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 freshwater 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 inhabitants of freshwater.

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 migra tory species is common to both continents. Those species, however, which never leave the freshwaters, 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 freshwater 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 fauna the extensive tracts of land between the arctics and the Middle States of the Union. We notice over these, considerable uniformity in the character of the freshwater fishes. Nevertheless, a minute investigation of all their species has shown that Lake Superior proper, and the freshwaters 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 freshwater fishes of the temperate zone of this continent.

We have shown that there are types, occurring in all the lower lakes, which never appear 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 fauna 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 freshwater 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 simultaneously 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 freshwater 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.

The

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. 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, shows 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 influences or mere chance.

ences.

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 favorable 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 influThose 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 har mony 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 should 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 few of the 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.

VII.

DESCRIPTION OF SOME NEW SPECIES OF REPTILES FROM

THE REGION OF LAKE SUPERIOR.

HYLODES MACULATUS, Agass.

Pl. VI., figs. 1, 2, 3.

THIS species is so characteristic as to leave no difficulty in distinguishing it from those already known belonging to the same genus. Its form is narrow, elongate; and its head smaller, in proportion to the body, than in any other species. The length of the head is contained twice in the length of the body, thus forming one-third of the whole length. The body is oblong, rounded, somewhat broader than high, tapering towards its posterior extremity. The head is elliptical, tapering towards the snout, somewhat distinct from the trunk by a slight contraction of the neck; its greatest width is behind the eyes; its upper surface is depressed so that the head appears rather flat. The eyes, of a medium size, are turned upwards near the margin of the head, but are hardly prominent. The nostrils are lateral, and very near the extremity of the snout. is small, and near the angle of the mouth. split; the lower jaw is overlapped by the slightly prominent. The palatal teeth are arranged in pairs, upon two small, very narrow bones; they are extremely minute. Those of the upper jaw, still less developed, occur only on the middle third of its arch. The tongue is broad, and fills the whole floor of the mouth; it is free upon two-thirds of its posterior extremity, the margin of which is obtusely bilobed; the anterior margin and the sides are hardly free.

The tympanic circle The mouth is widely upper, and the snout