poner tra te

3 one

ediintedon abn

re oat had Rays 4 ha
ARB Meta Pfau ;

Ne al ana eee ~ rs
Peete ee” oP nih one oe Tin tiem af

Feet cine pone titanate al i hi” in ’

ieee
ee era

ra iT fi i %

; ‘ oo
‘See ie Va

, ve 7 vi ay

- ot ee

i
ot i a ;
iy a

i :
Po ‘3 a jo- “ig i, rr
ev Vath. Lye ‘

J 7 fe 7 fs mal
‘an
:

J Ae :

of We phys

A DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

P. SLUD

A

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

BY

ALFRED NEWTON

ASSISTED BY

HANS GADOW

WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM

RICHARD LYDEKKER CHARLES 8. ROY

B.A., F.R.S,. M.A., F.R.S.

AND

ROBERT W. SHUFELDT, M.D.

LATE UNITED STATES’ ARMY

LONDON
ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK

1896

Faul Sad

FRATRI EDUARDO CARISSIMO
PER ANNOS PLUS QUAM QUINQUAGINTA
IN STUDIIS ORNITHOLOGICIS
DOMI PEREGRE SUB DIO IN ANTRIS
DILIGENTISSIMO CONDISCIPULO
HOC OPUS
D.D.

AUCTOR

DIZ X. NOVEMBRIS
MDCCCXCVI.

PREFACE

Tis Dictionary has taken me far longer to complete than,
when I began it, I had any notion that it would. Yet I do not
regret the delay, since it has enabled me, though very briefly,
to shew (INTRODUCTION, page 108, note) that the latest investi-
gation has proved the newly-announced group STEREORNITHES,
which seemed at first so important, to have no more claim to
recognition than had that known as ODONTORNITHES.

The articles by Dr. Gapow have fully sustained the
expectation of them expressed in my initial NoTr. Read with
the aid of the cross-references they contain and the INDex that
follows, they cannot fail to place the enquirer, be he beginner
or advanced student, in a position he could not hope to occupy
through the study of any other English book, and, what is
better, a position whence he may extend his researches in many
directions.

It has been my object throughout to compress into the
smallest compass the information intended to be conveyed.
It would have been easier to double the bulk of the work,
but the limits of a single volume are already strained, and to
extend it to a second would in several ways destroy such
usefulness as it may possess. Still I cannot but regret having
to omit any special notice of several interesting subjects which
bear more or less directly upon Ornithology. To name only a

few of them—Insulation, Isomorphism, Reversion and _ the

vile PRETEA GLEE

Struggle for Existence, as illustrated by Birds, were tempting
themes for treatment, while Nomenclature, which owing to its
contentious nature I have studied to avoid, and Protection,
about which so much deplorable and mischievous misunder-
standing exists, might well be said to demand consideration.
It will be obvious to nearly every one that the number of
names of Birds included in a work of this kind might be
increased almost indefinitely. | Whether it will ever be pos-
sible for me to supply these additions, and others, must depend
on many things, and not least on the reception accorded by

the public to the present volume.
A: _N;

MAGDALENE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
November, 1896,

NOTANDA ET CORRIGENDA

Page 9, line 10, for Molly-mauk read Mollymawk.

’

Ve)

» 23. ALECTORIDES, proposed as a Family of Grallatores by Iliger
in 1811, is the same group as Temminck’s of 1820, with the addition
of Cereopsis; but neither has anything in common with the
Alectrides of Duméril in 1806.

Insert ALECTOROPODES, Huxley, P.Z.S. 1868, pp. 296, 299, and see

PERISTEROPODES, page 707.
11, line 28. Amadavats (Anadavadewa, or Anadavad, corrected in Index
to Amadavad) had been brought from India to England by
1673 (Willughby, Orn. p. 194, Engl. p. 266).
14, ,, 11, for cases read causes.
21, ,, 989, for Hargita read Hargila.
30, after BEEF-EATER insert Pennant, Gen. B. p. 9 (1778).
34, line 28, for Lurinorhynchus read Hurynorhynchus.
38, ,, 4, dele his father.
45, 5, 27, after wintering in insert Egypt.
58, ,, 1, for OLIcomyoDI read OLIGOMYOD.
78, 4, 25, after printed as insert ‘‘Cassawarway,” Coryat, Crudities,
Pref. Verses, 1611 (NV. #. Dict. ii. p. 152), and then.
101, note 2, for LAMMERGEIER read LAMMERGEYER.
102, line 14, for back read beak.
104, ,, 37, for DEsMoGNaTHOUS read ANGITHOGNATHOUS.
105, ,, 1, after patois—dele the comma.
108, ,, 41, after known by insert Albin (VV. H. Birds, ii. pl. 53, fig. 2), and
subsequently by.
118, ,, 7, after p. 176) insert and also to the Crowned - CRANE
; (Balearica).
130, ,, 26, after authors insert as Pennant in 1773 (Gen. B. p. 13).
130, add CUT-THROAT, see WEAVER-BIRD.
136, ,, 20, for MourH read mouth.
139. To explanation of Fig. 1 add—L. follicle at base of villus.
159, line 15, for sixteen read fifteen.
159, ,, 17, dele De.
162, lines 18-21. obivanellus and some other forms have the structure said
to be peculiar to the Dotterel alone.
165, line 3, for Mussulmans and Christiaus read Christians and Mussul-
mans.
166, ,, last. Drepanis pacifica, though nearly extinct, proves not to have
been so when this sentence was written. A second species, D,

b

x

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

eS Eee eS Ee ee

funerea, has since been described from Maui (P.Z.S. 1893, p.
690).

Page 179, line 9 from bottom, for foramen ovale read fenestra ovalis.
fo)

189, ,, 82, for ark-line read ark-like.

214, ,, 10, for 70 to 80 read 57.

214, lines 21-23. The statement needs correction, as the RHEA also swims
rivers.

215, line 2, after ERNE insert A.-S. Harn.

218, ,, 6, for Miserythrus read Erythromachus. (See page 764, note 1.)

221, ,, 80, after In insert 1809 Tucker (Orn. Danmon. p. lix.), and in.

222, ,, 8. Examples are now known to have been killed later than 1852,
see Auk, 1894, pp. 4-12.

223, ,, 9, for thirty-eight read forty-two or forty-three.

229, ,, 438. The iris in Harelda is said to be straw-colour in winter, dark
hazel in summer. KE. A.S. Elliot, Budl. B. O. Club, 20 May
1896.

235, note 1. Falco, as a man’s name, was in earlier use. Q. Sosius Falco
was a Roman Consul circa A.D. 1933 see Capitolinus in Hist.
August. Script. Vi. “ Pertinax”’ (Lugd. Bat.: 1671, p. 558).

238, line 28, for Luggur read Luggar.

255, ,, 20. The statement as to nidification of Phanicopterus was con-
firmed by D’Orbigny, fide I. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire.

261, ., 20, for 45 per cent read = and line 21 for 16 per vent read from
— to —

269. Fig. 8 is accidentally inverted (¢/. Marey, Vol des Ois. p. 140).

277, line 28, for about read in or before.

277, 4, 30, after and insert Dexter, and dele Subsequently.

277 +, 34, and note 2, Many other remains from this deposit have been
described by Prof. Marsh, Am. Journ. Sc. (3) xxxvii. p. 331;
xlii. p. 267 ; xliii. p. 543; and xlv. p. 169.

278, ,, 5, for discovered read made known.

279, ,, 4, for 20 read 12.

281, note 2, for Ameyhino read Ameghino.

284, line 41, for Haliwtus read Haliaetus.

289, ,, 26. The statement as to Gallus ferrugineus being found on the
Raj-peepla hills is erroneous (¢f. Blanford, J. A.S.B. xxxvi. pt.
2, p. 199).

291, ,, 26, for 1869 read 1862.

293, ,, 31, for the elder Brandt read Illiger.

316, ,, 17, for Prosthemadura read Prosthemadera.

820, 5, 21, for Lophophanes real Lophophaps.

023, ,, 8, for OLIGOMYODI read OLIGOMYODA,

827, ,, 6, for Prionoteles read Prionotelus.

338, note 5, for Meado-Walde, read Meade-Waldo.

349, line 4, after Rhynchwa add , Rhynchops.

370, ,, 10, for American read Canadian.

371. Insert GOONEY (prov. Engl. for a stupid or awkward person), a
sailors’ name for an ALBATROS.

376, line 44, for Nettapus read Nettopus,

NOTANDA ET CORRIGENDA xe

Page 396, note 2. Mr. O. Grant (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxii. p. 498) makes the Guan

of Edwards to be Penelope cristuta.

406, lines 13 e¢ segg. On the anatomy and affinities of Scopus, cf. Beddard,
P.Z.S. 1884, p. 543.

415. HEATHER-BLEAT, a corruption of the A.-S. Hefer-blete, or Goat-
like bleater (jide Skeat).

428, line last, for SOLDIER-BIRD read BLOOD-BIRD.

429, ,, 12 and beneath figure, for Melithreptes read Melithreptus.

434, ,, 38, after habits insert except what Herr Hartert has told us
(J.f.0. 1889, pp. 366-368).

456, lines 1-8, for S. read J.

456, line 21, after known insert , except Comatibis.

458, ,, 37, dele and best-.

459, ,, 29, after Ambulatores insert and Scansores.

465, lines 20, 21, transfer the latter from line 21 to line 20 after and, insert-
ing also after those words.

482, line 4, for hiaticula read hiaticola.

487, ,, 27, for SyNDAcTYLISM read Syndactylism, cf. SYNDACTYLI.

496, note 2 (in early copies), after A. maxima insert (from Stewart Island),
A, haasti.

513, ,, 2. The derivation of Liverpool is now said to be from the A.-S.
lefer, a rush or flag (cf Britton and Holland, Dict. Engl.
Plant Names, p. 304).

514, line 4, for Lepelaer read Lepelaar.

519, note 2, for Touracoo read TouRACco,

524, lines 26 e¢ segg. Further information on the subject is given by Mr.
Ramsay, P.Z.S. 1868, pp. 49 e¢ seqq.

525, note. The ege of M. superba has been figured by Mr. North, Wests
and Eggs of Australian Birds, pl. x.

536, line 11, for CurLEw or Gopwirt read Gopwir or to Numenius hud-
sonicus (CURLEW).

536, ,, 16, for Turnbull read Trumbull.

553, lines 13, 14 of notes. The historic nesting-place of Parus cwruleus
was reoccupied in 1895.

562, ,, 1-3. Mr. Clarke’s Digest of the observations will be found in Rep.
Brit. Association (Liverpool Meeting), 1896.

563, ,, 7-9. Of. Peal, Rep. Aeronaut. Soc. 16, pp. 10-17 (1881), and
Nature, xxiii. pp. 10, 11. Additional observations of Birds
flying at great heights are recorded by Bray, op. cif. lii. p.
415, and West, op. cit. liii. p. 131.

600, line 18, for New Zealand read Western Australia. The Mountain-
Duck of New Zealand is Hymenolemus (page 843).

616, lines 28-35. The preparation V, c, here described, and diagrammatic-
ally figured on the opposite page, proved not to be taken from
any of the Zrochilide. Cf. Lucas and Gadow, Jbis, 1895, pp.
298-300.

654, line 3, for Argusanus read Argusianus.

686, ,, 29, for Cyanorhynchus read Cyanorhamphus.

687, line 4. Parrots are not wanting in the Philippine Islands, as
asserted, See Nature, li. p. 367.

xit

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

we

Page, 692, note 1, for Tita read Tito.

bb)

”

698, line 8, for laryngeal read tracheal.

700, note 1.. In the Exhibition of Venetian Art at the New Gallery in
Regent Street, 1894-5, No. 68 of the Catalogue was a picture,
attributed to Vittorio Carpaccio, containing a representation of
a “japanned” Peacock.

703, line 12, dele male’s.

703, note 2. The first of the three derivations assigned was the suggestion
“by probability” of Selden in his ‘Illustrations’ of Drayton’s
poem (p. 148). Being almost impossible, and unsupported by
evidence, it is the derivation most popularly accepted.

711, line 11, and p. 716, last line of text, for Sayornis read Empidonaz.

732, lines 16-18. The statement as to old feathers changing their colour is
probably erroneous (see Auk, 1896, pp. 148-150; Bull. Am.
Mus. N. H. viii. pp. 1-44).

734, line 18 of notes, for Hurinorhynchus read Hurynorhynchus.

743, ,, 28, for 173, 177 read 272, 277.

744, ,, 8, for anterior read posterior.

754, ,, 4, after Dutch insert name for the PINTAIL.

789, note 2, for Acarthidositta read Acanthidositta.

814, line 6, for p. cxxxix. read pp. xi. cxxxix. pl. vii.

814, ,, 15. The term Ornithure is used by Fiirbringer, see INTRODUCTION,
page 108.

820, ,, 11. Chauna derbiana is the true C. chavaria (Linn.), while the
species commonly so called is C. cristata (cf. Salvadori, Cat.
B. Brit. Mus. xxvii. pp. 4-7).

848, ,, 2, after the insert Mountain- or.

887, ,, 24, after for insert Myzantha garrula, M. flavigula and; for

; sanguinoleuta read sanguinolenta.

893, note 2. Local difference in Birds’ notes was noticed in 1809 by Tucker
(Orn. Danmon. p. Ixxxiv.) }

896, ,, 1, after designation add ; but Mr. Barrows in his able work (Zhe
Linglish Sparrow in North America. Washington: 1889)
continues the misleading name.

905, line 384. Clearing away the matrix of the specimen has since shewp
this septum (¢f. InrTRoDUCTION, page 108, note).

INTRODUCTION

ORNITHOLOGY in its proper sense is the methodical study and consequent
knowledge of Birds with all that relates to them ; but the difficulty of
assigning a limit to the commencement of such study and knowledge gives
the word a very vague meaning, and practically procures its application
to much that does not enter the domain of Science. This elastic applica-
tion renders it impossible in any sketch of the history of Ornithology to
draw a sharp distinction between works that are emphatically ornitho-
logical and those to which that title can only be attached by courtesy ;
for, since Birds have always attracted far greater attention than any other
group of animals with which in number or in importance they can be
compared, there has grown up concerning them a literature of corre-
sponding magnitude and of the widest range, extending from the recondite
and laborious investigations of the morphologist and anatomist to the
casual observations of the sportsman or the schoolboy. The chief cause
of the disproportionate amount of attention which Birds have received
plainly arises from the way in which so many of them familiarly present
themselves to us, or even (it may be said) force themselves upon our
notice. Trusting to the freedom from danger conferred by the power of
flight, most Birds have no need to lurk hidden in dens, or to slink from
place to place under shelter of the inequalities of the ground or of the
vegetation which clothes it, as is the case with so many other animals of
similar size. Beside this, a great number of the Birds which thus display
themselves freely to our gaze are conspicuous for the beauty of their
plumage ; and there are very few that are not remarkable for the grace of
their form. Some Birds again enchant us with their voice, and others
administer to our luxuries and wants, while there is scarcely a species
which has not idiosyncrasies that are found to be of engaging interest the
more we know of them. Moreover, it is clear that the art of the fowler
is one that must have been practised from the very earliest times, and to
follow that art with success no inconsiderable amount of acquaintance
with the haunts and habits of Birds is a necessity. Owing to one or
another of these causes, or to the combination of more than one, it is not
surprising that the observation of Birds has been from a very remote
period a favourite pursuit among nearly all nations, and this observation
has by degrees led to a study more or less framed on methodical principles,
finally reaching the dignity of a science, and a study that has its votaries

2 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

nn —

in almost all classes of the population of every civilized country. In the
ages during which intelligence dawned on the world’s ignorance, or before
experience had accumulated, and even now in those districts that have
not yet emerged from the twilight of a knowledge still more imperfect
than is our own at present, an additional and perhaps a stronger reason
for paying attention to the ways of Birds existed, or exists, in their
association with the cherished beliefs handed down from generation to
generation among many races of men, and not infrequently interwoven
in their mythology.?

Moreover, though Birds make a not unimportant appearance in the
earliest written records of the human race, the painter’s brush has
preserved their counterfeit presentment for a still longer period. What is
asserted—and that, so far as the writer is aware, without contradiction—
by Egyptologists of the highest repute to be one of the oldest pictures in
the world is a fragmentary fresco taken from a tomb at Maydoom, and
happily deposited, though in a decaying condition, in the Museum at
Boolak. This picture is said to date from the time of the third or fourth
dynasty, some three thousand years before the Christian era. In it are
depicted with a marvellous fidelity, and thorough appreciation of form and
colouring (despite a certain conventional treatment), the figures of six
Geese. Four of these figures can be unhesitatingly referred to two species
(Anser erythropus and A. ruficollis) well known at the present day ; and if
the two remaining figures, belonging to a third and larger species, were
re-examined by an expert they would very possibly be capable of
determination with no less certainty.2 In later ages the representations
of Birds of one sort or another in Egyptian paintings and sculptures
become countless, and the bassi-rilievt of Assyrian monuments, though
mostly belonging of course to a subsequent period, are not without them ;
but so rudely designed as to be generally unrecognizable.* No figures of
Birds, however, seem yet to have been found on the incised stones, bones
or ivories of the prehistoric races of Europe.

It is of course necessary to name Aristotle (B.c. 385-322) as the first
serious author on Ornithology with whose writings we are acquainted, but
even he had, as he tells us, predecessors ; and, looking to that portion of
his works on animals which has come down to us, one finds that, though
more than 170 sorts of Birds are mentioned,’ yet what is said of them
amounts on the whole to very little, and this consists more of desultory

1 For instances of this among Greeks and Romans almost any work on “ Classical
Antiquities” may be consulted, while as rezards the superstitions of barbarous nations
the authorities are far too numerous to be here named.

~ A Jac-simile of the picture is, or was a few years ago, exhibited at the Museum
of Science and Art in London, and the portion containing the figures of the Geese has
been figured by Mr. Loftie (Ride in Egypt, p. 209). I owe to that gentleman’s kindness
the opportunity of examining a copy made on the spot by an accomplished artist, as
well as information that it is No. 988 of Mariette’s Catalogue.

* Cf. W. Houghton ‘On the Birds of the Assyrian Monuments and Records,’
Trans. Soc. Bibl. Archexol. viii. pp. 42-142, 13 pls. (1883). The author being buta
poor ornithologist, his determination of the figures cannot be trusted. As to the
linguistic value of his labours I am not competent to speak.

: This is Sundevall’s estimate ; Drs. Aubert and Wimmer in their excellent edition
of the ‘Ioropiat rept swv (Leipzig: 1868) limit the number to 126,

INTRODUCTION 3
observations in illustration of his general remarks (which are to a con-
siderable extent physiological or bearing on the subject of reproduction)
than of an attempt at a connected account of Birds. Some of these
observations are so meagre as to have given plenty of occupation to his
many commentators, who with varying success have for more than three
hundred years been endeavouring to determine what were the Birds of
which he wrote ; and the admittedly corrupt state of the text adds to
their difficulties. One of the most recent of these commentators, the late
Prof. Sundevall—equally proficient in classical as in ornithological know-
ledge—was, in 1863, compelled to leave more than a score of the Birds
unrecognized. Yet it is not to be supposed that in what survives of the
great philosopher’s writings we have more than a fragment of the know-
ledge possessed by him, though the hope of recovering his Zwixd or his
*Avatopukd, in which he seems to have given fuller descriptions of the
animals he knew, can be hardly now entertained. A Latin translation
by Gaza of Aristotle’s existing zoological work was printed at Venice in
1503. Another version, by Scaliger, was subsequently published. Two
wretched English translations have appeared.

Next in order of date, though at a long interval, comes Gaius Plinius
Secundus, commonly known as Pliny the Elder, who died a.p. 79, author
of a general and very discursive Historia Naturalis in thirty-seven books, of
which most of Book X. is devoted to Birds. A considerable portion of
Pliny’s work may be traced to his great predecessor, of whose information
he freely and avowedly availed himself, while the additions thereto made
cannot be said to be, on the whole, improvements, Neither of these
authors attempted to classify the Birds known to them beyond a very
rough and for the most part obvious grouping. Aristotle seems to
recognize eight principal groups:—(1) Gampsonyches, approximately
equivalent to the Accipitres of Linnzeus ; (2) Scolecophaga, containing most
of what would now be called Oscines, excepting indeed the (3) Acantho-
phaga, composed of the Goldfinch, Siskin and a few othors; (4) Senipo-
phaga, the Woodpeckers ; (5) Peristeroide, or Pigeons ; (6) Schizopoda, (7)
Steganopoda and (8) Barea, nearly the same respectively as the Linnean
Grallx, Anseres and Gallinz. Pliny, relying wholly on characters taken
from the feet, limits himself to three groups—without assigning names to
them—those which have “hooked tallons, as Hawkes; or round long
clawes, as Hennes ; or else they:be broad, flat, and whole-footed, as Geese
and all the sort in manner of water-foule ””—to use the words of Philemon
Holland, who, in 1601, published a quaint and, though condensed, yet
fairly faithful English translation of Pliny’s work.?

About a century later came ASlian, who died about a.p. 140, and
compiled in Greek (though he was an Italian by birth) a number of
miscellaneous observations on the peculiarities of animals. His work is
a kind of commonplace book kept without scientific discrimination. A

1 By Thomas Taylor in 1809, and Cresswell in 1862.

2 The French translation by Ajasson de Grandsagne, with notes by Cuvier (Paris:
1830), is very good for the time. An English translation by Bostock and Riley
appeared between 1855 and 1857. Sillig’s edition of the original text (Gotha: 1851-
1858) seems to be the best.

4 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

considerable number of Birds are mentioned, and something said of almost
each of them ; but that something is too often nonsense—according to
modern ideas—though occasionally a fact of interest may therein be found.
It contains numerous references to former or contemporary writers whose
works have perished, but there is nothing to shew that they were wiser
than Atlian himself.

The twenty-six books De Animalibus of Albertus Magnus (Groot), who
died a.p. 1282, were printed in 1478 ; but were apparently already well
known from manuscript copies. They are founded on the works of
Aristotle, many of whose statements are almost literally repeated, and
often without acknowledgment. Occasionally Avicenna, or some other
less-known author, is quoted ; but it is hardly too much to say that the
additional information is almost worthless. The twenty-third of these
books is De Avibus, and therein a great number of Birds’ names make
their earliest appearance, few of which are without interest from a philo-
logist’s if not an ornithologist’s point of view, but there is much difficulty
in recognizing the species to which many of them apply. In 1485 was
printed the first dated copy of the volume known as the Ortus Sanitatis,
to the popularity of which many editions testify. Though said by its
author, Johann Wonnecke von Caub (Latinized as Johannes de Cuba),! to
have been composed from a study of the collections formed by a certain
nobleman who had travelled in Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Egypt
—possibly Breidenbach,? an account of whose travels in the Levant was
printed at Mentz in 1486—it is really a medical treatise, and its zoological
portion is mainly an abbreviation of the writings of Albertus Magnus, with
a few interpolations from Isidorus of Seville (who flourished in the
beginning of the seventh century, and was the author of many books
highly esteemed in the Middle Ages), and a work known as Physiologus.?
The third tractatus of this volume deals with Birds—including among
them Bats, Bees and other flying creatures; but as it is the first
printed book in which figures of Birds are introduced it merits notice,
though most of the illustrations, which are rude woodcuts, fail, even in
the coloured copies, to give any precise indication of the species intended
to be represented. The scientific degeneracy of this work is manifested
as much by its title (Ortus for Hortus) as by the mode in which the several
subjects are treated ;* but the revival of learning was at hand, and

1 On this point see G. A. Pritzel, Botan. Zeitung, 1846, pp. 785-790, and Thes.
Literat. Botanice (Lipsie: 1851), pp. 849-352.

2 T owe this suggestion to my late good friend, the eminent bibliographer, Henry
Bradshaw.

3 See the excellent account of this curious work by Prof. Land of Leyden (Zncycl.
Brit. ed. 9, xix. pp. 6, 7).

4 Absurd as much that we find both in Albertus Magnus and the Ovtws seems to
modern eyes, if we go a step lower in the scale and consult the “ Bestiaries”’ or
treatises on animals which were common from the twelfth to the fourteenth century
we shall meet with many more absurdities. See for instance that by Philippe de
Thaun (Philippus Taonensis), dedicated to Adelaide or Alice, queen of Henry I. of
England, and probably written soon after 1121, as printed by the late Mr. Thomas
Wright, in his Popular Treatises on Science written during the Middle Ages (London :
1841). Perhaps the De Naturis Rerum libri duo of Alexander Neckam (0b. 1217),
the foster-brother of Richard Coeur de Lion, may be excepted, for therein (lib. 1

INTRODUCTION is

William Turner, a Northumbrian, while residing abroad to avoid persecu-
tion at home, printed at Cologne in 1544 the first commentary on the
Birds mentioned by Aristotle and Pliny conceived in anything like the
spirit that moves modern naturalists! In the same year and from the
same press was issued a Dialogus de Avibus by Gybertus Longolius, and
in 1570 Caius brought out in London his treatise De rariorwm animalium
atque stirprum historia. In this last work, small though it be, ornithology
has a good share ; and all three may still be consulted with interest and
advantage by its votaries.2 Meanwhile the study received a great impulse
from the appearance, at Zurich in 1555, of the third book of the illustrious
Conrad Gesner’s Historia Animalium “qviest de Auium natura,” and at
Paris in the same year of Pierre Belon’s (Bellonius) Histoire de la nature
des Oyseaux. Gesner brought anamount of erudition, hitherto unequalled,
to bear upon his subject ; and, making due allowance for the time in
which he wrote, his judgment must in most respects be deemed excellent.
In his work, however, there is little that can be called systematic treat-
ment. Like nearly all his predecessors since Adlian, he adopted an
alphabetical arrangement,® though this was not too pedantically preserved,
and did not hinder him from placing together the kinds of Birds which he
supposed (and generally supposed rightly) to have the most resemblance
to that one whose name, being best known, was chosen for the headpiece
(as it were) of his particular theme, thus recognizing to some extent the
principle of classification. Belon, with perhaps less book-learning than
his contemporary, was evidently no mean scholar, and undoubtedly had
more practical knowledge of Birds—their internal as well as external
structure. Hence his work contains a far greater amount of original
matter; and his personal observations made in many countries, from
England to Egypt, enabled him to avoid most of the puerilities which
disfigure other works of his own or of a preceding age. Leside this, Belon
disposed the Birds known to him according to a definite system, which
(rude as we now know it to be) formed a foundation on which several of
his successors were content to build, and even to this day traces of its
influence may still be discerned in the arrangement followed by writers
who have faintly appreciated the principles on which modern taxonomers
rest the outline of their schemes. Both his work and that of Gesner were

capp. xxiii.-lxxx.) is a good deal about birds which is not altogether nonsense. This
work was edited for the Rolls Series, in 1863, by the same Mr. Wright.

1 This was reprinted at Cambridge in 1823 by the late Dr. George Thackeray.

2 The Seventh of Wotton’s De differentiis animalium Libri Decem,, published at
Paris in 1552, treats of Birds; but his work is merely a compilation from Aristotle
and Pliny, with references to other classical writers who have more or less incidentally
mentioned Birds and other animals. The author in his preface states—‘ Veterum
scriptorum sententias in unum quasi cumulum coaceruaui, de meo nihil addidi.”
Nevertheless he makes some attempt at a systematic arrangement of Birds, which,
according to his lights, is far from despicable.

® Even at the present day it may be shrewdly suspected that not a few orni-
thologists would gladly follow Gesner’s plan in their despair of seeing, in their own
time, a classification which would really deserve the epithet scientific.

4 For instance, under the title of “ Accipiter ” we have to look, not only for the
Sparrow-Hawk and Gos-Hawk, but for many other birds of the Family (as we now
call it) removed comparatively far from those species by modern ornithologists.

6 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

illustrated with woodcuts, many of which display much spirit and regard
to accuracy.

Belon, as has just been said, had a knowledge of the anatomy of Birds,
and he seems to have been the first to institute a direct comparison of
their skeleton with that of Man ; but in this respect he only anticipated
by a few years the more precise researches of Volcher Coiter, a Frisian,
who in 1573 and 1575 published at Nuremberg two treatises, in one of
which the internal structure of Birds in general is very creditably de-
scribed, while in the other the osteology and myology of certain forms is
given in considerable detail, and illustrated by carefully-drawn figures.
The first is entitled Hxternarum et internarum principaliwm humani corporis
Tabule, &c., while the second, which is the most valuable, is merely
appended to the Lectiones Gabrielis Fallopii de partibus similartbus humans
corporis, &c., and thus, the scope of each work being regarded as medical,
the author’s labours were wholly overlooked by the mere natural-historians
who followed, though Coiter introduced a table, “‘ De differentits Autum,”
furnishing a key to a rough classification of such Birds as were known to
him, and this, as nearly the first attempt of the kind, deserves notice here.

Contemporary with these three men was Ulysses Aldrovandus, a
Bolognese, who wrote an Historia Natwraliwm in sixteen folio volumes,
most of which were not printed till after his death in 1605 ; but the three
on Birds appeared between 1599 and 1603. The work is almost wholly
a compilation, and that not of the most discriminative kind, while a
peculiar jealousy of Gesner is displayed throughout, though his statements
are very constantly quoted—nearly always as those of ‘“ Ornithologus,”
his name appearing but few times in the text, and not at all in the list of
authors cited. With certain modifications in principle not very important,
but characterized by much more elaborate detail, Aldrovandus adopted
Belon’s method of arrangement, but in a few respects there is a manifest
retrogression. The work of Aldrovandus was illustrated by copper plates,
but none of his figures approach those of his immediate predecessors in
character or accuracy. Nevertheless the book was eagerly sought, and
several editions of it appeared.

Mention must be made of a medical treatise by Caspar Schwenckfeld,
published at Liegnitz in 1603, under the title of Theriotrophewm Stlesiz, the
fourth book of which consists of an “ Aviarium Silesie,” and is the earliest
of the ornithological works we now know by the name.of Fauna, The
author was acquainted with the labours of his predecessors, as his list of
over one hundred of them testifies. Most of the Birds he describes are
characterized with accuracy sufficient to enable them to be identified,
and his observations upon them have still some interest; but he was
innocent of any methodical system, and was not exempt from most of
the professional fallacies of his time.?

1 The Historia Naturalis of John Johnstone or Jonston, of Scottish descent but
by birth a Pole (Dict. Nat. Biogr. xxx. pp. 80, 81), ran through several editions
during the seventeenth century, but is little more than an epitome of the work of
Aldrovandus.

* The Hierozoicon of Bochart—a treatise on the animals named in Holy Writ—was
published in 1619.

INTRODUCTION 7

Hitherto, from the nature of the case, the works aforesaid treated of
scarcely any but the Birds belonging to the orbis veteribus notus ; but the
geographical discoveries of the sixteenth century began to bear fruit, and
many animals of kinds unsuspected were, about one hundred years later,
made known. Here there is only space to name Bontius, Clusius,
Hernandez! (or Fernandez), Marcgrave, Nieremberg and Piso,? whose
several works describing the natural products of both the Indies—whether
the result of their own observation or compilation—together with those
of Olina and Worm, produced a marked effect, since they led up to what
may be deemed the foundation of scientific Ornithology.’

This foundation was laid by the joint labours of Francis Willughby
(born 1635, died 1672) and John Ray (born 1628, died 1705), for it is
impossible to separate their share of work in Natural History more than
to say that, while the former more especially devoted himself to zoology,
botany was the favourite pursuit of the latter. Together they studied,
together they travelled and together they collected. Willughby, the
younger of the two, and at first the other’s pupil, seems to have gradually
become the master ; but dying before the promise of his life was fulfilled,
his writings were given to the world by his friend Ray, who, adding to
them from his own stores, published the Ornithologia in Latin in 1676,
and in English with many emendations in 1678. In this work Birds
generally were grouped in two great divisions— Land-Fowl” and
“ Water-Fow],”—the former being subdivided into those which have a
crooked beak and talons and those which have a straighter bill and
claws, while the latter was separated into those which frequent waters
and watery places and those that swim in the water—each subdivision
being further broken up into many sections, to the whole of which
a key was given. Thus it became possible for almost any diligent
reader without much chance of error to refer to its proper place nearly
every bird he was likely to meet with. Ray’s interest in ornithology con-
tinued, and in 1694 he completed a Synopsis Methodica Aviwm, which,
through the fault of the booksellers to whom it was entrusted, was not
published till 1713, when Derham gave it to the world.4

Two years after Ray’s death, Linnzus, the great reformer of Natural
History, was born, and in 1735 appeared the first edition of the celebrated
Systema Nature. Successive editions of this work were produced under

1 The earliest work of Hernandez, published at Mexico in 1615, copies of which
are very scarce, has been reprinted and edited by Dr. Ledén (8vo, Morelia: 1888).

2 For Lichtenstein’s determination of the Birds described by Marcgrave and Piso
see the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy for 1817 (pp. 155 et seqq.)

3 The earliest list of British Birds seems to be that in the Pinax Rerum Naturalium
of Christopher Merrett, published in 1666, and to be again mentioned presently. In
1668 appeared the Onomasticon Zooicon of Walter Charleton, which contains some
information on ornithology. An enlarged edition of the latter, under the title of
Exercitationes, &c., was published in 1677 ; but neither of these writers is of much
authority. In 1684 Sibbald in his Scotia illustrata published the earliest Fauna of
Scotland.

4 To this was added a supplement by Petiver on the Birds of Madras, taken from
pictures and information sent him by one Edward Buckley of Fort St. George, being
the first attempt to catalogue the Birds of any part of the British possessions in
India.

S DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

its author’s supervision in 1740, 1748, 1758 and 1766. Impressed by
the belief that verbosity was the bane of science, he carried terseness to
an extreme which frequently created obscurity, and this in no branch of
zoology more than in that which relates to Birds, Still the practice
introduced by him of assigning to each species a diagnosis by which it
ought in theory to be distinguishable from any other known species, and
of naming it by two words—the first being the generic and the second
the specific term, was so manifest an improvement upon anything which
had previously obtained, that the Linnean method of differentiation and
nomenclature established itself before long in spite of all opposition, and
in principle became almost universally adopted. The opposition came of
course from those who were habituated to the older state of things, and
saw no evil in the cumbrous, half-descriptive half-designative titles which
had to be employed whenever a species was to be spoken of or written
about. The supporters of the new method were the rising generation of
naturalists, many of whose names have since become famous, but among
them were some whose admiration of their chief carried them to a pitch
of enthusiasm which now seems absurd. Careful as Linneus was in
drawing up his definitions of groups, it was immediately seen that they
occasionally comprehended creatures whose characteristics contradicted
the prescribed diagnosis, His chief glory lies in his having reduced, at
least for a time, a chaos into order, and in his shewing both by precept and
practice that a name was not a definition. In his classification of Birds
he for the most part followed Ray, and where he departed from his model
he seldom improved upon it.

In 1745 Barrere brought out at Perpignan a little book called
Ornithologie Specimen nouwm, and in 1752 Méhring published at Aurich
one still smaller, his Aviwm Genera. Both these works (now rare) are
manifestly framed on the Linnean method, so far as it had then reached ;
but in their arrangement of the various forms of Birds they differed
greatly from that which they designed to supplant, and they obtained
little success. Yet as systematists their authors were no worse than
Klein, whose Historiw Aviwm Prodromus, appearing at Liibeck in 1750,
and Stemmata Aviwm at Leipzig in 1759, met with considerable favour
in some quarters. The chief merit of the latter work lies in its forty
plates, whereon the heads and feet of many Birds are indifferently
figured.?

But, while the successive editions of Linnewus’s great work were
revolutionizing Natural History, and his example of precision in language
was producing excellent effect on scientific writers, several other authors
were advancing the study of Ornithology in a very different way—a way
that pleased the eye even more than his labours were pleasing the mind.
Between 1731 and 1743 Mark Catesby brought out in London his

1 Such an one was Rafinesque, in many respects a fantastic author, Simple as
the principle of binomial nomenclature looks, its practice is not so easy, and there
have not been wanting of late years quasi-scientific writers to mistake it wholly.

? After Klein’s death his Prodromus, written in Latin, had the unwonted fortune
‘of two distinct translations into German, published in the same year, 1760, the one

at Leipzig and Liibeck by Behn, the other at Danzig by Reyger—each of whom
added more or less to the original.

INTRODUCTION 9

Natural History of Carolina—two large folios containing highly-coloured
plates of the Birds of that colony, Florida and the Bahamas—the fore-
runners of those numerous costly tomes which will have to be mentioned
presently at greater length. Eleazar Albin between 1738 and 1740
produced a Natural History of Birds in three volumes of more modest
dimensions, seeing that it is in quarto; but he seems to have been ignorant
of Ornithology, and his coloured plates are greatly inferior to Catesby’s.
Far better both as draughtsman and as authority was George Edwards,
who in 1748 began, under almost the same title as Albin, a series of
plates with letterpress, which was continued by the name of Gleanings of
Natural History, and finished in 1760, when it had reached seven parts,
forming four quarto volumes, the figures of which are nearly always
quoted with approval.?

The year which saw the works of Edwards completed was still further
distinguished by the appearance in France, where little had been done
since Belon’s days,® in six quarto volumes, of the Ornithologie of Mathurin
Jacques Brisson—a work of very great merit so far as it goes, for as a
descriptive ornithologist the author stands even now unsurpassed ;_ but it
must be said that his knowledge, according to internal evidence, was con-
fined to books and to the external parts of Birds’ skins. It was enough
for him to give a scrupulously exact description of such specimens as
came under his eye, distinguishing these by prefixing two asterisks to
their name, using a single asterisk where he had only seen a part of the
Bird, and leaving unmarked those that he described from other authors.
He also added information as to the Museum (generally Réaumut’s, of
which he had been in charge) containing the specimen he described, act-
ing on a principle which would have been advantageously adopted by
many of his contemporaries and successors. His attempt at classification
was cerfainly better than that of Linneus; and it is rather curious that
the researches of the latest ornithologists point to results in some degree
comparable with Brisson’s systematic arrangement, for they refuse to keep
the Birds-of-Prey at the head of the Class Aves, and they require the
establishment of a much larger number of “‘ Orders” than for a long while
had been thought advisable. Of such “Orders” Brisson had twenty-six,
and he gave Pigeons and Poultry precedence of the Birds which are
carnivorous or scavengers. But greater value lies in his generic or sub-
generic divisions, which taken as a whole, are far more natural than those
of Linnzus, and consequently capable of better diagnosis. More than this,
he seems to be the earliest ornithologist, perhaps the earliest zoologist,
to conceive the idea of each genus possessing what is now called a “type”
—though such a term does not occur in his work ; and, in like manner,
without declaring it in so many words, he indicated unmistakably the
existence of subgenera—all this being effected by the skilful use of names.

1 Several Birds from Jamaica were figured in Sloane’s Voyage, &c. (1705-1725),
and a good many exotic species in the Thesaurus, &c. of Seba (1734-1765), but
* from their faulty execution these plates had little effect upon Ornithology.

2 The works of Catesby and Edwards were afterwards reproduced at Nuremberg
and Amsterdam by Seligmann, with the letterpress in German, French and Dutch.

3 Birds were treated of in a worthless fashion by one D. B. in a Dictionnaire
raisonné et wniversel des animaux, published at Paris in 1759.

Z0 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Unfortunately he was too soon in the field to avail himself, even had he
been so minded, of the convenient mode of nomenclature brought into
use by Linneus, and it is only in the last two volumes of Brisson’s
Ornithologie that any reference is made to the tenth edition of the Systema
Nature, in which the binomial method was introduced. It is certain
that the first four volumes were written if not printed before that method
was promulgated, and when the fame of Linnzus as a zoologist rested on
little more than the very meagre sixth edition of the Systema Nature and
the first edition of his Fawna Suecica. Brisson has been charged with
jealousy of, if not hostility to, the great Swede, and it is true that in the
preface to his Ornithologie he complains of the insufficiency of the Linnean
characters, but, when one considers his much better acquaintance with
Birds, such criticism must be allowed to be pardonable if not wholly
just. This work was in French, with a parallel translation in Latin,
which last (edited, it is said, by Pallas) was reprinted separately at Leyden
three years afterwards.

In 1767 there was issued at Paris a book entitled L’histoire naturelle
eclaircie dans une de ses parties principales, VOrnithologie. This was the
work of Salerne, published after his death, and is often spoken of as being
a mere translation of Ray’s Synopsis, but is thereby very inadequately
described, for, though it is confessedly founded on that little book, a vast
amount of fresh matter, and mostly of good quality, is added.

The success of Edwards’s work seems to have provoked competition,
and in 1765, at the instigation of Buffon, the younger D’Aubenton began
the publication known as the Planches Enluminéez Whistoire naturelle,
which appearing in forty-two parts was not completed till 1780, when the
plates} it contained reached the number of 1008—all coloured, as its title
intimates, and nearly all representing Birds. This enormous work was
subsidized by the French Government ; and, though the figures are devoid
of artistic merit, they display the species they are intended to depict
with sufficient approach to fidelity to ensure recognition in most cases
without fear of error, which in the absence of any text is no small praise.?

But Buffon was not content with merely causing to be published this
unparalleled set of plates. He seems to have regarded the work just
named as a necessary precursor to his own labours in Ornithology. His
Histoire Naturelle, générale et particuliere, was begun in 1749, and in 1770
he brought out, with the assistance of Guénau de Montbeillard,® the first
volume of that grand undertaking relating to Birds, which, for the first
time, became the theme of one who possessed real literary capacity. It

* They were drawn and engraved by Martinet, who himself began in 1787 a
Histoire des Oiseaux with small coloured plates which have some merit, but the text
is worthless. The work seems not to have been finished, and is rare. For the
opportunity of seeing a copy I was indebted to my kind friend the late Mr. Gurney.

? Between 1767 and 1776 there appeared at Florence a Storia Naturale degli
Uccelli, in five folio volumes, containing a number of ill-drawn and ill-coloured figures
from the collection of Giovanni Gerini, an ardent collector who, having died in 1751,
must be acquitted of any share in the work, which, though sometimes attributed to -

him, is that of certain learned men who did not happen to be ornitholegists (¢f. Savi,
Ornithologia Toscana, i. Introduzione, Dp. .Va)s

° He retired on the completion of the sixth volume, and thereupon Buffon
associated Bexon with himself

INTRODUCTION II

is not too much to say that Buffon’s florid fancy revelled in such a subject
as was that on which he now exercised his brilliant pen; but it would be
unjust to examine too closely what to many of his contemporaries seemed
sound philosophical reasoning under the light that has since burst upon
us. Strictly orthodox though he professed to be, there were those, both
among his own countrymen and foreigners, who could not read his
speculative indictments of the workings of Nature without a shudder ;
and it is easy for any one in these days to frame a reply, pointed with
ridicule, to such a chapter as he wrote on the wretched fate of the Wood-
pecker. In the nine volumes devoted to the Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux
there are passages which will for ever live in the memory of those that
carefully read them, however much occasional expressions, or even the
general tone of the author, may grate upon their feelings. He too was
the first man who formed any theory that may be called reasonable of
the Geographical Distribution of Animals, though this theory was
scarcely touched in the ornithological portion of his work, and has since
proved to be not in accordance with facts. He proclaimed the variability
of species in opposition to the views of Linnzus as to their fixity, and
moreover supposed that this variability arose in part by degradation.!
Taking his labours as a whole, there cannot be a doubt that he enormously
enlarged the purview of naturalists, and, even if limited to Birds, that,
on the completion of his work upon them in 1783, Ornithology stood in
a very different position from that which it had before occupied. Because
he opposed the system of Linnzus he has been said to be opposed to
systems in general; but that is scarcely correct, for he had a system of
his own ; and, as we now see it, it appears neither much better nor much
worse than the systems which had been hitherto invented, or perhaps
than any which was propounded for many years to come. It is certain
that he despised any kind of scientific phraseology—a crime in the eyes
of those who consider precise nomenclature to be the end of science ; but
those who deem it merely a means whereby knowledge can be securely
stored will take a different view—and have done so.

Great as were the services of Buffon to Ornithology in one direction,
those of a wholly different kind rendered by our countryman John
Latham must not be overlooked. In 1781 he began a work the practical
utility of which was immediately recognized. This was his General
Synopsis of Birds, and, though formed generally on the model of Linnzus
greatly diverged in some respects therefrom. The classification was
modified, chiefly on the older lines of Willughby and Ray, and certainly
for the better ; but no scientific nomenclature was adopted, which, as the
author subsequently found, was a change for the worse. His scope was
co-extensive with that of Brisson, but Latham did not possess the inborn
faculty of picking out the characters wherein one species differs from another. °
His opportunities of becoming acquainted with Birds were hardly inferior
to Brisson’s, for during Latham’s long lifetime there poured in upon him
countless new discoveries from all parts of the world, but especially from
the newly-explored shores of Australia and the islands of the Pacific Ocean.

1 See Prof. Mivart’s address to the Section of Biology, Rep. Brit, Association
(Sheffield Meeting), 1879, p. 356.

12 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

The British Museum had been formed, and he had access to everything
it contained in addition to the abundant materials afforded him by the
private Museum of Sir Ashton Lever! Latham entered, so far as the
limits of his work would allow, into the history of the Birds he described,
and this with evident zest, whereby he differed from his French pre-
decessor ; but the number of cases in which he erred as to the determina-
tion of his species must be very great, and not unfrequently the same
species is described more than once. His Synopsis was finished in 1785 ;
two supplements were added in 1787 and 1802,? and in 1790 he pro-
duced a Latin abstract of the work under the title of Index Ornithologicus,
wherein he assigned names on the Linnean method to all the species
described. Not to recur again to his labours, it may be said here that
between 1821 and 1828 he published at Winchester, in eleven volumes,
an enlarged edition of his original work, entitling it A General History of
Birds ; but his defects as a compiler, which had been manifest before,
rather increased with age, and the consequences were not happy.®

About the time that Buffon was bringing to an end his studies of
Birds, Mauduyt undertook to write the Ornithologie of the Encyclopédie
Méthodique—a comparatively easy task, considering the recent works of
his fellow-countrymen on that subject, and finished in 1784. Here it
requires no further comment, especially as a new edition was called for in
1790, the ornithological portion of which was begun by Bonnaterre, who,
however, had only finished 320 pages of it when he lost his life in the
French Revolution ; and the work thus arrested was continued by Vieillot
under the slightly changed title of Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des
trois regnes de la Nature—the Ornithologie forming volumes four to seven,
and not completed till 1823. In the former edition Mauduyt had taken
the subjects alphabetically ; but here they are disposed according to an
arrangement, with some few modifications, furnished by D’Aubenton,
which is extremely shallow and unworthy of consideration.

Several other works bearing upon Ornithology in general, but of less
importance than most of those just named, belong to this period. Among
others may be mentioned the Genera of Birds by Thomas Pennant, first
printed at Edinburgh in 1773 in octavo, and very rare, but well known
by the quarto edition which appeared in London in 1781; the Hlementa
Ornithologica* and Musewm Ornithologicum of Schiffer, published at Ratis-
bon in 1774 and 1784 respectively ; Peter Brown’s New Illustrations of
Zoology in London in 1776; Hermann’s Tabule Affinitatum Animalium
at Strasburg in 1783, followed posthumously in 1804 by his Observationes

1 In 1792 Shaw began the Musewm Leverianum in illustration of this collection,
which was finally dispersed by sale in 1806, and what is known to remain of it found
its way either to the collection of the then Lord Stanley (afterwards 13th Earl of
Derby), and was, at his death in 1851, bequeathed to the Liverpool Museum, or to
Vienna (Zbis, 1873, pp. 14-54, 105-124; 1874, p. 461). Of the specimens in the
British Museum described by Latham not one exists. They were probably very im-
perfectly prepared,

* A German translation by Bechstein subsequently appeared.

es He also prepared for publication a second edition of his Index Ornithologicus,
which was never printed, and the manuscript is now in my possession.

* The so-called second edition (1779) of this has only a new title-page,

INTRODUCTION I3

Zoologice ; Jacquin’s Beytracge zur Geschichte der Voegel at Vienna in 1784,
and in 1790 at the same place the larger work of Spalowsky with nearly
the same title; Sparrman’s Musewm Carlsonianum at Stockholm from
1786 to 1789; and in 1794 Hayes’s Portraits of rare and curious Birds
from the menagery of Child the banker at Osterley near London. The
same draughtsman (who had in 1775 produced a bad History of British
Birds) in 1822 began another series of Wigures of rare and curious
Birds}

The practice of Brisson, Buffon, Latham and others of not giving
names after the Linnzean fashion to the species they described gave great
encouragement to compilation, and led to what has proved to be of some
inconvenience to modern ornithologists. In 1773 Philip Ludvig Statius
Miller brought out at Nuremberg a German translation of the Systema
Nature, completing it in 1776 by a Supplement containing a list of
animals thus described, which had hitherto been technically anonymous,
with diagnoses and names on the Linnean model. In 1783 Boddaert
printed at Utrecht a Table des Planches Enluminéz,? in which he attempted
to refer every species of Bird figured in that extensive series to its proper
Linnean genus, and to assign it a scientific name if it did not already
possess one. In like manner in 1786, Scopoli—already the author of a
little book published at Leipzig in 1769 under the title of Annus I.
Historico-naturalis, in which are described many Birds, mostly from his
own collection or the Imperial vivarium at Vienna—was at the pains to
print at Pavia in his miscellaneous Delicie Flore et Faune Insubrice a
Specimen Zoologicum® containing diagnoses, duly named, of the Birds
discovered and described by Sonnerat in his Voyage aux Indes orientales
and Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinée, severally published at Paris in 1772
and 1776. But the most striking example of compilation was that
exhibited by J. F. Gmelin, who in 1788 commenced what he called the
Thirteenth Edition of the celebrated Systema Nature, which obtained so
wide a circulation that, in the comparative rarity of the original, the
additions of this editor have been very frequently quoted, even by expert
naturalists, as though they were the work of the author himself. Gmelin
availed himself of every publication he could, but he perhaps found his
richest booty in the labours of Latham, neatly condensing his English
descriptions into Latin diagnoses, and bestowing on them binomial names.
Hence it is that Gmelin appears as the authority for so much of the
nomenclature now in use. He took many liberties with the details of

1 The Naturalist’s Miscellany or Vivarium Naturale, in English and Latin, of
Shaw and Nodder, the former being the author, the latter the draughtsman and
engraver, was begun in 1789 and carried on till Shaw’s death, forming twenty-four
volumes. It contains figures of more than 280 Birds, but very poorly executed. In
1814 a sequel, The Zoological Miscellany, was begun by Leach, Nodder continuing to
do the plates. This was completed in 1817, and forms three volumes with 149 plates,
27 of which represent Birds.

2 Of this work only fifty copies were printed, and it is one of the rarest known to
the ornithologist. Only two copies are believed to exist in England, one in the
British Museum, the other in private hands. It was reprinted in 1874 by Mr.
Tegetmeier.

% This was reprinted in 1882 by the Willughby Society.

G

T4 DICTIONARY OF (BIRDS

Linnzeus’s work, but left the classification, at least of the Birds, as it was
—a few new genera excepted.t

During all this time little had been done in studying the internal
structure of Birds since the works of Coiter already mentioned ;? but the
foundations of the science of Embryology had been laid by the investiga-
tions into the development of the chick by the great Harvey. Between
1666 and 1669 Perrault edited at Paris eight accounts of the dissection
by Du Verney of as many species of Birds, which, translated into English,
were published by the Royal Society in 1702, under the title of The
Natural History of Animals. After the death of the two anatomists just
named, another series of similar descriptions of eight other species was
found among theif papers, and the whole were published in the Mémoztres
of the French Academy of Sciences in 1733 and 1734. But in 1681
Gerard Blasius had brought out at Amsterdam an Anatome Animalium,
containing the results of all the dissections of animals that he could find ;
and the second part of this book, treating of Volatclia, makes a respectable
show of ‘more than 120 closely-printed quarto pages, though nearly two-
thirds is devoted to a treatise De Ovo et Pullo, containing among other
things a reprint of Harvey’s researches, and the scientific rank of the
whole book may be inferred from Bats being still classed with Birds. In
1720 Valentini published, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, his Amphitheatrum
Zootomicum, in which again most of the existing accounts of the anatomy
of Birds were reprinted. But these and many other contributions,? made
until nearly the close of the eighteenth century, though highly meritorious,
were unconnected as a whole, and it is plain that no conception of what
it was in the power of Comparative Anatomy to set forth had occurred to
the most diligent dissectors. This privilege was reserved for Georges
Cuvier, who in 1798 published at Paris his Tableau élémentatre de Vhistoire
naturelle des Animawx, and thus laid the foundation of a thorough and
hitherto unknown mode of appreciating the value of the various groups
of the Animal Kingdom. Yet his first attempt was a mere sketch.*
Though he made a perceptible advance on the classification of Linnzus,
at that time predominant, it is now easy to see in how many ways—want
of sufficient material being no doubt one of the chief—Cuvier failed to
produce a really natural arrangement. His principles, however, are those
which must still guide taxonomers, notwithstanding that they have in so
great a degree overthrown the entire scheme which he propounded.
Cuvier’s arrangement of the Class Aves is now seen to be not very much

1 Daudin’s unfinished Zraité élémentaire et complet d’ Ornithologie appeared at
Paris in 1800, and therefore is the last of these general works published in the
eighteenth century.

? A succinct notice of the older works on Ornithotomy is given by Prof. Selenka in
the introduction to that portion of Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des Thierreichs
relating to Birds (pp. 1-9) published in 1869; and Prof. Carus’s Geschichte der
Zoologie, published in 1872, may also be usefully consulted for further information
on this and other heads. 3

* The treatises of the two Bartholinis and Borrichius published at Copenhagen
deserve mention if only to record the activity of Danish anatomists in those days.

* It had no effect on Lacépéde, who in the following year added a Tableau
Méthodique containing a classification of Birds to his Discours d’ Ouverture (Mém. de
U Institut, iii. pp. 454-468, 508-519).

INTRODUCTION 75

better than any which it superseded, though this view is gained by follow-
ing the methods which Cuvier taught. In the work just mentioned few
details are given; but even the more elaborate classification of Birds
contained in his Legons @ Anatomie Comparee of 1805 is based wholly on
external characters, such as had been used by nearly all his predecessors ;
and the Regne Animal of 1817, when he was in his fullest vigour, afforded
not the least evidence that he had ever dissected a couple even of Birds!
with the object of determining their relative position in his system, which
then, as before, depended wholly on the configuration of bills, wings and
feet. But, though apparently without such a knowledge of the anatomy
of Birds as would enable him to apply it to the formation of that natural
system which he was fully aware had yet to be sought, he seems to have
been an excellent judge of the characters afforded by the bill and limbs,
and the use he made of them, coupled with the extraordinary reputation
he acquired on other grounds, procured for his system the adhesion for
many years of the majority of ornithologists. Regret must always ‘be
felt by them that his great genius was never applied in earnest to their
branch of study, especially when we consider that had it been so the
perversion of energy in regard to the classification of Birds witnessed in
England for nearly twenty years, and presently to be mentioned, would
most likely have been prevented.?

Hitherto mention has chiefly been made of works on General Orni-
thology, but it will be understood that these were largely aided by the
enterprise of travellers, and as there were many of them who published
their narratives in separate forms, their contributions have to be considered.
Of those travellers, then, the first to be here especially named is Marsigli,
the fifth volume of whose Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus is devoted to the
Birds he met with in the valley of the Danube, and appeared at the
Hague in 1725, followed by a French translation in 1744.3 Most of the
many pupils whom [inneus sent to foreign countries submitted their
discoveries to him, but the respective travels of Kalm, Hasselqvist and
Osbeck in North America, the Levant and China were published separ-
ately.t The incessant journeys of Pallas and his colleagues— Falk,
Georgi, J. G. and 8. G. Gmelin, Giildenstiidt, Lepechin and others—in

1 So little regard did he pay to the Osteology of Birds that, according to De
Blainville (Jour. de Phys. xcii. p. 187, note), the skeleton of a Fowl to which was
attached the head of a Hornbill was for a long time exhibited in the Museum of -
Comparative Anatomy at Paris! Yet, in order to determine the difference of struc-
ture in their organs of voice, Cuvier, as he says in his Lecons (iv. p. 464), dissected
- more than 150 species of Birds. Unfortunately for him, as will appear in the sequel,
it seems not to have occurred to him to use any of the results he obtained as the basis
of a classification.

2 Tt is unnecessary to enumerate the various editions of the Reyne Animal. Of
the English translations, that edited by Griffiths and Pidgeon is the most complete.
The ornithological portion of it, contained in three volumes, received many additions
from John Edward Gray, and appeared i in 1829, but even at ‘that time must have been
lamentably deficient.

3 Though much later in date, the Iter per Poseganam Sclavonie of Piller and
Mitterpacher, published at Buda in 1783, may perhaps be here most conveniently
mentioned.

4 The results of Forskal’ s travels in the Levant, published after his death by
Niebuhr, require mention, though the ornithology they contain is but scant,

16 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

the exploration of the recently extended Russian empire supplied not only
much material to the Commentarit and Acta of the Academy of St.
Petersburg, but more that is to be found in their narratives—all of it being
of the highest interest to students of Holarctic Ornithology. Nearly the
whole of their results, it may here be said, were summed up in the important
Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica of the first-named naturalist, two volumes of
which saw the light in 1811,—the year of its author’s death,—but, owing
to circumstances over which he had no control, were not generally accessible
till twenty years later. Of still wider interest are the accounts of Cook’s
three famous voyages, though unhappily much of the information gained
by the naturalists who accompanied him on one or more of them seems to
be irretrievably lost: the original observations of the elder Forster were
not printed till 1844, and the valuable series of zoological drawings made
by the younger Forster and William Ellis still remain unpublished in the
British Museum. ‘The several accounts by John White, Collins, Phillip,
Hunter and others, of the colonization of New South Wales at the end of
the last century, ought not to be overlooked by any Australian orni-
thologist. The only information belonging to this period on the Orni-
thology of South America is contained in the two works on Chili by
Molina, published at Bologna in 1776 and 1782. The travels of Le
Vaillant in South Africa having ended in 1785, his great Ovseaua
@ Afrique began to appear in Paris in 1797 ;1 but it is hard to speak
patiently of this work, for several of the species described in it are
certainly not, and never were inhabitants of that country—admittedly
so in some cases, though in others he gives a long account of the circum-
stances in which he observed them.?

From travellers who employ themselves in collecting the animals of
any distant country the zoologists who stay at home and study those of
their own district, be it great or small, are really not so much divided as
at first might appear. Both may well be named “ Faunists,” and of the
latter there were not a few who having turned their attention more or
less to Ornithology should here be mentioned, and first among them
Rzaczynski, who in 1721 brought out at Sandomirsk the Historia naturals
curtosa regnt Polonix, to which an Auctuariwm was posthumously published
at Danzig in 1742. This also may be perhaps the most proper place to
notice the Historia Avium Hungarix of Grossinger, published at Posen in
1793. In 1734 J. L. Frisch began the long series of works on the Birds
of Germany with which the literature of Ornithology is enriched, by his
Vorstellung der Vogel Teutschlands, which was only completed in 1763, and,
its coloured plates proving very attractive, was again issued at Berlin in
1817. The little fly-sheet of Zorn ?—for it is scarcely more—on the

1 Jn 1798 he issued a duodecimo edition of this work, which seems to be little
knewn. ‘Two volumes, extending to No. 117 of the folio edition, are in my posses-
sion, but I cannot say whether more appeared. His large work failed to obtain
support, and finished with its sixth volume in 1808.

2 It has been charitably suggested that, his collection and notes having suffered
shipwreck, he was induced to supply the latter from his memory and the former by
the nearest approach to his lost specimens that he could obtain. This explanation,
poor as it is, fails, however, in regard to some species.

* His earlier work under the title of Petinotheologie can hardly be deemed scientific,

INTRODUCTION 17

Birds of the Hercynian Forest made its appearance at Pappenheim in
1745. In 1756 Kramer published at Vienna a modest Elenchus of the
plants and animals of Lower Austria, and J. D. Petersen produced at
Altona in 1766 a Verzeichniss balthischer Vogel; while in 1791 J. B.
Fischer’s Versuch einer Naturgeschichte von Livland appeared at Kéonigs-
berg. Next year Beseke brought out at Mitau his Beytrag zur Naturge-
schichte der Vogel Kurlands, and in 1794 Siemssen’s Handbuch of the
Birds of Mecklenburg was published at Rostock. But these works,
locally useful as they may have been, did not occupy the whole attention
of German ornithologists, for in 1791, Bechstein reached the second
volume of his Gemetnniitzige Naturgeschichte Deutschlands, treating of the
Birds of that country, which ended with the fourth in 1795. Of this an
abridged edition by the name of Ornithologisches Taschenbuch appeared in
1802 and 1803, with a supplement in 1812; while between 1805 and
1809 a fuller edition of the original was issued. Moreover in 1795
J. A. Naumann humbly began at Cothen a treatise on the Birds of the
principality of Anhalt, which on its completion in 1804 was found to
have swollen into an ornithology of Northern Germany and the neigh-
bouring countries. Eight supplements were successively published be-
tween 1805 and 1817, and in 1822 a new edition was required. This
Naturgeschichte der Vogel Deutschlands, being almost wholly re-written by
his son J. F. Naumann, is by far the best thing of the kind as yet pro-
duced in any country. The fulness and accuracy of the text combined
with the neat beauty of its coloured plates, have gone far to promote the
study of Ornithology in Germany, and while essentially a popular work,
since it is suited to the comprehension of all readers, it is throughout
written with a simple dignity that commends it to the serious and
scientific. Its twelfth and last volume was published in 1844—by no
means too long a period for so arduous and honest a performance,—and a
supplement was begun in 1847; but, the author dying in 1857, this
continuation was finished in 1860 by the joint efforts of J. H. Blasius and
Baldamus. In 1800 Borkhausen with others commenced at Darmstadt a
Teutsche Ornithologie in folio which appeared at intervals till 1812, and
remains unfinished, though a reissue of the portion published took place
between 1837 and 1841.

Other countries on the Continent, though not quite so prolific as
Germany, bore some ornithological fruit at this period; but in all
Southern Europe only four faunal products can be named :—the Saggzo di
Storia Naturale Bresciana of Pilati, published at Brescia in 1769; the
Ornitologia del? Europa Meridionale of Bernini, published at Parma
between 1772 and 1776; the Uccelli di Sardegna of Cetti, published at
Sassari in 1776; and the Romana Ornithologia of Gilius, published at
Rome in 1781—the last being in great part devoted to Pigeons and
Poultry. More appeared in the North, for in 1770 Amsterdam sent forth
the beginning of Nozeman’s Nederlandsche Vogelen, a fairly-illustrated
work in folio, but only completed by Houttuyn in 1829, and in Scan-
dinavia most of all was done. In 1746 the great Linneus had produced
a Fauna Svecica, of which a second edition appeared in 1761, and a third

revised by Retzius in 1800. In 1764 Briinnich published at Copenhagen

rs DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

his Ornithologia Borealis, a compendious sketch of the Birds of all the
countries then subject to the Danish crown. At the same place appeared
in 1767 Leem’s work De Lapponibus Finmarchix, to which Gunnerus
contributed some good notes on the Ornithology of Northern Norway,
and at Copenhagen and Leipzig was published in 1780 the Fauna
Groenlandica of Otho Fabricius.

