506 NOTES. 
“ T examined his two drawings in which chloronotus is shown. 
The nest one shows the left hand side bird with spread tail and 
white feathers in it. Another drawing shows several reguloides, 
and No. 5 is Abrornis chloronotus, the tail is spread, but does 
not shew any white feathers. 
“The drawings of erochroa with both spread and closed tail 
on same sheet shew the white tail feathers most distinctly. 1 
therefore come to the conclusion that Hodgson did not discrimi- 
nate between maculipennis and proregulus. Under chloronotus 
he had both.” 
Accepting Mr. Brooks’ facts, I must demur to his conclusion. 
Four skins labelled by Mr. Hodgson as chloronotus all prove to 
be maculipennis. One skin labelled proregulus is proregulus. 
My original drawings of ch/oronotus show clearly that the bird 
is maculipennis, so does one of the British Museum drawings. 
That one of these latter fails to show the white in the tail is 
surely quite unimportant in the face of the mass of corrobora- 
tive evidence, which confirms my view that Hodgson’s chloro- 
notus was the same bird that Blyth later renamed maculzpennis, 
which later name must sink into a synonym. 
Mr. Brooks writes :— 
“ T examined the type of Motacilla dukhunensis and found 
it was all right and not personata as some have supposed. The 
type is mature with black throat and fore-neck ; back, grey.” 
I HAVE RECEIVED some very interesting official corespond- 
ence, for which I regret that I cannot find space, having 
reference to the Bori bird which commits terrible havoc 
amongst the ripe crops of the Munchar lake in Sindh, and 
seems to be considered eminently a bore by the inhabitants. 
Some time ago, it will be remembered, that Mr. James iden- 
tified this bird as Huspiza melanocephala. 
Col. Haig, in his proposals for a revised settlement of the 
Sehwan Taluk, announces that Mr James is “ wrong once 
more,” and that the native name of Euspiza melanocephala is 
‘“‘ Wahio,” which is nothing like so destructive as the “ Bort.” 
As Col. Haig goes on to say that he has never seen the 
“ Bort,’ he is perhaps a little premature in congratulating 
himself that Mr James is “ wrong once more.” He winds up by 
informing the authorities that “the habitation of the Bort 
is evidently some distant part of Central Asia, and its visits 
to Sindh are probably occasioned by an unusually rigorous 
and prolonged winter forcing it to seek warmer latitudes.” 
