TKRTIARY FLORA OF CHILE 115 



which invaded south-eastern North America as early as the 

 Eocene. This element includes the genera Zamia, Anona, 

 Myristica, and representatives of the families Papilionaceae, 

 Bombacaceae, Lauraceae, Myrtaceae, Boraginaceae, and Rubia- 

 ceae. Compared with the known fossil floras from other 

 parts of South America, it contains 3 species in common with 

 that found in the L,oja basin of Ecuador, 2 species in common 

 with that found in Colombia, and 2 species in common with 

 that described recently from Peru. When compared, on the 

 other hand, with the geographically much less remote flora 

 found in the Magellanian beds along the straits of that name 

 and on Tierra del Fuego, it is found to have nothing in 

 common with the latter except a single species of Flabellaria, 

 about which Dusen expresses the opinion that it could not 

 have come from the Magellanian beds, and in this Dusen 

 appears to be perfectly justified. It appears to me that the 

 Chilean flora is younger than the floras known from farther 

 south. 



In conformity with the conclusions of invertebrate paleon- 

 tology as expressed by Steinmann, Moricke, Ortmann, and 

 others, and from a consideration of the flora found in these 

 beds, I would confirm the lower Miocene age of a part at 

 least of what goes under the name of Navidad beds and I 

 would consider them as representing the Burdigalian stage 

 and possibly the older Aquitanian stage as well, since trans- 

 gression was continuous in Europe from the one to the other, 

 as it was also in the Canal Zone. The presence of some of the 

 mollnsca of the Navidad beds in the Magellanian Oligocene 

 may indicate that a part of the former is still older than 

 Aquitanian, but this I greatly doubt, since the facts can be 

 explained by intermigrations of the forms better than by 

 postulating contemporaneity. The facies of the flora appears 

 to be slightly older than , the previously mentioned fossil 

 floras from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, and it may well 

 fall within the Aquitanian, but it is surely not so old as 

 Eocene, as Steinmann and De Lapparent suggest, nor is it as 



