380 NOTE ON HORORNIS FULVIVENTERj Ilodgsort. 



lower surface is pale, even paler than that of a young fuscatus, 

 but deficient colouring- of the lower surface was one of 

 Hodg-son's artist's faults. The tail is also too much rounded for 

 either Horornis or Phylloscopus fuscatus ; but this was another 

 of Hodgson's draughtsmen's faults in drawing. There are dimen- 

 sions of a specimen on the back of the drawing (at all events 

 I have them on the back of my copy, and it is possible they 

 may be on the face of the original) . These dimensions are aa 

 follows : — Tip of bill to tip of tail, 4|; bill to gape, -^-^ ; tail, 

 1| ; closed wing, 2^; " expanse,^' omitted ; tarsi to sole, -I| ; 

 central toe and nail, -f^ ; hind toe and nail, \ ; weight omitted. 



As a whole H. hrunnescens, as well as I remember it, appear- 

 ed to me to be a smaller bird than the above dimensions show^, 

 which are those of a bird larger than Horornis fortipes. Of the 

 latter Hodgson gives 4f as total length; bill to gape, | ; tail, 

 less, 2 ; a closed wing, 2-^g- ; tarsi to sole, plus -f| ; central toe 

 and nail, less -|-g ; hind toe and nail, -j^g ; weight omitted. Thus, 

 in total length and wing, H, fulviventer exceeds H, fortipes 

 according to Hodgson's drawings and MS. notes. H. fortipes is 

 decidedly a more robust species than H. hrunnescens, and I 

 therefore conclude that Hodgson does not describe nor depict 

 H. hrunnescens of Hume in his H. fulviventer. The rather short 

 wing given by Hodgson is somewhat of a difficulty ; but his 

 H. fulviventer was procured in September, and a young bird would 

 show a small wing. He did not apparently procure many of 

 these birds, for he only gives the dimensions of one on the 

 drawing, and speaks of three having been obtained. On the 

 drawing of H. fortipes, he gives dimensions of one only, and 

 notes " specimen lost." Under these circumstances I do not 

 think so much of the want of full size for P. fuscatus, 

 for I know how easy it is to shoot three or four of a brood and 

 fail to get either of the old birds. 



No matter what was found in the British museum — 

 a discrepancy between the specimen and the written 

 evidence given by Hodgson would not lead me to set aside 

 the latter ; for original labels have been improved upon in the 

 British Museum, thanks to Curators who were anything but 

 Curators. The Museum is however now in good hands, and 

 the describer's label will be as carefully guarded as the specimen 

 itself. 



Horornis hrunnescens, Hume, is a really good species,* and if 

 it be ever overthrown, I shall be very much surprised. 



* Although. I threw out the suggestion above referred to, it having crossed my mind, 

 and it behoving every man to be more suspicious of his own than other people's species, 

 I have failed to find any confirmation of my doubts, and have no doubt, now, that S, 

 hrunnescens is a perfectly good and distinct species.— Ed, 



