287 
Review of Dr. Finsch’s c Die Papageien 
wing-spot/' because it relates to the point in dispute and does 
not strictly accord with either Jerdon or Blythes account. 
Jerdon says “amarone wing-spot in the male, barely indicated 
in the female” (B. Ind. i. p. 261); Blyth, “The adult sexes 
differ in the male having a small maronne spot on the wing, 
which is wanting or barely indicated in the female ” (J. A. S. B. 
1850, p. 232). So that even according to both Jerdon and 
Blyth the small maroon wing-spot of the male, though barely 
indicated, does “ appear ” in the female. But Dr. Finsch must 
be judged by what he, through a diligent and conscientious 
study of their published writings, had gathered that his authors 
personally knew, and not by what Mr. Hume, in more than 
exaggerated terms, says they did know. And although the 
fact may surprise my readers, in the face of Mr. Hume's auda¬ 
cious assertions just quoted, it is a fact that neither Jerdon, 
when he wrote the first volume of the f Birds of India/ nor 
Blyth were well acquainted with this species. Nor is there 
up to 1868 a tittle of published proof that any “ skilled prac¬ 
tical naturalist” had dissected a single specimen of this 
species, much less “scores.” J erdon writes (t. c. p. 261) “rare 
in the south-east, for I never saw it myself, and got but one 
young specimen while at Darjeeling; ” and what Jerdon relates 
about the species is derived from Tytler and Adams, both 
of whom have no remarks on the diversity of the sexes or 
about the plumage. Jerdon only became well acquainted 
with the bird when, subsequently to the publication of the 
first volume of his book, he visited the north-western Hi¬ 
malayas, where it is abundant. Blyth's acquaintance was not 
more extensive. It is almost certain that he had never seen 
the wild bird; for he had not been in the regions it inhabits. 
He probably may have seen caged specimens occasionally at 
Calcutta; but he says that captured specimens are seldom 
brought to that town (Ibis, 1863, p. 4). Who the “dozen 
others ” are previous to 1868, I confess my total inability to 
even offer a conjecture; and possessing a fair acquaintance 
with Indian ornithological literature myself, I cannot blame 
Dr. Finsch for not knowing either. 
A slight mistake in degree Dr. Finsch has committed, con» 
x 2 
