Letters , Extracts from Correspondence , Notices, fyc. 367 
adult birds; but its measurements agree with those of A. gularis 
as given by Prof. Schlegel in the work above cited, p. 33. 
I am, Sir, yours &c., 
J. H. Gurney. 
The following extract is from a letter addressed to the Editor 
by Mr. Elliott Coues :— 
“ I am sorry that you laid so much stress upon what I said 
regarding the range of habitat of Larus smithsonianus as an 
argument in favour of its separation from the European L. ar- 
gentatus. 
“ I most fully agree with you that no species should be sepa¬ 
rated from another unless it can be diagnosed without know¬ 
ing the locality whence it comes; in short, that morphological 
and not geographical differences should be the data upon 
which to found species. I think, however, that range may, in 
some instances, justify us in separating specimens which show', 
in every example, an amount of difference which could not be 
regarded as specific were the birds shot out of the same fiock 
or in the same particular locality; but this is the extent to which 
I would allow geographical range to influence my opinion. In 
the case in point, viz. that of Larus smithsonianus , perhaps I 
weakened my argument for its specific distinction by referring 
at all to range of habitat. I attach but very little importance 
to that fact, and inserted it upon Prof. Baird's suggestion, 
merely as one reason why we might expect to find the distinctive 
characters which really do exist." 
To the Editor of ‘ The Ibis.’ 
April 27, 1863. 
Sir, —Among some skins with which I have been lately 
favoured by Mr. Bartlett, the superintendent of the Zoological 
Gardens, are some bearing labels in the handwriting of my late 
friend Dr. Kelaart. Among them are those of a pair of Wood¬ 
peckers, male and female, marked “ Brachypternus ceylonus , from 
Newera Elia." They are, however, of a different species and 
genus, and new to the fauna of Ceylon, being apparently quite 
identical with the Chrysocolaptes hcematribon of my catalogue, 
