64 Messrs. Parker, Jones, and Brady on the 



■without the peculiarly pronounced scaly appearance of that 

 genus, from which it is, moreover, at once distinguishable by 

 the lobes near the gape. When the bird was first taken out 

 of spirit these lobes were very distinct, three in number, and 

 pure white ; they have almost disappeared since the bird was 

 skinned. 



The tj'pe of this new genus I call 



Lohornis Alexandria 



sp. n. 



General colour of upper surface umber-brown, the feathers 

 of the head slightly scale-like in character ; the upper tail- 

 coverts rather more rufous brown, with which colour the wing- 

 coverts and quills are margined ; tail dull brown ; entire under 

 surface light brown, the throat and fore neck strongly tinged 

 with rufous, as also are the flanks ; the breast and under tail- 

 coverts very slightly varied with wavy cross bars of dark 

 brown ; under wing-coverts light brown, slightly vai-ied with 

 obscure cross bars of darker brown ; bill horn-brown, yellowish 

 at base ; feet very pale brown. Total length 3'8 inches, 

 culmen O'S, wing l'6o, tail 1*1, tarsus 0-6. 



Eab. Old Calabar. 



I name this bird after Dr. Alexander Smith, to whom the 

 Museum has often been indebted for additions to its collection. 



XI. — On Priority in tJie Discovery of the Canal- System in 

 Foraminifera. By Messrs. Paekee, Jones, and Beady. 



To ike Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 



Gentlemen, 



There is one paragraph in our friend Mr. Carter's paper, 

 " On the Structure called Eozoon canadense in the Laurentian 

 Limestone of Canada," in the May number of the 'Annals,' 

 which can hardly be allowed to pass without comment ; for, 

 as it at present stands (from some oversight, doubtless, on the 

 part of the writer), it does serious injustice to two other ob- 

 servers. Our attention has been called to the passage, with 

 the suggestion that perhaps its correction would come better 

 from unbiased lookers on, friends alike of all concerned, than 

 from those more immediately and personally interested. ,^ 



The question has nothing to do with the Eozoon controversy, 

 but is simply one of priority in discovery, apparently claimed 



