136 MOSTLY MAMMALS 
three areas under consideration, I must ask my readers to 
regard them for a moment from another point of view. 
Every one familiar with the birds and mammals of the 
British Isles is aware that, even excluding Ireland, the same 
species are not found over the whole area. The Scottish 
hare, for instance, is specifically distinct from the ordinary 
English kind; while the red grouse is unknown in the 
southern and eastern counties of England, and the ptarmigan 
is confined to the colder districts of Scotland. These are 
accordingly indications that even such a small area as 
the British Isles contains local assemblages of animals, or 
faunas, differing more or less markedly from those of 
other districts. 
Turning to India, we find such local faunas—as might 
_ be expected from its larger area—more distinctly defined, 
; and more markedly different from one another. One great 
fauna occupies the southern slopes of the Himalaya from 
their base to about the upper limit of trees; this fauna, 
which includes many peculiar types unknown elsewhere, 
being designated the Himalayan. The second, or typical 
Indian fauna, occupies the whole of India, from the foot of 
the Himalaya to Cape Comorin, exclusive of the Malabar 
coast, but inclusive of the north of Ceylon. The third, 
or Malabar fauna, occupies the Malabar coast and some of 
the neighbouring hills, together with the south of Ceylon; 
the animals of these districts being very different from 
those of the rest of India. The fourth, or Burmese fauna, 
embraces only the province of Assam, in what we commonly 
term India; and many of its animals, again, although of the 
general Oriental type, are very different from those of 
the other districts. But even such divisions by no means 
give the full extent of the local differences between the 
animals of the whole area. In the second or typical area, 
