192 Transactions, 



included in it are ranged under Pachyptila, more than one hundred years 

 old ; others to Pseudoprion and Heteroprion, of later dates. 



Our warblers, hitherto placed in the genus Pseudogerygone, are found 

 by careful comparison with members of that genus to differ sufficiently 

 from it to warrant the formation of two new genera— Maorigerygone and 

 Hapolorhynchus. 



It is, of course, impossible for me to give the reasons for these various 

 changes, or to discuss their correctness or otherwise. These authors have 

 had opportunities denied to us in our isolation. We must accept their 

 conclusions as well founded — at any rate, in most instances — till some 

 other ornithologist in Europe shows reasons against them. 



But there are one or two cases at least in which it seems to me that the 

 alterations are open to criticism. For example, the New Zealand crows 

 belong to a genus confined to the main islands of New Zealand, of which 

 only two species are known. In the " Catalogue of the Birds in the British 

 Museum," vol. 3, written in 1877 by Bowdler Sharpe, we find that two 

 generic names are given as having been bestowed on these crows — Glaucopis 

 Gmelin, 1788, and Callaeas Forster, 1844. Sharpe retains the earlier 

 name, and we have always known our crows as Glaucopis. Now Mathews 

 and Iredale date Callaeas as 1788 (how is it that Sharpe did not know this ?) ; 

 but even if this be so — and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of 

 this statement — yet the general zoologist, who is not obsessed by the desire 

 for change for the sake of adhering slavishly to the law of priority, cannot 

 refrain from asking, What benefit to ornithological literature results from 

 ringing the changes on these two names ? Glaucopis has been in use, 

 apparently unchallenged, for 125 years; and even if Callaeas was invented 

 in the same year as Glaucopis, what harm can possibly arise by leaving 

 Callaeas in its long sleep, buried away in some presumably un-get-at-able 

 publication, for, as I have noted, Sharpe seems to have overlooked its 

 earlier date ? What advantage to any zoologist is attained by thus sub- 

 stituting the name Callaeas for the well-known Glaucopis ? The genus is 

 endemic, and confined to this country ; it is quite isolated ; and the name 

 Gluacopis has the authority of the British Museum catalogue. It seems a 

 needless alteration. 



Again, the huia belongs to a genus with a single species, confined to 

 New Zealand (North Island). Hitherto we have called it Heteralocha 

 acutirostris, and though Sharpe, in his catalogue, clearly recognized that. 

 Gould's name of Neomorpha (1837) precedes that of Cabanis (1851), yet he 

 retains the later name, Heteralocha. Neomorpha Gould appears to have 

 been discarded because a genus of cuckoo had already been named 

 Neomorphus by Gluger in 1827. It is therefore not clear why these authors 

 have resuscitated Gould's name. 



Another unfortunate change is that in the specific name of our South 

 Island thrush, hitherto known as Turnagra crassirostris. It appears that 

 the name bestowed on the original specimens by Sparrman was T. capensis, 

 owing to a mistake in his labels, so that he attributed the bird to the Cape 

 of Good Hope. It is only as a- result of the investigations of these authors 

 that it has been found possible to identify these names of Sparrman's with 

 those of Forster. Here again one feels inclined to grumble at the strict 

 application of the law of priority, for the genus is confined to New Zealand, 

 has only the two species, and no sort of conceivable convenience arises 

 from this change, while all kinds of misconceptions and inconveniences 

 may arise in the minds of readers of ornithological works when such a geo- 



