Recently published Ornithological Works, 555 



he fuuud certain differences, which arc pointed out. Should 

 it prove to beh)ng to a distinct species, Mr. Nortli proposes 

 for it the name Psephotus cucullatus. 



73. Oberholser on the Alcedinine Genus llamphalcyon. 



[A Revision of the Kinfrfisher Genus Ramphalcyon {Pelavgopsix). By 

 Ilavry C. Oberholser. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. xxxv. p. ()-37. Washinf>:(oii, 

 P^eb.'l909.] 



The persistent efforts of Dr. W. L. Abbott during his 

 various explorations of the East Indian Islands have furnished 

 the U.S. National Museum with a good set of specimens of 

 Kingfishers of the genus Felaryopsis, which have been the 

 main basis of the present memoir. Mr. Oberholser prefers 

 to call the genus Ramphalcyon, because, as he says, " Gloger's 

 term Pelargopsis is certainly not identifiable." As regards 

 this, however, we may point out that " Ramphalcyon " seems 

 to be in a similar scrape. It was published by Reichenbach 

 in ]851 without a description of any sort, and no type was 

 ever assigned to it by its author. Under tliese circumstances 

 we see no reason why Pelargopsis, which was adopted by 

 Cabanis and Heine in 1860, should be superseded. 



M r. Oberholser divides the genus Ramphalcyon (scr."/?/iamjoA- 

 alcyou") into three sections, each of one species — R. amauro- 

 jjtera, R. melanorhyncha, and R. capensis. The second of these 

 species is divided into three subspecies and the third into six- 

 teen subspecies. Of the latter group four new subspecies are 

 characterized — R. c. isoptera, R. c. nisoeca, R. c. cyanopteryx, 

 and R. c. hydrophila. But some of these so-called subspecies 

 (e. g. R. gigantea) are manifestly so different as to be entitled 

 to full specific rank, while some of the others seem to be 

 founded on very weak characters. It seems to us also a 

 great mistake to call sixteen birds which belong to a purely 

 Oriental group "^ capensis," and we fully agree with Dr. 

 Sharpe in the " manifest inccmgruity of such an appellation." 

 It is, moreover, quite impossible to decide to which of the 

 closely allied forms Linnaeus^s name Alcedo capensis should 

 be referred. The appellation capensis is consequently void for 

 uncertainty, and m our opinion should be rejected altogether. 



