New scheme of zoogeographic zoning

A new scheme of zoogeographic zoning of the Earth is published, based on a combination of data on the distribution and phylogeny of mammals, birds, and amphibians. Apparently, it will soon become basic, replacing the Wallace scheme.
I definitely see parallels with some insect taxa here.

Finally, someone had the guts to shake up the traditional scheme! Bravo to the authors, very balanced and very correct zoning. If only the map was made in more detail - and everything would be chocolate in general.

Congratulations to the Russians. Now we live in the lion's share of the Palearctic territory . How much easier it will be to analyze faunas, especially Central Asian ones, without taking into account Sino-Japanese elements.

For vertebrates, it can be and will become (although where are the reptiles? taking into account the analysis of their distribution, the picture will be different!), but for insects it will never become the main one
Highlighting the Sino-Japanese kingdom is really a good solution, but the Sahara - Arabian one is a complete failure, it's a pity there is no map (although it is very strange that when introducing new kingdoms, the authors did not take care to show their exact borders): The Atlas Mountains, the Eastern Taurus Mountains, Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, the Kurdish Mountains, Elburz, the Turkmen-Khorasan Mountains, Paropamiz, the mountains of Central Afghanistan - I do not dispute that the Sahrawi-Arabian elements penetrate there, but still, as for insects, this is definitely a Palearctic fauna (and, characteristically, Zagros authors still left as part of the Palearctic!).
On the other hand, it is high time to single out the Cape Kingdom.

By the way, maps for milks, birds and amphibians separately look much more convincing. You can't mix and average everything in biogeography

For vertebrates, it can be and will become (although where are the reptiles? taking into account the analysis of their distribution, the picture will be different!), but for insects it will never become the main one
Highlighting the Sino-Japanese kingdom is really a good solution, but the Sahara - Arabian one is a complete failure, it's a pity there is no map (although it is very strange that when introducing new kingdoms, the authors did not take care to show their exact borders): The Atlas Mountains, the Eastern Taurus Mountains, Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, the Kurdish Mountains, Elburz, the Turkmen-Khorasan Mountains, Paropamiz, the mountains of Central Afghanistan - I do not dispute that the Sahrawi-Arabian elements penetrate there, but still, as for insects, this is definitely a Palearctic fauna (and, characteristically, Zagros authors still left as part of the Palearctic!).
On the other hand, it is high time to single out the Cape Kingdom.

About the Sahara-Arabian-I agree. My enthusiasm was for the Sino-Japanese solution. His ideas have been in the air for a long time ("Sino-Tibetan" fauna and similar terms) and finally took shape.

Yes, the map of course ~
I found a bunch of different maps of the Soviet version, in the Internet I found a Russified map of Wallace with yats, but somehow it's sooo difficult to compare it all with the map in this article, Even in Wikipedia, area maps are not always "so detailed".
How the Panamanian region and the Sahara-Arab region turned out seems clear, but how the Yaponokitayskaya region turned out is not very clear, but how they sewed Yaponia there is a question )))
PS
Soviet maps rule!

Yes, the map of course ~
I found a bunch of different maps of the Soviet version, in the Internet I found a Russified map of Wallace with yats, but somehow it's sooo difficult to compare it all with the map in this article, Even in Wikipedia, area maps are not always "so detailed".
How the Panamanian region and the Sahara-Arab region turned out seems clear, but how the Yaponokitayskaya region turned out is not very clear, but how they sewed Yaponia there is a question )))
PS
Soviet maps rule!

Well, we analyzed different vertebrate faunas, found a lot of matches and "sewed them on", the business is

From the point of view of geobotany, this still needs to be looked at. And from the point of view of entomology-absurd. "Sahara-Arabia" and "Sino-Japan"are inseparable from the Palearctic.And even at the level of smaller allotments, it is absurd-Mongolia and NW China in "Sino-Japan"????????????? I still understand Y. and V. China. they are indeed enriched with local elements. And it is not clear, Greenland and the islands of Canada are also Palearctic?????????????
As you know, entomological schemes are generally better combined with geobotanical ones, but in no way with "vertebrate-zoological" ones. A striking example in our country: "spines" do not recognize the forest-steppe zone, but from the standpoint of soil science, geobotany and entomology, it definitely exists.

