(21 ) 



In the TsLi, p. 652, 1822, Boie used Saxicola Bechst. for the two Liiineatl 

 Chats and Vitijiora for the "Wheatears. 



lu the List Genera Birds, p. 22, 1840, Gray used VitiJ/ora with type 

 1'. oenantke L. for the Wheatears, aud Riibetra with type 7?. rubetra L. for the 

 Chats. In the 2ad Edition, p. 30 (1841), Gray used Saxicola Bechst., and 

 designated as type S. oenaMhe L. for the Wheatears, accepting Fruticicola 

 Macgillivray, with type F. rubetra L. for the Chats. At p. xi he pointed out 

 that Fruticicola must give way to Pratiiicola Koch. 



It is this action which has apparently governed all later systematists, and I 

 find that the type of Saxicola Bechst. is accepted in the Amer. 0. Union Checklist, 

 3rd Ed. p. 36.5 (1910) as M. oemnthe L. by snbsq. desig. Gray, 1841. 



But even accepting the type by subse(piciit designation method, in preference to 

 the more accurate one of elimination, the results I have given must be recognised ; 

 for Swainson, in the Zool. Jourii. iii. p. 172 (1827), absolutely named as type of 

 Saxicola Bechst. the species Mot. ruhecola Linne, and nothing whatever can be 

 urged against this action, save that Fratincola Koch had been jiroposed for the 

 two species of Chats, and I would have allowed this claim in order to preserve 

 the general acceptation of the names were it not that Fratincola is inacceptable 

 on account of its prior use by Schrank {Fauna Boica i. p. 209, 1798). 



Amandava Blyth, White's Nat. Hist. Selborne, p. 44, note (1836) 



replaces Sporaeginflnis Cabauis, Mas. Hein. i. p. 170, 1850. 



Blyth writes : " Amandam punctata mihi Fringilla amandava Linn6." 

 Sporaeginthus included two species, subjlaca Vieill. and amandam Linne, and 

 though Gray in the Cat. Gen. Subgen. Birds, p. 70, 1855, designated the former as 

 type, in the Cat. Birds B. M. vol. xiii. p. 319, 1890, amandam is given as type. 



Vaginalis versus Chionis. 



In Nov. Zool. xvii. p. 503, 1910, I pointed out that two new genera were 

 proposed by Forster in the Enchiridion, 1788, and in the Xlllth Ed. Sgstema 

 Naturae Gmelin also named the same two genera. 



Arguing that the two works were of even date, I concluded that both of 

 Gmelia's names should be preferred on account of his citation of species, inasmuch 

 as Forster's genera stood upon diagnoses only. Previous to my note one of Forster's 

 had been used and one rejected, but I had been unable to find any reason for such 

 action. 



My action in preferring Gmelin's names has now been questioned on the score 

 of priority, the second part of Gmelin's Sgstema Naturae not having been published 

 until 1789. I therefore endeavoured to settle the matter from tliat stand{)oint. 



Hopkinson {Froc. Zool. Soc. Lond. ji. 1035, 1907) has worked out the dates of 

 Gmelin us far as he could trace. His results are : 



Part I. Earliest notice traced 25. vii. 88. 

 „ II. „ „ „ 20. iv. 89. 



„ III. „ „ „ 20. xi. 89. 



As in the Index Animalium Sherborn had dated both Parts I. and II. 1788, I 

 referred to him for data. AVith his usual unfailing courtesy he referred me to the 

 Gotting. Anzeig., and there I found the notice of Part II. in the Ajjril 20, 1789, 

 number, p. 041, and I also found, what to me was more important, a notice of 

 Forster's Enchiridion in the number for March 27, 1788, p. 489. 



