Island Life; Or, The Phenomena and Causes of Insular Faunas and Floras

170

See Buller, "On the New Zealand Rat," Trans. of the N. Z. Institute (1870), Vol. III. p. 1, and Vol. IX. p. 348; and Hutton, "On the Geographical Relations of the New Zealand Fauna," Trans. N. Z. Instit. 1872, p. 229.

171

Hochstetter's New Zealand, p. 161, note.

172

The animal described by Captain Cook as having been seen at Pickersgill Harbour in Dusky Bay (Cook's 2nd Voyage, Vol. I. p. 98) may have been the same creature. He says, "A four-footed animal was seen by three or four of our people, but as no two gave the same description of it, I cannot say what kind it is. All, however, agreed that it was about the size of a cat, with short legs, and of a mouse colour. One of the seamen, and he who had the best view of it, said it had a bushy tail, and was the most like a jackal of any animal he knew." It is suggestive that, so far as the points on which "all agreed"—the size and the dark colour—this description would answer well to the animal so recently seen, while the "short legs" correspond to the otter-like tracks, and the thick tail of an otter-like animal may well have appeared "bushy" when the fur was dry. It has been suggested that it was only one of the native dogs; but as none of those who saw it took it for a dog, and the points on which they all agreed are not dog-like, we can hardly accept this explanation; while the actual existence of an unknown animal in New Zealand of corresponding size and colour is confirmed by this account of a similar animal having been seen about a century ago.

173

Owen, "On the Genus Dinornis," Trans. Zool. Soc. Vol. X. p. 184. Mivart, "On the Axial Skeleton of the Struthionidæ," Trans. Zool. Soc. Vol. X. p. 51.

174

The recent existence of the Moa and its having been exterminated by the Maoris appears to be at length set at rest by the statement of Mr. John White, a gentleman who has been collecting materials for a history of the natives for thirty-five years, who has been initiated by their priests into all their mysteries, and is said to "know more about the history, habits, and customs of the Maoris than they do themselves." His information on this subject was obtained from old natives long before the controversy on the subject arose. He says that the histories and songs of the Maoris abound in allusions to the Moa, and that they were able to give full accounts of "its habits, food, the season of the year it was killed, its appearance, strength, and all the numerous ceremonies which were enacted by the natives before they began the hunt, the mode of hunting, how cut up, how cooked, and what wood was used in the cooking, with an account of its nest, and how the nest was made, where it usually lived, &c." Two pages are occupied by these details, but they are only given from memory, and Mr. White promises a full account from his MSS. Many of the details given correspond with facts ascertained from the discovery of native cooking places with Moas' bones; and it seems quite incredible that such an elaborate and detailed account should be all invention. (See Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, Vol. VIII. p. 79.)

175

See fig. in Trans. of N. Z. Institute, Vol. III., plate 12b. fig. 2.

176

Geographical Distribution of Animals, Vol. I., p. 450.

177

In my Geographical Distribution of Animals (I. p. 541) I have given two peculiar Australian genera (Orthonyx and Tribonyx) as occurring in New Zealand. But the former has been found in New Guinea, while the New Zealand bird is considered to form a distinct genus, Clitonyx; and the latter inhabits Tasmania, and was recorded from New Zealand through an error. (See Ibis, 1873, p. 427.)

178

The peculiar genera of Australian lizards according to Boulenger's British Museum Catalogue, are as follows:—Family Geckonidæ: Nephrurus, Rhynchœdura, Heteronota, Diplodactylus, Œdura. Family Pygopodidæ (peculiar): Pygopus, Cryptodelma, Delma, Pletholax, Aprasia. Family Agamidæ: Chelosania, Amphibolurus, Tympanocryptis, Diporophora, Chlamydosaurus, Moloch, Oreodeira. Family Scincidæ: Egerina, Trachysaurus, Hemisphænodon. Family doubtful: Ophiopsiseps.

179

These figures are taken from Mr. G. M. Thomson's address "On the Origin of the New Zealand Flora," Trans. N. Z. Institute, XIV. (1881), being the latest that I can obtain. They differ somewhat from those given in the first edition, but not so as to affect the conclusions drawn from them.

180

This accords with the general scarcity of Leguminosæ in Oceanic Islands, due probably to their usually dry and heavy seeds, not adapted to any of the forms of aërial transmission; and it would indicate either that New Zealand was never absolutely united with Australia, or that the union was at a very remote period when Leguminosæ were either not differentiated or comparatively rare.

