136 MOSTLY MAMMALS 



three areas under consideration, I must ask my readers to 

 regard them for a moment from another point of view. 

 Every one famiHar with the birds and mammals of the 

 British Isles is aware that, even excluding Ireland, the same 

 species are not found over the whole area. The Scottish 

 hare, for instance, is specifically distinct from the ordinary 

 English kind ; while the red grouse is unknown in the 

 southern and eastern counties of England, and the ptarmigan 

 is confined to the colder districts of Scotland. These are 

 accordingly indications that even such a small area as 

 the British Isles contains local assemblages of animals, or 

 faunas, differing more or less markedly from those of 

 other districts. 



Turning to India, we find such local faunas — as might 

 be expected from its larger area — more distinctly defined, 

 and more markedly different from one another. One great 

 fauna occupies the southern slopes of the Himalaya from 

 their base to about the upper limit of trees ; this fauna, 

 which includes many peculiar types unknown elsewhere, 

 being designated the Himalayan. The second, or typical 

 Indian fauna, occupies the whole of India, from the foot of 

 the Himalaya to Cape Comorin, exclusive of the Malabar 

 coast, but inclusive of the north of Ceylon. The third, 

 or Malabar fauna, occupies the Malabar coast and some of 

 the neighbouring hills, together with the south of Ceylon ; 

 the animals of these districts being very different from 

 those of the rest of India. The fourth, or Burmese fauna, 

 embraces only the province of Assam, in what we commonly 

 term India ; and many of its animals, again, although of the 

 general Oriental type, are very different from those of 

 the other districts. But even such divisions by no means 

 give the full extent of the local differences between the 

 animals of the whole area. In the second or typical area, 



