67 



hargitti Kharitv. ( j). .')().").) Guimaras Panay 



[philipi>rn.,is Stccc. List I'.ds. & Mams. Masbatc Palawan 



8twi-o Ex}).. 11. S ( 1S!I()).| 



Negros 



mindorensis stcrrc. List Uds. & Mams. Mindoro 

 Steele Exp., p. 8 (1890). 



1'lic name 7'. siiliinisi.s has hccn given to the Sulu representatives of tlie genus by 

 W. Blasius (J. f. (). 18!)(). p. 140), who bases his determination on tive specimens 

 collected by Platen. He separates T. suluensis from T. javensis on the ground 

 tliat the bills and wings of tlie Sulu birds are shorter than are those of typical 

 representatives of 7'. jarcnsis. If llic latter species, wliirli ranges througii I'xirneo, 

 Hongao, Tawi Tawi, and Lapac. really gives way in Sulu to a distinct species 

 only to rcajipear again in Basilan and ^Mindanao, it would be remarkable, although 

 perhaps not more remarkable than that T. jar<iisis of .Mindanao should be 

 replaced by T. pecforalis in Panaon. Leyte, and Samar, and should reappear in 

 Lu/.oii. hi point of fact, Bourns and I were (piite uiuible to ditlerentiate our 

 Sulu specimens from typical T. jai-vnsis. and I must therefore decline to recognize 

 T. fiulitrnsis of Blasius as a \alid species. 



The question presented by the central I'liilippine representatives of the genus 

 can not be so readily disposed of. Dr. Steere separated the birds from (iuimaras 

 and Masbate under the name of T. ithilippciisis, differentiating tliem from 

 7'. jiirciisi.s <in the strengtii of their possessing buffy wliite rumps and cheeks 

 largely scarlet [List Bds. & Mams. Steere Ex]!.. ji. 8 (18!)0)L Bourns and 1 

 assigiu'd our I'auay specimens to this species, which we described somewhat more 

 fully than did Steere lOcc. Papers Minnesota Acad.. 1. No. 1. \k :■>:'> (lS!t4) 1. 



I.^ter, however, in preparing our distribution list, having noted that llargitt, 

 in Volume XVIII of the Catalogue of Birds, did not recognize T. philippcnsis, we 

 discarded the species and recorded all the central Philippine representatives of the 

 genus, including our Xegros specimens, under T. javensis. 



William Eagle Clark unhesitatingly identified an adult male bird collected in 

 Negros by Keay as T. hanjitti (Ibis, Oct., 1894, p. 534). In Ibis, Oct., 189.->. 

 ji. 474, Clarke quotes Hargitt's views as to tlie identity of this specimen, 

 llargitt failed to reach any definite conclusion, but suggested that it resembled 

 T. phiiippensis more closely than T. luiryiUi, and added that he regarded the only 

 other specimen that he had seen from Negros as 7'. jari'iisis. 



(iraut (Ibis. Oct.. 1894, p. 47:5) asserts tliat T. philip/xiisis Sli'cic is identical 

 with 7'. htiniilli Slidipr, and later reiterates this statement (Ibis, Oct., 189(i. 

 p. .'i.'iS I . Idit adds to our confusion by saying that the bird from Xegros recorded 

 by llargitt under the name of T. jaicnsis (Cat. Bds., XN'lil. p. .lOO, specimen X) 

 should, in his opinion, be referred to 7'. pcctoralis. all tlie feathers of its breast 

 being widely margined with whitish bull'. Finally (lark (Ibis, .laii., 1898, 

 p. |-J1 ) ideiitilics threi' additional specimens from Xegros as 7'. lunijil I i. 



.\s aliove noted, Shaipe, in his ilan(i-i,ist of I'.irds, refers the Xegros birds to 

 7'. jiniusis and retains Steere's 7'. pliili jipriisis. to which species he refers the birds 

 from Pamiy, (Juimaras, and Masbate. 



The ([uestion of the identity of the central I'hilipiiine representatives of tli<' 

 genus can hardly be satisfactorily settled without c()mi)aring a good series of 

 specimens with a similar series from Palawan. Meanwhile, in view of (Jiaiit's 

 positive statement that the types of T. h<ir<iitli and T. philipprnsis ha\c been 

 compared and agree in all particular>. I refer the central I'hilipiiine i('i)resenta- 

 tives of the genus to this species. \\ Ouik.stkk. 



