The avifauna of Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands

G.F. Mees

Mees, G.F. The avifauna of Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands). Zool. Med. Leiden 80-3, 25.viii.2006: 1-261, figs. 1-18. ISSN 0024-0672. G.F. Mees, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands. Present address: 31 West Street, Busselton 6280, Western Australia, Australia. Key words: Indonesia; Flores; avifauna; birds; zoogeography. The avifauna of the island of Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands) is reviewed. Introductory sections, which include a chapter on the history of ornithological discovery, are followed by the main part, a systematic account in which each species and subspecies known from Flores is treated separately. A discussion of the zoogeography, a gazetteer, a list of references and an index complete the volume. At present 214 forms (210 species) are accepted as having been reliably recorded. Of these, ca. 160 are, or may be assumed to be, residents, and of ca. 100 the eggs have been collected and are described. The balance consists of visiting sea and freshwater birds, migrants from the North and migrants from the South. It is likely that few additions remain to be made to the list of residents, but migrants from the North and visiting seabirds have obviously been under-recorded, and in these two categories another 20 to 25 species are to be expected as regular visitors. Lonchura punctulata insulicola subspec. nov. is described from Mauritius, Réunion and Mahé (Seychelles Is.).

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Topography ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Adjacent smaller islands .............................................................................................................................. 5 History of ornithological exploration .................................................................................................. 9 The egg collection (see also pp. 254-261) ........................................................................................ 19 Forsten’s collection from Bima, Sumbawa .................................................................................... 22 Systematic account ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Unconfirmed and erroneous records .............................................................................................. 219 Species and subspecies with type-locality Flores .................................................................... 222 Zoogeography ............................................................................................................................................... 223 List of localities ............................................................................................................................................. 228 Postscript .......................................................................................................................................................... 230 Bibliography and references ................................................................................................................ 233 Systematic index .......................................................................................................................................... 250 1. Introduction That the Lesser Sunda Islands, forming a connecting link between the strikingly different faunas of Asia and Australia, belong to the zoogeographically most fascinating regions of the world, is no news. Important zoogeographical studies have been based on their avifauna (particularly Rensch, 1928d, 1930, 1936; Stresemann, 1939; Mayr, 1944a, 1944b). Yet, in spite of an early start, and of their acknowledged crucial


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

importance for an understanding of the zoogeographical relationship between Asia and Australia, most islands are at present no more than moderately well-known ornithologically. Collections have been made during (usually short) visits by professional collectors, heavily relying on native helpers, rather than by ornithologists, and much of the collecting has been rather haphazard. For Flores, this situation has now been changed through the efforts of two long-time residents, the Fathers J.A.J. Verheijen, SVD, and E. Schmutz, SVD, who, during their stay, devoted much time to ornithological investigations. It has been my privilege to receive and study the collections resulting from their activities, and the paper here presented is the outcome of my involvement. This paper is far less comprehensive than I should have liked it to be. Many species, dealt with only superficially, require a revision before their zoogeographical significance in the fauna can be evaluated properly, but any work is a compromise between time and means available, and the desired result. As in the preparation of their admirable work on the birds of Wallacea, White & Bruce (1986) have had free access to all the material and notes brought together by the Fathers Verheijen and Schmutz, one might wonder, and indeed I have wondered, whether after the appearance of their publication, there was still any need, or even justification, for a separate paper on Flores. However, it will be evident that a paper exclusively on the birds of Flores, can go into much greater detail than a work covering the whole of Wallacea, and therefore deserves publication. In addition, there was the obligation to the collectors, who were entitled to see the published result of all their work. Finally, it seems worth publishing these collections for their own sake. Complaints have repeatedly been made, that collections present in the Leiden museum remained unpublished. The truth is that, for the size and importance of its collections, the museum has always been understaffed and that the complaint was justified. Catalogues of the collections were begun by Schlegel, and anew by Finsch, but they never got very far. To save the Flores collections made by the Fathers from oblivion, a paper was evidently required. Authors of faunistic and systematic works aspiring to scientific accuracy are increasingly confronted with the question of what to do with field observations. At present the ornithologically more sophisticated countries even have panels of specialists sitting in judgement over observations made by others, at best a risky matter. There is a danger here of taking ourselves too seriously. When, however, birdwatchers and ‘ticklisters’ from the above-mentioned countries, where they would not hesitate to subject their unusual observations to the whole rigmarole, travel abroad, they suddenly shed this serious approach and seem to believe that a cross on their pre-printed ticklist should be all the documentation required to have their observations accepted. Thus the acceptance of such records, for which there is no tangible evidence, becomes guesswork or a matter of faith. When my interest in the avifauna began, in the mid-nineteen sixties, the problem did not yet exist as the Lesser Sunda Islands, even Bali, were well outside the range of ornithotourism, which at that time was only just beginning to develop. This situation is now changing rapidly. A comparatively recent development, of which the region has not remained entirely free, is that of multi-author papers, combining observations made by different observers

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


at different times. Superficially this may seem rational, but frequently it is impossible to distil from these texts, who is responsible for certain records and observations, so that in practice these are anonymous. The custom, also becoming popular, of referring to unpublished notes and reports, irritates: one tries to check a statement made in the text with a reference, and finds it to be based on unpublished notes, and therefore of no help at all. Another aspect has to be mentioned: several recent visits to the Lesser Sunda Islands have been made under the auspices of conservation organizations. Nothing wrong with that, but in a few instances I got from the text of their reports the impression that actually bird material had been collected, but is not clearly mentioned, or glossed over (as conflicting with the avowed purpose of these visits?). This means that important documentation is withheld: a report should clearly state what has been collected, and in which institution such material is held, so that other students will know where to go for further information. Originally I had not intended to include in this report any species not based on collected material, but gradually this has been relaxed, with the inclusion of Fregata ariel, Pandion haliaetus, Hieraaetus kieneri and Phalaropus lobatus. This relaxation has also induced me to list some (not all) of my own field observations made on Sumba and Sumbawa, as far as they are relevant to the avifauna and understanding of the zoogeographical position of Flores. 2. Acknowledgements From the introduction, my debt to Fathers Verheijen and Schmutz will be evident. It is on their collections, and often stimulating correspondence, that this paper has been based. Help with information about specimens in their care, loans, etc., was received from: D. Amadon and Mrs M.K. LeCroy (American Museum of Natural History, New York: AMNH); G. Cowles, M. Walters (British Museum (Natural History), Tring: BM); R.W.R.J. Dekker (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden: RMNH); S. Eck (Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde, Dresden, MTD); K. Größler (Leipzig); J.T. Marshall, Jr. (National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Washington, D.C.); the late S.A. Parker (South Australian Museum, Adelaide: SAM); R.A. Paynter, Jr. (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.: MCZ); C.S. Roselaar (Zoölogisch Museum, Amsterdam: ZMA); H. Schifter (Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien, MV); R. Schodde (Australian National Collection, Canberra: ANC, CSIRO); S. Somadikarta (Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense, Bogor: MZB); B. Stephan (Zoologisches Museum, Berlin, ZMB); E. Sutter (Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel: NMB); C. Voisin (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, MHNP). Mr T.J.G.M. van Oyen (RMNH) helped with the weighing of egg-shells on an electric balance. Acknowledgements are also due to A. van Haasteren (Leiden University) and H.J. van Grouw (RMNH) for photographing the eggs and to E.J. Bosch (RMNH) for drawing the maps. As also mentioned in the Postscript, without considerable assistance from my former colleague, J. van der Land, this paper could not have been completed. In recent years, my old friend A.C. van Bruggen helped greatly in keeping things moving. C.R. Trainor, a field worker in the Lesser Sunda Islands (at present in Timor-Leste), recipient


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

of a copy of the manuscript, encouraged its publication, writing stimulating letters both to me and to Leiden, thus helping to push through bottlenecks. With sadness I must mention that three more of the persons acknowledged above (Amadon, Paynter, Sutter) have passed away. I gratefully remember their friendship and help, not only in the preparation of the present paper, but on many previous occasions. 3. Topography The island of Flores derives its name from its easternmost cape, which was named by the Portuguese, the first European navigators to reach the Lesser Sunda Islands, Cabo de Flores. The name has stuck and has been extended to include the whole island, although the name of the cape itself has in later years been translated to Tandjong Boenga. Until past the middle of the 19th century, Portugal maintained some posts on the eastern and southern coasts of Flores, but by the treaty of Lisbon, which was ratified on 20 April 1859, these posts (Paga, Sikka, and Larantoeka with the fort Posto), were transferred to the Netherlands, by which the whole island came, nominally, under Dutch sovereignty. A garrison was established in Larantoeka. It is perhaps worth mention that the colonial yoke was not very heavy for at least another forty years: inland tribes continued to raid the coastal villages. When in July 1896, Everett arrived in Endeh, there was even shooting down the streets, so that he was unable to use the place as a base for exploration of the interior, as he had planned. In 1907, during a conflict between coastal and mountain tribes, the whole of Endeh was burned down. This finally led to intervention by the Netherlands Indian Government, and a stronger colonial administration.


Fig. 1. Flores and surrounding islands.

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


Flores is situated between 119°48’ (Tg. Rasé) and 123°1’30” (coast south of Tg. Matandoi) E., and between 8°4’ (Toro Kopondai or Floreshoofd) and 8°58’ (Ngaloe Nageh, south coast of Ngada) S., its greatest length is ca. 354 km, its axis almost WestEast (fig. 1). The shape of the island is somewhat bizarre, perhaps best likened to the body of a scorpion, with its heaviest, broadest part in the west, tapering eastwards to a tail, terminating in a sting, curved upwards, at the eastern end. In the western part (Manggarai), the width is over 60 km, but in the middle (Endeh), it is no more than 20 km, and farther east, at the narrowest part (Maumere) only ca. 12 km. The total (flat) surface area is ca. 15,175 km2. The country is strongly mountainous: extensive highlands, and the highest mountains, are found in the broad western part (Manggarai), where several peaks attain over 2000 m, the highest one ca. 2400 m; in the middle and east the mountains may be lower but are by no means negligible. The famous coloured crater lakes of Geli-Moetoe are in the eastern part of the island, north-east of Endeh. In the mountains the rainfall is high (fig. 2), especially in Manggarai: in the mountains south and west of Ruteng it averages over 4000 mm a year, and in the mountains farther eastwards it is still over 3000 mm; this contrasts with some of the coastal lowlands, especially along the north-west coast, where the annual average is less than 500 mm. The gradient is very steep here, for the mountains with the highest rainfall are little more than 25 km away. 4. Adjacent smaller islands The islands of Endeh, in the Bay of Endeh off the south coast (visited by Rensch), Palué or Rusa Radja in the Flores Sea north of Flores (visited by Weber and Verheijen), and Groot Bastaard or P. Besar, off the north coast of Flores (visited by Ten Kate), have always and quite correctly been included with Flores, ornithologically, as they are in this paper.

0 100 0 200

0 200
0 100 0 200


10 00
00 10




Fig. 2. Average annual rainfall in mm on Flores.

30 20000 0



0 200 3000


Pachycephala fulvotincta. Ornithologically. Especially because of doubt of some of them. and Oriolus chinensis (cf. one of which (Stiltia isabella) was not recorded by Hoogerwerf. with Flores. but probably fairly large. I have not investigated what else he may have collected on Solor: scanning of the pages of the “Catalogue of Birds” might yield a few more species. on the other hand. Pfeffer stayed some weeks on Rintja. is at its narrowest part less than a kilometer wide. as pointed out on a later page. a specimen was collected Numenius arquata: Padar Tringa totanus: Padar Ducula bicolor (with a query. Adonara and Solor are very inadequately known. through its ecological arrangement (according to habitat). This would leave about 65 species for the three islands. Hoogerwerf (1966) wrote a special paper on a few specimens from Komodo and Rintja. which separates Komodo from eastern Sumbawa. showing that a further study of the avifauna of these islands would be not without interest. the distance from Solor is less than 5 km. Padar and Komodo. separating Komodo from Rintja and Padar. 1956).. Ten Kate visited Solor. the strait between Rintja and Padar. on Rintja heard but not seen. geographically. Zool. was 69. Philemon buceroides). Opposite Larantoeka. to include the smaller islands to the west. Colfs in August 1880 at least two (Arenaria interpres. Adonara is at most little more than a kilometer away. and farther southwards. Ten Kate collected Halcyon chloris. split out to island. based on an observation by the photographer F. Med. viz. He claimed that the total number of species observed on the three islands combined. Semmelink visited Adonara early in 1862 and collected one bird (Pitta elegans). see below) Caloenas nicobarica: Komodo Cypsiurus parvus (= balasiensis): island not specified Dendrocopos macei: island not specified The record of Ducula bicolor was. rather than systematic arrangement. and Strait Linta. 16). 1892). 1956) recorded eight species which are not known from Flores. a list of the collections made. It is a pity that Hoogerwerf’s published paper. Strait Molo. Moreover. 12). The eastern end of Flores is in equally close contact with adjacent islands. Rintja. belonging to three species (Accipiter novaehollandiae. Leiden 80 (2006) It would make sense. As mentioned above. and Ten Kate spent a few days on Adonara and Solor in May 1891. On Adonara. across the Flores Strait. or 15 + 5 km when measured through the small island of Kelapa. and has already caused confusion. Coracina novaehollandiae. where he obtained a syntype of Treron floris and the holotype of Gerygone sulphurea. about 5 km. is much wider and deeper. makes it difficult to extract exact information from it. Terpsiphone paradisi). Avifauna of Flores. enumerated in the historical section (p. who visited all three of them in June 1953. viz.: Falco severus: island not specified Charadrius peronii: Komodo and Padar.6 Mees. about 20 km. Huysmans. separating Rintja from mainland Flores. Strait Sape. perhaps 2 km. would be useful. who saw a . and visited Komodo. From the western islands. some species included were almost certainly misidentified. The avifauna of these islands has become known through Hoogerwerf (1954b. as Hoogerwerf (1954b: 130) clearly stated. An unrecorded. but I am not aware that he collected birds there. Hoogerwerf (1954b. Anthreptes malacensis (cf. on Rintja he collected seven species of birds. On his way to or from Flores. Büttikofer. proportion of these were collected. Allen must have landed on Solor. p. a non-ornithologist.

cf. leg. In the case of Falco severus. Med. Numenius arquata. 17. and speculated that an error in labelling might have been made. Besides Ducula bicolor. is given in the table below. there is no reason to doubt the June dates. and a sight record from New Guinea (Van den Assem. for. as Hoogerwerf said. When Junge (1936: 18) discussed the two June specimens of Tringa totanus from Simalur. Avifauna of Flores. not mentioned by Hoogerwerf. One might therefore think of confusion between these two. Bernstein. but stressed the point that he himself had not seen it.Mees. Leiden 80 (2006) 7 flock of white birds with black wing-tips come from the sea and disappear into a valley. madagascariensis (cf. there is no lack of suitable nesting trees. The casual way in which Hoogerwerf mentions them. the identification of at least three other species on the above list may be questioned: Falco severus. but Hoogerwerf certainly knew the difference and moreover. 29). 1948b: 54). he was worried by their dates. Hoogerwerf. longipennis. Higgins & Davies. I consider the evidence too vague for acceptance. Numenius phaeopus. Charadrius leschenaulti. Hoogerwerf (who was obviously responsible for the identification) commented that the occurrence of the species was of course very likely. shows a complete lack of awareness that observations of these species were in any way unusual. 1954b: 145) he states expressly that the bird he had seen belonged to the large white-rumped species. The same could be happening in the Lesser Sunda Islands. east of the Sunda Shelf. 20. Hoogerwerf’s record of Caloenas nicobarica from Komodo is acceptable. Zool. one might legitimately wonder about the validity of the June records of these waders. . In the light of present knowledge. 1864c: 89. This is very unlikely. Restricting myself to the two species not yet recorded from Flores. One other point has. no. Records from Australia (Darwin and Point Peron) have not found general acceptance (cf. Numenius arquata is a more common winter visitor than N. in his first publication (Hoogerwerf. 1960) has been rightly ignored in later literature: it was almost certainly due to confusion with N. Further support is provided by recent field-observations from Timor (Andrew. Schlegel. in his following publication (Hoogerwerf. arquata from the whole of Wallacea (the specimen from Halmahera. the situation is reversed to the extent that there is only a single specimen record of N. 1996: 116-117). however.1861. Material from the Archipelago in the RMNH collection. where it is cat.xi. no. and by their winter plumage. Hoogerwerf was surprised by the number of migrant waders from the Northern Hemisphere which he found still present in June. with a query. Blakers et al. With the knowledge in mind that Hoogerwerf has made misidentifications. Whereas in the western part of the Archipelago. but this time without explanatory text. 1956: 111). because both have original labels. one can think of confusion with F. 1984: 656. to be mentioned. it may be recalled that its occurrence in Sulawesi has recently been established (Escott & Holmes. Cypsiurus balasiensis and Dendrocopos macei have never before been recorded from the Lesser Sunda Islands east of Bali. split out over the months. madagascariensis. Tringa hypoleucos. which shows that June records of neither species are exceptional. He mentioned Ducula bicolor again. 1980): very likely a recent extension of its range. 1986). listed above: (.. farther east. Kaou. but the listing of Padar and Rintja by White & Bruce (1986: 192-193) is not. He observed Pluvialis fulva. RMNH cat. Tringa totanus. I have tried to find how likely it is that they still occur in their winter quarters in June. In the case of Cypsiurus balasiensis.

published by Verhoeye & Holmes (1998) is given in the Postscript. Through a short visit (14/18. and Caloenas nicobarica. Arenaria interpres. only one.ix. and claimed by Pfeffer (1958) as his own. . I regret the absence of any information on how the birds were identified: females and juveniles of nominate gibberifrons do not have the high forehead of the drakes and must be very difficult to distinguish from gracilis in the field. gibberifrons). but is the first for any of the Lesser Suna Islands. Leiden 80 (2006) Material of Numenius arquata and Tringa totanus from the archipelago in the RMNH collection.d.1984. off the east coast of Komodo. moderate elevations (although with a peak reaching 1659 m) and fairly low annual rainfall (10002000 mm) would be responsible but certainly not in the last place the dense human population (165/km2). I observed an individual of Numenius madagascariensis (very large. Addendum. Of the few birds recorded from the eastern islands Adonara and Solor. Numenius arquata. As was to be expected its avifauna is impoverished compared with that of Flores. flying past over the strait separating Sabita from an even smaller islet to its south. Med. It is Anas gracilis (which the authors prefer to treat as a separate species. arranged by month. Arenaria interpres.2000) by Trainor (2002a) the island of Adonare has become ornithologically better known.vii. This leaves one form recorded by these authors from Komodo but not from Flores. Zool. will be explained in the next section. calling). s. from the islet of Sabita. The list of about fifty species is not entirely critical. Numenius madagascariensis.1992. The preceding evaluation leaves six species which would be added to the avifauna of Flores if the satellite islands to the east and to the west were included: Charadrius peronii.— A summary of the species added to the avifauna of Flores on the basis of sight records. This is also why I prefer to keep the two forms together in one species. Five individuals were seen in a small pond behind the beach on 7. not as a subspecies of A. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Numenius arquata Sumatra 1 – – – – – – – – – 4 – – Bangka 1 1 – – – – – – – 1 – – – Borneo 2 – – – – – – – – – – – – Java 6 – 3 – 3 – 1 1 2 5 – 6 1 Halmahera – – – – – – – – – – – 1 – Tringa totanus Sri Lanka 3 – 1 – – – – – – – – – – Sumatra 1 – – – – – – – – – 4 – 3 Simalur – – – – – – 2 – – 3 – – – Bangka – – – – – – – – – 1 2 – – Borneo 2 – – – – – – – 1 – – – – Bawean 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – Java 6 5 7 – 2 13 3 – 13 9 3 5 5 How these (and other) records were transferred to Rintja. Before leaving the western islands. Tringa totanus. brown rump. Avifauna of Flores. Not only its small size as such (497 km2).xii. I want to mention that on 19.8 Mees. is not yet known from Flores proper. some species having been included on the basis of hearsay information from locals. The record is not unlikely. which therefore deserves mention in this chapter.

Unfortunately.iii. chloris.Mees. Wallace. where T. 2. was stationed at Larantoeka. 1864: 480). 4. spent almost four months of 1862 collecting on Flores (cf. In spite of the small size of the collection. euteles is replaced by T. Adonara.xii. very few specimens belonging to either of these early Flores collections are dated exactly. Dicaeum agile tinctum. 5. Officier van Gezondheid (Military Surgeon). locality) of the collected material. II: 385). Allen (ca.1863. Leiden 80 (2006) 9 Trichoglossus euteles is the only species on the Adonare list not known from Flores. where Z.1862. But Semmelink is known to have collected a bird on the second of March on the off-shore island of Adonara. These birds were. On the other hand. Ptilinopus regina flavicollis. The fact that Allen also visited Solor. Avifauna of Flores. Considering the proximity of Adonare to Flores. and the name of the island. Wallace. were both there in 1862. Semmelink (1837-1912). and therefore the only place with regular connections with the outside world. with a few exceptions. and possessed a private shell-collection. J. I have seen no dated specimen of Allen’s. Therefore I have decided to place Semmelink ahead of Allen in the chronological sequence of collectors. for Weber (1890/1891: vii) wrote: “Auch brieflich konnte mir Herr Wallace keine Auskunft ertheilen. but Semmelink wrote that they had been: “Verzameld te Larantoeka en omliggende plaatsen in den loop van 1862”.ca. during 1862/1863. just off Larantoeka. Wallace. that Larantoeka is the most obvious place for him to have visited: at that time it was the only place with a garrison. weberi. so it may be presumed that he was present on Flores for the whole calendar year. welche Gegend von Flores Ch. cf.R. RMNH cat. He collected material of various animal groups for the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. without comment: it is a species I would not expect on Adonara.viii.1863. or as if he was interested in proper data (sex. Zool. supports this speculation (cf. 1869. where there was a garrison. Included in the collection was one specimen from Adonara. The same might be true for Zosterops palpebrosa. Only speculation is therefore possible about Allen’s stay. Med. I speculate. Circaetus gallicus. but considering that he only stayed for four months on Flores. 9 of which were not obtained by Allen. 1874a: 14). if Allen had stayed in Larantoeka for any length of time one would expect him to have met . I have been able to find 45 species collected by him. 1838 . Schlegel. then. According to our register. Allen besuchte”. but there is no exact information (dates and localities) on his stay. C. 1900). which is an island only a few kilometers off Larantoeka (Pitta elegans concinna. and one more on 15. Rensch (1931a: 454) also supposed that Allen collected: “wohl hauptsächlich im Osten der Insel”. The occurrence of Halcyon fulgida and Tesia everetti on Adonara constitutes a slightly eastward extension of their known ranges. and Allen on behalf of A. History of ornithological exploration The first two collectors who worked on Flores: Semmelink for the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. 55 bird skins were received on 19. the relationship between these two parrots requires further study. not individually labelled. listed as common. date. chances are that he started collecting later than Semmelink. it contains several uncommon species: Ardea alba. It does not look as if Wallace had given his assistant very clear instructions. Allen’s labels give merely the year of collecting. not mentioned by Trainor. is more likely to occur. no. Spizaetus floris.

being either based on misidentification. 79): Wallace and Allen apparently (but not quite certainly) travelled on the same boat from England. 1898a: 43-44. Charles Allen. he was: “an English lad of sixteen”. “he obtained employment in Singapore. A few of these records are doubtful. but I have not traced it. may have originated elsewhere. and I lost his services as a collector”. and remained some time after the formation of the Borneo Company. According to the list published by Wallace (1864). doing valuable collecting and exploring work. Hellmayr. of which Allen is supposed to have collected several individuals on Flores (cf. Morotai. Allen collected 86 species of birds on Flores. and the occurrence of which has not been confirmed by subsequent collectors. in 1854. Flores. Allen stayed behind with the Bishop of Sarawak: “who wants teachers and is going to try to educate him for one”. This shows that material. have to be considered very critically. T. 1916: 40. through bequests of private collections. Chances that it might be present on Flores are remote. in May 1855. Very little is to be found in the literature about the person of Charles Allen. 48. young as he was. The most informing is a note inserted by L. the specimen may come in the second rather than in the first category. I cannot help feeling that Wallace has barely done justice to Allen who. II: 385-386). there. Loriculus flosculus. I: 72) says that. He had married and was doing well. Hartert. 51. Wallace was a professional collector. he left his young assistant. and arrived together in Sarawak. species which have been recorded from Flores only by Allen. More serious is the case of Trichoglossus euteles. From Allen’s Flores collection . Towards the end of 1862 (id. and therefore I have found no reason to eliminate them from the list. but he died not long after my interview with him. whose material has been widely dispersed through trade channels. has gone to the British Museum. As Wallace also enumerates all four species of Lonchura known from Flores. Wallace (1869. Munia ferruginea (= Lonchura malacca ferruginosa) is in its natural distribution confined to Java and is not known from any of the Lesser Sunda Islands. this concerns the following: Gallinula tenebrosa frontata.V. euteles is known from Timor and from the smaller islands to the east of Flores. Zool. He entered my service. from Lomblen to Nila. which places his date of birth in 1838 or early 1839. He finally settled in Singapore.10 Mees. 49. forwarded from Flores by Allen. either directly. Helmes (Bishop of Sarawak): “When Wallace left Sarawak after his fifteen months’ residence in the country. The occurrence of none of these four species on Flores is a priori improbable. Med. and to have been mentioned in one of Semmelink’s letters to Schlegel. Avifauna of Flores. At least a large proportion of his material. worked independently on the Sula Islands. evidence that Wallace had full confidence in his abilities and integrity. Leiden 80 (2006) Semmelink. and had been his faithful companion and assistant during years of arduous work”. and when Wallace left. he again joined Wallace. Besides the two species already mentioned. Misool. Later. For example. or on specimens erroneously labelled as having been obtained on Flores. or later. including types of the majority of species. 6061. There is also material in the RMNH. Therefore. and then went to New Guinea. It is possible that the specimen still exists somewhere. 1914: 78). Lonchura malacca ferruginosa and Trichoglossus euteles. He had come to the East with Wallace as a lad of 16. His name is mentioned a few times in Wallace’s published letters (Marchant. where I met him in 1899. Petrochelidon nigricans timoriensis and Lichmera indistincta limbata. and undoubtedly in many other museums..

(= Philemon buceroides). Timor and Alor. an error in labelling may be suspected. was prepared by Büttikofer. van Lansberge. von Martens (1831-1904) was a zoologist of the “Preussische Expedition nach Ost-Asien”. as a guest of Dr Semmelink. although he did not visit Flores (Larantoeka) after 29. Colfs stayed in West Flores from 7. From 6-30 January 1863. and of one. I do not believe that my remarks given above are unfair to Wallace. occurring on Flores. off Larantoeka. He later sailed regularly between East Flores. the collector of many of these species. 1999: 192-193).vii. If Allen was as incompetent as Wallace wrote. dated 31. it is even less explicable that he re-entered Wallace’s service later.F. But Allen. Martens. 365-373). Cacatua sulfurea. Zoothera peronii. die naar Uwe Handleiding tot de beoefening der Dierkunde bestemd werden” 1). Addendum.Mees.iv-15. (= Treron floris) and Geopelia striata (cf.A. Colfs (1853-1882) was a collector employed by Governor-General J.W. was mij behulpzaam bij het bestemmen en inpakken der zaken en stelde mij in de gelegenheid UEd. Nectarinia solaris.— Recently I came across another reference to Allen. Ombaai (= Alor) and Timor. named according to your Handleiding tot de beoefening der Dierkunde.1863.1884. In a letter addressed to Schlegel. Gracula cf. Leiden 80 (2006) 11 alone 18 new species and subspecies of birds were described (mainly by Wallace and Sharpe). taken from Wallace’s letters to his sister (Severin. I also realise that letters written by Wallace to his sister were not meant for publication and that he may well have changed his opinion on Allen in later years. . die toen bij mij logeerde. In this period.1880 he left by ship for Maumeri (Maoemere). Halcyon collaris (= Halcyon chloris). Semmelink mentioned this visit: “Dr Eduard von Martens uit Berlijn. who was my guest at that Scythrops Novae Hollandiae. on 16. venerata (= Gracula religiosa venerata). I find it astonishing that Wallace. 1876: 244.ii-25. A list of this material. in Sarawak.iii and from 11.E. In summary. assisted me with identifying and packing of the items and enabled me to send Your Honour a list of the birds. There is an Accipiter fasciatus wallacii. it includes 36 specimens in 23 species marked as being from Flores. he stayed in Larantoeka. He did. Zool. collect a few near Larantoeka: Tinnunculus Moluccensis (= Falco moluccensis). Tropidorynchus sp. Avifauna of Flores. eene opgave van de vogels te kunnen zenden. so that he was happy to leave him behind with the Bishop of Sarawak. should have taken the boy with him without first ascertaining his qualities (or the lack thereof). Flores. These nine species had also been collected near Larantoeka by Semmelink and (possibly near there) by Allen the year before. P.iii. indet. and throws no further light on Colfs’s collecting activities. dated 23. 1) Dr Eduard von Martens of Berlin. Wallace considered the boy useless. but two of these are from Adonara. without apparently collecting any birds.1880. K. In 1882 the RMNH received from Van Lansberge 143 bird specimens from Sumbawa. Med. Treron sp.1880. where he arrived on the 19th. who was not a wealthy man. Later. and therefore his name is not mentioned in Wynne’s (1969) useful work.ix. however. It is apparent that Wallace brought Allen out with him from England as his assistant. has not been honoured a single time in such a manner. Vorderman’s (1888) little volume is less informative than one might hope. he also made trips to Adonara and Solor. and numerous other species bear Wallace’s name. so that Martens’s contribution to the ornithological knowledge of Flores is negligible.

Ten Kate. Weber (1890) gives an itinerary. 13 skeletons) was retained in Leiden. p. I have enquired whether there are any letters in the BM-archives (into which the archives of the former Rothschild Museum have been incorporated).C. but did succeed in reaching levels of about 5000 ft. Everett (1848-1898). so that his stay cannot have lasted more than about six weeks. where he stayed three days until the 27th. syntypes of neglectus). As one of the 11 was a species mentioned in the 1891 paper. 1894). but was not allowed into the interior because of unsettled conditions. Avifauna of Flores.i. Hartert is very reticent about Everett’s exploits.F. The next two days were spent writing and packing. and then walked on to Maumeri. he seems to have called at Maumeri (cf.. On his way to Endeh. 1892). On 1 May. but the only dates mentioned in it are those of arrival and departure.E. Nanga Roma. and in December he was on Sumba. 1490 m) and Puchu Leoh (probably = Potjo-Léok with Golo Mompong. Med. and left almost at once (for Savu). it is apparent that his hunters were unable to penetrate very far inland. Kotting and Mbawa (19/24 December). 86). island Rusa Radja. The greater part of the material (66 skins. The material sent home by him included a number of typical mountain birds. Endeh (1/8 January 1889). thus confirming this altitude. Rokka near Endeh (9 January). The exact duration of his stay is apparently not known: his material is dated October and November 1896. A. and no exact information is provided by him. but without Adonara). they included the discovery of several undescribed species (Büttikofer. he walked to Koting. in western Flores. in his following article. From his account (in Hartert. from where he went overland to Larantoeka. which might provide more exact data. A total of 60 species was obtained. he sailed from Maumeri to Groot Bastaard. ten Kate (1858-1931) visited Flores in 1891.W. now known as Paloë or Palué (29 November). Nanga Ramo. but a considerable proportion (52 specimens) was returned to the Zoölogisch Museum in Amsterdam (of which Weber was Director). . but he returned to Flores in April: Sika and surroundings (13/24 April).H. Sikka (25/31 December). In the introduction to his work. Büttikofer (1891). 11 species from Flores are enumerated (including Groot Bastaard. he arrived at Hading. but probably towards the Golo Radjong. in the directions of Puchu Reah (not identified. returning to Larantoeka on the 17th. in litt.xi.1888 to 9. Ten Kate’s total score was 12 (Büttikofer. a village on the south coast of Manggarai. 11. I owe Mr Roselaar the following approximate reconstruction of Weber’s itinerary: Reo (23/25 November).1889. In his various publications. Leiden 80 (2006) M. lists only three birds from Flores: Artamus leucorhynchus (1) and Philemon buceroides neglectus (2. and on 20 May. a famous professional collector in the service of Lord Rothschild. visited Endeh in August 1896. (Max) Weber (1852-1937) explored Flores from 21. from there. Nanga Ramut). after having shot only a few common birds. Everett (Thackray. his itinerary being as follows: Endeh (28/30 January). 1894). Maumeri (1/18 December). unexpectedly. on 11 May. on the last-mentioned date he left for Timor. he travelled on to Koepang (cf. Bari (26/28 November). he returned to Flores in October of the same year. all within a radius of ca. on 5 May. H. but the reply from the Archivist was. In his first article on Ten Kate’s birds. he left for Adonara and Solor. Accompanied by his “native collectors”. making his headquarters at Nanga Ramau (Nangaramoe. 1383 m).12 Mees. 10 km of Nanga Ramau. that the Rothschild correspondence for 1896 does not include any letters from A. The ornithological results of Weber’s visit were quite important.C. 1897b: 513-514). Zool.

But there are several interesting species from other islands. and most of it is now in the American Museum of Natural History. leader of the “Sunda-Expedition”. if not among the Rothschild correspondence in London. Endih. and fairly large collections of birds were made. such as two specimens of Dendrocygna javanica from Lombok. I refer to Pulle (1910).1927. this collection is important. Rensch (1900-1990).but it is fairly certain that this included the catalogues of Rothschild’s mounted skins. etc. that Rensch has missed some of Endih’s specimens (cf. Lehmann. but. He did not mention specimens from Flores. soon after it was received in Tring. five were sent to the MZB). 1897b. Hartert (1897a. however. Somadikarta & Noerdjito. short: 24.. B. at various times between December 1907 and March 1909.1993). 1982).vi-25. there is only a single specimen from Flores: Eudynamys malayana. Haliaeetus leucogaster and Esacus magnirostris. For biographical particulars of Van der Sande.J. the only record from Flores. Rensch arrived at Endeh. and Max Kuschel’s catalogue of Count Roedern’s egg collection. It seems. The number of species collected was 114. Elbert (1878-1915).even as late as the 1960s. and subsequently ‘officials’ of the BMNH. G. Of this total. 11. Heberer and W. Unfortunately. The number of species listed by Rensch is nine.. Rensch (1931a: 455).Nobody knows what was destroyed. 1898a) only recorded the actual number of specimens collected when they were few.. a Naval Surgeon.. In spite of its small size. the botanist Ilse Rensch-Maier. Leiden 80 (2006) 13 x.1993) enlightened me: “I deeply regret to have to say that letters to Rothschild/Hartert. This does not look as if the authors were aware that 105 specimens were presented to the RMNH directly (100 of which remain. however. His stay on Flores was. as participant in an expedition which included also his wife. are certainly destroyed. are from Flores. of which some 15 species and subspecies were new (mainly from the previously unexplored mountains): an impressive result for a comparatively short stay. as it contains a specimen of Falco cenchroides. These are in the Zoölogisch Museum. and the herpetologist R. with which he travelled over the east-west road. The material went to the Tring Museum. Three species. Rensch (1931a) discussed the material from the Lesser Sunda Islands in the Senckenberg Museum. the number of specimens 13. placed Everett’s collecting work much too far east: “in Mittelflores (wohl hauptsächlich Gebiet des Keo. A visit of two days was made to Poeloe Endeh. Elbert’s bird collections were divided between: “the Buitenzorg Museum and the Senckenberg Museum at Frankfurt. Elanus caeruleus. Both Rothschild in his lifetime..vii. Subsequently. collected 19 birds on the islands of Flores and Sumba.1910. visited several of the Lesser Sunda Islands as well as Sulawesi (Celebes). Mr Walters (in litt.Mees. collected a few birds at Réo on the north coast in 1911. the anthropologists G.und Inerie-Vulkans)”. J. belonging to 10 species. Zool. Amsterdam. which was at that time still under . Avifauna of Flores. Mertens. van der Sande (1863-1910).. His text abounds with expressions like: “a fine series”. were new records for Flores. The loss of the Roedern catalogue rendered this fine collection almost valueless”. Med.I-10. “several skins”.. some of it was sold to the dealer Rosenberg and became widely dispersed.A. 4. According to Van Bemmel & Voous (1951: 28). a motor vehicle was rented. burned sackfull after sackfull of Rothschild’s papers. stayed on Flores from 6.ii. In Leiden. the anonymous “Javanese” preparator mentioned by Rensch (1931b: 400). some of the specimens are now in the museums at Amsterdam and Leiden”.xi.

14 Mees. one of these was described by Rensch as a new subspecies. Wai Sano). it requires mention here.R. and one Cecropis striolata (& ad. This first collection already contained a number of additions to the known avifauna of Flores (cf. More interestingly. and his main interest was in Varanus komodoensis. with the result that after his return to Flores he started observing birds and from 1952 onwards assembled a large collection of eggs.J. a group of 12 Ciconia episcopus was seen in the lowlands near Reo.C. Verheijen. as one of the specimens has been recorded in the literature (Sutter. of which 34 are from Palué (Turnix suscitator. ducks and noisy green parrots. later also of bird-skins. Sutter & Wegner in Bühler & Sutter. In this period he collected only two birds. 1964: 194). and assisted by two preparators from that Museum (one of whom was the mantri Madzoed). Thanks to the help of four experienced preparators (“Fleißige und anstellige Leute”) made available by the Zoölogisch Museum Buitenzorg (the senior one of whom was Denin. whether more had been collected (as it did me). His interest in natural history in general and birds in particular was aroused and stimulated by L. 1951: 214-215). Mass.A. Bee-eaters listed as Melittophagus leschenaulti would have been Merops ornatus. The list.1949: one Turnix maculosa floresiana. on the return voyage from Sumba. when he retired to a monastery in the Netherlands. Zool. a member of the Swiss “Sumba-Expedition” spent. probably of more than one species. de Jong (1895-1972). has remained there until 1993. 1954-1960). in November 1949. Geopelia striata. 1955: 122). After the return to Endeh. Cacatua sulphurea.xi. (= Coracina sp. spent about ten days on Flores. J. This would make readers wonder. as De Jong was a herpetologist. Jonkheer W. He had no opportunity for ornithological collecting. The MCZ-collection consists of 335 skins. Sita (700 m). the skins were sent for identification to the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy. some three weeks on Flores (cf. Descriptions of the main collecting-localities are to be found in Rensch (1931a: 459460). at that time on the staff of the Zoölogisch Museum Buitenzorg. Avifauna of Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) construction. both at Todabelu. and both on 13. Father Verheijen arrived on Flores as a missionary in 1935 and. Rensch managed to bring together a collection of 91 species of birds in this short period. Mborong (coast). Rana Mesé (1200-1400 m) and Waë Renó (1000 m). Philemon buceroides. van Heurn (1887-1972).K. It may be assumed that most of the ornithological collecting was done by Madzoed. Coomans de Ruiter (1898-1972) during their stay in Japanese internment camps in Sulawesi (Celebes) (cf. Verheijen. was published by Rensch (1931b). 1963). four of which are accepted here. Saxicola caprata.) from the breeding-colony at the school. Several species were new for Flores. to the Geli Moetoe (ca. and only in the second of his two articles (Van Heurn. E. the bird-preparator Darna). Aimere (coast). Several of these were new for Flores. 1931. SVD (1908-1997). to Badjawa (1200 m). Amaurornis . Graucalus sp. in October-November 1929. in the first half of May 1930. over the same road. of 69 species. Originally (ca. Notwithstanding the modest ornithological results of this stay. Med. made a collection of birds in western Flores (Mboera. a shorter excursion was made in an easterly direction. apart from a period of internment during the second world war. Collocalia francica dammermani (= Collocalia fuciphaga fuciphaga). Paynter. Sutter (1914-1999). Cambridge. Some unidentified herons. complete the list of his observations. so that the point had to be cleared up. He described 10 new subspecies from this collection. and Gallus varius seemed to be particularly common near Pota.). 1932) are a few birds mentioned: Streptopelia chinensis. 1500 m). Laboean Badjo. J.

32. where Father Verheijen worked in 1960 and 1961/62. in central Manggarai. and Zosterops chloris). based on this collection. 35. . Rhipidura rufifrons. 3. Nectarinia jugularis. 19. Leiden 80 (2006) 15 phoenicurus. Manus.Mees. of which 8 (3 from Palué) are not represented from Flores in the RMNH-collections: Porzana pusilla. Wélak. mainly brought together in the period 1952/1962. 9. 8. Wontong. Riwu. Klizan (Borong). Nggorang. The total number of species in this collection is 88. but it includes material from the island of Palué (Verheijen. 26. Very important is the large collection of over 4000 eggs. Jany. Tyto longimembris. Boléng. The bulk of the skin collection is from Ruteng and its wider surroundings. 34. The later material (ca. Tjibal. 100 species. Zool. Mules. came to Leiden and forms the main subject of this paper. 15. 6. 1. from Soa (received from Father Mommersteeg. belonging to ca. 1955). 17. from the first collection. Lalage sueurii. Mommersteeg (Soa). 22. 12. Ndé. Lamba-Léda. Pongkor. Geeraeds (Rekas). Radjong. Soa and Mataloko are outside Manggarai. 18. 20. 13. as well as some material. 25. Kempo. Ndoso. Chlidonias hybridus. Potjo-Léok. 31. Patjar. Sita. and from Mataloko (=Todabelu). 28. 27. Lalage sueurii. Nggalak. 11. Berit. Parus major. Biting. J. Kolang. 14. as Father Verheijen lived in Ruteng when it was assembled (figs 3-4). he acknowledges the help of several assistants and colleagues. Monarcha cinerascens. Rahong. 7. 3. Rembong. 29. 16. 19681978). Rongga-Koé. as just mentioned). Monarcha cinerascens. and Lonchura pallida. 10. Tjo. 5. 33. 21. 30. 2. A. Torok-Golo. Avifauna of Flores. 4. Rého. with the exception only of the eggs Fig. Ruteng. mostly common species. Ptilinopus melanospilus. 23. The collection was purchased by the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie in 1973. 1961). Mburak. specimens were also sent to Bogor (cf. Mata-Waé. Rehmet (Nanga Rema and other localities). Badjo. Todo. in south-western Ngada. Med. In this period. Kepo. 24. amongst the latter the Fathers J. Rhipidura rufifrons. and P. Lelak. The greater part of the egg collection is also from Manggarai. Gallinago stenura. In Verheijen’s (1964) paper. Ruis. Kedaluans (districts) of Manggarai (Western Flores).

Labuanbadjo. Waé Tua. Soknar and Lenteng. . except that for Flores he has added a few species highly unlikely to have been found in the coastal lowlands around Soknar. Waé Rambung. on the ornithological chapters of a report with a limited distribution.iv and 14. Kisol. and in the West around Labuanbadjo. Bari. 14. Potjo Rana-Ka. 29. He spent five weeks of this period on Flores: in the South at Endeh and ‘Mont Keli-Mutu’ (one day). Renari. Some eggs are shown in figs 12-18 on pp. 46. Nanga-Lili. Badjawa. Rua. Sésok. Nunuk. Accipiter virgatus. Pongkor. 54. Very Fig. 7. 13. issued two years earlier (Hoogerwerf. Méné. Soknar. 11. 24. 21. listing the birds occurring in each. 28. where he stayed most of the time. Déngé. 48. Pfeffer (*1927) visited the islands of Komodo. Rana. Tjumbi. 16. 33. Leiden 80 (2006) of the parasitic cuckoos. Waé Radja. Réo. Many records of birds are so vague that one suspects them not to be based on personal observations. 56. 45.16 Mees. Tado. almost verbatim. Much of Hoogerwerf’s (1956) paper was based. 34. 27. 8. Cuculus poliocephalus (= C. His report (Pfeffer. it is not even clear whether Komodo. Med. Kumba. Mano. Rembong. 254-261. Nanga Rema. 19. 18. 37. 35. Paku. Waé Wako. which had previously been sold separately to J. 38. 22. Toda-Belu. Nisar. 26. Lawir. 10. Sita. Puntu. 47. Rintja. 15. Rua. Ottow. 42. 41. Cacomantis variolosus. Léwé. Tjeréng. 25. 31. This means that eggs of the following species. Rekas. Waé Reca. Nanga-Rema. Léma.vii. 51. Waé Djamal. Rotjong. 43. 36. 2. 53. Naga. 5. 30. frequently. are not represented in the collection acquired: Scythrops novaehollandiae. Goang. Tjantjar. 1954b) and Pfeffer has apparently used the report rather than the publication. 44. 1. Nunang. 20. Localities in Western Flores.1956. 17. Avifauna of Flores. 1958) is very confused. Ruteng. 4. 39. he gives an ecological classification of vegetation-types. 40. 50. although collected by Verheijen. Peta. saturatus lepidus) and Brachypteryx floris. 4. 6. Lamba. This suspicion becomes a certainty when one compares his article with Hoogerwerf’s (1956) paper on the birds of Komodo. 52. 55. Mburak. Zool. Eudynamys scolopacea. P. Orong.g. Dampék. or Flores are meant. 9. Mborong. Look. Béntég Djawa. 3. e. 12. 32. 23. Pfeffer’s paper is little more than a translation of Hoogerwerf’s contribution. Padar and Rintja. Wangkung. 49. Waé Sano. Rintja and Flores between 18. but there is not a single date or locality. but copied from the literature.

Hoogerwerf notes: “Wij zagen van deze soort eens 5 exemplaren bijeen in de lucht. maar deze laatste soort kwam hier toch in geen verhouding voor tot de prachtige nestel-gelegenheid. . Med. Hoogerwerf is also responsible for the record of Cypsiurus parvus (= C. Collocalia sp. In Pfeffer’s paper. at a freshwater reservoir containing numbers of small fishes. Generally.van Pandion. and from Hoogerwerf (1954b: 217) the erroneous spelling Ichtyophaga ichtyaetus for Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus.that of Pandion. 1986: 118) noted about Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus: “From Rinca it was also recorded by Hoogerwerf. of course. There is no mention of the occurrence of Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus here. Zool. the second time: “M.maar in mindere mate . Verhoeye & Holmes (1998: 12) not only transferred Hoogerwerf’s discussion of Pandion haliaetus from Rintja to Komodo. maar 1 of 2 stuks werden dagelijks gezien. Hoogerwerf is mentioned twice. although more frequently on Komodo than on Padar and Rintja. Leiden 80 (2006) 17 likely he was not even aware of the existence of the latter. an island not visited by Pfeffer. en Cypsiurus parvus . Bruce was correct in pointing out the source of Pfeffer’s error. Ichthyphaga ichthyaetus en . balasiensis): “de Apodidae Collocalia a lesser degree . but did not realize that Hoogerwerf’s “record” was not a record at all. zowel volwassen exemplaren als nog in het jeugdkleed gestoken vogels. and were from Padar. Pfeffer. Caloenas nicobarica. the Osprey. 2) Of this species we once saw 5 individuals together in the air. Pfeffer even copied from Hoogerwerf the erroneous spelling Haliaetus for Haliaeetus. Die zee-arend werd ook in het binnenland van Rintja aangetroffen bij een zoetwaterreservoir waarin nogal wat visjes leefden. allegedly on Rintja. The impractical ecological arrangement is also taken from Hoogerwerf. Discussing Haliaeetus leucogaster.. ofschoon vaker op Komodo dan op Padar en Rintja. Bruce (in White & Bruce. de visarend” 2). Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus and . cependant on peut être assuré de rencontrer au moins un individu ou un couple de chacune de ces deux espèces en une matinée d’observation”. Such a habitat was completely unknown to us for this large bird-of-prey. were presumably also copied from Hoogerwerf. want een dergelijke plaats is bij uitstek het biotoop van die andere arend. there are no acknowledgements. not so). Zulk een verblijf was ons van deze grote roofvogel volkomen onbekend. for Hoogerwerf’s (1956) error (Ichthyphaga) was a different one. which were rightly questioned by White & Bruce (1986: 170. Hoogerwerf signale avoir rencontré Ducula bicolor et le Pigeon à crète. after discussing Haliastur indus and Haliaeetus leucogaster. but occasionally he has gone astray. only the statement that Haliaeetus leucogaster occurred here in a habitat where (elsewhere) one would rather expect Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus and Pandion haliaetus. comes with this: “Moins nombreux que les deux espèces précédentes sont Pandion haliaetus et Ichtyophaga ichtyaetus. 173). for such a place is especially the biotope of that other eagle. que je n’ai jamais eu la chance d’apercevoir”. birds so common and conspicuous that he was able to give some personal observations.. Pfeffer’s translation is a good one. This is apparently to emphasise that Pfeffer himself did observe all the other species mentioned in his paper (which is. but 1 or 2 were noted daily. adults as well as birds in juvenile plumage. perhaps the source of Pfeffer’s error”. Avifauna of Flores. and there is no literature list. This sea-eagle was also found inland on Rintja.Mees. but moreover seem certain that he observed there two individuals of the species he stated clearly that he had not seen! Pfeffer’s observations of Numenius arquata and Tringa totanus in June.

More about the specimen from Borneo will be said in the main text. material collected by him was labelled and numbered in the Verheijen collection. Zool. and some of its stories (like the addiction to “soentik”) look very familiar. but the latter species did not occur here in proportion to the beautiful nesting opportunities offered it by the Lontar Palms. but it would be unfair to Pfeffer not to mention that he has published a very readable book about his visit to Flores and Rintja (Pfeffer. The preceding notes were necessary to clear up the record. I received a Pfeffer specimen of Ninox scutulata. Padar and Rintja. Med. . however: “d’après autopsie d’un individu. The statement that the Collocalia species nest in Lontar Palms (Borassus flabellifer) is another mistranslation. qui nichent tous à la base des palmes de lontar”. interesting material from the locality Poco 3) the Apodidae Collocalia esculenta. of which there can be no reasonable doubt that he has observed them. Halcyon sancta. The acquisition-register of the Museum shows the following specimens to have been received. with whom he cooperated closely. there is no need here for a discussion of his paper and for speculation as to whether he has actually seen Cypsiurus balasiensis and Dendrocopos macei (I regard it as very unlikely). and not with Flores. it shall be ignored. He lived in Nunang. From Flores: Halcyon chloris (2). From Rintja: Stiltia isabella. Schmutz. The 17 bird species mentioned in the text (of which the scientific names are given in an appendix) are common lowland birds. E. Nectarinia jugularis and Poephila guttata. il semble que cet oiseau serait plutôt insectivore que franchement carnivore”. SVD (*1932) arrived on Flores in 1963 and. Coracina floris. Leiden 80 (2006) welke de lontarpalmen haar konden bieden” 3). and the enumeration of Pfeffer’s skins from Flores and Rintja. Philemon buceroides (2) and Dicrurus hottentottus. The supposed common occurrence of Dendrocopos macei originated also with Hoogerwerf. (francica?) et Cypsiurus parvus. being similar to my own experiences in the East. which makes it in some cases difficult to be sure whether a bird was collected by Schmutz or by Verheijen. of which the great majority was sent to Leiden. Avifauna of Flores. shows that he did not collect the species there. West Flores. Like Father Verheijen. Pfeffer continues. Pfeffer: “Les Apodidés sont bien représentés aussi: Collocalia esculenta. Throughout. This certainly suggests that a specimen was collected. . Collocalia sp. During his stay on the islands. both because otherwise only three specimens are known from the island. As Hoogerwerf’s article deals with the islands of Komodo. but again in 1982/1983. Chalcophaps indica. but it was from Borneo. In reply to my request for a loan from the Paris Museum. Collocalia sp. . and his collections are mainly from the south-western corner of Manggarai. 1965). Enough about Pfeffer’s publication: in the rest of this paper. and Cypsiurus parvus . and is unexpected. Perhaps it does not matter much: for example. Anthus novaeseelandiae (2).18 Mees. given below. The observation that Ninox scutulata is: “commune à Flores et Rintja” is not derived from Hoogerwerf. not from Flores. his main field of activity was in Manggarai. the book has the ring of truth. Pfeffer collected a small number of birds for the Paris Museum. Especially in the earlier years. and because only in the first one or two weeks of Pfeffer’s stay might this northern migrant have been likely still to be present. Pachycephala fulvotincta. mainly from 1968/1978. but is Pfeffer’s own. collected birds.

The title of a short article by Schönwetter (1934) promises more than it gives.g. practically nothing was known of the nidification of birds of the Lesser Sunda Islands. Rallus . Pernis ptilorhynchus. Porphyrio porphyrio.M. From his collections. the route was from Makassar through Strait Flores to Timor (Koepang and Dilli). the nidification of which was already well known in other parts of their range (Podiceps ruficollis. Avifauna of Flores. 6. d’Albertis. White & Bruce. d’Albertis (1841-1901) to New Guinea. 1880: 5). Father Schmutz has been particularly successful in collecting a number of rare or little-known birds such as Podiceps novaehollandiae. Zool. Chalcophaps indica). as far as published evidence goes. Verheijen (1964) lists 101 species which have been found breeding. I have been able to confirm four: Ixobrychus cinnamomeus. Caprimulgus macrurus. and photographed the nest of a sea-eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster with a chick on the island of Endeh. but it could not have been more than this (cf. I should have liked to include these. 1986: 71) list Flores amongst the islands visited by the great Italian botanist and ornithological collector O. And that is about all. On his first expedition. I was shown another small collection of birds from Flores (ca. and they may even have spent a few hours in the roads of Larantoeka. Several authors (e. The egg collection Until Father Verheijen started his investigations. Leiden 80 (2006) 19 Nernancang (near Ruteng) was actually obtained by the native collector Lazarus. and was forwarded by either Verheijen or Schmutz. Mainly for the sake of completeness. Coracina novaehollandiae. Rallus philippensis. Perth. Med. Junge. During a visit to Leiden in 1995. with L. and all are widely-distributed species. I was able to describe one new species (Monarcha sacerdotum) and one new subspecies (Accipiter virgatus quinquefasciatus). received from Father Schmutz after my retirement. Anas superciliosa. Beccari (1843-1920).Mees. but my request for access to this material was declined. Rensch noted the condition of the gonads of the birds he collected. The voyagers must have seen the eastern end of Flores from their ship. 1954: 311. Columba vitiensis. and his article on breeding seasons of birds on Flores is a contribution which deserves more attention than it has received. of which 9 with a query: Ixobrychus cinnamomeus Accipiter virgatus Rallus pectoralis Porzana cinerea Porzana fusca Streptopelia bitorquata Ptilinopus melanospilus Pnoepyga pusilla Culicicapa ceylonensis Of these nine. as eggs of only five species of birds from Timor are described in it. It may truly be said that Verheijen did pioneer work. I took notes of the more interesting specimens and included them in this paper. 80 specimens). Departure from Makassar 24 February 1872. In recent years bird collections have been made in the Lesser Sunda Islands (including Flores) on behalf of the Western Australian Museum. arrival Koepang the 28th. but that is hardly correct.

Orthotomus cucullatus. The same difficulties apply to the pair Zoothera interpres / Zoothera dohertyi. shows that some breeding activity takes place throughout the year. Otus silvicola. and the collection from Flores is no exception. In a few instances (such as the eggs ascribed to Accipiter virgatus. the following species have to be eliminated from Verheijen’s list: Otus alfredi = Otus silvicola (as suggested by Verheijen in a footnote). Father Verheijen has been generous with his eggs. who described some of them in a paper on the oology of Java (Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf. When these corrections are carried out: 8 species subtracted. the original identification by the finders has just to be accepted. Merops philippinus. particularly Lophozosterops superciliaris and Lichmera lombokia is surprising. as a verification on the basis of the eggs alone is not possible. . Real problems are caused by the white eggs of the Columbidae: unless the birds are seen attending the nest. Falco longipennis. for inclusion in my revision (Mees. This was pointed out by Verheijen (1964: 194): “Hardly anything has been collected on the coastal islands. seen in the light of the large numbers of skins of these species that have been obtained. The eggcollections of both these gentlemen have since been incorporated into the RMNH collection. salangana. As regards seasonality. must contain misidentified eggs. rufifrons was found to belong to it. and minima in December. Even keeping these limitations in mind. see p. 280). and several others. which was already in Hoogerwerf’s possession before the eggs of the parasitic cuckoos were sold to Ottow. Zool. and Passer montanus. Erythrura hyperythra (identification doubtful). 219). Rhipidura diluta) such errors were easy to detect. 1967: 53. Med. Verheijen’s (1964) enumeration of the combined totals of nests found each month. and 7 added. there seems no possibility of separating eggs of Streptopelia bitorquata from those of S. the following species can be added: Accipiter novaehollandiae. Geocichla interpres (no eggs in the collection). for the eggs of Ptilinopus melanospilus also agree in measurements although perhaps not in weights. Moreover. This means that. as a clutch ascribed to its congener R. the total number of species of which the eggs have been collected is exactly 100 (of which 97 in the RMNH. 158). I am personally indebted to Father Verheijen for presenting me with clutches of Zosteropidae. and show them to be common. With much hesitation. chinensis. He presented several clutches to Coomans de Ruiter and to Hoogerwerf. Consultation of the register will show that this is close to two-thirds of the total number of species which may reasonably be assumed to be breeding birds. rich and important as the collection is.20 Mees. then undescribed. Inevitably. 1969: 203. in the collection. Ottow). Porzana cinerea. 135. it is far from being complete. 149. Further study of these will probably lead to the addition of a few species to the list of 100. In this and several other cases. Collocalia inexpectata (there are no eggs that could be ascribed to this species. nor above 1300 m”. Leiden 80 (2006) pectoralis. the absence of eggs of some species. included is an egg of Chrysococcyx minutillus. On the other hand. 211. The collection contains a number of unidentified clutches. Avifauna of Flores. A much greater problem than unidentified eggs. now C. large collections brought together with the help of natives. the problem is not confined to within a genus. 122. I have also accepted Ptilinopus melanospilus. 136. but that there are clear maxima in April and May. which will be further discussed below. it could subsequently be re-instated. Caprimulgus macrurus. along the beach and in the coast vegetation. and Culicicapa ceylonensis. The case of Rhipidura diluta is interesting: at first rejected (the eggs had been misidentified). are misidentified eggs. the Lonchura species. the eggs of three parasitic cuckoo-species in the Coll.

Leiden 80 (2006) 21 January. Of Tesia everetti. material collected in 10 months is present. Tesia everetti and Dicaeum annae have also a remarkably extended season (11 months in Verheijen’s table). perforce. several discrepancies that cannot be explained in this way. Verheijen visited the island of Palué from mid-April to the first week of May. It is apparent that these species. November (2) and December (1). in April and May. covers only 9 months. Finally. whereas the peak period. 17 of Nectarinia jugularis. corresponds to the end of the rainy season. and one seems dubious: Verheijen listed nesting of Terpsiphone paradisi in October (1). On the other hand. Perhaps more interesting than the general (main breeding activity in April-May at the beginning of the dry season). Zool. and the extent of the breeding season that can be deduced from them. although the egg-material of A. April (3). however. I believe that they have accentuated rather than distorted the general picture. On the other hand. Verheijen’s table shows only a rough approach and undoubtedly there is some bias in it. although listed by Verheijen from 8 months only. which certainly is suggestive. is the particular: the species that do not conform. 1960. Artamus leucorhynchus. Cecropis striolata. In many other species. novaeseelandiae available to me. April (19). there is the category of species that have been found breeding in all months of the year. not all of which would have been collected. Philemon buceroides appears to . there is a clear and predictable relation between the number of clutches present. eggs of Philemon buceroides are represented in the collection from 10 months. and February.. Of course. When comparing Verheijen’s table with the numbers of clutches now in his collection. a clutch taken in March. 65 of Zosterops chloris). June (7). Although the Palué records have certainly boosted the figures for April and May. contains clutches collected in March (4). and the beginning of the dry season. do occasionally nest in other months. however. Are there also birds with a preference for the wet season? Not unexpectedly. and July (3). and of course. This is only as was to be expected. which begins breeding only towards the end of July. Merops philippinus. it will be noted that the former in many cases contains more. Dicrurus hottentottus. as the table was based on all the nests and eggs found. some clutches have been added to the collection after the manuscript was closed (in June 1962). June (6). May (11). the brood-parasites of these species: Cacomantis variolosus. Eudynamis scolopacea and Scythrops novaehollandiae. Avifauna of Flores. Terpsiphone paradisi. Other dry season breeders are Caprimulgus affinis. Med. and stops abruptly in the beginning of November. For example. Amaurornis phoenicurus) suggest this. and one would expect it of the Anatidae (about the breeding of which there is little information). May (23). His collection. and during this short period. of which Verheijen lists 36 clutches (or nesting records) divided over the months as follows: March (4). in addition.Mees. Anthus novaeseelandiae. Corvus florensis and Corvus macrorhynchos. the data for some of the Rallidae (Rallina fasciata. The period of minimal breeding activity corresponds to the wet season (heavy rainfall). but including May. Rallus philippensis. None of these other cases is based on such an impressive material as that of Saxicola caprata. large numbers of clutches of a limited number of species were obtained (15 of Turnix sp. although they have a distinct and fairly short peak in their breeding. As observed by Verheijen. Verheijen (1964: 197) already mentioned Saxicola caprata as an example of a pronounced dry-season breeder. There are not many: Turnix suscitator/maculosa. There are. the month for which no breeding was listed by Verheijen. An extreme example is Nectarinia jugularis. but his collection contains.

but others remained undescribed. Sumbawa In the following pages. might have called at Bima and done some collecting there. Zosterops aurifrons = Zosterops wallacei. he did apparently not label his specimens. Terpsiphone paradisi floris. but did not go ashore.C. Systematic account All measurements are in millimetres. which later has caused no end of confusion. Gracula religiosa venerata. in April/May. Therefore a collection definitely from Bima. However. Dicrurus hottentottus bimaensis). Gerygone sulphurea. I have consulted Forsten’s diary in the archive of the Rijksmuseum. Forsten was for a short time director of the natural history museum in Batavia. without them the informative value of the collection would have been very much less. A second example of a double peak. as it contains several species and subspecies of birds endemic to the central Lesser Sunda Islands. It is likely that during this period he either received the specimens from Bima. but he is not known to have collected birds there.22 Mees. or found them already present in the collection. Reinwardt (1773-1854) visited Bima. Lonchura pallida).E. Oriolus chinensis broderipi. and to regret as unnecessary the large series of some of the commoner birds. In 1839/1840. confronted with the same problem. Zool. just before leaving on his journey to Celebes. can have visited Sumbawa around 1840. suggested that Forsten had sent hunters to Sumbawa. his activities being confined to Sulawesi (Celebes) and the Moluccas. mention will repeatedly be made of specimens from Bima. and his collections were received in Leiden twenty years earlier (as far as they were not lost by ship-wreck). is less convincing. Leiden 80 (2006) have a double peak in its breeding-activity. is not likely to have originated from him. and it confirms that he never set foot on Sumbawa. not that many people interested in birds and able to collect them. and there can be no doubt of its provenance. Moreover. on their way back to Java. Some of these were described from 1850 onwards (Trichoglossus haematodus forsteni. It will be clear that these are the weights of the empty shells. Pitta elegans concinna. . Philemon buceroides neglectus. but that conflicts with the fact that the collection was received in Leiden in 1842. as Forsten did not visit Sumbawa. Avifauna of Flores. This brings me to a concluding remark about the value of Verheijen’s egg collection. which seems possible. There remains. and indeed. however. That leaves the riddle of who was the collector of the Bima material unsolved.G. Forsten (1811-1843) in 1842. On his way out from Java to Sulawesi (Celebes). the solution is probably still buried in an archive: after all. but very unlikely. 7. not of the full eggs. The possibility that after Forsten’s death his hunters. he passed in sight of Sumbawa. received from Dr A. only C. and were only described many years later from other collections (Treron floris. It is the first collection known from Sumbawa. 8. Junge (1954: 307). and that he arranged their transport to the Netherlands. Forsten’s collection from Bima. as Forsten never worked anywhere near Sumbawa. when Forsten was still alive. only these large series can show where the peak period of breeding activity lies. has occurred to me. an enigma around this collection. weights of the eggs in grammes. Of the early collectors. Originally I was inclined to judge it by the number of species represented in it. and September. Med.

the bill of P. Nunang (crater lake). Ergänzungsb. 22953) (fig. Measurements: 2& 2(?) wing 98. Journ.1939. Podiceps ruficollis. Nunang. &. Rensch (6). Med.— Allen. Collectors. Leiden 80 (2006) 23 Fig. novaehollandiae. ruficollis vulcanorum/tricolor. Avifauna of Flores. is thicker than that of P. where this species is rare and its status uncertain. 22951. Nunang (Schmutz. 101 exposed culmen 22. RMNH nos.x. 28. Unexpectedly. have very little black on the throat and are quite typical tricolor ((.3. Klakah. 85142). RMNH no.1969. 1929.7% . 21 23. 81084). 26. 100 101. viii. 22. two specimens from East Java. RMNH nos.1971. Schmutz. Notes. The subspecies vulcanorum is characterized by a large black throat-patch.8. right and middle specimens from Java. with little black on chin. Podiceps ruficollis vulcanorum Rensch Podiceps ruficollis vulcanorum Rensch. 77.0% 22. 21. leg. 66087. vii. Orn. Kooiman. &. In lateral view. Zool. f. 650 m (Schmutz. 650 m (Schmutz.8. Material. RMNH no. Lombok. as discussed in the text. 5). 66088).x. although individual variation in extent of the black makes this a less distinct subspecies than one would wish.Mees.— Father Schmutz found this a common species on the crater lake Nunang. 11. II: 205 – Kratersee Segare Anak (2000 m). left specimen from Flores with large black throat patch. 27 bill/wing index 22.— 2 (?). 5. &.1969.

30240).J. Notes.— Schmutz. Collector. resembling tricolor in this respect. bare skin around the eye citrine yellow. The status of this species on Flores is probably that of a rare visitor: the present specimen is the only one ever found by Father Schmutz. 14. timorensis is not recognized by White & Bruce (1986: 62. Material. On the basis of his reply. 1987).— This specimen does not agree with the description of P. P. supposedly distinguished from nominate novaehollandiae by having the: “Facial pattern and white on secondaries as in novaehollandiae. n. Although van Oort (1910) already wrote: “All the little grebes from Java in the collection of the Leiden Museum (15 specimens) belong to novae hollandiae”. The Bali bird might conceivably have come from Java. 1943. 1943. but underparts darker than in the other races of the species and distinctly washed with tawny (chestnut). in agreement with White & Bruce. Iris golden yellow. but may be valid for northern New Guinea (Lake Sentani).Waé Sano. It does certainly not apply to the Lesser Sunda Islands. Timor.1974. Java (= Rakoetak. these authors did not discuss P. see Notes).— &.1969. on the other hand. 4000’. East Timor (I.i.0 mm. timorensis (about which more will be said below). Zool. gonads 3. Chasen (1935: 50: P. this is especially strange. such as Bartels & Stresemann (1929: 90: P. and was unable to confirm the existence of differences that would justify recognition of javanicus. Med. P. General Zool. weight 170 g. The type-locality of P. since specimens in the Bartels collection are correctly labelled P. n. remains unconfirmed. Alor and Timor. 1826.24 Mees. West Java. Nunang. whereas the birds from the eastern Lesser Sunda Islands are more likely to have been stragglers from Australia. Many years ago. Flores. The Rakoetak (7°09’S. without any suggestion of breeding. 65167). Emu 43: 6 – Rakukak. timorensis was based on a single specimen. Podiceps novaehollandiae timorensis Mayr. ruficollis: “lives side by side with novaehollandiae on a number of places without interbreeding”. 10 km west of Lautém.0 × 3. but according to Greenway (1973: 217) it appears on the label to be Rakoetak. where the situation requires further study. is a resident. ruficollis philippensis. There are now records of P. novaehollandiae). 650 m (Schmutz. CSIRO no. and in each case it concerned single individuals. which is outside the geographical region treated by them. javanicus. n. Podiceps novaehollandiae javanicus Mayr. ruficollis vulcanorum. This would also be the locality referred to as Raketak by Ripley (1952). Leiden 80 (2006) Podiceps novaehollandiae novaehollandiae Stephens Podiceps Novae Hollandiae Stephens. n. Being aware of the presence of a specimen from Timor in the ANC. Emu 43: 7 – Sumul. P. Mayr’s (1943: 4) assertion that P. Mason. I compared specimens from Java with Australian material. javanicus was given as “Rakukak” by Mayr (1943). No locality of that name exists. 89). 13 (1): 18 – New Holland. until Mayr (1943) drew renewed attention to it. but it fits well into a series from Java. in Shaw. n. novaehollandiae from Bali (Wiegant & van Helvoort. RMNH no. “The specimen is white-breasted . this was for some reason overlooked by later authors. I feel justified in placing timorensis also in the synonymy of nominate novaehollandiae. 17. Particulars are: (. Avifauna of Flores. General size and relative size of bill large”. who honestly states: “I have been unable to identify this locality”. I asked Dr Schodde for information about 107°43’E) is a mountain to the south-east of Bandoeng. ruficollis vulcanorum) and Kuroda (1936: 587).

Pelecanus conspicillatus Temminck Pelecanus conspicillatus Temminck. ZMA). and sides and back of the neck. Med. This suggests to me that it is an immature male moulting into a nearly completed first non-breeding plumage . the index is calculated from the assumption that ca. 11.— Verheijen (a wing only. Western Australia (cf. 5 (livr. Avifauna of Flores. Measurements: wing exposed culmen bill/wing index &Flores 105 22 21% (Timor 104 21+ ca. 1951). in litt. The bird is as white on the breast.. Pelecanus conspicillatus captured on Flores (Watuneso). Leiden 80 (2006) 25 and -throated with vestiges of white mottling on sides of head and a faint russet cast to the mid grey of the lower throat. Zool. Recueil d’Ois.— None. Collector. 47): pl. belly and upper throat as typical Australian specimens” (Schodde.Mees. Stresemann. Material.1% The bill of the Timor specimen is damaged. 6. Fig. 1824..1993). 276 – des Terres Australes = Swan River. . 2 mm at the tip are missing. In comparison with T. 22. novaehollandiae from Australia in equivalent plumage I can find no difference other than some russet feathering in the crown which could be individual...

16. following several good breeding seasons and a build-up of the population. to arbitrary restrictions and substitutions being made (as in the above case). Measurements: (?) wing ca. 1844.2 × 30. (on which is added in pencil a word which I believe reads “falsch”. when this is needed for the study of geographical variation. however. 1967). I have no objection to a type locality restriction being arbitrarily made. Zool.— &. and then one with Phalacrocorax javanicus (Horsf. Manggarai. about September 1960 (cf. 1 has on the shell. According to Berlioz (1929: 65) the type is “d’Australie”. On the oldest label Plegadis falcinellus. Ayer Pannas (Rosenberg. 13. 11.1970.3 and 48.0 × 30. Material.— The wing preserved by Verheijen.x. 1. in Schönwetter’s handwriting). no. In 1978. Avifauna of Flores. RMNH no. 6). Anim. without any mention that they are restrictions.). I cannot find clear published evidence of breeding of this species in Sulawesi (Celebes). was not passed by. an invasion took place in southern Indonesia. was. On 10 July. Voous. on 26 April. As an explanation for the invasion. weights 1. Rosenberg.1863. no. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes.1969. as far as I can judge. Lichtenstein): 366 – Ternate. Local newspapers recorded 26 pelicans flying above and fishing in Rana Loba. Nat.— (?) ad. purely arbitrary.— Verheijen. Lombok. in what I believe to be Schlegel’s handwriting: “s. 300 birds in West Sumbawa. Sumbawa and Timor. Ibis peregrinus. 65168). Flores.26 Mees. 390 tail 198 tarsus 53 culmen from forehead feathers 93 Phalacrocorax melanoleucos melanoleucos (Vieillot) Hydrocorax melanoleucos Vieillot. Collector. so that it is worth recording the presence of two eggs in our collection: 1. Iris light greenish grey. Nouv. and was brought back by the Expedition Baudin in 1804. 2). although not specifically mentioned by these authors. adverse conditions in Australia. measurements 46. Desc. has been suggested by Somadikarta & Holmes. Med. its tip almost white. Sula leucogaster plotus (Forster) Pelecanus plotus Forster. bill bluish slate. RMNH cat. The third label reads Phalacrocorax . Panybie (Rosenberg. 1).4 mm.8488 g. or is no longer available.5802 and 1. from Java and Sulawesi (Celebes).vii. 5. Look (Verheijen. The largest flock reported was one of ca. n. 8: 88 – l’Australasie. one kilometer from Mborong.ix. 65169). I do object. Dict. Material. 1817. Nanga Ramut (Verheijen.viii. Celebes”. four birds were captured near Watuneso (fig. Notes. was from a bird taken near Sika.— Mathews’s (1912: 241) substitution of “New South Wales” for the type-locality as originally given by Vieillot. and from the Lesser Sunda Islands of Bali. v. Collector: – Verheijen. Hist. Somadikarta & Holmes (1979) listed records from the Moluccas. RMNH cat. Cat. no.1863. legs spotty greenish blue. and the original type material cannot provide this information. (ed. RMNH no. a small lake ca.

Rosenberg.0. White & Bruce (1986: 94) state: “Breeds in E. Meyer & Wiglesworth (1898: 891). 1914: 121). n. sulcirostris on Lake Limbotto. There is no definite record of breeding in Sulawesi (Celebes). no. Leiden 80 (2006) 27 spec. .1880.. Hoogerwerf (1969/1971: 448-449) found it also nesting on the north coast of the Udjung Kulon peninsula. is added in pencil: “ist Phalacrocorax spec. no. 1 was originally marked Ardea nigripes. Rosenberg”.R. have been a resident for centuries.7 × 33. in the hand of Hellebrekers changed to melanoleucos and on the last label. signed Schönwetter.. like Blasius (1883: 127-128. designated type locality Raine Island (cf. To the impressive list of island records provided by White & Bruce (1986: 94). Ayer Pannas (v. 2) measurements 49.5772.2220. after that as Anhinga melanogaster.8336. Material.— (?). weights 3. 1845. As regards East Java: when Hoogerwerf (1935) visited the tambaks near Soerabaja.R.1863. 1955 and 1956. he was assured that the species had been breeding there for as long as could be remembered. 2 has written on the egg: “s. bearing the name Notophoyx picata. Gorontalo (v. Mathews. The next label reads Phalacrocorax javanicus. 3. and c/4. Our collection contains nine clutches of eggs from Pulau Dua. listed correctly in their bibliography. RMNH cat.3 mm. Rosenberg.4 × 37. 21. Yet. v. then Phalacrocorax spec. no. sulcirostris. Bull.”. 1954. is about breeding on Pulau Dua in West Java. and the final one of P. Gray) Atagen ariel G. Acad. Rosenberg. changed by Hellebrekers. RMNH cat. no. 11.viii. Cat. with the last word crossed out and. Phalacrocorax sulcirostris (Brandt) Carbo sulcirostris Brandt.7391 g..1889.0 mm.7708 g. dismissed Rosenberg’s (1881) claim of the occurrence of P. Cat. Gen. for all that is known. Collectors. Collector. But Hoogerwerf’s (1953 = 1954a) paper. I do not know on what McKinnon’s statement is based that Phalacrocorax sulcirostris “has been extending its range westward in the last century and now nests in E. Endeh (Weber. in 1952.1. 3. and finally as Phalacrocorax sulcirostris by Hellebrekers. Java (Hoogerwerf 1953) and now also W.2 × 37. presumably also in Wallacea”. Java. Pétersb. v. Med. RMNH cat.— Weber. On the oldest label. 50. leg. Java (McKinnon MS)”.Mees.. 2 has written on the shells: “Carbo sulcirostris”.3 × 36. weight 2. i. the western tip of Java. Java and Pulau Dua in West Java”: correct for West Java. re-identified as Phalacrocorax on a label written by van St. the current one: Phalacrocorax melanoleucos melvillensis. 21. identified as P. Fregata ariel ariel (G.2. 56 – Terrae australes (Südsee). pl. and therefore was correctly identified from the beginning. c/1. 183 – no locality. 1) measurements 53. our collection contains two clutches.— Bruce & White (1986: 94) state: “Breeds in E. Colfs. Celebes”. 3: col. RMNH cat. 50. Alor (Ombaai) can be added: (?). Sci. no. 1837.1863. Avifauna of Flores.— None. 14). but in East Java it might. Gray (ex Gould MS). Birds 3: 669. viii..4 × 37. Cat. 53. 3.. Ardea picata. and 1886: 174) before them. no. collected by Hoogerwerf in 1953. no. in March 1955. Notes. melanoleucos melvillensis. Zool.

Fregata ariel is certainly the commonest frigate bird in the region. minor from Timor in our collection. a well-known breeding station of F. Schmutz says of the birds he observed. although they admitted that their material was somewhat inadequate. 1922). the evidence is strong enough for acceptance. in the past fifty years. 1991: 101). their behaviour suggesting that they may be about to settle (cf. on 21. no specimens have been collected.— Egg: c/1.28 Mees. 1977) observed frigate birds at Nanga-Lili. near Endeh and Mborong. merely for the solution of what is. but in the last few years birds have been observed there. was not their material suggested that Australian birds are smaller. minor may also occur. 1912. mathewsae. Material. 500 km north-east of Flores. ariel had not even been recorded as a visitor to Christmas Island. Stokes. Lond. ariel as: “often seen above the coastal areas of Flores”. There is a specimen of F. 5). 70047). the character by which adult males of the two species may be distinguished. Stresemann. Nanga Rema (RMNH no. minor off the north coast of Samau. and their large size leads to a reluctance to ask for. is ca. 52. but surely in error: until recently. either implicitly. in particular of whether there is a distinguishable Australian subspecies. There is no general agreement on the question of whether the species shows geographical variation.5 × 47. but others have continued to recognize subspecies. Colfs. Zool. Trans. Also. Goenoeng Api in the Banda Sea. no. 70047 68. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes. loans. who observed them. Verheijen (egg only). only a very minor problem.— Frigate birds were first recorded from Flores by Rensch (1931b: 505). Van Bemmel & Hoogerwerf. Ardea sumatrana mathewsae Mathews. RMNH cat. F.1961. Condon.4 7. 18: 230 – Cooktown. minor is a common breeding bird on Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). Zool. and Haniel collected a specimen of F. high in the air. Measurements and weight: RMNH no. 1988: 32). 13: 325 – Sumatra. after all.— Measurements and weight of this egg fit nicely into the range of variation given by Schönwetter (1960: 87) for a series of 11 eggs from northern Australia. He was unable to give a specific identification.24 Notes. that the white of the breast may be entirely absent. Hellmayr. or to provide. Verheijen (1961) reported F. ariel subsp. only Amadon & Woolfenden (1952) have actually compared material. and listed them as Fregata sp. 1822. F.. White & Bruce (1986: 93) also claim breeding of F. Soc. by . That this question has not yet been solved to everybody’s satisfaction is certainly due to the large size of the bird: very few museums have adequate material from all parts of its fairly extensive range. Med.1911 (cf. The egg is very pale greyblue. 1914: 109. minor (Hoogerwerf. North Queensland. Dickinson et al. but F. Linn. 1979: 201. They concluded that the subspecies described from Australia. 1975. Novit. Schmutz (MS. Many authors have accepted this conclusion. ariel on the island. 1939. Ardea sumatrana Raffles Ardea Sumatrana Raffles.1880 (leg. iii. 1940). as far as I know.— Allen. as F. x. Collectors. and have treated Ardea sumatrana as a monotypic species (cf. Although. As far as I can make out. Payne. but he says nothing about the presence or absence of white patches on the flanks. Avifauna of Flores.

Sydney). Halmahera (1). 1957: 560 and later publications. Material. Other brownish birds.Mees. . is quite dark. manilensis Meyen. clear confirmation that Australian birds are not smaller. and Sorong. Med. Amadon & Woolfenden. Salawati (1). The Australian bird is a mounted specimen from Clarence River. 65170). so we must assume that.1929 (cf. In this material. may be assumed to be immature (cf. Mathews did not explain the name. Clearly. his phantasy was heavily taxed. that of the bird from India 480 mm. 1931a: 497). Cur. 1971b: 21). in colour”. l. but is very unbalanced: 24 specimens. although proof of breeding is not yet available.— &.-Carol. Morotai (1). however. almost bronze. New Guinea (1). Kenari (Schmutz. It is not surprising that the subspecific name mathewsae bestowed by Mathews has caused some confusion (mathewsi.x. the race: “mathewsii [sic] restricted to the Australian subcontinent” [why sub?] was also accepted by Lansdown (1992). Java (3). Suppl. and the Australian bird. Simalur (2). specimens having brownish edges along the feathers. Caes.1969.: 102 – Manila (reference not verified). NSW (received in 1862 from the Australian Museum. almost chestnut. Collectors. Nova Acta Acad. 26. breeding records from Flores in March and from Sumbawa late April by White & Bruce (1986: 99) are based. Schmutz. I cannot see any significant difference in plumage between an adult bird from Continental India (admittedly an old. with the naming of some 560 species and subspecies in this one publication. or explicitly. with black stripes. To the latter category belong Hancock & Elliott (1978: 280). 16. and Hancock & Kushlan (1984: 74). Waigeo (1). I suppose that. Leiden 80 (2006) 29 using a trinomial for the birds from the northern and western parts of the range (for example Smythies.vii. Avifauna of Flores. Leopold. but only one of these from Australia. Very distinctive is the bird from Waigeo. no. Notes. Zool. and presume them to be erroneous. The wing-length of the Australian bird is 485 mm. Kelang (1). Vogelkop. Recently. Adult birds. Obi Major (1).c. 1834. if any. The RMNH collection is not exactly poor in specimens.— De Jong (1). several adults from intermediate localities. 12. Sumatra (1). Sulawesi (Celebes) (6). somewhat artlessly. Nat. Batjan (1). the other specimens are from: Continental India (2). Misool (1). RMNH no. there was reason for a further examination of the problem. mathewsii). a juvenile: it is warm brown. who claim Australian birds to be: “noticeably browner”. there is a considerable variation in plumage. and a sight record from Mborong in the beginning of July 1927 (Rensch. do not differ in any way from the Australian specimen. mounted specimen of not very precise provenance. Evidently A. RMNH cat. 1). Rensch. type of Ardea typhon Temminck. which. 1931b: 395). he named the bird after his wife. duPont. contrary to descriptions in the publications cited above.).— Previous records are of a bird collected at Mboera. who state that: “The Australian subspecies mathewsi [sic] is very noticeably browner. I do not know on what evidence. purpurea is a resident on the Lesser Sunda Islands. Ardea purpurea manilensis Meyen Ardea purpurea var.

Records of interbreeding in the wild between Egretta alba and Ardea cinerea in the Netherlands. Mees. Lawir (Verheijen. where v. Ruteng (Verheijen. vii/viii. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no.30 Measurements: & wing 330 (band) tail 115 Mees.5 1. RMNH cat. Rahong (Verheijen.. 4). the raising of viable young from such pairs. & ad. 56 pl. 70049 44. 11. 70048). Avifauna of Flores. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. on the basis of a sight record (of a single bird) by Rensch (1931a: 501). was a certain scepticism (cf. so that it remained unpublished. 65174). 29. 2. 70049).xi. RMNH cat. Ardea novaehollandiae Latham [Ardea] novae Hollandiae Latham.: 701 – nova Hollandia. Material. 65172). but by no means universally. Rensch (1).vii.1968. I can add Khoor (= Koer. 1862. (nestling). 65173). nestling). Collector – Semmelink Material. Gray Ardea modesta J. no. Rahong (Verheijen. Gray.ix. 16). Med.x.. In the light of all this evidence I feel compelled. Eggs: c/1.— (?). and especially the fact that a hybrid paired with an Egretta alba.. again produced viable young. Verheijen.— When Schlegel (1863a) completed his catalogue of the Ardeae in April 1863. 65175). 20). That is why the species was only added to the avifauna of Flores seventy years later. 1982a: 14) and mainly a reluctance (due to conservatism) to abandon the binomen Egretta alba. 1831. RMNH no. been placed in the genus Ardea (rather than in Egretta or Casmerodius). (?)juv. & ad. 14. that has been familiar to me and that I have used in publications for over fifty years.1957.1968. although highly critical of the osteological work of Payne & Risley. Verheijen (5. 65171. The reason why I did not follow this.— Weber. xi-xii.: 19 – India.1968. the type species of Egretta. c/1. Leiden 80 (2006) tarsus 122½ exposed culmen 123 Ardea alba modesta J. where in 1997 a mixed pair succesfully raised four hybrid young (Baumanis in Anon. indicate that the two species are fairly close and thus support their union in one genus. (?)juv. MCZ). x. Kuwu.1968. 1790. RMNH cat.6 × 33. 1998: 39. RMNH nos. To the island records listed by White & Bruce (1986: 100). Since the revision by Payne & Risley (1976).1 × 34.940 .691 1. RMNH no.E.E. Larantoeka (Semmelink. proving its fertility (Van der Kooij & Voslamber.x. Zool. Misc. Endeh (Weber. ( juv. The eggs are plain light blue. no. still reluctantly. this species has frequently. the above specimen had not yet reached him. 32). That interbreeding is not exceptional or confined to a single locality is shown by a further record from Latvia. nevertheless agreed in placing alba close to Ardea and remote from Egretta garzetta. Dampék (RMNH no. 1997). Collectors.2 47. (nestling).— (?). Notes. 31. RMNH no.1865. Index Orn. Rosenberg obtained a specimen (&.1888. Zool. McCracken & Sheldon (1998). to transfer alba to Ardea. 70048 RMNH no. Kur).1958.

including Müller. so that it must have been collected by Allen. 2). Egretta sacra sacra (Gmelin) [Ardea] sacra Gmelin. RMNH cat. Notes. Syst. these records were overlooked by Hancock & Kushlan (1984: 113-116). See also Schlegel (1863a: 14). Manuel d’Orn. The records by Semmelink and Allen seem to have been overlooked by later authors.) 4: 376 – l’Archipel des Indes = Java. 52). Allen (cf. In the description of A. n. nos.— Breeding of Ardea novaehollandiae on Flores was recorded by Verheijen (1964: 198) and Mees (1975a).1969. Mathews’s restriction was perfectly justified. RMNH no.— Egretta immaculata in Wallace’s list stands for this species. (ed. Java (van Hasselt. 1). Egretta garzetta nigripes (Temminck) Ardea nigripes Temminck. but 1828. RMNH cat. 1829. 1864: 487. 65179). 18-21. where these specimens are listed under the cat. 7). Soerabaja (S. no. RMNH cat. 1862. nigripes. Isis: 659 – Java. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 1840. 4).Mees.— (?). Egretta immaculata). cannot be correct. cf. not dated. Material. no. éd. Müller.ix. The year of collecting given for a Soerabaja specimen. The two collected by Van Hasselt would be from West Java. 13) 1 (2): 640 – Tahiti. Mees (1982a: 16). its tip brownish black. west coast (Schmutz. when on their way to Makassar (cf. legs black. Müller.— (. but 1821/1823. Temminck first gave its range as “les îles de la Sonde et les Moluques”. As all four specimens are from Java. Soerabaja (S. s. Zool. “1827”. Med. Unfortunately. no. 20. 1827. ii. bill yellow. Material. Egretta intermedia (Wagler) A[rdea] intermedia Wagler. Our collection contains four specimens which would have been available to Temminck in 1840: (.— Schmutz. RMNH cat. and a few lines further down. 1994: 6. but Peters (1931: 111) restricted it only to the Sunda Islands. (2. . Nat. Kenari. Iris light yellow. no. 3). followed by Chasen (1935: 56). however. RMNH cat. Collector. I see no need for a further restriction or a lectotype designation. collect at Soerabaja in February 1828. in East Java. presumed juvenile. Müller did not visit East Java in that year. did. as S. The type locality was restricted to Java by Mathews (1927: 195). Wallace. Collectors. &.— For measurements and a discussion of this species. 1789.— Semmelink. not dated. not dated. Notes. Avifauna of Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) 31 Notes. (?). of course. who mention it as merely a migrant visitor or a vagrant to the Lesser Sunda Islands. Members of the Natuurkundige Commissie. but 1821/1823. (. Mees. whereas Soerabaja is. no. and so did Payne (1979: 213). but see the date of the following specimen. as “l’Archipel des Indes”. Java (van Hasselt.

Gorontalo.— Semmelink. it should be kept in mind that reporting on their nesting would not have had priority with ornithologists of the 19th century: breeding was taken for granted. Table Planches Enlumn. in the RMNH collection. Med. not yet able to fly. Ardeola speciosa speciosa (Horsfield) Ardea speciosa Horsfield. in our collection there is a c/2. Father Schmutz has never seen it. The eggs are dull white. 11. 1862. Leiden 80 (2006) Collectors. Incidentally. 66070). Van Marle & Voous (1988: 62) record a c/2 from the Padang Highlands. Material. Material. 633). Collector. 1821. Zool. 14. In evaluating the scarcity of nesting-records of this and other common birds. Sumatra. 70050 45. 21: 189 – Java. was reidentified and published by me as Egretta intermedia (cf. &.. Soc.3 × 34. as does one bird collected by Schmutz. Celebes (Rosenberg. at that time. Nisar (Schmutz.: 54 – Coromandel (based on Crabier de Coromandel. RMNH cat. 1). Larantoeka (Semmelink.1 47.1969. 1982a: 18). Mees. 1986: 23). Eggs: c/3.— The bird collected by Semmelink belongs to the grey morph (cf. 13).8270 Notes. Portuguese Timor. by Coomans de Ruiter (1948b: 75).— Semmelink’s specimen. However.3 × 34.— None. there is only a field observation by Rensch (1931a: 500.8779 1. Verheijen/Schmutz. 66071). although I did so on the label of the clutch.— Semmelink.1 × 34. 70050). Iris yellow.— (?).ii. to correct the entry in the card-catalogue of the egg collection.0 1. Pl. Larantoeka (Semmelink. as well as the birds obtained in 1861 by Wallace at Dilli. On Flores it is apparently not common. 1862. Notes. This clutch. Rensch (3). Material.1958.1863. for besides the specimen listed above. Trans. Lond. Collector. no.9422 1. (. originally identified as being of Bubulcus ibis. RMNH no. White & Bruce (1986: 103) comment on the general absence of breeding-records from Wallacea. Avifauna of Flores. . whereas the other one belongs to the white morph. they could only mention a record of a nestling. Unfortunately I failed. Bubulcus ibis coromandus (Boddaert) Cancroma Coromanda Boddaert. 910). no.— De Jong (1). and required no documentation. RMNH no. 22. 46).— (?).1969.32 Mees. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. coast between Nanga-Lili and Sésok (Schmutz.v. provide proof that the Cattle Egret already inhabited the Lesser Sunda Islands before its recent expansion. no. Nanga Rema (RMNH no. southern Sulawesi (Celebes). RMNH cat. faintly tinged with bluish grey. Buff.vii. There is little doubt that the species is a resident on the Lesser Sunda Islands. Mees. Enlumn. although I do not know of any definite breeding records. from Paré-Paré. RMNH cat. 6.9 45. 1783.

Lond. 13: 190 – Java. Nat. S. Payne.— Weber. but appears to have been overlooked by all later authors.vii.1888. 1821. Nggoér (Schmutz. ZMA no. 15. Material.— De Jong’s specimen was recorded by Rensch (1931b: 395). Sumba (2) and Timor (1). 66073). Mayr had only one specimen from Timor. Nunang (Schmutz. no. Syst. Schmutz. Ash. Material. In uniting steini with javanicus. cf.Mees.1829.1969. Collectors. nycticorax in the Lesser Sunda Islands east of Bali (where it is a resident. Timor. 1758. For comparison.— Both specimens were marked as having large gonads. Rensch gives for this bird a wing-length of 213 mm. Everett (2). The small-scale map in Hancock & Kushlan (1984: 191) is inaccurate. leg. which is large for a member of the nominate subspecies. Butorides striatus steini Mayr. but then. I feel reasonably confident that these birds are also javanicus. and one from Bali (additional specimens from various other islands). Trans. RMNH cat. Linn. &.— Allen. Hancock & Kushlan. I am in agreement with White & Bruce (1986: 104105). (ed. Emu 43: 10 – Dilly. 66072). ii. Zool. Butorides striatus javanicus (Horsfield) Ardea Javanica Horsfield. Alor (1). 52). The subspecies steini was not based on a great amount of material: Flores (2.— (.. At any rate. Collector. RMNH cat. RMNH no. no. the above specimen constituted the only published evidence for the occurrence of N. 26011): I have examined the bird. Soc. xii. 42). which suggests local breeding.. Notes. Maumeri (Weber. but as other recent authors have retained steini as a valid subspecies (cf.1969. but there is no definite record. Mayr (1943) had only a single topotypical specimen of javanicus from Java. With only two specimens from Timor (one of which is mounted. but Van der Sande collected one on Sumba (( ad. Avifauna of Flores. Müller. 1979: 224. I am not in a good position to judge the validity of steini as such. 1943.— Hitherto. which is in perfect adult plumage. 7. 1984). in that it shows .vii. 10) 1: 142 – Europa australi. 1984: 173). Koepang. I found it impossible to separate the Flores specimens in any way from birds from Java and therefore it is with some confidence that I assign them to javanicus. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) 33 Notes. the characters stressed by Mayr as diagnostic of steini show a great deal of variation. it still seemed worth mentioning my conclusions. presumably the two collected by Everett). Notes. Measurements: ( & wing 194 185 tail 74 64 tarsus 55 52 exposed culmen 64 62 Nycticorax nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus) [Ardea] Nycticorax Linnaeus. Iris yellow. southwest coast of Sumba. In the large series from Java available in Leiden. based on material different from that examined by White & Bruce. v. RMNH no.1909.— (?) ad.

Zool. RMNH no. Evidently. 28 of caledonicus and & juv. Rosenberg) were fully grown and would have been well able to fly.— The nos. 28 is not fully fledged (wing-length ca. Note that the information about these two specimens. 200 mm. Juvenile dispersal over great distances is one of the characteristics of the species. Rosenberg had misidentified the species. ( ad.— Verheijen (1. 7. no. 29 of caledonicus). RMNH cat. no. Nycticorax caledonicus hilli Mathews Nycticorax caledonicus hilli Mathews. 43. which he listed under the name of Ardea caledonica. nycticorax. Hitherto. 26.North-West Australia (Parry’s Creek). RMNH cat. and still is. 65180 and 85147 are in the streaked juvenile plumage. 3. Nunang (Schmutz. on the basis of the evidence supplied below. Panybie.. no.. Therefore I had not. White (1973b).34 Mees. caledonicus. and not a single one of N. Limbotto. 43 which has always been correctly identified as N. nycticorax. 21. Hancock & Kushlan (1984: 193) only say: “The immature is brown with much buff and white spotting and streaking”. 28.1976. Sulawesi (Celebes) can definitely be added to the breeding-range. Wangkung. nycticorax. Med.. by the strongly rufous tinge of the remiges and rectrices. caledonicus. previously. included in the breeding-range. Cat. which I forwarded to White (1973b) is erroneous. and was surprised to find that both specimens have actually been misidentified and are N.. Avifauna of Flores. Waé-Mésé. Rahong (Schmutz. Material. A specimen that found its way to Brüggemann (1876: 98.. MCZ). RMNH no.. nycticorax from him in Leiden. The inaccuracy is based on an equally inaccurate map in Cramp & Simmons (1977: 263). There has been. 3. Our collection contains six specimens of N. bothered too much about Rosenberg’s two juvenile specimens ascribed to N. nycticorax in corresponding plumage. RMNH cat. Zool.1863.ix. everybody has been expecting N. Notes. partly on the basis of information supplied by me. nest-hairs on the head) and therefore provides definite proof of breeding. both collected by v. Nisar (Schmutz. Cat. With the re-identification of the two specimens. n.1969. much confusion about the status of this species anywhere east of the Line of Wallace. and two specimens identified as N. rejected earlier records of breeding in northern Sulawesi (Celebes).1969. and of which he stated to have taken 18 specimens. s. no. for example. 66074). Collectors. and N. no. xii.ix. as far east as Timor. Leiden 80 (2006) all the Lesser Sunda Islands. as the two specimens in juvenile plumage in our collection (& juv. The literature tends to be hazy about these differences. there are now 8 specimens of N.viii.— ( juv. Juveniles of this species are easily distinguishable from juveniles of N. no. bare facial skin and basal two thirds of the mandible green-yellow. 7. nycticorax obtained there by him. On the other hand.1863. caledonicus to be the common species in Sulawesi (Celebes).ix. caledonicus. Verheijen/Schmutz. legs green-yellow. Panybie. 29 is not only of the same date and place. Rosenberg (1881) never claimed to have found more than one species of night-heron in northern Celebes. RMNH no. 65180). nycticorax the unlikely one. & juv. Both are juveniles (& juv. 85147). Rosenberg is supposed to have found both species in northern Sulawesi (Celebes). 18: 233 .. Kandang. Now I did so. remainder of bill black.1863. Iris of adult yellow. 39 and ( juv. . RMNH cat. 1912. Nycticorax aegyptius) was also N. no. but also of the same size and appearance as specimen Ayer Pannas.

S. Zool.): “Java and possibly Sumatra”. 23. Rensch 1931b: 373). 1982c). I have no idea on what this is based. Avifauna of Flores. My reasons for continuing to use the subspecific name hilli for birds from Australia and adjacent islands. c. nycticorax.— &. Collectors. Bartels). Further to breeding in Sumatra. Material. cf. Dilly. There is a female. but collected by De Bussy. Syst. there is the definite statement by Van Marle & Voous (1988: 64): “Female and eggs collected 18 Dec 1914. I asked for more particulars.1932. and this is repeated without alteration by Hancock & Kushlan (1984: 246). with a reference to Hancock & Elliott (1978: 60). 1789. White & Bruce (1986: 108) claim breeding in Java.— Allen. (ed.iii. The table suggests breeding in Sumatra rather than in Java. 26.1995) provided in great detail. Robinson & Kloss (1924: 219): “Females (July and August) had developed ovaries”. Notes. Iris yellow.1982. x. Soemba (Dammerman. the earliest autumn date is October 1827. Nat. not Waldeck. Timor (Stein. Waldeck. 17 and 18. although it is quite likely that it does. Perbaungan. Deli (coll. Bartels). have been given elsewhere (Mees. arranged by month: I II III IV Sumatra – – 3 4 Java 6 5 4 1 Bali 4 – – – Borneo 1 – – – Sulawesi (Celebes) – – – 2 V – 3 – – – VI – 1 – – – VII 3 – – – – VIII 1 – – – 5 IX – – – – 1 X – 1 – – – XI – 6 – 2 3 XII – 20 – – – Supplementary information on birds from Java: the June date is 1 June 1902 ( 26034).1925. Because of the importance of the record. Ixobrychus sinensis (Gmelin) Ardea Sinensis Gmelin. which would seem to clinch the matter. RMNH no. MCZ). Material from other islands. leg.— Further records from the Lesser Sunda Islands are: 2 ( ad. Verheijen (2. Apparently. Kambera.. with the date cited above (ZMA no.Mees. the first subsequent autumn date is 6 November 1925 (Tjisaroeni. cf. There is no evidence yet of breeding of this species on any of the Lesser Sunda Islands. instead of novaehollandiae as propagated by Schodde & Mason (1980: 18). arranged by month is given in the following table. Leiden 80 (2006) 35 without any reference to the young of N. where Java is listed without any explanation amongst the breeding places. 13) 1(2): 642 – Sina. Hancock & Elliott (l. leg. Sumatra is only referred to as a vague possibility in the publications mentioned above. 23. Material from other islands. ZMA)”..xii. cf. Schmutz. 81026). without exact date (leg. Müller). I cannot confirm the claim by Meyer & Wiglesworth (1898: 848) that the two species would differ in the relative proportions of tarsus and middle toe. De Bussy used to pass on . 1944a: 132) and (?). I have been unable to find on what the claim of breeding on Flores by White & Bruce (1986: 106) is based. Lemboi. Mayr. which Mr Roselaar (in litt. Med. 250 m (Schmutz.

