NOTES. 459 



Burmese) ; they have the mandibular stripes broader, and they 

 have the base of the throat like the breast, and wanting, or nearly 

 wanting-, the yellow tinge, which, in some of the Burmese birds, 

 is almost as bright as in magnirostris ; but as a body they are 

 well distinguished from the other three races, and there must be 

 a limit to splitting up this form, and I therefore propose to keep 

 them as one species under the name of P. indoburmanicus. 



I do not think that it has ever been pointed out in Stray 

 Feathers, that Yunx indica, Gould., No. 189 of Jerdon's 

 Birds of India, was almost certainly founded, owing to some 

 misapprehension, upon an African specimen, and is in no way 

 deserving of inclusion in the Avifauna of the Indian Empire. 



At page . 436 of Vol. III., Mr. Sharpe pointed out certain 

 supposed differences, whereby Dendrophila frontalis, Horsf., of 

 Java, Sumatra, and Borneo, was, in his opinion, separable from 

 D. corallina, Hodgs., of India, Ceylou and Burmah. I cannot 

 find, though I may have done so, that I have ever noted, that 

 I have numerous Indian and Burmese specimens, exhibition in 

 a marked degree the alleged characteristics of both forms, and 

 that in my opinion, therefore, Mr. Sharpens diaguosis is invalid. 

 I have not yet examined Javan or Sumatran specimens, and it 

 is therefore possible that some differences, other than those that 

 Mr. Sharpe has pointed out, may exist between the Insular and 

 Continental races ; but I think this unlikely, and for the present 

 I think that all ought to stand under Horsfield's name. 



Another well-known point, viz., the identity of Blytb/s 

 Propasser frontalis, Jerdon's No. 744, with P. thura, of Bona- 

 parte, Jerdon's No. 740, seems as yet never to have been noticed 

 in Stray Feathers. 



Both Jerdon and Blyth are certainly in error in uniting 

 Hogdson's Acanthoptila nipalensis (— his Timalia leucotis) with 

 his Timalia pellotis. 



The mistake apparently arose from Hodgson's oversight in 

 sending a specimen of the former mis- ticketed with the name 

 of the latter. 



The birds appear to be totally distinct, not even congeneric • 

 but I will first reproduce Hodgson's original descriptions, 

 which being contained in the Asiatic ltesearches (XIX., 

 p. 182, 1836) are quite inaccessible to most of us here. 



