LEUCOPOLIUS. 
pi. LX,, figured some of the rarer eggs, and his first sentence reads : “ The 
great assistance which may be derived in determining the natural affinities 
of birds by a study of comparative oology has been ably exposed by 
M. des Murs,” but, however, did not follow up this comment with an 
active contribution. 
A casual examination of the eggs in the British Museum emphasizes the 
carelessness of oologists : as there, masquerading as the eggs of “ Ochihodroynus 
geoffroyi,'^^ are eggs of the Painted Snipe, as previously noted. I also find 
that the eggs of the African Painted Snipe again appear as ^^JEgialitis pallida,^^ 
while eggs determined as “ Oxyechus tricollaris ” may be quite wrongly so 
attached, as they very closely resemble those allotted to A. pecuaria. These 
latter seem to be accurately named, as they are of the same peculiar type as 
those of A. sanctcehelence — ^which must be right, as this is the only Plover 
breeding on Saint Helena. The peculiar coloration of these latter seem to 
confirm the accuracy of admitting the subgenus Helencegialus, but they further 
point to its being of generic value. The same abnormal style of egg characterises 
other forms, which will be noted under the next genus. If the eggs named 
“ Oxyechus tricollaris ” be correctly identified, then it cannot be classed with 
Oxyechus whose eggs are very different. The eggs of “A. falJclandica ” are 
quite characteristic and differ noticeably from any of the eggs of the other 
species of Leucopolius. The eggs of the species above allotted to Leucopolius 
all have a fairly strong resemblance, the most aberrant being those named 
A. peroni which agrees with the aberrant features of the bird. The eggs of 
Anarhynchus frontalis somewhat recall those of L. alexandrinus, though here 
again, in the British Museum, eggs of Thinornis novcB-zelandice have also 
been wrongly attached. 
A* 
115 
