VoL 1920 XVI1 ] Miller, Genera of Ceryline Kingfishers. 423 



ies M. guttata was replaced in Ceryle) with three others, none of 

 which is more than subspecifically distinct. 



" Megaceryle Reich." Bonaparte, 1854. (Consp. Volucr. Ani- 

 sod.) The same Old World species given by Kaup with the ad- 

 dition of M. lugubris (the Japanese representative of the contin- 

 ental Asiatic M. guttata, perhaps only subspecifically distinct). 

 A new genus, Streptoceryle, was proposed for the two American 

 species. 



"Megaceryle Reichenb. 1851" Gray, 1855 (Cat. Gen. and Sub- 

 gen, of Birds). Type " (Alcedo maxima, Pall.)." 



As stated in my paper, "In specifying the last species as the 

 type {maxima being the fourth and last species mentioned by 

 Kaup) Gray was probably influenced by Reichenbach's ill-advised 

 action (in 1851) in transferring guttata (guttulata) from Megaceryle 

 back to true Ceryle, and by Bonaparte's removal (in 1854) of tor- 

 quata and alcyon to his genus Streptoceryle leaving only the single 

 species maxima in Megaceryle. Possibly also the fact of there be- 

 ing two guttatas, that of Boddoert (= maxima Pallas) and that of 

 Vigors (= guttulata Stejn.) made it seem undesirable to Gray to fix 

 guttata as the type." M. maxima stood first both in Reichen- 

 bach's and Bonaparte's arrangements. 



Chloroceryle and Megaceryle were proposed by Kaup in the same 

 sentence, both as subgenera. Reichenbach credited both to Kaup, 

 raising them to generic rank. Bonapart credited Chloroceryle to 

 Kaup, but for some unexplained reason or more probably through 

 carelessness gave Reichenbach as the authority for Megaceryle. 

 Gray, a year later, credited both genera to Reichenbach. 



Five years later (1860) Cabanis and Heine proposed the name 

 Ichthynomus* for the African species M . maxima, quoting as a 

 synonym "Megaceryle Rchb. 1851 (nee Kaup 1848)," properly 

 crediting Megaceryle to Kaup but restricting it to guttata and 

 lugubris. It is not evident whether they overlooked or purposely 

 ignored Gray's designation of maxima as the type of Megaceryle. 



In the 'Hand-list of Birds' (1869) Gray followed the arrange- 

 ment of Cabanis and Heine, thereby repudiating his original type 



* In the Birds of North and Middle America (Pt. VI. p. 407) this name is erron- 

 eously quoted as "Ichthyonomus." 



