494 NOTES ON JAPANESE BIRDS STEJNEGER. 



and I am sorry to say that Mr. Seebobm's treatment of the three forms 

 known to occur in Japan (B. Jap. Emp., pp. 169-171) has only added to 

 the confusion. 



In the first place he says of Japanese examples of G. eanorus (which 

 I consider subspecifically distinct from the European Common Cuckoo 

 under the name of G. teleplionus) that they completely intergrade with 

 the " Himalayan Cuckoo" ( G. kelungensis) in size, and that it is not known 

 that they differ in any way in color, except that in the adult Common 

 Cuckoo there is no tendency for the tail to darken near the tip, and in 

 the rufous stage there are no bars across the rump. The " Himalayan 

 Cuckoo" again, he states to be "a small form of the Common Cuckoo, 

 but having a totally different note it is regarded as specifically distinct. 

 The tail has a slight tendency to darken towards the tip, and in the 

 rufous stage the rump is barred." Now, as a matter of fact, these 

 statements, in so far as they refer to the similarities of the two forms, 

 do not hold good. The size of the two do not only intergrade, but 

 they are practically alike in size. It is in color, however, that the dif- 

 ference is marked. It is so far from that " it is not known that they 

 diff'er in any way in color," that they are known to differ in the follow- 

 ing points: 



(1) Upper surface in G. kelungensis (Japanese si)ecimens) are darker 

 and more plumbeous (bluish) ; (2) ground color of under surface is 

 always more buffy, particularly the under tail-coverts; (3) dark cross- 

 bars underneath are very much blacker, broader, and more distant 

 than in the Japanese form of the Common Cuckoo; (4) the markings on 

 the under wing-coverts are essentially different, the greater part of the 

 lining of the wing in G. kelungensis being nearly uniform, against very 

 narrowly and distinctly cross-barred in G. telephonus. 



On the whole, there should be no difficulty in distinguishing these 

 two forms, though in forms so alike superficially it may require a care- 

 ful study and a large material to first point out the differences. I am 

 inclined to think that the statements of Mr. Seebohm here criticised 

 are due to the fact that he has not properly separated the two iorms. 

 A proof of this is before me consisting of the two skins (Blak. Nos. 

 13710 and 2711), which in 1884 (Ibis, 1884, p. 36) Mr. Seebohm referred 

 to '■'•GuculuH liimalayanus,^^ though in reality only No. 2710 belongs to the 

 species he so designates {G. kelungensis)^ while No. 2711 is a specimen 

 of the "Common Cuckoo" (0. telephonus). 



(164) Cuculus tamsuicus Swinh. 



An adult male (No. 1117) is from the Tagurasawa village, province 

 of Sagami. 



This species looks almost like a miniature G. kelungensis, but differs, 

 besides in size, also in the coloration of the upper surface, which is 

 more olive-gray, while in the large species it is plumbeous and darker. 



The name adopted by me for the smallest of the Japan cuckoos is 



