BY HENRY DEANE. 467 



Department of Mines, I find four important statements summar- 

 ising the author's conclusions : — 



(a) He says (p. 3) — "The Tertiary Flora of extra-tropical 

 Australia is, as regards character, essentially distinct from the 

 present living flora of Australia." 



(b) " It has also much more similarity to the Tertiary Floras 

 at present known than to the existing flora of Australia." 



(c) "The characteristic plants of Australia are but feebly 

 represented." 



(d) Then (p. I) he says— " The genera Myrica, Betula, Ahius, 

 Quercus, Fagus and Salix are characteristic of the European and 

 North American floras; the Castanopsis, Cinnamomum, Taber- 

 ncemontana, Premna, Elceocarpus and Dalbergia point to East 

 India and China; Magnolia especially to the warmer parts of 

 North America ; Bombax to tropical America ; Knightia and 

 Coprosma to Oceania." 



The first questions that arise after reading (a), (b) and (c) are, 

 what does Ettingshausen take to be the character of the existing 

 flora of Australia, and what are the characteristic plants of 

 Australia that he refers to 1 



There can be little doubt that in speaking of the " character 

 of the existing flora of Australia " he is altogether ignoring the 

 very important coastal element, which is indeed at the present 

 time spread over a comparatively small area, but is very rich in 

 genera and species, and that his " characteristic plants of 

 Australia " are certain well known types of Proteacece, such as 

 Banksia, Dryandra, Lomatia, Grevillea, Hakea and Persoonia, 

 and a few genera belonging to other natural orders, such as 

 Eucalyptus, Casuarina, Leptomeria, Exocarpus, Arc. 



If Baron von Ettingshausen had possessed any profound know- 

 ledge of the distribution of plants in Australia, would he have 

 attributed so much importance to the results of his inquiry 1 He 

 no doubt means that, because in the specimens sent to him to 

 examine, Eucalyptus, Banksia and other peculiar Australian 

 types do not make up the majority, a radical change is 

 indicated. But this view is incorrect. I have pointed out 



