MIMOCICHLA SCHISTACEA, Baird. 
SLATY-GREY THRUSH. 
Mimocichla schistacea, Baird, Review Amer. B. p. 37 (1864); Gundlach, J. f. O. 1872, p. 407; 
Cory, List В. West Ind. р. 5 (1885); id. В. West Indies, p. 19 (1889) ; id. Cat. West-Indian 
B. p. 122 (1892). 
Mimocichla rubripes, pt., Seebohm, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. v. p. 283 (1881). 
Џ 
M. schistacea, alis extus paulld clarioribus: loris et gutture toto nigris : mento et genis anticis albis, corpore 
reliquo subtus cinerascenti-griseo : abdomine imo et subcaudalibus albis. 
Тнів species was united to M. rubripes by Mr. Seebohm in the “Catalogue of Birds, and it is only 
quite recently that it has been discovered to be distinct, though Dr. Gundlach, the celebrated Cuban 
ornithologist, averred as long ago as 1872 that M. schistacea was not identical with M. rubripes, but 
was confined to the eastern side of the island. Count von Berlepsch has kindly presented to the 
Museum a specimen of M. schistacea, which he very rightly calls a “species opt.” It is in fact one 
of the grey-bellied species, and is allied to M. plumbea of the Bahamas, but has a longer white 
moustachial stripe and white under tail-coverts. 
Dr. Gundlach has given the following note in 1872 (1. с.) :—* The common name M. rubripes 
is applied to this species also. At the time of writing there are probably only three specimens 
known in Museums, two of which are in the Smithsonian Institution at Washington and the 
third in that of the Philadelphia Academy. The two first-mentioned birds were obtained by 
my friend and comrade, the well-known authority on Cuban Botany, Mr. Charles Wright, in the 
province of Guantanamo.” Dr. Gundlach says that he neglected to collect specimens during his 
stay in Eastern Cuba, as he mistook the birds for М. rubripes, and did not require any specimens 
of the latter species. The outbreak of the revolution in 1872 made it too dangerous for travellers to 
approach the Eastern Provinces, and he was therefore unable to determine whether M. schistacea 
was confined to Eastern Cuba only. He believed, however, that it was found in the neighbourhood 
of Santiago de Cuba, near Guantanamo and the rest of the east side of the island. On the 28th of 
February he procured a nest and three eggs close to the above-mentioned town. They differed very 
much from those of M. rubripes from the western side of the island. Тһе female he saw on the nest 
he took to be M. rubripes, but it was doubtless M. schistacea. The eggs were smaller and the spots 
very minute, and not so large as in those of M. rubripes. 
M. schistacea may be briefly described as being very similar to M. plumbea, but of a darker 
slate-grey colour above, with the broad slate-coloured margins to the wing-coverts darker and 
scarcely different in shade from the back; in M. plumbea they are much paler grey than the back. 
The underparts are of about the same slaty-grey colour in both species, but the lower abdomen is 
white, and there is also a tuft of white plumes on each side of the lower flanks. These are slightly 
indicated in M. plumbea, but in a less degree than in M. schistacea, which is, moreover, easil y 
distinguished by the white under tail-coverts, which have black bases. The bill is of a reddish 
