THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
that species automatically becomes the type of the genus, and that is the 
Pclccanus IcucogastcT Boddaert, as determined by W. L. Sclater as hereafter 
observed. 
Scopoli was the first binomial writer to use Brisson’s genus name and his 
usage was equivalent to that of Brisson. Lacepede afterwards named a genus 
Sulu, simply giving a diagnosis with no species attached and that covered 
the same forms as Brisson. Daudin almost immediately added species to 
Lacepede’s genus name and his congregation was Brissonian, so that the type 
remained the same. 
lUiger simply introduced Dysporus because Sula was not a classical word, 
and as authorities for the Sula he displaced he named “ Briss., Scop., Cuv., 
Lacep., Dumeril.” lUiger’s name then falls as an absolute synonym of Sula 
Brisson. This must be emphasized, as this name has so often been used for 
the group typified by P. hassanus Linne, and this is incorrect. This group 
is a valid genus, so that this point requires fuU consideration. 
Rafinesque substituted Sularius, as “ Sula Lac.” did not meet with his 
approval. 
VieiUot in his Analyse proposed Morus, giving as example “ Fou de 
Bassan Buff.” He notes “ Pelecanus Linn. Gm. Lath.” and never mentions 
Sula in any connection. Hence the name must be construed on the facts 
and the type by monotypy is Pelecanus hassanus Linne. It is probable 
that VieiUot simply intended Morus as an improvement on Sula Brisson, 
as in the following year (in the Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat.) Morus is used for 
all the Gannets exactly agreeing with Sula Brisson. In a List of British 
Birds not recognised as an available list for nomenclatural purposes, Leach 
used Moris for the British Gannet. VieUlot’s work was published before 
AprU, whUe Leach’s did not appear before August in the same year (1816). 
In the following year (1817) Forster used Leach’s name Moris in an acceptable 
manner for the same species, which, of course, is equivalent to Morus VieUlot. 
No attempt at subdivision appears to have been made untU Reichenbach 
named four genera in 1852. He was somewhat unfortunate in his selection 
of generic and specific names as here shown : 
Dysporus lU. 
Piscatrix Reichb. 
Sula Briss. 
Plancus Klein. 
hassanus Briss. 
Candida Briss. 
fusca Briss. 
maior Rchb. 
Reichenbach apparently intended to name four distinct groups, which 
are easUy noted when Gannets are examined, but his names only cover three 
species ; the first and last species names are synonymous. The first name is 
invalid as it is a synonym of Sula Brisson, whUe the last name is preoccupied. 
202 
