( 404 ) 



Under L. isnbeUmvfi Mr. Grniit has several synonyms which are referable to 

 phoenicuroides, and the description of the female is not correct. In the description 

 of L. darwini (a doubtful species, founded on a single skin), the measure of the 

 tarsus should be 0'95, not 1'95 in. 



In the distribution of L. hentef (p. 478) the "Moluccas" are included; but 

 L. bcntet has never been found on any island of the Moluccas. 



Under L. schach hybrids between L.schach and L. fuscatus are quoted, following 

 Mr. Eickett's suggestion; but this is not correct, the birds in question being young 

 L. fuscatus. 



Under L. vittaius Jlr. Grant describes birds in the " ftrst plumage" and "still 

 younger ones." This looks funny, but I think I understand it, and this leads me to 

 the remark that in most books the young birds are not clearly described. In most 

 cases the pas.serine birds have a plumage in which they leave the nest, and from this 

 they moult into a plumage which is generally described as the first plumage. It is 

 not always easy, and sometimes impossible, to distinguish between these two plumages, 

 our knowledge often being incomplete ; but we should try to describe both these 

 plumages, and distinguish between them, as the nest-plumage and the juvenile 

 plumage. 



A very interesting article on the genus Latiitis appeared recently in the Jourrud 

 fur Ornilholoffie. It is a study of the "Phylognese der Lanius-.Xrten," by Dr. 

 (iuido Schiebel. It is most readable, and contains many interesting facts. The 

 conclusions arrived at are sound and sensible, though they are, of course, not all 

 undoubted facts, but speculations, based only on the developments of the coloration 

 and markings. The article is that of an advanced systematic worker. Trinomial 

 nomenclature is used throughout. In a few cases the author endeavoured to bring 

 forward his ideas about the propriety of old names, but in this he failed altogether. 

 If the year 1758 is taken as the commencement of our nomenclature —and this is 

 fortunately done by Dr. Schiebel- -the name Lanius senator must be used for the 

 Ked-backed Shrike, as I have explained above. The judgment of ancient names 

 requires practice, and Dr. Schiebel would have done well if he had consulted an older, 

 more experienced ornithologist. Uf tiome forms tlie author had no material, and thus 

 some errors were unavoidable, but they are few and far between. Very instructive 

 plates by the author himself accompany the text: birds arrayed side by side in series, 

 in the shape of skins. This excellent method, first employed by Kleinschinidt, is 

 most commendable : room is spared, as more forms can be figured on one plate, the 

 imaginary surroundings of the birds do not distract attention and eyes, and the more 

 or less arbitrary and often erroneous positions of birds never seen by the artist are 

 avoided. 



I am sorry to say that the name Lnnius caudatus, given by Cabanis to an 

 East African Shrike in 1869, is preoccupied by Lanius cavdatus Brehm, 1855 

 {Vogelfanrj, p. 84), a silly synonym of Laniun iitthicus. It is therefore necessary to 

 rename the bird known as L. cawlatus, and I projiose to call it 



Lanius cabanisi nom. nov., 

 in memory of the veteran ornithologist .lean Cabanis, who died some months ago at 

 the age of almost 90 years. 



My notes on the Shrikes have become longer than 1 intended, and a great 

 portion of them consists of criticism and corrections of Mr. Grant's article. My 

 brother ornithologists, and first of all Mr. Grant himself, will understand the spirit in 



