sn tes be a Ken bed ache ee ewe ,', 5 be eee AL! 7 De ae Aaa Sy ry hd va on a me "+e? “te we 4! eh 4 +4 4 54 Le Ok ee ' ye 4 At | ' VAs ob bart 4, re ory thie ' ‘ eon) er Ye or 7 pee teaeta OMAR ta tenay wins “ Cet ‘ a Pee et ubg. “babes ' ee ay ' UV ee hee eges nt 7a Soe ee Ara eng: oma ee) ans 7 Tees Pirdaaa i] rth Leta de pea PR ea ee | hs a eee tree yy vine Oh aD 44 Oran ae van ' a abe , \itacaey tates ewes, Puy eee 4 ' \ t Herat t Hoe Ue EL et oer Ae bE bey Vey vee n Pereon ce at ree (So hewn De sds ( fe AER Pra Voal seve ith ienticed a ies Mee ( ‘ Ah 4 AULT OH Dh, ye ie ne Anas ot « Ra Pap b yas ’ 1 ’ Me me ein / AEA Worn hogy bn 1 Sayer . eS vee Ute pea Aa A, MAE) LAU A } pl J Q n4 or 3 3} a he t bie 74" nih ht Cu rn : . st wate wit . sat oy ahs BUH dig ds ” 7 ‘ th L era a yy aay * ites: aie >) kyon aren) cy 4 wnat Weed dy Tete, EMU : sath aie nf wie Vy bY i ; 2) sees Wigrg a sen ces hy, at bt pat i Veda kd Ce mre ae ty i ta 4 Varta arLeae at oe 4 0 H ese ras Soa Retest, fhe Byvvigve be thy Hate. Ratan \ real esta She : “ Miaka oF Oe ae fa: oe gt now Sahete yh ‘ sh wed i. We \ aot ‘ Cian! Pied eyed Lear rr rs i eh Fete RRO NO reece Bie ie eri ‘ De Se Sree fe Brrr eis ea) Frye! het Oba @ He hteeiaga aa witb me ae aa ey a Dey Adedb Ratu s ead baa RGU Wrcrrer fe i irae VheGed uaa ga ey Cbdas Wee ‘ $ag + hai re y Y Fey we > hi a “er ‘ 4) * 4 4 ‘ bok 4 G CARAT ¢ ee ix . Rega We , ryerr) year Ca ' haa Oe +i 4 * a a Papa fs ‘ ura a4 seamen a ao lily el lac Di ti tas i | | | / \ RKC A t EN SWS, Oe DOW \y IN 7 NL 1 2S NZ K \ (7 yy) Wye 4 se WIE 4 A, , a } Vid AZ Zs {i ‘ yg { FoR INDIA ano ITS DEPENDENCIES <0 EDITED BY ALLAN HUME CALCUTTA: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY A. ACTON, AT THE CALCUTTA CENTRAL PRESS, 6, COUNCIL HOUSE STREET. CONTENTS OF VOL. VY. S77. —039400—= No. 1.— April. Page A First List oF THE Brrps or Nortu-EHastern CACHAR ... 1 OBsERVATIONS ON Fatco HENDERSONI, Hone by W. E. Brooks ... cos 48 A Norte oN THE Nuprrication OF "Harpactes ORESKIOS, by C. T. Bingham sae eos ane ae 50 Noventres— ZEthopyga, Waldeni a3 eee ie 51 RECENTLY-DESCRIBED Species, Republications— Picus manderinus, Gould, Var. God.-Aust. ies 53 Alcippe fusca, God.-Aust. a mae 54 Niornis albiventris, ,, eee =e oe 55 Abrornis chrysea, Wald. ... ee aed 2b. Zosterops Austeni, 4, oe on wae 56 Alcippe magnirostris, ,, ... eee ar 2b. Stachyris assimilis, ro ae ae ites 2b. Drymoeca Blanfordi, 4, «+ rae cae 57 Horeites sericea, shinee ose a 2b. Suyaerythropleura, ,, «. wat ae 58 Garrulax nuchalis, God.-Aust. nee he ab. Suya khasiana, ere ove che 59 Norrs— Identity of Drymocataphus fulvus, Wald., and Trichastoma minor, Hume aa 59 Identity of Alcippe magnirostris, ‘Wald., and Alcippe Phayrei, Blyth... eee 60 Further remarks on distribution of Pterocles sene- gallus see ib. Identity of Anorrhinus Austeni, Jerd., and Crani- orrhinus corrugatus, Zem. ees coe wb. A new Turdulus ;? T. Davisoni aes ae 63 LETTERs TO THE mace! The Bori Bird of Sindh—H. E. M. James eee 61 A Pericrocotus from Comilla—A. Manson see 62 il No. 2.—June. Page Note on Bureo DESERTORUM AND PLUMIPES, by J. H. Gurney ... cae ane A a 65 SUNBIRDS ... =a eee HAS sie 69 Our Inpran CEeRTHIW# eee see eee 73 Norss on tHE NiIpIFICATION OF SOME BIRDS IN BURMAH, by C. T. Bingham ae cee “at wits 79 TURDINUS CRISPIFRONS ... mses a ree 87 Our Inp1an CistTICOLE oa eee oe 90 HIEROCOcCYX NIsICOLOR aa eee +e 96 NoveLrirs— Siva castanicauda oe hae ie 010) Muscitrea cyanea eee see ace ee Siva sordida ... gf gies Fe deeisy mOa Anthipes submoniliger ... Ho eens toe Ixulus humilis eve een Nee OS Ixulus rufigenis one sos eee ee Megalaima Davisoni coe eee Sac LOS Hypsipetes subniger ais oes Sa nes 018) Leioptila Davisoni eine bt oe AO Hemixus Davisoni ane on se-2 Med: Allotrius intermedius «. oan see ees Pyctoris griseigularis 5h see wae) ERG Dendrocitta assimilis one ie sie Noris— Anorrhinus Austeni can scarcely be identical with Craniorrhinus corrugatus ab. Polyplectron intermedius, Hume, identical with P. Germaini, Eiliot ak » SES Euplocamus Vielloti, (which should stand as E rufus, Raffies) ) distinct from E. ignitus san, Salvadori’s genus Orthoramphus, inadmissible... 121 Jerdon’s name Nucifraga multimaculata 122 Aithopyga miles, Hodys., to stand as Athopyga seherie, Tick. ; “Ae ab. Gyps fulvus, Jerd=G. Timatayensis, Hume, nec G. fulvescens a eles Larger northern crested. Goshawk _ to stand as Lophospiza rufitincta, MWe Cleil, ee oes. ae hoe Astur soloensis, Horsf .., de ee (5) Spizaetus orientalis, Zem, and Schleg. not a synonym of 8. nipalensis oe ib. Dates of publication of Parts I. and II. of Rough Notes aoe ib. Edward’s “ little Black and Orange- colored Hawk? possibly represents one stage of Microhierax melanoleucus as seh sive 126 ill Faleo atriceps, Hume, certainly distinct from F, peregrinus ... oa Tinnunculus atratus, Blyth, of Gray's Hi 9 probably a misprint for T. saturatus Polioaetus ichthyaetus, plumbeus, and humilis Polioaetus Horsfieldi, apparently Végors’ and not Hodgson’s name ATE P Pratincola robusta, Zr istr=P. macrorhyncha, Stol. Pratincola insignis “Be cme Phylloscopus Brooksi=P. Scawinal A AY Toras of Northern Guzerat, are nigro-lutea aaa Bubo ketupa, Kaup., not a synonym of K. flavipes Scops griseus of Jerd. which should stand as S, indicus, Gm., distinct from S. malabaricus eee Athene cuculoides of Vigors nec Gould. Turdulus Dayisoni, only a very old male of 7 sibericus ... Pomatorhinus Maria, Wald ?=P. albogularis, Blyth Pomatorhinus olivaceus, Blyth, a good species... Verreaux’s Siphia Hodgs soni, probably identical with S. erythaca, Blyth ‘and Jerd. ee The Ceylon Phodilus, distinguished ag assimilis ... Suya gangetica, Jerd. Information wanted eve Suthora daflaensis, God.-Aus‘.=S. munipurensis ... Anous leucocapillus and melanogenys, wrongly figured, P. Z. 8., 1876, pl. LXI. Pucrasia castanea, Gould, erroneously identified with P. Duvauceli, Tem. by Elliot ... Falco barbarus ? wrongly figured as F, babylonicus, Po 3. 1876 See Woodcocks at Bagdad and in N. Canara aes Cisticola Tytieri, from Munipur (ee Nos. 3 & 4.—August. Notes ON THE NIDIFICATION OF soME Burmese Birps, by Eugene W. Oates, C.E. sa he ie REMARKS ON THE GENUS PERICROCOTUS Remarks UPON PHASIANUS, INSIGNIS by D. G. Elliot, F.R.8.E., &e. Nores on Caprarn Lecan’s PAPER ON ADDITIONS To THE Cryton Avirauna, by A. White, F.Z.S., &e. sao Some REMARKs ON THE INDIAN SPECIES OF THR GENUS VoLvocira eee Tue AvIFAUNA oF Mr, Azoo AND Norra Guzenar, ADDENDA, by Captain HE. A. Butler— Part I.—List of species omitted in former paper .. Part I].—Further remarks upon species included in former paper ace uae oe 207 217 iv Part I1I—Table of dates of arrival and alae of migratory species Nores on Nomencrature I 4 Nores oN soME OF OUR INDIAN STONE OCwats .., A FEW ADDITIONS To THE SinDH AvirauNa, by W. rT. Blanford, F.R.S., &c... aoe Nores oN SOME BuRMESE Brirps, by Eugene Ww. Oates, C. E. REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE SUBGENUS Lira, Boie. A. MonoGRaPH OF THE CINNYRID# OR FAMILY OF SUNBIRDS, by Captain G. E. Shelly, &c., (first notice) Notes on Nomencratvure II CATALOGUE OF THE BirpDs IN one Bririst Museum, Vou. III., by R. Bowdler Sharpe, Esq., (notice by the Editor) Agron, A SUMMER CRUISE IN THE GULF oF Oman, by Captain E. A. Butler, H. M.’s 83rd Regt... eae REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF Sinpu, “by Captain E. A. Butler oe asi RESUME OF RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE SInDH Avtrauna ReevutorweEs ViripiPennis, Blyth... sis NovELtTIEs— Pellorneum ignotum ee ee Phylloscopus seebohmi ses sate s Chatorhea eclipes ae eos eee Cyornis olivacea ee RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES, Republications— Pellorneum pectoralis, God.-Aust. as Actinura oglei, God.- Aust. eve a Pomatorhinus stenorhynchus, God.-4ust. ee Sitta magna, Wardlaw Ramsay ove aot Limicola siberica, Dresser =A ane Anthus blakenstoni, Swinh. 3 Norrs— Additions to the Avifauna of the Andamans Anecdote of Milvus govinda Hierococeyx nisicolor Buteo plumipes The female of Pachyglosea alanocautin Young of Hypocolius ampelinus from Khelat Note on birds from Khelat Additional notes on Indiar Cisticole ... Vivia innominata from the Wynaad, Nilgheris Letters To THE EpIToR— Cissa speciosa, killing snakes—F. Lowts Ba Additional specimens of Phodilus badius—A, W WHYTE are sis eee eee eee eee v Nos. 5 & 6.—(Movember) December. See Tue Barris Association’s Rutes ror Zootogican NoMen- CLATURE, (a reprint) ees eee OccasronaL Norges From Sixuim, No. J, by J. A. Gammie.. A List oF Brirpds COLLECTED AND OBSERVED ON THE PAaLant Hints, by 8S. B. Fairbank eas eee NoTES ON BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE REGION BETWEEN THE MaHANADI AND GopAvari Rivers, by V. Ball REMARKS ON THE GENUS IorA Nores on THE NIDIFICATION OF SOME BURMESE Brrps, by Ww. Dayison we. oC oe sae Corvus MACRORHYNCHUS, of Wagler a eas OrniTHoLocicaL NortEs, by W. E. Brooks aE REMARKS ON THE GENUS MicRoprerNus Ms ass Notes oN sOME BIRDS IN Mr. Manne -Li’s COLLECTION FROM Sixumm, Buutan anv Tiset, by W. T. Blanford NoveLrTiEs— Arachnothera simillima ..,. Pe eee Cyornis albo-olivacea = sor Hierococeyx nanus vee ase eee Pelecanus longirostris as. ae RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES, Republication— Bambusicola fytchii, Anderson nee eee Nores— Volvocivora culminata, Hay see Butalis grisola, at Simla... ave oa Burnesia gracilis distinct from B, lepida Pratincola insignis; dimensions and description of a Male ese eve Chrysonotus biddulphi, Tickell, identical with C. shorii aoe oes Occurrence of Phaeton flavirostris in N. E. Cachar Chleuasicus atrosuperciliaris, God.-Aust=C. ruficeps Brachypteryx hyperythra, male described Original description of Falco peregrinator, Sundevall Phylloscopus (Reguloides) flavo-olivaceus, N.S. as This number really published in December ae Erratum ose cr LETTERS To THE EpITOR— Coracias garrula, in the Mhairwarrah Hills.—O. Sr, JOHN 4 eee eve oe On certain Raptorial birds.—J. H. Gurney “0 Additional species from Khandalla.—E. A. Butter A Woodcock shot at Kurrachee.—E, A. BuTLer ... InDEX— Species described or discriminated _.., 53 Species noticed ia ‘seu = i jared vf ‘ . a L Citees cS oP. wre B. gir ody Peis ren Ay oe ee a Thal is: | situs alive ia Cae i ‘Hire at hers “ee Bio “hott tioa ote itt Foti ; aay PREFACE. es THE completion of this fifth volume leaves the Editor with little or nothing to say to his readers by way of Preface. The yearly reiteration of gratitude for kindly and generous support, which the Editor’s other, and primary, duties preclude his ever fully meriting, becomes monotonous. The hopes that he once entertained, and sanguinely expressed, of being able hereafter to make his journal more worthy of that support, have gradually faded into dream-land. He begins to realize that in this cold practical world, mansions are not built without hands, and that, with the utmost efforts on his part, a journal like the present cannot be made even to approxi- mate to what it should be, whilst its Editor and Chief Contributor can devote to it only occasional moments, and almost the whole of his time and thoughts are absorbed by other and more im- portant matters. People who think poorly and write slightingly of Srray Fratuers, have the Editor’s entire sympathy. Noone probably realizes all its shortcomings so acutely as himself, or appreciates more thoroughly what it ought to be, and might perhaps become if only the Editor could find time to attend to it, as it should be attended to. All he can say for it is, that, despite its patent feebleness, it is yet gradually bringing on record a mass of facts, specially in regard to the distribution of species, that will greatly facilitate hereafter the labours of others, and pave the way to some extent for that more fortunate individual to whom fate may concede the happy task (which the Editor now despairs of being ever able to accomplish) of writing a complete History of the Birds of our Indian Empire. ALLAN HUME, December 1st, 1877. _ ve die. toi st sub: iavauel UEAarD, De ‘wad ‘dé whllg la graerae 4 . gre in pe GE winhivicr ape oF eG nd dish neee i t.3 f ae Baste eh.’ Lin Patti ted tii: ED TAS te Moh epee Geng Cae ia : ad ebay 2) iy} vl ae fabs eis : wa teak (hy ? nik ‘a gOh(niGes vit ie ai egal t pists bi baie eat ee q pen Panraseras fire boici esos ad | e1f ia i ce ni} sth 3s a eri) ; TT OF Ds Gy + ayy . ¥ a vi Mrs ie butl Mii eit i ise Lal J Al tsb ral at nae 4 : a Pay evi ane bwin Leni efi bist Mier le dat ation e = rex at Pies 6: ihe Cad ri Ral itt swe Oe dire TR Dee oie SMe a . . ; i \ % : ed p | "7 ers Tass p in) p13 eT. A sulead 4. 2 Vis Wisk ni a | Matty fii & ft ott 5 an Beare? guISE Toms dis erhdedist ae ot hlacaly Re raiarin iby Ay? | a : oo a har? ¢i japet Ei bait = Tanah? v ree arabe 7 pal o's é j DAS wring be ileaay ai vist ub aie Aten bie. as} 4 oF wobec cepist i.) tere Ge f bales ( » ¥ bs < JS &\ “tas - Mi? wi i LA 2 wes: ; : “i eet wre il es it a Andes eau gta-* . A vd Bstaiae figix cans rasiiii eit y, Dee Oe ¥ teat sie phe , ree eee: sit We AB Od, STS hy OP OTS eee Bev Cage cose) ba ahineth Weta Bay! , ad a " ? = i ” , a Beas Sob 5 tina WF ino Bis pee es or: eas ie om ad “See gins: Pein) of cicW aeeeemaly TANI , nies lay tes We ag ecto iy oom ries be: +h wee: »& ‘hams a Gea us FS uit Fiiagh te 1) biel hak. hit ee Seal i sip ma 7 Wen ' bog “meen vi wilt? a fi >} didi: tras ee 7 pm Shi 1 Py # 1 ee ce wl Hott aud ya f i Rannany ae! - : i Ae : ‘ Ni f say : ; Tyla i c2 ‘ em > . h , ¥ it p+ Saga yey” Oil : ares i —- Tar Ale rf o . “ rae DB Poe YA , onan i. pa gr Sa ga! a i i — f y oS = be an = ee STRAY FEATHERS. Vol. V.] APRIL 1877. (No. 1. A First Hist of the Birds of Morth-Casterw Cachar. Mr. James Ineuts has, for some years past, most kindly collected birds for me in the north-eastern corner of the Cachar District, for the most part near the banks of the Barak River, a few miles below its junction with the Jheeree, and some 20 miles or thereabouts due east of the station of Cachar. Altogether Mr. Inglis has presented our museum with specimens of 157 species, and, though this is probably barely one-third of the total number that occur in his neighbourhood, I think that, now that he has added to our former obligations by furnishing a brief account of the localities in which he has collected, together with notes on each species which I have identified, the list which I am able to furnish of his collections is sufficiently interesting to deserve early record. Mr. Inglis remarks :— “The part of Cachar in which I collected most of the few birds, which I have from time to time sent you, lies about 2 miles south of Luckeepore, where the Barak emerges from the hills for the first time, and enters the lowlands. “A few of the specimens I procured at some distance from here ; these are noted and the places marked on the map which accompanies this. “The whole of Eastern Cachar is drained by the River Barak and its tributaries, the principal of which are the Jheeree, which forms the boundary between Cachar and Munnipore, and the Cheeree, which rises in the North Cachar hills. “These rivers rise to a great height during the rains; the Barak here often rises 70 or 80 feet above its cold weather level. The Barak is navigable to the river steamers up to Silchar, and indeed some 60 miles farther up, during the rains; with very little expense the rivers might be made navigable all the year round, as the obstructions are not very numerous, and consist principally of snags, silt, and indurated clay. I believe that steps will soon be taken to have the bed of the river cleared of all obstructions to navigation, as this province is fast rising into importance, and its rivers are its highways. 2 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS “The low jungle lands and rice fields are only about 70 feet above sea-level, and the majority of the hills which are scattered throughout these low lands and adjacent to the high ranges vary in height from 100 to 350 feet. These again, as also the low lands, are thickly studded with stagnant pestilential jheels and old river courses, in which flourish a great variety of gross- feeding animal and vegetable life. These jheels vary in breadth from 30 yards to a mile. “J believe a good bird’s-eye view of Cachar may be had from Nemotha, the proposed sanitarium on the North Cachar hills, which does not at all flatter the province, as the whole of Cachar is said to resemble one vast swamp. “The Jujongs range of hills are the water-shed between the Jheeree and Cheeree, the highest peak is about 690 feet. The North Cachar hills are about 4,000 feet. “These hills or teelahs are mostly very steep and in many instances quite precipitous. “The soil is a very light, friable, yellow loam, with an average depth of about eighteen inches, but where the hills are steep or much exposed to the storms, the soil seems to be pretty well all washed away, whereas on level plateau land, and on sheltered teelahs, good soil exists in many places to the depth of 4 feet. “In some places boulders, pieces of sand-stone, and con- glomerate crop up, and often about 2 feet under the surface, regular layers of water-worn stones and pebbles are found, much resembling an old sea or river bed. Large masses of indurat- ed clay are exposed along the river banks, but as yet, no true rock in situ has been found in this immediate neighbourhood. Signs of lignite, coal, lime, and iron have been seen on the higher ranges of hills. “The soil on the low lands is a stiff alluvium, very rich and productive, and where not cultivated is densely covered with tall grasses, cane, and other jungle. “The annual rainfall is about 120 inches. Spring showers begin about the middle of February and continue at intervals till about the 10th of June. These showers are generally accom- panied by gales of wind, and always take the form of thunder storms. About March we are sometimes visited by hail storms, which, when severe, do infinite damage to tea gardens, and even prove destructive to cattle. “The regular rains begin about the 10th of June, and begin to break up towards the end of September. ‘The atmosphere during the summer months is very steamy, and, although the temperature does not often exceed 90°, the amount of moisture in the air makes even this keat very OF NORTH-EASTERN CAGHAR, 3 oppressive. The maximum degree of temperature that I have vet noted has been 99° in the shade and the minimum 48°. From Ist of November to the lst of March the climate is de- lightful. “ Vegetation is most luxuriant. The high ranges of hills are clad witha great variety of fine timber trees, the most valuable of which are Nagussar, Coorta, Julna, Jarrol, Sdl, Corral, and Chama, but lower down and all along the rivers, very little valuable timber remains, except on estates in private hands, which were taken up some 12 or 15 years ago. “Large tracts of fine timber and bamboos have been de- stroyed by the wandering tribes of Nagas and Kookis in Jhoom- ing (their method of cultivation), for as they only take one crop off the same place, they ravage a large areain a few years. “The first year, very few weeds spring up on land cleared from forest or bamboo jungle, and if the jungle tribes were to cultivate the land a second year running, they would have much more trouble in keeping their crops free from weeds, so rather than do a little extra weeding, they prefer to clear new land. Perhaps too the freshly broken land yields heavier crops. “The first year or so after Jhooming very little jungle, except tall grasses and creepers, grow up; the second and third years, trees and bamboos make their appearance, but by the fifth or sixth years, just when the trees and bamboos have made a little headway and succeeded in partially killing the rank grasses, the Nagas consider the land fit for another crop, and so everything is again levelled to the ground. “‘ Tt is almost impossible to push ones way through any of the virgin jungles without cutting a path. “With the exception of a few grand trees, none of the tim-. ber seems to be very old. It may be that the thousands of creepers, climbers, orchids. and other parasitic plants, with which almost every tree is covered, succeed in smothering and so killing them. Very few trees seem to be over 60 or 70 years old. “The principal native product is rice, but alittle sugar-cane is also grown. “The hill tribes grow a little cotton on their Jhooms and the Cacharees breed the tusser silk-worm. “Tea is as yet the only product of European enterprise in the district. “The mammals of this district include the Entellus,* Hoo- lock, Slow-lemur, common brown and some 38 or 4 other varieties * Probably this is not P. entellus, but P. schistaceus,—Ep., 8. F. 4 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS of monkeys, one of which much resembles a baboon. Ele- phants, buffaloe and mitna* are found where the jungle is not much disturbed. “Sambur, parbuttia ¢, spotted deer, barking and hog deer, and two other varieties of deer are very common; tigers, leo- pards, civet cats, three or four varieties of wild cats, boars, sand badgers t, otters, ichneumons, foxes, jackals, and wild-dogs are often seen. The other common animals are squirrels, martens, porcupines, rats, moles, scaly ant-eaters, &c. “ Flying foxes and many varieties of bats abound. Porpoises are common in the Barak, also large long-snouted croco- diles (Gharialis gangeticus) and Hydrosauri. I have not seen the snub-nosed crocodile (G. palustris) here. “All the rivers teem with fish, such as mahseer, hilsa, poi, cheetal, pakaringa, batchua, and many other coarse fish. “‘ Snakes, lizards, frogs, land crabs, and turtles, abound. The cobra is not very often seen, but a species of python is often killed, as much as 25 feet long. “The province is very rich in insects; day-and night-flying lepidoptera are very varied and plentiful, stick insects and pray- ing mantes are common. The leaf insect isnot rare. “ The specimens I have hitherto sent, represent, perhaps, one- third of the species I have seen, but not secured. You will observe that I have secured but few small birds, but I intend this season to get hold of most of them. Of their nidifica- tion I know very little. The myriads of ants, centipedes, leeches, ticks, and other insects with which the jungles swarm tend to make birds’ nesting the very reverse of a pleasure.” The list is as follows :— 13.—Hypotriorchis subbuteo, Zin. “‘T shot a female in March 1876, the only one I have ever come across.—J. I.” One specimen, a female not quite adult; wing, 11:0 a rather unusual size. 17.—Tinnunculus alaudarius, Bris. “The Kestril is very common during the cold weather, but J have not seen it during the rains.—J. I.” * Gaveus frontalis.—Ep., S. F. + Possibly the swamp deer. (Rucervus duvaucellii.)\—Ep., 8. F. 5 ir ae is Arctonyx collaris, the bear-boar, or as Jerdon calls it the hog-badger.— ip. S. F. OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 5 Two males of the ordinary type and an excessively pale female with the brown bars on the upper surface and on the tail exceeding the interspaces in width. 18.—Tinnunculus pekinensis, Swink, ? T. Inglisi, Sp. Nov. “On the 10th of March last, I came across 5 of these birds hawking over a patch of thin grass, I secured one of them ; I have not again seen this variety.—J. I.” A single specimen clearly belonging to the same group as cenchris and pekinensis has been sent me by Mr. Inglis. 1t is a young male not fully adult, as the tail is rufescent and bar- red, and the head though becoming bluish is still tinged and washed with cinnamon. It is with some hesitation, that I refer it to pekinensis. I know very little of the Eastern Lesser Kestrel, and this specimen, possibly owing to its immaturity, entirely wants the supposed characteristic of pekinensis, the whole of the wing coverts as well as the tertiaries, scapulars, and inter- scapulary region being bright cinnamon. The wing measures 9°6, which is the dimension given by Mr. Sharpe for pekinensis, but the tarsus is only 1:2, which corresponds better with the dimensions of cenchris. The claws are whitish. I am strongly inclined to believe that if pekinensis be really a good species, this specimen also represents a distinct species, hitherto undescribed, and if so, it may stand as Jng/isz. It seems specially characterised by a broad bare space round the eyes, and by a conspicuous dark moustachal streak. Length, about 14°0; tail, 6°5 ; bill from gape, straight to point 0:73; wing and tarsus, as above ; mid toe and claw, 1:1. The legs and feet appear to have been a very pale yellow ; claws yellowish horny, brownish towards the tips ; cere yellow ; bill blue, yellowish towards the base ; lores whitish. A conspicuous black or blackish moustachal streak from the anterior angle of the bare elipse in which the eye is situated, more than 0°75 inch in length; cheeks behind this stripe min- ‘gled grey and blackish ; ear-coverts similar but darker, giving the appearance of a faintly indicated second stripe from the posterior angle of the bare elipse. Sides of the neck blue grey streaked blackish, and most of the feathers, especially towards the base of the neck, margined and tinged with chestnut ; chin and throat white ; feathers at the base of the throat tinged rufous at the tips and with a narrow black shaft stripe there. Fore- head, crown, occiput and nape, dirty blue grey, the shafts of the feathers of the anterior portion of the head darker and the feathers of the posterior portion with distinct but very narrow blackish shaft stripes ; those of the nape similar, but the shaft 6 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS stripes more marked. The entire occiput and nape washed with pale chestnut. The entire wing-coverts, except primary greater coverts, tertiaries, scapulars, interscapulary region and upper back, rich chestnut ; the large coverts, tertiaries and scapulars with tolerably broad blackish brown transverse bars, reduced on the upper back and interscapulary region to nar- row arrow head imperfect bars or spots and almost entirely wanting on the lesser and median coverts. Lower back, rump and upper tail-coverts pure French grey. Tail pinky chestnut, with a gr cee tinge, tipped white, with an inch broad subterminal black band, and seven or eight other narrow transverse blackish bars. Primaries and their greater coverts, and secondaries dark brown, almost black on the primaries. The primaries excessively narrowly, the secondaries narrowly, margined with brownish white; both secondaries and primaries with numerous rufous or rufescent white bar-like more or less triangular spots on the inner webs and most of the secondaries with corresponding irre- ular oval rufous spots on the outer webs also. The breast chestnut, but not so dark as the back ; each feather on the upper portion with a blackish shaft stripe and on the lower portion of the breast with a more or less oval or cordate subterminal blackish spot ; abdomen paler and yellower, simi- larily marked. Thigh coverts and lower tail-coverts almost pure white and unspotted. Wing lining, except the greater lower coverts, white, spot- ted like the lower part of the breast. Greater lower wing coverts white, with one or two black subterminal bars. If this specimen really is Pekinensis it isin a stage of plu- mage that has not hitherto been described. 19.—Erythropus amurensis, Radde, “ T secured an adult maleof the Eastern Red-legged Hobby in February 1875. I did not again observe it till October the same year, when one morning I came across some hundreds of them hawking over a piece of land which had been lately planted with tea. I secured five of them, and on dissecting them I found they had been feeding on crickets, grass- hoppers, beetles, and small lizards. During November they were seen in hundreds every day gyrating at a creat height all over the countr y ; they disappeared about the middle of December. This year, 1876 they again returned, I saw about fifty of them on the 14th of October, and a few days afterwards they were swarming in every direction. When they settle, they generally chose a bare tree in the open, and often two or three hundreds may be seen on the same tree. OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 7 “ They are very difficult to approach when settling in numbers but when they are feeding on white ants in the evenings, they become very bold and fly within easy range. The adult male is easily distinguished on the wing, but such only occur about one in ten. “They again disappeared about the middle of December in numbers ; but stray birds are yet to be seen—December 28th.— J: 1? For a diagnosis of this species and the European vespertinus see Mr. Sharpe’s article (Vol. IIL., p. 303.) Unlike most of the other Raptores, it would appear that in both these nearly allied species the males somewhat exceed the females in size. I see that in Mr. Sharpe’s Catalogue of Birds, Vol. I., p. 444, he gives the wing of the male vespertinus at 9°83 and of the female Hs: 977. An adult male in my collection from Europe has the wing 10°05, a fully adult female has the wing barely 9°5, and the female all but adult has the wing 9°7. In the same work, p. 445, Mr. Sharpe gives the wing of the male amurensis as 9:0 and of the female 9°5. Of four adult males three from Cachar, and one from near Rajamundry, Madras, the wings are 9:05; 9°3; 9°35 ; and 9°5. On the other hand, the only adult female from Cachar has the wing only 8°8, while two young males from Cachar, and one from Thayet Myo have the wings 9:0; 9:0: 9:3; two youug females from Cachar have the wings 8°65 and 8°85. Now with reference to Mr. Sharpe’s diagnosis above referred to I would remark that he says of the female, ‘ under surface creamy white.” This is not always correct; in the female before me, the chin and throat are creamy white, the whole of the rest of the lower surface is pale rufous or buff, possibly a shade more pronounced on the thigh coverts, but that is all. In his diag- nosis, therefore, we should read ‘under surface creamy white to buff or pale rufous.” All he says about markings, &c., appears correct. Then again turning to his diagnosis of the young birds he says :—‘ Head, dark ‘bluish, with black shaft str eaks ; foreheads, fulvous; under surface of body, buff.’? None of these points hold good i in any one of the five young birds before me. In all the head is brown with dark shaft streaks, and most of the feathers faintly margined with paler and more rufescent brown. The foreheads are white, withy in one specimen only, a creamy tinge, and the under surfaces are white, streaked and barred as in This diagnosis. In one specimen only there is a decided creamy tinge on the lower abdomen, thighs, and lower tail coverts. 8 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS As for the number of bars upon the tail, eight appears to be the usual number excluding the subterminal band, but one has nine and one has ten, so that this is hardly a characteristic which can be relied on for a diagnosis. 22.—Lophospiza indica, Hodgs, ‘“‘ T have only seen this bird once. I managed to secure it.—J. I.” A single specimen, a female, clearly belongs to the larger race; it has the wing 10:6 and the tarsus 2°75. An enormous thick tarsus too, double the size of those of true trivirgata from the Nilgherris and Southern India. A female from the Nilgherris, measured by Miss Cock- burn, measured in the flesh :-— ‘Length, 16 ; expanse, 28; wing, 8°8; tail from vent, 8°5 ; tarsus, 2'3. A male from the same locality measured :— Length, 15°25; expanse, 27°5; tail, 7-6; wing, 8°6; tarsus 2°25, but considerably slenderer than in the preceding specimen ; it weighed also only 10 ozs. against 13 ozs. in the female. A nearly adult male from Kallar, Nilgherris, had the wing only 8:1; a young male sent me by “Mr. Bourdillon from Southern Travancore measured :— Length, 15; expanse, 27°25; wing, 8; tail, 7:25; tarsus, 2°36. All the southern birds that I ‘have seen belong to this smaller and less robust type ; on the other hand, an adult male from Sikhim has the wing 9:3. Females from que same local- ity have the wing 9:9, 10°15, 10°17, and 10°6. A female from Sumbulpore has the wing 9:7, and one supposed female from Tipperah has the wing 9°55. These are all adults or nearly so. A quite young female from Sikhim has the wing 10 ; another has the wing 10 ; and a young male has the wing 9:3. Lastly, an adult female from the Pine Forests of the Salween has the wing 9°9. The question has not yet been fully worked out, but from the above referred to specimens now in my museum it would appear that the smaller race, the true trivirgata (wing, 8 to 8°8) inhabits peninsular India whilst the larger race indica (wing, 9:3 to 10°6) extends from Nepal and Sikhim eastward through Tipperah to Pegu and the lower Salween, and westwards through the Tributary Mahals as far as Sumbulpore. 23.—Micronisus badius, Gm. “The Shikra is not uncommon; it remains here all the year.—J. I.” OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 9g A well marked female of this species, and a young bird which may belong to this or the next species. 23 ¢er.—Micronisus poliopsis, Hume. “ This Hawk is perhaps more generally met with than any other ; it breeds during March and April.—J. I.” A male of this species, identical with one of the Thayet Myo birds. It would appear that the line of junction of these two species or races is somewhere in this the Cachar District. 34.—Spizaetus caligatus, Raffi. ‘“‘ This Hawk Eagle is rare here, in 4 years I have only seen one which I managed to kill when she was in the act of carry- ing off a fowl from the Morghee khanna.—J. I.’’ A fine female with a tarsus over 4°; mid toe and claw also rather more than 4°; and wing 17. Mr. Sharpe obviously considers that the adult is always deep chocolate brown above and below ; but tiis is not, I think, the case, at any rate with the race that we in India identify as calé- gatus. Ihave now seen a great number of specimens old and young, and have a large series in our museum, but we possess only one single Indian-killed specimen in the black plumage (ob- tained near Dacca) and I have only seen one such other, and this although I have certainly seen above fifty Indian-killed adults. From their extreme rarity in India, I should have been inclined to consider these black birds mere melanisims, did I not know that further south and east they are more common. Here in India the normal adult is dark brown above, but pure white below, with a very conspicuous and broad central throat streak, and with blackish shaft streaks to most of the rest of the feathers of the throat ; every feather of the breast and upper abdomen has a very broad, dark hair-brown shaft stripe extending upwards from the tip for about an inch. The flanks are much mottled with brown and the lower tail coverts are a rather lighter brown narrowly barred, or, when the bars have become obsolete, spotted with white. 37.—Spizaetus Kienerii, Gerv. “‘T was lucky enough to secure the only specimen of this handsome bird that I have ever met with; I got it while on a fishing excursion on the Cheerie close to the Cacharee Degoon Ponjee, at an elevation of 2,000 feet. I cannot give you much information about it or its measurements. I found it perched on a very tall tree overhanging a precipice in the act of de- vouring something, but what it was [ cannot tell, as it fell over the rock; the bird would also have followed suit had he B 10 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS dropped dead, but his pinion was only broken and he came down in a slanting direction; he fought most fiercely while I was securing him.—4J. I.” An adult specimen. ‘The adults of this species differ in one respect conspicuously—some have the chin, throat, and breast, snow white; in others these parts are strongly tinged and overlaid with the bright ferruginous chestnut of the rest of the lower parts. Mr. Sharpe (Cat. B. L, p. 256) gives the habitat of this species as the Indian Peninsula, Malacca, and Borneo. I have, however, strong doubts whether it is this species which oc- curs in the Indian Peninsula, and anyhow it must be ex- tremely rare there, whereas in North-Eastern India, as in Sik- him for instance, it is far from uncommon, and here we find it again in Cachar. The specimen sent is a male with a wing 14:3. In the females the wings reach to 17:5. 39 ter.—Spilornis Rutherfordi, Swinh. “This Eagle is not uncommon. I have generally observed it in plains. I have seen it throughout the year; it subsists on snakes, lizards, and large grasshoppers.—J, I.” An adult and a young female, both belonging to this smaller race, the female having the wing only 16°75. 40.—Pandion haliaetus, Zin. “The Osprey is not uncommon on the larger rivers; it is a bold fisher and often kills very large fish ; it is most com- mon towards the hills. I have never noticed it during the rains.—J. I.” b An adult, unsexed, wing 19-2. 41.—Polioaetus ichthyaetus, Horsf. «This Eagle is rather rare. Here it generally fishes in jheels. The natives say it often carries off kids and fowls. It is rather a slovenly bird and does not keep itself over clean.—J. I.” A young specimen, unquestionably of this species, with a wing 19, and tarsi enormously thick, with the whole throat, breast, and upper abdomen in the lineated plumage, but with the greater part of the tail already white, though with a broad black terminal band, and much mottled elsewhere with brown. As in the Bootan Doars and the Sikhim Terai, both this and the newt species appear to occur in the Cachar District. OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. be 41 bis.—Polioaetus plumbeus, Hodgs. “This Fishing Eagle is to be found on all the rivers; it is very common all the year.—J. I.” An old adult of this species with a wing 17, and without any trace of white on the upper surface of the tail, but with the lower surface of the basal two-thirds of the tail greyish white mottled with dark brown. No one who has compared a series of these two species ean doubt their distinctness. Ichthyaetus must weigh near- ly double what plumbeus does. 51—Circus macrurus, S. G. Gmel.—C. Swainsoni, Smith. * The Pale Harrier is not common. It is found on the banks of rivers and some times scouring the rice fields. I have only seen it between December and March.—J. I.’’ 53.—Circus melanoleucus, Gm. “ This pretty Harrier is extremely common from September to April. I have not seen it during the hot weather.—J. I.” Numerous specimens sent from Cachar shew that this spe- cies is very common in that district. Amongst them are several young birds, which, I am sorry to say, do not greatly assist in elucidating the complicated question of the change of plumage in this species. And first as to whether the female ever assumes the _per- fectly black and white plumage of the adult male. On this point, I see that Mr. Gurney accepts my view, that if the female ever does assume this plumage it is only quite excep- tionally, and not as a normal stage of plumage. It is not merely that out of more than fifty speciinens dissected by various Indian observers during the last few years, not one female has yet been detected in the black and white garb; but there is an independent argument derived from the fact that the tarsi and wings of the black and white birds average consi- derably smaller than those of what I take to be adult, and nearly adult females. Clearly, if these latter afterwards passed into the black and white plumage, we ought to find a fair propor- tion of black and white birds as big, if not bigger, than these supposed immature birds. The fact that nearly the whole of these are bigger than almost che whole of the black and white birds, appears to me a conclusive argument against these so- called immature females ever putting on the black and white garb. 12 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS Now I have most carefully measured the 34 black and white specimens that my museum at present contains with the follow- ing results :— Tarsus. Wing. Locality. (2°96 13°75 Cachar. 2°97 13:4 Tipperah. 2 95 13°4 Pegu. 29 13:8 Sumbulpore. (2's 13'8 Raipore. 2 99 13:2 Tipperah. 15 specimens | 2°9 14:25 Sumbulpore. with tarsi less4 2:95 13'8 Raipore. than 3 inches. 2 13:5 Tipperah. 29 138 Sumbulpore. 2:98 13°91 Raipore. 29 13:70 Sohala. 2:9 138 Raipore. 29 135 Madras. (_2°9 140 Tipperah. (30 135 Madras, 30 14:0 Dacca. 7 specimens | 3:0 13°6 Tipperah. with tarsi exact-< 3:0 14:0 Raipore. ly 3 inches. 30 139 Raipore. 3:0 140 Sumbulpore, 3:0 142 Sonepore. (3:05 1434 Sikhim. 3:07 14°4 Arconum, Madras. 7 specimens | 3:07 13'6 Raipore. over 3 inches less2 3:09 141 Raip»re. than 31. 3 08 14°1 Dacca. 3:05 14:2 Raipore. 3-09 14°1 Raipore. 31 13°3 Tipperah. ren STS RL 405 Sonepoe "(3:12 14:0 Raipore. 1 specimen 38 25. 3°25 13:99 Raipore. It will be seen that out of 83 specimens in black and white plumage no less than 22, or 66 per cent., have the tarsi 3 inches or less than 3 inches, and that 29, or 88 per cent., have the tarsi less than 3:1, and that in only one single specimen does the length of the tarsus exceed 3:12. These measurements, it will be under- stood, have been taken with the greatest care, and verified by two persons, so that they may be depended upon to the 100th of an inch where the tarsi are concerned, and one-tenth of an inch where the wings are concerned. OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 13 If we turn now to the state of plumage, which I believe to be characteristic of the female, the following are the dimensions of all the specimens in my museum :— Tarsus. Wing. Locality. 4 § 3°05 14-1 Cachar. Less than 3°1 3-09 14:0 Thayet Myo. Sco s124 34 13-7 Dacea. 13'8 Thayet Myo. (3205 14:0 Raipore. | 3:26 14°45 Cachar. 1 3-98 14°5 Sumbulpore Above 3°2 4 33 148 Bootan ee | 3:3 15°1 Dacea. It will be seen that whereas in the black and white plumage 66 per cent. had the tarsi 3 or less, not one single one of what I suppose to be the females, have the tarsi as small as this. es Again whereas only one single specimen in black and white plumage has the tarsus over 3°12 no less than 60 per cent. of the supposed females have the tarsi over 3°2 and 30 per cent. have it 3°3 and upwards. It seems to me perfectly clear from these figures that the females do not normally assume the black and white garb. I will now describe what I consider to be the perfect adult female, and to make the description as short as possible, I will compare it with the adult male. The tail is silver grey like the male, but larger, and bears five . or six well marked brown transverse bars; on the upper tail- coverts the grey markings of the male are replaced by pale brown. The whole of the black of the head, back, scapulars, and wings of the male is replaced by a deep, slightly sooty, clove brown ; the feathers of the head being some of them narrowly margined with rufescent ; the white patch along the ulna is in the female a less pure white, and each feather is centred with clove brown; the grey of the greater coverts, later primaries and secondaries is browner and less pure, and each feather has a conspicuous sub-terminal transverse blackish brown bar and one or more similar bars higher up ; the tibial plumes and lower tail- coverts are as in the male; the chin, throat, sides of the neck and breast, are clove or chocolate brown, streaked with white, or yellowish white, or about the ear-coverts pale fulvous. The abdomen, sides, flanks, axillaries, are white or nearly so, streaked, and in the case of the latter obsoletely barred, with chocolate or clove brown ; the whole lower surface of the tail and of the quills is conspicuously barred with brown or blackish brown. 14 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS The bird above described, and which I take to be the perfectly adult female, was shot in January in the Bootan Doars, and has the wing 14°8, and the tarsus 3:3. I may here mention that the tarsi are measured in front from the nick of the tibio-tarsal articulation to the nick of the articulation of the mid toe. All have been measured in precisely the same way, but these dimensions are not necessarily comparable with those given by other writers,as,in many cases, I find that the tarsus is measured at the back to the sole of the foot. At an earlier stage the female has the tail pale brown, with a greyish shade, and with the transverse bars less well marked ; the brown of the back and scapulars somewhat lighter, and with less of the rich clove tint that characterises the adult ; the patch along the ulna and at the carpal joint is very much marked, and mingled with pale rufous. The feathers of the head are brown much more broadly margined with rufous, and the whole of the sides of the head, chin, throat, and breast are white, with more or less of a creamy or pale fulvous tinge, each feather narrowly streaked with brown. In a younger stage still there is a great deal more rufous buff, mingled with the head, neck, throat, and breast; there is much less grey on the wings, and no grey at all on the tail, the bars on which are much less conspicuously marked. I cannot positively affirm that all these are females, some of them are certainly so, the sexes having been ascertained by dissection ; I conclude the rest to be so by their similarity of coloring, and this view is confirmed by the constant large size of the tarsus. It is possible that the male also at times assumes this same style of plumage; but it does not always do this, and my own impression now is that it never does so. I have ‘one undoubted young male sent from Cachar by Mr Inglis; tarsus, 2°95 ; wing, 13°25. The whole of the head, back, scapulars, wings are an almost perfectly uniform umber brown, only the white bases of the feathers shewing through a good deal at the nape, and (and this is the remarkable point) two or three feathers of the forehead, two feathers on the occiput, one feather in the interscapulary region, and one of the lesser scapulars on either side, newly moulted and pure black; upper tail-coverts and two central tail feathers which are still a good inch short of the rest of the tail, precisely that of the perfect adult, the rest of the tail feathers pale drab brown with four broad darker brown bars. Chin, throat, breast, similar to the upper parts, but somewhat paler, but some of the feathers of the chin newly moulted and black, and a whole patch of feathers at the base of the neck on a —_— OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 14 the right side, and one similar feather on the left side newly moulted and black; abdomen, vent, sides, flanks, and tibial plumes a deep ferruginous umber brown; lower tail-coverts mingled this color and white. Now here is cle: irly the male moulting direct, from a plumage totally different from what I have described as that of the female, into the perfect adult. I have another bird precisely similar to this last, but rather larger, tarsus 3°05; wing, 13:7, but without a single black feather, without the upper tail-coverts of the adult which, in this specimen, are white, witha great oval brown shaft spot near the tip, and with the whole of the tail of the young type, namely, pale drab brown with four broad ill-marked, somewhat darker, transverse bars. Lastly, I have one specimen also from Cachar which absolutely baffles all my ingenuity to find a place for it. At first sight it seems to be a young female corresponding with the stage of the young males w vhich I have just described. The upper surface is precisely similar, but the primaries are beginning to show a little grey, and the feathers of the head are mar gined paler ; the tarsus is 3°3; the sides of.the head throat, and upper breast, are much as in the young males, but the lower breast. and. rest of the lower parts are just like those of the female, in a somewhat later stage, viz., white streaked with amore or less rufescent clove brown. The wings and tail are both so much abraded as to lead to the inference that the bird was in bad case. Half the tail feathers are silvery grey without any bars, but they are not new feathers, these even are old and abraded ; the other half of the tail is grey brown with darker bars ; this half of the tail is still more abraded and all the feathers on this side are nearly an inch shorter than those on the other, but the most remarkable thing here is that there is just one new pure black scapular! My own conviction is that this bird is a diseased female (1 only guess the sex by the tarsus) and that no conclusions can be properly drawn from it, but still so little is as yet known of the changes of plumage which this species under- goes that I feel bound to record the peculiarities of this specimen. 55.—Haliastur indus, Bodd. “The Brahminy Kite is very common throughout the year ; it breeds in March and April; it generally fixes on a mango or peepul tree, close to a village. nS ey 58.—Baza lophotes, Cuv. **T came across three of these handsome birds one morning in November 1875 in dense forest jungle ; they were in company yaa A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS with a number of Bulbuls and King crows. I have not again seen them.—J. I.” 59.—Elanus melanopterus, Daud. “The Black-winged Kite is rather rare. Ihave only seen about half a dozen in 4 years; it frequents thin grass lands and when hunting hovers very like a Kestrel.—J. I.” 60.—Strix javanica, Gm. “T have only shot one of these Owls, but I have been told that it is not uncommon in the villages.—J. I.” 72.—Ketupa ceylonensis, Gm. “The Fishing Owl is rather common; it is easily known from its call. I caught a full-fledged young bird this year on the 15th of March; it got to be quite tame, and ate flesh as freely as fish. JI once surprised a pair of them feeding on the carcass of an alligator which I had shot a few days previously.—J. I.” 75.—Scops lettia, Hodgs. “One of these pretty Owls was caught by my servants in the bungalow in November 1874.—J. I.” A single specimen exactly similar to some specimens from Sikhim, but perhaps slightly smaller. 76.—Athene brama, Tem. “This little Owlet is very common, it may often be seen peering out of a hole in the trunk of a tree at mid-day.—J. I.” 79.—Athene cuculoides, Vig. “The Large-barred Owlet is very common. May be seen flitting from tree to tree during all hours of the day.—J. I.” 81 quat.—Ninox innominata, nobis, Vide S. F. Vol. IV., pp. 286 and 374. : “T have often met with this Owl at dusk.—J. I.” Three specimens, all belonging to the type which Mr. Sharpe, Cat. B. Vol. I., 156, includes under scutulata, Raffles, but which I prefer to separate, being confident in my own mind that the Sumatran bird will turn out to be a different and considerably smaller bird. All three of the specimens before me must have been fully 13 inches in length, and I do not believe that Rafiles, speaking of such a bird, would have said 10 inches. Moreover, birds from Malacca and the Straits (as also from Ceylon and the Hills in South Travancore) which are most OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 7 likely to be identical with Sumatran ones, are about 10 inches in length, and cannot be united with these huge Cachar birds unless all the Indian and Malay Peninsular races are lumped in one species. I am not sure that this would not be right, but if lugubris, Tick, is to be separated so too, it seems to me must be ennominata. 82.—Hirundo rustica, Lin. “Very common throughout Cachar.—J. I.” This should perhaps be referred to the smaller race, H. gutturalis, Scop., but I confess that I am myself by no means convinced that the two supposed species are really separable, This is an adult with the chin and throat deep chestnut, and with the wing 4:5, and the tail, though apparently fully develop- ed, only 3°75. 96.—Cheetura indica, Hume. 8. F. Vol. I., p. 471; EV’; p. 287. “This Swift is not rare, but difficult to secure ; the only speci- men I got I knocked down with my fishing rod over an ant- hill. Flies generally after a shower of rain, Generally seen in the vicinity of forest.—J. I.” The specimen from Cachar is similar to those from Southern India and the Andamans, and has the conspicu- ous white or yellowish white lore patch. It is an adult and has the wing 8:2. 100 dis.—Cypselus subfurcatus, Blyth. “ At all hours of the day this Swift may be seen sailing along at a terrific pace. Very common in stormy weather.—J. 1.” For an enumeration of the characteristic points by which this species may be distinguished from the allied affinis, vide ante, Vol IL., p. 524. 107.—Caprimulgus indicus, Lath, “During the cold months, this Goat-sucker is to be found in quiet places. Disappears during the rainy season.—J. I.” 114.—Caprimulgus monticolus, Frankl. “ Extremely common throughout the year.—J. I.” 114 d1s.—Lyncornis cerviniceps, Gould. “This handsome bird appears about the beginning of August and disappears at the end of the rains. Very plentifulin August and September. Prefers hawking along a river.—J. I.” Cc 18 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS Three specimens identical with specimens from various parts of Tenasserim. 116.—Harpactes Hodgsoni, Gould. “This beautiful Trogon remains with us all the year. It breeds in May. I have never seen it except in dense shady jungle. All the specimens I have, have faded, and the breasts are now white.—J. I.” An adult female remarkable for having the entire abdomen, vent, and lower tail-coverts snow-white, instead of the brilliant rosy color observable in normal examples. Only on the sides and flanks on one side are some of the featherstinged with rosy. None of my very numerous Sikhim, Bhootan or Burmese specimens have “ faded” in this way, and the matter requires investigation. 117.—Merops viridis, Lin. “The common Indian Bee-eater is very common between: August and April. A large number of them seem to migrate during the latter month.—.J. I.” The specimens from this district have an intensely bright orange golden lustre on the occiput and nape. 118.—Merops philippensis, Zin. “The Blue-tailed Bee-eater is common allthe year.—J. I.” 119.—Merops Swinhoei, Hume. “Ts common during April and May ; disappears about the end of May.—J. I.” 122.—Nyctiornis Athertoni, Jard. and Selb. “The Blue-ruffed Bee-eater is not uncommon. It remains all the year ; from seeing a pair frequent a large tree last April. I think they breed during that month.—J. I.” 124.—Coracias affinis, McClell. “ Extremely common throughout the year. Breeds during March, April and May in the holes of trees.—J. I.” Neither of the specimens sent are very typical, but they are nearer to typical affinis than to indica. 126.—Kurystomus orientalis, Lin. “This Roller is not uncommon, but very shy. As it remains all the year, I presume it must breed here although I have never seen its nest.—J. I.’ 127.—Pelargopsis gurial, Pears. “This Stork-billed King-fisher is very common along slow running rivers and bheels; it remains all the year.—J. I.” OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR, 19 The specimen sent is scarcely a typical gurial ; the cap being lighter than in that species ; indeed in many respects, it seems to approximate to what Mr. Sharpe separates as burmanicus. - I suspect that ultimately a great number of the species of this genus will have to be abandoned. 129.—Halcyon smyrnensis, Lin. “his King-fisher has often been a puzzle to me; I have, found them in the most unlikely places, in fact everywhere. I remember once watching, one going in for a feed on crickets ; he settled on a large’tree in the middle of a large clearance and every now and then darted down like an arrow to the ground returning immediately to his perch with something in his beak. After I had seen him at this for about 4 an hour, I stalked him and brought him down. On examination I found his stomach crammed with crickets.—-J. I.” 133.—Ceyx tridactyla, Pal. “Although not at all rare, this tiny fellow often escapes observation. He sits so very close that Ihave more than once attempted to catch him with my hand. I once caught a pair inmy Bungalow during the day. They affect the thickish jungle with very small streams running through it.—J. I.” 134.—Alcedo bengalensis, Gm. ““ The commonest of King-fishers, found wherever there is water.—J. I.” Wing, 2°87: bill at front, 1°55. This appears to be fully adult, but the bill is very shert. 136.—Ceryle rudis, Lin. “The Pied King-fisher is very common throughout the dis- trict ; it always fishes on the wing. It breeds here about March. —J. [.” 137.—Ceryle guttata, Vig. “This large Pied King-fisher is only to be found in the mountain rivers or streams. I have not observed a single bird near stagnant or slow running water ; it is seen nearly always in pairs. Breeds in March.—J. I.” A female, with the cinnamon under wing coverts, precisely similar to Himalayan specimens. Bill at front, 8; wing, 7°1. 138.—Psarisomus Dalhousie, Jameson. “T shot three Yellow-throated Broadbills on the 1st Decem- ber 1875. Previous to that date I had not seen it in Cachar ; 20 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS it continued plentiful during the cold months, but disappeared about the Ist of March. ‘This year it again returned in large numbers about the 10th November. It frequents thick jungle, and from 10 to 20 are generally to be seen together; one of its most distinct calls “ pee, pee, pee, pee, pee,’ can be heard nearly a mile distant.—J. 1.” 140.—Dichoceros cavatus, Shaw. (Vide Vol. IV., p. 385.) “The great Indian Hornbill, although not a resident, is oftener seen and spoken about than any other bird in Cachar. ** During the dry weather they are continually migrating to the south, and during the rains to the north. The noise made by their wings attracts attention ata great distance. They mostly fly in 5’s and 7’s, but as many as 30 are sometimes seen together. A good shot at them can only be had by waiting patiently on some height, where they fly low. A windy day is most favourable for bagging them. They afford splendid eating far superior to any fowl or pheasant.—J. I.” In some specimens the outline of the edge of the casque viewed from in front is nearly a half circle, in others it is nearly straight with only a slight central depression. These differences, Iam satisfied, are individual and not speci- fic.—See further Vol. IV., p. 385. 142.—Hydrocissa albirostris, Shaw. “Very common, feeds on fruits, is also passionately fond of live fishes,* which it catches in shallow pools. The hill tribes often bring down young birds ; they are too easily tamed and soon become a great nuisance. “You may consider it strange that a Hornbill should eat fish. The way I first discovered the predilection of these birds for this apparently abnormal article of diet was as follows :— _“T had a tame Otter, and at the same time three tame Horn- bills. The Otter was fed several times a day in a large tub containing live fish. Some of these Jatter, when closely pressed by the Otter, used to jump clean out of the tub, and these the Hornbills always gobbled up in a twinkling. “Once it happened that the Otter got hold of a fish by its head, while one of the Hornbills seized it by the tail. “The struggle was very amusing; the Otter proved the stronger, and * Strange as this statement of Mr. Inglis’ may seem, I know of a somewhat parallel case. Berenicornis comatus feeds habitually on the ground, greedily devouring lizards and the like, ; OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 21 pulled the Hornbill well within his reach, he then let go the fish and seized the bird by the wing and would have killed it, I have no doubt, had we not interfered. “Since then, I have found the bones of fish in the stomachs of several Hornbills that I have shot. “This predilection for fish accounts for the habit these Hornbills have of frequenting ‘khalls’ through which small streams run. “The Nagas affirm that when these Hornbills are intent on fishing, they. can be approached sufficiently closely to be killed with a prick. —J. 1.” 147.—Paleornis magnirostris, Bull. “ Very common. Breeds throughout the summer in the holes of trees.—J. I.” The specimens sent are not typical magnirostris, but they are nearer to this than to either eupatria of Cey lon, or sivalensis of Northern India. The yellow of the throat is conspicuous, the head entirely wants the glaucous blue tinge, and the adult males are nearly 22 inches in length. Possibly these birds should stand as P. nipalensis, Hodgs., “but. the yellow of the throat seems too conspicuous and the an is large. 148.—Palzornis torquatus, Bodd. “ Very common throughout the year.—J. I.” 149 4:s.—Paleornis bengalensis, Gin. “T have only noticed this Paroquet during the cold weather months; it is very noisy and a great pest to the sportsman. —J. 1” Precisely similar to specimens from Sikhim and Burma, and has the pure green under wing coverts instead of the glaucous bluish under wing coverts which characterise P. purpureus, the species of Southern, Central, Western, and the greater portion of Northern India. 152.—Paleornis melanorhynchus, WVagler. “The Red-breasted Paroquet is exceedingly common, in the evenings they may be seen flying in hundreds to their roost- ing places.—J. I.” In Blyth’s Catalogue of the Birds of Burmah recently edited (apparently by Mr Grote, assisted) by Lord Walden, the Indian Parrots of this type are treated by Mr Blyth as belonging to two species. Of the first, which Mr. Blyth calls P. vibrisca, he remarks “an exceedingly common species in the forests of British Burma.” “ Westward 22 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS common in the Terai region of the Hast Himalaya; but its range does not extend farther into India.” « Great numbers of the very young are brought every season to Calcutta from Chittagong, and it is remarkable that from the earliest age the males ‘only have the upper mandible coral read. In a pre- sumed female which I possessed in captivity the upper man- dible changed from black to coral red when the bird was about 18 months old, and I have seen numerous specimens which had been killed whentha change was in progress. I have also shot red-billed and black-billed specimens out of the same flock, and therefore cannot admit the P. nigrirostris, Hodgson, as a distinet species differing only in the color of the upper mandible.” Of the other supposed species which Mr. Blyth designates P. melanorhynchus, Wagler, he says “ a most closely allied species to the last from the Tenasserim aoaaean if not also the base of the Eastern Himalaya. As seen alive, together with the examples of the preceding, the difference is more conspicu- ous from its purely white irides, whereas the other has dark irides. The cap hasa slight tinge of verditer, but no trace of ruddy coloring, and the red of the breast is continued past, the black moustachal streak and the ear-coverts so as to form a half collar bordering the sides of the cap ; it also does not descend so far on the abdominal region, a larger portion of which is green than in the other. These differences are con- spicuous in the living birds when seen together; all hitherto examined have the bill black, but in the male it is probable that the upper mandible is coral red.” On this the Editor remarks: * The facts here stated are quite new, | am not aware that they have ever been previously published. Dr. Jerdon was certainly unacquainted with them. Further investigation is most desireable, more especially as Mr. Blyth is completely at issue on many points with what has been averred by Mr. Hume. My own exponents does not accord ‘with Mr. Blyth’s opinion,’ With all deference to the learned Editor’s opinion I do not think that all these facts are quite new. Dr. Finsch, in his diagnosis of melanorhynchus, lays especial stress on the narrow line of vinaceous red bounding the posterior margin of the grey cap and on the green “hue suffusing the forehead and cheeks ; and referring to this in Stray Feathers, Vol. II. I, on the faith of a Sikhim specimen with a red upper mandible sexed as a male, stated that these differences were characters of the young male of one stage only of the plumage. I have now, however, a very fair series of this species of all ages and sexes before me, eighty-eight in number, from Kumaon, Sikhim, Cachar, Tipperah, Thayet “My o, Akyab, Kyouk-Phyou, OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 23 Rangoon, and numerous localities in Tenasserim from Pahpoon at the north to Malewoon on the Pakchan estuary at the extreme south, and again from numerous localities in the Andamans, and I am now in position to state positively that although the young male, when nearly adult, sometimes at any rate if not always, assumes temporarily the distinctive plumage to which Mr. Blyth draws attention, still beyond all question, this plumage is normally that of the adult female. I have before me now from the various localities above men- tioned 33 adult males and 17 adult females. In all these, and these are all the adults I have by me at present sexed by dissec- tion, the male has the upper mandible coral, perhaps it might more properly be called vermilion red, the female has it black, with, in some specimens, a sort of brownish ruddy tinge. Again, the cap in the male is greyer and more lilac ; in the female, though it varies in intensity, there is always a more marked green tinge on the forehead, lores and orbital region. In the male the green of the back and the sides of the neck abuts against the lilac of the head, and the feathers interven- ing between the green, and the tip of the black moustachal band are lilac, while in the female these feathers are rosy, and a band of the same color extends upwards behind the ear-coverts dividing the green of the sides of the neck from the lilac of the cap, which band, in some instances, almost extends to the nape. Lastly, in the male the upper part of the throat immediately between and below the points of the black stripes is distinctly suffused with purplish lilac, or bluish lilac, whereas this is entirely wanting in the same place in the female. In one female only is there a faint trace of this purplish tinge and that is an abnormally colored bird, for it has the band at the side of the neck, with a conspicuous orange tinge. Now as every one of the adult males and females, the sexes of which have been ascertained by dissection from all these different localities present constantly these distinctions, I submit that it is conclusively proved that there is only one species, and that the characters on which the two species were differentiated are sexual and not specific. Next it is to be remarked that the young male at one stage of its existence precisely resembles the female in plumage, but has the bill more or less distinctly red. It can only, however, be for a short time that this is the case ; for, out of 88 specimens there are only two such, the one from Sikhim, the other from the Andamans; the latter was most carefully sexed by Mr. Davison with his own hands, and he drew upon the ticket the exact size of the two testicles as we commonly do to distinguish breeding from non-breeding males. 24 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS As regards the younger birds, the case is not quite equally clear, either they are variable or else it may be that owing to the difficulty of discriminating the sexes in very young birds, some of our specimens have been wrongly sexed. This much, however, seems to be quite clear, vz., that both young males and young females when about half grown have both upper and lower mandibles black or brownish black. The bills of the males not uncommonly exhibiting more or less of a reddish brown tinge. It also appears certain that the great majority of the youngest males have both mandibles (and not as Mr. Blyth says the upper mandible only) red or reddish orange and also that this color changes a little later into black or nearly black. We have numerous such very young males sexed by dissection, and others again somewhat older, shewing the change from the red to black or blackish brown, and then again others clearly considerably older shewing the change of this latter color on the wpper mandible into the vermilion red of the adult. These are clearly the normal changes in the young male; first both mandibles reddish orange or orange horny ; then both mandibles black or blackish brown; then the upper mandible vermillion red, and lower mandible blackish brown, or blackish horny, or horny brown. The first change has been actually witnessed. Mr. De Roep- storff says (ante Vol. IIL., p. 264) :—“ You will remember nam- ing that young Palgornis with the black bill for me. Now I got that bird as alittle one before its feathers were properly grown, and its upper mandible was then red; on this account I thought it was a male, but after a short time I found the red, or reddish color of the bill, which was not unlike that of the same part the adult male change into black.” On the other hand, I believe, that exceptions to this general rule occur. I saw two birds taken from the nest which had blackish dusky bills, one of which I at the time made out to be a male, but as we have procured no second example as yet of the quite nestling male with black bill, there may have been an error in this case in the discrimination of the sex. I may here note that I have an almost perfectly adult male with the lower mandible also red as Mr. Blyth remarks occa- sionally happens. As regards the young females, of which I have some twenty odd specimens, some of them apparently very young, I should have been disposed to believe, that they had both mandibles black ad ovo, but there is one single very young bird sexed as a female by Mr. Davison which has the bill colored as in the nestling male. It would seem, therefore, that either this parti- cular specimen has been wrongly sexed, or that the young A ee ee See OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 25 females occasionally commence like the males with reddish orange bills. I can at present discover no constant difference between the plumage of the young males and young females. 153.—Loriculus vernalis, Sparrm. “The Indian Loriquet is rather common ; it breeds on the hills about April. It is often found sucking honey froma large red flower in March, when as many as 4 or 5 can sometimes be killed at a shot. It flies at a great pace, but is not in the least shy.—J. I.” 163 ¢er.— Yungipicus canicapillus, Blyth. “This little Woodpecker is very rare. I shot a specimen in March 1873, and have only seen two others since.—J. J,” When treating of this species (ante Vol. III., p. 61) I mentioned that specimens of canicapillus from Tipperah were somewhat intermediate between the typical canicapillus and pygmeus, and this remark applies equally to Cachar specimens, which are almost devoid of white spotting on the four central tail feathers. For further remarks on this species vide Joc. cit. 165 dis.—Hemicercus canente, Blyth. “ This Woodpecker is rather rare, I have shot some 6 speci- mens at different times of the year. On the 18th March 1876, I found a nest of it containing two young birds. The nest was in the trunk of a solitary tree in the Tea Garden about 9 feet from the ground. I caught the female as she came out of the hole. After releasing her she flew straight off to the jungle, but returned to feed the young quite boldly within half an hour.—J. I.” Three males, undoubtedly belonging to this the larger species, with black heads and minute white specklings on the forehead. Ihave already (Vol. III., p. 61) pointed out the differences that exist between this species and the smaller Southern Indian cordatus, Jerdon. At the time I drew attention to the fact that we had sexed a large number of the present species, and that in this case it was perfectly certain that the male had the head black with the speckled forehead, while the female had the greater part of the top of the head bufty white, and that this being so in canente, I could not believe that exactly the reverse was (as stated hy Dr. Jerdon) the case in cordatus. Mr. Gould, in the XX VIIIth part of the Birds of Asia while quoting my remarks on the subject, says:—“From what I know of other Woodpeckers the P isthe bird with the spotted crown.” My knowledge, of course, is chiefly confined to the D 26 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS Woodpeckers of India and the Indo-Malayan region. In all these, to the best of my belief, when any difference in size exists, itis the male and mot the female.that has the larger bill. In all adult cordatus that I have examined, the bills of the birds with the speckled foreheads are conspicuously larger than those of the birds with the buffy white forehead and crown. Quite independent therefore of the almost conclusive analogy to be derived from the certainty we have in regard to canente, this structural difference strongly confirms my contention. (See also Vol. IV., p. 389.) 166.—Chrysocolaptes sultaneus, Hodgs. ““This Golden-backed Woodpecker is among the commonest we have; it remainsall the year. It makes a very harsh noise which can be heard a long way off; it is very active; one may dodge round a tree on which one is feeding several times without getting a sight of it.—J. 1.” I have already discussed this species when treating of the birds of Upper Pegu (Vol. III., p. 64.) The Cachar specimens, like those of Upper Burma, are too small for the true sultaneus and too large for the true Delesserti. Of a fine male from Cachar the bill measures 1°95 at front, and the wing 6°7. 171.—Gecinus striolatus, Blyth. “The lesser Indian Green Woodpecker is very common during the cold weather months and also often seen in the rains.—J. I.” 172.—Gecinus occipitalis, Vig. “This Woodpecker is also common.—J. I.” 173.—Chrysophlegma flavinucha, Gould. “This Woodpecker is not uncommon, but only met with in dense jungle ; it remains all the year.—J. I.” 174.—Chrysophlegma chlorolophus, /ieci?. ‘ . . } j E Rather rare; I have only seen it some half dozen times.— J. 1 176.—Venilia pyrrhotis, Hodgs. “ Very rare; met with occasionally in thick J ungle.—J. I.” 177.—Gecinulus grantia, We Cleli. “This Woodpecker is rather rare ; I I u l . t if > bamboo jungle.—J. I.” iave only met it in OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 27 All the preceding precisely similar to Sikhim-killed specimens. 188.—Yunx torquilla, Lin. ““T have only seen this bird once. I managed to secure it ; it was in a patch of reeds.—J. I.” -192.—Megalaima Hodgsoni, Bp. “This Green Barbet is extremely common all the year; it is very noisy.—J. I.” Specimens from Cachar have the wing 5:25, 5°35, and vary in the coloring of the head and neck just as Himalayan and Burmese ones do. (Vide Vol. I1I., p.76.) 195.—Megalaima asiatica, Lath. “The Blue-throated Barbet is rather rare ; but I have seen it at all times of the year.—J. I.” 198 quat.—Megalaima cyanotis, Blyth. “This bird is also very rare.—J. I.” For description, vide ante, Vol. IIL. p. 77. We already had this species from the Bhootan Doars, Tipperah, and Dacca, so that its occurrence in Cachar was only what might be expected. 199.—Cuculus canorus, Lin. “ This Cuckoo arrives about the middle of March and de- parts during August. Tea planters welcome it from its call sounding like ‘ Want more Pekoe.’—J. I.” 209.—Ololygon rufiventris, Jerd, “‘T shot a specimen of this bird in July 1874, the only one I have seen.—J. I.” 212.—Coccystes jacobinus, Bodd. a have only met with this Cuckoo once, viz., May 1876.— J bed A young bird of this species from Cachar in no way differs from young birds obtained elsewhere in India. 215.—Rhopodytes tristis, Less. “This bird is very common all the year round, frequents thickets, generally seen in plains.—J. I.” 217 quat.—Centropus eurycercus, Hay. “This bird is exceedingly common, frequenting tall reeds and other jungle along the banks of rivers and jheels ; breeds from June to September ; remains all the year.—J. I.” 28 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS As I have already stated, Vol. I, p. 453 and Vol. III., p. 83, I do not at present know what to do with these several red interscapularied Coucals ; there are the birds from Dacca, the Doon, and Upper Pegu with wings of from 7:6 to 8, which I have called provisionally intermedius, and there are the others from Sindh and Sikhinm with wings from 9° to 9:5, which I have called maximus; both these races have the bills smaller than in what I take to be true ewrycercus from Sumatra, and both of them have the tails decidedly green. These Cachar birds are similar in color, &., to intermedius and mazi- mus, but have the wings about 8:5. Perhaps we may be able hereafter to throw these all into one species in which case they would stand as intermedius, or to go astep further and include them all under eurycercus. 218.—Centrococcyx.bengalensis, Gmel. “This Coucal arrives here about the beginning of June and departs at the close of the rains ; breeds from June till Septem- ber. Like C. eurycercus it makes its nest ina clump of tall grass or reeds, the nest resembles a round ball of grass with a hole in the side as an entrance. The eggs are generally six in number, round, and perfectly white—J. I.” I enter these specimens under this name somewhat doubt- fully ; they are apparently of the same species as I have from Dacca. Their wings measure from 5°25 to 5:7; the tails are under 7° 0; the tarsi from 1°35 to 1:4; the hind claw from less than 1:0 to 1-1. In no specimen are the upper tail-coverts very much developed. 225.—Aithopyga miles, Hodgs. “This pretty Honey-sucker is very common all the year but I have never seen its nest.—J. I.” This is identical with specimens from Sikhim. 233 bis.—Anthreptes singalensis, Gmel. (For de- scription vide Vol. IIL, p. 86). “This Honey-sucker is very common, but is more generally met with in the cold months.—J, I.” 254 bis.—Upupa longirostris, Jerd. (Vide Vol. I{I., p. 89.) “Very common from January to April, at other times seldom seen.—J. 1.” One specimen from Cachar is typical longirostris, bill 2°6 at front, plumage very rufous, not a trace of a white antepen- OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 29 ultimate band on the crest; wing, 5:95. Another is pale, of the epops type, with a conspicuous pale, almost white, ante- penultimate band on the crest; bill, 2°25; wing, 5°8. I should certainly be disposed to call this specimen epops and very possibly both species should be included in the fauna of Cachar. 258.—Lanius tephronotus, Vig. “Very common all the year.—J. [.” 259.—Lanius nigriceps, Frank. “This Shrike is also very common.—J. I.” 261.—Lanius cristatus, Lin. “The Brown Shrike is not nearly so common as the above varieties, although far from rare.—J. I.” 269.—Volvocivora melaschistus, Hodgs. “This Cuckoo Shrike is rather rare; frequents quiet jungle.—J. 1.” 270.—Graucalus Macei, Less. “The large Cuckoo Shrike is very common during the cold weather, generally seen in flocks,—occasionally met with in the rains.—J. 1.” Wing, 6°9 and 6°8. 271 ter.—Pericrocotus elegans, McCleil. “ Common during the cold months ; I have not seen it at any other time of the year.—J. I.” 273.—Pericrocotus brevirostris, Vig. “Very common throughout the year. Always seen in flocks, —dJ. 1,” 278.—Buchanga albirictus, Hodgs. “This Kingcrow is extremely common. It breeds all through the summer. It lays 4 or 5 pure white eggs on the top of a few grasses placed in the fork of atree. It is very pugna- cious and attacks birds of all sizes if they approach it.—J. I.” 284.—Dissemurus malabaroides, Hodgs. “The Bhimraj is very common, frequenting thick jungle ; it often goes in company with other birds which it mimics to perfection. Ii lays about 4 eggs in a shallow nest made of grass similar to the above; it is very easily tamed. The hill tribes 30 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS use the long tail feathers for ornamenting their head dresses. —J. 1.” Three specimens sent, all belong to the same race as the Nepal birds with enormous long crests and neck hackles. These are typical examples of the race that Hodgson sepa- rated as malabaroides. 287.—Artamus fuscus, Vveill, “The Ashy Swallow Shrikes are often seen in flocks through- out the year. I have not seen their nests.—-J. I.”’ 290.—Myiagra azurea, Bodd. “This little Fly-catcher is very rare.—J. I.” 343.—Myiophoneus Temminckii, Vig. “The Yellow-billed Whistling Thrush arrives about the middle of October and departs during March; it frequents quiet shady ravines, and the rocky banks of rivers. Not un- common.—J,. [.” The specimens sent are less spotted on the wing with white than Himalayan examples are. They thus in this respect approach M. Eugenet of Upper Burma, but the bills are as in the Himalayan birds. 351 bis.—Cyanocinela solitaria, Mill. “This Rock Thrush only visits us during the cold months, when it is very common.—J. I.” A single specimen sent has three or four feathers amongst the under tail-coverts of the chestnut color that characterizes this species. (See further 8. F. Vol. IIL, 112.) 355.—Geocichla citrina, Lath. 361.—Merula boulboul, Lath. “The Grey-winged Black-bird is rather rare. It is only met with during the cold weather.—J. I.” 365.—Planesticus atrogularis, Tem. “ Very rare; seen only about December and J anuary.—J. I.” 373.—Paradoxornis flavirostris, Gould. “T came across two of these birds in thick reeds ; I secured them both. I got them in the month of March.—J. I.” Precisely similar to specimens from Debroogurh and the Bootan Doars and Sylhet. See also as to the reed-haunting habits of these birds, 8. F. Vol. II., p. 457. OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. on 402.—Pomatorhinus schisticeps, Hodgs. “This bird is rather rare, I have seen it all the year round.— oe Ae The specimen sent has the large deep bill*of schisticeps. 405 bdis.—? Pomatorhinus hypoleucus, Blyth.? P. Inglisi. Sp. Nov, “This Scimitar Babbler was very common here in the cold weather of 1873-74 ; I secured only one specimen of it ; since that date I have only seen it at rare intervals ; it frequents dense jungle with an openish bottom, and is generally found in flocks, —J. 1.” I have already given (Vol. III., p. 411) a description of this species by Dr. Jerdon, which does not, however, correspond very closely with either of Mr. Blyth’s descriptions. Mr. Blyth says, J. A. S. B., 1844, p. 371 :— “General color fulvescent, olive brown above, lower parts white with traces of dusky terminal spots on the breast; streak backwards from behind the eye and sides of the neck, posterior to the ear-coverts bright fulvous, sides of the breast ashy with white centres to the feathers. The bill dusky, a little whitish at the tip and beneath the lower mandible; legs pale; the feathers of the crown a little squamose. Inhabits Arracan.” In J. A. 8S. B., 1845, p. 597, Mr. Blyth tells us that the speci- men above described was a young one, and he thus describes adults received from Tipperah and Arracan :— “Color above olive brown, a little cinerascent on the head, and a rufous streak commences behind the eye, and expands into a patch on the sides ot the neck beyond the ear-coverts. Lower parts, white, margined with ashy on the sides of the breast; the flanks wholly ashy, with a tinge of brown; wings and tail a little rufescent ; the lower tail-coverts more deeply so. Length, 10 to 11 inches; wing, 4:25; tail, 4; bill to gape ieee x farsi, 1°53.” It will be observed that Dr. Jerdon in his description (Joc. cit. sup.) entirely omits all reference to the rufous streak from behind the eye, and the patch of this color on the sides of the neck. He also tells us that this species likewise occurs in Assam, and has been sent by Hodgson probably from Sikhim. If sent by Ene it was probably sent from the Terai or the Bootan oars. The omission by Dr. Jerdon of all reference to the rufous on the sides of the neck, coupled with the fact that his des- cription is clearly an original one, taken, it is to be gathered, froma Sikhim example, is remarkable in so far that this oz A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS Cachar specimen exhibits only the very faintest trace of this rufous patch. In fact the specimen before me has no such patch, only the feathers behind the eye and immediately above the ear-coverts and a patch of feathers on the side of the neck behind the ear-coverts, looked at in one light, have a slightly more ferruginous tinge than the rest of the feathers of the neck and a very few of them have an excessively minute ferruginous spot at their tips. Nothing of this would catch the eye, unless the specimen was very closely examined. It seems not at all improbable, therefore, that in this Cachar specimen, and in the specimen described by Dr. Jerdon, we have a distinct repre- sentative race or species. If this should prove to be the case the present bird may stand as Pomatorhinus (or if Blyth’s name be adopted Orthorhinus) Inglist. Blyth originally pointed out certain characteristics of this species, separating it from Pomatorhinus. These he subsequently, for the most part, withdrew, his characteristics having been originally taken from a young bird, but there remains the fact that in its broad, comparatively uncompressed, and slight- ly curved bill, this species, or if there are two or more nearly allied ones, as seems probable, these species, differ conspicuously from the true Pomatorhini. At Mooleyit at an altitude of from 5 to 6 thousand feet, Col. Tickell obtained apparently a third representative race, which Mr. Blyth treated as a variety of his hypoleucus, and of this he says, J. A. S. B., 1655, p. 273 :— Specimen remark- able for having narrow white mesial streaks to the feathers of the nape, chiefly towards the sides of the nape; of which we can perceive no trace in Arracan specimens, and similar well defined, but wider streaks on the dark ash colored sides of the breast which are little more than indicated in the Arracan specimens under examination. Bill to gape, 2°0.” It appears to me that this race is also distinct, and, if so, should stand as Pomatorhinus (or Orthorhinus) Tickelli. This supposed species is characterized by a bright rufous patch behind and below the ear-coverts, and by a long and conspicuous stripe of feathers running down from the top of the eye on either side of the occiput and nape and expanding into a broad patch on the sides of the neck (behind the fer- ruginous patch already mentioned ), all of which have conspicuous white shaft stripes a little tinged with ferruginous immediately above the ear-coverts. The following are exact dimensions and description of a male of this species (P. Tickelli, nobis) procured at Mooley- it:— Length, 11:6; expanse, 13:5; tail from vent, 4°35; wing, 4:28; tarsus, 1°6; bill from gape, 1°82; weight, 4 oz. OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 33 Upper mandible, legs, feet, and claws, pale brown ; lower mandible, horny white; orbital, skin, fleshy tinged blue ; irides, dark brown. . Entire upper parts, olive brown, slightly duller on crown and occiput, and with a distinct ferruginous tinge on central tail-feathers and outer webs of quills and rectrices ; inner webs of both these latter, dark hair brown; lores, whitish; feathers immediately under the eye and ear-coverts, pale grey brown ; the feathers of the ear-coverts, faintly paler shafted; a bright ferruginous patch behind and below the ear-coverts; a conspicuous stripe of broadly white-shafted feathers running backwards from above the eye on either side of the occiput and nape over the ear-coverts and ferruginous patch, already mentioned, and behind this latter spreading over the side of the neck. The white of these feathers above the ear-coverts and ferruginous patch, more or less margined with ferruginous, but behind this patch, pure white, with indications of dark margins. A few feathers of the centre of the nape with white shafts with faintly indicated blackish bounding lines, chin, throat, and most of upper breast and middle of abdomen, white; a band across the breast, and the sides of the breast also white, but the feathers more or less broadly margined with blackish grey, and with here and there a faint ferruginous tinge; flanks and lower tail-coverts, olive, with a faint ferruginous tinge most noticeable on the latter, and many of the feathers of the former with narrow white shaft stripes. The following are the measurements (from the skin) and a description of the Cachar specimen before me which [ provisionally separate as Pomatorhinus Inglisi :— Length, 11:25; wing, 4:2; bill from gape, 1:7; tail, 4:3; tarsus, 1°62; hind toe and claw, 1:15; mid toe and claw, 1°35. The culmen and basal portion of the upper mandible horny blackish brown; tip and lateral portion of upper mandible (except at the base) and greater portion of the lower mandible, pale whitey brown or greyish. Legs, feet, and claws, pale ; may have been fleshy ; may have been greenish brown. Entire upper parts rich olive brown, purer brown on the head with a decided ferruginous tinge on the back becoming very conspicuous on the upper tail-coverts; the tail obsoletly barred, and with a deep ferruginus tinge, and all webs of the quills, as are the outer margins of the outer tail feathers near their bases, with a lighter and yellower ferruginous tinge; inner webs of the primaries, dark hair brown ; ear-coverts and cheeks, a dingy grey brown ; some of the feathers with inconspicuous lighter shaft streaks. E 34 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS The feathers behind the eye and immediately above the ear-coverts, and those behind the ear-coverts with a very faint rusty tinge, and a very few of them with an_ excessively minute ferruginous speck near the tip. The chin, throat, breast, and middle of abdomen, pure white; the white of the lower portion of the throat and breast bounded by a dark sepia brown band, some of the feathers of which have broader or narrower white streaks down the shafts. A few of the feathers of the sides of the breast margined at the tips with brown; sides, flanks, and tibial plumes, a paler and greyer sepia brown with a slight rufescent tinge on the outer side of the tibia; lower tail-coverts ferruginous brown, much the same color as the upper tail coverts, but perhaps slightly brighter. 410.—Garrulax ruficollis, Jard. § Selb. ‘“The Rufous-necked Laughing Thrush is very common throughout the year ; it affects reed jungle.—J. I.” 412.—Garrulax pectoralis, Gould. «This Laughing Thrush is very common during the cold season. I have occasionally observed it during the rains. —J. 1.” The oniy specimen sent is exactly intermediate in size between typical pectoralis, (wing, 6) and_ typical moniliger (wing, 5.) Bill, legs, and feet are also similarly intermediate in dimensions between these two species, and it is a mere toss-up under which of the two it should be recorded. 439.—Chatarrhea Earlei, Bly. “The striated Reed Babbler is exceedingly common during the whole year. It breeds from March onwards, making its nest in longish grass.—J. I.”’ 451.—Criniger flaveolus, Gould. “This pretty Bulbul arrives here about the beginning of October, and departs during March ; it is not uncommon.—J. I.” The specimens sent are precisely similar to those from Darjeel- ing and make no approach to the Peou Hill race, C. griseiceps, nobis. —456.—Rubigula flaviventris, Zick. “The Black-crested Yellow Bulbul remains here all the year, but is rather rare.—J. 1.” OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 35 460.—Otocompsa emeria, Shaw. “The Red-whiskered Bulbul is exceedingly common through- out the year.—-J. I.” The Red Eye Tuft in the specimen sent is very short. 461 Jis—Molpastes intermedius, Hay. “This is the commonest of all our bulbuls. Breeds during the rains.—J. I.” The specimen sent is the same size as pygmaeus with the same conspicuous brown ear-coverts, but it has the entire breast brown, and the black of the head does not descend below the occiput, and it is therefore truly intermediate between the Bengal and Madras bulbuls. 463 ¢er.—Phyllornis chlorocephalus, Walden. (De- soribed 8S. F. III. 127.) “This pretty Green Bulbul is not uncommon, being met with at all times of the year.—J. I.” 469.—Irena puella, Lath. “The fairy blue bird is not rare, although, not often met with ; it frequents quiet shady nooks and is very timid. I have often observed it feeding on a plant of the Solanum family. —J. 1.” In the two males sent the upper tail-coverts fall short of the end of the tail by 1:2 and 1°5 respectively; the lower tail- coverts, 1*1 and 1°3. 471 ter.—Oriolus tenuirostris, Blyth. “This Oriole is very rare. I have only seen it a few times during the cold season.—J. I.” This species is fully described, Vol. IIT., p. 131. 472.—Oriolus melanocephaius, Lin. “This Oriole is very common in the villages, but it is not often met with at any distance from cultivation.—J. I.” A typical specimen. (Vide ante, Vol. III., p. 133.) 475.—Copsychus saularis, Lin. “Very common. Breeds during March, April, and May. —J. 1.” This specimen is not quite typical ; it approaches the Malayan’ C. musicus, Raffles, in having the 4th feather of the tail (counting from the exterior) with a broad dusky black margin to the inner webs and a narrow black one to the outer webs. 36 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS 476.—Cercotrichas macrourus, Gmel. “T have only observed the Shama during the cold weather. It is rather rare, and very timid; it frequents only quiet shady junglées.—J. I.” 483.—Pratincola indica, Blyth. “ Very common.—v. I.” 486.—Pratincola ferrea, Hodgs. “ Although not so plentiful as the former, this Stone Chat is quite common.—ZJ. I.”’ 497.—Ruticilla rufiventris, Vievll. ‘This species is common along the hill streams. I have not observed it on the plains.—J. I.” The specimen sent, although not dated, was clearly killed late in March or early in April. It is in what I call the ante- nuptial stage; the whole head, neck, breast, and upper back, black; the only remnant of the early spring plumage, being a dull grey line on either side of the crown, forming an inconspicuous superciliary line. Thave carefully studied a really enormous series of this species killed at different seasons of the year in a vast number of localities, and I make out six tolerably distinct stages of plumage, viz :— I.—Winter plumage. Black of upper surface entirely veiled by ashy, rufous ashy, or brownish rufous, tips to the feathers. Black of breast more or less ditto. II.—Harly spring stage. Tippings of the feathers disppear- ing first from breast, next from back, and lastly from the head. . I11.—Ante-nuptial stage. Whole head, neck, breast, and upper breast pure black. IV.—Nuptial or erythroprocta stage. Black duller; a grey- ish white band across the forehead (dividing off the black of the base of the forehead as a black frontal band), with a grey shade extending backwards on to the crown. V.—Early autumn, or phenicuroides stage. Broad conspicuous black frontal band; throat, breast, sides of neck, pure black. Front of head pale blue grey, growing duller on occiput. Back more or less veiled with grey or rufous ashy tippings. VI.—Late autumn stage. Frontal band not showing out conspicuously ; crown and back unicolorous. Black of breast, &c., more or less veiled with grey or rufous ashy tippings. In the early spring stage, especially towards its close, some specimens very closely resemble the early autumn or phenicu- OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 37 voides stage; the head still remains grey, but the frontal band and breast have become pure black, and only a little rufous ashy tipping remains on the feathers of the back. This appears to be rather uncommon, as a rule the tippings disappear gradually, not bringing out the frontal band distinct- ly. It is curious again that some few of the autumn birds do not appear to pass through the phenicuroides stage at all, but resemble birds in the normal early spring stage. Of course, as in all species, some individuals assume any particular stage of plumage a little earlier, and some a little later, and in some the tints are pure throughout, in others duller, but the perfect manner in which my very large series when arranged chronologically falls into groups convinces me that the changes of plumage are normally as above indicated. 505.—Rhyacornis fuliginosa, Vig. “This species is found in places similar to the above, R. rujiventris.—J. I.” 585.—Henicurus immaculatus, Hodgs. “This Forktail is common during the cold weather ; it is also seen at times during the rains along mountainous streams.— a. | Sie 594 dis.—Budytes citreola, Pall. “This Wagtail is common throughout the province of Cachar.—J. I.” One specimen in nearly full breeding plumage, showing conspicuously the black cowl on the back of the neck. 608.—Cochoa viridis, Hodgs. “This bird is very rare. I have only met with one specimen. In February 1874, I flushed a bird in some low cane jungle. It settled on a small tree and I left it there and went back to some men who were making charcoal. I got an old gun from them loaded, they said, with shot. I found my bird still on the same tree, but I made some three or four essays before I got the gun to go off, but when it did go off it went with a vengeance dropping both myself and the bird.—J. I.” An adult male of this comparatively rare species, wing 5°65. 673.—-Cissa speciosa, Shav. “This Jay is rather rare; it frequents low quiet jungle. In April last a Kuki brought me three young ones he had taken from a nest in a clump of tree jungle; he said the nest was some 20 feet from the ground and made of bamboo leaves and grass.— J. 1.” 38 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS 674.—Dendrocitta rufa, Lath. “This Magpie is very common in all the neighbouring vil- lages, but I have not often seen it in the jungles. It remains all the year and breeds during April and May.—J. I.” 676.—Dendrocitta himalayensis, B/y. “This Treepie arrives at the beginning of the cold weather and departs about the end of March. It is rather rare.—J. I.” 683.—Sturnopastor contra, Lin. “The Pied Pastor is very common all the year. It breeds during March, April, May, and June, making its nest on any sort of tree about 15 feet or more from the ground ; about 100 nests may often be seen together. It prefers nesting on trees in the open fields. I do no know the number of its eggs.— dae ad A typical specimen, making no approach to superciliaris. 684.—Acridotheres tristis, Zin. “The commonest of all birdshere. Breeds throughout the summer months. It makes its nest generally in the roofs of houses or in holes in trees. It lays about five eggs of a very pale blue colour.—J. 1.” 686.—Acridotheres fuscus, Vagl. “This Mynah is very common all the year, but I have never seen its nest.—J. [.”’ 688.—Temenuchus malabaricus, Gmel. “The Grey-headed Mynah is often seen in large flocks during February and March. It does not remain here after that date to my knowledge.—J. I.” 690 ¢er.—Calornis affinis, Hay. “This Tree Stare is rather rare. It breeds about April in the holes of dead trees ; when the young are able to fly it departs. It again returns about the middle of February.—J. I.” Identical with specimens from Tipperah. 693.—Eulabes javanus,* Cuv.—? #. musicus. Wagl. (If distinct, E, intermedia, Hay, or possibly, suma- tranus, Less.) “This Hill Mynah is common in the hilly district. It breeds in the holes of trees during April, May, and June.—J. I.” * This seems to be generally quoted as javanicus, Osbeck, but Osbeck’s name is pre-Linnean, as is also major of Brisson. If we lump the species probably Wagler’s name (1827) aud not Cuvier’s (1829) should stand. a OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 39 698.—Munia rubronigra, Hodgs. “This Munia is very common among the rains. It breeds in June, July, and August, making its nest in a clump of long grass ; it lays from six to eight small white ezgs.—J. I.” 699 quat.—Munia nisoria, Tem.—? M. Inglisi. Sp. Nov, “This little bird arrives about the middle of October and at onde begins nesting. It makes its nest in the bottom of a clump of grass and lays as many as nine small white eggs. I have taken its nest as late as the 25th of December.—J. I.” The specimen sent is nearer nisoria than to any yet described species ; it differs equally from punctulata, Lin, of Continental India, from M. sub-undulata, Godwin-Austen of the Munipore Valley (vide ante, Vol III., p. 398), and from the Moulmein and Tavoy, I. superstriata, Hume, (Vol. II., p. 481, note) in the entire absence of any golden yellow, or olive yellow tint or tinge on the rump, upper tail coverts, and tail. It agrees with the two latter in having the markings of the breast more rufous than in the continental species. At the same time it differs from nisoria in having the tail, rump, and upper tail-coverts a pale earth brown instead of grey, the coverts being narrowly fringed with brownish white. It is very curious our obtaining in Cachar a race so closely allied to msorea, when, from the countries all round about this, the species that occur have more or less of the yellow tint on upper tail-coverts, and tail that characterize the pune- tularia sub-group. If considered distinct it should stand as WZ. Inglisi. 704.—Estrilda amandava, Lin. “This little bird arrives about the beginning of October and departs in March. I have not seen its nest.—J. I.” 776.—Osmotreron Phayrei, Bly. “This Green Pigeon frequents thick jungle, and is very common ; the natives say it breeds on the hills.x—J. I.” 778.—Sphenocercus sphenurus, ig. “T have only met with this Pigeon once, viz., in March 1876.—J. I.” 780.—Carpophaga enea, Lin. “The Imperial Green Pigeon is common. It breeds during the rains. The only nest I have seen was in a thicket about 40 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS 30 feet from the ground. It contained 2 young birds newly hatched. The nest consisted of a very few sticks and a few stiff grasses. —J. I.” The fact of the nest containing 2 young ones is notewor- thy. (See Nests and Eggs, Rough Draft, p. 496, for the num- ber of eggs laid by other Carpophagas, &c.) 793.—Turtur meena, Sykes. “This Turtle Dove is rather common throughout the year. I have not seen its nest. It is often met with along the banks of rivers.—J. I.” The under tail-coverts are a less dark slatey grey than in what I consider the typical Turtur meena. 798.—Chalcophaps indica, Lin. “The Emerald Dove is rare, I have only seen it in jungle, it flies at a great rate, and it is difficult to procure a bird without losing half of its feathers, as they are so easily knocked out.—J. I,” 803 quat.—Polyplectron chinquis, Yem. “The Peacock Pheasant is quite common all over the district. I have not yet obtained a female. It is very shy and seldom seen, but may be heard calling nearly all the year during the early morning. It breeds about May. The male when calling perches ona branch about 6 feet from the ground, and is easily approached by following the sound.—J. I.” Iam very uncertain as to what specific name this species should bear. Two males were sent of this species; the speci- mens agree precisely with those obtained in the Bootan Doars. This species has also been found in various localities in Assam, in Sylhet and Upper or Native Burma, in the Arracan Youma, namely, the hills dividing Arracan from Pegu, and the Youma Doung, the ridge that divides Central Tenasserim from Siam. How far south along this range it extends is un- certain. Davison neither heard of nor saw it as far south as Malewoon. This bird is not included by Dr. Jerdon and has not yet been described in “ Srray Fearugrs.” The following is a descrip- tion of the male of which I have many specimens. Of the female I have never yet obtained a specimen and can there- fore say little about it :— Male.x—Length, 25 to 28, according to length of the tail which varies a good deal in different specimens; wing, 8 to nearly 9; tail, 14 to 17; tarsus, 2°8 to 3:1; bill from gape, 1:2 to 1:3. OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 41 Bill, dark horny brown on upper mandible, and tip of lower mandible ; ceral portion, and sides of upper mandible and greater part of lower mandible, fleshy yellow; bare orbital space yellow- ish; irides, yellow ; legs and feet, plumbeous horny. The males generally have two spurs on each leg, sometimes three, some- times three on one leg and two on the other. The spurs are not very long, rarely exceeding 0°5, often much shorter. In younger birds they are sharp and slender, but in very old birds they appear to become massive and blunt. The chin and throat are white; the whole of the top and back of the head are clad with fine disunited-webbed feathers, which, on the forehead and crown, especially the former, are elongated and erected into a brush-like crest, more or less recurved to the front. In color these feathers are grey brown, very finely barred with greyish white. The nape and back of the neck are similar, but browner and less finely barred; the breast and sides of the neck are hair brown, margined at the tip with a row of brownish white spots, so closely set as to form almost a continuous line. The rest of the feathers are closely barred with similar lines of spots following the same curve as the tip of the feathers; abdomen and vent very similar, but with the spots less regularly gathered into bars; back, wings, ex- cept primaries, scapulars, interscapulary region, rump and upper and lower tail-coverts and tail, brown, varying slightly in tint in different specimens, but being normally, what I should call a dull hair brown, profusely spotted or speckled with white or brownish white spots, having, specially on the upper tail-coverts and rump, a tendency to be gathered more densely about the tips of the feathers so as to form the semblance of a terminal bar there; the spots are largest and densest on the rump and lesser tail-coverts, smallest on the wings. The scapulars, the wing-coverts, tertiaries, and interscapulary region are all tipped with white, inside which is a more or less round eye, consisting of a narrow dark ring enclosing a metallic patch, purple in most lights, but in some lights green, changing to purple towards the tip of the feathers ; these spots are largest on the tertiaries where they may be 0°6 in diameter and smallest on the lesser wing-coverts, and some of the inter- scapulars, when they do not exceed 0°25. Sometimes, besides the the white tipping there are traces of a white band encircling the dark one. The tail (which when perfect has at least 20 fea- thers and is very much rounded, the external feather being some eight inches shorter than the central one) has on each feather ata certain distance from the tip, say two inches in the central feathers, and 1:25 in the exterior ones, a pair of twin oval metallic spots, one on each web, surrounded by a dusky black F 42 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS band and this again by a rather broader light drab brown halo, obsolete towards the lower margin. One of these metallic spots on the central tail feathers measures about 0:8 long by 0°5 broad; on the antepenultimate feather, the spots may be about 0:4 by 0°5, in fact they grow rather rounder and smaller as the feathers retreat from the centre. The greater upper tail- coverts have the tips festooned, that is tosay, each of the webs projects in a curve beyond the shaft; each of these bears a couple of eyes similar and similarly situated to those on the tail feathers, but smaller. In most lights the eyes of the tail feathers are beetle green, but it is possible so to hold them that they are entirely dull purple. The eyes on the upper tail-coverts are very similar in this respect, but are purple in more positions, and a brighter purple than those of the tail. The primaries are a plain warm brown with a few buff speck- lings chiefly on the outer webs of the earlier, and towards the tips of the later ones. 811 d:s—Kuplocamus Horsfieldii, G, 2. Gr. “This pheasant is very plentiful along the edges of culti- vation and the banks of rivers. It breeds during April and May.—J. I.” This is another species not described by Dr Jerdon and which has not yet been described in Stray FratHers. We know it at present as common in the Khasia Hills, Sylhet, Cachar, Tipperah, and Chittagong. It probably extends into the nor- thern portion of Arracan, but I have not yet received speci- mens thence. JLineatus and Vieilloti are quite distinct and cannot for a moment be mistaken ; the first has already been fully described when treating of the birds of Upper Pegu, (Vol. IIT., p. 165) ; the latter will be fully described in our paper on the birds of Tenasserim. But it may be convenient to give a brief diagnostical table of the other three species of Huplocamus that occur within our limits. Rump and upper Crest. Pal never. Breast. ; Greyish white, E. albocristatus 3. ... White. poe obese feathers sharp : pointed E. melanotus,* Blyth 8. ... Black. Beck pace ee : ms ( Broadly _ tippe ack, eathers Bi. Horsfieldii 8. .. Black. (white. ordinary. * I think the name melanotis usually applied to this species arises out of a misprint. Blyth himself, J. A. S., B., Vol. XVIL., p. 694, called it melanotus, remarking that it had “no white on rump” and so he designates it. Cat. A. S. B., 1469. The black back is the charagteristic of this species ; all three, on the other hand, have black ears, Hlliot, I see, P. Z. S., 1871, p. 138, prints it me/anotis, but this, I think, is a misprint, and we should either keep it as Blyth wrote it or adopt the more correct form melanonotys. , OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR: 45 The females of the three species are much more similar, and they vary somuch that I find it impossible to set forth their differences in a brief table like that above given for the males. Generally it may be said that the females of alsocristatus are lighter, those of melanotus darker, and those of Horsfieldit more rufescent. In albocristatus the crest of the female, when fully developed, is generally longer and greyer than in either of the other two; the tail feathers are less rufescent and much more boldly vermicilated. The pale tippings to the breast feathers and coverts contrast much less strongly, as a rule, than do the similar tippings in melanotus. In melanotus, the rump and upper tail coverts, as a rule, harmonize well with the cen- contral tail feathers. In Horsfieldii the former are much lighter and more olive, the latter darker and more ferruginous and thus trast together strongly. As arule the central tail feathers of FHforsfieldii are almost perfectly plain, and are deep ferruginous ; those of melanotus deep brown with a ferruginous tinge and feebly vermicilated ; those of albocristatus olive brown with only a faint ferruginous tinge and boldly vermicilated ; but none of these points hold absolutely good, and though by bearing all in mind any specimen can be discriminated at once, I have failed, after examining a large series, to detect any one single positive constant difference in the dry skins that can by itself be relied on to separate specimens. The adult male in the present species is from 28 to 24 inches in length. The wing, 9 to 9°25; the tail, from 9 to 10; tarsus, about 3°25 ; bill from gape, 1°4 to 1°55. The males have one sharp spur on each leg varying in length from 0°75 to 1:0 according to the age of the bird. Entire plumage is black, with a rich blue gloss over head, neck, breast, back, rump and shorter tail-coverts, and the fea- thers of both the latter are conspicuously tipped with pure white. The female is a rich olive brown. The chin and_ throat white or whitish ; the feathers of the neck and sides of the head generally with a greyish tinge towards the tips; the body and wings with a decidedly rufescent tinge; all the feathers of the lower surface and the coverts of the wings tipped paler, in some specimens most conspicuously so, the feathers of the lower surface also white or brownish white shafted. The visible portion of the rump and all but the long- est upper tail-coverts a paler and more fulvous olive brown; the central tail feathers, and generally also the longest of the upper tail-coverts, deep ferruginous. The rest of the tail- feathers black, sometimes margined or tinged with ferruginous, 44 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS while sometimes parts of the outer webs of even the cen- tral tail feathers are blackish ; the lower tail-coverts are gene- rally deep brown, almost blackish in some, tinged strongly with ferruginous in others. The quills are brown, darker on the inner webs tinged with olive, or ruddy olive on the outer webs, always most rufescent on the secondaries and _tertiaries, very often quite plain, at other times very finely and incon- spicuously speckled towards the tips of the tertiaries and some of the secondaries with a lighter tint; the central tail fea- thers are perhaps most generally plain, but in many specimens they are very finely vermicilated, chiefly on the inner webs, where they are usually paler, with dusky. Very often the tips of the crest feathers are much more rufescent than the rest of the head. These birds are so extremely variable that no two of them appear to be exactly alike. The females are somewhat smaller than the males, but I have no measurements of these recorded in the flesh. 