Vol. XIV 
1897 Covuges, Zamelodia against Habia. 39 
Figure 4. Variations in the barbules of the same feather. 
A, from near fig. 1 E.— Pigmented matter chiefly in internodes. 
B, from near fig. 1 F. — No true black coloring matter present. 
C, from near fig. 1 G.— Shows ‘ bast-fibre’ arrangement of brown 
granules. 
D, from near fig. 1 H.— Pigmented material almost lacking in in- 
ternodes. (Zeiss 4mm. apochromat. obj. and comp. ocular 
No. 4.— Feather mounted dry.) 
Fig. 5. A barbule much like that shownin C fig. 3, but more magnified. 
(Zeiss 4mm. apochromat obj. and No. 6 comp. ocular. Mounted dry. ) 
ZAMELODIA AGAINST HABIA. 
BY DR. ELLIOTT COUES. 
IN creating the new generic name Zame/odia I said (Bull. Nutt. 
Orn. Club, V, 1880, p. 98): “The genus Hedymeles, Cab., 1851, 
was based upon this species [7.¢., Goniaphea ludoviciana}, but 
cannot be used for it because of Hedymela, Sundev. (Ofv. Vet 
Akad. 1846, 223) for another genus of birds, the difference being’ 
merely dialectic. Cabanis seems to have proposed it simply 
because ‘ Habia Reich. 1850’ was not classically correct. But 
Habia or Abia is said to be antedated by Hadza, Lesson, 1831, 
and therefore- untenable.” 
In an article entitled ‘ Wadia against Zamelodia, Dr. L. 
Stejneger said (Auk, Oct. 1884, p. 366): “It is Agassiz (Nomcl. 
Zool., Aves, p. 34 (1843)) who first quotes ‘ Habia Zess. Tr. d’ 
Ornith. 1831,’ — afterwards (Index Univers., p. 1 (1846)) ‘cor- 
recting ’ it into 4d/a; but an inspection of Lesson’s ‘ Traité,’ etc., 
will show that ada, as used by him, is only the French vernac- 
ular name applied to the birds of the genus Se/tator Vieill., 
and Agassiz might just as well have cited ‘ Habia Vvez//., Analyse, 
1816,’ for that is the place where Vieillot himself applies the name 
as the vernacular equivalent of the systematic name Sa/fator 
proposed simultaneously.” 
My duly appreciated critic then proceeded to prove “ that 
Habia was not used by Lesson or Vieillot as a systematic generic 
