324 Recent Ornithological Publications. 



a disquisition on their systematic arrangement, followed hy a list 

 of genera and species, concluding this part of the work. 



Then begins the special part, wherein each species is consi- 

 dered separately and in very great detail ; and this part occupies 

 about five-sixths of the whole work. From what we have already 

 said it will be gathered that no person ought in future to write 

 anything on the Psittaci without consulting Dr. Finsch's Mono- 

 graph. We shall content ourselves now by giving a short abs- 

 tract of his systematic arrangement. He regards the gi'oup as 

 forming a single family, Psittacidce, of the Zygodactyl order, and 

 divides it into five subfamilies as follows : — Stringopime, Plicto- 

 lophince, Sittacina *, Psittacinoe, and Trichoglossince, which may 

 be rendered more familiar to English ears by the names — though 

 some are barbarous enough — Kakapos, Cockatoos, Maccaws (in- 

 cluding many of the species commonly known as Parrakeets), 

 Parrots proper, and Brush-tongue Lories. We will not presume 

 to criticise this arrangement. Like most other things of the 

 same nature, it has its bad as well as its good points ; probably, 

 however, the latter predominate. The separation of the genus 

 Strigops (or Siringops, as Dr. Finsch would have us write it) 

 from the other Parrots seems to be very proper. It will perhaps 

 be remembered {cf. Ibis, 1868, p. 87) that in this form the mode 

 of ossification of the sternum may possibly difi"er, as Prof. Huxley 

 (P. Z. S. 1867, p. 424<) tells us, from the mode in every other 

 Carinate bird ; but at any rate, the Kakapo^s want of a keel is 

 an undoubted fact, and must signify a good deal. The Cocka- 

 toos, too, and, one would think, the Maccaws, form each a very 

 natural group; but we do not profess to give an opinion on 

 Dr. Finsch's placing among the latter, rather than among the true 

 Parrots, such generic forms as Conurus and Palceornis, to say 

 nothing of Brotogerys and Platycercus. The advancement of the 



* It is unfortimate, we think, that our author is compelled by the very- 

 strict rules of nomenclature to which he binds himself to make use of 

 the name Sittace, and particularly Sittacina, when Psittacus and Psitta- 

 cince also occur. Still, on his principles, there is clearly no help for it, 

 though whether those principles are justifiable is another matter. Sittace, 

 as Dr. Finsch rightly quotes (i. p. 34, note) from Pliny, is a word of bar- 

 barous origin, just as Ara is, the chief difference between them being 

 that one was latinized some fifteen hundred years before the other. 



