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
_Reasons for adopting the six Regions first proposed by Mr. Sclater._--So
that we do not violate any clear affinities or produce any glaring
irregularities, it is a positive, and by no means an unimportant, advantage
to have our named regions approximately equal in size, and with easily
defined, and therefore easily remembered, boundaries. All elaborate
definitions of interpenetrating frontiers, as well as regions extending
over three-fourths of the land surface of the globe, and including places
which are {64}the antipodes of each other, would be most inconvenient, even
if there were not such difference of opinion about them. There can be
little doubt, for example, that the most radical zoological division of the
earth is made by separating the Australian region from the rest; but
although it is something useful and definite to know that a group of
animals is peculiar to Australia, it is exceedingly vague and
unsatisfactory to say of any other group merely that it is
extra-Australian. Neither can it be said that, from any point of view,
these two divisions are of equal importance. The next great natural
division that can be made is the separation of the Neotropical Region of
Mr. Sclater from the rest of the world. We thus have three primary
divisions, which Professor Huxley seems inclined to consider as of
tolerably equal zoological importance. But a consideration of all the
facts, zoological and palæontological, indicates, that the great northern
division (Arctogæa) is fully as much more important than either Australia
or South America, as its four component parts are less important; and if
so, convenience requires us to adopt the smaller rather than the larger
divisions.
This question, of comparative importance or equivalence of value, is very
difficult to determine. It may be considered from the point of view of
speciality or isolation, or from that of richness and variety of animal
forms. In isolation and speciality, determined by what they want as well as
what they possess, the Australian and Neotropical regions are undoubtedly
each comparable with the rest of the earth (Arctogæa). But in richness and
variety of forms, they are both very much inferior, and are much more
nearly comparable with the separate regions which compose it. Taking the
families of mammalia as established by the best authors, and leaving out
the Cetacea and the Bats, which are almost universally distributed, and
about whose classification there is much uncertainty, the number of
families represented in each of Mr. Sclater's regions is as follows:
I. Palæarctic region has 31 families of terrestrial mammalia.
II. Ethiopian " " 40 " " "
III. Indian " " 31 " " "
IV. Australian " " 14 " " "
V. Neotropical " " 26 " " "
VI. Nearctic " " 23 " " "
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