Klevient in the Fauna of India. 287 



35. Pteromys (I'ala'.irctic and Oriental to China and Malaya). 



36. lli/stri.r (wide ran<^e). 



37. Lepus (wide ran^e). Unknown in Malayaaia. 



38. Manis (JOtliio|)ian and Oriental to Malaya). 



It will be seen that two j^enera are ineorreetly classed as 

 bclongin<; to the Indian ])rovincc exclusive of Malabar, viz. 

 I'cenioyale and Phitacanthomys ) and I exclude three others as 

 undeserving of generic rank, viz. Ci/naluriis, Viverriaday 

 Caloijalc ; 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. PresbyteSj Surex, Fe/ia, Viverra^ Paradoxurus, Jler- 

 pestes, Lutra^ Sus, TraguluSj Elephas, Mus, Sciurus, llystrix^ 

 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 — Macacos, Tupaia, Cuon, Melursus^ 

 Cerviis, Cervidus, Bihos, Pteromys. Every one of these is 

 more or less Pala^arctic also, except Cervulus and Tujmia. 



The following, ten in number, arc 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, Hyccna, Canis, Mellivora, Portax, Gazella, 

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

 Portax, Ant Hope J Tetraceros are unrepresented in the Palffi- 

 arctic region. 



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

 been separated from Africa and united to the ^lalay 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. — jlr. AVallace says that " the naturalists who have 

 adopted the * Ethiopian theory ' of the fauna of Hindustan 

 have always supported their views by an ajipeal to the class 

 of birds." I think ^Ir. 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 Oi-iental 

 forms in the Hindustan fauna is much overrated, and some 

 important Ethioj)ian affinities overlooked, by 3Ir. 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 



