And where was the boundary between "New Holland" and "New Zealand"? New Zealand as we know it today was a part of the original colony of New South Wales. Before 1901, it was a member of the Federal Council of Australasia, which was dissolved to make way for the Commonwealth. Presumably New Zealand was by then a separate entity. It makes all these naming issues pretty irrelevant. There was no international body to define international questions, as there is today.
I came here in one of my complaining moods after seeing a spruik for Wikitree+. A sloppy researcher on Ancestry.com had a tree that said I was related to the Scottish aristocracy. I knew that it was wrong, and a colleague on Wikitree helped me find the false link. But now Wikitree+ says that I am related to every Scottish king that ever was. Maybe I should inform the guy from Ancestry.com. I have acquaintances who claim descent from Edward III (100 years before Richard III,) Julius Caesar, even Adam. Genealogy is about lines of descent, not geography.
Nor is it about DNA. A fellow Wikitreer claimed relationship to my wife. I gave her a complete family tree which confirmed what she said, but she wouldn't believe it without DNA from my wife, who isn't interested. I have found DNA to be the greatest red herring of genealogy. I have seen only one post from a person who didn't have the cart before the horse. He wrote that DNA is a tool to find potentiasl relatives, who then must be linked in by proper research. To paraphrase Euclid, there is no "royal road" to genealogy. But Wiktree believes that BDMs are not the best evidence, nor is Wikitree's favorite source, Wikipedia. In the case of a relative of a friend of mine, a prominent M.P. from my home towh, who was also a professional cyclist, Wikitree told me to disbelieve the family's Death notice, the BDMs and Wikipedia, and prefer an inaccurate date on a statue, because it required a minimum of "elbow-grease." "If the data disagrees with the hypothesis, discard the data."