NOTES. 291 



with your Mooleyit bird, since the other bird is the com- 

 moner of the two in Burmah, and Blyth's description fails to 

 indicate it, and as Miiller {apud Seebohm) lias not described 

 his species, you should describe the Mooleyit bird, or rename it 

 rather. If you don't, I will, after this year is out ; but I would 

 much rather you would name your own bird. It is incon- 

 venient to have a bird standing without a name. I could never 

 refer to it as viridipennis, for I am quite convinced that it is not 

 Blyth's species, and no one can prove the contrary." 



Now I also have examined Blyth's types, and I am of opinion 

 that no one can say positively what species they belong to. 

 The whole weight of the evidence, derived from the locality 

 whence these types came— a locality where flavo-olivaceus has 

 not been observed, and where the bird we have called viri- 

 dipennis is the only one of the kind obtained — is in favour of 

 Blyth's viridipennis being the Mooleyit bird, to which, with the 

 sole exception of the omission to notice the white tail feathers, 

 his description applies perfectly. 



Mr. Brooks says that it is not likely that, when Blyth first 

 obtained his specimens, all the eight white feathers had been 

 knocked out. I can only say that all are now wanting. 



But even if Mr. Brooks were right (and I think that he is 

 quite wrong) it would be preposterous, in my opinion, to give 

 a new name to this species, which, if not viridipennis, Blyth (as 

 I feel certain that it isl , is beyond question presbytia of Miiller. 

 If it be said that Miiller did not describe his species, then I 

 declare that my full description, S. F., V., 332, applies to 

 presbytis of Miiller, and so failing viridipennis of Blyth (the 

 name I intend to adhere to) the species must stand as presbytis, 

 Miiller, and no other new name applied now by any one else 

 can, according to rule, have any validity. 



I may here notice that we have two Heguloides — the one 

 that I have hitherto identified with trochihides of Sundevall, 

 a very rare bird, that I have only (as yet) obtained in Burmah, 

 with very white under parts. The other, the species that 

 Mr. Brooks persuaded me into naming Jlavo-olivaceus, a 

 bird common in India, and Mr. Brooks informs me in Burmah 

 also, but by this he must mean Pegu, as no specimen of it 

 has ever been procured in Tenasserim Proper. 



Now it seen^s to me an open question whether jlavo-olivaceus 

 may not after all prove to be the true trochihides of Sundevall, 

 and whether it may not be the white-bellied bird that requires 

 a new name. This latter is so rare that it seems unlikely 

 that Sundevall should have got hold of it, and so far as I 

 know it does not occur in Bengal. The only way this can be 

 determined is by a careful comparison with Sundevall's type 

 if extant, or with his original description, to which I have 



