( 71 ) 



to place them in different genera. The Manjuis, however, did not concur with such 

 views, but united them all in one genus, viz. PhoenicopliaeH Vieill., and I believe 

 this is the most practical modus procedendi, it being much sui)ported liy I lie 

 discovery which I have made lately regarding the distinctness of the Borneo bird, 

 which hitherto has been always regarded as identical with Ph. erythroc/nathus Bp. 

 ex ^Malacca and Sumatra. In fact the Borneo bird differs from the typical form 

 in the shape of the nostrils, they being much smaller and more oblong instead 

 of being larger and quite circular, as in the form inhabiting JIalacea and Sumatra. 

 This and other discrepancies shown by the Borneo birds, as compared with the 

 typical ones, are so slight that some authors might be inclined to treat the Borneo 

 bird simply as a subspecies ; but as the differences appear to be (piite constant, and 

 may be well known from a diagnosis, I prefer to rank it as a valid species, though 

 indeed nobody would try to inake it a different genus. According to my x'iews we 

 may include in the genus Phoenicophaes the following species, viz. : — 



1. Ph. pyii'hocephahis (P'orst.), from Ceylon. 



2. Ph. aeneicaudus (T. & K. Verr.), from the island of Mentavei.* 



3. Ph. erytht'Of/nathus Bp., nee Hartl.,t from Malacca, Sumatra, and Xutunas. 



4. Ph. inicrorhinus Berl., from Borneo. 



5. Ph. curvirostris (Shaw), from Java. 



C). Ph. harringtoni Sharpe, from Palawan. 

 7. Ph. calorhynchus (Tem.), from Celebes. 



All these forms differ among themselves by the shape or situation of their 

 nosti'ils.J While Nos. 1 and 7 differ from each other as well as from the rest in 

 the coloration of their plumage, Nos. 3, 4, and 5, as compared inter se, hardly show 

 any difference in the plumage, and Nos. 2 and 6 present but a slight difference in 

 this respect as compared with Nos. 3, 4, and 5. 



All the.se species inhabiting different islands (one only being found on tlie 

 continent), where they evidently are to be regarded as representative forms, there is 

 all iirobability that they once have been derived from a common stock, and that the 

 chai'acters which now distinguish them ai'e simplj' the result of isolation. 



It is certainly a most remarkable fact that in this case isolation has caused a 

 different shape of nostrils, while it has been of no or very slight influence regarding 

 the coloration of the plumage in four or five islands inhabited by these birds. We 

 may therefore conclude that the style of coloration of the plumes of l)ircls in some 

 cases is more likely a character due to inheritance than some external structural 

 peculiarities, and further we may conclude that it is not advisable to place species 

 whicli are otherwise closely allied in different genera solely on account of slight 

 structural differences. 



• .Salvad., Arm. Mus. Ciric. .SV. uat. Griioni, .\iv. ^Ducembor Uth, 1891), p. oOO. 



t This name is generally ascribed to Harllimb, but refei-rins^ to Hartlaub's Si/sf. Vri-z. d. naturh. 

 Samvil. d. Gn- Mus. Bremvn (1814), where the name of Ph. trythrugnathns first appears, I finil thai it 

 has been bestowed on sjieeimens from Java and Malacca, no dencrij/tioii being addcil to it. It follows that 

 Hartlaub did not intend to sep.avate the Malaeca form from that of Java. Furlher, Hartlaub cannot be 

 claimed as the author of that name, as he added no descrijttkm to it, the name l>eing therefore mci"ely 

 a iwmeit nudum al that time. Happily enough, five years later Pnnee Bonaparte, in his Otiuf^ie^tus 

 Gent-rmn Avium, \. (ISiy). p. 81), has given a good description of our species, using the same name, vis: 

 P. iryihrognathint (e.x Temminck MS. in Mus. Lugd.), for it, and giving a correct habitat, viz. Sumatra. 

 Therefore this species must now stand as P/i. I'rytliroipinthvs Dp. 



X I have been unable to examine in this respect Pit. acucicaudits (Verr.). 



