

1869.] of Central^ Western and Southern India. 181 



The specimen I obtained, a female, has the first long primary only 

 •J^- inch shorter than the second, otherwise it agrees pretty well with 

 Jerdon's description. It, however, differs from the Calcutta specimens 

 in the Asiatic Society's Museum, not only in the proportions of the 

 wing, but also in being much whiter below, and in having a distinctly 

 defined whitish eyebrow, with a strong white line extending to the 

 base of the upper mandible. The rump too in the Chanda speci- 

 men is distinctly paler than the back, not so in those from Bengal.*' 



516. AcrOCephaluS dumetorum, Blyth. Not very rare 

 about Chanda, in bushes. I also shot it at Khandalla on the top of the 

 "Western Ghats. I never saw it near water. 



568. PhyllOSCOpUS illdiCUS, Jerdon. I obtained two or 

 three specimens of this bird, and saw it frequently in the low scattered 

 jungle between Nagpur and Chanda, but not in the forests south and 

 east of the latter place. It is a most active little bird, clinging to 

 stems, and running up and down them in all directions like a Sitta. 



The other Phylloseopince which I obtained about Nagpur and 

 Chanda were Phyllopneuste rama, Phylloscopus viridanus, P. nitidus, 

 P. lugubris ? and Reguloides super ciliosus. Of Sylviince I shot Sylvia 

 orphea and S. curruca. 



Family Paridje. 

 645. ParuS cinereilS, Vieillot. The specimens of this bird 

 which I shot in Central India differed so much from Jerdon's measure- 

 ments and description that I could not but believe, that they belonged 

 to a distinct species. On comparing them, however, with Himalayan 

 specimens, I found them perfectly identical, and there was no per- 

 ceptible difference between them, and Gould's figures in the Birds of 

 Asia. It struck me, as this bird is very abundant on the Nilgiris, 

 that Jerdon might have taken his measurements from the race occur- 

 ring there, which would consequently be much larger than the plains 

 species, and on obtaining the Nilgiri form, I found that this was the 

 case, except that the lengths given for the beak and tarsus must be 

 misprints. 



* Other specimens from the neighbourhood of Calcutta, winch I have seen 

 since this was written, exactly resemble that from the Central Provinces, and I 

 find that in that specimen, the proportions of the primaries in one wing differ 

 slightly from those in the other. 



