Antiquity of the Angiosperms — SUESSENGUTH 
Abderitidae, and of the Sparassodontidae, 
which are related to the Dasyuridae — have 
been discovered in Eocene deposits in Pata- 
gonia; and Zittel (1895) concluded that "it 
is an undeniable paleontologic fact that in 
those times both regions were in mutual 
exchange or at least drew from the same 
sources.” But only the western isle of the 
former Australian archipelago (the West 
Australia of today) participated in this ex- 
change. The eastern islands, particularly New 
Zealand, did not— because they were not con- 
nected either with western Australia or with 
Patagonia. The most primitive species of mar- 
supials- — species of Myrmecobius and Per- 
agalea—are endemic to West Australia, and 
it is a very significant fact that there is no 
fossil evidence to prove that marsupials exist- 
ed in eastern Australia at any time before 
the late Cenozoic era, that is to say, before 
the central Australian sea had retreated (Zit- 
tel, 1895: 294). All this is evidence that 
there must have been connecting land links 
between Patagonia and western Australia. 
We find a very interesting parallel in the 
distribution of two sections of the genus 
Discana of the family Rhamnaceae. The 
section Notophaena (Miers) Suessenguth, in 
its present range, connects Chile and New 
Zealand. The section Eudiscaria Stapf ap- 
pears in the Argentine countries (that is, 
in the countries east of Chile), and in Tas- 
mania, Victoria, and New South Wales. This 
distribution can be explained only by as- 
suming two land bridges leading through 
an Antarctic continent— one connecting Chile 
and New Zealand, in a strip slightly arched 
towards the south; another, farther south 
than the first, leading from eastern Pata- 
gonia .through the Antarctic continent to 
Tasmania and southeast Australia. 
It is my opinion that all sketches of these 
hypothetical land bridges which have been 
published are not quite correct, for it is im- 
possible— for phytogenetical as well as pale- 
301 
ographical reasons — that the connection from 
Chile to east Australia could have been 
formed in a straight line. On the contrary, 
this line passed farther south through an 
Antarctic continent, which at that time was 
overgrown with plants. 
According to Hutton and Wallace (cited 
by Diels, 1897), a Melanesian continent 
connecting New Caledonia, Lord Howe Is- 
land, Norfolk Island, and New Zealand, and 
reaching as far north as the present north 
Queensland, might well have existed in the 
Eocene epoch. There was no connection, 
however, between this continent and western 
Australia. In Miocene times west Australia 
and east Australia were connected, but the 
west Australian species never reached the 
tropics, and, therefore, did not get to New 
Zealand. 
From these few considerations we learn 
that the situation in New Zealand is quite 
different from that in Australia. New Zea- 
land was closely related to the Antarctic 
continent and to a Melanesian continent, but 
we cannot expect to find there the primitive 
species of the Australian continent. The dif- 
ferent character of the flora of New Zealand 
is proof of this expectation. In their Manual 
of the New Zealand Flora, Cheeseman and 
Oliver (1925) list 1,591 species of vascular 
plants, with 1,415 phanerogams and 156 vas- 
cular cryptogams, among all of which are 
1,143 endemic species — 72.8 per cent — and 
24 endemic genera. While Mueller’s cata- 
logue counts 592 species of Proteaceae in 
Australia, only two can be listed for New 
Zealand. The large Australian genera of 
Eucalyptus and Acacia are completely missing 
in New Zealand. The floristic connection of 
New Zealand with Australia is formed by 
certain of the Myrtaceae (the genus Metro- 
sideros ) and by the family Epacridaceae. 
According to Grisebach (1872: II, 633) 
these are the New Zealand families or groups 
which are represented by the most species: 
