DKHIVATION OF TMI'; FLORA AND FAUNA 387 



BekrV (2cV) distinguished more than 130 species, most of tliem referred to still 

 livin<j[ <^enera and bel()n<^in<4 to 48 families and 21 orders. The j^eneral character 

 is subtropical, and the following families may be mentioned: Anacardiaceae, An- 

 nonaccae, Apocynaceae, Asclej)iadacea(,', Hi^noniaceae, Hiirseraceae, Caesalpinia- 

 ceae, Celastraceae, Cochlospermaceae, Krythroxylaceae, luiphorbiaceae, Flacourt- 

 iaceac, Icacinaceae, Lauraceae, Loganiaceae, Meliaceae, Mimosaceae, Monimiaceae, 

 Moraceae, Myristicaceae, Myrtaceae, Nyctaginiaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Sapinda- 

 ceae, Sapotaceae, Sterculiaeae, Styracaceae, Symplocaceae, Vitaceae. Of conifers 

 we find Araucaria pichileufue^isis, Filzroya tcrtiaria, Libocednis prcchilensis ^x\(\. 2 

 l''odocarpiis\ further, there is a species of Zaiiiia and Ginkgo patagoiiica, and of 

 ferns 3 s[)ecies, one of them a Dicksoiiia. Araiicaria and Liboccdius are, according to 

 I^'LOKIN, correctly named (pjf), Ginkgo should be called Ginkgoitcs\ Fitzroya belongs 

 to Podocarpus, and one of the Podocarpus sp. belongs to Acmopyle of PiLGEK. 



There is no trace of Fagaccac and Berrv referred the flora to Lower Mio- 

 cene and regarded it as contemporaneous with the Arauco flora; they have 20 

 species in common, the general character is the same and is said to bear witness 

 of the same climate. The relief of the Andes was low, no rain-shadow existed, 

 prevailing westerly winds carried abundant moisture across the country, there 

 was rain forest where now we have dry grass-land. Still, there is a difference 

 between Arauco and Pichileufu. Berry (27) pointed out that the present South 

 Chilean rain forest flora is not represented in the Arauco flora whereas the 

 Pichileufu beds contain such Chilean genera as Azara, Berberis, Maytenus and 

 Myrccugcnia and, in addition, the following Antarcto-tertiary genera: Drii/iys, 

 Finbot/iiiuni, Fiicryp/i/a, Laurelia, Libocednis and Lomatia — provided that the 

 determinations are correct. Nevertheless the age is supposed to be the same. 

 Lower Miocene according to Berry, PLocene according to FLORIN, thus older 

 than the Araucaria-Nothofagus beds of Magallanes. It is surprising that, if the 

 two floras are of exactly the same age, the advancing Antarctic flora had not 

 found its way to the coast of Chile; Pichileufu ought to be younger, but perhaps 

 still Eocene, a period of very great length. 



The Clialia flora. — Of considerable interest was the discovery, in Santa Cruz 

 Territory in the valley of Rio Chalia about 51° s. lat., of a fossil flora similar 

 to the Arauco and Pichileufu floras and proving that the subtropical vegetation 

 had extended far south. Araucaria and Nothofagus are absent, the only conifer 

 found, Fitzroya tertiaria, is, as shown by P"L0RIN, a Podocarpus. Of angiosperm 

 families Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Bignoniaceae, Lauraceae, Monimiaceae, Myr- 

 taceae, Sterculiaceae etc. are represented, of Chilean genera Laurelia and Peuinus 

 may be mentioned. The age is early Miocene according to Berry {334), Eocene 

 according to Frenguelli {33/'), the climate warm temperate. 



Berry {313) regarded all the fossil floras containing an abundance of Faga- 

 ceae {NotJiofagiis, according to DUSEN also Fagus, which is questionable) as of 

 approximately the same age and older than the Concepcion-Arauco series. 



f/ie Nirihuao flora. — Three localities close together on Nirihuao river near 

 Lake Nahuelhuapi. Some ferns, among them AlsopJiila australis, also known from 

 Seymour Island, further Zar/iia, Araucaria Nathorstii, Fagus (?) and one species 



