283 



The nomenclature of some of the Asiatic Snipes is in a 

 sorely confused state, and it is to be hoped that some competent 

 authority at home will look into the question. 



First, we have our Eastern Solitary Snipe, G. solitaria, and 

 coupled with this a G. hyemalis of Eversmann {Bui. de la Soc. 

 Imp. de Natural, de Moscou, 1845, I, 257), which Middeudorf 

 and others formerly held to be identical with it, but which 

 BogandofT, Severtzoff, &c, assert to be, and Taczanowski and 

 others now-a-da} r s accept as, distinct. 



As stated in my article on solitaria, id Vol. Ill of the Game 

 Birds, I do not myself at all believe in the distinctness of 

 hyemalis, and I doubt whether any Continental ornithologist 

 has access to a sufficient number of Himalayan specimens of 

 solitaria (which is a very variable species, both in size, colour, 

 markings and number of tail feathers) to be able to decide the 

 question. I have not myself unfortunately access to Evers- 

 mann's original description, or I might perhaps be able to settle 

 the matter ; but in Englaud, where so many specimens of 

 solitaria exist, there ought to be no difficulty in solving the 

 problem. 



Then, again, we have G. sthenura (Kuhl in Bp.), and 

 G. rnegala, Swinhoe, and we have moreover G. helerocerca, 

 Cabanis (J. F. 0., 1870, 235) and G. heteroeaca, Cabanis (J. F. 

 O., 1872, 317). 



As far as I can make out, it is now usually, though not 

 universally, admitted that the bird we call megala is the bird 

 that Cabanis now calls his heterocerca. 



Cabanis (J. F. O., 1873, 104» n.) appears to believe that 

 Swinhoe really applied the name megala to solitaria, and that 

 subsequently the name was wrongly transferred to his, Cabanis', 

 heterocerca, and he refers to passages written by Swinhoe, 

 before the latter had ever seen solitaria, in which (judging 

 merely from the plate and description in the F. Japonica,) 

 Swinhoe expressed the opinion that his megala and solitaria 

 might be identical ; but Cabanis ignores the fact that later 

 Swinhoe, when he saw solitaria, at once recognized its distinct- 

 ness, that Swinhoe's name was applied to the Common Great 

 Snipe of China ; and that though Swinhoe obtained solitaria from 

 Pere David from Pekin, he himself never got this species 

 in China, unless, indeed, possibly one specimen, which he sent 

 to Blyth and which was lost, whereas of his megala he had 

 many specimens, and continually met with it everywhere. It 

 is quite impossible, therefore, that Swinhoe' s name megala should 

 have been originally applied to solitaria, or to any bird except 



