KAKATOE. 
The head bears a crest of long narrow recurved feathers. The wing is 
long, the feathers broad, the first five primaries scalloped on their inner webs ; 
the first primary is long but is exceeded by the next five, the sitxh primary 
being longer than the first but shorter than the intermediate four which are 
about the same length. The tail is even, composed of very broad feathers 
and more than half the length of the wing. 
The tarsus is very short and thick but the toes are much longer and the 
feet are comparatively large. 
This genus agrees in coloration with the genera Licmetis and Ducorpsius, 
but differs absolutely in the crest formation and also in the wing formula. 
In both the secondaries are very long, but in the latter the naked eye space 
is larger and more noticeable. It appears that we here have two or more 
groups with the same coloration retained. Of course, some workers may 
not wish to recognise that more than one group is here represented, yet they 
have consistently recognised Licmetis on account of the longer bill. I shall 
show this latter item to be certainly of much less value than the crest formation. 
Salvadori, in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum , Vol. XX., 
1891, utilised Cacatua as of Vieillot for the whole of the White Cockatoos, 
save two which were placed in Licmetis. In Cacatua he also included the 
well-known “ Galah ” which is not a “ White ” Cockatoo. He gave no 
generic definitions, strictly speaking, but included a Key to Genera, and therein 
wrote : “ General colour white or rosy white, except in Cacatua roseicapilla 
(the Galah), which is grey above, rose-colour on the head and below. Bill with 
the hook of the upper mandible of the ordinary size and nearly perpendicular. 
. . . Cacatua .” 
I will hereafter discuss the association of species, but first deal with 
the genus name. Although Salvadori used Cacatua as of Vieillot, 1817, he 
noted that there was an earlier name Plyctolophus , also of Vieillot, 1816, writing : 
“ The generic name, Plyctolophus , which, according to Sundevall, is not Greek, 
was abandoned by Vieillot himself,” and then further added : “ Cuvier 
( Tableau Elem. Hist. Nat. An., p. 236, 1798 ; Regn. An. L, p. 433, 1817) did 
not use either KaJcadoe or Cacatoes as a Latin generic term, but only as a 
French name for a section of the genus PsittacusN 
As the abrogation of a name, even by its author, is inadmissible under 
the International Code, it was necessary to investigate the matter. 
In the Nov. Zool, Vol. XVIII., June 1911, p. 12, I recorded the 
alterations necessary in my “ Handlist of the Birds of Australasia,” and wrote : 
“ Page 47 ; Genus CLXXXV. Cacatoes Bumeril, Zool. Analytique , 
p. 50 (1806) 
replaces Cacatua Vieillot.” 
VOL. VI. 
161 
