506 ON TWO SPECIES OF BATEACHOSTOMUS [1877. 



in treating the title of P. miiwr Hume, (lege minus), as a synonym of some previously described 

 species. Upon this point there is no doubt ; for I have taken the trouble to again examine the 

 type of P. subochraceum. I remain yours, 



Chislehurst, April 26, 1877. TWEEDDALE. 



Ibis, 1877, Letter relating to two Species of Batrachostomus described by Mr. A. 0. Hume, from the 

 P- 2^^- Marquis of Tweeddale, to the Editoks of ' The Ibis ' (July 1877). 



SiRg^ — In my additional notes to Mr. Blyth's " Catalogue of the Birds of Burma," when 

 dealing with Otothrix hodgsoni, I gave a bare list of all the species of the genus Batrachostomus 

 then known to inhabit the Indian region, and their synonymy. With regard to two species 

 I simply wrote " no. 2.B. affinis, 'S['^Va.,=P. parvulus, Temm.,=i?. castaneus, Hume," and "no. 

 3. P. moniliger, L,ayavd,= P. j^itnctatus, Hume." For these identifications of two of Mr. Hume's 

 new C?) species " the editor of the ornithological part " (sic) " of Blyth's Birds of Burma " (Str. F. 

 iv. p. 376) has been assailed by Mr. Hume with a fretful levity and poverty of analytical percep- 

 tion which would have rendered it unnecessary for me to notice his remarks, had not Mr. Blanford 

 addressed you a letter on the subject, published in the April number of 'The Ibis' (Ibis, 1877, 

 p. 249) ; for it need hardly be said that I receive opinions formed by Mr. Blanford on ornithological 

 questions with the respect that those who know him personally or through his writings cannot 

 fail to entertain. 



The general conclusions I had arrived at (/. c.) were formed after repeated and anxious study 

 of a comprehensive series of specimens and of the literature on the subject. But Mr. Blanford, 

 I observe, makes a statement so diametrically at variance with one of my principal conclusions 

 that, if it can be established*, my assertion (/. c.) that P. castaneus, Hume,=^. affims, Blyth, 

 must be erroneous. Its accuracy or inaccuracy turns on the fundamental question. What is 

 P. affinis, Blyth 1 Mr. Blanford asserts that " conspicuous white spots " " occur on the wing- 

 coverts of P. affinis " (l. c), and that the " feathers of the breast and abdomen are pale isabelline, 

 with rufous edges, which are broader on the breast," but that " in P. castaneus the greater 

 portion of the lower surface is the same colour as the back, chestnut ; but many feathers on the 

 Ibis, 1877, throat, breast, and upper abdomen are white, with black margins." Now, on the other hand, 

 p. 389. -Q^^^-^ distinctly stated, in his original description of P. affinis (J. A. S. B. 1847, p. 1180), that it 

 " has no white spots on the wing," that the " throat and breast " are " plain rufous, with a few 

 white feathers, having a subterminal dusky border on the fore neck and sides of the breast." 

 Mr. Blyth introduces P. affinis as being " very similar to P. javensis in the plumage figured by 

 Horsfield " (Zool. Res. Java, t. 37)— that is, with unspotted wmgs— but " smaller." Again, two 

 years later {op. cit. 1849, p. 807), Mr. Blyth, when detailing the characters which distinguish 



* [Since tbis letter bas been in type we have received a letter from Mr. Blanford requesting that bis former letter (already 

 published in our last number, p. 249) should be cancelled. He has " looked at one of Blyth's t^-pes of Batrachostomus, 

 and found that Lord Tweeddale is right and Mr. Hume wrong ! " — Edd. of ' Ibis.'J 



