A Classification of The Biogeographical Provinces of The World Miklos D.F. Udvardy
A Classification of The Biogeographical Provinces of The World Miklos D.F. Udvardy
By
Miklos D. F. Udvardy
By
Miklos D. F. Udvardy
~1975
FOREWORD
This report was prepared for IUCN by Professor Miklos D.F. Udvardy,
California State University, Sacramento, California, and it is being
submitted to UNESCO as part of IUCN's contribution to the UNESCO Man and
the Biosphere Programme.
This report is one of two submitted to UNESCO
as part of UNESCO Contract No. 618.057.
It is complementary to the
report by Professor G. Carleton Ray, 'A Preliminary Classification of
Coastal and Marine Environments', (IUCN 1975, Occasional Paper No. 14).
Many people have contributed material or suggestions which were used in
preparation of this report.
Among these contributors are Prof. A.
Bannikov (USSR), Dr. G. Budowski (Latn America)", Dr. K. Curry-Lindahl
(World), Prof. A. de Vos (World), Prof. H. Ellenberg (Europe), Dr. E.J.
Fittkau (Latn America), Dr. F .R. Fosberg (Oceana), Prof. W.A. Fuller
(Canada), Dr. J.L. Gressitt (Oceana, Antarctica), Prof. O. Hedberg
(Africa), Dr. H. Lamprey (Africa), Prof. M. Numata (Japan), Dr. D. Poore
(Europe), Prof. H. Sj8rs (Scandinavia), Prof. P. Vanzolini (South America)
and Dr. C.K. Varshney (Southern Asia).
Others, whose work has been of
great importance, are listed in the bibliography.
Mr. Charles S. Papp
expertly prepared the Maps.
The report is the fourth progresa report in a continuing effort to devise
a satisfactory classification of the world's biotic areas for purposes of
conservation.
The first of these was 'Towards a System for Classifying
Natural Regions of the World and their Representation by National Parks
and Reserves' by.R.F. Dasmann (Biol. Cons., 1972, 4: 247-255).
This
was followed by 'A System for Defining and Classifying Natural Regions
for Purposes of Conservation' by R.F. Dasmann (IUCN, 1973, Occasional
Paper No. 7) and 1 Biotic Provinces of the World' by the IUCN Secretariat
(IUCN, 1974, Occasinal Paper No. 9).
The following paper represente a marked departure from the first three.
In terminology, Biogeographical Ralm is used in place of the Biogeo~
graphical Regions and Subregions of the early papers; Biogeographic
Province replaces Biotic Province.
The reasons for these changes are
presented by Professor Udvardy in the report and appear sufficient to
warrant this revision.
Further changes of a major nature occur in the
division of the.world's terrestrial and freshwater lake biota into 8
realms in place of the earlier 7 biogeographical regions.
Oceana is
given realm status, the Antarctic is extended to include New Zealand, the
Australian contracted to Australia-Tasmania and coastal islands, the
Palaearctic and Nearctic are extended southward.
New names, Africotropical and Indomalayan, replace Ethiopian and Oriental.
A major
revision of the earlier biotic provinces of the Neotropics and Palaearctic
is presented along with more minor changes in the other realms. All of
these changes appear, in this writer's view, to improve the system and
increase its accuracy.
It must be emphasized,.however, that Professor
Udvardy does not pretend to have presented any final answer to the
problem of biogeographical classification.
The procesa must continue and
can best be advanced by those with detailed knowledge of local floras and
faunas.
Their assistance in this continuing study will be most welcome.
R.F. Dasmann
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
lO
...
11
....
13
(1)
..
14
(2)
18
(3)
25
(4)
28
(S)
(6)
34
(7)
37
(8)
REFERENCES
...
.
o
..
31
43
44
INTRODUCTION
The plant and animal world occurs within the biosphere of the earth in
the form of an intertwined network of individuals, populations, and
interacting systems.
To be able to view thern in a systematic way, the
biologist rnay use the following approaches:
(1) Taxonornic order, based on sirnilarity or difference of characters
of definable individual entities: individuals, clones, phena, etc.
The living world is thus classified into four basic groups or 'kingdoms':
viri, protists, plants, and animals (cf. Dodson 1971) and rnernbers of each
of these are ranked into hierarchial systems~
(2) Ecological order, based on interrelations.
Interacting, interor co-dependent systems are discerned, consisting of a number of
individual entities belonging to different taxa.
