Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:48 am
by KoutaR

Thank you very much for counting the NZ trees! Now we can directly compare NZ and Chile. I counted at least 5 m tall non-climbing woody plants in my Central Chile sub-region on the Chileflora site. There are 82 species including 8 conifers. Here is the list:


(2.31 KiB) Downloaded 31 times

In this case these two methods result in almost identical species number (83 species in my original method). As I stated in my northern hemisphere part, counting directly the tree species (or species at least 5 m tall) has a potential error source: is 5 m the maximum height or the height the plant usually reaches or something between? Do the botanists in two regions have similar definitions? Particularly if there are a lot of low trees, the error may be substantial.

I don't have energy anymore to count the southeastern Australian species. I don't know any online source and I would need use two books and make sure a given species is not counted twice.

Anyway, we can say with certainty, the order in the Southern Hemisphere is SE Australia > NZ > Central Chile. It was surprise to me that NZ has so much species. I guess the reason for the difference between it and Chile is that the mesic subtropical climate of northern North Island is absent from Chile. Northern Chile is desert.