NOVITATES ZOOLOOIOAE XXIV. 1917. 286 



one, with naked tarsi, although in the diagnosis he said, " pedibus antice pilosis," 

 which clearly means, "hairy in front." Buturhn translates this "at the front 

 part sHghtly hairy," but this is an arbitrary proceeding which cannot be per- 

 mitted, and when, later on, he says that " pilosus " " may refer to the upper 

 part of the metatarsus of the francolin," this is mere sophistry, as the tarsus 

 is, to all intents and purposes, naked all round and certainly just as bare as in 

 other species in Linnaeus's second section with bare legs. It is true that the 

 words " abdomine gulaque atra, collari ferrugineo " can be apphed to both 

 the Plerocles and the Francolin, and even more Uterallj' to the latter, but they 

 are also (if you like " cum grano saUs ") apphcable to the male Sandgrouse, and 

 the last sentence, " cauda cuneiform!," can only refer to the Sandgrouse, which 

 has a cuneiform tail, and never to the FrancoMn, which has a very slightly 

 rounded one. If Buturhn says that the tail of the Francolin is " sUghtly 

 cuneiform," then he is wrong, for it is not, and Ijnne did not talk of a " sHghtly 

 cuneiform," but of a " cuneiform " tail. 



The crucial point, however, is : Where did Linne get his diagnosis from ? 



Linne quotes as follows : 



Teirao orieriialis Hasselq. it. 278, n. 43. 



Perdix damascena Will. orn. 128. 



Francolin Tournef. it. i. p. 158, t. 158. 



Referring to these, Buturhn says: "If we turn to Linne's quotations for 

 the confirmation of his deductions, we see that not a single one refers to the 

 Sandgrouse, but the first quotation is Tetrao orientalis Hasselq. it. 278, No. 43." 



The fact is that Linne took the deciding portions of his diagnosis entirely 

 from (his own) description in Hasselquist's journey, and that, as I have shown 

 above, they refer to the Plerocles and not to the Francohn. He then care- 

 lessly and erroneously added two quotations, the first of which, from WiUughby, 

 referred to a partridge, the second to the Francolin. The deciding source, there- 

 fore, is Hasselquist. This has been, apparently, admitted by Buturhn, and 

 that he failed to recognise it is the greatest mistake in his deductions. He 

 says : 



" If we turn to that source, that is to Hasselquist's journey in the Levant 

 in 1749-52 (pubUshed by Linne himself), we find (I possess the London edition 

 1706), under No. 43, only the mention of ' Tetrao orientalis^ or 'the Eastern 

 Partridge,' without any description of the plumage. It mentions that its size 

 is that of an ordinary Partridge (which is nearer to the Francohn than to the 

 Sandgrouse) and that it is found in groves and forests of Anatoha. But 

 the Sandgrouse avoids forests and lives in desert tracts ; nor is it found in 

 the western parts of Asia Minor." 



Thus Mr. Buturhn brings forward three more points against the name 

 Tetrao orientalis referring to the Sandgrouse, and in favour of the Francolin, 

 but unfortunately in all three he is wrong. 



First of all, the assertion that Hasselquist's book gives no description of the 

 plumage is utterly wrong, and only due to Buturhn not having seen the book at 

 all, but only the London edition, 1766. This latter I have not seen, as I only 

 know the original Swedish work of 1757, and the German translation of 1762, 

 which is a good and complete one, and in which the descriptions of animals and 

 plants, in fact the whole second part, is not translated, but reprinted in the 

 original Latin text. Now, both these give a full description, over a whole page. 



