342 SYLVriD/E. 



tinent. In the Cyclades it is a winter-bird ; in Greece and 

 Italy it is partly resident and partly migratory. In Sicily 

 and Sai-dinia it is resident, as it also is in Provence and 

 Southern Spain, where it breeds in the plains. In Portugal 

 it is said to be extremely abundant, and it is found through- 

 out the rest of France and in Belgium and Holland, where 

 it is migratory*. 



The adult male, in May, has the bill black ; the irides 

 dark brown : the head, throat, nape and back, nearly black, 

 many of the feathers, on the scapulars and lower part of the 

 back especially, being edged with reddish-brown ; coverts 

 of the tertials white, forming a conspicuous patch on the 

 wing ; upper tail-coverts white, tipped with black and reddish- 

 brown ; quills above black, edged with reddish-brown, be- 

 neath lead-grey with lighter edges ; sides of the neck white ; 

 breast rich bay, becoming lighter, almost yellowish-white, 

 on the belly ; vent and under tail-coverts, axillaries and 

 lower wing-covei'ts mottled with black and white, either 



* The difficulty of defining a "species" and deciding what to consider such, 

 is made very plain by an examination of an extensive series of Stonechats from 

 various localities. As already mentioned, the Stonechats of South Africa and of 

 Southern and Eastei'n Asia which most resemble our own, have been separated 

 from it and from each other, and their diagnostic characters have been laid down 

 with much show of precision. It will be found that though these Can in part be 

 trusted, specimens are not uncommon which completely set at naught these care- 

 fully prescribed distinctions, or offer only such minute differences as scarcely any 

 ornithologist would deem sufficient to establish a local i-ace. Leaving for the 

 moment such birds as the Indian S. caprata and <S'. fcrrea, which, allied though 

 they are to our Stonechat, naturalists, in general, would willingly consider distinct 

 and good .species, we have the Stonechat of Reunion, -S'. horbonica, wherein the two 

 sexes somewhat resemble each other, and this must be regarded as distinct. Then 

 we have the Madagascar bird, ^. sibilla, plainly allied to S. borboiiica, while still 

 more approaching the South-Africa S. torquata, though certainly not to be con- 

 founded with it. But S. torquata only differs from >'S. indica in its larger size 

 and deeper tints, while we find Stonechats from North Africa and Southern 

 Europe which defy the closest scrutiny to distinguish them from Indian exam^jles 

 on the one hand, and cannot be separated from the true S. rahicola on the other. 

 Then returning to the other Indian species, S. caprata and S.fei-rea already 

 mentioned, we find that in some measure S. ferrea approaches S. horbonica, and, 

 though the intermediate links are wanting, is not more distinct from S. borbonica 

 than that is from the typical S. ruhicola, between which the connection through 

 .S'. sibilla and S. torquata can be traced ; nor does S. cnprata differ more from 

 S. ferrea than S. ferrea does from S. rubicola. 



