Plate LIX. 



FULICA LEI7C0PYGA. 



(EED-SIIELDED COOT). 



Mclica leucopyga 



Fulica rufifrons 

 Fulica chloropoides 



Licht. in Mus. Berol. 

 Hartl. Journ. f. Orn. 1853, Extra-h. p. 

 Schlegel, Mus. d. P. B. Balli, p. 64. 

 Scl. et Salv. P.Z.S. 1868, p. 467. 

 Landbeck, Wiegm. Arch. 1862, p. 223. 

 King, Zool. Journ. IV, p. 95 (?) 

 Abbott, Ibis, 1861, p. 157. 



84. 



Obscure ardesiaca, capite toto nigricante : crisso albo, plumis quibusdam medialibus nigris : remigis externi margine 

 concolore : rostri apice flavo, basi cum clypeo frontali ruberrimo ; lioc angusto, supra acute angulato ; pedibus olivaceis : 

 long, tota 16'0, alse 6'8, caudae 2'4, rostri a rictu 1*3, tarsi 3'2, dig. med. cum ungue 3*5. 



Sab. in rep. Uruguayensi (Sellow) : Cbilia (Landbeck) : Patagonia (King) : Inss. Falklandicis {Mus. Brit.). 



In a letter addressed to Mr. Vigors, and subsequently published in the fourth volume of the 

 c Zoological Journal/ the late Captain King gave some very short and insufficient descriptions 

 of supposed new species of birds discovered during his survey of the Magellan- Straits in 1826. 

 Amongst the birds thus characterized as new to science were two Coots, named by Capt. King 

 Fulica chloropoides and F. gallinuloides. In order to ascertain positively what species were 

 designated by these names it would be necessary to inspect the typical specimens, which, if ever 

 sent home to this country, have unfortunately disappeared. It is only, therefore, by a process 

 of guess-work, that we can refer F. gallinuloides of King to F. armillata and his F. chloropoides 

 to the present bird. 



It would not, however, be right to allow Capt. King's name, which can only be conjecturally 

 applied to this Coot, to supersede the appellation under which Dr. Hartlaub described it in 

 1860, in his already mentioned memoir upon this group. Dr. Hartlaub adopted for the bird 

 the name leucopyga, by which it had been designated by Lichtenstein in the Berlin Museum. 

 It is true this is by no means a specially appropriate name, inasmuch as it would apply equally 

 well to three or four other species of the genus, but this is not a valid reason for rejecting it. 



In 1862 Herr Landbeck, Sub-director of the Museum of Santiago in Chili, being unfortunately 

 unacquainted with Dr. Hartlaub's article, redescribed this species under the name Fulica rufifrons, 



[117] 



