98 ON THE " PERROQUET MASCARIN " OF BRISSOtf. 



nearly resembles that of the genus Chrysotis than any other. It is not 

 at all related to the mandible of LopTiopsittacus. 



From these considerations it is, I think, clear that the "Perroquet 

 mascarin " is not related closely to Coracopsis, but must be referred to 

 another genus. It is also clear that, of the two species, G. mascarina 

 and C. nigra, for which Wagler (I. s. c.) founded the genus Coracopsis, 

 the latter must be considered the type, as it alone agrees with several of 

 the generic characters he gives as diagnostic *. 



Lesson, in 1831 (Traite d'Orn. p. 188), founded a genus Mascarinus, 



characterized, amongst other things, by " narines cachees par les plumes 



sur le bord du front" in which he included, besides the present bird, two 



species of Edectus and a Tanygnathus. Mascarinus is obviously a 



Latinized form of the epithet " mascarin -" and although an Edectus is 



Ibis, 1879, mentioned first in the list of species included, there can be little doubt 



p. 306. that j n reality Lesson had in view, when he made the genus, the bird at 



present under discussion, which must therefore be considered the type of 



Mascarinus. 



As regards the specific name, at various times three names have been 

 proposed for, or applied to, this bird mascarinus of Brisson (Orn. iv. 

 p. 315, 1760, " Psittacus mascarinus"), madagascariensis of Lesson 

 (Traite, p. 189, 1&31, "Mascarinus madagascariensis "), and obscurus of 

 Linnanis (S. N. i. p. 140, 1766, " Psittacus obscurus "). If the bird is to 

 be placed in a genus Mascarinus, the first of these specific names 

 obviously cannot be applied. As regards the second, we already know 

 from the Messrs. Newtons' excellent article on the Mascarene Psittaci (Ibis, 

 1876, p. 285) that there is no evidence to show that the " Mascarin" ever 

 occurred elsewhere than in Bourbon, and hence " madagascariensis " is 

 equally inapplicable. The Psittacus obscurus of Linnaeus was founded on 

 the description of a Parrot in captivity observed by Hasselquist during 

 his travels in the east (Iter Pal. p. 236, 1757), and about which no sub- 

 sequent information has ever been obtained. Hasselquist's description 

 does not fit any species of Parrot at present known, and certainly 

 not Mascarinus ; and as Linnaeus's diagnosis, "Psittacus macrourus^fuscus, 

 genis nudis rubris, vertice cinereo-nigrescente vario, cauda cinerea" (S. N. i. 

 p. 140, 1766), is equally inapplicable, the name " obscurus " had better be 

 relegated to the region of mysteries, and entirely dropped t. 



This being the case, there is no other course open than to use a new 



* It is, indeed, doubtful, on reading some parts of Wagler's diagnosis of the genus 

 (e. g. "Nares maxima, patula . . . Plumes corvince," &c.), whether he had, at that time, 

 seen a specimen of C. mascarina. 



t Linnaeus, indeed, quotes Psittacus mascarinus of Brisson as a synonym of his 

 P. obscurus; but the words " capistrum nigrum" after the diagnosis, as well as "genis 