  Any use of the map must be credited Journal Science / AAAS

This is of course the poc. Capstrans. Maybe they also patented this card, and in order to view it in its normal form, you need to pay deductions in w.., tfu sorry, in AAASS for each prosotr?
There are no rivers, mountain ranges, or landmarks on the map.

Lavr Bolshakov, in the Soviet versions there was no near-Arctic at all, the authors apparently realized the objectivity of this approach, but in order not to cause political resonances, they decided to approach gradually, so far only Greenland and part of Canada...in the next version, only the state Department's location region will be in the nearctic, and everything else will be holarctic

Why don't Korea, southern Sakhalin, and Primorye belong to the Sino-Japanese zone? Greenland is the Palearctic, but Alaska is not? Funny. In general, the boundaries of the "administrative" type in zoogeography are insanity. It was necessary to show the transition zones by hatching.

And even at the level of smaller allotments, it is absurd-Mongolia and NW China in "Sino-Japan"?????????????

I got the impression that Mongolia is still part of the Palearctic, not the Sino-Japanese region. However, I may be wrong - the map is not very successful.

In general, there are always relatively narrow transition zones between full-fledged zoogeographic realms. Give each of them the rank of "small kingdom" -??? Surely this is not the first attempt to increase the number of far-fetched "realms", it seems that even now common sense will win.

Well, this is not a kingdom, but only a region, since the time of Wallace, three regions have been added to the union, and now this team has added three more regions. Type, there is an accumulation and systematization of data on the basis of new, progressive, methods well, and respectively. result

And who told HSE that these are "realms"?
The regions were like this before, except that polar Canada was, of course,in the Near-Arctic, otherwise it can not be. As for the "Sahara-Arabia", a similar area was identified a long time ago, but it was called by different authors in its own way. So, about 40 years ago, the entomologist A. F. Yemelyanov called it "Seti" (after the ancient Egyptian god of desert winds Set), and this name (like others of this author, equally pretentious) is often found in zoogeographic discussions.
So if these are just areas, then there is nothing to discuss. Geobotanists and entomologists have their own areas long ago, and there is even something to choose from.

An important problem in this regionalization is the strange junction of Arab-Sahrawi and Sino-Japanese somewhere in the region of Afghanistan. I think that it would be more correct to transition from the Palearctic to the Afrotropic, because with a serious analysis of the distribution of the same butterflies, the percentage of eremic (endemic to those places) species is not so large, and the overwhelming share is made up of Palearcts and Africans (the percentage of which increases to the south), for example, in the UAE, this percentage is significantly lower than in Yemen and southern Saudi Arabia. See interesting papers by Torben Larsen, Edward Wiltshire, and VV Dubatolov on this subject. We will soon have a large article on the distribution of cossids in the deserts of the Palearctic (planned in the Zoojournal for April-June 2013) - many interesting figures will also be given there. I think that the picture may be different for a number of groups (mostly desert ones , for example, in chernotelki).

An important problem in this regionalization is the strange junction of Arab-Sahrawi and Sino-Japanese somewhere in the region of Afghanistan. Sahara-Arabia I think that it would be more correct to transition from the Palearctic to the Afrotropic,...

I agree that our Central Asia, and especially the Near East, has little in common with the deserts of northern Africa. It tends more towards the Mediterranean. But it doesn't make any sense to separate them all from the Palearctic. They have always stood out as subdomains. And if we talk about the kingdom, then there is the Holarctic-what else is needed?

Lavr Bolshakov, well, the kingdom seems to be called Arktogeya according to the Soviet version. The Holarctic, that's his area, which was the only one. And in the Bourgeois maps there are Nearctics and Palearctics, which is quite beneficial for local scientists - less area, less list that needs to be processed when compiling acc. articles - less fuss and hassle. So everyone likes it - nearctic and palearctic

First of all, Pelearctic and Nearctic are not bourgeois, but generally accepted international concepts. these are first-order allotments in the Holarctic. Secondly, no one forces anyone to make up spics by kingdom or some other allocation. Everyone works as much as they want. Some - generally at the global level, and some-at the district level. Third, it doesn't matter what to call a city - an empire, a kingdom, a principality, or a region. The matryoshka-style hierarchy of these allotments, which follows from the history of biota formation, is important. Therefore, if the "new" scheme we are discussing calls the Palearctic and Nearctic "kingdoms", then the Holarctic should be called an "empire". And if we call them "realms" and deny the existence of the Holarctic, then this is a clear near-scientific flood.

