on the Princess of Wales' Parrakeet. 249


I11 the Princess of Wales’ Parrakeet, the male has the third

feather of the primaries of the wings notched at the end, and

longer than the other feathers; but until two or three more

species have been discovered showing the same peculiarity I

fail to see why this Parrakeet should be separated from the other

members of the Polytelis genus. Why should it not have been

named Polytelis spathopterusf keeping the name of “ Princess of

Wales” Parrakeet for its title in English? Truly of making

of names, there is no end! Gould placed it in the genus

Polytelis. Surely one small feather ornamentation of this kind

does not justify a new generic title, or outweigh the otherwise

close resemblance to an already known genus.


It is not absolutely necessary for the English name to

appear in the scientific title; for instance, the Turquoisine

Grass-Parrakeet is always called so by the large majority of

aviculturists, but its Latin title is Neophema pulchella ; and the

Blue-winged Grass-Parrakeet is called Neophema venusta; and

everyone knows that venusta does not signify “blue-winged.”


In all other respects, with the exception of one peculiarly

shaped feather in the wings of the male bird only, the Princess

of Wales’ Parrakeet closely resembles the Barraband and the

Rock Pebbler. There is the very long tapering tail, the same

style of bill and head, and general form, and ways, and size.


In any case, whatever the names of the birds may be, it is

undoubtedly a most beautiful creature, and a male bird reared by

hand and kept as a cage bird by itself would make a most charm¬

ing pet, until he raised his voice, and then one would certainly

say “every rose has its thorn!”



* The present system of nomenclature demands strict adherence to the law of

priority for the specific term ; hence the original name Alexandra cannot be altered.

The peculiar character of the wing in the male (which is illustrated in Parrakeets, p. 126),

was only recently discovered by Mr. North of the Australian Museum, who published the

result of his discovery in the Ibis for 1895. Whether the peculiarity is worthy of generic

distinction is a matter of opinion, but there was no chance of altering the specific term.

The separation of this beautiful species from the genus Polytelis has at any rate served to

call special attention to a feature that is worthy of especial notice.


Would not a better trivial name than that of “ Princess of Wales’ Parrakeet” be

“Queen Alexandra’s Parrakeet,” for it was after our present Queen that the species was

named by Gould ?— Ed.



