330 Letters, Announcements, fife. 



stance, if Dr. Buller is correct in his estimate of the sexes of 

 each species, No. 16 is a large ? of H. brunnea, and the <$ 

 of this species must vary so much that its wing ranges be- 

 tween 9 and 10 inches in length, and thus Dr. Buller got hold 

 of an exceptionally small bird, which accounts for the great 

 disparity in the sexes of the smaller Falcon. 



I am, &c, 



R. BOWDLER SHARPE. 



3rd June, 1873. 



Sir, — In the last number of f The Ibis/ Mr. Blanford, in 

 his article in ' Stray Feathers/ makes some remarks upon 

 Argus ocellatus, and helps to continue a very erroneous im- 

 pression regarding that species. When Mr. Wood stated in 

 the ' Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist.' last year, that some of the 

 feathers in my plate of this species were the same as the rec- 

 trices of Pavo muticus, I did not make any reply, because 

 I thought that when one had studied a family of birds suffi- 

 ciently long to attempt to write a monograph of the group, 

 it might at least be supposed he would not be unable to 

 discriminate the tail-feathers of one species from those of 

 another, especially such conspicuous ones as belong to our 

 Argus Pheasant and the Javan Peacock ! But it seems 

 I was mistaken ; and therefore, when a conscientious natu- 

 ralist like Mr. Blanford gives credence to such a statement 

 without having, so far as I am aware, ever investigated the 

 subject himself, it seems time that I should say something in 

 the matter. Both before the publication of my plate and also 

 since, I have carefully compared the feathers in question, pre- 

 served in the museum here, with the rectrices of P. muticus ; 

 and neither in form, structure, nor colour do they resemble 

 each other in any degree. At no age does P. muticus possess 

 rectrices like those figured in my work ; and I was greatly 

 surprised that any one should have thought of confounding 

 them. As to these feathers and the single one of P. bipunc- 

 tatus belonging to birds of another genus, it is hardly neces- 

 sary to add that I do not concur in that view. 



In regard to Mr. Blanford's remarks about the inadvisabilitv 



