THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
19-27, “ Febr., 1850,” 28-35, “Mart., 1850,” and thence afterward each sheet 
bears also the date of the month until the last sheet “ No. 68 ” lias the date 
“ 10 Nov.” 
Consequently we have as date of publication some date later than Nov. 10, 
1850. 
I have retained the genus name Geoffroyus , but I would note that Sherborn 
in his Index A nimalium, p. 414, includes : 
“ Geoffroya v. Geofroia 
Geofroia C. P. Thuuberg, D.D. Mus. Ac. Upsal. 1787, 38. — Col : 
melius Geoffroya.” 
This name would seem to clash but as the emendation (probably quite 
necessary) is so extensive I leave the bird name until a pronouncement has 
been made upon such matters. It will be noted that there are two substitutes 
available should it later be deemed proper to reject the bird genus-name. 
The names would then read : 
Bhodocephalus geoffroyi. 
Bhodocephalus geoffroyi geoffroyi. 
Bhodocephalus geoffroyi maclennani. 
1 have admitted Geoffroyus as a member of the family Loriidce, but superfi- 
cially it is very unlike Lorius : the bill characters, the naked cere and prominent 
nostrils, the wing formula and the narrow wedgetail all disagree most obviously. 
In this connection I again remark that my own observations carried out 
in connection with skins receive confirmation from skeletal examination. 
D’Arcy Thompson remarks on the cranial osteology thus : “In Geoffroyus , 
with no very important differences perhaps from Eclectus , there is less identity 
of characters than we should expect to find from the very close association in 
which it is customary to place the two genera.” It is unfortunate that D’Arcy 
Thompson was unable to study Bolbopsittacus and Loriculus , as it seems 
probable that the former, at least, is a nearer relation to Geoffroyus than is 
Lorius (—Eclectus). D’Arcy Thompson did not figure the skull of Geoffroyus 
as he had concluded previously “ The skulls of Geoffroyus and Electus are 
extremely alike, in all their leading features.” He, however, was inclined to 
class with these Coracopsis, a form which undoubtedly has no very close 
alliance with either. It should be remembered that in this group we must 
carefully consider osteological resemblances and differences in conjunction 
with superficial characters, and also note geography as an important factor. 
Thus Agapornis has been rejected from Salvador’s association and geographi- 
cally this was called for : another interloper on geographical grouping is the 
genus Mascarinus, which unfortunately was apparently not accessible to 
D’Arcy Thompson. 
252 
