352 Recent Literature. [f^ 



But it is known, on the other hand, say these authors, that Lafresnaye 

 received, for this collaboration, only duplicates, the true types remaining 

 in the Paris Museum. "Consequently the specimens in the Paris Museum 

 should be considered as the true types and those of Boston have no import- 

 ance from the point of view of nomenclature, and above all not that which 

 Americans seek to attribute to them." 1 



It is quite reasonable to suppose that where species were represented 

 by a single specimen in the material collected on d'Orbigny's South Amer- 

 ican expedition, the specimens all remained in the National Museum, and 

 that the types of new species should also be there preserved. But Lafres- 

 naye's collection consisted of something more than duplicates from the 

 Paris Museum, and he described many species without any association 

 with d'Orbigny or his specimens, and it therefore seems a rather too sweep- 

 ing condemnation to assume that the alleged presence of types in the 

 Lafresnaye collection, in the Boston Society of Natural History, is nothing 

 more than a "legend" that our hasty friends consider it a duty to the Paris 

 Museum to reduce to nothing. 



It is well to guard with jealousy the interests of one's own institution, 

 but one also should not disparage lightly the good name of other institutions. 

 It would be much more convincing and satisfactory if our authors had 

 stated more explicitly the proofs that certain specimens in the Paris Mu- 

 seum are "les vrais types " — that is, how they were determined to be such, 

 for presumably not many were thus indicated by the authors of the species 

 they are alleged to represent. This is suggested in part by the statement 

 in respect to how certain types, "perdus au milieu d'une masse de speci- 

 mens," were identified, and also by such cases as, for instance, Nasica 

 guttatoides Lafr. (Rev. et Mag. zool., 1850, p. 3S7). Lafresnaye says: 

 "Cette espece a ete rapportee de Loretta, au Musee, par l'expedition 

 Castelnaud; mais nous la possedions deja dans notre collection, l'ayant 

 achetee d'un marchand avec quelques oiseaux de Colombie." The origi- 

 nal Lafresnaye specimen is still in the Lafresnaye collection in Boston, an 

 adult bird in good condition, as cited by Elliot (Auk, VII, 1890, p. 1S6). 

 Why then should the young female (" 9 jeune"), obtained on the Castel- 

 naud Expedition, and only incidentally mentioned by Lafresnaye, be 

 claimed as the type of N. guttatoides Lafr.? The figuring five years later 

 of the young specimen in the 'Oiseaux' of Castelnau's 'Voyage' by Des 

 Murs certainly could not make it the true type of this species. 



1 Done les specimens du Museum de Paris doivent etre considered comme les vrais 

 types et ceux de Boston ne peuvent avoir aucune importance au point de vue de la 

 nomenclature, et surtout pas celle que les Americaines cherchent a leur attribuer. 



Ce sont des animaux semblables, mais ce ne sont pas les types qui seuls font foi 

 aupres des ornithologistes. C'est sur quoi nous serons plusieurs fois forces d'insister 

 dans notre travail, et nous espgrons avoir ainsi reduit a neant une lggende qui tendait 

 a. s'acclimater dans le monde scientifique au prejudice de la riche collection du Mu- 

 seum de Paris. — Menegaux et Hellmayr, Bull, du Mus. d'hist. nat., 1905, No. 6, 

 p. 374. 



