32 Mr. Strickland's Commentary 



Should not the name Philetarus socius, Lath., be used instead of 

 P. lepidus, Smith ? 



The restricted genus Ploceus, Cuv., \i Loxia philippina, Gfm., be 

 considered its type, will contain the greater part of the genus Eu~ 

 plectes, Sw. 



P. 43. The genus Symplectes, Sw., seems to have a fair claim to 

 generic distinction, a conclusion to which Sir W. Jardine arrived in- 

 dependently of Mr. Swainson, when he gave it the name of Eupodes. 

 Mr. Swainson's name, however, was published first, and must there- 

 fore be retained. 



It appears to me that the genera Spermospiza, Pyrenestes, Vidua, 

 Estrelda, Amadina, Spermestes, and Erythrura, ought all to be in- 

 cluded in the sub-family Ploceina. Though the varying development 

 of their beak presents analogies to the CoccothraustirKS and FringiU 

 lince, yet their true affinity to PloceirKE is indicated by their pecu- 

 liarly elevated culmen extending backwards on the forehead, their 

 naked nostrils, their geographical extent, and especially by the spu- 

 riousness of their first primary quill, a character often of great va- 

 lue as an index of affinity. Moreover, the genus Vidua is directly 

 united to Ploceus by means of V. chrysoptera, Vieill., and Ploceus 

 capensis, Lin. 



The Tanagrina would be better placed at the end of Fringillidce, so 

 as not to separate the Coccothraustince from the Fringillince. 



There is much confusion in the synonyms of Tanagra episcopus, 

 but Mr. Gray is probably right in quoting PI. Enl. 178. The ori- 

 ginal T. episcopus of Linnseus and Brisson seems to be the T. seri- 

 coptera of Swainson and the T. ccelestis of Spix. It is probably also 

 the Gracula glauca of Sparrman, though that bird is said to be seven 

 inches long. The T. episcopus of Swainson's Birds of Brazil, pi. 39, 

 seems (judging from the figure) to be only the young of his T. cana, 

 pi. 37. The T, ccelestis, Sw., Birds Braz. pi. 41, is very different 

 from T. ccelestis, Spix, as the wing-covers are green. It is possibly 

 the female of T. cana, Sw. 



There is no doubt that Tanagrella multicolor, Sw., is the Motacilla 

 velia, Lin., and the latter specific name should therefore be used. 



P. 45. On comparing a specimen of Leucopygia ruficollis with 

 Lesson's very short description of his Cypsnagra hirundinacea, there 

 can be no doubt of their belonging to the same genus ; but as Lesson 

 describes his bird as i/we-black above, and says nothing of the white 

 on the rump and wing-covers, I think they cannot be specifically 

 synonymous. I would fain for once break through the law of pri- 

 ority in order to get rid of the intolerable name of Cypsnagra, Less., 

 a word compounded more Gallico out of Cypselus and Tanagra ! 



Is not Emberiza quadricolor, Gm., an earlier synonym of Ery- 

 thrura prasina (Sparm.) ? 



Mr. Gray seems to have omitted the genus Pytelia, Sw., type, 

 P. elegans, Gm., Vieill. Gal. pi. 64. 



P. 46. I do not think it advisable to change the name Pyrgita, 

 Cuv., to that of Passer, *• Ray." Ray does not define Passer as a 

 genus, but merely applies it to designate the House Sparrow in com- 



