boundless opportunity before them to spread over large parts of the
earth's surface, and their locomotive powers would generally be
sufficient to carry them almost anywhere; but they do not avail
themselves of the possibility; notwithstanding their facilities for
locomotion, they for the most part remain within very narrow limits,
using their liberty rather to keep within certain definite bounds.
This tendency of the higher animals especially, to keep within
well-ascertained limits, is perhaps the strongest evidence that there
is a natural connection between the external world and the organised
beings living upon the present surface of our globe. The laws which
regulate these relations, and those of geographical distribution in
particular, have already been ascertained to a certain extent, and
will receive additional evidence from the facts recorded during our
journey.
The fresh-water animals are placed in somewhat different
circumstances. Their abode being circumscribed by dry land, within
limits which are often reduced to a narrow current of water, and being
further, for the most part, prevented by structural peculiarities from
passing from the rivers into the ocean, they are confined within
narrower limits than either terrestrial or marine types. Within these
limits again they are still further restricted; the shells and fishes
of the head waters of large rivers, for instance, being scarcely ever
the same as those of their middle or lower course, few species
extending all over any fresh-water basin from one extreme of its
boundary to the other; thus forming at various heights above the level
of the sea, isolated groups of fresh-water animals in the midst of
those which inhabit the dry land. These groups are very similar in
their circumscription to the islands and coral reefs of the ocean;
like them, they are either large or small, isolated and far apart, or
close together in various modes of association. In every respect they
form upon the continents, as it were, a counterpart of the
Archipelagos.
From their circumscription, these groups of lakes present at once a
peculiar feature in the animal kingdom, their inhabitants being
entirely unconnected with any of the other living beings which swarm
around them. What, for instance, is there apparently in common between
the fishes of our lakes and rivers, and the quadrupeds which inhabit
their shores, or the birds perching on the branches which overshadow
their waters? Or what connection is there between the few hermit-like
terrestrial animals that live upon the low islands of the Pacific and
the fishes which play among the corals, or in the sand and mud of
their shores? And nevertheless there is but one plan in the creation;
fresh-water animals under similar latitudes are as uniform as the
corresponding vegetation, and however isolated and apparently
unconnected the tropical islands may seem, their inhabitants agree in
their most important traits.
The best evidence that in the plan of creation animals are intended to
be located within circumscribed boundaries, is further derived from
their regular migrations. Although the arctic birds wander during
winter into temperate countries, and some reach even the warmer zones;
although there are many which, from the colder temperate climates,
extend quite into the tropics, there is nevertheless not one of these
species which passes from the northern to the southern hemispheres;
not one which does not return at regular epochs to the countries
whence it came from. And the more minutely we trace this geographical
distribution, the more we are impressed with the conviction that it
must be primitive; that is to say, that animals must have originated
where they live, and have remained almost precisely within the same
limits ever since they were created, except in a few cases, where,
under the influence of man, those limits have been extended over large
areas. To express this view still more distinctly, I should say the
question to be settled is, whether for instance the wild animals which
live in America originated in this continent, or migrated into it from
other parts of the world; whether the black bear was created in the
forests of New England and the northern states, or whether it is
derived from some European bear, which by some means found its way to
this continent, and being under the influence of a new climate,
produced a new race; whether the many peculiar birds of North America
which live in forests composed of trees different from those which
occur either in Europe or Asia, whether these birds, which themselves
are not identical with those of any other country, were or were not
created where they live; whether the snapping turtle, the alligator,
the rattlesnake, and other reptiles which are found only in America,
have become extinct in the Old World after migrating over the
Atlantic, to be preserved in this continent; whether the fishes of the
great Canadian lakes made their appearance first in those waters, or
migrated thither from somewhere else? These are questions which such
an inquiry into the geographical distribution of animals involves; it
is the great question of the unity or plurality of creations; it is
not less the question of the origin of animals from single pairs or in
large numbers; and, strange to say, a thorough examination of the
fishes of Lake Superior, compared with those of the adjacent waters,
is likely to throw more light upon such questions, than all
traditions, however ancient, however near in point of time to the
epoch of creation itself.
In order to proceed methodically in this investigation, our first step
must be to examine minutely, whether the fishes of Lake Superior are
the same as those of other lakes, in this or any other country; and,
if not, how they differ. To satisfy ourselves in this respect, we
shall successively examine all the families of fishes, which have
representatives in those great fresh-water seas. (_Agassiz on Lake
Superior_, p. 246.) Professor Agassiz, after admirable histories of
the fishes of Lake Superior, concludes with the following excellent
observations:--[3]
Footnote 3: "Lake Superior," p. 373.
