(480) 



The Generic Names TESIA and OLIGURA. 



lu 1837 Hodgson (Joitni. As. Soc. Bengal, 1837. p. 101) created a genus under 

 the name Tegia. It embraced four species : T. cyan/ renter, T. Jlaci center, 

 T. albiventer, and T. nifirenter. 



In 1845 {Proc. Zool. Soc. London, xiii. pp. 24, 2."i), having recognized that 

 these four species were not congeneric, he established two othtir genera : on p. 24 

 the genus Pnoepyga, embracing albiventer and rufiventer, also a fornierl}' nnuamed 

 species, P. pusilhis. He says that bis genus Pnocpi/ga is " olim Testa," but this 

 is not quite correct, as I have explained above. Therefore the two Wrens, Piioepyya 

 aUt/ renter and pu.iillus {nifirenter being the female of albirentcr), having been taken 

 out and separated, the name Tesia remains as the generic term for the two species 

 cyanhenter and Jiauventer, but Hodgson {Proc. Zool. Soc. London, xiii. p. 25) 

 renamed them Oligura, a name which thus quite clearly is a synonym of Tesia. If 

 the two species — unnecessarily in my opinion — are placed in two different genera, 

 the name of Tesia might be restricted to cyanicentcr, the first species mentioned, 

 but Oligura, being a strict synonym of Tesia, cannot be used ^ovflarirenter (a name 

 preoccupied by castaneocoronata of 1835), and a new generic name would have to be 

 created for the latter. As I have said above, I consider this separation unnecessary. 



In my former notes on Tesia castaneocoronata I have, by a slip of the pen, 

 called the latter castatieorentris {Nor. Zool. 1907. p. 337). 



The Genus SPELAEORNIS. 



In 1877 Messrs. David & Onstalet created this genus for the two species 

 troglodytoides and halsueti, both from China {Ois. Chine, p. 229). In 1881 our 

 late friend Sharpe created a new genus i'rocichla, separating it — according to his 

 key — from Spetaeornis merely by a somewhat longer bill and, one would under- 

 stand from his words, by a less thickened operculum over the nostrils {Cat. B. Brit. 

 Mils. vi. j)p. 181, 263). Neither of these differences is of any generic value, the 

 greater length of the bill being present to the extent of about 1 — 2 mm. onl)-, and 

 the thicker membrane over the nostrils not at all ! 



Therefore Urocichla is a pure synonym of Sjielaeornis. 



I enclose in the genus Spclaeornis also the bird described in the Cat. li. Brit. 

 Mus. vi. p. 305 under the name of Pnoepyga caudata. Unfortunately it has 

 nothing to do with Pnoepyga. In Pnoepyga the tail consists of six rectrices only, 

 and is not visible at all, as it disappears in the mass of silky soft disintegrated 

 rump-feathers, in addition to other differences. In Spclaeornis, however, the tail is 

 conspicuous and consists often rectrices. It is true that Spelncornis caudata has a 

 shorter tail than troglodytoides, halsueti, and souliei, and I am afraid some genus- 

 sjilitter will before long create a new generic name for it. I, however, do not 

 approve of this, and am satisfied by placing ^^ caudata'" (a somewhat silly name, 

 which one can only understand when one knows that it was described as a sj)ecies 

 of Tesia) into its right neighbourhood, removing it from Pnoepyga, as had 

 already been done by Gates {Fauna Brit. India, Birds, i. p. 341), who placed it in 

 the genus Urocichla, together with longicaudata. 



The failure to find that Urocichla is merely a synonym of Spelaeornis is due 

 to the absence of any specimens of either S. troglodytoides and 5. halsueti, or 

 souliei, in the British Museum. Probably Sharpe, when creating his Urocichla, 



