406 
A Hote ow Pellornewm minor, Hume and D. Cichelli, Blyth. 
By Evcene W. Oarss, C.E. 
Tue Editor of Mr. Blyth’s catalogue of the Birds of Burmah 
(J. A. S. B., part II., 1875, extra number) tells us that P. 
minor, Hume, is a synonym of P. Tickelli, Blyth. I think that 
Lord Walden could never have seen a specimen of the latter, nor 
even have read Mr. Blyth’s original description of the bird ; 
otherwise he would not have made such a strange mistake. 
Tickelli was described almost simultaneously by two natural- 
ists, and their descriptions, though brief, agree well together 
and give us all the really essential particulars of the plumage. 
In minor, the top of the head is bright chestnut, and the 
remainder of the upper surface, olive brown. In Tickelli, the 
whole upper surface, including the head, is uniform olive brown, 
slightly rufous only. 
In minor again the breast and flanks are boldly streaked 
with dark brown, while in Ticke/li there are a few very faint 
marks on the breast only, so faint as to be barely noticeable. 
These points alone will enable any one in future to discriminate 
the two species at a glance. 
- The dimensions of both species are given at pages 120 and 
121 of “Srray Fearuers” for 1875. The difference in length is 
half an inch or more, and minor must, I think, weigh fully one- 
third more than 7?ckelli. 
Mr. Swinhoe’s sub-ochraceum, from the description, may well 
be, as Mr. Hume has already suggested, the same as minor; it 
cannot possibly be a synonym of Tickelli, for it is distinctly said 
‘¢ crown, richer rufous” (than in rujiceps), and I have shewn 
above that Tickel/i has no rufous crown. 
P. minor is widely distributed. It occurs throughout Pegu 
and Tenasserim, except, as far as I know, in the evergreen 
forests of the Pegu hills where Tickelli replaces it. I shot 
about a dozen of the latter, but on looking over my collection 
after returning from my hill trip, I found that only two speci- 
mens had been preserved. All the birds I shot and saw, how- 
ever, were similar in all respects. 
Itis a pity that Lord Walden in his capacity of Editor 
should have arrived at hasty, and, as I think, in many cases, 
erroneous conclusions. In dealing with many of Mr. Hume’s 
new species, he might surely have vouchsafed a few words 
of explanation as to the reasons which have led him to consider 
them invalid. In the case of the above two birds his conclu- 
sions are palpably wrong, and I fear that his dicta will not be 
readily accepted’ by those who are conversant with local 
Indian ornithology. 
