RELATIONSHIP OF AUSTRALIAN TERRESTRIAL FORMATIONS. 309 



rocks are indeed greatly to be deprecated, for if tlie zoological 

 and botanical distribution of past geological times were at all 

 comparable to that of the present day any such universal system 

 viitst be impossible." The italics are mine. 



Moreover, the generic groupings of the flora and fauna of any 

 one region, as in Australia, often atlbrds in themselves contradictory 

 evidence, wlien compai-isons with distant regions are attempted 

 on the lines laid down by Prof. Prestwicli, viz : " the presence of 

 the same characteristic genera." Tlius, in the Upper Paheozoic 

 division, out of a list of three hundred and eleven species of 

 marine organisms in Australasia, there are fully twenty-tliree per 

 cent, specitically identical with those of tlie Carljoniferous marine 

 beds of Europe ; while the typical plants associated with the 

 Carboniferous marine beds in Austi'alasia do not show tlie 

 faintest correspondence with the corresponding typical plants 

 of Europe. Both species and genera are altogether diiferent.* 

 This also is borne out by Prof. Judd'sf statement that "the 

 growth of our knowledge concerning the terrestial floras and 

 faunas of ancient geological periods since 1869 has constantly 

 forced upon the minds of many geologists the necessity of a 

 duplicate classitication of geological periods based on the study of 

 marine and terrestial organisms respectively." I do not, how- 

 ever, think that a " dujilicate classification " would be of much 

 value. The evidence rather points to the conclusion that the 

 assemblage of typical organisms of any one region, owing to the 

 inter-weaving at any one point of emigrants from many in- 

 dependent distant centres of origin, affords no satisfactory clue to 

 the order, relationship, or succession of the strata of a distant 

 region. 



It is, liowever, a great satisfaction to me to know that the main 

 contention upheld in my paper to the Royal Society of Tasmania, 

 in October, 1886,* has the support of such a distinguislied 

 observer as Prof. Judd. 



There is, it appears to me, no royal road for establishing tlie 

 relationship of the rocks of opposite hemispheres. We must be 

 conteiit to work out the true association of local stratigrapliy and 

 local biology unimpeded by references to such associates elsewhere. 

 In short we must establish the relationship between the successive 

 formations and their contained fossil remains exactly on the lines 

 begun by tlie great English pioneer, William Sniitli, and we must 

 not, in our eagerness for geological progress, expect to establish 

 at once in Australasia such close harmonious relationships as have 

 been determined in Europe by the accuumlated labours of several 

 generations of distinguished workers. 



Slightly altering a pln-ase used by Prof. Huxley, I am of opinion — 

 ^'All that Palaeontology can prove is local order of succession" and 



* See Table (PI. xvii.) 

 t Loc. cit. p. 427. 



