species of Passerine Birds. 497 



Should it be determined to be distinct, I propose for it the 

 name of 



CiNCLUS MINOR. 1 



I have long had in my possession, from Mysore, a giant Stone- 

 chat in summer plumage, very brightly coloured, which had often 

 puzzled me. I lately received from my friend Mr. Brooks a 

 specimen of the same bird in winter plumage, given him by Mr. 

 Jerdon, who procured it in the Sutlej valley. 1 have had the 

 pleasure of introducing Mr. Jerdon to his old friend, which he at 

 once recognized ; and it was evident the two specimens belonged 

 to the same species, hitherto undescribed, I propose to name it 



Pratincola robusta, sp. n. -._ 



P. maxima, coloribus P. pastori simillima, seil intensioribus ; pec- 

 tore intense rufo, abdomine rufo nee alhido ; striya nuchali an- 

 gusta. 

 Long. tot. 5-95, alae 3, caudse 2*45 poll. 

 It is thus very much larger than any known species of Pra- 

 tincola. It may be further discriminated from P. pastor and P. 

 sibylla by the intensity of its rufous breast extending down to 

 the abdomen without any white ; and also from these and from 

 P. rubicola by the very narrow white spot on each side of the 

 neck instead of the bold white patch, while in the breeding- 

 plumage the black of the head and back is most intense. I am 

 very fortunate to have the decided authority of Mr. Jerdon for 

 describing this most interesting bird as new. Its size is the 

 more remarkable when contrasted with the small P. indica. 



May I lastly remark, to bring these desultory notes to a con- 

 clusion, that Drymoeca anchieta, Bocage (Jorn. Sc. Lisboa, 

 1868j p. 41), which has been identified by Dr. Hartlaub (Be- 

 richt u. s. w. 1869, p. 126) with Chatops grayi, Sharpe (P. Z. S. 

 1869, p. 163, pi. 14), is also identical with Sphenoeacus pycno- 

 pygiuSjSdater (Contrib. Ornith. 1852^ p. 148, pi. 102), so that 

 this rare bird has had the good fortune to be thrice described 

 and twice figured* ! 



* [M. Jules Verreaux, who has lately examined the type of this species, 

 now in the Strickland Collection at Cambridge, is of opinion that it can- 

 not properly be included in any one of the genera to which it has been 

 referred, and that probably a new genus should be established for its 

 reception. — Ed.] 



N.S. VOL. VI. 2 N 



