237 
1872.] F. Stoliczka — -Mammals and Birds inhabiting Kaclih. 
278. Drcituirtis* aebiricttts, Hodgs. Very common. 
Average of four specimens, young and old : bill 0 7 to 0'8 ; wing 5 '4 
to 5’65 ; tail 5'8 to 6'4, tarsus 0’8 inch. 
I have never seen a herd of either cattle, or sheep, or goats, without a 
number of these birds accompanying it ; they start with the herd in the 
morning and return with it in the evening. 
The specific name macrocercus is restricted for the Java species. 
292. Leucocerca aureola, Less. = albofrontata, Frank. Very rare. 
361. Petrocossypiius ctayeus. Bare. 
365. I’r.ANESTicvs atuooulajus. Bare. 
(Comp. Journ. A. S. B., 1868, vol. xxxvii, Pt. II, p 35. ) 
Bill at front 06 to 0'7 ; wing 5 3 to 54 ; tail 4- to 41, tarsus 125. 
385. Ptctoris srffKNsrs. Very rare. 
Bill 0'43 ; wing 2 ’55 ; tail 3 7; tarsus 1 inch. 
438. Chatorhea caudata. Extremely common. 
459. Otocampsa leccotts. Very common. 
Wing 3’1 to 3'4 ; tail 3’2 to 3'5 ; tarsus 0 75 to 0-8 inch. 
462. Pycnonotus chrysoreuoides, Lafr. — pusillus et pseudocafer, 
Blyth. Very common. 
467. Iora Zeylanica. Very common in low tree jungle. 
Size the same as that given by Jerdon. Males and females had exactly 
the same colouring, during the winter, but no blade above, the hind head 
and back are, however, in most specimens blackish green. In this stage they 
appear only to differ from typhia by their triflingly smaller size. (Compare 
Hume, Jour. A. S. B., vol. xxxix, pi. ii, p. 117, and Stoliczka, ibid, p. 310). 
480. Thamstobia cambayensis. 
(Comp. Journ. A. S. B„ 1868, vol. xxxvii, Pt. II, p. 40.) 
Extremely common throughout the country. The size is exactly the 
same as that of the southern form, known under the name fulicata in India. 
Male specimens which I shot in February had the upper plumage decidedly 
rather darker, in fact almost black, tinged with blackish brown, while speci- 
mens which I shot in November and December are almost entirely brown 
above, but the upper tail coverts are in all greenish glossy black. It seems 
to me clear that the two forms, as presently distinguished, merely represent 
seasonal or local faces of plumage of the one and same species. 
I observe that Gray (Hand-list, I, p. 211) unites them under the name 
Cambayensis, reserving the name fulicata, Lath., for a South African species. 
* This generic name is retained by G. R. Gray, and Bhuchanga of Hodgson 
considered as a synonym of it ; but if the birds of the type of D. Umgicmdatus should 
at all be distinguished in a separate group from those of the type of D. fmcatus, 
Gm., Hodgson’s name should be retained as a subgenus for them, though I almost 
doubt that a real necessity exists for it. 
