Tin: ANNALS 
AM) 
MAGAZINE OF NATURAL IIISTOUV. 
[FOURTH SERIES.] 
No. 100. OCTUBKU 1870. 
XXIV. — The African Element in the Fauna of India: a Cri- 
ticism of Mr. Wallace's vieics as expressed in the ^Geogra- 
phical 'Distribution of Animals.' By W. T. Blanford, 
F.R.S. &c. 
Some years since I read a short paper before the British 
Association *, in which I pointed out that the fauna of a large 
portion of the Indian peninsula had stronger African than 
Malayan affinities. With the exception of a note on the dis- 
tribution of Indian reptiles which I published in 1870 1, and 
in which I briefly indicated the ditferent zoological j)rovinces 
and subprovinces existing in India, I have not returned to the 
subject ; and as I have never published the details upon which 
my views were founded, I am not surprised to find that my 
opinion has had but little weight with any who had not a per- 
sonal knowledge of the country. ^ly principal reason for 
waiting until I had more leisure was a hope tliat I might be 
able to examine into the authenticity of many admitted genera, 
since I have long been convinced that many of the usual 
generic grou])s are artificial ; and some are even founded upon 
geographical distribution — forms which inhabit Africa being 
placed in a different genus from those which inhabit India on 
account of a difference in the locality, and not of a difference 
in structure. I was especially desirous also of working out 
the very difficult question of terrestrial Mollusca, the distri- 
bution of which, as JMr. Wallace has just jiointed out in his 
• Rrit. Assoc. Rep. 18(i0, p. 107. 
t J. A. S. B. xxxix. pt. ii. p. .'J.W. 
Ann. c(: Mag. X. Hist. Scr. 4. IW. xviii. 1<J 
278 ^[r. W. T. Blanford on the African 
* Geographical Distribution of Animals,' whilst agreeing in 
some respects "with that of the Vcrtebrata, presents some 
very singular anomalies. 
Views more or less coinciding with my own have been 
subsequently expressed by the late Mr. Blyth * and Dr. 
Stoliczka t, and by Ilerr A. von Pelzcln \ ; but, except by the 
latter, no details have been given. Mr. Elwes §, on the other 
hand, whilst adopting my principal divisions, considered that 
1 had overrated the importance of the African element and 
underrated the general distribution of Malay genera. Mr. 
Elwes's paper referred solely to the distribution of birds — 
which had one advantage, that more had been published about 
the class than about any other, and at least one disadvantage, 
viz. that birds, being all more or less vagrants and liaving 
greater facilities for moving long distances than the vast 
majority of the members of other classes, are enabled to 
colonize isolated spots (such as hill-tops) far from their own 
region. The Indian Iiill-tops afford a pleasanter climate than 
the plains, and are much utilized by Anglo-Indians as sana- 
toria ; consequently their fauna is frequently far better known 
than that of the plains around them. 
The appearance of Mr. Wallace's gTeat work on geogi-aphical 
distribution will, it may be hoped, form an epoch in the study 
of this most important and much neglected branch of zoolo- 
gical science. The subject has never before been treated 
in an equally thorough manner, and it is difficult to overrate 
the obligation of all naturalists to the author. I very greatly 
regret that the pressure of other work has prevented me from 
hitherto piiblishing a number of details with reference to the 
fauna of India, which would, I think, have greatly modified 
]\Ir. Wallace's views. With only the facts procurable from 
museum catalogues and other published works, I know from 
experience that it is impossible to ascertain correctly the 
details of distribution ; the numerous errors committed by the 
older naturalists, by whom the term India was used in the 
very loosest and vaguest sense, have but rarely been eliminated; 
and it is constantly the practice in monographs and catalogues 
to quote species and genera as found in two localities — the old 
and erroneous one, and the real locality subsequently dis- 
covered. ]\Ioreover, even in works of so high a class and so 
• Nature, 1871, March 30, p. 4i!7 ; Catalogue of Mammak and Birds 
of Burma, J. A. S. B. 1875, pt. ii. exti'a number, Introduction, p. xv. 
t J. A. S. B. 18G9, pt. ii. p. 202 j ld70, pt. ii. p. 280 ; Proc. A. S. B. 
1871, p. 84. 
X •* Afrika-Indien," Verb. k.-k. zool.-bot. Gesellsch. "Wien, 1875, p. 33. 
§ P. Z. S. 1873, pp. 652, 669, &c. 
Element in the Fauna of India. 279 
accurate as Jonlon's * ^lanimal.s' ami ' IJirtls ' generally are in 
questions of distrilnition, some geographical expre-ssions arc 
very loosely used. Thus when Jcrdon u$es the term Central 
Inclia, he soujetimes means the country near Nsigpur, some- 
times the region known jnilitieally as ('entral India, coiii- 
prisiiig Ivajpiitana, Indore, and (iwalior, s<»nietinies ('liutia 
Xagpiir, a tract of country with a very dillerent fauna. 
1 regret to say that 1 have not now time to give even the 
detiiils 1 have accumulated on the subject ; all 1 can do is to 
attempt a meagre criticism of Mr. Wallace's lists of the 
fauna of India ; but I think I can show that there really i3 
better reason than ^Ir. Wallace suj)poses for inferring a dis- 
tinct relationshij) betwe(>u the fauna of the greater part of 
Imlia and that of AtViea. Wi-rc the African atlinities of tlie 
Indian fauna so small as would be inferred from the details 
given in the ' Geographical Distribution of Animals,' vol. i. 
pp. 321-320, I should have to confess that I had committed 
a great error, and that Messrs. Blytli and Stoliczka were 
equally mi-;taken in insisting on the strong Ethio])ian afHiiities 
of the Indian fauna. A little consideration will, I think, show 
that in some cases Mr. Wallace is mistaken, and that a care- 
ful analysis of the whole question will lead to a different 
conclusion. 
