1875.] THE PHILIPPINE AECHIPELAGO. 295 



of his species remain to this day undetermined ; yet the descriptions and figures were probably 

 taken from actual specimens; for, although frequently most inaccurate in the localities assigned, 

 Sonnerat does not appear, like Levaillant, to have wilfully described manufactured species or 

 given false habitats. Besides the species made known in his ' Voyage to New Guinea,' Sonnerat 

 brought to Paris several Philippine specimens, which were subsequently described by BufFon or 

 by Montbeillard, and figured by D'Aubeuton. On many of the Brissonian descriptions Linnieus 

 founded titles ; and to nearly all the plates in Sonnerat's work Scopoli, and after him Gmelin, 

 gave binomial designations ; while some of the species described in the ' Ilistoire Naturelle,' or 

 figured in the ' Planches Enluminees,' received names from either Ludwig Statius Miiller, Gmelin, 

 or Latham, and in some cases from all of these writers. Subsequent authors generally named 

 the species they described ; and consequently little difficulty is encountered in the endeavour to 

 recognize their species. 



The first and only attempt to construct a complete list of the Philippine avifauna was made 

 by Dr. v. Martens, to whom I have already alluded. That learned naturalist enumerates 194* 

 species. From these I have been obliged to deduct 24, — 4 from being undeterminable, 7 because 

 they are not found in the Philippines, 2 because the Philippine habitat is not satisfactorily 

 established, and 11 because they bear as distinctive titles the synonyms of species already 

 catalogued under other titles. 



Thus this list is reduced to 170 species, to which I have been able to add only 49, making 

 the number of authentically known Philippine birds 219. This number is small, and may be 

 eventually increased when the archipelago has been more completely investigated. Yet it may 

 be fairly doubted whether the Philippines will ever be found to be so rich in species as the 

 remainder of the Indo-Malayan subregion. Our knowledge of this avifauna is not sufficient to 

 support any general conclusions ; but enough is known to establish the fact that the Philippine 

 archipelago, like Celebes, is a border land, linking, as it were, the Papuan and Indian regions. Tr.Z. S.ix. 

 As we quit the mainland of the Indian region in the south-east, it is well known that the Indo- ^'' "^" 

 Ethiopian types diminish in number ; and in the Philippines, as in Celebes, they may be said 

 to be at their minimum. But along with them many Indo-Malayan types also disappear from both 

 these insular areas ; while, on the other hand, they are replaced by peculiarly Papuan generic 

 forms, and by a few peculiar forms not in numbers sufficient to balance the absence of the Indo- 

 Ethiopian and the Indo-Malayan. We consequently find an ornis more anomalous in its 

 admixture of forms, but poorer as regards species. So far as we know, it may be asserted that, 

 after Celebes, the Philippine archipelago is the least rich in Indian genera and species of all the 

 subareas of the Indian region; while, like Celebes, it is stamped with a marked Papuan character 

 by the presence of Cacatua and Megcqjodius, and by its richness in members of the Psittacidw, 

 Alcedinidce, and Columbidce. 



A glance at the table below will show the dearth existing in the Philippines of Indo- 

 Malayan forms. Nine of these absent genera occur in Celebes, while the remaining sixty genera 

 are wanting in both areas. On the other hand, thirty Indo-Malayan genera wanting in Celebes 

 occur in the Philippines. 



* The numbering reaches to only 192 : but BasyhjjJms ciimhuji, although catalogued, is not numbered, and the 

 number 154 is repeated. 



2q2 



