Quick Links
-Search Website
-Have A Question?
-Wallace News
-About This Site

Misinformation Alert!
Wallace Bio & Accomplishments
Wallace Chronology
Frequently Asked Questions
Wallace Quotes
Wallace Archives
Miscellaneous Facts

Bibliography / Texts
Wallace Writings Bibliography
Texts of Wallace Writings
Texts of Wallace Interviews
Wallace Writings: Names Index
Wallace Writings: Subject Index
Writings on Wallace
Wallace Obituaries
Wallace's Most Cited Works

Taxonomic / Systematic Works
Wallace on Conservation
Smith on Wallace
Research Threads
Wallace Images
Just for Fun
Frequently Cited Colleagues
Wallace-Related Maps & Figures

Alfred Russel Wallace : Alfred Wallace : A. R. Wallace :
Russel Wallace : Alfred Russell Wallace (sic)

The Geographical Distribution of Animals.
Preface and Part I. (S718: 1876)

Editor Charles H. Smith's Note: Most of this massive two-volume work is a review of the past and present characteristics of animal distribution, but the first pages of volume one also summarize Wallace's understanding of the general principles of zoogeography as of its writing. To a large extent Wallace's words here still represent an excellent accounting, and remain worthwhile reading even as the rest of the book has slowly (but on the whole gracefully!) dated. Reproduced below are the relevant passages from the 1876 Harper & Brothers edition; original pagination is indicated within double brackets. Those few footnotes that exist are listed at the end, and linked to from the text. To link directly to this page, connect with: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S718.htm

[[p. v]] PREFACE.

    The present work is an attempt to collect and summarize the existing information on the Distribution of Land Animals; and to explain the more remarkable and interesting of the facts, by means of established laws of physical and organic change.

    The main idea, which is here worked out in some detail for the whole earth, was stated sixteen years ago in the concluding pages of a paper on the "Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago," which appeared in the Journal of Proceedings of the Linnean Society for 1860; and again, in a paper read before the Royal Geographical Society in 1863, it was briefly summarized in the following passage:--

    "My object has been to show the important bearing of researches into the natural history of every part of the world, upon the study of its past history. An accurate knowledge of any groups of birds or of insects and of their geographical distribution, may enable us to map out the islands and continents of a former epoch,--the amount of difference that exists between the animals of adjacent districts being closely related to preceding geological changes. By the collection of such minute facts, alone, can we hope to fill up a great gap in the [[p. vi]] past history of the earth as revealed by geology, and obtain some indications of the existence of those ancient lands which now lie buried beneath the ocean, and have left us nothing but these living records of their former existence."

    The detailed study of several groups of the birds and insects collected by myself in the East, brought prominently before me some of the curious problems of Geographical Distribution; but I should hardly have ventured to treat the whole subject, had it not been for the kind encouragement of Mr. Darwin and Professor Newton, who, about six years ago, both suggested that I should undertake the task. I accordingly set to work; but soon became discouraged by the great dearth of materials in many groups, the absence of general systematic works, and the excessive confusion that pervaded the classification. Neither was it easy to decide on any satisfactory method of treating the subject. During the next two years, however, several important catalogues and systematic treatises appeared, which induced me to resume my work; and during the last three years it has occupied a large portion of my time.

    After much consideration, and some abortive trials, an outline plan of the book was matured; and as this is, so far as I am aware, quite novel, it will be well to give a few of the reasons for adopting it.

    Most of the previous writings on Geographical Distribution appeared to me to be unsatisfactory, because they drew their conclusions from a more or less extensive selection of facts; and did not clearly separate groups of facts of unequal value, or those relating to groups of animals of unequal rank. As an example of what is meant, I may refer to Mr. Andrew Murray's large and valuable work on the Geographical Distribution of Mammalia, in which an immense number of coloured maps are [[p. vii]] used to illustrate the distribution of various groups of animals. These maps are not confined to groups of any fixed rank, but are devoted to a selection of groups of various grades. Some show the range of single species of a genus--as the lion, the tiger, the puma, and a species of fox; others are devoted to sections of genera,--as the true wolves; others to genera,--as the hyænas, and the bears; others to portions of families,--as the flying squirrels, and the oxen with the bisons; others to families,--as the Mustelidæ, and the Hystricidæ; and others to groups of families or to orders,--as the Insectivora, and the opossums with the kangaroos. But in no one grade are all the groups treated alike. Many genera are wholly unnoticed, while several families are only treated in combination with others, or are represented by some of the more important genera.

    In making these observations I by no means intend to criticise Mr. Murray's book, but merely to illustrate by an example, the method which has been hitherto employed, and which seems to me not well adapted to enable us to establish the foundations of the science of distribution on a secure basis. To do this, uniformity of treatment appeared to me essential, both as a matter of principle, and to avoid all imputation of a partial selection of facts, which may be made to prove anything. I determined, therefore, to take in succession every well-established family of terrestrial vertebrates, and to give an account of the distribution of all its component genera, as far as materials were available. Species, as such, are systematically disregarded,--firstly, because they are so numerous as to be unmanageable; and, secondly, because they represent the most recent modifications of form, due to a variety of often unknown causes, and are therefore not so clearly connected with geographical changes as are the natural groups of species termed genera; which may be considered to represent the average and more permanent [[p. viii]] distribution of an organic type, and to be more clearly influenced by the various known or inferred changes in the organic and physical environment.

    This systematic review of the distribution of families and genera, now forms the last part of my book--Geographical Zoology; but it was nearly the first written, and the copious materials collected for it enabled me to determine the zoo-geographical divisions of the earth (regions and sub-regions) to be adopted. I next drew up tables of the families and genera found in each region and sub-region; and this afforded a basis for the geographical treatment of the subject--Zoological Geography--the most novel, and perhaps the most useful and generally interesting part of my work. While this was in progress I found it necessary to make a careful summary of the distribution of extinct Mammalia. This was a difficult task, owing to the great uncertainty that prevails as to the affinities of many of the fossils, and my want of practical acquaintance with Palæontology; but having carefully examined and combined the works of the best authors, I have given what I believe is the first connected sketch of the relation of extinct Mammalia to the distribution of living groups, and have arrived at some very interesting and suggestive results.

    It will be observed that man is altogether omitted from the series of the animal kingdom as here given, and some explanation of this omission may perhaps be required. If the genus Homo had been here treated like all other genera, nothing more than the bare statement--"universally distributed"--could have been given;--and this would inevitably have provoked the criticism that it conveyed no information. If, on the other hand, I had given an outline of the distribution of the varieties or races of man, I should have departed from the plan of my work for no sufficient reason. Anthropology is a science [[p. ix]] by itself; and it seems better to omit it altogether from a zoological work, than to treat it in a necessarily superficial manner.

    The best method of illustrating a work of this kind was a matter requiring much consideration. To have had a separate coloured or shaded map for each family would have made the work too costly, as the terrestrial vertebrates alone would have required more than three hundred maps. I had also doubts about the value of this mode of illustration, as it seemed rather to attract attention to details than to favour the development of general views. I determined therefore to adopt a plan, suggested in conversation by Professor Newton; and to have one general map, showing the regions and sub-regions, which could be referred to by means of a series of numbers. These references I give in the form of diagrammatic headings to each family; and, when the map has become familiar, these will, I believe, convey at a glance a body of important information.

    Taking advantage of the recent extension of our knowledge of the depths of the great oceans, I determined to give upon this map a summary of our knowledge of the contours of the ocean bed, by means of tints of colour increasing in intensity with the depth. Such a map, when it can be made generally accurate, will be of the greatest service in forming an estimate of the more probable changes of sea and land during the Tertiary period; and it is on the effects of such changes that any satisfactory explanation of the facts of distribution must to a great extent depend.

    Other important factors in determining the actual distribution of animals are, the zones of altitude above the sea level, and the strongly contrasted character of the surface as regards vegetation--a primary condition for the support of animal life. I [[p. x]] therefore designed a series of six maps of the regions, drawn on a uniform scale, on which the belts of altitude are shown by contour-shading, while the forests, pastures, deserts, and perennial snows, are exhibited by means of appropriate tints of colour.

    These maps will, I trust, facilitate the study of geographical distribution as a science, by showing, in some cases, an adequate cause in the nature of the terrestrial surface for the actual distribution of certain groups of animals. As it is hoped they will be constantly referred to, double folding has been avoided, and they are consequently rather small; but Mr. Stanford, and his able assistant in the map department, Mr. Bolton, have taken great care in working out the details from the latest observations; and this, combined with the clearness and the beauty of their execution, will I trust render them both interesting and instructive.

    In order to make the book more intelligible to those readers who have no special knowledge of systematic zoology, and to whom most of the names with which its pages are often crowded must necessarily be unmeaning, I give a series of twenty plates, each one illustrating at once the physical aspect and the special zoological character of some well-marked division of a region. Great care has been taken to associate in the pictures, such species only as do actually occur together in nature; so that each plate represents a scene which is, at all events, not an impossible one. The species figured all belong to groups which are either peculiar to, or very characteristic of, the region whose zoology they illustrate; and it is hoped that these pictures will of themselves serve to convey a notion of the varied types of the higher animals in their true geographical relations. The artist, Mr. J. B. Zwecker, to whose talent as a zoological draughtsman and great knowledge both of animal and vegetable forms we are indebted for this set of drawings, died a few weeks after he [[p. xi]] had put the final touches to the proofs. He is known to many readers by his vigorous illustrations of the works of Sir Samuel Baker, Livingstone, and many other travellers,--but these, his last series of plates, were, at my special request, executed with a care, delicacy, and artistic finish, which his other designs seldom exhibit. It must, however, be remembered, that the figures of animals here given are not intended to show specific or generic characters for the information of the scientific zoologist, but merely to give as accurate an idea as possible, of some of the more remarkable and more restricted types of beast and bird, amid the characteristic scenery of their native country;--and in carrying out this object there are probably few artists who would have succeeded better than Mr. Zwecker has done.

    The general arrangement of the separate parts of which the work is composed, has been, to some extent, determined by the illustrations and maps, which all more immediately belong to Part III. It was at first intended to place this part last, but as this arrangement would have brought all the illustrations into the second volume, its place was changed,--perhaps in other respects for the better, as it naturally follows Part II. Yet for persons not well acquainted with zoology, it will perhaps be advisable to read the more important articles of Part IV. (and especially the observations at the end of each order) after Part II., thus making Part III. the conclusion of the work.

    Part IV. is, in fact, a book of reference, in which the distribution of all the families and most of the genera of the higher animals, is given in systematic order. Part III. is treated somewhat more popularly; and, although it is necessarily crowded with scientific names (without which the inferences [[p. xii]] and conclusions would have nothing solid to rest on), these may be omitted by the non-scientific reader, or merely noted as a certain number or proportion of peculiar generic types. Many English equivalents to family and generic names are, however, given; and, assisted by these, it is believed that any reader capable of understanding Lyell's "Principles," or Darwin's "Origin," will have no difficulty in following the main arguments and appreciating the chief conclusions arrived at in the present work.

    To those who are more interested in facts than in theories, the book will serve as a kind of dictionary of the geography and affinities of animals. By means of the copious Index, the native country, the systematic position, and the numerical extent of every important and well established genus of land-animal may be at once discovered;--information now scattered through hundreds of volumes.

    In the difficult matters of synonymy, and the orthography of generic names, I have been guided rather by general utility than by any fixed rules. When I have taken a whole family group from a modern author of repute, I have generally followed his nomenclature throughout. In other cases, I use the names which are to be found in a majority of modern authors, rather than follow the strict rule of priority in adopting some newly discovered appellation of early date. In orthography I have adopted all such modern emendations as seem coming into general use, and which do not lead to inconvenience; but where the alteration is such as to completely change the pronunciation and appearance of a well-known word, I have not adopted it. I have also thought it best to preserve the initial letter of well-known and old-established names, for convenience of reference to the Indices of established works. As an example I may refer to Enicurus,--a name which has been in use nearly half a [[p. xiii]] century, and which is to be found under the letter E, in Jerdon's Birds of India, Blyth's Catalogue, Bonaparte's Conspectus, and the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London down to 1865. Classicists now write Henicurus as the correct form; but this seems to me one of those cases in which orthographical accuracy should give way to priority, and still more to convenience.

    In combining and arranging so much detail from such varied sources, many errors and omissions must doubtless have occurred. Owing to my residence at a distance from the scientific libraries of the metropolis, I was placed at a great disadvantage; and I could hardly have completed the work at all, had I not been permitted to have a large number of volumes at once, from the library of the Zoological Society of London, and to keep them for months together;--a privilege for which I return my best thanks to Mr. Sclater the Secretary, and to the Council.

    Should my book meet with the approval of working naturalists, I venture to appeal to them, to assist me in rendering any future editions more complete, by sending me (to the care of my publishers) notes of any important omissions, or corrections of any misstatements of fact; as well as copies of any of their papers or essays, and especially of any lists, catalogues, and monographs, containing information on the classification or distribution of living or extinct animals.

    To the many friends who have given me information or assistance I beg to tender my sincere thanks. Especially am I indebted to Professor Newton, who not only read through much of my rough MSS., but was so good as to make numerous corrections and critical notes. These were of great value to me, as they often contained or suggested important additional matter, or pointed out systematic and orthographical inaccuracies.

    [[p. xiv]] Professor Flower was so good as to read over my chapters on extinct animals, and to point out several errors into which I had fallen.

    Dr. Günther gave me much valuable information on the classification of reptiles, marking on my lists the best established and most natural genera, and referring me to reliable sources of information.

    I am also greatly indebted to the following gentlemen for detailed information on special subjects:--

    To Sir Victor Brooke, for a MS. arrangement of the genera of Bovidæ, with the details of their distribution:

    To Mr. Dresser, for lists of the characteristic birds of Northern and Arctic Europe:

    To Dr. Hooker, for information on the colours and odours of New Zealand plants:

    To Mr. Kirby, for a list of the butterflies of Chili:

    To Professor Mivart, for a classification of the Batrachia, and an early proof of his article on "Apes" in the Encyclopedia Britannica:

    To Mr. Salvin, for correcting my list of the birds of the Galapagos, and for other assistance:

    To Mr. Sharpe, for MS. lists of the birds of Madagascar and the Cape Verd Islands:

    To Canon Tristram, for a detailed arrangement of the difficult family of the warblers,--Sylviidæ:

    To Viscount Walden, for notes on the systematic arrangement of the Pycnonotidæ and Timaliidæ, and for an early proof of his list of the birds of the Philippine Islands.

    I also have to thank many naturalists, both in this country and abroad, who have sent me copies of their papers; and I trust they will continue to favour me in the same manner.

    [[p. xv]] An author may easily be mistaken in estimating his own work. I am well aware that this first outline of a great subject is, in parts, very meagre and sketchy; and, though perhaps overburthened with some kinds of detail, yet leaves many points most inadequately treated. It is therefore with some hesitation that I venture to express the hope that I have made some approach to the standard of excellence I have aimed at;--which was, that my book should bear a similar relation to the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the "Origin of Species," as Mr. Darwin's "Animals and Plants under Domestication" does to the first chapter of that work. Should it be judged worthy of such a rank, my long, and often wearisome labours, will be well repaid.

MARCH, 1876.

[[followed by Table of Contents, etc., omitted here.]]

*                 *                 *

[[p. 3]] CHAPTER I.


    It is a fact within the experience of most persons, that the various species of animals are not uniformly dispersed over the surface of the country. If we have a tolerable acquaintance with any district, be it a parish, a county, or a larger extent of territory, we soon become aware that each well-marked portion of it has some peculiarities in its animal productions. If we want to find certain birds or certain insects, we have not only to choose the right season but to go to the right place. If we travel beyond our district in various directions we shall almost certainly meet with something new to us; some species which we were accustomed to see almost daily will disappear, others which we have never seen before will make their appearance. If we go very far, so as to be able to measure our journey by degrees of latitude and longitude and to perceive important changes of climate and vegetation, the differences in the forms of animal life will become greater; till at length we shall come to a country where almost everything will be new, all the familiar creatures of our own district being replaced by others more or less differing from them.

    If we have been observant during our several journeys, and have combined and compared the facts we have collected, it will become apparent that the change we have witnessed has been of two distinct kinds. In our own and immediately surrounding districts, particular species appeared and disappeared because [[p. 4]] the soil, the aspect, or the vegetation, was adapted to them or the reverse. The marshes, the heaths, the woods and forests, the chalky downs, the rocky mountains, had each their peculiar inhabitants, which reappeared again and again as we came to tracts of country suitable for them. But as we got further away we began to find that localities very similar to those we had left behind were inhabited by a somewhat different set of species; and this difference increased with distance, notwithstanding that almost identical external conditions might be often met with. The first class of changes is that of stations; the second that of habitats. The one is a local, the other a geographical phenomenon. The whole area over which a particular animal is found may consist of any number of stations, but rarely of more than one habitat. Stations, however, are often so extensive as to include the entire range of many species. Such are the great seas and oceans, the Siberian or the Amazonian forests, the North African deserts, the Andean or the Himalayan highlands.

    There is yet another difference in the nature of the change we have been considering. The new animals which we meet with as we travel in any direction from our starting point, are some of them very much like those we have left behind us, and can be at once referred to familiar types; while others are altogether unlike anything we have seen at home. When we reach the Alps we find another kind of squirrel, in Southern Italy a distinct mole, in Southern Europe fresh warblers and unfamiliar buntings. We meet also with totally new forms; as the glutton and the snowy owl in Northern, the genet and the hoopoe in Southern, and the saiga antelope and collared pratincole in Eastern Europe. The first series are examples of what are termed representative species, the second of distinct groups or types of animals. The one represents a comparatively recent modification, and an origin in or near the locality where it occurs; the other is a result of very ancient changes both organic and inorganic, and is connected with some of the most curious and difficult of the problems we shall have to discuss.

