178 NOTES ON THE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF INDIA. 



in brackets ; but why Scops halli should be 74 oct, and lole viri- 

 descens, 452 dec; Zoster ops lateralis, 631^, and Z. a?isteni, 631 

 quint, is one of those matters which I have never quite under- 

 stood. Of course, I know, that these are the numbers of Mr. 

 Hume's own list, and of the specimens in his museum, but 

 this is, after all, a private matter ; and, although the numbers 

 may have a meaning to Mr. Hume personally, they offer no 

 advantage to other Indian ornithologists, whereas serial num- 

 bers would be useful as marking the present state of Indian 

 ornithology. If it be thought that these numbers, with their 

 rather numerous affixes, have been employed throughout in 

 " Stray Feathers," and that on account of changes in the 

 specific or generic names the species might, in a few cases, be 

 supposed to be different were the numbers omitted, the reply 

 is that, as references are given to all the important descriptions, 

 and if I am not mistaken, to all places where changes of name, 

 if adopted, are discussed, the numbers are superfluous in the 

 list. 



In the present state of Indian ornithology, without for a mo- 

 ment wishing to depreciate Jerdon, whose work indeed has been 

 to many, as to myself, the foundation of any accurate knowledge 

 of ornithology, I think the sooner we shake off all vestiges of 

 Jerdon's classification the better. Jerdon's classification, as I 

 have repeatedly pointed out, was gi'ossly inaccurate, and was 

 immeasurably inferior to Blyth's, although the latter appeared 

 13 years earlier in his " Catalogue of the Birds in the Museum 

 of the Asiatic Society." So long as everything is made to fit 

 into Jerdon's system, a false classification is encouraged. 



I think, too, that the real importance of this list is diminished 

 by the adherence to Jerdon's numbers. The area is not Jerdon's 

 India, but a widely expanded tract, in which vast additions have 

 been made to the west, north, and east, and even to the south- 

 ward, the very important ascession of the Ceylonese forms has 

 been incorporated. A glance at the names anywhere will 

 shew the changes that have taken place. Why then attempt the 

 Procrustean task of compressing the whole ornithology of the 

 Indian Empire within the meagre limits of Jerdon's numbers ? 

 The present list, if it is worth anything, — and I think it is worth 

 a great deal — marks a new point of departure for the avifauna 

 of the British possessions in Southern Asia ; surely such a list 

 is worthy of a series of original numbers. 



Descending to particulars, I do not quite understand why 

 certain Central Asiatic species are included in the list. These 

 species are, so far as I have observed ( I may very probably 

 have omitted some instances) Falco hendersoni (10 bis), Saxieola 

 hendersoni (492 bis), Podoces humilis (679 bis), Montifringilla 



