593 
Ornithology of Cyprus. 
106. Daulias luscinia Linn. 
The Nightingale arrives in the island in considerable 
numbers at the end of March and beginning of April. 
During the latter month and the early part of May the 
great majority pass on to the north, but, though I have not as 
yet personally seen the nest or eggs, I am assured that some 
remain for the summer and breed in the mountains. 
Glaszner has obtained it in the middle of September, during 
which month and the following its return passage doubtless 
takes place. It is really quite abundant at the spring 
migration, and from the 21st of March up till the 10th of 
May, 1909, Mr. Baxendale, Horsbrugh, and I took a number 
of specimens and must have heard and seen scores. I 
have often heard and seen it in a small mosque garden 
inside the “walled city ” of Nicosia. But much later dates 
than ours have been authenticated. Glaszner took a specimen 
at the end of May near Platres, a village about 4000 feet up 
on the southern slopes of the southern range; and Guillemard 
found it common at Lefka on the 23rd and at Kykko 
Monastery (4000 feet) on the 25th of the same month, and 
noticed it on the Troodos summit (6000 feet) in early June: 
so that the reports as to its nidification are probably correct. 
107. Daulias Philomela (Bechst.). 
The Thrush-Nightingale has only been recorded from 
Cyprus by Madarasz, to whom Glaszner sent two specimens 
taken on April 14th and September 3rd. 
Madarasz mentions the inclusion in Unger and Kotschy's 
list of a bird called by them “ Luscinia philomela Pr. Bonap.,” 
and evidently considers that the authors intended to refer to 
the present species. But in view of the fact that the ordinary 
Nightingale, Daulias luscinia , is (as Motacilla luscinia 
Linn.) indubitably referred to in Sibthorp’s list, whilst Lus¬ 
cinia philom,ela (or Philomela luscinia) was quite a common 
early name for the ordinary Nightingale, I am satisfied 
that the use of the synonym Luscinia philomela by Unger 
and Kotschy was a mere alteration by them of Sibthorp’s 
nomenclature, and not, as it would otherwise have to be read, 
an intentional substitution of the one species for the other. 
