WCP2319

[1]

Magd. Coll.

11 May 1875.

My dear Wallace,

I am again greatly obliged to you & I return the list you enclosed me having copied it. I think it more than confirms the view I have taken – for [5 words illeg.] ^{giving the Nearctic "Region" full} benefit of the 36 genera you name. I find the corresponding number of genera common to both "Regions" to be 122 — and of 186 + 72 genera of Water birds. The 13 genera peculiar to Nearctic & the 120 emminently character ^{characteristic} [2] of it + the 3 others you name bear but a small proportion to 122 common & I think prove the "Region" to be a good subregion of the whole American continent — but nothing more.

However I have said before I mean to let the Nearctic "Region" stand though I have great misgivings as to the propriety of doing so.

Mesites I have never seen — they seen to have it only in Paris — it is not (according to my latest information) either in London or Leyden.

Turdus goudoti = Tylas eduardi

[3] Verreaux who described the, first, saw the type of the second hen & admitted that it was so.

I hope to send further list of Palaearctic genera by the time you want it — but visitors have been unusually numerous & I make but slow progress.

Yrs very truly | Alfred Newton¹ [signature]

My Patagonian Sub Region has according to tables made for me by Salvin² 30 peculiar genera of Land birds — against 13 peculiar to Nearctic "Region"! Antillean Subregion 27 peculiar genera!!