TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION K. 825 



whicli appeals more especially to oneself. In place of adopting' either of these 

 nlternatives, I decided to deal in some detail with a subject which, it must be 

 frankly admitted, is too extensive to be adequately presented in a single address. 

 My aim is to put before you one aspect of pahcobotany which has not received 

 its due share of iittention : I mean the geographical distribution of the floras of 

 the past. In grappling with this subject one lays oneself open to the charge of 

 attempting the impossible — a not unusual characteristic of 13ritish Association 

 addresses. I recognise the futility of expecting conclusions of fundamental 

 importance from such an incomplete examination of the available evidence as I 

 have been able to undertake ; but a hasty sketch may serve to indicate the 

 impressions likely to be conveyed by a more elaborate picture. 



One difliculty that meets us at the outset in approaching the studv of plant 

 distribution is that of synononiy. ' The naturalist,' as Sir .loseph Hooker wrote 

 in his ' Introductory Essay to the Flora of New Zealand,' * has to seek truth 

 amid errors of observation and judgment and the resulting chaos of synonymy 

 wiiich has been accumulated by thoughtless aspirants to the questionable honour 

 <>f being the first to name a species.' Endle.^s confusion is caused by the use of 

 dift'erent generic and specific names for plants that are in all probability identical, 

 or at least very closely allied. Worthless fossils are frequently designated by a 

 generic and specific title : an author lightly selects a new name for a miserable 

 fragment of a fossil fern-frond without pausing to consider whether his record is 

 worthy of acceptance at the hands of the botanical palreographer. 



An enthusiastic specialist is apt to exaggerate the value of his material, and 

 to forget that lists of plants should be based on evidence that can be used with 

 confidence in investigations involving a comparative treatment of the floras of the 

 world. As Darwin said in the ' Origin of Species': 'It is notorious on what 

 excessively slight diflerences many pahxBontologists have founded their species ; 

 and they do this the more readily if the specimens come from different sub-stageo 

 of the same formation.' It would occupy too much time to refer to the various 

 dangers that beset the path of the trustful student, who makes use of published 

 lists of local floras in generalising on questions of geographical distribution during 

 the dift'erent eras of the past. Such practices as the naming of undeterminable 

 fragments of leaves or twigs, the frequent use of recent generic names for fossil 

 specimens tliat aflbrd no trustworthy clue as to affinity, belong to the class of 

 oH'ences that might be easily guarded against ; there are, however, other obstacles 

 that we cannot expect to remove, but which we can take pains to avoid. An 

 author in naming a fossil plant may select one of sever.al generic names, any of 

 which might be used with equal propriety ; individual preferences assert them- 

 selves above considerations as to the importance of a uniform nomenclature. The 

 personal element often plays too prominent a part. To quote a sentence from a 

 non-scientific writer : 'The child looks straight upon Nature as she is, while a 

 man sees her reflected in a mirror, and his own figure can hardly help coming into 

 the foreground.' 



In endeavouring to take a comprehensive survey of the records of plant-life, 

 we should aim at a wider view of the limits of species .and look for evidence of 

 close relationship rather than for slight diflerences, which might justify the 

 adoption of a distinctive name. Our object, in short, is not only to reduce to a 

 common language the diverse designations founded on personal idiosyncrasies, but 

 to gr(5up closely allied forms under one central type. We must boldly class 

 together ])lants that we believe to be nearly allied, and resist the undue influence 

 of considerations based on supposed specific distinctions. 



The imperfection of the Geological record was spoken of by one of England's 

 greatest geologists, in a criticism of the ' Origin of Species,' as ' the inflated cushion 

 on which you try to bolster up the defects of your hypothesis.' On the other hand, 

 Darwin wrote in T8G1 : ' I find, to my astonishment and joy, that such good men 

 as llamsay. Jukes, Geikie, and one older worker, Lyell, do not think that I have 

 in the least exaggerated the imperfection of the record.' No one in the least 

 familiar with the conditions under which relics of vegetation are likely to have 

 been preserved can for a moment doubt the truth of Darwin's words : ' The crust 



