272 Mr. ViGORs's (uid Dr. Horsfield's Description of the 



bers, not more perhaps than half-a-dozen at a time : but I have 

 met with them in many différent places. Sometimes thej^ came 

 within half a mile of the centre of Paramatta, where 1 have shot 

 them in the trees. The natives told mc it made its nest in 

 Yari-o-trees (a species of Eiicalijptus), using only the vegetable 

 mould. It makes no Co'tora, but cuts off the small branches of 

 Apple-trees (a species of Angopliora). It has two young ones." 



3. Cook 1 1*. C nigcr, rectricibus lateralibus medio coccineis, 

 rostro nigra. 



* This bird, together with five otlier new species of Pnnots belonging to the 

 Society's collection, were described by M. Temminck in tiie l.'îth volume of these 

 Transactions. The same birds, and from the same collection, some of them being 

 found exclusively in it, were also described by the late M. Kuhl in a Monograph of 

 the family published in the " Nova Acta P/ii/sico-Mcclica Acadcmiec Vasarea Leopo/- 

 dhio-Carolimc Naturtc c uviosorum," but described under different names from those of 

 M. Temminck. A question here arises as to the respective right of these naturalists 

 to have their names adopted. On the point of priority the case is as follows. M. Tem- 

 nnnck's Paper was published in 18C1 : M. Kuhl's bears the date of 18C0. But on 

 tiie other hand, M. I'emminck's Paper was read before the Society on the '21st of De- 

 cember 1S19. — For our own parts, we have not the slightest hesitation in preferring 

 the names of M. Temminck. We do not found our decision on the nice point of the 

 act of reading before a chartered Society being to be considered as an act of publica- 

 tion ; a point, however, which ought to be determined and acted upon as of much 

 consequence to the interests of naturalists: but we go upon the broad principle, that 

 when a naturalist has the exclusive authority to describe any subjects of Natural 

 History, and has devoted himself to the task, — a fact of course to be ascertained from 

 the public reading of his Paper, — any attempt to anticipate him in his descriptions, 

 by taking advantage of the delays which sometimes unavoidably take place in the 

 publication of extensive works, is perfectly unwarrantable, and ought decidedly to 

 be discountenanced. .Such are our views as to the general principle. In applying 

 it to the present case, however, we must subjoin our suspicions that some mistake 

 arose between those two gentlemen. M. Kuhl was the friend and coadjutor of 

 M. Temminck during his visit to this country when he described the birds in ques- 

 tion; and it is not [irobable that he would have interfered, unless under some nnscon- 

 ception. 



Psittacus 



