170 ON PHASIANUS IGNITUS 



KEY TO THE SPECIES (MALES). 



a. Four central tail-feathers fulvous. 



a'. Breast black, only the flanks chestnut, varied with 



black ignita. 



b' . Breast and flanks uniform chestnut nobilis. 



b. Eour central tail-feathers white. 



a . Flanks and more or less also the breast chestnut , 



varied with black siimatrana. 



b'. Flanks steel-blue or black, with white shaft-streaks . Fieilloti. 



DOUBTFUL REFKEENCES. 



Fire-backed Pheasant Lath. Gen. Syn. Suppl. II, p. 274 (1801), Java?i). 

 Phasianus rufus ($) Raffles, Trans. Linn. Soc. XIII, p. 321 (1822), 



Sumatra 2). 

 Sumalran Pheasant Lath. Gen. Hist. VIII, p. 204 (1823), Sumatra 3). 

 Phasianus ignitus Gray in Griffith' ed. Guv. Ill, p. 30 (1829), Sunda Isl.*). 

 Phasianus rufus » » »»»»»28» Loc. ? 5). 



Houppifer ignitus Guérin Méneville, Icon. Règ. Anim. Ois. pi. 48, f. 



3 (1829-38)6). 

 Euplocamus ignitus Gray , List Spec. Birds Br. Mus. Ill , Gallinae , 



p. 26 , with the exception of specimen a , which belongs to L. 



sumatrana (1844). 



1. Lophura ignita. 



The Fire-backed Pheasant Staunton, in Macartney's Embassy to China, 

 I, p. 79, pi. XIII (1797). 



1) In this description mention is made of the red flanks, but nothing is 

 said of the central tail-feathers. It is probably based upon that given by 

 Shaw and Nodder in Nat. Misc. , and in this case it would be FA. ignitus. 



2) A doubtful synonym , based upon the hen of either L. Vieilloti or L. 

 sumatrana. 



3) See the preceding note. 



4) Sides spotted, color of central tail-feathers not stated. 



5) Description based upon a female. 



(■)) Fig. 3 on pi. 43 represents only the head of a Lophura, but as the 

 heads do not possess any distinctive character in this genus, it is impossible 

 to say which species is represented by the figure. In the letterpress, p. 26, 

 nothing is said of the mentioned figure of the head , but fig. 2 of the same 

 plate represents a bird which is wrongly called Houppifer Diardi, and which 

 the author suggests to be the young of Houppifer ignitus, while in reality it 

 represents, together with the accompanying description, the adult male of 

 Acomus ergtkrophthalmus. This is the same mistake which is made by Tem- 

 minck in Vol. II, p. 279, of his Pigeons et Galliuaces. 



Notes from the Leyden IMuseutn , Vol. XVII. 