These ecological
systems, or ecosystems, are then classified according to sorne guiding
principie, e.g., similarity, common historical origin, or both combined.
Since the
(3) Phylogenetic order, based on origiris and history.
prevailing general foundation of organismic biology is the evolutionary
thesis, ordering rnay be accornplished by recognizing the historical ties
and the degree of relationships of the entities of the biota with respect
to common ancestors.
If the phylogenetic tree of the world's biota were
known, no separate taxonomic approach would be needed.
More and more biologists realize that ecosystems also have their phylogenies; thus, theoretically, approach (2) could also be rnade phylogenetic.
(4) Biogeographic order.
The above entities each have a spatial
elernent, thus grouping on geographic or pal~eogeographic basis is also
possible.
Following the scheme of A.R. Wallace of one hundred years ago biogeography
proceeds along two lines.
Geographical biology studies space-related
properties of plants and animals, and regularities of distribution.
Spatial occurrence of either taxa or ecological systems is studied here,
both at present and in the past.
Entities (species, associations, etc.)
with similar distributions are grouped as geoelements, those with
similar historical distribution as historie elements.
The second branch of biogeography, biological geography, divides the
earth's surface into geographic units based on similarities and differences in the occurrence of species, higher systematic taxa, ecosystem
units, and higher;taxa of ecosystems.
In an effort to define useful geographical units for conservation we
should consider, as we saw above, (1) the distribution of species (for
these are the direct objects to conserve) and (2) the distribution of
ecosystem units.
It would be desirable, before we undertake to subdivide the map or globe, to catalogue the distribution of all species;
and of all ecosystems.
The first task is impossible, considering that
many species have not yet been discovered and described, the majority of
them ar~ only sketchily known, and the occurrence of even the better
known species is only known at some parts of their distribution range.
The second task is difficult for a different reason: man's cultural
activities have altered and are steadily altering the appearance as well
as the geographic extent of natural ecosystems.
Thus is is academic to
designate a part of the lower Yangtze valley of China where agriculture
has flourished over millenia, as a natural ecosystem, or to assign the
Los Angeles Basin where you only find cemented surfaces or suburban
gardens to the coastal sagebrush ecosystem!
Under the presentcircumstancesp using now available information,
Dasmann (1973, 1974) suggested a compromise system serving both aims:
a hierarchial system of geographic areas whic~ would give a framework for
cataloging species as well as ecologic areas to be conserved.
In brief,
this system consista of a set of biogeographical regions, and each region
in turn of a subset of.biotic provinces.
Each province is characterized
by a major biome or biome-complex which dominates, geographically, the
area of that province.
Due to actual differences in the homogeneity of
plant formations (biomes and their subdivisions), floras, and. faunas,
Dasmann suggests that provincial boundaries subdivide the area of a biome
where significant fauna! or floral differences occur, and that large
areas of relatively uniform faunas and/or floras be subdivided on the
basis of changes in the structure of vegetation.
This compromise solution is defendable on the basis of expediency and
practicality: (1) it gives a system of worldwide biogeographical
provinces which har~or faunas, floras and ecosystems, i.e. units based on
vegetational format1ons.
Thus it is able to serve the above dual
conservational purposes; (2) it gives a hierarchical system of biogeographical regions, subdivided into provinces which fit the systematic
exploration of floras and faunas the members of which may need conservation measures.
It also sets up a hierarchical system of biome regions
of the world, subdivided geographically and with respect to faunal and
floral peculiarities.
The biosphere consists of three major regional
entities: the !!!, azonally occurring biomes and 9 finally, terrestrial
biomes.
Only these latter are treated here.
Azonal (limnic, fluviatile,
troglobiont, etc.) and marine entities have to be discussed in separate
studies.
Dasmann unites the Sclater-Wallace system of zoogeographical regions,
faunistic and floristic provinces, and biomes, i.e. physiognomical plant
formations with the animal populations that inhabit them.
This fact
deservs a theoretical comment, in order to make it more saleable to the
botanist as well as to the zoologist.
Faunistic and floristic regional systems of classifica~ion do not use
common terminology,.
Though all floristic schemes are based on Engler
(1879) the major regional taxa are treated differently as shown on
The major differences between the two later modifications,
Table II.
i.e. Good's (1964) and Takhtajan's (1969) are as follows:
(1) Takhtajan subdivides the kingdom of northern, circumpolar flora
into three subkingdoms, separating the areas of southern, more xericadapted floras both in the New and in the Old World, Takhtajan's limit of
the.Holarctic kingdom is much further to the south in Caribbean-North
America.than in Good's presentation, and also much further south in the
East China Sea area.
