383 
Letters, Announcements, 
gamekeeper. It has been plaeed in the Museum of the Alloa 
Soeiety of Natural Science. 
The remaining specimen^ a male^ was shot on this estate on 
2 nd April by my keeper. In both the the latter cases the 
birds were shot when feeding on newly-sown grain-fields in 
company with Wood-pigeons. From the close vicinity of the 
places where the two last-mentioned birds were shot (only 
about a mile distant from each other), they may have pos¬ 
sibly been a mated pair. 
Yours &c., 
John J. Dalgleish. 
Sirs, —In a note on the genus Artamus, recently published 
in Fowley^s ^Ornithological Miscellany^ (part xiv. p. 179) I 
observe that Mr. Sharpe has rejected the Linnean specific 
title leucorhynchus (founded on Brisson^s Pie-grieche de 
Manille), as well as Scopoli’s title of pMlippinus, and Gme- 
lin^s dominicanus (founded on Sonnerat^s Pie-grieche domini- 
quaine des Philippines), for the Philippine Swallow-Shrike, 
and adopted Valenciennes^s more recent leucogaster, hQ- 
stowed on a bird from Timor, although he tells us (p. 179) 
that he considers the titles leucorhynchus and leucogaster to 
be synonymous. Thus a title which has been current with all 
writers for over a hundred years is upset. Mr. Sharpe 
remarks so long as there is a doubt about the Brisso- 
nian bird from the Philippines, I think the name ought to 
be discarded, though Lord Tweeddale says that ^ he has no 
doubt that from it Brisson and Sonnerat took their descrip¬ 
tions.^ Here I can only say not proven In my humble 
opinion it is proven by overwhelming evidence that Bris¬ 
son did describe the Philippine species. Let us sift the 
evidence—first as to the patria of the type, secondly as 
to whether the description is sufficient to show the identity 
of the type. 
Brisson (undoubtedly a most accurate author) distinctly 
states that the species to which his type belonged is found 
in the neighbourhood of Manilla, capital of the island of 
Luzon, whence it was sent to M. FAbbe Aubry, who has 
