THEORIES ON GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS. 11 



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 subiUvides 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 land 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. 



(15.) To these views it has already been objected, 

 by a celebrated entomologist, that " any division of the 

 globe into cUmates, 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. 485. 



