— 263 — 
mountains had been included, a number of Chenopodiaceae 
(e. g. Nanophylum, Alexandra, Ofaiston), Calligonum spp. and 
Ammodendron would be regarded as endemic. But as already 
indicated the natural conditions and the vegetation are rather 
different in these more northern areas. 
The distribution of the endemic species amongst the 
various growth-forms will be seen from the following table 6: 
Table 6. 
F. Ch. H Gi) PELE Th 
i kl | u 
| | AE EN | 
Endemic species p. ct...... 17 6 32 11 02 1734 
Transcaspian ,, UNE 11 7 27 10 5 40 
The endemic species are thus distributed over the growth- 
forms in about the same proportion as the aggregate flora 
of the desert. The following variations may be of some 
interest: 1) There are no endemic aquatics and marsh-plants 
whatever; 2) The endemic species include comparatively 
greater numbers of fanerophytes and hemicryptophytes than 
the aggregate species; 3) The endemic species include com- 
paratively fewer annuals than the aggregate. 
The first variation is not surprising since it is well 
known that aquatics and marsh-plants have a wide distri- 
bution (see e. g. DRUDE p. 317). 
The last point, that there are comparatively few endemic 
therophytes, may be explained thus: the therophytes are 
as a rule spring-plants, and many of these have a wide 
distribution because over considerable tracts of regions with 
winter-rains they find almost the same conditions during the 
short vegetative period. In accordance with this at least 28 
p. cent. of the endemic therophytes are late-flowering, in 
comparison with 21 p. cent. of the total therophytes of the 
whole flora (comp. table 4, p. 162). The second point of 
variation suggests that the natural conditions of Transcaspia 
have been favourable to the development of fanerophytes and 
hemicryptophytes. This does not seem unnatural since the 
fanerophytes are one of the most prominent and apparently 
