— 366 - 



A beautiful and distinct species of the same type as G. lineatus of Australia, G. axillaris, Salvad. 

 from Mount Arfak. The female is indeed so like that of the latter, thas without seeing the males I should 

 have considered them identical. The male of G. axillaris is, however, quite uniform grey below, whereas G. 

 maforensis has te breast and abdomen black with extremely narrow wawy iines of white across it. 

 The following is a list of the species which I propose to place in the geniis Graucalus. 



1. G. boyeri (Gray). Hab. N. W. New Guinea, Island of Jobi. 



2. G. subalaris, Sharpe. Hab. S. E. New Guinea. 



3. G. c^esius (Licht). Hab. South Africa. 



4. G. azureus, Cass. Hab. West Africa. 



5. G. cinereus (P. L. S. Müll). Hab. Madagascar. 



6. G. pectoralis, Jard. Hab. Africa (N. E. & S. W.): Senegambia. 



7. G. melanops (Lath). Hdb. Australia: New Guinea: Aru Islands: Louisiade-Archipelago. 



8. G. parvirostris, Gould. Tasmania and E. Australia. Scarcely separable from G. melanops. 



9. G. leucopygius, Bp. Hab. Celebes. 



10. G. javensis (Horsf.). Hab. Java. 



11. G. macii (Less.). Hab. India and Ceylon: Burmese countries: Andaman Islands. 



12. G. rex-pineti, SivinJwe. Hab. Formosa: Hainan. Very doubtfully distinct from G. macii. 



13. G. hypoleucus, Gould. Hab. N. E. Australia. New Guinea (S. E.): Aru Islands. G. angustirostris, 



Sharpe is not distinct, as pointed out bySalvadori. 



14. G. mentalis, V. & H. Hdb. Australia. 



15. G. papuensis (Gm.). Hdb. NewGuinea: New Ireland: Mysol: Batchian: Halmahera: Ternate: Mortyls. 



16. G. sclateri, Salvad. Hab. New Ireland. 



17. G. maforensis, Meyer. Hab. Mafoor Island. 



18. G. lineatus (Sic). Hdb. N. E. Australia. 



19. G. axillaris, Salvad. Hab. N. W. New Guinea. 



Genus 5. Edoliisoma, Jacq. et Pucher. 



This genus differs fi-om Graucalus in its long thin bill which resembles that of the Indian Campo- 

 phagae but is still more slender than that of the latter genus. The species are extremely difficulty to 

 uuderstand, some of them apparently having females quite distinct while the males are exactly the same 

 in plumage. I owe to the kindness of Count Salvadori the opportunity of examining the fine series belonging 

 to the Genoa Museum, and my studies have thereby been greatly facilitated. I do not agree with all bis 

 identicications, nor does he with mine, but it must be owned that the subject is one of extreme difficulty. 



1. JEdoliisoma nigrwm. 



Lanius niger, Garn- Voy. Coqidlle, i. p. 589. 



Lanius melas, Less. et Garn, in Less. Man. d'Orn. i. p. 128. 



Ceblepyiis melas, ä. Müll. Verh. Natuurl. Gesch. Land en Volkenk. p. 189. 



Ceblepyris cinnamomea, S. Müll. t. c. p. 189. 



Echenilleur de Marescot, Hombr. et Jacq. Voy. Pole Sud. Ois pl. 10, fig. 2. 



Campephaga marescotii, Gray, Gen. B. i. p. 283 (ex Hombr. et Jacq.) 



Campephaga melas, Gray, Gen. B. i. p. 283. 



Campephaga cinnamomea, Gray, Gen. B. i. p. 283. 



Edoliisoma marescotii, Jacq. et Pucher. Voy. Pole Sud. Zool. iii. pl. 69. 



Edoliisoma melan, Sclater^ Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool. 1858. p. 160. 