(2) Takhtajan establishes five subkingdoms within the Paleotropical
kingdom, viz. adding the Madagascan and Neocaledonian, which Good does
not rank Msubkingdoms.
(3) Takhtajan substantially changes the area of the Antarctic kingdom by including more of Patagonia, and more of the islands around the
New Zealand shelf.
(4) The delimitation of the regions often differs between the two
systems (for recent discussion, see Hewer 1971).
The higher .taxa of the faunistic system are:
~Palaearctic Region (or subregion)
Holrctic Region
Nearctic Region
(or subregon)
Ethiopian Regon
rctogaean
Real m
Oriental Region
Australian Region
Notogaean Realm
Neotropical Region
Neogaean Realm
Antarctic Region
The first six regions are classic (Sclater 1858); the term and concept,
Holarctic, is used freely by zoogeographers when necessary, mainly as an
adjective, e.g., 'holarctic distribution'.
The Antarctic region was
Table I.
Good 1964
(No subkingdoms)
Takhtajan 1969:
Holarctic Kingdom -
2a)
African Subkingdom
2b)
Indo-Malaysian Subkingdom
2c)
Polynesian Subkingdom
(2)
Palaeotr~pical
Kingdom
Faunistics (Wallace)
Kingdom:
Palaeotropical
Realm:
Arctogaean
Subkingdom:
African
Region:
Ethiopian
Region:
Province:
Ethiopian Highlands
District:
Abyssinian-Erythrean
District:
-------------------------------------------------------Each system uses in better known or geographically more subdivided areas further taxas viz. subregions, subprovinces, subdistricts.
Note that 'region' means a taxon of higher rank for the zoologist than for the botanist.
00
BOREAL
NEARCTIC
ETHIOPIAN
PALAEOTROPICAL
ORIENTAL
AUSTRALIAN
AUSTRALIAN
NE OT ROP I CAL
NEOTROPICAL
The faunistic system has three areas of shifting status: the Arctic, the
Middle American, and the Indonesian area called 'Wallacea'.
These are
properly subregions, as is also the Malagasy subregion {Madagascar with
surrounding islands) in some modifications of the Wallacean scheme.
The
seventh region, the Antarctic region, was not part of the classic,
Wallacean system, but has been added since.
The delimitation of regions is uniform among zoologists except for the
three areas of tr.ansitional nature.
The Arctic is sometimes united into
one subregion or province (by ecologically minded zoogeographers).
The
Middle American area and the Indomalayan archipelago area are assigned
either to the northern or to the southern bordering region, or they are
bisected along various dividing lines (Mayr 1944).
If we try to coordinate floristic and faunistic systems we find further
differences in the boundaries, number, and extent of the final units, i.e.
'regions' of the .florist and 'provinces' of the faunist.
There is, besides, a great difference between the two.
The overwhelming majority of
florists to date considered only the vascular plants.
Angiosperm plant
geography has been generally accepted because the angiosperms domnate
the vegetation as a whole.
They comprise the largest plants, lower
planta on land are insignificant compared to them, and besides, many of
these latter plants are cosmopolitan.
Phytogeography of many fungus,
alga or other lower taxon is almost completely unknown.
In the animal
kingdom the faunal approach was based on vertebrates and partly on
molluscs, not-withstandingthe fact that other terrestrial phyla (most
notably the arthropods) are rich in species and important, even dominant
Furthermore the geographic analyses of these other phyla when
on land.
attempted, show faunal entities often markedly different from those of
the land .vertebrates.
10
Besides the floristic and faunistic approach there has been a third
attempt to delimit regional entities on synecological basis, that which
Dice' biotic province is 11 a
Dice (1943) called ~biotic provinces 1
considerable and continuous geographic area and is characterized by the
occurrence of one or more ecoiogic associations that differ, at least in
proportional area covered~ from the associations of adjacent provinces."
In general 9 biotic provinces are also characterized by peculiarities of
vegeta'tion type, ecological climax, flora, fauna, climate, physiography,
This original definition leaves little doubt that Dice meant
and soil.
subdivisions of the biome system of Clements and She1ford, pieces of land
which differed from neighbouring pieces of 1and in their coverage by a
certain ecosystem;or a comhination of certain ecosystems.