Before proceeding to criticise ^Ir. Wallace's lists I have 
two remarks to make. I will preface them by saying that 
nothing is further from my wish than to exj)ress an unfavour- 
able opinion of ]^Ir. Wallace's work. I believe that he has 
done his best to ai-rive at an unbiassed conclusion, and that 
where he has failed, as in this instance I think he has, the 
fault is chiefly that of the authorities on wdiom he had to 
de])end. 
The tirst remark I have to make is this : — India is in con- 
nexion with the Indo-.Malay countries; and w^de-ranging 
species, of mammals and birds especially, find no impediment 
in extending themselves throughout. This acts in two ways. 
It hinders a tendency to the formation of distinct tyjies through 
isolation ; and when a species by ranging to a distant region 
becomes modified the links in the chain of modified forms are 
more or less well ])reserved. If the whole of Burma, the 
Malay peninsula, Siam, Sumatra, Java, ami tlic other 
countries between India and China, south of the limits of the 
Pala'arctic region, and as far east as the parallel of Canton, 
had been buried beneath the sea since, at all events, a period 
long antecedent to the glacial epoch, if, moreover, a belt of 
well-wooded country extended across the Indian Ocean and 
connected Eastern Africa witli India, we should probably find 
19* 
i 
280 Mr. W. T. Blanford on the African 
that the fauna of India would differ from that of Eastern 
China or of Borneo far more than it now does, and we should 
then have a fairly parallel example of the differences now 
existing between India and Africa. Consequently, if we wish 
to form a true conception of the relations between the fauna of 
Africa and that of India, we must be prepared to take into 
consideration tlie alliances between distinct subgenera and 
sometimes between different genera. The question cannot be 
determined by ascertaining what forms are common in a list 
of such mammalian genera as were adopted, for instance, by 
Dr. Gray, many of which are not accorded more than specific 
rank by most naturalists, because in all probability Africa 
has been separated from India long enough for the same or 
allied species in the two regions, even if they had not varied 
at the time of separation, to liave become sufficiently distinct 
to be classed in different subgenera. This is emphatically 
the case when, as happens in several instances, tlic living 
Ethiopian representatives of Oriental genera are confined to 
Western Africa. 
The second remark is, that although I concur with Mr. 
WaHace in separating from the rest of India a Ceylonese, or, 
as I have generally called it, a Malabar province or subregion, 
I cannot agree with the limits laid down in the map at p. 315, 
vol. i. of the ' Geographical Distribution of Animals.' I am 
also inclined to modify several of the other boundaries laid 
down. I have traversed so large a portion of the Indian 
peninsula that I have had unusual opportunities for ascer- 
taining the limits of the different subregions ; and I see no 
ground for changing the views I expressed in 1870 *. The 
divisions I then proposed were the following : — 
1. The Panj^b province or subregion, including the Pan- 
jdb, Sind, Cutch, and Western Rdjput^na. 
2. The Indian province or subregion — the peninsula gene- 
rally, with the exception of the Panjab and Malabar provinces, 
but with the addition of Northern Ceylon. 
3. The ^Malabar province or subregion with Southern 
Ceylon. This corresponds generally to Mr. Wallace's 
Ceylonese subregion — a name I should willingly adopt, but 
that part of Ceylon does not belong to it, whilst the whole 
of Malabar does. This province comprises the low country 
on the west coast of India from Cape Comorin to a little 
north of Bombay, and the range of hills near the same coast 
as far north probably as the Tapti river. It also includes 
the hill tract of Southern Ceylon, but not the plains in the 
nortliern ])art of tlie island. Its fauna is represented, more- 
* J.A. S. B. 1870, pt. ii. p. .33G. 
Klemcnt in the luitina of India. 281 
over, on several isc^Iated hill j^roupa in Southern India, the 
number of reprrsintative t'orni.s apparently (liniini.sliiii;^ j[^ra- 
dually to the northward. The be8t-kn(j\vn of the.se groups i.s 
that of the Shevrny hills, near Salem. The plains of the 
Caruatie from the Krishna (Kistna) river to ('ape Coniijrin 
are ineluded in this region by .Mr, Wallaee; but in this he is 
certainly in error; and he has, I think, been niisled by incorrect 
localities for some typical forms, such as the Uropeltidai *. 
4. The Kastern-lJengal province. This is limited on the 
west by a line drawn northwards from the head of the Bay 
of Bengal. Calcutta is just on the edge, and jjerhaps rather 
within than without it. It Ixdongs to Mr. AV allaee's Indo- 
Chinese subregion, the limit of which 1 should be inclined to 
draw a little further to the westward than he does. This, 
however, is a trifling detail. 
I further subdivided the Indian province into subprovinces, 
as below : — 
a. Gangetic suLprovince or Hindustan f, extending south 
as far as the Xerbudda, in its eastern ])ortion comprising 
only the valley of the Son and the Gangetic plain as far east 
.IS Benares. 
b. Deccan subprovince — from the Xerbudda to the Krishna, 
bounded on the west by a line drawn a little east of tiie crest 
of the Western Ghats or Syahadri range, and on the east by a 
line drawMi nearly north and south a little east of X'llgpiir. 
r. Bengal subprovince — bounded by the last on the west, 
and extending as far south as the Goddvari. 
d. Madras subprovince — all the peninsula south of the 
Krishna river and to the eastward south of the Godavari, 
and east of the Xilgiri and other hills belonging to the range 
of the Westci'n Ghats. The upper portions of some small 
isolated hill-ranges, however, such as the Shevroys and 
Kolamullies, have a Malabar fauna. This Madras sub- 
province also includes Xorthern Ceylon. 
