FIELD AND FORES I 



73 



primary classification of fishes (vol. i. p. 102"), or the ideas of Pfeiffer 

 and von Martens on the Pulmonates (vol. i. p. 104}. Mr. Wallace 

 has evidently been influenced rather by the number of species than by 

 morphological considerations in the application and assessment of 

 classifications, and, it may also be added, by physiological rather than 

 structural differences. The consequences of these sins are entailed 

 upon every branch of his subject, and it must always be remembered 

 that each class, and sometimes each order, has been considered from 

 a different point of view in a systematic sense. 



As already indicated, Mr. Wallace has, for the most part, followed 

 Mr. Sckiter in the adoption of the number and names of the primary 

 " regions " of the globe, but has subdivided those regions for himself, 

 each into four sub-regions, thus (vol. i pp. 81-82) : 



I. Palsearctie, with the sub-regions (1) North Europe, (2) Mediter- 

 ranean or South Europe, (3) Siberia, and (4) Manchuria or Japan. 



II. Ethiopian, with the sub-regions (1) East Africa, (2) West Af- 

 rica, (4) South Africa, and (4) Madagascar. 



III. Oriental, with the sub-regions (1) Plindostan or Central In- 

 dia, (2) Ceylon, (3) Indo-China or Himalayas, and (4) Indo-Malaya. 



IV. Australian, with the sub-regions ( 1) Austro-Malaya, (2) Austra- 

 lia, (3) Polynesia, and (4) New Zealand. 



V. Neotropical, with the sub-regions (i) Chili or S. Temp. Am., 

 (2) Brazil, (3) Mexico or Trop. North A., and (4) Antilles. 



VI. Nearctic, with the sub-regions (r) California, (2) Rocky Moun- 

 tains, (3) Alleghanies or East United States, and (4) Canada. 



Mr. Wallace's idea is that the primary regions of the globe should 

 be few; that they should be as nearly as possible co-equal "with the 

 great natural regions of the globe marked out by nature " ; and that 

 the regions should "represent as nearly as possible the main features 

 of the distribution of existing animals, and not those of any or all past 

 geological epochs." He carries out his idea so far as to give us a 

 most Procrustean series of sub-regions. Here it can only be premised 

 that many of these divisions, at leasr, will require to be re-examined 

 and otherwise limited and contrasted. 



There are several illusions which many naturalists seem to labor 

 under and which are too often assumed or taken for granted ; such as 



