Genus — HYP UR OLE PIS. 
Hypurolepis Gould, Birds Asia, Vol. I., text to pi. 32 
(pt. xx. ), 1868. Type (by monotypy) : H. domicola =H. javanica Sparrman. 
Herse Gray, List Genera Birds, 2nd ed., p. 11, Sept. 
1841. Type (by original designation) : H. taitensis Lesson. 
Not — 
Herse Oken, Lehrb. Nat., Vol. III., pt. i, p. 762, 1815. 
The birds of this genus agree with those of Hirundo generally in coloration, 
but are noticeable in their stronger, heavier, broader bills and in their regular 
forked tails, the outer feathers not being extremely attenuated. 
It may be remarked that Gould included the Welcome Swallow in this 
genus, but I do not understand his classification, as though there is not 
much difference between Hypurolepis and Hirundo I should consider the 
Welcome Swallow almost typical of the latter genus. 
Townsend and Wetmore {Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard , Vol. LXIII., 
p. 201, Aug. 1919) recording Hypurolepis tahitica (Gmelin) from the Tonga 
Islands, observe : “ The large, broadened bill, characteristic of the genus 
Hypurolepis Gould, reaches its maximum development in this species, and 
appears remarkably strong and heavy for a Swallow.” 
HYPUROLEPIS JAVANICA Sparrman. 
HYPUROLEPIS JAVANICA FRONTALIS. EASTERN SWALLOW. 
Hirundo javanica Sparrman, Mus. Carlson, fasc. iv., pi. 100, 1789 : Java. 
Hirundo frontalis Quoy et Gaimard, Voy. de “l’Astrol.,” Zool., Vol. I., p. 204 (pref. June 
29), 1830 : Dorey Harbour, New Guinea. 
Hirundo javanica Sharpe, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. X., p. 142, 1885; Mathews, 
Handl. Birds Austral., p. 60, 1908. 
Chelidon javanica frontalis Mathews, Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 300, 1912. 
Hypurolepis javanica frontalis Mathews, List Birds Austr., p. 164, 1913 ; id.. Austral 
Av. Rec., Vol. II., p. 107, 1914. 
This species differs from H. neoxena in the generic characters above noted, viz., short tail 
and broader, bigger bill, but the coloration is the same. The species has been 
procured at the Aru Islands. 
This was added to the Australian List as there were specimens in the 
British Museum said to have been procured by Cockerell at Cape York, 
Queensland. As all Cockerell records are presumed to be untrustworthy 
until confirmed, this species must be rejected until reliable evidence in the 
shape of well-authenticated shot Australian specimens are secured. 
VOL. VIII. 
41 
