Volumes of the B. M. Catalogue of Birds. 323 



considerably facilitated the completion of the volume." Cer- 

 tainly it would have been too great an honour for me to have 

 had my name united with theirs ; but still I do not understand 

 why Mr. Gadow should have omitted it entirely, as, besides 

 the type of Lanius antinorii, I sent for inspection to the 

 British Museum a complete set of all the Pachycephaline 

 birds belonging to Beccari's and D'Albertis's Papuan collec- 

 tions, every specimen being properly named. Several of 

 them were type specimens, and I suppose that Mr. Gadow 

 must have derived some benefit from their examination. 



Coming now to some particular points, we find that Mala- 

 conotus hypopyrrhus, Hartl., has been united with Laniarius 

 poliocephalus (p. 15G). I know that several ornithologists 

 agree in this ; but according to my idea the two birds are 

 distinct. Heuglin has already remarked (Orn. N.O.-Afr. 

 p. 466) that among many specimens collected by him in 

 North-east Africa none had the orange tint on the breast, 

 which is peculiar to L. hypopyrrhus. I may add that 

 Antinori^s first African collection (Cat. p. 54) contained five 

 specimens from Djur, three males and two females, and no)ie 

 had the orange breast like the two specimens which he has 

 lately sent from Shoa. Leaving that question, and admitting 

 for a moment that L. hypopyrrhus (Kartl.) is = L. poliocephalus, 

 it seems very curious to find that while L. hypopyrrhus was 

 described in 1844, Mr. Gadow should use now (p. 155) the 

 same name for another species, viz. Vanga cruenta, Less, 

 (nee Lanius cruentus, H. et E.) ! I therefore propose for 

 Lesson^s species the name of Laniarius lessoni. 



I have been much astonished at the curious mixture of 

 Pachycephala macrorhyncha, Strickl., and P. obiensis, Salvad. 

 with P. melanura, Gould, in Mr. Gadow's volume (p. 185). 

 I believe that Mr. Sharpe, in his Report of the ' Alert,^ is 

 about to settle those birds in their proper places again. 

 Mr. Gadow, notwithstanding Canon Tristram's remarks and 

 my acquiescence with them, unites P. christophori, Tristr. 

 with P. astrolabi ! * 



* In the course of some remarks made before the Zoological Society 

 of Loudon, Canou Tristram has, I believe, already objected to this aud 

 other identificatious made by Mr. Gadow, 



