( 624) 



fnim the males, secondly it conld hardly be expected that among 18 specimens (tlie 

 spotted young not counted) there would be no fe nude, thirdly because Doherty 

 expressly calls attention to this fact in a letter and on two labels ("Aspect of mule, 

 bnt eggs visible," and " ? no doubt!"). 



From Cldorophoiieus (jiiadricolor this sj)ecies differs in the crimson (not green) 

 foreheail, the absence of a yellow line from the bill to the eye, the crimson (not 

 scarlet) throat, the wider pectoral crescent, the ])nrer yellow underside, crimson 

 under tail-coverts, and brighter less olive-green upi)erside. From Cldorojdioiicn* 

 viridis, its nearest ally, it differs in the crimson (instead of orange) forehead, 

 absence of red below the black pectoral crescent, and yellow abdomen. From 

 both C. (jKudricolor and C. riridis our species differs further in the similarity of 

 the se.xes. 



Together with Pt/luiopiis dohei-tiji from Suraba, I'ittc dolirrti/i from Hula, 

 Zosterops dohertiji, Geocichla dohertiji, and others, this shrike will help to make 

 Doherty's name immortal in the annals of ornithology. 



10. Chlorophoneus sulfureopectus (Lesson). 



Laniariussul/ureopectus Lesson, Traitc d'Urn. (1831) p. 373 ("Afri(iue." We 

 have to accept "Senegal" as the typical locality, since Neumann, J^.y. (>. 1S'.»9. 

 p. 8!io, has fixed it ibr sul/ureopectiis). 



cJ. Escarpment 6600 ft., January 1901. "Iris dark brown, feet bine-grey, 

 claws dark, l)ill all black." 



With regard to the genus it is no doubt correct to se})aratc' it fruiu both 

 Laniarius and Jfalaconotiig, but I cannot see the necessity of creating a new genus 

 for these birds which seem to me to belong to the genus Cldorophoneus Cab. (type 

 CId. rubiqinosus). I therefore accept the genera Malaco/iotiis, Ghloropkoneus, 

 I'elicinitis, l.ayuarhis, Dryoscopus and ( 'ka'Oio/iOtii.s, bnt not Cogmophoneiis of 

 Neumann. 



I cannot distinguish the one sjiecimen obtained by Doherty from a number of 

 W. African skins. There is no doubt that the W. African and the S. African form 

 can be separated as two distinct subsjiecies. Mr. Oscar Neumann, with his usual 

 acumen, has recently (•/../. i>- 1899. p. 39y) separated a number of subspecies of 

 ' 'hlorophoHi-na aiilfinropectiii^. He recognised three races and a ilonbtful one. The 

 last {mndt'stiis Bocage) I do not know. There is no doubt that W . African birds 

 (sui)posed tyjiical s(ilf'iiiroii<rtii.s) have as a rule deep black ear-coverts, while South 

 (and East) African birds have grey or slaty ear-coverts. I have, however, seen a 

 male from Landana and one from Fantee with much grey on the auricular region, 

 and a bird from Piuetown (Ayres coll.) with much black on the ear-coverts. The 

 other diU'erences mentioned by Neumann, as far as I can see, arc of no value. The 

 dilTerent length of tlie yellow sniierciliary line is generally due to iii-epanition, the 

 depth of the orange lireast and forehead variable (generally lighter in the female?) 

 the tail has always yellow tips and inner margins. It seems to me that Dr. Sharpc 

 is correct in recognising only a (tyjiical) Western form, and a Southern and Eastern 

 one. Tiie latter he calls (diryanyastir Swains. Swainsou described and figured {B. 

 \V. Africa i. 1^43. p. x;44. I'l. XXV.) a bird with a distinctly grey anrienlar region, 

 and 1 believe, therefore, that we are entitled to accept his name rhri/xotja.-tli'i- for the 

 South African form, although he erroneously attributed his bird to " Senegal." 



Doherty's bird from the Escarpment (OoUO ft.), has the lores and line uiidei 