812.—Gallus ferrugineus, Gm. “The common jungle fowl is very common. It breeds throughout the whole summer.—J, I.” 824 bis.—Arboricola atrogularis, Blyth. “This partridge is not uncommon on the hills; it is seldom seen except in dense jungle. It remains all the year.—J. 1.” This species which we only as yet know of from the west- ern portions of Assam, Sylhet, Cachar and Tipperah (though it is said to have occurred in Chittagong) has been already noticed in the short key to our eight Indian species of Ar- boricolas or Arborophilas (Vol II., p. 449), but it may be as well to give a detailed description of the species here, as it is not included in Dr. Jerdon’s work. Length, 11; wing, 5°5 to nearly 6; tarsus, 1:5 to 1:7; bill from gape, 0°9 to 1°0; tail, 2°25 to 2°5. Bull, black; the legs and feet appear to have been orange fleshy ; a large bare or- bital space, red. The lores and lines running from them, over and below the bare eye space, behind which they meet and run down on either side of the nape, black. A band from the base of the lower mandible running backwards over cheeks and ear- coverts white, the posterior portion often tinged buffy. The forehead grey. A line on either side of the forehead imme- diately above the black line first described running backwards with it oneither side of the nape, white anteriorly, buffy posteriorly ; crown and occiput greyish olive, each feather with a black shaft streak expanding at the tip into a nail-head spot ; OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 45 nape, rich fulvous buff, each feather with a black spot, towards the tip; chin and upper throat, and sides of the neck imme- diately below the cheek and ear patch, black; rest of the sides of the neck, like the nape. A white patch at the base . of the throat, the feathers with oval black shaft spots ; entire breast French grey ; the feathers nearest the white throat patch with large oval shaft stripes ; lower part of the breast paler, centre of abdomen nearly pure white; flank feathers grey- ish, tinged with rufescent olive, with white oval subterminal shaft spots and generally a little black beyond these; lower tail-coverts olive with black subterminal spots or bars, and mostly broadly tipped paler. The entire interscapulary region, back, rump, and upper tail-coverts a rich, slightly greenish, olive, all the feathers narrowly tipped and transversely barred with black. The subterminal bar expanding at the shaft in many of the feathers of the rump and upper tail-coverts, into a sort of diamond shaped or arrow head patch. The lesser coverts mostly like the back, but often with more black about them. The scapulars similar, but broadly tipped with bright or deep ferruginous, preceded, especially in the case of the longest sca- pulars, with very broad velvet-black bars. The primaries and their greater coverts are plain brown, slightly margined at the tips with fulvous. The tertiaries are ferruginous, freckled and vermicilated with brown, with a pale patch towards the tips on the outer webs and an imperfect black bar beyond this, The secondaries are brown like the primaries, only rather darker and with an increasingly wide margin to the outer webs simi- lar to the tertiaries. The tail feathers are olive brown vermicilated with black. The lower wing-coverts along the edge of the wing are dark brown, most of the rest of the lower coverts white; many of the greater secondary and tertiary upper wing coverts approxi- mate in color and markings to the scapulars. I do not yet know whether the plumage in both sexes is precisely alike, all my specimens are similar, but they have not been sexed and they may be all males. In brunneopectus, as we know, both sexes are precisely alike. $32.—Turnix pugnax, Tem. “The Bustard Quail is plentiful during the rains in grass lands. It breeds in June, making a very shallow cavity for its nest. It lays about 4 or 5 eggs of a brownish grey colour.—J. I.” 855.—Lobivanellus indicus, Bodd. “The Red Wattled Lapwing is rare in this district ; a few stragglers are sometimes seen during March and April.—J. I.” 46 A FIRST LIST OF THE BIRDS These specimens are true indicus and make no approach to the Burmese L. atronuchalis, Blyth. . 857.—Hoplopterus ventralis, Cuv. “The Indian Spur-winged Plover is common along the banks of river. I have not seen its nest.—J. I.” 870.—Gallinago stenura, Kuhl. “This Snipe is extremely common, frequenting marshy lands. —J. I.” 873.—Rhynchea bengalensis, Lin. “The Painted Snipe is rarely obtained here. Out of some 500 of the former variety which I shot last autumn I only obtained two female painted ones.—J. I.”’ 891.—Rhyacophilus glareola, Lin. “This Sand-piper is found wherever there is water through- out the season.—J. I.”’ 900.—Parra indica, Lath. “The Bronze-winged Jacana is quite common on jheels and marshes. I have not seen its nest.—J. I.” 901.—Hydrophasianus chirurgus, Scop. “The Pheasant-tailed Jacana is extremely rare. I have only obtained one specimen.—J. I.” 905.—Gallinula chloropus, Zzn. “The Water Hen is very common.—J. I.” 907.—Erythra pheenicura, Penn. “Very common.—2J. I.” 924.—Ardea purpurea, Zin. : “The Purple Heron is very common during the rains.—J. I.”’ 926.—Herodias intermedius, Hasselt. “ This Heron is only seen here during the rains.—J. I.”’ 927.—Herodias garzetta, Lin? H. nigripes, Tem. _ “The Littie Egret is very common along the rivers and jheels.—J. I.” OF NORTH-EASTERN CACHAR. 47 930.—Ardeola Grayi, Sykes. “The Pond Heron is very common.—J. I.” 931.—Butorides javanicus, Horsf. “The Little Green Bittern is also common.—4J. I.” 932.—Ardetta flavicollis, Lath. : ie Black Bittern is rather rare. Seen during the rains. a eee a 933.—Ardetta cinnamomea, Gmel. “The Chestnut Bittern arrives about June and cea at the close of the rains.—J. I.” 951.—Nettapus coromandelicus, Lin. “This Teal is common during the rains.—J. I.” 952.—Dendrocygna arcuata, Cuv. “The Whistling Teal remains here all the season. I have never seen their nests.—J. I.” 962.—Dafila acuta, Zin. “Very rare. I have only obtained one specimen.—J. I.” 964.—Querquedula crecca, Lin. “This Teal is rather rare. I have obtained it only on the rivers.—J. I.” 975.—Podiceps minor, Gmel. “T obtained two specimens of this little Grebe i in March last on a small sheet of stagnant water.—J. I.” 985.—Sterna seena, Sykes. “This Tern at times comes up the river, but only on a flying visit.—J. I.” 1007.—Graculus pygmeus, Pall. “The Little Cormorant is very common all over Cachar. —J. I,” ASORE. 48 Obseroations on Falco PHendersoni, Hume. By W. E. Brooks. Wuen Mr. Hume first shewed me the type of Falco Hender- sont, I observed that it was a good and most remarkable species. I had seen a good number of Punjab Sakers, as well as European examples, but this splendid Yarkand Falcon had a general aspect quite dissimilar to that of any Saker of the well-known species. ‘To this conviction I have adhered, although I have been frequently assured that the bird was only a stage of /’. sacer. Falco Hendersoni has been opposed by Mr Gurney and by Mr. Sharpe. Mr Sharpe’s remarks on it are to be found at page 419 of his Catalogue of the Accipitres. One remark I must here quote:—‘In this state of plumage the bird (F. sacer) is FF. milvipes of Hodgson, and F. Hendersoni of Hume.” Ihave examined Hodgson’s original drawing of F. milvipes, and found it to be the common sacer, as far removed as could be expected from the affined #. Hendersoni. I think the question of identity of species is set at rest by the observations of Lieutenant-Colonel N. Prjevalsky, to be~ found in his paper, entitled. “The Birds of Mongolia, the Tan- gut country, and the solitudes of Northern Tibet, published in Ornithological Miscellany for January 1877, pp. 149-150.” I shall quote the article at the close of this paper. Mr. Sharpe says, the fully adult or aged Saker is very rare, indeed. This being the case, how was it that all the birds met with by Colonel Prjevalsky, were in the Hendersoni plu- mage? Had the two species sucer and Hendersoni been identical, there ought to have been one or two birds seen in sacer plumage, to say the least. But, unfortunately for the theory of identity, there were not. This fact alone, proves the validity of Hume’s species, far beyond the reach of any Dar- winian argument that can be brought to bear upon it; and it also shews how worthless mere theories are in connection with natural history. Weare all more or less fond of theory, and great strides can it would seem be taken, at all events in ornithology, with the barest possible assistauce of facts. Mr. Darwin has proved that we are all descended from monkeys ; the conclusion is received, and delights the most eminent naturalists, but the specific value of that odd anomaly man has not yet, I believe, been denied ; no doubt, the descent of Hender- soni from sacer (or vice versa), can be equally satisfactorily demonstrated, but this will scarcely affect for practical purposes the specific distinctness of the two forms. OBSERVATIONS ON FALCO HENDERSONI, HUME. 49 The article I have referred to is as follows :-— “13.—Falco Hendersoni, Hume. “ Socol Hendersona. “ Kaleo Hendersoni, Henderson and Hume, Lahore to Yar- kand, pl. “The various stages of plumage, according to age and local variation, make it very difficult to distinguish the different species of Falcons; so much so, that even the best ornitholo- gists differ in this respect in their opinions. To one of such disputed species belongs Falco sacer, which forms several varie- ties in eastern Europe and throughout Asia. In the regions of our travels, we did not observe (or at least did not obtain) the true Falco sacer, Schleg., which is so beautifully figured by Schlegel in his Traite de Fauconnerie, pl. V., and by Gould in his ‘Birds of Asia,’ Part XX. Everywhere we found only the species described by Hume, in ‘ Lahore to Yarkand’ under the name of Falco Hendersoni. We obtained only four specimens (two males and two females), of which (two males and one temale) completely correspond with Hume’s descrip- tion, with only insignificant differences. The second female which is rather younger than the three former specimens (this is to be distinguished by the blue and not yellow legs), differs from them by the absence of a fully striped tail, as only in- complete reddish yellow bands are perceptible on the inner webs of the tail feathers, whilst the outer webs are marked with spots of the same colouras the bands. Again, the yellow streaks of the female /. Hendersoni are replaced in the present specimen by spots of the same colour. The breast is pied, on account of the large dark brown spots, just like the true F. sacer; whilst on £. Hendersont, as also on our three speci- mens, the breastis milk white, marked with narrow and tri- angular small spots. The bill is black at the point, and bluish at the base, and has only on the lower mandible a yellow mark, which colour is predominant on both mandibles in our three specimens. Consequently the young plumaged /. Hen- dersoni is nearer to F. sacer, which, however, is sufficiently developed to be separated as a species. Measurements :— Length. Width. Wing. Tail. Gape. Tarsus. Middle toe. Oo tiactaee 185 33 148 78 1:23 1:9 1°78 Or netee: 22:5 37/ 166 9:3 1:27 2°16 2:0 “ Henderson’s Falcon was found by us wherever we went, from Kiachta down to the sources of the Yantze-Kiang ; but it was most numerous in winter in the Zachar country and G 50 ell ell ell el eel ell oe ate ad i CAA aa ou 02 09 LO LO LO tO LO BO LO SORDWwWoO-10c CO OOOOOOe (S ive) O10 i) Bia Sri > NOSSOCHMNN ow ‘ ‘ Or or a OP op Co OD EY CH OD EH OD EFDOSOSCSOrNN @ or US for) a Soren S660 1877. WINS O TT Wow S ~70d co wT 39. Spee. (12) : measured in } a the fies). | 7 Toung sha \ Gyne River; 8th March "7 1877 to 10th ; March 1877.) ee pp leatlce i Or bo bo Orpwern Para HS: £8 sft 7. Spec. (5) measured in | the fle sh). 4c we Moumenze- m 75) 9°9 mk; 11th} March 1877,) ) 2°9/ 3°15) 1°2) 0-95) 1°15 Sa SIS co no 0d Fe bau ts a mert 90 OUR INDIAN CISTICOLE. I do not think, I may add, that it is im any way dependant on age, as a somewhat analogous change is, I believe, in Gampsorhynchus rufulus. There are much too many white Wimpong birds, to permit us to suppose that white indicates non-age, and if it indicated age we must have got a fair pro- portion of these elsewhere, whereas all the birds procured elsewhere are typical, except four which only deviate from the type in having the chin and throat unstreaked white. Perhaps, after all, it may be an incipient species, and the white fellows running about on the grey limestone rocks, may have the pull over their darker brethren, who will hence eventually, as the lawyers phrase it, cease and determine. In that case when the species shall be fairly established, I should recommend for it the name of 7. Darwinit in perpetual memory of the great naturalist who first brought really home to most of us, the potent modifying influences of external conditions on organic life. Ay Oe Our Andian Cisticole. Our Indian list, as usually accepted, exhibits a considerable number of members of the genus Cisticola (Kaup. 1829). 1.—Cisticola cursitans, Prankl., Pro. Comm. Sci.& L. Z. 8., 1831.—Jerd. Ill. In. Orn, pl. 6.—Sylvia cisticola, Zem., Man. d’Orn. 228, 1820; P. C. 6,—C. scheenicola, Bp., 1838.—Salicaria brunniceps, Lem. and Schl. Faun. Jap. 134 t. XX. ¢. 2.—Cisticola munipurensis, God-Aust., P. Z. S., 1874, 47; J. ASB. UIE, 165, plies 1874.—S. F. I11., 397. 3.—Cisticola homalura, Bly., Cat. of B. Mus. A.S. B., 145, No. 822, 1849 (sine deser.); J. A.S. B., XX,, 176, 1851, (deser. orig.) ; Ibis, 1867, 302. 4,—Cisticola melanocephala, Anders. P. Z. 8. Feby. 21, 1871, 212.—God.-Aust., J.A.8. B., XLIIL, 165, Pl, X., f. 1, 1874.—C. ruficollis, Wald., A. and M. N.H., 1871, 241.—S. F. II], 283. 9.--Cisticola Tytleri, Bly, J. A. S., B. (?);—Jerd B. of I. II., 176, 1863.—Bly., Ibis 1865, 44. OUR INDIAN CISTICOLA. $1 6.—Cisticola erythrocephala, Jerd.— Bly. J. A. S., Ba xX.,-523;, 1851, It will be observed that I assume the identity of the South European and Indian birds. I have only examined one of the former (from South Italy), but that one I was able to match pre- cisely, according to the best of my judgment, with a bird killed in the same month, in Etawah (North-West Provinces, India), and therefore, although Mr. Gray (H. L. 200) keeps them se- parate, I have not, knowing how much the bird varies, and how little this has as yet been recognized, thought it advisable to follow him in this. Common as CU. cursifans is in the basin of the Mediterra- nean, India, China and Japan, I cannot discover that the great difference in its winter and summer plumage has as yet been clearly pointed out. Yet the birds look very different indeed in January and July, so much so, that Major Godwin-Austen has described the bird in its cold weather garb as a different species, No. 2 on out list. Typically in the hot season, the head is a comparatively dull, lighter or darker, almost uniform brown, (in some almost abso- lutely so, but this is an individual difference,) more or less feebly streaked with a paler and yellower brown or yellowish buff or fawn. The back is darker brown, the feathers edged with much the same color as the light streaking of the head. The tail spread, and looked at from above, has the central feathers brown, white tipped, the tipping preceded by a dark brown bar, and this again by a more or less obsolete barring, paler, at times with a rufescent tinge. The lateral tail feathers are darker, have broader white tips preceded by a blackish band, and that again by a very broad light rufous bar, usually much clouded with brown on the outer web. Typically in the cold season, the head is very boldly striated black and pale fulvous, or buff; so too is the back. The tail, when spread, has the centre feathers uniform brown, broadly margined (so broadly at times as to leave only a dark brown shaft stripe along the middle) with pale rufous or fawn brown ; the lateral tail feathers are brown, white tipped, and darker just before the tip, but there is no rufous or trace of it. Looked at from below, at both seasons the tail feathers exhibit conspicuous greyish white and black tippings. These are the typical plumages ; but individual birds killed on the same day and at the same place, vary a little in tint ; some are brighter and more rufous, some duller and browner, 92 OUR INDIAN CISTICOLA. Moreover in the spring plenty of intermediate forms will be found ; all birds do not change their plumage at the same time ; I have some birds still in almost typical winter plumage, killed quite at the end of March, and others killed about the same time already much ehanged. I have the birds in both plumages from the most various lo- calities, Sindh, Mount Aboo, Dehli, the Sambhur lake, the Dhoon, Jhansi, Saugor, Ceylon, Dacca, Bhotan Doars, Cachar, Assam, Calcutta, Pegu, Tenasserim, the Nicobars, but every specimen in the typieal plumage first described killed between Ist May and September, and all those in the second between Ist Novem- ber and Ist April. The bird is one that varies very considerably in size; in one specimen fairly measured from the frontal bone to the point, the bill is only 0°42, in another, (the largest I have,) similarly measured it is 0°51. No vast difference in figures, but mak- ing a great difference in the look of the bill. Again in one bird, a male (the males are always rather larger) from Sau- gor, killed in August in typical summer plumage, the wing is 2°25, but I have females in both summer and winter plumage with the wing only 1:8. The average for females is about 1:95 and for the males, 2:1, but I have specimens of both sexes 2°0. Of the 2nd species on our list I need say nothing ; it will be clear to any one consulting Major Godwin-Austen’s description (re-published §. F. ILI., 397) and his pretty platein the Asia- tic Society’s Journal, that munipurensis is only the cold weather plumage of cursitans. Jerdon’s figure represents the faded winter plumage, the streaks dying out on the head and back, but the tail not yet moulted. ‘Temminck as his figure and description (P. C. 6, f. 3) clearly show had before him a bird in winter or spring plumage. The figure in the Fauna Japonica, is of the early hot weather plumage; the tail has been moulted, the head has become near- ly uniform brown, but the back has still to grow duller. What stage of plumage Dr. Bree’s marvellously colored plate (B. of E. n. o. in Brit. II. 88) may be intended to portray, J am quite unable to suggest. I may add that I delieve (though of this I am not positive) that the birds moult their tails at the beginning of the hot weather and then get their central tail feathers rather shorter and broader than, as well as differently coloured to, those they have in the cold weather after the autumn moult. This is what Drymoipus inornatus does, and thus it earned for its cold weather garb, Tickell’s name of longicaudatus. OUR INDIAN CISTICOLA. 93 CisticoLA Homaura, Blyth, No. 3 on our list, was thus described :— Differs from C. cursitans, Frankl., in having a stouter bill, the whole upper parts much darker and_ the “tail subeven, ex- cept that its outermost feathers are } inch shorter than the next. The prevailing hue of the upper parts is dusky black, with much narrower rufescent lateral margins to the feathers than in C. cursitans, the ramp however being unmixed rufescent as in that species, and the neck much tinged with the same; one specimen has some dark markings on the breast; and another in first plumage greatly resembles “the adults and is conspicu- ously different from the young of C. cursitans.” (N. B.—Only one specimen was preserved i in the museum). If we turn now to species No. 4, CISTICOLA MELANOCEPHALA, we find it thus described by Dr. Anderson, from specimens obtained in Yunan :— “Head black, feathers obscurely margined with rufous; lores and supercilium pale rufous, faintly striated with brown; back and rump black, feathers margined with rufous cinereous ; tail brown above, obscurely banded, cinereous below, obscurely banded, black spotted near the apex and tipped with pale ru- fous cinereous; under tail-coverts ferruginous ; wing coverts brown, faintly margined with rufous, below ferruginous albes- cent. “The intense black of the centres of the feathers of this species and the almost entire absence of light coloured margins to the feathers of the head separate it from C. schenicola. I have specimens of the latter bird from Central India with much lighter rufous about them than the ordinary run of Bengal and Cachar specimens, and the top of the head instead of being nearly uniform dull rufous brown, as in Bengal specimens, is bright pale rufous with narrow brownish black centres to the feathers, and the two colours have a tendency to dispose them- selves in lines. * My Cachar specimens resemble those from Bengal in every respect.” Of course, Dr. Anderson did not realize that the variations he ' referred to were not due to locality but to season, but that does not signify ; his description of the species we are now dealing with gives a tolerable idea of the bird, though it overlooks the conspicuous unstreaked rufous or buff collar. That however is fully brought out in Lord Walden’s description, which will be found, 8. F. III., 283. Between these descriptions the reader should be able to form a good idea of the bird, but I would also call attention to Major * See Major Godwin-Austen’s plate of his munipurensis.—ED., 8. F, Q4 OUR INDIAN CISTICOL. Godwin-Austen’s remark that “ some specimens do not show the rufous on the neck so much as others,’’ and to what he says about the tail under his munipurensis, quoted S. F. I1I., 397. Of melanocephalus, I possess one, (the best,) of Dr. Jerdon’s Debroogurh specimens, and a second, that he also gave me, from Dacca, and I am bound to say that but for the “nearly even” tail both these agree extremely well with Blyth’s description of homalura. I by no means hazard the assertion that homalura is identical with melanocephala, and was described from a speci- men of which the tail was imperfect or abnormal, but I suggest the matter for the verification of those who have a better series than myself of melanocephala and homalura; of which latter I have none. Of Cisticona TyTLERI as described by Blyth (unde?) and quoted by Jerdon, I have never succeeded in obtaining speci- mens, although I have had considerable collections made in Dacca; but 1 have melanocephala from thence, besides the one Dr. Jerdon gave me, and it is curious that in giving me the two specimens of melanocephala, one from Debroogurh, the other from Dacca, he assured me that, in his opinion, they were only the adults of Jytleri, with one of which he said he had compared them. I cannot find that he ever recorded this any- where, but on the strength of this assurance, the birds were thus labelled, and so stand to this day in my museum. I should not be at all surprised if Tytleri and melanocephala did prove identical, in which case the former name has prece- dence; and it seems to me further not impossible that homalura may also be identical, in which case this name would stand. I note that all my specimens of melanocephala have some dark markings on the breast, thus recalling Blyth’s remarks in regard to homalura. The last on our list is C. ERYTHROCEPHALA, which I have only obtained in Saugor and of which Jerdon himself identified my specimen. It is, I believe, a very rare bird. I have never obtained more than the single specimen that I myself shot, and I have not as et heard of any one else obtaining it. The following are the dimensions (taken from the skin) of my specimen :— Length, 4:2; wing, 1:93; tail, 1:7; tarsus, 0°78; bill at front, 0°46. The bill appears to me absolutely identical in size and shape with that of cursitans, but has the upper mandible much paler and the lower mandible redder than in that species. The wing has the 4th and 5th feathers equal and longest ; the 3rd, 0:02 shorter ; the 2nd, 0:2; and the Ist, 0 8 shorter. These OUR INDIAN CISTICOLZE. 95 are not the normal proportions in eursitans, in which the 2nd is usually much more nearly equal to the 3rd, while the first is smaller. But I have found one cursitans, in which the propor- tions of the primaries were nearly the same as in my single specimen of erythrocephala. The tail is rounded, not graduated ; the outermost feather is only 0°35 shorter than the central ones ; this recalls homalura; but then the plumage is so wtterly unlike the description of homalura, that one cannot believe in their being different stages of the same bird. The legs and feet are similar in size to those of cursitans, but appear to have been of a darker and redder colour. The forehead and crown are an uniform dull, orange rufous, or rufous orange buff, entirely unmixed with any other colour ; the lower throat and breast are similar, only a shade less ferru- ginous, or orange; abdomen, vent, lower tail coverts, tibial plumes, the same, but rather paler, and a little browner, on the latter. Wing lining a rather purer buff. The chin and middle of the upper throata trifle paler than the breast, the pale or whitish bases of the feathers showing through a little. The nape a dark yellowish or slightly rufescent olivaceous brown. The sides of the neck and the ear-coverts, the colour of the breast more or less overlaid and tinged with that of the nape. The back, rump, and upper tail coverts, similar to the nape, but the first feebly striated with dark brown. The wings dark hair brown, but all the feathers so broadly margined with rusty olivaceous, that except on the tertiaries very little of the hair brown is seen in the closed wing. The tail is dark brown, obsoletely banded; the feathers very narrowly margined towards their bases with olivaceous, and very narrowly tipped with pale rufescent. Looked at from below the feathers are similar and show no trace of a dark penultimate band. The lores appear to be much the same colour as the crown, but lighter and less pure and perhaps have a faint line through them, but my specimen does not show this clearly. I believe erythrocephala to be a thoroughly good species. On the whole, therefore, although it may be that our list should include five species of this genus, I am much inclined to suspect that the number will ultimately have to be reduced to 3, en OarEs 96 HIEROCOCCYX NISICOLOR. Hierococcyx nisicolor, Hodgs. (in Bly. J. A. 8, B., XII., 943, 1843.) Mr. Blyth originally described this species under Mr. Hodegson’s manuscript name as follosw :— “Mr. Hodgson has also forwarded an apparently distinct species by the appellation C. nisicolor, to which I have no hesi- tation in referring the young specimen from Macao mentioned in a note to p. 240, ante. It is closely allied to C. fugax,* from which it is chiefly or wholly distinguished by its much deeper colouring. Mr. Hodgson’s example would appear to be a remarkably small one, and is probably a female, but the differ- ence of size between it and the young specimen from Macao is not greater than occurs in the respective series of C. canorus and GC. micropterus now lying before me. Length about twelve inches and a half; of wing six inches and _ five-eighths, and middle tail-feathers five inches and three-quarters ; bill to gape an inch and three-sixteenths. Colour of the upper parts very dark pure ash-colour; throat and cheeks the same, as in C. fugax ; under-parts and tail also as in the latter species, but the flanks not barred (in the specimen) : throat below the chin con- trasting with the dark ashy above and laterally, and the central marking of the feathers of the throat deep ash, like the rest of this colour, it being very dark on those of the fore-neck. The Macao specimen is moulting its tail-feathers, but has the wing seven inches and a half long, being probably a young male; cap, with the throat, ear-coverts, and sides of the neck, very dark ashy, and several white feathers on the nape, as in some young examples of C. fugaw ; interscapularies dusky ash, very faintly rufous barred, imparting a shade of that colour to the parts; scapularies, tertiaries, and wing-coverts, succes- sively more distinctly barred with bright rufous ; the fore-neck tinged and the plumage of the breast tipped with the same ; and the under-parts longitudinally streaked throughout with dusky, shewing no trace of bars on the flanks: lower tail- coverts dull white: bill and feet as in C. fugaz. Later, in his commentary on Jerdon’s Birds of India, Ibis, 1866, 362, Mr. Blyth remarked as follows :— “ 206.—HIEROCOCCYX NISICOLOR. I have now seen several examples of this bird, all from the South-Eastern Himdlayah, and am well satisfied that it is a distinct race. The largest adult measured 7 inches in length oot here refers to varius, which at that time was accepted as fugar.— HIEROCOCCYX NISICOLOR. 97 of wing. Mr. Hodgson figures it with white irides ! Horsfield’s only specimen of H. fuga# in the India Museum is in immature plumage, and quite resembles that figured as Cuculus spar- verioides by Von Schrenk ; Mr. Swinhoe showed me a similar specimen from China, and Mr. Wallace has one from Borneo, while Dr. Sclater’s supposed H. varius from Borneo (P. Z. 8. 1863, p. 203) is sure to be no other; again, it is the Chinese HM, nisicolor, nobis (J. A. S. B., XXX., 93) ; and I consider that C. flaviventris, Scopoli (founded on Sounerat’s Coucou & ventre raye de Isle de Panay), C. radiatus, Gm., H. pectoralis, Cabanis, and H. hyperythrus, Gould (B. of As., Pt. VIII.), represent the mature plumage of the same species, which should accordingly stand as A. flaviventris (Scop.), from China, Philip- pines, Borneo, and Java, being probably, also that noticed from Malacca by Mr. F. Moore (P. Z. 8., 1859, 459.)” Now I have read and re-read this passage repeatedly without being able to make quite certain whether Blyth meant that nisicolor and flaviventris were identical or not. On the whole, from his reference to his Chinese nisicolor and from his omitting the South-East Himalayahs from the list of localities from which flaviventris had been recorded, I conclude that he really considered the two distinct. I may here note that Mr. Swinhoe, P. Z. S., 1871, 395, speaks doubtfully of the occurrence of the species which, follow- ing Blyth, he calls faviventris in China; but Blyth records (J. A.8. B., XXX., 93, 1861) Mr. Swinhoe as having himself sent a specimen to him from Amoy, and in the passage first quoted, Mr. Blyth refers to another specimen received in 1843, from Macao, of which he gives the dimensions, so that this matter would not appear at all doubtful. Moore and Horsfield (Cat. B. Mus. E. I. C., 701) unite nisicolor with varius, and so does Cabanis (Mus. Hein. IV., I., 29) but none of these authorities can possibly have had a series of both birds before them, or they could never have made such a mistake. In the first place, there is the difference in size, nistcolor being altogether a slighter and slenderer bird. Varius varies in total length in adults (in the fresh bird) from 13 in the smallest female to about 14°7 in the largest male— and in wing from 7:4 to 8:2. Young birds are often smaller. Nisicolor varies similarly from 10°6 to 11°5 in total length and in wing from 6°8 to 7:2. Then there is an essential difference in the markings; in varius at every stage, except quite the young bird just out of the nest, the markings of the sides are transverse ; in adults, the abdomen, sides and flanks are all more or less conspicuously N v 98 HIEROCOCCYX NISICOLOR. transversely barred. Even in the nestling the sides and flanks often exhibit arrow-head marks which are very like bars, and before the young bird has been 5 months from the nest, long before it has assumed the adult plumage, before the rufous tippings have been worn away from the feathers of the upper surface, the sides have become distinctly barred. Now in nisicolor, old or young, there is never any barring on the sides or abdomen ; the markings are always longitudinal and streaky. Then there is the difference in colour; the upper surface alikein old and young is conspicuously darker in nisicolor. In the young of this latter the upper surface is a deep liver- brown, the head darker and duskier. In the adult it is a deep slatey blue, almost black on the head in freshly moulted birds. Asa broad general rule too, the rufous on the lower surface in nisicolor is always deeper, and perhaps, I should say, more ferruginous, but this is not an absolute distinction, as I have one old nisicolor no deeper in colour than one particularly richly colored varius. T do not think any one comparing the birds carefully could unite nisicolor and varius. At present I only know for certain of the occurrence of ‘his species in Sikhim, Bhotan, the Khasia Hills, the Hills of Northern Tenasserim, and the plains immediately west of these during the cold season. The following are the dimensions and colours of the soft parts of a fine male, killed on the Thatone plains last December :— Length, 11°7 ; expanse, 19°75 ; tail, 6-2 ; wing, 7:0; tarsus, 0°8 ; weight, 4 ounces. . The legs, feet, claws and eyelids, bright yellow; gape, greenish yellow, lower mandible and region of nostrils, pale green ; upper mandible horny black ; irides orange red. It is quite true, that in the Zoological Society’s copy of the drawings as well as in the British Museum ones, to which Mr. Blyth refers, Mr. Hodgson figures the iris as white, and we know how extremely accurate his drawings usually are,* still both in the specimen above referred to shot by Davison andin another shot by myself near Darjeeling (in the lower valleys below which the birdis not rare) the irides were orange red, thus differing from varius, of whichI find that I have on upwards of 30 specimens recorded the irides as, * There is internal evidence to show that this plate was taken from a skin. Tt has on its reverse none of those special details which Mr, Hodgson always recorded when dealing with a fresh bird, HIEROCOCCYX NISICOLOR. 99 *“vamboge yellow,” “ bright yellow,” “ lemon yellow,” “ yellow.” But now is nisicolor, though different from varius, the same as hyperythrus, Gould, P. Z. 8., 1856, 96 ? J think not. In the first place, Gould gives the wing as 8, which is altogether too large for our Indian species, and as is also the wing of the young bird from Macao, referred to by Blyth (doubtless the same species if Mr. Gould’s bird came from Shanghai.)* In the second place, Mr. Gould figures and describes the tail as with 2 cross bands besides the broad sub- terminal one, whereas nisicolor (adult, and Mr. Gould’s bird is clearly adult) has four such bands, the one next the broad sub- terminal one often very narrow, and the first more or less _ hidden by the upper tail-coverts. Then again the breast and upper abdomen are never uni- form rufous in nisicolor ; they are always more or less streaked with albescent, and ashy, and in what I take to be the oldest birds the sides of the neck and breast are very much streaked with slatey dusky. Again the lores, ear-coverts, moustache and chin spot are never black asin hyperythrus, but slatey-dusky, paler than the crown. But is nisicolor by chance identical with pectoralis of Cabanis, admittedly from the Philippines ? The wing of a maleis given at 7:15; so that so far as size goes this would suit our bird well, but then in our bird the throat is never white, but always streaked or striated, the breast is never uniform rufous vinaceous, the markings on the lower surface of the quills are not vinaceous white, and the tail in pectoralis appears to -have altogether only four bands. ; In the absence of specimens, though fully convinced of the dis- tinctness of nisicolor from both hyperythrus and pectoralis, Icannot offer any definite opinion as to whether these two latter are distinct? or identical, but if Cabanis’ specimen was fully grown, and correctly sexed, I should think it by far most probable that were distinct As regards Mr. Blyth’s contention that Scopoli’s name should be applied to these two or one species, Cabanis has, I think, satisfactorily shown (Mus. Hein, LV. I. 29, ) that this name and radiatus, Gm. (S. N. I, 420) both founded on Sonnerat’s * Some doubt has been thrown on this, because Mr. Gould says his bird is in the British Museum, and Mr. Swinhoe says the only bird of the kind there is labelled Manilla. + Isee that Cabanis unintentionally exaggerates the difference in size between his own pectoralis (of which he gives the wing, in French inches and lines at 6” 6’) and Gould, Ayperythrus, of which he gives the wing at 7” 6”, which exactly equals 8-2 instead of 8:0, which is the dimension given by Gould. The correct equivalent in French inches and lines is more nearly 7” 33/”, 100 NOVELTIES. plate, do not apply. He thinks Sonnerat described and figured either a made up specimen, or Cuculus capensis, Gmel. Lord Walden, (Tr. Z. S. TX., pt. 2, 161) equally agrees that these names do not apply, but thinks Sonnerat’s account and figure agree well with Vieillot’s Cuculus solitarius and that Gmelin’s C. capensis, a cuckoo in hepatie plumage, can scarcely be determined. A. O. H. Aovelties? Siva castanicauda. Like 8. strigula, but rather larger and bill considerably larger, and with the greater portion of both webs of the central tail feathers and of the inner webs of the next feathers, a pure rich chestnut. The Hill Tenasserim representative of our Himalayan Siva strigula is so extremely like the latter, that I,and doubtless others, have for long overlooked its essential point of difference. I noticed that they seemed rather finer birds and that they some- how did not look precisely the same, but it never occurred to me that they were distinct. To-day happening to have out a series of over 60 specimens of the Himalayan bird, from Simla, Mussouri, Almorah, Nynee- tal, Nepal and Sikhim, it occurred to me to compare the Moolyit birds with these. At once the difference was clear. Whereas strigula has about the basal 14 inches of the inner webs of the central feathers deep ferruginous verging on maroon, the Tenasserim birds have the whole of both webs of the central tail feathers, the inner web to within 0°5 and the outer to within 0°8 of the tip, pure, rich chestnut. Moreover, in the Moolyit birds, the feathers next the central ones have almost an equal portion of the inner webs and the basal portions of the outer webs of the same colour. In other respects, the plumage seems to agree, but I think the orange of the crown is rather more intense than in strigula. The following are the measurements, &c., recorded in the flesh of a bird killed at Moolyit, 7th February 1877 :— Length, 6°6; expanse, 8°5; tail, 2°9; wing, 2°8; tarsus, 1:05: bill, from gape, 0°75 ; weight, 0°750z. The legs and feet were dingy glaucous green; the upper mandible dark brown ; the lower fleshy ; the irides deep brown, NOVELTIES, 101 Muscitrea, cyanea. Head duli cobalt blue; rest of upper parts, chin, throat and breast deep indigo blue; vent, lower tail coverts and more or less of INNER webs of four exterior pairs of tail feathers, pure white. Ican find no record of this clearly Pachycephaline form, and if the bird is not new, it must, I think, have been misplaced. But before dealing with the species, I must explain the use of the generic term, Muscitrea is a genus of Blyths, established in February 1847 (J. A. 8. B., XVI., 121). The specimen, on which he founded it, was destroyed, and later he could not remember what the affinities of this new genus of his really were. The following is the passage in which he defined the genus and described the species which was its type :— “ Muscitrea, nobis. Bill of moderate length, somewhat coni- cal, a little compressed, the upper mandible obtusely angulated, with the curvature of its outline increasing to the tip, which overhangs that of the lower mandible, and is slightly emargina- ted; the extreme tip of the lower mandible also curves a little upwards ; gonys straight and scarcely inflated; the nostrils small, with anterior oval aperture, and beset at base with short reflected feathers and some incumbent hairs; a few fine hair- like bristles also at the gape, of moderate length. Tarsi moderately slender, as long as the middle toe with its claw; the toes and claws suited for perching. Wings long and broad, reaching more than half-way down the tail, having the fourth and fifth primaries equal and longest, the third rather shorter, the second equalling the eighth, and the first about half the length of the third. Tail moderately developed, its feathers of nearly equal length. The general plumage inclines to be dense, and is unadorned with bright colours and glossless in the only known species. “ M. cinerea, nobis. Length about six inches ; of wing nearly three and a half ; and tail two anda half: bill to forehead (through the feathers) five-eighths, and to gape three-quarters : tarsi three-quarters of an inch. General colour ashy-brown above, greyer on the head, and tinged with fulvous on the ex- terior margins of the secondaries; beneath albescent, a little brown across the breast: bill light horn-colour; and feet have probably been bluish-leaden. From the island of Ramree, Arracan, where discovered by Capt. Abbott,’’ 102 NOVELTIES. Now this specimen came from Ramree. Take the following measurements recorded in the flesh from a specimen of Hylo- éerpe grisola, (3) obtained in Ramree :— Leneth, 6:12; wing, 34; tail, 2-4; tarsus, 0°75; bill from gape, 0°8. Legs and feet plumbeous; bill brown. Then take a good specimen of the species and compare it with each generic character, each specific trait, and observe that each and all fit in the most perfect manner. I venture to say that no practised ornithologist can read carefully the passages above quoted, with a good specimen of Hyloterpe grisola (Tephrodornis apud Bly.; Hylocharis apud Gray) in his hand, comparing the twoas he goes on, without admitting that the thing isa certainty, and that Muscitrea, Bly. is founded on the same type as Hy/oterpe, Cab. True, it does seem odd that Blyth who, ia 1845, had already received a specimen of this species and designated it Tephrodor- nis grisola, should set to work to re-define and re-name it ; he ought one would have thought to have recognized it again; but it was a dull grey bird, one that varies very much in shade and tint ; he had clearly never examined it very carefully, or he would not have put it in Zephrodornis, with which the bill will not at all accord. When turning his thoughts specially to fly-catchers, he got hold of a specimen, probably differing much in tint from the specimens he had before dealt with, and examined it criti- cally. He at once saw that it was a distinct type and defined and described it. We all know how pressed he was with work ; how he was expected to do the whole work in every branch of the museum which contained many groups of which he had little knowledge. Next time he wanted the specimen it had been destroyed, or had disappeared, and amidst the multitude of specimens in all branches that he was daily examining he could not recall exactly what his type was. There is nothing surprising in this, but even if there were the fact remains that here we have an absolutely accurate de- finition of all the generic characters, an absolutely accurate description of all specific peculiarities, with exact dimensions, every one of which fits Hyloterpe grisola to the T. If I am correct, Blyth’s name appeared some months earlier in the year than Cabanis’, and Blyth’s name therefore must stand. But this point, as also whether the other species now included under /Hyloterpe, are really congeneric with grisola L must leave to ornithologists at home. And now for the new species. I must premise that though very differently colored, and considerably larger, it is to my mind identical in structure, alike of bill, legs, feet, wing, and tail with grisola. NOVELTIES. 103 To whatever genus this latter may be ultimately assigned, (there may really be, as Bonaparte (Consp. 329) and Gray give it,a genus fylocharis, Boie of 1827, founded on 8S. Miillers, 77. luscinia, in which case this generic name will stand) into that same genus must our present bird be placed. T only possess at present two adult males of this species ; they measured in the flesh :— Length, 7°8, 7°45; expanse, 12°0, 11°5; tail, 2°9, 2:7; wing, 3°72, 3'6; tarsus, 0°9, 0:9; bill from gape, 1:02, 1:0; weight, 1:25 and 1:2oz. The bill was black, whitish at the gape; the legs, feet, and claws pale fleshy brown; irides deep brown. Lores and a narrow band on the forehead black ; rest of fore- head and a broad band from forehead over the eyes, cobalt blue; crown and occiput in one specimen the same, but rather duller, in the other very much duller, being much intermingled with the colour of the back. The entire mantle deep indigo blue, a little brighter and inclining to cobalt on the shoulder of the wing. On the rump the greyish white bases of the feathers show through a little, but I doubt if this would be the case in lifeg The quills, greater coverts and 4 central tail feathers deep hair brown, all the feathers edged externally with the colour of the back. Four outer pair of tail feathers similar, but with more or less of the inner webs pure white, the outer most of all with only a marginal band ; the next two pairs, with nearly the whole inner webs, white, and the 4th with the central portion of the feather white, the white at the base on both webs, but not extending to either margin, and on the outer web, only occupying the basal half, while in the inner it reaches to within one-fifth from the tip. Chin, throat, cheeks, ear-coverts, sides of neck, breast and sides, the same colour as the back, but duller and a trifle more slatey. Greater portion of abdomen and flanks white, shaded and streaked and overlaid with slatey dusky or slatey blue. Vent and lower tail-coverts pure white ; tibial plumes slatey ; edge of wing blue; axillaries and wing lining silky grey. There are two species, both obtained at no great distance from where this species was procured, which at first sight greatly remind one of it. First, Myiomela leucura.—This has a much slenderer bill, longer tail and tarsi, is much blacker and darker everywhere, has the vent, abdomen, and lower tail-coverts black, the white in the tail on the outer webs, and a more or less concealed white tuft on either side at the base of the throat. Second, Niléava grandis; but this has a somewhat differently shaped bill, the whole basal portion of the upper mandible hidden 104 NOVELTIES. by the projecting black velvety frontal plumes; the tail is much longer; the upper surface, especially the head and rump, is brighter and more purple; the whole lower surface is black or blackish, and there is no white on the tail. Another bird something the same style of colouring is Callene frontalis, but this is much duller and blacker than our bird, has no white about it, and has of course a much slenderer bill, much larger legs and feet, and a shorter wing. It will doubtless be objected, that all the yloterpes, as yet known, are smaller and slighter birds, of brown or brown and yellow plumage. No doubt this is a prima facie argument against my having assigned a correct place to this new species, but all I can say is that having compared it very carefully with M. grisola, bill, nostrils, bristles, wings, proportions of prima- ries, tail, legs, feet, claws, the two appear to me to be generically inseparable, and that griso/a is structurally closer to cyanea than it is to orpheus, Verv, (as figured by Jardine) or philippensis, Walden, as figured in the Tr. Z. 8S. One point more—I have no copy of Belanger’s voyage aux Ingles orientales, and I cannot therefore tell what Ajax diana of Lesson may be; but I gather from Lord Walden’s remarks (J. A. S. B. Ex. No. 1875, 101) that he considers this species to be nothing but the Javan Brachypterya albifrons. At the same time it was said to have been obtained in Pegu, where, so far as we yet know, albifrons does not occur. Siva sordida. Represents §. cyanouroptera in the Tenasserim hills; is altogether duller coloured ; wants the white tip to the bastard wing, the white margins to the secondaries, the white and black tips to the later secon- daries and tertiaries and the white tips to the central tail feathers, and has the entire back, scapulars, secondary and tertiary coverts and outer webs of tertiaries, a dull earthy brown, without the faint- est rusty or rufous tinge, which is confined to the upper tail-coverts and rump, and even there is much feebler than in cyanouroptera. It is not without very careful comparison with very large series of Himalayan specimens, that in this and other cases, I have ventured to separate the Tenasserim forms. In this present case I have before me some fifty Himalayan cyanouropteras and not one of them makes any approach to the present species. The differences are doubtless small, but they seem absolutely constant and the birds look very different, although any one acquainted with the one, would at once identify the other as its representative. NOVELTIES, 105 he following are the dimensions and colours of the soft parts of a male killed on the 23rd February at Moolyit, re- corded from the fresh specimen :— Length, 6:2 ; expanse, 8:0; tail, 2°77; wing, 2°45 ; tarsus, 0°89 ; bill from gape, 0°75; weight, 0°62. Lower mandible, legs, feet and claws, whitey brown; upper mandible darker, but still pale brown ; irides creamy yellow. The lores and orbital space are greyish, brownish white. The ear-coverts pale earthy brown, the feathers finely tipped with pale fulvous and greyish white. The entire under surface is white, the sides of the throat, breast, sides and flanks, faintly tinged with a shade of pale sullied dove-brown. The wing lining, axillaries, and basal por- tions of the inner webs of the quills silky white. The entire cap, back of neck, back, scapulars, wing-coverts and outer webs of tertiaries earth brown, darker on the four first, palest on the last; rump and upper tail-coverts fulvous brown, but not nearly so bright as in cyanouroptera. Quills deep hair brown, the outer webs of the primaries and the winglet deep dull blue. Some of the feathers of the forehead and over fhe eye, centered darker, and with a barely perceptible purplish tinge. Tail blackish dusky, inner webs paler, outer webs suffused with a blue tinge, duller and deeper than in the Hima- layan bird. Exterior tail feathers with whole inner webs white ; next pair with an 0°2 white tipping and a good deal of sullied white running down the inner edge of the inner web; next pair with an 0:07 white tipping ; next with a barely perceptible ditto; none to central feathers. In the Himalayan birds the lower surface is a pale drab. Of course, the first thing that occurs to one is that these Tenasserim birds are young ones; but it is contrary to the law of chances, to suppose that of over 50 birds shot at all seasons, in various localities in the Himalayas, not one should be young, and that per contra of the Tenasserim birds, shot in February and March mind, not one should be adult. Anthipes submoniliger. Closely resembles moniliger, but has a larger and broader bill ; the white throat patch (strongly defined by a black band in moniliger) larger and scarcely perceptibly margined laterally by dark brown ; the forehead and eye streak a much brighter rufous fulvous,and the lores (olive brown én moniliger) the same colour ; upper surface paler and more rufescent ; axillaries pure white (sordid or pale fulvous white in moniliger.) This is another Tenasserim representative form, that many would scarcely consider deserving of specific separation. Still ) 106 NOVELTIES. small as the differences are, they appear to be constant between. the birds of the Himalayas and the Central Tenasserim Hills, and such being the case, we must, I presume, accept the present form as a distinct species. The difference in the size of the bill though difficult to ex- press in figures, and the bright orange buff forehead and entire lores are very conspicuous and caught my eye the moment I saw the Tenasserim bird. The following are the dimensions of a male of the present species or sub-species, taken from the dry skin :—Length, 5:2 ; wings, 2°45; tail, 2; tarsus, 0°87; Dill from forehead, 0°6; from gape, 0°61. The bill black, yellowish on lower mandible. Legs and feet very pale, probably in life fleshy white. A moderately broad frontal band, the whole of the lores, a stripe over the eye and a circle of feathers round the eye (this latter also is wanting in moniliger) rather pale orange buff. The entire upper surface a rich, somewhat rufescent olive, (some- what lighter and more rufescent than in moniliger), becoming ferruginous on the upper tail-coverts. The tail is deep ferru- ginous, brighter colored and more rusty on the margins of thé feathers. Wings hair brown, margins and visible portions of closed wing overlaid with a somewhat rufescent olivaceous tint. A satiny white patch commencing at the point of the chin and descending well on to the breast, (1°35 in length), something the shape of an inverted hare bell; a very narrow, scarcely noticeable brown line bounds this patch on either side, and a narrow dark line below. The rest of the breast, sides and flanks, sides of the neck; cheeks and ear-coverts, olive, only slightly paler than the upper surface, but the cheeks and ear- coverts, much more rufescent and with a tinge of the colour of the lores. Middle of abdomen, vent and lower tail coverts dull white. Shoulder of the wing pale fulvous ; axillaries silky white. i thought at first that this would prove identical with A. gularis, Blyth, from Arrakan, but I find that Arrakan speci- mens appear almost identical with Himalayan ones; want the bright rufo-fulvous forehead, loresand eye streak and have the black gorget border fairly developed. Ixulus humilis. Entire upper parts, cheeks and ear-coverts brown, entire lower parts white, striated longitudinally with brown. Male.—Killed, Moolyit, Central Tenasserim Hills, 16th Febru- ary 1877 :—Length, 5°2; expanse, 7'8; tail, 1:8; tarsus, 0°8 ; - wing, 2°5; bill from gape, 0°6; weight, 0°62 oz, NOVELTIES, 107 Upper mandible black; lower mandible, pale brown; legs and feet, fleshy brown ;_ irides, red brown. The forehead, crown, occiput and full broad occipital crest, back, entire visible portions of closed wings and tail, cheeks, ear-coverts, a nearly uniform brown; the upper tail-coverts similar, but with a slightly more olivaceous tinge. Lores and an obscure stripe on either side from the gape under the cheeks and ear-coverts, a richer and darker brown. Chin, throat and sides of neck and entire lower surface of body silky white, every where, (except on the middle of the abdomen,) with longitudinal brown streaks, very narrow (as in Z. jlavicol- lis) on chin and throat and breast, broader on sides, flanks and lower abdomen, and occupying nearly the whole feather on lower tail-coverts. Tibial feathers brown. Wing lining and inner margins of quills, silky white. A typical Jzw/us, harmonizing well with flavicollis, occipitalis and the species now commonly identified as striatus. Now it will be observed that I have apparently assumed that the bird, which we obtain in the Himalayas, and which Jhas been almost universally accepted. as striatus, Blyth, is really that species, as also that my new species is not that species. As to this latter I have no doubt; Blyth’s original descrip- tion (J. A. S. B., XXVIII, p. 413, 1859) is as follows :— “ TxuLUS stRIATUS, nobis, V. S. A fourth species of this genus, affined to I. casraniceps, Moore, P. Z.8., 1854, p. 141, and like that species with graduated outer tail feathers. Bill moderately stout, as in I. occrerTaLis, nobis. Length about five inches, of closed wing 22 inches, and of tail the same ; bill to gape 4 inch and tarsi 3 inch Colour greyish brown above, each feather with a white mesial streak; below albescent throughout ; outermost feather ? inch shorter than the middle pair, and largely tipped with white, as is also the next, and the antepenultimate, and next within gradually less so, the outer four feathers successively graduating.” Besides this independently Tickell had a few weeks previ- ously, (though it was not published until after Blyth’s descrip- tion), described the same specimen (J. A. S. B., Vol. cit. 452) as follows :— Pycnonotus (Kuhl.) Nanus (Mihi) Spec. male. March 2nd, 1859. Near Tretoungplee, 3,000 feet. Dimensions. —Length, 5,°,; wing, 23; tail, 23; bill, + ; tarsus, 8; mid toe, 3. Details.—Typical, crested. Colors.—Iris blood red brown ; bill dark horn; legs reddish horn; upper parts including a blunt crest, ashy brown. 108 - NOVELTIES. Kach feather shafted whitish. Remiges and centre pair of rectrices reddish clay brown. Rest of tail dusky sepia, more and more tipt, white exteraally ; chin, throat and all under parts ashy white. The only one of the species observed.” Now our bird, (also as will have been observed a male,) has a longer bill, a longer wing, a longer tarsus. Its tail is consi- derably shorter, and it is not graduated. Again the tail has no white on it. The upper surface is in no sense a grey brown, the feathers are not pale shafted, and the chin, throat, upper breast and sides ave conspicuously streak- ed with black or dusky brown. Therefore, although obtained in the same district (though at a much higher elevation, 6,000 feet) our bird is clearly not Blyth’s Lviulus striatus. But then is the Himalayan Bird? No doubt this latter has the tail much graduated and tipped with white, just as described, anda good many of the feathers of the upper surface are pale shafted and the lower surface is streakless ; the dimensions of bill, wing and tail too agree, but the cap is grey, contrasting, as a rule, strongly with the oliva- ceous, not ashy brown of the rest of the upper surface, and the ear-coverts form a conspicuous dull ferruginous patch, each feather shafted paler rufescent, and the lower parts are brownish and not ashy white. I do not believe that these feathers could have escaped both Tickell and Blyth, and I therefore believe that we have still to find the real LZ. striatus of Blyth. I cannot discover that Hodgson ever published any descrip- tion of the Himalayan bird, and therefore I propose for it pro- visionally (i.e. pending further elucidation of what Blyth’s species actually was or is) the name of IxXULUS RUFIGENIs. As a guide to the real s¢riatus, note what Tickell says of the reddish clay brown colour of the quills and centre tail feathers ; not a trace of any such tint is observable in either humilis or rufigenis. Megalaima Davisoni. Precisely similar to M. asiatica, but somewhat smaller ; entirely wants the black crown band and toa great extent the narrow yellowish line preceding it, and has these replaced by a broader turquoise blue band, thus diminishing the depth of the occipital red patch; pectoral red patches rather larger, This is another representative form of the Tenasserim Central Hills; just as JZ, Ramsayi (which is very common at Mooly- NOVELTIES. 109 it) represents M/. Franklini on the higher slopes, so does our present species represent asiatica at Meetan and other lower localities. The close connection of the two species is specially obvious on a comparison of the young of asiatica with the adult Davi- sont. In the former, although of course the red of the forehead and occiput is much duller and mingled more with golden orange, you have the black of the crown band mirgled with dull greenish blue. In MM. asiatica the blue has wholly disap- peared ; in Davisoni the band has widened, the black has en- tirely disappeared, and the blue become pure. The following are the dimensions, taken from skins ;-— Length, 8:5; wing, 3:9; tail, 2°8; tarsus, 0°97. No separate description of the plumage seems necessary, as I have indicated in the diagnosis the only points in which this differs from asiatica, unless indeed that all my specimens want the tiny red spot at the base of the lower mandible, al- ways observable in fine plumaged adults of asiatica, when fresh. But many skins of asiatica scarcely show this, and possibly it might be present in the fresh Davisoni. Hypsipetes subniger. Like H. psaroides, but smaller, everywhere much darker, a dark iron grey, and with the interscapulary region black, Some specimens of this species run so dark that the first time I saw them, I at once identified them as nigerrima, Gould. But when I saw others by no means so black only (except on the interscapulary region which is always black) a very dark iron grey darker than ganeesa, Sykes (nilghertensis, Jerd.), and re- flected that nigerrima was a Formosan bird, and therefore less ‘likely to occur in the Tenasserim Hills, I got out specimens of this latter and saw at once that they were entirely distinct. Our bird lacks the conspicuous lilac grey edgings to the quills and tail, and has the black replaced everywhere except on the head, nape and interscapulary region by a dark iron grey. The following are the dimensions and description taken from skins. (Males are somewhat larger than females) :— Length, 85 to 9°5; wing, 4°5 to 4°85; tail, 4:0 to 4:5; tarsus, 0°7 to 0°38; bill to forehead, 1:0; from anterior mar- gin of nostril, 0°55. Bill, legs and feet red. Chin, lores, forehead, crown, occiput, crest and intersca- pulary region black ; some of the longer scapulars, rump, 110 NOVELTIES. upper tail-coverts, throat and breast a very dark iron grey ; abdomen and rest of lower parts ditto, rather paler, (but still far darker than the same parts in ganeesa); the lower tail-coverts margined with greyish white anda little fringing of this about vent and middle of lower abdomen. Wings and tail blackish brown, all the feathers very narrowly margined with dull, dark iron grey. Axillaries slatey dusky. Leioptila Davisoni. Like L. annectans, Bly., but with the back and wing coverts black and the rump and upper tail coverts mingled black and deep ferruginous marooon. This beautiful and interesting representative species was obtained by Mr. Davision, in January in the Hills north of Moolyit at an elevation of 6,000 feet. It was rare and shy, and only five specimens were procured. The four males measured in the flesh :— Length, 7:8 to 8-0; expanse, 9°6 to 9:9; tail, 3:55 \sto- 3tGs wing, 3'1 to 3:2; tarsus, 0:9 to 0°95; bill from gape, 0°8 to 0°85; weight, 1:120z. The upper and half the lower mandible black; rest of lower mandible, legs, feet and claws fleshy yellow; irides greyish brown. The female measured in the skin :— Length, 7:25; tail, 3:0; wing, 30; tarsus, 0°92; bill from gape, 0°8. The plumage of the two sexes is similar. Forehead, lores, crown, occiput, cheeks, ear-coverts, sides and back of neck, back and wing coverts, jet black. At the base of the back of the neck a series of excessively fine minute’ white striations forming an ill-defined patch, in some specimens approximating to a half collar. Rump and upper tail-coverts mingled black and deep ferru- ginous maroon (quite different from the bright rusty ferru- ginous of these parts in annectans), the maroon greatly predo- minating. Quills and tail, dull black; quills, conspicuously margined on the outer webs, and tertiaries, narrowly tipped with greyish white ; all the tail feathers but the centre ones tipped white, those next the centre very narrowly, the next pair more broad- ly and so on, the exterior pair of all having the terminal 0°6 to 0°7 white. NOVELTIES, 111 The lower tail-coverts pale buff, far paler than in annectans ; the rest of the lower parts, axillaries and wing lining white, tinged with pale buff on the flanks, lower abdomen and vent. The edge of the wing white. In one specimen, 3 or 4 of the greater secondary coverts have a small patch of maroon on the outer web near the tip, and the 2 last tertiaries have a narrow edging of this colour on the outer webs towards their bases. Structurally and in dimensions the two species appear to be identical. Hemixus Davisoni. Like H. flavala, and H. Hildebrandi, but with eap and back a rich warm brown, and much less yellow on the wing. This curious second* representative form of the Himalayan H. flavala was obtained near Myawadee by Mr. Davison, considerably south of the southernmost point to which, as far as we yet know, H. Hildebrandi extends. The four known species of Hemizus may be thus discrimi- nated. They are all much of the same size, but Hildebrandi is a little the largest, and flavala the smallest. Crown. Back. Gieyoue: .0--... Dulliromerey .... 4: flavala, Hodes: Blackish brown ... Brownish grey ... H. Hildebrandi, Hume. Warm rich brown. Warm brown... 4H. Davisoni, Hume. Black, tinged red- Light brownish HH. castaneonotus, dish on forehead. chestnut. Swinh. The first species ranges through the Eastern Himalayas, from a point between Simla and Mussouri, through Gurhwal, Kumaon, Nepal, Sikhim, Bhotan, apparently quite to the head of the Assamt Valley, and also occurs in the Khasiat Hills, south of the Assam Valley. The second ranges through the northern Tenasserim Hills at any rate from the Karen Hills, north of Tonghoo, to close to Pahpoon. The third belongs to the Central Tenasserim Hill region. The fourth has only been recorded from Hainan in China. * For the first, Z, Hiledbrandi, see S. F., IT., 508. + Iam not quite sure of these localities, not having myself as yet carefully examined specimens there procured, 112 NOVELTIES. The following are the dimensions, colours of the soft parts, and description of a fine male, killed on the Toungya road to Myawadee :— Length, 8°5; expanse, 12°25; tail, 3°6; wing, 4°04; tarsus, 0:6; bill from gape, 0°95; weight, 1:23. Bill and claws black; legs and feet reddish brown; irides crimson lake. The lores, feathers at base of lower mandible, under the eye, and under rather more than half the ear-coverts deep brown, almost black, but not so black as in flavala and Hildebrandt. Ear-coverts very pale satiny brown, a shade paler than in the other two species I think. Entire cap, back, wings, tail, a most beautiful rich full brown, deepest on head and mantle, slightly paler on nape, and with a decided grey tinge on the rump, forming a well defined rump band. The winglet and siz first primaries and their greater coverts and the tail feathers without a trace of any yellow margins. The later primaries, secondaries and tertiaries and their greater coverts narrowly margined with bright olive yel- low. These margins are about 4rd of the vidth of those on the wing of jlavala, and one-half the width of those of HMildebrandi, giving even the closed wing a very different appearance. Chin and throat pure white, very conspicuously limited by the dark streak on either side, more so than in the other two species the streak being somewhat longer. Sides of neck, behind ear-coverts, upper breast, sides and flanks a delicate ash grey, rather a different shade to that of the other two species; middle of lower breast, abdomen, vent and lower tail coverts, white, with a more or less of faint ashy shade, chiefly in streaks and patches. Wing lining white, with a faint yellow tinge near the carpal joint, as in the other two species. Allotrius intermedius. Like A. melanotis, Bly., but has a larger bill and a deep chestnut frontal band, and wants the broad slatey nuchal half collar and the black band behind the ear-coverts. Like A. aenobarbus, Temm. but has a smaller bill, a much deeper chestnut frontal band, the chestnut of the throat descending to the abdomen and the grey supercilliary stripe prolonged as a wide band over the ear-coverts and completely round their ends. I am afraid a great many of my readers will abuse me heartily for making such a number of new species, differing only in small particulars from already weli-known ones. I am very sorry, but the culprit is not this humble indivi- dual, but our great full-bosomed Mother Nature—let her bear NOVE LTIES. 113 the blame—her shoulders are broad enough and she recks little of the feeble words of us mortals. It isa most remarkable fact that the Avifauna of the Central Tenasserim Hills is specialized to a high degree, The question has not been half “worked out yet, and still see what a list we already have of Tenasserim local representa- tive forms :— Himalayan. Palzornis schisticeps. Picus Macei. Yungipicus pygmeus. Gecinus striolatus. Gecinulus Grantia. Megalaima asiatica. Megalaima Franklinii. Arachnothera magna. Aithopyga seheriz, (miles). Kthopyga saturata. Sitta cinnamomeiventris. Anthipes moniliger. Myiophoneus Temmincki. Hydrornis nipalensis. Alcippe nipalensis. Stachyris ruficeps. Stachyris chrysea. Pellorneum nipalensis (Mandellii.) Pomatorhinus leucogaster. Garrulax leucolophus. Trochalopteron chrysopterum, Achnodura Egertoni. Sibia capistrata. Hypsipetes psaroides. Hemixus flavala. Hypsipetes McClellandi. Criniger flaveolus. Oriolus indicus. Cryptolopha Burkii. Pteruthius erythropterus. Allotrius melanotis. Leioptila annectans. Siva strigula. Siva cyanouroptera. +Minla rufogularis (collaris, Wald). Ixulus rufiennis, Hume (striatus apud Auct.) Garrulus bispecularis. Urocissa occipitalis. Carpophaga insignis. Tenasserim. Paleornis Finschi, Hume. Picus atratus, Blyth. Yungipicus canicapillus, Blyth. Gecinus vittatus, Vieild. Gecinulus viridis, Blyth. Megalaima Davisoni, Hume. Megalaima Ramsayi, Walden. Arachnothera aurata, Blyth. Z&thopyga cara, Hume. ARthopyga sanguinipectus, Wald. Sitta neglecta, ‘Walden. Anthipes submoniliger, Hume. Myiophoneus Eugenei,* Hume. Hydrornis Oatesi, Hwme. Alcippe Phayrei, Blyth. Stachyris rufifrons Hume. Stachyris assimilis, Wallen. Pellorneum minor, Hume ; (?) subochra- ceum, Swink. Pomatorhinus olivaceus, Blyth. Garrulax Belangeri, Less. Trochalopteron melanostigma, Blyth. Actinodura Ramsayi, Wald. Sibia melanoleuca, Zickel. Hypsipetes subniger, Hume. Hemixus Hildebrandi, Hume. Hemixus Davisoni, Hume. Hypsipetes Tickelli, Blyth. Criniger griseiceps, Hume Oriolus tenuirostris, Blyth. Cryptolopha tephrocephala, Andersen. Pteruthius eralatus, Zick. Allotrius intermedius. Hume. Leioptila Davisoni, Hume. Siva castanicauda, Hume, Siva sordida, Hwme. Minla dubius, Hume. Ixulus striatus, Blyth. TIxulus humilis, Hwime. Garrulus leucotis, Hume. Urocissa magnirostris, Blyth. Carpophaga ‘griseicapilla, t Walden. and I dare say others that do not at the moment occur to me. * No one who possesses a Brea series of this and the Himalayan species, can deny the distinctness of the two. The larger size, the entire absence of spots on the wings and the differently colored bill render Hugenei, conspicuously ae —Ep.,S. F. + Both would, I think, stand better as ‘“‘ Schoeniparus.”—ED., S. t Blyth discriminated this form, J. A. S., B., XVIII, 416, 1859, at did not bestow any specific appellation on it, I followed him and abstained, as I now see wrongly from E 114 NOVELTIES. This list too includes only the representatives of Himalayan forms, and only those representatives, which, though they may straggle into the lowlands at some seasons, belong essentially to the Tenasserim Hid/s. Thus, to give some of the most conspicuous the examples, it excludes Astur poliopsis, Hume, the representative of A. badius. Carine pulchra, Hume rs C'. brama. Thriponae Crawfurdi, J. HE. Gr. ,, T. Hodgsoni. Pitta Davisoni, Hume P. carulea. 9 Sturnopastor superciliaris, Blyth ,, S. contra. Then many of the Tenasserim Hill forms, though I do not as yet separate them, are so far distinguishable races that any one can tell at a glance whether any particular specimen is from the Himalayas or Tenasserim. Take Arboricola rufogularis. In 35 specimens from the Himalayas, 83 have a well marked black line dividing the rufous of the base of the throat from the grey of the breast; in the other two, this line, though indicated, is imperfect. In 40 Hill Tenasserim specimens, 36 show not the faintest trace of this. Not one single specimen has the line even fairly well marked, but 4 show traces of it. Tn other respects the birds do not differ. There are several otber species in which similar small almost (but not quite) absolutely constant differences are noticeable. Then again there are fully a dozen species, in which I have detected what appear to be constant differences, but which I wait to describe until I get really large series so as to make sure that the differences observable in 3 or 4 specimens, are constant in 20. Now, as I shall hereafter show, this extraordinary specializa- tion of the Tenasserim Hill Birds may be of the utmost im- portance, and in order that this extreme specialization may be clearly appreciated, it is necessary to separate as distinct species, those forms that constantly differ, even though in a small parti- cular only from well-known Himalayan, Javan, &c., species. And now to return to Allotrius intermedius, it will be observed that it is really and truly intermediate between the Himalayan and Javan forms. This is quite according to the rule that seems to obtain in this too little explored province. Take Pteruthius @ralatus; this is half way between the Himalayan erythropterus and the Javan flavicapis. It has the same yellow on the wing as the latter, but it has the grey back of the former. naming i I think Lord Walden very right in separating it under a distinct name.— D., S. F. NOVELTIES. 115 But what I have to say further on these subjects must await my general account of the Birds of Tenasserim, and I shall only add that it is to be borne in mind that the Hills of Tenasserim do not belong zoographically to Burmah, but are the frontiers a distinct province which includes part, at any rate, of both Siam and China. Allotrius intermedius. Male.—Length, 4°7; expanse, 7°6; tail, 1:6; wing, 2°45; tarsus, 0°75; bill, from gape, 0°55; weight, 0°46 oz. Lower mandible and edge of upper mandible pale blue; rest of upper mandible black ; irides, brown ; legs, feet and claws, fleshy. Lores and a conspicuous frontal band, intense ferruginous chestnut ; forehead above this bright, gamboge yellow; entire upper parts and central tail feathers, a rich yellowish olive green. A pure white band encircles the eye ; this band is broken by a black spot at the anterior angle of the eye; it is similarly broken at the posterior angle by the end of a black line which thence runs down behind it and encircles the whole of that portion of the white band that is below the eye. The band over the posterior portion of the eye is broader there than elsewhere ; thence changing rather suddenly to blue grey, it runs back over the ear-coverts and then turns down round their posterior tips. There is no collar, but just where the grey band turns down round the ear-coverts it throws out a little angle of grey about 0:2 long and 0:1 wide at its base. This is constant in all speci- mens, and we have here the rudimentary indication of the broad blue grey collar of the Himalayan species. Chin, throat, middle of breast, deep chestnut streakily ex- tending to the upper abdomen; sides of neck, ear-coverts (ex- cept their tips, which are colored like the back) sides of breast, middle of abdomen, vent and lower tail coverts, intensely bright yellow. Wing lining, axillaries, flanks and tibial plumes silky white ; the sides of the breast and abdomen in some specimens faintly tinged with the colour of the back ; wing coverts, black ; median and larger broadly tipped white ; quills black exteriorly at their bases, changing to deep hair brown ; the primaries narrowly edged white ; secondaries and tertiaries, more and more broadly margined and overlaid with the color of the back, and narrowly tipped white. Tail, except central feathers, black, tipped white, more and more broadly as they recede from the centre feathers, and with the exterior one with fully the basal half of the outer and nearly the whole of the inner web white. I notice that the amount of white in the tail varies a good deal in different specimens. NOVELTIES. Pyctorhis griseigularis. Like P. sinensis, but upper surface a deeper and more ferruginous ved; bill pale horny brown; supercillium dull grey ; chin throat and upper breast pale ashy grey, rest of lower parts dull rusty. This is the bird to which I referred, Vol. IV., p. 505. At that time, following Lord Walden and Major Godwin-Austen, I considered that this species might possibly be P. altirostris of Jerdon. Having now carefully re-examined my specimen, I feel con- fident that, whatever Major Godwin-Austen’s Dafla Hill bird may be, my bird is not Dr. Jerdon’s, but distinct, and, till now, unnamed. The following are some of the leading points of difference between the two species; (relying of course on Dr. Jerdon’s description being correct.) P. altirostris. Above pale reddish brown, deepest on wings and tail. Beneath whitish tinged on the lower part of breast, ab- domen and flanks with pale fulvescent. Under wing-coverts pale ferruginous ; bill deeper than in sinensis making an approach to Paradoxornis; claws more lengthened and less curved than in sinensis. P. griseigularis. Above bright, slightly brown- ish ferruginous, deepest on crown. Beneath chin, throat and upper breast, pale ashy grey, rest of lower parts, dull rusty. Under wing-coverts pale yellowish fawn ; bill, almost precisely as in stzensis. Claws as in sinensis. i never yet found one of Dr. Jerdon’s own descriptions so erroneous as this, and I feel satisfied that our Bhootan Doars bird is distinct from his. The following are the measurements, &c., taken from the skin :— Length, 5 5, (tailimperfect) ; W., 2.5; Tail (imperfect), 3°4 ; bill, from nostril, straight to point, 0°32; tarsus, 1. Bill, pale horny or fleshy brown, nearly white towards base of lower mandible; legs pale fleshy or orange brown, the feet darker. The forehead, upper part of lores and streak over the eye, deep reddish brown, each feather streaked with ashy grey. The rest of the forehead, crown, and occiput, deep ferruginous ; cheeks and ear-coverts paler, ferruginous; sides of neck NOTES. 117 yellowish rusty ; nape, back, scapulars, rump and upper tail- coverts, fairly bright rusty ferruginous, in some lights slightly brownish and most rusty on upper tail-coverts. Almost entire visible portion of closed wing bright ferru- ginous chestnut, rest of feathers hair-brown. Tail, (imperfect,) moderately dark brown, feathers margined strongly on outer webs, most broadly towards bases, with bright ferruginous. Chin, throat, and upper breast, pale brownish grey or ashy ; rest of lower parts dull rusty; browner and lighter on lower breast, brighter and more ferruginous on flanks and lower tail-coverts. Dendrocitta assimilis. Very like D. himalayensis, but with a larger and more massive bill, much less compressed towards the tip; with cheeks, ear-coverts and throat brown, instead of blackish dusky; sides of neck and upper back tinged with the brown of the back (which is paler than in himalayensis) instead of being grey. Black frontal band narrower, in many specimens, conspicuously so. This is another of the Hill Tenasserim representative races. I have long had a couple of specimens by me, but hesitated to separate the race on these; I have now a good series, and as all the distinctions above pointed out, hold constantly good. I see no valid reason for not distinguishing this form by a specific name. Although so very similar as a whole yet the comparatively pale brown ear-coverts contrasting strongly with the narrow black ring round the eye, the brown sides of the neck and entire back generally unicolorous with these, and the comparatively pale throat readily catch any practised eye. The throat is a dark, but clear brown, the dark portion does not descend so low as in himalayensis and the entire breast is suffused with the colour of the back. Hotes. _ Ar pace 60 I stated, on Mr. Blyth’s authority, that Anorhinus Austeni, Jerd., was no other than Craniorrhinus corrugatus, Tem, Mr. Blyth’s words are :— ‘A kindred species from the Nagas was referred to A. “ galeritus, by Major Godwin- Austen, and is named A. Austeni “by Dr. Jerdon, but it proves to be no other thaa the Malayan 118 NOTES. * C, corrugatus (Tem. P. C. 520*), the head being now in the “ possession of Lord Walden.” Lord Walden, as Editor, passes this without comment, and it is to be presumed that he concurs in this identification. But the more I consider the question the more difficult it seems to me to accept this view. Major Godwin-Austen is a very careful describer, and his description will be found quoted, 8. F., Vol. IV., p. 493.f Let any one read that description and say whether it is reconcilable with C. corrugatus.. Both sexes of this species were figured and described by Temminck in the Planches Coloriées—the male as corrugatus, Pl. 531, and the female as gracilis, Pl. 535. The female is entirely black, with greenish reflections, only the terminal ‘ths of the tail is a kind of dull chestnut. The male is similar, except that the black of the body and wings and basal portion of tail is said to be duller, and that the whole of the sides of the head and neck and the front of the latter are pale isabelline or fulvous white. How can Major Austen’s description, above referred to, possibly apply to any stage of this bird ? It is to be hoped that Major Godwin-Austen will himself look into this question, and either vindicate the distinctness of his namesake, or explain the extraordinary difference in plum- age between the specimen described by him, and the types des- cribed by Temminck. The matter is one of some importance. Frankly I do not, on a priort grounds, believe in the occurrence of Craniorrhinus corrugatus in the Naga Hills. It is contrary to all experience that a Malayan (Bornean, Sumatran and Malaccan) bird like this should occur in the Naga Hills and not in the intervening Tenasserim Hills, and we have failed entirely as yet to obtain any trace of it in these latter. At pace 36 oF Vol. I, I described the tail feathers of a Polyplectron, clearly differing alike from tibetanus and bical- caratum. I proposed that the bird, if new, should stand as C’. intermedius. At that time I had not access to Mr. Elliot’s splendid mono- graph of the Phasianide. Recently studying this work, I have discovered that the feathers I referred to must have belonged to P. Germaini, Elliot, Jbis. 1866, p. 56. * This should be 531.—A. O. H. + In this description there is a slight misprint. In the 4th li full stop after “ coverts,’—A. O. H. ; : pee ee NOTES. 119 Germain’s Polyplectron has been heretofore known only from Cochin China, and it may be (for they were picked up in a hut in a Looshai village) that these feathers really came thence, but it seems almost more likely that the range of P. Germaini extends further than has hitherto been supposed. My original description of the tail feathers, with pale buff spots on a hair-brown ground, somewhat more sparsely set than in tibetanus, with the elongated oval, emerald green eyes, so exactly tallies with the corresponding feathers of Germaini, that I am rather surprised that, when alluding to the matter in his letter to the Jéis of June 1873, Mr. Elliot did not point out that the feathers probably belonged to that species. Mr. G. R. Gray, in his Gen. of Birds (Vol. III., Order V. Gatuinz; Family III. Puastantap™; Genus Gallophasis ; the paper dated January 1845, but perhaps not published until 1849, which date the Vol. bears) separated the Gallus ignitus of Vieillot’s Gal. des. Ois. (Pl. 207, ¢ 1825) which was also the Euplocamus ignitus of his brother’s, Ill. Ind. Zool. (II. Pl. 839, P 1884) from Phasianus ignitus of Lath. (Ind. Orn. Suppl., p. Ixi.,? 1792) and Shaw (Nat. Misc., Pl. 321) under the title of Gallophasis Vieilloti. In 1852 Mr. Gould (B. of As., p. IV., Pl. 8) enunciated his concurrence in this separation, but failed to define the difference between the two species very accurately. In 1863, (P. Z. S., p. 118) Dr. P. L. §. Sclater clearly diag- nosed the two species :— E. VIEILLOTI. 6 ; Niger, purpureo splendens, dorso imo ignescenti castaneo ; lateribus albo notatis ; rectricibus quatuor medis fulvescenti albis.* KE. Ienirus. Niger, purpureo splendens dorso imo igneo ferrugineo : lateribus pallide castaneis, nigro varius : rectr. 4 mediis albis. He added, “ in the latter species the flanks are pale chestnut, varied with purplish black.” These characters seemed very intelligible, and I believe were generally accepted ; but in January 1871, Mr. G. D. Elliot, in his Mon. Phas., (Pt. II., Pl. 10, letter-press) remarked that the two supposed species were identical— Viedllotc representing the immature bird which is always streaked with chestnut on the sides and has the central tail feathers brown.” In this, there is of course a clerical error, it being ignitus not Vieillott that has the chestnut on the flanks, but setting * This is not quite correct, for in fine freshly-killed birds these feathers are snow- white.—A, O. H, 120 NOTES. this aside, I believe I can show good grounds for believing that ignitus, as defined by Sclater, is no stage of Veerlloti. We have shot and trapped a very large series of this latter species in the southernmost portion of Tenasserim, over 30 males and females of different sizes and ages, and we have obtained no specimen in any way approaching to the description of ignitus. But more than this; we obtained a young male now before me, so young that the crest is only just beginning to show; that the spurs are only 0°41 long against from 1+1 to 1°6 in adults, and that the longest upper tail-coverts, though dull and abraded, are black and chestnut, like the females. Now in this bird, clearly just moulted for the first time from the female plumage, the moult not yet quite complete, the colour of the lower back is precisely as in the adult—the four centre tail-feathers are white, with only a narrow blackish shaft stripe on the basal two-thirds. The entire lower parts are black, only a few vanishing little spots of white on the middle of the abdomen, and three or four of the feathers on each side, (some of the feathers in fact that would later exhibit the white shaft stripes) with an orange ferruginous tinge on the shaft. Just the same colour that in some old adults may be observed tinging the margins of the white shaft stripes, specially towards their tips. With this bird before me it seems to me impossible that ignitus, with its pale chestnut flanks varied with purplish black, should be any stage of our bird. But besides this, I want to know where this stage is to come from? In all these birds, as far as my experience goes, there are only two types of plumage, that of the female, which is also that of the young, and that of the male, into which the young males moult direct from the quasi-female garb. Now the flanks of the female Vieilloti are in no sense pale chestnut, varied with purplish black. They are blackish brown, each feather broadly margined with white, and in some speci- mens, (but by no means in all), small patches of a chestnut tinge here and there over lay the blackish brown, but in no one of 16 females before me of very different sizes, and con- sequently probably different ages, can the flanks by any stretch of language be described as pale chestnut varied with purplish black. Would Mr. Elliot then maintain that cguitus has three distinct types of plumage? If not, Iam at a loss to understand how he considers the bird with the pale chestnut flanks varied with purplish black to be the young of the species of which the male has the flanks black, more or less slashed with white NOTES. 121 according to age, and the female dark brown, the feathers broadly margined with white, the brown portions oceasionally more or less overlaid here and there with a deep chestnut shade. The only doubt I have in the matter is, whether Mr. Gray’s name should stand. It is scarcely doubtful that the bird, descri- bed by Raffles, (Tr. Lin. Soc. XIIL, p. 321, 1822) as Phasianus vufus ig the adult female, of this species, whilst the bird that he describes as the female of his ignitus, (op. cit., p- 320) which is Vieillotz, may be anything, and under these circumstances, “ rufus’ being the first distinct name bestowed upon the species, I apprehend that in strictness this name, and not Mr. Gray’s, must stand. Count Satvapor!, in his admirable work onthe Birds of Borneo (Uccelli di Borneo, p. 312,1874), separates Hsacus magni- rostris, Geoffr. from E. recurvirostris, Cuy., under a new genus which he designates Orthoramphus, because the beak in the one is straight, in the other slightly recurved. This appears to me, with all due deference to Count Salvadori, to be a typical instance of the too prevalent degradation of generic value. Never were there two birds more distinctly representative species of the same genus. At a little distance the sharpest eyes could not, except for difference in size, distinguish the one from the other. Their habits, attitudes, modes of walking, rising and flying, are identical ; their eggs are not to be distinguished, except by the difference in size. The note is the same though, stronger perhaps in magnirostris. In fact the two birds are own brothers; the one, (magnirostris,) the larger, stouter billed, stronger voiced, has settled on sea coasts, where buffeted by sea waves and violent storms, and dealing with stout sea shells and strongly armoured marine crustaceans, it has per force developed into what we find it, while the other (recurvirostris,) confining itself strictly to sheltered banks of rivers, and feeding on delicate fresh water shells and crustaceans has remained comparatively feeble. The very difference in the shape of the bills may be directly referred to the different character of the food furnished by the different localities each affects. I must protest against the generic separation of these two species. No two species are more truly “ congeners.” d 123 NOTES. I HAVE OFTEN wondéred whether the specific name given by Dr. Jerdon, (B. of I. Vol., II, p. 804) for the Cashmere, or Many- spotted Nutcracker, viz., multimaculata, was amere slip of the pen, or had previously been used by any other writer. Jerdon attributes it to Gould, but Gould’s original name was mu/ti- punctata, (P. ZS. February, 1849) and under that name he figured it (B. of As., Pt. 1., pl. 17). Of course it must stand as multipunctata, but had Dr. Jerdon any authority for the name he uses ? I rank THAT our Himalayan Red Honey-sucker, or Goal- parah Sun Bird, commonly known as Aithopyga miles, Hodgs, must certainly stand henceforth as Mthopyga seheria, Tick. I have been carefully re-reading Tickell’s original description with a series of miles before me, and this description applies perfectly to some specimens. In some birds the crown is burnished copper with green reflections, and not the typical emerald green. In some again, the belly and vent are dusky, and not green. Then as to the locality, it is no matter of surprise to find single specimens of purely Himalayan birds straying down in the cold season, into suitable localities, quite as far from the base of the Hills as Borabhum. Thus on the cliffs of the Jumna at Etawah, I once shot a specimen of Tichodroma muraria, and again in the great Bamboo clumps at Bhurey in the same district I shot Oreocincla dauma. Moreover, single specimens of this present species have been shot and sent me from near Allahabad, from the banks of the Soane in the Mirzapoor district, and from the station itself of Purneah. Tickell’s bird must have been a straggler, and cannot have re- presented a distinct local species, or other examples of it must have been procured, by Ball, Beavan, Blewitt, and many others who have collected in this enceinte. It cannot have been Vigorsz, because the yellow striz on the breast could never have escaped Tickell, and because if it had been Vigorsi, specimens of this latter must have turned up in the vast region intermediate between the ghats and Borabhum, (large tracts of the most suitable country of which have been exhaustively worked) in all of which the stragglers from the far west and south, such as Myiophoneus Horsfieldi, Harpactes fasciatus, Buceros coronatus have been duly observed. T am quite aware that Dr. Jerdon thought that he had, in former years, obtained Vigorsi in the Bustar country, but I could not find out that he had preserved any specimen ; he certainly was not familiar with the bird of which no museum in India contained specimens, even I believe when he wrote his NOTES. 123 work many years later ; no collection from the neighbourhood of Bustar that I have seen, and I have examined two, has con- tained specimens, and we have now worked out to a certain extent the range of Vigorsi, which so far as ascertained is not very reconcilable with its extension to Bustar. So far as I have traced it, Vigorsi is only found in the lower valley of the Tapti in Western Khandeish, in the Hills north of Western Khandeish, and along the whole line of ghats from the Tapti, to some distance south of Mahabaleshwar, but not so far as I have yet ascertained extending along the ghats to South Canara. In this limited range it is common enough, but nowhere in the Peninsular eastward of this has it ever been procured, and its appearance, 600 miles to the eastward, and nowhere in the most suitable intervening localities, is, to my mind, very doubtful. To sum up then, Tickell’s description applies perfectly to miles ; there is no sort of improbability in a single straggler of this species occurring in Borabhum. Tickell’s specimen must have been a straggler and not the representative of a distinct species ; it must have been either miles or Vigorsz, and the description will not fit the latter, which moreover could not well occur there. It only remains to notice that Tickell’s name was published November 1833, J. A. S. B., Vol. IL, p. 577, while Hodgson’s name, which appeared in the Indian Review, Vol. IL., p. 273, was only published in 1837. IN HIS ADMIRABLE “ Catalogue,” (Vol. I., p. 7,) Mr. Bowdler Sharpe gives “ Gyps fulvus, Jerd. Birds of India, I. p. 8” as one of the synonymes of my Gyps fulvescens. This is an oversight; Jerdon’s G. fulvus is really a syno- nyme of my Gyps himalayensis, as is clear from his remark that the species he refers to “is nearly confined to the Hima- layan ranges in India.” So far as we know fulvescens never occurs in the Himalayahs, nor does himalayensis, even as a straggler and in the cold sea- son, wander south of them beyond the submontane tracts. At the same time the description, measurements and colours of soft parts seem to have been borrowed, and would perhaps fit the true fulvus, “The Griffon,” better than our Hill bird, “ The Roc.” Again (op. cit. p. 8.) Mr. Sharpe gives Vuliur indicus of Tem. (P. C. 26) as a synonyme of himalayensis, but the bare head and neck and general tone of coloration show to my mind conclusively that Temminck’s bird was really fulvescens. 124 NOTES. I suspect that these two references have been by some acci- dent interchanged. At pace 8, I pointed out the great difference in size exist- ing between the two races of crested Goshhawks that inhabit, respectively, the one Southern India and Ceylon, the southern portion of the Malay Peninsular, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, &c., and the other, Nepal, Sikhim, Bhootan, Assam, Cachar, Sylhet, Tipperah, the Tributary Mehals, Pegu and Arracan, and, the northern half at any rate of, Tenasserim (as now officially cons- tituted). Mr. Sharpe in his Cat. I., 106, had in general terms referred to such a difference, and had remarked that if the two proved distinct, the larger northern race would bear the name of indicus. On the strength of this remark I adopted the name indicus in the passage referred to. Further consideration leads me to doubt altogether the cor rectness of this view. . The bird was first described under a distinctive name, by McClelland, P. Z. 8., 1859, 153, as Spzzaetus rujfitinctus, and his specific name must, I think, be retained. True his description is by no means so detailed as might be desired, and, if it stood alone, might perhaps be set aside. But Moore and Horsfield, in their Cataloeue of Birds in the museum of the Hon’ble E. I. C., seem to have identified the very speci- men as érivirgatus; that is to say the Assamese form of éri- virgatus, and the Assamese birds are similar to the Sikhim birds, in fact belong to the larger northern race. Even if this were set aside, which I do not think it could be, Gray (I write subject to correction, for I have not at the moment access to the work) seems to have described a Nipalese specimen, A. and M.N. H., XI, 371, 1843, 2.2, one of the larger race, under the title of cristatus. Lastly, L have been unable to find that Hodgson ever published a description of indicus. The reference given for this name is Gray’s Zool. Miscl., p. 81, 1844, but (though I have not the work before me) I am next to certain that this page 81 is a mere list of names. ; On the whole, I think, ornithologists will agree that if the larger Northern race be accepted (as, so far as my present information goes, I think it should be) as a distinct: species, then it should stand under McClelland’s name Rurrrincrus. Mr. SHarpe, in his Catalogue (I., 114) gives us as references to Astur soloensis. NOTES. 123 Falco soloensis, Lath. Gen. Hist., 1., p. 209, 1821. Deedalion soloensis, Horsf., Tr, Linn. Soc., XIN 13791822) &e., &e. Thus clearly leading an unsuspecting reader to the inference, that the specific name soloensis was Latham’s and not Horsfield’s, But in the first place as Count Salvadori has pointed out, “ Ucelli di Borneo, p. 94,” Mr. Sharpe is wrong in assioning 1822 for the publication of Horsfield’s paper in the Linn. Trans, It was read at the Society on the 12th April 1820, and must have been published at least as early as August 1821. I say this because, Latham wrote the preface of the Ist Vol. of his General Hist. when issuing it, at Winchester in Septem- ber 1821, yet about the middle of this volume he introduces the Soolo Faleon, quoting as a reference “ Faleo soloensis, Linn Trans., XIII.. 137, Horsfield,”’ thus showing that before September, he at Winchester (and H.M. mails went somewhat slowly in_those days), had had the use of a printed copy of Horsfield’s paper—and indeed other entries in this same Volume prove the same fact. Clearly tco one has no right to quote the reference first given by Mr. Sharpe. If given at all, it must stand. Falco Soloensis, Horsf. apud Lath., Gen. Hist., I., 209. And must follow and not precede the reference to the Lin. Trans. which were, as above shown, published before the issue of Latham’s first volume, Mr. SHAnrre, in his Catalogue (I., 267), gives Spizactus orien- talis, Temm. and Schleg., Faun. Jap. Ay., pl. 8, as a synonyme of &. nipalensis, Hodgs. No doubt the figure given does greatly resemble one stage of the young of that species, bué at that stage, nipalensis has a most conspicuous crest, and again the feathering does not descend far engigh on to the middle toe for nipalensis, and lastly we know that the particular specimen figured and described came from Japan, to which nipalensis does not, so far as is at present known, extend. Others of the nearly allied Spizaeti exhibit a very similar plumage, at one stage. It is all very well for Prof. Schlegel, who lamps cirrhatus, linnaetus, nipalensis, lanceolatus, &c., to identify his orientalis, with nipalensis, but quite impossible for ornithologists who, with Mr. Sharpe, recognize all these as distinct to do the same. Av pace 459, Vol. Il., I stated that the 2nd part of my “Rough Notes’ were published in February 1870, This is a 126 NOTES. mistake ; I received my own copy in sheets as printed off, and on the first of these I wrote the date on which I received it, which accordingly now stands in my copy as the date of the whole part; but I find that the part as a whole was not issued until quite the end of March. The first part issued either at the end of February 1869, or during the first few days of March, I wish to suggest, for the consideration of Ornithologists, whether Edward’s plate of the little black and orange-coloured Indian Hawk, No. 108 (Nat. Hist. Birds, Pt. IIL, p. 108) on which Linnzeus founded his Falco c@rulescens may not have been founded ona specimen of Microhieraz melanoleucus, Blyth* and not upon either ewtolmus, Hodgs., (bengalensis, Blyth,) or M. fringillarius, Drapiez, to one of which two species all orni- thologists have hitherto referred Linnzeus’ name. The great stumbling block in the way of the former of these two accepted identifications is the entire absence of any nuchal color, both in Edwards’ plate and description, while as regards the latter, the large size of Edward’s bird, and his omission to indicate alike in plate or letter press the conspicu- ous black thigh patch, present almost equal difficulties. Now with one single exception (the colour of the lower parts) melanoleucus, fits Edwards’ figure perfectly. There is no collar ; which there is in eutolmus, there is the very narrow white frontal band, and narrow white line, dividing the black eye and ear patch from the black crown and occiput, just as shown in the plate. Whereas out of 70 odd specimens of eutolmus, not one, in which these lines are white, has them anything like so narrow. Then again look at the barring of the under sur- face of the tail in Edward’s plate; out of 60 Indian bengalensis, not one has the tail thus marked, the barrings instead, of as in Edward’s figure approaching to within 0-4 of the extreme tip, not approaching within from 0°75 to one inch of this. But the tail in melanoleucus, at least in the only specimens I have been able to examine, corresponds closely with Hdward’s figure. “No doubt, in specimens of ewtolmus from Pegu and Siam, the markings descend nearer to the tips of the tail, and are larger and more conspicuous as arule; but in these too the frontal band and collar are much broader, and there are other differences, which lead me to believe that we shall be obliged to separate them specifically ; but even in these the markings on the tail are not of the shape and character of those represented in Edwards’ plate. * Described S. F., IL., 625. - NOTES. 127 But then in the only specimens of melanoleucus that I have seen, or that have been described (I don’t know of above a dozen specimens altogether) the under parts are white, whereas in Edward’s figure they are bright rufous. Now, knowing what we do of eutolmus, it would not at all surprise me to learn that in one stage of plumage, melanoleucus was entirely rufous beneath. At p. 23, (Vol. IIL.) I have made some remarks in regard to the changes of plumage of eutolmus, but it may be as well to explain these a little further. The quite young bird shot in July or August, just out of the nest, will have the black of the upper surface less lustrous rather than the adult. It will have a very narrow frontal band and line over the eye, widening as it passes down the side of the neck, and a line under the eye, all, rather pale golden chest- nut. Chin, throat, breast, middle and upper abdomen, pure silky white; thigh coverts, vent, and lower tail-coverts, rather pale bright chestnut. Nuchal collar inconspicuous, the white “ete being tipped buffy, preceded by a dusky subterminal and. A little later, the frontal and elongated supercilliary bands have increased in width and become a somewhat brighter chestnut. The nuchal collar bas become more conspicuous and is now pale buff. Then this buff begins to fade, so too does the chestnut of fore- head and supra-orbital bands, and as these grow white, a little tinge of chestnut rusty begins te show out on the chin and upper throat, and by the time collar and bands are pure white the chin and upper throat are bright ferruginous. Then this ‘colour begins to creep down the throat, while the vent, lower tail and thigh coverts assume a deeper ferru- ginous, and a shade of this colour begins to creep up the abdo- men and breast, and at last in the old female, we have the entire under surface bright ferruginous, scarcely, if at all, paler on the breast, but with the thigh and under tail-coverts, much deeper coloured. I doubt the male’s ever quite reaching this same stage. Out of 31 females, six are in this plumage. Out of 38 males, none are in /¢his stage, but 8 are in what seems the corres- ponding final stage for the male, in which, the breast is much paler, a sort of palish buff, and the upper and middle abdomen, -though more ferruginous and more strongly colored than the breast, is still far from uniform with chin and throat, as the abdomen is in old females. With such changes in the case of this species, it would not surprise me to find that at one stage melanoleucus was bright ferruginous below, and should such prove to be the case, we shall 4 128 NOTES. - have at last determined satisfactorily Aicrohierax caerulescens, of Lin. ex Edwards. Should this be the case, the common Himalayan species will perhaps bear Hodgson’s name of eutolmes, on the strength of Jerdon’s description, B. of I. Vol. I, 42, 1862. I cannot find that Hodgson published any description of his eutolmus, but he may have doneso. The name would seem to have appeared first, in Gr. Zool. Miscl. 1845, p. 81, as one of a long list, sene deser. And again it was mentioned in the Gen. Birds, T. 21, (er. entol- mus); but was this name ever published together with a des- cription, before the B. of I. appeared ? Blyth no doubt, J. A. 8. B. XI. 789, mentioned the species as “bengalensts of the old authors” andin Vol. XII, 180, 1843, described Nepal specimens, under this name, but this was no original title of Blyths ; he was clearly adopting Brisson’s name, Suppl. 20, No. 38, (nominally published 1760, but probably the supplement actually issued much later) which is apparently prelinnean, and anyhow is avowedly founded on Edward’s figure, and Linneus’ cerulescens, of the S. N. 10th edition ; so that if cwrulescens does not apply neither, will Blyth’s dexgal- ensis, derived avowedly as this is from the old authors,” whose bengalensis =cerulescens. Iy uIs CaTALoGug, already so often referred to, L, 877. Mr. Sharpe gives Falco atriceps, nobis, as asynonyme of /. peregrinus, or as he prefers to call it, /. communis. In the absence of a sufficient series, it seems to me quite open to any one to unite this species with peregrinator, but I hardly think it can be referred to peregrinus. Mr. Sharpe, at p. 378, givesa description of Valco atriceps, apparently an original one, and I should judge, zot of atriceps, the characteristic of which is (see Ibis, 1869, 356) to have “head, nape, cheek, stripe, cheeks and car-coverts” all forming one homogeneous, unbroken black cap, Hence the trivial name I assigned to it, (Rough Notes, I., 58,) “The Black-cap Falcon.” I have consistently from the first pointed out that it has narvow bars on the inner webs of the primaries, like peregrina- tor, which fact alone is sufficient to prove that it cannot be peregrinus, in which these are invariably comparatively broad. I see by the way that Mr. Sharpe expresses some doubts as to whether the Japan race might not possibly prove distinct. If so, it would stand, I suppose, as orientalis, Gm., which was founded on Latham’s “ Oriental faleon,” a young bird that flew on board ship near the coast of Japan. . NOTES. 129 Mr. SHarPEe, discussing the variations in the common kestrel, remarks (Cat. I., 426) :—‘ Mr. Blyth seems to have seen a “similar (intensified) race from Burmah, as a kestrel is men- tioned on his authority by Mr. G.R. Grey (Hand-l. B. I. 23) under the name of Tinnwnculus atratus, but I have not yet succeeded in unearthing Mr. Blyth’s own reference.” I fancy atratus in the H. list is a misprint for saturatus, Bly., the references for which are Blyth, J. A. S. B. XXVIIL., 277, 1859; Ibis, 1866, 238 ; Hume, Rough Notes, 100. There is, I think, no possible doubt, that three quite distinct species of Poliogtus occur within our limits. P. 1ctHytus, Horsf. largest; length, up to 32 inches ; expanse, up to 72, with in the adult the basal two-thirds of the tail pure white. Inhabits Celebes, Java, Borneo, Sumatra, Malay Peninsular, Coasts of Tenasserim, Pegu, Arracan, Chittagong, Lower Bengal, the Peninsular of India and Ceylon, Nepal and Sikhim Terai, Bhotan Doars, Sylhet, Cachar, but not, I believe, extending westwards of the Nepal Terai, along the bases of the Himalayahs. Nore.—Specimens from Ceylon and the Peninsular of India seem to run smaller than those from Java and the other Islands noticed. A fine Ceylon female only measured 26-5 in length. P. pLumBEvs, * Hodgs. medium size. Length 22 to 25 (maz.) ; expanse, 55 to 60; wing, 16°5 to 18°75 ; entire upper surface of * Hodgson never, I believe, described this species; he only mentioned it, J. A. S. B. VI., May 1837, p. 367. Blyth again mentioned the name. op. cit, XI, 100, 1842, but only to identify it doubtingly, with blagrus. But I fully characterized the species, by Hodgson’s name, Nests and Eggs, Pt. I. 43, 1870, and no one having intermediately re- cognized its distinctness it will stand under Hodgson’s name. Mr. Sharpe remarks, Cat. I., 453 “after a careful examination of Mr. Hodgson’s plates I have not been able to distinguish his plumbeus....Although the uniform tail he figures more resembles P. hwmilis (which is now known to extend to Assam, and may therefore well ocevr in Nepal) there is not a specimen in Mr. Hodgson’s collection and as all his other birds of these species are in the museum, and as he also figured atrue P. ichthyetus ; on the same plate I consider H. plwmbeus to be probably an unfinished picture of the large species.” But amongst Mr. Hodgson’s original drawings are three beautifully finished figures of plumbeus, one devouring a Roohoo fish, which also is highly finished. Two of these figures show the upper surface of the tail perfectly plain and unmottled with white ; the third shows the lower surface, with the basal portion, mottled with white. (See also 8. F., III., 386.) On the back of one of the plates he gives the dimensions of 7 different specimens :— F : mas. foem. foems Length 110% L110 20% <1 LU 202 LE Tail gt is ue L ? 10-0 10-4 Expanse. 