492 OUR INDIAN PELICANS. 
he speaks of an occipital crest, and golden yellow breast, which, 
with the dimensions given, would seem to refer his specimen to 
minor ; while at the conclusion of the article, he says, “ forehead 
with the frontal plumes not narrowed in front, but truncated, 
and emarginate ; bill with a double series of impressed dark 
spots.” Now the form of the frontal feathers here described 
renders it impossible that the bird he had in view could 
belong to any species of the onocrotalus style, and therefore both 
javanicus and minor are excluded from all further considera- 
tion ; while the truncate and emarginate frontal plumes, with 
dark spots upon the bill, are characteristics of young rufescens ; 
therefore I have referred Jerdon’s birds to the present 
species.” 
Now before going further it is necessary to point out that 
Dr. Jerdon never meant the words “forehead with frontal 
plumes, &c.” to refer to javanicus, at the end of the notice of 
which they appear, but to the next bird, immediately following 
these words, viz., P. philippensis. This is his invariable habit, and 
the subsequent short sentence “ can Riippell’s bird be the female 
of P. mitratus;’ a mere afterthought, in no way interferes 
with the arrangement. This is quite certain. Jerdon only 
describes four species of Pelicans, and on page 854 he distinct- 
ly says that “the first three, viz, onocrotalus, mitratus and 
javanicus all belong to the frontal point-feathered section. 
This difficulty, therefore, which seems so insuperable to Mr. 
Elliott, is one of his own creation, and not, as he fancies, a 
blunder of poor Jerdon’s, whose description of his javanicus 
is, as I shall show presently, an accurate picture of one 
stage of our Pelicans. 
Before proceeding to speak in detail of the species which, 
in my opinion, we actually have, I may remark that Dr. 
Sclater, P. Z. S., 1868, p. 266, refers to specimens received from 
Calcutta, to P. mitratus, Leicht. ; and adds: “ I have also little 
doubt that this species is the true P. minor of Riippell, it 
belongs to the same group as P. onocrotalus, but no one 
who has seen the two species alive together would deny 
their specific distinctness. P. mitratus is at once dis- 
tinguished by its smaller size, by the purer white of 
the whole plumage, and the long pendent crest.” 
In regard to the pure white, I must notice that Riippell in 
his “Voégel nord-ost Afrikas” figures P, minor as throughout 
tinted with a delicate rose color. 
In regard to rufescens and philippensis Mr. Sclater says: 
“ P. philippensis is, as admitted by all authors, a close ally of 
P. rufescens, but I agree with Prince Bonaparte (C. R., xli, 
p- 574 et Conep. ii, p. 162), in considering it distinct, rostri maculis 
impressis seriatim despositis, Several skins of it are in Captain 
