MESSRS. SCLATER AND FINSCH'S INDEX. 451 



dull olive, the coverts moreover having the white spot nearer 

 the tips and expanded into a bar ; wing lining about the carpal 

 joint a rieh hair brown, the rest a pale grey brown (much the 

 color of the lower surface of the quills), a little tipped with 

 white. 



Upper back and interscapulary region plain olive, some of the 

 feathers 'very narrowly and inconspicuously fringed with black ; 

 lower back, rump and upper tail-coverts a rather browner and 

 brighter olive, some of the feathers very narrowly fringed witBi 

 black, and most of them with conspicuous, hastate, subterminal, 

 velvet black spots ; coverts and scapulars and tips of tertiaries 

 similar, (the black spot varying in shape from* a sort of lunule 

 on the scapulars to a linear lanceolate dash on some of the 

 coverts), but the feathers more or less tinged towards the mar- 

 gins with deep ferruginous ; the primaries plain uniform, hair 

 fcrown; secondaries similar, but freckled and mottled more or 

 less on the outer webs and at the tips with ferruginous. 



A. O. H. 



Index to the OrnitJwlogical Literature of 1872. 



In Messrs. Sclater and Finsch's Index to the Ornithological 

 Literature of 1872, which has appeared as a Supplement to the 

 last volume of the Ibis, I notice the following entry in regard 

 to a paper of mine : — 

 • "10. — Otocaris (sic?) Elwesi, &c." 



Now if the evil genius of every Indian writer, the indige*- 

 nous "devil" had really disfigured my pages with this ghastly 

 misprint, I confess that I should, even then, have failed to dis- 

 cover much wit in the very novel and biting sarcasm tradition* 

 ally involved in placing "sic!" after the supposed error; but 

 the fact simply is that the misprint in question is none of mine^ 

 but belongs entirely to the learned compilers. 



This may seem incredible, but I ask my readers to verify the 

 fact for themselves. The article in question occurs at pages 

 36-38 of Vol. I of " Stray Feathers," and a reference to these 

 will show that in every one of the five places in which the 

 genus Otocoris is referred to, it is spelt Otocoris and not Otocaris. 

 Perhaps Messrs. Sclater and Finsch will kindly explain ou 

 what grounds they accuse me of spelling the name Otocaris* 