48°0 483 4113 483 495 4110 4103 Showing clearly what the species he figured was even if the tail did not show this. In a note he says ‘“ Horsfield’s ichthyetus this bird, save that his is larger.” There is no figure of ichthyetus amongst the drawings I have, but on the face of one of them isa note, “756is Horsfields or I. typicus. Home, Oct. 38,’ showing that he recognized the two species and had sent home a drawing of the true ichthyetus of Horsfield, R 136 NOTES. tail uniform ash brown. Inhabits the sub-Himalayan ranges aud submontane tracts, (occasionally in the cold season straying some distance into the plains) from the borders of Afghanis- tan to Suddya in Assam, occurring in common with the preced- ing in the Nepal, and Sikim Terais, Cachar, and Western por- tions of Assam. P. numILIs, /ull and Schi. smallest. Length, 19 to 22 inches; expanse, 48 to 54; wing, 14 to 16; upper surface of tail, pale brown with dark antepenultimate band and white tipping. Inhabits Sumatra, Malay Peninsular, and Hastern shores of Bay of Bengal as far north at any rate as Cape Negrais. Mr. Sharpe says this species is known to occur in Assam. Of course ié may ; but I have never seen a speciinen from Arracan, Chittagong, Tippera, Sylhet, Cachar or Assam, and I should like to know the evidence on which the occurrence of this species in Assam rests. Ihave had supposed humilis sent me from Assam, but in both cases the specimens proved to be plumbeus. Mr. Suarps, (Cat. I., 452) declares the genus Ichthyelus Lafr. (Rev Zool. 1839, 196) inadmissible, “as there is not the slightest indication of a type.” But Blyth (J. A. 8. B., XII., 304, 1843) defined Lafresnay’s genus, as restricted to the sea eagles with smooth talons, © Jike an ospreys, and classed under it Horsfieldi, Vigors (P. ichthyetus, Horsf.) and nanus, Blyth (humilis, Miill. and Schl.) and I should have thought that this was sufficient to give the genus Jchthyetus, Lafr., a locus standi. Moreover I must note that though there may be no express mention of a type in Lafresnay’s paper, still by adopting Horsfield’s specific as a generic name, he clearly implied (in accordance with the practice of writers since Linnzeus’ time) that Horsfield’s species was the type of his genus. I submit that IonrHyzrtus ought to stand. IN CONNECTION with this subject, I notice that authors gener- ally (e. g., Moore and Horsf. Cat. B. H. H. I. C. Mus., 52 ; Sharpe, Cat. I., 452 ; Salvad. U. de. B. 6, &c.) cite the specific name Horsfieldi, as Hodgson’s, Blyth J. A.S., XII., 304; but Blyth does ot cite the name as Hodgson’s, and Hodgson on his own plate cites it as Vigors, with a note of interrogation as to whether that name is equivalent to his plumbeus. SoME YEARS ago (Ibis, 1870, 497) Mr. Tristram described a new Stonechat under the name of P, RoBUSTA. NOTES. : 131 This is what he said of it :— “] have long had in my possession, from Mysore, a giant Stonechat in summer plumage, very brightly coloured, which had often puzzled me. I lately received from my friend Mr. Brooks a specimen of the same bird in winter plumage, given him by Mr. Jerdon, who procured it in the Sutlej valley. I have had the pleasure of introducing Mr. Jerdon to his old friend, which he at once recognized; and it was evident the two specimens belonged to the same species, hitherto undescribed I propose to name it. Pratincola robusta, Sp. 2. P. maxima, coloribus P. pastori simillima, sed intensioribus ; pectore intense rufo, abdomine rufo nec albido; striga nuchali angusta. Long. tot. 5°95, alae 3, caudae 2°45 poll. It is thus very much larger* than any known species of Pratincola, It may be further discriminated from P. pastor and P. sibylla by the intensity of its rufous breast extending down to the abdomen without any white ; and also from these and from P. rubicola by the very narrow white spot on each side of the neck instead of the bold white patch, while in the breeding plumage, the black of the head and back is most intense. I am very fortunate to have the decided authority of Mr. Jerdon for describing this most interesting bird as new. Its size is the more remarkable when contrasted with the small P. indica. In 1872, (J.A.8. B., XLI., 238) Dr. Stoliczka described a presumed new Stonechat, which he obtained in Cutch under the name of P. macrorhyncha. His remarks on and description of the species will be found quoted, 8. F. IV., 40, x. It will be observed, that Dr. Stoliczka’s specimens were not sexed, and that he only presumed them to be females. At the time and for long after, relying solely on descrip- tions and having no specimens to compare, I was disposed to unite this supposed new species with P. Hemprichii, but after once examining specimens of this latter I discovered at once my error, macrorhyncha being a much larger bird. One of the types of macrorhyncha was presented to my museum by Dr. Stoliczka, and recently in going through a collec- tion of birds, presented by Capt Butler, H. M. 83rd, I at once recognized a female Stonechat labelled rubicola, as belonging to the same species. * This of course is a mistake, as pointed out by Messrs. Marshall, S.F., I11., 330; P. insignis, Hodgson, is considerably larger.—Ip., 8. 14 NOTES. This bird was a female ascertained by dissection, and was killed by Capt. Butler at Deesa on the 12th November 1875, at the time he recorded the following note on it :— “ Length, 5:87; wing, 3°0; tail, 2°62; bill at front, 0-44; from gape, 0°75. “Trides, very dark brown; legs and feet, black; bill, blackish brown, horny at base of lower mandible.”’ In plumage this specimen agrees entirely with the type of macrorhyncha that I possess. This measures (the skin) :— Length, 5°6; wings, 2°9; tail, 2°3; bill at front, 0°5; from gape 0°7. These birds are not at all like rudicola or indica; they are altogether larger and paler ; have much longer bills, almost entirely want the white wing patch. The chin and throat quite white, the breast with merely a very faint fulvous tinge. In fact the lower surface is precisely like that of females of our Indian rubetraoides, Brooks, killed at the same season. The upper surface too is very like that of rubetraoides, but paler still, and the striations not so broad. Of course the white tail of rubetraoides, (similar to that of the European pubetra) at once distinguishes it from our present bird. It has occurred to me that macrorhyncha is very probably the female of robusta, in which case, the latter name has precedence, and the species having been procured in Mysore, Northern Guzerat, Cutch and in the Himalayas in the valley of the Sutledge has a very wide distribution in India, and possibly may not be very rare, though usually confounded with P. indica. Ornithologists, especially in Southern and Western India, should be on the look out for this species next cold season. PRATINCOLA INSIGNIS, just referred to in a foot note, is a very rare species in collections, and its habitat has been wholly mistaken—Jerdon says, B. of I., Il., 127 :— “‘This species has only as yet been found in Nepal, and pro- bably comes from the most northern districts, perhaps, as Mr. Blyth hints, from Thibet. ” This is quite a mistake—Mr. Hodgson distinctly records on his plate that this occurs in the plains only, and both his specimens were obtained (on January 10th) at Segowlee a well-known Cantonment in the plains of the Champarun district, some 16 miles south of the Nepal frontier and on the main road to Khatmandoo. The male (I have never seen a female) may be recognized at once, independent of its size, by the amount of white about it. Nearly the whole of the wing coverts (excepting those at the NOTES, 133 edge of the wing, a few of the lesser, some of the median and nearly all the greater secondary coverts, which are black,) together with the whole of the upper tail-coverts and rump and a large patch at the base of the primaries are pure white. Mr. Blyth, whose description Jerdon quotes, assumes that the bird he described was in summer dress, but his description accords with Mr. Hodgson’s figure, and this was taken from specimens obtained on the 10th of January, and therefore presumably in winter dress. The following are the dimensions noted from the types when fresh by Mr. Hodgson—and that gentleman’s manuscript note recorded on the plate :— mas. mas. Tip of bill to tip of tail ... O6% ae Bill, length of ik 3 13, »5 Width Ly ; — Tail si 23 25. Closed wing bak 3x6 33. Expanse ««0°11°0 caret. Tarsus a 135 12. Centre toe and nail sae g z Hind ditto ditto nn a a “Segowlee, January 10th, mas. pl. full. Tongue, simple, pure cartel., bifid ; wings plus mid tail; 2 inch less, its tip. 3-4 quills longest, Ist small, 4th plus 2nd. Tarsi, smooth high, toes compressed, simply ambulatory ; laterals subequal ; central long ; hind large, but not depressed, shorter than either lateral, but with its longer claw exceeding either with theirs. Nares, small, oval, lateral, shaded by tiny nude membranous edge or scale. Is like our hill Sazicolas, but much larger and they have all 3 quills graduated, the 4-5 being longest, 6th nearly or quite equal 3rd ; so also in robin, or 416.* In big and small stonechats the lateral toes are unequal however trivially and so in Robin, and in both the nails are slender and acute, very ; the thumb also is big and with its nail exceeds the laterals - and theirs and equals the central only; in this big one the thumb is rather less and not equal to the mid toe only.” Since Mr. Hodgson’s time I only know of this species having been obtained, on the banks of the Ganges near Cawnpoor, by the Marshalls and by Mr. Mandelli, in the Sikhim Terai and Bhootan Doars, but others may have obtained it, and if so I should be glad to learn the fact. I myself expect that the head-quarters of the bird will prove to be in the valley (not the Hills) of Assam. * Mr, Hodgson’s 416 is Pratincola ferrea,—Ep. 184 NOTES. Puytioscorus Brooxst, Hume, described from Tenasserim, Srray Feargers, Vol. IL, p. 505, has been kindly compared for me in England by Mr. Brooks with Phylloscopus Schwarzu Radde, and proves, he says, as he recently suggested (S. F 1V., p. 277) to be identical with this species. P. Schwarzii was described (p. 261), and figured (Pl. 1X, F. 1. a, b, c), by Radde, in his Reisen im Siidem von Ost-sibe- rien, 1863. The plate however according to my notion conveys no adequate idea of the bird, the coloring neither above nor below agrees with any one of my now numerous specimens killed from October to April and utterly ignores in both figures of the bird, its most conspicuous feature, the long superciliary stripe. It is as well to note that Mr. Brooks says after ex- amining 4 specimens in Europe, that the length of the bill is very variable in this species, as is also the colour of the under surface, which varies almost as much as does that of Locus- tella Hendersoni. This is not very apparent in the specimens killed in Burmah during the 6 cold season months. Radde obtained his specimens in the autumn in Tarei-nor and in May in the Bureja mountains, so that his specimens should not differ so much from ours. He gives the length of his largest specimens at 5 English inches, ours run to 5°75, but I suppose he merely measured from the skin as his other dimensions, though not corresponding exactly with those of any of our specimens agree better. On the whole, after carefully re-reading the description, I accept Mr. Brooks’ verdict, but I cannot help wishing that he could have examined the types, because two very similar birds may visit Siberia, like Hzppolais rama and caligata, and the specimens sent to Europe as Schwarzii, might be Brookst. I notice that Joras killed about Deesa and sent me with other birds by Captain Butler, all appear to pertain to Captain Marshall’s new species J. nigrolutea (S. F. IV., 410). Iam asked by two correspondents whether I consider this race really distinct. Ten years ago I pointed out to the late Captain Mitchell of the Madras Museum how our Etawah birds differed from those he sent me, and sent him specimens to compare. He considered them distinct, but I was doubtful and the matter dropped. I have often since thought of separating the bird, but seeing how closely the central Indian birds approach it, | have always been dubious as to its being a good species. . The tail is the only point in which the species or races always differ, but I think that in this they do differ constantly NOTES. 135 and failing any evidence of intermediate forms, I think that we must accept nigro-lutea, at present at any rate, as a good species. By soME MISPRINT, Budo ketupa, Kaup, is given in Mr. Sharpe’s catalogue, Vol. II., p. 6, as a synonyme of Ketupa flavipes. Kaup’s name really applies to K. javanensis, under which it is correctly given, Op. cit. p. 8. AT PAGE 60 of the 2nd Vol. of his catalogue, Mr. Sharpe describes a new species of Scops from the Hastern Ghats under the name of S. rufipennis. But with all deference to Mr. Sharpe, who is doubtless quite correct, I must say that his description of this species reads uncommonly like the true Scops malabaricus, Jerd. Madr. Jour. Sci XIII., 119, which is found alike on the Eastern and Western Ghats, and which Mr. Sharpe in my opinion wrongly unites with Scops griseus of the same author. I, at any rate, know what Jerdon intended by the two species as he went over my collections with me, and admitting that rujfipennis is probably also distinct, certainly malabaricus is quite distinct from griseus. The latter occurs throughout the length and breadth of the land; the former only in well-wooded, heavy rain-fall districts, Then again, surely neither the name malabaricus, (even if it did apply) nor griseus, could stand for the species to which the latter name really applies and to which Mr. Sharpe applies the former also. Most clearly griseus, Jerdon, of which I have many specimens from Ceylon, is the Striz bakkamuna of John Reinhold Forsters, Zoologia indica, sp. III., p. 13, Pl. IIL, 1795. This plate to my mind fixes the species--it is not bad, and it could not possibly have been intended to represent any other species inhabiting Ceylon. Well, this species is also bakkamuna of Lath. Ind Orn. I. 56, 1790, and it is also (they mutually quote each other) the Indian eared owl of Lath.’s Syn. I. 127, and the little Hawk Owl of Ceylon of Pennant’s Indian Zoology, t. 3. and the Otus indica of Gmelin, I. 289, No. 20, 1788, by which latter name the species should, I should fancy, stand. ATHENE CUCULOIDES.—The specific name of this species is attributed in the catalogue, to Gould, Cent. Himalay, B. pl. 4. No mention is made of Vigors, who first described the species, Pro. Com, Sci and Corr. Z. 8., 1830, p. 8. It is just possible 136 NOTES. (for I cannot find out the dates on which the committee’s pro- ceedings were actually published) that Gould’s plate may have appeared first, but even then the advertisement of Gould’s book distinctly states that the nomenclature and letter press are by Vigors. I HAVE SATISFIED myself that the black Turdulus, for which (ante p. 63) I proposed, if really new, the name of Z. Davisonz, can be nothing more than an extremely old 7. sibericus, Pall. I have never however seen or read of any specimen, either so dark in colour or with so little white about it. The most mature specimens I have seen, resembled the figure of the old adult in Naumanns Voég. Deutschl, (Suppl. XIII. t. 8363) in which the body is very blue, and the whole centre of the abdomen, vent, and almost the whole visible portions of the lower tail-coverts, and broad tips to the outer lateral tail- feathers were white. I did not therefore recognize this bird, which is almost black ; has no white on the abdomen, has not even according to Pallas “ crissum albo varium,”’ but has only xarrow white tippings to the lower tail-coverts and outer lateral tail-feathers. The bird looks quite different, but there is the characteristic white bar on the under surface of the wing and the white axillaries, and comparison satisfies me that the birds are the same. Ramsay got this in Karennee, and now we get it at Mooleyit and it probably extends during the cold season (our bird was killed on the 15th February) the whole way down the back bone ridge of the Malay peninsular, just as it does to China and Japan. I sHOULD be very glad to understand how Pomatorhinus marie, Wald. (A. and M. N. H. June, 1875; S. F. IIL, 404) differs from P. albogularis, Bly. (JJ. A. 8S. B. XXIV., 274, 1855). To my idea they must be identical. I can discover no essential difference so far as descriptions go. I have numerous specimens from the locality whence Blyth’s type came, and these answer perfectly to Blyth’s indi- cations and to Lord Walden’s more elaborate description. Lord Walden described a female,—wing, about 3°5; Blyth, a male of which the wings run from 3°8 to 3°9. So few birds, comparatively speaking, are named after ladies, that one grudges the loss of even one of these delicate tributes of affection, but still I much fear that Maria’s Pomatorhinus must disappear into the shadow-realms of synonyms. NOTES. 137 I wisH to call attention to the fact that PoMAToRHtNUs OLI- vaceus, Blyth, J. A. 8. B., Vol. XVI, p. 451, 1847, from the Ye district of Tenasserim, and which Blyth later united with P. leucogaster, Gould, is,in my opinion, a perfectly good and distinct species, though doubtless very closely allied to leucogaster. In leucogaster, (from the Himalayas) the whole upper sur- face is darker and greener; in odivaceus (from the Ye district) it is lighter and far more rufescent, the difference in the colour of the tails being striking. In leucogaster, the deep ferruginous patch behind the ear- coverts is continued down the sides of the body and flanks, the head is much greyer than the rest of the upper surface of the body, the frontal feathers are much edged with blackish, and there is only a faint trace of a rufous collar on the base of the neck. In olivaceus, the deep ferruginous patch is not extended down the sides of the body, &., the head is not a bit greyer than the body, there is very little black edging to the frontal feathers and from the ferruginous patch on either side, a broad ferruginous half-collar, almost as deep in colour as the patch itself, runs across the base of the back of the neck. Blyth’s specimen can never have been a good one, and it is doubtless easy as I have found, when I had only one or two indifferent specimens to confound the two, but with a series of each laid out before one, it seems wonderful how one can ever have considered the two species the same. In size, the two races do not differ perceptibly. In both I find the wings vary from about 3:4 in the smallest female to 3°85 in the largest male. In sechisticeps, I find specimens in which the wing consider- ably exceeds 4. WITHOUT EXAMINING Verreaux’s type it is impossible to speak positively, but so far as measurement, description, and figure go, his Siphia Hodgsoni (Nouv. Archiv. du Mus. VI. Bull. 34, 1870; VII. Bull. 29, 1871, IX. pl. IV. f. 4, 1873) is nothing else than 8. erythaca, Blyth and Jerd. (P. Z. 8. 1861, 201. No doubt the description there given is most faulty, as I have already pointed out (S. F. Vol. II., p. 458) and this may have misled Verreaux who refers to Jerd. and Bly.’s Siphia erythrura (sic) as apparently nearly related. ) On a former occasion, (S. F. Vol. I., p. 429, Dee. 1878) I dis- eriminated the Ceylon Phodilus and pointed out clearly wherein it differed from the Himalayan birds. I did not then name it, § 138 NOTES. because I was under the impression that Malayan specimens differed similarly, This, however, does not seem to be the case, and having now seen a second Ceylon specimen, presenting the same specific characters as the first, I desire to propose for it provisionally the name of PHODILUS ASSIMILIS. THERE IS A species to which I desire to call the attention of all Indian ornithologists, as I have been quite unable to make it out. It is mentioned in Blyth’s commentary on Dr. Jerdon’s “ Birds of India,” Ibis 1867, 23, as follows. “ SuyA GANGETICA, Jerdon, in lt. sp. nov. ‘‘ Plain brown above, rufescent on the head ; lower parts, much paler; throat, whitish, Wing, 2°25 inches; tail, 3°75 inches. «Common along the upper Ganges.”’ I have never been able to procure a specimen, or even to hear of any one else who had. I should be very thankful for any information in regard to this species. SUTHORA DAFLAENSIS, God.-Aust, (S. F., IV, 490), is, it would seem, now admitted by its describer to be identical with his 8. munipurensis, (S. F., IV, 216); at least so says Gould in the last number (X XIX) of the Birds of Asia. Mr. Howarp Savunpers has merited the gratitude of all ornithologists, by his very valuable monographic note on the Sterninae, (P. Z. S. 1876, 638). I shall notice this in detail hereafter, as there seems to me to be a good deal to add as regards distribution, and there are a good many points in regard to which I am unable to agree with Mr. Saunders, but at present I only desire to note, that the bird that he has figured, pl. LXI, figure 2, as Anous melanogenys, is, in my opinion, beyond all doubt, A. leucocapillus, while al- though the bird that he figures (pl. cit, figure, 3) as leucocapillus, may be one stage of melanogenys ; it differs altogether, both from Mr. Gray’s original figure of, and from a specimen I identify as, the true melanogenys. Mr. Ettror seems to me to be in error in uniting, as he does in his monograph of the Phasianide, Pucrasia castanea, Gould, with Duvauceli of Temminck, P. C. 545. Mr. Elliot begins by saying “ Duvaucel’s Pucras pheasant was figured and described by Temminck in the Planches Colo- riées as long ago as the year 1834.” NOTES. 139 The figure, a vile thing, bears doubtless the inscription, *“Tragopan Duvaucel, male,” but in the text Temminck ex- plains this, withdraws the name, and distinctly states that the bird he figures is identical with Tragopan pucrasia, Gould, then recently beautifully figured by Mrs. Gould in the Cent. Him. B. To this plate which is unmistakeably Pucrasia macrolopha, Temminck refers, and he heads his text with Gould’s name. But more than this his description shows, that whatever idea may be conveyed by Prétre’s wretched picture, Temminck was describing macrolopha and not castanea. The characteristic of this latter is to have the sides and back of the neck (and perhaps in some cases the upper back also) chestnut like the breast. Now Temminck distinctly says, “le devant du cou, la partie médiane de la poitrine et du ventre, ainsi que les conver- tures du dessous de la queue sout d’un beau marron foncé ; la partie postérieure et les cétés du cou, le dos les flanes et les cuisses sout couverts de plumes longues et pointues, 4 bande centrale noir, entourée par une teinite grise plus ou moins pure.” This is absolutely conclusive as to the species des- eribed by Temminck being, as he himself declared, Gould’s and Gray and Hardwicke’s pucrasia, i. e., macrolophus of Lesson. Tt does not matter one straw what the figure /ooks like—(though for that matter barring the head itis equally unlike every species of the genus)—where a description is full and explicit, we must go by that. I may notice, when dealing with this species, that Mr. Elliot says of castanea (Duvaucelii, Tem. apud ille) “The male has the head dark green, with the upper part chestnut. A long occipital crest formed of chestnut and dark green feathers.”’ For chestnut, read dingy fawn, or pale dull vellowish brown. Of course Wolf’s plate gives the colour correctly. It appears to me a great drawback in the monograph of the Phasianide, that it contains no such diagnostical table as would enable any one to determine at once any particular species. Eveninthe case of species so closely allied, as macrolophus and castanea, Mr. Elliot (and I must add Mr. Gould also who is just as bad in this respect,) carefully abstains from any such clear and specific enunciation of differ- ences as might definitely fix the two species. This was exactly the case with Phasianus Shawiand insignis, between which outsiders have as yet been able to discover no real difference, and I am by no means sure that I shall not soon be in a position to prove much the same in regard to macrolopha, castanea and nipalensis, different as the typical forms of the two first look. 140 NOTES. Was THERE no one at the Zoological Society, to suggest to the Editor, when he published, P. Z. 8., 1876, 310, a lovely plate of a falcon, that the correct name of the species he was figuring might perhaps be Valco barbarus, and not F. babylonicus ? I confess that I have never seen a barbarus exactly in the plumage figured, about the head, but still less has one ever seen any such badylonicus and of these we have now seen plenty ; but the dimensions W. 107, fix the species. The smallest wing of babylonicus and that was a young male, that I have ever met with, measured 11°87. As for Mr. Anderson who has led the P. Z. 8S. thus astray, I blush for him, he who is teaching all us poor ignorami all about the Raptores! why did he not turntoS. F., I, 2), where he would have found the dimensions of a male barbarus killed in Cutch precisely agreing with those given by him ? Carr. Butter writes: “ Captain Bishop informs me that in January 1873, whilst shooting near Bagdad in Turkish Meso- potamia, his party bagged five Wovodcocks (Scolopaz rusticola, Zin.) in the date groves skirting the town. There is no doubt whatever about the species as he showed me the tail and wing feathers. Mr. James, C.S., in a letter just received, also mentions three Woodcocks (one shot and two others flushed) as having been met with in the North Canara Jungles.” WITH REFERENCE to what I said at page 94, about the possible identity of Cisticola Tytleri and melanocephala, and the occurrence of both in Dacca, I should have noticed that Tytleri also occurs (as well as melanocephala) in Munipur, where Godwin-Austen obtained a specimen, which he compared with the type in the Indian Museum. He considers it “a very distinct species, with very pale ochre, head and breast, and tail black both above and below,” vide J. A. 8. B., XLV., Pt. 11,199, £876, STRAY FEATHERS. Vol. V.] AUGUST 1877. [Nos. 3 & 4. Hotes on the AMiditication of some Burmese Birds, By Evcene W. Oatzs, C.E. I HAvE long been in the habit of keeping notes of the nests I have found in the course of my wanderings in Pegu, and the present seems a fitting moment to present some of them to the readers of “Stray Feraruers,” inasmuch as Captain G. F. L. Marshall bas not included Burmal in his recent small work on nesting of Indian birds. The present list contains information relative to the breeding of 96 species. In those cases where full particulars as to the breeding is contained in Mr. Hume’s “ Nests and Eggs,” I have merely recorded the dates on which nests were found, and have given a reference to that work.* The jungles of Burmah are so vast, and my spare time so limited, that I cannot hope to find the nests of many more species than are here recorded. The numbers in brackets, following the name of the authority, are those of Dr. Jerdon’s work and of Mr. Hume’s catalogue. * To each species that has been fairly satisfactorily dealt with in Nests and Eggs, I have added a reference to this latter. In the case of all other species, of which I have, since the publication of “ Nests and Eggs,” received eggs and particulars as to nidification from other persons prior to this paper of Mr. Oates’, I have appended to his remarks the notes furnished by these prior contributors. There still remain no less than 17 species as subnoted, of which this valuable paper of Mr. Oates’ conveys to me the first information in regard to their nidification, and I have to thank him, not only for this, but also for specimens of the eggs of most of these species, and several other rare ones. Coracias affinis. Ixos Blanfordi. Alcedo meningting. Prinia Beavani. Paleoruis nipalensis. Corvus insolens. Centropus intermedius. Crypsirhina varians, Chaleoparia phenicotis, Estrelda burmanieca. Arachnecthra flammaxillaris. Munia subundulata (or? M. super- Buchanga intermedia, striata.) Trichastoma Abbotti. Crocopus viridifrons. Garrulax Belanger. Graculus carbo. 142 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION 1.—Pseudogyps bengalensis, Gm. (5). December 5th—All nests searched on this date contained one young bird each. Nests placed in high Peepul trees near the top. Breeds abundantly in Lower Pegu. (Nests and Kggs., p. 7.) 2.—Halietus leucoryphus, Pall. (42). Eeges may be procured here from the 28th November to 29th December. When the eggs are taken, the female lays again in the same nest. Eggs always three. I have robbed one nest for four consecutive years (in one year twice), and nothing will induce the birds to desert the nest. Abundant in Lower Pegu. (Nests and Eggs, p. 45.) 3.—Butastur liventer, Zemm. (48 ter.) March \\th.—Nest with two eggs ; more would probably have been laid. The nest was in a mangoe orchard in a small tree about 20 feet from the ground. It was composed of small sticks and had no defined shape. Egg lining green; shell pate greenish white without gloss. Size of eggs 1°81 by 1:45 and 1:86 by 1:47. (Nests and Eggs, p. 50.) 4,—Haliastur indus, Bodd. (55.) Takes a long time to build its nest. My first eggs were taken on the 18th February. (Nests and Eggs, p. 51.) 5.—Milvus affinis, Gould. (56 ter.) Nests commonly throughout all Pegu. Usually three eggs. From 38rd week in January to end of March. The nest answers well to Mr. Hume’s description of that of govinda. Average of 12 eggs, 2:09 x 1:63; in length they vary from 2°2 to 2:0, and in breadth from 1:75 to 1:55; the egg lining is bright green; the shell tolerably smooth and glossless; ground color dull white, and all the eggs I have are marked and blotched with rust color, bright in the majority, but pale in afew. The marks are reduced to mere specks in one or two eggs. 6.—Strix flammea,* Z. (60.) January 18th.—Six young birds, varying much in age, were brought to me. They were found in a hole in the ground. 11h * In this and in other cases the nomenclature is Mr. Oates’. I utterly dissent from Mr. Sharpe’s view of the specific identity of all the Barn Owls (nearly) of the world. I should therefore call this species S. javanica, Gm. Similarly I should call Mr. Oates’ Chalcoparia pheenicotis, Anthreptes singalensis, and even if according to one school the name singalensis be rejected on account of the species not occurring in Ceylon, a rule that 1am not as yet prepared to adopt even then Shaw’s name rectirostris should probably be adopted. OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 143 January.—Five eggs in a large hole in a Peepul tree. - 1 took a sixth, perfect egg from the oviduct of the female. (Nests and Eggs, p. 59.) : 7.—Merops viridis, LZ. (117.) Latter end of April and commencement of May. (Nests and Eggs, p. 99.) 8.—Merops philippinus, Zin: (118.) On the 25th April I dug out some dozens of nests in the Sittang river, all containing eggs in various stages of incubation. (Nests and Eggs, p. 101.) 9.—Coracias affinis, WeClell. (124.) Upper Pegu. Young in nest on 21st May. 10.—Halcyon smyrnensis, L. (129.) April 15th.—Nest with five eggs. June 3rd.—Nest with three young birds and one addled egg. Breeds in thickly wooded ravines. (Nests and Eggs, p. 105.) 11.—Alcedo meningting, Horsf. (135 bis.) July 2nd—Nest in the steep bank of a ravine in thick forest. Gallery about one and a half feet long, terminating in a small chamber. Eggs four, laid on the bare soil; very glossy and round, white ; size ‘78 by ‘69; °76 by ‘7; °75 by *7; and ‘8 by 68° July 14th.—Nest with nearly full grown young in similar situation. This bird is common in Lower Pegu as also bengalensis. 12.—Ceryle rudis, Zin. (136.) In Lower Pegu eggs may be taken during the latter half of October and first half of November. Eggs generally five. _ (Nests and Eggs, p. 109.) 13.—Paleornis magnirostris,* Ball. (147 bis.) IT procured three hard set eggs on the 25th February out of a hole of a large Cotton tree about 25 feet from the ground; color pure white, much soiled with incubation and with very little gloss. Dimensions of these 3 eggs :—1-4,1°35,1°37 by 1:03, 1-01 and 1:03 respectively. Lower Pegu. There are several other names in whichI do not concur; he may very likely be right : all I wish understood is that he and not the Editor is answerable in this particular case for the nomenclature.—Ep., S. F. * It seems doubtful whether Pegu birds are not nearer P. nipalensis, Hodgson EF than magzirostris, Ball—Ebp. 8. 144 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION 14.—Palzornis torquatus, Bodd (148.) Breeds commonly throughout Pegu. I have procured eggs, from 28th January to 25th February. On the latter date, however the eggs were nearly hatched. (Nests and Eggs, p. 116.) 15.—Xantholema hemacephala, Mill (197) One nest with young birds on the 14th April near Sittang. (Nests and Eggs, p. 1381.) 16.—Rhopodytes tristis, Less. (215.) June 11th.—Nest seven feet from the ground in the fork of a leafy shrub. A mere platform of dead twigs lined with leaves, very loosely laid. The whole structure meagre and incoherent, measuring 10 inches by 6 and a few inches thick. It con- tained one fresh egg, very chalky and with little gloss ; color pure white. The egg measured 1:27 by 1:0; Pegu. September 10th.—Nest in a bamboo bush about 20 feet from the ground, of very irregular shape and unmeasurable. Com- posed of much the same materials as the nest described above. Two eggs, nearly ready to hatch off. Color originally white, but now much stained with yellowish smears. Very little gloss and extremely fragile. The two eggs measured 1'4 by 1:05 and 1°33 by 1:05; Pegu. June 20th.— Nest with two incubated eggs. June 21st.— Nest with two fresh eggs. The position of these was much the same as above described, viz., in bamboo trees. [Mr. Davison was, | believe, the first to obtain an egg of this species which he extracted from the oviduct of a female killed at Meeta Myo, Tavoy District, Tenasserim, on the 20th April 1874. The egg is almost cylindrical in shape, excessively obtuse at both ends, and very little curved on the sides. The shell is rather chalky, and though tolerably smooth and soft to the touch is entirely devoid of gloss. The color is pure white, and the egg measures 1°36 in length by 1:05 in width. In 1875 both Mr. Cripps in Sylhet and Mr. Gammie in Sikhim found nests and took the eggs. The following is Mr. Cripps’ account :— “ Sytner, 12¢h May 1875.—A female was shot off the nest ; this was placed on a small tree (about 4 feet off the ground on top of a teelah in amongst tea bushes, although heavy jungle was alongside) ina fork where several branches originated and was avery slight structure, carelessly made, consisting of twigs over which a layer of green leaves had been placed. These were diy, though when I got them. The nest was more a OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 145 scaflolding than anything else; the chicks were half formed ; the egg-shells have been considerably soiled from the bird’s droppings. On the 18th May another nest was found ; this time in heavy tree jungle, about 12 feet off the ground; the nest was the same as the foregoing, and contained only one fresh egg. During the breeding season this bird’s call, a low sweet hoot, is heard every now and then. * On the 30th June 1875 a female, with three eggs, was brought to me with the nest, which was placed in the fork of a small tree (about 15 feet high,) where three branches met and some 6 feet off the ground. A number of the small living twigs had been bent down, and over these were placed a layer of twigs overlaid with a layer, 14 inch thick, of leaves which had been plucked green. There was hardly any egg cavity perceptible ; the eggs were partly incubated.” From Sikhim Mr. Gammie writes :— “On the 10th May a native brought me a nest containing three partially-incubated eggs, and a female of this species which he said he had caught on it. The nest, he said, was placed in the middle of a large bamboo bush, on the branch- lets, within eight feet off the ground. The man declared that he had brought me the whole of the nest, but I do not feel sure about this; of what he brought, the egg cavity was little better than a mere depression, about 4 inches in diameter, and gradually deepening inwardly to about 1:25 inches in the centre. The body of the nest was a collection of twigs about the thickness of a goose quill. On the top of the twigs came a quantity of green tree leaves and dry bamboo leaves; then a neat lining of quite green leafy twigs for the eggs to rest on. It was taken at Mongphoo at 3,000 feet elevation.” The eggs obtained by Mr. Gammie, in Sikhim, Mr. Cripps, in Sylhet, and Mr. Davison, in Tavoy, are quite of the Centropus and Taccocua type. Long cylindrical eggs, obtuse at both ends, often not unlike in shape some of our turtle’s eggs ; in color dead glossless white, with larger or smaller portions of the surface covered with dirty yellowish brown, more or less glazy, stains. Five eggs vary from 1°33 to 1:37 in length, and from 0:98 to 1:05 in width.—A. O. H.] 17.—Centropus intermedius, Hume. (217 sez.) August 24th.—Nest four feet from the ground in thick ele- phant grass, to several stalks of which the nest was attached. A domed structure 18 inches in height and 14 outside diameter. The bottom, 4 inches thick and the walls and roof very strong but thin, and allowing everywhere of the fingers being inserted. 146 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION Composed entirely of the leaves of elephant grass, the living heads of the supporting stalks being bent down and incor- porated with the structure to form the roof. Entrance oval, about 6 by 4, with its lower edge about 2 inches above the ego chamber. Two eggs quite fresh, but the female incubating. Color pure white, the shell very chalky and with very little gloss. Eggs measured 1:4 by 1:18 and 1°36 by 1:15. July 15th.—Nest in small bush jungle in the centre of a dense shrub, 10 feet from the ground. Contained two young birds about a week old, covered with porcupine-like quills and smelling most atrociously. Nest made of dead leaves and grass, massive and cylindrical, about a foot long and 9 inches outside diameter. August 26th.—Nest with three egos, fresh, built near the top of a tree about 20 feet from the ground. One of the eggs had blood vessels in the inner lining, shewing that it had been slightly incubated, whereas the other two were quite fresh. Dimensions: 1:4, 1°42, 14 in length by 1:15, 1:12, 1.13, respectively, in breadth. The above three nests were found near Pegu. 18.—Centropus bengalensis, Gm, (218.) Breeds commonly in Lower Pegu throughout August. The nest is placed about two feet from the ground in rank grass, chiefly between paddy fields on the bunds. It is shaped like an egg, about 10 inches high and 8 inches diameter. The entrance 5 by 4 is placed midway between. the top and bottom. It is composed of elephant grass, and the surrounding grasses are bent down and incorporated with the structure. The ege chamber and sides are neatly lined with thatch grass. The walls are everywhere about 1 inch thick. In one nest there was a distinct vertical slit at the back, but I failed to notice it in others. The number of eggs is either two or three, and I have found both numbers well incubated. Egg shell very chalky, but smooth to the touch and fairly glossy; colour white. Aver- age of eight eggs, 1:17 by 1:01; and the extreme dimensions - are 1°18 to 1:12 in length and 1-08 to -94 in breadth. [From Sikhim Mr. Gammie wrote in 1875 :— “Thave only found the nest of this Coucal up to 3,500 feet, but have occasionally seen it during the breeding season as high as 5,000 feet, so that it probably breeds up to that elevation. It affects dense grassy jungle, and fixes its nest, two or three feet from the ground, in the middle of a large Saccharum or other grass plant, by bending over a few of the stems to make a resting place for it. Itis composed of pieces of long OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 147 dry grass and bamboo leaves, put rather loosely together, and surrounded by the ends of the bent stems which are twisted right overit and partly worked in with the dry material. In shape it isa roundish oval, measuring externally about 10 inches in height by 8 inches in width. The cavity is 4 to 5 inches in diameter, and is lined with a few green leaves. The entrance which is at the side is 3 inches in diameter. “The usual number of eggs is three, and the breeding months May and June.” The eggs obtained by Mr. Gammie are broad ovals, obtuse at both ends. White with a faint gloss, and a good deal stained here and there with dirty brownish yellow. They measured 1:15 and 1:24in length, and 0°96 and 0°99 in breadth.—A. O. H.] 19.—Chalcoparia pheenicotis, Tem. (233 bis.) This Sunbird appears to nidificate from the middle of May to about the end of July. On the 3rd June I found a nest with two eggs nearly hatched. It was suspended from a branch of a Mangoe tree about 20 feet from the ground and well surrounded by leaves. On the 25th June another nest was found from which the young had apparently just flown. It was about 8 feet from the ground. On July 6th a nest with two nearly fresh eggs was discovered hanging on a shrub about 4 feet high and on the 8th of the same month another quite completed, but with no eggs. It was attached to the extreme tip of a bamboo about 25 feet from the ground. The eggs appear to be always two in number. Three eges measure ‘66, °64, and °63 in length by ‘46, °43 and -44 in breadth, respectively. They have little or no gloss. The ground colour is pinkish white and the whole shell is thickly streaked and otherwise marked with brown, in which a purplish tinge is distinctly visible. The marks are very evenly distributed, but round the thicker end they tend to coalesce and form a more or less distinct ring. Very little of the ground colour is visible. The nest is a very lovely structure, closely resembling that of Ploceus baya in shape, with the tube cut off at the level of the bottom of the nest. At a short distance off, it looks like a mass of hair combings. Three nests are composed throughout of black hair-like fibres very closely woven. With these are intermingled numerous small cocoons, pieces of bark, a few twigs here and there and large lumps of the excreta of caterpillars. The interior is sparingly lined with fine grass. A fourth nest was made almost entirely of strips of grass, a very small quantity only of black fibres being 148 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION used. Some huge pieces of bark, nearly as large as the bird itself, were suspended by cobwebs from the lower part of the nest. The nest is pear-shaped, about 6 inches in height, and barely 3 inches outside diameter at the thickest part. The upper 2 inches are solid, The entrance is about half way down and measures 1i by 1. The bottom of the egg chamber is,about one inch below the tip of the entrance, and the thickness of the walls everywhere is about one-third of an inch. The wonderful part of the nest is the verandah or portico. This springs from the upper edge of the entrance and extends to two or three inches below the bot- tom of the nest. Laterally it extends to rather more than the width of the nest, and the sides are incorporated with the main structure all the way down. It is made of the same materials as the other portions, is about a quarter of an inch thick, and very strongly woven and elastic. 20.—Arachnechthra flammaxillaris, Bl. (234 ter.) T have found the nest of this bird from the commencement of July to the end of August. On the 8rd of the former month I observed a female of this species attaching a piece of grass to a twig. On the 8th the nest looked quite finished, and on the 14th I took two eggs from it. Another nest also with two eggs was found on the same day, and subsequently, during July and August, other nests were found by me. Two appear to be invariably the number of eggs laid. They have little or no gloss; the ground colour is pale green- ish white, and this is nearly all covered with dashes of greyish ash which run one into the other at the thick end and form a cap. In addition, the egg is sparingly marked with fine, round spots of dark brownish black running at the edges like inkspots on blotting paper. All the nests I have met with have been placed in secondary jungle, on shrubs and bamboos, seldom more than four-feet, occasionally only two, and in one instance about six feet from the ground. The nest is generally pear-shaped, the upper part tapering up to the point of attachment. Occasionally the shape is more that of along cylinder. The total length varies from 6 to 8 inches and it is 3 in its widest part. The entrance 14 by 1 is centrally situated and is overhung by a rude porch, an inch wide and about 14 long. The walls are half an inch thick, but at the base fully an inch. The materials are chiefly fine grasses mixed up with scraps of dead leaves, moss bark and cobwebs. The interior is entire- ly of very fine grass, and the egg chamber has usually a few OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 149 feathers in it. Pieces of bark are suspended from the nest by obwebs, occasionally extending a foot down. 21.—Upupa longirostris, Jerdon. (254 bis.) April 14th.—Young ones in a hole of a large forest tree about 15 feet from the ground. 22.—Buchanga intermedia, B/. (280 A.) I found one nest on the 27th April ona small sapling near the summit; it contained four eggs. They are without gloss. The ground color in all is white. In three eggs the whole shell is marked with spots of pale purple. ‘These are perhaps more numerous at the thick end, but not conspicuously so. The fourth egg is blotched, not spotted, with the same colour, The nest is composed of fine twigs and the dry branches of weeds. It is lined very firmly and neatly with grass. Exte- rior diameter 5 inches and depth 2. Egg chamber, 3} across and 14 deep. The outside of the nest is profusely covered with lichens and cobwebs. The eggs measure from ‘95 to *83 in Jength, and ‘71 to 68 in width. 23.—Hypothymys azurea, Bodd. (290.) May 28th.—Nest with three eggs slightly incubated. (N. & E., p: 19%) 24.—Pitta moluccensis, Will, (345 bis.) June 27th.—Nest placed on the ground in thick forest on a hill side in a small patch of thatch grass, but in no way con- cealed from view. Ovenshaped, about 10 long, 8 broad, and and 6 high, with a 3-inch circular hole at one end; side of nest everywhere rather more than one inch thick, composed of large dead leaves and roots all matted together with earth. On the exterior there are some large sticks and twigs. Eggs five, (female sitting very closely, although the eggs were fresh,) high- ly glossy, white, beautifully marbled with marks of inky purple and lines or scrawls, witha few dots of reddish pur- ple. The whole shell is very thickly covered with these marks, more so at the thick end than elsewhere. Size 1:15, 1:12, 1-08, 1:10, 1:10, by °88, 87, °88, °88, °87, respectively. On the same day three other nests were found presumably of this species. From the remains of egg-shells near one, it was evi- dent that the young had flown. The other two appeared to be new ; one was placed on the side of a nullah on the root of a tree and the other on a tree trunk where the tree separated into three branches about two feet from the ground. U 150 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION [The Blue-Winged Ground Thrush occurs and_ breeds throughout British Burmah, from Tonghoo to the Pag-chan Estuary, and from the coast of Arracan to the Kareenee, keeping as arule, however, in the thin tree jungle that everywhere skirts the bases of the innumerable larger and smaller hill ranges that intersect the Province. Itis not asarule, I believe, a permanent resident, but suddenly makes its appearance between the early part of April and the end of May, arriving earlier at Tavoy for instance and later at Thyetmyo. It comes and goes in a very strange manner. One day thousands are to be seen, the next not a birdis to be found, but when the monsoon commences they settle down here and there and breed, laying five or six eggs, and by the cold season have all, or mostly all, retreated further south. Coronatus similarly moyes im multitudes up northwards in India, about the setting in ~ of the S.-W. Monsoon. Davison was, I believe, the first to take the eggs of this species. Writing from Amherst, in 1875, he remarks : “On the 15th July I found a nest of this Ground Thrush containing six very much incubated eggs, (shooting the bird as she flew from her nest). This nest also, like that of P. cuculata was placed on the ground at the root of a small tree; but it. was built in much thinner jungle, only about 3 or 4 yards from a footpath, and was quite exposed to view; it was con- spicuously smaller and much less roughly put together, though composed of exactly the same materials (to wit, dry twigs and leaves and lined with fibres) as the nest of P. cuculata, but the roof sides, as well as foundation, were much thinner, and it wanted the conspicuous platform in front of the entrance hole of the nest of that species—the entrance in this present nest being almost on a level with the ground. It measured 8 inches in diameter, 5°5 in height, the entrance 3:5 in diameter ; the egg cavity 5:5 wide interiorly (and 3°5 high.) ‘These Ground Thrushes apparently sit very close, as in both this case, and in that of P. cuculata I walked to within a couple of feet of the nests before the birds left them.” The eggs are in some respects of the regular Pitta type, very round ovals, glossy, and with a white ground, but they are far more thickly marked and richly colored than those of any of our other Ground Thrushes with which I am acquainted. The markings consist of. rather small, generally irregular, often angular blotches, spots, streaks, smudges, and lines, thickly set, and to judge from the series before me, pretty uniformly distributed over the whole surface of the egg. They are of two colours—maroon red, and deep -inky purple, black, or very nearly so, in many spots. OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. Loe The eggs vary from 1 to 1:04 in length, and from 0°85 to 0:9 in breadth.— A. O. H.] 25.—Geocichla citrina, Lath. (355.) May 22nd.—Nest in a shrub in a ravine near Pegu, about four feet from the ground, made of roots and strips of soft bark, the endsof some of the latter hanging down a foot or more. The interior lined with moss and fern roots. Interior and exterior diameters 4 and 5 inches respectively. Inside depth about 2, and bottom of nest about 1 inch thick. Contained 3 eggs quite fresh, measuring 1°04, 1:0, and 1:06 by ‘75, 76 and 79, respectively. A fourth egg found on the ground near the nest was 1:03 by ‘78. Another nest with 3 eggs was found on the 10th June. (N. & E., p. 229.) 26.—Pyctorhis sinensis, Gm. (385.) Breeds abundantly throughout Pegu during June. The eggs I have were taken towards the end of the month. (N. & E., p. 237.) 27.—Trichastoma Abbotti, Blyth. (387.) May 22nd.—Nest with two eges nearly hatched, and on 23rd of same month another with two eggs, one of which was fresh and the other incubated. This bird frequents thick under- growth, and the nest is built ata height of about two feet from the ground. I have found very many of their nests, but, with the above exceptions, the young had flown. It is generally attached to a stout weed or two and consists of two portions. First a platform of dead leaves about 6 inches diameter and one deep, placed loosely, and on this the nest proper is placed. This consists of a small cup, the interior diameter of which is 2 inches, and depth 14. It is formed entirely of fine black fern roots well woven together and is not incorporated with the plat- form on which it hes. Stout weeds appear favourite sites, but I have found old nests in dwarf palm trees at the junction of the frond with the trunk, and in one instance I found an old nest on the ground, undoubtedly belonging to this bird. Out of four eggs three measured ‘84 by ‘66, ‘82 by °67 and ‘87 by ‘65. They are very glossy and smooth. The ground color is a pale pink- ish white. At the cap there area few spots and short lines of of inky purple sunk into the shell and over the whole ego, very sparingly distributed, there are spots and irregular fine scrawis of reddish brown. "0 4106 wee eeeeee “ 9L8T 490 1306 ie ‘990 TOT “LIST [dy pugs es8T Tady WZ eee eenees eee ee eee ee ' 918T dy WZ aS ure,100u gee urey.1000 9J8T INdy WIE g18T Tudy W196 eee eeneee * @/8T Key 4993 wee eeeeee “ GI8T 9unL 4363 G/8T SU WITT 9/81 ‘3dog 4308 one eeeeee eee eee GST Ane WIFT g/8T Aine WOT "" e/gT oun qI¢g “91st Aine ys1g * 9181 “3dag 4st * G/8T ‘ony PT “ QL8T UNE 4IeT “ OL8T eune 14g re ‘ppog ‘snutqoovl saysko00g “ZIG tee ‘TqeA ‘snurtossed mosAToIQ *g0G 200 ‘TWVA ‘sniea xfoo000I01fF “0G are “curry ‘sniouews snjnong =‘ 66T E rary ‘ermbiog xunX “get con ‘Tay ‘snomdaind stasowegq “GFT oe ‘uly ‘e1qyedno staio@leg ‘LPT a "avy ‘epidst oped,y "422 FET ¢ i ‘Try ‘SHOIpUr SBIOBIOD “EZ ams ‘ysiog ‘snyddsa sdorayy “OZ ““TyUBIT ‘snpooyuom snsjnuiidey “FLL oo ‘Gyey_ ‘snorpur snsrnmideg “LOT "Ty “eqreut snjesdkg “gg tee ‘doog ‘snqysodna e[4yoQ “16 us soykg ‘xojoomos a[h4y09 ‘06 a0 Avy ‘ststouts of4}09 “68 see eee UT ‘e1iedtt a14409 LS THE AVIFAUNA OF MOUNT 228 “raaX ay} JO SMOsveS [Je 4% ssofoq}1eA0U In900 Aer 41 ynq ‘toq}Bea poo aq} UI paatosqo 4OKT ‘sulvd oY} SuLINp pues coqzVeA 40Y OY} ut ‘adorjoq [ ‘sind00 ATU "QUBJISIA LOY}VAM plod B ATUG *IOY}VOM plOd ay} UI sandd0 ATUG ‘Tad y ut yoo 4s1y oY} ynogeV oAvET 09 UISaq spalq oy} JO JSOP *‘UOT} -BISIU JO OSINOD UL SINOY Moz v AOF ONSIVRy wmoiy peddoys Ayqeqoad 41 4eqy os ‘uoIseo00 euo UO paddesqo Ajuo puke palq Auvztos VW “JUBJISIA ToY]BIM plod @ A[UG ‘JUBJISIA JOY}BAM poo v A[UC *01N} 109 SnIUDT 0} se saiaeds siqy 03 Ajdde syavutor ous ony, “ATWO JUBIISIA TOY}BEA plod W *1OYZVAM POD oY} UT qyIA your AjUGO “S90M XIs 10 oA ynoge SULIBUOT Ajuo soweds siqy woostout oy} Jo pua oy} 4e JELIZNA) JISIA 4BY} SUMOJ W10489 AA LOYJO 94} ONT ‘Tudy UL YOM 4S oY} JNOgs dABOT SPAT 94} JO SOT *peprodea suouttoads 0my Io au A[UG ‘hADNUD PF UL VBABpUB JO pooytnogysieu oq} Ul UoMMOD A[qQuvae[o} 41 punoy T ‘uos¥as SuUIpeaiq oy} UL punoy ATUO snwzqoove ‘pO oXTT ‘SHAVWaY esoaqy ooqy ooqy ooqy soqovain yy ooqy ‘Aq1[800T eee reence eet reteee ere eee ece “LIST Gorey 16 eet [udy 108 een eesoos OL8T tidy T30T eee eeeece “ 9L8T *O 416 eee eeeees 9Z8T Wore 4306 ore ure}1000 for eerece soGeD 9L8T Indy 4106 a ‘PO 1106 ‘omyredag jo ayeq Cov seeced BIST 4dag TI6T ** BIST deg 430% BIST 3deg W361 * QIST oUNP TIZT @7/8t ‘ydeg T96T ' pLST 4deg Tap eee eee eee BIST ‘4deg 981g O/8T ‘Sny 7110 91ST ‘4dag W412 918T ‘3dag WALT e781 9deag T10T “ PL8T ‘3deg 48T O/8T “SNY IFS “" @78T 4deg 48T "" QI8T “ONY IPT ‘GIST sny WZ see ececee e191 [dy 499g ‘[BALIIY Jo oyeq “prop ‘snye1ys sta10j@qO ‘Jey ‘snoyidorsia epnsi0 pr “HOI, “topooiun eBTyoIW0ey ‘STA ‘snqouAYAOTIUIO 80300019 ‘ary ‘euedo epoutouvdg “Tm “eyeu0s00 B441g “qsqoog ‘eared vuroysorqy Aa “TRE “6cE ‘9cE "SSE “TS€ "StS "829 €68 “SUIVAG ‘epneogna sIuIokg “JOE ‘s10S1A ‘sdouvjem vjporedoyg ‘Tog ‘UlT “Bpostas stpeyng “STA ‘SIIJSOITAIG SNyOD0A0IIOg WWAlg ‘snizeu.8iw smuedy “ary ‘sngeqsi1o sniuery “aueg ‘Olmn{[oo sniueTy "S29 666 ‘ELG “GIG “196 “49? 096 «airy ‘sdoda vdndg “fez ‘yur “eyouojids startodjeg ‘ope ‘ury ‘ejyetouoy skueadpny “FIZ (panw7u0)d —SNOLLVUNIN TVONNV 229 NORTH GUZERAT. ABOO AND “WOOSUOUT aq} JO asoja oy} 4B syoom g ynoqv «oy oouvtvedde uv ur synd qq} SWLOJ U1O}SaAA SOY} JO JoyJouV st sity, ‘MOVASLUE JO 9sn0d UI YSnoIgy Suisseg ‘IOYJVAM plod oy} YSnoayy [[B s1nd00 Ajqeqord 41 4nq ‘suivt oy} Sutmp poasosqo AjuCQ ‘[Ndy JO O[ppluL oy} 4ynoqe oABaT SpAIq Oy} Jo 4SO]T ‘uoosuow oq} JO pua oy} ye SyooM XIS Jnoqu LOZ qua “OZNH) SHISIA 4BY} SMAOT UlojsaM oY} JO coJouy ‘WAALS OJVp OT} URTY ToAvs 4YSuy10y BV ynoge ave] Apoqg ulvut oy, YOR] JSAy oY} Jnoqe urvse oavay woyy Jo qs0ur pue daoqmeydeg jo Saluniseq oy} yun eATIIe you op Apoq ureur ony ‘Aine Jo pue oy se Aji1wa se uoos oq AvuIspiiq mof B YONOYITY “our jo sSurmurseq oy} ynoqe eAve, WAY} JO 4s07T ‘judy jo surmurseq ay} ynoqe aaa, Sfarq oy JO ysopy “poorq 0} UMmMoed 40U Op avd May B 4By} ONS Jou We T esoa(T esa0qy wsoo(T wsaa(y esoa(y ood soa] ooqy “IN CEELYE| wsoa(T eBsoo(y esoa(T *Bsaa(T Bsoa(T Bsoo(T ooqy esoo(y *es00(T eBsooqy esoo(y eoToRlIn yy Bsoa(y esoo(T esaa(T esaa(y Bs00([ BS00(T dOTOBIAN YY doyoVaIn yy es00([ "* 9/8T 990 16 “GIST 300 196 * QI8T AVI TOT “9/81 Tdy TOT 9L8L Youryy WISG “O18 Tady TIT “ -YOLVTT 1963 g18T [dy 46 wee een nee “great Seay WL “9 18T Indy 198 Q18T [dy W306 ‘ g/8t tudy WZ LL8T Wore 4306 “9181 390 TS ™ g£8t THdy 987 “OL8T GIB 49 TSL8T YtBT 19 eee eeeaee we eee nee 9L8T WIV WPT OL8T WLBT WI6T O/8T [Ady WIT 9L8L WLeL WIT LIST Ane 9ST 2181 AVN WL * g/g BIW ISTE “" 9I8T “ONY WOT * g18T 4deg 118 “get ydeg m8 GIgT ydag 4398 pIstT ydeg WF “" PLST ‘adag pag “* 9/81 Aine 1366 L187 “ony OT * G/8T ‘4dag 1306 * g18t “sdog TT eset ydag 4924 G/BT “4ydag WET “ PIST 4deg wyW¢ “" G/8T 'ydog 98T GIST ‘OO WL “" 9L8T “490 pus “ GL8T “990 prs LST Ane 1993 “" OL8T ‘sny Tg G1sT A[np 4963 “ @/8T 390 WIP 9198T “340g WAL “ @7gT ‘ydog Tg “ g/8T ydag Way "* 91ST ‘SNY 11983 ; ‘dvuog ‘varauto wiajhg ‘sig ZQe a wre ‘stare vialsg -gge go ~ uma, ‘woyd1o wiatdg “ge F uopdap ‘snoiput sndoosojAqg “Zge F mAT_ ‘syst sndoosoyAqg ‘peg F soytg ‘vuret oysnoudoAqg ‘eae oo ‘ssuQ ‘IMOSIepuOFT BIJOISNI0T “Egg yqdig ‘mnaojomnp sneydeoo1y “9T¢ uopiop ‘suaoseuuniq snjpeydeoo10y “eTg ous ‘UIT “voloons BynoouBdD “FTG F PLA ‘SMyWOATMA BONNY “L6F “s so1qjouoyy ‘SIIvI[LUIey MOpAy 92 GOP an ‘ddnyy ‘yzasop BfOoIxeg “26h Py oun ‘“LOUry Bfoaxeg S29 16h ‘ddny ‘vurjeqest epoorxeg “16h ; aydig ‘vyword vjoorxeg “6gF “* TyOUAG “eonepoyystdo Bpoorxeg “EEF } sig, “voIpUr efoouNWI “ERP es ‘urg ‘eyeadeo vpoouelgd ‘T8Pp ‘ury ‘stavpnes snyodsdog ‘cyp F 6 THE AVIFAUNA OF MOUNT “JOY}VIM Poo oy} ur SIndd0 APUG “JoTVVAM JOT ey} Satanp Xyzywooy sty} UL suremtad 41 YUIGY 3.u0p JT ‘SyooP T[BWs Ul SULALIIe paatesqgO “paiq aye] Ayeuoydooxe uy,, *SUIBI OY} WI SINDI0 41 4BT} O1NS qOU THB T pue ‘tey}VeM plod oy} UI puNoZ 4ONT ‘{UBJISIA IOYJBVaM pPloo v ATU ‘10q}veM plod aqy ut AyUO sAnIaO ody esoa(T esoaqy 3 esaa(y 5 Bsaa([ * gaqoRiin yy ae Bsaa(T = Bs90(T aa Bsa0(] Ae ooqy * gaqoRIin yy ix esoa(r 60 ooqy “3° Bsaa(T ooqy S38 esaa(T oes CGA ss esaa(T : Bsoa(T oes Bso0(] as Bsaa(T “ gooRlan yy a Bs20([ a OOaN: oy Bsv0(T x0 ooqy ae esaa(T ooqy see eenece 9L8T PAB 1366 cen eeneee e/gt tudy T0T JISTINAY Whe QL8T Yr 4366 918T [dy TI036 o7gt tady W6T BIST [dy 4363 PISTIMdy 196 g18T [udy LT grat indy m9 “9181 Tudy W483 QI8T [dy 4903 ““@/gT [dy WILT “9/8T [dy UIST eee eeeeee 9L8T WBN 1366 LL8T ALB 4166 948T WBN 1I0E ““@/8t [ady W108 ““QI8T [Mdy WI6L aa ule} L30U /) * G19T ‘ydeg 4106 “* Q/RT ouNne T30G “ g18T ‘3dag WZ “ g18T ‘3deg WZ * 9L8T ‘any TOT “* L18T Aine pugs g/gt Ane IFS "* QIST ‘3deg WIE O/8T “SnY 163 “ g1gT ‘adeg WI0T “ “PIST adag Wg “* 9/81 ‘4dag Udy, “ e78T ‘ydog WPL use SL8T ‘3deg "IST * 9/8T ‘ONY 1986 “ pPLgtT ydag WYWg “* 9187 “3dag 1366 BIST 3dag WI0S ‘sSpoy ‘eyvarqornd anjiny, °Z6L, “Uy “BjBISLId BpPla[eg “69L ‘may, ‘epAyoupATovlg Bi[otpuRlyey “TOL ‘]yuUeIg ‘enoruayd souvmiommy “gc/, ‘eq ‘snuryzAre snovpodieyn “gel ‘mtiedg ‘epooyny ezidsng = "ZoL, ‘jour ‘vpeqydooouvjem vzidsny ‘[ZL, WMi_q ‘mown ezoquay “91L “* airy ‘snasor 1oysBq ‘069 ‘jouryg ‘snoieqe[eat snyonuemay, “889 ‘UIT ‘SlIvs[MA snuinjyg ‘189 ‘ary ‘vyejouids snqjuy *427 G09 ‘WOsuly ‘laopler BMOIpOLSY “FO9 ‘ary ‘staysoduvo vmorpoisy °Z09 “qsyoog ‘snaroqie soysedig, “169 ‘sSpoy ‘snyefnovu soysedig "96S ‘[I®d ‘vpoosy1o saydpng *s29 FE ‘sSpoy ‘seplopoaryio soyApng "F6S ‘ary ‘eavy soyApng 2onb egg : “qyory ‘ejeqdooouvjem soy{png S29 e6¢ l j ‘deuog ‘idey soydpng “829 G6 ‘qstoog ‘vammyd[ns soyeqotegQ “GbE ““saytg ‘sismounyyNp Bi[oBzOW "S29 169 d ** JauLy ‘vontmo wiaykg “Egg ‘SHUVNAY Ay[B20'T ‘aanqaedaqy jo oyeq “[BALITW JO 038d “panuruogo—SNOILLVUOIN 'IVONNV 231 NORTH GUZERAT. ABOO AND -avaXk oy} JO WOSves qey} ye odueImMo00 SII JO MOU JT ooUL}SUL A[uo oy} st yeqy ynq ‘pudy yI9z 94} UO vsoaqy Ieou awok ASV] pel[ty sv yenprarput A1vy41/0s @ ‘Avs 0} OSTRIG *10G0J0G UI Yoo 4ysaq oyy Aq 9JO[ OAVY WAY} JO ysour yey} Aouvy T puv s0q -mo}dog 104j8 U0eS SI UROTAOY, B 4BYI ULOPTAS SI 4T “LIST [dy jo Suyaursoq ou} 98 FIND uristog weluey ye Sarpoorq o10M sued Moy YW “10G0jOGO UT Yoom yea oy} ynoqe jyun avodde you op Apoq urem ogy, ‘Teale uy} toj Aprva AT~euoydeoxe st 4ysndsny jo pua OTT “‘poeuoueut o4vp oy} Ueyy 1o4yBl ULeMor Moye A[QugoIg “FUByISIA JOTJBaM ploo v k[UE *LOYJEOM POD OY} UL9dIVOS PUR TOyIvEM Joy oy uredaljaq J ‘punoy you 4nq ‘suret oq} ut MoMMOD *IOYJVOM POO OY} Yono«yy UreutdA Anu 4t yng ‘10qG0400 Jo e[pptur 10 Sarmutseq oy} qnoqe Suipoosaq 1o93v soavoy sorads sity asorjoq T ‘loquiaydag puv ysnony ‘Aine ‘ounp “22a ‘syyuout Surpooatd omy oy} pue uosves Surpoorq oy} ul [njyWUeId 4sou oe Aoyy, ‘punor avok ojo oy} ulvuter Yury} J Mey y ‘syovd ur avodde Aoqy oumy yor gnoge ‘Avy jo suruuiseq oy} jnoqe urese SULA “IOqYVOM POO ayy JO pud oy} spaIVAoy Avo] [end urea Jo Apoq uiwur 043 4BYy oAdrfoq T ‘roqmaydeg ysnorgy qe A, out -aeds ur Surddorp ‘10ye, yyuou v ApAvoU oATIIG Apoq urem oy} ‘pouoryuem oyep oy} sev AyAvo se uoas oq AljeuoIsvooo AvuI spaiq YSnoyj,Ty *TOTYBOM ploo oy} Sulinp puv surex oy} wi sanov0 ATUG ‘QUBYISIA LOY}VAM Pfoo vw AUG “‘qUOpIset JUoMBUIed B SI 41 SJOIZYSIP popoom aL0UL OY} UL 4ynq ‘LoYZBeM plod oy} Sump pues sured oy} ul ‘aAorieq [ ‘sanovo Ayuo soloods S14} BSe0qT JO pooyMogysiou oyvipeuteat oy} UT { Bsoo(T Bso0(] sa BlIN IT esoa(y Bs00q, esoacy ooqy esoo(T eso0(y esoo(T esoa(y Bsa0(q “ 9L8T 990 136 “ SL8T ‘3°O 4966 “" LL8T “WA WSs 948T Wore TOT “ 9L8T “FA 1308 978T dy 4162 9L8T Wore WT SLB1 DAV WILT ** 998T AINE TOT * @/8T Ane WT - “Sny 4s1¢ e181 ounp 1963 “ QL8T Pun 1306 91st Ae WOT '* PBT ydog Ig * 918T 4dag Way G/8T ‘ony Lz wee tee aee * 9L8T Aine TST “" GL8T ‘220 pus 918T Sept WOT ? c eee "Tye'T “eye sopryooyddg “6 g8 kerg ‘traoonbovyy vareqnoy = *yeg ‘sspoy “etopnol xm “peg soytg ‘x00sTe} xIUIny, ‘“Zeg ‘Jou “volfopuBMOIOS xtmIN}OD © ‘Oe8 ‘uog ‘SIunmMUIOD xIUIN}O)) *GZ8 ‘ULT ‘SNI[BsoMIES So[D010}g S29 108 ‘doag ‘sngurosyy soj0010} "008 ‘[[8d_ ‘SNliwuode sep90103q "6 6L ‘omy ‘sisuojwins njang, “Ges THE AVIFAUNA OF MOUNT oo 232 ‘JUBPISTA LOYZVAM poo ve ATUC OM} 4SBT OT Uvy} 1o}B] YPWOM v ynoge soartte soroods sIqy, *19Q0J0Q UI Yoo 4say oY} aLOJoq Yonu oAMIe you soop yt Aouy T eipuy jo sjavd aoqjyo Auvur uy ‘aequioydag IST ey} ynoge [UN [nFyWUe[d au0d0q you seog *‘JUBJISIA IOT}VEM P[OO V ‘punor qvok ayy [[v Ulemor Moz v yng ‘Ley Jo ajpprur 9Y} JNOGB OAV] JaYo}vo toyshQ Jo Apog ule oy “QUBYISIA IOYJVOM poo B ATUC, ‘jou 10 AloOyRAS ION JL NZIQnog *1OY}BVIM JOY IY} Ul PaAdasqo 40 yy “QUBIISIA LOYJVEM plod vB A[UGQ *IOYJVOM POD ay} Ur sanodv0 A]UG *IOYJVIM Pod oy} UL punof ATU “AUT JO S[Ppiar oy} 4Nogu GABE] SpITq OY JO ASOT *19Y{BIM PlOO oy UI punoy ATUG esoa(] egooqy esaa(T eBso0([ saa, esoa(T qerozny eoTIBAIN daYORLIN YL ddARPURI 4B1dZN4) Bsoe(T esaa([ Bsaa(T Bsao(f “ gaBlam yy 9ayoRLIn yy eaTPOVLAN FE soTOVAIN yy soOVLIN yy OOABPUBY BSIO\[ esao(q wee seeees see UIe}1000 :) “9/81 [Udy WET sue UIe4.1000 () 948T DAV WPT “ ydy 08 9181 YAW OT 9d8T AVN Wd wee ee wee LI8T Youve WISI “" £L8T Seqy 9818 * OJ8T Woueyy 199 “ OL8T [dy 48T sae eeeeee 9/81 ‘ydag prez " OF8T “SNY TFS O/8T “SNY IFS “9/81 990 16 “* GJ8T 990 1g eee eee eee sen eeeaee een cecees eee teeeee eee eee eee “* GIST "900 pig “* OL8T ‘Sny WZ, L18T Ane T1103 OMEN 18 “ @/8T ‘deg 198 GIBT ‘ydeg 410Z Aqrpeoory ‘angaedag jo oyeq ‘[RALIIY Jo ovq oo ‘ary ‘epeydeoose vsomry ‘e7g Aas ‘Ory “emuryes oseuy[ey *ZZ8 ee ‘aog ‘snutoedojoos oSeulyeg ‘TLg8 ors ‘Way, ‘BINS OSvUTTTeH ‘OL } ‘ury ‘os.uta saprodoimjay 998 eee ‘“ -astoag ‘Badeuto sn) *GQg se ‘uly ‘snsojeajso sndoyemapy °Z98 ig ‘yAvg ‘ejoopae semoigy *T98 ne “AND ‘SLIJSOATAINOaL SnoRsH "ggg a "ppog ‘vortequieut vrantdiqoT “99g te USIAVY ‘SOdIART visnjyeyQ “egg ae ll¥d ‘8Meseas visnyjoyQ ‘Zeg ‘JouLN ‘snotmoINd syT[TVIsny “EF “(Wey ‘snuvyuvo sniydoeisay “gpg “" [eq ‘snoyosuom snusepidamng "LHg ““TojsR AA ‘TAOIOONH snusepideig ‘gpg an ‘JemH ‘SNA[N; snlupereyg “cP Bes ‘UIT ‘voIyoAToYy vloreyenbg “FES 0 “JOU ‘SNoY[Vs sNIIOSIND S29 OF “* Tau ‘SNOI[EpUBUAL.LOD SNIOSIND ‘OFS Panuyuod —SNOLLVUOIN TVONNV Ae) ABOO AND NORTH GUZERAT. ee es eS ee *rayIVOM PJoo oy} Ur sindd0 A[UO ‘TayJVOM poo oyy UT sind90 ATUO “Surpoorq sired 9a.1y} 10 Omg oLOM JAY T, “SUIBI OT} SuLaMp sv 4Vyy W ‘WOIsBdI0 UO TO YALA youl A{uQ “1oy}VE AA PIOd OY} UE sanod0 ATO puY “A[SSvays *IOYJBIM POO OY} UT OsTB smooo Ajqvqoad ynq ‘surest oy} ut poadosqo ATO ‘JOYJVOA Ppoo ayy Ur sinovo0 A[UQ *‘pouolyuent a}Bp oy} UO SIOYMINU IMT} UL esvatOUL osUAMUAE UB Pedljou J sv ‘toy, ul oumoo spuq Axoyeastor Aouey T qnq ‘sure 04} Sutamp poetq sparq osoyy Jo Auvyy ‘GUEJISTA ToyyBEM poo B 4[UO ‘QUBJISTIA doqyveM plo B AUC ke IT yo eTpprar oy} oytnb [yan sured snues siqy, *Aporey QJOYM oY} JO OA[EG JT SAMAG 0} 4Sol[Ive ot, “QUBZISIA 1OY}VOM plod B ATAC ‘kup JO pua oy} A[avou [JUN UlIeMeI sBSUIIT, osoy} JO eML0g ‘soloods 4xou oY} SB Soyep ames ay} ynoqv soave, pue sears A[quqorg “Sny JST ynoqe osvumnyd Surpoerq [[nJ Ur oATI1Yy “AB JO a[pprar ayy qnoqe oavoy Apoq ureut oy} 4nq ‘toy}Bem Joy oy} YOnoIGy [[B eayovtimy ur seteds osoy} Jo Yjoq mes T esoo(T wsoo(] esoo(T e800 (T esaa(] esoo(T esoo(T qviezny esaa(] "S00 (J wsso(T Bs00([ eee eee eee wee eeeeee see eens eaqovrlin yy eso0([ BS00G esoa( eoToRAIN IL ddALPUB I esaaqy esa0(T goTOVLIN Fy Bsoa([ e890(| Bsoa(y “ OL8T “WX 66 J18T Av 1308 918 UK WST * gst Avie UIST g18T LBW UIST “+ g19t Av WIT see eee aee see eee eee pee eeeeee eeene one “OL8T Wort G0 eee eee eee 918T “94e9 TIGT eee eeneee * g/8T Ane WIST O/8T ISNY TGS see eeenee 91ST “9dog 4303 “* 918T “190 WET ere ae eee ee een eee see eeeeee see eeeeee eee eeeeee see enrare ‘ GL8I 950Y WP f 9281 Aine TST CL8T AML 4383 GIST NV YL, ““Q/8T ‘3any 139 see eeeeee e18T Sine IST see ‘aU ‘snows sny[euto[eT ‘UVT ‘SlIv][o}s snaneyzog ‘jem ‘sisuauis ByQepry “ -qojeg “eq[’ BIMODID UIT “BIS BITODID ‘UIT ‘Bpvoure sojydoydeT ‘ane yy ‘vaauasdd vius0dez “ssl ‘v}JONABUA BULZLOg ‘ary ‘sndosopyo Bpnuryyey a ‘UIT “Bye BOTT ‘UUT '879000A8 BASOALAINO YT qAlq ‘snrpoursezur sndoyuvumtpL “Urry ‘slIpl[eo snuezOy, “* curry ‘shosng snueyoy, ‘qsqoog ‘sI[WVUuseys snueyoy, “OI ‘siqg0[d snuvjoy, ‘ary ‘soonepoddy 814130 “ary ‘sndoayo siyy0V "JOU “BlOaIB[D SIY}OV “THAT, ‘VlUBUeLB SIIpT[Vp [soy ‘Wpuramey, vsury, “ rstory ‘eyNUIUL BOI, SN[OUlD BoA, ‘ary ‘xvasnd snyovmortyg ‘ury ‘sndowyd sniuetmm yy “ANY ‘SN}BoUl] SNIUOUIN Ty THE AVIFAUNA OF MOUNT 234 *TOYJVOA Poo oy} ur sind90 AUG *IaTJVIM plod ay} UL sIndd0 Aju *IOYJVOM PTOI oy} UI sindde AjUGQ *1OTJVAA POO oy} UI sand00 ATUG “JUBJISIA JOqJvaAM poo B AjUC “JUBPISIA JOYVM plod B ATU ‘MOATIS [BATIIV JO oJep aT} BT0JOG eouatIno00 Moy} JO pxOd0L JOJO OU oALT IT mq ‘9/81 SIE T99 oy UO ou oy 4qSno1q sum ‘esa vou sliieyIys Aq yous ‘patq o[suis VW ‘FUBJISIA TOq}VEM poo B A;UC “‘AUBJISIA TAyIVoM ppoo v A[UCO *‘QUBPISTA JOYBEM plod v TUG “PUBZISIA JOYIBVOM plod B ATAO "VUBJISIA JoyyBaM plod B A[UO eee esaoq] esoa( esooqy esaa(T esoa(y esaa(y esoa(T esoa(y esoo(y eso0(L esoo(y wsoa(, ie dy “Jef pure pug wee eens 9/81 [dy WIFT * g/8T Tady OT eee eer eee “ g18T ‘4deg WL * 918T ‘4deg 4306 “gigi wady WOT | “** 9Z8T 390 jet aoe "ary ‘snipoq[e snypestopy “Avy “eyeysi1o Busty ‘PInoy ‘voorku veyyAy ‘ary ‘vurtay eyyhy ‘leq ‘Buyns vyueig be as Sold} eee ‘E16 “IL6 “696 "896 “196 “UT ‘SIAysolysnsue vpnponbszony ‘s2q996 ‘ary “e101 BNponbsony ‘uly ‘Booed0 Bjnpanbiengy “aug ‘edojoued voor py : ‘uly “eynoe eye ‘ary ‘sntodeijs snusejerneyqg “* “IIT ‘seyosoq seuy “ary ‘vyeoddyo vpngedg ‘mo ‘tosuvd[na vusopey, “Teg “elyna voreseg Joka ‘snaxouto 1osuy as Fi TH “S96 “P96 696 696 “196 “896 *LS6 “996 "P56 “SH6 ‘IHoay LouMt snio}doomayg sq PPE TH ‘yg ‘ayjooy ‘snosox snaajydoomayg “PPG “JUBISIA Taq}BaA\ ppoo vw ATUCO esooq pesaguses Becloceses i: *TOIV IL JO o[pprar oy} ynoqe snpuy oy} jo sqynout OY} AVE, OS8OK) “FUBZISIA 1OY}BVOM plod vB AjUG | *" esao(T asus nuais teekendes o “+ qerozng Boos acon o0¢ oe . 48 *yooy osivy W | "' ooovamy | 2ygt Atne 19 *aoroomp Aplojsom @ UL SuIdy parq o[ouis y | * oeyovrmmy | sygT oune Wg |) *YOOR ooivy W | ‘** 4sBoo wear | “HOW GO yysep | LAST ACL WIGS | Fee eeeeee ae ‘MONVISIUL JO osinod ut A;JUApIAS | solta ydviseyay Aq poal[ty otoA ANoz 10 oaayy, | esood | * gyat Avy W106 | J ‘SHUVNEY ~ *ApROO'T ‘ainjisdag jo oyeq| ‘[ealdry Jo o7eq ‘panusquoo—SNOTLVUNIN TVONNY 235 NORTH GUZERAT. ABOO AND "19Y}VOM PpOO oT} UI sanov0 ATG *LOYJVAM P[Od oy} UT sinvv0 ATUQ ‘19q}VAM Pod oy} UL Sand00 ATUG “ATWO WOIseI90 eu wo patvedde Sutavy sv popdooat ‘1apssvays VW “LoYJBOM JOY 04} UL savoddesicy *LoyYBaM JOY oy} ut stvoddusiqy *TOY}VOM PTOO oY} UI sandd0 ATUC "LOY }BIM Pod at} UI sandd0 AUC, “1oyj}vaM Poo oy} UT sinod0 AUD Bsao(y wsaa(T Bsoa(y ood: Bsoo(] *800([ aaToviny Bsva(T saToRLIN yy Bs00([ esoa(T eee eweane eeeereene eee een aee “LIST S81 W306 * L18t Avy pag eer eeenes “* -urry ‘oqivo snjnort4 ‘jour ‘stsuoddriqd snuvoojog “UIT ‘sn]B}O1D0U0 snuvdaTeg ‘SUIVAG ‘st[foorq;e sdoyoudyy erg ‘eure vueeg *ydoqg ‘vorput uoprpeqoorpd Fy ‘bjassepy ‘Boyoyiu vutoyg uopisp ‘snyeydeormunaq sncery ‘ary ‘snzeyst10 sdeoipog 936 THE AVIFAUNA OF MOUNT ABOO AND NORTH GUZERAT. I fancy all of the migratory Ducks leave the country about the end of March or first week in April, and begin to arrive about the middle of October, excepting Teal, which arrive much earlier. I noticed this season that a great many of the Waders re- mained at Kurrachee throughout the hot weather, but in no single instance did any of those which remained, except only the Flamingos, assume the breeding plumage. My opinion is that these are barren birds and birds of the previous year which do not breed the first season. I subjoina list of the species referred to. 844. 8S. helvetica.— 846. C. Geoffroyi,—847. C. mongolicus.— 848. 42. cantianus.—860. C. interpres.—861. D. ardeola.—862. H. ostralegus.—815. L. egocephala.—876. T. cinerea.—877. N. lineatus.—878. NV. pheopus.—883. T. cinclus.—884. T. minuta.— 888. C. arenaria.—897. T. calidris. All of the above (and probably other species not noted) were common all through the hot weather, except 860, 861, 875, 876, and 878, and of these I only noticed an occasional straggler. In conclusion, I may mention that I observed a lark last cold weather in the neighbourhood of Deesa, which, I fancy, must have been the Lesser Calandra Lark (Melanocorypha bimaculata, Menetries.) It was common all through the cold season and associated in flocks with Calandrella brachydactyla, rising off the ground when disturbed with a fine rich lark-like note similar to dlauda arvensis. Iam much to blame doubtless for not having secured specimens, but the fact is, I fancied, I could shoot them at any time and kept putting it off from day to day until, at length, I had to leave Deesa with my regiment in a hurry and had no time at the last to go out after them. However, I have no doubt that some of my successors in that part of the country will procure specimens of the bird I refer to and we shall see then whether my surmise as to the species is correct. it is very satisfactory to me after my remarks “S. F.,” Vol. IIl., pp. 483 and 484 to find that Mr. Hume at length concurs with the opinions of Mr. Brooks and myself in uniting the two species Drymoipus terricolor, Hume, and Drymoipus longi- caudatus, Tickell. I think there can be no doubt now that longicaudatus is nothing but the winter plumage of ¢erricolor (Vide “8S. F.,” Vol. 1V., pp. 407 to 410). Alotes ow Aomenclature. I. Very erroneous impressions seem to prevail as to the condi- tions under which, in accordance with the British Association rules, generic and specific names, previously otherwise employ- ed, become void. Yet the rule is extremely clear and simple. « A name should be changed which has before been proposed for some other genus in zoology or botany, or for some other species in the same genus, when still retained for such genus or species.” This is the rule, the law in fact, binding on all naturalists who adopt the Code. No name, therefore, whether specific or generic, can be set aside on account of its previous application, unless such previous application has at the time a scientific substantive existence, i.e., has not passed away into the Synonymic Haides. At the same time, while no name not “still retained for such genus or species” can be set aside by any one else, authors are advised not, knowingly, to employ terms previously used. The Committee say :— “‘ Some authors consider that, when a name has been reduced to a synonym by the operations of the laws of priority, they are then at liberty to apply it at pleasure to any new group which may bein want of a name. We consider, however, that when a word has once been proposed in a given sense, and has afterwards sunk into a synomym, it is far better to lay it aside for ever, than to run the risk of making confusion by re-issuing it with a new meaning attached.” Most people would concur in this as a general rule, for the guid- ance of authors. Though possibly even this might require that certain sets of names, Brehm’s for instance, should be absolutely ignored, but this advice to awthors confers no authority on others to meddle with names given, by oversight or design, in disregard of such advice. ““My dears,” said the good old folks when I was young, “it is not a nice thing to run away and get married at Gretna Green; you had much better not do it, &c., &e.”’ Very good advice, and deserving general attention, but in no way affecting the validity of the irregular marriages that, from time to time, did, despite all good advice, eventuate at Gretna. So too here; much better never use, either for genus or species, a previously-applied term, although this may have be- come a mere synomym, but if you do by accident hit upon such a term, no one else has the right to alter it under the British Association Code. G7 238 NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE. I. . At page 415, Vol. ., Srray Fearuers, Mr. Mandelli defin- ed a very distinct genus.under the name of Heterorhynchus. In the Jbis for 1875, Lord Walden alters this name to Spheno- eichla, on the grounds that Mr. Mandelli’s name has been previously employed by Lafresnaye. But Heterorhynchus, Lafresnaye, isnot a name “ still retained for any genus,” being a mere synonym of Hemignathus, Licht. It appears to me that, aceording to the British Association, Code Lord Walden is wrongand Mr. Mandelli’s name must stand. Mr. Mandelli wasvery naughty to give such a name, but that is his and his scientific conscience’s look out, and even the * Autocrat of the Zoo” cannot legally set the name aside. In the Jbis for 1874 Lord Walden changed Blyth’s name of munctatus”’ for our Spotted Wren, toa name of his own “‘ formosus,”’ on the grounds that in 1823 Brehm had applied the term “ punctatus” to the common European Wren. Quite unaware at that time that I had the support of the British Association rules, (which I bad not then seen) I pro- tested against this injustice to Blyth and said— “Had Brehm’s name séood for the species to which it, was applied, the proposed change would be correct ; but, as a fact, the name does noé stand; it has become a mere synonym, is dead for our purposes, and therefore the adjective punctatus is again available to characterize some other species of the genus. Blyth did thus utilize it, and his name puncéatus should, in my opinion, most assuredly stand.”’ This I now find is the British Association view of such cases, but they would add “it is a pity that Blyth did not take a quite new title, and we advise you never to follow his example in similar cases, but still he having given this name, it can- not be now altered.’ Not long-ago both Mr. Brooks and Mr. Gould saw fit to alter the name of my Sturnus nitens, because that multinominal miscreant * Brehm had once applied the term nitens (and jive others) to the common Starling. But here again they had no locus standi. ‘They are British naturalists, bound by all patriotic impulses, to abide by the British Association Code, and under the provisions of this latter my name zitens is a good and sufticient one. But some frivolous individual may possibly object that I myself (S. F., [V., 512) re-named the species “ ambiguus” and cut bono, if the name nitens would stand ? well, in the first place, I at then know that I had the British Association rules on my side. *T use this merely in the literal active sense of creator of bad species. I am not prepared to make any grammatical defence. NOTES ON SOME OF OUR INDIAN STONE CHATS. 239 In the second place, this change was not as a protection against the usurpations of the favored elect, who are in a position to sing “’Tisa glorious charter, deny it, &,’ but against certain outer barbarians who know not Strickland, neither do they regard the British Association. Outside the limits of the British Garden of Eden dwell (doubtless wailing and gnashing their teeth) hordes of Zoological bandits, ever on the watch to waylay stray and unprotected species, whom they either murder or else pass off as their own lawful offspring amongst their brother robbers. It was against the malevolent machinations of these scientific wehr-wolves that I sought by adding a second name to save my poor little ewe lamb ofa species. No true Briton could honestly meddle with xitens, and even the small and evil intentioned remnant of humanity excluded from that dignified and widely embracing designation could scarcely trample on ambiguus. Is my frivolous interlocutor satisfied ? If not, let him at least have the grace to be silent {we have heard quite enough of him) and meditate on his own inexpressible stupidity. I have furnished him with the fullest and most soul-convincing reasons, but Providence has, it wvuld really seem, created him as in- capable of assimilating these, as Trilobites were of digesting Roast Pork. Alotes ow some of our Andian Stone Chats. THERE can be no confounding our Indian *rubetraoides, Jameson, (=Jamesoni, ncbis, in case continental ornithologists refuse to accept Jameson’s name,) with the European rubetra, when once a series of the two species have been compared. Rubetraoides, (which so far as I know has never yet been described) has a conspicuously longer and somewhat slenderer bill; has very much more white in the tail and the 2nd primary equal to, or, rarely, a shade longer than the 7th, while in rudetra the 2nd about equals the 5th. In rubetra the 1st primary is very small, very narrow, and the 2nd very little shorter than the 3rd ; in rubetraoides the 1st primary is much larger, and the 2nd from ith to $rd of an inch shorter than the 3rd. I only know of rubetracides occurring in the Punjaub, and during the cold season. JI have never heard of its being seen or obtained east of the Jumna. Even in the Punjaub it is scarce, at least I gather this from the fact that no one but Jameson and myself have apparently ever procured it. 240 NOTES ON SOME OF OUR INDIAN STONE CHATS. He obtained his in the Salt Range Trans-Jhelum. I shot my specimens near Goorgaon, and at Bhuttoo, Durbee and other places in the Sirsa district, all Cis-Sutlej. The following are dimensions, &c., of a pair measured in the flesh, which I shot at Bhuttoo on the 25th November 1867 :— g.—-Length, 6:0; expanse, 9°75; tail, 2:12; wing, 3:0; tarsus, 097; bill from frontal bone, 0:7; from gape, 0°75. @.—Length, 55; Expanse, 9:12; Tail, 2:0; Wing, 2°9; Tarsus, 0°93; Bill from frontal bone, 0°66; from gape, 0-7. g.—Exposed portion of 1st primary 0°77 long, 0:14 broad ; 2nd primary 0°33 shorter than 3rd, and=7th. 9 .—Exposed portion of Ist primary 0°75 long, 0:16 broad; 2nd primary 0:28 shorter than 3rd, and slightly larger than 7th. In both the 3rd, 4th, and 5th quills are equal and longest. The male has mid toe and claw 0°75; outer toe and claw 0:56; inner toe and claw 0°52; hind toe and claw 0°7. In both sexes the legs, feet and bill were black, (the bill has now faded to brown,) and irides brown. The male has a broad stripe from the nostrils over the eyes and over the greater portion of the ear-coverts, white, with a slight buffy tinge. The lower part of the lores, dusky. Chin, throat and entire lower parts, including lower tail- coverts and tibial plumes, white, with a yellowish tinge, and a very feeble rufescent tinge on breast and flanks. Wing-lining and axillaries, pure white, the former slightly mottled with dusky. Forehead, crown, occiput, nape, back, and scapulars, light sandy buff, striated longitudinally with hair brown. Rump and upper tail-coverts, white, most of the feathers tinged towards their tips with pale rusty buff. Primaries and secondaries, hair brown, margined on the outer webs with light buff and tipped with yellowish white, the primaries more narrowly, the secondaries more broadly. Tertiary greater coverts, or perhaps I should call them lower scapulars, pure white. Tertiaries and greater and median secondary coverts, deep brown, broadly margined with pale, more or less rufescent buff. Entire visible portion of lesser coverts, pale sandy buff. Edge of wing and outer webs of earlier greater primary coverts, pure white. Tail, hair brown: all the feathers margined on the outer webs and the central ones on both webs, with sandy buff or light yellowish brown—the outer web of the outermost feather almost entirely of this colour. All the feathers, except the central pair, with almost the entire inner webs, white. The outermost pair haye an irregular NOTES ON SOME OF OUR INDIAN STONE CHATS. 241 subterminal brown band from 0:2 to 0°3 wide on this web, but the rest have only a small patch of brown near the shaft close to the tip—the pair next the centre having the patch rather larger. There are traces of a dark streak from the base of the lower mandible down either side of the throat, expanding on the sides of the breast; doubtless in breeding plumage this streak and patch are black or blackish. The females, though smaller, seem to be at this season precisely similar, except that they show the dark streak and patch much less. I have no idea what the breeding plumage may be like, and though the bird must breed somewhere in Central Asia, I have not yet noticed (though doubtless it may have been so) that it has been described in summer plumage thence. I hope these remarks will call the attention of ornithologists in North-Western India to this species. I may add for their benefit that, in the winter plumage, both sexes bear a certain superyicial resemblance to the female P. lencura, but this has a shorter and much broader and more triangular bill, has no white in the tail, has a mere trace of the conspicuous superciliary band, has no white on the outer webs of the earlier primary greater coverts, has the rump and upper tail-coverts uniform pale brownish rufescent, a wing about 2°6; axillaries and wing lining pale fulvous, instead of pure white, is not nearly so clearly striated on the upper surface, differs in the propor- tions of the primaries, (2nd=8th, 3rd shorter than 4th.) &c., so that there ought to be no confounding the birds. As for the male lencura, which has white in the tail, though somewhat less than rubetracides, its black head and throat and brightish rufous breast, and white patches on either side at the base of the throat, in fact P. indica, like head and breast, prevent its ever being confounded with rubetraoides. Macrorhyncha female is no doubt very like rubetraoides above and below, is much the same size, and has a very similar slender bill, but macrorhkyncha, female, has no white in the tail, no pure white on the primary greater coverts, not so conspicuous an eye streak, a much browner rump, and no white tertiary greater coverts or under scapulars, as rubicola, indica, rubetra and rubetraoides have, &c., &c., so that this likewise should not be confounded with rubetraoides. At page 131 (ante) I reproduced Dr. Tristram’s description of Pratincola robusta, and suggested that it might be equivalent to P. macrorhyncha, Stoliczka. At that time I was not aware that I had any specimens of the supposed P. robusta. 242 NOTES ON SOME OF OUR INDIAN STONE CHATS. Dr. Tristram’s description is by no means a very full or satis- factory one, and he gives no dimensions of bill, tarsus, or toes, but one is left to gather that he separates the species on (1) size, wing, 3; and (2) on the rufous of the breast, extending to the abdomen, and the narrowness of the white spot on each side of the neck. Examining my collection I found that I had two specimens answering well as regards plumage to Dr. Tristram’s description, viz., one from Sikhim, wing, 3:1, and one from Syree (below Simla) with the wing 3:0. But at the same time I could not help noticing that, besides these two, 1 had many others in precisely similar plumage, but smaller, and with Captain C. H. 8. Marshall’s kind assistance I got out all the adults P. indica in my collection (125 in number) and measured their wings carefully with the following results :— MALES. Number of Tengo Localities. specimens. wing. 1 31 Sikhim. 1 30 Syree (below Simla). 2 2:95 Sudya (Assam) ; Suddya (Assam). 1 2-92 Sudya (Assam). 3 29 Sudya (Assam); Mussouri; Pine forests of Salween, above Pahpoon. 1 2°88 Lower Hazara. 1 2°85 Kusmore (Upper Sindh). 1 2°83 Sudya (Assam), 5 28 Almorah; Goga: Sultanpoor, (Oudh) ; Junction of Chenab and Sutlej; Etawah. 1 2°76 Roree (Sindh). 6 2°75 Shahedulla (boundary of Kashgar); Kusmore, (Upper Sindh); Indus and Ravee junction; Nor- thern Sindh; Mount Aboo; Etawah. 2 2°73 Mussouri; Etawah. 2 2°72 Thatone, (Pegu) ; Mogul-Serai. 16 2°7 Kotegurh; Native Sikhim; Darjeeling ; Kotegurh; Almorah; Petoragurh; Mount Aboo; Sambhur; Goga; Mogul Serai; Etawah: Tipperah; Banka- soon, (S. Tenasserim); Khyketo, (Tenasserim) ; Mergui, Amoy (China). 3 2°67 Khagan (Cashmere); Etawah; Pabyouk (Tenas- serim). 1 2°66 South Andamans, 6 2°65 Kussowlee; Petoragurh (Kumaon); Thatone, (Pegu); Pegu; Tanzeik (Pegu) ; Mergui. 2 2°63 Mussouri; Northern Sindh. 24 2°6 Khagan (Cashmere); Murree; Verney (Cashmere) ; Somuda ; Koteguth ; Simla; Mogul-Serai; Kussouli; Mahasu (near Simla) ; Almorah, Al- morah, Almorah, Almorah, Almorah, Kumaon ; Darjeeling; Etawah; Thatone ; Rangoon; Mergui; Prome ; Pag-chan (extreme south of Tenasserim) ; Amoy (China) ; Andamans, il 2°55 Valley of Bhagirattee. 1 2°5 Simla, 81 NOTES ON SOME OF OUR INDIAN STONE CHATS. 243 FEMALES. 2 2°9 Sikhim; Sudya (Assam). 2 2:8 Dehra Dhoon ; Etawah. 2 2°75 Native Sikhim; Kusmore (Upper Sindh). 2 2-73 Rohtuk (Delhi Division) ; Sukker (Upper Sindh), 6 27 Etawah; Chunar; Cachar; Mount Aboo; Amoy (China). 2 2°68 Pahpoon (Tenasserim) ; Etawah. 4 2°63 Jacobabad ; Etawah; Etawah; Jhansee. 3 26 Kashmir; Wan (Pegu) ; Amoy (China), Yr / 2°55 Kashmir; Almora; Almora; . Etawah; Dacca; Malewoon (S. Tenasserim) ; Gourgaon. 12 2:6 Kotegurh; Mussouri; Kussowlee; Kussowlee ; Al- morah; Almora; Petoragurh; Rangoon; Male- woon (S. Tenasserim); Khyketo; Cawnpoor; Allahabad. 1 2°47 Mahasu (near Simla). 1 2-46 i, a 1 2°45 Kojee (Sutlej Valley). 44, Now the first thing that strikes one is that out of 81 males, 52 have the wings from 2°6 to 2:7, and out of 41 females, 22 have them from 2°5 to 2°6; and generally it seems clear from these figures that the wings of the females average somewhere about 0°1 less than those of the males. In the second place, all the males with wings over 2:9, and all the females with wings over 2°8, are from the Himalayas or Suddya, at the extreme east of Assam, to which in the cold weather a very great number of Eastern Himalayan birds descend. Moreover, all these very large males are more or less in the plumage, which I understand to characterize robusta, en- tirely rufous beneath and with very small white neck spots. But unfortunately I have several other specimens with wings of 2-6 and upwards, exhibiting quite this same plumage, and after a long and tiring day’s work, Captain Marshall and I have come to the conclusion that itis absolutely impossible to make two species out of the 125 specimens before us. I did think at one time for a few moments that I had got hold of a distinctive character. In P. indica, as a rule, the 2nd primary=the 7th, but in the Sikhim, 3:1 bird, I found the 2nd between the 7th and 8th; and in the Syree 3:0 bird, the 2nd=8th; in a Suddya 2:95 bird, the 2nd was between the 7th and 8th; and ina Suddya 2°92 bird, 2nd=8th; un- fortunately in the 2nd 2°95 Suddya bird, the 2nd was between the 6th and 7th; ina Suddya 2°9 bird, 2nd=7th, and when I came to examine the mass of the smaller birds I found that, though 2nd=7th was the general rule, sometimes 2nd=S8th, and some- times i was between 7th and 8th, and sometimes between 6th and 7th. 244 NOTES ON SOME OF OUR INDIAN STONE CHATS. It is clear that with such an unbroken gradation in dimen- sions, as I have above exhibited, no arbitrary line can be drawn, and those on one side of this called one species, and those on the other, another. I cannot doubt that my Sikhim and Syree birds fully re- present Dr. Tristram’s robusta, but after the most painfully minute investigation of all those details, out of which specific differences may often be established, I am utterly unable to discover any one poiut, however minute, except that of size whereby these two specimens may be divided from the rest. Now it is impossible to draw the line at 3:0, and say these are robusta, but the precisely similar 2:95 wing birds are indica, or at 2°95 and reject the 2°92, or at 2:92 and reject the 2:9, &e. All that we can say is, that almost all the largest birds exhi- bit the type of coloration, indicated by Dr. Tristram as the characteristic of his robusta; that as the birds decrease in size, this type of coloration grows less and less frequent; and that all the very largest birds are from Assam, the Eastern and Central Himalayas ; but it is impossible, in the face of the facts above set forth, to establish a species on grounds like these, and my conclusion is that, if I have rightly identified P. robusta (and this seems scarely doubtful), the form indicated by this name. is zot entitled to specific separation. If Dr. Tristram can point out any clear and specific diagnosis, well and good; I shall be delighted to test this in my tolerably large series, but if he has already said, all he can in regard to this supposed species, it must I conceive be suppressed. When I suggested that macrorhyncha might be identical with robusta, I had not made out what the latter was. Now that I have done so, I find that what I identify as robusta has a bill precisely like that of ¢ndica, larger of course than the bills of small specimens, but of precisely the same shape. Macrorhyncha, on the other hand, has a much slenderer bill, very like that of rubetraoides and quite unlike that of zndica. Moreover, the birds I identify as robusta exhibit the pure white tertiary greater coverts or under scapulars (Lam in doubt which to call them) which characterise rubicola, rubetra, indica and vrubetracides, whereas these are entirely wanting in the two female macrorhynchas I possess. I therefore entertain no doubt now that macrorhyncha is a good and distinct species. Pratincola Hemprichit is characterized by a good deal of white, very variable however in extent, at the base of the tail. I examined the whole of the 125 specimens above referred to, to see if by chance there was any Hemprichii amongst them, but found no trace of white on the tails of any one of them. 245 4 fem Additions to the Sind Adifau na. By W. T. Buanrorp, F.R.S., &e. I HAD proposed to write out the notes made on the birds of Sind during the last three cold seasons in the form of a paper for Stray Feathers. Time, however, has failed me, and I therefore give the following list of species not, so far as I know, previously noticed inthe province. I must leave all details for another time. The numbers are from Jerdon and Hume’s catalogue. I.—Vuttur mMonacHus. Seen once near Rohri. 2.—Ovroayrs caLvus. Not uncommon in the hills, west and north-west of Kotri and in the lower hills of the Kirthar range, west of Upper Sind. I also saw it once near Rohri. 5.—GYPS BENGALENSI8. Once seen near Rohri, where this and the two other species were all seen tegether, (one indivi- dual of each,) by the carcase of a goat. I rede within a few yards and clearly identified all three. 39.—SPILORNIS CHEELA. A single individual was seen on the Nari Nai. 68.—AsIO ACCIPITRINUS (Otus brachyotus, Auct). A small flock seen (one shot) in the desert of Eastern Sind, near the town of Gadra, in Thar and Pakhar. 72.—KETUPA CEYLONENSIS. Shot on the Gaj river. 74 sept.—Scops BRUCEI. A pair obtained near Umarkot. 98.—CyYPSELUS MELBA. Seen on Miagwan, a peak of the Kirthar range. 160.—Picus MAHRATTENSIs. A pair shot near Umarkot in Thar and Paikar. There is alsoa pair amongst some specimens obtained by my cellector, either at Karachi or Kotri. He asserts that he shot the birds at the former locality. Judging by the usual accuracy of his statements, it is more probable that he obtained the specimens at the latter place. 197.—XANTHOLEMA HAMACEPHALA. The well known note was heard at Rohri. 222.—Taccocua AFFINIS (7. Sirkee, Var.) A single specimen procured on the Habh River on the frontier of Beluchistan. 386 bis.—PyYcToRHIS ALTIROSTRIs. A single specimen shot at Mangrani between Sukkur and Shikarpur. This is the most interesting addition to the Avifauna of Sind, since Hypercolius ampelinus. It will be seen on reference to Jour. As. Soc., Bengal, for 1876, Pt., II, p. 197, that Major Godwin-Austen has ascertained that the type of this species is fortunately preserved in the British Museum, and he has identified his specimens from as 246 A FEW ADDITIONS TO THE SIND AVIFAUNA. Assam by comparison. My specimen is certainly, I think, of the same species as the Dafla bird, of which there is a specimen in the Calcutta Museum. Until the type was re-discovered I was rather disposed to share Mr. Hume’s doubts of 8. F., IV., p. 505*. 462.—PycnonoTus PusILLuS. Deserts easts of Umarkot. 488.—SaxXICOLA OPISTHOLEUCA. A single specimen collected at Kotri or Karachi. 490.—SaxicoLaA MoRIO, Ehr. (8. capistrata, Hume nee Gould). I think I ean now shew conclusively. that this is quite distinct from S. picata. It is excessively rare in Sind, and I have only shot two specimens, both killed on the same day, February 18th, near Cape Monze. 492 ter.—ALDON FAMILIARIS. 516.—ACROCEPHALUS DUMETORUM. 559.—PHYLLOSCOPUS NITIDUS. 582 bis.—SyLVIA RUFA (S. cinerea, Auet.) The above four birds were obtainned for me either at Kotri or Karachi by the collector already mentioned. All must have been procured in the autumn. 591.—Moracitua Personata. Common at Jacobabad in November. 593 bis.—BuDYTES MELANOCEPHALUS. f 593 ter —BUDYTES FLAVUS. Both common; the latter much more so than the former in Upper Sind, about March and April. 681 bis.—Strurnus minor, Hume, 8. F., I, p. 207. This is a good species, perfectly distinct from S. vulgaris, and locally far from rare. Found common at end of March near Rohri. 716.—EmperizA Hurront. Occasionally shot in the hilly parts of Sind. 718.—EMperiza STewArTI. A single specimen obtained in the Kirthar range, Upper Sind. 722.—HuspizA LUTEOLA. Shot near Rohri in the begin- ning of April. 756.—MIRraFRA ERYTHROPTERA. Not rare in the desert, east of Umarkot, and I once saw a single bird a few miles north- west of Karachi in the Habh Valley. 761 ter.—MELANOCORYPHA BIMACULATA. Not rare in the plains of Upper Sind, and in the desert east of Umarkot. * Notwithstanding what is said about the type I adhere to my opinion. Dr. Jerdon never, I believe, described a bird so badly. There has been some mistake about the type. Very likely he got both birds, described one and sent the other home, without carefully comparing them. See, ante, p. 116 and infra, p. 251— Ep. 8S. F, + Wrongly entered in my list as B. viridis—Ep, S. F. NOTES ON SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 247 910.—Porzana PYGM@A. One specimen shot near the Man- char Lake. Besides the above I believe I once saw— 845 bis. CHARADRIUS PLUVIALIS close to Karachi. It is not improbable that the European Golden Plover may occur in Sind, as I obtained it only 200 miles further west at Guadar. C. fulvus, however, does occur in Sind, for I once shot a specimen at the Manchar Lake. Another bird which must, I think, be added probably as a rare straggler, to the Sind Avifauna is— 904, GALLICREX CRISTATUS, a skin of which was given to me by Captain Bishop, together with several birds shot in Sind and on the Mekran Coast. Besides the above, I have obtained several of the birds no- ticed in Sind by Mr. James and Major LeMesurier, but not included in Mr. Hume’s original list, such as Chatorhea Harlet, Gymnoris flavicollis, Emberiza striolata, Euspiza melanoce- phala, Alauda gulgula, Cursorius coromandelicus, Gallinago stenura, Numenius pheopus, and Dendrocygna major. Hotes ow some Burmese Hirds. By Everne W. Oatss, C. E. 24.—Accipiter nisus, Lin. This bird has not before been recorded from Burmah. A young bird, from its size presumably a female, was obtained by Lieutenant Raikes, Assistant Commissioner at Yandoon, at the head of the Irrawaddy Delta. It is now in my collection. Wing, 9°6; tarsus, 2°33. [Captain Feilden, S.F., III. p. 24, recorded it from Thyet- myo. Davison obtained it at Moolyit on the 20th of February 1877. For its occurrence in the Andamans, see 8. F., IV., p. 280.—A. O. H.] 74 Nov.—Scops sagittatus, Cass. Sharpe, Cat., Vol. EE p.69S. A superb specimen of this very rare Qwl, sexed as a male, was procured by my Burmans at Malewoon in South Tenasserim on the 23rd of February. The few specimens known have apparently been received only in Malacca collections. The skin, which does not appear to be at all stretched, measures 11°5 in length; the wing, 7:2; tarsus, 1:21; bill from forehead to tip straight, including cere, °87 ; tail, 5-0; the outer feathers falling short of the central pair by °7; the 5th quill is the longest, the 6th +1, the 4th -15, the 8rd -55, the 2nd 1:2, and the 1st 2°3 shorter than the fifth. 248 NOTES ON SOME BURMESE BIRDS. The bill is a pale yellow, uniform throughout; the toes, fleshy brown; the claws pale horn color; the feathers of the tarsus in front reach to about a tenth of an inch from the joint of the middle toe and behind somewhat further up; the toes are perfectly naked ; the ear tufts measure 1°2. Mr. Sharpe’s description is so minute and corresponds so well with my bird that any lengthy account of the plumage is unnecessary for these pages, more especially as the coloration of this Owl is distinct, and the size suffices to separate it from others. The whole upper plumage is a rather rich chestnut; the wings barred on the inner webs with brown, and the tail irregularly banded with the same. Each feather of the upper body plumage has small arrow head fulvous marks in the centre, and some wavy narrow black lines across; the forehead, for a depth of nearly an inch, a broad supercilium, and the inner webs of most of the tuft feathers are white; the shafts of the feathers of the forehead nearly black; the tips of the tufts and the top of the head are a darker chestnut than the back and without marks of any sort; long feathers on the sides of the neck, indicating a ruff whitish, broadly tipped with blackish; lower surface light buff, the shafts of the feathers of the throat black, and the webs vermiculated with brown ; breast with dark brown small shaft spots and brown narrow vermiculations; belly and vent distinctly spotted, only not cross barred. The outer webs of the scapulars are fulvous white, and there are some rather large black shaft spots on the feathers. [Davison shot a female of this species a good deal further north at Meetan on the 28th of February. It measured in the flesh :—Length, 10°9 ; expanse, 23:5; tail, 5-0; wing, 7:4; tarsus, 1:2; bill from gape, 0:9; weight, 4:74 oz. In the fresh bird the soft parts were as follows :— Feet and claws bluish white; bill, bluish white; cere, pale bluish green ; irides, deep brown. I don’t think this is a very rare bird; it seems to be commonly procured by the Malacca shikarees.—A. O. H.] 584 quat.—Henicurus frontalis, Blyth. Two specimens of a Forked Wag-Tail from South Tenasserim are clearly referable to this species and not to Lesehenaulti. They were procured at Malewoon or its vicinity on the 6th January. An adult, a female, has the wing 3°5; the tail, 3°7 ; forked to the extent of 1:6; bill from anterior corner of nostril to tip, ‘51; tarsus, 11. NOTES ON SOME BURMESE BIRDS, 249 This bird has not before been recorded from Burmah, nor has it been described in this journal. The forehead and front of head, as far back as a line connecting the posterior corners of the eye, white. The whole plumage is black, with the following exceptions, these parts being white:—Lower abdomen, flanks, vent, rump, under aad upper tail-coverts, tips of scapulars and of the upper wing-coverts near the body, bases of secondaries and tertiaries, the outer two pairs of rectrices, and the bases of the others, the axillary feathers and the tips of the under wing- coverts. The other bird, with the whole lower plumage disintegrated and obviously quite young, has only three white feathers on the front of the head. In both birds the bill is black and the legs pale flesh color. [Davison has also procured this species at Malewoon. Fur- ther north at Meeta Myo (Tavoy district) and thence through- out the Hills to the very north of the Tenasserim Provinces, we obtained Ceschenaulti, Vieill. (coronatus, Tem., speciosa, Horsf.) All our specimens of this latter are, strange to say, males. All agree with Temminck’s and Horsfield’s figures of this species as to the extent of the white on the head, and not with Mr. Gould’s of his supposed chinensis ; or, as he originally called it, sinensis. The fact is that whether in the Javan, Chinese or Tenasserim birds it is only the forebead that has white feathers (this Horsfield correctly shows) ; sometimes these white feathers are shorter, but more generally they are long, and when pressed back flat in skins cover the whole crown. In life the bird elevates them much, as shown in Horsfield’s plate, and as there shown many of them are in? younger specimens, narrowly tipped black. Sinenszs, are either, as Elwes suggests, females, or else young birds in which this frontal crest is not yet developed. Our Leschenaulti, measured in the flesh :—Length, 11:0 to 11:5; expanse, 12°75 to 13°75; tail from vent, 5°5 to 6:12 ; wing, 4°12 to 4°37; tarsus, 1°25 to 1:35; bill from gape, 1:1 to 115.—A. O. H.] 386 ter.—Pyctorhis altirostris, Jerdon. Ibis, 1862, p. 22. See J. A. S. B. 1876, Part IL, pp. 74, 197, and 8. F., Vol IV., p. 504. The re-discovery of this bird in three* different parts of India and Burmah at about the same timeis curious. I shot my specimen on the canal bund, about 14 miles from Pegu. That * Four; the same bird has been found in Sindh—Ep., S, F. 250 NOTES ON SOME BURMESE BIRDS. it is a rare bird in Burmah there can be no doubt, for I have shot only the one specimen now about to be described, and I am not in the habit of passing birds over in the jungle. I kill every thing that I cannot identify at a glance. Sinensis abounds here in Lower Pegu, and the two birds cannot be con- founded. Mr. Hume has kindly lent me his Bhootan Dooar’s specimen for comparison. His bird and mine agree in the most minute particulars, and there can be very little doubt but that the specimens from Assam are the same. I drew up the following description before skinning the bird :— Length 6°05 ; expanse, 7°4; tail, 3°1; wing, 2°4; tarsus, °96 ; bill from gape, 55 ; from forehead, °38 ; height through nostrils, 23 ; 5th, 6th and 7th primaries sub-equal and longest, 8th very slightly shorter, and equal to the 4th, 3rd -25, 2nd ‘55 and Ist 1:0 shorter than the longest. Under tail-coverts fall short of tip of tail by 2, and the distance between the shortest and longest rectrix 1°7. Upper mandible, pale horn color, under one, pinkish ; eyelids yellow, but not tumid as in sinensis; iris brown, surrounded by a pinkish ring ; inside of mouth flesh color ; legs brownish flesh color ; claws pinkish horn. Chin, throat and upper breast, greyish white ; lores and a ~ conspicuous streak over the eye dirty white, the centres of the feathers black ; the forehead and top of head rather bright reddish brown, the feathers of the forehead largely centred with blackish ; the whole upper plumage, with the cheeks and ear-coverts, uniform reddish brown, paler than the head ; smaller wing coverts, the same, but each feather edged still paler ; quills brown, with a broad outer edging of reddish-brown and an interior edging of a paler tint ; tertiaries nearly entirely reddish brown, the portion next the shaft only being plain brown ; larger wing-coverts of the same color as the outer margins of the quills; tail brown, edged with rufous, broadly externally and narrowly internally; all the feathers indistinctly rayed across. From the breast to the vent, and the under wing- coverts, a warm buff, tinged with ferruginous; shafts of the feathers of the chin much lengthened and black ; rictal bristles black, 0°3 long. The bill scarcely differs from that of sizensis though it may be slightly shorter compared with its length, and may have the nostrils more open; and the terminal half of the lower mandi- ble more swollen and slightly more turned up. Ido not think it can be separated generically from sivensis. They differ less from each other than longirostris, with its long, slender bill (ex ° . i=) and large nasal covering, does from either. NOTES ON SOME BURMESE BIRDS. PASS | Since writing the above, I find that Mr. Hume had already published a description of the Bhotan Dooar’s specimen under the name of griseigularis. This name was indeed on the cover of the bird lent to me, but I considered it only a manuscript title, and consequently have not referred to it above. That Mr. Hume was prima facie justified in describing his bird as a new species no one will be prepared to deny on comparing his bird with Jerdon’s description of altirostris, which must have been written from memory. { I retain my opinion that neither my bird nor Mr. Oates’ is the true altirostris of Jerdon ; the grounds for this opinion are fully stated,ante 116. I daresay Dr. Jerdon procured this bird of ours in Burmah; I dare say he sent it home; he may even have sent it home as his altirostris, but that this is not the species that he actually described, I consider almost certain. Many descriptions contained in the B. of In. are doubtless not satisfactory, but these will, in every case, be found to be borrowed and not original, and Dr. Jerdon’s own original descriptions are, I should say, always extremely accurate.— A. 0. H.] 390 sex.—Stachyrhis guttatus, Zick. J. A. S. B., 1859, p. 450. See Ibis, 1876, p. 353. Turdinus guttatus, Tick. The acquisition of a specimen of this rare bird enables me to state that the species is nothing buta Stachyrhis.* In the form of the bill, the large process over the nostril, leaving the * I must dissent from this view most emphatically. Mr. Oates, according to my idea, is fundamentally wrong in his whole contention. 1st.—The bill of Turdinus guttatus is in no degree like that of Stachyrhis nigriceps, the type of the genus. The essential character of the latter is to have the ridge ot the culmen straight. A character exactly reproduced in Heterorhynchus Humei, a species much the same size as 7. guttatus, and with very similar spottmg on the sides of the neck. On the other hand the leading character of 7. guttatus is its deep bill with notably curved culmen. 2nd.—The bills of Stachyrhis and Timalia are not in any sense “ quite the same, ” except for the nostrils. On the contrary in Timalia pileata, the type of the genus, the culmen is conspicuously curved, in Stachyrhis conspicuously straight. 3rd.—The coloration of 7. guttatus seems tome to have no affinity for that of Stachyris nigriceps, but its affinity for that of Drymocataphus nigricapitatus is patent. The bills of Durdinus guttatus and Timalia pileata are strikingly like each other in outline, but that of the latter is much more compressed and less massive. I think that the bill of Mixornis rubricapilla, considerably magnified would convey the best idea of the bill of Z. guttatus. Timalia poliocephala of Tem. is also closely affined to our present species. The well bowed culmen and deep comparatively massive bill of guttatus separates it equally from both crispifrons and brevicaudatus, and from Drymocataphus, Malacopteron, Trichastoma, &c., while other differences render it doubtful whether it could be united with Zimalia. I hope before long to furnish a review of all the Indian, Indo-Burmese and Malayan (or rather Malay Peninsular ) species of this group, and I defer till then further remarks in regard to the true position of Turdinus guttatus—ED. 8, F, 952 NOTES ON SOME BURMESE BIRDS, latter merely a narrow slit; in the length of the tail and the relative proportions of the rectrices and primaries it corresponds exactly with nigriceps, the type of the genus. The bold coloration of the two species is also of the same character. A year ago Lord Walden pointed out that the bill of the bird figured by Tickell appeared to be that of Timalia. Now the bills of Timalia and Stachyrhis are quite the same with one exception—a point which can hardly be shewn in a drawing of asmall bird. Inthe former the nostril is quite open; in the latter it is covered by a peculiarly-shaped membrane nearly entirely closing it. It must have been this that induced Hodgson to name the genus Stachyrhis ordyvs from the resemblance of the membrane toa grain of corn. Sundevall Meth. Nat. Av. Disp. Tent., p. 10, adopted Agassiz’s change of the name to Strachyrhis, and since that time it seems to be the practice so to spell it.* Nothing can be urged in defence of the alteration. ft To return to my bird. It was shot at Malewoonin South Tenasserim on the 29th December and is sexed as a male. The length of the skin is 6:2; tail, 2°2; wing, 2°65; tarsus, °95 ; bill from gape, °94; the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th quills are sub- equal; the Ist is 1:17, the 2nd ‘6, and the 38rd ‘35 shorter than the longest. The tips of the outermost rectrices fall short of the tips of the central pair by ‘5; the bill isa dark bluish horn colour, and the legs are brown. The plumage is very firm, and the feathers of the neck are more or less lengthened. [ We found this species very common at Meetan in February, and secured numerous really fine specimens. The following are the dimensions and colours of the soft parts, recorded in the flesh from a large series of both sexes :— Sex Length Expanse Tail from vent Wing Tarsus Bill from gape Weight. 6 65-69 9:0-9°3 2°1-2°3 2°7-2°9 1:0-1:05 0 9-0'92 1:12-1°30z 2 63-67 8:9-9:0 2:3 2°7-2°8 1:0 085-0 9 1:0-1 250z The legs, feet, and claws are pale dingy green; the lower mandible and edges of upper mandible are pale plumbeous ; * As instances of the reckless way in which some persons alter other peoples’ names, I may mention the attempt of the late Professor Sundevall to substitute Hadropezus for Turdinus, Entomoletes for Chaptia.and Smilonyx for Ketupa. + Except, that as far as I can make out it was Hodgson himself who first in 1844 named the genus “ Cilathora”’ and “ Strachyrhis,’ and it was only in 1845 that he changed the name to “ Stachyris.” Whether even he had the right to do this will depend upon whether either of the former names were well defined, not implying a false proposition likely to propagate important errors and not errone- ous in transliteration. 3 It should not be forgotten that the British Association endorsed De Candolle’s famous dictum. ‘‘L’auteur méme qui a le premier établi un nom n’a_ pas, plus qwun autre, le droit de le changer pour simple cause d’impropriété. La priorité en pi ee un terme fixe, positif, qui n’admet rien, ni d’arbitraire, ni de partial.”’— D.,; . e NOTES ON SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 2s the rest of the upper mandible dull black; the irides deep crimson, or crimson lake. The following are the original descriptions :— First.—Blyth’s J. A.S. B., XXVIII, 414, 1859. “ Turdinus guttatus, Tickell, N. S.—This deviates a little from the three* species previously described, in not having the feathers dark} inargined (as in most Oréocincle), while the speckling of the sides of the neck is peculiar. Colour is rich deep ruddy-brown, more rufescent on the tail-coverts and _ tail ; the throat pure white, bordered on either side with a black moustache, above which isa white spot; rest of the lower parts deep rufo-ferruginous, tinged with fuscous on the flanks and lower tail-coverts, and shewing a slight medial whitish line; loral feathers black with greyish-white lateral edges; the. frontal feathers stiff as usual; ear-coverts brown; behind the eye an ill-defined streak, and behind the ear-coverts a great patch of feathers, each having an oval white mark set off with black, and other feathers thus marked across the nape; bill plumbeous ; and legs plumbeous brown. “ Female.—lIrides sepia.”{ Length, 6 in., of wing 22in.; and tail 23 in.; the plumage extremely copious over the rump; bill to gape 1 in.; and tarsi 1 in.” Second.—Tickell’s J. A. 8. B., XXVIII, 450, 1859. “3. SpPHENURIDA.— Turdinus (Blyth). guttatus (mihi). Spee. female. March 2nd, 1859. Woods near Theethoungplee, 3,000 feet. Dimensions.—Length, 6,55; wing, 214; tail, 22; bill tarsus, 155,; mid toe, 53,. “ Details.—Typical. (See Appendix to Blyth’s report for December Meeting, 1842. Continued from Vol XII, p. 1011, Journal As. Soc.) “ Plumage of front, lores, and chin stiff and setaceous; but rictal bristles not much developed. Color.—Female. Iris sepia. Lids nude and dull smalt; bill horny, dark on culmen, pale and livid on crura; legs horny ; claws pale. “Crown and upper parts rich vinous olive-brown, brighten- ing to full vinous, rusty on upper tail-coverts and outer webs MU 5 Lae Wi ye | * Viz. T. macrodactylus, the type of the genus, J. A. S. B. XIII, 382, 1844; and 7. crispifrons and brevicaudatus, J. A. 8S. B. XXIV, 269, 1856.