General Notes. 47 



EUMYIAS VERSUS STOPORALA. 



The generic name Eumyias Cabanis has been used by a number of recent 

 authors instead of Stoparola Blyth, apparently because the latter was 

 preoccupied by a previous use of the same name for another group. Dr. 

 C. W. Richmond some time ago called attention (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 

 XXXV, December 16, 1908, p. 643) to the use of Stoparola by Blyth for 

 Muscicapa atricapilla Linnaeus (Stoparola Blyth, in White, Nat. Hist. 

 Selborne, 1836, p. 119, note); hence, of course, Stoparola as thus spelled 

 is unavailable for further use for the genus of East Indian flycatchers to 

 which it commonly applies; and, were there no other prior name, the generic 

 term Eumyias Cabanis (Mus. Hein., I, 1850, p. 63) would come into use 

 for the group. This name Stoparola, as first used in 1836 by Blyth, is not 

 invalid, as Mr. Stresemann at one time contended (Ornith. Monatsber., 

 1913, p. 25; but cf. also Novit. Zool., XXI, No. 1, Feb. 25, 1914), since its 

 basis is "Stoparola luctuosa, the Pied Flycatcher, Auct." the technical 

 specific term of which is a well-known synonym of Muscicapa atricapilla 

 Linnaeus. 



In 1845, however, Blyth employed Stoporala, thus spelled (Journ. 

 Asiatic Soc. Bengal, XVI, 1845, p. 125), in such a way that its type became, 

 by virtual monotypy, Muscicapa melanops Vigors. Since by the current 

 rules of nomenclature Stoporala is not invalidated by Stoparola, the former 

 should henceforth be the generic designation of the group of flycatchers 

 congeneric with Muscicapa melanops Vigors, and hitherto called Stoparola. 



— Harry C. Oberholser. 



PASSERHERBULUS LECONTEII (AUDUBON) BECOMES PAS- 

 SERHERBULUS CAUDACUTUS (LATHAM). 



A number of years ago (The Auk, XIV, No. 3, July, 1897, p. 320), Mr. 

 Ridgway identified the Fringilla caudacuta of Latham (Index Ornith., I, 

 1790, p. 459), described from the interior of Georgia, as an earlier name 

 for the bird then called Ammodramus leconteii (now Passerherbulus lecon- 

 teii). Since, however, this was preoccupied by Oriolus caudacutus Gmelin 

 (Syst. Nat., I, pt. 1, 1788, p. 394), then called Ammodramus caudacutus 

 (Gmelin) (now Ammospiza caudacuta), so long as the two were in the 

 same genus, Mr. Ridgway very properly relegated it to synonymy. When 

 the present writer removed Passerherbulus caudacutus (Gmelin) to the 

 genus Ammospiza (Ohio Journ. Science, XVII, No. 8, June 2, 1917, pp. 

 333-334), he overlooked this note of Mr. Ridgway's. Now, however, 

 since Fringilla caudacuta Latham and Oriolus caudacutus Gmelin are not 

 homonyms, do not apply to birds in the same generic group, and are the 

 earliest names of their respective species, both are available. Mr. Ridg- 

 way's identification of Fringilla caudacuta Latham is without doubt 

 correct, and, since this is the case, there is apparently no reason for its 

 rejection. This necessitates an unfortunate change by which Passer- 

 herbulus leconteii must be known by a generic and specific combination, 

 Passerherbulus caudacutus, which has been applied in recent years to 

 another closely allied species. — Harry C. Oberholser. 



