510 MR. R. B. SHARPE ON THE GENUS CEYX. _[Nov. 11, 
paper on the latter genus; I think that it is correct to class these 
two species together, but I should prefer that they were consi- 
dered aberrant Ceyces instead of aberrant Aleyones. On the receipt 
of Count Salvadori’s paper, an early copy of which he had the 
goodness to send me, I wrote to him expressing my admiration of 
the elaborate way in which he had worked out the genus, only 
adding that, although I believed he had taken the right view of the 
case, I trusted an examination of Strickland’s type would confirm 
his conclusions. 
As, however, I did not consider the matter settled until I had 
examined for myself the type of Strickland’s C. rufidorsa, I went to 
Cambridge as soon as the collection was arranged, on purpose to 
satisfy mvself on this point. Every facility was kindly afforded me by 
Mr. J. W. Clark, the Superintendent of the Museum, and I had no 
difficulty in discovering the bird I wanted to see. I was at once 
astonished to find that Strickland’s C. rufidorsa was the C. rufidorsa 
of authors, and that, after all, C. innominata must give way, and be 
added as asynonym. But, then, what could the bird which we had 
taken to be the true C. rufidorsa really be? This 1 could not 
determine for a long time; but on further comparison I found that 
it must be the young bird of C. tridactyla (Pall.). This never 
struck me before; and because I was bent on noticing the points of 
difference between the bird and C. dillwynni and C. rufidorsa, auct., 
I had never compared it with C. tridactyla. 
It now remains only to clear up the confusion which exists with 
regard to the rufous-headed Ceyces resulting from the above error, 
for which, however, [ blame myself especially, as it was originally 
my suggestion to Count Salvadori. My previous paper may be 
taken as a correct exposition of the synonymy of the various Ceyces ; 
for the mersion of C. uropygialis in C. lepida, and the separation 
of C. philippinensis as an Aleyone, are questions which a further 
knowledge of the birds and a further acquisition of specimens alone 
can satistactorily determine. 
A new synoptical arrangement of the rufous-headed Ceyces is 
necessary ; and it seems to me that Count Salvadori has grasped the 
salient points of difference in his ‘ clavis’’ of the different species. 
A. Capite et uropygio lilacinio: rostro corallino. 
a. Macula ad latera colli cerulea nulla. 
a’. Scapularibus lilacinis. 
a’. Tectricibus alarum rufis, haud exruleo la- 
Palins Paes. See. sae sacs us a dad pte ses C. rufidorsa. 
4’, Tectricibus alarum nigris ac rufis, czeruleo 
Neveu Ree sone ne asa gatas se <0 v Wage waco ae-togas se C. sharpii. 
2’. Scapularibus nigris ceruleo lavatis .................. C. dillwynni. 
b. Macula ad latera colli crulea. 
a’. Major: interscapulio et scapularibus rufis ......... C. melanura. 
4°. Minor: interscapulio et scapularibus nigris ceru- 
Leg sla Wath eee eas cients asarcenspcsces-sngesaeeies C. tridactyla. 
For the arrangement of the blue-backed section, see my paper 
(P. Z.S. 1868, p. 587) and that of Count Salvadori (Atti R. Accad. 
Torino, iv. p. 440). 
