No. I.] THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD 3 



members differ quite as much among themselves as 

 from other species which are classed in Cuculus. I am 

 therefore referring the Australian species hitherto classed 

 in Cacomantis to the genus Cuculus. 



In my Handlist I accepted the genus Mesocalius 

 and species palliolatus Latham. 



This is an interesting case and the facts are simple : 

 In the Mus. Hein., Cabanis proposed numerous new 

 genera without giving diagnostic features, simply relying 

 upon the species named. On p. 16 he gave : 

 Gen. Misocalius Nob. 



Chalcites Gould, 184? and Bp., 1854 (nee Less, 

 1831). 



M. palliolatus Nob. 



Cuculus palliolatus Lath, 

 and then included in its synonymy Chalcites osculans, 

 Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. [Lond.], 1847, p. 32). As 

 no other species was included, the type of Misocalius 

 (by monotypy) must be regarded as Cuculus palliolatus, 

 Lath. This species is indeterminable (at present) and 

 therefore I conclude the genus name must be rejected. 

 It may be argued that Cabanis founded his genus on 

 Chalcites osculans Gould, which he identified with 

 Latham's account of his Cuculus palliolatus, and that 

 therefore the genus name Misocalius should be retained 

 for the Chalcites osculans Gould. The only logical 

 conclusion is however, that inasmuch as Cabanis based 

 his genus on Latham's Cuculus palliolatus without giving 

 a generic diagnosis, there is no valid reason for accepting 

 the generic name for a bird he deemed synonymous. 

 I consider the safest course in this case is to ignore 

 Misocalius and, therefore, propose the new generic name 



Owenavis 



for Chalcites osculans Gould, of which genus it is the 

 type and only species. 



For the Bronze Cuckoos I employed Chalcococcyx , 

 following the Handlist of Birds, whereas North has 

 used Lamprococcyx. 



