| ee PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 325 
plumage. Whatever may be the explanation of this, I believe that we 
have here two species. The smaller species of Chat, which I lave 
called form B, is evidently P. indica of Blyth.” 
In view of Maj. Biddulph’s statements, we are, therefore, obliged to 
recognize two Indian forms of Stonechats, although not without some 
doubt, for it appears from his own words that the sex of the specimens 
has not been determined beyond doubt, and the two forms appear to 
occur in the same localities at the same season. In regard to the 
latter point, however, [ may recall the case of Cettia cantans and C. 
cantillans, while, on the other hand, it is not absolutely clear from his 
notes whether the two forms breed in the samelocality. Unfortunately, 
Lhave no authentic male specimens from India proper by which to test his 
conclusions, for three specimens collected by Bingham in Tenasserim 
appear to agree with Chinese examples to be mentioned later on. I 
may remark, however, that I am unable to distinguish a female said to 
be from Nepal (U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 95613) from other small Eastern 
specimens. 
A comparison of my Japanese, Chinese, and Tenasserim specimens 
(to be called series C) with Biddulph’s exposition leads to the conelu- 
sion that they agree with the smaller form (4) in size (see table of 
dimensions below), while in color they conform to the larger form (A), 
that is to say, the males have no white on the nape, and the females 
are brightly colored. It thus appears that we have three different forms 
of Eastern Stonechats, viz: 
g No white on nape; @ bright. § rout = eee 
( Form C l size small. 
6 White on nape; 9 dull........ Form B $ 
We may now proceed to determine the names of these three forms. 
Mr. Brooks and Maj. Biddulph have identified “form B” with P. in- 
dica BLYTH, and as this seems to be the general opinion, and as noth- 
ing is known to the contrary, we have to accept thisname.* He seems 
uncertain. 
Gmelin (8S. N., 1, p. 997) describes Motacilla tschecantschia as “ nucha 
albicante, torque et macula alarum oblonga albis,” but the original de- 
scription and plate by Lepechin, upon which Gmelin’s diagnosis is 
founded, being inaccessible to me, | am unable to ascertain the true 
Status of this name whether belonging to the smaller or the larger 
form. 1 have no access to the original description in Pallas’s “‘ Reise,” 
but from his ‘“‘ Zoographia” it is evident that he imposed the name M, 
maura, by a mistake, and, that he really regarded the European and 
Asiatie birds as belonging to the same species. Since the length of the 
wing, however, as given by him, equals 66.6™™, or about the average 
* Pratincola indica BLYTH, Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, xvi, 1847, p. 129. It is diffi- 
cult to see why Hodgson’s Saxicola saturatior (Gray’s Zool. Miscell., 1844, p. 83) 
should not be used, unless it ig a nomen nudum. 
