Letters, Announcements, i^c. 125 



that in place of the pure white central line on the black flank- 

 feathers seen in the adult, the immature bird had this part 

 chestnut (and I believe I was perfectly correct in so stating, 

 although in some adults a chestnut tinge on this part some- 

 times remains) — and also that the central rectrices were ru- 

 fous, instead of snow-white, which they afterwards become. As 

 to this bird mentioned by Mr. Sclater with its entirely chest- 

 nut flanks, varied with black, I know nothing. Mr. Sclater 

 says he has seen specimens ; consequently they do exist -, but 

 although I believed I had examined all the specimens of the 

 Phasianidse then existing in the museums of Leyden, London, 

 Paris, &c., and also the living birds in the Gardens at Am- 

 sterdam, Antwerp, Rotterdam, London, and in the Jardin 

 d'Acclimatation and Jardin des Plantes at Paris, I have no 

 recollection of seeing such a bird. Certainly, if I had, and 

 it was a good species, there was no reason why I should not 

 have given a plate of it in my work. After all, may not this 

 bird described by Latham be an immature E. nobilis ? for he 

 gives its habitat as Java, with a question, and it might very 

 possibly have come from Borneo ! I shall take the earliest 

 opportunity of examining one of these chestnut-flanked birds, 

 and state my opinion of it in this journal. 



The third and last criticism of Mr. Hume is on the error 

 I committed (in his opinion) in uniting the Pucrasia cas- 

 tanea, Gould, with P. duvauceli, Temm. Now, before reply- 

 ing to this, it will first be necessary for me to say a few 

 words about the last-named species, which, from his remarks, 

 I should judge to be entirely unknown to Mr. Hume. He 

 says Pretre^s drawing in the ' Planches Coloriees^ is a 'Sile 

 thing, a wretched picture,^^ and that, *' barring the tail, it is 

 equally unlike every species of the genus " (quite true), and 

 condemns it in toto, so far as I can see, because it does not re- 

 semble P. macrolopha. Now I would state, injustice to Pretre, 

 that, although his drawing does not equal one of Mr. Wolf's, 

 yet it is a very faithful representation of P. duvauceli, Temm. 

 I have no hesitation in saying this ; for I am perfectly 

 conversant with his type (the original of the plate in the 

 * Planches Coloriees '), as the specimen is still, and always has 



