272 Mr.V1cons's and Dr. HorsriezD’s Description of the 
bers, not more perhaps than half-a-dozen at a time: but I have 
met with them in many different places. Sometimes they came 
within half a mile of the centre of Paramatta, where I have shot 
them in the trees. The natives told me it made its nest in 
Yar'ro-trees (a species of Eucalyptus), using only the vegetable 
mould. It makes no Co’tora, but cuts off the small branches of 
Apple-trees (a species of Angophora). It has two young ones." 
3. Cooxir*. C. niger, rectricibus lateralibus medio coccineis, 
rostro nigro. 
* This bird, together with five other new species of Parrots belonging to the 
Society's collection, were described by M. Temminck in the 13th volume of these 
Transactions. The same birds, and from the same collection, some of them being 
found exclusively in it, were also described by the late M. Kuhl in a Monograph of 
the family published in the ** Nova Acta PAysico- Medica Academia Cesaree Leopol- 
dino- Caroline Nature curiosorum," but described under different names from those of 
M. Temminck. A question here arises as to the respective right of these naturalists 
to have their names adopted. On the point of priority the case is as follows. M. Tem- 
minck's Paper was published in 1891: M. Kuhl’s bears the date of 1890. But on 
the other hand, M. Temminck's Paper was read before the Society on the 21st of De- 
cember 1819.—For our own parts, we have not the slightest hesitation in preferring 
the names of M. Temminck. We do not found our decision on the nice point of the 
act of reading before a chartered Society being to be considered as an act of publica- 
tion; a point, however, which ought to be determined and acted upon as of much 
consequence to the interests of naturalists: but we go upon the broad principle, that 
when a naturalist has the exclusive authority to describe any subjects of Natural 
History, and has devoted himself to the task,—a fact of course to be ascertained from 
the public reading of his Paper,—any attempt to anticipate him in his descriptions, 
by taking advantage of the delays which sometimes unavoidably take place in the 
publication of extensive works, is perfectly unwarrantable, and ought decidedly to 
be discountenanced. Such are our views as to the general principle. In applying 
it to the present case, however, we must subjoin our suspicions that some mistake 
arose between those two gentlemen. M. Kubl was the friend and coadjutor of 
M. Temminck during his visit to this country when he described the birds in ques- 
tion; and it is not probable that he would have interfered, unless under some miscon- 
ception. 
Psittacus 