Avifauna of Flores.— Verheijen (eggs only). Med. in 1986.36 Mees.1955. Our collection gives no support to the suggestion by Beehler et al.2 × 29. cinnamomeus and outside (= above) that of I. and North Borneo (“Sabah”). On the basis of the information provided by the table. Mr Roselaar concludes that the available records do not make clear whether the specimen was actually found in association with the eggs.758 Notes.1914 in Amsterdam. but an apparently large part of Waldeck’s egg collection was lost in 1917. but it seems at least likely that the specimen of I. Dampék (RMNH no. A weak point is also the original misidentification as I.5 × 28. The eggs are white. 1995: 537). 70751 35.— Eggs: c/3. 198) mentioned no specimen. cinnamomeus from Perbaoengan/Perbaungan in the collection. the ‘Koningin Emma’.4 36. Zool. RMNH cat. sinensis as presented by Schönwetter (1960: 93-94).3 × which is much more likely. Syst. Leiden 80 (2006) duplicate eggs to Waldeck. Junge (1953: 5). Moreover. sinensis (by Roselaar). our dated material is from October (2) and November (16). Our collection contains 6 clutches of eggs from Sumatra. thus giving a completely misleading picture of the distribution of this species. Measurements and weights: RMNH no.1 36. cinnamomeus. but Verheijen (1964: 195. the earliest one of which was collected in 1827 (Tjikao. (1986: 59) of nesting in New Guinea. sinensis was a visitor and just had the misfortune of being collected at a place where its congener I. but none of I. and 77 from Java. Boie & Macklot. cf. sinensis. and only in the nineteen seventies reidentified as I.714 0. There are several clutches (and skins) of I. leg. in May 1988. It is a common breeding bird in both islands.0 0. proof either way is impossible. (1996: 165) report the find of a nest with one nestling of this species on Sumbawa.— According to White & Bruce (1986: 109): “the only Flores record (Verheijen 1964) perhaps a vagrant”. In the absence of the eggs. Nat. eggs and young by La Bastide (1941). new. when the ship on which it was transported. they seem not to have considered the possibility that it was I. cinnamomeus. Material. See also the description and photographs of nest. cinnamomeus. 70751). 1789. 13) 1 (2): 643 – Sina. have excluded Sumatra and Java from the range. There is no clutch dated 18. breeding in Sulawesi (Celebes) is also a distinct possibility. Both measurements and weights are within the (upper part of the) range of variation of I. which he provided with a query. but only this clutch. Ixobrychus cinnamomeus (Gmelin) [Ardea] cinnamomea Gmelin. Hancock & Kushlan (1984: 254-255). was torpedoed and sunk in the mouth of the Thames (Voous. (ed. 20. 1). both in their text and in the map. cinnamomeus was nesting. no. In my opinion the identification is correct.xii. the specimen was originally identified as I. although Stresemann (1941: 86-87) called the species only a “Spärlicher Wintergast” there. Lansdown (1987) records cases of nesting in Malaya (from where it was already known). Collector.708 0. Johnstone et al. Marin & Sheldon (1987) claim several nests of this species found in 1982 and 1983 in .

25. 70057). 70053 62.x. The validity of the subspecies neglecta is questionable (cf. with a not entirely smooth surface.8 65.4 × 45. Peniti. Pong Nggéok (Verheijen. restricted to Java by Rensch (1931a: 502). 70052).0 61.ii. Zool.7233 6.1963. ca. Leiden 80 (2006) 37 Sabah (North Borneo) as first nesting records for Borneo. nestling. Mengé-Ruda (RMNH no.9 × 44. all consisting of three eggs.2 × 45. c/4.7561 6.6 63. 70052 RMNH no. ca. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70055 RMNH no.0 61.7408 62. but only what he believed to be the range of the subspecies.0 × 44.1963. but only the one clutch listed above remained when his private collection was incorporated in the RMNH-collection.5 61. he did not indicate a type or a type-locality. 14.7 × 44.2 61.— This species was previously included in the avifauna of Flores on the basis of field-observations by Rensch (1931a: 503) and Van Heurn (1932).iii. Material.6735 6. Pontianak (Coomans de Ruiter.1970. 28. Med. I found in Schlegel (1865a: 10). 70056 RMNH no. without making clear on what material the subspecies was based. 70053) are strongly stained brownish.1961.3 62.1956. Mongu Luwa (RMNH no.7 6.2 60.8001 6. Soa (RMNH no. In our collection.— (?) . a find which precedes those of Marin & Sheldon by over fifty years.4 × 44.7423 5. and the eggs of one clutch (no.6 63. that he had not examined birds from the Philippines.4 × 43. .0 × 44.1 63. c/2. but from Java I could only find four specimens. The eggs are plain white. Eggs: c/2.iii. without any evidence that a fifth one would ever have been present. c/2. 70057 Notes. White.5 × 45.2573 6.2141 6. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. When Finsch described neglecta. 12: 94 – Java.Mees.1 63. showed the five specimens from Celebes and the one from Sumbawa still present. dull. RMNH no.2 × 44. 17. Mber. Ciconia episcopus neglecta (Finsch) D[issoura] neglecta Finsch.2875 6. 70056). 27. Celebes.ii. c/2. 70054 RMNH no.vii. Collector.4836 6. most are slightly dirty. 1974). Orn.1253 6. Subsequently. but a year later (Finsch.1962.ii.6479 5. 65182). 1905: 152) he mentioned that his material consisted of specimens from Java (5). there is a c/3. Coomans de Ruiter (1948a: 62) clearly refers to clutches (in the plural) collected by him in West Borneo.4871 6. But there had. Philippinen.6 × 45. Sumbawa.9 × 45.1062 6. 73536).6 62.2 61.4246 RMNH no. RMNH no.3 62. 16. and only speculates that they belong to the new subspecies.2 × 44. he states expressly. 70054).4778 6. Lombok.3 × 42. 1904. An examination of the material from before 1904 in our collection. Celebes (5) and Sumbawa (1). 70055). Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no.— Verheijen. commenting: “It is surprising that nests of this common padi bird had not been discovered previously in Borneo”.3 × 45. 20.1956. Avifauna of Flores.0 × 44. Mongu Luwa (RMNH no. 70053). c/2.1931. 7.

cat. and in addition. These authors did not go so far as to treat P. face and legs black. H. (nouv. lately it has been suggested that not P. Sumbawa.— None.)”. it has a type-label attached to it by my predecessor as curator of the bird collection. This leaves four specimens from Java. xii. Notes. 1838. Collectors. but P. Northern Territory. minor is its closest relative (Hancock et al. RMNH no. présenté en 1859 par Mr Ruysenaers”). 4. a feather was found floating in the water (Vo 309a). Nouv. the restricted type locality of neglecta. Timor and Wetar have been coloured in. Austral Av. Soekarami is a little west of Sekajoe on the Moesi. 1916. without locality or name of collector.1969. Platalea regia Gould Platalea regia Gould. to accept it as lectotype. merely labelled “ad. leucorodia. 1979: 267) have treated it as a separate species. Boie. There is every reason. minor as conspecific. therefore. Birds Austr. 85037). leg. 1977) repeatedly observed Ospreys along the coast. no. The specimen has remained catalogued as C. bill. (.: 7 – East coast of New South Wales. 27. microscelis and. Notes. added: “Zweifellos falsch und von Java (D. Pandion haliaetus melvillensis Mathews. Hancock et al. As Van Marle & Voous (1988: 66) knew of only one specimen record from Sumatra.1870. 1992: 261). 1: 34 – Melville Island. Pandion haliaetus cristatus (Vieillot) Buteo cristatus Vieillot. Stomach contents small crabs. in the mangrove and along the beach. whether this bird should be considered a separate species or a subspecies of P.C. 1816. Synops.38 Mees. 4: 201 – Nouvelle Calédonie. éd.— (.) 4: 481 – la Nouvelle Hollande. I see no reason to question its identity and provenance. Leiden 80 (2006) specimen no. RMNH no. Cat. head and one wing only. 1912. Fr. Temminck” (which means that they date from before 1820). 4. Junge. Near Look. and . However. Although in their text. 1 (“Adulte. Rev.. I mention here the presence in our collection of the following specimen: (. Most recent authors (with the important exception of Steinbacher. Collector. Only cat.. Med. Zool. in their distributional map all the Lesser Sunda Islands. unlike Finsch.A. d’Hist. and I follow them in this cautious approach. these were stragglers from Australia. in pencil. 3 is properly labelled. Buitenzorg.1920. in Finsch’s handwriting. app. Palembang. Material. d’Orn. neglecta F. 3. leg. crossed out with. no. (1992: 82-83) give the known range in the Lesser Sunda Islands correctly as Bali.— Schmutz. nos.— This bird was obtained from a flock of nine. (. There has been speculation. Rec. Soekarami. They are mounted birds. J. iii. 20405). Cabt. Presumably. 1. Java.viii. 1 and 2. Avifauna of Flores. Batenburg (original label. This widely-distributed species is present throughout the archipelago. Nat.— Schmutz (MS. Iris red. following arguments presented by Amadon & Woolfenden (1952). leucorodia. Dict.1826. Sennaar. near the mouth of the Waé Djamal. including Sumba.C. however. Pandion haliaëtus microhaliaëtus Brasil. explain why Finsch recorded the presence of five specimens from Java. Lombok. e. opposite NangaLili (Schmutz. G. Java. and Flores. It and cat. regia and P. no.

Avifauna of Flores. however. The source of the records of Pandion haliaetus from these islands would therefore be the same as Pfeffer’s (and based on the same mistranslation). although for a large part he examined the same material as Meise. But on the next page. Padar and Rintja are acceptable. Amadon was aware. Celebes”. tail 175 mm”. ( 383. Western Australia. constitute only an ill-defined subspecies”. The next to study the problem was Amadon (1941). and opposed them to five specimens from “Central and southern Australia”. it is a safe assumption that the FAO list was based on Hoogerwerf’s (1954b) report. with a reference to an FAO list (probably unpublished. Zool. thus showing that certainly one of them is misplaced: a large & from Point Torment. who made no mention of Meise’s publication. 1986: 113) correctly rejected them. moreover. which were clearly larger. 1916: 302). Port Mackay is also in the tropics. including northern Australia and Melville Island. the subspecies melvillensis. they are re-instated by Bruce. The matter was further complicated by the introduction of a second subspecies of supposedly small size in the region: P. White (in White & Bruce. h. based on “whiter head and smaller size” (no measurements given).. 1913: 113. wing 480 mm). Next came Swann (1922: 233). and not available to me). of which. Within a year after its description. originally described from. the Australian birds. leucocephalus from Tasmania in Philadelphia. This does not mean that the present records from Komodo. These last five he listed individually. aber 3/4 oder mehr aller dortigen Stücke könnte man nach den Maßen nicht bestimmen. It is indeed the largest of the whole series (&. wing 455 mm . & 430. Meise (1929: 479-480) measured the material in the Berlin and Tring (Rothschild) museums. Ein besonderer Name ist also für die Inselbewohner nicht angebracht”. more about which will be said below ((. as a whole.Mees. near Derby (ca. but it was accepted by Stresemann (1940a: 487) only with qualifications: “Die subspezifische Stellung der Celebes-Vögel ist noch umstritten.. that in the mean time had been sold from Tring (Rothschild) to New York. and thought to be confined to. for Point Torment. indeed. its author did not consider it necessary to compare microhaliaetus with melvillensis. Med. he arrived at an opposite conclusion. wing (Celebes). 392-412. as Pfeffer records. 17°30’S) is well up into the tropics. One might have considered this conclusive. He measured an impressive number of specimens from the tropical part of the range. and New South Wales. Amadon also refers to the supposed type of P. microhaliaëtus. Nevertheless. Queensland.very likely mis-sexed. New Caledonia. who extended the range of microhaliaetus to “New Caledonia.. The two other Western Australian birds. Leiden 80 (2006) 39 there can be no doubt that it occurs regularly on Flores and the adjacent smaller islands. Es mag sich wohl ein größerer Durchschnitt für den Flügel der Australischen Fischadler ergeben. so that the New South Wales bird remains as the only genuine non-tropical Australian specimen. Because of the geographical distance separating the type-localities. and arrived at the very definite conclusion: “daß auf Grund der Größe keine weitere Einteilung dieser von Celebes bis Australien verbreiteten Subspecies möglich ist . “as the characters are not constant and I find. Mathews occasionally had these flashes of insight. His two remaining specimens were from Port Mackay. wing (New Caledonia). . compared with cristatus: “Smaller. ihre Identität mit australischen zweifelhaft”. from Lewis Island and Point Cloates are also from within the tropics. was withdrawn by its author (Mathews.

and distinguish again two subspecies in Australia. It took some time. Also Rand & Gilliard (1967: 86). they use the junior synonym leucocephalus instead of cristatus. The latest word about geographical variation of the Osprey in Australia is by Olsen & Marples (1993).1920 “ locality P. Stresemann & Amadon.ix. h. Zool. one of which is confined to the South-West of the Continent. Note that.1906 Java ( juv. extended the range of melvillensis to Tasmania. In the ensuing years. The continuing doubt about the validity of P. 1965: 144. for Brown & Amadon (1968: 196) regarded melvillensis as: “Doubtfully distinct. most subsequent authors (Mayr. 1948: 349.1906 “ ( 27. Probably following Amadon. who neither then nor in his earlier publications accepted more than one Australian form. Leiden 80 (2006) but to Amadon it supported his opinion that southern birds are large). Frith & Hitchcock (1974: 127) considered it: “most unlikely that more than one race of this world-wide species is represented in Australia”. who “assembled [does that mean. h. placing P. which is given by Brown & Amadon as 384-428 but about the same in length as those of cristatus males. I do not regard melvillensis as recognisable”.accepted type-localities (Tasmania and New South Wales). 1949a: 36. and commented on the inadequacy of Amadon’s Australian material.1912 “ ( 6. Med. size and shape of the eggs. Hoogerwerf. and that eastern Australia has been included into the range of melvillensis. 1979: 279) recognized melvillensis. microhaliaëtus in its synonymy. without explanation. Marchant & Higgins (1993: 225. The wings of twelve males are 413-439 mm. who. Amadon seems to have lost some confidence. Lang “ Moeara Angke P. however. Via Condon (1975: 76). The same error is found in Simpson (1972: 100).xii. These authors introduced a new character. but accepted it as he lacked the material for a proper evaluation. they use the name subcristatus. for which. cristatus has been shifted away from its traditionally. we come to White (1975b). van Bemmel. Bokor wing-length 430 430 470 430 notes 1 ) . h. Vaurie. very similar to P. Pandion haliaetus cristatus (Vieillot): specimens examined date island ( 7. van Bemmel & Voous. (1991: 119) again recognized melvillensis. Gyldenstolpe (1955: 361) doubted the validity of melvillensis. h. to the nearest 5 mm (see table). melvillensis. rather longer on average than the range for melvillensis. as it seemed to indicate a Mathewsian creation that I had overlooked. But Dickinson et al. cristatus. melvillensis. For this subspecies. before I realised that the subcristatus of these authors is no more than a lapsus for cristatus. personally took?] wing measurements of thirty-one specimens from Wallacea. 233) admit only one Indo-Australian subspecies. Delacour. These were taken with a tape. 1941b: 18. 9. thus usurping the presumed type-locality of cristatus. given as 426-431. following the bend of the wing. To this purpose I examined the material from the melvillensis/cristatus range in the RMNH. without comment.40 Mees. the name confused me considerably. Amadon included New Caledonia into the range of the smaller tropical subspecies P. 1947: 52. naturally made me eager to form my own opinion. Avifauna of Flores. differing in being smaller” (this is followed by a summary of the measurements published by Amadon in 1941).x. and took wing-measurements. 1951: 82-83.ix.

vi. Kasoeari ( 30.i. Lang & 15.ii. has little value.1927 “ P.1939 “ Likoepang ( “ & 24.iii.i. None of my specimens has .1953 Biak & 1.1844 Borneo Pagattan ( 10. 1841 Bawean ( 2.1863 Moti & 31.ix. Avifauna of Flores.x.1862 Ternate & 2.xi. 435 430 430 450 435 420 425 435 410 445 425 435 430 425 460 460 465 455 500 465 470 475 425 455 455 450 460 420 475 470 470 480 445 470 470 460 450 490 41 2 ) 2 ) 3 ) 1 ) 1 4 ) ) 5 ) ) 6 have used a method of Unfortunately. but being without locality. Leiden 80 (2006) ( the series is even more deficient in Australian material than Amadon’s: only a single from New South Wales. Med. Bokor & (1841) Bawean – & (1883) Sulawesi (Celebes) Menado & 20. Zool.ix. Lantjang ( ca. 6 ) Junge (1956) recorded for this specimen a wing-length of 451 see 2 ) Possibly mis-sexed.1910 Ceram P.i.1903 New Guinea L.xii.1914 “ Mara ( 9. one specimen from there is the largest of the series. Bruijn.vii.1865 Aru Isl. ( 26.1897 New Guinea Sekroe & Ceram/Amboina ( 17.1861 Morotai & 11.1869 Mefoor (= Numfor) ( 25.1906 Java P.1881 Duke of York & (1865) New Caledonia & (1841) Australia 1 ) Almost certainly mis-sexed. In spite of this deficiency. the list of measurements is most instructive. 7.ix. He must measuring very different from mine.xii.1863 Sulawesi (Celebes) Poë ( 14. 4 ) Probably nominate race. Sentani ( (recd.1861 Ternate ( 9. 1861) Australia & Buru Djikoe-Merasa & (1842) Ceram Kaibobo & 27.1898 Babar ( 19.viii. and probably nominate race. unless the figure is a misprint.x.x.1912 “ P. 5 ) Locality not traced.1861 Batjan & 25. A bird from New Guinea (wing 480 mm) is as large as Amadon’s largest Australian bird. It shows that birds from Sulawesi (Celebes) are not small: indeed.viii. see text.Mees. from A.1914 “ Mara & 18.1948 Misool Fakal ( 19. & (1866) Siao & “ Bangka Isl.1865 Sanghir & 3.18(78) “ Doktien & 1875 “ Doreh & 8.1866 “ & 24. A. 3 ) Provenance questionable. which is large (wing 490 mm).

and the restriction to Tasmania. without explanation. The type locality originally given for Pandion haliaetus cristatus was “la Nouvelle Hollande”. at the extreme south of Van Diemen’s Land”. Recherche Bay on the south coast is about the last place one would expect it to reach. and without stating that this was a restriction. Mathews (1913: 113) substituted Tasmania. large subspecies. probably the only ornithologist who had access to material. Simpson (1972: 100) claims that: . and as Condon. by Stone & Mathews (1913: 147). Gould only arrived in Tasmania (or Van Diemen’s Land as it was then called). The specimen still exists and was thought to be the type of Pandion leucocephalus Gould (a junior synonym of P. The egg-evidence provided by Olsen & Marples (1993) is intriguing. leucocephalus. In the 19th century. again without mention of the originally-given type locality. leucocephalus was communicated at the meeting of the Zoological Society of 26 December 1837. Little is known of the isolated South Australian population.If it does inhabit Tasmania and is not merely a visitor from the mainland. without any indication that would justify a restriction. without an explanation of the basis for this restriction (Mathews. quoting both the originally-given type locality. Measurements from Western Australia presented by Johnstone & Storr (1998: 128). Later. 1927: 267). Even Australians are not always fully aware of the total lack of reliable records from Tasmania. and presumably was so in Gould’s time. Even if confirmed. he corrected the omission.. h. Zool. especially as the Osprey has an almost unbroken range from the south-west into the tropics of Western Australia.. Sharland (1958: 88) has this to say about its occurrence there: “Uncommon. 1954: 88). the supposed type-locality of cristatus. The other is that Haliaeetus leucogaster is common there. did not accept more than one Australian subspecies. Occasionally a bird turns up on Flinders Island”. it would only doubtfully qualify for recognition in nomenclature. cristatus). sexes combined) are within the range of variation of the birds measured by me. as recorded by several previous authors (perhaps a difference in the method of measuring?). some of which would be of extra-tropical birds (wing 425-475 mm. southern Tasmania (Gould. as Pandion haliaetus is of problematical occurrence in Tasmania (Green. 1848. Whittell. I shall try to show that the Osprey does not occur in south-eastern Australia and Tasmania. 1865: 22). For example. which eliminates this region as the epicentre of a special. for the original description of P. Mathews (1912: 254).The Osprey is so little known in Tasmania that odd birds which appear along the coast could be passed off for Sea Eagles if not carefully examined. because it is seldom seen.42 Mees. but was not especially mentioned by him. one reason is that if the species does occasionally visit Tasmania (as I am quite prepared to believe). In spite of Gould’s (1848) definite statement (made some ten years later): “I myself shot it in Récherche Bay. 1977: 17). but as no name has been based on it. misquoted this as New South Wales. and the presence of a mounted specimen so labelled. the type locality is Australia. it can safely be left out of discussion. 1915/1916: 254. In the following paragraphs. in September 1838 (cf. but requires confirmation. The restriction is not an obvious one. De Schauensee (1957) has not followed this. Therefore I join with confidence those authors who reject melvillensis and place it in the synonymy of cristatus. Leiden 80 (2006) a wing-length of less than 400 mm.. I must admit to having a slight but gnawing doubt about his record of Pandion haliaetus from Tasmania. and rightly.. however. Med. Avifauna of Flores. true. The following year. and was first published in April 1838. then it must keep to remote parts of the coast. Gould is believed to have personally taken a specimen in the Recherche Bay. In both descriptions of P.

Wakefield (1958) stated that: “There is no authentic record for Victoria”. Of the two birds labelled as being from Australia in the RMNH collection. White & Bruce refer to breeding on Lombok. 1. Dickinson et al. There is no evidence that the population is augmented in the southern winter by migrants from Australia. leucocephalus. Amadon (1941) accepted the restriction to Tasmania.”. Twenty years later the position was still the same (Smythies. Hartert’s (1929) correction of the type-locality of cristatus: “Australia. h. some thirty years earlier. in 1861. for three years later he did not mention breeding and even stated that the resident subspecies melvillensis or cristatus was not known from Borneo. However. 1991: 120). Even had he been right about Gould’s Tasmanian bird. it is surprising how few breeding records there are.Mees. 1969/1971: 462). on the assumption that the French expedition (the Expédition Baudin) which may have brought the type of P. as has sometimes been suggested (cf.1844. Coomans de Ruiter (1936: 49) expressly states that he never found the species breeding and had never obtained or received its eggs. rather than migrate (Holsworth. Leiden 80 (2006) 43 “Although they range right around the Australian and Tasmanian coastline. This bird (RMNH cat. The only definite records I know of are from Madu and Kalao tua (v. Zool. 1960: 160). was published in too succinct a way to have had much impact on later revisers. Nowhere does Mathews say on what his fixation of Tasmania as the type locality of P. however.. purchased from Frank in 1841). Towards the southern part of the range in Western Australia. cristatus. in Meise. has the feathers of the head conspicuously brown and I suspect strongly that it is a mislabelled specimen of the nominate race. for considerable time was spent along the coast of Western Australia. no. h. for in it.. a French expedition collected the type of P. 5). no. 1975: 86). h. can have no bearing on the place in “la Nouvelle Hollande” where. Borneo. the adult birds are sedentary. but Smythies has misread this publication. albeit with the addition of some possible sight records. was also purchased from Frank. haliaetus is still a regular breeding-bird. collected by Schwaner (RMNH cat. and several of the few subsequent records have later been queried (Cooper. the Osprey is a surprisingly rare visitor. of which I have failed to find the reference. Pagattan. The other one. not Tasmania”. I have no reason to doubt the provenance of one (RMNH cat. there is no logic here: the fact that Gould may have obtained a bird in Tasmania in 1838/1839. Smythies must have become aware of his error very soon. 1965). Plessen. where P. h.ix. This is not entirely correct. cristatus home: “did most of its work in Tasmania”. all records of Ospreys from Borneo to date being of migrants of the nominate race (Smythies. It was already recorded by Schlegel (1862: 23). but it is apparent that this was because he (mistakenly) believed Tasmania to be the type locality of the synonym P. no. cristatus was based. The examination of the material from the Archipelago leads to some further comments. 2). It illustrates well the arbitrary way in which some ornithologists made type locality restrictions and designations in the first quarter of the 19th century. belongs undoubtedly to the subspecies cristatus. 1929: 480). cristatus is not uncommon and ranges throughout the Archipelago. Even in Victoria. 2. and West Java (Hoogerwerf.. unless it is Rensch’s statement that a bird collected there had large gonads. Considering that P. and visiting coastal islands. Smythies (1957: 585) mentions that Coomans de Ruiter had found the species breeding on the Karimata Islands. off West Borneo. 1981: 57). and the young disperse. Med. and bears a note on its origin: . and rejected Hartert’s correction. a mounted (. Avifauna of Flores.

no. is certainly not applicable to P. there must have been ample opportunity for a mix-up in labelling. Material. Dresden. 10). not streaked on crown”. since Everett obtained “a series” in 1896. and support Mathews’s opinion. The original description of pallida reads: “In der Färbung wie die vorigen Formen. 1936) and further discussed by Mees (1981: 381-382. In this publication the error is repeated. and this compounds the doubt I have about the specimen. 1999: 209) repeated the erroneous claim first made by Smythies (1957). that Coomans de Ruiter would have found this species nesting in West Borneo. Collectors.1888. based on a mistranslation by Pfeffer. 1). Everett. Peculiarly. and timorlaoensis. 1993: 14) and my doubt about Gould’s record increased so much that in my opinion the species should be eliminated from the Tasmanian avifaunal list. 1893. cristatus. Actually. Avifauna of Flores.— It is perhaps surprising that. Med. Meyer) Baza timorlaoënsis Meyer. Komodo can be added (Bishop in Verhoeye & Holmes. but is by no means definitive. reliably recorded in the publication (Coomans de Ruiter. the meticulous . h. But all specimens examined by me have at least a narrow brown median band. and more rarely coastal”. Stresemann says nothing about differences in plumage. that cristatus is only an ill-defined subspecies. described from the Kei Islands. In the remarkably complete work of Whittell (1954). longitudinally. Gardner is more likely not to have been a traveller. I have failed to find a Gardner who could have been active in Australia around 1860. The statement by Dickinson et al.— &. 1862: 23. aber kleiner”. the two preceding forms are the nominate one. but the London natural history dealer of that name. Zool. A few notes on the adjacent subspecies pallida. With such a background. melvillensis on the basis of small size and by having: “a pure white head. Abh. from the hind-crown to the nape. Addendum. however.B.— Weber. The use of the name timorlaoensis for the Flores population follows tradition and current usage. Mus. Leiden 80 (2006) “voyage de Gardner” (see also Schlegel. 1882: xi). He cannot have read the paper by Coomans de Ruiter.— There are still no recent records from Tasmania (Green. but soon withdrawn by that author. who was in business around the middle of the 19th century and traded in bird-skins from all continents (Salvin. Brown & Amadon (1968: 196) differentiate P. Davison (in Smythies. Maumeri (Weber. To the meagre records of nesting in the Archipelago. xii. White (1975b) qualified this: “It should be noted that the crown in cristatus is not always pure white and some dark brown spots may be present”. Notes. that Hoogerwerf would have seen Pandion haliaetus on Komodo. cristatus and P. h. are. Some specimens from within the range of the nominate race have heads almost as white as cristatus. as is also evident from the fact that he omits mention of nidification of Accipiter virgatus in lowland West Borneo. where it is cat. Lack of adequate material prevents me from going into this. quoted above. Aviceda subcristata timorlaoensis (A. and therefore it is difficult to understand why he regarded the name pallida as appropriate. perhaps not out of place. this conspicuous bird has not been recorded again from Flores. which is almost entirely coastal in distribution and feeds mostly on marine and estuarine fish. RMNH cat. 1892/93 (3): 5 – Timorlaut. no. h.44 Mees. 1998: 13). (1991: 119) that this species: “fishes inland.

1971. and to Pernis ptilonorynchus on the caption of the plate. and thus support the validity of pallida. Med. Mém. that it is ruficollis and not orientalis which winters in Java. Nevertheless. but Vaurie & Amadon (1962) decided (on the basis of one immature specimen from that island. Subsequently to Falco ptilonorhynchus by Temminck (1839: 3) himself. 1922: 2207.. 44). Acad.— &. ptilorhynchus. It was emended to Pernis ptilorynchus in the text.. 1940b). Faune orn.Mees. the specimen from Saleyer is also orientalis. 2. Stresemann. a migrant from north-east Asia. for which. by Stephens (1826: 44. White. 1973a). 1935: 79. Temminck. et. 1891. and by White & Bruce (1986: 115): “paler above and on the breast. N. I am also using it. I can confirm that the two specimens in Leiden also show the character of paleness. Lo Kong. Bartels. deserves further study. the previous records being from Saleyer and Kisar (cf. Notes. the spelling of the name was Falco ptilorhyncus (cf.8 Pernis ptilorhynchus orientalis Taczanowski Pernis apivorus orientalis Taczanowski. 900 m (Schmutz. RMNH no.. l’îlot Askold au 43° L. which breeds in south-eastern Asia. came into general use (for example. In the original description of this species. as was to be expected. Measurements: & wing 303 tail 207 tarsus 33 exposed culmen 26 culmen from cere 19. This was followed by the descriptions of pallida by Brown & Amadon (1968: 210) as “very pale . 1821: pl. Later.. In the meantime. According to Stresemann (1940b: 163). The subspecies wintering in Java has generally been considered also to be orientalis or its synonym japonicus (cf. Chasen. As ptilorhynchus is now the most commonly used spelling. 81111). Stresemann. ptilorhynchus orientalis to be recorded from anywhere east of Java. pl. l’embouchure de l’ Oussouri au 48° L. Imp. I did not have the time before leaving Holland.-Petersbourg (7) 39: 50 – Koultouk sur le Baïkal méridional. 1940b). is not or at most slightly migratory. 1923. St.— This is only the third specimen of P.— Schmutz. This was repeated by Vaurie (1965: 149). P. N.. 35). The measurements of the specimens from Flores and Kisar prove that they belong to the subspecies orientalis. Zool. but Brown & Amadon (1968: 221) and Stresemann & Amadon (1979: 287-288) have quietly and without explanation reverted to excluding ruficollis and including orientalis in the avifauna of Java. Bartels in Hartert. although I realise very well that under the . Avifauna of Flores. so that there was a choice of five different spellings.xii. pale grey upper breast”. Sibérie Orientale. Leiden 80 (2006) 45 Siebers (1930: 249) observed that some specimens of topotypical pallida had very pale under tail coverts.. the series from Java in the RMNH (mostly from the Bartels collection). In these later publications it is also suggested that ruficollis. Wells & Medway (1976) had demonstrated convincingly that two winter birds from Perak were orientalis (a specimen from Trang showed somewhat mixed characters) and concluded that the occurrence of ruficollis in the Malay Peninsula remained unconfirmed. Collector. Material. ventral barring less heavy”. and a re-interpretation of a series of measurements published by Stresemann but provided by Bartels). another emendment. unfortunately. Sci.

and so does one recorded by Paynter (1963) Notes. with only the outer (1st) primary not yet fully grown. in the wings. curiously. 18.1969. Material.) and found that continental specimens (from Thailand and Malaya. on 28. Süd-Borneo. the range of E. Verheijen (1. has six of these bands.ix. Nevertheless. Tjeréng (Schmutz. as indeed Vaurie & Amadon mentioned. 70064 40. off the west coast of Saleyer. Soc. Collectors. Proc. in the light of present knowledge. hypoleucus has been filled out further. ZMA no. the following primaries (7-10) are not clearly new. RMNH no.1908. The bird from Kisar is in the last stage of primary moult. and has to be withdrawn. l. Mees. 70064). Stresemann’s reconstruction is no longer the obvious one. Zool. 1859.1969.vii. 33. Schmutz.) have illustrated the tails of adult and juvenile individuals. showing the adult female with three weaker bands between the dark terminal and middle bands. primary 6 is short. elsewhere (cf. Cases like this one have been sanctioned in the new edition of the Code (ICZN. Measurements: Flores & Kisar & wing ca.— (?).7 × 32. hypoleucos [sic] hat folgendes Wohngebiet: Philippinen. pointing to a considerable amount of individual variation in this character. Leiden 80 (2006) Rules the original spelling. Sumatra.3. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. Elanus caeruleus hypoleucus Gould Elanus hypoleucus Gould.46 Mees. Measurements and weight: RMNH no. c. Tjeréng (Schmutz. Vaurie & Amadon (l. The Kisar bird.— The two adult specimens have been discussed. Egg: c/1. RMNH no. Med. The nestling provides evidence for eggs in late May/June.1984 I observed an individual on the islet of Goeang. 1982a: 24-34). MCZ). 13729). its tail moult is completed. Bei dieser Art vermute ich die Ausbreitung von den Philippinen aus nach Süden über Celebes-Flores. Interestingly.c. Iris of adult red. ZMA).c.785 Verheijen (1964) listed breeding in August and October. and their measurements provided. Some years ago I measured a fair amount of material of this form (Mees. von dort ostwärts bis Sumba. Java. 14. Since this was written. The bird from Flores shows moult in wings and tail.1955. but the October-record was based on misidentified eggs. 470 ca. 66085).5 1. Zool. of nestling dull brown. another link between Sulawesi (Celebes) and Flores. Celebes. &. poorly represented in . Lond.vii. Stresemann (1939: 318) has given a reconstruction of the distributional history of this subspecies: “E. Celebes. 1999: art. ptilorhyncus would have to be retained. &? nestling.2. 27: 127 – Vicinity of Macassar. 2.viii. the juvenile female with four. Avifauna of Flores.— Van der Sande (1. Lombok. primary 5 is very short. in particular by its discovery in Timor and New Guinea. 1. although its tail cannot have the juvenile pattern (as it has just been moulted). on each side. c. Sumba.1).iii. Kalao. westwärts bis Sumatra”. 470 tail 257 280 tarsus 63 65 bill from forehead feathers 40 (bill damaged) bill from cere 26 wing tip 147 151 Both specimens are in moult. flat coastal region east of Maumere (Van der Sande. 66086).

— (?). but if an expansion in the sense understood by Stresemann has taken place. RMNH cat.v. and that the subspecies subsequently extended over Sulawesi (Celebes) and Flores to Java.1 × 42. Verheijen/Schmutz.1957.1 52. c.1968. c/2.2 53. distributed over six continents. Montjok. Collectors. but that at present it does not occur on Taiwan. where its size became autonomically reduced when it approached the continental populations. Ibis (n. Zool.9304 4. seems somewhat simplistic in the light of the knowledge that the genus Elanus must be a fairly old resident in Australia.iii. currently regarded as distinct species. Larantoeka (Semmelink.xii.v.1959. 70087). Med. average some 2% smaller than birds from Java. 70080). c/2. 17. Potjong (RMNH RMNH no.1969. As I have pointed out before.9 × 41.4 51.) 1: 28 – Java.1956. Nunang (Schmutz. 70086). etc. 4. c. 12. RMNH no.i.iii. (?). hypoleucus coming from Asia and spreading comparatively recently to the Philippines and Indonesia. The as yet insufficiently-known New Guinea population may be the largest of all.0 × 42.6 50. Tado (RMNH no. &. 65186).0303 3. 17. 70083). in other words they are intermediate between continental birds and birds from Java.1959.5951 3.4 50. Eggs: c/1.0203 3. Pongkor (RMNH no. 18. Leiden 80 (2006) 47 collections) average about 5% smaller in linear measurements than most insular populations.iii. as is apparent from the presence of two species 70084).1961. Soa (RMNH no.1959.7 × 43. 20. Finally.9355 . Sulawesi and the Philippines.8 × 43. would make an excellent subject of a comprehensive zoogeographical study or a monograph.1961. Mataloko (RMNH no.Mees.1957. 3. 70090).ix. 17. s. Nunang (Schmutz. Soa (RMNH no. the concept of E. The genus Elanus. 70081). Specimens from Sumatra. 70088). Soa (RMNH no. 70077). It seems more logical to consider the Sumatran birds an intermediate link. Haliastur indus intermedius Blyth [Haliastur] intermedius Blyth.9 × 42. Poéng (RMNH no.1963. c/2. It may be assumed to be an old resident rather than a new colonist in the region. 1862.v. 29. c/1.iii.v. Potjong (RMNH no. and finally to Sumatra. 70078). 17.1961. no. however.9 3. c/2.1954. Nunang (Schmutz.iii.6363 3. (.— Semmelink. 1865. 21. etc. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. c/2. 81037).1955. 70085).1 × 41. c/2. c/2. which fits into this concept.1976. Soa (RMNH no. Avifauna of Flores. 70079 RMNH no. c/2.9 51. E. Tado (RMNH no. sparsely marked with red-brown dots. 29.8 × 42. 13. 70089). Everett. 70086 RMNH no. c/2.8504 4. Poéng (RMNH no. 70084 RMNH no. Material. 16).vi. 70090 51. not dated. Another point is that in Stresemann’s reconstruction one would expect the species to have come by way of Taiwan. c/2. 70082). 3.1955. rather than with a direct long jump from southern China to the Philippines. The eggs are dull white. (large). than to believe that first the Philippines were colonized from the Asiatic mainland. with its limited number of well-differentiated forms. it is likely to have been through Thailand/Malaya (small) and Sumatra (intermediate) to Java. 65185). c/2. 70079). hypoleucus is as well-differentiated as other forms of its genus. 29. Mano (RMNH no. RMNH no. Allen.7823 3.9 53. c/2. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. with an increase in size.

Med. (. I am still unable to distinguish the isolated populations of the Lesser Sunda Islands satisfactorily from the nominate race. What drew my attention.— The skeleton from Bima. Syst. I consider it likely that the original colonisation of the Lesser Sunda Islands took place through an open country corridor from south-eastern Asia. eastern Sumba. Ruteng (Verheijen. Therefore I feel obliged. Westwards it is now known to reach Bali. Notes.— Semmelink. where it cannot now be found. In spite of the increased number of specimens now available. RMNH no.— &.— v. Nunang (Schmutz. 81114).2 middle toe 49 45 . Tyto longimembris). 1788. still somewhat reluctantly. 13) 1: 257 – no locality. Circaetus gallicus gallicus (Gmelin) [Falco] gallicus Gmelin. Material. In India the species is still widely distributed in open country (cf. Nat.ix. which presumably has a similar history in these regions.. no. listed without comment amongst the birds from Flores by Büttikofer (1894: 290). 1989). Leiden 80 (2006) Haliaeetus leucogaster (Gmelin) [Falco] leucogaster Gmelin. Material. 20. although not particularly well-wooded. Zool. whistling call: ‘kyüü … kyüü … kyüü …’. Avifauna of Flores. Roti and Timor (cf. 13) 1: 259 – Gallia. In these regions there is no other eagle showing this colour pattern”. 525 tail 268 290 tarsus 96 93 exposed culmen 42 50 culmen from cere 32 35 depth culmen 17 19. I translate here a passage from my diary about this observation: “walking along an interesting.— Previous records of this species in the Lesser Sunda Islands are from Lombok. by no means decrease the zoogeographical interest these isolated populations have.— (?). The fact that they have not differentiated does. Sumbawa. Larantoeka (Semmelink.x.1973. Collectors. (ed.d. apart from its huge size.d. was of course from Bima. (?) wing 530 ca. and even the extreme East of Java (van Balen & Compost. 85133). Measurements: ( ad. Sumbawa. 1788. 13596). Nat. The reluctance is due to the fact that these populations must have been isolated for thousands of years. Sande (1). 12). (ed. in the Late Pleistocene.1984. Verheijen/Schmutz. Notes. rarior in reliqua Europa. Everett (1). my attention was drawn by a not very long. ZMA no. of course. 1862. Mees. and after a moment an eagle appeared and flew rather low overhead.1971. 1975b: 120-123). was that the WHOLE under wings as well as the under surface of the body showed dark brown bars on cream.1908. It was returned to Amsterdam.48 Mees. RMNH no. Collectors. RMNH cat. has developed an endemic subspecies. Celebesbaai (v. Syst. ( juv. Penitie. On 16. 3. ravine. I observed an individual near Tg. and that Hieraaetus fasciatus. Rensch (1). Flores.i. In order not to be accused of doing exactly what I condemn in others: making ex cathedra statements about observations new to islands. 24. thus adding that island to its range. to keep these birds under the name of the nominate race. rather than that this isolated population would result from northern migrants that have remained behind in their winter quarters. The voice further supports the identification.

c/1. Poéng (RMNH no.xii. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. 70073).1982. Nunang (Schmutz. Leiden 80 (2006) 49 Accipiter soloensis (Horsfield) Falco Soloënsis Horsfield.6 × 31.9 × 34. 2. 70073 RMNH no. Accipiter soloensis was known on Flores from a single immature male only. 28. Proc. Nunang (Schmutz. RMNH no. 84860).1969. (. Rensch (1).1948.2 43. RMNH no. Potjong (RMNH no. 7. 70067). the latter in more strongly worn plumage.1969. Material. (. Sikka (Weber. RMNH no. 650 m (Schmutz. Eggs (fig. Nunang (Schmutz. 66081). taken from nest with eggs).5 40.6 42. &. (.1982. cere.6 × 33. c/2. Allen.6 41. & juv. 3.x.. The eggs nos. c/2. Zool.1971. RMNH nos. 5. 70071 RMNH no. c/2. 65188). 66079).5 1. 9.1959.1 × 33. 81044). RMNH no. &.718 1. & juv. see Mees (1981: 398-400). obtained by Everett in 1896. 81050). 81046). 27.8 × 35. RMNH no. MCZ). 1864. Weber. Material. Nunang. 4.— Everett (1). Notes.— &.4 × 31.iii. 2. eyelid and legs golden yellow.iii.226 1. no. Nunang (Schmutz. RMNH no.— Previously. RMNH cat.1982. 14. Collectors.. The new records show it as a regular winter visitor. 81043). 5). Larantoeka (Semmelink. Med. 26.6 40.5872 1. (.xii. no. 75299. Verheijen (1. xii.1888.6 × 33.ii. 12a): c/ 70069). 1862..v. 14. evidently heavily incubated) .1958. RMNH no. Mataloko.— (. 81041). bill and nails black.1983.1961. Verheijen/Schmutz. 9. 84859).1969. Colfs. 81048). Tjeréng-Look (Schmutz.— Semmelink. 700 m (RMNH no.1960.xi. An adult bird collected in November is in heavy moult.1956. RMNH no. &. Measurements and weights: RMNH no.7026 2. Collectors. (. Nunang (Schmutz. 75299 42. 81047).1982. birds collected in April and September show no moult.iii. Nunang (Schmutz. 21: 137 – Java (by inference: Solo). 2. Flores (Colfs. Potjong (RMNH no. Nunang (Schmutz. 20.7 39.2 42. Zool. 70071). 70070 RMNH no. 2. c/1.xi. Endih (2).4 42. 70068). RMNH no. c/2. Iris ( and & dark brown.1 38.7 41. Rekas (Schmutz. 18. RMNH cat. Linn. Accipiter novaehollandiae sylvestris Wallace Accipiter sylvestris Wallace.8545 1. Soc.967 .vi.6528 1. RMNH nos.ix. 28. &. (. virgatus (see the discussion of that species). i. (. 70067 and 70068 were originally identified as A. 70068 RMNH no. 1880. 3. Tjeréng-Look (Schmutz.0 × 34. Lond.9 × 31. 2.1969.1976. 70072 RMNH no.9561 1. ( juv. c/2. taken with skin no. 70072).2 × 32. 3).1959. Schmutz. RMNH no. Lond. For further notes on this species. 81051.8675 1.2 × 32. (. 1821.1969. ix. 70070).Mees. Nunang (Schmutz. Tado (RMNH no.0 42. Everett. the former is in moderately. 70069 RMNH no. 66082. Avifauna of Flores. (no date)Nunang (Schmutz. & juv. 84863). 70067 RMNH no. Soc.6237 1.xii.xi. 18.8 × 34. ( juv. nos.6 41. ca.9 × 34. RMNH no. & med. Nunang (Schmutz. Nunang (Schmutz. 81316).(large holes. (1863): 487 – Flores. RMNH no. Mataloko (RMNH no.1969. 4). RMNH 65188.vii...6947 1.ix. RMNH no.1978.

for the stomach of no. 81022).1969. Sok-Rutung (Schmutz.1921 Notes.3) middle toe 25-27 (26. The specimens of wallacii measured by me are clearly larger. V – Lombock. &. 89). 24. Nunang. 70066). Iris ( and & golden yellow. rightly in my opinion. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes.6 2. RMNH no. it is in fresh plumage. Sande (1).2500 2. Rensch (2).6) 53. 66082 a lizard. Sok.7 43. 12b): c/2. sylvestris. & juv. as at present understood. Weber’s specimen (collector’s no. Cat.— Of the clutches listed by Verheijen (1964: 198) under this name. These eggs are a little longer and broader than the eggs of A. pl. sylvestris.5321 2.7 (29. novaehollandiae is strikingly different from the many forms occurring on islands to the north.7) entire culmen 20-22 (21. no.6 (23. Schmutz 135). Nunang.5-24. novaehollandae has been questioned. strongly polytypical species A. 19. all others belong to A. 65188 contained a frog. is another relict from a period that the species concept was stretched to. its possible limits. sylvestris is perhaps not primarily a bird-hunter. c/2. RMNH no. only the one mentioned above belongs to this species. Rahong (Verheijen.. 24. tjendaenae from Sumba as larger (wing ( 207-219.— (. and A. 65187). 128. Nunang. Potjong (Verheijen.9) 15.x. Zool.d. 1: 95. Avifauna of Flores. Ruteng (Schmutz.The position of sylvestris as a subspecies of A. Bouru. de Jong (2). 4. n. 13. xii. v.3) culmen from cere 13. &.— The widely-distributed. bill black. for the Australian nominate A. was identified by Büttikofer (1894: 289-290) as a “wahrscheinlich altes Weibchen” of Astur sylvestris. 650 m (Schmutz. & 237.ii. one of each sex?). October and December are undergoing their main moult. 650 m (Schmutz. & juv. 11. RMNH cat.4-14. Measurements: 4( 7& wing 174-188 (181.5-17 (16. they are also heavier.0) 27-31.ix. 84866). and on Finsch’s label is in pencil added the name Accipiter fasciatus wallacii ( ad. an adult bird collected in February shows no moult. Adult birds collected in September.. 66080). juvenile yellowish olive to sulphur-yellow.7-58 (55.4) tail 132-141 (137. 19. and frequently beyond. cere olive-yellow or olive. n.x.1971.5) 197-208 (203.v. 66078). Med. novaehollandiae. Brown & Amadan (1968: 501) describe this subspecies as small (wing ( 210.3 × 37.4 × 36. Everett. Verheijen/Schmutz. by Stresemann.2 47. Collectors. legs yellow.1975. Endeh (Weber.4478 2. 66077). which they otherwise resemble. n.vii. by inference restricted to Lombok by Stresemann (1914c: 381). Verheijen (2. It was re-identified by Finsch as “wohl (” of Astur torquatus.2) tarsus 49-54 (51. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. sylvestris.1969. 650 m (RMNH.— Allen.5) Accipiter fasciatus wallacii (Sharpe) Astur wallacii Sharpe. 1). Nisar (Schmutz. 70066 Schmutz 135 43. A revision is required to establish more realistic species limits and therefore I retain for the moment the established trinomen A. A.5 45. 25.1969.1888. & juv. Mus. RMNH no.1957. Wangkung. f. that of no. (. RMNH no.1969. MCZ). & 247-252). 1874.1969.1 (13.50 Mees.0) 22.3 × 35.3) 152-157 (154. RMNH no. Material. RMNH no.0 × 33. its base slate. Weber. they support Wattel (1973: . Birds Brit. RMNH no. Eggs (fig..

1968. n.5 middle toe 28 27.5 10. are too large to belong to this species. Zool.2 (33.x. RMNH no. The inclusion of Sulawesi.[220] 250-257 (253. (. II – 21 22. Ruteng (Verheijen. 84858). but are given without comment. 16. seem unusual (cf. 16. 533861).1969. (. There are recent records (presumably sight records) from Sumbawa (Johnstone et al.8) Accipiter virgatus quinquefasciatus Mees Accipiter virgatus quinquefasciatus Mees. 1500 m (Schmutz. &. Collectors. with a query. RMNH no.3) entire culmen 19. Measurements: ( ( juv. RMNH no.— Although it has not been recorded by previous authors (indeed. .iii. ca. xi.1978. Nunang (Schmutz. 1981: 394). Mt. Ruteng (Verheijen. who show the two subspecies as practically identical in size.7-68 (67. 15. 65190). No eggs (see below). Measurements: 2( 4& wing 229. wing 153 151 tail 118 113 tarsus 47 48 entire culmen culmen from cere 10. 13. Notes. identified as A.iii.xii.1976.1977. sylvestris. &.. there is only one previous record from the whole chain of Lesser Sunda Islands. Flores. and are evidently referable to A. Tjeréng (Schmutz. Aves: 5. 31. holotype). 84857). 1844. Leiden 80 (2006) 51 137) and White & Bruce (1986: 122-123). The dates of these observations: 27 July (one bird) and 28 July (two birds). 16. RMNH no. (. Fauna Japonica. Mangarai. ca.6) culmen from cere 15. Repok. pl. Halmahera and Ceram in the range of A. (A.— This subspecies remains known from the two specimens listed above. above 3500 ft.4) middle toe 29. the range of the species never extended to these islands. virgatus. 31 33-35. Two clutches of eggs from his collection.— Verheijen/Schmutz. RMNH no. fasciatus by Marchant & Higgins (1993: 136. 1984. 1996: 166). Material. 26. Schmutz. 81024. 58: 314 – mountain forest above Ruteng. 81045). Meded. Verheijen (1964: 198) recorded.— ( juv.xii.2 17-18 (17.5 Accipiter gularis (Temminck & Schlegel) Astur (Nisus) gularis Temminck & Schlegel. not even the name of the observer. 62 66.— Everett (1).xi. 137) is incomprehensible: even taken in its widest possible sense. Tjeréng (Schmutz. RMNH no. AMNH no.— (.. Material. RMNH no.5) tail 161. the material listed above shows that this is a regular winter visitor to Flores.1970. Mees. mountain forest above Ruteng. No details are provided. Avifauna of Flores. (. Zool. 1500 m.1971.166 185-192 (188. Nunang (Schmutz.6. 65189). Notes.1896. breeding (nest or eggs found). Everett’s native collector.3) tarsus 60.5. collected by Wallace in 1861). Collectors.H. a subadult male from East Timor.7-27 (24. 18.Mees. Med. 84862).


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

Hieraaetus fasciatus renschi Stresemann
Hieraëtus fasciatus renschi Stresemann, 1932, Orn. Mber. 40: 78 – Sumbawa: Wawo 500 m. Collectors.— Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (, 21.viii.1971, Ruteng (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66076); &, 8.xi.1971, Siru, 150 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81113).

Notes.— The following specimens of this subspecies are now known: Sumbawa ((, type), Flores ((, &), Timor ((), Wetar ((), Luang (2 (). Assuming all sexing to be correct, it would seem that the female sex was hitherto unknown. However, the bird from Wetar, for which Hartert (1904: 189) recorded a wing-length of 495-500 mm, seems very large for a male, and I presume that it is the same specimen listed without comment as a female, with a wing-length of 493 mm, by Brown & Amadon (1968: 677). On the other hand, published measurements of the nominate race show so much overlap between the sexes, that caution is indicated.
Measurements: ( & wing 450 470 tail 225 264 tarsus 100 107 exposed culmen 45 45 culmen from cere 31.3 33 depth of bill 23 25 middle toe without nail 60 64

Hieraaetus kienerii formosus Stresemann
Hieraaëtus kieneri formosus, Stresemann, 1924, Orn. Mber. 32: 108 - Nord-Celebes. Collectors.— None.

Notes.— Individuals of this species were reported as having been seen on four occasions, in 1986 and 1989, by Verhoeye & King (1990). As Doherty collected a female on Satonda, an islet off the north coast of Sumbawa, in May 1896 (cf. Hartert, 1896: 575), the occurrence on Flores is not unexpected. Spizaetus (cirrhatus) floris (Hartert)
Limnaëtus limnaëtus floris Hartert, 1898, Novit. Zool. 5: 46 – Flores. Collectors.— Semmelink, ten Kate, Everett (2), Verheijen (2, MCZ), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (?), 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 1, syntype); (?), April 1891, Sika = Sikka (ten Kate, RMNH cat. no. 2); (?)pullus, 14.x.1970, Orong (Verheijen, RMNH reg. no. 65184); (, 30.i.1976, Waé-Wako, 180 m (Schmutz, RMNH reg. no. 81112); (?), without data, received in 1974, Flores (Verheijen, RMNH reg. no. 66257). Eggs (fig. 12c): c/1,, Todo (RMNH reg. no. 70074); c/1,, Potjong (RMNH no. 70075); c/1, 15.v.1955, Mano (RMNH reg. no. 70076). Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70074 RMNH no. 70075 RMNH no.70076 69.8 × 56.3 73.0 × 55.1 71.0 × 53.4 9.27 9.51 weight not taken, as a large piece of the shell is missing

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


Notes.— Ten Kate’s specimen from Sika was recorded by Büttikofer (1892: 193) and by ten Kate (1894: 27) himself, but this has apparently escaped the attention of later authors (cf. White & Bruce, 1986: 131). Systematically, the genus Spizaetus is still very insufficiently known. The current trinomial for the Flores population, S. cirrhatus floris, dates from a period, not so long ago, that it was custom to stretch the species concept as widely as possible. The validity of this combination may now be questioned at two levels. The first is whether S. limnaeetus from south-eastern Asia, east to Java and Borneo, has properly been included as a subspecies in S. cirrhatus. Doubt about this has been expressed several times (cf. Amadon & Bull, 1988: 324). The second is whether, when limnaeetus is separated specifically from cirrhatus, the form floris would still be regarded as conspecific with limnaeetus, or whether the logical next step would be to give it also specific status. I incline strongly to the last-mentioned view. Brown & Amadon (1968: 694) give for S. c. floris the unexpectedly-large wing-measurements of 485-495 mm. As demonstrated below, the largest bird examined by me has a wing-length of 470 mm. Hartert (1898a: 46) recorded for two males 437 and 450 mm, Rensch (1931a: 512) for a male 438 mm (Rensch believed his bird to be a juvenile, but in fact it was an adult). Rensch’s second specimen was misidentified and later became the type of Hieraaetus fasciatus renschi. Hartert (1904: 189) recorded under the name S. c. floris a bird from Wetar with a wing-length of 495 mm. Later, Mayr (1941a) re-identified this bird as Hieraaetus fasciatus renschi. It occurred to me that the measurements for S. c. floris presented by Brown & Amadon could have been taken from such misidentified specimens, and I wrote to Dr Amadon to ask, whether he could throw light on the matter. From his reply (in litt., 15.iii.1988) I quote: “In any case ignore them! I suspect, as you say, there was some sort of mix-up with the local race of Hieraaetus fasciatus”.
Measurements: (?) cat. 1 (?) cat. 2 ( 81112 (?) 66257 wing 450 470 460 460 tail 260 286 277 290 tarsus 116 121 123 115 entire culmen 54 52 49 48 culmen from cere 36½ 35 35 34

Falco moluccensis subsp.
Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen (at least 3, cf. Sharpe, 1874: 430), Martens, Weber (4, of which 2 in ZMA), Everett, Rensch (5), de Jong (2), Verheijen (2, MCZ), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— [(], 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 17); (, 19/24.xii.1888, Koting (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 1); &, 1/8.i.1889, Endeh (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 2); (, 18.i.1969, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 66083); &, 16.vii.1969, Sok-Rutung (Schmutz, RMNH no. 66084); ( juv., (?)juv., 27.viii.1969, Rahong (Verheijen, RMNH nos. 65196, 65195); &, 27.ix.1969, Ruteng (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65197); (, 12.xii.1975, Nunang 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81049). The birds collected in December (2) and January (2) are undergoing their main moult. Eggs (figs 12d, 13a): 23 clutches of 1 (6 ×), 2 (7 ×), 3 (5 ×) and 4 (5 ×) eggs, collected in the months April (10), May (6), June (3), August (3), and September (1). The short-oval eggs are white or pinkish white, so heavily spotted and dotted with red-brown, that this dominates the ground colour. Measurements and weights of some clutches: RMNH no. 70091 35.0 × 30.9 1.4063 36.1 × 31.1 1.4137 37.8 × 31.2 1.2786


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no. 70092 37.3 × 31.7 37.9 × 31.6 38.2 × 31.1 39.2 × 31.4 38.2 × 31.3 38.4 × 31.7 39.3 × 31.5 39.8 × 31.9 37.5 × 31.6 37.6 × 31.0 37.1 × 31.8 38.0 × 31.7 38.1 × 31.6 39.3 × 31.6 39.7 × 32.0 39.8 × 32.3 42.6 × 31.4 36.3 × 30.6 36.9 × 30.5 37.3 × 30.3 37.4 × 31.2 38.5 × 31.0 38.5 × 31.1 – 1.4017 1.5284 1.5388 1.6362 1.7362 1.656 – – 1.5170 1.4054 1.4844 1.3769 1.6484 1.4783 1.7433 1.7352 1.498 1.5015 1.4716 1.5448 1.6549 1.6341

RMNH no. 70093

RMNH no. 70094 RMNH no. 70095

RMNH no. 70096

RMNH no. 70098

RMNH no. 70099

Notes.— The four specimens collected in December/January are in the last stage of primary moult; two collected in July and September show no moult and are in rather worn plumage. Compare this with the egg-dates. There is little doubt that F. moluccensis has been oversplit at the subspecific level, but the way White & Bruce have disposed of subspecies, was not justified by the meagre material they actually examined. A revision on the basis of a large material is required. Actually, the Leiden collection would form a good basis for it, but it is one of the problems I did not find the time to solve before leaving Leiden. I did note, however, that birds from the North Moluccas in the Leiden collection are darker than those from the central islands and suggest that F. m. bernsteini is a valid subspecies. In view of the meticulous care Siebers used to take over the description of subspecies, I would also hesitate to reject F. m. renschi from Sumba, without a renewed investigation.
Measurements: 4( 3& wing 202+-224 (212) 218-238 (228) tail 142-150 (146) 146-156 (151.3) tarsus 33-36 (34.8) 35-38 (36.3) culmen from cere 14-16 (14.8) 15-16 (15.5)

Falco cenchroides cenchroides Vigors & Horsfield
[Falco] Cenchroides Vigors & Horsfield, 1827, Trans. Linn. Soc. 15: 183 – Australia = Parramatta, N.S.W., where Caley, the collector of the type material, lived. Collector.— Endih (1). Material.— None.

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


Notes.— The single bird collected at Reo by Endih, in 1911, remains the only record. On the islands north of Australia and west of New Guinea, the species appears to be no more than a rare straggler. It did, however, colonize Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) around 1950, and was already common there when I visited that island in 1961. Falco longipennis hanieli Hellmayr
Falco longipennis hanieli Hellmayr, 1914, in Haniel, Zool. Timor 1: 100 – Bonleo, Westtimor. Collectors.— Allen (1), Endih (1), Rensch (1), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— & juv., 1.iii.1969, Sésok, 900 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 65192); ( ad., 15.xi.1969, Paku, 400 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 65195); ( im., 22.ii.1970, Ruteng (Karot) (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65191); ( subad., 25.x.1971, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 84856); ( ad., 12.xi.1971, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 84853); & ad., 9.xii.1971, Nisar (Schmutz, RMNH no. 84855); ( ad.,, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 84854); & ad.,, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85430); ( juv.,, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 84852); & ad., 12.xii.1975, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81040). Adult birds collected in October, November (2) and December (2) were undergoing their main moult. Egg (fig. 13b): c/1, 5.ix.1958, Potjong (RMNH no. 70097). The egg was identified as belonging to F. moluccensis, but is too large; I consider it a safe assumption that it belongs to the present species. Measurements and weight: RMNH no. 70097 43.3 × 31.9 1.803

Notes.— There is a conspicuous difference in size between the sexes, the female being much larger than the male. There is little or no difference in plumage: possibly the & has slightly more extensive and darker brown on the under surface than the (, but the difference is dubious. Juvenile birds of both sexes differ from the adults by having light brown edges to the feathers of the mantle; the central pair of rectrices is black with light brown bars (in adults, black with grey bars), and the black feathers of the forehead (behind the white frontal band) have tiny brown tips. Rensch’s (1931a: 517) & juv. from Dompoe, Sumbawa, with wing 217, tail 117, culmen 13 mm, has obviously been mis-sexed and must be a (. All specimens examined belong to the subspecies hanieli. The nominate subspecies has been recorded from Flores (Stresemann & Amadon, 1979: 417), but in error, as was pointed out by Bruce (in White & Bruce, 1986: 135). I know of no evidence to support the claim by Marchant & Higgins (1993: 278) that some Australian birds winter in the Lesser Sunda Islands and suppose its basis to be this same erroneous record from Flores. Small-scale distribution maps in handbooks are rarely accurate; therefore it is not really surprising to see in Cade (1982: 187 fig. 21) the range of F. longipennis extended westward to cover the whole of Java. In contrast, the map in Marchant & Higgins (1993: 270) seems to suggest that the species is no more than a straggler to the Lesser Sunda Islands.
Measurements: 6( 4& wing 218-227 (222.2) 242-255 (250) tail 110-115½ (113,3) 123-126 (124.5) tarsus 31.3-35 (33.3) 34.5-38 (36.7) culmen from forehead feathers 16.2-18 (17.1) 18.5-19.6 (19.0) culmen from cere 12.2-13.5 (13.0) 15-15.3 (15.1)


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

Dendrocygna arcuata arcuata (Horsfield)
Anas arcuata Horsfield, 1824, Zool. Res. Java: pl. (65) and text – Java. Collector.— Schmutz. Material.— &,, Pota (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85139).

Notes.— D. arcuata certainly breeds on Flores: a & shot by Schmutz near Djoneng, on 1.ii.1977, contained a near-developed egg of 3 cm across. In view of the fact that Watling (1982: 69) knew from Fiji only: “Two specimens, one of which was a juvenile, collected before 1870 from Nadi Bay (a location which could be either west Viti Levu or south-west Vanua Levu)”, it is worth recording the following specimen: ( ad., end of July 1877, Nandi Bay, Viti Levu, leg. T. Kleinschmidt (RMNH cat. no. 31, ex Mus. Godeffroy no. 5716, original label), wing 194, culmen 42.3 mm. I further note, that Salvadori (1895: 155) reports the presence of three specimens in the British Museum: two from Viti Levu, leg. J.D. Macdonald, voyage of H.M.S. ‘Alert’, September (the voyage of the ‘Alert’ took place in 1878/1882, and Fiji was probably visited in 1879 or 1880) and one from Kandi, leg. E.L. Layard. These additional records suggest that in the seventies of the 19th century, D. arcuata was locally not rare on Viti Levu. Watling’s Nadi Bay is the same as Nandi Bay, Viti Levu: the letter d in Fijian is pronounced as nd. Delacour (1954: 41) seems to be certain that “it has been exterminated by the introduced mongoose”. The wing-length of the RMNH specimen clearly exceeds the measurements given for the subspecies D. a. pygmaeus, to which the presumably extinct Fiji population has been tentatively attached (cf. Mayr, 1945: 3). There is also a specimen from New Caledonia in our collection ((, no further particulars, from Verreaux in 1866, RMNH cat. no. 30). The specimen was published by Schlegel (1866a: 89) under the name of Dendrocygna vagans, with the cat. no. 18. This is the earliest published record of the occurrence in New Caledonia that I know of. Measurements: wing 199, culmen 46 mm. This does not help much in its subspecific identification, or whether there was a resident population in New Caledonia or birds found there were stragglers from Australia. Delacour (1966: 40) refers birds from New Caledonia to the nominate race. It becomes increasingly doubtful that a division into subspecies is meaningful. Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield)
Anas Javanica Horsfield, 1821, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 13: 199 – Java. Collectors.— Endih (2, cf. Somadikarta & Noerdjito, 1982), Verheijen (a wing, MCZ, cf. Paynter, 1963), Schmutz. Material.— &,, Kulang Lake, East Flores (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85138).

Notes.— Like the preceding species, Schmutz found individuals in breeding condition. Rensch (1931a: 504) published the first record of this species from the Lesser Sunda Islands on the basis of two females from Dompoe, Sumbawa, collected by Elbert on 21.xii.1909, preserved in the Senckenberg Museum. I should like to add that there are in Leiden also two females, from the same date, locality and collector (RMNH cat. nos. 30, 31).

Nunang (Schmutz. 26. Müller Anas (Mareca) gibberifrons S. etc. c/1. Austral Av. Weber (1.1968.ii. Frith. On the other hand. 44-49). xi. 3. In this connection it is perhaps worth recording that in our collection there are no less than six specimens from Lombok. rejecting not only rogersi. Soa (RMNH no. Johnsgard.1961. Ruteng (Verheijen. Schmutz. no. 9. Zool. Ruteng (Verheijen. 1943: 2. although others seem to have accepted it (cf. I am following contemporary usage. A further study of the geographical variation of this duck is desirable. 65199). RMNH no. Marchant & Higgins (1990: 1320.1968. end vii. Mobile as they are. 81104). 1331) treat the species as monotypic. Verheijen/Schmutz (3. Avifauna of Flores. Nat.— Allen (1). by Blakers et al. 1967: 166). In this connection it is worth drawing attention to the fact that in Australia this species is known to be a great wanderer. and this has been followed. In assigning these birds to rogersi. c/2. Reo (Weber.: 159 – Timor. 65200). Rec.1888. Amadon. 70058). as no adequate topotypical material of the nominate race (from New Zealand) is available for comparison.— &. Material. 1912. nos. Müller. 23/25. Land.1969. MCZ). claiming that such geographical variation as may exist is too minor for expression in nomenclature. Verh. Delacour. (. (1984: 76). 68) in their suggestion. 39). 1979: 471).Mees. ZMA). Leiden 80 (2006) 57 Anas superciliosa rogersi Mathews Anas superciliosa rogersi Mathews. 1956: 63. c/6. 28.— Weber (1). Material. dependent as it is on the very unstable habitat provided by temporary floodings.en Volkenk. West Australia. periodically numerous). 2.x. Ned. Gesch.xi.1969. Collectors.vii.1961. Med. Condon (1975: 70) definitely rejected rogersi and included all Australian birds (and by inference also the populations of the Lesser Sunda Islands) in the nominate race. (. I cannot follow Van Marle & Voous (1988: 37. de Jong (2). that birds from as far west as Sumatra (where they are supposed to be. RMNH no. Soa (RMNH no. Mano (RMNH no.1888 (Weber. Eggs: c/10.iii. Bez. RMNH no. would be or even could be “irruptive” migrant visitors from Australia.— (. 70059). (. but also pelewensis. Soa (RMNH no. &. RMNH cat. 70061). 66075).— This is obviously the commonest duck of the Lesser Sunda Islands. or to have been. 70060).xi. Verheijen (1. 1842. . Collectors. ZMA no. and eggs). Measurements: ( ( & wing 260 [215] 245 tail 84 78 84 tarsus 41 42½ 39 exposed culmen 53½ 46½ 48 Anas gibberifrons gibberifrons S. Overz. Rensch (3). Several authors have expressed doubt about the validity of rogersi ( 23. 1: 33 – Augusta.. obtained by the “Sunda-Expedition” in May 1909 (RMNH cat. Nanga-Lili (Schmutz. 27. This would work against geographical variation. without discussion.1957.1961. RMNH no. 13253).

although not described. Therefore. the next paragraph of the footnote begins with: “Van deze eend heb ik ook een individu op Makassar verkregen. some may have arrived in Leiden after Müller’s description was written. Levrault) 29: 416 – d’Amboine. 22. 1828/1829. Avifauna of Flores. gibberifrons gracilis (cf. Timor (RMNH cat. was definitely included in the original 27. Mees. 3). whilst recently our traveller Dr Forsten forwarded several specimens from Menado to the Rijks-Museum. dans les Îles Moluques (errore!).d. g. material from Makassar and Menado. RMNH no. Dict. this would certainly be by birds from Java (gibberifrons) and not from Australia (gracilis)! There is some inconsistency in the citation of the type-locality of A.ix. (éd. Mees.831).1828.1976. who treat them as different species. Sande. (. 66069). &. 70063). Rensch (1). however. 2). referring it to “gibberifrons or gracilis”. Timor (RMNH cat. Zool. Verheijen/Schmutz.iii.xii. weight 0.1956. corrected to Lombok by Schlegel (1880: 57). If a restriction of the type locality is required. Iris brown. RMNH no. Wai Moké. Perhaps not all of Forsten’s specimens are syntypes. and the description in the footnote is taken from specimens of both sexes collected on Timor.55 kg (v. Following the description. Med. All this material is still present in Leiden: (. as Ripley (1942a) did forty years earlier. this should obviously be to Timor. Notes. Leiden 80 (2006) Eggs. &. no. 68) should consider Anas gibberifrons in Sumatra as a “migrant from Australia”. . Material.1959. 1). Ceréng. gibberifrons: in the older literature and in a few more recent publications (Frith & Hitchcock. to mention just a few. Apart from the conspicuous skull-character. 20. and here further corrected to the Banda Islands (see below). no. Megapodius reinwardt reinwardt Dumont Megapodius Reinwardt Dumont. van der Sande (2). (. Flores (Colfs. Everett. iii.— Previously.— Allen. Dampék (RMNH no. 1982a: 22) it is given as Timor. Records of this species from Sumatra are unsatisfactory.— (?). The facts are as follows: Müller (1842) described the species in a footnote. 25. Réo (RMNH no. 1982a: 22). RMNH cat. and five Forsten specimens from various localities in northern Celebes (RMNH cat. 1880. 1823.1907. Nanga-Lili (Schmutz. Collectors. If it does visit or colonize Sumatra. and presume it to be an error. in an article on Timor. aan het Rijks-Museum zijn toegezonden geworden” 4). 30. &. I have no idea on what the record by White & Bruce (1986: 139) of breeding on Flores in August is based. In the main text he records his observations made on Timor. Makassar (RMNH cat. the two forms show a close resemblance. 300 m (Schmutz. this has been changed to Sulawesi.1969. 4) Of this duck I have also obtained an individual at Makassar.58 Mees. (1985: 10). Johnsgard (1979: 466) and White & Bruce (1986: 139). but in authoritative recent works like those of Condon (1975: 70). no. 1. Sci. gibberifrons and the Australian A. ZMA no. bill and legs orange-yellow. It is unclear why Van Marle & Voous (1988: 37. nos. and has to be considered syntypical. 1974: 123. south coast of middle Flores. van Menado. 81108). terwijl onlangs verscheidene exemplaren van dezelve door onzen reiziger Dr Forsten. no. Nat. but I still hesitate to follow Parker et al. Colfs. I have drawn renewed attention to the considerable differences between A. c/8.1829. 4-8). and in my opinion do not qualify it for inclusion in the Sumatran list. 70062). iii. however. 9). c/1. however.

and was only corrected almost sixty years after its description.0 87. to show the white chalk underneath.5 66. and to write any particulars that were thought worth keeping. underneath the socle. taken in the months January (4). Former practice in Leiden was. for at least a century and a half. varying from yellowish chamois to light brown. The very large eggs have a soft.2856 8. 70122 RMNH no. once his manuscript was written (Brouwer. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. therefore. which comes off easily when the surface is scratched. and has been. The specimen is.v-23. I have examined the type specimen. It may safely be assumed that Schlegel’s story was based on faulty memory: it is known that Schlegel used to write from memory. as that island is inhabited by the correct species and subspecies. First.4 × 51. Schlegel (1880: 57) noted: “individu rapporté par feu le Professeur Reinwardt. closely related species.3206 9. however. as Ambon is inhabited by a different. where he spent a few days (20-23. but that could not be correct. Like Reinwardt’s other material. But Reinwardt never visited Lombok. Measurements: ( ( & (?) wing 231 240 235 236 tail 107 85 87 82 tarsus 63. 73656. Reinwardt spent five weeks (18. Zool.0 87. Leiden 80 (2006) 59 Eggs: 54 eggs (in 35 lots). November (1). Moreover. Above I have corrected the type locality accordingly. when a specimen was mounted. to throw away the label (assuming there was one).2 67 entire culmen 32 30 29 32 . is amazing.9 × 54. 70126 RMNH no.2351 9. mounted. March (13). December (3). would be exceptional in the Leiden collection. and it does not have an original label. This.Mees. giving its provenance as Lombok. Schlegel’s claim that the bird had an original label.0 × 53. Lombok has been generally accepted as the type locality. One might think of a label that has become lost since Schlegel wrote.0 × 54. February (22). 70112-70142. and three not dated (RMNH nos.6565 8. Reinwardt did call at Bima. M. Ce savant voyageur ne nous ayant fait parvenir qu’un seul individu du Mégapode aux pieds rouges et cet individu originaire de l’Île de Lombock. July (3). Whereas from the systematist’s point of view there can be no objection to the type locality Lombok. Avifauna of Flores. comme je viens de le constater par l’etiquette originale. and if it ever had one. However.2 82.iii. the specimen was insufficiently labelled (compare Nectarinia solaris). within the range of M. Since then. 78404).0 7. Med.5 66. Discussing the holotype.”. 1954: 57). The Banda Islands are. October (3). August (1).— Megapodius reinwardt was originally believed to be from Ambon.1821) on the Banda Islands.. Sumbawa. A mounted specimen in the old collection with an original label. 75498.5 × is not the whole argument: Lombok might still be considered a satisfactory designated type locality. and could not have collected a bird there. and did not much checking up on facts. 73657. chalky shell. 70131 80. freycinet. from Banda he sailed on to Ambon. and almost the only possible place for him to have obtained the type. the obvious.311 Notes.. but that is most unlikely. probably too short to do any bird collecting. Perhaps Schlegel had seen a Wallace specimen from Lombok. it becomes completely incomprehensible why its provenance had earlier been thought to be Ambon.1821). historical evidence is against it.1 83. reinwardt. June (1).

RMNH no. 66263. c/5 (9 ×). 8. 21. ix.1971. 66264). RMNH nos. Müller) Perdix Raaltenii S. 59801). Collectors: Allen (few? – not in BM). Material.3 × 24. (Verheijen. 19. Zool. Nat. 85165). In this connection: Mayr (1944a: 144) had seen no specimens from Flores when he described castaneus from Alor.1971. 70200 Notes. When Flores. RMNH no.1971. Gurung. Langkas. Zool. 4. Excalfactoria chinensis lineatula Rensch.1577 1. Timor.1968. Rahong (Verheijen.xi. 1931.7 27. and specimens from Timor and Roti (cf. 900 m (Verheijen. 66262.— In a previous paper I mentioned my inability to distinguish between these specimens. (. 5.3 30. 900 m (Verheijen. Proc. 900 m (Verheijen. Rahong. Avifauna of Flores. Rahong (Verheijen.x. so that the inclusion of Flores into its range was only a guess. 59798). 1960. June (5). March (9). Ned. Nat. May (21).6 28. (. Gurung.x. 3.: 158 – omstreken van Babauw.xi. northern Sumbawa. (. Wangkung. The eggs are white.1959.6 × 23. October (1). 1958. &.x. Rahong (Verheijen. y. April (12). 65212. Coturnix chinensis chinensis (Linnaeus) [Tetrao] chinensis Linnaeus. (ed. 1944. Land.. 85166).1971. August (4). Nat. RMNH no. almost without gloss. Leiden 80 (2006) Coturnix ypsilophora raaltenii (S. &.0547 0. 5978359797. Ruteng (Verheijen. Ruteng (Verheijen. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 900 m. Berlin 17: 473 – Badjawa. MCZ). Syst. Med. Overz.236 1. &. 85285-85294). 70172a). Bull. Rensch (2). usually somewhat dirty. July (1).8 29.1971.8122 1. (. 83: 144 – Alor Island. and I follow them. Lang- .0 0. c/3 (12 ×).2715 1. Eggs: 65 clutches of c/1 (7 ×). 9. Mitt. 900 m. &. Hitherto. RMNH no. Potjong (Verheijen.9287 1. RMNH no. xi. Flores.3 28. Langkas. September (2). raaltenii. 66261). Gesch.1968. RMNH no. 14. Gurung. Rahong. Rahong (Verheijen. and nine insufficiently dated (RMNH nos.— &. ix. 85167). Philippinis = China. 59800). Excalfactoria chinensis palmeri Riley. Gurung. RMNH no. (. White & Bruce (1986: 145) have given additional arguments for the non-recognition of castaneus.en Volkenk. collected in the months February (1).6 × 23.0751 RMNH no 70199 RMNH no.2 × 24. RMNH no. Verheijen (8. In September 1984 I found it on the Tg. Verheijen/Schmutz. Mus. the range of this species along the chain of Lesser Sunda Islands has been known to extend westwards only to Flores.1958. Bez.— Everett (no number given). 1957. Java. 66266). and Lumu (Verheijen. Synoicus ypsilophorus castaneus Mayr.9 29.x. MCZ). 66265). 59799).0 × 23. RMNH no.1968.x. Soc. 2 &.0824 1.6 29. Müller.2 × 23. RMNH nos. Timor and Roti are inhabited by one subspecies C.4 × 23. Rahong (Verheijen. RMNH no. Am. c/6 (3 ×). 70175 28. Mees. ix. Langkas.7 × 23. 1975b: 123). 1766. 900 m (Verheijen. c/4 (8 ×). 2 &.1968. c/2 (14 ×).0636 1. Verheijen/Schmutz (many). 1919.8 × 22. (. 85188). Verheijen (24. (. where it appeared to be quite common. Washington 32: 93 – Daroe. it is no longer likely that Alor has a different one. RMNH no. Biol. 1842. Verh. Collectors. c/8 (6 ×) and c/9 (2 ×). 70151-70214. (. Gurung Wangkung. Hist. Mus. 12) 1: 277 – in China. c/7 (4 ×).3 30. RMNH nos.60 Mees. 66267).— 26 specimens from Langkas in Rahong. Rensch (2). Material. ix. Pioen peninsula.

Léwé (RMNH nos. 3.2 × 20. Die hellen Schaftstreifen der Oberseite sind viel feiner als bei Stücken von Australien (australis Gd. 81301). differs from lineata.viii. The type-locality of palmeri.7 × 18. c. 70231 Notes. He had no material from the range ascribed to nominate chinensis. Eggs: 18 clutches of c/1 (1 ×).7 23. is in the south-western part of the Residentie Batavia (as it was then). Potjong. Van Bemmel (in Van Bemmel & Voous.). The eggs vary from olive brown to coffee brown. 1951: 104) called lineatula “a very weak race”. (. E. but recognized palmeri. two from Sulawesi (Celebes) and one from the Malay Peninsula (all (). which he considered different. 85169). and the rufous of the breast more extensive”. Bénténg Djawa. but that Rensch (quoted below) referred Bornean birds to lineata. lineatula reads: “Die 3 vorliegenden (. RMNH no. Daroe. RMNH no. 11. c. 70229 23. The question remains whether.) unterscheidet sich die neue Rasse durch bedeutendere Grösse”. RMNH nos.8 25. Von der Rasse minima (Gd. Significantly. c/2 (5 ×). Mano.1976. the subspecies chinensis and lineata differ .8 25. the wing with much rufous.4 × 17.8 × 19.4 23. or have a variable number of very small dark brown spots. c/4 (7 ×). caerulescens Hachisuka. no mention is made of nominate chinensis to which at least Malayan birds had previously been ascribed. Méngé. 85168. The adequate series from Java available to me. July (2). Zool. collected in the months March (1).9 24. but avoids mentioning the size of his sample from Java. June (8). and two not dated. as a synonym. Riley had for comparison 12 specimens from the Philippines.2814 0. Tjara. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.2989 0. Leiden 80 (2006) 61 kas (Verheijen.x. &. c/3 (2 ×).3672 0. so that all he did. Avifauna of Flores.). April (1). Med. Mataloko. chinensis requires further study. Suma. and how. Lingko Cehet (Verheijen.0 0.Mees. The diagnosis of E. Note that Robinson & Kloss (1927) included Sumatra and Borneo into the range of palmeri.4 25.2 × 19.— The geographical variation of C.0 24. the differences described by Rensch on the basis of a very limited material being all within the range of individual variation. made it clear that there is no difference between specimens from Java and Flores.4308 0. This was based on a comparison of specimens from Sulawesi (Celebes) (lineata) with specimens from Java (“palmeri”).5 24.3695 0. Langkas (Verheijen. Of the two subspecies here synonymized.4134 0. und von den Philippinen und Borneo (lineata Scop.6 × 19. 70215-70232). c. May (4).2 × 18.0 × 18.6 25.4009 0.2408 0.0 × 18.0 × 18. listing E. palmeri was diagnosed as being: “Similar to Excalfactoria chinensis lineata from the Philippines. was establish that chinensis (including “palmeri”). wodurch sie weniger schiefergrau wirken. from Tado. 70230 RMNH no. Rentung Lelak. but the back and scapulars much mixed with slate color. type locality Sarawak. wie auch ein ( von Flores aus dem Tring-Museum. unterschieden sich von der Java-Rasse palmeri Riley durch stärkere braunschwarze Fleckung der Oberseite. 85189).2690 0. not in Bantam as claimed by Deignan (1961: 71).1971.4114 RMNH no. and are either plain. c/5 (1 ×) and c/6 (2 ×).

c/2. Mataloko (RMNH no. Misc. 1978: 82). Nat. A reviser will also have to explain the generally-accepted type-locality Nanking of nominate chinensis. c/1.v. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. of this species and T. 70148). 70233-70314.8 (13. Leiden 80 (2006) from each other. Material. Zool.1955.2 26. 10: pl.5 × 37. 81107). Montjok (RMNH no.3847 0. 9.1968. Avifauna of Flores. 28.8 0.8 26. northern Sumbawa. 17. Verheijen (5. 70144).4 49. 27.0 × 20. 70147).ii. On 22. Eggs: 83 clutches of 1-4 eggs.9665 3.— Semmelink.673 2.3) tarsus 19.1955. (. The eggs are creamish white. MCZ).xi.2-14 (12. Proc. Schmutz.4 × 20. Flores (Schmutz.. with pores made distinct by dirt. nos.6 50.1442 3. cf. 70146). 353 and text – “Probably an Indian bird” = Java. Lond.1957. c/5.9) 12-13.1961. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 1862. 70143). 1885. Measurements: 9( 10 & wing 68-75 (71.8) 27-31 (29.9 2. 70272 (Montjok) RMNH no.2 51.0 × 18. but I know of no previous records. 1798. Material. Verheijen/Schmutz.4 24.1) tail 28-34 (29.5 47. 70146 49. 70145). 66090).1 × 20.62 Mees.: 511 – Gunong Api Island. c/5. RMNH no. 28. c/4. Verheijen (2.8) 70-76 (73. Potjong (RMNH no. Collectors. Soa (RMNH no.1961.1959.— (. Iris white.2) Gallus varius (Shaw) Phasianus varius Shaw.5) 19-21 (19. ( juv. Tado (RMNH no. 70149).vii. RMNH no. hardly above sea level. c/4. I flushed a pair on the Tg. 73508).3656 0. 22.ix. 5. 70148 Turnix suscitator powelli Guillemard Turnix powelli Guillemard.3-22. c/2. not dated.1959.5402 2.7 × 38. Allen. maculosa combined (RMNH Ruteng (RMNH no.3 × 19. Collectors. White & Bruce (1986: 145) give it a vertical range of 400-1200 m in the Lesser Sunda 7. 15.0 × 37. RMNH cat.1984.6907 2. Nunang (Schmutz. 7).— &.5 (20. 9.4188 . MCZ). Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. Everett. The occurrence of this little quail on Sumbawa was predictable.4 50.3 × 35. Rembong (RMNH no.6 (10.1 × 38.1955.4-11 (10. 70150). Soc.2) exposed culmen 9-10. Verheijen (eggs). Zool.2480 RMNH no.5 49.5147 2. W.1) 9.9) entire culmen 11. Potjong (RMNH no.3842 0.3 51. Cheng et al. 70278 (Palué) 25.1 × 37.3611 0.4 25. Pioen peninsula. Med.2 × 36.1 × 37.8123 2.. Lack of adequate material prevents me from giving an— Everett (several). Eggs: c/4. for at present the species does not occur as a wild bird within 500 km of Nanking (for a map of the distribution in China.

3703 0. 70290 (Palué) RMNH no. MCZ).0 × 20. An examination of the Palué eggs revealed. RMNH no.4453 0. Verheijen/ Schmutz. RMNH 59804).0 23.5 25.6 × 20. powelli. Rahong. Verheijen’s eggs were originally registered in Leiden as T.4 × 20. and baweanus is a synonym (cf.5 25. (. suscitator. Rahong. In this.5 63 0.— ?. all of which he identified as belonging to T.3898 0. Mees. 900 m (Verheijen.ix.2 × 19.8 × 19.4134 0. Roka. 85170). Basel 66: 121 – Süd-Flores.6 24. RMNH no. but in my view it is well placed as a subspecies of T. 19-X-1968. thus confirming the local boys’ claim that two species of Turnix occur on Palué.xi.6 × 19.4315 0.1971. He further wrote: “Boys told me about two kinds of mbu.3957 0.7 × 20. but uncritically copied from Hoogerwerf (1962: 197-200). 1961: 184). the only Turnix he recorded from Palué.0 25.7 24. Avifauna of Flores. Rensch (1). 85171). however. Verh.and weight-classes: larger and heavier eggs which have been correctly identified as belonging to T. that they can be divided into two size. 15. Med.2 25.9 24. &.6 24. and smaller and lighter eggs which are obviously referable to T. (. Material. &. White & Bruce do not make very clear that Gunung Api and Sangeang are two names for the same island. I agree with White & Bruce (1986: 148).— This form has sometimes been regarded as a separate species.4229 RMNH no. Probably this difference is only a question of sexual dimorphism” (Verheijen.Mees. Langkas.1971. 70281 (Palué) RMNH no. Naturf. It is likely that this was not based on personal observation. Notes. Sutter (1). Measurements: & wing 85 tail 44 tarsus 23 entire culmen 16. Gurung. &. 70280 (Palué) RMNH no.6 × 19.1 × 19. Rahong (Verheijen. Zool.4062 0. Tjumbi. baweanus bridges the difference between nominate suscitator and powelli.1 25. 85172).3792 0. RMNH no. 70287 (Palué) RMNH no. 2.9 × 19. powelli. who support this by saying that T. powelli.0 × 20. Gurung (Verheijen.— Everett (number not recorded). IX-1968.4 × 20.0 × 21. the individual variation in plumage of nominate suscitator has been underestimated. Rahong (Verheijen.4349 0.ix.5 24. In accordance with the above identification. Verheijen (12. However. 70279 (Palué) 23.9 24.438 0. RMNH 59803). In their somewhat confused discussion of the type locality of powelli.2 exposed culmen 12 Turnix maculosa floresiana Sutter Turnix maculosa floresiana Sutter. Wangkung (Verheijen. (.1971.0 26.404 0. 24. 20. 1955.9 × 20.9 24. 2-xii-1968. RMNH no. Rahong (Verheijen. RMNH 59802).0 × 20. (Verheijen. 70291 (Palué) Verheijen collected a number of clutches of Turnix-eggs on Palué.1 25.1970. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no.7 × 20. Ges. Collectors. maculosa.ix. . s. 1986: 27).

Wangkung (Verheijen. RMNH no. . 85180). bill and legs grey. of which measurements and weights are given below. Gurung (Verheijen. Rahong (Verheijen. South Flores.6 × 20.5 23. with the result that they have all been registered as T. Langkas (Verheijen. 70285 (Palué) RMNH no. 85154). RMNH 85185). RMNH no.7 23. It did not seem worth the extra effort in the framework of this article.x.0 22. (?) juv. powelli in the RMNH collection. bill black and light brown.7 × 18.9 × 19.0 (10.9) exposed culmen 9.309 0.3327 0. 4. Suma Langkas.4 × 18.— Everett (1).3 (14. 85157). Nunang. 5: 50 – Mangarai district. MCZ).3530 0. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 11-X-1973. RMNH 81427).7 × 18. 85183). RMNH 85184). 85174). 85179). RMNH no. (. Zool.x.. Langkas (Verheijen. 26. RMNH no.2636 0.1971.2 (13.— Lack of adequate material from the surrounding islands prevented me from discussing the interesting geographical variation in the species in this region.4 23. (. RMNH 85181.4) tarsus 18-20 (19. Iris brown.7 23. RMNH 85186). Material. Iris grey.1971.3181 RMNH no. 85178). as this would require measuring and weighing all eggs. Eggs: See under the preceding species. (. but on average smaller and lighter. 1898. Verheijen/Schmutz.1958. s.1959.8 0.5) Rallus pectoralis exsul (Hartert) Hypotaenidia brachypus exsul Hartert.0 23. 3.294 0. 8-X-1971 Gurung (Verheijen.1 22..8-21.1971. (. Med. Gurung (Verheijen. Gurung (Verheijen. Leiden 80 (2006) 85173). 70289 (Palué) Notes.3209 0. 10-viii-1976. RMNH no. noted as “a prey of Accipiter sp.64 Mees.3 × 18.3413 0. 70288 (Palué) RMNH no. ( juv. Verheijen (3. 3 (.3257 0.8 22.ii. Measurements: 10( 7& wing 68-75 (70.ix. but a single specimen from Sumba (leg.1 × 20.6-15. (. (.1971.6 × 17.7 × 18. 85175-85177).2) 27-33 (30. Gn. 25. RMNH no.4) entire culmen 13-14.3137 0.9) 76-81 (78.7 × 19. 70249 (Potjong) 21.x.0 22. Avifauna of Flores. legs light brown.1974. 650 m (Schmutz. 3. 9-X-1971.6 24.”. RMNH nos. 2.1971. Gurung (Verheijen. 8-X-1971.7) 14.0 × 18. Collectors.2961 0. all remiges growing. several hundreds.6 (20. Tjumbi. 2 &.9 23. &. Novit.2 23.4-11.1) 19. 85156). Mano (Verheijen.5 22. (. suscitator powelli.6 22. Suma.1 × 20.2711 0.6 × 19. (Verheijen.— (?).v. but not all. Verheijen) differs from the series of floresiana in the characters described by Sutter (1955) and supports the validity of sumbana.314 0.0 × 18.ix.4 × 18. Verheijen (1964: 198) did not distinguish between the eggs of the two Turnix-species.2488 0. RMNH 85182). &.8 × 19.4) 11-12 (11. RMNH no. Zool. 70251 (Tjarang) RMNH no.1 21.2926 0.2891 0. 70286 (Palué) RMNH no. I have sorted out some of these. and even then it is likely that some would be difficult to place. Several specimens collected in September and October show primary moult.9 22. x.3291 0. 1. no date.7 × 18. The eggs are similar to those of T.4) tail 25-30½ (27. Gurung (Verheijen. Gurung (Verheijen.

8 × 23. June (10). not all of them with complete data.x. Measurements: (?) ad. 66091).1955. 8.0 33.7 31. 70316 RMNH no. 70318). 70319 RMNH no.4 31.6 × 23.6 × 24.— Everett. 70338a. c/4.5 × 24. Montjok (RMNH no. Mano (RMNH no.1970. Potjong (RMNH no. February (1).1977. 20.7 31.0 × 24.0 × 24. 70318 RMNH no.5986 0.1955. 65222).1 0. 15.1 33.5 33.xi.5731 RMNH no. November (2). Iris coral red. 700 m (Schmutz. 70323 RMNH no.6677 large holes 0.4564 – 0. c/3. Montjok (Verheijen. Potjong (RMNH no. Rahong (Verheijen.i. 70321 RMNH no.xi.2 35.5 × 24.0 31.6 × 25. Potjong (RMNH no. RMNH no.9 × 24. 12.1958. March (9). . 23. Nunang. April (17). 70317). May (15).1957. 70315). Collectors.4 × 25. Avifauna of Flores. July (1). 70319). 13cc): c/3.5596 0.7 × 24. 70324 one unsexed adult and two juveniles. &. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. (.6311 – 0. 70324). c/4. 15. 70315 32. were discussed by Paynter (1963).1959. I: 198 – South Flores.1974.3 32. Rensch (1).6 × 24. 70320). 19.2 × 24.5 × 25. (RMNH nos. 70322 RMNH no. 70317 RMNH no.5 31. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. c/2.1969. Ruteng (Verheijen.1 × 24.5753 0. Mano (RMNH no. RMNH no. September (1). 70323). &.6829 0.1959. c/1.0 31.vii. Potjong (RMNH no.0 33. with moderate numbers of well-defined chocolate brown primary dots.2 × 25. Eggs (fig.7 30.ii.1955.2 31.0 × 24. MCZ). Birds Austr. 12. 70330-70395. 15. October (1). c/1.5617 0.8 × 24.1958. wing 106 tail 41 tarsus 28 entire culmen 32 exposed culmen 29 Rallus philippensis wilkinsoni (Mathews) Eulabeornis philippensis wilkinsoni Mathews. 70321). RMNH no.4 31.8 × 23.5 32. The eggs are cream colour to pale pinkish chamois. and light grey secondary dots. 70316). &.6172 0. xii.0 32. Zool. 400 m (Schmutz. August (1). 81076). c/5. iv.6 30.2 31.iii. 70322). iv.2 32. 19.4 × 25.3 33.9 × 24. Verheijen (13.iii.— &.5753 0. c/1. Potjong (RMNH no. 4. Leiden 80 (2006) 65 Eggs (figs 13c. Material. Verheijen/Schmutz.6043 Notes. December (1).vi. 70320 RMNH no.5 31. Med.ii.7 × 25. c/1.Mees. RMNH no.1970.1959. 13d): 68 clutches of from 1 to 7 eggs.1957. 1911.— The MCZ-specimens. 65224). RMNH no. Wewak. Months of collecting: January (3). This subspecies is known from very few specimens. 85144).5510 0.4 × 24. 73507).5447 0.9 32.1 32. Mano (RMNH no.3 × 24. 16.7 × 24.6930 0.

4800 1.6 39.4 × 30. a rather large one.4256 1. and the material at that time present in Leiden was thoroughly discussed by Junge (1953: 11-16). I have compared these additional specimens from Flores with specimens from adjacent islands.4246 1.— Several authors have studied the geographical variation of Rallus philippensis. that: “The racial affinities of birds from the Moluccas and Lesser Sunda Islands are imperfectly understood”. as here defined.0 37. .4128 1.4529 1. chandleri from Celebes.3 × 29. and as he found no differences in plumage either. White & Bruce followed Mayr and Ripley in not recognising chandleri.7 39.4760 1.0 37. 70350 RMNH no.8 38. he placed wilkinsoni in the synonymy of chandleri. Med.6 39. 70349 38.3554 1. wing 135-146 mm.66 Some measurements and weights: Mees.4 × 29. concluded that birds from Flores and Timor are similar. it seems possible that wilkinsoni is a valid subspecies. in R.0 × 29. any subspecies described by Mathews.4349 RMNH no. I am unable to add much to the discussion. New Guinea and Australia have a broad orange-brown pectoral band. described from Sulawesi (Celebes).8 37. and points out characters by which it differs from nominate philippensis. from experience.3 × 30.2 × 29. p.8 × 29. until its exact relations to chandleri are solved. White & Bruce (1986: 150-151) also failed to arrive at definite conclusions. probably includes Timor and Sumba.7 39.4662 1.3589 1.3 39.2 × 29.7 39. wing 158 mm) as the main subspecific character of wilkinsoni. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no.4 39.4 × 28. whereas Junge.0 × 29. wing 134-142 mm).4163 1. White discusses R. But Mayr considered the larger birds (wilkinsoni) to be confined to Flores. the range of wilkinsoni.0 38. without specimens from Flores and with only one. Birds from Ambon.1 × 30. On this basis.0 38. Nevertheless.3 × 29.1 39. I agree with Ripley (1977: 83). from Timor.5057 1. In this connection it seems inconsistent that they accepted wilkinsoni. on the basis of smaller size.5 × 29. 70361 Notes.3468 1.3 × 29. wing 137 mm) and Flores (wing 146 mm) with a series from Celebes (7 (. and included specimens from Timor. Buru.8 × 28.4 × 28.3226 1. and an average larger size was the only difference between a bird from Timor and birds from Celebes that Junge could find. Junge wisely refrained from applying trinomials. Mistrusting. but for the moment. Zool. Avifauna of Flores. I consider it cautious to recognize wilkinsoni. Stresemann (1941: 28) compared two specimens from Alor (&. chandleri.8 39.5 38.3504 1.4 × 30.3987 1. p. Birds from Flores are large and have darker olive-brown upper-parts than specimens from Celebes.4198 1. Mayr (1944a: 145-146) regarded large size (&. which is absent in birds from Sulawesi (Celebes) and Flores (immature birds from these two islands have a weakly-developed band). and differ by larger average size from Celebes birds. 5 &. Subsequently.3 1.

1992).— (?). VIII) description and excellent photograph of a clutch from Borneo.5638 0. instead of in the Banda Sea. c. no.1934. Material. IV fig. n. Nunang. Soa (RMNH no. between Sumbawa and Flores.8 43 41 42.i.. 29. pl. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. The egg from Soa was collected with an incubating parent. legs and iris deep orange-red. Sumba (Verheijen. c/1. The fact that several clutches of eggs are known from both Java and Flores.— Ripley (1977: 160) notes that this species is highly migratory.7 37. one from Billiton (c/4.1975. 18. 22. The last-mentioned authors laboured under the misconception that authentic eggs of Rallina fasciata had not been described before they published their note.1961.5 33 35 33 39 33. with c/6 eggs. They seem to have overlooked Hoogerwerf’s (1949a: 49.6520 The measurements and weights agree with those of eggs from Java. Avifauna of Flores. RMNH cat. 22. and may be only a winter visitor in the southern part of its range. 70328).9 × 24.0 × 23. 20. without locality (RMNH no. and Coomans de Ruiter’s (1951: 313.1959. 13: 328 – Sumatra. Rallina euryzonoides). A. 70329 32. 85143). leg. &. In the description of the eggs. one from Padjintan. 70328 RMNH no. Coomans de . so that its identification is beyond question (cf. Measurements: Flores ( & & & & Sumba& wing 154 145 153 152 150 142 tail 68 60 63 66 58+ tarsus 49 40. Bill dark green.4 × 23. Collectors. Notes. with a smooth. glossy surface. pl. Wai Kabubak. 73331). 97114). 22.ii.9 × 24. Singkawang.1888.— Weber. eyerim.) is to Harrison & Parker (1967). 650 m (Schmutz.3 mm (Walters. Verheijen/Schmutz. Our collection contains four clutches from Java (Bartels. entirely without markings. 1822.1948. (. in which eggs from Java are described and (admittedly not very well) illustrated.1978.9 33. large gonads.4 Rallina fasciata (Raffles) Rallus fasciatus Raffles. Note that Ripley (1977: 85 map 3) has placed Goenoeng Api Island in the position of Komodo.iii. Borneo (c/5.xii. I mention here: &. described by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967: 29) and with eggs from Burma described by Harrison & Parker (1967).0 × 23. 15). in litt. Nunang (Verheijen. 1964: 195. RMNH no. 85155).5783 0. s.3 mm given for one egg by the last-mentioned authors are due to a misprint and should read 31. contradicts this suggestion. Lond.vii. Linn. Verheijen. 36) important publication. the only reference given by Ripley (l. Zool. the southern limit of its normal range. 70329). RMNH no. 25. Maumeri (Weber. The measurements of 39. Hoogerwerf). Trans. RMNH no. leg.H.ii. although in the text he places it correctly. 9.5 45 entire culmen 40.Mees. RMNH no. xii.5 31 30. Leiden 80 (2006) 67 As few specimens are known from Sumba.vii.5 0. The eggs are white. Soc. Eggs: c/2. de Bruijn.3 exposed culmen 36 28 29 27.

