On a group of Psittacidcc known to the Ancients. 49 



more comprehensive and philosophick views, which, from accurate 

 observation of nature, are now almost universally allowed to offer 

 the most faithful interpretation of her laws. And although the 

 minour subdivisions are founded on the geographical limits of the 

 species, a foundation, which if universally adopted would be 

 both arbitrary and insufficient ; yet in the present instance this 

 arrangement of the groups before us may be considered as afford- 

 ing, with some slight and partial deviations, the nearest approach 

 io their separation by strict generick characters ; so closely are 

 their natural peculiarities in unison with their geographical distri- 

 bution. It is to be regretted that M. Kuhl did not characterize * 

 the divisions which he has formed. Had he added this necessary 

 finish to his groups, little more would have been left to succeeding 

 naturalists, than to subjoin to his subdivisions those species with 

 which subsequent discoveries encrease the numbers of the family. 



Following then M. Kuhl as my chief guide, and assisted also 

 by the splendid illustrations and scientifick notices which M. Le 

 Vaillant has left us of this family, I proceed to point out the 

 species of Palceornis now known to us. 



* Mandibula inferiore bt^evL 



1. Alexandki. Linn. P. vlrklis, torque 77iiniaceo^ gttld icsfii- 

 aque interoculari nigris, macula alarum purpureo-rubra. 



Psittacus torquatus macrourus Antiquorum. Aldrov. Aves. Vol. 



1. p. 678. Icon p. 679. 

 Psittacus Alexandri. Linn. Syst. I. p. 141, No. 34. 



tion, where it joins the succeeding section of the Maccaws, in which the cha- 

 racter of the naked face prevails. We might equally separate many other 

 groups as M. Kuhl has separated this, and call them sections or subfamilies; 

 but they could not stand as separate divisions of the same rank as the rest, 

 not being of equal degree with them in point of distinction or importance. 



* M. Kuhl has affixed characters to the leading divisions, and also assigned 

 them names. These latter however he does not use ; and the characters 

 themselves extend no further than to the length or evenness of the tail, the 

 nakedness or covering of the cheeks, and the size of the bird itself. He makes 

 little use of the various modificaiions of the bill, tarsi, or wings, or of the tail 

 with the exception of its being even or graduated. 



Vol. II. D 



