THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
by Ramsay and six by Salvadori in 1891. Of course the latter gave no generic 
diagnosis and his Key to the Genera discloses none : thus (p. 539) : 
“ b 1 Bill deeper than long : upper mandible not notched. 
a 4 A yellow collar round the hind neck. Barnardius. 
b 4 No yellow collar round the hind neck. 
a 5 Bill uniform, with base of upper mandible not lighter. 
a 6 Two central tail-feathers longer than the following 
pair. Psephotus. 
b 6 Four central tail-feathers about the same length. Neophema.” 
It might be thought from this Key that Psephotus was quite like Barnardius 
and even more like Neophema. Yet there are valid differences, both structural 
and in colour, but the two groups named by Salvadori, Psephotus and Neophenna , 
contain incongruous elements. In neither case can the associations used by 
Salvadori be maintained, while the two latter groups are very widely separated 
from Barnardius by size. All the species referred to Psephotus and Neophevna 
by Salvadori are absolutely confined to Australia, and constitute with the 
foregoing genera Platycercus and Barnardius the most remarkable Psittacine 
group except the Black Cockatoos. 
When I prepared my “Reference List” (Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., Jan., 
1912), I endeavoured to reduce the number of genera to the smallest possible 
number, and minimising the observed differences, I lumped Salvadori’s Neophema 
with Gould’s Psephotus. It was the criticism of this series that showed me 
the error of this lumping process, and in that place I indicated my conversion 
by suggesting new generic names in connection with these species. 
I thus wrote (p. 276) in connection with Psephotus hcematogaster : “ Note. 
For this species can be used the genus name Northiella (nov.) by those who 
admit the genus name Spathopterus. In both sexes the first five primaries are 
elongated into a spatulate termination, a feature which is quite missing in the 
type of Psephotus P. hcematonotus On p. 279 I added : “ Note. I have 
included in the genus Psephotus the members of the genus Neophema Salvadori. 
Should it be considered necessary to subdivide the genus I have (ante, p. 276) 
provided Northiella for the species P. hcematogaster Gould, and propose 
Neopsephotus for P. bourkii Gould and Neon anodes for P. chrysogaster 
Latham, as these species differ quite as much from P. pulchellus, the type of 
Neophema , and from each other, as that species differs from P. hce?natonotus , 
the type of Psephotus 
The generic names thus proposed I utilised in my “ Reference List ” and 
they are mostly maintained in this place. 
392 
