The New Zealand Plant Conservation Network

A while back, Matt Ward put up images of the Pimelea that is included in Eagle's as Pimelea aff. aridula (ii), which Mike Thorsen correctly noted came from Pipinui Point. I was interested in Mike's comments about it possibly being an unnamed entity, as opposed to a hybrid between two distant species (which seemed very sensible), and wondered whether its status may be likely to change at some stage. This is of course written with full knowledge of the huge task faced by taxonomists in NZ to be able to look at everything. It is more a matter of interest.

The last published word on this was that Colin Burrows considered it a northern race of Pimelea pseudolyallii. I don't agree. However, a single plant we examined the chromosomes (mitotic and meiotic) showed that that individual was a sterile hybrid.

More work is needed. I have not been to that population since 1996. From memory it was common but confined to a very small area. Recently I asked that a new survey be undertaken for this entity - which Druce had recorded from several sites along the South Wellington Coast as far East as Cape Turakirae. That is all I can advise.

Thanks Peter, you've just tripled the sum total of my knowledge about that particular plant, which was the purpose of my question (and one of the great benefits of this forum). I agree with you about P. pseudolyallii. It looks to be an impressive beast, and part of my interest is that there is a form of Pimelea from the Wellington coast that has been in cultivation for a wee while that I had falsely assumed to be Pimelea cryptica (as I thought that P. cryptica was the entity previously referred to as P. aridula (ii)).

Having seen P. cryptica at 2 of its sites, I now realise that P. cryptica is more akin to P. oreophila, which made me wonder what that other form in cultivation is. I seem to be getting a few more opportunities for looking around the Wellington coast now, so I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Hi Philip. P. seismica is common along the Wellington coast. Is that the other form you mention? To ID this Pimelea requires careful use of a hand-lens and reference to Burrow's papers.

I assume Mike means Pimelea prostrata subsp. seismica? In any case yes a range of plants roughly fitting that subspecies are very common around Wellington - these maybe flat, suberect or erect shrubby plants (such as one can see on Makaro (Ward Island)). However, there are other things in the P. prostrata complex growing admixed with P. prostrata subsp. seismica around Wellington and putting names on them using Burrow's treatment is at best 'difficult'. One extreme of P. prostrata subsp. seismica is commonly grown in cultivation (the suberect one) and this I have seen sold as P. aridula from time to time. Pimela cryptica remains enigmatic - if it is real - either way it is certainly more widespread that Burrows suggested.

Yes, being lazy. I consider pretty much all the P. prostrata plants along Wellington coastline as P. prostrata subspecies seismica - its a very variable species, possibly because of a compelx evolutionary history. There is also P. carnosa at Onoke Spit and likely other places around Wellington coast which could complicate identifications.

And, yes P. cryptica is difficult also. I haven't really thought of it as similar to P. oreophila - but I have only seen P. cryptica twice.

I don't really believe in P. prostrata subsp. seismica as a valid entity and find the other subspecies proposed for P. prostrata as dubious - the characters used bleed into each other, can even be found on one plant (a chimaera then!!!) and if the entities are real then they have to be species because you can find 2 or 3 of them growing admixed together. The stomata characters also don't work either and the hair characters utterly subjective. The treatment offered needs re-evaluation with a decent molecular study as the framework to start that investigation. The constant beg off that the 'intergrades' are hybrids also is unconvincing as no data was ever presented to show that they are hybrids beyond that the reader has to blindly accept that they are because the naming author said so.

I did hear that there was such a genetic investigation into the Pimelea hybridisation issue being hosted out of Landcare. Is that still happening?

As far as I know - no (not now anyway) - there was a PhD student that was being jointly supervised by Landcare and University of Waikato in 2013 but the student quit the project in 2014. A summer student did look at the P. urvilleana problem (2014/2015) I gather but I never heard what the result was. try asking Dr Chrissen Gemmil.

Thanks Mike and Peter. I figured after my Pimelea orthia vs xenica query that it was high time I get a hand-lens again, Mike. The other form that I was referring to is much more in the mould of P. aridula (like P. mimosa) than P. prostrata subsp. seismica.

My curiosity was piqued by the fact that there are all those species/forms that used to belong to the P. aridula complex on far-flung high points (like Te Mata, Maungaharuru, Mohaka etc., or that curious one that Graeme Atkins found on the limestone outcrop by the Waiapu, Mike), and it seemed logical to me that something that looks and behaves similar to P. mimosa might have a similar relationship to that former complex of allied outliers (which is undoubtedly why it was noted as P. aridula (ii)). That Pipinui Point plant certainly looks like a very nice plant.