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.