Of strictly American origin can here be cited only Bartram’s Travels
through North and South Carolina and Barton’s Fragments of the Natural
History of Pennsylvania,! both printed at Philadelphia, one in 1791, the
other in 1799; but J. R. Forster published a Catalogue of the Animals
of North America in London in 1771, and the following year described in
the Philosophical Transactions a few Birds from Hudson’s Bay.2 A
greater undertaking was Pennant’s Arctic Zoology, published in 1785,
with a supplement in 1787. The scope of this work was originally
intended to be limited to North America, but circumstances induced him
to include all the species of Northern Europe and Northern Asia, and
though not free from errors, it is a praiseworthy performance. A second
edition appeared in 1792. The Ornithology of Britain naturally demands
greater attention. The earliest list of British Birds we possess is, as
already stated, that in Merrett’s Pinax Rerum Naturalium Britannicarum,
printed in London in 1666.3 In 1677 Plot published his Natural History
of Oxfordshire, which reached a second edition in 1705, and in 1686 that
of Staffordshire. A similar work on Lancashire, Cheshire and the Peak was
sent out in 1700 by Leigh, and one on Cornwall by Borlase in 1758—
all these four being printed at Oxford. In 1766 appeared Pennant’s
British Zoology, a well-illustrated folio, of which a second edition in octavo
was published in 1768, and considerable additions (forming the nominally
third edition) in 1770, while in 1777 there were two issues, one in octavo
the other in quarto, each called the fourth edition. In 1812, long after
the author’s death, another edition was printed, of which his son-in-law
Hanmer was the reputed editor, but he received much assistance from
Latham, and through carelessness many of the additions herein made have
often been ascribed to Pennant himself. In 1769 Berkenhout gave to the
world his Outlines of the Natural History of Great Britain and Ireland, which
reappeared under the title of Synopsis of the same in 1795. Tunstall’s
Ormthologia Britannica, which was issued in 1771, is little more than a
list of names* Hayes’s Natural History of British Birds, a folio of forty
plates and corresponding text, shewing much ignorance of them on the
part of the author, appeared between 1771 and 1775. In 1781 Nash’s

1 This rare book has been reprinted by the Willughby Society.

* Both of these treatises have also been reprinted by the Willughby Society.

° In 1667 there were two issues. pf a reprint of this book ; one, nominally a second
edition, only differs from the other in having a new title-page. In anticipation of a
revised edition Sir Thomas Browne prepared in or about 1671 (2) his ‘‘ Account of
Birds found in Norfolk,” of which the draught, now in the British Museum, was
printed in his collected works by Wilkin in 1885. If a fair copy was ever made its
resting-place is unknown.

* It has been republished by the Willughby Society. Of similar character is
Fothergill’s Ornithologia Britannica, a were list of names, Latin and English, printed
in small folio at York in 1799.

INTRODUCTION Ig

W orcestershire included a few ornithological notices ; and Walcott in 1789
published an illustrated Synopsis of British Birds, coloured copies of which
are rare. Simultaneously William Lewin commenced his Birds of Great
Britain, in 7 quarto volumes, the last of which appeared in 1794, a
re-issue of the whole in 8 volumes following between 1795 and 1801.
In 1791 J. Heysham added to Hutchins’s Cumberland a list of birds of
that county, while in the same year began Thomas Lord’s Entire New
System of Ornithology, or Gicumenical History of British Birds, the un-
grammatical text professedly written, or corrected, by Dr. Dupree, a
pretentious and worthless work of which 38 parts were published in the
course of the next five years. In 1794 Donovan commenced a History
of British Birds which was only finished in 1819—the earlier portion
being reissued about the same time. LBolton’s Harmonia Ruralis, an
account of British Song-Birds, first appeared between 1794 and 1796.
Other editions followed, one even 50 years later.!

All the foregoing British publications yield in importance to two that
remain to be mentioned. In 1767 Pennant, several of whose works have
already been named, entered into correspondence with Gilbert White,
receiving from him much information, almost wholly drawn from his own
observation, for the succeeding editions of the British Zoology. In 1769
White began exchanging letters of a similar character with Barrington.
The epistolary intercourse with the former continued until 1780, and with
the latter until 1787. In 1789 White’s share of the correspondence,
together with some miscellaneous matter, was published as The Natural
History of Selborne—from the name of the village in which he lived.
Observations on Birds form the principal though by no means the whole
theme of this book, which may be safely said to have done more to pro-
mote a love of Ornithology in this country than any other work that has
been written, nay more than all the other works (except one next to be
mentioned) put together. It has passed through a far greater number of
editions than any other work on Natural History in the whole world, and
has become emphatically an English classic—the graceful simplicity of
its style, the elevating tone of its spirit and the sympathetic chords it
strikes recommending it to every lover of nature, while the severely
scientific reader can find few errors in the statements it contains,
whether of matter-of-fact or opinion. It is almost certain that more than
half the zoologists of the British Islands for the past eighty years or more
have been infected with their love of the study by Gilbert White ; and
it can hardly be supposed that his influence will cease.”

1 I cannot vouch for the complete accuracy of some of the dates given above.
They have puzzled even that accomplished bibliographer Dr. Coues. It was nobody’s
business in those days to record the precise time of appearance of a work published
in parts, and the date, when given at the foot of the plates, cannot always be trusted.

2 Next to the original edition, that known as Bennett’s, published in 1837, which
was reissued in 1875 by Mr. Harting, was long deemed the best; but it must give
place to that of Bell, which appeared in 1877, and contains much additional informa-
tion of great interest. But the editions of Markwick, Herbert, Blyth and Jardine
all possess features of merit. An elaborately prepared edition, issued in 1875 by
one who gained great reputation as a naturalist, only shews his ignorance and his
vulgarity. Since that time several popular writers have essayed other editions,
though their labour may have been limited to the production of a preface in which

20 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

The other work to the importance of which on Ornithology in this
country allusion has been made is Bewick’s History of British Birds.
The first volume of this, containing the Land-Birds, appeared in 1797 1—
the text being, it is understood, by Beilby—the second, containing the
Water-Birds, in 1804. The woodcuts illustrating this work are generally
of surpassing excellence, and it takes rank in the category of artistic
publications. Fully admitting the extraordinary execution of the engrav-
ings, every ornithologist may perceive that as portraits of the Birds
represented they are of very unequal merit. Some of the figures were
drawn from stuffed specimens, and accordingly perpetuate all the imper-
fections of the original; others delineate species with the appearance of
which the artist was not familiar, and these are either wanting in expres-
sion or are caricatures ;2 but those that were drawn from live Birds, or
represent species which he knew in life, are worthy of all praise. It is
well known that the earlier editions of this work, especially if they be
upon large paper, command extravagant prices ; but in reality the copies
on smaller paper are now the rarer, for the stock of them has been con-
sumed in nurseries and schoolrooms, where they have been torn up or
worn out with incessant use. Moreover, whatever the lovers of the fine
arts may say, it is nearly certain that the “ Bewick Collector” is mistaken
in attaching so high a value to these old editions, for owing to the want
of skill in printing—indifferent ink being especially assigned as one cause
—many of the earlier issues fail to shew the most delicate touches of the
engraver, which the increased care bestowed upon the edition of 1847
(published under the supervision of the late John Hancock) has revealed,
—though it must be admitted that certain blocks have suffered from wear
of the press so as to be incapable of any more producing the effect intended.
Of the text it may be said that it is respectable, but no more. It has
given satisfaction to thousands of readers in time past, and will, it may
be hoped, give satisfaction to thousands in time to come.

The existence of these two works explains the widely-spread taste for
Ornithology in this country, which is to foreigners so puzzling, and the

they generally contrive to display their incompetence. A more remarkable feature
is the publication of a fairly printed edition at the price of sixpence! A curiously
compressed German translation by F, A. A. Meyer appeared at Berlin in 1792, under
the title of Beytrige zur Naturgeschichte von England ; and more than one reprint,
apparently of Lady Dover’s “Bowdlerized” edition of 1833, has been issued in
America (¢f. Coues, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. ii. p. 429). For information as to different
editions published prior to and including that of Bell, see Notes and Queries, ser. 5,
vii. pp. 241, 264, 296, 338, 471, viii. p. 304, and ix. p. 150.

The imitators of Gilbert White are countless. More than one has admittedly
produced a very pretty book ; but on essaying a second the falling off is manifest.
Others at once shew their shallowness, and good as may be their intention, their
observations, however pleasant to read, are utterly valueless. Such writers can
seldom rid themselves of the consciousness of their own personality, the absence of
which is so charming in the author they more or less unconsciously mimic.

1 There were two issues—virtually two editions—of this with the same date on
the title-page, though one of them is said not to have been published till the following
year. Among several other indicia this may be recognized by the woodcut of the
“Sea Hagle” at page 11 bearing at its base the inscription “ Wycliffe, 1791,” and by
the additional misprint on page 145 of Saheniclus for Scheniclus.

* This is especially observable in the figures of the Birds-of-Prey.

INTRODUCTION 21

zeal—not always according to knowledge, but occasionally reaching to
serious study—with which that taste is pursued.

Having thus noticed, and it is to be hoped pretty thoroughly, the
chief ornithological works begun if not completed prior to the commence-
ment of the present century, together with their immediate sequels, those
which follow will require a very different mode of treatment, for their
number is so great that it would be impossible for want of space to deal
with them in the same extended fashion, though the attempt will finally
be made to enter into details in the case of works constituting the founda-
tion upon which apparently the superstructure of the future science has
to be built. It ought not to need stating that much of what was, com-
paratively speaking, only a few years ago regarded as scientific labour is
now no longer to be so considered. The mere fact that the principle of
Evolution, and all its admission carries with it, has been accepted in some
form or other by almost all naturalists, has rendered obsolete nearly every
theory that had hitherto been broached, and in scarcely any branch of
zoological research was theory more rife than in Ornithology. One of these
theories must presently be noticed at some length on account of the
historical importance which attaches to its malefic effects in impeding the
progress of true Ornithology in Britain ; but charity enjoins us to consign
all the rest as much as possible to oblivion.

On reviewing the progress of Ornithology since the end of the last
century, the first thing that will strike us is the fact that general works,
though still undertaken, have become proportionally fewer, and such as
exist are apt to consist of mere explanations of systematic methods that
had already been more or less fully propounded, while special works,
whether relating to the ornithic portion of the Fauna of any particular
country, or limited to certain groups of Birds—works to which of late
years the name of “ Monograph” has become wholly restricted—have
become far more numerous. But this seems to be the natural law in all
sciences, and its cause is not far to seek. As the knowledge of any
branch of study extends, it outgrows the opportunities and capabilities of
most men to follow it as a whole; and, since the true naturalist, by
reason of the irresistible impulse which drives him to work, cannot be
idle, he is compelled to confine his energies to narrower fields of investiga-
tion. That in a general way this is for some reason to be regretted is
true ; but, like all natural operations, it carries with it some recompense,
and the excellent work done by so-called “ specialists ” has over and over
again proved of the greatest use to advancement in different departments
of science, and in none more than in Ornithology.!

Another change has come over the condition of Ornithology, as of
kindred sciences, induced by the multiplication of learned societies which
issue publications, as well as of periodicals of greater or less scientific
pretension—the latter generally enjoying a circulation far wider than the

1 The truth of the preceding remarks may be so obvious to most men who have
acquaintance with the subject that their introduction here may seem unnecessary ;
but it is certain that the facts they state have been very little appreciated by many
writers who profess to give an account of the progress of Natural History during the
present century.

22 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

former. Both kinds increase yearly, and the desponding mind may fear
the possibility of its favourite study expiring through being smothered by
its own literature. Without anticipating such a future disaster, and look-
ing merely to what has gone before, itis necessary here to premise that,
in the observations which immediately follow, treatises which have
appeared in the publications of learned bodies or in other scientific
periodicals must, except they be of prime importance, be hereinafter
passed unnoticed; but their omission will be the less felt because the
more recent of those of a “faunal” character are generally mentioned in
the text (GEOGRAPHICAL DisTRIBUTION) under the different countries with
which they deal, while reference to the older of these treatises is usually
given by the writers of the newer. Still it seems advisable here to
furnish some connected account of the progress made in the ornitho-
logical knowledge of those countries in which the readers of the present
volume may be supposed to take the most lively interest—namely,
the British Islands and those parts of the European continent which lie
nearest to them or are most commonly sought by travellers, the
Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, the British West
Indies, South Africa, India, together with Australia and New Zealand.
The more important Monographs, again, will usually be found cited in
the series of special articles contained in this work, though, as will be
immediately perceived, there are some so-styled Monographs, which by
reason of the changed views of classification that at present obtain, have
lost their restricted character, and for all practical purposes have now to
be regarded as general works.
; It will perhaps be most convenient to begin by mentioning some of
these last, and in particular a number of them which appeared at Paris
early in this century. First in order of them is the Histoire Naturelle
d’une partie @ Oiseaux nouveaux et rares de VAmérique et des Indes, a folio
volume? published in 1801 by Le Vaillant. This is devoted to the
very distinct and not nearly-allied groups of Hornbills and of Birds
which for want of a better name we call “Chatterers,” and is illus-
trated, like those works of which a notice immediately follows, by
coloured plates, done in what was then considered to be the highest style
of art and by the best draughtsmen procurable. The first volume of a
Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets, a companion work by the same author,
appeared in the same year, and is truly a Monograph, since the Parrots
constitute a Family of Birds so naturally severed from all others, that
there has rarely been anything else confounded with them. The second
volume came out in 1805, and a third was issued in 1837-38 long after
the death of its predecessor’s author, by Bourjot St.-Hilaire. Between
1803 and 1806 Le Vaillant also published in just the same style two
volumes with the title of Histoire Naturelle des Oiseau de Paradis et des
Rolliers, swivie de celle des Toucans et des Barbus, an assemblage of forms,
which, miscellaneous as it is, was surpassed in incongruity by a fourth
work on the same scale, the Histoire Naturelle des Promerops et des
Guépiers, des Couroucous et des Touracos, for herein are found Jays, Wax-

Viniyaramiasls ae :
There is also an issue of this, as of the same author’s other works, on large
quarto paper,

INTRODUCTION 23

wings, the Cock-of-the-Rock (Rupicola) and what not besides. The
plates in this last are by Barraband, for many years regarded as the
perfection of ornithological artists, and indeed the figures, when they
happen to have been drawn from the life, are not bad; but his skill was
quite unable to vivify the preserved specimens contained in Museums,
and when he had only these as subjects he simply copied the distortions
of the “bird-stuffer.” The following year, 1808, being aided by Tem-
minck of Amsterdam, of whose son we shall presently hear more, Le
Vaillant brought out the sixth volume of his Oiseaux d’ Afrique, already
mentioned. Four more volumes of this work were promised ; but the
means of executing them were denied to him, and, though he lived until
1824, his publications ceased.

A similar series of works was projected and begun about the same
time as that of Le Vaillant by Audebert and Vieillot, though the former,
who was by profession a painter and illustrated the work, had died more
than a year before the appearance of the two volumes, bearing date
1802, and entitled Oiseaux dorés ow a reflets métalliques, the effect of the
plates in which he sought to heighten by the use of gilding. ‘The first
volume contains the “Colibris, Oiseaux-mouches, Jacamars et Pro-
merops,” the second the “Grimpereaux” and “Oiseaux de Paradis ”—
associations which set all the laws of systematic method at defiance.
His colleague, Vieillot, brought out in 1805 a Histoire Naturelle des plus
beaua Chanteurs de la Zone Torride with figures by Langlois of tropical
Fenches, Grosbeaks, Buntings and other hard-billed Birds; and in 1807
two volumes of a Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux de V Amérique Septen-
trionale, without, however, paying much attention to the limits commonly
assigned by geographers to that part of the world. In 1805 Anselme
Desmarest published a Histovre Naturelle des Tangaras, des Manakins et
des Todiers, which, though belonging to the same category as all the
former, differs from them in its more scientific treatment of the subjects
to which it refers ; and, in 1808, Temminck, whose father’s aid to Le
Vaillant has already been noticed, brought out at Paris a Histoire Naturelle
des Pigeons, illustrated by Madame Knip, who had drawn the plates for
Desmarest’s volume.t

Since we have begun by considering these large illustrated works in
which the text is made subservient to the coloured plates, it may be
convenient to continue our notice of such others of similar character as
it may be expedient to mention here, though thereby we shall be led
somewhat far afield. Most of them are but luxuries, and there is some
degree of truth in the remark of Andreas Wagner in his Report on the
Progress of Zoology for 1843, drawn up for the Ray Society (p. 60), that
they “are not adapted for the extension and promotion of science, but
must inevitably, on account of their unnecessary costliness, constantly
tend to reduce the number of naturalists who are able to avail them-
selves of them, and they thus enrich ornithology only to its ultimate

1 Temminck subsequently reproduced, with many additions, the text of this
volume in his Histoire Naturelle des Pigeons et des Gallinacées, published at Am-
sterdam in 1813-15, in 3 vols. 8vo. Between 1838 and 1848 Florent-Provost brought
out at Paris a further set of illustrations of Pigeons by Mdme. Knip.

24 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

injury.” Earliest in date, as it is greatest in bulk, stands Audubon’s
egregious Birds of America, in four volumes, containing 435 plates,
of which the first part appeared in London in 1827 and the last in
1838.1 It seems not to have been the author’s original intention to
publish any letterpress to this enormous work, but to let the plates tell
their own story, though finally, with the assistance, as is now known, of
William Macgillivray, a text, on the whole more than respectable, was
produced in five large octavos under the title of Ornithological Biography,
of which more will be said in the sequel. Audubon has been greatly
extolled as an ornithological artist ; but he was far too much addicted to
representing his subjects in violent action and in postures that outrage
nature, while his drawing is very frequently defective? In 1866 Mr.
D. G. Elliot began, and in 1869 finished, a sequel to Audubon’s great
work in two volumes, on the same scale—The New and hitherto Unfigured
Species of the Birds of North America, containing life-size figures of all
those which had been added to its fauna since the completion of the
former.

In 1830 John Edward Gray commenced the Illustrations of Indian
Zoology, a series of plates, mostly of Birds, from drawings by native
artists in the collection of General Hardwicke, whose name is therefore
associated with the work. Scientific names are assigned to the species
figured ; but no text was ever supplied. In 1832 Lear, well known as a
painter, brought out his Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidx, a volume
which deserves especial notice from the fidelity to nature and the artistic
skill with which the figures were executed.

This same year (1832) saw the beginning of the marvellous series
of works by which the name of John Gould is likely to be always re-
membered, A Century of Birds from the Himalaya Mountains was
followed by The Birds of Europe, in five volumes, published between
1832 and 1837, while in 1834 appeared A Monograph of the Ramphas-
tide, of which a second edition was some years later called for ; and then
the Icones Aviwm, of which only two parts were published (1837-38),
while A Monograph of the Trogonidz (1888), also reached a second edition
(1858-75). In 1837-38 he also brought out the first two parts of his
Birds of Australia, but speedily perceiving that he could not do justice
to the ornithology of the vast island-continent without visiting it, he
suspended the publication, and in 1838 sailed for New South Wales.
Returning thence in 1840, he at once cancelled the portion he had
issued and commenced anew this, the greatest of all his works, which was

1 In contrast to this, the largest of ornithological works, I may mention a
Histoire Naturelle en Miniature de de [sic] 48 Oiseaux (96 pp. Paris : 1816). The
only copy I have seen appears to be in the original calf binding, and measures 2°6 by
2°15 inches. I am indebted for the loan of it to Mr. Robert Service.

* On the completion of these two works, for they must be regarded as distinct,
an octavo edition in seven volumes under the title of Zhe Birds of America was
published in 1840-44, In this the large plates were reduced by means of the

camera lucida,” the text was revised, and the whole systematically arranged.
Other reprints have since been issued, but they are vastly inferior both in execution

and value, A sequel to the octavo Birds of America, corresponding with it in form,

was brought out in 1853-55 by Cassin as Illustrations of the Birds of California
Texas, Oregon, British and Russian America.

INTRODUCTION 25

finished in 1848 in seven volumes, to which five supplementary parts,
forming another volume, were subsequently (1851-69) added. In 1849
he began A Monograph of the Trochilide or Humming-birds, extending to
five volumes, the last of which appeared in 1861, and has since been
followed by a supplement by Dr. Sharpe, who since the author’s death in
1881 has completed The Birds of Asia, in seven volumes (1850-83), and
The Birds of New Guinea, begun in 1875. A Monograph of the Odonto-
phorine or Partridges of America (1844-50), and The Birds of Great Britain,
in five volumes (1862-73) make up the wonderful tale consisting of
more than forty folio volumes, and containing more than 3000 coloured
plates! The earlier of these works were illustrated by Mrs. Gould, and
the figures in them are fairly good ; but those in the later, except when
(as he occasionally did) he secured the services of Mr. Wolf, are not so
much to be commended. There is, it is true, a smoothness and finish
about them not often seen elsewhere; but, as though to avoid the
exaggerations of Audubon, Gould usually adopted the tamest of attitudes
in which to represent his subjects, whereby expression as well as vivacity
is wanting. Moreover, both in drawing and in colouring there is fre-
quently much that is untrue to nature, so that it has not uncommonly
happened for them to fail in the chief object of all zoological plates, that
of affording sure means of recognizing specimens on comparison. In
estimating the letterpress, which was avowedly held to be of secondary
importance to the plates, we must bear in mind that, to ensure the
success of his works, it had to be written to suit a very peculiarly com-
posed body of subscribers. Nevertheless a scientific character was so
adroitly assumed that scientific men—some of them even ornithologists—
have thence been led to believe the text had a scientific value, and that of
a high class. However it must also be remembered that, throughout the
whole of his career, Gould consulted the convenience of working orni-
thologists by almost invariably refraining from including in his folio
works the technical description of any new species without first pub-
lishing it in some journal of comparatively easy access.

An ambitious attempt to produce in England a general series of
coloured plates on a large scale was Fraser’s Zoologia Typica, the first
part of which bears date 1841-42. Others appeared at irregular inter-
vals until 1849, when the work, which never received the support it
deserved, was discontinued. The 70 plates (46 of which represent
Birds) composing, with some explanatory letterpress, the volume are by C,
Cousens and H. N. Turner,—the latter (as his publications prove) a zoologist
of much promise, who in 1851 died of a wound received in dissecting.
The chief object of the author, who had been naturalist to the Niger
Expedition, and curator to the Museum of the Zoological Society of
London, was to figure the animals contained in its gardens or described
in its Proceedings, which until the year 1848 were not illustrated.

The publication of the Zoological Sketches of Mr. Wolf, from animals

1 In 1850 Mr. F. H. Waterhouse brought out a careful pamphlet shewing The
Dates of Publication of some of Gould’s works, and in 1893 Dr. Sharpe an Analytical
Index to them. It is books of this kind that place the literature of ornithology so
far in advance of that relating to any other branch of zoology.

26 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

in the gardens of the Zoological Society, was begun about 1855, with a
brief text by Mitchell, at that time the Society’s secretary, in illustra-
tion of them. After his death in 1859, the explanatory letterpress was
rewritten by Mr. Sclater, his successor in that office, and a volume was
completed in 1861. Upon this a second series was commenced, and
brought to an end in 1868. Though a comparatively small number of
species of Birds are figured in this magnificent work (17 only in the
first series, and 22 in the second), it must be mentioned here, for their
likenesses are so admirably executed as to place it in regard to orni-
thological portraiture at the head of all others. There is not a plate
that is unworthy of the greatest of all animal painters.

Proceeding to illustrated works generally of less pretentious size
but of greater ornithological utility than the books last mentioned,
which are fitter for the drawing-room than the study, we next have to
consider some in which the text is not wholly subordinated to the
plates, though the latter still form a conspicuous feature of the pub-
lication. First of these in point of time as well as in importance is
the Nouveau Recueil des Planches Coloriés @Otseauaz of Ternminck and
Laugier, intended as a sequel to the Planches Enluminees of D’Aubenton
before noticed, and like that work issued both in folio and quarto size.
The first portion of this was published at Paris in 1820, and of its 102
livraisons, which appeared with great irregularity (Ibis, 1868, p. 500),
the last was issued in 1839, containing the titles of the five volumes
that the whole forms, together with a “Tableau Méthodique,” which
but indifferently serves the purpose of an index. There are 600 plates,
but the exact number of species figured (which has been computed at
661) is not so easily ascertained. Generally the subject of each plate
has letterpress to correspond, but in some cases this is wanting, while on
the other hand descriptions of species not figured are occasionally intro-
duced, and usually observations on the distribution and construction of
each genus or group are added. The plates, which shew no improve-
ment on those of Martinet, are after drawings by Huet and Prétre, the
former being perhaps the less bad draughtsman of the two, for he seems
to have had an idea of what a bird when alive looks like, though he
was not able to give his figures any vitality, while the latter simply
delineated the stiff and dishevelled specimens from museum shelves.
Still the colouring is pretty well done, and experience has proved that
generally speaking there is not much difficulty in recognizing the species
represented. The letterpress is commonly limited to technical details,
and is not always accurate; but it is of its kind useful, for in general
knowledge of the outside of Birds Temminck probably surpassed any of
his contemporaries. The “Tableau Méthodique” offers a convenient
concordance of the old Planches Enluminés and its successor, and is
arranged after the system set forth by Temminck in the first volume of
the second edition of his Manuel @’ Ornithologie, of which more presently. ,

The Galérie des Oiseaux, a rival work, with plates by Oudart, seems to
have been begun immediately after the former. The original project was
apparently to give a figure and description of every species of Bird; but
that was soon found to be impossible; and, when six parts had been issued,

INTRODUCTION 27

with text by some unnamed author, the scheme was brought within prac-
ticable limits, and the writing of the letterpress was entrusted to Vieillot,
who, proceeding on a systematic plan, performed his task very creditably,
completing the work, which forms two quarto volumes, in 1825, the original
text and 57 plates being relegated to the end of the second volume as a sup-
plement. His portion is illustrated by 299 coloured plates that, wretched
as they are, have been continually reproduced in various text-books—a
fact; possibly due to their subjects having been judiciously selected. It is
a tradition that, this work not being favourably regarded by the authorities
of the Paris Museum, its draughtsman and author were refused closer
access to the specimens required, and had to draw and describe them
through the glass as they stood on the shelves of the cases. .

In 1827 Jardine and Selby began a series of Illustrations of
Ornithology, the several parts of which appeared at long and irregular
intervals, so that it was not until 1835 that three volumes containing
150 plates were completed. Then they set about a Second Series, which,
forming a single volume with 53 plates, was finished in 1843.1 These
authors, being zealous amateur artists, were for the most part their own
draughtsmen and engravers. In 1828 James Wilson began, under the
title of Illustrations of Zoology, the publication of a series of his own
drawings (which he did not, however, himself engrave) with corresponding
letterpress. Of the 36 plates illustrating this volume, a small folio, 20
are devoted to Ornithology, and contain figures, not very successful, of
several species rare at the time.

Though the three works last mentioned fairly come under the same
category as the Planches Enluminées and the Planches Coloriées, no one of
them can be properly deemed their rightful heir. The claim to that
succession was made in 1845 by Des Murs for his Iconographie Ornitho-
logique, which, containing 72 plates by Prévot and Oudart? (the latter of
whom had marvellously improved in his drawings since he worked with
Vieillot), was completed in 1849. Simultaneously with this Du Bus
began a work on a plan precisely similar, the Hsquisses Ornithologiques,
illustrated by Severeyns, which, however, stopped short in 1849 with its
37th plate, while the letterpress unfortunately does not go beyond that
belonging to the 20th. In 1866 the succession was again taken up by the
Exotic Ornithology of Messrs. Sclater and Salvin, containing 100 plates,
representing 104 species, all from Central or South America, which
are neatly executed by Mr. Smit. The accompanying letterpress is in
some places copious, and useful lists of the species of various genera are
occasionally subjoined, adding to the definite value of the work, which,
forming one volume, was completed in 1869.

Lastly here must be mentioned Rowley’s Ornithological Miscellany, in
three quarto volumes, profusely illustrated, which appeared between 1875
and 1878. The contents are as varied as the authorship, and, most of
the leading English ornithologists having contributed to the work, some
of the papers are extremely good, while in the plates, which are in Mr.

1 Gf. Sherborn, Jbis, 1894, p. 326.

2 On the title-page credit is given to the latter alone, but only two-thirds of the
plates (from pl. 25 to the end) bear his name.

28 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Keulemans’s best manner, many rare species of Birds are figured, some of
them for the first time.

All the works lately named have been purposely treated at some
length, since being costly they are not easily accessible. The few next
to be mentioned, being of smaller size (octavo), may be within reach of
more persons, and therefore can be passed over in a briefer fashion without
detriment. In many ways, however, they are nearly as important.
Swainson’s Zoological Illustrations, in three volumes, containing 182
plates, whereof 70 represent Birds, appeared between 1820 and 1821,
and in 1829 a Second Series of the same was begun by him, which,
extending to another three volumes, contained 48 more plates of Birds
out of 136, and was completed in 1833. All the figures were drawn by
the author, who as an ornithological artist had no rival in his time.
Every plate is not beyond criticism, but his worst drawings shew more
knowledge of bird-life than do the best of his English or French con-
temporaries, A work of somewhat similar character, but one in which
the letterpress is of greater value, is the Centurie Zoologique of Lesson, a
single volume that though bearing the date 1830 on its title-page, is
believed to have been begun in 1829,! and was certainly not finished
until 1831. It received the benefit of Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire’s
assistance. Notwithstanding its name it only contains 80 plates, but of
them 42, all by Prétre and in his usual stiff style, represent Birds.
Concurrently with this volume appeared Lesson’s Traité d’ Ornithologie,
which is dated 1831, and may perhaps be here most conveniently
mentioned, Its professedly systematic form strictly relegates it to
another group of works, but the presence of an “ Atlas” (also in octavo)
of 119 plates to some extent justifies its notice in this place. Between
1831 and 1834 the same author brought out, in continuation of his
Centurve, his Illustrations de Zoologie with 60 plates, 20 of which represent
Birds, In 1832 Kittlitz began to publish some Kupfertafeln zur Natur-
geschichte der Vogel, in which many new species are figured ; but the work
came to an end with its 36th plate in the following year. In 1845
Reichenbach commenced with his Praktische Naturgeschichte der Vogel the
extraordinary series of illustrated publications which, under titles far too
numerous here to repeat, ended in or about 1855, and are commonly
known collectively as his Vollsttindigste Naturgeschichte der Vogel.2, Herein
are contained more than 900 coloured and more than 100 uncoloured
plates, which are crowded with the figures of Birds, a large proportion of
them reduced copies from other works, and especially those of Gould.

It now behoves us to turn to general and particularly systematic
works in which plates, if they exist at all, form but an accessory to the
text. These need not detain us for long, since, however well some of
them may have been executed, regard being had to their epoch, and
whatever repute some of them may have achieved, they are, so far as
general information and especially classification is concerned, wholly

1 In 1828 he had brought out, under the title of Manuel d’ Ornithologie, two handy
duodecimos which are very good of their kind.

* Technically speaking they are in quarto, but their size is so small that they may
be well spoken of here. In 1879 Dr. A. B. Meyer brought out an Index to them,

INTRODUCTION 29

obsolete, and most of them almost useless except as matters of antiquarian
interest. It will be enough merely to name Duméril’s Zoologie Analytique
(1806) and Gravenhorst’s Vergleichende Uebersicht des linneischen und einiger
neuern zooloyischen Systeme (1807); nor need we linger over Shaw’s
General Zoology, a pretentious compilation continued by Stephens. The
last seven of its fourteen volumes include the Class Aves, and the first
part of them appeared in 1809, but, the original author dying in 1815,
when only two volumes of Birds were published, the remainder was
brought to an end in 1826 by his successor, who afterwards became
well known as an entomologist. The engravings which these volumes
contain are mostly bad copies, often of bad figures, though many are
piracies from Bewick, and the whole is a most unsatisfactory performance.
Of a very different kind is the next we have to notice, the Prodromus
Systematis Mammalium et Aviwm of Illiger, published at Berlin in 1811,
which must in its day have been a valuable little manual, and on many
points it may now be consulted to advantage—the characters of the
genera being admirably given, and good explanatory lists of the technical
terms of Ornithology furnished. The classification was quite new, and
made a step distinctly in advance of anything that had before appeared.
In 1816 Vieillot published at Paris an Analyse dune nouvelle Ornithologie
élémentaire, containing a method of classification which he had tried in
vain to get printed before, both in Turin and in London.? Some of the
ideas in this are said to have been taken from Illiger; but the two
systems seem to be wholly distinct. Vieillot’s was afterwards more
fully expounded in the series of articles which he contributed between
1816 and 1819 to the Second Edition of the Nouveaw Dictionnaire
d Histoire Naturelle, containing much valuable information. The views
of neither of these systematizers pleased Temminck, who in 1817 replied
rather sharply to Vieillot in some Observations sur la Classification métho-
dique des Otseaux, a pamphlet published at Amsterdam, and prefixed to
the second edition of his Manuel d’ Ornithologie, which appeared in 1820,
an Analyse du Systeme Géuéral @ Ornithologie. This proved a great success,
and his arrangement, though by no means simple,’ was not only adopted
by many ornithologists of almost every country, but still has some
adherents. The following year Ranzani of Bologna, in his Elementi di

1 Tlliger may be considered the founder of the school of somenclatural purists.
He would not tolerate any of the “ barbarous” generic terms adopted by other writers,
though some had been in use for many years.

2 The method was communicated to the Turin Academy, 10th January 1814, and
was ordered to be printed (Mém. Ac. Sc. Turin, 1813-14, p. xxviii.) ; but, through
the derangements of that stormy period, the order was never carried out (em. Accad.
Sc. Torino, xxiii. p. xcvii.). The minute-book of the Linnean Society of London shews
that his Prolusio was read at meetings of that Society between 15th November 1814
and 21st February 1815. Why it was not at once accepted is not told, but the entry
respecting it, which must be of much later date, in the “Register of Papers” is
‘Published already.” It is due to Vieillot to mention these facts, as he has been
accused of publishing his method in haste to anticipate some of Cuvier’s views, but he
might well complain of the delay in London. Some reparation has been made to his
memory by the reprinting of his Analyse by the Willughby Society.

% He recognized sixteen Orders of Birds, while Vieillot had been content with five.
and Illiger with seven.

d

jo DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

SS Ee SS SS

Zoologia—a very respectable compilation—came to treat of Birds, and
then followed to some extent the plan of De Blainville and Merrem
(concerning which much more has to be said by and by) placing the
“Struthious” Birds in an Order by themselves! In 1827 Wagler
brought out the first part of a Systema Avium, in this form never com-
pleted, consisting of 49 detached monographs of as many genera,
the species of which are most elaborately described. The arrangement
he subsequently adopted for them and for other groups is to be found
in his Natiirliches System der Amphibien (pp. 77-128), published in 1830,
and is too fanciful to require any further attention. The several attempts
at system-making by Kaup, from his Allgemeine Zoologie in 1829 to his
Ueber Classification der Vogel in 1849, were equally arbitrary and abortive ;
but his Skizzirte Entwickelungs-Geschichte in 1829 must be here named, as
it is so often quoted on account of the number of new genera which the
peculiar views he had embraced compelled him to invent. These views
he shared more or less with Vigors and Swainson, and to them attention
will be immediately especially invited, while consideration of the scheme
gradually developed from 1831 onward by Charles Lucien Bonaparte,
and still not without its influence, is deferred until we come to treat of
the rise and progress of what we may term the reformed school of Ornitho-
logy. Yet injustice would be done to one of the ablest of those now to
be called the old masters of the science if mention were not here made of
the Conspectus Generum Avium, begun in 1850 by the naturalist last named,
with the help of Schlegel, and unfortunately interrupted by its author’s
death six years later.2 The systematic publications of George Robert
Gray, so long in charge of the ornithological collection of the British
Museum, began with A List of the Genera of Birds published in 1840.
This, having been closely, though by no means in a hostile spirit,
criticized by Strickland (Ann. Nat. Hist. vi. p. 410; vii. pp. 26 and 159),
was followed by a Second Edition in 1841, in which nearly all the
corrections of the reviewer were adopted, and in 1844 began the publica-
tion of The Genera of Birds, beautifully illustrated—first by Mitchell and
afterwards by Mr. Wolf—which will always keep Gray’s name in
remembrance. The enormous labour required for this work seems
scarcely to have been appreciated, though it remains to this day one of
the most useful books in an ornithologist’s library. Yet it must be
confessed that its author was hardly an ornithologist but for the accident
of his calling. He was a thoroughly conscientious clerk, devoted to his
duty and unsparing of trouble. However, to have conceived the idea of
executing a work on so grand a scale as this—it forms three folio volumes,
and contains 185 coloured and 148 uncoloured plates, with references to
upwards of 2400 generic names—was in itself a mark of genius, and it
was brought to a successful conclusion in 1849.3 Costly as it necessarily

1 The classification of Latreille in 1825 (Familles Naturelles du Réegne Animal,
pp. 67-88) needs naming only, for the author, great as an entomologist, had no special

knowledge of Birds, and his greatest merit, that of placing Opisthocomus next to the
Gallinw, was perhaps a happy accident.

2 To this indispensable work a good index was supplied in 1865 by Dr. Finsch.
: iF Capt. Thomas Browne’s Illustration of the Genera of Birds, begun in 1845 in
imitation of Gray’s work, is discreditable to all concerned with it. It soon ceased to

INTRODUCTION 31

was, it has been of great service to working ornithologists. In 1855
Gray brought out, as one of the Museum publications, A Catalogue of the
Genera and Subgenera of Birds, a handy little volume, naturally founded
on the larger works. Its chief drawback is that it does not give any
more reference to the authority for a generic term than the name of its
inventor and the year of its application, though of course more precise
information would have at least doubled the size of the book. The same
deficiency became still more apparent when, between 1869 and 1871, he
published his Hand-List of Genera and Species of Birds in three octavo
volumes (or parts, as they are called). Never was a book better named,
for the working ornithologist must almost live with it in his hand, and
though he has constantly to deplore its shortcomings, one of which
especially is the wrong principle on which its index is constructed, he
should be thankful that such a work exists. Many of its defects are, or
perhaps it were better said ought to be, supplied by Giebel’s Thesaurus
Ornithologiz, also in three volumes (1872-77), a work admirably planned,
but the execution of which, whether through the author’s carelessness or
the printer’s fault, or a combination of both, is lamentably disappointing.
Again and again it will afford the enquirer who consults it valuable
hints, but he must be mindful never to trust a single reference in it
until it has been verified. It remains to warn the reader also that, useful
as are both this work and those of Gray, their utility is almost solely
confined to experts.

With the exception to which reference has just been made, scarcely
any of the ornithologists hitherto named indulged their imagination in
theories or speculations, Nearly all were content to prosecute their
labours in a plain fashion consistent with common sense, plodding steadily
onwards in their efforts to describe and group the various species, as one
after another they were made known. But this was not always to be,
and now a few words must be said respecting a theory which was pro-
mulgated with great zeal by its upholders during the end of the first and
early part of the second quarter of the present century, and for some
years seemed likely to carry all before it. The success it gained was
doubtless due in some degree to the difficulty which most men had in
comprehending it, for it was enwrapped in alluring mystery, but more
to the confidence with which it was announced as being the long looked-
for key to the wonders of creation, since its promoters did not hesitate to
term it the discovery of “the Natural System,” though they condescended,
by way of explanation to less exalted intellects than their own, to allow
it the more moderate appellation of the Circular or Quinary System.

A comparison of the relation of created beings to a number of inter-
secting circles is as old as the days of Nieremberg, who in 1635 wrote
(Historia Nature, lib, iii. cap. 3)—“ Nullus hiatus est, nulla fractio, nulla
dispersio formarum, invicem connexa sunt velut annulus annulo” ; but
it is almost clear that he was thinking only of a chain. In 1806 Fischer
de Waldheim, in his Tableaua Synoptiques de Zoognosie (p. 181), quoting
appear and remains incomplete. Had it been finished it would have been useless,

The author had before (1831) attempted a similar act of piracy upon Wilson’s
American Ornithology.

j2 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Nieremberg, extended his figure of speech, and, while justly deprecating
the notion that the series of forms belonging to any particular group of
creatures—the Mammalia was that whence he took his instance—-could be
placed in a straight line, imagined the various genera to be arrayed in a
series of contiguous circles around Man as a centre. Though there is
nothing to shew that Fischer intended, by what is here said, to do any-
thing else than illustrate more fully the marvellous interconnexion of
different animals, or that he attached any realistic meaning to his
metaphor, his words were eagerly caught up by the prophet of the new
faith. This was William Sharpe Macleay, a man of education and real
genius, who in 1819 and 1821 brought out a work under the title of
Hor Entomologice, which was soon after hailed by Vigors as containing
a new revelation, and applied by him to Ornithology in some “ Observa-
tions on the Natural Affinities that connect the Orders and Families of
Birds,” read before the Linnean Society of London in 1823, and after-
wards published in its 7ransactions (xiv. pp. 395-517). In the following
year Vigors returned to the subject in some papers published in the
recently established Zoological Journal, and found an energetic condisciple
and coadjutor in Swainson, who, for more than a dozen years—to the
end, in fact, of his career as an ornithological writer—was instant in
season and out of season in pressing on all his readers the views he had,
through Vigors, adopted from Macleay, though not without some modi-
fication of detail if not of principle. What these views were it would be
manifestly improper for a sceptic to state except in the terms of a
believer. Their enunciation must, therefore, be given in Swainson’s own
words, though it must be admitted that space cannot be found here for
the diagrams, which it was alleged were necessary for the right under-
standing of the theory. This theory, as originally propounded by
Macleay, was said by Swainson in 1835 (Geogr. and Classific. of Animals,
p- 202) to have consisted of the following propositions :1—

“1, That the series of natural animals is continuous, forming, as it were, a circle ;
so that, upon commencing at any one given point, and thence tracing all the
modifications of structure, we shall be imperceptibly led, after passing through
numerous forms, again to the point from which we started.

“2. That no groups are natural which do not exhibit, or shew an evident tend-
ency to exhibit, such a circular series.

“3, That the primary divisions of every large group are ten, five of which are
composed of comparatively large circles, and five of smaller: these latter being
termed osculant, and being intermediate between the former, which they serve to
connect.

“4, That there is a tendency in such groups as are placed at the opposite points
of a circle of affinity ‘to meet each other.’

“5, That one of the five larger groups into which every natural circle is divided
“bears a resemblance to all the rest, or, more strictly speaking, consists of types

which represent those of each of the four other groups, together with a type peculiar
to itself.’ ”

As subsequently modified by Swainson (tom. ctt. pp. 224, 225), the
foregoing propositions take the following form ;—

1 I prefer, giving them here in Swainson’s version, because he seems to have set
them forth more clearly and concisely than Macleay ever did, and, moreover, Swain-
son’s application of them to Ornithology—a branch of science that lay outside of
Macleay’s proper studies—appears to be more suitable to the present occasion,

INTRODUCTION 33

“T. That every natural series of beings, in its progress from a given point, either
actually returns, or evinces a tendency to return, again to that point, thereby
forming a circle.

“Tf. The primary circular divisions of every group are three actually, or five
apparently.

“JII. The contents of such a circular group are symbolically (or analogically)
represented by the contents of all other circles in the animal kingdom.

“TV. That these primary divisions of every group are characterized by definite
peculiarities of form, structure and economy, which, under diversified modifications,
are uniform throughout the animal kingdom, and are therefore to be regarded as the
PRIMARY TYPES OF NATURE.

“Vv. That the different ranks or degrees of circular groups exhibited in the
animal kingdom are NINE in number, each being involved within the other.”

Though, as above stated, the theory thus promulgated owed its
temporary success chiefly to the extraordinary assurance and pertinacity
with which it was urged upon a public generally incapable of under-
standing what it meant, that it received some support from men of
science must be admitted. A “circular system” was advocated by the
eminent botanist Fries, and the views of Macleay met with the partial
approbation of the celebrated entomologist Kirby, while at least as much
may be said of the imaginative Oken, whose mysticism far surpassed that
of the Quinarians. But it is obvious to every one who nowadays in-
dulges in the profitless pastime of studying their writings that, as a
whole, they failed in grasping the essential difference between homology
(or “affinity,” as they generally termed it) and analogy (which is only a
learned name for an uncertain kind of resemblance)—though this differ-
ence had been fully understood and set forth by Aristotle himself—and,
moreover, that in seeking for analogies on which to base their foregone
conclusions they were often put to hard shifts. Another singular fact is
that they often seemed to be totally unaware of the tendency if not the
meaning of some of their own expressions; thus Macleay could write,
and doubtless in perfect good faith (Trans. Linn. Soc. xvi. p. 9, note),
“Naturalists have nothing to do with mysticism, and but little with
@ priort reasoning.” Yet his followers, if not he himself, were ever
making use of- language in the highest degree metaphorical, and were
always explaining facts in accordance with preconceived opinions.
Fleming, already the author of a harmless and extremely orthodox
Philosophy of Zoology, pointed out in 1829 in the Quarterly Review
(xli. pp. 302-327) some of the fallacies of Macleay’s method, and in
return provoked from him a reply, in the form of a letter addressed to
Vigors On the Dying Struggle of the Dichotomous System, couched in lan-
guage the force of which no one even at the present day can deny,
though to the modern naturalist its invective power contrasts ludicrously
with the strength of its ratiocination. But, confining ourselves to what
is here our special business, it is to be remarked that perhaps the heaviest
blow dealt at these strange doctrines was that delivered by Rennie, who,
in an edition of Montagw’s Ornithological Dictionary (pp. xxxiii.-lv.),
published in 1831 and again issued in 18338, attacked the Quinary
System, and especially its application to Ornithology by Vigors and
Swainson, in a way that might perhaps have demolished it, had not the
author mingled with his undoubtedly sound reasoning much that is

54 DICTIONARY “OF BIRDS.

foreign to any question with which a naturalist, as such, ought to deal—
though that herein he was only following the example of one of his
opponents, who had constantly treated the subject in like manner, is to
be allowed. This did not hinder Swainson, who had succeeded in
getting the ornithological portion of the first zoological work ever pub-
lished at the expense of the British Government (namely, the Fauna
Boreali-Americana) executed in accordance with his own opinions, from
maintaining them more strongly than ever in several of the volumes treat-
ing of Natural History which he contributed to the Cabinet Cyclopedia—
among others that from which we have just given some extracts—and in
what may be deemed the culmination in England of the Quinary System,
the volume of the ‘ Naturalist’s Library” on The Natural Arrangement
and History of Flycatchers (1838), an unhappy performance mentioned in
the body of the present work (p. 274, note). This seems to have been
his last attempt ; for, two years later, his Bibliography of Zoology shews
little trace of his favourite theory, though nothing he had uttered in its
support was retracted. Appearing almost simultaneously with that
work, an article by Strickland (Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, iv. pp. 219-226),
entitled Observations upon the Affinities and Analogies of Organized Beings,
administered to the theory a shock from which it never recovered,
though attempts were now and then made by its adherents to revive it ;
and, even ten years or more later, Kaup, one of the few foreign orni-
thologists who had embraced Quinary principles, was by mistaken kind-
ness allowed to publish Monographs of the Birds-of-Prey (Jardine’s Contr.
Orn. 1849, pp. 68-75, 96-121 ; 1850, pp. 51-80; 1851, pp. 119-130 ;
1852, pp. 103-1225 and Trans. Zool. Soc. iv. pp. 201-260), in which its
absurdity reached the climax.

The mischief caused by this theory of a Quinary System was very
great, but was chiefly confined to Britain, for (as already stated) the
extraordinary views of its adherents found little favour on the continent
of Europe. The purely artificial character of the System of Linneus
and his successors had been perceived, and men were at a loss to find a
substitute for it. The new doctrine, loudly proclaiming the discovery of
a “Natural” System, led away many from the steady practice which
should have followed the teaching of Cuvier (though he in Ornithology
had not been able to act up to the principles he had laid down) and from
the extended study of Comparative Anatomy. Moreover, it veiled the
honest attempts that were making both in France and Germany to find
real grounds for establishing an improved state of things, and conse-
quently the labours of De Blainville, Etienne Geoffroy St.-Hilaire,
and L’Herminier, of Merrem, Johannes Miiller and Nitzsch—to say
nothing of others—were almost wholly unknown on this side of the
Channel, and even the value of the investigations of British ornithotom-
ists of high merit, such as Macartney and Macgillivray, was almost
completely overlooked. True it is that there were not wanting other
men in these islands whose common sense refused to accept the meta-
phorical doctrine and the mystical jargon of the Quinarians, but so
strenuously and persistently had the latter asserted their infallibility,
and so vigorously had they assailed any who ventured to doubt it, that

INTRODUCTION Bo)

most peaceable ornithologists found it best to bend to the furious blast,
and in some sort to acquiesce at least in the phraseology of the self-
styled interpreters of Creative Will. But, while thus lamenting this
unfortunate perversion into a mistaken channel of ornithological energy,
we must not over-blame those who caused it. Macleay indeed never
pretended to a high position in this branch of science, his tastes lying in
the direction of Entomology ;-but few of their countrymen knew more
of Birds than did Swainson and Vigors ; and, while the latter, as editor
for many years of the Zoological Journal, and the first Secretary of the
Zoological Society, has especial claims to the regard of all zoologists, so
the former’s indefatigable pursuit of Natural History, and conscientious
labour in its behalf—among other ways by means of his graceful pencil
—deserve to be remembered as a set-off against the injury he unwittingly
caused,

It is now incumbent upon us to take a rapid survey of the orni-

thological works which come more or less under the designation of
“Faun” ;! but these are so numerous that it will be necessary to limit
this survey, as before indicated, to those countries alone which form the
homes of English people, or are commonly visited by them in ordinary
travel.
Beginning with our Antipodes, it is hardly needful to go further
back than Sir Walter Buller’s beautiful Birds of New Zealand (Ato,
1872-73; ed. 2, 2 vols. 1888), with coloured plates by Mr. Keulemans,
and the same author’s Manual of the Birds of New Zealand (8vo, 1882),
founded on the former; but justice requires that mention be made of
the labours of G. R. Gray, first in the Appendix to Dieffenbach’s Travels
in New Zealand (1848) and then in the ornithological portion of the
Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Erebus’ and ‘ Terror, begun in 1844,
but left unfinished from the following year until completed by Dr.
Sharpe in 1876. A considerable number of valuable papers on the
Ornithology of the country by Sir James Hector and Sir Julius Von
Haast, Prof. Hutton, Mr. Potts and others are to be found in the Trans-
actions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute.

Passing to Australia, we have the first good description of some of its
Birds in the several old voyages and in Latham’s works before men-
tioned. Shaw’s Zoology of New Holland (4to, 1794), though unfinished,
- added that of a few more, as did J. W. Lewin’s Birds of New Holland
(4to, London : 1808), of which, under the title of A Natural History of
the Birds of New South Wales, a second edition, with 26 instead of 18
plates, appeared in 1822, the year after the author’s death, and a third
with additions by Eyton, Gould and others in 1838. Gould’s great
Dirds of Australia has been already named, and he subsequently repro-
duced with some additions the text of that work under the title of
Handbook to the Birds of Australia (2 vols. 8vo, 1865). In 1866 Mr.
Diggles commenced a similar publication, The Ornithology of Australia,
but the coloured plates are not comparable with those of his predecessor.
This is still incomplete, though the parts that appeared were collected to

1 A very useful list of more gencral scope is given as the Appendix to an Address
by Mr. Sclater to the British Association in 1875 (Report, pt. ii. pp. 114-188).

36 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

form two volumes and issued (Brisbane: 1877) with title-pages. Many
notices of Australian Birds by Dr. Ramsay, Messrs. A. J. North, K. H.
Bennett and others are to be found in the Records of the Australian
Museum, the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, of
the Royal Society of Victoria and of that of Tasmania! Papers by Mr.
Devis on the ornithology of British New Guinea have appeared in the
Annual Reports on that Dependency presented to the parliament of
Queensland, and in their original form are hardly accessible to the ordinary
ornithologist.

Coming to our Indian possessions, and beginning with Ceylon, we
have Kelaart’s Prodromus Faunx Zeylanicxe (8vo, 1852), and the admirable
Birds of Ceylon by Col. Legge (4to, 1878-80), with coloured plates by Mr,
Keulemans of all the peculiar species. One can hardly name a book
that has been more conscientiously executed than this. In regard to
continental India many of the more important publications have been
named in the body of this work (pages 356, 357), but Blyth’s Mammals
and Birds of Burma (8vo, 1875) * should be especially noticed, as well as
the fact that since the return of Mr. Oates to the East, the ornithological
part of the Fauna of British India is being continued by Mr. Blanford,
though Jerdon’s classical work will always remain of value, notwith-
standing that it no longer reigns supreme as the sole comprehensive work
on the Ornithology of the Peninsula.?

In regard to South Africa there is little to be added to the works
mentioned (pages 347, 351, 352); but in 1896 Capt. Shelley brought out
a List of African Birds, which, it is hoped, may be the forerunner of a
series of volumes on Ethiopian Ornithology. It is much to be regretted
that of the numerous sporting books that treat of this part of the world
so few give any important information respecting the Birds,

Of special works relating to the British West Indies, Waterton’s
well-known JVanderings has passed through several editions since its
first appearance in 1825, and must be mentioned here, though, strictly
speaking, much of the country he traversed was not British territory.
To Dr. Cabanis we are indebted for the ornithological results of Richard
Schomburgk’s researches given in the third volume (pp. 662-765) of the
latter’s Reisen im Britisch-Guiana (8vo, 1848), and then to Léotaud’s
Oiseaux de Vile de la Trinidad (8vo, 1866). Of the Antilles there is to
be named Gosse’s excellent Birds of Jamaica (12mo0, 1847), together with
its Illustrations (sm. fol. 1849) beautifully executed by him. A nominal

1 Dr. Ramsay hasa Tabular List of Australian Birds (ed. 2, Sydney: 1888).
Mr. North’s contributions have been chiefly on Nidification and Oology, though the
ornithology of the recent ‘ Horn Expedition” has fallen to his share. Mr. Archibald
J. Campbell's Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds (Melbourne: 1883) deserves
especial mention. A convenient Manual of Australian Ornithology is still a great
want, and, if supplied, would undoubtedly advance the knowledge of the wonderful
bird-population of that country, and induce the inhabitants to take greater interest
in it. But the work to be well done must be by Australian hands.

* This is a posthumous publication, nominally forming an extra number of the
Journal of the Asiatic Society.

3 A multitude of papers, some very important, on Indian Ornithology, appeared
in Stray Feathers, a periodical edited between 1877 and 1882 by Mr. A. O. Hume,
of which the eleventh and last volume remains unfinished.

INTRODUCTION 37

list, with references, of the Birds of the island is contained in the
Handbook of Jamaica for 1881 (pp. 103-117) ; while in 1885 Mr. Cory,!
who in 1880 had brought out, at Boston (ed. 2, 1890), a work on the
Birds of the Bahama Islands (not strictly Antillean), published a List of
the Birds of the West Indies, with a revised edition in the following year,
and one still more elaborate, so that the words “List of ” were dropped
from the title, in 1889.

So admirable a “‘List of Faunal Publications relating to North
American Ornithology” up to the year 1878 has been given by Dr.
Coues as an appendix to his Birds of the Colorado Valley (pp. 567-784)
that nothing more of the kind is wanted except to notice some of the
chief separate works which have since appeared, for so prolific are our
American relations that it would be impossible to mention many.
Among those that cannot be overlooked are Mr. Stearns’s New England
Bird Life (2 vols. 8vo, 1881-83), revised by Dr. Coues, and the several
editions of his own Check List of North American Birds (1882), and Key
to North American Birds.2 Then there is the great North American Birds
of the late Prof. Baird, Dr. Brewer and Mr. Ridgway (1874-84), and the
Manual of North American Birds (1887; ed. 2, 1896) by the last of
these authors; beside Capt. Bendire’s Life Histories of North American
Birds (4to, Washington: 1892), beautifully illustrated by figures of their
eggs. Yet some of the older works are still of sufficient importance to
be especially recorded here, and especially that of Alexander Wilson,
whose American Ornithology, originally published between 1808 and 1814,
has gone through many editions, of which mention should be made of
those issued in Great Britain by Jameson (4 vols. 16mo, 1831), and
Jardine (3 vols. 8vo, 1832). The former of these has the entire text,
but no plates ; the latter reproduces the plates, but the text is in places
much condensed, though excellent notes are added. A continuation of
Wilson’s work, under the same title and on the same plan, was issued by
Bonaparte between 1825 and 1833, and most of the later editions
include the work of both authors. The works of Audubon, with their
continuations by Cassin and Mr. Elliot, and the Fauna Boreali-Americana

1 In the same year Mr. Cory also produced the Birds of Haiti and St. Domingo,
supplying a want that had been long felt, since nothing had really been known of
the ornithology of Hispaniola for nearly a century. Gundlach, Lembeye and
Poey are the chief authorities on that of Cuba, while the first has also treated of the
Birds of Porto Rico.

2 The second and revised edition (the first having appeared in 1872, while a fifth
is now in preparation) of this useful work was published in 1884, and contains (pp.
234, 235) a classification of North-American Birds, though being limited to them will
not need detailed notice hereafter; but I may remark that the author very justly
points out (p. 227) the difference, overlooked by many writers of to-day, between
“natural analysis” and the “artificial keys” now so much in vogue, the latter being
merely “an attempt to take the student by a ‘short cut’ to the name and position in
the ornithological system of any specimen” he may wish to determine. Under the
title of Handbook of Field and General Ornithology, the two portions of this work
most valuable to the non-American reader were republished in London in 1890, and
deserve to be far better known among the ornithologists of all countries than they
seem to be, for they give much excellent information not to be found elsewhere.
Many writers on Birds in newspapers and magazines would be often spared some
silly mistakes were they to make acquaintance with Dr. Coues’s little book.

358 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

of Richardson and Swainson have already been noticed ; but they need
naming here, as also does Nuttall’s Manual of the Ornithology of the United
States and of Canada (2 vols. 1832-34; vol. i. ed. 2, 1840); the Birds
of Long Island (8vo, 1844) by Giraud, remarkable for its excellent
account of the habits of shore-birds ; and of course the Birds of North
America (4to, 1858) by Baird, with the co-operation of Cassin and
Lawrence, which originally formed a volume (ix.) of what are known
as the “ Pacific Railroad Reports.” Apart from these special works the
scientific journals of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington
contain innumerable papers on the Ornithology of the country, while in
1876 the Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club began to appear, and
continued until 1884, when it was superseded by The Auk, established
solely for the promotion of Ornithology in America, and numbering
among its supporters almost every American ornithologist of repute, its
present editors being Dr. Allen and Mr. F. M. Chapman.

Of Canada, unfortunately, not much is to be said. It is hard to under-
stand why zoological studies have never found such favour there as further
to the southward, but this is undoubtedly the fact, and no ornithological
work can be cited of which the Dominion as a whole can be proud,
though Mr. M‘Ilwraithe’s Birds of Ontario, of which an enlarged edition
appeared in 1894, is a fair piece of local work.

Returning to the Old World, among the countries whose Ornithology
will most interest British readers we have first Iceland, the fullest—
indeed the only full—account of the Birds of which is Faber’s Prodromus
der isliindischen Ornithologie (8vo, 1822), though the island has since been
visited by several good ornithologists, Proctor, Kriiper and Wolley
among them. A list of its Birds, with some notes, bibliographical and
biological, has been given as an Appendix to Mr. Baring-Gould’s Iceland,
ats Scenes and Sagas (8vo, 1862); and Mr. Shepherd’s North-west Peninsula
of Iceland (8vo, 1867) recounts a somewhat profitless expedition made
thither expressly for ornithological objects.1_ For the Birds of the Feroes
there is Herr H. C. Miiller’s Peréernes Fuglefauwna (8vo, 1862), of which
a German translation has appeared.2 The Ornithology of Norway has
been treated in a great many papers by Herr Collett, some of which may
be said to have been separately published as Norges Fugle (8vo, 1868 ;
with a supplement, 1871), and The Ornithology of Northern Norway (8vo,
1872)—this last in English, while an English translation by Mr. A. H.
Cocks (London : 1894) has been published of one of the author’s latest
works, a popular account of Bird-Life in Arctic Norway, communicated to
the Second International Congress of Ornithology in 1892. For Scandi-
navia generally the latest work is Herr Collin’s Skandinaviens Fugle (8vo,

1 Two papers by Messrs. Backhouse and W. E. Clarke, and Carter and Slater
(Ibis, 1885, p. 864; 1886, p. 45) should be consulted, as well as one by Messrs. H.
J. and C. E. Pearson (op. cit. 1895, pp. 287-249), which gives a list of the species
hitherto recorded there. Herr Gréndal has also a list and an ornithological report on
a (Ornis, 1886, pp. 355, 601), with a dissertation on birds’ names (op. cit. 1887,
p. :

2 Journ. fiir Orn. 1869, pp. 107, 341, 381. One may almost say an English
translation also, for Col. Feilden’s contribution to the Zoologist for 1872 on the same
subject gives the most essential part of Herr Miiller’s information.

INTRODUCTION 39

1873), being a greatly bettered edition of the very moderate Danmarks
Fugle of Kjzrbolling ; but the ornithological portion of Nilsson’s Skandi
navisk Fauna, Foglarna (3rd ed. 2 vols. Svo, 1858) is of great merit ;
while the text of Sundevall’s Svenska Foglarna (obl. fol. 1856-73), un-
fortunately unfinished at his death, but completed in 1886 by Prof.
Kinberg, and Herr Holmgren’s Skandinaviens Foglar (2 vols. 8vo, 1866-
75) deserve naming.

Works on the Birds of Germany are far too numerous to be recounted.
That of the two Naumanns, already mentioned, and yet again to be spoken
of, stands at the head of all, and perhaps at the head of the “Faunal”
works of all countries. For want of space it must here suffice simply to
name some of the ornithologists who in this century have elaborated, to
an extent elsewhere unknown, the science as regards their own country :
—Altum, Baldamus, Bechstein, Berlepsch, Blasius (father and two sons),
Bolle, Borggreve, whose Vogel-Fauna von Norddeutschland (8vo, 1869)
contains what is practically a bibliographical index to the subject, Brehm
(father and sons), Von Droste, Gitke, Gloger, Hintz, Holtz, Alexander
and Eugen von Homeyer, Jiackel, Koch, K6énig-Warthausen, Kriiper,
Kutter, Landbeck, Landois, Leisler, Leverkiihn, Von Maltzan, Matschie,
Bernard Meyer, Von der Miihle, Neumann, Tobias, Johann Wolf and
Zander.! Were we to extend the list beyond the boundaries of the
German empire, and include the ornithologists of Austria, Bohemia and
the other states subject to the same monarch, the number would be nearly
doubled ; but that would overpass our proposed limits, though Von
Pelzeln must be named.? Passing onward to Switzerland, we must con-
tent ourselves by referring to the list of works, forming a bibliographia
Ornithologica Helvetica, drawn up by Dr. Stélker for Dr. Fatio’s Bulletin
de la Société Ornithologique Suisse (ii. pp. 90-119); but the latter has
already published a Catalogue Distributif of Swiss Birds, of which a third
edition appeared in 1892, and in conjunction with Dr. Studer is bringing
out a more elaborate work on the ornithology of the country, of which
two parts have appeared. As to Italy, we have to name here the Fauna
dItalia, of which the second part, Uccelli (8vo, 1872), by Count T.
Salvadori, contained an excellent bibliography of Italian works on the
subject, while his Elenco degli Uccellt Italiani (Genova: 1887) is drawn up
with his characteristic thoroughness. Then there is the posthumously
published Ornitologia Italiana of Savi (3 vols, 8vo, 1873-77). But the
country rejoices in what may be called an official Ornithology. This is
the Avifauna Italica of Prof. Giglioli, and consists of four volumes pub-

1 This is of course no complete list of German ornithologists. Some of the most
eminent cf them have written scarcely a line on the Birds of their own country, as
Cabanis (editor from 1853 to 1898 of the Journal fiir Ornithologie), Finsch, Hartlaub,
Hartert, Heine, A. Kénig, Prince Max of Wied, A. B. Meyer, Nathusius, Nehrkorn,
Reichenbach and Schalow among others. In 1889 Dr. Reichenow, of whom more
hereafter, published a convenient Systematisches Verzeichniss der Vigel Deutschlands
und des angrenzenden Mittel-Europas.

2 An ornithological bibliography of the Austrian-Hungarian dominions was printed
in the Verhandlungen of the Zoological and Botanical Society of Vienna for 1878,
by Victor Ritter von Tschusi zu Schmidhofen. A similar bibliography of Russian
Ornithology by Alexander Brandt was printed at St. Petersburg in 1877 or 1878.

