778 
Birds of Celebes; Charadriidae. 
The Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is most similar to T.pectoralis {Saj) of America, 
which differs in having a slightly longer bill, the middle tail-feathers 6.3 mm 
longer than the next pair (as against 2.5 mm in acuminata), the belly and under 
tail-coverts pure w'hite in summer, and some other characters carefully pointed 
out by Seebohm, who allows the American bird only suhspecific rank. From 
other Tringae occurring in Celebes, T. acuminata is easily distinguished from 
T. albescens and damascensis by its much larger size. T. crassirostris T. & S., which 
is almost sure to be found in Celebes sooner or later, is very much larger (wing 
178 — 193 mm) than acuminata and has the bill longer than the head. The 
Common Sandpiper may be easily distinguished by the tAvo white bars across 
its wing, and the green-glossed drab colour of its upper surface, the upper parts 
of acuminata resembling those of a I^ark. 
332. TRINGA DAMASCENSIS (Horsf.). 
TiOng-toed Stint. 
a. Totanus damascensis (1) Horsf., Tr. Linn. Soc. 1821, XHl, 192.*) 
h. Tringa minnta (1) Blyth (nec LeisL), Oat. B. Mns. A. S. B. 1849, 270. 
c. Tringa snbminuta (I) Midcl., Sibir. Beise H, pt. 2, 1853, p. 222, t. XIX, f. 6 (foot); 
(2) Schrenck, Eeise Amurl. I, pt. 2, 1860, 424; (8) Prjev., Bowl. Om. Misc. 
1878, m, 90; (4) Legge, B. Ceylon 1880, 889; (5) Oates, B. Brit. Burmali 1883, 
II, 391; (6) Seeb., Ibis 1884, 34; (7) id., Distr. Charadr. 1887, 438; (8) Tacz., 
P. Z. S. 1888, 457; (!)) W. Bias., Omis 1888, 319; (10) Everett, J. Str. Br. B. 
A. S. 1889, 207; (11) Sharpe, Ibis 1890, 143; (12) Seeb., B. Japan 1890, 338; 
(13) Styan, Ibis 1891, 506; (14) De La Touche, Ibis 1892, 499; (15) Tacz., 
Faun. Orn. Sib. Orient. 1893, II, 941; (16) Styan, Ibis 1894, 335. 
d. Actodromas snbminuta (1) Bp., 0. B. 1856, XLIII, 596, Nr. 218. 
Tringa damascensis (1) Swinh., P. Z. S. 1863, 316; (2) id.. Ibis 1863, 413; (3) id.. Ibis 
1864, 420; (4) Schl. , Mus. P.-B., Scolopaces, 1864, 48; (5) Blyth, Ibis 1865, 34; 
(6) Swinh., P. Z. S. 1871, 409; (7) Wald., Tr. Z. S. 1872, VHI, 97; (8) Hume, 
Str. F. 1873, I, 243; (9) id., ib. 1874, II, 482; (10) id., ib. 1875, HI, 182; 
(11) Ball, ib. 1878, VH, 228; (12) Bosenb., Malay. Archip. 1878, 278; (13) W. Bias., 
J. f. 0. 1883, 127; (14) Vorderm., N. T. Ned. Ind. 1883, XLII, 98. 
e. Tringa salina (nec Pall.); (1) Sh. & Dress., B. Europe VII, 33 (1871); (2) Hume, Str. 
F. 1873, I, 242; (3) Legge, t. c. 491; (4) id., ib. 1875, IH, 265. 
f. Actodromas salina (nec Pall.); (1) Salvad., Oat. Ucc. Borneo 1874, 324. 
g. Tringa ruflcollis (nec Pall.); (1) Wald., Tr. Z. S. 1875, IX, 234; (2) Hume, Str. F. 
1878, VI, 461; (3) id., ib. 1878, VH, 228, 487; (4) id., ib. 1879, VHI, 70, 157; 
(5) Seek, Ibis 1879, 26; (6) Oates, Str. F. X, 1882, 240; (7) Hume, ib. 1888, 
XI, 323. 
h. Actodromas damascensis (1) Stejn., Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1885, Nr. 29, p. 116; (2) id., 
Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1887, 130. 
>) It would be impossible to identify this bird after Horsfield’s description with the carefully diagnosed 
Tringa subminnta of von Middendorff with any feeling of security, had not Blyth, who seems to have 
examined Horsfield’s type, stated that they are identical (Ibis 1865, 34). So, too, more recently Sharpe 
(Cat. B. 1896, XXIV, 553, 555). 
