PTERODEOMA. 
and for this I think Cones is to be thanked, as very shortly after Bonaparte 
had proposed three new genera, Pterodrmna, ^strelata, and Coohilaria, he (Cones) 
— thongh he wonld probably now be ranked as a genns-splitter — carefnlly 
investigating the species, recognised one genns only for the forms Bonaparte 
had placed in the above three. For the genns-name he accepted ^strelata, 
and fnlly detailed his reasons for that acceptation. Since his time j^strelata 
has been commonly nsed, apparently withont anyone making any attempt 
at confirmation, thongh from Cones’s detailed remarks snch was necessary. 
The history of the names is as follows : In the Coynptes Rendus Sci., Paris, 
Vol. XLII., p. 768, 1856, Bonaparte pnt forward a classification of the Petrels, 
and splitting np Procellaria introdnced two new genera Pterodroma and 
JEstrelata and inclnded Rhantistes ; these cover species now generally accepted 
as congeneric, the only erroneons inclnsions being species incorrectly identified, 
snch as flavirostris Gonld and desolata Gmelin. In the following volnme, p. 994, 
Bonaparte pnblished an article dealing with “ Corrections ” to his Conspectus 
parts already pnblished, and to other previonsly-finished papers. In that 
place he pointed ont that following Reichenbach he had nsed Rhantistes, bnt 
reference to the anthor of that genns (Kanp) had shown its invalidity, and 
therefore for the genns Rhantistes Reichenbach (not Kanp), he introdnced 
Coohilaria. 
The sncceeding year his part of the Conspectus dealing with Petrels was 
issned, and therein of conrse Bonaparte incorporated all his latest mformation ; 
we therefore find the genns Mstrelata has been improved by the elimination 
of Gonld’ s flavirostris ; Coohilaria is nsed instead of Rhantistes, and Pterodroma 
is nnchanged. When Cones came to work on this gronp he recognised that 
Bonaparte’s three genera wonld be better nnited, and selected as the name 
to be nsed for the three, Mstrelata, becanse it appeared first in the Conspectus 
Gen. Av. This work he considered to have appeared prior to the Comptes 
Rendus paper in Vol. XLII. ; this misnnderstanding was dne to his overlooking 
the paper in the forty-third volnme of that periodical, which wonld have 
indicated to him his error in accepting the date on the foot of the pages in the 
Consp. Gen. Av. as of any valne. The date on p. 185 is 1st December, 1855, 
and as it foUows the date on p. 177, November 1st, 1855, and is followed on p. 193 
by 1st Jannary, 1856, it wonld seem qnite a reasonable conclnsion that the 
parts had been issned as dated. Bnt on p. 185 is inclnded a qnotatipn of a 
species pnblished by Tschndi in 1856, and Bonaparte himself in the Comptes 
Rendus Sci., Paris, Vol. XLIII., p. 594, noted that Tschndi’ s paper was not 
pnblished nntil Angnst 1856, so that we have at once proven the inaccnracy of 
the dates in the Consp. Gen. Av. Reference to Wiegmann’s Archiv. fiir Naturg., 
1857, pt. n., p. 60, shows that the part of the Conspectus dealing with Petrels 
131 
