280 Lord Walden on Mr. Allan Hume's 
favoured with the information that Mr. Hume has “ dissected 
at the very least fifty specimens of P. sivalensis 33 and that “ Da¬ 
vison and I have recently sexed eighteen of magnirostris 
And all that Mr. Oates and Captain Feilden and Messrs. Legge 
and G. Nevill have done and told Mr. Hume, that is, within the 
last year or two and with results unpublished until 1874, there¬ 
fore has no bearing whatever on the conclusions arrived at by 
Dr. Finsch from the evidence existing previous to 1868. 
And here let us pause to consider how is Dr. Finsch to deal 
with P. eupatrius when he is producing “ a second and most 
materially revised edition” ( t. c. p. 1), especially if Mr. 
Hume’s hope of living to see it is likely to be realized. Cap¬ 
tain Hutton, “ our oldest Indian naturalist, who knew all 
about these Paroquets long before Dr. Finsch was born ” ( t. c. 
p. 14) and who “ is quite a Paroquet fancier ” (t.c. p. 12), 
says there are, .and has named, four species on the Indian con¬ 
tinent. Mr. Hume, “ editor of the sole Indian ornithological 
journal,” states that there is only one. Both are Indian field 
naturalists, who besides “ contradicting f 39 Jerdon and Blyth, 
“ contradict ” one another. True, Dr. Finsch in his perplexity 
may point out that one species, P. sacer , Hutton (Str. Feath. 
i. p. 337), has never been seen by its discoverer, and that “ the 
natives cannot distinguish ” it from the common species; that 
another, P.punjabi [!], Hutton (t.c, p. 338), also “regardedby 
the natives as identical ” {l. c.) , chiefly differs by “ sometimes 
sitting the whole day through without uttering any sound at 
aU,” its cry, however, when heard, differentiating the species 
by “ being much more feeble and slightly croaking ” (l. c .). 
While of P. vindhiana, Hutton (/. c.), its discoverer, describer, 
and denominator had “ seen but one specimen and that was 
a half-fledged nestling brought to me for sale at Monghyr 
many years ago” (l. c.) 3 and he has “ failed to procure a spe¬ 
cimen since ” (/. c.) . But of what avail these reasons when 
urged by a cabinet naturalist “ on the strength of half a dozen 
* Titles recently proposed for two of the fragments of P. eupatrius. 
t The noble passage commencing u I contradict Dr. Finsch, and would 
contradict any one else,” etc. (t. c. p. 8), and others, displaying almost 
equal beauties, a lack of space compels reluctant omission. 
