THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Ogilvie-Grant replied, p. 311 : “ The reasons for using the name Cacatua 
are explained by Count Salvadori, Catalogue of the Birds in the British 
Museum , XX., p. 115 (footnote).” 
This rejoinder was perfectly criticised by the reviewer in the Auk : 
“ In reply to this criticism, Mr. Ogilvie-Grant admits some of the errors, and in 
most of the others takes refuge behind such time-honoured arguments as 
‘ current usage,’ 4 obvious mistake ’ and others not recognised by the 
International Code of Nomenclature.” 
It might be noted that in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum , 
XX., p. 115, Salvadori does not record Cacatoes Dumeril, nor even Catacus 
Rafinesque, while he misspells Cuvier’s name even as Kuhl and I (in error) 
did, and does not refer to the tables in the Lemons. Such omissions should 
have shown Ogilvie-Grant that a later view than that taken by Salvadori 
was urgent, but that side of the matter seems to have been overlooked. 
I remarked, in my note, that, probably correctly, I used Cacatoes. I now 
revert to Cuvier’s name Kakatoe on account of the Opinion No. 39. The 
reading in the Tableau elementaire is as follows: “ Les Kakatoes, dont 
la tete est ornee d’une huppe mobile. Ce sont les plus grands et les plus beaux. 
Leur plumage est le plus souvent blanc ; la huppe varie en couleur selon 
les especes. II y en a une a plumage tout noir. Tous les kakatoes sont des 
Indes orientales.” No species are, however, given as examples, but the 
definition is quite diagnostic and there seems no clear argument against it. 
There has, however, been much controversy about the recognition of names 
given in such manner, and many good workers have argued for the entire 
rejection of names unaccompanied by species. If these became law then 
Cacatoes Froriep would be the name of the genus, as Froriep definitely gave 
an example in connection with the genus name. Catacus Rafinesque was 
a name proposed because the introducer would not accept Cacatoes as a good 
name. Even if all the above came under review as liable to rejection 
Plyctolophus would still antedate Cacatua , and the reason given by Salvadori 
for its rejection is unacceptable, as Ogilvie-Grant commonly accepts names 
in similar cases. 
The genus as accepted by Salvadori cannot be absolutely utilised as it 
was certainly not homogeneous. He classed most of the White Cockatoos, 
together with one coloured species, in one genus, and separated two White 
Cockatoos as a distinct genus. The reason for distinguishing the last two was 
the elongation of the upper mandible. Otherwise the species were quite 
typical White Cockatoos. The value of such a single feature is quite 
problematical, as it appears to have been induced through a change in the 
habits of the species and really to be the character of the least phylogenetic 
164 