Lavr Bolshakov, and on the basis of what do you write this? I start from the biological reference book on A. G. Voronov.
And do not confuse it with the map of floral zoning, where in the same directory there are completely different names of kingdoms.

And so, according to Voronov
, the Kingdom of Arctogea, the region is the Holarctic. This is 87 years old.
No pale. and not. the Arctic is not listed in the Soviet reference books, and I have never seen such a thing. If possible, then links to the reverse

The English-language Wikipedia describes in some detail about not. and paleo., which can not be said about the Russian, and there is a little bit of the reason why they were not in the Soviet schemes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palearctic_ecozone
"Many zoologists consider the Palearctic and Nearctic to be a single Holarctic ecozone. "
This is exactly what I understand about our case

This post was edited by Hierophis-07.01.2013 16: 55

Lavr Bolshakov, and on the basis of what do you write this? I start from the biological reference book on A. G. Voronov.
And do not confuse it with the map of floral zoning, where in the same directory there are completely different names of kingdoms.

And so, according to Voronov
, the Kingdom of Arctogea, the region is the Holarctic. This is 87 years old.
No pale. and not. the Arctic is not listed in the Soviet reference books, and I have never seen such a thing. If possible, then links to the opposite

On!

On!

Dan, you're wasting your time. He's already counted you, too!

This post was edited by Dmitrich-08.01.2013 01: 09

Dan, you're wasting your time. He's already counted you, too!

I wrote this post before that momentous moment

Yes, it's a pretty lame scheme if the rank of all areas marked on the map is the same. Of course, the Sino-Japanese region is inseparable from the Palearctic-it is the ancestral home of most Palearctic taxa of a higher rank than the genus. Or, to put it another way, only there they are now preserved. The Sahara-Arabia region should be the Sahara-Gobi subdistrict of the Palearctic, i.e. have an eastern tail, across the Rep.Central Asia and Afghanistan, up to the Gobi. Without this, there is absolutely no way.
And there should be no revolution here. On the contrary, I hope that the classical schemes of when-thread will be clearly justified on tens of thousands of insect species - the object most fertile for such constructions. Not on hundreds of species of warm-blooded (mobile and highly adaptive) vertebrates...
In general, the forum audience is very interested in biogeography.
And yet, white dots within the "Palearctic" on the map indicate another really important faunal boundary, approximately corresponding to the southern limit of permafrost distribution...

I like the more fragmented version of WWF with "ecoregions" allocated for environmental protection purposes. Of course, everything can be further criticized.

And the schemes for insects are certainly good, but they are very different, as far as I remember from spiders, dragonflies and water beetles - who will synthesize them, why and when will they be generally accepted?... Moreover, it will always be ambiguous at the intersection of vertebrates, invertebrates, and flora.

However, it is based on flora. And, nature probably functions as biocenoses, with their also very fractional succession schemes... And evolves in whole complexes, as modeled by the Vvzherikhin hypothesis.

There was a case, I spent a lot of time collecting files, finding definitions, downloading descriptions and maps. But I didn't finish it, because I don't need to. A website in English is dedicated to this issue. By link-archive - table of contents for categories and raw partial machine translation-africa and the Palearctic, I think.
The map of Africa is an example of fractional size.


and here is a raw piece of machine translation, I apologize for the style))), such as the definition:

"Earth ecoregions
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ecologists currently divides the Earth's land surface into 8 main ecozones, containing 867 smaller Earth ecoregions. The WWF effort is a synthesis of many previous efforts to define and classify ecoregions, and the Encyclopedia uses the WWF schema to organize articles regarding ecoregions...... that cover the surface of the earth, land, as well as freshwater Ecoregions defined by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as " relatively large units of land or water containing a distinct assemblage of natural communities and species, with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major changes in land use." Freshwater ecoregions represent freshwater habitats of a specific geographic area, including rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. Freshwater ecoregions are distinguished from terrestrial ecoregions, which identify the biotic communities of the earth, and marine ecoregions, which are the biotic communities of the oceans.

Some ecoregions were selected over other ecoregions of the same major habitat type (biome) or ecozone. The Global 200 selection relied on extensive studies of 19 terrestrial, freshwater, and marine major habitat types. The choice of ecoregions was based on research on the richness of the species, species {endemism}

Ecoregions are defined by the World Wildlife Fund as " relatively large units of land or water containing a distinct set of natural communities and species, with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major changes in land use." Others have defined ecoregions as areas of ecological potential based on combinations of biophysical parameters such as climate and topography.

