876 Mr. H. E. Dresser on 



Siberian specimens there is occasionally a small second bar. 

 As regards the interbreeding of the two forms in Europe, 

 Moves (Arch. f. Math, og Naturv. 1879^ p. 279) has recorded 

 the fact that he obtained two young birds, both supposed to 

 belong to the same brood, shot at Quickjock in Lapland on 

 the 12th August, one of which, a male, had a double alar bar 

 and the other, a female, a single bar ; and Professor Collett, in 

 his excellent article on Lanius excubitor and Lanius major 

 (* Ibis,^ 1886, pp. 30-40), states that he shot three young birds 

 out of the same brood near Hjerkin on the Dovre Fjeld, two 

 of which, males, had the double bar^ and the third, a female^ 

 a single alar bar. He also in two instances shot in Nor- 

 way paired birds, the males of which had the double bar, and 

 the females a single bar. From these facts it is clear that 

 Lanius excubitor is subject to considerable individual varia- 

 tion, and it would appear that the single alar bar is more 

 frequently found in the female than in the male. 



As regards Lanius homey eri, it appears to me, to say the 

 least, to be a very bad species, and merely an intermediate 

 form between Lanius excubitor and Latiius leucopterus. 

 Indeed, in a large series intermediate links between it and 

 both L. excubitor and L. leucojjterus can be found. It appears 

 that Lanius excubitor, like L. elegans, is subject to extreme 

 variation in the amount of white in the plumage, but in 

 the former species the white in the plumage seems to in- 

 crease the further east one goes until it culminates in Lanius 

 leucopterus. I have in my own collection specimens from 

 Stockholm, North Hussia, and the Ural showing a perfect 

 gradation from typical L. excubitor to extreme L. homeyeri. 

 Professor Collett (/. c.) records a specimen from Norway 

 intermediate between L. excubitor and L. homeyeri, approxi- 

 mately closer to the latter than the former, and von Homeyer 

 (/. s. c.) states that he has received specimens of so-called 

 L. homeyeri from the lower Volga which cannot be specifically 

 separated from L. excubitor. It appears to me that Latiius 

 leucopterus can fairly be considered as a distinct form, but 

 that L. homeyeri is merely a connecting link between that 

 species and L. excubitor, and has no constant distinc- 



