130 Prof. T. Salvadori on the 
this bird, whether it belongs to the Nectarinidse or to the 
Meliphagide ; it is utterly unknown to me. 
Mr. Tristram’s paper treats of thirty-three species, twelve 
of which have been described as new. Two of these, Ceyx 
gentiana and Charmosyna margarita, are splendid gems, quite 
unknown before. On others, described as new or already 
known, I have the following remarks :— 
Coxttocatia Lincul, H. et M.; Tristr. Ibis, 1879, p. 438. 
The true C. linchi from the Sunda Islands is replaced in 
the Papuan subregion by C. esculenta; so I think that Mr. 
Tristram’s bird requires comparison. 
Hirvunpo tanitica, Gm.; Tristr. J. c. 439. 
T doubt whether the bird from the Solomon Islands is really 
the true H. tahitica, which I believe to be confined to the Poly- 
nesian subregion. It is more probably the allied form H. java- 
nica, Sparrm. ; the differences between the two are very small. 
MyzoMELA PAMMELANA, Sclat.; Tristr. ibid. 
It seems to me that the jet-black Myzomela mentioned by 
Mr. Tristram agrees better with M. nigrita than with M. 
pammelena, if they are really distinct. I have seen the type 
of the latter, and I am rather doubtful about its beimg dif- 
ferent from WM. nigrita. 
PrezoRHYNCHUs vipuA, Tristr. ibid. 
Mostly likely this is = Monarcha brodiet, Ramsay, = M. bar- 
bata, Ramsay (vide antea), althoughin Mr. Ramsay’s descrip- 
tion the white uropygium is not mentioned. 
Myiacra cERVINIcAuDA, Tristr. ibid. 
This species requires comparison with M. pallida, Ramsay 
(vide antea), which, as already noted, may be the female 
of M. ferrocyanea. 
Rureipura Rvussata, Tristr. J. c. p. 440. 
This seems the same as R. rufofrontata (vide anted); but 
even in this case Mr. Tristram’s name will have to be used in 
preference to that of R. rufofrontata, Ramsay, to avoid con- 
fusion with R. rufifrons (Liath.). 
