OF THE TRAVANCORE HILLs. 377 
the length of the bill in afinis, measured from gape to point, 
varies from 1°3 to 1:4; in B. castaneus, from 1:06 to 1°12. 
Any one who will compare the bills of several specimens 
from each locality, will, I am certain, admit the distinctness of 
the two. There are also conspicuous differences in plumage. The 
whole under-surface in castaneus being a much richer and 
deeper color than in afinis, and the white spots of the gorget 
being in castaneus much larger, much purer white, and much 
more conspicuously bounded below by black; moreover, there 
are similar white spots on the throat of castaneus which are 
_ not apparently represented in affnis. 
In the second place the same editor, above referred to, also 
asserts that B. punctatus, Hume=B. moniliger of Layard. This 
again I must beg to contradict. 
Mr. Bourdillon has sent me a very fine pair, the female of 
which corresponds closely with Mr Blyth’s description (J.A. 
S. B. XVIII, p. 806, and “Srray Fearuers,” Vol. II., p. 
350). AndI find that both g and ¢ (the male, however 
differing greatly in plumage from the female) are clearly distinct 
from and very much larger birds than my punctatus. 
I pointed out at the time that punctatus was much smaller than 
moniliger as described by Blyth, and now I find that Blyth’s 
dimensions agree exactly, except in the matter of the length of 
the bird (and he took this from the dry skin) with Mr. Bour- 
dillon’s measurements recorded in the flesh. I suppose that 
punctatus, though clearly an adult, can scarcely have weighed 
half asmuchas moniliger. Like castaneus, punctatus therefore is 
unmistakably distinct* from the species with which it was so 
unhesitatingly pronounced to be identical. Ido not think that 
the learned editor in question should have so positively asserted 
what he had no means of verifying. 
These are not the only two errors of this kind into which this 
same learned editor has fallen in this one catalogue. Mr. Oates 
has pointed out another of precisely the same character, and 
I have more yet to notice elsewhere. It does seem a pity that 
such very erroneous assertions should be put forward so 
authoritatively without the remotest apparent grounds. 
It does not, however, at all necessarily follow that because 
castaneus is distinct from affinis that it is therefore a good 
species. As I said in an article on certain species of this genus, 
Vol. II., p. 353, Iam by no means convinced that castaneus 
is not one sex, and Otothriz Hodgsoni the other sex of the same 
species in which case the bird would stand as Hodgsoni. 
* Since this was written, Mr. W. F. Blanford has been staying with me. I have 
submitted to him my whole (very limited) series of Batrachostomi, and he agrees 
generally with me in all my conclusions. He has promised me to write separately 
on the subject to the Z4is.—Ep., 8S. F. 