My provinces correspond to Mr. Wallace's subregions. The 
accompanying small maj) (j). 282) shows the approximate limits 
of the provinces and subprovinces. It is as well, since I have 
evidently been misunderstood, to say that the subdivision 
proposed refers solely to the Indian peninsula. The Eastern- 
• This family of snakes is entirely confined to the province or sub- 
region I have defined. Colonel Itetfdnnie, by fur the nest authority on 
South-Indian Kentilin, has pointed out that no L'ropcltida? are ever found 
in the plains of the Madras I'residency, except on the west coajjt. 
t I pointed out that by natives of India this term is applied to the 
rpj>er (lanpetic plain, and not, as it is by European geographers, to the 
whole of India. 
282 
;Mr. W. T. Blanford oji the African 
Bengal province is part of the Indo-Malay region to tlie east- 
Avard ; the Panjab province, the limits of which were quite 
unknown to me in 1870, I now find to be part of a very well- 
marked province or subregion which extends along tlie shores 
1. Panjab province or subregion. 
2. Indian province: a, Gangetic subpro^dnce ; b, Deccan subprovincej 
c, Bengal subprovince ; d, Madras subprovince, 
3. Malabar province. 
4. Eastern-Bengal province. 
of the Arabian Sea and to the head of the Persian Gulf, and 
contains throughout a curious mixture of Palsearctic and 
Indian forms with a prevalence of desert types of animals 
and plants. Its approximate limits to the westward coincide 
with those of Gazella Bennetti, and are shown in a little map 
published in the ' Proceedings of the Zoological Society ' *. 
• 1873, p. 314. I may mention that I have since ascertained that the 
only species of Gazella found in Sind and the desert country to the 
pa.<»tward is G. Bennetti. 
I 
Element in the Fauna of India. 283 
I TJin}'a<l(l tliat I now doubt wlictlier there is an}Mlifrercnce 
between the taiina of tlie Gan^'etie ami iJecean .suhmuvinces 
sutticient to justit'y the retention of the distinetion. IMk; only 
importance attiiehed to these subprovinces \a that Malay forma 
are more numerous in the Bengal and ^Madras subprovinceu 
than elsewhere. The Malabar forms arc closely affined to 
]\Ialay types as a rule, although some arc peculiar. 1 will 
mention one instance of tlie distinctions which have K'<1 me to 
suggest the formation of these subprovinces. The families 
Cyclophorido' and DiplomniatinidtVy amongst the terrestrial 
]\Iollusca, are remarkably well represented throughout the 
Oriental region. Both abound in the Himalayas and in Mala- 
bar, the Cyclophoridin being even more richly represented in 
the latter jirovince. In the Madras subjjrovince DijtJom- 
mdtinidtr are found on the hills with a Malabar fauna but not 
elsewliere ; and they have not, so far as I am aware, been found 
in the Bengal subprovince, nor elsewhere in the Indian 
province. Forms of Cyclophoridce are found throughout the 
Bengal and Madras subprovinces ; but none are known in tlie 
Gangetic and Deccan subprovinces. A Cylostomoid genus 
Cyclotop.sis is found in the Deccan and Gangetic subprovinces ; 
but the family of Ci/cJostoinidn' has a totally different geo- 
graphical distribution from that of the Cyclophorida', and the 
only other known species of Cycloiopsis occurs in the fc>eychelle 
Islands *. 
With these few preliminary remarks I pass to tlie review 
of Mr. Wallace's lists. The first is the list of genera of 
^lammalla which inhabit the subregion of Hindustan f. 
These are 38 in number; and Mr. Wallace remarks that "8 
have so wide a distribution as to give no special geographical 
indications. Of the remaining 30, whose geographical position 
we have noted, 14 are Oriental only, 5 have as much right to 
be considered Oriental as Ktliiopian, extending as they do over 
the greater part of the Oriental region ; 2 (the hyiena and 
gazelle) show Pala'arctic rather than Etliioj)ian affinity ; 7 
are Palicarctic and Oriental, but not Ethiopian ; and only 2 
( Cynalurus and Mellivora) can be considered as exclusively 
Ethiopian." 
The genera not mentioned by Mr. Wallace are chiefly bats, 
« It it» as well to point out that the classificAtion usually adopted for 
terrestrial Mollusca is largely tu-lificial, and fnunded mi characters of 
eecDiiilarv iiuiiortance. The value of tritliiif,' peculiaritic.-* in the operculum 
in especial hfis been much overrated; and the order Pulmouifera of most 
writers comprises forms Ix-lougin^' to two distinct orders. 
t L. e. p. 'i2-2. 
284 Mr. W. T. Blanford on the African 
the Etlilopian affinities of wliicli are quite as strong as their 
jVlahiyan rchititnis, aiul certain rodents, Lexjcjada a.nd Golunda, 
which are said to have Ethiopian representatives, and which 
liave certainly not hitherto been traced into tlie Mahay 
countries. I will omit these ; but, in justice to j\lr. Wallace's 
views, I must add a very imjiortant genus to the list. Txipaia 
ElUotti has recently been found both in the Bengal and 
Deccan subprovinces of the Indian subregion, and it must 
therefore be added to the Indian fauna. As the distribution 
and affinities of the ^lammalia arc better known than those of 
any other class, I shall go into a few details ; and to show the 
affinities of the 38 genera I will take them seriatim with 
Mr. Wallace's remarks on each between brackets. 
1 . Preshyt.€s (Oriental only) . Replaced throughout the Ethio- 
pian region by the allied genus Culohus. 
