These species seem to have been confounded in the most extraordinary manner,
even to the extent of forming a separate one under the name of Pitta Malaccensis. The
manner in which this has been brought about is somewhat as follows :
Scopoli, in the Fauna et Flora Insubriea, describes the Brachyurus Ben-
galensis under the above name of Pitta Malaccensis, founding his description
upon the incorrect representation of the species given in Sonnerat’s voyages;
while in the above Journal, Blyth calls the Brachyurus Cyanopterus by the -same
appellation. " '■
(In a subsequent volume of the Journal, he, however, corrects this mistake.)
Afterwards, Bonaparte, in the Conspectus Avium, calls the Pitta Malaccensis of the
above authors, Pitta Cyanoptera ex Malacca Auct., thus seeming to imply that there
was a species confined to that region erroneously considered as Cyanoptera. This does
not appear to me to be the case; for I am-unable to discover any specific distinctness
between the specimens of B. Cyanopterus sent from Malacca, and those from Java,
Sumatra, and Borneo, consequently, I am obliged to consider the species thus formed
by Scopoli as not a true one; at the same time, I do not wish to be understood to say
that there is no such species as.Pitta Malaccensis, for I find in the Yerhand. Hatuur.
Geschied., that Muller and Seblegel speak of such a bird, and say that it only differs.
from Pitta Atrieapilla in the “ bill being less pressed together, the colors brighter, and
the colors of the upper part of the neck brown.” This quotation, however, only proves
more conclusively to me that Scopoli and Bonaparte were wrong in the derivation of
their species, as there is not the slightest similarity between the Brachyurus Cyanopterus
and the B. Atrieapilla of Muller and Schlegel, so that the last two authors must have
had an entirely different bird under consideration when they called it P. Malaccensis.
When the B. Atricapillus comes under consideration the relation between it and M.
Schlegel’s species will be more thoroughly investigated.
In the Dutch work so often named, MM Miiller and Schlegel, speaking of the B.
Cyanopterus, say: “ This species was first described by Buffon, afterwards by M. Tem-
minck. The one spoke of it as coming from Malacca, the other as from Java and
Borneo. Both, however, were entirely in the WTong, as this bird is not found in any
of these islands. We only found this species in the lowlands of Sumatra. To those
plains belong the great alluvial tract lying to the north of Padang, and also the sandy
shores of the bay of Boengoes. We generally found the B. Cyanopterus in the well-
wooded base of the mountain range. It prefers moist places beneath the undergrowth;
and in its manners it resembles the other Pittas. The colors of-the-plumage of the sexes
BRACHYURUS CYANOPTERUS.
are the same, except that the red stripe on the abdomen of the male is smaller in the
female.”
In regard to this .species not being found in Malacca and Borneo, I think the authors
from whom I have quoted were mistaken, as Blyth says it is, common in the countries
eastward of the Bay of Bengal, from Axracan to Malacca, while Bonaparte gives Borneo
as one of its native countries, and I have seen examples labelled as coming from
both places.
Of the difference in the plumage of the sexes remarked above, I do not think the
red abdomen would be a criterion by which to separate them, as ,1 have never seen a
difference in that mark among adult birds, which would be sufficient in my opinion to
determine the sex. I need hardly say that it is a handsome species, for a glance
at the plate will establish that fact. It is not in the habit of keeping .together in
flocks, but is found generally singly or in pairs.
The figure in the plate is life size.