Collector. but do not prove. and without gloss.— The dates of the Flores specimens suggest. Material. versch. Sody’s label shows that no bird was seen with the eggs. there is at least a strong suggestion that the species is mainly a winter visitor (this has never been denied). 1938. Java. RMNH no. the surface of the shells is a little less smooth. However. East Borneo. that they were collected in a wet rice-field. 52117). 52116) and 11. Leiden 80 (2006) Ruiter. and two from Flores as described above. Porzana pusilla mira Riley. but correspondence between de Bruijn and A. suggest Ixobrychus cinnamomeus. and that they were only subsequently identified as being of R. and there is no evidence for the presence of a resident population (cf. Measurements and weights. 1776.V. Besides being broader and a trifle heavier.4 exposed culmen 21. as noted by these authors. Mahakkam River. Washington 51: 95 – Tanggarong. 5. MCZ). Prov. Biol. given on the label. Zool.1949. they provide proof that the species is not only a winter visitor but also a resident in Malaysia. Measurements: ( & wing 123 123 tail 48 46 tarsus 44 44 entire culmen 23.68 Mees. Avifauna of Flores. 73552. Smythies (1981: 76) makes no mention of breeding in Borneo.— Verheijen (3.C. Van Marle & Voous (1988: 82) refer to eggs and a bird collected on Billiton. l. 1948: 313-314). van Bemmel. Java. There is no such material in our collection. Excluded from the above enumeration is a clutch from Java (leg. in combination with the information. RMNH no. Van Bemmel identified the bird as belonging to the nominate race. de Bruijn. this is the clutch recorded by Coomans de Ruiter.1918 (Tjisaät. that the species is a resident of the island: late April and mid-May (cf. fasciata by M. P. Bartels Jr. Reichs 3: 700 – Dauria (reference not verified).1917 (Tjitamijang.— None. De Bruijn collected both eggs and a bird which he had personally seen attending the nest. In contradistinction. The first Celebes specimen was collected on 17 June 1939: the date suggests that it .ii.8 23. by A. Med. at that time curator of the MZB (archive RMNH) revealed that the record is correct. p.iii. Kooiman.H. of which the identification was questioned by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967: 29).). c. pusilla. RMNH no. 1940b: 100. skin and eggs are in the MZB. 1963). Paynter. Notes. Russ.8 21 Porzana pusilla pusilla (Pallas) Rallus pusillus Pallas. in RMNH. Proc.v. Soc. all specimens from Java and Sumatra in our collection have been taken in the winter months: I 14 1 – II 26 – – III 1 – – IV – – – V 1 – – VI – – – VII – – – VIII – – – IX – – – X – – 1 XI – – – XII 2 – – Java Sumatra Ceram The last spring dates are 6. Reise d. Although there may be all kinds of bias in the samples. Sody). not in Leiden. Junge.

Paynter played with the idea that the specimens from Flores represented an undescribed endemic race. phaeopyga. 85158). 81307). RMNH no. Rahong. sawah R. Longko. not known to migrate beyond Taiwan (Mees. 1970: 292-293). I consider that the species should be regarded as a winter visitor.Mees. f. f. 17.6 22. to the subspecies mira (Van Marle. Syst. erythrothorax. (ed. with some doubt.ix. The eggs listed with a question mark by Verheijen (1964: 198) must have been misidentified. Whether the difference is enough to justify its formal recognition in nomenclature is another question. agreed with Mayr on their small size and accepted the name rubiginosa for them. 10. he suggested that the Malaysian populations. 1948: 313-314) becomes increasingly questionable. 12) 1: 262 – in Philippinis. 20.1978.vii. might be known as P. 81322). and the specimens as nominate pusilla. wing 97 100 97 94 102 tail 49 48 42 41 44 tarsus 33 33 34 31 36 entire culmen 24. RMNH no. 24. about the characters of P. RMNH no. 1825. p.— Everett (2).vi. RMNH no. Verheijen (1. MZB. on the basis of some specimens from Java and Sumatra. Recueil d’Ois.— (?). but Paynter states expressly. Notes. (?) juv.2 24. One might perhaps expect an as yet hypothetical resident population of the Lesser Sunda Islands to be closer to Australian P. measured equally large (wing 100 mm). Measurements: Flores ( ( juv. He was not clear. &. P. topotypical of the nominate race. rubiginosa. Wangkung. if the size difference was confirmed. compared with specimens from Java. 1955).. 1766. Rahong (Verheijen. that it is not. the Flores birds agree in size with topotypical fusca and therefore must be included in the nominate race. Collectors. cf. Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. which is a very much larger subspecies. but their poor condition prevented a conclusion.1969. p. Material. which has been doubted before (cf. Avifauna of Flores. but it is not clear that they had examined material. 97156). Natu (?) (Schmutz. (. that the specimens agree in size with pusilla. 357 – Junge. wing 100 and 102 mm). 5 (livr. Leiden 80 (2006) 69 belonged to a resident population and consequently it was referred. RMNH no. MCZ).— Mayr (1944a: 146) drew renewed attention to the larger size of birds from Flores (2 (. Verheijen (7. vii. 350 m (Schmutz. Anyway. now that the one certain breeding bird has been identified as P. erythrothorax. White & Bruce (1986: 155) deny the smaller size of rubiginosa. and specimens measured by me support it. As one Luzon bird.1959. Zool. Porzana fusca fusca (Linnaeus) Rallus fuscus Linnaeus. 1940b). Verheijen/Schmutz. palustris than to nominate pusilla. my personal opinion is. & (?) (?) juv. pusilla. Ripley (1977: 254) included the resident population of Taiwan in P. f. 85136). but it belongs to P.1971. f. The existence of an endemic Sunda-Island race. pusilla mira. indeed I see no reason at all to retain it. Paku. Jany. ( juv. No eggs. Nat. Wenus (?).5 20 19 20 ..3 23 23 23. Léma (Verheijen. however. Voous (1948: 88). Gallinula rubiginosa Temminck. 60): pl. 900 m (Verheijen. Until definite evidence to the contrary may be found.9 exposed culmen 19. Med.

1851: 563).1961.6 27. 18/25.5 × 22. 1847. 15: 33 – Port Essington and Northern Australia.7 27. Collectors.T.3 mm (Mees.4556 0.3 × 21.8-21. and therefore I do not understand what Meise (in Schönwetter.— ( in juvenile plumage. D.5 29.6) Luzon ( 3& Porzana cinerea cinerea (Vieillot) Porphyrio cinereus Vieillot.2-30.8-34.5 27.. c/1. Schmutz.0) 99 92-96 (94. Leiden 80 (2006) 31.viii. Zool.4 × 23.8 27.4557 0. Pucheran. d’Hist. Measurements and weights: RMNH no.7 × 22.0 28.8 19-20.6 27.1955.1955. 1819. Eggs (fig.. quite similar.1978. 52082.4782 RMNH no. merely by having a blacker head.3 27. clutches from Sumatra and Java: RMNH no. and eggs). Avifauna of Flores. MCZ.70 Java 10 ( 91-96 (93. The measurements of the New Guinea eggs are also quite similar to those of eggs of the nominate race as provided by Schönwetter (1962: 348).nicht zur Nominatform gehören können. Nouv.6 (32.3 × 22. Nat. In the paper mentioned. &.1 × Material.1975.8 RMNH no.xii. 29. Soc. 5.8-23.0-30.vii. Sumatra 26.1 × 20.6 21.4 × 20.viii. Dict.9 (22.8) 20.. Arnhemland.0 29. Java 29.8 Sitoe Palahlar.1975. 70327). RMNH no. viel grössere Eier legt”. Med.0-23.— Verheijen (3.8) 44 43-51 (46) Mees.0 × 22. 4295.4407 0. a partial revision of the subspecies was given. Proc.7) 21.7) 18.2 × 21. × 22. sawah Lanar (Schmutz. Soa (RMNH no. Soa (RMNH no. 18/25.14.6 27.9) 31 32-33 (32. Deli. 13e): c/4. 70326 RMNH no. I have since received on loan all three Australian specimens present in the ANC ((.4119 0.1 × 21. dass die kleinen MeraukeEier entgegen der Annahme von Mees..3905 0.3 (20.8 A series of 18 eggs from New Guinea measured 27. Zool. viz. 28: 29 – Le pays de cet oiseau m’est inconnu = Java (cf. Dampék (RMNH no.1) 19. Porzana leucophrys Gould.9 × 20. 70327 For comparison. Kapalga. 1982a: 42-49).7) 34-42 (38.6 (19. N. 70325 27. 27. 28.0 30. 70326). 18072.8 × 21. c/1. die i. CSIRO no. 81314). 1988: 256) meant with the following words: “Daraus folgt. Lond.8 (22. although I quoted Greenway’s (1973: 314) statement that birds from Malaya and Java (nominate cinerea) seemed to differ from northern Australian birds (leucophrys).— Reasons for the rejection of the generic name Poliolimnas for this species have been given elsewhere (Mees.9 × 21.1 × 20.7 mm. 1982a: 42). 28.0 0. 70325). . but lack of material prevented me from giving a definite judgement on the validity of Australian leucophrys..0 × 20.7-22.

Measurements: wing Flores ( juv. Nunang (Schmutz. Ned. In a previous publication (Mees. L. 8.— The larger size of this subspecies.. darker than most Java birds.5 48. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. pattern or measurements. chinensis. c/4 (5 ×) and c/5 (2 ×).3388 1.8 43.0 × 29. 70420 40.3284 1. Avifauna of Flores. April (1). RMNH no. RMNH no. RMNH no. 17. July (1). de Jong (3). Nat. but such evidence as is available seems to indicate a steep gradient between javanicus and chinensis where they meet.5 exposed culmen 18. Zool. These specimens. 1842. 1986: 27-30) I discussed the subspecies A. 20234. interestingly.5 38. 70425 Notes. 65225). javanicus. Rensch (1). ocularis.7 × 30. Material. This is exactly the opposite of the difference noted by Greenway. Montjok.7 × 28. Nunang (Schmutz. and four insufficiently dated.293 1. 1969.4 42. p. and his grounds for its rejection are inappropriate.2 41.1971. 7. pointing out its smaller size. February (2). Land. CSIRO no. javanicus. CSIRO no. Wells. Med. 1999: 198-199). Bez. c/2 (4 ×).Mees.1969.2 × 30.9 42. Waé-Ntjuang. March (3). Müller. White’s (in White & Bruce.3694 1. Look (Schmutz.T. December (1).7 × 30. Overz.1 41. have rather dark.3 × 30. compared with the adjacent A. blackish crowns.: 158 – Timor. Müller when he described it. &.4 ca. &. 66093).8 middle toe 38.viii.5 22. . xi. p. c/3 (1 ×). Gesch.1 × 28. Collectors.4 41.4 × 29. 23. Darwin coast. p.0 35.5 20 19. was already noted by S.2687 1.6 × 28. 92 Northern Territory. brevipes. The eggs range also slightly larger and heavier. Marchant & Higgins (1993: 567. 66092). 38 Amaurornis phoenicurus leucomelanus (S. 571) recognise no subspecies at all and confidently list Porzana cinereus [sic] as monotypic.0 39. p.5 tarsus 35 35. Verh. collected in the months January (4). 16626).en Volkenk.xi. Australia ( 90 & 90 & 93 tail 49 44 44.ix. RMNH no. Leiden 80 (2006) 71 Humpty Doo.vii. Eggs: 16 clutches of c/1 (4 ×).1972. hence I have no hesitation in synonymizing leucophrys with nominate cinerea. suggesting secondary rather than primary contact and strengthening-the case for keeping them apart.3048 1.. MCZ). Surely the subspecies.2798 1.— Everett (1).ix.8 32 32.1968.3343 RMNH no. javanicus in relation to A. RMNH no. 66095).3 39. Verheijen/Schmutz. N.3126 1. (. 66094). 20. &. Verheijen (3. although not outside their range of variation. There are no other differences in colour.L. Langkas (Verheijen. &.— (. meeki and tannensis should have been discussed before such a step was taken.1968. In the Malay Peninsula the situation is not clear (cf.1 1. 1986:155) remarks about A. (Verheijen. Müller) Gallinula leucomelana S.

Stresemann named the intermediate birds variabilis and although he believed them to be of hybrid origin. In the others the maximum is 153 mm (within the size range of 137-154 mm found by me in a series of-29 males of javanicus). leucomelanus. javanicus < A. It was unsexed. It should be realized that a cline implies primary contact and hybridisation secondary contact. but the islet would be an obvious landing place for a migrant of chinensis. of which one in moult and disregarded by White. The nomenclaturial solution both he and Ripley followed. p. an islet in the Java Sea. He presents a list of measurements from various localities. It struck me that for males from Java (number of specimens not given) he records a maximum wing-length of 158 mm. of both sexes. another solution would be (dare I suggest it?) to retain for them the name variabilis. with the island of Buton (van Bemmel & Voous. Its date. but because of its large size. White considered these populations definitely hybrids. Ripley (1977: 265) speaks of a “partially continuous phenotypic cline”. It is generally known that there is a large area in which the populations are variably intermediate between these two subspecies. I also have little doubt that they are hybrids: their extreme variability would be difficult to explain in any other way. The measurements from Java. so that Ripley’s and my views are diametrically opposed. As there are no previous records of the subspecies chinensis from Java. s. included in Java. apparently in support of his opinion that there are no significant size differences between these populations. p. about 90 km north of the western end of Java: this is the bird with a wing-length of 158 mm. and probably being a female rather than a male. (1991: 147) come with the surprising statement: “Amaurornis is feminine: phoenicurus is a Greek compound adjective and would end the same whether masculine or feminine”. the specimen constitutes an addition to its avifauna. however. Now about the delineation between javanicus and leucomelanus. Med. leucomelanus. one specimen from Noordwachter. This solution has the advantage of being simple. Avifauna of Flores. I expected that White had based his table on measurements personally taken. Dickinson et al. This area includes the whole of Sulawesi (Celebes). Among the Java birds there is. who unfortunately did not provide further details. keeping in mind that this is an unstable hybrid. but fails to do justice to the facts. it is generally. 1950: 89-91) and even Buru (Siebers. n. and locality show that this is the bird previously recorded by Vorderman (1895a. Zool. Therefore I feel quite safe identifying the specimen as a migrant of that race. Leiden 80 (2006) There is every reason to discuss javanicus also in relation to its eastern neighbour. but discovered that actually they have been raked together from various literature sources. it has expressly been . Siebers assumed it to be a male: it is a little too large even for a male of javanicus. faunistically and politically. Although Noordwachter is about 90 km from Java and only ca. he was not quite sure (cf. 1930). In spite of the unusually large range these intermediate populations occupy. Although ornis may have either gender. 65 km from the mainland of Sumatra. 1939: 346). He rejected the name variabilis with the argument that a separate name “is not appropriate where unstable populations affected by introgression are involved”.72 Mees. Gallinula phoenicura). and one would certainly not expect a resident population on Noordwachter. have evidently been taken from Siebers (1930: 198). Stresemann. somewhat larger than the maximum I had found. but first I want to comment on White’s treatment of javanicus. was to include all these hybrid populations in leucomelanus. Unlike Ripley. October 1889. The proper treatment would be to indicate them with the formula A. If this were considered too awkward. Siebers had 8 males from Java.

takes the gender of its genus. with a reference to the new edition off the Code (ICZN. 1999: art. Dated material from the southern part of the range in our collection is divided over the months as follows: I 2 34 II 15 1 III 1 3 IV 3 1 V 2 1 1 VI VII VIII IX 1 X XI XII 1 2 19 - Andamans Sumatra Java Flores Sri Laanka Mindanao The last dates from Java are 5 and 10 May. 166 152. Wangkung. Davao (leg. 25.2. RMNH no. thus Phoenicurus phoenicurus. but Rhipidura phoenicura. 61 54. 85137).1969. not known to breed.v. but a nest is said to have been found. Zool. Measurements: & wing 160 tail 57 tarsus 59 culmen with forehead plate 36 .3. as it is in the southern part of the Malay Peninsula.— Verheijen (2. There is no evidence for breeding in Borneo. Iris yellowish green. no. 157. 159 tail 68. tip of mandible yellowish white.1889. 34. but no moult. but they made no mention of art. although the dates are late. 63. 56 culmen 39. Leiden 80 (2006) 73 ruled that in nomenclature. Platen. 1789. Med. 1988: 83-84).— &. It is known as a breeding-bird from India and Sri Lanka (Ceylon). The name phoenicurus is a Latinized adjectivum. 20).4. Avifauna of Flores. 1985: art. bill yellowish. the northern part of the Malay Peninsula (south to Kedah). 63 tarsus 57. 1991: 147). Syst. 30). (ed. The situation in Sumatra is less clear: it is certainly mainly a winter visitor. 1(2): 702 – Sina.. and from Sulawesi (Celebes) there are only a few records. so that the Flores specimens. Notes. legs olive green. 13). ICZN. words ending with ornis are to be treated as masculine (cf.1.2). Measurements: 2( 3& wing 165. David & Gosselin (2002 34) treated the genus Amaurornis as feminine. but the species is known to be a resident there (cf. MCZ). Nat. Dickinson et al. 30. in which the ruling that generic names ending in –ornis are to be treated as masculine. and throughout the Philippines. A Mindanao bird is dated 15.— Much about the status of this species in the southern part of its range remains to be elucidated. 70 62. v. Collector. all in the northern winter and therefore undoubtedly migrants. The birds from Flores may also be assumed to be migrants. and as such. 35 Gallicrex cinerea (Gmelin) [Fulica] cinerea Gmelin. of which 1.Mees. 55. is retained. Rahong (Verheijen. Plumage worn. from 14 (MCZ) and 25 May may certainly be regarded as late. In Java it is a fairly common winter visitor. RMNH cat. 38 33.1. Material. 30. and there are summer observations (Van Marle & Voous.

Leiden 80 (2006) Gallinula tenebrosa frontata Wallace Gallinula frontata Wallace. . Fig. usually more yellowish orange.74 Mees. Lond. which shows it as having been collected by Allen. Rensch. cf. G. presumably one specimen). The status of the two species of moorhen in the Lesser Sunda Islands requires further investigation. chloropus einbezogen werden. where it breeds. Mayr.xii. cf. 14. 1931a: 469. 1944a: 133). 7. Flores as mentioned above. note in particular the olive-grey rings around the joints and toes. Although Rensch (l. this has to be qualified for the Lesser Sunda Islands. and Sumbawa (leg. The specimen (or specimens ?) has not been traced (it is not in the BM. Med. Material. c. Zool. where so many of Wallace’s specimens have. Collector.— Allen. Proc. tenebrosa is known from Timor (five specimens collected by Stein.) concluded that: “Diese Art kann nicht in den Rassenkreis von G. Sumba (Everett and Sutter each obtained one specimen). tenebrosa found west of Timor might conceivably be migrants or vagrants. accumulated). Avifauna of Flores. Soc. and Sumba.1996). Elbert. 1863. Gallinula tenebrosa. chloropus occurs east to Flores.: 35 – Bouru. the toes are not as bright orange as the legs. Western Australia. where there is no proof yet of sympatric breeding occurrence. Zool.— The record of this species from Flores is based on Wallace’s (1864: 487) list.— None. nominate race from Australia in full colour. as in this bird (Busselton. Notes. Individuals of G. da sie in Celebes und Sumbawa neben diesem vorkommt”. over the years. G.

Mees. Stresemann’s (1939: 318 and 1941: 39) hypothesis on the colonisation of Celebes by G.and shield-colour was described for nominate tenebrosa by Eskell & Garrett. 7). Various stages may be seen in the following weeks. In Busselton frontal shields may begin to shrivel and darken as early as the end of December. bright vermilion appears first along the edge of the frontal shield. The legs. During the past few years I have noted a similar seasonal variation in south-western Australia (Busselton. There is a stage in which the bill looks dull dark red. Some authors have even suggested thet they are conspecific. in the winter season. and never as bright as frontal shield and bill. chloropus. but in birds which I assume to be immature. orange rather than vermilion. is no longer so obvious. and the middle of the shield become light brownish. summer colours may begin to return. tenebrosa (cf. Just as in the eastern states. it proceeds rapidly. except that the bill tip remains more or less yellow. and it would be easy to pay attention to this character. Leiden 80 (2006) 75 Now that G. at the latest. 1986: 160). seasonal variation in bill. except for a clear yellow tip. olive-grey or brownish grey. chloropus is gradually replacing G. In summer. but mainly orange. become generally dark grey. G. shield and bill are bright vermilion. although. By far the most conspicuous are the changes in colour of bill and frontal shield. chloropus has been established as the breeding bird on Flores. tenebrosa is in need of revision. the colour of the shrivelled skin. not only on the legs but also bill and forehead-shield. This was studied in eastern Australia (Canberra) by Eskell & Garnett (1980). The change in colour of shield and bill begins with a general darkening. always with the joints (heels and toes) olive grey or greenish grey. dirty yellowish. In this season. tenebrosa: “Einwanderung: von Flores her”. there is a great individual variation. with grey or olive green joints. tenebrosa and G. Bill and shield are far easier to observe than legs (if only for the reason that a large proportion of observations will be of swimming birds). As White (1976b) pointed out. at that time it was apparently not generally known that in Australia G. Only at close range may it be seen that some scutes along the anterior margin of tibio-tarsus and tarsus are dark red. but other birds retain their summer colours to March or even the first days of April. There has been speculation about the relationship between G. it is at least very likely that they also lack seasonal variation in bill and frontal shield colour. all birds are in full colour. in a horsehoe shape. Surprising as it may seem. unless there is some substance to the suggestion that in Celebes and the Lesser Sunda Islands G. but there is no mention of these parts in the other subspecies. at any rate pale. Finally the bill and the shriveled shield become blackish grey. If these two subspecies show no seasonal variation in leg-colour. What now is the relevance of all this for the subspecies frontata? Hitherto attention has been focussed on leg-colour. dusky concealing the bright colours. and in the succeeding days spreads inward and downwards into the bill. frontata and neumanni. Zool. These summer colours are universal in the last third of the year (September to December). This does not influence the general dark and dull apearance of the legs. Avifauna of Flores. White & Bruce. or that some irregular patches of reddish or yellow remain. The subspecies frontata is supposed to differ from nominate tenebrosa of southern and eastern Australia by having bright red legs. From the beginning of June. This is usually also a diffuse process. but not or only rarely bright red. once the change begins. the legs are variable in colour. fig. whereas tenebrosa would have the legs variable in colour. changing for the first time. Med. and by the beginning of September. Apart from other . t. tenebrosa shows seasonal variation in the colours of the unfeathered parts.

Measurements: 2( wing 155.9 47. RMNH no. 70406-70410. tenebrosa is also quite different from that of its congener. 800 m (Verheijen. which have a greyish white to cream ground colour. 45 Porphyrio porphyrio indicus Horsfield Porphyrio Indicus Horsfield. RMNH no. Meded. 65235).— Verheijen (9. Paku. 65234). Verheijen/Schmutz. 64 tarsus 49.1969.143 1. 21: 194 – Java. ( juv. 9. &. Montjok.4 40.76 Mees.3 × 35. 85134). Eggs: c/3.vii. 65233).1969.1969. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. RMNH no. Montjok. 65231). Soc. Collectors.7 × 28. and the raucous call of G.0 47.6 × 34.L. with a moderate number of larger and smaller brown spots. RMNH RMNH no. Wetok Ndekes (?). tenebrosa.— (.1969. 23.1992 Notes. collected in the months April (3).3 41. Collectors.1959. May (6). ( with large gonads. see the notes given under G. 65230). Rahong (Verheijen. Tjantjar. Dampék (RMNH no. 85135).xii. Nord Bali in 1200 m. RMNH no. Trans. RMNH no. ( juv. 70400 RMNH no. &. Wangkung (Verheijen.5 37. June (2).1 36. Gallinula chloropus orientalis Horsfield Gallinula orientalis Horsfield. L. Lond. 19.1969.0 41. and four without data (RMNH nos.7 × 29. 700 m ( × 30. 1821.ix.8 × 30. & juv.1969.7092 1. Zool. Trans.. 23: 109 – Bratan See. Linn. 8.9 × 29.1942 2.6 1. 14.5 2.2291 1.3 37.. and light violet-grey secondary spots. 13: 195 – Java.9 40.8 × 28.8 × 34. The ground colour is decidedly browner than that of eggs from Celebes and Java in the RMNH collection.4935 1. MCZ). 70406 41. RMNH no.— &. 50 culmen with shield 44. (?).1970.. 18.— The specimen examined obviously belongs to the subspecies indicus.1969.— For a discussion of this species. 10.— Verheijen (1.vii.0 × 28. Tjumbi.vii. I am not aware that a seasonal variation in colours of the unfeathered parts is known from anywhere within the extensive range of G. Zool. Rahong (Verheijen. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Material. Eggs: 15 clutches of from 1 to 7 eggs.5174 Notes. having the large azureous-blue breast-patch which separates this subspecies from the . 2. Porphyrio porphyrio plessenorum Neumann. 160 tail 68. 1821. MCZ). chloropus. Rahong (Verheijen.3 37.1971. Avifauna of Flores.1913 1.i. 70411 46. Linn. ca.. 70410A).7146 1. The eggs have a pale café-au-lait ground colour. Lond. RMNH no. Schmutz. 70411). Wangkung.6 × 29. 85160). 1941 (November).2238 1. 1.5156 2. 65232). 900 m (Verheijen. Med. vii. Leiden 80 (2006) morphological differences. Material. Soc. 400 m (Schmutz.5837 1. Sokrutung (Schmutz.8 × 28.

Mees. 70429). Material. Syst. also Paynter. 85151). Soa (RMNH no.2 0. from Lombok eastwards. 1963). Flores (Verheijen. c/4. p. 29. (ed.5 bill from nostril 15 Irediparra gallinacea gallinacea (Temminck) Parra gallinacea Temminck. Measurements: ( wing 125 tail 34 tarsus 42 exposed culmen 45 Pluvialis fulva (Gmelin) [Charadrius] fulvus Gmelin. Leiden 80 (2006) 77 forms melanopterus and melanotus. p.3 34. into the range of melanopterus.1888. he records it in the Lesser Sunda Islands from Timor only.1961. The species is clearly in need of a revision. cf. RMNH no. Med. The type-series of six specimens is in Leiden and I am satisfied that they also are P.8 34. Material.. I am not aware that.— (. 70428. 14. Soa (RMNH nos. 5 (livr. indicus.2 × 26. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Nat.6 × 25.— (?). 1789. the name P. a).— Birds from Flores belong to the nominate race (cf. MCZ). 70428 RMNH no.0048 RMNH no. 70431). Syst. A few pages later.1 35. Bari (Weber.ix. since its description..v. Verheijen. White (in White & Bruce.1 × 26. skeleton.v.5 36. 23.— Verheijen (2. .9574 0. in his text. as I regard one of the usually accepted subspecies (novaeguinae) as a synonym. Measurements: & wing 210 tail 67 tarsus 75 bill with shield 56. Eggs: c/2. 78): pl. RMNH Avifauna of Flores.8 × 25.1982a: 51). c/4. plessenorum has again been recorded in the literature. Recueil d’Ois.— Weber. 464 – Célèbes..9329 0.— With much hesitation I retain a trinomial for this species.1961.xi.8 34. 1828. (ed. Collector. 70431 Notes. Nat. dans le district de Menado.1 × 24.1961.5 35.8 34. although the species is not yet known from Lombok and Sumbawa. 1758.8712 1. Soa (RMNH no. 70430). c/2. Ripley (1977: 299 map) included the Lesser Sunda Islands. Rostratula benghalensis benghalensis (Linnaeus) [Rallus] benghalensis Linnaeus.0272 1. and doubt the validity of the only other one (novaehollandiae.2 × 25. Mees.9095 0. 26/28.9208 0. 31. Zool. 13) 1(2): 687 – Tahiti. Collector.6 × 25. 70429 36. His judgement was based on literature only and he was not handicapped by personal study. 10) 1: 153 – Asia.8 × 25.1971. Notes.8872 0. 1986: 158-159) calls birds from the Lesser Sunda Islands samoensis.

1987: 70-72). Rensch (1). RMNH no. Collectors. 20. l. 81032). Roselaar recognizes in addition a subspecies C. Nisar. Vaurie (1965: 385) dismissed earlier claims that they are not conspecific. 200-203) argued strongly in favour of considering fulva a separate species. Everett. s. Throughout the Archipelago. Charadrius leschenaultii leschenaultii Lesson Charadrius Leschenaultii Lesson. Müller . Zool. Sci. Hellmayr’s vague references to S. the two males are still partially in summer dress.1982. Material. (Levrault) 42: 36 – Pondichéry. Notes. I have. l. columbinus. 22. 81030. Leiden 80 (2006) Collectors. traced the Timor record from Hellmayr (1914: 106). but the measurements supplied do not separate it convincingly from the nominate race. 1975: 257) and Roselaar (in Cramp et al.— Allen. without difficulty. Of the material collected by Schmutz. Collector. Charadrius veredus Gould Charadrius veredus Gould. would make separation of C. Their views were not generally accepted. n. and the statement that in non-breeding plumage all races are similar.— Allen (1). fulva specifically from P. l. the first one being from Timor and being questionable. crassirostris in the winter quarters impossible. RMNH nos.78 Mees. Med. Blakers et al. but no actual specimen has been traced. Nisar. but on the basis of differences in moult and migration. Charadrius dominicus). There has long been discussion over the status of dominica and fulva in relation to each other: subspecies of a single species or different species..— 2 (. Soc. (1993). 1983: 177-178). &.ix. Proc. Lane. Stresemann & Stresemann (1966: 53. 100 m (Schmutz. Nat. s. Notes. Schmutz. The evidence provided by Connors (1983) for separating P. Weber (1. dominica is suggestive rather than conclusive.ii. Dict. 1984: 158. crassirostris. 16: 38 – Northern Australia. with mottled black and yellowish white underparts.— Considering that this is a fairly common winter visitor to north-western Australia (cf.1983.— Allen’s specimen was first published by Wallace (1864: 487. ZMA). Rensch (1). it is surprising that the above specimen constitutes only the second record for the Lesser Sunda Islands. Charadrius longipes) and later by Sharpe (1896: 205.— (. have convinced me. 81029. Zool. 1826. Iris brown. for example Glutz (1975: 313-314) and Cramp & Simmons (1983: 196-200) chose to retain a subspecific relationship. I use a trinomial on the evidence provided by Spitzenberger (in Glutz. 81162).. this is one of the commonest migrant waders. n.— As Wallace (1864: 487) listed this species from Flores. Lond. 600 m (Schmutz. leschenaultii and C. 1848. but have failed to find its source. but the supporting particulars since published by Alström (1990) and Connors et al. I assume that Allen has collected material. Notes.— Schmutz. Avifauna of Flores. Material. that there is a well-marked western subspecies C. l. through Mayr (1944a: 133) to White & Bruce (1986: 165).

Limosa lapponica var. Zool. welche beide jedoch bedeutend grösser oder hochbeiniger sind. Notes. RMNH cat. veredus visits Timor on migration. baueri.3 Numenius phaeopus variegatus (Scopoli) Tantalus (variegatus) Scopoli.1982. 23. Baueri from L. Likely as it is that C. Del. Med. In other words. Material. Schmutz. and because of the somewhat doubtful character of the issue. who expressly stated: “not a nomen nudum as claimed by Hartert and Steinbacher”.3 exposed culmen 22. 50). footnote. 81033). Avifauna of Flores. The name baueri was subsequently accepted as valid by Vaurie (1965: 422). 8: 429 – Neuholland = Norfolk Island (see Notes). beach (Schmutz. Therefore I feel obliged to agree with Hartert & Steinbacher that. Mayr (1941b: 31) was not convinced and a few years later returned to the use of baueri (Mayr. (?).1969. Erebus & Terror. Being reluctant to reject a name that has become almost universally accepted in recent years. 24087). there is nothing here to distinguish L. 81163). Nisar. Naturgesch. Allen. I consider that there is still room for genuine doubt about the validity of L. Larantoeka (Semmelink. L.— The Whimbrel is one of the commonest and most widely distributed winter-visitors in the Indo-Australian region.Mees.— (?). Baueri is a nomen nudum. The original description reads as follows: “Ein paar nähere Verwandten hat sie [meant is L. 4. Everett. Insubr. beach (Schmutz. adspersa and L.1888. Collectors. Joneng. 22. RMNH no. received 1983. (. Measurements: ( wing 170 tail 63½ tarsus 46½ entire culmen 28.— (?). beide aber ebenfalls einen schmallgebänderten Schwanz haben”. und an Limosa Baueri (des Wiener Naturalienkabinets) aus Neuholland. 1944a: 140. no. Material. without data (Schmutz. Baueri from each other.— Weber (1). RMNH no. strictly speaking. where it is present throughout the year (there are specimens from all months in the RMNH). (2): 92 – no locality = Luzon.— Semmelink. l. Vögel Deutschl. lapponica] an Limosa adspersa (des Berliner Museums) aus Mexiko. novaesealandiae Gray. Limosa lapponica baueri Naumann Limosa Baueri Naumann. Notwithstanding this definite statement. the evidence is unsatisfactory. I retain baueri for the moment.x.ii. Note that. Voy. Delacour & Mayr. but the first record from any of the Lesser Sunda Islands. Faun. ZMA no. RMNH no. adspersa and L. although some characters are given to distinguish L. Flores.xi. 85150). Notes. 23/25. 1786.— Limosa Baueri was rejected as a nomen nudum by Hartert & Steinbacher (1938: 431) and later still by Cheng (1976: 202-203). . Leiden 80 (2006) 79 (Koepang) and Everett (Atapupu) do not lead anywhere and I suspect an error. Birds: 13 – New Zealand (reference not verified). Flor. Reo (Weber. and by Condon (1975: 132).1862. 1845. &. 1836. lapponica. Collector. 1946: 72).vi. Father Schmutz’s specimen constitutes not the second.

Even when the name L. Collectors. Wangkung. Zool. Übers. 1830. Bauer was the collector. no. 28. 1758. Verheijen (16. 65244).1968. Tringa nebularia (Gunnerus) Scolopax nebularia Gunnerus. Material.— The Greenshank is a common winter visitor to the whole Indo-Australian region (as well as to Africa).— Schmutz.1968.— (. which is interesting. Tringa glareola Linnaeus [Tringa] Glareola Linnaeus. 24. &. 21. Dr Schifter has since published a paper about Bauer and his collections. 72).xii. Material. Nunang-Meer. RMNH no. Bologna 4: 335 – Abita nelle isole della Sonda. 1986: 33). Larantoeka (Semmelink.80 Mees.1968. Ruteng. Collector. baueri is considered invalid.— De Jong (1). Baueri is on page 429. RMNH no. Mees. 25. 900 m (Verheijen.— Semmelink. 10) 1: 149 – Europa. 65242). 1975: 132. Nat. Nat. Stor.x. Turbott.1969. Rahong (Verheijen. NunangMeer. &. 22. RMNH no. Med. Rahong (Verheijen. 1758. The point intrigued me. in Leem. Dr Schifter informed me that the original specimen from the collection of Ferdinand Bauer is still present. This further disposes of Mathews’s (1912: 220) arbitrary and unexplained restriction of the type locality to Victoria. Collectors.ix. not 29 as cited in several recent lists (Condon. dated in Bauer’s own handwriting with: “Norfolk Island. 85148). Nat. Krit. September 1804”. agreeing with the specimen. Rahong (Verheijen. 650 m (Schmutz. Finm.1971. as Whittell (1954: 43-44) describes Bauer as an artist only. Leiden 80 (2006) The original description of L. RMNH no. Rahong (Verheijen. Europ. Norway (reference not verified). 81028).— &.1968. 1862.ix. 1767. Scolopax stenoptera Schlegel. 10) 1: 149 – Europa. RMNH cat. 31. the specimen on which it was based has historical interest. &. . Material. 25. 65243). Rahong. 650 m (Schmutz. (ed. Tringa hypoleucos Linnaeus [Tringa] Hypoleucos Linnaeus. RMNH no. 1990: 151): one of those misprints that is carried on from list to list. (ed. Verheijen. Avifauna of Flores. and makes no mention of birds collected by him. RMNH no. Allen. 4. Notes. Beskr. Vögel: 96 – Ostindien. Gallinago stenura (Bonaparte) Scolopax stenura Bonaparte. 1844. Lapp. 65240). Ann.x. segnatamente in quella de Giava = Buitenzorg. MCZ). to which I refer for further particulars (Schifter. RMNH no. and therefore I enquired of Dr Schifter. 85152).1968. The name suggests that F.x. West Java (cf.1982. Syst.: 251 – near Trondheim.— (?). 6. Verheijen.x. (. and that in addition there is a sketch. &. &.L. Syst.x. 1992). 1150 m (Verheijen. RMNH no. 65241).

. Collectors.— See the discussion under the following species.ii.Mees. Russ. The same applies to an “unconfirmed record” by Escott & Holmes (1980). Rahong (Verheijen. 65238). Sody (1954) claims a personal observation from Makassar.ii. RMNH no. 1776.— 2 (?). 26. and a second-hand one from Gorontalo. stenura must occur in Sulawesi (Celebes). 4. but as White & Bruce (1986: 174) have pointed out. Verheijen/Schmutz. stenura is rare. 65237). ca. Material. 1000 m (Verheijen. against three G. RMNH cat. megala.1969. megala and no G. 65239). thus giving the impression that G. The best evidence comes from Coomans de Ruiter & Maurenbrecher (1948: 191) and Coomans de Ruiter (1954: 92-93). Ibis 3: 343 – by inference several localities in northern and eastern China (cf. Material. 1988: 92). is an error. RMNH no. 1982a: 63-64). whereas I received five G. 97173). Prov. 13. stenura is the common snipe of Flores and G. In contrast. G. Reo (Weber. (. Obviously. Verhoeye & Holmes (1998: 21) misquoted Paynter. (?). Med. stenura. stenura is the common snipe in Java. ZMA no. G. megala). Material. so that his records must be dismissed. where G. but he demonstrates a complete lack of awareness that snipe seen anywhere in the Archipelago could be anything but G. towards the tip darker. Rahong. 250 m (Schmutz. Zool. Iris brown or greyish brown. 39. RMNH no. and G. 10. Notes. Rahong (Verheijen.— Verheijen (22. The inclusion of Sumatra and the exclusion of Java from the winter range by Higgins & Davies (1996: 43) are both erroneous. Delacour’s (1947b: 87) succinct statement that in Malaysia. it is very likely correct. G. megala is very scarce (cf.— Verheijen (3. 1938). megala common. xii. and only two specimens of G.xii. but I agree that it is too meagre as a basis for adding the species to the avifauna of Sulawesi.1958. 1861. It would be better not to burden the literature with unconfirmed records.1969. bill yellowish or brownish olive. MCZ). RMNH no.1982. 900 m (Verheijen. Reichs 3: 700 – Circa lacus salsos Dauriae campestris = Kulussutai. Lembor. Rahong.— Weber. legs greenish to yellowish olive. Avifauna of Flores. Mees.xi. Leiden 80 (2006) Collector. Our collection contains from Java 97 specimens of G. MCZ). Reise versch. stenura (he does not even mention G.1888. the documentation for its occurrence is rather unsatisfactory. as Paynter (1963) received: “A long series” (22 specimens) from Father Verheijen. 8191). 81 Notes. southern Transbaikalia (reference not verified). &.1969. Calidris ruficollis (Pallas) Trynga ruficollis Pallas. megala the scarce one. (. no. Collector. RMNH no. Gallinago megala Swinhoe Gallinago megala Swinhoe.— This is apparently the commoner of the two species of snipe wintering on Flores.ii. stenura. 23/25. 66258).— (?).— None. several from East Java). Van Bemmel. stenura (among these. There are no reliable records from Sumatra (Van Marle & Voous.

1986: 169) states: “Schmutz (1977) noted its inclusion in an unpublished list for Flores. The bird was associating with domestic ducks in a salt-water creek in a coconut-plantation. At sea this species is a common winter visitor throughout the region. Mayr.— Schmutz. but in East Java. on the north-west coast of Flores. RMNH no. 2: pl. Collector. 10) 1: 148.— Verheijen (1971) observed a Phalarope at Kedindi. misprint corrected to lobata in the Emendanda.. The list referred to would be a list I sent to Father Schmutz.— &.— Surprisingly.ix. 11. Material. Med.— (?). but refers to p. Büttikofer listed a skin and a spirit-specimen. Avifauna of Flores. Notes. 1764.1969. Birds Austr.: 7 – no locality. 1758.— Schmutz. 37 – Australia generally and the islands of Java. In Java. where otherwise it is only known from Sumba (2 ( collected by Stein. Syst. Material.— These birds were recorded by Büttikofer (1894: 306) under the name of Tringa minuta. Nat.xi. once even a flock of ca. and the inclusion was based on the specimen listed here. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes. RMNH no. Kooiman (1940a. 27. Vroeg’s Cat. The small size suggests that this bird is a male. it has also been regarded as uncommon (cf.1970. This species has rarely been recorded from the Lesser Sunda Islands. also been turned into a study-skin. Measurements: [(] wing 118 tail 45½ tarsus 27½ entire culmen – exposed culmen 25 Himantopus himantopus leucocephalus Gould Himantopus leucocephalus Gould.vii. on 1. (ed. Calidris alba (Pallas) Trynga (alba) Pallas. Notes.) – America septentrionali. Zool. sandy beach near a river-mouth (Schmutz. 1837. Lapponia. ca. Synops. but had no records”. 200 m from the sea. 32. van Bemmel.— Bruce (in White & Bruce. 1944a: 141). where: “Valt aan de Noordsche Zeekusten” = North Sea coast of Holland. Linnaeus. there are apparently no earlier records of this widely-distributed species. 320 of the main volume. 824 (Emend. Sumatra. Kenari (Schmutz. Collector. 100 birds. Nanga-Lili. 85153).1971. Adumbr. 1940b). 65245). . no. cf. the latter has.82 Mees. Collectors. Notes. evidently. & c. Phalaropus lobatus (Linnaeus) [Tringa] tobata. 1940b: 102) observed the species regularly.— None.

Med. Measurements and weight: RMNH no. Dates of G. Dict. Zool. Evidently. (. Nouv. Syst.1948. Iris light brown to brown.xi. RMNH cat.— Semmelink.9815 Stiltia isabella (Vieillot) Glareola isabella Vieillot. 3 &. 4 was recorded by Schlegel (1865b: 17). Collectors. 1789. 1820. RMNH nos. I found that actually. this species was collected as long ago as November 1829 by S. Material. of isabella.d. Larantoeka (Semmelink. White & Bruce (1986: 178) only mention a record by de Sousa (1883).vi. 1785: 365: China). being the type of Glareola grallaria. 28. and very likely also a syntype of Glareola isabella (having been received from the Paris Museum). 39. 1819). 65252).1969. 18. the correct year 1829 is pencilled. G. The RMNH material from Java is dated September (2). legs purplish brown.) 23: 321 – no locality = la N. maldivarum rather than S. i. 25. 1 is of particular interest. 18.elle Hollande (see Pl. (Nouv. Verheijen/Schmutz. Notes. 13) 1 (2): 608 – Sina (ex Latham. .1969. Verheijen/Schmutz. (. at gape reddish. Glareola grallaria Temminck. Of the other old. Papagaran (RMNH no.. 70432 62. but overlooked by Rensch (1931a). 65251.1 4. Rensch (1). Material. Nat. 1862. Nat. 1865b: 17). no. 1. 65254.— (?). (2 éd. The other member of this family to be expected on Flores is Glareola maldivarum. 19) has a cardboard label with the year 1820 on it. éd. no.— (?). no. all (like this one) without remiges (these had presumably been pulled out by the catchers).1969.) 2: 503 – l’Austral-Asie. 65249 is noted that this is one of five specimens brought in. 23.— On the label of RMNH no. 2 (. the mounted specimen (RMNH cat. historical specimens listed by Schlegel. ZMA no. 70432). the birds seen by Father Schmutz near Nisar on 23 November 1974 and between Djonéng and Lita early December 1969. Manuel d’Orn. RMNH cat. in vol. RMNH nos. this species is a periodically common visitor in the southern winter. Specimen RMNH cat. 24161). maldivarum in the winter-quarters range from 21 September to 16 April. Egg: c/1. but on the under surface of its socle. no. 65249).Mees. and one from May (without exact date). RMNH no.— Van der Sande (1). 65250. Ruteng (Verheijen. 1818. but Müller’s specimen was obtained fifty years earlier. Ruteng (Verheijen. Collectors. The dates of specimens of S. south coast (v. 85149). (ed. Hist. ( im. Sande. perhaps. isabella in the winter-quarters in our collection range from 6 June to 7 November.vii. Avifauna of Flores. 65255. Ruteng (Verheijen. 4). October (46) and November (15). I mention it here to point out that on Timor. might have been G. 1816. 65253. Sterna albifrons sinensis Gmelin [Sterna] sinensis Gmelin. Analyse: 69 – l’Australasie.1909. Leiden 80 (2006) 83 Esacus magnirostris (Vieillot) Oedicnemus magnirostris Vieillot. bill dark brown. One wonders whether. an error. Müller (Schlegel.2 × 45. fig. The year 1820 given by Schlegel is.

(2e éd. The fact that the name S. Material.. Material. confirms that this bird must certainly have been a syntype of S. the writing being in van Oort’s hand. pusilla a synonym of S. Material: (?). and that Junge was completely justified in making it the lectotype. Collector. and this was confirmed by Junge (1948: 315-318). Sterna bergii cristata Stephens Sterna cristata Stephens. where it is cat. pusilla (RMNH cat. and several subsequent publications) elevated the weakly differentiated subspecies sinensis to species status. in winter plumage. and that pusilla is a synonym. Notes. where he died within nine months of his arrival from Europe.— The above specimen was recorded by Schlegel (1864a: 11.— (?). unless it can be proved that the specimen was not part of the type series. a. Storr (1973: 46. Zool. and many of the south-eastern islands of Asia = China (restricted type locality). not smaller than nominate albifrons. no. so that there is no original hand-writing underneath the socle. Larantoeka (Semmelink. no. This makes S. lectotype of S.. Chlidonias hybridus subsp. On la trouve jusqu’á la Nouvelle-Guinée = Java. sinensis). cf. . a. 35). van Oort clearly indicates that the bird was originally labelled as Sterna pusilla Kuhl. Collector. and that the name pusilla was based mainly on such smaller birds. it has been newly mounted. Med. Collector: Verheijen (1. Nadler (1976).— Rensch (4). Avifauna of Flores. with a great degree of probability. 4. sinensis. If this view is accepted. the winter-quarters of a smaller subspecies. These smaller Indian birds were included in nominate albifrons by Junge (1948) and by Glutz (1982: 734).84 Mees. Leiden 80 (2006) [Sterna] Pusilla In this bird I measured a wing-length of 191 mm. Manuel d’Orn. no.— None. however.1961. without explanation. Junge (1948: 317). for sinensis is larger. a. although the breeding birds of the Indian Archipelago are sinensis. who examined one of Rensch’s specimens. Zool. MCZ). came with a different opinion: he considered that.— Semmelink. 1862. all that remains to be decided is the unimportant question. MCZ no. 332909). and that Kuhl collected exclusively in West Java. Junge further concluded that the breeding birds of the region are sinensis. in Shaw’s Gen. The specimen was collected by Kuhl (1820/1821). 1840. 39). in breeding-dress.— Rensch (1931a: 489) identified his material as S. and there can be no doubt that it was in Temminck’s hands. the region is.) 4: 465 – des Îles de la Sonde et des Moluques . Notes. 1 of S. Soa (Verheijen. 1826. Junge made a mounted bird from Java. as is apparent from Temminck’s description and from the name he gave them (pusilla). whether pusilla is a synonym of albifrons or a synonym of sinensis. pusilla was given (as a manuscript name) by Kuhl. Nevertheless. Unfortunately. which breeds in northern India. sinensis. 13 (1): 146 – China. pusilla Kuhl. RMNH cat.

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


Notes.— This specimen was examined and identified for me by Dr Paynter (in litt., 14.x.1993), according to whom it is an immature bird, which he has not attempted to identify to subspecies. On geographical grounds, and month of collecting, the bird would almost certainly belong to the Australian subspecies javanicus (cf. Mees, 1977b). It is curious that this specimen seems to constitute the first definite record from the Lesser Sunda Islands, where the species ought to be a regular migrant visitor. Recent field observations from Timor confirm this (Andrew, 1986). David & Gosselin (2002: 32) have taken me to task over treating hybridus, a, um, as an adjectivum, “against the advice of a scholar”. The reason was that in a book of which the said scholar is co-author, the name is expressly listed as a Latin adjectivum (Coomans de Ruiter et al., 1948: 119). This book was the obvious source for a Dutch ornithologist to consult and rely on, certainly 25 years ago when my paper was published (Mees, 1977b: 49). I had every reason to regard this book, a pioneer study in its field, as a reliable guide. I note its omission from the references given by David & Gosselin. The late H. G. Deignan certainly was a good latinist. He provided the name Pteruthius hybrida Harington with a “sic!” and changed it into hybridus (Deignan, 1964: 388). This issue is clearly controversial among classical scholars. Where the specialists disagree, who am I, a complete ignoramus in this field, to take sides. The natural course to take is to retain the spelling I have used in recent years, until the controversy has been completely solved. See also below under Cisticola. Chalcophaps indica indica (Linnaeus)
[Columba] indica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 164 – in India orientali. Collectors.— Weber, Everett, de Jong (2), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (?), xi.1888, Maumeri (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 136); &, 5.xi.1968, Ruteng (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65284); &, 5.iii.1971, Rana Loba, Borong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66097); (, 11.iii.1971, Kisol, Borong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66096); &, 12.iii.1971, Kisol, Borong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66098); &, 1.v.1971, Ngalor-Roga, Rahong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66099); (, 15.ix.1971, Naga, 250 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 97112);&, 10.x.1971, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85314); &,, kuststrook Borong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 85315); (, 16.ix.1976, Poco Lareng (Verheijen, RMNH no. 81095); (, (Schmutz no. 1515, RMNH no. 81096). Eggs: 24 clutches of 1 (19 ×) and 2 (5 ×) eggs, from various localities on Flores, and from Palué, collected in the months March (2), April (7), May (5), June (2), July (3), October (1) and November (1), and three undated (RMNH nos. 70525-70547, 73509). Unlike the eggs of most other species of pigeon, which are white, the eggs of Chalcophaps indica are easily identified because of their pale brownish cream colour. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70536 RMNH no. 70538 RMNH no. 70541 27.7 × 20.9 28.6 × 21.3 27.2 × 19.7 26.8 × 20.9 26.9 × 21.1 0.3709 0.3614 0.2874 0.3544 0.3315

Notes.— Birds from Flores belong to the nominate subspecies, the males having a white forehead and supercilium, and a blue-grey crown and nape. Birds from Timor, C. i. timorensis Bonaparte, are abruptly different and closer to the Australian group of subspecies, although perhaps to a certain extent intermediate


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

(Johnstone, 1984). The geographical variation of this pigeon, with the remarkably wide range of the nominate race, evidently requires further study. Treron floris Wallace
Treron floris Wallace, 1864, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1863): 496 – Flores and Solor Islands. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Martens, Weber, Everett, Rensch (2), Schmutz. Material.— (, 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 1); (, (?) juv., xi.1888, Maumeri (Weber, RMNH cat. nos. 2, 3); (?), xii.1888, Mbawa near Rokka (Weber no. 507, ZMA); (, (?, (?),, Orong, 550 m (Schmutz, RMNH nos. 85120, 85121, 85122).

Notes.— Although this species was described by Wallace, on the basis of specimens collected in 1862 by Allen, twenty years earlier, a specimen from Bima, Sumbawa, had found its way to Leiden (cf. Schlegel, 1866b: 212; now RMNH cat. no. 7).
Measurements: ( (? (?) (?) wing 145 150 152 145 tail 78½ 83½ 88 76 tarsus 23.5 24.5 entire culmen 24 22.5 23 22 exposed culmen 17 17 18.5 16.5

Ptilinopus cinctus albocinctus Wallace
Ptilonopus albocinctus Wallace, 1864, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1863); 496, pl. XXXIX – Flores (in the interior only). Ptilopus cinctus Florensis Schlegel, 1871, Ned. Tijdschr. Dierk. 4: 20 – Flores. Re-naming of P. albocinctus, as it is not regarded as a species, but a “souche”. Collectors.— Allen (1), Colfs, Rensch (6), Schmutz. Material.— (?), 1880, Flores (Colfs, RMNH cat. no. 1); &, 29.iii.1976, Poco Nernancang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 97110); (?),, Poco Nernancang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81102); (?), 17.v.1976, Lingko Ncilor (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81098); (?), 22.v.1976, Lingko Ncilor (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81101); (?), 21.vii.1976, Poco Nernancang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81103); &, (?), 1.v.1978, Golo Léhot (Schmutz, RMNH nos. 81100, 81099); (?), 4.v.1978, Golo Rucuk (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81097).

Ptilinopus regina flavicollis Bonaparte
[Ptilopus] flavicollis Bonaparte, 1854, Consp. Gen. Av. II: 20 – Timor. Collectors.— Semmelink, Colfs, Everett (1). Material.— (?) ad., 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 5); (?) ad., vi.1880, Flores (Colfs, RMNH cat. no. 6).

Notes.— As stated by Rensch (1931a: 488), this pigeon appears to be rare on Flores, being known from the two specimens listed here, and a single one collected by Everett at Maumeri. The Maumeri record, published by Hartert (1898a: 48), puzzled me, as I could not find any other evidence that Everett had visited this locality. Mrs. LeCroy (in litt., 12.iii.1991) has, however, confirmed the record: &, viii.1897 (Everett, AMNH no. 609099).

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


According to Johnstone (1981), P. r. flavicollis is a synonym of the Australian P. r. ewingii; the reason why I have not yet accepted this conclusion, is a reluctance to discard a name that has been in use since 1854, without personal investigation (for which the material has not been available to me), and that a distribution of subspecies as indicated by Johnstone is unusual. For much the same reasons, White & Bruce (1986: 201) have retained flavicollis. Johnstone had not examined material from Flores. Higgins & Davies (1996: 993) also continue to recognize flavicollis. Ptilinopus melanospilus melanauchen (Salvadori)
J[otreron] melanauchen Salvadori, 1875, Ann. Mus. Genova 7: 671 – Flores. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Colfs, Weber, de Jong (1), Verheijen (2, MCZ), Schmutz. Material.— (,, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 11, holotype of the subspecies); (?) = (, 1880, Flores (Colfs, RMNH cat. no. 13); &, xi.1888, Maumeri (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 14); ( juv., xi.1888, Maumeri (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 15); ( imm., 29.xi.1888, Rusa Radja (Weber, ZMA no. 2574); ( im., 29.xi.1888, Rusa Radja (Weber, ZMA no. 2574); (, 15.vii.1969, Paku-Nggoang, 300 m (Schmutz, RMNH coll. no. 0000); &, 17.vii.1969, Paku (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85087); (, large gonads, 20.i.1973, near Nunag, 800 m (Schmutz, RMNH coll. no. 0000). Eggs: c/2,, Soa (RMNH no. 70562); c/1, xi.1961, Soa (RMNH no. 70563); c/1, 1964, Soa (RMNH no. 70564). Curiously, Verheijen (1964: 198) gave only a single record (with a query) and that one for May. The eggs are plain white, only moderately glossy. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70562 RMNH no. 70563 RMNH no. 70564 29.5 × 22.3 29.6 × 22.4 28.1 × 22.7 29.0 × 22.6 0.4907 0.5155 0.4734 0.4745

The eggs agree in size with eggs from Java recorded by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967: 42), or they may be marginally broader, but they are distinctly heavier. On the other hand, they agree perfectly, in appearance, measurements and weight, with eggs of Streptopelia chinensis tigrina, so that a large dose of scepticism about their identification is justified. Notes.— The name Jotreron melanauchen was entirely based on Schlegel (1866b: 207): “Individu de l’Île de Flores. Aile 4 pouces 2 lignes. Tache de la gorge d’un jaune de citron foncé. Tache noire de la nuque large”. This is RMNH cat. no. 11, the only specimen from Flores that was available to Schlegel. Ducula aenea polia (Oberholser)
Muscadivores aeneus polius Oberholser, 1917, U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 98: 18 – Pulo Siantan, Anamba Islands. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Weber, Everett, Rensch (1), Verheijen (1, MCZ), Verheijen. Material.— (?), 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 3); (?), xii.1888, Maumeri (Weber nr. 44G, ZMA); (?), xii.1888, Sikka (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 10); (, well-feathered nestling,, Wesang, 700 m (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65278); (, not dated, Flores (Verheijen, RMNH no. 81092). Eggs: c/1, 5.v.1953, Wesang (RMNH no. 70548); c/1, 15.i.1958, Wesang (RMNH no. 70549); c/1, 18. ii.1958, Wesang (RMNH no. 70550); c/1, 24.v.1958, Flores (RMNH no. 70551); c/1, 24.v.1958, Flores


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

(RMNH no. 70552); c/1 ca., Léwé (RMNH no. 70553); c/1, 16.vii.1958, Flores (RMNH no. 70554); c/1, 30.x.1958, Déngé, Todo (RMNH no. 70555); c/1, c/1, 1961, Lamba, Todo (RMNH nos. 70556, 70557); c/1, 23.i.1961, Kisol (RMNH no. 70558); c/1, 1.v.1961, Kisol (RMNH no. 70559); c/1, 13.v.1964, Kisol (RMNH no. 70560); c/1, 17.v.1964, Kisol (RMMH no. 70561). The eggs are white, slightly glossy. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70553 RMNH no. 70554 RMNH no. 70555 RMNH no. 70557 RMNH no. 70558 RMNH no. 70559 RMNH no. 70560 RMNH no. 70561 46.3 × 32.6 45.5 × 33.2 47.8 × 32.9 46.9 × 32.5 52.4 × 32.9 47.0 × 33.8 49.4 × 33.8 44.8 × 32.7 1.4648 1.6190 1.7130 1.6185 1.8570 1.8665 1.7960 1.7004

Verheijen (1964: 198) mentioned that the nine clutches he listed under this species, might include eggs of D. l. sasakensis. The eggs of D. sasakensis remain undescribed, but I would expect them to be a trifle smaller than those of D. aenea. Chances are, that the eggs are correctly identified. Note that some eggs are from Wesang, where also a skin of D. aenea was obtained (and no D. sasakensis), and from Kisol, which seems too low for D. sasakensis. White & Bruce (1986: 204) record as breeding season in the Lesser Sunda Islands the months April to July. Verheijen’s eggs, however, prove breeding in January, February, May, June, July, and October; the nestling listed above would have hatched from an egg laid in March. These data suggest that nesting may take place throughout the year. Notes.— In using the name polia rather than aenea for these birds, I follow Stresemann (1952: 520) whose arguments look convincing to me. Actually, the name polia had been resurrected earlier, by Delacour (1946, 1947a), following Mayr’s (1944a: 147148) argument that birds from Malaysia are different from those of the Lesser Sunda Islands (the latter were at that time regarded as the nominate race). Subsequently, Hoogerwerf (1963b) found a lot of variation in birds from diverse localities within the range here ascribed to polia. Perhaps his most surprising conclusion was that four specimens from Komodo and Rintja were “so different in certain aspects”, that it seemed “quite impossible to unite them with polia”. Hoogerwerf compared these specimens with the type of D. problematica Rensch from Sumba, and found them to agree well. He further speculated that problematica could be an endemic subspecies of Komodo and Rintja, and that the type from Sumba could have been a straggler from Komodo/Rintja, as: “These birds are extremely good fliers which certainly are able to cover a distance of 100 km or more within a rather short time, so that the presence on Sumba of birds originating from Komodo or Rintja need not be rejected”. Especially in the light of the fact that Hoogerwerf placed specimens from West Flores in polia, and that Rintja is separated from western Flores by a sea strait of scarcely 1 km in width (cf. p. 6), the concept of an endemic subspecies on Komodo and Rintja is quite unbelievable. Hoogerwerf’s specimens from Komodo and Rintja and probably also the type specimen of D. problematica had been preserved in formalin before being skinned. In spite of Hoogerwerf’s awareness of the effects such conservation fluids, as well as grease and de-greasing fluids, could have on the plumage, it is likely that the differences he described have to be attributed to such factors. In the unlikely case that differences between birds from the western part of the

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


range and birds from the Lesser Sunda Islands are confirmed, the name problematica will be available for the latter. The authors of the chapter Columbidae in del Hoyo et al. (1997: 229) have become so confused by the several shifts of the type-locality of the species, that they include the whole range of polia in the range of the nominate race, for which they (correctly) give the type locality as Manila! The specimen measured does nothing to support Mayr’s contention that birds from Flores are smaller than birds from Sumba, but does not convincingly contradict it either.
Measurements: (?) wing 246 tail 138 tarsus 36.6 entire culmen 31 exposed culmen 24.6

Ducula rosacea (Temminck)
Columba rosacea Temminck, 1836, Recueil d’Ois. 4 (livr. 98): pl. 578 – Timor. Muscadivores rosaceus zamydrus Oberholser, 1917, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 54: 179 – Solombo Besar Island, Java Sea. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Schmutz. Material.— (?), 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 4); (?), vii.1974, Pota (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81093).

Notes.— The subspecies zamydrus was listed by Chasen (1935: 18) with an asterisk, meaning that he had not examined material, and therefore had not been able to verify its validity. Peters (1937: 49) accepted it without comment, as did Deignan (1961: 109), who referred for this to Chasen. Hoogerwerf (1963c) accepted zamydra, with a very unlikely distribution. Goodwin (1970: 407) mentions zamydra, but with added the remark “I have not seen specimens of this form”. In the mean time, Mayr (1944a: 133) came with the definite statement, that: “The description of Oberholser’s amydrus [sic] (Solombo Besar) indicates that it is based on the characters of grease-stained specimens”. Subsequently van Bemmel (1948: 376) gave this pigeon a binominal, implying that he did not recognize subspecies, whereas White & Bruce (1986: 207) also rejected zamydra. It seems highly unlikely that this “Kleininselbewohner” would have developed into a distinctive subspecies on Solombo Besar and Arends. D. rosacea is a widely-distributed species inhabiting, mainly, smaller islands, westward through the Java Sea to P. Nangka off Billiton (cf. Van Bemmel, 1940a, overlooked by Van Marle & Voous, 1988), and eastwards to the Tanimbar and Kai Islands (Van Bemmel, 1948: 376). In addition, there is a record from Telofoso on Halmahera, some 900 km away from the nearest localities in the main range. This is so remote, as to require careful verification. Fortunately, this is possible. The record is based on material collected by Bernstein, and in the archives of the RMNH I found an original list from Bernstein, dated Ternate, 21 March 1862, entitled: “Lijst van de naturaliën....grootendeels afkomstig van Noordelijk Halmahera en Morotai”.5) In the list: “Carpophaga formosa ? van Tolofoso op N. Halmahera; Iris donker kersrood, randen der oogleden iets ligter”. 6) Espe-

5) 6)

List of natural history objects . . . . mainly originating from northern Halmahera and Morotai. Carpophaga formosa ? from Tolofoso on N. Halmahera; Iris dark cherry-red, eye-rims a trifle lighter.

— &. may safely be assumed to have been mislabelled. rosacea. 222 215 tail 162. which has a pinkish crown. . and bare skin around the eyes— (?). late ix. 1963c). he also stated that Bernstein had collected five specimens at Tolofoko (there is some variation in the spelling of the name of this locality). bill-tip yellowish white. Novit.90 Mees. In the exchange book. Collectors.ix. Zool. Hoogerwerf. 65277). 31).1899 a & was sent to D. S. and as he never visited the better-known part of the range of D. bill grey with a blackish tip (Schmutz). 148 tarsus 30. RMNH no. Schlegel (1866b: 201) already discussed the peculiar distribution. Léma. nos. nos. 85077).i. which were discussed by Stresemann (1941: 59). RMNH no. although it is very likely to occur there. forest between Paku and Sok-Rutung (Schmutz.1969. Specimens from “Makassar”. (.1862. even though Wallace is also supposed to have collected two specimens at Makassar. but now there are only two left (30.ix. 21. 28 32 exposed culmen 20. eye-rim and legs red-cabbage violet. The case is very similar to that of Macropygia magna macassariensis (cf. On the other hand. 23 and 24). 1896.— Schmutz. 22. collected by Teysmann. 22 28 Columba vitiensis metallica Temminck Columba metallica Temminck.1968. and to originate from the islands to the south of Sulawesi (Celebes). received in 1878 (RMNH cat. the record is above any suspicion. nos. all four specimens have been accounted for.5. This bird was collected in primary forest. Med. Recueil d’Ois.— Interestingly. 32 148 entire culmen 26. basal twothirds of the bill.1972. 66108). 3: 564 – Lombok. Iris brownish yellow.— Everett (“a series”). RMNH cat. Leiden 80 (2006) cially as in the preceding period Bernstein’s activities were confined to the North Moluccas. Material. 900 m (Schmutz. Mees. 4 (livr. 95): pl. Rensch (1). 14. Dundee. 1972). Ducula (lacernulata) sasakensis (Hartert) Carpophaga sasakensis Hartert. Avifauna of Flores. Collector. Therefore. With this. Wanganui.1969. Schlegel (1873: 88) correctly lists four specimens (Schlegel cat. Mees. this well-marked subspecies shares the light grey crown with nominate lacernulata from West Java. the inclusion of Saleyer into the range of the species by White & Bruce (1986: 207) was based on inference only (the specimens labelled Makassar). New Zealand. 562 – Timor. vi. Iris dark brown. Van Bemmel. RMNH no. Verheijen/Schmutz. it is abruptly different from adjacent williami of East Java and Bali. and about the same time another one (sex not recorded) to D’Arcy W. Tual or Klein Kei (Little-Kei) can be added to the list of islands given by these authors (cf. Notes. Ruteng (Verheijen. In Java. 1996: 23-24). 20-23). I found that on 6. Zool. 18. 21. RMNH no. Measurements: 2( (?) wing 215. evidently in error. there is still a huge gap in the known distribution of lacernulata and williami (cf. legs violet-red. 1948. (. Material. Drew of the Public Museum. 1835. 85076). Scotland. forest between Paku and Sok-Rutung (Schmutz. University College. Thompson.

.3-29 (28. (. (. 4. Avifauna of Flores. Zool.viii. Golo Rucuk (Schmutz. Novit. 29. RMNH 65293). Poco Nernancang (Schmutz. No eggs (see below). although those of the latter may average a trifle larger (cf. I cannot find any difference between specimens from Flores and specimens from Java. Rahong (Verheijen. Ruteng/Kumba (Verheijen. According to White & Bruce (1986: 188): “The supposed larger size is not a good character”. RMNH no.1978. 85310).5 entire culmen 27.— Everett (“a series”).8-17 (17. 1904: 182 footnote). (.Mees. In specimens of the nominate race from western Java I took the following wing-measurements: 12 ( 141-153 (147. Measurements: & wing 236 tail 126 tarsus 27. Poco Nernancang (Schmutz. Zool. actually are from M. Material.ix.7) entire culmen 22. 30.vii. (. Ruteng (Verheijen. RMNH no. Material. 1896. RMNH no. It is possible that some of the eggs identified as from M. Golo Léhot (Schmutz. RMNH nos. RMNH no. RMNH no. RMNH no.1971. Collectors. 65289). 24. he was not aware of the occurrence of this species on Flores. 12.— &. M. in fact. Notes. 18. This suggests . 2. unchall. 1. the females differing from the males in having black spots on the breast and black streaks on the darker crown. When Verheijen (1964) published his list. October 1896. 85309). the fledgling points to laying in May. 1967: 45). viii. Sambawa [sic]. ruficeps from the first record from the island. (. the typelocality of the nominate race.— (. 81054). Collectors.8) tail 158-177 (168. 85313. Verheijen/Schmutz. 12 & 135-146 (142. Wangkung. but in the subspecies from Borneo (nana) and Sumatra (sumatrana). Measurements: 5( wing 170-176 (172.8) tarsus 28. Poco Nernancang (Schmutz. Poco Nernancang (Schmutz. fledgling. 81053). 97109). de Jong (1). Columba: 38 – Java. Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf. 4.0) exposed culmen 15.v.— This species is apparently uncommon on Flores. 85312).7 exposed culmen 20 Macropygia unchall unchall (Wagler) C[olumba] Unchall Wagler.1976.1976.1) mm. Notes. r. only a single specimen of Macropygia unchall was known from Flores: &. collected by Everett (cf. (. Av.0) Macropygia ruficeps orientalis Hartert Macropygia ruficeps orientalis Hartert. 18.1969.1976. RMNH no. 1827.1) mm. (. 23. Verheijen/Schmutz.2-24 (23. the above specimen providing. A similar sexual difference is found in the nominate race. RMNH no. Poco Nernancang (Schmutz. Hartert. Med.— There is a clear sexual dimorphism in plumage. RMNH no. (. 81094).1976. but I know of no characters by which to separate the eggs of the two species. (.v. emiliana. Leiden 80 (2006) 91 Notes. 85130). 85311). &.— Everett (1).1970. 3: 573 – Tambora. Rahong (Verheijen. Langkas. both sexes have black spots on the breast.— Previously.


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

to me that the size-difference alone is quite enough for the recognition of orientalis. The measurements also show a sexual difference in size in the nominate race, that is not apparent in the (admittedly quite insufficient) material of orientalis.
Measurements: 4( 2& wing 155-163 (159.3) 160, 162 tail 164-186 (172) 166, 171 tarsus 19-20 (19.3) 19, 20.5 entire culmen 19-20.2 (19.6) 20, 20 exposed culmen 13-16 (15) 14.8, 15

Macropygia emiliana emiliana Bonaparte
M[acropygia] emiliana Bonaparte, 1854, Compt. rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 39: 1111 (27 in reprint) – Java. Collectors.— Everett (2), de Jong (1), Verheijen (1, MCZ), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (?) nestling, 4.x.1968, Ruteng, 1100 m (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65288); (,, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85131); (, 12.iii.1978, Nggoang, 800 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81057); (?) (= (),, Flores (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81056); ((), without data, but undoubtedly 1978, Manggarai, Flores (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81055). Eggs: c/1, 10.v.1947, Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. 70505); c/1, 2.viii.1947, Flores, without locality (RMNH no. 70506); c/1,, Wesang (RMNH no. 70507); c/1, 17.v.1956, Méngé (RMNH no. 70508); 3 c/1, v.1957, Tado (RMNH nos. 70509-70511); c/1, 1.v.1957, Tado (RMNH no. 70512); c/1, 19.ii.1958, Wesang (RMNH no. 70513); c/1, vi.1958, Tulang (RMNH no. 70514); c/1,, Tado (RMNH no. 70515); c/1, 16.x.1958, Waso Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. 70516); c/1,, Poéng (RMNH no. 70517); c/1, 15. v.1959, Mano (RMNH no. 70518); c/1,, Lai, Palué (RMNH no. 70519); c/1,, Palué (RMNH no. 70520); c/1,, Palué (RMNH no. 70521); c/1,, Palué (RMNH no. 70522); c/1, 1.v.1960, Palué (RMNH no. 70523); c/1,, Mataloko (RMNH no. 70524). The eggs are white, almost without gloss, I cannot confirm the statement by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967) that they are never pure white, but always: “creamy or buffy white or ivory”. To me, they seem just white. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70505 RMNH no. 70506 RMNH no. 70507 RMNH no. 70508 RMNH no. 70509 RMNH no. 70510 RMNH no. 70511 RMNH no. 70512 RMNH no. 70513 RMNH no. 70514 RMNH no. 70515 RMNH no. 70516 RMNH no. 70517 RMNH no. 70518 RMNH no. 70519 RMNH no. 70520 RMNH no. 70521 RMNH no. 70522 RMNH no. 70523 RMNH no. 70524 32.5 × 23.3 33.7 × 22.8 - × 24.7 31.2 × 22.8 34.9 × 24.7 33.0 × 23.0 33.6 × 22.7 33.1 × 24.0 32.7 × 22.1 32.9 × 23.8 32.6 × 21.8 36.7 × 21.8 33.5 × 23.9 31.7 × 23.1 33.0 × 24.0 34.8 × 22.5 31.4 × 22.5 34.1 × 23.2 35.1 × 23.8 31.2 × 22.4 0.578 0.5575 0.624 0.505 0.5937 0.521 0.5463 0.5607 0.4302 0.576 0.5144 0.567 0.620 0.4567 0.612 0.5795 damaged 0.608 0.617 0.465

Verheijen (1964) listed these 20 clutches all under the name of Macropygia phasianella emiliana, but at that time it was not generally known that, besides M. emiliana, M. unchall

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


occurs on Flores. It is likely that the collectors of these eggs identified their material to genus only. In addition, M. ruficeps being of fairly common occurrence on Flores, one might expect some of the eggs to belong to that species. In all three species, a single egg seems to constitute the complete clutch. The eggs of M. emiliana and M. unchall are probably not separable, but the eggs of M. ruficeps should be distinguishable from the former two on the basis of smaller size and, particularly, lower weight (cf. Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf, 1967: 44-45). A snag is that the subspecies M. r. orientalis is distinctly larger than nominate ruficeps from Java, and might have correspondingly larger and heavier eggs. Anyway, there was ample reason to measure and weigh all the eggs. A useful fact is that five of the eggs are from the island of Palué, where M. unchall and M. ruficeps may safely be assumed not to occur, so that the identification of these eggs ought to be certain. The slight reservation I feel is not because I consider it likely that Macropygia is represented on Palué by more than one species, but because of a very slight possibility that this species is not M. emiliana but M. magna: Verheijen (1961) heard and saw birds on Palué, but did not collect any. For comparison, here follow the weights of eggs from Java as recorded by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf. M. r. ruficeps: 0.300-0.380; M. e. emiliana: 0.45-0.57; M. u. unchall: 0.465-0.68. It is at once clear that, compared with weights from Flores, these figures are not of much help. The series from Flores suggests that eggs with a weight of less than 0.5 g could be M. r. orientalis, as they are well below weights of the other eggs, but the minimum recorded in Java for M. emiliana is 0.45 g, so that only one of the Flores eggs is below it (with 0.43). From the Java weights it might look as if eggs of over 0.6 g are M. unchall, but then three of the four eggs that could be weighed from Palué, definitely M. emiliana, are over 0.6 g. It looks as if the majority of the eggs, perhaps all of them, have been correctly identified as being of M. emiliana (assuming, of course, that the genus has been identified correctly). Notes.— It is unexpected that none of the early collectors has obtained M. emiliana. Hartert (1898a: 49) listed two specimens (( ad., & im.) collected by Everett. A few years later, he spoke of “several” specimens which had been sent by Everett (cf. Hartert, 1904: 182 footnote). Whatever its merits on a morphological base, the division of the Macropygia amboinensis group into six subgroups, of which four are given species status, and two, the emiliana and the tenuirostris subgroups, inhabiting the Sunda region and the Philippines respectively, are placed in subspecific relationship to M. phasianella from eastern Australia, has something artificial, as the three subgroups thus united under the specific name of phasianella, are geographically separated by the subgroups magna and amboinensis, both regarded as separate species. The absurdity of this classification was first pointed out by Mayr (1944a: 148-149, 191), who, as a consequence, reduced the members of the subgroups magna and rufipennis to subspecies of phasianella, but hesitated to further unite this conglomerate with amboinensis, which he considered to belong: “at least to the same superspecies”. Mayr concluded with the suggestion that: “This whole group of forms would make a favorable subject for a study in character geography and speciation”. Now, over half a century later, Mayr’s suggestion has not yet been taken up, and in spite of his very sensible comment, the illogical classification has been maintained, for example by Goodwin (1970: 152-153) and Dickinson et al. (1991: 192-193). Recently, however, White & Bruce (1986: 189) and Sibley & Monroe (1990: 198) have taken the


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

obvious step of treating each of Mayr’s six subgroups as a separate species, and I follow them, with in mind the additional argument that the co-existence of three rather similar species of Macropygia on the comparatively small island of Flores, should be a warning against oversimplification. The opposite view, to unite all subgroups, has been taken mainly by Australian authors (Storr, 1973: 49 and 1984: 66; Condon, 1975: 166; Frith, 1976: 234; Blakers et al., 1984: 224) and is equally well defensible. It should be noted, however, that in a later work, Frith (1982: 143-144) has changed his opinion and treated the Australian M. phasianella as a separate species again, predicting that eventually the conglomerate may be found to consist of two species: M. amboinensis, M. phasianella and M. magna making one, and M. tenuirostris with M. emiliana and M. rufipennis the other. Streptopelia bitorquata bitorquata (Temminck)
Columba Bitorquata Temminck, 1809, Hist. Nat. Pigeons, Les Colombes: 86, pl. XL – elle habite l’Inde, mais nous ignorons dans quelle île. Collectors.— Allen (at least 5, cf. Salvadori, 1893: 422), Weber, Verheijen. Material.— (?), xi.1888, Maumeri (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 8); (, (?)juv., 23.ix.1970, Maro-Kama (Verheijen, RMNH nos. 65280, 65279). Iris of adult golden yellow, of juvenile brownish cream colour; bill blackish brown, legs dark purplish red. No eggs. Verheijen (1964: 198) recorded with a query one case of breeding in May.

Notes.— Judging by the fact that only three collectors have obtained it, this dove seems to be rather local on Flores, where it is probably confined to the coastal regions, as it is elsewhere. Schmutz (MS) saw it at Nunang (650 m), and more commonly near the west coast, from sea-level to 400 m. Streptopelia chinensis tigrina (Temminck)
Columba tigrina Temminck, 1809, Hist. Nat. Pigeons, Colombes: 94, pl. 43 – Timor; Batavia. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen (at least 5, cf. Salvadori, 1893: 444), Weber (1, ZMA), Everett, Rensch (1), de Jong (2), Verheijen (2, MCZ), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (?), 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 13); &,, Ruteng (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65256): &, 30.i.1970, Ruteng (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65272); &, 19.ix.1970, Kisol (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65273); &, 22.ix.1970, Maro-Kama (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65274); 2 (, 23.ix.1970, Maro-Kama (Verheijen, RMNH nos. 65275, 65276); &, 9.iii.1971, Maro-Kama (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66100); &,, Langkas, Rahong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66101); &, 2.v.1971, Langkas (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66102); ( juv., 24.v.1971, Langkas (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66103); &, 25.v.1971, Langkas (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66104); 2 (,, Langkas (Verheijen, RMNH nos. 66105, 66106); (,, Langkas (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66107). Eggs: 64 clutches of c/1 (39 ×) and c/2 (25 ×), collected in the months March (4), April (23), May (14), June (1), July (6), August (4), September (3), October (2), December (1), and six undated (RMNH nos. 70433-70496). The eggs are white, slightly glossy. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70453 RMNH no. 70454 RMNH no. 70474 RMNH no. 70489 28.0 × 20.8 31.9 × 21.8 28.2 × 22.0 30.0 × 22.0 31.9 × 22.4 0.3735 0.4794 0.4447 0.468 0.4603

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no. 70490 RMNH no. 70491 RMNH no. 70492 RMNH no. 70493 29.7 × 22.6 29.1 × 21.6 28.9 × 21.8 30.7 × 21.1 31.0 × 21.3 0.5191 0.4383 0.4151 0.451 0.4511


Geopelia striata maugei (Temminck)
Columba Maugeus Temminck, 1809, Hist. Nat. Pigeons, Les Colombes: 115 – les îles de l’Australe-Asie. Columba maugens Temminck, 1809, Hist. Nat. Pigeons, Les Colombes: pl. LII – no locality. C[olumba] maugei Temminck, 1811, Hist. Nat. Pigeons, Index: xiv – correction of misprint (cf. Mees, 1975b: 126-127). Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Martens, Everett, Rensch (2), de Jong (1), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (?), 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 2); 2 (, 16.ix.1970, Maro-Kama (Verheijen, RMNH nos. 65299, 65300);(?), 23.ix.1970, Maro-Kama (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65301); (, 30.ii.1971, NisarBadjo, 50 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 66110); &, 9.iii.1971, Maro-Kama, Kisol (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66109). Eggs: c/2,, Rekas (RMNH no. 70500); c/2, Dampék, (RMNH no. 70501); c/2, 1. v.1959, Dampék (RMNH no. 70502); c/1, 1960, Rekas (RMNH no. 70503); c/2, 3.v.1960, Téo (RMNH no. 70504), and three undated clutches (RMNH nos. 70497-70499). The eggs are white, smooth but without gloss. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70500 RMNH no. 70501 RMNH no. 70502 RMNH no. 70504 21.8 × 17.1 22.7 × 17.3 21.5 × 17.0 22.9 × 17.1 22.5 × 17.0 24.4 × 17.3 21.6 × 17.8 22.0 × 17.8 0.2135 0.2072 0.1916 0.1891 0.23 0.2066 0.2172 0.2142

Trichoglossus (haematodus) weberi (Büttikofer)
Psitteuteles weberi Büttikofer, 1894, in Weber, Zool. Ergebnisse 3: 290, pl. XVII fig. 1 – Flores. Collectors.— Weber, Everett (“a fine series”), Endih (1), Rensch (4), de Jong (4), Verheijen (1, MCZ), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— 2 (?), 23/25.xi.1888, Reo (Weber, RMNH cat. nos. 1, 2, syntypes); (?) juv., 26/28.xi.1888, Bari (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 4, syntype); (, i.1889, Endeh (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 3, syntype); 15 (, 17 &, 6 (?), 1969/1976, from Rahong, Nunang, Ulu Ros, Larang, Langkas (Rahong), Nggolong-Tédé (Verheijen/ Schmutz, RMNH, cat. nos. 5-42). Iris red, bill red, legs brownish grey. Eggs (fig. 13f): c/2, 25.viii.1960, Mataloko (RMNH no. 70577); c/2,, Mataloko (RMNH no. 70578); c/2, 25.v.1962, Mataloko (RMNH no. 70579). The eggs are white. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 70577 RMNH no. 70578 RMNH no. 70579 26.3 × 21.6 26.7 × 21.0 28.1 × 22.1 27.0 × 21.7 26.4 × 22.5 26.5 × 22.0 0.4538 0.4247 0.4528 0.4456 0.4105 0.4202


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

Notes.— The nomenclatural history of this distinctive endemic form is a chequered one. It was introduced in ornithology by Büttikofer, as a geographical representative of T. euteles (Büttikofer described it as a species, but he did not yet use ternary nomenclature). Mivart (1896: 129-130), the first to comment, was misguided by four specimens of T. euteles mislabelled as being from Flores (BM, leg. Allen), into believing that T. weberi was a synonym of T. euteles. The matter was put right by Hartert (1898a), who re-instated T. weberi as an “excellent species”. Mathews (1927: 296) listed it, under the generic name Eutelipsitta thought up by himself, as a species, E. weberi. The specific status was apparently given because he believed that weberi and euteles both occurred on Flores. Three years later he corrected this: “Read Eutelipsitta euteles weberi (Büttikofer), and delete Flores from the distribution of E. e. euteles” (Mathews, 1930: 914). The elimination of Flores from the range of T. e. euteles, enabled Mathews to treat weberi as a subspecies. Up to that time, the relationships, as a species or a subspecies, had always been sought with T. euteles. Rensch (1931a: 527) came with a radically different proposal: “Ich fasse “Psitteuteles” weberi als stark specialisierte Rasse von Tr. ornatus auf, da alle Zeichnungsmerkmale dieses Rassenkreises vorhanden sind (gelber Halsring, Blau am Kopfe etc.) und nur die Lipochromfärbung der Unterseite weniger intensiv ist”. Rensch’s T. ornatus evidently included T. haematodus, but these were separated by Peters (1937: 148), in whose classification T. ornatus became a monotypic species, and all other forms, including weberi, went with haematodus. A year earlier, Stresemann (1936: 363) had listed T. ornatus as a separate species, and later he supported this opinion with the following argument: “T. ornatus steht der weitverbreiteten Art T. haematodus ziemlich nahe, ist aber so stark von dieser unterschieden, dass er als besondere Art geführt werden muss” (Stresemann, 1940: 435). The same classification was accepted by subsequent revisers, such as Cain (1955) and Forshaw (1973: 58-59). Cain (1955: 443) placed, within the species T. haematodus, weberi in the “capistratus group”, stating: “weberi is a small greened flavotectus”. Cain’s evaluation of weberi is difficult to contradict, but does hardly do justice to its aberrant character in comparison with the surrounding subspecies. Considering the very close relationship usually existing between birds from Flores and Sumbawa, the striking differences between weberi and T. h. forsteni need an explanation. Rensch (1931b: 395) discusses a ( from Wai Sano, collected by de Jong, but strangely, in the preceding enumeration of material no specimen from that locality is listed.
Measurements: 15 ( 16 & wing 124-132 (127.8) 123-131 (127.1) tail 82-102 (93.2) 82-109 (93.5) culmen from cere 18-20.1 (19.1) 17-19.2 (18.4)

Cacatua sulphurea occidentalis Hartert
Cacatua parvula occidentalis Hartert, 1898, Novit. Zool. 5: 120 – Lombok. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Martens, Weber, Everett, Endih (2), Rensch (2), de Jong (2), Geeraeds, Verheijen/Schmutz.

3719 Notes.5 × 29. 66134).) recognized eight subspecies (nominate megalorynchos. 70580).xi. where at Sokrutung many hundreds of Tanygnathus and Cacatua were seen as they came to sleep communally in some large trees along the river. RMNH no. nos. all females: the total material of the subspecies known. 28. Novit. no. RMNH no.5 19-21 16 Flores (C. 70573). Iris grey.Mees. dull white. no. 1862.xi. Note that Forshaw (1973: 188) examined 8 specimens.1968.3123 1.4 31. RMNH cat. Rembong (RMNH no.6 1. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 3 (?). 31: 126 – South Flores (Mangarai). below it grey. &.i.0 ×— (?). S. mangrove (Schmutz. cere greyish. s. which was synonymized with parvula by White & Bruce (1986: 211).2 43. Samao.5 19. 11. 70576). 1924. RMNH no. central Manggarai (Schmutz.ii. Material. bill red with a whitish tip. Leiden 80 (2006) 97 Material. 23/25. the sex of the third one being uncertain. The eggs are elongate. Reo (Weber. Zool.1969.1955.— Of the subspecies parvula. Inland they were seen at Kulan (430 m). occidentalis) & 207 107½ 5 (?) 209-223 99-106 Samao off Timor (type of C.6 19. (?). 1-3). they came in that season (about the end of February) to Nggoang to harvest the nuts of Canarium asperum. 17.1971. (?). Flores (Allen. 13ggg): c/1.8-24 19. Soa (RMNH no. 70575 RMNH no. Notes. Collectors. RMNH cat. c/1. 13g. between Paku (350 m) and Kandang (600 m). 23. and Nggoang (900 m). and therefore I would tentatively retain occidentalis. 1) was available to me for comparison.xi.510 1. &. parvula) & 216 114 18. 1829. 1. It certainly has a smaller (especially a more slender) bill than all specimens from Flores.2 42. Müller. RMNH cat. 5).8 × 27.1961. 17. s.6332 1. 70573 RMNH no. near the coast (Verheijen. W. not dated. without any gloss. 70576 35. Verheijen (1. 66137). c/1.1955.— Schmutz (MS) reports observations from the coastal region near Mburak (50 m). also a swampy place.6 culmen width 19. Flores (RMNH no.1970.9 × 28.5 × 29. 66135). m. 66136). subaffinis. Geeraeds. Réo. RMNH cat.3 Tanygnathus megalorynchos floris Hartert Tanygnathus megalorhynchos floris Hartert. It seems that the male sex of T. Eggs ( .1 39. 4). Forshaw (l. Avifauna of Flores. Med. 11.4 19. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 70575). legs olive grey. 20.4-20. Waé-Wako (Schmutz. c/1. Nunang (J. 1862. their surface slightly rough. The five specimens collected by Everett were all females. floris remains unknown. RMNH no.— Everett (5).0 44.1960.3496 1. Forshaw (1973: 122) also recognized it. eye-rim above the eye grey-yellow. According to locals.vii.c.3 30 culmen depth 20. 13gg. Verheijen/Schmutz. only the type (&. Soa (RMNH no. no.— (?). 70574 RMNH no. affinis. Measurements: wing tail tarsus culmen from cere 30. so were two of the three birds collected by the fathers. &.v. Kisol (RMNH no. 70574).1969. c/2. leg. 66133). Look-Mabacone. Zool. RMNH no. MCZ).ix.2-38. 26.1888.

73. Leiden 80 (2006) hellmayri. as summarized by Butchart et al. not Flores. The eggs described by Forshaw. djampeae. Proc. and moreover it inhabits Sulawesi (Celebes). One might think of confusion with L. by placing viridipennis. Measurements: & & (?) wing 229 220 235 tail 146 137 150 tarsus 21. I have been unable to find this reference and as Wallace never had more than this one unsexed individual. which has been considered a subspecies of flosculus by Rensch (1931a: 525). Lacking adequate comparative material to form an independent opinion. there have been a number of sight records.5. (1863): 488 – Flores. the cumulative evidence is sufficient to accept that the species still exists. Notes.4 culmen from cere 10. flosculus and L. Lond.12. flosculus.— Allen.— This species is known from a single unsexed specimen only. holotype). Med. and all later authors. Avifauna of Flores. on the basis of the argument that the characters of viridipennis and djampeae were due to “an irregular small island effect unworthy of formal designation”.1555. exilis at best remote. (1996: 344-346). Material. exilis of Sulawesi (Celebes). exilis as a separate species. Zool. Forshaw (1973: 320) describes adult males as well as females. with a reference to Wallace. Reichenow (1882: 114) was apparently the first to add information that did not exist. but there is no such information on the label of the holotype of L. BM no. Measurements: (?) wing 80 tail 34 tarsus 10. White & Bruce (1986: 227-228) reduced this to five. Collector. and floris was based on: “a clinal effect leading to sumbensis”. brown in females. I prefer to follow Forshaw’s more cautious approach.5 . Soc. djampeae and floris in the synonymy of nominate megalorynchos.2 23. 1940a: 444. but the measurements seem too large for that dwarf of the genus.— (?). 1862. Zool. like Stresemann (1936: 363.8 Loriculus flosculus Wallace Loriculus flosculus Wallace. During the last twenty years.98 Mees.4 21 23 culmen from cere 45 42 46 depth of culmen at base 23 23 27 width of culmen at base 24. Sometimes Allen recorded the colour of the eyes on the labels of specimens he collected. Flores (Allen. viridipennis. he also describes the iris colour: orange in males. Stresemann considered the presumed relationship between L. ex Schönwetter (1964: 526) cannot have been correctly identified. Rensch has not been followed. floris and sumbensis). 445) and Peters (1937: 259) have treated L. collected by Allen. as the red throat patch appeared to be not fully developed. hence without an exact date and locality. Finsch (1868: 728) regarded the bird as immature.6 26. it cannot be correct. he wrote “iride miniatis” and assumed that the type was a male.4 culmen from skull 16. Enigmatically. 1864.

vi. c/1. Eggs: c/3. Birds Brit. 25.6615 0. 70570).1954. 70565).694 0. RMNH no. 70572 very large blowhole Notes.. Verheijen/ 34. 81068). Verheijen (5. Mano (RMNH no. 70570 RMNH no.1959. 7. without locality (RMNH no. RMNH cat. 300 m (Schmutz.ix. Avifauna of Flores. Tjeréng. 70565 30.0 31. 24. 59809).3 29. c/3. 900 m (Schmutz.7269 0. 12.5 31.5 29.vii.9 × 25. Nisar (Schmutz.— (. Léwé (RMNH no.3 × 25. 97118). RMNH no. 70568). 70569.xii. 81064). 81067).7 29.1968. nos. Cereng.8 × 26. 70572). Measurements and weights: RMNH no. c/2. 9. Méngé (RMNH nos.3 20.1957.8 × 25.— Semmelink. 14.1957. (. 97117).ix. 22.4 28.1 × 25.5 21.1974.v. 70566 RMNH no.8 31. 25. 70571).6455 0. wing 156 154 153 160 163 149 152 152 tail 70 71 66 77 71 69 74 70 tarsus 20 17 16.1 × 25. (.1955.Mees.8 19½ 18 17½ culmen from skull 225 26. Pongkor (Verheijen.v. 85281). no. 85283). (. Rensch (8).1975. RMNH cat. (.5 29.3 30. 70571 RMNH no.x. Flores. Measurements: ( ( ( ( ( & & & juv. &. 16. Cat.. Iris sulphur yellow.6717 0. RMNH no. 3.2 × 26.8 × 25.9 × 25. 9.5 25 26 26 25 25. 70569 identification correct? RMNH no. 5-7). c/2.0 × 25.d.6595 – 0. (. 70568 RMNH no. &. Sande (1). RMNH no.5 29.688+ 0. 10. (?) juv.1971.1982. Kandang.v. 20: 406 – Flores. 750 m (Schmutz.6 30. de Jong (2).vii. RMNH no. 1).4 × 26.4 30. ix.8 × 26. v. Flores (Allen.6586 0.5 . 70567). Larantoeka (Semmelink.1978.1971. (. RMNH no. c/2. 1862.8 20 21.4 31. Allen. Mano (RMNH no. Wesang (RMNH no.6 × 26.0 29. 70567 RMNH no.4 0.2 × 25. RMNH no. 850 m (Schmutz.x.6525 damaged RMNH no. 14.5 × 25. Montjok (RMNH no.6 30.5 × 25.6386 0.3 30.5982 0. Nunang. 13. 1000 m (Schmutz.5853 0.5 25 culmen from cere 21.737 0.7 22 22 22. c/2.6591 0.5 × 24. 1862. 28. RMNH no. Leiden 80 (2006) 99 Geoffroyus geoffroyi floresianus Salvadori Geoffroyus floresianus Salvadori. 600 m (Schmutz. Tjeréng.7165 0.— These birds are rather smaller in wing and tail than the specimens measured by Forshaw (1973: 171).1957. Material. Everett. MCZ).vi. Mus. 70566). Golo Rucuk (Schmutz. c/3. RMNH no.7317 0.1971.7437 0. (.9 × 25. & juv. 85282).1971. Collectors. Med. Zool. 1891. &.

intermedius of Hartert (1898a: 45). Birds Mus. Peters (1940: 20). not usually occurring below ca. Nat. Avifauna of Flores. saturatus lepidus. not mentioned by Hartert (collections of Doherty and Everett). 800-1000 m. Zool.1976. however. For a while. saturatus was known by the name C. Note that Rensch (1931a: 541) gives under C. Collectors. Nunang.en Volkenk. C. The species was first listed by Rensch (1931b: 389). Material. 97107). saturatus lepidus has in the same article the name C. 97106). Schmutz. Collectors. saturatus. s. Notes. s. although Rensch (1931a: 542) found it on Bali as low as 500-600 m. de Jong (3). The Sumba record is.. Rensch (3). which is. 1937a). Ned. intermedius. The error probably originated from the confusion there has been over the names of the Cuculus-species in the Indo-Australian region. C. Sumba and Timor. C.. mistakenly. it is still strange that it was not obtained by the Fathers.— Everett (6). Material. RMNH no. and Rensch obtained three in June 1927. Gesch. Payne (in del Hoye et al. The evidence provided is somewhat sketchy and I look forward to a more comprehensive documentation.xi.100 Mees.. Stein or Sutter. as just mentioned. in Horsfield & Moore. the name C. Müller. but a separate species. Notes.1977. Land.— Allen. 81059). &. Flores.. Bez. poliocephalus.ii. eye-rim yellow.— Everett’s men collected half a dozen specimens towards the end of 1896. Cereng. lepidus. & wing 207 202 200 tail 147 144 127 entire culmen 28 27 28 exposed culmen 21. Although Rensch (1931a: 542) reported that he found it “vereinzelt”. 650 m (Schmutz. Pantar. — Their measurements place these specimens definitely in the subspecies horsfieldi (cf.2 20 21. White & Bruce (1986: 231) list it from Lombok. RMNH no. p. I cannot find on what the Sumba record by Rensch.— ( im.1982. 1845. 29. Overz. however. Meyer. ( im. Leiden 80 (2006) Cuculus saturatus horsfieldi Moore Cuculus horsfieldi Moore. Junge. 555) has made the interesting suggestion that horsfieldi is not a subspecies of C. Hon. Med.B. not collected by Dammerman. Verh. dunes (Schmutz. saturatus horsfieldi. and White & Bruce is based. intermedius of Hartert applied to C. Müller Cuculus lepidus S. Sumbawa. II: 703 – Java. The species was not recorded by A. East-India Comp. lepidus is a mountain bird.4 Cuculus saturatus lepidus S. erroneous. a reference to C. Until recently. Cat. 12. In the mountains of the Lesser Sunda islands it is widely distributed. poliocephalus lepidus was used for the form now called C. neither did Verheijen (1964) acquire its eggs. 1997: 512. in an enumeration of the birds of Sumba. Measurements: ( ( im. 1858. 12. 400 m (Schmutz. Joneng.— None. Rensch seems to have thought that C.i. Everett. and casually mentioned by Rensch (1931a: 542).: 236 – Timor. lepidus. Also Bali. Iris ochre. RMNH no. . and has overlooked that C.

