21 
At present it appears that these islands did not rise above sea-level until Mesozoic 
times. I-t may be, of course, that Glossopteris-hearing rocks really occur in New 
Zealand, and that they have so far been overlooked. It is always somewhat dangerous 
to rely on negative evidence. On the other hand, wherever Glossopteris- bearing sediments 
occur in the Southern Hemisphere, they appear to form sheets of considerable thickness, 
very widely spread and not localized. The geology of New Zealand is now well known. 
A Geological Survey has existed in these islands for more than half a century, and 
it is thus very unlikely that any well-developed series of sediments with a wide 
distribution has been overlooked. Unless the extent and distribution of these beds 
is here quite exceptional, this possible source of error may be dismissed with confidence. 
It is not contended that no beds of Permo-Carboniferous age occur in New Zealand. 
All that is asserted is that these beds, if they exist, have not yielded Glossopteris 
or any member of the Glossopteris flora. Personally, I should not be surprised to 
hear that these plants had been at length discovered in New Zealand in Palaeozoic 
rocks, though I think it is now unlikely that such a discovery will be made. So far, 
however, as the present evidence is concerned, the point is that, while marine sediments 
of Permo-Carboniferous age may be expected to occur, there is no trace of any 
beds containing relics of the terrestrial flora of that period. If New Zealand did not 
exist as dry land at that time, marine sediments would naturally be laid down over 
the area, and these vould be elevated at a later period when it became converted into 
dry land. These, however, may be very unfossiliferous. On the other hand, it seems 
impossible to suppose that estuarine, littoral, or fresh-water deposits occur, similar to 
those formed at the same period in Australia and elsewhere, but containing no traces 
of the terrestrial life of the period, whereas such relics are extraordinarily abundant 
in the corresponding rocks throughout Gondwanaland. I feel confident that if such 
rocks occur they will eventually yield Glossopteris, or some other characteristic member 
of that flora, and not prove to be entirely barren. However, as the matter stands 
at present, the history of New Zealand as a land area cannot be carried back beyond 
the early Mesozoic period.- 
In a recent paper by Professor Seward, some remarks will be found on my con¬ 
clusion that there is no evidence that New Zealand- ever formed part of Gondwanaland. 
This, on Seward’s view, is “ open to question.” He is inclined to see in Linguifolium 
a plant, “ if not generically identical with, at least very closely related to Glossopteris .” 
He further adds, “ there is, moreover, a very close resemblance between several New 
Zealand species and plants from the Rhsetic floras of Tonkin, South Africa, and else-_ 
where, which contain representatives of Glossopteris or - other members of the later 
floras of the Gondwana continent.” At the same time he admits that the Mount 
Potts flora is “no doubt Upper Triassic or Rhsetic ”(1). 
With the comparison between Linguifolium and Glossopteris I have dealt elsewhere 
(pp. 35-38), giving my reasons for rejecting this view. I merely wish to remark here 
that I use the term “ Gondwanaland ” in the usually accepted sense of the Permo- 
Carboniferous continent ; and since neither Seward nor any one else has produced 
an Upper Palceozoic flora as yet from New Zealand, I conclude that New Zealand 
formed no part of that continent. I know of no application of the name “ Gondwana¬ 
land ” to a Mesozoic land area ; in fact, the usefulness of this term would disappear 
entirely were it so used. The well-known fact that many of the genera of the Glosso¬ 
pteris flora survived in Mesozoic times' in many widely separated areas, is beside the 
point. Directly we reach the Mesozoic period we meet everywhere with a new flora; 
and whether it does or does not contain genera common to the Glossopteris flora, it 
(1) Seward (1914), p. 39. 
