Analyse, 1816, p. 30, is “ Le Ministre’ of Buifon,” etc. This 
conclusion has unfortunately been adopted by the A. O. U. Com- 
mittee, in whose Check-List the type of Passerina Vieillot, is said 
to be “by elimination,” Tanagra cyanea Linn. That this view of 
the case is quite wrong, however, I think may easily be shown. 
After the diagnosis of his genus Passerina in the 1 Analyse,’ 
Vieillot mentions three species, in the following order: “Ministre 
[ = Tanagra cyanea Linn.]. — Ortolan de riz [=c Fr ingill a oryzi- 
vora Linn.]. — de neige, Buff.” [= Emberiza nivalis Linn.]. 
The first of these to be made the type of a new genus was Frin- 
gilla oryzivora ( Dolichonyx Swains., 1827); the next, Tanagra 
cyanea ( Cyanospiza Baird, 1858), Emberiza nivalis not having 
been made the type of a new genus until 1882, when Dr. Stejneger 
(Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. V, p. 33), after demonstrating that the 
type of Plectrophanes Meyer, 1815, is Fringilla lapponica Linn, and 
not Emberiza nivalis, proposes for the latter the generic name 
Plectrophenax. 
The type of Passerina Vieill., therefore, is, “ by elimination,” 
Emberiza nivalis and not Tanagra cya?iea. If this view of the 
case is correct, we shall have to restore the unusually appropriate 
name Cyanospiza for the Indigo Bird and its congeners, and use 
Passerina for the Snowflakes, the recognized forms of the two 
genera being as follows : 
CYANOSPIZA Baird. 
1. Cyanospiza cyanea (Linn.) Baird. 
2. Cyanospiza amcena ( 5 a/) Baird. 
3. Cyanospiza ciris (Linn.) Baird. 
4. Cyanospiza leclancheri (Lafr.) Di/ges. 
5. Cyanospiza versicolor ( Bonap .) Baird. 
6 . Cyanospiza versicolor pulchra ( Ridg-w .) Ridgw. 
7. Cyanospiza rositae La-wr. 
PASSERINA Vieillot. 
x. Passerina nivalis (Linn.) Vieill.' 
2. Passerina nivalis townsendi (Ridg-w.) Ridg-w. 
3. Passerina hyperborea (Ridg-w.) Ridg-w. 
Faune Franij. 1820, 86. 
