The great features of the mammals of the Oriental region are, the long-armed apes, the orang-utans, the tiger, the sun-bears and honey-bears, the tapir, the chevrotains or mouse-deer, and the Indian elephant. Its most conspicuous birds are the immense number and variety of babbling-thrushes (Timaliidæ), its beautiful little hill-tits (Liotrichidæ), its green bulbuls (Phyllornithidæ), its many varieties of the crow-family, its beautiful gapers and pittas adorned with the most delicate colours, its great variety of hornbills, and its magnificent Phasianidæ, comprising the peacocks, argus-pheasants, fire-backed pheasants, and jungle-fowl. Many of these are, it is true, absent from the peninsula of Hindostan, but sufficient remain there to ally it with the other parts of the region.
Among the remarkable but less conspicuous forms of mammalia which are peculiar to this region are, monkeys of the genus Presbyter, extending to every part of it; lemurs of three peculiar genera—Nycticebus and Loris (slow lemurs) and Tarsius (spectre lemurs); the flying lemur (Galeopithecus), now classed as a peculiar family of Insectivora and found only in the Malay Islands; the family of the Tupaias, or squirrel-shrews, curious little arboreal Insectivora somewhat resembling squirrels; no less than twelve peculiar genera of the civet family, three peculiar antelopes, five species of rhinoceros, and the round-tailed flying squirrels forming the genus Pteromys.
Of the peculiar groups of birds we can only mention a few. The curious little tailor-birds of the genus Orthotomus are found over the whole region and almost alone serve to characterise it, as do the fine laughing-thrushes, forming the genus Garrulax; while the beautiful grass-green fruit-thrushes (Phyllornis), and the brilliant little minivets (Pericrocotus), are almost equally universal. Woodpeckers are abundant, belonging to a dozen peculiar genera; while gaudy barbets and strange forms of cuckoos and hornbills are also to be met with everywhere. Among game birds, the only genus that is universally distributed, and which may be said to characterise the region, is Gallus, comprising the true jungle-fowl, one of which, Gallus bankiva, is found from the Himalayas and Central India to Malacca, Java, and even eastward to Timor, and is the undoubted origin of almost all our domestic poultry. Southern India and Ceylon each possesses distinct species of jungle-fowl, and a third very handsome green bird (Gallus æneus inhabits Java.)
Reptiles are as abundant as in Africa, but they present no well-known groups which can be considered as specially characteristic. Among insects we may notice the magnificent golden and green Papilionidæ of various genera as being unequalled in the world; while the great Atlas moth is probably the most gigantic of Lepidoptera, being sometimes ten inches across the wings, which are also very broad. Among the beetles the strange flat-bodied Malayan mormolyce is the largest of all the Carabidæ, while the catoxantha is equally a giant among the Buprestidæ. On the whole, the insects of this region probably surpass those of any other part of the world, except South America, in size, variety, and beauty.
Definition and Characteristic Groups of the Australian Region.—The Australian region is so well marked off from the Oriental, as well as from all other parts of the world, by zoological peculiarities, that we need not take up much time in describing it, especially as some of its component islands will come under review at a subsequent stage of our work. Its most important portions are Australia and New Guinea, but it also includes all the Malayan and Pacific Islands to the east of Borneo, Java, and Bali, the Oriental region terminating with the submarine bank on which those islands are situated. The island of Celebes is included in this region from a balance of considerations, but it almost equally well belongs to the Oriental, and must be left out of the account in our general sketch of the zoological features of the Australian region.
The great feature of the Australian region is the almost total absence of all the forms of terrestrial mammalia which abound in the rest of the world, their place being supplied by a great variety of Marsupials. In Australia and New Guinea there are no Insectivora, Carnivora, nor Ungulata, while even the rodents are only represented by a few small rats and mice. In the remoter Pacific Islands mammals are altogether absent (except perhaps in New Zealand), but in the Moluccas and other islands bordering on the Oriental region the higher mammals are represented by a few deer, civets, and pigs, though it is doubtful whether the two former may not have been introduced by man, as was almost certainly the case with the semi-domesticated dingo of Australia.[8] These peculiarities in the mammalia are so great that every naturalist agrees that Australia must be made a separate region, the only difference of opinion being as to its extent, some thinking that New Zealand should form another separate region; but this question need not now delay us.
