THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
means to traverse the whole area of their range, and discover at the right 
moment the flowering trees which are so attractive to them, the period of 
blossoming in tropical regions being very limited for each species.” 
The exact name of the type of Trichoglossus is not easily defined. In 
the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum , Vol. XX., p. 49, 1891, 
Salvadori, referring Trichoglossus to Vigors and Horsfield, cited T. hcematodes 
as type. Stephens, however, of Trichoglossus , as now restricted, only included 
two as follows (the other five species being referable to other genera) : 
“ Tr. hcematopus. Psittacus hcematopus Gmel., Syst. Nat., I., p. 357, 
Psittacus cyanogaster Shaw, v. viii., p. 413. Molucca Islands. 
“ Tr. capistratus. Psittacus capistratus Beckst. Psittacus hcematodes. 
Shaw, v. viii., p. 415. Amboy na ? ” 
Vigors and Horsfield did not name any type, but Lesson {Manuel d'Orn., 
p. 147, 1828) wrote : “ Le type de ce genre est le psittacus hcematodus des 
Moluques, espece tres voisine du P. ornatus du Port Jackson et qui ne different 
l’une de l’autre que par des teintes diversement placees.” 
Since this was written Opinion No. 67 of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature has been received. By this Opinion one hundred 
and two bird names are placed in the Official List of Generic Names. There 
citations of introduction and type are given and in the present case we read. 
“ Trichoglossus (Vigors MS.) Stephens, General Zool. 14. i. 1826. 129 
Tsd., Swainson 1832, swainsoni Jar dine and Selby, 1831 = hcematopus 
Stephens (nec hcematodus Linn.) = Psittacus novcehollandice Gmelin.” This 
is a delightful instance of the inadvisability of preparing Official Lists with 
our present imperfect knowledge. I checked the above and at the time 
it appeared correct. My more complete investigation of the facts for the 
purpose of this work shows that it is not faultless. I have just noted that 
Lesson in 1828 named Psittacus hcematodus as type and that designation has 
as much right as Swainson’ s. Further Linne did not write hcematodus but 
hcematodes. Again hcematopus is a different name and if it can be determined 
as equivalent to hcematodes we have a good precedent for rectifications as 
will be hereafter noted. Still again I show moluccanus Gmelin to have 
precedence over novcehollandice (written by Gmelin novcehollandia ) and by 
the Opinions already rendered moluccanus must be preserved. 
12 
