PISGATRIX. 
It will be noted that Reichenbach refers Plancus to Klein : that writer 
was pre-Linnean and non-binomial, and before Reichenbach revived Klein’s 
name it had been adopted in another sense twenty years earlier, ignoring 
Rafinesque’s introduction of a nomen nudum. 
Bonaparte in the Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. II., pp. 164-166, 1856, used 
Dysporus 111. for his P. sula group (by which he meant what we call 
P. leucogaster) ; Sula ex Brisson as of Vieillot 1818 for a series comprising 
P. bassanus Linne and its relations and also S. dactylatra Lesson, and Piscatrix 
Reichenbach for the '"'‘Candida Briss.” group. Since Bonaparte’s time, 
nearly sixty years ago, no one seems to have studied this group at all closely. 
Baird, Brewer and Ridgway {Water Birds of North Amer., Vol. II., p. 170, 
1884) thirty years ago commented : “ The Gannets are perhaps properly 
separable into two genera, Sula and Dysporus^ the latter including only the 
S. hassana. But in considering the small number of American species, no 
great violence will be done in referring them to a single genus.” As synonyms 
of Sula Brisson, of which the type is given “ by elimination ” as Pelecanus 
leucogaster Bodd., Dysporus lUig., type P. bassanus Linn., Piscatrix Reich., 
type P. piscator Linn., and Plancus Reich., type P. parvus Gmel. (?), are cited. 
A careful examination of the forms associated would probably have induced a 
change of opinion, as it would have shown a confusion of distinct generic types. 
The reference of all the species to one genus by Ogilvie-Grant 
obviated any discussion of their relationships; such would be the natural 
conclusion, but Ogilvie-Grant’s classification shows signs of careful work, 
so that some other and more complex solution is required. 
Once more I note that the treatment in the Catalogue of the Birds in the 
British Museum^ regardless of the personality of the compiler, has prejudiced 
all later work, and again we see this refiected in the American Ornithologists’ 
Union s Checklist , 3rd ed., 1910, where Sula is admitted with no sub genera 
indicated, though such diverse forms as Sula cyanops (Sundevall) (recte 
S. dactylatra Lesson), Sula leucogastra (Boddaert), Sula piscator\ Linne 
(recte S. sula Linne) and Sula bassana Linne are included. A compalratively 
casual examination by an American ornithologist would have shown how 
unscientific such an association was. I shall attempt to show hereafter 
how distinct the genera are and how they may be defined. 
I have given the diagnosis of the genus Piscatrix in full, and would 
note the comparative differences observed and their importance. 
It must first be remembered that throughout the following remarks the 
species name sula Linne” refers to the bird described in the Catalogue of Birds 
under the name S. piscator Linne and not under the name S. sula Linne. 
The impropriety of the usage of the latter name for the bird described by 
203 
