444 SYLVIID.E. 



Asiat. i. p. 499) under the name of Motac'dla proregulus, and 

 identified by that naturahst with GmeHn's M. superciliosa, 

 which was founded on the "Yellow-browed Warbler" de- 

 scribed by Latham (Gren. Syn. ii. p, 459) in 1783, from a 

 Russian example furnished him by Pennant. In the Zoolo- 

 gical Society's 'Proceedings' for 1863 (p. 297) Mr. Swinhoe 

 pointed out that these two were distinct species, and that 

 Pallas's bird can be at once recognized from the other "by 

 its yellow rump-band." Mr. Swinhoe further stated that he 

 had found on examination that Mr. Hancock's specimen was 

 specifically identical with Chinese examples of the Yellow- 

 browed Warbler, a discovery which was subsequently con- 

 firmed by that gentleman (Ibis, 1867, p. 252), who also 

 showed that his bird was quite distinct from Mr. Gould's 

 Dalmatian Regulus — and thus that this last name should 

 disappear from the British list. Since then Mr. Gould has 

 recorded (Ibis, 1869, p. 128) the occurrence in England of a 

 second example of the present species, which is said to have 

 been obtained near Cheltenham, October 11th, 1867, and is 

 now in the collection of Sir John Harpur Crewe, as that 

 gentleman has obligingly informed the Editor. 



Though eighty years have passed since this bird was first 

 made known by Latham, it is only very lately that we have 

 learned much about it, and even now much doubtless re- 

 mains to be learned. It would seem that from 1783 to 1838, 

 nothing whatever was known of it with certainty *, nor from 

 then till 1845 can the occurrence in Europe of a single 

 specimen be mentioned. In the year last named two ex- 

 amples, as recorded by Dr. Cabanis (Naumannia, 1851, i. 

 p. 5), were taken by a bird-catcher near Berlin and these 

 subsequently formed the subject of a masterly paper by that 

 ornithologist in the valuable periodical which he edits (Journ. 

 fiir Orn. 1853, p. 81, pi. 1) — the veteran Naumann lending 

 his aid to figure the species for the first time. But before 



* Pallas as above mentioned confounded it with liis M. 'proreyulus, and it 

 cannot be determined to whicb of the two species some of his remarks apply. 

 The same is to be said of the observations of his worthy successors Drs. von 

 Middendorff and von Schrenck and Prof. Eadde. 



