acorn, one pair of locusts, of bees, of wild pigeons, of herrings, of
buffaloes, as the only starting-point of these almost ubiquitous species ?
The instincts and habits of animals differ widely. Some are solitary,
except at certain seasons; some go in pairs; others in herds or
shoals. The idea of a pair of bees, locusts, herrings, buffaloes, is
as contrary to the nature and habits of these creatures, as it is repugnant
to the nature of oaks, pines, birches, &c., to grow singly, and to
form forests in their isolation. In some species males—in others,
females predominate; and in many it would be easy to show, that, if
the present order of things were reversed, the species, could not be
preserved locusts and bees, for example: the former appear in myriads,
and by far the greater number of those produced are destroyed;
and though they have existed for ages, a naturalist cannot see that
they have increased, nor can be conceive how one pair could continue
the species, considering the number of adverse chances. As regards
bees, it is natural to have but one female for a whole hive, to whom
many males are devoted, besides a large number of drones.
Again, A gas s iz gives this striking illustration: —
<£ There are animals which are impelled by nature to feed on other animals. Was the
first pair of lions to abstain from food until the gazelles and other antelopes had multiplied
sufficiently to preserve their races from the persecution,of these ferocious beasts ? ”
So with other carnivorous animals, birds, fishes, and reptiles. We
now behold all their various species scattered through land and water
in harmonious proportions. Thus they may continue for' ages to
come.
Hybridity has been considered a test for species ;• but, when we
come to this theme, it shall be proven that, in many instances, what
have been called varieties are really distinct species: hence, that hybridity
is no test. All varieties of dogs and wolves, for example, are prolific
inter se; yet we shall prove that many of them are specifically
distinct, that is, descended from different primitive stocks at distant
points of the globe. A gas s iz has beautifully illustrated the fact by the
natural history of lions. These animals present very marked varieties,
extending over immense regions of cbuntry. They occupy nearly
the whole continent of Africa, a great part of Southern Asia, as,
formerly, Asia Minor and Greece. Over this vast tract of country
several varieties of lions are found, differing materially in their physical
’ characters: these varieties also are placed remotely from each
other, and each one is surrounded by entirely distinct Faunse and
Florae: natural facts confirming the idea of totally distinct zoological
provinces. It will readily be conceded by naturalists, that all the
g.rfima.lfl found in such a province, and nowhere else, must have been
therein created; and although lions may possess in common that
assemblage of characters which has been construed into evidence of
community of species, yet it by no means necessitates community of
origin. The same question here arises as in considering the varieties
of mankind, with regard to the definition of the term species. We
hold that a variety which is permanent, and which resists, without
change, all known external causes, must be regarded as a primitive
species — else no criteria exist by which science" can be governed in
Hatural History.
Monkeys afford another admirable illustration, and are doubly
interesting from the fact of their near approach to the human family.
The following paragraph is one of peculiar interest: —-
“ As already mentioned, the monkeys are entirely tropical. But here again we notice a
very intimate adaptation of their types to the particular continents; as the monkeys of
tropical America constitute a family altogether distinct from the monkeys of the old world,
there,being not one species of any of the genera of Quadrumana, so numerous on this continent,
found either in Asia or Africa. The monkeys of the Old World, again, constitute a
natural family by themselves, extending equally over Africa and Asia; ánd there is even a
close representative analogy between those of different parts of these two continents— the
orangs of Africa, the Chimpanzee and Orilla, corresponding to the red orang of Sumatra
and Borneo,“and the smaller long-armed species of continental Asia. And what is not a
little remarkable, is- the fact that the black orang occurs upon that continent which is
inhabited by the black human race, while the brown orang inhabits those parts of Asia
over which the chocolate-colored Malays have been developed. There is again a peculiar
family of Quadrumana confined to the Island of Madagascar, the Makis, which are entirely
peculiar to that island and the eastern coast of Africa opposite to it, and to one spot on the
western shore of Africa. But in New Holland and the adjacent islands there are no monkeys
at all, though the climatic conditions seem not to exclude their existence any more
than those of the large Asiatic Islands, upon which such high types of this order are found.
And these facts, more than any other, would indicate that the special adaptation of animals
to particular districts of the surface of the globe is neither accidental nor dependent upon
physical conditions, but is implied in the primitive plan of creation itself. Whatever
classes we may take into consideration, we shall find similar adaptations, and though perhaps
the greater uniformity of some families renders the difference of types in various parts
of the world less striking, they ?ire none the less real. The carnivora, of tropical Asia are
not the same as those of tropical Africa, or those of tropical America. Their birds and
reptiles present similar differences. The want of an ostrich in Asia, when we have one,
the largest of the family, in Africa, and two distinct species in Southern America, and two
cassowaries, one in New Holland and another in the Sunda Islands, shows this constant
process of analogous or representative species, repeated over different parts of the world,
to be the principle regulating the distribution of animals; and the fact that these analogous
species are different, again, cannot be reconciled to the idea of common origin, as
each type is peculiar to the country where it is now found. These differences are more
striking in tropical regions than anywhere else. The rhinoceros of the Sunda Islands
differs froih. those of Africa, and there are none in America. The. elephant of Asia differs
from that of Africa, and there are none in America. One tapir is found in the Sunda Islands;
there are none in Africa, but we find one in South Ameriea. . . . Everywhere special adaptation,
particular forms in each continent, an omission of some allied type here, When in
the next group it occurs all over the zone.” .
The same authority has so well expressed bis opinion pn another
point, that we cannot resist the temptation of making an additional
extract.