316 Mr. H. Seebohm on the Genus Sylvia. 



Temminck ; but since this bird has been in undisturbed posses- 

 sion of the latter for upwards of half a century, we may fairly 

 ignore the former on the ground that Gmelin's description 

 does not clearly define the species. His name does not de- 

 serve to stand, inasmuch as he obviously never saw the biid, 

 or he would scarcely have copied Cetti's error in ascribing 

 the rufous tint to the head instead of to the flanks. 



Tristram's Warbler, Sylvia deserticola, Tristram (Ibis, 1859, 

 p. 58), is an excellent species, which has most unaccountably 

 been confused with Sylvia nana. It is a much darker- coloured 

 bird, with a more rounded wing and a much longer tail. It is 

 nearer to S. conspicillata, but can always be distinguished by its 

 more rounded wing, longer tail, and darker chin and throat. 

 Another of Tristram's species, Bowman's Warbler, appears 

 to me to be a good one. It differs from S. melanocephala in 

 having a shorter tail, and in being, in both sexes, but espe- 

 cially in the female, paler in colour. Tristram named it Sylvia 

 bowmanni (Ibis, 1867, p. 85) ; and Blanford subsequently 

 described it as Sylvia rubescens (Ibis, 1874, p. 77) ; but both 

 these names are superseded by Cabanis, who named it Meli- 

 zophilus nigricapillus (Mus. Hein. i. p. 35, 1850). Cabanis 

 described his species from Hemprich and Ehrenberg's types 

 in the Berlin Museum ; and if the existence of a type in a 

 public museum is to be held as legally supplementing an in- 

 sufficient description, which I take to be in accordance with 

 ornithological judge's law, Bowman's Warbler must stand as 

 Sylvia momus (Ehr. Symb. Phys. Av. i. fol. bb, 1829). 



The Dartford Warbler must, I presume, stand as Sylvia 

 undata (Bodd.) . Boddaert's name is accompanied by no de- 

 scription, but is published as the Latin name of " le Pitte-chou 

 de Provence/' figured by D'Aubenton in the c Planches Enlu- 

 minees' (Bodd. Table PL Enl. p. 40, 1783). The figure is 

 sufficiently good to leave no reasonable doubt as to the species 

 intended to be designated ; and Boddaert's name may there- 

 fore be held to have been, in this instance, " clearly defined." 

 Under all circumstances, Sylvia dartfordensis, Lath., would take 

 precedence ofMotacillaprovincialis, Gmel. The former name 

 appears in Latham's list of British birds appended to the sup- 

 plement of his < General Synopsis.' This most important list, 