In birds Australia is by no means so isolated from the rest of the world, as it contains great numbers of warblers, thrushes, flycatchers, shrikes, crows, and other familiar types of the Eastern Hemisphere; yet a considerable number of the most characteristic Oriental families are absent. Thus there are no vultures, woodpeckers, pheasants, bulbuls, or barbets in the Australian region; and the absence of these is almost as marked a feature as that of cats, deer, or monkeys, among mammalia. The most conspicuous and characteristic birds of the Australian region are, the piping crows; the honey-suckers (Meliphagidæ), a family quite peculiar to the region; the lyre-birds; the great terrestrial kingfishers (Dacelo); the great goat-suckers called more-porks in Australia and forming the genus Podargus; the wonderful abundance of parrots, including such remarkable forms as the white and black cockatoos, and the gorgeously coloured brush-tongued lories; the almost equal abundance of fine pigeons more gaily coloured than any others on the globe; the strange brush-turkeys and mound-builders, the only birds that never sit upon their eggs, but allow them to be hatched, reptile-like, by the heat of the sand or of fermenting vegetable matter; and lastly, the emus and cassowaries, in which the wings are far more rudimentary than in the ostriches of Africa and South America. New Guinea and the surrounding islands are remarkable for their tree-kangaroos, their birds-of-paradise, their raquet-tailed kingfishers, their great crown-pigeons, their crimson lories, and many other remarkable birds. This brief outline being sufficient to show the distinctness and isolation of the Australian region, we will now pass to the consideration of the Western Hemisphere.
Definition and Characteristic Groups of the Nearctic Region.—The Nearctic region comprises all temperate and arctic North America, including Greenland, the only doubt being as to its southern boundary, many northern types penetrating into the tropical zone by means of the highlands and volcanic peaks of Mexico and Guatemala, while a few which are characteristic of the tropics extend northward into Texas and California. There is, however, considerable evidence showing that on the east coast the Rio Grande del Norte, and on the west a point nearly opposite Cape St. Lucas, form the most natural boundary; but instead of being drawn straight across, the line bends to the south-east as soon as it rises on the flanks of the table-land, forming a deep loop which extends some distance beyond the city of Mexico, and perhaps ought to be continued along the higher ridges of Guatemala.
The Nearctic region is so similar to the Palæarctic in position and climate, and the two so closely approach each other at Behring Straits, that we cannot wonder at there being a certain amount of similarity between them—a similarity which some naturalists have so far over-estimated as to think that the two regions ought to be united. Let us therefore carefully examine the special zoological features of this region, and see how far it resembles, and how far differs from, the Palæarctic.
At first sight the mammalia of North America do not seem to differ much from those of Europe or Northern Asia. There are cats, lynxes, wolves and foxes, weasels, bears, elk and deer, voles, beavers, squirrels, marmots, and hares, all very similar to those of the Eastern Hemisphere, and several hardly distinguishable. Even the bison or "buffalo" of the prairies, once so abundant and characteristic, is a close ally of the now almost extinct "aurochs" of Lithuania. Here, then, we undoubtedly find a very close resemblance between the two regions, and if this were all, we should have great difficulty in separating them. But along with these, we find another set of mammals, not quite so conspicuous but nevertheless very important. We have first, three peculiar genera of moles, one of which, the star-nosed mole, is a most extraordinary creature, quite unlike anything else. Then there are three genera of the weasel family, including the well-known skunk (Mephitis), all quite different from Eastern forms. Then we come to a peculiar family of carnivora, the racoons, very distinct from anything in Europe or Asia; and in the Rocky Mountains we find the prong-horn antelope (Antilocapra) and the mountain goat of the trappers (Aplocerus), both peculiar genera. Coming to the rodents we find that the mice of America differ in some dental peculiarities from those of the rest of the world, and thus form several distinct genera; the jumping mouse (Xapus) is a peculiar form of the jerboa family, and then we come to the pouched rats (Geomyidæ), a very curious family consisting of four genera and nineteen species, peculiar to North America, though not confined to the Nearctic region. The prairie dogs (Cynomys), the tree porcupine (Erethizon), the curious sewellel (Haploodon), and the opossum (Didelphys) complete the list of peculiar mammalia which distinguish the northern region of the new world from that of the old. We must add to these peculiarities some remarkable deficiencies. The Nearctic region has no hedgehogs, nor wild pigs, nor dormice, and only one wild sheep in the Rocky Mountains as against twenty species of sheep and goats in the Palæarctic region.
