314 PATAGONIAN EXPEDITIONS ! PALAEONTOLOGY. 
America ; in other words, it is an exaggeration of Ruetimeyer’s and Hut- 
ton’s conception of it. As to the time of existence of this huge conti- 
nental mass, Forbes differs from all previous writers in placing it in the 
“Ice age” of the northern hemisphere. 
Von Ihering (see: 1891 and 1894) has accepted both theories of Hut- 
ton with a slight modification, assuming a connection running from South 
America (Archiplata, see below) by way of Antarctica to Australia, which 
was in turn connected with a “Pacific continent.” This Pacific continent 
does not correspond exactly to Hutton’s (1884) bridge from Australia to 
Chili, since v. Ihering does not assume a direct connection of it with 
Chili, and thus v. Ihering’ s theory conforms more to the Ruetimeyer- 
Hutton theory. This is shown principally by the fact that for Patagonia 
v. Ihering (1897) urges chiefly the Antarctic origin of a part of its fauna, 
not a Pacific origin. 
It is not necessary to quote here the large number of other writers, who 
have pointed out — in connection with their studies in special groups of 
animals or plants — the allied elements in the faunas and floras of the 
southern continents, since none of them has materially added to or 
changed the existing theories ; it may be sufficient to say that all of them 
— if they have expressed any opinion at all — hold the view that there 
once existed an Antarctic continental connection between the respective 
parts, without venturing into a closer discussion of the question as to the 
probable extent and location of it. 
We must, however, mention especially the writings of Hedley (1895 
and 1899). The main idea of Hedley has been reproduced above (p. 31 1), 
and it remains to point out its relation to the theories set forth above. 
There is no doubt that Hedley’s view keeps close to the old Ruetimeyer- 
Hutton theory in assuming an ancient Antarctic continent. But while 
Forbes enlarged this continent to an incredible size, Hedley chooses the 
safest and most conservative way in not extending the Antarctic land 
beyond its present limits unless absolutely necessary. Thus he leaves 
the known parts of the Antarctic continent as they are, and extends them 
only in narrow strips so as to join Australia, South America, and (pos- 
sibly) South Africa. 1 
1 The same opinion that we have to restrict the land connections of the southern continents 
was expressed again by Lydekker (1896, p. 134), but apparently without knowledge of Hedley’s 
article of 1895. For the rest, Lydekker does not favor any particular theory, and even leaves it 
uncertain whether there was an Antarctic or a Pacific land bridge. 
