ORNITHOLOGICAL EXPLORATIONS. 183 



scribed aud measured by reiiuant,* the descriiition of which agrees in 

 every particular with the bird afterward described by Pallas as bicris- 

 tatus. 



We have now concluded (1) tliat the "Ouril" and " Urile" of the 

 "Description of Kamtschatka" is the hicristatus; (2) that Pennant's and 

 Latham's " Ked-faced Corvorant or Shag " was based upon the above 

 partly, and i>artly upon a specimen belonging to that very species j (3) 

 that the character given by Pennant as "a white cutaneous circle" 

 was only a slip of the pen ; (4) that the name ii^'iJc, given by Gmelin, 

 and also the erroneous diagnosis, are based on the above; in other 

 w^ords, that urile is the older name for hicristatus, and that urile is not 

 a synonym of pc7'spicillatus, not even in i^art. The latter conclusion 

 is also npparent by a comparison of the characters given, except the 

 white (!) eye-ring. 



Urile is said to have the bill slender ; in perspicillatus it is robust. 

 Urile has lii rectrices only, while perspicillatus is said to have 14. 

 The former is given as having white slender feathers on the fore part of 

 the neck ovAj, while the characteristic feature of the latter is the long 

 and straw-yellow feathers on the head and neck. 



There remains now only to dispose of the name violaceus Gmel., which 

 is absolutely of the same date as urile, occurring on the same page. 



En this case, too, Gmelin bases his name and diagnoses upon the same 

 two works as above; his diagnosis, "P. niger violaceo-nitens, capite 

 cristato." " Habitat circa Camtschatcam, vicinasque insulas,''^ being a 

 literal translation of the whole text of Pennant relating to the species, 

 viz : " P. With the body wholly black, glossed with violet c*ior. Found 

 about Kamtscliatlm and the isles." Latham does not add anything, ex- 

 cept the remark, "the size not mentioned." 



It will be seen that it is impossible to determine the bird from the 

 above descri[)tion, so we may safely do away with a name which has 

 caused so much confusion, being fortunate enough in having a name of 

 the same date and of indisputable pertinency. 



Mr. Taczanowski, in a recent memoir (Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1883, 

 p. 341) says: " Les deux especes voisines des mersde Kamtschatka, sont 

 si distinctes entre elles et si bien caracterisees par Pallas, qu'il est eton- 

 nantqu'elles soient confondues par plusieurs ornithologistes modernes." 

 Schlegel (Mus, P. B., 1. c.) cannot be said to have confounded them, as he 



*Th('. flifference in tho length — :?1 and 34 inches — is hardly of any account, if we 

 renieinhor that the measurements are taken from a mounted specimen. 



