70 



Catalogue No. 

 7. Merulu, "Leach, 1816" (type, Tardus merula, Linn.). 



The proper generic division of the typical thrushes is a matter of considerable difficulty. 

 Of the North American generic groups, Uylocichla and Heaperocichla of Baird aro suffici- 

 ently isolated, the latter being represented by a single species, the former by all the smaller 

 spotted species, besides the Song Thrush (Turdus mxusicus, Linn.) of Europe. I find 

 no American species agreeing' at all closely with Turdus viscivorus (the type of Turdus) in 

 form j and a generic division based wholly or chiefly on coloration being out of the qucstion,- 

 I find no other alternative than to adopt for the Robin and other Amorican thrushes usually 

 referred to " Plcmestieus" of Bonaparte (1854) the name Merula, Leach (1810), there being no 

 essential difference in form between the type of the latter, Turdus merula, Linn. (Merula, 

 nigra. Leach) and our Robin (T. migratorius, Linn.) ; while a number of the Neotropical 

 species exhibit the same sexual difference in coloration as T. merula. I would also refer to 

 Merula the following Old World forms: Turdus pilaris, Linn, (type of Arceuthornis, Kciup, 

 1829), Turdus atrogularis, Temm. (type of Cichloides, Kaup, 1829), Turdus torquatus, Linn, 

 (type of Thoracocincla, Reich., 1850), with perhaps some others. 



9. Hesperocichla, Baird, Review Am. B. i. July, 1864, 32 (type, Turdus nanus, 



Gmel.). 

 12. Galeoscoptes, Cabanis, Mus. Hein. i. 1850, 82 (type, Muscicapa carolinensis, Linu. ). 



19. Cinelus, Bechstein, Gemein. Naturg. 1802 (type, Sturnus cinclus, Linn.). [C/. Baird, 



Review Am. B. i. 1864, 59, foot-note.] 



20. Cyanecula, Brehm, Vog. Deutschl. 1828 (type, Motacilla suecica, Linn.). 

 34. Phylloscopus, Boie, Isis, 1826, 792 (type ?) 



50. Auriparus, Baird, Review Am. B. i. Aug. 1864, 85 (type, JEqiilialus flaviceps, 



Sundev. ). 

 61. Thryomanbs, Sclater, Cat. Am. B. 1861, 22 (type, Troglodytes bewicki, Aud.). 

 65. Anorthura, Rennie, Montagu's Orn. Diet. 2d ed. 1831, 570 (type, A. communis, 



Rennie = Motacilla troglodytes, Linn.). 

 67. Telm*todytes, Cabanis, Mus. Hein. i. 1850, 78 (type, Certhia palustris, WUs.). 



69. Motacilla, Linnseus, S.N. 1735 (type, If. alba, Linn.). 



70. Budytes, Cuvier, Reg. An. i. 1817, 371 (type, Motacilla flava, L.). 



76. Heloncea. — Helinaia, Audubon, Synop. 1839, 66 (type, Syleia swainsoni, Aud.). 

 [Orthography emended by Agassiz, Nomencl. 1847. Cf. Newton, P. Z. S. 

 1879,552.] 

 90. Perissoglossa, Baird, Review Am. B. i. 1864, 180 (type, Motacilla tigrina, Gin.). 

 92. Peucedramus, Coues, in Henshaw's Orn. Wheeler's Survey, 1875, 201 (type, Syl- 

 via olivacea, Giraud). 

 115. Siurus.—Cf. Coues, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club. 



124. Wilsonia, Bonaparte, Conip. List. 1838, 23 (type, Sylvia mitrata, Aud.?). [Cf. 

 Coues, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, April, 1880, 95.*] 



131. Cardellina, "Dubus"-, Bonap. Consp. i. 1850, 312 (type, Cardellina amicta, Dubus = 



Muscicapa rubrifrons, Giraud). 



132. Ergaticus, Baird, Review Am. B. i. May, 1865, 264 (type, Selophaga rubra, 



Swains.). 



133. Basileuterus, Cabanis, in Schomb. Guiana, ili. 1848, 666 (type, Sylvia vermiwra, 



Vieill.). 

 135. Vireosylvia, Bonaparte, Comp. List. 1838, 26 (type, Muscicapa olivacea, Linn.). 

 140. Lanivikeo, Baird, Review Am. B. i. May 23, 18Q6, 345 (type, Vireo Jlavifrons, 



Vieill.?). 



* It is exceedingly doubtful whether Wilsonia, Bp., should displace Myiodioctes, Aud. Bonaparto's 

 name occurs first in a mere list, is used only as a heading for a subgeneric group, and is unaccom- 

 panied either by a diagnosis or an indication of type. Audubon, however, only a year later in desig- 

 nating Ihe same group of birds by tho new generic term Myiodioctes, gave an excellent diagnosis of the 

 generic characters. It appears to ua that the slight difference of date in favor of Bonaparte's name is 

 greatly overbalanced by the pains which Audubon look to duly characterize hia genus, thus conform- 

 ing to the requirements of nomenclatural laws, which Bonaparte failed to do. 



[Note.— Upon reconsideration of all the facts bearing on the case, I see no reason why Myiodioctes 

 should not be preferred, and accordingly restore it in this edition of the catalogue.] 



