Letters, Announcements, ^c. 607 



in the British Museum of a similar description. At present 

 I can only say that^ having at the time compared the birds 

 from Yule Island with the specimen from Western Australia 

 in the Paris Museum (type of Nisus australis, Less.), and 

 with other specimens in the British Museum, two of which 

 arc from Waigiou, as also with those in the Leyden Museum, 

 they all appeared to me to belong to one and the same 

 species. 



Should the New-Guinea Urospizias (which I have regarded 

 as U. torquatus) be specifically different from that of Timor, it 

 cannot be called U. sharpii (Ramsay, Pr. Linn. Soc. N. S. W. 

 iii. 1878, p. 173), as assumed by Mr. Gurney, as, before 

 Ramsay used that name, there was already an Astur sharpii, 

 Oustalet (Bull. Soc. Philom. ii. 1875, p. 25), from the Mari- 

 anne Islands. 



In answer to the last remark of Mr. Gurney I must con- 

 fess that I have not examined the types of Urospizias syl- 

 vestris (Wall.) ; and also, if I have included Flores among the 

 localities inhabited by U. torquatus, it was on SchlegePs 

 authority, and, perhaps, also on account of not having 

 found in the specimens from Flores in the Leyden Museum 

 sufficient differences to induce me to consider the birds 

 specifically distinct. I admit that, if such was my opinion, 

 I ought to have quoted Astur sylvestris, Wall., among the 

 synonyms of U. torquatus, which I have omitted to do by 

 oversight. 



If U. sylvestris is entitled to specific rank, it follows that 

 Flores must be excluded from the localities inhabited by U. 

 torquatus. 



I am, sirs. 



Yours &c., 



T. Salvadori. 



Estancia ' Los Yngleses,' en Ajd, Buenos Ay res, 

 July 4th, 1881, 



Sirs,— In ' The Ibis ' for 1880, at p. 22, there arc some 

 breeding-notes inserted under the heading of Lichenops per- 

 spicillata, Gm. 



