INHABITING THE PHILIPPINE AECHIPELAGO. 127 



known work published original descriptions of many species said to have been obtained 

 in the Philippines. Most of these are true Philippine species ; but several of them 

 were obtained in other parts of the world, and have no claim to a Philippine habitat. 



The next, and certainly the most important, writer was the French traveller 

 Sonnerat. He described and figured sixty-five species as having been obtained by him 

 when in the Philippines ; but recent researches tend to prove that only thirty are 

 inhabitants of that archipelago. Several of his species remain to this day undetermined ; 

 yet the descriptions and figures were probably taken from actual specimens ; for, 

 although frequently most inaccurate in the localities assigned, Sonnerat does not ap- 

 pear, like Levaillant, to have wilfully described manufactured species or given false 

 habitats. Besides the species made known in his ' Voyage to New Guinea,' Sonnerat 

 brought to Paris several Philippine specimens, which were subsequently described by 

 Buffon or by Montbeillard, and figured by D'Aubenton. On many of the Brissonian 

 descriptions Linneeus founded titles ; and to nearly all the plates in Sonnerat's work 

 Scopoli, and after him Gmelin, gave binominal designations ; while some of the species 

 described in the'Histoire Naturelle,' or figured in the 'Planches Enluminees,' received 

 names from either Ludwig Statins Miiller, Gmelin, or Latham, and in some cases from 

 all of these writers. Subsequent authors generally named the species they described ; 

 and consequently little diificulty is encountered in the endeavour to recognize their 

 species. 



The first and only attempt to construct a complete list of the Philippine avifauna 

 was made by Dr. v. Martens, to whom I have already alluded. That learned naturalist 

 enumerates 194' species. From these I have been obliged to deduct 24, — 4 from 

 being undeterminable, 7 because they are not found in the Philippines, 2 because the 

 Philippine habitat is not satisfactorily established, and 11 because they bear as distinc- 

 tive titles the synonyms of species already catalogued under other titles. 



Thus the list is reduced to 170 species, to which I have been able to add only 49, 

 making the number of authentically known Philippine birds 219. This number is 

 small, and may be eventually increased when the archipelago has been more completely 

 investigated. Yet it may be fairly doubted whether the Philippines will ever be found 

 to be so rich in species as the remainder of the Indo-Malayan subregion. Our know- 

 ledge of this avifauna is not sufficient to support any general conclusions ; but enough 

 is known to establish the fact that the Philippine archipelago, like Celebes, is a border 



Peaie. Zool. Un. St. Expl. Exped. 1st edition (1848). 



jAcauiNOT et PuCHEEAir. Voy. au Pole Sud sur I'Astrolabe et la Zele'e. Zoologie, vol. iii. (1853). 

 Cassin. Unit. St. Expl. Exp. Ornith. 2nd edition (1858). 



E. v. Mabtens. Preussische Exped. nach Ost-Asien. Zool. (1865). Jonrnal fur Ornithologie (1866). 

 Wauden & Lataed. Ibis, 1872, p. 93. 



' The numbering reaches to only 192 ; but Dasyhplms nmiwji, although catalogued, is not numbered, and 

 the number 154 is repeated. 



s2. 