4O DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

lished at Florence between 1886 and 1891, in which the subject is treated
in the greatest detail, owing to the multitude of observers by whom the
author was assisted, with the result that Ornithology stands in Italy on a
footing different from that which it occupies in any other nation. But it
is pleasing to observe that this official recognition has not checked inde-
pendent work, and the number of local Italian faunas is far too great
to be here particularized.!. Coming to the Iberian peninsula, we must in
default of separate works depart from our rule of not mentioning contribu-
tions to journals, for of the former there are only Col. Irby’s Ornithology
of the Straits of Gibraltar (8vo, 1875 ; ed. 2, 1895)? and Mr. A. C. Smith’s
Spring Tour in Portugal® to be named, and these but partially cover the
ground. However, Dr. A. E. Brehm has published a list of Spanish Birds
(Allgem. deutsche Naturhist. Zeitung, iii. p. 431), and The Ibis contains
several excellent papers by Lord Lilford and by Mr. Saunders, the latter
of whom there records (1871, p. 55) the few works on Ornithology by
Spanish authors, and in the Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France (i.
p. 315; ii. pp. 11, 89, 185) has given a list of the Spanish Birds known
to him.4

Returning northwards, we have of the Birds of the whole of France,
apart from Western Europe, nothing of real importance more recent than
the Oiseaux in Vieillot’s Faune Francaise (8vo, 1822-29) ; but there is a
great number of local publications of which Mr. Saunders has furnished
(Zoologist, 1878, pp. 95-99) a catalogue. Some of these have appeared in
journals, but many have been issued separately. - Those of most interest
to English ornithologists naturally refer to Britanny, Normandy and
Picardy, and are by Baillon, Benoist, Blandin, Bureau, Canivet, Chesnon,
Degland, Demarle, De Norguet, Gentil, Hardy, Lemetteil, Lemonnicier,
Lesauvage, Maignon, Marcotte, Nourry and Taslé, while perhaps the Ornt-
thologie Parisienne of M. René Paquet, under the pseudonym of Nérée
Quépat, should also be named. Of the rest the most important are the
Ornithologve Provengale of Roux (2 vols. 4to, 1825-29); Risso’s Histoire
naturelle . . . . des environs de Nice (5 vols. 8vo, 1826-27); the Orni-
thologie du Dauphiné of Bouteille and Labatie (2 vols. 8vo, 1843-44); the
Ornithologie du Gard (8vo, 1840) and Faune Meridionale of Crespon (2 vols.
8vo, 1844); the Ornithologie de la Savoie of Bailly (4 vols. 8vo, 1853-54),
and Les kichesses ornithologiques du midi de la France (4to, 1859-61) of
MM. Jaubert and Barthélemy-Lapommeraye. For Belgium the Faune
Belge of Baron De Selys-Longchamps (8vo, 1842) long remained the

' A compendium of Greek and Turkish Ornithology by Drs. Kriiper and Hartlaub
is contained in Mommsen’s G@riechische Jahrzeiten for 1875 (Heft III.). For other
countries in the Levant there are Canon Tristram’s Fauna and Flora of Palestine
(4to, 1884) and Capt. Shelley’s Handbook to the Birds of Egypt (8vo, 1872).

* Mr. Abel Chapman’s Wild Spain (London: 1893) contains a considerable
quantity of ornithological information, chiefly from the sportsman’s point of view.

3 In the final chapter of this work the author gives a list of Portuguese Birds,
including beside those observed by him those recorded by Prof. Barboza du Bocage
in the Gazeta Medica de Lisboa, 1861, pp. 17-21.

4 Certain papers published at Corunna by a Galician ornithologist require an
explanation (cf. Sherborn, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, xiv. p. 154), which has
uot and probably never will be given.

INTRODUCTION Gl

classical work, though the Planches coloriées des Oiseaua de la Belgique of
the late M. Ch. F. Dubois (8vo, 1851-60) was so much more recent. To
this followed, in 1861-64, a supplementary volume, which, by including
species not found in Belgium, justified an extension of the title of the
whole to Planches coloriges des Oiseaux de ? Europe; while between 1876
and 1887, his son, Dr. Alphonse Dubois, devoted to Birds four volumes
of his Faune illustree des Vertébrés de la Belgique (gr. 8vo), a work remark-
able for the introduction of small maps shewing the author’s view of the
geographical range of the several species. In regard to Holland we have
Schlegel’s De Vogels van Nederland (3 vols. 8vo, 1854-58; ed. 2, 2 vols.
1878), besides his De Dieren van Nederland: Vogels (8vo, 1861).1

Here it may be well to cast a glance on a few of the works that refer
to Europe in general, the more so since most of them are of Continental
origin. First we have the already-mentioned Manuel d’Ornithologie of
Temminck, which originally appeared as a single volume in 1815 ? ; but was
speedily superseded by the second edition of 1820, in two volumes, Two
supplementary parts were issued in 1835 and 1840 respectively, and the
work for many years deservedly maintained the highest position as the
authority on European Ornithology—indeed in England it may almost
without exaggeration be said to have been nearly the only foreign
ornithological work known ; but, as may well be expected, grave defects
are now to be discovered in it. Some of them were already manifest
when one of its author’s colleagues, Schlegel (who had been employed to
write the text for Susemihl’s plates, originally intended to illustrate
Temminck’s work), brought out his bilingual Revue critique des Oiseaux
@ Europe (8vo, 1844), a very remarkable volume, since it correlated and
consolidated the labours of French and German, to say nothing of Russian,
ornithologists. Of Gould’s Birds of Europe (5 vols. fol. 1832-37) nothing
need be added to what has been already said. The year 1849 saw the
publication of Degland’s Ornithologie Européenne (2 vols, 8vo), a work fully
intended to take the place of Temminck’s ; but of which Bonaparte, in
a caustic but well-deserved Revue Critique (12mo, 1850), said that the
author had performed a miracle since he had worked without a collection
of specimens and without a library, A second edition, revised by M.
' Gerbe (2 vols. 8vo, 1867), strove to remedy, and to some extent did
remedy, the grosser errors of the first, but enough still remain to make
few statements in the work trustworthy unless corroborated by other
evidence. Meanwhile in England the late Dr. Bree in 1858 began the
publication of The Birds of Europe not observed in the British Isles (4 vols.
8vo), which was completed in 1863, and in 1875 reached a second and
improved edition (5 vols.). In 1870-1 Dr. Anton Fritsch brought out his
Naturgeschichte der Vogel Europas (8vo, with atlas in folio) ; and in 1871
Messrs. Sharpe and Dresser began the publication of their birds of Europe,
which was finished by the latter alone in 1879 (8 vols. 4to), and is unques-
tionably the most complete work of its kind, both for fulness of informa-
tion and beauty of illustration—the coloured plates being nearly all by Mr.

1 There are several important papers on Dutch Ornithology by Albarda, Blaauw,

Biittikofer, Crommelin, Jentink and others.
2 Copies are said to exist bearing the date 1814.

42 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Keulemans or Mr. Neale. In so huge an undertaking mistakes and omis-
sions are of course to be found if any one likes the invidious task of seeking
for them; but many of the errors imputed to this work prove on investi-
gation to refer to matters of opinion rather than of fact, while many more
are explicable if we remember that while the work was in progress
Ornithology was being prosecuted with unprecedented activity, and thus
statements which were in accordance with the best information at the
beginning of the period were found to need modification before it
was ended. As a whole European ornithologists have been all but
unanimously grateful to Mr. Dresser for the way in which he brought
this enormous labour to a successful end. A Supplement to his work is
now nearly finished. The late M. des Murs in 1886 completed his
Description des Oiseaux d Europe (4 vols. gr. 8vo), with coloured figures of
the Birds and of their eggs, but it is rather a popular than a scientific
work. The Contributions a la Fawne ornithologique de ? Europe Occidentale
of the late M. Olphe-Galliard, contained in 41 fascicules between 1884
and 1892, is an important work, involving a vast amount of research, and
composed in a highly original way. The author was well read in orni-
thological literature, for he had the accomplishment, rare among his
countrymen, of a good acquaintance with modern languages not his own,
and was especially observant of the doings of foreign naturalists. Yet
the work cannot be called wholly successful, and this chiefly, it would
seem, through the want of autoptical acquaintance with many of the
species treated, or at least with a sufficient series of specimens, whereby
he has been led to rely too much on the descriptions of others, with the
usual unsatisfactory result. Still the work fully deserves attention, and
nothing need be said of the author’s fanciful classification, for no one is
likely to follow it. In 1890 Mr. Backhouse brought out a convenient
little Handbook of European Birds.4

Coming now to works on British Birds only, the first of the present
century that requires remark is Montagu’s Ornithological Dictionary (2
vols. 8vo, 1802; supplement 1813), the merits of which have been so
long and so fully acknowledged both abroad and at home that no further
comment is here wanted. In 1881 Rennie brought out a modified
edition of it (reissued in 1833), and Newman another in 1866 (reissued
in 1883); but those who wish to know the author’s views should consult
the original. Next in order come the very inferior British Ornithology of
Graves (3 vols. 8vo, 1811-21; ed. 2, 1821), and a better work with the
same title by Hunt? (3 vols. 8vo, 1815-22), published at Norwich, but
never finished. Then we have Selby’s Jllustrations of British Ornithology,
two folio volumes of coloured plates engraved by himself, between 1821
and 1833, with letterpress also in two volumes (8vo, 1825-33), a second

1 Herr Giitke’s remarkable Vogelwarte Helgoland (Braunschweig: 1891), which
treats of much more than European ornithology, has been elsewhere (MIGRATION, p.
562) mentioned. It remains to say that a fair English translation by Mr. Rosenstock,
with a preface by Mr. Harvie-Brown, has appeared under the title of Heligoland
as an Ornithological Observatory (Edinburgh: 1895).

* The text was written, I was told by the late Mr. Joseph Clarke, by R. C.

Coxe, who was a schoolboy when it was begun, but died in 1863 Archdeacon of
Lindisfarne,

INTRODUCTION 3

edition of the first volume being also issued (1833), for the author, having
yielded to the pressure of the “Quinarian” doctrines then in vogue,
thought it necessary to adjust his classification accordingly, and it must
be admitted that for information the second edition is best. In 1828
Fleming brought out his History of British Animals (8vo), in which the
Birds are treated at considerable length (pp. 41-146), though not with
great success. In 1835 Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) produced an
excellent Manual of British Vertebrate Animals, a volume (8vo) executed
with great scientific skill, the Birds again receiving due attention (pp.
49-286), and the descriptions of the various species being as accurate as
they are terse! In the same year began the Colowred LIIllustrations of
British Birds and their Eggs of H. L. Meyer (4to), which was completed in
1843, whereof a second edition (7 vols. 8vo, 1842-50) was brought out,
and subsequently (1852-57) a reissue of the latter. In 1836 appeared
Eyton’s History of the rarer British Birds, intended as a sequel to Bewick’s
well-known volumes, to which no important additions had been made
since the issue of 1821. The year 1837 saw the beginning of two
remarkable works by Macgillivray and Yarrell respectively, and each
entituled A History of British Birds. Of the first, undoubtedly the more
original and in many respects the more minutely accurate, mention will
again have to be made, and, save to state that its five volumes were not
completed till 1852, nothing more needs now to be added. The second
unquestionably became the standard work on British Ornithology, a fact
due in part to its numerous illustrations, many of them indeed ill drawn,
though all carefully engraved, but much more to the breadth of the
author’s views and the judgment with which they were set forth. In
practical acquaintance with the internal structure of Birds, and in the
perception of its importance in classification, he was certainly not behind
his rival; but he well knew that his public in a Book of Birds not only
did not want a series of anatomical treatises, but would even resent their
introduction. He had the art to conceal his art, and his work was there-
fore a success, while the other was unhappily a failure. Yet with all his
knowledge he was deficient in some of the qualities which a great
naturalist ought to possess. His conception of what his work should be
seems to have been perfect, his execution was not equal to the conception.
However, he was not the first nor will he be the last to fall short in this
respect. For him it must be said that, whatever may have been done by
the generation of British ornithologists now becoming advanced in life,
he educated them to do it; nay, his influence even extends to a younger
generation still, though they may hardly be aware of it. Of Yarrell’s
work in three volumes, a second edition was published in 1845, a third
in 1856, and a fourth, begun in 1871, and almost wholly rewritten, was
finished in 1885 by Mr. Saunders, who in 1888 and 1889, carrying out
the suggestion of a brother ornithologist, skilfully condensed the whole
into a single volume, forming a useful Manual of British Birds, illustrated
by the same figures as the larger work. Of other compilations based upon
it, without which they could not have been composed, there is no need to

1 A series of MS. notes which he gave to the Cambridge Museum shews that he
was largely aided by his brother-in-law Henslow, the botanist.

4d4 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

speak.! One of the few appearing since, with the same scope, that are not
borrowed is Jardine’s Birds of Great Britain and Ireland (4 vols. 8vo,
1838-43), forming part of his Naturalist’s Library; and Gould’s Birds
of Great Britain has been already mentioned.2 Two imposing folios, with
very good plates by Mr. Keulemans, were issued with the title of Rough
Notes on Birds in the British Islands during 1881 to 1887, by the late
Mr. Booth (whose “ Museum” is one of the popular sights of Brighton),
and contain a great number of personal observations, though few of any
novelty or value, while as a record of butchery the work fortunately stands
alone. Lord Lilford’s Colowred Figures of the Birds of the British Islands,
begun in 1885 and now nearly completed, has given great pleasure to
many lovers of Birds, by whom such a series of plates was strongly
desired, for they are generally good, and some of the latest, by Mr.
Thorburn, are exquisite.

The good effects of “‘ Faunal” works such as those named in the fore-
going rapid survey none can doubt. ‘Every kingdom, every province,
should have its own monographer,” wrote Gilbert White, and experience
has proved the truth of his assertion. It is from the labours of mono-

1 Yet two of them have attained great popularity, and have exerted such an in-
fluence in this country, that as a matter of history their authors, both deceased, must
here be named, though I would willingly pass them over, for I have not a word to
say in favour of either. By every well-informed ornithologist the History of British
Birds of Mr. Morris has long been known to possess no authority ; but about Mr.
Seebohm’s volumes with the same title there is much difference of opinion, some hold-
ing them in high esteem. The greater part of their text, when it is correct, will be
found on examination to be a paraphrase of what others had already written, for
even the information given on the author’s personal experience, which was doubtless
considerable, extends little or no further. But all this is kept studiously out of sight,
and the whole is so skilfully dressed as to make the stalest observations seem novel
—a merit, I am assured, in some eyes. Of downright errors and wild conjectures there
are enough, and they are confidently asserted with the misuse of language and absence
of reasoning power that mark all the author’s writings, though the air of scientitic
treatment assumed throughout has deluded many an unwary reader.

* Though contravening our plan, we must for its great merits notice here the late
Mr. More’s series of papers in The Ibis for 1865, “On the Distribution of Birds in
Great Britain during the Nesting Season.”

* Local ornithologies are far too numerous to be named at length. Fortunately
Mr. Christy has published a Catalogue of them (Zool. 1890, pp. 247-267, and
separately, London: 1891), and only a few of the most remarkable and the most
recent need here be mentioned. The first three volumes of Thompson’s Natural
History of Ireland (1849-51) cannot be passed over, as containing an excellent
account, to equal which no approach has since been made, of the Birds of that
country, though there are many important papers by later Irish ornithologists, as
Messrs. Barrett-Hamilton, Blake-Knox, H. L. Jameson, R. Paterson, Ussher and
Warren, and conspicuously by Mr. Barrington. For North Britain, Robert Gray’s
Birds of the West of Scotland (1871), and the series of district Vertebrate Faunas, begun
by Messrs. Harvie-Brown and T. E. Buckley, of which 7 volumes have now appeared—
treating of (1) Sutherland, Caithness and West Cromarty, (2) Outer Hebrides, (3) Argyll
and Inner Hebrides, (4) Iona and Mull (this by Graham), (5) Orkney and (6 and 7)
Moray—while others, as Dee and Shetland, are in progress, calls for especial remark, as
does Mr. Muirhead’s Birds of Berwickshire (2 vols. 1889-96) ; but for want of space
many meritorious papers in journals, by Alston, Dalgleish, W. Evans, Lumsden and others
must here be unnoticed. The local works on English Birds are still more numerous,
but among them may be especially named the oldest of all, Tucker’s unfinished Orni-
thologia Danmoniensis (4to, 1809), an ambitious work of which not even the whole of

INTRODUCTION 45

graphers of this kind, but on a more extended scale, when brought together,
that the valuable results follow which inform us as to GroGRAPHICAL
DistRisurion. Important as they are, they do not of themselves con-
stitute Ornithology as a science; and an enquiry, no less wide and far
more recondite, still remains—that having for its object the discovery of
the natural groups of Birds, and the mutual relations of those groups,
which has always been of the deepest interest, and to it we must now recur.

But nearly all the authors above named, it will have been seen, trod
the same ancient paths, and in the works of scarcely one of them had
any new spark of intelligence been struck out to enlighten the gloom
which surrounded the investigator. It is now for us to trace the rise of
the present more advanced school of ornithologists whose labours, pre-
liminary as we must still regard them to be, yet give signs of far greater
promise. It would probably be unsafe to place its origin further back
than a few scattered hints contained in the ‘ Pterographische Fragmente’
of Christian Ludwig Nitzsch, published in the Magazin fiir den neuesten
Zustand der Naturkuinde (edited by Voigt) for May 1806 (xi. pp. 393-417),
and even these might be left to pass unnoticed, were it not that we recog-
nize in them the germ of the great work which the same admirable
zoologist subsequently accomplished. In these “ Fragments,” apparently
his earliest productions, we find him engaged on the subject with which
his name will always be especially identified, the structure and arrange-
ment of the feathers that form the proverbial characteristic of Birds.
But, though the observations set forth in this essay were sufficiently
novel, there is not much in them that at the time would have attracted
attention, for perhaps no one—not even the author himself—could have
then foreseen to what important end they would, in conjunction with
other investigations, lead future naturalists ; but they are marked by the
close and patient determination that eminently distinguishes all the work
of their author ; and, since it will be necessary for us to return to this

the somewhat turgid Introduction was published ; but the two parts printed shew the
author to have been a physiologist, anatomist and outdoor-observer far beyond most
men of his time, beside being of a philosophical turn, well acquainted with literature,
and an agreeable writer. At a long interval follow Dillwyn’s Fauna and Flora of
Swansea (1848) ; Knox’s Ornithological Rambles in Sussex (1849); Mr. Harting’s
Birds of Middlesex (1866) ; Stevenson’s Birds of Norfolk (3 vols. 1866-90, completed
by Mr. Southwell) ; Cecil Smith’s Birds of Somerset (1869) and of Guernsey (1879) ;
Mr. Cordeaux’s Birds of the Humber District (1872) ; Hancock’s Birds of Northumber-
land and Durham (1874); The Birds of Nottinghamshire by Messrs. Sterland and
Whitaker (1879) ; Rodd’s Birds of Cornwall, edited by Mr. Harting (1880); the
Vertebrate Fauna of Yorkshire (1881), in which the Birds are by Mr. W. E. Clarke ;
Churchill Babington’s Birds of Suffolk (1884-6); and Mr. A. C. Smith’s Birds of
Wiltshire (1887). Since the publication of Mr. Christy’s Catalogue a few more have
to be briefly mentioned, and first his own volume on the Birds of Hssex (1890), while
those of Sussex were treated in 1891 by Mr. Borrer ; Worcestershire (1891) by Mr.
Willis Bund; Devonshire (1891) by Mr. Pidsley and (1892) by Messrs. D’Urban and
Mathew (Suppl. and ed. 2, 1895); Lakeland (1892) by Mr. H. A. Macpherson ;
Lancashire (ed. 2, 1893) by Mr. F. S. Mitchell ; Zondon (1893) by Mr. Swann ;
Derbyshire (1893) by Mr. Whitlock, and finally Northamptonshire (2 vols. 1895) by
Lord Lilford. The papers in journals are countless, but almost all up to the time of
compilation are contained in the excellent List of Kaunal Publications relating to
British Birds, published in 1880 by Dr. Coues (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. ii. pp.
359-482),

é

$6 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

part of the subject later, there is here no need to say more of them. In
the following year another set of hints—of a kind so different that
probably no one then living would have thought it possible that they
should ever be brought in correlation with those of Nitzsch—are con-
tained in a memoir on Fishes contributed to the tenth volume of the
Annales du Muséum @histoire naturelle of Paris by Etienne Geoffroy St.-
Hilaire in 1807.1 Here we have it stated as a general truth (p. 100)
that young birds have the sternum formed of five separate pieces—one in
the middle, being its keel, and two “annexes” on each side to which the
ribs are articulated—all, however, finally uniting to form the single
“breast-bone.” Further on (pp. 101, 102) we find observations as to the
number of ribs which are attached to each of the “annexes”—there being
sometimes more of them articulated to the anterior than to the posterior,
and in certain forms no ribs belonging to ‘one, all being applied to the
other. Moreover, the author goes on to remark that in adult birds
trace of the origin of the sternum from five centres of ossification is
always more or less indicated by sutures, and that, though these sutures
had been generally regarded as ridges for the attachment of the sternal
muscles, they indeed mark the extreme points of the five primary bony
pieces of the sternum.

In 1810 appeared at Heidelberg the first volume of Tiedemann’s
carefully-wrought Anatomie und Naturgeschichte der Végel—which shews
a remarkable advance upon the work which Cuvier did in 1805, and in
some respects is superior to his later production of 1817. It is, however,
only noticed here on account of the numerous references made to it by
succeeding writers, for neither in this nor in the author’s second volume
(not published until 1814) did he propound any systematic arrangement
of the Class. More germane to our present subject are the Osteographische
Beitriige zur Naturgeschichte der Vogel of Nitzsch, printed at Leipzig in
1811—a miscellaneous set of detached essays on some peculiarities of the
skeleton or portions of the skeleton of certain Birds—one of the most
remarkable of which is that on the component parts of the foot (pp.
101-105) pointing out the aberration from the ordinary structure
exhibited by Caprimulgus (NiauHTsaRr) and Cypselus (SwIrt)—an aberration
which, if rightly understood, would have conveyed a warning to these orni-
thological systematists who put their trust in Birds’ toes for characters on
which to erect a classification, that there was in them much more of
importance, hidden beneath the integument, than had hitherto been
suspected ; but the warning was of little avail, if any, till many years
had elapsed. However, Nitzsch had not as yet seen his way to proposing
any methodical arrangement of the various groups of Birds, and it was
not until some eighteen months later that a scheme of classification in
the main anatomical was attempted.

This scheme was the work of Blasius Merrem, who, in a communica-
tion to the Academy of Sciences of Berlin on the 10th December 1812,
and published in its Abhandlungen for the following year (pp. 237-259),

ie In the Philosophie Anatomique (i. pp. 69-101, and especially pp. 135, 136),
which appeared in 1818, Geoffroy St.-Hilaire explained the views he had adopted at
greater length,

INTRODUCTION 27

set forth a Tentamen Systematis naturalis Aviwm, no less modestly entitled
than modestly executed. The attempt of Merrem must be regarded as the
virtual starting-point of the more recent efforts in Systematic Ornithology,
and in that view its proposals deserve to be stated at length. Some of its
details, as is only natural, cannot be sustained with our present knowledge,
resulting from the information accumulated by various investigators through-
out more than eighty years ; but it is certainly not too much to say that
Merrem’s merits are incomparably superior to those of any of his pre-
decessors as well as to those of the majority of his successors for a long
time to come ; while the neglect of his treatise by many (until of late it
‘would not be erroneous to say by most) of those who have since written on
the subject seems inexcusable save on the score of inadvertence. Premising
then that the chief characters assigned by this ill-appreciated systematist to
his several groups are drawn from almost all parts of the structure of Birds,
and are supplemented by some others of their more prominent peculiarities,
we present the following abstract of his scheme : 1—

I, AVES CARINATA.
1, Aves aerez.
A. Rapaces.—a. Accipitres—Vultur, Falco, Sagittarius.
5s SETI.
B. Hymenopodes. —a. Chelidones :
a. C. nocturne—Caprimulgus.
B. C. diurne—Hirundo.
6. Oscines :
a. O. conirostres—Lowxia, Fringilla, Emberiza, Tan-
gara.
8. O. tenuirostres— Alauda, Motacilla, Muscicapa,
Todus, Lanius, Ampelis, Turdus, Paradisea,
Buphaga, Sturnus, Oriolus, Gracula, Coracias,
Corvus, Pipra*, Parus, Sitta, Certhie quedam.
Mellisuge.—Trochilus, Certhie# et Upupe plurime.
. Dendrocolapte.— Picus, Yuna.
Brevilingues.—a. Upupa; 6. Ispide.
. Levirostres.—a. Ramphastus, Scythrops?; b. Psittacus.
. Coceyges.—Cuculus, Trogon, Bucco, Crotophaga.
2. Aves terrestres.
A. Columba.
B. Galline.
3. Aves aquatice.
A. Odontorhynchi: a. Boscades—Anas ; 6. Mergus ; c. Pheenicopterus.
B. Platyrhynchi.—Pelicanus, Phaeton, Plotus.
C. Aptenodytes.
D. Urinatrices: a. Cepphi— Alca, Colymbi pedibus palmatis; 6. Podiceps,
Colymbt pedibus lobatis.
E. Stenorhynchi.—Procellaria, Diomedea, Larus, Sterna, Rhynchops.
4, Aves palustres.
A. Rusticole : a. Phalarides—Rallus, Fulica, Parra; b. Limosuge— Numenius,
Scolopax, Tringa, Charadrius, Recurvirostra.
B. Gralle: a. Erodii—Ardew ungue intermedio serrato, Cancroma ; b. Pelargi
—Ciconia, Mycteria, Tantali quidam, Scopus, Platalea; c. Gerani—-
Ardex cristate, Grues, Psophia.
C. Otis.
II. Aves RATITE.—Struthio.

ArBYA

1 The names of the genera are, he tells us, for the most part those of Linneus,
as being the best-known, though not the best. To some of the Linnean genera he

gS DICTIONARY OF B/7eDS

The most novel feature, and one the importance of which most
ornithologists of the present day are fully prepared to admit, is of course
the separation of the Class Aves into two great Divisions, which from one
of the most obvious distinctions they present were called by its author
Carinate1 and Ratitx,? according as the sternum possesses a keel or not.
But Merrem, who subsequently communicated to the Academy of Berlin
a more detailed memoir on the “ flat-breasted” Birds,? was careful not
here to rest his Divisions on the presence or absence of their sternal
character alone. He concisely cites (p. 238) no fewer than eight other
characters of more or less value as peculiar to the Carinate Division, the .
first of which is that the feathers have their barbs furnished with hooks,
in consequence of which the barbs, including those of the wing-quills,
cling closely together; while among the rest may be mentioned the
position of the furcula and coracoids,* which keep the wing-bones apart ;
the limitation of the number of the lumbar vertebre to fifteen, and of the
carpals to two; as well as the divergent direction of the iliac bones,—the
corresponding characters peculiar to the Ratite Division being (p. 259)
the disconnected condition of the barbs of the feathers, through the
absence of any hooks whereby they might cohere ; the non-existence of
the furcula, and the coalescence of the coracoids with the scapulz (or, as
he expressed it, the extension of the scapule to supply the place of the
coracoids, which he thought were wanting); the lumbar vertebre being
twenty and the carpals three in number ; and the parallelism of the iliac
bones.

As for Merrem’s partitioning of the inferior groups there is less to be
said in its praise as a whole, though credit must be given to his anatomical
knowledge for leading him to the perception of several affinities, as well
as differences, that had never before been suggested by superficial
systematists. But it must be confessed that (chiefly, no doubt, from
paucity of accessible material) he overlooked many points, both of alliance
and the opposite, which since his time have gradually come to be
admitted. For instance, he seems not to have been aware of the dis-
tinction, already shewn by Nitzsch (as above mentioned) to exist, between
the Swallows and the Swifts; and, by putting the genus Coracias among his
Oscines Tenutrostres® without any remark, proved that he was not in all
respects greatly in advance of his age; but on the other hand he most
righteously judged that some species hitherto referred to the genera
Certhia and Upupa required removal to other positions, and it is much to
dare not, however, assign a place, for instance, Buceros, Hamatopus, Merops,
Glareola (Brisson’s genus, by the way) and Palamedea.

1 From carina, a keel.

2 From ratis, a raft or flat-bottomed barge.

* “Beschreibung der Gerippes eines Casuars nebst einigen beiliufigen Bemer-
kungen tiber die flachbriistigen Vogel.” — Abhandl. der Berlin. Akademie, Phys.
Klasse, 1817, pp. 179-198, tabb. i.-iii.

* Merrem, as did many others in his time, calls the coracorns “clavicule”’ ; but
it is now well understood that in Birds the real clavicule form the FURCULA.

° He also placed the genus 7odus in the same group, but it must be borne in mind
that in his time a great many Birds were referred to that genus which certainly do

not belong to it, and it-may well have been that he never had the opportunity of
examining a specimen of the genus as nowadays restricted.

INTRODUCTION 49

be regretted that the very concise terms in which his decisions were given
to the world make it impossible to determine with any degree of certainty
the extent of the changes in this respect which he would have introduced.
Had Merrem published his scheme on an enlarged scale, it seems likely
that he would have obtained for it far more attention, and possibly some
portion of acceptance. He had deservedly attained no little reputation
as a descriptive anatomist, and his claims to be regarded as a systematic
reformer would probably have been admitted in his lifetime. As it was
his scheme apparently fell flat, and not until many years had elapsed were
its merits at all generally recognized.

Notice has next to be taken of a Memoir on the Employment of
Sternal Characters in establishing Natural Families among Birds, which
was read by De Blainville before the Academy of Sciences of Paris in
1815,1 but not published in full for more than five years later (Journ.
de Physique, xcii. pp. 185-215), though an abstract forming part of a
Prodrome @une nouvelle distribution du Regne Animal, appeared earlier (op.
cit. Ixxxill. pp. 252, 253, 258, 259; and Bull. Soc. Philomat. Paris, 1816,
p- 110). This is a very disappointing performance, since the author
observes that, notwithstanding his new classification of Birds is based on
a study of the sternal apparatus, yet, because that lies wholly within the
body, he is compelled to have recourse to such outward characters as are
afforded by the proportion of the limbs and the disposition of the toes—
even as had been the practice of most ornithologists before him! It is
evident that the features of the sternum on which De Blainville chiefly
relied, though he states the contrary, were those drawn from its posterior
margin, which no very extensive experience of specimens is needed to
shew are of comparatively slight value ; for the number of ‘‘ échancrures ”
—notches as they have sometimes been called in Enghsh—when they
exist, goes but a very short way as a guide, and is so variable in some very
natural groups as to be even in that short way occasionally misleading.”
There is no appearance of his having taken into consideration the far
more trustworthy characters furnished by the anterior part of the sternum,
as well as by the coracoids and the furcula. Still De Blainville made
some advance in a right direction, as for instance by elevating the Parrots °
and the Pigeons as “ Ordres,” equal in rank to that of the Birds-of-Prey
and some others. According to the testimony of L’Herminier (for whom
see later) he divided the “ Passereauz” into two sections, the “faux” and
the “vrais” ; but, while the latter were very correctly defined, the former
were most arbitrarily separated from the “ Grimpeurs.” He also split his
Grallatores and Natatores (practically identical with the Grallw and Anseres
of Linneeus) each into four sections ; but he failed to see—as on his own
principles he ought to have seen—that each of these sections was at least
equivalent to almost any one of his other “ Ordres.’ He had, however,
the courage to act up to his own professions in collocating the Rollers

1 Not 1812, as has sometimes been stated, probably on his own authority (Coc. cit.
p. 110), but this seems to be a misprint for 1815.

2 Of. Philos. Trans. 1869, p. 337, note.

3 This view had been long before taken by Willughby, but abandoned by later
authors, %

50 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

(Coracias) with the Bee-eaters (Merops), and had the sagacity to surmise
that Menura was not a Gallinaceous Bird. The greatest benefit conferred
by this memoir probably is that it stimulated the efforts, presently to be
mentioned, of one of his pupils, and that it brought more distinctly into
sight that other feature (page 48), originally discovered by Merrem, of which
it now clearly became the duty of systematizers to take cognizance.

Following the order of time we next have to recur to the labours of
Nitzsch, who, in 1820, in a treatise on the Nasal Glands of Birds—a
subject that had already attracted the atten ion of Jacobson (Now. Bull.
Soc. Philomat. Paris, iii. pp. 267-269)—first put forth in Meckel’s Deutsches
Archiv fiir die Physiologie (vi. pp. 251-269) a statement of his general
views on ornithological classification which were based on a comparative
examination of those bodies in various forms. It seems unnecessary here
to occupy space by giving an abstract of his plan, which hardly includes
any but European species, because it was subsequently elaborated with no
inconsiderable modifications in a way that must presently be mentioned
at greater length. But the scheme, crude as it was, possesses some
interest. It is not only a key to much of his later work—to nearly all
indeed that was published in his lifetime—but in it are founded several
definite groups (for example, Passerine and Picarig) that subsequent
experience has shewn to be more or less natural; and it further serves
as additional evidence of the breadth of his views, and his trust in the
teachings of anatomy; for it is clear that, if organs so apparently
insignificant as these nasal glands were found worthy of being taken into
account, and capable of forming a base of operations, in drawing up a
system, it would almost follow that there can be no part of a Bird’s
organization that by proper study would not help to supply some means
of solving the great question of its affinities. This seems to be one of the
most certain general truths in Zoology, and it is probably admitted in
theory to be so by most zoologists, but their practice is opposed to it ; for,
whatever group of animals be studied, it is found that one set or another
of characters is the chief favourite of the authors consulted—each gener-
ally taking a separate set, and that to the exclusion of all others, instead
of effecting a combination of all the sets and taking the aggregate.?

That Nitzsch took this extended view is abundantly proved by the
valuable series of ornithotomical observations which he must have been
for some time accumulating, and almost immediately afterwards began to
contribute to the younger Naumann’s excellent Naturgeschichte der Vogel
Deutschlands, already noticed. Beside a concise general treatise on the
Organization of Birds to be found in the introduction to that work (i. pp.

? This plan, having been repeated by Schépss in 1829 (op. cit. xii. p. 73), became
known to Owen in 1835, who then drew to it the attention of Kirby (Seventh Bridge-
water Treatise, ii. pp. 444, 445), and in the next year referred to it in his own article
“Aves” (Todd’s Cyclop. Anat. i. p. 226), so that Englishmen need no excuse for not
being aware of one of Nitzsch’s labours, though his more ecvene work of 1829,
pr esently to be mentioned, was not cited by Owen.

* A remarkable instance of this may be seen in the Syston Avium, promulgated
in 1830 by Wagler (a man with great knowledge of Birds) in his Natiirliches System
der Amphibien (pp. 77-128). He took the tongue as his chief guide, and found it
indeed an vuruly member.

INTRODUCTION $1

23-52), a brief description from Nitzsch’s pen of the peculiarities of the
internal structure of nearly every genus is incorporated with the author’s
prefatory remarks, as each passed under consideration, and these de-
scriptions being almost without exception so drawn up as to be com-
parative are accordingly of great utility to the student of classification,
though they have been greatly neglected. Upon these descriptions he was
still engaged till death, in 1837, put an end to his labours, when his
place as Naumann’s assistant for the remainder of the work was taken by
Rudolph Wagner; but, from time to time, a few more, which he had
already completed, made their posthumous appearance in it, and, even in
recent years, some selections from his unpublished papers have through
the care of Giebel been presented to the public. Throughout the whole
of this series the same marvellous industry and scrupulous accuracy are
manifested, and attentive study of it will shew how many times Nitzsch
anticipated the conclusions at which it took some modern taxonomers fifty
years to arrive. Yet over and over again his determination of the affinities
of several groups even of European Birds was disregarded ; and his labours,
being contained in a bulky and costly work, were hardly known at all
outside of his own country, and within it by no means appreciated so much
as they deserved 1—for even Naumann himself, who gave them publication,
aud was doubtless in some degree influenced by them, utterly failed to
perceive the importance of the characters offered by the song-muscles of
certain groups, though their peculiarities were all duly described and
recorded by his coadjutor, as some indeed had been long before by Cuvier
in his famous dissertation? on the organs of voice in Birds (Legons d’anat.
comp. iv. pp. 450-491). Nitzsch’s name was subsequently dismissed by
Cuvier without a word of praise, and in terms which would have been
applicable to many another and inferior author, while Temminck, terming
Naumann’s work an “ouvrage de luxe,’—it being in truth one of the
cheapest for its contents ever published,—effectually shut it out from the
realms of science. In Britain it seems to have been positively unknown
until quoted some years after its completion by a catalogue-compiler on
account of some peculiarities of nomenclature which it presented.?

Now we must return to France, where, in 1827, L’Herminier, a creole
of Guadeloupe and a pupil of De Blainville’s, contributed to the Actes of
the Linnean Society of Paris for that year (vi. pp. 3-93) the ‘ Recherches
sur l’appareil sternal des Oiseaux,’ which the precept and example of his
master had prompted him to undertake, and Cuvier had found for him
the means of executing. A second and considerably enlarged edition of
this very remarkable treatise was published as a separate work in the
following year. We have already seen that De Blainville, though fully
persuaded of the great value of sternal features as a method of classification,
had been compelled to fall back upon the old pedal characters so often

1 Their value was, however, understood by Gloger, who in 1834, as will presently
be seen, expressed his regret at not being able to use them.

2 Cuvier’s first observations on the subject seem to have appeared in the Magazin
Encyclopédique for 1795 (ii. pp. 330, 358).

3 However, to this catalogue-compiler my gratitude is due, for thereby I became
acquainted with the work and its merits,

52 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

employed before ; but now the scholar had learnt to excel his teacher, and
not only to form an at least provisional arrangement of the various
members of the Class, based on sternal characters, but to describe these
characters at some length, and so give a reason for the faith that was in
him. There is no evidence, so far as we can see, of his having been aware
of Merrem’s views ; but like that anatomist he without hesitation divided
the Class into two great “coupes,” to which he gave, however, no other
names than “ Oiseaue Normaux” and “ Oiseauw Anomauax,”—exactly
corresponding with his predecessor’s Carinatx and Ratite—and, moreover,
he had a great advantage in founding these groups, since he had discovered,
apparently from his own investigations, that the mode of ossification in each
was distinct ; for hitherto the statement of there being five centres of
ossification in every Bird’s sternum seems to have been accepted as a
general truth, without contradiction, whereas in the Ostrich and the Rhea,
at any rate, L’Herminier found that there were but two such primitive
points,! and from analogy he judged that the same would be the case with
the Cassowary and the Emeu, which, with the two forms mentioned
above, made up the whole of the “ Oiseaux Anomaux” whose existence was
then generally acknowledged.2 These are the forms which composed the
Family previously termed Cursores by De Blainville ; but L’Herminier
was able to distinguish no fewer than thirty-four Families of “ Oiseaux
Normaue,” and the judgment with which their separation and definition
were effected must be deemed on the whole to be most creditable to him,
It is to be remarked, however, that the wealth of the Paris Museum,
which he enjoyed to the full, placed him in a situation incomparably more
favourable for arriving at results than that which was occupied by Merrem,
to whom many of the most remarkable forms were inaccessible, while
L’Herminier had at his disposal examples of nearly every type then
discovered. But the latter used this privilege wisely and well—not, after
the manner of De Blainville and others subsequent to him, relying solely
or even chiefly on the character afforded by the posterior portion of the
sternum, but taking also into consideration those of the anterior, as well
as of the in some cases still more important characters presented by the
presternal bones, such as the furcula, coracoids and scapule. L’Herminier
thus separated the families of “ Normal Birds” :—

1. “Accipitres”’—Accipitres, Linn. 10. “Couroucous””—Trogon, Linn.

2. “Serpentaires” — Gypogeranus, | 11. “ Rolliers”—Galgulus, Brisson.
Illiger. 12. “Guépiers’’?—Merops, Linn.

3. “Chouettes ’—Strix, Linn. 13. “ Martins-Pécheurs ’—Alcedo, Linn.

4. “Touracos’—Opaetus, Vieillot. 14. “Calaos””—Buceros, Linn.

5. “ Perroquets ’—Psitéacus, Linn. 15. “Toucans””—Ramphastos, Linn.

6. “Colibris””—Trochilus, Linn. 16. “Pies” —Picus, Linn.

7. “Martinets””—Cypselus, Iliger. 17. “Epopsides ”»—Epopsides, Vieillot.

8. “Engoulevents” — Caprimulgus, | 18. “ Passereaux ’’—Passeres, Linn.
Linn. 19. “Pigeons ”—Colwmba, Linn.

9. “Coucous "—Cuculus, Linn. 20. “Gallinacés ”— Gallinacea.

1 This fact in the Ostrich appears to have been known already to Geoffroy St.-
Hilaire from his own observation in Egypt, but does not seem to have been published
by him.

? Considerable doubts were at that time, as said elsewhere (Krtwz), entertained in
Paris as to the existence of the Apteryzx.

INTRODUCTION 53

21. “Tinamous ”—Tinamus, Tatham. 27. “Mouettes””—Larus, Linn.

22. “Foulques ou Poules d’eau”— | 28. “ Pétrels ””—Procellaria; Linn.
Fulica, Linn. 29, “ Pélicans”’—Pelecanus, Linn.

23. “Grues ’—Grus, Pallas. 30. ‘“Canards ”—Anas, Linn.

24. “Hérodions ’—Herodit, Mliger. 31. “Grébes””—Podiceps, Latham.

25. No name given, but said to include | 32. “ Plongeons””—Colymbus, Latham.
“les ibis et les spatules.” 33. “ Pingouins’’—Alca, Latham.

26. “Gralles ou Kchassiers’’—Grallz. 34. ‘“ Manchots ”’—A ptenodytes, Forster.

The preceding list is given to shew the very marked agreement of
L’Herminier’s results compared with those obtained fifty years later by
another investigator, who approached the subject from an entirely different,
though still osteological, basis. The sequence of the Families adopted is of
course open to much criticism ; but that would be wasted upon it at the
present day ; and the cautious naturalist will remember that it is generally
difficult and in most cases absolutely impossible to deploy even a small
section of the Animal Kingdom into line. So far as a linear arrangement
will permit, the above list is very creditable, and will not only pass
muster, but cannot easily be surpassed for convenience even at this
moment. Experience has shewn that a few of the Families are composite,
and therefore require further splitting ; but examples of actually false group-
ing cannot be said to occur. The most serious fault perhaps to be found is
the intercalation of the Ducks (No. 30) between the Pelicans and the
Grebes—but every systematist must recognize the difficulty there is in
finding a place for the Ducks in any arrangement we can at present con-
trive that shall be regarded as satisfactory. Many of the excellences of
L/Herminier’s method could not be pointed out without too great a
sacrifice of space, because of the details into which it would be necessary
to enter ; but the trenchant way in which he shewed that the ‘‘ Passereaux”
—a group of which Cuvier had said “Son caractere semble d’abord
purement négatif,” and had failed to define the limits—differed so
completely from every other assemblage, while maintaining among its own
innumerable members an almost perfect essential homogeneity, is very
striking, and shews how admirably he could grasp his subject. Not less
conspicuous are his merits in disposing of the groups of what are
ordinarily known as Water-birds, his indicating the affinity of the Rails
(No. 22) to the Cranes (No. 23), and the severing of the latter from the
Herons (No. 24), His union of the Snipes, Sandpipers and Plovers into
one group (No. 26) and the alliance, especially dwelt upon, of that group
with the Gulls (No. 27) are steps which, though indicated by Merrem, are
here for the first time clearly laid down ; and the separation of the Gulls
from the Petrels (No. 28)—a step in advance already taken, it is true, by
Illiger—is here placed on indefeasible ground. With all this, perhaps on
account of all this, L’Herminier’s efforts did not find favour with his
scientific superiors, and for the time things remained as though his investi-
gations had never been carried on.!

Two years later Nitzsch, who was indefatigable in his endeavour to

1 With the exception of a brief and wholly inadequate notice in the Edinburgh
Journal of Natural History (i. p. 90), I am not aware of attention having been directed
to L’Herminier’s labours by British ornithologists for several years after ; but con-
sidering how they were employing themselves at the time (as is shewn in another
place) this is not surprising.

54 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

discover the Natural Families of Birds, and had been pursuing a series of

researches into their vascular system, published the result, at Halle in

Saxony, in his Observationes de Avium arteria carotide communi, in

which is included a classification drawn up in accordance with the varia-

tion of structure which that important vessel presented in the several
groups that he had opportunities of examining. By this time he had
visited several of the principal museums on the Continent, among others

Leyden (where Temminck lived) and Paris (where he had frequent inter-

course with Cuvier), thus becoming acquainted with a considerable number

of exotic forms that had hitherto been inaccessible to him. Consequently
his labours had attained to a certain degree of completeness in this direc-
tion, and it may therefore be expedient here to name the different groups
which he thus thought himself entitled to consider established. They are
as follows :—
I. Aves CartnatH [L’H. “Oiseaux Normaux”].
A. Aves Carinate aeree.

1. Accipitrine [L’H. 1, 2 partim, 3]; 2. Passering [L’H. 18] ; 3. Macrochires [L’H.
6, 7]; 4. Cuculine [L’H. 8, 9, 10 (qu. 11, 122)]; 5. Picitna [L’H. 15, 16]; 6.
Psittacine [L’H. 5]; 7. Lipoglosse [L’H.-13, 14, 17]; 8. Amphibole [L’H. 4].

B. Aves Carinat terrestres.

1. Columbine [L’H. 19]; 2. Gallinacew [L’H. 20].

C. Aves Carinate aquatice.

Gralle.
1. Alectorides (= Dicholophus + Otis) [L°H. 2 partim, 26 partim]; 2. Gruinew [L’H.
23]; 3. Fulicariw [L’H. 22]; 4. Herodiw [L’H. 24 partim]; 5. Pelargi [L’H.
24 partim, 25]; 6. Odontoglossi (= Phenicopterus) [L’H. 26 partim]; 7.
Liinicole [L’H. 26 pene omnes].
Palmatee.
8. Longipennes [L’H. 27]; 9. Nasuta [L’H. 28]; 10. Unguirostres [L’H. 30]; 11
Steganopodes [L’H. 29]; 12. Pygopodes [L’H. 81, 82, 33, 34].

Il. Aves Ratirm [L’H. “ Oiseaux Anomaux’’].

To enable the reader to compare the several groups of Nitzsch with
the Families of L’Herminier, the numbers applied by the latter to his
Families are suffixed in square brackets to the names of the former ; and,
disregarding the order of sequence, which is here immaterial, the essential
correspondence of the two systems is worthy of all attention, for it
obviously means that these two investigators, starting from different points,
must have been on the right track, when they so often coincided as to the
limits of what they considered to be, and what we are now almost justified
in calling, Natural Groups.! But it must be observed that the classifica-
tion of Nitzsch, just given, rests much more on characters furnished by

1 Whether Nitzsch was cognizant of L’Herminier’s views is in no way apparent.
The latter’s name seems not to be even mentioned by him, but Nitzsch was in Paris
in the summer of 1827, and it is almost impossible that he should not have heard of
L’Herminier’s labours, unless the relations between the followers of Cuvier, to whom
Nitzsch attached himself, and those of De Blainville, whose pupil L’Herminier was,
were such as to forbid any communication between the rival schools. Yet we have
L’Herminier’s evidence that Cuvier gave him every assistance. Nitzsch’s silence, both
on this occasion and afterwards, is very curious ; but he cannot be accused of plagiarism,
for the scheme given above is only an amplification of that foreshadowed by him (as
already mentioned) in 1820—a scheme which seems to have been equally unknown to
L Hermiuier, perhaps through linguistic difficulty.

INTRODUCTION ob)

the general structure than those furnished by the carorip artery only.
Among all the species (188, he tells us, in number) of which he examined
specimens, he found only fowr variations in the structure of that vessel ,
but so much has since been done in this way that there is no need to
dwell on his particular researches, and the reader may be referred to Dr.
Gadow’s article in the text of this work (pp. 76, 77).

Considering the enormous stride in advance made by L’Herminier, it
is very disappointing for the historian to have to record that the next
inquirer into the osteology of Birds achieved a disastrous failure in his
attempt to throw light on their arrangement by means of a comparison of
their sternum. This was Berthold, who devoted a long chapter of his
Beitrige zur Anatomie, published at Gottingen in 1831, to a consideration
of the subject. So far as his introductory chapter went—the development
of the sternum—he was, for his time, right enough and somewhat
instructive. It was only when, after a close examination of the sternal
apparatus of 130 species, which he carefully described, that he arrived
(pp. 177-183) at the conclusion—astonishing to us who know of L’Her-
minier’s previous results—that the sternum of Birds cannot be used as a
help to their classification on account of the egregious anomalies that
would follow the proceeding—such anomalies, for instance, as the
separation of Cypselus from Hirundo and its alliance with Trochilus, and
the grouping of Hirundo and Fringilla together. He seems to have
been persuaded that the method of Linnzus and his disciples was
indisputably right, and that any method which contradicted it must
therefore be wrong. Moreover, he appears to have regarded the sternal
structure as a mere function of the Bird’s habit, especially in regard to
its power of flight, and to have wholly overlooked the converse position
that this power of flight must depend entirely on the structure. Good
descriptive anatomist as he certainly was, he was false to the anatomist’s
creed ; but it is plain, from reading his careful descriptions of sternums,
that he could not grasp the essential characters he had before him, and,
attracted only by the more salient and obvious features, had not capacity
to interpret the meaning of the whole. Yet he did not amiss by giving
many figures of sternums hitherto unrepresented. We pass from him to
a more lively theme,

At the very beginning of the year 1832 Cuvier laid before the
Academy of Sciences of Paris a memoir on the progress of ossification in
the sternum of Birds, of which memoir an abstract will be found in the
Annales des Sciences Naturelles (xxv. pp. 260-272). Herein he treated
of several subjects with which we are not particularly concerned at
present, and his remarks throughout were chiefly directed against certain
theories which Etienne Geoffroy St.-Hilaire had propounded in his
Philosophie Anatomique, published a good many years before, and need
not trouble us here; but what does signify to us now is that Cuvier
traced in detail, illustrating his statements by the preparations he
exhibited, the progress of ossification in the sternum of the Fowl and of
the Duck, pointing out how it differed in each, and giving his inter-
pretation of the differences. It had hitherto been generally believed
that the mode of ossification in the Fowl was that which obtained in all

56 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Birds—the Ostrich and its allies (as L’Herminier, we have seen, had
already shewn) excepted. But it was now made to appear that the
Struthious Birds in this respect resembled not only the. Duck, but a
great many other groups—Waders, Birds-of-Prey, Pigeons, Passerines
and perhaps all Birds not Gallinaceous,—so that, according to Cuvier’s
view, the five points of ossification observed in the Gallinx, instead of
exhibiting the normal process, exhibited one quite exceptional, and that
in all other Birds, so far as he had been enabled to investigate the
matter, ossification of the sternum began at two points only, situated
near the anterior upper margin of the side of the sternum, and gradu-
ally crept towards the keel, into which it presently extended; and,
though he allowed the appearance of detached portions of calcareous
matter at the base of the still cartilaginous keel in Ducks at a certain
age, he seemed to consider this an individual peculiarity. This fact
was fastened upon by Geoffroy in his reply, which was a week later pre-
sented to the Academy, but was not published in full until the following
year, when it appeared in the Annales du Muséwm (ser. 3, ii. pp. 1-22).
Geoffroy here maintained that the five centres of ossification existed in
the Duck just as in the Fowl, and that the real difference of the
process lay in the period at which they made their appearance, a cir-
cumstance,. which, though virtually proved by the preparations Cuvier
had used, had been by him overlooked or misinterpreted. The Fowl
possesses all five ossifications at birth, and for a long while the middle
piece forming the keel is by far the largest. They all grow slowly, and
it is not until the animal is about six months old that they are united
into one firm bone. The Duck on the other hand, when newly hatched,
and for nearly a month after, has the sternum wholly cartilaginous.
Then, it is true, two lateral points of ossification appear at the margin,
but subsequently the remaining three are developed, and when once
formed they grow with much greater rapidity than in the Fowl, so that
by the time the young Duck is quite independent of its parents, and
can shift for itself, the whole sternum is completely bony. Nor,
argued Geoffroy, was it true to say, as Cuvier had said, that. the like
occurred in the Pigeons and true Passerines. In their case the sternum
begins to ossify from three very distinct points—one of which is the
centre of ossification of the keel. As regards the Struthious Birds, they
could not be likened to the Duck, for in them at no age was there any
indication of a single median centre of ossification, as Geoffroy had
satisfied himself by his own observations made in Egypt many years
before. Cuvier seems to have acquiesced in the corrections of his views
made by Geoffroy, and attempted no rejoinder; but the attentive and
impartial student of the discussion will see that a good deal was really
wanting to make the latter’s reply effective, though, as events have
shewn, the former was hasty in the conclusions at which he arrived,
having trusted too much to the first appearance of centres of ossification,
for, had his observations in regard to other Birds been carried on with
the same attention to detail as in regard to the Fowl, he would cer-
tainly have reached some very different results.

In 1834 Gloger brought out at Breslau the first (and unfortunately

INTRODUCTION 57

the only) part of a Vollstiéndiges Handbuch der Natwryeschichte der Végel
Europa’s, treating of the Land-birds. In the Introduction to this book
(p. Xxxvill. note) he expressed his regret at not being able to use as
fully as he could wish the excellent researches of Nitzsch which were
then appearing (as has been above said) in the successive parts of Nau-
mann’s great work. Notwithstanding this, to Gloger seems to belong
the credit of being the first author to avail himself, in a book intended
for practical ornithologists, of the new light that had already been shed
on Systematic Ornithology ; and accordingly we have the second Order
of his arrangement, the Aves Passerinex, divided into two Suborders :—
Singing Passerines (melodusx), and Passerines without an apparatus of
Song-muscles (anomalx)—the latter including what some later writers
called Picartx. For the rest his classification demands no particular
remark ; but that in a work of this kind he had the courage to
recognize, for instance, such a fact as the essential difference between
Swallows and Swifts, lifts him considerably above the crowd of other
ornithological writers of his time.

An improvement on the old method of classification by purely
external characters was introduced to the Academy of Sciences of Stock-
holm by Sundevall in 1835, and was published the following year in
its Handlingar (pp. 43-130). This was the foundation of a more
extensive work of which, from the influence it still exerts, it will be
necessary to treat later, and there will be no need now to enter much
into details respecting the earlier performance. It is sufficient here to
remark that the author, even then a man of great erudition, must have
been aware of the turn which taxonomy was taking; but, not being
able to divest himself of the older notion that external characters were
superior to those furnished by the study of internal structure, and that
Comparative Anatomy, instead of being a part of Zoology, was some-
thing distinct from it, he seems to have endeavoured to form a scheme
which, while not running wholly counter to the teachings of Com-
parative Anatomists, should yet rest ostensibly on external characters.
With this view he studied the latter most laboriously, and certainly not
without success, for he brought into prominence several points that had
hitherto escaped the notice of his predecessors. He also admitted among
his characteristics a physiological consideration (apparently derived from
Oken!) dividing the class Aves into two sections Altrices and Precoces,
according as the young were fed by their parents, or, from the first, fed
themselves. But at this time he was encumbered with the hazy
doctrine of analogies, which, if it did not act to his detriment, was
assuredly of no service to him. He prefixed an ‘Idea Systematis’ to
his ‘Expositio’; and the former, which appears to represent his real
opinion, differs in arrangement very considerably from the latter. Like
Gloger, Sundevall in his ideal system separated the true Passerines from
all other Birds, calling them Volucres; but he took a step further, for
he assigned to them the highest rank, wherein nearly every recent

1 He says from Oken’s Nuaturgeschichte fiir Schulen, published in 1821, but the
division is to be found in that author’s earlier Lehrbuch der Zoologie (ii. p. 371),
which appeared in 1816,

58 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

authority agrees with him; out of them, however, he chose the Thrushes
and Warblers to stand first as his ideal “ Centrum ”—a selection which,
though in the opinion of the present writer erroneous, is still widely
followed. ;

The points at issue between Cuvier and Etienne Geoffroy St-
Hilaire before mentioned naturally attracted the attention of L’Her-
minier, who in 1836 presented to the French Academy the results of
his researches into the mode of growth of that bone which in the adult
Bird he had already studied to such good purpose. Unfortunately the
full account of his diligent investigations was never published. We can
only judge of his labours from an abstract (Comptes Rendus, iii. pp. 12-20,
and Ann. Sct. Nag. ser. 2, vi. pp. 107-115), and from the report upon them
by Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire (Comptes Rendus, iv. pp. 565-574), to
whom with others they were referred, and which is very critical in its
character. It were useless to conjecture why the whole memoir never
appeared, as the reporter recommended that it should ; but, whether, as
he suggested, the author’s observations failed to establish the theories he
advanced or not, the loss of his observations in an extended form is
greatly to be regretted, for no one seems to have continued the investi-
gations he began and to some extent carried out ; while, from his resi-
dence in Guadeloupe, he had peculiar advantages in studying certain
types of Birds not generally available, his remarks on them could not
fail to be valuable, quite irrespective of the interpretation he was led to
put upon them, L’Herminier arrived at the conclusion that, so far
from there being only two or three different modes by which the process
of ossification in the sternum is carried out, the number of different
modes is very considerable—almost each natural group of Birds having
its own, The principal theory which he hence conceived himself
justified in propounding was that instead of five being (as had been
stated) the maximum number of centres of ossification in the sternum,
there are no fewer than nine entering into the composition of the perfect
sternum of Birds in general, though in every species some of these nine
are wanting, whatever be the condition of development at the time of
examination. These nine theoretical centres or ‘‘ pieces” L’Herminier
deemed to be disposed in three transverse ranks (rangés), namely the
anterior or “prosternal,” the middle or “ mesosternal,” and the posterior
“metasternal”—each rank consisting of three portions, one median
piece and two side-pieces. At the same time he seems, according to the
abstract of his memoir, to have made the somewhat contradictory asser-
tion that sometimes there are more than three pieces in each rank, and
in certain groups of Birds as many as six.!

1 We shall perhaps be justified in assuming that this apparent inconsistency, and
others which present themselves, would be explicable if the whole memoir with the
necessary illustrations had been published. It would occupy more space than can
here be allowed to give even the briefest abstract of the numerous observations which
follow the statement of his theory and on which it professedly rests. They extend
to more than a score of natural groups of Birds, and nearly each of them presents
some peculiar characters. Thus of the first rank of pieces he says that when all
exist they may be developed simultaneously, or that the two side-pieces may precede
the median, or again that the median may precede the side-pieces—according to the

INTRODUCTION 59

Hitherto it will have been seen that our present business has lain
wholly in Germany and France, for, as is elsewhere explained, the chief
ornithologists of Britain were occupying themselves at this time in a
very useless way—not but that there were several distinguished men in
this country who were paying due heed at this time to the internal
structure of Birds, and some excellent descriptive memoirs on special
forms had appeared from their pens, to say nothing of more than one
general treatise on ornithic anatomy.! Yet no one in Britain seems to
have attempted to found any scientific arrangement of Birds on other
than external characters until, in 1837, William Macgillivray issued the
first volume of his History of British Birds, wherein, though professing
(p. 19) “not to add a new system to the many already in partial use, or
that have passed away like their authors,” he propounded (pp. 16-18) a
scheme for classifying the Birds of Europe at least founded on a “ con-
sideration of the digestive organs, which merit special attention, on
account, not so much of their great importance in the economy of birds,
as the nervous, vascular and other systems are not behind them in this
respect ; but because, exhibiting great diversity of form and structure,
in accordance with the nature of the food, they are more obviously
qualified to afford a basis for the classification of the numerous species
of birds” (p. 52). Experience has again and again exposed the fallacy
of this last conclusion, but it is no disparagement of its author to say,

group of Birds, but that the second mode is much the commonest. The same
variations are observable in the second or middle rank, but its side-pieces are said to
exist in all groups of Birds without exception. As to the third or posterior rank,
when it is complete the three constituent pieces are developed almost simul-
taneously ; but its median piece is said often to originate in two, which soon unite,
especially when the side-pieces are wanting. By way of examples of L’Herminier’s
observations, what he says of the two groups that had been the subject of Cuvier’s
and the elder Geoffroy’s contest may be mentioned. In the Gallinz the five well-
known pieces or centres of ossification are said to consist of the two side-pieces of
the second or middle rank, and the three of the posterior. On two occasions, how-
ever, there was found in addition, what may be taken for a representation of the
first series, a little ‘‘noyau” situated between the coracoids—forming the only
instance of all three ranks being present in the same Bird. As regards the Ducks,
L’Herminier agreed with Cuvier that there are commonly only two centres of
ossification—the side-pieces of the middle rank; but as these grow to meet one
another a distinct median “noyaw,” also of the same rank, sometimes appears, which
soon forms a connexion with each of them. In the Ostrich and its allies no trace
of this median centre of ossification ever occurs; but its existence seems to be
invariable in all other Birds.

1 Owen’s celebrated article ‘Aves,’ in Todd’s Cyclopedia. of Anatomy and
Physiology (i. pp. 265-358), appeared in 1836, and, as giving a general view of the
structure of Birds, needs no praise here; but its object was not to establish a
classification, or throw light especially on systematic arrangement. So far from
that being the case, its distinguished author was content to adopt, as he tells us, the
arrangement proposed by Kirby in the Seventh Bridgewater Treatise (ii. pp. 445-
474), being that, it is true, of an estimable zoologist, but of one who had no special
knowledge of Ornithology. Indeed it is, as the latter says, that of Linnzus,
improved by Cuvier, with an additional modification of Illiger’s—all these three
authors having totally ignored any but external characters. Yet it was regarded
“as being the one which facilitates the expression of the leading anatomical differ-
ences which obtain in the class of Birds, and which therefore may be considered ag
the most natural ” !

60 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

that in this passage, as well as in others that might be quoted, he was
greater as an anatomist than as a logician. He was indeed thoroughly
grounded in anatomy, and though undoubtedly the digestive organs of
Birds have a claim to the fullest consideratign, yet Macgillivray himself
subsequently became aware of the fact that there were several other parts
of their structure as important from the point of view of classification.
He it was, apparently, who first detected the essential difference of the
organs of voice presented by some of the New-World Passeres (subsequently
known as Clamatores), and the earliest intimation of this seems to be
given in his anatomical description of the Arkansas Flycatcher, Tyrannus
verticalis, which was published in 1838 (Ornithol. Biog. iv. p. 425), though
it must be admitted that he did not—because he then could not—perceive
the bearing of their difference, which was reserved to be shewn by the
investigation of a still greater anatomist, and of one who had fuller
facilities for research, and thereby almost revolutionized, as will presently
be mentioned, the views of systematists as to this Order of Birds. There
is only space here to say that the second volume of Macgillivray’s work
was published in 1839, and the third in 1840; but it was not until
1852 that the author, in broken health, found an opportunity of issuing
the fourth and fifth. His scheme of classification, being as before stated
partial, need not be given in detail. Its great merit is that it proved the
necessity of combining another and hitherto much-neglected factor in any
natural arrangement, though vitiated as so many other schemes have
been by being based wholly on one class of characters.

But a bolder attempt at classification was that made in 1838 by
Blyth (Mag. Nat. Hist. New Ser. ii. pp. 256-268, 314-319, 351-361,
420-426, 589-601 ; iil. pp. 76-84). It was limited, however, to what he
called Insessores, being the group upon which that name had been conferred
by Vigors (Trans. Linn. Soc. xiv. p. 405) in 1823, with the addition, more-
over, of his Raptores, and it will be unnecessary to enter into particulars
concerning it, though it is equally as remarkable for the insight shewn
by the author into the structure of Birds as for the breadth of his view,
which comprehends almost every kind of character that had been at that time
brought forward. It is plain that Blyth saw, and perhaps he was the
first to see it, that Geographical Distribution was not unimportant in
suggesting the affinities and differences of natural groups (pp. 258, 259) ;
and, undeterred by the precepts and practice of the hitherto dominant
English school of Ornithologists, he declared that “anatomy, when aided
by every character which the manner of propagation, the progressive

1 This is not the place to dwell on Macgillivray’s merits ; but I may perhaps be
excused for repeating my opinion that, after Willughby, Macgillivray was the greatest
and most original ornithological genius save one (who did not live long enough to
make his powers widely known) that this island has produced. The exact amount of
assistance he aiforded to Audubon in his Ornithological Biography will probably never
be ascertained ; but, setting aside “all the anatomical descriptions, as well as the
sketches by which they are sometimes illustrated,” that on the latter’s own statement
(op. cit. iv. Introduction, p. xxiii.) are the work of Macgillivray, no impartial reader
can compare the style in which the History of British Birds is written with that of
the Ornithological Biography without recognizing the similarity of the two. On this

subject some remarks of Prof. Coues (Bull. Nutt. Ornithol, Club, 1880, p. 201) may
well be consulted.

