' Ornithologie Nordost-Afi-ikd's.' 429 



as the colour of the abdomen. Dacelo fusca is the name em- 

 ployed in the present work for the well-known Halcyon smyr- 

 nensis; but the latter specific name, published in 1766, takes 

 precedence over Boddaert's, published in 1783. It is decidedly 

 wrong to unite the St. Jago Kingfisher, H. erythrogastra, to the 

 Continental bird, H. semiccBrulea. If, as Dr. von Heuglin ad- 

 mits, the South-African H. cyanoleuca is distinct from H. sene- 

 galensis, he should not give the latter as an inhabitant of S.Africa. 

 Then, again, why is H. chelicuti — the suggestion of an improved 

 [?] reading is due to Drs. Hartlaub and Finsch {cf. Ibis, 1869, 

 p. 278), to be written in the barbarous fashion proposed by the 

 author, D. tschelicutensis ? In the account of this Kingfisher 

 may be noticed several irregularities in synonymy which will 

 suggest themselves at once to the general reader. For instance, 

 the quotation of " Daubeny " in Sir W, Jardine^s ' Contribu- 

 tions^ for 1852 — the author of the paper being Mr. Sclater. 

 Again, by Dr. Hartlaub, myself and others, Alcedo variegata, 

 Vieill,, and A. striolata, Licht., are not positively considered 

 identical with H. damarensis, Strickl., which is a perceptibly 

 larger form. Dr. von Heuglin, following Dr. Finsch, unites 

 Merops superciliosus with M. (Bgyptius ; and in this he is most 

 probably correct. M. boleslavskii, Von Pelz., is supposed to be 

 the young of M. hullocki. 



On the Sunbirds the author gives some very interesting notes. 

 He lays great stress on the difference between Nectarinia acik 

 and N. senegalensis, which I believe to be a good species. Be- 

 yond this I have no remarks to make on this group. Passing 

 next to the Certhiida, I am certainly inclined to question the 

 occurrence of Tichodroma muraria in Egypt. Though stated by 

 Riippell to be found in that country and in Abyssinia, Dr. von 

 Heuglin never observed it in North-Eastern Africa at all. 



We then come to the Drymoecce; and as it is impossible with- 

 out specimens to criticize the author's species, I must pass them 

 by, but I cannot help remarking that the difference in the num- 

 ber of rectrices does not appear to be of much value as a cha- 

 racter; for I cannot admit that, taking Cisiicola schoenicola as 

 the type of the genus, such birds as Drymoeca flaveola and some 

 others are generically identical. Dr. von Heuglin cannot be too 



