The Age of Ferns.

It was established by Dr. Treub in the case of Krakatoa that ferns and algæ formed the earliest vegetation of this island after it had been completely stripped of all its plants in the great eruption of 1883. It is, therefore, but natural that the vascular cryptogams should first be dealt with in any discussion relating to the historical aspects of these floras.

It has been before remarked that the epoch of ferns and lycopods, which began with the earliest stage in the island’s floral history, may be regarded as extending to our own day. It is thus implied that the vascular cryptogams of those early times are yet brought there, and that, alike with the littoral plants, these ferns and lycopods have witnessed almost unchanged the great revolutions that have marked the history of the inland flowering plants, more particularly those of the forest flora. This, as I will show, is true in Hawaii, though only in a partial sense in comparison with the other island-groups of Fiji and Tahiti, since in Hawaii nearly half the ferns and lycopods are peculiar to that group, whilst in Fiji and Tahiti not more than 8 or 9 per cent. appear to be endemic. (Rarotonga, according to Cheeseman, possesses one new species amongst its seventy-two ferns and lycopods, and probably in this it is typical of the smaller elevated islands of Eastern Polynesia.)

The large proportion of peculiar Hawaiian species is the central fact in the distribution of vascular cryptogams in the Hawaiian, Fijian, and Tahitian archipelagoes, and indeed in the Pacific islands; and it is around this fact that much of the following discussion will lie. (For the data relating to the Tahitian region, I have almost exclusively followed Drake del Castillo.)

On looking at the table given below, it will be noticed that whilst there are about the same number of species of ferns and lycopods in the Tahitian and Hawaiian islands there are at least half as many again in Fiji. When we reflect that the total areas of the Fijian and Hawaiian groups are in each case about 7,000 square miles and that the extent of the whole Tahitian region does not amount to 2,000 square miles, these facts acquire a fresh significance. Ferns and lycopods might, therefore, be expected to figure more largely in the Tahitian flora than in those of Fiji and Hawaii; and this is indeed the case. When we examine the relative proportion of the vascular cryptogams to the indigenous flowering plants in each area we find that whilst in Hawaii they form about 18 per cent. of the total flora and in Fiji not much more than this (see [Note 62]), in Tahiti they constitute just a third. This excess of vascular cryptogams is reflected in the flora of the outlying groups, the proportion in Rarotonga being, according to Cheeseman, 30 per cent. It is, therefore, evident that in comparison with the other groups Tahiti possesses a marked preponderance in ferns and lycopods. In this respect the Tahitian islands resemble those of Juan Fernandez, where judging from the data relating to the indigenous flora given in Hemsley’s Botany of the Challenger Expedition, the proportion of vascular cryptogams amounts to between 30 and 38 per cent.

But it has been already implied that the proportion of endemic species of ferns and lycopods is from four to five times as large in Hawaii as it is in Tahiti or Fiji. In Hawaii, therefore, there has been a production of many new species, whilst in Fiji and Tahiti there has been a great rush of immigrants. “Formative energy” in Hawaii (to adopt an expression of Dr. Hillebrand) and “active colonisation” in Fiji and Tahiti, such would appear to be the most conspicuous features in the history of the vascular cryptogams of these three archipelagoes.

In these floras it is, therefore, apparent that respecting the vascular cryptogams the average number of species in a genus does not supply a means of contrasting them. As indicated in the table, the fern and lycopod floras of Fiji and Hawaii are similar in this respect. Yet in each the average number of species to a genus has a separate significance. A genus may acquire its species through immigration, or they may arise from its formative energy within the particular area. The first principle has been largely dominant in Fiji, the last in Hawaii, and the resemblance between the average number of species in a genus in these two groups is to a large extent accidental. Between the vascular cryptogams of Fiji and Tahiti, however, such a comparison is legitimate; and since the average formative energy is in these groups about the same, the difference is to be attributed to a lessened number of immigrants into the Tahitian area.

Table of Vascular Cryptogams (Ferns and Lycopods) in the Groups of

Tahiti, Hawaii, and Fiji. (See [note 63].)