    [[p. 5]] Having thus defined our subject, let us glance at the opinions that have generally prevailed as to the nature and causes of the phenomena presented by the geographical distribution of animals.

    It was long thought, and is still a popular notion, that the manner in which the various kinds of animals are dispersed over the globe is almost wholly due to diversities of climate and of vegetation. There is indeed much to favour this belief. The arctic regions are strongly characterised by their white bears and foxes, their reindeer, ermine, and walruses, their white ptarmigan, owls, and falcons; the temperate zone has its foxes and wolves, its rabbits, sheep, beavers, and marmots, its sparrows and its song birds; while tropical regions alone produce apes and elephants, parrots and peacocks, and a thousand strange quadrupeds and brilliant birds which are found nowhere in the cooler regions. So the camel, the gazelle and the ostrich live in the desert; the bison on the prairie; the tapir, the deer, and the jaguar in forests. Mountains and marshes, plains and rocky precipices, have each their animal inhabitants; and it might well be thought, in the absence of accurate inquiry, that these and other differences would sufficiently explain why most of the regions and countries into which the earth is popularly divided should have certain animals peculiar to them and should want others which are elsewhere abundant.

    A more detailed and accurate knowledge of the productions of different portions of the earth soon showed that this explanation was quite insufficient; for it was found that countries exceedingly similar in climate and all physical features may yet have very distinct animal populations. The equatorial parts of Africa and South America, for example, are very similar in climate and are both covered with luxuriant forests, yet their animal life is widely different; elephants, apes, leopards, guinea-fowls and touracos in the one, are replaced by tapirs, prehensile-tailed monkeys, jaguars, curassows and toucans in the other. Again, parts of South Africa and Australia are wonderfully similar in their soil and climate; yet one has lions, antelopes, zebras and giraffes; the other only kangaroos, wombats, [[p. 6]] phalangers and mice. In like manner parts of North America and Europe are very similar in all essentials of soil climate and vegetation, yet the former has racoons, opossums, and humming-birds; while the latter possesses moles, hedgehogs and true flycatchers. Equally striking are the facts presented by the distribution of many large and important groups of animals. Marsupials (opossums, phalangers &c.) are found from temperate Van Diemen's land to the tropical islands of New Guinea and Celebes, and in America from Chili to Virginia. No crows exist in South America, while they inhabit every other part of the world, not excepting Australia. Antelopes are found only in Africa and Asia; the sloths only in South America; the true lemurs are confined to Madagascar, and the birds-of-paradise to New Guinea.

    If we examine more closely the distribution of animals in any extensive region, we find that different, though closely allied species, are often found on the opposite sides of any considerable barrier to their migration. Thus, on the two sides of the Andes and Rocky Mountains in America, almost all the mammalia, birds, and insects are of distinct species. To a less extent, the Alps and Pyrenees form a similar barrier, and even great rivers and river plains, as those of the Amazon and Ganges, separate more or less distinct groups of animals. Arms of the sea are still more effective, if they are permanent; a circumstance in some measure indicated by their depth. Thus islands far away from land almost always have very peculiar animals found nowhere else; as is strikingly the case in Madagascar and New Zealand, and to a less degree in the West India islands. But shallow straits, like the English Channel or the Straits of Malacca, are not found to have the same effect, the animals being nearly or quite identical on their opposite shores. A change of climate or a change of vegetation may form an equally effective barrier to migration. Many tropical and polar animals are pretty accurately limited by certain isothermal lines; and the limits of the great forests in most parts of the world strictly determine the ranges of many species.

    Naturalists have now arrived at the conclusion, that by some [[p. 7]] slow process of development or transmutation, all animals have been produced from those which preceded them; and the old notion that every species was specially created as they now exist, at a particular time and in a particular spot, is abandoned as opposed to many striking facts, and unsupported by any evidence. This modification of animal forms took place very slowly, so that the historical period of three or four thousand years has hardly produced any perceptible change in a single species. Even the time since the last glacial epoch, which on the very lowest estimate must be from 50,000 to 100,000 years, has only served to modify a few of the higher animals into very slightly different species. The changes of the forms of animals appear to have accompanied, and perhaps to have depended on, changes of physical geography, of climate, or of vegetation; since it is evident that an animal which is well adapted to one condition of things will require to be slightly changed in constitution or habits, and therefore generally in form, structure, or colour, in order to be equally well adapted to a changed condition of surrounding circumstances. Animals multiply so rapidly, that we may consider them as continually trying to extend their range; and thus any new land raised above the sea by geological causes becomes immediately peopled by a crowd of competing inhabitants, the strongest and best adapted of which alone succeed in maintaining their position.

    If we keep in view these facts--that the minor features of the earth's surface are everywhere slowly changing; that the forms, and structure, and habits of all living things are also slowly changing; while the great features of the earth, the continents, and oceans, and loftiest mountain ranges, only change after very long intervals and with extreme slowness; we must see that the present distribution of animals upon the several parts of the earth's surface is the final product of all these wonderful revolutions in organic and inorganic nature. The greatest and most radical differences in the productions of any part of the globe must be dependent on isolation by the most effectual and most permanent barriers. That ocean which has remained broadest and deepest from the most remote geological epochs [[p. 8]] will separate countries the productions of which most widely and radically differ; while the most recently-depressed seas, or the last-formed mountain ranges, will separate countries the productions of which are almost or quite identical. It will be evident, therefore, that the study of the distribution of animals and plants may add greatly to our knowledge of the past history of our globe. It may reveal to us, in a manner which no other evidence can, which are the oldest and most permanent features of the earth's surface, and which the newest. It may indicate the existence of islands or continents now sunk beneath the ocean, and which have left no record of their existence save the animal and vegetable productions which have migrated to adjacent lands. It thus becomes an important adjunct to geology, which can rarely do more than determine what lands have been raised above the waters, under what conditions and at what period; but can seldom ascertain anything of the position or extent of those which have sunk beneath it. Our present study may often enable us, not only to say where lands must have recently disappeared, but also to form some judgment as to their extent, and the time that has elapsed since their submersion.

    Having thus briefly sketched the nature and objects of the subject we have to study, it will be necessary--before entering on a detailed examination of the zoological features of the different parts of the earth, and of the distribution of the orders, families, and genera of animals--to examine certain preliminary facts and principles essential for our guidance. We must first inquire what are the powers of multiplication and dispersal of the various groups of animals, and the nature of the barriers that most effectually limit their range. We have then to consider the effects of changes in physical geography and in climate; to examine the nature and extent of such changes as have been known to occur; to determine what others are possible or probable; and to ascertain the various modes in which such changes affect the structure, the distribution, or the very existence of animals.

    [[p. 9]] Two subjects of a different nature must next engage our attention. We have to deal with two vast masses of facts, each involving countless details, and requiring subdivision and grouping to be capable of intelligible treatment. All the continents and their chief subdivisions, and all the more important islands of the globe, have to be compared as regards their various animal forms. To do this effectively we require a natural division of the earth especially adapted to our purpose; and we shall have to discuss at some length the reasons for the particular system adopted,--a discussion which must to some extent anticipate and summarize the conclusions of the whole work. We have also to deal with many hundreds of families and many thousands of genera of animals, and here too a true and natural classification is of great importance. We must therefore give a connected view of the classification adopted in the various classes of animals dealt with.

    And lastly, as the existing distribution of animals is the result and outcome of all preceding changes of the earth and of its inhabitants, we require as much knowledge as we can get of the animals of each country during past geological epochs, in order to interpret the facts we shall accumulate. We shall, therefore, enter upon a somewhat detailed sketch of the various forms of extinct animals that have lived upon the earth during the Tertiary period; discuss their migrations at various epochs, the changes of physical geography that they imply, and the extent to which they enable us to determine the birthplace of certain families and genera.

    The preliminary studies above enumerated will, it is believed, enable us to see the bearing of many facts in the distribution of animals that would otherwise be insoluble problems; and, what is hardly less valuable, will teach us to estimate the comparative importance of the various groups of animals, and to avoid the common error of cutting the gordian knot of each difficulty by vast hypothetical changes in existing continents and oceans--probably the most permanent features of our globe.

[[p. 10]] CHAPTER II.


    All animals are capable of multiplying so rapidly, that if a single pair were placed in a continent with abundance of food and no enemies, they might fully stock it in a very short time. Thus, a bird which produces ten pairs of young during its lifetime (and this is far below the fertility of many birds) will, if we take its life at five years, increase to a hundred millions in about forty years, a number sufficient to stock a large country. Many fishes and insects are capable of multiplying several thousandfold each year, so that in a few years they would reach billions and trillions. Even large and slow breeding mammals, which have only one at a birth but continue to breed from eight to ten successive years, may increase from a single pair to ten millions in less than forty years.

    But as animals rarely have an unoccupied country to breed in, and as the food in any one district is strictly limited, their natural tendency is to roam in every direction in search of fresh pastures, or new hunting grounds. In doing so, however, they meet with many obstacles. Rocks and mountains have to be climbed, rivers or marshes to be crossed, deserts or forests to be traversed; while narrow straits or wider arms of the sea separate islands from the main land or continents from each other. We have now to inquire what facilities the different classes of animals have for overcoming these obstacles, and what kind of barriers are most effectual in checking their progress.

    Means of Dispersal of Mammalia.--Many of the largest mammalia are able to roam over whole continents and are hardly [[p. 11]] stopped by any physical obstacles. The elephant is almost equally at home on plains and mountains, and it even climbs to the highest summit of Adam's Peak in Ceylon, which is so steep and rocky as to be very difficult of ascent for man. It traverses rivers with great ease and forces its way through the densest jungle. There seems therefore to be no limit to its powers of wandering, but the necessity of procuring food and its capacity of enduring changes of climate. The tiger is another animal with great powers of dispersal. It crosses rivers and sometimes even swims over narrow straits of the sea, and it can endure the severe cold of North China and Tartary as well as the heats of the plains of Bengal. The rhinoceros, the lion, and many of the ruminants have equal powers of dispersal; so that wherever there is land and sufficient food, there are no limits to their possible range. Other groups of animals are more limited in their migrations. The apes, lemurs, and many monkeys are so strictly adapted to an arboreal life that they can never roam far beyond the limits of the forest vegetation. The same may be said of the squirrels, the opossums, the arboreal cats, and the sloths, with many other groups of less importance. Deserts or open country are equally essential to the existence of others. The camel, the hare, the zebra, the giraffe and many of the antelopes could not exist in a forest country any more than could the jerboas or the prairie marmots.

    There are other animals which are confined to mountains, and could not extend their range into lowlands or forests. The goats and the sheep are the most striking group of this kind, inhabiting many of the highest mountains of the globe; of which the European ibex and mouflon are striking examples. Rivers are equally necessary to the existence of others, as the beaver, otter, water-vole and capybara; and to such animals high mountain-ranges or deserts must form an absolutely impassable barrier.

    Climate as a Limit to the Range of Mammals.--Climate appears to limit the range of many animals, though there is some reason to believe that in many cases it is not the climate itself so much as the change of vegetation consequent on climate which produces the effect. The quadrumana appear to be limited by climate, [[p. 12]] since they inhabit almost all the tropical regions but do not range more than about 10° beyond the southern and 12° beyond the northern tropic, while the great bulk of the species are found only within an equatorial belt about 30° wide. But as these animals are almost exclusively fruit-eaters, their distribution depends as much on vegetation as on temperature; and this is strikingly shown by the fact that the Semnopithecus schistaceus inhabits the Himalayan mountains to a height of 11,000 feet, where it has been seen leaping among fir-trees loaded with snow-wreaths! Some northern animals are bounded by the isothermal of 32°. Such are the polar bear and the walrus, which cannot live in a state of nature far beyond the limits of the frozen ocean; but as they live in confinement in temperate countries, their range is probably limited by other conditions than temperature.

    We must not therefore be too hasty in concluding, that animals which we now see confined to a very hot or a very cold climate are incapable of living in any other. The tiger was once considered a purely tropical animal, but it inhabits permanently the cold plains of Manchuria and the Amoor, a country of an almost arctic winter climate. Few animals seem to us more truly inhabitants of hot countries than the elephants and rhinoceroses; yet in Post-tertiary times they roamed over the whole of the northern continents to within the arctic circle; and we know that the climate was then as cold as it is now, from their entire bodies being preserved in ice. Some change must recently have occurred either in the climate, soil, or vegetation of Northern Asia which led to the extinction of these forerunners of existing tropical species; and we must always bear in mind that similar changes may have acted upon other species which we now find restricted within narrow limits, but which may once have roamed over a wide and varied territory.

    Valleys and Rivers as Barriers to Mammals.--To animals which thrive best in dry and hilly regions, a broad level and marshy valley must often prove an effectual barrier. The difference of vegetation and of insect life, together with an unhealthy atmosphere, no doubt often checks migration if it is attempted. Thus [[p. 13]] many animals are restricted to the slopes of the Himalayas or to the mountains of Central India, the flat valley of the Ganges forming a limit to their range. In other cases, however, it is the river rather than the valley which is the barrier. In the great Amazonian plains many species of monkeys, birds, and even insects are found up to the river banks on one side but do not cross to the other. Thus in the lower part of the Rio Negro two monkeys, the Jacchus bicolor and the Brachiurus couxiou, are found on the north bank of the river but never on the south, where a red-whiskered Pithecia is alone found. Higher up Ateles paniscus extends to the north bank of the river while Lagothrix humboldtii comes down to the south bank; the former being a native of Guiana, the latter of Ecuador. The range of the birds of the genus Psophia or trumpeters, is also limited by the rivers Amazon, Madeira, Rio Negro and some others; so that in these cases we are able to define the limits of distribution with an unusual degree of accuracy, and there is little doubt the same barriers also limit a large number of other species.

    Arms of the Sea as Barriers to Mammals.--Very few mammals can swim over any considerable extent of sea, although many can swim well for short distances. The jaguar traverses the widest streams in South America, and the bear and bison cross the Mississippi; and there can be no doubt that they could swim over equal widths of salt water, and if accidentally carried out to sea might sometimes succeed in reaching islands many miles distant. Contrary to the common notion pigs can swim remarkably well. Sir Charles Lyell tells us in his "Principles of Geology" that during the floods in Scotland in 1829, some pigs only six months old that were carried out to sea, swam five miles and got on shore again. He also states, on the authority of the late Edward Forbes, that a pig jumped overboard to escape from a terrier in the Grecian Archipelago, and swam safely to shore many miles distant. These facts render it probable that wild pigs, from their greater strength and activity, might under favourable circumstances cross arms of the sea twenty or thirty miles wide; and there are facts in the distribution of this tribe of animals which seem to indicate that they have sometimes done so. Deer [[p. 14]] take boldly to the water and can swim considerable distances, but we have no evidence to show how long they could live at sea or how many miles they could traverse. Squirrels, rats, and lemmings often migrate from northern countries in bands of thousands and hundreds of thousands, and pass over rivers, lakes and even arms of the sea, but they generally perish in the salt-water. Admitting, however, the powers of most mammals to swim considerable distances, we have no reason to believe that any of them could traverse without help straits of upwards of twenty miles in width, while in most cases a channel of half that distance would prove an effectual barrier.

    Ice-floes and Driftwood as Aiding the Dispersal of Mammals.--In the arctic regions icebergs originate in glaciers which descend into the sea, and often bear masses of gravel, earth, and even some vegetation on their surfaces; and extensive level ice-fields break away and float southwards. These might often carry with them such arctic quadrupeds as frequent the ice, or even on rare occasions true land-animals, which might sometimes be stranded on distant continents or islands. But a more effectual because a more wide-spread agent, is to be found in the uprooted trees and rafts of driftwood often floated down great rivers and carried out to sea. Such rafts or islands are sometimes seen drifting a hundred miles from the mouth of the Ganges with living trees erect upon them; and the Amazon, the Orinoco, Mississippi, Congo, and most great rivers produce similar rafts. Spix and Martius declare that they saw at different times on the Amazon, monkeys, tiger-cats, and squirrels, being thus carried down the stream. On the Parana, pumas, squirrels, and many other quadrupeds have been seen on these rafts; and Admiral W. H. Smyth informed Sir C. Lyell that among the Philippine islands after a hurricane, he met with floating masses of wood with trees growing upon them, so that they were at first mistaken for islands till it was found that they were rapidly drifting along. Here therefore, we have ample means for carrying all the smaller and especially the arboreal mammals out to sea; and although in most cases they would perish there, yet in some favourable instances strong winds or [[p. 15]]

unusual tidal currents might carry them safely to shores perhaps several hundred miles from their native country. The fact of green trees so often having been seen erect on these rafts is most important; for they would act as a sail by which the raft might be propelled in one direction for several days in succession, and thus at last reach a shore to which a current alone would never have carried it.

    There are two groups of mammals which have quite exceptional means of dispersal--the bats which fly, and the cetacea, seals, &c., which swim. The former are capable of traversing considerable spaces of sea, since two North American species either regularly or occasionally visit the Bermudas, a distance of 600 miles from the mainland. The oceanic mammals (whales and porpoises) seem to have no barrier but temperature; the polar species being unable to cross the equator, while the tropical forms are equally unfitted for the cold polar waters. The shore-feeding manatees, however, can only live where they find food; and a long expanse of rocky coast would probably be as complete a barrier to them as a few hundred miles of open ocean. The amphibious seals and walruses seem many of them to be capable of making long sea journeys, some of the species being found on islands a thousand miles apart, but none of the arctic are identical with the antartic species.

    The otters with one exception are freshwater animals, and we have no reason to believe they could or would traverse any great distances of salt water. In fact, they would be less liable to dispersal across arms of the sea than purely terrestrial species, since their powers of swimming would enable them to regain the shore if accidentally carried out to sea by a sudden flood.

