418 Mr. Strickland’s Commentary 
in any subsequent partition of the group which may take place. 
This is the case with Capito, Vieill., 1816, and Tamaiia, Cuv., 1817, 
which latter name ought therefore to be cancelled. Now this ori- 
ginal group of Vieillot requires to be divided into three genera (not 
two, as is done by Swainson and Gray). Two of these genera have 
already had names given them, viz. 1. Nyctactes, Gloger (= Tama- 
tia, Sw., < Bucco, Gm., < Capito, Vieill., < Tamatia, Cuv.) ; type, 
N. tamatia, (Gm.). 2. Cyphos, Spix. (< Bucco, Gm., < Tamatia, 
Gray) ; types, C. macrorhynchus (Gm.) and C. macrodactylus, Spix. 
The remaining genus may therefore stand as Capito, Vieill. (restr.) 
(=Capito, Sw., < Alcedo,Gm., < Bucco, Licht., < Tamatia, Gray) ; 
types, C. chacuru, Vieill. (Bucco strigilatus, Licht., Capito melanotis, 
Tem., C. leucotis, Sw.) and C. maculatus (Gm.), (Bucco somnolentus, 
Licht.). 
Lypornix torquatus (Hahn) is the Bucco fuscus, Gm.; and the 
latter specific name therefore has the priority. 
P.11. Three, if not four species are confounded under the name 
of Alcedo rudis, Lin. The one which has the best right to the name 
is the European one (Gould, ‘ Birds of Europe,’ pl. 62), because it 
is doubtless identical with the Egyptian bird called A. rudis by Has- 
selquist, from whom Linneus adopted the name. It seems only to 
have been figured by Gould, unless Edwards, ‘ Birds,’ pl. 9. (from 
Persia) be this species. The Ispida bicincta, Swains. W. Afr. vol. ii. 
p- 95, forms a second species, and the Ispida ex albo et nigro varia, 
Briss. (Buff. Pl. Enl. 716.) a third. This last never having received 
a specific name, I recommend that it be called varia. It seems to be 
identical with the Indian species, but of this I am not certain, never 
having examined a Cape specimen. ‘The bird in Buff. Pl. Enl. 62, 
said to be only 8 inches long, must be the young either of Ceryle va- 
ria or of C. bicincta. 
To the synonyms of Jacamaralcyon tridactyla, add Galbula cey- 
coides, Jard., and G. armata, Sw. 
P. 12. It is doubtful whether Neomorpha, Gould, belongs to the 
Upupide. Gould says, ‘lingua gracilis ad apicem setosa.” (Proc. Z. 
S. pt. iv. p. 144.) Taking this in connexion with its habitat, I con- 
clude Neomorpha to be a Melliphagide. I may here remark, that Mr. 
Gray seems in many cases not to attach sufficient value to geogra- 
phical distribution, a point often of the utmost importance in guiding 
us to the true affinities of groups as distinguished from their ana- 
logies. 
The specific name acutirostris, Gould, seems to me quite suffi- 
ciently applicable to the Neomorpha, to justify its adoption. It is 
safer not to set the example of introducing improved names where 
they can possibly be dispensed with. , 
The peculiar structure of the plumage in Seleucides, Less., and 
Piiloris, Sw., joined with their habitats, the one in New Guinea, 
and the other in the neighbouring continent of Australia, seems 
clearly to refer these genera to the Paradiseade and not to the 
Upupide. ‘The same remark probably applies to Craspedophora. 
Drepanis, Tem. This name should be cancelled, being merely 
