284 ON ME. ALLAN HtTME'S EEVIEW OF [1874. 



by more recent investigation to have been in error, had and has a right to hold, advocate, and 



express an independent opinion, without being liable to insult in terms like these. " As usual. 



Dr. Finsch laments our ignorance in regard to all these species. It is really a pity that he will 



not be content to speak for himself. That he has still somewhat to learn is patent in every page, 



but the Indian ornithologists whose distinct statements he so unceremoniously ignores, puts 



aside, or directly contradicts, unfortunately for his reputation, are not quite so much ' in tiefes * 



Dunkcl ' as himself" [t. c. p. 23). As I have shown, of the only three Indian ornithologists 



who had written, the first held one opinion, another the exact opposite, and the third, who only 



knew the species from a few museum skins, was uncertain. And yet Mr. Hume is a vindicator 



of truth. " It is not, however, for Dr. Finsch I write. Truth must be vindicated " [t. c. p. 26). 



Poor truth ! 



We now come to P. erytlirogenys, Blyth. Dr. Finsch, in his account of the species, is, with 



an unaccustomed generosity, partly let oflf by Mr. Hume. For, in this instance, Dr. Finsch is 



not held responsible for not knowing in 1868 that the Andaman Parrakeet differed from the 



Ibis, 1874, Nicobar P. erytlirogenys — a fact, if it be a fact, only acquired by Mr. Hume in 1873, Indeed 



V- ~" ' Dr. Finsch went wrong in consequence of his adopting the published opinions of Jerdon and 



Blyth ; yet for this confidence in their superior authority he receives no credit from Mr. Hume. 



Both Dr. Jerdon (B. of Ind. i. p. 2G4) and Mr. Blyth on several occasions (Mouat's Andaman, 



Append, p. 355; Ibis, 1863, p. 5) regarded the Nicobar and Andaman Parrakeets as belonging 



to one species. As elsewhere, so here, it is Mr. Hume, and not Dr. Finsch, who difi"ers from 



Jerdon and Blyth ; and he will therefore doubtless apply to himself the epithets he has so freely 



bestowed on our German friend, whenever guilty of a similar heresy. But, we fear, ' that in the 



Captain's but a choleric word, which in the soldier is flat blasphemy.' Nor does Dr. Finsch 



receive complete absolution ; for, relying on the descriptions of the specimens marked 6 and ? , 



obtained in the Nicobars by the ' Novara ' scientific expedition, that of a female communicated 



to him by Herr v. Pelzeln, Dr. Finsch suggested that Blyth's determination of a specimen with a 



black bill as a female (J. A. S. B. 1846, p. 23) was erroneous, and that he had described a young 



bird. " Unfortunately, for Dr. Finsch, it does nothing of the kind. Apud Finsch, Blyth is 



always wrong and Finsch is always right," etc. etc. " And in every single instance in which in 



regard to species of this genus, Dr. Finsch has questioned, disputed, or denied the correctness of 



Jerdon, Blyth, and other Indian ornithologists' statements, it is he and not they who have erred " 



(Str. Feath. t. c. p. 25). Well, is this a fact'? and, wdth regard to this species, does Dr. Finsch 



contradict Jerdon, Blyth, and other Indian ornithologists 1 It has already been shown that by 



not contradicting Jerdon and Blyth on several important points Dr. Finsch is, according to 



Mr. Hume, wrong. Blyth, it must be remembered, only described his P. erythrogenys from 



skins with sexes undetermined brought to him at Calcutta by Captain Lewis and the Eev. J. 



Barbe. Neither he nor Jerdon had " for a long series of years," not even for a single minute, 



" observed the free living birds, shot and dissected them," which, according to Mr. Hume, alone 



Ibis, 1874, confers the right of stating an independent opinion. But what does Colonel Tytler say in 1867 1 



p. 2'Jb, That gentleman resided for some time in the Andamans as governor. He was an accurate 



observer, and discovered and described many good species. He had all the qualifications insisted 



on by ]Mr. Hume as alone entitling a man to deference ; for he was not only a field naturalist, 



* Corrected in the errata. 