RMNH no. 85259). Land. Overz. C. 1845. Saxicola caprata is the favourite host on Flores: eleven of the thirteen records concerned this species (the host-species of the two remaining nests could not be identified.— (. Bez. and the Lesser Sunda Islands east to Flores and Sumba. In Java Phylloscopus trivirgatus and Seicercus grammiceps have been recorded as hosts. Müller. 26. 65302).ix. Nat. Seicercus montis) occur on Flores and Timor. 81305). RMNH no. duller in plumage. Land.— (. RMNH no. Besides Flores. darker “sepulcralis” group. the Greater Sunda Islands.en Volkenk. Cacomantis variolosus sepulcralis (S. 17. Eggs in the collection Ottow. Mason & O’Connor. Verheijen/Schmutz. Verh. but no resident Phylloscopi are known from Sumba. it has in the Lesser Sunda Islands been recorded from Timor (McKean. RMNH no.: 177 – Java en Sumatra. . Cuculus pallidus (Latham) C[olumba] pallida Latham. 22. 1843. Nat. to the Philippines.1971. Evidently few birds migrate outside Australia.— Individuals of this species found outside Australia may be assumed to be migrant visitors.en Volkenk. 7/8. ranging from the mainland of south-eastern Asia. Myiagra r. Suppl. Med. RMNH no. Rahong (Verheijen. rubecula (cf. Leiden 80 (2006) 101 The fact that the record from Sumba is erroneous. lepidus does not occur on the island. one from Ternate (the type specimen of Cuculus poliogaster. it was probably a warbler).vi. Waé Lega (Schmutz. Several other migrants from Australia may stay in their winter quarters until October and even November. 1906: 295. Müller) C[uculus] sepulcralis S. Material. The Flores specimen is equally late. Ruteng (Verheijen. Bez. Mees. Ned. Ned. Another factor influencing the distribution may be the availability of host species. Material.x. 81319). Notes. Gesch.— Schmutz. from where it is reliably known. variolosus can conveniently be divided into two sub-groups: the (. Pantar. (?) pull. Hartert. s. 59807). pallidus is peculiarly scarce outside Australia: besides those from the Lesser Sunda Islands.n. s.1969. 1975). Golo Léhot (Schmutz.— De Jong (1).1976.. According to Ottow & Verheijen (1969). Notes. is not much higher than Sumba (1365 m against 1225 m). 1801. Ind.— The species C.: lx – Nova Hollandia = New South Wales. Verheijen (1964) recorded eggs of this cuckoo in the months May (1). for example Stiltia isabella. the Moluccas and Timor. &. Halcyon sancta. Zool. Langkas. September (5) and October (2). Related species (Phylloscopus presbytes. there is one record from Babar (cf. Orn. Gesch. I do not think that the occurrence on Timor as late in spring as the end of Cuculus poliogaster S. found in northern and eastern Australia. August (3). collected by Forsten).1978. New Guinea. does not necessarily mean that therefore C. Avifauna of Flores. 1982a). Müller. Collectors. Overz. Cuculus variegatus).Mees. 29.1968. Verh. justifies the assumption that it reproduces there (although I do not deny the possibility). and only three from New Guinea... July (2). Collector.: 236 noot 4 – Ternate. and the “variolosus” group. Nanga-Lili (Schmutz.

variolosus. Het (. Confusion was. Zool. as might be expected from the general distribution of the species. He considered these all identical and as tymbonomus is an older name than dumetorum. but almost certainly J. hetwelk wij alleen van deze soort bezitten” 7) (Müller. and a bird of unknown sex from Cape York. with the thought in mind that it might be a migrant from Australia. In judging Junge’s work. for there is not now. more than the one specimen from Timor in the collection. therefore.xi. variolosus from New Guinea (migrants from Australia. His material will be further discussed below. Gilbert). it does not look different from two specimens collected by me 7) C[uculus] tymbonomus. although the latter is likely. and allowing for 140 years difference in age. I quote: “The type of tymbonomus is our only specimen from Timor. just quoted. became Cacomantis variolosus tymbonomus.1976).vii. tymbonomus. variolosus on Timor as a resident or as a migrant visitor: the fact that he was unable to distinguish the type of tymbonomus from Australian birds does not automatically mean that he considered it a migrant. purchased from Frank in 1870. 31. The single male we possess of this species . and there has never been. 1. sp. n. That the specimen is a holotype was already made clear by its describer: “C[uculus] tymbonomus. Med. It belongs to the pale Australian group. From my reply (dated 18. although this is not stated clearly). he concluded that northern Australia should be included into the range of tymbonomus. so that it remains unclear whether he would have regarded it as a resident or as a migrant visitor from Australia. that no resident race of this cuckoo occurs on Timor Island and that the name tymbonomus was a synonym of variolosus or at best an earlier name for dumetorum from western Australia. Mayr proceeds to describe the subspecific differences. Peters did not give an opinion either. name of collector not given. Port Essington (RMNH cat. Avifauna of Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) On Timor. naturally placed both names into the synomymy of nominate C.102 Mees. He asked me to examine the type specimen of tymbonomus. the species was discovered in 1829 by Salomon Müller. with material from northern Australia (dumetorum) and from Timor (tymbonomus). unintentionally. and by Junge that tymbonomus is an earlier name for dumetorum. who recognized its distinctiveness and described the one specimen obtained as C. without date or collector’s name. Junge’s text: “the specimens of tymbonomus. Stein’s specimens prove that there is an endemic race of this species on Timor. disagreed with Junge: “It has been assumed by recent writers. for some curious reason. it should be kept in mind. no. The specimens from northern Australia available to Junge were: one &. v. sp. started by Junge (1937b: 179-180). who compared specimens of C. is somewhat overdone. not applicable to western Australian birds”. Pig Lagoon. on the basis of Stein’s material from Timor. His criticism of “recent writers”. informed by Mack that dumetorum cannot be separated from nominate variolosus. when White got on the trail. Mayr (1944a: 149-150). Peters (1940: 25-26). and that the name tymbonomus is. 1843: 177). n. how very little he had to go on. This remained generally recognized and with the introduction of ternary nomenclature. which are in the Leiden museum” is due to his inclusion of specimens from Australia and New Guinea under that name. for Junge never mentioned whether he regarded C.1840. Probably through an oversight he omitted to mention Timor in the description of the range of this expanded subspecies. This is as matters stood.

they are birds from the Mamberamo expedition (leg. Might not C. in common with a majority of his fellow-men. Actually. might conceivably be a migrant”.) felt justified to provide the juvenile birds from Timor. 1986: 236). Avifauna of Flores. 1931) the song of C. 10.c. still without having examined material. Bruce (l. My reply (dated 21. In my opinion the type (merely labelled 1829. W. White (1977) presented my reply correctly. 2.1979) as follows: “We have now compared it with a selection of Stein’s material from Timor and found they all belong to one and the same subspecies . One old specimen from Timor does not make much of a series. Mees)” (White & Bruce. without the rufous edges to the feathers which Mayr claimed are characteristic of this race. without date). sepulcralis. sometimes found it difficult to abandon a pet theory. both above and below. I would suspect all birds with rufous edges to be immature. The type of tymbonomus is plain above. As regards your suggestion it is relevant to state. C. in litt.1976) read: “As C.xii. 1986: 235). Zool. my cautious words: “might conceivably be”.C.. C. tymbonomus may look like variolosus from northern Australia but retains juvenile barring on the under-tail coverts and a rufous wash on the rectrices longer into adulthood and has a proportionally much longer tail”. that I know the songs of C. Leiden 80 (2006) 103 in northern Australia. described by Mayr. White (in White & Bruce. v.. It will be clear that these two specimens could not possibly form a basis for a meaningful comparison with one adult (“nearly adult” according to Junge) specimen from Timor. but the upper surface is more spotted than barred. were. which according to Mayr would be ‘even more different’. and one from Misool. castaneiventris). The two Australian birds examined by Junge are both in their first juvenile plumage: the Port Essington specimen is heavily barred. variolosus with a . but added a concluding sentence for which I would certainly not have wanted to share responsibility: “If there is a distinct resident form in Timor.F. Next we find: “Müller’s tymbonomus has been confirmed as a migrant of the nominate form (G. and on this basis. Stresemann’s description of C. but which was stated to have a barred juvenile plumage (unlike C. This opinion. variolosus and C. sepulcralis are in fact conspecific. van Heurn).. who informed me (in litt. sepulcralis”. In the meantime. Later. which I have not seen. changed to “confirmed”.ii. heinrichi did not consider this possibility” (White.1976). the type of tymbonomus had been sent to Dr Schodde. with a new subspecific name. the Cape York one is also heavily barred below. of the co-occurrence on Halmahera and Batjan of C. variolosus sepulcralis (Java). whereas according to Heinrich (in Stresemann. I regret that we have no juvenile (‘immature’ of Mayr) birds. In addition. in two steps. without reference to Heinrich’s observations. Junge had two specimens from southern New Guinea. v. C. heinrichi. and they all sound pretty much the same to me. no doubt) were migrants from Australia. repeated his opinion: “that C. which Hartert assumed (correctly. which in its context suggests that these were Australian birds. it is evident that tymbonomus is not on present evidence available as its name”. Thus. as is his remark about birds received from the Buitenzorg Museum. dumetorum (Northern Australia). Mr White. heinrichi is not represented in our collection I am unable to speculate about its relationships. heinrichi is ‘ganz anders’”. however. v.Mees. one from Andai. The conclusion that the Timor bird did “fully agree” with specimens from North Australia is therefore enigmatic. variolosus (New South Wales) and C. variolosus: “I wonder whether C.. previously recorded by Hartert (1932: 453). whitei. Med. It does not look as if Bruce had personally examined any of this material. possibly represent C. chivae (Biak). He had another one about C. heinrichi is derived from C. v.xii.

C. 1954). Sibley & Monroe (1990: 98-99) have accepted White’s ideas and claimed of C. so that he is attacking windmills here. sepulcralis) ( & juv. not only their similarity in voice will have to be considered. Against this. seems odd. but I find the assumption that the two are not even very closely related. as undoubtedly every ornithologist with field-experience in south-east Asia knows.2 19.5 & 128 105 17 Port Essington.4 14 entire culmen 22 22 18-22. 122 94 17 Pionier bivak. sepulcralis and C.5 17. completely unacceptable. merulinus (with which. sepulcralis is closer to C.2) (122. Measurements: Flores (C. Linn. . deserves some consideration. v.5 Kimberley Division. and as I described from Java (Mees.7 (20. Soc.8 115-122 115-133 15-18 (118.9) 22. Lond. Med. for the longest-tailed subspecies. Material. is found in the Bismarck Archipelago. merulinus.2 14. 121 102 17. resembling variolosus in plumage. Leiden 80 (2006) presumed derivative of C. v. and that C. Zool. v. v. 125 98 16 23 18 Chrysococcyx basalis (Horsfield) Cuculus basalis Horsfield. dumetorum) & 127 95 16. macrocercus. where 3 sympatric species occur”. but also the fact that the Timor form seems to be to a certain extent intermediate. C.5 23 20. sepulcralis. 13: 179 – Java.8 (17. but sepulcralis in relative length of the tail. merulinus with which it is sympatric”. sepulcralis are not conspecific.104 Mees. variolosus are clearly different. v.5) (16. variolosus and C. Australia ( C.3 ( subad. v. Tail-lenght as such cannot be considered a specific character in this case. indeed. The songs of C. it is sympatric over a large part of its extensive range). tymbonomus) ( 123 119 17. must have influenced White in his decision to treat these as different species. Australia (C. Collector. In evaluating the relationship between the variolosus and the sepulcralis groups.8 exposed culmen 17. with the conclusion that: “It is.5 20. 1821. Java (C. New Guinea ( subad. however. sepulcralis: “this species is distinct and more closely related to C. 122 99 16 Cape York.8) Timor (C. dumetorum) (?) juv. his remark about the close relationship between C. as nobody has ever claimed these three to be conspecific. v. sonnerati. although their ranges are complementary. wrong to suppose that they are all representatives of a single species in view of the situation in the Malay Peninsula. Australia (C. The suggestion that C. Avifauna of Flores. Trans.— Rensch (1). dumetorum) & juv.3 16 16-17.— None. merulinus and C. Greater Sundas and part of the Philippines. sepulcralis) 10 ( wing 117 111 tail 126 112 tarsus 13.2) 16.8 17 17.

76581).107 Notes. Notes. 69760). Parker. basalis by Sharpe (1877: 320. l. The statement in Blakers et al.— Egg: c/1 + 2 of Gerygone sulphurea. Suppl. Zool. RMNH cat. like previous authors (e. and the fact that he has never renamed C.— Ten Kate. presumably without new investigation. Rahong (Verheijen. Chalcites lucidus aeneus Warner is a primary homonym of Chalcites malayanus aheneus Junge (cf. Gill (1983) has shown that geographical differentiation between populations of Australia and New Zealand is negligible. lucidus). layardi. Material.: xxxi – Nova Hollandia. with a reference to Condon (1975: 208-209).0 0. I know of no other mention of it in the ornithological literature. (1984: 300) that this species has resident populations in the Philippines. obviously birds wintering in the Lesser Sunda Islands must belong to the Australian plagosus and not to nominate lucidus.— Unfortunately. and correctly re-identified as Chalcococcyx plagosus by Finsch (1900: 95). aeneus. it is apparent that he would not expect an endemic subspecies there. The specimen collected by Ten Kate was originally identified as Chalcococcyx malayanus (cf. Collectors. was apparently referred to C. minutillus. and from the discussion he gives of the New Hebridean population. Verheijen/Schmutz. must be due to confusion with C. Many years ago I drew the attention of Dr Warner to the homonymy. 1985: art. Measurements and weight: The egg is immaculate olive brown. Langkas. minutillus. The specimen from Flores listed by Wallace (1864: 484) as Chrysococcyx chalcites (which equals C. RMNH no. Orn. Chrysococcyx minutillus subsp. Flores (RMNH no. 8). Chrysococcyx lucidus plagosus (Latham) C[uculus] plagosus Latham. cf.— (?). &. Sika (ten Kate. was re-identified as Chalcococcyx malayanus by Shelley (1891: 299) and as Chrysococcyx russatus jungei by Parker (1981: 37).1891. Gill made in his revision no mention of the subspecies aeneus.— The identification of several species of this genus is notoriously difficult. 1981: 35. iv. It is with much hesitation that I have retained the subspecific name plagosus for these birds. Greenway (1978: 108-109) has accepted the subspecies. Med. 76581 21. . I can find no evidence that Allen ever collected more than a single specimen of the genus Chrysococcyx on Flores). If two subspecies are recognized. for in a well-argumented paper. l. may mean that he also did no longer consider it a recognizable subspecies. Verheijen (eggs only).— For a discussion of records of this species from Borneo.Mees.0 × 14.ix.: Friedmann. described from the New Hebrides by Warner (1951). Ind. Material. no. Avifauna of Flores.— Allen (1). 1968: 110). see the notes under C. 1801. Leiden 80 (2006) 105 Notes.vii. RMNH no. the Fathers never managed to obtain skins of this species. 1892: 194). 27. Büttikofer. 4. 58 (6)). Collectors.1971. g. ICZN. who made no such claim and describes the range correctly. he includes the New Hebrides into the range of C.1955.

and C. Following the nomenclature used by Parker. Thompson (1966: 397) brought all the specimens then known from Borneo together and concluded that such variation as they showed in plumage was sexual. . Leiden 80 (2006) although it is not rare (cf. and voice of the birds from Borneo.. minutillus. which seem haphazardly mixed. a migrant from Australia. It cannot possibly be a migrant from Australia. and the host species of C. minutillus and C. Without topotypical material of jungei. although he was not clear about variations in wing-length. Now that I am discussing Borneo. Smythies. russatus jungei on Flores is Gerygone s. cleis. but subsequently relegated to the synonymy of C. russatus leaves the problem of the occurrence of two species (C. SE Borneo and Phillipines. I forwarded the specimen to Mr Parker. however. I cannot give an opinion on the subspecific status of the Flores population. minutillus and C. first recorded by Chasen (1935: 128). The status of cleis as a separate form could still do with supporting evidence. m. He could confirm that it had been correctly identified. but was not able to decide which of these two. russatus aheneus or C. the host species of C. his division between the species C. 1957: 638. N and E Borneo. Kinabalu. with both recorded from Mt. but it is unusual for Sulawesi (Celebes) and Flores to share one subspecies (and Java to have another). etc. minutillus cleis and C. It constitutes the sole remaining record of C. The type-specimen of Cuculus neglectus constituted the sole basis for the inclusion of mainland Borneo into the winter range of C. Payne (in del Hoyo et al. Avifauna of Flores. Ottow & Verheijen. Admirable as Parker’s (1981) revision is. Mr Parker also borrowed from the Singapore Museum the specimen of C. I prefer to leave the subspecific identity of the population from Flores open until adequate material becomes available. sulphurea. Zool.. and without specimens from Flores. basalis (cf. basalis. minutillus albifrons in Java is also Gerygone s. minutillus cleis (in the nomenclature of Parker). 1969). This only increases my doubts about the validity of cleis. The type. is a fledgeling. russatus aheneus in Parker’s nomenclature) in Borneo (not Sulawesi as claimed by Blakers et al. Re-uniting C. Parker himself referred to intermediate specimens from the Australian continent. Nothing is known of breeding habits (host species. so that in Flores it remains known from the single specimen collected by Allen. I should also like to mention the type specimen of Cuculus neglectus Schlegel (1864b: 35).). which must bear the older name C. basalis from the North Natuna Islands. m. sulphurea. neglectus antedates by many years both aheneus and cleis. At my request. eggs). basalis from the “Bornean Province”. minutillus. not or barely able to fly. This bird was made the type of a separate genus Heterococcyx by Salvadori (1874: 61). aheneus or C. Indeed. as well as the ranges ascribed to them. If the co-occurrence of two forms as resident birds is confirmed. russatus. 1997: 563) came with a new concept: that both cleis and aheneus would be subspecies of C. spatially separated as follows: C. and must belong to a resident species. Med. cleis. aheneus. for his opinion. one of them must be a distinct species: C.106 Mees. 1982: 301). The name C. Ford (1981) has presented a strong case for russatus and minutillus in Australia being conspecific. This view is not supported by the localities listed for the two forms by Parker. This supports the case for uniting the populations from Flores and Java to one species. Therefore. He concluded that it must be either C. has something artificial.

Endih (1). Sumbawa. laying. 1: 141 – nova Hollandia. 1790.— (. 22).1969.ii. (?). RMNH cat.1984. 19: 338 – Lombok. the only host-species that could be established on Flores.— (?) skull.— Semmelink. their study included RMNH cat. xii. This species. Verheijen (2. the remainder of the skeleton is of a gallinaceous bird. Verheijen/Schmutz. In addition they record that a Corvus florensis was seen feeding a fledgeling Scythrops.— Allen. Martens (1).1888. 15. left it with a binomial name. 29.xi. Ottow & Verheijen (1969) recorded two eggs. Nunang (Schmutz. Schmutz. both found in November.. no. MCZ). Larantoeka (Semmelink. RMNH no. Celebes. (. Avifauna of Flores.1888. RMNH nos. no. no. Maumeri (Weber. Zool. Not improbably. Weber.— Verheijen (1964: 199) listed egg-finds in November and December (one each). no.xii. Flores. 17. Notes. Sumatra.1960 in Central Flores. 81058. but only the skull actually belongs to Scythrops. Rensch (1).iii.ix. Mus. 38. Notes. Endeh (Elbert. xii. 24). but they were unable to assign it to a subspecies. RMNH cat.Mees. RMNH no.— &. was divided into three subspecies by Mason & Forrester (1996). 35). Material. 650 m (Schmutz. Material. (. 19/24. (?).— Van Oort (1907: 125) listed Semmelink’s specimen as a complete skeleton. 1862. of which 1 and the skull returned to ZMA). a). and in fact there is a complete skeleton. RMNH no. Verheijen (1961) referred to an observation made on 28. the nest contained four eggs of the host and one egg of Eudynamys scolopacea. of two full-grown young being fed by crows. &. &. Flores (Colfs.. besides this egg. Ottow). de Jong (1). 81110). and it was considered desirable to mount the spectacular skull on something that looked likely. Collectors. 1912.1969. RMNH cat. 97108). RMNH cat. Iris blood-red. Verheijen (eggs). Heineanum 4(1): 52 – Sunda-Inseln. Weber. Centropus bengalensis sarasinorum Stresemann Centropus bengalensis sarasinorum Stresemann. for the time being.. in coll. (?) nestling. Rangga. Weber (2 and a skull.1910. RMNH no. 81052). Ottow & Verheijen (1969) describe an egg found on 22. Collectors. Therefore I have.xii. Everett (“a small series”).vi. Nunang. Material. Elbert (1). 650 m (Schmutz. 26. 85129). 2330).ii. Nunang (Schmutz. 17. . Allen (1). 39). Index Orn.1888. Verheijen (egg. Scythrops novaehollandiae Latham Scythrops novae Hollandiae Latham. in nests of Corvus macrorhynchus. previously regarded as monotypic. this was done on purpose. RMNH cat. Collectors. (. 650 m (Schmutz. Everett (3?). &. Med. 85128).1976. Kotting (Weber. 35.. Colfs.xi (year and locality not given) in a nest of Corvus macrorhynchos. no. &. at a time that complete skeletons went on display. 4. Nunang. nos. RMNH no. 1862. Zool. Maumeri (Weber. Leiden 80 (2006) 107 Eudynamys scolopacea malayana Cabanis & Heine E[udynamis] malayana Cabanis & Heine. 1880. Novit.— Allen.1969. In an earlier paper.

and particularly the wide range of this intermediate subspecies.— (?). and the larger C. February (2). who lived in that town. As I have pointed out before.v. Some measurements and weights: 32. 26.1954. no.1969.9306 35. 70614). ignoring the fact that this is not a size-race.. Deno (RMNH no.7 0. 70613). without data.3. Soa (RMNH no. This certainly went too far. the fairly large size-differences involved. c/2.1958.5 0. because of its intermediate character and geographical distribution. it does not change ( Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf. c/1. 1788. 70621). Material.— Four of the birds are in adult plumage. 9. the well-established notion that this species would have an “eclipse” plumage.8 0. and united it also with javanensis.6 0. 70622). White (l. leave one in doubt as to whether they have personally examined material.1963.922 RMNH no. 65310). this subspecies is intermediate between the smaller C. 30 28 Tyto alba javanica (Gmelin) Strix javanica Gmelin. The eggs are white. 70612). MCZ).1961. collected in the months January (1).8037 33. c/4. Soa (RMNH no. In measurements. and one insufficiently dated.— Semmelink. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 70617).8 × 25. (. 1862.8397 The eggs are a little larger and heavier than those of C. 174. 70602 31. c/1. Measurements: ( 3& (?) 1 wing 152 173. 25. RMNH cat. RMNH no. Soa (RMNH no. 44. August (1). 70616). May (5). 16. or a “winter” plumage. (ed. Collectors. 24.xi. Mataloko (RMNH no. c/1. 182 59 tail 156 226. in addition.x. 1 (1): 295 – Java = Batavia.1969. and c/4 (2 ×). Flores (RMNH no.108 Mees. c/3.c. 5. of c/1 (6 ×).xi. 15. Soa (RMNH no. Ruteng.1963. with smooth but not very glossy shells. c/1.1 × 26. White & Bruce (1986: 244-245) have.7 × 24.8931 34.). proposed to suppress C. RMNH no. though lengthy. Leiden 80 (2006) Eggs: 23 clutches.2 × 25. 70620).1966. 70615). Deno (RMNH no. Soa (RMNH no.8293 33. ca.v. March (6). javanensis. Eggs: c/3. c/2 (9 ×). 27.4 × 24. philippinensis as a size-race. 20. for the name is entirely based on a paper by von Wurmb (1781). no. justify its recognition. b. 1971a). Nat. July (1). of which five are from Palué. 15.3 0.v. 6). 66139).xi.1961. b. Syst. 17. RMNH no. one (cat. Zool. 235 203 tarsus 36 45. b. Soa (RMNH no. but was based on plumage-characters. 15. The discussions given by these authors.6 × 25. June (2).vi.1963.9 0. &.1969. 70619).4 0. c/1. RMNH no.1958.v. 1967: 56).c. Med. 70600 Notes. medius. c/2. 65300). 18. Nunang (Schmutz. chosen not to recognise it. b. 204. In my opinion. 24) is in change. Verheijen/Schmutz. April (4). is erroneous: once the adult plumage has been attained. as would be expected from the larger size of C. 13). Ruteng (Verheijen.8. Verheijen (4. Avifauna of Flores. .7 × 25. javanensis from Java (cf. 1150 m (Verheijen.8485 33.iii. 70618). The eggs are immaculate white.9 × 25.0 0. 1961. 46 42 bill 25 29. b.v. Bruce (l. 27.7581 33. Soa (RMNH no. sarasinorum.) called even medius “a very poor form”. &. c/3. c/3 (6 ×).

a.2 42.Mees. Anyway. the implication would be that T.9062 1. 70612 42. delicatula is a valid subspecies. provided by Schodde & Mason (1980: 82). a. delicatula from Australia. there seem to be no published records of the Barn Owl from Sumbawa. and I consider that the validity of T. javanica.3068 1. the subspecific status of the Lesser Sunda Island birds could not be evaluated properly.5) tarsus 68-77 (71. 70613 Notes. Unfortunately. tail presumed to be the main character of T.1) .— Rensch (1931a: 522) placed the Barn Owls from Java. javanica) 15 ( wing 295-324 (308. On 22. from the other wing the longest primaries are missing. c. Leiden 80 (2006) Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. In a previous publication. and concluded. Pioen peninsula.6 × 32. Perhaps birds from Flores average smaller than birds from Java. The reason why I mention this imperfect specimen is that it does not have the very pale.6) culmen from cere 22-24 (23.3 × 34.4 42. mounted. a. not delicatula. the specimens from Flores agree with javanica and not with delicatula. javanica by average smaller size and by paler coloration. a. Avifauna of Flores. but there is a clear suggestion that Australian birds are smaller than javanica.7 × 33. the question arises. sumbaensis requires confirmation. delicatula for that matter. Zool. a. but larger series are required to confirm this. Med. no collector. or T. Mees. Measurements: Java (T.ix. and that the colonisation of Australia by Tyto alba must be very recent indeed. northern Sumbawa. Few specimens from Sumba are known (Stein collected only one. 1964a: 37). Lombok.) and White & Bruce (1986: 146). Without comment he accepted the subspecies sumbaensis from Sumba. a.1) tail 114-132 (121. There is only one specimen from Sumba in the collection.8 2. There is now a specimen record from Sumbawa Besar (Johnstone et al. In conclusion: T. and this is supported by the measurements of a large series. all three of which had been described by Hartert. received from the Koloniaal Instituut in 1875).7897 2. Birds from Flores are javanica. a. One wing is clipped. The tail does not differ significantly from the tails of T.5 41. and kuehni from Kisar.9504 109 RMNH no. Mayr (1944a: 150-151) studied material of two of these named populations (everetti and kuehni).1 × 32.0227 1. I followed this. This leaves open the possibility that birds from Sawu. and that in this respect. Assuming that both the cited authors were right. that all should be united with T. Timor and Kisar are delicatula. of somewhat problematical antecedents (sex not given. a. differing from T. and even in size they may be closer to topotypical javanica than to delicatula. delicatula does not differ from T. Flores and Timor in the subspecies javanica. javanica. Sutter none). a. as claimed by Mayr (l. In view of the hazy antecedents of the specimen. almost whitish. without own investigation (cf. Surprisingly. comparing them with specimens from Timor and from Australia.3 × 32. the material available from Australia was very inadequate. without a comparison with birds from Java as well as birds from Australia. everetti from Sawu. no date. sumbaensis. A further comparison showed that birds from Australia are paler on the upper parts than birds from Java.1984 I observed one on the Tg.4 41. whether its given provenance from Sumba is reliable. 1996: 170). a..

where he had flushed a “Barn Owl” from a nest with eggs on the ground. The main difference from his earlier revision was in his evaluation of walleri. the logical next step was to synonymize walleri with longimembris (cf. Notes. from where at that time it was not yet known. However. In the revision of the subspecies presented by these authors. a. longimembris as an example of a species that has colonized Australia from mainland Asia through the “Graslandstrasse” formed by southern China. but Verheijen (in litt. but forgot it until Tyto longimembris was discovered. papuensis (New Guinea). MCZ). amauronota (Philippines). Although Amadon’s hesitation is understandable. 1963). the Philippines. Stresemann. following the examination of much additional material in the British Museum. 10: 86 – Neilgherries. so there seems still a possibility that it will be found somewhere in Malaya”. Mees. Zool. Perhaps the species has spread comparatively recently from India to Australia and may still be recorded from some of the intervening areas. Avifauna of Flores. Material. the geographical variation described by these authors would seem to support. Sulawesi (Celebes) and Flores. . Stresemann (1939: 316. Several other grassland birds have at present an interrupted range: continental Asia and Java. Mayr (1944b: 119) accepted this reconstruction as: “clearly indicated”. Paynter. 343 fig. Lit. 22.1991) mentioned that about 1953 the late Father Jan Loeters showed him a place in an extensive plain grown with alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica).vi.. accepting as valid chinensis (southern China). 11) gave T. for example Sumatra”.3 22. 17. Amadon (1959). 103 103 Mees. delicatula) 2( 272. as far as now available. Collector.1) 69 69-70 64 68½. whereas amauronota of the Philippines is considered intermediate in certain respects. The morphological evidence. 1839.4) 110-126 (119. Leiden 80 (2006) 65-74 (70. Madras J. no longer supports Stresemann’s reconstruction of its distributional history. It is rather interesting that he anticipated its occurrence on Flores. 277 & 277 Tyto longimembris longimembris (Jerdon) Strix longimembris Jerdon. Thus. 72 70½ 22-24 (23. pithecops (Taiwan). but added that: “it occurs in southern Indo-China. Father Verheijen found it strange that a Barn Owl would nest on the ground.5) 23 19-22.5 20½. Sci. Taiwan. collected near Wangkung in March 1956. but with the comment: “The race walleri is exceedingly similar to longimembris of India: in fact. remains the only one recorded (cf. 325.. or at least not to contradict. Med. if their ranges were continuous there could be no thought of separating them. again reviewed the subspecies of T.— Verheijen (1. the Australian walleri is stated to be separable “at a glance” from continental longimembris. a. Amadon & Jewett (1946) considered it “probable” that Stresemann was right.— None..— From Flores. the MCZ-specimen. javanica) ( 297 2& 278-289 (?) 297 Australia (T. which he accepted. 1964a).110 17 & 286-321 (305.3 21½ Flores (T.5) 117 108-120 112 103. longimembris.

Soa (RMNH no. &.x. ( with large gonads. Measurements: ( & (?) wing 156 164 164 tail 73 73½ 69 tarsus 27 28. 81023). 8) Watson et al. RMNH no. Zool. The illogical sequence of subspecies: first the Asiatic one from west to east. Otus magicus albiventris (Sharpe) Scops albiventris Sharpe. 85159). 70608). RMNH no.7 × 27. Collector. isolated occurrence on Java (blythi) was overlooked. Allen. 25. 70605).vi. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no.1982.1961. pl. 1. Timalia pileata.0 33.6 × 27.2 32.1 32. Avifauna of Flores.9 31. nos. 4.1955. RMNH no.9638 1. Flores. Nunang..2 × 28. RMNH no. c/2.Mees. 14a): c/1. Verheijen. 70606 RMNH no. Everett. 70604). subflava.— None. xi. Soa (RMNH no.1961.1975. . 2). Material. 4: 527 – Mount Repok and other hills at about 3500 feet in S. inornata with the African P.2 × 28. without data. 2: 78. Stomach contents of no. probably during the last period of low sea level (Late Pleistocene).2 0. c/2. Dicrurus macrocercus). Cereng. &.4 27½ exposed culmen 21 21 19 Otus alfredi (Hartert) Pisorhina alfredi Hartert.9 × 27. 70606).875 0.— Without much confidence I follow current practice of listing this bird under the above trinomial. suggesting a grassland corridor in the not too remote past. (?). makes any trinomial of no more than temporary validity.5 32. Larantoeka (Semmelink.1071 very large blowholes. suggest that this was a last-minute decision.8449 0.6 × 29. Prinia inornata blythi 8). Nunang (Schmutz. 23. Measurements and weights: RMNH no.8 × 29.x. 1. Prinia polychroa. Schmutz. VIII fig. Novit. RMNH cat. 1875. The state of flux in which the classification at the specific and subspecific levels of the genus Otus is at present.— (?) juv. received 1973 (Verheijen. Mus. Material. received 1973 (Verheijen.— Everett (3).5 × 29.ix. (1986a: 142) united P. 550 m (Schmutz. 70605 RMNH no.8 33. no weights taken 0. 3. RMNH no.9621 0. c/2. Leiden 80 (2006) 111 but not Malaya and Sumatra (e. 650 m (Schmutz. Eggs (fig. 70607). 70608 Notes. Zool. Cat. 70604 RMNH no. 85159: Cicadas. Collectors. 70607 32. without data. Birds Brit. c/1. followed by the African ones from north-west to south. Flores.959 RMNH no. 1 – Flores. 1897.1 33. g.— Semmelink. 65313). Med. The interesting.

1) and Marshall & King (in Amadon & Bull. Med. the beak larger”. feathered down to the toes. It was kept in the vicinity of O. I checked the only one available to me (Rasmussen. alfredi. alfredi. but represents the red morph of Otus manadensis on Flores. whereas the plumage differences between O. I am now quite prepared to accept the validity of O. Admittedly there is mention of recent records. evidence indicates that O. as quoted by Rasmussen. Unfortunately. Widodo et al. and concluded that the suggestion first made by Finsch is correct. is not the red morph of albiventris.. but I became aware of this. however. unpublished)”. manadensis albiventris (Finsch did not recognize albiventris. whereas albiventris would have “the tarsi. The authors ascribe .112 Mees. but comparing the measurements provided for alfredi by Hartert. Certainly. Avifauna of Flores. Finsch (1898b: 177.. spilocephalus”. the remainder of the tarsus thickly feathered”. as Hartert omitted to give those of albiventris.. so that the latter is no longer its nearest neighbour and its most obvious relative. alfredi with the thought in mind that it might represent a red morph of albiventris. m. with the request to re-examine the type material of O.— Within a year after its description. As regards its relationships. alfredi …. 1925. but belongs to the O. show O. I see little difference. Subsequent workers have ignored Finsch’s views. and Stresemann (1925: 193) gave as his opinion that Otus alfredi: “gehört sehr wahrscheinlich zum Formenkreis O. On the other hand. 1999). only in 2003.. alfredi is a mountain bird. hence of O. with an altitudinal range different from that of albiventris. as the idea that alfredi might be the red morph of albiventris may not have been considered by these authors. spilocephalus group (Hartert.). Some years ago it struck me that. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes. Addendum. The above considerations led me to write to the American Museum of Natural History. comparative documentation of these clear morphological characters is withheld. The illustrations. Zool.— The paper I had been hoping for appeared already in 1999 (Widodo et al. 1998) and found it unhelpful: “O. and answers all my questions. 183) concluded that Pisorhina alfredi is not a valid species. the morphological differences are very slight. As Dr Marshall was the acknowledged authority on the genus Otus I had no reason to doubt his conclusion. In March 1991. Dr Marshall visited New York to make the comparison. but that does not affect his conclusion). are considerable.. and received a copy. but recently the discussion about the status of O alfredi has been re-opened. (1999: 154):“morphological study clearly demonstrates its distinctness and validity as a species”. albiventris and O. nobody since Finsch appears to have doubted its status as a distinctive species. and with the measurements one can do little. alfredi with a tarsus-feathering similar to that of albiventris.. it deserves mention that the Javanese mountain form angelinae has now been chopped off from spilocephalus. and those to Hartert and Stresemann have no much value in this connection. but too succinct to be of much use. I have already given my opinion on references to unpublished work. It is comprehensive and completely convincing. Peters (1940: 89) and Eck & Busse (1977: 72). Hartert stated of alfredi: “Toes and one-fifth of tarsus bare. Where has that specimen collected in 1995 gone? The references given look unpromising. as described and illustrated by Hartert (1898a: pl. The case is put strongly in del Hoye et al. 1988: pl. spilocephalus by Rensch (1931a: 521). with those of albiventris taken from my material.

Zool.954 1. Paynter. 84864). the type was a young bird (sex doubtful) in down.ix. 12. 650 m (Schmutz.1971. Nunang. RMNH no.1949. ii. 106 mm (Rensch. 70611 40. Zool.1975. Flores.1949. Nunang.5 × 32.0 38. Unfortunately..x. & ad. 65312). Hartert (1897b: 527) gave for males a wing-length of 215-223 mm. 8.xii. Material. 1. Proc.3 41. Eggs (fig. collected by Verheijen (MCZ. but a part of the difference might be sexual. collected by Everett.1975 (photo E. tail 101.. ( juv. Rahong. three males from Flores. Nunang (Schmutz.3 × 32.828 1. 10. 1963).xii. 8.1975.8 × 32.. Measurements and weights: 36. Verheijen/Schmutz. (1863): 487 – Flores. RMNH no. the Everett specimens being unreliably sexed and perhaps females.— Allen (1). 81039). Iris sulphur yellow. Collectors. only two of the above specimens are adult. MCZ)..1 45. 1864. Warren (1966: 271) claimed. Med. without explanation. Nunang (Schmutz.4 One of the eggs of clutch 70611 is indeed conspicuously longer than the others.629 1. Otus silvicola (Wallace) Scops silvicola Wallace. Schmutz). 8). RMNH no.1 × 32. 1931a: 521).Mees..xii. & juv. Rekas (RMNH no. cf. that the type was an “Immature Fig. According to him. and: “the dimensions of the type are very much larger”.— & juv. RMNH no. 22. Otus silvicola. collected by Rensch. Wallace did not mention the sex of the type. 70610 1. 650 m (Schmutz. 70611). Leiden 80 (2006) 113 the small size of the recently-collected male to its being a juvenile. 14b): c/2.6 × 32. and three birds from Flores (fig. with the remiges and rectrices basally still in sheath. tail 108 mm.1969. tail 4½ inches. the others are fledgelings. for which he recorded a winglength of 8½ inches.685 1. 12. Wangkung. c/3. Verheijen (3. 221. with only a few feathers.x. 70610). 1. which is not borne out by the figures of the type provided by Wallace. Everett (3). 900 m (Verheijen. two males from Sumbawa. Lond. RMNH no. one of each sex.1968. .4 RMNH no.ix. RMNH no. Soc. Rekas (RMNH no. 65311). The two males from Sumbawa had wing 215.856 Notes. 81038). 10. Avifauna of Flores. ( ad.— The material is of particular value as hitherto few specimens existed in collections: the type collected by Allen.

bakkamoena”. Mees. To my mind this specimen appears to be just changing into first adult plumage and could be called immature or subadult. a very little-known mountain-bird of Borneo. being a mixture of some adult plumage with dark streaked feathers on the back. The head. With the evidence now available (that the specimen is fully grown). Few authors will follow them in this extreme lumping. certainly not downy young as Hartert suggested . that the general . rather large. Mano (MCZ no. The juvenile birds have wing-lengths of ( 204. Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf. &?.. 22 & 136-151 mm (cf. in the opposite direction. with which it has been held to be conspecific for a long time. Roberts & King (1986) and Marshall & King (in Amadon & Bull.. Perhaps it was merely based on O. but he gave no explanation for this view. wing 223 mm. for a member of the genus Otus.. 1½%). 1 & 183 mm.1958. quite close to the measurements provided by Wallace in the original description. Hekstra (in Burton.5 × 28. brookii also being. 261890). Avifauna of Flores.x.9-1. 11. but I have examined other Otus specimens and the young downy ones. These are really very downy and fluffy. & 176 and 212 mm. according to Marshall. bakkamoena. I was informed by Dr Paynter (in litt. There has been much speculation on the affinities of Otus silvicola. It is interesting to note that there is now another tendency.. 689). lempiji from O. even when fairly well grown.1959. but the notion that silvicola and lempiji are closely related persists (cf. At my request. This adds to the opinion. two or three on the upper breast and 4 or 5 on the abdomen. Mano (MCZ no. towards the recognition of more species. wing 20 ( 135-149 mm. the sex given on the label may be questioned. but also the sexual difference in size.8 mm. About the three MCZ specimens.114 Mees. 1986: 52). 1978: 57). I want to stress not only the huge difference in size: lempiji. I should like to add that Otus asio is also a small species. (?) juv. silvicola (wing 5 ( average 162. Eck & Busse (1977) have forced both silvicola and lempiji (Java. wing 240 mm. 1988) have separated O. I can see no obvious differences between the sexes. 1967: 58). with only a slight sexual difference in size (cf. 1986: 253). Measurements taken from the type by Mr Cowles are. however. like the young birds.. Mr Cowles has carefully examined the type specimen. Ridgway. tail 120 mm. Sumatra and Java.4 mm. about which he informed me as follows (in litt. it is more likely to be a male.1988): “We do not have any other silvicola for comparison. Zool. 1973: 113) claimed it to be closely related to Otus brookii. 261892). The various contradictory statements about the type evidently required looking into. upper back and most of the breast has finely barred plumage similar to the juvenile plumage and is rather loose in construction.1988): &. The original Wallace label is marked & and that is no doubt why Miss Warren copied it into her type-specimens publication”. Bali) as subspecies in an enormously expanded species Otus asio. Mano (MCZ no.09) g in lempiji (cf. 22. The surprising and interesting point is the large size of the female. show it to be much smaller than O.97 (0. In plumage. 20. 12% in silvicola. 261891). I find their arguments convincing. Paynter (1963) thought that: “This endemic owl is probably a giant geographical representative of O. its few published measurements. The silvicola type is rather different in that it is fully feathered and shows an intermediate stage. 27. White & Bruce.vii. very badly worn (captive bird?). Med.ii. which is marginal in lempiji (ca.. 1914. as opposed to ca. Therefore. tail 109 mm. The measurements of the two adult birds in the RMNH collection are given below. on the basis of differences in voice. weight 0. Leiden 80 (2006) female”. Compare also the difference in size of the eggs: average 33. no date. neck.xi.

and must originate from Ussuria.1983. hence the subspecific identity of these birds in doubt. Nunang. accompanied by very succinct diagnoses. Ninox sanghirensis Blasius. Gross-Sanghir (non vidi). the first one. 9: 86 – Manganitu. it is impossible to judge whether the identification was correct. Mess. and by florensis (“differs from japonica by having the upperparts much paler and the underparts not so heavily streaked”.. for which he used the name macroptera.12. The name N. 11 Jan. A little later. bill 28. &. no characters are given to distinguish this subspecies from borneensis). 1864. Birds of this size surpass in measurements birds from Japan. quoted above. as far as I can see. randi. but japonica certainly never reaches a wing-length of 240 mm. all the type material was from the Sanghir Islands. Lond. Deignan (1951) has suggested that the name florensis could be applicable to “Chinese birds”. Paku. but duPont (1971a). 81164). Measurements: ( & wing 214 252 tail 103 120 tarsus 32. Deignan does not provide a single measurement. 1910. Leiden 80 (2006) 115 state of knowledge of the genus Otus does not yet allow theories on interspecific relations to be more than speculation. Anz. 1862. Soc. with the remark: “Not previously recorded from the Philippines”. duPont (1971b: 176) listed the Philippine subspecies. although. BM no. wing 195.. by japonica (“differs from randi by having the upperparts browner and the red-brown in the wings and tail much reduced. This would suggest that both japonica and florensis have the measurements of randi. As no measurements are provided. tail 135. Zool.iii. tail 109. Meise (1941: 355-356) recorded two large specimens (2 &. 14. florensis has not been generally used in recent literature. Material. 1: 187 – Ussuri and Korea (non vidi). Flores (Allen. neither does he discuss Ninox macroptera Blasius.1650.— Allen (1). Notes. and Mindoro is not even mentioned by Blasius (1888: 545-555). (. Schmutz. of which the type-locality was restricted to Mindoro by Peters (1940: 141). 73.1983. wings 239. no measurements are given). Ninox macroptera Blasius. florensis replaces ussuriensis as the valid name for the large birds from eastern Siberia. but he seems to have overlooked florensis. Previously. correctlty placing ussuriensis in its synonymy.— (?). 97115). no measurements given).— These are large birds (see measurements). even with measurements (wing 240. Parkes (1971: 14-15) was not convinced of the applicability of the name . Ninox scutulata ussuriensis Buturlin. and this is probably correct for birds from Manchuria. which is an older name than macroptera. holotype of the subspecies). 1888. no description of any kind is given. Proc. Unfortunately. Braunschw. following Deignan’s suggestion. s. 1888. which also places the measurements of duPont’s florensis.6 35 entire culmen 30 35 Ninox scutulata florensis (Wallace) Athene florensis Wallace. Therefore. 650 m (Schmutz. RMNH no. Avifauna of Flores.5. 241 mm). underparts not as heavily streaked”. macroptera. that Chinese birds should be called by this name.i. tarsus 33). referred three winter birds (October and December) from Luzon to it. Orn. 350 m (Schmutz. (1863): 488 – Flores. RMNH no. Collectors.Mees. Zool. indeed. followed by palawanensis (“differs from randi by being smaller”. 19. from Noesa Penida near Bali. Med. Nr. Ornis 4: 546 – lapsus or alternative name for N.

which. upper Bahau. N. 1962: 74). japonica also occurs in northern Celebes. s. Avifauna of Flores. s. The ( from Boemboelan.1. probably. scutulata). scutulata)... Wien 69: 210 – no locality = Port Essington. northern peninsula of Sulawesi (Celebes). and is a good match for BM 1934.1957. the identity of the specimens he was discussing remains obscure. 1874. s. n. I believed that Pfeffer (1958: 71) had obtained in Flores.8 mm) are. upon reexamination.762). it is not clear whether this comparison has any relevance to the identification of the Philippine specimens.. but the occurrence on islands off the west coast of Peninsular Thailand (Deignan. In spite of this unsatisfactory evidence. Dickinson et al.. Sitzb. s. s. 1965: 618. Measurements: ( & (?) wing 235 235 242 tail 125 113 127 tarsus ca. but only N.1939. and show it to be an individual of the migrant visitor N. Long-Kemuat. The measurements I took from this specimen (wing 212. Med. hence of florensis. naturally enough. japonica. N. The region of Chefoo/Wei Hai Wei is a well-known staging post for migrants across the Yellow Sea. s.8 ca. too large for borneensis (in which the wing-length does not exceed 200 mm).7 14. had a wing-length of 238 mm and therefore is definitely florensis.iii. florensis in the avifauna of the Philippines. Wiss. N. but a bird collected on 12 May at Wei Hai Wei would almost certainly have been a migrant from further north. was pointed out by Van Marle (1940b: 123. reported by Ripley (1941a: 354. NE Shantung. tarsus 26.1549 taken at Wei Hai Wei. culmen from skull 25.1. In reply to my request for the loan of the specimen of Ninox scutulata. florensis seems to reach the Lesser Sunda Islands. On this basis. 1963: 63) is unlikely and is presumably based on misidentification. s. n. s. Zool. As still no measurements are given. to be referable to the pale. n. The wing-length of a carcass picked up on Ashmore Reef was recorded as only 226 mm (Schodde & van Tets. China on 12 May 1911. Vaurie. ussuriensis). but is still within the range of variation of birds from Ussuria (cf. (1991: 229) included the correct name for the northern Chinese population”. The conclusion about the synonymy is correct. a winter visitor. borneensis.116 Mees. s. and provides no proof that the subspecies florensis breeds in China proper (cf. 1960. but nevertheless also used it: “I believe it to be highly likely that many Philippine specimens that have been identified in the past as japonica will prove. 25. although there are no records.. As Parkes also failed to give measurements. therefore thought to have precedence over ussuriensis. however. florensis ought to occur in the Philippines as a passage migrant and.x.. grayish race called florensis by Deignan”. One would expect the winter range to extend westward to at least eastern Java and Borneo. s. with added a note “The type of florensis. Akad. s. Leiden 80 (2006) florensis in the sense in which it was used by Deignan and duPont. florensis. 30 29. LeFevre. I received one collected by him in Borneo (&. MHNP no. 1981). the resident subspecies. tail 109.5 Caprimulgus macrurus schlegelii Meyer [Caprimulgus] Schlegelii Meyer.5 culmen from skull 25 25 25 culmen from cere 14 14.has been compared with northern birds likely to be on their breeding grounds. 28. That the subspecies N. . This is the bird recorded by Pfeffer (1960: 201) under the name of N.

and his reply is that he sees no reason to question their identification (as C. (.4668 0. 70631).3770 large hole 0.— (.— The material on which Mayr (1944a: 152) based the subspecies undulatus was not rich: 2 ( and 3 & from Sumbawa and Flores. BM no.1896.3 28. Nat.1974.4217 0. 85271).ix. Nisar. the ground colour is a little colder. Léwé (RMNH no. Djinggor (Verheijen. 70633 Notes.1959. macrurus in a general way.1957. 50 m (Schmutz.1975. Flores.Mees. Rensch (5). tending towards olive-grey rather than buffy. 10.ix. 85272). listed by Hartert (1898a: 42). about this possibility.5 × RMNH no.1 × 21. S.8 26.1956. Mano (RMNH no. &. c/1.1888. 83: 152 – Flores.3 27.ix.7 × 20. RMNH no.9 28.6 × 20. Léwé (RMNH no.6 26. Linn.0 × 19. (Everett. 23. 85270). c/1.4460 0.4.4216 0. to which I refer for further particulars.— The above material was recorded in a paper by Mees (1977a: 31. 16. 25. b.3509 0. Everett. Reo (Weber.2 26. 70630). I asked Mr Walters.9 × 20. 550 m (Schmutz.7 × 21. 28. RMNH cat.xi.5. 23.9 × 20.1957. 75297). &. Caprimulgus affinis affinis Horsfield Caprimulgus affinis Horsfield.4235 0. 22. 36. Mano (RMNH no. 70627 RMNH no.5 0.5 26. 70629). 3300 ft. Material. manillensis (previously known as C. skeleton.8 29. 4.4427 0. Lond. Verheijen/Schmutz. the markings are darker and usually more sharply defined.7 27. RMNH no.3642 RMNH no.8 × 20. Desoe. 70624). Eggs: c/2. had been misidentified and were actually referable to C. van Oort.x.1972. he chose the nesting & from Flores. 70623 RMNH no. 70632). Mano (RMNH no. (. 11. 70627).2 29. The subspecies undulatus was described as . 70633). Léwé (RMNH no. c/2. Trans.5076 0.xi. As type. 70629 RMNH no. 70628 29. 70628). Nisar.1955. with type-locality Java. 17. 70631 RMNH no. 70626). Léwé (RMNH no. 70632 RMNH no. x. c/2.36).1957. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Joneng (Schmutz. but average a trifle smaller. Soc. affinis griseatus. Zool. 70625). Léwé (RMNH no.1957. Med.7 29. Egg: c/1. 1907: 156).4 × 20. c/2. macrurus manillensis) from Cape Engano. 47). Luzon. Orong. 12. illustrated by Mees (1985: fig.5 × 19.xi.— Weber.v. 13: 142 – Java. 70625 RMNH no.3980 0.viii.xi.1959. who selected these eggs for illustration.1975.3 27. 1 and 2).4869 0.1957. Avifauna of Flores. 29.8 × 19.4782 0.— (?). This and the other eggs of the species are creamy to pale pinkish buff.ix. Hist. 7 nos.5 × 19. 2. 21. Léwé (RMNH no.ix.ix.4308 0.4420 0. (1991: 234) suggested that eggs of C. 250 m (Schmutz.4461 0.7 × 20. c/1.5 28. 15. Collectors. Djinggor (RMNH no.x. c/1. Dickinson et al. Mus. Bull. Caprimulgus affinis undulatus Mayr. RMNH no.3 × 20. Amer.2 29. 70626 RMNH no.1956. c/3. The subspecies schlegelii is only poorly differentiated from the nominate race. 70630 RMNH no.6 28. c/1. manillensis). Notes. 1821. Leiden 80 (2006) 117 Material. RMNH no. 1944.2 × 20. cf. The eggs resemble those of C. 19. clouded with poorly-defined light grey and brownish markings. 70623). 98.1959.

Med. 97. with even the wing specula tinged very pale brown. c. more evenly colored. 170) surpass in wing-length specimens from all other localities. There is a misconception here. it is just not possible to base subspecies on samples of one or two specimens. 97. Two specimens from Kisar. The large size of Borneo birds was first noted by Mayr (1944a: 152) according to whom: “The large size of two of the three specimens is probably due to altitudinal variation. it was stated to differ by being: “much lighter. such as the visible extent of barring of the underparts. 88. leg. but larger than birds from Java. less brownish-tinged. 2) distribution map. a subspecies described on the basis of a single male from Parigi. the vermiculations on the back finer and the tail-bars above narrower” (Riley. BM). Three of the nine birds from Borneo (( 171. almost like griseatus! The Lombok series illustrates well the amount of individual variation existing even on a smallish island: there is not only variation in the depth of the cinnamon colour. only a single old specimen could be examined ((. Everett. Schädler. and hardly above sea-level. and C. BM nos. East Timor. My examination of a larger material from Java and the Lesser Sunda Islands (RMNH. one individual ((. which showed the same characters as the type.76.1897. The series from Java and Sumatra are long enough to make it .10. on the other hand. but tending to be lighter. This brings me to C.44) is very pale. For notes on Raven’s itinerary. a. breast and belly are more closely barred and the barring extends farther down along the flanks”. from Timor. ex Rolle. a. vi. Sulawesi (Celebes).1897. Hence it is with confidence that I unite undulatus with nominate affinis. Kühn’s work. 1861. BM no. 17 and 18) are characterized by rather pale. timorensis. nos. I doubt the validity of propinquus. who evidently underestimated the amount of normal individual variation.11. 16).11. for Tanggaroeng (recte: Tenggarong) is in the delta region of the Mahakkam. RMNH cat. although I must admit to having little confidence in it. the skins show the unmistakable. Specimens from Sumatra average smaller than specimens from Borneo. Raven)”. both above and below. and only the fact that Mayr examined two additional specimens from the same area (Tawaya). Avifauna of Flores.1896. but also in the amount of black on the pileum. failed to support any of the characters claimed by Mayr. Borneo 1).xii. All this confirms me in the opinion that in birds with this kind of complicated colour pattern.1. a. kasuidari Hachisuka from Sawu (type locality) and Sumba. A bird from Alor (v. Compared with four specimens of the same sex of nominate affinis (Java 3. Differences in method of preparation also affect some characters. and more finely vermiculated. Although there is no collector’s name on the labels. rather thin shape characteristic of H. Mayr (l. They were collected at Tanggaroeng. 1918). Neither subspecies is satisfactory: the three specimens from Sawu examined by me (viii. 125. as has been done in the past. leg. is over average brown. see Deignan (1960). has made me retain it for the moment.) recognized two additional subspecies from the Lesser Sunda Islands: C. has to be corrected. 126) fit into the nominate race.3. In the Lombok series. leg. so that I prefer not to give a definite opinion on the validity of timorensis.1. Junge (1954: 318) was unable to name the collector of Rolle’s small Alor collection. Mahakkam River (H. newly described from Timor. Leiden 80 (2006) being: “Similar to affinis in the coloration of the upper parts. RMNH cat. propinquus. The bulge inland to the headwaters of the Mahakam.1896.135). shown in Mayr’s (1944a: fig. and the buffy spots on the chest and wing-coverts are more numerous and pronounced and much lighter. to the East of Timor (8 and 25. underparts (compared with the average affinis). only some 25 km west of Samarinda. no. & 169. leg.118 Mees. Wallace. Zool. BM no. Everett.

5) 93-96 94. The size-gap between stictomus and griseatus is considerable. nomen novum.5) 158-166 (161. however. Later by Rensch (1931a: 537) and Mayr (1944a: 153). is that their calls are said to be identical (cf.1) 86-94 (90. The opinion that C. are substantiva. but I doubt that these characters prove a close relationship with griseatus.5) 86-98 (92. clearly belongs to the monticolus group. stictomus. Java and the Lesser Sunda Islands. It is my feeling that Mayr has put the case too strongly: Philippine griseatus and mindanensis (the validity of mindanensis requires confirmation.0) 164-171 (166.7) 86-95 (91. 9) . 1915). 2) reconstruction of its history of expansion.0) tail 91-97 (94. monticolus and C. Zool. it would have required.2) 156-161 (159. in measurements. monticolus and monticola are different words. 94. a. The latter supported this with the statement that: “The two ‘species’ affinis and monticola [sic] are perfectly connected by the subspecies griseatus (Luzon) and stictomus (Taiwan)”. Therefore. 1940. For one thing. certainly the morphological evidence provided by the Taiwanese and the Philippine forms. I have nevertheless reluctantly accepted that C.9) 155-163 (159.3) 160-170 (165. they agree with affinis (see table). in the course of this colonisation. Avifauna of Flores. and subsequently from grey to brown again. 93 84-95 (91. Peters (1940: 212-213) and Etchécopar & Hüe (1978: 498) preferred to keep the two as separate species.2) 91-98 (94. Med. is real and not due to inadequate sampling. 9) Measurements: Sumatra (C. does not strongly support it. first to have changed from brown to grey.Mees. and seems to average slightly smaller. less brown: the upper parts. 1990: 191). Sibley & Monroe. and there was no need for him to rename that form. monticolus of the Asiatic mainland is conspecific with C.0) 156-166 (161. through Taiwan and the Philippines to Celebes. Leiden 80 (2006) 119 likely that the difference. is a synonym of Caprimulgus cayensis monticola (Chapman. including the head are mottly grey. affinis) ( & Borneo ( & Java ( & Bali ( & n 11 10 3 6 21 14 5 3 wing 157-168 (163.0) 154-167 (160. Peters (1940: 201) did not create secondary homonymy whnen he transferred Stenopsis cayensis monticola to the genus Caprimulgus.8) 91. the underparts are much paler brown. The Taiwanese subspecies. from the Asiatic mainland. admittedly it is greyer than the very richly-coloured mainland birds. affinis. in spite of the unconvincing morphological evidence. The reason why. affinis are conspecific. slight as it is. and perforce also –colus. I much doubt Mayr’s (1944a: fig. not adjectiva. who did not agree. it is at best only slightly differentiated from griseatus) differ conspicuously from typical affinis by being much greyer.5 As there is now general agreement that names ending in –cola. was apparently first expressed by Stresemann in a letter to Rothschild (1927). it has similar tail-markings. Caprimulgus cayensis apertus Peters.

1981.2) & 1 167 91 Mindanao (C.0990 The nest is of the best edible quality. 96 Alor & 1 156 87 Sawu ( 1 164 101 & 2 163.8) Macao (C. fuciphaga by White & Bruce (1986: 266). he (Rensch. 1931 (December). WestFlores. a. dull white. Med.8) & 5 152-165 88-94 (158. Leiden 80 (2006) 158-160 90-96½ (159. 85 Northern Philippines: Luzon. a few pages earlier in the same publication. Rensch claims: “Von diesem Rassenkreise war bisher noch kein Vertreter von den Kleinen Sunda-Inseln bekannt”. 168 95. 1914b: 6).— de Jong (1). Mus.5) (113.0) Sumbawa ( 1 163 92 Flores ( 2 162. Stresemann. another of the Lesser Sunda Islands (cf. Material. 85325). 1931 (September). Mitt. a. Verheijen. Collocalia francica dammermani Rensch. 9.— In his description of C.3) (93. Vet.— (.1) (107. 198 118. thus supporting the identification. 80906). and even the most recent classification can by no means be called definitive.4 0. Mindoro. Borong (Verheijen. 96 & 2 160. amoyensis) & 1 199 123 Southern China (C. 165 90. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 80906 Notes. stictomus) ( 11 184-197 105-121 (191. Eggs: c/2 with nest. f. 1812. south coast Todo (RMNH no. 33: 153 – Java (reference not verified). 19. 116 Collocalia fuciphaga fuciphaga (Thunberg) Hirundo Fuciphaga Thunberg. and although their opinion is poorly documented. nya Handl.5 × 13. griseatus) ( 5 160-168 87-94 (163. 165 92. Rensch (1931a: . Both dammermani and micans are regarded as synonyms of nominate C. The eggs are long-oval.2) (91.1971. 94 Timor ( 1 157 91 Kisar & 2 152. Catanderanes (C. a.6) (91. f. dammermani.xi.6 × 13. MCZ). Treubia 13: 396 – Mboera. Kongl. 1931b: 377) records C. a.-Akad. yet. About few genera of birds there has been so much confusion as about Collocalia. Maro-Kama.120 Lombok ( 6 Mees. f. Berlin 17: 541 – Mboera. amoyensis) ( 2 191. RMNH no. 24. West-Flores. Zool. Collocalia francica dammermani Rensch. Verheijen (1. mindanensis) ( 1 166 89 & 1 157 81 Taiwan (C. 156 89.iii. Collectors.2 0. I follow them for the moment.6) & 9 175-192 99-119 (184.0988 20. a. Avifauna of Flores. with little or no extraneous matter. micans from Sumba! The type-locality of micans is Sawu. Primary moult. Zool.

there must be on Lombok a hitherto unidentified species of Collocalia. Zool. Ruteng (Verheijen.0522 Notes. toes and nails blackish. collected in the months March (2). 59905 has noted on its label.— RMNH no. Salomonsen (1983: 29) described C. More recently. 15.8 × 10.— Rensch (4).0545 0. Leiden 80 (2006) 121 539) refers specimens from Lombok. tarsus blackish flesh colour. December is not mentioned as a breeding-month by Verheijen (1964). Rensch (1931a: 538) commented: “Ich kann diese unlängst beschriebene Rasse durchaus bestätigen: der blaue und violette Schiller der Oberseite und der Schwingen weicht stark von dem grünen Schiller der östlich und westlich anschliessenden Rassen ab und ist nur bei jungen Exemplaren weniger deutlich (bläulichgrün)”. Iris light brown. April (2).9 16. 1925. 600 m (Schmutz.1 17. Puntu. in not regarding C. that it was captured on a nest with eggs. MCZ). Verheijen/Schmutz. and three insufficiently dated. July (1). salangana. Mus. salangana as conspecific with C.0516 0. Sumbawa. RMNH no. Eggs: 15 clutches of c/1 (6 ×) and c/2 (9 ×). Collectors.5 16. which is according to current opinion the only producer of edible nests in this region. Zool. Ntéwéng (Mano). Méngé. Verheijen (5. basally in sheath. but it is quite clear that Rensch only discussed the three specimens from his own collection. Obviously. 70657-70662. 81458). fuciphaga.2 × 10. November (1). 70668 RMNH no. Measurements: ( wing 114 tail 48 tarsus 9 entire culmen 7. as the bird is in the last stage of primary-moult. Nunang. June (2).8 0. nicht dunkel wie bei linchi. The eggs are long-oval. This is interesting. Dano. 1931a: 540) has twice described his visit to the cave where these specimens were found. fuciphaga. but according to White & Bruce (1986: 266) this is an error.1968.Mees. with a query. e. sumbawae as being: “Like nominate esculenta. September (1). the 1st (outer) primary on both sides being short. vanikorensis). also a sample of three eggs without data. White & Bruce (1986: 265) are confused about the specimens discussed by Rensch. neglecta und linchi.0514 0. RMNH no. a species common in Java (I follow Salomonsen. and speculate that he had examined material collected by Everett.— (. Madjung. to micans. 1983: 86. Stresemann (1925) diagnosed the subspecies sumbawae in the following words: “durch den lebhaft violettblauen statt grünen Glanz der Oberseite und der Flügel stark abweichend von C. Flügel 94 mm”. from Liang Bitu. Rensch (1930: 49-51. and several clutches without locality (RMNH nos. May (2). Berlin 12: 189 – Tambora 3000’.5 × 11. bill black.1969. 70669 16. e. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. Innenfahne der Steuerfedern an der Basis weiss. August (2). but gloss of upper-parts duller and not . and a sample of six eggs without data.7 exposed culmen 4 Collocalia esculenta sumbawae Stresemann Collocalia esculenta sumbawae Stresemann. Material. As the nests were not “edible”. the birds can not be C. 9. Med. most likely it is C. which is not C. 59905).xii.5 × 10. Léwé. 70662a). white without markings. (?) nestling. Avifauna of Flores.

Dickinson. linchi. like birds from the North Moluccas. refers to a paper by me (Mees. esculenta lies with these western forms (cf.”. There is also a large distributional gap between the eastern populations of C. In several publications. esculenta had to be split by this character. When a man of the calibre of Salomonsen reads in my paper the opposite of what I intended it to mean. linchi is not conspecific with C. the western populations of C. I note that Somadikarta himself said of this: “I have not yet decided upon the relationship between the esculenta taxa without tail spots to the west and north of Stresemann’s line and those with tail spots to the east and south”. on the other hand. esculenta. esculenta before Ripley separated C. or C. but I cannot find that he has published arguments. and have a naked hind-toe. and the western populations included by Somadikarta into this species. What I was trying to point out was that. only one conclusion is possible. Java. the whole of New Guinea). are glossy green. Zool. nubila (Celebes. like C. the few specimens available to me conform to this. the Moluccas. consulted Somadikarta’s (1986) paper. although Salomonsen examined at least partly the same specimens previously studied by Stresemann and Rensch.122 Mees. From birds of Java and Bali (C. marginata. and lacking white basal spots to the rectrices. In his discussion of nominate C. esculenta. esculenta. Just the same. esculenta in Sumatra. the name of which would apparently be Collocalia cyanoptila. but it is also strongly dependent on the state of the plumage. if the relationship of the Philippine forms currently included in C. sumbawae. 1965: 172) of which he finds some of the conclusions “quite incomprehensible”. e. esculenta.. the latter inhabiting Sumatra. esculenta to one species. until 1986. the type-locality of nominate esculenta. perhaps with a slight admixture of bluish on the primaries and rectrices. but darker blue. e. birds from the North and the South Moluccas . neglecta seems to be a duller subspecies (cf. If this is accepted. would be glossy blue. there remain some unexplained facts. and none from other parts of the range ascribed to sumbawae. for the identification of these specimens. I am obviously not in a good position to discuss the characters and variation of the subspecies. Somadikarta has hinted that C. C. Mayr. linchi and C. for not only may its colour depend on the angle under which it is viewed. but that the material available to me from Ambon in the South Moluccas. Bali and Lombok. linchi is diagnosed as being glossy green. e. within the large range ascribed to nominate C. it is worth observing that the specimen is mainly glossy green. I find it illogical that the more eastern populations of C. was also dark. linchi and C. Med. Avifauna of Flores. e. Leiden 80 (2006) greenish-blue. I have. e. Still. esculenta and C. but still essentially glossy green. linchi) it differs by the latter being a duller oil-green. so that if C. C. It might be more logical to treat these western forms as constituting a distinct species. Aru Islands. With only one adult bird from Flores. Note that violet has been eliminated from the spectrum. For this I accept the full blame.. Salomonsen (1983: 34-35). 1989). when he described sympatric occurrence of C. Gloss as a subspecific character must be treated with the utmost caution. and have a feather tuft on the hind-toe. esculenta. thus conforming to Ripley’s diagnosis. and having a naked hind-toe. immediately adjacent to C. North Moluccan birds actually are darker on the underparts than specimens from New Guinea and the Aru Islands. He has specifically separated C. gives his paper a great value. and that is that I have completely failed in writing comprehensible prose. The large amount of material studied by him. Although it is not directly relevant. linchi. 1944a: 153). it becomes once more possible to unite C.

which was the starting point of the discussion (Mees. 3%) constitutes in its support. Mees. Suppl. Collector. with an almost complete overlap in measurements. on its migration from north-eastern Asia to Australia and back.— None. Verheijen (1961) saw a bird which he identified as “Apus pacificus (or A. confirm the above picture (Andrew. Misool. The distribution shown in fig. 13%). Waigeu. as far as it goes. It remains my opinion. if the difference was considered sufficient for expression in nomenclature. Leiden 80 (2006) 123 would remain together as nominate esculenta. in March and September 1985. Observations from Timor. whereas the birds with whiter underparts from the Aru Islands and New Guinea. it is therefore unintentionally misleading when Salomonsen describes moluccarum as a “very ill-defined form”. when on board of the .— de Jong (1). l. should not be interpreted as meaning that it is of rare occurrence.: lviii – Nova Hollandia. for example in the recognition of Hemiprocne mystacea confirmata.6 mm (ca. that the considerable individual variation (ca. waigeuensis. as it does in Sumatra and Java (cf. 18. Notes. is zoogeographically impossible.c. contrary to Salomonsen. Salawati).x. constitutes a more important argument against recognition of confirmata. It is perhaps well to point out that the name moluccarum antedates the names aenigma. 1964b: 11-12). Material. There are other aspects of swift classification in which Salomonsen and I do not see eye to eye.— The fact that a single bird from Flores (&. Apus pacificus pacificus (Latham) [Hirundo] pacifica Latham. Avifauna of Flores. Ind. It is perhaps worth recording that on 24. Orn. granti. My comment on strange contradictions in Mayr’s (1937) “thorough study” and “excellent review” (Salomonsen.1929.c. It should pass over the islands twice a year. but he did not heed my conclusions. whether one wants to recognize in nomenclature an average difference. steini and granti. Holmes. 1801. with on the New Guinea mainland opposite Salawati a different subspecies. but I regret that Salomonsen (1983: 11) ignored the specimen from southern New Guinea with a wing-length of only 212 mm. 1982a: 90). for it is the only name of the several just listed that may survive future revision. would have to be known as C.3) mm. Salomonsen (l.Mees. 87) appears to have been too subtle for him. 26 for waigeuensis (North Moluccas. Mboera) remains the only specimen record of this species from the Lesser Sunda Islands.c.: 84. it should be kept in mind that he did not examine a single specimen from either the North or the South Moluccas. for the larger subspecies mystacea a wing-length of 212-239 (226. 1977. When consulting the distributional map presented by Salomonsen (l.: fig. and may also overwinter in small numbers. so that his inclusion of the North Moluccas into the range of the subspecies waigeuenisis is no more than a guess. 1986).ix. This gave in the small series measured by me for the smaller subspecies confirmata a wing-length of 208-236 (220. heinrichi.9) mm. hypoleuca. e. than the average difference of 6. In the case of Collocalia vanikorensis. 26).: 89) cited me correctly. Med.1984. Zool. affinis)” on his visit to Palué. It is mainly a matter of subjective judgement.

affinis. like floresiana. 1892.ix. Rensch (3). Everett (2). RMNH no.8 37. Cat. Weber (1. a view of several busily-attended nests of A. 12. As not all subsequent authors are aware of this (cf. In a previous publication I pointed out that there is no proof of the occurrence of this species (the subspecies ispidoides) on the western Papuan islands Misool and Salawati (cf. Alcedo atthis floresiana Sharpe Alcedo floresiana Sharpe. and in White & Bruce. Leiden 80 (2006) RV Tyro. In early October 1984. The number of records from Sulawesi (Celebes) is also limited. de Jong (1). Forshaw. Schmutz. 97138).9 32 34 Ceyx rufidorsa Strickland Ceyx rufidorsa Strickland.3 38 culmen from nostril 33. affinis nesting in the fort of Balangnippa. Evidently. the species is a wellestablished resident. 1967: 281. 14. the Moluccas. van Blom had found A. Collectors.124 Mees. Zool. and proves breeding in southern Celebes at least some forty years earlier than the record listed by White & Bruce. 20. Rand & Gilliard. Zool. Forshaw (1983: 69. where it is known from the eastern part only.1969. RMNH no. 120°38’563E. that was based on observations made in 1978 by Escott & Holmes (1980). White (1976. Soc.2 entire culmen 44. 17: 140. 1965: 198). but apparently he overlooked. Look (Schmutz. I observed two individuals of A. like them. is deep blue. and about 110 km north of western Flores. Notes. when staying in Makassar for a few days. A. This seems definite enough. Birds Brit.. a. (. Pratt & Zimmerman. placed under the edge of the roof of a nearby tall house.8 49 43 exposed culmen 37. but.— Allen (at least 4). . 81403). Beehler. the statement in the same place. Avifauna of Flores.— &.ix. west coast (Schmutz. etc. Measurements: ( ( & wing 72 72 71 tail 31 30½ 30 tarsus 10½ 11 9. Look river.x. there are traces of brown). Proc. from my hotel room.— This is a good subspecies. Med. 14 (1846): 99 – Malacca. I had. 1847.1971. coast (Schmutz. 1983: 70. that Dr J.1969. It is confined to the Lesser Sunda Islands. 1986: 268) suggested that these observations concerned A. ispidoides. An interesting question is: why this should be so. RMNH no. Mees. but has the sides of the head blue (sometimes. I repeat it here.R. Nggoer. pacificus rather high over the ship in the position 7°15’903S. 97124). 151 – Flores. Mus. specimen not traced). with brown cheeks. (. Lond. Material. 1948: 176) of several Apus affinis at Makassar. Sindjai (Bonthain). 1986: 144). which is a little south of Djampea. map) has in addition given the species a much too generous range in mainland New Guinea. the resident subspecies of Sulawesi (Celebes). pacificus. In this connection I want to discuss a record by Maurenbrecher (in Coomans de Ruiter & Maurenbrecher. at least he ignored. deeper blue than the migrant subspecies from the northern hemisphere.

36 and text – Flores. Notes. but the only subspecies with which Sharpe compared floresiana. RMNH nos. The bird in question. &.1972. Pelargopsis capensis floresiana Sharpe Pelargopsis floresiana Sharpe. Wallace”.1968. 1150 m (Verheijen. now known as P. sasak from floresiana: “door het gemis aan groen. rufidorsa jungei Ripley from Simalur. Iris chocolate brown. become a matter of purely subjective personal preference. Avifauna of Flores. 10) By the absence of green.— It is interesting that this species has penetrated as far east as Sumba. 85277). 1987) treat C. 1870 (1 April). 1986: 486). R. Verheijen/Schmutz.— Specimen no. cannot be correct. &. The distributional maps published by Forshaw (1983: 128) and Ripley & Beehler (1987) must be corrected in this respect. 7.1972. so that. RMNH cat. 85277 crashed through a window pane at the. cf. 1. Sharpe. RMNH no. Pelargopsis floresiana Sharpe. Zool. Material. thus defined. 1898a: 42). Subsequently Vorderman (1895b) distinguished his P. Zool. capensis. evidently they no longer recognize C. they say also that the species. for this species. White & Bruce. rufidorsa as a separate species. Alcedinidae (pt. no. Proc. cf.viii. 1892: 180). with which the feathers of the pileum of floresiana are strongly washed.viii. Notes. 26). 65314). Everett. cf.: 62. Colfs (1). Flores (Colfs. 81069). gurial is the subspecies from continental India. 12. Soc. gurial was that it shows “the crown of the head strongly washed with green”.Mees. de Jong (2). (. Collected by A. the form the most remote from Flores of the whole conglomerate. c. erithaca are to be regarded as conspecific has. still listed by Van Marle & Voous (1988: 129). Lond. on a syntype of Pelargopsis floresiana: “Flores. Med. Sharpe. 1869. Hartert. viii): pl. 1892: 104). waarmede de kopvederen van floresiana sterk bewassen zijn”910). . The statement by Warren (1966: 99). see Zoological Record for 1870: 41).— Allen (at least 2.— (?). The question as to whether C.— Allen (at least 5. Material. The status of the subspecies floresiana requires discussion. the main character by which this subspecies could be distinguished from P. surprising altitude of 1150 m. 200 m (Schmutz. Sharpe’s P. after more than forty years of investigation and discussion. Collectors. cf.vii. Monogr. Ruteng.— &. 1870 (June). Leiden 80 (2006) 125 Collectors. RMNH no. rufidorsa and C. The description of Pelargopsis floresiana in the Monograph of the Alcedinidae was published at least two months earlier than that in the “Proceedings”. Everett (“a fine series from the lower country”. Waé Mulu. 80855. Bara-Latji. like the other syntypes referred to. According to Sharpe (1892). where evidently it is not rare (there are seven specimens in Sutter’s collection. 1880. which is usually cited as the original description (for the date of publication of Part viii of the Monograph. 68 – Flores. shows no geographical variation worthy of nomenclatural separation. must have been collected by Allen in 1862. The latest revisers (Ripley & Beehler. 700 m (Verheijen.

BénténgDjawa (Verheijen.v. either from Java or Flores. RMNH no. (. 5. Avifauna of Flores. Note that Hartert calls floresiana an interesting form. he did not venture a definite conclusion. and also the rump-patch somewhat deeper and purer blue. &. x. 75. Rensch (1). neither are the underparts conspicuously pale. I still feel dubious about the validity of floresiana.ix. Groot Bastaard (ten Kate. no. de Jong (2). 61512). 83. which had become lost in recent years. (. Tentatively. RMNH no. Martens. and therefore his description of floresiana was based on Sharpe (1870. 85266). 97 89 entire culmen 80 81. Allen. 71½ 74 culmen from nostril 63 65. RMNH . Colfs. This looks much like a repetition of a character originally given by Sharpe. 124). that the former would have “the brownish cap and sides of the head washed with dull green”. RMNH no. MCZ). Material. and I cannot confirm it. compared with javana. 1862. Ruteng (Verheijen. Enlum. Verheijen/Schmutz.: 49 – no locality. Pfeffer (2). no. RMNH cat. Forshaw (1983: 145) gave as only character to separate floresiana from javana. Specimens from Lombok cannot be separated from typical floresiana. Oberholser (1909) had no material. (. (?). This is mainly due to the large individual variation.x. Only Hoogerwerf (1963d: 150). 1783. RMNH no. 650 m (Schmutz.1888. 2. but = Bouro (Buru). no. Leiden 80 (2006) The character was dismissed by Hartert (1898a: 43) in the following words: “A fine series of this interesting form from South Flores. RMNH no.ix. 116). Ru’a.— Semmelink.ix. less greenish blue. Sikka (Weber. (?). 78 104 81 exposed culmen 70 74. 69). but provides no evidence that he has compared it with any other subspecies. although it is not clear where he got the statement about paler ochraceous lower parts. Zool.1955. ex coll. Ruteng (Verheijen. Measurements: Flores ( 3& Bali ( wing 147 155. Med. RMNH no.1968. expressed doubt about the validity of floresiana. RMNH cat. Ruteng (Verheijen.— (?). mantle and tail. as this is not a character mentioned by Sharpe. 126). from the references to Buffon and Latham. White (in White & Bruce. Table Pl. 10122) shows no trace of green on the cap either. Weber. owing to his limited material. (. Ruteng (Verheijen. nos. Flores (Colfs.x.1891. Vorderman’s sasak is only an immature specimen. as the characters given by him are found in immature birds before me”. 156 160 146 tail 94 90+. 2 (?). 27.1971. Verheijen (4. I would diagnose floresiana (as differentiated from javana) as follows: cap on average darker. 1. 26948). Sody.126 Mees. A specimen from Bali (RMNH no. 1892). 115. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 1862. 67.1958.1971. 65325). 1880. Flores (Allen. 61513). although. 1/3. With a much larger material than Hoogerwerf had. 1986: 274) repeated the greenish wash and resurrected the character of the pale shade of the ochraceous underside. Collectors. 14. 63½ 66 Halcyon chloris chloris (Boddaert) Alcedo Chloris Boddaert. Tendo. 59808). xii. RMNH cat. Nunang. Stresemann (1913b: 338) had a specimen from Bali which he referred without explanation to floresiana. ten Kate. (?).1970. RMNH cat. None of the four specimens from Flores examined by me has a greenish wash on the head. perhaps the only author to have personally compared specimens from Flores (2) with specimens from Java (4). (?).

3.5315 0.1958. Med. Mano (RMNH no. 16 15. Trans. RMNH no. 81161. 1986: 278).ix. 70637).— Everett (3).7 × 26. RMNH no. 70638).1959. &. 5.9 × 25. 2 &. beach (Schmutz.3 31. 70640).6492 0. 70635 28.1955.— Rensch (1931a: 533) observed of this species: “Ein australischer Zugvogel. West Flores (Verheijen.1 × 23.xi. c/1. 650 m (Schmutz.i.ix. Langkas. Material. Nisar. RMNH no. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. only moderately glossy. Nisar (Schmutz. Linn. 81073. Leiden 80 (2006) 127 no. c/4. Potjong (RMNH no. variously named cyanescens.v. Lond.6 × 25. 85268).1957. 81160). sancta in its winter quarters is exceptional. collected on Ambon in January (cf. 2. 85267).5269 0.5 × 24.1971.x.5917 0. 70635). sancta is listed.536 0. (. Puntu (RMNH no.5221 RMNH no. Collectors. The eggs are white. &.7 29. Eggs (fig. 15: 206 – New Holland. not dated. c/3. 27.7 × 23. RMNH no. laubmanniana and palmeri. c/4. Montjok (RMNH no. 116 111 tail 63½. . 70642).— &.8 29. (?) [= (].5 30. Nunang. 1827.1971.x. de Jong (2). RMNH no. Bénténg Djawa.5 × 24. 15.1956.2 × 23. Tulang. Soc. Ruteng (RMNH no. (. 20.1959. 750 m (Verheijen. The material listed here increases the vertical range considerably. c/4.x.4983 0. 61482).1956.1982.1955. 81075).9 30. c/4. are really different from the nominate form. 14c): c/4. Nunang.6057 0. 42 39 Halcyon sancta sancta Vigors & Horsfield [Halcyon] Sanctus Vigors & Horsfield. c/2. Zool. 1982a: 93). Poéng (RMNH no. 70636).6529 0.1 × 25.4 × 26.4.8 culmen from skull 47. 3.8 × 24. Verheijen/Schmutz.ix. 70641).1957.9 0. 16.1 × 25.xi.3 29. Potjong (RMNH no. 70 66 tarsus 16. There is no evidence to support White’s speculation that the species might occasionally remain and breed in the Lesser Sunda Islands (White & Bruce. 12.3 30. 65326). Avifauna of Flores.6 30.ix. 14. The specimen was misidentified and is H.— It remains to be seen whether birds from Java and Sumatra. Rensch (7). 10.5695 0. 70641 Notes. I take this opportunity to correct an error in a previous paper where a specimen of H. 70639).Mees.1983.5961 0. Mano (RMNH no. Mees. chloris! The removal of this record underlines that “oversummering” of H.1982. 27.4 30. RMNH nos. Notes. 70637 RMNH no. 650 m (Schmutz. (.4898 0. 53 48. to over 1000 m (Ruteng).2.0 29. 85269).x. Kentjo (RMNH no. 11. Measurements: 2( & wing 106. 81074).0 31. x.7 culmen from nostril 38. der sich während der Trockenzeit in grosser Anzahl an den Küsten – besonders in der Mangrovezone – vereinzelt auch im Kulturlande und im Buschwalde (bis 200 m Höhe) findet”.

1888. Leiden 80 (2006) Halcyon fulgida Gould Halcyon fulgidus Gould.8 34.0 36.ii. RMNH no.. 2). &. RMNH cat. chloris. RMNH cat. 10. MCZ). skeleton. 28.xi. Soc.i.1958. 22.9865 0. 70650). 61544).1 × 30. Forshaw (1985: 408) considered the subspecies gracilirostris to be: “probably not separable”.x. no.1880.5 × 30. 70649).9384 0. 29. &. 70656).1971. without purple-blue gloss. c/1. 14d): c/2. xii. no. c/2. 70656 35.1971. RMNH no. c/2. Laring (Schmutz.1888. They show that Rensch’s statement that Flores birds have the bill: “erheblich schmaler und länger” is not correct.7 36. (?). 12. Weber. &. 70653). Mataloko (RMNH no.9034 0. Med. no. 36: 48 – Sita (700 m). The difference is subtle and variable. RMNH no. Flores. RMNH cat. 1857. 30. with sparse. Lalang. not pure white as in the adults. RMNH cat. 9. 70645). 81071).9 × 29. 29. Flores (“collected for Mr Wallace” = Allen. 1). and I agree with White. very narrow grey bars. (?) ad.xi. Mber. RMNH cat. 81070).0 37. (?). (. c/1. Ruteng (Verheijen.1888.940 – (very large hole) 1.905 0.1959.9 36. 26.6 × 30. c/1. Mano (Verheijen. 85275). 81027).5 × 30.4 × 29. 1. Proc. c/1. 70655).9276 0. Zool. Orn. RMNH no.128 Mees.1962. ii. (?).ii.1959.x. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no.7 36.xii. 70647).0 35. 70646 RMNH no. c/1. 70651). Flores (Weber.5 × 30. 70648).3 × 30. c/2. Potjong (RMNH no. c/1. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. Verheijen (4.— Young birds differ from the adults by having the breast cream or pale brownish. &. Verheijen/ Schmutz.7 × 29.1971. RMNH no. 70644 RMNH no. RMNH no. 1.ix. RMNH no. 70646). 12. c/2.xii. 17.1955. Poéng (RMNH no. 1862.8 × 30.1959.9341 Notes. no. 85274). de Jong (3). Flores (Colfs. Potjong (RMNH no. & im. Soa (RMNH no.1961.1958.9847 0. Flores (Colfs. Todo (RMNH no.0 36.1958. v. Golo Lehot (Verheijen. Bari (Weber. Lond.9672 0. Rensch (2). Eggs (fig. 14. (?).1954. but the second part of the diagnosis: “sein First kantiger als bei Exemplaren von Lombok” has some substance. xi. (?).1953. Tjeréng. 1928.v.iii. without further data (RMNH no. 85273). 5). only one specimen each from Lombok and Sumbawa were available to me (see table of measurements below). c/2.x. Colfs. Everett. c/1.xii.x. Zool. Rana-Kulan (Verheijen. c/2. no. 7. ix. Monachalcyon fulgidus gracilirostris Rensch. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.ix. Bari (Weber.1880.— Allen.4 × 30. 70643). Potjong (Verheijen. 85276). 70652). The eggs are white. and White (White & Bruce. 70654). 1.0 35.1952. 70649 RMNH no.. Potjong (RMNH no. x. iv.0023 0. 70643 RMNH no.1955.i.7 34. 3. For comparison with the series from Flores.x. 65315). 1986: 273) thought it unnecessary to recognise this subspecies formally. Westflores.1972.1958.xii. that it is altogether too slight for recognition in nomenclature. Collectors. RMNH no.0 – (damaged) 0. Avifauna of Flores. 15.— (?). 70644). 700 m (Verheijen. (?). Rana-Kulan (Verheijen. &. Lamé (RMNH no. 70645 RMNH no. 61543). xi/xii. 21. 25: 65 – Lombock. RMNH no. Potjong (RMNH no. 22. Ruteng (Verheijen. Todo (RMNH no. more glossy than those of H. 3).1978. Soa (RMNH no. 850 m (Schmutz. Inter alia it may be recorded that the RMNH male from Lombok is a Wallace . RMNH no.9 × 30. a).1 35. Material.1961.ii.1976.1969. 70648 RMNH no.1959. RMNH cat. 70647 RMNH no. Todo. back and the larger part of the wings dull black. 4).

81308). Notes. RMNH no. Synops.Mees. 1863b: 24-25)! Again. 81315).— (?). Material. ZMA). Incomprehensibly. 1801. adding that it was the only one in the collection. Schlegel (1864d: 21. 85263).3) 37.1968.5-22. Flores (Colfs. Med.1976.1976. Ruteng (Verheijen.4) 34.2 (21. Warren (1966: 104) listed a single BM specimen from Lombok. sp. RMNH no. Gould. 46). . Gould makes no mention of the number of specimens he examined. and presumably also the male from Lombok in the Museum Heineanum (cf. further down: “two beautiful specimens grace my collection”. Latham. (. Collectors. 85261. 17. 85262. iv. RMNH nos.5 (22.1880. Lingko Ncilor (Schmutz. RMNH no.1) 21-22. 102). 1. ex coll. 9 fig. RMNH cat. 1860: 163). 1) described and illustrated this same specimen. for ƒ 25. Colfs. who lists this bird as type..— Allen. 1860. taken from specimens [note plural! . although his reference to the trader Frank suggests that more specimens were then in the hands of that gentleman. enumerated by Sharpe (1892).: xxxv – Nova Hollandia = New South Wales (cf. RMNH nos. it is the bird figured by Sharpe (1868: pl.-. v. Birds Suppl. however. 59805.v. 2 (?). 17. In the original description. Zool. (99)). Nunang. Verheijen/Schmutz. 99). it is obvious that the specimen sold by Frank (as Alcedo n. Cabanis & Heine. Poco Nernancang ( considering that Gould expressly states having consulted with Frank. Rensch (2). 1856. Weber (1.. although he had listed it in the previous catalogue. Ind. Leiden 80 (2006) 129 specimen. pl. no. the RMNH specimen. Suppl. In his next publication (Gould.1880. probably following Sharpe (1892: 296). this is a winter visitor from Australia.ix.v.1976. (?). published in 1863 (Schlegel. 59806).7-38 (36.5 51 culmen from nostril 37 35-38 (36. as holotype. RMNH cat. 3 (. Schlegel (1874b: 16) claimed that this specimen was acquired in 1866. Gen. and therefore are syntypes: four in the British Museum.6) 21 22 culmen from skull 51 49-53 (50. Measurements: Flores ( 4& 6 (?) Lombok ( Sumbawa (?) wing 134 130-140 (135) 126-139 (133. for a discussion see Mees (1982a: 102-104). pl. Flores (Colfs. Lingko Ncilor (Schmutz. On this basis I would assume that all specimens collected by Wallace were seen by Gould. it is clearly stated: “I published a description of this remarkably fine species of Halcyon in 1857.”. no. 2: 155-156).6 37 Merops ornatus Latham M[erops] ornatus Latham. 54. Avifauna of Flores. Orn.7) 132 128 tail 106 110-116 (112) 97½-112½ (105. (.5 21. 650 m (Schmutz.— On Flores.3) 107 108 tarsus 22. a high price!) is one of those examined by Gould. The RMNH specimen was purchased from Frank on 1 May 1857.1971..GM] received direct from Mr Wallace . and that he offered the description to the Zoological Society in its session of 24 March 1857 (it was published on 14 July 1857).5) 48-53 (50. 19. (. 81303). 13.5)

3166 0.2072 Notes. This set was previously described by Forshaw (1993: 101. Med. and is supplemented by Mees (1986: 63-64). Everett (1). de Jong (2).3 22. Collectors.iii.8 × 20. Nunang (Schmutz. 85431 21. RMNH no. 65355). 100 m (Schmutz.. Ruteng. 85265). Nat. 7. (.5 × 20. RMNH cat. RMNH no. Djonéng (Schmutz. Nunang. Verheijen/Schmutz. (. xii. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Scholtes. (. Maumeri (Weber. Soa (RMNH no.x.. RMNH no.9 22. 85432.5 × 20.ii.4 22.— White & Bruce (1986: 285-287). 650 m (Schmutz.3075 0.i.1976. The eggs from Flores were previously recorded by Mees (1982a: 105). 81087). Novit.1 22. 12) 1 (2): errata at end of volume. &.1945 (Coomans de Ruiter. 1200 m (Verheijen.1 22. Verheijen/ Schmutz. Larantoeka (Semmelink. placed the subspecific name connectens.0 37. 85431.i. 85264). Rensch (1).ii.7 × 20. RMNH no. Eggs: c/4. Stomach contents Hymenoptera (wasps) and Odonata. Naga.2 × 27.70634 36. s. (ed. 1947). 22.3 mm).— Allen. 81091). Zool. the latter also referring to a manuscript by H. and 4 loose eggs.4% of the length. 70634). arbitrarily restricted to Java by Stresemann (1913a: 298). RMNH no. Syst. Waé-Wako. n. &. Lita. which had been used for the .viii. moderately glossy.1969. Leiden 80 (2006) Merops philippinus Linnaeus [Merops] philippinus Linnaeus.ix. 100 m (Verheijen.2856 RMNH no. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 1862. Nisar. 1767. –(?). Verheijen (1.7 × 20. 12) 1: 159 – India orientali.1969. Eurystomus orientalis connectens Stresemann. Nisar (Schmutz. no. (ed. Syst. 12. Zool. 5.1976. 1. referring back to (1): 183 – in Philippinis.x. o. 2.xi. 200 m (Schmutz.2 22. MCZ). they are the most nearly round eggs I know: in the bluntest one (21.1976. 41). An additional record of nesting in Celebes is from near Bintoehan. RMNH no.— Semmelink. 5.3354 0. &. 65327. Allen. Material. 97176). Nunang. (.1974. 27. &.vi. ( juv. 50 m (Verheijen. 26. The eggs are glossy white. no. 650 m (Schmutz. Nat. RMNH no. 26. 85432 Notes. Weber (1). RMNH no.5 × 20.— (?). 1766. the width is 94. &.2 0. 23. 68).1969.3169 0. 30.1976. RMNH nos. c/4. 81086).3352 0.1960. RMNH no. 20: 302 – Moa. Collectors. ( im. 24.9 × 27.1969.7 1. 85433).i.1971. 50 m (RMNH nos. Material. Everett (4). 2 (. E.0 × 19.ix. 27. Rowang.0673 1.3098 0. a discussion of geographical variation and distribution of the species is given in the same place.i. 85218). 81089). Nisar (Schmutz.2 22. de Jong (2). Eggs: c/2. Maro-Kama.1976. 65328). Eurystomus orientalis orientalis (Linnaeus) [Coracias] orientalis Linnaeus. RMNH cat.2736 0.1 × 20.1888. 1913.— The ( from Djonéng is marked as having been collected at the nestinghole.130 Mees. Avifauna of Flores. pacificus). 81088.9 × 20. 81090). RMNH nos.1969. The eggs are white.

The specimen was examined by Mrs LeCroy. hence on (in my opinion) faulty systematics. A specimen from Sumba (leg. but their measurements indicate that they are fully grown. but Hoogerwerf’s statement that nominate orientalis would have an ivory yellowish bill also requires some comment. E. connectens is from the island of Moa. o. o.Mees. The reason why Father Schmutz collected several immature specimens. o. the westernmost peninsula of Java. which is a sign of immaturity. orientalis is not necessarily wrong. and its measurements suggest that it is not yet fully grown. Rensch (1931a: 528) commented on the large size of some of his specimens. is that I asked him to pay special attention to birds in dull plumage.. all others show it at least partly black or dusky. 18. Adults of all subspecies have red bills (based on personal observations and on literature records). Leiden 80 (2006) 131 Lesser Sunda Island populations since its introduction by Stresemann (1913a: 302). 1978: 218). Avifauna of Flores. The type specimen of E. I cannot say. Med. in the synonymy of E. pacificus has not yet been recorded from the Lesser Sunda Islands. and also. 65355) had the bill entirely red. because in only two cases was the breeding subspecies orientalis identified by its ivory yellowish bill”. pacificus as suggested by White & Bruce. Mayr’s (1944b: 119) reconstruction of the colonization of Australia by E. Specimens from Timor are not available. of course. connectens is a synonym of E. Of this small series. he wrote: “Probably most records relate to the dark-billed migratory race calonyx. orientalis. This may possibly be correct for some of the more easterly populations traditionally referred to connectens. The Flores material shows no evidence of being part of a “continuous cline”. Mrs LeCroy (in litt. o. Discussing his observations in Udjung Kulon. o. Actually. ten Kate) also belongs to the nominate subspecies. only one (RMNH no. Zool. and not of E. although at least on the eastern islands of the chain it is to be expected as a winter visitor from Australia. in my diary notes from Java. Perhaps Hoogerwerf examined old museum . It is an adult bird with a blue throat and a red bill with a small black tip (this is noted on Kühn’s field label: “vermilion with black tip”). but certainly not for birds from the Lesser Sunda Islands: specimens from Flores are clearly deeper coloured than pacificus and resemble birds of the nominate subspecies from Java. I am unable to separate them. pacificus. As far as I can judge. and repeated by White & Bruce (1986: 285-287). whether this was just due to a trick played by the light or actually an intermediate stage. My observations include nominate orientalis in Java with red bills. from which. Even orange-yellow is far from ivory yellowish. hoping that this would lead to the discovery of E. but it was mainly based on recognition of “connectens” from the Lesser Sunda Islands as “an exact intermediate between orientalis and pacificus”. as first suggested by Ripley (1942b). The juvenile bird lacks the blue throat patch.1996) concluded that the type can be matched to specimens of nominate orientalis from Java. I found a single reference to a bird which seemed to have an orange-yellow bill. o. that E. Hoogerwerf (1969/1971: 466) believed bill-colour to be a subspecific character. east of Timor (see also Greenway. In one or two of the others the blue throat patch is not yet fully developed. The specimens examined by me are not exceptionally large. I have already mentioned that a dark bill is a character of immaturity. o. and not to the duller Australian pacificus.iii. but are in the upper half of the range of variation ascribed to their subspecies. pacificus. The specimen proves that nominate orientalis ranges at least as far east as Moa. in fact.

34 33 31 exposed culmen 25-27 (26. MCZ). Reo (Weber. Waé Rukus (Verheijen. c/2. orientalis breeds in Sulawesi (Celebes).9) culmen from skull 17. m. RMNH no. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Tado (RMNH no.9 19.9 18. 46.6) West Java (D.1960. 87 73-77 (74. 21. 1). &. Eggs: c/2. 45 45. moluccensis) . &.5) 95. Potjong (RMNH no.1978. 36. xii.xi. Avifauna of Flores. RMNH no.8. 650 m (Schmutz. Actually. RMNH cat.4. &.5 0. (.vi. 23. 24. Material. 70674 (the second egg is badly damaged. The eggs are glossy white.1978. Maumeri (Weber. Nunang. in which the red bills tend to bleach to a condition that may well be called ivory yellowish.0 20. immature individuals of orientalis. Ibis (4) 6: 45 – In insulis Malayanis “Lombock” et “Flores”. 20. 196. 20. m.0 (15. 27.3. Verheijen/ Schmutz.1240 0. Note that grandis has a proportionally much longer bill and tail than moluccensis.9. 26 24 23 Dendrocopos moluccensis grandis (Hargitt) Iyngipicus grandis Hargitt. This case falls with the re-identification of the Lesser Sunda birds as nominate orientalis. m. 70673 18. (.vii. macei analis from the islands between Sumbawa and Flores by Hoogerwerf (1956). wing 189-200 (194. no. 70674). as was pointed out by White & Bruce (1986: 286). RMNH cat. 87. m.3 15. Leiden 80 (2006) specimens.5) tail 42½. 85. The large size and long bill of this subspecies may be at the root of the erroneous records of D. 5. 1940a: 422) listed Eurystomus orientalis as an example (actually his best example) of ‘Doppel-Einwandering’ in Celebes: nominate orientalis from the Philippines. no. RMNH no. moluccensis from Java. Waé Hiam (Verheijen. 197 199 186 tail 91½-101 (95.4) 36. &. 2). Stresemann (1939: 346. 81406).1227 0. remains to be seen. Collectors. There is a conspicuous difference in size and proportions between D.3.1888.2 × 13. not measurable) Notes. Verheijen (1. 81442). 7. 81433). restricted to Lombok by Rensch (1931a: 546). 48½ 29-32½ (30. 99. 19. Measurements: Flores (D. 81451).2) 30. grandis and nominate D.1978.v. there is no proof yet that RMNH no. Golo Léhot (Verheijen. Weber. 6. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. 23/25.1969. Rensch (5). 20. 84½. Everett. RMNH no. grandis) 2( 5& 10 ( wing 81.0-17.132 Mees.— The species is apparently not known from Bali. Measurements: 4( 3& (?) ( juv. de Jong (3). 1882.3 × 14.— Allen (several).vi. although I think that it does. 46.1978. but that does not explain his field-observations.1888.0 × 13. Zool. Whether the specimens from southern Sulawesi (Celebes) and Muna ascribed by previous authors to ‘connectens’ are migrant visitors of pacificus or dull. 26.1462 RMNH no.v. 70673). 95 101 87 entire culmen 34-35 (34. 44.1956.3) 190. and connectens from the Lesser Sunda Islands.— &. 81441). 86 84. 13.

Leiden 80 (2006) East Java (D. Larantoeka (Semmelink. Mayr (1979: 328) records as publication date of Pitta concinna Gould. 70678 25. 85295).3521 RMNH no. 70678).5 0. 5: 459 – Alor. Everett (“a fine series”).6 × 20. 27.8 0. ca. Measurements: Flores 2 (?) Adonara (?) Alor 2 (?) wing 99½. c/3. c/1. Nunuk (RMNH no. Pitta concinna everetti 21. dark grey or blackish spots.3 27.1 21 20. 104 100 105.4 × 20. 37 37 37½. Mathilda requires further investigation. more sharply defined. The ground colour is white. 1857 (14 July): 65 – Lombock. Novit. 70675). 70679 RMNH no.0 × 22. Material. Rembong (RMNH no. Allen.4 0.3373 29. 1960. RMNH cat. Golo-Karot.1 × 22. This subspecies was described almost simultaneously by Gould and by Bénténg Djawa. Zool. 27. Djinggor (RMNH no. MCZ).3284 27. c/3. moluccensis) ( 76 30½ The smaller of the two males from Flores is probably immature.2510 24. 70676). There is some variation in the eggs.4 × 22. de Jong (3).ii.2875 the third egg is badly damaged 27. Soa (RMNH no.7 0. 70683). Med. Lond. 70680).iv. 1842. 15. 1898.0 0. Djinggor (RMNH no. ca. 70681). 70682 RMNH no. 1857. (?).0 0. concinna is 14 July 1857. 70681 RMNH no.3528 27. 3).4 × 21.6 × 21. Avifauna of Flores. c/1. 70679). no.1953.7 0. 105 tail 34½.1957. Proc. or with sparser. but according to Duncan (1937: 82). concinna was in the Forsten collection from Bima. 1862. c/3. 24 . 70677).3259 the third egg is badly damaged 28. the actual date of publication of P. 25. Waé Tua (RMNH no.iii. and they are either densely mottled with not very dark pinkish brown markings. 1. Zool.2932 27. Verheijen (1. 70682). e.8 exposed culmen 20. 21.2 0. Soc. Meagre as the available material is. 70683 Notes.1955.0 0.3461 29. iv. so that its presumed priority over P.— As in so many instances.4 × 21. 37 tarsus 38½. for Pitta Mathilda Verreaux.1957. Zool. 70677 RMNH no.6.3359 26. Verheijen/ Schmutz.— Semmelink. Eggs (fig.7 0.1 × 21.3.1973.0 0.0 × 21. 13.1961. Kisol (RMNH no. 27.2393 26. the first specimen of P.2 0.8 0. Collectors.9 × 20.8 0. 14e): c/2. Nempong (RMNH no.i.3384 26.1959. c/2. 70680 RMNH no.5 × 21. W. iv. 20. July 1857. April 1857.3275 27.— (?).1 × 21. it supports White & Bruce (1986: 295) in their rejection of everetti from Alor.5 133 Pitta elegans concinna Gould Pitta concinna Gould. Borong (RMNH no. Djinggor (RMNH no.8 25.1962.4.1959. c/1. 28.2630 25.8 × 21. 38½ entire culmen 25.Mees. c/3. exclusively based on having a supposedly longer bill than concinna. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 37 36 33. m.

