76 A ROUGH TENTATIVE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF INDIA. 



yet gone into the question, should I believe be borne by each 

 species, as also what species of each genus I at present accept 

 (E. & 0. E.), as occurring within the narrower limits above 

 indicated. 



Names printed in italics indicate species whose occurrence 

 within our limits, or whose validity or distinctness, I disbelieve 

 or seriously doubt. 



There are a good many species, of whose validity as species 

 in some cases, or as to whose occurrence within our limits in 

 others, I am by no means certain. It is not so much that I 

 actually disbelieve in these, as that 1 have as yet been unable to 

 acquire any certainty in regard to them ; these I have printed 

 in ordinary type, but I have prefixed to them a note of inter- 

 rogation, signifying that I personally do not guarantee them, 

 and am not to be quoted as asserting either their validity as 

 species, or occurrence within our limits, as the case may be. 



Throughout, the authority that I have quoted, is the giver 

 of the specific name, and this being stated, I have deemed it 

 unnecessary to cumber the page with the sign (sp.) after every 

 name, as recommended in the Code. (§ D. vide S. F., V., 377.) 



Generally I may say that I have honestly endeavoured to 

 act up strictly to the precepts of the British Association 

 Code. 



Pace the editors of ihelhis {vide S. F;, VII., 521.) I assume 

 (there being nothing about this in the Code) that whatever their 

 derivations or construction, all generic names are used* as sub- 

 stantives, and all specific ones as adjectives, and where the gender 

 of the former is ascertainable either by its derivation {e.g. 

 Columha), or from the form used {e.g. Perdicula), I have endea- 

 voured always to make the latter, if of classical origin, agree, 

 except in the case of Linnsean names which Linn^ printed with 

 a capital first letter, and which, so far as I know, I have always 

 left intact as regards gender. Whether or no I have done right 

 in this, seems quite an open question. The Code is silent here. 



Genders are, however, not always easily ascertainable. Many 

 words were used in both genders by the ancients, and have 

 continued to be so used, indiscriminately, by naturalists. 



In some cases there is no real difficulty. Thus the word I'pvtg 

 enters as the last member of the compound into a great many 

 generic names, and writers use these indiscriminately as mas- 

 culine and feminine. No doubt, the word was not unfrequently 



* Tor instance, the generic name Ochromela is, of course, by derivation a pure 

 adjective, but when applied as a generic name, I consider it to be used substan- 

 tively pro hac, and to signify " The black and ochraceous one." 



Again the specific name rex, in Saleeniceps rex, is of course by derivation a 

 substantive, but in its capacity of specific appellation, 1 hold it to be used as an 

 adjective, and read the name as signifying " The Kingly Whale-head." 



