1877.] P. SUBOCHEACEUM, SWINHOE, AND P. TICKELLI, BLTTH. 505 



that I had but few corrections to suggest, and that Mr. Blyth exhibited all that accuracy, acute- 

 ness, and retentive power of memory for which he was so remarkable. In the Catalogue as it 

 now appears in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, all the additions or observations 

 made by me are enclosed in brackets, as stated by Mr. Grote in his introduction. 



• On page 114, at no. 359, it will be found that Mr. Blyth identified Fellorneum suh- 

 ochraceum, Swinhoe, with his own species, Pellorneum ticMli, Blyth. Knowing that Mr. Blyth 

 would not hazard such an identification without good grounds, and as I had never seen the type 

 of P. tickcUi, Blyth, I felt bound, as his editor, to accept Mr. Blyth's views concernino- his own 

 species; and I therefore allowed the synonymy, as set forth by Mr. Blyth, to stand without 

 alteration or remark. I felt that it would be somewhat presumptuous in me, without the type 

 specimen in my own hand, to assume that Mr. Blyth did not know a species described by himself. 

 I consequently accepted the title P. subochraceum, Swinhoe, it being of more recent date as a 

 synonym of P. tickeUi, Blyth. 



In 1S73 Mr. Hume described (Str. F. i. p. 298) a species oi Pellorneum from Thayetmyo under 

 the title of P. minor. This is undoubtedly the same bird as P. subochmceum, Swinhoe (Ann. 

 N. H. ser. 4, 1871, vii. p. 257). In the Catalogue, no. 360, I therefore remarked that P. minor, 

 Hume, was " a synonym of P. tickelli" accepting that title on Mr. Blyth's authority as beino- 

 equal, though older, to P. subochraceinn. That P. minor, Hume, was not a distinct species (I 

 happened to possess a large series collected by Lieutenant W. Ramsay), that it had been described 

 two years previously by Mr. Swinhoe, was, while not a matter of great surprise, beyond all doubt 

 when I wrote. But Mr. Gates has recently (Str. F. 1876, p. 406) endeavoured to show that I, 

 not Mr. Blyth, have " made a strange mistake " in identifying P. tickelli with P. minor, or, in 

 other words, with P. suhochraceum. I do not admit that Mr. Blyth was wrong in his identifi.- 

 cation of P. subochraceum with P. tickelli ; for, with the greatest respect to the superior know- Ibis, 1877, 

 ledge of Mr. Gates, I am inclined (perhaps from mere editorial partiality) to believe that P' ^®^' 

 Mr. Blyth was as likely to know as much, I will not say more, about the specimen and species 

 he himself had described, than even Mr. Gates, who had never seen it. But if tliere is an error 

 on my part in referring P. minor, Hume, through P. subochraceum, Swinhoe, to P. tickelli, 

 Blyth, it must be Mr. Blyth's " dictum," and not mine, " that will not be readily accepted by 

 those who are conversant with local Indian ornithology." 



Mr. Gates speaks confidently of having seen and shot P. tickelli, Blyth, on the Peo'u hills. 

 Mr. Hume, in his "List of the Birds of Upper Pegu " (o^j. cit. 1875, p. 119), goes no further than 

 to " suppose " that the only specimen sent to him by Mr. Gates belongs to P. tickelli ; and 

 Mr. Gates (1. c.) remarks that that " specimen agrees pretty well with Blyth's meagre description." 

 But when it becomes an object to impress on the readers of ' Stray Feathers ' that I, in my capacity 

 of Mr. Blyth's editor, have arrived " at hasty and, in many cases, erroneous conclusions," then 

 the fact that it was Mr. Blyth, and not I, who identified his own species with one that is notori- 

 ously the same as P. minor, is omitted, Mr. Hume's bare " supposition " becomes a demonstrated 

 fact, and " Blyth's meagre description," with which Mr. Gates's solitary specimen only " ao-rees 

 pretty well," is considered, along with Tickell's (which is also as meagre, and was also before 

 Mr. Gates), " to give us all the really essential particulars of the plumage." 



But, Sirs, what will probably more interest you and your readers is, whether I was justified 



