Letters, Announcements, i^c. 117 



(iv. p. 401). gave the name Otocorys brandti. I have now 

 before me the type of my species, as well as ' The Ibis ' for 

 1881, in which Mr. Scully has given a figure (p. 581) of the 

 head of O. longir'ostr'is ; and no unbiassed ornithologist can 

 for a moment doubt that Mr. Seebohm has made an egregious 

 " blunder " in uniting these two birds, as will easily be seen 

 by the following comparison of their characters : — 



OtOCOBYS BKANDTl. OxOCOBYS LOKGIROSTRIS. 



Decidedly smaller than O. peni- Decidedly larger than O. pcni- 



cillata. cillata. 



A conspicuous black capistral No black on the capistrum. 

 band, as broad as in many adult 

 males of O. penicillata. 



The black patch on the side of The black patch on the side of 



the neck separated from the black the neck separated fi'om the black 



gorget by a very narrow white gorget by a broad white band a 



band, not an eighth of an inch in quarter of an inch in width, 

 width. 



Bill short and stout. Bill long and (judging from the 



figure) rather slender than stout. 



Whole length 6-5 inches ; wing Whole length 8'2o to 8"5 inches ; 



4-4; tail 3-3 ; tarsus -82 ; bill from wing 4-93 to 5-2 ; tail 3-6 to 3-75; 



gape •'d2. tarsus -92 to '95 ; bill from gape "8 



to -82. 



Mr. Scully does not state whether in coloration Otocorys 

 lotigirostris is as dai'k as O. penicillata, or is, like O. brandti, 

 remarkable for the extremely pale tinge of its plumage. 

 Erom this fact I infer that 0. longirostris does not differ 

 much in plumage from O. penicillata. 



I am so averse to entering upon controversy that I should 

 have followed my practice of leaving unnoticed the hostile 

 comments of Mr. Seebohm, were it not that in the interests 

 of science it would be wrong for me to allow an error of this 

 kind to pass unchallenged. Surely a writer, who apparently 

 affects the character of an ornithological critic with a special 

 vocation to point out and supply the shortcomings of all his 

 predecessors, should be a little more careful, and should com- 

 pare specimens before committing himself to print. 



That I was in error in referring 0. longirostris to O. peni- 