The rest of
their 'peculiarities' are.differences between the constituent parts of
the ecosystems within separate biotic provinces.
Geographic entities
thus defined, as Dasmann has (l.c.) already emphasized, would idea11y
suit our need for a regional system for biotic conservation purposes.
However, we are here suggesting the re-naming of biogeographical taxa on
the following grounds.
Biotic provinces, sensu Dice (1943), have only
been described in North and Central America.
E1sewhere in the world
f1oristic provinces have been enunciated, delimitad, and mapped by
botaniats, and these have been used by zoologists.
Furthermore, the
interest among North American zoologists in a regional system caused the
'biotic provinces' of Dice to be used (retaining their name) for solely
faunistic purposes.
Thus they often become synonyms of what right1y
would be called 'faunistic provinces'.
Note for instance what R.M.
Smith (1960) p. 42 writes: "/Biotic provinces/ are distinguished
primarily (or first) upon the basis of faunistic features because always
f1oristic distinctions are amply borne out by faunistic distinctions 11
and 1'animals as more delicate and plastic indicators than plantan, or
"bictic provinces are, ideally, subdivisions of zoogeographic entities"
and "Biotic provinces seem to be the tool primarily of the systematist
in zoology".
For a botanist (e.g. from Hungary, where floristic
provinces were accurately delimited in the 1910s)~ the chauvinistic
pronouncements.of the above quoted zoologist can on1y actas a deterrent.
Thereforet though Dice's definition holds for them, our regional units
would receivea new and untainted name, i.e~ biogeographica1 provinces.
biogeogr~phica1
In our system for practicality only one major taxon 9 the realm, would
replace kingdoms/subkingdoms, (floristic) and realms/regions and
subregions (faunistic).
The term, 'kingdom'~ is also used by .taxonomists
denoting 'plant' and 'animal' kingdoms.
The term, 'region' has
diffrent connotations in faunistics and floristics.
Realm is not
used by florista, and its use ie not widespread among today's faunists,
who use the 0 Wallacean regions.
The following taxa will be used in
a hierarchical way:
Biogeographical .ralm. .T:he highest taxon.
A continent or
subcontinent-sized area with unifying features of geography and fauna/
f1ora/vegetation.
This rank more or less corresponde to the kingdom
of the florist and the region of the faunist.
11
Biogeographical province.
Ecosystematic or biotic subdivisions of
the above realms.
These more or less correspond to the regions of the
florist and the faunal province of the faunist, and~ mostly they correspond to the biotic prvince of Dice (t.~.) and his followers.
Besides these taxa others, not used here, are the biogeographical
subrealm, subprovince, districts and subdistricts.
Biogeographical realms are established on the basis of geoelements and
historie elements, utilizing ~he ground-breaking work of the published
literature.
Subrealms should also show distributional and phylogenetic
affinities of the'flora, fauna, and ecosystems they contain, but for
our present purpose they are not necessary and would on1y add controversia! areas and boundaries of which we already have many.
Biogeographical, faunistic, or vegetationa1 criteria may enable the
biogeographer to further group provinces of a rea1m into Biogeographical
Subrealms, and to further delimit Subprovinces, Districts and Subdistrict&
For the present purpose, i.e. for launching a unified system mainly for
conservation purposes, it is not necessary to dea1 with these ranks.
Their ~1aboration is the task of regional experts.
The fo1lowing Biogeographic realms are recognized (see Map overleaf}:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Palaearctic Realm
Nearctic Realm
Africotropica1 Realm
Indomalayan Realm
Oceanian Realm
Australi~ Rea1m
Antarctic Realm
Neotropical Realm
PRINCIPAL BIOME TYPES
rrestrial Biegaographac
. Realms of the Worfd
TQ
t1B75J
(M. D. F.
13
No.
Old No.
~B~io~m~e~Ty~p~e~s------------------------------------------
11
8
9
10
11
10
Temperate grasslands
12
13
12
14
Lake systems
14
Each realm receives a number (from 1 to 8) and also each biome type (from
1 to 14).
Within each biome, the provinces are numbered consecutively.
The sequence is: Realm--Province--Biome type.
Thus, e.g., a certain
part of South America is delimited on the accompanying map, and called
Llanos Biogeographic Province of the Neotropicl Biogeographic Realm,
and its characteristic biome is in the group 'Tropical Grasslands and
Savannas'.
