( 11 ) 



ON SOME NECESSARY AND SOME DESIRABLE CHANGES 



OF NAMES LATELY USED IN CONNECTION WITH 



PHILIPPINE BIRDS. 



By ERNST HARTERT. 



1. Ciiviiyris excellens Grant, Ball. B.O.C. No. XXIII. p. xviii (1895), and lids, 189.'), 

 p. 2o.'), should stand as Cinnyris fiagrans (Ou.«t.), having been described nearly 

 twenty years before by Oustalet under the name of Aethopyga jlagrans in the Journ. 

 de I'Institut, 1876, p. 108, and being excellently figured and described by Shelley in 

 his admirable monograph of the Nectariniidae. The type of G. fiagrans came from 

 Laguna, the same place whence E\erett sent a fine series to the Tring Museum (see 

 Nov. ZooL. II. p. 488). 



2. Artamides minda'iiensis Steere is the name still used for a Graucahis with 

 generallj' pure white under tail-coverts inhabiting Jlindanao, Basilan, and some 

 other islands, but it must be called Graucahis hochii Kutter, having been clearly 

 described under that name by Kutter in Ornith. Centralhl. 1882, p. 183. See also 

 Journ. f. Orn. 1883, p. 308, and 1891, p. 293. One might, of course, use the generic 

 name Artamides for it, but I do not consider the differences important enough for 

 generic separation. 



3. Alcedo ispida L. from the Philippines would be with more accuracy called 

 A. ispida bengalensis, only the small Eastern subspecies of our kingfisher occun-ing 

 there. 



4. Macropte'i'yx coniata would be better called M. comata tnajor Hart., all 

 Philippine birds having very long wings (Nov. ZooL. II. p. 473). 



5. In Ibis, 1896, p. 554, Grant has declared that " Munia brunneicepjs is merely 

 the wora autumn plumage of M. jagori." With this sentence he evidently means to 

 say that the birds of Celebes, North Borneo, and the Philippines all belong to the 

 same species, in which he is doubtless right. It seems, however, still a question 

 whether the Celebes birds are not in the main slightly different after all, thus being 

 subsjiecifically separable. In any case Grant has, I think, pointed out the true 

 relationship of the so-called M. brunneicepjs, and it may be further considered whether 

 M. jagori is more than subspecifically different from M. atricapnlla. 



