NOTES. 139 



The figure, a vile thing, bears doubtless the inscription, 

 u Tragopan Duvaucel, male," but in the text Temminek ex- 

 plains this, withdraws the name, and distinctly states that the 

 bird he figures is identical with Tragopan pucrasia, Gould, then 

 recently beautifully figured by Mrs. Gould in the Cent. Him. 

 B. To this plate which is unmistakeably Pucrasia macrolopha, 

 Temminek refers, and he heads his text with Gould's name. 



But more than this his description shows, that whatever idea 

 may be conveyed by Pretre's wretched picture, Temminek was 

 describing macrolopha and not castanea. 



The characteristic of this latter is to have the sides and back 

 of the neck (and perhaps in some cases the upper back also) 

 chestnut like the breast. 



Now Temminek distinctly says, " le devant du cou, la 

 partie mediane de la poitrine et du ventre, ainsi que les conver- 

 tures du dessous de la queue sout d'un beau marron fonce ; 

 la partie posterieure et les cotes du cou, le dos les fiancs et les 

 cuisses sout couverts de plumes longues et pointues, a bande 

 centrale noir, entouree par une teinite grise plus ou moins 

 pure." This is absolutely conclusive as to the species des- 

 cribed by Temminek being, as he himself declared, Gould's and 

 Gray aud Hardwicke's pncrasia } i. e., macrolophus of Lesson. 

 It does not matter one straw what the figure looks like — (though 

 for that matter barring the head it is equally unlike every 

 species of the genus) — where a description is full and explicit, 

 we must go by that. 



I may notice, when dealing with this species, that Mr. Elliot 

 says of castanea (Davaucelii, Tern, apxid ille) " The male has 

 the head dark green, with the upper part chestnut. A long 

 occipital crest formed of chestnut and dark green feathers/' For 

 chestnut, read dingy fawn, or pale dull yellowish brown. Of 

 course Wolf's plate gives the colour correctly. 



It appears to me a great drawback in the monograph of the 

 Phasianidse, that it contains no such diagnostical table as 

 would enable any one to determine at once any particular 

 species. Even in the case of species so closely allied, as 

 macrolophus and castanea, Mr. Elliot (aud I must add 

 Mr. Gould also who is just as bad in this respect,) carefully 

 abstains from any such clear and specific enunciation of differ- 

 ences as might definitely fix the two species. 



This was exactly the case with Phasianus Shaioi and insignis, 

 between which outsiders have as yet been able to discover no 

 real difference, and I am by no means sure that I shall not soon 

 be in a position to prove much the same in regard to macrolopha, 

 castanea and nipalemis, different as the typical forms of the two 

 first look. 



