( 197 ) 



1 ?, Batanta, July 1875. Bruijn coll. (Specimen re' of Salvadori's list). 



1 (?, 1 ¥ , Ansns, Jobi, 187'.). Bruijn coll. 



1 (?, Ansns, Jobi, April ls97. W. Doherty coll. 



1 c?, Marai, Jobi, May 1897. W. Doherty coll. 



1 ?, Mafor, May 1897. W. Doherty coll. 



1 ?, Sorong, 20. iv. 1875. Bniiju coll. (Specimen ^ of Salvadori's list). 



1 c?, Kafii, May 1884. Bruijn coll. 



1 ? , Dorey, 4. vi. 1875. Bruijn coll. (Specimen /< of Salvadori's list). 



1 ?, Auclai, 1879. Bruijn coll. 



1 c?, Audai. From Bruijn's hunters. 



1, N.W. New Guinea. From Bruijn's hunters, ex coll. Guillemard. 

 1 S. Konstantinhafen, May 1887. Kubary coll. 



■ 1 (J, 1 ?, Simbang, 14. ix. 1899. E. Nyman coll. 

 4, Wanambai, Arn Islands, June 1896. C. Webster coll. 



2, Dobbo, Arn Islands, May, June 1890. C. Webster coll. 

 1 (?, Fergnsson Island, October 1894. A. S. Meek coll. 



1 (? juv., Fergnsson Island, 14. v. 1897. A. S. Meek coll., No. 251. •' Iris dark 

 brown, bill black with a red streak on under mandible." 



We have further 54 skins from Tenimber, Banda, Batjan, Halmahera, Ternate, 

 Snmba, the Key Islands, Teoor, Goram and Tidore, Dammer, Kangean, Sumbawa, 

 Lombok, Floros, Satonda Island, Alor, Australia, and New Zealand. 



There can be no donbt that E. australis is only a subspecies of E. orlentnlig, to 

 which it is indeed very closely allied, and E. laetior and E. calonyx must also be 

 treated as subspecies of orientalis. It is quite certain, however, that, although they 

 are very similar to orientalis, these forms should not " be relegated to the limbo of 

 synonyms," as Mr. Dresser wishes to persuade ns. We have adojited Swainson's 

 name because we cannot accept a name which is diagnosed as belonging to a bird 

 with a chestnut head and neck, and a black throat with white borders, for a sjiecies 

 without any chestnut at all and with a blue throat without white borders. Mr. 

 Dresser maintains that it would be pedantry to reject the name pacificus because 

 the description was bad, the locality being one where the only Roller found is 

 our present species. This is a very unsound argument, for in Latham's time the 

 localities of zoological specimens were not considered of such imjiortance as in our 

 days, and even now it frequently happens that labels are lost or reversed, and this 

 probably happened mnch more frequently a century ago. \\a therefore consider it 

 always essential to reject names if the locality alone is supposed to iudi(-ate the 

 identification, while the diagnosis is utterly inapplicable. 



2. Eurystomus crassirostris crassirostris Scl. 



Eurystomim cmxKirostris Sc\a.teT, P. Z. S. iSli'.t. p. 121 (" Solomon Islands" — errore ! We accept 

 New Britain as the typical habitat ! There are several species described and mentioned by 

 Sclater as coming from the Solomons, which apparently never came from there, such as 

 Xu!i/t''rn'i /ntufit^ Dicranoxtnjjta'i ntefjarlti/uclinA^ Lorius hijpoeiwi'hvnn^. Unfortunately we have 

 not been able to see the type, but it appears to have had a black tip to the bill, although we 

 have searched in vain for Count Salvadori's remark to that elfect, quoted by Dr. Sharps 

 /'. X. S. 18'J0. p. 5.02). 



1 S, Mysol, 11. ii. 19ii(i. 11. Kiilui coll. "Iris warm brown, feet briglit 

 vermilion mi.\ed with black, bill liright vermilion tipped black." No. 2055. 

 1 ?, Mysol, fi. xii. l«s:}. Powell coll. 



