Type-specimens of certain Birds. 239 



To Dr. 11. Bowdler Sharpe, who has kindly favoured me 

 with his opinion about some of the very difficult Tyrannidse, 

 I beg to offer my best thanks for his valuable assistance. 



In the year 1819 Thunberg described what seemed to him 

 to be a new species in ' Gotheborgiska Kgl. Vettenskaps och 

 Vitterhets Samhallets Nya Handlingar ' (Gotheborg, 1819). 

 He gave a coloured figure of the bird and named it Tapera 

 brasiliensis. This figure is quite recognisable as representing 

 the Cuculus ncevius of Linnseus (or Diplopterus ncevius as 

 it is now termed), although so far faulty that three toes 

 are represented as directed forwards. The type-specimen 

 corresponding to this plate and this name still exists in the 

 Museum : it is a young bird of the species above mentioned. 

 The generic name Tapera does not seem ever to have been 

 recognised in literature. It is not recorded in Scudder's 

 ' Nomenclator/ nor is it to be found in Giebel's f Thesaurus 

 Ornithologise.' In spite of this omission, it must now be 

 recognised ; and as the name Diplopterus was given by Boie 

 to the same bird seven years later (in 1826), Tapera has 

 undoubted priority, and the species must stand as Tapera 

 ntevia (Linn.), (for other synonyms see Cat. B. Brit. Mus. 

 xix. p. 4.23.) 



It is true that Thunberg did not realize the affinity between 

 his Tapera and the Cuckoos, and seems to have been inclined 

 to place it among the " Curvirostres " (including the Linnean 

 genera Caprimulgus, Hirundo, and Pipra). The reason why 

 he did so is stated in his paper to be the resemblance between 

 Tapera and the Goatsuckers with regard to the coloration of 

 the feathers, and between Tapera and Pipra as regards the 

 bill (it must be remembered that the specimen is young). 

 The fact, however, that the bird was erroneously placed in the 

 System cannot be a just reason for consigning Thunberg's 

 generic name to oblivion, when he has properly described 

 (in Latin) and figured the type-specimen. In the figure, 

 which is rather good for the time, the characteristic great 

 length of the upper tail-coverts is correctly reproduced, 

 and other features on which generic as well as specific 

 descriptions have been based are conspicuous. I am there- 



