of the Mascarene Islands. 287 



quoted^ of Buffon — there was nothing to point to Madagascar 

 till Levaillant in 1805 declared (Hist. Nat. Perroquets, ii. 

 p. 112) : — "Le Mascarin se trouve k Madagascar, et meme, 

 assure-t-on, a I'ile de Bourbon/' Thus the locality commonly 

 assigned really rests with this writer, so notoriously untrust- 

 worthy in the matter of localities; and it may be remarked 

 that he does not adduce the shadow of a fact in support of his 

 assertion. Buffon and Brisson are the only authors he cites, 

 and therefore most likely the only authors whose books on this 

 point he had consulted. He says it is rare, and that he had 

 only seen three examples — one in Mauduyt's possession, 

 another in that of Aubry, and the third in the Paris Museum, 

 which last still exists. This is, of course, totally insufficient to 

 contravene the direct statements of De Querhoeut and Mau- 

 duyt, that the species was found in Bourbon, to which state- 

 ments the account of Du Bois lends greater strength. Yet 

 nearly all succeeding writers have followed the assertion of Le- 

 vaillant. The derivation of the name " Mascarin " furnished 

 by Buffon (which, seeing that Mascarene or Mascarina was 

 the older name of the island, is quite untenable) has doubtless 

 been the chief cause of the error which has misled Bechstein, 

 Kuhl, Vieillot, Lesson, Wagler, Hahn, and finally Dr. Fiusch, 

 or 'rather, perhaps, has hindered them from the right path. 

 It may be remarked that not one of these authors has been 

 able to add a single jot of information on the question of lo- 

 cality. Only two specimens of the species seem to have been 

 preserved to the present time — that in the Paris Museum, 

 already mentioned, and that in the Museum of Vienna, 

 noticed in 'The Ibis' (1873, p. 32). Hahn's figure (Orn. 

 Atlas, Papageien, pi. 39), published in 1834, was taken, he 

 says, from a living bird then in the menagerie of the King 

 of Bavaria ; but what became of its remains at its decease (and 

 it seems to have died since) is not known. 



We now come to Rodriguez. Here we know of two 

 species : — one, the Necropsitiacus rodericanus of M. Alphonse 

 Milne-Edwards (Ann. Sc. Nat. Zool. ser. 5, viii. pp. 145-156, 

 xix. art. 3, p. 18), a large species, not inferior in size to Lo- 

 phopsittacus manritianus, whose remains were found in com- 



