272 ORNITHOLOGICAL NOTES AND CORRECTIONS. 
distinct, and probably referable to Aquila albicans, Riippell. 
There is no disposition to rufous in the Abyssinian bird, while 
nevioides is pre-eminently rufous, the most rufous of Eagles. 
Ihave seen an old very pale-faded example of the South 
African bird which was in the moult, and the new feathers, 
which were just coming, were of a full rich red. The dark 
Abyssinian species is in every way as distinct as possible, 
and is closely affined to the Indian A. vindhiana; but it is 
larger, more robust, and possessed of more uniform coloration. 
41 bis.—Poliztus plumbeus, Hodgs. 
I examined specimens of P. humilis, Schl. and Miill, 
which are distinct from the Indian bird, and very much smaller. 
49.—Archebutio strophiatus, Hodgs. 
I saw one of Hodgson’s examples in the British museum. 
It agrees very closely with his drawing, and this leads me to 
adhere to my conclusion that A. eryptogenys, Hodgs, is a 
good and entirely distinct species. Hodgson’s minute details of 
the latter shew a much feebler bird of distinct coloration. The 
type is not to be found now, so we have a rarer bird than what 
the great Auk was to search after. Aquila hastata, that myth 
of an Eagle has been brought thoroughly to light, so let us hope 
that some determined ornithologist will succeed in making 
A. cryptogenys well known.* 
56.— Milvus govinda, Sykes. 
I examined the type in the Kensington museum. There are 
two examples there labelled “ Milvus govinda,” but one, which 
is a small example of Ailvus affinis, Gould, does not in any 
way agree with Sykes’ original description, and it must there- 
fore be discarded. 
+ The type bird isin almost juvenile plumage, having the 
lower parts striated. The wing is 19°5 inch, and the tail 11°5 
* Personally I have little doubts that eryptogenys, hemiptilopus, and strophiatus 
are all one and the same. Coloration goes absolutely for nothing in these birds, and 
the males are markedly feebler than the females. See my remarks on Buzzards in the 
Travancore paper,—ED., 8. F. 
+ Is not this rather begging the question? In the first place there is nothing to 
show that either of these was the type. Colonel Sykes by no means gave all his collec- 
tions to the Indian Museum. I remember that as late as 1862, the last time I was in 
his house, he had a number of mounted birds there—as far as I remember all moder- 
ate-sized ones; but he may have had larger ones elsewhere. 
In the next place Mr. Brooks ignores what I conceive to be a fundamental fact, viz., 
that we have 3 distinct Kites in India the small affinis identical, as I years ago showed, 
with Australian specimens. A larger Kite with mottled bases to the primaries which 
I hold to be govinda, and a much larger Kite, with pure white bases to the primaries, 
which is my major. Wither of these latter may be melanotis, T and S, but both can- 
not be, and from what Mr. Gurney writes to me of the basal portions of the pri- 
maries in melanotis, I believe that this belongs to govinda if it belongs to either of 
our Indian species.—p., 8. F. 
