their existence and maintenance, as they receive a t times from the pure races new supplies of fresh hlood. Although any species
of the Phasianidæ will mate with any other, it is only those having natural affinities and chiefly belonging to th e , same genus
which are prolific, the remainder proving barren, the eggs apparently not possessing the life-germ. Perhaps thé most satisfactory
experiments of» interbreeding were those made by M. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, and communicated to the Acclimatization Society of
Paris in 1869. Phasianus colchicus was crossed with the following species :—Euplocamus nycthemerus, Phasianus Soemmerringii,
P . Reeoesii, Thaumalea picta, and the Domestic Fowl,, or common chicken. Of these, : the first and last proved barren, the
second unsatisfactory, the third prolific, and the fourth seldom prolific., Now the. result is not surprising that there should
be no offspring from the union of such different genera as Euplocamus and Thaumalea; but it is difficult to assign a reason
why the union of P . colchicus and P . Semmerringii should not prove prolific, particularly as that between the'first-named species
and P . Reeoesii had been. Again, Euplocamus nycthemerus was mated with Thaumalea picta and Euplocamus (species not
giveu)|t§As was to be expected, the first proved barren, and the second prolific. : Euplocamus nqbïlis with the Kaleege proved
prolific, as did also the union of Euplocamus ignitus with E . ■ melanotis, and E . albo-cristatus vvith P . melanotis. Phasianus Reeoesii
with P . Walliclni was not satisfactory.
Now from the above trials, made, we may suppose, with patient care and under every favourable auspico; .ut seems (fotefegÀ
proven that species o f different: genera will not cross readily, if a t all ; , and even with those which are prolific, we are unable
to show that their offspring would be fertile ; for, as it was. not stated to the contrary, I conclude that in the instances
given, the crossing was always between pure bloods, and that their fertility or non-fertility is intended, not that of their
offspring. If, however, the latter is meant to be described, if? only shows that with species o f opposite genera fresh blood must
be constantly introduced, or the race will Soon' disappear. When the crossing o f allied species is attempted to any extent;
the first result may possibly be encouraging by the production of a handsome bird, perhaps larger in size than either of its
parents. But this; unless by-fthe constant introduction of the true speci.es t and a . consequent supply of fresh blood, cannot be
continued.; and the race will decrease in size and die out, no material remaining even to enable the individuals to return again to
the similitude of one of their parent species, which would assuredly he- the case if access, were possible to either of the pure-blooded
birds. Thus time,-labour, , and money are all thrown away. Muchi better would it be if (all'attempts a t 'Grossing different species
o f Pheasants were discontinued ; for man cannot improve in this instance upon. Nature’s magnificent creation, and a race of
mongrels without similarity o f plumage, weight, or form certainly cannot be an end in any way desirable to attain. Sometimes
a hybrid proves to be prolific and breeds readily ; but this must mot be taken as: a proof that all hybrids are also prolific,
nor can it be at all considered ascertained that the offspring of a fertile hybrid would also, be the. same. The probabilities are
that it would be exactly the reverse ; but. allowing th a t it were, the race would invariably disappear should it come into contact
either with one o f its parent stock alóne; or. with any other pure .race. The characteristics of these last having been fixed by natural
laws and causes, would overthrow and force to disappear the unnatural and artificial peculiarities possessed and exhibited by the
hybrid. Instances are not wanting where the offspring of different species o f the same genus proved infertile, and this too in cases
where it would be least expected. An able naturalist, under the nom-de-plume o f ‘ Zoophilus,’ states, in one of his (communications
to the ‘ Field,’ that “ even of two species of Gallus I have known the hybrid offspring to prove infertile. In India I once reared
a pair of hybrid fowls from a cock of G. Sonnerratii and a Burmese domestic hen, which was undistinguishable from that of the,
wild G. ferrugineus or Red Jungle-fowl; -but though very numerous eggs were produced* in which these hybrids were concerned
alike inter se and with ordinary domestic fowls, in not a single instance did such an egg yield a chick, although other eggs
placed in the same nest with them, were hatched as usual. I might therefore have naturally rushed to the conclusion that the
mixed progeny of Gallus Sonnerratii: «aA G. ferrugineus are incapable of propagation ; but I am informed o f other instances in which
the contrary has happened, this particular mixed race being continued for generations ; and if I mistake not, the same is true of
the so-called G. oeneus (seu Temminckiî); which is a hybrid from the more widely diffused G. varius (softfiircatus') with th;ë-(Domestic
Fowl, that would appear to be somewhat-commonly raised in ,-.the island of Java.”
In the great majority o f cases where hybridism has become a t all conspicuous,, it has been due to artificial causes, when the
birds have been in a state o f captivity or restraint,1 and where the results obtained were the fruit Of previous calculation and
management^ and-:I am not aware of any well-authenticated instance where the crossing of two species iu ;the, wild state has
ever given rise to a race which has continued to maintain itself with its distinctive characters intact without any outside support—r-
in fact, become what would be accepted a t the present day as a species. “ Left to themselves,” says Zoophilus, “ with a sufficiency
of companions of their, own kind; the" probability is that only such races would. habitiially: interbreed and blend as aijg; regarded by
some naturalists as conspecies, or as geographical varieties of the same species*” and which in : all likelihood had the, same origin.