    Means of Dispersal of Birds.--It would seem at first sight that no barriers could limit the range of birds, and that they ought to be the most ubiquitous of living things, and little fitted therefore to throw any light on the laws or causes of the geographical distribution of animals. This, however, is far from being the case; many groups of birds are almost as strictly limited by barriers as the mammalia; and from their larger numbers and the avidity with which they have been collected, they furnish [[p. 16]] materials of the greatest value for our present study. The different groups of birds offer remarkable contrasts in the extent of their range, some being the most cosmopolite of the higher animals, while others are absolutely confined to single spots on the earth's surface. The petrels (Procellariidæ) and the gulls (Laridæ) are among the greatest wanderers; but most of the species are confined to one or other of the great oceans, or to the arctic or antarctic seas, a few only being found with scarcely any variation over almost the whole globe. The sandpipers and plovers wander along the shores as far as do the petrels over the ocean. Great numbers of them breed in the arctic regions and migrate as far as India and Australia, or down to Chili and Brazil; the species of the old and new worlds, however, being generally distinct. In striking contrast to these wide ranges we find many of the smaller perching birds, with some of the parrots and pigeons, confined to small islands of a few square miles in extent, or to single valleys or mountains on the mainland.

    Dispersal of Birds by Winds.--Those groups of birds which possess no powers of flight, such as the ostrich, cassowary, and apteryx, are in exactly the same position as mammalia as regards their means of dispersal, or are perhaps even inferior to them; since, although they are able to cross rivers by swimming, it is doubtful if they could remain so long in the water as most land quadrupeds. A very large number of short-winged birds, such as toucans, pittas, and wrens, are perhaps worse off; for they can fly very few miles at a time, and on falling into the water would soon be drowned. It is only the strong-flying species that can venture to cross any great width of sea; and even these rarely do so unless compelled by necessity to migrate in search of food, or to a more genial climate. Small and weak birds are, however, often carried accidentally across great widths of ocean by violent gales. This is well exemplified by the large numbers of stragglers from North America, which annually reach the Bermudas. No less than sixty-nine species of American birds have occurred in Europe, most of them in Britain and Heligoland. They consist chiefly of migratory birds which in autumn [[p. 17]] return along the eastern coasts of the United States, and often fly from point to point across bays and inlets. They are then liable to be blown out to sea by storms, which are prevalent at this season; and it is almost always at this time of year that their occurrence has been noted on the shores of Europe. It may, however, be doubted whether this is not an altogether modern phenomenon, dependent on the number of vessels constantly on the Atlantic which afford resting-places to the wanderers; as it is hardly conceivable that such birds as titlarks, cuckoos, wrens, warblers, and rails, could remain on the wing without food or rest, the time requisite to pass over 2,000 miles of ocean. It is somewhat remarkable that no European birds reach the American coast but a few which pass by way of Iceland and Greenland; whereas a considerable number do reach the Azores, fully half way across; so that their absence can hardly be due to the prevailing winds being westerly. The case of the Azores is, however, an argument for the unassisted passage of birds for that distance; since two of the finches are peculiar 'species,' but closely allied to European forms, so that their progenitors must, probably, have reached the islands before the Atlantic was a commercial highway.

    Barriers to the Dispersal of Birds.--We have seen that, as a rule, wide oceans are an almost absolute barrier to the passage of most birds from one continent to another; but much narrower seas and straits are also very effectual barriers where the habits of the birds are such as to preserve them from being carried away by storms. All birds which frequent thickets and forests, and which feed near or on the ground, are secure from such accidents; and they are also restricted in their range by the extent of the forests they inhabit. In South America a large number of the birds have their ranges determined by the extent of the forest country, while others are equally limited to the open plains. Such species are also bounded by mountain ranges whenever these rise above the woody region. Great rivers, such as the Amazon, also limit the range of many birds, even when there would seem to be no difficulty in their crossing them. The supply of food, and the kind of vegetation, soil, and climate [[p. 18]] best suited to a bird's habits, are probably the causes which mark out the exact limits of the range of each species; to which must be added the prevalence of enemies of either the parent birds, the eggs, or the young. In the Malay Archipelago pigeons abound most where monkeys do not occur; and in South America the same birds are comparatively scarce in the forest plains where monkeys are very abundant, while they are plentiful on the open plains and campos, and on the mountain plateaux, where these nest-hunting quadrupeds are rarely found. Some birds are confined to swamps, others to mountains; some can only live on rocky streams, others on deserts or grassy plains.

    The Phenomena of Migration.--The term "migration" is often applied to the periodical or irregular movements of all animals; but it may be questioned whether there are any regular migrants but birds and fishes. The annual or periodical movements of mammalia are of a different class. Monkeys ascend the Himalayas in summer to a height of 10,000 to 12,000 feet, and descend again in winter. Wolves everywhere descend from the mountains to the lowlands in severe weather. In dry seasons great herds of antelopes move southwards towards the Cape of Good Hope. The well-known lemmings, in severe winters, at long intervals, move down from the mountains of Scandinavia in immense numbers, crossing lakes and rivers, eating their way through haystacks, and surmounting every obstacle till they reach the sea, whence very few return. The alpine hare, the arctic fox, and many other animals, exhibit similar phenomena on a smaller scale; and generally it may be said, that whenever a favourable succession of seasons has led to a great multiplication of any species, it must on the pressure of hunger seek food in fresh localities. For such movements as these we have no special term. The summer and winter movements best correspond to true migration, but they are always on a small scale, and of limited extent; the other movements are rather temporary incursions than true migrations.

    The annual movements of many fishes are more strictly analogous to the migration of birds, since they take place in large bodies and often to considerable distances, and are [[p. 19]]

immediately connected with the process of reproduction. Some, as the salmon, enter rivers; others, as the herring and mackerel, approach the coast in the breeding season; but the exact course of their migrations is unknown, and owing to our complete ignorance of the area each species occupies in the ocean, and the absence of such barriers and of such physical diversities as occur on the land, they are of far less interest and less connected with our present study than the movements of birds, to which we shall now confine ourselves.

    Migrations of Birds.--In all the temperate parts of the globe there are a considerable number of birds which reside only a part of the year, regularly arriving and leaving at tolerably fixed epochs. In our own country many northern birds visit us in winter, such as the fieldfare, redwing, snow-bunting, turnstone, and numerous ducks and waders; with a few, like the black redstart, and (according to Rev. C. A. Johns) some of the woodcocks from the south. In the summer a host of birds appear--the cuckoo, the swifts and swallows, and numerous warblers, being the most familiar,--which stay to build their nests and rear their young, and then leave us again. These are true migrants; but a number of other birds visit us occasionally, like the waxwing, the oriole, and the bee-eater, and can only be classed as stragglers, which, perhaps from too rapid multiplication one year and want of food the next, are driven to extend their ordinary range of migration to an unusual degree. We will now endeavour to sketch the chief phenomena of migration in different countries.

    Europe.--It is well ascertained that most of the birds that spend their spring and summer in the temperate parts of Europe pass the winter in North Africa and Western Asia. The winter visitants, on the other hand, pass the summer in the extreme north of Europe and Asia, many of them having been found to breed in Lapland. The arrival of migratory birds from the south is very constant as to date, seldom varying more than a week or two, without any regard to the weather at the time; but the departure is less constant, and more dependent on the weather. Thus the swallow always comes to us about the middle [[p. 20]] of April, however cold it may be, while its departure may take place from the end of September to late in October, and is said by Forster to occur on the first N. or N.E. wind after the 20th of September.

    Almost all the migratory birds of Europe go southward to the Mediterranean, move along its coasts east or west, and cross over in three places only; either from the south of Spain, in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar, from Sicily over Malta, or to the east by Greece and Cyprus. They are thus always in sight of land. The passage of most small birds (and many of the larger ones too) takes place at night; and they only cross the Mediterranean when the wind is steady from near the east or west, and when there is moonlight.

    It is a curious fact, but one that seems to be well authenticated, that the males often leave before the females, and both before the young birds, which in considerable numbers migrate later and alone. These latter, however, seldom go so far as the old ones; and numbers of young birds do not cross the Mediterranean, but stay in the south of Europe. The same rule applies to the northward migration; the young birds stopping short of the extreme arctic regions, to which the old birds migrate.1 When old and young go together, however, the old birds take the lead. In the south of Europe few of the migratory birds stay to breed, but pass on to more temperate zones; thus, in the south of France, out of 350 species only 60 breed there. The same species is often sedentary in one part of Europe and migratory in another; thus, the chaffinch is a constant resident in England, Germany, and the middle of France; but a migrant in the south of France and in Holland: the rook visits the south of France in winter only: the Falco tinnunculus is both a resident and a migrant in the south of France, according to M. Marcel de Serres, there being two regular passages every year, while a certain number always remain.

    [[p. 21]] We see, then, that migration is governed by certain intelligible laws; and that it varies in many of its details, even in the same species, according to changed conditions. It may be looked upon as an exaggeration of a habit common to all locomotive animals, of moving about in search of food. This habit is greatly restricted in quadrupeds by their inability to cross the sea or even to pass through the highly-cultivated valleys of such countries as Europe; but the power of flight in birds enables them to cross every kind of country, and even moderate widths of sea; and as they mostly travel at night and high in the air, their movements are difficult to observe, and are supposed to be more mysterious than they perhaps are. In the tropics birds move about to different districts according as certain fruits become ripe, certain insects abundant, or as flooded tracts dry up. On the borders of the tropics and the temperate zone extends a belt of country of a more or less arid character, and liable to be parched at the summer solstice. In winter and early spring its northern margin is verdant, but it soon becomes burnt up, and most of its birds necessarily migrate to the more fertile regions to the north of them. They thus follow the spring or summer as it advances from the south towards the pole, feeding on the young flower buds, the abundance of juicy larvæ, and on the ripening fruits; and as soon as these become scarce they retrace their steps homewards to pass the winter. Others whose home is nearer the pole are driven south by cold, hunger, and darkness, to more hospitable climes, returning northward in the early summer. As a typical example of a migratory bird, let us take the nightingale. During the winter this bird inhabits almost all North Africa, Asia Minor, and the Jordan Valley. Early in April it passes into Europe by the three routes already mentioned, and spreads over France, Britain, Denmark, and the south of Sweden, which it reaches by the beginning of May. It does not enter Brittany, the Channel Islands, or the western part of England, never visiting Wales, except the extreme south of Glamorganshire, and rarely extending farther north than Yorkshire. It spreads over Central Europe, through Austria and Hungary to Southern Russia and the warmer parts of Siberia, [[p. 22]] but it nevertheless breeds in the Jordan Valley, so that in some places it is only the surplus population that migrates. In August and September, all who can return to their winter quarters.

    Migrations of this type probably date back from at least the period when there was continuous land along the route passed over; and it is a suggestive fact that this land connection is known to have existed in recent geological times. Britain was connected with the Continent during, and probably before, the glacial epoch; and Gibraltar, as well as Sicily and Malta, were also recently united with Africa, as is proved by the fossil elephants and other large mammalia found in their caverns, by the comparatively shallow water still existing in this part of the Mediterranean while the remainder is of oceanic profundity, and by the large amount of identity in the species of land animals still inhabiting the opposite shores of the Mediterranean. The submersion of these two tracts of land (which were perhaps of considerable extent) would be a slow process, and from year to year the change might be hardly perceptible. It is easy to see how the migration that had once taken place over continuous land would be kept up, first over lagoons and marshes, then over a narrow channel, and subsequently over a considerable sea, no one generation of birds ever perceiving any difference in the route.

    There is, however, no doubt that the sea-passage is now very dangerous to many birds. Quails cross in immense flocks, and great numbers are drowned at sea whenever the weather is unfavourable. Some individuals always stay through the winter in the south of Europe, and a few even in England and Ireland; and were the sea to become a little wider the migration would cease, and the quail, like some other birds, would remain divided between south Europe and north Africa. Aquatic birds are observed to follow the routes of great rivers and lakes, and the shores of the sea. One great body reaches central Europe by way of the Danube from the shores of the Black Sea; another ascends the Rhone Valley from the Gulf of Lyons.

    [[p. 23]] India and China.--In the peninsula of India and in China great numbers of northern birds arrive during September and October, and leave from March to May. Among the smaller birds are wagtails, pipits, larks, stonechats, warblers, thrushes, buntings, shrikes, starlings, hoopoes, and quails. Some species of cranes and storks, many ducks, and great numbers of Scolopacidæ also visit India in winter; and to prey upon these come a band of rapacious birds--the peregrine falcon, the hobby, kestrel, common sparrowhawk, harrier, and the short-eared owl. These birds are almost all natives of Europe and Western Asia; they spread over all northern and central India, mingling with the sedentary birds of the oriental fauna, and give to the ornithology of Hindostan at this season quite a European aspect. The peculiar species of the higher Himalayas do not as a rule descend to the plains in winter, but merely come lower down the mountains; and in southern India and Ceylon comparatively few of these migratory birds appear.

    In China the migratory birds follow generally the coast line, coming southwards in winter from eastern Siberia and northern Japan; while a few purely tropical forms travel northwards in summer to Japan, and on the mainland as far as the valley of the Amoor.

    North America.--The migrations of birds in North America have been carefully studied by resident naturalists, and present some interesting features. The birds of the eastern parts of North America are pre-eminently migratory, a much smaller proportion being permanent residents than in corresponding latitudes in Europe. Thus, in Massachusetts there are only about 30 species of birds which are resident all the year, while the regular summer visitors are 106. Comparing with this our own country, though considerably further north, the proportions are reversed; there being 140 residents and 63 summer visitors. This difference is clearly due to the much greater length and severity of the winter, and the greater heat of summer, in America than with us. The number of permanent residents increases pretty regularly as we go southward; but the number of birds at any locality during the breeding season seems to increase as we go [[p. 24]] northward as far as Canada, where, according to Mr. Allen, more species breed than in the warm Southern States. Even in the extreme north, beyond the limit of forests, there are no less than 60 species which breed; in Canada about 160; while in Carolina there are only 135, and in Louisiana, 130. The extent of the migration varies greatly, some species only going a few degrees north and south, while others migrate annually from the tropics to the extreme north of the continent; and every gradation occurs between these extremes. Among those which migrate furthest are the species of Dendrœca, and other American flycatching warblers (Mniotiltidæ), many of which breed on the shores of Hudson's Bay, and spend the winter in Mexico or the West Indian islands.

    The great migratory movement of American birds is almost wholly confined to the east coast; the birds of the high central plains and of California being for the most part sedentary, or only migrating for short distances. All the species which reach South America, and most of those which winter in Mexico and Guatemala, are exclusively eastern species; though a few Rocky Mountain birds range southward along the plateaux of Mexico and Guatemala, but probably not as regular annual migrants.

    In America as in Europe birds appear in spring with great regularity, while the time of the autumnal return is less constant. More curious is the fact, also observed in both hemispheres, that they do not all return by the same route followed in going northwards, some species being constant visitors to certain localities in spring but not in autumn, others in autumn but not in spring.

    Some interesting cases have been observed in America of a gradual alteration in the extent of the migration of certain birds. A Mexican swallow (Hirundo lunifrons) first appeared in Ohio in 1815. Year by year it increased the extent of its range till by 1845 it had reached Maine and Canada; and it is now quoted by American writers as extending its annual migrations to Hudson's Bay. An American wren (Troglodytes ludovicianus) is another bird which has spread considerably northwards since [[p. 25]] the time of the ornithologist Wilson; and the rice-bird, or "Bob-o'-link," of the Americans, continually widens its range as rice and wheat are more extensively cultivated. This bird winters in Cuba and other West Indian Islands, and probably also in Mexico. In April it enters the Southern States and passes northward, till in June it reaches Canada and extends west to the Saskatchewan River in 54° north latitude.

    South Temperate America.--The migratory birds of this part of the world have been observed by Mr. Hudson at Buenos Ayres. As in Europe and North America, there are winter and summer visitors, from Patagonia and the tropics respectively. Species of Pyrocephalus, Milvulus, swallows, and a humming-bird, are among the most regular of the summer visitors. They are all insectivorous birds. From Patagonia species of Tænioptera, Cinclodes, and Centrites, come in winter, with two gulls, two geese, and six snipes and plovers. Five species of swallows appear at Buenos Ayres in spring, some staying to breed, others passing on to more temperate regions farther south. As a rule the birds which come late and leave early are the most regular. Some are very irregular in their movements, the Molothrus bonariensis, for example, sometimes leaves early in autumn, sometimes remains all the winter. Some resident birds also move in winter to districts where they are never seen in summer.

