Ali Jason R, Heaney Lawrence R
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China.
Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, 60605-2496, U.S.A.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021 Jun;96(3):922-942. doi: 10.1111/brv.12683. Epub 2021 Jan 27.
Due to its position between the highly distinct Oriental and Australasian biogeographical realms, much effort has been spent demarcating associated separations and transitions in the faunal assemblages of the Indo-Australian Archipelago. Initially, sharp boundary lines were proposed, with the earliest dating from the mid-1800s. Notably, the one published by Alfred R. Wallace in 1863, based upon land-mammal and land-bird distributions, has since achieved iconic status and today its significance is recognized well beyond the confines of the biogeography community. Over the next four decades many such divides were engraved onto plates and inked onto charts of SE Asia using additional information, different organisms or other criteria. However, it became apparent that, as Wallace had noted, all such lines were to some degree permeable, and by the 1880s transition zones were being put forward instead; the label 'Wallacea' was introduced in 1924. Interestingly, the last decade has seen new divides and sub-regions being proposed, some departing markedly from earlier offerings. Although currently there is general agreement regarding much of the terminology associated with both the lines and the areas, the record of publication indicates that this consensus has emerged obliquely, and in some cases is weakly founded. This review does not present new data nor new analyses; rather it summarizes the development of ideas and reflects upon attendant issues that have emerged. After reviewing the key proposals, recommendations are presented that should in future alleviate perceived difficulties or inadequacies. Reference to specific divides must be true to their original definitions; there are many instances where the secondary literature has portrayed them incorrectly and with some this has rippled through into later publications. Moreover, Wallace's 1863 line is not the one that he finally settled upon (in 1910); its path around Sulawesi was transferred from the west to the east of the Island. Ideally, Huxley's divide (1868) should carry his name rather than Wallace's; the latter never accepted the proposition. Lydekker's Line (1896) ought to be labelled the Heilprin-Lydekker Line in recognition of Angelo Heilprin's 1887 contribution. Concerning transition zones, ideally Wallacea should correspond to its original 1924 description, which incorporated the Philippine islands bar the Palawan group. Notably, though, a smaller form (introduced by Darlington in 1957, used frequently from 1998 onwards) in which all of the Philippine islands are excluded is entrenched within the recent literature, but this is often without evident justification. It should also be recognized that the 'reduced' (=southern) Wallacea area was effectively defined by Heilprin in 1887, but was then labelled the 'Austro-Malaysian Transition Zone'. Finally, the application in recent years of modern analytical techniques has not led to a consensus view on where the lines/areas should run/be placed; with such a large, diverse set of organisms, each with differing histories, this is perhaps not surprising.
由于印度 - 澳大利亚群岛位于高度不同的东洋界和澳大拉西亚生物地理区域之间,人们花费了大量精力来划定该群岛动物群落中相关的分隔和过渡区域。最初,人们提出了清晰的边界线,最早可追溯到19世纪中叶。值得注意的是,阿尔弗雷德·R·华莱士于1863年发表的基于陆地哺乳动物和陆地鸟类分布的边界线,此后获得了标志性地位,如今其意义已得到生物地理学领域之外的广泛认可。在接下来的四十年里,人们利用更多信息、不同生物或其他标准,在东南亚的地图上绘制了许多这样的分界线。然而,正如华莱士所指出的,很明显所有这些分界线在某种程度上都是可渗透的,到了19世纪80年代,人们开始提出过渡带的概念;“华莱士区”这一名称于1924年被引入。有趣的是,在过去十年里,人们又提出了新的分隔和次区域,其中一些与早期的划分有显著不同。尽管目前对于与这些分界线和区域相关的许多术语已基本达成共识,但出版记录表明,这种共识是间接形成的,在某些情况下依据并不充分。本综述并未呈现新的数据或新的分析;相反,它总结了相关观点的发展,并对随之出现的问题进行了反思。在回顾了关键提议之后,本文提出了一些建议,这些建议应有助于在未来缓解人们察觉到的困难或不足之处。提及具体的分界线时必须忠实于其原始定义;在很多情况下,二手文献对它们的描述有误,并且其中一些错误还影响到了后来的出版物。此外,华莱士1863年划分的边界线并非他最终确定的(1910年)边界线;其在苏拉威西岛周围的路径从该岛西部转移到了东部。理想情况下,赫胥黎的分界线(1868年)应以他而非华莱士的名字命名;华莱士从未接受这一划分。莱德克线(1896年)应被称为海尔普林 - 莱德克线,以认可安杰洛·海尔普林在1887年所做的贡献。关于过渡带,理想情况下,华莱士区应与1924年的原始描述一致,即包括菲律宾群岛,但巴拉望群岛除外。然而,值得注意的是,一种较小的形式(由达林顿于1957年引入,自1998年起经常被使用),即排除了所有菲律宾群岛,在最近的文献中已根深蒂固,但这样做往往没有明显的依据。还应认识到,“缩小的”(即南部的)华莱士区实际上是由海尔普林在1887年定义的,但当时被称为“澳 - 马来西亚过渡带”。最后,近年来现代分析技术的应用并未就分界线/区域应位于何处达成共识;考虑到生物种类如此繁多、各不相同,且每种生物都有不同的历史,出现这种情况或许并不奇怪。