Vol. eae 
1917 
Recent Literature. 300 
generic names from Cuvier’s ‘ Lecons d’Anat. Compt.,’ 1800. This action 
has lately been endorsed by the International Commission which necessi- 
tates the recognition of certain other names from the same source which do 
not figure in North American ornithology, and which had therefore not been 
taken up by the A. O. U. Committee. Among these is Kakatoé the type 
of which Mr. Mathews fixes as Psittacus galeritus Lath., and which he 
adopts in place of the later Cacatoés of Dumeril which he had previously 
used and for which he had selected the same species as type. Recently 
he has discovered that Froriep years before had selected as the type of 
Cacatoés, Psittacus cristatus a species which some authors have considered 
unrecognizable. Now if these two generic names are regarded as simply 
different spellings of the same word the question arises whether Froriep’s 
designation of a type for the later one does not force us to accept the same 
type for the earlier one; in which case both may have to be rejected as 
based upon an unidentifiable species. Mr. Mathews thinks not, and we 
agree with him, but in order that the group, to which galeritus belongs will 
be sure to have a name he proposes Hucacatua for it, with the rather unique 
remark: ‘‘ My name will become a synonym if my conclusions be accepted, 
but will come into use if they are rejected ” ! 
Another of these early Cuvierian names is Psittacula which as used in 
the ‘ Lecons’ has for its type ‘ Pale@ornis’ alexandri. Conurus, as has been 
pointed out for some time, must also be applied to the same group and 
being of earlier date than Palwornis has been used in place of it by some 
recent authors. Now however, we have the still earlier Psittacula, which 
as Mr. Mathews points out, must be employed for these birds, while the 
group for which it was formerly used will be known as Forpus Boie 1858. 
Mr. Mathews has made one change to which especial attention might be 
called, i. e. the name Callocephalon which has been variously emended into 
Callicephalus, Callocephalum etec., is rejected on account of an earlier 
Calocephalus. While we think that this is in accord with the A. O. U. 
Code we have been unable to find that the International Commission has 
as yet taken any action on the vital question of the status of emendations 
and variant spellings. We therefore are at a loss to understand Mr. 
Mathews’ statement; ‘‘ The International Commission have decided upon 
the item, ‘ errors of transliteration ’ in the recognition of their amendment.” 
Has he not confused proposed amendments with those actually adopted? 
Among the several questions of taxonomy that are discussed in the 
present installments of the work is one regarding the status of the genus 
Ducorpsius. According to Mr. Mathews it is exactly like Licmetis in 
every detail of structure and coloration, except for the longer bill of the 
latter, and he therefore thinks that the two should be united. 
The difference in the bill, if constant, might easily we think be sufficient 
ground for generic separation but a far more important argument for 
uniting the two is found in the text under Licmetis tenuirostris, 1. e. the 
admission that a race referred by Mr. Mathews to Ducopsius sanguineus, 
“might be almost as well classed as a subspecies of Licmetis tenuirostris.”’ 
