1S71.] TO MALAYAN OENITHOLOGT." 107 



hypothesis. Ph. nvjsticalis is either the female of Ph. cyanopogon, Temra., or else of a species 

 of which the male has not been described. Phyllorms cochinsinensis I have not as yet met with 

 from the Malay peninsula. 



61. Crinigee gulakis (Horsf.). (Plate VI, fig. 1, in ori(j.) 



This title applies to the Javan species only — a distinct bird with the entire head rufous-brown 

 and not ashy black. It is also a much larger form, with wings and tail about four inches long. 

 Lanius hrcs, Lesson, Voy. Belanger, p. 255, is synonymous. The Malaccan species, which I find 

 on comparison is identical with the Sumatran, must stand as C. phceocephalus (Hartl.) (Plate 

 VI. f. 2, in orif/.). It has received the following titles : — 



Ixos phceocephalus, Hartl. Eev. Zool. 1844, p. 401, ex Malacca. 



Tricophorus caniceps, Less. op. cit. 1845, p. 367, ex India. 



Pycnonotus rufocaudatus, Eyton, Ann. Mag. N. Hist. xvi. p. 228 (1845), ex Malacca. 



Cn'nif/er canfori, Moore, P. Z. S. 1854, p. 279, ex Malacca. 



Dr. Hartlaub's name must therefore be adopted. 



66. Ieexa puella (Lath.). j^^j^ jc^-j 



Dr. Stoliczka is of opinion that the three forms of Irena which I have lately discriminated ^ ' 

 (Ann. Nat. Hist. 4th ser. vol. v. p. 417 *), "should only be considered as local races of one and 

 the same bird." A perusal of the gi-ounds stated in support of this opinion leads me to the 

 belief that the learned Doctor was not possessed of all the materials necessary to arrive at a sound 

 conclusion. Thus the Javan /. turcosa is pronounced to be a local race, although Dr. Stoliczka 

 tells us that he has " not seen Java specimens." Nor does our author in his history of /. puella 

 appear to be very well acquainted with all the facts. 



Dr. Stoliczka commences with this passage : — " It was, I think, Blyth who first pointed out, 

 years ago, the constant smaller size of the Malayan as compared with the Indian bird ; but, on 

 account of the identity in coloration, he considered the two races as belonging to one and the 

 same species, I. puella, Latham. There are probably few ornithologists who, after having seen 

 large series of this species, would not follow Blyth in his determination." I will now quote 

 what Mr. Blyth really did say: — '^ Irena, Horsfield. A curious distinction between the Indian 

 and Malayan I. puella auctorum has been pointed out by Lord Arthur Hay, to whom we are 

 indebted for the discrimination of numerous other closely allied forms. In the Malayan bird, 

 the under tail-coverts reach to quite the end of the tail ; while in /. imlica, A. Hay, they are 

 never less than an inch and a quarter short of the tail-tip in the males, and generally an inch 

 short in the females. I have verified this observation upon so many examples from both 

 regions, that there can be no doubt of the fact." (J. A. S. B. xv. pp. 308, 309.) It will be seen 

 that not one word is said about coloration, or about " the constant smaller size." Nor has the 

 relative size of the three species ever been alluded to by me, beyond my remark in the ' Annals ' 

 {I. c.) that in all three species the length of the wing is equal. So far as I have been able to 

 observe, no appreciable difference of general size exists. But the Malabar bird has the tail 

 a quarter of an inch longer than the Malayan and Javan. And it is this greater length of the 



* [Aiitea, pp. 96, 97.— Ed.] 



p2 



