarei, D. Petrie, February, 1895 (as R. flexuosus Sol.); Little Barrier Island, D. Petrie, December, 1896 (as R. flexuosus? Sol.); One Tree Hill, Auckland, D. Petrie, April, 1901 (as R. flexuosus? Sol.); Remuera, Auckland, D. Petrie, March, 1907 (as R. flexuosus? Sol.). I have noted recently that this species is thoroughly established on roadsides and in pasture, Dashwood and Weld Passes, Marlborough, and in coastal areas near Nelson.
The species has been recorded by Laing (1915: 25) as introduced at Norfolk Island, and I have recently determined a specimen from the Kermadec Islands collected by Mr. J. H. Sorenson.
Rumex sagittatus Thunb. In an earlier paper (Healy, 1944: 222), I expressed doubt as to the correct identity of the plant known in New Zealand as R. scutatus Linn. Mr. J. H. Lousley, who is working on the British Rumices, kindly examined New Zealand material for me, and has advised that the plant is really R. sagittatus Thunb. Mr. Lousley's notes (in litteris) deal with the distribution of the species in the Southern Hemisphere, and several extracts are given below: “It has been taken into cultivation as a yam on account of the tubers, and is also used in gardens as an ornamental plant because of the brightly coloured petals.” He mentions that there are specimens at Kew distributed from the Botanic Gardens, Brisbane, labelled “Subspontaneous, N. Sydney, C. T. White, no. 10333, 19/12/1935” and “…there is also material with a badly scribbled label which appears to read ‘Java—Lawang Botanic Garden’ which was received
[Footnote] † Denotes species recorded for the first time for New Zealand.
![Thumbnail: [Volume 77, 1948-49 page 179]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_77/thumbnails/rsnz_77_01_0251_0179_ac_02.gif)
in 1913—this was presumably cultivated, but may be the source from which the plants introduced into Australia and New Zealand were derived.”
This plant is becoming more widely distributed in New Zealand, due to its use as a garden ornamental and its subsequent escape from cultivation.