REMARKS ON THE GENUS MICROPTERNUS, Blyth. 481 



brachvurus, Hodgs., Cat. B. Nepal, 117, 1844, nee. 



Vieill. 

 rufonotus, et rufinotus, Malh., 1844, in Mus. MSS. 



non descr. Mon. Pic. II. 1. PL XL VI, f. 1, 2, 3, 



1862. 

 blythii, Math. Rev. et Mag. Zool., 1819, 534. 

 ? holroydi, Swin/u, Ibis, 1870, 95, ex-Hainan, (non vide). 



2. M. gularis, Jerd.. Madr. Jpurn. Sc. No. 31, 191; XIII. 



139. Bit/. J. A. S. B. XV, 17, 1840; Cat. Bins. 



A. S. B. 61, 1849. 

 pbaiopicus, Malh., Mus. Brit. MSS. 1815. 

 jerdonii, Malh., Rev. Zool. 1849, 535; Mon. Pic. II, 3, 



PI. XLVII, f. 1-4, 1862, 

 phaioceps, Layard. A. & M. N. H., XIII, 450, 1854, 



nee. Ely. ex- Ceylon. 



3. M. brachyurus, Vieill. N. Diet. XVI, 103, 1818, ex-Java. 



badins, Raff,., Tr. L. S , XIII, 289, 1821, ex-Sumatra. 

 pbacopns, Malh.. M. S. Mus. E. I. C. ? 1844. 

 hemidactylus, Nati. MSS. 

 ricordi, Gene. Mus. Tur. 



fokiensis, Swinh. P. Z. S., 1863, 87, ex-Fokien, China. 

 squamigularis, Sund., Cousp. Av. Pic. 89, 1866, ex- 

 Malacca. 



4. M. radiosus, Tern., Bp. Consp. Av. I. 113, 1850, ex-Borneo 



(non-vidi). 



In conclusion I must notice that no English ornithologist, 

 who accepts the British Association Code, has any right to 

 supersede Blyth's name phaioceps for our Indian species, by 

 Malherbes of rufinotus. This latter appears to have remained 

 a museum MS. name for long after Blyth's name was pub- 

 lished, and indeed to have never been properly defined and 

 published until subsequent to Malberhe's other name. Blythii 

 had been published (Rev. et Mag. Zool., 1849, 534), so that 

 even continental ornithologists should apparently, if they reject 

 phaioceps, adopt the name Blythii and not rufinotus. 



The only ground for rejecting Blyth's name is its hybridi ty, 

 a valid ground to continental ornithologists, but no ground at 

 all, as I have shown (ante, p. 279) to those who accept the 

 British Code. 



The only doubt that seems to me to exist as to the retention 

 of Blyth's name cousists in the fact that Mr. J. E. Gray 

 applied the name of rufus to our Indian species thirteen years 

 previous to Blyth's naming it. True, a mistake was involved 

 in this name, but the fact remains that this name rufus was the 

 first distinctive appellation bestowed upon this species, and that 

 no other species of this genus bears this title ; and I, therefore, 



