1920 J Todd, The Genus Eupsychortyx. 191 



up to 1892, when the late Count von Berlepsch received it from 

 Curacao, one of the Dutch West Indies, and it has since been 

 traced to the mainland. The Guiana bird was at first supposed 

 to be the same, but in 1815 Temminck distinguished it under the 

 name Perdix sonnini, although as late as 1892 we find von Ber- 

 lepsch arguing the question. In 1830 Vigors described two sup- 

 posed new quails as Ortyx affinis and Ortyx neoxenus, but it is 

 practically certain that these names refer to the same species 

 already named by Temminck and Linnseus respectively. In 1842 

 Lesson described a bird from "San Carlos in Central America" 

 as Ortyx leucopogon, and the following year Gould followed with 

 the description of Ortyx parvicristatus and Ortyx leucotis from 

 Colombia. Specimens were few and far between at this time, 

 as Gould discovered when he undertook to bring together material 

 for his work on the Odontophorinse or American Partridges, which 

 appeared in 1850. In this work Gould proposed to split up Ortyx, 

 which had superseded Perdix as the generic designation of the 

 American Quails, into several generic groups. He placed the five 

 accepted forms above mentioned in his new genus Eupsychortyx, 

 together with the Ortyx affinis of Vigors, which he considered 

 doubtful. 



In 1855, J. E. Gray designated Tetrao cristatus Linnaeus as the 

 type of Eupsychortyx. Later authors have, as a rule, accepted 

 the genus without question, while Mr. Ogilvie-Grant, who was the 

 next author to deal critically with the group, enlarged it to include 

 two Central American forms that had heretofore been referred 

 to Ortyx, namely, 0. leylandi Moore and 0. nigrogularis Gould, 

 including here also Eupsychortyx hypolcucus, described by Gould 

 in 1860. Salvin and Godman also adopted the same limits in the 

 "Biologia Centrali-Americana." Very recently Dr. Chapman has 

 sought to merge Eupsychortyx with Colinus (the equivalent of 

 the old Ortyx), and there is certainly much to be said in favor of 

 his views, so much, indeed, that the present writer finds himself 

 in full accord with the principles there laid down. In practice, 

 howe ver, so long as we recognize so many other generic groups 

 with no better characters, we are justified in provisionally recog- 

 nizing Eupsychortyx, at least until such time as a consistent scheme 

 for evaluating generic groups can be devised. But even with this 



