254 
Annals or the Transvaal Museum. 
Table of Measurements of Rhinopomastus cyanomelas. 
Locality. 
Males. 
Females. 
Wing. 
Tail. 
Oil- 
men. 
Wing. 
Tail. 
Cul- 
men. 
Windhuk, Damaraland 
Ill 
132 
47 
100 
121 
40 
Okahandja, ,, 
115 
129 
46 -5 
— 
— 
— 
,, ,, 
(juv.) 110 
128 
34 
— 
• — ■ 
— 
Barkly West, C.P 
111 
? 
45 
107 
121 
40 -5 
Brandfort, O.F.S 
115 
135 
50 
103 
120 
37 
Bloemfontein. O.F.S. . . 
110 
131 
47 
— . 
— 

Rustenburg, Transvaal 
113 
141 
50 
. — 
— 
— 
„ ,, 
(sexed $) 112 
126 
49 
— 
— i 
— 
Matlabas, Waterberg . . 
— 
— - 
103 
122 
39 
Rietspruit, „ 
118 
145 
46 
— 
— ■ 
— 
99 99 • • 
(sexed $) 112 
126 
46 
- — • 
— 
— • 
Pongola River 
112 
130 
48 
103 
116 
37 -5 
Moorddrift 
— 
— 
— - 
101 
121 
42 
Pienaars River 
Ill 
132 
49 
105 
121 
42 

119 
135 
52 
— . 
— 
— 
Marabastad 
111 
145 
42 
— 
— . 
— 
Blaauwberg 
115 
134 
48 
104 
120 
36 

(juv.) Ill 
140 
39 
105 
125 
34 
Koedoes River 
114 
165 
50 
105 
136 
40 
Thabina River 
114 
155 
47 
— . 
— 
— 
Mapagone 
118 
151 
49 
— 
— 
— 
Hectorspruit 
114 
157 
45 
106 
146 
37 
99 
— • 
— 
— 
104 
135 
39 
„ 
— . 
— ■ 
— . 
103 
138 
37 
Louws Creek 
112 
155 
45 
(juv.) 105 
105 
29 
„ 
(sexed $) 113 
164 
46 
— 
— 
— 
Weenen, Natal 
— • 
— 
— • 
(juv.) 100 
137 
39 
Beira, P.E.A 
117 
176 
46 



Boror, P.E.A 
113 
182 
42 
— . 
— . 
— 
99 
111 
185 
45 
' 
— 
— 
Bagamojo, G.E.A 
— 
— • 
— ■ 
(juv.) 101 
150 + 
34 -5 
Mero Forest, G.E.A 
117 
180 
45 
106 
152 
32 
At p. 303, Grant states that the typical Caprimulgus natalensis occurs 
only in Natal and Zululand, and I may therefore here record a specimen 
from Zoutpansberg, collected by the late J. v. 0. Marais. 
At p. 304, Grant retains the name of C. natalensis chadensis, not 
because there is a recognizable difference between the alleged races, but 
because a gap of 2000 miles separates the places where the types were 
obtained ! Why then has he not given a new name to the short-tailed 
specimens of Rhinopomastus cyanomelas from Uganda ? 
At p. 440 Grant refers to Tricholaema affinis as a distinct species, 
having apparently overlooked the correction made by Neumann (Journ. 
fur Orn., 1910, p. 197), in which he pointed out that this supposed species 
represents the immature plumage of T. leucomelan. 
At p. 428, Grant rejects the name of Centropus pymi, mihi, on the 
assumption that it represents the young of C. hurchelli ; but as he has not 
