BROWN PUALAHOPE. 
12^) 
®®*istitutes a third, a point not yet ascertained. 
Dot easy to be settled for the want of characters, 
examination of these birds I have paid par- 
attention to the feet, wliicli possess characters 
W all with those of the bill ; hence a union 
he Iv'ii “ facility to the student, of which 
" hen he makes them the 
•lect of his investigation. 
ofV**'' figure of this species betrays all the marks 
cej ^^'^e j it is inaccurately drawn and imperfectly 
notwithstanding, by a diligent study of it, 
*eot 1 enabled to ascertain that it is the coot- 
l)ifj®?.'^''inga of Edwards, plate 46 and 143, to which 
le “ h*nnaeus gave the specilic denomination of lobata. 
*"'elfth edition of the Sy sterna Naturae, the 
'o p'***'^ naturalist, conceiving that he might have been 
w omitted, in his description of the lobata, the 
aii^^^ynie of Edwards’s cock coot-footed tringa. No. 143, 
the latter bird under the name of liyper- 
'*fiier''~*^ specific appellation, which Temminck and 
Uws e*’“ithologi.sts have sanctioned, but which the 
!t(lg.j,.efi methodical nomenclature prohibit us from 
as, beyond all fpiestioii, hyperborea is only 
iHa^j^^yiae of lobata, which has the priority, and must 
lli^^y'^e^aniinck differs from us in the opinion that 
'Peci ’ et Gmelin, vol. i, p. 674, is the present 
thij. and refers it to that which follows. But, if 
*eok j ®Pectable ornithologist will take the trouble to 
JTo. the twelfth edition of Linnajus, vol. i, p. 249, 
Jio ,’,*e '"‘fi there find two false references, Edwards’s 
^’aei" > Brisson’s No. 1, which gave rise to 
contusion of synonymes, and a consequent 
iti both***' description, as, the essential character 
being nearly in the same words, {rostra 
that b ti’ infiexo, §'c.) we are at no loss to infer 
IniJ descriptions have reference to the same bird ; 
'>f ti, Jt,®*'® certain that the lobata of the twelfth edition 
VoY *®™ier is precisely the same as that of the tenth 
