288 Mr. G. N. Lawrence on 



N. geoffroyi, Temm., which he considers also to be an imma- 

 ture bird, and furthermore he decides that N. rufipennis, Gray, 

 is no other than N. geoffroyi in mature plumage, thus re- 

 ducing the three so-called species to one. He gives his rea- 

 sons at great length to sustain these opinions ; but they seem 

 to me to be mainly conjectural, as he assumes that the very 

 different markings on the throat-feathers are in a state of 

 transition, and would finally become as they exist in N. ru- 

 fipennis. 



M. Des Murs further remarks that it is evident that M. 

 Deville was ignorant of the existence, or had forgotten Mr. 

 Gray's description of Cultrides rufipennis, and that, if he had 

 compared one with the other, he would have hesitated to esta- 

 blish his species. 



M. Des Murs says in conclusion, that he has no hesitation 

 in considering the two species the same, because his opinion is 

 corroborated by Prince Charles Bonaparte in the ' Conspectus 

 Volucrum Zygodactylorum/ who only made a single species of 

 C. rufipennis and C. pucherani. 



It is thus seen that the specific validity of N. pucherani has 

 been questioned by several distinguished ornithologists ; it is 

 recognized, however, as a good species by Messrs. Cabanis 

 and Heine (Mus. Hein. iv. p. 92) and by G. R. Gray 

 (Hand-list, vol. ii. p. 212). 



Having been able to examine and make comparisons of 

 specimens of the four species of this genus, I hope to make 

 it evident that there are four well-marked and distinct species. 



The two specimens under examination are marked as male 

 and female, and are well represented in plates 6 and 7 of the 

 ' Zoology of Castelnau's Voyage/ taken from the types of 

 Cultrides pucherani. Although the figures show some slight 

 differences of coloration from the specimens, I think no one 

 would hesitate a moment in deciding that they are alike. 



Mr. Sclater's reason for supposing these figures of N. pu- 

 cherani inaccurate arose no doubt from the fact that he con- 

 sidered them as probably representing N. rufipennis. 



Prof. Orion's specimen marked "male" corresponds well 

 with the figure on plate 7, which is stated to be immature 



