WCP4030

[1]

Holly House, Barking. E[ssex].

Dec^r. 31^st. 1870

Dear Newton

Many thanks for your hints, some of which I shall profit by. I have however a great objection to use more symbols when intelligible contractions will do as well, and occupy little more space. Symbols though once learnt are sure to be forgotten, & then when you want to refer to the book for information ^{at a future time} you are annoyed by having to refer constantly to the explanation of them.

The more I consider the subject from all points of view, the more I am convinced that Sclater’s¹ six provinces, are practically [2] the best. Of course no two of them are exactly equivalent, & of course they can be grouped in twos or threes each having much in common, but these higher divisions will themselves be very unequal, and they will have the disadvantages of possessing far less unity than Sclater’s. Each of these is characterised by a large proportion of peculiar forms extending over almost the whole region. Any higher groups will be characterised by a very few peculiar forms extending over the whole. The only cases of doubt are the union of the Ethiopian & Indian into [3] a Palaeotropical region, & that of the Nearctic & Palaearctic into a Boreal region—

If however you make Africa and India one, you have a much less homogenous province than the Neotropical or the Australian; — while it each, as subprovinces will be far more distinct that than any subdivisions you can make in the Neotropical. So with the Nearctic & Palaearctic — there are certain well marked differences due ^mainly to the relation of each to its tropical adjacent region, which would render each, as a subregion, more important than the subregion [4] of S. America or Australia. Again though S. America and Australia have some rudimental affinity, it would be useless to combine such radically different countries into one region for any practical purpose.

There is too, I think, a great advantage especially to students, in keeping the main divisions as near as possible to the old Geographical divisions, & this Sclater’s scheme does admirably.

The Indian peninsula has undoubtedly Ethiopian features, but surely it has more true Indian features (Phasianidae[,] Tigers, Deer, Megaloema, Phyllorines &c.) and if it has been peopled from both, it should be kept with that from which it cannot be separated geographically. Leaving this out, the Oriental or Chinese Malay Region is far too distinct from the Ethiopian to be united with it.

[5] [p.2] On the whole, therefore, I see no reason to change materially Sclater’s 6 Regions —, but I would fully point out their varying ^{values and} degrees of affinity, and the higher groups that can be formed, & what are sometimes useful to refer to. On the other side I give a sketch, showing at once the geographical relations and affinities of these regions, & the higher divisions which may be formed from them.² Much may be said for cutting the Nearctic in two, as Murray³ does, putting the northern half with the Palaearctic & Neotropical, — but this would I think cause great confusion, & the dividing lines would be impossible to draw.

[6] Do not you think that the term Oriental a good substitute for Sclater’s Indian, since it includes ^almost all the Countries, that are called The East and none that are not so called.

What we want I think is a series of divisions (primary) which shall be characteristic of the main features of the fauna. These of Sclater preeminently are so. When we speak of a species a genus belonging to the Ethiopian or Palaearctic faunas we are at once picture to ourselves a host of characteristic ^{well known} forms characteristic of that fauna, and the equally characteristic absence of other forms. We can also easily picture the general outline & limits of the Region so characterised as having a certain degree of unity and completeness. With such divisions as Huxley’s⁴ "Arctogaea" & "Notogaea"⁵ we have no such picture, no such unity, no great mass of forms characteristic by their almost universal presence.

[7]⁶One thing I want your opinion upon is classification. Such a work sh[oul]^d not take a wholly new classification, yet it is most essential that the classification should be natural. It should also agree with some good general work. Where is there a classification of Mammalia or Birds that can be followed?

When trying to map out the distribution of Batrachians I found the results came quite different according as I adopted Gunther’s ⁷[,] Cope’s⁸ or Mivart’s⁹arrangement. I should like to adopt the same arrangement as in the McMillan series of Mammals, of which you are Editor. Can you get me the series of families to be adopted by your contributors in the Vertebrates?

I shall hope to see you on Tuesday evening; & remain

Yours very faithfully │ Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

A[lfred]. Newton Esq.