461 
Letters, Announcements, fyc. 
Milvus melanotts (J. & S.), p. 150. 
I have also a very fine large rufous bird. The excess 
of rufescence is, as Mr. Swinhoe observes, accidental. 
I regard M. govinda (Sykes), on account of the great size 
noted in the original description (P. Z. S. 1832, part ii. 
pp. 80-81), as identical with M. melanotis (J. & S.). No 
common Indian Kite is 26 inches long. 
That M. major , Hume, ~M. melanotis (J. & S.), I have on 
Mr. Gurney’s authority, who informs me that Mr. Sharpe 
compared examples of M. major with the types of M. melanotis 
in the Leyden Museum, and found them absolutely identical. 
That M. melanotis (T. & S.) —M. govinda (Sykes) I think, 
judging from the original description, there is but little doubt. 
I propose dropping the use of the synonyms melanotis and 
major , and reverting to Sykes’s original term. 
Our common Indian Kite, so long erroneously called 
“M. govinda ” is M. affinis (Gould), and identical with the 
Australian bird. Mr. Gurney returned me one of our common 
village Kites as typical M. affinis. 
Certhia familiaris (L.), p. 152. 
Is certainly not that species, but probably my C. hodgsoni, 
which I obtained in Cashmere (J. A. S. 1872, p. 74). 
Phyllopneuste schwarzi (Radde), p. 183. 
This bird was identified with P. viridanus (Blyth) by 
Canon Tristram (Ibis, 1871, p. 109). If the identification 
was correct, why does Mr. Swinhoe not adopt the prior term 
for the bird ? 
Yours &c., 
W. E. Brooks. 
Mogul Serai, 
24th July, 1874. 
1 / 
]-&7S~ 
'VP 
Vienna, 29th August, 1874. 
Sir,— -In my paper “On the Birds in the Imperial Collec¬ 
tion at Vienna obtained from the Leverian Museum” (Ibis, 
1873, p. 113), Pithys rufigula (Bodd.) is mentioned, with the 
remark that the specimen is no longer in the collection. 
