( fi'" ) 



unfortniiately their identity is very tloiibtful. lu ^^)lll;l^Klillg thus I luu ijnite aware 

 of tbe (lauger in generalising facts iu oology, and I know that cases are well known 

 where closely allied forms lay entirely different eggs — so Muscimpn grisola (eggs 

 sjjotted) and ^1/. atricupUla (eggs uniform lilne), two birds wiiich even by keen 

 genera-splitting ornithologists (cf. for example the Catalogue of Birils, vol. iv.) are 

 mostly placed into the same genus — but snch cases are exceptional, and it is a most 

 striking thing that in snch cases similarly coloured species lay similarly coloured eggs, 

 while sliglit so-called " structural " differences seem to have less influence on the eggs' 

 colour. So the greyish striped M. grisola has the eggs spotted, while the black-and- 

 white Al. ntricapilla and M. collatis have similar bine eggs ; so the black-and-white 

 wagtails have all eggs of the well- k nown character of those of M. lurtuosa and ,1/. ollxi, 

 wliile tlie yellow wagtails, the ^^. /lam and its many allies — which on account of a 

 somewhat different hind-claw and different habits have been, wrongly, as Sharpe and 

 I and many others think, generically separated as Budijtes — have quite different eggs, 

 and the also yellow M. sulfuren (melanope), which nobody included into Btidgtes, 

 but which remained in the genus Motacilla, has eggs quite similar to those of 

 t he yellow " Budytes " group. 



Again, cases of one and tbe same species laying eggs of totally different tyj)es 

 and character are extremely excejjtional, although the rule iu Cisticola and allied 

 forms, so that it would hardly be advisable to sujipose that both Przewalski's and 

 our eggs were true R. frontalis eggs. Pleske. it is trne, also described two 

 differently coloured eggs as those of R. frontalis, bnt they are not half so far from 

 each other as his and ours. It is also only fur to mention that an allied bird, the 

 Prufincola moussicri' of North- AVest Afri<'a, also lays eggs of two different types ; but 

 iu this case too they are not half so far one from another as tliose described as 

 lielonging to R. frontalis. While Salvin {This, lf?io9, p. 3ii7) and Canon Tristram 

 {Ibis, 1859, p. 41(3; 1860, p. 3C5) only found eggs that were white with the ftiintest 

 tinge of bluish green. Dr. A. Koenig recently (see Journ. f. Orn., 1892, p. 415, 

 footnote) found them of two types — white with the faintest tinge of bluish green, 

 and others of a light greenish bine colour. 



4. Chimarrhornis leucocephalus (Vig.). 



Gates, in Hume's 2\cs>s mnl Eijit.< I nil. B., ii., p. (il! ; Pleske, Ar.cs, 

 Przewalski's Rciscn, pp. 67-69. 



One clutcli of three eggs uuly sent. I'leske, although giving good details of 

 the habits of this bird, does not describe the eggs, and also Gates seems only to 

 rejieat Hume's notes and did not see the eggs himself, so that it is doubtful whether 

 there are any eggs of this bird in any European museum. Mr. Anderson, in Gates' 

 book (I.e.), says that the eggs are so very like giant specimens of the eggs of 

 R/i>/acornis fuliginosKS (Vig.) that any further description is almost sujierfluous. 

 I have not those of Rlrt/acornis fuliginosus before me, but I find that tlie eggs of 

 Chimarrhornis resemble the better marked ones of Pratincola capi-ata, which, 

 according to Mr. Brooks, in Gates (J.c), j). 05, are much like those of Rh/ac. 

 fxdiginoms. However, I find that the eggs of Chimarrhornis leucocephalus are 



• Although P. mttussicri has been originally described .13 an Erithacug, and is often termei Rutieilla 

 wmiftxirrU so also in Dresser's Ilifds of Europe^ all observers — Salvin (/./•.), Canon Tristram (/.r.). and 

 Dr. Koeiiig (in his various articles in the .Toiirn.f. 0;-n.)— state that it is more a I't-alincMa than a UoUstart. 

 and so says Seebohm (<7a^ B., v., p. 40G), and so should I eoucludc without hesitation from tlie bird' 

 appearance. 



