1871.] TO MALAYAN OENITHOLOGT." Ill 



excepted, from China, Cambodia, and Tonghoo, arc not to be separated. At the same time the 

 bills vary much in their dimensions. The nestling changes at once from its brown and rufous 

 nestling-plumage into that of the adult. The pure white outer edges of the two secondaries 

 appear in the earliest stages, even when the quills are still edged with pale rufous. 



Comparison must be made between Malaccan, Sumatran, Javan, and Philippine individuals 

 before the correct title for the Malaccan D'hyal can be determined. 



77. CiTTACINCLA MACEUKA (Gm.). 



I am unable to detect any characters whereby individuals from Ceylon, Central India, 

 Malacca, Java, and Sumatra can be distinguished. A very young bird from the Salweeu river 

 has the belly, thigh-coverts, and under tail-coverts pure white. 



78. LOPHOCITTA GALERICULATA (Cuv.). 



Platijloplms, Sw. (Faun. Bor.-Amer. 1831), has precedence over Lopliocitta, G. E. Gray*. 

 This curious species is placed by Dr. Stoliczka under the Anvpelidce. 



79. Calornis cantor (Gm.). j-,-,jg jg-^ 



Without having to decide the question whether the Philippine and Malaccan Calornis are ^' ' 

 the same species, we must suppress Gmelin's title cantor, Scopoli's narue jpanai/ensis (founded, 

 equally with Gmelin's, on Sonnerat's 73rd plate) having precedence. Turdus chalijheus is 

 Horsfield's title for the Javan Calornis ; Turdus insidiator that of Raffles for the Sumatran. The 

 individual described by Dr. Stoliczka seems to be a young bird, and in that phase of plumage 

 which misled Dr. Horsfield into describing the young Javan bird as distinct from C. chal//beus, 

 under the name T. strigatus. 



80. Etjlabes javanensis (Osbeck). 



It is clear from the remarks made under this title that the learned Doctor has never had the 

 Malaccan E. javanensis in his hands. Two species oi Eulahcs inhabit the Malayan peninsula: — 

 one allied to, if not even identical with, E. intermedia, A. Hay, ex Nipaul and Tenasserim : and 

 a second, closely related to E. javanensis, ex Java. The distinctness of these two species has never 

 until now been questioned by any author. Professor Schlegel, an author who certainly does not 

 admit the validity of a species off hand, has not only acknowledged the specific distinctness of 

 E. intermedia, but has figured the bill, head, and lappets of E. javanensis and E. intermedia in 

 the same Plate (Neder. Tijdsch. Dierk. i. p. 1), to exhibit the contrast. 



E. intermedia was described by its author from Indian examples. At the time he was not 

 aware that the same or a very closely allied form occurred in the Malayan peninsula. The title 

 was chosen to denote the intermediate position E. intermedia occupied between the Cingalese 

 and South- Indian E. religiosa (Linn.) and the Malaccan form E. javanensis (Osbeck). A com- 

 parison I have been able, recently, and for the first time, to make between the large Malaccan 

 Eulabes and a Javan example of true E. javanensis (Osbeck) leads me to question the identity of 



* [Cf. Gray, Cat. Gen. B. App. no. 1042.— Ed. of ' Ibis.'] 



