116 THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD [Vol. III. 



in every way are much greater. The genus Phylloscopus 

 is still more heterogeneous, and the species Phylloscopus 

 fuscatus (Blyth), p. 85, is certainly no near relation to the 

 type of Phylloscopus. Seebohm classed it in Lusciniola, 

 which is nearly as bad, so we propose 



Phjeorhadina gen. nov. 

 for Phillopneuste fuscata Blyth, 1842. — Phceorhadina fuscata. 



Chionophilos. 



In the B.O.U. List, p. 39, Otocorys Bonaparte, 1838, is used 

 for Alauda alpestris Linn. On p. 359 it is explained that 

 Eremophila Boie, 1828, is preoccupied by Eremophilus Hum- 

 boldt, 1805. Phileremos Brehm, 1831, is also preoccupied. 



The above name, introduced in Brehm's Handb. Stuben. 

 Vogel, p. 296, 1832, has six years' priority over Otocoris, and 

 should be used as it otherwise appears to be valid. At the 

 same time an alternative name, Niphophilos, was also given, 

 both being quoted as of Petenyi MS., so that one of these 

 names must be used in preference to Otocoris. It will, of 

 course, be amended to Chionophilus alpestris. 



Cygnus. 



While recording Cygnus Bartram, which is considered as 

 valid ex Zimmermann, 1793, Richmond writes : " The species 

 is the one now known as Olor cygnus (Linnaeus), type of the 

 genus Olor Wagler, 1832. At the moment it looks as if the 

 swans were in for a transfer of names, but it is not at all 

 improbable that some binary author has used Cygnus before 

 1793, and the name may finally rest upon one of the other 

 species. 



The unreasonable and illogical acceptance of binary 

 authors may eventually cause a lot of trouble and " finally " 

 may be a long way. Considering that Sherborn had recorded 

 all the binomial names it really seems absurd that a " novel ,? 

 rendering of the word " binary " should be allowed to make 

 confusion, without advantage. In the present case the type 



