70 



Catalopriie No. 



7. Merula, "Leach, 1816" (type, Tvrdus merula, Linn.). 



The proper generic division of the typical thiushos is a matter of considerable difficulty. 

 Of the North American generic groups, Hylocichla and Ilcxperocichla of Baird are suQei- 

 eutlj' isolated, the latter being repri'sented by a single species, the former by all the smaller 

 spotted species, besides the Song Thrush (Turdus musicuy, Linn.) of Europe. I find 

 no American species agreeing at all closely with Turdus viscivonis (the typo of Turdus) in 

 form ; and a generic division based wholly or chiefly on coloration being out of the qiiestinn, 

 I find no other alternative than to adopt for the Robin and other American thrushes usu;;lly 

 referred to "Plancsticus" of Bonaparte (1854) the name Merula, Leach (1816), there being no 

 essential difference in form between the typo of the latter, Turdus merula, Linn (Merula 

 nigra, Leach) and our Robin (T. migratorias, Linn.); while a number of the Neotropical 

 species exhibit the same sexual difference in coloration as T. merula. I would also refer to 

 Merula the following Old "World forms: Turdus pilaris, Linn, (type of J.rccw(/iornts, Kaup, 

 1829), Turdus atrogularis, Temm. (typo of Cichloides, Kaup, 1829), Turdus torquatus, Linn, 

 (type of Thoracocincla, Reich., 1850), with perhaps sonie others. 



9. Hesperocichla, Baird, Review Am. B. i. July, 1864, 32 (type, Turdus iicevius, 



Gmel.). 

 12. Galeoscoptes, Cabanis, Mus. Hein. 1. 1850, 82 (type, Muscicapa carolbiensis, Liuu.). 



19. Cinclus, Becbstein, Gemein. Naturg. 1802 (type, Sturnus cinclus, Linu.). \_Cf. Baird, 



Review Am. B. i. 1864,59, foot-note.] 



20. Cyanecula, Brehm, Vog. Deutschl. 1828 (type, Motacilla suecica, Linn.). 

 34. Phylloscopus, Boie, Isis, 1826, 792 (type ?) 



50. AuRiPARUS, Baird, Review Am. B. i. Aug. 1864, 85 (type, JEgiihalus flaviceps, 



Sundev. ). 

 61. Thryomanes, Sclater, Cat. Am. B. 1861, 22 (type. Troglodytes bewicki, Aud.). 

 65. Anorthura, Renuie, Montagu's Orn. Diet. 2d ed. 1831, 570 (type, A. communis, 



Rennie ^^= Motacilla troglodytes, Linn.). 

 67. Telmmtodytes, Cabanis, Mus. Hein. i. 1850, 78 (type, Certhia palustris, Wils.). 



69. Motacilla, Linnteus, S.N. 1735 (type, ilf. alba, Linn.). 



70. Budytes, Cuvier, Reg. An. i. 1817, 371 (type, Motacilla fiava, L.). 



76. Heloncea. — Helinaia, Audubon, Synop. 1839, 66 (type, Sylvia stvainsoni, Aud.). 

 [Orthography emended by Agassiz, Nomencl. 1847. Cf. Newton, P. Z. S. 

 1879,552.] 

 90. Perissoglossa, Baird, Review Am. B. i. 1864, 180 (type, Motacilla tigrina, Gm.). 

 92. Peucedramus, Coues, in Henshaw's Orn, Wheeler's Survey, 1875, 201 (type, Syl- 

 via olivacea, Giraud). 

 115. Siurus.—Cf. Coues, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club. 



124. Wilsonia, Bonaparte, Comp. List. 1838, 23 (type, Sylvia mitrata, And.?). [C/. 

 Coues, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, April, 1880, 95.*] 



131. Cardellina, "Dubus", Bonap. Consp. i. 1850, 312 (type, Cardellina aHu'cta, Dubus=: 



Muscicapa ruhrifrons, Giraud). 



132. Ergaticus, Baird, Review Am. B. i. May, 1865, 264 (type, Setophaga rubra, 



Swains.). 



133. Basileuterus, Cabanis, in Schomb. Guiana, iii, 1848, 666 (tjrpe, Sylvia vermivora, 



Vieill.). 

 135. Vireosylvia, Bonaparte, Comp. List. 1838, 26 (type, Muscicapa olivacea, Linn.). 

 140. Lanivireo, Baird, Review Am. B. i. May 23, 1866, 345 (type, Vireo Jiavifrons, 



Vieill.?). 



*It is exceedingly doubtful whether Wilsonia, Bp., should displace Myiodioctes, Aud. Bonaparte's 

 name occurs first in a mere list, is used only as a heading for a subgeueiic gioup, and is uniiccom- 

 pani£d either by a diagnosis or an indication of type. Audubon, however, only a year later, in desig- 

 nating the same group of birds by the new generic term Myiodioctes, g.avean excellent diagnosis of tho 

 generic characters. It appears to us that the slight diflerence of date in favor of Bonaparte's name is 

 greatly overbalanced by the pains which Audubon took to duly characterize hia genus, thus conform- 

 ing to the requirements of uomenulatarid laws, which Bonaparte failed to do. 



[Note. — Upon reconsideration of all the facts bearing on tho ca»e, I see no reason why Myiodioctes 

 should not be preferred, and accordingly restore it in this edition of the catalogue.] 



