WCP2004

[1]¹

Just's Bot Jahresbericht 1880

Part ii P. 349

Eight pages of pure abstract

(most other reviews are 1/4 page to one page)

—

Drude, O.² Handbuch der Pflanzengeographie 1890³

P 127 Island Life⁴ given among the literature on islands

P 140 Mountain high roads are described without mention of Wallace⁵[2]

Behms⁶ Geogr Jahrb⁷ 1883

P 123. O. Drude Bericht ueber die Fortschritte in den Geogr & Pflanzen

One page (p 134) is devoted to Wallace's "celebrated Island Life" — No criticism

He says "Of Special importance..... seems the view of Wallace as to the origin of organisms in the N. Hemisphere and their wanderings southward to the present most southern islands and continental out runners[?] the extremities of continents"[3]

^{H von} Ihering,^{8 "Das neotropische Florengebiet und seine Geschichte"9}

Englers¹⁰ Botan: Jahrbücher¹¹ vol xvii 1893 Beiblatt 42

P.1 "It may indeed on said that Engler grounds himself entirely on the basis of Wallace's theory, and if this ground is insecure, Engler's work must also be reviewed

10 The necessity of considering ^all the inhabitants of oceanic islands as imported leads to wild speculation.

11 Plants are not as a fact carried for by wind. Corsican Sardinian & Sicilian

plants not occurring in Italy

12 Quotes Wallace (P.368) about moss spores and says facts do not agree

In Fernando Noronha¹² weeds have settled in inhabited islands not uninhabited — No orchids (small seeds.) ^one No fern

13 The appearance of identical plants on antarctic islands correctly referred by Hooker to continental extension is now explained by birds, wind &c

The distribution of pappusless[?] compose[?][4]

13 is against this

Wallace explains the reoccurrence of temperate plants in the Andes as due to wind, birds, &c from Californian Sierra. But there is not a single species in common

If A Bolbophyllum secureous[?]¹³ occurs in Africa & Guiana we must not assume wind &c. Most epiphytic orchids¹⁴ have a much smaller range

[From here to p 20 Ihering makes a general campaign against occasional transport][5]

Ihering

P 20 Wallace said the Andes were a migration road when only 1/2 their present height and when Patagonia was under water: — also in Glacial times when Andes were their full height — (migration of lepidoptera,¹⁵ In Island Life P.520 he extends the idea to plants [Here Ihering quotes in German from Island Life "The great mountain masses of Guiana & Brazil must have been much higher before their sedimentary covering was removed... ^{This is an illustration only}

...We find not only many northern genera ^{& species} along this route but we find them making an important part of the vegetation of S. Chile & Terra del F[uego]¹⁶ ]

21 Ihering goes on: —

This whole statement is a wonderful mixture of right & wrong. It is quite wrong that in the old or middle Tertiary¹⁷ Patagonia was underwater — (Eocene¹⁸ fauna)

A second Geological error is that Brazil (tertiary) was a much higher mountain region. The features of the mountains[6] must first have arisen in Tertiary times because of the community of fish in now separate rivers

At or before the Tertiary, the Cretaceous¹⁹ sea divided N & S. America, and Patagonia was only an offshoot of the immense antarctic land to which N.Z. and Australia belonged. At first the antarctic land had a common flora

Accounts for the numerous identical or representative species in Patagonia

Chile and Australia, NZ.

22 These plants could spread to the Andes of Peru & Columbia[sic] but not to the Rockies

As a fact not a single glacial plant is common to the Rockies & Andes.

On the other hand a great exchange of plants must have gone on over the bridge formed by the W. Indies & Central America in Pliocene²⁰ times

With the rising of the Andes many till then purely tropical species became more & more habituated to a mountain existence where alone they survived

Thus it happens that from Mexico to Peru identical sp[ecies] of plants of the ^plains lowlands woods and mountains are widely spread. but that neither the arctic-alpine plants of N. America reached the Andes and Palagonia, nor the Antarctics reached the N. American mountains[7]

Ihering

22 The antarctic & on the Andes do not pass the Isthmus of P[anama]. Griese²¹ = each[?] agrees in this

Thus we see that the bold leap over Central Am[erica] from peaks of Veragua²² to the Andes of New Granada²³ is only a product of wallace's fancy.

