jgrehan at ADELPHIA.NET
Sat Dec 7 12:38:26 CST 2002
I doubt anyone could come up with some analytical 'substance' and I am not
aware anyone has. The boundaries are arbitrary and each region lacks a
unique homology criterion. Wallace's regions and their corollary as areas
of endemism may fall under Roman geographic concepts of imperial rule
through division of the landscape.
Any entry into the critique of Wallacean/areas of endemism may be found in
Craw et al. (1999). Panbiogeography: tracking the history of life. Oxford
University Press, New York.
At 07:26 PM 12/5/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Does anyone know of a paper giving some analytical substance to what Wallace
>did - the other century - by defining his zoogeographic regions?
>I seem to remember having seen a paper (was it in 'Geology'??? published
>some time in the '70's?) analyzing the distributions of mammal families and
>coming up with some regionalization, but i'm struggling to find the
>Pointers to any other analytical approaches to worldwide zoogeographic or
>geobotanical regionalization will be greatly appreciated.
>Department of Botany
>University of Port Elizabeth 6031
>Email: btbmsp at upe.ac.za
More information about the Taxacom