40 THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD [Vol. III. 



On p. 24 another trinomial appears which may here be 

 cited. PI. 392 is called " Turdus merula atricapilla Linne, 

 107.418." This is Turdus atricapillus Linne 107.18 (the 4 

 appears to have slipped in), and " merula " would seem to 

 have been subgenerically added and would appear to have 

 been regarded as a member of the Boddaertian group Merula. 



Throughout the book there is such a quaint disregard of 

 genera, species and subspecies as regards the determination 

 of the names of these plates, that it seems almost absurd 

 that our " priority-mad " predecessors should have accepted 

 the nomenclature utilised in it as valid. We are simply 

 endeavouring to complete their ill-starred unfinished work. 



T Angara major. 



This name is given (p. 12) to pi. 205, but was not used 

 in the Catalogue of Birds, XL, where the later magnus 

 Gmelin given to the same plate was used for a species of 

 Saltator. However, in Brabourne and Chubb : s List, page 371, 

 this name is rejected in favour of maximus P.L.S. Muller 1770. 

 which is supposed to be founded on the same plate. 



Miiller's description reads, p. 159 : " Sie ist braun, unten 

 rostfarbig. . . . Cayenne. Buff on." 



The bird for which the name is used is not " braun," and 

 Miillers name should be rejected. Neither does pi. 205 

 represent the Cayenne bird in good enough colouring for 

 acceptance. It may be urged that there is no other Cayenne 

 bird to which the name is applicable, but then it is not 

 absolutely certain that the bird came from Cayenne, and there 

 are other birds as near (or nearer) the figure from elsewhere. 

 Then, on p. 38, Boddaert gave the name " Coracias cayanus " 

 to pi. 616, and in the Catalogue of Birds Sclater cited this 

 plate as a doubtful one of the bird he called magnus Gmelin. 

 The figure there given is a splendidly coloured and accurate 

 plate of the Cayenne bird called maximus by Brabourne and 

 Chubb, following Hellmayr (Nov. Zool., Vol. XV., p. 30, 

 1909) and Berlepsch (same Vol., p. 205). In order to meet 

 criticism we would point out two discrepancies in pi. 616. 



