3°6



Corresponde?ice.



zine by Mr. Trevor Battye a few years back.* Mr. Battye correctly identified

bis birds as A. heyi, but the following month, at the instance of Mr. Ogilvie-

Grant, he stated that they belonged to the Southern form ( A . cholmleyi). . .


“ Examples from Egypt resemble the Southern form in lacking the

white forehead, but in all other respects they are indistinguishable from

typical Palestine birds, and as I have seen a skin from Palestine, in which

the white forehead was absent, there is little doubt that the Egyptian form

should be known as A. heyi , and that Mr. Battve’s article is perfectly

correct.”


A. heyi, which inhabits the Eastern shores of the Bed Sea, ranges

from the Dead Sea southwards throughout Arabia to Muscat on the Persian

Gulf.


The male birds have the forehead and lores zvhite ; and, as a rule, even

in freshly moulted birds the plumage is paler than A. cholmleyi.


A. cholmleyi inhabits the Western shores of the Red Sea, and ranges

through Egypt and Nabia, as far south as the Erba Mountains and Suakin.


The male birds have no Irace of zvhite on the forehead and lores. The

plumage is, as a rule, darker than in A. heyi, and the head, mantle, and

breast are washed with vinaceous.


It is clear from the above quotation that Mr. Bonhote could not have

understood what he was writing about.


x. The character which distinguishes A. cholmleyi from A. heyi is the

absence of zvhite on the forehead and lores. A glance at Mr. Trevor-Battve's

plate is sufficient to show that the male bird figured there is certainly an

example of A. cholmleyi and not of A. heyi. I subsequent^ examined Mr.

Battve's living birds and found that such was undoubtedly the case.


2. In the British Museum there are two male examples from Egypt,

which does not differ in any marked degree from the type-specimens of A.

cholmleyi which were procured near Suakin.


3. It would be interesting to know where Mr. Bonhote has “seen a


skin from Palestine, in which the white forehead was absent,” as it is cer¬

tainly not to be found among the British Museum series of seven males,

which he has examined. W. R. OGir.viE-GRANT.



WATER-RAILS IN KENT.


Sir, —I regret that several causes have prevented an earlier reply on

my part to Dr. Ticeluirst’s request for an account of the breeding of the

Water-Rail (ll a Hits aquaticus ) in Kent, and I trust that he will hold me

guiltless of intentional discourtesy in the matter.


First of all, then, it must be quite eighteen years ago that I saw the

young Water-Rails of which I spoke in my letter that appeared in the

January number of the Avicnltural Magazine. The date can only be fixed

approximately, and not exactly, for the following reason. I was partly



* Avic. Mag., Ser. II., Vol. III., pp. 263 & 346. (1905).



