266 Proceeding* of the Asiatic Society. [Sept. 



No. 140, b, is pretty clearly the male of Rhyticeros plicatus. Dr. 

 Cantor states that in this species the male has the bill (greenish or 

 yellowish) white, iris pale crimson, gular pouch rich gamboge 

 yellow, feet blackish, while the female has the iris golden 

 Vandyke, eyelids brick colour, pouch dirty azure with two trans- 

 verse black lines, &c. 



The male plicatus has the medial part of the crown, the occiput 

 and nape, a sort of rufous bay, the sides of the head and neck and 

 front of the latter glistening white, more or less tinged with yellow. 



The female has the head and neck black, and is smaller in size. 



There can be no doubt, I believe, that Major Austen's No. 146#. 

 and 1467?, are female and male of the same species. 



Then his No. 23 \a, Anthreptes? is unmistakeably Chalcoparia 

 Singalensis, Gm., Anthreptes phoenicotis, Blyth, one of the very com- 

 monest of the Nectar inidce, in Tippera, whence I have received 

 very numerous specimens. 



Major Austen says, he obtained two specimens of Serilophus 

 rubropygius, one having a fine colour of shining white. One would 

 almost suspect that this latter must be S. lunatus, Gould. I have 

 had at least 20 specimens of each species before me, at one time 

 or another, and so far as my experience goes, Gould is quite correct 

 in saying that rubropygius is distinguished from lunatus (amongst 

 other things) "by the almost total absence of the lunate mark on 

 the sides of the neck," and again in stating that in rubropygius 

 " the lunate mark on the sides of the neck is obsolete in some 

 individuals, and is not very conspicuous at any time in the adult." 



The specimen of the so-called Ephialtes Lempigi does, if correctly 

 described, most certainly not belong to that species, which is never, I 

 believe, chestnut. Temminck's PI. Col. 99 is a very fair representa- 

 tion of Lempigi, which is doubtless often rufous, but always a brown ' 

 and not a chestnut rufous. The wing also is too small. Probably, 

 this specimen belonged to E. Mautis, Bon., a species which does 

 occur in Burma, and which is generally confounded with Lempigi, al- 

 though Bonaparte points out the leading distinctions clearly enough 

 in the Conspectus. 



Ilenicurus nigrifrons is of course nothing but the young of 

 Henicurus Scouleri. 



