PENNANT'S INDIAN ZOOLOGY. 507 



descriptions, and a re-arranged Faunula Indica, insects by 

 Latham, the rest by Davies, the bird portion without scientific 

 names and based on Latham's synopsis of Birds and Index 

 Ornithologicus. Again, in 1795, Forster brought out a second 

 edition of his work. Now I cannot get hold of Pennant's work 

 of 1769, and I cannot therefore find out whether he gave scientific 

 names to all the species he described or not. 



To some he apparently did, as his names Ahinga melanog 'aster , 

 Gallinula phce?iicura, Anas melanonotus are quoted by various 

 authors. Again, I cannot determine which were the 12 plates 

 he published in 1769, and which were those that he gave to 

 Forster, and which were first published by that author in 

 1781. 



Altogether, Forster published the following thirteen species of 

 birds. 



The authorities to be quoted for these depend upon the 

 solution of the above moot points : — 

 (1.) Circus melanoleucus, (Forst.) 

 (2.) Scops bakkamuna*, (Forst.) 

 (3.) Harpactes fasciatus, ( Gm.) 

 (4.) Phcenicophaes pyrrhocephalus, (Forst.) 

 (5.) Callolophus miniatus, (Java,) (Forst.) 

 (6.) Galloperdix bicalcaratus, (Penn.) 

 (7.) Ptilopus melanocephalus, (? Java) (Gm.) 

 (8.) Pericroeotus flammeus, (Forst.) 

 (9.) Orthotomus sutorius, (Forst.) 

 (10.) Tantalus leucocephalus, (Gm.) 

 (11.) Erythra phcenicura, (Penn.) 

 (12.) Sarkidiornis melanonotus, (Penn.) 

 (13.) Anas poecilorhyncha, (Gm.) 



I have placed in brackets after each name, the name of the 

 authority to which it is now-a-days commonly attributed. 



Now, as to numbers 3, 7, 10, 13, commonly attributed to 

 Gmelin, it is clear that these names must stand as Forster's, 

 unless Pennant's first edition proves that his name should appear 

 as author. Under no circumstance can they stand as Gmetins. 



As to the whole lot, whether Pennant's name should be 

 retained in regard to any, and if so only to numbers 6, 11 

 and 12, or to others, and if so to which, nothing but an examina- 

 tion of his first edition of 1769, of which I have been vainly 

 trying to get a copy for years, can enable us to determine. If 

 Pennant did not give scientific names, I do not know how 

 numbers 6, 11 and 12 are usually quoted as his ; and if he did o-ive 

 names in these cases, it is curious that he did not give them to 



* Pennant called this bird bakkamoena ; if he gave this name as a specific one in 1769, 

 then this, and not bakkamwia, must be adopted. 



