, - r
( ,
1 . .t
36 FLORA ANTARCTICA. [Auckland and
Iff 1
C. longifolia (1 .). ITiis is the original species, whereon the genus was founded by Cassini; the specimens
having been brought home by Gaudichaud from the voyage of Admiral Freycinet, and described in ‘ Diet. Sc.
Nat.’ vol. xxxvii. p. *259. DeCandolle considers Cunningham’s Blue Mountain species (Arctotis gnaphalodes,
Cunn. MS. in Herb. Hook.) as identical with this. Our specimens differ from Gaudicliaud’s figure only by
haring the leaves much uanxwer, with their margins revolute and the scapes far less leafy upwards. The
achænia are constantly glabrous, the pappus pale reddish, and the papillose part of the arms of the style is as long
as the linear and glabrous portion. Of the C. spathuJata (2.), A. C. MSS., we have no specimens ; in its glabrous
foliage it differs from all but C. vernicosa. A third species is founded on a Tasmanian plant not rare on the
summit of Mount Wellington, where it forms large matted patches. The first specimens I had seen were gathered
there by Mr. Frazer, and more latterly by myself and Mr. Gunn, who detected it in other mountainous
parts of the colony. I have called it C. asteliefolia (3.), from the great similarity it bears in foliage, general
aspect and habitat to Astelia alpiaa, Br. The leaves are extremely variable in breadth and in the degree of re-
cun-ing in their margins ; they are often very like those of C. longifolia, but never exceed a span in length. The
scapes too are longer, less leafy, and the flowers larger than in that species ; the hairy achænia also afford a
constant character, l l i e flowers of the ray are pink, the pappus yellow. The above three species are Australian.
Those found in New Zealand are C. gracilenta (4.), a plant so very near, even in the variable form
of its leaves, to C. longifolia, tbat it was not till I had examined the styles that I could detect any difference
; the conical papillose portion of these being much produced, gradually acuminated, and three times the
length of the lower part of the arms, xrith the papillæ almost filiform. From C. asteliefolia it differs in having
a glabrous achænium, which is much longer than in any of the former species. Nearly allied to this is the
C. graminifolia (5 .), mainly distinguished from the former by its foliage. Decidedly the finest species are
the three following, two of them originally discovered and described by Forster ; the first is C. spectabilis (6 .),
of which 1 possess a specimen from Mr. Bidwill. Though hardly exceeding a span in length, including the
scape, the base of the stem, while covered with the sheathing leaves, is fully au inch in diameter, and densely
clothed with long, beautifully silky wool. The leaves are broad and remarkably coriaceous, their upper surface,
in the dried state, minutely striated with anastomosing lines, and the under densely clothed with buff-coloured
appressed tomentum. The scape is stout, loosely covered with shaggy white wool, and producing a large, solitary,
apparently white flower, an inch and a half broad. The achænia are elongated, all of them glabrous ; the tubes
of the corolla, especially of the ray, have long, straight, pellucid, scattered, distantly jointed, and very slender
hairs. Pappus yellow, rigid ; the outer setæ, as in the other species of the genus, short, the rest gradually lengthening.
Ligules of the flowers of the ray linear, abruptly truncated, with three large teeth and four nerves. Anthers
shortly biaristate at the base ; styles with the arms rather elongated, the conical papillose portion of those of
the disc short and rather obtuse. Forster’s first species, C. holosericea (Aster, Forst.), has been found, I believe,
bv that botanist alone : his specimens exist in the British Museum, accompanied by his fine drawing of
sime sericeo-lanatis supra glabris subtus tomento fulvo appresso densissime obtectis, achæniis glaberrimis, tubo
corollæ piloso, antheris breriter biaristatis.
H a b. Northern Island ; Tongariro; Mr. Bidwill.
7. C. holosericea. Hook. fil. (Aster holosericeus, Forst. Prodr. n. 296) ; “ herbaceus, foliis oblongo-lanceo-
latis serratis, subtus argenteo-sericeis, scapis unifloris foliosis.”—Forst. l. c.
H ab. Dusky Bay ; G. Forster.
8. C. coriacea. Hook. fil. (Aster coriaceus, Forst. Prodr. n. 297) ; foliis oblongo-lanceolatis valde coriaceis
supra medio sulcatis glabris subtus villosis, achæniis pilosis, pappo rufo.
