20 
ProsTHEMADERA, G. R. Gray, (1840). Merops, Lath. Antho- 
chera, V.and H. Philemon, Viel. Sturnus, Daud. Meliphaga, 
Temm. Philedon, 4th div.Cuv.(1817). 3rd div. Cuv. (1829). 
P. nove seelandizw, (Gm.) Stérickl. M. cincinnata, Lath. Le- 
vaill. Ois. d Afr., pl. 92. S. erispicollis, Daud. Forst., Dr. 60. 
Prinotis, Sw. (1837). Meliphaga, Lewin. 2nd div. Vig. and 
Horsf. Philemon, Vietdl. Certhia, Lath. 
P. chrysotis, (Lath.) G. R. Gray. Lewin’s B. of N.H., pl. 5. P- 
Lewinii, Swains. P. erythrotis, Vieill. 
Antuornis, G. 2. Gray, (1840). Anthomyza*, Swains. (1837). 
Melithreptus, Vieid. Furnarius, Steph. Certhia, Sparr. Phi- 
ledon, Less. 
A. melanura, (Sparr.) G. R. Gray. Sparr. Mus. Carls., t.5. A- 
ceruleocephala, Sw. C.sannio, Gm. P. Dumerilii, Less. 
Forst., Dr. 62. 
Puitemon, Vieill. (1816). Anthochera, V. and H. Merops, 
Gm. Meliphaga, Temm. Philedon, 3rd div. Cuv. (1817). 
2nd div. Cuv. (1829). 
P. moluccensis, (Gm.) Viedll. 
PuyLiornis, Bote, (182 ?). Turdus, Gm. Chloropsis, Jard. and 
Selby, (182?). Meliphaga, Horsf. 
P. cochinchinensis, (Gm.) Bote, Pl. enl. 643. f. 3. 
MeripHaca?, Lewin, (1808). Zanthomyza, Swains. (1837). Me- 
rops, Lath. Philemon, Viedll. Anthochera, V. and H. Xan- 
thomyza, Sérickl. (1841). Philedon, 3rd div.Cuv. (1817). 2nd 
div. Cuv. (1829). 
M. phrygia, (Lath.) Lew. B. of N. H., pl. 3. 
AnTHocHarA, Vig.and Horsf.(1826). Creadion, Vieill. Philedon, 
Qnd div. Cuv. (1817). Ist div. Cuv. (1829). Merops, Lath. 
A. carunculata, (Lath.) V. and H. Vieiil. Gal. des Ois., pl. 94. 
* Employed in Entomology. 
> On examining Lewin’s work for the purpose of ascertaining the proper 
type of his genus Meliphaga, | unfortunately, for my former edition, looked at 
the one published in 1822, where he has placed his short characters on the 
page inwhich he described his J/. chrysotis, so that I then considered that spe- 
cies to be the type. But I have since consulted the original edition of 1808, 
where I find that he established the genus on his MW. phrygia, as he not 
only gave generic characters on the same page with the specific description 
of that bird, but also figured the bill and tongue of that species in illustra- 
tion of his genus. It must therefore, if we ‘“ ought always to retain the 
original name for that part of the old genus which was considered as typical 
by its author,” be kept as the type of the genus Meliphaga of Lewin, as 
established in 1808. The C. nove hollandie, as proposed by Vigors and 
Dr. Horsfield for the type of Meliphaga, is not even noticed by Lewin in 
his work, and cannot therefore on any principle be regarded as the type 
of his genus. 
