152 Stejneger on the Genus Pitta. 



Auk 



April 



indicate that the 'Analyse' was published later. 1 The diagnosis 

 in the 'Dictionnaire' is also much fuller, and several more 

 species are mentioned than those figured by Buffon in the 

 'Planches Enlumin£es.' And here is another point, viz., 

 that Vieillot's genus, as well as the French name 'Breve,' 

 is not taken from Buffon, properly speaking, but from Mont- 

 beillard (Hist. Nat. Ois. Ill, 1775, p. 41 2). 2 In this are 

 mentioned four species only, viz., PI. Enl. Nos. 89, 257, and 258 

 (but not at all No. 355 1 ) and Edwards' pi. 324. 3 The latter is 

 Pitta brachyurus (Linn.), being in fact the basis of the name, 

 and the type of Eucichla is not mentioned at all. This simpli- 

 fies the elimination process greatly, the result being, as Mr. 

 Elliot has already decided, that the name Pitta belongs to the 

 short-tailed group and can only belong to it ! But as for the 

 type of it, I think Sclater is right in giving it as P. brachyura. 

 Were we to take the first species mentioned by Vieillot, the 

 type would be Pitta cyanura Vieill. which Mr. Elliot has 

 just decided is the type of Eucichla ! Besides, no code of 

 nomenclature provides for the selection of the type by taking 

 the first species. The A. O. U. Code distinctly provides for the 

 process of elimination; and if that be applied I think it will be 

 found that P. brachyura, mentioned both by Montbeillard and 

 by Vieillot, must stand as the type. 



The mention of the name P. brachyura raises another ques- 

 tion, viz., that of the specific appellation of these birds. Sclater 

 (Cat. Bds. Br. Mus., XIV) gets very easily around the matter by 



1 Quite a number of names not in the first four volumes of the 'Dictionnaire' are found 

 in the 'Analyse,' making it probable that they were invented later, for instance, Acrido- 

 theres, Alectrurus, Aramus, ALgialites, A?ierportes. The case of Alectrurus is particu- 

 larly interesting, for on p. 68 of the 'Analyse' the original Gallita was not changed, 

 probably by an oversight, while in the text proper it was changed to Alectrurus, but 

 toolate to get the new name into the 'Dictionnaire.' True, Vieillot in the latter under 

 Astrurine cendree refers to the 'Analyse,' but that does not prove that it was pub- 

 lished or even printed at the time, especially as no page is quoted. 



2 I quote this edition, because it is evidently the one Vieillot refers to in the 'Diction- 

 naire' (1. c.) as follows: "Monbeillard les [i.e. les breves] a isolees d'apres les differ- 

 ences de conformation exterieure par lesquelles, dit-il, la nature elle-meme les a dis- 

 tinguees." As a matter of fact Montbeillard (1. c.) is the creator of the genus ("Je 

 n'ai pu m'empecher de separer ces oiseaux d'avec les merles, voyant les differences," 

 etc.,) while Vieillot only supplied the Latinized name. 



3 Sclater, consequently, is correct in saying that all belong to the short-tailed group. 



