140 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 



THE PROPER NAME FOR LIMICOLA PLATYRHYNCHA 



(TEMMINCK). 



The current specific name for the broad-billed sandpiper, himicola 

 platyrhyncha (Temminck), seems to be long antedated. Mr. G. M. Mathews 

 has called attention (Austral Avian Record, I, No. 2, April 2, 1912, pp. 

 31-32; ibid., No. 4, Sept. 18, 1912, pp. 84-85; Birds Australia, III, pt. 3, 

 August 18, 1913, p. 280) to Scolopax falcinellus Pontoppidan (Danske 

 Atlas, I, 1763, p. 623, pi. xxvi) which he regards, and we think properly, as 

 clearly applicable to himicola platyrhyncha (Temminck). He states, more- 

 over, that if Pontoppidan's description and plate be considered not suffi- 

 cient to fix the name on himicola platyrhyncha, that the name could be cited 

 from the subsequent Scolopax falcinellus of Briinnich (Ornith. Borealis, 

 1764, p. 49), which is readily seen to be of undoubted application. This, 

 however, could not be, since Scolopax falcinellus Pontoppidan is not a 

 nomen nudum, and consequently if the name Scolopax falcinellus be used 

 at all for himicola platyrhyncha it must date from Pontoppidan, because if 

 this author's Scolopax falcinellus be unidentifiable, it automatically pre- 

 cludes the use of the same name by any other subsequent author. Holding 

 that Scolopax falcinellus Pontoppidan is with sufficient certainty applicable 

 to himicola platyrhyncha, we can regard Briinnich's description as supple- 

 mentary evidence, since he cites "Pontopp. atl. dan. I. t. 26. fig. 4." 

 The species currently called himicola platyrhyncha must, therefore, be 

 known as himicola falcinella (Pontoppidan). 



— Harry C. Oberholser. 



THE TAXONOMIC POSITION OF THE GENUS RAMPHALCYON. 



Mr. W. DeW. Miller, in his excellent revision of the classification of the 

 Alcedinidae (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXXI, 1912, pp. 239-311, pis. 

 xxv and xxvi), has shown the peculiar relationships of the genus Ramph- 

 alcyon. This treatment emphasizes and confirms the points brought out by 

 Fiirbringer and other investigators. Notwithstanding the statements of 

 other authors, Mr. Miller's opinion that Ramphalcyon is more closely al- 

 lied to the Daceloninae than to the Alcedininae seems clearly to be borne 

 out by his array of characters. This genus, however, evidently can not be 

 considered merely an intermediate between the Alcedininae and the Dace- 

 loninae, since it possesses not only characters that belong to these two 

 subfamilies, but also some characteristics of the Cerylinae, and others of 

 its own besides. These characters have been discussed and compared by 

 Mr. Miller on pages 241-261 of the article above cited. In view of these 

 facts, the taxonomic position of Ramphalcyon seems best expressed by the 

 creation of a new subfamily for its reception, an alternative already fore- 

 casted by Mr. Miller himself (p. 241). This new monotypic subfamily 

 which is, of course, to be named, Ramphalcyoninae, stands probably best 



between the Alcedininae and the Daceloninae. 



— Harry C. Oberholser. 



