{ 409} See the comparison between the Malay Archipelago and the probable former state of Europe, _Origin_, Ed. i. p. 299, vi. p. 438, also _Origin_, Ed. i. p. 292, vi. p. 429.
{ 410} _Origin_, Ed. i. p. 349, vi. p. 496. The arrangement of the argument in the present Essay leads to repetition of statements made in the earlier part of the book: in the _Origin_ this is avoided.
I need hardly point out that we now can obviously see why the number of species in two districts, independently of the number of stations in such districts, should be in some cases as widely different as in New Zealand and the Cape of Good Hope{ 411}. We can see, knowing the difficulty in the transport of terrestrial mammals, why islands far from mainlands do not possess them{ 412}; we see the general reason, namely accidental transport (though not the precise reason), why certain islands should, and others should not, possess members of the class of reptiles. We can see why an ancient channel of communication between two distant points, as the Cordillera probably was between southern Chile and the United States during the former cold periods; and icebergs between the Falkland Islands and Tierra del Fuego; and gales, at a former or present time, between the Asiatic shores of the Pacific and eastern islands in this ocean; is connected with (or we may now say causes) an affinity between the species, though distinct, in two such districts. We can see how the better chance of diffusion, from several of the species of any genus having wide ranges in their own countries, explains the presence of other species of the same genus in other countries{ 413}; and on the other hand, of species of restricted powers of ranging, forming genera with restricted ranges.
{ 411} _Origin_, Ed. i. p. 389, vi. p. 542.
{ 412} _Origin_, Ed. i. p. 393, vi. p. 547.
{ 413} _Origin_, Ed. i. pp. 350, 404, vi. pp. 498, 559.
As every one would be surprised if two exactly similar but peculiar varieties{ 414} of any species were raised by man by long continued selection, in two different countries, or at two very different periods, so we ought not to expect that an exactly similar form would be produced from the modification of an old one in two distinct countries or at two distinct periods. For in such places and times they would probably be exposed to somewhat different climates and almost certainly to different associates. Hence we can see why each species appears to have been produced singly, in space and in time. I need hardly remark that, according to this theory of descent, there is no necessity of modification in a species, when it reaches a new and isolated country. If it be able to survive and if slight variations better adapted to the new conditions are not selected, it might retain (as far as we can see) its old form for an indefinite time. As we see that some sub-varieties produced under domestication are more variable than others, so in nature, perhaps, some species and genera are more variable than others. The same precise form, however, would probably be seldom preserved through successive geological periods, or in widely and differently conditioned countries{ 415}.