11–20 of 23 posts
I am always suspicious of any of these that chuck Meganesia/Sahul and NZ into a single grouping at any level except political. Land of marsupials vs no land mammals. Eucalyptus vs way more diverse assemblage. Very different indigenous land management between the two. Comes across as a little lazy.
I am always suspicious of any of these that chuck Meganesia/Sahul and NZ into a single grouping at any level except political. Land of marsupials vs no land mammals. Eucalyptus vs way more diverse assemblage. Very different indigenous land management between the two. Comes across as a little lazy.
Yes it lost a lot of integrity for me when it shows New Zealand as having one single ecological system (bioregion) - a country arguably as biodiverse as the entire USA which it shows having at least 18 bioregions. Disappointing.
They seem to have forgotten about the ocean...
I am always suspicious of any of these that chuck Meganesia/Sahul and NZ into a single grouping at any level except political. Land of marsupials vs no land mammals. Eucalyptus vs way more diverse assemblage. Very different indigenous land management between the two. Comes across as a little lazy.
In the interactive map linked upthread you can see further subdivisions, of which there are twelve.
In case you missed it at the bottom of the page, maybe the most intriguing bit is this interactive Google Earth-like map. [0] 0. https://www.oneearth.org/navigator/?view=bioregions
Years ago I used such a map to travel to a few faraway places with a similar climate to discover ecosystems that felt close to my own and yet so weirdly different. A bit like an uncanny valley without the revulsion because it was a beautiful experience.