290 NOTKS. 



tied round them for tickets it is mostly worn away. Yon only 

 see it well in the case of the leg which has had no string tied 

 round it, and has not been meddled with. 



This Himalayan species is of course Collocalia brevirostris of 

 McClelland's Catalogue, P. Z. S., 1839, 155, and Mr. Gray, in 

 his Second Edition of the Catalogue of Hodgson's specimens 

 and drawings, page 23, correctly identifies Hodgson's drawing 

 962 with this species. Who the authority for this name brevirostris 

 really is, I feel uncertain. Mr. Gray (loc. cit.) attributes the 

 name to Strickland, but there is nothing in the P. Z. S. to lead 

 to the inference that Strickland was concerned in naming any 

 of these species, and Horsfield, in his Catalogue of the E. I. C. 

 Museum, page 100 (and it was he who read McClelland's 

 paper at the Zoo) distinctly attributes the name to McClel- 

 land himself, and we must, therefore, I think, accept this 

 latter as the author. 



McClelland's original description will be found S. F., Vol. I., 

 p. 295, where, not being then aware of the occurrence of this 

 present species in Assam, I wrongly suggested that brevirostris 

 might be intended for infumatus of Sclater — a species we knew 

 to be very common in Assam. 



We now know that this present species, which will stand as 



103 A.— Collocalia brevirostris, McClelland, 



extends pretty well throughout the Himalayas, at any rate 

 from as far west as Dalhousie, about 76° E. Long, to the further 

 extremity of Assam, say about 95° E. Long. 



I do not think I can improve on the original description, 

 brief as this is, but I may say that the wing is about 4*9 in 

 length, and that, though the tail may, when closed, be looked 

 on as " subfurcale,'" when fully opened it is perfectly square or 

 very nearly so. The tarsi, thinly feathered to the toes, will 

 always distinguish this species from the closely-allied southern 

 one, which has the tarsi perfectly bare. 



In a recent letter to me Mr. Brooks remarks : " I don't 

 at all agree with your identification of the little White-tailed 

 Mooleyit bird as viridipenms, of Blyth. I examined Blyth's 

 viridipennis in the museum, and I am very sure indeed that they 

 are flavo-olivaceus. The wing of one is nearly 2 \. Blyth makes 

 no mention of the white tail, and it was hardly likely that when 

 first obtained all eight feathers were knocked out. I found no 

 difference whatever between these two types labelled by himself 

 and our flavo-olivaceus. They were in much better condition when 

 I first examined them than they are now. I examined them 

 a^ain. I see no reason at all for connecting Blyth's species 



