206 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



These specimens, when compared with a series of twelve skins from 

 the Orinoco region of Venezuela, differ as follows: the blue color of 

 the pileum is more pronounced; the frontal region, bordering the base 

 of the upper mandible, is dusky brownish, never white; the orbital 

 ring is paler, with scarcely any (sometimes no) yellow tinge; and the 

 wings externally are more bluish, less greenish. They clearly repre- 

 sent a form subspecifically distinct from the Orinoco birds, and were 

 accordingly described as new in the belief that Messrs. von Berlepsch 

 and Hartert (Novitatcs Zaologiccc, IX, 1902, 107) were justified in 

 designating Cumana, Venezuela, as the type-locality for Psittacus ccru- 

 ginosus Linnaeus. 30 A series from northern Venezuela (States of Cara- 

 bobo and Lara), while showing a tendency toward the characters of 

 the Colombian birds, are easily referable to the Orinoco form, from 

 which it was inferred that specimens from Cumana would also be the 

 same. Now Dr. Chapman comes forward with good evidence to show 

 that Messrs. von Berlepsch and Hartert were not justified in their 

 designation of a type-locality for Psittacus ccruginosus. This name 

 was based on Edwards' ''Brown-throated Parrakeet," said (in error) 

 to have come from the "West Indies," the description and figure of 

 which clearly indicate a bird without any yellow on the orbital region, 

 so that it is obvious, as Dr. Chapman claims, that the name aeruginosa 

 ought to be used for the. Colombian form now under consideration. 



Although Eupsittula pertinax xanthogenia of the island of Bonaire, 



30 Messrs. Brabourne and Chubb (Birds of South America, I, 1912, 82) have 

 ignored the first fixing of the type-locality in this case, as in numerous others, 

 substituting Cayenne instead. There is no rule in nomenclature governing 

 procedure in such cases, but to leave every author free to follow his own ideas 

 and predilections in these matters, without reference to the work of his prede- 

 cessors or regard for any fixed principles of procedure, is bound to result in 

 more or less confusion whenever it becomes necessary, as in the present case, 

 to subdivide certain species which were described from an unknown or mis- 

 taken source. The fixing of a type-locality is as important for each species 

 and subspecies as the fixing of a type-species for each genus, and ought to be 

 governed by formulated rules. (Compare, in this connection, my remarks 

 upon the case of Chccmepelia passerina, Annals Carnegie Museum, VIII, 

 !9!3. 533'- My opinion is that, all other things being equal, priority should 

 govern in such cases. For instance, had Dr. Chapman not shown the true 

 application of the name <rruginosa, it would make considerable difference 

 which authority was accepted as to the type-locality, since trie birds from 

 Cumana are recognizably distinct from those from Cayenne ! — W. E. C. T. 



