160 Viscount Walden on Dr. Stoliczka's 



Javan and others Malaccan in their identities. I exclude, of 

 course, the Accipitres, Gralla, and Anseres ivova. the comparison. 



" Several of the birds noted from the Wellesley province re- 

 present intermediate types between the northern Indo-Bur- 

 mese and the southern Malayan forms."" A careful perusal of 

 Dr. Stoliczlca^s paper has not enabled me to find one positive 

 fact to support this statement. Not a single indisputable in- 

 stance is given of a Province- Wellesley individual presenting 

 characters distinguishing it from a Malaccan individual on the 

 one side, and from an Indo-Burmese on the other. 



Dr. Stoliczka is energetic in his denunciation of the practice 

 of giving specific titles to forms from different areas, such as 

 India, Burma, the Malay peninsula, and Java, which difi'er only in 

 a certain degree from one another. The learned Doctor does not 

 define the amount of dijQference necessary to constitute a species, 

 but continues — " Such artificial specific distinctions may look 

 very well in a catalogue of birds, or on the labels in a museum, 

 when perhaps one or two specimens fi'om distant localities are 

 considered to indicate an unusual richness of the collection ; but 

 they are far from sufficient to illustrate the fauna of a province, 

 and those so-called species have often no existence in nature." 

 Let us admit, though only for the sake of argument, that 

 naturalists when endeavouring to bring together examples of 

 nearly allied forms from widely separated areas, are not actuated 

 by higher motives than those here suggested ; still do they not 

 do more to illustrate the fauna of a district than if they ignored 

 the facts thus acquired ? Do not many of these facts j-aise some 

 of the most perplexing questions in natural history ? — notably 

 the question what is and what is not a species ? If ornitho- 

 logists are open to the imputation contained in the passage 

 quoted, how is it that all the inhabitants of one distant region, 

 and not merely a trifling percentage, are not described under 

 distinct titles, in order that they " may look well in a catalogue 

 of birds or on the labels in a museum " ? My expei-ience of 

 the motives which guide ornithologists when investigating, dis- 

 criminating, and recording the differences existing between 

 forms inhabiting distinct areas certainly prevents me from 

 agreeing with Dr. Stoliczka's remarks on this subject. 



