f of the Mascarene Islands. 287 
quoted, of Buffon—there was nothing to point to Madagascar 
till Levaillant in 1805 declared (Hist. Nat. Perroquets, ii. 
p- 112) :—* Le Mascarin se trouve 4 Madagascar, et méme, 
assure-t-on, 4 |’ile de Bourbon.” Thus the locality commonly 
assigned really rests with this writer, so notoriously untrust- 
worthy in the matter of localities; and it may be remarked 
that he does not adduce the shadow of a fact in support of his 
assertion. Buffon and Brisson are the only authors he cites, 
and therefore most likely the only authors whose books on this 
point he had consulted. He says it is rare, and that he had 
only seen three examples—one in Mauduyt’s possession, 
another in that of Aubry, and the third in the Paris Museum, 
which last still exists. This is, of course, totally insufficient to 
contravene the direct statements of De Querhoént and Mau- 
duyt, that the species was found in Bourbon, to which state- 
ments the account of Du Bois lends greater strength. Yet 
nearly all succeeding writers have followed the assertion of Le- 
_vaillant. The derivation of the name “ Mascarin” furnished 
by Buffon (which, seeing that Mascaréne or Mascarina was 
the older name of the island, is quite untenable) has doubtless 
been the chief cause of the error which has misled Bechstein, 
Kuhl, Vieillot, Lesson, Wagler, Hahn, and finally Dr. Finsch, 
or rather, perhaps, has hindered them from the right path. 
It may be remarked that not one of these authors has been 
able to add a single jot of information on the question of lo- 
cality. Only two specimens of the species seem to have been 
preserved to the present time—that in the Paris Museum, 
already mentioned, and that in the Museum of Vienna, 
noticed in ‘The Ibis’ (1873, p. 32). Hahn’s figure (Orn. 
Atlas, Papageien, pl. 39), published in 1834, was taken, he 
says, from a living bird then in the menagerie of the King 
of Bavaria ; but what became of its remains at its decease (and 
it seems to have died since) is not known. 
We now come to Rodriguez. Here we know of two 
species :—one, the Necropsittacus rodericanus of M. Alphonse 
Milne-Edwards (Ann. Se. Nat. Zool. ser. 5, vill. pp. 145-156, 
xix. art. 3, p. 18), a large species, not inferior in size to Lo- 
phopsittacus mauritianus, whose remains were found in com- 
















