322 Viscount Walden on the Muscicapa melauictera. 



Parus monachus, Gray, Gen. of Birds, Sup. App. 306. no. 192, 

 App. 39. no. 140, 1849. 



lora nigricapilla, Drapiez, Diet. Class. Sc. Nat. vi. 170, 1840. 



Ruhigula aherrans, Blyth, J. A. S. B. 1846, p. 287. 



Sylvia atricapilla, Drapiez, apud Blyth, Cat. Mus. A. S. B. 

 xxiii. in not., 1849. 



Pycnonotus atricapillus, Blyth, Cat. Mus. A. S. B. 211. no. 

 1276; Layard, Ann. N.H. 1854, xiii. p. 125.no. 119; Sundev. 

 K. Sv. Vet.-Ak. Hand. 1857, p. 40. no. 140. 



Parisoma monacus,BTp. Consp. 259. no. 3, 1850. 



Pycnonotus nigricapillus, Drapiez, apud Kelaart, Prod. Zey. 

 112,123, 1852. 



Ruhigula gularis, Gould, apud Kelaart, /. c. 



Me7'opixus atricapillus, Bp. Notes Ornith. 1854, p. 40, in not. 



All the specimens of this bird sent to me had been ascer- 

 tained by dissection to be those of females ; the livery of the 

 male, therefore, still remains a matter of conjecture. As ws have 

 seen, Mr. Blyth^s first impression was that the state of plumage 

 I have described was that of the female of Brachypus rubineus, 

 Jerd., from Malabar. He eventually changed his opinion,but upon 

 what grounds he has not stated. But while feeling confident 

 that this Ceylon bird is not the female of B. rubineus, it is just 

 possible that the males may wear a different livery. The form 

 attributed by Le Vaillant to the female, and figured by him as 

 such, may have been that of a young bird or of a distinct 

 species, or, not improbably, it may have been invented for the 

 occasion ; for my specimens prove that authenticated females 

 wear the dress which Le Vaillant has figured as that of the 

 male. The female of B. rubineus, Jerd., has not been described 

 by any of the Indian ornithologists ; neither has the female of 

 Turdus dispar, Horsf., been absolutely recognized, for Temminck 

 says that the individuals sent to Leyden as the females of that 

 species may only have been males in young plumage. The 

 description given of them by him leads me to the same con- 

 elusion. If we judge by analogy, we have no reason to anti- 

 cipate any difference of plumage in the two sexes of any member 

 of the Pycnonotince. 



M. melanictera appears to me to belong to the natural genus 

 Rubigula, founded by Mr. Blyth in 1845 (J. A. S. B. p. 576) for 



