73 The Philippine Journal of Science 1921 
Rhipidura nigritorquis Vigors. Plate 3. 
Rhipidura nigritorquis Vigors, GRANT and WHITEHEAD, Ibis (1898) 
236; Oates and Rew, Cat. Birds’ Eggs Brit. Mus. 3 (1903) 277, 
pl. 8, fig. 19. 
Grant and Whitehead describe two sets of eggs of the black 
and white fantail that were collected by J. B. Steere in Marin- 
duque early in May. Although this is one of the commonest 
Philippine species, Whitehead does not seem to have collected 
eggs of it himself. Oates and Reid record the two sets collected 
by Steere, one egg from Cebu (Koch), and one egg from Luzon 
(Schadenberg). The nest is described by Grant and Whitehead 
as being cup-shaped, composed of tightly woven fiber and wide 
grass bound together with cobwebs, and neatly lined with fine | 
grasses and black fiber. 
On June 4, 1920, Mr. E. H. Taylor collected a nest and three 
eggs of this species near Alabang, Laguna Province, Luzon. 
The nest was saddled on a small, nearly horizontal fork of a 
shrub; it is smooth, regular in shape, and compactly made of 
small twigs, rootlets, and other vegetable materials (Plate 3). 
The outside of the nest is smooth, and the materials are closely 
matted. The outside diameter of the nest is about 65 millime- 
ters; outside depth, 50; inside depth, 35. 
The eggs are very light brown and are marked with small 
spots and blotches of snuff brown, Saccardo’s umber, and sepia, 
which form a poorly defined zone just above the greatest diam- 
eter and are scattered evenly toward the ends of the eggs. The 
eggs measure, in millimeters, 19.3 by 13.9, 19 by 13.9, and 19 
by 14.1. 
Xeocephus rufus (Gray). 3 
In Sharpe’s * key to the genera of the Muscicapide Xeocephus 
falls under “k’’ Tail graduated, the two centre feathers not 
exceeding the next one by as much as the length of the culmen.” 
This is true of most specimens of Xeocephus that I have collected ; 
it is also true of nonbreeding and immature examples of Terpsi- 
phone. In some males of Xeocephus rufus the central rectrices 
greatly exceed the others. Therefore Terpsiphone and Xeoce- 
phus cannot be separated by Sharpe’s key, and I do not know on 
what characters they can be distinguished. I have seen no spec- 
imen of X. cinnamomeus with long rectrices, but it would be 
strange if they were not developed in the breeding male. 
For the blue Xeocephus, of Palawan, I propose— 
* Cat. Bds. Brit. Mus. 4 (1879) 116. 
