390 
Letters, Announcements, fyc. 
Mr. Blanford inadvertently makes a slip when he states 
(p. 253) that “the fragments of two specimens of Batra- 
chostomus, from Darjeeling, briefly described by Mr. Blyth 
in 1849 (J.A. S.B. xviii. p. 806), were at first referred by 
him to B. affinis ; but subsequently, in his f Catalogue of the 
Birds in the Museum of the Asiatic Society,’ p. 31, he as¬ 
cribed them to ‘ a nearly allied but distinct species.’ ” The 
facts are exactly the reverse. Mr. Blyth announced the 
receipt of the fragments from Darjeeling and his opinion, 
above quoted, first, and not “ subsequently,” in the Cata¬ 
logue. Afterwards, in his “ Supplemental note to the Catalogue 
of the Birds in the Asiatic Society’s Museum” (J. A. S. B. 
1849, p. 806. no. 405, paper quoted by Mr. Blanford), no. 405, 
being the number under which B. affinis stands in the f Cata¬ 
logue,’ Mr. Blyth published his matured opinion along with 
a description of the two specimens. His words are, “two 
specimens of what we now consider to be the young of 
this species ” (B. affinis ). If this were not a slip, Mr. Blan- 
ford’s version would deprive me of the support of one of the 
many facts which led me to the inference that B. castaneus, 
Hume, —B. affinis, Blyth. Mr. Blyth’s last-published opinion 
about B. affinis is contained in a footnote to page 83 (B. 
Burma), where he alludes to B. affinis being “ probably Oto - 
thrix hodgsoni, G. It. Gray, if the two really differ.” Ma¬ 
laccan examples of B. affinis, in grey and brown spotted 
dress, are difficult to distinguish from the type of O. hodg¬ 
soni ; but I did not venture to identify (B. Burma, no. 162) 
Gray’s species with B. affinis and B. castaneus in the face of 
Mr. Hume’s positive statement (Str. F. ii. p. 349) that “Mr. 
Hodgson’s bird” (type of O. hodgsoni) “was certainly an 
adult female by dissection;” for Lieutenant W. Ramsay (B. 
Burma, no. 162) had determined by dissection that the sex 
of a species of Batrachostomus, ex Burma, hardly differing 
from O. hodgsoni, was a male. This statement Mr. Hume 
has now reduced to “It is true, when I formerly wrote, I 
thought it (relying upon what Hodgson recorded) probable 
that hodgsoni was the female ” (Str. F. iv. p. 378). The 
certainty of the fact arrived at by Mr. Hodgson after dis¬ 
section, as first stated by Mr. Hume, being thus minimized 
