FURTHEE CONTRIBUTION TO THE HUNGARIAN ORNIS. 353 



Although whole libraries have been written about the Ornis of the 

 western countries of Europe, we do not possess one reliable work upon the 

 Hungarian Avifauna. In order to fill up this gap I began to write a larger 

 ornithological work some twenty years ago, but soon saw that as long as 

 we had no proper notion of the Hungarian Ornis, which forms a link bet- 

 ween the Eastern and the Mediterranean Fauna, my undertaking would 

 be an utterly baren one, and that it is absolutely necessary first to make 

 independent resurches and investigations in that direction. But now, two 

 decade's laborious collecting of dates and thousands of specimens of birds 

 originating from different parts of the country, which constitute a real trea- 

 sure — deposited in the Hungarian National Museum — affordd us a pretty 

 true image of the Hungarian Avifauna. This collection, is in its way une- 

 qualled and so indispensable, that anyone, who undertook to write of the 

 Hungarian Ornis without relying on it, would miss his aim. 



In 1881 I published a nomenclature of Hungarian birds under the 

 title (I Systematische Aufzählung der Vögel Ungarn's». It compresed 345 

 species ; but as a large proportion of these were taken from literature, 

 where they obtained a place trough wrong determination, these must be 

 eliminated. Such are : Sturnus imicolor, Budytes dtreolas, Turdus rufi- 

 collis, Turdus atrujidaris, Accentor montanellua, Fkedida bonellii, Calan- 

 drella hrachydactyla, Melanocorypha calandra, Plectrophanes lappordcus, 

 Emheriza leucocephala, Elanus melanopterus, Chettusia gregaria, Trin- 

 goides macidahis, Procellaria pelagica, Laras marinus, Xema sabini, 

 Pogophila eburnea, Sula b((ssana etc. 



We may consider Joh. v. Frivaldszky's «Aves Hungáriáé»*^ upon our 

 Ornis, published by him on occasion of the II-"'' Ornith. Congress held at 

 Budapest as the most reliable work. This publication was based partly upon 

 the birds exhibited at the time of the Congress by the Museum and by private 

 persons and partly upon thos notes, which the late Ornithologist Salamon 

 Petényi left us It is to be regretted, that the Author of this work 

 was not a professional Ornithologist, and thus was not able to under- 

 stand those minute differences, which are so highly characteristic of 

 our Ornis. 



The object of the present paper is to enumerate whith some aecom- 



* It must lie remeniberctl that Fiilmarus lutcsital us enumerated on page 

 159 is definitely to be struck off the list. Firstly because after close examination 

 it turned out, that the bird was mounted from a skin and therefore not killed in 

 Dolinkd (Hungary), but in all probabelity came through a foreign dealer into 

 the hand of its first proprietor ; secondly the species in not Fulnuirns luiesitutns 

 at all, l)ut according to the determination of my friend Mr. E. B. Sharpé an 

 OvHlrrlutd inroiit (Schl.). 



