VISCOUNT "WALDEN ON THE BIEDS OF CELEBES. 63 



SAXICOLID^. 

 MoNTicoLA, Boie. 



71. MoNTicoLA SOLITAEIA (P. L. S. MuUer), Syst. Nat. Suppl. p. 142. no. 46 (1776), ex 



BufFon, PI. Enl. 564. f. 2. 



Le Merle solitaire de Manille, Month. Hist. Nat. Ois. iii. p. 363. no. 1, descr. orig. ex Sonnerat ; PL 



Enl. 636, 6; 564, f. 2, 6 vel ? adolesc. 

 Turdus manilla, Boddaert, Tab. PI. Enl. 636 (1783). 

 Merula solitaria philippensis, Briss. Orn. ii. p. 272, no. 32, " Ins. Philipp." descr. orig. ex Poivre 



(avis juv?). 

 Le Merle solitaire des Philippines, Month, op. cit. p. 364, no. 2; PL Enl. 339, ex Brisson, no. 32 L 

 Turdus philippensis, P. L. S. Muller, op. cit. p. 145. no. 59, ex Buflfon, PL EnL 339 (1776). 

 Turdus philippensis, Bodd. op. cit., ex Buffon, PL Enl. 339 (1783). 

 Turdus eremita, Gm. Syst. Nat. 13th ed. i. p. 833 (1788), ex Brisson, no. 32. 

 Merula solitaria manillensis, Brisson, op. cit. p. 270. no. 31, " Manilla," descr. orig. 

 Turdus manillensis, Gm. op. cit. p. 833 (1788), ex Brisson, no. 31. 

 Turdus manillensis, auct. ; Schlegel, Faun. Jap. Aves, p. 67. 



Hab. North Celebes (Forsten) ; Philippines (ti/pe) ; China, Formosa, Japan (Swinhoe). 



There seems little doubt that the Merle solitaire de Manille and the Merle solitaire 

 des Philij)j)ines of Montbeillard are the same species in different phases of plumage. 

 This was Montbeillard's own opinion (op. cit. p. 365). The most recent authors, how- 

 ever, have continued to treat them as distinct. 



Pratincola, Koch. 



72. Pratincola caprata (Linn.), Syst. Nat. ed. 12, i. p. 335. no. 33, "Luzon" (1766), 



ex Brisson, Orn. iii. p. 440. 



ffab. 'M.a,c?Lssar (Wallace) ; Philippines (?wms. wos^r.) ; common all over India (Jert^om) ; 

 Tongoo (mus. nostr.); Aracan [Blyth); Java {Horsfield); Nipaul {Hodgson); Moul- 

 mein, Lombock, Timor, Flores {mus. nostr.) ; Simla {Beavan) ; Coorg, Candeish {mus. 

 nostr.). 



An example of a young male individual of this species was collected by Mr. Wallace 

 at Macassar. It in no way differs from Philippine specimens in my collection. 



Examples from the localities above cited agree well in their dimensions. Those from 

 Candeish are larger, but not so large as the Ceylon P. atrata, Blyth. 



' Montbeillard's account contains internal evidence sufficient to prove that it was compiled from Brisson's 

 description. The plate (339) appears also to have been drawn from Brisson's description only. This wUI 

 explain the unnatural coloiuing of the head. 



