VISCOUNT WALDEN ON THE BIRDS OF CELEBES. 63 
SAXICOLIDZ. 
Monrico.a, Boie. 
71. Monticona souitarta (P. L. S. Miiller), Syst. Nat. Suppl. p. 142. no. 46 (1776), ex 
Buffon, Pl. Enl. 564. f. 2. 
Le Merle solitaire de Manille, Montb. Hist. Nat. Ois. iii. p. 363. no. 1, descr. orig. ex Sonnerat UPL 
Enl. 636, 5; 564, f. 2, ¢ vel 9 adolese. 
Turdus manilla, Boddaert, Tab. Pl. Enl. 636 (1783). 
Merula solitaria philippensis, Briss. Orn. i. p. 272, no. 32, “Ins. Philipp.” descr. orig. ex Poivre 
(avis juv ?). 
Le Merle solitaire des Philippines, Montb. op. cit. p. 364, no. 2; Pl. Enl. 339, ex Brisson, no. 32'. 
Turdus philippensis, P. Li. S. Miller, op. cit. p. 145. no. 59, ex Buffon, Pl. Enl. 339 (1776). 
Turdus philippensis, Bodd. op. cit., ex Buffon, Pl. Enl. 339 (1783). 
Turdus eremita, Gm. Syst. Nat. 13th ed. i. p. 833 (1788), ex Brisson, no. 32. 
Merula solitaria manillensis, Brisson, op. cit. p. 270. no. 31, “ Manilla,” descr. orig. 
Turdus manillensis, Gm. op. cit. p. 833 (1788), ex Brisson, no. 31. 
Turdus manillensis, auct.; Schlegel, Faun. Jap. Aves, p. 67. 
Hab. North Celebes (Forsten) ; Philippines (type); China, Formosa, Japan (Swinhoe). 
There seems little doubt that the Merle solitaire de Manille and the Merle solitaire 
des Philippines of Montbeillard are the same species in different phases of plumage. 
This was Montbeillard’s own opinion (op. cit. p. 365). The most recent authors, how- 
ever, have continued to treat them as distinct. 
PRatINcoLA, Koch. 
72. PRATINCOLA cAPRATA (Linn.), Syst. Nat. ed. 12, i. p. 335. no. 33, “Luzon” (1766), 
ex Brisson, Orn. iii. p. 440. 
Hab. Macassar (Wallace) ; Philippines (mus. nostr.) ; common all over India (Jerdon) ; 
Tongoo (mus. nostr.); Aracan (Blyth); Java (Horsfield); Nipaul (Hodgson); Moul- 
mein, Lombock, Timor, Flores (mus. nostr.); Simla (Beavan); Coorg, Candeish (mus. 
nostr.). 
An example of a young male individual of this species was collected by Mr. Wallace 
at Macassar. It in no way differs from Philippine specimens in my collection. 
Examples from the localities above cited agree well in their dimensions. Those from 
Candeish are larger, but not so large as the Ceylon P. atrata, Blyth. 
* Montbeillard’s account contains internal evidence sufficient to prove that it was compiled from Brisson’s 
description. The plate (339) appears also to have been drawn from Brisson’s description only, This will 
explain the unnatural colouring of the head. 
