36 ON THE MUSCICAPA MELANICTEEA OF GMELIN. [18CG. 



my Ceylon specimens, and they equally resemble Le Vaillant's account of the Cap Xegre. With 

 perfect confidence, therefore, I propose to restore Musckapa melanktei-a, Gm., to a place in our 

 catalogue of real and distinct species, and to expunge Vieillot's title of atrkajjilki. 

 In this view the synonymy of this species will be as follows : — 



RUBIGULA MELANICTEILV (Gm.). 



Yellow-breasted Flycatcher, Brown, Illust. 80, pi. xxxii. fig. 1 (1776); Lath. Gen. Syn. iii. 

 336. no. 21 (1783); Gen. Hist. 187. no. 50 (1823). 



Musckapa melanktera, Gmel. S. N. i. 9-11. no. 55 (1788) ; Lath. Ind. Orn. ii. 475. no. 28, 

 (1790). 



Le Cap negre, Le Vaill. Ois. d'Afr. iii. 172, pi. 140. fig. 1 (1802). 



JEfjithina atrkapilla, Vieill. N. Diet. i. 176 (1816). 



Le Gohe-mouche Malkola-Kourla, Vieill. xxi. 473 (1818). 



Black-capped Tanager, Lath. Gen. Hist. \\. 38. no. 49 (1823). 



Gohe-mouche noir et jaune de Ceilan, St. Croix, Diet. Sc. Nat. xxxiii. 85 (1824). 



Brachjpns gularis, Gould, P. Z. S. 1835, p. 186. 

 Ibis, 1866, Fariis monachus. Gray, Gen. of Birds, Sup. App. 306. no. 192, App, 39. no. 140 (1849). 



p. 3—. j^^,^ nigrkapilla, Drapiez, Diet. Class. Sc. Nat. vi. 170 (1840). 



Buhigula aheirans, Blyth, J. A.S.B. 1846, p. 287. 



Si/hia atrkapilla, Drapiez, apud Blyth, Cat. Mus. A. S. B. xxiii. in not. (1849). 



Pycnonotus atrkapillus, Blyth, Cat. Mus. A. S. B. 211. no. 1276 ; Layard, Ann. N. H. (1854) 

 xiii. p. 125. no. 119; Sundev. K. Sv. Vet.-Ak. Hand. 1857, p. 40. no. 140. 



Parisoma monacus, Bp. Consp. 259. no. 3 (1850). 



Pycnonotus nigrkajnllus, Drapiez, apud Kelaart, Prod. Zey. 112, 123 (1852). 



Buhicjula gularis, Gould, apud Kelaart, I. c. 



Meropixus atricapillus, Bp. Notes Ornith. p. 40, in not. (1854). 



All the specimens of this bird sent to me had been ascertained by dissection to be those of 

 females ; the livery of the male, therefore, still remains a matter of conjecture. As Ave have seen, 

 Mr. Blyth's first impression was that the state of plumage I have described was that of the female 

 of Brachypus ruhineus, Jerd., from Malabar. He eventually changed his opinion, but upon what 

 grounds he has not stated. But while feeling confident that this Ceylon bird is not the female of 

 B. ruhineus, it is just possible that the males may wear a diff'ercnt livery. The form attributed 

 by Le Yaillant to the female, and figured by him as such, may have been that of a young bird or 

 of a distinct species, or, not improbably, it may have been invented for the occasion ; for my 

 specimens prove that authenticated females wear the dress which Le Vaillant has figured as that 

 of the male. The female of B. ruhineus, Jerd., has not been described by any of the Indian 

 ornithologists; neither has the female of Tardus dispar, Horsf., been absolutely recognized, for 

 Temminck says that the individuals sent to Leyden as the females of that species may only have 

 been males in young plumage. The description given of them by him leads me to the same con- 

 clusion. If we judge by analogy, we have no reason to anticipate any difference of plumage in 

 the two sexes of any member of the Pycaonotum. 



