president's address. 651 



orders" and others "have a venation of the wing very different 

 from that of any Proteaceoi I have seen, and much more like that 

 of a real samara of an ash." After discussing many examples 

 he says, " From the above^ considerations I cannot resist the 

 opinion that all presumptive evidence is against European 

 Proteacece, and that all direct evidence adduced in their favour 

 has broken down on cross-examination ; and however much these 

 Eocene leaves many assume a general character which may be 

 more frequent in Australia, (in Proteace?e and other orders) than 

 elsewhere, all that this would prove would be, not any genetic 

 aiiinity with Australian races, but some similarity of causes pro- 

 ducing similarity of adaptive characters." 



The above remarks from a botanist so eminent and experienced 

 in questions of the Australian flora as Bentham might well have 

 been thought conclusive, but we find that Ettingshausen in 1890 

 brought out a work entitled " Das Australische Florenelement in 

 Europa " in which he reasserts the existence of Leptomeria^ 

 Cns7uirina, Exocarpus, Ba).'ksia, Dryandra, and Eucalyptus. 



The subject of fossil plants and their identification is ably 

 treated in the " Handbuch der Pal^eontologie," Part IT entitled 

 "Paljeophytologie." This work as stated on the title page was 

 begun by Herr Schimper, formerly Professor at the University of 

 Strassburg, continued and concluded by Herr Schenk, Professor of 

 Botany at the University of Leipzig, and edited by Professor 

 Zittel of the University of Munich. It was published in 1890. 



Doubt is thrown on the identification of Casuarina, Bursaria, 

 Hibbertia, and CaJlicoma. Speaking of the remains attributed 

 to the capsular Myrtacece, Zittel says there is no necessity to fly 

 to that explanation. As to Proteacem the conclusion appears to 

 be the same as that of Bentham. The identifi^cation of Leptomena 

 is spoken of as being due to superficial resemblance to which 

 weight is given without critical inquiry. I have looked carefully 

 through Zittel's work and I cannot find that the correctness of 

 the identification of an}^ Australian forms is acknowledged except 

 some fossils of the Upper Cretaceous which have been classed and 

 named Eucalyptus Geinitzii. 



