ORNITHOLOGICAL NOTES 
By H. E. STRICKLAND. 
DESCRIPTION OF IRIDOSORNIS DUBUSIA (Bon.) 
Plate XCIY. 
1 ue bird before us has never hitherto been figured, and as it has 
u\en rise to a considerable amount of synonymical confusion, it 
presents an appropriate subject for illustration. 
There is a bird somewhat resembling this, to which Florent Pre- 
'ostgave the name of Tanagra ruficervix , and which he figured in 
r V o yagG d ° la V4nus ’” PL f - 1- It is the Calliste ruficervix 
! Sclater > “Contrib. Ornith.” 1851, p. 58, who also there de- 
I , V' ° °^ lei s P ec ies, G. leucotis and G. atroccerulea , both of which 
vo t cnoncoiIsl y referred to the Tanagra ruficervix of Pre- 
subi w T b<3S1(los these two species there is also a third, the 
ruffe ° prescnt n °tice, which was referred to the original 
P 335 T y de Lafresna y e > in ^e “ Revue Zoologique,” 1842, 
wr ote tb n quot * n f Erevost s species, however, he inadvertently 
Prince nfr ^ 6 ru fi vertex instead of ruficervix, an error which the 
ve rtance amn ,°’ ^ 10 first detected it, terms “ une heureuse inad- 
de rujCX r C fl GSt ; mi( l uement a cause d’elle que le nom specifique 
^^l l^ rmCe himseIf eviden % nieant to have written 
de Zamora ° • ° Conserv ® ^ cette espece, rendant inutile celui 
Now I do not U8l<1 ' leqUGl je 1>ai d6crit dans mon Conspectus ” 
a me re lansus^r ^ ^ eminent ornithologist, in thinking that 
of Priority, ivr aS any claim for Perpetuation on the ground 
bought that ho w ^ le ‘ Snaye ’ w ^ en wr ote the name rufivertex, 
.27 he Was host’s denomination, and had no 
