186 REPLY TO MB. BLANFORD'S CRITICISMS 



Then we come to the numbering of the list. I quite agree 

 that this is clumsy, and that a fresh numbering is desirable, 

 but that involves a re-ai'rangement, and it is desirable that it 

 should, when adopted, be of such a nature as to need no very 

 material alterations and additions. 



But whilst the ablest authorities are by no means agreed 

 as to the most suitable classification and arrangement of 

 families and genera, and whilst every week adds some species 

 to our list, I do not feel myself in a position to undertake 

 usefully a re-numbering of the 1,900 species with which I have 

 to deal. 



If I live, this will all come in time ; if I do not, better that 

 the task be left for some successor, who will be in a better 

 position to do the work. 



As it is there is this to be said for the old re-numbering. It 

 agrees, so far as he goes, with Jerdon's, in the sole existing 

 Manual of the Birds of India, and it is that according to which 

 almost every private collection in India is arranged. It is the 

 numbering adopted throughout the eight volumes of Stray 

 Feathers, and which is known to nearly a hundred people out 

 here who are in one way or another helping me in my work. 



It did not seem to me expedient to alter this in a rough ad- 

 interim list, merely designed to serve a temporary purpose 

 until my more complete list is ready. To change everything 

 now, merely to change it again three or four years hence, 

 seemed to me to be undesirable. I am sorry if, as 

 Mr. Blanford says, this adherence to the old numbering has 

 diminished the real importance of this list (though I confess ray 

 inability to conceive how it can have affected this either way) ; 

 but at any rate I never intended that it should, or dreamt 

 that it could, be taken as a new point of departure for Indian 

 ornithology. I claim that for the establishment of Strai/ 

 Feathers, but certainly not for this humble list. 



And now to descend, as Mr. Blanford says, to particulars. 

 And first as to the species which he considers should not have 

 been included, being Central Asian species. 



Falco hendersoni has certainly occurred in the Punjab. Colonel 

 Delrae Radcliffe has seen it with falconers there, and so have I. 

 Only a few years ago the Rajah of Putialla had one which 

 had certainly not come from Central Asia. 



Saadcola hendersoni we have from the Nubra Valley, inside 

 the usually accepted Cashmere {i.e., Ladak) limits. 



Podoces humilis has not only been sent from so near tha 

 borders of Sikhim and Tibet that it was not easy to exclude 

 it, but from somewhere in the northern part of Gurhwal, and as 

 far as I can ascertain well within our geographical limits. 



