( 430 ) 



1 <?, 1 ? ad., 1 6 jnv. Milne Bav, January, Febrnary 1S99. (Nos. 2200, 2236, 

 2330.) A. S. Meek coll. 



Salvadori (Aggiunte Orn. Pap. I. pp. 48, 49) has separated a northern form, 



which, he says, is distinguished by somewhat smaller size, longer bill, and lighter 

 nuder-snrface, under the name of C. arfakianus. Its distribution is said to be 

 the Arfak Peninsula, Salwatti, Mysol and Aru, while ft castaneioentrit inhabits 

 S.E. New Guinea and the Cape York Peninsula. Dr. Finsch says (I.e. p. 82) 

 that he agrees with Shelley in not considering arfakianus a distinct species. As 

 we have not seen a series of the latter, we cannot venture to decide about this, but 

 we are a priori convinced that Salvadori is a better judge than either Shelley 

 or Finsch, as the former had compared examples of both forms, while Shelley 

 had before him only adult specimens of the true castaneiventris, and Finsch 

 evidently only such of the northern form, from Am, Mysol, Salwatti, and the 

 Arfak Peninsula. The young bird from Key and other young ones mentioned 

 by Fiusch are evidently young assimilis. 



Our series, .as enumerated above, is very constant, though there is certainly 

 some individual variation in the brightness and intensity of the colour nuderneath. 

 The young of C. castaneicetitris differs entirely from that of ft assimilis. While 

 the latter is above dark olivaceous brown with rufous crossbars and spots, and 

 beneath also heavily barred, that of ft castaneiventris has the npperside chocolate 

 brown with an olivaceous bronzy shine, without bars, the uuder-surfaee pale rusty 

 brown, the tail dark slate with edges and bars. From this plumage they moult 

 straight into that of the adult bird. 



We have, however, a very peculiar bird, obtained at Wanumbai, on Kobroor 

 Island, Aru Group, 31. viii. 1900, by Heinrich Kilhn. This is above like the young 

 of ft castaneiventris, but the underside is creamy white, with parts of the flanks 

 and some few patches rufous-chestnut, as fresh leathers appear here and there. 

 Is this the juvenile plumage of C. c. arfakianus t Or is there a third, hitherto 

 unrecognised, subspecies on the Aru Islands ? Only the comparison of a series 

 of adult and young birds from Arfak as well as from the Aru Islands, with our 

 series from British New Guinea can decide these questions. 



Cacomantis excitus sp. now 



Supra saturate schistaeeus, alis nitore aeiieo-virescente, rectricibus chalybeis, 

 albo terminatis, lateralibus albo notatis ut in formis congeueribus similibns. 

 Meuto, gula snperiore, capitisque lateribus schistacco-ciucreis, collo autico, pectore, 

 abdomine plus minusve sordide castaneo-bruuueis ; alarum flexuris albis, plus 

 minnsve rnfescente lavatis, remigum pogoniis intends basin versus late cineras- 

 cente-albidis, ut in congeneribus ; subcaudalibus saturate ciunamomeo-rufis. Al. 

 137—142; caud. 132—140; culmen 21—23 mm. 



llab. In montibus Novae Guiueae meridioualis oricntalis. 



This most interesting new form is nearest to Cacomantis meehi from Isabel 

 Island, Solomon Archipelago, but differs at a glance by its much smaller bill 

 (culmen 21— 23, against 26 — 28 in ft mee/ti), linker, more or less dirty or clouded 

 chestnut-brown under-surface, as well as darker, more slaty chin and throat. It 

 is doubtless a subspecies of ft meeki from Isabel. The latter is evidently a form 

 representing ft addendus from Kulambangra and New Georgia, but we find it 

 difficult to decide to which form of New Guinea it is nearest allied. Evidently 



