![Thumbnail: [Volume 82, 1954-55 page 266]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_82/thumbnails/rsnz_82_02_0307_0266_ac_02.gif)
3. Veronica agrestis L (Serophulariaceae)
This European species was recorded originally from Auckland, on the authority of T. Kirk, by Hooker (1867: 761), and was subsequently recorded from the Waitemata district by Kirk (1870: 141). from the Wellington district
![Thumbnail: [Volume 82, 1954-55 page 267]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_82/thumbnails/rsnz_82_02_0308_0267_ac_02.gif)
by Kirk (1878A: 375), from Otago by Kirk (1878B: 416), and as “A weed of frequent occurrence in most districts [Auckland Provincial District] by Cheeseman (1883:289).
On the distribution and abundance of the species in the present century, the main authorities comment as follows: Cheeseman (1906: 1083, 1925: 1077 “Kermadec Islands, North and South Islands: fields and waste places, abundant.”; Hilgendorf (1926. 158, 1948: 164) “…is abundant in fields and waste places throughout the islands.”; Allan (1940: 201) “Common in waste places, cultivated land and open pastures in both Islands.” The species has also been cited by various authors as a weed of waste places, arable land and pastures in many districts.
The above-quoted statements would indicate Veronica agrestis L. as a widespread and common species, yet on the basis of fifteen years of search in the field and examination of all available material in New Zealand herbaria, I have seen only two specimens of New Zealand origin, indicating that the species is by no means as common as has been suggested.
There is a specimen in the Botany Division Herbarium (ex Herb. T. Kirk) from Auckland, collector and date not stated (58027), although it was probably collected by Kirk himself, and may even be the basis for Hooker's original record. The second specimen I collected from cultivated land at Akaroa, 19th February, 1945 (33837), it being one which for several years I regarded as a whitish-flowered variant of V. persica Poir.
It is evident that the species has been confused both in the field and in the herbarium with V. persica Poir. and V. arvensis L., from both of which species it is readily distinguished V. arvensis with its sessile or subsessile fruits is easily separated from the other species which have distinctly stalked fruits. While closely related. V. agrestis is distinguished from V. persica by the fruiting pedicels being nearly as long as the leaves, the calyx lobes obtuse or sub-obtuse, the capsule slightly broader than long with narrow acute sinus, and the style about as long as the sinus, whereas in V. persica the fruiting pedicels are distinctly longer than the leaves, the calyx lobes acute, the capsule considerably broader than long with wide oblique sinus, and obliquely bent style much longer than the sinus.
The Akaroa specimens show mature fruits with turgid lobes and distinct keel, long glandular, and slightly shorter eglandular hairs on the keel, but virtually glabrous on the faces of the valves. Kirk's specimens are immature, but are hairy on the keel and valve faces, the more normal state in the species.
Considering the discrepancy between the published accounts of abundance, etc., and the virtual inability to find the species in vivo or in sicco, the position merits further consideration As far as absence of herbarium material is concerned, there is the possibility that, being a common species, collections were rarely made (this position exists with some common aliens), but this possibility is negatived by the reasonably large collections of the other common species of Veronica, and that what purported to be material of the species was either V. arvensis or V. persica. On this basis, I suggest that the species was, and still is not common, and that published accounts have been based on an erroneous concept of the species, as was instanced in Britain by Drabble and Little (1931: 180).
![Thumbnail: [Volume 82, 1954-55 page 268]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_82/thumbnails/rsnz_82_02_0309_0268_ac_02.gif)
It could be, of course, that the behaviour of V. agrestis in New Zealand paralleled that in Britain, where there is evidence that it is becoming increasingly rarer—Edees (1945: 274–5) is quoted (Anon. 1947: 63) in respect of the species in Staffordshire as”.… formerly described as common but this ‘is not true to-day. In the last ten years… found only half-a-dozen times …. a decreasing species,….’”, and Good (1948: 196) with reference to Dorset, appears to imply a decrease in abundance of the species when he notes under V. persica Poir. “A common and widely distributed weed colonist chiefly on calcareous soils. Much more plentiful and frequent now than V. polita or V. agrestis.” Treating the present position of the species in the British Isles, Clapham et al. (1952: 886) not the species as “…… perhaps less common than formerly.”
For this premise of decreasing abundance to be valid in respect of the species in New Zealand, definite evidence of abundance in former years followed by a diminishing abundance during recent decades is necessary—such evidence is lacking by way of extant specimens, and the confusion in our concept of the species males it necessary to treat published records with doubt.
My experience with the species, based on the Akaroa occurrence, is that it appears fugitive in nature, since re-examination of the sites in February, 1949, revealed no trace of the plant, although conditions were unchanged. It is a casual, perhaps arising from periodic seed introductions, and at the present time is either rare or non-existent.
The remarks of Guthrie-Smith (1926: 275–6) concerning the habits of the plant he considered as V. agrestis, indicate a behaviour atypical of the other naturalized species of Veronica, and while the identification must be regarded with reserve, the behaviour seems more in keeping with that of V. agrestis. Of the occurrence at “Tutira,” Hawke's Bay, he notes the probable introduction in soil attached to roots of moss-roses about 1883, and (p. 276) that “the plant has never strayed far; it is a garden rather than a field species, and has for thirty years remained within a few dozen yards of the spot of its first appearance.”