22 
cannot by any stretch of terminology be termed a Glossopteris flora, nor can the region 
in which it flourished be termed Gondwanaland. Phyllotheca, for instance, which is 
an important Permo-Carboniferous genus in Gondwanaland, occurs in the Rhsetic in 
New Zealand and elsewhere, and, on Professor Seward’s own showing, as late as the 
Lower Cretaceous in South Africa. Yet these Mesozoic floras, in which Phyllotheca 
occurs, are not the Glossopteris flora, nor did they flourish on a Permo-Carboniferous 
continent, Gondwanaland. 
On the other hand, in New Zealand we have a fairly complete series of Mesophytic 
floras, ranging from the Triasso-Rhsetic to the Neocomian. In the provinces of Canter¬ 
bury and Otago, Rhsetic floras occur. Jurassic floras are met with in the provinces of 
Canterbury and, especially, Southland. A Neocomian flora occurs in Auckland, but 
no evidence of an undoubted Upper Jurassic flora has been met with so far. 
Any one who is familiar with the large literature on the stratigraphical geology 
of New Zealand, is aware of the many contradictory and confused systems of primary 
classification, which have been proposed, at one time or another, for the sedimentary 
rocks of these islands; particularly by Hector and Hutton. Between 1878 and 1903 
no less than four such schemes(l) were propounded for the Mesozoic rocks alone. Even 
in the most recent text-books(2) on the geology of New Zealand two quite different 
systems of classification of the sedimentary beds are proposed. Further, rocks which 
are no doubt Triasso-Rhsetic in age have been called Silurian, Devonian, or even 
Archaean ! Others of similar age have been erroneously referred to the Upper Palaeozoic. 
Consequently, confusion worse confounded has resulted ; and if this has been the case 
within New Zealand itself, it will be readily understood how difficult it has been in 
Europe to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions as to the geological age of the more 
important sediments of the Dominion. New Zealand, until quite recently, appears to have 
always lacked a competent palaeontologist, trained in Europe. The palaeontological side 
seems to have been as weak as specialism in physical geology has been strong, and 
consequently long-continued uncertainty has existed as to the real nature of the fossil 
evidence. 
I do not propose to enter here into the controversies as to the age of the beds 
or their floras ; such would serve no useful purpose. I hope, however, that the present 
contribution, which will no doubt prove to be only an initial step to the knowledge 
of the future, will do something to set at rest the doubts as to the age of the beds 
with which I am concerned here. 
(1) Hector (1879 3 ), (1880), (1881 2 ) ; Cox (2) Cf. Park (1910), p. 25 ; Marshall (1912), 
(1878); Hutton (1885) ; Park (1904). pp. 173, 208. 
