138 CARL SKOTTSBERG 



this does not of course influence the nature of the problem. We 

 know, just as we did before, that, judging from the actual distri- 

 bution of plants, there is an Australian and New Zealandic ele- 

 ment in Andine and Subantarctic America, that there is an An- 

 dine element in New Zealand and Australia, and that there 

 remain' genera, or even orders, which are virtually bicentric and 

 form what one might perhaps call the Old Antarctic element. 

 Here are examples of the three groups: (1) Dacrydium, Carices 

 Echinochlaenae, Lepiocarpus, Asielia, Lomatia, Embothrium, Oriies, 

 Drimys, Aristoielia, Drapeies, Tepualia, Epilobium conjungens, 

 Pseudopanax, Myosolis, Veronica sect. Hebe, Phyllacne, Lageno- 

 phora, Colula sect. Leplinella; (2) Carices bracleosae, et aciculares, 

 Enargea, Phrygilanthus. Acaenae Acrobyssi?wideae, Euancisirae et 

 Laevigaiae, Gerania chilensia, Discaria, Fuchsia, Azorella, Oreo- 

 myrrhis, Pernettya, Jovellana, Ourisia, Planiago, sect. Planta- 

 ginella; (3) Oreobolus, Carpha, Uncinia, Gaimardia, Marsippo- 

 spermum, Rostkovia, Libertia, Nolhofagus, Laurelia, Muhlenbeckia, 

 Colobanthus, Caliha sect. Psychrophila, Drosera sect. Psychophila, 

 Eucryphia, Gunnera, Prionotes, Tetrachondra, Pratia, Donatia, 

 Abroianella. 



We must certainly remember that the present distribution is 

 often a poor indicator, that, for instance, a genus now well rep- 

 resented in New Zealand, with few species in South America, 

 may have been much more plentiful in the latter country in by- 

 gone times, or that an Antarctic type may have developed many 

 species in one place and few in the other. 



I shall try to summarize the opinion of certain important 

 authors on the problem of the bicentric subantarctic types. In 

 the beginning of this paper I quoted Hooker's Flora Novae Ze- 

 ■ landiae. If we can not at this date subscribe to everything that 

 he wrote 60 years ago, we can on the other hand hardly deny that 

 the reasons he advanced with such clearness and accuracy against 

 explaining the puzzling distribution of many types simply by 

 adopting a "double creation" or a migration of seeds right across 

 the oceans, are still valid. It stands to reason that even with 

 such plants as have suitable means of dispersal, a coincidence 

 of chances is required for a successful migration, and for a great 



