Recently published Ornithological Works . 555 
he found certain differences, which are pointed out. Should 
it prove to belong to a distinct species, Mr. North proposes 
for it the name Psephotus cucullatus . 
73. Oberholser on the Alcedinine Genus Ramphalcyon. 
[A Revision of the Kingfisher Genus Ramphalcyon ( Pelargopsis ). By 
Harry C. Oberholser. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. xxxv. p. 657. Washington, 
Feb. 1909.] 
The persistent efforts of Dr. W. L. Abbott during his 
various explorations of the East Indian Islands have furnished 
the U.S. National Museum with a good set of specimens of 
Kingfishers of the genus Pelargopsis, which have been the 
main basis of the present memoir. Mr. Oberholser prefers 
to call the genus Ramphalcyon, because, as he says, “ Gloger’s 
term Pelargopsis is certainly not identifiable.” As regards 
this, however, we may point out that “ Ramphalcyon 33 seems 
to be in a similar scrape. It was published by Reichenbach 
*in 1851 without a description of any sort, and no type was 
ever assigned to it by its author. Under these circumstances 
we see no reason why Pelargopsis , which was adopted by 
Cabanis and Heine in 1860, should be superseded. 
Mr. Oberholser divides the genus Ramphalcyon (scr “Rhamph- 
alcyon 33 ) into three sections, each of one species— R. amauro- 
ptera , R. melanorhyncha , and R. capensis. The second of these 
species is divided into three subspecies and the third into six¬ 
teen subspecies. Of the latter group four new subspecies are 
characterized— R. c. isoptera, R. c. nisoeca, R. c. cyanopteryx , 
and jR. c. hydrophila. But some of these so-called subspecies 
(e. g. R. gigantea) are manifestly so different as to be entitled 
to full specific rank, while some of the others seem to be 
founded on very weak characters. It seems to us also a 
great mistake to call sixteen birds which belong to a purely 
Oriental group capensis 33 and we fully agree with Dr. 
Sharpe in the “ manifest incongruity of such an appellation.” 
It is, moreover, quite impossible to decide to which of the 
closely allied forms Linnseus^s name Alcedo capensis should 
be referred. The appellation capensis is consequently void for 
uncertainty, and in our opinion should be rejected altogether. 
