\,. 171. 



108 ON DE. STOLICZKA'S " CONTEIBUTIOXS [1871. 



rectrices, combined with the shorter coverts, that makes the discrepancy between the proportions 

 Ibis, 1871, of the rectrices and coverts so striking. Ur. Stoliczka further remarks, " One thing is certainly 

 clear, namely, that the greater length of the tail-coverts in the Malayan bird, as compared with 

 the Indian, is not constant"*. As we have seen above, in Mr. Blyth's opinion "there cannot be 

 a doubt of the fact." And again, two years later, the same author (Cat. Calc. Mus. p. 214) 

 specifics the Malayan race as "with lower tail-coverts, reaching to nearly cud of tail;" and the 

 Indian and Burmese race as " with constantly much shorter tail-coverts." The validity of this 

 distinguishing character .was also recognized by Ilorsfield and Moore (Cat. E. I. Co. Mus. i. 

 p. 274); and Mr. Moore, while referring the Malabar bird to Coracias ])uella. Lath., named the 

 Malajan /. malayensis. 



I may add that since the year 18-lG I have examined numbers of examples, both from 

 Malabar and from the Malayan peninsula, and in adult birds I have invariably found them to be 

 distinguished by the characters which I originally pointed out. 



Dr. Stoliczka proceeds, " I can see no striking difference in the lazuline or blue coloration 

 of 6 and ? specimens from South India and those from Burma, and again between these and 

 others from Malacca." I have never seen male examples of the Burmese Irena ; but I must 

 still insist that a striking, well-marked, and easily recognizable difference does exist between 

 the blue colour of the Malabar and the Malayan-peninsula Ircna. I have placed a series of 

 examples from those two regions before indifferent persons, and they have in all cases, without 

 hesitation, and by means of the colour alone, separated the Malabar from the Malayan and 

 Sumatran form. 



Whether the characters which, I still maintain, do distinguish the Malabar, the Malaccan, 

 and the Javan species from one another are sufficient to entitle each to a separate specific 

 designation is a fair matter of opinion. Yet the terms local variety, climatal variety, local race, 

 geographical race, subspecies, &c., though an easy way of expressing indefinite ideas, seem 

 artificial, as opposed to the term " species," so long as the term " species " does not involve the 

 finite conception of fixity. The three titles /. imella, I. cyanea, I. turcosa represent three facts 

 Ibifl, 1871, in Natural History — fixcts when considered side by side with others, cither similar or opposite, 

 of importance to the naturalist who is investigating the origin of species or the reasons of the 

 present 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 occurring in the intervening countries. The Malabar /. puclla 

 is a case in point. The genus is Indo-Malayan, extending over Java, Borneo, and the I'hilippines 

 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 Malaccan peninsula is almost 

 identical with that of Sumatra. These two areas possess most of their species in common, and 



* The italics are Dr. Stolici^ka's. 



172. 