    General Remarks on Migration.--The preceding summary of the main facts of migration (which might have been almost indefinitely extended, owing to the great mass of detailed information that exists on the subject) appears to accord with the view already suggested, that the "instinct" of migration has arisen from the habit of wandering in search of food common to all animals, but greatly exaggerated in the case of birds by their powers of flight and by the necessity for procuring a large amount of soft insect food for their unfledged young. Migration in its simple form may be best studied in North America, where it takes place over a continuous land surface with a considerable change of climate from south to north. We have here (as probably in Europe and elsewhere) every grade of migration, from species which merely shift the northern and southern [[p. 26]] limits of their range a few hundred miles, so that in the central parts of the area the species is a permanent resident, to others which move completely over 1,000 miles of latitude, so that in all the intervening districts they are only known as birds of passage. Now, just as the rice-bird and the Mexican swallow have extended their migrations, owing to favourable conditions induced by human agency; so we may presume that large numbers of species would extend their range where favourable conditions arose through natural causes. If we go back only as far as the height of the glacial epoch, there is reason to believe that all North America, as far south as about 40° north latitude, was covered with an almost continuous and perennial ice-sheet. At this time the migratory birds would extend up to this barrier (which would probably terminate in the midst of luxuriant vegetation, just as the glaciers of Switzerland now often terminate amid forests and corn-fields), and as the cold decreased and the ice retired almost imperceptibly year by year, would follow it up farther and farther according as the peculiarities of vegetation and insect-food were more or less suited to their several constitutions. It is an ascertained fact that many individual birds return year after year to build their nests in the same spot. This shows a strong local attachment, and is, in fact, the faculty or feeling on which their very existence probably depends. For were they to wander at random each year, they would almost certainly not meet with places so well suited to them, and might even get into districts where they or their young would inevitably perish. It is also a curious fact that in so many cases the old birds migrate first, leaving the young ones behind, who follow some short time later, but do not go so far as their parents. This is very strongly opposed to the notion of an imperative instinct. The old birds have been before, the young have not; and it is only when the old ones have all or nearly all gone that the young go too, probably following some of the latest stragglers. They wander, however, almost at random, and the majority are destroyed before the next spring. This is proved by the fact that the birds which return in spring are as a rule not more numerous than those which came the [[p. 27]] preceding spring, whereas those which went away in autumn were two or three times as numerous. Those young birds that do get back, however, have learnt by experience, and the next year they take care to go with the old ones. The most striking fact in favour of the "instinct" of migration is the "agitation," or excitement, of confined birds at the time when their wild companions are migrating. It seems probable, however, that this is what may be called a social excitement, due to the anxious cries of the migrating birds; a view supported by the fact stated by Marcel de Serres, that the black swan of Australia, when domesticated in Europe, sometimes joins wild swans in their northward migration. We must remember too that migration at the proper time is in many cases absolutely essential to the existence of the species; and it is therefore not improbable that some strong social emotion should have been gradually developed in the race, by the circumstance that all who for want of such emotion did not join their fellows inevitably perished.

    The mode by which a passage originally overland has been converted into one over the sea offers no insuperable difficulties, as has already been pointed out. The long flights of some birds without apparently stopping on the way is thought to be inexplicable, as well as their finding their nesting-place of the previous year from a distance of many hundreds or even a thousand miles. But the observant powers of animals are very great; and birds flying high in the air may be guided by the physical features of the country spread out beneath them in a way that would be impracticable to purely terrestrial animals.

    It is assumed by some writers that the breeding-place of a species is to be considered as its true home rather than that to which it retires in winter; but this can hardly be accepted as a rule of universal application. A bird can only breed successfully where it can find sufficient food for its young; and the reason probably why so many of the smaller birds leave the warm southern regions to breed in temperate or even cold latitudes, is because caterpillars and other soft insect larvæ are there abundant at the proper time, while in their winter home the [[p. 28]] larvæ have all changed into winged insects. But this favourable breeding district will change its position with change of climate; and as the last great change has been one of increased warmth in all the temperate zones, it is probable that many of the migratory birds are comparatively recent visitors. Other changes may however have taken place, affecting the vegetation and consequently the insects of a district; and we have seldom the means of determining in any particular case in what direction the last extension of range occurred. For the purposes of the study of geographical distribution therefore, we must, except in special cases, consider the true range of a species to comprise all the area which it occupies regularly for any part of the year, while all those districts which it only visits at more or less distant intervals, apparently driven by storms or by hunger, and where it never regularly or permanently settles, should not be included as forming part of its area of distribution.

    Means of Dispersal of Reptiles and Amphibia.--If we leave out of consideration the true marine groups--the turtles and sea-snakes--reptiles are scarcely more fitted for traversing seas and oceans than are mammalia. We accordingly find that in those oceanic islands which possess no indigenous mammals, land reptiles are also generally wanting. The several groups of these animals, however, differ considerably both in their means of dispersal and in their power of resisting adverse conditions. Snakes are most dependent on climate, becoming very scarce in temperate and cold climates and entirely ceasing at 62° north latitude, and they do not ascend very lofty mountains, ceasing at 6,000 feet elevation in the Alps. Some inhabit deserts, others swamps and marshes, while many are adapted for a life in forests. They swim rivers easily, but apparently have no means of passing the sea, since they are very rarely found on oceanic islands. Lizards are also essentially tropical, but they go somewhat farther north than snakes, and ascend higher on the mountains, reaching 10,000 feet in the Alps. They possess too some unknown means (probably in the egg-state) of passing over the ocean, since they are found to inhabit many islands where there are neither mammalia nor snakes.

    [[p. 29]] The amphibia are much less sensitive to cold than are true reptiles, and they accordingly extend much farther north, frogs being found within the arctic circle. Their semi-aquatic life also gives them facilities for dispersal, and their eggs are no doubt sometimes carried by aquatic birds from one pond or stream to another. Salt water is fatal to them as well as to their eggs, and hence it arises that they are seldom found in those oceanic islands from which mammalia are absent. Deserts and oceans would probably form the most effectual barriers to their dispersal; whereas both snakes and lizards abound in deserts, and have some means of occasionally passing the ocean which frogs and salamanders do not seem to possess.

    Means of Dispersal of Fishes.--The fact that the same species of freshwater fish often inhabit distinct river systems, proves that they have some means of dispersal over land. The many authentic accounts of fish falling from the atmosphere, indicate one of the means by which they may be transferred from one river basin to another, viz., by hurricanes and whirlwinds, which often carry up considerable quantities of water and with it fishes of small size. In volcanic countries, also, the fishes of subterranean streams may sometimes be thrown up by volcanic explosions, as Humboldt relates happened in South America. Another mode by which fishes may be distributed is by their eggs being occasionally carried away by aquatic birds; and it is stated by Gmelin that geese and ducks during their migrations feed on the eggs of fish, and that some of these pass through their bodies with their vitality unimpaired.2 Even water-beetles flying from one pond to another might occasionally carry with them some of the smaller eggs of fishes. But it is probable that fresh-water fish are also enabled to migrate by changes of level causing streams to alter their course and carry their waters into adjacent basins. On plateaux the sources of distinct river systems often approach each other, and the same thing occurs with lateral tributaries on the lowlands near their mouths. Such changes, although small in extent, and occurring only at long intervals, would [[p. 30]] act very powerfully in modifying the distribution of fresh-water fish.

    Sea fish would seem at first sight to have almost unlimited means of dispersal, but this is far from being the case. Temperature forms a complete barrier to a large number of species, cold water being essential to many, while others can only dwell in the warmth of the tropics. Deep water is another barrier to large numbers of species which are adapted to shores and shallows; and thus the Atlantic is quite as impassable a gulf to most fishes as it is to birds. Many sea fishes migrate to a limited extent for the purpose of depositing their spawn in favourable situations. The herring, an inhabitant of the deep sea, comes in shoals to our coast in the breeding season; while the salmon quits the northern seas and enters our rivers, mounting upwards to the clear cold water near their sources to deposit its eggs. Keeping in mind the essential fact that changes of temperature and of depth are the main barriers to the dispersal of fish, we shall find little difficulty in tracing the causes that have determined their distribution.

    Means of Dispersal of Mollusca.--The marine, fresh-water, and land mollusca are three groups whose powers of dispersal and consequent distribution are very different, and must be separately considered. The Pteropoda, the Ianthina, and other groups of floating molluscs, drift about in mid-ocean, and their dispersal is probably limited chiefly by temperature, but perhaps also by the presence of enemies or the scarcity of proper food. The univalve and bivalve mollusca, of which the whelk and the cockle may be taken as types, move so slowly in their adult state, that we should expect them to have an exceedingly limited distribution; but the young of all these are free swimming embryos, and they thus have a powerful means of dispersal, and are carried by tides and currents so as ultimately to spread over every shore and shoal that offers conditions favourable for their development. The fresh water molluscs, which one might at first suppose could not range beyond their own river-basin, are yet very widely distributed in common with almost all other fresh water productions; and Mr. Darwin has shown that this is [[p. 31]] due to the fact, that ponds and marshes are constantly frequented by wading and swimming birds which are pre-eminently wanderers, and which frequently carry away with them the seeds of plants, and the eggs of molluscs and aquatic insects. Fresh water molluscs just hatched were found to attach themselves to a duck's foot suspended in an aquarium; and they would thus be easily carried from one lake or river to another, and by the help of different species of aquatic birds, might soon spread all over the globe. Even a water-beetle has been caught with a small living shell (Ancylus) attached to it; and these fly long distances and are liable to be blown out to sea, one having been caught on board the Beagle when forty-five miles from land. Although fresh water molluscs and their eggs must frequently be carried out to sea, yet this cannot lead to their dispersal, since salt water is almost immediately fatal to them; and we are therefore forced to conclude that the apparently insignificant and uncertain means of dispersal above alluded to are really what have led to their wide distribution. The true land-shells offer a still more difficult case, for they are exceedingly sensitive to the influence of salt water; they are not likely to be carried by aquatic birds, and yet they are more or less abundant all over the globe, inhabiting the most remote oceanic islands. It has been found, however, that land-shells have the power of lying dormant a long time. Some have lived two years and a half shut up in pill boxes; and one Egyptian desert snail came to life after having been glued down to a tablet in the British Museum for four years!

    We are indebted to Mr. Darwin for experiments on the power of land shells to resist sea water, and he found that when they had formed a membranous diaphragm over the mouth of the shell they survived many days' immersion (in one case fourteen days); and another experimenter, quoted by Mr. Darwin, found that out of one hundred land shells immersed for a fortnight in the sea, twenty-seven recovered. It is therefore quite possible for them to be carried in the chinks of drift wood for many hundred miles across the sea, and this is probably one of the most effectual modes of their dispersal. Very young shells would also [[p. 32]] sometimes attach themselves to the feet of birds walking or resting on the ground, and as many of the waders often go far inland, this may have been one of the methods of distributing species of land shells; for it must always be remembered that nature can afford to wait, and that if but once in a thousand years a single bird should convey two or three minute snails to a distant island, this is all that is required for us to find that island well stocked with a great and varied population of land shells.

    Means of Dispersal of Insects and the Barriers which Limit their Range.--Winged insects, as a whole, have perhaps more varied means of dispersal over the globe than any other highly organised animals. Many of them can fly immense distances, and the more delicate ones are liable to be carried by storms and hurricanes over a wide expanse of ocean. They are often met with far out at sea. Hawk-moths frequently fly on board ships as they approach the shores of tropical countries, and they have sometimes been captured more than 250 miles from the nearest land. Dragon-flies came on board the Adventure frigate when fifty miles off the coast of South America. A southerly wind brought flies in myriads to Admiral Smyth's ship in the Mediterranean when he was 100 miles distant from the coast of Africa. A large Indian beetle (Chrysochroa ocellata) was quite recently caught alive in the Bay of Bengal by Captain Payne of the barque William Mansoon, 273 miles from the nearest land. Darwin caught a locust 370 miles from land; and in 1844 swarms of locusts several miles in extent, and as thick as the flakes in a heavy snowstorm, visited Madeira. These must have come with perfect safety more than 300 miles; and as they continued flying over the island for a long time, they could evidently have travelled to a much greater distance. Numbers of living beetles belonging to seven genera, some aquatic and some terrestrial, were caught by Mr. Darwin in the open sea, seventeen miles from the coast of South America, and they did not seem injured by the salt water. Almost all the accidental causes that lead to the dispersal of the higher animals would be still more favourable for insects. Floating trees could carry hundreds of insects for one bird or mammal; and so many of the larvæ, eggs, [[p. 33]] and pupæ of insects have their abode in solid timber, that they might survive being floated immense distances. Great numbers of tropical insects have been captured in the London docks, where they have been brought in foreign timber; and some have emerged from furniture after remaining torpid for many years. Most insects have the power of existing weeks or months without food, and some are very tenacious of life. Many beetles will survive immersion for hours in strong spirit; and water a few degrees below the boiling point will not always kill them. We can therefore easily understand how, in the course of ages insects may become dispersed by means which would be quite inadequate in the case of the higher animals. The drift-wood and tropical fruits that reach Ireland and the Orkneys; the double cocoa-nuts that cross the Indian ocean from the Seychelle Islands to the coast of Sumatra; the winds that carry volcanic dust and ashes for thousands of miles; the hurricanes that travel in their revolving course over wide oceans; all indicate means by which a few insects may, at rare intervals be carried to remote regions, and become the progenitors of a group of allied forms.

    But the dispersal of insects requires to be looked at from another point of view. They are, of all animals, perhaps the most wonderfully adapted for special conditions; and are so often fitted to fill one place in nature and one only, that the barriers against their permanent displacement are almost as numerous and as effective as their means of dispersal. Hundreds of species of lepidoptera, for example, can subsist in the larva state only on one species of plant; so that even if the perfect insects were carried to a new country, the continuance of the race would depend upon the same or a closely allied plant being abundant there. Other insects require succulent vegetable food all the year round, and are therefore confined to tropical regions; some can live only in deserts, others in forests; some are dependent on water-plants, some on mountain-vegetation. Many are so intimately connected with other insects during some part of their existence that they could not live without them; such are the parasitical hymenoptera and diptera, and those mimicking species whose welfare depends upon their being [[p. 34]] mistaken for something else. Then again, insects have enemies in every stage of their existence--the egg, the larva, the pupa, and the perfect form; and the abundance of any one of these enemies may render their survival impossible in a country otherwise well suited to them. Ever bearing in mind these two opposing classes of facts, we shall not be surprised at the enormous range of some groups of insects, and at the extreme localization of others; and shall be able to give a rational account of many phenomena of distribution that would otherwise seem quite unintelligible.

[[p. 35]] CHAPTER III.


    The distribution of animals over the earth's surface, is evidently dependent in great measure upon those grand and important characteristics of our globe, the study of which is termed physical geography. The proportion of land and water; the outlines and distribution of continents; the depth of seas and oceans; the position of islands; the height, direction, and continuity of mountain chains; the position and extent of deserts, lakes, and forests; the direction and velocity of ocean currents, as well as of prevalent winds and hurricanes; and lastly, the distribution of heat and cold, of rain, snow, and ice, both in their means and in their extremes, have all to be considered when we endeavour to account for the often unequal and unsymmetrical manner in which animals are dispersed over the globe. But even this knowledge is insufficient unless we inquire further as to the evidence of permanence possessed by each of these features, in order that we may give due weight to the various causes that have led to the existing facts of animal distribution.

    Land and Water.--The well-known fact that nearly three-fourths of the surface of the earth is occupied by water, and but a little more than one-fourth by land, is important as indicating the vast extent of ocean by which many of the continents and islands are separated from each other. But there is another fact [[p. 36]] which greatly increases its importance, namely, that the mean height of the land is very small compared with the mean depth of the sea. It has been estimated by Humboldt that the mean height of all the land surface does not exceed a thousand feet, owing to the comparative narrowness of mountain ranges and the great extent of alluvial plains and valleys; the ocean bed, on the contrary, not only descends deeper than the tops of the highest mountains rise above its surface, but these profound depths are broad sunken plains, while the shallows correspond to the mountain ranges, so that its mean depth is, as nearly as can be estimated, twelve thousand feet.3 Hence, as the area of water is three times that of the land, the total cubical contents of the land, above the sea level, would be only 1/36 that of the waters which are below that level. The important result follows, that whereas it is scarcely possible that in past times the amount of land surface should ever greatly have exceeded that which now exists, it is just possible that all the land may have been at some time submerged; and therefore in the highest degree probable that among the continual changes of land and sea that have been always going on, the amount of land surface has often been much less than it is now. For the same reason it is probable that there have been times when large masses of land have been more isolated from the rest than they are at present; just as South America would be if North America were submerged, or as Australia would become if the Malay Archipelago were to sink beneath the ocean. It is also very important to bear in mind the fact insisted on by Sir Charles Lyell, that the shallow parts of the ocean are almost always in the vicinity of land; and that an amount of elevation that would make little difference to the bed of the ocean, would raise up extensive tracts of dry land in the vicinity of existing continents. It is almost certain, therefore, that changes in the distribution of land and sea must have taken place more frequently by additions to, or [[p. 37]] modifications of pre-existing land, than by the upheaval of entirely new continents in mid-ocean. These two principles will throw light upon two constantly recurring groups of facts in the distribution of animals,--the restriction of peculiar forms to areas not at present isolated,--and on the other hand, the occurrence of allied forms in lands situated on opposite shores of the great oceans.

    Continental Areas.--Although the dry land of the earth's surface is distributed with so much irregularity, that there is more than twice as much north of the equator as there is south of it, and about twice as much in the Asiatic as in the American hemisphere; and, what is still more extraordinary, that on a hemisphere of which a point in St. George's Channel between England and Ireland is the centre, the land is nearly equal in extent to the water, while in the opposite hemisphere it is in the proportion of only one-eighth,--yet the whole of the land is almost continuous. It consists essentially of only three masses: the American, the Asia-African, and the Australian. The two former are only separated by thirty-six miles of shallow sea at Behring's Straits, so that it is possible to go from Cape Horn to Singapore or the Cape of Good Hope without ever being out of sight of land; and owing to the intervention of the numerous islands of the Malay Archipelago the journey might be continued under the same conditions as far as Melbourne and Hobart Town. This curious fact, of the almost perfect continuity of all the great masses of land notwithstanding their extremely irregular shape and distribution, is no doubt dependent on the circumstances just alluded to; that the great depth of the oceans and the slowness of the process of upheaval, has almost always produced the new lands either close to, or actually connected with pre-existing lands; and this has necessarily led to a much greater uniformity in the distribution of organic forms, than would have prevailed had the continents been more completely isolated from each other.

