THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
bill formation obviously separates this group, but it once more raises the 
“ coloration versus structure ” controversy. We are again confronted with a 
group agreeing in colour but differing in structure from another group. To 
associate it with a distinct group as regards coloration merely on account of 
the bill features is quite umiatural as, in addition to the coloration, the tail is 
in agreement with the former group. Such a confusion of characters necessi- 
tates recourse to the osteology of these species, and this is at present unknown 
as regards details. Nevertheless, it must be conceded that the crinifrons 
group should be indicated by name, and I therefore provide the new name 
EuiEGOTHELES 
and name psilopterus Gray ( = crinifrons Bonaparte) as type Eucegotheles 
crinifrons. The wing has the fourth and fifth primaries subequal, the third 
subequal with the sixth, the second less than the seventh, the first being short. 
The frontal bristles are more pronounced, and the legs are shorter and stouter 
than in JEgotheles, and while the scutes on the front of the tarsus are well 
developed, the tarsal covering on the back is indistinct, no definite scutes or 
hexagonal scales being observed. 
I have suggested that a consideration of osteological features might re- 
group the species of BatracJiostomus and Podargus, and show that some species 
allotted to each were more closely allied to species in the other group, but 
I think that the re-arrangement will naturally include the birds ranged in 
the .^gothelinse by Hartert, and that probably the group above named will 
be classed with the Batrachostomus species. There is a curious complex to 
be puzzled out, for although Mgoiheles has been classed beside Podargus^ the 
anatomy shows much discord, and it may be that it has less relationship than 
has recently been granted it. 
The genus-name Mgotheles has been commonly referred to Vigors and 
Horsfield in the XVth Volume of the Linnean Society’s Transactions, which 
was published in 1827. However, in 1826 Stephens had published the name, 
but only as a nomen nudum. I now find that in the April 1826 number of 
the Zoological Journal a report of the reading of Vigors and Horsfield’s paper 
was printed, and therein appears: “Mr. Vigors read a continuation of the 
‘ Catalogue of New Holland Birds in the Collection of the Linnean Society,’ 
by Dr. Horsfield and himself. In this portion of the paper the Australian 
species of the family of Gaprimulgidoe were described, and the birds them- 
selves, belonging to the genera Podargus^ Cuv., Gaprimulgus, Auct., and 
jEgotheles, Vigors and Horsfield, of which the type is the G rested Goatsucker of 
White’s Journal and Phillip’s Botany Bay, were exhibited to the meeting.” 
This has priority over Stephens’ publication, which was later than April, 1826, 
and is, moreover, definite and usable. 
62 