INTRODUCTION 61

changes and other physiological data supply, is the only sure basis of
classification.” He was quite aware of the taxonomic value of the vocal
organs of some groups of Birds, presently to be especially mentioned, and
he had himself ascertained the presence and absence of cxca in a not
inconsiderable number of groups, drawing thence very justifiable infer-
ences. He knew at least the earlier investigations of L’Herminier, and,
though the work of Nitzsch, even if he had ever heard of it, must (through
ignorance of the language in which it was written) have been to him a
sealed book, he had followed out and extended the hints already given by
Temminck as to the differences which various groups of Birds display in
their moult. With all this it is not surprising to find, though the fact
has been generally overlooked, that Blyth’s proposed arrangement in
many points anticipated conclusions that were subsequently reached, and
were then regarded as fresh discoveries. It is proper to add that at this
time the greater part of his work was carried on in conjunction with Mr.
Bartlett, the present Superintendent of the Zoological Society’s Gardens,
and that, without his assistance, Blyth’s opportunities, slender as they
were compared with those which others have enjoyed, must have been
still smaller. Considering the extent of their materials, which was
limited to the bodies of such animals as they could obtain from dealers
and the several menageries that then existed in or near London, the
progress made in what has since proved to be the right direction is very
wonderful. It is obvious that both these investigators had the genius for
recognizing and interpreting the value of characters ; but their labours do
not seem to have met with much encouragement ; and a general arrange-
ment of the Class laid by Blyth before the Zoological Society at this
time! does not appear in its publications, possibly through his neglect to
reduce his scheme to writing and deliver it within the prescribed period.
But even if this were not the case, no one need be surprised at the result.
The scheme could hardly fail to be a crude performance—a fact which
nobody would know better than its author ; but it must have presented
much that was objectionable to the opinions then generally prevalent.
Its line to some extent may be partly made out—very clearly, for the
matter of that, so far as its details have been published in the series of
papers to which reference has been given—and some traces of its features
are probably preserved in his Catalogue of the specimens of Birds in the
Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, which, after several years of
severe labour, made its appearance at Calcutta in 1849; but, from the
time of his arrival in India, the onerous duties imposed upon Blyth,
together with the want of sufficient books of reference, seem to have
hindered him from seriously continuing his former researches, which,
interrupted as they were, and born out of due time, had no appreciable
effect on the views of systematizers generally.

Next must be noticed a series of short treatises communicated by
Johann Friedrich Brandt, between the years 1836 and 1839, to the
Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, and published in its Mémoires.

1 An abstract is contained in the Minute-book of the Scientific Meetings of the

Zoological Society, 26th June and 10th July 1838. The Class was to contain fifteen
Orders, but only three were dealt with in any detail.

f

62 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS,

In the year last mentioned the greater part of these was separately issued
under the title of Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Naturgeschichte der Vogel.
Herein the author first assigned anatomical reasons for rearranging the
Order Anseres of Linnus, the Natatores of Illiger, who, so long before as
1811, had proposed a new distribution of it into six Families, the defini-
tions of which, as was his wont, he had drawn from external characters
only. Brandt now retained very nearly the same arrangement as his
predecessor ; but, notwithstanding that he could trust to the firmer
foundation of internal framework, he took at least two retrograde steps.
First he failed to see the great structural difference between the Penguins
(which Illiger had placed as a group, Impennes, of equal rank to his other
Families) and the Auks, Divers and Grebes, Pygopodes—combining all of
them to form a “Typus” (to use his term) Urinatores; and secondly he
admitted among the Natatores, though as a distinct “Typus” Podoide,
the genera Podoa (Finroor), and Fulica (Coot), which are now
known to be allied to the Rallide. At the same time he corrected
the error made by Illiger in associating the PHALAROPES with
these forms, rightly declaring their relationship to 7ringa, a point of
order which other systematists were long in admitting. On the whole
Brandt’s labours were of no small service in asserting the principle that
consideration: must be paid to osteology ; for owing to his position he was
able to gain more attention to his views than some of his less favourably
placed brethren had succeeded in doing.

In the same year (1839) another slight advance was made in the
classification of the true Passeres, Keyserling and Blasius briefly pointed
out (Arch. f. Naturgesch. v. pp. 332-334) that, while all the other Birds
provided with perfect song-muscles had the “planta” or lind part of the
“tarsus” covered with two long and undivided horny plates, the Larks
had this part divided by many transverse sutures, so as to be scutellated
behind as well as in front ; just as is the case in many of the Passerines
which have not the singing-apparatus, and also in the Hoopor. The
importance of this singular but superficial departure from the normal
structure has been so needlessly exaggerated as a character that at the
present time its value is apt to be unduly depreciated. In so large and
so homogeneous a group as that of the true Passeres, a constant character
of this kind is not to be despised as a practical mode of separating the
Birds which possess it; and, more than this, it would appear that the
discovery thus announced was the immediate means of leading to a series
of investigations of a much more important and lasting nature—those of
Johannes Miiller to be presently mentioned.

Again we must recur to that indefatigable and most original in-
vestigator Nitzsch, who, having never intermitted his study of the
particular subject of his first contribution to science, in 1833 brought out
at Halle, where he was Professor of Zoology, an essay with the title
Pterylographix Avium Pars prior. It seems that this was issued as much
with the object of inviting assistance from others in view of future
labours, since the materials at his disposal were scanty, as with that of
making known the results to which his researches had already led him.
Indeed he only communicated copies of this essay to a few friends, and

INTRODUCTION 63

examples of it are comparatively scarce. Moreover, he stated subsequently
that he thereby hoped to excite other naturalists to share with him the
investigations he was making on a subject which had hitherto escaped
notice or had been wholly neglected, since he considered that he had
proved the disposition of the feathered tracts in the plumage of Birds to
be the means of furnishing characters for the discrimination of the various
natural groups as significant and important as they were new and un-
expected.1. There was no need for us here to quote this essay in its
chronological place, since it dealt only with the generalities of the subject,
and did not enter upon any systematic details. These the author reserved
for a second treatise which he was destined never to complete. He kept
on diligently collecting materials, and as he did so was constrained to
modify some of the statements he had published. He consequently fell
into a state of doubt, and before he could make up his mind on some
questions which he deemed important he was overtaken by death.2 Then
his papers were handed over to his friend and successor, Burmeister,
afterwards and for many years of Buenos Aires, who, with much skill
elaborated from them the excellent work known as Nitzsch’s Pterylographie,
which was published at Halle in 1840. ‘There can be no doubt that the
editor’s duty was discharged with the most conscientious scrupulosity ;
but, from what has been just said, it is certain that there were important
points on which Nitzsch was as yet undecided—some of them perhaps of
which no trace appeared in his manuscripts, and therefore as in every
ease of works posthumously published, unless (as rarely happens) they
have received their author’s “imprimatur,” they cannot be implicitly
trusted as the expression of his final views. It would consequently be
unsafe to ascribe positively all that appears in this volume to the result of
Nitzsch’s mature consideration. Moreover, as Burmeister states in his
preface, Nitzsch by no means regarded the natural sequence of groups

1 Ti is still a prevalent belief that feathers grow almost uniformly over the whole
surface of a Bird’s body ; some indeed are longer and some are shorter, but that is
about all the difference perceptible to most people. It is the easiest thing for any-
body to satisfy himself that this, except in a few cases, is altogether an erroneous
supposition (see PrERYLOSIS). Before Nitzsch’s time the only men who seem to have
noticed this fact were the great John Hunter and the accurate Macartney. But the
observations of the former on the subject were not given to the world until 1836,
when Owen introduced them into his Catalogue of the Museum of the College of
Surgeons in London (vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 311), and therein is no indication of the fact
having a taxonomical bearing. The same may be said of Macartney’s remarks, which,
though subsequent in point of time, were published earlier, namely, in 1819 (Rees’s
Cyclopedia, xiv. art. ‘Feathers’). Ignorance of this simple fact has led astray
many celebrated painters, among them Landseer, whose pictures of Birds nearly always
shew an unnatural representation of the plumage that at once betrays itself to the
trained eye, though of course it is not perceived by spectators generally, who regard
only the correctness of attitude and force of expression, which in that artist’s work
commonly leave little to be desired. Every draughtsman of Birds to be successful
should study as did Mr. Wolf, the plan on which their feathers are disposed.

2 Though not relating exactly to our present theme, it would be improper to
dismiss Nitzsch’s name without reference to his extraordinary labours in investigating
the insect and other external parasites of Birds, a subject which as regards British
species was subsequently elaborated by Denny in his Monographia Anoplurorum
Britannizx (1842) and in his list of the specimens of British Anoplwra in the collection
of the British Museum.

64 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

as the highest problem of the systematist, but rather their correct limita-
tion. Again the arrangement followed in the Pterylographie was of
course based on pterylographical considerations, and we have its authoyr’s,
own word for it that he was persuaded that the limitation of natural
eroups could only be attained by the most assiduous research into the
species of which they are composed from every point of view. The com-
bination of these three facts will of itself explain some defects, or even
retrogressions, observable in Nitzsch’s later systematic work when com-
pared with that which he had formerly done. On the other hand some
manifest improvements are introduced, and the abundance of details into
which he enters in his Pterylographie renders it far more instructive and
valuable than the older performance. As an abstract of that has already
been given, it may be sufficient here to point out the chief changes made
in his newer arrangement. To begin with, the three great sections of
Aerial, Terrestrial and Aquatic Birds are abolished. The “ Accipitres”
are divided into two groups, Diurnal and Nocturnal; but the first of these
divisions is separated into three sections :—(1) the Vultures of the New
World, (2) those of the Old World and (3) the genus Falco of Linnzeus.
The “ Passering,” that is to say, the true Passeres, are split into eight
Families, not wholly with judgment ;! but of their taxonomy more
is to be said presently. Then a new Order “Picarix” is instituted
for the reception of the Macrochires, Cuculine, Picine, Psittacine
and Amphibole of his old arrangement, to which are added three?
others—Caprimulginx, Todide and Lipoglosse—the last consisting of the
genera Buceros, Upupa and Alcedo. The association of Alcedo with the
other two is no doubt a misplaeement, but the alliance of Buceros to
Upupa, already suggested by Gould and Blyth in 1838 % (Mag. Nat. Hist.
ser. 2, ll, pp. 422 and 589), though at first sight unnatural, has been
corroborated by many later systematizers; and taken as a whole the
establishment of the Picariw was certainly a commendable proceeding.
For the rest there is only one considerable change, and that forms the’
greatest blot on the whole scheme. Instead of the Ratite of Merrem
being recognized as before as a Subclass, they were now reduced to the
rank of an Order under the name “ Platysterne,” and placed between the
“ Gallinacex” and “Grallx,” though it was admitted that in their pterylosis
they differ from all other Birds, in ways that the author is at great pains

1 A short essay by Nitzsch on the general structure of the Passerines, written, it is
said, in 1856, was published in 1862 (Zettschr. Ges. Naturwissensch. xix. pp. 389-
408). Itis probably to this essay that Burmeister refers in the Pterylographie (p.
102, note; English translation, p. 72, note) as forming the basis of the article
“Passerine”’ which he contributed to Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklopédie (sect. iii.
bd. xiii. pp. 182-144), and published before the Pterylographie.

* By the numbers’prefixed it would look as if there should be fowr new members
of this Order; but that seems to be due rather to a slip of the pen or to a printer’s
error.

® This association is one of the most remarkable in the whole series of Blyth’s
remarkable papers on classification in the volume cited above. He states that Gould
suspected the alliance of these two forms “from external structure and habits alone ;”’
otherwise one might suppose that he had obtained an intimation to that effect on one
of his Continental journeys. Blyth ‘arrived at the same conclusion, however, by a
different train of investigation,” and this is beyond doubt.

INTRODUCTION 65

to describe, in each of the four genera examined by him—Struthio, Rhea,
Dromzxus and Casuarius.! It is significant that notwithstanding this he
did not figure the pterylosis of any one of them, and the thought suggests
itself that, though his editor assures us he had convinced himself that
the group must be here shoved in (eingeschoben), the intrusion is rather
due to the necessity which Nitzsch, in common with most men of his
time (the Quinarians excepted), felt for deploying the whole series of
Birds into line, in which case the proceeding may be defensible on the
score of convenience. The extraordinary merits of this book, and the
admirable fidelity to his principles which Burmeister shewed in the
difficult task of editing it, were unfortunately overlooked for many years,
and perhaps are not sufficiently recognized now. Even in Germany, the
author’s own country, there were few to notice seriously what is certainly
one of the most remarkable works ever published on the science, much
less to pursue the investigations that had been so laboriously begun.?
Andreas Wagner, in his report on the progress of Ornithology (Arch. f.
Naturgesch. vii. 2, pp. 60, 61), as might be expected from such a man as
he was, placed the Pterylographie at the summit of those publications the
appearance of which he had to record for the years 1839 and 1840,
stating that for “Systematik” it was of the greatest importance. On the
other hand Oken (Isis, 1842, pp. 391-394), though giving a summary of
Nitzsch’s results and classification, was more sparing of his praise, and
prefaced his remarks by asserting that he could not refrain from laughter
when he looked at the plates in Nitzsch’s work, since they reminded him
of the plucked fowls in a poulterer’s shop—it might as well be urged as
an objection to the plates in many an anatomical book that they called
to mind a butcher’s—and goes on to say that, as the author always had the
luck to engage in researches of which nobody thought, so had he the luck.
to print them where nobody sought them. In Sweden Sundevall, with-
out accepting Nitzsch’s views, accorded them a far more appreciative
‘ greeting in his annual reports for 1840-42 (i. pp. 152-160); but of course
in England and France ? nothing was known of them beyond the scantiest
notice, generally taken at second hand, in two or three publications.4

1 He does not mention Apteryz, at that time so little known on the Continent.

2 Some excuse is to be made for this neglect. Nitzsch had of course exhausted
all the forms of Birds commonly to be obtained, and specimens of the less common
forms were too valuable from the curator’s or collector’s point of view to be subjected
to a treatment that might end in their destruction. Yet it is said, on good authority,
that Nitzsch had the patience so to manipulate the skins of many rare species that
he was able to ascertain the characters of their pterylosis by the inspection of their
inside only, without in any way damaging them for the ordinary purpose of a
museum. Nor is this surprising when we consider the marvellous skill of Continental
and especially German taxidermists, many of whom have elevated their profession to
a height of art inconceivable to most Englishmen, who are only acquainted with the
miserable mockery of Nature which is the most sublime result of all but a few “ bird-
stuffers.”

3 In 1836 Jacquemin communicated to the French Academy (Comptes Rendus,
ii. pp. 374, 375 and 472) some observations on the order in which feathers are
disposed on the body of Birds ; but, however general may have been the scope of his
investigations, the portion of them published refers only to the Crow, and there is no
mention made of Nitzsch’s former work.

4 Thanks to Mr. Sclater, the Ray Society was induced to publish, in 1867, an

66 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

The treatise of Kessler on the osteology of Birds’ feet, published in the
Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists for 1841, next claims a few
words, though its scope is rather to shew differences than affinities ; but
treatment of that kind is undoubtedly useful at times in indicating that
alliances generally admitted are unnatural ; and this is the case here, for,
following Cuvier’s method, the author’s researches prove the artificial
character of some of its associations. While furnishing—almost uncon-
sciously, however—additional evidence for overthrowing that classification,
there is, nevertheless, no attempt made to construct a better one ; and the
elaborate tables of dimensions, both absolute and proportional, suggestive
as is the whole tendency of the author’s observations, seem not to lead to
any very practical result, though the systematist’s need to look beneath
the integument, even in parts that are so comparatively little hidden as
Birds’ feet, is once more made beyond all question apparent.

It has already been mentioned that Macgillivray furnished Audubon
with a series of descriptions of some parts of the anatomy of American
Birds, from subjects supplied to him by that enthusiastic naturalist,
whose zeal and prescience, it may be called, in this respect merits all
praise. Thus he (prompted very likely by Macgillivray) wrote :—“I
believe the time to be approaching when much of the results obtained
from the inspection of the exterior alone will be laid aside; when
museums filled with stuffed skins will be considered insufficient to afford
a knowledge of birds; and when the student will go forth, not only to
observe the habits and haunts of animals, but to preserve specimens of
them to be carefully dissected” (Orn. Biogr. iv. Introduction, p. xxiv.)
As has been stated, the first of this series of anatomical descriptions
appeared in the fourth volume of his work, published in 1838, but
they were continued until its completion with the fifth volume in the
following year, and the whole was incorporated into what may be termed
its second edition, The Birds of America, which appeared between 1840
and 1844. Among the many species whose anatomy Macgillivray thus
partly described from autopsy were at least half a dozen of those now
referred to the Family TyraNt-BIRDs, but then included, with many others,
according to the vague and rudimentary notions of classification of the
time, in what was termed the Family ‘‘ Muscicapine.” In all these
species he found the vocal organs to differ essentially in structure from
those of other Birds of the Old World, which we now call Passerine, or, to
be still more precise, Oscinine. But by him these last were most
arbitrarily severed, dissociated from their allies, and wrongly combined
with other forms by no means nearly related to them (Brit. Birds, i. pp.
17, 18) which he also examined ; and he practically, though not literally,!

excellent translation by Dallas of Nitzsch’s Péerylography, and thereby, however tardily,
justice was at length rendered by British ornithologists to one of their greatest foreign
brethren. The Society had the good fortune to obtain the ten original copper-plates,
all but one drawn by the author himself, wherewith the work was illustrated. It is
only to be regretted that the quarto size in which it appeared was not retained, for
the folio form of the English version puts a needless impediment in the way of its
common and convenient use. On theimportant subject of the pterylography of Birds’
wings see the works cited under Reicks (page 781, note).

+ Not literally, because a few other forms such as the genera Polioptila and

INTRODUCTION 67

asserted the truth, when he said that the general structure, but especially
the muscular appendages, of the lower larynx was “similarly formed in
all other birds of this family” described in Audubon’s work. Mac-
gillivray did not, however, assign to this essential difference any systematic
value. Indeed he was so much prepossessed in favour of a classification
based on the structure of the digestive organs that he could not bring
himself to consider vocal muscles to be of much taxonomic use, and it
was reserved to Johannes Miiller to point out that the contrary was the
fact. This the great German comparative anatomist did in two com-
munications to the Academy of Sciences of Berlin, one on the 26th June
1845 and the other on the 14th May 1846, which, having been first
briefly published in the Academy’s Monatshericht, were afterwards printed
in full, and illustrated by numerous figures, in its Abhandlungen, though
in this latter and complete form they did not appear in public until
1847.1 This very remarkable treatise forms the groundwork of almost
all later or recent researches in the comparative anatomy and consequent
arrangement of the Passeres, and, though it is certainly not free from
imperfections, many of them, it must be said, arose from want of material,
notwithstanding that its author had command of a much more abundant
supply than was at the disposal of Nitzsch. Carrying on the work from
the anatomical point at which he had left it, correcting his errors, and
utilizing to the fullest extent the observations of Keyserling and Blasius,
to which reference has already been made, Miiller, though hampered by
mistaken notions of which he seems to have been unable to rid himself,
propounded a scheme for the classification of this group, the general truth
of which has been admitted by all his successors, based, as the title of his
treatise expressed, on the hitherto unknown different types of the vocal
organs in the Passerines. He freely recognized the prior discoveries of,
as he thought, Audubon, though really, as has since been ascertained, of
Macgillivray ; but Miller was able to perceive their systematic value,
which Macgillivray did not, and taught others to know it. At the same
time Miiller shewed himself, his power of discrimination notwithstanding,
to fall behind Nitzsch in one very crucial point, for he refused to the
latter’s PicaArI@ the rank that had been claimed for them, and imagined
that the groups associated under that name formed but a third “ Tribe”
—Picarti—of a great Order Insessores, the others being (1) the Oseines
or Polymyodi—the Singing Birds by emphasis, whose inferior larynx was
endowed with the full number of five pairs of song-muscles, and (2) the
Tracheophones, composed of some South-American Families. Looking on
Miiller’s labours as we now can, we see that such errors as he committed
are chiefly due to his want of special knowledge of Ornithology, com-
bined with the absence in several instances of sufficient materials for
investigation. Nothing whatever is to be said against the composition of
Ptilogonys, now known to have no relation to the Tyrannidx, were included, though
these forms, it would seem, had never been dissected by him. On the other ‘hand he
declared that the American Redstart, Muscicapa, or, as it now stands, Setophaga
ruticilla, when young, has its vocal organs like the rest—a statement corrected by
Miller in a Nachtrag (p. 405) to his paper next to be mentioned.

1 Also printed separately as Ueber die bisher unbekannten ty ypischen Verschieden-
heiten der Stimmorgane der Passcrinen, 4to, Berlin: 1847.

68 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

his first and second “Tribes” ; but the third is an assemblage still more
heterogeneous than that which Nitzsch brought together under a name so
like that of Miiller—for the fact must never be allowed to go out of
sight that the extent of the Picarit of the latter is not at all that of the
Picarix of the former! For instance, Miiller places in his third “ Tribe”
the group which he called Ampelidx, meaning thereby the peculiar forms
of South America that are now considered to be more properly named
Cotingide (CHATTERER), and herein he was clearly right, while Nitzsch,
who, misled by their supposed affinity to the genus Ampelis (WAxwINa)—
peculiar to the Northern Hemisphere, and a purely Passerine form, had
kept them among his Passerinx, was as clearly wrong. But again Miiller
made his third “ Tribe” Picarw also to contain the Tyrannidx, of which
mention has just been made, though it is so obvious as now to be
generally admitted that they have no very intimate relationship to the
other Families with which they are there associated. There is no need here
to criticize more minutely his projected arrangement, and it must be said
that, notwithstanding his researches, he seems to have had some mis-
givings that, after all, the separation of the Jnsessores into those “ Tribes ”
might not be justifiable. At any rate he wavered in his estimate of their
taxonomic value, for he gave an alternative proposal, arranging all the
genera in a single series, a proceeding in those days thought not only
defensible and possible, but desirable or even requisite, though now
utterly abandoned, Just as Nitzsch had laboured under the disadvantage
of never having any example of the abnormal Passeres of the New World
to dissect, and therefore was wholly ignorant of their abnormality, so
Miiller never succeeded in getting hold of an example of the genus Pitta -
for the same purpose, and yet, acting on the clew furnished by Keyserling
and Blasius, he did not hesitate to predict that it would be found to fill
one of the gaps he had to leave, and this to some extent it has been since
proved to do. The result of all this is that the Oscines or true Passeres
are found to be a group in which the vocal organs not only attain the
greatest perfection, but are nearly if not quite as uniform in their structure
as in the sternal apparatus; while at the same time each set of characters
is wholly unlike that which exists in any other group of Birds, as is set
forth in Dr. Gadow’s article Syrtnx in the text.

It must not be supposed that the muscles just defined were first dis-
covered by Miiller; on the contrary they had been described long before,
and by many writers on the anatomy of Birds. To say nothing of
foreigners, or the authors of general works on the subject, an excellent
account of them had been given by Yarrell in 1829 (Trans. Linn. Soe.
Xvi. pp. 305-321, pls. 17, 18), an abstract of which was subsequently
given in the article “Raven” in his History of British Birds, and Mac-
gillivray also described and figured them with the greatest accuracy ten
years later in his work with the same title (ii. pp. 21-37, pls. x.-xii.),
while Blyth and Nitzsch had (as already mentioned) seen some of their
value in classification. But Miiller has the merit of elearly outstriding
his predecessors, and with his accustomed perspicacity made the way even

1 It is not needless to point out this fine distinction, for more than one modern
author would seem to have overlooked it.

INTRODUCTION 69

plainer for his successors to see than he himself was able to see it. What
remains to add is that the celebrity of its author actually procured for
the first portion of his researches notice in England (Ann. Nat. Hist. xvii.
p. 499), though it must be confessed not then to any practical purpose.

It is now necessary to revert to the year 1842, in which Dr. Cornay
of Rochefort communicated to the French Academy of Sciences a memoir
on a new Classification of Birds, of which, however, nothing but a notice
has been preserved (Comptes Rendus, xiv. p. 164). Two years later this
was followed by a second contribution from him on the same subject, and
of this only an extract appeared in the official organ of the Academy (op.
cit. xvi. pp. 94, 95), though an abstract was inserted in one scientific journal
(L’Institut, xii. p. 21), and its first portion in another (Journal des
Deécouvertes, i. p. 250). The Revue Zoologique for 1847 (pp. 360-369)
contained the whole, and enabled naturalists to consider the merits of the
author’s project, which was to found a new Classification of Birds on the
form of the anterior palatal bones, which he declared to be subjected
more evidently than any other to certain fixed laws. These laws, as for-
mulated by him, are that (1) there is a coincidence of form of the anterior
palatal bones and of the cranium in Birds of the same Order ; (2) thereis a
likeness between the anterior palatal bones in Birds of the same Order ; (3)
there are relations of likeness between the anterior palatal bones in groups
of Birds which are near to one another. These laws, he added, exist in
regard to all parts that offer characters fit for the methodical arrangement
of Birds, but it is in regard to the anterior palatal bones that they un-
questionably offer the most evidence. In the evolution of these laws Dr.
Cornay had most laudably studied, as his observations prove, a vast
number of different types, and the upshot of his whole labours, though
not very clearly stated, was such as wholly to subvert the classification at
that time generally adopted by French ornithologists. He of course knew
the investigations of L’Herminier and De Blainville on sternal formation,
and he also seems to have been aware of some pterylological differences
exhibited in Birds—whether those disclosed by Nitzsch or those by Jacque
min is not stated. True it is the latter were never published in full,
but it is conceivable that Dr. Cornay may have known their drift. Be
that as it may, he declares that characters drawn from the sternum or the
pelvis—hitherto deemed to be, next to the bones of the head, the most
important portions of the bird’s framework—are scarcely worth more, from
a classificatory point of view, than characters drawn from the bill or the
legs; while pterylological considerations, together with many others to
which some systematists had attached more or less importance, can only
assist, and apparently must never be taken to control, the force of evi-
dence furnished by this bone of all bones—the anterior palatal.

1 More than 80 years after proper tribute was rendered to one who by his
investigations had so materially advanced the study of Ornithology, since in 1878
Mr. Sclater procured the publication at Oxford of.an English version of this treatise
under the title of Johannes Miiller on Certain Variations in the Vocal Organs of the
Passeres that have hitherto escaped notice. It was translated by Prof. Jeffrey Bell,
and Garrod added an appendix containing a summary of his own continuation of the

same line of research. By some unaccountable accident, the date of the original com-
munication to the Academy of Berlin is wrongly printed. It is rightly given above.

70 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

That Dr. Cornay was on the brink of making a discovery of consider-
able merit will by and by appear; but, with every disposition to regard
his investigations favourably, it cannot be said that he accomplished it.
No account need be taken of the criticism which denominated his attempt
“unphilosophical and one-sided,” nor does it signify that his proposals
either attracted no attention or were generally received with indifference.
Such is commonly the fate of any deep-seated reform of classification pro-
posed by a comparatively unknown man, unless it happen to possess some
extraordinarily taking qualities, or be explained with an abundance of
pictorial illustration. This was not the case here. Whatever proofs Dr.
Cornay may have had to satisfy himself of his being on the right track,
these proofs were not adduced in sufficient number nor arranged with
sufficient skill to persuade a somewhat stiffmecked generation of the
truth of his views—for it was a generation whose leaders, in France at
any rate, looked with suspicion upon any one who professed to go beyond
the bounds which the genius of Cuvier had been unable to overpass, and
regarded the notion of upsetting any of the positions maintained by him
as verging upon profanity. Moreover, Dr. Cornay’s scheme was not given
to the world with any of those adjuncts that not merely please the eye
but are in many cases necessary, for, though on a subject which required
for its proper comprehension a series of plates, it made even its final
appearance unadorned by a single explanatory figure, and in a journal,
respectable and well-known indeed, but one not of the highest scientific
rank. Add to all this that its author, in his summary of the practical
results of his investigations, committed a grave sin in the eyes of rigid
systematists by ostentatiously arranging the names of the forty types
which he selected to prove his case wholly without order, and without
any intimation of the greater or less affinity any one of them might bear
to the rest. That success should attend a scheme so inconclusively
elaborated could not be expected.

The same year which saw the promulgation of the crude scheme just
described, as well as the publication of the final researches of Miiller,
witnessed also another attempt at the classification of Birds, much more
limited indeed in scope, but, so far as it went, regarded by most orni-
thologists of the time as almost final in its operation. Under the vague
title of ‘Ornithologische Notizen’ Prof. Cabanis of Berlin contributed to
the Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (xiii. 1, pp. 186-256, 308-352) an essay in
two parts, wherein, following the researches of Miller! on the syrinx, in
the course of which a correlation had been shewn to exist between the
whole or divided condition of the planta or hind part of the “ tarsus”
(first noticed, as has been said, by Keyserling and Blasius) and the presence
or absence of the perfect song-apparatus, the younger author found an
agreement which seemed almost invariable in this respect, and he also
pointed out that the planta of the different groups of Birds in which it
is divided, is divided in different modes, the mode of division being
generally characteristic of the group. Such a coincidence of the internal

1 On the other hand, Miiller makes several references to the labours of Prof.

Cabanis. The investigations of both authors must have been proceeding simultan-
sously, and it matters little which actually appeared first.

INTRODUCTION Ti

and external features of Birds was naturally deemed a discovery of great
value by those ornithologists who thought most highly of the latter, and
it was unquestionably of no little practical utility. Further examination
also revealed the fact! that in certain groups the number of “ primaries,”
or quill-feathers growing from the manus of the wing, formed another
characteristic easy of observation. In the Oscines or Polymyodi of Miiller
the number was either nine or ten—and if the latter the outermost of
them was generally very small. In two of the other groups of which
Prof. Cabanis especially treated—groups which had been hitherto more or
less confounded with the Oscines—the number of primaries was invari-
ably ten, and the outermost of them was comparatively large. This
observation was also hailed as the discovery of a fact of extraordinary
importance ; and, from the results of these investigations taken altogether,
Ornithology was declared by Sundevall, undoubtedly a man who had a
right to speak with authority, to have made greater progress than had been
achieved since the days of Cuvier. The final disposition of the ‘‘Sub-
class Insessores”—all the perching birds, that is to say, which are neither
Birds-of-Prey nor Pigeons—proposed by Prof. Cabanis, was into four
“Orders,” as follows :—

1. Oscines, equal to Miiller’s group of the same name.

2. Clamatores, being a majority of that division of the Picarix of
Nitzsch, so called by Andreas Wagner, in 1841,? which have their feet
normally constructed.

3. Strisores, a group now separated from the Clamatores of Wagner,
and containing those forms which have their feet abnormally constructed ;
and

4. Scansores, being the Grimpeurs of Cuvier, the Zygodactyli of several
other systematists.

The first of these four “Orders” had been already indefeasibly estab-
lished as one perfectly natural, but respecting its details more must pre-
sently be said. The remaining three are now seen to be artificial associa-
tions, and the second of them, Clamatores, in particular, containing a very
heterogeneous assemblage of forms; but it must be borne in mind that
the internal structure of some of them was at that time still more imper-
fectly known than now. Yet even then, enough had been ascertained to
have saved what are now recognized as the Families Todidx and Tyran-
nidex from being placed as ‘‘ Subfamilies” in the same ‘‘ Family Colopteridx” ;
and several other instances of unharmonious combination in this “ Order”
might be adduced were it worth while to particularize them. More than
that, it would not be difficult to shew, only the present is not exactly the

1 This seems to have been made known by Prof. Cabanis the preceding year to
the ‘Gesellschaft der Naturforschender Freunde’ (cf. Miiller, Stimmorgane der Pas-
serinen, p. 65). Of course the variation to which the number of primaries was
subject had not escaped the observation of Nitzsch, but he had scarcely used it as a
classificatory character.

2 Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, vii. 2, pp. 98, 94. The division seems to have
been instituted by this author a couple of years earlier in the second edition of his
Handbuch der Naturgeschichte (which I have not seen), but not then to have received
a scientific name. It included all Picariw which had not “zygodactylous” feet, that
is to say, toes placed in pairs, two before and two behind.

.

72 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

place for it, that some groups or Families which in reality are not far
distant from one another are distributed, owing to the dissimilarity of
their external characters, throughout these three Orders.

But to return to the Oscines, the arrangement of which in the
classification now under notice has been deemed its greatest merit, and
consequently has been very generally followed. That by virtue of the
perfection of their vocal organs, and certain other properties—though
some of these last have perhaps never yet been made-clear enough—they
should stand at the head of the whole Class, may be freely admitted, but
the respective rank assigned to the various component Families of the
group is certainly open to question, and to the present writer seems, in
the methods of several systematists, to be based upon a fallacy. This
respective rank of the different Families appears to have been assigned on
the principle that, since by reason of one character (namely, the more
complicated structure of their syrinx) the Oscines form a higher group
than the Clamatores, therefore all the concomitant features which the
former possess and the latter do not must be equally indicative of
superiority. Now one of the features in which most of the Oscines differ
from the lower “Order” is the having a more or less undivided planta,
and accordingly it has been assumed that the Family of Oscines in which
this modification of the plania is carried to its extreme point must be the
highest point of that “ Order.” Since, therefore, this extreme modification
of the planta is exhibited by the Thrushes and their allies, it is alleged
that they must be placed first, and indeed at the head of all Birds. The
groundlessness of this reasoning ought to be apparent to everybody. In
the present state of anatomy at any rate, it is impossible to prove that
there is more than a coincidence in the facts just stated, and in the
association of two characters—one deeply seated and affecting the whole
life of the Bird, the other superficially, and so far as we can perceive
without effect upon its organism. Because the Clamatores, having no
song-muscles, have a divided planta, it cannot be logical to assume that
among the Oscines, which possess song-muscles, such of them as have an
undivided planta must be higher than those that have it divided. The
argument, if it can be called an argument, is hardly one of analogy ; and
yet no stronger ground has been occupied by those who invest the
Thrushes, as do the majority of modern systematists, with the most
dignified position in the whole Class. But passing from general to par-
ticular considerations, so soon as a practical application of the principle
is made its inefficacy is manifest. The test of perfection of the vocal
organs must be the perfection of the notes they enable their possesson-to
utter. There cannot be a question that, sing admirably as do some of
the Birdsincluded among the Thrushes,! the Larks, as a Family, infinitely
surpass them. Yet the Larks form the very group which, as elsewhere

1 Prof. Cabanis would have strengthened his position had he included in the same
Family with the Thrushes, which he called Rhacnemidz, the birds commonly known
as Warblers, Sylviidx, which the more advanced of recent systematists are inclined
with much reason to unite with the Thrushes, Zurdidx; but instead of that he,
trusting to the plantar character, segregated the Warblers, including of course the
Nightingale, and did not even allow them the second place in his method, putting

¢

INTRODUCTION 73

shewn (LARK, page 511), have the planta more divided than any other
among the Oscines. It seems hardly possible to adduce anything that
would more conclusively demonstrate the independent nature of each of
these characters—the complicated structure of the syrinx and the asserted
inferior formation of the planta—which are in the Alaudidz associated
Moreover, this same Family affords a very valid protest against the ex-
treme value attached to the presence or absence of the outermost quill-
feather of the wings, and in this work it is also shewn (loc. cit.) that
almost every stage of magnitude in this feather is exhibited by the Larks
from its almost abortive condition in Alauda to its very considerable
development in Mirafra. Indeed there are many genera of Oscines in
which the proportion that the outermost “ primary” bears to the rest is
at best but a specific character, and certain exceptions are allowed by
Prof. Cabanis (p. 313) to exist.2 Some of them it is now easy to explain,
inasmuch as in a few cases the apparently aberrant genera have elsewhere
found a more natural position, a contingency to which he himself was
fully awake? But as a rule the allocation and ranking of the different
Families of Oscines by this author must be deemed arbitrary. Yet the
value of his Ornithologische Notizen is great, not only as evidence of his
extensive acquaintance with different forms, which is proclaimed in every
page, but in leading to a far fuller appreciation of characters that certainly
should on no account be neglected, though too much importance may
easily be, and already has been, assigned to them.*

This will perhaps be the most convenient place to mention another
kind of classification of Birds, which, based on a principle wholly different
from those that have just been explained, requires a few words, though it
has not been productive, nor is it likely, from all that appears, to be pro-
ductive of any great effect. So long ago as 1831, Bonaparte, in his
Saggio di una distribuzione metodica degli Animali Vertebrati, published at
Rome, and in 1837 communicated to the Linnean Society of London,
‘A new Systematic Arrangement of Vertebrated Animals,’ which was
subsequently printed in that Society’s Transactions (xviii. pp. 247-304),
though before it appeared there was issued at Bologna, under the title of
Synopsis Vertebratorum Systematis, a Latin translation of it. Herein he

them below the Family called by him Sylvicolidx, consisting chiefly of the American
forms now known as Mniotiltidx#, none of which as songsters approach those of the
Old World.

1 It must be observed that Prof. Cabanis does not place the Alaudidz lowest of
the seventeen Families of which he makes the .Oscines to be composed. They stand
eleventh in order, while the Corvid# are last—a matter on which something may be
said in the sequel.

2 The American Family Vireonidx (VIREO) presents some notable examples, though
there it is stated that the tenth primary is always present, but often concealed by the
ninth (¢f. Coues, Key NV. Am. Birds, ed. 2, p. 331).

3 By a curious error, probably of the press, the number of primaries assigned to
the Paradiseidw and Corvide is wrong (pp. 334, 335). In each case 10 should be
substituted for 19 and 14.

4 A more extensive and detailed application of his method was begun by Prof.
Cabanis in the Museum Heineanum, a useful catalogue of specimens in the collection
of the late Oberamtmann Heine, of which the first part appeared at Halberstadt in
1850, and the last, the work being still unfinished, in 1863. A Nomenclator of the
same collection was printed at Berlin 1882-90 by its owner’s son and Dr, Reichenow.

74 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

divided the Class Aves into two Subclasses, to which he applied the names
of Insessores and Grallatores (hitherto used by their inventors Vigors and
Illiger in a different sense), in the latter work relying chiefly for this
division on characters which had not before been used by any systematist,
namely, that in the former group Monogamy generally prevailed and the
helpless nestlings were fed by their parents, while the latter group were
mostly Polygamous, and the chicks at birth were active and capable of
feeding themselves. This method, which in process of time was dignified
by the title of a Physiological Arrangement, was insisted upon with more
or less pertinacity by the author throughout a long series of publications,
some of them separate books, some of them contributed to the memoirs
issued by many scientific bodies of various European countries, ceasing only
at his death, which in July 1857 found him occupied upon the unfinished
Conspectus Generum Avium before mentioned. In the course of this series,
however, he saw fit to alter the name of his two Subclasses, since those
which he at first adopted were open to a variety of meanings, and in a
communication to the French Academy of Sciences in 1853 (Comptes
Rendus, xxxvii, pp. 641-647) the denomination Jnsessores was changed to
Altrices, and Grallatores to Precoces—the terms now preferred by him
being taken from Sundevall’s treatise of 1835 already mentioned. The
views of Bonaparte were, it appears, also shared by an ornithological
amateur of some distinction, Hogg, who propounded a scheme which, as
he subsequently stated (Zool. 1850, p. 2797), was founded strictly in
accordance with them; but it would seem that, allowing his convictions
to be warped by other considerations, he abandoned the original
“physiological” basis of his system, so that this, when published in 1846
(Edinb. N. Philos, Journ. xli, pp. 50-71) was found to be established on a
single character of the feet only, whereon he defined his Subclasses Con-
strictipedes and Inconstrictipedes. 'The numerous errors made in his asser-
tion hardly need pointing out. Yet the idea of a ‘‘ physiological” arrange-
ment on the same kind of principle found another follower, or, as he thought,
inventor, in Newman, who published (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1850, pp. 46-48,
and Zool. pp. 2780-2782) a plan based on exactly the same considerations,
dividing Birds into two groups, ‘‘ Hesthogenous ”—a word so vicious in
formation as to be incapable of amendment, but intended to signify those
that were hatched with a clothing of down—and “ Gymnogenous,” or
those that were hatched naked. These three systems are essentially
identical ; but, plausible as they may be at the first aspect, they have
been found to be practically useless, though such of their characters as their
upholders have advanced with truth deserve attention, and, as will be seen
in the present work, Dr. Gadow’s terms Nidicole and Nidifugx, used in no
systematic sense, express with greater accuracy what is needed, Physiology
may one day very likely assist the systematist ; but it must be real
physiology and not a sham. :

In 1856 Prof. Gervais, who had already contributed to the Zoologie
of M. de Castelnau’s Expédition dans les parties centrales de Amérique du
Sud some important memoirs describing the anatomy of the Hoacrzin
(page 421) and certain other Birds of doubtful or anomalous position,
published some remarks on the characters which could be drawn from the

INTRODUCTION 75

sternum of Birds (Ann. Sc. Nat. Zoologie, ser. 4, vi. pp. 5-15). The con-
siderations are not very striking from a general point of view ; but the
author adds to the weight of evidence which some of his predecessors had
brought to bear on certain matters, particularly in aiding to abolish the
artificial groups “ Déodactyls,” “Syndactyls” and ‘ Zygodactyls,” on
which so much reliance had been placed by many of his countrymen ;
and it is with him a great merit that he was the first apparently to
recognize publicly that characters drawn from the posterior part
of the sternum, and particularly from the ‘“ échancrures,” commonly
called in English “notches” or “emarginations,” are of comparatively
little importance, since their number is apt to vary in forms that
are most closely allied, and even in species that are usually associated
in the same genus or unquestionably belong to the same Family,! while
these “notches,” sometimes become simple foramina, asin certain Pigeons,
or on the other hand foramina may exceptionally change to ‘ notches,”
and not unfrequently disappear wholly. Among his chief systematic
determinations we may mention that he refers the Tinamous to the Rails,
because apparently of their deep “notches,” but otherwise takes a view of
that group more correct according to modern notions than did most of his
contemporaries. The Bustards he would place with the ‘‘ Limicoles,” as
also Dromas (CRAB-PLOVER) and Chionis, (SHEATHBILL). Phaethon (TRopic-
BIRD) he would place with the “ Laridés” and not with the ‘ Pelécanidés,”
which it only resembles in its feet having all the toes connected by a web.
Finally Divers, Auks and Penguins, according to him, form the last term
in the series, and it seems fit to him that they should be regarded as form-
ing a separate Order. It is a curious fact that even at a date so late as
this, and by an investigator so well informed, doubt should still have
existed whether Apteryx should be referred to the group containing the
Cassowary and the Ostrich. On the whole the remarks of this esteemed
author do not go much beyond such as might occur to any one who had
made a study of a good series of specimens; but many of them are
published for the first time, and the author is careful to insist on the
necessity of not resting solely on sternal characters, but associating with
them those drawn from other parts of the body.

Three years later in the same journal (xi. pp. 11-145, pls. 2-4) M.
‘Blanchard published some Recherches sur les caracteres ostéologiques des
Oiseaux appliquées a la Classification naturelle de ces animaux, strongly
urging the superiority of such characters over those drawn from the bill or
feet, which, he remarks, though they may have sometimes given correct
notions, have mostly led to mistakes, and, if observations of habits and
food have sometimes afforded happy results, they have often been decep-
tive ; so that, should more be wanted than to draw up a mere inventory
of creation or trace the distinctive outline of each species, zoology without
anatomy would remain a barren study. At the same time he states that
authors who have occupied themselves with the sternum alone have often

1 Thus he cites the cases of Machetes pugnax and Scolopax rusticula among the
“Timicoles,” and Larus caturactes among the ‘‘ Laridés,” as differing from their
nearest allies by the possession of only one “notch” on either side of the keel (¢f.

supra, page 49),

76 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

produced uncertain results, especially when they have neglected its
anterior for its posterior part; for in truth every bone of the skeleton
ought to be studied in all its details. Yet this distinguished zoologist
selects the sternum as furnishing the key to his primary groups or
“Orders” of the Class, adopting, as Merrem had done long before, the
same two divisions Carinate and Ratitz, naming, however, the former
Tropidosternti and the latter Homalosternii.1 Some unkind fate has
hitherto hindered him from making known to the world the rest of his
researches in regard to the other bones of the skeleton till he reached the
head, and in the memoir cited he treats of the sternum of only a-portion
of his first ‘‘ Order.” This is the more to be regretted by all ornithologists
since he intended to conclude with what to them would have been a very
great boon—the shewing in what way external characters coincided with
those presented by Osteology. It was also within the scope of his plan
to have continued on a more extended scale the researches on ossification
begun by L’Herminier, and thus M. Blanchard’s investigations, if com-
pleted, would obviously have taken extraordinarily high rank among the
highest contributions to ornithology. As it is, the 32 pages we have of
them are of considerable importance ; for, in this unfortunately unfinished
memoir, he describes in some detail the several differences which the
sternum in.a great many different groups of his Tropidosterni presents,
and to some extent makes a methodical disposition of them accordingly.
Thus he separates the Birds-of-Prey into three great groups—(1) the
ordinary Diurnal forms, including the Falconide and Vulturide of the
systematist of his time, but distinguishing the American VuLrures from
those of the Old World ; (2) Gypogeranus (SECRETARY-BIRD) ; and (3) the
Ow1s. Next he places the Parrots, and then the vast assemblage of
“‘ Passereaux ”—which he declares to be all of one type, even genera like
Pipra (Manakin) and Pirra—and concludes with the somewhat hetero-
geneous conglomeration of forms, beginning with Oypselus (Swrrr), that
so many systematists have been accustomed to call Picariz, though to
them as a group he assigns no name.”

Important as are the characters afforded by the sternum, that bone
even with the whole sternal apparatus should obviously not be considered
alone. To aid ornithologists in their studies in this respect, Eyton, who
for many years had been forming a collection of Bird’s skeletons, began
the publication of a series of plates representing them. The first part of
this work, Osteologia Avium, appeared early in 1859, and a volume was
completed in 1867. A supplement was issued in 1869, and a Second
Supplement, in three parts, between 1873 and 1875. The whole work
contains a great number of figures of Birds’ skeletons and detached bones ;
but they are not so drawn as to be of much practical use, and the

1 These terms were explained in his great work L’ Organisation du Régne Animal,
Oiseaux (p. 16), begun in 1855, and unhappily unfinished, to mean exactly the same
as those applied by Merrem to his two primary divisions.

2 M. Blauchard’s animadversions on the employment of external characters, and
on trusting to observations on the habits of Birds, called forth a rejoinder from Mr.
Wallace (bis, 1864, pp. 86-41), who successfully shewed that they are not altogether
to be despised.

INTRODUCTION 77

accompanying letterpress is tco brief to be satisfactory. A somewhat
similar work, Abbildungen von Vogel-Skeletten, was begun in 1879 by Dr.
A. B. Meyer, and is still in progress, 210 plates of Birds’ skeletons having
already appeared. Some of these are excellent, but photography, by
means of which they are all represented, is an unintelligent art, and as
the sun shines alike on the evil and the good, so minor characters are as
faithfully portrayed as those which are of importance, and indeed the
latter are often, from the nature of the case, obscure or even indistinguish-
able. Yet we may be sure that every possible care was taken to avoid
the disappointment thus caused.!

That the eggs laid by Birds should offer to some extent characters of
utility to systematists is only to be expected, when it is considered that
those from the same nest generally bear an extraordinary family-likeness
to one another, and also that in certain groups the essential peculiarities
of the egg-shell are constantly and distinctively characteristic. Thus no
one who has ever examined the egg of a Duck or of a Tinamou would
ever be in danger of not referring another Tinamouw’s egg or another
Duck’s that he might see to its proper Family, and so on with many
others. Yet, as is stated in the text (p. 182), the expectation held
out to oologists, and by them, of the benefits to be conferred upon
Systematic Ornithology from the study of Birds’ eggs, so far from being
fulfilled, has not unfrequently led to disappointment. But at the same
time many of the shortcomings of Oology in this respect must be set down
to the defective information and observation of its votaries, among whom
some have been very lax, not to say incautious, in not ascertaining on due
evidence the parentage of their specimens, and the author next to be
named is open to this charge. After several minor notices that appeared
in journals at various times, Des Murs in 1860 brought out at Paris his
ambitious Trait¢é général dOoloyie Ornithologique au point de vue de la
Classification, elsewhere mentioned (Eaas, page 191, note), which contains
(pp. 529-538) a ‘Systema Oologicum’ as the final result of his labours.
In this scheme Birds are arranged according to what the author considered
to be their natural method and sequence ; but the result exhibits some
unions as ill-assorted as can well be met with in the whole range of
tentative arrangements of the Class, together with some very unjustifiable
divorces. This being the case, it would seem useless to take up further
space by analysing the several proposed modifications of Cuvier’s arrange-
ment which the author takes as his basis. The great merit of the work
is that the author shews the necessity of taking Oology into account when
investigating the classification of Birds, but it also proves that in so doing
the paramount consideration lies in the thorough sifting of evidence as
to the parentage of the eggs which are to serve as the building stones of
the fabric to be erected (Ibis, 1860, pp. 331-335). The attempt of Des
Murs was praiseworthy ; but in effect it has utterly failed, notwithstand-

1 A countless number of osteological papers have appeared in journals, and to
name them would here be impossible. The more important have generally been
mentioned in the body of this work in connexion with the species or group of species
they illustrate ; but many that are gocd are necessarily passed oyer.

o

78 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

ing the encomiums passed upon it by friendly crities (Rev. de Zoologie,
1860, pp. 176-183, 313-325, 370-373).1

Until about this time systematists, almost without exception, may be
said to have been wandering with no definite purpose. At leasttheir purpose
was indefinite compared with that which they now have before them.
No doubt they all agreed in saying that they were prosecuting a search
for what they called the True System of Nature; but that was nearly
the end of their agreement, for in what that True System consisted the
opinions of scarcely any two would coincide, unless to own that it was
some shadowy idea beyond the present power of mortals to reach or even
comprehend. The Quinarians, who boldly asserted that they had fathomed
the mystery of Creation, had been shewn to be no wiser than other men,
if indeed they had not utterly befooled themselves ; for their theory at
best could give no other explanation of things than that they were
because they were. The conception of such a process as has now come to
be called by the name of Evolution was certainly not novel; but except
to two men the way in which that process was or could be possible had
not been revealed.? Here there is no need to enter into details of the
history of Evolutionary theories; but the annalist in every branch of
Biology must record the eventful First of July 1858, when the now cele-
brated views of Darwin and Mr. Wallace were first laid before the scientific
world,? and must also notice the appearance towards the end of the follow-
ing year of the former’s Origin of Species, which has effected one of the
greatest revolutions of thought in this or perhaps in any century. The
majority of biologists who had schooled themselves on other principles
were of course slow to embrace the new doctrine ; but their hesitation was
only the natural consequence of the caution which their scientific train-
ing enjoined. A few there were who felt as though scales had suddenly
dropped from their eyes, when greeted by the idea conveyed in the now
familiar phrase “ Natural Selection” ; but even those who had hitherto
believed, and still continued to believe, in the sanctity of “Species” at
once perceived that their life-long study had undergone a change, that
their old position was seriously threatened by a perilous siege, and that to
make it good they must find new means of defence. Many bravely
maintained their posts, and for them not a word of blame ought to be
expressed. Some few pretended, though the contrary was notorious, that
they had always been on the side of the new philosophy, so far as they ~
allowed it to be philosophy at all, and for them hardly a word of blame is
too severe. Others after due deliberation, as became men who honestly
desired the truth and nothing but the truth, yielded wholly or almost
wholly to arguments which they gradually found to be irresistible. But,

1 In this historical sketch of the progress of Ornithology it has not been thought
necessary to mention other oological works, since they have not a taxonomic bearing
and the chief of them are named elsewhere (p. 188, note), but to them must be added
Mr. Poynting’s Lygs of Britis?” Birds (at present confined to the Limicola:), the figures
of which are excellent, and Capt. Bendire’s work mentioned above (page 37).

? Neither Lamarck nor Robert.Chambers (the now acknowledged author of Vestiges
of Creation), though thorough evolutionists, rationally indicated any means whereby,
to use the old phrase, ‘‘the transmutation of species” could be effected.

3 Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, iii. Zoology, pp. 45-62,

INTRODUCTION 79

leaving generalities apart, and restricting ourselves to what is here our
proper business, there was possibly no branch of Zoology in which so
many of the best informed and consequently the most advanced of its workers
sooner accepted the principles of Evolution than Ornithology, and of
course the effect upon its study was very marked. New spirit was given
to it. Ornithologists now felt they had something before them that was
really worth investigating. Questions of Affinity, and the details of
Geographical Distribution, were endowed with a real interest, in comparison
with which any interest that had hitherto been taken was a trifling pastime.
Classification assumed a wholly different aspect. It had up to this time
been little more than the shuffling of cards, the ingenious arrangement of
counters in a pretty pattern. Henceforward it was to be the serious study
of the workings of Nature in producing the beings we see around us from
beings more or less unlike them, that had existed in bygone ages and had
been the parents of a varied and varying offspring—our fellow-creatures
of to-day. Classification for the first time was something more than the
expression of a fancy, not that it had not also its imaginative side. Men
began to figure to themselves the original type of some well-marked genus
or Family of Birds. They could even discern dimly some generalized
stock whence had descended whole groups that now differed strangely in
habits and appearance—their discernment aided, may be, by some isolated
form which yet retained undeniable traces of a primitive structure. More
dimly still visions of what the first Bird may have been like could be
reasonably entertained ; and, passing even to a higher antiquity, the
Reptilian parent whence all Birds have sprung was brought within reach
of man’s consciousness. But relieved as it may be by reflexions of this
kind—dreams some may perhaps still call them—the study of Ornithology
has unquestionably become harder and more serious ; and a corresponding
change in the style of investigation, followed in the works that remain to
be considered, will be immediately perceptible.
That this was the case is undeniably shewn by some remarks of Canon
-Tristram, who, in treating of the Alaudide and Saaxicoline of Algeria
(whence he had recently brought a large collection of specimens of his
own making), stated (Ibis, 1859, pp. 429-433) that he could “not help
feeling convinced of the truth of the views set forth by Messrs. Darwin
and Wallace,” adding that it was “hardly possible, I should think, to
“illustrate this theory better than by the Larks and Chats of North Africa.”
It is unnecessary to continue the quotation ; the few words just cited are
enough to assure to their author the credit of being (so far as is known)
the first ornithological specialist who had the courage publicly to
recognize and receive the new and at the time unpopular philosophy! But
greater work was at hand. In June 1860 the late Prof. W. K. Parker
broke, as most will allow, entirely fresh ground, and ground that during
his life he continued to till more deeply perhaps than any other man by
communicating to the Zoological Society a memoir ‘On the Osteology of
Balxniceps’ (SHOFBILL), subsequently published in that Society’s Transactions
(iv. pp. 269-351). Of this contribution to science, as of all the rest which

1 Whether Canon Tristram was anticipated in any other, and if so in what, branch
of Zoology will be a pleasing enquiry for the historian of the future.

50 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

have since proceeded from him, may be said in the words he himself has
applied (tom. cit. p. 271) to the work of another labourer in a not distant
field :——“‘ This is amodel paper for unbiassed observation, and freedom from
that pleasant mode of supposing instead of ascertaining what is the true nature
of an anatomical element.”1 Indeed the study of this memoir, limited
though it be in scope, could not fail to convince any one that it proceeded
from the mind of one who taught with the authority derived directly from
original knowledge, and not from association with the scribes—a convic-
tion that has become strengthened as, in a series of successive memoirs,
the stores of more than twenty years’ silent observation and unremitting
research were unfolded, and more than that, the hidden forces of the
science of Morphology were gradually brought to bear upon almost each
subject that came under discussion. These different memoirs, being
technically monographs, have strictly no right to be mentioned in this
place ; but there is scarcely one of them, if one indeed there be, that does
not deal with the generalities of the study ; and the influence they have
had upon contemporary investigation isso strong that it is impossible to
refrain from noticing them here, though want of space forbids us from
enlarging on their contents.2 Moreover, the doctrine of Descent with
variation is preached in all—seldom, if ever, conspicuously, but perhaps,
all the more effectively on that account. There is no reflective thinker
but must perceive that Morphology is one of the lamps destined to throw
light on the obscurity that still shrouds the genealogy of Birds as of other
animals ; and, though as yet its illuminating power is admittedly far from
what is desired, it has perhaps never shone more brightly than in Parker’s

1 It is fair to state that some of Parker’s conclusions respecting Balewniceps were
contested by J. T. Reinhardt (Overs. K. D. Vid. Selsk. Forhandlinger, 1861, pp. 135-
154; Zbis, 1862, pp. 158-175), and it seems to the present writer not ineffectually.
Parker replied to his critic (Zbis, 1862, pp. 297-299).

2 It may be convenient that a list of Parker’s principal works which treat of
ornithological subjects, in addition to the two above mentioned, should here be given.
They are as follows:—In the Zoological Society’s Transactions—On the Osteology
of the Gallinaceous Birds and Tinamous, v. pp. 149-241 ; On some Fossil Birds from
the Zebbug Cave, vi. pp. 119-124; On the Osteology of the Kagu, vi. pp. 501-521 ;
On the Aigithognathous Birds, Pt. I. ix. pp. 289-352, Pt. II. x. pp. 251-314. In the
Proceedings of the same Society—18638, On the systematic position of the Crested
Screamer, pp. 511-518 ; 1865, On the Osteology of Microglossa alecto, pp. 235-238. In
the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society—1865, On the Structure and
Development of the Skull in the Ostrich Tribe, pp. 118-183 ; 1869, On the Structure
and Development of the Skull of the Common Fowl, pp. 755-807 ; 1888, On the
Structure and Development of the Wing of the Common Fowl, pp. 385-398. In the
Linnean Society’s Zransactions—On the Morphology of the Skull in the Wood-
peckers and Wrynecks, ser. 2, Zoology, i. pp. 1-22 ; On the Structure and Development
of the Bird’s Skull, tom. cit. pp. 99-154 ; 1891, On the Morphology ofthe Gallinacex.
In the Monthly Microscopical Journal for 1872,—On the Structure and Development
of the Crow’s Skull, pp. 217-226, 253 ; for 1873, On the Development of the Skull in
the genus Zurdus, pp. 102-107, and On the Development of the Skull in the Tit and
Sparrow Hawk, parts i. and ii., pp. 6-11, 45-50. In the Cunningham Memoirs of the
Royal Irish Academy, No. vi. (Dublin: 1890), On the Morphology of the Duck and
Auk Tribes. There is beside the great work published by the Ray Society in 1868,
A Monograph on the Structure and Development of the Shoulder-girdle and Sternum,
of which pp. 142-191 treat of these parts in the Class Aves; and the first portion of
the article ‘Birds’ in the Hncycl. Brit. ed. 9, iii. pp. 699-728. Nearly each of this
marvellous series is copiously illustrated by figures from drawings made by the author.

INTRODUCTION ST

hands. The great fault of his series of memoirs, if it may be allowed the
present writer to criticize them, is the indifference of their author to for-
mulating his views, so as to enable the ordinary taxonomer to perceive
how far he has got, if not to present him with a fair scheme. But this
fault is possibly one of those that are “to merit near allied,” since it
would seem to spring from the author’s hesitation to pass from observation
to theory, for to theory at present belong, and must for some time belong,
all attempts at Classification. Still it is not the less annoying and dis.
appointing to the systematist to find that the man whose life-long
application would have enabled him, better than any one else, to declare
the effect of the alliances and differences shewn to exist among
various members of the Class, should yet have been so reticent, or that
when he spoke he should rather use the language of Morphology, which
those who are not morphologists find difficult of correct interpretation,
and wholly inadequate to allow of zoological deductions.!

For some time past rumours of a discovery of the highest interest had
been agitating the minds of zoologists, for in 1861 Andreas Wagner had
sent to the Academy of Sciences of Munich (Sitzwngsber. pp. 146-154 ;
Ann. Nat, Hist. ser. 3, ix. pp. 261-267) an account of what he conceived
to be a feathered Reptile (assigning to it the name Griphosaurus), the
remains of which had been found in the lithographic beds of Solenhofen ;
but he himself, through failing health, had been unable to see the fossil.
In 1862 the slabs containing the remains were acquired by the British
Museum, and towards the end of that year Owen communicated a detailed
description of them to the Royal Society (Philos. Trans. 1863, pp. 33-47),
proving their Bird-like nature, and referring them to the genus Archeopteryx
of Hermann von Meyer, hitherto known only by the impression of a
single feather from the same geological beds. Wagner foresaw the use
that would be made of this discovery by the adherents of the new
Philosophy,. and, in the usual language of its opponents at the time,
strove to ward off the “ misinterpretations” that they would put upon it.
His protest, it is needless to say, was unavailing, and all who respect his
memory must regret that the sunset of life failed to give him that insight
into the future which is poetically ascribed to it. To Darwin and those
who believed with him scarcely any discovery could have been more
welcome ; but that is beside our present business. It was quickly seen
—even by those who held Archzopteryx to be a Reptile—that it was a
form intermediate between existing Birds and existing Reptiles—while
those who were convinced by Owen’s researches of its ornithic affinity saw
that it must belong to a type of Birds wholly unknown before, and one
that in any future arrangement of the Class must have a special rank
reserved for it It is elsewhere briefly described and figured in this
work (Fossin Brrps, pages 278-280).

1 As an instance, take the passages in which Turnix and Thinocorys ave apparently
referred (Trans. Zool. Soc. ix. pp. 291 et seqg.; and Encycl. Brit. ed. 9, iii. p. 700) to
the digithognathx, a view which, as shewn by the author (Zrans. x. p. 310), is not
rae really intended by him.