2. Macacus (Oriental only). One species occurs in Northern 
Africa. Allied genera are found in the Ethiopian region, 
e. g. Cercopithecus ; but the alliance is perhaps less close 
than in the case of Preshytes. 
3. Erinaceus (Palffiarctic genus). Found also in Central and 
Southern Africa, but absent and not replaced by any 
closely allied genus in ]\Ialayasia. Gymmira is placed 
in the same family by Mr. Wallace, but by others it is 
classed with Tupaia^ and is certainly not a near ally of 
Erinaceus. 
4. Surex (widely distributed). The subgenera require further 
study before their distribution can be considered deter- 
mined. 
5. Felts (almost cosmopolitan). 
6. Cymelurus (Ethiopian and S. Palsearctic) . I am not sure 
that this is fully entitled to generic rank. 
7. Viverra (Ethiopian and Oriental to China and Malaya). 
8. Viverricula (Oriental only). This is at the most a sub- 
genus of Viverra, and has no title to generic rank. 
9. Paradoxurus [Ox'x&nXdX oviXy) . The species found in Western 
Africa, P. hinotatusj has been made a distinct genus by 
Gray ; but it appears doubtful if the distinctions pointed 
out are of sufficient importance to justify generic separa- 
tion. In any ease Nandinia, as the African form is 
called, is very closely allied. 
10. Herpestes (Ethiopian, South-Pal^earctic, and Oriental to 
Malaya). 
11. Calogale (Ethiopian, Oriental to Cambodja). This docs 
not appear to be more than a subgenus of Herpestes ; and, 
so far as the Indian species are concerned, even this rank 
is doubtful, it being even a question how far one Indian 
I 
Klfineitt in tin Fdunn of India. 285 
incliuh'd sjH'ck-s is specitii-ally distinct t'n)in another placed 
by (iray hiinselt in Ilerpe.iUx. 
12. y'fP/jj'oya/t' (( )rieMtal). It is d()ul)tt'iil if this even he en- 
titled to more than subgenerie rank ; an<l it is erroneously, 
I think, ascribed to the Indian province. Jerdon, J 
believe, correctly states that it is only found in the 
^falabar j)rovincc. 
13. Jfi/irna (rahearetic and Oriental ; a Palwarctic sj)ccies). 
This is correct; but whilst other species of the ^enus arc 
found throui^hout the Kthiopian re,<;ion, the family is 
unrepresented in the Oriental region beyond the limits of 
the Indian province, with the exception, I believe, of 
Assam, into which it may have strayed from Bengal. 
14. Canis (Pala'arctic and Oriental to Malaya). Ethiopian 
as well — typical forms of jackal (e. g. Canin mesomelas 
and C. varii'tjatus) J wrongly classed by Gray as foxes, 
being found throughout Africa, whilst jackals are only 
found as stragglers in Burmah, and are unknown in 
Malayasia. The wolf {C. palUpes) found in India differs 
a good deal from Palwarctic forms, and requires com- 
f)arison with the Abyssinian C. simensis. By Gray this 
ast species and C. anthus, a widely spread African 
species, are made into separate genera, affined to Lupus, 
but I do not know how far the distinction is justified. 
No wolves are found in Malayasia. 
15. Cuon (Oriental to Malaya). Palajarctic also. Gray has 
shown that Cam's aljn'nus of Pallas belongs to the genus ; 
and Hodgson states that his C. jn-ima-vu^ is found in 
Tibet. A species of Cuon, probably C. alpinus, is 
recorded from Western Tibet also. 
16. Vulpes (very wide range). Unknown in Malayasia. 
The South-African Merjalotts is probably a representative 
form ; and the North-African and south Palaiarctic Fen- 
necs certainly are. 
17. Lutra ((Jricntal and Pala;arctic). No good reason has 
been assigned for separating the South-African L. maculi- 
coUi's. 
18. Mellivora (Ethiopian). Peculiar to the Indian province in 
the Oriental region, not even known to occur in Malabar. 
19. Melursiis ((Oriental only; family not Ethiopian). The 
genus Mi'lnrsus is peculiar to India, being replaced in 
the Himalayas and east of the bay by Ifefarctos', but I 
doubt if either is more than subgenerically separable 
from Ursus. 
20. Sus (Pala^arctic and Oriental, not Ethiopian). Replaced 
by an allied genus Potamochoerus in the Ethioj)ian region. 
286 Mr. W. T. Blanford on the African 
21. TragnJus (Oriental). A representative genus, Ilyomos- 
chusj in West Africa. Tragulus in India is confined, I 
believe, to the Malabar province, the Bengal subprovince 
of the Indian province, and perhaps the Madras province. 
I have never been able to hear of its existence in the 
Gangetic or Deccan subprovinces. 
22. Cervus (Oriental and Palaarctic ; family not Ethiopian). 
23. Cervuhts (Oriental; family not Ethiopian). Very local 
in India except in the Malabar province. 
24. Btbos (Palfearctic and Oriental). Only a subgenus of 
Bos. Bubahis, which is omitted, has, I believe, at least 
as good claims to be considered a Central-Indian form 
as Tragulus. It is aboriginally wild in the Bengal sub- 
province, part of the Madras subprovince (Northern 
Ceylon), and in Assam ; probably feral only in Malay- 
asia ; but this is not certain, so I omit it. The original 
form, B. pala'uidicus, occurs fossil in the Nerbudda 
valley. It is a thoroughly African genus. 
25. Portax (Oriental). Indian only; unknown east of the 
Bay of Bengal, and, so far as I am aware, in the Malabar 
province. It is a distinctly Ethiopian type, represented 
by allied genera (Oreas, Tragelaphus) in Africa. 
26. Gazella (Palajarctic and Ethiopian). Unknown in any 
part of the Oriental region east of the Panjab and Sind, 
except the Indian province, and therein confined to the 
Gangetic and Deccan subprovinces. 
