170 



While willingly conceding the value of such determinations as that of Podogonium 

 by Heer, he proceeds to say — 



But the case appears to me to be far different with the theory so vividly expounded by Prof. Unger 

 in 18b"l. in his address entitled " Xeu Holland in Europa." This theory, now generally admitted, seems to 

 be established on some such reasoning as this : — There are in the Tertiary deposits in Europe, and especially 

 in the earlier ones, a number of leaves that look like Proteacese; Proteacea 1 are a distinguishing feature in 

 Australian vegetation; ergo, European vegetation had in those times much of the Australian type derived 

 from a direct land communication with that distant region. 



After saying that contemporary palaeontologists enumerated nearly one hundred 

 Tertiary species as above, he says — 



And yet, although the remains of the Tertiary vegetation are far too scanty to assert that 

 Proteacese did not form part of it. I have no hesitation in stating that I do not believe that a single specimen 

 has been found that a modern systematic botanist would admit to be Proteaceous unless it had been 

 r • ■ live 1 from a c >antry where Proteace;e were otherwise known to exist. 



He then refers to the fact that he has recently had to make analyses and detailed 

 descriptions of between five and six hundred Proteacese [for vol. v of the Flora 

 Australietisis. — J.H.M.]. He discusses the Proteacese at some length, and finally does 

 not concur in some of Ettingshausen \s determinations in his " -Die Proteaceen der 

 Vorwclt," 



Bentham, always judicial, points out that he is only a " recent botanist," and 

 not a palaeontologist, and offers his criticisms in ' . . . the hope that they may 

 in some measure distinguish proved facts from vague guesses, in order that we may 

 know how far reliance is to be placed on their conclusions." 



E. W. Berry, a distinguished American palseobotanist ("Science," xlix, p. 91, 

 24th January, 1919), makes the following remarks :— 



The identification of the antipodean genus Eucalyptus in the fossil floras of Europe was the subject 

 for a sweeping condemnation by the veteran systematist Bentham in one of his addresses. Without 

 subscribing to the viewpoint of one who was at best a narrow specialist and could see nothing useful in 

 the study of fossil plants, it remains true that the identification of Eucalyptus in many fossil floras hasled 

 to what I believe to be erroneous conclvsions in the minds of many geologists and botanists who lack both 

 time and tin- special knowledge for passing on the returns. 



If what I have already quoted fairly represents Bentham's views that Professor 

 Berry has in bifl mind, then, as a life-long student of Bentham's work, I express the 

 opinion that the description <>l him as a " narrow specialist" is ludicrously incorrect. 

 1 am not aware thai lieiilhain could " see nothing useful in the study of fossil plants "; 

 I think he ha- done good service in drawing attention to the fact that certain risks have 

 been run in attributing some fossil leaves to Protean genera. It would appear that 

 Bentham's judgmenl has, in the opinion of present-day palaeobotanists, come true as 

 regards reputed Eucalypti in the northern hemisphere, and he was the greatest authority 

 on the genus al the time lie wrote the Flora Australiensis, and paved the way for 

 Mueller's work. 



Ettingshausen, ls«:5. Ettingshausen's papers dealing with plants of the 



Tertiary of Australia (Is*::. Ixs(i). and his paper on the Cretaceous plants of Australia 

 (IK!).")) will he dealt with al pp. 177 and 1S2 of the present Part. 



