124 



gotes M gomendato, III. 4 



At page 138 of Vol. V., I expressed an opinion that Mr. 

 Elliot was in error in uniting Pucrasia castanea, Gould, with 

 P. duvauceli, Tem., and I showed, as I submit conclusively, 

 that Temminck's description could not apply to castanea, but 

 must apply to macrolopha. 



In reply Mr. Elliot says, Ibis, 1878, p. 125 : 



" The third and last criticism of Mr. Hume is on the error 

 I committed (in his opinion) in uniting the Pucrasia castanea, 

 Gould, with P. duvauceli, Tem. Now, before replying to this, 

 it will first be necessary for me to say a few words about the 

 last-named species, which, from his remarks, I should judge to 

 be entirely unknown to Mr. Hume. He says Pretre's drawing 

 in the * Planches Coloriees' is a c vile thing, a wretched pic- 

 ture/ and that, ' barring the tail, it is equally unlike every 

 species of the genus* (quite true), and condemns it in toto, so 

 far as I can see, because it does not resemble P. macrolopha. 

 Now I would state, in justice to Pretre, that, although his 

 drawing does not equal one of Mr. Wolf's, yet it is a very faith- 

 ful representation of P. duvauceli, Tem. I have no hesita- 

 tion in saying this ; for I am perfectly conversant with his 

 type (the original of the plate in the ' Planches Coloriees'), as 

 the specimen is still, and always has been I believe, here in 

 the Paris Museum ; and it was by means of this example and 

 the type, of P. castanea (which I purchased from Mr. Gould, 

 and which is now in the Zoological Museum at Stuttgart) that 

 I became aware that the two were the same species, and conse- 

 quently placed Mr. Gould's bird among the synonyms of 

 P. duvauceli. From their appearance and general mode of 

 coloration, we are fairly entitled to believe that P. duvauceli 

 and P. macrolopha are as thoroughly distinct species as any 

 that are to be found in the Phasianidse. Besides the chestnut 

 on the back and sides of the neck, the flank feathers, perfectly 

 exhibited in the plate in my work, differ entirely from any 

 I have ever seen in any specimen of P. macrolopha ; and I have 

 examined a great many. Mr. Gould's plate does not show these 

 correctly ; the chestnut colouring is exaggerated in its extent, 

 and the black feathers, with their light edges, are almost entirely 

 suppressed, a few only showing just above the leg. Temminck's 

 text, it is true, does not describe his plate accurately, but leans 

 more to P. macrolopha, but as he says ' La gravure ayant ete 



* Vide Vol, V., pp. 237, 275. 



