president's address — SECTION c. 93 



1. Australasian festoon. New Zealand, Norfolk Island, New 

 Caledonia, New Hebrides, Solomon Islands, and New Guinea. 



2. Micronesian festoon. This is concentric with the Aus- 

 tralasian festoon, and includes the Caroline, Marshall, Gilbert and 

 Ellice Islands, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. 



3. Pelew-Ladrone festoon, Pelew, Ladrone, Volcano. 



4. North Pacific chain, Hawaiian Islands, Ocean Island. 



5. South Pacific chain, a long series of islands which branch 

 from the Micronesian festoon at Samoa and extend eastward across 

 the southern Pacific through the following groups : Paumotu, 

 Society. Marquesas, Cook. 



In the last volume of the " Face of the Earth." p. 301, Suess 

 has discussed the arrangemer t of the Pacific Islands and discovers 

 the following main features :— 



(1) First Australian arc. with two branches : 



{a) New Guinea, Louisiade, New Caledonia and New" 

 Zealand. Ancient rocks are found in these islands. 



(b) New Mecklenberg, Solomon, New Hebrides. Along 

 this line again ancient rocks are found. 



(2) Second Au.^tralian arc : Carohne, Radack, Gilbert,. 



Ellice and Fiji groups of islands. 



(3) Third Australian arc : Tonga, Kermadec, north-east 



of New Zealand. 



In this great work no arrangement of the islands of the eastern, 

 portion of the area is described. 



It is noticeable that Dana and Suess agree in the main especially 

 in regard to the position of the arcs nearest to Australia and of the 

 New Zealand line running to the north-east. 



Suess invests the north of New Zealand with great structural 

 importance. It is the point whence the two Australian arcs and 

 the Polynesian arc whirl. This contrasts markedly with Dana's 

 statements, for he aligns his New Zealand range almost at right 

 angles to his Polynesian chain, which includes its constituent 

 ranges in the N.N.W. direction, practically all the island groups of 

 the Pacific. Suess admits that our knowledge of the eastern 

 island groups of the Pacific is at present so imperfect that any 

 statements made in regard to them would be no more than vague 

 speculation. 



The authors quoted appear to have based their opinions almost 

 solely on the mere position of the islands and island groups. This 

 seems a lamentably insufficient basis for generalisations, when one 

 reflects on the value of the data that are deemed necessary for any 

 generalisations in regard to prominent elevations among land 

 surfaces. It is well known that the elevation of the land joining 

 the highest summits and the direction of lines of folding are taken 

 as necessary criteria in such cases. Subsidiary but still considerable 

 importance would be attached to the nature of the rocks of which 

 these elevated areas might be compo.sed. In the case under con- 

 sideration it appears to me that use maybe made of these matters^ 

 at any rate to some extent. It is. of course, true that the elevations 



