Whether this species is the same as the one mentioned by Temminck as existing in the French Museum under the name of _P. flavirostris_, it is quite impossible to say, as the description of that bird has never been published. This leads me to notice a custom several naturalists of the present day have lately adopted, of publishing names, and names only, of new or undescribed animals, which they then wish to be considered as permanently fixed, and as having thus secured to themselves all the merit of first describing. Now this at best is but a surreptitious path to fame, and in many instances bears the appearance of originating in a petty vanity, quite beneath the dignity of true science: it is easily fixing a name to an object which we have not before seen, or suspect may be new, without the trouble of investigating authors and comparing synonyms: the name may remain, but if it should afterwards be discovered as hasty and erroneous, its author is in no way amenable to the opinions and criticisms of others, for they cannot discover such mistakes when no clue is given them beyond a name, which may frequently be applicable to half a dozen species. If, on the other hand, the object is really new, the scientific world is still in the dark, for without a description the name conveys nothing. Besides this, it has a tendency to deprive those writers of their well-earned merit, who undergo the laborious but necessary investigation of books, the examining and comparing of specimens, and the construction of sound characters previous to their publishing a new addition to the great volume of Nature. Against this _scientific monopoly_ a stand should be made, and all names either of families, genera, or species should be totally rejected, unless their meaning is clearly defined. Let those who run the race, receive the wreath; and not let it be snatched from the winning-post by another, who jumps from behind and claims it as his own. On a careful examination of my specimen, I find the nostrils are not covered by a membrane, as observed by Temminck, but are open, obliquely and ovately round, and a narrow rim round the margin. That excellent ornithologist likewise remarks that the first and second quill-feathers are the longest; but my bird (which, however, is in full plumage) has the first and third of equal length and shorter than the second, which is longest. These nice distinctions lead me to suppose the species from which his generic character was taken, is distinct from this. * * * * * Pl. 32 [Illustration] PSARIS Cuvierii. _Cuvier's Psaris._ * * * * * GENERIC CHARACTER.