126 Prof. T. Salvadori on the 
X.—Remarks on two recently published Papers on the Orni- 
thology of the Solomon Islands. By T. Sauvapvort, C.M.ZS. 
Durine the year 1879 two papers on the birds of the Solomon 
Islands have been published ; and as I have paid some atten- 
tion to the ornithology of those islands, which come within 
the area of the Papuan subregion, I have thought that some 
remarks on them would not be utterly useless. 
One of these papers is by Mr. Ramsay, and was pub- 
lished in the ‘ Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New 
South Wales,’ vol. iv. pp. 65-84, under the title “‘ Notes on 
the Zoology of the Solomon Islands, Part i., Aves.” 
The other paper, by Mr. Tristram, has the title “Ona 
Collection of Birds from the Solomon Islands” (Ibis, 1879, 
pp. 437-444, pls. xi., xii.). 
Mr. Ramsay’s paper, read in January last, was first made 
known in Europe from a preliminary account published 
in ‘Nature,’ vol. xx. June 5, 1879, p. 125. But, very 
strange to say, the two editions do not agree together in several 
points; and we can only explain this by supposing that Mr. 
Ramsay, having rather too hastily sent his account to be pub- 
lished in ‘ Nature,’ found afterwards the necessity of making 
some alterations and corrections in the original paper, read 
before the New-South- Wales Society in the month of January, 
but published much later. This would have been of no 
great consequence if Mr. Ramsay had found it convenient 
to add some explanatory notes. Thus, for example, in the 
account in ‘ Nature,’ we find mentioned and shortly described 
a Pseudorectes cinnamomeum (sic), of which there is no men- 
tion in the original paper. I supposed that Mr. Ramsay had 
suppressed this name, having found that it was established on 
the female of Pachycephala orioloides, Peale; but why did he 
not state that such was the case? Again, in ‘ Nature’ there 
is described a Calornis solomonensis, not mentioned in the ori- 
ginal paper, where we have Calornis cantoroides, not men- 
tioned in ‘ Nature,’ but which I take to be the same. 
Another practice in Mr. Ramsay’s paper, to which I think 
there is great objection, and which certainly Mr. Ramsay 
