152



The Hooded Parrakeet.



country. Now the only way in which I could meet this kind of

half-taunt from my friend was to remark that I should get it some

day or other ; and I certainly did exult when I received an example

from the hands of Mr. Elsey, a year or two prior to Mr. Brown’s

death. On comparing the bird with the drawing, made at least

forty years before, they proved to be so much alike that no douht

remained in my mind as to its having been made from an example

of this species.”


In the Natural History Department of the British Museum,

the drawing referred to by Gould is still preserved, as is also the

manuscript description drawn up by Robert Brown at the time the

bird was procured.


In Blinder’s Yoy. Terra Austr., Vol. II., 1844, p. 226, it is

recorded that at Melville Bay on Feb. 16th, 1803, “A beautiful

species of paroquet not known at Port Jackson was procured.” It

may be that this refers to this bird as though most of Brown’s

manuscript bears accurate localities and dates, this one unfortu¬

nately only gives “ M. ora. septentrionali.”


This painting is a most beautiful and accurate one of P. dis-

similis (Collett), and differs in many details from P. chrysopterygius.

Gould noted this, as can be gathered from the last sentence ; but

the wish to refute Brown probably caused him to minimise such

differences.


Over ninety years after Brown met with this bird, it was

again collected on the Mary River Northern Territory on May 9th,

1895, by Dr. Dahl. This specimen was described by the late Dr.

Collett in the Proe. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1898, p. 356, under the name

Psepliotus dissimilis. The description reads : “ Forehead, lores, and

crown dark chestnut ,” but this is a pure mistake, those parts being

black. This is written from an examination of the type specimen

which is now in my collection at Watford.


Through this erroneous description the bird was redescribed

twice afterwards.


A consignment of these birds was brought to Europe via

Sydney some ten years afterwards. While in Sydney they were

examined by Mr. North of the Australia Museum, Sydney, who,

noting them as new, described a specimen in the Victorian Naturalist,