    The isthmuses which connect Africa with Asia, and North with South America, are, however, so small and insignificant compared with the vast extent of the countries they unite that [[p. 38]] we can hardly consider them to form more than a nominal connection. The Isthmus of Suez indeed, being itself a desert, and connecting districts which for a great distance are more or less desert also, does not effect any real union between the luxuriant forest-clad regions of intertropical Asia and Africa. The Isthmus of Panama is a more effectual line of union, since it is hilly, well watered, and covered with luxuriant vegetation; and we accordingly find that the main features of South American zoology are continued into Central America and Mexico. In Asia a great transverse barrier exists, dividing that continent into a northern and southern portion; and as the lowlands occur on the south and the highlands on the north of the great mountain range, which is situated not far beyond the tropic, an abrupt change of climate is produced; so that a belt of about a hundred miles wide, is all that intervenes between a luxuriant tropical region and an almost arctic waste. Between the northern part of Asia, and Europe, there is no barrier of importance; and it is impossible to separate these regions as regards the main features of animal life. Africa, like Asia, has a great transverse barrier, but it is a desert instead of a mountain chain; and it is found that this desert is a more effectual barrier to the diffusion of animals than the Mediterranean Sea; partly because it coincides with the natural division of a tropical from a temperate climate, but also on account of recent geological changes which we shall presently allude to. It results then from this outline sketch of the earth's surface, that the primary divisions of the geographer correspond approximately with those of the zoologist. Some large portion of each of the popular divisions forms the nucleus of a zoological region; but the boundaries are so changed that the geographer would hardly recognise them: it has, therefore, been found necessary to give them those distinct names which will be fully explained in our next chapter.

    Recent Changes in the Continental Areas.--The important fact has been now ascertained, that a considerable portion of the Sahara south of Algeria and Morocco was under water at a very recent epoch. Over much of this area sea-shells, identical with those now living in the Mediterranean, are abundantly scattered, [[p. 39]] not only in depressions below the level of the sea but up to a height of 900 feet above it. Borings for water made by the French government have shown, that these shells occur twenty feet deep in the sand; and the occurrence of abundance of salt, sometimes even forming considerable hills, is an additional proof of the disappearance of a large body of salt water. The common cockle is one of the most abundant of the shells found; and the Rev. H. B. Tristram discovered a new fish, in a salt lake nearly 300 miles inland, but which has since been found to inhabit the Gulf of Guinea. Connected with this proof of recent elevation in the Sahara, we have most interesting indications of subsidence in the area of the Mediterranean, which were perhaps contemporaneous. Sicily and Malta are connected with Africa by a submerged bank from 300 to 1,200 feet below the surface; while the depth of the Mediterranean, both to the east and west, is enormous, in some parts more than 13,000 feet; and another submerged bank with a depth of 1,000 feet occurs at the straits of Gibraltar. In caves in Sicily, remains of the living African elephant have been found by Baron Anca; and in other caves Dr. Falconer discovered remains of the Elephas antiquus and of two species of Hippopotamus. In Malta, three species of elephant have been discovered by Captain Spratt; a large one closely allied to E. antiquus and two smaller ones not exceeding five feet high when adult. These facts clearly indicate, that when North Africa was separated by a broad arm of the sea from the rest of the continent, it was probably connected with Europe; and this explains why zoologists find themselves obliged to place it along with Europe in the same zoological region.

    Besides this change in the level of the Sahara and the Mediterranean basin, Europe has undergone many fluctuations in its physical geography in very recent times. In Wales, abundance of sea-shells of living species have been found at an elevation of 1,300 feet; and in Sardinia there is proof of an elevation of 300 feet since the human epoch; and these are only samples of many such changes of level. But these changes, though very important locally and as connected with geological problems, need not be further noticed here; as they were not of a [[p. 40]] nature to affect the larger features of the earth's surface or to determine the boundaries of great zoological regions.

    The only other recent change of great importance which can be adduced to illustrate our present subject, is that which has taken place between North and South America. The living marine shells of the opposite coasts of the isthmus of Panama, as well as the corals and fishes, are generally of distinct species, but some are identical and many are closely allied; the West Indian fossil shells and corals of the Miocene period, however, are found to be largely identical with those of the Pacific coast. The fishes of the Atlantic and Pacific shores of America are as a rule very distinct; but Dr. Günther has recently shown that a considerable number of species inhabiting the seas on opposite sides of the isthmus are absolutely identical. These facts certainly indicate, that during the Miocene epoch a broad channel separated North and South America; and it seems probable that a series of elevations and subsidences have taken place uniting and separating them at different epochs; the most recent submersion having lasted but a short time, and thus, while allowing the passage of abundance of locomotive fishes, not admitting of much change in the comparatively stationary mollusca.

    The Glacial Epoch as affecting the Distribution of Animals.--The remarkable refrigeration of climate in the northern hemisphere within the epoch, of existing species, to which the term Glacial epoch is applied, together with the changes of level that accompanied and perhaps assisted to produce it, has been one of the chief agents in determining many of the details of the existing distribution of animals in temperate zones. A comparison of the effects produced by existing glaciers with certain superficial phenomena in the temperate parts of Europe and North America, renders it certain that between the Newer Pliocene and the Recent epochs, a large portion of the northern hemisphere must have been covered with a sheet of ice several thousand feet thick, like that which now envelopes the interior of Greenland. Much further south the mountains were covered with perpetual snow, and sent glaciers down every valley; and all the [[p. 41]] great valleys on the southern side of the Alps poured down streams of ice which stretched far out into the plains of Northern Italy, and have left their débris in the form of huge mountainous moraines, in some cases more than a thousand feet high. In Canada and New Hampshire the marks of moving ice are found on the tops of mountains from 3,000 to 5,000 feet high; and the whole surface of the country around and to the north of the great lakes is scored by glaciers. Wherever the land was submerged during a part of this cold period, a deposit called boulder-clay, or glacial-drift has been formed. This is a mass of sand, clay, or gravel, full of angular or rounded stones of all sizes, up to huge blocks as large as a cottage; and especially characterized by these stones being distributed confusedly through it, the largest being as often near the top as near the bottom, and never sorted into layers of different sizes as in materials carried by water. Such deposits are known to be formed by glaciers and icebergs; when deposited on the land by glaciers they form moraines, when carried into water and thus spread with more regularity over a wider area they form drift. This drift is rarely found except where there is other evidence of ice-action, and never south of the 40th parallel of latitude, to which in the northern hemisphere signs of ice-action extend. In the southern hemisphere, in Patagonia and in New Zealand, exactly similar phenomena occur.

    A very interesting confirmation of the reality of this cold epoch is derived from the study of fossil remains. Both the plants and animals of the Miocene period indicate that the climate of Central Europe was decidedly warmer or more equable than it is now; since the flora closely resembled that of the Southern United States, with a likeness also to that of Eastern Asia and Australia. Many of the shells were of tropical genera; and there were numbers of large mammalia allied to the elephant, rhinoceros, and tapir. At the same time, or perhaps somewhat earlier, a temperate climate extended into the arctic regions, and allowed a magnificent vegetation of shrubs and forest trees, some of them evergreen, to flourish within twelve degrees of the Pole. In the Pliocene period we find ourselves [[p. 42]] among forms implying a climate very little different from the present; and our own Crag formation furnishes evidence of a gradual refrigeration of climate; since its three divisions, the Coralline, Red, and Norwich Crags, show a decreasing number of southern, and an increasing number of northern species, as we approach the Glacial epoch. Still later than these we have the shells of the drift, almost all of which are northern and many of them arctic species. Among the mammalia indicative of cold, are the mammoth and the reindeer. In gravels and cave-deposits of Post-Pliocene date we find the same two animals, which soon disappear as the climate approached its present condition; and Professor Forbes has given a list of fifty shells which inhabited the British seas before the Glacial epoch and inhabit it still, but are all wanting in the glacial deposits. The whole of these are found in the Newer Pliocene strata of Sicily and the south of Europe, where they escaped destruction during the glacial winter.

    There are also certain facts in the distribution of plants, which are so well explained by the Glacial epoch that they may be said to give an additional confirmation to it. All over the northern hemisphere within the glaciated districts, the summits of lofty mountains produce plants identical with those of the polar regions. In the celebrated case of the White Mountains in New Hampshire, United States (latitude 45°), all the plants on the summit are arctic species, none of which exist in the lowlands for near a thousand miles further north. It has also been remarked that the plants of each mountain are more especially related to those of the countries directly north of it. Thus, those of the Pyrenees and of Scotland are Scandinavian, and those of the White Mountains are all species found in Labrador. Now, remembering that we have evidence of an exceedingly mild and uniform climate in the arctic regions during the Miocene period and a gradual refrigeration from that time, it is evident that with each degree of change more and more hardy plants would be successively driven southwards; till at last the plains of the temperate zone would be inhabited by plants, which were once confined to alpine heights or to the arctic regions. [[p. 43]] As the icy mantle gradually melted off the face of the earth these plants would occupy the newly exposed soil, and would thus necessarily travel in two directions, back towards the arctic circle and up towards the alpine peaks. The facts are thus exactly explained by a cause which independent evidence has proved to be a real one, and every such explanation is an additional proof of the reality of the cause. But this explanation implies, that in cases where the Glacial epoch cannot have so acted alpine plants should not be northern plants; and a striking proof of this is to be found on the Peak of Teneriffe, a mountain 12,000 feet high. In the uppermost 4,500 feet of this mountain above the limit of trees, Von Buch found only eleven species of plants, eight of which were peculiar; but the whole were allied to those found at lower elevations. On the Alps or Pyrenees at this elevation, there would be a rich flora comprising hundreds of arctic plants; and the absence of anything corresponding to them in this case, in which their ingress was cut off by the sea, is exactly what the theory leads us to expect.

    Changes of Vegetation as affecting the Distribution of Animals.--As so many animals are dependent on vegetation, its changes immediately affect their distribution. A remarkable example of this is afforded by the pre-historic condition of Denmark, as interpreted by means of the peat-bogs and kitchen-middens. This country is now celebrated for its beech-trees; oaks and pines being scarce; and it is known to have had the same vegetation in the time of the Romans. In the peat-bogs, however, are found deposits of oak trees; and deeper still pines alone occur. Now the kitchen-middens tell us much of the natural history of Denmark in the early Stone period; and a curious confirmation of the fact that Denmark like Norway was then chiefly covered with pine forests is obtained by the discovery, that the Capercailzie was then abundant, a bird which feeds almost exclusively on the young shoots and seeds of pines and allied plants. The cause of this change in the vegetation is unknown; but from the known fact that when forests are destroyed trees of a different kind usually occupy the ground, we may suppose that some such change as a temporary submergence might cause an entirely [[p. 44]] different vegetation and a considerably modified fauna to occupy the country.

    Organic Changes as affecting Distribution.--We have now briefly touched on some of the direct effects of changes in physical geography, climate, and vegetation, on the distribution of animals; but the indirect effects of such changes are probably of quite equal, if not of greater importance. Every change becomes the centre of an ever-widening circle of effects. The different members of the organic world are so bound together by complex relations, that any one change generally involves numerous other changes, often of the most unexpected kind. We know comparatively little of the way in which one animal or plant is bound up with others, but we know enough to assure us that groups the most apparently disconnected are often dependent on each other. We know, for example, that the introduction of goats into St. Helena utterly destroyed a whole flora of forest trees; and with them all the insects, mollusca, and perhaps birds directly or indirectly dependent on them. Swine, which ran wild in Mauritius, exterminated the Dodo. The same animals are known to be the greatest enemies of venomous serpents. Cattle will, in many districts, wholly prevent the growth of trees; and with the trees the numerous insects dependent on those trees, and the birds which fed upon the insects, must disappear, as well as the small mammalia which feed on the fruits, seeds, leaves, or roots. Insects again have the most wonderful influence on the range of mammalia. In Paraguay a certain species of fly abounds which destroys new-born cattle and horses; and thus neither of these animals have run wild in that country, although they abound both north and south of it. This inevitably leads to a great difference in the vegetation of Paraguay, and through that to a difference in its insects, birds, reptiles, and wild mammalia. On what causes the existence of the fly depends we do not know, but it is not improbable that some comparatively slight changes in the temperature or humidity of the air at a particular season, or the introduction of some enemy might lead to its extinction or banishment. The whole face of the country would then soon be changed: new species would [[p. 45]] come in, while many others would be unable to live there; and the immediate cause of this great alteration would probably be quite imperceptible to us, even if we could watch it in progress year by year. So, in South Africa, the celebrated Tsetse fly inhabits certain districts having well defined limits; and where it abounds no horses, dogs, or cattle can live. Yet asses, zebras, and antelopes are unaffected by it. So long as this fly continues to exist, there is a living barrier to the entrance of certain animals, quite as effectual as a lofty mountain range or a wide arm of the sea. The complex relations of one form of life with others is nowhere better illustrated than in Mr. Darwin's celebrated case of the cats and clover, as given in his Origin of Species, 6th ed., p. 57. He has observed that both wild heartsease and red-clover are fertilized in this country by humble-bees only, so that the production of seed depends on the visits of these insects. A gentleman who has specially studied humble-bees finds that they are largely kept down by field-mice, which destroy their combs and nests. Field-mice in their turn are kept down by cats; and probably also by owls; so that these carnivorous animals are really the agents in rendering possible the continued existence of red-clover and wild heartsease. For if they were absent, the field-mice having no enemies, would multiply to such an extent as to destroy all the humble-bees; and these two plants would then produce no seed and soon become extinct.

    Mr. Darwin has also shown that one species often exterminates another closely allied to it, when the two are brought into contact. One species of swallow and thrush are known to have increased at the expense of allied species. Rats, carried all over the world by commerce, are continually extirpating other species of rats. The imported hive-bee is, in Australia, rapidly exterminating a native stingless bee. Any slight change, therefore, of physical geography or of climate, which allows allied species hitherto inhabiting distinct areas to come into contact, will often lead to the extermination of one of them; and this extermination will be effected by no external force, by no actual enemy, but merely because the one is slightly better [[p. 46]] adapted to live, to increase, and to maintain itself under adverse circumstances, than the other.

    Now if we consider carefully the few suggestive facts here referred to (and many others of like import are to be found in Mr. Darwin's various works), we shall be led to conclude that the several species, genera, families, and orders, both of animals and vegetables which inhabit any extensive region, are bound together by a series of complex relations; so that the increase, diminution, or extermination of any one, may set in motion a series of actions and reactions more or less affecting a large portion of the whole, and requiring perhaps centuries of fluctuation before the balance is restored. The range of any species or group in such a region, will in many cases (perhaps in most) be determined, not by physical barriers, but by the competition of other organisms. Where barriers have existed from a remote epoch, they will at first have kept back certain animals from coming in contact with each other; but when the assemblage of organisms on the two sides of the barrier have, after many ages, come to form a balanced organic whole, the destruction of the barrier may lead to a very partial intermingling of the peculiar forms of the two regions. Each will have become modified in special ways adapted to the organic and physical conditions of the country, and will form a living barrier to the entrance of animals less perfectly adapted to those conditions. Thus while the abolition of ancient barriers will always lead to much intermixture of forms, much extermination and wide-spread alteration in some families of animals; other important groups will be unable materially to alter their range; or they may make temporary incursions into the new territory, and be ultimately driven back to very near their ancient limits.

    In order to make this somewhat difficult subject more intelligible, it may be well to consider the probable effects of certain hypothetical conditions of the earth's surface:--

    1. If the dry land of the globe had been from the first continuous, and nowhere divided up by such boundaries as lofty mountain ranges, wide deserts, or arms of the sea, it seems probable that none of the larger groups (as orders, tribes, or [[p. 47]] families,) would have a limited range; but, as is to some extent the case in tropical America east of the Andes, every such group would be represented over the whole area, by countless minute modifications of form adapted to local conditions.

    2. One great physical barrier would, however, even then exist; the hot equatorial zone would divide the faunas and floras of the colder regions of the northern and southern hemispheres from any chance of intermixture. This one barrier would be more effectual than it is now, since there would be no lofty mountain ranges to serve as a bridge for the partial interchange of northern and southern forms.

    3. If such a condition of the earth as here supposed continued for very long periods, we may conceive that the action and reaction of the various organisms on each other, combined with the influence of very slowly changing physical conditions, would result in an almost perfect organic balance, which would be manifested by a great stability in the average numbers, the local range, and the peculiar characteristics of every species.

    4. Under such a condition of things it is not improbable that the total number of clearly differentiated specific forms might be much greater than it is now, though the number of generic and family types might perhaps be less; for dominant species would have had ample time to spread into every locality where they could exist, and would then become everywhere modified into forms best suited to the permanent local conditions.

    5. Now let us consider what would be the probable effect of the introduction of a barrier, cutting off a portion of this homogeneous and well-balanced world. Suppose, for instance, that a subsidence took place, cutting off by a wide arm of the sea a large and tolerably varied island. The first and most obvious result would be that the individuals of a number of species would be divided into two portions, while others, the limits of whose range agreed approximately with the line of subsidence, would exist in unimpaired numbers on the new island or on the main land. But the species whose numbers were diminished and whose original area was also absolutely diminished by the portion now under the sea, would not be able to hold their [[p. 48]] ground against the rival forms whose numbers were intact. Some would probably diminish and rapidly die out; others which produced favourable varieties, might be so modified by natural selection as to maintain their existence under a different form; and such changes would take place in varying modes on the two sides of the new strait.

    6. But the progress of these changes would necessarily affect the other species in contact with them. New places would be opened in the economy of nature which many would struggle to obtain; and modification would go on in ever-widening circle and very long periods of time might be required to bring the whole again into a state of equilibrium.

