Count T. Salvadori on Tanysiptera dea. 553 



the Amboina and Ceram bird. Brisson also quotes Seba, 

 tab. xlvi. f. 3, which belongs to the same bird. This is 

 quite simple and clear. But now comes Dr. Hartert, who 

 says, " We no w begin our nomenclature in 1758 with the 

 tenth edition of Linnaeus/' and in 1758 Alcedo dea was based 

 on Edwards's pi. x., which is a Galbula. This, however, is not 

 quite exact. Linne, in the tenth edition of his ' Systema/ gave 

 a description which, I admit, refers to the bird that we now 

 call Urogalba paradisea (the reference Edwards, Av. x. t. 10, 

 also belongs to U. paradisea), but Linne, though with a 

 query, quotes also Seba's plate, which is that of T. dea. 

 So that Alcedo dea of the tenth edition is a compound of 

 Urogalba paradisea and Tanysiptera dea. Later on, in the 

 twelfth edition, Linne, having recognised the mistake made 

 in the tenth edition, distinguished the two birds. He left 

 the name " Alcedo dea " to the bird described and figured 

 by Seba and Brisson, and gave the new name " Alcedo 

 paradisea >} to the bird described and figured by Edwards, 

 and later on by Brisson, which has now become the type 

 of the genus Urogalba. What law prevents us from accepting 

 the correction made by Linne ? I think that nobody will 

 deny that Linne had the right of discriminating the two 

 birds, which he had previously confounded together. To 

 the first description of Alcedo dea, contained in the tenth 

 edition, Linne in the twelfth added the words " rectricibus 

 medio attenuatis^ thus pointing out a very good character 

 to distinguish Alcedo dea from Alcedo paradisea. I am of 

 opinion that it is much more simple and natural to accept 

 the correction made by Linne in his twelfth edition, than 

 to go rambling about in search of another name and 

 rejecting the well-known and long-established name Tany- 

 siptera dea for the species which inhabits Ceram and 

 Amboina. 



But another difficulty presents itself. The type of the 

 genus Tanysiptera of Vigors was " Alcedo dea Linn./' but 

 if we discard this name on the pretence that Alcedo dea of 

 the tenth edition of the l Systema ' is a Galbida, what 



