6 A MONOGRAPH OF THE PHEASANTS 
find that most of the country is occupied by three species, Aweatus, horsfieldi and 
nycthemerus. Now in all the genera of pheasants there is, as far as I know, no case 
of two congeneric species occupying the same territory. This was not true as long 
as veevest and soemmerringit were included in Phasianus, a very obviously erroneous 
association, which I have attempted to better.1 We find that, in addition to the nine 
Gennaeus 1 have already mentioned, there have been described under binomial names 
no fewer than thirty-six forms. Almost without exception these are all found within 
the range of one or the other of the three above-mentioned, widely-distributed species, 
and not only this, but they occur along the borders where the three approach one 
another. After studying these forms from every possible point of view, there is no 
doubt whatever in my mind but that all are natural hybrids. 
After the three main types of Kaleege became differentiated, they seem to have 
approached one another again, working along the narrow, intersecting valleys of Central 
and Upper Burma, where cross-breeding took place, apparently as freely as it does in 
captivity. The English ornithologist, Mr. Eugene W. Oates, towards the end of his 
life became interested in the Burmese Kaleege, and gathered all the specimens possible. 
He had no belief in the hybridizing of these birds, and so strong was this attitude, that 
the naming of new forms became an obsession with him. He grew intolerant of 
criticism and welcomed neither argument nor proof, however convincing, that any 
of his species were other than normally evolved forms. But aside from this his work 
was sincere, and however limited his ability to view the subject from more than one 
angle, he at least laboured to gather together a splendid collection, and we are greatly 
indebted to him for giving this unusual phenomenon such prominence. 
Of the thirty-six so-called species Oates is responsible for nineteen, a goodly 
percentage of which are based on single specimens. 
The conclusions which Ghigi draws from his experiments seem important enough 
to quote in full, both the original and the translation : 
“Returning to the birds forming the subject of the present study, if we proceed 
to examine G. leucomelanus and G. horsfieldi, or rather this last one and G. Lineatus, 
we see that they differ in a complexity of characters which, in the hybrids, are so 
arranged as to produce an intermediate form, or else they transmit them in a different 
association from that existing in the progenital species. Granted that these intermediate 
forms, or with characters associated in a different manner, may be constant in their 
descent, it is clear that two distinct species have the power to give origin to a new form 
by crossing. 
“Tf however, we consider G. leucomelanos and G. muthura, or else the first and 
G. albocristatus, it is clear that from hybrids between them we are not able to obtain 
new forms, as the difference consists in each case of only one pair of characters, 
antagonistic and unresolvable. The hybrids of the first pair will have the white fringe 
on the rump or will not be provided with it; those from the second pair will have the 
crest black or will have it white; they will belong then either to one or the other 
species, and even if they should be intermediate in the sense of having the white fringes 
not as large as in /eucomelanos, or the crest not as light as in a/bocristatus, it is plain 
that they cannot give origin to any new subspecies, because from what I have shown 
1 Beebe, Preliminary Pheasant Notes, “ Zoologica,” I. No. 15, p. 283. 
