‘a 
_— a 
Fuly 6, 1871} 
NATURE 
193 

Faunas in order rightly to understand her own. The greater 
part of her surface constitutes the western extremity of that great 
Russo-European tract I have above commented upon, its flora, 
and probably also its fauna, here blending with the West Euro- 
pean type, which spreads more or less over it from the Iberian 
peninsula. To the south-east she has an end of the Swiss Alps, 
connected to a certain degree with the Pyrenees to the south-west 
by the chain of the Cevennes, but at an elevation too low, and 
which has probably always been too low, for the interchange of 
the truly alpine forms of those two lofty ranges. South of the 
Cevennes she includes a portion of the great Mediterranean 
region ; and the marine productions of her coasts are those of 
three different aquatic regions—the North Sea, the Atlantic, and 
the Mediterranean. The few endemic or local races she may 
possess appear to be on those southern declivities which bound 
the Meditterranean region ; and if the volcanic elevations of Cen- 
tral France have a special interest, it is more from the absence of 
many species common at similar altitudes in the mouutains to the 
east or to the south-west, than from the presence of peculiar races 
not of the lowest grades, with the exception, perhaps, of a very 
few species now rare, and which may prove to be the lingering 
remains of expiring races. 
With so many natural advantages, French science, represented 
during the last two centuries by as great, if not a greater, number 
of eminent men than any other country, has long felt the neces- 
sity of a thorough investigation of the biological productions of 
her territory. The French Floras, both general and local, are 
now numerous, and some of them excellent. The geographical 
distribution of plants in France has also been the subject of 
various essays as well as separate works. It is only to be re- 
gretted that in the Floras themselves the instructive practice of 
indicating under each species its extra-Gallican distribution has 
not yet been adopted. In Zoology no general fauna has been 
attempted, since De Blainville’s, which was never completed, and 
none is believed to be even in contemplation ; but I have a long 
list of partial Faunas and Memoirs on the animals of various 
classes of several French departments; and Rey and Mulsant 
are publishing, in the Transactions of two Lyons Societies, de- 
tailed monographs of all French Coleoptera. 
The progress of French naturalists in Biology in general up to 
1867 has been fully detailed as to Zoology by Milne-Edwards, in 
his ‘‘ Rapport sur les Progrés de la Zoologie en France ;;” and as to 
Systematic Botany by Ad. Brongniart in his ‘‘ Rapport sur les Pro- 
grés de Ja Botanique Phytographique.” The recent progress as to 
both branches, as well as in regard to othernatural sciences, has also 
been reviewed by M. Emile Blanchard in his annual addresses to 
the meetings of the delegates of French scientific societies, held 
every April at the Sorbonne from 1865 to 1870. The Société 
Botanique de France had also up to that time been active, and 
the publication of its proceedings brought down nearly to the 
latest meetings. Iam compelled, however, for want of time, to 
defer some details I had contemplated relating to the recent labours 
of French biologists ; but I cannot refrain from inserting the follow- 
ing note on a work mentioned only, but not analysed, in the last 
volume of the ‘‘ Zoological Record,”’ obligingly communicated to 
me with othermemoranda by Prof. Deshayes, whilst slowly recoyer- 
ing from a severe illness contracted during the German siege :— 
**In Mollusca we havealso to regret that we have no complete 
work embracing the whole of this important branch of the animal 
kingdom. It is true that we make use of numerous works 
published in England, amongst which several are excellent, 
snch as those of Forbes and Hanley, Gwyn Jeffreys, &c. 
Nevertheless I have to point out to you an excellent work 
published in 1869 by M. Petit de la Saussaye. The author, a 
very able and scientific conchologist, is unfortunately just dead. 
He has had the advantage of preparing a general catalogue of Tes- 
taceous Mollusca of the European Seas, possessing in his own 
collection nearly the whole of the species inserted, and of having 
received direct from the authors named specimens of the species 
foreign to the French coasts. This work is divided into two 
parts. ‘The first is devoted to the methodical and synonymical 
catalogue of the species amounting to 1,150. Inthe second part, 
these species are distributed geographically into seven zones, 
starting from the most northern and ending with the hot regions 
of the Mediterranean. These zones are thus distinguished :—1, 
the Polar zone; 2, the Boreal zone; 3, the British zone ; 4, the 
Celtic zone ; 5, the Lusitanian zone ; 6, the Mediterranean zone ; 
and 7, the Algerian zone. Some years since it would have been 
impossible for M. Petit to have established the fifth zone, for 
that nothing, literally nothing, was known of the malacological 
fauna of Spain, Its seas were until 1867 less known than those 

of New Holland or California. It was only in that year that 
Hidalgo published a well drawn up synonymic catalogue in 
Crosse and Fischer’s ‘* Journal de Conchyliologie.” 
