NOTES ON THE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF INDIA. 179 



hlanfordi (752 quint), and Montifringilla mandellii, (752 sex). 

 On the names of two of three species, I shall have somethin;^ 

 to say presently, but taking tlie question of distribution first, 

 I do not remember any of these species beino^ announced from 

 localities which can, by any possible reading of the term, be 

 described as Indian. Neither Falco hendersoni nor Saxicola 

 hendersoni has, so far as I am aware, been found living south of 

 the Kuenlun, and the birds of Eastern Turkistan are certainly 

 not generally included in the list. For instance Podoees hen- 

 depsoni and P. biddulphi are omitted. Podoees humilis has 

 been obtained both in Turkistan and in Eastern Tibet, whilst 

 Montifringilla hlanfordi and M. mandellii have only been found 

 hitherto in the latter. Neither Eastern Turkistan nor Eastern 

 Tibet are in any sense of the term dependencies of British 

 India. 



The remaining points refer to matters of nomenclature, and 

 I will take them one by one. There are a number of species, 

 the names of which are, of course, open to question, and in 

 many instances the validity of forms admitted to specific rank 

 in this list, has been disputed, I shall only notice the few 

 instances in which 1 have had good opportunities of forming 

 a judgment. 



20, 20 bis, 20 ter. — Microhierax. — If the genus HeterorJiyn- 

 chus is retained instead of SphenocicMa, Hierax must be em- 

 ployed for the pigmy falcons. Sphenocichla and Microhieraai were 

 both instituted for the same purpose, to replace names which 

 had been previously used for other genera, but had become 

 synonyms for the groups to which they were first applied, an 

 earlier name in each case having priority, (see S. F., V., p. 238.) 

 Personally, I think the very strong recommendation of the Code 

 of zoological nomenclature, that a generic name once used 

 should be inapplicable a second time, at all events veithin the 

 limits of the same class, should be generally enforced, as it is 

 by most, if not all, ornithologists in England ; but in this, as 

 in one or two other cases, we need fresh legislation. Moreover, 

 I think that, in case of the species of one genus, this rule 

 should certainly be absolute ; it is not easy to hunt up all 

 names of genera, (although it is child's play now compared 

 with what it was a few years ago), but there is not much diffi- 

 culty in ascertaining all the specific names that have been pre- 

 viously given, at all events, amongst birds. Luckily, we have 

 not in ornithology to deal with genera like Helios with 3,500 

 species, or Ammonites with nearly as many. 



I quite admit, however, that by the strict rules of the Code, 

 Mr. Hume is justified in using names like Heterorhynchus, 

 The name Hierax (or rather lerax) was originally applied by 



