368 Count T. Salvadori on Clirysotis coeligena 



tacus dufresnianus, while as the young of the same species 

 Kuhl described the bird figured by Levaillant, Hist. Nat. 

 des Perr. ii. p. 53, pi. 91 (fronte aurantia ad oculos flava, 

 gents, gula collique lateribus carulescentibus). Dr. Finsch, 

 in his celebrated Monograph, has agreed with Dr. Kuhl's 

 identifications. 



Tn 1880, while Mr. Sclater was about to publish the de- 

 scription of a supposed new Amazon, he received a specimen 

 of the same bird from Mr. Lawrence, who had bestowed on 

 it the name Chrysotis coeligena. Mr. Sclater adopted the 

 name proposed by Mr. Lawrence and published a figure of a 

 specimen then living in the Gardens of the Zoological Society 

 (P. Z. S. 1880, pi. ix. fig. 1). Mr. Sclater, speaking of this 

 bird, says : — " It was purchased of one of the London dealers 

 in February 1879, and was originally considered an imma- 

 ture example of Chrysotis dufresniana, to which species it is 

 most nearly allied. But it has remained without material 

 change since its arrival, and a closer examination leads me 

 to believe that it is not an immature bird." 



There can be no doubt that Mr. Sclater was quite right 

 in considering the bird as distinct, and also as regards the 

 probability of the bird described by Dr. Finsch (Papag. ii. 

 p. 552) as the young of C. dufresniana being the supposed 

 new species. Mr. Sclater had not the opportunity of going 

 through the subject, otherwise he would easily have perceived 

 that the bird described by Kuhl and by Wagler (Mon. Psitt. 

 p. 594) as the young of Psittacus dufresnianus, as well as the 

 one figured on Levaillant's plate, were also of the same 

 species. 



It is of the greatest importance to notice that the bird 

 figured by Levaillant was stated to be from Cayenne, and 

 that the typical bird described by Lawrence was from Guiana 

 (Ibis, 1880, p. 237), so that both birds were from the same 

 zoological region. 



Unfortunately the name Chrysotis coeligena cannot stand, 

 as I shall presently show. 



It seems that all the preceding authors but Wagler have 

 overlooked the fact that previously to Kuhl the name 



