Arjona patagonica (Humb. and Jacquinot). K3 river, at 11,000 feet, Horcones Valley. A plant with rigid, rather spiny leaves. EUPHORBIACEÆ Inca. A succulent plant. Euphorbia portulacoides (Spreng.). Inca. JUNCACEA Juncus andicolus (Hook.). By bed of stream, Puente del Inca, and Horcones Valley. A very coarse, wiry rush spreading underground by stout runners. NAIADACEÆ Potamogeton pectinatus (L.). Horcones Valley, in the lake at 11,000 feet. CYPERACEÆ Eleocharis albibracteata (Nees). Second ford in Horcones Valley. GRAMINÆ Stipa chrysophylla (E. Desv.). Second ford in Horcones Valley, K3 river. Agrostis araucana (Phil.). Puente del Inca up to 10,000 feet, by fresh water. Deyeuxia eminens (Presl). K3 river, Horcones Valley. Festuca (sp.), near F. scabriuscula (Phil.). Second ford in Horcones Valley, K3 river. Bromus macranthus (E. Desv.). K3 river, and second ford in Horcones Valley. GNETACEÆ Ephedra americana (Humb. and Bonpl.), var. andina (Stapf). Inca to 10,000 feet. A low bush. CHARACEÆ Chara contraria (A. Br.). The lake in Horcones Valley. CONJUGATE (determined by W. West, F.L.S.) Spirogyra (sp.). The lake in Horcones Valley. Mougeotia (sp.). With the preceding, and in the marsh at the second ford in Horcones Valley. DIATOMACEA (determined by W. West, F.L.S.) Denticula tenuis (Kuetz.). In the marsh at the second ford in Horcones Valley, and at 12,000 feet at Zurbriggen's camp. Epithemia gibba (Keutz.). In the lake in Horcones Valley. Cocconema parvum (W. Sm.). In the marsh at the second ford in Horcones Valley. Synedra acus (Keutz.), var. With the preceding. Achnanthes (sp.) With the preceding. APPENDIX D THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN CHILE AND THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC WHEN in South America we frequently found, on both sides of the Andes, indications of the dispute that has continued so long between Chile and the Argentine Republic on the boundary question. The controversy has at length entered on what everyone trusts will be its final stage. It has been laid for decision before Her Majesty the Queen as arbitress, and at the moment when I write, commissioners from both Republics are in London for the purpose of presenting their case. The dispute has been going on for many years, and has more than once brought the two States to the very brink of war. It depends upon two main issues-the true configuration of the mountainous part of South America between the acknowledged territory of the Republics, much of which has still been most imperfectly explored, and the precise interpretation to be put upon the terms of existing treaties. The difficulty has really been pending ever since the independence of those countries was recognised by Spain. In the old days when both alike were governed from Madrid, it was understood that all territories to the east of the Andes were under the control of the Viceroy of Buenos Aires, all territories to the west under that of the Captain-general of Chile. In the settled parts of the country the great mountain chain was supposed to be a sufficient boundary, and as the immense district of Patagonia was still unsettled and even untraversed, the necessity for a strict settlement of limits there was unfelt. When the southern part of the continent had been divided between two independent powers, rivalry between the authorities of Buenos Aires and Chile naturally became much keener, and the extent of their jurisdiction required to be more definitely fixed. The gradual opening up of Patagonia made the question more acute. Both parties could claim with some plausibility to be the successors of Spain in that region. And as it came to be recognised that Patagonia was by no means an inhospitable waste, but a territory of value and ready for settlement, each country was naturally anxious to secure for itself as large a portion of this debatable land as possible. For many years the controversy lingered on; one draft treaty after another being proposed and rejected by either side. A general agreement, however, was worked out, under which the superior claim of the Argentine to much the greater part of Patagonia was recognised; while, on the other hand, the possession of the Strait of Magellan was secured for Chile. Considering the immense importance of the Strait in the communication between Valparaiso and Europe, this was a claim which the Chilians could hardly have given up without war. In 1881 a treaty between the two Republics was signed at last, after negotiations carried on on their behalf by the American Ministers in Santiago and Buenos Aires respectively. This Treaty of 1881 is the classical document in the case. Under its provisions the