president's address — SECTION D. 99 



the Barramundi of the Dawson and other rivers, represents 

 the former, whilst the remarkable Ceratodus forsteri of the 

 Burnett and Mary Rivers is the sole representative of the 

 latter group. 



Of the remaining 13 families 9 are represented in the fresh- 

 waters of Tasmania which has also two genera of the 

 Cyclostomata. 



In a paper read before this Section at the Melbourne meet- 

 ing dealing with the Distribution of the Vertebrata of Victoria, 

 Mr. A. H, S. Lucas pointed out for the first time how, in 

 different vertebrate groups, the dividing range formed a 

 barrier separating a northern from a southern group of forms 

 and that in the various groups, but especially in the case of 

 reptiha and fishes, the latter and the Tasmanian faunas were 

 remarkably similar. 



The facts brought together in this paper are strongly in 

 favour of this interesting generalisation of Mr. Lucas and 

 we may, I think, go further still and find strong support, as 

 will be seen later, in favour of the separation of a Euronotian 

 from an Eremian region, as proposed by Professor Tate 

 mainly on botanical evidence. 



To return to the fishes ; if we take the 9 famihes repre- 

 sented in Tasmania, we find that they are all common to 

 Victoria, leaving 4 which are present in the latter but absent 

 in the former. These are (1) the Pristiopommatidae, with 

 two important genera — Therapon (Murray Perch) and Mur- 

 rayia (Murray Bream) — which are found only north of the 

 divide in the' Murray River system. (2.) The Siluridae, 

 represented in northern Victoria solely by the Catfish ( Copi- 

 doglanis tandanus) of the Murray River system. (3.) The 

 Cyprinidae, with only one genus and species — Neocarassius 

 ventricosa — recorded only from the Saltwater River. Apart 

 from the fact that this is scarcely a freshwater fish, its 

 existence may be regarded as extremely doubtful. (4.) The 

 Clupeidae, with Chatoessus richardsoni, from the Murray. 

 That is, with one very dou})tful exception, all the families 

 found in Victoria south of the Divide are also found in 

 Tasmania. 



So far as genera are concerned, and including the Cyclos- 

 tomata, Tasmania has 14 and Victoria 21. Of the latter, 7 

 are only found north of the Divide and are absent from 

 Tasmani|, the remaining 14 belonging to South Victoria are 

 all, with one exception f Neocarassius J common to Tasmania 



