Ornithology of the Solomon Islands. 127 
ought to have avoided, is that he has used different names in 
the two editions for the same supposed new species. Thus in 
the original paper we have Monarcha brodiet, which in 
‘Nature’ stands as Monacha barbata | 
A third objectionable practice, which Mr. Ramsay could 
have easily avoided, is the use of very strange names as if 
they were Latin, viz. Myiagra ferrocyanea (sic), Rhipidura 
rufofronta! And, besides, to call a Rhipidura by the name 
of rufofronta, or rufofrontata, as in the original paper, can 
only lead to confusion, as there is the old Rhipidura rufifrons 
(Lath.), well known to all Australian ornithologists. 
Forty-five species are mentioned in Mr. Ramsay’s paper. 
For convenience’ sake I shall follow Mr. Ramsay’s order, 
which is no order at all, as he has not, to use his own words, 
‘adopted any scientific classification, but has just enumerated 
the species as they came most conveniently to hand” (J. c. 
p- 94). 
Astur sotornsis, Lath.; Ramsay, J. c. p. 66. 
From the description it appears to me that Mr. Ramsay 
had before him a specimen of my Urospizias etorques, and not 
of true Tachyspizias soloensis. 
Nrvox punctTuLata, Quoy et Gaim.; Ramsay, ibid. 
This is a Celebes bird; and what Ramsay’s specimens can 
be I know not. 
Hatcyon cutoris, var., Ramsay, /.c. p. 67. 
I should say that the supposed variety is a specimen of 
Halcyon julia, which Mr. Tristram mentions among the birds 
of the Solomon Islands. 
Hatcyon teucopyera, Verr.; Ramsay, ibid. 
Mr. Ramsay describes for the first time the female of this 
species, till now only known from the single specimen in the 
British Museum. 
EvpYNAMIS TAITENSIS, Sparrm.; Ramsay, /. c. p. 70. 
I should be rather surprised to find this species among the 