This province, then, receives the code number 8.27.10
1nd1cat1ng that it is the 27th province of the Neotropical Biogeographic
This way the
Realm, and its characteristic biome is biome type No. 10.
provinces of each realm are numbered consecutively.
Within each realm,
provinces are ordinated according to the numerical sequence of the biome
types.
Where seyeral provinces belong to the same biome type, the order
of the provinces is geographic: as much as possible from north to south,
and from west to east: N, NE, E, etc.
Attention has been paid, as much as possible, to every geographic area.
There are some small islands, however, which are not expressly mentioned.
Ideally biogeographic provinces ought to be delimited on faunal, floral
and ecological bases.
Lack of source material and data caused, as
already intimated, that more often than not ecological, i.e. vegetational
knowledge, was the only source material available.
A further weakness
of the provincial system is nomenclature.
Geographic, ecological, arid
historically established area names are used intermittently, e.g. Cuban
Province, Yungas, Pontian Steppe Provinces.
However, to propose a
uniform system of names at this time would add to the difficulties of
relating this system to others previously described.
(1) The Nearctic Realm
The area of the Nearctic Biogeographic Realm equals that of the Nearctic
Region of Sclater, Wallace, and Schmidt (1954) and of the North American
sector of Engler's Boreal floral Kingdom: North America with Greenland
and all the shelf islands except those on the southeast Atlantic coastal
shelf, with Guadalupe, and the Revilla Gigedo Islands in the North Pacific
and without the southern tip of Florida (the Everglades and the Keys).
The Nearctic Realm extends south and includes Mexico north of Tehuantepec
with the exception of the coastal plain and slopes of a varying width
This neotropical area
(5 to about 50 km) which have a tropical biota.
has its northern limits at the northern border of the Sinaloan (Pacific)
and Campechean (Caribbea~provinces.
The southernmost limit of the
Nearctic area has been problematic ever since Wallace's time.
In the
modern literature it is usually taken as the isthmus of Tehuantepec.
South of this place, the highlands of Chiapas., Mexico, of Guatemala and
the Honduras-Nicaraguan mountains form what is usually considered an
isolated northern, nearctic-temperate community.
The new vegetation
mapof Mexico (Flores et al. 1971) reveals that the gap at Tehuantepec
is a mere 55 km betwee~the pine-oak forest of the Cordilleran highlands
in the south and the outlyers of the Sierra Madre chains in the north,
smaller than other gaps along the valleys of the Sierra Madre Occidental.
Therefore we extend the Madrean Biogeographical Province through the
Tehuantepec area to include the Cordilleran highlands to about l30N
latitude in northern Nicaragua which is the southernmost limit of this
biome.
15
16
......
.. ....
............
''" .
....
17
(l)
No.
Biogeographic Provine e
1.1.2
Sitkan
1.2.2.
Oregonian
1.3.3
Yukon taiga
1.4.3
Canadian taiga
1.5.5.
Eastern forest
1.6.5
Austroriparian
1~7.6
Californian
1.8. 7
Sonoran
i.9.7
Chihuahuan
1.10.7
Tamaulipan
1.11. 8
Great Basin
1.12.9
Aleutian Is1ands
1.13.9
A1askan tundra
.1.14-.9
Canadian tundra
1.15. 9
Arctic Archipe1ago
1.16.9
Greenland tundra
1.17.9
1.18.11
Grasslands
L 19.12
Rocky Mountains
l. 20.12
Sierra-Cascade
1.21.12
Madrean-Cordilleran
1.22.14
Great Lakes
...
()O
40
18
....
19
(2)
No.
Biogeographic Province
2.1. .~
2.2.2
2.3.3
2.4.3
2.5.5
Ice1andian
2.6.5
Subarctic Birchwoods
2.7.5
Kamchatkan
2.8~5
British Is1ands
British+Irish Forest
2.9.5
Atlantic
2.10.5
Boreonemora1
2.11.5
2.2.3
2.12.5
Pannonian
2.13.5
West Anatolian
2.14.5
Manchu-Japanese Mixed.Forest
2.15.6
2.16.6
Iberian Highlands
2.17.7
Mediterranean Sc1erophyll
2.18.7
Sabara
2.19.7
Arabian Desert
Arabia
2.20.8
Anatolian-Iranian Desert
Turkish-Iranian Scrubsteppe
2.21.8
Turanian
2.22.8
Takla-Makan-Gobi Desert
*Note.
one.
