132 THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. 



be altered, why call it " Chat," which conveys nothing at all to 

 the average Australian field naturalist ? Why in this case, as in 

 others, was not one of the many local vernacular names given, 

 such as " Tin Tac," which means as much as Chat, and is already 

 familiar to many Australians ? I should like to give a few 

 instances of what we consider " most confusing." Firstly, the 

 omission of any reference numbers either to those of Gould's 

 " Handbook " or Dr. Ramsay's list. As it is, anyone not already 

 familiar with Australian birds would find it impossible to deter- 

 mine what bird is meant. For instance, two birds are removed 

 from Eopsaltria and placed in Poecilodryas without any comment ; 

 and another confusing alteration is that of Ground-Thrush to 

 Ground-bird and of Mountain-Thrush to Ground-Thrush. I am 

 well aware that the Cinclosomse are not true Thrushes ; but then 

 neither are the Shrike-Thrushes, yet the name is retained, and, I 

 think, wisely. I think, also, it is a mistake to alter scientific 

 names where there is any doubt as to the justification of such 

 alteration, as in the case of Micropus for Cypselus and 

 Cerchneis for Tinnunculus. A few, among many, other 

 confusing points are the misplacement of the reference No. 

 I on page 12, the misplacement of the specific synonym of 

 No. 517, and the transposition of the vernacular names of Nos. 

 285 and 286, to say nothing of numerous typographical errors 

 and mistakes in spelling. As regards classification, I am well 

 aware that Gould made many mistakes in that respect. In fact 

 he himself says, in the introduction to the " Handbook" — "This 

 is not to be regarded as a natural arrangement, but one which 

 offers great facilities for the study of the avifauna of a single 

 country," which is exactly the position I take up. When the 

 grosser mistakes have been rectified, such as the position of 

 Struthiones, the classification is a fairly natural one. However, 

 to my mind there is nothing more ridiculous in Gould's classifi- 

 cation than the association of Graliina with Collyriocincla, or 

 Dicseum with Pardalotus, in the new list. The whole of the 

 classification and the greater part of the scientific nomenclature is 

 acknowledged to have been copied from the " Catalogue of Birds 

 of the British Museum," a work which informs us, amongst other 

 interesting information, that the Sittellse breed in holes, and that 

 the Sun-birds lay white eggs. This is the work which is to " form 

 the basis of all future labour in ornithology," including, I pre- 

 sume, Australian ornithology. If Colonel Legge is so anxious 

 that the Latin and Greek names, of which a translation is easily 

 obtainable, shall be removed, why retain such barbaric names as 

 Manucode, Drongo, and Pitta, which are said to hail respectively 

 from Malay, Madagascar, and Telugu dialects ? — I am. yours, &c., 



A. M. MORGAN, 

 President S.A. Ornithological Association. 

 Angas-street, Adelaide, 8th November, 1899. 



