ii)t7-l H. C. Robinson: Birds from Pulau Langkawi. 177 



Oberholser's unfortunate discovery that Raffles' Motacilla 

 gain > is hitherto used foi this species in it- broad sense is 

 preoccupied and therefore untenable throws the whole oi the 

 nomenclature of this and allied forms into the greatest confusion. 



In the first place it will be generally admitted that the 

 present form mid Motacilla rubricapilla, Tickell, Journ. Asiat. 

 So . Bengal, p. 576 (1833) from eastern Bengal arc only sub- 

 specificallj distinct. As a group name Tickell's will therefore 

 take precedence of Prinia pileata, Blyth, Journ. Asiat. Soc. 

 Bengal, xi. p -'04 (1N42) from Malacca, which Oberholser sub- 

 stitutes lor gularis. 



In 1850 Bonaparte (Conspectus Av. i. p. 217), misled by 

 Horsfield's ban figure of Timalia gularis Zool. Res. Java, 

 1824 and assuming that the bird came from Java, which was 

 not the case, renamed the Sumatran bird as M. sumatrana with 

 the brief but sufficient diagnosis " Minor subtus cum gula 

 flavissima.'' 



Himalayan birds are also described under the names loin 

 chloris, Blyth, Journ. Asiatic. Soc. Bengal, xi, p. 794 (1842) and 

 Mixomis ruficeps, Hodgson, P.Z.S. 1845. p. 23, these names 

 being pure synonyms of each other. 



In 1900 Col Rippon described 3 (Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, xi, 

 p. u), under the name Stachyridopsis sulphured from Namchet, S. 

 Shan States, what is only a form of this species, and finally 

 Gvldenstolpe describes vet another race from North Siam as 

 Mixomis gularis minor. 



These last two forms (I have examined Nippon's type) are 

 probably pure synonyms of each other, the race being dis- 

 tinguished, apart from its somewhat small size, by the clear 

 yellow underparts, the reduction of the shaft stripes on the 

 throat tn mere hair lines and by great diminution of the 

 chestnut tinge on the cap. mantle and external aspect of the 

 wings. The form, spread over the greater part of Tenasserim, 

 the southern parts of Siam and the northern third of the 

 Peninsula is fairly uniform in character and in the absence of 

 direct comparison with topotypes of Tickell's M. rupricapillus, 

 cannot be separated from that form. It has had, at present no 

 subspecific name assigned to it. In the central section of the 

 Malay Peninsula it grades into the next form, M. r. pileata, 

 which is characterised by the somewhat richer coloured under- 

 surface, less tinged with glaucous green and by its slightly 

 .mailer size. The shaft stripes on the threat are broader and 

 the chestnut cap more sharply defined. This form extends 

 from Central Perak down the Peninsula and is also found on 

 the Rhio Archipelago. We possess topotypes from Malacca. 



Finally the Sumatran bird is just separable by still richer 

 colouring, shafl stripe very strongly maiked and extending on 

 to the Hanks. Lores and superciliary feathers dark. This is 

 Mixomis rubricapilla sumatrana, Bp. 



' Smithsonian Misc. coll Vol. 60, p. 9 (1912). 



