specimen in the Paris Museum, and consequently a nomen nudum. Müller and Schlegel, 
l. с., without any defensible reason, renamed the species P. nove-guinee. Subsequent 
writers, either not knowing these facts, or else regardless of Quoy and Gaimard’s prior 
claim, adopted the name attributed to Cuvier, which they applied to a species Cuvier 
never described, but which, on the contrary, in the 1817 edition of the ‘Règne Animal,’ 
he stated was a made-up specimen and no species at all; this he corrected in 1829. 
The law of priority is very elear in regard to the treatment of such cases, but some naturalists 
object to have it enforced on the ground of expediency, and because it would be apt to 
өтелік. confusion. Doubtless such would be the temporary result in this and all similar 
instances when errors are corrected which have been continued by writers who have 
simply followed each other without making independent investigations ; but the confusion 
is originally caused by those who commit errors, not by him who corrects them. The 
duty of one who attempts to write a monograph of any family is to point out mistakes 
whenever he may be able, and his work would lose its value if for fear of a temporary 
confusion he should continue the transmission of errors known to him to be such, and so 
assist in depriving some author of the credit justly his due. It may be inconvenient for 
those who have become familiar with any especial group to have their ideas of its 
nomenclature disturbed, by showing that errors have been committed and then knowingly 
continued ; but that would be а most indefensible reason to advance why these Ould not 
be corrected, but on the contrary must be continued. 
Conservatism is an excellent principle when it serves as a bulwark against the commission 
of abuses, but is a most baleful principle when it is exerted against the correction of errors. 
I have therefore restored the name atricapilla of Quoy and Gaimard to this species, upon 
which it was first bestowed, and which should never have been transferred to another. 
The type was obtained by Quoy and Gaimard at Triton Bay, New Guinea, and they state 
it was also procured at the Bay of Dorey, where, however, it was very rare. It cannot 
well be confounded with any other of the black-headed Pittas, the one nearest to it being 
perhaps P. méfoorana, from which it differs mainly in having the tail dark green, black 
only near the base (the rectrices of P. méfoorana are black, with the tips bluish green), and 
in having also a white spot on the fourth, fifth, and sometimes on the sixth primaries. 
The New-Guinea Pitta has a wide distribution, bemg found in North-western New 
Guinea, also near Port Moresby and on the Fly River, as well as on various islands to the 
west of New Guinea, as far south as the Aru Group. It has not been discovered as yet | 
upon any of the islands in the Bay of Geelvink, where some of its near relatives have their 
habitats. Specimens from different localities, as might be expected, vary somewhat from 
the typical style, especially in the white spot on the primaries, and Schlegel mentions a 
speeimen from Waigiou which has the primaries of the left wing black, and on those of 
the right there is a small white speculum ; while in the Aru Islands this speculum is very 
narrow in specimens from Wokam and Wonumbai, three males from the latter island, 
indeed, being without it altogether. 
