229 
on Dr. Jerdon's ‘ Birds of India.’ 
undoubtedly that of forest-clad hill and broken country, on the 
one hand, and the great plains which are almost bare of natural 
jungle and extensively under cultivation, on the other. It would 
occupy more space than could be conveniently spared to venture 
upon details of physical geography, which cannot be briefly 
disposed of with advantage to the reader; so, having* called atten¬ 
tion to Dr. Jerdon’s remarks in his Introduction, which apply 
more particularly to India southward of the Himalaya, I do so 
likewise to a valuable paper by Mr. Hodgson, ‘ On the Geogra¬ 
phical Distribution of the Mammalia and Birds of the Himalaya/ 
which is published in the f Proceedings of the Zoological Society ’ 
for 1855. 
In the matter of classification Dr. Jerdon holds to the anti¬ 
quated notion of associating the Parrots with the other zygo- 
dactyle birds, the Swifts with the Swallows, the Eurylaimi with 
the Rollers, the Trochilidce with the tenuirostral Passeres (as 
likewise Upupci and Promerops) , and—a degree less in violation 
of true affinity—the Henicuri with the Motacillce ; while he ap¬ 
proximates Menura to the Megapodiidce (ii. p. 470) ! thus failing, 
in my opinion, to appreciate the import of the anatomical and 
more important distinctions. However, as regards the Swifts 
and Swallows, he quotes (i. p. 155) Van der Hoeven, who remarks, 
“ I trust it is not to be ascribed solely to custom and to preju¬ 
dice in favor of a division generally adopted, if I cannot divest 
myself of this opinion, viz., that Swallows and Swifts should be 
classed together;” also Kaup, who declares that, “ To separate 
the Cypselidce from the Hirundinidce cannot enter the mind of 
any one whom scholarship has not deprived of all sense of na¬ 
tural order; ” again, “ From all these arrangements it would 
appear that men, otherwise most capable, if pre-occupied in 
favour of some particular characteristic type, will, in accordance 
with these and in defiance of nature itself, tear asunder the 
most natural connections, merely to unite forms like the Cypse¬ 
lidcB and Trochilidce, which in all other respects are dissimilar.” 
In what respect, it may be asked, beyond adaptive modifications 
of the same special type for different purposes ? even as the 
Swallows and the Treecreepers, the Honeysuckers and the 
Finches, are analogously different modifications of the same 
