289 
Review of Dr. Finsch’s c Die Papageien * 
ences bearing on bis subject. Kelaart, who, besides Layard, 
was the only ornithological author who may have seen P. cal - 
thropce in “ the flesh/-’ merely includes its bare title in his list 
(Prodr. Faun. Zeylan. pp. xxx, 127). This embraces the 
sum total of the published facts regarding P. calthropce up to 
1868. And it was not until 1872 that it was made known 
that the female differed by having a black bill* (Holdsworth, 
P. Z. S. 1872, p. 426, no. 65). Mr. Hume knows this species 
by its skin only. Let me transcribe his remarks When 
we turn to calthropce , Layard, it is the same story; on no 
evidence, but his own personal conviction, on the contrary in 
the face of all existing evidence, Dr. Finsch calmly says: 
f Questions in regard to differences in the adult plumage, 
and to whether the male and female are always differently 
coloured, still lack in this species an altogether more rigorous 
investigation. The numerous phases of plumage which I have 
seen, permit me to assert with tolerable certainty an entire 
similarity in both sexes. Noteworthy and wonderful how¬ 
ever, always remains the black colour of the bill in the younger 
birds/ But as a matter of fact, no further investigation is 
required, because a dozen different observers have cleared up 
the main point at issue viz., the colour of the adult female's 
bill, but our author absolutely ignores all this because it is 
irreconcileable with his theory! Unlike the other species 
with which I have previously dealt, I have never myself shot 
or dissected examples of calthropce, but I have more faith 
in human testimony than our author apparently has, and 
having a large series of specimens carefully sexed by three 
different European observers, I can state the fallowing with 
c tolerable certainty 3 independently of what far better natu¬ 
ralists than myself have already recorded to a similar effect ” 
(t. c. pp. 18, 19). I have given all the published facts within 
the possibility of Dr. Finsch's knowledge in 1868, and Mr. 
* Mr. Holdsworth, as lie obligingly has told me in epist., did not arrive 
at this conclusion through having dissected a single specimen, hut was 
guided by the experience of Mr. Bligh, who had killed many examples. 
It is just possible that Dr. Templeton may have published remarks on this 
species, but I have never seen any. 
