( 337 ) 



schtstosjerdoni, castaneiceps, sinensis, butleri, montis,Jloris, xanthopygia, grammiceps 

 and polioqew/s. 



Mr. Bianchi quite misunderstood the form called tephrocephalus by Anderson. 

 He renamed it Cr. burmanica (in the review of Cryptolopha misspelt "brumanica"), 

 thongh the original description, the figure in the " Yunnan Expedition," and 

 the locality clearly indicate that the so-called burmanica is the bird named 

 tephrocephalus by Anderson, and transferred the name tephrocephalus to a slightly 

 different form inhabiting Southern Kansu, which we recently received from the 

 Tsin-ling Mountains (Tai-pai-shan) in some numbers. The mistake could hardly 

 have been made if full importance had been given to the distribution of burkii, 

 tephrocephalus and mlentini, as I have named the new form from Kansu and 

 Tsin-ling-shan in my Yog. Pal. Fauna iv. p. 407, where I distinguished between 

 ( '/•. b. burkii, Cr. b. tephrocephalus and Cr. b. valentini, which represent each other 

 geographically and are therefore subspecies. 



On p. 57 Mr. Bianchi renamed a bird Cryptolopha harterti, which I had 

 described as Acanthopneuste Jloris {Nov. Zool. 1898, p. 114), because I had already 

 distinguished a bird as Cryptolopha montis jloris. I, however, do not consider this 

 to be necessary, because my Acanthopneuste jloris is a Phylloscopus, my Cryptolopha 

 montis Jloris a Cryptolopha. Therefore, C. harterti is a synonym of Jloris. On p. 60 

 my i 'ryptolopha ivaigiuensis is again enumerated, although I have at length explained 

 (.\nr. Zool. 1903, p. 473) that the bird to which I gave that name is the Gerygone 

 neglecta of Wallace. On the same page is distinguished my butleri from the Malay 

 Peninsula, but it is erroneously spelt with two tt. As the last species of the genus 

 Cryptolopha in Bianehi's review we find Oustalet's dejeani. This figures also 

 among the Cryptolophae in Sharpe's Handlist, but it has nothing to do with these 

 Flycatchers, beiug, in fact, the bird known from the Eastern Himalayas under 

 the name of Oligura castaneoventris (Burton). I am greatly obliged to Messrs. 

 Trouessart and Mdnegaux for sending me the type and various other specimens from 

 Ta-tsien-lu. They agree perfectly with Himalayan examples, and therefore the range 

 of Oligura castaneoventris extends from Sikkiin eastwards to the mountains of 

 Szetschwan. 



The wrong position assigned to Oustalet's species shows again how unfortunate 

 it is to write about birds with which one is not acquainted. In this case Professor 

 Oustalet had, moreover, corrected his error, and placed his dejeani in the genus 

 Oligura in 1901, in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. iv. vol. 3, p. 286, where he also 

 figured it on pi. xi. Judging from the description in Cat. B. vii., he still thought 

 it different from castaneoventris, but in this conclusion he was again wrong. 



Of the genns Phylloscopus (including Acanthopneuste, Oreopneuste, and 

 Reguloides) we have two excellent memoirs — viz. the systematic monograph of 

 this genus, by Seebohm, in vol. v. of the Cat. B. Brit. Mus. pp. 37-75, and 

 the review of the forms inhabiting the Russian possessions, by Pleske, in the 

 Ornithograpkia Rossica. Probably these works are the best of their respective 

 authors. That of Seebohm is certainly the best in the Cat. B. v., and is free from 

 those flights of fancy about development and origin which we fiud in most of the 

 author's' later works; while Pleske's review exhausts almost everything that can 

 bo said about Russian Phylloscopi np to the time of his writing, and contains very 

 few errors indeed. There is also an excellent and useful review of the Indian species 

 in Oates' B. oj India, vol. i., as far as it goes. 



The generic name of this genus is Phylloscopus Boie, 1826, and not " Phyllo- 



22 



