THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
This name had not previously been noted. I herewith give the matter 
in connection with it. On p. 51 a table is given by Dumeril, where the 
generic forms are diagnosed in French and vernacular names cited, the 
vernacular in this case being “ Cacatoes.” On p. 50 appear “ Notes sur le No. 
32,” No. 32 being the aforesaid table. Therein Latin names are provided 
for the vernaculars and in the present case is written : “ Les per roquets 
( psittacus ) et. les deux genres suivans, qui ont conserve le meme nom d’ara 
et de cacatoes e n latin. . . .” 
Such a definite statement fixes the name of the genus as Cacatoes without 
any doubt. However, in the Preface, p. xxii, Dumeril explained his work, 
acknowledging it was based on certain authorities, and therein stated : “La 
classe des oiseaux ofi're a-peu-pres les memes divisions que celles qui ont ete 
etablies par M. Cuvier, dans son ouvrage intitule: Tableau elementairc de 
V Histoire naturelle des Animaux . Si nous avons fait quelques changemens 
dans la disposition des genres, c’etoit seulement pour en faire ressortir davantage 
les caracteres.” 
In my “ List of the Birds of Australia,” 1913, I used Cacatoes and as 
no type had been noted in connection with it I designated Latham’s Psittacus 
galeritus as type. 
However, a German translation of Dumeril’s work had been made bv 
Froriep and published also in 1806. In this translation Froriep, noting the 
lack of examples in connection with the generic names in the original work, 
provided such. In this translation, of course, the table is in German and the 
vernacular names are Geripan also, the present reading “ Kakatu.” 
The table “ No. XXXII.” appears on p. 50, followed by “ Bemerkungen 
zur XXXII. Tabelle,” and on p. 51 we get “ Die Papageys (psittacus) psitt. 
erytkacus und die Aras (ara) psittac. macao L. so wie die Kakatus (cacatoes) 
psittac. cristatus L. haben einen in Form ...” American ornithologists 
in similar cases have cited Froriep’ s examples as type-designations, and in 
the present case it may be accepted. 
It will be noted that reference is made both by Salvadori and Dumeril 
to Cuvier’s Tableau elemen taire de V Histoire naturelle des Animaux , so that 
it was necessary to examine this work. A new classification was therein 
proposed, but Cuvier was careless of providing Latin names. He was a 
sincere zoologist and a great systematist, but he concerned himself with 
teaching others and continually neglected the introduction of Latin equivalents 
to his French vernaculars. In the present instance he split up the Parrots 
into four sections as follows : “ p. 236, (a) Les Kakatoes : (b) Les Perroquets, 
p. 237, (c) Les Aras and (d) Les Perruches.” None of these names come into 
systematic work, but in 1800 Cuvier published another work entitled, Lemons 
