Gentjs — L ATHAMUS. 
Lathamus Lesson, Traite d’Ornith., p. 205, 1830 . . • - Type L. discolor. 
Nanodes (Not of Schoenherr 1825) Stephens, in Shaw’s Gen. 
Zool, Vol. XIV., pt. i., p. 118, 1826 Type L. discolor. 
Euphema Wagler, Abhandl. Ak. Wissen. Munch, Vol. I., 
p. 492, 1832 Type L. discolor. 
Also spelt — 
Euphemia Schlegel, De Dierent., p. 75, 1864. 
Small Platycercine (?) birds with projecting bills, long wings, long wedge-shape 
tails of narrow feathers and small feet. 
The bill projects with long tip, fairly sharp, succeeding by distinct 
notch whence the edge straightly recedes in a rather upward direction : the 
under mandible is broad, the tip broadly truncate, the lateral edges sinuate. 
The nostrils are small circular holes surrounded by a globular cere. 
The wing has the first primary longest, the primaries not scalloped to 
any extent on either web. 
The tail is equal to the wing in length and the feathers are narrow : it is, 
as usual, wedgeshaped, the two middle feathers very long and narrowly 
attenuated. The feet are small, but comparatively large for the family, the 
claws long. This anomalous monotypic genus is not well known as to its 
essential features. 
In 1865 Gould placed it between Geopsittacus and Trichoglossus, writing : 
“ Having had ample opportunities of observing the bird in a state of nature, 
I concur in the propriety of separating it into a distinct genus : in its whole 
economy it is most closely allied to the Trichoglossi, and in no \ degree 
related to the Euphemce. ... In its actions and manners it is closely 
allied to the Trichoglossi , but differs from them in some few particulars 
which are more perceptible in captivity than in a state of nature ; it has 
neither the musky smell nor the jumping motions of the Trichoglossi. I 
have never observed it to alight upon the ground, or elsewhere than among 
the branches.” 
Forbes, in 1879, from a study of the osteology of the species demon- 
strated a Platycercine affinity and its distinction from the Trichoglossine 
forms. At that time not a great deal was known about Psittacine osteology, so 
that it is very possible that a re-examination of the skeletal characters would 
necessitate a readjustment. It does not seem to have direct relationship 
465 
