Reviews—Dr. R. F. Scharff’s. European Animads. 367 
We just spoke of one grievance, and here we have already pointed 
out three to begin with. The fact is, there exists a connection 
between these different matters; they can therefore be all summed up 
under one head. ‘he present distribution, of course, depends more ov 
less on migration (it is the divergence of opinion about the more or 
less which makes all the difference) ; and when the author assumes the 
possibility of a species (of Mammals) dating from the Tertiary, Pliocene, 
or Miocene, his conclusion is softulemiaed by considerations taken from 
its present distr ibution. 
What is ‘ geological history’ of European animals? Just as the 
history of a nation is the account of the origin and evolution of that 
nation, so the history of European animals is, or ought to be, the 
account of the origin and evolution of European animals. By adding 
“ geological’ to ‘ history ’ emphasis is laid on their origin and their 
past history generally. We are therefore led to assume that the 
author realises that biogeography cannot dispense with the teachings 
of paleontology. As a matter of fact, however, he has just told us 
that he can do without it. Pleistocene forms of life are frequently 
mentioned throughout the book, but Tertiary forms to a much lesser 
extent; since, however, the author frequently refrains from drawing 
any inferences from them they are generally little more than 
ornamental additions. 
That our present fauna and flora are rooted in the past had already 
been acknowledged by Edward Forbes, who was far in advance of his 
time. Compare, for instance, his work, published in 1846, with 
Grisebach’s ‘‘ Vegetation der Erde”’ of 1872. Forbes, however, was 
a pre-Darwinian, and of necessity made use of pre-Darwinian language. 
When he recognises a Miocene element in the flora and fauna of the 
British Islands, his interpretation of the phenomenon is that Miocene 
plants and animals have been preserved to the present day without 
changing their specific identity. Migrations have to explain their 
survival with us, and to help gener ally over all other difficulties. 
Dr. Scharff has taken Forbes for his model, but he apparently has 
not always kept in mind that modern biogeography, like modern 
systematic zoology and botany, cannot discard phylogenetic views. 
Tf you are opposed to these, it is best to say so, and to give the reason 
why; but you cannot ignore them. 
On comparing the title of Dr. Scharff’s book of eight years ago! 
with the title of the present one we should naturally expect to find in 
the latter more about the geological history of European animals than 
in the former; on comparing the contents, however, we discover that 
the opposite is the case. We ask ourselves if all this is done 
intentionally, if our author by chance wishes us to revert to 
Edward Forbes, i.e. to bring our present biogeographical work in 
consonance with the views of him who “has laid the foundations of 
a new method of research.” 
It is quite true that fossil evidence is often fragmentary ; still, in the 
two groups from which the author draws the majority of his examples, 
snails and mammals, much work has been done in this direction. 
1 «<The History of the European Fauna,’’ London, 1899. 
