336 NOVITATES ZOOLOGICAE XXIII. 1916, 



There is ranch trath ia what Whitehead said, but not all his comparisons are 

 correct, as he evidently knew only some of the Eastern forms of the genus, which 

 have a crest somewhat similar to that of Callaeops. All species, which have been 

 included in Tchitrea, however, have not such a crest of greatly lengthened feathers, 

 and the feathers of the forehead, though longer than in Arses {Monarcha), are 

 almost as "velvety-pile-like" in some of the African species. Also the central 

 rectrices are not always so enormously lengthened as in the Indian and most African 

 species, and in the adult males of Tchitrea tricolor the tail is almost exactly as in 

 the type of Callaeops periophthalmica, which would thus only differ from all forms 

 of Tchitrea in having the ring or " wattle " of bare skin round the eyes. 



It is curious that the nest geographical neighbour has not been compared by 

 Ogilvie-Grant and Whitehead, viz. Xeocephus {Zeocephus auct., but spelt with 

 an X by Bonaparte !) rufus. This bird with its striking rufous-red plumage all over 

 inhabits the Philippine Islands, and it is strange that it should not have been 

 compared before all others inhabiting the Indo-Malayan, African, and Papuan 

 zoogeographical subregions, for it is thereal nearest relative. Not only has it a tail 

 like that of Callaeops, though sometimes longer, a crest, though much less long and 

 less fall, but it has the naked ring round the eye ! This latter is rather obscure in 

 X. cyanescens from Palawan, but very conspicuous in adult males of X rufus rufus 

 from Lnzon, but it is wider under the eye (narrower above), while in Callaeops it is 

 equally wide all round. There is therefore very little structural difference between 

 Xeocephus and Callaeops, and only the smaller bill and full long-feathered 

 occipital crest of the latter can be an excuse for its generic separation from 

 Xeocephus. 



It is very strange that Callaeops periophthalmica. has remained unique to this 

 day. It must have been shot not very far from Manila, and the efforts of the 

 industrious American ornithologists who have been working for years in the Philip- 

 pine Islands should have brought it to light again ere this. It may be a rare bird, 

 but we can hardly suspect that it has become extinct. There is another peculiar 

 bird, supposed to have lived on the island of Panay, Philippines, which is apparently 

 extinct; that is Sonnerat's "Veuve de 1'isle Panay," named Emberiza panay ensis by 

 Gmelin in 1789, and three years before Emberiza signata by Scopoli. I very much 

 doubt, however, if this bird ever lived in the Philippines, and am inclined to 

 think it must be one of the many birds which formerly inhabited Mauritius — 

 a suggestion already mentioned by Reich enow, who fully treated the history of 

 " Emberiza signata " Scopoli, in the " Verh. V. Intern. Omith.-Kongress,'' 

 pp. 971-974, and figured the specimen in the Berlin Museum which is supposed 

 to be that lost bird. There is- no other Philippine bird of which we know that 

 it is extinct. 



The literature of. Callaeops periophthalmica is as follows : 

 Callaeops periophthalmica Ogilvie-Grant, Bull. B. 0. Club, iv. p. xviii (January 

 1895— Luzon. Original Latin description) ; id., Ibis 1895, p. 253 (English 

 description); id., t.c. p. 275 (Reprint from Bull. B.C. Club); Whitehead, 2&'sl899, 

 p. 108 ; Sharpe, Hand-list B. iii. p. 263 (1901) ; McGregor and Worcester, Hand- 

 list B. Philippine Is., p. 94 (1906) ; McGregor, Manual Phil. B., ii. p. 464 

 (1910). 



