THE BIRDS OE AUSTRALIA. 
few years later, Vigors and Horsfield systematically accounted for the Linnean 
Society’s collection, and becoming interested, Vigors later named some new 
species. 
Lear monographed the Parrots, and this almost completed the Australian 
Parrot fauna. Gould, however, covering new ground, was enabled to recog- 
nise some new things, mostly small, but one or two striking forms were 
included. 
Nothing further was anticipated, though hoped for, but an extra- 
ordinary surprise was sprung upon Australian ornithologists by the enterprise 
of Dr. Macgillivray in 1913. McLennan, collecting for Macgillivray, suggested 
the investigation of a point some miles south of Cape York, and this request 
being acceded to, McLennan at once furnished two large new additions to 
the Australian List, which will inspire hope for the future. 
The details of the above items will be given in connection with the species 
concerned. 
The systematics of this Group have never been simple, owing to the 
generalisation of the structure, and this remark is applicable to internal as 
well as external features. It seems unnecessary to go into ancient history, 
yet I might remark that though Linne classed the few species known to him in 
the one genus Psittacus, this disposal was soon attacked. Cuvier seems to 
have been the earliest subdivider, as in 1798 he indicated four subdivisions, 
Les Kakatoes, Perroquets, Aras and Perruches. In 1799 Lacepede proposed 
two only, Am and Psittacus, but in 1800 Cuvier gave names to his own four 
divisions, KaJcatoe, Psittacus, Am and Psittacula. Previously, without giving 
any systematic account, Boddaert had proposed Lorius. Illiger in 1811 
added Pezoporus for an Australian form. 
The first systematic monograph was by Kuhl in 1820, and this fine 
foundation deserves all praise. Although the species were all retained in 
Psittacus, Kuhl skilfully divided this into six sections, viz., Am, Conurus, 
Psittacula, Psittacus, Kakadoe and Probosciger. These sections were subdivided 
into colour-sections and geographical groups, but only one other name was 
proposed, Sagittifer, although Lori was indirectly used. Kuhl’s specific treat- 
ment was good and accurate, and although only a young man, he had visited 
various museums, including the British, in quest of material for his work. As 
one consequence Australian ornithology is indebted to him for the description 
of several species. 
Vigors shortly afterwards attacked bird-classification generally, and 
Parrots especially, and with Horsfield undertook the determination of the 
Australian collection in the possession of the Linnean Society. He proposed 
many new genera and some were for Australian groups. Unfortunately he 
2 
