Bonaparte in his * Conspectus,” /. с., for reasons not at all admissible, changed the name 
of boschi, given by Müller and Schlegel, to elegans; and although some authors have 
followed him, the only result has been to increase the synonymy of the species. 
Temminck, in his text facing plate 591, under the name of Pitta irena describes this 
species, but has made an error in the coloration of the underparts. He says, “depuis le 
bec jusqu'aux couvertures inférieures de la queue sont d'un bleu de roi éclatant et lustré.” 
The blue of the underparts commences at the lower margin of the white throat and not 
at the bill; otherwise his description is sufficiently recognizable. 
Beavan, 2. c., says that at the base of Zwagaben, a limestone rock 2000 feet high, at 
Moulmein, а Pitta inhabits the bamboo-jungles. The specimen obtained was much 
spotted on the breast, probably a young bird, and he referred it to Р. eyanura (Р. guaiana). 
It 1s more likely, if a Eueichla at all, to be K. boschi, and I have placed it among the 
synonyms with a query. 
Cuvier in his edition of the ‘ Règne Animal, 1829, /. c., cited a Pitta superciliosa, but 
gave no description nor any indieation what the species was nor whence it came. It was 
merely a MS. name given to a specimen in the Paris Museum. In Guérin's * Iconographie 
du Règne Animal,’ Cuvier’s name is repeated and a figure given of a female P. boschi; 
nothing is said, however, about the collection in which the specimen was, but Java is given. 
as its habitat, in which island P. boschi is not found, it being the native place of the allied 
species P. guaiana. Lesson, pe 1841, /. c., refers to this bird figured by Guérin, and 
remarks that the drawing was probably made from a specimen in the Paris Museum, 
obtained by M. Diard in Java! The locality is evidently incorrect. As Cuvier never 
described the species, his name is a nomen nudum, as is the Pitta atricapilla attributed to 
him, but which never seems even to have been printed until Lesson put it into his 
list, after another species had been already described and figured by Quoy and Gaimard 
under the ne name. | 
It is а question whether а name published with a recognizable coloured figure of the 
species but without a description should not stand if it has priority. But in this instance 
of Guérin and his Myothera superciliosa, Y cannot ascertain if it was published before the 
deseription of Müller and Schlegel, and so prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, 
and retain the name by which the bird has been always known. 
The Plates represent the adult male, female, and young. 