2 This was done in 1866 by Prof. Hiickel, who (Gon Morphol. ii. pp. Xi., eXxXxix.-

exli.) proposed the name SauRIUR# for the group containing it.
3 It behoves us to mention the ‘Outlines of a Systematic Review of the Class of

82 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

In the spring of the year 1867 the late Prof. Huxley, to. the delight
of an appreciative audience, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons
of England a course of lectures on Birds, and it is much to be regretted
that his many engagements hindered him from publishing in its entirety
his elucidation of the anatomy of the Class, and the results which he
drew from his investigations of it ; for never assuredly had the subject
been attacked with greater skill and power, or, since the days of Buffon, had
Ornithology been set forth with greater eloquence. To remedy, in some
degree, this unavoidable loss, and to preserve at least a portion of the
fruits of his labours, Huxley, a few weeks after, presented an abstract of
his researches to the Zoological Society, in whose Proceedings for the same
year it will be found printed (pp. 415-472) as a paper ‘ On the Classifica-
tion of Birds, and on the taxonomic value of the modifications of certain
of the cranial bones observable in that Class’? Starting from the basis
(which, undeniably true as it is, not a little shocked many of his
ornithological hearers) “that the phrase ‘Birds are greatly modified
Reptiles’ would hardly be an exaggerated expression of the closeness”
of the resemblance between the two Classes, which he had previously
brigaded under the name of Sauwropsida (as he had brigaded the Pisces and
Amphibia as Ichthyopsida), he drew in bold outline both their likenesses
and their differences, and then proceeded to enquire how the Aves could
be most appropriately subdivided into Orders, Suborders and Families.
In this course of lectures he had already dwelt at some length on the
insufficiency of the characters on which such groups as had hitherto been
thought to be established were founded ; but for the consideration of this
part of his subject there was no room in the present paper, and the reasons
why he arrived at the conclusion that new means of philosophically and
successfully separating the class must be sought were herein left to be in-
ferred. The upshot, however, admits of no uncertainty : the Class Aves was
held to be composed of three “Orders”—-SauRuR& (p. 814); Rarira

Birds,’ communicated by Prof. Lilljeborg to the Zoological Society in 1866, and
published in its Proceedings for that year (pp. 5-20), since it was immediately after
reprinted by the Smithsonian Institution, and with that authorization has exercised a
great influence on the opinions of American ornithologists. Otherwise the scheme
would hardly need notice here. This paper is indeed little more than an English
translation of one published by the author in the annual volume (Arsshkrift) of the
Scientific Society of Upsala for 1860; and, belonging to the pre-Darwinian epoch,
should perhaps have been more properly treated before, but that at the time of its
original appearance it failed to attract attention. The chief merit of the scheme perhaps
is that, contrary to nearly every precedent, it begins with the lower and rises to the
higher groups of Birds, which is of course the natural mode of proceeding, and one
therefore to be commended. Otherwise the “principles” on which it is founded are
not clear to the ordinary zoologist. One of them is said to be “irritability,” which
is explained to mean, not “muscular strength alone, but vivacity and activity
generally,” and on this ground it is stated that the Passeres should be placed
highest in the Class. But those who know the habits and demeanour of many of
the Limicole would no doubt rightly claim for them much more “ vivacity and
activity ” than is possessed by most Passeres. “ Irritability ” does not seem to form
a character that can be easily appreciated either as to quantity or quality ; in fact most
persons would deem it quite immeasurable, and, as such, removed from practical con-
sideration. Moreover, Prof. Lilljeborg’s scheme, being actually an adaptation of that
of Sundevall, of which we shall have to speak almost immediately, may possibly be
left for the present with these remarks,

INTRODUCTION SF

(p. 766) and Cartnat# (p. 76). The Sawrurex have the metacarpals well
developed and not ancylosed, and the caudal vertebree are numerous and
large, so that the caudal region of the spine is longer than the body, The
furcula is complete and strong, the feet are very Passerine in appearance.
The skull and sternum were at the time unknown, and indeed the whole
Order, without doubt entirely extinct, rested exclusively on the celebrated
fossil, then unique, Archxopteryx just mentioned. The Ratite comprehend
the “Struthious” Birds, which differ from all others now extant in the com-
bination of several peculiarities, some of which have been mentioned in the
preceding pages. The sternum has no keel, and ossifies from lateral and
paired centres only ; the axes of the scapula and coracoid have the same
general direction ; certain of the cranial bones have characters very unlike
those possessed by the next Order—the vomer, for example, being broad
posteriorly and generally intervening between the basisphenoidal rostrum
and the palatals and pterygoids ; the barbs of the feathers are disconnected ;
there is no syrinx or inferior larynx ; and the diaphragm is better developed
than in other Birds The Ratitz are divided into five groups, separated
by very trenchant characters, principally osteological, and many of them
afforded by the cranial bones. ‘These groups consist of (i.) Struthio
(OstRIcH), (ii.) Ruwa, (iii.) Caswarius Cassowary, and Dromxus (EMEv),
(iv.) Dinornis (Moa) and (v.) Apteryx (Kiwi); but no names are here
given to them. The Carinatx comprise all other existing Birds. The
sternum has more or less of a keel, and is said to ossify, with the possible
exception of Stringops (KaKApo), from a median centre as well as from
paired and lateral centres. The axes of the scapula and coracoid meet at
an acute, or, as in Didus (Dopo) and Ocydromus (WmxKa), at a slightly
obtuse angle, while the vomer is comparatively narrow and allows the
pterygoids and palatals to articulate directly with the basisphenoidal
rostrum. The Carinate are divided, according to the formation of the
palate, into four “Suborders,” and named (i.) DrommoGNatTH”, (ii.)
ScHizoGNaTH®, (iii.) DesmocNATH& and (iv.) MerrHoenaTHsz.? The
Dromxognathe resemble the Ratitx, and especially Dromxus, in their
palatal structure, and are composed of the Tinamous. The Schizognathe
include a great many of the forms belonging to the Linnzan Orders
Galline, Gralle and Anseres. In them the vomer, however variable,
always tapers to a point anteriorly, while behind it includes the
basisphenoidal rostrum between the palatals; but neither these nor the
pterygoids are borne by its posterior divergent ends, The maxillo-
palatals are usually elongated and lamellar, uniting with the palatals, and,
bending backward along their inner edge, leave a cleft (whence the name
given to the “ Suborder”) between the vomer and themselves. Six groups
of Schizognathe are distinguished with considerable minuteness :— (1)
CHARADRIOMORPHA; (2) GERANOMORPHE; (3) CECOMORPHH; (4)

1 This peculiarity had’ led some zoologists to consider the “Struthious” Birds
more nearly allied to the Mammalia than any others,

2 These names are compounded respectively of Dromeus, the generic name applied
to the Emeu, cxifa, a split or cleft, décua, a bond or tying, alos, a Finch, and, in
each case, yvd0os, a jaw. The constitution of the several groups is explained in the

body of this work under names here printed in small capitals, but is repeated for the
convenience of the reader.

84 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

SPHENISCOMORPHE; (5) ALECTOROMORPH#; and finally (6) PrRisTERO-
morrHm. In the third of these ‘‘Suborders,” the Desmognathe, the
vomer is either abortive or so small as to disappear from the skeleton.
When it exists it is always slender, and tapers to a point anteriorly. The
maxillo-palatals are bound together (whence the name of the “ Suborder”)
across the middle line, either directly or by the ossification of the nasal
septum. The posterior ends of the palatals and anterior of the pterygoids
articulate directly with the rostrum. The groups of Desmognathex are
characterized as carefully as are those of the preceding “ Suborder,” and
are as follows :—(1) CHENOMORPH; (2) AMPHIMORPHE; (3) PELARGO-
MORPH ; (4) DysPOROMORPH ; (5) AETOMORPHE ; (6) PsITTACOMORPHA;
and lastly (7) CoccYaomorPH4a, containing four groups, to which, however,
names were not given. Next in order come the CELEOMORPHA, a group
respecting the exact position of which Prof. Huxley was uncertain,’
though he inclined to think its relations were with the next group,
AairHoGNaTH#, the fourth and last of his “Suborders,” characterized
by a form of palate in some respects intermediate between the two pre-
ceding. The vomer is broad, abruptly truncated in front, and deeply cleft
behind, so as to embrace the rostrum of the sphenoid ; the palatals have
produced postero-external angles ; the maxillo-palatals are slender at their
origin, and extend obliquely inwards and forwards over the palatals, end-
ing beneath the vomer in expanded extremities, not united either with
one another or with the vomer, nor does the latter unite with the nasal
septum, though that is frequently ossified. Of the Afgithognathe two
divisions are made—(1) CyPsELOMORPH®, and (2) CoRAcoMORPH&,”
which last are separable into two groups, one (a) formed of the genus
Menura (LyRx-B1RD), which then seemed to stand alone, and the other (6)
made up of Potymyop&, TracHEopHONZ and OLigomyop#, sections
fonnded on the syringeal structure, but declared to be not natural.

The above abstract? shews the general drift of this very remarkable
contribution to Ornithology, and it has to be added that for by far the
greater number of his minor groups Huxley relied solely on the form of
the palatal structure, the importance of which Cornay, as already stated
(page 69), had before urged, though to so little purpose. That the palatal
structure must be taken into consideration by taxonomers as affording
hints of some utility there could no longer be a doubt ; but the present
writer is inclined to think that the characters drawn thence owe more of
their worth to the extraordinary perspicuity with which they were
presented by Huxley than to their own intrinsic value, and that if the
same power had been employed to elucidate in the same way other parts
of the skeleton—say the bones of the sternal apparatus or even of the
pelvic girdle—either set could have been made to appear quite as in-
structive and perhaps more so. Adventitious value would therefore seem

1 Prof. Parker subsequently advanced the Woodpeckers to a higher rank under
the name of SaurocnatHe® (Microscop. Journ. 1872, p. 219, and Zr. Linn. Soc. ser.
2, Zoology, i. p. 2).

z By mistake this group was referred (page 104) to the Desmognathous Birds.

° This is adapted from one (Record of Zool. Lit. iv. pp. 46-49) which was sub-
mitted to the author’s approval.

INTRODUCTION 85
to have been acquired by the bones of the palate through the fact that so
great a master of the art of exposition selected them as fitting examples
upon which to exercise his skill! At the same time it must be stated
this selection was not premeditated by him, but forced itself upon him as
his investigations proceeded.2 In reply to some critical remarks (Ibis,
1868, pp. 85-96), chiefly aimed at shewing the inexpediency of relying
solely on one set of characters, especially when those afforded by the
palatal bones were not, even within the limits of Families, wholly
diagnostic, the author (Jbis, 1868, pp. 357-362) announced a slight
modification of his original scheme, by introducing three more groups
into it, and concluded by indicating how its bearings upon the great
question of “Genetic Classification” might be represented so far as the
different groups of Carinatzx are concerned :—

Tinamomorphe.

Turnicomorphe.
|

=e |
Charadriomorphe. Alectoromorphe.

ie ee aes Pteroclomorphe. Palamedea.
Spheniscomorphe. Aetomorphe. Peristeromorphe Gascon
: Heteromorphe. Amphimorphe.
: : Pelargomorphe.

Psittacomorphe. As .Coceygomorphe. $8 . Zgithognathe. Dysporomorphe.

The above scheme, in Huxley’s opinion, nearly represents the affinities of
the various carinate groups,—the great difficulty being to determine the
relations to the rest of the Coccygomorphx, Psittacomorphx and A2githognathe,
which he indicated “only in the most doubtful and hypothetic fashion.”
Almost simultaneously with this he expounded more particularly (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1868, pp. 294-319) the groups of which he believed the
Alectoromorphe to be composed and the relations to them of some outlying
forms usually regarded as Gallinaceous, the Turnicide (Hemipopr) and
Pteroclide (SAND-GRoUSE), as well as the singular Hoacrzin, for all three
of which he had to institute new groups—the last forming the sole repre-
sentative of his HeTrERoMORPH#. More than this, he entered upon their
Geographical Distribution, the facts of which important subject were,

1 The notion of the superiority of the palatal bones to all others for purposes
of classification has pleased many persons, from the fact that these bones are not
unfrequently retained in the dried skins of Birds sent home by collectors in foreign
countries, and are therefore available for study, while such bones as the sternum and
pelvis are rarely preserved. The common practice of ordinary collectors, until at
least very recently, has been tersely described as being to “shoot a bird, take off its
skin and throw away its characters.”

2 Perhaps this may be partially explained by the fact that the Museum of the
College of Surgeons, in which these investigations were chiefly carried on, like most
other museums, contained a much larger series of the heads of Birds than of their
entire skeletons or of any other portion of the skeleton. Consequently the materials
available for the comparison of different forms consisted in great part of heads only.

56 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

almost for the first time, since the attempt of Blyth already. mentioned,!
brought to bear practically on Classification, as has been previously
hinted (GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, page 313); but, the subject being
treated elsewhere at some length, there is no need to enter upon it
here,

Nevertheless it is necessary to mention here the intimate connexion
between Classification and Geographical Distribution as revealed by the
~ paleontological researches of Prof. Alphonse Milne-Edwards, whose mag-
nificent Oiseaux Fossiles de la France began to appear in 1867, and was
completed in 1871—the more so, since the exigencies of his undertaking
compelled him to use materials that had been almost wholly neglected
by other investigators. A large proportion of the fossil remains the
determination and description of which were his object were what are
commonly called the “long bones”, that is to say, those of the limbs.
The recognition of these, minute and fragmentary as many were, and the
referring them to their proper place, rendered necessary an attentive
study of the comparative osteology and myology of Birds in general, that
of the “long bones,” whose sole characters were often a few muscular
ridges or depressions, being especially obligatory. Hence it became
manifest that a very respectable Classification can be found in which
characters drawn from these bones play a rather important part. Limited
by circumstances as is that followed by M. Milne-Edwards, the details of
his arrangement do not require setting forth here. It is enough to point
out that we have in his work another proof of the multiplicity of the
factors which must be taken into consideration by the systematist, and
another proof of the fallacy of trusting to one set of characters alone.
But this is not the only way in which the author has rendered service to
the advanced student of Ornithology. The unlooked-for discovery in
France of remains which he has referred to forms now existing it is
true, but existing only in countries far removed from Europe, forms such
as Collacalia, Leptosomus, Psittacus, Serpentarius and Trogon, is perhaps
even more suggestive than the finding that France was once inhabited by
forms that are wholly extinct, of which, as is elsewhere mentioned (Foss1n
Brrps, pages 284, 288), there is abundance in the older formations. Un-
fortunately none of these, for none is old enough, can be compared for
singularity with Archxopteryx or with some American fossil forms next to
be noticed, for their particular bearing on our knowledge of Ornithology
will be most conveniently treated here.

In November 1870 Prof. Marsh, by finding the imperfect fossilized
tibia of a Bird in the Middle Cretaceous shale of Kansas, began a series of
wonderful discoveries which will ever be associated with his name,? and,
making us acquainted with a great number of forms long since vanished

1 It is true that from the time of Buffon, though he scorned any regular Classifi-
cation, Geographical Distribution had been occasionally held to have something to do
with systematic arrangement ; but the way in which the two were related was never
clearly put forth, though people who could read between the lines might have guessed
the secret from Darwin’s Journal of Researches, as well as from his introduction to
the Zoology of the ‘ Beagle’ Voyage.

? It will of course be needless to remind the general zoologist of Prof. Marsh’s no
less wonderful discoveries of wholly unlooked-for types of Reptiles and Mammals.

INTRODUCTION 8&7

from among the earth’s inhabitants, has thrown a comparatively broad
beam of light through the darkness that, broken only by the solitary spark
emitted on the recognition of Archzxopteryx, had hitherto brooded over our
knowledge of the genealogy of Birds, and is even now for the most part
palpable. Subsequent visits to the same part of North America, often
performed in circumstances of discomfort and occasionally of danger,
brought to this intrepid and energetic explorer the reward he had so
fully earned. Brief notices of his spoils appeared from time to time in
various volumes of the American Journal of Science and Arts (Silliman’s),
but it is unnecessary here to refer to more than a few of them. In that
Journal for May 1872 (ser. 3, ill. p. 360) the remains of a large swimming
Bird (nearly 6 feet in length, as afterwards appeared) having some affinity,
it was thought, to the Colymbidx were described under the name of Hesper-
ornis regalis, and a few months later (iv. p. 344) a second fossil Bird from
the same locality was indicated as Ichthyornis dispar—trom the Fish-like,
biconcave form of its vertebre. Further examination of the enormous
collections gathered by the author, and preserved in the Museum of Yale
College at New Haven in Connecticut, shewed him that this last Bird,
and another to which he gave the name of Aputornis, had possessed
well-developed teeth implanted in sockets in both jaws, and induced
him to establish for their reception a “Subclass” ODoNTORNITHES (page
649) and an Order Ichthyornithes. Two years more and the origin-
ally found Hesperornis was discovered also to have teeth, but these were
inserted in a groove. It was accordingly regarded as the type of a distinct
Order OpontoLc# (loc. cit.), to which were assigned as other characters
vertebre of a saddle-shape and not biconcave, a keelless sternum and
wings consisting only of the humerus. In 1880 Prof. Marsh brought ont
a grand volume, Odontornithes, being a monograph of the extinct toothed
Birds of North America. Herein remains, attributed to no fewer than a
score of species, which were referred to eight different genera, are fully
described and sufficiently illustrated, and, instead of the ordinal name
Ichthyornithes previously used, that of ODONTOTORM4 (loc. cit.) was proposed.
In the author’s concluding summary he remarks on the fact that, while the
Odontolcx, as exhibited in Hesperornis, had teeth inserted in a continuous
groove—a low and generalized character as shewn by Reptiles, they
had, however, the strongly differentiated saddle-shaped vertebra such
as all modern Birds possess. On the other hand the Odontotorme,
as exemplified in Ichthyornis, having the primitive biconcave vertebre,
yet possessed the highly specialized feature of teeth in distinct sockets.
Hesperornis too, with its keelless sternum, had aborted wings but strong
legs and feet adapted for swimming, while Jchthyornis had a keeled
sternum and powerful wings, but diminutive legs and feet. These and
other characters separate the two forms so widely as quite to justify
their assignment to distinct Orders, and the opposite nature of the
evidence they afford illustrates one fundamental principle of Evolution,
namely, that an animal may attain to great development of one set of
characters and at the same time retain other features of a low ancestral
type. Prof. Marsh states that he had fully satisfied himself that Arche-
opteryx belonged to the Odontornithes, which he thought it advisable for

58 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

the present to regard asa Subclass, separated into three Orders—Odontolce,
Odontotormx and Sawrure—all well marked, but evidently not of equal
rank, the last being clearly much more widely distinguished from the
first two than they are from one another. But that these three oldest-
known forms of Birds should differ sc greatly from each other unmistak-
ably points to a great antiquity for the Class. All are true Birds; but
the Reptilian characters they possess converge towards a more generalized
type. He then proceeds to treat of the characters which may be expected
to have occurred in their common ancestor, whose remains may yet be
hoped for from the Paleozoic rocks, or at least from the Permian beds that
in North America are so rich in the fossils of a terrestrial fauna. Birds, he
believes, branched. off by a single stem, which gradually lost its Reptilian
as it assumed the Ornithic type ; and in the existing Ratitz we have the
survivors of this direct line. The lineal descendants of this primal stock
doubtless at an early time attained feathers and warm blood, but, in his
opinion, never acquired the power of flight, which probably originated
among the small arboreal forms of Reptilian Birds. In them even rudi-
mentary feathers on the fore-limbs would be an advantage, as they would
tend to lengthen a leap from branch to branch, or break the force of a
fall in leaping to the ground. As the feathers increased, the body would
become warmer and the blood more active. With still more feathers
would come increased power of flight as we see in the young Birds of
to-day. A greater activity would result in a more perfect circulation. <A
true Bird would doubtless require warm blood, but would not necessarily
be hot-blooded, like the Birds now living. Whether Archxopteryx was on
the Carinate line cannot as yet be determined, and this is also to be said
of Ichthyornis ; but the biconcave vertebrae of the latter suggest its being
an early offshoot, while it is probable that Hesperornis came off from the
main ‘Struthious” stem and has left no descendants.

From this bright vision of the poetic past—a glimpse, some may call
it, into the land of dreams—we must relapse into a sober contemplation
of the prosaic present—a subject quite as difficult to understand. The
former efforts at classification made by Sundevall have already several
times been mentioned, and a return to their consideration was promised.
In 1872 and 1873 he brought out at Stockholm a Methodi Naturalis
Avium Disponendarum Tentamen, two portions of which (those relating to
the Diurnal Birds-of-Prey and the ‘ Cichlomorphe,” or forms related to
the Thrushes) he found himself under the necessity of revising and modi-
fying in the course of 1874, in as many communications to the Swedish
Academy of Sciences (K. V.-Ak. Férhandl, 1874, No. 2, pp. 21-80; No.
3, pp. 27-30). This Tentamen, containing a complete method of classify-
ing Birds in general, naturally received much attention, the more so
perhaps, since, with its appendices, it was nearly the last labour of its
respected author, whose industrious life came to an end in the course of
the following year. From what has before been said of his works it may
have been gathered that, while professedly basing his systematic arrange-
ment of the groups of Birds on their external features, he had hitherto
striven to make his schemes harmonize if possible with the dictates of
internal structure as evinced by the science of anatomy, though he

INTRODUCTION 89

uniformly and persistently protested against the inside being better than
the outside. In thus acting he proved himself a true follower of his
great countryman Linnzus ; but, without disparagement of his efforts in
this respect, it must be said that when internal and external characters
appeared to be in conflict he gave, perhaps with unconscious bias, a
preference to the latter, for he belonged to a school of zoologists whose
natural instinct was to believe that such a conflict always existed. Hence
his efforts, praiseworthy as they were from several points of view, and
particularly so in regard to some details, failed to satisfy the philosophic
taxonomer when generalizations and deeper principles were concerned, and
in his practice in respect to certain technicalities of classification he was, in
the eyes of the orthodox, a transgressor. Thus instead of contenting him-
self with terms that had met with pretty general approval, such as Class,
Subclass, Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily and so on, he introduced
into his final scheme other designations, ‘‘ Agmen,” ‘‘ Cohors,” “ Phalanx”
and the like, which to the ordinary student of Ornithology convey an
indefinite meaning, if any meaning at all. He also carried to a very
extreme limit his views of nomenclature, which were certainly not in
accordance with those held by most zoologists, though this is a matter so
trifling as to need no details in illustration. It is by no means easy to
set forth briefly, and at the same time intelligibly, to any but experts,
the final scheme of Sundevall, owing to the number of new names intro-
duced by him, and there is no need here to make the attempt, for experts
would rather consult the work itself or the English version of it.! Praised
in various quarters as Sundevall’s perfected System was on its appearance,
the present writer felt from the first that it would speedily be seen to
what little purpose so many able men had laboured if arrangement and
grouping so manifestly artificial—the latter often of forms possessing no
real affinity—could pass as a natural method. He was not so sanguine as
to hope that it might be the last of its kind, though any one accustomed
to look deeper than the surface must have seen its numerous defects, and
almost every one, whether so accustomed or not, ought by its means to be
brought to the conclusion that, when a man of Sundevall’s knowledge
and experience could not, by trusting only to external characters, do
better than this, the most convincing proof is afforded of the inability of
external characters alone to produce anything save ataxy. The principal
merits it possesses are confined to the minor arrangement of some of the
Oscines ; but even here many of the alliances, such, for instance, as that
of Pitta with the true Thrushes, are indefensible on any rational grounds,
and some, as that of Accentor with the Weaver-birds, verge upon the
ridiculous, while on the other hand the interpolation of the American
Warblers, Mniotiltidx, between the normal Warblers of the Old World
and the Thrushes is as bad—especially when the genus Mniotilta is placed,
notwithstanding its different wing-formula, with the Tree-creepers, Certhtide.
The whole work unfortunately betrays throughout an utter want of the
sense of proportion, In many of the large groups very slight differences
are allowed to keep the forms exhibiting them widely apart, while in

1 Sundevall’s Tentamen. Translated into English with Notes, by Francis
Nicholson. London: 1889.

go DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

most of the smaller groups differences of far greater kind are overlooked,
so that the forms which present them are linked together in more or less
close union. ‘Thus, regarding only external characters, great as is the
structural distinction between the Gannets, Cormorants, Frigate-birds and
Pelicans, it is not held to remove them from the limits of a single Family ;
and yet the Thrushes and the Chats, whose distinctions are barely sensible,
are placed in separate Families. Again, even in one and the same group,
the equalization of characters indicative of Families is wholly neglected
Thus among the Pigeons the genera Didus and Didunculus, which differ,
so far as we know it, in every external character of their structure, are
placed in one Family, and yet on very slight pretext the genus Goura,
which in all respects so intimately resembles ordinary Pigeons, is set apart
as the representative of a distinct Family. The only use of dwelling upon
these imperfections here is the hope that thereby students of Ornitholog
may be induced to abandon the belief in the efficacy of external characters
as a sole means of classification, and, seeing how unmanageable they become
unless checked by internal characters, be persuaded of the futility of any
attempt to form an arrangement without that solid foundation which can
only be obtained by a knowledge of anatomy. Where Sundevall failed
no one else is likely to succeed ; for he was a man gifted with intelligence
of a rare order, a man of cultivation and learning, one who had devoted
his whole life to science, who had travelled much, studied much and
reflected much, a man whose acquaintance with the literature of his
subject probably exceeded that of any of his contemporaries, and a man
whose linguistic attainments rendered him the envy of his many friends.
Yet what should have been the crowning work of his long life is one that
all who respected him, and that comprehends all who knew him, must regret,
though apart from his systematic treatment his handiwork is admirable.t
Of the very opposite kind was the work of the two men next to be
mentioned—Garrod and Forbes—both cut short in a career of promise ?
1 In 1882 Dr. Reichenow prefixed to his Végel der Zoologischen Garten another
scheme of Classification, which, though out of order, may here be mentioned, from its
treatment being in several respects similar to Sundevall’s. Its author gave (I. p. viii.)
the representation of a genealogical tree (Stammbawm) shewing the descent of existing
Birds from those which were furnished with teeth (of which more presently) by four
principal stems—1. “Kurzfliigler”, Brevipennes ; 2. speedily dividing into ‘‘Schwimm-
vigel”, Natatores and ‘‘Stelzvégel”, Grallatores; 3. ‘‘ Girrvégel”, Gyrantes ; and
4. “Finger”, Captatores, “‘Paarzeher”, Mibulatores and “ Baumvigel’’, Arboricole,
which succeed one another in the order named. These all form 7 Series (Rethe) and are
split into 17 Orders. The sense of proportion seems here more lamentably wanting
than in Sundevall’s Tentamen. All the “Struthious” Birds form one Family, and the
Oscines contain 21! While Series 5, Gyrantes, consists only of the Colwmbx, Series
6, Captatores, includes Crypturi, Rasores (all Gallinz# and Opisthocomus), and Rap-
tatores—containing Vulturide (Sarcorhamphine, Vulturine and Gypastine), Fal-
conide and Strigida. This will shew that no account is taken of any structural
characters except those which are superficial; but the author’s tree of ornithic
genealogy may be regarded as an important feature, having been anticipated, so far as

I know, only by that of Prof. Hiickel (Gen. Morphol. ii. Taf. vii.) which went but a
short way.

” Alfred Henry Garrod, Prosector to the Zoological Society of London, died of
consumption in 1879, aged thirty-three. His successor in that office, William

Alexander Forbes, fell a victim to the deadly climate of the Niger in 1883, and in his
twenty-eighth year,

INTRODUCTION ol

that among students of Ornithology has rarely been equalled and perhaps
never surpassed. The present writer finds it difficult to treat of the
labours of two pupils and friends, for while fully recognizing the brilliant
nature of some of their researches, he is compelled very frequently to
dissent from the conclusions at which they arrived, deeming them to
have often been of a kind that, had their authors survived to a maturer
age, they would have greatly modified. Still he well knows that learners
are mostly wiser than their teachers ; and, making due allowance for the
haste with which, from the exigencies of the post they successively held,
their investigations had usually to be published, he believes that much of
the highest value underlies even the crudest conjectures contained in their
several contributions to Ornithology. Putting aside the monographical
papers by which each of them followed the excellent example set by their
predecessor in the office they filled—Dr. Murie!—and beginning with
Garrod’s,? those having a more general scope, all published in the
Zoological Society’s Proceedings, may be briefly considered. Starting
from the level reached by Huxley, the first attempt made by the younger
investigator was in 1873, “ On the value in Classification of a Peculiarity
in the anterior margin of the Nasal Bones in certain Birds.” Herein he
strove to prove that Birds ought to be divided into two Subclasses—one,
called “ HoLoRHINAL,” in which a straight line drawn transversely across
the hindmost points of the exfernal narial apertures passes in front of the
posterior ends of the nasal processes of the preemaxille, and the other,
called “ ScHIzoRHINAL,” in which such a line passes behind those processes.
If this be used as a criterion, the validity of Huxley’s group Schizognathe
is shaken ; but there is no need to enlarge upon the proposal, for it was
virtually abandoned by its author within little more than a twelvemonth.
The next subject in connexion with Systematic Ornithology to which
Garrod applied himself was an investigation of the Carorrp Arteries, and
here, in the same year, he made a considerable advance upon the labours
of Nitzsch, as might well be expected, for the opportunities of the latter
were very limited, and he was only able, as we have seen (page 55), to
adduce four types of structure in them, while Garrod, with the superior
advantages of his situation, raised the number to six. Nevertheless he
remarks that their “disposition has not much significance among Birds,
there being many Families in which, whilst the majority of the species
have two, some have only one carotid.” The exceptional cases cited by
him are quite sufficient to prove that the condition of this artery has
nearly no value from the point of view of general classification (ef. pages
76, 77). If relied upon it would split up the Families Bucerotide and

1 Dr. Murie’s chief papers having a direct bearing on Systematic Ornithology
are :—in the Zoological Society’s Transactions (vii. p. 465), ‘On the Dermal and
Visceral Structures of the Kagu, Sun-Bittern and Boatbill’; in the same Society’s
Proceedings—(1871, p. 647) ‘Additional Notice concerning the Powder-Downs of
Rhinochetus jubatus’, (1872, p. 664) ‘On the Skeleton of Zodus with remarks as to
its Allies’, (1879, p. 552) ‘On the Skeleton and Lineage of Fregilupus varius’ ; in
The Ibis—(1872, p. 262) ‘On the genus Colius’, (1872, p. 383) ‘Motmots and their
affinities’, (1873, p. 181) ‘Relationships of the Upupide.’

2 Garrod’s Scientific Papers were collected and published in a memorial volume

edited by Forbes in 1881. There is therefore no need to give a list of them here.
Forbes’s papers were similarly edited by Mr. Beddard in 1885.

02 DICTIONAKYVSOFPEIRDS:

Cypselide, which no sane person would doubt to be homogeneous and
natural. The femoral vessels formed another subject of investigation,
and were found to exhibit as much exceptional conformation as those of
the neck—for instance in Centropus phasianus, one of the Birds known as
Coucats, the femoral artery accompanies the femoral vein, though it does
not do so in another species of the genus, C. rufipennis, nor in any other
of the Cuculidx (to which Family the genus Centropus has been always
assigned) examined by Garrod. Nor are the results of the very great
labour which he bestowed upon the muscular conformation of the thigh
in Birds any more conclusive when they come to be impartially and
carefully considered. Myology was with him always a favourite study, and
he may be not unreasonably supposed to have had a strong feeling as to
its efficacy for systematic ends. It was in favour of an arrangement based
upon the muscles of the thigh, and elaborated by him in 1874, that he
gave up the arrangement he had published barely more than a year
before based upon the conformation of the nostrils. Nevertheless it
appears that even the later of the two methods did not eventually content
him, and this was only to be expected, though he is said by Forbes (Ibis,
1881, p. 28) to have remained “satisfied to the last as to the naturalness
of the two main groups into which he there divided birds ””—Homato-
GoNATH and ANoMALogonAT&. ‘The key to this arrangement lay in the
presence or absence of the AMBIENS muscle, “ not because of its own intrinsic
importance, but because its presence is always associated with peculiarities
in other parts never found in any Anomalogonatous bird.” Garrod thought
that so great was the improbability of the same combination of three or
four different characters (such as an accessory femoro-caudal muscle, a
tufted oil-cland and caca) arising independently in different Birds that
similar combinations of characters could only be due to blood-relationship.
The ingenuity with which he found and expressed these combinations of
characters is worthy of all praise ; the regret is that time was wanting
for him to think out all their consequences, and that he did not take also _
into account other and especially osteological characters. Every osteologist
must recognize that the neglect of these makes Garrod’s proposed classi-
fication as unnatural as any that had been previously drawn up, and
more unnatural than many. So much is this the case that, with the
knowledge we have that ere his death he had already seen the need of
introducing some modifications iuto it, its reproduction here, even in the
briefest abstract possible, would not be advisable. Two instances, however,
of its failure to shew natural affinities or differences may be cited. The
first Order Galliformes of his Subclass Homalogonatx is made to consist
of three “Cohorts ”—Struthiones, Gallinacee and Psittaci—a somewhat
astonishing alliance ; but even if that be allowed to pass, we find the
second “Cohort” composed of the Families Palamedeidx, Gallinz, Rallhide,
Otidide (containing two Subfamilies, the Bustards and the Flamingoes),
Musophagide and Cuculide. Again the Subclass Anomalogonate includes
three Orders—Piciformes, Passeriformes, Cypseliformes—a preliminary to
which at first sight no exception need be taken ; but immediately we look
into details we find the Alcedinide placed in the first Order and the
Meropidx in the second, together with the Passeres and a collection of

INTRODUCTION 93

Families almost every feature in the skeleton of which points to a separa-
tion. Common sense revolts at the acceptance of any scheme which
involves so many manifest incongruities. With far greater pleasure
we would leave these investigations, and those on certain other muscles,
as well as on the Disposition of the deep plantar Tendons, and dwell upon
his researches into the anatomy of the Passerine Birds with the view to
their systematic arrangement. Here he was on much safer ground, and
it can hardly be doubted that his labours will stand the test of future
experience, for, though it may be that all his views will not meet with
ultimate approval, he certainly made the greatest advance since the days
of Miiller, to the English translation of whose classical work he added (as
before mentioned) an excellent appendix, besides having already con-
tributed to the Zoological Proceedings between 1876 and 1878 four
memoirs replete with observed facts which no one can gainsay, As his
labours were continued exactly on the same lines by Forbes, who between
1880 and 1882 published in the same journal six more memoirs on the
subject, it will be convenient here to state generally, and in a combined
form, the results arrived at by these two investigators.

Instead of the divisions of Passerine Birds instituted by Miiller, Garrod
and Forbes having a wider range of experience considered that they had
shewn that the Passeres consist of two primary sections, which the latter
named respectively DESMODACTYLI and ELEUTHERODACTYLI, from the facts
discovered by the former that in the Hurylemide (BROADBILL), a small
Family peculiar to some parts of the Indian Region, and consisting of
some ten or twelve species only, there is a strong band joining the muscles
of the hind toe exactly in the same way as in many Families that are not
Passerine, and hence the name Desmodactyli, while in all other Passerines
the hind toe is free. This point settled, the Hlewtherodactyli form two
great divisions, according to the structure of their vocal organs; one of
them, roughly agreeing with the Clamatores of some writers, is called
Mesomyopt, and the other, corresponding in the main, if not absolutely,
with the Oscines, Polymyodt, or true Passeres of various authors, is named
AcromyopI—“‘an Acromyodian bird being one in which the muscles of
the syrinx are attached to the extremities of the bronchial semi-rings, a
Mesomyodian bird being one in which the muscles of the syrinx join the
semi-rings in their middle.” Furthermore, each of these groups is sub-
divided into two: the Acromyodi into “normal” and “abnormal,” of which
more presently ; the Mesomyodt into Homa@omErt and HErTEROMERI,
according as the sciatic or the femoral artery of the thigh is developed—
the former being the usual arrangement among Birds and the latter the
exceptional. Under the head Heteromert come only two Families, but
these Garrod was inclined to think should not be considered distinct.
‘The Homeomeri form a larger group, and are at once separable, on account
of the structure of their vocal organs, into Tracheophonx (practically
equivalent to the TRAcHEoPHONES of Miiller) and HAPLoopHONz (as
Garrod named them)—the last being those Passeres which were by Miiller
erroneously included among his Picarii, namely, the Tyrannidxe (Tyrant)
with Rupicola (Cock-oF-THE-Rock) and Pirra. To these are now added
Families not examined by him,—but subsequently ascertained by Forbes

h

94 : DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

—

to belong to the same group,—Philepittide and Xenicidxe, more properly
Acanthidosittide (XENIcUS), and it is remarkable that these last three
Families are the only members of the Mesomyodt which are not peculiar
to the New World—nay more, if we except the Tyrannidx, which in
North America occur chiefly as migrants,—not peculiar to the Neotropical
Region. The Tracheophonx are held to contain five Families—Furnaride
(OVEN-BIRD), Pteroptochide (TApacuLo), Dendrocolaptide (PICUCULE),
Conopophagide and Formicariide (ANt-THRUSH). Returning now to the
Acromyodt, which include, it has just been said, a normal and an abnormal
section, the latter consists of Birds agreeing in the main, though not
absolutely, as to the structure of the syrinx with that of the former, yet
differing so considerably in their osteology as to be most justifiably separated.
At that time only two types of these abnormal Acromyodi were known—
Menura (LYRE-BIRD) and Atrichornis (SCRUB-BIRD), both from Australia,
while all the remaining Passeres, that is to say, incomparably the greater
number of Birds in general, belong to the normal section. Thus the
whole scheme of the Passeres,! as worked out by Garrod and Forbes, can
be briefly expressed as below; and this expression, so far as it goes, is
probably near the truth, though for simplicity’s sake some of the inter-
mediate group-names might perhaps be omitted :—

ELEUTHERODACTYTLI,
ACROMYODI,
NORMALES,
ABNORMALES, Menwra, Atrichornis.
MESOMYODI,
HOM@OMERI,
Tracheophone,
Furnariide, Pteroptochide, Dendrocolaptide, Conopophagide, For-
micartide.
Haploophone,
Tyrannidx, Rupicola, Pittide, Philepittide, Xenicidx.
HETEROMERI, Cotingidx, Pipridex. ;
DESMODACTYLI,
Hurylemide.

It will be seen that no attempt was made to separate the Normal
Acromyodians into Families. Already, in The Ibis for 1874 (pp. 406-
416), Mr. Wallace had published a plan,? which, with two slight modifica-
tions that there were manifestly improvements, he employed two years
later in his great work on The Geographical Distribution of Animals, and
this included a method of arranging the Families of this division. Being
based, however, wholly on alar characters, it has of course a great simi-
larity to the schemes of Prof. Cabanis and of Sundevall, and, though
simpler than either of those, there is no need here to enter much into its
details. The Birds which would fall under the category of Garrod’s
Acromyodt normales are grouped in three series:—A. “Typical or

1 It is right to observe that this scheme was not a little aided by a consideration
of palatal characters, as well as regard to the disposition of some of the tendons of the
wing-muscles. i

* Presenting some analogy to the work of Garrod and Forbes, though mainly
based on external characters, is that carried on in regard to the feathering of Birds’
wings, as quoted elsewhere (REMIGES, p. 781, note), and deserving much attention.

ie

INTRODUCTION 95

Turdoid Passeres,” having a wing with ten primaries, the first of which
is always more or less markedly reduced in size, and to this 21 Families
are allotted; B. “Tanagroid Passeres,” having a wing with nine primaries,
the first of which is fully developed and usually very long, and contain-
ing 10 Families; and C. “Sturnoid Passeres,” having a wing with ten
primaries, the first of which is “rudimentary,” with only 4 Families.
The remaining Families, 10 in number, which are not normally
acromyodian are grouped as Series D. and called “ Formicaroid Passeres.”

In The Ibis for 1880 (pp. 340-350, 399-411) Mr. Sclater made a
laudable attempt at a general arrangement of Birds,! trying to harmonize
the views of ornithotomists with those taken by the ornithologists who
only study the exterior ; but, as he explained, his scheme is really that
of Huxley reversed,? with some slight modifications mostly consequent
on the recent researches of Parker and of Garrod, and (here may be
added) a few details derived from the author’s own extensive knowledge
of the Class. Adopting the two Subclasses Carinatzx and Ratitx, he
recognized 3 “Orders” as forming the latter and 23 the former—
a number far exceeding any that had of late years met with the ap-
proval of ornithologists. First of them comes the Passeres, of which
Mr. Sclater would make four Suborders :—(1) the Acromycdi normales of
Garrod under the older name of Oscines, to the further subdivision of
which we must immediately return ; (2) under Huxley’s term Oligomyodi,
all the Haploophonx, Heteromert and Desmodactyli of Garrod, compre-
hending 8 Families—Ozxyrhamphidz,? Tyrannidz, Pipridxe, Cotingide,
Phytotomide, Pittidex,? Philepittide and Eurylemide ;* (3) Tracheophone,
containing the same groups as in the older scheme, but here combined
into 3 Families only—Dendrocolaptidx, Formicarvide and Pteroptochide ;°
and (4) the Acromyodi abnormales of Garrod, now elevated to the rank of
a Suborder and unhappily called Psruposcines. With regard to the
Acromyodt normales or Oscines, Mr. Sclater takes what seems to be the
only reasonable view, when he states that they ‘‘are all very closely
related to one angther, and, in reality, form little more than one group,
equivalent to other so-called families of birds,” going on to remark that
as there are some 4700 known species of them “it is absolutely necessary
to subdivide them,” and finally proceeding to do this nearly on the
method of Sundevall’s Tentamen, merely changing the names and position
of the groups in accordance with a plan of his own set forth in the
Nomenclator Avium Neotropicaliwm, which he and Mr. Salvin printed in
1873, making, as did Sundevall, two divisions (according as the hind
part of the “tarsus” is plated or scaled), A. Laminiplantares and B.
Scutiplantares—but confining the latter to the Alaudidz alone, since the
other Families forming Sundevall’s Scutelliplantares are not Oscinine, nor

1 An abstract of this was read to the British Association at Swansea in the same

year, and may be found in its Report (pp. 606-609).
2 A matter of no moment whatever, provided that the ascending or descending

order be preserved throughout, and not intermixed as slovenly writers are wont.

3 Not recognized by Garrod.

4 To these Mr. Sclater has now (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiv. p. 2) added Forbes’s Xenicide.

5 Mr. Sclater has since admitted (op. cit. xv. p. 2) the Conopophagidxe of Garrod
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 452).

06 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

all even Passerine. The following table shews the result of a comparison
of the two modes as regards the Laminiplantares, and may be found conveni-
ent by the reader :—

Mr. Sclater, 1880. Sundevall, 1872-78.
1. Dentirostres,|— practically equal to 1. Cichlomorphe.

2. Latirostres,} 35 6. Chelidonomorphe.
3. Curvirostres, . . 4, Certhiomorphe.?
4. Tenuirostres, ie 5. Cinnyrimorphe.
5. Conirostres, 2. Conirostres.

6. Cultrirostres, >, 38. Coliomorphe.

These six groups Mr. Sclater thinks may be separated without much
difficulty, though on that point the proceedings of some later writers (a
notable instance of which he himself cites) shew that doubt may still be
entertained; but he rightly remarks that, “when we come to attempt to
subdivide them, there is room for endless varieties of opinion as to the
nearest allies of many of the forms,” and into further details he does not
go. It will be perceived that, like so many of his predecessors, he accords
the highest rank to the Dentirostres, which, as has before been hinted,
seems to be a mistaken view that must be considered in the sequel.

Leaving the Passeres, the next “Order” is Picariz, of which Mr.
Sclater proposes to make six Suborders:—(1) Pici, with 2 Families ;
(2) Cypselt, with 3 Families,? practically equal to the Macrochires of
Nitzsch ; (3) Anisodactylx, with 12 Families—Colvidx, Alcedinidx, Bucero-
tidx, Upupide, Irrisoridx, Meropidx, Momotide, Todide, Coractide, Lepto-
somide, Podargide and Steatornithide ; (4) Heterodactylx, consisting only
of the Trogons ; (5) Zygodactyle, with 5 Families, Galbulidx, Bucconide,
Rhamphastidx, Capitonide and Indicatoride ; and (6) Coccyges, composed
of the two Families Cuculide and Musophagide. That all these may be
most conveniently associated under the name Picarix seems likely enough,
and the first two “Suborders” are probably natural groups, though
possibly groups of different value. In regard to the rest comment is for
the present deferred. The Pstttact, Striges and Accipitres, containing
respectively the Parrots, Ow1s and diurnal Birds-of-Prey, form the
next three “Orders”—the last being held to include 3 Families,
Faleonide, Cathartide and Serpentariide (SECRETARY-BIRD), which is
perhaps the best that can be done with them. We have then the
Steganopodes to make the Sixth “Order,” consisting of the 5 Families
usually grouped together as by Brandt (supra, page 62) and others, and
these are followed naturally enough by the Herons under the name of
Herodiones, to which the three Families Ardeidx, Ciconvide (Stork) and
Plataleide (SPOONBILL) are referred ; but the FLAMINGOES, under Nitzsch’s
title Odontoglosse, form a distinct “Order.” The Ninth “Order” is now
erected for the Palamedex (SCREAMER), which precede the Anseres—a group

1 These are not equivalent to Sundevall’s groups of the same names.

2 Mr. Sclater (p. 348) inadvertently states that no species of Sundevall’s Certhio-
morphex is found in the New World, having omitted to notice that in the Tentamen
(pp. 46, 47) the genera Mmniotilta (peculiar to America) as well as Certhia and Sitta
are therein placed.

® Or 2 only, the position of the Caprimulgide being left undecided, but in 1883
(see next note) put here.

INTRODUCTION 97

that, disencumbered from both the last two, 1s eminently natural, and
easily dealt with. A great break then occurs, and the new serics is
opened by the Eleventh “ Order,” Columbe, with 3 Families, Carpophagide,
Columbidz and Gourde, “or perhaps a fourth,” Didunculide,1—the Dopos
being “held to belong to quite a separate section of the order.” The
Twelfth “Order” is formed by the Pterocletes [!] (SanD-Grousg) ; and
then we have the very natural group Gallinz ranking as the Thirteenth.
The next two are the Opisthocomt and Hemipodit for the Hoacrzin and
the Turnicide (HEMIPODE) respectively, to which follow as Sixteenth and
Seventeenth the Fulicartz and Alectorides—the former consisting of the
Families Rallide (Ratt) and Heliornithide (Finroot), and the latter of
what seems to be a very heterogeneous eompound of 6 Families—Aramidex
(Limpxiy), EHurypygide (SUN-BittERN), Gruide (CRANE), Psophitde (TRUM-
PETER), Cariamidz (SuRIEMA) and Otididex? (Busrarp). It is confessedly
very puzzling to know how these varied types, or some of them at least,
should be classed ; but the need for the establishment of this group, and
especially the insertion in it of certain forms, is not explained by the
author. Then we have ‘Orders” Highteen and Nineteen, the Limicola,
with 6 Families, and Gavizx, consisting only of Laridx (GuLL), which
taken in their simplest condition do not present much difficulty. The
last are followed by Yubinares (PETRELS), and these by Pygopodes, to
which only 2 Families Colymbidz (Diver) and Alcidx (Auk) are allowed—
the GreBes being included in the former. The Jmpennes (PENGUIN) form
the Twenty-second, and Crypturt (TiIvamov) complete the Carinate Sub-
class. For the Ratitez only three “Orders” are allotted —Apteryges,
Casuariz and Struthiones.,

As a whole it is impossible not to speak well of the scheme thus
sketched out, so far as materials for it existed ; and, in 1884, an attempt
was made (Hncycl. Brit. ed. 9, xviii. pp. 43-49) to indicate those points
in recent Classifications which then seemed to have been established on a
pretty sure footing, though therein the writer had no intention, any more
than he now has, of inventing (as has sometimes been supposed) a new
arrangement of Birds. He did, however, try to shew that some positions
which had been taken up could not be maintained, and among other things
that the ‘‘ Subclass ” Odontornithes, founded as above mentioned (page 87) by
Prof. Marsh, was artificial, for, while Birds yet retained the teeth they
had inherited from their Reptilian ancestors, two remarkable and, in the
opinion of many, distinct groups of the Class had already made their
appearance, which two groups persist at the present day in the Aves
Ratitze and Aves Carinatz long ago recognized by Merrem. Furthermore,
while the Ratite type (Hesperornis) presents the kind of teeth which
indicate (in Reptiles at least) a low morphological rank, the Carinate
type (Ichthyornis) is furnished with teeth set in sockets and shewing a
higher development. On the other hand this early Carinate type has
vertebree whose comparatively simple, biconcave form is equally evidence
of a rank unquestionably low; but the saddle-shaped vertebre of the

1 In the eighth edition of the List of Vertebrated Animals in the Zoological
Gardens, which, being published in 1883, may be taken as expressing Mr. Sclater’s

later views, the first two Families only are recognized, the last two being placed
under Columbide. 2 Wrongly spelt Otide.

98 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

contemporary Ratite type as surely testify to a more exalted position.
The explanation of this complicated if not contradictory state of things
seemed then out of reach; but one, as will directly be shewn, has since
been offered by Prof. Fiirbringer. Moreover, the uncertainty which then
prevailed, even if it has now wholly ceased, among the best-informed
ornithologists as to the respective origin of Ratite and Carinatx, was at
that time considered with a decided leaning to the view that the Jast
were evolved from the first. The labours of the distinguished zoologist
just named have now shewn the strong probability, if one may not say
the certainty, of that view being wrong and of the Ratite being a degraded
type descended from the Carinate.! Still further, it may here be remarked
that there is now no need to presume (as was then presumed) the former
existence of Ratit# with biconcave vertebra, since all Birds had most
likely acquired saddle-shaped vertebrae before any forms began to retro-
erade in the direction of Ratitx, while the ancestors of the modern
Carinatzx possibly lost their teeth as their biconcave vertebre were
improving into the higher form.?

Seldom does it happen that in a professedly popular work any
novelty is shewn unless it be of a kind essentially unscientific ; but the
Fourth Volume of the Standard Natural History, which treats of Birds
and was published at Boston in Massachusetts in 1885, is a notable
exception. Even if some of its originality may be said to lie in its
eclecticism,? no one will refuse Dr. Stejneger’s labour a conspicuous place
in a historical sketch of Systematic Ornithology. Though not sole author
of the book, indeed his name does not appear on the title-page, he has
admittedly written most of the descriptive portion,* while there is no
question of the taxonomy being all his own and its basis is anatomical.
The whole volume compares most favourably with anything of the kind
that has appeared, whether before or since, and open as it may be on
many points to criticism,’ all who have used it must regret that it is not
better known in this country. Here, however, we have but its Classifica-
tion to deal with ; and, considering the many new ideas and terms put

1 Tt now seems to me curious that, having then suggested (fom. cit. p. 44) that
Apteryx and Dinornis were degraded descendants of earlier Ratit#, I did not perceive
the possibility of those very Ratit# being degenerate forms.

2 Prof. Marsh (Am. Journ. Sc. April 1879, and Odontornithes, pp. 180, 181)
stated that in the third cervical vertebra of Ichthyornis “we catch nature in the act
as it were” of modifying one form of vertebra into another, for this single vertebra in
Ichthyornts is in vertical section ‘‘ moderately convex, while transversely it is strongly
concave; thus presenting a near approach to the saddle-like articulation.” He pro-
ceeded to point out that this specialized feature occurs at the first bend of the neck,
and, greatly facilitating motion in a vertical plane, is “mainly due originally to its
predominance.” The form of the vertebrae would accordingly seem to be as much
correlated with the mobility of the neck as is the form of the sternum oa the
faculty of flight.

Ore Gaaew Thier-reich, Vogel, ii. p. 48.

4 His fellow-workers were Messrs. Barrows and Elliot, the former taking the
Accipitres, and the latter Opisthocomi, Gallinw, Pterocletes[!], Columbse and
Trochilide, while Dr. J. 8. Kingsley, the editor of the whole series, supplied the
account of the Psittaci.

5 Especially on matters of Nomenclature, a trifling but Miehige contentious subject,
which throughout the present work I have studiously tried to avoid.

99

INTRODUCTION

forth, an abstract! of Dr. Stejneger’s scheme, the peculiarities of spelling

being observed, seems advisable

*(§ 88-6) Baprovassng ‘(G) wBamosmorUtog
‘(9) waprounwtliy ‘@oprournphungy (7Z) Baproimuayy sae SILOSSDT *TIAX
(Z) wapropodousipy ‘avapro
-uobouy, (9) waproog ‘waprodndp ‘(G) #aprourp
“a V ‘@opnoyog “(G) eaproyonung “(G) aapoynang *s AWMNIVT “TAX
"(Q) 2009708q “TAX
(Pp) saugudwop “ax
"(p) aqunjop *Atx
"$9]020040)¢J “TIX
(Zz) sapodouajs.lag

“9 ‘(G) sapodo.vopoayF “9 BUYIN “TX
*1ULon0yISidaQ) “1X
‘(p) wapunoajag ‘waproynbaly ‘aBaproquoyzanyd eee sapodounbayy *x
‘(h) Baproap.y ‘aaproprgy te UpoLeyyT “Xt
(Z) waprowagdonunyg (p) Baproynu yp ‘waprounyuy se BYALOWOUIY,) “ITA
(iF) waproyniy ‘waprowmeng “(g)
wapbidhing (1) aaproondojooy (%) #apowuoryp ome BDL WA
*(G) waproLnyja00Lg “(Z) Baploww Ty
(%) @amonpy ‘e@apoypuloyay ‘@aproguilizop nee BYTLOUOIID “IA saynuLongy
“Laqdojud *A sauuaduy
*80YJVULOISD/)
“pinging *a
‘sabhsoqd y “Tt
‘saypuLond gy "Th
*Bapuynulo @yqnub
-uwiq (%) #apiomnsng ‘moproayyy ‘S@aprovyyn.gs > SIUOLYINAIS “1 -o@uoig | Binprdvyimgy *AT
ddndoawoLy 200 BIjoyouuopg “TIT
nddndoLaad Scie BULOJOJUOP() “TT.
ddndoypul¢ mee BININDY “J
“ATueyzodng “Ieproqng *10pro ‘reproradng “ssepoqng

The Family-names

. Rec. xxii. Aves, pp. 14-18), by Dr. Sharpe
(ut supra, pp. 46-48).

adding the name of the Families,
though where there is more than

I have inserted the number.

1 [ have thought it needless to occupy space by
which in nearly every case will be readily supplied,
(Attempts to classify Birds, pp. 24-29) and Dr. Gadow

one referred to any higher division,
are given by Mr. A. H. Evans (Zool

zoo DICTIONARY OF, BIRDS

Even now ornithologists might easily invent or follow worse schemes
than that of which the outline has just been given. It looks far more
complicated at first sight than it will be found to be on closer inspection,
and close inspection it thoroughly deserves ; while, granting the impossi-
bility of forming a linear series, the result is remarkably successful. This
is owing to the attention paid to anatomical facts, shewing to what good
purpose Dr. Stejneger, in addition to his own investigations, has studied
the works of ornithotomists, and also the good judgment he has, in most
cases, exercised as to the respective value of characters, whether internal
or external—and these last are not forgotten. Had he published his
classification in a technical form, concisely stating the characters on
which it was based, instead of leaving all to be collected by the reader as
he goes, Dr. Stejneger would have simplified matters very much, and
perhaps have saved some useless labour on the part of others ; but it will
assuredly be counted to him for righteousness that in theory at least, if
not always in practice, he has held to morphological principles so far as
they had been made known.

Unquestionably the most remarkable recent contribution to System-
atic Ornithology is that of Prof. Fiirbringer, in the Second Volume of his
magnificent Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematek der Vogel,
published in 1888 as a jubilee work by the well-known ‘Natura Artis
Magistra’ Society of Amsterdam. It is impossible to exaggerate either
the importance or the amount of the labour bestowed on these researches,
of which the systematic results are but a comparatively small part,
though the part that here requires most notice, for they render doubtful
much that had before been deemed fairly-well established, and put the
Reptilian pedigree of Birds and the position of the Ratitz in a wholly
new light, incidentally proving the latter to be derived from ancestors
fully endowed with wings. This last position, however, does not upset
Prof. Marsh’s contention that the first Birds had not the faculty of flight.
It only makes evident that between the volant forefathers of the modern
Ratitz and the very first Birds, there intervened an indefinite but great
number of forms of which few if any traces are known to us, and that the
origin of Birds is far more remote than we had been inclined to suppose.

Birds, considers Prof. Fiirbringer (op. cit. p. 1563), since they spring
from Reptiles, must have begun with toothed forms of small or moderate
size, with long tails and four Lizard-like feet, having distinct metacarpals
and metatarsals, beside well-formed claws, while their bodies were clothed
with a very primitive kind of down. These forms he terms Protoherp-
ornithes —old Reptilian Birds (Urkriechvdgel). To them succeeded
forms wherein the down developed into feathers, and the fore and hind
limbs differed in build—the former becoming organs of prehension, and
the latter the chief instruments of progression. There was a Dinosaur-
like transformation of the legs and pelvis, with by-and-by a coalescence
of the metatarsals, enabling the creature to become bipedal. These were
the Protorthornithes or Prot-Aptenornithes—the first Birds that stood erect,
or the first flightless Birds—many of considerable size, but flightless, and
they may have left their footprints (ORNITHICHNITES, page 277) on Triassic
rocks, and to them may have belonged (p. 1518) Laopteryx (page 280, note

INTRODUCTION Tol

1). Hitherto all these ancient animals, whether having four feet or two,
moved on the ground or, at most, and this especially in the case of the
smaller forms, climbed trees. Among those that possessed this habit, the
befeathering (which as yet had, like the hair of Mammals, served only
for warmth) presumably entered upon a higher step, the feathers becom-
ing larger on certain parts of the body, particularly on the fore limbs
and tail, so as to begin to act as a parachute, and allow of a safe gliding
descent from a height. By successive increase in stiffness and size of the
feathers, and corresponding modification and strengthening of the skeleton
and muscles, the possibility of incipient but real flight was afforded to
these Birds, the Proto-Ptenormithes—the first flying Birds (Urflugvégel), of
which, in all likelihood, there were many varied forms, though Arche-
opteryx (page 278) is the single type known to us. The faculty of flight,
thus acquired, went on improving. The remiges grew stronger and
stronger, and, in correlation therewith, the distal wing-bones (the meta-
carpals coalescing) gained greater rigidity, and the muscles connected
with them, as well as the processes giving origin and insertion thereto,
increased in size. In proportion as the fore limbs specialized into highly-
developed wings, and the pectoral arch approached the Carinate type, the
original faculty of the former as grasping organs was lost. Simultaneously
as the remiges acquired strength, the tail shortened and was consolidated,
the posterior vertebrae becoming united as a pygostyle (page 753). Thus
originated those forms which may be denominated Deutero-Ptenornithes or
Euptenornithes—the higher or better Birds of Flight (héhere Fluqvégel).
This type was already established in the Cretaceous Ichthyornis (page 652),
and includes the vast majority of existing Birds commonly grouped as
Carinatx ; but these only in later times developed their various higher modi-
‘fications, which were rendered possible by the saving of material and weight,
—more elaborate vertebrz ; the loss of teeth; the gain in pneumacity
of the body—especially in larger forms; the suitable configuration of
parts of the skeleton, and the greater importance of smooth muscle com-
pensating for the diminished performance of striped muscle (page 602).
During the period in which the Protoptenornithes and Deuteropten-
ormithes were differentiated, there came about, as almost everywhere in
Nature, retrograde movement. All Birds did not reach the highest degree
of faculty of flight. Many stopped, as it were, half way, when a retro-
gression of the power already attained took place ; or, if the power were
reached, it could not be maintained—an easy life and absence of rivalry
inducing an increased bulk of the body, until the utmost exertion of
muscular strength could no longer sustain it in the air, Thus when
this retrograde development began, occasion was afforded for the dwind-
ling away of the volant power, and hence arose the different types which
are commonly grouped as Ratite, and may be called Deuter-Aptenornithes, or
secondary Flightless Birds (secwndér fluglos Végel). Again, says the author,
if the retrogression extended only to a limited degree, as in recent cases like
the Impennes, Alca tmpennis, certain Rallidx, the Dididx, Stringops and
others, in whose structure this or that Carinate character is very apparent,
these form the Trit-Aptenornithes or Flightless Carinates (fluglose Carinaten).
But in Nature no sharp boundary exists between the Deuter- and Trit-
Aptenornithes ; Cnemiornis and still more likely Gastornis and Aptornis

102 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

might stand midway. Future discoveries, which one may in all prob-
ability expect, will still more efface this artificial boundary (p. 1564).1
The great novelty of Prof. Fiirbringer’s treatment of the Ratitz is not
merely denying their existence as a distinct Subclass, for that had been
done before? ; but his demonstration, for it amounts to that, of their
being the retrograde descendants of volant ancestors, and moreover his
opinion that they diverged at different epochs, so that the several groups
which now exist are not homogeneous but each had an independent
pedigree. This not only carries to an extreme the views first enunciated
by Huxley, who pointed out that each of the existing Ratite groups was
equivalent in rank to what is commonly deemed an “ Order” among
Birds (though he himself refused them the title), but it also involves an
acceptance of the doctrine of Isomorphism, to consider which would lead
us quite beyond our present limits, and therefore must be here let alone?
It should be said, however, that this conclusion seems to have been slowly
and almost reluctantly adopted by Prof. Fiirbringer, who in the fairest
way states the objections that may be taken to it, though finally over-
riding them with the result given above* Among the great merits of
this great work are the representations of a genealogical “tree” shewing
the descent of Birds not only vertically, and that on two sides, but also
horizontally at three different epochs. It is unfortunately impossible
here to reproduce these designs, and as without their aid no correct
impression of his Classification could be conveyed, it seems better to
abstain from any attempt to set it forth imperfectly in a linear form,

1 The expectation expressed by Prof. Fiirbringer in this last sentence is a truism
and need not alarm any true believer in Evolution, since as elsewhere observed
(GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, page 344) it is obvious that if all creation, past and
present, stood before us no lines of demarcation could be drawn, ‘The taxonomer
has to judge by the comparatively small number of forms left to us, and between
them are gaps, sometimes (so to speak) narrow cracks at others wide chasms, to fill
up which is often beyond the power of imagination, though we know that filled they
once were. Those gaps form not only convenient but the sole means of marking off
groups of beings, whether we call them species or sub-kingdoms. Experience teaches
us to expect that in time we shall partially know how some of these gaps were filled.

2 Jt has been likened to Owen’s treatment of them, but is really very different.
Owen, having formerly recognized an Order CuRSORES (by no means equivalent to that
of Illiger), in 1866 declared (Anat. Vertebr. ii. p. 12) it not to be natural, which is
quite true if in it are placed the heterogeneous forms he then assigned to it—
Notornis, Struthio, Didus, Apteryx, Dinornis and Palapteryx, which last three he
said “bear affinity to the Megapodial family of Gadling,” while he considered that
“the Ostrich bears the same relation to the Bustards” as Notornis to the Coots!

3 This doctrine, like that of the Correlation of Growth, is one that may be made
to account so easily for many difficulties, otherwise apparently insuperable, that one
is inclined always to view its application with suspicion, and to be loth to invoke its
aid except on the greatest emergency.

4 Quite recently Prof. Milne-Edwards (Ann. Sc. Wat. ser. 7, ii. p. 184) declares
against the homogeneity of the “ Brévipennes,” and consequently admits the isomor-
phism of some New-Zealand and Mascarene types.

5 It is much to be regretted that while so many works of trifling importance are
continually being reviewed in our scientific journals, Prof. Fiirbringer’s has obtained
but little notice in this country. An excellent abstract by Dr. Gadow was published
in Nature (xxxix. pp. 150-152, 177-181) for the 18th and 20th December 1888, and
its republication in an accessible form would be most useful, since no translation of
the original could be hoped for. A more condensed summary, with the author’s own
paradigm, was given by Mr. A. H. Evans (Zool. Rec. xxv. Aves, pp. 14-16), while Dr.
Sharpe (Attempts at Classif. B. pp. 39-43) has reproduced the original plates as well

INTRODUCTION 103

and merely to copy his diagrammatic expression of the relationships
between different groups taken in horizontal section across the tree’s main
branches, as shewn on the next page.!

While toiling at his gigantic task Prof. Fiirbringer was in frequent
communication with his friend Dr. Gadow, at that time engaged in
completing the Ornithology of what is known as Bronn’s Thier- Reich.
This harmonious intercourse naturally had an effect on the opinions of
each. On the termination of the former’s labours the latter, profiting of
course by them, continued his own investigations in order to work out
the systematic part of his subject, and they led to conclusions which,
though for the most part agreeing with those of his predecessor, as might
be expected when both were the results of morphological research,
differed from them in several rather important particulars. In 1892
Dr. Gadow contributed to the Proceedings of the Zoological Society (pp.
229-256) a highly condensed summary of his views ‘ On the Classification
of Birds,’ which in the following year he elaborately set forth, with some
slight modifications, in the Systematie portion of the work above named
(pp. 61-282). This Classification is based on the examination, mostly
autoptic, of a far greater number of characters than any that had pre-
ceded it, and, moreover, they were chosen in a different way, discern-
ment being exercised in sifting and weighing them, so as to determine,
so far as possible, the relative value of each, according as that value may
vary in different groups, and not to produce a mere mechanical “key”
after the fashion become of late years so common. Whether the upshot
of it all has been to establish a Natural Classification, one indicating the
true descent and the real affinities of the several groups known, time
alone will shew; but that this latest attempt has been made according
to the best method few will doubt. Dr. Gadow recognizes two Sub-

as the paradigm, and the whole has been preyed upon by one of the most successful
of modern plagiarists.

1 It is difficult to take as seriously as they were intended the two alternative
methods simultaneously presented in 1890, by the late Mr. Seebohm (Classification
of Birds. London: 8vo), while a somewhat modified arrangement of certain groups
was offered in his Birds of the Japanese Empire, which appeared a few months later ;
but hesitation on that score was removed by his publication in 1895 of a fourth
scheme called a Supplement, though really subverting its predecessors. In each of
these works the language of science is professed, but the author’s natural inability to
express himself with precision, or to appreciate the value of differences, is everywhere
apparent, even when exercising his wonted receptivity of the work of others, and
especially of Dr. Stejneger and Prof. Fiirbringer. ‘Nevertheless the first of these
works formed the basis of Dr. Sharpe’s arrangement (Review of Recent Attempts to
Classify Birds, pp. 55-90) propounded in 1891 to the International Ornithological
Congress held that year at Buda-Pest, and shortly after followed, with some slight
alteration, in his Catalogue of the osteological specimens of Birds in the Museum of
the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Sharpe, however, is not the only
disciple of Mr. Seebohm, whose method commanded the admiration of Prof.
Mivart in his handy volume (Birds : The Elements of Ornithology. London : [1892]
p. 255), which is pronounced by Mr. Headley (The Structure and Life of Birds.
London: 1895, p. 390)'to be “The best book for beginners.”

