( 389 ) 



formula, differently shaped reetrices, narrower crest -feathers, and smaller size. I have 

 examined six adult males and as manj' females from Ishigaki, and nearly twenty more 

 specimens from other islands in the Loo-Choo grouji, i.e. from Amami, Okinawa, 

 Iriomote, and Iheya, and I find no difference between them and a series of skins 

 from Hondo, i.e. "typical" princejys. The different wing-formula does not exist. 

 Mr. Bangs' statement must have been based on a moulting or abnormal specimen. 

 Nor are the reetrices differently shaped. It is true that the wing of Loo-Choo 

 specimens is generally about 2 — 5 mm. shorter, and therefore Tchitrea princeps ill/'X, 

 as this form must be called, may be regarded as a slightly differentiated sub.species. 

 Single sjjecimens, however, cannot always be distinguished. As a rule, Hondo males 

 have the wing about 89 — 93 mm., while males from the Loo-Choo Islands have wings 

 of 84 — 89 mm. A male shot on Okinawa, however, on April 24th, has the wing 

 91 mm., and some from Southern China have wings of 88 and 89, so that one can 

 hardly say to which race they belong. 



It is difficult to believe that birds with such enormous soft-feathered tails as 

 Tchitrea can be migrants, and yet we find Tchitrea incei to wander to the Malayan 

 peninsula, and the same is the case with T. princeps pi'inceps : at least specimens 

 with long wings (93 and even 94 mm. !) occur there, but aiiparently only in winter. 

 We must, therefore, assume that they are migrants. It is difficult tounder.-tand why 

 Mr. Outram ]5angs named such closely allied forms as Tchitrea princeps ille.r with 

 two names, as he often employs trinomials. Such inconsistency is most disturbing 

 to students. Or does he still adhere to the exploded theory that one must see 

 " intergradation " to employ trinomials? Let him read ]Mr. Hart ^lerriam's lucid 

 article, who remarked most truly, that it depends on our material alone whether we 

 see intergradation or not. Therefore our scientific language cannot be based on sucli 

 accidental circumstances; in fact, we must u.se trinomials in all cases where allied 

 forms, which agree in tlieir essential characters, replace each other geographically. It 

 is true that more knowledge is required for using trinomials correctly than for 

 merely separating so-called species binomially, but it is desirable that closer studies 

 be made than hitherto, and if a mistake is made it will be corrected, as has been 

 done before. 



On the African forms of the genus PYCNONOTUS. 



As in so many other genera, ornithologists have hitherto for the most part 

 confined themselves to distinguishing as many different forms as possible as so-called 

 species — or occasionally to "lum]iing" them again — liut few attempts have been 

 made towards an understanding of their actual affinities in connection with their 

 distribution. Trying to study all these forms with the help of their distribution — as 

 far as we know it at present — I come to the following conclusions : 



1. Undoubtedly all the I'l/cnonoti witli white or whitish under tail-coverts are 

 geographical reiiresentatives of one species. This has already been recognised by 

 Oscar Neumann. Thus barbalus, inornatus, gabonensis. arsinoe, somaliensis, and 

 schoanus are undoubtedly forms of one species. 



2. These forms are connected with yellow-vented forms through f/nhonensis, 

 which has the under tail-coverts white, edged, and sometimes all over tinged with 

 yellow. P. h. gabonensis is so much like young tricolor that even Professor 

 Keichenow mistook the latter hr r/ahnnensis. He states that r/ahonensis extends to 

 the Congo, on the strength of a bird collected at Manyanga by Eohndorff; but the 

 specimens collected by Kohndorff at Manyanga are now before me, and they are 



