( 11 ) 



I therefore propose Eutelipsifta, and designate as type Psittacus chlorolepidotus 

 Kuhl. 



Page 40: Species 311. Ci/r-lopsitta h'lilhmti'ri McCoy, Annals Mag. j^at. Ilisf. 

 Ser. iv. vol. xvi. p. .54, Jnly 1, 1875 

 replaces C. mnccoyi Gonld, Froi\ Zool. Soc. Loml. p. 314, Ang. 1, 

 1875. 

 „ „ Genus CLXXXII. 5o;«no^Zos«i<.s Ranzani, Efewi. ^/< ^rto/. iii. pt. ii. p. 18, Jh qI. 

 pi. V. figs. 3, 3, 1821 

 replaces Microglossus Vieillot. , 



Salvadori's reason for rejecting Solenoglossus, as given in the Cat. Birds 

 xx. p. 102 footnote, reads: 



" Solenoglossus Ranz. has certainly the priority over Microglossus Geoffr., 

 but it conveys quite a false idea of the structure of the tongue." 



Then follows a history of the name Microglossus. 



It is interesting to note that Gray, in the List Genera Birds, p. 69 (1841), 

 nsed Microglossum Geoffr., 1 809 ; probably following Gray, Agassiz, in the Nomen. 

 Zool. Aves, p. 47, 1846, gave Microglossum Geoff., Ann. Mus. xiii. (1809). 



But search through the Aimales Mus. d'llisf. Nat. Paris, vol. xiii. (1809) does 

 Dot reveal Microglossum, though in that volume Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire introduced 

 a new genus Microductylus. I surmise that the similarity of names, through 

 inadvertence, caused the reference of Microglossum to this place. I have looked 

 through all Saint-Hilaire's papers without result, and when he later discussed 

 Microglossus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did not claim to have previously proposed 

 the name, and accepted it as of Vieillot, Galcrie d'Oiseaux i. p. 47, pi. 50. 



In the same place Count Salvadori pointed out that Probosciger Knhl {Consp. 

 Psitt. p. 12, 1820) was not proposed generically, but only the name given to 

 a section, and therefore did not recognise it as applicable from that introdnction. 

 AVith this statement I ijuite agree, and refuse to accept names simply proposed 

 sectionally as of their sectional date. 



Bnt I noted that on p. 170 Count Salvadori has allowed the use of Conurus, 

 which was proposed at the same time and in the same manner as Prohosciger, and 

 moreover dates it from the Consp. Psitt. of Kuhl. I consider it invalid as of that 

 place, and before it was taken up generically Aratinga would appear to have been 

 proposed by Spix {Av. Bras. i. p. 29, 1824). Further, the earliest use of Coriurus 

 1 can trace is that of Lesson, who, in the Manuel d'Orn. ii. p. 148, 1828, used it 

 subgeuerically and cited as type Psittacus rujirostris L. enl. 550. This is one of 

 Kuhl's original species, and therefore should Co'nurus be recognised as of Kuhl, 

 it follows that its type would of necessity be that species. In the Cat. Birds xx. 

 p. 443, the species, enl. 5.50, is called Palaeorids torquata Boddaert, the name 

 given to that figure alone. It would thus follow that Conunis Lesson, 1828, 

 should be quoted in the synonymy of Palaeornis. To refer it incorrectly to Knhl, 

 1820, would mean the displacement of Palaeornis by Conurus. Consistently 

 Comirus must be displaced by Aratinga. 



Further, Count Salvadori {Cat. Birds xx. p. 138) rejected Micropsitta Lesson, 

 Traitc d'Orn. Tp. 646. 1831, in favour of N'asiterna Wagler, 3{on. Psitt. p. 498. 

 1832. No reason is given, but in the Ibis, 1906, p. 326, Count Salvadori has 

 cxi)lained, " The latter name (Micropsitta) was proposed as a subgenus of Psittacus, 

 and not as a real genus." Here Count Salvadori is clearly at fault, as for nomen- 



