24 



If the view that each existing ajiecies was a separate centre, be adopted the 

 difficulties of explanation are not so great, for hardly a case occurs in the animal 

 kingdom of the same species (so called) being common to two distant and widely 

 separated countries, without admitting of some easy explanation ; but if the view 

 that creative centres were less numerous than the so called species, which view 

 seems to me most probable, be taken, then the difficulties are much more formid" 

 able, for it becomes necessary to show how migration may have been effected from 

 fewer points or centres. 



Thus we see that not only species (so called), but also in, those parts of the 

 ■world where free communication is difficult, or next to impossible for land animals, 

 families or genera are for the most part distinct. This fact, to my comprehension, 

 strongly supports the theoiy of creative centres. 



Exit it will be said how can the presence of animals ot the same family, in these 

 distant lands, be explained on the theory of centres of creation ? This, no doubt, 

 is the greatest difficulty to the belief, and to this subject I propose to devote a 

 few words in concluding this paper, already too long. 



Now some natural families are found to be represented in nearly every 

 quarter of the globe, although the species in different parts may be extinct ; thus 

 for example, the faniUy, or Linnean Genus, Felis has its representatives both in 

 South America and in South Africa, though the species are different, as also the 

 Genus Ursus, Cervus Lutra (otter), Canis (dog), Vespertilio (bat), and some others. 



In reviewing the number of natural families which are common to both 

 hemispheres, it should be especially remarked that the Arctic circle possesses 

 several common families in both Asia and America, and indeed many species, 

 for Canis Lagopus, Ursus Maritimus, and Cervus Tarandus, are found throughout 

 the Polar circle, not to mention Marine Mammalia. 



Taking a survey of the temperate regions of both hemispheres, we find a few 

 Species common to both (e. g., Mustela, Martes, Mustek, Erminea, Castor Tiber), 

 and many families or genera common, as the Genus, Bos, Felis, Ursus, Canis, 

 Cervus, Lepus, and others. Amongst these genera, however, the species seem to 

 be all distinct in the two hemispheres. Passing on now to the Tropical regions of 

 the New and Old Worlds, there is not found a single common species of mammal, 

 and but few common families. 



Thus the New and Old World apes are generically distinct ; most of the bats 

 are so also. The ant eaters, the sloths, and the armadillos are peculiar to South 

 America ; also the Genus Auchenia, containing the Llamas and Ali)acas. 



Again, looking at the Old World, we find peculiar the genera Sus, Equus, 

 Camelus, Rhinocerus, Manis, Viverra, Eriaaceus, Talpa, and the Apes, neaiiy all 

 the Antilopes, and many others; and to Australia the Marsupials, with one 

 exception. 



In looking at a map of the world three is hardly anywhere in Europe, Asia, 

 and Africa where active mammals could not penetrate, and if once at a place and 

 the climate and conditions of life were suitable to them they might multiply and 

 flourish ; thus, were the birthplace of a species in either of these three Continents, 



