THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
In the Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., Jan., 1912, in my ‘‘Reference List” to 
the Birds of Australia, I used (p. 261) Family Opopsittidse, Genus Opopsitta 
Sclater, to replace Cyclopsitta, explaining : “ Note. — Cyclopsitta was introduced 
by Reichenbach, Syst. Av., tab. Ixxxii., 1850, where figures of a head, tail, 
wing and claw are given. It seems to be a composite effort, as the head 
most resembles that of Trichoglossus versicolor Lear, the tail is unlike that of 
G. diophthalma Jacquinot and Pucheran, while the wing does not seem like 
that of any of these little parrots. It can certainly not be used for this 
genus, and I have rejected it as indeterminable.” 
In spite of this clear statement of facts, Ogilvie-Grant continued the 
misusage of Cyclopsittacus in the Ibis Jubilee Supplement, No. 2, December, 
1915. In the April Ibis, I pointed out how misleading such action was in 
the following language (p. 300) : 
“ Cyclopsittacus. 
“ It seems strange that in this case Ogilvie-Grant has disagreed with 
Rothschild and Hartert, as in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XX., 1913, p. 485, they 
correctly used Opopsitta. This was due to my initiative, as I examined the 
basis of Cyclopsitta Reichenbach and recorded the result in the Nov. Zool., 
Vol. XVIII., 1912, p. 261. The writers quoted examined my data and 
found them to be correct. It may be objected that I write strongly, but 
this is necessary in view of the very important position held by Mr. Ogilvie- 
Grant; his actions, right or wrong, are liable to prejudice workers unable to 
consider technical matters for themselves, and, consequently, he should be 
specially careful.” 
Mr. Ogilvie-Grant’ s idea of special carefulness is shown by his reply 
(p. 311) : “ I have carefully considered Reichenbach’s plate Ixxxii., Syst. 
Av. (1850), and disagree with Mr. Mathews’s conclusions. The drawings are, 
perhaps, not very good, but sufficiently so, and have been accepted by Count 
Salvadori. Opopsitta Sclater, P.Z.S. 1860, p. 227, was introduced without 
description, and was most likely a printer’s error, overlooked by the author, 
as, on p. 224, he uses the name Cyclopsitta in referring to the Philippine 
species Psittacus lunulatus Scop. The Philippine species were afterwards placed 
in a separate genus, Bolbopsittacus, by Count Salvadori.” 
In order that the matter may be examined by unprejudiced workers, 
I reproduce exactly the figures given by Reichenbach under the name 
Cyclopsitta. The items to be considered are four in number. (I.) No species 
of the group we are now considering has a dark cap as shown in the figure. 
(II.) No species has the wing formula as depicted. (III.) No species has the 
tail of the shape figured. (IV.) No species has the feet as large as com- 
paratively shown. To emphasize the item “ The drawings are, perhaps. 
62 
