Genus— HYLOCHELI DON. 
Hylochelidon Gould, Handb. Birds Austr., 
Vol. I., p. 110 (Sept. =Dec.), 1865. Type 
(by monotypy) ... ... ... ... Hirundo nigricans Vieillot. 
Antrochelidon Baldamus, Journ. fur Ornith., 
Dec. 1869, p. 406 = 1870. Type (by 
monotypy) H. nigricans Vieillot. 
Also — 
Amnochelidon (errors) Sharpe and Wyatt, Mon. Hirund., p. 523 June 1887. 
The following is Gould’s generic definition in full : “I have not instituted a 
new generic appellation for the following bird without maturely considering 
the propriety of so doing, after carefully comparing it with the various forms 
already characterised of this extensive family, which, whenever it may be 
monographed by a scientific ornithologist, will be found to comprise ample 
materials for the formation of more genera than has yet been proposed, as well 
as numerous species with which we are at present unacquainted, and I have 
no doubt that Mr. Blyth’s notion of dividing them into sections in accordance 
with the forms of their nests will be found a very happy suggestion — saucer - 
builders, retort-builders, bank-burrowers, builders in the holes of trees, etc. 
The species of this form are part of a small section of the Swallows which nidify 
in the holes of trees, without any nest for the deposition of their delicate eggs. 
Their bare tarsi at once separate them from the Chelidons f and they also differ 
from the American Petrochelidons . Of these birds, which appear to be an off- 
shoot from the typical or true Hirundines, my collection contains at least 
two species, one from Australia, the other from Timor.” \ 
I would draw attention to the absolute lack of definition of the genus, and 
note also the remarks given in connection with the succeeding genus. 
Since the preceding was penned I had occasion to refer to the Zoological 
Record for 1865, where I found on p. 74 Newton’s review of the “ Handbook,” 
and was surprised to read that at that time Gould’s inaccuracy was noted 
and condemned thus : “ Diagnoses, whether generic or specific, are in almost 
every case wanting, and the descriptions are often so vague as very imperfectly 
to supply their absence. Nine new genera are proposed by the author, and 
names given to them, but few, if any, of them can be said to be defined. 
47 
