A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ORNITHOLOGY OF GILGIT. 99 
6°45 tail, 2°8 ; tarsus, 1 ; bill from gape, 0°8 ; closed wings beyond 
the tip of tail, 0-1. This example is in the dark grey phase 
of plumage, with only some mottlings of rufous on the breast 
and shoulders; the male, the measurements of which are 
given in Major Biddulph’s paper, is about half rufous and half 
grey. In both specimens the second and third primaries are 
subequal and longest, and the first is intermediate in length 
between the fifth and sixth. Some specimens of the variable 
Scops giv are hardly separable from these Gilgit birds. 
29.—Scops brucii, Hume. (74 sept.) 
I obtained five specimens of this species in Gilgit, in March, 
April, and September. Two males measured :—Lenceth, 8 inches ; 
wing, 6°4 and 6:5; tail, 3 and 3:3; tarsus, 1:2; bill from gape, 
0-75 and 0:8. Three females measured—Length, 8 to 8.8 
inches ; wing, 6°45 to 6°7; tail, 3:3 to 3°6; tarsus, 1:1 to 
1:15; bill from gape, 0°75 to 0°8. One of these examples 
weighed 3'3 oz. In these five specimens the third quill is the 
longest, the second and fourth are subequal, and the first is 
intermediate in leneth between the sixth and seventh. There 
is no appreciable variation in colour, all being of the same 
characteristic brownish-buff tint. After careful comparison 
with the fine series of Scops giw and allies in the British 
Museum, I do not doubt that Scops brucii is a perfectly good 
and distinct species. 
30.—Hirundo rustica, Zin. (82.) 
Three females in my collection, shot in April and May, have 
the wings 4°5 to 4:7 inches, and the tails 3°1 to 3°65. All have 
a broad black pectoral band. 
31.—Hirundo rufula, Tem. (84 ds.) 
This Swallow is a summer visitor to Gilgit, but never 
appears to be common. A female measured :—Length, 6°6 
inches; wing, 4°35; tail, 3°45 (to fork, 1°7); tarsus, 0°45; bill 
from gape, 0°55. From Hirundo nipalensis, to which Major 
Biddulph referred it, the Gilgit red-rumped Swallow is distin- 
guished by its smaller size, faintly striated lower surface, and 
unstriated ear-coverts. In a note to Biddulph’s paper I 
identified the species as H. erythropygia, Sykes; but on fuller 
examination I now feel satisfied that it is really Hirwndo 
rufula. The difference between these two forms is slight; 
Hl. erythropygia is smaller, and has the rump uniform chest- 
nut, while A. rufula is larger, and has the chestnut rump 
paling to nearly white towards the upper tail-coverts ; two 
females of H, erythropygia have the wing 41 and 4°3, and a 