    7. A new set of factors would in the meantime have come into play. The sinking of land and the influx of a large body of water could hardly take place without producing important climatal changes. The temperature, the winds, the rains, might all be affected, and more or less changed in duration and amount. This would lead to a quite distinct movement in the organic world. Vegetation would certainly be considerably affected, and through this the insect tribes. We have seen how closely the life of the higher animals is often bound up with that of insects; and thus a set of changes might arise that would modify the numerical proportions, and even the forms and habits of a great number of species, would completely exterminate some, and raise others from a subordinate to a dominant position. And all these changes would occur differently on opposite sides of the strait, since the insular climate could not fail to differ considerably from that of the continent.

    8. But the two sets of changes, as above indicated, produced by different modes of action of the same primary cause, would act and react on each other; and thus lead to such a far-spreading disturbance of the organic equilibrium as ultimately perhaps to affect in one way or another, every form of life upon the earth.

    This hypothetical case is useful as enabling us better to realize how wide-spreading might be the effects of one of the simplest changes of physical geography, upon a compact mass of mutually [[p. 49]] adapted organisms. In the actual state of things, the physical changes that occur and have occurred through all geological epochs are larger and more varied. Almost every mile of land surface has been again and again depressed beneath the ocean; most of the great mountain chains have either originated or greatly increased in height during the Tertiary period; marvellous alterations of climate and vegetation have taken place over half the land-surface of the earth; and all these vast changes have influenced a globe so cut up by seas and oceans, by deserts and snow-clad mountains, that in many of its more isolated land-masses ancient forms of life have been preserved, which, in the more extensive and more varied continents have long given way to higher types. How complex then must have been the actions and reactions such a state of things would bring about; and how impossible must it be for us to guess, in most cases, at the exact nature of the forces that limit the range of some species and cause others to be rare or to become extinct! All that we can in general hope to do is, to trace out, more or less hypothetically, some of the larger changes in physical geography that have occurred during the ages immediately preceeding our own, and to estimate the effect they will probably have produced on animal distribution. We may then, by the aid of such knowledge as to past organic mutations as the geological record supplies us with, be able to determine the probable birthplace and subsequent migrations of the more important genera and families; and thus obtain some conception of that grand series of co-ordinated changes in the earth and its inhabitants, whose final result is seen in the forms and the geographical distribution of existing animals.

[[p. 50]] CHAPTER IV.


    To the older school of Naturalists the native country of an animal was of little importance, except in as far as climates differed. Animals were supposed to be specially adapted to live in certain zones or under certain physical conditions, and it was hardly recognised that apart from these conditions there was any influence in locality which could materially affect them. It was believed that, while the animals of tropical, temperate, and arctic climates, essentially differed; those of the tropics were essentially alike all over the world. A group of animals was said to inhabit the "Indies;" and important differences of structure were often overlooked from the idea, that creatures equally adapted to live in hot countries and with certain general resemblances, would naturally be related to each other. Thus the Toucans and Hornbills, the Humming-Birds and Sun-Birds, and even the Tapirs and the Elephants, came to be popularly associated as slightly modified varieties of tropical forms of life; while to naturalists, who were acquainted with the essential differences of structure, it was a never-failing source of surprise, that under climates and conditions so apparently identical, such strangely divergent forms should be produced.

    To the modern naturalist, on the other hand, the native country (or "habitat" as it is technically termed) of an animal [[p. 51]] or a group of animals, is a matter of the first importance; and, as regards the general history of life upon the globe, may be considered to be one of its essential characters. The structure, affinities, and habits of a species, now form only a part of its natural history. We require also to know its exact range at the present day and in prehistoric times, and to have some knowledge of its geological age, the place of its earliest appearance on the globe, and of the various extinct forms most nearly allied to it. To those who accept the theory of development as worked out by Mr. Darwin, and the views as to the general permanence and immense antiquity of the great continents and oceans so ably developed by Sir Charles Lyell, it ceases to be a matter of surprise that the tropics of Africa, Asia, and America should differ in their productions, but rather that they should have anything in common. Their similarity, not their diversity, is the fact that most frequently puzzles us.

    The more accurate knowledge we have of late years obtained of the productions of many remote regions, combined with the greater approaches that have been made to a natural classification of the higher animals, has shown, that every continent or well-marked division of a continent, every archipelago and even every island, presents problems of more or less complexity to the student of the geographical distribution of animals. If we take up the subject from the zoological side, and study any family, order, or even extensive genus, we are almost sure to meet with some anomalies either in the present or past distribution of the various forms. Let us adduce a few examples of these problems.

    Deer have a wonderfully wide range, over the whole of Europe, Asia, and North and South America; yet in Africa south of the great desert there are none. Bears range over the whole of Europe, Asia, and North America, and true pigs of the genus Sus, over all Europe and Asia and as far as New Guinea; yet both bears and pigs, like deer, are absent from Tropical and South Africa.

    Again, the West Indian islands possess very few Mammalia, all of small size and allied to those of America, except one [[p. 52]] genus; and that belongs to an Order, "Insectivora," entirely absent from South America, and to a family, "Centetidæ," all the other species of which inhabit Madagascar only. And as if to add force to this singular correspondence we have one Madagascar species of a beautiful day-flying Moth, Urania, all the other species of which inhabit tropical America. These insects are gorgeously arrayed in green and gold, and are quite unlike any other Lepidoptera upon the globe.

    The island of Ceylon generally agrees in its productions with the Southern part of India; yet it has several birds which are allied to Malayan and not to Indian groups, and a fine butterfly of the genus Hestia, as well as several genera of beetles, which are purely Malayan.

    Various important groups of animals are distributed in a way not easy to explain. The anthropoid apes in West Africa and Borneo; the tapirs in Malaya and South America; the camel tribe in the deserts of Asia and the Andes; the trogons in South America and Tropical Asia, with one species in Africa; the marsupials in Australia and America, are examples.

    The cases here adduced (and they might be greatly multiplied) are merely to show the kind of problems with which the naturalist now has to deal; and in order to do so he requires some system of geographical arrangement, which shall serve the double purpose of affording a convenient subdivision of his subject, and at the same time of giving expression to the main results at which he has arrived. Hence the recent discussions on "Zoological Regions," or, what are the most natural primary divisions of the earth as regards its forms of animal life.

    The divisions in use till quite recently were of two kinds; either those ready made by geographers, more especially the quarters or continents of the globe; or those determined by climate and marked out by certain parallels of latitude or by isothermal lines. Either of these methods was better than none at all; but from the various considerations explained in the preceding chapters, it will be evident, that such divisions must have often been very unnatural, and have disguised many [[p. 53]] of the most important and interesting phenomena which a study of the distribution of animals presents to us.

    The merit of initiating a more natural system, that of determining zoological regions, not by any arbitrary or a priori consideration but by studying the actual ranges of the more important groups of animals, is due to Mr. Sclater, who, in 1857, established six primary zoological regions from a detailed examination of the distribution of the chief genera and families of Birds. Before stating what these regions are, what objections have been made to them, what other divisions have been since proposed, and what are those which we shall adopt in this work, it will be well to consider the general principles which should guide us in the choice between rival systems.

    Principles on which Zoological Regions should be formed.--It will be evident in the first place that nothing like a perfect zoological division of the earth is possible. The causes that have led to the present distribution of animal life are so varied, their action and reaction have been so complex, that anomalies and irregularities are sure to exist which will mar the symmetry of any rigid system. On two main points every system yet proposed, or that probably can be proposed, is open to objection; they are,--1stly, that the several regions are not of equal rank;--2ndly, that they are not equally applicable to all classes of animals. As to the first objection, it will be found impossible to form any three or more regions, each of which differs from the rest in an equal degree or in the same manner. One will surpass all others in the possession of peculiar families; another will have many characteristic genera; while a third will be mainly distinguished by negative characters. There will also be found many intermediate districts, which possess some of the characteristics of two well-marked regions, with a few special features of their own, or perhaps with none; and it will be a difficult question to decide in all cases which region should possess this doubtful territory, or whether it should be formed into a primary region itself. Again, two regions which have now well-marked points of difference, may be shown to have been much more alike at a comparatively recent geological epoch; [[p. 54]] and this, it may be said, proves their fundamental unity and that they ought to form but one primary region. To obviate some of these difficulties a binary or dichotomous division is sometimes proposed; that portion of the earth which differs most from the rest being cut off as a region equal in rank to all that remains, which is subjected again and again to the same process.

    To decide these various points it seems advisable that convenience, intelligibility, and custom, should largely guide us. The first essential is, a broadly marked and easily remembered set of regions; which correspond, as nearly as truth to nature will allow, with the distribution of the most important groups of animals. What these groups are we shall presently explain. In determining the number, extent, and boundaries of these regions, we must be guided by a variety of indications, since the application of fixed rules is impossible. They should evidently be of a moderate number, corresponding as far as practicable with the great natural divisions of the globe marked out by nature, and which have always been recognized by geographers. There should be some approximation to equality of size, since there is reason to believe that a tolerably extensive area has been an essential condition for the development of most animal forms; and it is found that, other things being equal, the numbers, variety and importance of the forms of animal and vegetable life, do bear some approximate relation to extent of area. Although the possession of peculiar families or genera is the main character of a primary zoological region, yet the negative character of the absence of certain families or genera is of equal importance, when this absence does not manifestly depend on unsuitability to the support of the group, and especially when there is now no physical barrier preventing their entrance. This will become evident when we consider that the importance of the possession of a group by one region depends on its absence from the adjoining regions; and if there is now no barrier to its entrance, we may be sure that there has once been one; and that the possession of the area by a distinct and well balanced set of organisms, which must have been slowly [[p. 55]] developed and adjusted, is the living barrier that now keeps out intruders.

    When it is ascertained that the chief differences which now obtain between two areas did not exist in Miocene or Pliocene times, the fact is one of great interest, and enables us to speculate with some degree of probability as to the causes that have brought about the present state of things; but it is not a reason for uniting these two areas into one region. Our object is to represent as nearly as possible the main features of the distribution of existing animals, not those of any or all past geological epochs. Should we ever obtain sufficient information as to the geography and biology of the earth at past epochs, we might indeed determine approximately what were the Pliocene or Miocene or Eocene zoological regions; but any attempt to exhibit all these in combination with those of our own period, must lead to confusion.

    The binary or dichotomous system, although it brings out the fundamental differences of the respective regions, is an inconvenient one in its application, and rather increases than obviates the difficulty as to equality or inequality of regions; for although a, b, c, and d, may be areas of unequal zoological rank, a being the most important, and d the least, yet this inequality will probably be still greater if we first divide them into a, on one side, and b, c, and d, on the other, and then, by another division, make b, an area of the second, and c, and d, of the third rank only.

    Coming to the second objection, the often incompatible distribution of different groups of animals, affords ground for opposition to any proposed scheme of zoological regions. There is first the radical difference between land and sea animals; the most complete barriers to the dispersal of the one, sometimes offering the greatest facilities for the emigration of the other, and vice versa. A large number of marine animals, however, frequent shallow water only; and these, keeping near the coasts, will agree generally in their distribution with those inhabiting the land. But among land animals themselves there are very great differences of distribution, due to certain specialities [[p. 56]] in their organization or mode of life. These act mainly in two ways,--1stly, by affecting the facilities with which they can be dispersed, either voluntarily or involuntarily;--2ndly, by the conditions which enable them to multiply and establish themselves in certain areas and not in others. When both these means of diffusion are at a maximum, the dispersal of a group becomes universal, and ceases to have much interest for us. This is the case with certain groups of fungi and lichens, as well as with some of the lower animals; and in a less degree, as has been shown by Mr. Darwin, with many fresh-water plants and animals. At the other extreme we may place certain arboreal vertebrata such as sloths and lemurs, which have no means of passing such barriers as narrow straits or moderately high mountains, and whose survival in any new country they might reach, would be dependent on the presence of suitable forests and the absence of dangerous enemies. Almost equally, or perhaps even more restricted, are the means of permanent diffusion of terrestrial molluscs; since these are without any but very rare and accidental means of being safely transported across the sea; their individual powers of locomotion are highly restricted; they are especially subject to the attacks of enemies; and they often depend not only on a peculiar vegetation, but on the geological character of the country, their abundance being almost in direct proportion to the presence of some form of calcareous rocks. Between these extremes we find animals possessed of an infinite gradation of powers to disperse and to maintain themselves; and it will evidently be impossible that the limits which best define the distribution of one group, should be equally true for all others.

    Which class of Animals is of most importance in determining Zoological Regions.--To decide this question we have to consider which groups of animals are best adapted to exhibit, by their existing distribution, the past changes and present physical condition of the earth's surface; and at the same time, by the abundance of their remains in the various tertiary formations will best enable us to trace out the more recent of the series of changes, both of the earth's surface and [[p. 57]] of its inhabitants, by which the present state of things has been brought about. For this purpose we require a group which shall be dependent for its means of dispersal on the distribution of land and water, and on the presence or absence of lofty mountains, desert plains or plateaux, and great forests; since these are the chief physical features of the earth's surface whose modifications at successive periods we wish to discover. It is also essential that they should not be subject to dispersal by many accidental causes; as this would inevitably in time tend to obliterate the effect of natural barriers, and produce a scattered distribution, the causes of which we could only guess at. Again, it is necessary that they should be so highly organized as not to be absolutely dependent on other groups of animals, and with so much power of adaptation as to be able to exist in one form or another over the whole globe. And lastly, it is highly important that the whole group should be pretty well known, and that a fairly natural classification, especially of its minor divisions such as families and genera, should have been arrived at; the reason for which last proviso is explained in our next chapter, on classification.

    Now in every one of these points the mammalia are preeminent; and they possess the additional advantage of being the most highly developed class of organized beings, and that to which we ourselves belong. We should therefore construct our typical or standard Zoological Regions in the first place, from a consideration of the distribution of mammalia, only bringing to our aid the distribution of other groups to determine doubtful points. Regions so established will be most closely in accordance with those long-enduring features of physical geography, on which the distribution of all forms of life fundamentally depend; and all discrepancies in the distribution of other classes of animals must be capable of being explained, either by their exceptional means of dispersion or by special conditions affecting their perpetuation and increase in each locality.

    If these considerations are well founded, the objections of those who study insects or molluscs, for example,--that our regions are not true for their departments of nature--cannot be[[p. 58]] maintained. For they will find, that a careful consideration of the exceptional means of dispersal and conditions of existence of each group, will explain most of the divergences from the normal distribution of higher animals.

    We shall thus be led to an intelligent comprehension of the phenomena of distribution in all groups, which would not be the case if every specialist formed regions for his own particular study. In many cases we should find that no satisfactory division of the earth could be made to correspond with the distribution even of an entire class; but we should have the coleopterist and the lepidopterist each with his own Geography. And even this would probably not suffice, for it is very doubtful if the detailed distribution of the Longicornes, so closely dependent on woody vegetation, could be made to agree with that of the Staphylinidæ or the Carabidæ which abound in many of the most barren regions, or with that of the Scarabeidæ, largely dependent on the presence of herbivorous mammalia. And when each of these enquirers had settled a division of the earth into "regions" which exhibited with tolerable accuracy the phenomena of distribution of his own group, we should have gained nothing whatever but a very complex mode of exhibiting the bare facts of distribution. We should then have to begin to work out the causes of the divergence of one group from another in this respect; but as each worker would refer to his own set of regions as the type, the whole subject would become involved in inextricable confusion. These considerations seem to make it imperative that one set of "regions" should be established as typical for Zoology; and it is hoped the reasons here advanced will satisfy most naturalists that these regions can be best determined, in the first place, by a study of the distribution of the mammalia, supplemented in doubtful cases by that of the other vertebrates. We will now proceed to a discussion of what these regions are.

    Various Zoological Regions proposed since 1857.--It has already been pointed out that a very large number of birds are limited by the same kind of barriers as mammalia; it will therefore not be surprising that a system of regions formed to suit the [[p. 59]] one, should very nearly represent the distribution of the other. Mr. Sclater's regions are as follows:--

    1. The Palæarctic Region; including Europe, Temperate Asia, and N. Africa to the Atlas mountains.

    2. The Ethiopian Region; Africa south of the Atlas, Madagascar, and the Mascarene Islands, with Southern Arabia.

    3. The Indian Region; including India south of the Himalayas, to South China, and to Borneo and Java.

    4. The Australian Region; including Celebes and Lombock, eastward to Australia and the Pacific Islands.

    5. The Nearctic Region; including Greenland, and N. America, to Northern Mexico.

    6. The Neotropical Region; including South America, the Antilles, and Southern Mexico.

    This division of the earth received great support from Dr. Günther, who, in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 1858, showed that the geographical distribution of Reptiles agreed with it very closely, the principal difference being that the reptiles of Japan have a more Indian character than the birds, this being especially the case with the snakes. In the volume for 1868 of the same work, Professor Huxley discusses at considerable length the primary and secondary zoological divisions of the earth. He gives reasons for thinking that the most radical primary division, both as regards birds and mammals, is into a Northern and Southern hemisphere (Arctogæa and Notogæa), the former, however, embracing all Africa, while the latter includes only Australasia and the Neotropical or Austro-Columbian region. Mr. Sclater had grouped his regions primarily into Palæogæa and Neogæa, the Old and New Worlds of geographers; a division which strikingly accords with the distribution of the passerine birds, but not so well with that of mammalia or reptiles. Professor Huxley points out that the Nearctic, Palæarctic, Indian, and Ethiopian regions of Mr. Sclater have a much greater resemblance to each other than any one of them has to Australia or to South America; and he further suggests that New Zealand alone has peculiarities which might entitle it to rank as a primary region [[p. 60]] along with Australasia and South America; and that a Circumpolar Province might be conveniently recognised as of equal rank with the Palæarctic and Nearctic provinces.