boundary between Chile and the Argentine down to the 52nd parallel-a point a little north of the Strait of Magellan-is stated to be the Cordillera, i.e. the chain of the Andes. On meeting the 52nd parallel, the boundary is to turn almost at right angles and run about due east and west to Point Dungeness, where the Strait enters the Atlantic. Tierra del Fuego fell to Chile, except the Atlantic coast of the island, which was reserved, with a small strip of territory behind it, for the Argentine. Chile was not to fortify the Strait, but it was to remain open to the flags of all nations for ever. Finally, it was provided that each country should appoint a commissioner by whom the boundary should be marked out on the spot, all disputed points being referred to the arbitration of a friendly Power. After the lapse of eighteen years, however, the boundary still remains unmarked. The treaty, which was supposed to have settled everything, became one of the most disputed documents in recent history. So much ingenuity and perverted acuteness have been applied to its interpretation that the problem with which it deals remains as perplexing as ever. When two countries are separated by one of the highest mountain chains in the world, and both have agreed that the mountains shall be their boundary, it would appear at the first glance that no further difficulty could arise. It is accepted on both sides that the dividing line is the Cordillera of the Andes, or rather in the Cordillera of the Andes. But in fixing a frontier in a range of mountains, two principles can be followed which may give very different results. In the first place the boundary may be fixed at the water-parting, all rivers on one side, with their tributaries, being assigned to one THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE 379 country, all those on the other side to the other. Every stream that rises on the Andes, every drop of water that falls on their slopes, finds its way ultimately to the Atlantic or the Pacific; and even at the highest well-springs there can be no doubt in an explored country as to the direction it takes. On the other hand, the boundary may be fixed by the highest ridge, or, where there is a succession of isolated peaks, by an imaginary line joining their summits. Naturally, it may easily happen that in a mountain range these two lines coincide, the ridge where the waters divide and the highest ridge of all being in fact one and the same. In the Andes, however, this is not the case. The highest summits are not upon the water-parting: the water divides on its way to the Pacific or the Atlantic at a lower range some distance to the west of that which attains to the greatest elevation. Aconcagua is not on the water-parting, but stands wholly and entirely to the east of it. The streams that are fed from its western side do not continue in that direction to the Pacific, but, curving round the base of the mountain, they fall into the Rio Mendoza or the Rio de los Patos, which both flow downward through the pampas of the Argentine. Thus the melted snows of Aconcagua have their destination in the Atlantic, and not a drop of them ever enters the Pacific. The watershed is actually at the much lower elevations of the Cumbre and the Boquete del Valle Hermoso, while the highest peaks stand to the east of the ridge that divides the waters in the district between Santiago and Mendoza. As we go farther south the relationship changes. The highest ridge of the Cordillera trends towards the Pacific, and the water-parting changes to the other side. In the far south the parting of the waters is somewhere in the lower and central lands, as yet imperfectly explored, of Patagonia, whilst the summits that attain the greatest elevation are close to the western shore of the continent, and some are even said to be upon the islands off the coast. According to Señor Moreno, the Argentine expert, "it is shown in an irrefutable manner that in latitude 52° S. the Cordillera of the Andes sheds all the water from its slopes into the Pacific." It is needless to say that in these regions the Andes have been broken into a number of isolated mountains, sometimes divided by arms of the sea, between which the rivers coming down from the interior have no difficulty in flowing. The difference of opinion that divides the representatives of the two countries may now be briefly stated. The Chilians stand out for the water-parting, the Argentines for the line of highest summits. The frontier proposed by the former, "leaves within the territory of each of the two nations, the peaks, ridges or ranges, however elevated they may be, which do not divide the waters of the river systems |