LEPTOLOPHUS. 
easily procured and confirmation from several prepared skeletons. The lack 
of osteological material in the past has often led to incorrect conclusions, but 
in the present case it would be easy for an Australian student to procure 
enough to form a very just idea of the value of the data already on record 
and which might lead to a much more definite classification than we have at 
present. 
In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum , Vol. XX., 1891, Salvador i 
called this species Calopsittacus novae hollandice, this combination having 
commonly been in use. 
In 1911, I published in the Novitates Zoologicae, a second instalment of 
corrections of the names of Australian birds and in this case a double change 
was necessary. The full details are given (Vol. XVIII., p. 12), but I here 
give an outline of my results. 
About the same time two generic names were proposed for the species, 
Calopsitta by Lesson and Leptolophus by Swainson. It became necessary to 
ascertain which of these authors was the earliest to provide a name. Calopsitta 
had been commonly accepted, but no definite date was given for either name. 
It is true Calopsitta was quoted as of Mai, 1832, but even a careless student 
would have noticed that it was wrong had he referred to Lesson’s work. 
However, it appears that no one had attempted to seek the truth, and there- 
fore I carefully investigated the matter. It was a rather complex problem, 
but I was able to determine that the part of Lesson’s work containing Calopsitta 
was not published until 1835. 
Swainson’ s name was published in a serial publication with the same name 
and on the same plan as Lesson’s, and here again it was necessary to seek out 
the date of the part. I was enabled to get only a rough idea of the date, but 
it was certainly before March, 1833, which is of course sufficient to fix the usage 
of Swainson’ s name Leptolophus as having priority. \ 
A third name seemed to clash as will be seen by the following quotation : 
“It may be as well to note that Wagler, in the Abhandl. Ak. W issensch. 
Miinchen , i., p. 490, proposed Nymphicus. and included thereunder two species, 
bisms and novoehollandce. This paper is dated 1832, and, as I have shown above, 
was published about that date. In the List Genera Birds , p. 51, 1840, Gray 
typifies this genus by novoehollandice, and it would seem that another conflicting 
element was to be introduced. Reference to Wagler’s paper, however, shows 
that the genus was based on bisetis ; novoehollandice being included from 
literature only, Wagler carefully noting, “ Non vidi.” Under these circum- 
stances I would admit the abrogation of Gray’s type designation and the 
retention of Nymphicus for the bisetis group.” 
I may now add that if Nymphicus were to be reconsidered Leptolophus 
237 