27. Antilope (Oriental). "1 m 75 . -17.1. • 
28. TetraL'os {Ovi^ni\).r '^""^ ^' ' ^*^^^P^^^ 
types unknown east of the Bay of Bengal. 
29. Elephas (Oriental species). The genus, however, is 
Ethiopian. 
30. Mus (cosmopolite nearly). 
31. Platacanthomys (Oriental). Erroneously ascribed to the 
Indian province. It has only been found in the Malabar 
hills. 
32. Meriones (very wide range). Palaearctic and found 
throughout the Ethiopian region. Unknown out of 
India in the Oriental region. I do not know whether 
it occurs in ]\Ialabar. 
33. Spalacornys or Nesohia (Oriental). Palaearctic as well : 
one species in Baluchistan, another just described from 
Eastern Turkestan ; one of the Indian species inhabits 
Kashmir. Not knoAvn east of India. The only reported 
occuiTence in Burmah, P. A. S. B. 186G, p. 240, requires 
confirmation. 
34. Sciurus (almost cosmopolite). 
Klevient in the Fauna of India. 287 
35. Pteromys (I'ala'.irctic and Oriental to China and Malaya). 
36. lli/stri.r (wide ran<^e). 
37. Lepus (wide ran^e). Unknown in Malayaaia. 
38. Manis (JOtliio|)ian and Oriental to Malaya). 
It will be seen that two j^enera are ineorreetly classed as 
bclongin<; to the Indian ])rovincc exclusive of Malabar, viz. 
I'cenioyale and Phitacanthomys ) and I exclude three others as 
undeserving of generic rank, viz. Ci/naluriis, Viverriaday 
Caloijalc ; on the other hand I add Tupaia. These changes 
reduce the Indian genera to thirty-four. Of these, fourteen 
are either common to the Ethiopian region (India and Malay- 
asia), or replaced by closely allied forms in one or the other, 
viz. PresbyteSj Surex, Fe/ia, Viverra^ Paradoxurus, Jler- 
pestes, Lutra^ Sus, TraguluSj Elephas, Mus, Sciurus, llystrix^ 
Manis. 
The following, eight in number, are Oriental forms, being 
represented by identical or closely allied species, or nearly 
affined generic types in Malayasia, and not represented by 
allied forms in Africa — Macacos, Tupaia, Cuon, Melursus^ 
Cerviis, Cervidus, Bihos, Pteromys. Every one of these is 
more or less Pala^arctic also, except Cervulus and Tujmia. 
The following, ten in number, arc Ethiopian forms, being 
represented by allied species or genera in the Ethiopian region, 
whilst they are not similarly represented in the Malay coun- 
tries — Erinaceus, Hyccna, Canis, Mellivora, Portax, Gazella, 
Antilope, Tetraceros, Meriones, Lepus. Of these, Mellivora, 
Portax, Ant Hope J Tetraceros are unrepresented in the Palffi- 
arctic region. 
I think, bearing in mind that India has probably for ages 
been separated from Africa and united to the ^lalay countries, 
it could hardly be expected that stronger African affinities 
would be found in the fauna. I think it is evident that, so 
far as the Mammalia are concerned, the Ethiopian affinities of 
the Indian province are stronger than the Oriental. 
Birds. — jlr. AVallace says that " the naturalists who have 
adopted the * Ethiopian theory ' of the fauna of Hindustan 
have always supported their views by an ajipeal to the class 
of birds." I think ^Ir. Wallace is mistaken. I do not think 
I have ever especially (quoted the evidence of the birds ; nor do 
I consider it quite so strong as that of the mammals, though 
I think I shall be able to show that the number of Oi-iental 
forms in the Hindustan fauna is much overrated, and some 
important Ethioj)ian affinities overlooked, by 3Ir. Wallace. 
in the first place, Mr. Wallace's lists consist chiefly of 
Passeres ; and there are few orders throughout the animal 
kingdom, so far as I know, in which the accepted generic 
288 Mr. W. T. Blanford on the African 
distinctions are slighter and the generic affinities more com- 
plicated. Secondly, the power of flight gives birds peculiar 
facilities for extending their range ; and it is only natural that 
many forms should straggle into the province from the neigh- 
bouring Himalayas, the Assam hills, and the Malabar region. 
Hence in parts of the Bengal and Madras subprovinces a few 
]\Ialay forms are found which do not occur elsewhere in India. 
Moreover certain species are to be met Avith, on hills which 
rise to a considerable height, even in Central India. Thus 
Myiophonus HorsJiehU has been found in Sirguja on Main 
Pat, at Chikalda in Berar, at Pachmari, and at Mount Abii, 
all of them hills rising to about 4000 feet or more above the 
sea. At one of these localities, Chikalda, liypsipetes ganeesa 
was also shot, and it is said the typically and peculiarly Mala- 
bar genus Ochromela was seen. To include the birds found 
on these very few isolated hill-tops in a list of the general 
fauna of the suiTOunding country gives a completely false 
idea. Is Fregilus gracuhis to be included in the forms charac- 
teristic of the Ethiopian fauna because it inhabits the moun- 
tains of Abyssinia ? I have not time at present to enter into 
the subject of these isolated remnants of a fauna which once in 
all probability was more extensively diffused, thougli I by no 
means think it inhabited the whole of India. It certainly, 
however, must be omitted in estimating the fauna of the sur- 
rounding country. 
Mr. Wallace gives a list of eighty -four Oriental genera of 
birds found in Central India. Now, of these, twelve, viz. 
