Hurtrox.—On the Geographical Relations of the N.Z. Fauna. 255 
distribution of European forms of fish, shells, etc., in New Zealand may be 
traced to the same route? This same period of sea communication between 
Europe and Japan will also probably have been the time of the land connection 
that once existed between India, Madagascar, and Africa (the Lemuria of 
Dr. Sclater), as proved by the recent fresh-water fish, and birds, as well as by 
the miocene Mammalia,* and to this period we may also refer the origin of the 
curious affinity between some of the birds of Celebes and Africa. The long 
insular period during the upper eocene and miocene times will, therefore, be 
the period of specific change in the moas, while the older pliocene upheaval 
will be the time of the mingling of the various species in New Zealand, and 
the peopling of the Chatham and Auckland Islands. The newer pliocene was 
the time when the two islands of New Zealand were divided, and also the 
period when the Chatham and Auckland Islands were separated from them, 
but the latter occurrence probably preceded the former by a long interval. 
Such appears to me to be the hypothesis most capable of accounting for 
the present fauna of New Zealand. 
The objection, however, may be fairly raised that, if it is true, evidence of 
its truth ought to be also found in the flora of the country, which is not the 
case. I fully acknowledge the force of this argument, but think that some 
slight evidence can be found in the phenogamic flora. The distribution of 
Eucalyptus for instance, is somewhat parallel to that of the Marsupials, and 
can be only explained in the same way. Stilbocarpa polaris has its nearest 
allies in China and the Himalaya Mountains; while the distribution of 
Metrosideros, Ligusticum, Angelica, and perhaps Veronica, implies a connection 
between New Zealand and Asia not by way of Australia. This connection is 
obscured by the great preponderance of Australian and South American forms, 
but still furnishes an indistinct copy of the bolder outline sketched out by the 
fauna. This is owing to the wider distribution of genera among plants than 
among animals, and to me it appears to prove that the flora of a country, as a 
whole, is of a more ancient date than its fauna. Among the cryptogamic 
planis no trace of this outline can be discerned, as also is the case with the 
lower classes of the animal kingdom, owing to the genera having been, so to 
say, universally spread before the last migration from Asia took place. 
That the facies of a fauna and flora should date back from so long a period 
as I suppose, is certainly at variance with ordinarily received opinion, but 
from a study of the fauna and geology of New Zealand I do not see how we 
can escape from the conclusions that I have arrived at. I am well aware, 
* Professor Huxley thinks (‘‘Quar. Jour. Geo. Soc.” 1870. Ann. Address, p. 56.) 
that the land communication between India and South Africa was caused by the upheaval 
of the nummulitic sea, but it seems to me more probable that the land communication 
was by the shores of that sea. 
