298 Mr. W. E. Ogilvie Grant 07i Ardciralla Woodfordi. 



parts golden brown fringed and strongly barred with black 

 the chest and breast uniform grey, shading into white on the 

 belly ; the side- and flank-feathers wnth three broad, regular, 

 black, white, and black bands at the extremity ; the under 

 tail-coverts white, black towards the base, and the tail-feathers 

 dark brown clouded wnth golden brown. " Iris dark brown ; 

 bill black ; legs and feet red ; wattle round eye scarlet ; skin 

 of neck scarlet (below feathers)." [In female.] {ff.O. Forbes.) 



Total length 11-0 inches, wing 5*8, tail 2*2, tarsus I'S. 



Forbes's specimens were obtained in the forest near Hoed- 

 joeng, at the foot of the Besagi Mountains, 3000 feet, and in 

 the forest at the foot of Kaba volcano, 3000 feet. 



XXXIX. — Note on Ardelralla Woodfordi, Grant. 

 By W. E. Ogilvie Grant (Nat. Hist. Mus.). 



This species was originally described in the ' Proceedings of 

 the Zoological Society/ 1888, p. 202, from three specimens (an 

 adult and nearly adult female and a young male) obtained by 

 Mr. C. M. Woodford at Aola, Guadalcanar, one of the 

 Solomon Islands. These specimens were examined by 

 Count Salvador! during his last visit to London ; and I 

 observe that the results of liis investigations are published in 

 his ' Aggiunte alia Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle 

 Molucche,' parte terza, p. 207 (1891). While not actually 

 adding A. Woodfordi to the synonymy of A.jiavi'colh's, he is 

 evidently of opinion that it is only the female of that species. 

 In the Museum collection there are a very large number of 

 specimens of ^. flavicollis of both sexes, many of them care- 

 fully sexed by such collectors as Davison, Gates, and Legge ; 

 so tiiat tliere is no reason to doubt their accuracy. 1 have again 

 com})ared the adult female type of A. Tro(><//o/-(/<' with a series 

 of iemale si)ccimens of A.JiavicoUisj and cainiot imagine how 

 Count Salvadori could think of uniting them, as anything 

 more distinct than the two species before us would be ditHcult 

 to iind ; and I have serious doubts as to whether they should 

 not be placed in distinct genera when one compares the very 

 diifercnt tarsi and feet. The following is a comparative table, 

 showing the chief points in which they dilfer : — 



