390 Mr. S. A. Buturlin on the Geographical 



Ph.persicus from Tchirin-Tchai and Kizyl-Kan with his own 

 Askhabad bird, and called it " Ph. komarowi/ 3 without, 

 however, giving a description of it. 



For those who consider that this error invalidates the name 

 "komarowi" I propose to name the Tejend Pheasant Pha- 

 sianus principalis bogdanowi. 



8. Phasianus principalis zarudnyi, nom. nov. (Zaru day's 

 Pheasant.) 



PJt. principalis : 1891, Zarudny, Note on a new Variety of 

 Pheasant ( Ph. principalis Sclat. var. Idossoivskii Tarn.) 

 (Russ.), p. 2 (Daragan-Ata). 



Pit. medius: 1896, Zarudny, Ornith. Faun. Transcasp. 

 (Russ.), p. 481 (from Khiva to Chardjui) (uec Ph. medius 

 Milne-Edwards, 1870, Ois. foss. Fr. ii. p. 242). 



The range of Zarudny's Pheasant is confined to the valley 

 of the middle Amu Daria (Oxus), from Petro-Alexandrovsk, 

 in the southern part of Khiva, to Chardjui, and perhaps 

 somewhat higher up the river. 



In the north-west its range overlaps that of Ph. chryso- 

 melas, as is also probably the case with Ph. bianchii in 

 the south-east, somewhere between Chardjui and Karki, 

 but it needs no close comparison uith these black-bellied 

 green-breasted birds. To its north-eastern neighbour, 

 Ph. zerafshanicus, Zarudny's Pheasant is nearer than any 

 other rufous-bellied Pheasant (nearer in appearance, as well 

 as in range), but it is much nearer still to Ph. komarowi, and, 

 as it seems, only subspecifically distinct from it, the points 

 of difference being fully shown in the synoptical table. 



Mr. Zarudny collected some sixteen specimens of this bird, 

 and fully described it (under the name Ph. medius, un- 

 fortunately preoccupied), comparing point after point with 

 Ph. chrysomelas, Ph. principalis, and Ph. klossowskii (=ze?'af- 

 shanicus). To this description Mr. M. A. Menzbier added a 

 footnote, stating that Zarudny's Pheasant is quite identical 

 with Ph. principalis or — if distinguishable — needs no parti- 

 cular name, being only a cross between Ph. principalis and 

 Ph. chrysomelas. It seems rather rash to deny the claims of 

 a bird to distinctness on the ground that it may be, or may 



