NOTES. 463 



Mag. Nat. Hist., (4), VII., p. 241, and which Jerdon had 

 very probably compared with true brevicaudatus from the Bur- 

 mah side and considered distinct. This bird is the one I refer 

 to under the title of T. Williamsoni in J. A. S. B., Pt. 

 II., 1877, p. 44. I have four specimens from Sadiya (Garo 

 Hills and Munipur), in all of winch the spots on the secon- 

 daries are rufous, Avhile in a specimen, from the Moolevit range, 

 Tenasserim, obtained by Mr. Limborg, they are white, thus 

 agreeing with Col. Tickell's drawing of true brevicaudatus from 

 the same locality. This specimen is again not so rufous as the 

 type in the Indian Museum, but this is a very variable character 

 in this group, (as may be seen in Pncepyga squamata, of which 

 specimens white beneath are often met with,) and probably 

 depeuds on age. After all striatus is only a variety of brevi- 

 caudatus. 3 ' 



I don't think I have ever mentioned in Stray Feathers, 

 what I noticed in the Ibis (1870, 435) viz., having obtained 

 a specimen of the Cape Pigeon, Daption capensis (a Petrel, not 

 of course a pigeon at all, though sailors so chose to designate 

 it) from the Gulf of Manar, between Ceylon and the mainland. 



It seems to be now generally accepted as a fact that our 

 Indian Dove (" Turtur cambayensis, Gm.) is specifically iden- 

 tical with the African, T. senegalensis, Lin., which latter name, 

 consequently, has precedence. 



It has to be noted that according to Mr. Howard Saunders 

 (I have not yet looked into the matter myself,) the pale Herrino- 

 Gull, that I described S. F., I., 270, as argentatus, and that 

 Dresser identified as leucophceus, Licht., is really the true 

 caehinnans of Pallas, and should therefore, if this be the case, 

 stand under this name. Again, he says, that the bird that I 

 described under the name of Larus occidentalis, S. F., I., 273, 

 is not the real occidentalis, but should stand as L. ajjinis, 

 Reinh. 



Both points are open to argument, but for the present we 

 may tentatively adopt these views. 



Speaking of the wide distribution of Dendrocygna fulva 

 in America, Messrs. Sclater and Salvin remark : — 



u Singular as this distribution is, it is still more remarkable 

 when we consider that there exist no tangible grounds for 

 separating the American bird from that called D. major by 



