302 Carl S^ottsberg 



demism is very pronounced in these species, in strong contrast 

 to the pecuHar behavior of N. depressa, which has been reported 

 from AustraHa, Tasmania, New Zealand, Auckland, Campbell 

 Island, Java (the Javanese form recently has been distinguished 

 as a variety), the Philippine Islands, Hawaii, America from 

 Mexico to Fuegia, the Falkland Islands, and Tristan da Cunha. 

 A critical examination of a large body of material should be 

 undertaken. We are likely to ask why none of the other species 

 has attained a large range when each has edible berries which 

 should offer the same facilities for dispersal. Perhaps there are 

 biotic reasons for the many restricted areas. 



I mention Coprosma with hesitation, but its luxuriant develop- 

 ment in New Zealand compared to its very scanty representation 

 in the Malayan region points toward a southern origin, and it is 

 difficult to imagine a Tertiary Antarctic flora in which this genus 

 was not represented. And, in a way, Coprosma may be called 

 bicentric. There are 41 species in the New Zealand region, 7 in 

 Australia with Tasmania, 2 in Norfolk Island, 3 in Lord Howe 

 Island, I in the New Hebrides, 3 in Kermadec, i in Rarotonga, 

 I in Fiji, 2 in Samoa, 4 in the Society Islands, i in Rapa, i in 

 Tuamotu, i in Pitcairn, 2 in New Guinea, i in Borneo, i in Java, 

 17 in Hawaii (which is a remarkable secondary west Pacific 

 center), and 2 in the Juan Fernandez Islands, but the genus is 

 totally unknown on the American continent. 



Diels^ classifies Coprosma with his Australasian element in 

 New Guinea. This component typically is absent from the South 

 American continent — I point this out because 2 of the genera 

 mentioned, Coprosma and Hdorrhagis, belong to Juan Fernan- 

 dez. I am unable to tell to which of the many species, Hawaiian 

 or Neo-Zelandic, these two are most closely related. It is, of 

 course, interesting that there are Australasian genera in Juan 



