! ì ’
P l a t e L I X .
FULICA LFUCOPYGA.
(EED-SHIELDED COOT).
Fulioa leucopyga
Fú lica chloropdides
L ic h t. in Mus. Berol.
H a i'tl. J o u ru . f. O rn . 1853, E s tr a -h . p. 84.
Schlegel, Mu s. d. P . B . E a lli, p . 64.
Sel. e t Salv. P .Z .S . 1868, p. 467.
L andbeck, "Wiegm. A rch . 1862, p. 223.
E n g , Zool. J o u rn . IV , p . 93 (?)
A b b o tt, Ib is, 1S 6 I. p. 157,
Obscurè ardesiaca, c ap ite to to n ig ric an te : crisso albo, p lumis q u ibusdam medialibus n ig ris ; remigis ex te rn i margino
concolore : r o s tr i apice flavo, basi cum clypeo f ro n ta li ru b erriin o ; hoc an g u sto , su p rà a cu tè a n g u lato ; p edibus olivaceis :
long, to ta 16-0, alæ 6 '8 , caudæ 2 4, r o s tr i a r ic tu l '3 , ta rs i 3 2, dig. med. cum u n g u e 3-5.
H a i . in rep . U ru g u a y en s i (Sellow) : Cb ilià (Landbeck) : P a ta g o n ia (E in y ) : lu s s . Fa lk la n d ic is (M u s . B r it.) .
In a letter addressed to 5Ir. ATgors, and subsequently published in the fourth volume o f the
‘ Zoological Journal/ the late Captain King gave some very short and insufficient descriptions
o f supposed new species o f birds discovered during his survey o f the Magellan-Straits in 1826.
Amongst the bhds thus characterized as new to science were two Coots, named by Capt. King
FuUca chloropoides and F. gallinuloides. In order to ascertain positively what species were
designated b y these names it would be necessary to inspect the typical specimens, wliich, i f ever
sent home to this country, have unfortunately disappeared. It is only, therefore, by a process
o f guess-work, tliat we can refer F. gallinuloides o f King to F. armillata and his F. chloropoides
to the present bird.
It would not, however, be right to allow Capt. King’s name, which can only be conjectiu-ally
applied to this Coot, to supersede the appellation under which Dr. Hartlaub described it in
1860, in Ids already mentioned memoir upon this group. Dr. Hartlaub adopted for the bii-d
the name leucopyga, b y which it liad been designated by Lichtenstein in the Berlin Museum.
It is true this is b}^ no means a specially appropriate name, inasmuch as it would apply equally
we ll to three or four other species o f the genus, but this is not a valid reason for rejecting it.
In 1862 Herr I^andbeck, Sub-director o f the Museum o f Santiago in Cliili, being unfortunately
unacquainted -vrith Dr. liartlaub’s article, redescribed this species under the name Fulica rufifrons.