MISCELLANEOUS PLANTS 



171 



and Home for Fiji, Hemsley and Burkill for Tonga, Reinecke for 

 Samoa, Cheeseman for Rarotonga, Jouan and Drake del Castillo 

 for the Tahitian Group, the Marquesas, and the Paumotus, all in one 

 way or another disclaim the plant. Many of them do not mention 

 it. Seemann, however, remarks that in his time (1860) it was 

 strictly confined to the gardens of white residents in Fiji. Hille- 

 brand, as we have seen, regards it as a plant of early introduction 

 in the Hawaiian Islands. Since he does not include it in his list of 

 plants introduced by the natives in prehistoric times (p. xvi.), we 

 may suppose that he places it amongst " several species of Acacia 

 (that) might well claim a place " amongst plants introduced since 

 the time of Captain Cook. If this was the case, Acacia farnesiana 

 must have quickly become established, since in Hillebrand's time 

 (1851-71) it was " spread over all the islands." Cheeseman, also, 

 made a list of plants probably introduced into Rarotonga by the 

 natives prior to the arrival of the white man; but this plant does 

 not figure in the list. From these data, I think that it is fair to 

 assume that botanists do not credit Acacia farnesiana with a pre- 

 European existence in the Pacific islands. (With the exception of 

 the writings of Jouan and Mann, which are quoted by Hemsley 

 (Chall. Bot., IV., 148), all the works of the other authorities named 

 are given at the beginning of my work on Plant Dispersal.) 



It would be possible to extend this discussion very considerably; 

 but I have gone far enough to show the probability of this plant being 

 indigenous in the New World. Bentham would place South Africa 

 and Australia in the same category. However, Cambage included 

 this plant in his recent studies of the history of the Australian 

 Acacias, as indicated by their seedlings, and he looks rather to 

 America for the home of the plant (Ibid., p. 97). This will remind 

 us that there is another way of approaching the problem. Not the 

 least valuable outcome of the studies of Andrews of the adaptation 

 of plant-forms to the special conditions of Australia will be the 

 sidelight often thrown on problems of this kind. The following 

 considerations respecting this plant have suggested themselves after 

 a perusal of his recent paper on the Leguminosce ( Journ. Proc. Roy. 

 Soc. N. S. Wales, Vol. XLVIIL, 1914). From his discussion of the 

 Australian Acacias I would infer that although Acacia farnesiana 

 is at home in Northern Australia, it does not display the special 

 Australian impress which attains its maximum expression in the 

 development of the phyllode, a character of Acacias amongst which 

 the plant we are discussing finds no place. The section, Gummiferce, 

 to which it belongs, seems to have obtained no secure footing in 

 Australia (p. 395) ; and the other types of the series, of which it forms 

 one, are endemic in America, in Africa, or in Asia (p. 392). We 

 could, therefore, scarcely regard Acacia farnesiana as a gift of 

 Australia to the littoral flora of the tropical zone. We have pointed 

 out the probability that either directly or indirectly Australia origin- 

 ally supplied species of Scozvola, Dodonma, and Cassytha, that frequent 

 the shores of the Old and the New World in warm latitudes ; but the 

 same, it would seem, cannot be said for Acacia. 



I may conclude this discussion with the remark that Acacia 



