INTKODUCTION.
By one of those accidents “ which,” as a friendly reviewer in the
‘ Athenseum ’ observes, “ indicate the personality of Ahriman,” the slip
of MS. containing the Palamedeiformes appears to have been mislaid or
destroyed, and never to have reached the printer. This omission not
only escaped my «wn observation, but that of every one of the kind
friends who were looking over my proofs.
I have, therefore, to ask those who possess the first volume of this
‘ Hand-list ’ to insert the annexed page in its proper place in Yol. I.
(p. 205), and to alter the numbers of the Orders from the Anseriformes
onward. The Order Strigiformes, with which the volume ends, should
have been numbered XXVII. instead of XXYI.
It will be noticed that I have reverted to the old-fashioned name of
Cypselus for the Swifts, instead of Apus of Scopoli. The latter name
having been adopted by Mr. Hartert in the ‘Tierreicb,’ has been
employed by most recent authors who have followed the example of this
great authority on the Cypselidce. Professor Bay Lankester has, however,
drawn my attention to the inconvenience which would occur from the
adoption of Apus in Ornithology, as it is a well-known name in Crustacea,
and has been in constant use for more than a century. Laying
aside its ancient occurrence in the work of Schaeffer, as being pre-
Linnean and inadmissible, we find that Scopoli used both Apos and Apus
in the same work, ‘ Introductio ad Historiam naturalem,’ 1777. Apos is
assigned to the Crustacea on p. 404, antedating Apus for the Swifts on
p. 483 of the same work. The only question to be considered is whether
Apos and Apus mean the same thing, and whether Scopoli did not insert