According to Jared Diamond, the rate of technological advancement in different areas of the world is determined primarily by geography and the native plants and animals of said areas. But why were there such large differences in the suitability of native species for civilization building? Why did Mesopotamia, for example, have an abundance of plants useful for farming, and animals useful for domestication? On the other end of the spectrum, why were the native species in areas such as Australia so useless for civilization building? Is it just due to random chance, or did these species form this way for some reason?
You'll find that most historians are rather dismissive of Diamond's idea that geography and native species were primary determinants of a region's history. You can find many prior critiques of his work on this page. As for your question, that's really more the realm of ecology. Historians aren't exactly studying why aurochs lived in Eurasia and not the Americas.