In birds also the similarities to our own familiar songsters first strike us, though the differences are perhaps really greater than in the quadrupeds. We see thrushes and wrens, tits and finches, and what seem to be warblers and flycatchers and starlings in abundance; but a closer examination shows the ornithologist that what he took for the latter are really quite distinct, and that there is not a single true flycatcher of the family Muscicapidæ, or a single starling of the family Sturnidæ in the whole continent, while there are very few true warblers (Sylviidæ), their place being taken by the quite distinct families Mniotiltidæ or wood-warblers, and Vireonidæ or greenlets. In like manner the flycatchers of America belong to the totally distinct family of tyrant-birds, Tyrannidæ, and those that look like starlings to the hang-nests, Icteridæ; and these four peculiar families comprise about a hundred and twenty species, and give a special character to the ornithology of the country. Add to these such peculiar birds as the mocking thrushes (Mimus), the blue jays (Cyanocitta), the tanagers, the peculiar genera of cuckoos (Coccygus and Crotophaga), the humming-birds, the wild turkeys (Meleagris), and the turkey-buzzards (Cathartes), and we see that if there is any doubt as to the mammals of North America being sufficiently distinct to justify the creation of a separate region, the evidence of the birds would alone settle the question.
The reptiles, and some others of the lower animals, add still more to this weight of evidence. The true rattlesnakes are highly characteristic, and among the lizards are several genera of the peculiar American family, the Iguanidæ. Nowhere in the world are the tailed batrachians so largely developed as in this region, the Sirens and the Amphiumidæ forming two peculiar families, while there are nine peculiar genera of salamanders, and two others allied respectively to the Proteus of Europe and the Sieboldia or giant salamander of Japan. There are seven peculiar families and about thirty peculiar genera of fresh-water fishes; while the fresh-water molluscs are more numerous than in any other region, more than thirteen hundred species and varieties having been described.
Combining the evidence derived from all these classes of animals, we find the Nearctic region to be exceedingly well characterised, and to be amply distinct from the Palæarctic. The few species that are common to the two are almost all arctic, or, at least, northern types, and may be compared with those desert forms which occupy the debatable ground between the Palæarctic, Ethiopian, and Oriental regions. If, however, we compare the number of species, which are common to the Nearctic and Palæarctic regions with the number common to the western and eastern extremities of the latter region, we shall find a wonderful difference between the two cases; and if we further call to mind the number of important groups characteristic of the one region but absent from the other, we shall be obliged to admit that the relation that undoubtedly exists between the faunas of North America and Europe is of a very distinct nature from that which connects together Western Europe and North-eastern Asia in the bonds of zoological unity.
Definition and Characteristic Groups of the Neotropical Region.—The Neotropical region requires very little definition, since it comprises the whole of America south of the Nearctic region, with the addition of the Antilles or West Indian Islands. Its zoological peculiarities are almost as marked as those of Australia, which, however, it far exceeds in the extreme richness and variety of all its forms of life. To show how distinct it is from all the other regions of the globe, we need only enumerate some of the best known and more conspicuous of the animal forms which are peculiar to it. Such are, among mammalia—the prehensile-tailed monkeys and the marmosets, the blood-sucking bats, the coati-mundis, the peccaries, the llamas and alpacas, the chinchillas, the agoutis, the sloths, the armadillos, and the ant-eaters; a series of types more varied, and more distinct from those of the rest of the world than any other continent can boast of. Among birds we have the charming sugar-birds, forming the family Cœrebidæ; the immense and wonderfully varied group of tanagers; the exquisite little manakins, and the gorgeously-coloured chatterers; the host of tree-creepers of the family Dendrocolaptidæ; the wonderful toucans; the puff-birds, jacamars, todies and motmots; the marvellous assemblage of four hundred distinct kinds of humming-birds; the gorgeous macaws; the curassows, the trumpeters, and the sun-bitterns. Here again there is no other continent or region that can produce such an assemblage of remarkable and perfectly distinct groups of birds; and no less wonderful is its richness in species, since these fully equal, if they do not surpass, those of the two great tropical regions of the Eastern Hemisphere (the Ethiopian and the Oriental) combined.
