( 3'J7 ) 



evidently because Defilippi adds to his diagnosis the remark "jam extabat a Tripoli," 

 which, however, means " it was already there from Tripolis," and not that the type 

 came from Tripolis ! This specimen from Tripoli, which Dcfilippi thought to be 

 the same as his dealbatus, is still in the Turin Museum, where I have examined 

 it also. It is a sj)ecimen of L. elegans, and Defilippi was wrong in uniting it with 

 his dealbatus. It is, of course, very important to know that the type of dealbatus 

 came from the White Nile, and not from Tripoli, as in Tripoli elegans is found, and 

 on the White Nile not. 



The name Lanins leucopygos Hemprich & Ehreuberg 1828 has been rejected, 

 as it has been said to be a " nomen nudum." This, however, is not correct, for, if 

 one takes the trouble to read the foregoing sheet, one will see that a perfectly 

 recognisable description is given on fol. d, though the new name of the bird 

 described on fol. d is only given on fol. e and fol. dd. It is true that the authors 

 had the silly idea that their bird was a hybrid between L. excubitor and minm; but 

 as they gave a binomial name to it, and diagnosed it, we must accept it. But even 

 if L. leii.cojji/ijos had been a " nomen nudum " the name dealbatus could not have 

 been accepted, because the name L. pidletis (afterwards altered to pallens) of Cassin 

 had more than a year's priority. Last, not least, L. grimmi Bogdanow, a name 

 referring to a Transcasi)ian and Turkestan form, does not refer to the young of 

 Irucopyrjos. but to pcdlidirostris, leucopygos being only known from Nubia to the 

 Blue and White Nile. 



The next species in Mr. Grant's list is No. 11, /y. assimilis Brehm. How it 

 came that this bird was kept as a separate species is not easy to understand, still 

 less that it was granted such an area as from Turkestan, India and " Pamir " to 

 N.E. Africa. L. assimilis is merely a synonym of L. pallidirostris. 



A still wider distribution is attributed to species 12, L. pjallidirostris, which 

 is said to range firom Morocco to India. This is, however, quite erroneous, and 

 jNIr. Grant's pallidirostris is again a mixture. Among the synonyms appears 

 correctly i. pa^iicZws Antinori, 1804, but its locality is quoted as " Kadaref, ? Blue 

 Nile," while Kadaref is a village on the Blue Nile. L. fallax appears wrongly 

 under L. pallidirostris, and so do dudsoni and hwrifi. About L. alijeriensis dodsoni 

 Whitaker (-/6zs 1898, p. 599), from Central and Southern Morocco, Mr. Grant had evi- 

 dently made up his mind that it must be made a synonym of something, as according 

 to his idea, the types were all intermediate between L. algeriensis, assimilis and 

 pallidirostris (p. 460). The fact is, that dodsoni is a pale form of alrjerlensis, 

 between the latter and elegans. It has been discussed in Mr. Whitaker's book on 

 Tunisia, and in my forthcoming treatise of the Shrikes in Viigel d. pal. Fauiui. 

 Mr. Grant was also convinced that my L. idgeriensis koenigi from the Canary 

 Islands was of no good whatever, and so he placed it as a synonym under his 

 L. algeriensis. We could not blame him much for that, for my koenigi — tliough 

 certainly not quite the same — is very much like algeriensis ; but on p. 4.59 he 

 states that dodsoni " are indistinguishable from the palest forms from the Canaiy 

 Islands." Now if dodsoni and the Canarian Shrikes are " indistinguishable," then 

 dodsoni should not appear as a synonym of '■^pallidirostris" (p. 459, No. 12), 

 while koenigi is placed under algeriensis (p. 462, No. 16), far away. 



L. fallax, looked upon as the same as "pallidirostris," is a very distinct form, 

 with more or less grey on the breast and flanks, but unfortunately its oldest name 

 is auckeri ! The unfortunate decision to classify the Grey Shrikes only by the 

 markings of the tail and wings, disregarding more or less all other characters. 



