248 
Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 
Sclater’s remarks upon the size and plumage of the specimens Grant 
collected at Klein Letaba and Beira (to which Grant draws attention in 
support of his statement that the colour is merely a “ phase ”) shows that 
those specimens were probably referable to “ intermedia ” and “ pusilla” 
respectively. Every one to whom I have shown these specimens in the 
Transvaal Museum has concurred in my opinion that they should be 
recognized as well-marked races. Grant has not, moreover, indicated 
where the “ series in the National Collection” were obtained; but it is 
natural to conclude from his free use of the term “ British East Africa ” 
in an ambiguous sense in several instances, and from his statement at 
p. 253 that the two specimens from the Nakwai Hills are both in good 
clean plumage and agree perfectly with specimens from “ South Africa,” 
that he has not found it convenient to take into account the different 
zoological zones found within such large tracts of country as “ South 
Africa,” “ British East Africa,” “ German East Africa,” etc. When 
classifying this and other birds with which I am here concerned, it is a 
pity that Grant did not bear in mind a rule which he himself acknowledges 
in regard to the classification of subspecies, for I find at p. 260 the 
following remarks in regard to Poicephalus meyeri : “ Though these parrots 
vary to a considerable amount individually and no single character of 
a single specimen can be fixed down, yet when examined collectively and 
the series laid out geographically, average differences exist which preclude 
all these parrots being placed under one name. Therefore, six of the 
described races are recognizable, and (perhaps unfortunately) I have been 
compelled to describe a seventh.” Exactly so ; but it so happens that 
in the case of the owls it is possible to allocate a single specimen to a certain 
race, and a series is not required to justify the separation. It seems clear, 
however, that there is not a large series of these owls from South Africa 
in the National Collection, otherwise Grant would have done as he has done 
in other cases, given short diagnoses of the subspecies instead of merelv 
mentioning their names and distribution. Under the circumstances, 
I think I am justified in taking exception to his unwarranted action in 
rejecting the names of the well-marked South African subspecies. 
At p. 271, Grant makes the following statements in regard to Lophoceros 
nasutus nasutus : — “ The range of this race appears to extend from Senegal 
to the Niger, eastwards to north-east Africa and south to British East 
Africa ; its place in Damaraland and Nyasaland, southward to the Yaai 
River, is taken by L. n. epirhinus Sund.” 
“ In the Journ. fur Orn., 1905, p. 440, Erlanger separates the Arabian 
and north Abyssinian bird under the name of A. n. forskallii Hempr. and 
Ehr. . . . and certainly two £ specimens before me from south Arabia 
have larger bills and are generally larger than specimens of true L. n. 
nasutus. However, one from Geragi, White Nile, is identical in every 
way with the Arabian birds : so until further material conies to hand it 
cannot be definitely settled as to how far this name can hold good. 
“ Since the above has been written, I have seen the description of 
Lophoceros nasutus maraisi Roberts ... which is similar in size and 
colour to L. n. nasutus, but smaller,* having a wing in the <$ of 202 mm. 
* Though I am half Irish, I am not responsible for this “ bull.”- — -A. R. 
