Element in the Fauna of India. 287 



35. Pteromys (Palsearctic and Oriental to China and Malaya) . 



36. Hystrix (wide range). 



37. Lepus (wide range). Unknown in Malayasia. 



38. Manis (Ethiopian and Oriental to Malaya). 



It will be seen that two genera are incorrectly classed as 

 belonging to the Indian province exclusive of Malabar, viz. 

 Tceniogale and Platacanthomys ; and I exclude three others as 

 undeserving of generic rank, viz. Cynmlurus^ Viverricula^ 

 Calogale ; on the other hand I add Tupaia. These changes 

 reduce the Indian genera to thirty-four. Of these, fourteen 

 are either common to the Ethiopian region (India and Malay- 

 asia) ^ or replaced by closely allied forms in one or the other, 

 viz. PreshyteSj Sorex^ Felis^ Viverra, Paradoxurus, Her- 

 pesteSj Lutra^ Sus, Trayulus, Elephas^ Mus, Sciurus, Hystrix ^ 

 Manis. 



The following, eight in number, are Oriental forms, being 

 represented by identical or closely allied species, or nearly 

 affined generic types in Malayasia, and not represented by 

 allied forms in Africa — Macacus, Tupaia^ Cuon, Melursus, 

 CervuSj Cervulus, Bihos^ Pteromys. Every one of these is 

 more or less Palsearctic also, except Cervulus and Tupaia. 



The following, ten in number, are Ethiopian forms, being 

 represented by allied species or genera in the Ethiopian region, 

 whilst they are not similarly represented in the Malay coun- 

 tries — Erinaceus^ Hycena, Ganis^ Mellivora, Portax, Gazella^ 

 Anfilope, Tetraceros, Meriones, Lepus. Of these, Mellivora, 

 Portax, Atitilope, Tetraceros are unrepresented in the Palae- 

 arctic region. 



I think, bearing in mind that India has probably for ages 

 been separated from Africa and united to the Malay countries, 

 it could hardly be expected that stronger African affinities 

 would be found in the fauna. I think it is evident that, so 

 far as the Mammalia are concerned, the Ethiopian affinities of 

 the Indian province are stronger than the Oriental. 



Birds. — Mr. Wallace says that " the naturalists who have 

 adopted the ' Ethiopian theory ' of the fauna of Hindustan 

 have always supported their views by an appeal to the class 

 of birds." I think Mr. Wallace is mistaken. I do not think 

 I have ever especially quoted the evidence of the birds ; nor do 

 I consider it quite so strong as that of the mammals, though 

 I think I shall be able to show that the number of Oriental 

 forms in the Hindustan fauna is much overrated, and some 

 important Ethiopian affinities overlooked, by Mr. Wallace. 



In the first place, Mr. Wallace's lists consist chiefly of 

 Passeres ; and there are few orders throughout the animal 

 kingdom, so far as I know, in which the accepted generic 