Layardia^ Garrulax, Trochalopteron^ Alcij)pe, Hypsipetes (with 
the exception mentioned above), Irena, Arachnotkera, Hemi- 
circuSjMuUeripicus^Nyctiorms, BatracJiostomuSy and Collocalia^ 
have never been found, so far as I am aware, in the Indian 
peninsula, except in the Malabar province; three others, Hemi- 
chelidon^ Niltava^ and Perdix are not known to occur south of 
the Himalayas, the last named, as generally restricted, being- 
found no nearer than Tibet, and not being an Oriental genus 
at all. Mr. Wallace probably includes Perdicula in Perdix. 
This, however, is, so far as known, a form peculiar to India 
and Ceylon, the Timor P. Raalteni being ajoparently but 
dubiously affined. 
Of the remaining genera, twenty-one, viz. Ahrornis (one 
species only, A. cantator)^ Larvivora, HemipuSj Pellorneum^ 
Dendrophila, Chihia, Cliaptia^ Nectar opMla^ Dicceum, EalabeSj 
Nemoricolaj Gecinus^ Tiga^ Micropternus, Rhopodytes, Surni- 
culus, HarpacteSy Ceyx, Hydrocissa, Carpophaga, and Chalco- 
phaps, are not, to the best of my knowledge, found outside 
the Bengal and Madras subprovinces ; and I suspect Megalurus 
Element in the Fauna of ImJia. 289 
and Pelarfjopsis have only been found as occasional stragglers 
beyond the limits. Mifinphonus I have already mentioned. 
These birds may be luund in a few isolated hills even in the 
Deccan and (langetic subprovinces ; but they are not found 
generally. To prevent being misunderstood, I should add 
that, when I say not found generally, I mean not found even 
in the great forests, such as those of the Nerbudda and Tapti 
valleys, so far as 1 am aware. Some of the forests in these 
countries, and especially those of the Satpura ranges, are very 
extensive : I have passed months in tliem at a time ; and 
although, as I was not collecting, I might easily have over- 
looked the smaller })irds, I could not have failed to remark 
e(tnspicu(»us forms like Hi/ilrocissaj Carj^ophngOj and Chalco- 
phnps. 
Five genera, viz. Malacocerots, Piprt'soma, Taccocua^ 
Ortijijornxx^ and Galloperdlx^ are, I believe, peculiar to India 
and Northern Ceylon. Mr. Wallace makes Malacocercus 
extend to the Philippines ; but I do not find the genus in Lord 
Walden's list *. Ortygornis is apparently by Mr. Wallace 
made to include Rhizothera. I have no means of judging 
how far this is accurate ; but rtygornii^ appears to me affined 
to some of the African Francolins, e. g. F. guttnrnlis. I cannot 
agree with Jerdon in looking upon Galloperdix as allied to 
Gallus^ or with Blyth (Ibis, 18G7, p. 157) in considering that 
it is a representative of Polgplectron, or still less of Ithaginis. 
It is quite as much like some African Francolins, e. g. F. 
Erkelii. 
Six more genera are certainly Ethiopian as well as Oriental. 
They are: — Chatarrluva., to which certain South-Palajarctic and 
African species belong, and which is now united by most 
ornithologists with the African Crateropus j Cittacincla, iden- 
tical with the P^thiopian genus Cercotrichas ] Arachnechthra^ 
to which a number of African species belong {Nectarinia 
habe.ssinica, for instance) ; Pitta and Treron, included by Mr. 
Wallace himself in the Ethiopian fauna ; and Meniceros, which 
is not sej)arable from the Ethiopian genus Tocciis. I believe 
this list iiiight be largely extended. 
Lastly, of two genera. Pastor and Ergthrosferna, the only 
species of the former found in the Indian province is a migra- 
tory Palwarctic form, which docs not extend to the east of 
India ; and the only sj)ecies of Ergthrostema found commonly 
in the Deccan and Gangctic provinces is the European E. 
parva. Other migratory forms, however, are found in the 
Bengal and Madras subprovinces ; and an occasional straggler 
♦ Tr. Z. S. i.\. p. 1>1>. 
290 Mr. W. T. Blantbrd on (he African 
may occur in other parts of the Indian peninsula. If these 
migratory forms are taken into consideration, why are the 
SaxicoI<r, with their strong African athnities, omitted? I have 
shot two species of Saxicola at Nagjnir. 
I thus am obliged to exclude no less than forty-six out of 
eighty-seven Oriental genera, either because they are not 
found in the portion of Central India in which the proportion 
of African forms is most marked, or because they are not 
characteristically Oriental forms. 
Of the forty-eight genera of wide range I have very little 
to say, except that CalandrcUa and Ammomanes are not found 
to the east of the Bay of Bengal, whilst both are represented 
in the Ethiopian region, Calandrella being certainly allied to 
some forms of Megalophonus ; whilst the only species of Coc- 
cystes (Cjacobinus) is Ethiopian,being found even in Southern 
Africa. It extends to Upper Burmah, where it consorts with 
a few other Indian forms with African affinities, e. g. Crate- 
I'ojjus gidaris and Francoliniis Phayrei vel sinensis ; but it 
is not, so far as I am aware, found in Malayasia. Mr. Hume 
has not apparently received it from Tenasserim. 
The list of Palffiarctic genera occurring in Central India 
might perhaps be increased ; but, as nearly all are migratory, 
they are of trifling importance. 