Group.Number of genera.Number of species.Species to a genus.Number of endemic species.Percentage of endemic species.Percentage of ferns and lycopods among the vascular plants.
Tahiti38154 4·113833
Hawaii291555·4704518
Fiji402375·920821

The results, so far mentioned, are in the main consistent with the geographical position and the degree of isolation of these three areas. From their proximity to the large continental islands of the Western Pacific, the Fijian islands would have readily received a great number of immigrants from the west, since the intervening sea is not over 500 miles in breadth. They lie in the track of the main line of migration into and across the South Pacific, a track which has been followed by flowering plants and animals as well as by aboriginal man. Assuming that the migration of the vascular cryptogams extended from Fiji eastward to Tahiti, fewer of the immigrants would reach the last-named group. Fewer still would reach the Hawaiian islands, which excluding the groups of low coral islands to the southward are cut off on all sides, whether from the Fiji-Samoan and Tahitian areas, from the coasts of North America, or from the regions north and west, by a breadth of ocean that is never less than 1,500 miles.

That the main track of the ferns and lycopods across the South Pacific to Tahiti has been eastward there can be little doubt. This is indicated in the tables given by Drake del Castillo for Eastern Polynesia, and also by an analysis I have prepared of the distributions that he gives for the species of the Tahitian region (see [Note 64]). Out of the 154 species there are only two that belong exclusively to the American side of the Pacific; whilst 58 are derived exclusively from the Asiatic side, and mainly from Indo-Malaya. The drift of the ferns and lycopods eastward from Fiji is also brought out in the number of Tahitian species common to Hawaii and Fiji. Of these about 76 per cent. are common to Fiji or to the groups around, and only 30 per cent. occur in Hawaii. The Tahitian species found in Hawaii occur also in Fiji with the exception of two or three mountain species which have doubtless failed to find a suitable elevation in Fiji. These two or three mountain ferns and lycopods are probably the only vascular cryptogams possessed in common by Hawaii and Tahiti to the exclusion of other groups. (See [Note 64].)

The prevailing Indo-Malayan origin of the ferns and lycopods of the archipelagoes of the Fijian area (Fiji, Tonga, Samoa) is so well established in the writings of Seemann, Baker, Hemsley, Christ, and Burkill that there is no necessity to enter into details here. That the stream of vascular cryptogams to Hawaii has proceeded mainly from the Old World side of the Pacific is shown in the circumstance that of the eighty and odd species found outside the group nearly half are from the Asiatic side exclusively and only three from America alone, whilst about a fourth occur in both continents, and a fourth are confined to Polynesia. One point, says Dr. Hillebrand, comes out in strong relief, and that is “the great number of ferns scattered over the long track which leads from the Hawaiian islands through Polynesia and Malaysia to the east coast of tropical Africa.” But he adds significantly that “it cannot be inferred from this fact that all the species in question have travelled eastward to find the terminus of their long migration on this group, unless the principle be established, that the formative energy of a species or genus be greatest at the circumference or farthest extremity of its area” (p. 542).

Though evidently prepared to admit the general eastward trend of plants in the Pacific, Dr. Hillebrand (p. xxviii) puts forward in the case of the ferns the startling view that originally spores of a few simple species have been diffused over various countries and that they have there evolved on parallel lines “predetermined by the structure of the original immigrant” a series of higher forms, so that the same form might have been produced in two widely distant localities, as, for instance, in Ceylon and Hawaii. The editor, Mr. W. F. Hillebrand, gives good reasons for his belief that this does not represent the matured opinion of the author. It is, however, worth noting in this connection that Dr. Karl Mueller has advanced a similar view with respect to the lower orders of plants. (See a translation of his paper in Trans. and Proc. N. Z. Inst. Vol. 25.) Bearing in mind the known capacity of ferns for dispersal by the winds, an hypothesis of this kind, even if established, seems scarcely needed in the study of fern-dispersal.

It is probable that many of the ferns and lycopods reached Hawaii directly and not through South Polynesia. The mountain-ferns of this group could hardly have been received by that route, since, as is shown below, they do not as a rule occur in that region.

Some other interesting relations present themselves in connection with the Hawaiian ferns and lycopods when we consider the distribution of its non-endemic species in the other two groups of Fiji and Tahiti. Out of these species, some eighty in all, not more than half are common to all three groups, and about two dozen have not been found either in Fiji or in Tahiti. Of these last quite half are mountain species in Hawaii, having their station at elevations exceeding those of the highest districts of Fiji and of the several islands of the Tahitian area, excepting the limited region comprised in the uplands of Tahiti itself.

