389 
Moore makes the same confusion. I am decidedly of opinion, 
as I have before stated (Lbis., 1863, p. 27), that the proper 
name for the Indian bird, whether grey or rufous) is #. Bak- 
kamena (Pennant.) It is the only Scops Owl which I know 
of as an inhabitant of Lower Bengal, and I have occasionally 
obtained specimens in a curious way ; they would lodge by day 
within the moveable “leaves” of a jidmil (or “ Jalousie’’), in 
which singular retreat I have captured them. I have also 
known Mus. Flavescens to resort by day (with the vain notion 
of concealing itself) to the same very insufficient hiding place. 
Of course the ji/mils being a little open, to permit of their 
ensconcing themselves, the animals intercept the light from 
without, and are so discovered. 
The Indian (or more probably Chinese) #. Gymnopodus, Gray, 
is surely no other than H. Bakkamena (vide Ibis, 1863, p. 27) ; 
but the Malacca race (S. Walayensis, A. Hay) seems to be some- 
what different, and I have not found it to vary in shade of hue; 
while in India the rufous specimens are certainly more common 
than the grey; I even think, considerably so.” 
I have not as yet adopted Pennant’s specific name, because I 
have been as yet unable to satisfy myself that #. Bakkamena is 
really identical with Pennatus. 
Whether the supposed rufous phase of this species be really 
a mere phase of plumage, and not a characteristic of a distinct 
species, I am by no means certain. My friend Capt. Hutton 
(who, however, mis-calls this species Lempigi, while he calls FZ. 
Gymnopodus, FE. Pennatus) informs me that he has on several 
occasions obtained the nestling as rufous as the parents. Fur- 
ther observation is necessary, and should the rufous variety 
prove entitled to specific separation, it will form a seventh species 
of Indian Ephialtes, under the name of H. Sunia, Hodgson. As 
for what Mr. Blyth says about the Calcutta Museum exhibiting 
a complete series between Pennatus and Sunia, I can only say 
that I could find nothing of the kind in February, 1868; the 
rufous and grey specimens that I saw, exhibited no indication 
of grading the one into the other; every single example being 
separable at a glance, as pertaining unquestionably to the one 
or other race. Of course this in no way proves that Mr. Blyth is 
wrong, or that the rufous is not merely one phase of plumage ; 
specimens that existed in Mr. Blyth’s time may have been lost, 
or may have been put away where the Baboo in charge could 
not find them ; all I mean is that I do not consider the identity 
of the two forms established, and that I hope ornithologists will 
endeavour to settle the question satisfactorily one way or the 
other. 