As an additional indication of the distinctness and isolation of the Neotropical region from all others, and especially from the whole Eastern Hemisphere, we must say something of the otherwise widely distributed groups which are absent. Among mammalia we have first the order Insectivora, entirely absent from South America, though a few species are found in Central America and the West Indies; the Viverridæ or civet family is wholly wanting, as are every form of sheep, oxen, or antelopes; while the swine, the elephants, and the rhinoceroses of the old world are represented by the diminutive peccaries and tapirs.
Among birds we have to notice the absence of tits, true flycatchers, shrikes, sunbirds, starlings, larks (except a solitary species in the Andes), rollers, bee-eaters, and pheasants, while warblers are very scarce, and the almost cosmopolitan wagtails are represented by a single species of pipit.
We must also notice the preponderance of low or archaic types among the animals of South America. Edentates, marsupials, and rodents form the majority of the terrestrial mammalia; while such higher groups as the carnivora and hoofed animals are exceedingly deficient. Among birds a low type of Passeres, characterised by the absence of the singing muscles, is excessively prevalent, the enormous groups of the ant-thrushes, tyrants, tree-creepers, manakins, and chatterers belonging to it. The Picariæ (a lower group) also prevail to a far greater extent than in any other regions, both in variety of forms and number of species; and the chief representatives of the gallinaceous birds—the curassows and tinamous, are believed to be allied, the former to the brush-turkeys of Australia, the latter (very remotely) to the ostriches, two of the least developed types of birds.
Whether, therefore, we consider its richness in peculiar forms of animal life, its enormous variety of species, its numerous deficiencies as compared with other parts of the world, or the prevalence of a low type of organisation among its higher animals, the Neotropical region stands out as undoubtedly the most remarkable of the great zoological divisions of the earth.
In reptiles, amphibia, fresh-water fishes, and insects, this region is equally peculiar, but we need not refer to these here, our only object now being to establish by a sufficient number of well-known and easily remembered examples, the distinctness of each region from all others, and its unity as a whole. The former has now been sufficiently demonstrated, but it may be well to say a few words as to the latter point.
The only outlying portions of the region about which there can be any doubt are—Central America, or that part of the region north of the Isthmus of Panama, the Antilles or West Indian Islands, and the temperate portion of South America including Chili and Patagonia.
In Central America, and especially in Mexico, we have an intermixture of South American and North American animals, but the former undoubtedly predominate, and a large proportion of the peculiar Neotropical groups extend as far as Costa Rica. Even in Guatemala and Mexico we have howling and spider-monkeys, coati-mundis, tapirs, and armadillos; while chatterers, manakins, ant-thrushes, and other peculiarly Neotropical groups of birds are abundant. There is therefore no doubt as to Mexico forming part of this region, although it is comparatively poor, and exhibits the intermingling of temperate and tropical forms.
The West Indies are less clearly Neotropical, their poverty in mammals as well as in most other groups being extreme, while great numbers of North American birds migrate there in winter. The resident birds, however, comprise trogons, sugar-birds, chatterers, with many humming-birds and parrots, representing eighteen peculiar Neotropical genera; a fact which decides the region to which the islands belong.
South temperate America is also very poor as compared with the tropical parts of the region, and its insects contain a considerable proportion of north temperate forms. But it contains armadillos, cavies and opossums; and its birds all belong to American groups, though, owing to the inferior climate and deficiency of forests, a number of the families of birds peculiar to tropical America are wanting. Thus there are no manakins, chatterers, toucans, trogons, or motmots; but there are abundance of hang-nests, tyrant-birds, ant-thrushes, tree-creepers, and a fair proportion of humming-birds, tanagers and parrots. The zoology is therefore thoroughly Neotropical, although somewhat poor; and it has a number of peculiar forms of strictly Neotropical types—as the chinchillas, alpacas, &c., which are not found in the tropical regions except in the high Andes.
