PRESERVATION OF INDIAN LAND FAUNA 293 



Sanctuaries in every country of the world, national parks 

 secured for all time against all the changes and chances of the 

 nations by international agreement. In the older and more 

 settled countries the areas selected unfortunately must be 

 determined by various considerations, of which faunistic 

 value cannot be the most important. But certainly in Africa 

 and in large parts of Asia, it would still be possible that they 

 should be selected in the first place for their faunistic value. 

 The scheme for them should be drawn up by an inter- 

 national commission of experts in the geographical distribu- 

 tion of animals, and the winter and summer haunts of 

 migratory birds should be taken into consideration. It is 

 for zoologists to lead the way, by laying down what is 

 required to preserve for all time the most representative 

 and most complete series of surviving species without any 

 reference to the extrinsic value of the animals. And it then 

 will be the duty of the nations, jointly and severally, to 

 arrange that the requirements laid down by the experts 

 shall be complied with." 



To the thoughtful man this lucid exposition of the case 

 places the whole problem in a nutshell. 



I think the concluding extract from Dr. Chalmers 

 Mitchell's paper is one of the highest importance both in its 

 wider sense and in the more confined one as regards India. 



Sanctuaries such as above sketched are the only pos- 

 sible method of saving from extinction the rhinoceros, 

 bison or gaur, and buffalo, to take three of the best-known 

 of the big game animals requiring protection in India. But 

 these Sanctuaries require to be left in their state of primeval 

 forest. They cannot be treated as commercial forests 

 managed from a revenue-making point of view by the 

 Forest Department. The most scientific arrangements for 

 opening and closing the blocks of forest as they come up in 

 rotation for felling and other operations will not avail to 

 make such areas true Sanctuaries. I have an idea that some 

 of the areas in America and Canada alluded to above by 

 Dr. Chalmers Mitchell are Sanctuaries which it is proposed 

 to treat as revenue-giving forests. If this is the case they 

 will not remain Sanctuaries for a certain proportion of 

 the fauna they at present contain. 



There can be little doubt that as it is with some of the 

 shier mammals so must it be with a proportion of other 

 forms of animal life living in the forests. 



