Mr. D. G. Elliot on Buceros bicornis, Linn. 417 
on turning to plate 17. fig. 1 of the f Ornithology/ we find 
a very recognizable representation of the head and bill of the 
Homrai, or “ Great Hornbill/’ as it is called by Jerdon, with 
its broad flat casque, having the anterior margin curved up¬ 
wards, and terminating on both sides in miniature “ horns/'’ 
There can be no doubt whatever as to the species this figure 
is intended to represent. Brisson is another of the more 
important of the authors referred to, who preceded the twelfth 
edition of Linnaeus’s great work (1766), which is the one now 
quoted. We here find, as stated by Mr. Hume, some con¬ 
siderable confusion existing between the description of the 
head and casque and that of the body and tail. Brisson, 
however,* expressly states that he had only seen the head 
and bill of the species called by him Hydro cor ax philip- 
pensis; and his description of this portion of the bird, which 
was at that time in the collection of M. de Reaumur, evidently 
proved that it was of the same species as the one figured by 
Willughby in his f Ornithology/ Brisson does not state where 
he got the idea of the colour of the plumage of the body and 
tail; but as he had never seen the bird itself, he must either 
have copied it from some other description, and unfortunately 
hit upon the wrong bird, or else have drawn upon his imagi¬ 
nation, from which source, however, it must in justice be 
said, Brisson seldom derived any assistance. The tail of the 
bird, stated to be composed of twelve feathers, ten black and 
two white, is very properly characterized by Mr. Hume as one 
“ which no Hornbill in the world has/'’ so far as we know at 
present, and could not have been described from any speci¬ 
men. But the parts which Brisson did see, the casque and 
bill, are accurately described; and it is on this, description and 
and on Willughby’s figure that Linnaeus based the name of 
Buceros bicornis , to which the diagnosis, “ B. fronte ossea, 
plana, antrorsum bicorni,” applies. In his description of the 
plumage Linnaeus is as wide of the mark as was Brisson; and 
he, too, evidently had no specimen of the bird before him, 
but in a great degree copied Brisson’s imaginary description. 
As, therefore, it is perfectly well established that the portions 
known to have been in the possession of the authors men- 
2 G 
SER. iv.—VOL. i. 