A glance at the list, given in [Note 65] of some of the mountain ferns of Hawaii not recorded from Fiji and Tahiti will show that these species are very widely distributed. Ferns and lycopods found in the Himalayas and in the Andes meet on the higher slopes of the lofty mountains of Hawaii and in no other of the less elevated island-groups of the open Pacific. This distribution of the vascular cryptogams thus foreshadows a principle that will come into prominence in the case of the flowering plants, namely, that difference in elevation has been an important factor in determining some of the contrasts between the Hawaiian, Fijian, and Tahitian floras. The contrasts here implied are those connected with the climatic conditions of station, since several plants of temperate regions, such as Aspidium filix mas, Asplenium trichomanes, Asplenium adiantum nigrum, &c., that are at home in the highlands of Hawaii, do not occur in either Fiji or Tahiti. We can infer that widely ranging ferns and lycopods have been dispersed over the oceanic groups of the tropical Pacific with a fair degree of uniformity, and that any marked contrasts in their distribution may be attributed to considerable differences in the altitude of the islands.

In appreciating such a conclusion, and in dealing with apparent exceptions to the rule, the relation between the vertical range of a species and its lateral distribution has to be considered. We find, for instance, that whilst the Common Bracken (Pteris aquilina) is a mountain plant in Hawaii, it occurs also in Fiji and Tahiti. Since, however, it is found all over the temperate and tropical regions, and has a vertical range in Hawaii of from 800 to 8,000 feet, any difficulty in this respect is thus explained. Aspidium aculeatum, a characteristic fern of temperate latitudes, seems at first to present a difficulty, which, however, proves to be more apparent than real. Whilst it has been recorded from Hawaii at heights of 6,000 to 9,000 feet, and from Tahiti at 4,000 feet, it has also been found in Fiji and Samoa; but since it was not collected by Seemann in Fiji, it can scarcely be common, and Horne seems only to have obtained it from the tops of mountains in Vanua Levu at an elevation of 1,800 feet.

Up to this point the non-endemic ferns and lycopods have been chiefly discussed. We will now briefly deal with the probable cause of the relative preponderance of peculiar or endemic species in Hawaii as contrasted with Fiji and Tahiti. In this respect the Hawaiian islands, as remarked at the commencement of this chapter, come into sharp contrast with the other two groups; but it would seem that the differentiation has rarely acquired a generic value (see [Note 66]). In this respect the age of ferns is markedly distinguished from the succeeding era, the age of the arborescent Compositæ and of Tree-Lobelias, to which a large number of peculiar genera belong. This, according to my view, is to be attributed to the circumstance that whilst the dispersion of spores by the wind is probably as active in our own time as it was in the earliest stage of the floral history of Hawaii, the dispersion of seeds by birds, to which the flowering plants in the main originally owe their presence in this group, has been greatly influenced by the various changes that have affected the migration of birds over the Pacific, a subject discussed in later pages.

Respecting the origin of the species of ferns and lycopods peculiar to Hawaii, it is first of importance to quote the remarks of Dr. Hillebrand on the subject. Speaking of the whole flora (p. xxv), but evidently with the ferns more especially in his mind, he says:—“Nature here luxuriates in formative energy. Is it because the islands offer a great range of conditions of life? Or is it because the leading genera are in their age of manhood, of greatest vigour? Or is it because the number of types which here come into play is limited, and, therefore, the area offered to their development comparatively great and varied?” It is deeply to be regretted that sickness and death intervened before the author was able to give to the world his matured views on the very important points here raised. Yet they are much the same questions that man is ever putting to the life around him. There is the same querulous note that we find in all, the question that begins, the question that ends, and the reply that never comes.

“The evolution theory (writes Dr. Hillebrand, p. xxix) could hardly find a more favourable field for observation than an isolated island-group in mid-ocean, large enough to have produced a number of original forms, and at the same time so diversified in conditions of temperature, humidity, and atmospheric currents as to admit an extraordinary development in nearly every direction of vegetable morphology, uninfluenced by intercrossing with foreign elements.” Isolation thus admittedly offers the preliminary determining or favouring conditions. This is directly indicated by the fact that Hawaii possesses fewer genera of ferns and lycopods than either Fiji or Tahiti, notwithstanding that it has the same area as Fiji, and is in extent three or four times the size of the whole Tahitian area. One effect of isolation in Hawaii has, therefore, been greater room for the development of new forms. It has, however, already been remarked that the islands of the Fijian area are much less isolated than those of the Hawaiian group, and that in consequence the free immigration possible in the one group has been checked in the other. Fiji possesses in respect to vascular cryptogams at least half as many species again as Hawaii, but Hawaii has three or four times the number of peculiar species. Yet before this great contrast can be ascribed to different degrees of isolation, it is necessary to exclude another possible cause presented by the greater range of life-conditions in Hawaii. It is possible that all the Hawaiian peculiar species may belong to the higher levels, elevations, as before shown, not represented in the Fijian islands, which correspond only to the lowlands of Hawaii, that is, to levels below 4,000 feet. If this is the case, the contrast between Fiji and Hawaii would be connected mainly with a difference in life-conditions, and, however potent the isolating influences might have been in Hawaii, they could hardly have been concerned with this striking difference.

