378 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 
Discussion of Synonyms.— As will be seen by the list given at the head of 
this article, the genus has quite a number of partial and entire synonyms. 
This has been caused partly by the fact that there are several forms more or 
less intimately related, to which the present has been referred ; and partly by 
the fact that the two names which have been in most general use for this 
group, — Linaria and Acanihis , — were both first used in a different connection ; 
the former designating a genus of plants, the latter a genus of birds distinct 
from the present. Fortunately, however, it is not difficult to refer all the syno- 
nyms to their proper types, and determine the name to be employed. We take 
them up in order. 
The type of the genus is presented by Linnaeus as a Fringilla , and subse- 
quently referred by Pallus to Passer. The bird is also given by Koch as Spinus 
Imarict , being considered by that author as belonging to the same genus as the 
Carduelis elegans (!) ( Fringilla carduelis of Linnaeus), which is the type of Spinus. 
These three names, therefore, become partial synonyms. 
Linaria is first used for this genus by Cuvier, in 1817, Bechstein, however, 
in 1802, applies this name to the Fringilla cannabina Linn., and if the name is 
to be retained for any genus of birds, it must be for that one of which the F. 
cannabina is the type. But Bechstein’s name is itself superseded by Linaria of 
Tournefort, of 1717, which is the designation of a genus of plants ; since, ac- 
cording to the rules of nomenclature, the name cannot be again employed in 
any other connexion. 
Linota of Bonaparte, of 1838, has as its type Fring. cannabina Linn. ; but 
becomes a partial synonym of the present genus because that author included 
in it the Fring. linaria Linn., at that time considering the two forms as only 
sub-generically distinct. Linota , however, in any event, would have to yield to 
Cannabina of Brehm, of 1828, which is based upon the same type ( Fring . can- 
nabina Linu.), and has priority. 
“ Acanihis , Keys, et Bl.” (1840), is used by Bonaparte in his Conspectus for 
this genus. The type of Acanihis of Keyserling and Blasius is, however, the 
Fringilla spinus Linn., a form generically distinct from the one now under con- 
sideration, and the name consequently cannot be used in this connection. But 
even if it were based upon the Fringilla linaria Linn., it would be superseded 
by Acanthis of Meyer (1822), and of Bechstein (1802), both of which are 
founded upon a different type ( Fringilla carduelis Linn.), and have priority in 
point of date. 
Thus it happened, somewhat singularly, that up to the year 1851, this very 
marked and well known genus had received no tenable distinctive name. At 
that date JEgiothus was proposed by Cabanis, and is now in general use. 
We quote Linacanthis Des Murs, 1853, upon the authority of G. R. Gray, not 
having an opportunity of verifying it. The identification of the names of 
Bechstein and Koch in the preceding paragraphs, are upon the authority of 
Cabanis. 
JEgiothus rqstratus Coues. Nov. sp. 
Diag. — A. JEgiotho fuscescenti coloribus similis, sed multo major (A. canes- 
centi statura par,) rostro maximo, robustissimo, arcuato', fusco ; ventre plerum- 
que fusco-striato. 
Mas nupt.. temp, pectore carmesino, uropygio rosaceo. 
Fern, et mar juv. colores haec desunt. 
Long. 6*00 poll, ala 3*25, cauda 2 70; rostr. long. 0-41. 
tarsus 0-68, dig. med. 0-41, ung. 0’24. 
Hab. Groenlandia. Eur. bor. Amer. Sept, bor ? 
Description. (Male, adult, summer plumage ; Jacobshavn, Greenland). The 
bill is enormously large for this genus, but very slightly compressed, the tip 
but little acute ; the lateral outline is nearly straight; the culmen and gonys 
are both decidedly convex, and much rounded, having but slight indications of 
[Nov. 
