president's address. 
651 
orders " and others " have a venation of the wing very different 
from that of any Proteacece I have seen, and much more like that 
of a real samara of an ash." After discussing many examples 
he says, " From the above° considerations I cannot resist the 
opinion that all presumptive evidence is against European 
Proteacece, and that all direct evidence adduced in their favour 
has broken down on cross-examination ; and however much these 
Eocene leaves many assume a general character which may be 
more frequent in Australia, (in Proteacese and other orders) than 
elsewhere, all that this would prove would be, not any genetic 
affinity with Australian races, but some similarity of causes pro- 
ducing similarity of adaptive characters." 
The above remarks from a botanist so eminent and experienced 
in questions of the Australian flora as Bentham might well have 
been thought conclusive, but we find that Ettingshausen in 1890 
brought out a work entitled " Das Australische Florenelement in 
Europa " in which he reasserts the existence of Leptomeria, 
Casuarina, Exocarpus, Bai.'ksia, Dryandra, and Eucalyptus. 
The subject of fossil plants and their identification is ably 
treated in the " Handbuch der Palseontologie," Part II entitled 
" Pakeophytologie." This work as stated on the title page was 
begun by Herr Schimper, formerly Professor at the University of 
Strassburg, continued and concluded by Herr Schenk, Professor of 
Botany at the University of Leipzig, and edited by Professor 
Zittel of the University of Munich. It was published in 1890. 
Doubt is thrown on the identification of Casuarina, Bursaria, 
Hibbertia, and Callicoma. Speaking of the remains attributed 
to the capsular Myrtacece, Zittel says there is no necessity to fly 
to that explanation. As to Proteacece the conclusion appears to 
be the same as that of Bentham. The identification of Leptomeria 
is spoken of as being due to superficial resemblance to which 
weight is given without critical inquiry. I have looked carefully 
through Zittel's work and I cannot find that the correctness of 
the identification of any Australian forms is acknowledged except 
some fossils of the Upper Cretaceous which have been classed and 
named Eucalyptus Geinitzii. 