Japanese Subtropical
!orest
2.12
Iceland
Manchurian+Japanese
Mixed Forest
2.8.4
COmPOSite of many
1974 name and number are only listed if different from present
(Table continues)
--- ..............
-:
,
1
\
\
\
\
\
\
''
!'
21
-No.
Biogographic Province
2.23.8
Tibe tan
2.24.9
Iranian Desert
2.25.9
Arctic Desert
2.26.9
Higharctic Tundra
2.27.11
Lowarctic Tundra
2.28.11
Atlas Steppe
2.29.11
Pontian Steppe
Ukraine-Kazakh Steppe
2.30.11
Mongolian-Manchurian Steppe
Gobi+Manchurian Steppe
2.31.12
Scottish High1ands
2.32.12
2.33.12
Ba1kan High1ands
2.34. 12
Caucaso-Iranian Highlands
2.35.12
Altai Highlands
2.36.12
Pamir-Tian-Shan Highlands
2.37.12
2.38.12
Hima1ayan Highlands
2.39.12
Szechwan Highlands
2.40.13
Macaronesian Islands
2. 41.13
Ryukyu Islands
2.42.14
Lake Ladoga
2.43.14
Aral Sea
2.44.14
Lake Baikal
No.
&.
2.8.6.
Atlas Highlands
Caucasus+Kurdistan-Iran
Highlands
4 island provinces
22
changes evenly and zonally (Stegmann 1938), the flora and fauna follows,
therefore any division is debatable and arbitrary, and one has to use it
for convenience and by convention.
The status of the island of Taiwan
is part of the biogeographical controversy about the border of the
Palaearctic or Boreal unit.
The lowlands of this island are covered by
humid tropical forest (Walter 1974) but its a1titudinal zonation,
natura11y, shows subtropcal, warm-temperate and temperate ecosystems.
However it is separated from Asia by a considerable strait of the China
Sea and thus cannot be treated as an 'outlyer' province of the Palaearctic, as we have done with the Central American Cordilleras in the
Nearctic which has similar temperate montane ecosystems surrounded by
tropical lowlands.
To sum it up, the boundaries of the Palaearctic Realm do not differ
basically from those in Schmidt's re-interpretation of Sclater-Wa1lace
(1954), except in SE Asia; they differ from Engler (and Good) in Africa,
where the florist draws the boundary of the Boreal kingdom north of the
desert, and in SE Asia.
Though this rea1m shows great physiographic and floristic-faunistic
differences in its southern, mountainous and geographically diverse
sectors, all biogeographers treat it as a uniform realm.
Whereas there are abundant sources of floristic and vegetational subdivisions of the Palaearctic, faunistic works are fewer and often follow
the vegetational subdivisions for want of more accurate faunistic,
distributional data.
Walter and Straka (1970) rightly point out that
each attempt to subdivide the western Palaearctic is biased by detailed
knowledge of the author's home area, and a tendency to lump elements or
areas further away from bis area of competence.
We here follow the
areas of 'geoelements' for our provincial subdivisions.
The Eurasian tundra consista (cf. Sj8rs 1967, Frenzel 1968, Walter 1974)
of three formations.
The area-covered with low arctic tundra comprises
the Lowarctic Tundra Province of northern Russia and Siberiap reaching
the shores of the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea.
It h, however, poorly developed in northwestern Europe and only found at
the northernmost fringes of the Scandinavian and Kola pennsulas~ and in
Iceland.
Most of the northernmost biome of these same areas is the
birch scrub-forest which also forms the subalpine zone in the Scandinavian mountains.
In this latter area we establish the Subatctic
Birchwoods biogeographic province, and this formation is also the
characteristic one for th Icland Ptvince.
Th Higharctic Tundra
23
24
25
No.
Biogeographic Province
3.1.1
3.2.1
3.3.1
Malagasy Rain
3.4.4
3.5.4
3.6.4
Congo Woodland/savanna
3.7.4
Miombo Woodland/savanna
3.8.4
~orest
26
.. .-.:..
10
Biogeographical Provinces of the
Afriootropical Biogeographical Realm
(M. D. F. Udvardy, 1975)
CHARLES S. PAPP
27
No .
