No. 2 & 3.] THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD 57 



490. PsBPHOTELLTJS, gen. nov. V 



Differs from Neonanodes Mathews in its much longer 



differently-shaped tail. 



Type, Platycercus pulcherrimus Gould. 



528. MiCROPODARGUS, gen. nov. 



Differs from Podargus in its much smaller size through- 

 out and in a comparatively stronger bill. 

 Type, Podargus marmoratus Gould. 



695. Lewinornis, gen. nov. 



Differs from Pachycephala Vigors and Horsfield in 

 its weaker bill, shorter wing and tail, and weaker feet. 

 Type, Sylvia rufiventris Latham. 



704. MxjsciTREA and Hyloterpe. 



In the Handlist of Birds both these genera occur, 

 but a footnote at the latter place notes that the monotype 

 of Muscitrea is synonymous with a species of Hyloterpe. 

 As an Australian bird was included in the latter genus, 

 investigation was necessary to settle which name was 

 to be used. I herewith give my results. 



Muscitrea was introduced by Blyth (Journ. As. Soc. 

 Bengal, Vol. XVL, p. 121, Feb. 1847) for the new 

 species cinerea alone. This is considered to be the same 

 species as Blyth had previously described (same Journal, 

 Vol. XII., p. 180, 1843) under the name Tephrodornis 

 grisola. The species would thus have to be known as 

 Muscitrea grisola (Blyth). T. grisola Blyth has however 

 been placed in the genus Hyloterpe Cabanis. Some 

 recent systematists, myself included, have placed this 

 species in Pachycephala, but there is no excuse for such 

 location. Hyloterpe is accepted as of Cabanis 1847. 

 It appeared in Wiegman's Arch, fiir Nat. 1847, p. 321, 

 but priority is easily dispensed with as Caba.iis's article 

 is dated " Berlin im November, 1847." However, at 

 that place it is doubly a nomen nudum. Firstly, it is 



t 