The year 1891 saw also the Nouvelle Classification proposte pour les Oiseaux by
Dr. Alphonse Dubois (Mém. Soc. Zool. de la France, iv. PP. 96-116), grounded
mainly on the work of Sundevall, though modified by Huxley’s views. The author
had the advantage of knowing Prof. Fiirbringer’s scheme ; but hardly of appreciat-
ing the morphological considerations on which it was based. The chief peculiarity of
Dr. Dubois’s plan is a revival of Bonaparte’s notion as to the primacy of the Psittaci.

104 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

ma g
= g S g
: Z E = 3
5 ma = 5 s
= fe 2 a =
3 (S) Oy Ss
i) A om S
O AS) Bs
za =
| q
& n
El el
3g 5
nm
ee Z
u eto WI fq
2 3 S§ OH a 3@ S
Be i aura 2
— L;
ae i - om Ope) os tke a
3 Eee ere 2
(2) 3 oo, A 3
oe OO Ge 8 oO |
ra aah os Pear oe | <q
Ses ee 5 Ou
5 2 a g a
Sos 5
[em
ae 2
n
o Oo
Bib siees 5 F
oO | ol I
d & a S &
oy feej XS n n i
Fa 8 ae 2 ‘Ss ty
Ome & &o 3 =
reba i O “a es
me ey ie) 2 Oo
O 8 Gal Seb ee Pte! ica]
3 Aya Od se
pI od me
3 & aa
z "3 :
i=)
a 8 ee eS
SS ao S)
& rs
S a
a =)
= ey
<x w

Horizontaut Progecrion! of the GmnrEALOGICAL Trer of the Subclass
Aves Ornithure. After Fiirbringer (op. cit. p. 1568.)

1 SireWilliam Flower (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869, p. 87) seems to have been the first
Zoologist to use this convenient way of expressing relationships by thus representing
a transverse section of the diverging genetic lines or branches of a genealogical tree.
In practice, however, it comes to much the same thing as the Maps of Classification,
described by Strickland to the British Association in 1840 (Ann. Wat. Hist. vi. pp.
190, 191, pl. viii.), of which a large one designed by him is now in the Cambridge
Museum ; but his trees were of course only metaphorically genealogical, and so
differed in principle.

INTRODUCTION JO5

classes—Archxornithes, of which Archexopteryz alone can be said to be
known, and Neornithes, his Classification of which, according to the
paradigm given by himself (pp. 299-302) is as follows :—

1. Ratira,
Ratite: Struthiones; Rhee; Casuarii; Apteryges; Dinornithes ; Aipyor-
nithes. ‘
Stereornithes : Phororhacos, Brontornis, Stereornis, &c.; Diatryma; Remi-
ornis, Dasornis ; Gastornis.

2. ODONTOLCH: Hesperornithes ; Enaliornithes.
3. Carinata: [Orders. ] [Suborders. ]

*,

Ichthyornithes.

Colymbiformes:— Colymbi, Podicipedes.
Sphenisciformes :— Sphenisci.

Ist Legion.

ex. Alectoromorphe. Pelargomorphe. Colymbomorphe.

Procellaritiformes :—Procellariz.

Ciconiiformes:— Steganopodes (5); Ardee (2); Ciconie (2); Pheeni-
copteri (2). ;
Ansertformes:— Palamedez ; Anseres.

First Brigade.

2nd Legion.

Falconiformes:— Cathartee ; Accipitres (4).

¥ Tinamiformes:— ‘Tinami.
& Galliformes :— Mesites ; Turnices (2) ; Galli (3) ; Opisthocomi.
g | | Gruiformess:.... (7).
3 2 Charadriiformes :— Limicole (6) ; Lari (2); Pterocles ; Columbe (2).
2 2 Cuculiformes:— Cuculi (4) ; Psittaci (6).
3 shy Coractiformes:— Coraciv (9); Striges (2); Caprimulgi (3); Cypseli (2) ;
4 E Colii ; Trogones ; Pici (7).
Be Passeriformes:— PP. anisomyodi :—Subclamatores ; Clamatores (5).
s) P. diacromyodi :—Suboscines (2) ; Oscines (2).

[The number suffixed to the name of the Order or Suborder indicates the number
of Families and Subfamilies recognized, when there is more than one. ]

Dr. Gadow’s Phylogeny arranged in ordinary fashion, for comparison
with those used before, would be thus—

Neornithes

Ratite...Alectoromorphe. Pelargomorphe + Colymbomorphe...Odontolca
Coraciomorphe.

From the preceding pages, recounting the efforts of many system-
makers—good, bad and indifferent—it will have been seen what a
very great number and variety of characters need to be had in remem-
brance while planning any scheme that will at all adequately repre-
sent the results of the knowledge hitherto attained, and the best
lesson to be learnt from them is that our present knowledge goes

06 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

but a very little way in comparison with what we, or our successors,
may hope to reach in years to come. Still we may feel pretty confident
that we are on the right track, and, moreover, that here and there
we can plant our feet on firm ground, however uncertain, not to say
treacherous, may be the spaces that intervene. Now that geographical
exploration has left so small a portion of the earth’s surface unvisited,
we cannot reasonably look for the encountering of new forms of extant
ornithic life that, by revealing hitherto unknown stepping stones, will
quicken our course or effectively point out our path. Indeed, as a matter
of fact, the two most important and singular types of existing Birds—
Baleniceps and Rhinochetus—that in the latter half of this century rewarded
the exertions of travelling naturalists, have proved rather sources of per-
plexity than founts of inspiration. Should fortune favour ornithologists in
the discovery of fossil remains, they will unquestionably form the surest
cuide to our faltering steps; but experience forbids us to expect much
aid from this quarter, warmly as we may wish for it, and the pleasure
of any discovery of the kind would be enhanced equally by its rarity as
by its intrinsic worth. Even the startling revelation of the group named
STEREORNITHES has as yet done little except to add to our knowledge
a number of ancient types! However, it is now a well-accepted maxim in
Zoology that immature forms of the present repeat mature forms of the
past, and that, where Paleontology fails to instruct us, Embryology may
be trusted to no small extent to supply the deficiency. Unhappily the
embryology of Birds has been till lately very insufficiently studied. We
had indeed embryological memoirs of a high value, but. almost all were
of a monographic character, and were only oases in a desert of ignorance.
The same may be said of Morphology, so that a really connected and
continuous series of investigations, such as was instituted by Prof.
Firbringer, marked a new starting-point ; for it seems clear that hence-
forth schemes for the Classification of Birds, as of other groups, will be
divided into those which are based on Morphology, and those which are
not—the latter falling year by year into disrepute. At the same time,
with the greatest respect to Morphologists, it must be held that they, like
other men, are bound by the rules of evidence and the exercise of common
sense. Moreover, as the discrepancies between the schemes of different
Morphologists shew, individual opinion will have to be reckoned with for
some time to come.

Birds are animals so similar to Reptiles in all the most essential
features of their organization that they may be said to be merely an
extremely modified and aberrant Reptilian type. These are almost the
very words of Huxley in 1866,? and there are now but few zoologists
to dissent from his statement, which by another man of science has been
expressed in a phrase even more pithy—*“ Birds are only glorified
Reptiles” It is not intended here to enter upon their points of re-
semblance and differences. ‘These may be found summarized with more

1 Of. Andrews, Rep. Brit. Association (Ipswich Meeting) 1895, pp. 714, 715; and
Ibis, 1896, pp. 1-12.

* Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy p. 69; see also Carus,
Handbuch der Zoologie, i. p. 192.

INTRODUCTION Z07

—_

or less accuracy in any text-book of zoology,! and it is enough to remark
that by the naturalist just named Birds and Reptiles have been brigaded
together under the name of Sauropsida as forming one of the three
primary divisions of the Vertebrata—the other two being Ichthyopsida and
Mammalia. Yet Birds have a right to be considered a Class, and as a
Class they have become so wholly differentiated from every other group
of the Animal Kingdom that, among recent and even the comparatively
few fossil forms known to us, there is not one about the assignation of
which any doubt ought now to exist, though some naturalists have
refused a place among Aves to Archxopteryx, of which, as elsewhere stated
(pages. 278-280), the remains of only two individuals—most probably
belonging to as many distinct forms ?—have been discovered. Yet one of
them was referred, without much hesitation, by Vogt to the Class Reptilia
on grounds which seem to be mistaken, since it was evidently in great
part if not entirely clothed with feathers,’ and scarcely any one now
doubts that its Bird-like characters predominate over those which are
obviously Reptilian, while most authorities leave the genus as the sole
representative as yet known of the Subclass SauruR«, established for its
reception by Pref. Hackel. The great use of the discovery of Archexopterysx
to naturalists in general was the convincing testimony it afforded as to
what is well called “the imperfection of the Geological Record.” To
ornithologists in particular its chief attraction is the evidence it furnishes
in proof of the evolution of Birds from Reptiles ; though, as to the group
of the latter from which the former may have sprung, it tells us little
that is not negative. It throws, for instance, the Pterodactyls #—so often
imagined to be nearly related to Birds, if not to be their direct ancestors
—completely out of the line of descent. Next to this its principal

1 The various schemes for classifying Birds set forth by the authors of general
text-books of Zoology do not call for any particular review here, as almost without
exception they are so drawn up as to be rather of the nature of a compromise than
of a harmony. The best and most notable is that by Prof. Carus in 1868 (tom.
cit. i. pp. 191-368); but it is of course now antiquated. Among the worst
schemes is that by Prof. Claus in 1882 (Grundziige der Zoologie, ii. pp. 818-388) ; but
Dr. R. Hertwig’s Lehrbuch der Zoologie (Jena: 1892, pp. 588-544) is quite as bad. Of
most other similar text-hooks that have come under my notice, the less said the better.

2 See Prof. Seeley’s remarks on the differences between the two specimens (Geol.
Mag. 1881, p. 454).

3 Vogt laid much stress on the absence of feathers from certain parts of the body
of the second example of Archxopteryx now, thanks to Dr. Werner Siemens, in the
museum of Berlin. But Vogt himself shewed that the parts of the body devoid of
feathers are also devoid of skin. Now it is well known that among most existing
Birds the ordinary “ contour-feathers ” have their origin no deeper than the skin, and
thus if that decayed and were washed away the feathers growing upon it would
equaily be lost. This has evidently happened (to judge from photographs) to the
Berlin specimen just as to that which is in London. In each case, as Owen rightly
suggested of the latter, the remains exactly call to mind the very familiar relics of
Birds found on a seashore, exposed perhaps for weeks or even months to the wash of
the tides so as to lose all but the deeply-seated feathers, and finally to be embedded
in the soft soil. Vogt’s paper is in the Revue Scientifique, ser. 2, ix. p. 241, and an
English translation of it in The bis for 1880, p. 434.

4 In 1866 Owen (Anatomy of Vertebrates, ii. p. 18) maintained that ‘‘ Derivatively
the class of Birds is most closely connected with the Pterosawrian order,” i.e. the
Pterodactyls ; and the view is probably still held by many persous.

£08 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

advantage is to reveal the existence, at so early an epoch, of Birds with
some portion of their structure as highly organized as the highest of the
present day, a fact witnessed by its foot, which, so far as can be judged by
its petrified relics, might well be that of a modern Crow. The fossil
remains of most other Birds are too imperfect to help the systematist
much ; but the grand discoveries of Prof. Marsh, spoken of above, afford
further hints as to the taxonomy of the Class, and their bearing deserves
the closest consideration.

And now to review as briefly as possible the present position of the
taxonomy of Birds. It is allowed by almost all that Archxopteryx and its
allies, with some of which we may reasonably hope time will make us
acquainted, must stand alone whether by the name of Saurure or
Archxornithes. For the rest we may, with Prof. Fiirbringer, revive Prof.
Hickel’s designation of Ornithure, or adopt the Neornithes of Dr. Gadow ;
but the next steps of the latter cannot be followed without misgivings.
We should be content to wait further discoveries before assigning a definite
place to very many fossil forms of which our knowledge is as fragmentary
as are the specimens on which it is based. It appears impossible yet to
correlate the Stereornithes, Diatryma, Gastornis and the rest! with recent
forms, some of which though extinct essentially resembled many that now
exist, and confusion can only arise from any attempt to do so. Perhaps
it would be better if these last could be spoken of as constituting a separate
division, for which Dr, Stejneger has somewhat unhappily appropriated Dr.
Gill’s name Hurhipidure (page 99); but this division would have to be
immediately subdivided into Carinatx and Ratitx, for, fully admitting
that Prof. Fiirbringer has shewn the latter to be degenerate descendants of
the former (page 101), it seems impossible not to recognize each as a distinct
group. His argument in favour of the multiple origin of the Ratitz is
hardly convincing. We can well believe that the examples he cites of
Didus, Stringops, Cnemiornis and other modern flightless Birds are highly
instructive as to the way in which the Ratitz have been brought into their
present condition ; but the characters possessed by all of them in common,
as first adduced by Huxley, and to those characters others have been
added by Dr. Gadow, point indubitably to a single or common descent.

Seeing that we have no knowledge of the presumed Carinate ancestors
of the Ratitz, it might be thought:an open question which of the two
existing branches should be first considered ; but it is evident that those
ancestors, being the collaterals of the ancestors of the modern Carinate,

1 While these pages are under revision for the press, a renewed investigation of
the famous South-American fossils, most of which are now in the British Museum,
more than justifies the view taken when I wrote the above. The results arrived at by
Mr. Andrews and Dr, Gadow, as briefly announced by the latter (bis, 1896, pp. 586,
587) are that Stereornithes are abolished as a taxonomic group. Phororhacos, of which
Stereornis seems to be a synonym, is declared to belong to the “ Gruiformes,” and
Pelecyornis and Liornis are likely to stand near it. Dryornis appears to belong to the
“ Falconiformes,” though Mesembryornis is perhaps a forerunner of the Rheidx, and
therefore probably Ratite. More important is the fact that the fossils are not even
Upper Oligocene, but Miocene, and none of the forms has any relation to Gastornis.
Recent excavation of the matrix, as Mr. Andrews has been so good as to shew me,
proves that Phororhacos had an ossified interorbital septum, which had before been
thought to be wanting (page 905).

INTRODUCTION 0g

must have been morphologically inferior to these descendants, which on
evolutionary principles have gone on improving, while the Ratite branch
retrograded. That this last branch also may have improved and under-
gone specialization is true, but not to the point, for it can hardly have
improved up to the level at which was the parting of the ways, and thus
we are quite justified in continuing to regard the Ratitx as the lower
branch, and in beginning with them. They were shewn beyond doubt
by Huxley to form five separate groups, which we shall here, as before,}
dignify by the name of Orders, adding to them a sixth, though little has
as yet been made known of its characteristics. Of this, which contains
the great extinct Birds of Madagascar, he did not take cognizance, as it is
here necessary to do. In the absence of any certain means of arranging
all these orders according to their affinities, it will be best to place their
names alphabetically thus—

JEPYORNITHES. Fam. Apyornithide (Roc).

APpTERYGES. Fam. Apterygidz (Kiw1).

Immanes. Probably two Families 2—Dvinornithide (Moa).

Meretstanes. Fam. i. Caswariide (Cassowary); Fam. ii. Dromexide
(Emev).?

Rue® Fam. Rheide (RuEa).

SrrRuTHIONES. Fam. Struthionidx (OsTRICH).

Some systematists think there can be little question of the Struthiones
being the most specialized and therefore probably the highest type of
these Orders. Nevertheless the formation of the bill in the Apteryges is
quite unique in the whole Class, and indicates therefore an extraordinary
amount of specialization. Their functionless wings, however, point to
their being a degraded form, though in this matter they are not much
worse than the Megistanes,t and are far above the Immanes—some of
which at least appear to have been absolutely wingless, and were thus the
only members of the Class possessing but a single pair of limbs.

Turning then to the Carinate, their subdivision into Orders is attended
with a considerable amount of difficulty ; and still greater difficulty is
presented if we make any attempt to arrange these Orders so as in some
way or other to shew their respective relations—in other words, their
genealogy. In regard to the first of these tasks, a few groups can no
doubt be at once separated without fear of going wrong. For instance,
the Crypturt or Tinamous, the Impennes or Penguins, the Striges or Owls,
the Psittact or Parrots, and the Passeres, or at least the Oscines, seem to
stand as groups each quite by itself, and, since none of them contains any

1 See Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xx. pp. 499, 500. It must, however, be borne in
mind that what here is meant by an “Order” of Aves is a very different thing from
an “Order” of Reptilia.

2 On this see Prof. T. Jeffery Parker’s most instructive paper (Trans. Zool. Soc.
xiii. pp. 373-431, pls. lvi.-]xii.), in which, though admitting only a single Family, be
recognizes three Subfamilies—Dinornithine, Anomalopterygine and Hmeine.

3 Since this was in type Dr. Stirling has announced (Zrans. Roy. Soc. S. Austral.
xx. pp. 171-190) that fossil remains of a gigantic bird, Genyornis, found at Calla-
bonna in South Australia, prove it to have been allied to the Emeus, in which case
a third Family of Megistanes will probably be required.

4 Nor, possibly, than the dpyornithes (cf. Andrews, [bis, 1896, pp. 376-389, pls.
viii. ix.).

?

IIo DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

hangers-on about the character of which there can any longer be room to
hesitate, there can be little risk in setting them apart. Next comes a
category of groups in which differentiation appears not to have been
earried so far, and, though there may be as little doubt as to the associa-
tion in one Order of the greater number of forms commonly assigned to
each, yet there are in every case more or fewer outliers that do not well
harmonize with the rest. Here we have such groups as those called
Pygopodes, Gavix, Limicole, Galline, Columbx, Anseres, Herodiones,
Steganopodes and Accipitres. Finally it has been sought to establish two —
groups of types presenting characteristics so diverse as to defy almost any
definition, and, if it were not almost nonsense to say so, agreeing in little
more than in the differences. These two groups are those known as
Picarie and Alectorides ; but, while the majority of Families or genera
usually referred to the former plainly have some features in common, the
few Families or genera that have been clubbed together in the latter make
an assemblage that is quite artificial, though it may be freely owned that
with our present knowledge it is impossible to determine the natural
alliances of all of them.1

That our knowledge is also too imperfect to enable systematists
successfully to compose a phylogeny of Carinate Birds, and draw out
their pedigree, ought to be sufficiently evident. We can point to some
forms which seem to be collaterally ancestral, and among them perhaps
some of those which have been referred to the group “ Alectorides” just
mentioned ; and, from a consideration of their Geographical Distribution
and especially Isolation, it will be obvious that they are the remnants of
a very ancient and more generalized stock which in various parts of the
world have become more or less specialized. The very case of the New-
Caledonian Rhinochetus (KA@U), combining features which occasionally
recall the Hurypyga (SuN-BirreRN), and again present an unmistakable
likeness to the Limicole or the Rallidzx, shews that it is without any very
near relation on the earth, and, if convenience permitted, would almost
justify us in placing it in a group apart from any other, though possessing
some characteristics in common with several.

If we trust to the results at which Huxley arrived, there can be
little doubt as to the propriety of beginning the Carinate Subclass with
his Dromxognathe, the Crypturt of Illiger and others, or Trnamovs, for
their resemblance to the Ratitz is not to be disputed ; though it must be
borne in mind that their mode of development is not known, and that
this may, when made out, seriously modify their position ; but of the
sufficient standing of the Crypturt as an Order there can hardly be a
question.2

1 It should have been stated (page 9) that this heterogeneous assemblage called
an ‘‘Order” by Temminck, was adapted from Illiger’s Family of the same name
founded in 1811, and then including in addition Cereopsis ; but in neither group was
there a single Cock-like bird. The Alectrides of Duméril in 1806 consisted of the
Bustards and Giallinex.

2 We have seen that Huxley would derive all other existing Carinate Birds from
the Dromexognathe ; but of course it must be understood in this, as in every other
similar case, that it is not thereby implied that the modern representatives of the
Dromxognathous type (namely, the Tinamous) stand in the line of ancestry.

INTRODUCTION III

Under the name Jmpennes we have a group of Birds, the PeNaurns,
smaller even than the last, and one over which until lately systematists
have been sadly at fault ; for, though we as yet know little definite as te
their embryology, no one, free from bias, can examine any member of the
group, either externally or internally, without perceiving how completely
different it is from any others of the Carinate division. There is per-
haps scarcely a feather or a bone which is not diagnostic, and nearly
every character hitherto observed points to a low morphological rank.
The title of an Order can scarcely be refused to the Impennes.

The group known as Pygopodes has been often asserted to be closely
akin to the Impennes, and we have seen that Brandt combined the two
under the name of Urinatores, but of their essential difference there can
now be no doubt, and indeed it is hard to look upon Pygopodes as a natural
group, so many are the differences between the Podicipedidx or GREBES
and Colymbidx1 or Divers, though recent morphologists agree to unite
them, while the affinity of the Divers to the AuKs seems to be still more
uncertain, and there appears to be ground for considering the Alcidzx to
be much modified relatives of the Laridz, ‘These are points deserving
of still more attention on the part of embryologists than they have
hitherto received. Under the improperly applied name of Gavizw the
Gulls and their close allies form a very natural section, but it probably
hardly merits the rank of an Order more than the Pygopodes, for its
relations to the large and somewhat multiform though very natural
group Limicolz have to be taken into consideration.2 The Limicoline
genera Dromas and Chionis have many points of resemblance to the
Laridz ; and on the whole the proper inference would seem to be that
the Limicolz, or something very like them, form the parent-stock whence
have descended the Gaviz, from which or from their ancestral forms the
Alcidx have proceeded as a degenerate branch. If this hypothesis be
correct, the association of these three groups would constitute an Order,
of which the highest Family would perhaps be Oftididx, the Busrarps,
associated with the foregoing by Prof. Fiirbringer, but regarded by Dr.
Gadow as allied to Cranes, Gruidx, and until further research shews
which view can be maintained the matter must remain in doubt. On
the other hand the Prrrets, which form the group 7'ubinares, seem for
several reasons to be perfectly distinct from the Gulls and ener allies, and
may be taken to rank as an Order.

Considerable doubt had long been expressed as to the existence of an
“Order” Alectorides, and it has just been stated that no one can now
regard it as a natural group. One of the Families included in it by its
founder is Cariamide (SmrteMA), the true place of which has been a
puzzle to many systematizers. There is nothing, however, here to add to

1 American ornithologists have lately used this term for the GREBES, to the great
disturbance of nomenclature. It is apparently from the ancestors of the Oolymbide,
before they lost their teeth, that Hesperornis branched off as a degenerate, bulky and
flightless form.

2 The late Prof. Parker long ago observed (Zrans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 150) that
characters exhibited by Gulls when young, but lost by them when adult, are found
in certain Plovers at all ages, and hence it would appear that the ‘‘Gavix” are but
more advanced Limicola. :

112 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

what is elsewhere said in this book (pages 828, 829). It is doubtless a
generalized form,! the survival of a very ancient type, whence several
groups may have sprung ; and, whenever the secret it has to tell shall
be revealed, a considerable step in the phylogeny of Birds ought to
follow. Allusion has also been made to the peculiarities of two other
forms placed with the last among the Alectorides—Hurypyga and Rhino-
chetus—each being the sole type of a separate Family. It seems that they
might be brought with the Gruidx, Psophiide (TRUMPETER), and Aramidz
(LimpKry) into a group or Suborder Grues,—which, with the Fulicariz ?
of Nitzsch and Mr. Sclater as another Suborder, would constitute an
Order that might continue to bear the old Linnean name Grallzx. It
must be borne in mind, however, that some members of both these Sub-
orders exhibit many points of resemblance to certain other forms that it
is at present necessary to place in different groups—thus some Rallidx
to the Gallinx, Grus to Otis, and so forth; and it is as yet doubtful
whether further investigation may not shew the resemblance to be one
of affinity, and therefore of taxonomic value, instead of mere analogy,
and therefore of no worth in that respect.

We have next to deal with a group nearly as complicated. The true
Galline are indeed as well marked a section as any to be found; but
round and near them cluster some forms very troublesome to allocate.
The strange Opisthocomus (Hoacrzin) is one of these, and what seems to be
in some degree its arrested development makes its position almost unique.®
It must for the present at least stand alone, the sole occupant of a single
Order. Then there are the Hemrpoprs, which have been raised to
equal rank by Huxley as Turnicomorphe ; but, though no doubt the
osteological differences between them and the normal Gallinx, pointed
out by him as well as by the late Prof. Parker, are great, they do not seem
to be more essential than are found in different members of some other
Orders, nor to offer an insuperable objection to their being classed under
the designation Galline. If this be so there will be no necessity for
removing them from that Order, which may then be portioned into three
Suborders—Hemipodii standing somewhat apart, and Alectoropodes and
Peristeropodes, which are more nearly allied—the latter comprehending
the Megapodiidz (MrcapovEs) and Cracide (CuRAssows), and the former
consisting of the normal Gallinx, of which it is difficult to justify the
recognition of more than a single Family, though in that two types of
structure are discernible.

The Family of Sanp-Grovuse, Pteroclidx, is perhaps one of the most
instructive in the whole range of Ornithology. In Huxley’s words
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 303), they are “completely intermediate between

1 Cariama is the oldest name for the genus, but being a word of ‘‘ barbarous ”
origin it was set aside by Illiger and the purists in favour of Dicholophus, under
which name it is several times mentioned in the present work (cf INDEX,
page 1066).

2 This group would contain three families—Rallidw, Heliornithide (the Fin-
Foots of Eastern India, Africa and South America) and the Mesitid# of Madagascar
—for which an at least approximate place has been found by M. A. Milne-Edwards
(Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 6, vii. No. 6).

> Mesites, just mentioned, presents a case which may, however, be very similar.

INTRODUCTION 13

the Alectoromorphe [Gallinx] and the Peristeromorphe [Columbz]. They
cannot be included within either of these groups without destroying its
definition, while they are perfectly definable themselves.” Hence he
would make them an independent group of equal value with the other
two. Both Prof. Fiirbringer and Dr. Gadow consider the Pigeon-
alliance the strongest, and indeed the general resemblance of most parts
of the osteology of the two groups, so well shewn by M. Milne-Edwards,
combined with the Pigeon-like pterylosis of the Sand-Grouse, leaves no
room for doubt; but the many important points in which they differ
from the more normal Pigeons, especially in the matter of their young
being clothed with down, and their coloured and speckled eggs,! must be
freely admitted. Young Sand-Grouse are not only “‘ Dasypzdes” but
even “ Precoces” or Nidifuge at birth, while of course every one knows
the helpless condition of “ Pipers”—that is, Pigeons newly-hatched from
their white eggs. Thus the opposite condition of the young of these
two admittedly very near groups inflicts a severe blow on the so-called
“ physiological” method of dividing Birds before mentioned (page 74), and
renders the Pteroclidx so instructive a form. The Colwmbzx considered in
the wide sense suggested, possessed another and degenerate subdivision in
the Dopo and its kindred, though the extirpation of those strange and
monstrous forms will most likely leave their precise relations a matter of
some doubt ; while the third and last subdivision, the true Columbz, is
much more homogeneous, and can hardly be said to contain more than
two Families, Colwmbide and Didunculide—the latter consisting of a
single species (the absurdly-named “DopLEer”), and having no direct
connexion with the Dididzx,? though possibly it may be found that
the Papuan genus Otidiphaps presents a form linking it with the
Columbide.

The Galline would seem to hold a somewhat central position among
existing members of the Carinate division,? whence many groups diverge,
and one of them, the Opisthocomi or Heteromorphe of Huxley, indicates,
he hinted, the existence of an old line of descent, now almost obliterated,
in the direction of the Musophagide and thence, it has been inferred, to
the Coccygomorphe of the same authority. But these ‘“‘Coccygomorphs”
would also appear to reach a higher rank than some other groups that
we have to notice, and therefore, leaving the first, we must attempt to
trace the fortunes of a more remote and less exalted line.

It is impossible with our present knowledge to thread the maze in
which the taxonomer now finds himself. The Pelargomorphe of Huxley
will be seen to differ much from Dr. Gadow’s group of the same name ;
and, though it has been shewn that “ Desmognathism” must be aban-
doned asa bond of union, just as “ Schizognathism” has to be relinquished
as a broken alliance, the difficulty of finding a place for the Anseres seems
as hard as ever. That ancient form, Palamedew (ScREAMER), which is

1 This fact tells in favour of the views of those who hold the Sand-Grouse to be
allied to the Plovers ; but the eggs of the Pigeons tell as strongly the other way, as
do the young.

2 Phil. Trans. 1867, p. 349.

3 Of. Parker (Phil. Trans. 1850, p. 755).

IT4 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

doubtless rightly attached to them does not help us, though perhaps the
Fiamincos may. From fossil remains we know that they are not of
yesterday ; and both to Huxley and to Dr. Gadow they seem intermediate
between the Geese and the Storks and Herons. These last may well
be considered to be akin to the SreaaNnopopzEs, which in their turn indi-
cate some relation to the Acczpitres.

Whatever may be the alliances of the genealogy of the Accipitres, the
Diurnal Birds-of-Prey, their main body must stand alone, hardly divisible
into more than two principal groups—(1) containing the Sarcorhamphidx
or the Vultures of the New World (page 1016), and (2) all the rest, though
no doubt the latter may be easily subdivided into two Families, Vulturidz
and Falconidx, and the last into many smaller sections, as has commonly
been done ; but then we have the outliers left. The African Serpentarude
(SECRETARY-BIRD), though now represented only by a single species,! are
fully allowed to form a type equivalent to the true Accipitres composing
the main body, and in it we may possibly see a trace of the link connecting
the Accipitres with the Heriodiones.

It was so long the custom to place the OwLs next to the Diurnal Birds-
of-Prey that any attempt to remove them from that position could not fail
to incur criticism. Yet it is now admitted by almost every investigator
that when we disregard their carnivorous habits, and certain modifications
which may possibly be thereby induced, we find almost nothing of value to
indicate relationship between the two groups. That the Striges stand quite
independently of the Accipitres as above limited can hardly be doubted,
and, while the Psittact (Parrot) form a very distinct group, and may
on some grounds appear to be the nearest allies of the Accipitres, the
nearest relations of the Owls must be looked for in the multifarious group
Picari#. Here we have the singular Steatornts (GuacHARO), which, long
confounded with the Caprimulgide (NiaHTJAR), has at last been recognized
as an independent form, and it may possibly have branched off from a
common ancestor with the Owls. The Nightjars may have done the like,?
for there is really not much to ally them to the Cypselt (Swirt) and
Trochili (HumMING- BIRD), the Macrochires proper, as has often been
recommended, However, it should not be supposed that the place of
the Striges is under the Picarix ; and the last are already a sufliciently
heterogeneous assemblage. Whether the Pici (WoopPECKER) should be
separated from the rest is a matter on which Prof. Fiirbringer and Dr.
Gadow are at variance. That they constitute a very natural and easily
defined group is indisputable ; more than that, they are perhaps the most
differentiated group of all those that are retained in the “ Order” Picariz ;
but it does not seem advisable at present to deliver them from that chaos
when so many other groups have to be left in it.

1 It was long suspected that that the genus Polyboroides of South Africa and
Madagascar, from its general resemblance in plumage and outward form, might come
into this group, but that idea has now been fully dispelled by M. A. Milne-Edwards
in M. Grandidier’s magnificent Oiseaux de Madagascar (i. pp. 50-66).

2 The great resemblance in coloration between Nightjars and Owls is of course
obvious, so obvious indeed as to make one suspicious of their being akin ; but in
reality the existence of the likeness is no bar to the aflinity of the groups ; it merely
has to be wholly disregarded.

INTRODUCTION II5

Lastly we arrive at the Passrrss, and here, as already mentioned, the
researches of Garrod and Forbes prove to be of immense service. It was
of course not to be supposed that they had exhausted the subject even as
regards their Mesomyodi, while their Acromyodi were left almost untouched
so far as concerns details of arrangement ; but later investigations have
produced a much more manageable scheme, and so far as it is goes Dr.
Gadow seems to have good reason for the groups he has made, even though
exception be taken to part of his nomenclature,

Thus we reach the true Oscines, the last and highest group of Birds,
and one which, as before hinted, it is very hard to subdivide. Some two
or three natural, because well-differentiated, Families are to be found in
it—such, for instance, as the Hirundinide (SwatLow), which have no
near relations ; the Alaudidx (Lark), that can be unfailingly distinguished
at a glance by their scutellated planta, as has been before mentioned ; or
the Meliphagide (HONEY-EATER), with their curiously constructed tongue.
But the great mass, comprehending incomparably the greatest number of
genera and species of Birds, defies any sure means of separation. Here
and there a good many individual genera may be picked out capable of
the most accurate definition ; but genera like these are in the minority,
and most of the remainder present several apparent alliances, from which
we are at a loss to choose that which is nearest. our of the six groups
of Mr. Sclater’s “ Laminiplantar” Oscines seem to pass almost imperceptibly
into one another. We may take examples in which what we may call the
Thrush-form, the Tree-creeper-form, the Finch-form, or the Crow-form is
pushed to the most extreme point of differentiation, but we shall find that
between the outposts thus established there exists a regular chain of
intermediate stations so intimately connected that no precise lines of
demarcation can be drawn cutting off one from the other.

Still one thing is possible. Hard though it be to find definitions for
the several groups of Oscines, whether we make them more or fewer, it is
by no means so hard, if we go the right way to work, to determine which
of them is the highest, and, possibly, which of them is the lowest. It has
already been shewn (page 72) how, by a woeful want of the logical appre-
hension of facts, the T’wrdide came to be accounted the highest, and the
position accorded to them has been generally acquiesced in by those who
have followed in the footsteps of Keyserling and Blasius, of Prof. Cabanis
and of Sundevall. Now the order thus prescribed seems to be almost the
very reverse of that which the doctrine of Evolution requires, and, so far
from the Turdidx being at the head of the Oscines, they are among its
lower members. There is no doubt whatever as to the intimate relation-
ship of the Thrushes (Zurdidx) to the Chats (Sawicoline), for that is
admitted by nearly every systematizer. Now most authorities on classifica-
tion are agreed in associating with the latter group the Birds of the
Australian genus Petreca and its allies (WHEATEAR, pp. 1085, 1036)—
the so-called “ Robins” of the English-speaking part of the great southern
communities. But it so happens that, from the inferior type of the osteo-
logical characters of this very group of Birds, the late Prof. Parker called
them (Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 152) “Struthious Warblers.” Now if the
Petraca-group be, as most allow, allied to the Sasicoline, they must also

II6 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

be allied, only rather more remotely, to the Turdidea—for Thrushes and
Chats are inseparable, and therefore this connexion must drag down the
Thrushes in the scale. Let it be granted that the more highly-developed
Thrushes have got rid of the low “ Struthious ” features which characterize
their Australian relatives, the unbroken series of connecting forms chains
them to the inferior position, and of itself disqualifies them from the rank
so fallaciously assigned to them, Nor does this consideration stand alone.
By submitting the Thrushes and allied groups of Chats and Warblers to
other tests we may try still more completely their claim to the position
to which they have been advanced.

Without attaching too much importance to the systematic value which
the characters of the nervous system afford, there can be little doubt that,
throughout the Animal Kingdom, where the nervous system is sufficiently
developed to produce a brain, the creatures possessing one are considerably
superior to those which have none. Consequently we may reasonably
infer that those which are the best furnished with a brain are superior to
those which are less well endowed in that respect, and that this inference
is reasonable is in accordance with the experience of every Physiologist,
Comparative Anatomist and Paleeontologist, who are agreed that, within
limits, the proportion which the brain bears to the spinal marrow in a
Vertebrate is a measure of that animal’s morphological condition. These
preliminaries being beyond contradiction, it is clear that, if we had a series
of accurate weights and measurements of Birds’ brains, it would go far to
help us in deciding many cases of disputed precedency, and especially such
a case as we now have under discussion. 'To the dispraise of Ornithoto-
mists this subject has never been properly investigated, and of late years
seems to have been wholly neglected. The lists given by Tiedemann
(Anat. und Naturgesch. der Vogel, i. pp. 18-22), based for the most part
on very ancient observations, are extremely meagre, and the practical
difficulties of carrying on further research, though not insuperable, are
considered to be great ;1 but, so far as those observations go, their result
is conclusive, for we find that in the Blackbird, Turdus merula, the pro-
portion which the brain bears to the body is lower than in any of the
eight species of Oscines there named, being as 1 is to 67. In the Red-
breast, Hrithacus rubecula, certainly an ally of the Turdidz, it is as 1 to
32; while it is highest in two of the Finches—the Siskin, Carduelis
spinus, and the Canary-bird, Serinus canarius, being in each as 1 to 14.
The signification of these numbers needs no comment to be understood.

Evidence of another kind may also be adduced in proof that the
high place hitherto commonly accorded to the Jurdide is undeserved.
Throughout the Class Aves it is observable that the young when first fledged
generally assume a spotted plumage of a peculiar character 2—nearly each
of the body-feathers having a light-coloured spot at its tip—and this is

1 One of the latest writers on the brain of Birds (Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Zoolog.
xxxvili. pp. 430-467, pls. xxiv. xxv.), though giving tables of the proportion of its
several parts in various genera, unfortunately gives none of the proportion of the
whole to the body.

2 Blyth in 1833 seems to have indicated this well-known fact as affording a

character in classification (eld Nat. i. pp. 199, 200). Nearly 50 years after it was
claimed as the discovery of another writer.

INTRODUCTION IG

particularly to be remarked in many groups of Oscines, so much so indeed,
that a bird thus marked may, in the majority of cases, be set down with-
out fear of mistake as being immature. All the teachings of morphology
go to establish the fact that any characters, not specially adaptive, which
are peculiar to the immature condition of an animal, and are lost in its
progress to maturity, are those which its less advanced progenitors bore
while adult, and that in proportion as it gets rid of them it shews its
superiority over its ancestry. This being the case, it would follow that an
animal which at no time in its life exhibits such, marks of immaturity or
inferiority must be of a rank, compared with its allies, superior to those
which do exhibit these marks. The same may be said of external and
secondary sexual characters. Those of the female are almost invariably to
be deemed the survival of ancestral characters, while those peculiar to the
male are in advance of the older fashion, generally and perhaps always the
result of sexual selection.! When both sexes agree in appearance it may
mean one of two things—either that the male has not lifted himself much
above the condition of his mate, or that, he having raised himself, the
female has successfully followed his example. In the former alternative,
as regards Birds, we shall find that neither sex departs very much from the
coloration of its fellow-species ; in the latter the departure may be very
considerable. Now, applying these principles to the Thrushes, we shall
find that without exception, so far as is known, the young have their
first plumage more or less spotted ; and, except in some three or four
species at most,” both sexes, if they agree in plumage, do not differ greatly
from their fellow-species.

Therefore as regards capacity of brain and coloration of plumage
priority ought not to be given to the Turdide. It remains for us to see
if we can find the group which is entitled to that eminence. Among
Ornithologists of the highest rank there have been few whose opinion is
more worthy of attention than Macgillivray, a trained anatomist and a
man of thoroughly independent mind. Through the insufliciency of his
opportunities, his views on general classification were confessedly imperfect,
but on certain special points, where the materials were present for him to
form a judgment, one may generally depend upon it. Such is the case
here, for his work shews him to have diligently exercised his genius in
regard to the Birds which we now call Oscines. He belonged to a period
anterior to that in which questions that have been brought uppermost by
the doctrine of Evolution existed, and yet he seems not to have been with-
out perception that such questions might arise. In treating of what he
termed the Order Vagatores,? including among others the Family Corvide
—the Crows, he tells us (Brit. Birds, i. pp. 485, 486) that they “are to
be accounted among the most perfectly organized birds,” justifying the
opinion by stating the reasons, which are of a very varied kind, that led

1 See Darwin, Descent of Man, chaps. xv. xvi.

2 According to Seebohm (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. v. p. 232) these are in his nomencla-
ture Merula nigrescens, M. fuscatra, M. gigas and M. gigantodes.

3 In this order he included several groups of Birds which we now know to be but
slightly if at all allied ; but his intimate acquaintance was derived from the Corvid#
and the allied Family we now call Sturnidx.

1I8 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

him to it. In one of the earlier treatises of the late Prof. Parker, he has
expressed (Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 150) his approval of Macgillivray’s views,
adding that, “as that speaking, singing, mocking animal, Man, is the
culmination of the Mammalian series, so that bird in which the gifts of
speech, song and mockery are combined must be considered as the top and
crown of the bird-class.” Any doubt as to which Bird is here intended
is dispelled by another passage, written ten years later, wherein (M.
Microscop. Journ. 1872, p. 217) he says, “The Crow is the great sub-
rational chief of the whole kingdom of the Birds; he has the largest
brain ; the most wit and wisdom ;” and again, in the Zoological Society’s
Transactions (ix. p. 800), “In all respects, physiological, morphological
and ornithological, the Crow may be placed at the head, not only of its
own great series (birds of the Crow-form), but also as the unchallenged
chief of the whole of the ‘ Carinate.’”?

It is to be supposed that the opinion so strongly expressed in the
passage last cited has escaped the observation of many systematizers ; for he
would be a bold man who would venture to gainsay it. Still Parker has
left untouched or only obscurely alluded to one other consideration that
has been here brought forward in opposing the claim of the Turdide, and
therefore a few words may not be out of place on that point—the evidence
afforded by the coloration of plumage in young and old. Now the Corvide
fulfil as completely as is possible for any group of Birds to do the obliga-
tions required by exalted rank.2 To the magnitude of their brain beyond
that of all other Birds Parker has already testified, and it is the rule for
their young at once to be clothed in a plumage which is essentially that
of the adult. This plumage may lack the lustrous reflexions that are
only assumed when it is necessary for the welfare of the race that the
wearer should don the best apparel, but then they are speedily acquired,
and the original difference between old and young is of the slightest.
Moreover, this obtains even in what we may fairly consider to be the
weaker forms of the Corvide—the Pies and Jays. In one species of
Corvus, and that (as might be expected) the most abundant, namely, the
Rook, ©. frugilegus, very interesting cases of what would seem to be
explicable on the theory of Reversion occasionally though rarely occur.
In them the young are more or less spotted with a lighter shade, and
these exceptional cases, if rightly understood, do but confirm the rule?

1 Dr. Stejneger (Stand. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 482) considers that Parker himself has
‘partly neutralized, not to say gainsaid” this opinion, citing a passage from the
same paper (tom. cit. p. 804) wherein is the assertion that the Redstart, Phenicura
ruticilla, and its allies, which of course come near the Thrushes, “are of the highest
and purest blood,” with more to like effect. But Dr. Stejneger has overlooked the
qualifying words ‘‘of the small Passerines” at the beginning of the paragraph, which
makes all the difference, seeing that the Corvide are the largest of them. Moreover,
the drift of the whole passage shews that Parker was therein using the word
‘«*Oscines,’ or songsters,” in its literal and not its technical sense. No one knows
better than Dr. Stejneger that Crows are not exactly song-birds.

2 Tt is curious to remark, not that it can affect my argument, that this was also
the opinion of the Quinarians (¢f. Swainson, in-1834, Discourse on the Study of Nat.
Hist. p. 262, and in 1885, Treatise on the Geogr. and Classific. of Animals, p. 243).

3 One of these specimens has been figured by Hancock (WV. H. Trans. Northwmb.
and Durham, vi. pl. 8); see also Yarrell’s British Birds, ed. 4, ii. pp. 802, 303.

INTRODUCTION 119

It may be conceded that even among Oscines! there are some other groups
or sections of groups in which the transformation in appearance from
youth to full age is as slight. This is so among the Paride; and there
are a few groups in which the young, prior to the first moult, may be
more brightly tinted than afterwards, as in the genera Phylloscopus and
Anthus. These anomalies cannot be explained as yet, but we see that
they do not extend to more than a portion, and generally a small portion,
of the groups in which they occur ; whereas in the Crows the likeness
between young and old is, so far as is known, common to almost every
member of the Family.2 It is therefore confidently that the present
writer asserts, as Prof. Parker, with far more right to speak on the
subject, has already done, that at the head of the Class Aves must stand
the Family Corvidz, of which Family no one will dispute the superiority
of the genus Corvus, nor in that genus the pre-eminence of Corvus
corax—the widely-ranging Raven of the Northern Hemisphere, the Bird
perhaps best known from the most ancient times, and, as it happens, that
to which belongs the earliest historical association with man. There are
of course innumerable points in regard to the Classification of Birds
which are, and for a long time will continue to be, hypothetical as matters
of opinion, but this one seems to stand a fact on the firm ground of proof

A perusal of the foregoing can hardly fail to confirm the doubts
already expressed in the initial ‘Note’ (page vii.) as to the validity of
any Systematic Arrangement of Birds as yet put forth. Still the history
of Ornithology, as here sketched, gives hope uf the ultimate attainment
of the object sought by so many earnest students of the Science, though
a long time may yet elapse before that end is reached. As in all branches
of Zoology accession of knowledge, be it the making of a new discovery
or the solution of an old difficulty, is followed by, or may almost be said
to produce, a fresh series of questions of a kind that it is absolutely
impossible to anticipate, and it needs only the application of experi-
ence to foresee that this is likely to continue. But slow as is the process
of eliminating error, it is certain that, notwithstanding occasional relapses,
considerable advance has been made in the right direction. It is even
possible that progress will be accelerated by some unexpected turn of

1 In other Orders there are many, for instance some Humming-birds and King-
fishers ; but this only seems to shew the excellence in those Orders attained by the
forms which enjoy the privilege.

2 The Canada Jay, Dysornithia canadensis, as rightly noted by Dr. Stejneger
(tom. cit. p. 483), is apparently the only exception, and I do not attempt to account
for it.

3 Dr. Stejneger (loc. cit.) would prefer with Sundevall, who certainly was not
affected by morphological considerations, placing the Finches, Fringillidx, at the
head of the Passeres, and selects as his example the Evening Grosbeak, Hesperiphona
vespertina, of North America to demonstrate his position. That the Finches stand
high I readily admit, but I fail to appreciate the force of the argument he adduces,
Among other things he declares that in them ‘‘ the plumage of the young is essentially
like that of the adults’”—a statement which will hardly be accepted by most ornitho-
logists, and especially not so far as I can judge (¢f. Audubon, B. Am. iii. pl. 207) in
the example of his choice, which seems to be rather an unhappy one, seeing that in
its immature plumage it differs so much from the adult as to have been described by
a fairly good authority (Lesson, Zd/ustr. Zool. pl. xxxi,) as a distinct species under the
- name of Coccothraustes bonupartit,

I20 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

research. ‘To that, however, we must not trust, but our duty is to proceed
steadily along the path that seems the straightest, making sure of every
step as we go. In this way we may be confident that the end, however
distant, will eventually arrive. The triple alliance of Morphology,
Paleontology and Geographical Distribution—when this last is rightly
understood—can be trusted to keep our steps from wandering and to guide
us to the goal we seek so far as the genealogy and relations of the several
groups of Birds are concerned, for that is what their true Classification
means. But Ornithology consists of much more than even a perfect
Taxonomy, the field of investigation is much wider, and includes subjects
that unfortunately have been too little considered by the higher intellects,
especially of late ‘years. Though there is no fear of Morphology or
Paleontology failing to be attractive, the real lessons conveyed by the
facts of Geographical Distribution have been greatly neglected, while to
name only two other subjects of which our ignorance immeasurably
exceeds our knowledge, Migration and Variation still afford mysteries
that have scarcely been penetrated. Hybridism too, which will probably
lead to very important results, has never been investigated by a scientific
Ornithologist. There is therefore plenty of room for research, observa-
tion and experiment, so that no honest enquirer in any branch of the
study need feel discouraged by the prospect before him, unless indeed he
be dismayed by the very vastness of the unknown regions he has to
explore. .

INDEX TO INTRODUCTION

ALIAN, 3, §
Albarda, 41
Albertus Magnus, 4
Albin, 9
Aldrovandus, 6
Allen, 38
Alston, 44
Altum, 39
Andrews, 106, 108,
109
Aristotle, 2, 5
Aubert, 2
Audebert, 23
Audubon, 24, 25, 37
60, 66, 67, 119
Avicenna, 4

BABINGTON, 45
Backhouse, 38
Baillon, 40
Bailly, 40

Baird, 37, 38
Baldamus, 77, 39
Baring-Gould, 38
Barraband, 23
Barrere, 8
Barrett-Hamilton,

44
Barrington, 19, 44
Barrows, 98
Barthélemy-Lapom -
meraye, 40
Bartholini, 74
Bartlett, 67
Bartram, 18
Bechstein, 72, 17, 39
Beddard, 91
Behn, 8
Beilby, 20
Bell, Jeffrey, 69
Bell, Thomas, 19, 20
Belon, 4, 6, 9
Bendire, 37, 78
Bennett, 19, 36
Benoist, 40

Berkenhout, 78
Berlepsch, 39
Bernini, 77
Berthold, 55
Beseke, 17
Bewick, 20, 29, 43
Bexon, 10
Blainville, 15, 30, 34,
49; 51, 52, 54, 69
Blake-Knox, 44
Blanchard, 75, 76
Blandin, 40
Blanford, 36
Blasius, G. 14
Blasius, J. H. 17,39,
62, 67, 68, 70, 115
Blasius, R. 39
Blasius, W. 39
Blauw, 41
Blomefield, 43
Blyth, 19, 36, 60, 61,
64, 68, 116
Bocage, Barboza du,

Bochart, 6

Boddaert, 13

Bolle, 39

Bolton, 79

Bonaparte, 30, 37,
YLT; ey LOS:

Bonnaterre, 12

Bontius, 7

Booth, 44

Borggreve, 39

Borkhausen, 17

Borlase, 78

Borrer, 45

Borrichius, 74

Bostock, 3

Bourjot St.- Hilaire,
22

Bouteille, 40

Bradshaw, 4

Brandt, A. 39

Brandt, J. F. 62,
62, 96, 111

Bree, 41

Brehm, A. E. 39, 40

Brehm, C. L. 39

Breidenbach, 4

Brewer, 37

Brisson, 9, 10, 11, 13

Bronn, 74

Brown, Peter, 12

Browne, Capt. T. 30

Browne, Sir T. 28

Briinnich, 77

Buckley, E. 7

Buckley, T. E. 44

Biittikofer, 47

Buffon, 70 11, 12,
13, 86

Buller, 35

Bumn, 7/6

Bund, 45

Bureau, 40

Burmeister, 63, 64,
65

CABANIS, 36, 39, 70,
71, 72, 78, 94, 115

Caius, 5

Campbell, 36

Canivet, 40

Carter, 38

Carus, 14, 106, 107

Cassin, 24, 37, 38

Castelnau, 74

Catesby, &

Caub, 4

Cetti, 17

Chambers, 78

Chapman, Abel, 40

Chapman, F. M. 38

Charleton, 7

Chesnon, 40

Child, 73

Christy, 44, 45

Clarke, Joseph, 42

Clarke, W. BE. 38, 45

Claus, 107

Clusius, 7
Cocks, 38
Coiter, 6, 14
Collett, 38
Collin, 38

‘Collins, 76

Cook, 76

Cordeaux, 45

Cornay, 69, 70, 84

Cory, 37

Coues, 19, 37, 45, 60

Cousens, 25

Coxe, 42

Crespon, 40

Cresswell, 3

Crommelin, 47

Cuba, 4

Cuvier, 3, 14, 15, 29,
46, 51, 58, 54, 55,
56, 58, 59, 66, 70,
TL

DALGLEISH, 44

Dallas, 66

Darwin, 78, 81, 86,
117

Daudin, 14

D: B:,.9

D’Aubenton, 10, 12,
26

Degland, 40, 41

Demarle, 40

Denny, 63

Derby, Lord, 12

Derham, 7

Desmarest, 23

Des Murs, 27, 42,77

D’Urban, 45

Devis, 36

Dieffenbach, 35

Diggles, 35

Dillwyn, 45

Donovan, 19

Dover, Lady, 20

Dresser, 41

I22

Droste, 39

Dubois, Alph. 42,
103

Dubois, C. F. 47

Du Bus, 27

Duneéril, 29, 110

Dupree, 19

Du Verney, 24

Epwanrps, 9, 10
Elliot, 24, 37, 98
Ellis, 16

Ersch, 64

Evans, A. H. 99, 102
Evans, W. 44
Eyton, 35, 43, 76

FABER, 38

Fabricius, 78

Falk, 15

Fallopius, 6

Fatio, 39

Feilden, 38

Fernandez, 7

Finsch, 30, 39

Fischer de Wald-
heim, 31

Fischer, J. B. 17

Fleming, 33, 43

Florent-Provost, 23

Flower, 104

Forbes, 90, 91, 92,
98, 94, 95, 115

Forskal, 15

Forster, G. 16

Forster, J. R. 16, 18

Fothergill, 78

Fraser, 25

Frisch, J. L. 76

Fritsch, A. 47

Fiirbringer, 98, 100,
102, 108, 104, 108,
TTT, 1s LL

Gapnow, 55, 68, 74,
98, 99, 102, 103,
104, 105, 108, 111,
113, 114

Giitke, 89, 42

Garrod, 90, 91, 92,
93, 94, 95, 115,

Gaza, 3

Gentil, 40

Geoffroy St. - Hilaire,
B. 34, 46, 52, 55,
56, 58, 59

Geoffroy St. - Hilaire,
I. 28, 58

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Georgi, 15
Gerini, 70
Gervais, 74
Gesner, 5, 6
Giebel, 31
Giglioli, 39
Gilius, 27
Gill, 208
Giraud, 38
Gloger, 39, 51, 56,
57
Gmelin, J. F. 72
Gmelin, J. G. 15
Gmelin, 8. G. 15

Gosse, 36
Gould, 24, 25, 28,
35, 41, 44, 64

Grandidier, 174

Grandsagne, 3

Graves, 42

Gray, G. R. 30, 32,
35

Gray, J. E. 15, 24
Gray, R. 44
Griffiths, 75
Groot, 4
Grossinger, 16
Gruber, 64
Giildenstiidt, 15
Gundlach, 37
Gunnerus, 18
Gurney, sen. 70

Haast, 35

Hiickel, 81, 90, 107,
108

Hancock,
118

Hanmer, 18

Hardwicke, 24

Hardy, 40

Harting, 19, 45

Hartlaub, 39, 40

Harvey, 14

Harvie- Brown, 42,

20, 45,

44
Hasselqvist, 25
Hayes, 13, 18
Headley, 103
Hector, 35
Heine, jun. 73
Heine, sen. 73
Henslow, 43
Herbert, 79
Hermann, 72
Hernandez, 7
Hertwig, 107
Heysham, 19
Hintz, 39
Hogg, 74

Holland, 2
Holmeren, 39
Homeyer, A.
39
Homeyer, E.
39
Houghton, 2
Houttuyn, 17
Huet, 26
Hume, 36
Hunt, 42
Hunter, 16, 63
Hutchins, 79
Huxley, 82, 84, 83,
95, 102, 103, 106,
108, 109, 110, 112,
113, 114

von,

von,

InLIcER, 29; 43, 59;
62, 74, 102, 110,
112

Irby, 40

Isidorus, 4

JACOBSON, 50
Jacquemin, 65, 69
Jacquin, 13
Jickel, 39
Jameson, H. L. 44
Jameson, R. 37
Jardine, 19, 27, 37,
44
Jaubert, 40
Jentink, 41
Jenyns, 43
Jerdon, 36
Jonston, 6

Kam, 15

Kaup, 30, 34

Kelaart, 36

Kessler, 66

Keulemans, 28, 35,
36, 42, 44

Keyserling, 62, 67,
68, 70, 115

Kinberg, 39

Kingsley, 98

Kirby, 33, 50, 59

Kittlitz, 28

Kjerbélling, 39

Klein, 8

Knip, 23

Knox, 45

Koch, 39

Kénig - Warthausen,
39

Kramer, 17

Kriiper, 38, 39, 40
Kutter, 39

LABATIE, 40

Lacépéde, 14

Lamarck, 78

Land, 4

Landbeck, 39

Landois, 39

Landseer, 63

Langlois, 23

Latham, 17, 12, 73,
18, 85

Latreille, 30

Laugier, 26

Lawrence, 38

Leach, 13

Lear, 24

Leem, 18

Legge, 36

L’Herminier, 34, 49,
41, 52, 58, 54, 55,
56, 58, 59, 61, 69,
76

Leigh, 18

Leisler, 39

Lembeye, 37

Lemetteil, 40

Lemonnicier, 40

Léon, 7

Léotaud, 36

Lepechin, 15

Lesauvage, 40

Lesson, 28, 119

Le Vaillant, 16, 22
23

Lever, 72

Leverkiihn, 39

Lewin, J. W. 35

Lewin, W. 19

Lichtenstein, 7

Lilford, 40, 44, 45

Lilljeborg, 82

Linneus, 3, 7, &, 9,
LOAD TLIO las
84, 47, 89, 62

Loftie, 2

Longolius, &

Lord, 79

Lumsden, 44

MACARTNEY, 34, 63

Macgillivray, 24, 34,
48, 59, 60, €6, 67,
117

M‘Ilwraithe, 38

Macleay, 32, 33, 34,

oO
Macpherson, 45

Maignon, 40
Maltzan, 39
Marcgrave, 7
Marcotte, 40
Mariette, 2
Markwick, 19
Marsh, 86, 87, 97,
98, 108
Marsigli, 75
Martinet, 70, 26
Mathew, 45
Mauduyt, 12
Max zu Wied, 39
Meckel, 50
Merrem, 30, 34, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 52,
64, 76
Merrett, 7, 78
Meyer, A. B. 28, 39,
ie

Meyer, Bern. 39
Meyer, F. A. A. 20
Meyer, H. L. 43
Meyer, H. von, 81
Milne-Edwards, 86,
LOZ tie, L13,
11h
Mitchell, F. 8. 45
Mitchell, W. D. 26,
50
Mitterpacher, 75
Mivart, 11, 103
Mohring, 8
Molina, 76
Mommsen, 49
Montagu, 33, 42
Montbeillard, 10
More, 44
Morris, 44
Miihle, Von der, 39
Miiller, H. C. 38
Miller, Johannes,
34, 62, 67, 68, 69,
70, 71, 93
Miiller, P. L. 8. 12
Muirhead, 44
Murie, 91

Nasu, 18
Nathusius, 39
Naumann, J. A. 17,
59
Naumann, J. F. 17,
89, 50, 51, 57
Neale, 42
Neckam, 4
Nehrkorn, 39
Neumann, 39
Newman, 42, 74
Nicholson, 89

INDEX TO INTRODUCTION

Niebuhr, 75

Nieremberg, 7, 31

Nilsson, 39

Nitzsch, 34, 45, 46,
48, 50, 51, 54, 57,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 67, 68, 69, 71,
96, 112

Nodder, 13

Norguet, 40

North, 36

Nourry, 40

Nozeman, 17

Nuttall, 38

OaTES, 36

Oken, 33, 57

Olphe-Galliard, 42

Ortus Sanitatis, 4

Osbeck, 15

Oudart, 26, 27

Owen, 50, 59, 63, 81,
102, 107

Pauias, 15

Paquet, 40

Parker, T. J. 109

Parker, W. K. 79,
80, 84, 111, 112,
WS, LLP, L185 119

Paterson, 44

Pearson, C. HE. 38

Pearson, H. J. 38

Pelzeln, 39

Pennant, 12, 18, 19

Perrault, 74

Petersen, 17

Petiver, 7

Phillip, 76

Physiologus, 4

Pidgeon, 15

Pidsley, 45

Pilati, 77

Piller, 15

Piso, 7

Pliny, 3, 6

Plot, 78

Poey, 37

Potts, 35

Poynting, 78

Prétre, 26, 28

Prévot, 27

“Qupat,” 40

RAFINESQUE, S&
Ramsay, 36

Ranzani, 29

Ray, 7, 11

Réaumur, 9

Reichenbach, 28, 39

Reichenow, 39, 723,
0

Reinhardt, SO
Rennie, 33, 42
Retzius, 17
Reyger, 8
Richardson, 38
Ridgway, 37
Riley, 3

Risso, 40
Rodd, 45
Rosenstock, 42
Roux, 40
Rowley, 27
Rzaczynski, 16

St.- HILAIRE,
Bourjot,
Geoffroy

Salerne, 70

Salvadori, 39

Salvin, 27, 95

Saunders, 40, 43

Savi, 10, 39

Scaliger, 3

Schiffer, 72

Schalow, 39

Schlegel, 30, 41

Schopss, 50

Schomburgk, 36

Schwenckfeld, 6

Sclater, 26, 27, 35,
65, 69, 95, 96, 97,
PAZ LLG

Scopoli, 13

Seba, 9

Seebohm, 44, 103,
117

Seeley, 707

Selby, 27, 42

Selenka, 74

Selys - Longchamps,
40

Service, 24, 44

Sharpe, 25, 35, 41,
99, 102, 103

Shaw, 12, 13, 29, 35

Shelley, 36, 40

Shepherd, 38

Sherborn, 27, 40

Siemssen, 17

Sillig, 3

Slater, 38

Sloane, 9

Smit, 27

Smith, A. C. 40, 46

see
and

123

Smith, Cecil, 45
Southwell, 45
Spalowsky, 13
Sparrman, 13
Stanley, Lord, 72
Stearns, 37
Stejneger, 98, 99,
100, 103, 108,
118, 119
Stephens, 29
Sterland, 45
Stevenson, 45
Stirling, 709
Stolker, 39
Strickland, 30, 34,
104
Studer, 39
Sundevall, 2, 39, 57,
65, 82, 88, 89, 90,
GF 96115, 119.
Susemihl, 47
Swainson, 28, 80,
32, 84, 35, 38,
118
Swann, 45

Tas, 40
Taylor, 3
Tegetmeier, 73
Temminck, A. J. 23
Temminck, C. J. 23,
26, 29, 41, 51, 54,
110
Thackeray, 5
Thaun, 4
Thompson, 44
Thorburn, 44
Tiedemann, 46, 116
Tobias, 39
Todd, 50, 59
Tristram, 40, 79
Tschusi von Schmid-
hofen, 39
Tucker, 44
Tunstall, 78
Turner, H. N. 25
Turner, W. 5

USSHER, 44

VALENTINI, 14

Vieillot, 23, 27, 29
40

Vigors, 30, 32, 38
35, 60, 74

Vogt, 107

Voigt, 45

124. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

WAGLER, 30, 50 Waterton, 36 Wilson, Alexander, | Wotton, 5
Wagner, A. 23, 71, | Whitaker, 45 31, 37 Wright, 4, 5
S1 White, Gilbert, 79,| Wilson, James,
Wagner, R. 51 20, 44 a7
Walcott, 19 White, John, 76 | Wimmer, 2 Merri a
Wallace, 76, 78,| Whitlock, 45 Wolf, Johann, 39
94 Wilkin, 18 Wolf, Joseph, 25,
Warren, 44 Willughby, 7, 11, 30, 63 ZANDER, 39

Waterhouse, 25 49, 60 Wolley, 38 Zorn, 16

NOTE

THOSE who may look into this book are warned that they will
not find a complete treatise on Ornithology, any more than an
attempt to include in it all the names under which Birds, even
the commonest, are known. ‘Taking as its foundation a series
of articles contributed to the ninth edition of the ‘Encyclo-
pedia Britannica, I have tried, first, to modify them into
something like continuity, so far as an alphabetical arrange-
ment will admit; and, next, to supplement them by the
intercalation of a much greater number, be they short or long,
to serve the same end. Of these additions by far the most
important are those furnished by my fellow-worker Dr. Gapow,
which bring the anatomical portion to a level hitherto un-
attained, I believe, in any book that has appeared. For other
contributions of not less value in their respective lines, I have
to thank my old pupil Mr. LypEKKer, my learned colleague
Professor Roy, and my esteemed correspondent Dr. SHUFELDT,
formerly of the United States’ Army. Dr. Gadow’s articles
are distinguished by their title being printed in Italic type:
those of the other contributors bear their author’s name at the
end.