Notes. the Sumba subspecies.— A male of this. Whether P. there is only a very small patch of greyish black on the lower breast. 1150 m (Verheijen. C 13526). RMNH cat.134 Mees. has a small white speculum. bill brownish black. all other primaries are completely black. elegans has been little studied. Now a second specimen of P. 9). specimens were obtained there by Allen (at least 3). Zool. Meyer & Wiglesworth. Ternate (1) and Tahulandang or Tagoelandang (1. Boano (1). almost white posteriorly (in P. elegans by month: s.1897. leg. elegans. the specimen resembles P. are all due North of Timor. Brit. a breeding-bird of Timor and probably Kisar ((. The remaining records. Med. the Sula Islands constitute its main nonbreeding quarters. concinna. is not yet clear from the limited evidence available.xii. was taken by one of Everett’s native collectors in South Flores. elegans. Bull.1968. Verheijen. is certainly migratory. 7). Avifauna of Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) Pitta elegans maria Hartert Pitta maria Hartert. Schädler. e. 2. it differs by smaller size. 5: xlvii – Mountains of Sumba. 85296). maria is actually a migrant. As the migration of P. Collectors. Material. 1898: 355. 1897b: 526-527 and 1898d: 470471). Distribution of Pitta e. but very likely it is as least a partial migrant (‘Teilzieher’). I II III Timor 22 2 Kisar Buru Boano 1 Sula Isl. e. In the colour of its superciliaries. cf. from which. 4 Sula Besi Sula Mangoli Taliaboe Ternate Tahulandang IV 2 V 1 VI 1 VII VIII 1 IX X 1 1 XI 2 4 1 XII 1 1 - . very pale buff in their anterior part.— &. however. the anterior superciliaries are brown). and the slightly more extensive black throat-patch. Doherty (1). e. Ruteng.d. or only shows some irregular dispersal.xii. In spite of Hartert having obtained Everett’s personal assurance that the specimen was correctly labelled. Hoedt (5). an element of doubt seems to have remained whether it was actually from Flores and the record was completely ignored by later authors. Orn. The identification rests on the following characters: the superciliaries are pale over their whole length. above the light red of the belly. the reduction of the wing-speculum. e. specimen MTD no. Note that the geographically adjacent subspecies P. the broad terminal tail-band (much narrower in elegans). 15. and all indicate migration in the same direction. On present evidence. I have brought together its records in a map (fig.— Everett (1). Iris grey-brown. maria from Flores is available. Of particular interest is a note by Father Verheijen on the label: This bird has never before been found at such a high altitude and is unknown to the local population. Menden (1) and an anonymous collector (1). e. from Buru (2). RMNH no. in November 1896 (cf. legs pinkish pearl colour. normally from 0-500 m. 1896. Cl. e. on each side. only the fifth primary. Hartert.

. 9. breeding area on Timor and Kisar and records from non-breeding quarters. Zool.Mees. Leiden 80 (2006) 135 Fig. Avifauna of Flores. Pitta elegans. Med.

I read that the record of Ceram was based on Salvadori (1881: 391). 18. 1&. xi. with this old material. Med.136 Mees. e. The above enumeration shows how important it is not to rely on published records alone. ad occasum Ceram (Hoedt)”.. elegans:: Timor: ( and &. RMNH 88875.1931. In Dr van Bemmel’s card-index (which formed the basis for his paper).1864 (Hoedt. elegans is absent from Timor in the months JulyAugust. Meyer & Wiglesworth.1932. MTD. Zool. August and October.xi. Boano: &. 26. RMNH 88878). Avifauna of Flores. it is worth recording that a nestling from Timor is dated June 1829 (S. Of course. 11&. Abb. Mayr (1944a: 154) compared specimens from Sula-Mangoli (1) and Buru (2) with a series from Timor. und daß späterhin wohl auch noch Kennzeichen gefunden werden. van Bemmel’s record of Ceram is based on this short sentence. was due to: “eine parallele Entwicklung .1922. 88877. Ceram has to be deleted from the list of islands whence P. Koepang (Stein. to the west of Ceram. when Stein actually collected 24.. (. Again. that these collections are from Portuguese Timor. Sula Mangoli: (. AMNH and 3 ZMB).1828 (S. 15. elegans is known. In this stage. due to superficial reading. &. six of these in juv. Hitherto I believed Mayr’s (1944a) to be a complete record of the collections made by Stein.1864 (Hoedt. &. 11 (. there is always a possibility of error.1897 (Schädler. Mada Range. AMNH. elegans on the islands. 1924). 19 and 21. Sula Islands.xi. . Müller. etc. Sula Islands. May.. It is a safe assumption that. 5000’ (Pratt Bros. Van Bemmel (1948: 356) included Ceram in the list of islands from where P. ZMB). Taliaboe: (. i. do not contain any P. AMNH). lacking original labels.i. Rensch (1931a: 548) still believed that the resemblance between birds from Timor and birds from the Sula Islands. 6.x. Note. that P. Looking up the reference. 6. Leiden 80 (2006) Documentation for the map and the table of P. Buru: (. elegans is a ‘Teilzieher’. cf.: Boano.xii. 1898: 355). although it does provide supporting evidence for the periodically common occurrence of P.1932. 88876. e. &. Sula Islands. plumage.v. Müller. 4-11. It seems to me likely. Tahulandang (Tagoelandang): (?). Mayr (1979: 328) lists the islands from which elegans is known. Therefore. 18. RMNH). cf. 24. however. Sula Besi (Sanana): 3 ((. and that at least part of the population is sedentary. RMNH no. without any suggestion of migration. Eck. Kisar: (.xii. x. obtained in de months April.1828.e. types of the species). RMNH). 1977 and in litt. cf. e. but as his specimens are only dated to the year of collecting and the period of his stay is not known. juv. vi. RMNH). elegans has been recorded. e. AMNH). his material cannot contribute to the table. Noilama (Stein. but nevertheless included Ceram without a query in their enumeration of islands. 9/28. As White & Bruce suggest that P. but he listed only five specimens.1861 (Bernstein. Hartert. Ternate: (. RMNH).vi. White & Bruce (1986: 295) mentioned in their text that they had been unable to find on what the Ceram record was based. 24. welche die nördliche elegansGruppe von den Timor-Stücken trennen”.1897 (Doherty. elegans. I only found Ceram mentioned in the following short sentence: “Boano.1894 (MTD. 18) gave elegans as an interesting example of a subspecies that had expanded across the range of a different one (vigorsi).). 5. Allen spent two months on the Sula Islands in 1858. He says nothing about migration. where there would be less suitable habitat than in the western half of the island.1938 (Menden. 88877). Stresemann (1939: 408. received in 1863 (Hoedt. e.. Tjamplong (Stein.viii. negative information is also valuable: the CSIRO collections from Timor. and failed to find characters by which to separate them.

parva: the feather edgings of the upper parts. More different are Ten Kate’s specimens from Sumba. the feathers look blacker. Measurements: Flores (M. Nominate M. In M. the worn birds from Flores. Zool. on the other hand. or there is. There is also a difference in measurements. within Sumba. the mandible deeper. vi-vii. aliena of eastern New Guinea (Mees.2) 14. parva) 5( Sumba (M. parva. Nat. j.3 (20. and the whole under surface is buffy. as alcohol tends to bleach out. The puzzle is. j. Hist. not greyish.— Allen (at least 3). the feathers have broad greyish. Leiden 80 (2006) Measurements: & wing 105 tail 32½ tarsus 38 entire culmen 24 137 exposed culmen 21 Mirafra javanica parva Swinhoe Mirafra parva Swinhoe.Mees. and a pale buffy colour is confined to the breast and flanks.2-21. or just a trifle brownish-grey margins. (4) 7: 257 – Flores. and the specimens from Flores as well as two old specimens from Sumba (leg.iii. but. de Jong (1). Rensch (2). 85030. Med. Mees. Borong. 85327. 9. and the aspect of the upper surface is a little more brownish. and therefore suitable for a meaningful comparison with other subspecies. RMNH nos. First. although they are less worn. parva have become available: four from Sumba and one from Sumbawa (leg. Collectors. Notes.— 5 (. 85328). whitish. Mag.1891). 1982a: 110). j. These specimens are in good plumage. some geographical variation. however. 1892: 197). There remain two possibilities: either individual variation is greater than the modest material available to me suggests. that one of these birds especially has the outer margins of the primaries. I have no difficulty in ascribing the difference to the state of the plumage.— Since I discussed these specimens in connection with M. especially the bill. Verheijen. have to be described and evaluated. Material. Ann. 66160.9 . Everett (2).6) 45 tarsus 19. the throat and the lower abdomen are creamy white. not to darken and intensify colours. differences between this fresh material. five additional specimens of M.1971. On the upper parts they are close to the specimens from Flores. j. javanica of Java (also southern Borneo and Bali. as well as the wing-coverts and the alula. Avifauna of Flores. however.1984). j. Maro-Kama. 1871. see also Büttikofer.5 (11.6 exposed culmen 11-11. ix. j. have the pale margins narrower. darker brown than in all other birds. from where I have not seen material) is well-differentiated from M. The fresh birds (there is no difference between specimens from Sumba and Sumbawa) have the upper parts with very little brown. Ten Kate’s specimens have been prepared from alcohol (as indicated on their labels.5) 21 entire culmen 12-14 (13. parva) ( wing 70-72 (70. are much browner. 50 m (Verheijen.6) 72 tail 42-47 (44. No eggs. which is not so much longer as thicker. but I do not believe that that is the cause of the difference. The underparts show little or no difference. 66161. Ten Kate. j.1) 11. javanica being a little larger. including the wings.

van Oort.7. This confirms that parva is not close to Australian birds. j. Med. t.9. Maumeri (Weber. Collectors. no. the minimum being above the maximum of parva. Hirundo tahitica javanica Sparrman Hirundo javanica Sparrman. Nanga pandu (RMNH no. & 17.0) 43 43.1888.8.5-16. this identification required confirmation. j. 18. in a large series (27 (. Verheijen (eggs only). 1907: 207).8. no. is also larger than parva. xii. 42).— Weber (2). it is of interest to mention weights here. Eggs: c/4. bill depth at front of nares 6”.2 10. Zool. j. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Material. frontalis. 4 & 69-73 (71. 8. j. 45½ 44 42-49 (44. The eggs are creamy white with dark purplishbrown spots.— Weber (3. Sumbawa: ( 16. Avifauna of Flores.2 (15.nova Guiana (error!) = Antigua. Carlsonianum.3 11-13.2) 14 13. Hirundo rustica gutturalis Scopoli Hirundo (gutturalis) Scopoli. As no measurements of either wing or bill are provided. c. RMNH cat.2-26.4 × 11. parva) ( 69 Western Java (M.1957.1888. Rensch (4). 70684).8 g.iii. xii.8 22-24 (23. Del. 2 (?) 18. Material.. fasc. 100 – Java (reference not verified). who had a single specimen that he considered to agree better with javanica than with parva. Insubr.1996): “The Lombok specimen of Mirafra javanica is identified in our collection as parva and seems to agree with that race. skeleton. Collector. so that for its characters I must refer to Mayr (1944a: 154). Leiden 80 (2006) 21. This was provided by Mrs LeCroy (in litt. timorensis. concentrated around the blunt end. 46.5 18.9 16. Although the measurements by themselves are not quite conclusive. 1786. 26 &.2 21. 15 13 13.3 18.5 10. no. In contrast. Mus.3. from northern and north-western Australia (Western Australia and Northern Territory).0616 0. cf. No material of M. with wing 8 ( 72-77 (73.6 19. Panay. timorensis from Timor (Dilli) and Savu has been available.9 0.6 × 12. javanica. exposed bill 12. Sumba: ( 17.6 g. RMNH cat..084 - Notes. tarsus 22. 3. javanica subsp. 3 (?)) of M.0713 0.— ( ad. the Lesser Sunda Islands have been included into the range of H.— (?). 12.3) White & Bruce (1986: 297) have included Lombok into the range of nominate M. 70684 15.8 (12. If the measurements taken by Mayr are comparable.xii.5 g. two of which in alcohol).0 × 13.7 × 12. but Hoogerwerf (1965: 251) concluded that birds from these islands . Flor. javanica) 10 ( 73-77 (75. Further. 18. This was obviously based on Mayr (1944a: 154). entire culmen 14. 21.138 & 69 2 (?) 72.2) 11. pl.4) mm. tail. 4.9) mm. 2: 96 .5.— Traditionally. I found weights of 19. The measurements I made are as follows: wing 73. Mrs LeCroy’s opinion that the specimen is parva should be accepted. 72 Sumbawa (M. Sikka (Weber. Faun. 1789.6) Mees.

(. cf.1 0. Eggs: 33 clutches of 1 (11 ×). Sutter (1). show that it falls entirely within the range of variation of ten birds of the same sex from Java. Waé Radja. Curiously. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.— Allen. Cecropis striolata striolata (Schlegel) Hirundo striolata Schlegel. plain white. 2 (7 ×).1198 0. t.1374 0. 50 m (Verheijen. Hirundo daurica rothschildiana Rensch. Flores.Mees. Mees. 1975b: 129). Hoogerwerf cautiously suggested that frontalis might be darker on the underparts. Avifauna of Flores.1417 0.6 × 15.— For rejection of the subspecies rothschildiana. from Mataloko. In all birds. Maro-Kama. 9. Zool. and one undated. I cannot add much. Mus. Übers. 50 m (Verheijen. frontalis. Leiden 80 (2006) 139 belong to H.xi. Material. 8. Vaurie (1951).0 × 14. obviously prefers the beginning of the rainy season”. 66154). in line with most other breeding birds.3 × 15. as the slender tips of the outer rectrices are usually worn or damaged.1198 0.. 70713 Verheijen (1964) gave as an explanation for the very short breeding season apparent from the above data.6 × 14. Mitt. 70712 22. who note the occurrence of pale-bellied populations in southern New Guinea. Collectors.6 22. Notes. but frontalis averages a little larger. . Berlin 17: 550 – Mborong. why it should not be able to collect nesting material and breed at the end of the rainy season. Kisol.— (?) juv. It is not so obvious to me. With only one adult bird from Flores available. Vögel: 42 – Java. this is the opposite of what Mayr (in Stresemann. Kisol.iii. t. 3 (14 ×) and 4 (1 ×) eggs each. t. that this species.5 23. RMNH no. It is likely that the specimens compared by Mayr belonged mainly to this subspecies. I cannot confirm either of these opinions. Hoogerwerf also reviewed the question of the validity of H. albescens.1212 0. without gloss. “which likes to collect nesting material from rain pools. to me the two subspecies seem identical in plumage. Everett (1). Med. Zool. The subspecies rothschildiana was separated by Rensch exclusively on the basis of supposed small size. when certainly there would be no shortage of drying mud. 1931. 66155). 1844. RMNH no. javanica. Europ. RMNH no. My own observations support Hoogerwerf (cf. No material from southern New Guinea has been available to me and it is unlikely that any was seen by Hoogerwerf.1971.1971.2 22. 85323). the tail-measurements are minimum measurements. Verheijen/Schmutz. 20 m (Schmutz.1322 RMNH no. Maro-Kama.5 22.0 × 15. Méngé and Potjong (RMNH nos. Krit. Rensch (1).iii.4 22.6 × 15.. 1940a: 131-132) found: “New Guinea birds have very pale and uniform colored bellies”. collected in the months November (22) and December (10). but the comparative measurements. 70685-70717).4 × 14.1401 0. Verheijen (3. sufficiantly differentiated from frontalis to be designated by name: H.1971. ( juv. An explanation for the contradictory statements of Hoogerwerf and Mayr is provided by Schodde & Mason (1999: 667-668). The eggs are elongated. given below.6 22. 3. MCZ). a matter that remains to be cleared up.

cited above. Flores (Allen. 1986) thought that the specimen might be mislabelled. Measurements: Flores ( ( juv. Later. with the junior synonym Acanthylis coracina Bonaparte.6) tail 90 67 66 90-101 (95. with pre-printed the first three digits of the year: 186. The reason why I call this fortunate.— The first to record this species from Flores was Wallace (1864: 485). 1849). In spite of the footnote. It is the nomenclaturally correct name for the species currently known as Chaetura leucopygialis (Blyth.352).. Boie (1844: col. Temminck & Schlegel (1847: 33) are cited as authors of Hirundo striolata. Collector. Material. My reasons for acceptance of this record are given in the introduction. BM no.12. 1885. the year after Sharpe wrote. which according to a footnote added by himself.9 (8. 10: 192 – Timor. Med. Java 10 ( wing 125 115 116 123-129 (126.4) exposed culmen 8. 174.4) Petrochelidon nigricans timoriensis Sharpe Petrochelidon timoriensis Sharpe. records it as occurring in Flores. as well as the locality Flores. is that Rüppell (1845: 18.— Allen (1). White (in White & Bruce. Zool. abyssinica (Guérin-Méneville). but White (1936) discovered the above specimen in the BM. I have examined the specimen. Cat. Measurements: Flores (?) Timor (?) (?) wing 92 93 94 tail 42 38 41 moult no heavy. 1850. but we have never seen a specimen from the last-mentioned island. Avifauna of Flores. Hartert. 1862.2) entire culmen 12 11 10½ 11-13 (12. This was followed by Hellmayr’s (1914: 64) remark: “Wallace gibt diese Schwalbe auch für Flores an. but fortunately Schlegel’s description. 176) cites both names. to which in Allen’s hand is added a 2. doch liegen keine Belegstücke von dieser Insel vor”.140 Mees. nor was there one in Mr Wallace’s collection when it passed into the hands of the Museum” (Sharpe & Wyatt.7. Not a nomen nudum is Acanthylis coracina Boie (1844: col. 167). Rensch (1931a) did not include the species in the avifauna of Flores. a. and this record has been accepted by Peters (1960: 119). 1887: (529)). I believe Cecropis striolata Rüppell to have been validly described (not merely cited in the synonymy). 1971b: 238). wings and tail no .— (?). Later he wrote: “Mr Wallace. (?) juv. 6) described a Cecropis striolata from Africa. 88. 1922. but fortunately. Cecropis striolata Boie and Cecropis striolata Rüppell. Mus. Leiden 80 (2006) Usually. where it was received with the Tweeddale collection in 1888. has priority (cf..7 7 7 7. Taf. that has an original Wallace label. Mees.5) tarsus 14½ 13 15 14. Birds Brit. Sharpe’s (1885) inclusion of Flores into the range of this subspecies was a guess.8-8. is identical with C.3-16 (15. both are nomina nuda here. in a bare list. Notes. as he had not seen material.

Zool. One can agree with Mauersberger (1983: 61) about ”die Revisionsbedürftigkeit der bisherigen Gliederungen”. (?).Gallica verd ex ornithologia Brissonii plerumque decerpta sunt”. Fauna I: 289 – Kamtschatka.— Colfs. 1988: 453). he suppressed melanope as a synonym of nominate ”cinerea” but accepted a subspecies M. Material. Everett.— None. de Jong (1).. Med. Ruteng (Verheijen. The remark above the list of species: “Nomina. ICZN. in robusta. c. which is the commonest of the several subspecies wintering in the Indo-Australian region. Sumatra and the Philippines.— In its huge range across Eurasia. has been validated (ICZN Opinion 882). Motacilla caspica subsp. Verheijen. Leiden 80 (2006) 141 Motacilla flava simillima Hartert Motacilla flava simillima Hartert. 12 (c)]. West Flores (Colfs. mainly a clinal decrease in tail-length from West to East.1880. Then Vaurie (1957) revised the species. Some authors would not recognize any subspecies on the Eurasian mainland and Japan. birds inhabiting the eastern part of the range went under the name melanope. winter visitor to the Lesser Sunda Islands.. cf. Cinerea Tunstall is a nomen nudum. However. but the bird collected by de Jong was identified by Rensch (1931b: 399) and Voous (1950: 651) as M. Sharpe. Van Marle & Voous (1988: 193) and Dickinson et al. The recognition and delineation of subspecies is difficult and often somewhat arbitrary. f.Mees. neither in this Opinion.— Allen (at least 1. This is the subspecies one would expect to be the commonest.— (?). Earlier in last century. RMNH no. and individuals wintering in the Indo-Australian region were usually assigned to this subspecies. if not the sole. 65399). this was done without renewed investigation. 1985: art. Notes. not validated by being provided with English and French vernacular names [cf. nor in the discussion preceding it. published in an obscure anonymous pamphlet ascribed to Tunstall. from the British Islands to Japan. It is generally known that for this species the name Motacilla Cinerea. simillima.— I have not examined material from Flores. Weber (1). 1885: 520. Peculiarly. disagreement over the subspecific classification continues. and finally. listed as Motacilla flavescens by Wallace. has it been pointed out that M.. and their measurements (rather short tails) do not contradict this. is too vague to be construed as an indication. (1991: 364) placed all records from. Material. Notes. RMNH without number). Avifauna of Flores. 1864: 485). others would suppress robusta and re-instate melanope for birds from eastern Asia. this species shows only minor geographic variation. 1910. respectively.xi. robusta from north-eastern Asia and Japan. .1969. It might be argued that the Flores specimens are robusta. 4. Vögel paläarkt. iv. Collectors. Collectors. As far as I can make out. some would recognize both melanope and robusta as valid subspecies (Roselaar in Cramp.

1977.9 0.iii. and one undated (RMNH nos.0 × 15.viii.2 × 16. medius is a larger subspecies than A. August (4).7 0. and November (4). Verheijen (5. medius from Ndao were larger than eggs of A.16 RMNH no.0 RMNH no. n. June (4). July (3). Rensch (4).1 0.1521 RMNH no. n.1566 RMNH no. Zool. 76722 22.9 0. n. It seemed an interesting point.1607 21.8+ 12.1969.1564 RMNH no.1595 RMNH no. 8.0 × 15. 1975b: 129). Med. albidus from Flores and of A. RMNH no. although the weights hardly differ.7 0.0 × 15.1371 22. 70720 20. Some measurements and weights: 21. September (7).0 0.— Everett (3).6 0.142 Measurements: (?) (?) wing 80 80 tail 79+ 89 Mees.151 RMNH no.1536 21. Novit. May (1).1496 21.1971. malayensis from Java. 70746 21.1433 22. 12. 81418). the present specimens are conspicuously white below and can be separated at a glance. 70724 21. 85086). Zool.1569 22. 70723 21. 85085). &. Eggs: 37 clutches of 1 (8 ×).3 × 16.— &.8 entire culmen 15+ 16. RMNH no. Rahong (Verheijen. 19: 316 – Süd-Flores.1971.1 6.6 × 16.1625 23.6 0. and found their large size confirmed. Collectors. Langkas (Verheijen. 2 (23 ×) and 3 (6 ×) eggs. 81419).5 0.0 × 15. 8.8 0. Ruteng (Verheijen.— Compared with a small series of A.2 × 15. Material.2 0.0 0. Verheijen/Schmutz.6 × 15.9 hind claw 8.8 × 16.2 0. 1912.6 0.7 0. medius from Ndao near Roti.7 Anthus novaeseelandiae albidus Stresemann Anthus richardi albidus Stresemann. Verheijen (1976: 14) observed that eggs of the subspecies A.6 × 15. MCZ). 65392). 73511.6 × 15.153 23. &.6 × 14. Lumu (Verheijen.1533 23. October (10). Avifauna of Flores. 73512). 1. RMNH no.0 × 15.0 0. south coast (Verheijen.9 × 14. February (2). &.9 0. The eggs are greyish white. 76720 23.1486 RMNH no.3 × 15.161 23. with irregularly-shaped dullbrown primary spots and light grey secondary spots. Leiden 80 (2006) tarsus 20 18. n.2 exposed culmen 12. RMNH no.0 0. 28. RMNH no. but the measurements I took from the five Ndao females.8 × 15.6 × 15.x. Maro-Kama. 70719 Notes.3 × 16. Tjumbi.9 0. collected in the months January (1). 70748 19. albidus. show them to be practically identical in size (as expressed by wing-length) with specimens of the same sex . and therefore I re-measured the eggs from Ndao.vii. n. 70718-70752.5 × 15.1378 20. n. The most obvious reason for the differences would be that A. for comparison (see notes): RMNH no. 76721 23.1969.1365 Eggs of A. (. medius from the islet of Dao or Ndao near Roti (previously recorded by Mees.

RMNH no. and intriguing.0) 83 77 77-78 (77. Zool. Nunang. near Dilli. Cat. It was about time for somebody to take the axe to the overexpanded species A. Zool. 70756). the difference remains unexplained. Birds Brit.v. medius) 5& Anthus gustavi Swinhoe Anthus gustavi Swinhoe. A. novaeseelandiae. Leiden 80 (2006) 143 from 85116).— (?).7 (16.1) 26 25 24-25 (24. Collectors. RMNH no. is that so many perfectly good species resemble each other n. 1. Notes. 1861. Therefore. 70757). 1879. It seems to be a not very common winter visitor to the Lesser Sunda Islands. December 1896. RMNH cat. c/2. (. with the creation of five species out of one.1962. 70755).1969. cf. xi.2) hind 9. australis. Soc. viii. 16.7) entire culmen 17.— Semmelink.— None. c/2. 70753). the forms medius and albidus look very close to australis. where otherwise it has been recorded from Timor ((. Sharpe.6-11 (10. no. 1885: 614) and Sumba (one specimen. albidus) [(] & Ndao near Roti (A. . Mataloko (RMNH no. Admittedly.1969.4) tail 59 53-55 (53. rufulus. c/2. 25. RMNH no. 1985: 523-525) has done this with gusto. Larantoeka (Semmelink. Haffer’s discussion is centred on the African and Palaearctic populations and he provides hardly any documentation for the proposed split rufulus/australis/novaeseelandiae. and Australia is inhabited by a separate species A. cf. c/ RMNH cat. Coracina novaehollandiae floris (Sharpe) Artamides floris Sharpe. ca. novaeseelandiae. MCZ).3) 18. Avifauna of Flores. Proc. Rensch (7). &.1888. 15aa): c/1.2 (26. 85117). no. and a discussion of its synonymy and of specimens in the RMNH. and Haffer (in Glutz. collected by Wallace. Nisar. n.1) 9. 1898d: 468). 12.5 - Sumba (A.5) exposed claw 14 13. collected by Everett.9) tarsus culmen 27 26-26. 2). Lond. ranging westward to India. (. 50 m. 1863.6-15 (14.— Everett (2). Schmutz. 180 m (Schmutz. Mataloko (RMNH no. Measurements: Flores (A. Reo (Weber. see Mees (1990). In this concept. 70754). Material.v.6 17-17. Weber. Everett. 650 m (Schmutz.1957.3 17 16-16.: 90 – the island of Amoy. Allen. Mataloko (RMNH no.Mees. Poéng (RMNH no.0) 14 13 13-14 (13. Mataloko (RMNH no.1962. I feel justified in retaining australis and the rufulus group as subspecies of A. 81062). until more concrete arguments for their specific separation may be brought forward. Nisar. Med. Verheijen (1.1972. Material. Eggs (figs 15a.8 (17. n. at the root of the problem of classification in Anthus.1962.6 9. de Jong (1).1962. 2. 5).8 9. Hartert. (. albidus) ( 4& wing 80 76-78 (77. 4: 14 – Flores. novaeseelandiae is confined to New Zealand and its outlying islands. To me. birds from the Greater and Lesser Sunda Islands are included in the species A. 1862. Mus. Collector.8) 62 55½ 50-54 (51. 19. Other authors have been reluctant to accept Haffer’s proposals. in Zizyphus-Savanna (Schmutz.— For a history of the discovery of this species.v. 22.

4 33.: xxiv – Nova Hollandia = Sydney.4 34.3 × 22.4656 0. The same was recorded by Mason & McKean (1982) for personata (I do not understand the wing/tail ratios given by these authors) and the limited number of measurements taken by me indicates that this is also true for floris.8 27. Suppl. 70757 31. Zool. Measurements: ( ( ( & (?) wing 166 169 172 166 164 tail 119 121 118 123 120 tarsus 27 26. although sometimes somewhat reluctantly. compared with Australian C.4 0.2 34.144 Measurements and weights: Mees. personata. Well may they be right. but it is a pity that they discussed just this one form. in particular all forms to the west of Timor. Med. 1949). 70753 RMNH no. Syst.7 × 23. personata from Timor as a separate species.6 × 22. and might justify specific status for the latter in the new concept.436 0. Voous & van Marle.4562 0. within this conglomerate. C[orvus] melanops Latham.4 34. Nat. 70756 RMNH no. dangling. and other characters of C. and also of C. Mayr (1944a: 142) found exactly the opposite: that sumbensis (of the personata relationship) has a relatively longer tail than Australian C.5 × 22.9 34. which replace each other geographically (on different islands).0 × 23. consists of a mosaic pattern of well-differentiated forms. Australia and Tasmania. Ripley. Mason & McKean (1982) have argued for the resurrection of C. Rensch’s conclusion has of course. to the relatively shorter tail. .9 × 22.5 27 27. to keep all these forms under novaehollandiae (compare the discussion of a similar problem in the Pachycephala pectoralis/fulvotincta complex).5 Coracina novaehollandiae novaehollandiae (Gmelin) [Turdus] novae Hollandiae Gmelin. ranging from continental south–east Asia and Taiwan. in a period that strong expansion of the species concept was fashionable. accepted for the following forty years (cf.5297 damaged 0.— The species Coracina novaehollandiae as defined in most recent literature.4832 0. the species concept is now going through a period of contraction.2 30 28 exposed culmen 24 23 26. 1941). novaehollandiae. javensis. I prefer. 1789. not restrained later authors from doing exactly what Rensch considered impossible (cf. to New Guinea.1 × 21.5275 Notes. a segment in the middle of the agglomerate. concluding “daß eine Vereinigung zu einem Rassenkreise nicht möglich ist”. 70754 RMNH no. for the moment. novaehollandiae. (ed. Even the difference between personata and floris is considerable. without any suggestion as to how these should be broken up into species. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no. Avifauna of Flores. and by their action left the rest.4 × 23. Orn. novaehollandiae agglomerate untouched. and this has not left the C.7 24. and this was generally.2 33. 13) 1 (2): 814 – terra van Diemen (ex Latham). Feeling not competent.2 31. at present. Ind. to complete the dismemberment of the agglomerate. 1801. As a reaction against its over-expansion.8 entire culmen 29 27 30. 70755 RMNH no. Rensch (1931a: 564-565) drew attention.2 24.

there is considerable flocking in winter. The difference is only an average one and is of limited value. Verheijen. Mees. 85115). Mees. 24. Formerly (l. and in subsequent publications continued to use the name melanops for Australian birds and birds I believed to be migrants from continental Australia. Leiden 80 (2006) 145 Collectors. I found so much of interest.). do not appear to be outside the range of variation found in the several continental 11) It might cause surprise that these two papers on the avifauna of Roti. without further delay. 1975b: 129. as claimed by Keast (1958). 1961b). unlike the specimens from Flores (cf. nevertheless.— (? im. 85114. the birds continue to live in pairs in winter.. has now also been found as a winter visitor. On Timor it was found as early as 1828 by S. 1958. it gives some support to my opinion that the birds visiting Flores originate from the more arid parts of north-western Australia. 50 m (Schmutz. and there is no clear indication that it would be a partial migrant (there is no proof that it is not. but in the extreme south-western part of that state the species remains common throughout the winter. I hesitated to give a definite opinion (Mees. supports the assumption that migrants of novaehollandiae are from the same. of these birds remains to be elucidated.v. Zizyphus-Savanna. that I decided on a supplementary paper. after which it was published. Mees.— Flores is the most north-westerly island whence this winter visitor from Australia has been recorded.1972. Notes. 1961b: 111). indicating extensive movements (cf. birds from the South-West tend to be large in the wing and smallish in the bill. Material. no.1011) The origin. Avifauna of Flores. and by several later collectors. The trivial average differences in measurements of wing and bill. originating from mid-western Australia. even until quite recently (cf. This is because Verheijen’s article was written first. I consider that a final stand in this matter is required now. given by Keast in support of the recognition of a separate Tasmanian subspecies. and I have never seen any evidence of flocking. Keast. 1944a: 142). Stein collected three on Sumba (cf. Müller (RMNH cat. has worried me ever since. Mayr. and had been handed in for publication in “Ardea” before the collection was received in Leiden. examining the material.Mees. Verheijen’s manuscript was returned by the editors as unsuitable for “Ardea”. Schmutz. One would expect them to be from Western Australia. or rather an adjacent part of that continent. both published in the “Zoologische Mededelingen”. RMNH nos. In the mid-western and north-western parts of Western Australia. I believed that migrants to the tropics had to come from the most southerly part of the range. Although I have still not been able to compare good material. though). & ad. c. .— Rensch (1). The question of whether continental Australia and Tasmania are inhabited by different subspecies (melanops and nominate novaehollandiae. Verheijen obtained a specimen on the island of Dao or Ndao off Roti (cf. Mees. 1994: 31). Because of lack of adequate Tasmanian material. in the “Zoologische Mededelingen”. Later. respectively). and mixing of the subspecies “melanops” and subpallida in the breeding range of the latter. Iris dark brown. but at the time I did not realise sufficiently that several species of large insectivorous birds leave northern Australia in the long dry season (the Australian winter). 1976: 14). The fact that the subspecies subpallida. In addition. 17). Med. Zool. on the other hand. Nisar. Moreover. that duly appeared. were not combined and published under joint authorship. 1964c).. After two years of deliberation. within Australia.

but throat pale.— This specimen provides the first reliable record of the subspecies subpallida from outside its breeding range. Leiden 80 (2006) populations. he (Mathews.— Schmutz. In general size melanops is said to be “large to small” and novaehollandiae “medium”. Material. The authors recognise the Tasmanian form as distinct. as he included the Northern Territory into its range. suggesting that it also reaches eastern Sumbawa.v. in the synonymy of subpallida. some of which were recognized by Keast as separate subspecies.1972. Mathews. based on adequate material. as hitherto recognised by me. Med. especially the tail. 50 m (Schmutz. 85118). Avifauna of Flores. 25. a point that requires some explanation. Schodde & Mason’s work actually confirms my opinion that the difference is too minor for expression in nomenclature. I think it may now safely be concluded that such average differences as possibly exist between Tasmanian and mainland birds are insufficient for recognition in nomenclature. 1914a: 122). becomes a synonym of nominate novaehollandiae. and tentatively included C. he did not really have a good idea of its characters and range.— After a period of some 35 years of doubting and vainly waiting for a revision I finally decided to place melanops in the synonymy of nominate novaehollandiae. Although Mathews correctly described this subspecies as being characterized by its pale upper surface. lores and ear coverts black. which he had described from Melville Island. Zool. 1913: 193). but the comparative notes given to support this show that the differences between Tasmanian novaehollandiae and mainland melanops are at best trivial. Especially as. there is some geographical variation in bill size. Collector. hence an immature bird. without clear separation. Zool. novaehollandiae as a common austral migrant. 18: 326 – North-West Australia = Strelly [recte: Strelley] River (cf. didima.146 Mees. plumage very worn. & ad. nobody else seems to have taken up the matter. Nisar. Novit. they also mention an observation on Komodo. leaving in November . RMNH no. must be studied mainly by observation and ringing. 1912. Measurements: (? im. The consequence is that melanops. Since then a revision was published by Schodde & Mason (1999: 578-580). wing 185 192 tail 126 125 tarsus 28 27½ entire culmen 30 31 exposed culmen 24 25 Coracina novaehollandiae subpallida Mathews Coracina novaehollandiae subpallida Mathews. Notes. but were united by me. He further claimed that the birds were migratory on Melville Island. a slight extension westward of its known winter range. although I have repeatedly drawn attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs. The following year he confirmed this (Mathews. within the large mainland range. At first sight this seems to be a review. Verhoeye & Holmes (1998: 35) refer to C. 1913: 193) repeated this range. In the thirty-five years that have passed.— ( with small gonads. It means also that possible migrations of Tasmanian birds (they are even supposed to migrate as far as New Guinea). Addendum. no moult. for which I had been waiting so long. n. A year later. the bill of the Tasmanian bird is said to be marginally smaller.

Zool. Novit. Later. 1896. Stein collected no fewer than 16 specimens. 800 m (Schmutz. Measurements: ( wing 127 tail 92 tarsus 25 entire culmen 25½ exposed culmen 18. Mees (1964c) commented: “It may be that the subspecies does partially migrate to these islands. Leiden 80 (2006) 147 and returning in May. not residents. On Flores. daß ich sie nicht zu einem einzigen Rassenkreise zusammenziehen möchte”. and Sutter another 7. but add: “wintering in the Lesser Sunda Islands and Kei Island”. Unexpectedly. vi. give subpallida its correct Australian breeding range (“Midwestern Australia from the Gascoyne to the DeGrey River”). He made no mention of subpallida. and some distance away from C. Mayr (1944a: 142) agreed that C. found on these islands are winter visitors. Subsequently. 17.— ( ad. Peters & Mayr (1960: 185) have placed it between C. in view of the foregoing. Having concluded that the whole North and North-West of Australia is inhabited by subpallida. in litt. Material. Eggs not certainly known. as hinted by Hellmayr (1914)”. morio geschieden. but I have not seen specimens... This suggests winter visitors from the South. presumably following Keast (1958). but surely C. Med. Zool. On Sumba. 3: 584 – Sumba. With only a single There is one case of apparent overlapping from Timor to the Little Kei Islands. all previous records of subpallida from the islands are due to Mathews’s misidentification and must be rejected. Rensch (3). didima (= kühni Hartert) differs from melanops only in its slightly paler color”.3 . Verheijen (1.Mees. caerulescens (a Philippine species) and the widely-distributed C. I was informed that there is no extra-Australian material of subpallida in the AMNH (LeCroy. 85029).— Everett (“a series”). not subpallida. but Hellmayr called these birds melanops. and the majority of individuals seems to stay in Australia”. dohertyi: “belongs undoubtedly to the morio assemblage”. 31. tenuirostris. Measurements: ( wing 187 tail 129 tarsus 29½ entire culmen 30½ exposed culmen 24 Coracina dohertyi (Hartert) Edoliosoma dohertyi Hartert. Collectors. Ripley (1941b) commented: “All the forms are representative.— Coracina dohertyi was not previously represented in the RMNH collection. Yet. Correct. it was logical that Mathews (1930: 534) assigned winter visitors to the Lesser Sunda Islands to this same subspecies. Sésok.1974). Thus. Mayr (1944a: 142) reverted to the name didima for winter visitors on Sumba: “C. but also left it as a separate species. Peters & Mayr (1960: 171).1971. and that a male. novaehollandiae is a breeding-bird on Melville Island. it cannot be particularly scarce on the two islands to which it is confined. Schmutz. Everett obtained “a series” and Rensch three specimens. but it is now known that the specimens of the Australian race subpallida. Rensch (1931a: 566) wrote: “E. RMNH no. Notes. Avifauna of Flores. dohertyi ist durch die scharfe schwarzgraue Zeichnung so sehr von den Angehörigen des Rassenkreises E. morio. MCZ). I am not in a position to speculate fruitfully about the affinities of this species with its peculiarly restricted distribution. n.

3 × 15.2 × 16. and less numerous light grey secondary markings. Pucheran. Notes. 20. MCZ).. 85324). Palué (RMNH no. c/— On Flores. 1986: 86-87).3 0. 1855: 352). c/2. 70760).1969.1584 0. and belong to L. Avifauna of Flores. Schmutz (2). 23632-23639). Eggs (fig.1453 0. 8: 155 – Bima (Sumbawa). sueurii at Klatakan and Dampar (cf. 17. 15b): c/3. RMNH no. leg.0 × 15. Material. Leiden 80 (2006) Lalage sueurii sueurii (Vieillot) Turdus Suerii [sic] Vieillot. Verheijen.1472 0.148 Mees. 1818. As Rensch (1931a: 562) observed one near Endeh.ii.ii.1969. RMNH 70759 20. Nggoang. 8. Palué (RMNH no. 70759). nigra.1960. 29. where he obtained skins of L.3 21. Material. P. lansbergei is a derivative of P.7 entire culmen 15 14 exposed culmen 11 11 .v.— de Jong (1). Measurements and weights of two clutches: RMNH no. labelled Lalage sp. Mees.1960. 9.2 × 16. Verheijen (3.2 21. 70761). cf. 5. this species appears to be rather local in distribution. 76725. only the specimen collected by De Jong at Laboean Badjo is known. and Schmutz (MS) has several records from the neighbourhood of Nanga-Lili. Collectors. Nat. Measurements: ( im.— Presumably. When Verheijen (1961) met with it on Palué. 28. 70760 Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967: 86) did not know eggs of L.1960. sueurii from Java. and between Nanga-Lili and Wae-Wako. 1976: 15).7 × 16. he remarked that he had never yet seen it in West Flores. ( im. 70758). There is also a clutch of eggs from Ndao near Roti in the collection (c/2. Dict. Notes Leyden Mus.— Everett (several). Verheijen (eggs). Palué (RMNH no. Notes. Zool. Hist. cinnamomeus. Collectors. Nunang. RMNH no. Lai. From mainland Flores. Med. & wing 71 70 tail 87 88 tarsus 16. 81409).159 20: 270 – la Nouvelle-Hollande = Timor (cf.1972. heavily spotted with more or less longitudinally-directed medium-brown primary markings. Palué (RMNH no. it is likely to be more widely distributed around the coast. Schmutz (?). Verheijen. Nouv.1563 RMNH no. Kooiman collected eight clutches.. Wodja.5 17.9 20. The eggs are pale greenish.— &.vi.— Apparently no skins. It is a perfectly safe deduction that the eggs are from the same localities.8 21. sueurii. Pericrocotus lansbergei Büttikofer Pericrocotus Lansbergei Büttikofer. eggs only. all Kooiman’s collecting was done in far eastern Java. Rensch (3). 1886. Unfortunate as it is that the eggs are without data. of which the original data (locality and date) have become lost (RMNH nos. de Jong (3). c/2. 650 m (Schmutz. 850 m (Schmutz. They do not differ significantly from eggs of L.1960.

Collectors. 65384-65386. Material. Material.1971. Notes. so that there can be no confusion about the date. Nggolong Tedé.5-35 (33.1880. 4 (. 2 (. Poéng (RMNH no.1888. 10).0) 13. Measurements: 4( & wing 70-74 (72. (RMNH nos. 31. c/3 (41 ×) and c/4 (11 ×) eggs. Material. of c/1 (19 ×). Collectors.: xx – Java. 85089. legs grey. Flores (Colfs.— (. ( im. There are also several records from Sumba. RMNH nos. 65382). mountain lake Rana-Ka (Verheijen.Mees. 81359. 12.— Semmelink. collected in the months April (1). Novit. 1862. Collectors. RMNH cat. 1897. October (38) and November (14). Leiden 80 (2006) 149 Lanius cristatus superciliosus Latham [Lanius] superciliosus Latham. RMNH cat.4 exposed culmen 13.— The fact that this species has been recorded by four collectors. 15. received in spirits (cf. Lond.1969.— (.— This interesting endemic form appears to be known from very few specimens. Everett.1) 17. Everett. 18. Büttikofer. xii. 1968/1977. &. RMNH cat.3) 57 tarsus 32. Flores (Colfs. Med. Weber’s specimen. 12 &. Linn. Colfs. Orn. so that either the quality was insufficient and it has never been entered into the collection (most likely). Ruteng. Ruteng. RMNH no.ix.iii. de Jong (5). obtained four specimens. 85402-85404. and that may be the reason why it was not . Suppl. Hartert (1897b: 516) recorded that Everett obtained only two pairs. bill black. Potjo Gurung.1880. September (31). 1700 m (Verheijen. no. Trans.5 (18. MCZ). Rensch (4). Weber. 29. Verheijen. 73513). Verheijen/Schmutz. August (18). &. According to a manuscript list by Büttikofer. 13: 157 – Java. 4 juv. Avifauna of Flores. 59906-59917. 1801. RMNH nos. 1900 m (Verheijen.3) 71 tail 56-62 (59.5 Saxicola caprata fruticola Horsfield Saxicola fruticola Horsfield. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 85216). Eggs: 103 clutches.— Weber (1). Iris dark brown. or from Timor. Iris brown. Zool.. was made into a study skin for the RMNH collection. (. 65381. The full data of the April clutch are: c/2. 85090). Notes. Nanga-Lili (Schmutz. Allen. 4: 170 – At and above 3500 feet in South Flores. no. 16).5-18. Schmutz (1). The five specimens listed here seem to be the only ones obtained since. The clutch came to Leiden with the collection Coomans de Ruiter.1973. RMNH cat. Zool. 1 (?). July (1). 1821. from various localities in Manggarai (Verheijen/Schmutz. c/2 (32 ×). Everett (4). one of whom.. I have been unable to find it.— Everett (4). 17). c). proves that Flores belongs to the normal winter range of this subspecies. 85088). 66159. Maumeri (Weber. Stomach contents remains of grasshoppers.1969. (. 65391.4) 32.— 2 (. nos. 70770-70871. Brachypteryx montana floris Hartert Brachypteryx floris Hartert. Ind. Soc. with the month April written in full. RMNH nos. but I do not know of any from the islands to the east of Flores. iv. the clutch has an original label. RMNH no. skeleton. or it has been given out in exchange.8-14 (14. de Jong (2). 73513).4 entire culmen 17. 85411). v. Verheijen (11. 1894: 299).

0 × 14. As far as the name Saxicola caprata fruticola is concerned: fruticola is a masculine substantivum. in the combination Motacilla Caprata. 1920: 171). and recorded as its local name there Maria-capra. the issue is confused by the example given: “Compound Latin nouns ending in -cola. RMNH no.1271 Some 10% of the nests were found parasitized by Cacomantis variolosus (cf. as an adjectivum. collected outside the period JulyNovember.7 × 13.8 0.6 × 14.0969 18. so that it is not affected by the gender of its genus. Leiden 80 (2006) listed by Verheijen (1964): when he wrote his article. and suggests erroneously that names ending in -cola are always to be treated as masculine (cf. which tend to be closest together around the blunt end.150 Mees. 1948: 41). the name Caprata was derived in some way from this vernacular. but rubetra (“bramblebush-inhabiting” is a Latin adjectivum and decides the gender (Coomans de Ruiter et al. which means that its termination does not change with the gender of the genus. 1969).7 0. but Dr Kraak now supports the opinion that it is a substantivum.1 × 14. unless from the original description it is apparent that an author regarded the name as feminine.8 0. S.3 0.3 × 14.7 × 14. This is a non sequitur.6 0. Some measurements and weights: 17. The clutch is important as being the only one in a series of over a hundred. Coomans de Ruiter et al. torquata rubicola. but what about caprata? The name was introduced by Linnaeus (1766: 335).1177 20. the most widely distributed of which is at present universally known as S.0961 17.6 0. this clutch was no longer in his possession. The genus was based on three species. Ottow & Verheijen. who described the species from Luzon. unfortunately. and by inference fruticola. 70826 15. suggests that he regarded it as a substantivum. but the masculine version has sometimes been used earlier in the last century (for example by Stresemann.8 × 14. lightly to moderately freckled with medium-brown spots. The eggs are light greenish blue. Med. when introducing Caprata. Naturally.— There is a ruling that names ending with -cola have to be treated as masculine substantiva.1045 17.11 18. such as Sylvicola. rubicola: Oenanthe and rubicola are substantiva. 1985: art. (1948: 42) regarded rubicola.8 × 14. pointing out this contradiction in the Code. gave it an initial capital. Rubetra and S.9 × 15. The genus Saxicola contains several other species.4 0.7 0. 70823 18. I presume that it has been acted upon and the error has been corrected. 70827 20.1117 18.0954 16. Avifauna of Flores. Evidently. although it is not clear how.5 0. torquata and its European subspecies as S. The fact that Linnaeus. 70822 Notes. I wrote to the Secretariat of the ICZN. Saxicola has usually been considered feminine.1099 18.7 0. are treated as masculine”. in the combinations S.7 0.6 × 14.4 0. and that is correct. 30). and was based on Brisson (1760: 442).1081 RMNH no. Oenanthe.9 × 14. Mauersberger.1112 RMNH no. and although my letter remained unacknowledged. 1983: 52). in which case the feminine gender is retained (ICZN..2 × 15. .1113 RMNH no. Zool.

Novit. 81437). 29.— This species is in measurements very similar to Z. 29. Med. but has a distinctly longer tail. 8. Collectors. Of the postulated differences. RMNH no. 70763 The second egg is too damaged for measuring and weighing 25.1978. 85034).2299 Notes.9 × 19.v. 30. 1931b: 398).1 0. Leiden 80 (2006) 151 Zoothera interpres (Temminck) Turdus interpres Temminck.Mees. Mayr (1944a: 155) concluded that there is some geographical variation in size: “The population from Timor shows the largest measurements. Material. Mano (RMNH no. 81455).x. According to White & Bruce (1986: 333). Nggolong Tedé (Verheijen. &. Note the complete absence of a difference in size between the sexes.1973. 81436). Hartert.vii. RMNH no. Verheijen (2. Therefore Z. Verheijen/Schmutz. Todo (Verheijen. 85322). 1828. the larger size of the Timor birds: . heavily freckled with light brown. 81320). interpres has no subspecies. &. RMNH no. 23.5 Zoothera dohertyi (Hartert) Geocichla dohertyi Hartert.1976. Flores” (cf. 3. (. Rana-Ka (Verheijen. it is not generally distributed. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. but are a little larger and heavier. 26. 1900 m (Verheijen. Recueil d’Ois. 29.3 exposed culmen 16. Nggolong Tedé.1954. Eggs (fig. 19.xii. Zool. 75): pl. 81454). I find only that of the Timor birds convincing. 27. c/2. On the basis of a combination of measurements of his own material. this species shows no geographical variation. 70763). 2 (livr.— &. 21. RMNH no. described by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967). there are no eggs in his collection.iii. 81435). Wae Golo Lolo (Verheijen. Eggs: Verheijen (1964: 199) records breeding in May. ? & juv. (. Measurements: ( wing 104 tail 58 tarsus 27 entire culmen 20.1971. range. 3: 555. (. interpres from Java. RMNH no.xi.— Everett obtained “A series from S. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Nilo (RMNH no. 85035). and that I received but a single specimen. Ulu Ros ( 1896. I agree with Junge (1938: 352) that: “The differences between interpres and leucolaema are large enough to regard leucolaema as a separate species”. 15c): c/1. Lingko Laring Pongkor (Verheijen. 65368).2490 0. Rensch. although it is not rare locally. RMNH no.v. Collectors.1956. It is surprising that in its comparatively large. (. RMNH no. Rensch (3). 24. those of Sumba and Sumbawa the smallest. RMNH no.1978. Ulu Wae Wua (Verheijen.1978.1976.— (. RMNH no.— Everett. 70762 RMNH no. Verheijen/Schmutz (1). Material. 3 – Lombok.— The facts that this species was not found in Flores by Rensch. and measurements previously published by Rensch. Avifauna of Flores.. RMNH no. Zool. RMNH no. 85033). The eggs are creamish. Wae Rungget (Verheijen. 21. and mostly insular. indicate that. xi fig. Ruteng (Verheijen.2 26. Ulu Ros (Verheijen. 65369). RMNH no. (.vi. de Jong (3). 1897b: 515) and de Jong collected three near Wai Sano (cf. (.8 × 19. they resemble closely eggs of Z.iii.1976. 70762).iii. interpres.1970. while those of Lombok and Flores are intermediate”. MCZ).iii. Notes.1969. 15. (.1973. 458 – à Java et à Sumatra.

6) 16-18 (17) 17 Zoothera andromedae (Temminck) Myiothera andromedae Temminck.9) 31 entire culmen 20.3) 21 exposed culmen 16. 15d): c/2. restricted type locality W. which is worth recording in view of the absence of such a difference in Z. 121. whose specimens were obtained at a level of about 3500 feet (ca.1 0. 120.— &. RMNH no. 85032). Danau Rana-Ka. Nggolong Tedé.1969. Therefore I have taken the wing-measurements of some specimens from other islands in the RMNH–collection. (. &. wing 103-108 (105) 103-108 (105) 102 tail 65-73 (69) 67-70 (68. legs brown or light reddish.1973. Java (Kuroda). 8. Mutis”. as follows.5) 20. 124. 70768). Material.5-22. 118. 126. RMNH no. 117. (. it is difficult to understand how the species was missed by Abbott in 1904 and by J. The Timor birds were taken at 1600-2300 m. These figures confirm the existence of a moderate average difference between the sexes. Admittedly it is known to be skulking and not easily observed.2880 0. Danau Rana-Ka. Eggs (fig. for if it were a resident.xii. 128. the female only 125”. 2 (livr. Timor ( 133. 17. 1050 m). On Sumbawa Johnstone et al. On the basis of the three males and only one female collected by Everett.4 29. 2. 127.4 × 20. Potjong (RMNH no. 121. Leiden 80 (2006) “may be due to their living at a high altitude: the species has only been found there on Mt.iii. 27.5-18. dohertyi.1976. On Flores. 120.iii. 126. 123. as on Java. Avifauna of Flores. 126. Collectors.2868 Notes. 124.— Everett (4). Java 8 ( 122. Iris brown. (1996: 173) recorded Z.7) 64 tarsus 30-32 (30.9) 28. Sumatra. 122 (type).8-22 (21. Zool. Med. 1900 m (Verheijen.0 27. 85031). c/2. RMNH no.1973. bill dark brown to horn-black.— The only previous record of this species from Flores is by Everett. 65367). 126. 30. Ulu tuke’ nikit (Schmutz. this indicates that its ecological requirements are far from well known. 130.2-31 (29.2506 0. andromedae from altitudes of 450-850 m. Recueil d’Ois.7 (21. Ruteng. but I cannot vouch for the reliability of their sexing. this seems to be definitely a mountain bird. 119. lower than I would have expected. Measurements: 7( 3& &? Juv. 120. 2200 m (Verheijen.6 28. 2200 m (Verheijen.v. 1826.1 × 21. 2 ( 124. 123.3 × 19. 70769 29.K. 70769). Measurements and weights: RMNH no. without data (RMNH no. 97120).7 (17. Verheijen/Schmutz. 392 – les îles de Java et de Sumatra (the figured type is from Java). 123. Salvadori’s (1892: 134) record of three specimens from the island of Engano is above suspicion.iii. certainly requires qualification. My four specimens do not support this. Hartert (1897b: 515) concluded that females of this species are smaller than males: “The males have the wing 136 to 137 mm. as this record suggests.2454 0. 66): pl.1960. My series from Flores includes specimens collected at 1900 and 2200 m. . White’s (in White & Bruce. RMNH no. 70768 RMNH no. Nevertheless it is puzzling. 14 & 111. de Jong in 1937. 1986: 333) statement that this is a lowland species.1 × 19.152 Mees.

and still 1981: 309) states: “not yet recorded from Indonesian Borneo”. Collectors. distributed species should show so little indication of geographical variation. but irregularly.xi.iii. I cannot confirm this: a wing-length .5 30.1976. Sindoro. 27 Turdus obscurus Gmelin [Turdus] obscurus 13) 1 (2): 816 – in Sibiriae silvis.5 23 exposed culmen 16.— Everett (“a series”).vi. 4: 168 – South Flores.. ultra lacum Baical.8 exposed culmen 25. Schmutz. 81317). to speculate why this widely. RMNH no. 133 124. Notes. Poco Nernancang. Material. In Java. Bartels collected three specimens on the Pangerango (1. they also suggest that birds from the eastern part of the range are larger than birds from Sumatra and Java.— Colfs. 2.5. 11). but Nieuwenhuis collected a specimen on the upper Mahakam as early as November 1899 (RMNH cat. that from Java eastwards. Collectors. 28.. 1897. 1500 m (Schmutz. at elevations of about 3000 to 3500 feet.1915. &. Flores (Colfs.xii. Dammerman.1909.— &. Leiden 80 (2006) 153 In combination with the measurements published by Hartert. 39. Measurements: ( & (?) wing 128 122 124 tail 83 77 82 tarsus 30 30 31 entire culmen 22. obscurus on Flores is not exceptional.Mees.5 30. 1929: 57.— It is a pity that the specimen collected by Colfs cannot be dated. RMNH no. RMNH no. Bagelen.1910. Verheijen.6 16 16 Pnoepyga pusilla everetti Rothschild Pnoepyga everetti Rothschild. birds tend to become larger in size. Nat. Material. (1880). thus conforming to the rule. (. 1933: 293). Med. extend this to Central Java. and again 1905: 21. 28 25. near Danau Rana-Ka. and a series of 50 at Tjibening. 28. 1789. 12. No eggs. Measurements: 2( 2& wing 128. same locality (Schmutz. all in the short period 13-19. 31. These records suggest that the occurrence of T. 64 tarsus 32. Avifauna of Flores. 129 tail 73. 33 entire culmen 31.1905. 11-14. Ruteng. no. 31. but perhaps not rewarding. Zool.1914).8 21.1976.ii. RMNH cat. Notes.iii. 126). Syst. (ed. It is tempting. 12. I cannot judge whether Bartels had any particular reason for collecting so many specimens from what evidently was one large flock. 85221).— (?). 15): this bird was recorded by Finsch (1901a: 176. 80 69. the species had hitherto been recorded from the West only (cf. no.1973. Djampang Tengah. 85036). In West Java. Kuroda. Novit.— Rensch (1931a: 569) states: “Diese Rasse ist von der javanischen wohl nur durch etwas bedeutendere Grösse unterschieden”. the species is included in Verheijen’s (1964: 199) list with a question mark. but four specimens collected by Bartels at Sikatok. Rensch (5). 2200 m (Verheijen. Smythies (1968: 415. formulated by Rensch.

70875 RMNH no.1 × 13. 85215).2 19.0980 0. without any suggestion of a peak. 15e): 22 clutches of one (6 ×) and two (16 ×) eggs collected in the months February (3). (. &.0915 0. April (2). not dark ferruginous-brown.1969. inside of mouth orange-yellow. (?) juv.6 × 13.0926 0.0 × 14. 26. 1.5 entire culmen exposed culmen 14.1976. 28. This is now increased to 2200 m (Rana-Ka). In neither of his two early publications did Hartert (1897a. 1900 m (Verheijen. Med. 14.iii.1968. Evidently.0926 0. blackish brown.3 19. July (2). 70889 RMNH no. May (1). but the above specimen from Flores has a slightly longer and more slender bill than P. rufa. Zool. Verheijen/Schmutz. 70886 RMNH no. syntype). 70876 RMNH no.6 × 13.. Collectors.xi.4 × Measurements: & wing 52 tail tarsus 20. 70879 RMNH no. Leiden 80 (2006) of 52 mm is quite normal in females from Java.6 × 14.0 × 14.0924 0. Rensch (1931a: 568) found it from sea-level (Endeh) to 1400 m.iii. mandible dirty white. Material. is remarkable.1973.3 × 13. March (3).0 Notes.xi.0900 0.1896. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 22. Rensch (5). &.0 × 14.0963 0. 24. RMNH no.4 18.0922 the second egg consists of broken pieces 0.0947 0. 70874 RMNH no.xi. The distribution of these records over the year. 70890 20. and the pileum is darker.4 × 13.1025 RMNH no.0 × 13. Ruteng (Verheijen. Novit. RMNH no.8 19. 4: 170 – South Flores.1973. Ruteng (Verheijen. Iris brown or grey-brown. RMNH no.0999 0. Ero (Verheijen. RMNH cat. de Jong (5). 1897. 70872 RMNH no. 85213). Danau Rana-Ka (Verheijen.2 × 13.1 19. Zool. There has been a notable diversity of opinions about the systematic position of this species.9 20. 70878 18. 7.iii. Ruteng (Verheijen.0859 0. RMNH no. 70887 RMNH no.0 × 13. two is the normal clutch-size.0957 0. MCZ).6 × 14.4 × 13. Nggolong Tedé. legs greyish flesh colour. August (2). &. 1900 m (Verheijen. and one not dated (RMNH nos. bill maxilla brownish black. (. 70872-70893).154 Mees.1976. (. 59882).0950 0.0888 0. 70873 RMNH no.9 20.— (?). 65435). 1897b) . 81375). RMNH no. 81367). 4. Verheijen (9.8 12 Tesia everetti everetti (Hartert) Orthnocichla everetti Hartert. June (4).8 20.0901 0. 65436). 59881). &.— Everett (“a series”). RMNH no.4 × 13. Eggs (fig. 18.1967. RMNH no. (. p.1973. RMNH no. September (1). 81357.5 20.1 20. 4. It was originally described as the second member of the previously monotypic genus Orthnocichla. no. November (1).8 18. South Flores (Everett. x. &.— The species has a large vertical distribution.0928 0. Ulu Ros (Verheijen. RMNH nos.9 19. 85214).9 21.8 0. and December (2).7 20.xii. Danau Rana-Ka (Verheijen. Avifauna of Flores.5 × 13.ii.6 18.0 × 13.1968.0842 0.0 20. Nggolong Tedé near Ruteng.

. sides of breast and flanks darker. from Borneo. Only a few years later. subulata occur in the low country”. of which they represent extremely short-tailed. Rensch (1931a: 568) must have been unaware of Finsch’s work when he wrote in the discussion of Orthnocichla everetti: “O. 1). but the species described as Microura superciliaris. Flores and Timor. T. that he could compare with the type material of O. subulata. everetti and O. Finsch (1901b: 212-215). Med. von N-Borneo”. He is. is no longer followed in treating the latter as a subspecies of the former. Zool. subulata (an error that may have inspired Watson to make the same error over forty years later). that Delacour transferred Tesia to the Sylviidae. Hartert (1898b: 114) did receive material. in having a very distinct buffy white superciliary line. subulata of Timor and Flores”. regarded O. near Flores) were considered. cyaniventer. beginning with: “In examining the short-tailed species (C. whiteheadi Sharpe is evidently a mountain bird. In this stage. daß sie nicht mehr mit everetti zu einem Rassenkreis vereinigt werden kann. the superciliary line rusty.. the back being much darker brown. subulata. This sentence only makes sense when it is assumed that Delacour. the type species of the genus. I have therefore put them in the genus Cettia (subgenus Urosphena). Noch ferner steht C. Delacour defines the genus Tesia. although Chasen (1935: 231). A year later. usually referred to the genus Orthocichla [sic]. everetti. it has occurred to me that they had been wrongly placed in. While O.) ist so scharf differenziert. Avifauna of Flores. O. Chasen (1935: 231 footnote 2) referred casually to “T. on which he commented: “This Orthnocichla differs considerably from O.Mees. concluding: “In my opinion the following species belong to the genus Tesia Hodgson. he accepted that O. Evidently. it was observed that the Himalayan Tesia cyaniventer is close to Microura superciliaris. in the neighbourhood of . Yet. it was left to Delacour (1942: 514) to give arguments for leading O. long-tarsus adaptations”. Orthnocichla = Pseudoxenicus everetti was somehow forgotten. Leiden 80 (2006) 155 discuss this placement. or near. subulata and O. everetti. olivea (India to Indo-China). at that time known as Oligura superciliaris. or left behind. the beak being narrower and more pointed. which is pale ashy grey in O. whiteheadi from Mount Kina Balu in Borneo differs in having a much darker. everetti as a subspecies of O. under the superciliary stripe runs a blackish brown line from the eye to the neck. so that only its description and geographical probability (O. He expressed this relationship by proposing a new genus. subulata). everetti (Flores and Sumbawa)”. both O. everetti Hart. but gave no explanation. had received a specimen of O. T. almost black crown. along the sides of the head. subulata was described from Timor. It is Finsch’s merit to have realised that not O. everetti. in the very next paragraph. Thus. [meant is O. A step forward was. however. As Tesia is the older generic name.] whiteheadi Shpe. everetti (RMNH cat. superciliaris (Java) and T. which is not developed in O. who held a very broad species-concept. like Chasen before him. subulata Shpe. the wing shorter. von Timor und Babar (hier Rasse advena Hart. subulata. it replaced Pseudoxenicus. whiteheadi and C. 1832: T. because of their superficial resemblance to Xenicus of New Zealand). of Flores in being very much smaller.. everetti into Tesia. rather confused about it. This line is not developed in O. for these two species (Pseudoxenicus. no. and in its white breast. subulata. the genus Tesia. everetti and O.. and the reason is obvious: at that time he did not yet have material of O. from West Java is the closest relative of O. legs smaller and lighter in colour. everetti are congeneric. Pseudoxenicus. Soon afterwards.

. O. Zool. superciliaris. has a more slender bill. everetti. Next came Watson (in Watson et al. I support without hesitation the second opinion: morphologically O.. it may be said that there are two lines of thought about the position of O. from the Troglodytidae. everetti and O. somewhat flattened bill. Records from the mountains of Java. subulata. reduced O. derived from Tesia superciliaris of Java. a relatively longer tail and a shorter tarsus (see table of measurements). note that he treated Urosphena as a genus. Verheijen (1964: 199) followed Hartert and Rensch in keeping to the original binomen Orthnocichla everetti. not notably wider near its basis. the nomenclature he used was based on a list sent to him by Dr Mayr in 1957 (through a misprint. not as a subgenus of Cettia. subulata generically. Med. 10. 1986: 338) had intended to follow Delacour in placing O. not as a subspecies. everetti are indistinguishable from those of T. Presumably on the basis of Delacour’s revision. Mayr (1944a: 136) called the Timor species Urosphena subulata. In addition. that it represents a second. the author’s names of Pnoepyga pusilla everetti and Orthnocichla e. in consultation with the editors of Watson. on the other hand. where it was still placed by Chasen (1935: 231) and Hoogerwerf (1948a: 131). superciliaris in the basally broad. (later) wave of colonisation. Avifauna of Flores. from which it has only subsequently differentiated. finally decided to place O. the very short tail. in colour. and which therefore is its closest relative.156 Mees. which is obviously ridiculous and only understandable when it is assumed that he had not personally examined and compared these species. Summarizing. subulata. subulata in Urosphena. who. Tesia superciliaris. and retaining O. everetti in the genus Tesia. everetti to a subspecies of Urosphena subulata. White (in White & Bruce. The last word is by King (1989). in the genera Tesia and Urosphena respectively. probably misled by Delacour’s enigmatic passage quoted above. although as a distinct species. everetti have become transposed in his list). who again separated O. and also in measurements and weights (com- Fig. but Bruce. Leiden 80 (2006) Cettia. everetti agrees with T. the long tarsus. 1986a: 6). as I found by direct comparison. One is that it belongs to the same wave of colonisation as O. everetti in Urosphena. the eggs of O. The other.

2-15 (14. subulata are whitish. 10). everetti. For some 20 years. v. Compare this with the conspicuously distinctive juvenile plumage of T. van Heurn. and this has been accepted by later authors.6) 10 & 47-49. subulata remain unknown. Hoogerwerf. restored to species status by Delacour (1942: 514.7-16 (15. 1967: 118). Slamat (Bartels) in the western part of Middle Java.2 13. given above. Chasen (l. Against this is a point that has been given much weight by some authors: the inconspicuous brown coloration that O. summit Manglajan 1800 m (F.2 (15. c.1) 49-53 (51. Zool. It ranges therefore throughout the mountains of West Java. 1947: 271). Chasen. subulata share.2) 16½ 13-17. 1935: 231..4) .4 24-25.4) 51 tail 16½-20 (18. 1929: 129.5 (25.7) 22. superciliaris was regarded as a subspecies of T.1) 23-25 (24. 1986a: 5): “Mountains of western and central Java”.Mees.5-24.9) 10-12 (11.0) 15½-17 (16. Material in the RMNH collection is from the Pangerango (Bartels). everetti are mostly light grey. except that the latter is known from Mt. 1949b: 2. superciliaris provided by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf. T. Med. Papandajan (Stresemann. it should be pointed out that in juvenile T. 1948a: 131) but it was. so far as I am aware without explanation. Tjinjiroewan (v. The underparts of both T.7 (13. 1933).6) 25. T. Measurements: Flores (Tesia everetti) 4( 5& wing 53-55½ (54. The underparts are also distinctive. as opposed to grey in the adult.) and Delacour (l.C. Balgooy). superciliaris and T. Slamat in Middle Java (fig.2-13 (12. c. Tankoeban Prahoe 1400-1600 m (F. Weele). Kuroda (1933: 327) gave its range as: “Confined to West and Mid Java”. 1930) and Tjerimai (Kuroda. Bartels & Stresemann. whence T.8 (11. Interesting is that a juvenile of T. As regards its distribution in Java. This argument is weakened by the fact that the eggs of O.6) 13 11-12. and to Mt. and the undersurface a little darker grey.3) 11-15 (13. everetti does hardly differ from the adults: its plumage is a little looser. Garrulax rufifrons. Leiden 80 (2006) 157 pare the figures of O. Avifauna of Flores.0) 13. everetti. Lonsain. brownish. superciliaris.1) entire culmen exposed culmen 16-17 (16. In this connection.0) 13-13.0) (?) Java (Tesia superciliaris) 10 ( 49-52 (50.2) 12. superciliaris. as opposed to the distinctive dull blackish and grey head markings of T. everetti and O. then.0-16. 1924: 287.d. is an endemic species of Java. 99). in one case yellowish brown. superciliaris of which the upper parts have been described above.4) 15. but all the localities he listed are from West Java.5 (48. It has further been recorded from Tjibodas-Gedeh (Hoogerwerf. 1941: 10.8) 17. This range is almost the same as that of another endemic Javanese mountain-bird. all in the western part of West Java. with those of T.C. Karang in Bantam. cyaniventer of the Asiatic mainland (Robinson & Kloss. van Heurn). superciliaris has not yet been recorded.4 (23. implying that it ranges throughout the mountains of the island. whereas the underparts of O. and Kali Goea.) give it as Java.6) tarsus 24-25 (24.5 (15. Watson (in Watson et al. head and mantle are warm brown (without olive as in the adult) and are remarkably similar to the adult plumage of T. superciliaris the head markings are not yet developed.

Regulus ignicapillus. Collectors. clearly regarded as exceptional. which would make a discussion superfluous.5 × 11.1976. Rensch (1).0484 0. June (5).8 × 11. Timor.0418 0. (?).2 15. Proc. in a paper published only 15 months before the one just quoted.8 × 11. Sexing of this old material is unreliable. 1. Waé Rempo (Schmutz. collected in the months January (1).0476 0.g.8 entire culmen 12. but they ignore the fact. Soc. 1864. 71017 14. and two not dated (RMNH nos. July (1). One of the examples given is Cisticola fulvicapilla.6 11.8 exposed culmen 9.0477 0. 81421). RMNH no. and August (1). David & Gosselin (2002: 38) argued that names ending in -capilla/-capillus are substantiva and therefore do not change with the gender of their genus.1 15. 2). February (5).0580 RMNH no. Verheijen/Schmutz.7 × 11. and that all three names are unequivocally stated to be Latin adjectiva. that there are three species with ending -capilla/-capillus on the Dutch list. E. and Parus atricapillus.2 14.3 × 11. de Jong (2).. 70978-71025).2 *) Syntypes of O. 30. March (7). April (14). 150). c/2 (17 ×). It seems wise to be reticent in the alteration of customary endings until classical scholars agree among themselves. 71018 RMNH no. c/3 (19 ×) and c/4 (4 ×). by Lynes (1930: 633). in which atricapilla seems to have been used as a substantivum.— (. as has been done in some recent works (e. (1948) Sylvia atricapilla.0451 0. Cisticola juncidis fuscicapilla Wallace Cisticola fuscicapilla Wallace.— Allen.0435 0.5 12. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) Timor (Orthnocichla subulata) *) ( 53 24 19 14. MCZ). and therefore included in the work by Coomans de Ruiter et al. In their later paper the sudden change of stand remained unexplained.2 15.8 .0 × 11. May (12).0 15. that Cisticola has consistently been treated as feminine and that it should be possible to preserve this gender for it. Zool. RMNH no. nos. not to be changed to fulvicapillus.0432 0. 1598. They discuss one case.2 15.4 × 11.2 14. Zool. Surprisingly David & Gosselin (2000: 264).2 14. There is no need to change the traditionally feminine gender of Cisticola to masculine. subulata (RMNH cat. Flores. Material.9 9.3 12 & 55 24½ 18.158 Mees. collected in 1829. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. Avifauna of Flores. Lond.4 × 11.8 × 11.7 15. Measurements: ( (?) wing 50 49 tail 36 36 tarsus 20 19. 1990). 81417). Eggs: 48 clutches of c/1 (8 ×). however. I must add. mentioned above. 71019 Notes.0587 0. no data (Verheijen no. Thus they agree here with Coomans de Ruiter et al. state that atricapillus is a classical Latin adjectivum.7 0.i. Verheijen (8. Type locality restricted to “Delli” (= Dilli).— The gender of names ending with -cola has been discussed on a previous page (p. Sibley & Monroe. Everett (3). (1863): 489 – Timor.

70972 Notes. as I pointed out many years ago (Mees. differs in a similar way from Australian lineocapilla. September (1). where it is common. Material from all months of the year would be required.x) in winter plumage. Mayr (1944a: 135) observed that birds from the Lesser Sunda Islands have the colour of the underparts more deeply washed with ochre than specimens from northern Australia (Melville Island). RMNH no.1971. Proc.1 × 12. Considering that the main breeding takes place in the months March to June. 7.9 × 11. Weber. with rather coarse light to medium brown markings. Verheijen.— (. deeper in colour. moderately glossy. 1961b: 114). Med. Rahong. the Lesser Sunda Islands.8 16. 70971 RMNH no. Langkas.0 14. July (2). Indeed.0550 0.0 × 11.8 exposed culmen 10. de Jong (1).7 15. but his material was very limited. is that the former are brighter. (. c/2 (29 ×). Measurements: ( ( wing 48 47 tail 33½ 48 tarsus 20 19. of c/1 (15 ×).— Allen (cf. Soc.x. Avifauna of Flores.6 15. June (15).xii) is in summer plumage. 73514.3 16. collected in the months January (1). 70957 RMNH no. both of which are common on Flores. 900 m (Verheijen. MCZ).0541 0. Wallace.1888.Mees. Note that the subspecies rustica. Eggs (fig. 70894-70977.8 × 11.0526 one egg damaged 0. c/3 (30 ×) and c/4 (12 ×). My impression.8 10. both for a study of geographical variation and for an understanding of seasonality in plumage variation. 15f): 86 clutches.3 17. The bird collected by Weber (31. November (1) and December (1). the one collected by Verheijen (7. Gurung. April (21).0536 0. The eggs are light blue. with a long tail. Zool. Material. Collectors. 76582). Kotting (Weber. with a comparatively short tail.0573 0. March (11).9 0.0 × 11.— In his classical monograph.8 15. Lond.1 16.1 × 11.0 × 11. 31. and two without date (RMNH nos.049 0. In retrospect. Leiden 80 (2006) 159 Cisticola exilis lineocapilla Gould Cysticola lineocapilla Gould. inhabiting the Moluccas and Sulawesi (Celebes).1 × 11. 509a.0525 0. gained from a superficial comparison of a series from West Java with only a few specimens from tropical Australia.n. C. exilis from Java. Zool. than the latter. Everett (“several specimens”). into one subspecies lineocapilla. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.0578 0. 1864: 485.0443 0. he was not even aware of the occurrence of the species in West Java.xii. May (27). ruficeps). 1847. and northern Australia.0545 0.5 × 11.4 × 12. Admiral Lynes (1930) included all populations of C.2 × 11. 15: 1 – Port Essington. I much regret not having encouraged the Fathers to collect more material of the two Cisticola-species. February (4). Nr. it is unexpected to have a bird in summer plumage in December. 85222). Verheijen (1. RMNH).7 entire culmen 13. and possibly worthy of subspecific separation.5 .5 × 11.7 16.0 14.4 13.5 16. s.0562 RMNH no. 70970 16.0558 0.

ii. 14. I note that Dickinson et al. 25. Ruteng (Verheijen.— &?. Collectors.9 16.2 16. Weber (2). 24. therefore. vi. Material. 97135). 29. RMNH no. 65410). Eggs (fig. 375b Notes.0522 0. 375b). (.8) 12. 6. 12. one of which an undescribed one.1960.1973. with a spotted breast. 20. Rensch (1). 375a 16. 1913. 81410).5 × 12. 44 (42.— There is still controversy over the number of subspecies to be recognized in this species.2 × 12. When authorities cannot agree on the subspecies. RMNH no. Avifauna of Flores. 16. Zool. Phylloscopus borealis examinandus Stresemann. Rae’ (Schmutz. this endemic subspecies was previously known from very few specimens.9 × 12. and record as winter visitors to the Philippines no less than six subspecies. 85207).4 15. b. 2 (. (. Todo (Verheijen. 66193).1 × 11. Léwé (RMNH no.1958.x. de Jong (2).8) 17-18 (17. 4: 517 – from 3000 and 4000 feet in S. RMNH.iii. 65435).1973. 22. 85208). Ulu Ros (Verheijen. &.vi. 375a).1969.1971.1) 17.v.6 (17. 69764). 10. 15g): c/3. Waé-Ntjuang (Verheijen. Novit. 65409). RMNH no. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Waé-Ntjuang. large.: 296 – Amoy. Mataloko (RMNH no. Flores.0 14.7) exposed culmen 13-15 (13. 85212). 85206).— Allen (1 or more). Kotting (Weber. RMNH no. (1991: 324-325) have no such qualms. 1897.5) tarsus 19. Measurements: 8( 4& wing 47½-50 (48.5) 43-49 (45. Novit. RMNH nos.6) Phylloscopus borealis xanthodryas (Swinhoe) Phyllopneuste xanthodryas Swinhoe.xi. Ruteng (Verheijen. The subspecies examinandus was based on material from the Lesser Sunda Islands.ii.1976. which. 65432).1976.9) tail 43½-47½ (46) 41. –– As will be evident from the remarks given under the heading “Collectors”. Notes. &. &. Collectors.0557 0. Material.v. Verheijen/Schmutz.ii. c/3.0536 0. would be the correct subspecific name for the birds from this region.160 Mees.1976. Ruteng ( Nantal. Verheijen/Schmutz (12).3 15. 22. speculation about the identity of birds in their winter quarters appears to be even less meaningful. RMNH nos. their characters and distribution. 27. Golo-Karot. RMNH no. (.4 × 12.5 0.1969. Borong (Verheijen.1969. (. Proc. RMNH no. skinned from alcohol). Ulu Ros (Verheijen. Rahong (Verheijen. (. (. 4.viii. 26. RMNH no. Zool. (. 900 m (Verheijen. RMNH no. in the breeding quarters. Leiden 80 (2006) Orthotomus cucullatus everetti (Hartert) Phyllergates everetti Hartert. Zool. RMNH nos. In the absence of any explanatory notes. 85209).— Everett (2).8-14.1969. RMNH no. RMNH no.0) entire culmen 17-18. 26.xii. 23.4 × 12. 65434. Todo (Verheijen.1888.i. Zool. 1863. Soc. Everett (at least 4).7 (13. Later.1976.0575 0.6 (19. 20: 353 – Bali. Lond. Ero (Verheijen.8-19.1976.5-21 (20.ii. 69763. 85210.0577 RMNH no. 19/24. Langkas. &. Raé (Verheijen. xanthodryas is . P.xii. one is left to wonder on what the specific and even the generic allocation of this form was based. including Flores.1970. 2 &. Med.1971. this form was synonymized with xanthodryas. 85211).xii. RMNH no.0572 0. (?.— (?).

1976.1976. the specimens from Flores are.3. 1913b: 353. Poco Nernancang (RMNH no.— (. 5: 114 – Flores.ix.1976. 85197). 67.6. 81412). (. sex for sex. (. Nggolong-Tedé. Novit. 8. Ulu Ros (RMNH no. 10.8.2) tail 40-43 (41. 68 tail 49 44. . Poco Nernancang (RMNH no.0) exposed culmen 9. Poco Nernancang (RMNH nos.ii. too large for nominate borealis. Nggolong-Tedé (Verheijen.2 (13. 85190).1976. 1897. s. Collectors. 14. 18. examinandus. Ulu Tukenikit (RMNH no. 85204).ix. presbytes from Timor seems to have a greater vertical range: Everett obtained it at Atapupu. 85205.2) entire culmen 12-14 (13.1973.0. by Rensch between 1200 and 1400 m. &. 45 44.5 (20. 85194).1971.2 10. nominate P. Measurements: ( 3& 2 (?) wing 71 67. No eggs. 85196).iii. 85198). Novit.— & with large gonads. this species was taken by Everett at “elevations from 3000 and 3500 feet”.8 entire culmen 14. (. Avifauna of Flores. Verheijen/Schmutz. 24. [&]. 19. (. 45.1) 9. 21.1971.1971. 85195). (.1976.iii.ix.6. Ulu Tuké Nikit (RMNH no.9) 38-40 (38. Verheijen/Schmutz. 15. 1898. 29. 2 &.1973.1976. Leiden 80 (2006) 161 distinguishable from the nominate race by larger size. 19. 81415). Zool. 85201). &. Poco Nernancang (RMNH no. Mutis (1800-2300 m) and Ramelan (20002300 m).iii.2. Vaurie.xi. Rensch (9). &. Puar Lui (?) (RMNH no.9. Ulu Ros (RMNH no. 1100 m (Verheijen. Material. and belong to xanthodryas. 81377). On the basis of published measurements (Stresemann. 18. &.1) Seicercus montis floris (Hartert) Cryptolopha montis floris Hartert.— On Flores. ca.8-13. Laréng Pongkor. 1500 m (Verheijen. Rensch (5). Ruteng (RMNH no. on the coast.1976. Stein at Noilmina (up to 300 m). &.1972. giving it a total vertical range of 900-1900 m. 1959: 289). 85202). 85193). (. 81414). 22. Hotju. and by the fathers at 1100-1900 m. – Phylloscopus presbytes floris (Hartert) Acanthopneuste floris Hartert. Ruteng. Haniel at Lelogama (845 m) and Bonleo (1100 m).1973.1976. 85192.9-10.Mees. 85199). Med.ix.— Everett (“a series”). RMNH no.8 (20. No eggs.iii.7 14. 23. 85203).0 10. Nggolong-Tedé. [(]. 1900 m (RMNH no.1976. 8. p. 81363). 27.iii. Ulu Tuké Nikit (RMNH no.7) 53-55 (54. Nggolong-Tedé.iii.7 (10. 30. – exposed culmen 11.8-10.3 (10. Hartert. 14. 1950 m (RMNH no. Zool.1976. 10. 67 66. 44 tarsus 19. [(]. RMNH nos.8) 19. Poco Nernancang (RMNH no.4-20. Material. Potjo Gurung. 1897b: 525). In contrast. Notes. 85191.9) tarsus 20-21. RMNH no.0.iii. 4: 171 – the hills of South Flores.4 18. 14.8.iii. Collectors. &.5 19. &. 14.— Everett (“a series”). 19. 22. 85200). (.n. according to the literature.iii. 1900 m (RMNH no.0) 12.iii. Measurements: 7( 6& wing 57-60 (58.0 13. which is 900-1050 m (cf. 23.1976. Zool.

Hotju. 1864.2 16.8 × 11. Soc. 71026-71097. –(?).— For a discussion of geographical variation of this species. See also under Chrysococcyx minutillus.8 × 11. in specimens of floris (Mayr. Ulu Ros (Verheijen. Everett (1). 51.7 × 12. 85094).7 × 11. 85093). July (3).0573 0. 20: 94 – Java.0549 Notes. Proc. Collectors. 14: 195 – Flores. Measurements: 3( 5& wing 51-53 (52. Med. Lond. &.viii. (.8 (11. Rensch (9).— Allen. inornata) is surprising. 1892. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. Flores (ten Kate. 71085 RMNH no. Eggs: 75 clutches of c/1 (30 ×). The Timor subspecies paulinae was partly based on larger size.9) tarsus 17-17. MCZ). 1898.v.0562 0. holotype of Acanthiza tenkatei).6 × 11.0483 0. Ruteng (Verheijen. against wing ( 50-52. but in Sumatra both species occur.0593 0.1971. grammiceps.4 (8. c/2 (33 ×) and c/3 (12 ×).4 16. 1500 m (Verheijen. 85092). viz.2) 7-8. RMNH no. 76583). with the nearest known populations in Borneo (S. RMNH no. m.1 16.7) 37-38½ (37. Avifauna of Flores. Material. I refer to a previous publication (Mees.2 17. .162 Mees. montis) and Sumatra (S.0 × 12. Notes Leyden Mus. the species ought to occur in Java.xi. collected in the months March (2).1976.5) exposed culmen 8-8. (. Verheijen/Schmutz. 3. 19. no.viii. wing of 2 ( 81411). de Jong (3). received January 1974. The eggs are glossless white. RMNH no. Collectors. ten Kate. compared with floris. RMNH no.7 × 11. October (9) and five not dated (RMNH nos. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. April (3).6 (17. RMNH no.1976. Verheijen/Schmutz.7) entire culmen 11-11. 1. 81413).2) 48-50 (48.5. 20. 24. Lingko-Laréng Pingkor (Verheijen.1971. (? )juv. Rensch (4).1976. RMNH no. (. Langkas (Verheijen. m. 54. 1986: 130-133). with brown spots concentrated around the blunt end.9 (10. iv/v. 28.1969. 85091). 3 & 51. & 47-49 mm.0523 0. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen.1891. 52 mm. (.5 16. Zool.3) 10-10. 4. June (15).9) tail 39-40 (39.— The re-appearance of this species on Flores and Timor. 73515.6 16.— (?)juv.ix. Ruteng. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes. (. Material.1976.1 (7. Acanthiza tenkatei Büttikofer.7 0.— Everett.5.. as its geographical representative. 12.. May (25).3) 16-17 (16. 73515 RMNH no. 1944a: 159). Verheijen (2.. (1863): 490 – Solor Island. For its distribution to make sense zoogeographically. 65424). 71086 16. September (8). 81311).8) Gerygone sulphurea sulphurea Wallace Gerygone sulphurea Wallace.0631 0. Notes Leyden Mus. RMNH cat. Ficedula westermanni hasselti (Finsch) Muscicapa Hasselti Finsch (ex Temminck). skinned from alcohol. It would be tempting to look upon S. The present material of floris averages a little larger than that studied by Mayr. RMNH no. August (5). RMNH no.viii. from the mountains of Java and Bali. and shows that the size-difference between floris and paulinae is very slight. Zool.

and a forest bird. . bill black.3-9.7) entire culmen 12. Zool. 85108). 1900 m (Verheijen. 85112. Measurements: 3( 5& wing 59½-60½ (60) 58-59 (58.8) & 55 36 *) Tarsus and culmen from one specimen only.x.5-13. Ruteng. 65425). RMNH no. (?) im. RMNH no.6-9. 85220).1) 8.8 (9.7) exposed culmen 8.— (. vulcani. Mt. Verheijen (1. Proc. Mayr (1944a: 161-162) and Ripley (1952). RMNH no. one would think. Notes.8 exposed culmen 9. tarsus 16 – entire culmen 14.— In spite of revisional work by.. 85219).iii. RMNH no.2 (12. legs bluish purple. Lond. Measurements: 3( wing tail 56½-60 39-40½ (57. Collectors. Ruteng. Mt. Rana Kulan. RMNH no. (.8) 18-19. Collectors. J. 3.1971. 13. 85109). Danau Rana-Ka (Verheijen. all ingredients for strong geographical variation. such geographical variation as this bird shows is not much better understood now. Zool. 8. 85107. de Jong (1).1973. Mus.iii.1 (18.viii. 1950 m (Verheijen. Ulu Tuké Nikit (Verheijen.2 (12.1969. slopes of the Gedeh Volcano. Iris brown. than when Finsch (1898a) wrote his note.1973.— &.— In accord with all previous authors. Leiden 80 (2006) 163 Notes. (.Mees. 4-6.5 (9) Ficedula dumetoria dumetoria (Wallace) Saxicola (?) dumetoria Wallace. ca. (. Med.6) tail 37-41 (39) 36-38 (37) tarsus 18. Verheijen/Schmutz. Tado-Walok. legs greyish. 400 m (Verheijen. Tjeréng. bill black. RMNH nos. 85113).000 feet. 1700 m (Verheijen. of which a large series was available for comparison.5 *) 9 Ficedula hyperythra vulcani (Robinson) Dendrobiastes hyperythra vulcani Robinson. Mbépé. Nggolong-Tedé. Material. Soc. (?)juv.iii. Nggolong-Tedé. I have been unable to find any difference between specimens from Flores and topotypical F. Avifauna of Flores. 85111.— This species “was met with not infrequently in the lowlands of South Flores by Everett” (Hartert. 7: 235 – Tjibodas. amongst others.1971. 81426). Mt.— Everett. Ficedula westermanni is a mountain bird. Everett. RMNH nos.ix. very widely distributed in both mainland and islands.1973. 28. Notes. Rensch (2). Biting. Verheijen. 1918. but in deference to the authors just mentioned I have retained the name hasselti for birds from Flores. (1863): 490 – Lombock. moreover. MCZ).2 12. 21. &. Fed. h. RMNH no. The specimen from Tjeréng was collected in primary forest. 12. Malay St.3-19 (18.1973. Western Java. 85110). Ruteng. 1897b: 524). its basis below slate.— Allen. 850 m (Schmutz. 1700 m (Verheijen. almost a century ago. The temptation to follow White & Bruce (1986: 358) in not admitting any subspecies has been strong.9) 12-13. 1864. 8.iii. &. Material. Iris brown. (. &. 12. No eggs.xi..7) (39.1976.

bill and legs black. in that over its huge continental and Sunda Shelf range. Eggs (fig. RMNH no. Mayr (1944a: 143). ceylonensis is interesting.1969. 15h): c/1. Notes. Iris brown. ceylonensis from Java. 2. Java and Bali. RMNH no.9 11. Palawan. Zool. 25. (. 16. The relationship has been discussed repeatedly. Avifauna of Flores.1976.1958. 19.vii. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. &. Measurements: ( wing 56 tail 42 tarsus 12 entire culmen exposed culmen 13. and the judgement whether to treat the two as conspecific or as different species. From this. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and India. from Pakistan.0 mm. 700 m (Verheijen. 29. one would almost expect the conclusion that they are different species. R.iii. Rensch (7). 4. c. 24.1976. Verheijen/Schmutz. C. 81462). RMNH nos. de Jong (2). 4: 170 – At elevations from 3000 to 3500 feet in South Flores. e. Material. stresemanni is a lowland bird. Linko Lareng Pongkor.1976. 85105). 81452. apparently a series).5 × 12.ix. 81440).6 10. 300 m (Schmutz. RMNH no. Novit.1976. Paku.— Everett (number not given. ca. 14070). placed in the genus Microeca until Rensch (1931a: 559 ) transferred it to Rhinomyias.–– This interesting endemic whereas R. (?). 81445).— The egg was identified with a query. (. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. Leiden 80 (2006) tarsus 19.1976. I have compared it with eggs of C. c.164 Measurements: 2( wing 62.1976. 11. 85106).2 entire culmen exposed culmen 15. RMNH no. and without . Material. RMNH no. Golo Léhot (Verheijen.0 Rhinomyias oscillans (Hartert) Microeca oscillans Hartert. Montjok (RMNH no. 1897. not in Berlin as Rensch (1931b: 378) wrote. (. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. 81407). 15. of light forest and more open habitat. (.xi. Mbelawang creek. 81444). 64 tail 42½. (. that there remains hardly any doubt. (. and was also listed with a query in Verheijen’s (1964: 199) table. Ruteng. 15. 81447). Zool. Potjo Nernancang (Verheijen. The geographical variation of C. the type of the Sumba race.1976. RMNH— (. Collectors. Med. 30. (. 17. oscillans is an inhabitant of mountain forest at ca. RMNH no. 44 Mees. &. Lingko Ros ( g. 85101).ii. Incidentally. 900-1500 m.— Everett.1978.v. 1897. Vaurie (1952: 15-16) enumerated the not inconsiderable differences in plumage and measurements between the two forms. 21. 4: 526 – South Flores. RMNH no. 71098).0. Vaurie does not further evaluate the differences. stresemanni. whereas Flores and Sumba each have a reasonably well-differentiated subspecies. 19. without label. who considered the matter a borderline case. 29. an endemic form of Sumba. it shows hardly any geographical variation. with which it agrees so well.xi. (. Schmutz (1). Novit. 19.1971. Notes. 85103). Zool. RMNH no. RMNH no.vii. received in 1983 (RMNH no. Borneo. &. to Sumatra. connectens is in Leiden (RMNH no. Ulu Ros (Verheijen.8 Culicicapa ceylonensis sejuncta Hartert Culicicapa ceylonensis sejuncta Hartert. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. has been regarded as conspecific with R. 20.ix.1971.1976. but surprisingly. 1500 m (Schmutz.— (. as purely subjective. RMNH no. 85102). Collectors. Laréng (Verheijen. 85104). weight 0. g. 81405).

species concept.— (?). Eggs: c/2.xi.v.5 0. diluta.1958. and confirm that these are the same clutches on which he based his record. Nggolong-Tedé. stresemanni and R. is a question that cannot be answered. Pongkor (Verheijen.i. ( juv. 20. to wit: c/1. In colour and pattern. 1864. Lond.xi.9) 17. &. Mt. Rensch (7). I would regard R. 1). under that name. RMNH nos.3 17.0-22. rufifrons on mainland Flores. influenced by the current.iii.v.1959.1958. (. 71114).7) 56 tarsus 16-18 (16. (1863): 491 – Flores. The combination of the unusual locality (1000 m).8-16. The months of collecting agree with those given by Verheijen. This has been followed by later authors. narrower. (.0828 0. makes me confident of the re-identification. RMNH nos. RMNH no. 85217). 19. Warren & Harrison. 71099). Material.1976.0) 11. rufifrons.2) 12 (12. Leiden 80 (2006) 165 explanation lists R.3 × 14. From the measurements provided by him. 85097). Ruteng. bill and legs black. Whether these species have originally reached the Lesser Sunda Islands from Java and Bali. stresemanni as a subspecies of R. and an oblique reference to it.6) 53-54 (53.7-18 (17.1971. RMNH cat. c/1. no. and must belong to a thrush-sized bird. oscillans (with R. 1900-1950 m (Verheijen. 71101).2) 15-16 (15. RMNH no.1971. Zool. iii. 50 m (Verheijen. 85098.1969.7 × 13. (. 6. Zool. Ulu Tuké Nikit (Verheijen/Schmutz. Wesang (RMNH no. was made by Verheijen (1964: 194).Mees. c/2. 31. oscillans.iii. 18. 85096.1976. Vaurie (1952: 6) placed R. 20. RMNH cat. 85099).0 × 13.v. 14.1973. &.8) 76-78 (77) 77 tail 52-59 (55. Pongkor (Verheijen. Iris brown. there is no difference. The four clutches recorded by Verheijen (1964: 199) under R. such as White & Bruce (1986: 353). cf. 71114 17. My own conclusion. Soc. 1971: 149-150).1972.1888.7-15. Med.3) 15 exposed culmen 10-12 (11. Laréng.1962. c/2. 71102). 2.5 mm. (.. Léong (RMNH no. Maumeri (Weber. (.ii.4 × 18. the slightly larger size and greater weights of these eggs.2 (15. The other eggs measure 20. xii. rufifrons semicollaris from Palué. They will be discussed below. Collectors. diluta were received with Verheijen’s collection. Colfs (1). 21. 20. oscillans as different species. 71099) measures 26. Proc.0871 Notes. Léwé (RMNH no. 1880 (Colfs.7 Rhipidura diluta diluta Wallace Rhipidura diluta Wallace.— Four clutches identified as R. 81425).— Allen (several specimens. Wae Laci. Puar Léwé (Schmutz. Mataloko (RMNH no.1976. 81428). Laréng. 3).8) 16 entire culmen 14. the fact that neither of the Fathers has seen R. 71100). it . it is much too large to belong to any kind of flycatcher. is the opposite: although there is an evident relationship between them. 21. Weber (2). RMNH no.7 mm. The egg dated February (RMNH no. Schönwetter (1976: 762-763) noted that the eggs of members of the genus Rhipidura are remarkably uniform. This clutch was identified as R. were obviously misidentified. 85095). 2. Verheijen/Schmutz. compared with authentic eggs of R. (?). stresemanni) remote from all its congeners. with the sole comment: “This species consists of two well-marked races”. de Jong (1). Measurements: 9( 3& (?) wing 74½-80 (76. 6. Léong (RMNH no. Avifauna of Flores. RMNH no. or from Sulawesi (Celebes). RMNH no. Everett (“a fine series”). Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Puar Lui (Schmutz. 81423).

I note that Watson & Mayr (l.5-19 (18. The eggs are cream colour. Avifauna of Flores.0) 78. using the combination R.3) 15. had apparently not read my discussion on the subject (Mees.9 × 11. perlata. Material. this would also explain the Monarcha-like nests. The pinkish colour of the eggs is also different from assorted Rhipidura-eggs in our collection.5) 81½. rufiventris (cf. Frith. Authors using a very wide species concept (Chasen). perlata and R. Rhipidura rufifrons semicollaris S. c/1 (2 ×) and c/2 (9 ×). Eggs: Eleven clutches from Palué. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. The senior author of White & Bruce (1986: 374-375) had correctly given R.1 × 12. 71105 17. diluta is a member of the R.v.9 16. and differently coloured.iv-5. 79 tarsus 17. to which they refer. 100 mm). The last-mentioned authors err. in including Java in the range of R. Measurements: 4( 2& wing 80-82 (81. and the specimen of R. perlata euryura for birds from Java. diluta (wing-length of the ( ca. javanica. rufifrons: “resemble those of the Monarcha flycatchers rather than those of the Rhipidura diluta”. Land. and from Schönwetter’s description. however.5. Collectors. Gesch.. 1986b: 538). but separated by R. to which I now think that they may belong. with larger and smaller dull-brown dots and usually also some darker. supports the suggestion that the nests he ascribed to R. Müller. eggs only in RMNH). Verheijen (2. collected in the period from 14.166 Mees. and is often regarded as a subspecies of R. It is quite inconceivable that its eggs would be larger. rufifrons and R. than those of the other members of its group. rufiventris group of forms. Watson et al. Med. Overz. Ned. for actually the nests of R. 18. aureola and R. but this was reversed by Bruce. Bez.0653 - . MCZ. 71104 RMNH no.— No skins in RMNH.3 0.: 184 – Fatoe Leeoe. and that may have contributed to the misconception that R. blackish brown spots.0673 0. Verh. have sometimes treated R. it did not occur to me to compare these eggs with eggs of Terpsiphone paradisi. concentrated in a wreath around the blunt end. who.) placed the two species not even close together. 1843. The date of publication is correctly recorded by Watson & Mayr (1986: 538).0711 0.— Everett (several skins).7 17. 1975b).1960 (RMNH nos.8. c.0 × 12. rufiventris are quite similar (cf.5 exposed culmen 12-13 (12. diluta had been misidentified.9 × 12.en Volkenk.7 16. 11 A few remarks about Rhipidura from farther away. 81 mm). Zool. 71103-71113). euryura in Leiden. leucophrys (of which the ( has a wing-length of ca. rufiventris hoedti priority over buettikoferi. In this connection it must be remembered that R.3) 17. Leiden 80 (2006) appears that only R. Nat. 79 tail 83-85 (84. euryura as conspecific. 1976: 390-392). perlata occurs in Java.8) 11. has eggs of about the size of the eggs ascribed to R.5 entire culmen 15-17 (16. supposedly from Sumatra. Müller Rhipidura semicollaris S. Timor. the former ill. Before I left Leiden. unlike White.defined.. is obviously mislabelled. 16. Verheijen’s (1961: 185) remark that the nests of R.

