1879.] MR, W. A. FORBES ON THE GENUS LATHAMUS. 167 



the species associated with it, all these authors were evidently puzzled 

 by the characters of this peculiar little Parrakeet ; and the same 

 seems to have been the case with all subsequent naturalists who 

 have treated of it. The majority, however, seem to have considered 

 that it had Trichoglossine affinities. 



Thus Bonaparte' included Lathamus as "dernier des Trichoglos- 

 siens ;" and Gould, hkewise acknowledging the validity of the genus, 

 places it amongst the TrichoglossidcB. He says : — " Having had ample 

 opportunities of observing the bird in a state of nature, I concur in 

 the propriety of separating it into a distinct genus ; in its whole 

 economy it is most closely allied to the Trichoglossi, and in no 

 degree related to the Euphemce" (Handb. B. Austr. ii. p. 89). Dr. 

 Finsch, in his great work on Parrots', after a careful examination of 

 its peculiarities, came to the conclusion that these were not sufficient 

 to justify its separation as a distinct genus, and included it as a 

 Trichoglossm. More lately, the same position (z. e. that of a member 

 of the family TrichoglossidcB) has been assigned to it by Gray', 

 Sclater\ Wallace^ and others. On the other hand, Sundevall in his 

 'Tentamen'^ placed it in his fourth family " Platycercini," re- 

 marking, " Haec species, plerumque cum sp, Trichoglossinis (Ps. 

 concinno Sec.) consociata, vera tamen est species Platycercina, 

 maxilla inferiori tumida, &c, Euphemce maxime affinis." In his 

 paper on the anatomy of the Parrots, Prof. Garrod' shows that 

 Lathamus differs from Lorius and its allies in having a superficial 

 left carotid, a feature common to it and Platycercus, Psephotus, 

 &c., from which, however, it differs in the possession of a furcula*. 

 He further says : — " It may at first sight seem very heretical to 

 remoxe Lathamus from theLoriinae, the brush-tongue being considered 

 characteristic of that subfamily. To the unbiased student, however, 

 the brush-tongue is a character not more important than several of 



those that have been above considered The character of the 



papillae is somewhat different in Lathamus from what it is in Lorius, 

 they being blunter and shorter in the former genus than in the 

 latter." 



Having undertaken at Prof. Garrod's suggestion an investigation of 

 the pterylosis of the Parrots, the results of which I hope to communicate 

 to this Society at no distant date, Lathamus was one of the first 

 forms I examined ; and 1 at once saw that its pterylosis confirmed 

 the relationship of this form to the Platycercince already insisted 

 on by Sundevall and Garrod. From this I was led to an examina- 

 tion of some other parts of its structure ; and I propose to lay the 



' Compt. Eend. xliv. p. 636 (1867). 



* Pap. ii. p. 863 (1868). 



3 Trichoglomis, c. Nanodes, gen. no. 2047, Hand-L B. ii. p. 156 (1870). 



* List. Vert. 6th ed. p. 269 (1877). 



' Geogr. Distrib. Animals, ii. p. 327. 



* Methodi Naturalis Avium disponendarum Tentamen, p. 71 (1872). 

 7 P. Z. S. 1874, p. 586. 



' M. Blauchai-d, indeed, says (Compt. Rend. 1857, iliv. p. 521) that Lathamus 

 has no furcula ; but this bone is present, though .«mall and weak, in the mens 

 I have seen : rf. also Owen, Cat. Ost Ser. R. 0. S. i. p. 279 (1853). 



