160 president's address — SECTION D. 



examination of the record shows (as was to be expected) that most 

 of the work falls under the head of taxonomy. Philosophic generalisa- 

 tions in regard to geographical distribution have occupied less atten- 

 tion. Much requires to be done, however, even in these fields, while 

 in the domains of morphology, anatomy, and physiology very little 

 has been done in South Australia so far. Not that I am suggesting 

 that the southern State is in any way lagging behind the others. The 

 field of botany is so little trodden that every worker who enters it may 

 hope to win his spurs. Many phanerogams remain to be recognised 

 even yet, while many are imperfectly described and their life history 

 and range little known. Whole groups of cryptogams have scarcely 

 been touched. The ambitious young worker who turns to botany in 

 South Australia, therefore, need not be haunted by the fear that he will 

 exhaust his subject. 



A plant ignores political boundaries, so that the botanists of the 

 various Australian States are dependent on the work of each other. 

 Australia has yet to be divided into plant-zones, and the working out 

 of such problems in each State will lead to correlation which will be 

 full of suggestiveness. 



As a very general rule I recommend that a description of a new plant 

 be published in the Australian State in which it is discovered. It is 

 not expedient, or even possible, to do this in all cases, but acceptance 

 of the principle will do much to put an end to a bane of Australian 

 systematic botanists — the description of Australian plants in very 

 many parts of the world, sometimes in publications not widely circu- 

 lated and often without a bibliographical note in Australian journals. 

 If an American were to describe his indigenous plants in Europe it 

 would be regretted. It is submitted that it would be better for all 

 parties to secure the publication of Australian plants in Australia. I 

 am sure that, if the matter were properly put before European botanists 

 also, they would, considering all the circumstances, see the reason- 

 ableness of the request to, as far as possible, publish Australian species 

 in Australia. This, if carried out, would not merely be a convenience 

 to Australians, but it would facilitate the work of students of the 

 Australian flora in other parts of the world. 



Let me remind you that the valuable " Second Census " of Mueller 

 is now out of date, and that steps should be taken to bring out a third 

 edition. The basis of the alterations would be the additions and correc- 

 tions which are preserved in the working copies used by the staffs, 

 and available to visiting botanists, of the herbaria of Melbourne and 

 Sydney. 



This brings me to consideration of a proposal to bring the " Flora 

 Australiensis " up to date. That this is not a revolutionary idea will be 

 evident when I remind you that vol. I. was issued 46 years ago. As 

 regards Queensland, Mr. Bailey has seen fit to incorporate the "Flora 

 Australiensis," as far as the Queensland species are concerned, in his 

 Queensland " Flora," but my reverence for Bentham's work is such that 

 I think that for some years all that is required is for each State to pub- 

 lish a supplementary volume, only including additions and corrections 