Everett and his native collectors ever obtained it. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no. Material.1 entire culmen 15. sacerdotum. that at that time the species was not particularly uncommon there.E. 1911.4.0 exposed culmen 11.E. trivirgatus is a somewhat enigmatic species on Flores.” (= & ?). From Everett’s itinerary it is known that he made his headquarters at Nanga Ramau and as one of the specimens is marked as having been shot below 1000 feet. 70): pl. 418 fig.4 × 12. coll.0 16. Mayr.1896. it may be assumed that the specimens originate from the cultivated lowlands and wastelands near Nanga Ramau.6 × 12.— Verheijen (1961: 185) stated that he had never with certainty seen this species on the mainland of Flores (where it was collected by Everett). 654671). 71113 16.9 16. sumbensis on Sumba (cf.0733 0.4. but: (?). Notes. he obtained a clutch from Mataloko.6 16. r.0721 0. AMNH no.). AMNH no. which he ascribed to this species. as only A. A year later. Recueil d’Ois.Mees. 27: 105 – Goram Laut. more exact knowledge of the occurrence of M. and the specimens are merely labelled “South Flores”.1896. diluta (see under that species). 1 – Timor. Med.— Everett (at least 5). 1944a: 136. In view of possible interaction with the closely related M. Considering that on Timor this same subspecies ranges from sea-level to at least 2000 m. South Flores (Everett.9 0.8 16. .).99). and is evidently widely distributed.0 Monarcha trivirgatus wellsi (Ogilvie-Grant) Piezorhynchus wellsi Ogilvie-Grant. x.H. Measurements of the BM specimens: wing tail & 67 65 [&] 68 65 tarsus 18. xi. however. South Flores (Everett. 1826. shot below 1000 feet (Everett.5 18. BM no.5.— M. Brit. ( “nat. it is peculiar that on Flores it is so local and apparently confined to Palué and the coastal lowlands near Nanga Ramau (Everett).8 × 13. (A. BM no. 98. mean that the sexing was done by Everett personally.0726 167 Notes. South Flores. 71111 RMNH no. & ad. and two were sexed by Everett personally (evidently. The initials A. 3 (livr.5 16. 142).5. Bull. Orn. xi. trivirgatus is much desired.1896. but he found it very common on Palué. & (A. whereas his hunters went farther afield). xi.0729 0.1 × 12. xi. shot below 1000 feet (Everett.E.9 × 12. Monarcha trivirgatus trivirgatus (Temminck) Drymophila trivirgata Temminck. (?).4 16. Zool.— None in RMNH. 98. Avifauna of Flores. Everett stayed close to the village. From the number of specimens collected (there may have been more than the five I examined).0695 0. South Flores (Everett.0718 0.1896. 654670).1896. but in my opinion it is referable to R.6 × 12. 71108 RMNH no. as is the very similar subspecies R. Collector. Cl. AMNH no. South Flores.100). it is apparent. 654672).

bernsteinii (cf. bernsteinii (& ad. all RMNH specimens show another. t. differente da quella del M. but it is worth recording. trivirgatus: the bill is longer and more slender. 1878. and conspicuous. and until only a few thousands of years ago it was still connected with the main island. see discussion below. the third pair of rectrices has only a little white (sometimes none at all). Although it would be difficult to prove that the type of M.. bimaculatus: “Il tipo esistente nel Museo di Leida è una femmina. 1860 (1861?). Zool. nigrimentum. bernsteinii is not from Salawatti. nigrimentum. lediglich durch bedeutendere Ausdehnung der weissen Spitzen der drei äusseren Steuerfederpaare”. Proc. t. Mayr in Watson et al. White (in White & Bruce. nigrimentum from Ambon. Peculiarly. showed that it agrees almost completely with a & ad. wellsi)”. extending over chin and throat. e per avere questa soltanto il mento nero”. corresponding with his erroneous notion. The sex of our eight specimens is indicated by Finsch as “(”. he provided them with a sex indication.— Discussing M. As of the eight specimens... as further study is evidently required. bimaculatus per le dimensioni maggiori. Gray Monarcha nigrimentum G. Gray. which has been generally accepted since the description of M. Soc.— The occurrence of a distinctive subspecies of M. 1986b: 509. trivirgatus on Salawatti. One would not expect endemism and as far as I am aware not a single endemic bird species or subspecies has been described from Salawatti. In the original description.R. for the & plumage. the only difference being that it has more black on the forehead. Monarcha trivirgatus nigrimentum G. wellsi would seem to agree with nominate trivirgatus and not with nigrimentum. wellsi . except for M. Lond.. Note that in the original description the spelling is bernsteinii.168 Mees. for the ( plumage. bernsteinii was only compared with M. Therefore I do not hesitate to place M. Salawatti is separated from mainland New Guinea by a narrow and shallow strait. Mayr. Unfortunately. seven are adult and one subadult. Mus. t. bernsteinii. the belly looks whiter (the rust colour of the flanks reaching less far backwards). it .R. A comparison of the type of M.. 1941b: 135. Mayr (in Watson et al. Civ. difference: nigrimentum has only a small triangle on the chin black. bernsteinii in the synonymy of M. footnote) says of wellsi. 1986b: 509). Leiden 80 (2006) Notes. t. Zool. t. Ann. of M. in this character. does not support the difference.) with material of diverse species and subspecies of Monarcha inhabiting the Moluccas. 1967: 396. Notes. beginning with Salvadori (1879: 493) himself. Monarcha bernsteinii Salvadori. whereas wellsi has a black bib. but that all later authors. Differences from M. both in measurements and in plumage. Finsch took the adult plumage (that is similar in both sexes).. Stresemann (1914a: 128) wrote: “Von dieser Form unterscheidet sich die ihr nächststehende M. that it is “very close to nigrimentum”. 1986: 366) states that: “nigrimentum is very like nominate trivirgatus but has less white on the tail (includes. Genova 12: 322 – Salvatti (errore!) = Ambon. Avifauna of Flores. did not seem to me obvious from the zoogeographical point of view. and the juvenile plumage (of both sexes). Rand & Gilliard.: 352 – Amboyna. Med. use the spelling bernsteini. BM material examined by me.

nigrimentum) 4( 75-76 64-68 & 72½ 63 tarsus 20 19 17. Examination of the type (RMNH no. M. tail 78 mm. The other characters enumerated by van Bemmel to distinguish boanensis from loricatus are correct: a white cross-bar on the forehead. This means that probably also the date of collecting and perhaps the name of the collector are erroneous. and that the suggestion of a white rump was caused by the long silky white feathers of the lower flanks being brushed up. and that actually it was collected on Ambon.v. nigrimentum from Ambon. that the provenance “Salawatti” ascribed to the type is erroneous. 1982a: 110. 14055) revealed. 1939). four are adult.M. Mber.2-18 18 entire culmen exposed culmen 16+ 17. boanensis was stated to have: “einen weissen Bürzel”. the only other Monarcha species with a white rump (cf. Measurements: wing tail “Sailolo. Birds from Ambon (type-locality of nigrimentum) and Ceram differ somewhat: the latter are smaller. Leiden 80 (2006) 169 seems most unlikely that two islands so far apart would be inhabited by the same subspecies. 13. 1986: 21).R.7 13-13. the abdomen whiter. 1939. Med.4 Monarcha (trivirgatus) boanensis van Bemmel Monarcha trivirgata boanensis van Bemmel. Orn. The differences are slight and do not require expression in nomenclature.6 16-17 17 13+ 13. There is no mention of the specimen in Bernstein’s diary (v.— In the diagnosis. RMNH no. due to an inadvertent exchange of labels. Of the five birds from Ceram. there must be a fundamental difference in method of measuring (cf. Notes.Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Measurements: ( wing 81 tail 71 tarsus 19½ entire culmen exposed culmen 17¼ 13¼ Van Bemmel gave wing 79. 14055. everetti from Tanahdjampea. It is an obvious guess. 47: 152 – Boano. Boano (L. Zool. as he did not take notes on every specimen brought in by his hunters. 1883). the supposed affinity to M. t. t. It is peculiar that (excluding the type of bernsteinii) our collection holds only one adult specimen of M. All that can be said is that the bird must have been collected about 1865 (on Ambon). that the rump and upper tail-coverts are black. A bird found nesting on Ambon by Lieftinck (1950) was also in immature plumage. Material. as opposed to 7 in immature plumage. van Bemmel. nigrimentum) & 80 70 Ceram (M. a smaller throat- . Musschenbroek. holotype). a character that would link it to M. as mentioned by van Bemmel in his postscript to Lieftinck’s note. to cover the black rump. I am definitely unable to attain such a large tail-length. t. everetti was based on incorrect observation. t. bernsteinii) & 81 70 Ambon (M. Hence.3 13.— (. however. Rutten. the breast is of a deeper ferruginous. Mees. on the other hand. but that is inconclusive evidence.1918. on the basis of the arguments presented above. Salawati” (type of M.

Notes. it could also be most fascinating. as I cannot see any close resemblance at all: M. RMNH no. without grey. Avifauna of Flores. Flores. It appears that M. In plumage. The male has the outer pair of rectrices 60 mm in length.. 25. a single male only was available. Since the preceding notes were written. Collector. 1000 m (Schmutz.1975.— (. Monarcha sacerdotum Mees Monarcha sacerdotum Mees. 1000 m. 800 m (Schmutz. such as on Flores are found only in the westernmost part. is an excellent form. Sésok. boanensis has become the subject of further field studies. The white (or pale) bar across the forehead is otherwise only found in diadematus (Obi). This. and I am glad to see that it is between these two species that Mayr (in Watson et al. Meded. however. . trivirgatus and M. The female has the outer pair of rectrices 56 mm in length. but it is about 5% smaller in linear measurements. the inner vane white over a distance of 38 mm. I did not compare this species with Monarcha manadensis. 1000 m. Mayr & Vuilleumier. be it species or subspecies. the outer vane white to its base. Mees. and the outer rectrices with the basal one-third black (in loricatus white over their whole length). 1973. 1991). The specimen will be deposited in the RMNH.1971. either species or subpecies. I fail to understand. etc. has much smaller white tail-markings. holotype). sacerdotum are M. Zool. loricatus than to nigrimentum. &. 85260). is a smaller bird.c. Zool. Paku. 1996). 1995. 46: 179 – Sesok. Material.ix. I agree with Mayr & Vuilleumier (l. sacerdotum is an inhabitant of the middle levels. The naive way in which the discoverers announced their find. therefore. Father Schmutz has informed me that the altitude given for the type specimen. Observations by Butchart et al. Both specimens were collected in pockets of rainforest. There is no doubt in my mind that the closest relatives of M. 1986b: 508) has now placed it. 1973. and its tail is entirely black. the inner vane over a distance of 34 mm. 25. and the outright stupid. why these authors consider it “unfortunate” that. RMNH no. (1996: 346-348) support Schmutz’s description of the habitat and indicate a rather wider distribution than was previously known. the female agrees almost entirely with the male. M. in the original description. if not dishonest.) that a revision of the genus Monarcha is desirable. however. reaction of some authorities. so that there remained some room for speculation about the appearance of the female (cf. Med. 68135. which. 1983: 219). has unfortunately led to some negative publicity (van den Broek. sacerdotum. not a mountain bird. thus confirming the specific distinction of M.170 Mees. as stated in the original mundus. still exists. apparently closer in some respects to M. as well as an interesting study of its affinities (Moeliker & Heij.— For the original description of this species. was probably overestimated and might be no more than 800 m. but I have not yet seen it.— Schmutz. the outer vane white over a distance of 42 mm. Recently a second specimen was collected: welcome evidence that this interesting form. Leiden 80 (2006) patch. manadensis is black and white. with records from levels of 350-970 m.

5 0. Eggs (fig. badly damaged. this is a synonym of the nominate race (Mees.1978. Palué (RMNH no. Collector. as listed above. 2 (. 85408).1973. c/2. 81373). and three nests.1971. Therefore I have felt justified in referring the population inhabiting Palué to the nominate race. Kisol (Verheijen. Everett. (?).1960. Weber. 81371).1612 0. 65402). but in my opinion. 650 m (Schmutz.8 22. Borong (Verheijen.1969. RMNH no. 89: 361 – Noesa Penida. Golo-Karot.1960. although I have not examined specimens. Léi.0 22. de Jong (2). &. Flores (Colfs.7 × 15. Raffles Mus. 3 (livr. Avifauna of 71118 RMNH no. MCZ)..25 14. are in our collection. 3.— Allen. Zool. 20: 294 – Alor. (.1960.1969. Léi.1880. Léi.1973.1888. expressed elsewhere. Mayr (in Watson et al.— This species is not known from the mainland of Flores. Material. xi/xii. vi. Palué (RMNH no. RMNH). 2: 22 – Badjoelmati. RMNH no. Flores (Schmutz. Borong coast.75 171 exposed culmen 12 11. &. collected in the months April (2). 71115). 85410). Zool. 71115 RMNH no. 71118). 21. 20. (. where it was discovered by Verheijen (1961: 185).5 entire culmen 15. Flores (Allen. 71119 22. 7112071144). 16. 2 – Timor. and eggs). 85405.2 × 16. 71117).1969. Todo (Verheijen.5 Monarcha cinerascens cinerascens (Temminck) Drymophila cinerascens Temminck. Verheijen (1. 3. Palué (RMNH no. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. (. 1913. 1929. &. Léi. Verheijen/ Schmutz. 4. 15i): c/1. East Coast of Java. RMNH no. c/2.1700 Notes.1567 0. Bull. August (1). 24. 610 m (Verheijen. Orn.1969. Med. 71119). RMNH nos. 65403). Borong (Verheijen. c/2 (16 ×) and c/3 (2 ×). 14. September (5). v. 65401). c/2. 1965: 184-186). 71116). 24. (. no. Colfs.2 21. Nunang. Hypothymis azurea penidae Meise. RMNH no. Hypothymis azurea symmixta Stresemann Hypothymis azurea symmixta Stresemann.9 22.8 × 15. who noted: “eggs. Novit. RMNH no. and one insufficiently dated (RMNH nos. 12. 23. MCZ. RMNH no.iii. The eggs are white with smallish brown 72): pl. nest and bird collected”. RMNH no. 5.9 × 16.1960.ix. Borong (Verheijen. 32.v.6 × 15. 19. June (4). but only from the island of Palué. c/1. Todo (Verheijen. 1941. (. 14.— Verheijen (1. “(” = &. 1827. Rana Loba. Maumeri (Weber. so that I cannot say much about its subspecific relationship. c. (. Rensch (3). May (10). 1862. Eggs: 25 clutches of c/1 (7 ×). Recueil d’Ois.— (. Léi.1973. Hypothymis azurea javana Chasen & Kloss. Palué (RMNH no. 85406).v. Sé 81374). RMNH). (. Leiden 80 (2006) Measurements: ( & wing 74 69 tail 73 66 tarsus 17 17. RMNH no. 1986b: 502) included it in M.1631 0. 85407). but not the bird. ex alcohol. J. . 430 fig. July (1). in mangrove (Verheijen. 85409. RMNH no.1429 0. The RMNH). November (1). sometimes concentrated in a wreath around the blunt end. Palué (RMNH no.1970.xii. 23.Mees.

they have transformed this doubt into certainty!). a.3 17.0980 0.9 18.6 0. deeper in colour and larger in size (cf.0736 Notes.— Hypothymis azurea is a species with a fascinating geographical variation: very little variation over its huge continental range. Note that this description is almost the opposite of that given by Stresemann. are inhabited by H. Stresemann (1913a) and several other authors who. Many of these named subspecies date from a period that the subspecies-concept was different from the present one.6 × 13. added another 10 subspecies. but with on some small. 71142 RMNH no. that kept Hoogerwerf (1964: 213-214) from uniting the two. see the studies by Oberholser (1911). prophata (cf. White & Bruce (1986: 364-365) referred populations from the Lesser Sunda Islands to prophata. that when adequate material is examined. Rand. and the large continental islands.5 × 14. I find no evidence that these authors based their opinion on a personal examination of material. when Stresemann described symmixta.0969 0. 1970). Zool.9 × 12. the black pectoral band is usually wider. stating that it was: “doubtful if they are separable from Sundaland prophata” (in the nomenclature used. he did not have a single specimen from Java for comparison. A comparison between series from Java and from the Lesser Sunda Islands failed to reveal any difference.0 17.0 × 13. Van Marle & Voous (1988: 191) state that the subspecies abbotti is: “endemic on Banyak Islands”.0 × 13. 1936: 48). 71138 RMNH no. Med.1 17.0814 0. I do not believe that prophata could be maintained as different from nominate azurea (at present considered to be confined to the Philippines). It was only the insufficiency of his material. The Banjak Islands. but that is not correct. but if symmixta is not recognized as different from prophata. and even without mention of symmixta. In their discussion. less clear blue. 71143 17.0 17. Ripley. For example.0906 0.172 Some measurements and weights: Mees.0796 0. and also continued farther downwards than in birds from Java. Avifauna of Flores. 71141 RMNH no. 1944: 397-398). 71136 RMNH no. nearer mainland Sumatra. Junge.7 17. for this striking form is only known from the islands of Lasia and Babi. which have this colour duller and a trifle more violet-blue. That in the great days of the study of intraspecific variation it should have attracted the attention of systematists is only natural.4 × 13. a. peripheral islands conspicuously modified forms. south of Simalur (cf.9 17.8 × 13. The Philippine material available to me is inadequate.0 × 13. and the blue of throat and breast is brighter. javana was subsequently described without material from the Lesser Sunda Islands.0901 0.7 × 12.0782 0. individual variation covers the differences that have been claimed to exist between the subspecies symmixta and javana. who claims that symmixta is brighter blue. H. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no. more clearly blue. Similarly.0857 0. Males from Borneo (prophata) are very slightly different: on the undersurface.2 17. . after Stresemann’s revision. less violet-blue than prophata! Hoogerwerf’s (1964) notes clearly support my own conclusion. and that average differences (in very small series!) were considered adequate for their recognition.

Flores (Colfs. 500 m (Schmutz. 81109). &. no. no. 71147). compared with their relatives on the nearest larger land masses. a. 1-3 – Flores. Collectors.— Allen (3 or more). “javana” = symmixta) 6( 68-72 (69. Borong (Verheijen. no. Flores (Colfs. Verheijen/Schmutz. 1).7) tarsus 14.3-16. iv. skeletons. I am unable to distinguish between javana and symmixta.1888.xi. (?). (. ( in change. ( in change. 23. Reo (Weber. Moraux. 65415).1948. 26. 600 m (RMNH no.v.8 (16. Bari (Weber. vi. no.1888. described and figured by Büttikofer).xi. XVIII fig. v.1897.9 (14. only distinguishable from females of symmixta by having the cap a trifle lighter blue. oberholseri) 10 ( 71-74 (73. the mantle and back. xii.0) 59. 2-6 and Doubl. 23/25. RMNH no. 18. RMNH cat.1955.xi. Waé Reca. RMNH no. in sexually dimorphic species. karimatensis).0. 48a. Bari (Weber.3) exposed culmen 10. Weber (7).1958. (. Nunuk (RMNH no. Todo (Verheijen. Montjok (RMNH no. Leiden 80 (2006) 173 The subspecies H. 85100). nos.1973. RMNH cat. 71148). a. 76584). but the fact that the males of the small-island populations are more brilliantly coloured (abbotti. xii. less brownish. Large size is a common phenomenon in birds inhabiting small islands. 19. RMNH cat.xi. 10. c/2. RMNH cat.8) Taiwan (H. As mentioned above.1971. RMNH cat. RMNH cat. Maumeri (Weber.5 (10.16. 66 64-70 (66. (.Mees. iii. b. in Weber: Zool. 8.2) Terpsiphone paradisi floris Büttikofer Terpsiphone floris Büttikofer.0-14. cf. c/3. Colfs.0. 16. 14.2) 9.xi.4) 15.1) tail 62½-70 (66.5-16 (15. c/2.— &. skinned from alcohol).1956. Tjereng. 15j): c/2. no. skinned from alcohol). Labuan Badjo (P.).1) 15. Zool. as the usual tendency is. c/2. flat skin).1888. RMNH cat. 1894. 26/28. vi. .x.1969. Maumeri (Weber no. de Jong (5). 10. 17. &. (. which was described as intermediate between these two. Measurements: wing Flores (H.1880. skinned from alcohol).5 9.1969.1954. pl. 11.2-16 (15. 1907: 213). Rensch (1). 7. 8a. 71145). Ergebnisse 3: 293. 69 Java (H. Everett (a series). 2. however. RMNH cat.1) 10. van Oort. and Flores. on the other hand. Med.3) 69-74 (71. (. a. Avifauna of Flores. RMNH cat.0-10. Note that previously Stresemann (1913b) and Rensch (1931a: 556-557) had made the claim that: “Die Stücke von Bali sind intermediär zwischen dieser [meant is symmixta] und der westlich anschliessenden Rasse prophata”. 9).3 13-15 (14. is remarkable.1880.5 (16. Flores. Rekas (RMNH no. penidae was based on a comparison with but very few specimens from Java.1888.7-11 (10.3) 14. Nunang (Schmutz. 5 (. RMNH no. a. entire culmen 14. and to be closer in plumage to the females.5-11 (10. Rekas (RMNH (. symmixta) 7( 68½-71 (69. a.1888. Moraux (1). xii. the females. for males in these conditions to lose some of their male plumage characters.5) 14. no. (. 8. RMNH no. Flores (Colfs.vii. &. and that removes automatically the basis for the recognition of penidae. as in javana. Eggs (fig.6) 2& 65. Material. Bali.xii.1880. 71146). Meise found the males indistinguishable from Javanese birds of that sex. agreeing with symmixta and differing from javana by being slightly greyer. 16 16. no.

Two of the specimens from Sumbawa studied by Büttikofer. 76584 RMNH no. I am not quite sure that at that time Büttikofer realised that Adonara is a separate island. xii. 71146 RMNH no. Flores (16). p. states that he had already received it. RMNH. 76585). 2. Leiden 80 (2006) RMNH no. Mber. from a number of localities in West Flores. in a postscript dated 5 January 1894. 1931a: 631) believed that this species was unknown from Sumbawa before he collected it in 1927.1338 0. Everett. altes Männchen).1889. 65419. no. August (5). 19 (. 66156. June (9).5 21. are from the enigmatic Forsten collection from Bima. &. Verheijen (3. the year of publication is actually given as 1893). 5991859921.2 21.159 (large hole) 0. legs slate.1462 0. beide von Maumeri.4 × 16. but certainly it has been published in the very first days of January 1894. labelled Adoenara. 2 & im. 1894: 63. Zool.. von Sikka. 8 &. 85038-85054.1636 0. collected in the months April (2). Büttikofer began with an enumeration of the material collected by Weber: “Ein altes Männchen in Spiritus von Reo. 81312. 1/8. RMNH cat.7 × 16. I note that Meyer (1894). Zool. from sea-level to 1100 m (Verheijen/Schmutz. 81372. no.7 × 16. 85326).4 × 16.6 21. not a place on Flores. Eggs (figs 16a. MCZ). mounted). Balg eines alten Männchens und zwei Exemplare in Spiritus (Männchen im Uebergangskleide und 491a. floris seems to be a (hardly surprising) addition to the very insufficiently known avifauna of Adonara. alle drei von Bari”.7 0. Flores. p. floris: Sumbawa (3).1388 0.. 81376. or at least very uncommon. 1862. Ombaai (4). (1863): 492 – Flores.1888. 71149-71174. Rensch (7). Verheijen/Schmutz. Probably reprints have been mailed before the end of 1893 (in Orn. inhabitant of the lowland forest. floris.1547 0.i. cf. mounted). 81309.9 21. RMNH nos. 73516. paradisi is in my experience a rare. de Jong (6). Büttikofer lists all the material he ascribed to T. Lond. 16aa): 29 clutches of c/1 (8 ×) and c/2 (21 ×). 1907: 154). 6). July (2).— Although Büttikofer’s paper in the “Zoologische Ergebnisse” is generally accepted as having been published in 1894. Med. For some reason Rensch (1930: 103.1654 Notes. it appears to be much more common. Collectors. 81306. Balg eines Männchens im Uebergangskleide und ein Weibchen in Spiritus. Larantoeka (Semmelink. Soc.2 20. 1864. Maumeri (Weber. 81310. 73517. RMNH cat. In Java. 65420.7 × 16. Material. Included in the number from Flores is evidently a fully adult male. Pfeffer (1). bill black.1448 0.3 × 15. ein zweites. 1842. 81424.3 21. Pachycephala fulvotincta fulvotincta Wallace Pachycephala fulvotincta Wallace. This is not quite accurate: in the description of the subspecies. Weber.6 20. 1.— (. T. May (9). T. and two insufficiently dated (RMNH nos.7 × 16. 71145 RMNH no. Proc.6 × 16. Watson et al. (1986b: 488) give as type-locality for T.1 × 15. On the following page. . ebenfalls in Spiritus.174 Measurements and weights: Mees. Therefore it is interesting that on some of the Lesser Sunda Islands. 71147 21. Avifauna of Flores. &. where one would expect lowland forest to be less well-developed (especially Sumba). skeleton. Sumba (3).1574 0. Iris brown.— Semmelink. Endeh (Weber.. van Oort. Reo. Allen.1 21. June 1880 (Colfs.

3 × 16.4 175 0.Mees.8) 14.3-15. The last-mentioned species has the subspecies P. &.— (. the subspecies jubilarii from Alor. based on large size. the numerous well-marked forms of the Moluccas and the Lesser Sunda Islands. 4: 171 – Flores meridionalis. javana. Leiden 80 (2006) Measurements and weights of some clutches: RMNH no. teysmanni. nevertheless. Material. Novit. previously included in the all-encompassing P.8) 62 tarsus 19-22½ (20. were left hanging in the air. calliope.4 22. 71155 RMNH no. x.— When Galbraith (1967) separated specifically Pachycephala melanura of northern Australia and New Guinea.7 × 15.1971. a promise he repeated in different words some years later (Galbraith. 71165 RMNH no.0 21.4 22. RMNH cat. Rensch (21). pectoralis. Collectors.4 22.2 21.9) 77-81 (78. Even White & Bruce (1986: 379381) refrained from taking the next step.2) 13.0 22. 1897. 1974: 248). 71156 RMNH no. South Flores.6) 56-62 (58.9 exposed culmen 13-15. everetti and perhaps P. syntype).xi.187 0. 3500’ (Everett.1463 0. f.2) 16.8 × 15.6 × 17. fulvotincta. f. Verheijen/Schmutz. and re-arrange them.3 × 17. f. Zool.1846 0.4 22.5 (13.1578 0.9 × 16.1525 Notes.6 22. supports the rather large size of birds from that island.0 × 17.7-18. of removing all these forms from P. fulviventris. 1986: 380).1591 0. and P.1658 0. f.8 Arguably.1349 0. pectoralis. Zool.2 (17.1818 0. this dismemberment results in the recognition of three species: P. P.3 × 16.5 × 17. P.4 22.2 (17. from Pachycephala pectoralis of southern Australia.1 21. Med. jubilarii (the validity of jubilarii has been questioned).3 × 16.1 × 16.1804 0. but it was not brought to fruition.5 22.— Everett.7) 20-21. The simplest solution is to give Galbraith’s (1956) various subgroups species status.6 21. 71149 RMNH no. no. the single specimen from Alor examined by me (not one of those previously studied by Rensch). 22. P.9) 21 entire culmen 15-18.6) 85 tail 55-63½ (58.1 23.) promised: “a reconsideration of the superspecies in the light of the present discovery”. In the area of the Lesser Sunda Islands. Avifauna of Flores. 1. is too weakly differentiated for recognition (White & Bruce. 71163 RMNH no. Pachycephala nudigula nudigula Hartert Pachycephala nudigula Hartert.1896. Measurements: Flores 20 ( 9& Alor 1( wing 76-83 (78.c.0 × 16.8 (14.5 (20. Galbraith (l. Lareng. which had become inevitable.3 × 16. 71153 RMNH no.3 × 16. .3) 18. 71171 22.

RMNH no. (?) juv. 7. Leiden 80 (2006) Pongkor (Verheijen.1957. is that these mountains are not high enough.. This does not necessarily mean that it is rare.0 (21.3) 103 93-97 (95. 71181). no. Tado Walok. RMNH nos. RMNH cat.v.5 (16. the species is not generally distributed above 1000 m..8) Parus major cinereus Vieillot Parus cinereus Vieillot. c/4. 28. Weber (2. which are distributed over the whole— Semmelink.viii. ilsa. 66158. Iris dark brown.iii. Johnstone et al. Rensch (1930: 85) indicated that in the mountains near Batoe Doelang it was not uncommon.— 2 (?). 65377-65380. Todo. . even though they are to well above the lower limit of distribution of P.5) exposed culmen 17-18. is still known only from the original 2 ( collected by Rensch in 1927. MCZ).1968 and 26.1958. 71178). 31).1976. Mano (RMNH no. Dict. c/1. collected between 3. 18.x. RMNH no. but usually more concentrated around the blunt end. Nouv. it seems to be completely absent. Nggolong-Tedé. Todo (RMNH no. The egg collected in August (a month not listed by Verheijen. 31. 71175). 1862. n. and Laé (Verheijen/Schmutz.4) entire culmen 20. Ruteng (Schmutz. RMNH no. and somewhat sparse lighter and more greyish secondary spots. Manus (RMNH no. de Jong (4). Nat. Verheijen/Schmutz. Avifauna of Flores. RMNH no. 1996: 358. above ca. 71177).9) 20 2419. 85061. and is correctly identified.ii.1961. 15. 85057. no. no data. RMNH no. c/4. 81404.1961. 22. 7. (. & 71182). Recent publications (Butchart et al. Zool. 6& wing 102-108 (104. Flores (Verheijen/Schmutz. Ruteng (up to 1450 m). Flores (Colfs. legs grey. (?). ten Kate.1973. Colfs. 18 specimens (12 (.iii. well-covered with fairly light chocolate-brown primary spots. 66157. 1700 m (Verheijen. 85059. According to Schmutz (MS). 59895-59900. 27. nos.1976.3) tarsus 24-25. at Nunang (650 m). Léong.xii.iii. but a year later called it “wesentlich seltener” than the nominate race. Measurements: 3( ( juv. &.1962. with a vertical range of 200 to 1700 m. ZMA). ( im. This suggests another species of which populations on adjacent islands differ in vertical distribution. 85060). c/1. ilsa as common and widely distributed on Sumbawa.iii. RMNH no.1973.1976. 71183). 4. 6. Mataloko (RMNH no.176 Mees. 81401). 81416).vi.7) 15 15. The large series obtained by Rensch speaks for itself. Mataloko (RMNH no. 1818. iv. 20. 20: 316 – Batavia.5-17. The eggs are white.v. Everett (3). 85056). WaéNtjuang Langkas. &. 5 &. Mataloko (RMNH no.6 (24. on the other hand.1956. RMNH cat.1961. RMNH no. Mataloko (RMNH no.1961. ca. The Sumbawa subspecies P. RMNH cat. 1996: 173) describe P. c/4. Poco Mulu.2 (17. Méngé (RMNH no. &. 1964). 69762). Med. Sika (ten Kate.1978. for example from the mountain massif between Nunang and Sésok. Waé Rukus (Verheijen. Rensch (2).).1976. Ulu Waé Rukus (Verheijen. c/1.6-21. c/5. has an original label. 81422). iv. Larantoeka (Semmelink.9) 24 22½(23. 2. 85058. (. 29). 9. nudigula where it occurs on higher mountains.. n. &. Notes. 71176). which reaches 1230 m (Potjo Dédéng). RMNH no. 71179). Hist. The only explanation I can think of.v. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. Collectors. 85055). bill black. iv.1891.8 (20. 81408). RMNH no.1978. 71180). c/5. Material. G. 22. or the high ground is not sufficiently extensive. (?). 30). Eggs: c/3. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. 69761). 28.— In the mountains of Flores. 15. Ruteng. Ruteng ( 81420). 1500 m. 1000 m. Mataloko (RMNH no.v.6-23.2) tail 79-82 (80) 79 70-75 (73. Verheijen (5. Allen. this species is evidently common.

— Weber. Verheijen (4. m.3 0.— P. x.0831 0. by having the sides of the underparts light grey instead of almost white. August (1). RMNH). which is absent from the Australian region. no.0828 0. 71211 RMNH no. 1931. 71181 15.2 × 13.0644 0. including cultivated. m. March (5). Contrary to Stresemann (1939: 383) it is certainly not exclusively or even mainly a mountain bird. 71213 16. The adjacent subspecies to the West is P. pl.1 17. It has failed to reach Timor.— (. various localities in West Flores up to 1400 m (Verheijen/ Schmutz. of which 22 with one egg and 41 with two eggs. However. 71210 RMNH no.5 17. July (4).0650 0.0895 177 RMNH no. Avifauna of Flores.6 16. May (24). Verheijen/Schmutz. 16b): 63 clutches. Kotting (Weber. but it is a small species). September (3) and October (5). Probably D.9 19. no. the eggs are too large to belong to D.0741 0.6 × 12.6 17. June (11). holotype). 19 &. igniferum are unknown. Its eastern limit also marks the eastern limit of distribution of the family Paridae. Leiden 80 (2006) Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.9 × 13.3 17.0835 Verheijen (1964) stated that the series of eggs he listed under this name. XVIII fig. cinereus is an inhabitant of semi-open.1888. Collectors.2 0. such as is found most commonly in the lower and middle levels.6 × 13.1 16. which is reasonably well-differentiated from P.0854 0.0811 0. probably included eggs from another species of Dicaeum. Everett. WSumbawa.0593 0.0 × 13. 3000’ (Everett.1 × 12.2 × 12. P. cinereus. cinereus ranges over the whole length of Java.3 17. Mus.0696 0. Zool.2 19. (. Dicaeum annae (Büttikofer) Acmonorhynchus annae Büttikofer.8 × 13.Mees. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.0818 0. Acmonorhynchus annae sumbavensis Rensch. 2).0 17. in Weber: Zool. 4 – Kotting. RMNH cat. Material. MCZ). RMNH cat.1 × 13. Med. ambiguus. Zool. Ergebnisse 3: 301.6 × 13. igniferum (the eggs of D. Flores.7 × 12.6 × 12. collected in the months January (1). Berlin 17: 617 – Batoe Doelang. and the chain of Lesser Sunda Islands to Alor and Sumba.7 17. but where suitable habitat exists it may occur high up in the mountains.0805 0.2 × 12. 71182 Notes.0853 0. The absence of geographical variation in Java and the Lesser Sunda Islands indicates perhaps a fairly recent eastward expansion of the species. 15 (.0 18.4 × 13. m. 1.3 18. Rensch (8).9 × 12. 71342 RMNH no. 1894. Mitt. de Jong (4). country. 1968-1976.0635 0. April (8). xii.086 0.0 × 13. sanguinolentum and presumably also too large for D. agile has eggs correspond- .3 × 13. m. nor has it been reliably recorded from Timor.1896. Eggs (fig. South Flores.0 17.0852 0.2 16.

so that it is unlikely that its nest has been found. not observed for almost a century. Avifauna of Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) ing in size with those of D. Salomonsen (1960: 3) states: “The sexes in D. where D.2 (11. As Larantoeka was in the 19th century the only place on Flores with a garrison.5. forming a link between Prionochilus and the more typical species of Dicaeum. Hartert’s erroneous claim was at least partly due to confusion with a different species (the juvenile from Alor. and suggests a wide distribution. maculatus”. 83: 167 – Waingapu.178 Mees. Flores (Allen. annae.0) Dicaeum agile tinctum (Mayr) Piprisoma obsoletum tinctum Mayr. 73. almost on the opposite end of the island from Larantoeka. annae is not known to occur.3) tail 31-34½ (32. Measurements: 17 ( 19 & wing 54-61 (58.2157). for Hartert (1897b: 518). On Sumba. on the other hand. Mus. 1885: 75). It was based on insignificant differences in tone. Rensch. The Everett specimen. collected by Allen. agile. annae a primitive species. and on a difference in wing-length. I agree with White & Bruce (1986: 407-408). Interestingly. Bull. Mayr & Amadon. Collectors. cf.2-10 (9. Med. Allen (2).— This species must be rare or very local on Flores. in 1862. Material. Notes. over sixty years before. This conflicts with Hartert’s (1897b: 518.0) 13-15 (14. In his revision of the Dicaeidae. sumbavensis being supposedly smaller. 54-56 mm.9) exposed culmen 8. 1898c: 456) claim that yellow on the rump is wanting in young of both sexes. Larantoeka (Semmelink. however. 1862.7) 54-59 (56. Hartert’s .1) 26-32 (29. This was also correctly described by Mayr & Amadon (1947: 17). RMNH). just as in Prionochilus olivaceus and P. agile is rather common. and this was one of his reasons for considering D. 1862. 1931a: 617). cf. 54-59 mm. evidence is that D. Sumba. The much larger series from Flores now available. in females the rump is concolorous with the back. 2 (?). and one collected by Everett. Notes. Both Rensch (1931a) and Salomonsen (1960: 3-4) mentioned that the subspecies sumbavensis is very slightly differentiated. 1944. BM nos.0) 8-10 (9. Everett (1). would be from near Nanga Ramau.1. but it is a rare species. 55-57 mm. which was subsequently re-identified as D. Nat.— Semmelink. Hist.8) 10. it is quite likely that Allen also made it his headquarters. two unsexed specimens without exact locality. that sumbavensis “is too poorly differentiated to merit recognition”.3) tarsus 13-15 (14. 1947: 17).— Wing measurements of 17 ( 54-61 mm (the smallest specimen is adult). so that three specimens may have been collected at the same place and at about the same time. Salomonsen’s statement is surprising. Amer.0-12. 19 &. encompasses in its range of variation the recorded measurements of the few birds known from Sumbawa (3 (.— (?).5. the difference is already found in juveniles.12. Zool.1031 and 95. annae are alike. had correctly described the difference between the sexes: only males have the yellow uropygial patch. for only four specimens seem to be known: the RMNH one (which was mentioned by Sharpe. Although I have not examined specimens from Sumbawa for a direct comparison.2) entire culmen 11. 2 &.5-13 (11.

but having examined material of two little-known forms that were not studied by the said authors. & juv. Dicaeum agile has been revised by Salomonsen (1960) and recently again by Sheldon (1985). poorly preserved skins of Dicaeum annae. It even led to some speculation about its affinities. 63913. About the latter. coll. ( med. In the first place. & juv.. 1914). I can put some of their speculations on a firmer footing. and that may be the reason why this record was ignored by the authors just mentioned (but not by Kuroda. 20. where a ( juv. 3 ( .. the sexes are identical in plumage. and therefore I regret that Sheldon (1985: table 1) has failed to separate the measurements of the sexes. however. and the description was published in July/August 1914 (cf. Bartels. 63914. 63912). 63905.xii. as having been based on misidentified. War conditions may have prevented its return to Bartels in Java. Goenoeng Massigit (RMNH nos. 1933: 119) Radjamandala (RMNH no. a. which must be very rare and local. it was collected at Wynkoops Bay in 1920 by Kloss and is now in the British Museum. The measurements taken by me indicate clearly that adult females are a little smaller than adult males. In both stages. ( . or at least pale coloration at . Goenoeng Massigit (RMNH nos. nat. D. Actually.xii. 63911.. Juvenile birds have the striations of the breast much less distinctive than the adults ( annae. or it may have become lost in the he does not state specifically that he had collected material. withdrawn by Hartert (1898b: 117) himself. there is a series of 13 specimens in the RMNH collection (all leg. at the outbreak of the First World War. and sometimes also the second rectrix. which I have not seen. Leiden 80 (2006) 179 (1896: 567) record from Sumbawa was. From a note I found in the archive belonging with the Bartels collection. The type specimen must be assumed lost. Med. Finsch died in 1917. The type specimen was forwarded to Finsch in Germany. 63906). It does. have a little whitish. In view of the importance of this series. 13. Goenoeng Beser near Wijnkoopsbaai. There are no reliable records from Sumbawa. was collected in April 1897 (leg.1922. finschi. but partly on the mistaken assumption that D. annae by Hartert (1898c). 9482) fails in the above enumeration. Salomonsen called it: “undoubtedly a near ally of D. annae shows no sexual dimorphism in plumage. they are almost absent). a. 5. where I have examined it”. 63916). Neither Salomonsen nor Sheldon mention a distinctive juvenile plumage. annae”. see also the notes under D. Although Bartels (1923) has published his 1918 encounter with the species. I give here a full enumeration: ( . 31. is known from the type locality. occur on Alor. It concerns the subspecies D. & juv. Goenoeng Massigit (RMNH nos. It will be noted that the type specimen of Dicaeum finschi ( ( ad. there is a clear difference between adult birds and juveniles. &. Everett. Bartels no. The above series requires the following comment. 63904.1913. Actually. coll. Avifauna of Flores. is repeated by Sheldon (1985: 606). I learned that the type was never returned. 27. Salomonsen (1960: 12) has this to say: “This form. &. atjehense and D. 63907-63910). & juv. 6. Bartels). Tjisoedjen (RMNH nos. ( juv.. most specimens from Java show some white in the tail: the outer rectrix. finschi was described as having no white tips to the lateral rectrices. Apart from the type specimen.1922. during the war. a. AMNH no. only one specimen is known.. and this has been accepted as a subspecific character. I have no major contribution to make to the systematics of this species. 63915). Zool. within two years of its publication. 698410)... The information that this subspecies is known from only two specimens. the specimen was misidentified and published as D.

As Sheldon could not find any difference between specimens from Malaya (remotum) and specimens from Borneo. Zool. a. best developed on the inside of the tip (fig. 1921-1924: 393).ii. Med. but at times being. 500 m. The measurements confirm that this is the specimen described by Bingham (1880: 171.n. modestum. 11. and a rather small bill. it would follow that remotum is a synonym of finschi. it is worth observing that the 13 specimens have been collected at three localities only: 3 near Tjisoedjen. Thoungyeen Valley. This bird has more white in the tail than any specimen of finschi (and also than the two specimens from Borneo) examined by me. Avifauna of Flores. Pending.1879. This points to the species being not only rare and difficult to locate. RMNH no. 63910. It does not and is no more than a slightly differentiated subspecies.1937. vi. 14069. on 5/13. . on 29. 27.1918. n. The most likely explanation for this is.180 Mees. Bingham. From left to right: (. s. viewed from below. the white is not less developed than in our two specimens of D. In fact. s. A word remains to be said about the nomenclature. The bill is rather small.1922. outer and second left rectrix. Leiden 80 (2006) the tip. Piprisoma modestum sumatranum). locally and temporarily. but the unique specimen from Sumatra is characterized by having large white tail-tips. ca. which lacks white tail spots. Kalimantan (RMNH cat. Gajoe Loeös. Prionochilus modestus). 11). atjehense). Sumatra (RMNH no. agile from Borneo (identified by Sheldon). 14069). but until more material Fig. which they state correctly that is known from only one single specimen ((. It may be of historical interest to present full data on the RMNH specimen of D. Java (RMNH no. Finally. 21. C. The year 1939. type of D. leg. The only reason why I still hesitate is that in this concept Sumatra should obviously also be included into the range of finschi. a. that the type of atjehense just happens to be an extreme variant in a population otherwise like finschi. Sometimes one finds this form cited as Dicaeum Finschii. Sheldon speculated whether: “a race such as finschi. atjehense. and as I am unable to find any difference between specimens from Java and two of these same specimens from leg. for it is neither brilliant nor contrasting. 4). followed by Van Marle & Voous (1988: 202) is a misprint. Although generally referred to as “white”. a conclusion reached seventy years ago by the authors of remotum themselves (Robinson & Kloss. (. 9 on the Goenoeng Massigit. common. of which the measurements are given below: &. Neither Salomonsen nor Sheldon have examined D. No. and one at Radjamandala. Dicaeum agile. merits specific status”. given for this bird by Chasen & Hoogerwerf (1941: 107. Maplay choung.xi. a. bird with the greatest amount of white in the Java-series). T. this should rather be called “pale”. to show the extent of white at their tips. (. but the original binomen is Dicaeum finschi. Hoogerwerf.

2: 201 – Alor. Med.3 11 11 10.7 8. I did not notice the tail-wagging and tail-fanning described by Sheldon as characteristic of the species. Leiden 80 (2006) 181 becomes available.1880. 13. 1929.8 exposed culmen 7 6. 1864. 63912 58 & juv. Notes.2 9. RMNH no. (1863): 494 – Flores.6 12. iii. ? Méléng (Verheijen. finschi) ( 63905 63 ( 63907 63 ( 63908 62½ ( 63909 62 (63914 61 ( med 63916 59 & 63904 58 & 63911 59 ( juv.— (.8 11 10.6 12. 63915 57 Flores (D. &. provided by Salomonsen (1961: 4). Sikka (Weber. (?).— Allen. Everett. (.3 10 9.4 13. (. 63910 55½ & juv. RMNH cat. Sande (2). Also. Golo Karot.Mees.2 7 7 Ergänzungsb.4 7. v.9 12.1973. Material. Collectors. Verheijen/Schmutz.1973.5 12.5 7. Zool. RMNH no.8 10 10. the vague whitish markings on the tail seem to me much too inconspicuous to have an important signal function.8 7 7. Weber. 85073 ). Colfs. Avifauna of Flores. a.9 9 9. 1). modestum) & 59 Sumatra (D. 12. West Flores (Colfs. atjehense will have to be recognized. Rensch (2). &.1 7 8 Dicaeum igniferum Wallace Dicaeum igniferum Wallace.5 13 entire culmen 9. Golo Karot. RMNH no. Journ. 85075).4 8 8 7.4 9. obsoletum) ( RMNH 59 & RMNH 59 & RMNH 56 tail 26½ 33½ 29 29 28½ 31 30 29 29½ 28 28 29 27 26 25 26 25 27½ 27½ 25 27 26½ 25 tarsus 13 12. Borong (Verheijen. tinctum on Sumba. 7. it is impossible to be certain. Zool. 50 m (Verheijen. 81382). 22. a. Lond.1978. a. a. 63906 56 & juv..4 12 12 13 15 Todo (Verheijen.8 9 9. tinctum) (?) RMNH 58 (?) BM 73 59 (?) BM 95 57 Timor (D. Nantal (Verheijen. atjehense) ( 63½ Borneo ( 62 ( 63 Java (D. Measurements: wing Tenasserim (D. and I consider that for the moment D. Soc.xii. 63913 58 & juv.3 8 7. as he assumes.1969. xii. 1. RMNH cat.5 13 13 13 12.1888. 85074).2 9.8 10 11.7 9 10. de Jong (10). My field-experience is limited to the observation of a few individuals of D. (. Borong. Proc. 12. f.1971. The subspecies cretum (from Alor and .9 13 13 13 13. RMNH no. skeleton. no. a.2 7.1 10 11.9 7 7.8 13 13.— The measurements of this material agree well with those of specimens from Flores.2 6.7 7. a). a. RMNH no. Dicaeum igniferum cretum Rensch. 65519).

Rensch’s (1931a: 615) remark: “Alle drei Exemplare erbeutete ich. and I am not very keen on accepting such weakly established forms. These specimens are from a level of ca. Collectors. and is common. 49½ tail 24-26 (24. Notes. igniferum is likely to occur and might have intermediate measurements: of course. Zool. and that the third bird was from Everett’s collection. 1928c and 1931a: 614) it is clear that he collected only two. the second that on the ornithologically poorly known connecting islands of Adonara and Lomblen. including the type material of cretum. and even . of Sumba. The few known specimens of D. seems to me extremely dubious. A consequence is that I do not regard the thick-billed lowland bird Dicaeum wilhelminae as ancestral to the slender-billed mountain bird D. would have been colonized from Sumba. 1200 m. D. etc. as from his own enumeration (Rensch.— None. as required by Salomonsen. Rensch (2). 36: 80 – Rana Mesé. pending more material from Alor and Pantar”.7 entire culmen 10-12 (10.— Apparently only three specimens of this subspecies are known: one ( collected by Everett (cf.— Everett (1).5) 48. I follow White & Bruce in the rejection of cretum for two reasons: the first is that the measurements indicate that a larger series from Pantar and Alor would almost certainly show considerable overlap with measurements of nominate igniferum. Salomonsen measured specimens from Alor (4) and Pantar (2). 1928. and stated without presenting further evidence: “Subspecies are not established and Rensch’s cretum is a synonym”. Material. 1914: 57: “Gebirge von Sumba” is in error).8) 9. Mber. Measurements: 4( 2& wing 49-52 (50. is a lowland bird (Hellmayr’s.7) 11. However. Hartert. White & Bruce (1986: 409) had no such qualms. sanguinolentum hanieli from Timor are also from ca. The apparent rarity of the forms inhabiting Timor (hanieli) and Flores (rhodopygiale) already constitutes an objection: I find it difficult to envisage the Flores form “invading” (over Lombok and Sumbawa. wilhelminae.. however. sanguinolentum.. 1897b: 518). and two (( and &) obtained by Rensch.. 12 exposed culmen 7+-8 (7. Med. this reasoning would be unacceptable if there was a convincing difference between igniferum and cretum. West-Flores (1200 m).” must be a slip.3) 13. The highest point of Sumba is 1225 m. Leiden 80 (2006) Pantar) was based on the single character of a slightly larger size. The related D. 13. where it is not known to occur) Bali and Java. and this suggests that the species is really uncommon and that the paucity of records is not merely due to the vagaries of collecting.182 Mees. and could confirm the larger size. Salomonsen’s (1961) historical-zoogeographical hypothesis in which Java. 10. Considering how cautious Salomonsen was in treating weakly-defined subspecies. for the moment I recognize cretum. but he added: “The difference is trifling indeed. Avifauna of Flores. 1200 m.7) 23. Orn. the above comment practically amounts to a rejection of cretum. just about the level of the greatest activity of the fathers Verheijen and Schmutz.3 Dicaeum sanguinolentum rhodopygiale Rensch Dicaeum sanguinolentum rhodopygiale Rensch. 24 tarsus 13-14 (13.

Kisol ( Flores).). II: 200 – Sita. 65495).ix. etc. plausible hypothesis. Notes. 20. July (2).— ( subad. 71328 17.0822 18.iii. 85370. wilhelminae to the status of a separate. Todo (Verheijen. Stresemann (1940a. RMNH no.Mees. thus changing Stresemann’s casual remark to nearcertainty. 15. June (2). &. Larantoeka (Semmelink.ix.2 0. &. Todo (Verheijen. de Jong (3). RMNH nos.1880. RMNH no. such a double invasion seems to me rather unlikely. 65563). RMNH without no. Material. (. Avifauna of Flores.6 D. 1939: 346). v.1009 RMNH no. Nantal. convergens is closer to A.0952 19. That Stresemann himself was not very serious about it.1969. 65516). Weber. Allen. I would return D. 713219 19.6 0.0 × 13.). Sande (1). iv.. Journ.xii. Colfs. &. 12. Verheijen (2.xii. or from both directions.0923 The eggs agree in measurements with those of nominate A. malacensis from Java. Verheijen/Schmutz. Eggs (fig.1971. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 71339 17. Rensch (4). and August (4). & juv. RMNH no. RMNH without numbers). 85377). 24. or from the South (Sumbawa. This was taken up and modified by Mayr (1944a: 164) in the following words: “The island of Celebes seems to have been colonized both from the Lesser Sunda Islands (convergens) and from the Philippines (chlorigaster).0864 RMNH no. and sparser black primary markings of varying shapes. (.8 × 12. RMNH no. species. Rahong (Verheijen. RMNH no. RMNH no. (. 20. are vague. The eggs are white to pinkish white. (. 65494). 21. 350 m (Verheijen. (. Ergänzungsb.. &.0862 17. speculation. the limits between justified deduction. leaving its exact relations to D.— Semmelink.1970.xii. (. maugei. Med. 85371). Leiden 80 (2006) 183 less as conspecific with it. once more open to discussion. m. Zool.1969. both of which are very similar to celebensis”. May (3). (RMNH nos. 18. As Celebes is inhabited by a homogeneous subspecies (it is generally agreed that citrinus is a synonym of celebensis).1 0. than to the nominate race. but average slightly heavier. and nonsense.1971. m. Kisol. Perhaps my doubts about the picture of evolution and speciation presented by Salomonsen.— It is well known that the subspecies A. 150 m (Verheijen. and Borneo. iv. well provided with light to medium grey secundary dots.1971. 65517.2 × 13. which occurs east to Java. sanguinolentum. Stresemann.1891. D. ( juv. RMNH nos..7 × 13. 81379). 59) put as a tentative suggestion that the species might have colonized Celebes from the Philippines.. as given by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967: 141). ( im. is apparent from the fact that in the special section “Doppel-Einwanderung auf Celebes”. MCZ). f. igniferum.1969. .1 0. Todo (Verheijen.9 × 13. Anthreptes malacensis convergens Rensch Anthreptes malaccensis convergens Rensch.5 × 13. he makes no mention of it (cf. Waé-Ntjuang (Verheijen. 1862. 1929. RMNH without no. 16c): 15 clutches of c/1 (7 ×) and c/2 (8 ×). Bali. m. 21. Sika (Ten Kate.d. monotypic. from the months April (4). Flores. Everett (2). Orn. Collectors. ten Kate. 85369)..0 0. Rekas. West Flores (Colfs. 71327-71341). celebensis from Sulawesi (Celebes). arise from the feeling that in attemps to reconstruct it.1969.

ix.7. 23. 66199). RMNH nos.1969. 85368). 16. Mataloko. Langkas. (.3-18. medium olive-brown markings.3-19. &. (. Everett.ix. (. Soa (RMNH nos. the others are from Dampék.2 (21.0) 38. Verheijen/Schmutz.— Semmelink. 175 m (Verheijen. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 1904. Potjong. Dict. v. ( im. GoloKarot. 1825. Everett. Verheijen (4.ix. bill and legs black. Allen (several).1 (16. 71247-71273. 71275-71293).8.0422 0. 4.8) 13. Maro-Kama (Verheijen. 1827. 17. 65496). skeleton.6 17.0485 .ix. de Jong (1).d.1) 0. 1/3. 22. a). 3 – Amboine.. 22 (.1970. 347 fig. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 138 fig. Groot Bastaard (ten Kate.— (. Maro-Kama (Verheijen. 1862. Rensch (7). 65504.1) 14. Maro-Kama (Verheijen.7) tail 37-41½ (39. 2 (. Allen. 16dd): 46 clutches of c/1 (22 ×) and c/2 (24 ×). May (11).1976.6-21.1891.0) 16.9) 16. 71291 Measurements: 10 ( 4& wing 51½-55 (53. from Rekas.iii. 11: 214 – Endeh. Lingko Lumu. Waé Tua (RMNH nos. May (10).6) Nectarinia jugularis ornata (Lesson) Cinnyris ornata Lesson. Rensch (5). Levrault) 50: 15 – no locality. 65497.1888. 175 m.0) 20. 66 60-64½ (61. Zool. 17.8-17. RMNH).4 (16. Nat. (..184 Measurements: 7( 2 ( juv. and August (4). Raé and Todo. June (7). 650 m (Schmutz. Flores (Colfs. Maro-Kama (Verheijen. Pau.1) tarsus 14-15 (14. 65506).1) exposed culmen 17-18. 85384). xii. Waé-Ntjuang.4-17. RMNH). 1100 m (Verheijen/Schmutz). Léwé. July (3).9) 16.7) Mees. 17.0509 exposed culmen 15. (. (?). Eggs (figs 16d. (éd. RMNH no. Material. 16. Tado. 1 = Java. de Jong (4). There are 17 clutches from Palué. 65499). Collectors. Flores. 8 & from Kisol. Martens.6 19-21 (20. Colfs. Mano.1970. collected in the months March (4). MCZ). 20. RMNH nos. l’une des Moluques (errore) = Timor. &. 65502. 65503). Weber (4). RMNH no. RMNH nos. 65500. 71294-71326).v. Larantoeka (Semmelink.3 (16. RMNH without number). Lamé. (. 4 (livr.1971. The eggs are white with large.0) 18.9) entire culmen 20. somewhat cloudy. Iris brown. ten Kate. but based on Nectarinia eximia Temminck.1974.— Semmelink. April (5). Maro-Kama (Verheijen.iii.9) Nectarinia solaris solaris Temminck Nectarinia solaris Temminck.3-17. MCZ). 1880.9 (17.1970. Ruteng.8 16.9 (19. Med. 5& wing 65-69 (66. 58): pl. 81439). Bénténg Djawa. Zool.5 × 10. Cinnyris solaris degener Hartert. 65498. Verheijen (8. ii.x. Avifauna of Flores.2 × 10. Verheijen/Schmutz. 0. 16ee): 33 clutches of c/1 (15 ×) and c/2 (18 ×).2 (17. 700 m. Collectors.4) 28-30 (29. . RMNH no. Novit.7-14. Nunang. Kisol. 1862. RMNH no.7 × 10. Sika (Weber.1970. S. RMNH nos. from the coast to ca.. 9. 50 m. Material.2 (20. Sci. Leiden 80 (2006) tarsus 16.5 16. 65505. 28.3) 64. July (6). 2 &.2 (16.4) tail 30½-36 (33. Eggs (figs 16e.3 15.9 15. June (7).0 × 10. Ruteng.9 entire culmen 18-21. 3 (. 71289 RMNH no. pl. April (19).6-17. and two without date. Ero (Verheijen. &.6 (14. Sande (1).6) 49-52½ (51. collected in the months March (1).— (. (. Wesang. Tinung Ndéhes. RMNH cat. Recueil d’Ois. 40 33½-39 (36. RMNH without numbers).

but already a slight distance inland. jugularis is found (note that from the islands of Komodo. over a pass of 1200 m. Novit. solaris and N.0 15. solaris occurs also.9 15. Schmutz never saw N.1 × 10. Lomblen and Alor) is too poorly differentiated from nominate solaris (Timor and Samao) for recognition.— Everett (1). Leiden 80 (2006) 185 The eggs are close to those of N. Thus it was left to S.9 × 10. 1000 m.5 (14. and of a possible ecological segregation. 71323 RMNH no. 1897.1821. As a matter of historical interest: this species was discovered by Reinwardt. than birds from Timor and Flores.0 × 11.1-17. on his visit to Koepang and its surroundings. MCZ). South Flores. exquisita (Wetar) merits recognition. N. Flores. Collectors. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.0523 0. sharper defined.046 0. indeed.9 (18. are of much theoretical interest. Therefore he was surprised and intrigued to find that on the cultivated high plain and in the coffee gardens near Mataloko (ca. to establish its true provenance.8) tail 30-35 (32. N.6 (19. Müller. Zool. When travelling from Orong to Tjantjar. but their markings are stronger.1) 27-31 (28. On the other hand. 71319 RMNH no. jugularis ornata.8) 48-51 (49. Med. Father Schmutz (MS) has the following notes on the subject. Rintja and Palué only this species is known). only N. 4: 520 – Nanga Ramau.7 × 11. jugularis seems to be still the commoner species.05 0.2 (14.4 × 10.1 14.049 (damaged) 0. and N. Knowledge of interactions between the two closely related species N. but because of poor labelling was thought to have come from Ambon when Temminck described it in 1825.1) Zosterops palpebrosa unica Hartert Zosterops unica Hartert. Verheijen.Mees.8) tarsus 13. Measurements: 24 ( 8& wing 51-56 (52. I also agree with Bruce (l. s. Waewako (180 m) and Look.0523 0.5) 14-14.2) entire culmen 18.7 (16. jugularis. Timor. jugularis was common. at levels of 10-200 m.047 At Waewako and Rekas (350 m). darker. during his stay on Timor in 1828/1829. solaris was absent.c.1 (16.2-17. and more purplish-brown in colour.8 × 10.1 16. I am unable to see any of the characters by which it was claimed to be distinguished. Avifauna of Flores.9 0.) that N.3 × 11.2-20.5) 15.9-15. for example in Nisar. solaris remains. the same altitude as Ruteng). only N. solaris was the only species known to Father Verheijen from the surroundings of Ruteng (1000-1100 m) and the mountains of Manggarai. from 3/18. Zool. on the basis of having a slightly heavier bill. Evidently altitude is not the only factor that decides which species occurs in a given locality. N.0478 Notes. where N.7) exposed culmen 15.— I agree with White & Bruce (1986: 406) that the subspecies degener (Sumbawa.9 15. 1000 m. 71320 RMNH no. at levels of ca. jugularis.8 16. both species occur. 71326 15.4) 18-19. and that is also the case in Nunang (650 m). In the immediate neighbourhood of the coast. . Verheijen (1. and a little yellower upper parts.

Léwé. bill black. Zool. (Puntu).0579 0.1970. Langkas. Zosterops continued as feminine. Poéng (Méngé). Stresemann. The result was that in the Indo-Australian Region.1 × 11.4 × 11. Layard. 71466 RMNH no.0 × 11. from Mano.x. with only one important exception (Reichenow. who was inconsistent but with a strong bias to masculinity). (?). Soa and Mataloko (RMNH nos. June (12). It appeared that the controversy was finally and definitely decided in favour of the feminine gender through a Recommendation in the Copenhagen Decisions (Hemming. Unfeathered parts: Iris light brown.L. collected in the months March (4). 71467 Notes. Swainson). 85388). 1827: 234). 66188. 66190. Wai-Ntjuang. uncritically one may assume. 21. 66192).vi. and so was it treated by non-British authors on African birds. Previously this species was known on Flores from the type-specimen of Z. I have to discuss the gender of Zosterops again.0585 0. Wallace.8 × 12. and were found to differ only in having a slightly yellower rump and upper tail-coverts. Lété. although others treated it right from the beginning as feminine (Bonaparte. Unfortunately.L. Sclater (1930: 673).). RMNH no. the base of the mandible plumbeous. Hartlaub. Rahong (Verheijen. August (2).6 0. etc. agreeing with the diagnosis given by Mees (1957: 87).8 17. The eggs vary from very pale blue to white.1976. Meyer.0620 RMNH no. chosen for the masculine gender. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. 222: Zosterops Javanica). Med. The first author to associate Zosterops with a gender may have been Swainson (1831: 205.9 15. Temminck & Schlegel). neither can it be deduced from the species they placed in it (Vigors & Horsfield. . Tjarang. Last century saw the advocates of feminine gender further strengthened (by &.2 15.0 15. 27. 29. had not W. Mbélar. unica only. 900 m (Verheijen. Guerin-Méneville. Wésang. feminine.9 15. Rahong. A. and October (1). but most British and South African authors followed. April (9). Delacour. 71455 RMNH no.0596 0.6 × 10.1971. About the middle of the 19th century. and treated it as masculine. 66189).2 × 10. a situation that was obviously undesirable. 27. melanura from Java. &. Manggarai (Verheijen. 12. Gould. RMNH no. and there is no doubt that this would have become universal (in spite of a short hiccup of masculinity in Japan). 71428 14. (. B. (. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.1971. RMNH nos. Léing. legs slate. several authors treated the genus as masculine (Blyth. Tristram). &. p. Tado.186 Mees.9 15. in an influential work that was to destine the nomenclature of African birds for many years. 81449). 66187. From Sumbawa. Eggs (fig. Potjong.0600 0.1971. Liang.B.0560 0. a question I thought had been settled some 35 years ago. RMNH nos.7 × 11. The history is as follows: The authors of Zosterops did not give its gender. Sclater.0625 0. Salomonsen. E. seven specimens are known. Leiden 80 (2006) Material.— 2 (. 71427-71473).vii.1 × 11. 16f): 47 clutches of c/1 (17 ×). 66191). Avifauna of Flores. c/2 (20 ×) and c/3 (10 ×). May (16).— These specimens were compared with an adequate series of Z. Ruteng (Verheijen.0534 0. p.9 15. RMNH no. July (3). Wai-Ntjuang. The leading ornithologists of the second half of the 19th and first years of last century treated the genus as feminine (Salvadori. collected by Rensch (1931a: 623).

In the first edition of the Code. the story goes that E. Having treated the large genus Zosterops as feminine for close on fifty years. this Recommendation was changed to an Article. The matter is made more complicated. but this seems strange as several years later. The renewed discussion on which this change of mind was based. I provide the following anecdote. and Zosterops was proclaimed masculine. zoologists have generally treated them as feminine”. Although of course this did not immediately penetrate everywhere (especially in South Africa it was a slow process). Avifauna of Flores. not to say haphazard way this decision was taken. but if Vigors & Horsfield did not provide the gender of Zosterops. Leiden 80 (2006) 187 1953: 49) and the acceptance also by British authors (Snow & Moreau. 1964). several zoologists/linguists (a most valuable combination). 1955). For the sake of one lobster. 1963). 1964. however. Zosterops. I am reluctant now to change its gender. in that a distinction is made between words ending in -ops. who is a carcinologist. “of which the usual classical gender is masculine.Mees. are to be treated as masculine unless the author indicated otherwise or unless. Mayr used the feminine gender throughout. Holthuis expressed a preference for the masculine gender. Addendum. the gender of Zosterops was treated as feminine. Zool. Note. the largest bird-genus known. Sabrosky. the technical assistant of a distinguished member of the ICZN. discussed the problem and failed to agree (Amaral. to mention the problem to me. they did give its derivation: “Ζωστηρ cingulum. such as: “Zosterops is of masculine gender” (Dickinson et al. in the authoritative “Checklist of birds of the world” (1967). Such a simple statement is nonsense. derived from Greek οψ. Other bird genera ending in –ops. Griffin. this member. was too complicated (Follett & Dempster. 1985: art. which seems to put in doubt the distinction between οψ and ωψ made in the Code (in agreement with Amaral. in important works. The new ruling was included in the third edition of the Code (ICZN. had just finished labelling a series of European lobsters with the name Nephrops norvegicus in the beautiful copperplate writing for which he was known. a change diametrically opposed to the stated object of the Code (“to promote stability”). who was my colleague. 30 (a) (ii)). but with some explanatory text (ICZN.— To illustrate the arbitrary. . I have seen a few very definite statements in the literature. 1964. hence. When the question came up in 1963. but on the same page. It had not occurred to the above-mentioned carcinologist. as well as several related genera (Speirops. 1991: 402). Since then. Med. Therefore they suggested a feminine gender. Mayr was consulted about Zosterops and that he did not object to the change. not a classical linguist. 1964). whereas words ending in -ops derived from Greek ωψ. as he had done in all his earlier publications. 1961: 30-31). that these authors expressly state the letters οψ to mean "eye". Lophozosterops) had to change gender. began with a complaint that the Article as it stood in 1961. like White (1963) and Moreau (1967). This was the position when the ICZN exercised their prerogative of changing their mind: the original decision was reversed. which are feminine. Admittedly. a time consuming work. Treatment of Prionops (8 species) has been inconsistent.. strongly pushed for the masculine gender. This gives a lot of leeway. definitely feminine. and moreover finding that Nephrops norvegica “did not sound right”. Not wanting to have these labels re-written. and should have read: “Zosterops has been decreed to be of masculine gender”. and οψ oculus”. In the following year. upon which the matter was decided by vote. but several leading authors considered it feminine. Xenops (4 species): masculine. failing such indication.

Mindanao.0654 0. Wangkung (RMNH no. Zool.5 entire culmen 12-13 (12. Collectors. the lowland specimens from Luzon listed by these authors under the name Z. c/2.4) 15-15..0616 RMNH no. 1957: 176. with one or two species.8 (15.9 0.ix. 71359 RMNH no.7 × 12. if there was an increase in size with an increase in altitude.7 17. 71357 RMNH no.1958. Med.0 × 12. should show the former to be larger. Orn. elsewhere in Mindanao.0 × 12. c/3.— 38 specimens.1959. on Mindanao a winglength of 54-58 mm. 12.6 Zosterops montana montana Bonaparte Z[osterops] montana Bonaparte. Material.7) 29 tarsus 14-15 (14. Av. 4. These authors gave for specimens from Lake Lanao a wing-length of 53-56 mm. Verheijen/Schmutz.3) 14. japonica meyeni (cf. 59818. 71360 Notes. almost without gloss. a comparison with specimens taken at 3250-5000 ft. from elevations of 900-1500 m (Verheijen. 59840.188 Mees. carry little weight and in some cases the gender does not affect the specific name (Scythrops novaehollandiae in this paper).1 18. As 1800 m is 6000 ft. In the last-mentioned paper I speculated about the identity of birds from Lake Lanao.1955. Padang Highlands ( RMNH nos. The surface of Lake Lanao is at 400 m a. 71359). white with just a suggestion of pale blue. Robo (RMNH no.0771 0.0790 0.5) 30-32 (30. which puzzled me.0) 11 exposed culmen 83/4-10 (9. Mees. 71357). Verheijen (10. 71358).0748 0. and that that is the place where these specimens would have been taken. 6617566180. 59811. Wangkung (RMNH no.0) 8.44) 12 (12.1955. s. and for specimens from 3250-5000 ft. Only later did I discover that the name Lake Lanao is now applied to the new university. The eggs are unmarked. 59820-59826. at 1800 m. Zosterops palpebrosa florensis Rensch. 184-185).. . Mber. Merapi.0708 0. Eggs: c/2. Leiden 80 (2006) Half a dozen small genera. 36: 9 – Geli Moetoe (1500 m). were undoubtedly Z. 59829. m. 4.7 16. As I mentioned before.viii. 59817. concluding that “it appears that highland birds are larger than lowland specimens”. 71360). 59812. Tjolol (RMNH no. see Mees (1957 and 1969: 270-273).3 × 11.0631 0. l. 81438.1 16.5 × 12.viii.2 × 11. MCZ). Measurements and weights: RMNH no. Flores. Consp.7 × 12. high above the Lake.7 16. 1. Gen. Mees. 82185).3) 50 tail 31-34 (32.0 × 12.2) 9 (9. montana.— Everett (2).— For a review of the extensive synonymy of this species.3 16. 59814.0747 0. as Z. 71358 16. 1969: 263). Avifauna of Flores. recorded by de Schauensee & du Pont (1962) under the name of Zosterops montana montana.9 16. not smaller than the latter. all from near Langkas (Rahong) and Ruteng. 66182-66185. Rensch (7). 1928. 1850.4 × 12. montana ought not to occur so low. Measurements: 4( 3( (?) wing 51-54½ (52. c/2.1) 50-51 (50. 59833-59835.0701 0.1 16. 1: 398 – Sumatra = Mt.

71361). meyeni is a yellower bird than Z.5 × 12. 71362-71426). Measurements: 24 ( 14 & wing 54-59 (56.0789 0.8 16. all from Palué. Med.1 × 12. 71375 16.4 × 12. montana on an island with a highest peak of only 652 m. There is no mention of the eye-colour and identification on the basis of a plumage description alone is tricky.1 16. du Pont describes a new Mees. Leiden 80 (2006) 189 On the basis of the above discussion. 8). Although he refers to my work (Mees. MCZ).2-14 (13.8) Zosterops chloris intermedia Wallace Zosterops intermedia Wallace.8 15.1888. 71417 RMNH no.5 16. japonica meyeni.1956. m. and 65 clutches of c/1 (11 ×).9 16.0688 0. Material. 1000-1500 ft. Lond. restricted to Makassar by Walden (see notes). I cannot believe it correct.0733 0.— Weber (2).3 16.1) exposed culmen 9-11 (10. 1864.1 16.7 × 12. In the same paper.5 × 13. 27.6) tail 36-41 (37. j.6 (16. 71418 . (300-450 m) seems unlikely. The eggs vary from pale blue to white.0740 0. c/3 (30 ×) and c/4 (3 ×). Neither is the iris-colour recorded. from the island of Marinduque.0 × 12. c/2 (21 ×).8 16.0 × 12.5 × 12.6 0. Rensch (8).8 16.0789 0. so that I suppose he has accepted their re-identification.5) 54-57 (55. as Z. Collectors. collected between 14. In the description of this subspecies.3 × 12. Verheijen (9.0722 RMNH no.4 16.6 × 12. 71414 RMNH no.6) 34-38½ (36.— (?).0736 0.0757 0.7 × 12.2) 9-10 (9. 1957) for this identification. 29. Proc. Avifauna of Flores. Zool.0690 0. 71402 RMNH no. with which it was apparently not compared.0752 0. I gladly accept du Pont’s (1971a) statement that “there was no misidentification of species” of the specimens from Mindanao.0754 0. 71416 RMNH no. (1863): 493 – Macassar and Lombock. de Jong (1). halconensis.3 16. RMNH cat.8 16. Erritzoe (1995: 13. Zool.Mees. and have little gloss.7 × 12.0869 0.0 × 13. Zosterops montana gilli.v. island Rusa Radja = Palué (Weber.3) entire culmen 12.5 16. 1992). There is no mention of Z. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.3 × 12. Therefore I suggest that Z.8) 16-17 (16. The occurrence of Z. Verheijen/Schmutz.1960 (RMNH nos. du Pont compares it only with Z.1 × 12. and 5.4 17.7 × 12. from which he says that it differs by being more yellowish.iv. no. Eggs: c/2.0709 0. 14) lists two specimens from Laguna de Bai in the flat lowlands of Luzon. japonica meyeni (cf.3-14 (13.0 15.7) tarsus 16-17. Soc.0705 0. Z.0762 0. montana.xi. He does not comment on the specimens from Luzon.1) 12. and at levels of 1000-1500 ft. montana gilli is a synonym of Z. Dampék (RMNH no.0765 0. montana.

japonica.— Although Rensch collected it near Badjawa at 1200 m. The way this is put certainly suggests that White thought that he was disagreeing with me. and indeed. and was adopted by Mr Wallace. White’s reference to character-displacement is less obvious. Neither of these statements is a valid restriction. My own work has largely been devoted to showing that this went much too far.R. associated with expansions and contractions of range. which was at the basis of my opinion. concluded: “there seems no reason why they should not. or a valid lectotype-selection. In this. and several others. This removed the main objection to granting to Z. japonica. 415). and that these large conglomerates. Z. and the same pertains to Sharpe’s (1884: 185) listing of the Makassar specimen as “Type of species” (cf. because the essence of the problem with these species is their morphological similarity. Parkes’s speculation that Z. it has less substance 12) Authors following the directive of treating Zosterops as masculine. ICZN. citrinella. closely related”. this is mainly an inhabitant of the coastal regions. name of intermedius to my Macassar specimen”.190 Mees. was mislabelled.1112) I kept Z. Avifauna of Flores. Barbagli & Violani. Mees. I was conscious of the danger of going too far in the opposite direction. who first described the species”. but the fact that I and all other authors have placed these species in the same genus. but apparently in error (cf. intermedia was originally described from “Macassar and Lombock”. and actually was taken on Luzon. supposedly on Hainan. the mangroves and adjacent cultivated lowlands. White (in White & Bruce. and especially of the small islands: note that Verheijen obtained only a single clutch of eggs from mainland Flores (Dampék. Zool. indeed. citrinella to Z. Z. This was repeated in slightly different words by Walden (1872: 72): “The above specific title was attached to a Macassar example in the British Museum by Mr G. The nine skins he collected (MCZ) are also all from Palué. That is why only in 1969 I separated Z. citrinella. 1997).. 1985: Art.. 1969: 312). have all. and: “Double invasion and character displacement could account for this situation. Wallace (1864: 493) explained the provenance of the name given in the following words: “Remark: Mr G. Z. on the north coast). I was reluctant to deviate too much from the conclusions reached by previous students of the Zosteropidae. and nobody would deny their common history of speciation. 1986: 412.R. montana remains just that. Z. lutea. meyeni specific status. citrinellus. when authors were still trying to create very widelyranging polytypic species. to which should be added Z. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes. but 65 clutches from the island of Palué during a stay of less than a month.. . In the first half of last century. hainana) to show intermediate characters. montana. have invariably changed the name Z. Gray attached the MS. and very similar to meyeni. were artificial (cf. chloris and Z. j. the four above-mentioned species. meyeni as a subspecies of Z. based on geographical replacement and on superficial similarity. chloris from Z.. Parkes (1971: 54) has since argued that a specimen collected by Whitehead. at some time.It is difficult to see why these species should not have a common history associated with successive invasions and reinvasions”. Gray. Z. everetti. discussing my treatment of the very similar species Z. which is the opposite of character-displacement. mainly as I believed birds from Hainan (Z. but in the description. meyeni might be a lowland representative of Z. 72 (b) (vii)). Med. implies a common origin. been treated as conspecific.

73518).0) 53-55 (53. as here there is not even the argument of geographical and ecological representation.6 × 12.7) 17-17.7 16. no. White gives an impression of denying the developments of the past forty years.0693 0.0 17. Verheijen (4. palpebrosa.0708 0. Weleng (Ruteng).— Semmelink.0) 13-15 (14. montana to be conspecific with Z. chloris is “undoubtedly” the closest relative of Z. lutea.Mees.6 (14.— Everett (at least 10. 1969: 197).8 (17.4) entire culmen 13.7) tarsus 15. x. RMNH cat. August (4).— (?).0 × 12. japonica which he had just condemned.0) exposed culmen 10-11 (10. 650 m.5-17. 71526 RMNH no. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. Nunang. No eggs. Zool.8 (10. 1901.0744 Notes. Material. MCZ).7 0. 1897.1896. June (11). Everett. 4: 172 – South Flores. Todo. restricted to Bima.0705 0. and one undated (RMNH nos. 700 m. Verheijen (4.7 17. 3). Zosterops wallacei Finsch Z[osterops] wallacei Finsch. Material.8) 10-10.3 18. japonica. Leiden 80 (2006) 191 than the link with Z. July (13). de Jong (2). For the same reasons. lightly and finely mottled with brown. Verheijen/Schmutz. 71528 17. this would bring us right back to square one. c/2 (35 ×) and c/3 (3 ×). do not contribute to a serious discussion. Avifauna of Flores. Allen. 1961a: 61-62).4 × 11. His remarks. The eggs are pale blue. As other authors have held Z. 11 (. South Flores (Everett. palpebrosa with Z. Eggs (fig. however. meyeni are concerned. Flores. Rensch (21). October (2).— &. and Z.7 (16. May (14). Tierreich 15: 23 – Kleine Sunda-Inseln Sumbawa. 5 &.2 × 13. 16g): 58 clutches of c/1 (20 ×).8 × 12. no.0734 0. 71501 RMNH no.— The measurements confirm that birds from Flores average slightly smaller than birds from Sumba (cf. Sumba und Lomblen.0855 0. I cannot agree with Ford’s (1983: 396) claim that Z. Larantoeka (Semmelink.3 17. East Sumbawa by Mees (1961a: 59). from 1050-2200 m (Verheijen/Schmutz). Med. but are little more than hollow rhetoric. Mees.2 17.3-14. 3 (?) from Ling Ndela. Verheijen/ Schmutz. . Collectors. 71474-71529.5 × 12. Collectors.9) tail 38-42½ (40. MCZ).4) Lophozosterops superciliaris superciliaris (Hartert) Zosterops superciliaris Hartert.0860 0. syntype). taken in the months April (12). Rensch (3). RMNH cat. Mees. Golo-Karot (Borong).8) 37-42 (39. Zool. where the affinities of Z. and of wanting to go back to the expanded species of half a century ago. Waé Rempo.0 × 13. September (1). cf. 42 specimens from various localities in West-Flores. 1862. 52320. Novit. Measurements: 11 ( 5& wing 53-56 (55. 1. 600 m. 71500 RMNH no.

3 × 13.192 Mees.0962 0.4-21 (20.4 × 13.7 17. May (21). Ntjuang.0994 0. 71594 RMNH no. Rensch (4).6) Lophozosterops dohertyi subcristata Hartert Lophozosterops (ad potius Zosterops) subcristatus Hartert. MCZ). cannot be taken literally.0892 0.8) exposed culmen 12-14 (13. .1052 Notes.4 × 13.2 × 13. it does not. June (32).6-13. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. javanica. Eggs (fig.0873 0. Waé Laci. or at least adjacent to each other”. Mees.0933 0. dohertyi are congeneric.2) 45-51½ (47.— Verheijen (1964: 196) considered it possible that amongst his large series of eggs of Lophozosterops dohertyi.7 17. pale greenish blue eggs of L.2) entire culmen 15.0 × 13.8 0.9 18.7 17. Golo Mbélar. Leiden 80 (2006) Notes. there might be a few of the present species.0) 11. March (5). 71624 18. 16h): 114 clutches of c/1 (34 ×). Although L. This may be correct. Lingko Lareng Pongkor.8-23 (20. I believe that L. about the strong resemblance. Ngkiong. the present series shows a greater vertical range than that assumed for the species by Rensch (1931a: 625). Zool. nest below ca.6 × 13.2 × 13. collected in the months February (2).5 17.8 (15. September (8).8) 64-69 (66. April (16). 71622-71640.9) tail 46-54 (48. or only in small numbers.0950 0.— Everett (at least 8. October (5). Rekas.0900 0. 1300 m.4-16. Avifauna of Flores. Poco Nernancang. 73519-73521).— As was to be expected in this larger material. superciliaris is more closely related to L.6 × 13. and I gathered them in places where they occur together. 71530-71620. 71608 RMNH no.2-17 (16. and 2 not dated (RMNH nos 52319. 4: 171 – hills of South Flores.8 16.1) 14. August (9). although the species ranges down to ca. July (14).6) tarsus 19.3 17. 71596 RMNH no. A simple and obvious explanation is that.9 × 13. javanica than to L. “since eggs and nests of both species resemble each other strongly. Verheijen (7.0952 0. and therefore I would expect its eggs to resemble the plain. dohertyi. 1969: 203).4 18. L. as by his own admission he did not know nest and eggs of L. at elevations from 350-1050 m. Nantal.2 (12. sparsely to moderately dotted with brown.— 36 specimens from Ruteng. 71595 RMNH no. Collectors.3 17.3 × 13. Verheijen’s remark.8 × 13. Med. with their brown spots. the upper limit of Father Verheijen’s nest-searching activities Measurements: 19 ( 21 & wing 67-71 (68. are conspicuously different from those of all other Zosteropidae of which the eggs are known. quoted above. but I doubt it for the following reason: the eggs of L. superciliaris and L.7 19. 1000 m.0834 0. cf. 3000-3500 feet. Material. 1897. The eggs are light blue. Todo. Waé-Ncuang. 71622 RMNH no.0972 0. Novit.0924 0. dohertyi.8) 19.4 × 13. c/2 (79 ×) and c/3 (1 ×) eggs. Zool. Verheijen/Schmutz. superciliaris with certainty.4 19.

4: 172 – South Flores. Novit. Todo (Verheijen.0941 18.0992 RMNH no.8 } large holes 19. Collectors.ix. the nominate one confined to Flores.2) (14.0 × 14.8) 18 & 58½-62½ 41-47 17. 5. Heleia crassirostris crassirostris (Hartert) Zosterops crassirostris Hartert. without markings. ? Méléng (Verheijen. or. RMNH no. Material.1978.5-19. 65461. RMNH no.xii.7) (14.2 × 14. RMNH nos. L. 30. crassirostris has been divided into two subspecies.6 0. only slightly glossy.6 × 13. the validity of junior requires confirmation.4 × 13. Waé Hiam (Verheijen. . Therefore it seems safe to conclude that in this species.3 × 13.1 0.1969.7 0. 25.v. there are among the males also individuals in very worn plumage. (.2 × 13. 65460).1969. The eggs are white. Zool. only the original two specimens (collected by Rensch) have been recorded from Sumbawa. RMNH no. Whereas from Flores now good series are known. RMNH no.2 13.v. 85356).3) (45. 2.i. Ruteng (Verheijen.3 × 14. for as far as I can judge. (. May (4).9 0. 9. August (3).5 0. 81390).1976. and H. 71642 19.8-12 (61.7 × 13. Lingko-Moak.3) (11. the females average a little smaller than the males.6) (18. 81389). (. Verheijen/Schmutz. June (6). 85354. (. 23.1 0.— H. 81393). RMNH no. 81396). Rempo (Verheijen. (.1) (44. c. 16i): 23 different sets. 65459). 81387). Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. junior confined to Sumbawa.v.— Everett (at least 11. as in other Zosteropidae.1 × 13. 71646 RMNH no. 20. &.0 × 14. MCZ).0858 19. Eggs (fig. RMNH no.3 × 14.8 } 19. cf. and as I have pointed out (Mees.v. Med. RMNH no.2 19.Mees.5) Although the two smallest females (wings 58½ and 59 mm) are in extremely worn plumage.7 (62. 4.6 0. 71658 RMNH no. Verheijen (3. its validity is dubious. RMNH nos. (. 1969: 212).8) (11. Langkas (Verheijen. Avifauna of Flores. 81394. the usual clutch-size would be 2 or 3. &. &. Wae Cuang (Schmutz.1976. of which c/1 (5 ×).1976. 85353). 71642-71663). 71657 RMNH no. 52318. Zool. RMNH no. 85355). &.6 0. 71659 Notes. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.1227 19.0997 18. but how they could be so certain is not clear. &. (?) nestling.1971. RMNH nos.9 0. Waé Laci (Verheijen. Mees.— &. 1897. 15. &.6 13-15. Leiden 80 (2006) Measurements: 17 ( 193 wing tail tarsus entire culmen exposed culmen 60½-64 43½-49 18-19. c/2 (12 ×).1969.1084 10.1145 19.2 × 13.8 × 13.1075 18. September (2) and October (1). Langkas (Verheijen.4) (18.1052 19.xi. There is no difference in plumage between the sexes. &.7 × 13. Rensch (1).1978.9 11-12.0976 19. July (3). White & Bruce (1986: 419) stated with confidence that junior is a synonym. 66194). (RMNH nos. they had not examined any specimens.ii. Assuming the c/1 to be incomplete.Ntjuang. c/3 (5 ×) and c/4 (1 ×). 97134). 31. 1969: 211).8 0. taken in the months April (4). Waé. 71645 RMNH no. Ngkiong (Verheijen. RMNH no. 7.i. rather. 20.1976.1976. Ulu Ros (Verheijen.

Müller) Meliphaga (Ptilotis) limbata S. Flores (Allen. Verh. Ned. Rensch (1931a: 608) wrote: “auf Flores merkwürdigerweise nicht beobachtet”.6-14. 1873.— Allen (1).. with small and sparse brown spots (one is practically spotless). I have observed (seen and heard) it on Gili Lawa Laoet. Notes. indistincta.12. In this connection I should like to mention that I know Australian L. indistincta quite well. In this connection. the two forms evidently agree also in song. Measurements: 6( wing tail tarsus entire culmen exposed culmen 66½-73 49-56 19.5.8 (66. Gesch. Land. I heard song from the mangroves. not particularly strongly differentiated. all in very worn plumage) (cf.7) (53. Father Verheijen (1976: 18) collected some clutches on Ndao near Roti. 1969: 210). Mees. This makes it even more peculiar that on Flores the specimen without exact date and locality.0) (19. he confirmed that it has been identified correctly and that it has what seems to be an original label in the handwriting of Allen. an islet off the north-east coast of Komodo. Dr Cowles has examined it for me. The eggs support the close relationship. Previously.. 1843.994). indistincta from Komodo.6) (15.— (?) juv. My first field experience with limbata is from the island of Sumba. BM no. Material. i. L.2) (18. Med. remains the only record. but until more material from Sumbawa may become available. Hoogerwerf (1956) does not mention L. subspecies of L. the record is as reliable as can be expected from a specimen collected so long ago. and only ca. Since the introduction of ternary nomenclature. to complete a pre-printed year 186”2”.0) (20. and Schmutz (MS) states expressly that on Flores he has never heard the conspicuous song. collected by Allen in 1862. Avifauna of Flores. 30 km from the nearest point of mainland Flores (September 1984).0) (14. about mid-way between Sumbawa and Flores. Müller. I believe that the relationship between indistincta and limbata is correctly expressed by treating them as subspecies.7 18-19.2 14-16 (69.: 162 – Timor. Sibley & Monroe (1990: 429) have promoted it to an “allospecies”.0) The smallest male has the tips of the primaries extremely worn.2) 8& 65-69 49-51 19-20 16. that junior merits the benefit of the doubt. Lichmera indistincta limbata (S. Zool. Therefore. from Bali to Timor. I would keep to my former opinion. I was unable to establish this because of lack of females (only three having been traced.6) (17.194 Mees. Bez. limbata had always been considered a. where on my arrival in Melolo. Leiden 80 (2006) The present material confirms that there is no difference in measurements between birds from Flores and birds from Sumbawa.en Volkenk.8 12. Overz. with the words “Flores”. 1862.6) (50. but even so. They are white. “eyes dark” and a figure “2”. indistincta: in addition to their similarity in morphology and plumage. Allen’s specimen assumes an increased importance.2-17.— Lichmera indistincta limbata is very common on most of the Lesser Sunda Islands. which I did not hesitate a moment recognising as being of L. Verheijen did not find the species on Palué. Nat. there is a clear average difference in size between the sexes.8-20. . Collector.

1000-2200 m. and also by the material collected by Stein on Timor and Sumba (cf.2 × 13. Leiden 80 (2006) Measurements and weights of the eggs from Ndao are: RMNH no.3 16. 143). whereas L. such ecological differences may certainly be considered.4 0. l. to 2200 m (mountain lake Rana-Ka). the explanation is the same as that suggested for Lophozosterops superciliaris on a previous page.5 × 14. Mayr. 76731 195 RMNH no. 1928.1 17.0849 0. Iris dark brown. 1895b: 15) showed me that all the characters claimed by Rensch (1928a) for fumidigula.072 0. Mber. Notes. It is interesting that on Lombok. and it is the mountain subspecies which is smaller than the lowland subspecies. show it to inhabit small islands and.7 × 14. legs slate. on the large islands. . Although the subspecies concept is primarily and necessarily a morphological one.0691 0. 76732 RMNH no. 36: 9 – Geli Moetoe (1500 m). Flores. Note that the geographical variation of L. Collectors. fumidigula of Sumbawa and Flores inhabits mountain forest. 81361. that it can hardly influence the distribution of L. with an altitudinal range of ca.0 16.8 × 14. hold good.4 × 14. is a valid. The average difference in size between the two subspecies is fully confirmed. Avifauna of Flores. indistincta.— The large series obtained shows that this is one of the most common birdspecies at the higher levels. character. but a comparison of the series from Flores with our four specimens from Lombok (leg. Lichmera lombokia fumidigula (Rensch) Meliphaga virescens fumidigula Rensch. they agree with eggs of nominate L. Verheijen/Schmutz. albeit not particularly conspicuous.9 × 13. bill black. White & Bruce’s (1986: 399) statement that this species is “commonest 800-1200 m”. lowlands. including coastal mangroves. indistincta. Zool. 1944a: 137. it is tempting to relate the variation in habitat and vertical distribution on the different islands. is not correct for most of its range. This is supported by Verheijen for Roti and its adjacent small islands.5 17. Therefore it is surprising that not a single nest seems to have been found. recorded from 0-1200 m. indistincta is so scarce (if present at all). Vorderman.0905 0.0894 0. l. L.0 17. Rensch (9). Med. 59886-59894.— Everett (1).Mees. 81358. I consider that in judging the validity of fumidigula. Material. Naturally.— 61 specimens from several localities in Manggarai. 65526-65541. Perhaps. (RMNH nos. White & Bruce (1986: 398-399) have placed fumidigula in the synonymy of the nominate race. lombokia goes in two respects against Rensch’s theories: it is the eastern subspecies which is smaller than the western subspecies.0669 Both in markings and in measurements and weights. 76733 17. Especially the smoke-coloured throat from which fumidigula takes its name. but on Flores L. 85225-85244). given above. Orn. My own observations. lombokia is a lowland form and an inhabitant of cultivated country. with the presence of the closely related L. lombokia.

RMNH no.1 × 22.1891. no. 66146).1 34. Sumbawa. 85298). Ergänzungsb. RMNH cat. (.1891.1971. Borong.6 0. Kisol. II: 198 – Lomblen.vii. &. Nunang. &. 150 m (Verheijen.196 Measurements: wing Lombok (L. 2 &. 20.3 × 21. The eggs vary from white to a deep salmon colour. Endih (1). xii. c/2 (14 ×) and c/3 (23 ×).7 × 21. Verheijen (2.0 32.1888. June (5).25) 48-55 (51.3 × 21.9 × 21.iii. RMNH no. . 600 m (Schmutz. Eggs (fig. (?). Avifauna of Flores.7 × 22.7) exposed culmen 16.1 31. 12.iii. 28. Med.5 (18. 97148).3946 0.4835 0. Larantoeka (Semmelink.— White (in White & Bruce. 9. 13/24.ix.2 (19. variable in size and density. syntypes). RMNH no.8 (19. no. 65365). 650 m (Schmutz.4430 0.7) tail 50-52 (51.x.6 (20. taken in the months January (1).4324 0. Pfeffer (2). Nunang. 11.0-20 (18. Nunang.4386 0. 650 m (Schmutz.8 × 22. 71678 RMNH no. &. 8. RMNH no.1971. 66147). Verheijen/Schmutz. 66145).5178 0. 50 m (Verheijen.9 (21.4 × 23. 71691 RMNH no.8 32. 50 m (Verheijen.7 RMNH cat. RMNH no. Golo-Karot. l. 66148-66153). f. RMNH cat. &. MCZ). 2 (. syntype). 81035). 175 m (Verheijen. Golo-Karot. l.1976.7 30.9) Mees. April (11). 4 ( . Kisol. 81031.0 × 22.4-21.i.4814 0. Zool.2 × 23. 14. Martens. 73522). Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.4) Philemon buceroides neglectus (Büttikofer) Tropidorhynchus neglectus Büttikofer. 71705 Notes. syntype). RMNH nos. Weber. RMNH no.8 32. 71703 RMNH no.4907 0. Maumeri (Weber. no.vii. 13: 213 – Flores. 4 (. RMNH no. Orn. 71704 RMNH no. February (2).1973.8 30. 85299). 85302). May (12). and two not dated (RMNH nos. and Doubl.1969.1970. 71664-71715.1973.2 × 20. 3. J. RMNH no. on the basis of what appear to be mostly Rensch’s own figures.7 32.3 30. 175 m (Verheijen. Kisol.6) entire culmen 20+-23+ – 20.1971. July (1). fumidigula) 25 ( 61½-68 (65. Nunang. 71692 RMNH no. (. 17a): 53 sets of c/1 (16 ×). 81034. 175 m (Verheijen. Notes Leyden Mus. 2 (?).4263 0.8 29. with brown primary and light grey secondary dots. Kisol. 71690 33. 10. Nunang.6 × 21. 85301).0 × 21.4871 0. 650 m (Schmutz.4969 0.7) 18-21.3 31. Material. November (8) and December (1).5527 0. Endeh (ten Kate..6) 17.8) 17. 18. 1929.1971. 28/30. Kisol. &.— (?). October (8). syntype).1971.1971. 13.x.iii. March (2).1971. ten Kate.iii.4-25 (23. Rensch (4).3+-20+ – 17. (.— Semmelink.9 × 22. RMNH nos. RMNH cat. Sika (ten Kate.0 33. (?) fledgeling.4511 RMNHH no. 23. 9. (. 650 m (Schmutz. no. 1986: 398) has dismissed both the subspecies plesseni and sumbanus. 81036.7 × 21. RMNH nos.6 × 22. 175 m (Verheijen. RMNH no. 1891. 85297).4116 0.4 29.4) 20-24.4 30.4 × 21. 7.3803 0. (.5) Flores (L.3723 0.5) 36 & 58-63 (60. iii. lombokia) 4( 67-70 (68. Philemon timoriensis plesseni Rensch.4041 0.9-21. Collectors. de Jong (2). 85300. Allen. Everett (2). 1862.6) 44½-50 (47.6 32. Leiden 80 (2006) tarsus

8) (35. Wesang (RMNH no. ( im. 24. 29.8-45 Sumbawa ( 147 118 40 44 Alor ( 153 123 38 43 Sumba (?) (= () 155 135 40 46 The Sumbawa specimen is from the Forsten collection (1842).vi. Langkas (Verheijen.1958 (RMNH no. it is a syntype of P. Lond. Iris wax-red. 6. Puntu. birds from Flores to 154 mm. Potjong (RMNH Med. and perhaps largely subjective.v. all other syntypes are from Flores. 71749). 26.1976.— (. (1863): 495 – Timor and Flores. c/4. legs pale brown. 85317).5 40. c/4. Proc. The eggs are white. Rensch (2). c/6. RMNH no.2-46 3 (?) 142-146 119-123 36-37½ 41. 17. Material.4 (147. no.vii. Measurements: Flores 14 ( wing tail tarsus culmen from posterior edge of knob 140-154 111-127 34-40. Everett. (. RMNH no. Potjong (RMNH no.153 121-131 36-38 43. Langkas (Verheijen. 65583).1954. 71757).v. Leiden 80 (2006) 197 adding: “this minor size variation is probably not worth formal designation”. 1890: 323-324). MCZ).0) 6& 134-143 111-120 34-36 38-41 (139. 27. Amandava amandava flavidiventris (Wallace) Estrelda flavidiventris Wallace. Verheijen/Schmutz. Eggs: c/1.1959. the three unsexed birds (collected by Semmelink and Weber).1957 (RMNH— Semmelink. 71755). Lingko-Moak. 1). Zool. bill dark red. . 10. Potjong (RMNH no. 71751). 7.1971. Langkas (Verheijen. 2. Wangkung. With only a single unsexed specimen from Sumba at hand.1969. RMNH no. Rahong (Verheijen. no.1971.v.x.7) (119. c/4. (. as listed above. t. 71747). RMNH no. 85318). should be males.Mees. Whatever the studied material was. a little glossy.viii. 71748). Wangkung (RMNH no. but note that the measurements of wing and tail of the Sumba specimen exceed those of birds from all other islands. RMNH no.v.6) 3 (?) 149-153 125-128 39-41 41-44. Collectors.5) (42. 25.12. (. 66208). 23. The figures presented by Mayr (1944a: 165) also confirm the size difference. Rahong (Verheijen. c/4. 66207). plesseni is a synonym of P. RMNH no. (.vi. RMNH no. 71756). and therefore I agree with White that P. 71753). 81370).1971.1970.1954. Sharpe. 16. Lombok 3 ( 145. 14. 3. it must have been small and therefore I considered it worth measuring the above specimens from Flores and other specimens from the Lesser Sunda Islands..5 Judging by these figures. Montjok (RMNH no. c/6. 1862. c/2. Wangkung (RMNH no. and therefore support Rensch’s contention that: “Sumba-Vögel sind langflügeliger und langschwänziger. cf. 1).1956. Allen (at least neglectus. Mano (RMNH no. The individual variation is apparently much greater than Rensch thought. The results show that the increase in size eastwards is questionable: even birds from Lombok have a wing-length of up to 153 mm. Verheijen (8. Longko (Schmutz. Langkas (Verheijen. Ruteng (Verheijen. The case for retention of sumbanus is weakened by Hoogerwerf’s (1966) claim that birds from Komodo are equally large. Whether this difference is enough for recognition of the subspecies sumbanus is a RMNH cat. RMNH no. question.8) (114.”. Lingko Watu Mésé.1955. 71752).1971.1971. c/3. de Jong (2).1959. 71750). Soc. &. neglectus (RMNH cat. 66209). 1864. Mengé (RMNH b. c/1.v.2) (39. 85321). c/4. I am unable to give a definite opinion on the validity of sumbanus. &. Larantoeka (Semmelink. 5. 65577). c/2. 71758). Ruteng (Verheijen. Wae-Ntjuang.1954. (36. Mano. Wae-Ntjuang.4-43. 4.1971. 71754). Avifauna of Flores. (.1955. (. Mano (RMNH no. v.. Langkas.151. RMNH no.

not dated. Orn.0 14.v. Soc.5) 10.0522 0. Measurements: 6( ( im.— &. Erythrura hyperythra obscura (Rensch) Chlorura hyperythra obscura Rensch. Nouv. 71749 RMNH no. MCZ).8 14. Langkas. 17.1 14. no. (1863): 495 – Timor and Flores. (.035 0. both on Flores and on Palué. Zool.0496 0.0-10. Flores (no collector. (. d’Hist. RMNH no.8 0. intermedia by White & Bruce (1986: 420-421). isolated popula- . Nisar/Sésok. Mber. Dict.0514 0.0533 0.3) 32 30½. 20).— The subspecies obscura was placed in the synonymy of E. 14. 81304). Amadina insularis Wallace. unless the remark: “No further subdivision seems necessary in this species with a range of broken. south coast (Schmutz.7 14. 2& wing 44½-46 (45. Avifauna of Flores. (. Material.6 14.2 × 10.— Verheijen (1961) recorded that. 1864. Zebra finches were only seen in the immediate vicinity of the coast. de Jong (8). Med.2 × 10.8 13.0 10. Collectors. Zool.2 Poephila guttata guttata (Vieillot) Fringilla guttata Vieillot. 81313). 85316). Verheijen/Schmutz. Lond. RMNH cat. RMNH no. Lingko Ncilor (Schmutz. There is one clutch in his collection.3 × 10. 71757 Notes.4) 46 46. West-Flores. Maumeri (Weber.1971. Nat. 1976: 18-19). Material. No eggs (but see notes). Schmutz (1). 10.0427 0. RMNH no.8 × 9. acquired in 1878. RMNH cat. 13). Proc. he obtained several clutches on Roti and the adjacent islet of Dao or Ndao (Verheijen. Leiden 80 (2006) 14.1969. 9. Notes. Rahong (Verheijen.5 14. 36: 6 – Sita (700 m).0 × 11. h. Rensch (2).0 (9.8 × 10.— This species has the distinction of being the smallest bird of Flores.7 14.0503 0.8) 14 13. but its identification is very dubious.0514 0. – tarsus 12. Although Father Verheijen did not collect eggs of this species on Flores. 12: 233 – Îles Moluques = Timor.— Allen. but without explanation. no. Collectors.5 × 10.1 × 10.1888. 46 tail 30½-32½ (31.0. 1817.1976.v. both in wing-length and in size and weights of its eggs. 1928.5-13 (12. Rensch (6).v.9 13. Notes. 13 culmen 9. Eggs: Verheijen (1964: 200) records nests found in the months May and June. prepared from alcohol.0507 Some measurements and weights: RMNH no.198 Mees.6 × 10. Weber (3).0476 0.— Everett (1).— (.1 × 10. Verheijen (2. xii.