—Ep., S. F, + Although there is no approach to the extent of dark margining observable in the other three species, yet in very fine freshly moulted specimens all the feathers of the crown and back are excessively narrowly margined darker. This, which imparts a scaly appearance to these parts, is entirely wanting in some specimens, in fact wears off I believe-—Ep., S. F. { This, taken from Tickell, is probably a mistake; all our birds without excep- tion, males and females, had the irides crimson,—ED., S, F, H 8 254 REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE of remiges. Tail as back, obscurely barred — blackish* feathers of crown edgedf black, a few pale spots on sides of occiput; frontals ash, striated black.” « Auriculars dusky, bounded beneath by a white line, which joins a patch of white on ramus continued to bill; chin and throat pure white, separated from ramus by a black line which spreads into a patch on side of throat ; from top of eye down sides of neck and across upper back a space of acuminate black-edged white feathers; all underparts from throat rich orange rusty, deepening into vinous brown on vent.” I reserve further remarks on this species for our general account of the Birds of Tenasserim.—A. O. H.] Aemarks ow some species of the Sub-gerus Millia, (Hoie, 1859,) Tue little sub-group of Swallows, included in Boie’s genus or sub-genus Lillia, presents considerable difficulties to, un- learned practical ornithologists, like myself. We have apparently four species (excluding hyperythra, which is included by Mr. Gray under Cecropis), but what names two out of these should bear, and whether or no they are distinct and as yet unnamed, are matters that I am unable to decide with any certainty. Mr. Gray, H. L., 69, admits the following species :— L. daurica, L. . erythropygia, Sykes. . melanocrissa, Ltdipp. . rufula, Tem. . Japonica, Zem. and Schl. . domicella, Hartl. and Finsch. To which we must certainly add, though Mr. Gray includes the first under Cecropis. L. striolata, Tem. and L. arctivitta, Swinh. Now what are ows species? Imay premise that in none of owr four supposed species is there, so faras I can ascertain, ever any white on the inner webs of the tail-feathers. Out of some 80 specimens of the smallest of our four species, (erythropygia, Sykes,) I detected in three, small, slightly paler, Ee Es * More correctly “ obsoletely banded darker,”’—Ep., 8. F. + Very narrowly, and this ouly in some specimens,—ED., §. F, SUB-GENUS LILLIA, (BOIE, 1859.) 258 patches on the inner webs of the outer tail-feathers, and in about sixty specimens of the three larger species I found similar, still fainter, patches in éwo specimens. One of our species, viz., L. erythropygia, Sykes. P. Z.S., 1832, p. 83, May be disposed of at once—its small size, coupled with its generally constant difference in coloration, sufficing to separate it from all the other Indian species, and indeed, I think, from all other species of the group. It varies in length from 6°5 to 7:0, (I speak throughout of adults,) but the usual length is 6°75. The wings vary from 4:1 to 4°45, but the great majority of specimens have them 4°2 to 4:3. The tail varies from 3:0 to 3°35, but 3:3 is the normal length in an adult full-plumaged male. The fork of the tail, z.e., the distance by which the exterior exceed the median tail-feathers, varies from 12 to 1°6, but about 1°35 seems the usual amount of forking. The patch on each side of the occiput is bright chestnut. The two patches meet behind and form a distinct nuchal half collar, about 0°2 to 0°25 broad, in the fresh bird, or very good specimens. It is to be noticed that I speak of adults; in this sub-group, the difficulties in discriminating species are increased, first by the fact that the general size, the colour of the occipital patckes and rump, the striation of this latter, the extent of the nuchal collar, the size and intensity of striations of the lower surface, all vary more or less with age; and, secondly, by the extreme rarity of really good specimens, showing collar, ear- coverts, &e., all clearly and well. Out of over. 140 specimens before me, not above 20 per cent. are really satisfactory in this respect. The ear-coverts are chestnut, like the occipital patches, but duller and sometimes paler, and more or less thinly striated with dusky. This separates them from the other Indian species in which, in adults even, the ear-coverts are a sort of pale sordid buff, sometimes slightly greyish in the Himalayan bird, densely striated with dusky. The rump and greater portion of upper tail-coverts are typically an uniform bright chestnut, without striations, noé paling towards the tail. There is no exception to this in some 50 adults. In the young, which have not fully donned the glossy blue-black of head and mantle, both occipital patches and rump, 4c., are much paler, but even then the rump, and all but the longest 256 REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE upper tail-coverts, (Which are black or, in the young, dusky) are uniform. - Amongst my supposed erythropygia, 1 found two speeimens in which the rump, &e., distinctly paled to the tail, and were distinctly black shafted, but the wings 46—4°65 showed at once that they were young birds of one of the larger species and not erythropygia at all. With due attention to the dimensions noted, (I have only given those that are useful for discriminating our species) and the remarks above recorded, there ought to be no difficulty in separating erythropygia at all times. This disposes of one of our species and one of the eight above enumerated. The so-called L. daurica, Zin., must, I apprehend, stand as alpestris, Pall. The species is not included in the XIIth Ed., Sys. Nat., but it is mentioned by Linnzeus in the Mantissa, dating [believe 1771, (p. 528), and in the Act. Stockh., 1769. I have never seen these, but I gather from Pallas, Schlegel, and others that Linnens did not then confer any specific title but merely designated the species, as “ H. ccerulea, subtus alba temporibus uropygioque ferrugineis.” It was on this and on Pallas’s alpestris and Latham’s Daurian Swallow, that Gm. 8. N., I., 1024 (1788) founded his daurica. But Pallas had already (1776) in his Voyages (II. App. &c, 709, No. 9. orig. Ed. In the French translation by Gauthier de la Peyronie, most commonly met with, it is III. Ap. 464, No. 11) fully described the species as alpestris, and by that name it should, I suppose, stand. This is Pallas’ description, as finally revised in his Zoog. Ross. As. I., 534, 1810. «* Size exceeding that of H. rustica, and the bill sbshtty wider; the mouth yellowish within, "the tongue triangular, yellow, bifid; the crown, the middle of the back, the basal portion of the wing's, and the (upper) tail-coverts, steely black ; the triangular space on either side, between the eyes and nape, occupying the temples, ferruginous, these spaces often meeting on the nape; ears ashy ; rump, almost to the middle of the back, ferruginous ; beneath the body lutescent or dingy white, lineally striated with black shafts; lower tail-cover ts, with the points black with a bluish eee wings below yellowish white with dusky shafts ; quills (i. e., primaries and secondaries) 17, from the 10th to the 15th emar ginate at the tips so as to be "heat t- shaped there ;* tail shining black, extremely forked ;.the four middle feathers nearly equal, the outer on each side much the * This peculiarity is more or less common to the whole group. SUB-GENUS LILLIA, (BOTE, 1859.) 257 longest and for the most part with an oblong white spot on the inner web; the feet somewhat larger than in other species of the genus, dusky; the toes not versatile. Weight 5 to 7 drachms, rarely more. The body, 4:2; the tail, 4:25 ; the mid. dle tail-feathers, 1:93; expanse, 13:7; wing 4°93; bill, 0°6; width of gape, 0°64; tibie, 0°55.” It has been the custom (in which I have duly followed my betters) to identify our Himalayan bird with this species; but in the first place to judge from some 50 specimens, our bird never has any white on the tail-feathers; in the second place the ferruginous of the rump can hardly be said to extend almost to the middle of the back; in the third place the upper tail- coverts cannot be said to be steely black, as only quite the longest in our bird are black, the rest are unicolorous or nearly so with the rump. This might be passed over as carelessness in description were it not that, in dealing with the lower tail- coverts, Pallas carefully points out that only the tips are black, whereas, as a fact in our bird, the lower tail-coverts are black for from 0:7 to 0:9, while the visible black portion of the upper ones is only about 0°4, very rarely 0°53; so that if Pallas had called either black, it would have been the lower and not the upper, and when he is careful to mention in regard to the lower, so much of which is black, that it is only the terminal portions that are so, a fortior?, one would think, he would not have called the upper tail-coverts black, without reservation, when so little of them is of this color. As to size,* I do not exactly understand how Pallas measured his body and tail separately ; the two dimensions, however, added give a total length of 8°45, against a marimum length in the flesh, for our birds, of 7-°9—the great majority of fully-plumaged adults not exceeding 7:75, and only one, out of some 30, (measured in the flesh) exceeding 7:8. But in regard to the wings there 1s not so much difference, as they run in our Himalayan and Tenasserim Hill birds from 7°6 to #°8. Again, the tail is never shining black, but always hair brown, with, in the freshly moulted bird, a certain lustre, bluish to- wards the base and greenish towards the tips of the feathers. Lastly, it cannot be said of our Himalayan specimens that the red occipital patches offen meet on the nape, because in fully- plumaged adults there isinvariably a distinct rufous collar, not broad, as Mr. Swinhoe says (P. Z. 8., 1871, p. 846) but distinct and about 0:2, or in some cases possibly 0:25 wide. I speak of course of the fresh bird ; in nine out of ten skins the collar almost wholly disappears. * Naumaun gives (XIII, 211) the following dimensions of a specimen from the Altai Mountains :—Length 8°8; tail, 5-2; wing, 5°75, 258 REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE I think we may, with considerable certainty, decide that our Himalayan birds are quite distinct from the true alpestris, Pall. L. melanocrissa, Rupp. (System. Uber. Voge. N. O. Afr. 17, t. 5, 1845) of Abyssinia might possibly occur in Sindh, Kattiawar or Northern Guzerat, but I have never seen it from India; it is distinguishable at once by the adults having no striz on the lower surface, none on the cheeks and face, by its rufous anal band, and by the greater portion of the upper and under tail-coverts being biack, blue glossed. It has no white on the outer tail-feathers. Length about 7°6; wing, 5 to 5:2; tail, 4:1, fork about 2 to 2:1. L. rufula, Tem. Is aname that cannot perhaps properly stand. It was founded by Temminck, (Manual d’Orn. 2nd Ed., TII., 298, 1835) avowedly on Le Vaillant’s Hirondelle Rousse- line, (Ois. d’Afr. V. pl. 245, f. 1.). Le Vaillant himself describes the species thus :— “The top of the head black, and the upper part of the back of the neck bright rufous, as is also the ramp; the mantle, wings and tail (which latter is very forked, and of which the external laterals are terminated in two narrow prolongations and the median ones marked interiorly with a white spot,) are of a shining bluish black, similar to that of our Chimney Swallow; the throat, the front of the neck, and the whole lower part of the body, including the lower tail-coverts, are a light rufous, deepening towards the vent, all the feathers of these parts having blackish shafts ; the feet are a yellowish brown ; the irides bright chestnut; the bill black. “The female is like the male, except that she has the whole top of the head red, and that the longer feathers of her tail are less prolonged than in the male.” Accepting this as his text, identifying Gmelin’s HZ. capensis (S. N., I., 1019, No. 19, founded on Buffon’s Hirondelle a téte rousse du Cap de Bonne Espérance, P. E., 723, f. 2) with it, re- jecting this name as inapplicable to a bird that had been found in Europe, Temminex translated Le Vaillant’s name into rufula, and while copying that author’s description of the female, proceeded to give an original description of the so-called male, founded probably on a specimen obtained in SSicily. What Le Vaillant’s male Rousseline may have been no one knows. Sundevall thinks it was a manufactured bird, but he is rather fond of solving all difficulties thus. Most certainly it was not the bird now commoly known as ru/ula, Tem. SUB-GENUS LILLIA, (BOIE, 1859.) 259 On this doubtful, and perhaps mythical, male and a descrip- tion of a female, probably of capensis, as a basis, and avowedly accepting capensis of Gmelin as identical, Temminck described as the male the bird now known as rufula. The species is, therefore, a composite one, and the name ought possibly to be suppressed and the species renamed after Temminck, L. Temminchki. Temminck’s description of the male is as follows :—‘ On the top of the head a large bluish black cap, with polished steel reflexions; nape, cheeks, sinciput and little superciliary streak, rusty red ; hinder part of neck, mantle and tail-coverts, the bluish black of polished steel ; rump bright red, turning to whitish isabelline towards the bases of the tail-feathers ; lower parts of a rufous isabelline, each feather with a narrow brown streak along the shaft; wings and tail black, the latter deeply forked, and the lateral feathers long and subulate ; bill, iris, and feet, black : length 7:67.” Later he became aware of the Be he had got into with this species, and in the Faun. Jap. (384, 1850) he and Schlegel remark :— ~~ ““The species discovered in Sicily by Mr. Cantraine, and which has likewise been observed in the south of France, may bear the title of Hirundo rufula, see Temminck, Manual III., 298, and Schlegel, Revue Critique, p. XVIII and 41. It is of the same sizo as the Cape species, but has a smaller and feebler bill ; the top of the head is an uniform blue black; the tail has no white band; the terminal half of the lower tail- coverts are black; the lower surface is a pretty shade of yellowish rusty and the striz are very fine and little apparent.” The characteristics of this species as compared with alpestris clearly are—first, that it usually has no white on the inner webs of the outer tail-feathers ; ; second, that the rump instead of being uniform pales towards the tail-feathers to buffy white ; third, that the striz on the lower surface are very fine and little apparent. What bird Bree figures (B. of E.n. 0.1. G. B. III., 174), leneth, 7 inches (?) ; wing, 4°8, with a conspicuous white spot on the inner webs of the outer tail- -feathers, I cannot guess ; certainly, if the dimensions are correctly stated not an adult rufula. In all my specimens of this species, the length, I judge, must have exceeded or been close upon 8 inches, and the wings exceed 5, and Naumaun (Vog. Deutschl. Suppl. XIII, 210) gives far larger dimensions. ‘“ Length, 8°75; wing, 5:5 ; tail, 5°12 ; fork, 33 ; the first quill the longest, the second 0-09 shorter and each of the rest 0°37 shorter than the preceding one,” 260 REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE Neither of our larger species are rufula, both have the strize of the lower surface well marked, both have the rump band narrower, and in the fully plumaged adult uniform in tint and not paling towards the tail, and our Himalayan and Tenasserim Hill form is considerably smaller. Iam at a loss to understand the grounds on which Mr. Swinhoe (P. Z. S., 1871., p. 346) remarks that he has ‘‘ now no doubt that both Lirnzus and Pallas applied their names to rufula, Tem.”” As Naumaun, Selys de Longchamps, and others have repeatedly pointed out alpestris from the Altai Mountains differs unvariably from rufula in the greyer ear-coverts, in the narrower (almost obsolete) neck band, in the nearly uniform rump, not paling to buffy white towards the tail, and in the invariably much more strongly marked striz of the lower parts. I may here draw attention to the fact that, though these birds are all great wanderers at other seasons, so that two and three species may be shot together during the autumn and winter (e. g., erythkropygia and our Himalayan species) they are I believe very true to their breeding haunts ; rufula and alpestris may very likely have been shot out of apparently the same flicht in Russia or Central Asia, but I venture to predict that if only breeding birds from the Altai on the one hand, and the Mountains of Greece and Palestine on the other, be compared, they will invariably present the above characteristic differences. L. japonica, Tem. & Schl. Cfaun. Jap. 34, t. XI, 1850) from Japan and Amoy is a smaller species than the preceding. Length, 7:25; wing, 4°75; tail, 3°84; fork, 2:1: in fact much the same size as our Himalayan birds, but with a shorter tail. It has a blackish triangular patch in front of the eyes. The under surface very strongly striated, much more so than in any of our Himalayan birds, and the broad rump band, which is more the colour of, though paler than, that of erythropygia, has narrow black or blackish shaft stripes to the feathers. This latter is observable, though the stripes are here much finer, in many young and not fully plumaged specimens of our Himalayan birds, but in these the rump band is much nar- rower and paler; in the young at times this band is not more than 0:5, even in the adults it never exceeds 1:0 and rarely 0:9, while in one specimen of japonica it is 1:1, and Mr. Swinhoe gives it as 1°2. L. domicella, Hartl. & Finsch. (O. Afr., 143) of South- ern and Central Africa is a minature of melanocrissa, with much paler lower surface, the adults distinguishable at a glance SUB-GENUS LILLIA, (BOIE, 1859.) 261 from all our species by the unstriated lower surface, the bright rufous vent band and the large extent of black on the upper and lower tail-coverts. In both species the young have the abdomen more or less striated, and in this species, at any rate, have dark shafts to the rump feathers. L. striolata, Zem. From Java was thus first described (Faun. Jap. 33., 1840):— SWing, 9°; tail, 4:95; ° fork, 2°2; hind ‘claw,'.0°23. Bill a little wider and much stronger than that of H. rustica ; the red of the collar and aural region very inconspicuous ; rump with fine black longitudinal lines; lower tail-coverts blackish, but whitisn on their basal halves; the rest of the lower parts whitish with sufficiently well marked longitudinal black strie; tail without white spots.” Note that by this expression, “ sufficiently well marked,’ it is intended to signify very strongly marked, for a little further on we are told that the striations on the lower surface of japonica are almost as strongly marked as on that of strio/ata. Now those of japonica are very pronounced those on the throat and breast, being as our authors themselves say from 0:025 to 0:03 wide, and in my specimen I think almost 0:033. Of L. arctivitta, Swinh. P. Z.S., 1871, p. 346, but little can be said. I cannot discover that Mr. Swinhoe has ever published either dimensions or deseription.* He merely says that the bird is of about the same size as the specimens he believes to be japonica (!) is more faintly and narrowly striped on the under parts than that species, and is distinguished from all other species of the group by its extremely narrow rump band, only 0°7 wide. Ashe neglects to mention whether this measurement was or was not taken from fully plumaged adults, as the ramp band in our Himalayan bird in adults is, I find, only 0°8 in several specimens, and only 0°5 in young birds, this does not help us much. He goes on to say thatour Himalayan bird (which he correctly designates, I believe, as nipalensis, Hodgson) is distinguished by its éroad rufous nuchal collar, and refers to Gould’s plate of daurica as repre- senting this species. But our Himalayan bird has not a broad rufous collar, but one varying from 0°2 to possibly +25, and I very muchdoubt if Gould’s plate was taken from a Himalayan specimen ; for the striping on the flanks is much * It is to be regretted that no full detailed dimensions and descriptions of a great number of Mr. Swinhoe’s new or supposedly new species exist. Many of the species remain merely indicated but in no sense defined, ay) 262 REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE too strongly marked for 99 out of every 100 Himalayan birds and the ear-coverts are rufous, which is not the case in our bird, and the red-eyebrow is much too broad. I gather, however, from the context that the rump in Mr. Swinhoe’s bird is striated, and if it is distinctly so, in the adult, fully plumaged bird, this will suffice to separate it from our Himalayan species. We have now to turn to our Indian species, and first to take our Himalayan birds which breed everywhere throughout the ranges south of the first snowy range, at elevations of from 6,000 to 8,000 feet from Afghanistan to Bhootan, and which occurs during the cold season in various parts of the plains in Continental India and in the Northern Tenasserim Hills, and very possibly also breeds in these latter. Hodgson thus described the species, J. A. 8S. B., V., 780, Decr. 1836. L. nipalensis, Hodgs. “Cap, back, scapulars and wing-coverts, brilliant deep blue ; quills, tail-feathers and the longer tail-coverts above and below, dusky : a narrow frontal zone, cheeks, neck and body below, as well as the rump and lesser tail-coverts above, rusty, paler and striped with narrow lines of dusky hue on the whole abdominal surface; dorsal neck more or less blotched with blue; rump, immaculate; bill, black; iris, dull brown; legs, fleshy grey; sexes exactly alike structure typical; tail long and deeply forked; size of H. rustica. “This is the Common Swallow of the central region, a house- hold creature remaining with us for seven or eight months in the year.” In dimensions adults vary in length from 7:4 to 7:8; wing, 46 to 4°8; tail, 3°7 to 4:1; fork, 1-7 to 2:3. The visible black portion of the upper tail-coverts is usually about 0°5, but varies from 0°4 to 0°7; of the lower tail-coverts 0:7 to 0°9, most generally the latter. The rump band in adults varies from 0:8 to 1. In perfect plumaged adults it is usually a uniform fairly bright bay, unstriated; but in many birds, during or after the breeding season, it pales posteriorly after the fashion, but not to the extent, of that of rufula. The lower parts are creamy white, often almost plain greyish white on the middle of the throat, with a pale ferruginous tinge on breast, rather more decided on flanks, axillaries and wing-lining. The occipital patches and nuchal collar (the latter a little varied with blue glossed feathers) are bright bay. She ear-coverts are like the lower surface, in some a little more rufescent, and, being very densely striated with dusky, look SUB-GENUS LILLIA, (BOIE, 1859.) 263 much darker and duller. There isa bright blue gloss on the black portions of both upper and lower tail-coverts. All this is inadults. In younger birds the bay portions are lighter coloured (in quite young ones the entire rump band is pale isabelline) ; and the feathers of the rump have blackish brown shafts, not shaft stripes, but only shafts. In non-adults the blue gloss of head mantle, &c., is more or less wanting or im- perfect ; in the quite young the lower surface is nearly pure white, and the striz are very faint on the abdomen. As the young grow older the striz become stronger for a time; as far as I can make out they are strongest in the cold season, next but one after the bird’s birth, after which they again grow somewhat feebler, though remaining always much more strongly marked than in erythropyyia. The quills and tail are always hair brown; there is a bluish and greenish gloss on these when the bird has freshly moulted, most noticeable on the later secondaries and median tail-feathers. Scarcely a trace of this remains when the breeding season commences. The first two primaries are subequal, usually the first is from a shade to 0:05 longer than the second; in a few specimens I find the second the longest. The succeeding primaries are each about 0°3 shorter than the next preceding one. The difference in size, and the more marked striations of the lower surface, will always serve to distinguish this bird from erythropygia. Kven the just-flown nestling still has the throat and breast strongly striated, while in the corresponding stage of erythropygia, the entire underparts exhibit scarcely a trace of any striations. The next species appears to me to be as yet undescribed. I have received several specimens from Suddya at the extreme eastern limit of Assam. I propose to designate it L. intermedia, JV. 8. It is conspicuously larger than any of over 50 specimens _ of nipalensis with which I have compared it, and it differs in other particulars. Length, 7:7 to 8:0; wing, 5:0 to 5:2; tail, 3°8 to 4:0; forked for 18: a larger series may show longer tails, but it would seem that for the size of the bird the tail is shorter and less forked. The rump band from 0:9 to 1 in width is a deeper bay, inter- mediate in shade between adult nipalensis and erythropygia. It is absolutely uniform. I speak only of adults, as I have received no young birds. There is no rufous nuchal collar, though on the nape there is an imperfect row of red spots, about 0°05 wide. 204 REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE The whole lower parts, but especially the breast. abdomen, and lower tail-coverts (except of course the black tips), are much more rufescent than in nipalensis, and may be called a pale salmon buff—the wing-lining and axillaries being dull salmon. The striz are much as in some nipalensis, but average rather stronger. The second primary is 0°3 shorter than the first—a structural peculiarity by which, if constant, this species may be at once distinguished from nipalensis. The visible black portions of the upper tail-coverts are about 0°5, of the lower 0°65 to 0°7. The ear-coverts are brownish buff striated with dusky. There is no trace of any white spot on the inner webs of the outer (or any other) tail feathers in any of my four specimens. This species approaches closely to the true alpestris of Pallas as described by him, but differs in not having the ears ashy, in not having the ramp almost to the middle of the back, pale ferruginous, but having less than one-third of the back, bright bay, in having only the tips of the upper tail-coverts black, in having the wings below dull salmon colour not yellowish white, in having the entire lower surface not lutescent or sordid white but distinctly rufescent, in having the tail brown and not shin- ing black, and in having no white spot on the tail. I have no doubt that, when a series of specimens are com- pared, many other differences will be apparent. Lastly, we have a species very distinct from all our other Indian ones, which I have as yet only received from Cachar where it is acold weather visitant, but which doubtless will be found equally at that season in the valley of Assam, Sylhet, &e. The nearest ally is striolata of Temminck, from which it differs in its smaller size proportionally more forked tail, less massive bill and much richer colored under parts. I pro- pose for it the name of L. substriolata, WV. 8. Length, 7°75; wing, 5:0; tail, 4:0; fork, 2°25. A mere trace of a rufous collar. Rump and all but the longest upper tail-coverts, uniform bright rusty rufous, or bay, each feather with a blackish shaft, and in the case of those nearest the black ones, with distinct though narrow shaft stripes. Rufous rump band 1:0 to 1:1 in width. Longest black upper tail-coverts project 0:4 only beyond bay ones. SUB-GENUS LILLIA, (Bork, 1859.) 265 No white spot or mark on the tail feathers. Throat rufescent white ; rest of lower parts rather pale sal- mon buff, brightening to warm salmon colour on axillaries and wing-lining, every feather with a blackish brown shaft stripe very fine, mere shaftines, on the axillaries, but very strongly marked elsewhere. The black visible portions of the longer lower tail-coverts, 0°65 to 0°7. Crown, mantle and tips of upper and lower tail-coverts with a high lustre, greener and less blue than in any other of our species. Wings and tail brown, but with a very marked greenish lustre. I will now adda very brief diagnostical table of the 11 species to which I have referred, which, with the remarks above offered, ought to enable any one to separate full plumaged adults of any of these species as J understand them. But avowedly my knowledge is most imperfect, and my great object in putting forth this cursory notice is to induce more competent authorities at home who can command series of the species of which Ihave none or only single specimens, to investigate the group systematically. FULLY PLUMAGED ADULTS. Rump unstriated. Lower surface unstriated. Wang 5 Vito Oo =... ... melanocrissa. Pecan) eee ... domicella, Lower surface striated. Striations fine and inconspicuous, more or less obsolete on abdomen. Rump band paling conspicuously to- wards tail. Wing over 5:0 ... rufula, Rump band uniform. Wing under 45. erythropygia. Striations well marked on entire lower surface. Wing 5:0—?; usually a white spot on outer tail feathers. Wing and _ tail shining black; rump band extending almost to middle of back ; ears ashy. alpestris. Wing 5:0 to 5:2; no white on tail; wings and tail brown ; rump band 0°9 to 1:0; ears brownish buff, striated dusky ... intermedia Wing 4:6 to 4:8; no white on tail; wings 5 and tail brown; rump band 0°8 to 1:0; ears dingy yellowish white or pale dingy rufescent, densely striated with dusky. 7 ipa lensis. 266 REMARKS ON SOME SPECIES OF THE Rump distinctly striated. Lower surface strongly striated. Wing 55 ase ... striolata. Wing 5:0 to 52 oe ... substriolata. Wing 4°75 ; rump band 1:1 to 1:2 japonica. Lower surface more feebly and narrowly striated. Same size as japonica; rump band only O°7 wide eee ... arctivitta. As for the young birds I know too little of those of nine spe- cies out of the eleven to enable me to speak, but I would repeat that in non-adults, no certain diagnosis can be taken from the streaking of the rump, the colour of the under surface, or the amount of its striation; the first is a character common to the young of the majority of the species, but which only survives in the adults of four, and the two latter vary much during nonnage, and in no case are precisely those of the adults. I cannot conclude without noticing that in my opinion the magnificent Chestnut-bellied Swallow of the Malayan Pe- ninsular, referred to by Holdsworth, P. Z. 8., 1872, p. 419, is quite distinct from hyperythra of Ceylon, and, as they are both very closely allied to the species; of which we have been treating, (though according to Mr. Gray they belong to the other sub-genus Cecropis, Boie), I shall give brief des- criptions of both, C. hyperythra, Layard. Length (from the skin) about 6°5 to 6°75; wing, 4°75 to 5:0; tail 3:25 to 8°6; fork, 1-2 to 1:7. Forehead, crown, occiput, nape and mantle, shining blue black ; wings and tail blackish browu, with more or less of a blue gloss, I suspect according to season. Chin, throat, cheeks, ear-coverts, entire lower surface (except the terminal 0°7 to 0°8 of the lower tail-coverts which are blue black) and rump band (about 0°8 wide) rusty red, more inclining to chestnut on the rump. The terminal 0°5 to 0:6 of upper tail-coverts blackish glossed blue. All the feathers of the under parts and face, with distinct brown shafts, very thickly set in the ear-coverts. Shafts of the earlier primaries brown, paling, in most speci- mens, conspicuously towards their bases. C. archetes, WV. 8S. Malay Peninsular (dimensions recorded in the flesh :— 3 Length, 8:15; expanse, 15:0; wing, 5°55; tail, 4°25; fork, 2, tarsus, 0°65 ; bill from gape, 0°65 ; weight, 1:250z. SUB-GENUS LILLIA, (BOIE, 1859.) 267 ? Length, 8:2; expanse, 14°25;* wing, 5:26;* fail, 4:5 ; fork, 2:2; tarsus, 0°65; bill from gape, 0°65; weight, 1*2oz. Bill, black, fleshy white at gape; legs and feet, black or purplish black ; claws black ; irides deep brown. Forehead, crows occiput nape and mantle, shining blue black ; wings and tail black, with a strong blue gloss. Chin, throat, cheeks, ear-coverts, entire lower suface (except the terminal 1 inch of the lower tail-coverts which are shin- ing blue black) and rump band (about 1:2 wide) deep chestnut, deepest on the chin throat, face and rump. The terminal 04 to 06 of the upper tail coverts blue glossed black. Only faint traces of darker shafts tothe feathers of the lower parts not noticeable in most specimens until closely looked into, none on the ear coverts. | Shafts of the earlier primaries Jdlack, not paling perceptibly towards bases. In the much smaller Ayperythra, the bill is proportionately, and indeed I think even actually, larger; is broader and much less cormpressed towards the point. I have compared six Ceylon specimens of hyperythra with four of archetes shot at Kuroo, 26 miles N. W. of Malacca, and I do not think that there can be the remotest doubt as to the entire distinctness of the two species. The extreme brilliancy of the plumage and the large size marks out this Malayan form as a veritable “ Prince” amongst Swallows.— A. OH A Monograph of the Cinnpride or Family of Sun-dirds.t By Captain G. E. SHELLEY, &eo., &c. We have now received three parts of Captain Shelley’s beautiful work, and propose to give a brief review of their contents. We may commence by remarking that it has been asserted that the title of the group would more correctly stand as Nectarinide, apparently because, although Nectarinide of Boie is junior to Cinnyride of Vigors, Nectarinia of Illiger as the oldest genus, should “ give the name to the larger group.’ * First primary not fully grown. } + London, published by the author at the office of the British Ornithologists’ Union, 6, Tenterden Street, Hanover Square, W. To be completed in 12 parts ; each price one guinea. Address the author, 32, Chesham Place, London, or the Guards’ Club, Pall Mall, London, or R. H, Porter, 6, Tenterden Street, 268 A MONOGRAPH OF THE CINNYRID& Now this does not appear to us to be necessarily true ; in the first place the proposition is based only upon one of the re- commendations, not on any rule of the British Association ; in the second place this latter refers clearly only to the future— the whole spirit of the Code is against any changes in existing nomenclature where that is binomial, or in the case of families ends in ide—the Committee say :— “Tt is recommendea that the assemblages of genera termed families should be uniformly named by adding the termination ide to the name of the earliest known, or most typically cha- racterized genus in them.” If no family ending in ida, exists comprising exactly that group of genera which it is desired to unite under one family name, and it becomes necessary to make what is virtually a new family, then unquestionably any adherent to the Code ought to frame that new name on that “ of the earliest known or most typically characterized genus.” But if a family ending in 7d already exists, covering pre- cisely the required limits, then the law of priority, as laid down by Strickland, entirely bars the rejection of that and the con- struction of a new name, even though such existing family may not have been based on “the earliest known, &.,g@enus”’ ; and if there are two or more such families, each exactly fitting the space to be covered, then you must take the oldest. In the present case therefore if Captain Shelley means to define his family so as to be exactly equivalent to Vigors’, he is correct in adopting Vigors’ name. But if he intends mak- ing a new family differing in its exact limits from any exist- ing family ending in ide, then he ought to call it Nectari- nide, if Nectarinia is both the oldest and at least one of the most typically characterized genera that he intends to include. Now until the work is finished, or at any rate until the general introduction, &c., is published, it is impossible to say whether Captain Shelley’s Cinnyride will be truly equal to Vigors; his inclusion of Promerops made it seem as if it were to be so, but we understand that he intends to separate the Promeropide as a distinct family. To return, of that portion of the work that has appeared, we can express almost unqualified approval. The author himself has observed numbers of the species in life, and his original notes add much to the value of the mono- graph. The synonymy appears to have been with some few exceptions most carefully worked up, and the plates are, as a rule, lovely, except inasmuch as they exhibit almost every species as unnaturally corpulent. Most certainly the delicate slender-bodied Leptocoma (or Cinnyris), zeylonica, could never OR FAMILY OF SUN-BIRDS. 269 interbreed with the magnificent giants depicted by Mr. Keul- man’s as typical examples of this sp cies. Doubtless, some minor errors will have to be eliminated in a postscriptal notice, but taking the work as a whole, when we say that, so far as it has proceeded, it promises to form a worthy companion volume to Mr. Sharpe’s ALCEDINIDA, we have given it, we consider, the highest possible commendation. Parr I. appeared 28th July 1876. pl. 1. Anthodieta collaris.—The plate is interesting as showing that even the nestling exhibits metallic colours, which is not, we believe, the case in any other genus of this family. We note that Anthodieta of Cabanis. (Mus. Cab. and Hein. I, 100) is a genus which, as pointed out by Bonaparte (Compt. Rend., 1854, p. 265) can scarcely be adopted. —Anthodiata hypodilaa—We are glad to see that the late Sir W. Jardine’s Nectarinia hypodilus has been determined, although it replaces the better known name_ sud-collaris. A great portion of the notes in this case are the result of the author’s own observations. —Anthodizta zambesiana is described as a new species from Kast Africa. Itis said to be intermediate between the two last closely allied species. The figures, we are told, have been taken from specimens in the British Museum ; but they have not yet appeared. pl. 2. Nectarinia famosa represents the adult male and female. We doubt if in nature the yellow pectoral tufts would beso fully shown. A friend, who has shot many specimens of this glorious bird, assures us that here too the thickness of the bird has been greatly exaggerated. We find included in the synonymy Trochilus pella (part, Africa,) and 7. capensis, P. L. Miiller, and Certhia tabacina, Lath. Captain Shelley separates the Abyssinian allied species under the name JV. cupreonitens. The author gives a good description of the habits of this species from personal observation. —Cinnyris microrhynchus.—This is the second supposed new species described by Captain Shelley from East Africa. It is only separable from C. bifasciatus “by its very small bill and smaller general size,’ and we think requires confirmation. Our author observes:—“It is worthy of note that of the many West African species of Sun-birds, which have been met with between the Senegal river and the Congo, not one extends its range to any part of the east coast between Cape Guardafui and the Cape of Good Hope.” K 10 270 A MONOGRAPH OF THE CINNYRIDA —Cinnyris osiris (Finch) is recognised as a good species. We note that in his diagnosis our author says that this species is “scarcely smaller’’ than bifasciata, while in the text he says that it is constantly larger. pl. 3. CINNYRIS zEYLONICA*.—The author does not recognise Nectarophila as of generic value, but uses it later on for what he terms a “group.” Compared with the synonomy given by the Marquis of Tweeddale (Ibis, 1870, p. 37) we find he excludes Le sucrion, Levaillant, and Certhia currucaria, Linn. The distribution of this species is not very accurately defined in the text. It may be generally stated that this species is con- fined to Ceylon, Southern and Hastern India. It does not occur so far, as we know, in Sindh, Kutch, Kattiawar, Rajpootana, the Punjab, the North-West Provinces, Oudh, Behar, the Central India Agency, nor in the major portions of the Central Provinces, though in these latter it has been observed occasionally near Chanda, and is common in the Raipoor anh Sumbulpoor districts. Itdoes not extend into any part of British Burmah. Jt is normally a bird of the heavier rainfall and better wooded provinces, though it certainly occurs in the comparatively dry uplands of the Deccan. It never ascends any of the mountain ranges, to the best of our belief, to any considerable elevation, but is essentially a bird of the plains country. With this reservation its range may be said to include Ceylon, Travancore, Cochin, the whole Madras Presidency, Mysore, Hyderabad, the Bombay Presidency south of the 20th degree N. Lat., the Southern portions of Berar and the Central Provinces to about the same latitude, Raipoor and the Hastern States of these provinces, Orissa, the Tributary Mehals, Chota Nagpoor and Lower Bengal west of the Burrumpooter. I have never yet seen it from any of the districts east of this, ¢.g., Chittagong, Cachar, Tipperah or Sylhet, though at Dacca, immediately west of this river, itis common. Nor have I seen it from Assam, though said to occur there, and though Godwin- Austen records a specimen from the Khasya Hills. —Anthodiata rectirostris—The author considers that the name pheothorax, Hartlaub, 1861, must be put aside for the older title rectiostris, Shaw, 1811, founded on Le Soui manga 4 kec droit, Aud. et Vieill. The type specimen is in the Museum of the Jardin des plantes Paris, and we are inform- ed agrees perfectly. We had always hitherto (e.g. ante 142 n.) following numerous authorities, considered Shaw’s rectirostris as equivalent to singalensis, Gm.; but having * We print in capitals the names of those species that occur within our limits, OR FAMILY OF SUN-BIRDS. ye | looked the matter up, we find that whatever rectirostris may be, it certainly is not singalensis. The synonomy includes Cinnyris elegans, Vieill, Nectarinia Jfantensis, Sharpe, and LN. tephrolema, Sharpe, (Ibis, 1872, p- 69.) —Anthodiata tephrolema.—Captain Shelley’s description of the female differs from that given by Mr. Cassim, in fact in this matter he follows Sir W. Jardine and Dr. Hartlaub. —Urodrepanis christine,—This is the author’s first new genus. It is thus shortly described :—“ Similar to Mthopyga, but with the two centre tail-feathers abruptly narrowing into fine points.” Whether it is desirable to create new genera on such very minor differences is to say the least doubtful. pl. 4. Cinnyris mariquensis—Thbhe author here employs the name mariquensis, Smith, and refers bifasciatus, Shaw by which it has been generally known to Jardinei, Verr. —Cinnyris bifasciatus.—-The author shows that the name bifasciatus should be applied to the West African species, being founded upon one of Perrein’s specimens from Malimba. He also gives reasons for recognising four species nearly similar in plumage, but differing in size, from four of the African sub-regions, but many ornithologists would, we suspect, hesitate to adopt this view, while some would doubtless unite all four races under Shaw’s name. pl. 5. Cinnyris gutturalis.—Captain Shelley recognises three other closely allied species, C. senegalensis from West Africa, C. actk and C. eruentatus from North-East Africa. pl. 6. Neodrepanis coruscans.—This species is here figured for the first time, the plate is good, and shows the peculiar sinuated form of the first primary. The upper figure re- presents the type specimen which Captain Shelley presumes to be the immature male, the lower represents the adult male. We should be much disposed to suspect that the first was really a female, and that the sexes will be found to be chiefly distinguished by the absence or presence of the wattles. The author forms a new sub-family Neodrepanine for the reception of this Madagascar species. Part I further includes four illustrations without letter press. pl. 7. Airmopyea DABRYI,—Here the female is figured for the first time. pl. 8. Crnnyris BRASILIANUS.—This is Nectarinia Hasseltii Temm. We have already in a separate article (Notes on 272 A MONOGRAPH OF THE CINNYRIDZ Nomenclature, II.) expressed our concurrence in the use of the term “ brasilianus.”’ pl. 9. Cinnyris amethystinus.— pl. 10. Promerops cafer which can scarcely be included in the Cinnyride. Part IT appeared 29th November 1876. —Cinnyris kirkit.--A new species founded upon the Hast African form of C, amethystinus. It is very close to that species, but smaller, and the upper tail-coverts are brownish- black like the back, with no portion of them metallic. —AMTHoryGA DaBRYI which was figured in the first part is here described. Itis quite refreshing to find the name correctly spelt, English authors having rung almost every possible kakographical change on it, dabril, debrii, abrii, &e. We found this species not uncommon at Mooleyit in the Central Tenasserim Hills and shall have some remarks to make about it, when dealing with the avifauna of that province. pl. 1. Cinnyris verreauxi.—Both sexes possess bright pectoral tufts. The author places this bird in his ‘ sub-metallic group” which appears to be nearly equivalent to Adelinus, Bonaparte. Captain Shelley gives some original notes upon this rare and very local species. pl. 2. Cinnyris olivaceus.—This species is here well figured for the first time. The author places it in his “ Olive group,” which is nearly represented by Hlwocerthia, Reichb. He considers its nearest ally Anthreptes hypogrammica; this may be so, but both this species and obscurus have always reminded us most of the Asiatic Arachnothere. —Nectarinia cupreonitens.—The new species from North-Hast Africa and Senegal already referred to. The type is a male in the British Musenm from Abyssinia. pl. 8. Cinnyris notatus.— pl. 4. Cinnyris superbus.— There are some original notes upon this species, as it was met with by the author “in the lofty forests of the Aguapini mountains.” pl. 5. Cinnyris johanne.—The adult male and female are here well figured for the first time. To the synonomy of this species is added Nectarima fasciata, Jard. and Fraser. From Cinnyris superbus, “ the female is distinguished by the striped breast, and by the under tail-coverts not being orange- yellow.” OR FAMILY OF SUN-BIRDS. 278 The author met with it at Abouri during his travels in the Aguapim mountains, and was evidently much struck with its beauty. pl. 6. Cinnyris talatala.-— The author places this bird i in his ‘ white-breasted section” of the “ pale metallic group.” pl. 7. Cinnyris albiventris—The adult male and female are here figured and described from the type specimens in the Strickland collection at Cambridge, said to be in very bad condition. According to the author it is a well-marked species, which “ should be arranged between C, venustus and C. talatala.” pl. 8. Oinnyris afer.— Captain Shelley, we find, refers Nectarinia ludovicensis, Bocage, to this species. He places it in the “ashy-breasted section” of his “ pale metallic group.” pl. 9. Cinnyris chalybeus.—The adult male and male in moult are figured. The female, which is similar to that of @. afer, is not figured. The author had opportunities of observing its habits while he was in South Africa, but he does not tell us much about it. pl. 10. Cinnyris chloropygius—The adult male and female are figured. The author met with this bird on the Gold Coast near Cape Coast Castle and in the Aguapim Mountains. —Promerops cafer.—This species was figured in the first part. The author gives some original notes % upon this species, which he fr equently met with in Cape Colony.. —Promerops gurneyt.—There are no figures given of this or the following species. —Anthrobaphes violacea.—He considers this species to form ‘the connecting link between the African genus Vecta- rinia and the oriental Aithopyga.” We do not know why the author designates the genus Anthrobaphes, the derivation (Cab. Mus. Hein. s9,'Asy 1103) -38 av Ooapys Part III. appeared 27th February 1877. pl. 1. Cinnyris fuscus.— pl. 2. Cinnyris dussumiert.—The adult male and female are here well figured for the first time. pl. 3. ANTHREPTES HYPOGRAMMICA.—The adult male and female are figured. It is a pretty plate, but from 274 A MONOGRAPH OF THE CINNYRID the position of the female the distinguishing characters of that sex, the absence of the steel-blue colour on the back of the neck and rump are lost. The specific name hypogrammica, S. Miill., is apparently rightly chosen, as Anthreptes macularia, Blyth, was not des- eribed until 1843, when Blyth applied to the same species the fresh name of A. nuchalis. pl. 4. Cinnyris cyanolemus.—The adult male and female are here, we believe, figured for the first time. Indeed the female does not appear to have been previously described. pl. 5. Eudrepanis pulcherrima.—This and the next three species are some of the recent novelties collected in the Philippine Islands by Dr. Steere, (to whom we also are in- debted fora number of beautiful specimens) and are here figured for the first time. Of the present species only the type is known and the two figures are drawn from the same specimen. The new genus Ludrepanis is here described by Mr. Sharpe for the first time. pl. 6. Ethopyga Shelleyii—Named after the author by Mr. Sharpe; is a lovely species. The female is unknown. pl. 7. ithopyga magnifica.—Adult male and female are figured. pl. 8. “Arachnothera dilutior.—The figure represents the adult male, the only specimen known of this bird. It was collected by Dr. Steere in the island of Palawan, and is the first instance of the genus drachnothera being found in the Philippines. pl. 9. Cinnyris frenatus.— In the synonomy we find Nectarinia flavigastra and N. aus- tralis, Gould, referred to this widely-spread species. This species is included it what the author calls “ the yellow- breasted section of the Asiatic olive-backed group,” which section comprises six species, all of which are described in this part, and their specific differences pointed out. We have al- ready given a key to this group, ante, p. 70. —Cinnyris jugularis—The plate of this species is not yet issued. pl. 10. CINNYRIS FLAMMAXILLARIS.— —Cinnyris rhizophore.—The plates for this and the next four species have not yet appeared. —CINNYRIS PECTORALIS. —Cinnyris bouvieri—Is a new species collected by M. Petit at Landano, Congo, in West Africa, OR FAMILY OF SUN-BIRDS. 275 Both the adult male and female are here described, but of the female the author observes: ‘I cannot be certain that itis not a hen of C. difasciatus.”’ “The structure and plumage shows that it should be placed near C. bifasciatus, C. osea, and C. venustus, from all of which it is distinguished by its dark-brown breast.”’ —CINNYRIS ANDAMANICUS. —Nectarinia tacazze. We understand that the present work will comprise at least 12 parts, with 10 plates in each, so that the entire work will comprise not less than 120 illustrations. Of these, 30 have been now issued, as also the descriptions of 46 species, including 7 new ones. We have been informed by the author that the reason of the descriptions being more numerous than the plates is in order to equalise the number of plates in the severa: parts, and if the present proportion is kept up, it will leave apparently four parts for index, classification &e.; but we suppese the author knows best what space will be required for this portion of the work. Over 30 species that occur within our limits will be figured, and no Indian ornithologists, who keep up any kind of ornitho- logical library (though these are necessarily but few), should be without this work. Alotes ow Alomenclature IT. THE use by Captain Shelley, in his monograph of the Sun Birds of the name Cinnyris brasilianus, Gmel. (S. N., L, 474, 1788) for the species more generally designated Hasseltii, Tem., (P. C., 376, f. 3, 1825) has awakened the indignation of a contem- porary {Jbis, 1877, 124)—‘ such a course,” we are told, being “altogether opposed to the Stricklandian Code of Nomencla- ture.” I, however, very much question the correctness of this dictum, and am disposed to believe that a very general misapprehension exists as to what the so-called Stricklandian Code of Nomen- clature really enforces. The fact is, that the correct construction or interpretation of written documents requires some little practice and training, and is in a certain degree a science per se governed by fixed laws and proceeding on definite principles. 276 NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE II. Now, in this present case, an almost universal confusion seems to exist between what the Code enforces as regards the past, and what it recommends as regards the future. It is a generally received rule of construction that the part is to be interpreted by the whole, and that any doubts as to the letter of particular passages are to be cleared up with re- ference to the spirit or manifest intention of the whole docu- ment. The first thing, therefore, essental to a right interpretation of the Codeis a thorough mastery of its general intention—a clear realization in fact of the spirit in which it was conceived. I do not hesitate to assert that, taken as a whole, the essential features—the leading principles of the Code—are these. Priority is to be the rule of nomenclature; it is of such importance that, except in the most extreme cases, no name which has priority is to be set aside, but for the future greater care in framing new names is recommended. In fact the Code virtually says: Don’t meddle with your predecessor’s work, except in the most extreme cases, but in the matter of your own work be careful to avoid their blunders; there are scores of errors that you ought to beware of, but the fact that others have committed these very mistakes against which we warn you, will in no way justify your attempting to set ¢heir names aside.” The Code thus far is essentially a British one—it breathes a wise spirit of compromise; it is characteristic of the nation, in harmony with its whole traditions and practice, and ought to be sacred to all English Naturalists. Of course Continental nations will not accept it. Compro- mise is, and always hasbeen, foreign to their national character ; with them everything, be it a revolution, a reform, a republic or a despotism, must be carried out to its logical conclusion— they are always to our ideasin extremes. As a fact they are always more nearly theoretically right than we are, but they are very rarely as successful in practice. In one respect our Code is doubtless wrong; the rejection of all binomial names prior to 1766 is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the Code, which is, that priority is to be the rule, and that absolute necessity alone justifies its disregard. It was necessary to reject names that were not binomial, but it was contrary to the whole spirit of the Code, to reject any truly binomial names, such as Briinnichs, many of Brissons, &e., because published prior to the appearance of Linnzus’ XII. edition of his Syst. Nat. In this respect our Code cannot possibly, I believe, stand, but until altered by as influential a consensus as that on which it NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE II. 277 is based, we English, at any rate, ought to abide by it. Setting this one point aside, the Code is, =I believe, thoroughly catholic, and in all respects a credit to our country, and it grieves me to see English naturalists hankering after the flesh pots of Egypt, and striving, under cover of a misinterpretation of the Code, and a confusion of its recommendations for the future with its rules for the past, to approximate to the practices of Foreign naturalists who, for the most part in nomenclature, as in all other matters, run, according to our sober British ideas, into extremes. And now what does the Code say in regard to such changes as the Editors of the Jdis advocate when they gibbet Capt. Shelley for the use of the name brasilianus? « A name may be changed when it implies a false proposition which is likely to pr opagate important errors.’ Note how guarded the rule—it is not sufficient that the name implies a false proposition ; it must also be liable to propagate errors, and these errors must be tmportané. Now the name “ érasilianus,’”’ doubtless, implies a false pro- position, but the time has long past when it could propagate any error—the species and its habitat being thoroughly well known to science,-—and the rejection of the name in such a case is there- fore impliedly barred. set such proper names of places,” say the authors of the Code, “as Covent Garden, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Neweastle, Bridgewater, &e., no longer suggest the ideas of gardens, fields, castles or bridges, “but refer the mind with the quick- ness of thought to the particular localities which they res- pectively designate, there seems no reason why the proper names used in Natural Histery should not equally perform the office of correct indication, even when their etymological meaning may be wholly inapplicable to the object they typify.” We must not, however, halt here—this was the major propo- sition, but to it were appended riders, which not to quote would be to do injustice to the broad and comprehensive views of the framers of the Code. They go on to say— «But we must remember that the language of science has but a limited currency, and hence the words which compose it do not circulate with the same freedom and rapidity as those which belong to every-day life. The attention is consequently liable in scientific studies to be diverted from the contemplation of the thing signified to the etymological meaning of the sign, and hence it is necessary to provide that the latter “shall not be such as to propagate actual error. Instances of this kind are indeed very rare, and in some cases, such as that of Monodon, Caprimulgus, Paradisea apoda and Menoculus, they have - E FL 278 NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE If. acquired sufficient currency no longer to cause error, and are there- fore retained without change. But when we find a Batrachian reptile named in violation of its true affinities Mastodonsaurus, a Mexican species termed (through erroneous information of its habitat) Picus cafer, or an olive-ecoloured one Muscicapa atra, or when a name is derived from an accidental monstrosity, as in Picus semirostris of Linneeus, and Helia disjuncta of Turton, we feel justified in cancelling these names, and adopting that synonym which stands next in point of date. At the same time we think it right to remark that this privilege is very liable to abuse, and ought therefore to be applied only to eatreme cases and with great caution. With these limitations we may concede that— “11, A name may be changed when it implies a false propo- sition, which is likely to propagate important errors.” The upshot is therefore clear; where a name implies a false proposition, and where that falsity is likely to propagate impor- tant errors, there, and there only, can any Englishman, who pro- fesses to abide by the British Code, consistently or with any show of justice, reject the name that has priority. Now in the present state of ornithology, no ornithologist can pretend that the name brasilianus (or the similar name singa- lensis of Gmelin, for our common Anthreptes), can possibly pro- pagate any error; the habitats of both species are too well known to render this possible, and no excuse therefore remains under the Code for violating in these cases the fundamental law of priority. It is quite intelligible that foreign naturalists who reject the Code (and rightly so, I think, so far as the exclusion of Brisson’s Brunnich’s and similar truly binomial names are concerned) should reject equally the name érazilianus, but that the editors of the Jbis should seek to found a reproach for an adherence to this prior name, on the Code which really enjoins this, indi- cates to my mind how imperfectly they have realized the really catholic spirit which breathes throughout this remarkable document. “Unhappy Strickland!) (ee) Sta #2) = Wa alert ee ey UE ’T was thine own Custos gave the fatal blow And helped to plant the wound that laid thee low!” And we may conceive our immortal naturalist folding his pinions round him and sinking in celestial despair into space with a murmured “et tu Salvine!? when his official living representative thus appeals to this, Strickland’s great legacy to zoology, in justification of such a violation of its first principles. NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE II. 279 The fact is English ornithologists are slowly falling away from both the actual precepts and the principles of the Code. The German Faust is leading the poor English Margaret from the paths of virtue, and English writers, who profess to stand by the British Code, are becoming participants in those very offences which Strickland so emphatically denounced. “There is another source for this evil, which is far less excusable—the practice of gratifying individual vanity by attempting, on the most frivolous pretexts, to cancel the terms established by original discoverers, and to substitute a new and unauthorized nomenclature in their place. One author lays down, as arule, that no specific names should be derived from geographical sources, and unhesitatingly proceeds to insert names of his own in all such cases; another declares war against names of exotic origin, foreign to the Greek and Latin, &e., &e.”’ Why all I said about my friend Dr. Finsch’s massacre of the innocents, was mere milk and water to this fiery, uncom- promising condemnation of the systematic pillage of the species and genera of our predecessors that the continental system per- mits, aye and approves and insists on. But there were English ornithologists found to defend the practice; there are English ornithologists who use these unlawfully begotten names, one or two even who actually themselves descend to these impious _ practices. The pretext of a name being hybrid has of late, on several occasions, been put forth even by English writers as grounds for throwing aside a well-established prior title, and substituting some truly classically compounded name. Poor Strickland! could he have conceived that such things would be done on the pretended authority of Ais Code? “Can he smile on such deeds as his followers have done 2” he, who never entertained even the faintest notion of setting aside a name on account of its hybridity, but only mildly remarked : “ Naturalists should be specially guarded not to introduce any more such terms into Zoology which furnishes too many ex- amples of them already ?” But I will say no more on this subject now. For years I have been vainly endeavouring to obtain a copy of this Code, which a certain Zoological Hierarchy at home, are perpetually flinging at our heads, as authorizing this and forbidding that. At last, owing to the kindness of our ornithological Aristides, Professor Newton, I have obtained a copy, which I shall print in ewxtenso in an early number, and I find that owr Hierarchy has as notably obfuscated the plain and simple precepts of this Code as 280 NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE Ii. in past ages did a more illustrious Hierarchy those of a still greater Code. In our case, the Prophets and the Law, hang all upon these two precepts : Thou shalt not meddle with thy neighbours’ names, save under pressure of absolute necessity. Thou shalt watch carefully lest thou fall into errors such as we now regret in our predecessors. I have, in ignorance, alas! too often transgressed the latter law, but I know better now, thanks to the Code, what sins to guard against, and having made this publie recantation survive in the humble hope of becoming, in due time, a good codist ! In conclusion, it is only due to the many friends I now number amongst continental ornithologists to add that, while I never can cease publicly or privately to denounce in the most unqualified terms the system so prevalent abroad of disregard- ing priority (on, as Strickland truly says, “the most frivolous pretexts”) as one of “robbery and wrong,” I am not so intolerant as to impute the smallest blame personally to those who, viewing that system as a beneficial one, work it out uncompromisingly to its logical conclusions. I would argue with them ; I would try and eonvince them that their system is one that sacrifices substance to shadow, important faets to sound; that they have really no general Code, but are each working on their own separate modifications ; that they had better join us and so at least have some (even if not the best conceivable) absolutely fixed basis for their nomen- clature ; but so long as they remain unconvinced, I hold them entirely right in adhering to what they believe in, and while persistently abusing their system and reviling their acts, I none the less feel for them, each and all, the regard and respect due to brother soldiers, who, though with greater talents and skill and in more exalted positions, are fighting on the same side and in the same cause as myself. 281 Catalogue of the Birds im the British Museum, By R. BowpLer SHARPE. Vol. III. Order—Passerirormes. Sub-order—Passeres. Group.—Coliomorphe. We have to acknowledge, with many thanks, another instal- ment of Mr. Sharpe’s great Prodromus. The present volume, embracing the families of the Crows (Corvida), Birds of Paradise (Paradiseide), Orioles ( Oriolide), Drongos (Dieruride@), and Wood Shrikes, (Prionopide), deals gvith some of the most difficult and debateable groups, which ornithology has to systematize. That the subject generally, in particular the intricate and difficult species questions involved have been dealt with in a masterly manner, follows naturally from the fact that Mr. Sharpe is the author of the treatise. Nothing could be a more welcome addition to ornitho- logical literature at the present time than this new volume ; and if, as we believe, very few ornithologists of the present day will be found to concur in all Mr. Sharpe’s wholesale amalgama- tions, this is to be attributed, perhaps, rather to his being some- what ahead of his time than to any shortcomings on his part. We ourselves have sat aghast as we perused the sanguinary pages, at the countless executions amongst, what we had fondly deemed, the most eminently respectable species; and while reluctantly admitting that in most cases our judge’s sentence, harsh as it seemed, was warranted by the record, there are yet some few in which our unregenerated nature refuses to bow to the decree, and in which it seems to us that our author has permitted his pen, Cossack-like, to massacre the most in- nocent and irreproachable species. As an example of such victims let us cite Pica bottanensis from Bhotan and Native Sikhim, with its uniform velvet-black upper surface without any trace of any pale rump bar, and its dark Calornis-tytleri-green tail. How can we agree to merge thisin Pica rustica? Perish bactriana and leucoptera, but Jdottanersis ! To us it seems simple murder, and doubtless every ornithologist will feel the same in regard to some one or other of the many “ rubbed out” species. It is a poor species that has no friends; and in this, as in other cases, the friends of the deceased will want to know all about it, and we fear Mr. Sharpe will not have an easy time of it, for the next year or so, after this sanguinary campaign. Still, though he may be wrong in some few isolated instances, owing to the lack of sufficient specimens, we feel certain that, 282 CATALOGUE OF THE BIRDS on the whole, Mr. Sharpe is very right; and that his refusal to admit any formas a valid species, which cannot be exactly defined and definitely separated from all other forms, is essentially correct. This is not the occasion on which to criticise details ; we shall have hereafter our small budget of matters wherein we differ from our author to submit for his consideration. Our chief object at present is to announce to all our readers the welcome news of the appearance of this third volume. Out of the 367 species described, more than one-sixth occur within the limits of our Indian Empire, so that, like its predecessors, the volume is one that even a working-field ornithologist out here can well afford to carry about with him. ° But while we rejoice in what we have received, and grate- fully congratulate our author on what he has achieved, we must, like the daughters of the Horse-leech, persistently ery for more, and urge upon him, and upon the authorities of the British Museum, the necessity for greater expedition in the publication of future volumes. What one man cando that Mr. Sharpe, we know, will do; but having embarked on the publication of this memorable catalogue, which, as we have said before, will form a new and advanced standpoint for the operations of at least one genera- tion of ornithologists, it behoves the Trustees to see that it is prosecuted with vigour, and that suitable assistance is afforded to the author. Situated as he now is, it has taken Mr. Sharpe three years to prepare Vols. II and III, dealing with about 560 species. At this rate the work will be complete in about 90. years, of which at least 80 will, so far as Mr. Sharpe is concerned, (should he live so long which the Trustees can hardly expect) have been devoted to clerical labour, which could have been equally well done by far less-gifted men, and a great deal of it by mere clerks. It is the falsest possible economy to use up our author’s great powers in this way: having got a good man, the Trustees will, we hope, endeavour to do their duty to the country by getting the greatest amount of the highest kind of work out of him. With a proper staff of assistants to relieve him of all clerical and manual work, Mr. Sharpe could probably deal with 2,000 species a year, and the whole catalogue might be completed, with appendices up to date, within 10 years. Thus completed, the work would be alike honourable to the nation, the Trustees and the author; it would ensure almost inconceivable progress in exact ornithological research, and with it in the elucidation of many of the most crucially impor- tant zoological problems. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 283 We all know how the wise king who found, in the suite of his Royal consort, a little maiden who could spin golden thread out of flax, wisely took care, despite his spouse’s opposi- tion, that no other service should thenzeforth be required from this fairy’s favourite but gold spinning, and how ultimately, when the old queen died, he married her. But the moral which lies within the clear depths of this old levend, that nations and their special representative bodies, finding exceptional men, qualified by natural gifts and special training for special work ofa high order, should, despite all red- tape opposition, utilize them for this, and this only, taking care that their time, energies, and talents are not frittered away on inferior work, and that thus, in the long run, their own names become indissolubly united in the roll of fame with those of the men whose genius they have enfranchised, is still hidden, it would seem, from the comprehension of even the so-called most highly-civilized communities. It remains.to be seen whether the Trustees of the British Museum will be content to dawdle on super antiquas vias, ob- livious of the spirit of the trust confided in them, or whether they will combine in a vigorous effort to do their duty by the nation; and either by extracting an extra grant from the treasury, or by a better administration of their finances, or by raising a public subscription, provide for Mr. Sharpe, and other good men at the museum, that ample addi- tional assistance which is essential to secure to the country, and the world, the fullest advantage from their labours and from the collections under their charge. Ax, OF Ee Astola, a summer Cruise in the Gulf of Oman. By Captain E. A. Butter, H. M’s. 83rd Reciment. On the 13th May this year (1877), at my friend the Editor’s request, * I left Kurrachee in the Telegraph Steamer Améber- - witch, commanded by Captain Stiffe, and proceeded up the Mekran Coast in quest of the eggs of Sterna bergii, and any other species of sea bird that might be found breeding on the island of Astola. * Ever since my own trip to Sind and cruise in the Gulf of Oman, I have been en- deavouring to arrange for the visit of some competent ornithologist to Astola during the breeding season. Several schemes were devised, but all fell through, though last year as mentioned, S. F., 1V., 473, through the kindness of Captain Wise and Mr. Ffinch of the Telegraph Department, a native boat was sent there and 3,C00 eggs of Sterna bergit brought back thence, of which unfortunately only 25 were preserved ! This year, with the transfer of my friend Captain Butler to Kurrachee, our prospects brightened. The Chief Commissioner, Sir. W. Merewether, who is now, I regret to hear, about to leaye us, and to whose kindness and assistance I haye in past times owed 284 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE The island of Astola, * called also Satadip, Haft-talar, and by other names by different classes of natives, lies nearly in an east and west direction, about 24 miles S. W. of Pusni, and 18 miles S. of the Kalmatti Creek, and the same distance from the nearest land. From Kurrachee it is distant about 170 geographical miles, and from the mouth ofthe Hubb river, which is the boundary that divides Sind and the Mekran Coast, it lies a little north of west, and distant about 152 geographical miles. It is about 2,800 yards in length by 1,000 yards in width in the broadest part, and is surrounded by steep cliffs, the high- _est points being about 260 feet above the sea-level. The southern side is bleak, having the appearance of a barren rock of whitish sandstone. On the northern side the shoals and inlets abound with turtle, and here thereis a low sandy cape formed by the meeting of the sea from the opposite ends of the island ; many detached rocks or remnants of the island dotted about in the sea give it further extension. It is perfectly barren and has no vegetation growing upon it, with the exception of two or three species of Salsola, probably Sueda fruticosa and Salsola Griffithit (called by the natives of Sind Lani), low succulent bushy plants, somewhat heather-like in growth and appearance, much in ornithological matters, at once promised us the loan of a small Government sailing vessel, not at the time in use, and Messrs. Mackinnon , Mackenzie, the Managing Agents of the British India Steam Navigation Company, with that liberality which uniformly characterizes all their dealings where scientific interests are concerned, acceded, without a day’s hesitation, to my request that the next of their steamers that left Kurrachee to go up the Gulf should tow up the little sailing vessel, that the Chief Commissioner had promised to lend us, to Astola. ; Before, however, these arrangements could be carried out, the Amberwitch was ordered up the Gulf; and, through the kindness of the Chief Commissioner and the Commander of the Amberwitch, Captain Stiffe, it was settled that Captain Butler should have a passage in her, and that on her return she should call at Astola. Itake this opportunity of thanking most cordially all those by whose kind assistance my long-smothered project of a raid upon the sea-birds of Astola has at last bloomed out into full fruition—A, O. Hume. * The following is Captain Stiffe’s account of this island. To him Iam also indebted for the sketch of the island at the foot of the chart—A. O. H. “ Astalih » island, called also Satalih, Haft-talar, and various other names by different classes of natives, is 2} miles long, east and west, by > mile in breadth; it is table-topped, with cliffs all round anda partly detached hill at the west, and which is a little higher than the rest of the island. This peak is 260 feet above the sea and visible 20 miles. The island rises perpendicularly out of the sea, except on the north side, about the centre of which is a little sandy point, and at the north-west corner there is a sandy spit forming a little boat harbour. There are rocky ledges off both ends, and some detached rocks above water along the south face, but all are less than two cables from the cliffs, and the island may be approached on all sides to three cables. “There isno water on the island, which is barren, and only frequented by boats from Muscat, which eatch fish and large numbers of turtle. “ Sail rock.—At seven cables from the centre of the south side of Astdlih is a little is- let or rock, 20 feet above the water, which looks like a boat under sail. It is quite steep-to, and a vessel has passed between it and the island, which passage however is not recommended.” _“1 Captain Kempthorne, I. N., says this place was a rendezvous of the Persian Gulf pirates, and that the remains of a look-out tower erected by them were visible in 1829,” Stray Feathers Vol Vv. (To Iliustrate Captam Butler's Paper.) ° a 10 Seale of Nankic miles WAH MH) I ieee . 4 angers ‘ou iia wane AM WW, cn hw 1) iy 4) Hj ay ANA ANSY any WANTS Ny) YY NY) i oe i . eS Astolah I? ean 2. as 7 a cane 2b Bank EA eA Sy Es ol) Ag IN’ Island Bf Agtolahe tran the South side Or IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 28 which are scattered over a considerable portion of the plateau, and a few tussocks of coarse grass. We also noticed a few wild capers (C. Loxburghii) growing out of the cliffs on the north- ern side. There is no water on the island, and it is uninhabited, but at certain seasons of the year it is visited by Arab fishermen for the sake of the turtle. Hindu pilgrims also resort there to visit a rude shrine that exists on the summit of the tableland. The ascent on the northern side is steep and difficult, and near the summit there isa rope fastened to a rock with steps cut in the cliff, by which those who ascend have to pull them- selves up (a part ofthe undertaking which I personally should rather have avoided, as the rope looked very old and treacherous), The island is claimed by Mir Mandi, the Chief of Pusni. It is noticed by Nearchus, who calls it Carnine. Geologically itis a fragment of the formation which Blanford calls the Mekran Coast group, supposed to be not older than the Miocene period. It consists of a thin crust of coarse shelly “breccia” abounding with all kinds of marine shells. The edge of the plateau is covered in many places with huge cracks, and large heaps of “ debris” below testify to the frequene y of land- slips ; ; in fact in a geological sense, it is being rapidly consumed by combined denudation and the action of the waves. Having now described Astola and the object I had in view, I will give a brief account of our cruise. After leaving Kurrachee Harbour we steered for Jashk, one of the Telegraph offices on the Mekran Coast, about 520 miles from Kurrachee, arriving there in about four days. For the first two days sea sickness prevented me from doing much in the ornithological line personally ; but Captain Bishop, Ist officer of “ the Amberwiteh, ” was kind enough to keep a sharp look-out and reported to me whenever any birds were in sight. The only birds we saw during this part of the voyage were about eight or ten White Boobies "(8, cyanops ?) which oe- easionally visited the ship, flying alongside and crossing the bows after the fashion of tropic birds, sometimes singly, some- times in pairs, and occasionally as many as three or four together; a few tropic birds (P. indicus), a few Noddies (Anous stolidus\, a few Petrels (7°. wilsoni?), about balf a dozen Skuas (8. astaticus?) and an occasional S. bergii, 8. bengalensis and Larus hemprichi. Phalaropes (Lobipes hyperboreus) and Shearwaters (Puffinws persicus) were abundant all along the coast, as well as Sterna albigena and Sterna anosthetus, the latter species not appearing however until we were about opposite to Gwadar. On arriving at Jashk we anchored for a few hours, during which time I went for a sail round the bay in the gig shooting mM 12 286 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE a Noddy and three Phalaropes. The former was fishing in company with a large flock of Terns, principally S. aldigena and S. minuta, with a few S. bengalensis, and the latter I shot as they flew past the boat at long ranges. I also observed a few of Larus lambrusehini in the bay, the only ones we saw during the trip, and these even had all left when wereturned ten days later. In the evening, after dining on shore, we weighed anchor and steered for Henjam, about 120 miles further up the coast in the Persian Gulf. During this portion of the voyage we noticed S. albigena, 8. anosthetus, Puffinus persicus, Lobipes hyperboreus, and an occasional pair of Sterna bengalensis. All of the first four species were particularly plentiful off Ras Mesendom; and, as we passed through the channel that separates the island from the mainland, a fine old eagle, that was sitting on the rocks, came and paid us a visit, and after sailing two or three times round the ship returned to shore. I did not recognise the species ; but, as far as I could judge, it was about the size, or rather larger than, Aguila vindhiana, with a whitish head, the upper parts including tail, brown, the latter appearing to be barred dusky, and the lower parts white * I saw another pair of the same species at Henjam on the following day, but unfortunately could not get a shot at them. We reached Henjam late in the evening, and the following morning, whilst Captain Stiffe was engaged in telegraph work, T took a stroll round the island, shooting a fine pair of Sterna bengalensis and a Kentish Plover (4gialophilus cantianus), the latter having the testes much developed as if breeding. The only other birds I saw on the island were a solitary Shrike (Lanius lahtora), a few Larks (Galerida cristata), a pair of “ Pity- to-do-its” (Lobivanellus indicus), and the pair of the Hagles, T have already alluded to. On the water outside, Sterna albigena and Sterna anosthetus were fishing in abundance; and occasional- ly we noticed Sterna minuta (?) and Sterna bengalensis. Mr. Scroggie, however, who resides at Henjam, imparted an important piece of information which I must not omit, and that is that one or two pairs of Houbara macqueent were breeding on the island, and that about six weeks before our arrival, a.¢., about the first week in April, a pair (g & ¢) were shot there, and that he extracted a perfect egg from the oviduct of the female, and put it under a hen to hatch, but that subse- quently it was destroyed by rats. I am inclined to think that the greater portion of the Houbara that visit Sind in the cold weather breed in Persia and Afghanistan. Mr. Scroggie also mentioned a species of crow that I had never heard of before. He said that it was plentiful at Fao * Probably Haliectus leucogaster, immature.—A. O. H, IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 287 at the head of the Persian Gulf at the mouth of the river Shat-el-Arab, extending up the Euphrates, at all events as far as Busrah and Bagdad. He described the bird as having a white body with black head, tail, and wings. On making further enquiries I found that it was familiar to all of the Telegraph people along the coast, and Captain Bishop told me that he knew the bird well also, and that two were sent to the Zoological Gardens in London last year. At first I thought that the bird must be Corvus cornix, but as every one assured me that the plumage was pure black and white, and that there was no grey about it, I must at present suspend my opinion.* After cruising about opposite to Henjam for three days, attending to the repairs of the cable, we at length accomplished that troublesome task and returned to Jashk, observing nothing new ez route. As we were delayed there for about 24 hours (25th May), I went on shore and shot four Desert Larks (Certhilauda desertorum), one Kentish Plover (gialitis cantianus) and one English Swallow (Hirundo rustica.) The only other shore hirds I noticed were the Crested Lark (Galerida cristata), a solitary Turnstone (Sérepsilas interpres), and a large flock of Flamingoes (Phenicopterus roseus.) The latter rather astonished me, as I thought they had all left the country some time before. However these were no accidental exceptions to a general migration, as I noticed others in the Kurrachee Harbour after I returned as late as the 23rd June. From Jashk we went to Charbar, anchoring for a few hours. Whilst stores were being put on board, I sailed round the bay in the gig, noticing several Gulls (Larus hemprichit), a few Terns, Sterna bengalensis, S. albigena, and a good sized flock of S. bergit. The latter were sitting closely packed upon a small rock about 10 yards from the shore, and being in full breeding plumage, I fired into them with small shot (No. 8), bagging five lovely specimens, four of which I preserved. I also shot a pair of Larus hemprichii in full breeding plumage, with the conspi- cuous white half collar. On the following day we arrived at Gwadar, but saw nothing new; a few Noddies were fishing just outside the bay. Next day we anchored off Pusni for a few hours, and thence proceeded to Astola, reaching the island at about 6 P.M. * The crow, of which a specimen has been sent me, is clearly C. capellanus, Sclater, P. Z. S. 693, pl. LXVI. An albenoid form of C. cornix, but quite entitled, L think, to specific distinction. I had heard of this crow, and assumed that it must be C. scapulatus which v. Heughlin says he has heard of as occurring in Arabia. Directly I received a specimen, vile thing as it was, I saw my mistake and described the bird as new under the name of C. Cappeli, after Mr. Cappel, then Officiating Director-General of Telegraphs ; luckily the P. Z.S. arrived just in time to enable me to withdraw the des- eription from the last number of 8S. F; but it does seem to me about the most extra- ordinary coincidence ever heard of that I should have named it cappelé, after Mr, Cappel, and Mr, Sclater capellanus, or the Chaplain Crow.—A. O, H. 288 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE It was too late when we arrived on the evening of the 28th for ornithological work, so we dined punctually at 7 p.m. and went on shore afterwards to turn turtle. It was a bright moonlight night, and the party consisted of Captain Stiffe, Captain Bishop, and myself. As the gig approached the shore, we saw several huge turtles out on the sand, and we had not gone more than about 10 yards after landing when we dis- covered an enormous turtle close to the edge of the water. We rushed at him and seized him by the side and flippers, and tried our best to turn him over, but all to no purpose. He was too strong, and gradually forced us into the water, until we were knee-deep, when we thought it time to give up the attempt, so we let go, and off splashed the turtle in triumph. Seon afterwards we “ pugged” another one up the beach and found him (or rather her, as it proved to be a female full of eggs) comfortably seated in a large hole in the sand which she had seratched out to lay in. We tied ropes to her flippers and got half a dozen of the sailors to drag her out of the hole; and then, fastening her with the ropes to a couple of oars, we carried her to the gig and deposited her in the bottom of the boat. We then observed another one lying a few yards out in the water further down the beach; and the sailors, availing them- selves of a moment when a receding wave left her stranded, rushed up, passed a rope under her, and secured it to her flippers. Then commenced a most amusing “ tug-of-war,” the sailors, six in number, pulling with the usual noisy “ halice, chalice,” chorus on one side,-against the sturdy old turtle on the other. The turtle’s side at last began to give, and the sailors to cheer at the prospect of turtle soup for rations the following day, when suddenly the rope broke, and off went the turtle, leaving all of the sailors prostrate on the beach amidst a roar of laughter, as may be imagined, from the lookers-on. There were several other turtles along the edge of the water ; but, as it was getting late, and we had a long day on the morrow in pros- pect, we gave up the sport (?) and returned to the ship to turn in for the night. Later in the evening the sailors captured another turtle and brought it on board. I do not know the species to which these turtles belong, but they are of enormous size, one of those we caught weighing 344tbs.* The following morning we rose at 4.A.M., reaching the shore just as it was beginning to get light. The cries of Larus hemprichit and Sterna bergit were almost deafening as we ascended the steep cliff side leading to the summit of the island, and with the exception of one or two Crested Larks ( Galerida * Probably Chelonia virgata, which I have seen from Astola, and which sometimes grows to an enormous size.—A. O. H, IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 289 eristata) and a solitary Swallow (Hirundo rustica), there was not another bird to be seen. In fact, the only other living creatures we saw were two species of snakes, the first a very poisonous viper: (chis carinata), three of which we secured; the second a long thin snake, measuring about 34 or 4 feet which I could not identify. Two or three s species of sand lizard, one of which, a remarkably handsome species, was, as well ‘is I remember, olive brown above, and yellowish white below, with a bright orange stripe extending from head to tail on both sides, and in some specimens exhibited on the lower back and tail as well. Length about 8 or 9 inches. There was a tree lizard on the island also, but we did not secure specimens. The shore was strewn with the dry carcasses of turtle which had been killed by Arab fishermen for the sake of the oil and feeding upon these, when we landed in the morning, were some good-sized rats of a very dark color,which I did not recognise. The stench along the beach in consequence was intolerable. We brought specimens of the vipers, one of which measured 28 inches in length, on board, and put them with three of the orange-striped lizards into a bottle of spirits, intending to send them to Mr. Blanford for identification ; but unfortunately Cap- tain Bishop neglected to cork the bottle securely, and in a few days it burst, and the reptile portion of our collection was lost. Notes on the two species of birds we found breeding, Larus nemprichii and Sterna bergii, will be found further on. Our trip was now virtually over, at least as far as collecting was concerned. We weighed anchor that evening at about 7 p.M., reached Ormarra ‘the following morning, and the next day at daybreak we arrived at Kurrachee, terminating as plea- sant a sea voyage as I ever made. I must not here forget to express my sincere gratitude to Captains Stiffe and Bishop, and the other officers of the Améer- witch, for their extreme kindness and hospitality on board, and for the valuable assistance they offered me in collecting upon every possible occasion from the day we left Kurachee until the day we returned. Had the trip been made in the cold weather, we should, of course, have seen many more species of birds, and probably have secured many more good specimens; but, considering the time of year at which the excursion was made, and the collection we brought back, viz., 93 eggs and about 30 good skins, I think on the whole we were very successful. 82.—Hirundo rustica, Lin, Several pairs of the Common Swallow were breeding at Jashk, Persian Gulf, inthe verandah of the Telegraph Office on the 290 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE 24th May 1877. The nests, which were precisely similar to the nest of the English bird, 7.e., composed of mud, open at the top, and thickly lined with feathers, were stuck to the sides of the beams which supported the roof of the verandah There were ten or a dozen nests in all, containing fully-fledged young ones. Fresh eggs were procurable, therefore, probably about the end of March or beginning of April. The only specimen I procured measured as follows :— : W. os Bf. Bg. Exp. 7 4°75 3°62 0°31 059 12°75 770.—Certhilauda desertorum, Stanley. The Desert Lark was common at Jashk ; and, although only out for afew hours, I succeeded in securing four specimens. The note isa clear monosyllabic plover-like whistle, uttered occasionally from the top of some rising piece of ground. In flight and appearance on the wing it reminds me more of the Hoopoes than any other family. I have noticed it occasionally on the maidan between Kurrachee and Clifton. Measurements of the four specimens obtained as follows :— Sex. L. W. ut Bf. Bg. Exp. 3 9°75 6:37 3°75 112 144 16.5 $ 8:75 4°56 3:37 1:0 1:25 14°87 2 8°75 4:5 3°5 0:94 1:25 14°75 : 875 4°75 35 10 1:25 15:25 Legs and feet China white, tinged yellow on tarsus; irides brown ; bill flesh-colored below, brownish horn above. 848.—Aigialites cantianus, Lath. The Kentish Plover was breeding on the bare sandy maidan at Jashk ; * and though I failed in finding eggs, I caught a young bird unable to fly, apparently about ten days old, on the 24th May, so that fresh eggs were procurable probably about the end -of March or beginning of April. I shot one specimen, in win- ter plumage however, which measured as follows :— Sex. L. W. ANE Bf. Bg. Exp. 3 as 4:37 175 0°62 075 13°75 Legs and feet plumbeous, dusky on the feet; irides blackish brown ; bill black. 890.—Lobipes hyperboreus, Lin. The Red-necked Phalarope was plentifulat sea all along the Mekran Coast, and in the Persian Gulf as far as I went ; that is, up to Henjam. It seemed specially abundant off Jashk, Ras Mesendom, and Henjam. They are, asa rule, very wild and con- sequently difficult to procure ; and I only managed to shoot three * Latitude 25°38’ north—A. O. H. IN THE GULF OF OMAN, 291 specimens, measurements of which are subjoined. They were all just commencing to change into the breeding plumage, with the red feathers of the neck partially developed. Sex. L. W. Ty Bf. Bg. Exp. 3 7°25 4°25 2:19 081 0:94 13:25 Geog 7b aoe 1212) FOr O04 13°75 3 7:25 4:25 2°12 0:87 094 13:0 Legs and feet lavender blue; irides brownish black; bill blackish. 972.—Mergus castor, Zin, As already recorded by Mr. Hume, (S. F., IV., 496) on Captain Bishop’s authority, the Merganser is not uncommon along the Mekran Coast, and in the Persian Gulf during the cold weather, some specimens at any rate occurring as late as July, I heard of its occurrence at Jashk, Charbar, and one or two other stations along the Coast. 976.—Thalassidroma wilsoni, Tem. I observed Wilson’s Petrel on several occasions during the trip along the Mekran Coast, but only secured one speci- men. Captain Bishop shot another, but unfortunately it was only slightly wounded, aud rose again off the water and escaped. They are usually met with singly or in pairs; but sometimes three or four may be seen together, and they fly lazily backwards and forwards just above the surface of the water, as Jerdon justly remarks, “much resembling Swifts both in general appearance, colours, and flight.” They were by no means common anywhere along the coast, but seemed most numerous between Charbar and Pusni. They are very fond of hovering about anything floating in the water. In fact, the two that Captain Bishop and I shot were attracted by a heap of grass that was thrown overboard; and, in company with a third, they remained flying backwards and forwards over it until we shot the two above mentioned. I never observed them running on the waves as described in the case of the Stormy Petrel (7. pelagica). My specimen corresponds exactly with Morris’s plate and description, (Morris’s British Birds, Vol. 6, p. 243,) and I have no doubt, when Mr. Hume receives it, as it does not appear to have been hitherto recorded from India, he will add the description. The pale yellow patch in the centre of the webs is very striking and characteristic. The stomach contained very minute spawn. [OceaniTes ocEeanica, Banks, Forst. Draw. No. 12.—Kuhl, Brit. Zool. Monog. Proc. 136, t. 10, f. 1. ? Wilsont, Keys et Blas. Wirb. Eur, II. 238, nee Bp. 292 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE The Storm Petrel, sent by Captain Butler, the first of the group which I have examined from our Indian Seas (though I have seen many at sea), belongs to the larger Australasian race of the American species which Bonaparte named Wilsoni. By mere chance I had by me a specimen from the Atlantic, of the true Wilsoni; this is somewhat smaller than the present bird, which corresponds in size exactly with a specimen from Australia. The Atlantic specimen, a male, has the wing 5°S and the tarsus 1°32. Our present specimen, a female, has the wing 6:25 and the tarsus 1:4. The bill too is larger ; but beyond this differ- ence in size I cannot detect any grounds for separating the Eastern and Western forms. The present specimen (2) measured in the flesh :— Length, 7:12 ; expanse, 16°37; tail, 3:0; wing, 6:25 ; tarsus, 1:4; bill at front, 0:5; from gape,0-7. Outer toe and claw, 1:15; second quill longest; Ist, 0°3; 3rd, 0°35 shorter. Longest primary 3°8 longer than Ist secondary. Hind toe obsolete; hind claw just visible as a tiny spur at the base of the tarsus. General plumage deep sooty brown, blackish on primaries, tertiaries, occiput, nape and tail; secondary greater coverts and latest secondaries wood brown or pale hair brown, narrowly margined towards the tips with yellowish white; upper tail- coverts, flanks, and bases of some of the external lateral under tail-coverts pure white. Some few of the feathers of the lower middle abdomen very narrowly fringed with white ; bill dull black; legs and feet polished black, with a conspicuous pale yellow patch in the centre of each web ; irides blackish. Davison observed large numbers of this species one year in July about the Moskaws, a group of islands off the Tenasserim Coast, just north of the Mergui Archipelago. They are believed to breed on this island, but the weather rendered it im- possible to lower a boat.—A. O. H.] 976 bis.—Puffinus persicus, Hume. Whether this Shearwater=P. obscurus, Gould, or not I can- not say ; but, if not, itis certainly a very closely-allied species. It is common all along the Mekran Coast, but of a shy nature, and consequently difficult to procure. I never saw one on the wing within shot of the boat, but occasionally, when resting on the water, they allowed the steamer to approach within range, and it was in this way that I shot the only specimen I secured. Morning and evening they may be seen, always far out at sea, sailing along close to the water, skimming often over several waves with wings extended and motionless, and then continuing . 9° IN THE QULF OF OMAN. 293 their wandering course for some distance with rapid strokes of the wing. They have a peculiar Plover-like habit, when flying of turning from side to side, looking dark one second, and light the next, as they show their white breasts and dark backs alternately. The measurements of the specimen I shot were as follows : — Sex. L. W. qu Bf. Bg. Exp. Ts. ? 13: 787 35 12 1:75 27° 15. Legs white, with an opalescent gloss; lower part of tarsus and outer toe blackish ; outer side of centre toe and under side of all the toes dusky black; bill pale lavender, dusky at tip and on the upper mandible; irides dark brown. [This second specimen of Puffinus persicus, also a female, has the quills perfect, and the wing measures 7°87. The females in this genus run rather smaller than the males, so that in this latter sex the wings will certainly measure 8:0. ‘This specimen is precisely like the type, except that it has more white on the sides, and less on the lores. There is the same white ring round the eye,and the same streak, but less well defined, backwards, from the eye. Mr. Blanford (Zbis, 1873, p. 215; Zool. Pers., 293) considers that he has shown that this is probably a variety of P. obscurus ; but agrees with me that it is certainly not anglorum. Of this latter there is now no doubt, as I have compared speci- mens. As to obscurus, my bird is certainly not the species identified by Yarrel as the Dusky Petrel, of which he measured 6 speci- mens, all of which had the wings 6°75. Nor is it the obscurus of Temminck (Man. d’Orn, 2nd edition, 808,) with the “ Bec trés gréle” (for the bill is as stout as in anglorum,) and the tarsus 1°65, (that of both our birds being barely 1:5.) But it might for all that be the true obscurus of Gmelin CS2N= 1.1559"). This was founded on the Dusky Petrel of Lath., Syn. III. 2,416. ”Latham’s description is as follows : — «‘ Length 13 inches ; bill one inch and a half; colour black, with horn-coloured sides, point hooked ; in the usual place only two small holes serving for nostrils; the upper parts of the body dusky black, the under white; on the sides of the neck brown and white mixed; the edges of the middle wing coverts - are whitish. The legs placed quitein the vent, black, but the inside pale the whole length and te two inner toes yellowish ; the webs orange ; elaws black. “ Inhabits Christmas Island.” N13 294 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE Now this description which is the sole foundation of obscurus, Gmelin, might apply to many species, and indeed it has been, as we have seen, erroneously applied by some writers, in fact, many European writers, to a small, slender-billed species, but to our species it cannot apply. In the first place the length (taken from the skim, as Mr. Blanford remarks, so that the fresh bird must have been 14} is too great. In the second place the bill 1°5 is also much too large. Whatever species Latham’s and Gmelin’s obsewrus really is, it was as much larger than our bird, as Temminck’s and Yarrell’s was smaller. Lastly, the edges of the middle wing coverts are not whitish. Every other part of the description would do for half a dozen different species ; in those sole points in which it is possible to test the description, this latter differs from our species. That somebody may have called specimens of persicus, ob- scurus, I will not for a moment dispute, but I submit that it is neither the true ohscurus of Latham and Gmelin, nor the small- er obscurus of Temminck, Yarrell, &e.—A. O. H.] 977.—Stercorarius asiaticus, Hume. I observed the Skua, referred to by Mr. Hume, S. Fy Vol., I. 268, on several occasions, but was unable to procure specimens. I only saw about a dozen in all, and those were along the Mekran Coast between Pusnee and Gwadar. They seemed very wild, and would not allow the steamer to approach within 200 yards of tuem, so that I had no opportunity of making notes of the species. (Mr. Howard Saunders, in his recent excellent paper on the STERCORARIINE (P. Z. 8. 1876, 327), positively and without any note of interrogation, or indication of doubt,identifies my Sterco- rarius asiaticus (S. F., L., 269, 1873), with Richardson’s Skua, (S. crepidatus, Banks, Gm. &e., apud Mr. Saunders). ~ T think it is to be regretted that some European ornitho- logists should so confidently assign names given by others to supposed distinct forms, to species already well known, without ever even seeing, let alone carefully examining the said sup-_ posed distinct forms. In the present instance Mr. Saunders is, there seem good reasons to believe, by no means happy in his identification. I have now five specimens of Richardson’s Skua before me. Two young in the mingled brown and pale rufous buff plu- mage, and with the yellow legs and half feet, the terminal half of each foot being black or blackish. One from the coast of Norway, the other that of Beletum (KE. Mus. Howard Saund- ers); neither are sexed. They measure:—Wings, 12°4, 12:5; IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 299 bill from edge of feathers (very clearly defined in these birds), straight to tip, 1:14, 1:16, from gape to tip, 1:7, 1:78; tarsus, 1:73, 1:78 ; mid toe and claw, 1°65, 1°67. Three adults, one entirely white below, except a grey band across the breast and with a yellowish white nuchal collar from Orkney, sexed a male ; two entirely fuliginous, one from Ice- land collected by Mr. Procter, and one from Norway. These measure (I give the dimensions in the order that I have men- tioned the specimens) :— Wings, 12:0, 12°6, 12:4; billin front, as before, 1:18, 1:19, 1:18, from gape, 1:8, 1:82, 1-79; tarsi, 1°77, 1°74, 1:7; mid toe and claw, 1:58, 1°65, 1°67. My bird is a male, immature, as it still has the striated crown and nape, but not very young (probably about 20 months old), as the chin, throat, and abdomen are white (a few stria only on the two first), the barring is confined to breast and flanks, the pale tippings have mostly disappeared from the upper plumage, and the legs, feet, were entirely black. Well, the corresponding dimensions of my bird are :—Wing, 12°85 (it was 13 fullin the fresh bird, but as I am comparing with skins, I take the present existing dimensions); bill at front (as before from edge of feathers), 1°33, from gape, 1°94 (it was 2°02 in the fresh bird) ; tarsus, 1°81; mid toe and claw, 1°8. Let us contrast the dimensions. :— l Mid Toe Wings. B.atft. B.fr.g. Tarai. and Claw. 5 specimens of Shea's adults (120126 114—119 17-182 17-178 158-167 1 certainly male. i specimen a) “ ticus, immature 12°88 1:33 1:94 181 18 male. ) Prima facie, therefore, ours is a somewhat larger. bird, with an appreciable longer bill and longer foot. Then the bill is very decidedly broader in aszaticus for the basal half than in any of my specimens of Richardson’s Skua ; the corneous portion is larger, the upper mandible is more de- pressed at the base, and with the lower mandible is shallower than my specimens of this latter bird. Again, the lower mandible is less feathered. In all my specimens of Richardson’s Skua, the feathers terminate ina well-defined point exactly one inch from the point of the lower mandible. In aszaticus, this point is 1:15 from the point. Iam well aware that in such a case five speci-~ mens is a very narrow basis from which to argue ; I merely note these points for what they may hereafter prove worth. Then I observe that, as pointed out by Mr. Saunders, in all my five Richardson’s Skuas, the shafts of all the earlier prima- ries are white alike in old and young, only brownish towards 296 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE quite the tips. But in asiaticus the third quill has only about the basal half of the shaft white, and the fourth and succeeding quills have only quite the basal portions white, the terminal por- tions being brown. A very small point; but if you open the wings side by side, the difference catches the eye at once. Besides this, I do not say that it is worth much ; but when a man has for many years been examining carefully great numbers of specimens of a vast number of species of all ages, he does ac- quire a sort of instinctive feeling on these points ; the birds do not seem to me to belong to the same species. The plumage is less dense and harsher in asiaticus, and there are other similar minute points that though of no importance singly, cumulatively incline me to believe that astaticus is dis- tinct—a belief strongly confirmed by the fact that our birds appear to be permanent residents of the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, and have been noticed there, not only during the autumn and winter, but also in May and June and throughout the monsoons. I need scarcely remark that our bird is too small for the Pomarine Skua, but I may note that it lacks the shagreen like backs to the tarsi which characterize that species. For the long-tailed Skua, all its dimensions were rather too large; its tarsi were black, not leaden blue, and it exhibits no trace of any crest. We must, of course, patiently await further specimens before expressing a positive opinion, but in the meantime, most cer- tainly, no sufficient evidence exists for uniting aszaticus with Richardson’s Skua, which latter has never been observed east of the Cape of Good Hope, and which even on the western coast of Africa is only a winter visitant.—A. O. H.] 981 ter.—Larus hemprichii, Bonap. This was the only species of Gull we saw during the trip, and all about the coast from Kurrachee to Jashk it was more or less plentiful. The island of Astola, however, seemed to be its head-quarters, and there we found them collected in thousands, doubtless for breeding purposes. Unfortunately, we arrived too soon. There were no eggs on the date we landed (29th May), although for two miles the island was covered with the birds sitting about as tame as barn-door fowls, and uttering that pecu- liarly mournful cry which they keep up all through the breed- ing season, and cavities in the sand, looking like nest holes were scratched in every direction. I was greatly disappointed at the time at not getting a single egg, and tried to get a boat sent there for the eggs from Gwadar ten or twelve days later, but the sea got rough, and the boatmen were afraid of getting IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 297 caught in the monsoon, but Iam making other arrangements, and still hope to get the eggs this year in some way or other. I may mention that in the breeding season the dark half col- lar of the neck is separated from the smoky brown of the back by a very conspicuous broad white nuchal collar nearly, if not quite, an inch in width, and that all the dark feathers of the neck, both in front and behind, are of a much deeper colour and more clearly defined than in the cold weather plumage. The bird described by Mr. Hume, ante Vol. I, p. 280, is in the cold weather plumage. [The following are the dimensions of three beautiful specimens, all females, preserved by Captain Butler, who is certainly in my opinion the most accomplished taxidermist in India :— L. Ex. AM W. Ts. B at fr, B. fr. g. 185 445 50 13825 21 187 2°62 18:25 43:55 45 12°62 21 1:93 2 63 175 435 50 13°62 20 20 25 The birds in breeding plumage had the legs and feet pale yellowish drab; the bill pale greenish drab, tipped red with a black bar near the tip; irides dark brown. The entire head, chin, throat, and central portion of front of upper two-thirds of neck deep brown, with a combined tinge of chocolate and soot. Everywhere towards the margin of the area thus covered, and especially on the nape the colour grows deeper, and where it terminates abruptly on the nape is almost black ; the back and sides of the neck are covered by a pure white collar, very sharply defined above, and shading below into the grey sooty brown of the base of the neck all round and breast. The entire mantle and wings deep brown inclining to choco- late ; all the secondaries and all but the first few primaries ( and sometimes even these) tipped white; wing lining, axillaries, and sides deep brown; middle of breast, abdomen, vent, flanks, upper and lower tail coverts, and tail pure white; edge of wing below carpal joint whitish. Von Heuglin remarks (Orn. Nord. Ost. Afr. 1400) :— “The picture of Larus hemprichii given in the Transactions of the London Zoological Society ( VII., pl. 27) is sufficiently defective ; in that the colours of the bill, jaw, eyelids, iris, and feet are all quite wrongly given. Moreover, the white nape band is omitted, and the head and mantle are not naturally coloured.” Now I give up the feet, irides, and bill, the colours of which in the non-breeding season I have given, Vol. I, p. 279, but as regards the white nape band, I beg to remark that, in my opinion, 298 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE this is entirely seasonal, and that, so far as its absence and the colour of head and mantle are concerned, the plate of the Zoo represents fairly enough a cold weather specimen. Certainly, I saw thousands at that season, but not one of them exhibited any signs of the white nape band.—A. O. H.] 986 bis.—Sterna albigena, Licht. This was one of the commonest species we met with, being plentiful all along the coast from Kurrachee to Henjam, and associating often in numerous flocks. What I take tobe the young bird of the year is pure white below instead of grey as in the adult, but 1 am not sure that the grey under surface is anything more than seasonal. At Jashk Isaw an immense flock of Terns fishing at the entrance of the bay, consisting principally of the present species and §. minuta (2), witha few S. dengalensis and a solitary Noddy. Iran the gig through the flock to make sure of the different species, bagging the Noddy with an easy shot as it rose off the water. I have no doubt that Sterna albigena breeds along the coast, but probably later on as we found no eggs. In the full breeding plumage the white cheek patch is very conspicuous and assists one in identifying the species, often at a considerable distance. I shot no specimens, as they are common in the Kurrachee harbour, whence I had obtained specimens previously. Measurements of a bird shot in the Kurrachee harbour as follows :— . Sex. L. Ww. T. Bf. Bg. Exp. é 14:25 9°5 ee Oe) 2 06 28 Legs and feet bright red; bill blackish, lake towards the base ; irides blackish brown. 989.—Sterna bergii, Licht. Nearly all of the large Sea Terns we saw were collected in groups on the island of Astola for the purpose of breeding, and I have no doubt that the few stragglers we came across along the coast intended going there for the same purpose later on. I subjoin an extract from my nesting memoranda describing the scene : — “On the 29th May 1877, I landed at Astola, an island on the Mekran Coast, which Ihave previously described about 24 inches S. W. of Pusnee. On reaching the summit, I found the plateau covered from one end of the island to the other with Larus hemprichii, which were evidently collected there for breeding purposes, but there were no eggs on that date, although IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 299 what appeared to be nest holes were scratched in every direc- tion. These, however, may only have been dusting holes such as hens scratch, for I noticed the birds dusting their feathers as they sat and grovelled in the holes, Several groups of the large Sea Tern had just commenced to lay, and I succeeded in taking 93 eggs, all perfectly fresh. The birds make no nest, neither do they even scratch a nest hole. The eggs (at that time only one in each nest, or rather to each pair of birds, for as I have said before there is no nest) are laid on the bare ground in the most open and exposed parts of the island about one foot apart, and when sitting the birds seem packed together as close as possible, without perhaps actually touching each other. There is no difficulty in discovering the eggs, as the birds, often as many as two hundred or more in a group, sit close with quantities of stragglers, probably the cock birds, flymg backwards and forwards a few yards above them, the whole keeping up a tremendous clamouring, and when ap- proached they rise reluctantly off their eggs screaming and chattering loudly. I did not see the first group rise myself, and as there were hundreds of Gulls (LZ. hemprichii ) mixed with them, when I approached the eggs, I thought it best to sit down a few yards off, and watch the birds return to their eggs. No sooner had I done so, then both species began to descend in dozens on to the spot where the eggs (about 30) were lying. Ina momenta general fight commenced, and it was at once evident that the eggs belonged to Sterna bergiti, and that the Gulls were carrying them off, and swallowing their contents as fast as they could devour them. So up [jumped and ran forward yelling like mad, and on reaching the spot found that even in that short time the Gulls had destroyed upwards of a dozen. I took the remainder and proceeded in the direction of two more groups, which raised the number to 46. Other groups were collected on the island, but they had not yet laid, although they were sitting closely packed on their selected breeding grounds. Having now walked all over the island I returned to the Amberwitch for breakfast, after which I blew eggs till 3 P.m., and then returned to the island to see if any more birds had laid. I re- visited the spots where I had taken eggs in the morning, but found no more eggs, although the birds were all sitting on the same ground in groups as closely packed as they were in the morning before their nests were robbed. I was beginning to despair of getting any more eggs, when my attention was attract- ed by a large group of birds which I had somehow missed in the morning. On approaching them, they rose as usual with a tre- mendous clamour, leaving 47 more beautiful fresh eggs for me to add te my collection. This swelled the number to 93, which is 300 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE all I got.* The space covered by the last batch was not more than 6 ft. or 8 ft. square. It seems evident that the birds lay in groups to protect their egos from the ravages of Gulls and other birds. The eggs vary so much in coloration and markings that I shall not attempt to describe them in detail, but shall refer the reader to Mr. Hume’s description, LV., p. 493. I may mention, however, that of the 93 egos now before me scarcely two are alike, and one beautiful specimen has the ground color a sort of rich salmon fawn, with markings exactly like Arabic characters. In fact so like that some natives on board the Amberwitch, when they saw the eggs, said that it was covered with Arabic writing; and, when we told them that these birds always wrote their names on their eggs in Arabic with their bills so as to know their own nests when they returned from feeding, they believed us! It is necessary to be very careful in blowing the eggs of this species, as the colors run and wash out if they are wetted in the slightest degree. [Three splendid specimens, in full breeding plumage of this species measured in the flesh by Captain Butler, gave the follow- ing results, which I record for comparison with those given of a large series from various localities, Vol. 1V., p. 471 :— Sex. L. Ex. ii W. Ts. B.atfront. 8B. from g. 3 215 465 812 15:12 1:38 2°73 3°67 g 210 460 887 1475 1°25 2 62 3 38 o) 2075 460 762 1487 1:3 2°75 357 Bill pale yellow; legs and feet black; soles yellowish ; irides deep brown. All have the lores and a broad frontal band; the neck all round upper back and entire lower parts pure white; crown, occiput and a broad occipital crest which entirely covers the nape velvet black. The rest of the upper parts very dark grey, darker and duskier on the quills and on the lateral tail feathers towards their tips. These laterals are white on the inner webs towards their bases, and the exterior of all have the whole outer web much paler ; in the male nearly pure white, but the exterior web of the next preceding is the darkest ia the tail—A. O. H.] * Since writing the above, through the kindness of G. Nash, Esq., Telegraph Depart- ment, who sent a canoe from Ormarra to Astola about the 19th June, I have received another beautiful series of eggs of Sterna bergii. They were nearly all slightly incubated, but not too far advanced to blow. The man who went to Astola for these eggs reported that only one species (Sterna bergii) was laying on the island, and that the eggs were laid in groups, two or three in each nest, but never more. When I visited the island I only found one egg in each nest; but then they were all quite fresh, so that the birds might have laid more if the nests had not been robbed. Strange to say Larus hemprichii had not commenced laying, although the men reported that they were just as numerous as when I visited the island the month previous. E, A. B. IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 301 [990.—Sterna media, Horsf. (=S. affinis, Rupp. et 8. bengalensis, Cwv.) Captain Butler has also sent a lovely specimen ‘of this species killed on the Mekran Coast, on the 20th May. It isa male in full breeding plumage; the whole forehead, crown, occiput and crest velvet black; legs and feet black ; soles pale yellow ; irides dark brown; bill orange. It measured—— L. Kx. AN W. Ts. B. at front. B. from g. 3 165 35°78 60 12°25 ot 2°19 2°93 The upper parts are a delicate pale satin grey (excluding of course the head and white neck) ; the outer web of the outer tail feather nearly white; the quills thickly silvered; the outer web of the lst primary deep dusky grey towards the base; the inner half of the inner web the same colour, More and more of the same dark color on the inner webs of the succeed- ing primaries, the silvering encroaching on the dark colour as it increases in extent. We have all hitherto failed to secure the eggs of this species, though Ihave had reason to believe that it breeds with anosthetus in July or August.—A. O. H.] 992.—-Sterna anosthetus, Scop. We did not observe this Tern until we got about opposite to Gwadar, after which it became common all along the Gulf of Oman, and in the Persian Gulf it was excessively abundant as far as Henjam, the furthest point we visited. It constantly came* on board at night to roost, settling up in the rigging and on the life boats. In fact all of the specimens I preserved were captured on board at roost by the sailors. No other species ever settled on board during the trip. Mea- surements as follows :— Sex. L. W. T. Bi atf. -B.it.g) Exp. rs 14 987 575 1:63 2°06 30° Immature plumage. 3 Per 10.la ewe 1 OL 2°25 315 Legs, feet, and bill, black ; irides, blackish brown. 993:—Anous stolidus, Lin. I observed a few Noddies alone the coast between Jashk and Pusni, about half a dozen in all. Most of them were skimming over the water like Shearwaters at a considerable distance from land (2 or 3 miles) ;_ but the one I secured, a re- markably fine specimen, which I have already mentioned * This is always the Tern that most commonly comes on board ships in Indian waters, I have had at least three times as many of this species sent me, caught on board, us of all other species of Terns put together.—A.O.H, o 14 302 ASTOLA, A SUMMER CRUISE under the head of Sterna albigena, was fishing, in company witha large mixed flock of S. albigenaand 8. minuta, (?) in the Bay at Jashk, and kept dropping down and settling Gull-like on the water. I believe I have correctly identified the species,” as it does not seem to me to agree so well with the descriptions of either of the other species A. senea and A. leucocapillus, BS. F., Vol IV., p. 480. Measurements as follows :— Sex. UL. W. 7, B.atf. B.fr. g. Exp. 3 15°75 9°62 6:25 1:69 2:31 31 Legs and feet dusky vinous brown; irides and bill blackish ; gape, pale yellow. 996.—Phaeton indicus, Hume. We saw about a dozen tropic birds in all during our trip, but only noticed the species off the Mekraa Coast between Ormarra and Gwadar. All of the birds were in precisely the same plumage, and corresponded exactly with the birds obtained by Mr. Hume (vide S. F., Vol. I., p. 287). Surely this must be a distinct species as suggested by Mr. Hume, S. F., Vol. 4, p. 482, and not the young of true a@thereus, otherwise how is it we never come across birds in the adult plumage, or with long tails. From what I can gather from Captain Bishop, the birds re- main here all the year round ; and if, as Mr. Hume imagines, they breed in the neighbourhood, surely in the breeding season, if at no other time, they should appear in full plumage and with long tails; but Captain Bishop, who has been constantly up and down the Mekran Coast at all seasons for years, and has observ- ed the bird closely, informs me that he has never seen it in_ any other plumage. Mr. Hume procured all his specimens in Janu- ary, February and March, and I procured mine (three in beautiful plumage) at the end of May, andas they are all apparently exactly alike,I think Mr. Hume is justified in provisionally separating the species as P. indicus. The birds were not at all wild crossing the bows of the ship constantly within 10 or 15 yards. Two of thebirds I obtained measured as follows :— Sex. L. W. dia Bf. Bg. Exp. Including central Including central tail feathers f tail feathers, 4 20°5 11-25 825 2°38 3-25 38. 20°75 11:37 8:25 2°31 3:25 37'5 * Certainly ; the specimen is stolidus.—A.O.H. ¢ + The lengths given by Mr. Hume, §S, F., IV., 482, are only to end of ordinary tail feathers.—-E.A.B. One not measured in the flesh had the tail 9 inches —A.O.H. IN THE GULF OF OMAN. 303 Legs, greyish white, 3ths of the foot black; bill, orange red, edged dusky on both mandibles; irides, blackish brown. In all of my specimens the feathers of the flanks and sides of the abdomen in the region of the thigh coverts are finely powdered with minute dusky specks. [ In June this year Davison came across four Phaetons in the Bay of Bengal in Lat. 9° N. All were precisely similar to Captain Butler’s and my numer- ous specimens ; none had the tails more than 8 to 9 inches _ total length. He did not see a single bird with any longer tail than these. There seems to me scarcely a doubt left that our Indian spe- cies, that I have called indicus, is distinct from etherius.— BOs) 999 dis.—Sula cyanops, Sund. We saw a few White Boobies along the Mekran Coast, and I was fortunate enough to secure two good specimens. At first I took them to be piscatrir, as they agree well with Jerdon’s description, excepting in the bill and feet, which were not red but lavender; but after reading over Mr. Hume’s remarks, S. F., Vol. IV, p. 483, I have no doubt that they belong to the present species, having the tails, quills, and greater wing coverts black. Dr. Jerdon’s description of piscatriz is incorrect, and consequently apt to mislead people* He says: “Descr; white, the rump and upper tail coverts slightly mottled with dusky, and the wings and tail dusky black.” This description clearly points to §. cyanops, as Mr. Hume, in a letter now before me, in treating of piscatriz, remarks: “Only quills and greater eoverts greyish black, rest of plumage white.” Then again Dr. Jerdon says: “ Legs and feet red.’? This is the case in piscatrix ; but, as he has described cyanops, he should have said “legs and feet lavender blue.” However, as so little appears to have been recorded about these birds, I trust that Mr. Hume will kindly furnish accurate descriptions of the White Boobies “ pro bono publico.” My specimens measured as follows :— Sex. Dp W. ip B. at f. B. fr. g, Exp. 3 33° 165 7-5 4: 4°12 65 2 32: 16°5 7-25 4-06 5° 60 Legs and feet lavender blue; bill pale bluish horn; gular skin slate; irides pale green. * See my “ Remarks on the genus Sula.” These birds of Captain Butler’s may cer- tainly at present be accepted as cyanops ; even if not true cyanops, they belong to one H of the species now generally included under this name.—A. O. H, 304 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. The crops of both of the birds I dissected contained flying fish, which seem to be the favorite food of Phaeton indicus also, in whose company they are often met with. It still remains for me to draw attention to a bird that puz- zles me altogether. Itisa sea bird, and occurs alone the Mek- ran Coast, but what it canbe I have not anotion. Captain Bishop knows it well, and says that the sailors call it the Whale bird, as it usually arrives about the time that the large shoals of whales appear. It is about the size, or perhaps rather larger, than Sterna minuta, and Captain Bishop says: ‘‘Skims over the water some- thing like Puffinus persicus.”” What can it be *? We did not see the bird during our trip.—E. A. B. Aemarks ow the genus Sula. My friend, Captain Butler, in his charming “ Summer Cruise in the Gulf of Oman” (p. 303), finds fault with Dr. Jerdon’s de- scription of Suéa piscatriz, and suggests that I should furnish accurate descriptions of the white Boobies (! ) I am afraid that in his condemnation of Dr. Jerdon’s de- scription, Captain Butler is scarcely just. It is quite true that in one stage of plumage (that of the old adult as is supposed), piscatrix has only the quills and larger coverts black (or rather blackish brown powdered grey), but this is a stage presumably rarely seen, and ignored by several of the authors who describe the species,f and (always supposing two species have not been confounded) at a somewhat earlier stage (and this seems to be the stage in which the majority of adults of this species have been procured), the tail as wel/as the quills are blackish brown, so that we can hardly cavil at Dr. Jerdon’s description in regard to this matter. As to the colours of the soft parts a very slight study of the literature of this genus would convince any one that, if there be any one point in ornithology, in regard to which no two authorities agree, it is in regard to the colouring of these parts: in many of the Boobies. *The Whale bird of sailors is a Prion; there are several species of the turtwr type, to all of which this trivial name isapplied. I saw several of these birds between Preparis and the Cocos, 8, F. II, 817. To what species the Mekran Coast birds may belong it is impossible to say without examining specimens, and even with specimens, so involved is the synonymy, it might prove no easy task to decide what name the species ought to bear—A. O. H. + Peale named the old adult (unless indeed two species are here confounded) rubri- peda, saying (Zool. U. S. Expl. Exp. Birds, 274, 1st Ed. 1848)—* tail cuneiform, w ite (which distinguishes it from S. piscatriv at first sight, its tail being black.) ” REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. 305 The fact is that this genus has never I believe been properly worked out, and until some one is in a position to do this, we shall always remain in doubt as to many essential points, such as the true number of species, the changes of plumage, the varia- tions in the colours of the soft parts and the like. Unfortunately, what is requisite for a proper investigation of this smail and well-marked genus, is a really large series of specimens from all parts of the world correctly sexed by dis- section, with dates, localities, and colours accurately recorded. Such a series exists in no one locality ; the great majority of the specimens in museums (and even these are not numerous) have not been reliably sexed, and in not a few cases their origin even is doubtful. The only authority to whose works I have access, who has of late years dealt with this genus as a whole, is Professor Schlegel in the Mus. Pays. Bas. Pelecani, p. 37, et seq, July 1863. He admits Sula bassana, Lin. Sula serrator, Banks. Sula capensis, Licht. Sula eyanops, Sundev. Sula piseatrix, Lin. Sula australis, Steph. (fiber apud Schl. et auct. nee Lin.) But besides these, other authorities keep other species dis- tinct, viz.— 7. 2A. Sula lefevrii, Baldamus. 8. 4A. Sula dactylatra, Less. 9. 5A. Sula variegata, Tschudi. 10. 6A. Sula parva, Gm. anda careful examination of what has been put on record in regard to this genus, leads me to believe that it will eventually prove to contain even more species. When high authorities, like Finsch and Hartlaub on the one hand (Orn. Polynes. 260), and Salvadori (Uce. di. Borneo, 362) on the other, with the museums and libraries of Europe open to them, contradict each other point blank as to whether a supposed species (variegata) is identical with another (piscatriz), or absolutely distinct, and when almost every one who has written any thing original about Boobies (and not merely copied existing records), traverses or contradicts something that some one else has said, it would be absurd for me, in a distant colony, . with a meagre ‘library, and no specimens of this particular group, to speak of, in my museum, to pretend to be able to put matters on a more satisfactory basis. All I can do is, following what others have written, to give an extemely brief sketch of the several species of the genus So OU GO DD 306 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. dealing somewhat more in detail with those three species only with which we are more especially concerned in India. The Boobies naturally divide into two sub-groups.* Tue First has only the lores, orbital region, base of aural region, base of lower mandible, and a stripe down the middle of the throat naked. This includes bassana, serrator (lefevrit if distinct) and capensis. Of this sub-group we may dispose at once, as it in no way concerns us :— 1.—Sula bassana, Lin. This is the largest of the whole group, named from the Bass Rocks, a celebrated breeding place of this, the Gannet or Soland Goose. The entire plumage of the adult is white, except the primaries and winglet which are dull black. Wing 18°20. Habitat, Europe, W. Coast of Africa, North America, &e. 2.—Sula serrator, Banks, Was this name ever published ; if so, where? ‘This is also australis, Gould, P. Z. S. 1840, 177, but this name cannot stand as Stephens, Gen. Zool. XIII, 104, 1826, described the Linnean sula under this name. This species is said to be rather smaller than Jassana (but I have a specimen with wing over 19), and has the whole of the quills and the four central tail feathers blackish brown. Habitat, New Zealand, Australia, &c. 2A.—Sula lefevrii, Baldamus. Bonaparte and others claim this as distinct; it is the me/anura of many writers, but not of Temminck ; it is said to differ in having the whole of the quills and entire tail black, and to have occurred in Europe. 3.—Sula capensis, Licht. This is the true melanura of Tem. and is a good deal smaller than the preceding; wing 16:25 to 18°5; it has all the quills, * The genus has by some been sub-divided into three genera—Dysporus, LIlliger ; Sula, Vieill; and Piscatrix, Reich. I can see no necessity as yet for sub-dividing the genus, but I have only specimens (and only one or two of each) of bassana, serrator, cya- nops, piscatria, and australis, and for all I know it may be right to sub-divide the genus, but what I fail to understand is how Bonaparte and others apply Illiger’s Disporus to the Linnean swla, reserving the generic name Sula for bassana and other species. The genus Sula of Brisson clearly has for its type the Linnean Sula, the Sula of Vieillot seems to be founded on Brisson’s fusca, which whatever it may be (and of that hereafter) is certainly neither bassana nor of the bassana type. On the other, Illiger’s type seems to,have been bassana,. REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. 307 the whole tail, and the greater wing coverts blackish brown. It differs moreover from all the preceding in having the naked throat stripe prolonged down much further towards the breast. Habitat, Cape of Good Hope, &e. THe Seconp sub-group has the lores, face to angle of mouth, chin, anda portion of the throat defined by a curved line (convexity downwards) from the gape on either side, bare. This includes cyanops (and if distinct dactylatra), piscatria (and if distinet variegata), australis (and if distinct parva). With the three non-doubtful species we are more especially concerned as all occur within our limits. 4.—Sula cyanops, Sundev. Physiogr. Salksk. Tid- skrift. 218. 2. 1837. personata, Gould, P. Z. S. 1846, 21. melanops, Hartl. and Heugl. Ibis, 1859, 351, pl. X. f. 2. These three names * seem to be at present almost uni- versally accepted as synonymous, and most modern writers include dactylactra, Lesson, of which more hereafter. But though accepted as synonymous, it must not be supposed that the dimensions or descriptions given of this supposed one species by different writers agree over well. On the con- trary they differ most materially, as will appear from a few quotations that I shall make. Von Heuglin (eyanops), Orn. Nord. Ost. Afr. 1481—1873 (who includes personata, Gould ; melanops. Hartl., and with a? dactylatra, Less.; and cyanops of Shelley) :— « White, scarcely tinged with fulvous ; quills, greater wing coverts, tertiaries, and tail feathers smoky black ; quills with- in whitish towards their bases; bill olivaceous yellow ; bare skin of face and chin deep black ; irides yellow; feet dusky ; webs almost black ; claws blackish horny, livid at the points. “ Length, 30°7—31'8; bill at front, 4:12; from gape, 4:92; wing, 17°8—18:1; tail, 7°67—8°77 ; tarsus 2:1—2:2.” Gould (personata), P. Z. S. 1846, 21; B. of Austr. VII. pl. 77. (cyanops) ; Handb. B. of Austr. II, 506 :— “The whole plumage of both sexes is pure white, with the exception of the greater wing coverts, primaries, secondaries, and tertiaries, the tips of the two central and the whole of the lateral tail feathers, which are of a rich chocolate brown ; irides yellow ; naked skin of face and chin in specimen dull bluish black ; legs greenish blue. * Other supposed synonymes are, piscator, Peale. U.S. Expl. Exp. Birds, 273,1848 nec Lin, ; bassana, Thomp, Allen, Exp. Niger, II, 175, nec, Lin, 308 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. “ Total length, 29 inches ; bill, 5 ; wing, 16°5 ; tail, 8°5 ; tarsi, 2°25.” Bonaparte (eyanops), Consp. II, 166, 1850 (including per- sonata, Gould, but not dactylatra) :— “ Smaller; white; quills and tail blackish chocolate ; 16 tail feathers ; face blackish blue ; bill huge, yellow ; feet plumbeous.” The original description of melanops from the Red Sea by Hartlaub and Heuglin himself) does not exactly corre- spond with Heuglin’s later one first quoted, of cyanops from the same locality, though he accepts the identity of the species. It occurs, Lbis, 1859, «3851 :-— “ White; slightly yellowish ; quills, scapulars, and the outer wing coverts and tail feathers black, all at their bases whitish or pure white; the shafts white below ; the bend of the wing white; bill greenish yellow, black basally, bare space round the eyes, and the roundly truncated bare throat patch black ; irides reddish yellow; feet bluish plumbeous; the webs dusk- ier ; nails horny black, whitish at the tips. L., 29.6—80°7 ; B. fr. g., 4°92 ; at fr., 4°12 ; W., 17°52—18:°38 ; tail, 8°77; tarsus, 2:2; mid toe and claw, 4°11—4°3.” Schlegel, Mus. Pays. Bas. Pelecani, 39, July 1863 (who includes dactylatra with a query) :— “* Plumage absolutely like that of S. capensis (2.e., white, the tail feathers, all the quills and greater wing coverts black); feet greenish; bill pale yellow; naked skin of head pale black, verging on violet or blue. “ Wing 15°7—15:43; tail, 7°12—8-03; tarsus, 1°85—1:94; 4:—4°2” Captain Shelley, B. of Egypt, 294, gives a description of a Gannet which he identifies as cyanops :— “ Naked skin on the face and pouch slate colour ; quills, great- er wing coverts, and tail dark brown; beak yellow; legs slatey grey ; irides yellow.” Finsch and Hartlaub (cyanops). Orn. Central Polynesiens, 252, in which they include personata and melanops, and with a (?) dac- tylactra :— “ White ; greater wing coverts, all the quills, the lateral tail feathers, and the tips of the central ones intense dusky (fuscis) ; bill pale greenish yellow; naked portions of face and chin dull bluish; feet greenish ; irides yellow. “U. 31:8; B., 4:2; W., 15°35—1752 ; T. 6-57—7-67 ; tarsus, 1°82—1°93. “ Old.—Uniform white, somewhat yellowish; the quills of: the first and second order; their coverts and scapulars, together with the tail feathers brownish black; the quills white at their bases on the inner webs. REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. 309 * Bill horny greenish grey, the point more yellowish horny, the base of the bill and the naked skin of the head blackish. “© Younger bird (M°Kean’s Isld.)—-Almost like the above, but on the back a few brown feathers ; the rump is still almost uniform brown; the upper tail coverts are white, with brown tips. “ Younger bird (? Texas).—The entire upper surface nearly uniform brown, only on the scapulars, mantle, and rump appear many white feathers, most of which however still show a washed-out brown spot in the middle. Many of the upper wing coverts exhibit white tips; so also the brown feathers of the foreneck. The rest of the lower parts, together with the lower wing coverts, pure white. “Bill horny brown, the edges and tip pale horny green- ish; naked portion of face and throat brownish black ; feet dirty horny brown. “ This specimen agrees almost entirely with the young speci- men of S. melanops, figured, Ibis, 1859, pl. X, f. 2. “ Young.—Almost uniform grey brown ‘Sundev). “‘ Nestlings clad in white down. *¢ Sexes do not differ, only the young and females are smaller. * Young.—Female; face and bill for the basal half blue; the terminal portion olive-coloured ; feet olive-coloured ; the webs dark ; iris deep yellow. “ Young.—Bill almost to the base, olive-coloured (Sundeval, from fresh specimens). “ Old.— Bill and naked portion of head bluish green; legs dirty green; iris greenish yellow (Griffe, from fresh specimens.) ”’ They add dimensions of numerous specimens, some of which I have already given :— oats W. T. B.atfr. B. fr.gape Trs. M. T. 31:8—32°'86 18 6:02 4:3 5:3 2°53 312 Young (?) Texas. 16°7 5:5 3°83 4°58 2:03 2:94 Young 6 1775 = 645 402 Ae 21 2:94 (cyanops, Sundey.) 1918 1013 4-48 568 242 33 (cyanops, Pelz.) 15°7—17'43 7:12—8:03 4°42 .. 185—1°94 .., Schlegel. 17.52—18:33 877 4:12 4:93 2:2 i (melanops. Hartl.) To which we may add:— 30°7—31'8 17:'8—18:1 7°67—8°77 4:12 493 21-22 .., v. Heuglin. 29 165 85 aap 225 .. Gould. 32 165 7:25—75 40—4:06 4:12-5 2°15—2:25 2:95 Butler.” If therefore we believe that these measurements all refer to the same species, we must admit that the wing varies from 15-7 to 19°18; the tail from 5:5 to 10°13; the bill at front from 3°83 to 4:48 ; and from gape from 4°58 to 5°3. Similarly, the tarsus varies from 1°85 to 2°53, and the mid toe in the few measure- * It is impossible to say whether this dimension should be placed in this or the next preceding column, Mr. Gould merely says ‘ Bill, 5,” P15 310 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. ments we have from 2-94 to 3°3, and Hartlaub gives the mid toe and claw at 4:11 to 4:2. If we contrast the recorded colours of the soft parts, we shall find even more striking differences :—~ Bare Skin of VUE Face and Chin. He Ties V. Heuglin Olivaceous Deep black ... Dusky, websal- Yellow. yellow. most black. Golde Ite is. eas en gee ennes Bluish black ... Greenish blue... Yellow. Bonapte. Yellow ... Blaekish blue... -Plumbeous. Hart]. and Greenish yellow Black «- Bluish pium- Reddish yellow. Heuglin. beous, webs dusker. Schlegel Pale yellow Pale black, Greenish. verging on violet or blue. : Shelley Yellow Slate colour ... Slaty grey Yellow. Finsch and Pale greenish Dull bluish Greenish Yellow. Hart. yellow. Sundey. (young Basal half blue, Blue Olive, websdark Deep, (?) bright, female). terminal por- yellow. tion olive. ” « Horny greenish Blackish. grey. Griiffe Bluish green ... Bluish green .., Dirty green Greenish ellow. Butler Pale bluish Slate colour Lavender blue Pale green. horny. It has been suggested that the colouration may vary with sex as well as age, but in the present case, Captain Butler’s speci- mens, male and female (both apparently in exactly the same stage of plumage,) differed in no single respect in the colours of the so{ft parts; it has further been said that the females are smaller, but this idea also receives no confirmation from Captain Butler’s specimens. It will have been noticed that, while Gould and Finsch give only the ¢igs of central tail feathers as dark, others give the whole of these feathers thus : Taking the record, judicially, [ think it very probable that, instead of one species, there will prove to be three. The true cyanops from the Atlantic, melanops from the Red Sea and the north-east coast of Africa, and personata from North Australia, New Guinea, and Central Polynesia. It seems probable that the specimens from the Keeling, or Cocos Islands, and Straits of Sunda are identical with these latter. Even if the evidence were not in the highest degree dis- crepant, it should not be everlooked that probabilities are some- what in favour of the distinctness of species inhabiting as permanent residents, and breeding in these three very different localities, the Atlantic, the Red Sea, the Straits of Torres and Central Polynesia, and not occurring so far as we yet know REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. o1ue throughout enormous intervening tracts, and I hope some one in Europe will critically examine all the available specimens and see whether this is or is not the case. In the meantime Captain Butler’s birds and Captain Shelley’s are I think identical, but whether they are really melanops of Hartl. is by no means equally clear to me, though & priori IT should think they must be. The colours of the soft parts and dimensions of Captain Butler’s specimens have been above noted. Both are in precisely the same plumage, just passing apparently into the so-called adult as distinguished from the old, and are, as I take it, about two years old. The moult of the wings has been completed, that of the tail is in progress, that is to say, amongst full-sized, more or less abraded, dull brown feathers are mingled, short, growing, satiny, deep chocolate brown ones. In one bird’s tail, old and new, I can only discern 12 feathers ; in the other, including four very short ones, there are eight on one side, and six on the other, so that there really probably are 16 feathers in the perfect tail. The whole of the quills, longest scapulars, winglet, greater and median coverts, and tail, except old feathers, are a rich deep umber brown inclining to chocolate. The whole of the rest of the bird may be said to be white, but there is a faint creamy tinge in most of the white feathers of the upper surface, a good many brown feathers are mingled in the median rows of the lesser wing and upper tail-coverts, and some of the median scapulars are brown or brownish grey towards their tips. There are a few brown feathers on the flanks—and a dull pale ferruginous stain (whether natural, or the result of grease acquired in skinning I cannot say,) over the central portion of the abdomen. The chin, throat, breast, sides, axillaries, wing lining are pure white, except two or three brown feathers amongst the latter just below the carpal joint. The quills are grey or whitish towards their bases on their inner webs. In the most perfect tail the central feathers exceed the exterior lateral ones by 2°65. The distance, measured straight from the tip of the upper mandible to the commencement of the feathers on the throat is exactly 5 inches in both specimens. 4A.—Sula dactylactra, Less, Voy. Coq. Zool. I, pt. 2, 494, 1825, stne dese. Tr. d’Orn. 601, 831 deser. orig. 312 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. nigrodactyla, Less. Bp. Consp. II. 165, 1850. This species, if really distinct, concerns us little. Tt was procured at Ascension Island, and is not likely, even if distinct, to occur within our limits. Lesson’s original description is as follows :— * Plumage pure white ; wings and tail black; tarsi yellow ; the base of bill encircled by a naked skin, which extends on to the throat in the shape of an half circle.” Of course, this may be any thing; but as according to Bona- parte the original specimens existed in the Paris museum in 1850, it is difficult to understand how the matter of their iden- tity or distinctness still remains doubtful. Bonaparte, with speci- mens of both this and cyanops (or at any of personata) before him, said they were distinct. No writer who unites this species with cyanops, with a? seems to have examined the types. If really identical with cyanops, Lesson’s name has of course priority. 5.—Sula piscatrix, Lin. S. N. I. 217, 1766. candida, Briss. Orn. VI, 501, 1760. erythrorhyncha, Less. Tr. d’Orn. 601, 1831. rubripes, Gould, P. Z. 8S. 1837, 156. rubripeda, Peale, U. 8. Expl. Expn. Birds, 274, pl. 83, Ist Ed., 1848. To these synonymes Tschudi’s variegata, of which more here- after is commonly added. Brisson’s original description is full and excellent :—“ It is a little larger than the first species of this genus (sula of Lin). Length from tip of bill to tip of tail 33°96,* and to tip of claws, 27°8; bill from gape, 5°5; tail, 10°95; foot (tarsus ?), 1:93; mid toe and claw, 3°58 ; outer, 2:11; inner, 2:2 ; hind toe, 1:3; mid toe claw serrated interiorily ; expanse, 67°87 inches. The wings when closed reach to about three-fourths of the length of the tail. “The head, neck, body, scapulars, upper and under wing, and tail coverts are white, excepting the upper greater wing coverts, most distant from the body, which are brown. The ‘great fea- thers of the wing are of this latter colour, the medium ones white. The tail of 14 feathers similarly white. The central ones longest, the laterals diminishing as they recede from the centre, so that the outermost on each side is 6°12 shorter than the central ones. The space on each side between the eye and bill is naked and red. The bill, the legs, and toes and their * Of course, in this and all other cases I have, in translating, converted French inches, millimetres, &e., into English inches and decimals, REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. 313 webs are also red,and the claws are reddish. Found on the coasts of Africa and America.” Ihave had toexamine nearly 50 descriptions of Boobies during the last few days, written by naturalists, “ ancient and modern,” but I have met with none more satisfactory on the whole than this prelinnean one. This is a fair sample of Brisson’s descriptions, and this is the man whom English naturalists have seen fit to set aside entirely, except as regards such genera as Linneeus neglected to adopt from him, because his nomenclature was not strictly binomial / Mr. Strickland and the others, associated with him, went, it seems to me quite beyond what was necessary in the matter of binomialism, when they on this account virtually ostracised Brisson (the great majority of whose names are truly bino- mial) and fixed upon the XIIth edition of Linneus’ Syst. Nat. as the starting point of all specific nomenclature. As an ornithologist, in my humble opinion, Brisson ranks far above Linnzus, who, great and broad-minded man as he was, had not even a_ sufficient insight into our particular branch of Natural History to avail himself of much that Brisson had done ready to his hand. English ornithologists of a particular school are constantly carping at American and other authors, for ignoring the British Association Rules in regard to the point from which specific nomenclature is to date, but those rules are, it seems to me, inherently wrong, and in so far as they rejected Brisson and adopted Linnzeus, grasp only the shadow and let go the sub- stance, and it is only natural that the mind of every just man, who takes up and studies these fathers of our science, should revolt against a rule that involves such injustice to one of the greatest and most accurate of the founders of ornithology. The time has not perhaps yet come for this, but most assured- ly these rules will have to be revised, and sooner or later our more liberal successors will insist on doing that justice to Brisson and others that English ornithologists now deny them. Let us now turn to the Linneus’ description :—“ Tail, cunei- form; bill serrated; body white ; all the quills and face black.” «©The upper mandible towards the base, as it were, denticu- lated on either side. Nostrils closed, face and orbital depres- sion in my dry specimens black, whether in life they are red, as Brisson says, I do not know.” But for his quotation of Brisson, with a reference to the passage already quoted, it would be impossible to say to what species Linnzus referred, and I think it extremely likely that he really had another species before him and erroneously referred to Brisson’s description of candidus. However, this reference, 314 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. erroneous or not, is all we have to fix “ piscatrix,” * and by it that name is attached to Brisson’s candida in regard to which no doubt can exist. Lesson’s description of his erythrorhyncha, which he himself identifies with piscatria, is as follows :— “ Bill rosy, with a black tip; a little bare space round the eyes ; the plumage white, with yellowish reflexions; the quills black ; the tail whitish or greyish; the tarsi orange. The female is brownish grey, with a reddish tinge. Habitat?’ Gould thus described his rubripes, which he considered some- what immature :— “ Head, breast, throat, abdomen, and vent dingy white; back and tail pinkish; wings pale pinky, mottled with dusky grey ; primaries and secondaries blackish dusky ; bill yellowis4 fleshy, with the tip black ; feet bright reddish orange. “ Length, 23; bill, 4; wing, 14; tail, 7; tarsi, 1°37. “From New South Wales.” Then we have Peale’s “ rubripeda,’’ a name that, if intended to be original, is strangely near Gould’s. Peale says :— “Plumage of both sexes pure white, except the primaries, secondaries, and first row of greater wing coverts, which are dark brown, with a hoary surface ; tail cuneiform, white (which dis- tinguishes it from 8S. piscator, at first sight, its tail being black) ; bill deeply serrated of a pale blue colour, margined at the base by a bright red and wrinkled skin ; cheeks blue ; eyelids green; irides brown; gular pouch intense black; feet bright vermilion red ; middle toe nail much flattened, curved laterally and deeply pectinated on the inner edge. : Length, 28°5 ; expanse, 59 ; bill at front, 3:2 ; from gape, 4°1 ; tarsus, 1:4; mid toe and claw, 3; nail, 0°7; tail, 85; outer feather, 4'3. “The young when first hatched are covered with a very white down ; their first plumage is entirely brown, clouded with hoary, but the colour soon becomes lighter about the head, neck, breast, and tail. The neck and tail next become white, and finally the whole plumage, except the greater feathers of the wings.” So much for the original descriptions supporting the various names now universally accepted as synonymous. Bonaparte diagnoses the species, Consp. II, 166, thus :— “Smaller; milky white; quills and ¢ail feathers blackish, the shafts white ; naked throat intense black; feet red. Adult bill greenish, red after death. Younger birds have the throat fleshy, and the bill reddish ; the young has the bill red.” * This name was given by Linnzeus because, as he says, he thought it probable (I do not know why) that this was the species that the Chinese used for fishing after placing a brazen ring round the bird’s neck. The bird really so used is of course a Cormorant. REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. ols Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Pelecani, p. 40, remarks that this species is distinguished “by its small size and short points to the wings. Wing, 14:°5—15:2; point of the wing, 2'°2—3-2; tail, 7°7—9°5; tarsus, 1-1—1:19; mid toe, 2-2—2:29; bill, 3°0—3°3 ; height of bill, 1°1—1:19. “Perfect plumage white, with the exception of all the quills and the great wing coverts, which are greyish black; bill in the live bird of alight blue black; naked skin of the head flesh- coloured ; feet red; immature plumage brown; bill brownish. “Observed in the Indian Archipelago as far as the Straits of Torres ; appears to stray into the Atlantic Ocean.” Gould tells us (Birds of Austr. VII. pl. 79. Handb. B. of A, 510) :—“ Mr. M°Gillivrai observed that the colouring of the bill and soft parts varies with the age of the individual ; in the first stage the billis of a delicate bluish pink, the pink tint predo- minating at the base of upper mandible, the bare patch about the eye of a dull leaden hue, and the pouch flesh-coloured, in the second the colouring of these parts is similar, but somewhat brighter, and ultimately the irides become grey, and the legs and feet vermilion. “The adults have the entire plumage buffy white, with the exception of the wings and ¢ail, the former of which are blackish brown, washed with grey, and the latter pale greyish brown, passing into grey, with white shafts. Lastly, Finsch and Hartlaub (Orn. Central Polynes. 256) thus define and describe the species :— “Ad. white; quills and ¢az feathers blackish dusky ; throat naked with the face and bill pale blue, the latter reddish at the base ; feet coral red ; irides brown ; eyelids greenish. Younger.—Back wings and tail dusky ash; wing coverts mottled with white ; bill dusky at the tip. Young.—Pale dusky ashy, mottled paler below; belly whitish ; face and feet dingy reddish. “ Length, 32:38; bill, 385; wing, 16:44; tail, 8:77; mid toe, 2°74. “ From the Indian Sea, Bremen Museum. “ Old.—Entire plumage white, only the quills, their coverts, and the bend of the wing dark brown, somewhat tinged with grey. The quills white at their bases on the inner webs. The white being more extended on the secondaries, the latest of which are entirely white. The shafts of the quills clear brown, the under- side white. The white feathers of the hind neck and back, tinged towards their tips, with pale rusty yellow, which is still more conspicuous on theshead. “ Bill dark blackish red, with pale horny greenish margins, tip and culmen; the naked head space dirty reddish brown; the throat browner ; feet dirty deep red ; nails whitish. 316 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA, 4 “A somewhat less advanced bird has the tail feathers still dark brown, like the quills, with white shafts. “A younger bird (Bremen Museum) has not only the quills and tail, but also the wing coverts, scapulars, back, mantle, and rump deep brown, as are also the under-wing coverts and tibial plumes. The rest of the plumage white, but the feathers of the occiput and back of neck conspicuously tipped with reddish yellow. The wing coverts and feathers of the mantle exhibit broader or narrower greyish white tippings, and look therefore chequered. *“ Bill and naked head space dirty fleshy brown ; the culmen deep brown, and the point black; feet dirty orange red.” If we now sum up the evidence, we shall find here also discrepancies. First as to dimensions :— M. T. L. Exp. Wie bs Bide. Bir e., | 8. & cl, Mid T. 28 cw ; ; 95 Soe 3 risson - 33:98 67:87 i... 10°95 ste 55 1°93 3°58 on ©) Africa. CB). eat: 14 7 4 1:37 “0 «» Gould(N.S.W.) 28 5 OOMmaconss 85 32 ae 14 30 .. Peale (Pacific.) Schlegel (In- taneee coos 14°5-15°2 77—9'5 3:0—3°3 ws 20 —119_—t—=e.w 22-20) dian Archi- elago.) Schlegel( quite eoseas toecee 15°55 8:2 3°5 a0 1:3 2 wf young from Atlantic). Finsch and 24°1—30°8 15°7 8°59 35 4-12 1:47 fis aos eae (South Seas). 32°88 1644 877 3°5 sc xc ate 274 a wpeaet 1425 6°84 3:3 3 94 1:38 Ne 2°29 » (young.) Then as to colours of soft parts :— Bill, Facial Skin Pouch. Legs § Feet. Trides. Brisson Red Red ete ee bale tees es : Red. Linnzeus Sodo0 Black. Lesson Rosy, with black tip. Gould (im- Yellowish Segond 00000 Bright red- mature). fleshy, tip dish orange. black. Peale Pale blue. Bright red at Intense black Vermilion. base of bill, cheek blue. Bonap. ad. Greenish sarees Intense black Red. » gun. Reddish sss Fleshy ya a ge.)) ied. Schlegel(Boie) Light blue Flesh color Flesh color Red. lilae. McGilliv rai, Bluish pink lLeaden blue Flesh color. Ww. - sae Vermilion, Grey. Finsch & H. Paleblue,red- Pale blue Pale blue Coral red Brown. dish at base. HOLStets ne eecae ee Dirty blue ose ues Pale blue. } Philippi Tyayedng TMG — owomo —tone , Bright blue Carnelian red grey. grey. . Griffe (young) Bluish green, Greenish blue Greenish blue Bluish green Greenish yel- blackish at low. tip. REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. 317 As to plumage it will be observed that Bonaparte, Gould, Finsch, and Hartlaub describe the adult as having a_ blackish or brown or grey brown tail, though the latter authors describe what they apparently take to be an old bird with the tail white, but it seems clear that the bird begins by being brown every where, and if two species have not been confounded, (which is not impossible), gradually turns white everywhere, until only the primaries and their greater coverts are brown or dusky. For my own part I have very little doubt that two species very similar, but one much larger than the other, are here confounded. 5A.—Sula. variegata,—Tschudi. Erichs. Arch. 1848, I. 390 ; Fauna, Peru, 55, 313; Denkschrift, der kais. Akad. d. Wissensch. Wien. II. 2; Peru- Reissescizz. I. 327, Von Pelzeln. Reise Novara, Voge. 156. ? Brown and white Booby of Latham, Gen. Hist. X. 411. ? leucophza, Steph. Gen. Zool XIII., 106, ex Lath : — T'schudi thus describes his species, Cab. J. F. O. 1856, 188 :— ** Head, neck, upper back, and the entire lower surface of the body dazzling white ; the wing and pinion feathers blackish brown on the outer webs, but white on the basal halves of the inner webs ; lower back, tail, and flanks are besprinkled white and black. In younger birds this besprinkling extends almost over the entire back, the sides, and a portion of the belly. The billis horny brown ; the feet black; and the irides deep brown. Guano Islands, Peru.” Von Pelzeln, loc cit, remarks that he has three specimens of this species, which agree well with each other, only that in one obviously a younger bird, the white borders of the feathers of the back and upper surface of the wings are very little developed ; in fact only feebly indicated ; while on the lower surface and entire under parts from the middle of the breast, the whole of the feathers are of a greyish brown colour, with more or less broad white borders, so that the greater part of the lower surface ap- pears to be irregularly mottled. On the crown and hind neck the white colour is somewhat mixed with brown. The middle tail feathers in the old are entirely, in a younger specimen at their bases, and in another specimen on the inner webs only, greyish white. He gives the following dimensions of these three specimens :— Wie ek: B.fr.g. B.at. fr. Trs. Mid Toe (without claw), 1635 877 492 3:92 1°83 256 15°34 7:94(imperf.) 4°92 3.92 1:83 2°56 jun. 15:05 685 (do) 52 4-11 1 83 275 Q 16 318 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. Finsch and Hartlaub say positively that Tschudi’s description shows clearly that his bird is only the young of piscatriz, and that Von Pelzeln’s recent endeavour to establish the distinctness of this species rests on equally untenable grounds. To whom replies Salvadori that variegata of which he has seen many specimens is absolutely distinct from piscatria. In this conclusion, a careful comparison of measurements, descriptions, the black feet, and the fact that myriads of the bird described by Tschudi were seen, and none of piscatriz in- clines me to concur. 6.—Sula australis, Steph. Gen. Zool. XIII,104, 1826. sula, Lin. S. N. I. 218, 1766. fiber, Lin, apud auct, nec. Lin. ? brasiliensis, Spix. Av. Bras. II. 83 to 107, 1825. fulica, Less. Tr. d’Orn. 601, 1831. plotus, Forst. Descr. An. 278, 1844 ? flavirostris, Gould, apud Licht. Forst. ib. sinicadvena, Swinh. Ibis, 1865, 109. It is inconvenient that I can find no sufficient reason for sub-dividing this genus, as adopting as one must Brisson’s genus Sula, I am unable to adopt Linneus’ specific name sula, which undoubtedly belongs to this species, whereas his other name fiber, which “has of late always been assigned here, equally certainly does not belong here. Finsch “and others have already pointed this out, but as they adopt Illiger’s genus of Dysporus for this section, they are able to adopt the Linnean specific name swla, founded on Brisson’s uninomial Sula. The next name in order of priority is Stephen’s, if we except braziliensis, the application of which to this species, referring as it does to a quite young bird, is very doubtful. I said that fiber, Lin. did not apply. This is founded on Sula fusca of Brisson. Brisson’s description of his Suda, our present species is as usual full and excellent, as his always are when he described from a specimen. “Leneth,* 31:78; bill from gape, 5:02; tail, 10°7; tarsus, 1°82 ; mid toe and claw, 3°33; * * ™* expanse, 65°77. * * “ The head, throat, neck, back rump, the scapulars, and upper tail coverts ashy brown ; breast, belly, tibial plumes, lower tail coverts, and flanks white * * * * * %- % % “ The iris light grey ; naked skin of head yellow ; bill grey ; feet pale yellow; nails grey.” * Hompers the dimensions recorded by myself from a fresh bird, (S. F., IV, 483.) L. 31:7; 8. fr. g., 5-1; tail, 8:0 (I measure from v xt, he to root), expanse, 62 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. 319 I have described the adult of this species fully (S. F. IV, 483), and only quote this much of Brisson’s description to show that there is not a shadow of doubt as to what his Sula was, and that he described our present species accurately. Now, besides this, Sula (uninomial, he gave no second names to the type of each genus), Brisson described another species Sula fusca also from a specimen, and in his usual careful way. He had both specimens before him at the same time, and the presumption therefore is that fusca is not the same species. The description, however, clearly proves that itisnot. Hesays:— “ Scarcely larger than a domestic duck. * Length, 26:28; bill to gape, 4:03; tail, 9°87; tarsi, 1:19 ; mid toe and claw, 2°75; * * * * expanse, 56:96; folded wing's extend to two-thirds of the tail” (in sula it is three-fourths). “‘ Head, throat, neck, breast, belly, sides, and thighs of a rather light ashy-brown; the back and scapulars a little darker; the longest of the latter being even ashy blackish. ** Rump and upper and lower tail coverts ashy white; under- wing coverts ashy brown; lesser upper wing coverts and the larger ditto nearest the body of the same colour, but the larger ones farthest from the body are ashy blackish. The wing is composed of 37 feathers of this latter colour, of which, how- ever, the interior webs towards their bases are lighter coloured. The tail consists of 14 feathers, the central pair ashy, the rest brownish ashy, especially on the outer web, and the exterior feather on each side greyish white at the tip. The central pair are longest, the laterals diminish successively, so that the external pair are 5°65 shorter than the central pair. The region on each side between the beak and eye is bare skin and red; the bill, tarsi, toes, and webs are also red; the nails are reddish. Found on the coasts of Africa and America.’’ Now whatever this may be, this is certainly not the present species, and this fusca is Linnzeus’ fiber, and hence this latter name must, as has already been urged by others, cease to be applied to the common Booby. Finsch and Hartlaub think that fer is a young of cyanops, but in my opinion there is no question looking to dimensions, number of tail feathers (cyanops has 16), &c.; that Brisson described a young specimen of piscatrix, or, if my surmise prove correct, of the smaller of the two species now confounded under the name piscatriz. I have already described the adult of our present species from a fresh specimen (IV, 483), the young is an uniform rather dark brown, the head and neck rather paler, and accord- ing to Finsch (op. cit. 261) has the bill and naked throat patch violet black, and the feet orange brownish, 320 REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. But a young female probably about a year old that we caught on boardship, between Malacca and Penang, Lat. 2° 25'N., Long. 101° 40’ E. on the 8th of August, and of which the dimensions and colours were most carefully recorded at the time, and which I have inserted in the tables below, did not agree in these latter points. Here also, as it seems to me, a much smaller species still to be noticed, has been confounded with the present species, and it is impossible for me to make out in all cases where colours of soft parts are referred to, whether these were taken from the specimens of the true australis (sula, Lin.), or from the smaller. Finsch and Hartlaub quote the following :— Bill. Orbital Re- Throat Tarsi and Tris. gion. Pouch. Feet. Neuweid. ad. Pale greenish Sky blue. Pale yellow- Pale greenish Whitish or reddish ish greyish _yellow. silvery. white, point white. and base very pale greenish yellow. y. Base grey brown or greenish white. Burm. ad. Hornyyellow, Pale fleshy. Pale fleshy. ...... Pearly white. pale fleshy at base. Cassin. ad. Light yellow, Yellow. — ...... Pale yellow. W kite. fleshy at base. y. Duskytery bon Ketcies Ma AE eee see Dirty yellow. —...... Forster. Greenish yel- Moreofasul- —_....... Greenish yel- White, low. phur_yel- low. low. Gundlach y. Bluish. Greenish. Greenish. Pale orange brown. Dohrn. all. Dirty olive Clear blue. Dirty olive Dirty olive Dirty green. yellow. yellow. yellow. To which I may add (certainly of the larger species.) Hume. ad. 9 Creamywhite Pale hoary Pale hoary Pale yellow, White. with blu- greenish greenish _ greenishon ish tinge in yellow. yellow. tarsi. veins. Hume. juv. 9 Paleglaucous Pale glaucous Paledirtyblu- Very pale, _— Pearly. blue. blue,strong- ish green. buffy yel- ly tinged low, tinged green. green on tarsi. Heuglin. ad, Hoary green- Yellowish, Hoary green- Pale yellow- Pearly white. ish. ish. ish green. y, Basal por- Deep violet. Deep violet. Greenish blue tions tinged to yellow- violet. ish. Swinhoe. imm. Pale yellow. Plumbeous. Pale yellow Pale yellow, Light pearly deeperthan withatinge grey, black- bill. of green, ening near pupil, REMARKS ON THE GENUS SULA. oon As to dimension of the present species, we may quote the following :— Length. Exp. Wing. Tail. Culmen. B. fr. Ts. aoe Ue Mid toe. g- el, Brisson 8178 657 aus 10; 7 eae 5:02 1692 3B ase THN Om We nae 155-167 92101 3-85-41 2... 163-164 ssc 22-265 Bingch aug; eis 16 96 8°21 402 4-93 Ves ca. 2°73" Heuglin 3066 ....., 15°55-16 7 8°77-9'86 CH aad P6472 ts god Swinhoe & Sines 160 9°0 45” Bd 19 - SG ae Hume @Qad. 31:7 62 161 80 41 651 Beth ediag, ee jun. 29°12 67 16:25 72 4-65 75 ee As to distribution I am unable to say more than that the larger species seems to inhabit the tropics of both hemispheres, wandering more or less into the temperate zones. 6A.—Sula parva, Gm. S. N. I. 579, 1788 ) Ex. Buff. leucogastra, Bodd. Tabl. Pl. en. 57,1788 § P. HE. 973. fusca, Vieill apud Pelzn. Reise Novara. 156, nec Vieill. sula et fiber, Lin apud Awct. nec Lin. There is no detailed description of this species which has‘its origin in Buffon’s, P. E. 973, and his brief accompanying remarks :—‘ This is the smallest of this genus that we know. Length, scarcely 192 inches; throat, stomach, and belly white ; the rest of the plumage blackish; sent to us from Cayenne.” On which Gmelin says :—‘ Black’ (instead of blackish), beneath white (again inaccurate), face feathered (whereas the plate distinctly shows that the space round the eye is bare.) Latham follows Buffon accurately, but forgets that 18 French are not 18 English inches. Stephens makes the same mistake and repeats Gmelin’s error (corrected by Latham) of the space round the eye not being bare. Nothing further seems to have been established about this species. The original figure shows that it was an adult, with very pale yellow, bill, naked skin of head and throat, legs and feet. If this stood alone I should have had less hesitation in follow- ing the received practice of uniting this with the larger brown Booby, sula, Lin. australis Steph. But in the Reise Novara I find that Von Pelzeln seems to have obtained from near Rio Janeiro, what looks like a male of this species (Buffon’s bird may have been a female.) He says, “a male, total length, 21; expanse, 58:06.” These dimensions apparently recorded in the flesh by Zelebor; “iris greyish white; fect light fleshy grey.” This small species I should guess to pertain to the coasts of South America, but to occur also elsewhere in the Atlantic. By ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF SINDH. I cannot claim to have furnished much original information in regard to this genus, but I think I have said sufficient to show how much it is in need of careful xvevision by modern ornithologists to whom the museums of Europe are open. ‘I have little doubts myself that a critical investigation of bills, feet, tails, proportions of primaries, and the like when taken along with such reliable records as exist of colours of soft parts in life, and localities where specimens were obtained, will demonstrate the existence of at least twelve separable species, and greatly restrict the areas of distribution of several of the few species now usually admitted.—A. O. H. Additional Sotes on the Pirds of Sindh. By Caprain E. A. Bouter. Sprcizs lately noticed in Sindh by myself and not apparently as yet recorded from that province. 5.—Gyps bengalensis, Gmel. L have observed the White-Backed Vulture on several occasions in the neighbourhood of Kurrachee, and thereis a skin of a bird in the Frere Hall Museum that was shot in Sindh. 353.— Orocetes cinclorhynchus, Vigors. I observed a Blue-Headed Chat Thrush in Kurrachee on the 9th March this year, sitting upon a low wall near the Infantry Barrack. It was not at all wild, and remained near the same spot for about ten days, during which period I saw it on several occasions, but never when I had a gun witb me. It was evidently passing through in course of migration. 475,—-Copsychus saularis, Lin. I have noticed the Magpie Robin occasionally during the hot weather in the Lyarree Gardens about two miles from Kurrachee. I wonder if they breed here ? 722.—Euspiza luteola, Sparrm. I noticed a few pairs of the Red-Headed Bunting this year (1877), at Kurrachee towards the end of March, amongst some low scrubby bushes on the maidan between the Camp and Clif- ton. They were evidently migrating, as there is no cultivated ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF SINDG. 323 ground within miles of the place where they were, and they only remained for a few days. 272.—Mergus castor, Lin. There is a fine specimen, a9, of this species inthe Frere Hall Museum, shot by Captain Bishop at the Manorah Point off the Kurrachee Harbour, and another specimen has just been captur- ed at the same place, now at the end of June. [694.—-Ploceus baya, Blyth. A specimen sent me from Col. Haig, caught in the Kurra- chee Collectorate, clearly belongs to this species, and not to either manyar or bengalensis.—A. O. H.] 987 bis.—Sterna albigena, Licht. This Tern, already recorded from the Laccadives by Mr. Hume, and from Bombay by the Marquis of Tweeddale, is com- mon in the Kurrachee Harbour all along the Mekran Coast, and in the Persian Gulf, at any rate during the latter part of thespring and during the summer. Whether they occur during the cold season I cannot yet say. Mr. Hume did not notice them in March. [I have already (S. F., IV., p. 467-9) described and furnished dimensions of two males of this species killed on. the 13th of February at the Cherbaniani Reef. The following are the dimensions of females killed by Captain Butler at Kurrachee on the 12th and 14th of April :— ih Ex. T. W. B, at fr. B. fr. g. from margin of feathers. 15 13°75 28° 5°87 9°25 20 12°75 27°75 5°25 9°37 138 1°82 12°12 29:5 3°62 1012 139 194 (imperf.) The first two specimens are coming into breeding plumage, and have the entire breast, abdomen, and sides, a sort of pale smoky lead colour, only slightly mottled here and there with greyish white, and the throat and sides of neck white, mottled with dusky grey. They had the irides blackish brown ; the bill blackish, lake-red towards the base of both mandibles ; the legs and feet bright red. The heads and upper surface, as already described in the February specimens, so that they are still far removed from the full breeding plumage described, vol. cit., 469. The thirdis a young bird pure white underneath; all the coverts along the ulna brown, and with the winglet and prima- ries browner and duller than in adults in even winter plumage. 324 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF SINDH. The whole upper back is white, and the mantle a paler and less pure grey than in the adult.—A. O. H.] 988.—Sterna minuta,* Lin. This Ternlet is common at the same seasons as the preceding in the Kurrachee Harbour and along the Mekran Coast. In this case also I do not know whether the bird occurs also in the winter; at any rate Mr. Hume did not notice it. I found numerous nests on the bare mazdan between Kurrachee and Clifton in May and June, collecting in all about 40 eggs, and subjoin a note from my nesting memoranda referring to its breeding habits :— “ Kurrachee, 6th May 1877.—Noticed several of these Terns (S. minuta) flying backwards and forwards over the maidan between the Camp and Clifton. As they had only just arrived, and as they appeared much devoted to the spot and bent on matrimonial pursuits, I got out of my trap and commenced a search for eggs. The soil was slightly damp from the effects of tidal inundations, with here and there patches of hard, dry, incrustated ground covered with saline efflorescence, and in these patches the nests, consisting of a slight depression in the ground scratched out by the old birds, were situated. I also found nests on ground cut up by Artillery Gun Carriages, the egas being deposited in the wheel ruts and in the horse’s foot- prints. The description in “ Nests and Eggs,” Pt. III., p. 655, answers well to the eggs I procured, viz., pale drab with, in some eggs, a faint greenish tinge or greyish stone color with primary streaks, blotches, and spots of deep brown and secondary clouds and spots of pale inky lilac. The markings vary considerably in extent and intensity, some eggs being boldly and numerously marked, whilst others are marked only faintly and sparingly. None of the nests I examined contained more than two eggs, which seems to be contrary to Mr. Hume’s experience, and I may also observe that the birds in this neighbourhood feed ex- clusively in salt water, being common all over the harbour and in the salt marshes adjoining.” [The birds sent by Captain Butler do not belong to the same race as that whose nidification 1 described, and are certainly not minuta unless we agree to unite all the races of little Terns under one name. Iam by no means sure that this will not be found hereafter to be the proper course. The subject is one that I shall discuss at length in a separate paper on our Indian Larida, but in the meantime it may be as well to note, for the information of my * 988 fer.—Sterna Saundersi, nobis, vide infra. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF SINDH. 325 Indian readers, that, excluding S. nereis of Gould, which has even in the adult no black lores, but only a dark spot in front of the eye, five species of little Tern are admitted by Mr. Saunders, the latest writer on the subject. The distinctions on which Mr. Saunders relies to separate these supposed species are, so far as I have been able to seize them, abstracted in the subjoined table :— Shafts of outer Rump, tail-coverts, é Name. primaries, and tail. Bill. S. minuta, LB. Dark .. White; «. Yellow, black at tip. 8. antillarum, Less. Dark ... Rump and tail coverts Ditto, but more slen- pale grey like der and little black mantle. at tip. S. superciliaris, Vieill. ? .. Back, rump, and tail Stout as in minuta, darker than in the no black, above, S. sinensis, Gimei.... White «» White, often a grey Asin minuta, but per- shade in non breed- _ haps stouter. ing plumage. S. sumatrana, Raffl. Black w» Grey asin back .., More slender than in antillarum. As regards the last, I must dissent to this application of Raffles’ name. Bad as his description is, and he was probably dealing with an immature bird, “ the prevailing color white and tail like back,’’ and the words “ a blackish crescent extends from eye to eye, round the back of the head” to my mind fix the species as identical with melanauchen, Tem., the commonest Tern at the Andamans, Nicobars, the Straits and on the coasts of Sumatra. The other name given by Mr. Saunders for this species, pusilla of Miiller, seems to be quite indeterminable. If the race is to stand as a species, it had better stand as S. Saundersi, that gentleman being practically, it seems to me, its discoverer. There is no mistake as to the race; to it belong all the Kur- rachee specimens sent by Capt. Butler, and all my Laccadive specimens, to it belong some Ceylon specimens and a Madras specimen and a nestling from Phillor on the Sutlege. It hasa trifle less deep bill than minata (European) ; it has the shafts of the first three primaries (at least) black (the first occa- sionally in non-breeding plumage rather brown) ; and the entire rump, upper tail-coverts, and tail, (except the longest and external feather on either side, which is pure white) grey, unicolorous with the back. Note that this grey varies in shade according to season, being considerably darker in the freshly-moulted bird. It has in the breeding season more black on the tips of the mandibles than minuta; but the most conspicuous difference r17 325 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF SINDH. is one not noticed by Mr. Saunders, and that is that, where- as in breeding plumage minuta appears to have always two dark primaries and true sinensis only one, Saundersi has at least three.* But, if we are to make species on these grounds, we cannot stop here. The Common Tern of Upper India is not truly identical with minuta of Europe. It is very similar in size and colour ; it has two and only two dark first primaries, but the rump is greyer than in minuta; the bill in breeding season has the merest specs at the tips of the mandibles, and the shaft of the first primary is white, or brownish white, and not as in minuta the same or almost the same dusky brown as that of the second. Mr. Gould has always doubted the identity of the commoner Indian and European Lesser Terns, and the former, as above defined, if separated, should stand as 8. Gouldi. But this will not exhaust onr Indian forms. There are birds like the preceding and with ¢wo dark primaries, but with the shafts of both white, and with no black at all even on the extreme tip of the bill, and with the upper tail-coverts, as well as the rump, and sometimes the central tail feathers, grey and this not in immature birds, but in males shot over the eggs in the Ganges at the end of April. And I fear that there are a good many other changes to be rung, and pending the review of the series from various parts of Indianow coming in, I must say I feel doubtful how far these small differences will prove constant, and whether a still more comprehensive review than J shall ever be able to make will not eventually lead to the union of all these forms under the one name minuta.—A. O. H.} There are two more birds to which I wish to draw attention, though I cannot enter them in the list at present, as unfore * The following ‘s a detailed description of STERNA SAUNDERSI, snared on eggs, at Kurrachee, 10th May 1877. Length, 9:12 ; expanse, 19°25 ; tail, 3°0 ; wing, 6°43 ; bill at front, 1:12 ; from gape, 1:5; tarsus, 0°6. Legs and feet dusky yellowish olive; bill yellow, broadly tipped dusky ; irides blackish brown. A triangular frontal patch, the angles reaching to within 0:12 of the eyes, white ; a very broad stripe through the lores to the eye black ; a narrow white line intervenes between this stripe and the upper mandible. The whole crown, occiput and short full occipital crest and sides of occiput as low as the lower margin of the eye, velvet black; the central 2/3rds of the lower eyelid white, and no black below this; all the rest of the sides of head and neck, chin, throat, entire under parts, wing-lining and exterior tail feather, pure white. The first threé primaries black with black shafts and broad white margins to inner webs; their greater coverts dusky black. The whole of the rest of the upper surface, including wings and tail, and excepting arts and feathers, already described, a most delicate satin grey, contrasting in the strongest manner with the early black primaries. —A, O, H. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF SINDH. 327 tunately I have not yet procured specimens. The first is a Tern that occurs on the Hubb river and on the Indus, described to me by several persons who have seen it as a bird with a beautiful rosy breast. I have no doubt whatever that it is 985 bis. —Sterna dougalli, but time must prove the fact, as I have not yet seen a specimen of the bird alluded to. The second is Irena puella, Lath. There is a specimen of the Fairy Blue Bird (¢) in the Frere Hall collection at Kurrachee labelled Sehwan, and as Mr. Murray, Curator of the Museum, assures me posilively that it was shot in that neighbourhood, I think it right to mention the fact, although I cannot vouch personally for the authenticity of its occurrence in that locality, which must, to say the least, be altogether abnormal,—Sindh being alike, geographically and climatically, outside the range of this species. With reference to the remarks under the head of Coceystes jacobinus, ante, Vol I., p. 173, I may mention that the Pied- crested Cuckoo arrives in Sindh about the same time that it does in Guzerat, viz., about the last week in May, leaving again after the breeding season about the middle of October. It is common enough now (June 28th) in the gardens on the Lyarree river referred to by Mr. James, and surely must occur in other parts of Sind as well! Strange to say, although I have always been on the look-out for Pyrrhulauda melanauchen, especially in the neighbourhood of Kurrachee since the announcement of its occurrence in Sind, S. F., Vol. I, p. 212, and since Mr. Blanford directed my atten- tion to the species in a conversation I had with him last cold weather, I have never yet met with a single specimen. It must therefore, I fancy, be a very uncommon bird, or else a mere seasonal visitant. P. grisea is common everywhere in the neighbourhood of Kurrachee. An Alaudula,* which I believe to be raytal, is very common at Kurrachee ; but, as it may prove to be adamsi, I have not included it in this list. Mr. Hume appears not to have met with Cursorius coroman- delicus when he visited Sind; but Mr. James has procured speci- mens for him since. Itis notrare in the neighbourhood of * This is unmistakably A. adamsi, with the much shorter and stouter bill, a perma- nent resident on the banks of the Indus and all its affluents, and occurring occasionally on the Jumna, the westernmost of the Himalayan born affluents of the Ganges, as low as Dehli, where one specimen now in my Museum was shot by Capt. Bingham. Quite distinct alike from 4. raytal, a permanent resident of the Ganges, the Brahma- pootra and Irrawady, and ¢heiv affluents, and from the two migratory forms of pispeletta,—Ep., 8, F, 328 RESUME OF RECENT ADDITIONS Kurrachee, and breeds on the open maidans during the hot weather, at which season I observed several pairs (one pair with young ones on the 6th June) that were evidently breeding, but I found no eggs. Mr. James also adds Dendrocygna major to Mr. Hume’s list, and I may mention that a few live specimens were sent to Kurrachee this year from the Munchur Lake and preserved for the “ Frere Hall’? Museum, where they are now to be seen. By VA Bs Mesume of recent Additions to the Sindh Avifauna, So many additional notes on the Avifauna of Sindh have appeared since I published my first account, (I. 148.) that. it may save ornitnologists, especially those now working in Sindh, a good deal of trouble in hunting out references if I publish a résumé of all these additions, 54 in number. My first list re- corded 280 species (including Sturnus minor, of which Blanford has since obtained many specimens), making a total up to date of 334, or only 16 short of the total which I predicted (III, 378) for the province. Of the additions many have only occurred in the Thur and Pakhur and the country eas¢ of the Indus which I was unable to visit. Others only occur at seasons other than that in which I travelled in Sindh, and of several of these (e. g. Aedon familiaris, Sylvia cinerea) I predicted the occurrence long before they were found. Out of the whole 54 additions there are not 20 that Z could have obtained in the tracts I traversed at the time I visited them, and I think that to get 280 out of 300 species in a seven week’s hurried tour was not so bad after all. The following is the complete list of addenda, with the names of those who added them, and a reference to the vol. and page of Stray Feathers where they were first notified :— 1.—Vultur monachus, Blanford, V. 245. 2.—Otogyps calvus, Blanford, V. 245. 5.—Gyps bengalensis, Butler, V. 322; Blanford, V. 245. 39.—Spilornis cheela, Blanford, V. 245. 68.—Asio accipitrinus, Blanford, V. 245. 72.—Ketupa ceylonensis, Blanford, V. 245. 74 Sept.—Scops brucei, Blanford, V. 245. 87.—Cotyle riparia, Blanford, LV. 507. 98.—Cypselus melba, Blanford, V. 245. co TO THE SINDH AVIFAUNA. 32 112.—Caprimulgus asiaticus, James, I. 419. 160.—Picus mahrattensis, Blanford, V. 245. 197.—Xantholema hemacephala, Blanford, V. 245. 222.—Taccocua affinis, Blanford, V. 245. 269 quat.—Hypocolius ampelinus, Blanford, III. 358. 299 bis.—Butalis grisola, Hume, IV. 225. 353.—Orocetes cinclorhynchus, Butler, V. 322. 386 bis.—Pyctorhis altirostris, * Blanford, V. 245. 439.—Chatarrhea earli, James, I. 420. 4.62.—Pycnonotus pusillus, Blanford, V. 246. 475.—Copsychus saularis, Butler, V. 322. 488.—Saxicola opistholeuca, Blanford, V. 246. 490.—Saxicola morio, Blanford, V. 246. 492 ter.—Aidon familiaris, Blanford, V. 246. 516.—Acrocephalus dumetorum, Blanford, V. 246. 539.—Cisticola schoenicola, James, I. 420. 559.—Phylloscopus nitidus, Blanford, V. 246. 582 bis.—Sylva cinerea (rufa), Blanford, V. 246. 591.—Motacilla personata, Blanford, V. 246. 593 ter.—Budytes flavus, Blanford, V. 246. 694.—Ploceus baya, Hume, V. 323. 711—Gymnoris flavicollis, James, I. 420. 716.—Emberiza huttoni, Blanford, V. 246. 716 dts.—Fringillaria striolata, James, T. 420. 718.—Emberiza stewarti, Blanford, V. 246. 721,—EKuspiza melanocephala, James, I, 420. 722.—Euspiza luteola, Blanford, V. 246 ; Butler, V. 322, 756.—Mirafra ery throptera, Blan/ford, V. 246. 761 ter.——Melanocorypha bimaculata, Blanford, V. 246. 767.—Alauda gulgula, James, I. 420. 834.—Turnix jodera, LeMessurier, IV. 225. 840.—Cursorius coromandelicus, aun I. 421. 842 bis.—Glareola pratincola, Blanford, TV. 507. ? 845 bis.—Charadrius pluvialis, Blanford, V. 247. 856.—Lobipluvia malabarica, LeMessurier III. 418. 870.-—Gallinago stenura, Le Messurier, III. 380. 878.—Numenius phzopus, LeMessurier, III. 381. 891.— Totanus glareola, James, I. 421. ? 904,.—Gallicrex cristatus, Blanford, V. 247. 910.—Porzana pygmea, Blanford, V. 247. 953.—Dendrocygna fulva (major), James, I. 421. 972.—Mergus castor, Butler, V. 323. ? 985 bis.—Sterna dougalli, Buller, V. 327. 987 bis.—Sterna albigena, Butler, V. 323. 988 ¢er.—Sterna saundersi, Butler, V2.324; * I consider this a distinct species, P. griseogularis, V., 116, 330 REGULOIDES VIRIDIPENNIS, Blyth. Tt will be noted that Ido not as yet include Zrena puella rea ferred to by Captain Butler, V. 3827. [fa specimen of this species has really ever occurred in Sindh inan apparently feral state, it must I think have been an escaped prisoner. Jrenas are not easy to keep alive in captivity, but natives at times manage to keep a pair eae birds always die I think) and prize them highly. —A. O. H Reguloides viridipennis, Blyth. Mr. Sresoum, in his recent admirable monograph of the Phylloscopi (Ibis, 1877, p. 83), thus describes Blyth’s &. viri- dipennis :-— “ Bill, large; under mandible, pale. Upper parts, yellowish olive-green; wing and tail, greyish brown, with the outside edge of “each feather broadly margined with yellowish g oreen 5 superciliary streak pale yellow. Head, darker-coloured than the back, with a pale mesial line ; underparts, yellowish white, greyer on the breast and flanks. Axillaries and wing-lining, bright yellow. Fourth and fifth primaries longest; third and sixth rather shorter; seventh, eighth, and ninth each considerably shorter than the preceding ; ; second primary about equal to the ninth. Exposed part of bastard primary °d to °65. Two distinet wing bars. Length of wing—male—2°4 to 2:25; female 2°25 to 2:1. Length of tail—male—1°9 to 1:8; female 1°8 to 1:7. Legs and claws brown.” Mr. Blyth’s original description (J. A. 8. B., 1855, XXIV, p. 275), is as follows :— “‘ PHYLLOSCOPUS VIRIDIPENNIS, nobis, . s. A fourth spe- cies of the Reguloides sub-groub. (Je *As 1:5 XXII, p. 487), and most nearly resembling EE. CHLORONOTUS ; * but readily distinguished from that species by having the rump uniformly coloured with the back, also by heving a longer and differently coloured bill, and legs of much darker hue. From Pu. ProreGULUS t| (Regulus modestus, Gould), it is distin- guished by its inferior size and much brighter colouring, the mesial coronal streak being as much developed as in Pu. CHLOo- RONOTUS, and of a purer ” yellowish- white contrasting with a blacker shade of dusky: edge of wing considerably brighter yellow than in the others ; the wine- band and also the tibial * Blyth here really intends, a proregulus, Pall. In those days there was a con- fusion about these species. a Hisylte + Mr. Blyth here refers R. supercilliosus, Gm,—Ep., 8. F. REGULOIDES VIRIDIPENNIS, Blyth. dol plumes tolerably bright yellow, the latter constituting another good distinction: but a further and more conspicuous distinc- tion consists in the wing beyond its coverts being uniformly ereen, without a trace of the Reautus-like variegation seen in PH. PROREGULUS, and less conspicuously in PH. CHLORONOTUS : there is no dusky patch posterior to the coverts, nor whitish tip or border to any of the great alars; but the secondaries are broadly margined with tolerably bright green, and the tertiaries are merely of a duller green throughout, brightening on their outer edge, and are not dusky and contrasting (as in the other species). In brief, Pa. viripipENNIs may be des- cribed to have the upper-parts vivid olive-green, brightest on the margins of the wing and tail feathers; lower parts albes- cent, tinged with yellow; crown dusky mixed with green, with bright yellowish- white supercilia and coronal streak continued over the occiput; the supercilia more yellowish anteriorly ; a broad pale yellow wing-band formed by the tips of the great coverts of the secondaries; and the smaller range of wing- coverts slightly tipped with yellowish; tibial plumes bright yellowish ; the margin of the wing pure canary-yellow ; upper mandible wanting in the specimen, but the lower is wholly yellow; legs infuscated brownish. Length, about 4 inches; of which tail, 18 inch; wing 2 inch; having the short first primary 52; inch; the second ? inch longer than the first, and 3 inch shorter than the longest primaries ; bill to gape $ inch, and tarsi 2 inch.” We have recently obtained several beautiful specimens of the true viridipennis, Blyth, from Mooleyit, where also Mr. Davison found the bird breeding, and took the nest and eggs, and I cannot help believing that a larger and distinct species has been confounded with Mr. Blyth’s, and that it is this larger and as yet unnamed species which Mr. Seebohm has described. In the first place, the dimensions given by Mr. Seebohm are far too large. In the Mooleyit birds the wings of the male measure 2°0; of the female 1:9. In the second place Mr. Seebohm omits one of the leading characteristics of the Mooleyit birds, viz., that the whole of the inner web of the outer-tail feathers and a portion of that of the next feathers are white. Seeing the great care with which Mr. Seebohm’s descriptions have been prepared, and looking to the fact that he has not overlooked the similar peculiarty in erochrous, presbytis, §e., IT cannot believe that had he had the true viridipennis before him, he would have omitted to notice this peculiarity. In many respects our bird approaches presbytis of Miiller, but it has two distinct wing bands, though the upper one is at times broken and obscured, 332 REGULOIDES VIRIDIPENNIS, Blyth. I will endeavour to describe our bird according to Mr. Seebohm’s own formula. Bill, large; under mandible, pale. Upper parts, rather bright olive green; wings and tail, hair brown, the outside web of each feather broadly margined with olive green ; entire inner web of outer tail-feather, pure white ; more or less of that of the next succeeding feather also white ; inner webs of quills, except the bastard primary, margined white, the earlier ones at their bases only, the later ones almost to their tips ; superciliary streak from nostrils to nape pale yellow ; alarge conspicuous dusky green spot behind the eye, continued as an indistinct line under the prolongation of the supercilium. Head very much darker colored than the back, almost black on the sides of the occiput, with a conspicuous broad very pale yellow mesial line. Under parts yellowish white, greyer on the breast and flanks ; edge of the wing pale yellow ; wing-lining and axillaries white with a faint primrose tinge ; lower tail-coverts similar. Fourth and fifth primaries longest ; sixth sometimes shorter sometimes equal, in one specimen a shade longer; third 0:05 to 0:07 shorter; second 0°3 to 0°35 shorter, and equal te or shorter than the tenth. Bastard primary rather narrow ; exposed portion 0°5 to 0°55. Two distinct wing bars. Length of wing—male—2°0 ; female 1°9. Length of tail—male— 1-63 ; female 1°59. Legs and feet (in skin) dusky ; claws rather paler. Now I think it will be admitted that this is not the bird described by Mr. Seebohm as_ viridipennis; on the other hand this is the one Reguloides common on the upper parts of Mooleyit, and which breeds there, and there can therefore, I believe, be extremely little doubt, that it is the true viridipennis. The larger species described by Mr. Seebohm will, if distinct, require a new name. I shall not, however, propose any new name for it, because as I apprebend the bird described as viridi- pennis by Mr. Seebohm is the bird that Mr. Brooks and I have hitherto considered to be viridipennis, and in regard to which, I have always found an extreme difficulty in separat- ing lar ge examples of it from small bright-colored ones of trochiloides. No doubt Mr. Seebohm has laid down a diagnosis between the two, based ona small difference in the proportions of the primaries ; but quite recently,on examining a large series of this group, I have had reason to fear that in the case of many of these species Mr. Seebohm’s diagnoses, though extremely REGULOIDES VIRIDIPENNIS, Blyth. 333 correct for a considerable proportion ef the specimens, do not hold invariably good. In fact that, in mos¢ species, at any rate, slight variations in the proportional length of the 2nd and later primaries occur. Anyhow the distinctness from trochiloides of the form which Mr. Seebohm has described under Blyth’s name of viridipennis is to me so far a matter of doubt that I should prefer to leave it to him to assign to it, if necessary, anew name. All I feel con- fident of is that his bird is not, and that the bird I have above described ts the true Mooleyit viridipennis. Naturally the consideration arises how could Blyth have overlooked the white on the tail feathers. Doubtless it is inconspicuous In some specimens on the penultimate feathers, but it is invariably conspicuous on the outer ones. My belief is that in Blyth’s specimen, which was manifestly a poor one, the entire upper mandible being wanting, the outer tail feathers also were missing. One of our females, shot off the nest, has lost both outer feathers on one side, and nearly half the outer one on the other. It was on the 2nd of February, just at the foot of the final cone of Mooleyit, at an elevation of over 6,000 feet that Mr. Davison came upon the nest of this species. He says :— “Ina deep ravine close below the summit of Mooleyit I found a nest of this Reguloides. It was placed in a mass of creepers growing over the face of a rock about seven feet from the ground. It was only partially screened, and I easily detected it on the bird leaving it. I was very much astonished at finding a nest of Reguloides in Burmah, so I determined to make positively certain of the owner. I marked the place, and after a short time returned very quietly. I got within a couple of feet of the nest; the bird sat still,and I watched her for some time, the markings on the top of the head were very con- spicuous. On my attempting to go closer the bird flew off, and settled on a small branch a few feet off. I moved back a short distance and shot her, using a very small charge. “The nest was a globular structure, with the roof slightly projecting over the entrance. It was composed externally chiefly of moss, intermingled with dried leaves and fibres, the egg cavity was warmly and thickly lined with a felt of pappus. « The external diameter of the nest was about 4 inches; the ege@ cavity one inch at the entrance, and 2 inches deep. The nest contained 3 small pure white eggs.” AY) G2 Ee 334 Aovelties? Pellorneum ignotum, Sp. Nov, Like P. Tickelli, but markedly smaller, and chin, throat and upper breast pure white and no fulvous on lower surface ; wing, 2°25. THERE is a small very typical and dull colored Pedlorneum, apparently common about Dollah, near Suddya, at the extreme eastern end of the Assam valley, which does not appear to have been as yet described. My specimens are extremely indifferent ones, but bills, legs, feet, and one wing in one specimen are intact, so that there is no doubt, I think, as to the genus to which they should be referred, though the tails are imperfect. So much of these as remains agrees with that of Pellorneum. Dimensions, (in the flesh) :-— g. Length, 5°7; expanse, 75; wing, 2°25; tail, 2°15; tarsus, 0°9 ; bill, straight from forehead, 0°6. In the skins, the upper mandible is blackish brown, the lower horny white. The legs, feet, and claws are pale horny yellow. The entire upper surface is a deep rather rufescent olive brown, muchas in Pellorneum Tichkelli, rather more decidedly rufescent on the tail and outer webs of the quills. The chin, throat, upper breast and centre of lower breast and upper abdomen are white without any fulvous tinge. The sides of the neck are like the back, but rather paler ; the sides, flanks, lower abdomen, vent and lower tail-coverts similar, but more and more rusty towards the lower tail-coverts. The wing lining is dull white. The inner webs of the quills are hair brown. The lores are pale—in one pale yellowish, in another pale greyish, brown. The ear-coverts are duller, perhaps a shade greyer than the cheeks and sides of the neck, and are faintly paler shafted. i The bill, wings, and feet are ¢ypzcal ; of the tails, I must speak with some hesitation, as they are imperfect in my specimens, which generally are so indifferent that, were the species not very distinct from all that are known tome, I should have hesitated to describe it from them. NOVELTIES. 33) Phylloscopus Seebohmi, Sp. Nov. Bill moderately large—pale underneath ; no wing bar ; first primary of moderate breadth ; exposed portion, 0°58; 3rd and Ath primaries longest—2nd between 6th and 7th; wing in 2, 2°1; tail, 1°85. THE small size, coarse bill, very pale beneath, and entir® absence of any trace of a wing bar seem to distinguish this Species at once. Thanks to Mr. Seebohm, after whom I have named it, I have had no difficulty in deciding that it must be undescribed or, at any rate, unknown to him, which, after the labour and research he has devoted to the Willow Warblers,* may prima facie be assumed to be the same thing. In size and general appearance this supposed new species most resembles plumbeitarsus, and appears to have had bluish white tarsi; but the coloration is slightly different, as are the proportions of the primaries, and there is absolutely no wing bar. I have only one specimen, a female, killed at Tavoy in March, but this, except that the extreme tip of the bill has been shot off, is a singularly good specimen. I shall follow Mr. Seebohm in my description :— Bill, large; under mandible pale yellowish white; upper mandible, rather pale brown. Upper parts brown, with in places a faint olivaceous tinge ; rump, pale dull olive green ; upper back, paler, greyer, contrast- ing with darker brown of head and nape. Wings and tail, pale hair brown; the quills just tinged on the margins of outer webs with dull olive green. A conspicuous dull white supercilium from nostrils to nape; a broad brown stripe through lores and post occular region ; ear-coverts, brownish white. Head, much darker than upper back, about the same as middle of back. Under parts, white, sullied with a greyish brown tinge ; flank feathers (some), lower tail coverts, and wing lining, purer white; a faint yellow tinge along the edge of the wing. Third and 4th primaries longest; 5th decidedly shorter ; 6th and 7th each successively shorter; 2nd primary a little shorter than the 6th. Bastard primary of moderate breadth, 0°11; length of exposed portion 0°58. No wing bar. ie Vide his monograph of the Phylloscopi, Ibis, 1877, 66, 306 NOVELTIES. Length of wing, female, 2:1. Length of tail, female, 1°85. Tarsi, very slender, apparently pale bluish fleshy ; feet, dingy yellowish. This is a true Phylloscopus, typical in all details and not in any way approaching the Horeites group, with their rounded tails and wings, huge first primary and lax, silky under plumage. The bird, referred to by Mr. Seebohm, Jbis, 1877, 75, as like Phylloscopus tenellipes, viz., Phylloscopus pallidipes, Blanford, is, as Mr. Brooks long ago pointed out, a veritable Horettes, and independent of structural differences, which are very marked, is altogether differently colored to tenellipes, when the birds are laid side by side. I notice that Mr. Seebohm says of P. tenellipes that the only skins he has ever seen or heard of are two in Mr. Swin- hoe’s collection. I have several, collected by Davison, in various parts of Tenasserim. Dr. Armstrong obtained one at Amherst. Mr. Oates’ shikarees whom he sent down to Malewoon, a splendid collecting locality which Davison was the first to work, ob- tained two or three specimens. We have had this species for years; and both Mr. Brooks and myself have, I find, separately noted on the covers of different specimens that the bird was unknown, and required description ; but it was not until I received Mr. Brooks’ valuable paper, S. F., IV., p. 276, that I identified the species, an identi- fication which Mr. Seebohm’s exhaustive diagnosis has entirely confirmed. Another allied species has lately turned up, viz., Reguloides coronata, T. and S. Mr. Oates first sent me specimens to name, obtained by his shikarees at Malewoon. But immediately afterwards Davison sent others obtained about the same time at Malewoon. The characteristic point about this species is, as stated by Mr. Brooks, 8. F., [V., p. 275, the pale yellow lower tail- coverts. Of the 33 known species of Phydloscopi (including in this genus as Mr. Seebohm does as sub-genera, Acanthopneuste, Phylloscopus, and Reguloides,) all, but eight, are now known to occur within our limits, viz. wanthodryas, presbytis, wmbro- virens, sibilatrix, trochilus, gatkei, bonellii and collybita (rufa), and the first of these will most probably yet be found in Tenasserim. NOVELTIES. 30d Chatorhea eclipes, Sp. Nov. Like C. caudata, but much larger; the upper surface darker and more strongly striated ; tail more strongly banded ; feathers of breast and sides dark shafted. In the Punjab, Trans-Indus and the lower valleys of the surrounding hills, occurs a very well-marked and distinct race of our common Chatorhea caudata—in my opinion far more en- titled to specific distinction than is C. huttoni, Blyth. This latter species was separated, J. A. S. B., XVI., 476, 1847, in the following terms :— “Merely differs from J. caudatus in its larger size and the general paler hue of its upper parts. Length of wing 8°5; and of middle tail feathers above 5-0. From Candahar.” Mr. Blanford, in his Zoology of Persia, figured this species, (Pl. XTIL., f. 1.) and remarked (p. 204) :— “ C. huttont differs from the Indian C. caudata, Dum, not only in the larger size and conspicuously larger bill and legs, but also in its colouration. It isa decidedly greyer bird, with narrower and rather paler striation on the head and back. The throat is generally pale greyish brown instead of white, and the rest of the lower parts are greyer and less fulvous. Speci- mens from Mekran are somewhat intermediate in character, the throat being whiter and the dimensions a little smaller than in the typical C. huttoni, and this is especially the case in the specimen which I obtained at Gwadar.” He also gives dimensions showing :— Length, 9°25 to 10°5; expanse, 9°75 to 115; wing, 3°25 to 3°5; tail, 4°25 to 5:0; tarsus, 1:15 to 1:25; culmen, 0°88 to 1:0. The males being, of course, somewhat larger than the females. Mutton is the species I have obtained throughout Khelat. Specimens thence received are inseparable from Persian ones, with which I have compared them ; but Sindh specimens are intermediate, both in size and coloring. The present species, a rather small and faded specimen of which, as I now believe (I have not the specimen to refer to), I figured in Lahore to Yarkand, p. 197, Pl. IX., for C. cau- data seems to be better separated from this latter than huttoni, as I have hitherto failed to obtain intermediate forms. The following are the dimensions of an adult female which T killed at Peshawar, and the only specimen I have which was measured in the flesh :— Length, 10:2; expanse, 9'8; wing, 3:2; tail, 5:2; tarsus, 1:01; bill from forehead, 0°88; from gape 1:02. 838 NOVELTIES. Males are larger, the wing in one being 3°45, the tail, 5:5. The birds are strikingly larger than in caudata—quite as large as any huttont that Ihave seen from Khelat or Persia; but whereas Autéoni runs paler and greyer than caudata, the present species runs much darker and warmer colored. The bill (in winter) is dusky brown, tinged with fleshy yellow towards the base; the legs and feet are pale horny ; the irides brownish red. In the freshly-moulted bird killed, say in December, the whole upper surface is brown, a purer warmer and less grey shade than in cawdata, and the dark central stripes of head and back are much darker, and on the back broader than in that species. The tail, too, is very conspicuously transversely rayed. The ear-coverts are much darker ; the whole lower surface is warmer colored, more fulvous and browner on the flanks ; and all the breast-feathers, and those of the sides, have darker central shaft stripes. Of course birds of the same season must be compared. By August the birds are scarcely darker than a December caudata ; the greater part of the bill is horny yellow, and the striations of the breast and raying of the tail have wholly, or to a great extent, disappeared ; but even at this season they are equally darker and warmer colored than caudata in the same abraded stage. I only know of the occurrence of this species in the N.-W. Punjaub in our own territories, Trans-Indus, and the low hills and valleys leading into these from Cashmere. Cyornis olivacea, Sp. Nov. Sexes alike. Upper surface rich rufescent olive, more rufescent on tail. Lower surface white, slightly tinged with fulvous on middle and olivaceous on sides of breast. Lower mandible black or blackish. Wing lining pure white or nearly so. Legs and feet pinkish white. In the extreme southern portion of the Tenasserim Provinces a Cyornis of the ruficauda group occurs, which appears to me to be undescribed. The upper surface is extremely close in colora- tion to that of many females of the Burmese representative race of rubeculoides, but it has a much larger bill than that species, though smaller than that of magnirostris. The upper surface of the females of which is also very like that of our present bird. NOVELTIES. 309 The following are dimensions recorded in the flesh of several males :— Length, 5:75 to 6; expanse, 9:25 to 9°75; tail, 2°45 to 2°75; wing, 2°82 to 3:0; tarsus, 0°75; bill from gape, 0°75 to 0°82. Bill black ; iris brown; legs, feet, and claws pinkish white ; we have by some accident no females measured in the flesh. A female measured in the skin :— Length, 5°53; wing, 2°75 ; tail, 2°25; bill from forehead, 0°63. The feet are colored as in the male, but the bills are dark brown instead of black. I can discover no other difference in the plumage of the sexes. The entire cap and nape is dark olive; the back the same color with a rusty tinge ; the upper tail-coverts are rather more decidedly rufous ; the tail rufescent olive, margined on the outer webs, chiefly on the basal halves of the feathers, with a more decided ferruginous ; the wings are hair brown; all the fea- thers margined on their outer webs with the same color as the back, and the whole outer webs of the tertiaries of this same color; the lores are greyish-white, bounded above by a dark line; the cheeks, ear-coverts and sides of the head are greyish olive; the chin, throat, and lower parts are pure white, tinged on the middle of the breast, with pale fulvous, and on the sides of the breast and flanks with olive, sometimes mingled with pale fulvous; the wing lining and axillaries are generally pure white, in some specimens with a faint creamy or fulvous tinge. Fern ruficauda its nearest ally it differs amongst other points in the somewhat larger bill, the darker and richer tone of the upper plumage, the pure white chin, throat and abdomen, the black or blackish under mandible, and the pinkish white feet. In rujicauda the legs and feet are dark plumbeous, and the lower mandible pale, yellowish at base. From Cyornis mandelli it differs in its much longer bill, in its dark under mandible, in its white or whitish wing lining, in the less rufescent tinge on the back, in the absence of white round the eye, inits more powerful legs and feet, &c. From female magnirostris it differs in its smaller bill, more rufescent tone of upper plumage, white throat, and breast only slightly tinged with fulvous. From the female of the Burmese race of rubeculoides it differs by its mnch larger bill, pure white chin and throat, and only faintly fulvescent breast; and of course in the matter of the sexes being entirely alike it differs from all species of the rubeculotdes and hyacinthina types. 340 ay Aecentlyedescribed species. Republications. Pellorneum pectoralis, God.-Aust. Head to nape dull dark chestnut ; back, wings, and tail umber- brown, the last indistinctly barred and with narrow pale tips, the outer primaries edged paler. Lores and frontal feathers pale, tipped with pale black, extending as an obscure super- cilium to the nape, where the feathers become broadly dingy white on their upper web, dark brown on the lower, those on the back of the neck are broadly black-centred. The ear- coverts are umber-brown, darker behind, forming a crescentic margin again bordered lighter. The chin is pure white for three-quarters of an inch; a dark gorget of broadly black- centred feathers then crosses the upper breast, the centreing of the feathers becoming very large, oblong, and conspicuous on the elongate feathers of the sides of the neck, but paler and less defined on the flanks. From the gorget all beneath is pale rufescent ochre. The under tail-coverts are dark, bordered with white. Legs pale ochre. Irides vermilion. Wing. Tail. Tarsus. Bill at front. 3 3:0” 3:0” TD 0:70” Ss 30 3:0 1:0 0°63 Has.—Saddya, Assam (M. J. Ogle). This species is nearest and closely allied to Pellorneum man- delliit, W. Blanford, described from Darjeeling, which is the same as Hodgson’s P. nipalensis, a MS. name never published. It is a larger bird as regards wing, and the legs are more robust. The principal difference lies in the far larger extent of the dark streaking on the sides of the neck: the dark centred feathers are longer and broader than in P. mandellii, the black oblong spots being 0-4 in. by 1:3 in. in this new form as against 0°3 by 1:0, while those on the upper nape are bordered with white above ; the top of the head is dark chestnut, opposed to a dull rufous umber in the Darjeeling species. Yet the ereatest departure is in the abrupt termination of the white chin succeeded by the ochraceous tint of the rest of the under parts, while the black centreings of the feathers are so broad and closely distributed as to form a decided dark gorget, whence they spread away down the sides of the breast. The feathers of the head and nape are more lengthened and fuller than in the other species. RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. 341 We appear to have in this genus—all near allies :—~ 1, PELLORNEUM RUFICEPS,* Swainson. South India. 2. PreLtorneumM Manne, W. Blanford. Sikim, and the Garo and Khasi Hills. 3. PELLORNEUM PECTORALIS, G.-A. Eastern Assam. 4, Pettorneum TIcKELLI, Blyth. P. minor, Hume, 8. F., 1873, p. 298; from Tenasserim. P. subochraceum, Swinhoe, A. M. N. H., 1871, p. 257, also from Tenasserim. Burmah and Tenasserim. t Icannot help thinking that the two last names are only synonyms. In the list of Birds from Tenasserim (S. F,, Vol. IL, p. 476), the very country whence ‘Tickell sent his specimens to Blyth, P. minor is recorded as common, but P. Vickellii as not yet obtained. Comparing specimens lately received from Tenasserim with the original description and with a specimen in the Indian Museum (also from Tenasserim) which there is every reason for believing to be one of the original types, Icanarrive at no other decision but that P. minor and P, subochraceum are nothing else than P. Tickellii ; nor is it likely that two distinct species whose dimensions are so exceedingly close are to be found in so limited an area. J. A. S. B., XLVI., pt. 2, p. 41, 1877. Actinura Oglei, God,- Aust. Above rich umber-brown with a sienna tinge, strongly rusty on the head and nape, the soft feathers of the back and rump are * Is given in Blyth’s list of the Birds of Burmah, but I doubt if true P. ruficeps is found out of Southern India.— God. - Aust. + It is absolutely inexplicable that after Mr. Oates’ conclusive note, S. F., IV., 406, (the correctness of which numerous specimens now exist to attest,) a good naturalist like Major G. Austen should make such a statement as this. Then he refers to our first list of the Birds of Tenasserim, showing that we had not yet obtained specimens of Tickellii “in the very country whence Tickell sent his speci- mens,” overlooking the fact that Tenasserim is ueariy 600 miles in length, and that until quite recently, we had never collected in the locality whence Tickell’s specimens came. Lastly, he entirely ignores P. palustre, Jerd., of Cachar, Sylhet and Assam, (S. F., I., 4. , As to this present supposed new species I hesitate to accept it. I have both Suddya and Darjeeling specimens answering perfectly to Major G, Austen’s description and dimensions and yet clearly all P. nipalensis, Hodgs. This latter is a very variable species, not only in size, (the wings ranging from 2°5 to 3), but equally soin colour. It struck me that two of the Suddya birds were more rufescent and more strongly marked than nipalensis, and so they proved to be than the first few of the latter I took out, but I very soon found others of these, quite identical. One Suddya specimen is quite pale and feebly marked and matches the Darjeeling birds that I first took out exactly. I think therefore that this P. pectoralis is a very doubtful species.—Ep. S. F. TIS 042 RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. very finely ‘and indistinctly crossed with narrow bars. A well- developed frontal band of white having the shafts of its feathers black, merges into a well-defined pure white supercilium and is continued over the back, ear-coverts and down the side of the neck, where the white feathers become bordered with black, the supercilium thus terminating in scattered spots. This white supercilium is bordered above with black. Lores dark, chin pure white, breast grey, flanks and abdomen dull earthy brown. Wings and tail rich umber, narrowly barred with black-brown, the tail having about 24 such bars. Irides crimson lake; legs and feet umber-brown. Length about 6” ; wing 2°8”; tail 2°8”; tarsus 1:1” ; bill at front 0°60”. The bill, which is stronger and deeper than in any other species of the genus, is black above, grey below. Hazs.—Shot on Manbum Tila, on the Tenga Pani river, near Saddya, at 800 ft. (M. J. Ogle). This is another new form for which we have to thank Mr. Ogle, after whom I have much pleasure in naming it. It is one of the most beautiful and distinct forms of the genus, its white chin and superciliary stripe being a most conspicuous departure from the type of coloration possessed by the other species, Actinura Oglei, in the coloration of the head and nape, and in its white throat, has remarkable affinities for Turdinus guttatus, Tickell, from Tenasserim. This last bird can hardly finda place in the genus Zurdinus as exemplified by such forms as T. brevicaudatus and its allies. In the stout legs and feet it is akin to Actinura, and in the form of the nostrils it is also like Actinura Oglet. The principal departure to be noted is in the absence of barring on the wings and tail, but this is to be dis- cerned, though itis indistinct, and is noted by Tickell in his original description, when the barring was no doubt more apparent than it now is in the faded type specimen in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. In A. Oglet this barring, I notice, is far less conspicuous than in A. Egerton, A Waldeni, Sc. Alto- gether these two birds present a most instructive case of close generic relationship. J. A.S. B., XLVL., pt. 2, p. 42, 1877. Pomatorhinus stenorhynchus, God.-Aust. Desc.—Above pale umber-brown with an ochraceous tinge, richer brown onthe head, a more umber tint on the tail and wings, a narrow pure white supercilium from base of bill over the eye to the ear-coverts, but not extending further. Lores black, passing under the eye to the ear-coverts, which are grey RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. 343 black and bounded posteriorly with rufous brown. Chin and upper throat pure white, breast and abdomen pale rufescent, flanks and under tail-coverts pale ochraceous brown. Bill very long, tapering, curved, and much compressed ; bright orange-red. Legs and feet horny grey. 3 Length abt. 8’; wing 4”; tail 4°4”’; tarsus 1°35”; bill at front 1:45” 6 somos. 7, 8OH* 3 Tae: 3 115 The female is thus very decidedly smaller than the male. Has.—Obtained on Manbum Tilla, on Tenga Pani River, near Suddya at 800 ft. (M. J. Ogle). This beautiful Pomatorhinus, which with the preceding species was discovered during the past cold season, in its very slender and narrow bill approaches the Xiphorhamphus form more than any other species of this group of Scimitar Bab- blers. In its coloration it reminds one of Pom. ferruginosus.* The claw of the inner toe is smaller than the outer, and all the claws are rounded off at the tip so as to have a peculiarly blunt gouge-like appearance. J. A. 8. B., XLVL, pt., 2, p- 43, 1877. Sitta magna, Wardlaw Ramsay. General colour above, dark bluish slate colour; a black stripe, a quarter of an inch broad, on either side of the head, running from the base of the bill over the eye to the shoulder; the upper part of the head and neck between these stripes smoky erey. ‘ Wings of much the same colour as the back. Primaries and secondaries, dark brown ; more or less edged on the outer web with bluish slate. The second, third, and fourth primaries are slightly margined with whitish on the outer web, and, with the fifth and sixth, are white at the base. Under surface of wing, greyish brown, jet-black under the shoulder, Tail, with two central tail-feathers, concolorous with the back, remainder dark brown, almost black, outer pair broadly tipped with white on outer web, and margined with white on inner; next two broadly tipped with white on outer, and grey on inner web. Under surface of body smoky grey, nearly white about throat and neck. * It is very much more closely affined to P. ochraceiceps, Wald, S. F., IIL. p. 282, from which, after a careful comparison of Suddya and Tenasserim Hill specimens, I decided not to separate it. Ali that can be said is that in typical specimens the upper surface is slightly more olivaceous, than that of ochraceiceps, and that the lower throat, breast and middle of abdomen are a faint rufous buff instead of pure white, and that the sides and flanks are more olivaceous and duskier. But the intermediate forms I have lead me to doubt the validity of the species.—Up., 8. F. 344 RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. Lower tail-coverts, vent, and thighs, brilliant chestnut ; each feather of the former broadly tipped with white. Dimensions of dry skin (male) :—Length, 7:3 inches; wing, 4:5; tail, 2°7; bill from gape, 1°3 ; billat front, 1:0; tarsus, ‘95 This Nuthatch is remarkable for its great size as compared with other members of the genus. In asmall collection of birds made in January last in the country traversed by the recent Karennee boundary expedi- tion.