210 Darwin, and after Darwin. 
species which present a markedly discontinuous range 
may have had a corresponding number of different 
centres of creation, the same specific type having 
been turned down, so to speak, on widely separated 
areas. But to me it seems that this explanation pre- 
sents even greater difficulty than the other. If it is 
difficult to say why the Divinity should have chosen 
to create new species of plants on the Alps on so 
preciscly the same pattern as the old, much more 
would it be difficult to say why, in addition to these 
new species, he should also have created again the 
old species which he had already placed in the Arctic 
regions. 
So much, then, for discontinuity of distribution. 
The next general fact to be adduced is, that there 
is no constant correlation between habitats and ani- 
mals or plants suited to live upon them. Of course 
all the animals and plants living upon any given area 
are well suited to live upon that area; for otherwise 
they could not be there. But the point now is, that 
besides the area on which they do live, there are 
usually many other areas in different parts of the 
globe where they might have lived equally well—as 
is proved by the fact that when transported by man 
they thrive as well, or even better, than in their 
native country. Therefore, upon the supposition that 
all species were separately created in the countries 
where they are respectively found, we must conclude 
that they were created in only some of the places 
where they might equally well have lived. Probably 
there is at most but a small percentage either of 
plants or animals which would not thrive in some 
