238 On some of the Scolopacidce of Nepal. [Aug. 
woodcock and snipe, it may be remarked, that the woodcock’s beak is much shorter 
in proportion to its size 3 , thicker at the base, and more unifoi mly attenuated 
to the tip ; that the upper mandible is less rounded, or, more cut out by the groove; 
that the tip of the bill is more obtuse and less rugose ; and the division of the 
mandibles, at their tips, more abrupt. The nostrils are alike in both genera. The 
tarsi and toes of the woodcock are smaller in proportion to its size. The wings of 
the woodcock are fuller, and have the longest flags nearly an inch shorter than the 
longest quills. Lastly, the woodcock’s tail consists invariably of 12 uniform, soft 
feathers. 
On the contrary, the snipe’s bill is longer, less thickened at the base, fuller on 
the sides, less uniformly attenuated— there being a decided thickening of the bill 
near the tip — the points of both mandibles, more acute and less abruptly sundered; 
the rugosity more marked. 
The legs and toes of the snipe are longer, though the latter are similarly cleft to 
the origin, as in the genus Scolopax. The wings of the snipe are more angular, 
the first and last feathers being equally long, and the centrals very much shorter 
than either. Both genera have the first quill usually longest— but the 2d some- 
times equal to it. And, to conclude, the snipe has the tail variously feathered, 
both as to the number and character of the quills ; the laterals being, f° r 
tnost part, very narrow and hard. Between the two genera, besides the remar ' 
able distinctions of manners and size, there are two unerring diagnostics-whin 
are, that the tibiee of the woodcock are clothed entirely, and that the nail of t e 
hind toe is truncated : whereas, the snipe’s tibiee are partially naked, and the nai 
of his hind toe is sharp and projecting as in the foretoes. I should not hesitate 
to characterize the woodcock, in his manners, as a solitary woodlander— the snipe> 
in his, as a gregarious tenant of the open country. 
If these distinctions be accurately drawn, both the birds about to be descn e 
should, I conceive, be assigned, upon the whole, to the genus Gallinago ; thou- 
both of them, in the material points of manners and size, approach the woodcoc ’ 
almost in the same degree that they recede from the snipe — being, in truth, a o 
midway between the two genera in both respects ;,,and though, besides, one 
them has wings of a non-descript character, differing from those ot both g enel ’ 
and resembling entirely the wings of the genus Rhynchcea. 
Gallinago Solitaria ? Solitary Snipe ? Hab. Nepal. 
The subject of the following description was, I believe, discovered man) ) ea 
back, in the Tarai 4 , or woody and marshy belt of land, confining these mounta 
3 I never found a woodcock’s bill exceed three inches, and that length is e( I u 
by the bills of very many snipes, . 
4 It, however, is only a casual visitant of the Tarai ; its peculiar habitat^^ 
these mountains, from which it may be supposed frequent! y to issue 
tracts, at their immediate base, during- the coldest months of the year 
Five ) 
ear 5 
-- »■»« ““"“S 7 -- f the sp« cieS 
have now elapsed since we first found it here. We have killed several o ^ 
every succeeding year, in our excursions for the purpose of shooting cocks. 
stuffed specimens have, since the period of the discovery, been communicate ^ 
ous individuals — and amongst others, to Mr. Smith of Arrah, who has p u ^ 
pretty drawing of the species, as correct as any drawing done from a sing ^ 
specimen can he. I only speak conjecturally, when I say, that this is the s P eU ^ 
covered some years back in the Tarai, and still occasionally found tlieie. ^ 
possibly, therefore, the bird is entirely new. Nay, it is possible, that the Tara 
may be identical, not with this species, but with the one subsequently es 
