1 86 Elliot on the Genus Pitta. [a^hi 



first six volumes published in 1S16, because I gather nowhere in 

 his article that he denies that the 'Analyse' was issued in that 

 year. 



Now, in regard to the first citation of Dr. Stejneger, that the 

 omission of names from the 'Dictionnaire' which appear in the 

 'Analyse' is a proof that the former antedates the latter, it must 

 be of course admitted that if these omissions occur only in the 

 volumes published in 1S16, and never in the later volumes, after, 

 even as Dr. Stejneger will acknowledge, the 'Analyse' was pub- 

 lished, his case would be a very strong one indeed ; but what are 

 the facts? I have looked up in the 'Dictionnaire' every name 

 given by Vieillot on pages 68, 69, and 70 of the 'Analyse,' with 

 the following result. Of new species there are sixteen, of which 

 thirteen are mentioned in the 'Dictionnaire,' but unfortunately 

 for Dr. Stejneger's argument, the volumes in which all of the 

 absent ones should appear were published after 1S16. These 

 species are Musophaga cristata, Tyrannus cinereus and Phceni- 

 copterus parvus. Of the "nouveaux noms" taken from the 

 Greek there are ninety-one mentioned. Of these twenty are 

 not given in the 'Dictionnaire,' although thirteen of the missing 

 twenty should have appeared in the volumes issued after 18 16. It 

 would therefore seem very clear that because any name is omitted 

 from the 'Dictionnaire' that is contained in the 'Analyse,' is no 

 evidence whatever that the former antedates the latter, for if it 

 were for the first six volumes issued in 181 6, it would be equally 

 so for the rest, and then it might be claimed that the 'Analyse' 

 was not published until after 1S19! 



Of all the names given on pages 6S, 69, and 70 of the 'Anal- 

 yse,' to only four is any reference made in the 'Dictionnaire,' 

 viz., Asturia cinerea, Vol. Ill, 18 16, Ortygodes variegata. 

 Vol. XXIV, 1S18, Pica rufveniris and P/tyseta, both in Vol. 

 XXVI, 1S1S, the last three mentioned two years after the ap- 

 pearance of the 'Analyse' ; but with none of them is any page of 

 Vieillot's pamphlet cited, which proves, if it proves anything, 

 that he was not in the habit of giving the page. This really 

 is the fact, pages hardly ever being cited from any work, but the 

 numeration of the plates often, and therefore the absence of page 

 number cannot possibly be advanced as an argument to prove that 

 the first six volumes of the 'Dictionnaire' were published before 



