420 ON THE SPECIES OF AETAJMTJS INHABITING [1876. 



The word Burma cannot, however, in any sense be used to express a well-defined zoological 

 province or subpro^ince. In Mr. Blyth's list it is employed for all those regions which formerly 

 constituted the Burmese empire, three of which, within the last fifty years, have been ceded to 

 Great Britain (namely, Arracan, Tenasserim, and Pegu). It is bordered by countries possessing 

 ornithological features more or less peculiar ; and where the Burmese territory comes in contact 

 with any one of these countries, it is, as might be supposed, more or less peopled by their 

 characteristic forms. But the presence of peculiar Javan forms, unknown in Malacca or 

 Sumatra, if it be a fact, is a marked characteristic, which cannot be accounted for by contact of 

 present boundaries. 



1876. 



Ibis, 1876, Letter shoiving that only one Sjyecies o/ Artamiis is known to inhabit the Philijyj^ine Islands, 

 P- ^33. from Viscount "Waldex, F.R.S., to the Editor o/' The Ibis' (January 1870). 



SiR^ — In a recent article on the birds of the Pelew Islands (Journ. Mus. Godeffroy, pt. viii. p. 18), 

 Dr. O. Finsch leaves it to be inferred that the PhiHppines are inhabited by two distinct species of 

 the genus Artamus. One species (which he identifies as being the true Lanius leucorliynchus, L.), 

 Dr. Finsch states, is restricted to the Philippine and Pelew groups of islands. The second, 

 according to the same author, is Artamus leucogaster, Valenc, and is said by Dr. Finsch to be 

 common to both the Philippine and the Sunda Islands. The closely allied New-Caledonian 

 species of the genus, A. melaleucus (Forst.), Dr. Finsch considers specifically distinct from the 

 Pelew form. 

 Ibis, 1876, In a former paper on the birds of the Pelew Islands (P. Z. S. 18G8, pp. 116, 117), Drs. 



^" ' Hartlaub and Finsch had already asserted in positive terms that the Philippines were inhabited 

 by two distinct species of Artamus. On this assertion I ventured some remarks in my memoir 

 on the birds of the Philippine Archipelago (Tr. Z. S. ix. p. 17-1*). But as Dr. Finsch, in his 

 more recent paper (/. o.), still identifies the Pelew form with A. Icucorhijnchiis of the Philippines, 

 while treating the Pelew bird as a species distinct from the Artamus of the Sunda Islands, it 

 becomes necessary to review the grounds on Avhich this identification rests. It is not primarily 

 a question of correct title that has to be decided, but one of fact. Is there any trustworthy 

 evidence of the Philippines possessing two species of Artamus, the one identical with the species 

 found in the Sunda Islands, the other with that confined to the Pelew Islands ? As to there 

 being two Philippine species, it is true that, while Brisson described and figured (Ornithologia, 

 ii. p. 180, t. xviii. f. 2) a species of the genus from a specimen obtained in the vicinity of 

 Manilla, preserved in Aubrey's cabinet, Sonnerat again separately described and figured a species 

 observed by him in the Philippines (Voy. N. Guin. p. 55, t. 25). Sonnerat mentions that his 

 species was the one described by Buffon (Hist. Nat. i. p. 310) under the title of Pie-gricche dcs 



* [Anted, p. 339.— Ec] 



