collected in Southern Cameroon* 
113 
1921.] 
A comparison of Sharpe's description with actual speci¬ 
mens is therefore very misleading, and without a series of 
both forms one would be inclined to say that S. reichenovi 
and S. elegans are synonymous. 
A closer examination, however, reveals the fact that these 
two Rails, as might certainly be expected from their distri¬ 
bution, are separable on characters which Sharpe overlooked. 
I)r. van Someren pointed out the differences to me, and they 
are plainly visible :— 
The spots on the back of S. e. reichenovi are less numerous 
and less sandy-coloured than in S. e. elegans ; the bill is also 
shorter and heavier. These characters serve to distinguish 
the two forms from one another. 
Besides the Cameroon and Natal specimens, we have in 
the British Museum a single female which closely resembles 
the female of this species from Mubinde, Uganda, but which 
may prove to be separable when further material is available, 
or it may be the female of S. e. loringi. 
The present range appears to be very doubtful—Uganda 
and Cameroon. 
We have, therefore : — 
Sarothrura elegans elegans (Smith)—Type localitv : 
Port Natal. Range. Natal. 
Sarothrura elegans reichenovi Sharpe—Type localitv: 
Cameroon. Rayige. Cameroon and ? Uganda. 
Sarothrura elegans buryi Ogilvie-Grant—Type locality : 
Dubar. Range. Wagga Mountains, N. Somaliland. 
Sarothrura elegans loringi Me arris *—hype locality: 
Mt. Kenia. Range. ? Kenya Colony. 
W r e have only a single female (the type) of S. buryi. ; but 
I feel certain that when the male is discovered, it will prove 
to be a subspecies of S. elegans , and I therefore include the 
Somaliland bird as a subspecies of the Natal bird. 
* I have not seen the type or any specimens of S. e. Iqrinyi Mearns 
[Smithson. Miscell. Coll. 60. No. 13, 1915, p. 8], and include it here on 
the opinion of Mi*. Chapin of the American Museum .of Natural History. 
$1£R, XL—VOL. ill. I 
