﻿NO. 
  1134. 
  vHiLirrixE 
  ouyiTHoLOiiY—woBCESTER 
  AND 
  Bounys. 
  607 
  

  

  ger 
  /rater 
  and 
  C 
  palawanenfiis, 
  of 
  List 
  E, 
  are 
  certainly 
  quite 
  as 
  unlike 
  

   as 
  are 
  Orthotomtis 
  frontalis 
  and 
  O. 
  cinereiceps^ 
  of 
  List 
  D. 
  Megaliirus 
  

   pahistris 
  and 
  ^f. 
  rufiaps 
  a,ii'ain 
  seem 
  to 
  me 
  to 
  differ 
  more 
  structurally 
  

   than 
  do 
  Mcrop.s 
  pMlip2)vins 
  and 
  M. 
  hicolor, 
  yet 
  lie 
  would 
  leave 
  the 
  

   former 
  genus 
  undivided 
  and 
  separate 
  the 
  latter, 
  while 
  Tanygnathus, 
  of 
  

   List 
  E. 
  which 
  is 
  represented 
  in 
  the 
  Philippines 
  by 
  three 
  species, 
  might 
  

   quite 
  as 
  well 
  be 
  divided 
  into 
  subgenera 
  as 
  might 
  Halcyox 
  or 
  CoUocalia, 
  

   of 
  List 
  1). 
  

  

  In 
  short, 
  if 
  we 
  can 
  accept 
  Steere's 
  List 
  D, 
  I 
  see 
  no 
  reason 
  for 
  not 
  

   iuclnding 
  in 
  it 
  the 
  genera 
  referred 
  by 
  him 
  to 
  List 
  E. 
  This 
  would 
  sim- 
  

   plify 
  matters 
  by 
  bringing 
  all 
  resident 
  Philippine 
  land 
  birds 
  under 
  his 
  

   law. 
  

  

  In 
  disposing 
  of 
  the 
  genera 
  which 
  would 
  fall 
  under 
  Steere's 
  Lists 
  D 
  

   and 
  E. 
  1 
  shall 
  take 
  the 
  classification 
  as 
  the 
  best 
  authorities 
  have 
  left 
  

   it, 
  and 
  shall 
  unite 
  them 
  under 
  a 
  single 
  distribution 
  table 
  showing 
  the 
  

   number 
  of 
  species 
  of 
  each 
  genus 
  for 
  every 
  island 
  where 
  it 
  is 
  repre- 
  

   sented. 
  This 
  table 
  T 
  shall 
  call 
  Table 
  P.. 
  

  

  A 
  comparison 
  of 
  Tables 
  A 
  and 
  ]> 
  will 
  show 
  that, 
  if 
  we 
  accept 
  the 
  

   classification 
  as 
  it 
  stands, 
  41 
  genera, 
  with 
  1-9 
  species, 
  make 
  for 
  

   Steere's 
  law, 
  and 
  ."io 
  genera, 
  with 
  2G1 
  S])ecies, 
  against 
  it. 
  Admitting, 
  

   as 
  I 
  am 
  quite 
  ready 
  to 
  do. 
  that 
  farther 
  subdivision 
  of 
  several 
  of 
  the 
  

   genera 
  of 
  Table 
  1> 
  is 
  advisable 
  and 
  will, 
  doubtless, 
  be 
  made 
  in 
  time, 
  it 
  

   Avould, 
  in 
  myjndgment, 
  be 
  ])reposterous 
  to 
  maintain 
  that 
  such 
  division 
  

   was 
  necessary 
  wherever 
  the 
  ranges 
  of 
  two 
  .species 
  of 
  a 
  genus 
  happen 
  

   to 
  overlap. 
  

  

  To 
  illustrate. 
  Whether 
  or 
  not 
  we 
  admit 
  that 
  Broderipus 
  should 
  be 
  

   included 
  under 
  Oriohts, 
  no 
  one 
  will 
  deny 
  that 
  the 
  habits 
  of 
  O. 
  [Brod- 
  

   eripus) 
  ehinensis 
  on 
  the 
  one 
  hand 
  and 
  those 
  of 
  various 
  representatives 
  

   of 
  the 
  0. 
  steerii 
  type 
  on 
  the 
  other 
  are 
  so 
  distinct 
  that 
  comi)etition 
  

   between 
  these 
  forms 
  would 
  be 
  almost 
  out 
  of 
  the 
  (juestion. 
  Their 
  

   occurrence 
  side 
  by 
  side, 
  then, 
  is 
  no 
  argument 
  against 
  the 
  spirit 
  of 
  

   Steere's 
  law, 
  although 
  it 
  may 
  infringe 
  the 
  letter. 
  But 
  what 
  of 
  the 
  

   occurrence 
  of 
  0. 
  albiloris 
  and 
  0. 
  isabellae, 
  both 
  of 
  the 
  0. 
  steerii 
  type, 
  in 
  

   Luzon 
  ? 
  

  

  Prionitiirus 
  has 
  always 
  been 
  one 
  of 
  Steere's 
  favorite 
  genera 
  for 
  illus- 
  

   trating 
  his 
  law, 
  but 
  Grant 
  has 
  shown 
  that 
  P. 
  luconensis, 
  P. 
  fliscuTHS, 
  

   and 
  P. 
  montamis 
  all 
  occur 
  in 
  Luzon. 
  Admitting 
  that 
  the 
  last 
  men- 
  

   tioned 
  species 
  may 
  properly 
  be 
  assigned 
  to 
  a 
  separate 
  section 
  of 
  the 
  

   genus, 
  what 
  shall 
  we 
  do 
  with 
  the 
  other 
  two? 
  

  

  Shall 
  we 
  divide 
  Ginnyris 
  into 
  five 
  sections 
  to 
  accommodate 
  its 
  Luzon 
  

   representatives, 
  add 
  another 
  for 
  G. 
  guimarasensis 
  in 
  the 
  central 
  Phil 
  

   ippines, 
  aiul 
  still 
  another 
  for 
  G.juliae 
  in 
  the 
  south? 
  

  

  On 
  the 
  strength 
  of 
  what 
  shall 
  we 
  place 
  loJe 
  rufigularis 
  and 
  lole 
  phil- 
  

   ippinensis 
  or 
  the 
  different 
  species 
  of 
  Zosterops 
  in 
  different 
  subgenera? 
  

  

  Finally, 
  is 
  it 
  by 
  any 
  means 
  certain 
  that 
  competition 
  may 
  not 
  be 
  

   quite 
  as 
  keen 
  between 
  birds 
  that 
  are 
  quite 
  differently 
  colored 
  as 
  

   between 
  those 
  that 
  are 
  very 
  similar 
  in 
  this 
  particular? 
  Take 
  the 
  I'hil- 
  

  

  