go General Notes. Auk 
Jan. 
The Cuculide of the A. O. U. List.—I am sorry to perceive that our 
treatment of this family involves several errors. One of these is a mere 
blunder, almost self-corrective; another is a grammatical mistake, easily 
set right; but two others are ornithological improprieties of considerable 
taxonomic consequence. 
1. Cuculus canorus telephonus appears as a member of the “Subfamily 
Coccygine, American Cuckoos,” which of course it is not. This is a 
mere editorial inadvertency, or mechanical defect in the make-up of the 
List, by omission of a heading “Subfamily Cucauléne” to cover this case. 
The ‘break’ is obvious, and easily mended. 
2. “ Coccygine” appears as the name of the American subfamily. 
This should be Coccyzéve, of course, as derived from the name of the 
genus Coccyzus. IJ am well aware that the form Coccygin@ is used by 
many writers, including myself; it has so stood in the ‘Key’ since 1884 
after Baird, Cabanis, and others, who alter Coccyzus of Vieillot into 
Coccygus. But those who preserve the original orthography of names, 
however faulty, must write Coccyzws and consequently Coccyzine, as I did . 
in the orig. ed. of the ‘Key’, 1872. (This criticism does not reach our 
use of Coccyges as a subordinal term, for the latter is independently formed 
direct from the Greek koxkvé, a cuckoo, not from any generic name.) 
I am happy to be able to defend Vieillot’s Coccyzws on good linguistic 
grounds; for it is derivable direct from the classic Greek verb koxkv(o, 
“I cry ‘cuckoo.’” We are therefore philologically justified, as well as 
canonically correct, in using Coccyzws and Coccyzine. I may remark, 
in passing, the quite gratuitous changes which have been rung upon 
Coccyzus, namely: Coccyzon, Coccygius, Coccysus, Coccygus, Coccyztus, 
Coccygon, Coccycua, Coccyzea, and probably yet other forms, all of them 
superfluous and supererogatory. 
3. Coccyzine. As to the necessity or expediency of recognizing for the 
American Tree Cuckoos any subfamily apart from Old World Cucadine, 
there may easily be two opinions. I have kept them apart in all my 
works, but am coming to the conclusion that they can hardly be so con- 
sidered, if we duly regard the various interrelations of genera in the whole 
family Cuculide. The strongest character I have seen ascribed to the 
American forms is that adduced by Beddard, P. Z. S. 1885, p. 187, who 
finds the ventral pteryla double at its commencement in Coccyzus, Piaya, 
Saurothera, and perhaps Dzplopierus, it being there single in Cuculus, 
etc. But even Beddard brings all these forms under one subfamily, Cacu- 
line; and Shelley, Cat. B. Brit. Mus., XIX, 1891, p. 211, finds no super- 
generic difference between Coccyzus and Cuculus, though he recognizes 
altogether no fewer than six subfamilies of Cuculide. 1 should wish to be 
better informed than I am before pronouncing upon this case without 
reserve ; but my present impression is, that Coccyziz@ must be abandoned 
as a subfamily, and merged in Cuculine, substantially according to Bed- 
dard’s views. 