    In 1866, Mr. Andrew Murray published a large and copiously illustrated volume on the Geographical Distribution of Mammals, in which he maintains that the great and primary mammalian regions are only four: 1st. The Palæarctic region of Mr. Sclater, extended to include the Sahara and Nubia; 2nd. the Indo-African region, including the Indian and Ethiopian regions of Mr. Sclater; 3rd. the Australian region (unaltered); 4th. the American region, including both North and South America. These are the regions as described by Mr. Murray, but his coloured map of "Great Mammalian Regions" shows all Arctic America to a little south of the Isothermal of 32° Fahr. as forming with Europe and North Asia one great region.

    At the meeting of the British Association at Exeter in 1869, Mr. W. T. Blanford read a paper on the Fauna of British India, in which he maintained that a large portion of the peninsula of India had derived its Fauna mainly from Africa; and that the term "Indian region" of Mr. Sclater was misleading, because India proper, if it belongs to it at all, is the least typical portion of it. He therefore proposes to call it the "Malayan region," because in the Malay countries it is most highly developed. Ceylon and the mountain ranges of Southern India have marked Malay affinities.

    In 1871 Mr. E. Blyth published in Nature "A suggested new Division of the Earth into Zoological Regions," in which he indicates seven primary divisions or regions, subdivided into twenty-six sub-regions. The seven regions are defined as follows: 1. The Boreal region; including the whole of the Palæarctic and Nearctic regions of Mr. Sclater along with the West Indies, Central America, the whole chain of the Andes, with Chili and Patagonia. 2. The Columbian region; consisting of the remaining part of South America. 3. The Ethiopian region; comprising besides that region of Mr. Sclater, the valley of the Jordan, Arabia, and the desert country towards India, with all the plains and table lands of India and the northern [[p. 61]] half of Ceylon. 4. The Lemurian region; consisting of Madagascar and its adjacent islands. 5. The Austral-Asian region; which is the Indian region of Mr. Sclater without the portion taken to be added to the Ethiopian region. 6. The Melanesian region; which is the Australian region of Mr. Sclater without New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, which form 7. the Polynesian region. Mr. Blyth thinks this is "a true classification of zoological regions as regards mammalia and birds."

    In an elaborate paper on the birds of Eastern North America, their distribution and migrations (Bulletin of Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. 2), Mr. J. A. Allen proposes a division of the earth in accordance with what he terms, "the law of circumpolar distribution of life in zones," as follows: 1. Arctic realm. 2. North temperate realm. 3. American tropical realm. 4. Indo-African tropical realm. 5. South American tropical realm. 6. African temperate realm. 7. Antarctic realm. 8. Australian realm. Some of these are subdivided into regions; (2) consisting of the American and the Europæo-Asiatic regions; (4) into the African and Indian regions; (8) into the tropical Australian region, and one comprising the southern part of Australia and New Zealand. The other realms each form a single region.

    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 [[p. 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 supposing that the Proteus was the sole representative of an order of Batrachia, and that two or three other equally curious and isolated forms occurred with it, no one would propose that these caverns or the district containing them, should form one of the [[p. 63]] primary divisions of the earth. Neither can much stress be laid on the negative characteristics of New Zealand, since they are found to an almost equal extent in every oceanic island.

    Again, it is both inconvenient and misleading to pick out certain tracts from the midst of one region or sub-region and to place them in another, on account of certain isolated affinities which may often be accounted for by local peculiarities. Even if the resemblance of the fauna of Chili and Patagonia to that of the Palæarctic and Nearctic regions was much greater than it is, this mode of dealing with it would be objectionable; but it is still more so, when we find that these countries have a strongly marked South American character, and that the northern affinities are altogether exceptional. The Rodentia, which comprise a large portion of the mammalia of these countries, are wholly South American in type, and the birds are almost all allied to forms characteristic of tropical America.

    For analogous reasons the Ethiopian must not be made to include any part of India or Ceylon; for although the Fauna of Central India has some African affinities, these do not preponderate; and it will not be difficult to show that to follow Mr. Andrew Murray in uniting bodily the Ethiopian and Indian regions of Mr. Sclater, is both unnatural and inconvenient. The resemblances between them are of the same character as those which would unite them both with the Palæarctic and Nearctic regions; and although it may be admitted, that, as Professor Huxley maintains, this group forms one of the great primary divisions of the globe, it is far too extensive and too heterogeneous to subserve the practical uses for which we require a division of the world into zoological regions.

    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 [[p. 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"""

    [[p. 65]] We see, then, that even the exceedingly rich and isolated Neotropical region is less rich and diversified in its forms of mammalian life than the very much smaller area of the Indian region, or the temperate Palæarctic, and very much less so than the Ethiopian region; while even the comparatively poor Nearctic region, is nearly equal to it in the number of its family types. If these were united they would possess fifty-five families, a number very disproportionate to those of the remaining two. Another consideration is, that although the absence of certain forms of life makes a region more isolated, it does not make it zoologically more important; for we have only to suppose some five or six families, now common to both, to become extinct either in the Ethiopian or the Indian regions, and they would become as strongly differentiated from all other regions as South America, while still remaining as rich in family types. In birds exactly the same phenomenon recurs, the family types being less numerous in South America than in either of the other tropical regions of the earth, but a larger proportion of them are restricted to it. It will be shown further on, that the Ethiopian and Indian, (or, as I propose to call it in this work, Oriental) regions, are sufficiently differentiated by very important groups of animals peculiar to each; and that, on strict zoological principles they are entitled to rank as regions of equal value with the Neotropical and Australian. It is perhaps less clear whether the Palæarctic should be separated from the Oriental region, with which it has undoubtedly much in common; but there are many and powerful reasons for keeping it distinct. There is an unmistakably different facies in the animal forms of the two regions; and although no families of mammalia or birds, and not many genera, are wholly confined to the Palæarctic region, a very considerable number of both have their metropolis in it, and are very richly represented. The distinction between the characteristic forms of life in tropical and cold countries is, on the whole, very strongly marked in the northern hemisphere; and to refuse to recognise this in a subdivision of the earth which is established for the very purpose of expressing such contrasts more clearly and concisely than by ordinary geographical terminology, would be both illogical and [[p. 66]] inconvenient. The one question then remains, whether the Nearctic region should be kept separate, or whether it should form part of the Palæarctic or of the Neotropical regions. Professor Huxley and Mr. Blyth advocate the former course; Mr. Andrew Murray (for mammalia) and Professor Newton (for birds) think the latter would be more natural. No doubt much is to be said for both views, but both cannot be right; and it will be shown in the latter part of this chapter that the Nearctic region is, on the whole, fully as well defined as the Palæarctic, by positive characters which differentiate it from both the adjacent regions. More evidence in the same direction will be found in the Second Part of this work, in which the extinct faunas of the several regions are discussed.

    A confirmation of the general views here set forth, as to the distinctness and approximate equivalence of the six regions, is to be found in the fact, that if any two or more of them are combined they themselves become divisions of the next lower rank, or "sub-regions;"--and these will be very much more important, both zoologically and geographically, than the subdivisions of the remaining regions. It is admitted then that these six regions are by no means of precisely equal rank, and that some of them are far more isolated and better characterized than others; but it is maintained that, looked at from every point of view, they are more equal in rank than any others that can be formed; while in geographical equality, compactness of area, and facility of definition, they are beyond all comparison better than any others that have yet been proposed for the purpose of facilitating the study of geographical distribution. They may be arranged and grouped as follows, so as to exhibit their various relations and affinities.

    The above table shows the regions placed in the order followed in the Fourth Part of this work, and the reasons for which are [[p. 67]] explained in Chapter IX. As a matter of convenience, and for other reasons adduced in the same chapter, the detailed exposition of the geographical distribution of the animals of the several regions in Part III. commences with the Palæarctic and terminates with the Nearctic region.

    Objections to the system of Circumpolar Zones.--Mr. Allen's system of "realms" founded on climatic zones (given at p. 61), having recently appeared in an ornithological work of considerable detail and research, calls for a few remarks. The author continually refers to the "law of the distribution of life in circumpolar zones," as if it were one generally accepted and that admits of no dispute. But this supposed "law" only applies to the smallest details of distribution--to the range and increasing or decreasing numbers of species as we pass from north to south, or the reverse; while it has little bearing on the great features of zoological geography--the limitation of groups of genera and families to certain areas. It is analogous to the "law of adaptation" in the organisation of animals, by which members of various groups are suited for an aerial, an aquatic, a desert, or an arboreal life; are herbivorous, carnivorous, or insectivorous; are fitted to live underground, or in fresh waters, or on polar ice. It was once thought that these adaptive peculiarities were suitable foundations for a classification,--that whales were fishes, and bats birds; and even to this day there are naturalists who cannot recognise the essential diversity of structure in such groups as swifts and swallows, sun-birds and humming-birds, under the superficial disguise caused by adaptation to a similar mode of life. The application of Mr. Allen's principle leads to equally erroneous results, as may be well seen by considering his separation of "the southern third of Australia" to unite it with New Zealand as one of his secondary zoological divisions. If there is one country in the world whose fauna is strictly homogeneous, that country is Australia; while New Guinea on the one hand, and New Zealand on the other, are as sharply differentiated from Australia as any adjacent parts of the same primary zoological division can possibly be. Yet the "law of circumpolar distribution" leads to the division of [[p. 68]] Australia by an arbitrary east and west line, and a union of the northern two-thirds with New Guinea, the southern third with New Zealand. Hardly less unnatural is the supposed equivalence of South Africa (the African temperate realm) to all tropical Africa and Asia, including Madagascar (the Indo-African tropical realm). South Africa has, it is true, some striking peculiarities; but they are absolutely unimportant as compared with the great and radical differences between tropical Africa and tropical Asia. On these examples we may fairly rest our rejection of Mr. Allen's scheme.

    We must however say a few words on the zoo-geographical nomenclature proposed in the same paper, which seems also very objectionable. The following terms are proposed: realm, region, province, district, fauna and flora; the first being the highest, the last the lowest and smallest sub-division. Considering that most of these terms have been used in very different senses already, and that no means of settling their equivalence in different parts of the globe has been even suggested, such a complex system must lead to endless confusion. Until the whole subject is far better known and its first principles agreed upon, the simpler and the fewer the terms employed the better; and as "region" was employed for the primary divisions by Mr. Sclater, eighteen years ago, and again by Mr. Andrew Murray, in his Geographical Distribution of Mammals; nothing but obscurity can result from each writer using some new, and doubtfully better, term. For the sub-divisions of the regions no advantage is gained by the use of a distinct term--"province"--which has been used (by Swainson) for the primary divisions, and which does not itself tell you what rank it holds; whereas the term "sub-region" speaks for itself as being unmistakably next in subordination to region, and this clearness of meaning gives it the preference over any independent term. As to minor named sub-divisions, they seem at present uncalled for; and till the greater divisions are themselves generally agreed on, it seems better to adopt no technical names for what must, for a long time to come, be indeterminate.

    Does the Arctic Fauna characterize an independent Region.-- [[p. 69]] The proposal to consider the Arctic regions as constituting one of the primary zoological divisions of the globe, has been advocated by many naturalists. Professor Huxley seems to consider it advisable, and Mr. Allen unhesitatingly adopts it, as well as an "antarctic" region to balance it in the southern hemisphere. The reason why an "Arctic Region" finds no place in this work may therefore be here stated.

    No species or group of animals can properly be classed as "arctic," which does not exclusively inhabit or greatly preponderate in arctic lands. For the purpose of establishing the need of an "arctic" zoological region, we should consider chiefly such groups as are circumpolar as well as arctic; because, if they are confined to, or greatly preponderate in, either the eastern or western hemispheres, they can be at once allocated to the Nearctic or Palæarctic regions, and can therefore afford no justification for establishing a new primary division of the globe.

    Thus restricted, only three genera of land mammalia are truly arctic: Gulo, Myodes, and Rangifer. Two species of widely dispersed genera are also exclusively arctic, Ursus maritimus and Vulpes lagopus.

    Exclusively arctic birds are not much more numerous. Of land birds there are only three genera (each consisting of but a single species), Pinicola, Nyctea, and Surnia. Lagopus is circumpolar, but the genus has too wide an extension in the temperate zone to be considered arctic. Among aquatic birds we have the genus of ducks, Somateria; three genera of Uriidæ, Uria, Catarractes, and Mergulus; and the small family Alcidæ, consisting of the genera Alca and Fratercula. Our total then is, three genera of mammalia, three of land, and six of aquatic birds, including one peculiar family.

    In the southern hemisphere there is only the single genus Aptenodytes that can be classed as antarctic; and even that is more properly south temperate.

    In dealing with this arctic fauna we have two courses open to us; we must either group them with the other species and genera which are common to the two northern regions, or we [[p. 70]] must form a separate primary region for them. As a matter of convenience the former plan seems the best; and it is that which is in accordance with our treatment of other intermediate tracts which contain special forms of life. The great desert zone, extending from the Atlantic shores of the Sahara across Arabia to Central Asia, is a connecting link between the Palæarctic, Ethiopian, and Oriental regions, and contains a number of "desert" forms wholly or almost wholly restricted to it; but the attempt to define it as a separate region would introduce difficulty and confusion. Neither to the "desert" nor to the "arctic" regions could any defined limits, either geographical or zoological, be placed; and the attempt to determine what species or genera should be allotted to them would prove an insoluble problem. The reason perhaps is, that both are essentially unstable, to a much greater extent than those great masses of land with more or less defined barriers, which constitute our six regions. The Arctic Zone has been, within a recent geological period, both vastly more extensive and vastly less extensive than it is at present. At a not distant epoch it extended over half of Europe and of North America. At an earlier date it appears to have vanished altogether; since a luxuriant vegetation of tall deciduous trees and broad-leaved evergreens flourished within ten degrees of the Pole! The great deserts have not improbably been equally fluctuating; hence neither the one nor the other can present that marked individuality in their forms of life, which seems to have arisen only when extensive tracts of land have retained some considerable stability both of surface and climatal conditions, during periods sufficient for the development and co-adaptation of their several assemblages of plants and animals.

    We must also consider that there is no geographical difficulty in dividing the Arctic Zone between the two northern regions. The only debateable lands, Greenland and Iceland, are generally admitted to belong respectively to America and Europe. Neither is there any zoological difficulty; for the land mammalia and birds are on the whole wonderfully restricted to their respective regions even in high latitudes; and the aquatic forms [[p. 71]] are, for our present purpose, of much less importance. As a primary division the "Arctic region" would be out of all proportion to the other six, whether as regards its few peculiar types or the limited number of forms and species actually inhabiting it; but it comes in well as a connecting link between two regions, where the peculiar forms of both are specially modified; and is in this respect quite analogous to the great desert zone above referred to.

    I now proceed to characterize briefly the six regions adopted in the present work, together with the sub-regions into which they may be most conveniently and naturally divided, as shown in our general map.

    Palæarctic Region.--This very extensive region comprises all temperate Europe and Asia, from Iceland to Behring's Straits and from the Azores to Japan. Its southern boundary is somewhat indefinite, but it seems advisable to comprise in it all the extra-tropical part of the Sahara and Arabia, and all Persia, Cabul, and Beloochistan to the Indus. It comes down to a little below the upper limit of forests in the Himalayas, and includes the larger northern half of China, not quite so far down the coast as Amoy. It has been said that this region differs from the Oriental by negative characters only; a host of tropical families and genera being absent, while there is little or nothing but peculiar species to characterize it absolutely. This however is not true. The Palæarctic region is well characterized by possessing 3 families of vertebrata peculiar to it, as well as 35 peculiar genera of mammalia, and 57 of birds, constituting about one-third of the total number it possesses. These are amply sufficient to characterize a region positively; but we must also consider the absence of many important groups of the Oriental, Ethiopian, and Nearctic regions; and we shall then find, that taking positive and negative characters together, and making some allowance for the necessary poverty of a temperate as compared with tropical regions, the Palæarctic is almost as strongly marked and well defined as any other.

    Sub-divisions of the Palœarctic Region.--These are by no means [[p. 72]] so clearly indicated as in some of the other regions, and they are adopted more for convenience than because they are very natural or strongly marked.

    The first, or European sub-region, comprises Central and Northern Europe as far South as the Pyrenees, the Maritime and Dinaric Alps, the Balkan mountains, the Black Sea, and the Caucasus. On the east the Caspian sea and the Ural mountains seem the most obvious limit; but it is doubtful if they form the actual boundary, which is perhaps better marked by the valley of the Irtish, where a pre-glacial sea almost certainly connected the Aral and Caspian seas with the Arctic ocean, and formed an effective barrier which must still, to some extent, influence the distribution of animals.

    The next, or Mediterranean sub-region, comprises South Europe, North Africa with the extra-tropical portion of the Sahara, and Egypt to about the first or second cataracts; and eastward through Asia Minor, Persia, and Cabul, to the deserts of the Indus.

    The third, or Siberian sub-region, consists of all north and central Asia north of Herat, as far as the eastern limits of the great desert plateau of Mongolia, and southward to about the upper limit of trees on the Himalayas.

    The fourth, or Manchurian sub-region, consists of Japan and North China with the lower valley of the Amoor; and it should probably be extended westward in a narrow strip along the Himalayas, embracing about 1,000 or 2,000 feet of vertical distance below the upper limit of trees, till it meets an eastern extension of the Mediterranean sub-region a little beyond Simla. These extensions are necessary to avoid passing from the Oriental region, which is essentially tropical, directly to the Siberian sub-region, which has an extreme northern character; whereas the Mediterranean and Manchurian sub-regions are more temperate in climate. It will be found that between the upper limit of most of the typical Oriental groups and the Thibetan or Siberian fauna, there is a zone in which many forms occur common to temperate China. This is especially the case among the pheasants and finches.

