OF THE TRAVANCORE HILLS. 385 
well known by its slightly larger size, decidedly larger bill 
and casque, and by having the posterior end of the casque black 
and the triangular patch on either side of the anterior portion 
of the casque, and the truncated groove and flat portion of 
the culmen in front of the casque also black. The irides, 
as in Burmese specimens, of the males were red, of the 
females pearly white. The dimensions of these two birds 
were as follows :— 
Male—Length, 49°62; expanse, 67°5; wing, 20°5; tail, 18; 
tarsi, 2°4; bill over all from posterior margin of casque along 
culmen to point, 16; casque only, 65; greatest width of casque, 
2° ; height of casque, 1:7. 
Female—Length, 48; expanse, 62; wing, 20; tail, 17°25, 
tarsus, 2°37 ; bill over all from posterior margin of casque along 
culmen to point, 14°75; casque only, 6; greatest width of 
casque, 2°7 ; height of casque, 1-4. 
It is not clear how the application of the Linnean name 
bicornis to this species can be justified. I cannot verify all 
Linnzeus’ references, but his description, which ought I conceive to 
fix his name, accurately applies to conveus of Temminck, Pl. Col. 
530, and can by no possibility apply to the present species. 
Deri refers to Edwards’ birds, pl. 281, fig. D. That 
again is a coarse but correct representation of the head of 
converus, Tem. He also refers to Brisson’s Hydrocoraa philip- 
pensis ; that is a compound description. The entire description 
of the plumage, with the exception of the tail (where Brisson 
has got into an inextricable muddle giving the bird 12 tail 
feathers, ten black and two white which no horn bill in the 
world has,) also refers conveaus. As regards the beak and 
casque it is probable that he did describe this present species. 
Some others of Linnzus’ references may refer to this species 
also; I am unable to refer to Ameen. Acad. Pet. Gaz.; Will. 
Orn., so cannot pronounce positively on this point, but Linnzeus’ 
own ‘description which must, it seems to me, constitute the cri- 
terion of the species he intended to refer to, clearly and un- 
mistakably refers to convexus, although in tie diagnosis he talks of 
the casque, as antrosum bicorni; and it appears to me that the 
name of bicornis must henceforth be applied to convexus of 
Temminck and Shaw’s name, which dates from 1811, be applied 
to the present species.’ 
Mr. Gray makes two species out of these birds, the one to 
which he assigns the Linnzan name bicornis, he gives from 
Malacca, Sumatra, and Tenasserim. The other homrai of 
Hodgson, he gives from Nipal and Assam. 
I have seen no specimens from Malacca or Sumatra, but after 
a careful comparison of 12 specimens from various parts of 
