| LOCAL. | BRITISH. | FOREIGN. | |
| Ptarmigan | No. | Yes. | Yes. |
| Red Grouse | Has occurred. | Yes. | Yes.[Footnote: Formerly indigenous to Britain, but now found in Sweden, etc..] |
| Capercaillie | No. | Yes. | Yes. |
| Black Grouse | Has occurred. | Yes. | Yes. |
| Pheasant | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
| Red-legged Partridge | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
| Barbary Partridge | Said to have once occurred | Doubtful. | Yes. |
| Partridge | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
| Virginian Colin | No. | Doubtful. | Yes. |
| Quail | Has occurred. | Yes. | Yes. |
| Andalusian Hemipode | No. | Doubtful. | Yes. |
Or, putting it into a tabular form, as if supposing that the whole four hundred known species could be shown, we should have it presented thus:
ORDER — GALLINAE.
(400 SPECIES.)
| 389 | . . . . . . . .400 | FOREIGN. | |
| 8 . . . . | . . . . 11 | . . . . . . . . . . . . | BRITISH. |
| 3 . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . | LOCAL. |
That is to say, that, although it was wished to claim the 3 ft. 6 in. division in height, of indefinite length (really ten feet when worked out) for the three "local" birds, yet it will be seen by the foregoing tables that those three "locals" would do equally as well if placed in the "British" division, and the sum total of the "local" and "British" might be placed correctly with all the rest in the "foreign." Why, then, should valuable space be wasted for three birds, simply to perpetuate an error in working out a crotchet?
The question again arose, What could such a "model" system as this teach? This was effectually answered by a specimen case, representing the above, being fitted up, when the glaring errors of the proposed system were at once evident, there being fully a space of 10 ft. x 3 ft. 6 in. x 2 ft. 6 in. = 87.5 ft. cube, devoted to five birds only — three of which were not now found in the county. These represented the "locals." In the "British" division, of 10 ft. in length x 2 ft. 6 in. in height x 1 ft. 6 in. back to front, viz., a cube of 37.5 ft. there appeared but six others — three of which were doubtful. Furthermore, as if to point to the crowning absurdity of the whole scheme, but 10 ft. x 2 ft. x 1 ft. = 20 ft. cube, was provided for the great remainder of the "foreign" specimens, nearly thirty-seven times as numerous as both "local" and "British" combined.
Now for the cheapness of the system advocated. In the first place, local specimens of rare birds are not cheap. For instance, anyone can get a foreign specimen of — say, the honey buzzard — for about 8s., but a locally-killed specimen would be very likely to cost several pounds. As for the "elasticity" of such a system, if it is meant that it will stretch any way but the right, I agree, but if meant to be applied to any department of natural history it is distinctly wrong.
Let us take the case of the invertebrates, nearly all of which, as the birds, have a wide range. Many instances occur to me, but one will be sufficient, Vanessa Antiopa, the "Camberwell Beauty" butterfly. Now this insect has been taken three times (perhaps more?) in the county, and I suppose it has occurred in nearly every county in England, but as it is found also commonly throughout the greater part of Europe, parts of Africa, Asia, and America, we are confronted by the unpleasant reminder, "what shall we do with it" under the system proposed?
It is, according to that theory, "local," "British," and "foreign;" it is rarest as "local," being, of course, of accidental occurrence; yet it is proposed to show it only in that division, to the extent of ignoring the two other divisions which have manifestly a greater claim on it. If this, then, were adhered to, the student would at once have presented to him an incorrect view of the distribution of species.