OCR Text |
Show 1879.] MR. W. A. FORBES ON THE GENUS LATHAMUS. 167 the species associated with it, all these authors were evidently by the characters of this peculiar little Parrakeet; and the same seems to have been the case with all subsequent naturalists who have treated of it. The majority, however, seem to have considered that it had Trichoglossine affinities. Thus Bonaparte1 included Lathamus as " dernier des Trichoglos-siens ;" and Gould, likewise acknowledging the validity of the genus, places it amongst the Trichoglossidee. He says:-" Having had ample opportunities of observing the bird in a state of nature, I concur in the propriety of separating it into a distinct genus; in its whole economy it is most closely allied to the Trichoglossi, and in no degree related to the Euphemce" (Handb. B. Austr. ii. p. 89). Dr. Finsch, in his great work on Parrots2, after a careful examination of its peculiarities, came to the conclusion that these were not sufficient to justify its separation as a distinct genus, and included it as a Trichoglossus. More lately, the same position (i. e. that of a member of the family Trichoglossidee) has been assigned to it by Gray3, Sclater4, Wallace5, and others. On the other hand, Sundevall in his 'Tentamen'6 placed it in his fourth family " Platycercini," remarking, " Hsec species, plerumque cum sp. Trichoglossinis (Ps. concinno &c.) consociata, vera tamen est species Platycercina, maxilla inferiori tumida, &c, Euphemce maxime affinis." In his paper on the anatomy of the Parrots, Prof. Garrod7 shows that Lathamus differs from Lorius and its allies in having a superficial left carotid, a feature common to it and Platycercus, Psephotus, &c, from which, however, it differs in the possession of a furcula8. He further says:-" It may at first sight seem very heretical to remove Lathamus from the Loriinse, the brush-tongue being considered characteristic of that subfamily. To the unbiased student, however, the brush-tongue is a character not more important than several of those that have been above considered The character of the papillae is somewhat different in Lathamus from what it is in Lorius, they being blunter and shorter in the former genus than in the latter." Having undertaken at Prof. Garrod's suggestion an investigation of the pterylosis of the Parrots, the results of which I hope to communicate to this Society at no distant date, Lathamus was one of the first forms I examined ; and I at once saw that its pterylosis confirmed the relationship of this form to the Platycercinee already insisted on by Sundevall and Garrod. From this I was led to an examination of some other parts of its structure; and I propose to lay the 1 Compt. Eend. xliv. p. 536 (1857). 2 Pap. ii. p. 863 (1868). 3 Trichoglossus, c. Nanodes, gen. no. 2047, Hand-1. B. n. p. 156 (1870). i List. Vert. 6th ed. p. 269 (1877). 5 G-eogr. Distrib. Animals, ii. p. 327. 6 Methodi Naturalis Avium disponendarum Tentamen, p. 71 (1872). 7 P. Z. S. 1874, p. 586. - 8 M. Blanchard, indeed, says (Compt. Eend. 1857, xliv. p. o21) that Lathamus has no furcula; but this bone is present, though small and weak, in the mens I have seen : cf. also Owen, Cat. Ost. Ser. R. C. 8. i. p. 279 (1853). |