NOTES. 167 



These differences, coupled with the general superior size of the 

 African bird, would lead me to keep them distinct. Gurney, 

 who compared them with me, was of the same opinion.'" 



Anokhinus Austeni, Jerd. (Ibis, 1872, p. 6,) has for long 

 been a bone of contention amongst ornithologists, and Mr. 

 Elliot recently wrote to me that he could make nothing 

 of it. 



In Vol. IV., p. 493, I reproduced the little Jerdon said, 

 about it, as also Major Godwin-Austen's (who was its dis- 

 coverer) original description. 



At page 60, Vol. V., I stated, on Mr. Blyth's authority, 

 that the bird was no other than Craniorrhinus corrugatus, 

 Tem. At p. 117 of the same volume, I described this latter- 

 species, and I pointed out that Major Godwin-Austen's descrip- 

 tion was utterly irreconcilable with what was known of 

 corrugatus. In the Ibis for 1878, page 206, Major Godwin- 

 Austen takes the matter up, and explains that Mr. Blyth was 

 quite mistaken, and that the head, whatever it was, which he 

 saw, and on which he founded his identification, was not his, 

 Major Austen's austeni, the type of which was in the British 

 Museum. 



Major Godwin-Austen's conclusion is, (it must be remembered 

 that he had no specimens of tickelli to compare) that his austeni 

 is only the young of tickelli, and he adds : " Asalu is not by any 

 means beyond the limits of range of A. tickelli, which follows 

 the forest-clad range of mountains into Arrakan and Burma, 

 migrating as certain fruits, on which they feed, come to 

 perfection." 



Now I have to remark on this first, that though Major 

 Godwin- Austen may possess information not available to me, 

 so far as I know, aud to the best of my belief, tickelli never 

 occurs anywhere near Arrakan, nor has it been observed any 

 where as yet except in the immediate neighbourhood of the 

 locality where Colonel Tickell first met with it, which is the hilly 

 interior eastern portion of the Amherst district whence we 

 procured two specmens, a male and female, and where many 

 more were seen by Davison and Bingham. I have dealt rather 

 fully with this species, Vol. VI., pp. 103-6, and after comparing 

 my specimens with Major God win- Austen's original description, 

 I am disposed to think that Major Austen is in error, and that 

 his bird is quite distinct. 



In the first place his bird, which he supposed to be a young 

 one, seems too big. It far exceeds the dimensions given by 

 Tickell ; it exceeds the dimensions carefully recorded in the 



