THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
legs ; the next has only a medium bill with short legs, while 0. mongolus and 
pyrrJiothorax—atrijrons have stout bills with short legs. 0. geoffroyi has again 
a very stout bill wdth short legs, while 0. asiaticus and veredus have slender bills 
and long legs. 
For 0. dbscurus the genus Pluviorhynchus was provided by Bonaparte, 
Ochthodro7nus having been previously introduced by Reichenbach for 
0. wilsonius ; Cirre'pidesmus of Bonaparte included 0. 'pyrrTiotliorax=atrifrons 
and geo^royiy and the latter has been cited as type in the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 
(Vol. XXIV., p. 209), but by tautonomy the former is correctly considered 
as such. 
There can also be httle doubt that in this place Bonaparte transposed 
the names (a not uncommon fault of his), and that his “ geoffroyi ” was 
intended for “ mongolus,” and that in this place “ mongolus ” was written 
for “ geofProyi.” Thus with G. pyrrhothorax was associated C. “ geo^royi,'*^ which 
would not have seemed unreasonable were it not that under Pluviorhynchus 
two species are cited . P. dbscurus and “ mongolus.’’^ The bill of geoffroyi 
is almost exactly the same size and form as that of obscurus, while 
C. pyrrhothorax=atrijrons can only be regarded as subspecificaUy distinct from 
7 nongdlus. Bonaparte was too careful a worker to make such a blunder in his 
birds, though he might easily cite the names incorrectly. 
I have shown that Brandt introduced Eupoda for 0. asiaticus, with which 
I propose to class 0. veredus. 
If all the former species are considered congeneric the two latter must 
be separated : the bills are quite dissimilar, and the long legs are characteristic. 
The attached cuts show the differences between Pagoa geoffroyi and 
Eupoda vereda; which are more easily and clearly observed in the birds 
themselves and appear to show different origin. 
In the A.O.U. Ghechlist, as above stated, 7nongolus is placed in a different 
genus from wilsonius, and I consider that course correct, but I am not 
inchned to class the former with hiaticula, the type of Charadrius. I am 
therefore making use of the genus Cirrepidesinus proposed by Bonaparte 
and of which the type is G. pyrrhothorax=atrijrons. I am classing in this genus 
C. bicinctus ; and I would recognise Pluviorhynchus for P. obscurus. 
The species C. geo^royi requires consideration : continually confused 
with G. 7 nongolus on account of its similar coloration, the two were considered 
varieties of the same species by Gould and described as Hiaticula inornata. 
A later writer found them difficult to separate, whereas by Baird, Brewer, 
and Ridgway they were placed in different genera. I am also adopting that 
course, and as no generic name has yet been provided for C. geoffroyi, I 
introduce PAGOA, gen. nov., with C. geo^royi Wagler as type. I do not 
82 
