on Mr. G. R. Gray's ' Genera of Birds.' 27 



the type both of Oreocincla and of Aplonis {\i. 40). I cannot at the 

 moment ascertain to which of these genera this bird really belongs, 

 having no specimen of it at hand. 



The genus Cichla, Wagl., belongs to the Troglodytince, near Meru- 

 laxis, and its specific name, atricapilla, Lin., should be used instead 

 of longirostra, Gm. 



The name Aipunemia, Sw. (atTrOs and Kiniiirf) should be written 

 jEpycnetnia. 



The genus Malacocercus (not Malacocircus) belongs to the Stur- 

 nince rather than the Crater opodincB. The form and colour of the 

 bill and legs show a close affinity to Acridotheres. Is not Timalia 

 Somervillei, Frankl., a synonym of Malacocercus striatus ? 



P. 28. It is not easy to say where the genus Icteria should be 

 classed, but it is clearly out of place among the Craieropodince, which, 

 when reduced within their natural limits, seem confined exclusively 

 to the old world. 



Tanagra capensis, Sparm., seems to be a synonym of CorvineUa 

 corvina, Shaw (which in that case should be called C. capensis, 

 Sparm.). It is certainly not a synonym of Keropia crassirostris, 



Mr. Gray seems to have omitted the genus Stenorhynchus, Gould. 

 (Proc. Zool. Soc. pt. iii. p. 186.) 



The genus Mimeta, Vig., cannot, I think, be separated from Orio- 

 lus. Several modern authors have reunited the two genera. 



P. 29. The name Criniger,Tem., 1820, should be used instead of 

 Trichophorus, Tem., whicli is a later alteration. 



The name Hamatornis, Sw., 1831, ought not to supersede the 

 prior name Pros, Tem. Mr. Swainson, in his ' Classif. Birds,' vol. ii. 

 p. 24, discards the genus Ixos, Tem., because it is artificial, i.e. it 

 contains species not naturally allied. This is a reason why it should 

 be restricted, but not why it should be cancelled; for if this principle 

 were admitted, we must discard nearly every generic name of Lin- 

 nseus. If then the name Ixos be used for this restricted group, the 

 word Plcematornis may be retained for the genus of Falconidee so 

 called by Vigors in December 1831 (Spilornis, Gray). 



After a careful study of the genera Querula and Lipangus, I feel 

 satisfied that this sub-family QuerulitKE should merge into that of 

 PyroderincB, Gray {Coracintp., Sw.), and secondly, that the Pyroderince 

 should be placed under the family Ampelidce instead of Corvidce. 

 Notwithstanding what Mr. Swainson says (Flycatchers, p. 73) as to 

 Coracina (Pyroderus, Gray) being merely the representative among 

 the Crows of Querula among the Flycatchers, yet the proportion of 

 parts and total structure of these two birds are so nearly identical, that 

 it is almost a question whether they should be even generically se- 

 parated. Further, on comparing these birds and Lipangus with the 

 Ampelidce, and taking also their geographical range into consideration, 

 it will, I think, be evident to the untheoretical naturalist that the 

 family Ampelidce is their proper abode. The rictal bristles at first 

 sight form an objection, but of these we see traces in several genera 

 of the Ampelince. 



