184 NOTES ON THE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF INDIA. 



spicuous in fresh specimens than in skins. So far as I have seen or 

 heard, all birds from Persia and Western Asia agree with 0. 

 ■penicillata, all Himalayan and Eastern Central Asiatic birds 

 with 0. longirostris. I may be mistaken, as I have not a good 

 series to consult at present, but this is the case as I understand 

 it, and Mr. Hume unites the two forms because he has seen 

 intermediate varieties from Eastern Turkistan. 



Now, if the existence of intermediate varieties be a sufficient 

 reason for the union of two '' species/' why are Crocopus phoeni- 

 copterus, C. clilorigaster and C. viridifrons, Coracias indica and 

 C. affiniSj Malacocercus terricolor, M. griseus, M. malabaricus 

 and M. somervillii, Pycnonotus (ov Molpastes) pygceus and 

 F. hoemorrhous, Thamnobia fulicata and i\ cambai/ensis, and a 

 host of other species, not united ? Even Gallus ferrugineus 

 must be joined to G. sonnerati, for hybrids having an interme- 

 diate character are on record. 



Unfortunately this opens up a much larger question than I 

 care to discuss at present. My own view which, I believe, 

 differs materially from Mr. Hume^s, is, that the intermediate 

 forms are more or less hybrids ; whether descended from a pre- 

 existing stock, or making a phase of the passage from one 

 species to another, or whether solely due to the breeding together 

 of the two races after they have become distinct, is immaterial. 

 I also consider that whether such forms as Coracias indica and 

 C. aifinis be regarded as species, sub-species, or varieties is 

 merely a matter of convenience. But what I urge is, that a 

 distinction, if constant throughout a large area, as is I believe 

 the case with Otocorys longirostris and 0. penicillata — be it un- 

 derstood I write under correction, and the distinction may not 

 be so constant as I suppose, — is a biological fact of some impor- 

 tance, and as such should be recognized in the nomenclature, and 

 that it is better to call each bird by a separate name. 



There is one more point worthy of notice. The small short- 

 billed form, which I called 0. elwesi, was considered by Dresser 

 undistinguishable from a variety of 0. alpestris, and from the 

 specimens Dresser showed me I must say there were good 

 reasons for his opinion. 0. elwesi, I think, clearly passed into 

 O. longirostris. In this case 0. longirostris passed into both 

 0. penicillata and 0. alpestris ; and, if this be considered to 

 prove the identity of these forms, all must retain the name of 

 0. alpestris. To call the Himalayan bird 0. penicillata is to 

 place it on one of the horns of the dilemma ; if intermediate 

 varieties prove identity, the species is the same as 0. alpestris, 

 if not, the form is not the same as 0. penicillata. I would re- 

 tain the name 0. longirostris. 



