A'^otes in Reply to Mr. G. M. Mathews. 305 



Page 280. Hydralector. 



Oj^ilvie-Grant discusses the forms of the species formerly 

 known as H. gallinaceus, and his conclusions regarding 

 subspecies may be questioned. His usage of Hydralector 

 is, however, unquestionably wrong. He has quoted my 

 Birds Austr. iii. p. 316, under a name 1 did not use. 

 On p. 314 I restated the case for Irediparra, a name which 

 I proposed for this species in the Nov. Zool. vol. xviii. 

 1911, p. 7. My arguments have been criticised by careful 

 workers, such as Hellmayr, and have been accepted. Th.e 

 correct name is 



Irediparra. 



Page 301. Carpophaga. 



Years ago Richmond pointed out that this name was 

 absolutely preoccupied by Billberg. As a matter of fact, 

 under British usage, it had been continually invalid, as 

 there was a prior Carpophagus on record all the time. 

 However, Rothschild and Hartert, the most important 

 workers and writers on New Guinea Birds, simply over- 

 looked this correction and continued the misusage. This 

 was not done intentionally, but was a pure oversight. As 

 the result, the name has been persisted in by Hellmayr, 

 Stresemann, Stuart Baker, and now Ogilvie-Grant. I have 

 already indicated this error twice, and this third correction 

 may induce the acceptance of the correct name 



MUSCADIVORES. 



XIV. — Some Notes in reply to Mr. G. M. Mathews. 

 By W. R. Ogilvje-Grant. 



The editor of ' The Ibis ' having shown me the criticisms 

 made by Mr. Mathews on certain points in the nomenclature 

 Uhed in my Report on the Birds collected in Dutch New 

 Guinea, I feel bound to offer a few remarks in reply. 



SER. X. VOL. IV. X 



