1867.] LETTER FROM DR. G. HARTLAUB, 821 



I Fruit-Pigeon {Carpophaga cenea). Presented by the Babu 

 Kajendra Mullick, C.M.Z.S. ' 



1 Fruit-Pigeon {Treron sphenura). Presented by the Babu 

 Rajendra MulHck, C.M.Z.S. 



] Entellus Monkey {Semnopithecus entellits). Presented by the 

 Babu Rajendra MulHck, C.M.Z.S. 



1 Panolia Deer ( Cert'MS ehli). Presented by A. Grote, Esq., F.Z.S. 



1 Slow Loris {Nycticehus tardigradus). Presented bv A. Grote, 

 Esq., F.Z.S. 



1 Hemipode {Turnix pugnax) . Presented by A. Grote, Esq., F.Z.S. 



1 Indian Badger {Arctonyx collaris). Presented by Dr. J. An- 

 derson. 



1 Slow Loris {Nycticebus tardigradus). Presented by Dr. J. 

 Anderson. 



8 Water-Tortoises (Emys, sp. var.). Presented by Dr. J. An- 

 derson. 



The total number of animals brought home by Mr. Bartlett 

 amounted to upwards of thirty, and their value was estimated at 

 about £760. 



The Secretary read the following communication from Mr. Edward 

 Newton with reference to a misprint in the last published part of 

 the Society's ' Proceedings;' — 



"A singular and somewhat important error was introduced into 

 my recent paper (P. Z. S. 1867, p. 344) during its passage through 

 the press. 



"I had stated that prior to my visit to the Seychelles only^yg 

 species of land-birds were known to inhabit those islands, and 1 then 

 proceeded to give their names. 



" The word ' five,' which stood rightly enough in the proof, has 

 now been altered into ' six,' the corrector of the press apparently not 

 having understood that I intended to quote Nectarmia seychellensis 

 as a synonym of A^. dussumieri. A reference to the authorities I 

 have cited both in this passage and in my longer paper 'On the 

 Laud-birds of the Seychelles Archipelago ' (Ibis, 1867, pp. 336, 3.37) 

 will show the necessity of these corrections." 



The following communication was read from Dr. G. Hartlaub, 

 For. Memb. : — 



" In the Society's ' Proceedings' for 1866, p. 421, Prof. Schlegel 

 writes, ' that Semiophorus vextllarius of Gould is based upon speci- 

 mens (of Caprimulgus longipennis) freshly moulted, when part of 

 the long quills has not yet been used.' Now all this is merely and 

 foolishly theoretical. If Prof. Schlegel had ever compared speci- 

 mens of Macrodipteryx longipennis and of Semiophorus vexillai-ius, 

 he would have convinced himself, even j>rimo aspectu, of the enor- 

 mous diflFerence between these two birds. This difference does not 

 only consist in the very different size and the very different colouring 

 of the two birds, but is structural. In Macrodipteryx longipennis 