III.--_General Observations; all Fresh-water Fishes of North America
different from those of Europe--Lake Superior and the
Lakes north of it constitute a distinct Zoological District--These
Fishes have been created where they now live--Deductions
from this fact._
Such a critical revision of the fishes of Lake Superior, and the other
great Canadian lakes, was the first necessary step in the
investigation I am tracing, in order to ascertain the natural
primitive relations between them and the region which they inhabit.
Before drawing the conclusions which follow directly from these facts,
I should introduce a similar list of the fishes living in similar
latitudes, or under similar circumstances, in other parts of the
world; and more particularly of the species of Northern Europe. But
such a list, to be of any use, should be throughout based upon a
critical comparative investigation of all the species of that
continent, which would lead to too great a digression. The comparison
of the fresh-water fishes of Europe, which correspond to those of
North America, has been carried so far, that I feel justified in
assuming, what is really the fact, that all the species of North
America, without a single exception, differ from those of Europe, if
we limit ourselves strictly to fishes which are exclusively the
inhabitants of fresh water.
I am well aware that the salmon which runs up the rivers of Northern
and Central Europe, also occurs on the eastern shores of the northern
part of North America, and runs up the rivers emptying into the
Atlantic. But this fish is one of the marine arctic fishes, which
migrates with many others, annually further south, and which migratory
species is common to both continents. Those species, however, which
never leave the fresh waters, are, without exception, different on the
two continents. Again, on each of the continents, they differ in
various latitudes; some, however, taking a wider range than others in
their natural geographical distribution.
The fresh-water fishes of North America, which form a part of its
temperate fauna, extend over very considerable ground; for there is no
reason to subdivide into distinct faunæ the extensive tracts of lands
between the arctics and the Middle States of the Union. We notice over
these, considerable uniformity in the character of the fresh-water
fishes. Nevertheless, a minute investigation of all their species has
shewn that Lake Superior proper, and the fresh waters north of it,
constitute in many respects a special zoological district,
sufficiently different from that of the lower lakes and the northern
United States, to form a natural division in the great fauna of the
fresh-water fishes of the temperate zone of this continent.
We have shewn that there are types, occurring in all the lower lakes,
which never occur in Lake Superior and northwards, and that most of
the species found in Lake Superior are peculiar to it; the Salmonidæ
only taking a wider range, and some of them covering almost the whole
extent of that fauna, while others appear circumscribed within very
narrow limits.
Now, such differences in the range which the isolated species take in
the faunæ, is a universal character of the distribution of animals;
some species of certain families covering, without distinction,
extensive grounds, which are occupied by several species of other
families, limited to particular districts of the same zone.
But after making due allowance for such variations, and taking a
general view of the subject, we arrive, nevertheless, at this
conclusion; that all the fresh-water fishes of the district under
examination are peculiar to that district, and occur nowhere else in
any other part of the world.
They have their analogues in other continents, but nowhere beyond the
limits of the American continent do we find any fishes identical with
those of the district, the fauna of which we have been recently
surveying. The lamprey eels of the lake district have very close
representatives in Europe, but they cannot be identified. The
sturgeons of this continent are neither identical with those of Europe
nor with those of Asia. The cat-fishes are equally different. We find
a similar analogy and similar differences between the perches,
pickerels, eelpouts, salmons, and carps. In all the families which
occur throughout the temperate zone, there are near relatives on the
two continents, but they do not belong to the same stock. And in
addition to these, there are also types which are either entirely
peculiar to the American continent, such as Lepidosteus and Percopsis,
or belong to genera which have not simultaneous representatives in the
two worlds, and are therefore more or less remote from those which
have such close analogues. The family of Percoids, for instance, has
several genera in Europe, which have no representatives in America;
and several genera in America which have no representatives in Europe,
besides genera which are represented on both continents, though by
representatives specifically distinct.
Such facts have an important bearing upon the history of creation; and
it would be very unphilosophical to adhere to any view respecting its
plan, which would not embrace these facts, and grant them their full
meaning. If we face the fundamental question which is at the bottom of
this particular distribution of animals, and ask ourselves, where have
all these fishes been created, there can be but one answer given which
will not be in conflict and direct contradiction with the facts
themselves, and the laws that regulate animal life. The fishes, and
all other fresh-water animals of the region of the great lakes, must
have been created where they live. They are circumscribed within
boundaries over which they cannot pass, and to which there is no
natural access from other quarters. There is no trace of their having
extended further in their geographical distribution at any former
period, nor of their having been limited within narrower boundaries.
It cannot be rational to suppose that they were created in some other
part of the world, and were transferred to this continent, to die away
in the region where they are supposed to have originated, and to
multiply in the region where they are found. There is no reason why we
should not take the present evidence in their distribution as the
natural fact respecting their origin, and that they are, and were from
the beginning, best suited for the country where they are now found.
