152 Miscellaneous. 
case, I have no doubt he will not object to my calling attention to 
the errors referred to. 
1. Sciurus Phayret, Blyth, is said to be from Malabar, on the 
authority of Mr. Blyth. It should be Martaban (in the Tenasserim 
provinces of British Burma); the species does not occur in India 
proper. 
2. S. chrysonotus, Blyth, is from the Tenasserim provinces. See 
‘ Catalogue of the Mammalia in the Museum of the Asiatic Society’ 
(of Bengal). 
3. S. atrodorsalis, Gray, was found by Mr. Blyth to be common 
at Maulmain. It certainly does not occur at Benares. 
4, S. Blanfordiu, Blyth, is not known from any part of India, 
nor from Pegu. It is, so far as is known, peculiar to Upper Burma, 
and my specimens were from within a few miles of Ava. How the 
mistake of ascribing this squirrel to India or Pegu has arisen I 
cannot understand. Mr. Blyth and myself are quoted as authorities 
for the localities. Now Mr. Blyth, in the two places in the ‘ Journal 
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal’ in which he mentions the species, 
and also in the ‘ Catalogue of Mammalia in the Museum of the Asi- 
atic Society,’ distinctly gives Ava or Upper Burma as the locality, 
and I am certain I gave the same with the specimens which I pre- 
sented to the British Museum. 
There are a few other points in which Dr. Gray’s localities differ 
slightly from those given by Mr. Blyth in the catalogue above cited 
(to the correctness of Mr. Blyth’s localities in general I can bear 
testimony), but the differences are not of much importance. Those 
T have noted above are cases where the mistake extends to parts of 
different zoological provinces, which India and Burma are. 
I feel sure, too, that there must be some error in attributing 
Sciurus Finlaysonii to Guzerat as well as to the neighbourhood of 
Java; and I very much indeed doubt if S. vittatus is found both in 
the Malay peninsula and in Ceylon. 
I think it is much to be regretted that naturalists in Europe will 
not use the term India in a more definite and restricted sense. Dr. 
Gray, in this, follows the prevailing custom ; but it is an objection- 
able one, I think. Thus I find India, Nepal; India, Nilgherries ; 
India, Ceylon; India, Pegu and Upper Burma(!), as if all these 
places were equally included in India. I should have thought 
neither Ceylon nor Pegu would be considered parts of India; and 
I should much like to see Nepal excluded also, as it must be before 
the zoological characters of India proper begin to be properly under- 
stood. I may mistake Dr. Gray’s meaning; if so, I beg to apologize 
for my error. The fact to which I allude is, however, notorious, 
It will, perhaps, be thought that India and Burma are parts of one 
zoological province. This is, I know, generally believed, and Dr. 
Giinther has gone so far, in his ‘ Reptiles of British India,’ as to join 
all the Malay countries, and even Southern China, with India 
proper. Indeed I believe that when I assert that the fauna of Hin- 
dustan, exclusive of the Himalayas and of the hills of Southern 
Indian and Ceylon, is quite as much African as Malay, I make a 