The WWF system represents a further processing system of biomes (by which the WWF calls the main habitat types), biogeographic realms (WWF's ecozones), and biogeographic regions (the WWF schema divides most biogeographic regions into multiple smaller ecoregions).
...... The global 200 is actually 233 ecoregions, which include 136 terrestrial, 36 freshwater, and 61 marine ecoregions.
More than half of the ecoregions in the Global 200 are rated endangered.

The conservation status of terrestrial ecoregions is marked: CE for critical or endangered, V for vulnerable, and RS for relatively stable or undamaged.
categories: "critical/endangered", "vulnerable", or "relatively stable/relatively intact".
Save status Global 200 ecoregions in one of three broad categories: "critical/endangered", "vulnerable", or "relatively stable/relatively undamaged"."

This post was edited by CosMosk - 02/16/2013 05: 06

Since the 19th century, various branches of botany and zoology have distinguished such "ecoregions", but they are usually called"provinces". And "biomes" = natural areas. But with synthetic schemes, at least in Russia, it is difficult. There are a lot of them, but there is no one that everyone likes. So sometimes ugly "regions" are born, such as in the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia. But why should we take the WWF scheme, which hardly takes into account domestic developments in this area? They do not know our biogeographic literature, except for the primitive pop philately on individual groups in English.

Yes, with our help. their territory is taiga and steppe...
on the other hand, the botanist Razumovsky set up successional schemes - whatever you do, it's basically its own cladogram...
But after all, there are almost no endemics to draw clear boundaries...
Rather, the species-survivalists in refugiums were separated))
but the tundra they have is endowed along and across...
...Such an impression in general

their descriptions of ecoregions are useful to understand what plant communities to expect in what parts of China and Africa (good maps are attached), for example, and in general, what is special there))

Lavr,and in general-what are the goals of zoning?
Much has already been done in the glorious 60s and earlier
, apparently, what are the goals and approaches...
But the mathematical average between the ranges from bacteria to vertebrates - why?

Bacteria and vertebrates are not needed for zoning. The former are too simple and ubiquitous, the latter are confined to large landscapes and are quite eurytopic. You need a geological basis, soils, vegetation types, and entomofauna. The latter can be very revealing when navigating between zones. For example, geologists and botanists drew the boundary between the subzones of mixed and broad-leaved forests along the Oka River. At the same time, they did not attach importance to the narrow mixed forests on the "broad-leaved" bank of the Oka River. But the fact that there are also a lot of specific insects of mixed forests makes it possible to transfer this border beyond the Oka River, from 10 to 30 km.
Of course, this is not always perfectly consistent, but you can strive for it.

it is clear that not bacteria, but an angler tooth is interesting, for example, but I do not argue.
But about the soil-more mysterious-this is a biogenic "zonal" (I'm afraid to make a mistake) product. Many tropics, for example, are laterite, and the biocenoses are very different...

and here, to the topic, not about the forests, which have long been almost all secondary, or absent, where they should be, but about the Prioksko-terraced meadows, I read that this is a legacy of the times when the hordes rode from the steppe on sledges along the rivers-a convenient road, and they carried fodder with them, so here you are and the origin of refugiums))

This post was edited by CosMosk - 02/16/2013 23: 28

okay, the pre-future is the first thoughts that came across, but the insects-yes, allowed us to clarify that something was not done there... take a closer look and fix it

But... they are secondary to plants, and mostly depend on them.... Their presence is more likely to indicate fluctuations in habitats or refugial or microclimatic confluence of conditions.
At the same time,they occupy a smaller area than the area of the forage plant. However, plants are also included in differently organized successional series, and accordingly, larger "whole" communities. + the mosaic nature of these communities (and the impossibility of achieving climaxes in a number of natural conditions, and hence a sharp external difference, such as hydro-and xeroseries, for example), the borders are both climatically strongly floating, and + anthropopress.

Obvious enough and not new considerations. And for what purpose exactly should I allocate what?
Customize selections to meet certain definitions? Or do the definitions come from tasks? Conditional boundaries of similarities and differences? - 50-75-90%%?

This post was edited by CosMosk - 02/16/2013 23: 26