HuTTON. — 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 1 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 phsenogamic 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 

 plants 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 fancies 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. 