For my own part I have to say that, in the difficult task
of choosing the subjects for additional articles, one of my main

objects has been to supply information which I know, from

vl DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

enquiries often made of me, to be greatly needed: leaders
who in most respects are certainly not ignorant of things in
general, frequently find in works of all sorts, but especially
in books of travel, mention of Birds by names which no
ordinary dictionary will explain; and, on meeting with a
Caracara, a Koel or a Paauw, a Leatherhead, a Mollymawh
or a Yom-fool, are at a loss to know what kind of bird is
intended by the author. On the other hand I have not
thought it necessary to include many names, compounded
(mostly of late years) by writers on ornithology, which have never
come nor are likely to come into common use—such as Crow-
Shrike, Crow-Titmouse, Shrike-Crow, Shrike- Titmouse, Thrush-
Titmouse, Titmouse-Thrush, Jay-Thrush and the like. Happily
these clumsy inventions are seldom found but in technical
works, where their meaning, if they have one that is definite,
is ab once made evident. Their introduction into the present
volume would merely swell its bulk with little if any com-
pensating good. On this account I have also kept out a vast
number of local names even of British Birds, which could have
been easily inserted, though preserving most of those that
have found their way into some sort of literature, ranging
from an epic poem to an act of parliament; but I confess to
much regret in being compelled to exclude them, because the
subject is one of great interest, and has never been properly
treated. It will thus be seen that my selection of names to
be inserted is quite arbitrary. I have tried to make it tend to
utility, and whether I have succeeded, those who consult the
volume will judge.

Thanks to the complaisance of Messrs. Longman and
Company I have been able to acquire: electrotypes of a con-

siderable number of the woodeuts which illustrated Swainson’s

NOTE vi

‘Classification of Birds.’ These figures were drawn by that
admirable ornithological delineator, and most of them for truth
of detail or beauty of design have seldom been equalled and
rarely surpassed. I am also indebted to the kindness of Sir
Walter Buller, K.C.M.G., F.R.S., for the use of electrotypes of
woodcuts executed for his ‘ Birds of New Zealand, as well as
to the Publication Committee of the Zoological Society of
London, to the Trustees of the British Museum, and to Dr.
William Francis and Mr. Maxwell Masters, F.R.S., for their
consent to the reproduction of other figures, which will be
found duly acknowledged in the following pages.

Lastly, I would say that the alphabetical order has been
deliberately adopted in preference to the taxonomic because I
entertain grave doubt of the validity of any systematic arrange-
ment as yet put forth, some of the later attempts being in my
opinion among the most fallacious, and a good deal worse than
those they are intended to supersede. That in a few directions
an approach to improvement has been made is not to be denied ;
but how far that approach goes is uncertain. I only see that
mistakes are easily made, and I have no wish to mislead others
by an assertion of knowledge which I know no one to possess ;
yet with all these drawbacks and shortcomings I trust that this
Dictionary will aid a few who wish to study Ornithology in a
scientific spirit, as well as many who merely regard its pursuit
as a pastime, while I even dare indulge the hope that persons
indifferent to the pleasures of Natural History, except when
highly-coloured pictures are presented to them by popular
writers, may find in it some corrective to the erroneous impres-
sions commonly conveyed by sciolists posing as instructors.

A. N.

CampripcE, March 1893.

Where a word is introduced in small capitals, without apparent necessity, further
information concerning it may be sought for under that word in its alphabetical

place.

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

A

AASVOGEL (Carrion-bird), the name given to some of the larger
VuttureEs by the Dutch colonists in South Africa, and generally
adopted by English residents (Layard, B. S. Africa, pp. 5, 6).

ABADAVINE or ABERDUVINE (etymology and _ spelling
doubtful), a name applied in 1735 by Albin (Suppl. Nat. Hist. B.
p. 71) to the SISKIN, but perhaps hardly ever in use, though often
quoted as if it were.

ACANTHIZA, the scientific name given in 1826 by Vigors and
Horsfield to a genus of birds commonly ranked with the Sylviidz
(WARBLER), and used as English since Gould’s time for the eight
or more species which inhabit Australia.

ACCENTOR, Bechstein’s name for a genus of Sylviidx (including
the Hedge-SPARROW and its allies) which some British authors have
tried with small success to add to the English language.

ACCIPITRES, the name given by Linnzus to his first Order of
the Class Aves, consisting of what are commonly known as Birds-of-
Prey, namely, the Vultures, the Eagles and Hawks, and the Owls ;
the last being by many recent authors, whose example is followed
in the present work, separated from the first two.

ACORN-DUCK, a name given in some parts of North America
to the Carolina or Wood-Duck, 4 sponsa.

ACROMYODI, Garrod’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, p. 507)
for a group of birds practically the same as the OscINES, PoLy-
MYODI or true PASSERES of various authors, “an acromyodian
bird, being one in which the muscles of the SYRINX are attached to
the extremities of the bronchial semi-rings.” The <Acromyodi are
further divided into two groups, one (abnormales or Pseudoscines)
consisting of, so far as is known, only the genera Alrichia (SCRUB-

[

2 ADJUTANI—AETOMORPHZ

BIRD) and Menura (LYRE-BIRD), the other (normales) containing
all the rest of the OSCINES.

ADJUTANT, a large kind of STorK, so called by the English
in India and elsewhere “from its comical resemblance to a human
figure in a stiff dress pacing slowly on a parade-ground” (Yule &
Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, sub voce). It belongs to the genus Leptoptilus,
of which the members are distinguished by their sad-coloured
plumage, their black, scabrous head, and their enormous tawny
pouch, which depends, occasionally some 16 inches or more in
length, from the lower part of the neck, and is not connected as
commonly believed with the digestive system (see AIR-SACKS). In
many parts of India L. dubius, or L. argala of some authors, the
largest of these birds, the Hargila as Hindus call it, is a most
efficient scavenger, sailing aloft at a vast height and descending on
the discovery of offal, though frogs and fishes also form part of its
diet. It familiarly enters the large towns, in many of which on
account of its services it is strictly protected from injury, and,
having satisfied its appetite, seeks the repose it has earned, sitting
with its feet extended in front in a most grotesque attitude. A
second and smaller species, L. javanicus, has a more southern and
eastern range; while a third, L. crwmenifer, of African origin, and
often known as the Marabou-Stork, gives its name to the beautifully
soft feathers so called, though our markets are mostly supplied with
them by the Indian species (in which they form the lower tail-
coverts), if not, as some suppose, by VULTURES. Related to the
Adjutants are the birds known as JABIRUS.

AEGITHOGNATHS, the fourth and last Suborder of Car-
INAT&, according to Prof. Huxley’s arrangement (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1867, pp. 450-456, 467-472), founded chiefly on palatal characters,
containing two groups, the CYPSELOMORPHA and CORACOMORPHA,
and possibly a third, the CELEOMORPH (or Gecinomorphx). In
the true egithognathous structure the vomer is broad, abruptly
truncated in front and deeply cleft behind, so as to embrace the
rostrum of the sphenoid; the palatals have produced postero-
external angles, the maxillo-palatals are slender at their origin,
and extend obliquely inwards and backwards over the palatals, ending
beneath the vomer in expanded extremities, not united either
with one another or with the vomer, nor is the last united with the
ossification of the anterior part of the nasal septum—a not un-
common condition. As a whole the pe ead correspond
pretty well with the INsEssoREs of Vigors.

AETOMORPH A, Prof. Huxley’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867,
pp. 462-465) for that group of his Suborder DESMOGNATHA, which
includes the Birds-of-Prey, commonly so called, and therefore
practically equivalent to the ACCIPITRES of Linnzus and the Rap-

AFTERSHAFT—ATR-SACKS 3
TORES of many authors. Prof. Huxley makes four divisions of the
Aetomorphic birds, namely, Strigidx (OWLS), Cathartide (VULTURES
of the New World), Gypaetide (VULTURES of the Old World,
EAGLES and HAwks), and Gypogeranidx (formed by the SECRETARY-
BIRD alone).

AFTERSHAFT or hyporhachis is the generally mel counter-
part of a typical feather which springs from the inner surface of
the quill common to both. The aftershaft is of the same size as
the shaft in the Cassowary, Emeu, and in the Moa: it is well
developed, but forms an unimportant part of the whole feather in
Parrots, most Birds-of-Prey, Herons, Gulls : it is very small and feeble
in most Passeres, Grallx, and many Calling ; and absent or extremely
small in the Ostrich, Rhea, Kiwi, Pigeons, Owls, Woodpeckers,
Steganopodes, Anseres, and others. As a rule, the aftershaft is best
developed in downs, and in the smaller contour-feathers, while it
is wanting or minute in the remiges and rectrices. While the
absence of an aftershaft is certainly due to its subsequent reduction
or loss, it is probable that its great size in the Emeu is not a
primitive but a secondary acquired feature, because the feathers of
the first or nestling plumage of this bird consist of two very unequal
halves (see also FEATHERS).

AIR-SACKS (or S4cs) are membranaceous receptacles which
communicate with the cavities of the respiratory organs or passages,
and can through them be filled with air. According to their
connexions we distinguish between a (1) pulmonary and (II) a naso-
pharyngeal system of air-sacs.

I. The pulmonary system has the widest distribution in the
bird’s body. The sacs, of which there are generally five large
pairs, begin in the embryo of about eleven days to grow out as
small vesicles from the surface of the lungs, as dilatations of
branches of the bronchial tubes, pushing the peritoneal membranes
before them, and gradually extending as enlarged sacs into the body
cavity between the various intestines. Each sac has an inner layer,
the continuation of the lining membrane of the bronchial tubes, and
an outer layer or serous membrane, which is the bulged-out pleura
or peritoneal covering of the lung. The pulmonary openings are
beset with vibrating cilie like the bronchi. The outside of the sacs
frequently possesses a covering of involuntary or of voluntary
muscles ; for instance, in Vultures, Gannets, and Flamingos a thin
fan-shaped muscle extends from the furcula over the interclavicular
air-sac. ‘Through contraction of these muscles the cells can be
emptied of air. ‘The five principal pairs of air-sacs are :—

1. A prebronchial or cervical pair, situated in front of or “ head-
wards” from the lungs and the pulmonary system. ‘They are sub-
jected to many modifications. ‘They form on each side a single sac

4 AIR-SACKS

in the Duck, which in the Fowls, Gulls, Gannets, and some others,
communicates with the next pair. In the Stork, Flamingo, and
Screamer each sac is elongated and divided into numerous smaller
cells. Frequently these sacs extend far up the neck, even into the
head, and small side branches may enter any of the neighbouring
organs, such as the inside of the vertebrae, the carotid and vertebral
canals, the cervical muscles, the cranial cavities, and others. Some-
times they form large inflatable sacs on the throat, as, for instance,
in the Prairie-fowls.

2. A pair of subbronchial or interclavicular sacs. They are
united into one sac in Storks, communicate with each other in Ducks,
are subdivided into a number of smaller sacs in the Swan and in the
Screamer: in Vultures they take the large crop between them.
Lateral extensions accompany the large blood-vessels and form axil-
lary cells penetrating ultimately the humerus and other bones of the
wing ; other secondary cells penetrate the large pectoral muscles
(e.g. in Mycteria) or enter the body and the keel of the sternum.

3, 4. A pair of anterior and posterior intermediate sacs,
extending more or less far into the abdominal cavity, covering
chiefly the lower portions of the lungs and the liver, occasionally
subdivided, being filled through several openings at the external
edge of the lungs, and sometimes continued into the lateral parts of
the sternum.

5. A pair of abdominal sacs. These are the largest, extend-
ing with irregular subdivisions between the intestines into the
pelvis, and penetrating the femur together with the rest of the bones
of the sacrum, and the legs.

Besides these principal air-sacs, there exist numerous smaller
cells, which enter more or less directly from the lungs into the
vertebra and ribs, between the muscles, underneath the skin and
other parts, thus making the skeleton, and sometimes the greater
part of the body, pneumatic. The air-sacs do not enter the bones
before a considerable portion of the marrow has been absorbed ,
an extremely small hole in the bone is sufficient for their entrance ;
the cavity of hollow bones is ultimately lined with the thin mem-
brane of the air-sac. Generally the skeleton is most pneumatic in
large birds that fly well, like Vultures, Storks, Swans, Pelicans ;
less so in small birds, and least in heavy or little-flying water-birds.
However, there are many exceptions. While, for instance, most
of the bones of many Jasseres, of Swifts, Divers, Rails, the Kiwi,
and of Terns, are solid, and air-cells are restricted chiefly to the
cranium, many parts of the skeleton of the large fatitw are very
pneumatic.

The greatest development of pneumatic cells exists in the
Screamers and Hornbills, in which even the fingers and toes, in fact,
any part of the skeleton, are hollow, and large subcutaneous air-sacs

AIR-SACKS 5

are present in great numbers between the muscles and the roots of
the feathers. These birds when inflated and pricked emit a
peculiar hissing noise through the skin. It is well known that a
bird which has its humerus shattered by shot can for some time
breathe, although its beak and nostrils be tightly closed, and thus
be submitted to unnecessary excruciating pain. Compression of
the thorax and abdomen suffocates a wounded bird better than
strangulation.

IJ. The naso-pharyngeal or tympanic system of air-sacs is
restricted to the head, extending chiefly into the occipital, frontal,
parietal, quadrate,and mandibular bones. To this system belong
the Eustachian tubes (see EAR and SKULL), the tympanic, and other
cavities which communicate with the nose. The most curious
dilatation belonging to this system is the crop-like pouch of the
ADJUTANT. ‘This sac communicates in Leptoptilus crumenifer with a
large cavity below the orbit and the pterygoid bone on the left side
of the basis cranii, opening directly into the nasal cavity and extend-
ing like a hernia into a loose fold of integument, the pouch being
divided into two by a vertical membrane which descends to the
level of the eighth cervical vertebra.

Another inflatable sac is the gular pouch of BusTarps. It seems
to be developed only in adult males, reaching its greatest size
during the breeding season, and again shrivelling up during the rest
of the year. Its opening is a L-shaped slit in front of the frenulum
of the tongue and below this organ; the opening can be closed by
muscles, and leads into a large, glandless blind sac (about 8-10 inches
long, with half the width), which is a dilatation of the frenulum
and hangs down between the throat and the skin of the front of
the neck. It seems to be an entirely sexual ornament, inflating the
skin, and containing neither water nor food.

A similar homologous structure exists in the male of Biziura
lobata, as a little pouch between the two halves of the frenulum,
with a roundish opening, but apparently not extending into or
inflating the outer cutaneous wattle or fold underneath the
mandibles.

Lastly, the tracheal pouch of the EMeu may be mentioned. It
is a large unpaired hernia-like sac of the tracheal walls, communi-
cating with the trachea through a longitudinal slit on the ventral
side, an individually-varying number of from five to fourteen car-
tilaginous rings being known to be deficient in the middle line. In
the embryos this deficiency is already shewn, but the pouch is

developed much later, and attains its full size in the adults of both
sexes. This organ seems to act as a resounding bag to the peculiar
drumming noise made by the adult birds.

The funetion of all these air-sacs has been the subject of many
controversies. Some are undoubtedly subservient to sexual orna-

6 ALBATROS

mental purposes, by inflating the skin, rustling the feathers, or
acting as resounding bags in the Prairie-fowls and in the Emeu.
The suggestion that the warm air in these sacs makes the bird
lighter, and assists, balloon-like, the flight, is void of practical
value, because the few grains of weight lifted up by the whole
amount of air-sacs of even a large bird would be more than counter-
balanced by a few grains of food or better-nourished condition of
the bird. Nor would this view be applicable to the Ratite, with
their well-developed air-sacs. The newer researches of. Sappey,!
Campana,? and Strasser ® make it probable that one of the principal
functions of the air-sacs consists in the ventilation of the lungs, the
latter being only capable of very limited expansion and contraction
in birds. No exchange of gas seems to take place in the sacs them-
selves, they being poor in blood-vessels; but they seem to be
directly connected with the regulation of the exhalation of aqueous
vapour, there being besides no perspiration through the skin.
Frequently they serve also as reservoirs for air, in order to increase
the voice ; for instance, in the long-continued song of the Nightingale,
or still more so, in the Lark when warbling.

ALBATROS, a corruption of the Spanish and Portuguese
Alcatraz or Alcaduz* by which name the Pelican is known in some
parts of the Iberian peninsula and the Spanish colonies in the West
Indies ; but it is also applied vaguely to other large sea-birds. By
English navigators its use was formerly quite as indiscriminate,
and its spelling no less so, the forms Alcatraza, Alcatraze, Algatross,
and Albitross, occurring in various authors—the last being that
found in Shelvocke’s Voyage (London: 1726), wherein (pp. 72, 73)
is recorded the incident that, on Wordsworth’s suggestion, Coleridge
immortalized in his Ancient Mariner. In process of time the name
has become definitely limited to the larger species of Diomedeidz,®
a family of the group T'ubinares, and especially to the largest species
of the genus, Diomedea evulans, the “‘ Man-of-war bird” or Wandering

1 Compt. Rend. del Acad. des Sciences, xxii. pp. 250, 508.

? Physiologie de la respiration chez les Oiseaux, Paris: 1875.

3 Jenaische Zeitschrift, xix. pp. 174-327, 330-429.

4 The word is Arabic, al-cddous, adopted from the Greek xddos, water-pot
or bucket (cf Dozy & Engelmann, Glossaire des mots espagn. et portug. dérivés de
l’ Arabe, ed. 2, p. 79), and especially signifying the leathern bucket of an irrigating
machine. Thence it was applied to the Pelican, from the resemblance of that
bird’s pouch, in which it was believed to carry water to its young in the
wilderness.

5 The Aves Dionvedew of Pliny (lib. x. cap. 44), whence the word has been
preserved in Ornithology, inhabiting the islands of the same name, generally
identified with Tremiti off the Adriatic coast of Italy (cf Lachmund, De Ave
Diomedea dissertatio. Amstelodami: 1672, p. 28), seem to have been SHEAR-
WATERS of some sort.

ALBATROS 7

Albatros of many authors. Of this, though it has been so long
the observed of all observers among voyagers to the Southern
Ocean, no one seems to have given, from the life, its finished portrait
on the wing, and hardly such a description as would enable those who
have not seen it to form an idea of its look. The diagrammatic
sketch by Captain (now Professor) Hutton, here introduced, is prob-

f

AvBaTros. (After Hutton. From the Philos. Mag. Aug. 1869, with the
Editor's permission.)
ably amore correct representation of it than can be found in the conven-
tional figures which abound in books. Writers who apply to its FLIGHT
the epithets graceful, grand, majestic, and the like, convey thereby
no definite meaning, and yet by all accounts its appearance must
be extremely characteristic. The ease with which it maintains itself
in the air, “sailing ” for a long while without any perceptible motion
of its wings, whether gliding over the billows, or boldly shooting aloft
again to descend and possibly alight on the surface, has been dwelt
upon often enough,! as has its capacity to perform these feats equally
in a seeming calm or in the face of a gale; but more than this
is wanted, and one must hope that a series of instantaneous photo-
graphs may soon be obtained which will shew the feathered aeronaut
with becoming dignity. The mode in which the “sailing” of the
Albatros is effected has been much discussed, but there can be little
doubt that Professor Hutton is right in declaring (Jbis, 1865, p. 296)
that it is only “by combining, according to the laws of mechanics,

' The most vivid description is perhaps that of Mr. Froude (Oceana, pp. 65, 66),
and, as it is cited with approval by Sir W. Buller (B. New Zeal. ed. 2, ii.
p- 195), a part may here be quoted. The Albatros ‘‘ wheels in circles round and
round, and for ever round the ship--now far behind, now sweeping past in a long
rapid curve, like a perfect skater on an untouched field of ice. There is no effort ;
watch as closely as you will, you rarely or never see a stroke of the mighty
pinion. The flight is generally near the water, often close to it. You lose sight
of the bird as he disappears in the hollow between the waves, and catch him again
as he rises over the crest ; but how he rises and whence comes the propelling force
is to the eye inexplicable ; he alters merely the angle at which the wings are
inclined ; usually they are parallel to the water and horizontal; but when
he turns to ascend or makes a change in his direction the wings then point at an
angle, one to the sky, the other to the water.”

8 ALBATROS

this pressure of the air against his wings with the force of gravity,
and by using his head and tail as bow and stern rudders, that the
Albatros is enabled to sail in any direction he pleases, so long as
his momentum lasts.” Much discrepancy, at present inexplicable,
exists in the accounts given by various writers of the expanse of
wing in this species. We may set aside as a gross exaggeration the
assertion that examples have been obtained measuring 20 feet, but
Dr. George Bennett of Sydney (Wanderings, &c., ii. p. 363) states that
he has “never seen the spread of the wings greater than fourteen
feet.” Recently Mr. J. F. Green (Ocean Birds, p. 5) says that, out of
more than one hundred which he had caught and measured the
largest was 11 feet 4 inches from tip to tip, a statement exactly con-
firmed, he adds, by the forty years’ experience of a ship-captain who
had always made a point of measuring these birds, and had never
found one over that length.

This Albatros is too well known by description in countless
books, or by specimens to be seen in almost any museum, to need
many words as to its chief features. In the adult the plumage of
the body is white, more or less mottled above by fine wavy bars,
and the quill-feathers of the wings are brownish-black. The young
are suffused with slaty-brown, the tint becoming lighter as the bird
grows older. It is found throughout the Southern Ocean, seldom
occurring northward of lat. 30° S.,1 and is invariably met with by
ships that round the Cape of Good Hope or pass the Strait of
Magellan. As a species it is said to be less numerous than most of
its smaller congeners, and one cannot but fear that it will become
rarer still, if not extinct, partly because of the senseless slaughter to
which it is subjected by the occupants of almost every ship, but
especially because of the ravages inflicted upon it at its not too many
breeding-places, which are on islands mostly small and remote, where
disastrous havoc can be, and continually is, wrought by a boat’s crew
in a few hours.

In the North-Pacific Ocean are found two other large species of
Albatros, regarded for a long time by ornithologists as identical
with D. exulans, but now recognized as being distinct species.
They have also been confounded with one another by some authors,
while the young have been described as if different from their
parents, so that their nomenclature presents a tangled puzzle which
it would be impossible here to unravel. Enough to say, that the
one of them which is most like D. exulans, and has over and over
again been so termed by authors, is the D. albatrus of Pallas, its
young being the D. derogata of Swinhoe. This seems to be always

1 Instances are recorded of its occurrence in Europe and North America, and
no doubt examples of some species of Albatros have wandered so far from their
usual range ; but whether D. exulans is one of them scems to await proof. Fossil
remains of Diomedea have been found in Suffolk (Q. J. Geol. Soc. 1886, p. 367).

ALBINO—ALLANTOIS 9

distinguishable by its yellow or light-coloured legs, while the other,
the D. brachywra of Temminck, its young being the D. nigripes of
Audubon, has those limbs dark or black. Both of them seem to
occur in summer in Bering Sea, while they occasionally appear
along the shores of China and California ; but nothing can yet be said
as to their precise range. It remains to mention the smaller species
of the genus, one of which, D. cauta, described by Gould, is not
much inferior in size to the preceding, and owing to its wary
disposition, indicated by the trivial name it bears, is extremely rare
in collections. These are all known to seafaring men as Molly-
mawks—a corruption of MALLEMUCK—and chiefly frequent the —
Southern Ocean, as does also the Sooty Albatros, which, from its
wedge-shaped tail, has been placed in a genus of its own, and passes
as Phebetria fuliginosa.

ALBINO (coll. n. albinism). A case of HETEROCHROSIS, pro-
duced by the partial or total absence of the normally-present black
pigment in the feathers and other parts. In complete albinos the
pupil and iris are red, owing to the blood-vessels shining through
these otherwise strongly pigmented parts. A lesion of the pulp of
a growing feather not unfrequently prevents the deposition of pig-
ment therein, but the pulp recovers as a rule after one or more
moults (see COLOUR).

ALECTORIDES, an Order proposed by Temminck in 1820
(Man. @ Orn. ed. 2, 1. p. xev.) to contain the genera Psophia (TRUMP-
ETER), Dicholophus (SERIEMA), Glareola (PRATINCOLE), Palamedea, and
Chawna (SCREAMER). Sundevall subsequently (K. Vet. Acad. Hand-
lingar, 1836, p. 120) substituted Otis (BusTaRD) for Glareola, but
wholly dropped the group in his Tentamen (1872-73) wherein these
forms are differently disposed. The Order has, however, been ad-
mitted by several other systematists, and among them by Mr. Sclater,
who, in 1880, made it include six Families (see INTRODUCTION).

ALECTOROMORPH i, according to Prof. Huxley’s arrange-
ment (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 456, 459), the fifth group of
ScHIZOGNATHA, corresponding practically with the GALLIN& of
Linnzus ; and, omitting the genera Opisthocomus (HOACTZIN) and
Menura (LYRE-BIRD), with the section Gallinacei of Iliger’s RASORES.

ALK, the old and apparently the more correct form of AUK.

ALLANTOIS (from adAGs, a sausage). A sack-like structure,
which during the very early development of the embryo grows out
from the posterior gut into the body cavity, and extends rapidly all
round the embryo in the space enclosed by the false amnion, forming
then with the latter a highly vascular inner lining of the eggshell.
This bag receives urine, and takes on respiratory functions in
embryonic Birds and Reptiles. Towards the end of incubation the

10 ALP—ALTRICES

allantois shrivels up, and is cast off with the shell; its stalk or
urachus, from the cloaca to the navel, is gradually absorbed, there
being no urinary bladder in Birds (see EMBRYOLOGY).

ALP, otherwise ALPH, AWBE, or OLPH, a word of unknown
origin, but of long standing (see Chaucer, Romaunt of the Rose, circa
1400), and still locally used in one or other of its forms, e.g. “ Blood-
Olph” and “Green-Olph” for the BULLFINCH and GREENFINCH
respectively.

ALTRICES, the name given by Sundevall (K. Vet. Acad. Hand.
' 1836, p. 64) to his first section of the Class Aves, comprehend-
ing those which “alunt pullulos” (feed their young), founded on
the scheme of Oken (Lehrb. d. Zoologie, p. 371), in opposition
to PRA&COCES, the birds which at birth are more or less able to feed
themselves, but subsequently abandoned by its inventor (Tentamen,
p. xx., Nicholson’s transl. p 26).

The division of the Class thus indicated has under various
names been advocated by several authorities, and at first sight has
a plausible appearance; but investigation shews that it cannot be
adopted. Doubtless the original Birds, like Reptiles, were Precoces,
and the Alirices are of later date. The existence of the numerous
intermediate forms may thus be explained; but it follows that we
cannot use as absolutely valid differentiating characters such as are
afforded by the open or closed eyes of the young at birth, by their
being clothed in down or naked, by their remaining in the nest or
not, by their way of feeding themselves or being fed. It is possible
that the transition from Precoces to Altrices has been governed by
purely external circumstances, which may still be in action—such,
for instance, as the nest, being built high above the ground or
water. There are many Altrices whose whole anatomical structure
proves them to be more nearly related to certain groups of typical
Precoces than they are to other Altrices. These circumstances as
fully explained (Jenaisch. Zettschrift, 1879, p. 385, and Bronn,
Thierreich, Aves. p. 701) lead to the following divisions of birds in
regard to their development :— .

1. Pracoces or Nidifuge—hatched with eyes open; thickly clad in
down ; able to run at once, or almost at once ; and having such
an amount of yolk stored in the abdomen as to render them for
some time more or less independent of other food :—Ratite,
Crypturi, Galline, Laride, Limicolx, Pteroclidx, Gralle, Anseres,
Pygopodes.

2. AvLTRICES or Nidicole—

a. Lower Nidicole—some hatched with their eyes open, others
blind ; covered or not with down ; unable to leave the nest ;
fed by the parents; amount of food-yolk very limited :—
Spheniscidx, Steganopodes, Tubinares, Herodit, Pelargi.

AMAZON—AMNION 11

b. Higher Nidicole—hatched in a helpless condition, blind ;
mostly naked, and for a long time nursed in the nest, the
food- yolk having been used up at birth :—Columbe,
Striges, Accipitres, Psittaci, Coccyyes, Epopes, Halcyones,
Cypselomorphx, Pici, Passeres.

The two series a and 6 stand phylogenetically parallel to each other.

AMAZON, a bird-fanciers’ name for a certain group of PARROTS
belonging chiefly to the genus Chrysotis.

AMBIENS is a muscle (so called by Sundevall, Férhandl. Skand.
Naturf. 1851, pp. 259-269: abstract in Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1855, Trans.
of Sect. p. 137) which, arising from the pectineal process of the pelvis,
runs along the inner surface of the thigh, passes the knee as a
string-like tendon, and then forms one of the heads of the deep
flexor muscle of the second and third toe. The taxonomic value
of this muscle has been much over-estimated since Garrod (P. Z. 8.
1874, pp. 111-123) divided the Class into HoMALOGONATA, birds
possessing an ambiens muscle, and ANOMALOGONAT&, or birds
without such a muscle. The muscle is typically developed in
Crypturi, Gallinz, Pteroclide, Gralla, Laridz, Colymbide, Stegano-
podes, Impennes, Anseres, Accipitres, Coccyges ; it is absent in all
Striges, Cypselomorphz, Halcyones, Epopes, Trogonide, Pici, Pas-
seres, Herodii, Alcidz, Podicipedide ; it is very variable in Ratite,
Pelargi, Tubinares, Columbe, Psittaci (see also MUSCULAR SYSTEM
and INTRODUCTION).

AMIDAVAD, otherwise AMADAVAT, or AVADUVAT, the
name given to a well-known favourite cage-bird, Estrilda amandava
(see WEAVER-BIRD), being a corruption of Ahmadabad, the name of
a town in Goojerat whence, more than 200 years ago, according to
Fryer (New Account of East India, &c., London: 1698), examples
were brought to Surat. In his peculiar style he tells us (p. 116)
that “they are spotted with White and Red, no bigger than Measles,
the principal Chorister beginning, the rest in Concert, Fifty in a
cage, make an admirable Chorus.”

AMNION (a Greek word of doubtful derivation, used already
by Aristotle). From either end of the body of the very early
embryo grows out a fold which passes dorsally over the embryo,
and unites above it with its fellow from the other end; between
the two layers of this double fold, which is the amnion, extends
the body-cavity, and receives the rapidly-growing ALLANTOIS ; the
outer membrane of the allantois fuses with the outer double fold of
the amnion, and forms the chorion, lining the eggshell (see EMBRYO-
LoGY). The amnion affords one of the principal differentiating
characters in the vertebrata ; Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals are as
Amniota (Heckel, Anthropogenic 1874) opposed to se
and Fishes or Anamnia.

{2 AMPHIBOLZ—ANATOMY

AMPHIBOLA, a group of birds so called by Nitzsch in 1829
(Observationes de Avium Carotide communi, p. 16) comprising the
genera, as then understood, Musophaga (TouRAco), Colius (MOUSE-
BIRD), and Opisthocomus (HOACTZIN); but by no means to be con-
founded with the

AMPHIBOLL, one of Illiger’s groups, defined in 1811 (Prodromus
Systematis Mammalium et Avium, p. 203), and composed of the
genera Crotophaga, Scythrops, Bucco, Cuculus and Centropus—the
third of which is treated of under the titles of BARBET and PUFF-
BIRD, while the rest will be found under those of ANI, CHANNEL-
BILL, and CuckKow.

AMPHIBOLIC is a toe which can be reversed at will either
backwards or forwards. The outer or fourth toe is amphibolic,
and can be turned backwards in Pandion, the Striges, Musophagide,
Leptosomatide, and Coliide. This feature, when retained, forms
the true zygodactyle foot. The MouSE-BIRDS can turn the first toe
forwards, being thus enabled temporarily to assume the condition
of some of the SwIrTs, or that of zygodactyle birds. Reversion of
the second toe backwards has produced the pseudo-zygodactyle or
heterodactyle foot of the TRoGONS (see SKELETON).

AMPHIMORPH A, the name given by Prof. Huxley (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 460) to his second group of DESMOGNATHA,
which consists of the genus Phenicopterus (FLAMINGO), as being
“so completely intermediate between the Anserine birds on the
one side, and the Storks and Herons on the other, that it can be
ranged with neither of these groups, but must stand as the type
of a division by itself.”

ANATOMY (dvaropia, dissection) is that branch of zoology
which deals with the description of the organic structure of animals ;
a branch of this zootomy is Histology, the knowledge of the composi-
tion of the tissues of the various organs. The object of Comparative
Anatomy is the explanation of the features exhibited by the animal
organization. 'The comparative method examines numbers of differ-
ent animals (or plants) with reference to the anatomical structure
of their various organs, putting similar conditions together, and
separating or excluding those which are dissimilar. By observing
in such organs their size, number, shape, structure, relative posi-
tion to other organs, and their development, we ultimately acquire
a knowledge of such a series of conditions or features, exhibited
by one and the same organ, which in their extremes may appear
totally different, but are connected with each other by numerous
intermediate stages. By proceeding in such a way, we are, for
instance, enabled to understand the ankle-joint of Birds, by com-
paring the bones of their hind limbs with those of Mammals

ANATOMY 13
and Reptiles, and by concluding that the avine ankle-joint is
produced by the fusion of the proximal tarsal bones with the
tibia, and of the distal tarsals with the metatarsals, that conse-
quently this joint in Birds is not the same as the ankle-joint
of Mammals. If moreover, as is the case here, the study of the
embryonic development of Birds shews that this fusion actually
does take place, Ontogeny corroborates the correctness of the
conclusions which we had arrived at by the strictly comparative or
phylogenetic method.

Phylogeny, then, is the study of the relationship and the
descent of the various animals, often with the help of fossil species,
which are generally in some ways intermediate between other recent
forms. For instance, through comparison of the skeleton of Birds
with that of other Vertebrates, we find that Birds resemble Rep-
tiles much more than they do Fishes or Amphibia or Mammals ;
this we express by saying that Birds are rather nearly related to
Reptiles ; the extraordinary resemblance of recent Birds with the
fossil Archxopteryx, which at the same time has still many truly
Reptilian characters, links the two classes still more together. We
conclude that Reptiles and Birds are descendants of one common
Reptilian stock. Since most Reptiles possess teeth, and the more
than half avine Archxopteryx also has teeth, we again conclude
that the earliest Birds likewise possessed such organs, and that
their descendants have lost them. In this belief we are not shaken,
although the most careful examination of embryonic birds has
failed to reveal even the smallest traces of dental germs. The
subsequent discovery in American cretaceous deposits of Toothed
birds, like Enaliornis and Hesperornis, is a beautiful corroboration of
the soundness of the method.

Ontogeny, on-the other hand, includes the study of the develop-
ment of the individual, and hence is often called EmBRyoLoGy. What-
ever organic modifications the parents have acquired during their
life, subjected to the struggle for existence, be it through natural or
sexual selection, or be it through spontaneous variation, will be
inherited, at least partly, by their offspring. Ontogeny is therefore
the recapitulation by the growing individual of the sum total of the
ever-changing stages and conditions through which the whole chain
of its ancestors has passed: it is a condensed repetition of Phylo-
geny. This repetition is often so much condensed that many
previous stages are rapidly passed through, or may even be appar-
ently left out, or they have become modified beyond recognition
through the development of organs necessitated by, and restricted
to, the embryonic stages. Such strictly embryonic organs (for
instance the AMNION and the ALLANTOIS, or the placenta) are
features which have originally nothing whatever to do with the
adult, because we know of no Vertebrates which in their adult

14 ANATOMY

condition live within such bags. Another imperfection of the
ontogenetic record lies in the fact that the sequence in which the
various organs are developed in the embryo does not always
correspond with the temporary succession in which we know
them to have been acquired during the phylogenetic develop-
ment of the animal in question; thus feathers begin to bud while
the skeleton of the embryo is still cartilaginous. Such discrep-
ancies between the ontogenetic and phylogenetic development have
been termed “ceenogenetic” by Prof. Heckel (from xaw,és, new).
The fact of their frequent occurrence without our being aware of
the various c4ses; warns us to be extremely careful in interpreting
the various features exhibited by the embryo. In the present
state of our knowledge it is often impossible to decide the taxonomic
value of a given feature.

Descriptive Anatomy requires a number of technical terms which
shall not be ambiguous, or permit of doubt as to their intended
meaning. For instance, terms like upper and lower, anterior and
posterior, inner and outer, are often liable to be misunderstood.
In ordinary parlance anterior corresponds with ventral in Man
(with reference to whom many of our technical terms have been
invented), but the head though at the anterior end of the animal
is not ventral, and yet the anterior surface of a vertebra may mean
its ventral surface. In fact, these vernacular names change their
meaning according to the starting-point which happens to be
used.

It seems therefore advisable to enumerate, and give a definition
of, those terms which it is useful to apply throughout in the
description of the various organs of a Bird.

The longitudinal axis of every bird corresponds with its vertebral
column: one end is marked by the head, the other by the tail, thus
giving the terms cephalic and caudal ; and concerning the neck, trunk,
and tail, together with their constituent parts, anterior and posterior.
On one side of the vertebral column or axis are situated the heart,
lungs, and digestive organs ; this is the ventral, in opposition to the
dorsal side. 'These give, combined with anterior and posterior, right
and lef/. An axis at right angles with the longitudinal one, and at
the same time running right and left, is a transverse axis ; beginning
with the vertebral axis as the starting-point, the terms proximal and
distal are applied to any organ or part which is referable to the
longitudinal axis. These two terms are chiefly applicable to parts
like ribs and limbs with their various elements. ‘The proximal end
of the tibia articulates with the distal end of the femur; the
proximal end of a rib articulates with a vertebra, and so on. The
tip of the wing marks its distal, the AXILLA its proximal end.

- With reference to an ideal plane through the longitudinal axis,
and at right angles to the transverse axis, are applied the terms

ANATOMY 15

median or inner, lateral or outer. Lastly, since it is not always
obvious to which axis or plane a given organ is to be referred, its
parts can be described with reference to its neighbours. Hence we
speak of the tibial and fibular, radial and ulnar side of the bones
and other parts of the extremities ; the fourth toe is on the fibular,
outer, or lateral side of the foot, the first, which is ordinarily the
hind toe, on the tibial, inner, and posterior side.

The basal part of an organ is generally also its proximal part or
root, while the apex corresponds with its free or distal end, the
latter being the portion most removed or distant from the region
whence it grew. Thus we speak of the distal traclieal rings as
joining the bronchi, while proaimally the trachea is attached to the
larynx.

In comparing the various parts of one animal with each other,
or with those of another animal, we call the organs which are
morphologically or structurally similar homologous, the parts which
physiologically or functionally correspond are analogous. When the
comparison is restricted to one individual, the homologies are general.
The different vertebra, or the ribs, or the anterior and posterior
extremities of any particular Bird are serially homologous or homo-
dynamous organs, because they are to a certain extent repetitions
of each other, although not necessarily exactly alike. If the
comparison refers to similar organs in various individuals, no
matter if these belong to the same species, genus, family, or class,
the homologies are special, and these again may be complete or incom-
plete. For instance, the humerus of a Bird is completely homo-
logous with that of a Mammal, Reptile, or Amphibian ; the atlas
or first vertebra of a Crow is completely homologous with the same
part of a Dog. On the other hand, the wing of a Crow is only
incompletely homologous with the arm of Man; nor is the two-toed
foot of the Ostrich completely homologous with the four-toed foot
of a Fowl, although the various bones which compose the feet in
both are complete homologues.

Homologous organs are consequently developed from the same
parts of the embryos of the creatures which are under comparison.
Hence the number of existing homologies in given animals indicates
their further or closer relationship, and is used for assigning these
animals to their places in the system. It follows from this con-
sideration, that the animal’s place in the system depends greatly, or
entirely, upon the characters or organs selected for this purpose.
Unless all the organs and all their characters are carefully considered,
not only in the few Birds which happen to occupy our attention at
the time, but also in Birds of as many different groups as it is pos-
sible to examine, our attempts to produce a classification of Birds
must invariably end in the production of arbitrary “keys.” It is
extremely difficult, often hopeless, with the present state of our

16 ANATOMY

knowledge of the anatomy of Birds, to decide which characters and
which organs are of extrinsic taxonomic value, and which are
not. Nor is it always possible to see why certain organs, fully
developed, and exhibiting striking and constant features in one
group of Birds, are extremely variable in another otherwise very
circumscribed and apparently natural group. Supposing such a
character to be absent in a given group, is it absent because it has
not yet been developed, or is it because it has been lost ? Has it been
lost by the ancestors of this group, or has it been abolished within
this group? In the former case the absence of this character would
probably help to -decide the relative position of the group; in the
latter case this very same character would be reduced to a dia-
gnostic point within the group, and not throw any light upon its
relationship or systematic position. It may be very easy to dia-
gnose genera or even large groups of birds, but this ability to deter-
mine them by the help of mechanically arranged “keys” does not
necessarily afford us more than an occasional glimpse of the sunk
avine tree, at the reconstruction of which we all aim, as the true
representation of the natural affinities of Birds.

It is occasionally insisted upon that “tact” will help us to
select and to reject characters, and thus prevent us from falling into
glaring errors; but tact is a personal feeling, often bias, and it is
proof, not inclination, that settles scientific questions. ‘The import-
ance of these considerations, often expressed before in abler words,
is gaining more and more ground among ornithologists, and will
therefore permit the following illustrations of the ways in which
we may or may not apply the study of comparative anatomy to
classification.

The presence of the AMBIENS Muscle is a Reptilian feature ;
among Birds it exists in the majority of the lower groups, and is
absent in most of the higher members of the Class. We conclude
that the latter have lost this muscle, and not that it has not yet
been developed in them. Its reduction or loss is still going on
within some groups, such as Parrots and Pigeons. This loss takes
place independently in widely different groups. It follows, first,
that absence of this muscle does not always indicate relationship ;
secondly, that we can derive forms that are without it from a
group which still possess it ; but that the reversed conclusion is not
possible. We know of no organ which has been redeveloped after
it has once disappeared in the ancestors of the animals under con-
sideration. Therefore the absence of the ambiens muscle in all
Owls, which apparently use their hinder extremities in the same
way as the Falconide (which possess this muscle), indicates that
the Owls are not developed from the Falconidx, but from a group
which, like the Macrochires, had already lost this organ.

Similar arguments apply to the Caca. It is generally admitted

ANATOMY 17

that the ancestral bird-stock did possess well-developed ceca, there-
fore all those birds which are now found without caeca must have
lost them either phylogenetically or even during their embryonic
development. In fact, we find in embryos of such birds as
have, when adult, only very small or rudimentary cxca, that the
germs of these organs are, in the embryo, just as well developed as
in birds with long ceca; but these organs, ina Pigeon for instance,
do not grow any further. They are in early life stopped in their
development, and thus remain in a rudimentary state. Again, in
all those birds which are completely devoid of czca, their suppres-
sion is simply carried out to the extreme. We cannot therefore, as
has been done sometimes, separate Birds into those with and those
without cca: this is especially wrong, as there exist many forms,
which, although undoubtedly allied to each other, differ greatly in
the presence or absence of these organs. If we want to use the
ceca as a differentiating character, we must consider their quality,
and enquire whether those organs are functional and well developed,
or are they now without function? Consequently birds with
rudimentary cxeca have to be grouped together with those which
have no ceca, although the ancestors of both had functional cxea ;
and since we know that these organs stand in close correlation with
the nature of the food, we are enabled to weigh their taxonomic
value. Hence it is probable that the Owls are related to the ceca-
possessing Nightjars, and that the czecaless Macrochires (like Swifts)
are a recent offshoot of the latter, while it is impossible to assume
that the Owls are descendants of the Diurnal Birds-of-Prey.

The modifications of the Carotid Arteries have enabled Prof.
Fuerbringer to draw a very ingenious and valid conclusion as
to the probable original centre of the Parrots. While the Aus-
tralian, Oriental, and African Parrots exhibit almost every possible
modification of these arteries, from the most primitive to the most
specialised conditions, the American Parrots possess only the right
deep carotis and a left superficial carotis, an arrangement which is
a decidedly recent, not primary feature. Hence the conclusion that
the American Parrots are a branch of the Paleotropical stem ; but
however fascinating such speculations are, we must not forget that
they hardly ever amount to definite proofs.

Supposing we divide Birds into two classes (A and B), according
to the presence or absence of the AMBIENS muscle. As a second
differentiating character let us take the functional or fully developed
(a) and the absent or functionless state of the Caca (b); and asa
third character the presence (a) or absence (f) of an AFTERSHAFT.
Then using the ambiens as the principal, and the aftershaft as the
tertiary differentiating feature, and indicating presence or absence
by the signs + and — respectively, we get the following eight
divisions :—

2

18 ANATOMY

A, Ambiens +
a, Coeca +
a. Aftershaft +¢.g. Gallinze, Impennes, Phcenicopterus,
Musophaga, ete.
f. Aftershaft — e.g. Anseres, ete.
b. Caeca —
a. Aftershaft+eg. Accipitres, Psittaci partim.
B. Aftershaft — e.g. Columbze partim.
B. Ambiens —
a, Czeca +
a. Aftershaft +e¢.g. Alca, Podicipes.
f. Aftershaft — e.g. Striges.
b. Cxca —
a. Aftershaft +e.g. Psittaci pt., Cypseli, Trochili, etc.
B. Aftershaft — eg. Passeres, Columbe pt., Herodii, ete.

Thus the Owls in this arrangement approach nearest to the
Auks and Grebes, while the Parrots, owing to their variable
ambiens muscle, are grouped either with the Accipitres, or with the
Swifts and Humming-birds. This is obviously unsatisfactory, per-
haps owing to the value of the ambiens muscle being overrated.
Let us next use the aftershaft as the principal, the ambiens as the
secondary determining character, and the ceca as the third. Then
the Psittaci approach the Gallinaceous birds and also the Auks and
Grebes, while the Owls verge into the neighbourhood of Pigeons,
Herons, and Passerine birds. Again, by using the ceca as the prin-
cipal, and the ambiens as the secondary feature, Psittaci, Accipitres,
and Columb, Owls, Auks, and Grebes are once more thrown to-
gether. ‘The same or very similar arrangements result from a
combination of the ceca with the oil-gland, or of the ambiens and
ceca with the conditions of the palatal bones. But these per-
sistent coincidences will never induce us to look upon them as
indicating relationship between Owls, Auks, and Grebes, because
this conclusion would be obviously wrong! How does the ques-
tion stand with regard to other combinations, when we cannot at
a glance discern a glaring error? When, ¢g. according to the
muscles of the thigh, leaving out the ambiens, Striges, Accipitres,
and Cypselide stand closely together? Is this a mere coincidence
_ or does a deeper meaning underlie this Trias? It is obviously not
due to a superior taxonomic value of Garrod’s myological formule,
because application of the same principle throws Nightjars, Storks,
and Parrots together.

It is hopeless to attempt to arrive at a natural classification of
Birds by a mechanical arrangement of even a great number of
alleged leading characters. More may be expected from the com-
bination of various taxonomic arrangements, each of which has
been based upon a single organic system without reference to other

ANHIMA—ANSERES 19

organs. Of course every one of such one-sided attempts will
occasionally shew a rather perplexing face, but each of them will
bring to light some unexpected points of resemblance between
certain groups; and, while restricting ourselves to one organic
system, we are more likely to understand which points are given
to modifications through mode of life, food, habit, and surroundings,
and which remain least affected, and therefore are indicative of
relationship. Let us then combine the several one-sided arrange-
ments. They will each of them contribute something good or
certain, and thus help to settle the great question. Reasoning from
a broad basis of facts will do the rest.

ANHIMA or ANHINGA, see SNAKE-BIRD.

ANTI, according to Marcgrave (Hist. Ker. Nat. Brasilix, p. 193),
the Brazilian name of what is the Crotophaga major of modern
ornithologists, who have ignorantly misapplied Linneeus’s designa-
tion, C. ani, to its smaller congener, an inhabitant of the Antilles
and part of the Spanish Main. This latter is known to most
of the English-speaking people of the West Indies as the Black
Witch or Savanna Blackbird. The genus Crotophaga is one of
the most remarkable forms of the Cuculidz (CUcKow) of the New
World.

ANISODACTYLI, Vieillot’s name, in 1816 (Analyse, p. 29),
for the second tribe of his second Order, comprehending all the
PASSERES of Linneus and such of the latter’s Pica as had not two
toes before and two behind. By some later authors the name has
been restricted to the genera which are not ZYGODACTYLI and are
yet placed among the SCANSORES.

ANKLE-JOINT. The true ankle-joint is a Mammalian feature,
being the articulation of the tibia with the astragalus, and therefore
a tibio-tarsal joint. In Birds the so-called ankle-joint is an inter-
tarsal joint, because the proximal tarsal bones, of which the astra-’
galus is one, are fused with the end of the tibia, and the distal
tarsal are fused with the metatarsal bones (see SKELETON).

ANOMALOGONAT A, the second of the two subclasses, the
other being called HoMALOGONATA, into which Garrod at one
time divided Birds, according as they possessed an AMBIENS
muscle or not (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, pp. 116-118). In the
Homalogonatous or “typically-kneed” birds “the ambiens runs
in the tendon of the knee,” though there are some of them in which
it is absent; but “there cannot be any Anomalogonatous birds in
which it is present.” For the groups which are contained in these
categories, see INTRODUCTION.

ANSERES, the third Order of the Class Aves according to the
system of Linneus, comprising all the Web-footed Birds known to

20 ANT-THRUSH

him except Phenicopterus (FLAMINGO) and Lecurvirostra {AVOSET).
If the term be used at the present day, it must be limited to the
Geese and their allies.

ANT-THRUSH, Latham’s rendering in 1783 (Gen. Synops. ii.
p. 87) of Buffon’s Fourmilier proprement dit (Hist. Nat. Ois. iv.
p. 473), a bird figured by Daubenton (Pl. enl. 700, fig. 1) as the
Fourmillier de Cayenne, the Formicarius torquatus of Boddaert in 1783,
the Turdus formicarius of Gmelin in 1788, and the Lhopotrope
torquata of modern systematists ; for, though it should be logically
recognized as the type of the genus Mormicarius, Prof. Cabanis in
1847 (Orn. Notiz. p. 227), misled probably by G. R. Gray, removed
it to one of his own making. This little bird, not so big as a
Skylark, is very beautiful, notwithstanding its curious figure, with
a disproportionately long bill, short tail, and strong legs, and
- absence of bright coloration, for the black, rich brown, sienna, buff,
grey and white which its plumage presents, are most. harmoniously
contrasted or blended. It is a native of the northern parts of
South America, and Buffon received it from Cayenne through
Manoncour, the little we know of its habits being due to the latter.
It is a mark of Buffon’s insight that he at once recognized in this
species, and several others allied to it, obtained from the same
source, a perfectly distinct group of birds which he designated
Fourmiliers from their feeding (as he was told) chiefly on Ants.?
The systematists of his day, Boddaert and Hermann excepted, were
not so perceptive, and referred these birds to the Thrushes or some
of them to the Shrikes. Their distinctness was at last recognized,
and they were duly regarded as forming a Family, Formicaridz,
which is now known to contain more than 250 species, and by
Mr. Sclater (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xv. pp. 176-328) in 1890 has been
divided into 3 subfamilies — Zhamnophiline, often known as
“ Bush-Shrikes,” containing 10 genera and at least 80 species ;
Formicariine, the true Ant-Thrushes, including in them the
Formicivorine, by Swainson? called “ Ant-Wrens” (Zool. Journ. ii.
p. 146), that Mr. Sclater had formerly (P. Z. S. 1858, pp.
232-254) recognized, and thus enlarging the Formicariine so as to
comprise 18 genera and more than 130 species; while the third
subfamily Grallariine includes 5 genera and over 30 species. In

1 Mr. Bates (Nat. Amazon, ii. p. 857) says that the first signal given to the
pedestrian of meeting with a train of Foraging Ants (Zciton) is the twittering
and restless movement of small flocks of Ant-Thrushes in the forest, and that if
he disregards their warning he is sure to be attacked by the ferocious insects.

2 Swainson did not know that his genus Formicivora had been anticipated by
Temminck, who in 1807 (Cat. du Cab. p. 92) used the name Formicivorus, in a
sense equivalent to Boddaert’s Formicarius. The group separated by Swainson was
in 1827 called by Gloger Zriodora, which name therefore apparently ought to be
used for it.

AORTA—ARGUS 21

reality but few of these birds have an outward resemblance to Shrikes,
Thrushes, or Wrens, and all belong to quite a different division of
PASSERES. In 1847 Johannes Miiller and Prof. Cabanis justly
placed them among their CLAMATORES, and subsequently Garrod
shewed their Mesomyodian structure. The Formicariide are one
of the most characteristic Families of the Neotropical Region,
abounding in the forest-districts of its middle portion, becoming
less numerous in Central America, and still scarcer in the southern
parts, only just reaching the plains of La Plata. They are mostly
small birds of sober hue, some not bigger than Wrens ; but members
of the Genera Batara and Grallaria attain the stature of a Jay. The
last named of them has much the appearance of a PrITTA—a distinct
group to which the name “Ant-Thrush” has also been applied.
As is the case with most South-American birds, scarcely anything is
known of their habits. The large genus Thammnophilus, containing
upwards of 50 species, is one of the most
important of the so-called ‘‘ Bush-Shrikes,”
and many of its members are remarkable
for the sexual diversity in plumage, that
of the cocks being black or black banded
with white, while that of the hens is
rufous; but in some other groups the
black or black-and-white plumage is ee

: Ant-THrusH (Thannophilus).
common to both sexes. Of this genus (Adean'S wainaon.)
several species inhabit British Guiana, at
least three occur in Trinidad, and one is found in Tobago, where it
is known as the Qua-qua or Cata-bird (Ann. N. H. xx. p. 331), their
presence in these two islands offering one of the many strong
proofs of their fauna belonging to that of continental South
America, since no member of the Family is found in the Antilles

proper.

AORTA (adj. aortic), the principal ARTERY from which arise
the blood-vessels. supplying the trunk, hind limbs, and viscera below
or behind the heart (see VASCULAR SYSTEM).

APTERYX, see KIw1.

ARCH AOPTERYX, see Fosstt Birps.

AREND, the Dutch for Eagle, but used by the colonists in
South Africa for the Bearded Vulture or LAMMERGEYER.

ARGALA, Hindoo Hargila—said by Yule to be the xia of
Mlian (xvi. 4)—a name of the ADJUTANT.

ARGUS or ARGUS-PHEASANT, the name originally applied
in ornithology to the extraordinary and beautiful birds of the

Malay Peninsula, Siam, and Borneo, which are not distantly related
to the Pracock; but by English sportsmen in India commonly

ARTAMUS—A UK

N
NO

used for the species of the genus Ceriornis, also known as Tragopans,
which are supposed to have more affinity to the true PHEASANTS.
In each case the ocellated plumage has suggested the allusion to
the well-known personage in classical mythology.

ARTAMUS, a genus of true Passerine birds founded by Vieillot,
and of late use as an English word. They are the ‘“ Wood-
Swallows” or ‘“Swallow-Shrikes” of some authors, and by many
are considered to be the nearest neighbours of the Hirundinidx
(SWALLOW), making some approach to them in their long wings,
and habit of catching insects in continuous flights. If it be granted
from their possessing patches of PowbER-DOWN that they should
form a separate Family Artamide, its true alliance must still be
guessed at. Some 15 species have been described, more than half
of them being found in Australia, while one inhabits India.

ARTERY (adj. arterial). Arteries are the vessels through
which the blood leaves the heart ; no matter if this blood be arterial
or venous, as, for instance, is that which flows through the pul-
monary arteries (see VASCULAR SYSTEM).

ATTEAL, ATTEILE or ATTILE, a word, presumably a bird’s
name, occurring with variations of spelling in many old Scottish
records (as, for example, in 1600, Act. Jac. VI. cap. 23), and
apparently used in Orkney for some kind of Duck so lately as 1848
according to Baikie and Heddle (Hist. Nat. Oread. p. 79), who,
possibly by mistake, apply it to the PocHARD. The same was done
in 1886 by Mr. Thomas Edmondston (Htymolog. Glossary of the
Shetland and Orkney Dialect), who associates it with the old Norsk
Tjaldr, which he calls “ Turdus marinus,” Dut is properly the
OYSTER-CATCHER. Of unknown etymology, it may be connected
with the Scandinavian Afteling-And or Atling, which again may be
cognate with Zaling, the Dutch for TEAL.

AUK (Teutonic 4/k), the old English name for the RAzoR-BILL,
and perhaps the GUILLEMOT, of modern writers ; but as applied to
the former now only in provincial use,
though maintained in a collective sense for
members of the Family Alcide. With the
prefix “Great” or “Little,” it signifies
respectively the GARE-FOWL and the bird
so well known to Arctic seamen as the
ROTCHE.

The greatest number of forms belong-

Tae et oe (After ing to this Family inhabit the North Pacifie,
ba and have been separated into various genera.

Some of them exhibit the seasonal shedding of the outgrowths on
the sheath of the bill and on the head that, as in the PUFFIN, are

AVADUVAT—AVOSET 23

only assumed in spring. Among them is the curious Cerorhyncha
(or Ceratorhina) monocerata which by shedding the horn-like pro-
tuberance rising between the nostrils, and here figured, led to no
few mistakes until the peculiarity was known.

AVADUVAT, a corruption of AMADAVAT.

AVIS, the ordinary Latin word for Brrp, and in its plural form,
Aves, the scientific name of the Class of Vertebrate Animals which
comprises every kind of Bird.

The want of an adjective derived from 4vis and Bird is one
much felt both in Latin! and English. In the latter language
remedy is hopeless, for bird-like is not enough, and “birdy” can
only be regarded as jocose. From the former an attempt has been
made to supply this defect by the invention and use by some
writers of “avian ”—a form which scholars declare to be unclassical,
though they allow that ‘‘avine” might perhaps be admitted. Of
Greek origin “ornithic” is quite justifiable.

AVOSET, from the Ferrarese Avosetta,? the Recurvirostra avocetta

AvoseET (Recurvirostra avocetta), (After Naumann.)

of ornithology, a bird remarkable for its bill, which is perhaps the
most slender to be seen in the whole Class, and curving upward

towards the end, has given it two names which it formerly bore in

1 Aviarius exists as a Latin adjective, but its precise meaning is somewhat.
indefinite, and its use can hardly be recommended.

2 This word is considered to be derived from the Latin avis—the termination
expressing a diminutive of a graceful or delicate kind, as donnetta from donna
(Prof. Salvadori in epist.); but it is spelt Avocetta by Prof. Giglioli.

24 AVOSET

England,—“ Cobbler’s-awl,” from its likeness to the tool so called,
and “Scooper,” because it resembled the scoop with which boatmen
threw water on their sails. The legs, though long, are not extra-
ordinarily so, and the feet, which are webbed, bear a small hind toe.

This species was of old time plentiful in England, though
doubtless always restricted to certain localities. Charleton in
1668 says that when a boy he had shot not a few on the Severn,
and Plot mentions it so as to lead one to suppose ‘that in his time
(1686) it bred in Staffordshire, while Willughby (1676) knew of it
as being in winter on the eastern coast, and Pennant in 1769 found
it in great numbers opposite to Fossdyke Wash in Lincolnshire, and -
described the birds as hovering over the sportsman’s head like Lap-
wings. In this district they were called “Yelpers” from their
cry ;1 but whether that name was elsewhere applied is uncertain.
At the end of the last century they frequented Romney Marsh in
Kent, and in the first quarter of the present century they bred in
various suitable spots in Suffolk and Norfolk,—the last place known
to have been inhabited by them being Salthouse, where the people
made puddings of their eggs, while the birds were killed for the
sake of their feathers, which were used in making artificial flies for
fishing. The extirpation of this settlement took place between
1822 and 1825 (cf. Stevenson, Birds of Norfolk, i. pp. 240, 241).?
There is some evidence of their having bred so lately as about
1840 at the mouth of the Trent (cf. Clarke and Roebuck, Vert.
Fauna of Yorkshire, p. 72). The Avoset’s mode of nesting is
much like that of the Sri_t, and the eggs are hardly to be dis-
tinguished from those of the latter but by their larger size, the
bird being about as big as a LAPWING, white, with the exception
of its crown, the back of the neck, the inner scapulars, some of
the wing-coverts and the primaries, which are black, while the legs
are of a fine light blue. It seems to get its food by working its
bill from side to side in shallow pools, and catching the small
crustaceans or larvee of insects that may be swimming therein, but
not, as has been stated, by sweeping the surface of the mud or
sand—a process that would speedily destroy the delicate bill by
friction.. Two species of Avoset, &. americana and &. andina, are
found in the New World; the former, which ranges so far to the
northward as the Saskatchewan, is distinguished by its light
cinnamon-coloured head, neck, and breast, and the latter, confined
so far as known to the mountain lakes of Chili, has no white on
the upper parts except the head and neck. Australia produces a

1 Gf. “Yarwhelp” (Gopwir) and “Yaup” or ‘‘Whaup” (CuRLEW).
“© Barker” and ‘‘Clinker’’ seem to have been names used in Norfolk.

2 The same kind of lamentable destruction has of late been carried on in
Holland and Denmark, to the extirpation probably of the species in each
country.

AXILLA—BABBLER 25

fourth species, f. nove hollandix or rubricollis, with a chestnut head
and neck; but the European f. avocetis extends over nearly the
whole of middle and southern Asia as well as Africa.

The proposal (Jdis, 1886, pp. 224-237) to unite the Avosets
and Stilts in a single genus seems to have little to recommend
it but its novelty, and will hardly meet with acceptance by
systematists.

AXILLA (adj. axillary), the arm-pit, whence, or from the
adjoining part of the arm, arise in many birds some elongated
feathers (azillaries or lower humeral coverts), constituting the
hypopteron. In most water-birds, especially in Numenius, and Grus,
but also in a few others, as Coracias, some of these feathers are
very long, straight, and slender.

B

BABBLER, apparently first used in ornithology in 1837, by
Swainson (Classif. B. ii. 233), for the birds, assigned by him
to the subfamily Crateropodiny, belonging to the genera Pellor-
neum, Crateropus,
Grallina, Malacocer-
cus (including as a
subgenus 7imalia of
Horsfield) and Ptero-
ptochus (TAPACULO).
With the exception
of the third and the
last these forms are
-now commonly re-
garded as forming part of the Family
Timelidx (often but less accurately
written Zimaliidzx), which no system-
atist has yet been able to define
satisfactorily, while many have not
unjustly regarded it as a “refuge for
the destitute”—thrusting into it a
great number of forms, chiefly Oscin-
ine, that, with a bill resembling a . CINCLORHAMEHUS.
SHRIKE’s, a THRUSH’S, or a WAR- Nee aoa ge
BLER’S, mostly possess very short and incurved wings, and cannot,
in the opinion of some, be conveniently stowed elsewhere. Two
volumes (vi. and vii.) of the Catalogue of Birds in the British

PELLORNEUM.

26 BABILLARD—BALDPATE

Museum} are devoted to this mixed multitude, which is therein
made to include, beside the groups usually assigned to the
Family, others more or less well defined, such as BOWER-BIRDS,
MocKING-BIRDS, and WRENS, with certain BULBULS, SHRIKES,
THRUSHES, and WARBLERS. Some of these, such as the first three,
to say nothing of Water-OUSELS, Hedge-SpArRRows, and some
American forms, are obviously not allied to the rest; but, after
their withdrawal, there is still a fine field left for a systematic
ornithologist who would take in hand what remains of this hetero-
geneous assemblage, and introduce even the semblance of order
where all is at pre-
sent confusion. ‘The
birds more particu-
larly called Babblers,
often with a prefix
such as Bush-Bab-
bler, Shrike-Babbler,
Tit-Babbler, and so
forth, belong chiefly to the Ethiopian and Indian Regions, and many
of the last are well treated, under the name of Crateropodidx, by
Mr. W. E. Oates (Faun. Brit. India, Birds, i. pp. 70-297), though even
he has perhaps been too generous in receiving some forms. Many
of these Birds originally described under the genus Criniger of
Temminck, but since subdivided as Tricholestes, Xenocichla, and so
forth, are remarkable for the long fine bristles that spring from
the nape or middle of the back, as shewn in the annexed figure ;
but traces of this feature may be seen in many other forms, and
even in one so familiar as the common Song-THRUSH.

