07 



hargitti tilHirpc. (p. 505.) Guimaras Panay 



[philippensis Steero, List Bd*. & Mains. Masbate Palawan 



Steere Exp., p. 8 (1890).] 



mindorensis tit cere, List Bds. & Mams. Miudoro 

 Steere Exp., p. 8 (18!)0). 



The name T. suhiensis has been given to the Sulu representatives of the genus by 

 W. Blasius (J. f. O. 1890, p. 140), who bases his determination on five specimens 

 collected by Platen. He separates T. suluensis from T. javensis on the ground 

 that the bills and wings of the Sulu birds are shorter than are those of typical 

 representatives of T. javensis. If the latter species, which ranges through Borneo, 

 Bongao, Tawi Tawi, and Lapac, really gives way in Sulu to a distinct species 

 only to reappear again in Basilan and Mindanao, it would be remarkable, although 

 perhaps not more remarkable than that T. javensis of Mindanao should be 

 replaced by T. pectoralis in Panaon, Leyte, and Samar, and should reappear in 

 Luzon. In point of fact, Bourns and I were quite unable to differentiate our 

 Sulu specimens from typical T. javensis, and I must therefore decline to recognize 

 T. suluensis of Blasius as a valid species. 



The question presented by the central Philippine representatives of the genus 

 can not be so readily disposed of. Dr. Steere separated the birds from Guimaras 

 and Masbate under the name of T. philippensis, differentiating them from 

 T. javensis on the strength of their possessing huffy white rumps and cheeks 

 largely scarlet [List Bds. & Mams. Steere Exp., p. 8 (1890)]. Bourns and I 

 assigned our Panay specimens to this species, which we described somewhat more 

 fully than did Steere [Occ. Papers Minnesota Acad., I, No. 1, p. 53 (1894)]. 



Later, however, in preparing our distribution list, having noted that Hargitt, 

 in Volume XVIII of the Catalogue of Birds, did not recognize T. philippensis, we 

 discarded the species and recorded all the central Philippine representatives of the 

 genus, including our Negros specimens, under T. javensis. 



William Eagle Clark unhesitatingly identified an adult male bird collected in 

 Negros by Keay as T. hargitti (Ibis, Oct., 1894, p. 534). In Ibis, Oct., 1895, 

 p. 474, Clarke quotes Hargitt's views as to the identity of this specimen. 

 Hargitt failed to reach any definite conclusion, but suggested that it resembled 

 T. phitippensis more closely than T. hargitti, and added that he regarded the only 

 other specimen that he had seen from Negros as T. javensis. 



Grant (Ibis, Oct., 1894, p. 473) asserts that T. philippensis Steere is identical 

 with T. hargitti Sharpe, and later reiterates this statement (Ibis, Oct., 189(5, 

 p. 558), but adds to our confusion by saying that the bird from Negros recorded 

 by Hargitt under the name of T. javensis (Cat. Bds., XVII I, p. 500, specimen X) 

 should, in his opinion, be referred to T. pectoralis, all the feathers of its breast 

 being widely margined with whitish buff. Finally Clark (Ibis, Jan., 1898, 

 p. 121 ) identifies three additional specimens from Negros as T. hargitti. 



As above noted, Sharpe, in his Hand-List of Birds, refers the Negros birds to 

 T, javensis and retains Steere's T. philippensis, to which species he refers the birds 

 from Panay, Guimaras, and Masbate. 



The question of the identity of the central Philippine representatives of the 

 genus can hardly be satisfactorily settled without comparing a good series of 

 specimens with a similar series from Palawan. Meanwhile, in view of Grant's 

 positive statement that the types of T. hargitti and T. philippensis have been 

 compared and agree in all particulars, I refer the central Philippine representa- 

 tives of the genus to this species. WORCESTER. 