181

Sir Joseph Hooker informs me that the number of tropical Australian plants discovered within the last twenty years is very great, and that the statement as above made may have to be modified. Looking, however, at the enormous disproportion of the figures given in the "Introductory Essay" in 1859 (2,200 tropical to 5,800 temperate species) it seems hardly possible that a great difference should not still exist, at all events as regards species. In Baron von Müeller's latest summary of the Australian Flora (Second Systematic Census of Australian Plants, 1889), he gives the total species at 8,839, of which 3,560 occur in West Australia, and 3,251 in New South Wales. On counting the species common to these two colonies in fifty pages of the Census taken at random, I find them to be about one-tenth of the total species in both. This would give the number of distinct species in these areas as about 6,130. Adding to these the species peculiar to Victoria and South Australia, we shall have a flora of near 6,500 in the temperate parts of Australia. It is true that West Australia extends far into the tropics, but an overwhelming majority of the species have been discovered in the south-western portion of the colony, while the species that may be exclusively tropical will be more than balanced by those of temperate Queensland, which have not been taken account of, as that colony is half temperate and half tropical. It thus appears probable that full three fourths of the species of Australian plants occur in the temperate regions, and are mainly characteristic of it. Sir Joseph Hooker also doubts the generally greater richness of tropical over temperate floras which I have taken as almost an axiom. He says: "Taking similar areas to Australia in the Western World, e.g., tropical Africa north of 20° S. Lat. as against temperate Africa and Europe up to 47°—I suspect that the latter would present more genera and species than the former." This, however, appears to me to be hardly a case in point, because Europe is a distinct continent from Africa and has had a very different past history, and it is not a fair comparison to take the tropical area in one continent while the temperate is made up of widely separated areas in two continents. A closer parallel may perhaps be found in equal areas of Brazil and south temperate America, or of Mexico and the Southern United States, in both of which cases I suppose there can be little doubt that the tropical areas are far the richest. Temperate South Africa is, no doubt, always quoted as richer than an equal area of tropical Africa or perhaps than any part of the world of equal extent, but this is admitted to be an exceptional case.

182

Sir Joseph Hooker thinks that later discoveries in the Australian Alps and other parts of East and South Australia may have greatly modified or perhaps reversed the above estimate, and the figures given in the preceding note indicate that this is so. But still, the small area of South-west Australia will be, proportionally, far the richer of the two. It is much to be desired that the enormous mass of facts contained in Mr. Bentham's Flora Australiensis and Baron von Müeller's Census should be tabulated and compared by some competent botanist, so as to exhibit the various relations of its wonderful vegetation in the same manner as was done by Sir Joseph Hooker with the materials available twenty-one years ago.

183

From an examination of the fossil corals of the South-west of Victoria, Professor P. M. Duncan concludes—"that, at the time of the formation of these deposits the central area of Australia was occupied by sea, having open water to the north, with reefs in the neighbourhood of Java." The age of these fossils is not known, but as almost all are extinct species, and some are almost identical with European Pliocene and Miocene species, they are supposed to belong to a corresponding period. (Journal of Geol. Soc., 1870.)

184

"On the Origin of the Fauna and Flora of New Zealand," by Captain F. W. Hutton, in Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist. Fifth series, p. 427 (June, 1884).

185

To these must now be added the genera Sequoia, Myrica, Aralia, and Acer, described by Baron von Ettingshausen. (Trans. N.Z. Institute, xix., p. 449.)

186

The large collection of fossil plants from the Tertiary beds of New Zealand which have been recently described by Baron von Ettingshausen (Trans. N. Z. Inst., vol. xxiii., pp. 237-310), prove that a change in the vegetation has occurred similar to that which has taken place in Eastern Australia, and that the plants of the two countries once resembled each other more than they do now. We have, first, a series of groups now living in Australia, but which have become extinct in New Zealand, as Cassia, Dalbergia, Eucalyptus, Diospyros, Dryandra, Casuarina, and Ficus; and also such northern genera as Acer, Planera, Ulmus, Quercus, Alnus, Myrica, and Sequoia. All these latter, except Ulmus and Planera, have been found also in the Eastern-Australian Tertiaries, and we may therefore consider that at this period the northern temperate element in both floras was identical. If this flora entered both countries from the south, and was really Antarctic, its extinction in New Zealand may have been due to the submergence of the country to the south, and its elevation and extension towards the tropics, admitting of the incursion of the large number of Polynesian and tropical Australian types now found there; while the Australian portion of the same flora may have succumbed at a somewhat later period, when the elevation of the Cretaceous and Tertiary sea united it with Western Australia, and allowed the rich typical Australian flora to overrun the country. Of course we are assuming that the identification of these genera is for the most part correct, though almost entirely founded on leaves only. Fuller knowledge, both of the extinct flora itself and of the geological age of the several deposits, is requisite before any trustworthy explanation of the phenomena can be arrived at.

187

The following are the tropical genera common to New Zealand and Australia:—

1. Melicope. Queensland, Pacific Islands.

2. Eugenia. Eastern and Tropical Australia, Asia, and America.

3. Passiflora. N.S.W. and Queensland, Tropics of Old World and America.

4. Myrsine. Tropical and Temperate Australia, Tropical and Sub-tropical regions.

5. Sapota. Australia, Norfolk Islands, Tropics.

6. Cyathodes. Australia and Pacific Islands.

7. Parsonsia. Tropical Australia and Asia.

8. Geniostoma. Queensland, Polynesia, Asia.

9. Mitrasacme. Tropical and Temperate Australia, India.

10. Ipomœa. Tropical Australia, Tropics.

11. Mazus. Temperate Australia, India, China.

12. Vitex. Tropical Australia, Tropical and Sub-tropical.

13. Pisonia. Tropical Australia, Tropical and Sub-tropical.

14. Alternanthera. Tropical Australia, India, and S. America.