(3) 



5. Astur griseogularis obiensis subsii. nov. 



[Astur gi-iseogularis G. 1\. Gray, P. Z. S. 1860. p. 343 (" Batchian, Gilolo, 

 Ternate.") (Typ. loc. Batjan— cf. Cat. B. i. p. 124).] 



A. griseogularw form. typ. simillimus, sed minor. Al. ? ad. 230 — 233, c? cr. 

 200 mm. 



Hab : In Insula Ubi JIajor dicta. 



Three ? ? ad., Jlarch, April, June, 1902, Waterstradt coll. 



<S fere ad., March 1902, Waterstradt coll. 



? juv., Lucas coll.. No. 91, 1898. 



The specimens from Obi Major have such small dimensions, compared witli a 

 series from Batjan (Platen, Waterstradt, Doherty, Wallace coll.), Ternate (Doherty 

 coll.), and JNIorty (Dumas coll.) that I feel perfectly justified in separating them 

 subspecifically under the name obiensis. While the wing of adult females of 

 A. griseogularis griseogularis measures 258 — 280, that of the females from (Jbi is 

 only 230 — 233 mm. long, a measure sometimes even surpassed by the males of the 

 typical form, which are, of course, ever so much smaller than the females. The 

 male of A. gnseogularis griseogidaris has the wing 215—240, while that of A. g- 

 obiensis has it no longer than about 200 mm. Similar diiferences are obvious in the 

 tails. The tails of adult females of the typical form from Batjan, Ternate, Halma- 

 hera, and Morty are always over 200 mm. long, that of obiensis about 185. Also the 

 metatarsus and toes are generally smaller in Obi sjjecimeus. In most of the females 

 the under surface is more or less distinctly barred, but the bars become often 

 obsolete (apparently in the oldest birds), and no trace of them is to be found in very 

 adult males, though I have not seen a female without a trace of light bars. 



Type of ^. g. obiensis: ?, Obi Major, 6. iv. 1902, No. 0.67 Waterstradt coll. in 

 Mus. Koth.-child. 



6. Accipiter erythrauchen Gray. 



Accipiter erythrauchen Gray, P. Z. S. 1860. p. 344 (Gilolo = Halmahera). 



? ad, ¥ juv., Obi Major. Native name " Koheba." 



The adult female agrees with typical specimens. 



The supposed young figured by Schlegel (Vog. Nederl. Indie, Valkvog. PI. XIII. 

 fig. 4. pp 22. 60) is evidently erroneously united with this species. Accipiter 

 erythrauchen belongs to the same group as A. ceramensis and .,4. sulaensis (not to 

 be confounded with soloensis !). The adult A. ceramensis is greyish underneath, 

 while the adult sulaensis lacks the rufous collar on the u[iper back. The young of 

 all these forms are boldly striped underneath, without a trace of cross-markings. I 

 have described the young A. sidaensis (with an almost cinnamon upperside) in Nov. 

 ZooL. 1898. p. 126, and the young of A. ceramensis (under the name of A. rubricollis) 

 is described in Cat. B. Brit. Mus. i. p. 144. The young A. erythrauchen has the 

 upper surface very deep brown, the crown darkest, almost black. Each feather is 

 widely barred with white, and more or less huffy rusty colour towards the base, or 

 at least has a white or whitish base. There are narrow rufous fringes to the tips of 

 the feathers. Kemiges deej) brown, with deeper slaty brown bars, inner webs pale 

 cinnamon for the l)a.sal half. Kectrices dark brown, with deeper, somewhat .slaty- 

 blackish bar.s, inner webs with a cinnamon wash towards the base. Underside 

 whitish buff, with wide deep brown central stripes, but without any cross-markings 

 whatever. 