    [[p. 73]] Ethiopian Region.--The limits of this region have been indicated by the definition of the Palæarctic region. Besides Africa south of the tropic of Cancer, and its islands, it comprises the southern half of Arabia.

    This region has been said to be identical in the main characters of its mammalian fauna with the Oriental region, and has therefore been united with it by Mr. A. Murray. Most important differences have however been overlooked, as the following summary of the peculiarities of the Ethiopian region will, I think, show.

    It possesses 22 peculiar families of vertebrates; 90 peculiar genera of mammalia, being two-thirds of its whole number; and 179 peculiar genera of birds, being three-fifths of all it possesses. It is further characterized by the absence of several families and genera which range over the whole northern hemisphere, details of which will be found in the chapter treating of the region. There are, it is true, many points of resemblance, not to be wondered at between two tropical regions in the same hemisphere, and which have evidently been at one time more nearly connected, both by intervening lands and by a different condition of the lands that even now connect them. But these resemblances only render the differences more remarkable; since they show that there has been an ancient and long-continued separation of the two regions, developing a distinct fauna in each, and establishing marked specialities which the temporary intercommunication and immigration has not sufficed to remove. The entire absence of such wide-spread groups as bears and deer, from a country many parts of which are well adapted to them, and in close proximity to regions where they abound, would alone mark out the Ethiopian region as one of the primary divisions of the earth, even if it possessed a less number than it actually does of peculiar family and generic groups.

    Sub-divisions of the Ethiopian Region.--The African continent south of the tropic of Cancer is more homogeneous in its prominent and superficial zoological features than most of the other regions, but there are nevertheless important and deep- [[p. 74]] seated local peculiarities. Two portions can be marked off as possessing many peculiar forms; the luxuriant forest district of equatorial West Africa, and the southern extremity or Cape district. The remaining portion has no well-marked divisions, and a large proportion of its animal forms range over it from Nubia and Abyssinia, to Senegal on the one side and to the Zambesi on the other; this forms our first or East-African sub-region.

    The second, or West African sub-region extends along the coast from Senegal to Angola, and inland to the sources of the Shary and the Congo.

    The third, or South African sub-region, comprises the Cape Colony and Natal, and is roughly limited by a line from Delagoa Bay to Walvish Bay.

    The fourth, or Malagasy sub-region, consists of Madagascar and the adjacent islands, from Rodriguez to the Seychelles; and this differs so remarkably from the continent that it has been proposed to form a distinct primary region for its reception. Its productions are indeed highly interesting; since it possesses 3 families, and 2 sub-families of mammals peculiar to itself, while almost all its genera are peculiar. Of these a few show Oriental or Ethiopian affinities, but the remainder are quite isolated. Turning to other classes of animals, we find that the birds are almost as remarkable; but, as might be expected, a larger number of genera are common to surrounding countries. More than 30 genera are altogether peculiar, and some of these are so isolated as to require to be classed in separate families or sub-families. The African affinity is however here more strongly shown by the considerable number (13) of peculiar Ethiopian genera which in Madagascar have representative species. There can be no doubt therefore about Madagascar being more nearly related to the Ethiopian than to any other region; but its peculiarities are so great, that, were it not for its small size and the limited extent of its fauna, its claim to rank as a separate region might not seem unreasonable. It is true that it is not poorer in mammals than Australia; but that country is far more isolated, and cannot be so decidedly and [[p. 75]] naturally associated with any other region as Madagascar can be with the Ethiopian. It is therefore the better and more natural course to keep it as a sub-region; the peculiarities it exhibits being of exactly the same kind as those presented by the Antilles, by New Zealand, and even by Celebes and Ceylon, but in a much greater degree.

    Oriental Region.--On account of the numerous objections that have been made to naming a region from the least characteristic portion of it, and not thinking "Malayan," proposed by Mr. Blanford, a good term, (as it has a very circumscribed and definite meaning, and especially because the "Malay" archipelago is half of it in the Australian region,) I propose to use the word "Oriental" instead of "Indian," as being geographically applicable to the whole of the countries included in the region and to very few beyond it; as being euphonious, and as being free from all confusion with terms already used in zoological geography. I trust therefore that it may meet with general acceptance.

    This small, compact, but rich and varied region, consists of all India and China from the limits of the Palæarctic region; all the Malay peninsula and islands as far east as Java and Baly, Borneo and the Philippine Islands; and Formosa. It is positively characterized by possessing 12 peculiar families of vertebrata; by 55 genera of land mammalia, and 165 genera of land birds, altogether confined to it; these peculiar genera forming in each case about one half of the total number it possesses.

    Sub-divisions of the Oriental region.--First we have the Indian sub-region, consisting of Central India from the foot of the Himalayas in the west, and south of the Ganges to the east, as far as a line drawn from Goa curving south and up to the Kistna river; this is the portion which has most affinity with Africa.

    The second, or Ceylonese sub-region, consists of the southern extremity of India with Ceylon; this is a mountainous forest region, and possesses several peculiar forms as well as some Malayan types not found in the first sub-region.

    [[p. 76]] Next we have the Indo-Chinese sub-region, comprising South China and Burmah, extending westward along the Himalayan range to an altitude of about 9,000 or 10,000 feet, and southward to Tavoy or Tenasserim.

    The last is the Indo-Malayan sub-region, comprising the Peninsula of Malacca and the Malay Islands to Baly, Borneo, and the Philippines.

    On account of the absence from the first sub-region of many of the forms most characteristic of the other three, and the number of families and genera of mammalia and birds which occur in it and also in Africa, it has been thought by some naturalists that this part of India has at least an equal claim to be classed as a part of the Ethiopian region. This question will be found fully discussed in Chapter XII. devoted to the Oriental region, where it is shown that the African affinity is far less than has been represented, and that in all its essential features Central India is wholly Oriental in its fauna.

    Before leaving this region a few words may be said about Lemuria, a name proposed by Mr. Sclater for the site of a supposed submerged continent extending from Madagascar to Ceylon and Sumatra, in which the Lemuroid type of animals was developed. This is undoubtedly a legitimate and highly probable supposition, and it is an example of the way in which a study of the geographical distribution of animals may enable us to reconstruct the geography of a bygone age. But we must not, as Mr. Blyth proposed, make this hypothetical land one of our actual Zoological regions. It represents what was probably a primary Zoological region in some past geological epoch; but what that epoch was and what were the limits of the region in question, we are quite unable to say. If we are to suppose that it comprised the whole area now inhabited by Lemuroid animals, we must make it extend from West Africa to Burmah, South China, and Celebes; an area which it possibly did once occupy, but which cannot be formed into a modern Zoological region without violating much more important affinities. If, on the other hand, we leave out all those areas which undoubtedly belong to other regions, we reduce Lemuria to Madagascar and its adjacent [[p. 77]] islands, which, for reasons already stated, it is not advisable to treat as a primary Zoological region. The theory of this ancient continent and the light it may throw on existing anomalies of distribution, will be more fully considered in the geographical part of this work.

    Australian Region.--Mr. Sclater's original name seems preferable to Professor Huxley's, "Austral-Asian;" the inconvenience of which alteration is sufficiently shown by the fact that Mr. Blyth proposed to use the very same term as an appropriate substitute for the "Indian region" of Mr. Sclater. Australia is the great central mass of the region; it is by far the richest in varied and highly remarkable forms of life; and it therefore seems in every way fitted to give a name to the region of which it is the essential element. The limits of this region in the Pacific are somewhat obscure, but as so many of the Pacific Islands are extremely poor zoologically, this is not of great importance.

    Sub-divisions of the Australian Region.--The first sub-region is the Austro-Malayan, including the islands from Celebes and Lombock on the west to the Solomon Islands on the east. The Australian sub-region comes next, consisting of Australia and Tasmania. The third, or Polynesian sub-region, will consist of all the tropical Pacific Islands, and is characterized by several peculiar genera of birds which are all allied to Australian types. The fourth, consists of New Zealand with Auckland, Chatham, and Norfolk Islands, and must be called the New Zealand sub-region.

    The extreme peculiarities of New Zealand, due no doubt to its great isolation and to its being the remains of a more extensive land, have induced several naturalists to suggest that it ought justly to form a Zoological region by itself. But the inconveniences of such a procedure have been already pointed out; and when we look at its birds as a whole (they being the only class sufficiently well represented to found any conclusion upon) we find that the majority of them belong to Australian genera, and where the genera are peculiar they are most nearly related to Australian types. The preservation in these islands [[p. 78]] of a single representative of a unique order of reptiles, is, as before remarked, of the same character as the preservation of the Proteus in the caverns of Carniola; and can give the locality where it happens to have survived no claim to form a primary Zoological region, unless supported by a tolerably varied and distinctly characterized fauna, such as never exists in a very restricted and insular area.

    Neotropical Region.--Mr. Sclater's original name for this region is preserved, because change of nomenclature is always an evil; and neither Professor Huxley's suggested alteration "Austro-Columbia," nor Mr. Sclater's new term "Dendrogæa," appear to be improvements. The region is essentially a tropical one, and the extra-tropical portion of it is not important enough to make the name inappropriate. That proposed by Professor Huxley is not free from the same kind of criticism, since it would imply that the region was exclusively South American, whereas a considerable tract of North America belongs to it. This region includes South America, the Antilles and tropical North America; and it possesses more peculiar families of vertebrates and genera of birds and mammalia than any other region.

    Subdivisions of the Neotropical Region.--The great central mass of South America, from the shores of Venezuela to Paraguay and Eastern Peru, constitutes the chief division, and may be termed the Brazilian sub-region. It is on the whole a forest country; its most remarkable forms are highly developed arboreal types; and it exhibits all the characteristics of this rich and varied continent in their highest development.

    The second, or Chilian sub-region, consists of the open plains, pampas, and mountains of the southern extremity of the continent; and we must include in it the west side of the Andes as far as the limits of the forest near Payta, and the whole of the high Andean plateaus as far as 4° of south latitude; which makes it coincide with the range of the Camelidæ and Chinchillidæ.

    The third, or Mexican sub-region, consists of Central America and Southern Mexico, but it has no distinguishing [[p. 79]] characteristics except the absence of some of the more highly specialized Neotropical groups. It is, however, a convenient division as comprising the portion of the North American continent which belongs zoologically to South America.

    The fourth, or Antillean sub-region, consists of the West India islands (except Trinidad and Tobago, which are detached portions of the continent and must be grouped in the first sub-region); and these reproduce, in a much less marked degree, the phenomena presented by Madagascar. Terrestrial mammals are almost entirely wanting, but the larger islands possess three genera which are altogether peculiar to them. The birds are of South American forms, but comprise many peculiar genera. Terrestrial molluscs are more abundant and varied than in any part of the globe of equal extent; and if these alone were considered, the Antilles would constitute an important Zoological region.

    Nearctic Region.--This region comprises all temperate North America and Greenland. The arctic lands and islands beyond the limit of trees form a transitional territory to the Palæarctic region, but even here there are some characteristic species. The southern limit between this region and the Neotropical is a little uncertain; but it may be drawn at about the Rio Grande del Norte on the east coast, and a little north of Mazatlan on the west; while on the central plateau it descends much farther south, and should perhaps include all the open highlands of Mexico and Guatemala. This would coincide with the range of several characteristic Nearctic genera.

    Distinction of the Nearctic from the Palæarctic Region.--The Nearctic region possesses twelve peculiar families of vertebrates or one-tenth of its whole number. It has also twenty-four peculiar genera of mammalia and fifty-two of birds, in each case nearly one-third of all it possesses. This proportion is very nearly the same as in the Palæarctic region, while the number of peculiar families of vertebrata is very much greater. It has been already seen that both Mr. Blyth and Professor Huxley are disposed to unite this region with the Palæarctic, while Professor Newton, in his article on birds in the new edition of the [[p. 80]] Encyclopædia Britannica, thinks that as regards that class it can hardly claim to be more than a sub-region of the Neotropical. These views are mutually destructive, but it will be shown in the proper place, that on independent grounds the Nearctic region can very properly be maintained.

    Subdivisions of the Nearctic Region.--The sub-regions here depend on the great physical features of the country, and have been in some cases accurately defined by American naturalists. First we have the Californian sub-region, consisting of California and Oregon--a narrow tract between the Sierra Nevada and the Pacific, but characterized by a number of peculiar species and by several genera found nowhere else in the region.

    The second, or Rocky Mountain sub-region, consists of this great mountain range with its plateaus, and the central plains and prairies to about 100° west longitude, but including New Mexico and Texas in the South.

    The third and most important sub-region, which may be termed the Alleghanian, extends eastward to the Atlantic, including the Mississippi Valley, the Alleghany Mountains, and the Eastern United States. This is an old forest district, and contains most of the characteristic animal types of the region.

    The fourth, or Canadian sub-region, comprises all the northern part of the continent from the great lakes to the Arctic ocean; a land of pine-forests and barren wastes, characterized by Arctic types and the absence of many of the genera which distinguish the more southern portions of the region.

    Observations on the series of Sub-regions.--The twenty-four sub-regions here adopted were arrived at by a careful consideration of the distribution of the more important genera, and of the materials, both zoological and geographical, available for their determination; and it was not till they were almost finally decided on, that they were found to be equal in number throughout all the regions--four in each. As this uniformity is of great advantage in tabular and diagrammatic presentations of the distribution of the several families, I decided not to disturb it unless very strong reasons should appear for adopting a greater or less number in any particular case. Such however have not [[p. 81]] arisen; and it is hoped that these divisions will prove as satisfactory and useful to naturalists in general as they have been to the author. Of course, in a detailed study of any region much more minute sub-division may be required; but even in that case it is believed that the sub-regions here adopted, will be found, with slight modifications, permanently available for exhibiting general results.

    I give here a table showing the proportionate richness and speciality of each region as determined by its families of vertebrates and genera of mammalia and birds; and also a general table of the regions and sub-regions, arranged in the order that seems best to show their mutual relations.

[[p. 82]]

[[p. 83]] CHAPTER V.


    A little consideration will convince us, that no inquiry into the causes and laws which determine the geographical distribution of animals or plants can lead to satisfactory results, unless we have a tolerably accurate knowledge of the affinities of the several species, genera, and families to each other; in other words, we require a natural classification to work upon. Let us, for example, take three animals--a, b, and c--which have a general external resemblance to each other, and are usually considered to be really allied; and let us suppose that a and b inhabit the same or adjacent districts, while c is found far away on the other side of the globe, with no animals at all resembling it in any of the intervening countries. We should here have a difficult problem to solve; for we should have to show that the general laws by which we account for the main features of distribution, will explain this exceptional case. But now, suppose some comparative anatomist takes these animals in hand, and finds that the resemblance of c to a and b is only superficial, while their internal structure exhibits marked and important differences; and that c really belongs to another group of animals, d, which inhabits the very region in which c was found--and we should no longer have anything to explain. This is no imaginary case. Up to a very few years ago a curious Mexican animal, Bassaris astuta, was almost always classed in the civet family (Viverridæ), a group entirely [[p. 84]] confined to Africa and Asia; but it has now been conclusively shown by Professor Flower that its real affinities are with the racoons (Procyonidæ), a group confined to North and South America. In another case, however, an equally careful examination shows, that an animal peculiar to the Himalayas (Ælurus fulgens) has its nearest ally in the Cercoleptes of South America. Here, therefore, the geographical difficulty really exists, and any satisfactory theory of the causes that have led to the existing distribution of living things, must be able to account, more or less definitely, for this and other anomalies. From these cases it will be evident, that if any class or order of animals is very imperfectly known and its classification altogether artificial, it is useless to attempt to account for the anomalies its distribution may present; since those anomalies may be, to a great extent, due to false notions as to the affinities of its component species.

    According to the laws and causes of distribution discussed in the preceding chapters, we should find limited and defined distribution to be the rule, universal or indefinite distribution to be the exception, in every natural group corresponding to what are usually regarded as families and genera; and so much is this the case in nature, that when we find a group of this nominal rank scattered as it were at random over the earth, we have a strong presumption that it is not natural; but is, to a considerable extent, a haphazard collection of species. Of course this reasoning will only apply, in cases where there are no unusual means of dispersal, nor any exceptional causes which might determine a scattered distribution.

    From the considerations now adduced it becomes evident, that it is of the first importance for the success of our inquiry to secure a natural classification of animals, especially as regards the families and genera. The higher groups, such as classes and orders, are of less importance for our purpose; because they are almost always widely and often universally distributed, except those which are so small as to be evidently the nearly extinct representatives of a once more extensive series of forms. We now proceed to explain the classification to be adopted, as low down as the series of families. To these, equivalent English [[p. 85]] names are given wherever they exist, in order that readers possessing no technical knowledge, may form some conception of the meaning of the term "family" in zoology.

    The primary divisions of the animal kingdom according to two eminent modern authorities are as follows:

    For reasons already stated it is only with the fifth, seventh, and eighth of these groups that the present work proposes to deal; and even with the fifth and seventh only partially and in the most general way.

[[followed by the rest of the book]]

Notes Appearing in the Original Work

    1 Marcel de Serres states this as a general fact for wading and swimming birds. He says that the old birds arrive in the extreme north almost alone, the young remaining on the shores of the Baltic, or on the lakes of Austria, Hungary, and Russia. See his prize essay, Des Causes des Migrations, &c. 2nd ed., Paris, 1845, p. 121. [[on p. 20]]

    2 Quoted in Lyell's Principles of Geology (11th ed. vol. ii. p. 374), from Amœn. Acad. Essay 75. [[on p. 29]]

    3 This estimate has been made for me by Mr. Stanford from the materials used in delineating the contours of the ocean-bed on our general map. It embodies the result of all the soundings of the Challenger, Tuscarora, and other vessels, obtainable up to August, 1875. [[on p. 36]]

*                 *                 *                 *                 *

Return to Home