256 



letely barred. In Northern Australia, another species occurs 

 the recently-described T. iodurus (Gould), which differs from 

 T. lunulatus by its second primary not being shorter than 

 its sixth, as well as by the prevailing tint of its back and 

 tail being more rufous. The distinguishing characters of 

 these species are here expressly shewn, because examples of 

 one or the other of them are constantly palmed off by dealers 

 as specimens of the true White's Thrush, and the examina- 

 tion and comparison of a very large series consisting of 

 those contained in the British and Cambridge Museums, 

 and the collections of Messrs. Dresser, Sharpe, Swinhoe and 

 Gould, Canon Tristram, and Lord Walden, which have been 

 most kindly placed at the Editor's service, have enabled him 

 to point out the specific differences as above given with 

 some degree of assurance. Of the other allied species it 

 is unnecessary to say anything here, as they are not likely to 

 be taken even by a casual observer for T. varius. 



It will be observed that no notice has here been taken of 

 a Thrush mentioned in former editions of this work as being 

 the property of Mr. Bigge, then of Hampton Court, but now 

 of Debden Hall, Essex ; who, about the year 1825, bought 

 it of a bird-stuffer at Southampton. This specimen was 

 said to have been shot in the New Forest by one of the 

 keepers. It was unfortunately sold in 1849 with the rest of 

 Mr. Bigge's collection, and that gentleman, though he has 

 most obligingly made every enquiry, has failed to trace it. 

 It is evident that it was not a White's Thrush, for, as de- 

 scribed in former editions of this work, it had the second 

 primary as long as the sixth, a character which equally 

 precludes it, in the Editor's belief, from having been an 

 example of Horsfield's Thrush ; while he has been very 

 kindly informed by its former possessor that, though he had 

 no reason to doubt the bird-stuffer's story, the specimen, 

 when shewn to Mr. Gould, who still remembers the fact, 

 was found by him to have its head stuffed with wool, as was 

 often the case with bird- skins prepared in Australia. On 

 the whole, therefore, it seems not improbable that though 

 no fraud may have been intended, the specimen had been 



