NOTES. 287 



There may have been some mistake about this, but anyhow, 

 after seeing the specimens in our Museum, Mr. Brooks entirely 

 agrees with me that the two birds are not distinct. 



It must be understood that this is apparently a very rare 

 bird. So far as I know I have never myself seen a specimen 

 alive, nor have I known of any other specimens, but the 

 following, having been procured : — 



(1). A specimen obtained by Mr. Brooks in May 1874, 

 high up in the valley of the Baghirathi. This is the most westerly 

 point where the species has been known to occur. This speci- 

 men, now in our museum, corresponds exactly with Moore's des- 

 cription. 



(2). The specimen procured by Mr. Anderson in the 

 Alpine District of North- Western Kumaon, the type of the 

 supposed uew species poliocephala. 



(3). The specimen obtained by Mr. Hodgson in 1846 (but 

 whether in the valley of Nepal or the Terai is uncertain) and 

 which is the type of cinereocapilla. 



(4.) Two specimens obtained by Mr. Mandelli in January 

 1876 and Jannary 1877 in the Bhutan Doars, both of which 

 are intermediate between Mr. Brooks' and Mr. Anderson's birds. 

 The one being nearer the former, the other nearer, in fact 

 almost identical, with the latter. 



Independently of the specimens showing a distinct gradation, 

 it is manifest that no two species could be thus intercalated. 



First, on the west in Garhwal, typical cinereocapilla; next 

 a little to the east, typical poliocephala ; next a little further 

 east again, typical cinereocapilla ; and next further east again, 

 birds, one of which is nearly cinereocapilla, and the other very 

 nearly t} 7 pical poliocephala. 



Unquestionably in my opinion poliocephala is merely a stage 

 of plumage of cinereocapilla, and should be expunged from our 

 list of species. 



There is one curious point about this bird. Mr. Moore's descrip- 

 tion is clear, enough, " back, rump and wings bright rufous 

 brown," and he described Hodgson's specimen No. 890, but 

 Hodgson's original drawing 890 shows a bird with the nape 

 and back unicolorous with the crown, in fact represents Prinia 

 socialis, of which stewarti is a small dry plains-country race. 

 It seems clear, therefore, that Hodgson did not distinguish the 

 two forms, and that, while figuring socialis, he preserved and 

 sent home a specimen of cincereocapilla. Again the extreme 

 apparent rarity of cinereocapilla suggests the idea that cinereo- 

 capilla may be only an abnormal variety (aud not a species or 

 even race at all) of socialis. Where Mr. Mandelli procured 

 his two specimens of cinereocapilla he procured large numbers 

 also of socialis, and the two birds absolutely only differ in 



37 



