(30 
vieillot’s willow wakblei?. 
for indicating in the dearest manner, those essential 
points of difference which must prevent any confusion 
of the species — or perhaps T should rather say race — 
in future. In a work of singular beauty and elegance, 
the “Iconographique Oimithologique,” M. Des Murs has 
collected all the evidence that could be adduced upon 
the subject, and has given an excellent figure of the 
bird, contrasting it on the same sheet with 8. Mppolais, 
(Latham.) I have copied M. Des Murs’ figure for the 
following reasons: — First, specimens of the true Sylvia 
icier in a are rare and difficult to meet with; and 
secondly, as I consider the species stands upon the 
testimony collected by M. Des Murs, it is only right 
I should give a figure of the bird indicated by him. 
Further testimony has been offered to the correctness 
of M. Gerbe’s description by the distinguished naturalist, 
Blasius, both in Naumannia,” and in Count Miihle’s 
‘‘Monograph.” It is better, therefore, that we should 
distinctly know which is the bird meant by M. Gerbe 
himself, rather than trust to specimens which after all 
may not prove to be correct species. 
M. Gerbe informs us that it is very difficult to dis- 
tinguish Sylvia icterina from Sylvia hiyypolais, the 
mppolais polyylotta of continental writers, the Latham’s 
Pettychaps, or Melodious Willow Wren which is figured 
and described as a British species in Morris’s “British 
Birds,” and Yarrell’s supplement, from a specimen re- 
corded in the “Zoologist,” 2228, as having been cap- 
tured in England. We have the two birds the same 
size, colour, and form, but they may be distinguished 
by the following characters. 
In Sylvia hippolais the wing in repose does not reach 
half way to the tail, and the first primary is equal or 
nearly equal to the fifth. In S. icterina the wing is 
