Letters, Annormcements, S^-c. 461 



MiLVUS MRLAXOTIS (J. & S.), p. 150. 



1 have also a very fine large rufous bird. The excess 

 of rufescence is, as Mr, Swinhoc observes, accidental. 



I regard M. govinda (Sykes), on account of the great size 

 noted in the original description (P. Z. S. 1832, part ii. 

 pp. 80-81), as identical Avith M. melanotis (J. & S.). No 

 common Indian Kite is 26 inches long. 



That M. major, \\\\me,=M. melanotis (J. & S.), I have on 

 Mr. Guraey's authority, who informs me that Mr. Sharpe 

 compared examples of M, majcrr with the types oiM. melanotis 

 in tlie Leyden iNluseum, and found them absolutely identical. 

 That M. melanotis (T. & S.) =M. govinda (Sykes) I think, 

 judging from the original description, there is but little dou1)t. 

 I propose dropping the use of the synonyms melanotis and 

 major, and reverting to Sykes's original term. 



Our common Indian Kite, so long erroneously called 

 '^ M. govinda " is M. affinis (Gould), and identical with the 

 Australian bird. Mr. Gurney returned me one of our common 

 village Kites as typical M. ajffinis. 



Certhia familiaris (L.), p. 152. 



Is certainly not that species, but probably my C. hodgsoni, 

 which I obtained in Cashmere (J. A. S. 1872, p. 74). 



Phyllopneuste schwarzi (Radde), p. 183. 



This bird was identified with P. viridamis (Blyth) by 

 Canon Tristram (Ibis, 1871, p. 109). If the identification 

 was correct, why does Mr. Swinhoe not adopt the prior term 

 for the bird ? 



Yours &c., 



W. E. Brooks. 



Mogul Serai, 

 24th July, 1874. 



Vienna, 2r)th Aufrust, 1874. 

 Sir, — In my paper " On the Birds in the Imperial Collec- 

 tion at Vienna obtained from the Leverian Museum " (Ibis, 

 1873, p. 113), Pitln/s ritfiguht (Bodd.) is mentioned, with the 

 remark that the specimen is no longer in the collection. 



