94 
Letters , Announcements, fyc. 
they distinct species, but that they belong to different sub¬ 
genera. Inasmuch, however, as there is a fatal mistake in 
Captain Hutton’s premises, his conclusions go for nothing. 
No two species of Rail, I should say, are more easily dis¬ 
tinguishable than Rallus philippensis and R. dieffenbachii. I 
have rejected snbgeneric distinctions altogether in my work, 
or I would willingly have referred these forms to different 
snbgenera, as was originally proposed by the late Mr. G. 11. 
Gray. No naturalist who had actually seen the birds would 
attempt to unite them as a species. 
The fallacy of Captain Hutton's case is, that he labours to 
disprove a proposition of his own making; for no one ever 
asserted what he assumes—that Rallus philippensis and Rallus 
dieffenbachii are the same or very nearly allied species. 
Captain Hutton affects astonishment at my mention of 
{C other competent ornithologists " without giving their names. 
I presume that an author who undertakes to write the history 
of the birds of any country is at liberty to form his own judg¬ 
ment as to who are “ competent " authorities in matters of 
reference, and to fortify himself with their opinions, especially 
when he accepts himself the entire responsibility of the con¬ 
clusions arrived at. It is neither usual nor necessary in such 
cases to “ give the names/ - ’ But as Captain Hutton thinks 
he has discovered “ a very serious error/ - ’ I may mention that 
both Mr. Salvin and Mr. Sharpe, who compared with me the 
type of Rallus modesius with the specimen of R. dieffenbachii 
in the British Museum, pronounced the one, in their opinion, 
the young of the other. It would be superfluous to add other 
names; but all to whom Captain Hutton's bird was shown 
took it to be an immature specimen. 
I am, &c., 
Walter L. Buller. 
November 11,1873. 
Northrepps, Norwich, 
October 10, 1873. 
Sir, —In my edition of the late Mr. Andersson's 'Notes on 
the Birds of Damaraland' I have included as a Damara species 
