RECENTLY-DESCRIBICD SPECIES. 341 



We appear to have in this genus — all near allies :* — 



1. Pellorneum ruficeps,* Swaiuson. 

 South Iudia. 



2. Pellorneum Mandelii, W. Blanford. 

 Sikim, and the Garo and Khasi Hills. 



3. Pellorneum pectoralis, Gr.-A. 

 Eastern Assam. 



4. Pellorneum Tickellii, Blyth. 



P. minor, Hume, S. R, 1873, p. 298 ; from Tenasserim. 



P. subochraceum, Swinhoe, A. M. N. H., 1871, p. 257, also 

 from Tenasserim. 



Burmah and Tenasserim. 



t I cannot help thinking that the two last names are only 

 synonyms. In the list of Birds from Tenasserim (S. F., 

 Vol. II., p. 476;, the very country whence Tickell sent his 

 specimens to Blyth, P. minor is recorded as common, hut P. 

 Tickellii as not yet obtained. Comparing specimens lately 

 received from Tenasserim with the original description and with 

 a specimen in the Indian Museum (also from Tenasserim) which 

 there is every reason for believing to be one of the original types, 

 I can arrive at no other decision but that P. minor and P. 

 subochraceum are nothing else than P. Tickellii j nor is it likely 

 that two distinct species whose dimensions are so exceedingly 

 close are to be found in so limited an area. J. A. S. B., 

 XLVL, pt. 2, p. 41, 1877. 



Actinura Oglei, God.- dust. 



Above rich umber-brown with a sienna tinge, strongly rusty 

 on the head and nape, the soft feathers of the back and rump are 



* Is given in Blyth's list of the Birds of Burrnah, but I doubt if true P. ruficeps 

 is found out of Southern India. — God.-Aust. 



f It is absolutely inexplicable that after Mr. Oates' conclusive note, S. F., IV., 406, 

 (the correctness of which numerous specimens now exist to attest,) a good naturalist 

 like Major G. Austen should make such a statement as this. 



Then he refers to our first list of the Birds of Tenasserim, showing that we had not 

 yet obtained specimens of Tickellii " in the very country whence Tickell sent his speci- 

 mens," overlooking the fact that Tenasserim is neariy 600 miles in length, and that 

 until quite recently, we had never collected in the locality whence Tickell's specimens 

 came. 



Lastly, he entirely ignores P. palustre, Jerd., of Caehar, Sylhet and Assam. (S. F., I., 

 p. 4). 



As to this present supposed new species I hesitate to accept it. I have both Suddya 

 and Darjeeling specimens answering perfectly to Major G. Austen's description and 

 dimensions and yet clearly all P. nipalensis, Hodgs. 



This latter is a very variable species, not only in size, (the wings ranging from 2 "5 

 to 3), but equally so in colour. It struck me that two of the Suddya birds were more 

 rufescent and more strongly marked than nipalensis, and so they proved to be than 

 the first few of the latter I took out, but I very soon found others of these, quite 

 identical. One Suddya specimen is quite pale and feebly marked and matches the 

 Darjeeling birds that I first took out exactly. 



I think therefore that this P. pectoralis is a very doubtful species. — Ed. S. F. 



T 19 