If winds & birds could do it, the ^arctic-alpines of the Rockies must have gone to the Andes. There are no migratory birds in S America nor anywhere in Tropics. If the wind could do it, Andine composite must have got to Rockies, or Rhododend to the Andes.

The occasional transport cannot be shown to have been an important factor in the interchange between N & S america[8]

22 Engler gives Daucus,²⁴ Crautzia²⁵ & Myosurus²⁶ as spread occurring from Antarc to N. America across equator. They came from N along the mountain chain — (he is on the the Wallace stand up[?] exactly) — Ihering denies the facts.

^{Other N. forms} Gentiana prostrata²⁷ & pr famiora²⁸ occur in N & Antarctic but not on Andes. How can we say they migrated by Andes?

24 Discussion as to warm plants not having been always so & little cold plants

25 Quotes the mixture of forms in Upper pliocene²⁹ fossils eg Pinus Cembra³⁰ & Aescales³¹ together

The plants which have wandered from N Am[erica] to S. are like this one can almost say that Alpine genera do not exist in Andes

In the N its veg is Mexican in S Antarctic[9]

25 Thus Viburnum³² occurs in central America & in Jamaica. Alchemilla³³ sp occurs in Andes and in subtropical Argentina; they do as well there as at 4,000 meters. There are also innumerable sp which are only Andine or only subtropical.

The Andines must once have been indiferrent (hetero therm) like Viburnum.

26. The more knowlege[sic] we get the more we see that the genera travelling from the N migrated as warm climate plants (megathermic). Some have become Andine others most have persisted in sub Tropical forest region.

[Here some cases of migration from the south]

27 Conifere important

Podocarpus³⁴ & Araucaria³⁵ in S. America Fitzroya,³⁶ libocedrus³⁷ in Antarctic region

These are found in Australian-NZ region and obviously come from the mesozoic³⁸ antarctic continent, No pinus from N America has got to S. America. Rio got to Guatamala[10]

27 [Here a lot of detal[sic] about various genera which I have not read]

31 "From the foregoing it appears that Wallaces theory of the continuous migration of arctic-alpine sp from North America by the Rockies and Andes is a mistake"

"Engler shows that none of the common glacial Plants of the Rockies appear in the mexican highlands, while Wallace lets them reach the Peak of Orizaba³⁹ and from there by a bold leap to N. Granada"

"The really demonstrable line of migration ^{between N & S}.^America is by Central America and then partly to eastern S. Am[erica], partly along the Pacific coast to chile" [11]

32 Ihering

In all these wanderings there is ^{movement from} N to S and S to N — ^{not only} Bronchias⁴⁰ get to Mexico and ^{but also} antarctic Druing⁴¹ & Calceolaria⁴² while ^the holarctic⁴³ spiraea,⁴⁴ lupin,⁴⁵ valerian⁴⁶ &c ^go far into S. America

Wallace on the other hand sets up a wonderful artificial theory to explain that only N. species ^go reach ^to south & not vice versa.

33 "That Wallace's attempt at explanⁿ is a failure is ^sufficiently clear from the above — He does no better in ^the Zoological depart^mt

Butterflies

"Just this agreement of the results of the most different departments gives the sure proof that the antarctic relationships of "Archiplata"⁴⁷ are only to be explained by former land connection. Not shore & sea plants only, not only plants with pappus⁴⁸ or berries & fruits — but all[12] categories of the flora take part are concerned, down to the water plants marsh plants and conifers. This being so we have botanically speaking less cause to adhere to Wallaces incorect hypothesis in as much as the true explanation was first stated and grounded by an eniment Bot[anist] — J Hooker.⁴⁹This suffered thro Wallaces theory an entirely undeserved oblivion, until its truth was oncе more established from New Zealand. Hutton⁵⁰ in his very weighty research calls attention to the necessity of going back to Hooker's views for an explanation of the biogeographical phenomena.

