WILSON’S PHALAROPE. 
61 
their Lobipes incanus the young of this, which is not much to be 
wondered at; but it is rather extraordinary that writers so justly 
scrupulous about the rights of priority should adopt, though 
greatly posterior, Temminck’s name instead of Sabine’s, thus 
slighting over one of the best of the few positive zoological labours 
of their own countrymen, and after it had been already sanctioned 
by strangers. 
That the Lobipes incanus is the young of this species, which any 
one familiar with the changes of plumage of the Phalaropes might 
have suspected, will, it is hoped, be placed beyond future question 
by the figure we now give also of it. 
If the bill only were considered, this species might with some 
propriety be united subgenerically with the P. hyperboreus, but as 
by its feet it differs considerably from both the other Phalaropes, 
which agree in this particular, we have instituted for it a peculiar 
subgenus under the name of Holopodius, which we regard as in 
all respects more essentially different from the old groups than 
they are from each other. In what respect Mr. Sabine found this 
species, which he so well established, intermediate between the 
two, we are at a loss to imagine. 
In fact, in Holopodius, so opposite to Cuvier’s Lobipes both in 
name and character, the toes have a narrow border formed by a 
subentire membrane; the outer connected to the first joint only; 
the inner almost cleft, and the hind toe long and resting on the 
ground: the two other groups having the toes broadly bordered with 
a deeply scalloped membrane and semipalmated: the hind toe is 
very short, the nail only touching the ground. The Lobipes of 
Cuvier differs from the Crymophilus of Vieillot only in the shape of 
the bill, stout, flattened, and carinated in the latter, slender 
and cylindrical in the former, as well as in ours. 
Edwards first brought the Phalaropes into notice, and it was 
from his works that Linnaeus and Brisson registered these singular 
