Letters, Extracts, Notices, &;c. 259 



me, whicli, as the dimensions given by me on p. 281 show, is 

 hardly more tlian half-grown (expos, culmen 97 mm.). 

 This bird is out of the " downy " plumage, that is, the feathers 

 are fully grown and their downy tips have been thrown away, 

 hut no additional feathers have as yet appeared on the denuded 

 portions of the face and throat. I was therefore undoubtedly 

 correct in my original statement. Now as to the application 

 of it. From Bonaparte^s and SchlegeFs descriptions of the 

 type of P. minor I was naturally led to helieve the naked 

 space in this specimen to be larger C^' genarum parte plumosa 

 marginem oculorum hand attingente ") than in those examined 

 by Swinhoe and by myself; and as the tarsus of the specimen 

 iu question was also given as extraordinarily short, the con- 

 clusion was logical, that the type was a very young bird like the 

 European specimen just mentioned, though somewhat older 

 on account of the longer bill. From the figure furnished by 

 Dr. Biittikofer (as well as from the original in the ' Fauna 

 Japonica,' which I am now able to consult) it is evident, 

 however, that I was misled, and Mr. Ogilvie-Grant expressly 

 says (p. 55) that there is '^ considerably less naked skin in it 

 than in more mature birds." So much for the alleged 

 " theory " of mine. 



On p. 39 Mr. Ogilvie-Grant, in regard to the distinctness 

 of P. leucorodia and P. major, says that he is inclined to share 

 Mr. Seebohm^s opinion rather than mine. But he certainly 

 does not. Mr. Seebohm's opinion is, or was, when I Avrote, 

 as expressed by myself, that '' Platulea major of Temminck 

 is undoubtedly a young bird " of the European specieSj while 

 ray conclusions were exposed in the following guarded form 

 (p. 278) : "1 therefore consider myself justified in regarding 

 the Japanese/orm as separable.'^ Whether " specifically dis- 

 tinct " or not, I have not ventured to say, and on this point 

 I am still somewhat doubtful. But whether specifically or 

 only subspecifically distinct, it is evident from Mr. Ogilvie- 

 Grant's whole treatment of the subject (see pp. 34, 39-47) 

 that he agrees with me that the two forms are separable. 



Yours &c., 



Leonhahd Stejneger. 



