424 Miller, Genera of Ceryline Kingfishers. Uuly 



designation. Sharpe (Monograph Alcedinidse, 1870, and Cata- 

 logue of Birds, 1892) also gave guttata as the type of Megaceryle. 

 The A. O. U. 'Check-List' (Third Edition, 1910, p. 183) however, 

 gives maxima as the type of Megaceryle, following Gray's orig- 

 inal designation. Mr. Ridgway, on the other hand, follows Caba- 

 nis and Sharpe in considering guttata as the type. 



The fact that Gray credited Megaceryle to Reichenbach does 

 not, in my opinion, affect the validy of his designation of maxima 

 as the type. Reichenbach himself gave Kaup as the authority 

 for the genus, and used the name in the same sense except for 

 the omission of M. guttata. Bonaparte, however, although ac- 

 crediting the genus to Reichenbach, restored M. guttata to its for- 

 mer place. If Megaceryle Kaup and Megaceryle Reichenbach are 

 not considered identical from a nomenclatural point of view, at 

 least the latter can be treated as equivalent to a substitute name. 

 In this case the type of Megaceryle Reichenbach, M. maxima, be- 

 comes ipso facto the type of Megaceryle Kaup. Dr. J. A. Allen has 

 shown (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 1910, 332) that Ispida Bris- 

 son 17G0 may be considered a substitute name for Alcedo Linn. 

 1758, thus rendering Ispida a synonym and obviating the possible 

 necessity of having to use Alcedo in place of Megaceryle. I have 

 had some correspondence with Dr. Chas. W. Richmond regarding 

 the nomenclature of this group and wish to express my indebted- 

 ness for his advice. 



With M. maxima as the type of Megaceryle this becomes the 

 proper generic name for the American species, it now being uni- 

 versally agreed that the latter are congeneric with the African 

 species. Bonaparte in proposing Streptoceryle for M. torquata and 

 M. alcyon considered M. maxima to be more nearly allied to M. 

 guttata (= guttulata) than to the American species. 



II. Generic and Subgeneric Characters. 



If the Asiatic species M. guttulata and M. lugubris are con- 

 sidered worthy of generic rank they must be given a new name. 

 As stated in my note in 'The Auk' already mentioned, I do not 

 believe this necessary for the following reasons: first, because 

 the differences are virtually bridged by intermediates; second 



