COMPOSITION OF THE FLOKA. 



83 



continues throiigliout the Tertiary, there be- 

 mg about 50 Eocene species, about 60 OHgo- 

 cene species, 90 Miocene species, and 20 Plio- 

 cene species. ^Xirica is achh'd to tlie record in 

 the basal Oligocene and Asia in tiie Miocene. 



The fossil records will have t<i he nuich more 

 complete before the original cenler of radia- 

 tion of the Moracea; can be determined. The 

 present brief sketch merel}' indicates that not 

 only Ficus but other genera, like Artocarpus, 

 which are entirely oriental in the ])resent, were 

 noi-mal elements in North American floras from 

 the time of the modernization of these floras at 

 the beginning of the U]iper Cretaceous. Along 

 our east coast they apparently became re- 

 stricted m their range at the daw^l of the Mio- 

 cene, and they apparently nm-er after became 

 as important in southeastern North America 

 as they had been or as they arc in the recent 

 flora of the Orient. 



The order Proteales includes the single 

 famOy Proteacea\ which has about 1,000 exist- 

 mg species. They include the promment ar- 

 borescent forms of Choripetalie in the Southern 

 Hemisphere, to which region all but the four 

 genera Roupala, Protea, Leucospermum, and 

 Ilelicia are confined. They are usually con- 

 sidered as Australian types, and in fact most of 

 the genera and sj^ecies are confined to that con- 

 tinent, yet there are 4 genera in South America 

 which together contain more than 50 existing 

 species; several genera are pecuhar to the 

 African flora: and the genus Helicia is pre- 

 dominantly Asiatic. 



The geologic history of the Proteaceas affords 

 a most strikmg example of the great difference 

 in geographic distribution in former ages fi'om 

 what could possibly be ijiferred from a study of 

 the present geographic distribution of the mem- 

 bers of this family, although some significant 

 features m the distribution of the recent forms 

 wUl be mentioned subsequently. 



The discovery of fossil forms of Proteacese in 

 the Tertiary deposits of Europe was the in- 

 spiration of a considerable literature ' and was 

 the occasion of a rather acrimonious contro- 

 versy regarding their botanic affinity. This is 

 well fllustrated in the dissenting opmions ex- 

 pressed by the botanists Hooker and Bentham, 

 who both regarded fossil leaves as undetermi- 

 nable. If tliis be granted, it is difficult to see 



' See the writings of Unger, Heer, Ettingsliauseo, Scliimper, Schenk, 

 and Saporta. 



how tliey could arrive at any other conclusion. 

 Tlieir o])inion, however, is refuted by the pres- 

 ent (fist ribiit ion of certain genera. For ex- 

 ample, the genus Koupala includes 36 species 

 in tropical America, 2 in New Caledonia, and 1 

 in Queensland; the genus Embotlu-ium 4 Aii- 

 (lean species and 1 in Australia; the gemis 

 Lomatia .3 species in Cliile, 4 in Australia, and 

 2 ui Tasmania. It foUows, unless oiu^ is pre- 

 pared to sul)scribe to tlie doctrme of special 

 creation for each continent or to the inde- 

 pendent evolution on separate contments of 

 difi'erent species of tlie same genus, that durijig 

 their geologic history these genera must have 

 ranged over uitervening areas, so that if the 

 Cretaceous and Tertiary plants of the Northern 

 Hemisi)here whose fruits and leaves resemble 

 those of the ProteacesB are not related to the 

 genera which they most resemble, then forms 

 whose leaves and fruit resemble those of other 

 families must be fossil Proteacese, which cer- 

 tainly seems absurd. As a matter of fact, 

 though exception may justly be taken to some 

 determuiations of Unger, Ettuigshausen, and 

 Heer, these doubtfid determinations in no wise 

 aft'ect the iuain body of facts. There is so 

 much collateral evidence, furnished for example 

 by the geologic history of the Araucarian coni- 

 fers, and the history of the Proteacea; is so 

 similar to that of the Myrtacese and Legumi- 

 nosa? — the two other great families of the ex- 

 isting Australian flora — that it seems to be con- 

 clusive. The present distribution of some of 

 the more significant genera of ProteacesB is 

 showai on the accompanying sketch map (fig. 6). 



Those who follow the oiDinion of Hooker or 

 Bentham will now see on turning to the fossil 

 record how vast and substantial are the sup- 

 posed illusions of the paleobotanists. In addi- 

 tion to the two extinct genera in the Wilcox 

 flora I have fossU records of 32 genera of Pro- 

 teacese, although this number is increased by 

 the joint usage, accoi'ding to taste, of names 

 fike Dryandra and Dryandroides, Banksia and 

 Banksites. A l)rief consideration of these 

 genera with fossil representatives will prove 

 useful. The list is not complete, but is suffi- 

 ciently so for the purpose of this discussion. 



The genus Protea Linne, from which the 

 family takes its name, uidudes about 60 exist- 

 mg species which occupy discomiected areas in 

 central and South Africa. To it have been 

 referred a middle Cretaceous species from 



