DOROTHINA. 
Mdithreptus and this is preserved for a distinct group, but probably it was 
intended to cover all Honey-eaters, as Vieillot thus used it later. 
Swainson cited as type of “ Melliphagi ” (sic) a species which was not 
mentioned by Levin, using the name of Honey-eaters generally, and afterwards 
proposed two new genera for two of the species named by Lewin. Vigors 
and Horsfield used Swamson’s type selection, and generically separated three 
of Lewin’s species, leaving only one unaccounted for. By the principle of 
elimination, which is now not used, but is sometimes confirmatory evidence 
of practical usage, the unnamed (generically) species would be regarded as 
the type of the genus Meliphaga. 
A further subdivision of the Honey-eaters occurred when Swainson 
published his “Classification of Birds” in 1837, when he continued Meliphaga 
(spelt correctly this time) with a type not in Lewin’s group and introduced 
Ptilotis for the Honey-eater figured by Lewin on pi. 5, which had otherwise 
no generic name, and then separated another of Lewin’s species from Vigors 
and Horsfield’s genus. 
It may be as well to digest the troubles of the Lewin species, thus : 
Meliphaga phrygia Lewin 1808 =A nthochcera Vigors and Horsfield= 
type of Zanthomiza Swainson 1837. 
Meliphaga cyanops Lewin 1808 = type of Entomyzon Swainson 1825 = 
Tropidorhynchus Vigors and Horsfield. 
Meliphaga chrysotis Lewin 1808=type of Ptilotis Swainson 1837. 
Meliphaga chrysocephala Lewin 1808 = type of Sericulus Swainson 1825. 
Thus all the species had been made types of new genera and Meliphaga 
transferred to another group altogether. 
G. R. Gray in the preparation of his “ List Genera Birds ” in 1840 
recognised the state of affairs and therefore proposed a new name for the 
Meliphaga Swainson and Auct, and selected as type of Meliphaga Lewin 
the species chrysotis Lewin, which was absolutely in order and was the 
only possible selection on the facts as above cited. 
In his next edition Gray, however, probably influenced by Strickland, 
recorded that on examination of the original issue of Lewin he found the 
description of the genus and cuts of the bill and tongue in connection with 
M. phrygia, and therefore decided that Lewin must have founded his genus 
on that species. As above noted, the figures of the bill and tongue were 
added in London and the generic name and description also here added so 
that we have no knowledge of Lewin’s intention. How r ever, Gray’s later 
usage has been followed until quite recently, but is not now acceptable. 
In the paper quoted, therefore, I proposed to use Meliphaga Lewin for 
the species commonly known as Ptilotis, as under the generally accepted Rules 
VOL. XI. 
449 