Lastly we come to the Ethiopian genera. By the omission 
of the Kaptores and Gralla^, seven of the most striking and 
remarkable cases of African forms found in India and unrepre- 
sented east of the Bay of Bengal are omitted ; these are 
Neophron^ Chicquera, Rhinoptilus, Cursorius, Sypheotides, 
Eupodotis, and Fhaenicopterus. Neop)hron, Cursorius^ and 
Thcenicopterus extend, it is true, into the southern portion of 
the Palffiarctic region ; but the Palaarctic species of Cursorius 
is confined to the Panjd,b province in India, and the Indian 
province is inhabited by a peculiar species. 8yplieotides 
appears to me congeneric with the African Lxssotis. In both 
genera the males undergo the same peculiar change of plumage, 
becoming black in the breeding-season. The case of Rhino- 
ptilus is very remarkable. The Indian species is very rare, 
and only known to occur in part of the Madras subprovince. 
If we had only this one species, it would be impossible to deny 
the existence of a distinct African element in the Indian 
fauna. Another African form unrepresented to the eastward 
is Cercomela. 
I regret that I cannot now go more thoroughly into this 
matter and classify the birds as I have attempted to do the 
mammals. Before doing so it would be necessary to compare 
a large number of African genera with Indian. I notice in 
Ehmcnt in the Fauna of IivUd. 291 
Mr. Wallace's lists that tlie only families of birds found in 
India wliicli an* not Htliiimian arc tiir Certhllihv^ Phijlhir- 
nitliiihvj HUfl Art<tiniilii'^ cacli of wliicli is represented by but a 
single species in Central India. In the Himalayas and in the 
countries immediately to the eastward of India, five a<lditional 
non-African families are found, .iccording to Mr. Wallace's 
classilication, viz. : — Pannriihr^ Liotrichidip, PdchijrpphdUdd'^ 
Kui-ijlirinidi'^ and Poihuujiihv. The following Ethiopian fami- 
lies are also Indian, but not found in any other ])art of the 
Oriental region so far as 1 know — Ptcroduhr^ Otidithv, Cur- 
sorid<v, Pluenicopteridir* \ so that there are actually more fami- 
lies of birds found in India which are not found in BurnuUi 
even, tlwui there are which are not also represented in Africa. 
In Mr. Hlyth's lists of Burmese birds (J. A. S. li. lS7;jj the 
following families are included -which are not tbund in 
the Indian province — Jleuicuriihr^ Garridacidr^ LiotricliidiP^ 
Pipridir'j Eiiryhvmidie. It should be remarked that Mr. 
Blyth's families differ materially from Mr. Wallace's ; but the 
result in this respect is the same. If, now, we proceed to cal- 
culate the number of species Ijelonging to the families, and to 
limit to the true characteristic sub|)rovinces the area of the 
Indian province compared, the result will be far more startling. 
1. Found in the typical subprovinces of Families. Species. 
India, but unknown in Africa . . 3 comprising 3 
N.B. Of these three families, one, 
Artamidfe^'is principally Australian; 
another, Certhikhv^ is chiefly Palaj- 
arctic, and is only represented to 
the east of India by one species in 
the Phili])i)ine Islands. 
2. Found in the same subprovinces and 
common to Africa, but unknown 
east of the Bay of Bengal even in 
Burmah {PterocIidfB 3 species, Oti^ 
didfc 3 species, Cursoridn- 1 species, 
PJi(rnir<tj)ten'<l<r 2 species) ... 4 ,, 9 
3. Found in Burmahf, but unrepresented 
in the typical subprovinces of India 
{Trogonidfc 2 sj)ecies, Ilenicuridcn 
4, Garndacid<e 15, Liotrichidd' 10, 
Piprldic [Calyptoiiema) 1, Eury- 
hvmida- 8) G „ 40 
* Gruida might be added if India be compared with Malayasiaj but 
cranes are said to occur iu I'jiper nurniah and in China, 
t Taken from Mr. Blyth's lists, /. c. 
292 Mr. \V. T. Blanford on the African 
Moreover the following are the relative number of species 
of some peculiarly characteristic Indo-Malayan families in 
Burmah, according to Bljth's list, and in the above named 
subprovinces of India 
The last list is very important, because it shows in a striking 
manner the most prominent difference between the Malay 
countries and India — the extremely rich fauna of the one as 
compared with that of the other, and the great disproportion 
of representatives of the same families. The truth is that the 
characteristic Oriental genera are not nearly so abundant or so 
well represented in India as is generally supposed. 
I pass on to the Reptilia ; and here I must say that Mr. 
Wallace's information appears to have misled him. He states, 
(p. 326) that Trojyidococcyx is peculiar to the subregion, and 
Aspidura, Passerita, and Cynopliis to the peninsula and 
Ceylon. Now Tropidococcyx and Aspidura have not, so far 
as I know, ever been found in the subregion at all ; the only 
localities I can find for the former are North Canara and the 
Nilgiri hills, both in the Malabar subregion ; whilst Aspidura^ 
so far as I can judge from the evidence, is confined to Ceylon, 
though it also is probably found in Malabar. CynopMs 
Helena I suspect to be a Malabar form also, although it may 
be found in the Madras subprovince ; Passerita is common 
enough in the Bengal subprovince, but is certainly not known 
in the Deccan or the Gangetic area. 
Next, Mr, Wallace gives, as characteristic genera and 
chai'acteristically Oriental, Dipsas^ Simotes, Buncjarus, Naja, 
Trirneresurus, Lycodon, and Python. I cannot admit that the 
list is either accurate or complete. To the best of my belief 
Simotes and Trimeresurus are only found in the Bengal and 
Madras subprovinces ; and I strongly suspect the same might 
be said of Python^ though I may be mistaken. Noja may be 
characteristically Oriental ; but it is quite as characteristically 
Ethiopian ; and one species is Paleearctic, Tomyrus oxiana 
having been shown, if I am not mistaken, to belong to the 
genus. Dipsas^ too, is found in Africa. 
