NOTES. 121 



according to age, and the female dark brown, the feathers 

 broadly margined with white, the brown portions occasionally- 

 more or less overlaid here and there with a deep chestnut 

 shade. 



The only doubt I have in the matter is, whether Mr. Gray's 

 name should stand. It is scarcely doubtful that the bird, descri- 

 bed by Raffles, (Tr. Lin. Soc. XIII., p. 321, 1822) as Phasianus 

 rufus is the adult female, of this species, whilst the 

 bird that he describes as the female of his ignitus, (op. cit. f 

 p. 320) which is Vieilloll, may be anything, and under these 

 circumstances, " rufus''' being the first distinct name bestowed 

 upon the species, I apprehend that in strictness this name, and 

 not Mr. Gray's, must stand. 



Count Salvadort, in his admirable work on the Birds of 

 Borneo (Uccelli di Borneo, p. 312,1874), separates Esacus magtii- 

 rostris, Geoffr. from E. rccurvirostns, Cuv., under a new genus 

 which he designates Orthoramphus, because the beak in the 

 one is straight, in the other slightly recurved. 



This appears to me, with all due deference to Count Salvadori, 

 to be a typical instance of the too prevalent degradation of 

 generic value. 



Never were there two birds more distinctly representative 

 species of the same genus. 



At a little distance the sharpest eyes could not, except for 

 difference in size, distinguish the one from the other. Their 

 habits, attitudes, modes of walking, rising and flying, are 

 identical ; their eggs are not to be distinguished, except by the 

 difference in size. The note i^ the same though, stronger 

 perhaps in magnirostris. 



In fact the two birds are own brothers; the one, {magnirostris,) 

 the larger, stouter billed, stronger voiced, has settled on sea 

 coasts, where buffeted by sea waves and violent storms, and 

 dealing with stout sea shells and strongly armoured marine 

 crustaceans, it has per force developed into what we find it, 

 while the other (recurvirostris,) confining itself strictly to 

 sheltered banks of rivers, and feeding on delicate fresh water 

 shells and crustaceans has remained comparatively feeble. 

 The very difference in the shape of the bills may be directly 

 referred to the different character of the food furnished by the 

 different localities each affects. 



I must protest against the generic separation of these two 

 species. No two species are more truly u congeners." 