Note:
* The
Biogegraphic Province
3.9.4
Ma1agasy Woodland/savanna
3.10.4
3.11.6
Cape Sclerophyll
3.12.7
Western Sahe1
3.13.7
Eastern Sahel
3.14.7
Somalian
3.15.7
Namib
3.16.7
Kalahari
3.17.7
Karroo
3.18.12
Ethiopian High1ands
3.19.12
Guinean High1ands
3.20.12
3.2L12
3.22.12
3.23.13
3.24.13
3.25.13
Mascarene Islands
3.26.14
Lake Rudolf
3.27.14
3.28.14
Lake Tanganyika
3.29.14
00
,.,
.
t '\
....
\
:
1
1
1, 1
\
1. 1
..
1. 1
\
\. 1
1&\)
29
Bigeographic Provirtce
4.1.1
Malabar Rainforest
4.2.1
Ceylonese Rainforest
4.3.1
Benga1ian Rainforest
4.4.1
Burman Rainforest
4.5.1
Indochinese Rainforest
4.6.1
4.7.1
Malayan Rainforest
4.8.4
4.9.4
4.10.4
4.11.4
Mahanadian
4.12.4
Coromandel
4.13.4
4.14.4
4.15.7
Thar Desert
4.16.12
4.17.12
Laccadives Islands
4.18.12
4.19.12
4.20.12
4.21.12
Sumatra
4.22.12
Java
4.23.12
4.24.12
Celebes
4.25.12
Borneo
4.26.12
Philipp:.nes
4.27.12
Taiwan
30
31
:: _...----
~-
/0
1
------------- -----------;:::----:----..._.........
..
... ..........
.......... . . ..
... .......,
......
.i
.......,
"
......
..
... ....,....
C>
' , , __ "
'
___________
11
1
1
'
.
).
1
'
'
1
11
.......
.
....
'
. :
.....
. ,..
..
.;.\
~
'''
.. :.
' -.--------------
~.
----
CO)
\-------./-.........
, . \
'
'"
;.
~!
'1
.... ,
...
'
..........
.... '
1
1
J
1
_,_};
,
d.
__.,_-
/
1
/_...
-~
--
----------------
11.
1
1
1
----
\
1
1
---
..
\.
\~-_.., /
'--..--
'\
'
1:
'
''
..
,. ... ..
.~:
..P.:...~\\ ';.
~- l
....
1 'S
1
-..........
~..
'
..-- ....\
~
,.-:-
<.
/
'/
/ :.
1 .. 11
'
..
:\:
....,-.............
.... ,
=i::!f'. '
---
('
1
,:
..
..
........
..
.._,. ....:......
..
..:.:.: .
.
... .
...
. ... .
"
__ _
.........
--- --
33
Biogeogtaphic 'Ptvirtce
5.1.13
Papuan
5.2.13
Micronesian
5.3.13
Hawaiian
5.4.13
Southeastern Polynesian
5.5.13
Central Polynesian
s.-6.13
New Caledonian
5.7.13
East -Melanesian
135
....
IS
...
..............
.,....,
.. ::.......
~~>
25
35
CHARLES S. PAPP
liS
35
Biogeographi Province
6.1.1
Queensland Coastal
6.2.2
Tasmanian
6.3.4
Northern Coastal
6.4.6
Western Sclerophyll
6.5.6
Southern Sclerophy11
6.6.6
Eastern Sclerophyll
6.7.6
Brigalow
6.8.7
Western Mulga
6.9.7
Central Desert
6.10.7
Southern Mulga/Sa1tbush
6.11.10
Northern Savanna
6.12.10
Northern Grasslands
6.13.11
36
37
38
NEOZEALA
39
Biogeographic Ptovince
7 .1.2
Neozealandia
7.2.9
Maudlandia
7.3.9
Marielandia
7.4.9
Insulantarctica
40
... -.........
42
20
40
CHARLES S. PAPP
41
Biogeogrphic Ptovince
CamPeche
8.2.1
Panamanian
8.3.1
Co1ombian Coasta1
8.4.1.
Guyanan
8.5.1
Amazonian
8.6.1.
