520 Additions and Corrections, S^c, 



pagus^ which belongs to a family where already it is alleged 

 that there is too much subdivision, and where the introduction 

 of a new name is pronounced to be an innovation scarcely to be 

 tolerated. The fact before us proves that while we are de- 

 bating about the principle of separating groups, others are actually 

 separating them : while we are contending about the quantum of 

 names which the fastidious taste or treacherous memory of a 

 Zoological student may be enabled to embrace and to retain, 

 others are imposing names without limitation. We thus lose the 

 opportunity of taking that stand in science to which the resources, 

 the intellect, and the industry of this country give us a right to 

 aspire. And what will be the consequence ? In the end we shall 

 be obliged, as heretofore has been the case with respect to Zoo- 

 logy, to follow in the wake of our continental neighbours; we 

 shall be forced, in fact, into a tardy adoption of their names and 

 characters, for the very groups which our own indolence, or 

 timidity, or blind adherence to a restrictive formula of nomen- 

 clature, has prevented us from naming and characterizing our- 

 selves. 



Some of the Brazilian species also, described in this Journal, 

 have been equally described about the same time on the continent. 

 The Le'istes Suchii of this work [Vol. II. p. 92. tab. sup. 10] 

 is the Xanthornus Gasquet of M. M. Quoy and Gaimard [Voy. 

 aut. du Monde] ; the Psittacarafrontata [Vol. II. p. 389] is the 

 jirara macrognathos of Dr, Spix ; and Psittacara Lichtensteinii 

 is the Aratinga cyanogularis of the same naturalist. The latter 

 bird has also been lately figured by M. Temminck, [PI. col. 

 338,] under the name of Psittacus cruentatus. If we turn to the 

 description of Psittacarafrontata in this Journal, we shall per- 

 ceive the observation that the species stands at the extreme limit 

 of the genus where I have placed it, and might perhaps with 

 equal justice be referred to the adjoining division of iVf«cc«t2?j. 

 Accordingly we find that M. Spix has included it among the birds 

 of that group. No single fact can prove more strongly the justice 

 of those views which we are endeavouring so frequently to incul- 

 cate ; namely, the arbitrariness of the divisions which we are 



