Cypselidss^ Capriraulgidie, and Podargidre. 375 



to stand just iu the middle between P. papnensis and 

 P. ocellatus. These species, it must be admitted, do not 

 differ in many respects, except in size, one being much more 

 than twice as large as the other. 



I will now conclude with some remarks on the genus 

 ^gothehs. It is remarkable how seldom one gets specimens 

 of yEgotheles, except the Australian ^. nova-hollandice. 

 Several of the described species are only known at present 

 from single specimens, and the majority from a few skins 

 only. We know, as yet, next to nothing of the seasonal and 

 sexual differences of these birds, nor of the limits of A'ariation 

 in the species. These, however, are wide in JE. novcB- 

 hoUandicE, and therefore the fear that some of the described 

 species are not worthy of specific rank is not without 

 foundation. From the large island of New Guinea we only 

 know ^gotheles from the Arfak region and from the moun- 

 tains of British New Guinea, aud these have received not less 

 than ten specific names. Of these ^. insignis, Salvad. (now 

 figured on Plate VI.), is the most brilliantly coloured, being 

 almost as fine as yE. crinifrons from Halmahera and Batjan. 

 It is only known from a single specimen in the Genoa Museum, 

 which has been most courteously lent me by Dr. Gestro. 

 Of ^. albertisi I know of two specimens — one, the type, in 

 Genoa, and one, marked $ , in the Tring Museum. Both 

 are apparently young birds. O^ j^. dub'ms, Meyer, the type 

 only, in Dresden, is known. It may or may not be different 

 from JE. albertisi, from which it seems to differ in colour only. 

 /E. salvadorii, Hartert, is represented in the British Museum, 

 aud three more specimens are now before me which were 

 collected by Mr. Loria in the same place whence the type 

 came. Another closely allied form has just been described 

 by Salvadori as JE. rnfescens, from a female from Moroka, 

 in British New Guinea. I quite agree with Salvadori that 

 it is a distinct species; but it may possibly be Ramsay's 

 y^. plumifera, though there are characters given in the 

 latter author's description whicli arc not indicated iu the 

 type of ^. rufescens, so that they cannot be united without 

 farther researches. ^. affinis, Salvad., is also known from 