Madeiran
8.7.1
Serra do mar
8.8.2
8.9.2
Brazi.liap, P1ana1 to
"
"
" (part)
8.12.4 Everg1ades
8.13.4 Sinaloan
8.14.4 Guerreran
8.15.4 Yucatecan
Yuca tan
Carib-Pacific
3.3.2
Peruvian+Atacama Desert
8.25.7 Monte
Ar-gentinian Thorn-scrub
8.26.8 Patagonian
(Table continues)
42
Biogeogtaphic Ptovince
8.27.10 Llanos
8.28.10 Campos Limpos
8. 29 10 Babacu
8.30.10 Campos Cerrados
Campos
Pampas
Northern Andes
8.36.12 Puna
8.37.12 Southern Andean
Southern Andes
8.38.13 Bahamas-Bermudan
Bahamas + Bermuda
8.39.13 Cuban
8.40.13 Greater Ariti11ean
Jamaica+Hispanio1a+Puerto Rico
Lesser Antlles
------------------------------------------------------------------------*Note:
1974 name and number on1y 1isted when different from the present
one.
43
REFERENCES
BAKKER, E.M. van Zinderen 1962. Botanical evidence for quarternary
climates in Africa. Ann. Cap Prov . Mus. 2: 16-31
. BALINSKY,B.I. 1962. Patterns of animal distribution of the African
continent. Ann. Cape Prov. Mus. 2: 299-310.
Biogographie et sp~ciation des l~pidopt~res
!les mditerran~ennes. Cllqu. Irtternat. Centre
Nat. Res. Sci. 94: 181-215.
BERNARDI, G. 1961.
rophaloc~res d~s
Forest Types of
IUCN Occasional
Univ. Mich.
265-281.
S. 1953.
44
Sidgwick
&
Jackson, London.
45
FITTKAU, E.J., ILLIES, J., KLINGE, H., SCHWABE, G.H. & SIOLI, H. (eds.)
1968, 1969. Bioggraphy and Eclogy in Suth Amrica, Vols. 18 and
19 of Mnographiae Biol., Junk, The Hague.
FLORES MATA, G~ et al. 1971. Tipos de vegetacid'n de la republica
mexicana.
Subsec. de Planeacidn, M~xico.
FOSBERG, F.R. 1948. Derivation of the flora of the Hawaiian Islands.
In Insctsof Hawaii I., Zimmermann, E.C., pp. 107-119.
FRANZ, H., & BEIER, M. 1970.
Die geographische Verbreitung der
Insekten.
Irt>Handbtich derzoologie, KUkenthal, w., Vol. IV.2, Pt. 1,
No. 6, PP 1-139. . De Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
Nutta1
HARRINGTON, H.J. 1965. Geology and morphology of Antarctica. In Biogeography and Ecology in Antarctica, van Mieghem, J. & van Oye:-P.,
Vol. XV, pp.l-71 of Monogr. Biol.;Junk, The Hague.
HEWER, H.R. 1971.
Modern zoogeographical regions in Faunal Provinces
in Space and Time, Middlemiss F.A. ~al. (eds.), pp. 19-30.
See1 House Press, Liverpool.
HOLDRIDGE, L.R. 1957. Vegetation of main1and Midd1e America.
VIII. Pac. Sci. Cortgress IV: 148-161.
HORTON, D. 1973. The concept of zoogeographic subregions.
22: 191-195.
HORVAT, I., GLAVAC, V., & ELLENBERG, H. 1974.
G. Fischer, Stuttgart.
Proc.
Syst. Zool.
Vegetatin Slldsteuropas.
46
~,
Walter, H. (ed.)
JOHANSEN, H. 1955.
83: 237-247.
Die Jenissei-Faunenscheide.
C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne.
Bol. Mus.
47
Q. Rev.
Nordisk vUxtgeografi.
Bonniers, Stockholm.
STEGMANN, B. 1938.
g~ographiques
No. 2.
48
Hortob~gy.
Tisia
92-161.
nyrtami ZogeographX
Van Nostrand-Reinhold,
G. Fischer,
WATSON, G.S. 1971 Zoogeography. In Birds of the Antarctic and Subantarctic, Watson et al., pp. 1-6. Antarct1c Map Folio Series,
Folio 14. Amer. Geo~ Soc., New York.
WEBER, H. 1969. Zur natUrlichen Vegetationsgliederung von SUdamerika.
In Biogeograpby and Ecology in South America, Fittkau, E.J. et al.,
Vol. II, pp. 475-518.
WINTERBOTTOM, J.M. 1974. Tbe zoogeograpby of the South African Avifauna.
Ann. So. Afr. Hus. 66: 109-149.
ZIMMERMAN, E.C. 1948.
Honolulu.