Comparison of Zoological Regions with the Geographical Divisions of the Globe.—Having now completed our survey of the great zoological regions of the globe, we find that they do not differ so much from the old geographical divisions as our first example might have led us to suppose. Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North America, and South America, really correspond, each to a zoological region, but their boundaries require to be modified more or less considerably; and if we remember this, and keep their extensions or limitations always in our mind, we may use the terms "South American" or "North American," as being equivalent to Neotropical and Nearctic, without much inconvenience, while "African" and "Australian" equally well serve to express the zoological type of the Ethiopian and Australian regions. Europe and Asia require more important modifications. The European fauna does indeed well represent the Palæarctic in all its main features, and if instead of Asia we say tropical Asia we have the Oriental region very fairly defined; so that the relation of the geographical with the zoological primary divisions of the earth is sufficiently clear. In order to make these relations visible to the eye and more easily remembered, we will put them into a tabular form:
| Regions. | Geographical Equivalent. |
| Palæarctic | Europe, with north temperate Africa and Asia. |
| Ethiopian | Africa (south of the Sahara) with Madagascar. |
| Oriental | Tropical Asia, to Philippines and Java. |
| Australian | Australia, with Pacific Islands, Moluccas, &c. |
| Nearctic | North America, to North Mexico. |
| Neotropical | South America, with tropical N. America and W. Indies. |
The following arrangement of the regions will indicate their geographical position, and to a considerable extent their relation to each other.
| | Oriental | Ethiopian |
Neo- |
Tropical Australian
CHAPTER IV
EVOLUTION THE KEY TO DISTRIBUTION
Importance of the Doctrine of Evolution—The Origin of New Species—Variation in Animals—The Amount of Variation in North American Birds—How New Species arise from a Variable Species—Definition and Origin of Genera—Cause of the Extinction of Species—The Rise and Decay of Species and Genera—Discontinuous Specific Areas, why Rare—Discontinuity of the Area of Parus Palustris—Discontinuity of Emberiza Schœniclus—The European and Japanese Jays—Supposed Examples of Discontinuity among North American Birds—Distribution and Antiquity of Families—Discontinuity a proof of Antiquity—Concluding Remarks.
In the preceding chapters we have explained the general nature of the phenomena presented by the distribution of animals, and have illustrated and defined the new geographical division of the earth which is found best to agree with them. Before we go further into the details of our subject, and especially before we attempt to trace the causes which have brought about the existing biological relations of the islands of the globe, it is absolutely necessary to have a clear comprehension of the collateral facts and general principles to which we shall most frequently have occasion to refer. These may be briefly defined as, the powers of dispersal of animals and plants under different conditions, such as geological and climatal changes, and the origin and development of species and groups by natural selection. This last is of the most fundamental importance, and its bearing on the dispersal of animals has been much neglected. We therefore devote the present chapter to its consideration.
As we have already shown in our first chapter that the distribution of species, of genera, and of families, present almost exactly the same general phenomena in varying degrees of complexity, and that almost all the interesting problems we have to deal with depend upon the mode of dispersal of one or other of these; and as, further, our knowledge of most of these groups, in the higher animals at least, is confined to the tertiary period of geology, it is therefore unnecessary for us to enter into any questions involving the origin of more comprehensive groups, such as classes or orders. This enables us to avoid most of the disputed questions as to the development of animals, and to confine ourselves to those general principles regulating the origin and development of species and genera which were first laid down by Mr. Darwin thirty years ago, and have now come to be adopted by naturalists as established propositions in the theory of evolution.
The Origin of New Species.—How, then, do new species arise, supposing the world to have been, physically, much as we now see it; and what becomes of them after they have arisen? In the first place we must remember that new species can only be formed when and where there is room for them. If a continent is fully stocked with animals, each species being so well adapted for its mode of life that it can overcome all the dangers to which it is exposed, and maintain on the average a tolerably uniform population, then, so long as no change takes place, no new species will arise. For every place or station is supposed to be filled by creatures in all respects adapted to surrounding conditions, able to defend themselves from all enemies, and to obtain food notwithstanding the rivalry of many competitors. But such a perfect balance of organisms nowhere exists upon the earth, and probably never has existed. The well-known fact that some species are very common, while others are very rare, is an almost certain proof that the one is better adapted to its position than the other; and this belief is strengthened when we find the individuals of one species ranging into different climates, subsisting on different food, and competing with different sets of animals, while the individuals of another species will be limited to a small area beyond which they seem unable to extend. When a change occurs, either of climate or geography, some of the small and ill-adapted species will probably die out altogether, and thus leave room for others to increase, or for new forms to occupy their places.