Moreover, they bear to the species which inhabit similar regions, and
live under similar circumstances in Europe and Asia, and the Pacific
side of this continent, such relations, that they appear to the
philosophical observer as belonging to a plan which has been carried
out in its details with reference to the general arrangement. The
species of Europe, Asia, and the Pacific side of this continent,
correspond in their general combination to the species of the eastern
and northern parts of the American continent, all over which the same
general types are extended. They correspond to each other on the
whole, but differ as to species.
And again, this temperate fauna has such reference to the fauna of the
arctic, and to that of the warmer zones, that any transposition of
isolated members of the whole plan would disturb the harmony which is
evidently maintained throughout the natural distribution of organized
beings all over the world. This internal evidence of an intentional
arrangement, having direct reference to the present geographical
distribution of the animals, dispersed over the whole surface of our
globe, shews most conclusively, that they have been created where they
are now found. Denying this position were equivalent to denying that
the creation has been made according to a wise plan. It were denying
to the Creator the intention of establishing well-regulated natural
relations between the beings he has called into existence. It were
denying him the wisdom which is exemplified in nature, to ascribe it
to the creatures themselves,--to ascribe it even to those creatures in
which we hardly see evidence of consciousness, or, worse than all, to
ascribe this wonderful order to physical influence or mere chance.
As soon as this general conclusion is granted, there are, however,
some further adaptations which follow as a matter of course. Each
type, being created within the limits of the natural area which it is
to inhabit, must have been placed there under circumstances favourable
to its preservation and reproduction, and adapted to the fulfilment of
the purposes for which it was created. There are in animals peculiar
adaptations which are characteristic of their species, and which
cannot be supposed to have arisen from subordinate influences. Those
which live in shoals cannot be supposed to have been created in single
pairs. Those which are made to be the food of others cannot have been
created in the same proportions as those which feed upon them. Those
which are everywhere found in innumerable specimens, must have been
introduced in numbers capable of maintaining their normal proportions
to those which live isolated, and are comparatively and constantly
fewer. For we know that this harmony in the numerical proportions
between animals is one of the great laws of nature. The circumstance
that species occur within definite limits where no obstacles prevent
their wider distribution, leads to the further inference that these
limits were assigned to them from the beginning and so we would come
to the final conclusion, that the order which prevails throughout the
creation is intentional,--that it is regulated by the limits marked
out on the first day of creation,--and that it has been maintained
unchanged through ages, with no other modifications than those which
the higher intellectual powers of man enable him to impose upon some
of the few animals more closely connected with him, and in reference
to those very limited changes which he is able to produce artificially
upon the surface of our globe.[4]
Footnote 4: The above view of the geography of animals appeared
partly in an American periodical and partly in Professor
Agassiz's beautiful and important work (just received) on Lake
Superior.
_On the Geography and Geology of the Peninsula of Mount
Sinai, and the adjacent Countries._
By JOHN HOGG, M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S.;
Honorary Secretary of the Royal Geographical
Society, &c. Communicated by the Author.
(_Continued from page 219._)
This town is named in Scripture Elath or Eloth; in the Septuagint
Ailath, and Ailôn; Ailas, Aeila, or Aila by the Greeks; Ælana by the
Romans; and Ailah by the Arabians: it is described in 1 Kings ix. 26,
as "on the _shore_ of the _Red Sea_ in the land of Edom;" and in 2
Chron. viii. 17, "at the _sea-side_ in the land of Idumea." From
Procopius, in the 6th century, we learn the following exact
account,[5] which agrees very well with the site of those
_mounds_--"the eastern limits of _Palæstina_ (including of course that
part of the peninsula which he elsewhere relates[6] was called
_Palæstina Tertia_), reach along the Red Sea. On the shore is placed
the town _Aïlas_, where, the sea ending, it is contracted into a very
narrow bay."
Footnote 5: _Procopii_ de Bell. Pers., lib. i., cap. 19.
Footnote 6: _Procop._ de Ædificiis Justiniani, lib. v., cap, 8.
Tom. ii. Edit. _Par._ 1663.
Edrisi, in the 12th century, terms the steep descent from the Desert
El Tyh by El Nakb to Akaba--"Akaba Ailah"--_i.e._, the "Descent of
Ailah;" and Makrisi, in the 14th century, as cited by Burckhardt (p.
511), speaks of "the _Akaba_, or steep mountain _before Aila_."
Consequently, I take it to be correct that these _mounds_ indicate the
former position of _Elath_,[7] on the shore of the Sea of Edom or
Idumea--an arm of the Red Sea.
Footnote 7: Ailah was in the middle ages considered (Robinson,
i., p. 252, and Lepsius' Tour, p. 20), as _Elim_, the sixth
station of the Israelites after they passed the Red Sea. But I
apprehend that the error very likely arose from the word Ailam
occurring in the _Alexandrine MS._, (2 Kings xvi. 6; and 2 Chron.
viii. 17), for Ailath, which is used in the LXX., in those
verses. So Ailam had here been _mistaken_ for Aileim, _Elim_, the
word which is found in Exodus, xvi. 1; of the LXX.
