OUR INDIAN CISTICOLJE. 93 



Cisticola Homalura, Blyth, No. 3 on our list, was thus 

 described : — 



Differs from G. cursitans, Frankl., in having a stouter bill, tbe 

 whole upper parts much darker and the tail subeven, ex- 

 cept that its outermost feathers are \ inch shorter than the next. 

 The prevailing hue of the upper parts is dusky black, with 

 much narrower rufescent lateral margins to the feathers than 

 in C. cursitans, the rump however being unmixed rufescent as in 

 that species, and the neck much tinged with the same ; one 

 specimen has some dark markings on the breast ; and another 

 in first plumage greatly resembles the adults and is conspicu- 

 ously different from the young of C. cursitans." (iV. B. — Only 

 one specimen was preserved in the museum). 



If we turn now to species No. 4, Cisticola melanocephala, 

 we find it thus described by Dr. Anderson, from specimens 

 obtained in Yunan : — 



"Head black, feathers obscurely margined with rufous ; lores 

 and supercilium pale rufous, faintly striated with brown ; back 

 and rump black, feathers margined with rufous cinereous ; tail 

 brown above, obscurely banded, cinereous below, obscurely 

 banded, black spotted near the apex and tipped with pale ru- 

 fous cinereous ; under tail-coverts ferruginous ; wing coverts 

 brown, faintly margined with rufous, below ferruginous albes- 

 cent. 



ic The intense black of the centres of the feathers of this 

 species and the almost entire absence of light coloured margins 

 to the feathers of the head separate it from C. schcenicola. I 

 have specimens of the latter bird from Central India with much 

 lighter rufous about them than the ordinary run of Bengal and 

 Cachar specimens, and the top of the head instead of being 

 nearly uniform dull rufous brown, as in Bengal specimens, is 

 bright pale rufous with narrow brownish black centres to the 

 feathers, and the two colours have a tendency to dispose them- 

 selves in lines. * My Cachar specimens resemble those from 

 Bengal in every respect." 



Of course, Dr. Anderson did not realize that the variations he 

 referred to were not due to locality but to season, but that does 

 not signify ; his description of the species we are now dealing 

 with gives a tolerable idea of the bird, though it overlooks the 

 conspicuous unstreaked rufous or buff collar. That however is 

 fully brought out in Lord Walden's description, which will be 

 found, S. F. III., 283. 



Between these descriptions the reader should be able to form 

 a good idea of the bird, but I would also call attention to Major 



* See Major Godwin-Austen's plate of his munijourensis. — Ed., S. F. 