The British Isles have less even than France of an endemic cha- 
racter in respect of biology. They form, as it were, an outlying 
portion of regions already mentioned, the greater part, as in the 
case of France, belonging to the extreme end of the great Russo- 
European tract. Like France, also, they partake, although in 
a reduced degree, of that Western type which extends upwards 
from the Iberian Peninsula. They are, however, completely 
severed from the Mediterranean as from the Alpine regions ; 
their mountain vegetation, and, as far as I can learn, their moun- 
tain zoology, is Scandinavian ; and if it shows any connection 
with southern ranges, it is rather with the Pyrenees than with 
the Alps. The chief distinctive character of Britain is derived 
from her insular position, which acts as a check upon the 
passive immigration of races, and is one cause of the compara- 
tive poverty of her Fauna and Flora ; the isolation, on the other 
hand, may not be ancient enough or complete enough for the 
production and preservation of endemic forms. As far as we 
know, there is not in phzenogamic botany, nor in any of the 
orders of animals in which the question has been sufficiently 
considered, a single endemic British race of a grade high enough 
to be qualified as a species in the Linnzan sense. How 
far that may be the case with the lower cryptogams cannot 
at present be determined ; there is still much difficulty in 
establishing species upon natural affinities, and in some 
Lichens and Fungi, for instance, much confusion between 
phases of individual life and real genera and species re- 
mains to be cleared up. The study of our neighbours’ Faunas 
and Floras is therefore necessary to make us fully acquainted 
with the animals and plants we have, and useful in showing us 
what we have not, but should have had, were it not for causes 
which require investigation ; such, for instance, as plants like 
Salvia pratensis. a common European species to be met with in 
abundance the moment we cross the Channel, but either absent 
from or confined to single localities in England. 
There is no country, however, in which the native Flora and 
Fauna has been so long and so steadily the subject of close in- 
vestigation as our own, nor where it continues to be worked out 
in detail by so numerous a staff of observers. To the Floras we 
possess, a valuable addition has been made within the last twelve- 
month in J. D Hooker’s ‘‘ Student’s Flora of the British Isles ;” 
the best we have for the purposes of the teacher, and in which 
the careful notation of the general distribution of each 
species is a great improvement on our older standard class- 
books. H. C. Watson’s recently completed *‘ Compendium 
of the Cybele Britannica” treats of the geographical rela- 
tions of our plants with that accuracy of detail which 
characterises all his works. In Zoology, although we may 
not have compact synoptical Faunas corresponding with our 
Floras in all branches of the animal kingdom, the series of 
works on British Vertebrata published by Van Voorst are a 
better and more complete account of our indigenous races than 
any Continental State can boast of ; and I observe with much 
pleasure that in the new edition announced of the ‘‘ British 
Birds,” Mr. Newton proposes specially to follow out the determi- 
nation of their geographical range, upon which Mr. Yarrell had 
bestowed so much pains. Withregard to our Mollusca, we have 
been very fortunate. Forbes and Hanley’s costly work, pub- 
lished by the Ray Society, has been followed by Gwyn Jeffreys’s 
‘* British Conchology,” the great merits of which as a 
Malacological Fauna of Britain have been fully acknowledged 
abroad as well as at home. The present geographical as well 
as the fossil range of the species is specially attended to, and 
the only thing missed is perhaps a general synoptical view of the 
characters of the classes, families, and genera into which 
the species are distributed. The Ray Society series com- 
prises also several most valuable works on the lower orders 
of British animals; but the entomological fauna of our 
country, especially in relation to the insects of the adjoining 
Continent, notwithstanding the numerous able naturalists 
who devote themselves to its study, appears to be somewhat 
in arrear. In answer to my query as to works where our 
Insects are compared with those of other countries, I received 
from our Secretary, Mr. Stainton, the following reply :—‘‘ The 
questions you have put to me with reference to our entomological 
literature are very important ; they, however, painfully call my 
attention to the necessarily unsatisfactory nature of my replies. 
Wollaston’s ‘Coleoptera Hesperidum’* is the only separate 
* Referred to in my Address of 1869. 
