172 Viscount Walden uii Dr. Stoliczka's 



in Natural History — facts when considered side by side with 

 others, either- similar or opposite, of importance to the uaturahst 

 who is investigating the origin of species or the reasons of the 

 j)resent geographical distribution of animals. 



Dr. Stoliczka very rightly observes that the fauna of the hill- 

 ranges of Malabar shows a decided affinity to the Malayan, 

 although that country is separated by many hundreds of miles 

 from the Indo-Malayan region. But hardly one Malabar bird 

 is identical with an Indo-Malayan, unless it is also found oc- 

 curring in the intervening countries. The Malabar I.puella is a 

 case in point. The genus is Indo-Malayan, extending over Java, 

 Borneo, and the Philippines to the eastward, and northwards 

 to Assam, although not crossing the narrow Assam valley to 

 the seemingly equally favourable slopes of the Himalayas. If 

 the Malabar Irena were identical with either the Malaccan, the 

 Javan^ or the Philippine species, it would form an exception to 

 this general law of diversity. Again, the avifauna of the Malac- 

 can peninsula is almost identical with that of Sumatra. These 

 two areas possess most of their species in common, and repre- 

 sentative forms are rare, if even known ; and no difference can 

 be detected between Sumatran and Malaccan examples of Ircna. 

 The ornis of Java differs considerably from that of Malacca and 

 Sumatra ; and the Javan Irena is also found to differ. Again, 

 the Philippine ornis, though generally Indo-Malayan in its 

 character, still contains genera not belonging to that region, and 

 its relations are even more remote than those uniting Malabar, 

 Malacca, and Java. The Philippine Irena, in conformity with 

 the aberrant characters of its area, differs more from the IMalabar, 

 Malayan, and Javan species than they do among one another. 

 Are we not then, by the bestowal of distinctive titles, to give 

 currency to these facts because we happen to disagree in our 

 definitions of the term " species '' ? Is it not begging the whole 

 question of the origin of species, and the laws which govern 

 their variation, to maintain that two forms palpably differing in 

 certain constant characters are not different ? As generally 

 understood, the problem to be solved is, Why do they differ ? 

 Why does one member of a genus differ more widely from a 

 given standard than another of its members ? We shall never 



