494 Notes. 



ciliaris and A. xantliosclddus, the lower figure with the Lluer head 

 and back is the true xanihoscistus , the upper figure is alhosuper- 

 ciliaris. T would also point out that on pi. 17^ I have not figur- 

 ed the true Drymoipua inornatus which was described trom 

 Southern India and which is altogether a darker and redder bird. 

 The bird figured as D. inornatus, is really my D. tenicolor. 



Mr. Hodgson gives a very careful figure of a female Bumeticola 

 bnineipectns, Blyth^ but he labels it A. ajfinis. But^ as we know, 

 he described affiiiis as having spots on the breast^ and he notes 

 that at the same place at which he obtained the female that 

 he figures, he obtained a male with spots on the breast, and it 

 seems clear that he considered the bird he described as affinis 

 to be the male, and the bird that Blyth later {Ibis, 1867, p. 19) 

 described as bruneipectMS to be the female of the same species. I 

 cannot, after comparing specimens of each, believe that this view 

 is correct, but it is still well to note that the bird figured by Mr. 

 Hodgson, pi. 826, with nest and eggs ; is not, though he labels it 

 so, what he described and published as affinis (unless both are dif- 

 ferent sexes of the same bird) but brunelpedus of Blyth. 



Hodgson^s figure. No. 900, of two birds, a nest and eg^, has 

 been identified by Gray as pertaining to TLorornis assimilis of 

 Hodgson ; but it really represents Neornis Jlavolivacea. Assimilis 

 is not only a somewhat smaller bird, but is altogether more ru- 

 fous. 



Mr. Blyth and others have identified Abrornis cJdoronotiis of 

 Hodgson with llegnloides proregulus of Pallas, but as a matter of 

 fact chloronolus of Hodgson is identical with maciilipennis , Blyth, 

 described in Ibis, 1867, p. 27. Mr. Hodgson gives a most beauti- 

 ful figure (No. 839) of both sexes of his cJdoronotas v:f\\h nest and 

 egg, and with the very large series which I possess of both species, 

 no possible doubt can exist that maculipennis is merely a synonyme 

 of cJdoronotus , which name must therefore stand. 



I have carefully compared two specimens, from Mr, Swinhoe 

 of his Phyllopneuste %jlvicidtrix with P. magnirosiris , Blyth, from 

 Ceylon and numerous Indian localities. They appear to me -to 

 be absdutely identical. If this be so, then, the species will 

 stand (see also Swinhoe Birds of China, P. Z. S., 1871, 357 

 et seq.) 



