Wellington Philosojohical Society. 541 



This contrast might be carried much farther, but my object is to show 

 the relationship between the two floras rather than thek dissimilarity. Before 

 proceeding with this subject, however, it will be convenient to state two 

 facts which it is desirable to keep in mind. The superficial area of New 

 Zealand is rather less than 100,000 square miles ; that of Australia, in- 

 cluding Tasmania, is uj)wards of 3,000,000 square miles. No part of New 

 Zealand extends north of the thirty-fourth parallel of latitude, while fully 

 two-fifths of Austraha are within the tropic of Capricorn. Further, it 

 cannot be doubted that a much larger proportion of new species remains to 

 be added to the flora of Australia than to that of New Zealand, and it is 

 chiefly among the species yet to be discovered in this colony that we must 

 exjject to find further indications of an ancient connection between the two 

 floras. 



Both assemblages of plants now under consideration have one broad 

 feature in common. The great majority of species in each is endemic, and 

 consists of plants that have originated within the geographical hmits of 

 either New Zealand or Australia, as the case may be ; but notwithstanding 

 this there is a direct relationship between them. Not only are many plants 

 common to both, but others plentiful in one country are represented by 

 closely-allied species in the other. 



The number of s^Decies known to be common to both countries is — Dico- 

 tyledons, 143, belonging to 92 genera; Monocotyledons, 95, belonging to 60 

 genera ; Filicales, 87, under 30 genera. Of these 120 species are not known 

 to occur elsewhere. 



If, however, we look at the total number of genera common to both 

 countries, we shall see that the relationship is much closer than it appears 

 to be from a simple consideration of the number of species common to both. 

 Here we find : — 



Dicotyledons. Monocotyledons. Filicales. 



Genera .. 169 .. 76 .. 33 



So that in addition to the 181 genera containing species common to both 



countries, there are 96 genera re^Dresented in each country by different 



species. Leaving the Filicales out of consideration for the present, nearly 



five-sixths of the^ Ph^enogamic genera of New Zealand are common to both 



countries. I do not at present draw attention to those genera in one 



country which take the place of closely-allied genera in the other, but will 



simply state that all the natural orders represented in the New Zealand flora 



are also represented in Australia, with the exception of Conariece and 



Chloranthacece. 



It would, however, as was long since pointed out by Sir Joseph Hooker, 



be wrong to infer from this that the flora of this colony is httle more than 



an offshoot from that of Australia, since there is no other instance in which 