Everett. 52: 199 – Kangean.0519 0. 1931a: 603). 19. Measurements: ( & wing 56 58 tail 29 29 tarsus 15. 71745 Notes. I have been unable to make a comparison with Rensch’s diagnosis of obscura. of which he did not record the sex.— (?) ad.4 × 11.8 × 10. 77: 440 – Binongka (Tukang besi-Inseln). 66226). RMNH cat.051 0. cf.4 × 11. 3. c/2. RMNH cat. 71746). 5. 1890.5. 27. Lacking specimens from Lombok (intermedia). 81364.0 × 11. Munia molucca vagans Meise.8 16.1960. 1931a: 602) was certainly a female. (?).vi. Collectors. Orn. c/3.3 × 11. Waé-Wako. Leiden 80 (2006) 199 tions”. 15.0623 0.1960.3 17.5 0. 23). and the blue of the forecrown deeper in colour and extending farter backwards. Mus.3 × 10.0515 0. Palué (RMNH no. (. 4. Palué (RMNH no. Güttinger & Bregulla (1972: 19. Nunang. Allen. by Rensch.1971.0 15. 71742. c/4. Flores. &. from Sumbawa and Flores. In this connection I note that in the original description of obscura. J. c/4. 12 .ii.0584 0. & RMNH no. 1893. Of obscura. 71745). hence undoubtedley the bird listed as ( juv. de Jong (2).v. 12 11. Sika (ten Kate. The differences in size as well as in colour were confirmed by Ziswiler.1960..1891.4. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. Weber. I accept it.1978. Material. Med. Dampék (RMNH no. 71741). and until a critical comparison may prove otherwise.1961. they examined 5 ( and one & (from Sita. 71744).7 16. this may explain in part why Rensch found the cheeks and underparts of obscura darker brown than those if intermedia. 85320.7 16. The sexes differ in that the male has more black on the forehead.— Measurements: 2( 3& wing 52. Eggs: c/3. 52 51. Larantoeka (Semmelink.9 × 11.0564 0. Ned. 1.0 9.7 14.— Semmelink. (?).0 × 10.2 × 10. 180 m (Schmutz.1969. 22. Rensch. 28. 71743). ten Kate.0564 0. 71741 15. RMNH no. 650 m (Schmutz. Langkas. no.ix. 51 tail -. The eggs are white... Kisol (Verheijen.2 culmen 10. Nat. (?) juv. Uroloncha kangeangensis Vorderman. RMNH nos.6 × 10. 1862. RMNH nos.8 Lonchura molucca propinqua (Sharpe) Uroloncha propinqua Sharpe.9 15. iv.vii. 36 36-40 tarsus 15. than the female. be taken as such.9 16. Rensch compared 5 ( ad. 81368).iii. Birds Brit. Verheijen/Schmutz. 20. 13: 368 – Flores.0 16. 51. (. Mataloko (RMNH no. 1. the brown colour of the sides of the face and the underparts is darker in the male than in the female.v. Rahong (Verheijen. Palué (RMNH nos. 1929. 5). Avifauna of Flores. 71740). Mataloko (RMNH no. of intermedia from Lombok. nos.0635 RMNH no. 65576).7 16.1 × 10.Mees.3 17. 6).0538 0. with 5 ad. 11. 71744 RMNH no. Tijdschr.0574 0. Zool.0594 0.1960. Cat. f. Ind.v. but note that their series of intermedia consisted of 4 (. Rensch (1). One of these (the one he collected. &. 81365).7 15-16 culmen 11. 7 &. 2 c/1.

Hist.— Lonchura punctulata is a widely-distributed species. Everett. 83: 169 – Sumba Island. 2 (2 ×). Rensch (6).6 × 11. 1862.2 × 10.0 × 11. almost blackish brown.6 × 10.1 14. Verheijen/Schmutz.9 15. mounted). Zool. 71731 RMNH no. 5 (2 ×) and 6 (3 ×) eggs.2 × 11. gave me the impression.4 15. 3 (3 ×). Eggs: 14 clutches of 1 (2 ×). xii.4 × 11. upper tail coverts and central rectrices tinged strongly with straw-yellow. which shows a considerable amount of geographical variation. 1969.0 14.062 0. Zool. 1912. 71729 14. Minor characters which have been used for subspecific discrimination are the depth of the brown colour.— Small.5 × 10. more finely. that the validity of some of the subspecies required confirmation.— Semmelink. months i. Med. 12 &.0 15. and colour of the upper tail-coverts. also the flanks. Amer.7 15. Allen. 19: 317 – Timor-Deli.— Small. Lonchura punctulata sumbae Mayr Lonchura punctulata sumbae Mayr. Nat. vi. years 1968. 1(?). v. 1971 (Verheijen/Schmutz).9 × 10.1 × 11. particeps.6 15.8 × 11. 16 (. 71735 Notes. May (1) and July (1). or. vermiculated. 4 (2 ×). Bill averaging larger than in sumbae. 71726-71639). viii. Novit.0 × 11.0549 0. scaly markings om breast and flanks dark.2 13. p.0 14.5 × 11.8 0. Leiden 80 (2006) Lonchura punctulata blasii (Stresemann) Munia punctulata blasii Stresemann. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. April (7). Avifauna of Flores. very similar to L. RMNH cat. Verheijen (2. not almost blackish brown. The bill averages smaller than in all other . A superficial comparison of material from Flores with specimens from neighbouring islands. Bull. (1968: 375-377) list 12 subspecies (one of which with a question-mark). which look either scaly. The eggs are white.0536 0. p. 1944.— (?). but the scaly pattern on (especially) the breast. p.0512 0. (RMNH nos.1 × 10. dark brown as in L.8 × 10.7 × 10. from the months March (5). Larantoeka (Semmelink.200 Mees.0535 0. 11.3 14.1 15. Characters.0534 0. blasii.0532 RMNH no.0592 0. and edges to the rectrices. colour-pattern of the breast and the flanks. vii.0607 0.0607 0.0603 0. including Savu but not Sumba.1 14. Material. averages a little less dark. and the presence of pale shaft-streaks to feathers of the head and mantle. no. The most important variation is found in three characters: general size. Collectors.9 14.0551 0.— The Lesser Sunda Islands from Flores eastwards.0 14. nisoria and L.063 0. Distribution. This led to the following review: Lonchura punctulata blasii (Stresemann) Characters. Mayr et al.0555 0. MCZ). Mus.054 0. iv.

Lonchura punctulata nisoria (Temminck) Fringilla nisoria Temminck. not blackish brown as in blasii. they mention that Kelham. and the northern peninsula of Celebes. Horsfield & Moore (1858: 506) list a specimen from Penang. Lonchura punctulata baweana Hoogerwerf. Brit. whereas this is much less in blasii. 60. sumbae reads: “Similar to blasii (Timor). but in series perhaps a trifle lighter).340). Cl. although the difference from blasii and particeps is slight. L[onchura] p[unctulata] holmesi Restall. 1963. Med.— Small. 3 (livr. I fail to see any difference at all between the underparts of sumbae and “fortior”. the scaly pattern of breast and flanks averages slightly less dark than in blasii. Lombok. for as stated above. which also holds two specimens . Records from the northern peninsula of Celebes are erroneous. did not collect it. Medway & Wells. differs from fortior (Lombok. Distribution. Nor can I agree. Birds recently found in south-eastern Borneo (Harvey & Holmes. 2 – Java. upper tail coverts with a little less yellow than in blasii (or is the difference due to wear?). Zool. Washington 33: 57 – Rano Lindoe. Avifauna of Flores. Avicult. Bali. and by no stretch of the imagination could I call the underparts of these subspecies “reddish”. Selangor. Distribution.— The Malay Peninsula. Federated Malay States. upper tail coverts and central rectrices light pearl-grey. Savu and Flores birds have the blackish brown bars of blasii”. Mayr’s (1944a) diagnosis of L.. Characters. 83: 38 – Bawean. Java. but Ushaped bars of underparts rufous brown. Notes. is yellowish rather than greywhite. p. white area on each feather of underparts narrower. 1976). Borneo. it has presumably been introduced. Bill as in blasii. 1992. under tail-coverts more heavily barred. without yellow (occasionally there may be a trace of yellow)..— Medway & Wells (1976: 394) suggest that L. This bird was later transferred to the British Museum (BM no. Biol. 98: 115 – based on cage-birds. Mber. Sumbawa. Treubia 13: 363 – Kuala Lumpur. as they do. Lonchura punctulata particeps (Riley) Munia punctulata particeps Riley. Riley states correctly: “rump barred with white” (although this is variable and sometimes almost absent).— Sumba. and perhaps in others. however. brown vermiculated more irregular.16. 1931.— Small. presumed to originate from near Pontianak and Banjermasin. Orn. Sumbawa) by smaller size and darker underparts. Lombok. 1830. Distribution.— South-western and Central Sulawesi (Celebes). Proc. and what there is. punctulata may have been introduced in Malaya. Mag. Bull. In the last-mentioned locality. However. agreeing with nisoria and sumbae. “working in Singapore and the western Malayan states in the 1870s”. Celebes. with White & Bruce (1986: 423). who ascribe the similarity in underparts between sumbae and nisoria to “intergradation”..Mees. would probably also belong to this subspecies.4. Recueil d’Ois. Sumatra. 1976: 394). 84): pl. Leiden 80 (2006) 201 subspecies. I cannot support Mayr’s statement that particeps and fortior (a synonym of nisoria) would be “rufous” on the underparts. Munia punctulata fortior Rensch. Munia punctulata fretensis Kloss. Bill large. Orn. Characters. 500 fig. 1920. received from Dr Cantor in 1854. northwards to Trang and Phattalung (cf. Soc. 36: 7 – Swela (400 m). or rufous as in particeps or fortior. 1928. scaly markings on breast and flanks varying from dark brown to blackish brown (not clearly different from blasii. Bawean. sumbae and particeps.

. Vorderman.4480).. for all other specimens from Bangkok in the Williamson collection are topela. based on birds introduced to Borneo from Java. in nothing from Javanese birds in juvenile plumage. 1928). which are clearly nisoria. For a further evaluation of this form.1. and the adjacent island of Flores by L. p. The two paratypes of baweana in juvenile plumage differ.1. Med. I cannot see any argument for retention of fortior. Leiden 80 (2006) from Malacca. Williamson. 8.. The type locality of fortior is Lombok. I have been unable to find any difference in plumage or in measurements (see table). Avifauna of Flores. I conclude that baweana is a synonym of nisoria. had a wing-length of 52 mm. and Singapore. but it was still accepted by Mayr et al. the population owes its origin to introductions from Java. that was differentiated merely on the basis of wing-length: Java and Sumatra 50-53 mm. p. . Davison in the years 1875-1879. p. which might justify its retention.1370 and 81. Two birds from Lombok have wing-lengths of 52 and 53 mm. than in the lightest Java birds. our collection contains two adult birds: a paratype of L. It is a size-race. 73.202 Mees. but they put back in time the date of the presumed introduction. collected by Coomans de Ruiter in 1939 (RMNH). Zool. I have also examined two specimens from Bangkok. fortior. 1955. that fortior would have the brown of chin and throat less extensive than nisoria. Later.12. are quite unequivocally L. the markings are not lighter. My comment on this is the same as that given in the discussion of baweana. p.5. The recently-described holmesi is considered another synonym of nisoria.4236 and 1955. these are fairly recent range-extensions. blasii.4231). baweana (leg. Undoubtedly.1. nisoria. and are not paler. (1968: 376) and Van Marle & Voous (1988: 208). White & Bruce (1986: 423) have already dismissed fortior with the remark: “the differences distinguishing. They must have been imported. Rensch (1931a: 598) added. seem insignificant”. collected by W. fortior are poorly represented in the collections studied by me. p. p. The adult paratype shows the rather light markings of the underparts which Hoogerwerf made an important subspecific character. One specimen examined by Hoogerwerf. not Sumbawa as claimed by White & Bruce (1986: 423). I find it surprising that this island is inhabited by L. Lombok and Sumbawa 53-55 mm. according to Rensch (1928a). and the white parts of the feathers of breast and belly more extensive. Zoogeographically. particeps. Inadequate as my material is. agreeing in this respect with average Java birds.xii. Perhaps. Five specimens from Tondano. contrary to Hoogerwerf’s claim. insulicola. Franck. From Bawean. These records do not disprove the suggestion that the species was originally introduced. and recorded by Van Marle (1940a) and Stresemann (1940a: 37) as L. and a series of 36 skins from various parts of Malaya. BM nos.5. The variation found by me in a not particularly large series of nisoria from Java and Sumatra is 50-54 mm. helped by Man. The smaller brown throat-patch ascribed to baweana is entirely due to the make-up of the skins.. Also two paratypes in juvenile plumage.1917 (leg. 1896. and one leg. p. see the discussion of L. nisoria. No material from Sumbawa has been available. collected by Wallace in 1854 (BM nos. The other adult bird has the markings darker. The validity of fretensis was questioned by Hoogerwerf (1963a). Specimens from the range ascribed to L.viii and 8. however. as cited above.

quite different from those found in the preceding subspecies. U. Contrib. 10). 1: 19 – Mawphlang. The birds introduced into eastern Australia. Inst. 352”. south-western Burma. 1954. Zool. Nat.— Practically the whole of India. Sharpe refers to seven specimens from Amoy. upper tail-coverts brownish-orange.. Expl. alt. 108: 285 – “hills around Tengyueh” [= Tengchung]. 1890. as have those introduced in Hawaii (Violani. Notes. southern Bhutan. western and southern Burma. (1874): 48 – Manipúr valley both on Lake Logtak and the head of the Barak river. by Sharpe. Reg. upper tail coverts tinged greenish yellow (not straw yellow as in blasii).— Birds from Manipur and much of Burma are very variable. Soc. Characters.— Large. Distribution. Smythies (1986: 396 and pl.. Med. southern China. Mus.. the southern and eastern parts of Nepal. upper tail-coverts mostly as in topela. where the species is now widely distributed (Blakers et al. 1988). About Amoy as the type locality. Lonchura punctulata yunnanensis Parkes. Munia lineoventer Hodgson. see Deignan (1963: 217).Mees. 609). Sikkim. Lond. this is correct. markings of the breast variably intermediate between the “punctulata” and the “topela” types. under either name. western Yunnan. xi fig. lineoventer. Syst. 6) gives in the text the names subundulata (as the common subspecies) and topela (status uncertain). in the place indicated. Distribution.S.— Eastern Assam. 1758. Thailand. 1863. does in my opinion not constitute a valid restriction of the type locality. 1: 173 – Asia. The fact that. 1979). Later authors.. Characters. whether such populations should be indicated by a separate subspecific name. Indo-China. (ed. 6. Hainan and Taiwan. Manipur. Lonchura punctulata subundulata (Godwin-Austen) Munia subundulata Godwin-Austen 1874 (June).— Eastern Burma. as “Types of the species”. and is captioned L. of this subspecies in the text. Lonchura punctulata topela (Swinhoe) Munia topela Swinhoe.— Large. Proc.— The original description of Munia topela appeared in a paper on the birds of Taiwan. Distribution. 1836. but there is no mention. Characters. Lonchura punctulata catervaria Koelz. Khasi Hills. Zool. p. Leiden 80 (2006) 203 Lonchura punctulata punctulata (Linnaeus) [Loxia] punctulata Linnaeus. Proc. 19: 154 – Nepal (reference not verified). As lineoventer is a synonym of nominate punctulata. including Parkes (1958: 285) and Mayr et al. who says: “type locality (inferentially) restricted to Amoy. Stray Feathers 2: 481 footnote – Tavoy. Avifauna of Flores. but the illustrated bird seems to belong to the nominate race. markings of the breast of the “punctulata”-type. markings of the breast of the “topela”-type. at least is not topela-like. but in view of the wide range of these intermediate populations. intermediate between the well-differentiated punctulata and topela. but sometimes orange as in punctulata.— Large. This is also in agreement with current classifications. M[unia] superstriata Hume. 1984: 604. . It is a moot question.000 feet. p. have been assigned to this subspecies (Boles. and its distribution was given as quoted above. and in Taiwan all throughout the plains. I consider it convenient to do so. 1874 (October). Nat. ex Seebohm coll... Notes. Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Asiatic Res. (1968: 376) have listed Amoy as the type locality. Ibis 5: 380 – In China it is abundant from Canton to Shanghai. 1958.

f. J. Birds Brit. and this is also the opinion of Chinese authors (Cheng. I have examined the same six specimens from Réunion that were available to Büttikofer (RMNH cat. similar to topela from Taiwan. 13: 353 – nomen novum for Oxycerca (Uroloncha) Jagori Cabanis. in which character they agree with M. Notes. Distribution.— Large. undoubtedly to be united with M. punctulata have been used for birds from the Mascarenes. which I share. In view of the title and contents of the paper in which the original description appeared. Meinertzhagen. Characters. a purely academic one. Lonchura punctulata insulicola subspecies nova Type: (. Med. As long as the populations inhabiting Taiwan and the east coast of China are considered consubspecific. Zool. Réunion. 1890. upper tail coverts straw yellow (as in blasii). 1872. yunnanensis.— Mauritius. topela. p. 36). Paynter & Traylor (1968: 376) have referred birds from Mauritius. nos. Oxycerca (Uroloncha) Jagori Cabanis. 1872. Cat. of course. Leiden 80 (2006) and even less a lectotype-designation (ICZN. Presumably it is on the basis of this evaluation that Mayr. Avifauna of Flores. but in addition they are clearly larger. Lonchura punctulata cabanisi (Sharpe) Munia cabanisi Sharpe. nisoria (cf. Characters. with also an on average smaller bill. no. 1987: 953). Distribution. tout en étant certainement moins chaudement colorés que ceux de l’Inde. Berlioz (1946: 66) commented: “Les spécimens de La Réunion que possède le Muséum de Paris. Pollen & van Dam. markings of the breast even a little finer and lighter (but variable!). topela. but smaller. 1985: art. and the Seychelles to L.— Small. the names M. where probably introduced (Baker. nisoria from Java. présentent tout aussi bien des caractères ambigus référables tant aux formes indochinoises qu’aux formes de Malaisie”. RMNH cat. I cannot agree with Büttikofer that they are nisoria. Orn. 1906: 706). for not only do they have straw yellow upper tail coverts. 1866. Warren & Harrison (1971: 564) list a specimen from Amoy as a syntype. Nicoll. 20: 317 – Luzon. and comment correctly: “This specimen is labelled as the type but the author refers to a large series”. p. Mindoro and Panay in the Philippines. also found on the Micronesian islands of Yap and Babelthuap (Palau group). are not perceptibly different from topotypical L.— Luzon. On the other hand. for they have the markings of the breast of the “punctulata/nisoria” . with the exception of the upper tail-coverts and centre tail-feathers. cf. one of which is from the typelocality of L.431. 1912: 91) and M. topela. p.12. it would be more logical to have ‘Formosa’ as type locality. They are. markings of the breast coarse. 1951: 340).13. With the introduction of ternary nomenclature. of the “punctulata”-type. however. p. under which name I bring them. but none from Mauritius. Réunion and Mahé (Seychelles). nisoria”. too large for nisoria.— The characters of specimens from Réunion have first been discussed by Büttikofer (1892): “Our specimens from Bourbon agree entirely with M. but sensibly tinged with pale olive-green. p.21. The four specimens from Yunnan examined by me. 33-38). 72(b) (vii)). Réunion (leg. To this. Mus. 1906.204 Mees. they are not topela either. the point is. nec Munia (Dermophrys) Jagori Martens.iii. upper tail-coverts and edges of the rectrices greenish-yellow as in topela. which are not ashy gray. I have also examined one specimen from Mahé (BM no.1865.

punctulata throughout its range is now well-known. gajduseki colonized the Karimui Basin. see the review by Cheke (in Diamond. is lost in the mist of history. and therefore cannot be verified. Med. Jonkers & Roersma. and from where. less distinctive than some. 1987: 80). apparently confined to the Karimui Basin in New Guinea. where an endemic subspecies with a limited range might have been overlooked. is given without a reference. nor nisoria. they are punctulata which have lost the bright orange colours. s. There remains to be discussed explanation (3). It is a conclusion I have arrived at only after long hesitation. one could call it an explanation by elimination. sepikensis. s. but whichever explanation is the right one. spectabilis has been discovered which is even deeper cinnamon on the underparts than gajduseki. Diamond (1972: 411). Whether it is correct I cannot say. 1990). not of the much finer “topela” type. nor topela. discussing L.Mees. The possibility that through some sort of deficiency. it was named L. but has undergone such rapid change since its introduction. a population of L. moreover. but is natural. but the deep brown-orange upper tail-coverts of nominate punctulata are completely absent. must be envisaged. spectabilis gajduseki. This makes it likely that when L. not from some isolated inland area. birds from Réunion are neither nominate punctulata. Zool. came with the following conclusion: “Either this race must have slowly evolved in some part of the basin not yet discovered – an unattractive possibility because of the circumscribed size of the basin and the large areas of grassland necessary for L. Meinertzhagen’s claim that on Mauritius it was: “Introduced from Java about 1800”. by current standards the Mascarene birds are sufficiently distinct to be named as a separate subspecies. (3) The occurrence on at least one of the islands is not due to recent introduction by man. it is reasonable to assume that an 18th century introduction would originate from an old-established coastal trading town. the characters of the population clearly disprove such a provenance. as the distribution and geographical variation of L. perhaps as little as 15 years”. each of which will be further discussed below: (1) The species was introduced from a mainland locality where an as yet undescribed subspecies occurs. (2) The species was introduced from the mainland. however. Diamond mentioned studies of introduced Passer domesticus populations in North America. but when exactly. outside the Karimui Basin. that it is now a separate subspecies. but does not seem very likely. It has been generally assumed that Lonchura punctulata was introduced to the Mascarenes. that within a century or even less it has differentiated so much from its ancestral form. therefore it is a case of explanation (1). Its characters are sufficiently distinctive. particeps). but it has to be considered seriously as. Explanation (1) seems unlikely. which were supposed to have undergone morphological changes in a very short time. but more distinctive than others (sumbae. and is found in the Sepik Plains (cf. Explanation (2) is not one I like. Their characters do not suggest a hybrid population between any of these forms either. In support of this last hypothesis. it already had the characters which Diamond believed had been developed in such an extremely short time. The most obvious places of provenance for introduced birds on Réunion would be coastal India or Sri Lanka (Ceylon). . and the question of how to deal with it nomenclaturally. Since Diamond wrote. spectabilis – or else it must have evolved in a very short time. Avifauna of Flores. to regard it as a moderately differentiated subspecies. In conclusion. a subpecies with cinnamon underparts. I can think of three possible explanations. Leiden 80 (2006) 205 type. significantly in this very same genus Lonchura. not explanation (2) as Diamond thought. Anyway. It remains to find an explanation for the existence of this population.

14 13. nisoria) 29 ( wing 47.9 11.2 (10. The colour descriptions given by Restall are not directly comparable with mine. p.6) 50-54 (52. Interesting.2) 49-51 (50. p. L. Since I regard baweana as a synonym of nisoria. when in my opinion the upper tail-coverts of blasii and sumbae are identical.8. 10. if it had been present in the 1930s).0) culmen 10.5-54 (50. p. The description of holmesi does not separate it convincingly from nisoria. holmesi. There is no indication that these specimens were skinned from captivity and no dates are given.7) 10.2-15 (14.6. 11.7) 11-12.3 (13.6) 13-14.5) 13.5-39 (36.0) 51-54 (52.4) 32.4. this supports my opinion that holmesi does not differ from nisoria.2-12 (11.0 10-10.8-15 (14. 36 32. but then has them “Warm olive” in sumbae.2) 9. for none of the subspecies examined by me show such a difference. For example. I consider it likely that the species is a recent introduction in Borneo (certainly near Pontianak.7) 13. At first sight it might seem to contradict my conclusion that the discovery of new subspecies from well-known coastal regions is unlikely.5) 13.9) 30-40 (34. this time diagnosing it as more or less intermediate between nisoria and baweana.0 11.1) 13-15 (14. p. 52 50-54 (52. particeps) 3( 2& 8( 6& Java (L.8) 29-39 (34. 50 52 49-51 (50.2. Avifauna of Flores. but difficult to interpret. No type specimen was indicated in the 1992 description.6-11 (10. blasii) 2( 2& (?) 5( 6& Southern Sulawesi (L.6) 33-37 (34. Restall (1995) again described holmesi as a new subspecies. Med.2-11. 14 13.7-14.5 34-38 (35. is Restall’s statement that there is a clear sexual difference in tail-length. which was based on live cage birds.0) tail 32-36 (33.206 Mees. sumbae) Sumatra (L.8-12 (11. 38 33. In the 1995 description.8) 50-53 (51.5. 14 14.8 (10. nisoria) .0-12. three specimens in the American Museum of Natural History are indicated as types (syntypes).7 (14. p. Zool. and not close to insulicola.7) 50.5.8) 10-11 (10.2) 52.2) Sumba (L. Measurements: Flores (L. collected at Semitau in western Borneo.4 12.2 10. But in spite of the table of characters of the various subspecies presented by Restall. Without mentioning his description published three years previously.3) 11.7) 30. whether they had been seen by Restall before he published his 1992 decription.6) 13-14 (13.4) 49-52.8-14 (13.5) 30-37 (33. More directly relevant: the tail-lengths given.2) 10. where Coomans de Ruiter would not have missed it. indicate that holmesi is a small subspecies (like nisoria). 30 and 35 mm.6.2 (11. from Borneo (Pontianak and/or Banjarmasin) became available only some time after the preceding notes were completed.9) tarsus 13-14 (13. Leiden 80 (2006) The paper by Restall (1992) with the description of a new subspecies. 11.8) 33-40 (36.9) 10.5 (50.8 (11. similar to my description of those parts.4) 13. p. Therefore it is impossible to ascertain from the evidence presented. 32 33. 52 50. blasii) 16 ( 12 & Timor (L. p. he describes the upper tail-coverts of blasii as “Yellow straw”.

5 34-37 (35. Verheijen (3.0) 12. insulicola) Lonchura quinticolor (Vieillot) Loxia quinticolor Vieillot. Ois.1) 11.5 – – – – – 13.3 (11. cabanisi) ( & 3( 3& (?) 5( & (?) 50-55 (52.3) 35-40 (37. MCZ).1) 14. 56 54-56 (55.8) 12.4) 55.0) 14. 36 39.2-14.9-15 13.0 (11.1) 56. nisoria) Northern Sulawesi (L.6) 13. 12 11. Naga Hills (L. RMNH nos. p.1 11. Lonchura quinticolor sumbae Restall.2) 11.9) 12. Mahé (L. p.0 207 Taiwan (L.0 12.1 (12.7) 32-39 36-40 (38.: 85.4) 14 14 10.0 11.6) 14. p.2) 11.2 14-15.0 10.7) 53-55 (54.7 (14. Brit. designated by Hellmayr (1914: 59) (reference not verified). 1995. p.7 (11.Mees. topela) Thailand (L.5 38 37.3-12.0 11. 14 – – 14.2 (14.8 12 12. Collectors. Everett.3) 11. pl.2) 12. Material.6 11.1 (12.4) 11. Leiden 80 (2006) 22 & Bali (L.4-11.9 12.6) 11.7) 52 53 51 53 53 52 49-51 (50.0) 11. 81432. Verheijen/Schmutz.6-15 (14. 54 – les Îles Moluques = Timor.4 – 14.5-12.0 11. 81369. punctulata) ( & ( (?) ( im. nisoria) Lombok (L.5) 33. topela) Luzon (L. Med. 81429.0) 54-56 (54.6-12. topela) 2 (?) 2( & (?) ( 5& ( 12 ( 7& Burma.5) 50 54-56 (54.3) 14.— 14 (.6) 35-40 (37.7) 49-50 (49.2 14.5-40 (34. Rensch (4).0) 53-57 (54.2-15 (14. Moulmein (L.2 15 14 13.0-11.1 (11.9) 37 31+ 34-37 (35.1) 32 36-43. Sumba.1) 33. 85378-85380.3) 14.2-12. 55 55 53 56 54-56 (54.5) 54-55 (54. p.0-13.0) 31-39 (34. 65575. 66227-66245. 81356. Chant.9-11.0 11. insulicola) Seychelles. p.5 35 31 33 32.2. topela) Cochinchina (L. topela) Yunnan (L.0 (12.8 (11.8 (14. p.0. p. Cl. 39 39.8 (12.0) 36-38 (37. 65574. p. topela) Burma. Bull. p. topela) Annam (L. Avifauna of Flores. p.8 (12.2 14.5 38 13. 55 55.— Allen. nisoria) Sri Lanka (L. 11 &. p. p.7-14.5-15 (14. de Jong (2). (?) 5( 2( 3& 9( 3& 7 (?) Hainan (L. 4 (?) from diverse localities in Manggarai (Verheijen/Schmutz. . topela) Réunion (L. Zool.3-14.5 (38.8 (14. p.0-12.2) 30-36 (33. 85387). p.6) 10. 115: 143 – Waingapo. Orn.8.5 54 30.7) 55 55 49-50 (49.5-12 (11.5-15.5 (14. p.5 36-42 (38. 12.9) 53.7) 55 53-56 (55.6-12 (11. 1807.2 14.9-13.0 11.4 11.8) 35 35.7) 14. nisoria) Bawean (L.

8 17.8 17.0704 0.1954.4) 34-38 (35. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no.6-16. 71719 Notes.1356).v. Mano (RMNH no.7 (16. Bénténg Djawa (RMNH no. and that the existence of geographical variation worthy of expression in nomenclature requires confirmation. c/6. Léong (RMNH no.7 × 11. Wangkung. iv.3 16.0 17. 23. 71720). Collectors. Soc. 495 – Lombock and Flores. 71723).8 17. Zool.6 17.2 × 11.1 × 12. 4.1953. quinticolor can only cause confusion. with ranges as outlined by Restall.0698 0.8) tarsus 16-17 (16.4 16.1956. The eggs are white. Proc.208 Mees.0691 0.8-13. Flores (Allen. Ruteng (RMNH no. 29. eyes dark” (original notes by Allen). Med. between the sexes. western Timor. Measurements: 10 ( 10 & wing 54-58 (55.3 × 12. 71722). c/5. BM no. Mataloko (RMNH no. 4.0649 RMNH no. the type locality of the species should be established first. This makes it overwhelmingly likely that the type locality of the species should be restricted to Koepang. is invalid. 1862. 71719). There does not seem to be any difference.1951. 71717). Eggs: c/1. the application of trinomials in L. (1863): 486. actually is the nominate race.0716 0. c/5.6 × 11. Mataloko (RMNH no.071 0.0672 0. punctulata sumbae. The eggs are white.8-14 (13.071 0. . 1864.1952. MCZ).8 15. The species was described from a French collection. 12.0) tail 34-37½ (36.1958. 73.— Allen (1?).0703 0. so the subspecies called ”sumbae” by Restall. Verheijen (1. Zool.v. for two reasons. 71718 RMNH no.1962. Potjong (RMNH no. c/2.4) 15.3 × 11.6 × 11. 71724). recently proposed by Restall (1995). c/6. being a primary homonym of L. I do not consider. 71725). Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. Potjong (RMNH no. 71718). Leiden 80 (2006) Eggs: c/6. 71716 name L. c/5.3 ×— This is one of the larger members of its genus. 71721).8 (13. “bill and feet light blue. that a replacement name is required. Until these points have been cleared up.1 16. The first is that no other author has found geographical variation in this species.3 16. 8.— (. c/2. × 11.8) 54-58 (56. iii.1) culmen 12. either in plumage or in measurements. c/3.2) Lonchura pallida pallida (Wallace) Munia pallida Wallace.1 16.2 0.8 × 11.2 × 11.5.6 16.1962. without gloss.12.0744 0. The second.0725 0. Lond.1959. is accepted. Mukun (RMNH no. more fundamental reason is that if a division into three subspecies.ii.0666 0.iii. Avifauna of Flores.9 × 11. Material. 71716). 18.3) 12.0689 0. and its designated type locality is Timor. quinticolor sumbae.1954.9 × 11.

Collectors. Schmutz. Measurements: ( wing 55 tail 32½ tarsus 16 culmen 13 Passer montanus malaccensis Dubois Passer montanus Var. Java.— Allen. Hitherto. pallida (on Lombok.1 16.0608 209 Notes. 2 and 3).3 entire culmen 13 13 exposed culmen 10. Material. labelled Loxia auriventer Temm.1 0. n. and Schmutz (MS) observed it at Kenari and— According to Schmutz (MS).0 16. as only Allen and Verheijen have obtained it.0605 0. Ill. Verheijen/Schmutz. Measurements: ( & wing 70 69 tail 50 48.ix. Rensch (1931a: 597) claims field-observations at Aimere (0-200 m) and Geli Moetoe (1000 m). 71761).1 16. RMNH nos.1963. the bird arrived in Leiden.0 16. The subspecific identity has been assumed on the basis of geographical probability (cf. In the Catalogue of Birds (Sharpe. In our collection are two mounted specimens (RMNH cat. 21.— This is apparently an uncommon species on Flores. in 1856). Consp. Malaccensis Dubois. 1): as in so many cases. 71760. Belg.5 tarsus 16.7 16. nos. was recognized as new and provided with a manuscript-name. Keve. 1850. West Flores (Schmutz. 65371.. this species has been established on Flores since about 1955. ( (RMNH cat. Vert. 71759. Stresemann (1940a: 38) mentioned as first collector of this species in Sulawesi (Celebes). 1885. Rensch (4). Eggs: c/5. the specimen examined by me.0618 0. 1: 572 – la presqu’île de Malacca et.— Verheijen. 1: 417 – Timor. collected by Teysmann in 1877.0581 0.— 2 (.1970. 29. Avifauna of Flores. c/5.x. Ruteng (Verheijen. Réo (Verheijen.0604 0.8 16. sp. Faun. Kisol (Verheijen. & without data. C.1969. 65372. Gen. 1890: 143) only one juvenile specimen (cat. RMNH no. Wallace was believed to have been the discoverer of L. 1890: 346). Med.3 × 11. 18. Platen. g) from the Wallace Collection is listed. 65373).0 × 11. Material. 65565). 19. Ois..Mees. (?) juv.1970.1 × 11.0597 0.) from Flores. Zool. Av. I have made no comparisons. 71725 16..2 × 10. 1878.2 × 11. 81430). but Forsten’s Bima collection contains a mounted specimen. but only one (f.3 × 11. no. 1978). RMNH nos. RMNH no. 5 Wallace-specimens from Lombok are listed. c/5..2 10 Aplonis minor minor (Bonaparte) L[amprotornis] minor Bonaparte.ix. but remained undescribed. In the Catalogue of Birds (Sharpe. &. Notes.— (. Collectors. Leiden 80 (2006) Measurements and weights: RMNH no. ( ad. . labelled “Macassar”.

1962.. 71768. Absence of geographical variation would seem to contradict Deignan’s opinion (1955) that this is a relict species.2505 0. Mataloko (RMNH no.2674 0. &. see also Hoogerwerf. 85307.1 25.2— The peak of the breeding-season is apparently in June. The eggs are pale blue. 1. minor in Java certainly deserves further investigation. c/3.3 24.ix.1961.1962. All nine birds (with one possible exception.1962. Mataloko (RMNH no..1962. in the .iii. This would mean that the breeding-season in the Lesser Sunda Islands coincides completely with the presumed migration to Java. 25.6 × 18. Dr Somadikarta (in litt.9 × 17. panayensis strigata. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 85303). Mataloko (RMNH nos.1988) has provided me with a list of the MZB-material.3 24. This is worth recording.2683 0. RMNH no. (. 71770). 3. RMNH nos. W. Leiden 80 (2006) Kisol (Verheijen. Lawoe. ranging from sea-level to perhaps 1500 m.2648 0. 2.5 24.2700 0. Mataloko (RMNH no.2209 0.2 × 18.4 23. G. 26. West Java. 17b): c/3. 71763 23. 18. Mataloko (RMNH no. on which van Bemmel’s data were based: 1. Mataloko (RMNH no. Mataloko (RMNH no.0 × 19. All records are from high elevations (850-2000 m).ix.2604 0. 19. Mataloko (RMNH nos.2 × 18. Med.2637 0. bill and legs black. c/2. v. 85308). West Java. 71765).2578 0. 7. A. This shows that the species may be found in all parts of 13. Avifauna of Flores. 71773). 76586).vi. c/3.5 24. c/2. 13. 71768 Notes.viii. 1. moderately mottled with light brown. & juv. 85306). Ngalor-Rogo. Bandjarwangi. Rahong (Verheijen.ix. 71769). 2.2660 0. c/2.8 24. June and 1. 1965: 287). 4. an east-west migrant from the Lesser Sunda Islands. As far as I am aware. RMNH no. Tengger. &. van der Weele (four specimens from Tirtasari.x.2 × 18. Rensch (1928b) was the first to record the species from Java (“eine große Serie.1976. 11. &. RMNH nos. The specimens examined by me range in dates from 24 April to 24 July. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. Mataloko (RMNH no. c/4.v. of which I am not sure) are in heavy moult. but I would hesitate to accept their conclusion without further investigation. 71771). in Van Bemmel & Voous. 81302). Manggarai (Schmutz. 1951: c/3. RMNH no. Zool.vii.1972. June 1928.2420 0. c/2.1971.7 × 18. On the Lesser Sunda Islands. The status of A. Langkas. 1. from the eggs of A. 71764). West Java.1960. 65375).1962. c/3. 71772. August 1941. 18. 71763).5 24.. 29.1 × 18. Mataloko (RMNH no. 28. 85304).5 24. May.ix. minor is not in the first place a mountain bird. They are indistinguishable. East Java. Iris bright red. 8. (.vi. 1. a matter that will require a lot of explanation before it can be accepted.1961.3 22. c/2.0 × 19. as in Java the species is believed to be a non-breeding visitor.1962. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. July 1939. in colour as well as in measurements and weights. August 1941. Middle Java. 71767 RMNH no. vom Berge Tjerimai”).8 × 18. 71767). rather earlier than as given by Van Bemmel. Eggs (fig.. 71766).210 Mees. No 0. the first to collect it in Java probably was H.1 × 18. &.5 25. RMNH no.7 × 17. Poco Nernancang (Verheijen. Tjikadjang. and: “In Java the birds do appear in the end of May and leave again in September” (Van Bemmel.1976. 71765 RMNH no.1 × 18. White & Bruce (1986: 390) do not recognise subspecies. Tjerimai. 71766 RMNH no. 85305. G. April/May 1910).1976.7 0.1961. c/1.2221 RMNH no.

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


process of being replaced by its close relative A. panayensis wherever the two come into contact. On the other hand, the occurrence of the peculiar endemic subspecies A. panayensis gusti on Bali, and of other well-marked subspecies on the West Sumatra islands, the Nicobars and the Andamans, indicates that A. panayensis is certainly not a recent colonist in these regions. This makes it less likely that Deignan was right in believing A. panayensis to be an expanding species. To verify Deignan’s statement that A. p. strigata is “a larger and stronger race” than A. minor, which was at the basis of his theory that the former is replacing the latter, I measured some specimens of A. p. strigata from Java and of A. p. gusti from Bali. The measurements show that the differences are negligible. Actually, A. minor is a little longer-winged than A. p. strigata, but the latter exceeds A. minor a trifle in length of the tail and the bill. Deignan’s speculative, and therefore stimulating, paper has made clear how much more research is needed, before the relationships between the closely related species (or subspecies?) A. panayensis and A. minor may be understood. Mayr (1944a: 143) regarded A. metallica as the closest relative of A. minor, but his opinion has not been shared by later authors. The table of measurements suggests that specimens of A. minor from Flores are smaller than specimens from Timor, and agree with birds from Sumba, the small size of which had been noted previously (cf. Hellmayr, 1914: 43; Mayr, 1944a: 143). But the series are short and, as Mayr observed, the difference is not sufficient for subspecific separation. It also deserves notice that birds from Java average a little larger than birds from Flores, providing further evidence that they do not belong to the same population. Of the six RMNH specimens from Timor, one ( was collected by H.A. Lorentz in 1909; the other five are the syntypes of A. minor: four of these have been collected by S. Müller, in 1828/1829, and the fifth one (the unsexed bird) by F. Péron in 1801/1803.
Measurements: Flores (A. minor) 4( 5& Timor (A. minor) 4( & (?) Binongko (A. minor) & Java (A. minor) 4( wing 96-100 (98.0) 92-98 (95.3) 101-107 (103.5) 105 106 100 tail 51-58 (54.3) 51-55½ (53.5) 56-60½ (58.6) 55 59 59 55-60 (57.8) 49-57 (52.5) 58-62½ (60.0) 56, 57 51 tarsus 19-21 (20.1) 19.2-21 (20.0) 20-21 (20.7) 21.4 20 20.4 19.8-21 (20.5) 20.6-21.6 (21.2) 20.9-22.7 (21.5) 20.3, 21.2 21.2 entire culmen 18.2-20.4 (19.4) 18-20.4 (19.2) 19.2-21 (20.1) 20.1 20.2 19 18.6-20 (19.2) 19-21 (20.0) 21-24 (22.3) 20.0, 20.0 19 exposed culmen 13.2-15 (14.3) 13.7–15 (14.4) 13.6-15.4 (14.5) 14.6 15.2 14.5 14.2-15 (14.7) 14.4-16 (15.2) 15-18.2 (16.6) 14.9, 15.0 14

98-102 (100.3) 5& 97-102 (98.6) Java (A. panayensis strigata) 10 ( 95-101 (97.7) Bali (A. panayensis gusti) 2( 99, 102 & -


Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)

Gracula religiosa venerata Bonaparte
G[racula] venerata Bonaparte, 1850, Consp. Gen. Av. I: 422 – ex Sumbava. Gracula venerata mertensi Rensch, 1928, Orn. Mber. 36: 48 – Sita (6-800 m) Westflores. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Martens (1), Weber (1, ZMA), ten Kate, Everett, Endih (2), Rensch (5), de Jong (2), Verheijen (1, MCZ), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (?), 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 4); (?), 26/28.xi.1888, Bari (Weber, ZMA no.29985); 2 (?) ad., 24/, Koting (Ten Kate, RMNH cat. nos. 5 and 6); (, 15.i.1969, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85124); &, vii/viii.1969, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85126); (, 9. vii.1971, Narang, Todo, 150 m (Verheijen, RMNH no. 85127); (, &, 12.x.1971, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH nos. 85125, 85123). Eggs (fig. 17c): c/2, 3.xi.1960, Soa (RMNH no. 71774); c/1, ca. 11.xii.1960, Soa (RMNH no. 71775); c/1, x.1961, Soa (RMNH no. 71776); c/2, 20.ii.1962, Mataloko (RMNH no. 71777); c/3, 14.iii.1962, Mataloko (RMNH no. 71778). The eggs are sky-blue, moderately glossy, somewhat sparsely mottled with brown; some eggs almost plain. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. 71774 RMNH no. 71775 RMNH no. 71776 RMNH no. 71778 37.4 × 26.5 39.1 × 26.8 41.8 × 27.0 40.3 × 27.3 37.3 × 26.5 38.3 × 26.3 38.5 × 24.8 - very large blow-holes 1.0184 0.9838 0.8678 0.9440 damaged

Notes.— Modest as the available material is, it supports the conclusion previously reached by White & Bruce (1986: 393) that mertensi is not tenable, either on the basis of measurements, or on supposed differences in gloss of the plumage.
Measurements: Flores 3( 2& 4 (?) Sumbawa ( & (?) & wing 161, 176, 180 166, 173 170, 171 172, 173 168 171 169 170 tail 73, 77 77, 79½ 72, 72, 75, 83 69 73 74 73 tarsus 41, 41 38, 39 43, 40, 42, 42.5 41 38 39 41 entire culmen 42, 38 40, 37.4 41, 40, 39, 38 40 42 41.3 40 exposed culmen 31.5, 33 33, 31.2 34, 32, 35, 32 32 33.2 32.5 32.5


Oriolus chinensis broderipi Bonaparte
O[riolus] broderipi Bonaparte, 1850, Consp. Gen. Av. I: 348 – Ins. Sumbava. Oriolus sumbawensis Schlegel, 1857, Handl. Dierk. 1: 479, Vogelen pl. II fig. 20 – Sumbawa. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Weber, ten Kate (2), Rensch (3), de Jong (7), Verheijen (1, MCZ), Verheijen/Schmutz. Material.— (?) ad., 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 6); (?) im., 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 7); (?), 26.xi.1888, Bari (Weber, collector’s no. 494a, RMNH); (, 23.xi.1968, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 97119); (, 17.xii.1968, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 66140); (?) nestling, 23.xii.1969, Todo (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65349); &, 1969, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85164);

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


(, 19.ix.1970, Kisol (Verheijen, RMNH no. 65350); 2 &, 5.iii.1971, Rana Loba, Borong, 50 m (Verheijen, RMNH nos. 66141, 85161); (, 12.x.1971, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85163); (, 25.x.1971, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 85162); (?) juv., 26.xi.1975, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81083); 3 (, &, 28.xi.1975, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH nos. 81079-81082); (, 18.xii.1975, Nunang, 650 m (Schmutz, RMNH no. 81078). Adults of both sexes have the iris blood-red, bill dark pink, legs black. Immatures: iris brown, bill dusky (gradually changing to dark pink), legs black. Eggs (fig. 17d): c/2, 12.x.1955, Ruteng (RMNH no. 71779); c/1, 17.v.1957, Ruteng (RMNH no. 71780); c/1,, Potjong (RMNH no. 71781); c/2,, Poéng (RMNH no. 71782); c/3, 5.xi.1959, locality unknown (RMNH no. 71783); c/1,, Mataloko (RMNH no. 71784). The eggs are glossy white or very pale pinkish chamois, with widely spaced, sharply defined black dots. Measurements and weights: 31.5 × 23.4 very large holes, 33.0 × 23.4 not weighed RMNH no. 71780 33.6 × 24.2 0.5233 RMNH no. 71781 32.2 × 22.7 0.5007 RMNH no. 71782 33.7 × 23.5 0.5482 33.8 × 23.5 0.5425 RMNH no. 71783 36.9 × 25.4 0.6551 37.7 × 25.1 0.6774 38.5 × 25.2 0.6744 These eggs average only slightly larger, but are conspicuously heavier, than eggs of O. c. maculatus from Java, as recorded by Hellebrekers & Hoogerwerf (1967: 160). Clutch no. 71783 is particularly large and heavy. RMNH no. 71779

Notes.— Greenway (1962: 130) cites the name as broderipii (note the difference in spelling), from Bonaparte (1852), but the description in the Conspectus has clear priority. Both descriptions are, of course, based on the same specimen. Büttikofer (1892: 194) recorded 2 ( ad. from Koting, collected by Ten Kate. These are no longer present in the collection, but there is an unsexed specimen, received at the same time from the same collector, from Trong, Adonara (where Ten Kate stayed from 13/16.v.1891). I do not know why Büttikofer omitted this specimen (which has an original label) from his paper. The species had not yet been recorded from Adonara, although its occurrence was to be expected. As it seems to have been generally overlooked, I list here the objective synonym Oriolus sumbawensis Schlegel. The name broderipi is based on two mounted specimens from Bima, Sumbawa (Forsten coll., RMNH cat. nos. 1, 2; cf. Schlegel, 1867: 106), both having written underneath on the socle, in Temminck’s handwriting: Oriolus Sumbawanus Temm sp. Nov. The specimen figured by Schlegel appears to be cat. no. 2, which is marked as a ( (the other one has no indication of its sex), and is the deeper coloured one with an orange-yellow mantle. Unexpectedly, there is no difference in plumage between fully adult males and females: they have a deep cadmium-yellow, almost orange-yellow plumage, and the remiges are glossy black. Duller birds, the yellow of the dorsal surface tinged with green, and the inner remiges with greenish edges, are immature, further, in the skins, characterized by wholly or partly dusky bills. These immature birds may already have well-developed gonads. This subspecies is larger than the adjacent O. c. maculatus (as noted above, the eggs are also larger). The material suggests a slight sexual difference in size, the males averaging a little larger than the females.

214 Measurements: 7( 5& wing 152-161 (157.4) 150-155 (152.6) tail 101-108 (105.8) 98-105 (102.3)

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) tarsus 27.5-29.2 (28.5) 27-28.2 (27.7) entire culmen 36-39.3 (38.0) 37.3-39.2 (38.4) exposed culmen 32.5-36 (34.6) 33.5-35.4 (34.6)

Dicrurus hottentottus bimaensis Wallace
Dicrourus bimaënsis Wallace, 1864, Proc. Zool. Lond. (1863): 492 – Lombock, Sumbawa, and Flores. [Dicrourus] bimaensis Bonaparte, 1850, Consp. Gen. Av. 1: 352 – nomen nudum (Sumbava). Dicrurus hottentottus renschi Vaurie, 1949, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 93: 298 – Tambora Mountain, 3000 feet, Sumbawa. Collectors.— Semmelink, Allen, Weber (3), Everett (6), Rensch (3), de Jong (5), Pfeffer (1), Verheijen/ Schmutz. Material.— (?), 1862, Larantoeka (Semmelink, RMNH cat. no. 4); (?), 23/25.xi.1888, Reo (Weber, RMNH cat. no. 5); (, 24.x.1968, Nunang (Schmutz, RMNH no. 66142); (?), 3.iii.1971, Rana Loba, Borong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66143); (?), 25.v.1971, Manggarai (Verheijen, RMNH no. 66144); &,, WaéRéca, Borong (Verheijen, RMNH no. 85284); (,, Poco Mulu (Schmutz, RMNH no. 97180). Eggs (figs 17e, 17ee): 18 clutches of c/1 (2 ×), c/2 (8 ×), c/3 (5 ×) and c/4 (3 ×), collected in the months October (12), November (5) and December (1). There are two quite different types of egg: one with light brown markings on a cream ground, the other with a pure white ground colour, sparsely marked with small black primary spots, and somewhat larger light violet-grey secondary spots. There is no need to question the identification of the eggs, as this kind of variation is known to occur in the Dicruridae. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. 71785 30.2 × 21.7 30.3 × 21.2 31.3 × 21.3 29.0 × 21.0 28.3 × 21.0 28.7 × 21.0 29.4 × 21.3 29.6 × 21.4 29.0 × 20.5 29.3 × 20.6 29.6 × 20.6 29.8 × 20.8 29.0 × 20.5 30.4 × 20.5 30.5 × 20.3 27.3 × 20.5 27.6 × 20.6 28.6 × 20.8 31.7 × 20.8 31.8 × 20.7 27.8 × 20.4 27.9 × 20.5 29.2 × 21.3 0.3488 0.3672 0.3561 0.4154 0.3890 0.3633 0.3821 0.3897 0.3657 0.3834 0.3746 0.3878 0.3178 0.3398 0.3298 0.3353 0.3345 0.3696

RMNH no. 71786 RMNH no. 71787 RMNH no. 71788 RMNH no. 71789

RMNH no. 71790

RMNH no. 71791

RMNH no. 71792 RMNH no. 71793 RMNH no. 71794

Notes.— Two authors have studied the geographical variation of D. hottentottus in the Lesser Sunda Islands: first Rensch (1928a, 1931a, 1931b), and later Vaurie (1949). Rensch (1928a) observed that specimens from Lombok are larger than “typische D. h.

Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006)


bimaensis (Bp.) von Sumbawa”, and he named the former D. h. vicinus. Rensch believed birds from Sumbawa and Flores to be identical. Although he first accepted Sumbawa as the type-locality of bimaensis (as just quoted), he later restricted the type-locality to Flores (cf. Rensch, 1931a: 589). Vaurie had an entirely different opinion on the geographical variation in the region, in that he regarded birds from Lombok, Flores, Pantar, Alor and Goenoengapi as consubspecific, and large, and only birds from Sumbawa as small. On the basis of Rensch’s restriction, he accepted Flores as the type-locality of bimaensis, which name he therefore used for the birds from all these islands. This left the supposedley smaller subspecies from Sumbawa without a name, which he provided. Judging by the sequence in which he listed the islands inhabited by bimaensis (repeated by Vaurie, 1962: 151), Vaurie confused Goenoeng Api, Sangeang, off Sumbawa, with the island Goenoeng Api in the Banda Sea (where D. hottentottus does not occur, cf. van Bemmel & Hoogerwerf, 1940). In Vaurie’s classification, specimens from Sangeang should, on the basis of geographical nearness, belong to the Sumbawa subspecies rather than to bimaensis sensu Vaurie. Since then, I pointed out that there had been no need to shift the type locality of bimaensis, and confirmed the adult specimen from Bima, Sumbawa, listed as type by Finsch (1901b: 196), as lectotype (cf. Mees, 1965: 194-195). The classification proposed by Vaurie, with the range of one subspecies interrupted by that of another, is not very satisfactory. Although the material available is not exactly rich, I have tried to verify whether it conforms to Vaurie’s conclusions as regards variation. In this connection it may be noted that Vaurie’s material was not particularly rich either. Excluding several specimens which, with dull plumage and some white edging on the middle of the underparts, are clearly juveniles, the material (none of which was examined by Vaurie), provides the following
Measurements: wing tail (OTF) 125 127 118 124 125 106 tail (CTF) 116 118 112 107 112 100 tarsus culmen culmen from skull from nostril 35.5 37 38.2 37 36 33 25 23.6 25.3 23.8 22.5 20.7

Lombok Cat.10 (?) 140 Cat.11 (?) 146 Cat. 9 (?) 149 Cat. 8 (?) 151 Cat. 7 (?) 152 Sumbawa Cat. 1 (?) 141 (lectotype of bimaensis) Flores 66142 ( 143 97180 ( 143 85284 & im. 132 Cat. 5 (?) 138 66143 (?) 139 66144 (?) 139 Cat. 4 (?) 141 *) tip damaged.

26 26 27 26.3 26 –

110 110 109 106 112 116 111

102 100 104 99 103 107 100

27 27 24 27 25 26 25.8

33.6 33.3 32.9 35 34.8 33.2+ 34

22.8 21.5 20.3 22.3 21.0 20.5 *) 21

As far as the evidence provided by this material goes, it clearly supports Rensch and not Vaurie: no difference between birds from Sumbawa and Flores, and specimens

71805). Larantoeka (Semmelink.x. RMNH cat.9 × 18. 1771. 1864: 485. captured on its nest (Verheijen.5 24.5 × 18. I observed that the irregular pattern of variation makes it very difficult to distinguish subspecies in the whole region from the Andamans to New Guinea and Australia. Ruteng (RMNH no. 71809). bimaensis as “Dicrorus (sic) bimaënsis Wallace. c/3. RMNH no. (?) juv. even though it is difficult to express it in nomenclature. Ruteng..0 23. c/3.1891. ten Kate. Mantissa Plant. 71802)..6 25. 18. 492). Verheijen. c/1.2272 0. Bremen 5: 69 – Celebes. c/2. 71801 24. 25.: 524 – in Manillis. celebensis Brüggemann. Bruce concluded the discussion with the statement that a detailed study was in preparation. Ruteng (RMNH no. c/3.1961.216 Mees. 1862. Ruteng (RMNH no. Artamus leucorrhynchus. and the chain of islands from Sumbawa to Alor is inhabited by D. Ruteng (RMNH nos. no. bimaensis. h. l. vicinus is a valid subspecies. large gonads.— (?).1964.1 × 18.2328 0. birds from the Lesser Sunda Islands. Collectors. Rensch (4).2385 .8 × 18. h.9 23.viii. In this connection it is worth mentioning that Hoogerwerf (1956) found D.x. 30.1958.1970.1964. 29. Vaurie (1962: 150) cites the original description of D.3 25. c/1. to be presented later. 71801).1964. Artamus leucorhynchus leucorhynchus (Linnaeus) Lanius leucoryn[chus] Linnaeus.ix.2311 0. Lamba.3 24.”.x.— In their large size.0 × 18. they are larger than birds from Java (cf. 1876.ix.(damaged) 0. 71806. Endeh (ten Kate.2282 0. Material. 71807). An attempt at this has been made by White & Bruce (1986: 314-315).1964.3 24. is an obvious candidate for subdivision into several species. An exception must be made for A. 7.71804 RMNH no. 71806 Notes. densus.— Semmelink. Med. Avifauna of Flores. In a previous publication.1962. Ver. in both places where it appears (Wallace. Naturwiss. Dicrourus (in those days the usual spelling).xi.ix.3 × 18. 71808). hottentottus fairly common on Komodo. 1986: 150). 20. Ruteng (RMNH no. Ruteng (RMNH no. Abh. 39).3 23. no. var. and (abruptly?) larger than birds from Timor and Roti. 85224). 7. I prefer to await the publication of this study before accepting the proposed changes. RMNH cat. The citation is correct in Vaurie’s (1949: 296) earlier publication. c/3. east to Flores (Alor?) correspond with birds from Sulawesi (Celebes) and the smaller islands in the Flores Sea. Everett (2). with longer tails.. Leiden 80 (2006) from Lombok distinctly larger. hottentottus. 71804). 27.1959. Eggs: c/3. confined to Lombok. (. who separated the forms inhabiting the Lesser Sunda Islands under the specific name D. 38). Todo (RMNH no. the geographic variation of the species in this region is by no means without interest.6 × 17. But in the original description the spelling of the generic name is. Some measurements and weights: RMNH no. D.2 0. measurements published by Mees. c/4. h.0 × 18. 28/30. Thus.2367 0.x. Therefore. 71803).4 × 18. between Sumbawa and Flores.2624 0. Ruteng (RMNH no.i. Zool. musschenbroeki from the . 14. The substantial and complex agglomerate of forms united by Vaurie (1949) under the specific name of D.2471 RMNH no. Allen.

Measurements and weights: RMNH no.1959. c/1.0941 0.3 41. Sokrutung. 71818). RMNH no.— There has been speculation about the affinities of this little-known species. small gonads. Djinggor (RMNH no.8 × 26.7 × 28.7 39. Meinertzhagen. Med.2 × 27. Vaurie (1958) agreed with Meinertzhagen in considering C.5%) of his one specimen. 71823 Notes.7 × 28. but he drew attention to the high tail/wing ratio (72.8 40. xii.xii. 71817 RMNH no. 71822). xii.6 39. c/2.1971.6 40. 66247).1946.7 × 28.6 34. 1.0 42.1 43. 71818 RMNH no. which is conspicuously darker in plumage than all the surrounding populations.6 entire culmen 24 exposed culmen 19.xi. 50 m (Schmutz. 71821 RMNH no.ix.3 39.2 × 27. (RMNH no.828 0. holotype).1 38.1 41. Waé Rambung (RMNH no. RMNH no. Heret (RMNH no.8367 0. 71820 RMNH no. Bénténg Djawa.1955. Maumeri (Weber. florensis a derivative of C. 71820).4 36.1 × 28. 27.2 × 27. florensis as a remnant of an early radiation and called it: “a fine ancestral type”.— (?) ad.6 × 28. Rensch (1931a: 588) enumerated morphological differences.0 43. c/3. 71817).0 × 27. W. in Weber: Zool.7 × 27.8339 0.7 0. The four specimens measured by me confirm this (70. enca (cf.Mees.8749 0.vii.2 × 26.5 × 26.1888.2 × 27. 1000 m (Schmutz..i. but he did not further . 28. 20.3 × 27.8258 0. c/3.000 0. Everett (1).2 × 28.8 × 28. Djinggor (RMNH no.1969. Nandá (RMNH no.1956.1959. no. (?). and on this basis deserves nomenclatural recognition. 5. c/3. with the suggestion that it might be a geographical representative of C. Ergebnisse 3: 304 – Maumeri. RMNH cat. 1894. (. Its bill is also rather larger and thicker than that of surrounding populations. xii. of which two badly damaged.1953.8931 0.7963 1. i. 18a): c/3.8337 0.1962.xi. Eggs (fig. Avifauna of Flores.8697 0. 71821). c/2. Measurements: ( wing 145 tail 65 tarsus 17.9623 RMNH no. Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) 217 Tanimbar Islands. 73524).— Weber. 85140). Djinggor (RMNH no. MCZ). 1. 97150). 1926: 73).1955. Jollie (1978: 98-99) regarded C.9338 1.1-73. 71822 RMNH no. which point away from a close relationship between these two species.8 × 26.1958. Rekas (RMNH no.8918 0.003 0. Sésok.0 42. 71819).8436 0. enca.8196 0.9 × 27.xii. RMNH no. 25. 71816). Material.1 42.5 39. Sok-Rutung. 71819 RMNH no. 71816 38. c/2.6 42.0 × 26.4 39.ix. Verheijen (2.8 38. 73524 RMNH no. Collectors. West-Manggarai (Schmutz.826 0.1969.9192 1. c/2. 71823). 28. 1.8 Corvus florensis Büttikofer Corvus florensis Büttikofer.4 42. 19. Verheijen/Schmutz.vii.4%).5 × 29. Zool. Soa (RMNH no. ( with large gonads.

C. enca” is far too definite and is presented without any explanation. Endeh (Weber. Rensch (5).5 × 28.1888.1955. Material. enca examined by me (subspecies enca and compilator) have a bluish green ground-colour. 23. and some of the very pale eggs described by Schönwetter were old. et in insulis Sumatra et Java = Java. Oortwijn. Verheijen (1. which is more likely a separate species.1265 1. Rahong (Verheijen. 15). That is a pity. this remark is not very useful. 36: 7 – Rana Mesé. The statement by Haffer (in Glutz von Blotzheim. The green ground-colour of crows’ eggs fades with age. (?). florensis is an ancestral type. 71811). 71810). Acad. Collectors. that it is a derivative of the C.xii. Nova Guinea. however. Mber. Wesang (RMNH no. 30. florensis auf Flores ist ein vertreter von C. Measurements and weights: RMNH no. cf. 1993: 1657): “C. 1958.8 43. macrorhynchus and the Australian species. c/5. Potjong (RMNH no. and had probably been exposed to sunlight. Leiden 80 (2006) elaborate this. C. Rend. Soa (RMNH no. florensis.viii. (?). Verheijen/ Schmutz. Cornix timorensis Bonaparte. 1853. 1987) would normally have eggs with a whitish ground-colour. capensis. Eggs (fig. all eggs of C. MCZ). ( im. Orn.1969. 65375). Syst. Lamba. RMNH no. 8. and as it stands.0 42. de Jong (1). Dalo (Verheijen. 14. c/5. &. 6. RMNH no. which have eggs with a blue-green ground-colour. RMNH no. enca. c/3.1969. 1914a: 153. enca.v.xii. quite different from those of C. 85141). unlike the eggs of C. 66246). Dalo. florensis: the ground-colour is white. The eggs (previously undescribed) support the separate position of C. sp..— Allen.xi.i. Sci. 71813).. 16.xi. no. enca group. RMNH no.xi.3 × 29. That is not so. capensis look.1957. e. Corvus coronoides inoptatus Rensch.1958. 71814).2 43.viii. may have eggs with a white ground-colour. Paris 37: 829 – Timor (reference not verified). although probably based on Vaurie. 1928. One has to go as far as Africa to find an other member of the genus with eggs which lack green: C. enca violaceus from Ceram. Todo (RMNH no. These conflicting opinions show that the relationships of C.2 × 29. c/3. Compt. Everett (2). Zool. 18b): c/2 28. 1827. Ruteng (RMNH no. Nisar (Schmutz.218 Mees. Schönwetter’s (1983: 696) description gives the impression that Corvus enca celebensis (a synonym of C.1422 . 71812). but there was some doubt about the identification (Stresemann. 71814 41.9 × 28.xi. RMNH cat. Mano (RMNH no. 16. Schönwetter. 1983: 721). Corvus. 20.1968. for his opinion that C.1960. Weber (1).. Measurements: ( ( (?) (?) wing 227 224 226 228 tail 166 157 166 160 tarsus 48 46 46 49 bill (from forehead feathers) 51½ 50 51 50 Corvus macrorhynchos macrorhynchos Wagler C[orvus] macrorhynchos Wagler. 71815).1958. The eggs of C. 65376).8 1. 3 – Nova-Hollandia. Av. Flores. as the former has the ground-colour almost concealed by large brown freckles. c/4.2346 1. 23/27.2420 1. Avifauna of Flores. Pongkor (Verheijen. florensis remain obscure. Med.1969. –(?) ad. is the opposite of the opinions of Meinertzhagen and Vaurie.

not supported by their text. two swiftlets from Flores. E. however. but it has been recorded there from Sumba and Timor only. Unconfirmed and erroneous records Threskiornis melanocephalus (Latham) The inclusion of Flores and Timor in the range of this species on the distributional map in Hancock et al. Zool.Mees. 1979: 417) was a mistake. but that is an error. salangana and its occurrence on Flores is quite likely. longipennis from Flores (Stresemann & Amadon. so that their distributional map showing it as ranging over the whole chain of islands. the error could originate as in the cardindex of the collection the locality is given as “Flores”. Avifauna of Flores. written: “tué 8. no. fuciphaga. East Java has mistakenly been excluded on the map. The first of these is now called C. inexpectata subsp. which. Falco longipennis longipennis Swainson As has been mentioned on a previous page. underneath the socle of the mounted bird is. 96. Alcedo meninting meninting Horsfield In Rensch’s (1931a: 634) list. fuciphaga in the main text. de Flores”. as a generalisation. Leiden 80 (2006) 219 9. but requires verification. vanikorensis dammermani and C. through an evident slip. Arenaria interpres interpres (Linnaeus) White & Bruce (1986: 167) report this migrant wader from Flores on the basis of: “an overlooked specimen from Flores (RMNH)”. under the names C. 69 from Adonara recorded by Mees (1976). besides Collocalia esculenta. On the other hand. l. Adonare. Pte. Trichoglossus euteles (Temminck) This parrot was supposedly collected by Allen. It concerns RMNH cat. Collocalia salangana subsp. this species is included instead . for the Brantas Delta has been known as a breeding place for half a century and in their text. from Lombok to Wetar. see p. See also the discussion under C. It is therefore the same individual on which the Adonara record is based. for a discussion and the rejection of the record. the second might refer to the species now known as C. the authors report recent breeding in that area. is acceptable. is definitely in error. (1992: 218) is an error. Circus assimilis Jardine & Selby Marchant & Higgins (1993: 95-96) list this harrier as occurring in the Lesser Sunda Islands. Verheijen (1964: 199) listed. the record of nominate F.1880. Med.

who did not doubt it. not separated by any obvious geographical barriers. The label is not an original one. 1881”. and it received the RMNH cat. concentrating on birds looking dull in the field. o. also formerly mounted and labelled with “v. that Timor examples are of the same colour as audacis. The record was published by Finsch (1901b: 264). and retained audacis as a subspecies. Finsch (l. Flores”. n. rather than Finsch’s. when the mounted bird was turned back into a study skin. so that: “The range of this form includes probably all eastern Timor”. no. Lansberge. peronii. 11). but as yet there is no evidence. already with the provenance Flores. 1882. based on such an impressive material. pacificus is strongly migratory. followed by Forshaw (1993: 92). given the imperfect knowledge of the distribution of the species at that time and the fact that there is no other evidence that Colfs’s labelling. Geocichla rubiginosa. but was written by Finsch. belong to a consignment received a year earlier. With its history of mounting and dismounting. sketchy as it is. These. and one would almost expect it to occur on the Lesser Sunda Islands as a winter visitor. The mistake was copied by Kuroda (1936: 735). It is probably due to Rensch’s error. this . 6. I checked Büttikofer’s list (see p. that Pfeffer (1958: 72) considered it justified to claim that he had “souvent rencontré” A. therefore. Lansberge. On the basis of the material at that time available in the collection. but all specimens procured by him were nominate E. Zool. As Mayr considered the subspecies well-differentiated (“much darker and more rufous”). Hoping to find evidence for this. claimed to be much darker and more rufous than nominate peronii (Mayr.220 Mees. c. Leiden 80 (2006) of Ceyx rufidorsa. Later authors have accepted Hartert’s conclusion. This was followed by Hartert (1904: 208-209): “After comparing our magnificent series of 34 audacis with 10 Timor birds (5 in Tring and 5 in London) I am at a loss to understand Dr Finsch’s statement. peronii peronii is above yellowish cinnamon. meninting! Eurystomus orientalis pacificus Latham The inclusion of this subspecies into the avifauna of Flores by White & Bruce (1986: 285-287). There are three specimens from Timor in the collection. Father Schmutz paid special attention to the species. was a synonym. as indeed he had no reason to. 1986: 333). and also the chest and sides differ in the same way”. is unreliable. o. where I found the bird. described from Damar two years before.) concluded that the species shows no significant geographical variation and that. and barely 100 km apart. belonged to typical peronii. White & Bruce. s. 1944a: 155. Avifauna of Flores. ca. Now it should be remembered that Atapupu and Dilli are both situated on the north coast of Timor. therefore. 1900. Geocichla audacis. E. of which there is no list. orientalis with somewhat dull plumage because of immaturity. is due to the assumption that resident birds of the Lesser Sunda Islands would belong to this mainly or wholly Australian subspecies (see the discussion in the main text). audacis chestnut. with on its label: “v. Med. Zoothera peronii (Vieillot) There is in the RMNH-collection an unsexed specimen of Z. G. and added that a single male from Dilly was indistinguishable from a series of audacis. there must have been ample opportunity for a mix-up. Mayr stated that all birds from Dutch Timor including four specimens from Atapupu.or rufous-cinnamon.

an unsexed immature bird (WAM no. Med. I would be inclined to agree that audacis is probably not valid...Mees. All the others are merely from “Timor”. Lonchura malacca ferruginosa (Sparrman) L. ferruginosa was listed for Flores by Wallace (1864: 486. See also Rensch (1931a: 596 footnote): “Munia ferruginea wurde von Wallace . Mayr restricted its range to western Timor. there does not seem to be any way of determining whether Hartert saw these 3 skins.. I can offer no . photographed. n. examined. Wallace.. Both were collected by A. Zool. I have tried to obtain those measurements. 10). not a single measurement is presented. but is within the range of variation of xanthodryas. There is now also a record from Broome. audacis is not a valid subspecies. should be re-examined. The wing length of this specimen. fälschlicherweise für Flores angegeben”. I quote here the most important passages of his letter: “We have a total of 8 specimens of nominate Geocichla (Zoothera) peronii from Timor. We also have an Everett specimen from Atapupu. is 66 mm (Johnstone. 1998). Avifauna of Flores. but no reply has been received. that. and I consider that the occurrence of nominate borealis on Flores (and other Lesser Sunda Islands) requires confirmation. As mentioned on a previous page. all of which should have been here at the time Hartert was writing this description.. all specimens examined by me are referable to xanthodryas.ix. 8.. Timor”. Two of the specimens are from “E. but certainly in error (see p. Hartert mentions having examined BM material and (knowing that Wallace has collected in eastern Timor. the need for taking detailed measurements is stressed twice in the text. in litt. yet. Leiden 80 (2006) 221 implies an abrupt boundary between Atapupu and Dilli.1992) has informed me very fully on the BM material. Unfortunately. were from eastern Timor.v. mainland of Western Australia (Hassell.. . unbelievably. Munia ferruginea). Flors and Timor”... but most (including the two Wallace specimens) seem to me to be indistinguishable. and that some of his specimens are in the BM) it occurred to me that it would be worth checking whether some of the five BM specimens which Hartert acknowledges having examined. The specimen from Scott Reef. s. A couple of the skins from Timor (including the Everett specimen) appear to be very marginally paler than those of audacis. and added eastern Timor to the range of audacis. 3. Phylloscopus borealis borealis (Blasius) Ticehurst (1938: 129) claimed to have seen: “quite typical borealis from Sumbawa. based on the material in Leiden.R.. Mr Walters’s examination of the BM specimens supports my own conclusion. A 16285). The bird was captured. as they were all registered prior to 1899. Thus. Mr Walters (in litt. in spite of the contrary conclusions arrived at by Hartert and Mayr. suggestion as to why he apparently only examined 5. Western Australia (14°03’S.. and released. if there is any difference it would seem to be a very slight clinal variation”. 121°46’E) identified by McKean (1980) as belonging to the nominate race. which in a lowland bird with a presumably more or less continuous distribution is not very likely. m.1998): this is inconclusive. I have compared the series with those of audacis and can see very little difference in colour. Hartert considered the whole of Timor to be inhabited by the nominate race.

Zool. designated Flores as the type locality of Ducula aenea. 1891) Amandava amandava flavidiventris (Wallace. 1955 Rallus pectoralis exsul (Hartert. 1897 Rhinomyias oscillans (Hartert. 1973 Terpsiphone paradisi floris Büttikofer. 1897) Lophozosterops dohertyi subcristata Hartert. Species and subspecies with type locality Flores Accipiter novaehollandiae sylvestris Wallace. 1897) Orthotomus cucullatus everetti (Hartert. 1929 Zosterops palpebrosa unica Hartert. 1894) Dicaeum igniferum Wallace. 1897 Heleia crassirostris crassirostris (Hartert. by a dozen authors. 1864 Dicaeum sanguinolentum rhodopygiale Rensch. Sharpe (5). 1894) Loriculus flosculus Wallace. 1864) Ninox scutulata florensis (Wallace. the list of authors is: Hartert (16). 1897) Rhipidura diluta diluta Wallace. 1894 Pachycephala fulvotincta fulvotincta Wallace. which seems to be the nearest place to the Moluccas where it occurs. 1897 Tesia everetii everetti (Hartert. 1924 Otus magicus albiventris (Sharpe. 1891 Tanygnathus megalorynchos floris Hartert. 1898) Turnix maculosa floresiana Sutter. Of one or two subspecies included in this list (Tanygnathus megalorynchos floris. Mees (2). Sumatra. 1875) Trichoglossus (haematodus) weberi (Büttikofer. 1864) (“Timor and Flores”) Erythrura hyperythra obscura (Rensch. 1897 Dicaeum annae (Büttikofer. only one of the birds described from Flores is a winter visitor (Ninox scutulata florensis). Büttikofer (5). they can be found easily in the main text. Interestingly. 1864 Accipiter virgatus quinquefasciatus Mees. 1928) Lonchura molucca propinqua (Sharpe. 1897 Lophozosterops superciliaris superciliaris (Hartert. 1897) Phylloscopus presbytes floris (Hartert. Rensch (4). Wallace (11). 1911) Treron floris Wallace. Erythrura hyperythra obscura). 1864 Monarcha sacerdotum Mees. 1898) Rallus philippensis wilkinsoni (Mathews. Rothschild. Stresemann. Avifauna of Flores. on the basis of the following argument: “The specific name aenea was first given to Brisson’s ‘Columba moluccensis’. Sutter and Swinhoe (1 each). 1864 Geoffroyus geoffroyi floresianus Salvadori. said to have been brought from the Moluccan Islands. . the validity requires confirmation. described over a period of 120 years (1864-1984). 1984 Spizaetus (cirrhatus) floris (Hartert. Leiden 80 (2006) 10. I have excluded forms described without indication of a holotype from a range including Flores. arbitrarily and without consideration of historical probability. 1894 This makes a total of 50 forms. Synonyms have also been excluded from this enumeration. 1864 Ptilinopus melanospilus melanauchen (Salvadori. 1897 Pnoepyga pusilla everetti Rothschild. 1879) Brachypteryx montana floris Hartert. 1890) Lonchura pallida pallida (Wallace. As a historical curiosity I want to recall that Hartert & Goodson (1918). 1912 Coracina (novaehollandiae) floris (Sharpe. no great harm can be done by this action. 1928) Philemon buceroides neglectus (Büttikofer. 1897) Lichmera lombokia fumidigula (Rensch. all others are residents. 1864 Ptilinopus cinctus albocinctus Wallace. 1928 Anthreptes malacensis convergens Rensch. 1870 Mirafra javanica parva Swinhoe. 1897) Otus silvicola (Wallace. Mathews. As this species does not occur on the Moluccas. 1864 Pachycephala nudigula nudigula Hartert. Med. 1897) Culicicapa ceylonensis sejuncta Hartert. 1864) Alcedo atthis floresiana Sharpe. 1864) (“Lombock and Flores”) Corvus florensis Büttikofer. of which the type locality has subsequently been restricted to another island. we propose as the restricted locality for the name aenea Flores. as the birds from the Greater and Lesser Sunda Islands. 1898) Seicercus montis floris (Hartert. Salvadori (2). 1892 Pelargopsis capensis floresiana Sharpe. In sequence of the number of forms described. 1875) Otus alfredi (Hartert.222 Mees. Borneo. 1871 Anthus novaeseelandiae albidus Stresemann. Even if this should be considered incorrect.

g. 520. Lombok. Species endemic to Flores (6) Trichoglossus (haematodus) weberi Loriculus flosculus Otus alfredi Rhinomyias oscillans Monarcha sacerdotum Corvus florensis Species endemic to Flores and Sumbawa (10) (with an asterisk. these 22 forms. a few species and subspecies at present thought to be confined to Flores may in future still be found on Sumbawa and perhaps other islands. Zool. Stresemann. a. Of course. in their relation to Celebes. especially Flores. 11. Heleia c. Flores and Sumba are inseparable”. after all. paulina) is also nearer the Moluccas than is Flores. Avifauna of Flores. also paid attention to the Lesser Sunda Islands. The argument. which have different subspecies on each island) Spizaetus (limnaeetus) floris Otus silvicola Pericrocotus lansbergei Tesia everetti* Dicaeum annae . species are marked. such as it is. Leiden 80 (2006) 223 Java. in an island which is. Med. sulana: Sula Islands). and Sulawesi (Celebes) (D. 523). for D. only a link in the middle of a closelyknit chain. a. The type locality has been corrected to Manila by Stresemann (1952: 514.. Here I shall try to give a zoogeographical analysis of the avifauna of Flores. Zoogeography The zoogeography of the Lesser Sunda Islands has been studied in particular by Rensch (1928d. 1930. 1944b). It is easy to compile from the above list. a shorter list of 22 species and subspecies endemic to Flores. prove a considerable degree of endemism. 1936) and Mayr (1944a.Mees. aenea actually does reach the Moluccas (D. in his classical work on the avifauna of Celebes (1939/1941). crassirostris) may require confirmation. Accipiter virgatus quinquefasciatus Rallus pectoralis exsul Trichoglossus (haematodus) weberi Loriculus flosculus Tanygnathus megalorynchos floris Otus magicus albiventris Otus alfredi Brachypteryx montana floris Pnoepyga pusilla everetti Tesia everetii everetti Orthotomus cucullatus everetti Phylloscopus presbytes floris Seicercus montis floris Culicicapa ceylonensis sejuncta Rhinomyias oscillans Monarcha sacerdotum Pachycephala nudigula nudigula Dicaeum sanguinolentum rhodopygiale Lophozosterops superciliaris superciliaris Lophozosterops dohertyi subcristata Heleia crassirostris crassirostris Corvus florensis Even though a few forms (e. holds water only when it was certain that the subspecific identity of the type of aenea has been correctly established. several of which are very well-differentiated.

Sumbawa. Other species skip Flores in a different way: Halcyon australasia: Lombok. Lanius schach: Lombok. etc. Avifauna of Flores. presbytes floris on Flores. the following resident species of Sumbawa are not known from Flores: Lanius schach. p. Timor. Sumba and Lomblen (Komodo. Phylloscopus trivirgatus trivirgatus on Sumbawa vs. They share 10 endemic species. Alor. Wetar and eastwards to the Tanimbar Islands. In the above enumeration. Sumbawa and Flores (2) Halcyon fulgida Lichmera lombokia* Species endemic to Flores. Timor. Med. Pantar and Alor (1) Dicaeum igniferum Of peculiar interest are species which one would expect to occur on Flores. Brachypteryx leucophrys: Lombok. Sumba. Sumbawa. Sumbawa. suggesting that the isolation is not a long one. Acrocephalus stentoreus: Lombok. the emphasis has been on endemic and near-endemic species of the Lesser Sunda Islands. T. Semau.224 Rhipidura diluta* Pachycephala nudigula* Lophozosterops superciliaris* Lophozosterops dohertyi* Heleia crassirostris* Mees. As was to be expected on purely geographical grounds. In addition. blasii on Flores. Rintja) (1) Zosterops wallacei Species endemic to Sumbawa. When that is done. Wetar. Sumba. Lonchura punctulata nisoria on Sumbawa vs. P. Brachypteryx leucophrys. Timor. Timor. Sumbawa. it is at once . Sumba. Flores. Dicaeum maugei: Lombok. Milvus migrans: Lombok. it is the avifauna of Sumbawa which is closest to that of Flores. Roti. these subspecies are only slightly differentiated. For a balanced view. (haematodus) weberi on Flores. Timor. and although six of these have different subspecies on Flores and Sumbawa. Acrocephalus stentoreus. also subspecies of more widely distributed species have to be considered. On the other hand. in a few instances there is a strong differentiation: Trichoglossus haematodus forsteni on Sumbawa vs. but which apparently do not. Zool. Leiden 80 (2006) Species endemic to Flores and Sumba (1) Coracina dohertyi Species endemic to Flores and Timor (1) Phylloscopus presbytes* Species endemic to Flores and Lombok (1) Ducula (lacernulata) sasakensis Species endemic to Lombok. Timor. however. L.

it is clear that not all Stresemann’s (1939) conclusions are acceptable. finds little support (cf. in their study of the zoogeography of the Philippines. Philemon buceroides. including the last glacial. and have omitted it from their extensive bibliography. especially the part about these hoofed animals loading a food supply for the crossing on their heads. it is more likely that. over half a century after its publication. 1974) but once more have failed to find general acceptance. Culicicapa ceylonensis. The only island in the chain of the Lesser Sunda Islands. Ceyx rufidorsa. no land bridge is needed. and the discovery of fossil elephants as far east as Sulawesi and Timor. Lichmera lombokia. Stresemann’s (1939: 321) suggestion that grassland birds have colonized Sulawesi (Celebes) and the Lesser Sunda Islands from south-eastern Asia. Monarcha trivirgatus. With the passing of time. for an explanation of the ornithogeography of the region. 1994). not with complete land bridges. And. Monarcha sacerdotum. one would deduce an Australian origin for Gerygone sulphurea and Artamus leucorhynchus. Circaetus gallicus. Many Sundaland birds have penetrated along the chain of Lesser Sunda Islands to. do not even mention it.. Bali). during Pleistocene periods of low sea-level. cannot have been meant seriously. (1991). These species have not reached Timor. Pachycephala fulvotincta. The controversy over how well elephants are able to swim is an old one (with some extreme views expressed by the opposing camps). The story may have originated in some floating carcasses covered in seaweed having been seen. There is general agreement that during Pleistocene periods of low sea-level there was much more land between Java. de Vos et al. in which intra-island geographical variation has been recorded is Timor. as there is too much contrary evidence. 1973. the land bridge papers have temporarily gone up again (Audley-Charles & Hooijer. with a corresponding narrowing of sea straits separating them. Hooijer. Mayr (1944a) has forcibly argued against land bridges between Flores and Sulawesi. making a reconstruction of their history speculative. Tanygnathus megalorynchos. as noted. the largest island. 14) But the present-day example given by these authors. Avifauna of Flores. Species of presumed Australian/Papuan origin and affinities are: Cacatua sulphurea. . The affinity between Flores and Sumba becomes greater than just the one shared endemic species. Lichmera indistincta. A problem is where to draw the line: from the distribution of their congeners. deer and buffaloes east of Wallace’s Line (cf. Elanus caeruleus. Flores. and the Lesser Sunda Islands. through Taiwan and the Philippines. Tyto longimembris. through such species as Gallinula chloropus.Mees. of large herds of deer and buffaloes crossing the 100 km wide Gulf of Bone in southern Sulawesi. Sulawesi. 13) Although. around the heavily forested Malay Peninsula. Terpsiphone paradisi. but swimming remains the only explanation for the wide distribution of elephants. Med. and beyond. Geoffroyus geoffroyi. Caprimulgus affinis).1314) No species of bird is represented on Flores by more than one resident subspecies. Zool.1213) In the avifauna of Flores. but others have. It is incomprehensible that Dickinson et al. written in the lucid and persuasive style for which he was justly known. his work. there is little evidence for a close relation with Sulawesi (Celebes). Parus major. projected by some of his predecessors. Leiden 80 (2006) 225 clear how strong the relation is between Flores and the south-eastern Sundaland (Java. a direct connection through the exposed Sunda Shelf was possible. Sumatra and Borneo. remains a major contribution to the zoogeography of the region. but these species are widely distributed in south-east Asia. The occurrence of elephants and other large herbivores on Sulawesi and the Lesser Sunda Islands has now to be explained in a different way.

On the other hand. Zool. but the measurements published by Mayr (1944a: 165) show that the size difference between inornatus and robustus is real enough. The number of species is slightly lower. and P. flavicollis (or P. This has its theoretical basis in Bergmann’s Rule. Leiden 80 (2006) According to Mayr (1944a: 130). but are unlikely to do so on the mainland Uncertain 155 28 14 4 13 . Johnstone. r. A total of 214 forms has now been recorded from Flores. The matter is of course different. five species show geographic variation on Timor. r. as of some species more than one subspecies occurs. 1973). cannot be ruled out. in this paper Phylloscopus presbytes. Gill. when there is a break in habitat. Rhipidura rufifrons and Lichmera lombokia. this case requires confirmation. I do not include Dicaeum sanguinolentum here. separated by a belt of forest. on a comparatively small island. r. Recently added to the group is Ptilinopus regina: P.226 Mees. for example lowland and alpine grasslands. 1981). and not unknown elsewhere: an increase of size corresponding with an increase in altitude. cf. So long as only a single specimen of roseicollis is known from Timor. As stated in the systematic account. castanea rubripileum audacis sterlingi robustus Coturnix ypsilophora Trichoglossus iris Zoothera peronii Turdus poliocephalus Philemon inornatus However. the occurrence of an apparently steep cline in measurements in a lowland bird. usually a resident one and a migrant visitor. Dividing the birds into the categories shown in the register. Avifauna of Flores. Mayr (1944a: 170) drew attention to another phenomenon occurring on Timor. Admittedly. we get: Residents and presumed residents Migrant visitors from the North Migrant visitors and vagrants from the South Tropical marine birds which may breed in the neighbourhood of Flores. ewingii) in western Timor. Therefore. Particularly fascinating I find the occurrence of differences in vertical range between adjacent subspecies. for I regard Dicaeum wilhelminae as a separate species. need not mean more than a real distance of three to four kilometers and in a continuous population it is unlikely that much real genetical difference could build up over such a small distance (although the case of Zosterops borbonica comes to mind as an example that differences do occur over a short distance. Med. White & Bruce (1986: 397) have also rejected a third one (Philemon inornatus). as follows: Western Timor raaltenii iris peronii schlegelii inornatus Eastern Timor cf. the possibility that it is a vagrant and not a resident. roseicollis (intermediate between flavicollis and xanthogaster) from eastern Timor (cf. I find it difficult to believe that this can have much influence in birds: 1000 m difference in altitude. I do not accept the validity of two of these cases (Coturnix ypsilophora and Zoothera peronii). is unexpected and will be worth further study.

Coracina dohertyi. With migrant wading birds of the families Charadriidae and Scolopacidae it is an entirely different matter.— The Sumbawa records published by Butchart et al. and mudflats in Wallacea. 1976). Naturally. with Dicaeum sanguinolentum being recorded as common above 1000 m (Verhoeye & Holmes. it is rumoured that some collectors were expressly instructed not to waste time paying attention to migrant waders. Evidence from other islands shows that at least some 15 more species of these families ought to occur as regular migrant visitors. there are plenty of reefs. show that even here surprises remain possible. the question arises of how well the avifauna of Flores is now known quantitatively. suggest that birds from Sumbawa are subspecifically separable. its pattern of distribution has become more natural. it must not be overlooked that these migrants are seasonal and that for that reason expeditions active in the northern summer were not likely to meet with larger numbers. such birds. (1996) and Johnstone et al. Coracina dohertyi was listed with the unique distribution Flores-Sumba. Gallinula tenebrosa and Petrochelidon nigricans. but there is as yet no evidence that they do. when recorded at all. although the facts that some presumably resident land birds (Loriculus flosculus. My obvious guess is that few resident land and freshwater birds remain to be discovered. Addendum. but he underestimated both categories. The Sumbawa record of Seicercus montis. but that remains to be verified. White (1975a) drew the conclusion that the region is not an important wintering ground for waders. although not unlikely. Ducula sasakensis was the only member of the category Lombok-Flores. The species of particular interest in relation to Flores are Ducula (lacernulata) sasakensis. where they breed. Monarcha trivirgatus. Of the remaining species. Butchart et al. on small islands near Flores. Med. consists almost entirely of freshwater birds which may breed on Flores. Although he expressed an awareness of collector’s bias in favour of resident. 1998). I realise that White distinguished between birds actually wintering in Wallacea. Zool. neither are they known to breed on any of the other Lesser Sunda Islands (this is the case with 2 species of shags and 8 species of herons). may be no more than vagrants from Timor. In contradistinction to what White assumed. is unsatisfacory. which can and do support waders. with its (predictable) occurrence on Sumbawa the hiatus has been filled and D. its occurrence on Flores as a resident may still be confirmed.Mees. The case of Lichmera indistincta is different. and undoubtedly to reproduce. two. Avifauna of Flores. not Sumbawa. There are recent field-observations of all four species mentioned in this paragraph. marked as uncertain. indeed. Leiden 80 (2006) 227 The last group. beaches. and indeed. and transients (what reaches Australia has to pass through Wallacea). The family Laridae (Sterninae) should also contribute half a dozen species. Mees. being based on what seems . Seicercus montis and Rhinomyias oscillans. indigenous birds. (1996) make some modifications to this chapter necessary. in that it is known to occur. Finally. I consider that he has grossly underestimated this bias. sasakensis joins the next category: Lombok-Sumbawa-Flores. and that Dicaeum sanguinolentum remains known from only three specimens. were dismissed in a footnote (cf. As I mentioned in an earlier paper. From the rather sparse records of waders in Wallacea. with its discovery on Sumbawa. Dicaeum agile) have not been recorded for a century (and that at least Monarcha trivirgatus and Dicaeum agile are not likely to be extinct).

Med. at the head of which stood a Dalu (feodal headman). river. on the map. These records emphasise the already known close affinity between the avifaina of Flores and Sumbawa. 12. In the title of Verheijen’s (1961) article. The Daerah (county) of Manggarai is (or was until recently) divided in Kedaluans. Following Malay (in Indonesia called Indonesian). the situation is not so bad as. Todo). not about linguistics or geography. there have. for example. A particular difficulty lies in the transcription of geographical names. Paloe and Paluë have been used. that already gives a fair idea of its position. which is used at intervals of from 7-10 years. the Dutch oe was replaced by u. As this is a paper about birds. Janssen (ca. . the introduction of a new system of transcription of Chinese names. The map (fig. the name is spelled Paluë. mountain peak. Besides differences in transcription. in the past forty years. 1967). is more than just an administrative division. Avifauna of Flores. sometimes also mountain-top. until Father Verheijen informed me that it is the same as Toda-Belu. perhaps best translated as communities or districts. so that. and of the map of Manggarai by Fr. Lingko = the name of a special Manggarese communal garden. the Latin alphabet has been used. it is also a social and linguistic unit. Rhinomyias oscillans: an interesting and properly-documented record of a species hitherto thought to be endemic to Flores. Therefore.228 Mees. When of a minor locality the Kedaluan in which it is situated. Paloweh. Paloë. The change of the name Mborong to Borong probably also comes in this class. I have not tried to “modernize” names as they appear on labels. Leiden 80 (2006) to have been little more than a glimpse by one (or more than one?) unnamed observer. also been several changes in spelling. at least approximately. the names and transcriptions Roesa Radja. A few common words: Golo = hill. Ulu = source. and in the other years lies fallow and becomes covered with dense secondary growth. at least. This is a world-wide problem: for example. has made the geography of that country permanently inaccessible to me. Zool. upper course. I have localized most of these. Puar = forest. Rusa Radja. On Flores. Pongkor. I have felt free to be opportunistic. Father Verheijen informed me that the linguistically most correct transcription would probably be Palu’e. 1953) which he sent me. where so much material was collected. List of localities Many of the numerous localities mentioned in the main text are not found on ordinary maps. the worst one that of tj to c. Waé = water. Even so. 4) shows the Kedaluans of Manggarai (after Verheijen. and very likely quite a few are not found on any map. is known. if not exactly. part of a mountain-slope. With the help of Father Verheijen. Ruteng. whether it is advisable to accept spelling rules introduced for modern Malay uncritically for other languages. Poco or Potjo = mountain. A Kedaluan. Lareng = place against a mountain. Rana = lake. the places Roeteng and Larantoeka changed their names to Ruteng and Larantuka. for the island here called Palué. Often a Kedaluan takes its name from its head village (cf. but in the text consistently Palué. sometimes lake. including creek. Later there were other changes. I had been unable to find the place Mataloko. It is a moot question. origin of a stream. however.

Rahong. 1500 m Joneng. 700 m Nunuk Orong. 300 m. 900 m Karot. 600 m Lita. above 3500 ft. beach and dunes. Mano Nunang. 900m Lemboi. west Manggarai. coast Méléng Méngé Mengé-Ruda Mongu Luwa Montjok. 150m. north-east of Waé-Nénda Djoneng Endeh Ero Geli Moetoe Golo Léhot Golo -Karot. Leiden 80 (2006) Aimere. 20 m Nanga Ramau = Nanga Ramut Nanga Rema Nantal. 900 m Look = Loé = Looh. Todo Deno Desoe. coast (on maps Mborong!) Celebesbaai = Hading-baai Ceréng. Rahong Labuanbadjo = Laboean Badjo Lai. Ngkiong Nilo Nisar. Langkas Lingko Ncilor Lingko Ngkiong Lingko Ros Ling Ndela. Todo Lamé Larantoeka Laréng Pongkor. near Nisar Bara-Latji. coast Kenari (west coast). 550 m [nb. 5 m Look-Mabacone Lumu Madjung Mano Maro-Kama = Marokama. 600-800 m Mt. 50 m Kisol. 900 m Heret Hochwald zwischen Paku und Sok-Rutung Hotju. Borong Golo Mbélar Golo Rucuk Groot Bastaard = Geliting Besar Gurung. 300 m. Palué Lalang. (1996) and shown on their fig. Med. 650 m. ca. 50 m Kedindi. 1100 m Lawir Lamba-Leda Léma. Repok. 180 m Ntéwéng. 150 m Nempong Ngalor-Roga. 1. 350-400 m Paku. Ruteng. Maro Kama. Todo Lamba. 5 m Nggolong-Tédé. see Djoneng Kandang. 1200 m Badjo.Mees. Rahong. (Everett) Djinggor. Borong. Mukun Naga. 50/100 m. Zool. 250 m Lenteng Léong. L. Rahong Narang. Rahong Nggoang. 10 km East of Borong Mataloko = Toda-Belu Mata-Waé Maumeri Mbawa Mbépé. 850 m Nggoér. 0-200 m Badjar Badjawa. Avifauna of Flores. Orong. 3300 ft. Wangkung. Orong. 900 m Longko. 1700 m Mboera = Mburak Mborong = Borong. Tjongkar] Paku. Borong. 1900 m Ngkiong. Langkas. Mbelawang-Bach. 175 m Koting = Kotting Kuwu. see Tjeréng Dalo. 200 m Bari Bénténg Djawa Boa Waé Borong. Todo. Wélak. Lamba-Leda. 300 m (brook?) . beach. Rahong Dampék Déngé. Ruteng. Méngé Léwé Liang Bitu Lingko Cehet 229 Lingko Laring Pongkor (also Lareng) Lingko-Moak. 50 m Lo Kong. an Everett locality near Nanga Ramau recently visited by Butchart et al. ca. 250m Nanga-Lili = Nangalili. Langkas.

Biting. At the time of my retirement (1991). 610. Ruteng Rusa Radja = Paluë Ruteng/Kumba sawah Lanar Sésok. 900 m = Wai-Ntjuang Waé Radja. mountain lake. 2200 m Rana Kulan. 450 m. Kempo Rembong Rempo Rentung Lelak Réo (Weber) Repok. Ruteng. some material that had been received after my departure. and to complete the measuring of the eggs. A stay in Leiden in 1995 gave me an opportunity to study more literature. Palué 13. Méngé Raé Rahong. Rahong Todabelu = Todabeloe = Toda-Belu = Mataloko Todo. Med. Rahong Tjara. 400 m Waé-Wako. 1000 m. 700 m Tulang. 50 m. access to literature was limited and there was very little progress. Wangkung Rokka. ca. Repok Riung Robo Roka. Sections of the text were supplemented or revised. Kandang. Avifauna of Flores. In the following years. the tortured history of this paper began many years ago and progress was slow. 600 m Tjolol Tjumbi. 900 m Rana-Ka. ca. 1500 m Poéng. Leiden 80 (2006) Tjantjar. Langkas Tado Tado Walok. Borong Waé-Rukus = Ulu Waé Rukus Waé Rungget Waé Sano. 700 m Soa Soknar Sok-Rutung = Sokrutung. 1200 m Rua. near Lita Sita. Short descriptions of the . Borong Rana Mesé. Originally intended to include only discussions of some of the more interesting species collected by the Fathers. Lamba-Léda Wewak. see Mt. 20 m Waé Rambung Waé Rembong Waé Rempo Waé Rétja = Waé Réca. after my departure for Australia.230 Palué = Paloë = Paluë = Paloweh = Rusa Radja Pangabatang Pangkor = Pongkor? Papagaran PocoLareng. 1400-1600 m. ca. Ruteng Wesang. Zool. and a draft of the text had been written. Ruteng. Nisar Waé-Mulu Waé-Ntjuang. Rahong Watuneso Weleng. Rahong Tjeréng. 1700 m Tendo. Potjong Ulu Ros Ulu Tukenikit = Ulu Tuké Nikit Ulu Wae Wua Waé Djamal Waé Golo Lolo Waé Guang Waé Hiam Waé Laci Waé Lega Waé-Mésé. Ruteng. 700 m. 650 m Waé Tua. it soon became clear that only a full report would do justice to their work. 400 m Wodja. Postscript As mentioned in the introduction. 400 m Rana Loba. 150-200 m Wai Moké. 50 m Suma. south coast of middle Flores Wangkung = Wang keng. Poco Nernancang. Langkas. 900 m Sikka = Sika Siru. 1200-1400 m Rekas. Ruteng Mees. all measurements of bird specimens and a proportion of those of the eggs had been taken. near Endeh Rowang.

Leiden 80 (2006) 231 eggs were added. Oceanites oeceanicus. Numenius minutus. Perhaps predictably this went less well than I had hoped and delays led to an increasing doubt that my paper would ever be published. many common migrants and other regular visitors had not yet been recorded for the simple reason that nobody had bothered about them. Oceanodroma matusudairae. but for the reason just stated I lacked the motivation. In its introduction it states somewhat scathingly that: “Two missionaries made anecdotal observations on Flores”.Mees. but there is every reason to return to this subject. from which measurements were taken. When at the end of this visit I left Leiden for good. My problem with field-observations was a different one. Pluvialis squatarola. (1996). He took a very strict view. The supplementary list of birds from Flores. but Father Verheijen’s other publications are conveniently ignored. Zool. Charadrius dubius. that complete and partial copies were made available to several persons showing an interest: in that way I hoped that my efforts would not be entirely wasted. of these four. and which provided the basis for systematic and zoogeographical discussions. These comments are not intended as unkindness. In the introduction I have discussed the question of how to treat additions to the Flores avifauna based on undocumented field-observations. The paper by Ottow & Verheijen (1969) is also mentioned. to apply to observations of such birds the standards required in the West Indies (leave alone Europe and North America). Clearly field-observations would not contribute much to these particular subjects. Obviously. Sula dactylatra. Anas querquedula. Indeed. indeed it would be slightly silly. a strange remark when their text and their list of references show that they had full access to Father Schmutz’s notes. Puffinus pacificus. Bulweria bulwerii. However. Numenius madagas- . Charadrius mongolus. the work was in a computer. Aythya australis. All these years. It was also as I despaired of ever seeing it published. my manuscript was getting more and more out of date. so that records in these groups were confined to the odd specimen taken accidentally. Plegadis falcinellus. and to make any further additions and corrections required. Phaethon lepturus. and that he had been unaware that it was in preparation. through the courtesy of Dr Dekker. which is. three had already been recorded many years before by the Fathers. being of a species previously known from Sumbawa. my paper is about collections. but merely to emphasise the need for the Flores collections in Leiden to be made more widely known. There is no need. van der Land most generously offered to take care of it. and I had no difficulty accepting the remaining one (Hieraaetus kieneri) as it was not unexpected. Fregata minor. probably right for the West Indies. Falco peregrinus. The first of these papers to reach me. Med. Dr Dekker informed me that before its publication there had been no contact with Leiden. Sula sula. to end such underestimation of their extent and value. Puffinus leucomelas. was the one by Butchart et al. the beginning was inauspicious: Verhoeye & King (1990) and King (1990) recorded four species as “new to Flores”. Charadrius peronii. but this task was not completed and could not be completed later for the obvious reason that I had no longer access to the collections. that arose only in the nineties. In this period several papers appeared which would have made extensive re-writing necessary. and was even then. Bond (1963) was plagued by it forty years ago. as presented by Verhoeye & Holmes (1998). Avifauna of Flores. Fulica atra. but not necessarily for the less known Lesser Sunda Islands. Nettapus pulchellus. In the West Indies. with some corrections made by me. follows. and my colleague Dr J.

