
 
        
         
		I T O S C H ’E I A   t U A B K L 
 MUSCIPETA  PARADISI. 
 Paradise  Flycatcher. 
 Muscicapaparaim, Linn.  Syst.  Nat.,  tom.  i. p.  324.- I b .  Gmd. Edit., tom. i. p.  929.—Lath.  Ind.  Ora.,  vol. ii.  
 p .  480. 
 Avis Paradisiaca  Orientalis, Seba, i.  t.  52.  fig. 3. 
 Pied Bird o f Paradise, Edw. Glean., pis.  113, 325. 
 Paradise Flycatcher, Lath.  Gen.  Syn., vol. iii.  p.  345.—Id. Supp., p. 172.—Shaw, Gen. ZooL, vol. x. p. 416—Lath. 
 pen.  Hist., vok vi. p.  192. 
 Muscicapa mutata, Lath., from India. 
 Muscipeta leucogastra, Swains. Nat. Lib.  Flycatchers, p.. 205. pi.  24, young. 
 ■  Muscipeta paradisi, Cuv.—Frankl. inProc.  of Comm, of Sci. and Corr.  of Zool. Soc., Part i. p.  116.  Sykes in lb.,  
 Part ii. p. 84.—Bonap. Consp.  Gen. Ay., p.  325, Muscipeta, sp.  1. 
 Muscipeta Indies, Steph. ConL  of Shaw’s Gen. Zool, vol. xiii. p.  111.—Sykes' in Pi oc. -of Comm,  of Sci. and Corr. 
 of Zool. Soc., Part ii. p.  84. 
 Avis Paradisiaca cristata, Seba, i. t. 30. fig.  5. 
 Upupa paradisea, Linn. Syst. Nat., tom. i. p.  184. 
 Muscicapa castanea, Temm. 
 Muscipeta paradisea, Jerd.  111.  Ind. Orn., pi. Yii. 
 Tcldlrea paradisi, Gray and Mitch-Gen.  of Birds, vol. I. p.  259,  Tshitrea, sp.  1.—Blyih,  Cat.  of Birds  in  Mus. 
 Asiat. Soc. Calcutta, p.  203. 
 Shah Bulbul, and Hosseini Bulbul,  Hindoos. -»  , 
 ■M HM H h h I   !  > The White Bird. 
 Kaddehoora,  Cingalese.  J 
 Sultana Bulbul, H, indops.I ■ T»  he Chestnut ^B  ird., 
 Ginihoora,  Cingalese.  J 
 Tonka Peegeelee-pitta, i. e. Long-tailed Bulbul, Telugu. 
 Walkordalatee, Tatnul. 
 In Malyalum it is  called by  a name signifying the King of Heaven. 
 W it h o u t   particularizing  the  numerous  localities  whence  specimens  o f  this  very elegant  and  ornamental  
 species  of  Flycatcher have been  brought to Europe,  it may be stated  to  be generally distributed  over India,  
 from  the  warmer  regions :of  the  Himalaya  to  the  farthermost  part  of  the  Peninsula,  wherever  wooded  
 districts  suitable  to its habits  and mode  of  life  occur.  I t  is  said  to  give  preference  to  dense juDgles  of  
 bamboo,  but  to  be  very  frequently  found  in  gardens,  shrubberies,  and  other  cultivated  situations.  Mr.  
 Jerdon  of Madras,  who has  given by far the best account of the  species, .states  th a ti||in   its  habits  it is  restless  
 and wandering,  flitting  continually from  branch | |  branch  and from  tree  to  tree.  It feeds  on various  
 insects,  Which  it  takes  in  the  air,  and  occasionally  from  the branches  of the trees.  I  have  generally seen  it  
 singly or in  pairs.  I t  is-said  to hgted among the bamboos:  It has  a loud,  harsh,  grating  cry of alarm,  hut 
 I  never'heard  it  utter  any other note.  When  it seizes  an  insect it makes  a loud  snap with  its  mandibles.’?  
 And Captain Boys  states  that it flies  in  long  undulating sweeps;  and that the length  of the  tail  has procured 
 it-the  name  of the Raquet Bird. 
 A complete  list  of  the synonyms that have  been  applied  to  this  species would  occupy a t least  an  entire  
 page,  as  both  the  generic  and  specific  appellations  have  been  multiplied  almost without  end.  Nor  is there  
 less  confusion with  regard  to  the sexual differences  of  plumage to which  the  species  is  subject,  and which  
 are  so  great,  as to  have led  to  the  belief that  the  bird  constituted  two,  if not three species;  the white birds  
 with  long flowing  tail-feathers  being  regarded  as  distinct from  those  having  the  upper  surface  and  tail-  
 feathers  brown,  and  the young birds which  are always  destitute  of  the lengthened  tail-feathers  as  different  
 from  both.  After carefully examining the  numerous  examples  I  possess  in  every stage o f plumage,  studying  
 the changes  the  allied species apparently undergo,  and  reading with  attention  the opinions  of  every writer  
 on  the  subject,  I  beiieve  that the  conclusion  I  have  come to  is  the right one;  namely,  that fully adult males  
 have  the  body and  tail  wholly  white,  with  the  exception  of  the  primaries,  which  are  invariably  black,  
 margined with white ;  th at the adult female  has  the middle  tail-feathers  of  the same  length  as  in  the male,  
 and. the whole  of  the  upper surface, wings  and  tail rufous,  the primaries  being  merely a  shade darker  than  
 the  other  p art  of  the  plumage,  and  the  breast-feathers  clouded with grey.  I  have  specimens  apparently  
 adult with  very long tail-feathers,  ascertained  to be males by actual  dissection, which have  the  upper surface,  
 wings  and  tail brown  like  the female,  but  of a  lighter  tint and with  black  primaries.  I  have also seen  other  
 •males  directly intermediate,  some  of  them  having white feathers  interspersed among brown  ones,  and  the  
 like  ^occurring with  regard  to  the  tail-feathers,  some  being  white, while  others  were  brown  in  the  same  
 specimen.  I  believe that when  the long feathers  have  been  once acquired  by either  sex  they  are not again  
 thrown off,  and  that  they are not  a seasonal  or  breeding  characteristic,  as  some authors  have  supposed :  
 the  short-tailed birds which  are  always  chestnut are  very  young birds.  To  be more concise,  I may state, that  
 the white birds  are invariably males,  that the chestnut  birds with black primaries  are  also  males,  that  the  
 chestnut  birds with  brown  primaries  are females,  and  that the short-tailed  birds are  the young  of  the  year  
 of both  sexes.