185 



^iris of Jjtdk, 



Some few remarks from me seem called for by Mr. Blanford's 

 valuable note. 



I quite agree with him that the short title adopted by me 

 for my list of the birds of the Indian Empire is not strictly 

 accurate. 



The work from which that list was compiled, and which has 

 been so lonf]j in hand, has always stood (vide S. F., I., 49) as a 

 " Conspectus of the Ayifauna of India and its Depjsn- 



DENCIES." 



In my " Game Birds/' I have used the words " India, Burmah 

 and Ceylon,'^ Ceylon not being a dependency of India. It would 

 have been, no doubt, more correct had I used this latter form 

 for the title of my list ; but even then this would, strictly 

 construed, have excluded Assam, and having maturely consi- 

 dered the question, I thought that, for a rough tentative list, 

 the short term " India" would answer all practical purposes. 



I know so little of the literature of other branches of 

 Natural History that I am in no position to deny the incon- 

 ceivable ignorance that Mr. Blanford asserts to exist amongst 

 a large proportion of European naturalists on the subject 

 geographical distribution, but I confess that where birds are 

 concerned, I find that my European and American correspon- 

 dents — and these are now numerous — realize pretty distinctly 

 the main zoographical provinces of our empire, and I doubt 

 much whether my poor list will, by its curt title (explained 

 moreover in the Preface) mislead any one or tend to perpe- 

 tuate error. If it should do so, I can only express my sorrow 

 and cry peccavi. 



My larger list I have called a '' List of the Birds of the British 

 Empire in the East and its Dependencies ; " but as it will not 

 include Aden, nor any place east of Singapore, this likewise will 

 not be strictly correct, and I confess that I despair of being able 

 to work out any reasonably brief title that shall be at the 

 same time exhaustive and strictly accurate.* 



* Perhaps the best term is that which is used by Mr. Blandford, p. 178, " British 

 Possessions in Southern Asia;" but as I shall exclude Aden and Rajah Brooks' por- 

 tion of Borneo (which I suppose is a British possession) and shall include Cejlon 

 and the Maldives, this too will be inaccurate. Moreover Gilghit, Budakshan, 

 Wakhan, Nepal, &c., are not British possessions and are scarcely in Southern Asia ; 

 the major portion of the western half of the Malay Peninsula, though dependent on 

 our rule, is not a British possession. " British Possessions and Dependencies , in 

 Southern Asia" might do but for Aden and Sarawak. But I confess my inabilityto 

 hit upon any really appropriate and accurate name for the tract with which I have 

 to deal, and I shall be grateful if Mr. Blanford or any one else can suggest one. 



