THEORIES ON GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS. it 
was more qualified than himself to discover the artificial 
nature of his theory. 
(15.) The views of M. Latreille, in reference to the 
geography of insects, do not, however, materially differ 
from those of Fabricius: he divides the globe into 
climates, which he thinks may be made to agree with 
our present state of knowledge, and be even applicable 
to future discoveries. His primary divisions are arctic 
and antarctic climates, according as they are situated 
above or below the equinoctial line ; and taking twelve 
degrees of latitude for each climate, he subdivides the 
whole into twelve climates. Beginning at 84° N. he 
has seven arctic ones, which he names polar, sub-polar, 
superior, intermediate, supra-tropical, tropical, and equa-~ 
torial ; but his antarctic climates, as no Jand has been dis- 
covered below 60° south latitude, amount only to five, 
beginning with the equatorial and ending with the su- 
perior. He proposes further to divide his climates into 
sub-climates, by means of certain meridian lines: sepa- 
rating, thus, the Old World from the New, and subdi- 
viding the former into two great portions ; an eastern, 
beginning with India ; and a western, terminating with 
Persia. Finally, he proposes, that each climate should 
be considered as having 24° of longitude as well as 12° 
of latitude. 
(16.) To these views it has already been objected, 
by a celebrated entomologist, that “ any division of the 
globe into climates, by means of equivalent parallels and 
meridians, wears the appearance of an artificial and arbi- 
trary system, rather than of one according to nature.”’ * 
In this opinion we perfectly coincide. The first defect 
in M. Latreille’s theory, which immediately strikes the 
mind, is its complicated minuteness, by which its author 
has lost sight of, and frittered away, those grand di- 
visions of animal geography pointed out by nature, and 
immediately recognised by every naturalist. What 
entomologist, for example, of ordinary talent, does not, in 
® Kirby, Int. to Entom. vol. iv. p. 489. 