In order to determine this point, I went carefully through the account given by Hillebrand of the Hawaiian ferns and lycopods, noting the altitudes there given, and making use of the maps and of my own local knowledge of the islands of Oahu and Hawaii, where the elevation is neither directly nor indirectly implied. As a result, I found that out of sixty-six endemic species available for my purpose, forty-seven had their stations at levels below 4,000 feet, that is in the region corresponding to Fiji, and nineteen at elevations exceeding this height. This, however, did not finally decide the question, since the proportion of endemic species may be much smaller in the region below 4,000 feet than in that above it. I, therefore, went over the ground again, and found, as shown in the table below, that the percentages of peculiar species amongst the total available for my use were not very far apart, 58 per cent. for the upper region and 43 per cent. for the lower region.

Distribution of the Hawaiian ferns and lycopods above and below 4,000 feet.

Number.Endemic.Percentage of endemic species.
Species below 4,000 feet1104743
Species above 4,000 feet331958

From the above it would appear that although the process of species-production in the Hawaiian islands has seemingly been rather more active above than below 4,000 feet, if we were to compare the entire vascular cryptogamic flora of Fiji with that of the corresponding lower levels of the Hawaiian group we should obtain much the same contrast in the proportion of peculiar species that we obtained when comparing all the ferns and lycopods of both groups. In other words, if we were to restrict our comparison with Fiji, and I may add Tahiti, to that lower portion of Hawaii that corresponds in elevation, we should not get results very different from those to be obtained by including the Hawaiian upland regions as well.

We are, I think, on these grounds justified in assuming that the relatively great development of new species of ferns and lycopods in Hawaii as contrasted with Fiji is not to be connected with the greater elevation of those islands. The only thing that we have been able to associate with the greater altitude of the Hawaiian Islands, and the consequent greater range of climatic conditions, when contrasting the Fijian and Hawaiian vascular cryptogams, is the occurrence of a number of peculiar mountain species and of wide-ranging temperate species that are found in the uplands of Hawaii, but not in the less elevated islands of Fiji.

On the whole, therefore, it is to be inferred that the greater display of formative power among the ferns and lycopods of the Hawaiian Islands is in great part to be associated with the isolation of this group as compared with those of Fiji and Tahiti. The indications supplied by the vascular cryptogams resemble in kind those we shall obtain from the study of the flowering plants, but there is this important distinction. In formative power, as shown in the development of new specific and generic types, the Hawaiian vascular cryptogams are far exceeded by the flowering plants where the proportion of endemic species amounts to 80 per cent. We have no reason to believe that the winds, to which the ferns and lycopods chiefly owe their dispersal, are less effective now in carrying their spores than they were in the earliest era of the floral history of Hawaii or in the intervening periods. In the course of ages the winds have been more uniform in their action as plant-dispersers even than the currents, and certainly far more than birds.

On the other hand, in the case of the Hawaiian flowering plants that depend on the varying influence of the migrant bird, the agency of dispersal has often been suspended altogether, and far greater differentiation or departure from the original type has resulted, the amount of change often reaching to the value of a generic distinction. It is a question, however, whether the isolation of the Hawaiian Islands is to be entirely connected with their mid-oceanic position. It will be shown in [Chapter XXXIII]. that effects almost as great have been produced in continental regions and in continental islands, and that the isolated situation of Hawaii has not induced but has intensified these results. In the later eras of plant-life a process of segregation has been ever active throughout the tropical world whether in the case of an elevated oceanic island or of a mid-continental mountain.

The following are some of the principal points that have been emphasised in the foregoing discussion of the ferns and lycopods of the Hawaiian, Fijian, and Tahitian Islands:—

(a) In all three groups the vascular cryptogams (ferns and lycopods) have been largely supplied from the warmer regions of the Old World. But whilst in the South Pacific the migration has been mainly from Fiji eastward to Tahiti, it is probable that Hawaii in the North Pacific has been in part independently stocked.

