THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
The species name is in like case. Latham called the parrot Psittacus 
galeatus but in the Indische Zoologie by Forster, published in 1781, twenty 
years previously, on p. 40, Psittacus galeatus crist. was proposed for 
Edwards’ pi. 317, which is recognised by Salvadori in the Catalogue of 
Birds in the British Museum , Vol. XX., p. 121, 1891, as Psittacus sulphureus 
Gmelin, 1788. Forster’s name has priority, so that it would appear that 
Kakatoe galeata would supersede Cacatua sulphur ea (Gmelin) of the Cat. Birds. 
This is a matter that should engage the attention of specialists in the Molucca 
Avifauna, but in the meanwhile I prefer the name of fimhriatus Grant for 
the present species. 
Note . — It will be observed that in the species on the opposite page, as in 
many others, the name used in the text differs entirely from the one given on 
the plate. Lord Rothschild has again drawn attention to this “ confusion ” 
as if it were an undesirable item. I have explained that the plates are prepared 
often two years in advance of their issue, and the name engraved on them is 
the name then in current use. The text is corrected and revised right up 
to the date of issue of the work, and it would be ridiculous to persist in the 
use of an incorrect name simply because it had been engraved on a plate. 
I think all scientific workers will agree with me that my method of working is 
correct, and as I correlate the plate with the text there is no need for confusion 
save to a superficial observer. This note is written on the 18th January, 1917. 
Lord Rothschild’s note {Bull. Brit. Orn. Club , Vol. XXXVII., Jan. 2, 
1917, p. 17) on my treatment of Megastrix will, as he suggests, be decided, by 
others. I would note, however, that he quotes Salvador i’s large measurement 
of the wing without recording that Salvadori measured over the wing, not as 
we do now. Further he guesses that the small measurements are due to the 
Arfak birds being males. I do not indulge in vain conjectures as to sex to 
agree with my conclusion, nor do I suggest that facts which disagree are due 
to variation, when there is little variation save that due to locality and plumage 
change which can be gauged. 
152 
