and much more curved and slender. A few dimensions here will not be out of place.
| Length. | Wing. | Tarsus. | Spread of foot. |
Hind claw. | |
| C. Richardi male | 7.25 | 3.4 | 1.17 | 2.22 | .7 |
| C.„ Richardi„ female | 7.37 | 3.6 | 1.25 | 2.25 | .65 |
| C.„ Richardi„ male | 7.5 | 3.72 | 1.25 | 2.35 | .7 |
| C.„ Richardi„ female | 7.2 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 2.24 | .72 |
| C. Striolata male | 7.15 | 3.63 | 1.03 | 1.7 | .42 |
| C.„ Striolata„ female | 6.9 | 3.5 | 1.07 | 1.76 | .55 |
| C.„ Striolata„ male | — | 3.25 | .96 | 1.6 | .43 |
| C.„ Striolata„ female | — | 3.5 | 1.08 | 1.65 | .48 |
The above measurements will give a good idea of the great difference in tarsus and hind claw between the two species. C. rufula is so much smaller than either of the others, that measurements of it are not necessary here. It generally measures about six inches in total length, and for its size has a large bill, and a singularly long strong tarsus, large foot, and hind claw for so small a pipit. It is a permanent resident from the south to the north of India and not, as far as I know, at all migratory like the other Indian pipits. I omitted noticing in the proper place, that the legs and feet of C. Richardi are not so fleshy in color as those of C. striolata and C. rufula; but are more yellowish, particularly the soles of the feet. The color of the inside of the mouth varies. This is generally a moderately bright yellow, but in some examples is pale flesh-colored. The latter are probably young birds.