H ab. Dusky Bay; G. Forster.
' Y
ir«
CamphelVs Islands.] FLORA ANTARCTICA. 37
both the present and the last species. Richard (Flora Novoe Zelandiæ, p. 249) described it from other and
less perfect individuals, aided by Forster’s MS. in the Museum of the Jardin des Plantes at Paris. He however
does not notice its affinity to Celmisia, and considers the C. coriacea as probably a variety of it, though
Forster’s figures essentially differ in general appearance, and other characters are found in the parts of the
inflorescence of no less importance, tlie achænia described by Richard being “ silky and stipitate” (attenuated ?)
at the base. Mr. Cunningham, in his ‘ Prodr. Flor. Nov. Zeland.,’ first noticed the probable relation existing
between these last two species and Celmisia (Cass.). The scales of the involucre in all the New Zealand species,
except C. vernicosa, are narrow and almost subulate, becoming recurved and finally squarrose in the older
capitula ; this is, however, a variable character.
I may here mention another little-known New Zealand plant, originally discovered by Forster, and called
by him Arnica oporina (Forst. Prodr. n. 299) ; it is nearly allied both to these and the former genus Pleuro-
plnjllwn. 1 have carefully examined specimens from Dusky Bay, gathered by Mr. Menzies, and others from
Chatham Island, received from Dr. Dieffenbach. The achænia are ribbed and hairy, the pappus rigid, rather
scanty, pale-coloured, scabrous, and of veiy unequal setæ. The tubes of the corollas in the ray are glabrous, in
those of the disc slightly hairy. In both flowers the arms of the style precisely resemble those of Celmisia and are
very long, those of the disc with short papillose extremities. A comparison of this plant with the genus Chiliotri-
chum of Cassini, (published in DeCandolle’s Prodromus, vol. vi. p. 216, and Hooker’s leones Plantarum, voL.v.
t. 4 8 5 ) does not enable me to detect any generic distinction : the arms of the style in the flowers of the ray
are indeed rather longer in the latter and slightly attenuated upwards, and the achænia are glandular and not
hairy. Both approach very closely the genus Eurybia, Cass., or Olearia, Moench.
P late XXVI. & XXVII. Fig. 1, involucre cut open, showing the hemispherical receptacle with a flower
of the disc and of the ray ; fig. 2, a flower of the ray ; fig. 3, setæ of the pappus ; fig. 4 , tube of the ligulate
flower ; fig. 5, style from do. ; fig. 6, flower of the disc ; fig. 7, corolla from do. ; fig. 8, anther from the same ;
fig. 9, styles from the same :— all magnified.
Dubii generis.
Amongst the plants collected in Lord Auckland’s group, are two apparently belonging to the natural order
e , but which, in the absence of flower or fruit, I am unable to place under any genus. One of these
may belong to Gnaphalium, but is quite different from any New Zealand or other species which has come under
my notice. The only specimen of it which I possess was gathered by Mr. Lyall, and consists of apparently a
few radical leaves, or probably of a young plant whose stems are not yet produced upwards.
I . G n a p h a l iu m ? radice lignoso, caule brev iu scu lo 2 -3 u n c .lo n g o ad s cen d en te e b asi ramoso
folioso, foliis co nfertis p a tu lis obovato-lanceolatls su b sp a th u la tis o b tu sis in teg e rrim is p la n is medio
obscure u n in e rv iis u trin q u e lan a lax a molli alb id a v estitis | - 1 u n c. longis 4 -5 lin. latis.
H a b . L o rd A u ck lan d ’s g r o u p ; on th e sea-beach, D . L y a ll, E sq .
The woolly substance which entirely clothes the leaves and stem of this plant is formed of simple, terete,
transparent, matted filaments, similar to th a t of Gnaphalium luteo-albmn, L., to some states of which this bears
a good deal of resemblance. It may with equal probability be referred to a species of Helichrysum, and except
that tlie apices of the leaves are not apiculate or mucronate, it has much the appearance of young plants of
II. apiculatum, Lab.
The other plant, if I am right in referring it, as I do with little hesitation, to Composite, forms one of the
most handsome shrubs or low trees belonging to th a t natural order. It was also detected by Mr. Lyall, from
whose specimens I shall here give a short description :—
Su b arb o rca, ram is ultimis lignosis te re tib u s s tria tis v. canaliculatis validis, ^ u n c . d iametro.