18G7.] ON THE OENITHOLOGT OP CETLON. 49 



"Without actual comparison of the types 1 cannot positively affirm that the two belong to 

 the same species. M. Pucheran does not mention the existence of a crest ; and this omission, 

 taken together with the difference of origin, makes it possible that the Cochin-Chinese species 

 does differ from the one inhabiting Siam. 



I am, yours obdt,, 



Walden". 



Letter on Loriculus edwardsi, Blyth,from Viscount Walden, F.L.S., F.Z.S. &c., 



to the Editor of ' The Ibis.' iWs, i.S67, 



Chislehurst, Kent, P- ■^'^~- 



August 25, 1867. 



SiK, — In the last number of ' The Ibis ' for this year (p. 295), I observe that Mr. Blyth has 

 given a new title, Loriculus edwardsi, to the common little Parrakeet of Ceylon, hitherto known as 

 Psittacus indicus, Gm., or as P. asiaticus, Lath. With due deference to Mr. Blyth's high 

 authority on ornithological subjects (and no one more fully respects it than I do), I regret that I 

 cannot concur in the reasons given by that gentleman for rejecting, in this case, the older titles 

 and adding a new one to our already over-loaded list of synonyms. 



Edwards first figured and described the Ceylon species (i. pi. G), from a specimen in spirits 

 " brought from some Dutch settlement in the East Indies." From his descriptions and plate, 

 which Brisson notices as " une figure exacte," it is evident that the Ceylon bird and no other 

 served as the subject. Brisson, describing from the plate, but without having seen the species (for 

 the two asterisks at the commencement of his diagnosis are wantiug), founded on it his 

 Psittncida indica. He quotes no other authors. Linui3eus (Syst. Nat. ed. xii.) omitted all 

 notice of Brisson's description, and, under P. galgulus, merely refers the reader to Edwards's 

 plate (" Co??/. Pdio. t. 6 "), P. f/algidus having been solely based by him on Edwards's plate 26-3, 

 fig. 1. Latham (Syn. i. p. 311), under the title of "red and green Indian Parrot," inserts the 

 species on the authority of Brisson and Edwards ; while Gmelin (Syst. Nat. i. p. 349), quoting 

 those three authors only, gave the species the title of P. indicus. Latham, a little later, 1790 

 (Ind. Orn. i. p. 130), while quoting Gmelin, Brisson, Edwards, and himself, entitled it P. asiaticus. 

 Both Gmelin and Latham therefore gave their names to Edwards's species, which was 

 undoubtedly from Ceylon. Mr. Blyth seems fully to admit that Edwards's plate 6 refers to the 

 Ceylon bird, and yet he says "this race is wholly peculiar to Ceylon, and therefore is neither the 

 Psittacus indicus of Gmelin, nor P. asiaticus of Latham." Now as this form is not found in ^''i*' 1^/'' 

 India proper, we may follow Messrs. Horsfield and Moore (Cat. E. Ind. Mus. ii. p. 628) and 

 suppress Gmelin's title, otherwise the oldest; but what reason is there for not adopting the next 

 in succession, P. asiaticus, Latham \ 



With reference to the same paper you will perhaps permit me to add that Lanius 

 lucionensis is a Linnsean title originally given to a Philippine race which is totally distinct from 

 that of Ceylon, as I have already endeavoured to show in our Journal {antea, pp, 212 et seqq.)* ; 



* [Antea, p. 40.— Ed.] 



H 



p. 408. 



