( 466 ) 



The female has a shorter wiug, and the pectoral band is more rusty brown. 



Two young liinls agree with the one described in Not. Zool. x. p. 220, with 

 the exception of the under tail-coverts, which are huff or whitish buff, instead of 

 rufous. 



120. Megalurus macrurus rnacrurus (Salvad.). 

 (if. Nov. Knit. 1 90S. p. 225. 



6 <? ? , Owgarra, Angabnnga River, December 1904, February 1905. (Nos 

 A189:!, 1894, 10D2, 1937, 1946, 2056.) 



2 ? ?, Head of Aroa River, May 1905. (Nos. A 2205, 2253.) 



1 ?, Avera, Aroa River, February, May 1003. (Nos. A 196, 569.) 



121. Cisticola exilis Vig. & Horsf. 



Cf. Nov. Zool. 1903. p. 225. 



2SS, 1 ?? Upper Aroa River, December 1904. (Nos. B 82, 119, 124.) 



122. Sericornis nigrorufa Salvad. 



Cf. Nov. Zool 1903. p. 228. 



4c??, Avera, Aroa River, February, May, Juue 1903. (Nos. A 243, 495, 

 539, 574.) 



1 ?, Head of Aroa River, 13. v. 05. (No. A 2180.) 

 " Iris brown, feet dark brown, bill black." 



No. 495 is a very young bird. On the npperside it is exactly like the adult 

 bird, but the feathers of the underside are slightly duller in colour, and have 

 more or less distinct dusky edges or tips. The bill is much shorter, and both 

 mandibles appear to be entirely black. 



123. Sericornis perspicillata Salvad. 

 Cf. Nov. Zool. 1903. p. 228. 



t?, Avera, Aroa River, 17. v. 03. (No. A 48.5.) 



2 c?cf, 1 <?? Owgarra, Angabnnga River, November 1004, January, February 

 1905. (Nos. A 1830, 1074, 2100.) 



?, Head of Aroa River, 12. v. 05. (No. A. 2178.) 



"Iris brown, reddish brown, feet smoky brown, bill black." 



124. Sericornis olivacea Salvad. 



Sericornis olivacea Salvador!, Ann. Mux. Civ. Genova xxxvi. p. 100 (1X90 — Moroka). 

 Sericornis pueilla Rothsch. & Hart,, Nov. Zool. 1903. p. 228 (Mt. Gayata, Richardson Range, 2000— 

 4000 ft.). 



In 101)3, when describing 8. pusilla, we had only one example of S. olivacea 

 from Mt. Cameron to compare. We have now received four specimens from the 

 Aroa River, and, finding them more or less bridging over the gap between our 

 one S. olivacea from Mt. Cameron and the type of S. pusilla, we come to the 

 conclusion that they must belong to the same form. In fact, the only differences 

 between the specimen from Mt. Cameron and our pusilla was the smaller size 

 and less distinct stripes on the under-surface ; both these characters do not 

 hold good. 



