Additions and Corrections^ SfC. 521 



forced to institute for the sake of convenience in our science, and 

 the total want of such divisions in nature. 



Vol. I. p. 412, — '' Ierax»" — This word, although it has been 

 generally used as above written, should more properly be written 

 " Hieraxy I therefore wish to substitute the more classical, for 

 the more customary, orthography. 



Vol. I. p. 412. — " Psittacula KuhliiJ'—M. Lesson, in the 

 « Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles" for Nov. 1825. [p. 409], 

 asserts that the above bird is " simplement le Psiitacus coccineus, 

 Shaw, le Phigi/ de Vieillot. " * — This may be the case. — But 

 hitherto I have seen no proof of such a fact. The circumstances 

 of there being a bird for thirty years in the Paris Museum that 

 accords exactly with the description of Ps, Kuhlii, and of M. 

 JLesson's having a bird of the same beautiful species for several 

 months alive in his possession, — circumstances which that gentle- 

 man advances in support of his assertion, — may be sufficient 

 proofs that the species has been for some time familiar to Euro- 

 peans, but none that it is identical with the Phigy of M. Le Vail- 

 lant. The representation of this latter bird, given in the 64th 

 plate of the " Hist, des Perroquets," is decidedly different to all 

 appeai^ance from the bird described in this Journal. A single 

 character is sufficient to be particularized. The head of the Phigy 

 is not crested ; that of Ps. Kulilii has an elongated and conspicu- 

 ous crest. No crest at least is represented in M. Le Vaillant's 

 figure, or mentioned in his description of the Phigy ; neither is 

 it noticed as a character of the Ps. coccineus of Dr. Shaw, who 

 directly refers to the plate of M. Le Vaillant. M. Lesson adds 

 that the Ps.fringillaceus^ Gmel., appears to be a variety of the 

 same species. This also may be the case. There is however a 

 fine specimen of this species in the British Museum, with which 

 I have compared the Ps. Kuhlii; and although there is a general 

 similarity in the disposition of the colours of these two birds, I 

 am enabled to affirm that no two birds belonging to the same 

 group can be more apparently distinct as species. The difference 

 between them has been pointed out in the description of Ps, 

 Kuhlii. On the whole I feel always inclined to keep apparent 



* I tak« it for granted that M. Lesson means the Phigy of M. Le Vaillant, 