Plegadis falcinellus: previously known from Java. which might be a resident. Falco peregrinus: this species would be expected as a migrant visitor from the North. somehow. Sulawesi (Celebes) and Australia. Tringa totanus. Sterna hirundo. Avifauna of Flores.v. Calidris acuminata. Charadrius dubius was to be expected. most additions are of migrant waders from the Northern Hemisphere. as I pointed out before (Mees. but only that the evidence presented is not of sufficient quality to be completely convincing (Hoogerwerf himself listed the record with a query). so that the record from Flores fills a gap of its range as hitherto known. Zool. Since then. however. Arenaria interpres. Sterna anaethetus. This was based on information supplied by Deignan in Smythies (1960 and subsequent editions). Sterna fuscata. peronii. and widely-ranging tropical seabirds: neither of these two categories is of much zoogeographical interest and they do not require a discussion. would have been welcome. Stercorarius parasiticus. some basic information. Apus affinis. but the observers state expressly that the bird seen was dark-breasted. In my previous review (1982a: 54) I claimed that the tropical subspecies (jerdoni and nominate dubius) have even in the immature plumage a black pectoral band. already known from Java and Timor. proving the existence of a juvenile plumage. such as whether the birds were in summer or winter plumage. 1984b). As was to be expected. Tringa stagnatilis. suggesting the subspecies ernesti. Although this list of 41 species is impressive. perhaps its most striking feature is that there is not a single Passerine bird in it. Another small error in my 1982a paper is the statement that there are no specimens of the subspecies jerdoni in the Leiden collection: several years after the publication of that paper I discovered that. Sterna sumatrana. and this bird has a brown breast band. although there are no skins. Alcedo beryllina: a single individual as observed in the mangrove at Riung on 5 and . Stercorarius pomarinus. Caloenas nicobarica. I had not personally examined any juvenile birds. but in view of the late date (29. I had managed to overlook. Calidris ferruginea. 1982a. Ducula bicolor. Chlidonias leucopterus. It should be kept in mind that all these records were presented without any details of identification. Xenus cinereus. It is perhaps not superfluous to mention here that when I do not accept a record this does not necessarily mean that it is erroneous. This leaves the following records of note. I received a juvenile specimen of jerdoni on loan from the Bombay Natural History Society.232 Mees. Apus affinis is a genuine addition to the resident avifauna of Flores. Ducula bicolor: Additional observations supporting Hoogerwerf’s questionable record are welcome. whether it has been overlooked previously or is a recent colonist is a point not discussed by the observers. In the present case I cannot help adding that the notes provided by Hoogerwerf are better than those presented by Verhoeye & Holmes.1993) and the fact that no less than eight individuals were observed. Alcedo beryllina. Descriptions of the plumages of this species in the literature are often misleading. Tringa brevipes. Nettapus pulchellus: unexpected. Leiden 80 (2006) cariensis. and an assurance that there was no possibility of confusion with C. as records were hitherto confined to Australia and southern New Guinea. there are several mounted specimens in the old collection which. but consider it very likely. I cannot say whether nominate dubius has a similar juvenile plumage. so that an evaluation is impossible. Glareola maldivarum. confirming that this group of birds is now well known. Med. Gelochilidon nilotica.

.— Zeitschr. 14. 1951. Hooijer. 1940b.. Bird observations on Bali. Bemmel. Jr.. Bemmel. Amadon.. Notes on some nonpasserine genera. 1564: 1-16. R. Zool.. This species is well distributed on Sumbawa. Notes on some birds of Timor. European news. C. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Vogelfauna von Celebes. Celebes. 1986. D.viii. van. Amadon. Beehler. & C..— J.— Brit. Violani.F. also 218-221. 1986. D. H.Mees. M. 1964.— Trop. Orn. 1948. 1946. III.— Orn. Bombay Nat. 22: 125-126. 1938. 1940. 1973. 1929. Nat. van & A. van. 1883. Ash.V. 21: 212-215. Nat. 47: 152-153.— Auk 63: 541-559. Nomencl. Med. van & A. 1989. Hist. On the birds of the islands of Muna and Buton. & J. Hawks and owls of the World. Amaral.— Kukila 4: 44-46. De Kaneelkleurige Reiger.G.— Boll. A. Bartels.. F. 1946. van.— Orn. 1939. Birds 91: 38-57. Notes on the Mathews collection of Australian birds.CV. It was either a migrant from Sumbawa or belonged to a local breeding population. 1888. Davies & P. 1914.M. Bartels. Brit.— Ornis 4: 527-646. Faune de l’Empire Français IV: 83 p. Bingham.. 27: 138-140. Blakers. Barbagli.V.— Amer. Melbourne University Press: xlvi + 738 p.S. ges. A faunal list of the birds of the Moluccan Islands.C. Bemmel. Andrew... Mber. Bemmel. Blasius. 1943. & D. Neues aus Java. 1990. Audley-Charles. Avifauna of Flores. & G. Oiseaux de la Réunion. Tafl.J.— Ardea 48: 178-182. van & K. M. Cl. Zool. A. W. Additional notes on the birds of Tenasserim and specially on those of the Thoungyeen valley. J.. Stresemann. Calls of Pacific Golden Plovers.. Balen.V. Novit. Een zeldzame trekvogel.G. Torino 15: 25-33. Ixobrychus cinnamomeus (Gm. Twee snippen. la.R. J. D. 1880. Alström.— Treubia 17: 333-335. 3: 295-357. pl. Soc..A.V. The birds of Goenoeng Api. 3: 81-179. Ornithologische Notizen I-III. Bemmel. -– Treubia 17: 421-472.— Brit. D. Bemmel. do.. 3: 1-359. B. Über eine anscheinend neue Art Dicaeum von Java..J. Notes on Philippine birds. Found. van. A. Kansas Publ. 104: 24-35. T. f. 1940a... Gender of generic names ending in -ops. Baker. Voous. evolution. M. Compost. W. 31: 54-57. Zimmerman.— Trop. M. 56: 344-346. Orn.— Univ. Amadon.— Treubia 21: 27-104. 29: 35-36. 17-34. Princeton University Press: xv + 293 p.— Treubia 19: 323-402. D. & E. J. Remarks on the subspecies of the Grass Owl. Blasius. Hist. Zool. D..V. Notes on some Australian birds of prey. Sci. A. 52. an annotated list of species. 31: 113-162. its origin. 1984. Vogelwaarnemingen in Nieuw-Guinea. 1960.). IV. Relations of Pleistocene migrations of pygmy stegodonts to island arc tectonics in eastern Indonesia. Orn. Mus. Tyto capensis. 1959.C. 1951. Assem. Amadon. Canaries in Tuscany. Bull. Woolfenden.. 1988. II. S. E.— Bull. Amadon. & G. and distribution. Nat. Birds of New Guinea. Mus.C. P. M. J.C.H. Reilly. 1941. West. 1941. The atlas of Australian birds.. The avifauna of Micronesia. Pratt & D.— Treubia 11: 89-146. Die Vögel von Gross-Sanghir. 1237: 1-22..— Nature 241: 197-198.K. A. 1998. A.. Mus. Birds collected during the Whitney South Sea Expedition. Mber. van.— Proc.1997. Systematische Übersicht der bisher von Java nachgewiesenen Vögel. The order Ciconiiformes. S. Leiden 80 (2006) 233 7. 1923. P.— Orn.— Emu 40: 365-384..— Bull. Hoogerwerf.— Amer.V. 1984.A. Birds 83: 70-72. Bartels Jr. Mber.F. S.— Stray Feathers 9: 138-198. 1952. Berlioz.C. Ueber neue und zweifelhafte Vögel von Celebes.— J. Reg. Blasius. Amadon. Vert. A.— Irena 1: 22-24. Eine neue Monarcha von der Insel Boano. 55 pl. 3. Bibliography and references Anon. Bastide.— Kukila 2: 92-95.C. Jewett. 1997. van den.N. Overlooked evidence of the Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus on Java. A. W. by Pilgrim. Nat. Novit. Mus. 1886. Bemmel.

P.L.. and evolution of golden plovers (Pluvialis dominica and Pluvialis fulva). Paris: 734 + xci p. J.A. Bremen 5: 35-102. pl. Fauna Sinica. III. W. (in Chinese). 1963. & A. 1988. 1987.M. Chasen.— Isis (1844): Col.. Brisson. B. Ornithologische Sammlungen aus Celebes. F.. 14: 193-206.L. G. Eurobook: 1-216. T. Suppl. A synopsis of the avifauna of China. Burton. Collins. G. Bond.— Abh.— Notes Leyden Mus. Series Vertebrata. XVIII. 18 (1850): 279.— Ibis 97: 432-479.C. Boles.1978. Brown.— Bull.— Bird Conservation International 6: 335-370. L. fulva: evidence from the breeding grounds. Cheng. Ges. Christides. Cade. Beijing: xvii + 1218 p. Leiden 80 (2006) Boie. Indonesia.— Treubia 18. Zool. Büttikofer. Cheng. 1994. Boles.— Emu 88: 20-24. Butchart. IV.L. Coomans de Ruiter. Brouwer. Comments on the subspecies of Australian native and introduced finches. The falcons of the world. Historische gegevens over onze vroegere ornithologen en over de avifauna van Nederland. M. Bonaparte. Beiträge zur Ornithologie von Celebes und Sangir. Sutter. Distributional list of Chinese birds. etc. Ergebnisse 3: 269-306. Leuser expedition 1937 to north Sumatra. J.— Auk 110: 9-20. On a collection of birds from the islands of Flores. 164-198.. Melbourne: iv + 112 p. Cl. McCaffary & J.T. Basel 62: 181-217. Taf.. hawks and falcons of the world. 4 November 1991. RAOU. Owls of the world. 1975. 1968. RAOU. & D. Checklist of the birds of Australia. 1852.— Volkskrant. T. 1941. Part 1.— Org.. T. Bühler. Zeldzame vogel vermoord door twee onderzoekers. Zool. & F. Vogelwaarnemingen gedurende een tocht door het Toradjagebergte. Büttikofer. J. Natuur 50: 61-66. Taf. L. Non-Passerines.. distribution. J. Country Life Books / Feltham.E. 1996. F. Lond. 1760..: 1-183 + index. Ned.E.N. Sumba and Roti. Heine.. G.W..J. D. Vogelk. Condon. Middlesex.— Lev.G.: 1-125. Melbourne: xx + 311 p. Philadelphia: 11 p.— Ardea 41:1-225. Nat. XVII. The birds of the Netherlands Indian Mt. Cheng. Ver. Chasen.— Notes Leyden Mus. 1947. J. Beijing: xvi + 1223 p.— Zool. Sci.. Saleyer und Flores. Sahu. Ornithologie 3. Raffles Mus. C. Connors. J. Pluvialis dominica and P.J.. The taxonomy and species of birds of Australia and its territories. 1-8. Acad. Eighth supplement to the Check-list of birds of the West Indies (1956). H. van den. 1860. Cain... II: Schreivögel: 1-176. Reisebericht und allgemeine Einführung. Museum Heineanum. F. Peking: vi + 203 p. Academia Sinica... & E. L. Hoogerwerf. Sumba-Expedition des Museums für Volkenkunde und des Naturhistorischen Museums in Basel.. 1935.H. 1891. 1951. F. 1982.— Verh. 9: 34-52. T. Soc. Aves 4: Galliformes. A revision of Trichoglossus haematodus and of the Australian Platycercine parrots. 1892. On a collection of birds from Flores. Eagles. Med. et al.M. T. Auszüge aus dem “System der Ornithologie”.... . Dutson. Speciation in golden-plovers. 1973. Avifauna of Flores. Coomans de Ruiter.. Monograph 2. C. I-VI. Peter Lowe. Brooks. Dharmaputra. 1993..— Auk 100: 607-620.H. Broek. London. 2 vols: 1-945.234 Mees. Maron. Taxonomy. 1954. L. Büttikofer. 1955. Naturf.G. Lowen & A. The conservation status of forest birds on Flores and Sumbawa. Cabanis. Brüggemann.J. Samao and Timor.H.N. pl. 1936. 1991. 11: xx + 389 p.— Proc. Science Publishing House. A. 10 pl.A.. 1976. Descriptions of two new species of oriole.N.C. Oölogische en biologische aanteekeningen van eenige roofvogels in de westerafdeeling van Borneo. & W. Davies. J.. 13: 210-216. 1876. 1983. P. A handlist of Malaysian birds. 1894. Amadon. S.H. A. map. Connors. naturwiss. 1949. 1844.

. 1955... The subspecific name of the Malayan Green Imperial Pigeon (Docula aenea). Cooper. pl..H.. Delacour. J. et al. A.Mees. Birds of Malaysia. Stadsvogels van Makassar (Zuid-Celebes)..: xii + 166 p. A new race of the Hawk-Owl.): Check-list of birds of the world 10: 240-427. 226: i-x. Bull. 1977. Delacour. The waterfowl of the world 2. Orn.G. 1948a. Beteekenis en etymologie van de wetenschappelijke namen der Nederlandsche vogels.. 1948b. 1947b.P. L. + frontesp. 108 pl. Studies of Mascarene island birds. Gender agreement of avian species names. 1960. 1951. the Middle East and North Africa III .G.. & K. S.— Bull.. J. N. 1954..— Bull. 2: i-x. L. W. L. 1954. London: 232 p.E. 12: vii + 438 p. Melbourne: vi + 168 p. H. Cambridge: 458 p. Orn.). . 2000. Cramp. & L. 1942-1943. Mayr & R. Maurenbrecher. Diamond. Cramp.. Soc. Cl. L. Delacour.G. The supposed significance of originally capitalized species-group names. Deignan. 1948. Country Life. the Middle East and North Africa V . J. Paynter (eds. Delacour. Bull.. Mayr.— Limosa 21: 69-83. J.. Coomans de Ruiter. Checklist of the birds of Thailand. London: 284 p.M. Trekvogels van Sulawesi (Celebes). S. from the Philippines. Macmillan. Guide des oiseaux de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et de ses dépendances.— Auk 64: 129. pl. Gosselin. Mus.. The waterfowl of world. Deignan. Wash.— Sarawak Mus. A review of smaller Philippine swiftlets of the genus Collocalia. Birds of the Philippines. Coomans de Ruiter.. Avifauna of the eastern highlands of New Guinea. + frontesp.) 34: 67-96. Deignan. 84 pl. David. 1-406. J.. In: E. Oxford University Press: viii + 913 p. H. Notes on the taxonomy of the birds of Malaysia. Delacour. Searle & Rivington. S. London: vol. Waarnemingen van steltlopers (Gressores) in Zuid-Celebes. 1966.— Sarawak Mus. 105 pl. N. 1988..C. 1964. J.. The bush-warblers of the genera Cettia and Bradypterus with notes on allied genera and species. Marston. Vogels van het dal van de Bodjo-rivier (Zuid-Celebes).. Country Life. Gosselin. IV-VIII. R.M. Oxford University Press: ix + 722 p.G. Cl. Publ. Macmillan. 85: 27-40. Ninox scutulata.— U. 221: ix + 718 p. 1947a. Avifauna of Flores. L. Deignan. Coomans de Ruiter. J. 1. J. Zool. 1951. E. 1948.K. S. Delacour. XXIII pl. Nat. Leiden 80 (2006) 235 Coomans de Ruiter. 1961. & E.A. J.— Penggemar Alam (Trop. in het bijzonder van het blauw-witte reigertje. Brit. Subfamily Timaliinae.. & M.F. H.Tyrantflycatchers to thrushes. 1987... Nat. David. On the zoogeography of Java. Nat.— Ibis (14) 6: 509-519. III. Handbook of the birds of Europe. Vogelk. vol. Oxford University Press: viii + 1063 p.— Ardea 36: 61-70. 1946. Type specimens of birds in the United States National Museum.. d’Albertis. Notophoyx picata (Gould).. Club Ned.— Treubia 11: 1-88. New York: xv + 309 p.W. Dickinson.L. H.L. Dammerman. Sampson Low. Coomans de Ruiter. Med. Brit. Handbook of the birds of Europe. Cl. Delacour. 1963.. XV pl. 120: 261-266. 1-424. H. Deignan. 1929. Mus. Delacour. 6 (1954): 129-132.. New York: xvi + 382 p. Hoogerwerf en wijlen Jhr Mr G. 1989.A. van Heurn & W.C. J. Nuttall Orn. J. H. 1983. L. K.W.Waders to gullss.— U. Deignan. Coomans de Ruiter. & M. Nog enkele opmerkingen naar aanleiding van de “Avifauna van Batavia en omstreken” van A. Simmons (eds.. Harry Cusheir Raven’s travels in eastern Borneo..— Ardea 36: 163-198. Bird Obervers Club. The glossy starlings (Aplonis) of Borneo. Cramp. 1880. Rengers Hora Siccama. 1-263. Neuchâtel: 172 p.— Ardea 39: 261-318.— Forktail 5: 23-34. 1946. 1972. Handbook of the birds of Europe... Diamond. 1956. et al. 64: 41-42. the Middle East and North Africa I. New Guinea: what I did and what I saw..— Zoologica 31: 1-8. 2002. L. 9 (1959): 267269. 122: 1449. Kraak.G. S. 1975. 1: i-x. Wilson’s Promontary National Park and its avifauna.W..G.— Proc. Biol.

1901a.E. Orn.H.— Notes Leyden Mus. Friedmann.O. J. H. Finsch. Kingfishers and related birds.. Adelaide. Finsch. Brit.U. 1968. pl. The birds of the Philippines.C. 1971b. O. Hybridization and migration in Australian populations of the Little and Rufous-breasted Bronze-Cuckoos. F. Coraciidae.. Parkes. 1956. Zool. Delaware Mus.I. (editor). 9. 20: 73. Pap. J. Cl... Hodgs. Complete book of Australian birds.M. 1900. S. Hist.— Nemouria 40: 1-15. R. Holmes. 1982. 10: 381-415. O.) und die verwandten Arten. 1901c. Frith & J. W. Lond. Dresden 34: 127133. The evolutionary history of the avian genus Chrysococcyx.— Bull. Phoeniculidae. Philippine birds. O. Paris: 586 p. 1905. etc. Etchécopar. melanoleuca.C. Erritzoe. R. I.M. 1995. Eulen. Eck.S. LXXIX-C. Nieuwenhuis. Leiden: viii + 999 p. Finsch. Galbraith.M. W.. (Nat. Escott.M. Northern Territory of Australia.W.. Techn. incl.— Zool. Birds. Systematische Uebersicht der Vögel der Südwest-Inseln. Forshaw. Finsch.J. Brit. & F.J. 265: i-viii.R. Check-list No.— CSIRO Div. 1976. wings and flanks of the Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa.R. O.— Notes Leyden Mus.M. The avifauna of Sulawesi. Ford. O. Finsch. Eck. Ueber eine dritte Sendung Vogelbälge aus Central-Borneo (Mahakkam). Sharpe and M.— Proc.. Parrots of the world.— B. 2: × + 480 p. 1981. Sula-Inseln.. 1985.J.— Nemouria 3: 1-6. Melbourne.. Bull.— Bull. Calaby (eds.. hauptsächlich vom oberen Mahakam und Kajan. 1937.). 1980. J.. Finsch.— Notes Leyden Mus. 1).. inc. C. 1974.— Rec. Melbourne: 584 p. Frith. H. Zool. etc. Rigby.. H.— Emu 81: 209-222. Leiden 80 (2006) Dickinson. Monogr. Follett. Ueber Scops magicus (S. Avifauna of Flores. gesammelt von Herrn Dr A. J. Forshaw. 22: 75-161. On the identity of Muscicapula westermanni. 1977.: 285-564. Dempster. O. duPont. Upupidae. 1977.J. Hitchcock. Die Papageien 2. 1898b. Lansdowne Ed. Mus. Soc. 1963.. J. Abh.J. Duncan. 22: 193224. Busse.. Zur Catalogisirung der ornithologischen Abtheilung. pl. 1868. Notes on the colours of the legs. 1979. Leptosomatidae.: 304 p. Med. 1973. 1983.— Emu 79: 143-146. . & L. J. Variation.: 1-252. J. Neue Brehm-Bücherei 469: 196 p. 22: 163-178. erg. Non passereaux. In H.236 Mees. & W. Garnett. Reader’s Digest. Kingfishers and related birds.. Aufl. Muscicapidae). duPont. 1901b.E. 1993. Frith.J. Nat. Eskell.A. Taxonomic notes on some mangrove-inhabiting birds in Australia. Ergänzendes über die Vögel der Insel Taliabu. Lansdowne. Wildl. 1-137. Lansdowne Ed. 12: 507 p. Hüe..J. 107A: 71-84. relationships and evolution in the Pachycephala pectoralis superspecies (Aves. 1978. 28: 109-178. etc. Ornithologische Ergebnisse. Mus. Forshaw. Pigeons and doves of Australia. 22: 225-309.: 1-284. Nieuwenhuis’: Forschungsreisen in Niederländisch Borneo. Alcedinidae: Ceryle to Cittura. 1991.W. 2. Dr A. Finsch. A small collection of birds from the Philippines with notes on body mass. Ford.— Notes Leyden Mus. etc. I-XXVI. 4: 131-222.— Bull.B. distribution and habitat. Les oiseaux de Chine. incl. Res.): Fauna survey of the Port Essington district.— Notes Leyden Mus. & D. Kennedy & K. 1898a. pl. S. Cobourg Peninsula. Notes on Philippine birds (No. Nomencl. 10.. On the dates of publication of the Society’s ‘Proceedings’... Frith. Lansdowne Ed. E.D. Alcedinidae: Halcyon to Tanysiptera. etc. J. Austr. 20: 93-96.. XXVII-LII. 20: 163-184. O. (editor). pl. Request for amendment of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to provide a single gender for all generic names ending in -ops. Zool. Indonesia: faunistic notes and additions. R.C. Finsch.. Sydney: 615 p. 1971a. 26: 1-154. S.. Mus.— Notes Leyden Mus. Kingfishers and related birds. 1983. U.. Sydney.— Notes Leyden Mus.. Zur Catalogisirung der Ornithologischen Abtheilung V. Forshaw. J. H. Müll. & H. 100: 189-194. & S. Zool. Sydney. O.

. (2nd.— Ark. Hartert... 1955. London: vi + 446 p. Greenway..B. Gould.) 12: 66 p. Birds of Tasmania (4th ed. Birds of Tasmania. 1898c. Part I. An account of the collections of birds made by Mr William Doherty in the Eastern Archipelago. 1898a.A. Hist.. ed. In B..J. Hartert. Galbraith. 1967.. Account of the birds collected in Sumba by Alfred Everett and his native hunters. Academic Press. Gill. On the birds of Lomblen. Amer. 1838b..Mees. Orn. 5: 42-50.J.J. 1962-70: 244-264. Wiesbaden: 509-1184. Birds collected by Dr Sten Bergman during his expedition to Dutch New Guinea 1948-1949. B.. Mayr & J. Greenway. Hartert. J. Glutz von Blotzheim.H.— Bull. E. Family Oriolidae. Hall (ed. 1975. Nomencl. On the birds collected by Mr Everett in south Flores. 1978. Green.P. J.C. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas 10/II. Parker. (2) 8: 183-397. J. xii.N. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft. Intra-island variation in the Mascarene white-eye Zosterops borbonica. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft...O. Gould. 4: 513528. AULA-Verlag.C. 1848. Hancock. J. pectoralis.. The birds of Australia I. Part 1. Handbook of the birds of Australia I.). Monogr. Griffin. Harrison. I. C. 1896. E.J. 1978.— Novit. Descriptions of seven new species of birds and one new subspecies from Flores. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.): Check-list of birds of the world 15: 122-137. Zool. 1897b. Elliott. I. 21: 217-218. Zool. D. 1973.. Estrildid finches of the world.H. Zool. 1962.): Birds of the Harold Hall Australian expeditions. 1993. Wiesbaden: 840 p. Zool.. The Black-tailed and Robust Whistlers Pachycephala melanura as a species distinct from the Golden Whistler P. London 5 (1837): 138-157. Glutz von Blotzheim. Nat.— Novit. 1860. Author/London: no pagination. Zool. J.. 4: 170-172. 1983.— N. f. pl. Launceston: xiv + 68 p. 5: 466-476. Synops.. Med. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas 13/III. Goodwin. E.C.).Z. Pachycephalidae. In E. 1973.— Bull... 3: 537-590.. The birds of Asia. 1898d. Zool. 1967.A. 1964. London etc.. with text. Hist. J. 1898b.Rallidae. all collected by Mr Alfred Everett.: vi + 385 p. Glutz von Blotzheim. J. The herons handbook. Tinamidae..— Proc. Green. Type specimens of birds in the American Museum of Natural History. Pantar.C.. List of birds collected in Timor by Mr Alfred Everett. 1985. I. 1977. Launceston: xvi + 84 p.... R. (A. 1838a. Morphology and migration of Chrysococcyx lucidus. On the birds collected by Mr Everett in south Flores.. an Australasian cuckoo. pl. Orn. Amer. E. 1992. Soc. Croom Helm. Gyldenstolpe. Pigeons and doves of the world. Storks. Kushlan & M. III: pl. Author/London: no pagination. Zool. Zool. Zool. Greenway. Gould. Picidae. Zool. 1993. vol.— Novit. London Editions: 304 p.— Novit. 1984. Hartert.C.C. Characters of a large number of new species of Australian birds. 1897a.J. Rouget’s Rail.O. Gould.. F. & S.P. xi. Part 2. J. London & Oxford: 328 p.— Novit. ibises and spoonbills of the world.N. & J. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas 8/II. Otididae.. and of one new subspecies from Djampea. Wiesbaden: 1367-2178. J.— Bull. 161: 1-305. U. 10: 371-381. 1982. 1982. E. Cl. Avifauna of Flores. J. Part II. 1970. I-VI. E. Hartert.— Emu 66: 289-294.— Bull. Gill. Hartert. 87: 14-16. and Alor. J. 5: 455-465. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas 6. U. 1865.. Gould. J. R. Kushlan. Nat. Leiden 80 (2006) 237 Galbraith. U.A.— Novit. Glutz von Blotzheim. Kahl. Goodwin. Potoroo Publishing. Birds Austr.N.. 1974. Mus. Hancock. N. Brit. Hartert. 5: 111-124. The eggs of Woodford’s Rail. Wiesbaden: 709-1270. Zool. 150: 207-345.. and the Malayan Banded Crake. The herons of the world. U.. .U. E. Mus.. Zool.N. Type specimens of birds in the American Museum of Natural History.— Novit. Greenway (eds. D.. London & Sydney: 288 p. J. Comments on the gender of generic names ending in -ops. & H. Author/London: viii + 636 p. Hancock.

(2)48: 924-930. A. Batavia: 316-333. and Ducula problematica Rensch from Sumba. E. Med. 1-112. Hartert. 1976. Austr.— Limosa 26 (1953): 71-79. E. Een bezoek aan het natuurmonument Goenoeng Api in de Banda Zee.). Hartert. Cl. Holmes. A new race of the Spotted Munia. Liste der Vögel aus Neuguinea im Buitenzorger Museum in Java. 97: 68-71. Enkele aanvullingen op de “Avifauna van Batavia en omstreken”. Nat. Elfde Verslag (1936-1938). Handbook of Australian. 1939. Xxi pl.6 Juli 1953. Harvey. Ned...— Limosa 10: 1-11. Brit. . pl. Hoogerwerf. W. 1962. Hoogerwerf. Ned. A. Novit. Zool.. 1931. Davies (eds. 1937. Zool.— W. Hoogerwerf. Padar en Rintja..) als broedvogel in West-Java gedurende 1952. W. 1949b. Contribution to the knowledge of the distribution of birds on the island of Java. Bijdrage tot de oölogie van Java. 1954a. A.— Novit. E.-Ind. & S. 1967. Hartert. Cl. 3 Snipe to pigeons. 3.F.). Die Avifauna von Timor. & F.J. 83: 36-40. A. Kisser. Hoogerwerf.A. II. Die Vögel der Paläarktischen Fauna... Nat. Higgins.. Hellmayr. Brit. Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna III (Heft 18.. C. Indonesia. Copenhagen decisions on zoological nomenclature: xxix + 135 p.. Hassell. E. 1953. Hoogerwerf. Ornithologische merkwaardigheden in de Brantas-delta. Rapport over een naar Komodo. 1932. 1922.. Zool. Steinbacher. C. 1963a.C.N. Ind. pl. A. Orn. van.G. W. Faunistic notes and further additions to the Sumatran avifauna. 1904. Tijdschr. 24: 89-96. E.— Limosa 28 (1955): 96-112. Hoogerwerf. 25: 346-348. A. A further contribution to our oological knowledge of the island of Java (Indonesia)..— Bull. New Zealand & Antarctic birds. 1996. A. Padar en Rintja ( Kleine Sunda Eilanden) gemaakte dienstreis van 21 Mei . P. Holsworth. A. & D. Vluchtige zoölogische waarnemingen. Hartert. 96: 90-92. Hoogerwerf. Western Australia. Notes on some birds from Buru. Letti and Moa.. Hemming. Orn. E.. 1954b.Ph. De avifauna van Tjibodas en omgeving (Java). xiX pl. A. Birds collected during the Whitney South Sea expedition. April-Mei. Taf. Hoogerwerf.— Novit. 1949a. Hartert.). Austr. Notes on birds from the Solomon Islands.N. Leiden 80 (2006) Hartert. van. Orn. 92: 64-84. Roma. 1938. 1935.. K.. Heurn.A.— Nat.— 3 Jaren Indisch Natuurleven. Goodson.. W. Brit. A. I-XII. 1930. E. F. Zoologie von Timor 1: i-vi.J. Cl. Some ornithological notes on the smaller islands around Java (with the description of seven new subspecies). Hoogerwerf. Bogor: 263 p. Notes on Ducula aenea (Linn. Cl. Hoogerwerf.. particularly the population of the Kangean Archipelago.C. Verh. On the birds of the island of Babber. VIII. 60 pls. 1965. Hoogerwerf.238 Mees. 1914.— Tijdschr.J. A. Arctic Warbler at Broome: first mainland record. het land van Varanus komodoensis. 31: 104-111. E. 83: 120-125.— Treubia 19: 83-137. Nesting success of the Osprey on Rottnest Island. 1956. 11: 174-221. Mus. Enkele biologische aanteekeningen over de kleine zilverreiger. 13: 288-302. Ver.. Hoogerwerf.— Nova Guinea 15: 435-484.— Novit. Naar den Vuurberg... gedaan tijdens een kort verblijf op Timor en Flores.E. Zool. Reis-indrukken van een bioloog op Timor en Flores. Buitenzorg: 158 p. 1998. Hoogerwerf. A.— Amer. A. The birds of the South-West Islands Wetter.. Hellebrekers. 1918. Melbourne: 1028 p. 1932.. Additions to the avifaunas of Sumatra and Kalimantan. Avifauna of Flores. Notes on pigeons.. 1948b.— W. Oxford University Press.— Zool.). Phalacrocorax sulcirostris territori (Math. 1948a.. 1977.T..J. Egretta garzetta nigripes. D. 88: 1-164. 1924. (ed. Heurn. Ergänzungsband (Heft 6-7): 481602.G.— Trop.— Novit. In Haniel. 1929. tot Natuurbesch. & A. W.A. Hoogerwerf. 1.. Orn. Lonchura punctulata (Linn. 10: 13-15. Buitenzorg: 279 p. Zool. 364: Hartert.— Bull. Holmes.. 1963b.. & A.— Ardea 50: 180-206. 1906.— Bull.— Bull. Brit. Iets over de vogels van de eilanden Komodo. 19): 2149-2328. Bird Notes 85: 1-2.— Ardea 36: 52-61. Hartert.

New bird records from Biak Island.Aves. P.F. Orn. 1938. 1978..C.A.. 25: 46-56. 453-752.— Temminckia 2: 197-202.. Junge.C. G. Meded.. Non-Passeriformes. Hoogerwerf. Mayr & G. M. Notes on the distribution. 96: 220..— Zool.— Zool.. 1953. Quaternary mammals west and east of Wallace’s Line. Med. Orn. 1990. Leiden 80 (2006) 239 Hoogerwerf. Jollie.) 1: 425-506.C.. & Rev.. 1894. W. 1996. Barecelona: 1-759.A. pl.. On some strange birds from the islands of Komodo and Rintja between Sumbawa and Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands). London: xix-xxx. Perth: x + 436 p. Moore. 1984. A catalogue of the birds in the museum of the Hon. I-II. 1981. Junge. i-v. Johnstone.— Biologist 60: 73-108. Horsfield.C. Notes on the distribution and ecology of the Green-winged Pigeon Chalcophaps indica (Linnaeus) in Western Australia.. Lynx Edicions.. 1955. & G. Austr.. Flores-Barat.. Handbook of birds of the world. Austr. Further notes on the birds of Simalur. E.. A. 1956. Barecelona: 1-679.— Temminckia 1: 1-74. B. Lynx Edicions.s. W. A. Junge. Notes on Indonesian birds with special reference to the avifauna of Java and the surrounding small islands (III). 19: 339-349.A. E. 1937b.— Treubia 26: 133-157. Hist Bull. R. A. with comments on subspeciation in the Australian region.Mees. The birds of Sumbawa.E. Verh.— Neth. Roersma.— Misc. Part I. In E. Junge.): Check-list of birds of the world (2nd ed. A. D.— L’Ois. i-ix. ICZN.) auf Flores. Butchart. Rep. Junge. 1953. Notes on some Sumatran birds.A. Papua New Guinea. A.E.E.E..— Rec. No.— Treubia 26: 211-291. S. dengan keterangan-keterangan. 23: 9-65. 1998.. 1964. 20: 1-77. Avifauna of Flores. Kate. del. Sargatal (eds). 1997. J. Elliott & J. Zool. ed. & F. Johnstone. Mus.C. R. 4: 488-497. Handbook of Western Australian birds I.— W. 1936. Non Passeres.. Zoological results of the Dutch New Guinea expedition. Fr.A. Johnsgard. 5. ten.— Treubia 16: 339-356.): xx + 338 p. R. New subspecies of Lonchura spectabilis from East Sepik Province. del. Hooijer. Janssen.A. M. 29: 311-326. Phylogeny of the species of Corvus. Brit. Johnstone. Nat.C. Johnstone. d’Orn. f. 1969/1971.J.. 5. Junge.. R.— Nova Guinea (n. Storr. 34: 210-219. 1975. G. Code international de nomenclature zoologique / International code of zoological nomenclature: xvii + 176 p. Zool.— Nat. 447-500. On a collection of birds from Enggano. Observations of seabirds and shorebirds in Nusa Tenggara (Lesser Sundas) and Moluccas (Indonesia). ca.C.A. On the ornithology of the rhino sanctuary Udjung Kulon in West Java (Indonesia). P. . A. Austr. pl.— Zool. J. 16: 4-8. Leiden: 311 p. 1954. Peta Daerah Manggarai. Hoyo.— Rec. Yamashina Inst. 1858. Hoogerwerf.. Hoyo. Cl. Sargatal (eds). T. Handbook of the birds of the world. 1937a. 1963c.— J. A. 1963d. 24: 79-135. Western Australian Museum. 34: 231-237.A. G. 1979. 12 pl. Code international de nomenclature zoologique / International code of zoological nomenclature (3. ecology and taxonomy of the Red-crowned Pigeon (Ptilinopus regina) and Torres Strait Pigeon (Ducula bicolor) in Western Australia. Nusa Tenggara. 1961.— Dutch Birding 12: 22-25. Nat.. 1999.C. Johnstone. I-III. Austr. Prawiradilaga. Moyo and Sangeang islands. ICZN. Neuer Fund von Porzana fusca fusca (L. Junge.C. Notes sur le gobe-mouches á nuque noire Hypothymis azurea notamment des sous-espèces javana et prophata de l’Archipel Indonesien. 1994. Notes on Indonesian birds with special reference to the avifauna of Java and the surrounding islands (II).M. Mus. Notes on Ducula rosacea (Temminck) living on the Karimundjawa and Kangean Archipelagos.. Hoogerwerf. 1 kaart. Cottrell (eds. Order Anseriformes.. 1985. 18: 157-178. 1939.— Bull.— Ardea 41: 301-336. R.E. & H. G. J. 4. G. 83: 150-152. Jonkers. 1966. Indonesia. The birds of south New Guinea. Meded. A. Hoogerwerf. G.— W. 9: 7-22. Junge. Jepson. G.C. H. 1965.. Jany. 1948. East-India Company II. Lowen & D.. J. Elliott & J. Verslag eener reis in de Timorgroep en Polynesië. Brill.H.) 1: 125188.A. W. Ornithologisch onderzoek in de Indische Archipel. Hoogerwerf. G. Fauna Simalurensis . The birds.W. Siam Soc.

1940a. McKean. & F. Oxford & Edinburgh: xi + 404 p. Oxford University Press.G. J. Melbourne: 984 p. Kooiman. 1766. 1975. 14: 200.G. Brit. King. 68 pl. 1982.— Emu 96: 217-228.R. Aantalsontwikkeling van de Grote Zilverreiger Egretta alba in Nederland sinds 1970 in een Europees perspectief. Brit. 1978.— Limosa 70: 119-125. D. Tokyo: i-vi. I. Lynes.— Bull.. Recent extensions of breeding range of the Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis. Orn. Bij het nest van Monarcha trivirgata nigrimentum G. Birds of the Island of Java. 107: 23-25. Newsl. Leiden 80 (2006) Keast. A. 109: 162-166. Aanteekeningen omtrent de vogels van de Minahasa (N. 1-370. J. Dresden 34: 245-273.. J. Orn. Mus. B. Med. von. 1980.— B. 25: i-v.. Kooiman. I-XIV. Avifauna of Flores. XV-XXXIV. pl.T. 1990. Metallic Pigeon Columba vitiensis sighting on Flores.. O’Connor. Shorebirds in Australia: ix + 187 p.— Forktail 3: 61-63. 1940b. Mason & L. 1987..G. 1962. Some notes on the birds of Sulawesi (Celebes). 1988. J.. Marchant.— Limosa 13: 65-70. Linnaeus. The first record of the Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis from Australia.. . Mason.H..L. B. Bird speciation on the Australian Continent.O. & F. H. Check-list No.J. The status and conservation of the Sumatran Heron Ardea sumatrana. Marle.— Trop.U. 123: 303-495. E. R. van. Tokyo: ixv.— Kukila 4: 43-44... China. L. 1-412. Marchant.— Ardea 29: 98-108.. Nat. Molecular and osteological heron phylogenesis: sources of incongruence.G. Some new nesting records of padi-dwelling birds in Sabah. Zool.V. 1-673 and Pictures. Cl. I.O. 6: 248-267. Revision der Unterarten des Feldsperlings [Passer montanus (Linné.L. 1996. Pennsylvania: 151 p.— W.. Birds of the Island of Java II: Non-Passeres. C. R. J. York.A.. 1992.— Papua New Guinea Bird Soc. J. Voslamber.J. van der & B. 1987. Gray.: i-ii. Variation and speciation in the Australian Campephagidae (Passeres). London.. W.. 1993. 1971. & R. Orn. The avian genera Tesia and Urosphena. Review of the genus Cisticola. Systema naturae (ed. Kuroda. 2 Raptors to lapwings. Austr.— Heron Conservation Newsletter 5. 1961. with description of two new subspecies from Sulawesi and the Bismarck Archipelago. I: Passeres. Systematics of smaller Asian night birds based on voice.–– Limosa 13: 119-124.H. II: viii + 291 p. & P. Celebes) II. Lack. IV-VII. Mededeelingen over het voorkomen in Oost-Java van enkele voor dit gewest nog niet in de literatuur genoemde vogels. McCracken. R. McKean. 1978. The birds of northern Shantung Province.L. Comp.— Ibis (12) 6. Zool.A.A. 1930. J. K. Alfred Russel Wallace: letters and reminiscences. 1933.I. 1-58. Lansdown. Lieftinck.— Austr.. 1940a. LeFevre.O. 1987. Abh. 1876. Marle. J. M. J. J. Holmiae: 532 p. 1989.G.U. Aanteekeningen omtrent de vogels van de Minahasa (N. Zeldzame trekvogels.). Zool.— Bull.H. Kooij.— Auk 115: 127-141.O. 1940b. 1998. A. East Malaysia (North Borneo). Nat.. pl. an annotated check-list. King. Die Preussische Expedition nach Ost-Asien. H. McKean. Lane. 1758)].. I: i-xii. I: xii + 320 p.— Zool. J.. van.G. Marin. Taxonomic relationships of the White-rumped Kingfisher Caridonax fulgidus. Handbook of Australian. 1950. Celebes). The birds of Sumatra. B. 1997. Geographical differentiation in the Channel-billed Cuckoo Scythrops novaehollandiae Latham.H. pl... Voous. van & K. S. 1936. 371-794. 191-192: 12-17. J. Forrester. J. 10: 265 p. 12). Monogr. Keast. Sheldon. J. Suppl. 1989. Martens.— Ardea 38: 238-239. Ecological isolation in birds. M. Sheldon.A.— Emu 75: 62-64.V.240 Mees. Marle. Keve..— Kukila 5: 74.. Zool. 1916. Lansdown. N. McKean. N..— Bull. Birds not previously recorded from Timor. 1. Kuroda. Higgins (eds. Marshall.. 1958. J. 29: 122-123. Cl. Blackwell. New Zealand and Antarctic birds.

Meded.M. G. Mathews. A reference-list to the birds of Australia. G.A. Mathews. Mees.— Witherby & Co.. On Pachycephala melanura Gould. 1294: 1-12.F. 1941b.. Mayr. Mathews. Mayr... McKean. –– Ardea 42: 346–349. G. E. G.. A systematic review of the Indo-Australian Zosteropidae (Part II). Mees. Ueber einige Raubvügel der Kleinen Sunda-Inseln.: Ann. E. Berlin 59. Witherby & Co. Mber. Mees.— Mitt. Mees. Western Australia. Mayr.F. G. 1969. G. Rec. A list of the birds of Melville Island. A list of the birds of Australia. Wells. Zool.— Amer. Family Zosteropidae. Taxonomic status of the Timor cuckoo-shrike Coracina personata Müller. Notes on Australian birds (II). London: xi + 440 p. Hist. G. Systema avium Australasianarum. 1944a. Mayr. 45: 189-191. Vuilleumier. 44: 285-304. Systema avium Australasianarum. Mayr. Taylor and Francis. Northern Territory. Mathews. Family Estrildidae.— J..F.M. Nat.— Zool. G. G. I. R. Mees. 1979. 31: 139-203.. Orn. Zool. Med. Meded. 83: 123-194. 1915-1916. Avifauna of Flores.Mees. Mathews. Austr. 1983. Australia.— Zool. G. American Museum of Natural History.M. Traylor. Orn. 1961b. Ungelöste taxonomische Probleme der mongolischen Avifauna..F. Verh. Part II. Verh. f.M. The avifauna of Misool.— J. G. 1910-1912. I. 47: 91-96. pl. E. Mathews. 1. 124: 217232. W.F.— Zool. B. 1954. 1971b.— Emu 44: 113-130.— Amer. A systematic review of the Indo-Australian Zosteropidae (Part III).. 1982...— Zool. Lord & D. Brit. E. . Mees. In M. Family Pittidae. Notes on the birds of northern Melanesia. London: i-iv..J & J. –– Zool. E.. Roy. Cl.F. 1964b. Novit. G.F... 1961a. 1930. 1944b. Müller) en Cacomantis merulinus lanceolatus (S.. III-VI. Novit.A. 1947.. 18: 171-656. Soc.L. 55.. 1967... Notes on New Guinea birds...— Austral Av. 2: 117-121.O. 49: 42-47. 1927.. Verh. In R.— Amer. 1937. Mees. In R.— Ibis (10) 2: 91-132. New species of birds described from 1966 to 1975.. & F. Mayr. G. Mayr. Paynter (ed. Timor and the colonization of Australia by birds. Mees. Mayr. 4271047..U. Mus. 7: 47-83. I-IV. Leiden 80 (2006) 241 Mason.F.M. Roy.. 1970.R. Mus.F.— Emu 43: 3-17. Mauersberger. Mus. Traylor (ed. 45: 225-244..): Check-list of birds of the world 14: 306-389. G. 1913. Mayr.): Check-list of birds of the world 8: 310-329. The birds of the Malay Peninsula 5.— Bull. E. London: xxvii + 453 p. Amadon. Orn. Soc. The birds of Australia 5. Mus. 3: 134-138. G.. A review of the Dicaeidae. 65: 1-62. Geographical variation and distribution of some birds from Western Australia. A revision of the Australian owls (Strigidae and Tytonidae). Novit. E..M.— Zool. 1360: 1-32. –– Austral Av. List of New Guinea birds. G. G. 1943. 102: 127-129. 102: 1390. E. E. 1-426. Part I. 1912.F. Mees. Suppl. Mees. 1968. 50: 1168.— J.. Mees. 1964a. Birds collected during the Whitney South Sea expedition XXXIII.A. Zool.— Novit. Amer. Notes on two small collections of birds from New Guinea.— Bull. 1971a. E. pl. 66: 1-37. G. London: xxxi + 448 p. Mayr. Zool. Systematic and faunistic remarks on birds from Borneo and Java. Paynter & M. Mayr. Mathews.): Check-list of birds of the world 12: 289-326. 1983. 1914a. 1915: 1-19. Austr.A. Notes on some birds from the island of Formosa (Taiwan). 1918. Mees. 1964c.M. & D. The birds of Timor and Sumba. Paynter (ed. Mathews.M. On the species and subspecies of the genus Fregata..M. 44: 97-143. G..A.. G.F. Meded.— Zool. 24 pl. The Philippine subspecies of Centropus bengalensis (Gmelin) (Aves. E. Rec.. De geluiden van Cacomantis variolosus sepulcralis (S. 1914b. G. E. The birds of Australia 1.— Zool. 1965.London: xiv + 301 p. 1957. Mayr. Verh. An annotated catalogue of a collection of bird-skins from West Pilbara. Mus. New York: xi + 260 p. Müller).— Orn.— Nova Guinea. 1945. A systematic review of the Indo-Australian Zosteropidae (Part I). Medway. W. G. 35: 1204.. Mathews.. Verh. Cuculidae). London: i-xvii. 1976.. Birds collected during the Whitney South Sea expedition.F. Witherby & Co. Witherby. 1941a.

J. Wetensch. Mus. Mees.F. Mees. W. Cl. Heij.F. Moeliker. Friedländer/Berlin: xxxii + 130 + 962 p. Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw–Guinea in 1828. composing the family Loriidae. Lesser Sunda Islands.W.W. Corrigendum. G.. 1912. A new subspecies of Accipiter virgatus (Temminck) from Flores. 40: 1-64. Moreau. 1984a. Birds from the lowlands of southern New Guinea (Merauke and Koembe).F. A list of the birds known from Roti and adjacent islets (Lesser Sunda Islands). Meded.f. G. G. [E.— Zool. 1994. Meise. Indonesia. G.— Proc.J.F. Meded.— Ibis 134: 385-386. 1992. their breeding distribution and migrations (Aves. A. 232: 1-176. –– Zool. Meinertzhagen.. Mees.. 155: 1-47.F.— Ardea 72: 243-245. Mees.f. Mees.. Hist. 191: 1-188. Zool. Mees. 1972. 77 (1980): 371-412. III. C. Orn. Verh. A monograph of the lories or brush-tongued parrots. Nat.— Mitt. Mees.C.— Zool.— J. Handbook of the birds of Europe. 95: 128.. Publ. R.E. Wiglesworth. 56: 91-111. 1973. 1990.F.. 33: 57-121. Orn. R. Status of Ardea novaehollandiae in the Lesser Sunda Islands. The sparrow-hawks (Accipiter) of the Andaman Islands.C. Meded.S.A. Ned.F. [Cramp. G. 46: 69-89. Müller. 14: 137-141. Die Vögel von Djampea und benachbarten Inseln nach einer Sammlung Baron Plessens (I). 1995.F. Orn. Bijdragen tot de kennis van Timor en eenige naburige eilanden. A list of the birds recorded from Bangka Island... G. Orn..H.. Dickinson. 126: viii + 119 p.— Zool. Some birds recorded from Timor by Salomon Müller in 1828-29. 1982b. G. 1977b.F. 1941.. 1995.. C 88: 419-428. G. 1898. 1985. G. 24: 49-52. Mees.— J. Verh. Leiden 80 (2006) Mees. 77: 431-480.— Zool.. Moeliker. Gesch.— Proc.. Review. Mees.F. 1981].F.G. Boekbespreking. C 92: 367-378.en Volkenkunde: 131-320. Meded. Meded. Rotterdam 2: 123-143. Laridae.— Bull. Avifauna of Flores. Orn. Family Zosteropidae (African and Indian Ocean taxa). 1989.— Zool.— J. . Remarks on the ornithological parts of Horsfield’s ‘Zoological Researches in Java’. Emu 84: 63. G. 1975a. Ann. Lxi pls. Mees. 1983].F. 1967. A. 1986. Verh. Ueber die Vogelwelt von Noesa Penida bei Bali nach einer Sammlung von Baron Viktor von Plessen.F. 1894. G. Schodde & I.. Verh.B.— Verh. G. Kennedy & K. 89: 345-376. Mees.— J. Kon. Introduction to a review of the genus Corvus. Bombay Nat. 1926. W.): Checklist of birds of the world 12: 326-337. The subspecies of Chlidonias hybridus (Pallas). Ned. Mees. Mivart. 42: 8983. & C. Brit. On the birds of Mauritius. Land. 1977a. Geographical variation of birds in Java. Indonesia (Aves: Accipitridae)... Mees. The resdiscovery of Monarcha boanensis (Aves: Monarchidae) from Boano Island.J...— Deinsea.B.— Zool. 46: 179-181. London: liii + 193 p. Mees. Lesser Sunda Islands. R. 1929. G. R.. G. Beschreibung einiger neuen Vögel aus dem Ostindischen Archipel. 58: 313-321. Caprimulgidae). 1996. Review. R. [R. 1982c.W. Soc. 49: 115-140. 1976.F... Porter. 1975b. Description of a new member of the Monarcha trivirgata-group from Flores. G. Berlin 66.. Med. 157: 1-64.. Zool. Historisches über Anthus gustavi Swinhoe. Meyer. Caprimulgus macrurus Horsfield and related forms. Mees. S. Mason: Nocturnal birds of Australia.. Geographical variation of Caprimulgus macrurus Horsfield (Aves. 1991].— Ibis (9) 6: 82-108.F. Nuttall Orn. Mees. Ned. 1981. 1984b. C. G. Akad. Black-chinned monarchs Monarcha boanensis on Boano Island. & C. Meise. G.F. 1842/1847.— Zool. Meinertzhagen. Parkes: The birds of the Philippines.— Zool. Die Vögel der Insel Gebe. Heij.F. Overz.242 Mees. Indonesia. Bez. Bird records from the Moluccas.f. G. 1982a. 1896. Paynter (ed. a re-evaluation. St.— Novit.— OBC Bull.— Emu 82: 182184. etc. Cl. G.— Emu 76: 150-151. & L.. The birds of Celebes. Meyer. Suppl.. Sterninae). Mees..F. Wetensch.F. Akad. Zool.— Zool. Mees.F.. Mees. G. Bijdr. Kon. In R..

A. van Ternate naar Nieuw-Guinea. Payne.T.— Bull. Parker. Zool. Zool.C. Greenway (eds. Mayr & J. 1976.S. 17 October 1864-19 April 1865. 1910. In E. Marples. Part 2A: Waterfowl.. Mus. Olsen. 1928b. Die Zwergseeschwalbe. 36: 47-49. 1967. Siam Soc.. Verheijen. R. 1960. Peters. 30: 191-218. A new scops-owl from Great Nicobar Island.. & T.W.. 1907. List of a collection of birds from western Java and from Krakatau. T. Parkes. Leiden 80 (2006) 243 Musschenbroek. 1-2.— Ibis 140: 559. Nicoll. Meded. & Rev.J. pl.M. Oort.. Publ. Nat. 1981.— Notes Leyden Mus. Zur Lebensweise der Kuckucke von Flores. Bernstein’s laatste reis. U. Prolegomenon to further studies in the Chrysococcyx ‘malayanus’ group (Aves. & E. A revision of the kingfisher genus Ramphalcyon (Pelargopsis). Berlin: 234 p. 1-384. Etude d’une collection d’oiseaux de Borneo.— Proc. 36: 6-10. Geographic variation and subspecies of Corvus enca (Horsfield. 79: 425-515. Univ. An annotated checklist of the birds of South Australia. 1971. H. & J. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. On the birds collected and observed during the voyage of the ‘Valhalla’. A. Conspectus Psittacorum.A.— Proc. 110: 27-29. Hist.C. 1998. Oberholser. Family Hirundinidae. J. Med.L. M. clutch size and date of laying of Australian raptors (Falconiformes and Strigiformes).— Nat. Hist. 1911.L. Salawati en Batanta. & C. J.— Ois. Gilliard. 1940..). Nat.C. Taxonomy and nomenclature of three species of Lonchura (Aves: Estrildinae).S. 1963. 1883.).— Zool. In memorian Gijsbertus Adriaan Johan van der Sande.L. Handbook of New Guinea birds. Family Ardeidae.B. Mayr & J. van.C. Birds of the 1938-1939 New Guinea expedition.— Proc. Cl. (personalia 65). P. 1821). S. Oort.— Bull. Mus. 23: 353-365. Species formation in the blue monarch flycatchers genus Hypothymis. 1979. . R.— Orn. P. ‘s-Gravenhage: 258 p.J. E. 1958.. 35: 657-680. Lesser Sunda Islands. 1910: 586a-d. Verh. U.S. Catalogue ostéologique des oiseaux. Risley.A. E.— Misc.G. H. Check-list of birds of the world 4: xii + 291 p.. Rand. & E. Pulle. Cuculidae). d’Orn. 1976. Check-list of birds of the world 1 (2nd ed. R. 1965. Avifauna of Flores. Reichenow... Nat. Febr. No. pl. 32: 105-166. Parker. Pfeffer. S. Systematische Übersicht aller bekannten Papageienarten. London: × + 612 p. & Rev. Oortwijn. 1906.— J. Schwabenverlag/Stuttgart: 158 p.— Ibis (8) 6: 666-712. 1987.C. Mus. 108: 279-293. 43. Rasmussen.A. J.. van.S.L. Peters. Geographic variation in egg size. A.— Zool.A. Parkes. 1928a.D. Taxonomic and distributional notes on Philippine birds. S. K. 1998. Amer. 1958. Pilgrim. J. Michigan 150: iv + 115 p. Adelaide: viii + 25 p. 39: 585-615. 1942. Eckert & G.A. A. Officier van Gezondheid 1e klasse. U. Check-list of Birds of the world 9: 167-221.Y. 1910. Preliminary report on the Flores ‘97 expedition. XXI. Systematic and evolutionary relationships among the herons (Ardeidae). P.— Mus. Ottow. Fr..C.. 1970. Neue Vogelrassen von den Kleinen Sunda-Inseln II. Auf den Inseln des Drachen. Check-list of birds of the world 9: 80-129.. Rand. Mber.). R. Oberholser. 1960. Mber.— Ois.L.. Paynter. In E. K. Rand. Greenway (eds. Pays-Bas 10(1): i-viii. 1969. Results of the Archbold expeditions. 1960.C. Rensch. Cottrell (eds. 1882.. Pfeffer. Pfeffer.— Orn.f. 187: 1-56. d’Orn. Fr. Orn. Payne. 1909.W. Mayr & G. 61: 31-51. P. Nadler.W.B. A. J. B. A monograph of the flycatcher genera Hypothymis and Cyanonympha...J. Peters. Répartition écologique de l’avifaune des îles Flores. van. 1985.L.D.L..— Marineblad. P. Mus.— Emu 93: 167-179. B. Nat.— Nemouria 4: 1-67.G.Mees. from November 1905 to May 1906. Brit. Nat. Hist.. J. Dagboek van Dr H. In E.— Breviora 182: 1-5. Check-list of birds of the world 3: xiii + 311 p.. 1993. Birds from Flores. H. Neue Brehm-Bücherei 495: 136 p.. 1937.J.J. Mus. Rensch. R.. Neue Vogelrassen von den Kleinen Sunda-Inseln I. Mayr..B. Rintja et Komodo (Petites îles de la Sonde). Orn. Ragless.. Bull. 118: 141-153.C.): 193-244. Family of Campephagidae. Peters. 28: 59-72.

R. 115: 140157. Malay St.— Novit. King. Soc. H. Biol. Mus.J.D.D. S. Orn. Borntraeger..— Amer.. 50(6): xx + 882 p. 1944. Ripley. Rensch.H. 21: 215-217. 1987. & C.— Bull. Med.. Berlin: xii + 236 p.B. Dicaeidae) 2. Cl. Die Kleinen Sunda-Inseln als indo-australisches Mischgebiet.C. Kloss.. R.— Proc. Soc. Zool. Notes on flowerpeckers (Aves. Nomencl. 50 pl. Corrections and criticisms to the article on the avifauna of Yunnan. Die Vogelwelt von Lombok. Description of a new hill-wren from Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) Rensch. Rensch. Die Geschichte des Sundabogens. Danske Vidensk. Garten 22: 164-168. Beehler. Revision of the Melanesian swiftlets (Apodidae.D. Salomonsen. Bull. & C. Species status of the Malaysian three-toed kingfishers (Ceyx) – a re-assessment. C.C. 2057: 1-35. Biol. B... On a large collection of birds chiefly from West Sumatra made by Mr E.L. 33: 398-400.B. Ridgway. 1-2. S. von. E.C. B. J.— Novit.B. Robinson. Novit. Ripley. Berlin 17: 451637. Birds from Djailolo. Fed.B. Zool.— Orn.— Proc. 1991: 1-38. Ripley. Ges. S.— J. 1927. 1921-1924. Fed. W.— Occ. The birds of south-west and peninsular Siam. Rensch. 1928d.. Hist. Wash. Notes on the genus Coracina. Notes on a collection of birds from northern Celebes. Avifauna of Flores. Ueber einige Vogelsammlungen des Buitenzorger Museums von den Kleinen SundaInseln.. Cl. H. S. pl.M. H... 107: 145-151.— Sitzb. Salomonsen. Wash.— Bull.— Amer. 1931a.D. 1942a. Vocalizations of the owls of the genus Otus in Pakistan. 1952. B.D. 1959. Berlin (1928): 1-7. 8: 343-358. Zool...: viii + 140 p.. Rails of the world. 1924a. XXXVI pl. Soc. Ripley. 1964. Brit.— Postilla 41: 1-8. H. Mus.— Bull. The bird fauna of the West Sumatra islands.. Dicaeidae) 4. Kloss. 11: 189-347.— J. Comp.— Auk 59: 90-99. Robinson. Robinson. S. Jacobson. Ripley. Novit. Fr.— Kong. 1936. Two new genera and eight new birds from Celebes. 31: 155– 160. naturf. A review of the species Anas castanea. A nominal list of the birds collected in Java.. Mus.. H.— Mitt. Mus. The birds of North and Middle America. Malay St. Soc. 1914. Mus. Selsk. Siam 5: 1-397.. 1897. Salomonsen. S.. Berlin: viii + 318 p. S. Riley. Halmahera. A note on the species Muscicapa westermanni. 1995. 1931b. Mus.— Treubia 13: 371-400. Some notes on bird names. 1977. & C.— Zool. Orn. Comments on the gender of generic names ending in -ops.. Dicaeum igniferum and its derivatives.C. Mus. Ripley. Robinson. & C. A new sub-species of the Spice Bird Lonchura punctulata from Borneo. Pap.W. S.M. 1928c. & B. Zool. Kloss. Nat.S. Wash.. Sabrosky.D. Aves) and their conspecific forms in the Indo-Australian and Polynesian region. 1983.. Rothschild. 23 (5): 1-112. –– Proc. Biol. The primitive species of the genus Dicaeum. Hist. R. Nat. pls. 94: 305-430. [Pnoepyga everetti]. 65: 71-74.— Treubia 5: 267-298. 1930. S. Eine biologische Reise nach den Kleinen Sunda-Inseln. –– J. Mag. . 1992. B. Nat.. 1986. 98: 115-118.L.— Avicult. Frankfurt a. Rensch. & B. 55: 169-176. 1927... Sumbawa und Flores. Ein Jäger-Eldorado.. Restall.— Ornis Scand. B. F.D. Rüppell..— Auk 58: 381-395. Borntraeger. 1918. Zool. 17: 299-305. Ripley. 1881. Boston: 406 p. Restall. Systematische Uebersicht der Vögel Nord-Ost-Afrika’s. 1941a. Ripley. F.D. F. Mber. Neue Vogelrassen von den Kleinen Sunda-Inseln III.— U. Roberts.D.244 Mees. 1961. 1942b. The species Eurystomus orientalis. T. Ripley.. Notes on flowerpeckers (Aves. Brit. Rothschild. 36: 80-81. Rosenberg. Rensch. Zool. 1941b. Boston Soc. 4: 168. 13: 213-216. 1845. 1960. W. Kloss.. Biol. B..— Bull. Part VI. Proposed additions to the genus Lonchura (Estrildinae). 1924b. Skr.

. London: 120 pl. Sci. H. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 27: xv + 438 p. H. M. Passeres.. Die Vögel aus dem Nachlaß Ferdinand Lucas Bauer im Naturhistorischen Museum Wien und die darunder befindlichen Typen. Sharland. T.. 1-28. Schönwetter. 37): 1-19. 1958. VII. Mason. R. De vogels van Nederlandsch Indië / Les oiseaux des Indes Neérlandaises.. Cuculi.. R. Nat.: x + 851 p. Catalogo sistematico degli uccelli di Borneo.. 27): 1-112. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 20: xvii + 659 p. Schlegel.. XII pls. R. 1980. Severin. 29): 1-80. H. M. 1866c.— Mus. Mus. 6): 321-384.. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 10: xiii + 682 p. Nat. MS (1977). 3: 181-213..B. Schmutz.— Ned. 1863b. in the collection of the Academy. On birds collected by Professor J. Hist. principally Gould’s. Nat. Revue de la collection des Alcedines faisant partie du Musée des Pays-Bas. H. pl.. Salvadori. Hist.— Ann. Pays-Bas 6 (mon. Pays-Bas 2 (mon. Nat.. Alcedines. Revue de la collection des brèves (Pitta) faisant partie du Musée des Pays-Bas. Genova 14: 490-508. Mus. Hist. 15 pl. Pays-Bas 5 (mon. Schlegel. H. Megapodii. R. Hist. Mason. 1934. Pays-Bas 3 (mon. 1877. H. & I.J.. T. de. Mber. Naturhist. One some avian types.M. Schlegel.— Trans. Hist. Nat. Linn. Schönwetter. Hist. Ciconiae. Nat.. Prodromus ornithologiae Papuasiae et Moluccarum. Handbuch der Oologie IV (Lief.— Mus. 1879. Salvadori.. Taf. XVIII pl. Nat. 28): 1-26. 44): 193-384. O. De vogels van Nederlandsch Indië / Les oiseaux des Indes Neérlandaises. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 13: xvi + 702 p. T. . Hist. Schlegel. H. Aquilae. 35): 1-180. 1962. Nat.. Schlegel. Schlegel. Philad..B. Cambridge: xvi + 652 p. Schlegel. Tasmanian birds..M. Nat. Vic. 1863a. H. –– Ann.. R. 1: 307-355. 1988. M. Nat.— Mus.— Mus. Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche 2: xvi + 707 p. & G. Pays-Bas 5 (mon. 1-16. Sternae. H. Handbuch der Oologie I (Lief. 1-3. Hist. H. etc.–– Emu 81: 171.. 24): 1-44.. A monograph of the Alcedinidae.A. 3): 1-24.. Sharpe. 17): 1-52. Schlegel. H. 1-431. Hist. Schodde. Salvadori. Passerines.: xv + 175 p. J..— Mus.. XV pl. Zool. 109: 123-246. etc. with text..— Proc. Hist. A catalogue of the collection of birds formed by the late Hugh Edwin Strickland. F. H.— Proc. First record of the Brown Hawk-Owl Ninox scutulata from Australasia. Die Vögel der Manggarai (Flores).— Mus. Pays-Bas 6 (mon. Melbourne. T. Schlegel. Salvin. 46-54. Schodde.. H. HirundinidaeMuscicapidae. 1992. Lond.— Ann. Salvadori. 1881. Zool.... Abacus. E. Schlegel. Pays-Bas 3 (mon. 1885. The Spice Islands voyage in search of Wallace. 1864a.— Mus. H. Pays-Bas 1 (mon. Nat. du Pont. 1864b.: 135 p.— Mus. Schlegel. pl. M. Pays-Bas 4 (mon.— Mus. Hist... Steere in the Philippine Archipelago. Pays-Bas 5 (mon. 1957. Nat. Schlegel. 1868-1871. Birds from the Philippine Islands. R. 1873. Pays-Bas 8 (mon. Nat. 1895. 41): 52-86. 1981. Schauensee. Soc. 1866b. Columbae. University Press.. Accipitres: 1-84. Sydney. T.Mees.. Nat.. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 21: xix + 676p. R. R.. 1998. & I. 1874a. Hist. CSIRO Publishing. London: 302 p.— Mus. Schlegel.. 1891. Hist. Avifauna of Flores. M. Observations zoologiques. Schauensee. Schlegel. 19 pl. H. Directory of Australian birds. Pays Bas 4 (mon. Dierk. 1882.B. B. Schönwetter. Acad. 25): 1-85. 1880.E.— Orn... Philad. H. 1864c. de & J. Tijdschr. 31): 1-122. Sharpe. Sharpe. Schlegel. 1890. 1874b.. Collingwood. ill. Wien 93 B: 41–57. T. T. Nocturnal birds of Australia. Pays-Bas 3 (mon.— Mus. Schifter. Med. 39): 1-47. De valkvogels. Leiden 80 (2006) 245 Salvadori. 1893. Salvadori. Sharpe. 1864d. R. van Tets. 1999. Genova 5 i-lii. 16): 1-64.— Mus. Schlegel.B.. 1865a. first published in 1997). pl. Ardeae. Scolopaces. De ijsvogels: 1-70. Anseres. Acad. Vogeleier von Timor und Waigeu. Mus. Cursores.. Lansdowne Editions. 1874.. 42: 40-43. Nat. Sci. 1865b. (reprint. 114: 149-173. Angus & Robertson. 1962. 1866a. Schodde.— Mus. H. 1862.

Stresemann. Die Vögel von Celebes. Brit. Stresemann.— J. Sharpe. Edinburgh/London: xvi + 562 p. Stokes.a revision. Natural History Publications (Borneo): xii + 853 p. Birds in Bass Strait.: 112 p. Smythies.— Mitt.: 164-303.— Austr.. Stone.. Was ist Collocalia fuciphaga (Thunb. (non vidi). E. E. G. Ges. B. E. 1985. Orn.246 Mees.— Bull. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Avifauna von Buru. Stresemann.— Rec. pl.— Novit. 1940b. Zur kenntnis der Wespenbussarde (Pernis). Aves. Berlin 12: 177-195... 1936.): Check-list of birds of the world (2nd. Nat.. F.B. 21: 24-153.— Ibis (13) 6: 356-369. A nominal list of the birds of Celebes. Rec. G.— Novit. III-V.. Teil.) 1: 253-268. 1891. Stresemann. Med. 87: 299-425. Leiden 80 (2006) Sharpe.. Zool. Die Vögel von Celebes.— Bull.. 1954.. 1913a.— Arch. A. 21: 358-400. B. List of Queensland birds. E. E. An annotated checklist of the birds of Borneo. . Publ. J. Orn.f. Orn. Dultz & Co. 1883. 1913. VII pl. Teil III.— Treubia 12: 425-430.F. ed.f. map. 1930. Smythies. E. Somadikarta... 89: 1-102. Mber. (N. f.H. Vorläufiges über die ornithologischen Ergebnisse der Expedition Heinrich 193031. revised by G. Spec. Smythies. 1: 129-180. 3rd (revised) ed. E.. B. C. B. 1931. Sydney.. Stresemann. 99: 154. 1914a.. E.. Oliver & Boyd. Ornithologische Miszellen aus dem indo. 1968.) 9: 137-193.— Orn. Suppl.. 19: 1-189. The Lesser Whistling Duck Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield) in Flores.. Brit. Reed for BHP. V. Cottrell (eds. Jr. Family Alcedinidae. 523-818.— Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 17: 93-312.. 1986.. Indian Ocean. 88: 1-135. Soc. The birds of Borneo. de.. R. Bayern 12: 1-12. R. 16: viii + 39 p. Birds Brit. 1999. E.. Smythies. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 24: xii + 794 p. 102: 94-95. Monroe. 20: 289-324. Die Vögel von Celebes. 1922.E. 1960. Geogr..f. Mus. E. Sheldon. Eine Vogelsammlung vom Vulkan Papandajan (West-Java).. S. The birds of Borneo (3rd ed.— Ardea 42: 341-343. Orn. 75: 44. Noerdjito. Orn.. H.— Orn..G. The birds of Burma. The taxonomy and biogeography of the thick-billed flowerpecker complex in Borneo. 1913b.). The birds of Borneo (4th ed.W. pl.. The gender of Zosterops. 1939. Orn. W. Sousa. Sody. Stresemann. J. Cl. Stresemann.C.. Snow. Zur Ornithologie von Halmahera und Batjan. Stresemann. 1930. Zool. W. Mayr & G. G. Occ. Stresemann. E. A list of the species of Australian birds described by John Gould. & G.. 1941. 39: 167-171. Siebers. 1914c. Capella stenura (Bp. Sibley.A. Stresemann. & R. Family Cuculidae.. 1892. Stresemann. Orn.W. 106: 32-40. Revised list of Queensland birds. 1914b.L. J. E. II. 1988.australischen Gebiet. Cl. Beiträge zur Ornithologie der indo-australischen Region. Mus.— J.)? – Verh. B. Holmes. B.— Bol. 1979.. K. E.. Cl. E. Lisboa 9: 453-459.— Novit. D.. Collocalia linchi Horsfield & Moore . Zool.Austr. T. 7: v-xv. Moreau. 1979. revised by the Earl of Cranbrook): xiv + 473 p. Cl.A. Avifauna Macedonica. Brit.M. & A. 1896. Stresemann. Stresemann.— Cat.. Smythies. Naturg.) an der Küste von Timor. 1984.— J. Steinbacher. Stresemann.E.E. 1973. Zool. Parks Wildl.— Bull. & B. Storr.— Novit. Somadikarta. Pap.B. H. Smythies. Mus.E. etc. Simpson. Storr. XXXII pl. II. 389-487. 1955. Davison). E. 1982. 20: 325-387.E. An influx of Australian pelicans Pelecanus conspicillatus in Indonesia.. Shelley. Stresemann. Die Vögel von Seran (Ceram). 1972. 19: 209-434.W. Zool. Fregata minor minor (Gm. A review of the birds of Christmas Island.— Sarawak Mus. Systematik und Biologie. Fauna Buruana.. Brit. Mathews.. Avifauna of Flores. The birds of Borneo (2nd ed.— W. W. Service. 1981.. Austr.. S. In E.M. & M.— Bull. Waarnemingen over de trek van de Aziatische Watersnip. 1957. Systematik und Biologie (Schluss). München: xxiv + 270 p. 5: iii + 177 p. S. Suppl. 1990.. H.. 1940a. Family Threskiornithidae. Teil I und II. 30: 113-114.: xxxii + 432 p. Teil III.V. Die Vögel von Bali. Zool. Orn..J.— Treubia 7.): xx + 593 p. Uma collecçao de aves de Timor.E.— Austral Av.E. VI Taf.H. Mus. 1925. Mber. 1920.— Auk 102: 606-612. with the location of the type-specimens. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world: xxiv + 1111 p. 1986. Somadikarta. & D.E.

A. Mus. Avifauna of Flores. Birds from North Borneo. Some data on the avifauna of the island of Roti. Manggarai-Indonesia. 1964. 1976. Trainor. & V.J.K. London: viii + 193 p. E.— British Museum. C. Family Dicruridae. Holmes. Ticehurst. J. The birds of the Palearctic fauna.. Indonesia. 1952. & T. Wallacea. Naaturf. J.... J. Horsfield. Witherby.C.— J. Vaurie.): xv + 247 p.): 271-425. J. Flores.. E.J. 1832: 1-16. The birds of the islands of Flores – A review.R.A.A. Amer.A.— Bull. Ges. 1990.— Amer. 1979. with reference to a simple technique for avifaunal survey on small islands. Vaurie. f. Hist. London: i-xx. No. 1979. Uccelli di Honolulu raccolti da Luigi Maria d’Albertis.G.— Emu 51: 65-70. Amadon. 1949.. Swann.— Amer. 2nd... Verheijen. Thompson. 17: 377-433. 1959. 1962. Mus. Indonesia. Civ. 1570: 1-36. (convener). Vaurie.J. 1-445. 1-763. India and Madagascar (1751-1756). Verheijen. Flores. Mus. 1951.C. Notes on some Asiatic swallows. E. Sonderheft: i-viii. Verheijen. N. 1963. Vaurie. Type localities of Australian birds collected by the ‘Expedition Baudin’ (18011803). Stresemann. Nusa Tanggara PKA/ BirdLifeWWF. 1967. 2000. Nat. Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus in the island of Flores.. Vaurie. Status and habitat associations of birds on Lembata Island. Greenway (eds. The birds of Adonara. Amadon.— Univ. 1956 (1957?). Order Falconiformes. 1827. C. 2111: 1-11. Bogor. London: xii + 762 p. Stresemann. C. Checklist of the birds of New Zealand (3rd ed. & D. On the birds collected by Pierre Poivre in Canton.. 1990.— Ibis 94: 499-523.— Amer. gigantic rats and elegant ikat: identifying sites of international biodiversity significance on Flores. Mus. 1951. E. Tableau Méthodique.— Amer. Systematic notes on Palearctic birds. London 15: 170-331. . Witherby. Lesser Sunda Islands. & D. 1839.). C.. E. Verhoeye. 1962. Lesser Sundas. J. Trainor. Bird-names in Manggarai. Violani. 1966. Nat. J. Novit. 1 (livr. King. C.— Kukila 10: 3-59. Mus. Soc.— Kukila 5: 65-68. Zool. M. C.. Vaurie..A. Vaurie. Indonesia. Die Mauser der Vögel. Breeding season on the island of Flores. Vaurie.A.— Recueil d’Ois. Notes on three raptor species new to Flores.. Vigors. Mus. 1915: 1-13.J. Passeriformes. C.. Verheijen. C.. Kamus Manggarai I. Check-list of birds of the world 15: 137-157. Leiden 80 (2006) 247 Stresemann.. Genova 82. 1922.— Trans Linn. Mayr & J. Meded. J.A. 50: 1-21...Mees. II pl. Hist. The birds of the Palearctic fauna. Notes on the honey buzzards of eastern Asia. 2002b. J.A. Mayr & G. London: viii + 233 + 1 p. C. Trainor.. Manila.. unique birds. & B.J.J. A review of the bird genus Rhinomyias (Muscicapini). C. Martinus Nijhoff.— Anthropos 58: 677-718.. 1938. Stresemann. Exploding volcanoes. Novit. In E. & Dwi Lesmana. C. A description of the Australian birds in the collection of the Linnean Society... Med. 1971. 1955..— Bird Conservation Internattional 12: 365-381. 1952.— Ann. Über die Mauser einiger Laufhühnchen und die Rassen von Turnix maculosa und sylvatica im indo-australischen Gebiet. A synopsis of the Accipitres (Diurnal birds of prey). 102): 1-109. H. In E. 93: 199-342. C. Mus. Rep.— Zool. ‘s-Gravenhage: xxviii + 772 p. J. E. Novit. Vaurie. Novit. Indonesia. 1961.J. 107. Motacillidae: the genus Motacilla.— Amer.B. Basel 66: 85-139. Non-Passeriformes. with an attempt at arranging them according to their natural affinities. 1966. 25. A revision of the bird family Dicruridae.. 172-183.— Limosa 29: 149-150. observed from 13th April to 5th May 1960. C.A.J.— Ardea 52: 194-201. 2002a.R.. 1958. 1529: 1-47.. Cottrell (eds.W. Stresemann. 1957.— Ardea 59: 64. 1999. A systematic review of the genus Phylloscopus. C. Verhoeye. 11: xvi + 269 p.— Verh. Novit. & D.— Ardea 49: 183-187. Indonesia. C. Een ral repareert haar ei.): Check-list of birds of the world 1 (2nd ed. Turbott. Verheijen.R.— Forktail 18: 93-100. Temminck. Verheijen. Remarks on some Corvidae of Indo-Malaya and the Australian region. Mus. ed. Sutter. Kansas Publ. Some notes on the birds of the island of Paluë. 1965. Indonesia. Orn. Verheijen.

White. Vorderman. Lond.A. K. Zool. The Malay Archipelago. G.. Watson. 93: 175-176. Lond. A list of the birds known to inhabit the island of Celebes. A new race of the cuckoo.— Bull.M. van den Bergh & F.. Tijdschr. Harrison.M.W. 1872. Three water birds of Wallacea. White. 1982.M. The races of the Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) in the Indo-Australian Archipelago. Traylor & E. J. Vol. Zoologische Ergebnisse einer Reise in Niederländisch Ost-Indien I. Cottrell (eds. Nuttall Orn. White.. 1895b. Het journaal van Albert Colfs. 1963. J. C. Mayr & G.G.N.— Emu 58: 271-276. M. Family Monarchidae. P. 1995. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History). 1890. 28: 513-529. Watson. with descriptions of the new species. Victoria.H.G.N.— Bull. G. D. C. White. 1986b.. Geographical variation in the genus Accipiter. 1949. D. Orn. M. 1. 1974.H. Soc. The birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula. N.M. In: E. 1951. Zool.— Limosa 21: 85-100. Mayr. Wattel. Orn. Cl. G.. tree creepers. K. Watling. 1958. 97: 99-103. Voous. Lusaka: vi + 218 p. In de ban van vogels. Orn. Orn.M.. 93: 116.— Bull.): Check-list of birds of the world 11: 530-556. New Zealand: 176 p. Academic Press. Cottrell (eds.E.M. Family Monarchidae. Brit. Cl. Warren. van Marle..M..W. III-X.— Auk 68: 106-107..— Treubia 20: 647-656. finches. Millwood Press. weavers and waxbills.W. London: ix + 320 p. Mayr. In E. Wallace. 95: 106-109. 1986.— Courier Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg 171: 129-140. Brit.. White. Chalcites lucidus.. Flores and Lombock. Orn. 1977. Med. Tijdschr.N. In E.M.— Proc.. 1936.J. Brit.. Birds of Fiji.M. & J. Voous. C. Subfamily Monarchinae. Vorderman.: liii + 648 p. Australian Pelican recorded in Indonesia. Cottrell (eds. pl. C. Warner.M. C. A. 1869.. Cl. M. Utrecht: 605 p. A.Y. Weber. 1950. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History) 2: Passerines. G. A revised check list of African flycatchers.O. & E. The distributional history of Coracina in the Indo-Australian archipelago.E.D. I: xxiv + 478 p.L. C.— Bull. Taxonomic and faunistic notes on birds of the Malay Peninsula. Mayr. Voous. Traylor & E.— Nat. R. Wallace.R. G..— Bijdr. Vorderman.— Emu 75: 37-39.): Check-list of birds of the world 11: 464-526. 1888. Mayr & G.): Checklist of birds of the world 11: 3-294. Note on the Australian tree-martin (Petrochelidon nigricans).. Brit..R. A.. 1973. 1864.A... 56: 90-92. 96: 125-128. C. White. Night herons in Wallacea. & C. 54: 327-353. etc. Voous. Publ.— Bull. London: vi + 628 p... Tonga and Samoa. & Lord Medway. White. Brit. Warren. White. Cl. Vos. 94: 9-11.N. Wellington. San Diego.H. Watson.N. K.— Bull. A. Sondaar. Zool. Brit.— Nat. Cl. Migration of Palaearctic waders in Wallacea. 1975b.N. Ned. Comments on the Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa. The Homo bearing deposits of Java and its ecological context. Batavia. II: 524 p.R.-Ind.G.— Trans. Dierk. Cl. Cl.M.E.N. Nonpasserines. D. Scheffers. Migrant Pernis apivorus in the Indonesian Archipelago. 1: Non-Passeres. D. de.M. 1994.N. from the New Hebrides Islands. 1986a. honey eaters.— Bull.N. Brit. A. 1999. C. (1863): 480-497. Mayr & G. Cl. Orn. sunbirds. Family Sylviidae.— Emu 67: 124. 1971.— Emu 76: 79-82. Subfamily Rhipidurinae. 1975a. Wakefield. Further notes on birds of Wallacea. Einleitung: i-xi. 1976a. Club 13: vi + 231 p. Aziz. tits.H. A list of the birds inhabiting the islands of Timor..L.-Ind.H. Soc. 1948. white-eyes.. White.R.. Migration of Palaearctic non-passerine birds in Wallacea. buntings. 8: 23-108. Leiden 80 (2006) Voous. A. Orn. XXXIX. R. Orn. Ned.A.. Erroneous or doubtful records of birds from Gippsland. Brit. 1966. Notes on some non-passerine birds of Wallacea.. 1976b. Notes on a collection of Javanese birds. Wells. 1973a.N.248 Mees. K. Avifauna of Flores. 1895a. 54: 317-326.— Bull... Lombok-vogels. pl. Wells. 1973b. C.. 96: 20-34.W. London. Walden. 1976. . 1967. K. White. Bijdrage tot de kennis der avifauna van het eiland Noordwachter (Java Zee). C.

M. C.E. 1986. 1837 (Aves. 1969.Mees. Bibliographical key-names of birds of the world. Ziswiler. 1987. O.. Wynne. J.— Kukila 3: 50-51. van Helvoort. Zool. Perth: xi + 116 + 788 p. 1781. B. Gen. Güttinger & H. Med. Rasmussen. V. 3: 371-375. Passeres.. Widodo. C. Estrildidae). Whittell.N. Rediscovery of the Flores Scops-owl Otus alfredi on Flores. von.— Verh. W. De nacht-uil van ‘t eiland Java.O. Check-list No. 1954. D.. & M. Bruce. Wiegant. Bat. Paterson Brokensha. Monogr. The birds of Wallacea. Wurmb.U. W. Bregulla. & B. 1972. The literature of Australian birds.M. H. . Monographie der Gattung Erythrura Swainson. H.R. Leiden 80 (2006) 249 White. Indonesia and reaffirmation of its specific status.— Bonner Zool.— Forktail 15: 15-23. First sighting of Tachybaptus novaehollandiae on Bali.. H. 1999. 2: 1-158. Avifauna of Flores. to authors and those commemorated: iii + 246 p. F. 7: 524 p. Cox & P.

Leiden 80 (2006) 13. Meyer) R 44 Pernis ptilorhynchus orientalis Taczanowski N 45 Elanus caeruleus hypoleucus Gould R* 46 Haliastur indus intermedius Gurney R* 47 Haliaeetus leucogaster (Gmelin) R 48 Circaetus gallicus gallicus (Gmelin) R Accipiter soloensis (Horsfield) N Accipiter novaehollandiae sylvestris Wallace R* Accipiter fasciatus wallacii (Sharpe) R* Accipiter virgatus quinquefasciatus Mees R Accipiter gularis (Temminck & Schlegel) N Hieraaetus fasciatus renschi Stresemann R Hieraaetus kienerii formosus Stresemann R Spizaetus (cirrhatus) floris (Hartert) R* Falconidae Falco moluccensis subsp.250 Mees. Systematic index The meaning of the letters given under the heading ‘status’ is as follows: M = marine: tropical sea-bird. Avifauna of Flores. S = migrant (winter-visitor) from the South. N = migrant (winter-visitor) from the North. breeding recorded. Müller) R* Coturnix chinensis chinensis (Linnaeus) R* Gallus varius (Shaw) R* Turnicidae Turnix suscitator powelli Guillemard R* Turnix maculosa floresiana Sutter R* Rallidae Rallus pectoralis exsul (Hartert) R* Rallus philippensis wilkinsoni (Mathews) R* Rallina fasciata (Raffles) R* Porzana pusilla pusilla (Pallas) R? Porzana fusca fusca (Linnaeus) R 48 49 49 50 51 51 52 52 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 57 58 60 60 62 62 63 64 65 67 68 69 . Zool. Gray) ? 30 Ardea novaehollandiae Latham R* 30 Egretta intermedia (Wagler) ? 31 Egretta garzetta nigripes (Temminck) ? 31 Egretta sacra sacra (Gmelin) R* 31 Bubulcus ibis coromandus (Boddaert) ? 32 Ardeola speciosa speciosa (Horsfield) ? 32 Butorides striatus javanicus (Horsfield) R 33 Nycticorax nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus) ? 33 Nycticorax caledonicus hilli Mathews ? 34 Ixobrychus sinensis (Gmelin) N 35 Ixobrychus cinnamomeus (Gmelin) R* 36 Ciconiidae Ciconia episcopus neglecta (Finsch) R* 37 Plataleidae Platalea regia Gould S 38 Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus cristatus (Vieillot) R 38 Aviceda subcristata timorlaoensis (A. status page Podicipedidae Podiceps ruficollis vulcanorum Rensch R 23 Podiceps novaehollandiae novaehollandiae Stephens S? 24 Pelecanidae Pelecanus conspicillatus Temminck S 25 Sulidae Sula leucogaster plotus (Forster) M 26 Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax melanoleucos melanoleucos (Vieillot) ? 26 Phalacrocorax sulcirostris (Brandt) ? 27 Fregatidae Fregata ariel ariel (G. R* = resident. which may breed in the region. Müller R* Megapodiidae Megapodius reinwardt reinwardt Dumont R* Phasianidae Coturnix ypsilophora raaltenii (S. Med. R = presumed resident. R* Falco cenchroides cenchroides Vigors & Horsfield S Falco longipennis hanieli Hellmayr R* Anatidae Dendrocygna arcuata arcuata (Horsfield) R Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield) R Anas superciliosa rogersi Mathews R* Anas gibberifrons gibberifrons S.B.R.E. Gray) M 27 Ardeidae Ardea sumatrana Raffles R* 28 Ardea purpurea manilensis Meyen ? 29 Ardea alba modesta (J.

Müller) R* Gallicrex cinerea (Gmelin) N Gallinula tenebrosa frontata Wallace ? Gallinula chloropus orientalis Horsfield R* Porphyrio porphyrio indicus Horsfield R* Jacanidae Irediparra gallinacea gallinacea (Temminck) R Rostratulidae Rostratula benghalensis benghalensis (Linnaeus) R* Charadriidae Pluvialis fulva (Gmelin) N Charadrius leschenaultii leschenaultii Lesson N Charadrius veredus Gould N Scolopacidae Numenius phaeopus variegatus (Scopoli) N Limosa lapponica bauerí Naumann N Tringa hypoleucos Linnaeus N Tringa glareola Linnaeus N Tringa nebularia (Gunnerus) N Gallinago stenura (Bonaparte) N Gallinago megala Swinhoe N Calidris ruficollis (Pallas) N Calidris alba (Pallas) N Himantopus himantopus leucocephalus Gould R Phalaropidae Phalaropus lobatus (Linnaeus) N Burhinidae Esacus magnirostris (Vieillot) R* Glareolidae Stiltia isabella (Vieillot) S Laridae Sterna albifrons sinensis Gmelin M Sterna bergii cristata Stephens M Chlidonias hybridus subsp. Zool. Leiden 80 (2006) Porzana cinerea cinerea (Vieillot) R* Amaurornis phoenicurus leucomelanus (S. Med. R* Eudynamys scolopacea malayana Cabanis & Heine R Scythrops novaehollandiae Latham R Centropus bengalensis sarasinorum Stresemann R* Tytonidae Tyto alba javanica (Gmelin) R* Tyto longimembris longimembris (Jerdon) R Strigidae Otus magicus albiventris (Sharpe) R* Otus alfredi (Hartert) Otus silvicola (Wallace) R* Ninox scutulata florensis (Wallace) N Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus macrurus schlegelii Meyer R* Caprimulgus affinis affinis Horsfield R* Apodidae Collocalia fuciphaga fuciphaga (Thunberg) R* Collocalia esculenta sumbawae Stresemann R* Apus pacificus pacificus (Latham) N Alcedinidae Alcedo atthis floresiana Sharpe R 251 91 91 92 94 94 95 77 77 77 78 78 95 96 97 98 99 100 100 101 101 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 110 111 111 113 115 116 117 79 79 80 80 80 80 81 81 82 82 82 83 83 83 84 84 85 86 86 86 87 87 89 90 90 120 121 123 124 . S Columbidae Chalcophaps indica indica (Linnaeus) R* Treron floris Wallace R Ptilinopus cinctus albocinctus Wallace R Ptilinopus regina flavicollis Bonaparte R Ptilinopus melanospilus melanauchen (Salvadori) R* Ducula aenea polia (Oberholser) R* Ducula rosacea (Temminck) R Ducula (lacernulata) sasakensis (Hartert) R Columba vitiensis metallica Temminck R 70 71 73 74 76 76 Macropygia unchall unchall (Wagler) R Macropygia ruficeps orientalis Hartert R Macropygia emiliana emiliana Bonaparte R* Streptopelia bitorquata bitorquata (Temminck) R Streptopelia chinensis tigrina (Temminck) R* Geopelia striata maugei (Temminck) R* Psittacidae Trichoglossus (haematodus) weberi (Büttikofer) R* Cacatua sulphurea occidentalis Hartert R* Tanygnathus megalorynchos floris Hartert R Loriculus flosculus Wallace (R) Geoffroyus geoffroyi floresianus Salvadori R* Cuculidae Cuculus saturatus horsfieldi Moore N Cuculus saturatus lepidus S. Müller R Cuculus pallidus (Latham) S Cacomantis variolosus sepulcralis (S. Müller) R Chrysococcyx basalis (Horsfield) S Chrysococcyx lucidus plagosus (Latham) S Chrysococcyx minutillus subsp.Mees. Avifauna of Flores.

Monarchinae Monarcha trivirgatus trivirgatus (Temminck) R Monarcha trivirgatus wellsi (Ogilvie-Grant) R Monarcha trivirgatus nigrimentum G.252 Ceyx rufidorsa Strickland Pelargopsis capensis floresiana Sharpe Halcyon chloris chloris (Boddaert) Halcyon sancta sancta Vigors & Horsfield Halcyon fulgida Gould Meropidae Merops ornatus Latham Merops philippinus Linnaeus Coraciidae Eurystomus orientalis orientalis (Linnaeus) Picidae Dendrocopos moluccensis grandis (Hargitt) Pittidae Pitta elegans concinna Gould Pitta elegans maria Hartert Alaudidae Mirafra javanica parva Swinhoe Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica gutturalis Scopoli Hirundo tahitica javanica Sparrman Cecropis striolata striolata (Schlegel) Petrochelidon nigricans timoriensis Sharpe Motacillidae Motacilla flava simillima Hartert Motacilla caspica subsp. Leiden 80 (2006) Sylviidae Tesia everetti everetti (Hartert) R* Cisticola juncidis fuscicapilla Wallace R* Cisticola exilis lineocapilla Gould R* Orthotomus cucullatus everetti (Hartert) R* Phylloscopus borealis xanthodryas (Swinhoe) N Phylloscopus presbytes floris (Hartert) R Seicercus montis floris (Hartert) R Maluridae Gerygone sulphurea sulphurea Wallace R* Muscicapidae . Anthus novaeseelandiae albidus Stresemann Anthus gustavi Swinhoe Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae floris (Sharpe) Coracina novaehollandiae novaehollandiae (Latham) Coracina novaehollandiae subpallida Mathews Coracina dohertyi (Hartert) Lalage sueurii sueurii (Vieillot) Pericrocotus lansbergei Büttikofer Laniidae Lanius cristatus superciliosus Latham Turdidae Brachypteryx montana floris Hartert Saxicola caprata fruticola Horsfield Zoothera interpres (Temminck) Zoothera dohertyi (Hartert) Zoothera andromedae (Temminck) Turdus obscurus Gmelin Timaliidae Pnoepyga pusilla everetti Rothschild R R R* S R* S R* 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 Mees. Gray R Monarcha (trivirgatus) boanensis van Bemmel R Monarcha sacerdotum Mees R Monarcha cinerascens cinerascens (Temminck) R* Hypothymis azurea symmixta Stresemann R* Terpsiphone paradisi floris Büttikofer R* Pachycephalidae Pachycephala fulvotincta fulvotincta Wallace R* Pachycephala nudigula nudigula Hartert R Paridae Parus major cinereus Vieillot R* Dicaeidae Dicaeum annae (Büttikofer) R* Dicaeum agile tinctum (Mayr) R Dicaeum igniferum Wallace R Dicaeum sanguinolentum rhodopygiale Rensch R 154 158 159 160 160 161 161 R* 130 162 162 163 163 164 164 165 166 R* R* S R N R* R* ? N N R* N 132 133 134 137 138 138 139 140 141 141 142 143 167 167 168 169 170 171 171 173 R* S S R R* R N R R* R R* R* N R 143 144 146 147 148 148 149 149 149 151 151 152 153 153 174 175 176 177 178 181 182 . Müller R* Muscicapidae .Muscicapinae Ficedula westermanni hasselti (Finsch) R Ficedula hyperythra vulcani Robinson R Ficedula dumetoria dumetoria (Wallace) R Culicicapa ceylonensis sejuncta Hartert R* Rhinomyias oscillans (Hartert) R Muscicapidae . Med. Zool.R. Avifauna of Flores.Rhipidurinae Rhipidura diluta diluta Wallace R* Rhipidura rufifrons semicollaris S.

van Bruggen & J. Zool.ix.2006 Edited: A.v. Müller) ? Lichmera lombokia fumidigula (Rensch) R Philemon buceroides neglectus (Büttikofer) R* Estrildidae Amandava amandava flavidiventris (Wallace) R* Poephila guttata guttata (Vieillot) R Erythrura hyperythra obscura (Rensch) R Lonchura molucca propinqua (Sharpe) R* Lonchura punctulata blasii (Stresemann) R* Lonchura quinticolor (Vieillot) R* Lonchura pallida pallida (Wallace) R* Ploceidae Passer montanus malaccensis Dubois R* Sturnidae Aplonis minor minor (Bonaparte) R* Gracula religiosa venerata Bonaparte R* Oriolidae Oriolus chinensis broderipi Bonaparte R* Dicruridae Dicrurus hottentottus bimaensis Wallace R* Artamidae Artamus leucorhynchus leucorhynchus (Linnaeus) R* Corvidae Corvus florensis Büttikofer R* Corvus macrorhynchos macrorhynchos Wagler R* 253 198 198 199 200 207 208 209 209 212 212 183 184 184 185 188 189 191 191 192 193 194 195 196 214 216 217 218 197 Received: 15. Avifauna of Flores. van der Land . Leiden 80 (2006) Nectariniidae Anthreptes malacensis convergens Rensch R* Nectarinia jugularis ornata (Lesson) R* Nectarinia solaris solaris Temminck R* Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosa unica Hartert R* Zosterops montana montana Bonaparte R* Zosterops chloris intermedia Wallace R* Zosterops wallacei Finsch R* Lophozosterops superciliaris superciliaris (Hartert) R Lophozosterops dohertyi subcristata Hartert R* Heleia crassirostris crassirostris (Hartert) R* Meliphagidae Lichmera indistincta limbata (S.C.2005 Accepted: 15. Med.Mees.

c/3. Terpsiphone paradisi floris. 17. f. i. cinerea. – a. – a. cc.. c/3. . g. dd. Med. Coracina novaehollandiae floris. Fig. h. RMNH 70575. Porzana c. do. wallacei. c/2. 12. Leiden 80 (2006) Figs 11-18 on pp. RMNH 71608. RMNH 71816. c/2. RMNH 70099. RMNH 71289. c/2. b. Spizaetus (cirrhatus) floris. c/2. Falco moluccensis. Cacatua sulphurea occidentalis. c/2. H. chloris. c/1. Zosterops palpebrosa unica. RMNH 70325. Culicicapa ceylonensis sejuncta. Zoothera dohertyi. RMNH 70070. Heleia crassirostris. c/4. b. i. everetti. Aplonis m.. RMNH 70759. RMNH 71115. – a. d. e. macrorhynchus. c/1. c/3. Avifauna of Flores. h. Anthreptes malaccensis convergens. RMNH 70606. RMNH 71319. philippinensis wilkinsoni. RMNH 71145.. RMNH 71763. fulgida. Fig. c/4. c/2. ee. RMNH 71789. c/3. RMNH 375a (field number). c/2. c/4. c/1. c/6. c/4. do. RMNH 70578. Fig. RMNH 71814. Philemon buceroides neglectus. e. d. c. R. Dicrurus hottentotus bimaensis. c/2. c. RMNH 71782. c/2. d. c/3. c/2. RMNH 70097. 18. c/2. Orthotomus cucullatus everetti. c/2. e. RMNH 71642. Fig. d. RMNH 71339. c/2. j. RMNH 70970. c/4. Lalage s. c/3. RMNH 71455. N. do. s. do. RMNH 70769. RMNH 71326. c/2. RMNH 71691. do. c/4. c. Oriolus chinensis broderipi. silvicola. c/2. sueurii. Pachycephala f. Corvus florensis. RMNH 70315. g. c/1. do. aa. RMNH 71800. Halcyon c. d. Monarcha c. ee. do. c/3. Cisticola exilis lineocapilla. fasciatus wallacii. RMNH 70350. c/2. C. e. c/2. Pitta elegans concinna.. c/1. RMNH 70755. 15. f. Zool. RMNH 70096. 13. RMNH 70573. c/3. 14. – a. RMNH 70756. c/2. b. RMNH 70066. c/4. RMNH 70075. Lophozosterops dohertyi subcristata. Accipiter novaehollandiae sylvestris. RMNH 70644. c/3. Fig. RMNH 70683. ggg. c/2. Nectarinia jugularis ornata. RMNH 71155. Otus magicus albiventris... c/2. F. c/2. b.. 16. RMNH 70762. do. c. c/1. RMNH 70576. Rallus pectoralis exsul. cinerascens. A. RMNH 70886. c/2. Fig. solaris. RMNH 71774. Gracula religiosa venerata. RMNH 70610. longipennis hanieli. O. RMNH 71098. Falco moluccensis. Trichoglossus (haematodes) weberi. Z. minor. gg. RMNH 71291. – a. d. c/1. b. Dicaeum annae. 254-260 show eggs at approximately natural size of Flores birds in the Leiden Museum. Z. Fig. g. fulvotincta.. b. RMNH 71165. andromedae. – a. – a. f. RMNH 71526. c. c. Tesia e. aa. e. b. c/1.254 Mees. RMNH 71210. c/3. RMNH 70637. c/2. RMNH 70316. c/2.

Mees. Zool. Med. 12 a a b b c d d . Avifauna of Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) 255 Fig.

13 a a b d c cc d e e f f gg g ggg . Zool.256 Mees. Med. Avifauna of Flores. Leiden 80 (2006) Fig.

14 a a b b c c d d e e e . Med. Zool. Leiden 80 (2006) 257 Fig. Avifauna of Flores.Mees.

Avifauna of Flores. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) Fig. Zool.258 Mees. 15 a a b b b b b c d d e e f f f g g g h i j j .

Zool. Leiden 80 (2006) 259 Fig. 16 a a aa aa b b c c d d dd dd e e ee ee f f g g h h i i i . Avifauna of Flores.Mees. Med.

Leiden 80 (2006) Fig. Med.260 Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. 17 a a a b b b c c d d e e ee ee .

Mees. Leiden 80 (2006) 261 Fig. Avifauna of Flores. Med. Zool. 18 a a a b b b b .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful