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