Description
The Yellow-rumped Honeyguide is sparrow sized and has a stout finch-like bill. The plumage is largely dusky olive and the forehead and lores are orange while the upper plumage. There is a streaked appearance to the wing feathers. The rump is deep orange and extends into the back grading to sulphur yellow. The chin and throat are yellowish while the lower plumage is pale grey with dark streaks. The bill is yellow but dark towards the tip. Females have less extensive yellow on the face and the rump is yellow and lacks the orange. Allan Octavian Hume described the subspecies radcliffi (after Colonel E. Delmé-Radcliffe) based on specimens from Hazara but no specimens or information from the region have subsequently been obtained putting it in some doubt. The species was described by Blyth based on specimens from near Darjeeling. Ripley described specimens from the Naga Hills as subspecies fulvus (not always recognized), said to be smaller and darker, with the streaking on the abdomen reduced and the yellow on the forehead restricted to the anterior. This population may be identical to the nominate of the eastern Himalayas. They have twelve tail feathers and nine primaries. The wing is long and pointed.
Read more about this topic: Yellow-rumped Honeyguide
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“The next Augustan age will dawn on the other side of the Atlantic. There will, perhaps, be a Thucydides at Boston, a Xenophon at New York, and, in time, a Virgil at Mexico, and a Newton at Peru. At last, some curious traveller from Lima will visit England and give a description of the ruins of St Paul’s, like the editions of Balbec and Palmyra.”
—Horace Walpole (1717–1797)
“It is possible—indeed possible even according to the old conception of logic—to give in advance a description of all ‘true’ logical propositions. Hence there can never be surprises in logic.”
—Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)