OF THE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF INDIA. 189 



It can hardly be justly said that the genus Molpastes has 

 never been defined when I have twice enumerated all the 

 species it contains. These are not to my notion congeneric 

 with Pycnonotiis capensis. 



As to the identity of Saxicolci kingi and chrysop^gia, I 

 have fully discussed the question in the passage referred 

 to in the list. The former name is certain, the latter very 

 doubtful to ray mind ; I should not be in the least surprised 

 to see the true chrysopygia, corresponding accurately with 

 DeFiiippi's description turn up any day. In the meantime, 

 following the general rule, I have retained the certain name, 

 and have set aside the uncertain one. Perhaps I am in error, 

 but it is not of much consequence either way. 



Saxicola hendersoni. — Mr. Blanford says that a careful des- 

 cription of the breeding plumage of this species will be 

 required before the species can be admitted. I fondly thought 

 that the description I gave of the breeding plumage was a 

 careful one. I am not usually careless in such matters, and 

 I confess I see nothing to add now. 



I agree that Fariis atkinsoni should be entered as doubtful, 

 and that a note of interrogation should be prefixed to it. 



I myself first pointed out to Mr. Blanford that Montifrin- 

 gilla mandellii was synonymous with Onychospiza taczanow- 

 shi, but I am not so sure of the priority of the latter. My 

 name appeared before the translation of Prjevalski's work 

 appeared in Rowley's Miscellany, but I have vainly endea- 

 voured to ascertain when the Russian original was actually 

 published* If Mr. Blandford can find this out at home, this 

 will settle not only this, but three or four other similar eases. 



I will not go into the Otocorys question. It is long since 

 I have dealt with any of this very diflicult group, and it 

 would take a week's study of the huge series, which I have 

 gradually collected from various parts of Asia, to enable me 

 to form any definite and independent opinion. 



But I may say that so far as Mr. Blanford argues that 

 where a clear distinction is constant throughout a large area, 

 it is a biological fact of some importance, and should be 

 recognized in the nomenclature, by bestowing on each form 

 a separate specific name, I am now much inclined to go 

 with him, and it is ou this very ground that I have kept 

 Caprimulgus unwini separate ; but in each particular case it 

 will still remain a matter of opinion, whether the distinction 

 is sufliciently apparent and constant, and does characterize 



* I hear from the Continent that the publication of this ornithological portion, for 

 some reason hung fire, so that it appeared very little if at all earlier than the tran'sla- 

 tion ; but I cannot understand this, as I always believed that the whole book (Travels 

 and Nat, Mist.) was intended to issue at once. 



