THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
With this description may be contrasted that given by Vieillot of his 
Le Kakatoes vert, Cacatua viridis Vieill. est de la taille du kakatoes banksien , 
et porte un plumage vert, a reflets, avec du brun jaunatre sur le cou ; du 
jaune sur la tete, au bas les joues et au menton ; la queue est etagee et en 
partie rouge ; le bee couleur de corne et le tarse gris. On le trouve 
a la Nouvelle Hollande. Est-ce une espece distincte ? ” This seems 
indeterminable without criticism of type. 
White, in the Journ. Voyage New South Wales , 1790, gave a plate 
(dated Dec. 29, 1789) opposite p. 139, where he wrote: “April 15, 1788. 
We this day discovered the Banksian Cockatoo. This species was first 
described by Mr. Latham , in his seventh volume or supplement to the 
General Synopsis of Birds, and the one in the plate annexed differs from that 
in some few particulars. ... In our specimen, the general colour of the bird 
is olive or rusty black, the head feathers pretty long, and about the sides 
of the head and top of it is a mixture of fine yellow ; but none of the feathers 
are marked with buff at the tips, nor is the under-part of the body crossed 
with buff-colour. In the tail it differs scarcely at all from Mr. Latham’s 
figure.” This description applies to the present species, but most authors 
have separated the references to White and Phillips or else misapplied both. 
Thus Latham separated them, as did Wagler. 
When Kuhl prepared his Monograph, he described Psittacus temminlcii 
from Mus. Bullock, Temminck, Paris and Laugier. As he mentions separately 
a specimen in the Mus. Bullock, I would select as type the specimen in the 
Mus. Temminck, which would also be the type of Temminck’s P. lathami, 
while the specimen in the Paris Museum would be the C. viridis of Vieillot. 
He then recognised P. banksii , to which he attached as synonym “ Phyll. 
166 fig.”, which is wrong. Another new species was named as P. leacliii and 
a beautiful figure given, which is the preceding species. I mention this as 
the species was described from the Mus. Soc. Linn. Lond. Published a 
little later was an account by Temminck. This worker undoubtedly agreed 
with Kuhl, but erred in his nomination, apparently through a confusion 
of notes. Thus he proposed P. cookii for the specimens named leachii by 
Kuhl, and these are still preserved in the British Museum. As recorded by 
Salvadori in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum , Vol. XX., 
the male, Kuhl’s figured specimen (?), is the foregoing bird, but the female 
is the one I am now dealing with. There was another specimen in the 
Linnean Society’s collection which Temminck named P. solandri ? He was 
doubtful of its specific validity and gave a good account. This was certainly 
Kuhl’s C. temminkii . 
128 
