( 380 ) 



wliifli is apparent from tlie descriptions is, that iconilfordi has a vinous Inili'-cullar, 

 while alhoqularis lias nut. Our series, together with that in the Britisii Miisenm, 

 however, clearly proves that this is no distingnishing character wliatever, as it is 

 absent, indicated and well developed in specimens from the same island, nor is there 

 any other jteculiarity to distinguish the two supposed forms. There is also no 

 geographical evidence that they are various races, as Gnadalcanar would have 

 {P.Z.S. 1888, p. I;s3) both forms. We have now the following specimens before ns : — 



Kulambangra : 1 cj ad., 1 cJ jnv. 



Gnadalcanar : '-' 6 jnv., 1 i ad., 1 ? jnv., 2 ? ad. 



42. Astur versicolor Uams. 



1882. Astur cersicolor Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. X. S. Wales, VI. p. 718. 



1888. Astur holomelus Sliarpe, I'.Z.S. 1888, p. 182. 



There can be no doubt, from the descriptions, that holomelas is the same as 

 versicolor. The former is described from Gnadalcanar, the latter came from Ugi 

 {Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, VII. ji. 30, 1882). 



Dr. Sharpe, when describing his holomelas, did not refer to versicolor at all, 

 bnt suggested the possibility that it might be a melanism of woocl/orcli, while 

 Ramsay suggested that his versicolor might be a melanotic form of albogularis. 

 We, however, have jnst found out that A. alboffularis and woodfordi are the same. 

 We have received a very fine male, shot on Gnadalcanar on April 10th, 1901. 

 The iris is described as " bright yellow," the feet as " sage-green," the bill as 

 " slatj-black with a bluish-slate base." 



The appearance of this bird, which in all its proportions and size agrees with 

 .1, albogularis, certainly suggests the possibility that it is a black phase or melanotic 

 aberration of ,1. albogularis, especially as it occurs on various islands together with 

 A. albogularis ; but until we have more evidence to prove that this is the case, we 

 have to enumerate it as a species, which, after all, it might be. 



43. Astur pulchellus Rams. 



1880. Astur soloi'Hsis (uon Latham 1), Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales 

 IV. p. 66 ('' Cape Pitt, Solomon Islands"). 



1883. Astur pulchellus, U&ms&y, Journ. Linn. Soc. London, XV I. p. 131 (refers 

 to the specimen named solocnsis before). 



1883. Astur pulchellus, Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. K S. II V(/c.sr, VII. p. 31 (Cape 

 Pitt, Gaudalcauar [Cocherell], Florida Island [Morton]. 



(This statement is full of mistakes and misspellings. ( 'ape Pitt is the southern- 

 most cape of New Georgia, and not on Gnadalcanar, which island is meant by 

 " Gaudalcauar," and the collector's name is Cockerell, not " Cocherell ".) 



1883. Urospizias pulchellus, Salvadori, Orn. Papuasia, III. p. 508. 



1888. A.'stur shebae, Sharpe, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1888, p. 183. 



1899. Astur shebae and pulchellus, Sharjie, Hand-list, I. p. 249. 



Dr. Sharpe distinguishes two upecies, pulchellus and shebae, from the Solomon 

 Islands. Those that he calls pulchellus have the under wing- and under tail-coverts, 

 as well as the thighs, as deep rufous as the breast and abdomen, and the throat 

 somewhat darker ; while his shebae have the throat somewhat more whitish, the 

 under tail- and under wing-coverts wiiitish, and the thighs much lighter rufous. 

 Other difl'ereuces there arc none. 



