( 395 ) 



wing appears to be generally shorter. ^Measurements are given in my hook. It is 

 strange that Dresser, who — except in one or two groups to which he took a fancy, 

 such as C'inclits — does not, as a rule, separate very closely allied forms, nevertheless 

 recognised as different " L. fv/ner&is," which is nothing but " mollis." 



Under these circumstances I recognise, instead of ;\Ir. Grant's No. 1, L. borealis 

 (N. America) ; No. 2, L. major (N. ICm-ope and N. Asia) ; No. 3, L. excuhitor 

 (N. Europe and N. Asia); and No. 33, L. nwUis (N. Asia) — the following subspecies : 

 Lanius exciibitm' cxntbitor, N. Europe, 

 Lanius excubitor mollis, N. Asia, 

 Laniiis excuhitor borealis, N. America, 

 thus simplifying matters ver}' considerably. 



I differ equally from ]\Ir. Grant in the case of his L. homeyeri and L. leacu- 

 pterus. Instead of taking into consideration the distribution and studying the 

 variation within a given area, he sticks to an artificial and partly erroneous diagnosis 

 — based on the lesser or greater extent of the white on the secondaries — and thus 

 makes these two geographical races occupy the same range. The accompanying 

 figures will show the variation of the white on the secondaries in the bird named 

 by Mr. Grant leumpteni^s, a name which is a " nomen nudum," and must therefore, 

 of course, give way to przeivcdskii Bogd., 1881. The supposed British specimen of 

 L. homeyeri in the British IMuseum has no exact locality and no history ! It would 

 be better if si>ecimens which have no better history than " England, out of 

 Mr. Fred. Bond's collection " — without locality, date, or name of collector — were not 

 considered in a scientific work. 



I must equally disagree with Mr. Grant's treatment of the North African Grey 

 Shrikes and their allies in Western Asia, where he allows to occur together, iu 

 the same countries (i.e. N.^^^ Africa) L. heinileucurus, L. elegans, L. dealbatiis and 

 L. palliilirosiris, and in " Soulh-West Asia and North-East Africa" both L. assindlis 

 and L. pallidirostris. The inevitable result is, that " intermediate forms " between 

 the various " species " are frequent. The fact is, that the characters bj- which Mr. 

 Grant distinguished his species are very variable (see accompanying figures), but that, 

 nevertheless, there is a certain limit of variation and certain general colorations 

 are observed which serve well enough to separate the various forms and to cover even 

 more or less aberrant specimens ; these forms, however, are not species distributed 

 anywhere at random, but geographical forms (so-called subspecies) of Grey Shrikes, 

 and their areas are different during the breeding season, although occasionally (as 

 in Central Tunis) individuals may overstej) their boundaries and specimens may 

 occur which are not easy to determine, or which may actually be intermediate, 

 though they are naturally very rare. 



In the charming book of Mr. Whitaker on the Birds of Tunis the N.E. African 

 Shrikes have already been discussed with perfect correctness. 

 The following details must be understood : 



Lanius hemileucurus (Mr. Grant's species 8) is a synonym of L. degans, being 

 based on an individual with more white in the tail. When Dr. Gadow kept L. Iievii- 

 leucurus separate, in 1883, he could not be blamed, but nowadays sufficient series 

 have been collected to show that every intermediate occurs between the specimens 

 with more and less white in the tail, and that these are clearly individual aberrations. 

 Lii/itlus elcijd.ns (Grant's sp. 9) is the correct name of the pale Grey Shrike 

 of Southern Tunis and South Algeria, though originally described erroneously 

 as coming from " the Fur Countries " in Canada. The distribution gi\ en by 



