58 
Birds of Celebes: Falconidae. 
Brooks, t. c. 466, 467; Hume, 1. c. note; Legge, B. Ceylon, 82; Scully, Str. F. 
1881, X, 95; Oates, S. F. 1882, X, 181; id., B. Brit. Burmah 1883, H, 202—204; 
Seebohm, British B. I, 1883, 80; Gurney, Diurn. B. of Prey 1884, 80, 81; 
Brooks, Ibis 1884, 238; Menzbier, t. c. 311, 312; W. Bias., Ztschr. ges. Orn. 1885, 
230—232; Brooks, Ibis 1885, 385,386; Tristr., Cat. ColL B. 1889, 63, 64; 
Zaroudnoi, Bull. Ac. Imp. Mosc. 1889, 755; Oates, Hume’s Xests and Eggs 1890, 
IH, 173 — 177; Blanford, Faun. Brit. Ind. B. HE 1895, 374 — 378. 
The controversy referred to above, after having lasted over a period of a 
quarter of a century and j)roduced written matter enough to fill an octavo volume, 
remains almost as far as ever from a satisfactory settlement. It still needs years 
of close and accurate observations, agreeing, moreover, better in themselves than 
is at present the case, before any decided opinion upon the Indian Kite- 
question can be formed. The points in dispute may be stated as follows: on 
the one side Mr. Hume and others maintain that there are three forms of 
Black Kite in India — a big one [M. melanotis T. & S.), a middle-sized one 
[M. govinda Sykes) and a sinall one (Af. afjinis Gld.); the other side, which 
may be identified with Mr. Brooks’ name, affirms that the middle-sized and the 
small Kite of Hume are one and the same, and that the big Kite — and not 
this species — is the true Milvus govinda Sykes. 
Taking first into consideration the question of transferring the name, 
M. govinda^ to the large Kite, we believe that no sound and sufficient reason 
can be urged to necessitate this step. The only^ strong argument in its favour 
is, that one of Sykes’ types in the possession of Mr. Brooks is undoubtedly 
a specimen of the large Kite. But the weight of this argument is counterpoised 
by the fact that Sykes was not aware that there were two races of Kite in 
India, and that at least one other specimen said to be a tyjDe is in preservation 
elsewhere (see Legge 1. c.) and belongs to the smaller, commoner, race. This 
in itself would be sufficient reason for declining to make an inconvenient change 
in nomenclature, but, beymnd this, though the original description ap>j)lies equally 
well to either form as regards coloration, the accompanying measurement of 
the tail (11 in.) betoken that it was made from a small specimen of the smaller 
Kite. Mr. Brooks urges that the body — 26 in., the only other measurement 
given — is that of the large Kite, but there is reason to believe that these mea- 
surements were not made from a freshly killed specimen, but from a skin, in 
which case — though that of the tail holds good — that of the body is, of 
course, of no value whatever as a discriminative character^). That the description 
was made from a skin is proved first from the fact, as Mr. Hume has pointed 
out, that Sykes’ paper was written in England; and, secondly, that no naturalist 
would be likely to take the measurement of the tail alone of a specimen before 
skinning (which can be done equally well afterwards), and neglect to note down 
the sex, colours of soft parts and expanse, which cannot be ascertained at any 
1) Of two skins of Loriculus stigmatus before us one measures 123 mm and the other 187 mm, or half 
as long again as the former, though in the flesh no doubt they were about equal in size. ^ 
