( 13 ) 



long as the crested tiudes. The very different descriptions of the " bowers " of the 

 two supposed species are rather puzzling at present, and we should try to learn more 

 about it, but if the birds cannot be distinguished our present knowledge of the 

 differences in their bowers cannot constitute their distinctness. W. K. 



Amblyornis subalaris Sharpe. 



A series of beautiful 'nudes and feiiudes from Eafa and Victoria districts. The 

 crest is 60 to 65 mm. long, but in one 70. In some skins it is pointed to a sharp 

 angle, but in others not. This is apparently due to preparation. The /em«?es have 

 the wing a little shorter. 



The iilate iUustrates the diflerences of the three recognised species : A. inonidia, 

 A. sidjcdaris, and A. fluvifrons (see Nov. ZooL. II. p. 480). W. 1!. 



Loria niariae (de Ms). 



One female from the Eafa district ; on the label : " Kye grey-black, feet greenish, 

 bill black." This bird entirely agrees with the descriptions of Cneniophilus niariae ? 

 and Loria Icn'icte Salvadori, but, as it has no wattles at the angle of the mouth, it 

 would pro[ierly belong to L. 'iitariue (de Vis). I, however, have a male from the Arfak 

 region which exactly agrees with the male of De ^■is's species, only the metallic 

 sheen on the inner secondaries is slightly more greenish. In view of this wide 

 distribution, which is the same as that of Amhlyornis inornata, I cannot at present 

 believe that Loria loriae and Loria vuiriae are really two different species. \V. R. 



Oriolus striatus (,!uoy it Gaim. 

 Three skins from Mailu. Iris dark red, bill red, feet bluish. 



Mino dumonti Less. 

 ? ad. One skin from Maihi. " P^ye, feet, beak yellow." Wing 143 mm. 



Calornis metallica ( T'-mui). 

 ? ad. Mailu. Iris red. Wing 1(14 mm. 



Paramythia montium de Ms. 



;\Iount Victoria ; one perfect skin, not sexed. Another in the British Jluseum. 

 Sclater has given an admirable figure by Keulemans in the IMs of this marvellous 

 bird. He there proposed, under reserve, to create a new family Paramythidae for 

 this bird, chiefly for the reasons that the covering of the tarsus differed from that of 

 the Stuniiilne (under which family it was classed liy its first deseriber) and that it 

 seemed to him (judging from an imperfect wing) that there was no first primary, or, 

 better said, that it had only nine primaries. It is true that tiie tarsus, with the 

 exception of its lowest part, is covered by an unbroken lamina, while it is covered 

 througliout with a number of very distinct scales in the Slurnidae, and the tarsus 

 and toes are very slender in comparison with those of the Slurnidae. On the wing, 

 however, I find that the first primary is not quite absent, though very much reduced. 

 It is stifi" and narrow, about 8 or 9 mm. long, and certainly not "functionary" 

 as a flight-feather. Nevertheless it is there, and tlie difierence between it and the 

 first (or tenth, as it is called by some authors) primary of Sturmis vidcjaris, where 

 it is about 15 mm. long, is less than that between Stwnus vulgaris and Lamprocolius 