Hutton says that in 1872 he first started the hypothes that during the Cretaceous formation an antarctic continent stretched[13] northwards towards Polynesia connecting Australia with S. America and perhaps S. Africa. The latter assumption (which was adopted chiefly on account of the Struthianidoe)⁵¹ he has dropped being convinced by Wallace. The discoveries in Patagonia seem to me to make it probable that this connection existed at least at the beginning of the Eocene. Hutton refers the fossils of Kerguelen⁵² and the Crozets⁵³ with obvious connections to this continent. Conifers are plants that only flourish on continents or large islands, they are wanting in the so called oceanic islands. This circumstance alone, and the small capacity of their seeds. This circumstance alone and the small capacity of their seeds for fortuitous or extended wanderings, makes the Кеrguelen fossil conifers a witness[14] of former exended antarctic masses of land. Ameghino^{54 also} concludes from his study of the Patagonian Eocene that a connection with Australia must have existed. Thus all factors ^combine work together to reduce the share of the wind, & sea of birds in the distribution of plants to modest dimensions and such as agree with the positive experience. The migration along the Rockies and Andes to Tierra del F turns out to be ^{as much a} and untenable dream as the further distribution or ^[extension] of Tierra del F by sea, icebergs and albatrosses. In contre The ultimate relations existing between the Archiplata region and NZ, Australia &c are to me only explicable by the antarctic mesozoic and perhaps eocene land connection of Hooker Hutton & Ameghino and others, and not by Wallace's theories"[15]

Ihering Bot. Jahr 17 Beibl.

p 40

"In regard to Australia & Polynesia Wallace has fallen into an especially unfortunate mistake. According to him N.Z. forms a special subregion, Polynesia another one which he also places N.Heb[rides] N. Caledonia & Fiji

Really the relationship is quite other[?] wish. If we for instance consider the distribution of the frogs; we find them spread over all continents and continental islands to N.Z and Viti⁵⁵ but not further eastward. It is exactly the same with the snakes. If it were chance — driftwood &c that determined this distribution, the snakes at least any rate must show the ^same distribⁿ as the lizards. But the driftwood theory is shown to be totally false as shown by the fact that the lizards appear in early mesozoic times, the frogs & snakes first in the Eocene or upper chalk.⁵⁶ We must conclude that the mesozoic land-bridge[16] ^{reaching to the Sandwich Islands57} by which the lizards were distributed was already broken when the frogs and snakes came on the scene, and that then the antarctic land stretched to N.Z. and Viti Fiji. If this is so Botanical evidence must be parallel & this is so. The present flora of the South Sea islands east of Fiji, when the imported plants are subtracted as well as the shore vegetⁿ floated there by sea, is ^a very poor one in which many genera once existing have disappeared. Though Engler considers it as have originated after according to Wallace's views he nevertheless recognizes that this ancient oceanic island flora 'bears the signs of of great age' — When in Sandwich Island sp or genera ^first reappear and in NZ or the Andes, others in Madagascar the Mascerenes⁵⁷ &c, and are wanting between these places, it is ^surely a much more fitting explanation that[17]

Ihering

41. "these genera are remains of non-cosmpolitan groups, than to believe that the Andes Chile N.Z, N. Cal, India, Ceylon, Madagascar, ^the Mascarenes &c have all contributed helped the compilation — flora of the sandwich Is^s with isolated contributions, and that by means of dist^bn which in dreams alone are effective to such distances."

Hard to see how occasional transport has gone from island to island carefully avoiding mainland. Ihering's view is continental extension, the island spec having been killed off on the mainland [why not so according to Wallace]

45 Sagittaria⁹⁵ is the only American feature in the freshwater feature flora of Chile