NOTES. 461 



much-graduated, broad-feathered tail, a deep red brown above, 

 with bright rufous breast and throat and pure white lores, 

 cheeks and ear-coverts, while Timalia (Malacocerctis) pellotis 

 has a regular thick Malacocercus bill ; a stiffer, shorter narrower 

 feathered tail ; a dull earthy brown above, with rather darker 

 brown ear-coverts and dirty- white throat and breast. A per- 

 fect Malacocercus, except for the more or less conspicuous dark 

 shafts to the feathers of both upper and under surface. 



This, it may be thought, does not altogether agree with Hodg- 

 son's descriptions. I can only say that I would rather go by 

 his figures, for in the case of a great many species, I have 

 found his artists' pictures more correct as to coloring, to my 

 ideas at any rate, than his descriptions. 



As far as I know, no one has ever got either of these birds 

 since Hodgson's time. Both are birds of the high hills in the 

 interior of Nepal, from which no specimens have been obtained 

 since his time. 



At my request Dr. Anderson kindly looked out the Museum 

 specimens of A. nipalensis. 



Blyth only acknowledges two, but Dr. Anderson had, in 

 re-arranging the birds, found three. All are very much faded 

 and in bad order, so that the original colours cannot be certi- 

 fied ; but one has lost its tail and much of the feathers of the 

 head, and might belong to another species, but on the whole Dr. 

 Anderson and myself both agreed that all three must be refer- 

 red to A. nipalensis, and that pellotis was not represented. 

 If Hodgson sent either of these as pellotis, it must, I think, have 

 been simply by one of those oversights that do occur in sending 

 away specimens. 



I VERY MUCH regret to say that my specimen of the very 

 peculiar form, which I described, Ibis, 1872, 410, and S. F., 

 Ill, 409, as Dameticola cyanocavpa, and which Mr. Brooks 

 carefully examined with me and agreed to be new, though he 

 doubted the birds being a true Lumeticola (or Schcenicola, as 

 it must stand, vide S. F., VII, 38) has somehow disappeared. 

 It may } r et be found, but all the old portion of the Museum 

 has been so re-arranged that it could hardly be overlooked, and 

 I fear it is lost. This is the more vexatious that the form was 

 a very peculiar one, and that no second specimen has come to 

 hand, and that until it or some new specimen is re-examined, 

 we cannot be certain of the genus to which it should be 

 assigned. 



It may be well to draw attention to the fact that Anthus 

 montanus, of Blyth and Jerdon, J. A. S. B., XVI., 435, 1847, 



59 



