626 ON THE GENUS AETAMUS. [1878. 



Here I can only say ' not proven ! '" In my humble opinion it is " proven " by overwhelming 

 evidence that B.risson did describe the Philippine species. Let us sift the evidence — first as to 

 the vatria of the type, secondly as to whether the description is sufficient to show the identity of 



the type. 



Brisson (undoubtedly a most accurate author) distinctly states that the species to which his 

 type belonged " is found in the neighbourhood of Manilla, capital of the island of Luzon, whence 

 Ibis, 1878, it was sent to M. I'Abbe Aubry, who has preserved it in his cabinet." " The inhabitants of 

 P- ^^"*- Manilla call it Langni-Langnaien." Brisson called it Lanius manillensis. 



Now as to his description of the specimen, which we know he had before him ; for two 

 asterisks precede the title. He says that " the head, throat, neck, scapulars, wing-feathers, and 

 those of the tail are blackish " (" noiratres " in the French, " nigricantes " in the Latin), that is, 

 blackish or swarthy, but not jet-black, nor even black. Mr. Sharpe says that the title " letico- 

 rhynclms " cannot be retained for the Philippine bird, as its colours are stated to be " black and 

 white." They are so stated to be by Sonnerat describing other species, not so, as I have shown, 

 by Brisson. Mr. Sharpe goes on to say that the question is somewhat complicated by the fact 

 that there are certain black-and-white Artami, such as A. melaleucus and A. maximus, but is of 

 opinion that " it is highly improbable that either of these species formed the subject of Brisson's 

 or Sonnerat's descriptions." It is not necessary to prove to what species Sonnerat's type belonged ; 

 but it is clear that neither of the species above named could have been before Brisson ; for the 

 fi?rst is from New Caledonia, and the other from New Guinea, and Brisson describes the colour 

 as being blackish, not black. The colouring of many examples of the Philippine species (and 

 there is only one species known to inhabit the Philippines) is blackish. " Noiratre " or nigricans 

 are terms which fairly convey the general tone of the dark colour of the phase of plumage 

 exhibited by the Philippine bird; for, as I have shown elsewhere (P. Z. S. 1877, p. 544*) Philip- 

 pine individuals occur wearing a dark smoky-brown plumage. We have thus the fact that 

 Brisson circumstantially stated the origin of his type specimen, and that the description of it 

 given by him is strictly applicable to at least one of the styles of colouring which the Philippine 

 bird, as known to us, very frequently assumes. It may also be added that A. leucorhynchus is 

 one of the commonest and most widely spread birds in the Philippines. Mr. Everett writes that 

 you see it everywhere. And although it is unnecessary to resort to probabilities, these are enor- 

 mously on the side of Brisson's specimens having come from Manilla. 

 Ibis 1878 Mr. Sharpe makes no endeavour to show what Brisson's bird may have been. About the 



p. 385. ' oenus there is no doubt, and yet it is the only species of the genus described by Brisson. There 

 'were only two species possible for him to have described. One, A.fuscus, is out of the question ; 

 the other is this Philippine species, with its wide range over the whole Malayan archipelago, 

 Celebes, the Moluccas, parts of New Guinea with several of its islands, and parts of Australia. 

 If a " black and white " species hke A. melaleucus existed in the Philippines, as Drs. Hartlaub 

 and Finsch at one time thought (P. Z. S. 1868, pp. 116, 117), it could not be Brisson's bird; for 

 he described his species as being blackish. But Mr. Sharpe also admits that the archipelago is 

 inhabited by only one species. 



It is not my object to revise critically this monograph of the Artami. But when Mr. Sharpe 



* lAntea, p. 468.— Ed.] 



