vil 
and a portion of the Synpetaleae, as far as known in 1810. The two important volumes, issued by 
Lehmann and his coadjutors as “Plantae Preissianae,” refer solely to South-West Australian species. 
Sir Joseph Hooker’s grand “Flora Tasmaniae” became necessarily limited to the plants of that island, 
although prefaced by an extensive general essay. 
A future re-edition of this census from auginented material, in ampler paginal form, might afford 
space also for noting these works. The “Flora Tasmaniae” will replace however the “ Flora Australiensis ” 
in the quotation-column of the second part of this census, in which all the “ Evasculares” of Australia 
are to be enumerated, the total of them having risen already to about 3750 recorded species. For, be 
it understood, that the genial and learned Director of the Royal Botanic Garden of Kew has laid 
a firm foundation for the system of evascular Acotyledoneae of All-Australia in his Tasmanian Flora, 
that work being the first, in which any extensive and connectedly elaborated account of Mosses, 
Lichens, Fungs and Algs of Australia has been presented. 
It was beyond the scope of these pages, to extend the statistics here given; otherwise the 
writer would have gladly assigned geographic columns also to Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South 
America for indicating the respective range of many Australian species of plants into other regions 
of the globe. Whoever may be interested in such phytogeographic subjects is referred to an able 
article, written by Dr. Engler, Director of the Botanic Garden of Kiel, for the volume of 1551 of his 
“Jahrbiicher,” or to the print of a discourse, delivered a few months ago before the School of Mines 
at Ballarat. To sum up some of the results of this statistic volume, tables are appended, setting 
forth the number of the species in each order as well as the grand totals arrived at, clearly 
immigrated plants being excluded from these pages throughout. Future phytological explorations are 
not likely, to add beyond several hundred specific forms, considered in conservative limitations, to those 
now adduced; but extensive additions are sure to be made yet to the records of regional distribution. 
Indeed even while this first part of the work went through the press, so many new localities became 
known, as to render an appendix now already necessary. For these addenda I am largely indebted 
either in notations or material to the Rev. Dr. Woolls, Professor ‘ate, the Rev. B. Scortechini and Mr. 
F. M. Bailey, while the supplemental notes concerning West Australian plants emanated chiefly from 
gatherings, which we owe to the Hon. J. Forrest, C.M.G. It should however he observed, that the 
whole of the vast additional collections, which accumulated in our Botanic Museum since the volumes of the 
“Flora Australiensis” successively appeared, could not receive in all instances timely close and critical 
attention for the elaboration of the present work, though its author had the advantage of departmental 
help from Mr. G. Luehmann in preliminary sorting and comparing of much of the supplemental 
material; and here it is an apt place, to recognise likewise the aid, afforded by Mr. Léon Henry, in 
writing out primarily the requisite notes from the “Flora” and the “Fragmenta.” Nearly one hundred 
species more might have been taken into account already, for estimating the number of species in 
various orders; but the samples hitherto secured did not admit of obtaining accurate specitic data, 
though the ordinal position could be recognised. Thus we know, that already some access to Anonaceae, 
Menispermaceae, Lauraceae, Euphorbiaceae, Rutaceae and a few other orders could he recorded. 
The chronologic references for species, here more extensively carried out, than ever before, amount 
to nearly 10,000, including those for genera, in this first part of the present publication. The 
bibliographic works of Pritzel, Pfeiffer and Jackson have done excellent services in these particular 
inquiries. The position, given to several of the orders on this occasion, is to some extent assailable ; thus—as 
well-known—reasons exist for moving Piperaceae to Nymphaeaceae, Aristolochieae and Nepenthaceae to 
Sarraceniaceae, Viniferae to Araliaceae, Thymeleae to Rhamnaceae, Balanophoreae and Podostemoneae 
to Halorageae, Droseraceae to Saxifrageae, Rubiaceae to Loganiaceae, Fluviales to Hydrocharideae, 
Casuarineae to Coniferae, although the two latter are neither anatomically nor morphologically approaching 
each other, notwithstanding some deceptive external resemblance, in which however Exocarpus also 
shares, not to speak of a few other genera. But in considerations like these we should not 
insist in a dogmatic spirit on the full acceptance of hitherto recognised systematic arrangements, 
particularly as not yet all the forms of the world’s vegetation are known, and as at any moment 
the discovery of a new plant may turn the scale in weighing the affinity of its allies. 
In incurring the responsibility of restoring some generic names, which had sunk almost into 
oblivion, the writer has been guided by the impartial rules of strict priority, feeling assured, that 
phytographers will become quite as quickly accustomed to changes from Stylidium to Candollea, or 
fonidium to Hybanthus, or Chenolea to Bassia, as they became reconciled to the long forgotten appellations 
of Trema, Hevea, Centipeda, Galeola, Floriscopa, Nunnezharia and others, thereby discarding names, 
sanctioned by lengthened use and familiar to all of us, with a readiness as surprising as universal. 
To alterations or restitutions of specific names shall only be alluded here with a few words. Why 
Lamarck for an Eleusine selected designedly the appellation E. cruciata, or why Schleiden called a Wolffia 
purposely W. Michelii, can be as easily perceived as the advisability of withdrawing the specific 
name antarctica from a Vitis, Cymodocea or Dicksonia. Where authors bestowed several names 
