186 BIRDS FROM NIAS. 



MS. -name C. validuSj altered this name on the stand of 

 the typical specimen into C. validissimus , and it is this 

 altered name i) which is adopted by Schlegel in his » Notice 

 sur le genre Corvus"" (Bijdr. Dierk.) and in the Catalogue 

 Mus. P.-B. , and which , upon Schlegel's authority , has 

 generally been adopted since by all the recent ornitholo- 

 gists. Tweeddale (Ibis 1877, p. 319) is therefore quite right 

 in his suggestion that Schlegel's C. validissimus might be 

 identical with Bonaparte's C. valid us , and it is this latter 

 name that has to be used in future for the large-billed 

 Crow from Halmaheira and Batchian , hitherto known as 

 C. validissimus Schlegel. 



Another name mentioned by Schlegel and others as pos- 

 sibly belonging to the Malayan C. tenuirostris ^ is C. timo- 

 riensis Bp. The only place in Bonaparte's publications where 

 I can find this name mentioned, is in » Notes sur les Col- 

 lections de M. A. Delattre", Comptes Rendus XXXVII, p. 

 829 (1853), as » Comix timoriensis Bp. , a bee encore plus 

 fort (que C. coronoides) , a duvet blanc , non gris". This 

 alluding to the large size of the bill, which is said to be 

 stronger than in the Australian C. coronoides, makes it 

 rather evident that with C. timoriensis , C. m,acrorhynchus 

 is meant, and not the Malayan C. tenuirostris which, as 

 we learn from a specimen in the Leyden Museum, is also 

 an inhabitant of Timor ^). For this reason, as well as for 

 the insufiScient description, the name C. timoriensis , though 

 prior to C. tenuirostris , cannot be accepted for this species. 



In his Catalogue of Birds III, p. 43, Sharpe united 

 C. tenuirostris with the closely allied, but constantly smaller 

 C. enca from .lava, Celebes and Sula. Later, however, 

 P. Z. S. 1879, p. 246, he got convinced by a number of 



1) The original writinji is easily seen still in the altered name. 



2) Au examination of this specimen, a female collected 1829 hy S. Muller, 

 convinced me that it really belongs to C. te)iuiro!t/ris (C. validus Schl ) and 

 not to the stoat-billed C. macrorhy nch as , in spite of TweedJale's suggestion 

 (Ibis 18~7, p 319) that it might be an imperfectly grown example of C. ma- 

 crorhynchua. 



Notes from the Leyden M.u8etim , "Vol. X^VIII. 



