OF THE TRAVANCORE HILLS. 403 
sunset especially. A note on the nidification will be found in 
Mr. Hume’s “ Nests and Eggs,” p. 435.—F. W. B.” 
A male measured:—Length, 8°75; expanse, 17:5; wing, 
5°56; tail, 3; tarsus, 1:25; bill from gape, 1°25. 
700.—Munia pectoralis, Jerd. 
‘“¢ Another common species residing on the hills all the year 
round, It is gregarious in habit, and feeds on grass and other 
small seeds. The nest is a large loose construction of fine 
creeping-grass, with perhaps a few feathers interwoven, deposited 
in a hollow stump, and contains six to eight white eggs laid 
about June or July.—F. W. B.” 
T have in Vol. III. p. 263, described the young of this species, 
Mr. Bourdillon has sent others precisely similar to what I there 
described, and one somewhat older in which the shafts on the 
back and rump are beginning to shew out somewhat paler, and 
the breast is becoming a warmer brown. 
775.—Osmotreron malabarica, Jerd. 
No specimen received. 
“These birds principally frequent the lower jungles, .where 
they may be found in great numbers in the neighbourhood of 
the hill men’s clearings. But in February and March they 
ascend the hills to over 2,000 feet elevation. Their note is a low 
chuckling whistle.—F. W. B.” 
781 bis.—Carpophaga cuprea, Jerd. 
“An abundant species occurring at all elevations from the 
base to the very summit of the hills, whenever there is heavy 
forest. As the generic name implies, their food consists entirely 
of the larger jungle fruits, and they appear to be very greedy 
feeders, stuffing themselves to repletion with any favourite 
fruit. Their note is a peculiar deep booming coo, but in addi- 
tion to this they utter alow guttural croak of suspicion while 
seated motionless on some bough, should anything unusual 
attract their attention. They take some time getting under 
weigh, but once well started their flight is rapid, and they can 
carry off a large quantity of shot. Ihave not taken a nest, 
but believe they build in lofty trees, laying during March and 
April.—F. W. B.” 
I pointed out, Vol. ITI. p. 328, that the Southern Indian Car- 
pophaga was different from the Himalayan ones. I have now 
compared five of the former with a large number of the latter. 
I find in most of the differences I pointed out hold therough- 
ly good. 