—P. Z. 8., 1876, 677. Limicola sibirica, Dresser. ‘“‘ Having lately had occasion to examine a large series of specimens of our Broad-billed Sandpiper, Limicela platyrhyncha (Temm.) in order to work out that species for the ‘Birds of Europe,’ [ found on examining examples from Siberia and China that they differ constantly from our European bird in summer dress; and as I find that there are in the series IT have examined no intermediate specimens between these two forms, I think that the Eastern one, which has not hitherto been described, should be separated from our Western bird; and I propose to call it Limicola sibirica. It differs in the summer plumage in having the feathers on the crown and entire upper parts very broadly margined with bright rufous, so as to give this colour extreme prominence, the upper parts being, in fact, similar in colour to those of Zringa minuta in fullest summer dress. In Limicola platyrhyncha, on the other hand, the general coloration of the upper parts is black, the margins to the feathers being narrow and white or ochreous white, and the erown is very dark. The under parts in Limicola sibirica are as in Limicola platyrhyncha, except that the throat is less spotted, the chin and upper throat being quite unspotted. In measurements I find no constant difference, as both species vary somewhat infer se ; but, asarule, the Eastern bird has the wing and tarsus rather longer than in JL. platyrhyncha. In the winter plumage the two species cannot always with certainty be distinguished ; but as a rule, the Eastern one appears to be a trifle paler than the European bird. With two exceptions, all the specimens of Limicola sibirica T have examined were obtained in China by Mr. Swinhoe. The following is a full description of a specimen in full summer plumage from China :— “ Capite et corpore supra pulchre ferrugineis, plumis medialiter nigris via albido marginatis; scapularibus dorso concoloribus, alis sicut in LImIcoLA PLATYRHYNCHA pictis, sed pallidioribus et grisescentioribus ; rectricibus centralibus nigris valde rutomargt. RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. 345 natis, reliquis griseis vie albo marginatis; fronte et stria super- ciliart albis ; capitis et colli lateribus dorso concoloribus sed magis grises albo notatis ; corpore subtus alo, mento immaculato, gutture nigrofusco et ferrugineo guttato. “This species appears to breed in Northern Siberia, and to migrate Southward into China in the autumn. How far west- ward its range extends I cannot positively say ; but there is a specimen in the Cambridge Museum, sent by Mr. Blyth and stated to have been obtained in “ India,” but no precise locality is given. All the other specimens from India and Baluchistan are referable to L. platyrhyncha. Imay add that there is a specimen of ZL, siéirica in full summer dress, from Siberia, in the Cambridge Museum.”—P. Z. 8., 1876, 674. Anthus Blakenstoni, Swinhoe. P. Z.S., 1863, 90. A. neglectus, Brooks, Ibis, 1876, 501, 1877, 206. * Bill, blackish brown on culmen and tip, light brown on re- mainder; legs, blackish brown, paler on tarsi; upper parts, light yellowish brown, grey on the nape; crown and_ back with centres of feathers, deep brown ; lores, eyebrow, and chin, cream white; under parts, cream white, spotted on the breast and streaked on the flanks with brown; axillaries, pure white ; wings, brown ; feathers edged paler; coverts and tertiaries, broadly edged and tipped with cream white, forming a double bar across the wing ; tail, brown; the central feathers, yellowish brown, edged paler ; the outer lateral tail-feathers, on the entire outer web, and great part of inner near the apex, white ; second lateral edged exteriorly and largely tipped with white. “Length, 5; wing, 3°7; tail, 2:7; tarsi, °85.’”-—Swinhoe. Pe Zi. st; 1863, 90: “Under the head of Anthus spinoletta Mr. Dresser, in ‘The Birds of Europe,’ refers to a similar but smaller Indian Pipit, to which I gave the name of A. neglectus. No description was published, as there was some doubt at the time as to it being a good species. I have-since examined many Anthus spinoletta myself; and the small Indian bird can- not be considered identical. It differs as follows :—(1) smaller size ; (2) shorter wing ; (3) shorter and more slender bill. In summer plumage the birds are very similar; but in winter dress the breast spots are not large and cloudy as in 4, spino- detta, but small and much more distinct. Another important distinction is the well striated back of A. neglectus. I have the total length in the flesh of only four examples. They were all exactly six inches. The bill was dark brown, and very pale brown at base of lower mandible; irides very dark, almost black; legs and feet brown ; soles of feet yellow. In general 346 RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. coloration it resembles A. ardoreus, but is considerably paler and greyer ; the back striation is of similar character; the breast spots, however, are not distinct, as in 4. pratensis, but somewhat clouded and brown in colour; they are also much smaller and more distinct than the spots of either A. obscurus or A. spinoletta. The different character of the breast-spots alone serves to separate this Water-Pipit from its affined species; the wings and tail are coloured like those of A, spinoletta. The summer plumage is also similar, the breast- spots being replaced by a uniform dull reddish buff. The wing lining and axillaries are white. “This Pipit frequents extensive swamps and lakes (jheels, as they are called) in the northern parts of India during the cold season; and in the spring it takes its departure for the north. It is extremely shy and difficult of approach. I have generally found it in company with Anthus rosaceus. I have not, how- ever, always found it at “jheels” frequented by this latter species, which is a far more abundant bird. Its call and alarm- notes are like those of Anthus pratensis. The following are dimensions of some examples I have by me :— No. Sex. Wing. Tail. Bill at front. Tarsus. 1 a 3:22 26 45 ‘88 2 a 3°4 2°63 45 ; 88 3 2 3:15 257 45 87 4 @ 3°33 2°6 46 *83 5 Q 3:25 2°55 46 ‘88 6 9 32 2°65 45 "88 7 Q 32 255 43 87 8 2 3°28 2°5 45 ‘85 9 Q 3°23 2 65 "45 86 10 Q 3:12 245 ‘43 ‘87 11 ) 33 2°52 45 ‘88 13 9 3:27 26 *A6 *85 «‘T have seen other males in addition to the two noted above. A glance at the above dimensions shows this Pipit to be very different from those of the large A. spinoletta.—Brooks, Ibis, 1876, 501. “My Anthus neglectus is, I find by comparison, identical with Mr. Swinhoe’s A. Blackenstont. His description is correct as far as colour of plumage is con- cerned; but the bird’s legs and feet are conspicuously lighter in colour than those of Anthus spinoletta. My term of “ brown” is better than Mr. Swinhoe’s of “blackish brown.” The legs and feet of Mr. Swinhoe’s examples, however, may have dried rather dark. I noted the colour from the fresh birds. The total length given by Mr. Swinhoe is clearly wrong; so also with regard to length of wing. Ihave shot about forty exam- ples; and the greatest total length observed was 6° 3; the long- est wing, 3° 4; longest tail, 2°65.” —Brooks, Ibis, 1877, 206. 347 dlotes. Roe IN ConTINUATION of my paper IV., 279, I have now to record two more species from the Andamans, viz :— 854.—Chettusia cinerea, Blyth. 925.—Herodias egretta (Alba apud Jerd.) Both were obtained by General Stewart in the neighbourhood of Port Blair, and are contained in his last collection, which, though made nearly three years ago, has, owing to the case hav- ing been mislaid in Calcutta, only just reached me. This collectioa is avery large one, but contains no other novelties (except indeed one specimen of Sterna anetheta, which though included in my list, II., 320, we had failed to procure) so that we may conclude that we have pretty well exhausted the birds of the South Andaman at any rate. A THOROUGHLY reliable correspondent writes :—* The circum- stance you allude to occurred at this stationin 1860, or 1861. A native officer asked me for permission to kill a Kite in the lines. This being rather an unusual request, especially for a Hindoo, I asked him why he wished to destroy the bird. He said the Kite had a nest in his Company lines from which the son of a Sepoy, whose house was near, had taken the young birds. That this had so exasperated the parent bird that whenever the lad moved out ofhis house it swooped down and attacked him. I had the lad brought to me and his head and arms gave ample evidence of the maltreatment he had received. His story was fully corroborated by men who had seen the Kite attack him. You can make what use you like of this, but please do not give my name, as I do not like appearing in print.” ReFERRING to what I said, ante p. 97, about the dimensions of Mierococcyx nisicolor, | have now to note that the wings of six more specimens of this species recently received measured :— Pe Adult 2 Nearly adult 6:9 3 suv. 6°7 4 Suv: 7:0 5 Juv. 6:9 IN CoNTINUATION of my remarks on Buteo plumipes, 8. F. IV., p. 861, Iam now able to furnish similar measurements to those 3848 NOTES. therein given of 13 more specimens of this species which have been added to my museum since that paper was written, ten in the japonicus or variegated plumage and three in the uniform fuliginous plumage. More than half of these specimens are sexed, and the sexing confirms our previous suppositions :— No. Sex. Length of Bare portion Locality. * wing. of tarsust ( Li e 15: 1:35 Sikhim Be 2 3 14°6 1:34 Native Sikhim a < 3 3 14°5 1°45 +p 5.8 4 3 14'6 1:47 - “as | 5 ? 15'4 v1 - ay 4 6 ? 15'0 1:25 “3 Fee 7 3 1475 «14 Sikhim aa 8 ? 14°75 13 ’Native Sikhim a Oueuaeee 15°9 1:25 ; = roe ? 14°75 1:25 Near Darjeeling ‘thom Beas ee 11 9 15°85 1-25 Sikhim 3 Aes 4 12 3 14:8 1:3 Native Sikhim a a | 13 3 145 1:05 Thibet, North of = 0 Native Sikhim. qow p l Amongst these specimens was a 14th which, to a casual ob- server, was precisely similar, but asingle glance at the long thighs and tarsi the latter bare for 2:0, showed that small as the bird Jooked, it was really ferow, and the wing, 16°9, and the much stronger bill and feet confirmed the fact. ON A FoRMER occasion I pointed out (III., 299-300) the claims of Pachyglossa to be considered a distinct. genus alike from Diceum, Prionochilus and Piprisoma on account of its differently-shaped bill. Iam not aware whether the female of PAcHYGLoSsA MELANOXANTHA has yet been described. I myself have only recently seen one for the first time procured (as most Sikhim novelties and rarities are) by Mr. Mandelli. The coloration of this female, while indicating tke affinity of the genus with all the three above named, confirms in my opinion the view which I formerly took of its distinctness. * Wing pressed flat on a table and measured on inside straight from carpal joint to end of longest primary. + Measured from just within the points of the tarsal plumes on front of tarsus to the articulation of the mid toe and tarsus. NOTES. 349 The following are the dimensions (taken from the skin) and a description of the female P. melanoxantha :— Length, 3°5 ; wing, 2°55; tail, 1:5; tarsus, 0°5; bill, straight from forehead to point, 0°43. The entire upper surface a very dusky olive green, slightly clearer on rump and upper tail-coverts ; wings and tail hair brown, darkest on quills and tail; most of the larger and medi- an coverts, secondaries, and tertiaries very narrowly and incon- spicuously margined on the outer webs with yellowish olive ; two outer tail-feathers on either side with a white patch on the inner webs near the tips ; lores dusky ; a broad irregular stripe covering chin, middle of throat, and middle of breast dull, stightly yellowish or fulvous white; sides of throat, cheeks, ear-coverts and sides of head, the same colour as the back, but rather lighter ; sides of breast similar but greyer ; sides and flanks similar, but the former yellower, the latter greener ; middle of abdomen, vent, lower tail-coverts dull pale yellow ; axillaries and wing lining, white; the lining a little mottled with greyish brown. A narrow nearly white line from middle of gonys to gape; lower mandible above thisand upper mandible blackish ; lower mandible below this horny brown; legs and feet black. (These colours are taken from the dry specimen, and may not be correct). Mr. Buanrorp (S. F., IIt, 358) has already, in these pages, described the adult male of ypocolius ampelinus from the Hills, dividing Sindh from Khelat. I will now describe a young bird of the same species, shot at Nal in Khelat, at an elevation of 4,020 feet, on the 26th April. The specimen has been ecarbolized. Length, 9:0; wing, 3°8; tail, 4°2; tarsus, 0°95; mid toe and claw, 1:0; closed wing falls short of end of tail by 2°8; bill from forehead, 0°85; from edge of feathers, 0°6; outer tail feathers, 0°3 shorter than longest. First primary excessively narrow, exposed portion about 0:58 ; third primary longest; second and fourth equal, each 0°05 shorter than third ; fifth and succeeding primaries, each about 0:1 shorter than the preceding one. The entire upper-surface, a pale greyish earth brown, a shade darker on the crown, preceptibly paler and clearer on upper tail-coverts; terminal halfinch of tail-feathers darker, a sort of hair brown; inner webs of quills, a pale hair brown ; the primaries near their tips, paler, margined for about half an inch in length on outer webs, so as to produce the effect of a pale subterminal band in the closed wing. u 20 350 NOTES. The entire lower parts, including wing lining, lower tail- coverts, &c., pale greyish isabelline. Bill, blackish horny ; legs and feet, yellowish fleshy ; claws, pale horny brown. I HOPE NEXT YEAR, with Dr. Duke’s kind assistance, to be able to submit a tolerably complete list of the birds of the dominions of His Mighness the Khan of Khelat. At present including all the species that Mr. Blanford, Captain Butler and myself obtained on the Mekran Coast and along the Western frontier of Beloochistan, and those obtained in the low lands (the Kutchee) and the high lands of Khelat, Quetta, &e., by Major Sandeman, Dr. Duke, &., I can only number 170 species. Of these the only ones requiring early notice are :— (1). Hypocolius ampelinus, which I have already just noticed. (2}. Sitta newmayeri.—These are typical and identical with specimens from Macedon, and are not the smaller Persian form, described by Blanford, Jbis, 1873, p. 87, under the name of rupicola. See, also, Blanf. Zoo. Pers., 225, pl. XV. f. 2). (3). Carine bactriana, Hutton. The Highlands of Khelat are a continuation and zoologically form a part of those of Afghanistan, The small owl of Quetta, &c., is therefore, un- questionably, bactriana of Hutton. This owl has the feet fully feathered—it is apparently, therefore, identical with plumipes of Swinhoe, P. Z. §., 1870, 448, and will supersede that and all other names for that species.—(See also Sharpe, Cat. II., 137). Srncze My paper on the Indian Cisticole, (ante p. 90), in which I suggested the identity of homalura, melanocephala and Tytleri, was in type, I have received two more of melanocephala and six of Tytleri, all killed in the same grass patch near Suddya in Assam, on the same and two or three successive days. 1 remark first that two of the specimens of Tytleri and one of melanocephalus have the tails precisely as described by Blyth in the case of homalura. Blyth, however, says that the bill in Zomalura is stouter than in cursitans. Well, the bills vary in both species, and you may easily pick out @ melanocephalus, with a bill stouter than that of some cursitans, but taking five or six of each species I can- not see that the bills differ at all. With this sole exception, melanocephala, or rather some melanocephalas, agree absolutely with Blyth’s description of LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. aDL homalura, and the difficulty of the tail being removed, I person- ally entertain little doubt that the two names represent the same species. Then I observe that structurally, there is, so far as bills, pro- portions of primaries, tarsi and feet are concerned, not the slightest difference between Tytleri and melanocephala. As regards length of wings, I think that those of Zytlert run a trifle longer. Take the following dimensions :— GC. melanocephala.—Wings, 1:75; 1:73; 1°68; 1°83; 1°75. C. Tytleri— Fr ie kpc ean Et Braet Leto f BEA ders rae Se Ga Li 2 But now a curious fact-has to be noticed; clearly these two forms are not seasonal stages of the same birds, the great majority of my specimens having been shot at the same time. Still their absolute structural identity and both having al- most always occurred in the same places from Dacca to Sud- dya, strengthens the suspicion that, following Dr. Jerdon, IT expressed in my paper already referred to, and the note- worthy pointis that all my Tytlert are males, and both my sexed specimens of melanocephala are females. Now, is it possible that the two forms represent the two sexes of one and the same species ? I must leave this point to be elucidated by further investiga- tion. I may add that I have recently received a specimen of C. erythrocephala, (which is the second Ihave seen) from the Revd. Mr. Fairbank, killed by him atan elevation of 6,000 feet on Mount Nebo, in the Palnis, where he tells me that he saw two other specimens of this same species. The specimen is a male, and has the wing, 1:98. It agrees in plumage entirely with my other specimen fully described, ante p. 94. Me. Jonn Darurne, Junr., has just sent me a specimen of Vivia innominata, Burton, (Jerd. B. of I., I., 300) shot and skinned by himself on the 8th of the present month, (July) in the Wynaad. This species was formerly considered exclusively Himalayan, and Dr. Jerdon remarks :— “This bird is found throughout the Himalayas and in no other locality that I am aware of.”’ Peré David, however, obtained it in Kokonor ; we have ob- tained it from the Tenasserim and Khasia Hills, and here we find it in the Wynaad, a fertile valley elevated about 2,500 feet above the sea, and lying between the Nilgheris and those portions of the Western Ghats, overlooking Cannanore, Calicut, &e. . 352 Hetters to the Editor, SIR, I sHouLp be glad to know whether the Green Jay of Jerdon, Cissa sinensis, known here as the Sirgoom, is supposed to be in the habit of killing snakes. I did not know it myself till the other day, when I witnessed an occurrence which may be of interest to you. I was walking along a road with jungle on both sides, and my attention was attracted by the cries of a bird ahead of me. I looked and observed one of these Green Jays screaming and pecking at a large snake in the middle of the road, which was trying to make its escape, but whichever way it turned the bird met it, striking with its wings and beak; at last the snake lay quite still in the middle of the road, when the bird perched on its neck and commenced digging its beak into the snake’s head. I then walked up closer, and the bird flew into a bush just beside me, where it remained screaming. As soon as I approached the snake it raised itself in a threatening attitude, and seeing it was not dead I withdrew again, and as soon as I was a few paces distant, the Jay flew out and attacked the snake again. As soon as the bird came, the snake seemed to reconcile itself to its fate, and after a few feeble attempts to escape, again lay still, on which the bird again perched on its neck, and con- tinued pecking away at the top of the snake’s head till it was dead. Inthe end, the bird dragged the body of the snake away into the jungle. I went and examined the snake and found the top of the head completely broken. While I was examining the body of the snake the bird remained in the jungle at hand, but did not continue screaming as it did the first time, I scared it away. I showed the snake to a man who was passing, and he knew the name of the reptile and said it was poisonous. The snake was about three feet long. I may add that a lot of cattle coming along the road, the opposite way to which I was going, had all stopped, and when I got there were clustered together in the road looking on. The villagers asserted that the Jay would eat the snake, and from the bird dragging the snake off the road, this seems likely enough. How the combat began I don’t know, but it would seem as if the Jay attacked the snake seeing it cross the open. I was quite unaware of any such propensities in this bird, and have narrated the incident to you in case it should be of interest. Can you tell me if there are any grounds for supposing that either Snipe or Woodcock breed in this country ? I have shot LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 353 Snipe, as late as 10th April, in Dinajpur, not a stray one but several in one nullah, and I flushed a Woodcock here the other day, 14th March: the season for migration having passed these birds must remain in this country for the rains, and certainly in the case of Snipe where they are to be found several together I think they breed here. Has the question ever been mooted ? E. Lowtis. CHITTAGONG, 20th March 1877. [I nAve known the Green Jay (Cissa speciosa) to kill and eat lizards, but never before have had any record of its actually killing a snake. But most of these corvine birds will kill and eat any moderate-sized reptiles and any small mammals, or even fish I believe, that they can seize. As to Woodcocks, they certainly breed freely inthe Higher Himalayahs ; they do not breed in the Nilghiris, where how- ever they are common in the cold season. Whether they ever breed in the Chittagong or Tippera, or Naga, Garrow or Khasia Hills, I do not know for certain, but I greatly doubt it. I should hardly consider the season of migration for Wood- cock to close before the 15th April. The Pin-tail Snipe may breed in Eastern Bengal and the Burmese countries. I have no certainty of the fact, but I believe it to be the case. As for the Common Snipe, it breeds sparingly in the Hima- layahs, as for instance in Cashmere; but I have never had the slightest reason to believe that this species breeds any where in India, except in these hills. Some birds of this species are very late in leaving us. In North-Western India, I have killed them in the plains as late as nearly, if not quite, I have no notes to refer to at hand, the end of April.—Eb., 8. F. | Sir, Since I addressed* you on the subject of Captain Legge’s Ceylon paper, another instance of the capture of Phodilus assimilis, Hume, has come under my notice. Mr. Weldon of Dickoya, to whom this new specimen belongs, remarks in epist; ‘This bird was caught by a cooly in a tree in the day time on my estategand is the second of the kind he has caught here. It was put on a perch ina dark room, but refused to eat, and died after two or three days’ confinement.” * Vide Supra, p. 201.—Ep., S, F. 354 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. The following is a description and measurements of the above taken while in the flesh :— 2? adult, Dickoya Estate, Dickoya, Ceylon, July 1877. Length, 114 inches ; wing, 83 ; expanse, 274; tail, 34; mid- toe and claw, 14; tarsus, 2; feathered to base of toes which are covered with a few diffuse, white bristly hairs. Iris, dark brown; bill, greenish white, with a dash of dark brown on edge of upper mandible, and dark spot on the nostrils. Feet, pale whitish green. Claws, pale ash ; ridges of the scute of the toes of a darker green than the prevailing color. Face and forehead, dull white, with the exception of a dark brown band or dise surrounding the eye. A white band extends from ear to ear under the chin. Outside of this a band of brown completes the face. Occiput and nape, dark chestnut, with a prominent dull white spot on back of head ; all the feathers having a terminal black spot. The remainder of the upper parts or entire mantle, of a light pale fulvous chestnut, the feathers being spotted, some with one black spot, others with several like, and white spots along the shafts. Tail, a lightly darker hue, with 9 dark brown bands. The interscapular region is also of a slightly darker hue than the rest of the mouth. Outer margin of all the wing-feathers light chestnut ; inner web, greyish ash with 10 dark brown or black transverse bands. False wing-feathers, white with black bands, chest and abdomen and entire under parts, fulvous white, with small dark brown or black spots. Tarsus without spots. This is the fourth specimen of phodilus (adult), so far as I know, recorded from Ceylon, and these have been found in the localities widely apart, viz., Ratotta, Kandy, Dickoya and Rakwana. In Mr. Hector’s case the Paunt was captured with three young ones in the nest. A. W. Waite. STRAY I EATHERS. | Vol. V. NOVEMBER 1877. Nos. 5 & 6. REPRINT. ee eens RULES ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY THE LATE HUGH E, STRICKLAND, M.A, F.RS. AUTHORISED BY SECTION D OF BRITISH, ASSOCIATION AT MANCHESTER, 1842. RerorM of the Nomenclature of Zoology was a subject which occupied much of the time of the late Hugh E. Strickland.* It was his object that this reform should be brought forward under the auspices of the British Association, and at a meeting of the Council of that body, held in London upon 11th Febru- ary 1842, it was resolved—“ That with a view of securing attention to the following important subject, a committee, con- sisting of Mr. C. Darwin, Professor Henslow, Rev. L. Jenyns, Mr. W. Ogilby, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr. H. E. Strickland (reporter), Mr. J. O. Westwood, be appointed, to consider of the rules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology * See Memoirs of Hugh Edwin Strickland, by Sir W. Jardine, Bart., p. clxxy. 356 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. may be established on a uniform and permanent basis; the report to be presented to the Zoological Section, and submitted to its committee at the Manchester meeting.’’* This committee met at various times in London, and the following gentlemen were added to it, and assisted in its labours: W. J. Broderip, Professor Owen, W. E. Shuckard, G. R. Waterhouse, and W. Yarrell. An outline of the pro- posed code of rules was drawn up and circulated, and many valuable suggestions were received from eminent zoologists at home and abroad. The “ plan” was further considered by the committee during the meeting at Manchester, “and _ the committee, having thus given their best endeavours to maturing the plan, beg now to submit it to the approval of the British Association under the title of—‘ Series of Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of Zoology uniform and_per- manent.’ ’’t The propositions were printed in the Reports of the British Association, and a grant of money was voted to print copies for circulation. The rules thus laid down were very generally adopted by zoologists, both in this country and abroad; but having been only printed in the volumes of the British Associa- tion, “ Annals of Natural History,” and ‘ Philosophical Maga- zine,’t or depending on private circulation only, it was deemed advisable that greater publicity should be given to them, and at the meeting at Oxford in 1860 it was resolved, that ‘“ The surviving members of the committee appointed in 1842—viz., Mr. ©. Darwin, Rev. Professor Henslow, Rey. L. Jenyns, Mr. W. Ogilby, Professor Phillips, Sir John Richardson, Mr. J. O. Westwood, Professor Owen, Mr. W. HE. Shuckard, and Mr. G. Waterhouse—for the purpose of preparing rules for the es- tablishment of a uniform Zoological Nomenclature, be re- appointed, with Sir W. Jardine, Bart., and Mr. P. L. Sclater. That Sir W. Jardine be the Secretary, and that the sum of £10 be placed at their disposal for the purpose of revising and reprinting the rules.’’§ From the difficulty of bringing such a committee together, nothing was done since the time of its appointment ; but the re- solution and a grant of money were again renewed at the late * Report of Twelfth Meeting of British Association, held at Manchester, June 1842, . 105. ‘ + Report of Twelfth Meeting, 1842, p. 106. ~ At the Scientifie Congress held in 1843 at Padua, the late Prince C. L. Buona- parte submitted to the meeting an Italian translation of the “ British Association’s Code of Rules,”’ which was generally approved of. A French translation of the report appeared in the scientific journal ‘“‘ L’Institut,” in which paper much stress was laid on the importance of the measure. A review of it was also printed in the ‘ American Journal of Science.” 4 § Reports of the British Association, held at Oxford, 1860, p. xlvi. ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. SHY) meeting in Newcastle, as follows :—That Sir W. Jardine, A. R. Wallace, J. E. Gray, C. ©. Babington, Dr. Francis, P. L. Sclater, C. Spence Bate, P. P. Carpenter, Dr. J. D. Hooker, Professor Balfour, H. T. Stainton, J. Gwyn Jeffreys, A. New- ton, Professor T. H. Huxley, Professor Allman, and G. Ben- tham, be a committee, with power to add to their number, to report on the changes which they may consider it desirable to make, 7f any, in the rules of nomenclature drawn up at the instance of the Association by Mr. Strickland and others, with power}to reprint these rules and to correspond with foreign naturalists and others on the best means of insuring their general adoption.—£15.” ecordingly the rules, as originally approved of, are now re- printed, and zoologists are requested to examine them carefully, and to communicate any suggestions for alteration or improve- ment on or before Ist June 1864, to Sir William Jardine, Bart., Jardine Hall, by Lockerby, N. B., who will consult with the members of the committee, and report upon the subject at the next meeting of the British Association appointed to be held at Bath. JARDINE Hatt, 8th Sept. 1863. Series of Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of Zoology uniform and permanent. [Reprinted from the Report of the British Association for 1842. ] PREFACE. All persons who are conversant with the present state of Zoology must be aware of the great detriment which the science sustains from the vagueness and uncertainty of its nomenclature. We do not here refer to those diversities of language which arise from the various methods of classification adopted by different authors, and which are unavoidable in the present state of our knowledge. So long as naturalists differ in the views which they are disposed to take of the natural affinities of animals there will always be diversities of classifi- cation, and the only way to arrive at the true system of nature. is to allow perfect liberty to systematists in this respect. But the evil complained of is of a different character. It consists in this, that when naturalists are agreed as to the characters and limits of an individual group or species, they _ still disagree in the appellations by which they distinguish it. A genus is often designated by three or four, and a species by twice that number of precisely equivalent synonyms; and in the absence of any rule on the subject, the naturalist is wholly at a loss what nomenclature to adopt. The consequence is, that the so-called commonwealth of science is becoming daily 358 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, divided into independent states, kept asunder by diversities of language as well as by geographical limits. If an English zoologist, for example, visits the museums and converses with the professors of France, he finds that their scientific language is almost as foreign to him as their vernacular. Almost every specimen which he examines is labelled by a title which is unknown to him, and he feels that nothing short of a continued residence in that country can make him conversant with her science. If he proceeds thence to Germany or Russia, he is again at a loss; bewildered everywhere amidst the confusion of nomenclature, he returns in despair to his own country and to the museums and books to which he is accustomed. If these diversities of scientific language were as deeply rooted as the vernacular tongue of each country, it would of course be hopeless to think of remedying them; but happily this is not the case. The language of science is in the mouths of comparatively few, and these few, though scattered over distant lands, are in habits of frequent and friendly intercourse with each other. All that is wanted, then, is, that some plain and simple regulations, founded on justice and sound reason, should be drawn up by a competent body of persons, and then be extensively distributed throughout the zoological world. The undivided attention of chemists, of astronomers, of anatomists, of mineralogists, has been of late years devoted to fixing their respective languages on a sound basis. Why, then, do zoologists hesitate in performing the same duty, at a time, too, when all acknowledge the evils of the present anarchical state of their science? It is needless to inquire far into the causes of the present confusion of zoological nomenclature. Itis in great measure the result of the same branch of science having been followed in distant countries by persons who were either unavoidably ignorant of each other’s labours, or who neglected to inform themselves sufficiently of the state of the science in other regions. And when we remark the great obstacles which now exist to the circulation of books beyond the conventional limits of the states in which they happen to be published, it must be admitted that this ignorance of the writings of others, however unfortunate, is yet in great measure pardonable. But there is another source for this evil, which is far less excusable,—the practice of gratifying individual vanity by attempting, on the most frivolous pretexts to cancel the terms established by ori- ginal discoverers, and to substitute a new and unauthorised nomenclature in their place. One author lays down, as a rule, that no specific names should be derived from geographical sources, and unhesitatingly proceeds to insert words of his own ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 309 in all such cases; another declares war against names of exotic origin, foreign to the Greek and Latin; a third excommuni- cates all words which exceed a certain number of syllables; a fourth cancels all names which are complimentary of indi- viduals, and so on, till universality and permanence, the two great essentials of scientific language, are utterly destroyed. It is surely, then, an object well worthy the attention of the Zoological Section of the British Association for the Advance- ment of Science to devise some means which may lessen the extent of this evil, if not wholly put an end to it. The best method of making the attempt seems to be to entrust toa carefully-selected committee the preparation of a series of rules, the adoption of which must be left to the sound sense of naturalists in general. By emanating from the British Asso- ciation, it is hoped that the proposed rules will be invested with an authority which no individual zoologist, however eminent, could confer on them. The world of Science is no longer a monarchy, obedient to the ordinances, however just, of an Aristotle or a Linneus. She has now assumed the form of a republic; and, although this revolution may have increased the vigour and zeal of her followers, yet it has destroyed much of her former order and regularity of government. The latter can only be restored by framing such laws as shall be based in reason, and sanctioned by the approval of men of science; and it is to the preparation of these laws that the Zoological Section of the Association have been invited to give their aid. In venturing to propose these rules for the guidance of all classes of zoologists in all countries, we disclaim any intention of dictating to men of science the course which they may see fit to pursue. It must of course be always at the option of authors to adhere to or depart from these principles ; but we offer them to the candid consideration of zoologists, in the hope that they may lead to sufficient uniformity of method in future to rescue the science from becoming a mere chaos of words. We now proceed to develope the details of our plan ; and, in order to make the reasons by which we are guided apparent to naturalists at large, it will be requisite to append to each proposition a short explanation of the circumstances which call for it. Among the numerous rules for nomenclature which have been proposed by naturalists, there are many which, though excellent in themselves, it is not now desirable to enforce.* The cases in which those rules have been overlooked or departed * See especially the admirable code proposed in the “ Philosophia Botanica” of Linneus. If zoologists had paid more attention to the principles of that Code, the present attempt at reform would perhaps have been unnecessary. 360 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. from are so numerous and of such long standing, that to carry these regulations into effect would undermine the edifice of zoological nomenclature. But while we do not adopt these propositions as authoritative laws, they may still be consulted with advantage in making such additions to the language of zoology as are required by the progress of the science. By adhering to sound principles of philology we may avoid errors in future, even when it is too late to remedy the past; and the language of science will thus eventually assume an aspect of more classic purity than it now presents. Our subject hence divides itself into two parts—the first con- sisting of Rules for the rectification of the present zoological nomenclature, and the second of Recommendations for the im- provement of zoological nomenclature in future. PART a RULES FOR RECTIFYING THE PRESENT NOMENCLATURE. [Limitation of the Plan to Systematic Nomenclature. | In proposing a measure for the establishment of a permanent and universal zoological nomenclature, it must be premised that we refer solely to the Latin or systematic language of zoology. We have nothing to do with vernacular appellations. One great cause of the neglect and corruption which prevails in the scientific nomenclature of zoology, has been the frequent and often exclusive use of vernacular names in lieu of the Latin binomial designations, which form the only legitimate language of systematic zoology. Let us then endeavour to render perfect the Latin or Linnean method- of nomenclature, which, being far removed from the scope of national vanities and modern antipathies, holds out the only hope of introducing into zoology that grand desideratum, an universal language. [ Law of Priority the only effectual and just one,] It being admitted on all hands that words are only the con- ventional signs of ideas, it is evident that language can only attain its end effectually by being permanently established and generally recognised. This consideration ought, it would seem, to have checked those who are continually attempting to subvert the established language of zoology by substituting terms of their own coinage. But, forgetting the true nature of language, they persist in confounding the name of a species or group with its definition ; and because the former often falls short of the ful- ness of expression found in the latter, they cancel it without hesita- ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 361 tion, and introduce some new term which appears to them more characteristic, but which is utterly unknown to the science, and is therefore devoid of all authority.* If these persons were to object to such names of men as Long, Little, Armstrong, Golightly, &ec., in cases where they fail to apply to the indivi- duals who bear them, or should complain of the names Gough, Lawrence, or Harvey, that they were devoid of meaning, and should hence propose to change them for more characteristic appellations, they would not act more unphilosophically or in- considerately than they do in the case before us; for, in truth, it matters not in the least by what conventional sound we agree to designate an individual object, provided the sign to be em- ployed be stamped with such an authority as will suffice to make it pass current. Now, in zoology, no one person can _ subse- quently claim an authority equal to that possessed by the person who is the first to define a new genus or describe a new species ; and hence it is that the name originally given, even though it may be inferior in point of elegance or expressiveness to those subsequently proposed, ought, as a general principle, to be per- manently retained. To this consideration we ought to add the injustice of erasing the name originally selected by the person to whose labours we owe our first knowledge of the object ; and we should reflect how much the permission of such a_ practice opens a door to obscure pretenders for dragging themselves into notice at the expense of original observers. Neither can an author be permitted to alter a name which he himself has once published, except in accordance with fixed and equitable laws. It is well observed by Decandolle, “ L’auteur méme qui a le premier établi un nom n’a pas plus qu’un autre le droit de le changer pour simple cause d’impropriété. La priorité en effet est un terme fixe, positif, qui n’admet rien, ni d’arbitraire, ni de partial.” For these reasons, we have no hesitation in adopting as our fundamental maxim, the “law of priority,” viz., § 1. The name originally given by the founder of a group or the describer of a species should be permanently retained, to the exclusion of all subsequent synonyms (with the ex- ceptions about to be noticed.) Having laid down this principle, we must next inquire into the limitations which are found necessary in carrying it into practice. * Linnzus says on this subject, “ Abstinendum ab hac innoyatione que nunquam cessaret, quin indies aptiora detegerentur ad infinitum,” 362 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. [Not to extend to authors older than Linnaeus. | As our subject matter is strictly confined to the binomial system of nomenclature, or that which indicates species by means of two Latin words, the one generic, the other specific, and as this invaluable method originated solely with Linnzeus, it is clear that, as far as species are concerned, we ought not to attempt to carry back the principle of priority beyond the date of the 12th edition of the “Systema Naturee.’’ Previous to that period, naturalists were wont to indicate species not by a name comprised in one word, but by a definition which occupied a sentence, the extreme verbosity of which method was pro- ductive of great inconvenience. It is true that one word sometimes sufficed for the definition of a species, but these rare cases were only binomial by accident and not by principle, and ought not therefore in any instance to supersede the binomial designations imposed by Linnzeus. The same reasons apply also to generic names. Linneus was the first to attach a definite value to genera, and to give them a systematic character by means of exact definitions ; and therefore, although the names used by previous authors may often be applied with propriety to modern genera, yet in such cases they acquire a new meaning, and should be quoted on the authority of the first person who used them in this secondary sense. It is true that several of the old authors made occasional approaches to the Linnean exactness of generic definition, but still these were but partial attempts 3. and itis certain that if in our rectification of the binomial nomenclature we once trace back our authorities into the obscurity which preceded the epoch of its foundation, we shall find no resting-place or fixed boundary for our researches. The nomenclature of Ray is chiefly derived from that of Gesner and Aldrovandus, and from these authors we might proceed backward to Ailian, Pliny, and Aristotle, till our zoological studies would be frittered away amid the refinements of clas- sical learning.* We therefore recommend the adoption of the following pro- position :— § 2. The binomial nomenclature having originated with Linnzus, the law of priority, in respect of that nomenclature, is not to extend to the writings of antecedent authors. [It should be here explained that Brisson, who was a con- temporary of Linnzeus and acquainted with the ‘Systema * «© Quis longo eyo recepta yocabula commutaret hodie cum patrum ?’’—Linneus, ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 363 Nature,’ defined and published certain genera of birds which are additional to those in the twelfth edition of Linnzus’s works, and which are, therefore, of perfectly good authority. But Brisson still adhered to the old mode of designating species by a sentence instead of a word ; and, therefore, while we retain his defined genera, we do not extend the same indulgence to the titles of his species, even when the latter are accidentally binomial in form, for instance, the Perdix rubra of Brisson is the Te¢rao rufus of Linnezeus; therefore, as we in this case retain the generic name of Brisson and the specific name of Linnzus, the correct title of the species would be Perdiz rufa. | [ Generic names not be cancelled in subsequent subdivisions. | As the number of known species which form the ground- work of zoological science is always increasing, and our knowledge of their structure becomes more complete, fresh generalizations continually occur to the naturalist, and the number of genera and other groups requiring appellations is ever becoming more extensive. It thus becomes necessary to subdivide the contents of old groups, and to make their definitions continually more restricted. In carrying out this process, it is an act of justice to the original author that this generic name should never be lost sight of ; and it is no less essential to the welfare of the science, that all which is sound in its nomenclature should remain unaltered amid the additions which are continually being made to it. On this ground we recommend the adoption of the following rule :— § 3. A generic name, when once established, should never be cancelled in any subsequent subdivision of the group, but retained in a restricted sense for one of the constituent portions. [ Generic names to be retained for the typical portion of the old genus. } When a genus is subdivided into other genera, the original name should be retained for that portion of it which exhibits in the greatest degree its essential characters as at first defined. Authors frequently indicate this by selecting some one species as a fixed point of reference, which they term the “ type of the genus.” When they omit doing so, it may still in many cases be correctly inferred that the first species mentioned on their list, if found accurately to agree with their definition, was regarded by them as the type. A specific name, or its synonyms, will also often serve to point out the particular w 22 864 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. species which by implication must be regarded as the original type of a genus. In such cases we are justified in restoring the name of the old genus to its typical signification, even when later authors have done otherwise. We submit therefore that § 4. The generic name should always be retained for that portion of the original genus which was considered typical by the author. Example.—The genus Picumnus was established by Tem- minck, and included two groups, one with four toes, the other with three, the former of which was regarded by the author as typical. Swainson, however, in raising these groups at a later period to the rank of genera, gave a new name, ZA ee s er py! sot Zin ti ; oKa iiianoor ep" = o i ss Yulin TN sity saline ¥ ae i —< Law prreakolum ; (7 Te = . a fr 9% Toddicombit . \ SE Hl €Pulianpitty H, Cio ct ple = —— ys hundra Ova ZS se Iyampollium anaikoor 3 a fee. Os = i ie we neH YQ “Ss. Sholavandan Scale 4 Miles =-1 Im ch 8 Photorificographed nthe Supennt ptt Wat sveyor General aoutta November 1877. (STRAY FEATHERS } nl Z——10 j | | | %”2 Toddicombit f he \ % d J Sean ee Pa F380 12s, aZ0104y CTD eTeos Yul T= se & OBSERVED ON THE PALANI HILLS. 409 * 795.—Turtur suratensis, Gn. The speckled dove is the most common dove both on the lower hills and at the base. 796.—Turtur risorius, ZL. Found in the plains by the Palanis, but not so abundantly as in the Dakhan. * 798.—Chalcophaps indica, L. Obtained a male ef this lovely dove at Peritir, and observed only one more. 3 Periur, 14 June—Length, 10:5 ; wing, 6:0 ; expanse, 18°5 ; tail, 3°3 tarsus, 1*1; bill from gape, 1:0; weight, 6:250z. Iris, hazel ; bill, coral red ; feet, lake red ; eye orbits, dark purple. 803.—Pavo cristatus, Zin. Observed at the Northern base of the hills. 813.—Gallus sonnerati, Tem. Obtained at 5,000 feet and observed also at the base of the hills. They are much hunted, and, except in places, difficult of access, are rare on the Palanis. 814.—Galloperdix spadiceus, Gm. I saw but one on the hills. It rose from a thicket where I was looking for Callene and Ochromeda, and I had just time to see it was aSpur-fowl. I looked afterwards for it in vain. 822.—Ortygornis pondiceriana, Gm. Observed at Periakulam. 828.—Perdicula erythrorhyncha, Sykes. Obtained in the Kodaikanal. 832.—Turnix pugnax, Tem. Observed in grain fields near the base of the hills, 867.—Scolopax rusticola, Zin. I flushed a Woodcock in the Kodaikanal in 1867. After- wards one was obtained there by Mr. Levinge; but they are certainly rare on the Palanis. 871.—Gallinago scolopacina, Bp. 410 NOTES ON BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE REGION BETWEEN 872.—Gallinago gallinula, Lin. Both these Snipes visit the Palanisin the cold season in small numbers, and are found at the west end of the lake, and in other swampy places. 929.—Buphus coromandus, Bodd. Observed following cattle near the base of the hills. 930.—Ardeola grayi, Sykes. By streams and ponds at the base of the hills. 932.—Ardetta flavicollis, Lath. When collecting ferns below Vilpati, in the early part of 1867, I twice came upon a Black Bittern. It scrambled up the steep bank of the stream through the bushes and then took wing. I never saw the bird elsewhere, but had seen the figure in Jerdon’s Ill. Ind. Orn., Pl. 16, and at once recognized it. 975.—Podiceps minor, G'mel. This Grebe lives permanently in “the lake,” at 7,000 feet. I obtained a nest with five eggs when there in 1867. The nest was on a mass of decaying rushes that was floating about. This list is so incomplete that it is not worth while compar- ing the Avifauna of the Palanis so far as indicated by it with that of any other locality. I would merely call attention to Callene albiventris and Trochalopteron Fairbanki. They do not appear tohave been found in any other locality. If found elsewhere, it is desirable that the fact be recorded. Alotes on Hirds obserbed in the region betocen the Mabanadi md Godadari Rivers. By V. Baru, MoAS Gos: Brrors starting on my last season’s geological tour I had great hope that the wide area over which I expected to travel would MA a large number of interesting and possibly some new irds. The result has, however, fallen far below my anticipation. As a whole, the birds were of the same species as are found north of the Mahanadi. In the following notes but two or THE MAHANADI AND GODAVARI RIVERS. 411 three species are mentioned, which I have not already recorded from the Chutia Nagpur, Sambalpur or Orissa areas. What I have to say refers, therefore, chiefly to facts in reference to habits and distribution. Regarding the greater number of the species collected, there is nothing particular to record, and I simply retain a list of them, with a view to the possible prepa- ration hereafter of a complete list of the Avifauna of the area. The route traversed was as follows :—Leaving Cuttack I marched along the southern bank of the Mahanadi to Sonpur, in the Sambalpur district; thence I continued westwards across the so-called Dakin Tir towards Bodosamar, from-which I turned southwards traversing Patna, Karial and Kalahandi. At the southern point of Kalahandi I ascended to the Jaipur Plateau by a steep and difficult ghat upwards of 1,000 feet high. From Jaipur I paid a flying visit to Bustar, the capital town of which, Jagdalpur, is situated on the same general stretch of plateau as Jaipur. I then turned northwards through Nowagarh to Raipur, and from Raipur marched to Nagpur, arriving there in about six months after the date of my departure from Cuttack. Anything like a complete physical description of this extensive area would form an unsuitable prelude to the brief notes on the birds which follow. It will be sufficient to state here that the greater portion of the area is hilly, the highlands, including small plateaus, which rise to from 2,000 to 4,000 feet above the sea, with here and there, in the Eastern Ghats, peaks that rise 1,000 feet higher. To a great extent the slopes of these hills and plateaus are clothed with a dense primary forest, which in certain places, especially towards the south, consists almost exclusively of magnificent Sal. Teak also occurs, but it is confined to very limited tracts. What the factors may be which have determined this limited distribution I am unable to say; but it is certainly not attributable to local peculiarities of geological structure or soil ; separated by wide intervals, there are a few grassy plains which afford suitable feeding grounds for species of Chatornis, Cisticola, Emberiza, Calandrella, Munia, Estrelda, Ploceus, &c. Except in the Dakin Tir of Sambalpur, tanks of sufficient size and number to attract birds are seldom met with, and the rivers during the dry season contain but little water. Hence it followed that I met with but few water birds. Diurnal Raptores were very scarce, but of Owls I observed a good number of species. The most interesting bird in my collection belongs to this class. It is a male of the species first described by Mr. Hume under the title Heteroglaux blewitti. BS 412 NOTES ON BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE REGION BETWEEN 56 bis.—Milvus melanotis, Zemm et Schl. ? M. major, ‘Hume. IT have already recorded the occurrence of this species in Chutia Nagpur. I have also shot it in Denkenal (Orissa) and in Sonpur and Kalahandi (Sambalpur). Towards the southern parts of Sambalpur and Raipur I frequently saw it, and in places it oceurred apparently to the total exclusion of J. govinda. 70.—Bubo coromandus, Lath. In Chutia Nagpur I only saw a domesticated individual of this species which was captured in Manbhum. Since then I shot a specimen in Talchin (Orissa.) 76 bis.—Heteroglaux blewitti, Hume, 8. F., Vol. L, p. 467—8. Sharpe Brit. Mus. Cat., Vol IT, I have above mentioned that I obtained one specimen of this species. It was shot during the day time in a mango grove on banks of the Udet river in Karial, or about 150 miles to the south of the locality where the type and hitherto unique specimen was shot by Mr. Blewitt. From the descriptions of the type, my specimen differs in one important particular, which, if it be found to be general, must, I think, be regarded as a very strong argument against the retention of the new genus Heteroglauz. In this spe- cimen the third primary exceeds the fourth by about the same amount that the fourth does the third in the type.* In other words the wing is that of a carine (Athene). In my specimen the covering of the toes consists of silky hairs, rather than feathers, which while different from the bristles of C. brama can scarcely, I think, though taken with the peculiar oblique puncturation of the nostril, be considered as sufficient for establishing generic difference. On the other hand there is the strong resemblance, not only in general characters, but. even in some details between the plumage of this species and that of drama in favor of the view that they should not be gene- rally separated. Of course it must be admitted that at present no final deci- sion can be arrived at, as the only two known specimens differ in this important respect. Possibly when brought together and compared, it will be found that the quills in one of them are not fully developed. * As figured in Sharpe’s Catalogue. THE MAHANADI AND GODAVARI RIVERS. 413 The measurements of my specimen are in inches :— 3 Length, 88; wing, 5°8; bill from gape, 65-; tail, 2°75; tarsi, 10. Third primary exceeds first by 1:05 81.—Ninox lugubris, Jick. This species is very common throughout the hilly tracts of Orissa in Sambalpur, Jaipur, and Bustar. 115.—Harpactes fasciatus, Gmel. On two occasions I came across the Malabar Trogon in the district of Jaipur (Vizagapatam). On the first a female was shot inthe forest that clothes the steep ghdts which rise from the valley of the.Tel river to the Jaipur Plateau. On the second I just momentarily caught sight of a male which fluttered past me, looking like a loose ball of feathers, across a path in dense bamboo jungle along which I was riding. The following links along the tract through which this species spreads northwards, have now therefore been established. Dhalbhum (Tickell) ; Rehrakole (Ball) ; Jaipur (Ball) ; Abiri (R. Thomp- son) ; Godaveri Valley (Blanford). 118.—Merops philippensis, Lin. I met with this species in Jaipur and Raipur in April. I have never seen it in these regions or in Chutia Nagpur before the hot weather. 171.—Gecinus striolatus, blyth. This species occurs, I believe, sparingly throughout. I did not, however, shoot it south of Patna (Sambalpur), 193.—Megalaima caniceps, Frank. This species of Barbet is abundant, and-I shot it in most of the districts which I visited—including Jaipur. I did not meet with either of the southern species of Barbets. 905.—Hierococcyx varius, Vahl. This Hawk Cuckoo occurred in such abundance in Jaipur and the south of Raipurthat its cry became a positive nui- sance and source of irritation, both by day and night. In one particular instance a bird which occupied a tree close to my camp was, to the best of my belief, not silent for ten minutes together out of the twenty-four hours. Though driven away from time to time, he would return, and his shrill notes disturbed me repeatedly during the night. 414 NOTES ON BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE REGION BETWEEN I am almost sure that I have seen the larger species H. spar- veroides in Sambalpur and Orissa, and Mr. Blanford, I observe, obtained it at Raipur. During April I not unfrequently heard a Cuckoo in Jaipur and Raipur which by the note must have been C’. canorus. 208.—Ololygon passerinus, Vahl, I found this bird again in Orissa* where it is not uncommon ; but after leaving that district I neither saw nor heard it again till [ reached the western part of Raipur on the road to Nag- pur. Its distribution seems to be somewhat peculiar. 271.—Pericrocotus speciosus, Lath. The statement in Vol. IL, p. 208, of this journal, that this species is a winter visitant in Raipur is, I think, incorrect.t As a matter of fact these birds appear to be more abundant in the jungles of Raipur, and the surrounding districts in the hot than in the cold weather. This, I am inclined, however, to attribute rather to the clearness of the jungles, and increased facilities for seeing the birds than to actual immigration at that time of year. During the present year I shot specimens towards the end of April in the Raipur District, and my rather extensive series of examples from the Orissa, Chutia Nagpur and Central Provinces jungles includes examples shot in every month from November to May, inclusive. Iam inclined to believe that these birds breed and remain all the year in these jungles. However, I do not know anything certainly regarding their movements after May, and have never taken a nest. Three young males shot in Sambalpur in february and one shot in Sirguja at the end of the March, shew incipient stages in the transition from the yellow and grey plumage of the female to the scarlet and black of the male. This shews itself by a general darkening of the greys, and by the appearance of patches of scarlet on the forehead, chin, throat and tail feathers. In one of the Sambalpur specimens the rump and upper tail-coverts, from the blending of scarlet and yellow exhibit a bright ferruginous tinge. By the breeding season, which is said to be in June, these birds of the previous year, in all probability, have assumed the full plumage of the adult male. It is a curious fact that the chin and throat become * SR Mole Vigne aoo- + Mr. Ball may be right, but my belief is that this species leaves this neighbour- hood early in May. In all the years that Mr. Blewitt collected in Raipur, Sambal- pur, Boad and Athmullick, he never obtained a single specimen between the middle of May and the middle of October; and in the same way, whilst stationed in the Doon, I never saw this species there between June and October.—Eb.,, S. F. THE MAHANADI AND GODAVARI RIVERS. 415 first mottled with, if not wholly, scarlet, before they shew any sign of their ultimate black color. 275.—Pericrocotus roseus, Vievll. In the vicinity of Jaipur town I saw one specimen of a Minivet, which, I believe, belonged to this species. Its occur- rence in this part of the country would not be very remarkable, as Dr. Jerdon obtained it in Gumstir. Unfortunately I did not procure an example. 276.—Pericrocotus peregrinus, Lin. This species was very common throughout, and the series of specimens which I possess shew a very decided scale of pro- gress between the lighter colored Northern birds and the deep- ly tinged variety which occurs in Southern Indian, Ceylon, and the Andamans. 288.—Tchitrea paradisi, Lin. On the L1th of April in Nowagarh (Raipur), I first saw the Paradise Flycatchers this year ; with them also came in the Pittas, and 1 met both almost daily while I remained in suitable country. I may mention that a small brown specimen of the Flycat- cher kept pace with me for about four miles as, I alternately cantered and trotted along the road on my first march out from Raipur towards Nagpur. 310.—Muscicapula superciliaris, Jerd. The White-browed Blue Flycatcher, as I have already re- corded (S. F., Vol. III., p. 292) is tolerably abundant in Sambalpur, and also observed it in the adjoining districts on the south. Among my specimens is one young male, in the plumage of the female ; it was shot in Ducember 1876. It was at first rather a puzzling bird to make out, as the plumage of the female of this species is not described by Dr. Jerdon. On obtaining access to my collection, however, T was able to compare it with a specimen from Simla which I receiy- ed from Dr. Stoliczka, and also with the very full accounts of the different phases of plumage given by him in his paper on the N. W. Himalayas.* My specimen may possibly have been incorrectly reported to me by my skinner as a male. It corresponds exactly with the old female, not possessing the blue on the upper parts, and, J. A. S. B., 1848, p. 31. Also described by Mr. Brooks in the Ibis. 416 NOTES ON BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE REGION BETWEEN moreover, has no white on the base of the tail. Accord- ing to Dr. Stoliczka the base of the tail is white in all phases of the male. My adult specimens belong undoubtedly to this species, not to M. estigma, which Mr. Brooks reports from Assensole (S. F., Vol ILI., 235.) 345.—Pitta coronata, Gmel. In my previous mention of this bird I described its notes as I had then heard them, and endeavoured to indicate them by the syllable Wheet-pe-t. This year I found that it really has a very sweet thrush-like song, somewhat resembling that of the Shama. It is copious and long sustained, occasionally the Wheet-pe-ii notes are introduced. I can very well remember hearing this same song when I first saw Pittas, but at that time I thought the notes were to be attributed to some Shamas which were in the same trees. As arule, I have seldom seen these birds, except when I have tracked them down in the heavy jungle they inhabit—by means of the notes above represented. I have already, in a previous paper, noted the fact of the Pittas making their first appearance in these jungles, together with the Zehitreas in April. As according to Layard, quoted by Jerdon, the Pittas occur in Ceylon in the winter months ; it seems probable that the mi- gration® is between the extreme south of India with Ceylon, and the Central Provinces. By this means the cold weather climate of the latter region is avoided. 436.—Malacocircus malcolmi, Sykes. This species of Babbler was not uncommon between Raipur and Nagpur ; elsewhere I only observed M. canorus. 441.—Cheetornis striatus, Jerdon. I have already recorded the occurrence of this species in Sambalpur ; the specimen obtained there was a g. In the * T have already, S. F., III.. 298, dwelt upon the migratory habits of the Péttas. In regard to the present species I may notice that the migration extends much further than the Central Provinces. They arrive at Bareilly about the beginning of the rains, some times earlier; in the Dhoon they become very common early in the hot weather; in this latter place some few may be permanent residents, but the great bulk of the birds are migrants from the south. To the Berars, and the forests about Hoshungabad, it isayvegular migrant. It straggles up even into the semi-desert country of Kattiawar, Northern Guzerat, the Sambhur Lake. It comes up in num- bers to the northern districts of Oudh and Behar. Ihave caught a specimen in my house in Chowringhee, Calcutta, in May. Throughout the length and breadth of the country it moves during April,May, and June from the extreme south to all suitable localities in the north, (at any rate west of the Brahmapootra), great numbers reaching the bases of the Himalayas or Sub-Himalayan ranges, where some few are, I helieve, permanent residents, but where the great mass of the birds are only seasonal migrants from the south.—Ep., 8. F. e THE MAHANADI AND GODAVARI RIVERS. 417 present collection I have a 9 from Kalahandi, which differs from the former in size of wing and somewhat, too, in depth of coloration. The hind claws also are appreciably longer in the female. Length of wings— g 353; 9: 3:15. 452.—Ixos luteolus, Less. My observations on the range of this species (Vol. IV., p. 235) were fully borne out by my trip through the country south of the Mahanadi. 456.—Rubigula flaviventris, Tichkell (456), I shot one specimen of the Black-crested Yellow Bulbul on the south bank of the Mahanadi about 60 miles to the west of Cuttack, and a second in the hills near Rampur in Kalahandi. In the former neighbourhood they were not uncommon, but in the latter I saw but a single pair. 465.—Phyllornis aurifrons, Temm. I met with this species as far south as Jaipur. P. Jerdoni occurred pretty generally throughout the jungly portions of the area. 582.—Sylvia affinis, Blyth. This species I have never obtained in Chutia Nagpur, but this year I shot it in Karial (Raipur) in the month of January. 596 and 597.—Anthus maculatus and arboreus. Both these species appear to occur throughout the area under description. Of the former species maculatus I have specimens from Talchir, Sambalpur and Jaipur; of the latter (arboreus) from Jaipur and Bustar. 693.—Eulabes intermedia, Hay. The localities in which I saw the Black Maina were all situat- ed in the heavy forest tract on the northern slopes of the Jaipur plateau. A pair, which I shot, measured in the flesh had the following dimensions :— & Length 103; Ex. 206; Wg. 665; Tl. 3; Ts. 1-4; Bill from Mere ? ” 95 nw 282 Ue ” 285 » 1s ” 45 The g is amore massive bird than the ¢ and, the bill is markedly higher and more curved. This difference in the appearances of the sexes has not always, perhaps, received due consideration. 418 NoTES ON BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE REGION BETWEEN 696.—Ploceus bengalensis, Linn. I shot a male of this species inthe grassy plains of Bustar, and with it a female which seems to correspond in characters rather with the female of P. daya than of this species, 780.—Carpophaga enea, Linn. The only place where I actually saw this species during the past season was within the Orissa zone, which I have previously indicated ; but from Captain Blaxland, the Assistant Agent in charge of Jaipur, I heard of its occurrence in the neighbourhood of Paparhandi, a town in Jaipur. This is at an elevation of about 1,800 feet, or higher than any locality, whence it has hitherto been recorded. This is probably the point where it spreads across from the Eastern Zone, to which it is confined further north, (vide 8. F., IV., 236) into the southern central Jungles of the peninsula. Capt. Blaxland told me of the occurrence of two other species of Imperial Pigeon—one appeared to be the Woodchat of the Nilgiris (Palumbus Elphinstonii, Sykes,) with which he was familiar from having seen it in the Nilgiris; the other from the description by Jerdon he inclined to think might be Car- pophaga insignis,* Hodg., but was not quite sure that he had not also seen Alsocomus puniceus. I mention these species with a view to the verification of their ovcurrence hereafter. 814.—Galloperdix spadiceus, Gmel. I have two ? specimens of the Red Spur Fowl, one of which T shot at Kukkur, 5 miles west of Cuttack, and the other at Daramgarh in Patna, Sambalpur District. Neither of these speci- mens I may mentioned have the slightest trace of spurs. Since I have become more familiar with the appearance of these birds I think it possible that I may have made a mistake as to the identification of this species from a fragment of a skin from Chutia Nagpur.t Regarding its occurrence there the verdict for the present, therefore, ought to be non-proven. 815.—Galloperdix lunulatus, Valene. I have this species from Hingir, Rehrakale, Karial and Now- agarh, the latitudes of the two former localities are to the north, these of the two latter to the south of the latitudes of the two places given above for the Red Spur Fowl. Whatever may be the case in other parts of the country therefore there is here, in the valleys of the Mahanadi and * Rather C. cuprea, Jera.—Zo., 8. F. +S. F., LIL, p. 294. THE MAHANADI AND GODAVARI RIVERS. 419 its tributaries, conclusive evidence that the limits of distribu- tion of the two species overlap. 819.—Francolinus pictus, Jerd. and Selby. For the first time I met with this species on the borders of Patna and Karial. Thence throughout my trip wherever there was suitable cover it was abundant. It is a marvellous skulker ; often I have heard half a dozen calling together within a small area, but have been unable, even with beaters, to get them to rise. Occasionally at or after sunset, when they had left the grass for the open fields, I got shots, but when in the bush jungle, even if they could be induced to rise, there was often great difficulty in shooting them owing to their dodging behind trees. A party of bird-catchers who accompanied my camp caught a few for me in their quail traps. I am perfectly certain that I have never seen or heard it north of the Mahanadi. In Chutia Nagpur, where it occurs according to Dr. Jerdon, the only species I have seen or shot is the black, which is not uncommon in Sirguja. 839.—Sypheotides auritus, Lath. I have previously noted the rare occurrence of this species in Chutia Nagpur and Sambalpur. Last year, in December, I saw one individual ; this was at Gainslot, in Sambalpur. 840.—Cursorius coromandelicus, G'mel. Occurs somewhat sparingly in Sambalpur and Raipur. I also saw it in Bustar and in Boad, in Orissa. 845.—Charadrius fulvus, G'med. The Eastern Golden Plover was not uncommon in Orissa between Cuttack and Sonpur in November. In April, I saw some in Raipur, which had partially assumed the breeding plumage. 867.—Scolopax rusticola, Liz. The Woodcock, I am informed by Captain Blaxland, has several times been seen, and on one occasion shot on the higher plateaus of Jaipur. 917.—Mycteria australis, Shaw. Asin Chutia Nagpur, this bird is rare in the southern area, but was occasionally seen. I shot one specimen in the Pairi River on the southern borders of Raipur, B 4 420 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 918.—Melanopelargus nigra, Lin. IT have already noted the extreme wariness of the Black Stork, and its fondness for the society of the White-necked Stork* (M. episcopus). On three occasions in Karial during Janu- ary and February, I saw single individuals of this species in company with small parties of M. episcopus. On one of these occasions the Black Stork was the first to take alarm at my approach, flying off altogether, while the others merely flew a short distance, and again alighted, allowing me to walk quite close to them. The former seemed to divine that he was the sole and par- ticular object of my attentions. 938.—Tantalus leucocephalus, Gimel. The Pelican Ibis, which was of such rare occurrence in Chutia Nagpur, is found in some abundance further south. On the Jaipur and Bustar plateau, and in Raipur I not unfrequently saw flocks. In Sambalpur I have not yet seen it, AHemarhs on the gens aor Tr has been more than once asserted of late years that, if, as there is littledoubt, Sylvia leucoptera, Vieill., is a species of Tora, then githina, Vieill., takes precedence of Jora, Horsf.” In the first place, I think that itis very doubtful whether S. leucoptera, Vieill., was really any species of Jora;in the second place, if it was so, which cannot now be proved, the genus igithina, if founded on this species, cannot be accepted, because neither was it accompanied by a distinct exposition of essential characters (if really meant to apply to any Jora), nor is the type any known species. . The alleged type of the genus Sylvia leucoptera, La fauvette leucoptére, was first described by Vieillot, Ois. de lAmer., Sept., II, 1807, 28, pl. 84. This bird is said to be an inhabitant of North America. IT am unable to refer to the original work, but Steph. Gen. Zool. thus translates the description :— “Length, four inches and a half; beak, black; its sides white; the whole upper parts of the body yellowish green, inclining to brown ; the upper wing-coverts tipped with white, forming a bar of that colour on the wing, the bend of which, with the cheeks, throat and under-parts of the body, are fine #5. F., 1, p. 433. REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 421 yellow; the tail is dark green; the legs are black. It is anin- habitant of North America: it somewhat resembles the Pine Warbler.” The Pine Warbler of Vieillot, I may note, is Helminthophaga pinus, L. Vieill., Ois. Am., Sept., II, 44. Now, admitting that the habitat has been, as was not uncom- mon in thdse days, wholly wrongly given, the above description will not apply to any known species of Jora. None has the upper surface “ yellowish green, inclining to brown,’ and none has “a wing bar” in all the known species and races there are none, ortwo, * and in no species can the tail, I think, be fairly called dark green. On this species, according to Gray (Cat. Gen. and Sub. Gen. B., Brit, Mus., 39) and others, Vieilloé, in 1815-16, founded his genus githina. Here again I have not access to the original definition, but Steph. Gen. Zool. XIII., 232, thus translates it :— “ Beak, elongated, rather stout, more or lessarched and deflex- ed, cylindric, emarginate towards the tip. Wings short; the first quill shorter than the second.” The latter part of the definition could scarcely have been used in regard to Joras, which have the first quill about half the length of the second, the second very conspicuously shorter than the third. Nor is the definition of the bill satisfactory. The case, therefore, on the hypothesis that leacoptera is the type, stands thus :—The professed type of the genus and its only species is unknown, and does not agree with any known Zora, andit is next to impossible that any species of true fora, known to Vieillot, should not be known to us. The definition of the characters of the genus is unsatisfactory and insufficient, and by no means agrees even in all the few particulars given with Jora. It seems to me needless to say that, under these circumstances, LEgithine could not possibly, under the B. A. Code, supersede fora. But the case has another aspect. Sundevall, in his Critique of Levaillant’s Oiseaux d’ Afrique, tells us that, Plate 141, of Le Quadricolor, which name Vieillot adopted as a specific name (Enc. Meth., 481), and which unquestionably represents the Southern or zeylonica or multicolor race of tiphia, was the type of Vieillot’s genus githina in his analysis. If this were the case, then without question 4ygithina must supersede Jora. * Except in some cases, where the Southern Indian males, when in full breeding plu- mage, lose the white tips to the greatest coverts and with these the second bar, but this is never the case, except when the bird is black above, 422 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. I believe Sundeval to be in error, but in the absence of the works of Vieillot above referred to, it is impossible for me to speak positively on the subject. All depends upon whether leucoptera or guadricolor was the original type. Hor the present, relying on Mr. Gray, I propose to retain the name of Lora. This latter genus was thus defined by Horsfield, Tr. L. 8., XIII, 151,1821 :— « Bill, middling, straight, rather stoutish, wide at the base, slightly compressed towards the point, attenuated*; culmen, rounded, feebly arched, continued behind the nostrils, point searcely inflexed, emarginate; cutting edges, sub-diaphonous, sharp; nostrils, oval, small, placed in an elongated little depression, attenuated anteriorly; wings, short; quills, 1 spurious, 4-7 externally slightly sinuated, 3-8 longest, sub-equal, the 2 suddenly, 9 and following ones by degrees shorter; ¢ail, elongated, truncated; feet, middling, suitablef ; Tarsi longer than the mid toes by half ; acropodia obscurely scutellated ; toes, the front ones feeble, the middle united at the base with the outer ; hind toe somewhat stronger, equal to mid toe; claws, compressed ; those of the front toes, feeble ; that of the hind toe, stout and strongly curved. “This genus is distinguished by the strength and conical form of its bill from Sylvia and Motacilla. The nares are com- paratively small. It has a peculiar character in the sharpness and transparency of the cutting edges of the mandibles, The anterior toes are small, and the claws strongly compressed ; the posterior toe and claw are comparatively stout.” After some little investigation of this genus, 1 have been unable to establish more than four definable species. Of these, one, which is also by far the most widely distributed, has the plumage of one sex at one season very variable, and has a tendency to exhibit one such phase more commonly in one, another, in another locality; but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, birds, even of this one sex, and at this particular season, that are absolutely identical, occur throughout its range, and with these, in each province, intermediate links between the characteristic local sub-type and other sub-types, and under these circumstances, though itis desirable to note the variations that occur, I cannot assume specific value for these local varieties, which are in no case invariable, but at most only prevalent, and which, though capable of being indicated, are not * In this, and all similar translations, I give the most literal version possible. Especially, where a word seems to me capable of two interpretations, I try and represent it by an English or Anglicized word having the same ambiguity. + I have no very definite idea of what Horsfield bere means by the use of the word ‘ congruus.’ REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 423 in practice susceptible of any such definition as will permit the separation of half the forms met with, except by the adoption of some purely arbitrary and wezatural standard. I shall discuss this question more fully when dealing with - the species in question. In the meantime, I will commence with a brief empirical key to the several species of the genus that I recognize :— WINGS WITHOUT ANY TRANSVERSE BAR. Wing, 2°6 to 29; bill from gape, 0°8 to 1. 1c lafresnayii. WINGS WITH TWO* CONSPICUOUS TRANSVERSE BARS, Tail, black or yellowish olive green, or a mixture. Upper part of head, nape and back, grass green, a conspicuous light yellow eye ring. » ore ee Wing, 2°35 to 2°5; bill from gape, 0°7to 0-75 2. viridissima. Upper part of head, nape and back, black or yellow- ish olive green, or a mixture, within one race some pure yellow on upper back ; no conspicuous eye-ring 3. tiphia. Tail always black and white or greyish white, in varying proportions 4, nigrolutea. 1.—Iora Lafresnayii, aril. Revue Zoologique, 1844, 401. Mag. de Zool., 1845.—Stoliczka. J. A. 8. B., XXXIX., 309, 1870. innotata, Blyth (? 9) J. A. 8. B., XVI., 472,1847. Pheenicomanes iora, Sharpe, P. Z. 8., 1874, 427, pl. 54; A. & M. N.H., 1875, 236. Although referred to a few months previously by Mr. Strickland (A. and M. N. H., 1844, 42,) as a new Lora lately obtained by Dr. Horsfield, equal in size to the small Ovriolus wanthonotus (/), the Great Jora was first described by Hart- laub (op. et loc. cit.) as follows :— « Above olivaceous green, with blackish points to the feathers ; forehead and rump, yellowish ; wings and tail, uniform steely black; under wing-coverts and the internal margins of the quills on their basal halves, white; lores, the little feathers round the eyes, and the entire lower surface, including chin and lower tail-coverts, very bright yellow; bill, plumbeous, with albescent margins; the feet, apparently plumbeous. Length, 6°3; bill from gape 0°96; at front, 0°73—Malacca.” Blyth was the next to notice the species (op. et loc. cit.) ‘The specimen before me, obtained in Arrakanby Captain Phayre, was probably a female, measuring 6 inches inlength, the wing * Some individuals of the Southern race of tiphia, males in full breeding plumage and only about one in three or four of these, with the whole top of head and back black entirely lose the lower wing bar, the white tippings to the greater coverts, apparently, wearing off, 424 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 23 inch, and tail2+ inch; bill to gape, 1 inch, and tarsi 3 inch. Colour, plain green above, yellow below, brightest on throat and breast; no white markings on wings, except a slight white - edge to the primaries. If new JL. tnnotata, nobis.” Stoliczka thus described what he considered an adult male :— “ General plumage above, black, with a greenish glossy tinge ; forehead, yellow, passing to black on top of head between the eyes ; neck and back tinged with yellowish green ; feathers of the rump very soft, much lengthened, whitish at their bases, olivaceous towards the middle and with yellow tips; upper tail-coverts, short, metallic black ; tail and wings, shining black, the latter internally near the shoulder edge yellow, then white ; all the wing feathers having the bases with their coverts and the edges of the inner webs, white; the 5-9th quills are on the basal half of the outer webs also slightly edged with yellow; lores and eyelids, yellow; ear-coverts, black, below uniform, bright yellow throughout, slightly olivaceous at the side of the breast below the wings; wing, 2°75; tail, 2°32; bill at front, 0°81, from gape, 0°94; tarsus, 0°81.” Stoliczka suggested that Hartlaub had described a female, but in reality he merely described a male in non-breeding plu- mage; the females never, I believe, have either wings or tails steely black. Ihave males in precisely the plumage Hartlaub describ- ed, except that they are younger, and that their tails are conse- quently yellowish olive ; each of the feathers, except the central and outer pairs, with a stripe of blackish brown on the inner webs next the shafts. Blyth’s specimen probably was a female. Lastly, Mr. Sharpe re-described the species (believing his specimen to have been obtained inJamaica) under the name of Phenicomanes iora, in the following words :— “‘ Above blackish, with a deep indigo lustre ; many of the feathers of the crown and back tinged with yellow, apparently the remains of a previous plumage ; forehead, brighter yellow ; lores anda distinct eyebrow, bright yellow, as also are the rest of the sides of the face, excepting the upper margin of the ear-coverts, which are blackish ; quills, blackish, the primaries narrowly margined with yellow, the secondaries very broadly with indigo; rump and upper tail-coverts, greyish, the feathers very fluffy and washed slightly with yellowish; tail, black, glossed with dull indigo, and crossed with indistinct wavy lines when held to the light; entire under-surface, brilliant yellow ; the flanks, very long and fluffy, inclining to greyish white, slightly tinged with greeenish ; under wing-coverts and inner lining of quills, white, with a slight tinge of bright yellow on the bendjot the wing.” REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 425 Total length, 5-7 inches; culmen, 0°9; wing, 2°38; tail, 2°3; tarsus, 0°9. These two latter descriptions, it will be observed, by no means perfectly agree ; the former gives a “ greenish gloss,” where the latter talks of “a deep indigo lustre”; I should call it a dull steely gloss. The latter says :—“ Rump and upper tail-coverts, greyish, the feathers very fluffy and washed slightly with yellowish ;” the former, “‘ feathers of the rump, very soft, much lengthened, whitish at their bases, olivaceous towards the middle and wie yellow tips; upper tail-coverts, short, metallic black, &c.’’ I think that, owing to the fluffy luxuriance of the rump fea- thers, Mr. Sharpe must have overlooked the black upper tail- coverts. These have been very distinct in all specimens in the plumage he describes that I have examined. I will now describe specimens obtained at Mergui :—Males and females shot in April, May, June, July and November—the re- markable point being that no one specimen exhibits the plum- age described by Stoliczka and Sharpe, and which seems the ordinary summer plumage of Malaccan males. The males measured in the flesh :— Length, 6°4 to 6°5; expanse, 8°82 to 9:2; tail, 2°25 to 2°45; wing, 2°62 to 2°82; tarsus, 0°83 to 9°0; bill from gape, 0°8 to 0°95 ; weight, 0°75 to 0°85 oz. The females are perhaps a trifle smaller, but one has the bill slightly longer than any of the males. Length, 6°12; expanse, 9:0; tail,.2°25; wing, 2°75; tarsus, 0:75; bill from gape, 1:0; weight, 0-7oz. In the November birds the legs, feet and claws were dull smalt blue, and so were the lower mandible, gape and edges of the upper mandible—the rest of this latter being blackish brown. In the June and July specimens the legs and feet were clear lavender blue ; the lower mandibles and a broad line on each side of the upper mandible, pale blue—the rest of the latter black. One noteworthy point is, that the two sexes, killed in winter, differ in no respect, expect that tne lower surface of the males is invariably a brighter, purer, more golden, or gamboge yellow, and that of the females, paler, greener, more lemon yellow. Unlike tiphia, the tails of all the males obtained by us in No- vember in Tenasserim, are olive green, like the females, not black. Can they all be young birds ? They do not look so. The same almost may be said of the specimens of both sexes killed from April to July in the same locality ; but in one male, killed on the 24th May, the dusky fringes to the feathers of the crown and back ‘are more distinct and blacker, and wings and tail are becoming black. None of the June and July birds show any progress towards the black plumage, which at 426 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. Malacca is undoubtedly that of the adult male in spring and summer. Tt is not impossible that all our birds from Tenasserim are immature; the females not differing materially from what they would be when adult, and the males only differing from the females in the brighter and more golden yellow of the lower arts. ; It is, however, quite possible that the Tenasserim and Arakan birds may represent a distinct race, differing from Lafresnayt, just as tiphia does from zeylonica—the males not assuming the black plumage of the breeding season, and moreover retain- ing, as a rule, the olive-green tails of the female. This seems hardly likely, but then neither is it likely that more than 30 specimens, secured from April to November, all of which, so far as the look of the feathers go, seem adult, should all be immature. No doubt, one May specimen exhibits traces of assuming the black plumage, and is certainly getting the black wings and tail, but then even in the strongholds of typical ¢iphia, individual birds closely approximating to the typical zeylonica plumage, may be met with. The following is a description of our Tenasserim specimens, whether immature or representatives of a distinct race time must show :— Male.—The whole upper surface, including the wing-coverts and almost the whole visible portion of the tertiaries, is a dull, slightly, yellowish olive green, obscurely pencilled, and the fea- thers here and there feebly fringed with dusky, yeilower on the head and tail, and passing to a greenish golden yellow on the forehead; most of the lateral tail-feathers, except the central and outer pairs, with a broad stripe of brown- ish black on the inner webs next the shafts ; tertiaries, blackish brown, very much overlaid with olive green, the blackish brown only showing as a_ band along the basal two-thirds of the shaft, though spreading more or less on either side towards the margins in the shape of rudimentary bars ; primaries and secondaries, deep brown; all but the first or first two in some, narrowly margined with olive-green, greenish-white or dull- white, the shade varying much in different specimens, but the margins of the earlier primaries being always whitest, and those of the later secondaries (some of which are, however, often narrowly tipped whitish), greenest. The lores, ring round eye, cheeks, chin, throat, sides of neck, breast, abdomen, vent and lower tail-coverts, intense gamboge yellow ; ear-coverts, the same, slightly shaded with olive green ; sides of breast, olive green; a huge patch on the flanks ot very long, silky fluffy feathers, mingled grey and white ; REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 427 axillaries, white, sometimes faintly tipped yellowish or with olive green ; shoulder of wing, inside yellowish ; rest of wing-lining, satiny white; the quills, with satiny white margins to the inner webs, at the extreme base only in the case of the first, but fora greater and greater length in each succeeding quill, so that in the latest secondaries the white margin extends quite to the tips. The females, absolutely similar, except that the whole of the golden or gamboge yellow is replaced by a paler, greener and more lemon yellow. The only localities from which we have specimens are the extreme southern portions of the Tenasserim provinces, and the Malay Peninsular, from the neighbourhood of Malacca, speci- mens from the latter locality differing as above pointed out ; Blyth, however, recorded it as above from Arakan. We have never yet received it thence. 2.—Iora viridissima, Zem. Bp. Consp. Gen. Av. I, 397, 1850. scapularis g, Horsf. apud Blyth, J. A. S. B., XIV, 602, 1845, et apud LTors/, Cat. B. H. H. I. C. Mus. I., 265, et auet. nec Horsf. Tr. Lin. 8. XIIT., 152, nee Zool. Res. Jav. ? chloroptera, Salvad. U. de B. 192, 1875, ¢@. Bonaparte first described this species (of which he found specimens in the Leyden Museum from SLorneo and Sumatra, bearing Temminck’s manuscript name) in the following terms :— “‘ Intensely green; scarcely paler beneath; eye spot and vent, yellow; wings, white banded ; tail, black.” Blyth, getting specimens from Malacca, took it into his head that this was only the male of JZ. scapularis of Horsfield, which he concluded to be the female. Horsfield himself, Moore, and others adopted this view. Salvadori (Uccelli di Borneo, 191, 193) was, as far as I know, the first to publish a contradiction of this hypothesis, but even he does not appear to have seen re- liably sexed specimens of this species. We found this species, THz Green JorA, common at Johore, at the extreme south of the Malay Peninsular; at Nealys, about 31 miles from Malacca, near Malacca itself, and Davison shot a single specimen at Mergui on the 20th June. It is also recorded from Borneo and Sumatra. The sexes do not differ appreciably in size, nor in the colors of the soft parts. The following particulars were recorded from numerous fresh specimens :— Length, 5°0 to 5:25; expanse, 7:5 to 7°82 ; tail, 1:75 to 1°82 ; wing, 2°35 to 2°5; tarsus, 0°65 to 0'7; bill from gape, 0:7 to 0°75; weight, 0°5 to 0°62 oz. BO 428 REMARKS ON TSE GENUS IORA. Legs and feet, plumbeous blue; claws, black ; lower mandibles, gape and a line on each side of upper mandible, dark plumbeous blue; rest of upper mandible, black or blackish brown ; irides, dark to reddish brown. Male.—An orbital crescent on upper and lower eye-lids, not meeting either before or behind, bright light yellow; a blackish dusky lore spot; forehead, crown, occiput, ear- coverts, back and sides of neck, back and scapulars, a beautiful dark grass green, varying a little in intensity in different specimens; rump, similar or a shade greyer; the longest feathers more or less faintly tipped yellower, and ex- cept in first class specimens, a good deal of the fluffy greyish white bases of the feathers showing through; tail and upper tail-coverts, intense black, but with a faint bluish shine in some lights, most noticeable on the coverts, which are short ; chin, throat, breast, similar to back, but a shade yellower ; abdomen, a little yellower still, and lower tail-coverts, pale pure yellow. A huge tuft of satiny white feathers on the flanks, overlaid and concealed until the feathers are lifted by the slightly yellowish green feathers of the sides of the abdomen. Wings, black ; two conspicuous snow white wing bars formed by the broad white tippings of the median and greater coverts ; all but the first 1, 2, or sometimes 3 quills, conspicuously margined on their outer webs, with bright more or less yellow- ish green; these margins are rather broadest on the tertiaries, and in these, and sometimes some of the latest secondaries, run round the tips, and are here always palest, and in some speci- mens quite white. i Shoulder of wing, yellow or greenish yellow ; rest of wing- lining and more or less of inner margins of quills, satin white. Female.—Differs in having tail and upper tail-coverts, yellowish olive green—in having the wings, dark brown, the wing bars, pale greenish yellow,* and the colored margins to the quills, paler and yellower. In wanting the dusky lore spot, thus allowing the yellow eye-lid lines to meet in front ; in having the entire lower surface, but especially the chin and throat paler and yellower than in the male. I am not aware that the two sexes have ever before been properly deseribed.t Tora tiphia, Zin. S. N. I. 331, 1766. (Ex Edwards’ Birds, II., 70, t. 79, 1747, and Brisson’s Fice- dula bengalensis, Av. III., 484, 1760). * Tt is this peculiarity which leads me to suggest that Tora chloroptera, Salvad, may bea synonym. é + Since this was in type I have received the July number of the “ Ibis” for 1877 in which p. 304, pl. V, this speciesis figured. REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 429 Green Indian Warbler, Zath. Syn. IT. 2,474, No. 90, 1781. Le Figuier Vert et Jaune. Buf. Hist. Nat. VI., 160, Edition of 1783 ; V., 278, Edition of? tiphia, Gm. S. N. I., 963, 1788. sub-viridis, Zick. J. A. S. B. I1., 577, 1833. zeylonica,* Gm. S. N.I., 964, 1788 (ex Ceylon Black cap Brown’s Ill. 36, t.15; and Ceylon Warbler, Lath. Syn II. 2, 474, No. 87, 1781). multicolor, Gm. 8S. N. IE, 924, 1788 (ex Green-rumped Finch, Lath. Gen. Syn. III. 329, No. 96, 1781); Lath. Ind. Orn. 1. 465, .1790 ; Gen. Hist: VE. LET. Le Quadricolor, Levai/l. Ois. d’Afr. III. 121, t. 141, 1802. quadricolor, Vieill. Encl. Meth. 481. melaceps, Swains. 2 meliceps, Horsf. Apdx. Desp. Court Direct. 17 of 16th Septem- ber 1840, pub. J. A. S. B. X. 50, 1841. scapularis, Horsf. Tr. L. 8. III., 152, 1821; Zool. Res. Java, 1824. viridissima, Zem. apud Bly. J. A. 8. B. XIV. 602, 1845, et Horsf. Cat. B. Mus. P. I. C. I. 266, &e., nec Tem. viridis, Zem. Bp. Consp. I. 897, 1850—Salvad. U. de B. 190. Linneus’ description of THe Common Iora is as usual brief. “ Green, below yellowish ; wings black, with two white bars. Inhabits Bengal. “Wing bars resulting from white tips to coverts.”’ He refers to Edwards and Brisson. Edwards’ original description is as follows :—f “ The bill is black or dusky, a little inclining to yellow near the head, and a very little bowed downwards; the top of the head, upper side of the neck and back, are of a green colour, pretty dark; the rump and upper coverts of the tail green, but something lighter ; the sides of the head, throat, breast, * Moore and Horsf. Cat. B. Mus. E. I. C. I. 267, Bp. and others give Motacilla cingalensis and melanictera of Gmel. aS synonymes; singalensis, Gm. is certainly not synonymous, and there is no WMotacilla melanictera, Gm. that I can find, Probably, Muscicapa melanictera, Gm., is intended, which, as is well known, is a bulbul, Rubigula melanictera. + Latham, Gen. Hist. VII. 128, Shaw. Gen. Zool. X. 688, and others following these, refer Edwards’ pl. 79 to the female, and refer to plate 15 as representing the male. This seems to be a mistake. Edwards never. I believe. figured the male, and his pl. 15 represents “‘ The long-tailed Dove.” Stephens, to be more exact, specifies pl. 15 of the * Gleanings,” the first plate in which (they being a sort of continuation of the ‘‘ Natural History of uncommon birds) is No. 211, and the 15th of them Sate representing ‘“ The Mongooz,” which by the way is not a Mongoose at all. 430 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IoRA. belly, thighs, and covert feathers under the tail, are yellow, a little clouded with green, on the head and sides of the neck ; the dark green of the upper side, and the yellow on the lower, lose themselves in each other. The wings are dark brown or black, some of the quills are yellow on the edges of their webs; the first and second row of covert feathers on the upper side of the wings have white tips, which make two bars of white across the upper part of each wing; the inside of the wing feathers is something fainter. than the outside; the tail is of the same dark green colour with the back; the legs, feet, and claws are of a dark brown or black colour.” Edwards’ figure is a good one; but, like the description, entirely fails to fix the race. It is clear that his specimen was either a female or a young male. It may be well to premise that the adult male always has a black tail, the central feathers at times during the cold weather more or less overlaid (except in rare cases, only on the termi- nal + to 4) with bright olive green; on the other hand the females always have olive green tails. The young male, hatched in the summer, retains the olive tail till the end of the next March, or thereabouts, as I find several young birds, killed in April and late in March, moulting the olive and putting out the black tail feathers. As I shall show more in detail hereafter females and, I believe, young males, from Ceylon, all parts of the Indian Erpire, all parts of the Malay Peninsular, Sumatra, Borneo and Java, are absolutely inseparable, with the exception of a certain slight difference in one Central Indian race, to be noticed hereafter. There is nothing, therefore, to show whether Edwards’ bird belonged to the so-called zeylonica, tiphia or scapularis race, beyond his remark that the person who lent him the specimen informed him that it had come from Bengal—a term in those days practically often ‘including every thing brought alike from India, the Straits, and all the larger Northern Islands of the Archipelago by vessels last hailing from Calcutta. Brisson refers to Edwards, and to Luscinia bengalensis of Klein, (Av. 75, No. 17,) whose work I have never yet been able to obtain. Brisson’s description, however, appears to be so far original that it is apparently a translation of Edwards, modified on com- parison with a specimen of which he gives accurate dimensions, &c., not found in Edwards’, though they may be in Klein. Brisson merely repeats Edwards’ statement that this species inhabits * Le Royaume de Bengale.”’ Unless, therefore, Klein gives something absolutely definite, REMARKS ON THE GENUS I10RA. 431 there is nothing so far to show with certainty which of the supposed races the female, named by Linnzus ‘“ tiphia,’* belonged to. Brisson, I have said, gave dimensions, but these will not help us ; for, despite all that has been said about longer bills, greater size, &e., I find that equally long and short wings and bill occur alike in Ceylon, Central Indian Terai, Calcutta, Eastern Assam, Rangoon, Mergui, Malaccan and Jobore birds, while of the very few Javan, Sumatran and Bornean specimens that I have been able to examine, the dimensions fell within those ascertained from a huge series from the above-mentioned and numerous intermediate localities. Latham first distinguished the sexes, and he describes the male (in non-breeding plumage) with the tail blackish, with the edges yellow. The female, he says, differs in being paler and having the tail pale green. He says that the bird is found in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, and is the Chatuck of the Bengalese, so that this fixes the race. Buffon’s notice is a mere abstract of Edwards’, Brisson’s, and Linneus’. Gmelin’s tiphia is, of course, Linnzeu’s, with Buffon and Latham added as references, the latter really satisfactorily fixing, as already noticed for the first time, as far as I can make out, the race to which the name should apply. Gmelin’s zeylonica. “ Green, below yellow; vertex, nape and wings black, the lat- ter with two white bands ; inhabits Ceylon ; bill bluish grey.” Founded on Brown’s figure of the Ceylon Black Cap, and his and Latham’s description leave no doubt as to the race which this name was intended to typify. Two years later, Latham adopted Gmelin’s name zeylonica in his Indian Ornithology, and referred to Gmelin’s description. As far as I can make out he intended to unite the Ceylon and Calcutta races as one species, and that he clearly did in his General History, in which, under his own original trivial. name of * Green Indian Warbler,” he united fiphia of Lin., zeylonica, Gmm., his own Ceylon Warbler, Brisson’s, Buffon’s, Brown and Edwards’ birds. Yet Latham had himself separately described the Ceylon race under a distinct title as the Green-rumped Finch in the following terms :— “ Bill, bluish; head, hind part of the neck, upper part of the back, and tail, black ; cheeks, chin and the rest of the under- parts, light yellow; wings, black ; on the coverts, a white spot ; ee eee * And what may tiphia mean? I certainly never met with the word, and I have failed to find it in any dictionary available to me. 432 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. the secondaries crossed at the ends with white; lower part of the back and thighs, green ; legs, grey. “ Inhabits Ceylon.” This is an absolute photograph cf some of the Southern breeding males, in which the second wing bar, formed by the white tips of the greater coverts, has wholly disappeared, in which the first wing bar has contracted to a broad patch, and in which nothing is left of the white edgings to the feathers, but just a white tipping to the secondaries. I have before me now a bird which might have been the very specimen described by Latham, from the Island of Rame- suram (which forms one pier, as I may say of Adam’s Bridge) between Ceylon and Paunben. On this bird of Latham’s was founded Gmelin’s Fringilla multicolor, and this name has precedence of his other named zeylonica, and must be adopted for the Southern race by those who consider this entitled to specific distinction. In 1821 Horsfield described the Javan race under the name of Lora scapularis, and later he further amplified his descrip- tion of and figured the species. His figure and description alike refer to the female, and he later, following Blyth, accepted (Cat. B. Mus. EH. I. C., 266) the very distinct J. viridissima as the male of his species. His figure, at any rate inmy copy, represents the bird of a far purer green above than any female that I have ever seen; but his description shows that the plate is in error, as he says that “the general colour of the upper parts is olive green.” The following is Horsfield’s revised description :— “The entire length of the Jora scapularis is five inches and a half; its weight four drams and one-fourth ; the general colour of the upper parts is olive green, inclining to yellow; it is more saturated on the back and neck, and becomes pale and yellowish on the coverts of the tail and forehead; the same colour, but more diluted, covers the abdomen and vent ; the throat, breast, and cheeks have a bright lemon yellow tint; a narrow border of this colour also marks the outer margin of the quill and secondary feathers, while the latter have interiorly a whitish margin; each of the greater coverts of the wing is terminated obliquely by a broad white band, and the disposition of these feathers occasions a single, or in some instances two, irregular, nearly parallel, longitudinal lines on the wing; the general colour of the quill and secondary feathers is dark brown, in- clining to black; the plumes of the lower part of the back and the abdomen, and hypochondriz, are greatly lengthened, and their filaments are soft, silky, and much sub-divided, so as to constitute a thick coat surrounding these parts like a muff ; REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 443 the under side of the wing is brown at the extremity ; a white discoloration extends obliquely backward, occasioned by the white border of the inner vane of the quill feathers; the tail consists of twelve feathers, which are close at the base, and inserted in a double series, above each other; the exterior fea- thers, and those that are lowest in their insertion, are somewhat shorter, so as to afford a moderate rotundity to the tail. The intermediate feathers are regular, and have an uniform tint of olive, inclining to brown; on the exterior feathers the inner vane is broader: they are somewhat obliquely inserted, and they have exteriorly, and at the extremity, a yellow border ; the shafts are deep brown; the irides have a white or pale yellow colour, and the bill and feet are bluish; the nostrils are posteriorly covered by a membrane, and a few short slender bristles, arising from the forehead, stretch over them.” I have been unable to trace Swainson’s name melaceps, but it manifestly was applied to a bird of the Southern type. Horsfield applied it to a bird from the Dekhan, but afterwards considered that he was in error, and that this should stand as tiphia ; but he must have had either a female or young or non- breeding male; for, if the two forms are to be specifically separated, the Dekhanee birds unquestionably pertain to the Southern form. Tickell’s name, sub-viridis, applied to specimens from Bhora- bhuim and Dholbhum, doubtless pertains to the typhia type, but he only described a young male. He says :— “ Male.—Allied to the MW. zeylonica of Horsf. Bill and legs, pale bluish horn; eyes, hazel; plumage, above olive green, below olive yellow ; wings, black, edged yellow; greater coverts, tipped white ; tail, dark olive green. Common in thick bamboo or saul jungle on hills.” Lastly, Bonaparte separated the Bornean race under Tem- minck’s manuscript name of viridis, with the following brief diagnosis :— “‘ Like scapularis, but yellower below, and with a stouter bill.” Salvadori, with eight Bornean specimens before him, declares them to be identical with Javan specimens, and suggests that (as I believe can scarcely be doubted) viridis, Bonap., must be identical with scapularis. I have thus, I fear at tedious length, reviewed, so far as my very limited library permits, the nomenclature of this species (or group of species) as some hold. I now proceed to explain the grounds on which I consider that all these names really represent only one species, as also, so far as I havebeen able to trace them, the local variations which this species has a tendency to exhibit. 