284 Mr. W. E. Brooks on Milvus govinda of Sykes. 



size and colour of this species is apparent "when forty or fifty 

 are circling above one at the same time. 



In the face of the original description and of one of the 

 types^ I think Messrs. Sharpens, Hume's^ and Gurney's con- 

 clusion most arbitrary and unreasonable. It is purely a 

 fanciful conclusion^ and quite against facts. I am afraid all 

 the ornithological world will now take the leap^ and call the 

 small Kite "Milvus govinda, Sykes " — a bird never described 

 by Sykes at all. 



I cannot find ground for two species of the lesser Kite. I 

 tried to do so once^ and called the supposed bird M.palustris; 

 but the name was withdrawn when the bird was discovered to 

 be the two-year-old M. affinis. Should such a very unlikely 

 thing occur as a third Indian Kite^ its name would be palus- 

 tris ; but I have no expectation of the revival of the supposed 

 species. 



Mr. Gurney's foot-note, ' Ibis/ 1 879, p. 79, should be ob- 

 served. I don^t think Mr. Hume disproved my position in the 

 very slightest. This was, that a 26-inch Kite, with an 11-iuch 

 tail, backed up by a type of the same size, could not be the 

 small common Indian Kite, the length of which is from 21 

 to 23^ inches. Mr. Hume once supposed that Sykes had 

 stretched his Kite before measurement ; but he did not stretch 

 Circus pallidus and other birds ; and there is the specimen of 

 his own collecting to support the great total length. I have 

 examined it most carefully ; and once again I say it is the 

 larger Kite, which is identical with M. melanotis, T. & S., and 

 M. major, Hume. After this protest I shall let the matter 

 alone ; but it will be interesting to see how many writers will 

 follow the three above-mentioned ornithologists, who have 

 fallen into a most grievous error, from which I am afraid 

 there is no chance of reclaiming them. 



