246 A FEW ADDITIONS TO THE SIND AVIFAUNA. 



Assam by comparison. My specimen is certainly, I think, of 

 the same species as the Dan 1 a bird, of which there is a specimen 

 in the Calcutta Museum. Until the type was re-discovered 

 I was rather disposed to share Mr. Hume's doubts of S. F., 

 IV., p. 505*. 



462. — Pyononotus pusillus. Deserts easts of Umarkot. 



488. — Saxicola opistholeuca. A single specimen collected 

 at Kotri or Karachi. 



490. — Saxicola morio, Ehr. (S. capistrata, Hume nee 

 Gould). I think I can now shew conclusively that this is quite 

 distinct from S. picata. It is excessively rare in Sind, and I 

 have only shot two specimens, both killed on the same day, 

 February 18th, near Cape Monze. 



492 ter. — iEooN familiaris. 



516. — acrocephalus dumetorum. 



559. — Phylloscopus nitidus. 



582 bis. — Sylvia rtjfa (S. cinerea, Auct.) 



The above four birds were obtainned for me either at Kotri 

 or Karachi by the collector already mentioned. All must have 

 been procured in the autumn. 



591. — Motacilla personata. Common at Jacobabad. in 

 November. 



593 bis. — BUDYTES MELANOCEPHALUS.f 



598 ter — Bcjdytes flavus. 



Both common ; the latter much more so than the former in 

 Upper Sind, about March and April. 



681 bis. — Sturnus minor, Hume, S. F., I., p. 207. 

 This is a good species-, perfectly distinct from S. vulgaris, 

 and locally far from rare. Found common at end of March 

 near Rohri. 



716. — Emberiza Huttoni. Occasionally shot in the hilly 

 parts of Sind. 



718. — Emberiza Stewarti. A single specimen obtained in 

 the Kirthar range, Upper Sind. 



722.— Euspiza luteola. Shot near Rohri in the begin- 

 mug of April. 



756. — Mirafra erythroptera. Not rare in the desert, east 

 of Umarkot, and 1 once saw a single bird a few miles north- 

 west of Karachi in the Habh Valley. 



761 ter. — Melanocorypha bimaculata. Not rare in the 

 plains of Upper Sind, and in the desert east of Umarkot. 



* Notwithstanding what is said about the type I adhere to my opinion. Dr. 

 Jevdon never, I believe, described a bird so badly. There has been some mistake 

 about the type. Very likely he got both birds, described one and sent the other 

 home, without carefully comparing them. See, ante, p. 116 and infra, p. 251. — 

 Ed. S. F. 



f Wrongly entered in my list as B. viridis. — Ed. S. F. 



