210 Dai'win, and after Darwin. 



species which present a markedly discontinuous range 

 may have had a corresponding number of different 

 centres of creation, the same specific type having 

 been turned down, so to speak, on widely separated 

 areas. But to me it seems that this explanation pre- 

 sents even greater difficulty than the other. If it is 

 difficult to say why the Divinity should have chosen 

 to create new species of plants on the Alps on so 

 precisely the same pattern as the old, much more 

 would it be difficult to say why, in addition to these 

 new species, he should also have created again the 

 old species which he had already placed in the Arctic 

 regions. 



So much, then, for discontinuity of distribution. 

 The next general fact to be adduced is, that there 

 is no constant correlation between habitats and ani- 

 mals or plants suited to live upon them. Of course 

 all the animals and plants living upon any given area 

 are well suited to live upon that area ; for otherwise 

 they could not be there. But the point now is, that 

 besides the area on which they do live, there are 

 usually many other areas in different parts of the 

 globe where they might have lived equally well — as 

 is proved by the fact that when transported by man 

 they thrive as well, or even better, than in their 

 native country. Therefore, upon the supposition that 

 all species were separately created in the countries 

 where they are respectively found, we must conclude 

 that they were created in only some of the places 

 where they might equally well have lived. Probably 

 there is at most but a small percentage either of 

 plants or animals which would not thrive in some 



