NOVITATES ZOOI/OGICAE XXV. 1918. 63 



369. Bonasia albignlaris Brehm = Tetrastes honasia rwpestria. 



Bonasia aibigularis Brehm, Vogdfang, p. 262 (1855 — " Kamtschatka "). 



The type is a specimen marked S ad., spring, Kamtschatka, brought home 

 by TUesius. I see no reason why this specimen should not be a female of 

 T. h. rupestris. I expect that the statement " S " is erroneous — a small 

 original (?) label says nothing about the sex, but only: "43 Haselhuhn, 

 Kamtschatka," on the other side " 162." Nobody has yet found a Hazelgrouse 

 in Kamtschatka, and. if one occurred there, it would hardly look quite like the 

 female of a German " Haselhuhn." The label has most likely been changed 

 by some error. 



*370. Perdix rubra inteicedens A. E. Brehm = Alectoris rufa intercedens. 



Perdix rubra intercedens A. E. Brehm, Allg. De'utsche Naturh. Zeit. 1857. p. 472 (" Sudspania"). 



Type : ? ad., Malaga, 22.x. 1856. A. E. Brehm leg. 



Formerly I, and I believe all other ornithologists, have supposed that only 

 one form of Alectoris rufa was found in Spain, but this is quite incorrect. While 

 a paler form, intercedens, inhabits southern Spain (Malaga, Almeria, Murcia, 

 Valencia, Madrid), probably north to the Siprra Guaderrama, and southern 

 Portugal, another very different, darker and brighter coloured form (Alectoris 

 rufa hisfanica Seoane) replaces it in Northern and North-Western Spain, i.e. in 

 Galicia and Asturia, and possibly south to the Sierra Guaderrama, Sierra de 

 Gredos and Gata — very likely also Northern Portugal to the Sierra da Estrella ; 

 but only four skins in the British Museum could be compared by myself. 



371. Peristera intercedens Brehm = Streptopelia decaocto. 



Peristera intercedens Brehm, Vogelfang, p. 258 (1855 — " Nordaf rika," srrore. The specimen came 

 probably from India). 



Type : " ? ? aestate." No indication of collector, etc. 



There are thus about 371 birds in the Brehm Collection which should, in my 

 opinion, be considered as the true and genuine types of the describers. Out of 

 these it seems to me that only about 43 names can " stand," and even the 

 closest study of local forms will not alter this very materially. This is not very 

 cheerful, and possibly the record for the proportion of synonyms in ornithology. 

 Many synonyms, however, have recently also been created by G. M. Mathews 

 for Australian birds and by American and Russian ornithologists, who very 

 often were insufficiently acquainted with European birds. If, for example, 

 an American author compares a new Hazelgrouse with " the European species," 

 the differentiating diagnosis is useless, because there are two very distinct 

 forms of Hazelgrouse in Europe, and in other cases descriptions have 

 clearly been made while the author was unacquainted with the seasonal 

 changes of the species he was writing about. Of course we all make mistakes, 

 because " errare humanum est," but our science has advanced enormously since 

 the times of C. L. Brehm, and many mistakes which were pardonable, and some- 

 times almost unavoidable, between 1820 and 1860, can now more easily be 

 avoided and should be judged much more severely in the twentieth century. 



