ABYSSINIA AND THE BOGOS COUNTRY.—APPENDIX II. aii 
peculiarities I have given a full account in our work, where also the synonymy is 
accurately explained. 
P. 279. no. 150. Bucrros timBatus must stand as Buceros hemprichii, Ehrb. (1828). 
Mr. Blanford has first pointed out that B. hemprichii is not the female of B. nasutus 
as Drs. Hartlaub and Cabanis suggest; and I agree with him, although I stated the 
contrary in our work (V6g. Ostafr. p. 487). After consulting the short description by 
Hemprich and Ehrenberg (Symb. Phys. fol. aa 3), I think there can be no doubt that 
Mr. Blanford is right, the length of bill being given as 4” 7”’, which is only referable 
to the species published later by Riippell as limbatus. 
P. 284. no. 162. CenTROPUS MONACHUS. 
Mr. Jesse has already expressed his doubts as to the identity of C. monachus and 
C. superciliosus; and Mr. Blanford (J. c. p. 315) positively declares their distinctness, 
C. superciliosus not being the female or younger state of monachus, as I erroneously 
suggested. Both species “were founded on fully adult specimens; and not only are 
they quite different in plumage, but their habitat is entirely distinct, C. monachus being 
only found in the temperate region of Abyssinia, while C. superciliosus is equally con- 
fined to the tropical and subtropical parts of the country.” (Blanf.) Although I am 
still unable to distinguish C. swpereiliosus from the similar eye-striped specimens from 
Western and Eastern Africa, I yield to one who has observed these two birds in the 
wild state. Nos. 1898 and 919 (p. 285) therefore must stand as Centropus super- 
ciliosus, Riipp. 
P. 289. no 173. TuRTUR ALBIVENTRIS. 
We have given a careful monograph of all the African members (six) of the genus 
Turtur in our last work. Specimens from Damaraland we have separated as Turtur 
damarensis, Finsch & Hartl. (p. 550), and those from the Cape as Turtur capicola, 
Sundey. 
LP. 297. no. 197. ARDEA GULARIS. 
Mr. Blanford remarks on this species:—‘ As shown by Mr. Blyth (Journ. As. Soc. 
Bengal, 1855), there can be no question of the identity of this species with the Indian 
form (A. asha, Syk.). Ihave compared my specimen carefully with those in the Calcutta 
Museum.” Unfortunately I have not yet had an opportunity of examining specimens 
from the Indian continent; andI have considered these identical with A. sacra, Gml. 
This latter, of which I have seen a great many specimens from various parts of the 
Sunda Islands, the Moluccas, Australia, and the Pacific, is constantly different from 
the African A. gularis in having only a more or less narrow white line from the chin 
along the fore part of the neck, whereas in A. gularis the white is extended on the sides 
VOL. Vil.—ParT Iv. Day, 1870. 2x 
