Antiquity of the Angiosperms — SUESSENGUTH 
293 
TABLE 4 
Representation of Endemic Species among the Larger Plant Groups of Central 
Europe, the Aegean Islands, and Portugal 
plant group 
CENTRAL 
EUROPE* 
AEGEAN ISLANDS! 
Portugal! 
NUMBER OS? 
SPECIES 
PERCENTAGE OF 
HIGHER FLORA 
NUMBER OF 
SPECIES 
PERCENTAGE OF 
HIGHER FLORA 
NUMBER OF 
SPECIES 
PERCENTAGE OF 
HIGHER FLORA 
Pteridophytae 
73 
2.3 
41 
1.2 
51 
1.9 
Gymnospermae 
12 
0.4 
18 
0.5 
12 
0.4 
Monochlamydeae 
332 
10.4 
368 
11.2 
305 
11.0 
Dialypetalae 
1,119 
35.2 
1,154 
35.0 
994 
36.0 
Sympetalae 
998 
31.4 
1,138 
34.6 
843 
30.5 
Monocotyledones 
645 
20.3 
574 
17.5 
557 
20.2 
Totals 
3,179 
3,293 
2,762 
* According to Mansfeld (1940). The unimportant differences between Hegi’s figures and Mans- 
feld’s may be ascribed to differences in criteria for the recognition of species as well as to the fact that 
Hegi’s Flora included Switzerland and the South Tyrol while Mansfeld’s did not. 
fin his Flora Aegaea, Rechinger (1943) covers the territory of the Aegaean islands from Chalki- 
dike in the north to Rhodes and Candia in the south. 
!The figures for Portugal are given by Ruy Telles Paihinha in his Flora de Portugal (1939). 
per cent; Portugal, 30.5 per cent; Switzer- 
land, 30.5 per cent; France, 31.2 per cent; 
Tyrol (including South Tyrol), 33.7 per 
cent; the Aegaean islands, 34.6 per cent; 
Italy, 35.7 per cent; the Balkan countries, 
37.4 per cent. (These calculations are taken 
from A. Schmidt, 1944.) 
When the figures for the endemics of Aus- 
tralia are compared with the figures for those 
parts of Europe which are rich in endemic 
plants, the contrasts are even more pro- 
nounced (Table 5). 
From these comparisons we learn that en- 
demic species of the Sympetalae are much 
more numerous in southern Europe than they 
are in Australia, and that, at the least, the 
centers of development of the polyphyletic 
Sympetalae are not likely to have been lo- 
cated in Australia. If they had been, the per- 
centages of representation would have been 
reversed. 
NUMBERS OF SPECIES IN FAMILIES 
According to Muellers figures (1889), 
which are approximately correct even today, 
the most important families in Australia, 
with respect to the numbers of their species, 
are these: 
FAMILY 
NUMBER OF SF 
Leguminosae . . . 
1,065 
Myrtaceae .... 
....... 663 
Proteaceae .... 
597 
Compositae . . . 
....... 539 
Cyperaceae .... 
380 
Gramineae .... 
....... 345 
Epacridaceae . . . 
....... 275 
Orchidaceae . . . 
....... 272 
Euphorbiaceae . . 
....... 226 
Goodeniaceae . . 
....... 220 
Rutaceae ..... 
190 
These eleven families, with a total of 4,372 
species, include more than half of all the 
Australian phanerogams, of which there are 
8,555 species. It is worth noting how re- 
markably the Leguminosae, Myrtaceae, Com- 
positae, and Orchidaceae have developed. As 
we know, these families are by no means 
primitive. In this way the plants of the pres- 
ent Australian flora give evidence that their 
ancestors (related systematically) must have 
been well-developed at the time of the Upper 
Cretaceous period and even before. 
The percentages of the endemic species in 
these 11 Australian families are tabulated as 
follows: 
