NOVITATES ZOOLOQICAE XXIV. 1917. 281 



mens belong to pM6escews, though Bianchi gives its distribution as " North- 

 western MongoHa and Altai and mountain regions of the middle and lower 

 Yellow River up to the PeehiMski Bay." A skin from the Gobi Desert in the 

 British Museum looks more like chukar than like pubescens. 



IV. AMMOPERDIX. 



The Catalogue of Birds recognises two species, A. heyi and bonhami. Later on 

 Mr. Ogilvie-Grant described A. cholmleyi from North-east Africa, and Zarudny 

 separated two forms of bonhami — i.e. Ammoperdix bonha7ni biicharensis from 

 Buchara and A. b. ter-meuleni from Arabistan. 



A. cholmleyi was described in The Handbook Game-B. ii. p. 293 (1897), 

 as inhabiting " Egypt and Nubia," Init the types came from the Erba Mountains 

 near 8uakim. It was said that cholmleyi is darker on the upperside and lacks 

 entirely the white forehead and lores characteristic of A. heyi. This is perfectly 

 correct, and cholmleyi must be considered a good subspecies of heyi. Curiously 

 enough, both Mr. Louis Bonhote and Michael Nicoll objected to cholmleyi because 

 they had seen, in the Tring Museum, a Palestine specimen without the white 

 lores and forehead. It is very curious that Mr. Nicoll calls the bird A. heyi 

 heyi, though he admits that he has not seen an Egyptian male with a white 

 forehead and that they are all darker than A. h. heyi. Mr. Nicoll talks of several 

 A. heyi heyi without a white forehead, but probably this is a slip. All I can 

 find out is that : North-east African (Suakim, Nubia, Egypt north to Heluan) 

 specimens are darker on the upperside and under-surface (both males and females), 

 and that the males have no white lores or forehead, that S A. h. heyi (from 

 South Palestine to Sinai) are paler and have two white loral spots, more or less 

 distinctly connected by a white frontal line with the exception of one from the 

 Wadi-Kelt (where other males have the white lores and frontal line) which has 

 neither white loral spots nor frontal hne ! ; the Wadi Kelt birds, however, are 

 quite as light-coloured as other typical A. h. heyi. The females of cholmleyi are 

 also darker than those of A. h. heyi, and in fact like some of " A. bo7ihami." 



Unfortunately the latter species must no longer be called bonhami but 

 griseogularis. That name, " Perdix griseogularis," was published April 24, 

 1843, the description of ^' Caccabis Bonhami" by Gray in May 1843, that of 

 " Perdix Bonhami " by Eraser not before November cf the same year. 



Zarudny (Orn. Monatsber, 1911, p. 83) described ^^ Ammoperdix bonhami 

 bucharejisis " from Buchara, but I cannot admit this .supposed subspecies, as 

 the alleged differences are, in my opinion, individual, and specimens from Buchara 

 which I examined are not smaller and agree in every way with tjrpical griseo- 

 gularis. 



Zarudny and Loudon (Om. Jahrb. 1904, p. 226) described also an A. bonhami 

 ter-meideni from Arabistan. According to their description the upperside is 

 much more rusty, the back with a vinous tinge, so that the grey colour almost 

 disappears, the crown has a distinct vinous tinge, the light spots on the sides 

 of the neck are " nearly always " strongly rusty. 



This description sounds quite convincing, and we are accustomed to paler 

 and more sandy forms in Arabistan. On the other hand, specimens from Bushire 

 and furtrher inland in Farsistan (Witherby coll.) are so very little more sandy oil 

 the head and back than typical griseogularis in very fresh plumage, in fact one 



