Birds of Celebes: Charadriidae. 749 



that these are barren birds and birds of the previous year which do not breed the 

 first season, is controverted, or at least shown to be only half true, by Mr. Hume's 

 record (g 6) of specimens apparently just newly fledged from the Andamans, 

 and by the known breeding of allied species, A. geoffroyi. Char, fulvus [see supra), 

 in their southern quarters. The birds are certainly not all barren; why they 

 do not go north to breed remains to be explained; perhaps they find it wiser 

 to stay where they are, perhaps they do not know the way. 



A. mongola is a species rarely met with in Celebes. S. Muller says he 

 found it in Buton, and Rosenberg has its name in his list of Celebesian birds, 

 but no confirmation of this occurred till W. Blasius (g 15, g 21) made known an 

 example from Riedel in the Brunswick Museum. This record was unfortunately 

 overlooked by us, and three specimens obtained by our native hunters at Main 

 in the north of the Minahassa found mention (g 31) as new for Celebes. There 

 are also two from Manado in the British Museum (k 1), most likely from 

 Meyer. They add confirmation to Prof. W. Blasius' Celebesian .specimen, which 

 did not bear a label, and so by itself seemed hardly complete proof of the locality. 



A. pyrrhothorax (Temm.), which was believed by W. Blasius (j 1) to be a 

 constant variety having all the forehead black or brown, a somewhat shorter 

 wing and longer tarsus, is held by Dr. Stejneger (j 2) to be identical, since 

 "the frontal and cervical marks are subject to an almost indefinite variation", and 

 these variations are not correlated with the length of the wing and tarsus. 

 Sharpe, however, separates it again (1 1). 



For the habits of this Plover cf. Stejneger (8) and Legge (g 10). 



^321. AEGIALITIS CURONICA (Gm.). 

 Lesser Ringed Plover. 



a. Charadrius dubius')? {1} Scop., Del. Flor. et Faun. Insubr. 1786,93; fs; Hartert, Kat. 



Vog. Slg. Senckenb. Mus. 1891, 217. 

 h. Charadrius curonicus {1} Gm., S. N. 1788, I, 692 (ex Beseke). 



c. Charadrius philippinus (1) Lath., Ind. Orn. 1790, 11, 745; {2} Scbl., Mus. P.-B., Cursores, 



1865, 28; (3) Rosenb., Malay. Archip. 1878, 277; {4] Vorderm., N. T. Ned. Ind. 

 1882, XLH, 105. 



d. Charadrius minor (1) Meyer & Wolf, Vog. Deutschl. 1805, I, 182; {II] Naum., Vog. 



Deutschl. 1834, \T[, 225, t. 177; {III) Gld., B. Eur. 1S37, IV, pi. 297; {IV) Seeb., 

 Br. B. 1883, HI, 16, pi. 26 (egg); {5} id., Distr. Charadr. 1887, 130; {6) id., B. 

 Japan 1890, 306; {!) Styan, Ibis 1891, 503; {8) Campb., Ibis 1892, 246; {9} De 

 La Touche, t. c. 496; {10] Buttik., Zool. Erg. Weber's Reise 1893, IH, 282. 



e. Charadrius fluviatilis {1) Bechst., Natiu-g. Deutschl. 1809, IV, 422. 



/: Aegialitis minor {1} Boie, Isis 1822, 558; {II) Gld., B. Gt. Brit. 1871, IV, pi. 42; {3] 

 Tacz., Faun. Orn. Sib. Orient. 1893, n, 830. 



») For reasons why it is undesirable to make use of this name, see Legge (b). It might belong to 

 curonica, or jerdoni, or some other species; the description of course suits neither of the former exactly. 

 Several authors enumerate specimens of dubius and curonica. as if they were distinct species. Do they mean 

 jerdoni by the former name, or what? 



