REVIEWS. 645 
“stretch of dry land” between Old Calabar, Africa and Brazil, and 
again another “‘ continental route of communication” between Pata- 
gonia and the Cape of Good Hope “and which, last of all and 
probably not without relation to the preceding, united Brazil and 
Madagascar.” Now it seems to us this is in direct violation of 
one of the best founded and grandest laws in physical geography, 
as brought out by Professor Dana. He has shown that the pres- 
ent continents of the globe, were each built up around a Lauren- 
tian nucleus, and have gradually extended to their present dimen- 
sions, being originally islands or archipelagoes, and that the present 
ocean beds have never been dry land ; the borders of the continents 
within the line of a hundred fathoms more or less, often involving 
thousands of square miles, oscillating above or below the ocean 
level, but with no intercontinental bridges. It seems to us that 
this law goes hand in hand with the climatic laws regulating the 
distribution of the faune of the earth, and that the writer of the 
essay before us has, in a measure, violated both at the outset. 
Space does not permit us to notice the many new and extremely 
interesting points brought out by Mr. Murray in reference to the 
smaller faunæ, except to briefly give his remarks on our own 
fauna. We think that what we quote will show that while a 
great mass of facts are given, the author’s broadest generalizations 
will not meet with general acceptance. Thus he labors to show 
that the fauna of Australia is much like that of Europe and North 
America, both being “ microtypal,” namely, having small species. 
from an Australian, as both are not gigantic in stature, and hence 
both belong to the same primary fauna. He remarks, ‘* North 
America has no special fauna or flora of its own. That which it 
has is a mixture of the microtypal and Brazilian stirps intermin- 
gled with fresh importations of different dates, and modified by the 
advance and retreat of the glacial epoch; but, on the whole, the 
preponderating element in its fauna is the microtypal.” The simi- 
larity of the Californian fauna to that of Asia is accounted for by 
a ‘former communication having existed between Asia and Cal- 
ifornia.” 
As to the European fauna and flora being the type of the “ mi- 
crotypal” fauna, we wonder what would have been considered the 
standard, if modern science had developed first in Japan or Aus- 
tralia, rather than Europe? Is the flora of North Temperate Amer- 
. 
