( 222 ) 



Malay Peninsula, but we have no specimens of ricketti and only a female of wrayi 

 in the Tring Museiiin. The differences of these forms are explained by Mr. Ogilvie- 

 Graut {I.e.). 



155. Gecinus chlorigaster loug^ipennis subspec nov. 



1 $ Cheteriang, 11. i. 1904 (No. 211). 



1 ? Mt. Wnchi, 22. v. 1903 (No. 211). 



5 <?,?, 4 ?? Mt. Wuchi, November 1900 (No. B. 211). 



This splendid new subspecies — species for most ornithologists, but in my 

 opinion doubtless the representative of Gecinus chlorigasfer ehloriganter of Sonth 

 India and Ceylon, and of G. cldorigaster rodgeri from the Malay Peninsula — is 

 much larger than the Sonth Indian chlorigasfer. The lower portion of the lores 

 and a line passing from the lores under the ear-coverts is pale yellowish green. 

 In none of the — apparently adult— males is there a red malar stripe, which is so 

 conspicnons in G.c. ehloriga.-iter, but in three of them are some red spots to indicate 

 it; neither of them has the crown entirely red or blackish with red tips, but red 

 with large green patches ; it is impossible to say if the crown would ever become 

 qnite red, but these males appear to be adult. Bill larger ; buff spots on the sides 

 of breast and abdomen smaller ; otherwise like G. r. chloriqaster. Wing of males 

 130 — 137, of females 128 — 130 mm., in one example (? wrongly sexed) 137 mm. 

 Cnlmen 265 — 275 mm. 



Type of Gecinus cldorigaster longipennis: S Mt. Wuchi 15. xi. 1906 

 (Katsnmata coll.). 



150. Gecinus canus hainanus Grant. 



Gecinus Imimnus Grant, Ihis 1890. p. 584 ; P. Z. S. 1900. p. 482. 



2 ? ? Mt. Wnchi, 25. iii., 24. v. 1903 (No. 186). 

 1 <?, 1 ? Mt. Wnchi, 15. xi. 1905 (No. ISO). 



4 ? ? Mt. Wuchi, November 1900 (No. B. 186). 



1 tJ, 2 ¥ ? Cheteriang, 5. 10. i. 1904 (No. 186). 



I quite agree with the views hinted at by Mr. La Tonche in Iftis, 1907, pp. 2. 3 

 — viz. that G. gueriiii, iar/colo, and others are forms of G. eanus, with whicli they 

 apparently " intergrade " in some places. 



Mr. Ogilvie-Graut erroneonsly compared his new " species," G. hainanus, with 

 G. guerini. It is certainly very different from Gecinus canus guerini of Chiukiang, 

 etc., but it is not easy to separate it from Gecinus canus tancolo from Formosa and 

 Southern China, up to Fokien. In fact, it only differs from the latter in being 

 slightly smaller — the bill generally less powerful, the wing shorter. 



The wings of 3 <J<J from Hainan measure 132, 135, and 130 mm., those of 

 the females from 130 to 130, and in one example 138 mm., while I measure on 

 Chinese and Formosan birds as follows : 



<?(? Yangtsekiang : 14S, 148 mm. 



<J Kiukiang : 145 mm. 



<J Foochow : 143 mm. 



(J Formosa : 138 mm. 



?? Formosa: 137, 137 mm. 



It will thns be seen that" Gecinus hainanus" hardly differs from typical tancolo 

 (described from Formosa). I may add that there are no ditt'ereuces in colour, tancolo 

 being as dark and as green as hainanus. 



