NOTES. 137 



I wish to call attention to the fact that Pomatorhinus oli- 

 vaceus, Blyth, J. A. S. B., Vol. XVI., p. 451, 1847, from the Ye 

 district of Tenasserim, and which Blyth later united with P. 

 leucogaster, Gould, is, in my opinion, a perfectly good and distinct 

 species, though douhtless very closely allied to leucogaster. 



In leucogaster, (from the Himalayas) the whole upper sur- 

 face is darker and greener; in olivaceus (from the Ye district) 

 it is lighter and far more rufescent, the difference in the colour 

 of the tails being striking. 



In leucogaster, the deep ferruginous patch behind the ear- 

 coverts is continued down the sides of the body and flanks, the 

 head is much greyer than the rest of the upper surface of the 

 body, the frontal feathers are much edged with blackish, and 

 there is only a faint trace of a rufous collar on the base of the 

 neck. 



In olivaceus, the deep ferruginous patch is not extended 

 down the sides of the body, &c, the head is not a bit greyer 

 than the body, there is very little black edging to the frontal 

 feathers and from the ferruginous patch on either side, a broad 

 ferruginous half-collar, almost as deep in colour as the patch 

 itself, runs across the base of the back of the neck. 



Blyth's specimen can never have been a good one, and it is 

 doubtless easy as I have found, when I had only one or two 

 indifferent specimens to confound the two, but with a series of 

 each laid out before one, it seems wonderful how one can ever 

 have considered the two species the same. 



In size, the two races do not differ perceptibly. In both I 

 find the wings vary from about 3*4 in the smallest female to 

 3'85 in the largest male. 



In sc/usliceps, I find specimens in which the wing consider- 

 ably exceeds 4. 



Without examining Verreaux's type it is impossible to speak 

 positively, but so far as measurement, description, and figure 

 go, his Siphia Hodgsoni (Nouv. Archiv. du Mus. VI. Bull. 34, 

 1870; VII. Bull. 29, 1871, IX. pi. IV. f. 4, 1873) is nothing 

 else than 8. enjthaca, Blyth and Jerd. (P. Z. S. 1861, 201. 



No doubt the description there given is most faulty, as I have 

 already pointed out (S. F. Vol. II., p. 458) and this may have 

 misled Verreaux who refers to Jerd. and Bly.'s Siphia erythrura 

 (sic; as apparently nearly related. 



On a former occasion, (S. F. Vol. I., p. 429, Dec. 1873) I dis- 

 criminated the Ceylon Phodilus and pointed out clearly wherein 

 it differed from the Himalayan birds. I did not then name it, 



