582 ON THE DICRTIRED^ AJSTD THEIE AERANGEMENT. [1878 



a typical example of D. grandis (Gould) * with one of D. malabariciis (Scop.), ex Malabar, would 



scarcely hesitate to consider them as belonging to two very distinct species ; but many intervening 



links occur, such as the true D. paradiseus and true i>. cristatellus (Blyth), ex Tenasserim, in 



which the frontal crest is not so much developed as in the Nepal, nor so little as in the Malabar 



bird. But the variations in structure which differentiate the several local races of this genus, 



although well marked, would require a separate paper for their elucidation ; and I shall therefore, 



for the present, content myself with pointing out a few errors that have inadvertently crept into 



Mr. Sharpe's summary of the genus. 



D.p)latiirvs (Vieill.) is not from Java. Temminck (PI. Col., sub Edolhis reinifer) remarks that 



Le Vaillant figured (Ois. d'Afr. t. 175) the bird brought from Malabar by Sonnerat. But whether 



this be so or not, D. platurns is not from Java, it being a crestless species. The correct title for 



the Javan species is B. formosus. Cab., founded on Javan examples, which I have examined at 



Halberstadt. Temminck's name retifer (Sharpe, p. 258, sed lege setifer), adopted by some 



Ibis, 1878, authors for the Javan bird, must be altogether rejected, as it was bestowed on the Malabar, 

 p. S2. . , , , , f, 



Sumatran, and Javan species in the belief that they were identicalf. Temminck's title, setifer, is 



ignored by Mr. Sharpe, who leaves us to conclude that it was fii'st bestowed by Jerdon on the 



South-Indian species. 



The Tenasserim race Mr. Blyth described as distinct from the Malabar race ; and to distin- 

 guish it he called it cristatellus. It has a less-developed crest than D. grandis, but a much 

 longer one than the Malabar species. Notwithstanding, it will be found that in the Catalogue 

 (p. 265) Blyth's title is assigned and restricted to the S.W. Indian species. 



Under the new title of D. ceylonensis Mr. Sharpe has separated the Ceylonese from the 

 S.W. Indian species, on account of the comparative smallness of its rackets. In all the speci- 

 mens that I have examined from both localities this distinction does not hold good. It is 

 impossible to discover any appreciable diflference between mature specimens ; but even if there 

 were any, it is difficult to see how D. hraclujphorus can be united to D. grandis, as is done by 

 Mr. Sharpe in his synonymy, if the Ceylon bird merits a separate title. 



Irexa. — The true systematic position of this genus has divided the opinions of ornithologists 

 ever since Horsfield founded it. Temminck first classed it among the Dicruridae ; and so have 

 other authors since, and Mr. Sharpe does the same. Jerdon placed it (following Blyth) among 

 the Short-legged Thrushes, and made it constitute a separate subfamily, Ireninoe, the third among 

 the Brachypodidse, arranging it between the Phyllornitkince and the Oriolinoe. In Jerdon's view 

 I must undoubtedly concur. The affinity between Irena and Dicninis is more apparent than 

 real ; it is an affinity of mimicry at best. The contour of the bill has a superficial resemblance ; 

 but the margins of the commissure are inflected in Irena ; in Bicrurus they are spreading. In 

 the last the rictal bristles are developed (a certain indication of insectivorous habits) ; in Irena 

 Ibis, 1878, they are short, weak, almost aborted. In the gradation of the quills there is some analogy ; but 

 in Irena the 3rd, 4th, and 5th are usually equal and longest, whereas in Bicrurus the 3rd is 



* D. malabaroides (Hodgs,) of Mr. Sharpe (p. 260), a title published one year later. Mr. Gould's Sumatran species, 

 said to be exactly the same, has not since been recognized. 



t In the series of Sumatran .and Javan racket-tailed Drongos at Leyden I did not observe a crested Sumatran or a 

 Don-crested Javan example. 



