BY SYDNEY B. J. SKERTCHLY. 79 
rich culmination, and the intermediate, central area, the 
bed of the old Opal Sea, the newest and least rainy, should 
be meagrely blessed. This is actually the case. 
85. Taking Ogilby’s list, and supplementing it with 
Mr. B. H. Woodward’s W. Australian list (Mr. O. Thomas’ 
work unfortunately is not available in Queensland), the 
numbers as we travel along Australia-Orientalis from north 
to south are :—Queensland, 50; N.S. Wales, 43; Victoria, 
35; Tasmania, 30. 
86. If we travel east and west, from A. Orientalis, 
through the intermediate N. Territory and S. Australia 
to Australia-Vera in W. Australia, we find exactly the rise 
and fall in numbers the theory demands :—Queensland, 50; 
S. Australia, 32; N. Territory, 14; W. Australia, 38. 
87. The W. Australian fauna has lately been studied 
most carefully, while the N. Territory is not s> well worked, 
but though the numbers of species may need modifying, 
the relative proportions will remain as at present. My 
argument does not depend upon mere arithmetical accuracy: 
it is work for the actuary, not for the clerk. 
88. The Bats and Rodents do not help us: they can get 
almost anywhere. Yet it is significant that the most highly 
modified bat, the Flying Foxes (Pteropus) are confined to 
Australia-Orientalis, W. Australia is in dread of their 
advent, and has by proclamation (1895) prohibited, ‘‘ the 
introduction of Flying Squirrels, otherwise known as Flying 
Foxes, into the State.’ The Dugong is another case. 
Like the Pteropus, it might have been expected to have 
travelled far and wide—the ocean of water is as readily 
ploughed as the ocean of air, and both are abundantly 
victualed—yet it, too, is confined to Australis-Orientalis, 
never getting on to the west or even the north-west coast. 
89. All this points conclusively to an Asiatic origin 
for our mammals, and no one seems to doubt the fact. But 
such a view is diametrically opposed to the descent of our 
fauna from a very ancient Australian ancestry: and is 
quite in harmony with my view of recent introduction. 
The crucial point is that there are no remains of land 
mammals in any of our pre-Pliocene rocks. 
90. Whence then, came our Diprotodonts ? Well, 
there is another curious superstition rife among many 
