A LIST OF THE BIRDS OF PEGU. 223 
from India, with a large series of plumbeitarsus, the differences 
between them are sufficiently striking. The smaller size, the 
constant éwo wing bars, and the abrupt connection of the 
colour of these with the adjoining green, are always sufficient 
to separate plumbeitarsus from vwiridanus. 
The wing of this species varies from 2:1 to 2:5, the latter 
dimension being however exceptionally large. The tail varies 
from 1°55 to 1:9; the tarsus from ‘68 to 75; the second 
primary is almost always intermediate between the seventh 
and eighth; in one or two cases it is equal to the eighth. 
The upper mandible is brown, the lower clear yellow; iris 
brown ; mouth yellow ; legs pale plumbeous brown; and the 
toes are tinged with yellow ; the claws are pale horn colour. 
Mr. Brooks has now come to the conclusion that P. burman- 
icus must be suppressed in being only plumbeitarsus with 
the second wing bar worn away.” 
269.—Phylloscopus coronatus, Zem. §& Schleg. 
(563 bis.) 
Not uncommon during migration in September and April, 
but I have not met with it at other times. 
270.—Phylloscopus trochiloides, Swnd. (564.) 
It seems quite clearly proved now that flavo-olivaceus, 
Hume, and virtdipennis,t Blyth, are synonymous with the present 
species. It is abundant in all parts of the province during 
the winter months. Burmese birds cannot be separated from 
those procured in Bengal. 
271.—Phylloscopus superciliosus, Gm. (565.) 
By far the commonest species of Phylloscopus in Pegu. It 
abounds everywhere from October to April. I have never met. 
with a specimen which could be mistaken for humii or mandelliz. 
272.—Cryptolopha tephrocephalus, Anders. (569 dis.) 
A very abundant cold weather visitor to all parts of the 
province I have visited, except perhaps in the northern portions, 
where it appears to be rare. 
* Mr. Oates is doubtless correct, but this is not the tenor of a letter from Mr. 
Brooks from Canada, received at the same time as this paper.—Eb., S. F. 
+ The identity of flavo-olivaceus with trochiloides is discussed, ante. p. 169, but 
the identity of viridipennis with this latter is not only not proved, but I believe 
not even supposed, 2zow by any ornithologist but my friend Mr. Brooks—vide for 
the distinctness of viridipennis, not only the numerous notes in this journal, but 
the B. M. C., V, 53. Possibly however Mr. Oates means viridipennis, Blyth, apud 
Jerdon, which may be identical with trochiloides, though it is by no means proved. 
Note that if this bird is to be retained as Phylloscopus, the genus Reguloides 
being suppressed, then it must stand under Blyth’s name Phylloscopus reguloides, 
which dates from 1842, against 1846 for Sundevall’s name. If, however, you retain 
the genus Reguloides, as I prefer to do, then Sundevall’s specific name will 
stand,—ED., S. F. 
29 
