( 401 ) 



Indiis," but, unfoitunatel}', such careless statements occur several times in his 

 Systema Naturae. V)r. Schiebel has evidently no experience in interpreting old 

 names, and can hardly have consulted Albin's figure, or he would have understood 

 that Linnaeus had no idea of describing a bird he knew, merely adding a reference to 

 Albin (" mit einem bloss angehiingten Hinweis auf Albin "). Also the ventilation 

 of his personal views about Brisson's names, which Dr. Schiebel treats us with 

 (p. 192), had better remained unprinted. Nor can I agree, that the next available 

 name is none other than pomeranus of 1786, because there are one or two before that 

 date : Lanixis ruficeps Pallas, Vroeg's Gat. Verzavi. Vogelen dieren, AdumWati- 

 uncula, p. 1, 1764, and L. auriculatus P. L. S. Miiller, Natursysievi, Suppl. p. 71 

 (1776). I am glad that we are not forced to adopt this latter name, as its diagnosis 

 is not clear, and the author mixed up with the Red-headed Shrike the common 

 Red-backed Shrike. On the other hand, he based his miricidati'S primarily on 

 Daubenton's " Pie grieche rousse," the male of which was figured on that gentleman's 

 PI. 9. In mixing up with it L. collurio he partly followed Daubenton himself, who 

 figured a female of i. collurio as that of the Red-lieaded Shrike. Therefore there 

 was some excuse for adopting the name auriculatus, as Dresser and Gadow ha\'e 

 done, and in no case can L. auriculatus be quoted as a doubtful synonym of minor, 

 as has been done by Grant (p. 470). 



Mr. Grant's quotation of Daubenton's plates is not correct. He quotes : "Pie- 

 grieche Rousse de France Buff., PL Enl. i. p. 239, PI. LllL, No. 9, Fig. 2," and 

 similarly in the footnote. I do not know what PI. LIII. No. 9 means at all, as it is 

 PI. 9, Fig. 2, but not PI. 53 ; moreover it is impossible to quote "■ PI. Enl. p. 239," 

 as the PI. Enl. are plates without text by Daubenton and not by Bufifon, who, 

 however, together with Montbeillard, wrote the great Hisl. Nat. des Ois., to which 

 Daubenton's plates, as far as they represented birds, were added as an atlas, though 

 they originally appeared quite independently. 



I am glad to be able to agree with j\lr. Grant regarding the question of the races 

 of L. senator, of which there are three. IMr. Grant justly unites the Shrike inhabiting 

 N.W. Africa with the European form. I have been one of the ofi'enders who 

 separated a paler North African race, and who, worst of all, adopted once upon a time 

 {Senckenh. Cat. p. 90) for it the name rutilans, which is based on Daubenton's 

 I'l. 477, Fig. 2. Koenig insisted, in various articles, that the North African form had 

 a paler head and back, and was a good species. Erlanger declared that Koenig was 

 wrong, and that the head, in fresh plumage, was at least as bright as in Europe, but 

 that the under-surface was more strongly washed with ru.sty-buff. Kleinschmidt 

 (in litt.) believes that the lighter back which is seen in some specimens is peculiar to 

 North-M'est African specimens, while Hilgert (in litt.) doubts if the head in European 

 examples gets so bright as in some African birds. I have examined over a hundred 

 specimens from various parts of Europe and North Africa, and I must now agree with 

 Grant, Whitaker, and most of the older autliors, that we cannot separate the form 

 from North-^^'est Africa from that of Southern and Central Europe. Two other sub- 

 species, howeter, are fairly well distinguishable : i.e. Lanius senator niloticus, with 

 wide white base to the central rectrices as well as to the rest ; and Laniths senator 

 hadius, without white speculum, i.e. white base to the outer primaries. The latter 

 inhabits Corsica and Sardinia, and migrates to West .\frica ; the former breeds from 

 southern Persia to Palestine, and seems to winter in North-East Africa, where it has 

 not yet been found breeding with any certainty. 



Mr. Grant calls Lanius senatw niloticus binomially Lanius i"ufus. This, 



