304 
Letters , Announcements , fyc. 
the same time writing to Dr. Sclater for information con¬ 
cerning his new bird. 
3. Having received a short time afterwards., through Dr. 
Sclater's kindness, a copy of his article in ‘Nature/ I learnt 
for the first time that his bird was also from the Arfak moun¬ 
tains in New Guinea, having been discovered by Mr. d*Al¬ 
bertis, and was immediately struck by the many similar points 
of the two descriptions in question. Nevertheless I remained 
in some doubt about their identity; and as many instances 
occur of two closely allied but different species living together 
in the same locality, I resolved to wait till my collections, 
which I expected every day, were in my hands, so as to be 
enabled to make rigorous comparison. I therefore had no 
reason whatever “ to cancel my redescription ” (as Dr. Sclater 
expresses himself), besides it being only a copy of another 
notice published some months before. 
4. When part of my birds at last arrived, later than I ex¬ 
pected, and I unpacked some of them in Berlin (January 
1874), I compared my Epimachus wilhelmince with the Dre- 
panornis alhertisi, Scl., and became quite convinced that they 
were identical. I therefore immediately (Jan. 15th) sent a 
note to the editor of the e Journal fur Ornithologie/ in which 
I stated this fact and withdrew my name, at the same time 
transferring the specific name wilhelmince to a new little 
Trichoglossus : see * Journal fur Ornithologie/ 1874, Heft i. 
and c Zoologischer Garten/ 1874 (a letter to the editor dated 
Feb. 7th, Vienna). 
As these facts, simple and convincing as they are, speak 
for themselves without further comment, and as there now 
remains no reason whatever to impute any “ unfair ” acts or 
intentions on my part, I know Dr. Sclater himself will be 
“ fair” enough to acknowledge his satisfaction with my “ ex¬ 
planation,” which he provoked, and to declare that there was 
no question of an (< attempt to obtain an unfair priority.” 
Yours truly, 
Adolf Bernhard Meyer. 
