386 Letters, Announcements, l^c. 



his lamented death, had gone through all his manuscript with 

 me at Chislehurst, and, while inviting the freest criticism, 

 only made such alterations as he was satisfied in his mind 

 were well founded. It is needless to say that I had but few 

 corrections to suggest, and that Mr. Blyth exhibited all that 

 accuracy, acuteness, and retentive power of memory for which 

 he was so remarkable. In the Catalogue as it now appears 

 in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, all the ad- 

 ditions or observations made by me are enclosed in brackets, 

 as stated by Mr. Grote in his introduction. 



On page 114, at no. 359, it will be found that jNIr. Blyth 

 identified Pellorneum subochraceum, Swiuhoe, with his own 

 species, Pellorneum tickelli, Blyth. Knowing that Mr. Blyth 

 would not hazard such an identification without good grounds, 

 and as I had never seen the type of P. tickelli, Blyth, I felt 

 bound, as his editor, to accept Mr. Blyth's views concerning 

 his own species ; and I therefore allowed the synonymy, as 

 set forth by Mr. Blyth, to stand without alteration or remark. 

 I felt that it would be somewhat presumptuous in me, with- 

 out the type specimen in my own hand, to assume that Mr. 

 Blyth did not know a species described by himself. I con- 

 sequently accepted the title P. subochraceum, Swinhoe, it being 

 of more recent date, as a synonym of P. tickelli, Blyth. 



In 1873 Mr. Hume described (Str. F. i. p. 298) a species 

 of Pellorneum from Thayetmyo under the title of P. minor. 

 This is undoubtedly the same bird as P. subochraceum, Swin- 

 hoe (Ann. N. H. ser. 4, 1871, vii. p. 257). In the Catalogue, 

 no. 360, I therefore remarked that P. minor, Hume, was '' a 

 synonym of P. tickelli," accepting that title on Mr. Blyth's 

 authority as being equal, though older, to P. subochraceum. 

 That P. minor, Hume, was not a distinct species (I happened 

 to possess a large series collected by Lieutenant W. Ramsay), 

 that it had been described two years previously by Mr. Swin- 

 hoe, was, while not a matter of great surprise, beyond all 

 doubt when I wrote. But Mr. Gates has recently (Str. F. 1876, 

 p. 406) endeavoured to show that I, not Mr. Blyth, have 

 ^' made a strange mistake " in identifying P. tickelli with P. 

 minor, or, in other words, with P. subochraceum. I do not 

 admit that Mr. Blyth was wrong in his identification of P. 



