16 Mr. A. R. Wallace on the proposed 



was in part the same as mine ; but I wish to inquire if the name 

 given to any part of a bird, or to a manufactured bird in which 

 more is false than genuine (and the description of which must 

 therefore be quite unrecognizable), can claim priority over that 

 given to the first specimens obtained of the perfect bird. 



Mr. G. R. Gray believes that the wings and feet of Lesson's 

 bird were " restorations •" I believe that the head and tail were 

 also " restorations," — and for this reason : Lesson describes the 

 whole head as " noir-velours" in contradistinction to the back 

 and belly, which he terms " noir-bronzees" In my bird there 

 is no such distinction ; the head is the same metallic blue-and- 

 greenish-black as the other parts. Bonaparte, in the ' Comptes 

 Rendus/ also says, " capite nigro-holosericeo," but the other 

 parts " nig?'o-ceneis," showing that it was no mistake of Lesson's 

 description. 



Now for the tail. One of the most characteristic features of 

 my bird is its white under tail-coverts, which are tinged with 

 yellow only at the base, where the vent for a small extent is also 

 yellow. Now, both Lesson and Bonaparte describe this patch 

 of orange on the vent, but neither say a word about the white 

 under tail-coverts, which are very ample and cover the tail to 

 within an inch of its extremity. If, now, we conclude that the 

 wings were false, from the conspicuous white band across them 

 not being mentioned by cither author, the absence of any men- 

 tion of the equally conspicuous white under tail-coverts must 

 also lead us to conclude that the tail had been replaced by that 

 of some other bird ; and every one who has seen much of the 

 native New-Guinea skins must know that the tails are very 

 liable to come off. 



It seems probable, therefore, that Lesson's specimen was 

 made up of the trunk of my bird, with the head, wings, tail, and 

 legs of one or more other birds ; and the name given to this 

 ingenious work of art (the description of which is of course 

 inapplicable to any natural object) must, it is said, be retained 

 according to the law of priority, and that given for the first time 

 to the joe?/ec/ bird be quoted as a synonym. Now, I contend 

 that this is not a case for the application of the law of priority, 

 and would inevitably lead to further confusion ; for an inquirer 

 possessing the bird is sent back to Lesson for a description of 

 the species, and finding a palpable disagreement, unhesitatingly 

 describes his specimen as new ; and we must always be liable to 

 such mistakes if descriptions acknowledged to be not merely 

 insufficient, but false, are allowed to be quoted as the authority 

 for specific names. 



Turning now to Mr. Cassin's description, we find that his 

 specimen is fairly stated to have been a mutilated one — the legs 



