Genus— P R0GELLARIx4. 
Procellaeia Linne, Syst. Nat., ed. X., p. 131, 1758 
Priofinus Hombron and Jacquinot, Comptes Rendus 
Sci., Paris, Vol. XVIII., p. 355, 1844 
Majaqueus Reichenbach, Natur. Syst. Vogel, p. iv., 
1852. (Also spelt Majaquens.) 
Adamastor Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus Sci., Paris, 
Vol. XLIII., p. 594, 1856 
CyiimtoholusllemQ, Nomencl. Mus. Hein., p. 363, 1890 
Type P. cequinoctialis. 
Type P. cinerea. 
Type P. cBquinoctialis, 
Type P. cinerea. 
Type P. cequinoctialis. 
Similar to Pufflnus, but the bill higher, less slender, the nasal tube raised in 
front, the openings just visible when looked at straight from above. First 
primary longest. Number of rectrices twelve. Tail rounded. 
I have included in this genus the species referred to the monotypic genus 
Priofinus. It seems to be a connecting link between Procellaria and Puffinus, 
but there is no character save colour which will separate it from the former, 
whereas the nature of the nasal tube dissociates it from Puffi7ius, with which 
it has sometimes been united (c/. Ridgway, Man. North Amer. Birds, 2nd ed., 
p. 55, 1896). In making this attachment I would quote Forbes’s account {Rep. 
Voy. Challenger P Zook, Vol. IV., p. 59, 1882): ‘‘The remaining genera, 
(Estrelata* (=Pterodroma), Puffinus, Adamastor (=Priofinus), Majaqueus 
=Procellaria) and Bulweria are also apparently closely related to each other, 
the first and last-named being perhaps least so,” and (p. 60) “Puffinus and 
Adamastor ( = Priofinus) are more closely connected together than they 
are with Majaqueus (=:Procellaria), easily distinguishable by its more normal 
nostrils, less compressed tarsi and specialised (? Adamastor) syrinx.” This 
would seem exactly the opposite to my conclusions, but note the doubt with 
regard to the specialised syrinx ; and when we carefuUy regard the nostrils 
and the compression of the tarsi I feel my proposition is nearest the truth. 
Coues’s Monograph of the Procellariidce in the Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 
1864 and 1866, is a monument of careful and accurate work, and regarding these 
birds he wrote (1864, p. 117) : “ Its bill (P. cinerea), however, is almost identical 
with that of Majaqueus {=Procellaria),'' and “ It {Majaqueus) is most nearly 
allied to Adanmstor, the bills of the types of the two genera being almost 
identical.” No other conclusion can be arrived at from an unprejudiced 
examination of these birds. 
* The correct name for the genus commonly known as CEstrelata is Pterodroma. Details regarding the 
necessity of this alteration will be fully given in the next Part of this work dealing with the species of that genus. 
106 
