The Geographical Distribution of Animals, Volume 1: With a study of the relations of living and extinct faunas as elucidating the past changes of the Earth's surfaceWallace, Alfred Russel
Science
The Geographical Distribution of Animals, Volume 1: With a study of the relations of living and extinct faunas as elucidating the past changes of the Earth's surface
Wallace, Alfred Russel
Paleontology; Zoogeography
_Discussion of proposed Regions._--Before proceeding to define the regions
adopted in this work, it may be as well to make a few remarks on some of
the preceding classifications, and to give the reasons which seem to render
it advisable to adopt very few of the suggested improvements on Mr.
Sclater's original proposal. Mr. Blyth's scheme is one of the least
natural, and also the most inconvenient. There can be little use in the
knowledge that a group of animals is found in the Boreal Region, if their
habitat might still be either Patagonia, the West Indies, or Japan; and it
is difficult to see on what principle the Madagascar group of islands is
made of equal rank with this enormous region, seeing that its forms of life
have marked African affinities. Neither does it seem advisable to adopt the
Polynesian Region, or that comprising New Zealand alone (as hinted at by
Professor Huxley and since adopted by {62}Mr. Sclater in his Lectures on
Geographical Distribution at the Zoological Gardens in May 1874), because
it is absolutely without indigenous mammalia and very poor in all forms of
life, and therefore by no means prominent or important enough to form a
primary region of the earth.
It may be as well here to notice what appears to be a serious objection to
making New Zealand, or any similar isolated district, one of the great
zoological regions, comparable to South America, Australia, or Ethiopia;
which is, that its claim to that distinction rests on grounds which are
liable to fail. It is because New Zealand, in addition to its negative
merits, possesses three families of birds (Apterygidæ living, Dinornithidæ
and Palapterygidæ extinct), and a peculiar lizard-like reptile, _Hatteria_,
which has to be classed in a distinct order, Rhynchocephalina, that the
rank of a Region is claimed for it. But supposing, what is not at all
improbable, that other Rhynchocephalina should be discovered in the
interior of Australia or in New Guinea, and that Apterygidæ or
Palapterygidæ should be found to have inhabited Australia in Post-Pliocene
times, (as Dinornithidæ have already been proved to have done) the claims
of New Zealand would entirely fail, and it would be universally
acknowledged to be a part of the great Australian region. No such reversal
can take place in the case of the other regions; because they rest, not
upon one or two, but upon a large number of peculiarities, of such a nature
that there is no room upon the globe for discoveries that can seriously
modify them. Even if one or two peculiar types, like Apterygidæ or
_Hatteria_, should permanently remain characteristic of New Zealand alone,
we can account for these by the extreme isolation of the country, and the
absence of enemies, which have enabled these defenceless birds and reptiles
to continue their existence; just as the isolation and protection of the
caverns of Carniola have enabled the _Proteus_ to survive in Europe. But
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account