INTRODUCTION. xvii 



Southern India lias been practically worked out by the late 

 Dr. Jerdon. His admirable manual shows the energy he spent 

 in bringing to perfection a system of classification to this day 

 admitted as practically good though not very natural; but, yet 

 the foundation for the past quarter of a century of every work on 

 the Avifauna of India, and if there are any who differ from him 

 in certain views, it is because they live in later times, and follow, 

 though not quite, those who base their classifications on internal as 

 well as external structure. 



Classification according to Jerdon may be said to be the 

 grouping of objects according to their affinities, and their arrange- 

 ment into divisions of various degrees of magnitude. Its object 

 is to bring together those beings that most resemble each other, 

 and to separate those that differ. By some it has been regarded 

 simply as a convenient method of arrangement for shortening the 

 labour of the naturalist, who, by its means, instead of studying all 

 the characters which each specimen presents, is enabled, by knowing 

 its general position, to confine his attention to a few of the minor 

 details of structure. His labour is thus simplified by the union into 

 one group of all the animals which agree in the most important and 

 essential characters. The Philosophic naturalist has, however, a 

 higher aim, and his object is to discover the natural system, or in 

 other words, to endeavour to develop the general plan on which 

 the Creator has formed and arranged the numberless species of 

 natural objects. 



On comparing certain species with others, we find various degrees 

 of resemblance of structure and general appearance. Those, which 

 are nearest and most close, are called affinities, and the more distant 

 resemblances, analogies ; and these are of every degree of nearness 

 or remoteness. The affinities of species may be said to point out 

 their order of succession in nature, and are easily understood and 

 appreciable. Not so, however, the analogies exhibited by many 

 species and groups to others, perhaps very distantly related. These 

 nay be resemblances of structure, or of colour, or of habits. Some 

 mturalists explain them by expressing their belief that in every 