434 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. The Marquis of Tweeddale asserts that ‘ the problem is a much deeper one than whether J. zeylonica and J. tiphia are to stand in our lists as titles representing one species or two dis- tinct species, &c.”’; but, as a matter of fact, the problem, such as it is, lies entirely on the surface, and is merely one of nomencla- ture, which, as Professor Alfred Newton recently remarked to me, bears the same relation to real natural history that rat hunt- ing does to real sport. The facts admit of no doubt: the question merely is, whether in face of these we shall, as a matter of classification, accept three or one species. The question is any thing but a deep one. All living forms are subject to a greater or less amount of modification under the influence of diversified physical surroundings. In some cases, whether owing to the greater original susceptibility of the type, or to the greater activity of the modifying causes, or to the greater lapse of time during which the form in question has been exposed to these modifying influences, the changes result- ing are marked and constant within a determinable area. In other cases the changes are insignificant and only exhibited, even within the area where they are most noteworthy to a variable extent, and in some only of the individual local repre- sentatives of the form. Naturalists, as a rule, would agree to designate as species, the varieties that have arisen in the first class of cases, while they would equally refuse specific rank to those in the second. But of all things being ever in a state of change and pro- gress, we meet of course with numberless instances in which the degree of modification attained cannot be, with equal cer- tainty ofa general consensus, either acknowledged as of specific value or ignored—cases in which some naturalists would, and some would not, admit that the extent of modification attained, and the degree of constancy with which it was exhibited, were sufficient to justify the award or maintenance of a distinct specific appellation. The present is just one of these doubtful cases; the matter for decision can scarcely be termed a problem at all. It is a mere matter of opinion whether, under the circumstances, we are justifi- ed in retaining several specific titles for the various races, or whether we should unite all under one. How stands the case. After a most careful and laborious examination of the enor- mous series reviewed in the Appendix, I am of opinion that, broadly speaking, the females of all the races from Java through Borneo, Sumatra, the Malay Peninsular, Tenasserim, Burmah to Assam, and thence through Bengal, the N. W. Provinces and REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA, g 435 Central India to Ceylon are inseparable alike as regards colour and size. I must premise that females killed at the same season must be compared, and several from each locality. Although the rule is by no means absolute, the females, as a body, have everywhere I believe, certainly throughout India, Burmah, and the Malay Peninsular, a tendency to assume a some- what brighter plumage during the spring and summer than they exhibit in the winter. The green of the upper surface is generally a shade brighter; the yellow of the chin, throat and breast is often decidedly brighter. Even when killed in the same locality on the same date, females often differ s/ightly in tint, both above and below; and in all localities throughout India, Burmah and the Malay Peninsular, some females are met with in the winter as bright as the majority in the summer, and some are found in the latter season still comparatively dull. No doubt, between the greenest and yellowest, the brightest and the dullest, the difference is never great; but still if one happens to hit upon a compara- tively very green one from one locality, and avery yellow one from another, or a very dull one from one place, and a bright one from another, it is easy to mistake differences which are really merely seasonal or individual, for local variation. As regards size again, this, within certain limits, varies a good deal in the individual; but not, itseems to me, according to locality. At first sight the weak point in my position appears to be that, out of over 100 females from different localities, critically examined and measured by me for the purposes of this paper, only 2 are Javan, 1 Bornean and 2 Sumatran ; but this does not really in any way vitiate my argument. I cannot, indeed, match all my southern and northern Indian, Burmese and Malay females out of my five insular examples, but I can match every one of these latter amongst my specimens from all the former localities, and the dimensions ofall these five specimens fall within those of specimens from these said localities. The Marquis of Tweeddale says :-— “ Javan J. scapularis @ is certainly not separable from I. tiphiag ; tie bill, however, is shorter.” The bill doubtless was so in this particular specimen that he compared. It may even average so, but in my two specimens, the bills, carefully measured with an ivory rule from point to frontal bone, are 0:69 and 0:63. In four Caleutta, and five Commilla, females, all of which I presume may be accepted as typical tiphia, the bills are 07; 0°65;0°7; 068; 0:7; U-71; B 6 436 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 0°63; 0°7; 0°67. It seems to me clear that no distinction can be set up on the strength of difference in length of bill. Count Salvadori remarks that the Bornean scapularis, of which he had eight specimens, are precisely identical with Javan specimens. Scapularis, he says, differs from téphia in having the yellow of the lower parts somewhat brighter, and the wings somewhat shorter. The wings of my Javan and Bornean specimens, of both sexes, vary from 2°45 to 2°65. In thirty odd Calcutta specimens of both sexes the wings vary from 2°4 to 2°65, the great majority, however, falling below 2-5, and only one reaching and one exceeding 2°6. So that, judging from these alone, one would say that if anything it was ¢phia that had rather the shorter wing; but if we also take the birds from the Dhoon, Kumaon Bhabur, Tirhoot, Sarun, Bhotan Dooars, Dacca, Cachar, Suddya—all I conceive equally ¢iphia—we find that 2°6 is a common length of wing, and there are two of 2°65 and one of 2°7. I do not, therefore, think that any distinction can be based on size of wings. As regards the lower surface being brighter yellow, I suspect Count Salvadori here only referred to the males, of which here- after ; certainly in my five insular females not one is yellower or of a purer or brighter yellow below than many of my Southern Indian and Bengal females, which may be fairly assumed as typical multicolor (zeylonica) and tiphia respectively. One Javan female isa shade greener, I think, than any other female I possess. The difference is very slight, but after studying this one species for several days one comes to appreciate a very slight difference in shade, and I think this female is just appreciably greener than any other—but one from the Wynaad and one from Calcutta are very, very close. The other Javan female, however, is typical. I notice a considerable variation in the stoutness of the bills in both sexes, but I confess my entire inability to connect this, though I have tried hard to do this, with either shade of plumage or locality. Precisely, similar variations in the thickness of the bill seem to me to occur everywhere, and quite irrespective of stage or tone of plumage. On the whole, therefore, I am compelled to come to the conclusion that, whatever distinctions may be pointed out between individuals, females throughout the entire area of dis- tribution of the supposed three or four species, zeylonica, tiphia, scapularis (and if any one still considers it distinct, viridis) are practically inseparable, although in all parts of this vast region you could probably pick out individual females differing in the several slight particulars, which one or another authority REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 437 (and they are not agreed on these points) hag considered characteristic of the females of this or that species. There is one apparent, very slight, exception to this general rule, which would scarcely deserve notice, were it not accom- panied by a corresponding general slight difference in the male, and this is that the females of the central portions of the southernmost section of Continental India (which I consider to extend southwards to the 21° N. Lat), e9., of Saugor, Jhansi, Seonee, Jubbulpore, Raipoor, &e., are apparently per- sistently somewhat paler and duller colored, alike in winter and summer, and have as a rule at both seasons broader-colored margins to the quills than any other set of females from any other locality, season for season. These diffrences are only just appreciable, the latter is certainly not absolutely constant, and the former may not be so, though I am inclined to believe that it is, but they deserve notice from the fact that the males of this tract also exhibit certain peculiarities connecting them with zeylonica, nigrolutea and tiphia, by whose areas their habitat is cirumscribed. As regards young males prior to their moulting in from March to May, into the adult male plumage, J believe that precisely the same may be said; but I have examined too few specimens to enable me to speak positively. Those that I have examined were undistinguishable from females, In the breeding plumage of the males, on the other hand, the most marked differences are observable. There are, how- ever, only two types; perhaps it would be more correct to say two extreme forms between which all the others lie. The first, which may be called the zeylonica type, has the entire forehead, crown, occiput, nape and back, unbroken, glossy jet black; the rump, greenish yellow; no second white wing bar (the white tips of the greater coverts having dis- appeared) ; no white or colored margins to any of the quills; and the chin, throat, cheeks, breast, the most intense yellow, in some more gamboge, in some more golden. This plumage is exhibited by many males from Ceylon and the southern portions of the Indian Peninsular, and (for though I have no specimens of my own thence quite typical, I have examined one such from Singapore) by some at any rate from the extreme south of the Malay Peninsular. The second, which is the typical tiphia plumage, has the whole upper surface green, shaded but nowhere patched with black ; both wing-bars and quill margins fairly conspicuous, and the chin, throat, &¢., much brighter than in the non-breeding season, but still of a more lemon and less golden yellow than in the southern form, 438 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. Between these two extremes all possible intermediate forms exist. Even in Ceylon and the extreme south of the Indian and Ma- lay Peninsulars (where alone, to the best of my belief, what I call, the truly typical zeylontca plumage ever occurs,) by no means all, probably by no means the majority, of breeding males assume it. It may be a sign of special vigor, or of age, I cannot say, but judging from all the specimens I have seen, I should say that, in Ceylon itself, a considerable proportion always retain a certain admixture of black-shaded green on crown, or nape, or back, not unfrequently on all, more often on one or other of these parts. Again at Calcutta, the typical tiphia plumage seems to be by no means constant. A good many males have more or less patching, or more properly mottling, of black on the back. Blyth records (J. A. S. B. XIII, 381) a specimen with the hinder half of the crown black. Ihaveseen one with nearly the same amount of black on the crown; another with nearly the entire back black, and several with large black patches there. Ifyou start from Ceylon and work northwards through Travancore, Tinivelli, Madura, the Pulneys, Nilghiris, the Wynaad, Mysore, &c., as far north at any rate as the valley of the Taptee* and Hoshungabad, on the west and centre of the Peninsular (how far north it reaches on the eastern side of the Peninsular I do not yet know), you find the immense majority of the birds more or less of the zeylonica type, the males putting on as a rule a great deal of black during the breeding season, but the amount of this diminishing on the average, it seems to me, as you work northwards, and being never (so far as I know) found in its full uniformity except in the extreme south. Even here, however, males breeding in the typical tiphia plumage may be met with. Further than this, so far as I can judge, in the extreme south the majority of the males retain more or less black about them even in the winter (though in Ceylon itself many males occur at that season undistinguishable from Calcutta ones); but as you proceed northwards, males of the latter type be- come commonest. On the west and west-centre of the northern limit of this type, it is bounded by a distinct species, nigrolutea, distin~ guishable at once by the grey or white-tipped tails, the males of which, in breeding plumage, are further distinguished by their brilliant yellow collar, sharply defining the black cap. * The zeylonica type occurs also at Mount Aboo, but as an outlier; in the plains below the species is x?grolutea. REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 439 On the east centre, and I believe east (at any rate as far east as Raipoor) of the northern limits of the zeylonica form, appears at Nagpoor, Saugor, Jhansi, Jubbulpoor, Seonee and Raipoor, and, doubtless throughout wide tracts not yet defined, another race of which tlie females seem to be always a shade duller and paler than any from any other localities, and of which the males never exhibit any black during the non-breeding sea- son, being then precisely similar to Calcutta birds, but which, during the breeding season, have a great deal of black, quite as much as some Ceylon males, though never so much as the fullest plumaged ones, on the upper parts, and while their tails show no aftinity to nigrolutea, exhibit their relationship to this species by the great amount of bright yellow that they show on the upper back. Individual specimens from other localities, both in Southern India and the Malay Peninsular, show something of this, but nothing to the extent to which itis exhibited by all breeding males from the localities above indicated. 7 Those who persist in maintaining zeylonica and tiphia, &e., as distinct, must equally distinguish this race under some name which they must assign, as it is nameless as yet, but my own view is opposed to any such separation. 4 How far north this race extends, and whether it quite reaches to the coast on the Hast, is still uncertain. But, so far as I can judge from Sumbulpoor, Bustar, and Jey- poor.( of Vizagapatam) specimens, this race wears itself out eastward,—some of the specimens from these localities exhibitine its characteristics in a more or less marked form, and others scarcely at all. The only specimen examined from Hazaree- bagh is typical, ¢¢phia and so are all the Chota Nagpoor speci- mens, the males of which show that the téphia type of coloration prevails there. At Calcutta we have the typical tiphia ; but even here the birds are, by no means, invaribly true to type; in many cases they show a very perceptible amount of black patching, and in some few cases a great amount of black. In Dehra Dhoon, Oudh, Behar Hazareebagh, Chota Nagpoor, the Bhotan Dooars, J essore, Dacca, Commilla, the Garrow Hills, and Suddya in Assam (and probably in the whole intervening regions, but I only speak of what I have seen), the birds are similar to Calcutta ones; but itseems to me that the further north you go, the less tendency there is to deviate from the typical tiphia. Certainly, in a large series from Northern Behar, shot from April to August, there were very much fewer and less marked deviations from type than in a similar series from Calcutta. 440 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. Passing into Burmah, though the tiphia type may prevail, the variations become more numerous and conspicuous. Birds with the entire nape and back black, or the entire crown and nape black, and the back much fringed with that colour, are not uncommon, and become more and more so I believe as you go south, until at Singapore the majority, I believe, of the males when in breeding plumage exhibit a considerable amount of black on the upper surface, and some at any rate occur (how rarely or how commonly I cannot say) of the purely typical zeylonica type. We preserved a very great number of these birds in the Malay Peninsular, and if any other distinct form oecurred otherwise than as an exceptional straggler, we must have pro- cured it just as we did Lafresnayi and viridissima, and there- fore, despite what has been urged to the contrary, I submit with some confidence that the species there found does noé exhibit a bit more golden yellow on chin, throat, and breast than do many Southern Indian breeding males, though, of course, this colour varies first according to season ; and, secondly, according to individuals, so that either a series or the most golden of each must be compared. That the yellow of the throat, &c., of many Malayan speci- mens isfar more golden than that of Calcutta, or even the great majority of Northern Burmese birds is undeniable, but this is only because in this, as in other points as you go south, the species reverts more and more to the Southern Indian type. As for the greater stoutness of the bills, &., &c., as before remarked, I am quite convinced, after a careful study of several hundred specimens in my own and other collections, that, so far as specimens from all parts of the western half of the Malay Peninsular, Burmah, India and Ceylon are concerned, these differences are individual, and neither local nor connected with different shades or types of plumage. As regards adult males in the non-breeding season, precisely similar individuals may be met with throughout the whole area; but in the extreme south of the Indian Peninsular many (pro- bably the majority) and in the south of the Malay Peninsular, some retain more or less black about the upper parts, and bright | yellow on the lower throughout the year. This, therefore, is the point for decision. Given a species, of which the females and (probably) immature males are abso- lutely inseparable throughout its entire area, of which the males in breeding plumage as a body (but not in either case invariably) in certain parts of its area, assume a great deal of black and bright yellow, and in others little or none of the REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 441 former, and a duller shade of the latter, every possible variation in the amount of the black and intensity of yellow assumed being met with, and of which many of the non-breeding males from all parts of its area are identical (though many of those in localities where most black and the intensest yellow is as- sumed during the breeding season, retain more or less of these during the non-breeding season also,) is it logical or expedient to break this species up into several on the strength of such very variable and inconstant differences ? In my opinion it is not; and my view therefore is, that all the various races and names enumerated above should be united under ¢iphia, Lin. 4,—Iora nigrolutea, Marshall. S.F.IV., 410, Decem- ber 1876. Hume, S. F., V., 134. Neither Captain Marshall nor myself have quite done justice to this species, the Western Tora, as yet, and he made one mistake in saying I hada specimen from Mount Aboo. All my Aboo specimens are tiphia (of the southern type). The speci- men he referred to is labelled Anadra, Mount Aboo, but Anadra is down in the plains at the base of Aboo, and its avifauna is that of the semi-desert tracts of Western Rajpootana, while that of Aboo itself has strong southern affinities. I have 30 specimens of this species :— 1 from Kutch, 2 from Deesa, 1 from Anadra, 5 from Sambhur, 1 from Koochawun, 1 from Agra (*1 from Muttra), 5 from Delhi, 6 from Etawah,1 from Jhansi, 2 from Sambulpoor, 1 from Allygur, 2 from Meerut, and 2 from Saharunpoor. Jhansi must be one point on the limits of its area of distribu- tion, for I have six specimens of tiphia thence to only one of the present species. The same may be said of Etawah, whence I have two of tiphia to six of the present species. Unfortunately, two years ago, when I_ weeded my unwieldy collection, I turned out numbers of indifferent specimens of Joras, thinking that with 100 from various parts of India, 50 from various localities in Burmah, and 30 from different parts of the Malay Peninsular, all as I then thought of the same species I had all that could be required, but though Joras have come in freely of late, I now feel the want of the 100 or more Upper Indian specimens that I rejected, and this want prevents my now defining more exactly the limits of the present species. I may add, however, that Saharunpoor seems to be its northern limit, for from the Dhoon we have only tiphia; and * This is in the Indian Museum, 442 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. from Jagadrie, in the sub-Sewaliks on the north of the Saha- runpoor district, we also have only tiphia. One remarkable fact, however, has to be noticed, and that is, that amongst a large series from Sambulpoor, belonging more or less to the intermediate race of tiphia, which is most strong- ly charaeterized at Jhansi, Saugor, &c., one male and ore female nigrolutea appeared. Whether this is merely sporadic, or whether there is any extension of nigrolutea in this- direc- tion, I cannot say; if there is, it must be through Humeerpore, Banda, and north of Jubbulpore. Setting this isolated case aside, Jhansi, Etawah and Saharun- poor mark points on the borders of its range, and we have no tiphia from any other of the localities from which I have noted “nigrolutea (except Sambulpoor), nor from anywhere near any of these, except from Mount Aboo, which, as I have long since explained, is an outlying patch of a very different fauna to that which occupies the plains around it. Nigrolutea is, therefore, a species with a defined area, within which, so far as we know, no other species of the genus occurs. It is instantly and invariably distinguishable by the white on the tail. In the females always, and in the males during the non-breeding plumage, the two central feathers are almost wholly greyish white, the tips generally purer white, and the outer web often shaded with ashy. The rest of the tail feathers black, broadly tipped with pure white; this tip in the outermost feather oneach side occupying the terminal one-third to, at times, one-half of the feather. In the breeding plumage the male has the white tippings to the lateral tail feathers more or less reduced, and the central tail feathers like the rest jet black, and white tipped. I have been able to discover no trace of any intermediate forms, unless the tendency of Jhansi, Saugor, &c., birds to show bright yellow through the black of the upper back in the full breeding plumage may be so held, and which I hardly think, as I find a similar, though much less marked, tendency in some Mysore, Mount Aboo, and Ahmednagger specimens, and in a less degree still in others from Madras and other localities. This species has constantly, though it is difficult to show this in figures, a smaller and shorter bill than ¢iphia from any part of India. It has at all seasons more conspicuous and whiter margins to the secondaries and tertiaries and their greater coverts than has tiphia at the same season. In this species the wings vary in adults from 2:4 to 2°6, but in only 8 out of 30 specimens do they exceed 2°55, and in only one out of 30 is the wing below 2:40. : REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 443 The bill straight from point to its junction with the frontal bone varies from 0°55 to 0°67, but in 25 out of 30 specimens it does not exceed 0°6. The breeding plumage seems to be assumed by the males in April, and by the commencement of November it has entirely disappeared. The male assists in incubation. I have one in full breeding plumage shot off a nest with 4 eggs, at Etawah, by Brooks, on the 12th July 1870. In breeding plumage* the male has the forehead, crown, occi- put and nape, glossy black, the black terminating in a well- defined curved line; the chin, throat cheeks, ear-coverts, breast, sides of neck, and a broad half collar occupying the base of the back of the neck and the upper back, intense gamboge yellow, exactly the colour of the breast in Ceylon téphia male, in breeding plumage. Rarely this collar is entirely uniform, generally a few of the central feathers are narrowly fringed at the tips with black, occasionally most of the feathers are so fringed. Mid back glossy black, rarely unbroken, generally with a little of the yellow (or towards the rump, greenish) bases of the feathers showing through; in one specimen with a great deal of this. Rump, pale greenish, the white bases of the feathers often showing through a good deal. Upper tail-coverts and tail, black, the former with a bluish gloss, the latter with all the feathers broadly tipped white, the white not unfrequently running some distance up the margin of the inner, and in a few cases of the outer webs also. Coverts and tertiaries, black; both median and greater coverts, broadly tipped with white. In many specimens the tertiaries and the latest secondaries are broadly margined at the tips with white, but in some this is less conspicuous, and in some towards the close of the breeding season itis almost entirely wanting on the tertiaries. The primaries and secondaries, hair brown, more or less of the outer webs towards their bases, blackish, and margined on their outer webs very narrowly, in some more, in others less, conspicuously with white. The abdomen is like the breast, but paler; in some with a green- ish tinge towards the sides, and on its lower half, and in other cases looking (in skins) nearly white owing to the intermixture of the long silky white feathers of the flank tufts. Wing-lining and axillaries, and more or less of the inner margins of the quills, satiny white. A slight primrose tinge at the bend of the wing. * Captain Marshall’s original description is not to my mind quite sufficient or satis- factory. He had to write it in a terrible hurry, and though he seized the essential par- ticulars, I think his description may be improved, BT 444 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. The females and males in non-breeding plumage have the entire under-parts a pale mealy yellow, slightly shaded with olive green ; the head is similar, but not quite so light ; the nape and entire back similar, but much more strongly overlaid with olive green. The wings and tail are as in the breeding season, except that the wings have the margins, specially of the tertiaries, very conspicuous, and much tinged with pale yellow ; that the greater coverts often have pale yellow margins besides the white tips; and that the central tail feathers are almost entirely greyish white, tipped purer white, and with the outer webs in many specimens more or less shaded with ashy or occasionally olivaceous ashy. A. O. H. Appendix. ; Review of Specimens examined in preparing the foregoing Notes on I. tiphia. Ceylon male 27-4 W.2:55; %3B.*066 Upper surface olive green, fringed everywhere with black, but most strongly on occiput and back; lower wing bar very narrow; quill margins obsolete. ri fem, 16-12 W.2'45; \&B. 0:7 Precisely similar to females from Singapore, Malacca, and Tenasserim from Mergui to Paphoon. Rameswarum male 17-3 W.252; \B. 068 Entire upper surface black, ex- cept rump greenish yellow; no second wing bar; quill mar- gins wanting. fem. 17-3 W. 25; B. 0:7 Absolutely identical with Ceylon females, Anjango ” ? W. 2:47; + &B. 0°69 Precisely similar to previous female. on male ? W. 2°55 ; 0°67 Head, nape, middle of back, black; upper back and rump mingled black and green as in Ceylon specimen, but lower wing bar conspicuous; quill $ margins very small. ns ? W. 2:47; 3B. 063 Similar, but lower wing bar a good deal reduced, but not so much as in Ceylon specimen. se ” ? W. 2°54; 2B. 0°68 Similar, but less green on the rump and upper hack, and no lower wing bar, and quill max. gins wanting. # Travancore fem. ? W.246; 3B. 0:69 Absolutely identical with Cal- cutta female. tts male r W. 2:4; B. 0-7 In nearly typical plumage ; only two spots on one wing remain of second Wing bar; black of back a good deal mixed with yellowish green. & * Bill measured most carefully with compasses from frontal bone to tip of upper mandible. REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. * Travancore male ? * Madura + ? Shimogah, My- ,, 26-5 sore, % » 28-3 Wynaad ; P Terriut Hills Wynaad, Terriut fem. 24th May W. Hills. Nilgiris, male 9-3 W. Coonor. ” ” P W. a“ * 17-2 W. Nilgiris, 3 ? W. Ottacamund. Nilgiris, 22-4 W. Nedivuttum. Madras, male P W. rf fem. P W. 43 P April W. Sholapoor Dist. male 19-9 W. cs » 19-9 W. Rahuri, » 14-4 W. Ahmednugger. Mahableshwar, ,, 23rd May W. + fem. 2-10 W. Egutpoora, male 4-10 W. W.2'5; W. 2°57; W.2°5; W. 2°61; Wi. 2°5 ; » 24th May W. 2°45; 445 B. 0°7 Similar, but more of second wing bar remaining, and less yellowish green on nape. B. 0:64 No second wing bar; head and nape black; entire back green, slightly pencilled with black. B, defect. Exactly like Rameswarum male, but rump darker and just a trace of lower wing bar ; quill margins obsolete. B. 0:67 Like first Anjango male, but showing a mixture of bright yellow on upper back; quill margins and white tippings to tertiaries and lower secondaries distinct though narrow. B. 0:66 Asin Ceylon ¢, but entire head jet black; second wing bar well marked; quill margins dis. tinct though narrow. B. 0°69 Crown green,a little shaded black ; back of neck entire black, and rump olive green; the same colour that in all previous males has mingled with the black of the back ; quill margins yellow- ish green, rather conspicuous (shot off nest.) B. 0°67 Precisely similar to previous females, but possibly a shade greener. B. 07 Precisely similar to previous females. : B. 069 Precisely similar to 1st Shimo- gah males. B. 0°66 Precisely similar to 1st Anjango male, but second wing bar rather less marked and auill margins more distinct. B. 0°63 Precisely like females. B07 Precisely like all females. B. 0°68 Similar to Ceylon male, but quill margins rather more marked. B. 0°64 Precisely similar to previous females. B. 0'7 Precisely similar to all females. B. 0:63 Wings, tail, crown, glossy black ; forehead mingled greenish; back black, much mingled with greenish olive. Precisely similar to Cingalese, Bengal, Burmese, and Malayan females (jwv.) B. 0°63 Precisely similar to the second Shimoga male, showing some yellow on the upper back. B.C'65 Apparently whole upper parts black, with lower back and rump yellowish olive ; second wing-bar very inconspicuous ; quill margins inconspicuous, B, 0-7 B.07 Precisely similar to previous females. B. 0°68 Ditto ditto (7uv,) 446 (Head of Mull male Ghat) ” Matheran ” ? P male REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 25-9 juy. 25-9 1-11 1-11 Valley of Tapti ,, May 774. Mount Aboo »” * Chanda ¥ 3) * 50 miles north * Chanda. * +P ” ” fem. male ” Sem. of male ” * Pranhita jun- ,, gles. Nagpore Hoshangabad May ‘74. 22- 12-2 18-3 12-2 2-2 » 28rd July ” + Below Puch- ,, murrie. Seoni Saugor ” » ” 32 fem. ” ” ” ”» male 1-8 W. 26; W. 2°61; W. 2:4; W.. 24; W. 2°42; W. 2°5; W. 2°5; W. 2°53 W. 2:55; W. 2°57; W. 2°53; W. 2°35; Ws, 2:6) B.0°7 Occiput black, rest of head and middle of back patched black, B. 0:65 Young, precisely like females, B, 0°64 Similar to all females. B. 0°'7 Whole upper _ surface olive green, clouded with black, and a black patch in mid-back ; quill margins, except of tail, al- most obsolete. B. 0°65 Likethe Rameswarum male, but the quill margins are a little more apparent. B. 07 Same as the Matheran male, with the head black. B. 0:63 Like first Wynaad male, but with lower wing bar and quill mar- gins more obsolete, and show- inga trace of yellow on the upper back, B. 0:65 Like other females, but a clearer brighter yellow below and on face and forehead. B. 072 Nearly typicai zeylonica plu- mage, but second wing bar and colored margins to quills well marked ; a good deal of yellowish green intermingled on nape and back. . 0°68 Head mostly black; back green, a little patched with black. 0°66 Female of the slightly duller Saugor type. 0°65 Precisely like Ceylon females, but wings and tail black, 0°65 Some black feathers about crown and occiput; wings and tail black ; rest asin Ceylon females, B. 0:7 Breeding zeylonica plumage. Second wing bar nearly disap- peared, a good deal of yellowish green mingled on nape and back. B. 065 Head and nape black; back mingled black and green and greenish yellow, much yellow on upper back. B. 0°63 Like Ceylon male, but occiput glossy black, and crown and entire back and rump lighter, being less shaded with black. 65 Precisely cold weather typhia plumage. 7 Of the dull Saugor type. 63 Ditto ditto. 65 Like Ceylon and other females, but more faded above and below and quill margins broader. ‘7 Like Seoni female. 06 Ditto. 0:64 Crownand nape black; upper back mingled pale yellow and black; rump pale yellowish green; second wing bar nearly obsolete ; quill margins incon- spicuous. bow bo REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. Saugor male 10-7 W. 26; > pn 80-4 W. 2°55; 3 » 19-4 W. 2:5; - ju. = Cab) 2 We 265 me, Geos W. 2:55; Thansie fem. 3-10 W. 2°65; An male 12-10 W. 25; as 9:10. We 25: % » 27-10» W, 26; wu » 17-10 W. 2-25; f 5 August W. 2°6; Ttawah fem. ? Wienaiols 5 male ? juv. W. 2°6; Nyashaher a fem. ? W. 2:7; b-Sewaliks. eae Dehra Doon male? 15-12 W. 2°45; UG Mn Ey Oyeay Ty By W. 2°55; Bhabur Kumaon male 30-1 W. 2°65 ;s ate Pe dese | Wey Bis + fem. P W.2'5; Gonda (Oudh) ,, Coldseason W. 24 5 Raipoor,C.P. ,, 12-5 W.26; a male P W. 2°53; ” ” 12-5 W.2°55; bulpore , 5-3 W. 25; Sas De oe We o49 + T ” 3” 6-3 Ww. 24 3 t 19 2 1-1 W. 25; + 3 male 20-12 W. 26; + Jeypoor of ,, 9-3 W. 26; Vizianagram, + Bustar fem. 18-3 W. 26; B. 447 0°63 Head black; upper back palo yellow, shaded black; back and rump __ yellowish olive green, a little shaded black; wing bars and quill margins well marked. B. 0°63 Similar to preceding, but more black on centre of back. B, 0°63 Similar to preceding, but rather more black still. B. 0°72 Like preceding, but much more black on back. B. 0:64 Ditto ditto. B, 067 Of the rather paler type of Seoni and Saugor females. B. 0°65 Like female, but wings blacker and tail black, shaded with olive yellow at the tip, B. 0°66 Ditto ditto. B. 0°67 Ditto, but terminal half of central tail feathers, much shaded with olive yellow. B. 0°68 Similar, but no shading on tail, and three or four black feathers still on crown. B ob Ww bp ohh SY by bP be we . 075 Quite the same as on nape. . 0°64 Of the rather 07 Plumage as in the first Saugor male. . 068 Similar, but of the pale Saugor type. -07 Female plumage one new black feather of tail and tips of a few feathers on back and crown fringed blackish. 077 Ordinary female plumage, - 07 Female plumage. Immature, if male, . 076 Exactly like Ceylon female, but wings and tail black, the latter narrowly tipped with olive, Undoubtedly a male. . 0°66 Precisely similar to preceding, . 0°73 Like preceding, but chin and throat more golden. the Ceylon female. 0'7_ Precisely like Ceylon female. - 0°68 Of the slightly paler Seoni and Saugor type. 0°65 Precisely ~ similar Saugor male, 07 Precisely similar to last Jhane sie gd. 0°65 Precisely like the J eypoor male, to second - 073 Slightly duller than Ceylon fe« males, 0°72 Identical with Ceylon females, 0-72 Do. 0. - 0°73 Like Calcutta males of same season, . 07 Head, wings, tail, black; back green, patched black in middle, showing some bright yellow f duller Saugor type, not quite so dull as in these latter, 448 REMARKS T Talchir male 4-12 + ” ” 5-12 + Atghur fem. 17-11 * Belaspoor male ? *Maunbhum ,, 20-12 * o fem. 20-12 * Singbhum » 26-3 + a5 male 1-4 + Hazareebagh fem. 1-1 Calcutta » January W. ” 3 «29-12 “ + 31-1 ” an 21-12 » ” ? 5 male 7-2 + » January W. 2 ” P Ss 31-1 Samnu ggur ,, Spring near Calcutta. * Calcutta (tw elve females, no date) * ~ mate oe » January W. * (four males, no date) male 28-8 4 444 to tg 1 to bo bo bo bo bo OLN LO tO Bane Ae & OD Ty, SIOiu. & CU. ve ee we we we Me 444442 ON THE GENUS IORA. . B. 071 Precisely like Ceyion females ; a young bird. B. 0:69 Do. do. B. 0:69 Identical with Ceylon females. B. 0°7 Breeding plumage, second wing bar and coloured margins of quills strongly marked, much green intermingled on back. B. 0:7 Absolutely like Ceylon 2, but wings and tail black. B. 0°66 Absolutely identical with Ceylon females. BO 7, B. 07 Occiput, nape and middle back much shaded with black; chin, throat and breast golden yel- ow. . 0:7 Identical with Ceylon females. - 0-7 Precisely similar to Ceylon @, 0°65 Same as preceding, but with faint dusky terminations to the feath- ers. 7 Like preceding. 68 Do. but a trifle greener, 7 traces of a dusky fringing to the feathers of the upper sur- face. and wings and tail black. B. 07 Like preceding, but purer yellow beneath, and no trace of dusky fringing to feathers, 0-7 Identical with preceding. . 0°69 Crown and upper back pencilled black; middle back largely patched black ; chin and throat deep golden yellow, weve All precisely similar to females from other parts of India, B. 0°'7 Upper plumage green, pencilled with black; two large black patches on back; and throat, intense yellow as in Ceylon specimens. B. 0:65 Upper suface green, pencilled with black ; head a good deal tinged yellow ; chin and throat intense golden yellow. 299000 Precisely like Ceylon females, but wings and tails black. B. 0°65 B, 0°62 | B. 0:67 Typical tiphia ; head and back B. 07 { alittle fringed black. B. 0:55 J B. 0°65 B. 063 (Similar, but with large black B. 0:68 patches on middle of back. B. 068 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 449 Calcutta fem. 24.8 W.247; 3B. 0:65 No black on back; occiput patched black, :. ‘ Do, We 247; B. 0:62) He Do. W.2-45; 3B, 0-64 i rs Do. W.25; B, 085 - 5 Do. W.2-4; B. 0-7 ke i Do. W.25; B. 0°62 ae a3 5 Do. W.2:47; 3B. 0°67 }Identical with Ceylon females. c. Do. W.24; B. 0°63 i. = Do. W.247; 3B. 07 - - Do. W.2'45; 3B. 07 a a Do. W.2'55; B, 0°68 4 = Do. W.247; B. 0°67 ‘ -- Do, W,2:42; 3B. 0°62 Similar, but all feathers of crown and back obscurely fringed dusky, as in the case of males, but undoubtedly a female, Dacca male P W.26; B. 0°8 Precisely similar to preceding. Bhootan Doars ,, January W.2°6; B. 0°75 Identical with the Ceylon 2, but wings and tail black. P Sem. Do. W. 2:55; 3B. 0°78 Absolutely identical with Ceylon . male February W. 2'5; B. 0°67 Like first Calcutta January ¢; tail tipped with bright olive green, Lallgung, , 22-4 W. 26; 3B. 07 Absolutely like the last male. Tirhoot. Sarun » 15-3 W. 2°65; 3B. 0°67 Like preceding. o ye 22-3 W. 26; %B. O7 Similar to preceding. Commillah, fem. March? W.247; 3B. O07 Precisely like Ceylon females, Tipperah. t ” Dow Wieess) Be O71 Do. re . Do. W. 24; 3B. 063 Do. i i Do, W. 24; B 0-7 Do. an a3 Doge Wieec4is eB O67 Do. > oe Do. W.2'45; B. Impft. Do. 3 + Don W., 2ibis 07 Like female, but paler and wash- ed out—a young bird. + male DOS Wien 2s 0°68 Precisely similar to last Cal- cutta 3 Cachar + P W. 25; %B. O8 Precisely similar to cold-season Calcutta males. *Garrow Hills fem. P W. 25; %B. 07 Identical Ceylon females. Suddya, male 31-4 W. 2:5; 3B. O07 Precisely similar to second Janu- Assam. aryCalcutta male, but with here and there a little black fringing at the middle of back. 9 fem 31-4 W. 2:6; B. 0°68 sey identical with Ceylon emale, “ male ? W. 26; 2B. 068 Olive green above, but black patch in centre of back, and feathers of occiput very nar- rowly fringed with black. *South ofIrra- ,, P ?3 W. 26; 2B. 0°69 Precisely similar to Ceylon waddy. female, but wings and _ tail black, and yellow of breast a shade brighter. % os fem. Ped Wis 2:42). 00 Beeb Same as Ceylon female, but a shade greener below. * - male P 3-3 W.2°52; 3B. 0°65 Same as first—male. Akyab cs 20-3 W.2'45; B. 0'6 Precisely like Ceylon male, but black fringing much less con- spicuous. Second wing band very broad ; quill margins con- spicuous, 450 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. Rangoon male 13-2 Elephant Point fem. 12-4 Kolidoo os 4-2 + male 22-1 22-1 ? ” - a igoet Paphoon fem. 9-1 ” ” 9-1 2 ” 30-12 ir male 9-1 of a 80-12 Thatone Creck fem. 9-12 Moulmein male 4-3 ey ? October of male 18-3 » 9 4-3 Yeaboo 5 Abed 33 ” 10-3 Kohbang 3 15-3 Yea fem. 30-3 Between Am-male 22-3 herst and Moulmein. W. 2'5; W. 2°45 ; W. 2'5 ; B. 0°65 Absolutely inseparable from Ceylon male, except thatit has slightly moreblack on the occi- put. B. 0:65 Similar to two preceding, but in- termediate between them as regards the amount of black on head and back. B. 0°64 Upper surface as in Ceylon fe- male ; lowersurface dirtied, so that colour cannot be ascer- tained. B.Impft. Plumage rather paler than Ceylon female. B. 0°67 Plumage precisely that of Cey- lon female, but wings and tail black, the latter margined at tips with bright olive green. B. 0°65 Ditto. ditto. B, 0°73 Similar, but faint dusky tip- pings to feathers of head. B. 0°66 Identical with Ceylon female. B. 0°69 Do. B. 0:65 Do. B, 0°73 Like Ceylon female, but wings and tail black, and tips of back feathers inconspicuously black- ish, B. Impft. Do. B. 0:69 Identical with Ceylon female. B. 0°'7 Young—identical with females, except that the lateral tail feathers have the great deal of the inner webs pure blackish brown, conspicuously margined externally with pale yellow. B. 0°68 Identical with all females. B. 0'7 Above olive green; all the feathers narrowly fringed with black, the frmging becoming patches on the middle of the back; chin and throat the same intense yellow of Ceylon, Paunben and Southern males in spring. B. 0°63 Similar, but rather less black on back, more on occiput, yellow a little less bright. B. 0°65 Crown and anterior part of fore- head unusually yellow; occiput and back green, largely patch- ed with black. B. 0:7 Forehead and crown very yellow; back olive green; feathers very narrowly margined blackish. B. 0°7 In abraided plumage of female, tail, almost olive brown; a few new bright yellow feathers on chin and throat. B. 0'67 The plumage absolutely identi« cal with the Ceylon female. B. 0°67 Back, olive green of the female, but slightly darker, and one small black patches on two side of back. Amherst ? Bopyin a? Tenasserim tn. Mergui » ” Pabyin Penang * Wellesley Prov. * » ” Malacca Fem. snale fem. male 29 fem. 9 male fem. REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. 451 9-3 W. 25; B. 0°63 Plumage identical with Ceylon female. 6-1 W.242; 3B. 0°69 Similar to the next preceding male, but several black patches on back, and the yellow of throat rather brighter 0-7 Like Ceylon female. By W. 2°5; W. 24 , 2D 5 . 064 Sexed female, but almost certainly young male; plumage faded and abraided, with olive green, nearly worn off the frayed tail feathers. 14-4 W. 25; 3B. Impft.Similar to last, but one new pure black tail feather half grown. 13-5 W. 2:5; B. 06 Forehead and crown rather yellow ; rest of upper parts olive green, only alittle shaded with black and a few small spots of the latter on the back. 14-5 W. 2°55; 3B. 0°68 Differs from the last in having the oeciputand nape nearly black, and in exhibiting a yellow half collar on upper back ; the tips of the feathers fringed with the black shaded olive green of the middle back 14-5 W. 2:5; #B. 0°67 Like first, but a trifle more black on the back. 14-4 W. 2:48; 3B. 07 Like first, but withouta spot even of black on the back. N.B.—AlIl these four have the chin, throat, and breast the same intense yellow asin Southern ¥ Indian breeding males. 20-12 W.25; ‘B. 068 Plumage undistinguishable from Ceylon female. 21-12 W.2%5; ‘B. 065 Upper surface plain olive green, not distinguishable from that of the Ceylon female. 27-11 W.2:5; B.07 Exactly like preceding. 12-6 W. 2:4; B. 0°69 Identical with Ceylon. specimens. 8-6 W. 2:4; Baw Ditto. 7-6 W.2°4; B. 0°68 Only the slightest fringing of black on the middle back Chin and throat not quite such bright yellow as in Tavoy males. 12-6 W.2'45; 3B. 0°7 Back more shaded with black and with one or two blatk patches. 15-11 Wir2rbs B. 06 Like Ceylon female. 27-11 W. 2°4; B. 0°62 Identical with Ceylon female. P W. 2:47; 3B. 0:73 Similar to Ceylon females. ? W.237; B.07 Precisely similar to Ceylon ¢, but rather less black on back. P W. 2:37; 3B. 0°71 Like all females. ? WieatOus B. 0'7 Female plumage, apparently young @, olive wearing off tail, ? W. 2:47; \¥B.0O7 Ordinary non-breeding plumage, but central tail-feathers over- laid with olive green on ter- minal halves and exterior halves of basal halves of outer webs. ? W.255; B. 066 Absolutely identical with Cey- lon specimen, BS 452 REMARKS ON THE GENUS IORA. Malacca male s Nine specimens; dates uncertain; wings 2°45, 2°55, 2°42, 2°49, 2°56, 2°52, 2°45, 2°47, 2°48. Bills 0-66, 0°68, 0°6, 0°71, 0-7, 0°69, 0°7, 0 73, 0°64. All matchable with Southern Indian specimens in different stages, some with a great deal of black on crown and back. All showing more black than in typical tzphia, and none in quite the full zeylonica plu- mage. In no specimen is yellow of throat more golden than in the Rameswaram male. fem. s Seven specimens ; dates uncertain ; inseparable from Cingalese and Bengal females. Nealys, 31 m. fem. 6-10 W. 24; B. 0°65 Identical with Ceylon specimen for Malacca. May be said generally to be precisely similar to a Cey- lon female, except for having 2°5 black wings and tail. Three of them, however, are just per- 7 0 6-10 W. 26; B. 0°69 | ceptibly greener, and of these pthree, one has a little black + 5) 6-10 W.252; %B.062 | shading on the back, one is appreciably greener, two ab- - » 6-10 Wi. -255i5 B, 0°73 | solutely identical. The first specimen has the tip of the ) Gail W.263; 3B. 0:66 | tail much overlaid with olive J green. Pulo Seban, ,, 10-11 W.2'42; 3B. 06 Above olive green; all the fea- 22 m. from thers fringed at the tip with Malacca. black, forming an irregular black mottling on crown, nape and back. Identical with Ceylon female. Like a Ceylon female, but rather greener and paler below. Entire back jet black; hinder part of crown, occiput and nape dark olive green ; feathers conspicuously fringed black at the points. Absolutely undis- tinguishable from some South- ern Indian males. Similar to Pulo Seban male. Olive green, slightly shaded, but no where spotted with black. V.B.—In none of these speci- mens can the yellow be cor- rectly said to be a bit more golden than in many breeding males from Anjango, Mysore, Paunben and Ceylon. Palimbong fem. P W. 2:55; +B. 0°65 Identical with Ceylon specimen, (Sumatra). .. 2 W.2:47; B. 0°63 Ditto, male ? W.2°65; B.07 Absolutely identical with second, - January Caicutta male, Banjermassing fem. 26-2 W.245; 8B. 0°68 Precisely like all females. (Borneo.) ? Tugal** P 5 ? W. 25; B. 0:69 A shade greener I think than (Java). any other. s P male P- W.248; 3B. 0:63 Identical with Ceylon. 5 ? W.26; 3B, 065 Identical with first Calcutta male. {N.B.—Specimens to whicha* is prefixed were kindly lent me from the Indian Museum by Dr. Anderson, the Director ; those to which a + are prefixed were lent me by Mr. Ball. The rest are in my own museum. | 5 male 17-10 W.2:65;° 3B. 07 ” ay Sat) Ww: ‘5; B. 0°65 oF fem. 27-10 W. 2:52; Singapore male 7-8 W. 2°37; ” ” 7-8 W. 2:4; SB oh 2 ID ~wT Oo i 2 48 W, 2:45; ‘3 8-3 W. 2°55; tbs o2 > o> SOS ** Name not distinctly legible, 453 Hotes on the Hidibication of some Aurmese Birds, By W. Davison. TxHoucn not endowed by nature with the peculiar gift for nest-finding that some people possess, still I have, during the four years I have been collecting birds in the Tenasserim Pro- vince for Mr. Hume, come across the nests of a good many birds, though I have never devoted any time specially to this object, and consequently I have but few species to notice. Some of the nests, to which I propose to refer, do not appear to have been before obtained; others have already been de- scribed by Mr. Oates or Captain Bingham, and I notice them ony because my observations do not quite correspond with theirs’. . 56 ¢er.—Milvus affinis, Gould. I obtained two eggs of this Kite at Moulmein on the 5th of January of this year. In appearance they are quite similar to many of those of MM. govinda; and, as is not unfrequently the case with Kites’ eggs, though both were taken from the same nest, they are very dissimilar in appearance—one being blotched and spotted, but only at the large end, witha dark um- ber brown, some of the spots and blotches being almost black ; the rest of the egg is sparsely spotted and blotched (but the blotches are small) with a paler brown. The markings on the other egg, which are also at the large end, consist of a medley of streaks and scratches and irregular spots of a rusty brown, the whole of the remainder of the surface being covered with numerous scratches of a very pale iaky purple, and a few very faint spots of a pale rusty brown. These two eggs measure 21 by 1°71. and 2°08 by 1-7. The nest, the usual shallow saucer of dry twigs, &e., was placed in a moderately high tree, about 30 feet from the ground. 114,—Caprimulgus monticolus, Frankl. On the 10th of March 1875, at Yeaboo on the Attaran, I shot a female of this species off two eggs. The eggs were laid on the bare ground in a slight depression at the foot of a tree. The tract of jungle in which these eggs were taken was very dry and thin, being composed of moderate-sized deciduous leaved trees, interspersed with thorny bamboos and brambly shrubs, with little or no undergrowth. * «The eggs aresomewhat elongated but very perfect ovals, very obtuse at both ends. The shell is fine, and they havea * T transcribe this and other descriptions with the author’s permission from the new MSS. Edition of Mr. Hume’s ‘‘ Nests and Eggs,”’ 454 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION fair amount of gloss. The ground color is a rich salmon pink, and they are blotched, streaked and mottled with dull red, which has a slight brownish tinge. Besides these primary markings numerous clouds and marblings of pale inky purple or neutral tint are scattered about the ego; but in each ege they are most numerous about one end, where also the primary markings are most dense. Of these two eggs, taken at the same time out of the same nest, one is more than a tenth of an inch longer than the other, though in breadth they differ only in one-fiftieth of an inch. They measure 1:11 by U'87 and 1:22 by 0°89.” 114 dis.—Lyncornis cerviniceps, Gould. On the morning of the 10th January 1875, while passing through some thin tree jungle, almost free from brush-wood, close to the village of Malawoon, I flushed a Lyncornis from the foot of a large tree. The bird sat very close, not moving till I was within a couple of yards of her. On looking down at the spot from which she rose, I found one egg lying on the bare ground, without any attempt ata nest, or even de- pression to prevent the egg from rolling away, which it easily might have done, as the spot where it was laid was slightly raised above the surrounding level. A few of the bird’s richly marked feathers lay about the spot on which the egg lay, and a few inches all round was perfectly dry, while all the sur- rounding ground was quite wet with the dew of the preceding night, so that the bird must have sat on the egg the whole or greater portion of the night. The ege was quite fresh, so the bird probably lays more than one. “The ege of this species is, as might be expected, quite of the Goatsucker type. In shape it is a long, somewhat cylindrical, oval ; the shell is fine and has a fair gloss, but when looked into closely, exhibits a vast number of minute pores; the ground color is a pale delicate pinky cream color, and it is pretty thickly marked with large irregular blotches and splashes of very pale lilac grey, looking much as if they lay beneath the surface of the ege.” «This egg measures 1°65 by 1:18.” 116 ¢er.—Harpactes oreskios, Zem. On the 11th of February I took my first nest of Harpactes oreskios containing two fresh eggs. The eggs were laid on a few chips of decayed wood at the bottom of a hole scooped out (evidently by the birds) at the top of a decayed stump, about 4 feet high, and was placed on the very edge of the path. OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 455 The following day I took two more nests, each containing three eggs, slightly incubated. One was in an exactly similar situation to the first nest, but the other was in a bit of dead wood, about 9 inches long that was stuck in a creeper, and was about 12 feet above the ground. There is no doubt that the nest holes are hollowed out, or at any rate enlarged, by the birds themselves. Besides the three nests I obtained with eggs, I found several more without eggs, and in one instance actually saw the hen trogon at work ex- cavating the hole. A very rotten stump is chosen, so that the bird can without difficulty chip out the wood. The eight eggs I took vary muchin shape and size—two from one nest and three from another, are very short and broad, while three from another are very long and narrow. They are all of the same color, a delicate pale cafe au lait, almost the same color as the eges of Chalcophaps indica, and vary from 0:99 to 1:18 in length by 0°8 to 0°86 in breadth. Captain Bingham has also obtained the eggs, vide 8. F., V., p. 50. Referring to Mr. Hume’s remarks, V., p. 83, 1 think that the full number of eggs laid by this species is three. A nest that I found, however, containing young had only two of these. 139.—Serilophus lunatus, Gould. This species breeds, I should say, from April to July. On the Ath of April, at the village of Om-ben-gwen on the road to Tavoy from Moulmein, I found a nest of this species, shooting the female as she left it. The nest was empty and not completely finished; it was built at the end of a small branch overhanging a stream, and in appearance was like that of a huge nest of Arachnecthra asiatica. At Amherst, on the 11th July, my Burman Shikaree brought me four partially-incubated eggs, together with the female bird shot off the nest. Unfortunately he had destroyed the nest (thinking it of no value), but he described it as a mo- derately large globular mass of dry grass, small twigs and dead leaves, with the entrance on one side, suspended from the extreme tip of a branch of a bush about four feet from the ground. The nest was found in thin tree jungle at the base of the hills. The dimensions he gave would make the nest about 6 inches in diameter and 7 to 8 high. On the 28th July I found an old nest clearly belonging to this species. The young had flown, but in the nest was one addled egg, pure white and similar in shape to those brought to me, but somewhat smaller—no doubt one of those abnormally 456 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION small and unfecundated eggs continually laid by birds of all species. The nest was suspended to the extreme end of a small branch overhanging a stream, the bottom of the nest being about 3 feet above the surface of the water. It was about 2 feet in total length; at about 15 inches from the point of suspension, the suspending portion of the true nest branched into two, meeting the nest at opposite sides, like a very broad handle to a basket, and leaving, as it were, two wide openings to the nest. Probably the nest had originally only one en- trance; but, as the young grew, it was found that there was not room for them all to perch (as young birds delight in doing) on the edge of the original entrance, so another opening was effected on the opposite side, thus giving the nest its basket- like appearance. “The eggs are rather elongated ovals, very decidedly pointed towards the small end. The shell is fine and compact, but has only a very faint gloss. «The colour is pure white. “The eggs vary from 0°92 to 0:97 in length, and from 0°67 to 0:69 in breadth.” 139 ter.—Eurylaimus javanicus, Horsf. This present species breeds in March. On the 21st of that month I took a nest on the banks of the Bankasoon Choung. It was suspended to the extreme tip of a very tall bamboo overhanging the stream. It was a massive structure, composed of moss, fibres, roots, dry leaves, bits of wood, and small twigs. It measured in total length 23 inches by 9 at the broadest part. The lower edge of the entrance hole, which measured 2-75 inches in diameter, was 5 inches from the bottom of the nest, and placed at one side. The egg-cavity was about 3 inches deep by about 3 wide, and thickly lined with dry bamboo leaves. The nest contained two fresh eggs. “The eggs are moderately elongated ovals, somewhat com- pressed towards the small end, but not pointed there, on the contrary rather obtuse. The shell is very fine and fragile, but it has no perceptible gloss. The ground color-is a dull white, and is thickly speckled with minute spots and specks of rusty brown. These specklings are most numerous towards the large end, where in one egg they form an irregular mottled almost confluent zone; in the other they only form a large irregular patch at one side of the broad end of the egg. I do not know any other Indian egg for which this could be mistaken, “The eggs measure 7°09 by 0°76, and 1:03 by 0°74.” OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. a 457 139 quint.—Cymborhynchus macrorhynchus, Gm, I have never been fortunate enough to obtain the eggs of this species though I have found several nests but all with young. The nest resembles that of H. javanus, and like it is attached to the extreme end of a branch or bamboo overhanging water. I have found the nests from April to June—three young in each, 345 bis.—Pitta moluccensis, P. ZL. S. WMiil. Vide S. F., V., 150, where Mr. Hume has already described the nest and eggs obtained by me at Amherst. 346.—Pitta cuculata, Harti. On the 12th of July 1875 I founda nest of the Green-breasted Thrush at Amherst. The nest was in rather thick tree jungle at the base of the hills, placed on the ground at the root of a small tree and partially hid from view by grass, It was composed of dry twigs and leaves, resting on a thick foundation of dead leaves, and lined with fibres. It was a globular structure, with a circular opening about mid way on one side; the roof of the nest projected over the entrance about 2:5 inch, forming a canopy or portico over it. It was very loosely put together, at least the outer portions of it, and measured 10 inches in diameter by at eas in height—the entrance having a diameter of 3°5 inch. At the base of the entrance was a platform composed of twigs and loosely put together, and about four inches wide, which sloped gradually to the level of the surrounding ground, the top of the platform being nearly on the same level as the bottom of the egg-cavity. The nest contained four eggs, very much incubated. “The eggs are of the pure Pitta type—broad ovals with a spherical tendency, (not so strongly marked, howeyer, as in coronatus), glossy and with a pure white ground, more or less thickly speckled, spotted, and marked with small angular, at times hieroglyphic-like, blotches, streaks or lines of purple, redder, or again more lilac in some, or deeper and more chocolate in others. The markings, always apparently most dense at the larger end, are occasionally almost entirely con- fluent, and often form there an irregular, speckly, spotty cap. At the small end the markings seem to be always fewer and smaller, and in some eggs are almost wholly wanting.” “In length the eggs vary from 1:04 to 1:1, and in breadth from 0°82 to 0°86.” 458 NOTES ON THE NIDIFICATION 403 dete rs eS olivaceus, Blyth (v. ante p. 187.) I found a nest of thisbird on the morning of the 21st January 1875 at Pakchan, Tenasserim Province, British Burmah. It was placed on the ground at the foot ofa small screw pine, growing in thick bamboo jungle ; it was a large globular structure, composed externally of dry bamboo leaves, and well secreted by the mass of dry bamboo leaves that surrounded it; it was in fact: buried in these; and, if I had not seen the bird leave it, it would most undoubtedly have remained undiscovered. Externally, it was about a foot in length by 9 inches in height, but it was impos- sible to take any accurate measurement, as the nest really had no marked external definition. Internally, was a lining, about half an inch thick, composed of thin strips of dry bark, fibres, &c. The entrance was to one side, circular, and measuring 2°5 inches in diameter. The egg-cavity measured 4 inches deep ‘by about 3 in height. In the nest were three pure white ovatopyriform eggs, but so far incubated that they would probably have hatched off before the day was out. The measurements of two were 1‘1 and 1:09 in length by 0°75 in breadth. 429 quat.—Sibia melanoleuca, Tick. I secured a nest of this species on the 21st of February, con- taining two spotless pale blue eggs, slightly incubated. The nest, a deep compactly woven cup, was placed about 40 feet from the ground in the fork of one of the smaller branches of a high tree growing on the edge of a deep khud (or ravine.) The egg-cavity of the nest is lined with fern roots, fibres and fine grass stems; outside this isa thick coating of dried bamboo leaves and coarse grass, and outside this again is a thick irregular coating of green moss, dried leaves, and coarse fibres and fern roots. Externally, the nest measures about 5 inches in height and nearly the same in external diameter at the top. The egg-cavity measures 1'7 deep by 2°7 across. The eggs,a pale spotless blue, measure 0°95 and 0:98 in length by 0°66 and 0°68 in breadth. 567.—Reguloides viridipennis, Blyth. An account of this nest has already been given in STRAY Featusrs, vide ante, p. 333. The three eggs there mentioned measured —0°59 and 0°6 in length by 0°49 in breadth. OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. 459 619.—Minla castaneiceps, Hodgs. On the 20th of February, when encamped just under the summit of Mooleyit on its North-West slope, I found a nest of Minla castaneiceps, containing three eggs, but so hard set, that it was only with the greatest difficulty “that I managed to pre- serve them. The nest, a deep cup, was placed about 5 feet from the ground in a mass of creepers growing up a sapling. It (the nest) was composed externally of green moss, and lined with fibres and dry bamboo leaves. On the 29th of the same month I took another nest also containing three eggs, precisely similar to those in the first nest, but these were so far incubated, and the shell was so fragile, that they were all lost. This nest was also composed externally of green moss, beauti- fully worked into the moss growing on the trunk of a lar ge tree, and it was only with considerable difficulty and after look- ing for some time that I foundit. The egg-cavity of this nest was also lined with fibres and dried bamboo leaves. The first nest found was open at the top and measured 5:5 in depth, 3:0 across the top externally ; the egg-cavity 3°5 in depth by 1:8 in diameter at top. The second nest was completely domed at the top, and measured externally 7 inches in depth by about 3°5 at top; the egg-cavity 2°5 inches deep by 1°5 across the mouth. Three eggs measured 0°7 to 0°75 in length and 0°55 to 0°59 in breadth. “The eggs are broad ovals, a little pointed towards the small end ; the shell white, almost devoid of gloss ; a dense ring or zone of excessively small black spots surrounds the lar ge “end, and similar specks are rather sparsely distributed over ‘the whole of the rest of the surface of the egg, having however a tendency to become obsolete towards the small end; sometimes alittle brown and sometimes a little lilac is intermingled in the zone.”’ 622 bis.—Proparus dubius, Hume. On the 21st of February I took anest of this species con- taining two eggs, and out of the female, which I shot off the nest, I took another egg, ready for expulsion, which was in every particular precisely similar to those in the nest. The nest was a large globular structure, ehaioses externally of dried reed leaves, very loosely put together; the egg-cavity deep and lined with fibres. It was placed on the eround close to a rock, and at the foot of a Zinziberaceous plant, and rather exposed to view. The nest was not unlike that of Pomatorhinus, but of course considerably smaller, not so domed, and with the mouth of the ege-cavity pointing upwards, ay) 460 NOTES ON THE NIDIFI{CATION OF SOME BURMESE BIRDS. A few days later, on the 25th, [ took a second nest, quite similar in shape and materials to the first one, but placed several feet above the ground in a dense mass of creepers erowing over a rock. It was quite exposed to view, and froma distance of 3 or 4 feet the eggs were quite visible. There were three eggs in the nest similar to those in the first nest. Both parent birds were obtained. The first nest measured 5 inches long by 4:5 wide; the egg-cavity 3°8 deep by 2°75 wide at the entrance. The other was about half an inch smaller each way. “The measurements of the six eggs varied from 0°76 to 0:81 in lenoth by 0°56 to O°6 in width, but the, average is 0°78 by 0°59. “The evosare rather narrow ovals as a rule, occasionally much pointed towards one end. The shell is very fine, and has a faint gloss; the ground color is white. The markings, which are difficult to describe, consist first of spots, specks, and_hair-line scratches, dark brown, almost black occasionally, and a great amount of irregular clouding, streaking, and smudging of a pale dirty brown, slightly reddish in some eggs. Besides this, about the large end, there is an indistinct irregular zone of faint inky purple spots and small blotches, and a few spots of this same color may be observed on other parts of the egg.” 701 bis.—Munia leucogastra, Blyth. On the 25th of April last I took a nest of this species in dense forest between Malawoon and Bankasoon, and about six miles from the nearest open ground. The nest was a globular structure, about 7 inches long by about 6 wide at the broadest part, and was composed of dry grass and bamboo leaves, and lined with finer grass stems and a few fibres, and placed in’ the - fork of a sapling, about 7 feet from the ground. It contained a single white egg, similar to that of J. acuticauda. 781 ter.—Carpophaga griseicapilla, Wald. While ascending the North-West slope of Mooleyit on the 27th of January, I flushed a pigeon (which I shot) off her nest, ina small sapling growing close to the path, butin very heavy virgin forest. The nest was the usual pigeon type of nest, a mere apology of a few dry twigs loosely put together. The nest contained only one fresh egg, but the female on dissection showed no sigus of being about to lay another, so it is probable that one is the normal number of eggs laid by this species. This ego is of course pure white and glossy, nearly the same_ thick- ness at both ends, but a little pointed towards the smaller end. It measures 1°61 in length by 1:15 in width. 461 Corvdus macrorbynchus, ef Wagler. My friend, Mr. Sharpe, in his admirable Catalogue, Vol. IIT., separates the Large-billed Crows of India, Burmah and the Malay Peninsula into two species and one sub-species. The one spe- cies he designates culmenatus, with which he concurs with me in uniting intermedius. The second species he takes as macror- hynchus, Wagiler, with Zevaillanti, Less., as a sub-species. The first he places in the genus Corvus ; the two second in the genus Corone. Now, the primary distinction between Mr. Sharpe’s genus Corvus and his genus Corone are these— Corvus,—First primary long, equal to, or exceeding the, inner- most secondaries in length. Corone.—First primary longer than the ordinary secondaries, but not as long as the innermost of the latter. These, then, are the primary differences by which we are to diagnose Corvus culmenatus on the one hand, and Gorone macror- hyncha and levaillanti on the other, and these two latter are to be distinguished, inter se, by macrorhyncha having pure white bases to the feathers which Yevaillanti has not. Besides this, while admitting that levaillanti and macrorhyncha are undistinguishable by dimensions (though the bill in the latter is supposed to average larger) he clearly considers that cué- menatus is much smaller, and he gives us a number of careful measurements, which serve to illustrate his view, a resumé of which I reproduce, omitting only the length, to which, as taken from skins, I attach no value. Dimensions according to Mr. Sharpe. No. of DIMENSIONS, Speci- Species, mens Localities. at Culmen. Wing. Tail. Tarsus, Deccan, Madras, Hima- C. culmenatus,,, 5 { layas 2°15-2°6 110-11'82 6°5-7'5 2°1-2°2 Behar, Nepal Kast Jaya, Sumatra C.macrorhyneha = 11 ee East Timor Samoa Timor (india, North India, Afghanistan, Kul 00, | Nynee Tal Or teyaillanti aa, 37 <2 NebSh Sndemso% Bha- b 22285 151435 73.9°3 205-25 Taping, Tsit-kan, Ponsee Re Yunan, China, Fokien me (Hainan, Ussuri R. 2°6-3°0 121-1445 7°2-95 21-245 Bali, Malacca, Penang... 2 it ! I have always hitherto considered that these three supposed species were founded upon larger and smaller examples of one and 462 CORVUS MACRORHYNcHUS, of Wagler. the same species ; but Mr. Sharpe has now pointed out a struc- tural difference which, if constant, will quite suffice to justify our accepting two species at any rate, and he has suggested that I should re-examine my series, as this will, he believes, de- monstrate that Dr. Jerdon was correct in admitting interme- dius as distinct from levaillanti—Mr. Sharpe, as I gather, being of opinion that the bird called culmenatus by Dr. Jerdon is levaillanti, and that intermedius, of Adams, is identical with the true culmenatus, of Sykes. Now the series in our museum is not at all what it should be, because I have, for some years, been so convinced of the speci- fic identity of all the crows of this type in India, Burmah, and the Malay Peninsula, that I have restricted somewhat the number of specimens of these rather bulky birds. Still, inade- quate as it is, I proceed to examine it carefully, recording, in re- gard to each specimen, not only dimensions corresponding with those given by Mr. Sharpe, but also the relation of the first primary to the innermost secondaries, whether equal, longer or shorter, and in the two latter cases by how much, and also the color of the bases of the feathers, 463 CORVUS MACRORHYNCHUS, of Wagler. a ee ee ee Ee *£IBpPTOIES 4S94ByT URYy 194I0YSs 7.9 A£AeY10} 4ST * ysesuOT OY} opeys ¥ Adepuodes 4soyvy § yenbe Ayzvou Ar0A sorawpuooag *£aepuodes 4ST URYI IeyIOYS F.0 st ‘sorepmodes ysourtouUtL 4sosuo[ uegy Jesuo, ysnoy ‘Aaemtad 4st 4vyy os ‘1ej10ys ATOAIssedonsS AivIyI0] pue ATBpuodes SuUIpagoons Yowe £ ysesuo] ey} Yonu Atepuoses 4ST "4soD 00T epeys & Arey104 4st Sjenbe [Te so1aupuoseg *£rV14104 48ST Uvyy pu 4se]_ UeYy IedUOT opeys v Arepuo0des 4ST *Arw1410} 481 Osye ‘renbe Ajestooid solaepuodes [TV *£1B14109 4ST WeYY 1941048 co. ATepuodes 48048] 5 Seltupuodes XISs 4S[ 0} Jenbo Areuttad 4sT ‘avpuooes puooes sjenbe £.1814109 4ST ‘ Avepuooes Aue uvyy 1091048 F.0 aoe 481 “hae *puodes Y4OT Wey} 1992048 AIv19109 4ST faeAo Aue ~puooes 449 Ueyy aojaoys Arveuttid qst §£ resu0T Ajeaisseoons YIOT 09 WIZ £ enbo ‘qy9 ‘qIe ‘qgp ‘pdly} PUB PUODES ULYyy Josuo, Aaepuodess 48] “Arepuodes 4svl UR} JeyIOYsS epeys & A1v1410} Ysosuo] £ soeuo ysor[ave uty} JAe5UOT YON seliepuodes ON. 480}4v] ‘Adepuooes yselfave uvyy Jeqytoys Aavutad 4s, ‘SOLIRPUOdES [|B ULI} JeyIOYs Youu Arvuttad 4ST *Avepuooes onay 4svy UeYy Jesuo0] A[quaopis “mod ArK1410} 4ST § Arepuodes onay ysey 03 jenbo ‘Alepuodes 4seljave ueyy aJoDao, Aaeutad 4sT *1OJAOYS SOlIL14.109 § SOMO TOTIOJUB UBYY Jesuo, ApjYyss setepuooes onay ysowaepury ‘ SolWBpuodes oY} JO AUB UBYy 19z10Y8 []INb 48T *SOLIBpuodes 4SOUL -zouur eyy Aq uveut 0} odavyg “apy puvysiop “UN JT Toys ‘Arvy10} ysesuol oy4 UvYy} 104.048 4nq ‘selivpuodses ey} [Je ueyy aesuo, qImb 4st “SeLIBPUOO9S UBT Joqy1OYsS Solavi410e4 q4SUeT OWUS oy} Ajesloeid seriepuodes [Je ‘ esvwunyd yooyaod at “SHMUVNAE fory “ogi ystfary eis O7IGM ong =p oqIgA o1ng fa. OFA Ong ee foi ‘fois ystumorg “" mmorq ystfory see fory ogra ystdoupy #8 Soin a fo1p “eg ystforp "8 fory oe qosUOT Z.0 I9SUO T.0 04 enby 09 Tenby 1041048 76.0 TOJIOYS CF.0 19y1048 0.1 I0jI0YS 0.T 194.1048 19j1048 Oo cre 1941OYS £0.T 1041048 CF.0 39.104 ¢.0 T9}1048 96.0 ‘OUP TL JO sieqjvay Jo oseg “sa.tepuodag ysomseuuy 03 Arvu “Hd 48T JO Olyeloy SG 26-1 10-2 S13 “snsivy, £8 “TOL $6.61 FG 8-CT ¥-G 8.61 &F.G §-C1 £6 ¢9.11 SL-G PIL &F-G 99: TL LE.6 69-11 88-6 ST-CL 8F.% GZ-1T SL6 96-IT 96-6 GEL G¢.6 SP-1T GEG £9.61 EG “SUIAA |‘ueuTNO ce ce «é 6é “ec ach: | ore o[tme iy en eyeuia iT Ore *xog see peqejq0qqy peqeijoqqy peqeqjoqqy peqeyqoqqy F20}3V qeaey eT orsuey pt dJessnupeuyy punumzoe300 punmvorj09 punurvorjo9 punues840Q9 punuresv}09 punuledBj0g FI wD na “AqIB00'T EE CORVUS MACRORHYNCHUS, of Wagler. 464 “£reptooes 4ST Uy} 10Sn0] 7.0 Avewmtad 4ST -£aepuooes 487 09 [enbe A1e14109 4ST § krepuoodes 4ST uvyy desuo] g.9 Avpuooes 4so4vT *£IV1Y10} JS] UR} 19410Ys T.0 pur 4sey uey} toqJoys 7.9 ynoqe Arwpuooes 4sT “£uepuooes ysvy eube Areiy104 4s~ § aeSuoy Ajeatssaoons Aiwpuodes Surpeasoons yove § Lawpuodes 4s] Uvyy Jeyzoys ¢.Q Aavmniad 487 *IOSUOT opeys B solszv1j19} eppprax § tenba A£i1e410) 4sT pus soepuo0des ea1T4 ASE pus PAE 4ST ‘euo Surpeoead eyy uRyy tej10ys ATQvaepis -aoo Areyi03 puv Aawpuodes Sutpeedons yore fAavpuodes 48] UvY} Joj1oYgs yout euo daeuad jst *euo0 Suipeosid ey} ueyy aoyr1oys Ajoatjoedsea Suieq Aaviy104 pue A1epuodes Sutpoooons yore £ yseduoy SI TOL Aqepuodes 4st uvy} aoqytoys 9.9 Aswad 4sT “£vepuo0des 4s] Uvyy zosuoy ¢.o Arewtad 4sT *AIVI}I104 48ST pue ‘fiepnooes 4sv] ueqj JojIoys ¢Q SI yoy ATepuvoas 4ST ueYyy aoqa0ys ¢.9 Areutad 48 ‘Tenbe Ayivaeu [pe eae YOM ‘sollepuodes JO 4S] UBYy eytogs Yonut Areutad 4sT ‘Aaepuooes 4sesuol uryy coeqyroys ¢.0 Arey109 4st feuo Sutpsaoad oy} uRYyy esac] A[Qysrs ApeAtssooons Arepuodes yovo § Arepuodes ys~ weg} sojtoys Aaeuitad 4ST *‘yenbo Are1j104 4s] pue Solmepuo0des [| V *Arepuoodas 48[ Uvyy Aoqsoys Z.9 Areutad 4st “Are puo0des Ajqeiapisaoo = Aavuarad «4s s£1Bpuo0des SBl UB) OS A[qBaAopIsuod 48] OY} f AesuO] YAO SeteI410} pug pue 4sj ‘ Arepuooes ysoyey 03 enbe Areunid 4sT ysasuo] pute jenbe Are1}103 Ys, pus Aiep “M0098 4se[ f Joduo, Arwpuddes eAissedons Youe £ Aaeuttid 4s— uey} Jesu, soltepuodes Jol[IVG 48] Wey} 031048 “SHUVNAY - oy Ong ;"* | JoWOUST-O 4 GT 0-8 | Z8.1T oqiqa ysthorp |‘ J9}1OYS GGT | S1-G 0-6 | 9&-&T “* ejiqa ysiforp | ** =. g9q4048 €9.0 | 0.8 £6 | U8 ee oy1yM ern | 1931048 0.1 10:6 LL g-1T “ogra ysifeads = AT} YSITG | 10j10Y8 82-0 rad BL 0-21 et oyIyM eang |“ oy euby | 66.1 G6 | S-l ‘oq oand Ayive yy | ** rey10oys 2-0] El.g 2.8 0-81 ea ystfoad Agqsitg | 19J1OYS CF.0 80-3 8-8 c.Z1 4013 AYYSys oy AA | 1931048 0.1 LZ ky 8-1f “+ £913 qstumoag | ‘* 1991048 6-0 | F0.3 0-8 FIL oe fein |"" 10y10GS 8.0 LZ 06 0.&1 ose OjIYA eing |‘ 09 jeubay 0-Z G.8 CF-CL oe fory |" I9}10Y8 ¢8.0 ZZ 8-6 0-F1 “ey stforp | *** 19}10G8 16.0 1-2 8-2 8-11 Ogi ystfeip 3 I9}10YS 9.0 | ET.Z 0-8 0-Sf a! oy ATIwe Ny |‘ 1991048 88-0 | 1-6 £8 F-CL - *solepuodeg dtd git qsomrouuy 03 Liv |‘snsreg,| “peg | “Sat jo sloqjvoq jo oseg “11g 98 JO UONRley £6 $9.6 £8.4 IGG GG €§-G CES 81-2 SF.S GG €6-4 S16 LV.G PG 66 oF.G ueu[ng eyeutay en ce elem] een ejemoy ole WN e[Bule y een aeua yy “ Ten "xog a WL eoukyy 0g se qnaryseg oq) jo Aoyea “Yesaq 6% eee Kote A eorjoosury yeysuewkg gz "* gITOOSsn] JO “NT SII JO esuet eIpprmy LZ “ oOo[ny eeqeer 9Z ase oo[ny seqear cz a0 oojnyT 03 ofe4s WF ‘qansej0y FZ Oo[NY 0} osB4s ySL‘OOsey EF ke B[MIS 6 pe elag 12 oe BIMIS 06 “va Bais 6. “* gIOTIYSeD BUBIsOg gt nee ealinyy LL Cu eotIN TL ees een, St Ayr[B00T ee eS SsSSsS9m9maaamaom»_—a—MW@ 465 CORVUS MACRORHYNcHUS, of Wagler. ‘ == a “$e *19J1OYS OPRYS B SOLMVpuodeS saljaRe oy £ qseSuoy ore Areij10} 48, pas Aqepuooes jsry ony, *suipeooad eu} urq? aojtoys st Ateptooes Surpesoons yous pre ‘Arepmooes 48{ OY} UeRYy Ae5u0[ 7%. sr Aamonad 4s_ 24} SUTM Jeyj0 oy} Uy “4sesuoT BL yoiyM ‘Arepuodes S[pplat ey} ueyy a9}1048 Z-0 st ynq ‘Aaepuoses 4s— ey} pus Axepuoses ase, oy sjenbke Aavurad 4s[ 04} Sum ouo uy *£veutad 4st sjenba Aaeiy10y 4st £ yenbo [we sermepuooag *qsaduoy pus jenba Arery104 48T pues Arepuooes qsel § Arwpuooes 4S_ UB} 1ojL0Ys FO Axewitad 4st “10470 Off} Ul Weyy aesuoy st Areurtad 4s] oy} Jat ono Ur ynq ‘sdurM Yogurt ysesuol OY} CAB soldepUOdDES jSol[1ve OLY, *480910Y8 SI Yoga *‘Arepmooas 4ST ueyyseqa0qs 7.9 Lavurrad 4st *Arepuoves 4sT 03 fenbo Arecaiad 4sT “Arepmooas 4sT 09 jenbe Aueuitid 4s{ *Arepuooes 4ST Wey} 1eq1048 F Q Areurtid 4s *£181410} JST PUB solaBpuoves 04} JO yysue, oT} UlcoueIeyIp eTyRroeddde oy ‘Ale puoosas 48ST UL} 199108 ¢.9 Arvuarad 4st ‘Arwpuooes yse[ Ueyg tedaol Z.09 Auwry104 4st £ Avepuooes 4st ueyj teduoy ¢.o Areutad 4sT *kaBpnooos 48— UY} desu] c¢.9 Aremrd 4sT *jenbo A[avou ArV1}10} IST PUL SeLLVpUODeS [| V ‘aesuo0y Ass satlaepuoo 98 o[pprmm {]enbo solepuodes aoye[ pue seT[IVGT *£uepuodes Js UBY} Joz1OYs 7.9 Areumtaid 4sT “AIBPUO0dS YSBT ey} uUey} Jesuol ¢.9 Suteq Aaviyacy 4sT ey} pur ‘aadao0y dareaq Aaepuodes Sutpessons yore $ Acepuooes 4ST oY) UBG} 1e}1048 F.0 Areutid 48T *480).10Y8 SE Yor ‘Krepuooes 4S[ oy} UeYy 1991048 Gf. Aanuitad 4sT *Arv1g40} JST pue somep -u0de8 Jo YASUE, Ul ooMaIayIp e[qeiovadde oy *jenba oar yorym Aavuatad ys~T puw Areyae} 4ST pure ‘Are puodes 4svi ueyy desaoy g).09 Atepuodes 4st, “usInRuniq 03 Aouapue) Sarmoys goodsus T paiq pasvesip 8S Areunad ys, ueyy ¢Z.0 pe ‘solaep “0008 Jolavea URYy} AOHUOT F.Q soltepuodes QSOWIIUUL SUIM Jeqj}O eyY ut f aesuoy, Areur “lad 48[ pue [enbe [je solaepuooes ula ouo uy ysthoas nee uaoiq Aysnq ory Ap1R0 Ny “OUI M Ayqsig foad Ysiumorg eq ystfory e1rgM ysthery Aous ysiumoig Kary OJ ysisory fain foun Kory ogi qstharx OJIGM Ysidery eyIGM Ystkery 714M ong fois ysiumorg Aois Ysiumoig ayIGA Ysthory OUIYA og fois ysiuMoig #8 Jesu0| Ce 0 ““JaSuoy 209 jenby oh) 104L0YS 67.0 a 1oIOYS 29.0 IO4IOYS T.0 mi IOSUOCT [.0 as 19 1OYsS EE.0 woe 10}.10Y8 G¢.() oe aqe110ys 1.0 as 104}104S8 6G.) Se IOSU0T 8.0 oo 19y1048 1.0 cae IoyIOYs 67.0 3 To}LOYS Ge.0 20 04 penbyy Pee 19,108 ¢¢.0 oe doz10qs8 9 0 ae TOj1OYS 8.0 to 19j10Ys T.T ae 104.1098 FG.0 nes 04 [enbay bee 1080 T.0 E.G 10 9 OO ct ANNA ct os . ac qi Lie) Ato ANG CLG 8:8 9.2 O24 - KRRoe no IH Oy MHS A Si lonwon) ror 8.9 2.61 6.01 SFG a An wid OD INN oD 2 Ins an ANNA im DOR ANN lo 0 of “NN 1 1 L6-G ce see e[Rule,y ¢ é «cc ce i Ng “ce a[eule yy tae opeme gy nseg ofmy0 fey y, wooed e1odearg Telog [nsO TW Tesiag [NDOT 1elog [NSOTT IRIeg NSO, **(sorvuog)rerag [nso Ww * Ypug foru0g qpnuo ‘ovuog qpurg foru0g ES UIIIS OAS NT suryoolieqg sulpoolieg inyqeyg worun yz ainyqeyg wormny yRiowpy Insurg I8y coud yy eb eoudkyy 19 GF T& CORVUS MACRORHYNCHUS, of Wagler. 466 *Arepuooes 4ST wey} Aosaoy 4.0 Avermad 487 *194.1048 1.0 £1e19194 48ST £ ysosmoy st yor Arepuodas 4se] pas ‘Aiemrad 48[ weg} teqaoys ¢¢.9 Atepuodes 4ST “Areuntid 4s~ wey} Jesuoy ¢.9 Arepuodes 4st f jenbe [je Ajaveu solarpuooveg “IVPUOdDES 48ST CY} UG} IeyL0Ys ¢.o Areuutad 48] “£ieiy410} puz 03 [enbe pus ‘Krepuodes ys] weg} raytoys ¢p.Q sr Arwurtad 4sT *£1v14.10} PUuZ UBYY 1041048 T.0 pues Arepuooes 4s] uvyy dozaogs g¢.o Ateuitad 4sT “Are puodes 4ST eq} uvyy ‘1esU0] » O pue’AaeI4.109 4ST oY} UBT] Taso, ZO jSeduo, pues jenbo soepuodes OM4 4se[ ogy, *£avpuo0oes 4S— 04} Uva aeduo, Z-0 sr Arvurta 4s~T oy ‘qeqaoys ¢.9 A1B1410} 48[ oy} £ yenbe ynoqge ][e ole sealivpuodes oy], “£1Bpuodes 4ST OY} UBYY 19dU0T 9.0 SE Aleut -tid 4s] ‘Aaepuooes 4S[ eG} uvy} Joduoy g.[ pus AIBpUOdeS 4Se[ OY} UKyy tesuo] Z OQ SL AABIY104 4ST *Lavuiid 4sT, uvyy cesuot ¢.o Areuniad 481 “Sursvosoep A[pidet urede solseryie} feu0 ysowpuly ueqy sedu0[ [.0 Aaepuooes 4ST *Aavuttad 4st stenbe pus ‘f1e14104 4S UBYy JeyIOYs ¢Z.Q Aavpuodes gar § Aawpuooas yseyT ueyy zedU0] [.0 Atetj}104 481 -£1Bpuodes 48, UBY} AeduO] cg.9 Aawttiad 4sT ‘ATV puodes JST oy} URYyy asesuol Mey} Jo Y0qG ynq “Aoqjo ety uvy} deduo, A[pepioep Sura ouo jo Aiemtig “4809048 ST yor’ Lrepuooas 4ST ULY, 1e910Ys eT. Arvuntad 487 “‘qsedU0[ St yor ery ong ou MA Ot A OFM Ystdody) OVIYA OINg O7rT M. OUT AA OUITM OLN ouIGM orng eqiqs ystfory Avid YstuMorg Ov olng oy ystforp eyig a ong eI ong eyiqa sand AprtR9 yy ‘£84104 JST UBY} AOyAOYS F.Q soltepuooes 4s] | Load AQYSIs ‘oq AA *qsoou0[ PUB JOzV[ UBT} A9jLOYS Z-0 JNOGe SoldBpuodeS 4ST | *** ogg YstAary) *qsoj10ys st yor ‘Aaepuooes 4st 03 [wnbo Areurid 4s] | ** ouIYM ong ‘OUR PT “SMUVNAE JO sioyjBogq JO seg ae 0} jenbay ” 0} yenby “6 I9jI0Ys ¢.0 nee 1oz10Ys8 8.0 2 1941048 T.T soe JO}1OYS F.T at 1941048 9.0 88 103.1048 9.0 eae I9suO| F.0 ae ToqI0Ys 4.0 oe Tog1OYS F-.0 — resu0] G1.0 1oJIOYs ¢@) Joj1oys ¢Z. Joj10Ys ¢e.0 ae IO4LOYS 6.0, “id 19}10Y8 8.0 oC 04 [enbay pee 03 jenby es 1091048 9.0 *solrepmooeg qsomiouuy 0} Avecr “It 48T JO GOLeloy $8.6 0.6 GZ LL G8. £8 41-2 0-4 GZ 8.9 88.4 0.8 20:6 LL 92-6 GL GG 8-8 ¥% 9.8 FG $8 16.6 Ld £6 0-8 BG €.8 V3 0-8 66-6 PL SLE LL L6-% 0-4 96.6 0-8 ‘snsiey| “[eq, “cem[ng ere e[emoy le oe ce e[RUa yy eTP a[eule gy “cc ec ee e[RueT “e 6e e[e ce a[euey d ‘xog a “s] Wong O[34VT suvlmepuy ‘jollley II suvmepuy “s~ mee “" suBULepUY ‘ueepseq ¥ suvmepuy “sy 10d1a “* susmepuy “Sy ssoy ee UeG WOT ““supmepuy “ale(g 310g ves usyoyed ce Azengsy weqoyed Afoary, ‘vajo0ws yg ne Koaey, ‘OAT BIOONW en TIA MI TNOPT tes Tow NOW oe Leeccherdgeked 1g SS TOU NOP, ae uoodyeg wldessvuoy, ‘Nt ‘aoodyeg vee nsag ~£qI[BOOT CORVUS MACRORHYNCHUS, of Wagler. 467 All these specimens are adult and fine ones, except No. 31, which exhibits a tendency to bruninism. I have excluded numbers of specimens, of which the wings were more or less imperfect, the quills not fully developed, &c. I have made all the measurements myself with the greatest eare, and I regret to say, looking to the extremely unsatisfactory character of the results obtained, have wasted an entire day over the work. One word as to my measurements. I measure the tarsi in front from the nick of the joint ; possibly Mr. Sharpe measures be- hind, as my tarsal measurements all seem to run smaller than his. When Mr. Sharpe talks of innermost secondaries I under- stand him to mean the latest secondary or earliest tertiary, which- ever is longest. In these Crows’ wings I reckon only the three last large feathers as tertiaries—the second and third tertiaries being each usually from 0°75 to 1:0 shorter than the preceding one. By the first secondary I mean the one next the last primary, and by the latest secondary I mean the one next the first tertiary. I entered on this laborious review perfectly unbiassed, deter- mined to give my friend Mr. Sharpe’s views the weight that they deserve, and if possible to demonstrate their correctness ; but the conclusion to which this troublesome investigation has led me is utterly adverse to his contention. In the first place, whatever it may be in the live bird (and Mr. Sharpe was not dealing with these,) the relative propor- tions of the first primary to the secondaries in specimens. ap- pears to me an utterly worthless character ; it is not only in males and females shot at the same time that they do not agree, but even at times they differ in the two wings of the same bird—sometimes the first secondary is longest, sometimes the last, sometimes the middle one. Again, sometimes, the first tertiary is the longer, sometimes the last secondary. Under these circumstances it appears to me that nothing remains to separate culmenatus from macrorhynchus and levail- lanti but difference of size, and this is so extremely variable that I for one cannot see my way to any specific separation on this basis. No doubt the bills of the Andaman birds run a great deal larger than those from Simla, and so do those of the birds from Pegu and Tenasserim though to a less degree, but one has only to study carefully the table above given to see how utterly useless this difference in size is as a specific character. There remains for the separation of macrorhyncha and levaillanti, the difference alluded to by Mr. Sharpe, namely the B 10 _ ct Y= 468 CORVUS MACRORHYNCHUS, of Wagler. color of the bases of the feathers of the mantle. This appears to me also to be an unreliable character where this particular Crow is concerned. No doubt white bases to the mantle of the feathers greatly predominate in the Andaman birds, are common in Tenasserim specimens, and more rare in Indian birds ; but again, one has only to look at the above table to see that this character cannot be of specific value. Moreover, I chanced to discover that this character is not always constant in the same bird, and 1 came across specimens in which the bases of the feathers of the mantle were one color, and those of the rump, or the breast of another, say white in one place, greyish-white in another, or grey in one, brownish-grey in another. In my table I have invariably recorded the color of the bases of the feathers of the interscapulary region. In my opi- nion every one of the specimens entered in my table belong to one and the same species ; and, though I have not had the opportunity of examining specimens from the Malay Peninsula and the Archipelago, still, as Mr. Sharpe explains that the only tangible difference between Jevaidlanti and macrorhyncha con- sists in the color of the bases of the feathers—a character which T have found unreliable in this group of races,—I adopt Wagler’s as the oldest name for our Indian and Burmese birds. With reference to this color of the bases of the feathers I see that Mr. Sharpe by this diagnoses validissima and philippina, but certainly in some few of our Indian birds the bases of the feathers are as absolutely pure white as anything can possibly be. Again, I see that he divides the sub-group containing macror- hyncha from enca and its allies, on the plumage of the former having always some shade of green init; but while I quite admit that macrorhyncha (apud nos) cenerally shows in certain lights a certain greenish tinge on the outer webs of the earlier pri- maries and their coverts, still we have freshly-moulted speci- mens, which are all purple, and in which I can discover no shade of green. The green shade, I believe, only comes after the fea- thers have been for some time exposed to light and other at- mospheric influences. In moulting birds the green tinge of the old feathers contrasts strongly with the rich violet purple of the new ones. It is rather presumptuous on my part to say so ; but I really think that Mr. Sharpe would have done better to unite the whole of his genus Corone with Corvus. Recurring to our Indian and Burmese birds I notice that there is an extraordinary amount of variation in the extent to which the tails of these are rounded or graduated. For instance, in one Ootacamnud bird, there is only a difference of 0°5 be- tween the longest and shortest tail feathers; in another the ORNITHOLOGICAL NOTES. 469 difference is 1:33 in another 1:5. In one Attock specimen (the feathers are fully developed) it is 2-4; in another 1-0 only. In one Murree bird itis 0°6; in another 1:8. In one Andaman bird it is 0°5 ; in another 16. In one Tenasserim bird it is 1:0; in another 2:0. These are all perfect tails of adults in full plumage, and this shows of how little diagnostic value the extent of the graduation of the tails (a character which has been a good deal insisted on with regard to these Crows) really is. Some specimens show a very decided grey shade upon the nape and upper back ; others from the very same localities killed at about the same time show no trace of this. Some specimens have the whole breast and abdomen distinct- lv greyish and with very little gloss; others Lave these parts almost pure black with a purplish gloss. I think this character is more noticeable, or perhaps, I should say, more common amongst the birds from Attock, Abbottabad and Murree, but still it occurs elsewhere, and is certainly of no specific value. Ai Q.-H- Ornithological Sotes.* By W. E. Brooks, C.E., &c. THERE are a few birds, included in Jerdon’s Birds of India, which do not appear to me to be good species, and [ draw attention to them, hoping that ornithologists, more favourably situated than I am for observation of them in life, may direct their attention specially to these birds, and give us all the in- formation they can about them. It is generally believed that a small sylvine bird matures the first spring after it was hatched. Redstarts, Robins, and Flycatchers have a spotted plumage when they leave the nest. This is moulted the first autumn, and they then put ona plumage like that of the adult bird. Now, the male of Janthia rujilata is a dark blue bird, with rufous flanks and white lower surface ; the female is pale olive brown, with a trace of blue on the shoulder, a greyish blue supercilium, and the tail is dull blue. Now, I don’t know how many pairs that I observed breeding in the Himalayas had males exactly resembling the females; and it is the exception, not the rule, to meet with a blue male. Have we two species closely affined, the females of * IT have not been able to verify some of Mr. Brooks conclusions about some of the Flycatchers he refers to, In fact my specimens lead me to rather different re- sults. —EpD., 8. F. 470 ORNITHOLOGICAL NOTES. which are inseparable ; or, does this bird, unlike the generality of small birds, take more than a year to mature? If the nest- ling has a spotted plumage,—and Texpect it has—a moulting bird passing direct from the spotted to the blue stage would settle the question and show that we have two distinct species. Or, if the young of a blue male could be taken from the nest, and passed through the autumn moult in confinement, and they all passed to the female plumage, the present position "that there is but one species would be established. Dr. Jerdon was doubtful about Gyornis ruficauda being a good species, and he suspected the male to be blue. Ihave seen much ‘of this species, being directed always to it by the full pretty song, and I never saw such a thing as a blue male. The sexes are alike in coloration as in the case of the Nightingale or Garden Warbler. Alseonax latirostris, No. 297 of Jerdon. Should, I think, be struck off the Indian list. We have only one Adseonaw in India that I have seen, viz., Alseonax terri« color, Hodgson. The rufous margins to coverts and tertials are autumnal, and wear away by summer time, when the bird is much faded and more ashy. ‘This species migrates far south, even to the islands of the Indian Ocean, and, of course, it will be found in Southern India. I have only obtained it in the North-West Provinces and at Dinapore on its southern migration. What bird Alseonaz latirostris, Raffles, really is, is an unsettled question. Mr. Hume thinks that A. terricolor is Rafiles’s bird on account of being found in the country from which latirostris was described ; but has the absence of its close ally, A. cinereo- alba, T. & 8., been proved? The latter has been united with latirostris by some. It is the Chinese representative of our terricolor. The two birds are so much alike* that nothing but a most careful examination of the type, if in existence and in good condition, would settle the question. Tor the present the best plan is to avoid the use of Raffles’s term till further lght be obtained. * These two Alseonaa differ as follows :— 1. There is far more black on the lower mandible of cinereoalba, and the bill altogether is much darker. 2. It is of slightly different shape. 3. The tail is shorter. 4. The color of upper plumage is constantly different, ash grey in cinereoalba, and pale brown in terricolor. They are two closely affined birds, and the differences ave slight, but nevertheless they are of value. I have the same insuperable difficulty in uniting the two birds that Ishould have in uniting Aguila vindhiana and A. albicans. Mr. Swinhoe and I compared ats two together, and he agreed with me that they were quite dis- tinct—W. E, B, ORNITHOLOGICAL NOTES, 471 T now come to the first spurious species. Siphia tricolor, Hodgson, This is the young male and the female plumage of Siphia leucomelanura, Hodeson. Like Janthia rujilata, the bird breeds in the brown as well ‘as in the bluedress. I have shot both brown and blue males from the nest, and have dissected many not shot at the nest, and more brown males are met with than blue ones. As is the case with many other species, eastern examples, from Sikhim for instance, retain their brown colour better, and are much less faded than examples from the dry North-West. This difference of tone is also especially observable in Leguloides from the two districts. Experiments, with nestlings of this species, would be valu- able ; for here again there may be two close allies. My own firm conviction, however, is that we have but one species, and that we should strike out Siphia tricolor from the Indian list. Mr. Mandelli came to this conclusion before I did, and directed my attention to it. The result of his observations was that Siphia tricolor was not a species. Erythrosterna leucura, in Jerdon’s list should be Brythros- terna albicilla, Pallas. . leucura, Gm., is South African. It is, I believe, generally well known now that we have both E. parva and L. hyperythra in India. The former is the common bird of the North West, a few being found as far east as Dinapore. East of Benares, albicilla is the prevailing bird. EE. hyperythra appears to be a resident hill species. Erythrosterna pusilla, Blyth. This should be struck out of the Indian list, most decidedly. It is the female (and young male probably) of EZ. maculata, Tickell. This plumage changes much from the autumn to the spring, the rufous portions wearing away, and becoming ashy brown. Dr. Jerdon says: ‘In summer the male assumes a bright ferruginous colour onthe chin and throat.” This is a mistake, as in the ease of Siphia tricolor ; the identification is due to my friend Mr. Mandelli, who took great pains with the question, and sent me a good series killed at different times. Erythrosterna acornaus, Hodgson. A most mysterious bird, but, I think, it ought to be removed from the Indian list. It is evidently a female Muscicapula, perhaps @stigma, but am not certain. Only the examination of the type would decide the matter. At all events in my Hima- 472 REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, B/yth. layan wanderings I have not been able to come across a Muscicapula with both sexes alike, the only birds that come any way near Hodgson’s drawing are females of Muscicapula. No. 591 of Jerdon was intended to describe Jfotacilla_perso- nata, Gould., and is not the true J/. dukhunensis, Sykes. I carefully examined the type of the latter in the Kensington Museum, and it is the bird so like M. alba with the white surrounding the eye 7 communication with that of the lower surface. It is of purer grey on the back than JM. alba, and there is more white on the greater wing-coverts. The large resident species, 1. madaraspatana, is well known. It occurs also in the hiJls, and I obtained it in Cashmere. Mot. personata, Gould. Is a cold-weather visitant, and is grey on the back at all times. The white eye-patch is entirely bounded by black. Change the grey back to a black one, and it becomes the resident hill species, I/. Hodgsoni, Grey, which does not come to the plains. Our fifth and last Indian Motacilla is M. luz- oniensis, with much white on the face ; always a white throat, and the back jet black in summer, and more or less black in adults in winter. It comes plentifully to the plains, but its western limit appears to be somewhere about Buxar. I never got one near Benares, while it is plentiful at Dinapore. In immature birds the greater amount of white on the greater wing-coverts distinguishes it. The face white of /uzoniensis communicates down the side of the neck as in dukhunensis, with the white of the lower surface. I have found both M/. dhukunensis and M. personata generally distributed over the North-West, and have obtained them as far east as Assensole near Raneegunge. I have not observed how much farther east and south they are found. I notice in the last part of Stray Fearuers that the Editor has revised my paper on the Indian Creepers (Certhing) ; and in the alterations I entirely concur. Hemarks on the Genus gicropternns, Blyth. In my revised list of the birds of Tenasserim, (now in type, and to appear, D. V., in the next number ) I have entered all the Micropternt from Mergui, and the more southern portions of the province as Af. drachyurus, Vieill., but it must not be supposed that I, therefore, consider them quite identical with specimens from Java, Sumatra, and the southern portions of REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. 473 the Malay Peninsular. All I mean to indicate is, that they belong to the brachyurus, and not to the phaioceps, type. Typical specimens of these two species are different enough, but they seem to run a great deal into each other; and it may be as well to explain what I understand to be the differences between typical specimens. Typical drachyurus I take to be smaller; wing, say about 4°5 ; bill not exceeding 1:0; the head brownish, chestnut or reddish or earthy brown, not distinctly infuscated; the feathers often more or less paler margined; the feathers of the chin and entire throat much darker than the breast and margined paler; the barrings of the upper surface, and especially of the tail, and of the lower surface generally when adults are compared, much more strongly marked than in phaioceps. In phaioceps the head is more of a greyish or smoky brown, more or less distinctly infuscated ; the pale margined feathers of the chin and throat are much the same color as the breast; the tail bars are much narrower, and in most old birds the entire under surface is immaculate; the wing in phaioceps is usually, except in the Assam and Hastern Bengal race, over 4:75, and the bill over 1°1. There is, however, an extraordinary amount of variation in the several races united under these names, and more especially under the latter. One of these races of phaioceps I formerly distinguished as durmanica, and there are several other races equally distinguishable, but none of them, according to my present views, deserving of specific separation. I will first compare a number of specimens of what I call typical brachyurus (as they are identical with the only Javan specimen I have been able to examine) from the south of the Malay Peninsular, with a number of specimens from Mergui and ‘l'enasserim south of this, to show how far they differ. Locality, Sex. Date. Wing. ae eh Singapore Isd male 4-8-75 45 1:0 L in flesh, 8°75. Head brown; feathers narrowly margined pale rufus ; nape nearly imma- culate; back, bars disappear- ing; rump and upper _ tail coverts curved bars thick; dark tippings of tail feathers, 0° ; five tail bars, 015 broad; large red patch under eye from anterior to posterior an- gle; chin and throat, laterally up to red patch deep brown ; feathers narrowly margined pale yellowish rufous; upper breast immaculate ; rest of low- er parts curved bars thickly set; first or spurious quill with four rufus bars. 474. REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. : Bill t Locality. Sex. Date. Wing. Parekead, Pulo Seban ... fem. 1312-75 4°42 10 L in flesh, 8:3. Head pale brown- ish rufous, margined paler ; nape nearly immaculate; rest of upper parts closely barred with nearly straight bars; dark tips to tail 0°3 long; five dark transverse bars; whole chin and throat deep brown, broadly margined with pale yellowish; entire breast immaculate; rest of lower parts with close curved bars. Penang cia at 74 4°3 099 Head nearly uniform brownish rufous; aportion of nape unbarred; rest of upper sur- face closely set with imperfect straight bars; chin and _ throat dull rufous brown; feathers with very narrow pale fulyous edgings; dark tippings of tail 0°6; five broad transverse bars; breast immaculate; rest of lower parts obscurely mark- ed with traces of curved bars. Malacca ee ers <6) 4:3 10 Head asin No. 1. Entire up- per surface broadly and strong- ly marked with straight bars ; black tippings to tail 0°35; five bars about 1:12 broad; chin and throat as in No. 2; breast and abdomen immacu- late; flanks and lower tail coverts closely barred. Malacca .. male 3 44 0:99 Head _ pale brown; feathers nar- rowly margined with pale ru- fous; occipital crest immacu- late ; entire upper surface closely banded ; chin and throat and rest of lower parts as in preceding. Malacca erties - 4°32 1:02 Entire head and crest very pale earthy brown, here and there rather darker brown centres of feathers visible ; entire up- per parts very closely banded; chin and throat brown, not so dark as in any of the preced- ing feathers, very narrowly margined with yellowish white, and with shaft stripes of the same color; entire under sur- face immaculate. .. fem. 6°52 0:92 Head as in preceding, but Malacee Je a slightly browner, bere on interscapulary region nearly obsolete; rest of upper sur- face very broadly barred; chin and throat deep brown, with extremely narrow pale rufes- cent margins and shaft stripes ; breast and upper abdomen immaculate ; lower abdomen obscurely, flanks and lower tail coverts strongly barred. REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. 475 Bill from Forehead, Malacca «. male ‘74 4°25 099 Head dull earth brown, only tips of crest feathers rufes- cent ; interscapulary region im- maculate ; rest of upper surface barred ; chin and throat sooty black, with traces of whitish margins to the feathers; low- er surface immaculate ; traces of bars on lower tail coverts and flank. Bankasoon ... ,, 16-4-77 44 1:08 Head and upper parts like first Singapore male; lower parts like No. 4 Malacca female, but dark tips 0°3, tail with six 0:08 bands. Bankasoon -13) 55, 4-0-0 4°67 1:06 Head nearly uniform with back, but, of course, unbarred with- out any perceptible paler mar- gin or infuscation; chin and throat unicolorous with the breast, with narrow yellowish margins to the feathers; low- er parts nearly immaculate. but with barrings on flanks and lower tail coverts; tail bars 5:01 in width. Bankasoon ... 4 8-6-77 47 11 Head precisely as in No. 1; tail tippings 06 five 0:1 bands; chin, throat, and entire lower parts precisely as in No. 2 trom Pulo Sebun, but throat a trifle duller. Bankasoon ... ,, 16-6-77 4:73 1:16 Upper parts precisely asin second Bankasoon male ; tail tippings 0-4; six tail bands about 09 wide; lower parts almost precisely as in No. 2. Bankasoon ... fem. 14-6-77 4°42 1:02. Identical with Penang female, except the barrings on upper back are rather cioser and tail bands rather nar ower. Locality. Ser. Date. Wing. Bankasoon ... 1, 8-6-77 46 114 Head as in first Singapore male; upper surface more closely barred, tail tippings 0:4; five O1 bands; chin and throat dull brown, with extremely narrow, almost obsolete, dingy fulvous margins, as in Penang females. Rest of lower parts as in first Singapore Bankasoon ... », 24-477 462 1:13. Head nearly uniform as in Pe- nang female ; general tint very deep chestnut; whole upper parts, except back of neck, strongly banded with straight bars; tail tippings 0-3; only four imperfect about 0-123 bands; chin and throat cho- colate brown with conspicuous, though narrow, bright fulvous Bit 476 Locality. Sex. Date. fem. Malawoon ... male 11-4-77 Malawoon ... ,, 11-4-77 Pakchan een ” 2741-75 Pakchan ... fem, 24-1-75 Wing. 471 4°52 4°75 46 Bill from Forehead. 116 0:99 11 1:05 REMARKS ON THE GENUS MYCROPTERNUS, Blyth. margins to the feathers; up- per breast imperfeetly barred ; rest of breast and lower parts very closely barred with near- ly straight bars. First: or bastard primary with three rufous bands. Note, that in preceding specimens some have the first or bastard pri- mary dusky, with 4 or 3 rufous bands; in one there is only 2; in others this primary may be said to be rufous, tipped dus- ky, and with 2 or 3 dusky bands. This primary varies much both in width and length. Head perfectly uniform rufous brown, no infuseation, and scarcely a trace of any paling at the margins of the feathers ; nape and entire upper parts closely barred with straight bars; tail tippings 0-4, six transverse 0:15 bars; large red patch under the eye, as in all previous males as describ- edin first Singapore male. In no specimen any red above the eye in the half circle from anterior to posterior angle; feathers of chin and throat uniform with breast, with narrow yellowish white margins, and narrow dark brown lines inside these; base of the threat in front imma- culate, rest of the lower parts thickly set with curved bars. Crown deep brown ; the feathers obscurely margined with a paler and more rufous brown ; ceciput, nape, and entire upper parts closely set with straight transverse dusky bars; tail tippings 0°6; five transverse 0-12 bars; chin and throat deep brown with narrow pale rufescent margins to feathers ; lower parts as in preceding, but duskier. Entire bird precisely like first Singapore male, except that 16 is larger, has a greater amount of barring on the upper back, and that the tail bars are narrower. Head as in Penang female ; nape and entire upper parts so closely set with straight transverse bars that but little chestnut re- mains visible; chin and throat asin first Singapore male; breast immaculate; rest of REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. 477 Locality. Sex. Dats. Wing. stb lower parts very closely set with broad nearly straight transverse bands; tail tip- pings 055; five 0°13 trans- verse bands. Mergui we fom. 2-12-74 4:6 ral Head and nape as in first Singa- pore male; upper parts rather more stronglly barred; tail tip- pings 0-4; five 01 transverse bands; feathers of chin and throat brown, and not quite so dark as in first Singapore male, with comparatively broad fulvous margins; lower parts almost inmmaculate, with transverse bars, however on the flanks, vent, and lower tail coverts. I consider that all these Southern Tenasserim birds may be accepted as brachyurus. They run a good deal larger than my Malayan specimens, and the banding on the tail is, as a rule, much narrower, but they have the chestnut brown, not the grey brown, or smoky brown head. The adults, for the most part, retain a great deal of barring about the lower surface, and the central portions of the throat feathers are a very dark brown, and not nearly concolorous with the breast. At first sight this larger race of brachyurus is very close to gularis, of which the wings run 4°72 ; 4°85; 4:75 ; 4°68; 4:7; 4°71; 4°6; 4:78; 4:85; 4:8; 4-7, measuring specimens at random from various parts of the Nilghiris, Ceylon, and Travancore. But gularis has the head more or less infuscated, like phaioceps, the bands on the tail very narrow, and usually six in number, against five, as a rule (for it varies) in drachyurus and phaioceps, and the whole lower surface in the great majority of the adults unbarred. Besides this, while it agrees with brachyurus in the dark centres to the throat feathers, the breadth of the stripe of these dark-centered feathers is much less in gularis than in badius, and this point alone suffices to separate it. To return, we have not explored the country thoroughly between Tavoy and Mergui, and do not know exactly at what point the two forms meet, or whether they at all intermingle ; but at Tavoy and everywhere northward of this we meet with nothing but specimens of the phaioceps’ general type. If we trace the species up from Tavoy northwards to the head of the Assam Valley on the one hand, and to Dehra Dhoon on the other, we shall observe very great local variations in dimensions, which are, to a great extent, coupled with correspondipg variations in general tone and character of plumage. 478 REMARKS ON THE GENUS MYCROPTERNUS, B/yth. IT bave measured between 60 and 70 specimens taken at random from various localities, and subjoin the dimensions of wings and bills, the latter measured from the forehead to the point :— Tavoy ? oe Meeta Myo vee Amherst aa Karope ioe Moulmein “50 Wimpong Thatone Beeling Kogo Kankaryit M yawadee Paphoon oe Rangoon one E Pevgu Hills ace Thayetmyo odb Tipperah es Dacca ° Ditto Suddya Ditto Sikim Ditto Ditto Ditto Ditto Tirhoot Kumaon Bhabur N. Rohilkund Kast Dhoon Debra The Tavoy birds are characterized ole oO ° eos Ee See aa TE, ATaa: nr © oi > Od 482 B. W. B. 1:06 F 47 1-03 ie » £9 1:13 1-03 » 49 10 1:2 » 49 12 113 a a 1:2 » See - 1:06 1:18 9, ,0;00) cs 1:24 » 50 1:25 1:26 ry LOY 1:03 » 50 12 > ell 117 Owe 12 1:23 1:12 ay Al ase pp PL 1:16 2 49 26 hi , 609 «112 ae » 48 1:07 Wave lei » 502 1:23 1:12 » 502 1:26 1:12 » 505 1:12 35 » *81 1:12 112 » 48 112 1:27 ro 5 Ables kl 10 » 46 0:98 11 ” 45 «10 1:13 » 46 103 1:05 112 7 gon Gl all » 48 1:07 1:12 » 49 116 iat 5 48 11 11 111 a: » 49 1:12 112 een 43, (O80) ake 1:15 13 1:32 by a dusty rufous brown head, very different from the infuscated head of the Lower Bengal, Assam, and Sikhim birds, and by the total absence of markings on the lower surface of every adult. The Amherst birds, and in fact all those in the list from Amherst to Pahpoon, are brighter colored birds than any of the preceding, with the head more like that of brachyurus, and with much more mark- ings on the lower surface than in what I consider typical phatoceps. It will be noticed that the Tipperah, Dacea, and Assam birds again run very small, almost as small as brachyurus ; they are dingy colored birds with very strongly infuscated heads. REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. 479 The Sikhim birds are similar but much larger than the plains’ birds, and when you go towards the extreme western limits of the species in the Kumaon Bhabur, Northern Rohilkund, the Dhoon, &e., you come upon a huge race almost more distinct from phaioceps than the latter is from drachyurus. It is characterized not only by its size, but by the almost entire absence of infuscation on the head, and by the fact that the adults are not only absolutely immaculate below, but also lose all markings on the upper surface, on the back, scapulars, and rump, which, coupled with the bright chestnut of their plumage, gives them a very different appearance from all the other races of phaioceps. There are, in fact, six recognizable races: the Tavoy or Southern Tenasserim, the Central and Northern Tenasserim, the Northern Pegu (described by me under the name of bur- manicus (Pr. A. 8. B., 1872, 71), the Lower Bengal and Assam, the Sikhim and Bhotan, the Dhoon, Kumaon Bhabur, and Northern Rohilcund race, and it is not impossible that some ornithologists may, hereafter, separate all these as species or sub- species. . Sundevall (Consp. Av. Pic., 88.) admits seven species of this genus, viz. :— Phaioceps, Bly; gularis, Jerd., brachyurus, Viei/l. (from Java) ; squamigularis, Sund. (Malacca) ; badius, Raf. ; badiosus, Tem. (Borneo) ; and fokiensis, Swink. (Fokien, China) to which ~ has to be added Holroydi, Swink. Of these, squamigularis, Sund., is unquestionably the true badius. Malaccan, Singapoor and Sumatran specimens are quite inseparable, and their length in the flesh 7s somewhat more than 8 inches English, at times 83. The badius, Raffles apud Sund., is brachyurus, if this be considered distinct; but to judge from the only specimen I have examined, Javan birds are not speci- fically separable from Sumatran and Malayan ones. Of Bornean specimens I have seen none, but from what Count Salvadori (V. di B., 58), Mr. Swinhoe (P. Z.8., 1683, 267), and others say about the red extending as dots above as well as below the eye, I should think badiosus was perhaps separable. I have just carefully examined over fifty males of the brachyurus and phaioceps types, most of them superb specimens, and in not one is there the slightest trace of any red above the eye. The red extends up as high behind as the posterior angle of the eye, and in front as the anterior one, but in no single instance is there a single dot of red above these points. The Marquis of Tweeddale says (Jbis., 1877, 290) that in Malabar specimens, 7.e., in gularis, the eye of the male may be observed to be entirely surrounded by red points or dots. 480 REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. This, however, must be altogether exceptiunal, as in our large series, from all parts of the Neilgherries, the Malabar Coast, the Assamboo Hills, and Ceylon, not one single specimen exhibits one single speck of red above a line drawn through the two angles of the eye. As to the Chinese species I have only seen the Foochow form, but I think that, according to Mr. Swinhoe’s own showing, his two supposed species are not separable from drachyurus and phaioceps unless we agree to break our Indian and Burmese phatoceps up into five or six species, and similarly sub-divide Tenasserim, Malaccan, Sumatran and Javan races. As for the single Foochow specimen that I have examined I am unable to separate it from some of the Southern Tenasserim brachyurus. I would reduce the number of the species of this genus to three or at most four. Pale margined I.—NEARLY cCoNCOLOROUS WITH feathers of Breast, (head usually more the throat. or less infuscated) we» phaioceps. I].— MARKEDLY DARKER THAN BREAST, 1. &tripe of pale margined throat feathers not extending laterally beyond the rami of the mandible (head usually 9 more or less infus¢ated) ... = gularis. 2. Stripe of pale margined throat feathers extending laterally over the rami of the mandible up towards the eye (head usually not infuscated). (a) Male with no red above a line each drawn through angles of eye ... 9? achyurUus. (b) Male with eye entirely surrounded . with red points ns a: badiosus. Dimensions and amount of markings in all these species very variable, not only according to sex and age, but also according to locality, the majority of specimens in one small tract running much smaller, in a neighbouring one much larger ; the general tone of colour in one locality much brighter, in another much duller ; the adults of both sexes in one place retaining almost universally much more, and in another much less, of the bandings characteristic in their fullest intensity of immaturity, and so on, but these variations being nowhere, when really large series are examined, so constant or so susceptible of exact definition as to warrant their acceptance as a basis for specific separation. The specific snonymy would, according to my view, be some- what as follows :— 1. M. Paatocers, Bly., J. A. 8. B., XIV, 195, 551, 1845. rufus, apud J. EL. Gray, Ill. Ind. Zool., I. t. 29, f. 2, 1832. badius, Hodgs., Gr. Zool. Miscl., 1844, 85, No. 169, nec. Laff. REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. 481 brachyurus, Hodgs., Cat. B. Nepal, 117, 1844, nec. Vieill. rufonotus, eé rufinotus, Malh., 1844, in Mus. MSS. non descr. Mons Pies-H:-le Pl. XLVI, f. 1, 2, 3, 1862. blythi, Math. Rev. et Mag. Zool., 1849, 534. ? holroydi, Swinh., Ibis, 1870, 95, exr-Hainan. (non vide). 2s) M.-qunanis;, Jerd, Madr Journ. SeyNo) 3); £91 Se soe Big. J.-A. De: DB. AV, 17} 18463 Cat. Mins A. 8) B. 61, 1849. | phaiopicus, Malh., Mus. Brit. MSS. 1845. jerdonii, Malh., Rev. Zool. 1849, 535; Mon. Pic. IT, 3, Pl. XLVII, f. 1-4, 1862. phaioceps, Layard. A. & M. N. H., XIII, 450, 1854, nec. Bly. ex-Ceylon. 3. M. Bracuyurus, Vieill. N., Dict. XVI, 103, 1818, ea-Java. badius, afi., Tr. L. S; XIII, 289, 1821, ex-Sumatra. phacopus, Malh., M.S. Mus. E. I. C. ? 1844. hemidactylus, Vatz. MSS. ricordi, Géne. Mus. Tur. fokiensis, Swink. P. Z. 8., 1863, 87, ex-Fokien, China. squamigularis, Sund., Consp. Av. Pic. 89, 1866, ex- Malacca. 