NOTES. 59 



Suya khasiana, God.-Aust. 



On a careful comparison, made by myself and Lord Walden 

 of Suya atrogularis of the Darjeeling hills with specimens I had 

 hitherto supposed to be exactly the same found on the Khasi 

 hills, the differences are so well marked that they are sufficient 

 to separate them as a distinct race, to which I give the title Suya 

 khasiana. 



These differences are as follows : — 



Suya atrogularis, Moore (of which eight specimens were 

 examined), 



a. Is a greyer bird, Avith a decided tinge of olivaceous ; 



b. None show pure white beneath ; 



c. Thigh-coverts, pale brown. 



Suya khasiana, (fourteen examples compared), 



a. Has a general tinge of ferruginous thoughout, which is 

 particularly strong upon the forehead and wing ; 



b. Generally pure white on abdomen aud centre of breast ; 



c. Thigh-covorts pure rufous ; 



d. The terminal white spots on the black feathers of the 

 lower part of the neck are larger. A. and M., Nat. Hist., 

 November 1876. 



otes. 



I am strongly inclined to believe that Drymocataphus 

 fulvus, Walden (A- and M. N. H., June 1875, p. 401; S. F., 

 Vol. III., p. 403) is identical with Trichastoma minor, Hume, 

 Stray Feathers, October 1874, p. 535. 



I have obtained numerous fresh specimens of my bird from 

 the neighbourhood ot Mooleyit, and I find with the series before 

 me that some of the specimens answer extremely well to Lord 

 Walden's description. 



The dimensions are the same, viz., wing, 25 ; tail, 2*1 to 2'3 ; 

 tarsus, 1*0 to 1*05 ; bill, at front, viz., from edge of feathers, 

 0*55, from forehead, 0"65, from gape, 0"75 to 0'8. 



The plumage varies a good deal in different specimens. In 

 some the middle of the throat or middle of abdomen, or some- 

 times both, are nearly pure white, while in some the whole 

 lower surface is rufous buff, or more or less pale rusty fulvous. 



When describing the species, I noticed that the tail was lono-er 

 and more rounded than in Abbotti, and Lord Walden may be 

 right (though without further comparison I am not prepared 

 to assert that he is) in referring this species to Drymocataphus ; 

 but be this as it may, I think that there is little doubt that both 

 names apply to the same species. 