Therefore, while we must recognize the existence of these birds with the bar sinister, we must also be careful to keep them in
their, proper place,, and not elevate them. to specific rank, to which they are in nò wise entitled. They are. easily known; and, to
one who lias had any experience with them or studied the subject a t all, it is not difficult to perceive.al most a t first sight, to what
species a hybrid may owe its existence. .To science, in themselves, they are of little value ; nor can they establish any possible
permanent improvement over any pure-blooded race, nature herself having interposed to check their increase by rendering them
fertile only to a very limited degree.
LITERATURE OF THE FAMILY.
In reviewing the literature of the Phasianidæ, I have not deemed it necessary to refer .to any authors whose works were published
Natur»,' issued and, indeed, it was not until a considerable time after
this date that .the members of this Eimily,. 'becoming at all properly .understood, were grouped together and classified under their
respective and appropriate genera. I have arranged in _chronological order the various works requisite to be reviewed, commencing
with the one ju st mentioned.
I 76 6—Linnæus, ‘ Systema N a tu rie .’
This' author inOludes in the family of the Phasianidæ, under the order Gallinæ, the four genera Paoo, Meleagris, Phasianus,
and Numida, of course^ in these comprising species which are regarded a t the present day as belonging to totally different
genera. Thus, under Paoo, beffr Peacocks and Polyplectron are found; and his list comprises P . cristalus, P . muticus, and Pol.
bicfllcaraium. Meleagris does duty for a species of Tragopan as well as for a species of Penelope (which last need not be said to
be out of place here), and contains M. gallopaoo and Ceriornis satyra.• Phasianus :— under this genus many species are included not
belonging to this family. I mention only'those having a place in this monograph ; they are P . colchicus, argus, pictus, and nycthemerus.
Numida contains the only species k n ow n® that time, the common N meleagris. To Liunæus, therefore, but ten species of those
which ’ra llin o w deemed to belong to this family were known. Species^O.
1767.—P allas, ‘ Spicilegia Zoologica.’
In the fourth part of this work, two new species o f Numida are described—N . cristata and N. mitrata. Species 12.
1776.—P. L. S. Müller, E dition of L innæüs’s ‘ Systema Natur/é.’
Not many species are recorded by this author among the Phasianidæ, the names given being chiefly those represented in
Buffon’s ‘ Planches Enluminées.’ P . chinquis is a name given to a Polyplectron described by Buffon, and said to have come from
Thibet. Whether it is the same as the P . chinquis of Temminck it is impossible to ascertain with any certainty ; should it be,
then the name of thibetanum given to the P . chinquis of authors b,y Ginelin, and which I have adopted, must become a synonym
of P . chinquis, Muller. ,Phasianus cornutus is th^Ceriornis satyra, and Phasianus superbus probably the P . Reeoesi ; Numida cristata
is the species’ described by Pallas. Numida coronata, stated to 'lWye been described by Pallas, may be the N . mitrata, Pall.; but
it cannot 'be determined, as Pallas never published any description‘-of a Numida coronata. Muller’s work is exceedingly rare, and
is chiefly known by Mr. Cassin’s “ Fasti Ornithologiæ,” published in the ‘ Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural
Sciences ’ for 1864.
1783.—L atham’s ‘ Ornithology.’
Unfortunately, ini this work the ¡uuhor hnving employed English nomenclature, his names cannot be used. His rcmissness was
R ^ B r a n f l H l by Ginelin, who followed t and » *» sp ec ie s^ è|crib ea l i the wórk were speedily given Latin names, and
iìrnelin easily acquired arîmindeseryeil position às an yhâjitbûlogist.; - ’ ■
1788.—Gmelin,- ‘ Systema Natural’
The great plagiarist does not improve to any extent the list of tlve author whom he copies. He also retains all the species known
to him ' under five genera,'but mingles with them mauy species belonging to other families, Paoo contains cristalus, muticus, bical-
caratum, and thibetanum, this last founded upon the Thibet Peacock of Latham, which is the chinquis of authors. Meleagris contains
the singie species gallopaoo. Penelope, while possessing the species naturally belonging to it, is increased with that of the Tragopan
satyra. Phasianus comprises colchicus, lorquaius, Argus, pictus, nycthemerus, aud gallus, this last being the Gallus sonneratt described
later by Temminck. Numida is represented by meleagris, mitrata, and cristata....In his genus Telrao, he describes a bird as 1.
ferrugineus, the “ Hackled Partridge” of Latham’s ‘ Ornithology ; ’, and. although he gives its locality (copying from Sonnerai) as
China, I, judging from the coloured figure in the ' ‘ Ornithology,’ consider .i t to be a hen of the common Jungle-fowl, which thus
antedates Temminck’s name of bankiva. I only notice in this author’s list those species properly belonging to the Phasianidæ. P.
torqualus, G. sonnerati, Polplectron thibetanum, and Gallus ferrugineus increase the number of species to 16.
1790.— L ath am, ‘ Index Orn ith o lo g icu s.’
In this useful work, the author, while following in his arrangement those writers, who have preceded him, enumerate two novelties
not heretofore mentioned— Phmimm Impeijmms, a most valuable addition to the. family, and P . lacome/mos, which is merely a hybrid
he / is status and L mclunolus. The P . lorqmtns of Ginelin (Latham s Ring-necked Pheasant) is wrongly made a
synonym of eo/chiais, instead, of being allowed specific rank, to which it is unquestionably entitled. The Penelope satyra is by this
author placed under meleagris. Species now 17.