But the change will most likely affect even flourishing species in different ways, some beneficially, others injuriously. Or, again, it may affect a great many injuriously, to such an extent as to require some change in their structure or habits to enable them to get on as well as before. Now "variation" and the "struggle for existence" come into play. All the weaker and less perfectly organised individuals die out, while those which vary in such a way as to bring them into more harmony with the new conditions constantly survive. If the change of conditions has been considerable, then, after a few centuries, or perhaps even a few generations, one or more new species will be almost sure to be formed.
Variation in Animals.—To make this more intelligible to those who have not considered the subject, and to obviate the difficulty many feel about "favourable variations occurring at the right time," it will be well to discuss this matter a little more fully. Few persons consider how largely and universally all animals are varying. We know, however, that in every generation, if we could examine all the individuals of any common species, we should find considerable differences, not only in size and colour, but in the form and proportions of all the parts and organs of the body. In our domesticated animals we know this to be the case, and it is by means of the continual selection of such slight varieties to breed from that all our extremely different domestic breeds have been produced. Think of the difference in every limb, and every bone and muscle, and probably in every part, internal and external of the whole body, between a greyhound and a bull-dog! Yet, if we had the complete series of ancestors of these two breeds before us, we should probably find that in no one generation was there a greater difference than now occurs in the same breed, or sometimes even the same litter. It is often thought, however, that wild species do not vary sufficiently to bring about any such change as this in the same time; and though naturalists are well aware that this is a mistake, it is only recently that they have been able to adduce positive proof of their opinion.
The Amount of Variation in North American Birds.—An American naturalist, Mr. J. A. Allen, has made elaborate observations and measurements of the birds of the United States, and he finds a wonderful and altogether unsuspected amount of variation between individuals of the same species. They differ in the general tint, and in the markings and distribution of the colours; in size and proportions; in the length of the wings, tail, bill, and feet; in the length of particular feathers, altering the shape of the wing or tail; in the length of the tarsi and of the separate toes, and in the length, width, thickness, and curvature of the bill. These variations are very considerable, often reaching to one-sixth or one-seventh of the average dimensions, and sometimes more. Thus Turdus fuscescens (Wilson's thrush) varied in length of wing from 3.58 to 4.16 inches, and in the tail from 3.55 to 4.00 inches; and in twelve specimens, all taken in the same locality, the wing varied in length from 14.5 to 21 per cent., and the tail from 14 to 22.5 per cent. In Sialia sialis (the blue bird) the middle toe varied from .77 to .91 inch, and the hind toe from .58 to .72 inch, or more than 21.5 per cent. on the mean, while the bill varied from .45 to .56 inch in length, and from .30 to .38 inch in width, or about 20 per cent. in both cases. In Dendrœca coronata (the yellow-crowned warbler) the quills vary in proportionate length, so that the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, or the 4th, is sometimes longest; and a similar variation of the wing involving a change of proportion between two or more of the feathers is recorded in eleven species of birds. Colour and marking vary to an equal extent; the dark streaks on the under surface of Melospiza melodia (the American song-sparrow) being sometimes reduced to narrow lines. while in other specimens they are so enlarged as to cover the greater part of the breast and sides of the body, sometimes uniting on the middle of the breast into a nearly continuous patch. In one of the small spotted wood-thrushes, Turdus fuscescens, the colours are sometimes very pale, and the markings on the breast reduced to indistinct narrow lines, while in other specimens the general colour is much darker, and the breast markings dark, broad, and triangular. All the variations here mentioned occur between adult males, so that there is no question of differences of age or sex, and the pair last referred to were taken at the same place and on the same day.[9]
These interesting facts entirely support the belief in the variability of all animals in all their parts and organs, to an extent amply sufficient for natural selection to work with. We may, indeed, admit that these are extreme cases, and that the majority of species do not vary half or a quarter so much as shown in the examples quoted, and we shall still have ample variation for all purposes of specific modification. Instead of an extreme variation in the dimensions and proportions of the various organs of from 10 to 25 per cent. as is here proved to occur, we may assume from 3 to 6 per cent. as generally occurring in the majority of species; and if we further remember that the above excessive variations were found by comparing a number of specimens of each species, varying from 50 to 150 only, we may be sure that the smaller variations we require must occur in considerable numbers among the thousands or millions of individuals of which all but the very rare species consist. If, therefore, we were to divide the population of any species into three groups of equal extent, with regard to any particular character—as