(b) Whilst in Hawaii many peculiar species of ferns and lycopods have been developed, in Fiji and Tahiti there have been comparatively few.

(c) Whilst there has been more or less free immigration into Fiji and Tahiti there has been comparative isolation in Hawaii. Though the areas of the Fijian and Hawaiian archipelagoes are about the same, Fiji possesses at least half as many species again as Hawaii; but Hawaii owns three or four times the number of peculiar species.

(d) Though the land-area of the Tahitian region does not exceed a fourth part of that of Hawaii, it has the same number of species. The Tahitian islands therefore display a predominance of ferns and lycopods.

(e) The non-effective influence of the greater elevation of the Hawaiian Islands on its preponderance of peculiar species is shown by comparing all the ferns and lycopods of the Fijian and Tahitian Islands with those of the corresponding lower levels of the Hawaiian Islands, when we find much the same contrast exhibited in the number of peculiar species.

(f) Whilst a large proportion of the ferns and lycopods are common to all three groups, Hawaii possesses a number of mountain species, widely distributed in temperate regions and on the higher levels of mountainous areas in the tropics, that are not found either in Fiji or in Tahiti. Their absence from these two groups is due to the insufficient elevation of the islands and to the non-existence there of extensive areas of any altitude.

(g) The agency of the winds in dispersing the spores of ferns and lycopods has been relatively uniform through the ages when compared with the varying agency of the migrant bird, to which the flowering plants mainly owe their distribution. Thus it is that in the Pacific islands the vascular cryptogams have experienced much less differentiation than the flowering plants, though as a rule far older denizens of the islands. Yet we cannot doubt that the same principle has been at work in both cases, the difference arising in the instance of the flowering plants from the interrupted and often suspended agency of birds in the work of dispersal.

(h) It is a question whether there is not something more concerned in the isolation of the Hawaiian group than its mid-oceanic position, since effects almost as great have been produced in continental regions.

CHAPTER XXI
THE ERAS OF THE FLOWERING PLANTS
The Age of Compositæ.

The islands of the tropical Pacific as the homes of new genera and new species.—The significance of a large endemic element.—Synopsis of the eras.—The era of endemic genera.—The endemic genera of Compositæ.—Their affinities and mode of dispersal.—The mystery of the suspension of the dispersing agencies.—Mr. Bentham’s views.—The remnant of an ancient Composite flora in the tropical Pacific.—The dispersion of the Compositæ antedates the emergence of the island-groups of the Fijian region at the close of the Tertiary period.—Summary.

The Endemism of the Pacific Island Floras.

As far as the production of new species is concerned, the Hawaiian group presents the same contrast with the Fijian and Tahitian groups in respect of the flowering plants that it does as regards the ferns and lycopods. The proportion of endemic species, after excluding all introduced plants, is in Hawaii 80 per cent., in Fiji about 50 per cent., and in Tahiti 35 per cent. (see Table A). The same contrast is also displayed in the number of peculiar genera. In Hawaii there are, according to Dr. Hillebrand, 37 or 38, and in Fiji Dr. Seemann discovered 16; whilst, as we learn from Drake del Castillo, there are only 3 or 4 in the Tahitian Islands. (As will be pointed out later on, these numbers for Fiji and Hawaii have to be reduced, but the general inference to be drawn from them is not materially affected; see Table B.)

But if we look at the accompanying table (Table B) we notice that the flora of Hawaii is sharply contrasted with those of Fiji and Tahiti not only in the large proportion of endemic genera, but also in the large number of non-endemic genera with peculiar species, and in the small proportion of genera possessing no peculiar species. There is an endemic element of greater or less degree in about 70 per cent. of the Hawaiian genera, whilst in Fiji only about 53 per cent. and in Tahiti as few as 34 per cent. of the genera contain to a varying extent peculiar species. Another feature brought out in this table is the relative poverty of genera in the Hawaiian Islands. Fiji, though about the same size as Hawaii, contains nearly half as many genera again, whilst the islands of the Tahitian region, which in the aggregate amount to only one-third or one-fourth of the area of the islands of Hawaii, possess nearly as many genera.

Table A (Flowering Plants).

Proportions of Endemic Species in the Hawaiian, Fijian, and Tahitian floras, with those

for Samoa, Tonga, and Rarotonga added.

