( 8(i ) 



4. On some Chlamyderae. 



In the genus Chlamijdera (spelt thus by Gonkl, ami not Chlamydodera) I have 

 not recognised C. orientnlia and C. occipitalis. My reason for not allowing specific 

 or even subspecific rank to the former was that; in the British Museum there are 

 exam])les of botli forms, together with a specimen almost intermediate, all from one 

 and the same locality. ('. oci-ipifaliK has long been considered only a very old inalc 

 of C. muculnta, although Sharjje again revived it in his monograph, I suppose to 

 bring in Gould's very beautiful original plate. 



•">. Seleucides ignotus (Forst.). 



Count 8alvadori, to whom we owe so much of our knowledge of the Paradiseidae, 

 and who has specially well worked out the synonymy of the species known at the 

 time of the publication of his great work Onntolocjia della Papuasia e delle Mohtcce, 

 has also given an excellent review of the literature on Seleucides, without, however, 

 accepting the oldest name for the species. There are, as he admits, several names 

 available for this species, which are based on Valentijn's account of the Birds of 

 Paradise (Vol. III. pp. 306 — 313), an English translation of which, by Dr. Forster, 

 is found in Forrest's Voyage to New Guinea, p. 140 (1779).* There is no doubt 

 whatever that both the second rariety of Valentijn's " White Bird of Paradise " and 

 his " Unknown Bird of Paradise " refer to Seleucides, while the first variety of the 

 " White Bird of Paradise " cannot be recognised, and is probably an albino specimen 

 of some kind, being described as guile white. To this AVhite Bird of Paradise Forster 

 gave the name Paradisea Candida, while not naming the " second variety " of it, 

 which is our present Seleucides. Valentijn's No. iS, however, which is also no doubt 

 om- Seleucides, is named by Forster Paradisea ignota. There is no doubt about this 

 fact, and Dr. Sharpe, when saying in his mouograpli of the Paradiseidae that this 

 name had been refused by Salvadori on account of its being founded on an in- 

 sufSciently clear description, must have misunderstood the Count, who merely did 

 not use it because he liad some doubts whether it was used in a binomial manner 

 (" in modo liinomino "). Although the phrase " iu a binomial sense " has often 

 been used by English ornithologists, it does not convey much of a meaning to me, 

 for I consider a species named if two Latin names are used for it after Linnaeus" 

 tenth edition (1758) by an author who acceiited the binomial system. Tliis has 

 been done by Forster, and C'ount Salvadori and others have generally adopted 

 Forster's names ; therefore there is no reason to refuse to accept Paradisea ignota. 

 Paradisea alba Gmelin (1788) cannot be accepted, as it refers again to the " White 

 Bird of Paradise.'" The next available name is Paradisea melanoleuca Dandin 

 (1800). This is the name g-jven to the second variety of the White Bird of Paradise, 

 in opposition to the first quite white variety. There is no reason to refuse 

 P. melanoleuca, and Salvadori only refused it because it gave a false idea of the 

 bird ! We, however, do not now disregard names for that reason, and it may also 

 be very much qucstione<l wliether the name really gives a very false idea, as most 

 specimens in Museums, at least those that are mounted, lose the yellow colour of 

 their plumes, and thus are " black and white.'" If therefore Forster's name could be 

 avoided — which it cannot, as shown above — then Daudin's would have to be used. 



* .Salvadori only quotes tlic French translation of this work, which appcarcil in 1780. 



