INHABITING THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO. 127 
known work published original descriptions of many species said to have been obtained 
in the Philippines. Most of these are true Philippine species; but several of them 
were obtained in other parts of the world, and have no claim to a Philippine habitat. 
The next, and certainly the most important, writer was the French traveller 
Sonnerat. He described and figured sixty-five species as having been obtained by him 
when in the Philippines; but recent researches tend to prove that only thirty are 
inhabitants of that archipelago. Several of his species remain to this day undetermined ; 
yet the descriptions and figures were probably taken from actual specimens; for, 
although frequently most inaccurate in the localities assigned, Sonnerat does not ap- 
pear, like Levaillant, to have wilfully described manufactured species or given false 
habitats. Besides the species made known in his ‘ Voyage to New Guinea,’ Sonnerat 
brought to Paris several Philippine specimens, which were subsequently described by 
Buffon or by Montbeillard, and figured by D’Aubenton. On many of the Brissonian 
descriptions Linnzus founded titles; and to nearly all the plates in Sonnerat’s work 
Scopoli, and after him Gmelin, gave binominal designations; while some of the species 
described in the-‘ Histoire Naturelle,’ or figured in the ‘ Planches Enluminées,’ received 
names from either Ludwig Statius Miiller, Gmelin, or Latham, and in some cases from 
all of these writers. Subsequent authors generally named the species they described ; 
and consequently little difficulty is encountered in the endeavour to recognize their 
species. 
The first and only attempt to construct a complete list of the Philippine avifauna 
was made by Dr. vy. Martens, to whom I have already alluded. That learned naturalist 
enumerates 194' species. From these I have been obliged to deduct 24,—4 from 
being undeterminable, 7 because they are not found in the Philippines, 2 because the 
Philippine habitat is not satisfactorily established, and 11 because they bear as distinc- 
tive titles the synonyms of species already catalogued under other titles. 
Thus the list is reduced to 170 species, to which I have been able to add only 49, 
making the number of authentically known Philippine birds 219. This number is 
small, and may be eventually increased when the archipelago has been more completely 
investigated. Yet it may be fairly doubted whether the Philippines will ever be found 
to be so rich in species as the remainder of the Indo-Malayan subregion. Our know- 
ledge of this avifauna is not sufficient to support any general conclusions ; but enough 
is known to establish the fact that the Philippine archipelago, like Celebes, is a border 
Pearz. Zool. Un. St. Expl. Exped. 1st edition (1848). 
Jacaurnor et Pucueran. Voy. au Pole Sud sur l’Astrolabe et la Zélée. Zoologie, vol. iii. (1853). 
Cassin, Unit. St. Expl. Exp. Ornith. 2nd edition (1858). 
E. vy. Martens. Preussische Exped. nach Ost-Asien. Zool. (1865). Journal fiir Ornithologie (1866). 
Watpen & Layarp. Ibis, 1872, p. 93. 
1 The numbering reaches to only 192; but Dasylophus cuming?, although catalogued, is not numbered, and 
the number 154 is repeated. 
$2 