Groups.Number of species.Number of endemic species.Percentage of endemic species.
Hawaii68654680
Fiji S. 617 288 47
H.108662057
Tahiti31511235
Samoa32611034
Tonga285176
Rarotonga Island1401712

Remarks.—The materials for this table have been obtained from the works of Hillebrand for Hawaii, Seemann and Horne for Fiji, Drake del Castillo for Tahiti, Reinecke for Samoa, Hemsley and Burkill for Tonga, and Cheeseman for Rarotonga. The two estimates for Fiji are marked S. for Seemann and H. for Horne, the last being a rough preliminary computation made by Horne himself.

The results given are only to be considered as approximations liable to emendation, but as regards the proportion of endemic species in the several groups they no doubt illustrate fairly well the relative degree of endemism in the various archipelagoes. The results for Samoa, Tonga, and Rarotonga are merely added in order to enable a comparison to be made with sub-groups of a region and with solitary islands, the Hawaiian, Fijian, and Tahitian groups being regarded as the three principal centres of plant-life in the open Pacific.

All plants introduced by the aborigines and the white man are excluded. In so doing, I have mainly followed Seemann, a safe guide in all matters relating to weeds and to cultivated plants. The flora of a Pacific island thus treated undergoes serious diminution in its extent. In the case of the Rarotonga flora, for example, which according to Cheeseman includes about 260 flowering plants, the number of truly indigenous plants, in the sense here implied, is only 140. Though this is an extreme case, it will serve to illustrate the principle here followed.

Table B (Flowering Plants).

Comparison of the Hawaiian, Fijian, and Tahitian genera. (All genera containing

introduced plants entirely are excluded.)

Group.Non-endemic genera.Endemic genera.Total.
No endemic species.Some species endemic, some not.All species endemic.
Hawaii70(31)30(13)95(43)28(13)223(100)
Fiji S. 150(47)S. 74(23)S. 87(27)S. 10(3)S. 321(100)
H. 162(47)H. 80(23)H. 94(27)H. 10(3)H. 346(100)
Tahiti (Eastern Polynesia)125(66)21(11)40(21)4(2)190(100)

Remarks.—The figures in brackets are percentages. S. = Seemann, H. = Horne and Seemann.

In the construction of this table, Hillebrand, Seemann, and Drake del Castillo have been mainly followed, except with regard to the endemic genera for Hawaii and Fiji. In this respect the Index Kewensis has been largely consulted as well as Engler’s publications, as indicated in the text. Hillebrand’s total of nearly forty Hawaiian peculiar genera and Seemann’s total of sixteen for Fiji have thus been considerably reduced. The two results given for Fiji are those of Seemann alone and with Horne superadded. Horne discovered, according to Hemsley, no new genera, but several genera from outside regions were added to the Fijian flora. Taking them as twenty-five (two-thirds of his own computation), I have apportioned them as in Seemann’s results. The Tahitian region here includes Eastern Polynesia.

It is necessary before proceeding further to obtain a correct idea of the significance of a large endemic element in the phanerogamic flora of a Pacific archipelago. We have therefore at the outset to inquire whether it is indicative of isolation or of antiquity. If the number of peculiar genera is to be regarded as the test of the relative antiquity of different Pacific floras and, by implication, of the islands to which they belong, these three groups, as shown in Table B, would arrange themselves in the following order, namely, Hawaii, Fiji, Tahiti. This test might be reliable if the several groups were in the same condition of isolation. Since, however, as we have previously seen, the Fijian Islands still enjoy a fairly free communication with the islands westward, whilst the Hawaiian group is largely cut off, it is apparent that the tendency to generic differentiation in Fiji might have been often swamped by immigration, and that Fiji with its much smaller number of endemic genera may even be older than Hawaii. This objection does not apply quite as forcibly to a comparison between Hawaii and Tahiti, yet for reasons before given it may be regarded as sufficient to negative any inferences concerned with relative antiquity.

On account, therefore, of the great differences in the degree of isolation of these three groups, we cannot be guided in our estimation of the relative antiquity of their floras by their number of peculiar genera. With the evidence at our disposal we are compelled to accept the view, which indeed a single glance at a map would suggest, that the number or proportion of endemic genera is to be connected with the degree of isolation. Whether a parallelism can be traced in the original stocking of these groups with their earliest flowering-plants is a matter that can only be elucidated by a further analysis of the peculiar genera.