of Hongkong, Macao, and Canton. 33 



28. Reguloides chloronotus, Hodgs. 



I watched for some time several of the former and one of 

 this species of Reguloides pursuing a swarm of gnats in a small 

 pine-plantation at Hongkong. The two birds resembled each 

 other a good deal, and at a distance were not distinguishable ; 

 but as they were much busied with their occupation, I approached 

 within a few paces. In the midst of their pursuit they would 

 frequently give utterance to the melancholy protracted note 

 "sweet," somewhat sharply emitted. But the R. chloronotus at 

 times stopped, and, ruffling his feathers, struck up a little musical 

 ditty not unlike that of the Willow- Wren [Sylvia trochilus). I 

 could observe no difference in the common note of the two birds. 

 The abundance of food in this particular spot no doubt was the 

 cause of the large numbers of these birds to be found there; 

 for on ordinary occasions you rarely meet with more than one 

 of the R. proregulus at a time, or a pair of the R. chloronotus. 



29. CoPSYCHUs SAULARis (Linn.). Cantonese, " C'/iMy-se-^i;G." 

 Common at Canton and Macao. 



30. Pratincola ixdica, Blyth. 



Common. Seen in Hongkong as late as March. 



31. RUTICILLA AUROREA, Pall. 



A few seen. 



32. RuTiciLLA, sp. nov. ? 



I mentioned in my " Ornithology of Amoy" the fact of a second 

 species of Ruticilla occurring at times in that place. In Hong- 

 kong I had the good fortune to meet with several of them. For 

 a few days in the lirst week of March they were pretty abundant 

 in the hills around the valley ; but after that they were not seen, 

 so that they were evidently on their migrations. I procm'ed two 

 pairs, which I forward for Mr. Sclater^s examination*. 



In fresh examples the bill and legs were black in both sexes ; 

 the iris deep blackish brown. The inside of the mouth was 

 blackish flesh-colour in the male, and pale flesh-colour in the 

 female. The tongue was ciliated at the end. 



'D^ 



* These specimens are scarcely distinguishable from Pratincola f err ea 

 (Hodgs.) of Upper India. I do not consider them ditferent. — P. L. S. 

 VOL. III. D 



