112 Mr. Vigors's Repli/ to some Observations 



either ignorant of the labours of antecedent writers, or unjust to 

 their merits. I hasten at once to the more immc()iate point of the 

 justice of this censure. You will bear in mind, Gentlemen, that 

 the main assertion of the critick, when he opposes the high pre- 

 tensions of so many of the continental ornithologists to our humble 

 exertions, consists in these two points ; — that these writers have 

 already "well distinguished" our groups, and distinguished them 

 •without" overloading the science with new names." 



M. Brisson stands the first upon the list; a name of deserved 

 reputation in science. But let it be recollected that not a singltj 

 species of New Holland Parrots upon which the greater part of our 

 new groups are founded, has been described in the " Orntlho- 

 logie." The divisions of the Parrots indicated by M. Brisson, with 

 the doubtful exception of Lorius^* in no respect interfere with 

 ours. They can scarcely be said to be " trcs-bicn dislingues;" 

 for the characters, which, it is to be observed, are not formally 

 detailed, as is usual in Natural History, but only incidentally 

 hinted at in the introduction to the species, are drawn merely 

 from the colour or size of the bird, or the length or shortness of 

 the tail. While, strange to say, our only guide to these divisions 

 are their names. And y/ra, Cacatua^ Lorius, PsittacuSy PsUtaca, 



* M. Brisson has pointed out several subordinate groups among his genera, 

 which he indicated merely by giving tlieni names. The groups which he 

 considers as real genera, are distinctly marked out by full distinguishing 

 characters ; but the minour groups are not even set apart as sections or sub- 

 genera, or as any of those subdivisions with unassuming titles which, with- 

 out aiming at the importance of genera, form the nucleus of future groups 

 of generick, or even of still higher, degree. These names of M. Brisson 

 I consider merely as so many suggestions; and as he hesitated himself, 

 indeed declined, to make them generick, we cannot now in correctness quote 

 them as such. The rule should be invariable, that no group should be 

 considered the genus of any naturalist tliat is not decidedly characterized and 

 named by him. It is for this reason, that I decline calling the group, alluded 

 to above, the Lorius of M. Brisson, althqugh he certainly pointed it out by 

 name. It is true that he has gone farther in pointing out the subdivisions of 

 the Parrots than of any other of his genera : as he mentions some of their less 

 important characters in the general introduction to the genus. But still he 

 withheld from separating them as genera; and we consequently cannot attri- 

 bute to him a group, which he virtually refused to establish when he had the 

 opportunity of doing so. 



