| OCR Text |
Show 554 VISCOUNT W A L D E N O N BIRDS F R O M TENASSERIM. [Nov. 22, lity, but are never found occurring in specimens from one and same locality. 2. HALCYON SMYRNENSIS, (Linn.). Alcedo smyrnensis, Linn. S. N. ed. 12. 1766, i. p. 181. no. 11. Nos. 9, 12. Port Blair, Andamans. No. 9 specimen has the bill half an inch shorter than that of no. 12, and yet does not exhibit any traces of adolescent plumage. The bill of no. 12 specimen is much stouter and longer than that of any one of a large series of Ceylon, Camboja, and Central Indian specimens; but does not exceed that of some collected in Candeish. In colour and its distribution I can detect no distinction between it and the specimens I have mentioned. Variation in the depth of the chestnut-brown plumage is to be found in all specimens, but this variation appears to be consequent on the age of the bird. Relying on the opinion of Mr. Strickland, I have not separated the South Asiatic from the West Asiatic forms. 3. TODIRAMPHUS COLLARIS, (Scop.)? Alcedo collaris, Scop. Del. Flor. et Faun. Insub. ii. (1786) no. 56 ? No. 11. Andamans. A single specimen of what I believe to be the same as the Bengal and Malayan form has been sent from the Andaman Islands. The group of local species, of which it forms one, has yet to be worked out. Temporarily I follow Messrs. Jerdon and Blyth in referring the Indian and Malayan race to Scopoli's species, although it must prove eventually to be distinct; for Scopoli's A. collaris was founded on Sonnerat's Martin-pecheur a, collier blanc des Philippines. chloris, Bodd., founded on Buffon's 783rd plate, would take precedence of Scopoli's designation, could the origin of Buffon's type be shown. Buffon tells us that it is the same as a species seen by Commerson in the island of Bouru, and described by him. If so, A. chloris, Bodd., must belong to the Bouru form, and anyhow takes precedence of A. chlorocephalus, Gm., likewise founded on Buffon's 783rd plate. A Bouru specimen in my collection differs widely from the Andaman specimen sent. If the Philippine species does prove to be distinct from the Bengal and Malayan bird, this last will require another title; and that of occipitalis, Blyth (J. A. S. B, 1846, p. 23), given by that author to young examples from the Nico-bars, may perhaps have to be adopted, unless the Nicobars do possess a race deserving of specific distinction; for, although Mr. Blyth at a later date (Cat. Mus. A. S. Bengal) cancelled the species, according to him it does vary, both in the young and adult state, from the common Bengal bird. If this variation be found to be constant, the Bengal and Malayan will require another name. I prefer following the majority of ornithologists in retaining this species in Lesson's genus rather than separating it under Dr. Cabanis's generic title Sauropatis. |