At a short distance from them, but westward, a large space, like a
marsh, seemed to be impregnated with _nitre_, which is left incrusted
in some spots upon their surface. From hence, going up the extensive
valley El Araba, it is found to be full of sand drifts, with here and
there a few trees scattered about; the torrents, after rain, flow
along the west side, and their waters, which are _not absorbed_ by the
_sand_, enter the sea at the north-west angle. The width of this part
of the Wadi is near 5 miles, but in advancing farther to the north it
becomes wider. The mountains on the east are high--from 2000 to 2500
feet; being of _granitic_, or rather _porphyritic_ formation, they are
highly picturesque, and have fine, lofty, jagged peaks: but those on
the west, which are _sandstone_ and _chalk_, are lower; rising to
about a level with the desert El Tyh, they do not exceed 1500, or in
places 1800 feet in elevation.
Not far from Wadi Ghadyan,[8] towards the west side, a great
marsh-like tract, apparently impregnated with _nitre_, exhibits an
incrustation on its surface. And the water in the spring itself is,
according to _M. De Bertou_, strong of _sulphur_.
Footnote 8: How Robinson could suppose that this might afford a
_trace_ of Eziongaber, I cannot imagine. See Bib. Res., vol. i.,
pp. 251, 268.
Passing the opening of Wadi Beianeh, and still ascending, the most
elevated table-land or small plateau of the Wadi-El-Araba is reached
at about the line of 30° north latitude, and 35° 15' east longitude
nearly, which is very near 500 feet higher than the level of the Gulf
of Akaba, according to _Herr Schubert_. About that point the
_water-shed_ occurs; some of the waters of the Araba flow south into
the sea of Akaba, but most are carried off north by the tributaries of
the Wadi-el-Jeib into the Dead Sea.
The same traveller (_Schubert_) found the depression of the bed of
that deep Wadi at about 4 miles south of El Weibeh ("hole with
water,") to be 91 Paris feet, or 97 English feet _below_ the level of
the Red Sea; the commencement, or most southern limit of that
depression taking place at about 15 miles northward of Gebel Harun in
Wadi-el-Araba. Consequently, the Dead Sea, Asphaltic Lake (_Bahr
Lut_)--the "Sea of Lot"--must lie considerably _lower_ than the level
of the Gulf of Akaba; indeed, _Herr Schubert_ gives the level of the
_Dead Sea_ as being 598 Paris feet, and M. Russegger even more than
1300 English feet _below_ that of the Mediterranean.
These geographical facts then afford, as some authors have supposed,
sufficient evidence that the River Jordan, although taking its source
at an elevation of 1800 feet in the north Syrian mountains--_has not_
flowed through the entire valley _El Araba_ into the Gulf of Akaba; or
rather, into the Red Sea, beyond what is now the Strait of Tiran. And
certainly these facts are _decisive_ that it _never has done so_--if
the natural conformation of this region has _always_ been the _same_,
as it now exists with regard to _depth_ and _height_. But against its
having continued the _same_, _ab initio_, up to the present time, much
reasonable hypothesis, and several remarkable appearances may be
fairly advanced.
Of the latter, some are the _volcanic_ phenomena apparent around the
Dead Sea and El Ghor,[9] on the north; in the basaltic cliffs and
creeks nearly opposite the Isle of Kureiyeh; the frequent
displacements of strata and rocks in many places on the north-west
side of the Gulf of Akaba; the coincidences exhibited by the strata in
the Isle of Tiran, with those of the Arabian and Sinaic shores; and
the volcanic remains and crater-like hills between them and Sherm on
the south. Moreover, it may be collected from Scripture, that certain
_changes_ had actually been _effected_ in the vicinity of the _Dead
Sea_ (Gen. xix. 25); and that they were caused by _fire_ (_Ibid._
xxiv. 28); if then, at that period, the southern part of the valley of
the Jordan, the plain of the Dead Sea, and El Ghor had, through
igneous, or volcanic, or other agency, _sunk_ much _below_ their
former levels, it is possible that a corresponding _elevation_ of the
land in _Wadi-el-Araba_ might have taken place at the same (or perhaps
at another) time, by the same (or by a subsequent similar) agency.
Footnote 9: _Ghor_ signifies "a long _valley_ between two
mountains." Refer to some of these _volcanic_ indications, p. 122
of _Dr Kitto's_ "Physical Geography of the Holy Land." El Ghor,
on the south of the Dead Sea, abounding in _salt_, is most
probably "the _valley_ of salt" mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 7.