4, M. RApviosus, Tem., Bp. Consp. Av. I. 113, 1850, ex-forneo (non-vidt). In conclusion I must notice that no English ornithologist, who accepts the British Association Code, has any right to supersede Blyth’s narae phaioceps for our. Indian species, by Malherbes of rujinotus. This latter appears to have remained a museum MS. name for long after Blyth’s name was pub- lished, and indeed to have never been properly defined and published until subsequent to Malberhe’s other name. Blythii had been published (Rev. et Mag. Zool., 1849, 534), so that even continental ornithologists should apparently, if they reject phaioceps, adopt the name Blythii and not rufinotus. The only ground for rejecting Blyth’s name is its hybridity, a valid ground to continental ornithologists, but no ground at all,as 1 have shown (ante, p. 279) tothose who accept the British Code. The only doubt that seems to me to exist as to the retention of Blyth’s name consists in the fact that Mr. J. E. Gray applied the name of rufus to our Indian species thirteen years previous to Blyth’s naming it. True, a mistake was involved in this name, but the fact remains that this name rufus was the first distinctive appellation bestowed upon this species, and that no other species of this genus bears this title; and I, therefore, 482 NOTES ON SOME BIRDS IN MR. MANDELLI’S COLLECTION apprehend that in strictness we ought to retain the name rufus for the Indian and Burmese birds. A. OH. Motes ow some Birds in Me. Wandelle’s Collection trom Sikkim, Bhutan, and Tibet. By W. T. Buanrorp. Ar Mr. Mandelli’s request, I have written out a few notes on some of the birds lately procured by him. The specimens mentioned have, in all doubtful cases, been compared by Mr. Hume with skins in his own collection. A. nisus. A. melanoschistus. The following are the lengths of the wings of 23 Sparrow- Hawks in Mr. Mandelli’s collection. The specimens are not sexed :— Hight smaller specimens, supposed males, with wings respec- tively 8°35; 8:35; 84; 84; 8:4; 8:65. Seventeen larger supposed to be females; 9°55; 9°55; 9:6; 9°6; 9°55 9-755 -9°%55°9'°3; 9°83; 9°S 5 0°85-5 105. FOO as; 10°05 ; 10°05 ; 10:1. Several of the birds are very dark coloured. The question whether A. melanoschistus is really distinguish- able from A. nisus appears far from solution. If the typical male of the former, with a wing 9°75 and tail 8°5, was correctly sexed (and it was determined by Captain Marshall, see Hume, Scrap Book, pp. 129, 131) there is an end to the matter, since the difference in size between the sexes would be so very much smallerin A. melanoschistus than in the European Sparrow-Hawk that the two must, I think, be considered distinct. But there is no point concerning birds, at least this is my experience, in which there is greater liability to error than in sexing ; and unless Mr. Hume has additional specimens of large males, correctly sexed, I should be inclined to class the original male as doubtful. It will then be seen that the above measurements, taking those of the supposed females, only go a long way towards bridging the difference between the average European Sparrow-Hawk with a wing 9°5, according to Sharpe (Cat. Ac. Brit. Mus., p. 134) and the types of A. melanoschistus, with wings from 10-12 -to 10°5, (Scrap Book, pp. 129-130). The variation is furtber shown in the opposite direction by the series of females from the British Islands, measured by Sharpe and Dresser (Birds of Kurope, Pt. 1X). In these the wings measure 8°8 to 9°3. FROM SIKKIM, BHUTAN, TIBET. 483 Spizeetus kieneri. A young bird, apparently in changing plumage, differs from the adult in being browner and less uniform in colour above, and in almost wanting the ferruginous abdomen and the stripes on the lower plumage. In still younger birds there is probably no trace of either. The following is a description of the plumage :— Upper parts blackish brown ; most of the feathers with slightly paler margins, and some of the buffy white basal portions of the feathers shewing about the back of the neck ; rump hair- brown, a distinct buff supercilium running back to the nape, and the forehead buff; cheeks below the eye with elongated black spots; ear-coverts blackish brown; primaries obsoletely banded outside, distinctly within; central rectrices )hlackish with scarcely distinct narrow black transverse bands ; outer tail feathers paler and transversely banded with black; lower parts buffy white, a few lanceolate streaks on the lower neck and sides of the breast, and the shafts of the abdominal feathers black, forming very narrow lines. A little ferruginous on the belly ; thigh-coverts dull ferruginous; flanks black behind and ferruginous in front, with broad black central streaks to the fea- thers ; under side of wing white. Wing, 15:25; tail, 8-25; bill from gape, 1°4, The specimen was obtained in Native Sikkim in April 1876. Bulaca newarensis. A nestling of this species, about half grown, has the feathers of the crown and hind-reck earthy brown, with broad fluffy dirty-white edges; ruff deep wood brown with a purplish tinge; cheeks behind eye pale wood brown ; loral bristles and bristly feathers around eye nearly black; feathers of back, rump and wing-coverts light brown, banded with buffy white, and with finer white tips; rectrices hair-brown, banded with regular narrow transverse paler bars, which are closer together and paler in colour towards the end, and the extreme tips are white ; primaries hair-brown, with paler transverse bands, those on the outer webs not correspending to those on the inner, the bars being closer together towards the tips, which is white ; secondaries paler, and the bars closer together ; chin bristles blackish ; behind them are some earthy brown feathers with pale margins ; throat pure white, and all the remaining portion of the under parts, including the thigh covers, dirty white, with a tendency to dark bands on the flanks. Wing, 11; tail 6 inches. Cuculus striatus (C. Himalayanus, Vigors.) C. mi- cropterus. It has been frequently pointed out that these closely-allied species may always be distinguished by the size of the bills. Be 1 484 NOTES ON SOME BIRDS IN MR. MANDELLI’3 COLLECTION This has been recently noticed again by Mr. Hume, in Stray Fearuers, III., p. 79. Mr. Mandelli called my attention to the circumstance that in his large series there is a perfect gradation from the smallest bill of C. striatus to the largest of C. mircropterus. On looking through the specimens I found that the two species could be distinguished with one precaution. Birds in the first plumage must be compared with those of the other species at the same age and adults with adults. C. mierop- terus in its first season’s plumage has a bill no larger than that of an adult C. striatus. Cyornis rubeculoides ? Var. Amongst numerous specimens of Cyornis rubeculoides from the Dooars of Bhotan, Mr. Mandelli has received nine specimens closely resembling the female of that species, but still constant- ly distinguished by several marked characters. As the speci- mens have not been sexed, it is impossible to say whether all are females or not. Mr. Mandelli is much disposed to con- sider this species new; he has never seen any passage between it and C. rubeculoides. Mr. Hume, however, has shewn me very similar specimens (females) from Burmah, and has assured me that the males are not specifically separable from those of C. rubeculoides. In these specimens from the Bhutan Dooars, the throat is always whitish, whilst the breast is less rufous and more oli- vaceous than in typical C. rubeculoides ; the abdomen is dull olivaceous, scarcely paler than the breast, and with only a little white about the middle, instead of being white throughout. The upper surface is darker; the head and hind-neck very grey and well distinguished from the back, whilst in C. rubecu- loides the difference is trifling ; the sides of the head in the Dooar birds are greyer and the lores whitish instead of olivaceous ; the bill, as a rule too, is longer, but this difference is not constant. BErythrosterna parva. A specimen from the Bhotan Dooars, shot in January of the present year, belongs to this species. It may be at one dis- tinguished from QZ, albicilla, (£. leucura, of Jerdon) of which several specimens were obtained at the same time, by its grey head and hind-neck, and by the red breast retained in winter and descending much lower than in F. albicilla. This is probably the most eastern locality yet recorded for the European E. parva. Merula kessleri. Przevalski, Birds of Mongolia. Rowley’s Ornith., Misc., Pt. VI, p. 199.,pl. LIV, 11, A female Blackbird, obtained by Mr. Mandelli from Tibet, where, according to the label, it was shot in November, appears FROM SIKKIM, BHUTAN, TIBET. 485 to belong to the above species. Mr. Davison, who had been looking at Przevalski’s figures, recognized the species ; it is a peculiar rather dull-coloured form, with a ferruginous abdomen. The following is a description :— Upper parts of head and hind-neck brownish black ; the feathers with brown edges ; sides of head, including lores, dull brown, passing down into dingy white ; ear-coverts dark brown with whitish mesial streaks ; upper part of back greyish earthy brown, divided by a distinct line from the darker neck ; rump rather paler and tinged with ferruginous ; scapulars blackish with the broad margins of greyish brown, tinged with rufous ; quills and wing-coverts brownish black, but secondaries (tertiaries) dark brown ; the margins of the secondaries earthy grey, those of the coverts brown; tail feathers blackish, central pair browner ; chin dirty white, passing into pale brown on the throat ; all the feathers, including those on both sides below the ear-coverts, with blackish spots near the tips ; breast earthy brown with a ferruginous wash ; abdomen similar at first, but paler, divided by a distinet line from the breast, and becoming distinctly ferruginous behind; bill and legs in the dried skin brown. Wing, 5:7 ;* tail 4°3 ; tarsus, 1-45; culmen, 1:1; bill from nostril, 0°55. In the male, represented on Mr. Rowley’s plate (a very poor figure, evidently copied from a bad drawing), the bill is yellow as in the other Blackbirds; the head, neck, and breast, much black- er than in the female, and the pale earthy grey back and anterior abdomen form a pale ring round the body, the lower abdomen being deep ferruginous. Carpodacus rubicilla. A specimen of a female obtained from Tibet, north of Sikkim, in December 1876, adds considerably to the known range of this species. Sterna tibetana, Saunders. P. Z. 8. 1876, p. 649. One specimen, killed July 1875, in the region of Tibet imme- diately north of Sikkim, agrees perfectly with the description given by Mr. Howard Saunders, being darker in colour both above and below than S. fluviatilis, (S. hirundo of Temminck aud of Jerdon’s Birds of India, but not of Linnaeus,) with a distinct vinous tint on the breest and abdomen and rather * The tail is measured as usual from the insertion of the central tail feathers; the eulmen is from the rise of the skull to the tip of bill. In merula and many other birds in which the bare culmen runs back between the feathers, no good measurement of the bill from the forehead can be made. 486 NOTES ON SOME BIRDS IN MR. MANDELLI’S COLLECTION smaller bill and feet. The following description may serve to identify the species should it be found within Indian limits. Whole head above and nape black; lores, sides of head, below the eye and the hind-neck immediately behind the black nape white, the last passing at once into the ashy grey of the whole mantle; primary quills with white shafts, except near the tip; first primary with the outer web black, inner web dusky near the shaft with a broad white inner margin; the tip of both webs dusky ; the second quill has the outer web ashy grey, the inner web dusky near the shafts, white on the inner margin, except towards the blackish tip, from which a dusky band runs up the inner edge of the feather ; the third, fourth, and fifth quills the same, except that margin runs up both edges; remainder of the quills the same colour as the mantle ; the secondaries having a narrow terminal white border; rump and tail white; the outer webs of all rectrices, except the central pair, grey, being darkest on the outermost pair; chin and throat white; breast and abdo- men pale grey, with a distinct pinkish hue; wing-lining and under tail-coverts white; bill red; the tip of both mandibles dusky ; legs red; claws dark coloured. Wing, 11:5; tail, 5:8, deeply forked; the outer rectrices exceeding the central pair by 2°6; tarsus 0°77; culmen 1°65; bill from front, 1°25. Podiceps albescens, Mandelii, Sp. Nov. Mr. Mandelli has had, for some years in his collection, a little Grebe, shot on one of the lakes in Native Sikkim. The skin has hitherto been looked upon as that of an albino of P. minor, but Mr. Mandelli tells me that he has for a long time greatly doubted the identification ; and after examining and com- paring the skin, I am of opinion that it is not an albino, and I am convinced that it cannot be P. minor. The plumage of the body is chiefly white, but there are brown central streaks to the feathers of the back and to the secondary quills, and these marks are perfectly regular, not in patches ; the bill and legs are as dark as in P. minor, and the feathers of the posterior abdomen, although silky white at the tips, are grey at the base; the pri- mariesareall greyish brown; the forehead and chin dusky black, and the throat and hind head all round ferruginons. Now, all these characters taken together are decidedly adverse to the idea that the skin is that of an albino; and the man who shot the bird declared that there were a pair of them similarly co- loured. Of course but little dependence can be placed upon this, though it is favourable to the probabilities of the bird being a pale coloured species. The distinction from P. minor is shewn by the ferruginous coloration encircling the hinder part of the head completely : in the little Grebe, in full freeding plu- FROM SIKKIM, BHUTAN, TIBET. 487 mage, the nape appears always to be dusky, and the ferruginous colouration not to extend across behind the head ; the dimensions of P. albescens and P. minor appear identical. The following is an account of the supposed new species :— Description.—Forehead, sides of the head as far back as the hinder part of eyes and chin blackish brown; lores and base of the lower mandible beneath the lores naked, and doubtless brightly coloured in the living bird; the whole hinder head, nape and throat, forming a complete ring, rich chestnut, a little paler below ; hinder part of neck pale brown ; the feathers tipped white ; sides of neck white; back white; the feathers with narrow central earthy brown stripes, extending throughout the feather ; these stripes disappear on the rump, but are well mark- ed on the scapulars, a few of the latter being almost entirely earthy brown except at the tip; primary quills earthy brown with narrow white tips; secondaries white, with dark central stripes ; wing-coverts white, some of the larger with faint me- sial stripes ; whole under-parts from the throat pure silky white ; bill in dried skin blackish ; tips of both mandibles whitish ; legs brown (probably olive when fresh). Wing, 3°75; tarsus, 1°3 ; mid toe, 1°8 culmen, 0°96 ; bill from front, 0°84. Movelties? Arachnothera simillima, Sp. Nov. Extremely like A flavigaster, Eyton, but smaller, somewhat yellower above and below, with a much smaller bill and distinguished at once by the rami of the lower mandible not meeting to form the angle of the gonys till within 0°6 of the point. Havine only a single native skin of this species I should have hesitated to describe it were it not for the marked structural difference alluded to at the close of the diagnosis. In flavigaster and most of the Arachnotheras (including with these Arachnoraphis) with which I am acquainted, the chin terminates at the junction of the rami of the lower mandible in an obtuse rather rounded curve. This curve is distant in flavigaster, the species which our present species most closely resembles, from 1 to 1*2 inches, according to sex, from the tip of the lower mandible. We have a very large series of our own collecting of both sexes, and there is no doubt on this point. In chrysogenys, of which we have an equally large series, it is about 1:0 inch; in robusta about 1-7 inch; in what I call crassirostris, but which Captain Shelley 488 NOVELTIES. informs me is Zemminckii, it is 09; in longirostra it is 0°8 to 0-9 ; in modesta, 1:0 to 1:1; butin this supposed new species the chin ends in a comparatively sharp point only 0:6 from the tip of the lower mandible. Dimensions from skin.—Lenegth, 65 ; wing, 3:8; tail, 2:0; tarsus about 0°9 ; bill at front from forehead, 1°38. The plumage is precisely, so far as I can discover, that of flavigaster, brighter and yellower than the great run of speci- mens of this species, but not brighter than one very bright specimen that we obtained at Pulo Seban. ‘There is, however, an obscure yellow line down the centre of the chin and throat not observable in any of our very large series ; the feet, too, in the skin, though I attach but little value to this, are extremely pale yellowish white, quite different from, and much paler than, those of any of our specimens, and besides our own collections we have numerous native prepared skins; but ¢he difference is the difference of the bill ; not only is the bill much shorter but it is actually scarcely half the breadth at the base. At the base, where the feathers end on the lores, it is only 0°22 broad; the bill of flavigaster in a fine specimen similarly measured is over 0-4. It is narrower even, or quite as narrow as in the much smaller A. chrysogenys, and it is much shorter than in that species. Between the nostrils the culmen is even more flattened and rounded than in flavigaster, but beyond them the ridge of the culmen is more sharply angulated than in chrysogenys ; but the point by which it may be at once separated is the extraordi- nary length and sharpness of the chin angle, already fully dis- cused. This bird may not be new, but I am unable to identify it; and I think it probable that owing to its extreme similarity to the common flavigaster it may hitherto have escaped obsery- ation. Cyornis albo-olivacea Sp. Nov. Above rufescent olivaceous, most rufescent posteriorly ; entire lores white or greyish white : lower surface snow white, with an olive grey pectoral band, and sides and flanks tinged with the same color; legs and feet white and small; bill large, 07 at front; wing 3:1. We obtained in the neighbourhood of Malacca a single spe- cimen of a Cyornis, which appears to me to be undescribed, and for which, in the preparation of a catalogue of our Malayan birds, I find it necessary to propose some name. Unfortunately our specimen was not sexed, and it may be a female, but I believe it to be a male of a speciesin which the two sexes do NOVELTIES. 489 not differ. Whether male or female it differs conspicuously from all the following species, all of which are represented in my museum. Cyornis unicolor ; Blyth, Cyornis cyanoplia, * Boie; Cyornis rubeculoides, Vigors; Cyornis elegans, Tem; Cyornis Tickellie Blyth; Cyornis ruficauda, Sev ; Cyornis Mandellii, Hume ; Cyornis olivacea, Hume; Cyornis magnirostris, Blyth ; Cyornis pallipes Jerd ; Cyornis vivida, Swinhoe. It is also clearly distinct, to judge from descriptions, measure- ments, and figures from Cyornis banyumas, Horsf. Cyornis rujifrons, Wall, and Cyornis cantatrix, Tem. Tt will not do for Cyornis beccariana, as the wing is too large, and the feet, even in the dry skin, almost white, whereas Salvadori says that in his species the feet are dusky.+ Neither will it do for Cyornis simplex, Blyth, Ibis, 1870, 165, with which it agrees in its white lores, but differs in its much larger size (wing 3°1; agains 2°75 ¢ and 2°65 9 of simplex) and in its snowy white chin, throat and abdomen, and white legs and feet. Certainly, after carefully looking into the matter, the species appears to me to be new. It is a true Cyornis ; the bill almost absolutely identical with that of Cyornis magnirostris, from every stage of which it differs conspicuously in other respects. Dimensions from skin.—Length, 6:25; tail, 2°9; wing, 3:1; bill from forehead straight to point, 0°7 ; tarsus, 0°65. Entire bill black ; legs and feet white ; claws very pale horny ; entire lores white or greyish white ; forehead, occiput, crown, cheeks, ear-coverts, entire mantle, a slightly rufescent olive brown, slightly more rufescent on the rump; tail rufous brown, margined with dull pale ferruginous on the outer webs ; wings rather pale hair brown; all the feathers but the primaries margined broadly on the outer webs with the color of the back, slightly more rufescent on the secondaries and tertiaries, which are almost entirely of this color ; chin, throat, upper breast, abdomen, vent, lower tail-coverts, wing-lining and _ axillaries ure white; a broad greyish olivaceous pectoral band ; sides tinged with the same color. SS SSS * ©. cyanpolia 1s, as Blyth remarks, extremely closeto xunicolor, but assuming" our specimens killed in the southern part of the Malay Penirsula to be true cyanopolia, this differs from wnicolar of Sikkim by its decidedly smaller bill, its more slender feet and claws, and the somewhat brighter hue of the frontal and supercilary feathers. Moreover, the shafts of the tail feathers in wnicolor are almost white on their under surface, while in cyanopolia they are brown. + No doubt, Blyth, Ibis, 1870, 165, savs the legs are pale, but Salvadori may be presumed the best authority, as it was he who described the species, 490 NOVELTIES. Hierococcyx nanus, Sp. Nov. Like WH. fugax, but wings 5:5 to 57, and with a double dark moustache on each side. I am obliged to assign provisionally the above name to the Southern Tenasserim birds, as I am quite unable to reconcile their dimensions with those of the Malaccan form identified by Cabanis and others with /fugax, or with those of any other L[ierococcyx of which I can find a record. In fugax, which it most closely resembles, the wings vary from 6°9 to 7:7, whereas in our Tenasserim series the wings vary from 5°5 to 5°7. The plumage appears to me to be almost identical; at any rate I have only been able to hit upon one single, apparently constant, point of difference, but not only do the wings average nearly 2” inches shorter, but the bills are literally scarcely half the budk of those of Malaccan fugax. None of our specimens, all procured in the neighbourhood of Bankasoon at the end of April and May, were, I regret to say, measured in the flesh, as Davison was elsewhere at.the time, but they were all carefully sexed by one of his assistants. For purposes of comparison I subjoin measurements care- fully taken from the skin of our specimens of nanus, and a rather small specimen of fugax, corresponding absolutely, except one respect, with them in plumage :— L. W. T. B.atfront B. at margin United height Ts. Mid toe from frontal of feathers. of both man- and (f bone. dibles at margin claw. | of feather. et & 105 663 55 106 0-78 0-28 07 1°02 5 4 10°2 5°65 5:3 1-06 0-78 0:26 0-77 1-06 5 | 2 106 57 59 1-06 0°82 029 O77) Ae 02 tl 2 103 568 5:3 1-11 081 0°28 077°!) “Ta Fugax. 120 70 63 1:22 0°92 04 pss wins The one apparently constant point of difference in the plumage between this species and /ugaz is, that whereasin fuga the entire cheeks, ear-coverts and sides of the head seem to be grey, in nanus, a very broad grey stripe descends slanting from the anterior half of the lower portion of the eye. To this succeeds from the central portion of the lower margin of the orbit, abroad white stripe just tinged with grey, occupying the greater portion of the ear-coverts, and then the feathers from the posterior portion of the lower margin of the orbit and the tips of the upper ear-coverts are again dark grey. From the posterior angle of the eye a line of pure white feathers, in some, here “and there slightly tinged with ferruginous, NOVELTIES. 491 runs down and nieets the dark centred ferruginous tipped feathers of the sides of the neck, dividing the second dark grey stripe from the dark-colored top of the head, so that the present species has two conspicuous broad deep slaty grey moustachial stripes, one from the anterior, one from near the posterior, margin of the eye. I can trace nothing like this in any of my Malayan specimens of fugaz. The whole of the lower parts are white, tinged creamy, on the lower throat and breast and more feebly so on the middle of the abdomen and tibial plumes ; and all these parts with conspicuous black central stripes ; chin, upper throat and lower tail coverts pure unmarked white ; forehead, er»wn, occiput and nape deep brownish slaty ; sides of the neck ferruginous ; the feathers dark centred; nape similar, but the feathers feebly margined with pale ferruginous, and one or two of the feathers on each side white tipped ; entire mantle, wings and back deep brown ; the feathers, some of them very obscurely margined with dull ferruginous, shewing that the birds are not quite adult, and spots of the same color on the outer webs of the quills ; the inner webs, except towards the tips of the primaries, with broad triangular buffy white bars, coalescing at the margin towards the bases of the feathers ; tail tipped with sordid white, then an 0:8 subterminal blacitish band, then an 0°6 to 0°8 pale grey brown interspace, the next succeeding 0:5 blackish brown band, cuspidate on its lower margin, then an 0°5 pale interspace, then an 0°45 dark bar, also cuspidate on the lower margin, then an 0°5 interspace, and then another dark bar. The whole of which, as well as half of the last inter- space, hidden by the upper tail-coverts. The entire wing-lining and edge of the wing at the carpal joint uniform cream color. This ; species is doubtless a Siamese bird, finding its way like Pitta gurneyi into the extreme southern por tions of the Tenasserim province. Pelecanus longirostris, Sp. Nov. Like P. onocrotalus, but with a longer and narrower bill, and with the rib of the upper mandible much more raised. My museum has contained, for the last seven years, a Peli- ean which I am unable to identify, and which has hitherto borne the above manuscript name. ‘This specimen was shot at Dacca by some of my men who were working under, Mr. F. B. Simson, the Commissioner’s charge, along with several onocro- talus and philippensis. B13 492 NOVELTIES. Hitherto I have refrained from publishing the species, in the hopes that I might be able to procure further specimens ; but year after year has passed away ; and, though I have been vigorously collecting this genus, no second specimen has yet turned up, and I, therefore, now notice the species in the hopes that, attention being drawn to it, some of my readers may be able to secure additional specimens and throw some further light upon the subject. The following are the dimensions of the bird taken from the dry skin :— Length, 4 ft. 6in.; tail, 8-0; wing, 27:0; bill at front from margin of feathers to end of nail, 18:1 —Note that the frontal feathers from a sharp point as, but more acute than, in onocro- talus, and advance right to the corneous portion of the bill, instead of, asin onocrotalus, about half aninch of bare skin intervening between the last feather and the corneous portion of the bill ;—tarsus, 5°25; mid toe and claw, 6:0. Schlegel gives 17:0 as the maximum length of the bill of my specimen of onocrotalus in the Leyden Museum—17°5 is the greatest length of my bill in my extremely large series of this species, and this length is only attained in old males, whereas my specimen of longirostris is a young bird that has not yet com- pletely moulted into the white plumage of the adult. Then, again, although the bill is Zonger it is actually narrower than in onocrotalus. Onocrotalus, old male, with the bill 17-5 in length, has the bill 1°88 in width at the widest part, namely 3 or 4 inches from the point, whereas young longirostris, with the bill 18:1, has the bill only 1:7 wide at the widest part. What makes it the more remarkable is that young male onocrotalus in the same stage of plumage as this young longi- rostris have the bills only 14 to 14°5 in length, so that, judging from this analogy, the adult longirostris would have a bill over 20 inches in length. There is another peculiarity about the bill of this supposed new species. In onocrotalus about, say, the middle of the bill, the central rib or culmen rises asa rather flat convex above the level of the rest of the upper mandible, but in longirostris the rib is narrower ; it rises up nearly perpendicularly as a bar for a quarter of aninch, and then the curved portion is above this. The general color of the whole bird is dull white ; the pri- maries, their greater coverts, the winglet and secondaries a deep brown ; all the secondaries profusely silvered on their outer webs; the secondary greater coverts, the tertiaries, and the longest scapulars are pale wood-brown, margined with whity brown, aud more or less silvered with grey; a few of RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. 493 the smaller coverts, just at the junction of the wing with the body, dark-brown; the tail white, but freckled and mottled at the tips of the feathers with blackish dusky ; the whole foreneck, breast, and abdomen intermingled with buff- colored feathers ; on the occiput indications of a very short dense crest, from which a short hog mane runs, decreasing in size, about 3 inches down the back of the neck. The facial space appears to be shaped as in onocrotalus,“but, as already mentioned, the frontal feathers come to a sharper point and advance further forward than in any onocrotalus that I have examined. I have no record of the colors of the soft parts, but those of the upper mandible have clearly not been the same as those in onocrotalus, some traces of which may always be detected even in the dry skins. As far as I can judge the legs and feet have been reddish fleshy or orange; they have clearly not been lead color. Aecentlp-described Species. Republications. Bambusicola fytchii, 4 nderson. P. Z. S., 1871, 214. B. hopkinsoni, God.-dust. J. A. 8. B., XLIIL, Pt. IL., 172. 1874. Descr. S. F., III., 399. Ihave already, loc cit, reproduced Major Godwin-Austen’s description of his bird from the Khasia Hills. I have no doubt now that the Khasia Hill and Yunan birds are identical. I will first reproduce Dr. Anderson’s original description :— 3 Pileo brunneo-ferrugineo: fascia lata superciliart in fronte conjuncta utringue elongata, albescenti-cinerea ; fascia pone oculos nigra: auchenio cinnamomeo: intzrscapularibus et tectricibus alarum cinereo-olivaceis, maculis subtriquetris rufo-brunneis, nigro terminatis et plumis brunneo-nigro obscure lineolatis : dorso, uropygto et tectricibus cande superioribus cinereo-olivaceis, nigrobrunneo transversim obscure nitideque notatis vel subfasciatis, interdum nigro parce maculatis, maculis triangularibus albescente cinereo terminatis: rectricibus cinnamomeis, duabus mediis nigro- brunneo undulatim fasciatis, fasciis ochraceis pallide marginatis : duabus sequentibus nigro-brunneo obscure lineolatis : loris, mento gulaque pallide ochraceis : jugulo rufo-ochraceo et cinnamomeo lon- gitudinaliter vario: pectore lateribusque ejus cianamomeis albogue ocellatis et nigro parce maculatis : pectore, ventre crissoque pallide rufescenti-albis, maculis magnis subrotundatis et nigris : hypo- chondriorum plumarum maculis permagnis et triangularibus: AQ 4. RECENTLY-DESCRIBED SPECIES. remigibus cinnamomeis, secundariorum marginibus externis brunneo et cinereo obscure marmoratis: remigibus tertiariis rufo-brunneis, upicibus extensis nigris et albescente cinereo tenuiter marginatis : marginibus externis cinereo et albo tenuiter marmoratis. Long. tota, 12; ale, 5°80; caude, 4:20; tarsi, 1°58 ; rostria rictu; 9°5 ; a fronte, 8 6. pe Cauda magis brunnea : fascia post oculos, cinnamomea: caleart minuto.” Except as regards Dr. Anderson’s dimensions, which were probably taken from a dried skin, amale obtained at Shillong, by Mr. Cockburn, agrees very well with the above. These dimensions of Dr. Anderson’s can scarcely have been very carefully taken, since they give the tarsus of the male as 1°58, whereas Godwin-Austen gives the tarsus of a female fytchi at 1°7. Now, if the reader will turn to Major Godwin-Austen’s de- scription, 8. F., ILI., 400., he will observe the several points on which Major Godwin-Austen lays stress as indicating the pro- bable distinctness of /ytchii and hopkinsoni—a distinctness in which I do not believe because they do not hold good in my speci- men from Shillong, which agreesin almost all the points to which Major Godwin-Austen refers with fytchiz, not with hopkinsont. In the first-place the tarsus measures 1°82, and the mid-toe 1°65. In the second place, the black terminal spot on the flank, feathers is not invariably heart-shaped, in fact only one spot can possibly be called heart-shaped, The rest are triangular, or shaped as in the plate of the P. Z. S. In the third place, on the middle back and rump, there are no black spots, only a few of the lateral tail-coverts exhibit small rather oval black spots, margined below with buffy white. In the fourth place the feathers of the upper back are not spotted with white at all, but the scapulars and some of the wing-coverts nearest them show greyish white zig-zag lines. Fifthly the chin is neither dark brown nor very pale, but exactly as described by Dr. Anderson, pale ochraceous like the lores and throat. Sixthly there is not 2 trace of barring on the tail. Seventhly the tail beneath is pale dingy reddish brown at the base and dull brown at the tips. Under these circumstances, as this bird, which agrees so well with fytchii, was obtained exactly at the same place as Major Godwin-Austen’s type, we may I think safely suppress the name hopkinsont. My bird measured in the flesh :— Length, 14; expanse, 19; wing, 6°45; tail from vent, 4°75, from base, 4-8; bill from gape, 0°9; the spur is exactl 0-4 long. The legs and feet were brown, not grey; the tides dark brown. 495 Alotes. ReFrerring To My remarks on the genus Volvocivora, pp. 205-207, Inote that all our specimens from the Malayan Peninsula are toosmall for fimbriata, the wings varying from 3°6 to 3°8.. Whether the true jimbriata from Java, with the wing 4:3 to 4°1 (misprinted 4°3 to 4:4, ante p. 205), really occurs in the Malayan Peninsula I cannot say; at any rate the other smaller species is the only one we have met with, and is common from Malacea to Johore. This smaller species should apparently stand as culminata, Hay, and V. Schierbrandi, V. Pelz., appears to be identical. Count Salvadori informs us that the abrupt separation of the darker grey of throat and breast from the lighter color of the abdomen, which was supposed to be characteristic of the species, is merely due to the type speci- men being an extremely bad one, and that in good specimens the transition is gradual. Curiously enough in one of our specimens also a very bad one this same apparent sharp defini- tion of the much darker color of the throat and breast is very noticeable, but in other specimens nothing of the kind occurs ; and, as far as I can make out, this species chiefly differs from fimbriata in its markedly smaller size. The following is the original (and not very satisfactory) description of culminatus (Madras Journal of Science, Vol. XIII, 1844-1845 p. 157.) :—“I received this species from Malacca, and it seems to differ from any that have as yet been described. General cast of the plumage iron-grey, uniform on the head ; back of the neck and back, under parts and up- per tail-coverts; lighter, speckled and striated with white ; a black mark from the base of the bill to the eye; primaries slightly edged with white, secondaries more so ; under surface of the wings uniform hair-brown without white; two middle tail feathers cinerous brown, tipped with white ; bill, moderate not compressed, and high ; bill and feet black. Dimensions. Total length 6:7 Tarsus 075 Wing 3°7 Bill from base —- 06 Tail 33 Bill from gape 08 HiTHERTO WE HAVE only procured Butalis grisola, the Eu- ropean Spotted Grey Flycatcher, (described 8. F., I1I., 467) at the foot of the Sukit Pass near the northern boundary of Ladak, at Sambhur, Jodhpur, Anadra in Sirohi, Northern Guzerat, Kutch, Kattiawar, and Scinde. On the 28th of September we shot a 496 NOTES. specimen, a male, near the top of Jacko, the central hill of the Sanitarium of Simla, and have since seen two others. This specimen measured in the flesh :—Length, 6-4 ; expanse, 10°5 ; tail, 2°55; wing, 3°51; tarsus, 0°59; bill from gape, 0°8 ; weight, 1°25 ozs. The irides were dark red brown ; the bill dull black, whitish at base of lower mandible ; the gape dull yellow; legs and feet very dark plumbeous ; claws blackish. I omitted to notice in my original description, taken from a skin, in which this peculiarity is not visible, that the eyelid feathers are a delicate pale fawn color, or fawny buff. “ Mr. Brooks REMARKS in epist : “ You require to correct your “reference to Burnesia gracilisin Stray Featuers. I compared “ the two birds in Tristram’s collection. True gracilis is a much “ more robust bird, with a longer bill, and the coloration differs “‘ conspicuously. The eggs are as wide apart as possible—gracilis “having a red prinia-like egg, while that of the other is light “greenish ground colour, freckled with pale reddish brown. * Our Indian birds must stand as lepida.”” Personally I am unable to offer any opinion on this subject as I have only seen Indian birds. THE FOLLOWING ARE the dimensions and a description of a male Pratincola insignis obtained by Mr. Mandelli in the Lower Hills of the Bootan Dooars in April. Dimensions from the skin :— Length, 5-0; wing, 3°3; tail, 2:3 ; bill from forehead, 0°69 ; tarsus, 0:97; mid toe and claw, 1:03 ; hind toe and claw, 0°7. Exposed portion of first primary, 0°8; third primary longest ; fourth and fifth each a shade shorter ; sixth longer than second ; second 0:3 shorter than third. Entire cap, lores, cheeks, and ear-coverts black, many of the feathers faintly fringed at the tips with pale brown ; nape dark brown ; feathers much fringed at the tips with the same pale buffy brown ; chin, throat, sides of the neck, behind the ear- coverts, and a broad imperfect collar at the base of the neck, white ; back and scapulars brown, all the feathers fringed with pale buffy brown ; rump greyish buffy, more distinctly tinged buffy at the tips; upper tail-coverts white, with a buffy tinge towards the middle; wings dark brown; the primaries white at their bases on both webs, so as to form a conspicuous wing spot ; all the quills broadly white on their inner webs towards their bases ; tertiaries and all their coverts,; and the greater and median coverts of the later secondaries white ; first and NOTES. 497 second primaries very narrowly margined white towards the tips ; secondaries tipped inconspicuously with dull white. All the quills more or less margined paler on their outer webs ; third to sixth primaries conspicuously emarginate on outer webs. Tail dark brown, very narrowly margined and narrowly tipped with pale fulvous brown; breast rather pale ferruginous chestnut ; rest of lower parts very pale fulvous ; axillaries white grey on their inner webs; wing-lining mingled pale brown and fulvous white. In tHE Ists for 1876, p. 34, in his remarks on the late Colonel Tickell’s manuscript illustration of Indian Ornithology, the Mar- quis of Tweeddale says : * Having figured and described individuals of the Tenasserim race of Tiga shorit (T. intermedia, Blyth,) Colonel Tickell gives a plate and description of a distinct species of the same genus, obtained in the forests on the Teesta River, Sikkim. Under the title of Chrysonotus biddulphi it is thus described: ‘Iris labelled ‘hazel;’ bill and legs blackish neutral; crown, crest, and entire nape, as well as lower back, silky scarlet ; forehead, ramus, and throat, and all foreneck pale brown; rest of face and neck white; a black line from hinder rim of eye down across the auriculars to the scarlet of nape, which it borders for a short space; another line from rictus down latero-frontal neck; another along lower edge of ramus, joining the rictal stride at end of ramus; and another branch- ing from the last midway vn ramus and joining the rictal-stripe lower down neck. All breast and lower parts, as in Shorii, but with browner edges to the feathers ; upper parts the same, but a broad black band runs across top of black and se- parates the scarlet and white of nape and neck from the gold- vellow of upper parts. Wing, 65; tail, 43, (beyond wing 1%); bill, 14; tarsus, 1; inner toe, +2.’ This form does not appear to have been since recognized.” As a matter of fact, however, this is an absolutely exact de- scription of some males of the true Shorw. It answers absolutely in every particular to a male of this species which I shot at Kaladoonga just below Nynee Tal, on the 29th September 1866, the only difference being that in my specimen the wing is 6°2. The amount of the brown and the arrangement of the stripes on throat and neck varies in different individuals. I cannot understand how the Marquis of Tweeddale says that this form does not appear to have been since recognized. This form is what we in India at any rate all understand as the true Short, which occurs plentifully in the lower valleys of the outer Himalayas from the Dhoon to Bootan, and where low 498 NOTES. valleys continue, as in the case of the Surjoo, the Ramganga, &e., for some distance into the hills, is, in these low valleys, found comparatively far into the interior. ONE OF THE Most remarkable instances of birds straying far away from their natural habitats, which has come to my notice for many years, is the capture at Dilkooshah, in the north-east corner of the Cachar District, and 170 miles distant | from the sea, of a fine specimen of Phaeton flavirostris. In the last batch of birds, sent me by Mr. Inglis, I found a specimen of this species. I at once wrote and asked him who gave it him and where it came from, for though I have seen the bird from the Andamans, | have never actually seen a specimen shot elsewhere on our Indian Coasts. In reply, he informed me that the bird} was captured close to his house and brought to him alive, and he sent me the follow- ing note :— “This bird was brought to me alive on the 9th of April “Jast. It was captured as follows: Four small boys were out “in a dug-cut on the Barrak close to my bungalow, picking “up bits of drift wood. They observed the bird perched on “a branch overhanging the water, and every now and then, “ when it dived, they noticed that it remained a considerable ‘time under water. “With the intention of capturing it, they pulled the boat “towards the place where it was fishing. The bird took no “notice of them, but continued, at intervals, diving into the “ pool. One time as the bird disappeared under water, the boys “ shot the boat forward, and as the bird came up one of the boys “ struck it down with his oar. ; “7 kept it in a cage for some hours, but it struggled so much “that I killed it lest it should damage its plumage. “JT had no idea it was a prize, or you should have had it * sooner.” I suspect the diving and remaining under water is an inven- tion of the small boys, because at sea they certainly do not go under water. At any rate the common P. indicus, which I have watched fishing for hours, never does; they drop on to their prey just like a Tern and splash into the water, possibly the whole head and neck, at most the upper half of the body, bué they never certainly go clean under water. It is, however, within tte limits of possibility, that plunging into the less dense medium of fresh water, such birds might get under water, although such is not their habit at sea, and the small boys’ story may possibly be less untrue than I, a¢ present at any rate, believe it to be. NOTES. 499 Masor Gopwin-Austen, Pr. A. 8 B., June 1877, describes a supposed new Chlensicus under the title of C. ruficeps, var - Atro superciliaris, in the following terms :— “No mention being made of any black eyebrow in the ori- ginal discription of C. ruficeps, and finding it absent in the type in the Indian Museum, I now describe the variety from Sudiya, Upper Assam.” “ Description.—Bright ferruginous ; on the head same colour, paler on the nape and ear-coverts; back and wings pale olive- brown ; quills tinged rufous ; tail brown, a narrow black streak over the eye; beneath dull white with an earthy tinge; legs dark plumbeous.”’ “Length about 6; wing, 2°85; tail, 3:3; tarsus, 0°90; bill at front, 0°43 inches.” “ Larger than Ch. ruficeps and not so white below.” I do not consider this a valid variety. The bird is so rare that even my museum contains only asingle specimen, but that a very fine one from Sikhim. This shows a distinct blackish dusky (not quite black), supercilium beginning a little in front of the middle of the eye and extending backwards over the ear-coverts. My bird measures in the skin:—Length, 6:0; wing, 2°83 ; tail, 3°15; tarsus, 0°92; bill, straight from frontal bone to tip, 0°52. This is, Ibelieve, a male; the type was probably a female. : JERDON ONLY described the female Brachypterys hyperythra (B. of I., 495) ; he does not seem even to have seen or procured the male. This latter has been repeatedly procured by Mr. Mandelli, who sent me, from time to time, some splendid speci- mens of it along with the females. I do not know whether any one else has, subsequent to the publication of the Birds of India, described the male, but the latter seems to be so little known that a brief description of it will not be useless. 3g. Length,5; wing, 2°5; tail, 2:0; bill from forehead to point, 0'6; tarsus, 1°13. The entire upper surface of the bird, including the face, sides of the head, sides of the neck, and sides of the body under the wings, blackish cyaneous; the lores and feathers at the base of the lower mandible, and the eyelid feathers immediately above and below the eye, and sometimes more or less of the ear- coverts, black; chin, throat, breast, abdomen, lower tail-coverts intense orange ferruginous, a little paier on the chin and throat, and again often decidedly paler in the middle of the abdomen, in some specimens becoming almost creamy. There is a short, 5 00 NOTES. broad, more or less, concealed silky white supercilium, begin- ning over the middle of the lores, and reaching a little further back than the middle of the eye. In many specimens no trace of this is to be discovered until the feathers of the forehead and anterior part of the crown are lifted. , THE DOUBTS ENTERTAINED as to which of our two Shakeens, F. periginator, apud Jerdon, and atriceps, nobis, was the real pere- grinator, and again as to the distinctness of the northern and southern forms, have made me for long anxious to obtain Sundevall’s original description. To my kind friend, Mr. J. H. Gurney, I am indebted for the following extract from Vol. XVIII, An. Nat. Hist., for 1846, p. 102, which I republish, as it will doubtless possess the same interest to many of my Indian readers that it does to me. The description is extracted from an article of Strickland’s entitled— “ The Birds of Calcutta collected and described by Carl. J. Sundevall.” “The following memoir is contained ina small but valuable collection of scientific papers published at Lund in Sweden, under the title of “ Physiographiska Sillskapets Tidskrift.”” One volume only has appeared in 8vo., dated 1837 and 1838, and, like the greater part of the scientific literature of Scandinavia, is almost wholly unknown in this country. As Professor Sun- devall’s memoir on the Birds of Calcutta was likely to interest Anglo-Iadian naturalists, I have long wished to getit trans- lated; but, as there is no Swedish and English Dictionary or Grammar to be procured in London, I was unable, either to make the translation myself, or to obtain one from others. By the kindness, however, of M. Bertram, a distinguished Ger- man and Scandinavian scholar residing in Oxford, [ am now enabled to present a translation of this interesting memoir.” * * * % # * Peat wi ae % % 59. Falco peregrinator, sp. nov. (obs. non ad Calcutta visus) Niger: subtus ferrugineus, antice pallidior pectore longi- tudinaliter nigro-maculato, abdomine, crisso, tibisque irregulari- ter nigro fasciatis; cauda alas superante. (Maxime affinis F, peregrino) @ (in mari indico d 19 Junii) superne tota, cum alis, lateribus capitis usque infra oculos et macula genarum, latiori quam in F. peregrino, pure nigra, absque marginibus pallidis plumarum. Supercilia nulla distincte colorato. Gula et collum antice NOTES. 501 albido ferruginea striolis tenuibus nigris: colore rufo et latitu- dine striolarum deorsum auctis. Latera corporis, venter, tectrices alee inferiores et tibeee crebre, saturate rufo nigroque, maculata fasciata. Ale nigre remiges maculis pogonii interioris trans- versis, fulvis. Penna la et 38a zquales. Rectrices fere eequales nigre, margine apicis albide; pogonium internum maculis 9 angustis transversis rufescentibus ; pogonium ex- ternum maculis obsoletis, cinerascenti micantibus. Pedes validissimi, toti flavi. Rostrum fuscescens. Cera et orbita fusco-flavescentes. Iris nigrofusca. Oculi magni, valde convexi jeg Longit. 18 poll. sv.* ie cute asservata cauda 2+ poll ultra alas.) Ala flexa, 330, mill ; tarsus, 47 ; digitus medius. 53; cumungue 68; cauda, 180. Raeieann e fauce, 31 ; altit, 20 ; cum cranio, 70 ; Cubitis, 98. Statura 7. peregrini, vel paullo robustior rostrum prcesertim crassius et convexius apparet, alee, ratione reliquarum partium, paullo breviores. On my homeward voyage from Bengal I obtained this handsome Falcon in 6° 20’ N. between Cey lon and Sumatra, rather nearer the last named island, and at least 70 (Swedish) miles from the nearest land, viz., the Nicobar Islands. It settled upon the edge of a sail, whence it was shot down. I have only seen the specimen described, and have procured vo information of any similar bird, either in books or collections. It might perhaps be regar ded as a tropical variety of Falco peregrinus, but the pure black on the upper parts, the shorter wings, and unusually large projecting eyes, give this bird a marked dis- tinction from the common form of that species. F. peregrinus occurs, moreover, in New Holland, gray as with us, according to Vig. and Horsf., Linn. Trans. Vol. XIIIf It seems that a considerable number of birds annually fly across from Sumatra and Ceylon, though they are separated by asea of more than 200 (Sw edish) miles in width. uy during my voyage through this channel I procured ten or twelve birds, most of which are mentioned aboy e, met with half way between these two islands. All sailors have opportunities of seeing land birds at a very considerable distance from shore; and it seems not in- credible that certain strong flying species may cross the ocean even between America and the Old C Continent, though, probably, most of these which venture upon such a journey perish before they have proceeded half way. Amongst other instances it may be mentioned that Catesby, in his last voyage to America, $$ Eee * The Swedish inch is given as equal to 0°9742 of an English inch. + The New Holland bird is, however, distinct from peregrinus; it is the F. imelanogenys (Gould).—H. E, §, 502 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. met with an owl in the midst of the ocean in 26° N. He does not tell us what species it was.* Hetters to the Cditor. SiR, CapraiIn Sepcewick, R.E., has just brought me a couple of skins of Coracias garrula from the Mhairwarra Hills, 40 miles south-west of this. There is nothing astonishing in finding it so far west; but Captain Sedgewick writes that “itis the common Roller of the Mhairwarra hills, and that he did not see a single specimen of indica.” Garrula is doubtless, as you say in Srray Frarugrs, Vol. L., page 168, a hot-weather visitant; and its numbers this year are doubtless due to the prolonged and heavy westerly gales we have had this year; but I will get Captain Sedgewick to look out in the cold weather. I believe garrula spends the winter in Arabia. It certainly appears on the north coast of the gulf (where indica isa permanent resident) in March. Did I tell you that I have Pitta bengalensis, not in Adam’s list, from Sambhur ?f O. Sr. Joun. Mayo CotieGce, AJMERE ; 31st August 1877. Sr, ALLOow me to offer the following remarks on some of the birds of prey referred to in Stray Fearuers, Vol. V., pp. 124, 125 and 128. The adult birds of Lophospizias trivirgatus differ from their nearly-allied northern congeners, not only in their smaller size but also in the very bright fulvous or rufescent tints on the upper breast and on the sides of the neck ; which, so far as I have observed, are never so bright or so conspicuous in the adult birds of the northern race (LZ. rujitinctus of McClel- land=indicus of Hodgson), as they are in true Southern LL. trivirgatus. * F peregrinator appears to migrate across tke ocean to great distances from India. I possess a specimen which I refer to this species, procured in 1833 on board- ship between the Mauritius and Madagascar. M. Sundevall gives a good figure of the species, and itis alsorepresented under the name of F’. shaheen, by Mr Jerdon, in his Illustrations of Indian Ornithology, plates 12 and 28,—H. E. S. + But see, ante III., 470. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 503 The Norwich Museum possesses a Spizdetus from Japan and another from Formosa ; both these appear to me to be the true S. nipalensis ; and, as the Japanese specimen is fully adult, there can, I think, be no doubt that, in this case at least, the identi- fication is correct. The Norwich Museum also possesses examples of Falco pere- grinus from Japan. The adults appear to me to be undis- tinguishable from European specimens ; but young birds from Japan are always, so far as I have seen, very dark about the head, the color of which, especially about the crown and sides, is a blackish brown, resembling the tint of the corresponding parts in young peregrinus from the north-west of North America. J. H. Gurney. Sir "I have much pleasure in adding the following species collected by myself, at Khandalla, in 1871, to the list published by Revd. 8S. B, Fairbank in Stray Featugrs, Vol., [V., p. 250. 104.—Dendrochelidon coronatus, Zick. I shot a single specimen of the Indian-crested Swift at Khandalla in the jungles below the reversing station in May 1871. I never observed it on any other occasion. 133.—Ceyx tridactyla, Pail. I noticed two or three pairs of this lovely species in a rocky nullah running from the reversing station down the ghats through densely wooded jungles (Vide Stray Featusrs, Vol. II., p. 455). 165.—Hemicirens canente, Zess. I shot a single specimen of the Heart-spotted Woodpecker in the same jungles during my visit to Khandalla in May 1871. There were a pair of them at the time, but the cock bird es- caped, 798.—Chalcophaps indicus, Zinn. The Bronze-winged Dove is another species of which I only saw one solitary individual, and that I shot below the reversing station in the same jungles, HK. 8S. Burter, Captain, 83rd Regiment. 504 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Sir, Little did I think, when writing to you, about the occur- rence of Woodcocks in Bagdad and North Canara, Srray Featuers, Vol. V., p. 140, that I should shortly have the pleasure of adding the species to the Sind list, but such has been the case, Iwas taking a stroll yesterday morning (4th November) through the Lyarree Gardens, about two miles from Karachi whena Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola, Lin.) that had evidently just been flushed by some natives who were working close by, flopped lazily past me and settled in a field of lucerne grass about ten yards from where I was standing. After turning round and round two or three times, as if trying to get out of the sun, it rose and flew towards some Guava trees about twenty yards off, sitting under one of them. There was no cover, ex- cept some short grass insufficient to hide the bird, and I walked up and shot it. It was not fat, but in fair condition and in lovely plumage, turning out subsequently a superb specimen. Measurements taken in the flesh as follows :— Sex. L. W. T. Batf. Bfr.g. Exp. Weight ozs, drams. a ase 7: St Bez 24 6 ai Legs and feet plumbeous flesh; bill fleshy brown, tipped dusky ; irides dark brown. It was doubtless an exhausted bird in course of migration. E. 8. Burter, Captain, 83rd Regiment. Mr. Brooks insists that I must give a name to the Reguloides which had of late years always done duty for viridipennis, until I pointed out (ante, p. 330) what this latter really was. Of this at present unnamed species, I quoted Mr. Seebohm’s full description, doc cit. I was unwilling to give a new name to this race or species, because it runs so close to trochiloides, that I was not sure that it could be always separated from this. Mr. Brooks, however, insists that it can be so separated, that there is a constant difference in the proportions of the primaries, and that I must name it, and I, therefore, though somewhat reluctantly, propose for it the name of PayLLoscopus (Reguloides) FLAVO-OLIVACEUS. Nore THAT THE publication of this number has been delayed, and, although intended to appear on the Ist of November, will not actually issue until December. ERRATUM. Page 257, ‘ine 34, for “ from 7'6 to 7°8” read “ from 46 to 4°8.” ‘End of Vol. V. INDEX. Species described or discriminated. AtpBrscEns, Mandelli. Podi- ceps ss albigena, Licht. Sterna albiventris, Fairbank, Cal- lene ee Ee albiventris, God.- Aust. Neornis albo-olivacea, Hume, Cyor- nis tee alpestris, Pall. Lillia altirostris, Jerd. Pyctorhis ~ ampelinus, Bp. Hypocolius amurensis, Radde. Hry- thropus sre antillarum, ess. Sterna archetes, Hume. Cecropis... arctivitta, Swink. Lillia ... asiaticus, Hume. Stercora- rius “te assimilis, Hume, Dendro- citta assimilis, Waid. Stachyris atrogularis, Blyth. Abori- cola aa atr osuperciliaris, G.-Aust. Chleuasicus .. austeni, Wald. Zosterops australis, Steph. Sula... Bassana, Zin. Sula st biddulphi, Zick. Tiga ... blakenstoni, Swink. An- thus ; blanfordi, Wald. Drymoica brachyurus, Vieill. Microp- ternus 406 vee CANENTE, Blyth, Hemicercus cantonensis, Swink. Peri- crocotus tee capensis, Licht. Sula ,,, castanicauda, Hume. Siva... chinquis, Tem. a tron chrysea, Wald. Abrornia .. cinerea, Blyth, Muscitrea,, cinereus, Lafres. Pericro- cotus one corrugatus, Tem, Cranior- hinus tes vee 486 323 4032 crispifrons, Bly. Turdinus culminatus, Hay. Volvoci- vora 2 cursitans, Fr nih Cisticola cyanea, Hume. Muscitrea cyaunops, Sund. Sula ae Dactytactra, Less. Sula ,., davisonl, Hume. Hemixus davisoni, Hume. Leioptila davisoni, Hume, Megalaima domicella, Hartl. & Kinsch. Lillia ne vee Ecrieres, Hume. Chatorhea.., erythrocephala, Jerd. Cis- ticola ove erythropleura, Wald. Suya erythropygia, Sykes. Lillia eutolmus, Hodgs. Microhie- rax 3c see 87 495 90 101 307 311 18h 110 108 260 337 95 58 255 127 Fimpriata, Tem. Volvocivora 205, 495 flavo-olivaceus, Hume, Phyl- loscopus .. 330, 504 frontalis, Blyth. Henicurus 248 fusca, God.-Aust. Alcippe 54 fytchii, Anders. Bambusi- cola 500 soc 493 Ganaetica, Jerd. Suya_ ,,, 138 gouldi, Hume. Sterna 326 griseigularis, Hume. Pyctor- his iM nee LUGS 25E guttatus, Zickl. Turdinus 251 Hempricuil, Bonap. Larus... 297 hodgsoni, Brooks. Certhia 73 homalura, Blyth. Cisticola 93 horsfieldii, G. R. Gr. Eu- plocamus .., Bc 42 humilis, Hume. Ixulus ... 106 humilis, Mill & Schl. Po- liowtus ... 130 hyperythra, Jerd, Brachy p- teryx 499 hyperythra, Layard. Cecro- pis 266 hypoleucus, Bly, Pomator- hinus a vee 81 lontHymtvus, Horsf. Polios- melanocephala, Anderson. _ tus... ta ee 129 Cisticola ae 93 igneus, Blyth. Pericroco- melanocrissa, Riipp. Lillia 258 tus... as sr 190 melanoleucus, Gm. Cir- ignitus, Veill. Euploca- CUR). Bae 11 mus 119 melanorhynchus Wagl. ignotum, Hume. Pellorne- Paleornis ,.. 21 _ um ; 334 melanoxantha, Hodgs. Pa- immodestus, Hume. Peri- chyglossa_... 348 crocotus 00 ‘eh 77 melanura, Hartl, Volvoci- indica, Hodgs. Lophospi- i Fora," 206 AW lage minuta, Tem. Pericroco- indicus, Hume. Pheeton et 302 tus +9 eee 192 inglisi, Hume. Munia ... 39 minuta, Zin. Sterna sci 325 inglisi, Hume. Pomatorhi- modestus, Strickl. Pericro- _ nus.., wet as 33 cotus sak 176 inglisi, Hume. Tinnuneu- MUS). 450 + 5 : innotata, Blyth. Tora mee 423 | Nanus, Hume. Hierococeyx 490 insignis, Elliot. Phasia- neglecta, Hume. Volvocivo- nus 198 ae Saas 203 insignis, Hodgs. Pratinco- ee Hume. oe 189 la w. 182, 496 ere or, ietermedia, ae. Riinc ” 963 newarensis, Hodgs. Bu- intermedia, Hume. Volvo- Jaca... ys 483 avon 205 nigrolutea, Marsh. Tora , 441 intermedius, Fawn ‘Ailae nipalensis, Hodgs. in Bly. Rein 112 Certhia ae intermedius, Butler. Fran- nipalensis, Hodgs. Lillia... abe anlinis o Ai 211 nisicolor, Hodgs. Hierococ- * cyX... be Ans i JAMESONI, Hume. Pratincola 239 nue? Bad: Atte Gees 58 japonica, Tem. and Schl. a at Lillia tes wen 260 aS Ocranica, Banks. Oceanites 291 *. : " oglei, God.-Aust. Actinura 341 ee erp merle: 9s 484 olivacea, Hume. Cyornis ... 338 khasiana, God.- Aust. Suya 59 elivaccut, Bij iiige mvt kienieri, Gerv. Spizaetus ,.. 483 hinus Aes a el Parva, Gm. Sul 821 LAFRESNAYII, Hartl.Iora ,,, 423 panier aaa Aust. Pel- lefevril, Bald. Sula rT 306 anne aa 341 leschenaultii, Less. Tacca- see pekinensis, Swinh. Pinan cua culus 5 leschenaultii, Vial, Peni: perigrinator, Wend Muico 500 curus — ,; 249 persicus, Hume, Puffinus 293 longirostris, “Hume. Peli- yhaioceps, Blyth. ens canus 491 : t of 473 eee eee ernus “e piscatrix, Lin. Sula a 312 Macrornynon, Stol. Pratin- pot Hodgs. Polios- i cola., 5 ae 132 ud ee ae macrorhynchus Wagl. Corvus 461 | Ropusta, Tyistr. Pratincola 131, 241 magna, Ward. "Rams. Sit- rubetraoides, Jameson. Pra- ? tac. 343 tincola 4S 239 magnirostris, Wald. Alcip- ruficeps, Blyth. ‘Chleuasicus 499 pe 56 rufigenis, Hume. Ixulus ... 108 manderinus, Gould. Pi- rufiventris, Véei/l. Ruticilla 36 CUS .., ore 500 53 rufula, Zem. Lillia bf 258 SaqitTatus, Cass. Scops ... 247 subniger, Hume. Hypsi- saundersi, Hume. Sterna... 3262 petes ee 109 seebohmi, Hume. Phyllos- substriolata, Hume. Lillin 264 copus ibe ae 335 superciliarie, Vieill. Sterna 325 sericea, Wald. Horeites ... 57 serrator, Banks. Sula 306 shawi, Eltiot. Phasianus 1498 ret ars eas saad a sibirica, Dresser. Limicola 344 aa 32 simillima, Hume. Arachno- tiphia, Lin. Tan < 429 thera ses eee 487 ee” sinensis, Gm, Sterna .., 325 | Varrgara, Tschudi. Sula ... 317 sirkee, Gray. Taccocua .., 219 “d ati? Wal eonienns 206 sordida, Hume. Siva 104 SESS ene oe * vieilloti, G. R. Gr. Pe stenorhynchus, God.-Aust, earnus 119 Eons yaa as ae ae viridipennis, Bly. Regu- stoliczke, Brooks. Certhia 4 t , y ge striatus, Bly. Ixulus 107 ee Panis I ; yer striolata, Tem. Lillia 261 viridissima, Tem. Iora ... submoniliger, Hume. An- thipes & ee 105 | Watpryi, Hume. Athopyga 51 Species Noticed. Appottt, Blyth. Trichas- akool, Sykes. Porzana ... 224, toma é ...09, 1417, alaudarius, Bris. Tin- 151 nuneulus 4, 226 accipitrinus, Pall. Asio 245, 328 alba, Belon. Ciconia 233 acik, Antin. Cinnyris 271 alba, Lin. Herodias ». 167; 168; acornaus, Hodgs. Erythros- 347 terna nt ae 471 alba, Zin. Motacilla 472 acuta, Lin. Dafila . AT, 234 albellus, Zin. Mergellus... 234 acuticauda, Hodgs. Munia 162 albescens, Mandelli. Po- adamsi, Hume. Alaudula 327 diceps : ... 486, 487 adelinus, Bp. Cinnyris ... 272 albicans, Riipp. Aquila A70n eegocephala, Lin. Limosa 232, 236 albicaudata, Eumyias 391 segyptius, FMorsk. Merops 227 Jerd. ees 402 senea, Lin. Carpophaga... 39, 418 albicilla, Pall. Erythros- eenea, Vieill. Chaptia ... 401 terna c 471, 484 eenobarbus, Jem. Allotrius 112 albicollis, Sw. " Bhynchops 225, 235 eeralatus, Tick. Pteruthius 113—115 albifrons, Bote. Brachyp- eeruginosus, Lin. Circus... 226 teryx ot 104 eestigma, ogee Muscica- albifrons, Jerd. Pericroco- pula ... 416, 471 tus ... 174, 178 eethereus, Tad, Pheton ... 302, 303 albigena, Hien Sterna 285— 287, afer, Zin. Cinnyris 273 298, 302, 323, 329 affinis, Hay. Calornis 38 albirictus, Hodgs. Bu- affinis, JcClell. Coracias 18, 83, changa_ ; ... 29, 401 141n, 143, 180 albirostris, Shaw. Hydro- affinis, Gray. Cypselus ... 17, 393 Cissa .. 20; 84 affinis, Gould. Milvus .., 142, 453 albiventris, Pair bank. Cal- affinis, Jerd. Mirafra 408 lene .. 402, 4032, affinis, McClell. Pericro- 410 cotus ...184—186, albiventris, Strickl. Cin- 188 nyris 273 affinis, Riipp. Sterna 301 albiventris, Gx — Aust. Ni- affinis, Bly. Sylvia ... 229, 417 ornis ; 55 affinis, Blyth. Taccocua... 80, 245, albocristatus, Vig. Bupio- 329 camus toe 42 albogularis, Hartl. Bra- chypteryx ... 87 albogularis. Blyth. Dumetia 391, 404 alpovnlaris, Blyth, Poma- torhinus... ses 136 albo-olivacea, Hume. Cy- ornis aie 488 _.. 256, 260, 264, 265 altirostris, Jerd. Pyctorhis 116, 245, 249,251, 329 amandaya, Zin. Munia... 39 ambiguus, Hume. Sturnus 238, 239 amethystinus, Shaw. Cin- alpestris, Pal 1. Lillia nyris 272 ampeliuus, Bp. " Hypocolius 245, 329, 349, 350 amurensis, adde. Ery- thropus... oi 6,7 anethetn, Scop. Sterna 847 andamanensis, Z'yél.. Peri- crocotus ... 175, 192, 195, 197 andamanicus, Hume. Gin nyris : waa WL, BO angiorum, Ray. Pufhinus 293 angustirostris, Menetries. Querquedula 234 annectans, Blyth. Leioptila 110, 113 anostheetus, Scop. Sterna 284, 286, 301 antigone, Lin. Grus... 164 antillarum, Jess. Sterna 325 apoda, Lin. Parndisea .., 277 Anthus 230 346, arboreus, Bechst. A417 ( Pipastes archetes, Hume. Cecropis 266 arctivitta, Swink. Lillia,., 254, 261, 266 arcuata, Cuv. Dendrocygna 47, 169. ardens, Bote. Pericrocotus 172, 173, 191, 192, 196—198 ardeola, Payk. Dromas ... 212, 232, 236 arenaria, Tem. Calidris ,,, 215, 233, 236 arenarius, Blyth. Lanius... 228 arenarius, Pali. Pterocles 222, 231 argala, Lin. Leptoprilos... 233 armata,MWiull. § Schl Arach- noraphis ... 2 70n arvensis, Lin. Alauda ,,, 236 asiutica, Sw. Certhia ... 76, 78 asiatica, Lath, Megalaima 27, 108, 109, 113 asiaticns, Lath. Caprimul- gus a ... 329, 393 asiaticus, Jin. Cinnyris 709, 399 asiaticus, Hume. Stercora- rius ae ... 285, 294 295, 296 assimilis, Hume. Dendro- citta Ms otk 117 assimilis, Hodgs. Niornis 55 assimiiis, Hume. Phodilus 138, 353 assimilis, Wald. Stachyris 56, 113 athertoni, J. he S. Nyctior- nis ie SESS. 394 atra, Lin. FEulica Rae 233 atra, (?) Muscicapa,.. 278 atratus, Blyth. Picis... 113 atratus, Blyth. Tinnuncul- us noe 129 atriceps, Hume. Falco ... 128, 500 atrogularis, Blyth. Arbori- cola Ad atrogularis, Tem. Planes- ticus 50 30 atrogularis, Moore. Suya 59 atronuchalis, Blyth. Lobi- vanellus = «.. 46 atronuchalis, Blyth. Sarco grammna 164 atrosuper iliaris, G.--Aust. Chieuasicus : 499 aurata, Blyth. Avi nehnothera 113 aurantia, Gray. Seena ... 169, 235 aureola, Vieill. Fisaeoenen 401 aureopygia, Hay. Pheeni- cornis : a ee aurifrons, Tem, Phyllornis 417 aurita, Lath. Syyheotides 231, 419 austeni, Jerd. Anorrhinus 60, 117 austeni, Wald. Zosterops 56 australis, Shaw. Mycteria 419 australis, Gould. Nectari- nia ue oe 274 australis, Steph. Sula... 305 306n, 307, 318, 320, 321 avensis, Blyth. Volvocivora 203— 205 ayocetta, Zin. Recurvi- rostra Aor ea 233 Hypothy- azurea, Bodd.{ mys... 30,149 Myiagra... Basytonicts, Gurney. Falco 140 bactriana, Hutton. Carine 350 bactriana, Bp Pica ae 281 badiosus, Zem. Microp- ternus sie ve | «ATI 481 ( Astur 8, 81 badius, Gm. ¢ Micronisus 114 ri ay badius, psi da nus 477, 479, 481 badius, Horsf. Phodilus 201 bakhamuna, Forst. Strix 135 bakhamuna, Lath. Strix 135 banyumas, Horsf. Cyornis 489 barbarus, Zin. Faleo ,,, 140 bassana, Zin. Sula nan GH BOS bassana, Thomp. Sula ... 3072 batassiensis, J. #. Gr. aes selus : 893 baya, Blyth. “Ploceus 612, 147, 221, 323, 329, 418 beavani, Wald Prin ... 1417,158 beccariana, Salvad. Cyornis 489 becarii, Salvad. Athopyga 71n belangeri, Zess. Garrulax 113,141n, 156 bengalensis. Gm. Alcedo 19, 143, 208 Centro- bengalensis, Gm eee 28 tropus 146, 385 bengalensis, Briss. Fice- dula te ‘ 428 bengalensis, Gmel. Gyps... 245,322, 328 bengalensis, Klein. Lusci- nia ae one 430 bengalensis, Blyth. Micro- hierax ca atic 126 bengalensis, Gm. Paleor- nis ie a38 21 bengalensis, Gmel. Pitta 502 bengalensis, Zin. Ploceus 210, 221, 323, 418 bengalensis, Gm. Pseudo- gyps oe 142 bengalensis, ie. Rhyn- cheea ve §=46, 223 bengalensis, Less. Sterna 285— 287 bengalensis, Cuv. Sterna ... 298, 301 bergii, Licht. Sterna ... 283, 285, 287— 289, 298, 299, 300n bicalearatum, Lin. Poly- plectron... nice 118 bicincta, Jerd. Osmotre- ron 163 bicolor, Sykes. Pratincola 194, 391, 406 bicornis, Scop. Meniceros 218 bicornis, Lin. Ocyceros... 85,394 biddulphi, Tick. Chr 80" notus 497 bifasciatus, Shaw. Cinny- ris Ace a) 6 200— 271, 275 bimaculata, Menetries. Ca- landrella ... Sen 236 bimaculata, Menetries. Melanocorypha . 246, 329 bispecularis, Vig. Garru- lus 113 blakenstoni, “Swink. An- thus ay: .. 845, 346 blanfordi, Wald. Dry- moeca n: 57 blanfordi, Jer d. Eos wn. 141n 156 blewitti, Hume. Hetero- glaux . 411,412 blythi, Math. Micropter- nus 481 bonelli, fies Phylloscopus 336 boschas, Lin. Anas ae 234 Botanica. Deless. Pica 281 boulboul, Lath. Merula.., 30 bouvieri, Shelley, Cinny- ris a 274 brachydactylla, Tem. Cal- andrella ... .«. 230, 236 brachyotus, Gm. Otus .., 226 brachyotus, Forst. Otus ... 245 brachyurus, Vieill. Microp- ternus ote ... 472, 478, ae 477—481 thene «. 16 bramay , Tem: ree | 114. 412 brasilianus, Gm. Cinnyris 271, 272 275, 277, 278 brasiliensis, Spiz. Sula ... 318 brevicaudatus, Blyth. Tur- dinus ues 87, 251n, 258n, 342 brevirostris, Vig. Pericro- cotus Pas Pale Al 174, 185—190, 196, 228 brooksi, Hume. Phylloseo: pus “3 134 brucei, Hume. " Scops ... 245, 328 brunneopectus, Zick. Arbo- ricola He 45 brunnescens, Jerd. Acro- cephalus... 229 brunnicephalus, Jerd, Larus 235 brunniceps, Tem. & 8. Sali- caria 90 buchanani, Bi ryt, Frank- linia 209 burkii, Bart. “Cryptolopha 113 burmanica, Hume. Hstrelda 14x, 163 burmanica, Hume. Microp- ternus 473 burmanica, Sharpe. Pelar- gopsis Ans ae 83 CacHiInans Jerd. Trocha- lopteron .., ie 404, cerulea, Raffi. Pitta 114 cesius, Tick. Parus 221 cafer, Gm. Picus “s 278 cafer, Zin. Promerops .. 272,273 ealidris, Zin. Totanus 233 caligata, Licht. Hippolais 134 caligatus, Raffl. Spizaetus 9 calvus, Scops. Otogyps ... 245, 328, 391 cambaiensis, Lath. Tham- nobia hs ote 180 cambayensis, Lath. Per- dicula : 391 cambayeusis, Gm. Turtur 391, 408 campestris, Lin. Agrodro- ma is 230 cancha, Hodgs. Phenicor- nis : 184 candida, Briss. Sula 312 — 314 canente, Less. Hemicircus 25, 26. 194, 503 canicapillus, Blyth. Yungi- picus i 2p ls caniceps, Blyth. Lanius ... 400 caniceps, Frank. Megalai- ma Ae ste 413 canorus, Lin. Cuculus .., 27, 96, 227, 414 cantatrix, Tem. Cyornis... 489 cantianus, Lath. Adgialitis 232, 236, 286, 287, 290 cantonensis, Swink. Peri- crocotus 176, 177n capellanus, Sclater. Cor- yvus ao ie 287n capensis, Gmel. Cuculus 100 capensis, Gm. Hirando ... 258, 259 capensis, Licht. Sula .., 305, 306 capensis, P. L. Mill. Tro- chilus x 269 capistrata, Hume. Saxicola 246 capistrata, Vig. Sibia 113 caprata, Lin. Bratineola 194, 229 cara, Hume. ABthopyga... 72,113 - carbo, Lin. Graculus 141n, 169, 225, 235 cardis, Zem. Turdulus . 63 castanea, Gould. Pucrasia 138, 139 castaneiceps, Hodgs. Minla 459 castaneonotus, Swink. He- mixus 111 Siva 100, 113 ve 291, 323, 329 castanicauda, Hwme. castor, Lin. Mergus caudata, Dum. Chatarr- hea ... 209, 337, 338, 405 cavatus, Shaw. Dichoceros 20, 85 cenchris, Naum, ‘innun- culus 5 cerviniceps, Gould. Lyn- cornis i a LGaoa ceylonensis, Legge. Baza ... 202 ceylonensis, Sw. Culici- capa ae 401 ceylonensis, Gin. Ketupa. 16, 245, 328, 392 ceylonensis, Bp. Oriolus 390, 406 chaleopogon, Reichb. A- thopyga ss... “5 T1n chalybeus, Lin. Cinnyris 273 cheela, Daud. Spilornis... 245, 328 chinensis, Scop. Garrulax 58 chinensis, Gould. Heni- curus BaD 249 chinquis, Tem. Polyplee- tron ee 40 chirurgus, Scop. Hydro- phasianus do 46 chlorigaster, Blyth. Cro- copus sac 408 chlorocephalus, Wald. Phyllornis ... 35 chlorolophus, Fieil. Chry- sophlegma .. 26 chloronotus, Hodgs. Phyl- loscopus... .. 830, 331 chlorophanes, Vied/d. Chry- sophiegma .. a 396 chloroptera, Salvad. Tora 426, A28n chloropus, Lin. Gallinula 46, 165, 215, 224, 233 chloropygius, Jard. Cinny- - ris bs 273 christine, Swink. Urodre- panis Bae ols Aral chrysea, Wald Abrornis 55 chrysea, Hodgs. Stachyris 113 chrysogenys, Z'em. Arachno- thera. mi . 487, 488 chrysomelas, Severstov. Phasianus ... 198— 200 chrysonotus, Less. Brachy- ternus 201 chr ysopterum, Gould. Tro- chalopteron ... 1138 cinclorhynchus, Vz. Oro- cetes . 228, 322, 329 cinclus, Zin. Tringa .., 2383, 236 cinerea, Blyth. Chettusia 347 cinerea, Gm. Gallicrex ... 165 cinerea, Bechst. Grus ..: 232 cinerea, Blyth. Muscitrea 101 cinerea, Bp. Sylvia .. 221, 229, 246, 328, 329 cinerea, Gm. Terekia ...223, 224, 236 cinereoalba, 7. § S. Alse- onax i 470 cinereus, Meyer. Anser » 234 cinereus, Lafr. Pericroco- tus ao 174, 175, LG, cingalensis, Gm. Motacilla 429n cinnamomea, Gm. Ardetta 47, 168 cinnamomea, Lin, Pericro- cotus o 179, 181 cinnamomeoventris, Bl yh. Sitta 113 circia, Lin, Querquedula 234. cirrhatus, Gmel. Spizaetus 125 cirtensis, Lev. Falco .., 67 cisticola, Tem. Sylvia ... 90 citreola, Pall. Budytes ... 37, 210, 230 citreoloides, ee Budy- tes ie 230 citrina, Lath. “Geocichla 30, 151, 385 clypeata, Zin. Spatula ... 234 coccineus, Gm. Pericroco- tus vse cerulescens, Zin. Buch- anga x aa 401 cerulescens, Lin. Falco 126, 128 ceerulescens, Zin. Micro- hierax td ane 80 colchicus, Zin. Phasianus 199 eollaris, Vieil/. Anthodieta 269 collaris, Wald. Minla ... ngle} collurio, Penn. Lanius ,., 219, 220, 228 collybita, Viei/2. Phyllos- copus é 336 columboides, Jerd. Pale- ornis 395 comatus, Raft. Bereni- cornis : 20n communis, Bon. Coturnix 231 communis, Gmel. Falco... 128 concolor, Sykes, Cotyle... 227 concolor, Jerd, Diczeum... 399 contra, Zin. Sturnonastor 38, 114 cordatus, Jerd. Hemicer- cus a ve 2D 26, 194 cornix, Zin, Corvus oer 287 coromanda, Lath. Urrua 208, 217 coromandelica, Gm. Cotur- nix ia Poe 231 coromandelicus, Gm. Cur- sorius wae ... 282, 247, 327, 329, 419 coromandelicus, Lin. Net- tapus 47 coromandus, Lath. Bubo 412 coromandus, Bodd. Bup- hus eae A 410 coronata, Zick. Dendro- chelidon .., tee 393 coronata, Mill. Pitta ... 150, 219, 220, 228, 416, 457 coronata, 7. & S. Regu- loides pe ; 336 coronatus, Bodd Buceros 122 coronatus, Zick. Dendro- chelidon ... wea 503 coronatus, Tem. Henicurus 249 corrugatus, Zem. COraniorr- hinus <4 seam OO} EI, 118 coruscans, Sharpe. Neo- drepanis ves ZTE crassirostris, Reich. Arach- noraphis ... 70n. crassirostris, Reich. Arav he nothera . 487 crawfurdi, J. E. Gr. Thri- ponax 500 114 crecca, Lin. Querque- dula wa 47, 234 crepidatus, Banks. Ster- corarius ... Be 294, crispifrons, Bly. Turdi- nus ans a LSTR89, 251n, 253n. cristata Ray. ena 234, cristata, Zix. Galerida ... 230, 286, 287, 289 cristatus, Lath. Gallicrex 247, 329 cristatus, Lin. Lanius ,., 29, 228 cristatus, Lin. Pavo ... 409 eristatus, Lin. Podiceps 224, 235 cristatus, Gray. Spizetus 124: cruentatus, Riipp. Cinnyris 271 eruralis, Bly. cares teryx ‘- 403 cuculata, Har tL. Pitta . 150, 457 cuculoides, Vig. Athene 16, 135 culminata, Hay. Volvo- civora 495 culminatus, Sykes. Corvus 407, 461, 467 cuprea, Jerd. Carpophaga 4187 cupreonitens, Shelley. Nec- tarinia AA 269, 272 curonicrs, Gin. Meialitis 232 curruca, Gm. Sylvia .., 230 currucaria, Zin. Certhia 270 cursitans, Frankl, Cisticola 90—95, 850 Vili’ | eyana, Lin. Cyanocincla 220, 228 cyanea, Hume. Muscitrea 101, 104 cyaneus, Lin. Petrocos- syphus 490 nee 203 cyanolemus, Jerd. Cin- nyris te sae 274 eyanoplia, Bote. Cyornis 489 cyanops, Sund. Sula .., 285, 303, 305—807, 309, 310, 312, 319 cyanops, Bp. Sula vie 308 cyanotis, Blyth. Mega- laima AN ae 27 cyanouroptera, Hodgs. Siva 104, 105, 113 Dasril, Verr. Athopyga 52, 72, 271, 272 dactylatra, Less. Sula ... 305, 307 308, 311 daflaensis, God.-Aust. Su- thora ae es 138 dalhousiz, Jameson. Paa- risomus “ aa 19 darwini, Hume. Turdinus 90 dauma, Lath. Oreocincla 122 daurica, Zin. Lilla ... 204, 256, 261 dayvisioni, Hwme. Hemix- us rhs noo. bila TS nba is} davisoni, Hume. Inocotis 168 davisoni, Hume. Leioptila 110,113 davisoni, Hume. Mega- laima wae ,.. LO8, 109, 113, 114 davisoni, Hume. Pitta ... 114 davisoni, Hume. Turdu- lus ahs ... 63, 186 delesserti, Malh. Chrysoco- laptes ‘ise apey © Ads ISK) deserti, Riipp. Saxicola 229 desertorum, Daud. Buteo 65,—67 desertorum, Stanley. Cer- thilauda ... 287, 290 diana, Less. Ajax eb 104 dilutior, Sharpe. Arachno- thera Ne 5b 274 discolor, Bly. Certhia ,,., 74, 76, 18 domicella, Finsch. Hartt. Lillia noe ... 254, 260, 265 dougalli, Montague. Ster- na “0 1. O27, 329 dubius, Hume. Minla ... 113 dubius, Hume. Proparus A459 duivenbodei, Schl. Eudre- panis Se soe. 40; Gale dukhunensis, Sykes. Mo- tacilla ann ... 221, 230, 472 dumetorum, Bly. Acroce- phalus ane ... 229, 246, 329 dussumieri, Hartl. Cin- nyris sh = 273 duyauceli, Zem. Pucrasia 138 EarzexI,, Bly. Chatarrhea’.., 34, 156, 247, 329 eclipes, Hume. Chatarrhea 337 egertoni, Gould. Actinodura 1138, 342 egretta, Gm. Herodias ... 347 elegans, Vieill. Cinnyris 271 elegans, Tem. Cyornis ... 489 elegans, McClell, Pericro- cotus Rais , 29 7a 175, 191-195, 197 elphinstonei, Sykes, Pal- umbus i ... 408, 418 emeria, Shaw. Otocomp- sa oe waa BO, ADE, enca, Hersf. Corvus... 468 episcopus, Bodd, Mela- nopelargus ... ae 420 epops. Lin. Upupa 29, 228, 399 erochrous,\;Hodgs. _Phyl- loscopus (Reguloides) ... 331 erythaca, Bly. & Jerd. Si- phia ah ss. 137 erythrinus, Pall. Carpo- dacus Ais sor 230 erythrocephala, Jerd. Cis- ticola ans ... 90, 94, 95, 351, 406 erythropleura, Wald. Suya 58 erythroptera, Jerd. Mirafra 209, 246, 329 | erythropterus, Vig. Pteru- thius te ww» LASS ds Hirundo erythropygia, Sykes ) Lillia 226, 254 Fee nN Bis 26s AGE, 265 erythropygias, Jerd. Peri- crocotus aires Uelre 178 erythrorhyncha, Lath. Di- czeum at sf 399 erythrorhyncha, Sykes. Per- dicula ce ... 391, 409 erythrorhyncha, Zess. Sula 312, 314 eupatria, Lin. Paleornis ... 21, 227 eugeuei, Hume. Myiopho- neus rh . 30, 113 eurycercus, Hay. Centropus 27, 28 eutolmos, Hodgs. Microhie- rax ee va 80,126, 127 eximia, Horsf. Adthopyga 71 extensicauda, Swink. Dry- moeca . Se 159 exul, Wail. Poricr ocotus ... 192, 196, 198 FarrBanki, Blanf. Trocha- lopteron ... o91, 404, 410 familiaris, Menetries. don 229, 246, 328, 329 familiaris, Zin. Certhea... 74, 78 famosa, Zin. WNectarinia.., 269 fantensis, Sharpe. Necta- rinia 271 fasciata, Jerd. & Freee Nectarinia 272 fasciatus, Gimel. Harpactes 12 2, 309, 393, 413 fasciatus, Scop. Pterocles 231 ferina, Lin. Aythya 234 ferox, Gm. Buteo .. 226, 348 “ones ,Hodgs. Pratincola ... 36,183” ferrugineus, Gm. Gallus ... 44, 164 ferruginosus, Bly, Pomatorhinus 343 fiber, Zin. Sula . 318, 319, 321, fimbriata, Tem. Volvocivora a 209 49 finschi, Hume. Palseornis 113 flagrans, Oustaleb. Atho- pyga ies Ses 70 flagrans, Bote. Pericroco- tus a La 7231845, 196 flammaxillaris, Blyth. Arachnechthra ... 141, 148 _ flammaxillaris, Blyth. Cin- nyris 274 flammaxilliaris, Blyth. Cyr tostomus 70 flammea, Gm. Muscicapa... 172 flammea, Zin. Strix 142 flammeus, forst. Pericro- cotus . 5, Alay} 175, 186, 189, 190, 192, 195— 198, 391, 400 flammifer, Hume. Pericro- cotus ... seo L783. By 192, 195, 196 flava, Lin. Budytes me ZO. 230 flayala, Hodgs. Hemixus ...111—113 flaveolus, Gould. Criniger,.. 34, 113 flavicollis, Lath. Ardetta ... 47, 410 flavicollis, Lath. Avrdei- ralla 167 flavicollis, Frankl. Gym: noris : .. 247, 329, dee 408 flavicollis, Hodgs. Ixulus,,, 107 flavigaster, Eyton. Arach- nothera a .. 487, 488 flavigastra, Gould. Necta- rinia 274 flavinucha, Gould. Chryso- phlegma _., 26 flavipes, Savign. Chet- tusia see 232 flavipes, Hodgs. Ketupa oe 135 flavirostris, Gould. Para- doxornis ae 30 flavirostris, Brande. Pheton 498 fiavirostris, Gould, Sula ,. 318 flaviscapis, em, Pteru- thius 114 flaviventris, Reich. Ayach- noraphis 70n flaviventris, Scop. Cuculus 97 flaviventris, Deless. Prinia 153, 158 flaviventris, Zick. Rubi- gula . 34, 417 flavogularis, Bi ly. Pericro- cotus ¢ 186 flavo-olivaceus, Hume. Phylloscopus (Reguloi- des) 504 flavostriata, Wail. ZEtho- pyga pee AUD Ye flavus, Lin. Budytes . 246,329 fluviatilis, Naum. Sterna . 485 fluvicola, Jerd. Lageno- plastes 217 fokiensis Swink. Microp- ternus . 479, 481 formosus, Wald. “Troglody- tes 238 franklini, ‘Blyth. Mega- laima nas . 80, 109,113 fraterculus, Swink. Peri- crocotus 195 frenatus, S. Miill. Cinny- ris ae 274 frenatus, Mill. Cyrtosto- mus : 70 fr ingillarius, ‘Dr ap. Micro- hierax 126 frontalis, Blyth. eae eee 4030 frontalis, Horsf. Dendro- phila ai es 399 frontalis, Bly. Henicurus 248 fugax, Horsf. Cuculus ... 96 fugax Horsf. Hierococcyx 490, 491 fulica, Less. Sula ac 318 fulicata, Lath. Thamnobia 180, 406 fuliginosa, Vig. Bees nis 37 fulva, Gm. Dendrocygna .. 329 fulvescens, Hume. Gyps ... 123 fulviventer, God.-Aust. Re- guloides a 56 fulyus, @m. Charadrius 232, 247, sats 419 fulvus, Wald. Drymocata- phus ... Re 59 Fagan: Jerd, Gyps ihe 123 fulvus, Gmel. Gyps ie 217 fusca, God.-Aust. Alcippe 54 fusca, Hodgs. Drymeeca ... 57 fusca, Briss. Sula . 318 319 fusca, Vieill. Sula oe 321 fuscicaudata, Gould. Oto- compsa 405 fuscicollis, Steph. Graculus 170 fuscus, Wagler. Acrido- theres ... 938, 160 fuscus, Vieill. “Arvtamus 30, 383, 390, 401 fuscus, Vieill. Cinnyris ... 273 fuscus, Zin. Totanus ... 233 fytchii, Anderson. Bam- busicola Pan . 498, 494 GALERITUS, Tem. Anor- hinus ere ae 117 gallicus, G@m. Circetus ... 217 gallicus, Gm. Cursorius 232 gallinula, Zin. Gallinago 232, 410 ganeesa, Sykes. Hypsipe- tes 109; WO; Sot, ce gangetica, Jerd, ‘Suya garrula, Lin. Coracias ... 25 garzetta, Lin. Herodias ... 46 gaetkei, Seebohm. Phyllos- copus 336 geoffroyi, Wagler. Cimrepe- desmus . 232, 236 germaini, Elliot. Poly- flectron ... Sage ile IS) ginginianus, Lath. Neo- phron 506 ace 392 glareola, Gm. Actitis ... 233 glareola, Lin. Rhyacophi- lus ae 46 glareola, Gmel. Totanus 329 glottis, Zin. Totanus ... 233 gouldie, Vig. Athopyga .. 72 gouldi, Hume. Sterna... 326 govinda, Sykes. Milvus ... 142, 392, vee 412, 453 gracilis, Riipp. Burnesia .. 496 gracilis, Tem. Craniorhi- nus cs 118 grandis, Blyth. Niltava .. 103 grantia, Me Clell. Geci- nulus ... Sg oy nIB} grayi, Sykes. Ardeola .., 47, 167, 410 gregaria, Pall. Chettusia 232 gregoriana, evil, Oreo- cincla ... sac 202 grisea, Scop. Pyrrhulauda $27, 408 griseicapilla, Wald. Car- pophaga ... .. 113, 460 griseiceps, Hume. Criniger 34, 113 griseigularis, Hume. Pyc- torhis ae . 116, 251 griseozularis, Gould. Peri- crocotus 187 griseogularis, Hume. Pye- torhis . 3292. griseus, Lin. "Nycticorax 168 griseus, Jerd. Scops .. 135 griseus, Lath. Tockus ... 395 grisola, Zin. Butalis .., 220, 228, 329, 495 grisola, Blyth. Hyloterpe 102 grisola, Blyth. Tephrodor- nis wae one 102 gularis, Blyth. Anthipes 106 gularis, Bosc. Demi-egretta 224 gularis, Jerd. Micropter- nus a 477, 479, 481 gularis, Gould Rubigula 405 gulgula, Frankl. Alauda,,, 163, 247, 329 gurial, Pears. Pelargopsis 18, 394 gurneyi, Hume. Pitta... 491 gurneyi, Promerops 273 guttata, Vig. Ceryle ... 19 guttatus, Tick. Stachyris 251 euttatus, Blyth. Turdinus 87 guttatus, Tick. Turdinus 251, 253, 342 gutturalis, Zin. Cinnyris 271 gutturalis, Scop. Hirundo ily gymnopthalmus, Bly. Yun- gipicus . 390, 396 H#®MACEPHALA, Miill.- Megalema (Xantholema) 144, 245 329, 397 hemorrhous, Gm. Molpes tes 405 haliztus, Tan: Pandion ,,. 10, 208, 22 6 hasseltii, Tem. Cinnyris ... 275 hasseltii, Tem. Nectarinia 271 helvetica, Zin. Squatarola 222, 232 236 hemidactylus, Natt. Mic- ropternus ae 481 hemprichu, Bonap. Larus 285, 287— 289, 296-3002, hemprichii, Hhrenb. Pra- tincola 20 doc 244, hendersoni, Hume. Falco 48, 49 hendersoni, Cass. Locus- tella : . 134, 229 hildebrandi, Hume. Hemix- us ion pep Lutte 113 himalayana, Vig. Certhia 73, 75, 76, 78,79 himalayanus, Vig. Cuculus 483 himalayensis, Blytk. Den- drocitta, .. bo Stet salaly/ himalayensis, Hume. Gyps 123 hirundo, Zem. Sterna .., 485 hodgsoni, Brooks. Certhia 173,74, 78, 79 hodgsoni, Gould. Harpac- eee .. 18, 82 hodgsoni, Bp. Megalaima 27 hodgsoni, Gray. Motacilla 472 hodgsoni, Verr. Siphia 137 hodzsoni, Jerd. Thri- ponax 114 holroydi, Swink. Microp- ternus . 479, 481 homalaura, Bly ry. Cisticola ... 90, 93, 94, 350, 351 honorata, Zin. Eudynamys 228, 397 hopkinsoni, God.-Aust. Bambusicola . 493, 494 horsfieldi, Bly. Aithopyga 73 horsfieldii, G@. &. Gr. Eu- plocamus ... 42 horsfieldi, re: Myiopho-... neus Brn Ps SRL 403 horsfieldi, Jerd. Polio- eetus sar 130 horsfieldii, Sykes. Pomato- rhinus ; uae 404 hueti, David. Alcippe 54, 55 humei, Mandelli. Heteror- hynchus . 2oln. humilis, Hume. Ixulus _ ..,106, 108, 113 humilis, Mull. & Schl, Po- liozetus wet we SL29n.. 130 huttoni, Chatarrhea .,. 337,338 huttoni, Bly. Emberiza_ ,,,. 221, 23), 246, 329 hyacinthina, Cyornis : 339 hyperboreus, Lin. Lobipes 285, 286 290 hyperythra, Brachypteryx 499 hyperythra, me ae pis ot 254, 266, 267 hyperythra, Cab. Erythros- terna 471 hyperythrus, Gould. Hiero- cocyx 97, 99 hypodila, Jard. Anthro- dizeta see : 269 hypodilus, Jard. nectari- nia ae 269 hypogrammica, S. Mull. Anthreptes 70, 272—274 hypoleucos, Zin. Actitis .., 233 hypoleucus, Blyth. Poma- torhinus ... Sa Oly oe IotEricus, Strickl. Criniger.., 391,405 icthyetus, Horsf. Falco ... 130 icthyzetus, pcs Polio- eetus cose LOR iE 129 igneus, Gm. Falcinellus 233 igneus, Bly. Pericrocotus 171, 172, 175, 184, 189, 190, 191, 196, 198 ignicauda, Hodgs. Aitho- pyga 72 ignitus, Vieill “Euplocamus 119, 120 119 ignitus, Vzetll. Gallus ignitus, Lath. Phasianus ... ES ignotum, Hume. Pellorneum 334 immaculatus, Hodgs. Hemi- curus : ste 37 immodestus, Hume. Peri- crocotus ... Aye air incognita, Hume. Baza 202 n. indica, Hwme. Cheetura ... 17 indica, Lin, Chalcophaps .., 40, 409, 455 indica, Zin. Coracias 18, 83, 180, 394, 502 indcia, Steph. Hydroche- lidon *e indica, Hodgs. Lophospiza indica, Gm. Otus a indica, Lath. Parra indica, Blyth. Pratincola ... 235 8 135 . 46, 165 36, 131, 132, 229, 241, 242, 244 indicus, Lath. Caprimulgus 17, 218, 227 indicus, Lin. Chalcophaps 503 indicus Zin. Coracias 227 indicus, Scop. Gyps 392. indicus, Bodd. Lobivanellus 45, 286 indicus, Hodgs. Lophospiza 502 indicus, Lath. Metopodius 212 indicus, Jerd. Oriolus ... 113 indicus, J. f. S. Passer ... 163, 408 indicus, Sparrm. Pericro- cotus . 179, 182 indicus, Hume. Pheton . 285, 302 —304, 498 indicus, Jerd. Phylloscopus 221, 229 indicus, Hodgs. Spizaetus 124 indicus, Zem. Vultur 123 indus, Bodd. Haliastur ,., 15,142, 392 inglisi, Hume. Munia .., 39 inglisi, Hume. Pomato- rhinus .. 381—33 inglisi, Hume. Tinunculus 5 innominata, Hume. Ninox 16,17 innominata, Burt. Vivia 301 xil innotata, Blyth. Jora .., 423, 424 | inornata, Sykes. Drymoica 390, 406 inornatus, Sykes. Drymoipus 92 insignis, Jerd. Calcostetha 70 insignis, Hodgs. Carpo- phaga 113, 418 insignis, Elliot. Phasia- nus 346 .- 139,198 — 200 insignis, Hodgs. Pratin- cola Sy ep allit: 132, 496 insolens, Hume. Corvus ... 141n. 159 intensior, Hwme. Pericroco- tus 205 a0 185 intermedia, Blyth. Buch- anga eee eee 141” 149 intermedia, Strickl. Colum- ba : 408 intermedia, Hay. Eulabes 38, 86, 417 intermedia, Hume. Lillia 263, 265 intermedia, Blyth. Tiga ... 497 intermedia, Hume. Volvo- ciyora 900 205 intermedius Hume. Allo- trius one ...L12--115 intermedius, Legge. Bra- chypternus ee 201 intermedius, Hume. Cen- tropus oo ... 28, 1410. 145 intermedius, Adams. Cor- vus ... 461, 462 intermedius, Butler. Fran- colinus as Tae 211 intermedius, Hasselt. He- rodias 46 intermedius, Bit Himan- topus 233 inter medius, "Hay. Mol- pastes oat 35 intermedius, Hume. Poly- plectron ... 118 intermedius, ene. Pycno- notus F sf 157 interpres, Lin. Strepsilas 236, 287 iora, Sharpe. Pheenico- manes 423 isabellina, Riipp. Saxicola 229 ispida, Lin. Alcedo vee 208 5227 Jacopinus, Bodd. Coccystes 27,227, 228,327 japonica, J'.and §. Lillia 254, 260, 261, 266 japonicus, Sch]. Buteo ... 348 Laotra, Tem. jardinei, Verr Cinnyris 271 javanensis, Osbeck. Hu- labes a 86 javanensis, Less. Ploceella 160 javanica, Sparrm. Hir- undo . 391, 392 javanica, Hor sf. Sterna:. 169 javanica, Gm. Strix 16, 142n. javanicus, Horsf. Buto- rides 47 javanicus, Osbeck. Eula- bes 382. javanicus, Horsf Burylai- mus ae 456 javanus, Quv. “Bulabes ... 38,86, 457 jerdoni, Finsch. Agyro- droma noe vee 230 jerdoni, Bly. Machlolo- phus 407 jerdoni, Malh. Micropter- nus = ASL jerdoni, B/ yth. Phyllornis 406 jerdoni, Blyth. Trochalop- teron : 404 johanne, Verr. Cinnyris 272 joudera, Hodgs. ‘Turnix 231, 329 Jugger, Gray. Falco wee 50n. Cinny- jugularis, Zin. PIS) Syn 70 Cyrto- stomus 274 KeEsstert, Prizevalski. Mer- ula aa A84 ketupa, Kaup. "Bubo 960 135 khasiana, God.-Aust. Suya 59 kienerii, Gerv. Spizaetus 9, 483 kingi, Hume. Saxicola ... 229 kundoo, Sykes. Oriolus.., 219 Glareola _... 164 lafreysnayii, Hartl. Iora 423,426, - 440 lahtora, Syzes. Lanius ... 286 lambruschni, Sp. Larus 286 lanceolatus, Vig. Garrulus 85 lanceolatus, Zem. Spizaetus 125 latirostris, Raffi. Alseonax 401, 470 lefevrii, Baldamus. Sula 305, 306 lepida, Blyth. Burnesia 496 leschenaulti, Vietll. Heni- curus 248, 249 leschenaulti, Peed. Merops 394, leschenaultii, Less. Tacco- cua ae ... 218, 219 lettia, Hodgs. Scop 16 leucocapillus, + Gould. Anous a +, 138, 302 Xlll leucocephalus, Gm. Tanta- lus oc “ee 420 leucogaster, Gm. Halietus 286n. leucogaster, Gould. Poma- torhinus cf sen LUN} AI i7/ leucogastra, Bly. Munia 460 leucogastra, odd. Sula 321 leucolophus, Hardw. Gar- rulax 50 a90 113 leucomelanura, Hodgs. Si- phia a 471 leucopha, Steph. Sula... 317 leucoptera, Gould. Pica 281 leucoptera, Vieill. Sylvia 420— 422 leucoryphus, Pall. Hali- eetus 6 eas 142 leucotis, Hume. Garrulus 113 leucura, Gm. LErythro- sterna Ss . 471, 484 leucura, Hodgs. Myiomela 103 leucura, Blyth. Pratincola 241 levaillanti, Less. Corvus .., 461, 462, 467, 468 limnaetus, Horsf. Spizae- tus eats tc 125 lineatus, Zath. Euploca- mus acc oe 42 lineatus, Lath. Gennzeus 164 lineatus, Cuv. Numenius 233, 236 liventer, Jem. Butastur ... 142 lodoisiz, Salvad. AXthopy- ga oi ae 71n. longicaudatus, Tick. Dry- moipus 92, 236 longirostra, Lath. Arachno- thera ‘ - 397, 488 longirostris, Hume. Boles nus - 491, 492 longirostris, Hodgs. Pye- torhis 250 longirostris, Jerd Upupa 28, 149 lophotes, Cuv. Baza lotennius, Zin. Cinnyris ... 70, 399 luctuosus, De Fil. Pericro- cotus : 175 ludovicensis, Bocage. Nec- tarinia ares 273 lugubris, Tick. Ninox 17, 413 lugubris, Sund. Volvoci- yora 205 Tunatus, Gould. Serilophus 455 lunulatus, 7 alenc. Galloper- dix x 418 luteola, Sparr mr. Euspiza 230, 246, 322, 329 luscinia, S. Ifill. Sn ris 103 luteolus, Less. “‘Txos luzoniensis, Scop, Mota- cilla ie 1. 884, 472 " 405, 417 Macet, Less. Graucalus ... 29, 400 macei, Vietll Picus a 113 macqueenii, Gray. Houbara 281, 286 macrodactylum, = Strickl. Malacopteron 87 macrodactylus, Strick. Tur- dinus . 87, 2532 macrolophia, Less. Pucrasia 189 macrorhyncha, Stol. Pratin- cola “c 24 LSS 2s 209, 241, 244 macrorhynchus, Wagler. Coryus ae ... 461, 467, 468 macrorhynchus, Gm. Cym- borhynchus 457 macrourus, Gm. Cercotric- chas 66 ... 36, 157, 406 macrurus, 8S. G. Gm. Cir- cus ; 11 macularia Bly. Anthreptes 274 maculata, Zick. Erythros- terna coc Boe 471 Anthus 417 maculatus, Hodgs. < Pipas- tes 230 maderaspatana, Briss Motacilla ... ve 472 magna, Hodgs. Arachno- thera .. 113; 885 magna, W. Ramsay. Stitta 348 magnifica, Sharpe. Athopy- ga en ws 72, 274 maguirostris, Wald. Al- cippe.. 56,60 magnirostris, ‘Blyth. Cyor- nis was a, 338, 339, ; f 489 magnirostris, Geoffr. Hsa- cus 121 magnirostris, “Ball. Palor- nis ; awe lee lA maguirostris, “Bh ly. Urocis- sa 113 maharattensis, dig Pies 245, 329, 390, 395 major, Jerd. Dendrocygna 247, 328, } 329, 382 major, Briss. Hulabes ... 38n, major, Hume. Milvus ... 412 majoroides, Hodgs. Picus 53, 54 malabarica, Bodd. Lobiplu- via . 232, 329 malabarica, Jerd. Osmotre- ron A 408 malabaricum, ‘Bly. Glauci- dium 201 malabaricus, Scop. Dissemu- rus 500 ie 401 malabaricus, Jerd. Malaco- circus .. 390, 405 malabaricus, Gm. Pericro- cotus ... 179,182 malabaricus, “Jerd Scops 135 malabaricus, Gm, Temenu- chus eos 38, 230 malabaroides, Hodgs. Dis- semurus 5 29 malaccensis, Scop. Anthrep- tes : 70 malayensis, Reinw. Neopus 392 malcolmi, Sykes, Malacocir- cus a 416 mandelli, Br ‘coks, Certhia 77,78 mandelli, Hwme. Cyornis 339, 489 mandellii, Blanf. Pellor- neum Sue .. L138, 340, 341 HP oye Gould. yar. ap. G.-Aust Picus 53 manyar, Horsf. Ploceus 61, 160, 210, 211, 221, 323 marie, Wald. Pomatorhinus 136 mariquensis, Smith. Cinny- ris 271 marshallorum, Swink, Mega- laima 3 80 maruetta, Briss. Porzana 215, 233 maximus, JZwme. Centro- pus 28 macclellandi, Horsf. Hyp sipetes : 113 media, Hor f. Sterna 301 meena, Sykes. Turtur... 40 melaceps, Sw. Tora 429, 433 melanauchen, Cab. Pyrr- hulauda 327 melanauchen, Tem. Sterna 25 melanictera, Gm. Motacilla 429n melanictera, Gm. Muscicapa 429n melanictera, Gm. Rubigula 429n melanocephala, Licht. Bu- dytes 210, 230 melanocephala, Anders. Cis- ticola 580 aon GAD) HB 140, 350, 351 melanocephala, @me/. Kus- piza c pith, (oibr, (%) 230, 247, 329 melanocephalus, Licht. Budytes ... 246 mel: ore Lin. Orio- lus 35, 406 melanocrissa, “Riipp. Lillia 254, 258, 260 melanocrissa, Hartl. Lillia 265 melanogaster, Penn. Plotus 170 melanogenys,@. 2. Gr. § I. Anous sles Soc 138 xiv melanogenys, Gould. Falco 501xn melanoleuca, Tick. Sibia... 118, 458 melanoleucus, Gm. Circus il melanoleucus, Bly. Micro- hierax ; . 126, 127 melanops, Vig. ‘Stoporala... 228 melanops, Hartl. & Heugl. Sula . 307—811 melanoptera, Blyth. Volvo- civora 203 melanopterus, ‘Daud. Ela- nus 16 melanorhynchus, Wagler. Paleornis ... 21, 22 melanoschistus, Hume. Ac- cipiter 482 melanostigma, Bly. Trocha- lopteron... é 113 melanotis, By: Allotrius . 112, 113 melanotis, 7. & 8. Milvus 412 melanotis, Jerd, Spilornis 392 melanotus, Bly. Huploca- mus 42 melanoxantha, “Hodgs. Pa- chyglossa . 348, 349 melanura, Jem. Sula 306 melanura, Hartl. Valvoci- yora 206 melanurus, Bly Y- Pomator- hinus _ 202 melaschistus, "“Hodgs. Vol- yocivora . 29, 2038, 204, 206 melba, Zin. Cypselus __,,, 218, 227, 245, 328 meliceps, Horsf. Tora 429 meningting, Horsf. Alcedo 14ln, 143 microptera, Hume. Mirafra 163 micropterus, Gould. Cucu- lus =90 96, 386, 483, 484 microrhynchus, Shelley. Cinnyris ... 600 269 miles, Hodgs. Aithopyga... 28, 72, 113, 122, 123 milvipes, Hodgs. Falco 48 miniata, Zem. Pericrocotus 192 minima, Sykes. Leptocoma 390 minimus, Sykes. Cinnyris 398 minor, Hume, Pellorneum 118, 154, 341 minor, @. Sé. Hil. Pheeni- copterus _.. 000 234 minor, Gm. Podiceps ... 47, 410, 486, 487 minor, Hume. Sturnus ... 246, 328 minor, Hume. Trichastoma 59 minuta, Lin. Sterna . 286, 298, 302, 304, 324— 326 minuta, Zeisi- Tringa __,.. 233, 236 344, minutus, Pall, Agialitis .. 212 minutus, Tem. Pericroc otus 171, 190, 191, 196 modesta, Eyton. Arachno- thera eee 488 modestus, Strickl. Pericro- cotus WB Ary modestus, Gould. Regulus 330 moluecensis, Will Bites soe 149, 457 monachus, Zin. Vultur ... 226, 245, 328 mongolicus, Pall. Cirripe- desmus .. ... 202, 236 mongolicus, Brandt, Pha- sianus 199 moniliger, Hodgs. Anthipes 105, 106, 113 moniliger, Hodgs. Garru- lax Be ... 34, 156 montanus, aan Passer ... 163 montanus, Blyth. Pipastes 391, 407 monticolus, Frank/. Capri- mulgus 17, 227, 453 morio, Hhr. Saxicola _.., 246, 329 morrisonia, Swink. Alcippe 55 motacilloides, Swink. Peri- crocotus ... Bor 175 multicolor, Gm. Fringilla 432 multicolor, Gm.Iora ,., 421, 429, 432, 436 multimaculata, Jerd. Nuci- fraga 122 multipunetata, Gould. Nu- cifraga 122 munipurensis, God-Aust, Cisticola ...90,92, 932 munipurensis, God-Aust. Suthora ... ee 138 muraria, Lin. Tichodroma 122 musicus, faffl. Copsychus 35 musicus, Wagler. Eulabes 38, 86 mysticalis, Zem. Aithopy- ga sae see mysticalis, S. Mill, Aitho- pyga vee ue 72 Nanus, Hume. Hierococcyx 490 nanus, Blyth. Ichthyztus 130 nanus, Tick. Pyenonotus.., 107 neglecta, Wald. Sitta ... 113 neglecta, Hume. Volvocivo- ra aa ... 203, 205, 207 neglectus, Brooks. Anth- us . 845, 346 neglectus, Hume. Pericro- cotus a SRG, M75, 189, 190,16 nereis, Gould. Sterna... 325 neumayerl, J/ich. Sitta ... 300 newarensis, Hodgs. Bula- ca aoe 60 483 nicobarica, Hume. Athopy- ga 72 nigerrima, Gould. ypsip- etes 109 nigra, Lin. Ciconia : 233 nigra, Lin. Melanopelar- gus 420 nigriceps, Frankl. Collyrio 383 nigriceps, Frankl. Lanius.. 29 nigriceps, Hodgs. Stachy- ris . 152, 252 nigripennis, Gould Upupa 399 nigripes, Zem. Herodias ... 46 nigrirostris, Hodgs. Puleor- nis x 22 nigrodactyla, "Less Sula .. 312 nigrolutea, Marshall. Tora 134, 220, 423, 437—439, 441, 442 nigropileus, Lafr. Merula 228 nigrorufa, Jerd. Ochromela 391, 401 nilgheriensis, Jerd. sig sipetes : 109 nilotica, Hasselg. Sterna .. 235 nipalensis, Hodgs. Aceros 85 nipalensis, Hodgs. Aitho- pyga 73 nipalensis, Hodgs. Aleippe 55, 56, 113 nipalensis, Hodgs. Certhia 74—78 nipalensis, Hodgs. ices nis 113 nipalensis, Hodgs. Lillia... 261— "263, 265 nipalensis, Hodgs. Palwor- nis aes 21, 1410 1437 nipalensis,Hodgs. Pellorne- um AoC . 118,340, 341n nipalensis, Gould. Pucra- sla 139 ' nipalensis, Hodgs. Spizee- tus . 125, 503 nisicolor, Hodgs. Hierocoe- cyx awe 96, 97, 347 nisoria, Jem. Munia es 39 nisus, Lin. Accipiter .. 226, 247, 482 nitens, Hume. Sturnus ... 238, 239 nitidus, Lath. Phyllosco- pus . 246, 329 notatus, P, L. Miill. Cinny- ris 272 nuchalis, Blyth. Anthyrep- tes ea ir. 274 nuchalis, God-Aust. Gar- rulax 58 nuchalis, Jerd. "Parus 221 nyroca, Guld. Aythya ... 234. OasteEst, Hume. Hydrornis .. 113 obscuriora, Hume. Hypot- renidia ~ 166 obscurus, Jard. Anthrep- tes.. 272 obscurus, Gm. Anthus 346 obscurus, Gould. Puffinus 292 obscurus, Jem. Puffinus ... 293, 294 obscurus, Gmel. Rhytice- ros ee — 85 occipitalis, Vig. Gecinus ... 26 occipitalis, Hodgs. Ixulus 107 occipitalis, Blyth. Urocissa 113 oceanica, Banks. Oceanites 291 ocellatum, ess. Syrni- um 208 ochraceiceps, Wald. Poma- torhinus 3s 343 ochropus, Lin. Actitis ... 233 oglei, God-Aust. Actinu- ra ... B41, 342 olivacea Hume. ‘Cyornis ... 338, 489 olivaceus, Smith. Cinny- ris 272 olivaceus, Bly. "Pomatorhi- nus Ses . 113,187; 458 onocrotalus, Zin. Pelica- nus ae .. 235, 491, 493 opistholeuca, Strickl. Saxi- cola aera 20.229, ot 329 oreskios, Zem. MHarpactes 50, 51, 82, 454. orientalis, Zin. Eurystomus 18, 83 orientalis, Gm. Falco... 128 orientalis, Zem. dg Schl. Spizaetus ... see 125 orphea, Tem. Sylvia ae 229 osea, Bp. Cinnyris ws 103-275 osiris, Finch. Cinnyris 270 ostralegus, Lin. Hemato- pus tee ... 212, 232, 236 PaGopDARUM, Gm. Sturnia ... 407 pallescens, Hume. Gyps ... 226 pallidipes, Blanf. Horeites 57n pallidipes, Blanf. Piyllos- copus ane 336 pallipes, Jerd. “Cyornis 489 palpebrosa, Tem, Zosterops 407 palustre, Jerd. Pellorneum 341n palustris, Horsf. Megalurus 154, 156 papillosus, Zem. Inocotis... 168 paradisi, Lin. Muscepeta... 401 paradisi, Lin. Tchitrea 415 paradoxus, Pall. Syrrhap- tes eek 50 parva, Bechst. Erythros- terna 220, 228, 471, 484 parva, Gm. Sula 305, 307, 321 passerinus, Vahl. Ololygon 227, 414 pastor, Cuv. Pratincola 131 pectoralis, Hersf. Cinnyris 274 pectoralis, Horsf. Cyrtosto- mus dis és 71 pectoralis, Gould. Garrulax 84, 156 pectoralis, Cab. Hierococcyx 97,99 pectoralis, Legge. Oreocin- cla 55. sit 202 pectoralis, God.-Aust. Pel- lorneum ... 340, 341 pekinensis, Swink. Tinnun- eulus = eee 5, 6 pelagica, Zin. Thalassi- droma 291 pella, P. L. 8. “Will ‘Trochi- lus 269 penelope, Lin. Mareca .., 234 pennatus, Gm. Nisaetus ... 203 pennatus, Hodgs. Scops ... 201n peregrinator, Sund. Falco... 128, 500, 502n .. 128, 226, - 601, 503 peregrinus, Zin. Pericroco- tus 171, 172, 174, 179—182, 184, 185, 190, 191, 401, 415 peregrinus, Lin. Falco persicus, Hume. Puffinus ... 285, 286 292, 293, 304 personata, Gould. Motacilla 246, ae 472 personata, Gould. Sula_ ... 307, 308, 310, 312 phacopus, Malk. Microp- ternus 481 pheenicotis, Tem. Chalco- parila 584 sr 141n 1422, 147 pheopus, Lin. Numenins .,, 233, 236, 247, 329 phenicura, Hrankl. Ammo- manes aa 230 phenicura, Penn. Erythra 46,165 pheenicura, Penn. Gallinula 224 pheeothorax, Harti. Antho- dizta 270 phaioceps, Bly. Micropter- nus oe «. 473, 477, 481 phaiopicus, Malk, Microp- ternus ee a 481 XVil 56x, 60, 113 phayrei, Bly. Osmotreron 39 philippensis, Gm. Pelicanus 169, 235, 491 philippinus, Bp. Corvus ... 468 philippinus, Zin. Merops... 18,143, 394, 413 Ploceus 160 . 229, 246 390, 400 phayrei, Blyth. Alcippe ... philippinus, Zin. picata, Bly. Saxicola picatus, Sykes, Hemipus... pictus, Jard. and Selb. Francolinus 211,212 419 pileata, Horsf. Timalia ... 152,153, 251n pinus, Z. Vieill. Helmin- thophaga ... 50 421 piscator, Peale. Sula 3072, 314 piscatrix, Zin. Sula ...803—~807, 312, 314, 318, 319 pispoletta, Pall. Alauda ., 3270 platyrhyncha, Tem. Limi- cola .. 344, 345 plotus, Forst. Sula ss 318 plumbeitarsus, Swinh. Phylloscopus 335 plumbeus, eee Polioae- tus tee Li, L29) 130 plumbipes, Hodgs. Turnix 164 plumipes, Hodgs. Buteo ... 65—67, 347, 348 plumipes, Swink. Carine ... 350 pluvialis, Zin Charadrias 247, 329 poliocephala, Zem. ‘limalia 2dln poliocephalus, Lath. Por- phyrio ee he 165 | Astur ... 9, 81 poliopsis, Hume. < Microni- sus 114 pondiceriana, Gm, Ortygor- nis 409 ponticeriana, Gm. Tephro- dornis . 201, 400 poiocephala, Jerd. Aleippe 4.04 pratensis, Zin: Anthus ... 346 pratincola, Zin. Glareola ... 329 presbytis, Mill. Phylloseo- pus .. 331,336 princeps, Vig. SPeriorocotd 192 proregulus, Pall. Phyllos- copus a ... 300, 831 proregulus, Pall. Regu- loides ts 3380n psaroides, Vig. " Hypsipetes 109, 113 pucrasia, Gould. Tragopan 139 puella, Lath. Irena 35, 219, 327, 330, 390, 406 pugnax, Zin. Philomachus 224, 233 pugnax, Tem. Turnix 45, 222, 409 pulcherrima, Sharpe. Eu- drepanis .. 70, 274 pulchra, Hwme. Carine ... 114 pulechrata, Hodgs. Turtur 230 punctatus, Hwme. Batra- chostomus .. 202 punctatus, Blyth. Troglo- dytes 238 puncticollis, “Math, Bra- chypternus, sts 396 punctulata, Zin. Munia ,., 39, 162, 390, 408 puniceus, Zick. Alsocomus 418 purpurea, Zin. Ardea 46, 167, 168 purpureus, Mill. Paleornis 21, 227, 395 pusilla, Bly. Erythrosterna 471 pusilla, Wild. Sterna... 32d pusillus, Hodgs. Pericro- cotus 184 pusillus, Bl; ryth. Pycnono- tus . 246, 329 pygeus, Hodgs. Pyenono- tus 157 ( Porzana pygmexa, Naum. + Zapornia215,216, ( 233, 247, 329 pygmeus, Pall. Graculus... 47,170 pygmeus, Hodgs.Molpastes 35 pygmeus, Vigors. Yungi- picus 25,113 pyrrhotis, Hodgs. Venilia 26 Quapricoxor, Fieill. Tora .., 422,429 Rapiatvus, Gm. Cuculus .., 97, 99 Hippolais 134 rama, sykes.| Phyllop- neuste .., 229 ramsayi, Wald. Actinodura 113 ramsayi, Wald. Megalaima 108, 113 rayi, Bp. Budytes en 230 raytal, Blyth. Alaudula .., 327 rectirostris, Shaw. Antho- diseta Ae Oneal rectirostris, Shaw. An- threptes ... Be 1427 recurvirostris, Cuv. Hignous 121, 339 religiosa, Staff. Hulabes 86 religiosa, Lin. Bulabes ... 391, 407 rhizophore, Swink. Cin- nyris 274 rhizophore, Swink, Cyrtos- tomus : 71 ricordi, Géne. Micropter- nus ae wae 481 XVIll riparia, Lin. Cotyle ... 217, 227, 328 risorius, Zin. Turtur Ar 409 robusta, Jill and Schl. Arachnoraphis Arachno- thera : 70n, 487 robusta, Zi istr, Pratincola 130-132 241, 2426244 rosaceus, Hodgs. Authus "346 roseus, Lin. Pastor 61, 230 roseus, Vieill. Pericrocotus 174, 184, 186, 415 roseus, Pall. Phcenicop- terus . 234, 287 rubeculoides, ‘Vig. Cyornis 338, 339, 484, 489 rubetra, Lin. Pratincola ... 2389, 241 rubetraoides, Jameson. Pra tincola wee ».La2, 239, 241, 244 rubicilla, Giild. Carpoda- cus 608 485, rubicola, Zin. Pratincola 131, 132, 241 rubricapilla, Tick. Mixornis 152, 2512 rubricinctus, Bly. Pericro- cotus 5 a lt denon rubripeda, Peale. Sula ... 304” 312, 314 rubripes, Gould. Sula... 312, 314 rubronigra, Hodgs. Munia 39, 160, 161 rudis, Zin. Ceryle = Opes rufa, Lath. Dendrocitta .., 38, 407 rufa, Lath. aie ee 336 rufa, Lath, Sylvia -. 246, 329 ruficauda, Sw. Cyornis ... 228, 338, 339, 470, 489 ruficeps, Bly. Chleuasicus 499 ruficeps, Sw. Pellorneum.., 154,341, 404, ruficeps, Blyth. Stachyris 113 ruficollis, Wald. Cisticola 90 ruficollis, J. f S. Garrulax 34 rufifrons, Wald. rufifrons, Hume. Cyornis 489 Stachyris 113 rufigenis, Hume. Ixulus... 108, 113 rufilata, Hodgs. Insnthia... 469, 471 rufina, Pall. Branta aia 234 rufinotus, IMalk. Microp- ternus ber: vee 481 Centrococ- rufipennis, mn} cyx ... 218, 397 Centropus rufipennis, Sharpe. Scops 135 rufitinctus, MeCleil. Lo- phespiza_... 502 rufitinctus, Me Cleil. Spizac- tus 124 Sacer, Schleg. Falco ae rufiventer, Jerd. Buiteo o. rufiventris, Bly. Callene ... 4032 rufiventris, Jerd. Ololygon 27 rufiventris, Vieill. Ruticilla 36, 229 rufogularis, Hodgs. Arbori- cola 114 rufogularis, Mand. Minla 113 rufonotus, Malh. Microp- tenus ie 481 rufula, Vieill.. ” Corydalla 221, 407 rufula, Tem. Lillia 254, 258 —260, 262, 265 rufulus, Blyth Gamp- aarernelns vee 90 rufus, J. #. Gr. Micropter- nus ... 481, 482 rufus, Raffi. Phasianus ... 121 rupestris, Scop. Cotyle ... 227 | rustica, Lin. Hirundo ... 17, 226, 256, 262, 287, 289 rustica, Scop. Pica an 281 rusticola, Lin. Scolopax ... 140, 409, 419, 504 rutherfordi, Swinh. Epes nis 10 rutila, Pall. Casarca ach 234 48, 49 sagittatus, Cass. Scops ... 247 sanguinipectus, Wald. /Ethopyga ... ae all Gea T1n, 73, 113 saturata, Hodgs. Aithopyga 82, 73, 113 saturatus, Bly, Tinnuncu- lus nt 129 saularis, Lin. ‘Copsychus .. 35, 157, 158, 229, 322, 329, 283, 406 saundersi, Hume. Sterna .. 324n, 325, 326, 329 scapularis, Horsf. Tora .., 426, 429, 430, 432, 433, 436 scapulatus, Daud. Corvus... 2872 scheirbrandi, V. Pelzeln. Volvocivora 207, 495 schisticeps, Hodgs. Paleor- nis 113 schisticeps, Hodgs. Poma- torhinus .. 31, 137 schcenicola, Bp. Cisticola... 90, 93, 158, 329 schwarzi, Radde. Phyllos- copus 134 scolopacinus, Bp. Gallinago 212— 215, 232, 409 scutulata, Raff, Ninox ... 16 seebohmi, Hume. ee copus ~ 335 seena, Sykes. Sterna a 47 seherie, Tick. Mthopyga... 118, 122 X1X semirostris, Zin. Picus ... 278 senegalensis, Strick/. Cin- nyris 271 senegallus, Lin. Pterocles 60, 222, 231 senex, Leach. Anous wee 302 sericea, Wald. Horeites ... 57 serrator, Banks. Sula shawi, Zlliot. Phasianus 139, 198—200 shelleyi, Sharpe. Athopyga 72, rite shoril, Vigors Tiga 497 sibericus, Pall. Turdulus 136, sibilatrix, Bechst. Phyllos- copus san Boe 336 sibirica, Dresser. Limicola 344, 345 sibylla, Gm. Pratincola ... 131 simillima, Hwme. Arachno- thera ve he 487 simillima, Jerd. Merula ... 391, 403 simplex, S. Mull. An- threptes Cait Oe nO simplex, Bly. Cyornis ... 489 sinensis, Gm. Ardetta ... 216, 233 sinensis, Bodd. Cissa ... 159,352 sinensis, Gray. Cotyle ... 227 Sinensis, Osb. Francolinus 164 sinensis, Gowld. Henicurus 249, 250 sinensis, Gmel. Pyctorhis,,, 116, 151, 250 sinensis, Gm. Sterna ... 325, 326 singalensis, Gm. Antho- diseta . 270 singalensis, Gm. Anthreptes, oe 70, 2n. 278 sinicadvena, Swink. PAG "318 siparaja, Raffl. Aithopyga 71n., 72 sirkee, Gray. Taccocua .., 218, 219, 245 sivalensis, Hutt. Palseornis 21 smyrnensis, Lin. Halcyon 19, 143, 394 socialis, Sykes. Prinia .., 406 solaris, Zem. Cyrtostomus 71 solaris, Bl. Pericrocotus ... 174, 184, 187 solitaria, Mill. Cyanocincla 30 solitarius, Vieill. Cuculus 100 soloensis, Lath. Astur ... 124, 125 solensis, Horsf. Falco .., 125 sonneratii, Jem. Gallus .., 222, 409 sordida, Hume. Siva .. 104, 113 sordidus, Swink. Pericro- cotus La: spadiceus, Gm. Galloperdix 222, 409, 418 Cucu- Fs op SIE, ‘nad 97 sparveroides, Vig. ieee coccyx 414 2 37, 85 353 speciosa, Horsf. Henicurus 249 speciosus, Lath. Pericroco- tus 62, 171, 175, 190—195, 197, 383, 414 sphenurus, Vig. Spheno- speciosa, Shaw. Cissa cercus 39 spilonota, Frankl. Salpor- nis AS 228 spinoletta, Lin. Anthus .. 280, 345, 346 splendens, Vieill. Corvus 159, 407 squamatus, Vig. Gecinus 396 squamigularis, Sund. Mi- cropternus ... 479, 481. stagnatilis, Bechst. Totanus 233 stellaris, Zin. Botaurus .., 233 stenorhynchus, G.-Aust. Pomatorhinus 342 stenura, Zem. Gallinago . : AB, 212— 214, 232, 247, 329 stewarti, Blyth. Emberiza 246, 329 stoliczke, Brooks. Certhia 77—79 stolidus, Zin. Anous ... 285, 301, 3022 streperus, Zin. Chaulelas- mus Roe om 234 striata, Zin. Hypoteenidia 165 striatus, Jerd. Cheetornis 209, 228, 416 striatus, Drapiez. Cuculus 483, 484 striatus, Blyth. Ixulus_.., 107, 108, strigula, Hodgs. Siva striolata, Licht. Emberiza 247 striolata, Licht. Fringil- laria 329 striolata, Tem. Lillia "| 954, 261, 264, 266 striolatus, Blyth. Gecinus 26, 113, 396, 413 subardens, Hume. Peri- crocotus ... 196 subbuteo, Lin. Hypotrior- chis 4, 226 subcollaris, Hart. Necta- rinia Sor 269 a Vicill. Muscica- BEC 172. Rieeanoatae Bl iyth. Cypse- lus abr submoniliger, ‘Hume. Anthi- pes . 105, 113 subniger, Hume. Hyps ipe- tes . 109, 113 subochraceum, " Swink. Pel- lorneum . 113, 154, 341 substriolata, Hume Lillia 264 266 subundulata, G.-Aust. Munia 89, mage 162 subviridis, Tick. Tora ... 429, 433 suecica, Lin. a aay 229 pula, Lin. Sula “312, 318, 320, 321 sulphurea, Bechst. Calo- bates 230 sultaneus, Hodgs. Chrysoco- laptes 26 sumatrana, Raffi. Sterna 325 sumatranus, Less. Hulabes 38, 86 sumatrensis, Lafr. Baza .. 202n. superbus, Shavo. Cinnyris 272 superciliaris, Jerd. Musci- capula ae 415 superciliaris, Vieill. Sterna 325 superciliaris, B/yth. Sturno- pastor 38, 114 159 superciliosus, Gm. Regu- lus ; 330z., superstriata, Hume. Munia39, 1417., 162n. suratenis, Gm. Turtur ... 231,391, 409 sutorius, G. R. Forst. Or- thotomus ... ... 158, 406 swainsoni, A. Smith. Circus 11, 226 swinhoei, Hume, Merops ... 18 sykesii, Strick. Volvocivora 220, 400 sylvicola, Jerd. Naga nis . 390, 400 Tapacina, Lath. Certhia ... 269 tacazze, Stanley. Nectarinia 275 tachardus, Bree. Falco 67 taigoor, Sykes. Turnix «. 231 talatala, Smith Cinnyris .. 273 temminckii, S. Mill. ‘Etho- pyga on ate 72 temminckii, Horsf. and M. Arachnoraphis 7On. temminckii, Horsf. and My. Arachnothera : 487 temmincki, Hume. Talla. 259 temminckii, V7. Myopho- neus 30, 113 temmincki, Wesel: Tringa 233 tenellipes, Swink. Phyllos- copus 304 308 336 tenuirostris, Blyth. Oriolus 35, 113 tephrocephala, Anders. Cryptolopha 113 tephrolema, Jard. and Pr ser. Anthodizta oV1 tephrolema, Sharpe. Necta- rinia : 271 tephronotus, ‘Vi ig. Lanius 29 terricolor, Hodgs. Alseonax 470 xX terricolor, Hume. Drymoi- pus : 236 tibetana. Saunders. Sterna 485 tibetanus, Gmel. wee tron » LS yas tickellize, Blyth. Cyornis .. . 402, 489 tickelli, Bly. Hypsipetes... 113 tickellu, Blyth. Pellorneum 164, 334, 341 tickelli, Hume. Pomatorhi- nus F aoe 32 tigrinus, Tem. ‘Turtur 164 tinnuncula, Zin. Cerchneis 392 tiphia, Lin. Tora .. 421, 423, 426, 428—481, 434—438, 444 torquatus, "Bodd. Palwornis 21, 144, 395 torquilla, Zin. Yunx ... 27,227 tricolor, Hodgs Siphia 471 tridactyla, Pall. Ceyx 19, 503 tristis, Zin. Acridotheres... 38, 160, 384, 391, 407 tristis, Bly. Phylloscopus 229 tristis, Zess. Rhopodytes ... 27, 144 trivirgata, Cuv. Lophospiza 8, 124, 502 trochiloides, Sund. Phyllos- copus 400 .. 882, 333, 504 trochilus, Zin. eile pus sg 336 typhia, Lin. Mgithina ci 157 typhia, Lin. Tora 2m 406 typicus, Hodgs Icthyeetus,., 129n. tytleri, Bly. Cisticola 90 94, 140, 350, 351 UMBROVIREDS, ae Phyllos- copus aac 336 unicolor, Bly. “‘Cyornis 489 unicolor, Zick Geovichla .. 228 uropygialis, G. R. Gr. and M, Arachnoraphis 70n. Vacans, Bernst. Arachnora- phis sf Oy 70n. vaillantii, Less. iorvus ... 159, 468 varians, Lath, Crypsirhina 141n., 159 variegata, Tschudi. Sula ... 305, 307, 312, 317, 318 Cuculus ... 967., 97, 98 Vahl. rere) Hierococcyx227,397, 413 ventralis, Cuv. Hoplopterus re yenustus, Shaw. Cinnyris ... 273, 275 yernalis, Sparrm. Loriculus 25, 395 verreauxi, Smith. Cinnyris 272 vespertinus, Lin. Erythro- pus we 7 vibrisca, Bodd. ‘Paleornis, bi 21 vidua, Hartl. Volvocivora 206 vieilloti, G..&. Gr. Euploca- mus 42 vieilloti, Shaw. "Gallophasis 1A), Era vigorsii, Sykes. AXthopyga 72, ee vindhiana, Frankl. Aquila 256, 470n. violacea, Zin. Anthoba- phes : 273 virgatus, Tem. ‘Accipiter .. 226 virgo, Lin. Anthropoides... 232 viridifrons, Blyth. Crocopus 141n, 163 viridipennis, Bly. Phyllos- copus BOE ... ddl, 333 viridipennis, Bly. Regu- loides ves ... 800, 458, 504 viridirostris, Jerd. Zanclos- tomus F a 397 viridis, Gmel. Budytes vee 2462 viridis, Hodgs. Cochoa ... 37 viridis, Bly. Gecinulus ... 113 viridis, Zem. Iora ... 429, 436 viridis, Bodd. Megalaima390, 396 viridis, Zin. Merops 18, 148, 394 Tora ,,, 423, 429 432, 440 viridissima, Tem. vittacauda, Jam. Certhia 78 vittatus, Vieill. Gecinus 113 vivida, Swinth. Cyornis .., 489 vulgaris, Zin. Sturnus ... 230, 246 vulgaris, “Steph. Francoli- nus . 211 212 vulpanser, Flem. Tadorna 217, 234 WAnDENI, G.- Aust, Actinura 342 waldeni, Hume. Ethopyga 51,71n. wardii, ies, Turdulus ... 63,2022. wilsoni, Keys. & Blas. Oceanites 291. wilsoni, Bp. Oceanites .., 292 wilsoni, Bp. Thalassidroma 285 wilsoni, Zem. Thalassidro- ma 300 291 XANTHOCHLORA, Hume. An- threptes... 69 xanthodrias, Swinh. Phyl- loscopus... 336 xanthogaster, Raff. Pericro- cotus . 172 197 xanthonotus, Horsf. Oriolus 423 ZAMBESIANA, Shelly. Antho- diseta a0 50 260 zenobius, Less. Cyrtosto- mus 71 zeylonica, Lin. Cinnyris 270, 398 zeylonica, Gm. Tora 220, 400m, 421, 426, 429, 431—438 i 7 3 At: tit iy “uF F's Vie lg ikem © BP y. Lh an ape AG cal Il Wl