342 Lord Walden's sketch 



E. picata, Cab. & Heine, t. c. p. 55, note. 

 The correct title for the Amboyna Eudynamis involves a pro- 

 blem in nomenclature most difficult to solve. Its satisfactory 

 solution depends first upon the specific identity or otherwise of 

 the Amboyna and Ceram birds, and next, if they be distinct, upon 

 which of the two islands it was that supplied Brisson's types. 

 Miillcr [fide Schlegel, ut supr.) gives from Amboyna E. orientalis 

 (L.), E. punctata (L.), and E. picata, Miill. The old male he 

 identified with the first title, the female with the second ; and he 

 described as distinct a young male passing into adult plu- 

 mage under the third title. Prince Bonaparte (Cousp.Av.i. p. 101) 

 not only gives E. picata, Miiller, from Amboyna, in which he is 

 right, but also, as a separate species, E. punctata (L.),fi*om that 

 island and New Guinea. His having added this last locality 

 renders it doubtful whether the specimen he had before him 

 was from Amboyna or from New Guinea. And yet upon this 

 turns the validity of the characters by which he distinguishes 

 the Coram species. For he defines E. punctata as " similis 

 j)r(2cedenti'^ [E. ransomi, from Ceram) " sed minor (Long. 14 

 poll.),^' etc. We know that the New-Guinea Eudynamis is 

 smaller than that of Ceram ; but it is not demonstrated as yet 

 that the Amboyna Koel also is smaller. Dr. Cabanis insists 

 (/. c.) that Reaumur^s specimen must have come from Ceram, 

 chiefly for the reason that Brisson's dimensions are too large 

 for the Amboyna race. But Dr. Cabanis is assuming that 

 Bonaparte^s " kleine vierzehuzollige Art " is the true Amboyna 

 species. The Ceram bird was considered distinct from the Am- 

 boyna bird by Forsten ; for he entitled it Cuculus punctatus, var. 

 ceramensis. Prince Bonaparte (/. c.) described the female bird 

 from Ceram, Forsten's specimen, under the title of E. ransomi. 

 Dr. Cabanis, as we have seen, regards the two birds as distinct 

 species ; but he does not appear to have seen Amboyna indi- 

 viduals. Professor Schlegel, of course, refuses to admit the spe- 

 cific distinction. I have failed in seeing an Amboyna specimen, 

 and can offer no opinion. But it is a matter which must be 

 decided before we can determine the title of the two birds. If 

 we adopt Professor Schlegel's view, both birds will stand as 

 E. orientalis. The dimensions given by Professor Schlegel of 



