URALCYON. 
1758 was not the same as Alcedo dea Linne 1766, and therefore dis- 
missed the latter as a recognisable basis for the species name. Though 
no definite argument against this conclusion has been produced, in their 
later papers they reverted to the name they had declared to be incorrect. 
Such action is perplexing to the student who has not access to the 
complete literature, and is certain to create confusion and also bring 
discredit upon other workers. 
199 
