^"'- ^' ] CovrespofKlence. 57 



much to do with tlio inattei-, but I believe it a justiiiablc 

 suggestion. 



Then, as regards Tringcu the species Ocrophiis (wrongly spelt 

 Ochropiis) is indicated as having been known as Tringa, and I 

 wouki accept this as type. Linnc notes that the prior name of 

 the (at present) type was Canutus. Here, again, it seems to me 

 that l.inne would be more familiar with Ocrophiis, a Swedish 

 breeding bird, than with ('(niultis. 



The acceptance of this " \-irtual lautonymy " will lix the types 

 of some genera which otherwise would be a source of great trouble, 

 and I consider it a most scientific method of selecting the iy\)Q'?> 

 of the Linnean genera. 



In explanation of my inability to admit so many genera, I 

 write the i'ollowing }\- the geneia Cluiradyiv^. and Tringa as 

 accepted by me : — 



Charatlyiiis, as I use it, inchules Cluiradrius, OchlJiodyoniiis, 

 Aigialilcs, Pcltohyas, and liiidvoinias of the Cat. Birds, xxiv. 



It is admitted, even ])y ornithologists who separated the 

 genera Chayadrius and .^gialites (including Ochlhodromus), that 

 " structurally there is no difference between .Egialites and 

 Charadniis," and that there is a complete passage from forms 

 with a distinct nuptial garb to those which have none, through 

 species like the Kentish Plover {C. alexandriniis), so that it is 

 impossible to separate genera on that account. 



I cannot follow my late friend, Bowdler Sharpe, in separating 

 Charadrius aitstralis widely from Eudromias morinelliis {aitctorum). 

 The only structural difference is the scaling in front of the meta- 

 tarsus, which is covered with hexagonal scales in front in all other 

 species of Charadrius (as defined above), but with larger trans- 

 verse scutes in the so-called Peltohyas. 



Even if it were admitted as a generic character, I cannot see how 

 so much importance can be attached to this difference as to make 

 a sub-family on account of it. That such undue importance 

 cannot be attached to this peculiarity is clearly shown by the 

 figures on pages 91 and 308 of the Cat. Birds, xxiv., where the 

 front of the metatarsus is covered in the middle with unbroken 

 transverse scales, while towards the tibia the scales are broken 

 up into small hexagonal scutes. 



Tringa, as I use it, includes Totanus, Helodromas, Hcteractitis, 

 Tringoides, Terekia, Glottis, Psciidoglottis, and Rhvacophi/ns of 

 the Cat. Birds, xxiv. 



This genus — according to the most modern rule of fixing geno- 

 types, to be called Tringa and not Totaniis — is divided into no 

 fewer than eight genera by Bowdler Sharpe, as above. The reasons 

 for this division are, however, in my opinion, not valid. The com- 

 parative lengths between the bills and feet, metatarsus and feet, 

 or bills, &c., are artificial characters, which need not be of any 

 taxonomic value, and in the present case certainly are not. Also, 

 the other characters relied upon in the " Catalogue of Birds " 

 (xxiv., pp. 338, 339) are of minor importance, as they are bridged 



