188 VISCOUNT WALDEN ON THE BIRDS 
? Pitta leucoptera, Elliot, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1861, p. 153, “ Ceylon,” ay. Juv. ? 
Brachyurus atricapillus, Elliot, Monogr. Pittide, pl. xxv. 
Brachyurus sordidus (L. 8. Miiller), Elliot, Ibis, 1870, p. 419, in pt. 
Hab. Luzon, Negros; iris brown (Meyer). 
The synonymy of this species is somewhat perplexing, in consequence of Brisson (/. c.) 
having given a description, applying in all its details to the Philippine bird, to an 
individual said by him to have been sent to Abbé Aubrey from the Moluccas. Mont- 
beillard (J. c.) some years later described seemingly the same bird (and it was figured 
by D’Aubenton J. c.), but attributed its origin to the Philippines. The difficulty thus 
caused would probably have remained through all time unsolved had not Le Vaillant, by 
one of his gratuitous and carping criticisms, unintentionally assisted us. With the view 
of showing that Buffon was in the habit of describing as good species individuals that 
had been manufactured by dishonest dealers, Le Vaillant (Ois. de Par. vol. i. p. 106) in- 
cidentally alludes to this species. He asserts that the description given by Buffon 
(Montbeillard) of his “Breve des Philippines” was taken from a specimen of the “ Breve 
de Ceylan” (=Corvus brachyurus, Linn.), in which the head of the common blackbird 
had been substituted. This example, Le Vaillant says, formed part of the Abbé 
Aubrey’s cabinet; and adds that he purchased it when that collection was sold, and at 
once discovered the imposition. This story Cuvier (R. A. 1817, p. 356, note 2) repeated 
on Le Vaillant’s authority. Vieillot (Nouv. Dict. p. 358, and Tabl. Méthod. Orn. p. 686) 
did the same without mentioning his authority. It remained uncontradicted until 
Wagler (J. ¢.) showed that Le Vaillant was in error, And Cuvier in the second edition 
of the ‘Régne Animal’ (p. 373, note) also corrected Le Vaillant. The statement that 
Montbeillard described from the specimen in Aubrey’s cabinet may be accepted ; for it 
is supported by the collateral evidence of Montbeillard (/.¢.), who, in a footnote, 
remarks that it is the same bird that Brisson made his 57th “Grive.” As no species of 
Melanopitta is known to exist in the Moluccas, we are justified in assuming that Brisson 
and Montbeillard described from the same, a Philippine example, and in regarding 
their descriptions as having formed the common basis of all subsequent synonyms 
applied to this Philippine form of Pitta’. 
Six species of black-headed green-bodied Pittw are fully established as meriting 
specific distinction :— 
1. P. nove-guinee, Miiller & Schlegel. New Guinea and the Aru Islands, and 
most of the Papuan Islands. 
2. P. sanghirana, Schlegel. Sanghir Islands. 
3. P. rosenbergii, Schlegel. Soek Island in the Bay of Geelvink. 
‘The title of Pitta philippensis, Vieill., is quoted by some authors; but I cannot find that Vieillot ever 
applied a Latin title to the species, his opinion being that Montbeillard’s type was fictitious. 
