Page:Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute - Volume 1 (2nd ed.).djvu/196

162 are characteristics both of the arboreous and shrubby vegetation. The difference is so marked that I retain the most vivid recollection of the physiognomy of the Tasmanian mountains and valleys, but a very indifferent one of the New Zealand forest, where all is, comparatively speaking, blended into one green mass, relieved at the Bay of Islands by the symmetrical crown of the Tree-fern, the pale green fountain of foliage of the Dacrydium cupressinum and the poplar-like Knightia overtopping all. It is true that there is more variety in the latter country than is expressed by the selection of a few individuals, and a little reflection recalls a vast number of noble and some beautiful botanical objects; but with the exception of groves of the Kahikatea Pine (Podocarpus dacrydioides) on the swampy river banks, the Pomaderris and Leptospermum on the open hill sides, and Dammara on their crests, there is little to arrest the botanist’s first glance; and nothing in the massing or grouping of the species of any natural order renders that order an important element in the general landscape, or gives individuality to any of its parts by flowers and gaiety or by foliage and gloom. The same features prevail even so far south as Lord Auckland’s group, where Dracophyllum, Coprosma, Metrosideros, Panax, and a shrubby Veronica unite to form an evergreen mantle: and I suspect, from the accounts I have heard and read, that they are repeated on the damp cool coasts of Chili, to the north of the region of the sombre beech forests which cloth the Fuegian Islands.”

The colonist of the South Island of New Zealand, if he happens to visit the Province of Auckland, and more particularly its northern portions, will not fail to recognize, in this beautiful and striking language, a vivid picture of the forest scenery of the Northern Island. But it does not apply to the vegetation of Nelson, Canterbury, or Otago. The fact is, that in this respect Dr. Hooker has fallen into the same mistake as all other writers upon New Zealand until within a very few years. From, say, about the year 1830 until 1850 the Bay of Islands and Auckland were considered to be New Zealand, and a variety of works were given to the world descriptive of this country, founded upon a visit to its northern extremity. Until the settlements of Canterbury and Otago were founded, the South Island of New Zealand was hardly known at all. It is true that the great navigator Cook selected two of its harbours, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dusky Bay, as his favourite resting-places; and the celebrated botanists who accompanied him, Banks, Solander, and the Forsters, collected their specimens in the neighbourhood of these harbours, and saw and studied its flora there. But of the intervening portions of the country they appear to have seen hardly anything, and the plains and grassy downs of the South Island, now the chief field of settlement, and constituting the great bulk of the country