On the gemis Cryptonyx, T'emni. 351 



and corroborating testimony of M. Temminck himself that the bird was 

 a Crrjptonyx. We have still further the original description given by Dr. 

 Latham of his Perdix Cambaiensis, as well as the re-description given of 

 the same bird at a subsequent period by M. Temminck, (both of which 

 descriptions have been literally copied above,) directly militating against 

 the supposition that the species so described is the same as that figured in 

 the " Planches Coloriees.^^ If we allow Dr. Latham and M. Temminck 

 to have been correct in the characters they have given, no two birds can 

 be more dissimilar. The characters alone of the deep red throat, so 

 striking as to give the later bird the name of Perdrix rousse-gorge, and 

 of the equally deep red stria which, with two parallel white ones, runs 

 conspicuously along the sides of the head, are of themselves sufficient to 

 distinguish the birds. The specimen in the British Museum could not 

 have been so mutilated nor so immature — facts, which by the way were 

 never hinted at when the bird was originally described, and which now 

 can be considered in no other Hght than as gratuitous assumptions, — as to 

 have shown no indication of these striking characters. On the whole, 

 we must conclude that, from the loss of the original specimen of Crypt. 

 Cambaiensis we have, unfortunately, no satisfactory proof of the 

 existence of the species ; but on the other hand, we are equally with- 

 out proof of its being a fictitious species. Neither have we any proof 

 of Dr. Latham's bird being the same as that figured by M. Temminck in 

 the " Planches Coloriees ; but rather, as far as we have materials for 

 judging on such subjects, presumptive proof to the contrary. Under 

 such circumstances I consider it adviseable to leave the Crytonyx Cam- 

 baiensis as a doubtful species among its congeners, in like manner as we 

 must leave in their alleged stations hundreds of species equally unauthen- 

 ticated ; and at the same time to suggest to M. Temminck to give to the 

 beautiful, abundant, and truly authentick species which he has so well 

 described and figured, something better than a doubtful name. 



The second, third and fourth species described of this group, deviate 

 from the typical species in having on the joint of the hind toe a small 

 horny tubercle, which may be considered as the rudiment of a nail. 

 This modification of the chief character of the group is not of sufficient 

 importance to cause any change in the arrangement of these birds. Such 

 partial aberrations from the strict typical character, particularly in groups 



A A 2 