Then Eumeces^ PentadactyluSy Gecko, Euhlepharis, and 
Draco are characteristically or wholly Oriental, according to 
Eliiiiint in thv Fauna nf India. 2I)."J 
Mr. WallaCH', This I grant, with the exception ot' EuhUpharia^ 
whieh is not t'oujid outsi(h' the Indian provinee in the ( )iiental 
rei^ion, nor represented hy any allied t'orni, whilst it appears 
very probahle that it is allied to the West-AtVican Pxilodar- 
tf//iiSj as Gray suggested. Neither Pentadacti/liis, Gecko^ nor 
Draco is found anywliere in the Indian province at all. By 
Kum('C(s 1 pri'sunic the genus as enlarged by Giinthcr is 
meant ; it' so, it is the oidy genus ot" the tivc which can be 
cjiioted as in any way supporting Mr. Wallace's view. It is 
represented in the Indian jirovincc by one species of Mocoa 
antl two of JWojin * ; now in Gray's ' Catalogue of Lizards in 
the British Museum' I find a Mocoa quoted from West Africa, 
and a I'wpa from Arabia. 
The commonest and most characteristic Indian genera of 
Laeertilia andUphidia are the following: — Varamis^ Cahrttaj 
OphtopSj Enpi'i'jwsy If(')iu'dacf///ns, Sitana, CaloteSy Charasiaj 
('/lanHrho^ Typldops^ Pfi/as^ Zainenift^ Tropidonotiis^ Ltjcodorij 
Ertj.r, ^oja, Bungarus, Daboia, and Echis. Of these the only 
characteristically Oriental genera are Calotes, Li/codon, Bun- 
fjarus'^ whilst Cahrita (allied to Eremi'as), Charasia (very near 
to SteUio), C/iavufdeo, Eryx^ and Echis have distinct Ethio- 
pian atiinities, and Sitana is restricted to India. The fol- 
lowing families are Ethiopian and Indian, but not Malayan — 
Cham(vleontidie (1 species) and Erycidcp^ (2 species). The 
following are Indian and Malayan but not Ethiopian — Oligo- 
duntidiP, represented by one species in the typical Indian sub- 
provinces, and Crotah'(hp, which are not kiiown to occur in 
them at all. 
It is true that of the Amphibia not a single family exhibits 
special Ethioj)ian affinities ; but the genus Fyxiceji/iahis does 
so most unmistakably. This genus has not been found east 
of the Bay of Bengal. 
Before concluding these few remarks, there is a point to 
which I thiidv it well to call attention, as it is one which has 
largely intlueneed me in insisting on the African affinities of 
the Indian fauna. This is the evidence that in Northern and 
Central India the fauna in the later Tertiary times was more 
allied to that of Africa at present than it now is. This is 
shown by the presence of Hippopotamus, Camclopardalisj 
Lo.rodon, and a numl)er of antilopinc forms in the Pliocene 
* I have not met with this genus in either the Deccan or the Gangetic 
puhpruviuce. 
t The statement that £ri/x and Gongylophis occur in Sikkim has been 
shown to bo an error. It depends on the l("K?alitios affixed to the specimens 
collected bv the Messrs. v. Schlnpintweit, manv of whose localities are 
untrustworthy. See P. A. S. Ji. 1870, p. 77 ; X. A. S. R 1)571. p. 421. 
Ann.d-Mng. N. Hist. ^e.rA. Fo/. xviii. 20 
294 On the African Element in the Fau7ia of India. 
fossil fauna of the Sevaliks, and of a Rhinoceros belonging to 
the African type {R. dcccanensis, Foote) in the Deccan. In 
the Pleistocene fauna of the NerbuiUla builaloes arc found with 
a species of round-horned Dos [B. namadieas)^ now rephiced in 
the same region by the Hat- horned ]\Ialayan Bos {Bibos) 
gaurus. Of course the round-horned bovine is not African ; 
but neither is it Malay. My belief is that the vertebrate 
fauna of India contains three elements, derived at three dif- 
ferent periods from countries which were or had been in con- 
nexion Avith Africa. The first of these consists of the forms 
common to the Ethiopian and Oriental region. These are in 
India the bulk of the fauna. It is scarcely necessary to quote 
examples ; but the Viverridce, Tragididca^ Manididoe^ Mega- 
loeinidfe, BucerotidcCy and Pycnonotidm will serve as charac- 
teristic illustrations. The second consists of forms common 
to the Ethiopian region and India, but which do not extend 
to the eastward of the Bay of Bengal ; nor are they represented 
in the portion of South-western Asia now lying on the direct 
line between India and Africa : such are Mellivora, Antilope, 
PortaXj Tetraceros amongst mammals, Sypheotides, Rhino- 
ptiluSj Chicquera, Thamnohia amongst birds. The third is 
composed of species with Ethiopian affinities, which may have 
wandered into India from Arabia and Baluchistan : such are 
Gazella Bennetti and Neopliron percnojJterus. In the case of 
many Ethiopian forms inhabiting India, e. g. Pgrrhidauda 
grisea, Eupodotis Edwardsi, &c., it is not easy to say to which 
of the two latter classes they belong, as they are represented 
by closely allied forms in South-western Asia. But there can 
be very little doubt of the animals of the second group having 
entered India by a line of communication which no longer 
exists (some of them, e.g. Tetraceros and Rhino^^tilus) being 
forest forms not found in open country. 
I regret that want of time prevents my entering more 
thoroughly into this subject. I have tried to weigh the 
evidence fairly ; and I think I have shown that my belief in 
the presence of a marked African element in the Indian fauna 
is not due to a confusion between " station " and " habitat." 
From what is known of the distribution of the Mollusca, 
Insecta, and Arachnida, I believe that the evidence afforded 
by the Invertebrata coincides with that of the Vertebrate 
fauna. 
Calcutta, August G, 1876.