374 Bibliographical Notices. 



P. 53. Insert the genus Enodes, Tern., 1838. <La?n/?ro/orHis,TerD. 

 Type, E. erythrophrys, Tem., PI. Col. 267. 



P. 56. Erase Oriolus caudacutus , Gm., from the synonyms of Do- 

 lichonyx, as it is also cited under Ammodromus caudacutus, p. 61. 



P. 57. Add Chlorion, Tem., 1838, to the synonyms of Emberi- 

 zoides. 



P. 59. Citrinella serinus, Bon., should be called C. h-umalis (Gm.), 

 and Petronia rupestris, Bon., should stand as P. stulta (Gm.). 



P. 61. The true Fringillaria capensis (Lin.) is figured in PI. Enl. 

 158. f. 2, and is distinct from F. flaviventris (VieiW.) (F. Jlavigaster, 

 Rupp.). PI. Enl. 664. f. 2. 



P. 62. Tlie specific name of Agrodroma should be campestris 

 (Bechst.), not rufescens. Temminck makes it an Anthus, not an 

 Alauda, and it unquestionably should be placed next to, if not in, 

 the genus Anthus, and not among the Alaudince, into which group it 

 was forced by Mr. Svvainson, in order to fill a gap in the quinary 

 system. 



P. 63. Crithagra should stand in the Fringillinoe next Serinus. 



P. 69. Mr. Gray's new name Laimodon should be written Lcemo- 

 don, ot in Greek becoming ce in Latin. (See Linneeus, Pliil. Bot., 

 §247.) 



Is Mr. Gray correct in quoting Bucco barbatula, Tem., under his 

 Barbatula nana ? Levaillant's pi. 56. (the basis of B. barbatula, 

 Tem.) seems very different from the description of Bucco parvus, 

 Gm. (the basis of Barbatula nana). 



Calorhamphus fuliginosus (Tem.), mihi, is certainly not the Bucco 

 lathami, Gm. See Lath. Syn. pi. 22. 



P. 70. Is not the genus Sasia, Hodgs., identical with Micro- 

 colaptes } 



P. 73. Pseudornis, Hodgs., is more allied to Cuculus than to Oj!y- 

 lophus, but seems to be sufficiently distinct from both to deserve a 

 generic rank. 



P.Tl . Latham describes his Phasiatius leucomelanus with a black 

 crest. It must therefore be the Lophophorus cuvieri, Tem., and not 

 the Euplocamus hamiltoni, as stated at p. 102. 



P. 80. I do not find a " Perdix olivacea " in Latham's ' Index 

 Ornithologicus ;' therefore, if the name olivacea originated with 

 Hodgson, it should give way to the prior name megapodia, Tem. 



P. 88. Independently of the objections which exist to our re- 

 viving the obsolete nomenclature of Linnaeus' first edition, there can, 

 I think, be no doubt that the Curlew, and not the Snipe, should be 

 regarded as the type of his genus Numenius. The latter name was 

 given to the Curlew in allusion to the crraeewZ-shaped form of the 

 beak, (from veos, new, and n^vt}, moon,) a character which does not 

 apply to the Snipes. 



Those who retain the Whimbrel as a distinct genus should call 

 it Phteopus vulgaris, Flem., but there is certainly no good ground 

 for separating it generically from the Curlews {Numenius, Lath.). 



The Scolopux pygmceus, Gm., is said by Temminck to be the 

 same as Pelidna platyrhynchu, and as nothing is said of its having 