length of wing, or of toes, or thickness or curvature of bill, or strength of markings—we should have one group in which the mean or average character prevailed with little variation, one in which the character was greatly, and one in which it was little, developed. If we formed our groups, not by equal numbers, but by equal amount of variation, we should probably find, in accordance with the law of averages, that the central group in which the mean characteristics prevailed was much more numerous than the extremes, perhaps twice, or even three times, as great as either of them, and forming such a series as the following—10 maximum, 30 mean, 10 minimum development. In ordinary cases we have no reason to believe that the mean characters or the amount of variation of a species changes materially from year to year or from century to century, and we may therefore look upon the central group as the type of the species which is best adapted to the conditions in which it has actually to exist. This type will therefore always form the majority, because the struggle for existence will lead to the continual suppression of the less perfectly adapted extremes. But sometimes a species has a wide range into countries which differ in physical conditions, and then it often happens that one or other of the extremes will predominate in a portion of its range. These form local varieties, but as they occur mixed with the other forms, they are not considered to be distinct species, although they may differ from the other extreme form quite as much as species often do from each other.[10]
How New Species arise from a Variable Species.—It is now very easy to understand how, from such a variable species, one or more new species may arise. The peculiar physical or organic conditions that render one part of the area better adapted to an extreme form may become intensified, and the most extreme variations thus having the advantage, they will multiply at the expense of the rest. If the change of conditions spreads over the whole area occupied by the species, this one extreme form will replace the others; while if the area should be cut in two by subsidence or elevation, the conditions of the two parts may be modified in opposite directions, so as to be each adapted to one extreme form; in which case the original type will become extinct, being replaced by two species, each formed by a combination of certain extreme characters which had before existed in some of its varieties.
The changes of conditions which lead to such selection of varieties are very diverse in nature, and new species may thus be formed, diverging in many ways from the original stock. The climate may change from moist to dry, or the reverse, or the temperature may increase or diminish for long periods, in either case requiring a corresponding change of constitution, of covering, of vegetable or of insect food, to be met by the selection of variations of colour or of swiftness, of length of bill or of strength of claws. Again, competitors or enemies may arrive from other regions, giving the advantage to such varieties as can change their food, or by swifter flight or greater wariness can escape their new foes. We may thus easily understand how a series of changes may occur at distant intervals, each leading to the selection and preservation of a special set of variations, and thus what was a single species may become transformed into a group of allied species differing from each other in a variety of ways, just as we find them in nature.
Among these species, however, there will be some which will have become adapted to very local or special conditions, and will therefore be comparatively few in number and confined to a limited area; while others, retaining the more general characters of the parent form, but with some important change of structure, will be better adapted to succeed in the struggle for existence with other animals, will spread over a wider area, and increase so as to become common species. Sometimes these will acquire such a perfection of organisation by successive favourable modifications that they will be able to spread greatly beyond the range of the parent form. They then become what are termed dominant species, maintaining themselves in vigour and abundance over very wide areas, displacing other species with which they come into competition, and, under still further changes of conditions, becoming the parents of a new set of diverging species.
Definition and Origin of Genera.—As some of the most important and interesting phenomena of distribution relate to genera rather than to single species, it will be well here to explain what is meant by a genus, and how genera are supposed to arise.
A genus is a group of allied species which differs from all other groups in some well marked characters, usually of a structural rather than a superficial nature. Species of one genus usually differ from each other in size, in colour or marking, in the proportions of the limbs or other organs, and in the form and size of such superficial appendages as horns, crests, manes, &c.; but they generally agree in the form and structure of important organs, as the teeth, the bill, the feet, and the wings. When two groups of species differ from each other constantly in one or more of these latter particulars they are said to belong to different genera. We have already seen that species vary in these more important as well as in the more superficial characters. If, then, in any part of the area occupied by a species some change of habits becomes useful to it, all such structural variations as facilitate the change will be accumulated by natural selection, and when they have become fixed in the proportions most beneficial to the animal, we shall have the first species of a new genus.
