PROBOSCIGER. 
Two criticisms of this conclusion have appeared. In the Ibis Jubilee 
Suppl., No. 2, December 1915, Ogilvie-Grant, using Solenoglossus , wrote: 
“ Count Salvadori in a footnote (Cat. XX., p. 102) states that Solenoglossus 
Ranzani, Elem. di Zool. III., pt. 2, p. 18 (1821) has priority over Microglossus 
Vieill., Gal. des Ois. I., pt. 2, p. 47, pi. 50 (1821-23). He does not, however, 
use the former name, as ‘ it conveys quite a false idea of the structure of the 
tongue.’ Page 47 appeared in Livr. 10 and 11, published on 2nd Feb., 1822 
{fide C. D. Sherborn).” 
I would not have taken any notice of this item had there not been 
necessity to remark upon his other words in connection with the species. 
In the Ibis , April, 1916, p. 300, I therefore observed : “ Though Ogilvie- 
Grant has used this name ( Solenoglossus ) to replace Microglossus Auct., as 
determined by myself some years ago {Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., 1911, p. II), a 
reconsideration is necessary, and I will fully discuss the matter in my ‘ Birds 
of Australia,’ the part dealing with these birds being now in preparation. 
Again, though the date of publication of Vieillot’s Microglossus is given ‘ {fide 
C. D. Sherborn),’ this had been published by me in the ‘ Austral Avian 
Record,’ Vol. II., 1915, pp. 153-158.” 
Ogilvie-Grant rejoined (p. 311) : “ That this name {Solenoglossus) has 
priority over Microglossus was pointed out by Count Salvadori, Cat. Birds 
B. M. XX., p. 102 (1891), but, for the reason there stated, he did not make 
use of it. Mr. Mathews’s notes on the matter appeared in 1911 ! ” 
That is hardly fair criticism, as the absolute priority of the name Soleno- 
glossus was not made certain until I published the dates of Vieillot’s Galerie 
d’Oiseaux in 1915, when I explained the reason. I may here state that by so 
doing I saved Mr. Ogilvie-Grant from making a serious blunder, as he had 
wrongly concluded that Microglossus had priority, notwithstanding his present 
championship of Count Salvadori’s twenty odd year-old statement. As 
the matter now stands, no further reference is needful, on account of the 
second criticism. Thus, W. de W. Miller, writing on “ Notes on Ptilosis, 
with special reference to the Feathering of the Wing,” in the Bull. Am. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., Vol. XXXIV., March 19, 1915, observed (p. 134, footnote 1) : 
“As stated by Mathews {Novitates Zoologicce, Vol. XVIII., pp. 11-13, 1911), 
Cacatua Vieillot and Galopsitta Lesson must be replaced respectively by 
Cacatoes Dumeril and Leptolophus Swainson on the grounds of priority. I 
cannot agree, however, with the contention that Probosciger Kuhl and 
Gonurus Kuhl should be superseded by Solenoglossus Ranzani and Aratinga 
Spix. Though the older names were merely given as ‘ sections,’ these are 
equivalent to subgenera, and there seems to be no reason why they should 
not be accepted as such.” 
75 
