184 ORNITHOLOGICAL EXPLORATIONS. 



quotes neither Ph. pelagicus Pall, nor Ph. hicristatus Pall, among tlie 

 synonyms of bis Ph. violaceus. Swinhoe, in 1874 (Ibis, p. 164), clearly 

 pointed out the difference between the two forms, and was followed by 

 all later writers on Japanese ornithology. Professor *Baird, in 1869 (Tr. 

 Chicag. Acad., I, 1869, p. 321), correctly kept the two species separate, 

 retaining for the one Pallas's name bicristatus, while applying Gmelin's 

 name violaceus to pelagicus Pall., and herein he has been followed by all 

 later American authors without exception. The only modern ornitholo- 

 gist, of any consequence, who has confounded the two species is evidently 

 Mr. Taczanowski himself, quoting, as he has done, jielagictis Pall, as a 

 synonym of bicristatus Pall, (see Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1877, p. 41). 



Mr. Taczanowski then proceeds to give a comparative table of the 

 distinctive characters of the breeding males of the two species ; but, 

 although generally correct, he falls into some errors in describing the 

 colors of the naked parts. In urile [=bicristatus) the naked skin of tbe 

 face is not " d'un rouge minium," but bright reddish orange, while the 

 "peau nue sur la naissance de la mandibule inf6rieure, au bordde la 

 machoire, et de la gorge," is not " noiratre," but beautiful blue. The 

 difference in color of the naked parts is truthfully represented in the 

 colored drawings, pi. viii, figs. 1 and 2, made by me from the fresh 

 specimens less than an hour after they were killed. The drawings also 

 represent the difference in the coloration of the iris in tbe two species. 



It is not only in the coloration of the naked parts of the faces that 

 the two species differ. They are easily told apart by structural differ- 

 ences in almost all ages, and even the downy young and the eggs are 

 easily distinguishable. 



But before proceeding to a detailed comparison, I want to call atten- 

 tion to the measurements of tbe two forms, as given in the paper of Mr. 

 Taczanowski {op. c, p. 343). In tbe first place, tbe measurements of 

 the " longueur totale " and the " vol " are transposed ; this typographical 

 error is obvious and easily disposed of. Looking at Taczanowski's table 

 we find, however, that the measurements given show pelagicus to be a 

 larger bird than urile (bicristatus). But so is not the actual fact, as 

 urile decidedly is the larger one of tbe two. An inspection of tbe meas- 

 urements given by me under tbe headings of the two species will prove 

 that such is the case.* I may add that the dimensions accompanying 

 Pallas's description of bicristatus and pelagicus likewise show the former 



*The woiglit of an adult «n7e (No. 92877) was 5 pounds, while an adult 8peciK>ftn 

 of pelar/icus at tbe same time only weighed 2 pounds 5 ounces. 