A creature which has been thus modified in important characters will be a new type, specially adapted to fill a new place in the economy of nature. It will almost certainly have arisen from an extensive or dominant species, because only such are sufficiently rich in individuals to afford an ample supply of the necessary variations, and it will inherit the vigour of constitution and adaptability to a wide range of conditions which gave success to its ancestors. It will therefore have every chance in its favour in the struggle for existence; it may spread widely and displace many of its nearest allies, and in doing so will itself become modified superficially and become the parent of a number of subordinate species. It will now have become a dominant genus, occupying an entire continent, or perhaps even two or more continents, spreading in every direction till it comes in contact with competing forms better adapted to the different environments. Such a genus may continue to exist during long geological epochs; but the time will generally come when either physical changes, or competing forms, or new enemies are too much for it, and it begins to lose its supremacy. First one then another of its component species will dwindle away and become extinct, till at last only a few species remain. Sometimes these soon follow the others and the whole genus dies out, as thousands of genera have died out during the long course of the earth's life-history; but it will also sometimes happen that a few species will continue to maintain themselves in areas where they are removed from the influences that exterminated their fellows.
Cause of the Extinction of Species.—There is good reason to believe that the most effective agent in the extinction of species is the pressure of other species, whether as enemies or merely as competitors. If therefore any portion of the earth is cut off from the influx of new or more highly organised animals, we may there expect to find the remains of groups which have elsewhere become extinct. In islands which have been long separated from their parent continents these conditions are exactly fulfilled, and it is in such places that we find the most striking examples of the preservation of fragments of primeval groups of animals, often widely separated from each other, owing to their having been preserved at remote portions of the area of the once widespread parental group. There are many other ways in which portions of dying out groups may be saved. Nocturnal or subterranean modes of life may save a species from enemies or competitors, and many of the ancient types still existing have such habits. The dense gloom of equatorial forests also affords means of concealment and protection, and we sometimes find in such localities a few remnants of low types in the midst of a general assemblage of higher forms. Some of the most ancient types now living inhabit caves like the Proteus, or bury themselves in mud like the Lepidosiren, or in sand like the Amphioxus, the last being the most primitive of all vertebrates; while the Galeopithecus and Tarsius of the Malay islands and the potto of West Africa, survive amid the higher mammalia of the Asiatic and African continents owing to their nocturnal habits and concealment in the densest forests.
The Rise and Decay of Species and Genera.—The preceding sketch of the mode in which species and genera have arisen, have come to maturity, and then decay, leads us to some very important conclusions as to the mode of distribution of animals. When a species or a genus is increasing and spreading, it necessarily occupies a continuous area which gets larger and larger till it reaches a maximum; and we accordingly find that almost all extensive groups are thus continuous. When decay commences, and the group, ceasing to be in harmony with its environment, is encroached upon by other forms, the continuity may frequently be broken. Sometimes the outlying species may be the first to become extinct, and the group may simply diminish in area while keeping a compact central mass; but more often the process of extinction will be very irregular, and may even divide the group into two or more disconnected portions. This is the more likely to be the case because the most recently formed species, probably adapted to local conditions and therefore most removed from the general type of the group, will have the best chance of surviving, and these may exist at several isolated points of the area once occupied by the whole group. We may thus understand how the phenomenon of discontinuous areas has come about, and we may be sure that when allied species or varieties of the same species are found widely separated from each other, they were once connected by intervening forms or by each extending till it overlapped the other's area.
Discontinuous Specific Areas, why Rare.—But although discontinuous generic areas, or the separation from each other of species whose ancestors must once have occupied conterminous or overlapping areas, is of frequent occurrence, yet undoubted cases of discontinuous specific areas are very rare, except, as already stated, when one portion of a species inhabits an island. A few examples among mammalia have been referred to in our first chapter, but it may be said that these are examples of the very common phenomenon of a species being only found in the station for which its organisation adapts it; so that forest or marsh or mountain animals are of course only found where there are forests, marshes, or mountains. This may be true, and when the separate forests or mountains inhabited by the same species are not far apart there is little that needs explanation; but in one of the cases referred to there was a gap of a thousand miles between two of the areas occupied by the species, and this being too far for the animal to traverse through an uncongenial territory, we are forced to the conclusion that it must at some former period and under different conditions have occupied a considerable portion of the intervening area.
Among birds such cases of specific discontinuity are very rare and hardly ever quite satisfactory. This may be owing to birds being more rapidly influenced by changed conditions, so that when a species is divided the two portions almost always become modified into varieties or distinct species; while another reason may be that their powers of flight cause them to occupy on the average wider and less precisely defined areas than do the species of mammalia. It will be interesting therefore to examine the few cases on record, as we shall thereby obtain additional knowledge of the steps and processes by which the distribution of varieties and species has been brought about.