THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
The skeletal characters seem to confirm this suggestion. In D’Arcy 
Thompson’s essay on the “Cranial Osteology of the Parrots” ( Proc . Zool. 
Soc. (Lond.) 1899, pp. 9-46), the figure given of the cranium of M. aterrimus 
at once suggests that of the Maccaws, and is very different from those of the 
other Cockatoos with which it is placed, the point of resemblance being the 
complete orbital ring. Differences are cited in the text. When the Maccaws 
are treated of, peculiarly enough — though Anadorhynchus has an incomplete 
orbital ring — comparisons are continually made with Microglossus. The 
osteology differs so much from that of the other Cockatoos, that I have 
separated the present species as of family rank, and it is possible that a 
complete re-examination would cause it to be placed nearer the Maccaws 
than the Cockatoos. It is obviously a very isolated form, however it be 
viewed, and it is worthy of an extended investigation. Before it is too late, 
a delightful essay might be prepared by one of the younger Australian 
ornithologists on the comparative osteology of, say, Probosciger, Calyptorhynchus , 
Zanda, Kakatoe , Licmetis and Eolophus, from nestling to adult. 
In the Nov . Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 11, June 1911, correcting the nomen- 
clature of my “ Handlist Birds Australia,” I wrote : “ Page 46 : Genus 
CLXXXII., Solenoglossus Ranzani, Elem. di Zool., iii., pt. ii., p. 18, pi. v., 
figs. 2, 3, 1821, replaces Microglossus Vieillot.” 
Salvadori’s reason for rejecting Solenoglossus, as given in the Cat. Birds , 
XX., p. 102, footnote, reads : “ Solenoglossus Ranz. has certainly the 
priority over Microglossus Geoffr., but it conveys quite a false idea of the 
structure of the tongue.” Then follows a history of the name Microglossus. 
It is interesting to note that Gray, in the List Genera Birds, p. 69 (1841), used 
Microglosswn Geoffr., 1809 ; probably following Gray, Agassiz, in the Nomen. 
Zool. Aves, p. 47, 1846, gave Microglossum Geoff., Ann. Mus., XIII. (1809). 
But search through the Annales Mus. d’Hist. Nat., Vol. XIII. (1809) does 
not reveal Microglossum, though in that volume Geoffroy Saint Hilaire 
introduced a new genus Microdactylus. I surmise that the similarity of 
names, through inadvertence, caused the reference of Microglossum to this 
place. I have looked through all Saint-Hilaire’s papers without result, and 
when he later discussed Microglossus , Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did not claim to 
have previously proposed the name, and accepted it as of Vieillot, Galerie 
cFOiseaux I., p„ 47, pi. 50. In the same place, Count Salvadori pointed out 
that Probosciger Kuhl ( Consp . Psitt., p. 12, 1820) was not proposed generic- 
ally, but only the name given to a section, and therefore did not 
recognise it as applicable from that introduction. With this statement I 
quite agree, and refuse to accept names simply proposed sectionally as of 
their sectional date.” 
74 