BABILLARD, a French name, Anglified in 1831 by Rennie in
his edition of Montagu’s Ornithological Dictionary (p. 15), for the
bird already known as the Lesser WHITETHROAT; but one that
has fortunately not taken real hold in our language. Had he
attempted to revive the old English “ Babelard,” he probably would
not have been more successful.

CrrniggrR. (After Swainson.)

BACBAKIRI, one of the short-winged SHRIKES, the Telephonus
bacbakirt of South-African ornithology, and so named of the colonists
from its call-note (Layard, B. S. Africa, p. 161).

BALDPATE, the name commonly given by the English-speak-
ing residents of the West Indies to a Dove, the Columba leuco-
cephala, from its white head—though most inaccurately, for that
part is well clothed with feathers. It may here be observed that

1 The second of these volumes possesses one great merit: it does not pre-
tend to assign an English name to birds which by hardly any conceivable chance
will need one.

BANTAM—BARBET 27

the epithet “Bald” is applied just as inaccurately in North America
to an EAGLE, the Halivetus leucocephalus, and in England, though
more appositely, to the Coor.

BANTAM, a small breed of domestic poultry, so-called under
the belief that it came from the part of Java which bears that name ;
_ but apparently it originated in Japan (cf. Darwin, Anim. & Plants
under Domest. chap. vii.) Birds of this breed were mentioned in
1698 by Fryer (New Account of East India, p. 116) as ‘‘ Champore
cocks,” coming from Siam. Remarkable for their diminutive size,
they were characterized also by their feathered feet. In modern
times Sebright established a sub-breed, known by his name, in which
not only is this last feature wanting, but there is comparatively
little external difference between the cocks and hens.

BARBET, Pennant’s equivalent in 1773 (Gen. Birds, pp. 13, 14)
of Brisson’s and subsequently Linnzeus’s genus Bucco (a word coined?
in 1752 by Meehring, though applied
by him to the ToucaAns); but Brisson
called it in French Barbu, ‘from its
bristles, a sort of beard” with which
the beak is beset, as will be seen
in the figure, and hence Pennant
formed his word.?, The type of
Brisson’s genus, on which that of
Linneus was founded, was called
by the latter in 1766, B. capensis—most unhappily in all respects, for
the former had expressly given Cayenne as its habitat.? The birds
originally included in the genus are now recognized as belonging to
two distinct Families, commonly known as Bucconidx and Capitonide,
and it is to the latter of these that the name “ Barbet” is restricted
by modern ornithologists, the former being known as PUFF-BIRDS.
The Capitonidx,* or “Scansorial” Barbets as some authors designate
_ them, though their climbing power is disputed, form the subject of
a beautifully illustrated Monograph by Messrs. C. H. T. and G. F. L.

Pogonoruyncuus, (After Swainson.)

1 From the Latin bucca; and, as explained by Pennant, referring to ‘the
fulness of the cheeks.”

? Barbet had long existed in French in the sense of a shaggy dog
water-spaniel,

% In this case of the use of the extraordinary and ungrammatical adjective
which has unfortunately been so frequently adopted, one can hardly doubt
that Linnzus meant to write, and very likely did write (in an abbreviated form,
as was his habit), cayensis for cayennensis, which he afterwards misread, and
unluckily clenched the mistake by adding, ‘‘ Hab. ad Cap. b. Spei.”

4 Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1879, p. 935) and Forbes (op. cit. 1882, p..94) used this
term to include the Tovcans and Honry-curpEs as well as the Barbets. Of
course if these Families, Indicatoridx, Capitonide, and Rhamphastide, be united
in one, the last is the name it should bear.

a poodle or

28 BARGANDER—BASIPTERYGOID PROCESSES

Marshall (London: 1870-71, 4to), who divide the Family into
three subfamilies :—Pogonorhynchinx, with 3 genera and 15 species;
Megaleminz, with 6 genera and 44 species; and Capitonine, with
4 genera and 18 species. Since the appearance of that work one
new genus and some thirty new species have been described.
Supposing that the subfamilies above named be truly established,
it would seem that the Capitoninz, of which members are now to be
found in the New World as well as in Africa and Asia, may from
its wide distribution be regarded as the most ancient, and next the
Pogonorhynchine, inhabiting both America and Africa, while the
Megaleminx, restricted to Africa and Asia, appears to be the most
modern subfamily, and two genera belonging to it, Megalema and
Xantholema are found in India and Ceylon. They are birds mostly
of a bright green plumage, some of them variegated, especially on
the head, with scarlet, violet, blue, or yellow—though others are
plainly coloured. All of them seem to live chiefly on fruit, but
insects occasionally form part of their food, and in captivity they
become carnivorous. They breed in holes of trees, laying white
eggs, and most, if not all of them, utter a clear ringing note, so loud
as to attract general attention. The cry of Xantholema indica is
especially resonant ;, and, being accompanied by a peculiar motion
of the head, has obtained for the bird in some of the native languages
a name signifying COPPERSMITH, by which English rendering it is
also known to Anglo-Indians.

BARGANDER or BERGANDER, a local name, of uncertain origin
and spelling, of the SHELD-DRAKE.

BARKER, a name locally applied, from their cry, to the Black-
tailed Gopwit and the AvosET in the days when they inhabited
England. Albin, a very poor authority, figured under this name
what was certainly a GREENSHANK, though Montagu took it to be
Toianus fuscus, and hence an error has found its way (sub voce) into
Dr. Murray’s New English Dictionary.

BARLEY-BIRD, a name given in some parts to the Yellow
WAGTAIL, in others to the WRYNECK—but in both cases from their
appearing at the time of barley-sowing. By some authors it is said,
but obviously in error, to be applied to the SISKIN.

BARWING, the Anglo-Indian name for birds of the genus
Actinodura, from the black bar or bars which the wings of most of
them present. The genus is usually placed in the ill-defined Family
Timeliide.

BASIPTERYGOID PROCESSES are a pair of bony outgrowths
on the right and left side of the body of the basisphenoid, forming

the principal articulation of the pterygoids with the basis cranii.
Such processes are well developed in all the Ratite, Crypturi,

BA VA—BEE-EATER 29

Turnices, and Striges. Similar processes spring from the basi-
sphenoidal rostrum in many other Carinate, eg. Anseres, Galline,
Columbe, Pteroclid, Cathartidz, and Serpentarius ; while in many
birds these processes are developed in the embryo but are resorbed
finally, or they are never developed, the anterior ends of the
pterygoids in either case articulating with the palatine bones alone,
or, resting directly upon the basisphenoidal rostrum, as in Phoeni-
copterus, Gralle, Laride, Dicholophus, Pygopodes, Impennes,
Steganopodes, Falconid, Psittaci, Cuculide, Opisthocomus, Macro-
chires, Pici, and Passeres. In the Limicole and Tubinares these
processes are very variable. For illustrations see SKULL.

BAYA (Hindoo Baia), often used by English writers for the
common WEAVER-BIRD of India, Ploceus baya, the builder of the well-
known retort-shaped nests.

BAY-BIRD, and

BEACH-BIRD, common names on the Atlantic coast of North
America for several of the Limicolz, as the SANDERLING, TURN-
STONE, and others. (Cf. Trumbull, Names and Portraits of Birds,
pp. 186, 191 note.)

BEAK, see BILt.

BEAM-BIRD, said to be the name used in some parts of
England for the Spotted FLYCATCHER.

BEE-EATER, a name apparently first used in 1668 by Charleton
(Onomasticon, p. 87) as a translation of the Latin and Greek JMerops,
though he said that the bird was rarely or never found in England
—the Merops apiaster of ornithology. ‘The term being appropriate
(as is shewn by its equivalent in cognate tongues—Danish, Bixder ;
German, Dienenfresser) has been continued to this species, and sub-
sequently extended to others more or less closely allied to it, form-
ing a small but natural Family, Meropidx, admirably monographed
_ by Mr. Dresser (London: 1884-1886, imp. 4to), who recognizes five
genera, and thirty-one species. They belong to the group in this
work termed Picariz, and are distinguished for their brilliant colora-
tion, their graceful form, and their active habits, since every species
seems to obtain its living by catching insects as they fly. The Bee-
eaters are birds of the Old World, and the majority (18) of the
species are peculiar to the Ethiopian Region, two more also occurring
within its limits, while only four inhabit the Palearctic area, one of
them being the M. apiaster named above, which appears irregularly
in Northern Europe in summer, and has more than thirty times
visited Great Britain since its first recorded occurrence in June
1793, when a flight of about twenty was observed in Norfolk, and
a specimen obtained at that time is still preserved in the Derby
Museum at Liverpool.

30 BEEF-EATER—BE&LL-BIRD

It is certainly one of the most beautifully-coloured birds ever
found in these islands, and no one who has once seen a specimen
will forget its rich chestnut crown and mantle passing lower down
into primrose, its white frontal band, the black patch extending
from the bill to the ear-coverts, the saffron throat bordered with
black, while most of the rest of the plumage is of a vivid greenish-
blue or bluish-green, and the middle pair of tail feathers are
elongated and attenuated in a way that is not seen in any other
British land-bird. This formation of the tail characterizes also the
single species of the genus Meropogon, while Dicrocercus has the tail
deeply forked, and in Melittophagus and Nyctiornis it is nearly even,
but the last, containing two species—one ranging from Burma to
Borneo, and the other (the largest of the whole Family) inhabiting
India as well as Burma and Cochin China—is readily distinguishable
by the remarkable elongated feathers of the gular tract. Six species
of the Family shew themselves in the Cape Colony or parts imme-
diately adjacent, and one, JJerops ornatus, occurs over almost the
whole of Australia.

The Meropide have much in common with the Coraciidx
(ROLLER), Alcedinide (KINGFISHER), Momotide (Mormot), and
especially with the Galbulidy (JACAMAR), for not only are there
many anatomical resemblances between the birds of these Families,
but nearly all of them, so far as is known—the Rollers perhaps
being the chief exceptions—breed in holes made by themselves in
a bank of earth, and the Bee-eaters, or at least the species of the

genus Merops, it would seem, nearly always i in society.
want, Gen. B.p-4 ‘on

BEEF- EATER, see OX-PECKER.

BELL-BIRD is the English name given in various parts of the
world to very different species; but always from the resemblance
of the sound of the note they utter to that of a bell. In Guiana,
it is applied to the Campanero of the Spanish settlers, Chasmorhyn-
chus niveus, belonging to the Family Cotingide (CHATTERER), of which
Waterton wrote (/Vanderings, 2nd Journey): “He is about the size
of the jay. His plumage is white as snow. On his forehead rises a
spiral tube nearly three inches long. It is jet black, dotted all over
with small white feathers. It has a communication with the palate,
and when filled with air, looks like a spire; when empty it becomes
pendulous. His note is loud and clear, like the sound of a bell,
and may be heard at the distance of three miles. . . . You hear

1 Tn the allied species from Costa Rica, C. tricarwneulatus—so called from its
three elongated appendages, which in appearance call to mind the long pendants
of an orchid (Cypripedium caudatum)—Mr. Salvin records his impression (Zbis,
1865, p. 93) that ‘‘no inflation takes place, and that the bird possesses little or
no voluntary muscular control over these excrescences.” The fact that the
Brazilian species, C. nudicollis, utters a note which, if not actually “ bell-like” in

BENGALI—BERNACLE 31

his toll, and then a pause for a minute, then another toll, and then
a pause again, and then a toll, and againa pause. Then he is silent
for six or eight minutes, and then another toll, and so on.” In
New Zealand the name is given to the Anthornis melanura of the
Family Meliphagide (HONEY-SUCKER), whose melody struck the
companions of Cook, when on his second voyage the ship was
lying in Queen Charlotte’s Sound, as being “like small bells most
exquisitely tuned ”—a bird which owing to the destruction of the
forests no longer exists in most parts of that country, and will
speedily become extinct. In Australia, according to Gould, two
species of birds—one of them, Manorhina melanophrys, belonging to
a different genus of the Family last-named, and the other, Orecwca
cristata, possibly to the Laniide (SHRIKE)—are called by the same
name for the same reason.

BENGALI, the dealers’ name for the beautiful little African
bird, Fringilla bengalus of Linnzeus, and some of its allies, belonging
to the Ploceide (WEAVER-BIRD), and referred by later writers to
the genus Lstrilda, Pytelia or Uregnathus. The name originated
with Brisson (Ornithol. 11. p. 203), who believed these birds came
from Bengal.

BERGHAAN (Mountain-cock) the name given to some of the
larger EAGLES, and especially to the beautiful Helotarsus ecaudatus
(sometimes known as the “ Bateleur”), by the Dutch colonists in
South Africa, and often adopted by English residents (Layard,
B.S. Africa, pp. 11, 18).

BERNACLE, apparently the right” way of gpelling the word
often written, in accordance with its pronunciation, “ Barnacle ” or
“Barnicle.” Its derivation is as puzzling to the etymologist as is
to the ornithologist the discovery of the breeding-grounds of the
bird it denominates. Dr. Murray, under the word “ Barnacle ” in
the New English Dictionary, gives as the oldest known English form
_ the Bernekke (Latinized Bernaca) of Giraldus Cambrensis about

tone, has a clear metallic ring, though the bird, as may be seen by the figure, has
no caruncle, shews that this feature is not likely to be connected with the power
of producing the peculiar sound. A fourth species, C. variegatus, inhabits

CHASMORHYNCHUS NuDICOLLIS. (After Swainson.)

Trinidad and the neighbouring part of South America. Its loud note is likened
by Léotaud (Ois. Trinidad, p. 260) to the sound of a cracked bell.

32 BILCOCK—BILL

1175 ; and states that the Cirriped (Lepas anatifera), also so-called,
took its name from the Bird,a kind of Gooss, and not the Bird
from the Cirriped.

BILCOCK, said to be a local name for the Water-RAIL.

BILL or BEAK, in Latin Rostrum. ‘This consists of an upper,
chiefly premaxillary and maxillary, and of a lower, or mandibular,
half. The horny covering is to a certain extent moulded after the
shape of the supporting bones. The soft cutaneous portion of the
skin is frequently restricted to a thin layer between the periosteum
and the Malpighian layer of the epiderm ; in it run numerous blood-
vessels. and nerves, the latter occasionally penetrating the horny
layer, and ending in tactile or sensory corpuscles.

On the other hand, in very stout beaks, the cutaneous layer
forms conical elongations which project into the thick horny parts,
especially into the ends of the upper and lower bill. In the broad
edge of the mandible of Parrots such projections are particularly
numerous and long; when they calcify, as cutaneous structures
are liable to do, they bear in horizontal sections a superficial
resemblance to the germs of teeth, and have been mistaken as such
by various anatomists (see TEETH).

The horny sheath, or rhamphotheca, is produced by the
outer layers of the Malpighian cells, and resembles in structure
other horny parts, as CLAWS, nails, and spurs. Sometimes, as
in the Anseres, the greater portion of the outer sheath of the bill is
soft, and only the tip of the bill is transformed into a thick horny
“neb,” which contains numerous tactile organs. In some birds,
especially in the diurnal Birds-of-Prey and in the Parrots, the
greater portion of the distal end of the upper beak is hard, while the
basal portion is thick and soft—the so-called cere. It is generally
very sensitive, and encloses the nostrils. Though mostly bare,
it is in some Parrots thickly covered with feathers, and then
approaches in structure the ordinary skin. The neighbourhood of
the nostrils is often soft, and produces an operculum by which, in
some cases, the external nares can apparently be closed, although
no muscles seem to exist there. Such a soft and swollen operculum
is a prominent feature in Pigeons, and is very large and curled in
Rhinochetus (KAcu). In the Petrels each operculum forms a more
or less complete tube, which may or may not fuse with its counter-
part in the middle line, and thus produce an apparently single tube
with a longitudinal vertical septum, whence the name “ 'Tubinares.”

A leathery operculum or valve also occurs in Plovers, in
Podargus, many Passeres (especially shewn in Meliphagidz), and
in the Humming-birds, in the last being covered with feathers. In
Caprimulgus each nostril is produced into a short, narrow, and
quite soft tube.

Another differentiating feature in connexion with the nostrils

BIEL 33

and the rostrum is the presence or absence of a complete vertical
internasal septum. If the septum is complete, which seems to
be the primary condition, the right and left nasal cavities are
completely separated from each other, and birds having this
structure are said to possess nares impervix. The septum either
remains cartilaginous, or it ossifies to a variable extent. Con-
sequently in macerated skeletons, where only the bony parts
remain, this character cannot be determined. In comparatively
few birds is the ossification complete, but this occurs in the
Owls, in Podargus, in some Accipitres, Parrots, and others. When
the septum is incomplete, the right and left nostrils communicate
with each other, forming nares pervix, as in Phaethon, among the
Steganopodes, in the Herons, Grebes, Divers, Gralle (except Rhino-
chetus), Gavize, Limicole, Storks, Flamingos, Anseres, Cathartide
(but not in the Vulturidz and Falconidz), and in many Passeres,
especially in the Meliphagide. In some Steganopodes, for instance
in the Cormorants, the nostrils are reduced to narrow slits, and this
condition is carried to an extreme in the Gannets, the external
nostrils being absolutely closed, and the greater portion of the nasal
cavity obliterated or filled with cancellated bony tissue; how-
ever, the olfactory apparatus is well developed, the inner nostrils or
CHOANZ being very wide, and in open communication with the
mouth, enabling the Gannet to smell its food when in the mouth.

Various parts of the rostrum have received special names:
culmen, the dorsal ridge of the upper bill; apex or tip; dertrum,
in which it often terminates; gonys, or more correctly genys, the
prominent ridge formed by the united halves of the under jaw,
e.g. in Gulls ; tomia, the cutting edges of the bill.

The form of the bill exhibits almost infinite variations in size,
shape, and structure, of which only the most striking modifications
can here be dealt with. Generally shape and size stand in obvious
correlation with the mode of feeding, but sexual selection seems
- also to play a great part, and leads to formations which it is often
impossible to understand.

The horny sheath of the bill sometimes consists of a number
of pieces more or less separate. In the Ostriches and Tinamous
there is a lateral pair and an unpaired piece for each jaw; in the
Tubinares on the upper jaw at least one pair of lateral or maxillary
pieces, an unpaired piece which covers the culmen and is continued
into the prolonged nasal tubes, and an apical hook, strongly curved
and pointed: each half of the under jaw is covered by one
ventral, one dorsal, and one terminal piece, the latter partly fusing
with that of the other side into a strong scoop. Indications
of such a compound rhamphotheca are, however, found in other
birds, especially in the Steganopodes, in some Herons, like
Nycticorax and Scopus, and in Penguins; the culminar or dorsal

VOL. I, 3

34 BILE

unpaired piece being more or less separated from the lateral
pieces. In the majority of birds the horny covering forms one
coherent sheath.

Frequently the edges of the mandibles and of the maxille are
serrated to secure a firmer hold upon the food, for instance in
Toucans. In the Anseres these tooth-like serrations are arranged in
the shape of numerous transverse lamellae, and hence the name
“ Lamellirostres,” which, especially in the Shoveler, form an elaborate
sifting apparatus.

The bill of the Flamingos is likewise furnished with such sifting
lamelle ; the two halves of the under jaw are considerably enlarged,
so that the comparatively narrow upper jaw closes upon a wide
cavity. In addition to this the whole bill is bent downwards,
in some species rather abruptly ; these long-necked birds being thus
enabled to sift the soft mud of lagoons with their bill in an inverted
position, the dorsal surface of the bill being turned towards the
bottom. Undoubtedly this most peculiar bill is a secondarily
acquired character, referable to the mode of feeding, which again
is connected with the long neck and legs. This view is
strengthened by the fact that very young Flamingos still have
straight and short bills, which very gradually and only compara-
tively late assume the final shape.

Fine sifting lamellz occur also in Prion (WHALEBIRD), and as a
dense brushlike mass on the inside of the premaxillary region in
Anastomus. The jaws of this genus have the further peculiarity
that they do not shut completely, being slightly curved in opposite
directions.

In the Spoonbilled Sandpiper, Hwgynorhynchus pygmexus, the
end of the upper and lower bill is of a peculiar spatulate and heart-
shaped form.

The broad and flattened spatulate bill of the SPOONBILLS, the
boat or shoe-shaped bill of the Whale-headed Stork, Balzxniceps, and
of the Cancroma (BOATBILL), the long bills of the Ibis and the
Whimbrel, curved downwards, and upwards in the Avoset, need no
further comment but that they all are illustrations of the adapta-
tion to a special mode of life, and therefore not necessarily indica-
tive of relationship, as rather analogous than homologous structures.

The beak of Parrots is extremely strong, and well adapted
to the breaking open of nuts by sheer force. ‘The mandible ends
in a transverse blunt edge, which presses against a corresponding
horny prominence of the upper beak. In the large Muicroglossa
(CocKATOO), which lives on the stone-hard fruit of the kanari-tree
(Canarium commune), the beak bears a striking resemblance to a
sledge-hammer. ‘Transverse ridges, like those of a file, are common
in front of the prominence of the upper jaw, the bird using them
as a rasp—no Parrot swallowing anything but absolutely com-

BILL 35

minuted particles of hard substance, or pulpy and soft food—and
also for filing or sharpening its mandible.

In the Skimmer, Lhynchops, the bill forms two sharp vertical
blades, which somewhat gape asunder, with the further peculiarity
that the mandibular sheath and the supporting bone itself is con-
siderably larger than the upper portion. A vertically compressed
bill is also common in the Alcidz, and is often vividly coloured
during the summer. In the PUFFINS the outermost bright layers
of the horny sheaths, and the horny excrescences at the gape of
the mouth and above the eyes are cast off periodically, these parts
being developed for the breeding season (Bureau, Bull. Soc. Zool.
France, 1877, p. 377 ff)

In many birds the covering of the bill, especially near the base
of the culmen and the forehead, is swollen, and forms various pro-
tuberances, horns, knobs, and other apparently ornamental excres-
cences. In the Coors and in Musophaga (PLANTAIN-EATER)
the coating of the culmen is produced backwards over the fore-
head, overlapping the latter as a conspicuous white or yellow
soft plate. Often the underlying bones, especially the nasals
and the adjoining premaxillary parts, are also swollen, and
form a light and extremely spongy meshwork of cancellated bony
tissue, a peculiarity which attains its highest development in the
HornBIL1s and in the Toucans. Similar swellings are the knobs
on the bill or on the forehead of the ScoTER and Mute Sway, of
Globicera among Pigeons, of certain Cracide, and of Macrocephalon
(MEGAPODE). In most of these cases the swellings are very light ;
rarely, as in the Helmet-HORNBILL, the bones of the forehead
are greatly enlarged, an, although much cancellated, of great
’ weight and strength; moreover, the horny epidermal covering of
the forehead is three quarters of an inch thick, and of the hardness
and weight of ivory.

Another deviation is constantly found in the CRossBILL’s beak,
- the sharply-pointed and hooked ends of the upper and lower jaws
crossing each other in an individually varying way, there being an
equal number of right and left-billed specimens. This crossing
begins to shew itself before the young birds are fledged, increases
with age, and ultimately leads to an asymmetrical development of
the masticatory muscles and of the bones of the occipito-quadrate
region.

In Anarhynchus frontalis (WRyYBILL) the terminal half of the
bill is turned towards the right side, an abnormality which exists
in a marked degree even in the very young birds. The right
’ edges of the premaxilla and of the mandible are thin and strongly
turned inwards, so that the right and left sides are asymmetrical
in section. The left nostril and the groove which is continued
towards the terminal third of the bill remain in their original

36 BILL—BIRD

position, but the right nostril, and still more the groove, are
perceptibly slanting towards the right, as can be ascertained by
viewing the bill from the dorsal side.

Sexual DrMoRPHISM is mostly restricted to peculiarly shaped
bills ; for instance, the horn of the male Hornbills is often larger,
and differs in shape from that of the female. In the males of
Pelicans several unpaired excrescences are formed entirely by the
horny coating of the premaxilla ; they sometimes reach a height of
three to four inches, and are again cast off after the breeding
season, resembling in the latter feature the Auks, as described
above. :

The most striking example of dimorphic bills is that of the New-
Zealand Huta, Heterolocha, the bill of the female being slender,
about four inches long, and much curved, while that of the male is
nearly straight, stout, and scarcely half that length. The knobs or
swellings in the Galline are mostly restricted to the males; the
same applies to Gidemia (Scorer). Sexual differences in colour
are common. For instance, in the male Scoter the bill is black and
orange, in the young and in the female it is simply grey, and with-
out the knob. The bill of the adult male BLACKBIRD is orange-
yellow ; that of the young of both sexes and of the adult males of
Buceros malayanus (HORNBILL) is white, but becomes black in the
adult female, forming thus an interesting exception to the general
rule that the young agree with the females, and that aberrant
coloration is confined to the males. The colour of the bill is
deposited as a diffused pigment in the horny cells of the epidermal
coat, but is occasionally restricted to the deeper layers, or even
to the Malpighian layer itself, then shining through the outer
transparent layers. .

In connexion with the bill is to be mentioned the “egg-tooth,”
which is developed in the embryos of all birds as a small whitish
protuberance or conglomeration of salts of calcareous matter,
deposited in the middle layers of the epidermis of the tip of the
upper bill, without being connected with the premaxilla itself.
The sharp point of this “tooth” soon perforates the upper layers
of the horny sheath, and then files through the eggshell, a slight
crack in the latter being sufficient to enable the young bird to
free itself. A similar egg-tooth exists in Reptiles, and is, as in
Birds, cast off after hatching. The wearing away of the growing and
constantly renewed horny layers of the bill can be easily observed
in the pealing beak of a Parrot.

BIRD (etymology unknown; but in Old English brid), origin-
ally the general name for the young of animals;! then, as the

1 Asin Wyclif’s translation of Matth. xxiii. 33, ‘‘eddris, and eddris briddis ”
(A.V. ‘‘serpents” and “‘ generation of vipers’); Trevisa, Barth de P. R. xii. v.

BIRD-OF-PARADISE 37

ancient word FowL became specialized in meaning, taking its place
to signify what cannot be more tersely expressed than by the saying
that ‘A bird is known by its feathers.” This proverb is, accord-
ing to our present knowledge, also a scientific definition, for no
other group in the Animal Kingdom has the same kind of clothing
(see FEATHERS), though, regarding as almost certain the evolution
of Birds from Reptiles, it must be that at one time there existed
creatures intermediate between them, and it may be that remains of
some of them will yet be discovered, shewing that plumage was worn
by animals which had not yet dropped all the characters that now
distinguish Reptiles from Birds. The two Classes (Reptilia and Aves)
have been brigaded together by Prof. Huxley under the name of
Sauropsida, and there can be no doubt that they are essentially
much more closely allied to each other than either is to the rest of
the Vertebrates. It has of late years become manifest that among
Reptiles the forms which approach most nearly to Birds are those
known as the Dinosauria; but of them there is not one yet dis-
covered respecting the rank of which any reasonable doubt may
be entertained, though certain parts of the skeleton, and particu-
larly of the pelvic arch, present a remarkable resemblance to the
corresponding parts of certain Birds, of the RatTIT# especially. On
the other hand, the earliest known Bird, Archxopteryz, is less like
the Dinosaurs than are the modern futitw. The gulf between
Birds and Mammals is much wider than between the former and
Reptiles, notwithstanding that the lowest of existing Mammals, the
Monotremata, possess several bird-like characters in their structure,
and, as is now proved, lay eggs (see ANATOMY, FossIL Birps, and
INTRODUCTION).

BIRD-OF-PARADISE, a phrase used in many European lan-
guages since the return (6 Sept. 1522) of the first expedition for
circumnavigating the globe, commonly known as Magellan’s. In
December 1521 the voyagers, then at Tidore, one of the Moluccas,
were offered by the ruler of Batchian, as a gift to the King of Spain,
_ two very beautiful dead birds, as we are told by Antonio Pigafetta
the chronicler of the voyage (Primo Viaggio intorno al Globo, ed.
Amoretti, Milano: 1800, p. 156), who is generally believed to have
been the first to introduce these birds to the notice of Europeans ;!

415, ‘In temperat yeres ben fewe byrdes of been” [=bees], and op. cit. xiii. xxvi.
458 ‘* All fysshe .. . fede and kepe theyr byrdes” ; Scots Acts, 7 Jac. I. ‘‘ The
Woolfe and Woolfe-birdes [7.e. cubs] suld be slaine.’”’ The connexion formerly
thought to exist between bird and breed or brood is now denied (New English
Dictionary, sub voce), but no approach to the derivation of the first has been
made.

1 Pigafetta’s account contains some details worthy of attention. It describes
the birds as being as big as Thrushes, with a small head, a long bill, and slender
legs like pens used for writing, about as long as a palm. They had no wings

38 BIRD-OF-PARADISE

but it is now certain that he was anticipated by Maximilianus
Transylvanus, a young man who was residing in the Spanish court
on the arrival of the survivors of Magellan’s company, and
promptly wrote to +#=@eber, the Archbishop of Salzburg, an
account of their discoveries and spoils, sending moreover to him
one of the wonderful birds they had obtained. This account (De
Moluccis insulis &c.)1 was published at Cologne in the January
following, and the native name of the birds, of which it seems that
five examples were brought home, is given as Mamuco-Diata, a
variant of Manucodiata, meaning the Bird of the Gods, a name
which seems to be still in use (cf. Crawfurd, Malay and Engl. Dict.
p. 97). But it may well be that even before this Birds-of-Paradise
were known to Europeans, for the Portuguese reached the Moluccas
in 1510, to say nothing of the possibility of skins being imported
by Eastern traders at a much earlier period. Belon, who travelled
in the Levant between 1546 and 1549, mentions (Observations
de plusieurs singularitez &e. liv. iii. chap. 25), among the feathery
adornments of the Janissaries, plumes which could hardly be other
than those of these birds; and expressly states that they were
obtained from the Arabs.? His statement was first published in
1553, and in the same year appeared the work of Cardanus, De
Subtilitate, wherein (lib. x.) the Manucodiata, as the Bird-of-Paradise
now began to be called (the adoption of its Malay name shewing
that knowledge of it was derived from Spanish or Portuguese navi-
gators), is made to support the author’s argument. In 1555 it was
again treated of by Belon, as well as by Gesner, who figured (p. 612)
what seems to have been a specimen of Paradisea minor, both
of them expressing doubt as to the truth of the stories which were
already rife on the subject. Some of these were touched upon in
1557 by J. C. Scaliger in his reply (Eaotericarum exercitationum Liber
XV. cexxviii. 2) to Cardanus, while in 1599 Aldrovandus (Ornithol.

(which were doubtless cut off) but in their place long feathers of different colours
like great plumes (pennacchi), the tail like a Thrush’s, and all the rest of the
feathers, the wings excepted, of a dull colour. Much of this description fits the
only species of Bird-of-Paradise that inhabits Batchian, the ruler of which
island, as above stated, gave the birds ; but that species remained unknown to
naturalists until Mr. Wallace procured examples in October 1858 (A/alay Archi-
pelago, ii. pp. 40, 41), and it was subsequently described as Semioptera
wallacit.

1 [ have not seen the original, but a fac-simile reprint, together with a trans-
lation of it,is given by the late Mr. Henry Stevens of Vermont in his Johann
Schéner &c., edited by Mr. C. H. Coote (London: 1888).

* He said that they belonged to birds called Lhintaces, which some
modern writers identified with the Apus of classical authors, though he himself
thought they were the feathers of the Phenix. <A plausible case might indeed
be made out for connecting the legend of the bird last-named with that of the
gods and of paradise.

BIRD-OF-PARADISE 39

lib. xii.), rejoicing of course in these absurd fables; severely took
to task some of those who doubted them—among them Pigafetta
himself, who is rated for declaring that Birds-of-Paradise had legs,
for it was clear from the authorities cited that they had or ought
to have none. Aldrovandus professedly figured five species, but only
three of them can be referred with any certainty to the genus
Paradisea.

There would be little use in dwelling upon the many false
assertions made by some of the older writers concerning these
gorgeous and singular birds, nor is space here available to
recount the way in which species after species has been discovered.
The first naturalist who was able to observe anything of them in
their own haunts seems to have been Lesson, who in July and
August 1824 passed a fortnight at Dorey in New Guinea (Voy.
Coquille, Zoologie, ii. p. 436); but, though his remarks have in-
terest, his opportunities are not worthy to be named with those
enjoyed by Mr. Wallace, who in the course of his long sojourn
and wanderings in the Moluccas and neighbouring islands made
the personal acquaintance of nearly every species then known, and
indeed first brought to the notice of naturalists one most curious
form, Semioptera wallacii. His admirable account of their habits
may be read in one of the most accessible of books, his Malay
Archipelago. Varied as is the appearance of the several forms
of Paradiseidx, most of them are sufficiently well known to require
no description here. In 1873 Mr. Elliot completed a fine Jono-
graph of the Family, which he divided into 3 subfamilies—
Paradiseinx, with 10 genera and 17 species ; Epimachinxy, with 4
genera and 8 species ; and Tectonarchine—the last comprising the
BowWER-BIRDS, and including in all 36 species, of which 22 inhabit
New Guinea. In 1881 Prof. Salvadori enumerated 39 species,
which he disposed of in 21 genera, as occurring within the scope
of his elaborate Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche. Recent
explorations, mostly by German naturalists, and especially by Dr.
Hunstein, have considerably increased this number, and the repre-
sentatives of two very distinct and beautiful new forms Astrarchia
stephanix and Paradisornis rudolphi, to say nothing of two fine species
of the old genus Paradisea, P. gulielmi-it., and P. augustex-victoriz,
by their names testify to the loyalty of Drs. Finsch, A. B. Meyer,
and Cabanis, who have described them (Zeitschr. ges. Orn. 1885,
pp. 369-391, pls. xv.-xxii.; transl. [bis, 1886, pp. 237-258, pl. vii. ;
and Journ. f. Orn. 1888, p. 119, 1889, pls. i. ii.)

The Paradiseide are admittedly true PASSERES, but their exact
position cannot be said to have been absolutely determined, though
there can be little doubt of their forming part of the group
indefinitely known as “‘ Austrocoraces ”'—to which so many forms

1 The Noto-Coracomorphex of Parker (Trans. Zool. Soc. ix. p 327).

4o BIRD-OF-PREY—BITTERN |

of the Australian Region belong —and the precise limits of the
Family must still be regarded as uncertain (see BOWER-BIRD,
MANUCODE, and RIFLEMAN-BIRD).

BIRD-OF-PREY, a phrase in common use, signifying any
member of the Order AcciPITRES of Linnzus (the SHRIKES being
generally excepted) or of the RAPTORES of many later systematists.

BISHOP-BIRD, or BisHop-TANAGER, Latham’s rendering (Gen.
Synops. ii. p. 226) of the French U’ Evéque, by which a species inhabiting
Louisiana was, according to Dupratz (Hist. de la Louisiane, ii. p. 140),
originally called, as stated by Buffon (Hist. Nat. Ois. iv. p. 291).
Dupratz’s bird was probably the Spiza cyanea of modern ornithology,
the Indigo-bird or Indigo-Bunting of the English in North America ;
but Buffon confounded it with his Organiste of Santo Domingo—
a very different species figured by D’Aubenton (Pl. enl. 809, fig. 1) ;
while Brisson (Orn. iii. p. 40) had already applied the French
name (l’Evesque, as he wrote it) to a third species from Brazil,
which subsequently became the Zanagra episcopus of Linnzus, and
this seems to be the only one now known (and that to few but
“ fanciers”) as the “ Bishop-Bird” or “ Bishop-TANAGER ” — the
colour of its plumage suggesting, as in the original case, the
appellation. Audubon, himself a Louisianian, makes no mention of
the name ‘‘ Bishop-Bird”; but says (Bb. Amer. i. p. 96) that it was
known to his countrymen as the Petit Papebleu. He adds that the
first settlers called all the Buntings, Finches and “ Orioles” Papes.

BITTERN (in older English “Bittour,” “Botor,” and “Buttour”)
cognate with the French butor, and of obscure origin says Dr.
Murray,! though Belon’s suggestion, made in 1555, connecting it
with a bird described by Pliny (lib. x. cap. xlii.), which imitates
the lowing of oxen (bowm), and hence was called fawrus in the
district of Arelate? (Arles), may be correct; for the bird is the
Botaurus of some medizval writers, and their name is still kept
by systematists as that of the genus to which the Bittern belongs.
Turner, in 1544, gave as an English synonym “ Miredromble” ;
while ‘‘ Butter-bump ” (corrupted into “ Botley-bump ”) and perhaps
other uncouth forms have reference to the booming or bellowing
sound for which this species was famous.

1 Tt seems, however, not to be connected, as he thinks, with the medieval
Latin Bitorius for that is generally glossed Wraenna (WREN) or sometimes as
“‘ Karthlinger” or ‘‘ Yrdling.” It may not signify a bird at all, but a Shrew-
Mouse—Araneus, in English a ‘‘[w]ranner.” Butio seems also to be meant by
medieval writers in some cases, and a hopeless confusion has been established
between that word and Buteo, a Buzzann.

* According to Rolland (Faun. Pop. France, p. 876) it is known in some parts
of France as Beuf d'eau, Taureau d’étang, and other names of similar import.

BITTERN Al

The Bittern is the Botaurus stellaris of ornithology, belonging
to the Family Ardeidx (HERON), but to a genus fairly separable,
more perhaps on account of its almost wholly nocturnal habits and
correspondingly-adapted coloration, than on strictly structural
grounds, though some differences of proportion are observable. It
was formerly an abundant bird in many parts of Britain ; but,
since the reclamation of the bogs and fens it used to inhabit, it is
become only an irregular visitant, though not a winter passes

BITTERN,.

without its appearing in some numbers, when its uncommon aspect,
its large size, and beautifully - pencilled plumage cause it to be
regarded as a great prize by the lucky gun-bearer to whom it falls
a victim. Its value as a delicacy for the table, once so highly
esteemed, has long vanished. The old fable of this bird inserting
its beak into a reed or plunging it into the ground, and so causing
the booming sound with which its name will be always associated,
is also exploded, and nowadays indeed so few people in Britain
have ever heard its loud and awful voice, which seems to be
uttered only in the breeding-season, and is therefore unknown in a

42 BLACK BIRD—BLACKCAP

country where it no longer breeds, that incredulity as to its boom-
ing at all has in some quarters succeeded the old belief in this as
in other reputed peculiarities of the species. The Bittern is found
from Ireland to Japan, in India, and throughout the whole of
Africa—suitable localities being, of course, understood. Australia
and New Zealand have a kindred species, B. peciloptilus, and North
America a third, B. mugitans or B. lentiginosus. The former is said
to bellow like a bull, but authorities differ as to the vocal powers
of the latter,” which has several times wandered to Europe, and is
distinguishable by its smaller size and uniform greyish-brown prim-
aries, which want the tawny bars that characterize B. stelluris.
Nine other species of Bitterns from various parts of the world are
admitted by Schlegel (Aus. P.-B. Ardew, pp. 47-56), but some of
them should perhaps be excluded from the genus Bofaurus ; on the
other hand, Dr. Reichenow (Journ. f. Orn. 1877, pp. 241-251), by
comprehending the birds of the Group Ardetia,—commonly known
as “Little Bitterns,” and differing a good deal from the true
Bitterns—makes the whole number of species twenty-two.

BLACKBIRD, the common, but not the most ancient,? name of
the OUSEL, the 7urdus merula,* of Linnzeus and most ornithologists,
one of the best known of British birds; but since conferred in dis-
tant countries on others whose only resemblance to the original
bearer lies in their colour, as in North America to several members
of the Icleridw (GRACKLE and IcTERuS), in the West Indies to the
species of Crotophaga (ANI), and perhaps to more in other lands.
Occasionally too in translations of Scandinavian works it is used
to render Svartfugl—the general name for the Alcide (AUK)—of
which indeed it is an equivalent, but its use in that capacity tends
to mistakes,

BLACKCAP, the Sylvia atricapilla of ornithology, one of the
most delicate songsters of the British Islands, and fortunately of
general distribution in summer. To quote the praise bestowed
upon it in more than one passage by Gilbert White would be

1 The last recorded instance of the Bittern breeding in England was in 1868,
as mentioned by Stevenson (Birds of Norfolk, ii. p. 164). All the true Bitterns,
so far as is known, lay eggs of a light olive-brown colour.

2 Richardson, a most accurate observer, positively asserts (Yawna Boreali-
Americana, ii. p. 874) that its booming exactly resembles that of its European
congener, but few American ornithologists, Mr. Torrey (Auk, 1889, pp. 1-8)
excepted, seem to have heard it in perfection.

° Tts earliest use seems to be in the Book of St. Albans in 1486, where it
occurs as ‘‘ blacke bride.”

4 By some unhappy accident the order of these words is reversed in Dr.
Murray’s New English Dictionary. The bird has been named Merula atra, but
never Merula turdus (as therein stated) by Linnzus or any one else.

BLACKCOCK—BLOOD 43

superfluous. Enough to say that its tones always brought to his
mind the lines in 4s You Like It (Act ii. se. 5):

“ And turn his merry note
Unto the sweet bird’s throat.”

The name, however, is only applicable to the cock bird of this species,
who further differs from his browncapped mate by the pure ashy-
grey of his upper plumage ; but notwithstanding the marked sexual
difference in appearance, he shares with her the duty of incubation,
and has been declared by more than one writer to sing while so
employed—a statement that seems hardly credible. Closely allied
to the Blackcap, which, it may be said, is a regular summer visit-
ant, though examples have sometimes occurred in winter in England,
are the so-called Garden-WARBLER, Sylvia salicaria (S. or Curruca
hortensis of some authors), and the WHITE-THROAT.

But the name Blackcap is also applied to some other birds, and
both in this country and in North America especially to certain
species of TITMOUSE and GULL which have the top of the head
black, as well as locally to the SrONECHAT and Reed-BUNTING.

BLACKCOCK, the male of the bird to which the name Grows
or GROUSE seems to have been originally given.

BLEATER, a name for the SNIPE, from the noise it makes in its
love-flights, the cause of which has given rise to much discussion.

BLIGHT-BIRD, see Zosterops.

BLOOD is the fluid which circulates through the heart, arteries,
and veins. It is mixed with lymph, its corpuscles being suspended
in a fluid called blood-plasm. The arterial blood is of a lighter
red than the venous, which is more purple blood. Blood shews
the following composition :—

1. Led blood-corpuscles, oval, flat disks, with rounded-off margins
and a central nucleus which forms a slight swelling: they con-
tain a substance known as hemoglobin, which, combining with the
oxygen of the blood, causes the latter’s red colour. These red
corpuscles are present even in a small drop of blood in innumerable
numbers ; they are largest in the Cassowary, smallest in Humming-
birds, their smallest axis measuring about mm. ;4+5 or 475, their
larger axis from mm. +), to 735.

2. Whute-blood or lymph-corpuscles ; by far less numerous, colour-
less, and of very variable size (from mm. =}, to 7},), shewing lively
amoeboid motions.

3. The blood-plasm, consisting of fibrin and serum. The latter
is a fluid, frequently yellowish, and is composed of water, albumen,
and various salts.

44 BLOOD-BIRD—BLUEBIRD

The function of the blood is this: The arterial blood in the
capillaries of the body gives off its oxygen to the tissues of the
body ; the lymph, charged with the nutritive elements derived
through the process of digestion, bathes the same tissues by leaving
the capillaries, and is collected again into lymphatic vessels, being
ultimately emptied into the big veins of the body, to be mixed
again with the deoxydized blood returning likewise through the
veins from the capillaries of the whole body. All this exhausted
blood is, together with the lymph, received into the right auricle of
the heart, thence pumped through the right ventricle and the
pulmonary arteries into the capillaries of the lungs, there to give
up its carbonic acid, and to be charged again with oxygen.
Returning through the pulmonary veins into the left auricle, and
thence into the left ventricle, it is forced by the contraction of the
latter into the arteries of the body to commence its circulation
anew.

The lymph is a fluid like the blood-plasm, slightly yellowish
or colourless and containing only white, but no red, blood-
corpuscles.

BLOOD-BIRD, one of the species of the genus Myzomela,
belonging to the Meliphagide (HONEY-SUCKER), so called in New
South Wales — lM. sanguinolenta (Latham). (Gould, Handb. B.
Australia, 1. p. 555.)

BLOOD-OLPH, a not uncommon local name of the BULL-
FINCH.

BLOOD-PHEASANT, the Anglo-Indian name for the Ithaginis
cruentus of ornithologists, one of the most beautiful game-birds of
the mountains of Eastern Nepal and Sikkim, so called from the
blood-red blotches with which its otherwise green plumage is
diversified. A second species of the genus, J. geoffroyi, has been
described from Northern China. By some systematists they are
referred to the subfamily Perdiciny, by others to the Phasianine.
(Jerdon, B. India, iii. p. 522.)

BLUEBIRD, in North America the appropriate name of the no
less familiar than favourite Sialia wilsoni, or sialis of ornithology,
and of its congeners S. mexicana or occidentalis! and S. arctica :—
the first, with a chestnut throat and breast, being an abundant bird
on the eastern side of the continent, appearing also in Bermuda ;
the second, with the middle of the back and breast chestnut, taking

1 By some writers S. mexicana is regarded as distinct from S. occidentalis,
and there seems little doubt that S. aziwea of Central America may be considered
a good species. Mr. Seebohm (Cat. B. Brit. Afus. v. p. 328) places in this
genus the Grandala cxlicolor of the Himalaya and other mountain-ranges in
Asia.

BLUECAP—BOAT-BILL 45

its place further to the south and westward ; and the third, of a
lighter hue and with no chestnut, being the north-western form.
The genus Sialia is one of those that are midway between the re-
puted Families Sylviidx# (WARBLER) and Turdidx (THRUSH), and with
Monticola and some others shew how hard it is to maintain any
valid distinction between them. The Bluebirds of North America
breed in holes of trees, and seem all to lay pale blue spotless eggs.
In Western India, Ceylon, and Burma, the name Bluebird is equally
well bestowed on the Jrena puella of modern ornithologists, which
is commonly referred to the chaotic groups Jimeliidx or Crateropo-
didx (Oates, Fauna of British India, Birds, 1. pp. 239, 240), and has
several representatives in the Indian Region (Jerdon, B. India, ii.
p. 106); but the precise place of the genus must be regarded as
uncertain. According to Mr. Layard (Bb. S. Afr. p. 365), in the
seas of the Cape of Good Hope, the name is applied to a wholly
different kind of bird, Diomedea fuliginosa (ALBATROS).

BLUECAP, a common name of the Blue Titmouse Parus
cxeruleus.

BLUETHROAT, the English name by which the beautiful JJota-
cilla suecica of Linneeus is now generally known. By some systematists
it has been referred to the genus Futicilla (REDSTART) or to Lrithacus
(REDBREAST), and by others. regarded as the type of a distinct genus
Cyanecula—the last view being perhaps justifiable. There are two,
if not three, forms of Bluethroat in which the male is quite distin-
guishable :—(1) the true C. suecica, with a bright bay spot in the
middle of its clear blue throat, breeding in Scandinavia, Northern
Russia, and Siberia, and wintering in? vgasinia and India, though
rarely appearing in the intermediate countries, to the wonder of all
who have studied the mystery of the migration of birds ; next there
is (2) C. leucocyanea, with a white instead of a red gular spot, a
more western form, ranging from Barbary to Germany and Holland ;
and lastly (3) C. wolfi, thought by some authorities (and not without
reason) to be but an accidental variety of the preceding (2), with
its throat wholly blue,—a form of comparatively rare occurrence.
The first of these is a not unfrequent, though very irregular visitant
to England, while the second has appeared there but seldom, and
the third never, so far as is known. The affinity of the Bluethroat
to the Redstart is undeniable ; but it is not much further removed
from the NIGHTINGALE, and forms a member of that group which
connects the so-called Families Sylviide (WARBLER) and Turdidx
(THRUSH).

BOAT-BILL, the Cancroma cochlearia of most ornithologists, a
native of Tropical America, and the only species of its genus. It
seems to be merely a Night-Hrron (Nycticorax) with an exaggerated
bill, so much widened as to suggest its English name, and its habits,

46 BOATSWAIN--BOB-LINCOLN

so far as they are known, confirm the inference derived from its
structure. The wonderful “ Shoe-bird” or Whale-headed SToRK

BOAT-BILL.

(Balxniceps) is regarded by some authorities as allied to Cancroma ;
but the present writer cannot recognize in it any close affinity to
the Ardeidx.

BOATSWAIN, in seamen’s ornithology, is a name applied to
several kinds of birds, and was perhaps first given to some of the
genus Stfercorarius (SKUA), though nowadays most commonly used
for the species of Phaethon (TROPIC-BIRD), the projecting middle
feathers of the tail in each being generally likened to the marline-
spike that is identified with the business of that functionary, but
probably the authoritative character assumed by both Skua and
officer originally suggested the appellation.

BOAT-TAIL, a common name applied to certain North-Ameri-
can birds of the genus Qwiscalus, belonging to the Family Icteridx
(see GRACKLE and IcTERUS), from the power they have of holding
the tail in the shape of a boat with the concavity uppermost.

BOB-LINCOLN, BOBLINK, and BOBOLINK, names given by
the English in North America to what is commonly called in books
the Rice-Bunting, Dolichonyx oryzivora, one of the best-known birds
of that continent—valued for its song and still more for its sapidity,
in which last respect it equals if it does not surpass the famed

BOB-WHITE—BONE 47

ORTOLAN. Its good qualities have been described at length by Alex-
ander Wilson, Nuttall, and Audubon, to say nothing of more recent
writers on North-American ornithology, and to those authors must
reference be made for its description and an account of its habits.
From the purely scientific point of view the form is one of consider-
able interest, as it seems to connect the Hmberizide (BUNTING)
with the Jcteridy (GRACKLE, ICTERUS); and, though generally con-
sidered to belong to the latter, is rather a divergent member of
that Family. It is a bird that performs vast migrations, breeding
as high as lat. 54° N., and in winter visiting the Antilles and
Central and South America as far as Paraguay.

BOB-WHITE, a nickname of the Virginian QUAIL, Ortyx vir-
ginianus, aptly bestowed from the call-note of the cock.

BONE or osseous tissue consists of phosphate and carbonate of
lime, salt, and a few other earthy substances. Hollow bones contain
marrow, a fatty substance with delicate connective tissue, except
where it has been driven out by the penetrating Arr-sacs. On
the surface of a bone, covered by a fibrous membrane, the periosteum,
there open small, often microscopic, holes, which as ‘“ Haversian
Canals” are continued through the walls of the bone into larger spaces
or cancelli, and ultimately into the marrow cavity. These render
possible the entrance of blood-vessels, air-cells, and nerves. Bones
which have their entire substance or diploe between the outer and
the inner lamella filled with cavities and cancelli are called cancellated
or spongy; this is especially the case in the bones of the head of
Owls, and to an enormous extent in the “horn” of the Hornbills.
The bony substance forms consecutive layers around the Haversian
canals. The layers themselves contain numerous irregular lacune,
formerly but wrongly called bone-corpuscles, from which radiate
numerous extremely fine canaliculi ; these communicate with those
of neighbouring lacune and with the Haversian canals, securing
thus access of blood and lymph to any part of the bone.

Bone is never directly formed out of the indifferent embryonic
tissue, it always passes through a stage of connective tissue. If
this tissue ossifies directly, it becomes a primary or membrane
bone; if the tissue is cartilage and finally supplanted by bony
tissue, the latter forms a secondary or cartilage bone. Most of the
bones of a bird’s skeleton pass during their development through
such a cartilaginous stage. Membrane bones are principally some
of those forming the cranium, as the parietal, frontal, maxille, and
vomer. Bones which are developed in tendons by direct ossification
are termed sesamoid bones, as the brachial and the crural patella.
Either kind of bone can ossify from various centres, but these
“centres of ossification” do not necessarily indicate that the bone
in question is composed of a number of originally separate bones,

48 BONXTIE—BOWER-BIRD

In long bones especially the shaft ossifies first, while the ends
remain for a long time cartilaginous as “ epiphyses” and eventually
ossify often from a centre of their own, and are only in the adult
completely fused with the shaft, forming the articulating facets,
or projecting “processes” for the attachment and leverage of
muscles.

BONXIE, the name by which the Great Skua, Stercorarius
catarrhactes, is known in some of the Shetland Islands, its only
British habitat.

BOOBY, said by Prof. Skeat (Htymol. Dict.) to be derived from
the Spanish or Portuguese bobo—a fool, and that from the Latin
balbus—stuttering or inarticulate, a name applied, most likely by
our seamen originally, to certain birds from their stupidity in alight-
ing upon ships and allowing themselves to be easily taken by the
hand.!. The Boobies are closely allied to the GANNET, and indeed
can hardly be separated from the genus Sula, though they differ
in having no median stripe of bare skin down the front of the
throat, and they almost invariably breed upon trees instead of rocks,
and are inhabitants of warmer climates. One of them, S. cyanops,
when adult has much of the aspect of a Gannet, but S. piscator is
readily distinguishable by its red legs, and S. leucogaster by its upper
plumage and neck of deep brown. These three are widely distri-
buted within the tropics, and are in some places exceedingly abund-
ant. A fourth, S. variegata, which seems to preserve throughout its
life the spotted suit characteristic of the immature S. bassana, has a
much more limited range, being as yet only known from the coast
of Peru, where it is one of the birds which contribute to the forma-
tion of guano,

BOWER-BIRD, Gould’s rather poetical name for some inhabit-
ants of Australia which, while he was in that country he ascer-
tained,? as on his return he announced (25 August, 1840) to the
Zoological Society, to have the extraordinary habit of building what
the colonists commonly called “runs.” “These constructions ”, he
rightly said (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1840, p. 94), ‘‘are perfectly anomalous
in the architecture of birds, and consist in a collection of pieces of
stick or grass, formed into a bower; or one of them (that of the
Chlamydera) might be called an avenue, being about three feet in
length, and seven or eight inches broad inside ; a transverse section
giving the figure of a horse-shoe, the round part downwards. They

1 Thus Purchas in his account of Davis’s Second Voyage to India, in 1604-5,
tells (Pilgrimes, I. bk. iii. p. 182) of. ‘‘fowles called Pashara boues ”—which
correctly spelt would be Paxaros bobos—at the island of Fernando Norhona.
Later examples are too numerous to cite.

2 The discovery seems to have been mainly due to the late Mr. C. Coxen of
Brisbane.

.

BOWER-BIRD 49

are used by the birds as a playing-house or ‘run,’ as it is termed,
and are used by the males to attract the females. The ‘run’ of the
Satin-bird is much smaller, being less than one foot in length, and
moreover differs from that just described in being decorated with
the highly-coloured feathers of the Parrot-tribe ; the Chlamydera, on
the other hand, collects around its ‘run’ a quantity of stones, shells,
bleached bones, ete. ; they are also strewed down the centre within.”

This statement, marvellous as it seemed, has been proved by
many subsequent observers to be strictly true, and it must be
borne in mind that these structures! each of which as above
described he next year (1 Sept. 1841) figured (B. Austral. iv.
pls. 8, 10), have nothing to do with nests of the birds—indeed,
their mode of nidification, which was not made known until some
years later, presents no extraordinary feature. Moreover, the birds
will build their ‘bowers ” in confinement, and therein disport them-
selves, as has been repeatedly shewn in the Zoological Gardens? by
the Satin-bird last mentioned, Ptilorhynchus violaceus. Subsequently
it was found that the Regent-bird, Sericulus melinus, a species long
before known, had the habit of making a “bower” of similar kind,
though built, so to speak, in another style of architecture, and having
for its chief decoration the shells of a small species of Heliz.

The account of these curious birds which may be most
conveniently consulted is that in Gould’s Handbook to the Birds of
Australia (i. pp. 441-461), published in 1865; but since that time
discoveries still more wonderful have been made. A bird of New
Guinea, originally referred to the genus Ptilorhynchus, but now
recognized as Amblyornis inornatus, has been found by Sign. Beccari
to present not only a modification of bower-building, but an
appreciation of beauty perhaps unparalleled in the animal world.
His interesting observations (Annali del Mus. Civ. de Storia Nat.
di Genova, ix. pp. 382-400, tav. viii.) shew that this species, which
he not inaptly calls the “Gardener” (Gjardiniere), builds at the foot
-of a small tree a kind of hut or cabin (capanna) some two feet in
height, roofed with orchid-stems that slope to the ground, regularly

1 Gould brought home with him at least two examples, which he gave to the
British Museum. There is no reason to suppose that this extraordinary habit
had been described before the date above given, or that the name ‘‘ Bower-lird”’
had been previously used, and yet we find Trelawny in his Alemoirs of Shelley,
published in 1878, referring to himself (i. p. 186) as saying, in a conversation not
later than 1822, ‘‘You two have built your nest after the fashion of the Aus-
tralian bower-birds” !

2 The ordinary visitor to these gardens seems to regard the structures of the
Bower-birds without any intelligent interest. He perhaps supposes that -hey are
the handiwork of one or other of the keepers. From my own long connexion
with the Zoological Society, I think I am able to state that neither in this nor any-
thing else of the kind is any deception practised. The Bower-birds are supplied
with matcrials, and that is all.

|

50 BOWER-BIRD

radiating from the central support, which is covered with a conical
mass of moss, and sheltering a gallery round it. One side of this
hut is left open, and in front of it is arranged a bed of verdant
moss, bedecked with blossoms and _ berries of the brightest colours.
As these ornaments wither they are removed to a heap behind
the hut, and replaced by others that are fresh. The hut is
circular, and some three feet in diameter, and the mossy lawn in

‘*GARDEN” OF AMBLYORNIS.
(After Beecari. From The Gardeners Chronicle, N.S., vol. ix. p. 333.)

front of it of nearly twice that expanse. Each hut and garden are,
it is believed, though not known, the work of a single pair of
birds, or perhaps of the male only ; and it may be observed that
this species, as its trivial name implies, is wholly inornate in
plumage.t Not less remarkable is the more recently described

1 Another species referred to the same genus, 4. subalaris, the female of
which was originally described by Mr. Sharpe (Jowrn. Linn. Soc. xvil. p. 40)
as being still more dingy, turned out to have the male embellished with a
wonderful crest of reddish-orange (Finsch and Meyer, Zeitschr. f. ges. Orn. 1885,
p. 890, tab. xxii.).

BRACHIAL ARTERY—BRAIN 51

“bower” of Prionodura, a genus of which the male, like the Regent-
bird, is conspicuous for his bright orange coloration. This
structure is said by Mr. Devis (Trans. Roy. Soc. Queensland, 14 June
1889) to be piled up almost horizontally round the base of a tree
to the height of from 4 to 6 feet, and around it are a number of
hut-like fabrics, having the look of a dwarfed native camp, Allied
to the forms already named are two others, Scenopwus and
Ailuredus, which, though not apparently building “bowers,” yet
clear a space of ground some 8 or 9 feet in diameter, on which to
display themselves, ornamenting it “with tufts and little heaps of
gaily tinted leaves and young shoots” (Ramsay, Proc, Zool. Soc.
1875, p. 592). The former of them, which, according to Mr. Lum-
holtz (Among Cannibals, pp. 139, 140), covers a space of about a
square yard with large fresh leaves neatly laid, and removes
them as they decay, inhabits Queensland, and to the latter belongs
the “Cat-bird,” so well known to Australians from its loud, harsh,
and extraordinary cries.

By most systematists these birds are placed among the Para-
diseide (BIRD-OF-PARADISE) ; but in
the British Museum Catalogue of
Birds (vi. pp. 380-396) they are
to be found in the ‘limbo large
and broad” of Yimeliide—though
allowed the rank of a_ subfamily
“ Ptilonorhynchine,” the name being
taken from the feathered and not
the bare (as might from its ety- 12 UOTE EOS) SUAS
mology have been expected) condi- Geta eee
tion of the base of the bill shewn in the figure of that part in the
Satin-bird.

BRACHIAL ARTERY, see VAscuLAR SysTEM: BRACHIAL
PLEXUS, see NERVOUS SYSTEM.

BRAIN, the part of the Central. NeERvous SysTEm which is
enclosed by the cranium, and in Birds consists of three principal
divisions, named after their position—Hind- Mid- and Forebrain.
The hindbrain is composed of the medulla oblongata, the direct and
comparatively little modified continuation of the spinal cord, and of
the cerebellum, these two parts being connected with each other
by the pedunculi or crura cerebelli. The midbrain contains the
peduncles of the great or forebrain, and the cortex or rind of the
optic lobes. The forebrain is subdivided into the thalamencephalon
and into the cerebral hemispheres. The ventral parts of the
thalamencephalon form the hypophysis and the chiasma or
crossing of the optic nerves, the lateral parts contain the inner
portions of the optic lobes, which are partly homologous with

52 BRAIN

the corpora bigemina of Mammals, and the optic thalami; the
dorsal roof forms the epiphysis or pineal gland, the corpus callosum
and the anterior commissure, both of which consist of bundles of
white nerve fibres and connect the right with the left hemisphere.
The ventral portion of the hemispheres consists of the corpora
striata, which are masses of grey brain-substance, and of the olfactory
lobes, which mark the anterior end of the brain.

The central canal, which runs through the spinal cord, is con-
tinued into the brain, and forms the fourth ventricle in the hind-
brain, extending dorsally into the cerebellum ; and is then continued
as “aqueductus Sylvii” through the midbrain, with lateral exten-
sions into the optic lobes. The dilatation of this canal in the
thalamencephalon is the third ventricle: it extends ventrally
towards the hypophysis as the infundibulum, in a similar way

VERTICAL SECTION IN THE
hem, pn MIDDLE LINE THROUGH
THE BRAIN OF A DUCK.

Enlarged. (After H.

F. Osborne.)

T, Right olfactory nerve ;
IT, Right optie nerve and
chiasma; acm, Anterior
commissure ; cal, Corpus
callosum ; cereb, Cerebel-
tum; /t, Lamina termin-
alis; fm, Foramen Mon-
roi; hem, Right hemi-
sphere; hph, Hypophysis ;
inf, Infundibulum ; pem,
Posterior commissure ;
pn, Epiphysis or pineal
gland,

dorsally towards the epiphysis, and communicates through the
foramen of Monro with the second and first ventricles ; these being
the cavities of the two hemispheres.

The hypophysis cerebri or pituitary body is lodged in the
“sella turcica,” a niche or recess formed by the anterior and
posterior basisphenoid bones. This peculiar body is probably the
degenerated remnant of a special sense-organ in the mouth of early
Vertebrata, it being developed partly as an outgrowth from the
roof of the mouth which fuses with a corresponding growth from
the brain and then loses its connexion with the mouth.

The epiphysis cerebri or pineal body is the remnant of a
sense-organ, possibly visual, as it is still functional in many Lizards
possessing a lens, a retina-like accumulation of black pigment and
a nerve, but quite degenerated in all Birds and Mammals.

The cerebellum of Birds is homologous only with the “worm”
or middle portion of the cerebellum of Mammals, the lateral lobes
being absent, although a pair of flocculi are present. Externally
it exhibits a number of transverse furrows, which divide it into

BRAIN 53

lamelle. On a vertically longitudinal, or “sagittal,” section, it has
a beautiful tree-like appearance. From the walls of-the central
cavity branch-like
white medullary
fibres spread out,
surrounded by a
layer of reddish
ganglionic cells, fol-
lowed by larger
ganglia (Purkinje’s
layer), and exter-
nally covered by a
grey mantle of
smaller ganglionic
cells. Such a thin
section, especially
when stained with
carmine, forms a
fascinating object
for the microscope,
and is easily made.

The surface of
the cerebral hemi-
spheres in Birds
exhibits no convol-
utions or gyrations
as in the higher
Mammals. In the
Ratitee and in many
Passeres the surface
is entirely smooth,

but in Swimmers,
N. 7 VENTRAL VIEW OF THE BRAIN OF A Goose. Twice natural size.
Waders, Pigeons, :

: (After A. Meckel.)
Fowls, and Birds- I-XII, the twelve pairs of cranial nerves; Ch. Chiasma of the

of-Prey, there is a optic nerves cut across; Fl. Flocculus; H. Hypophysis; L.o.
very slight furrow Optic lobe; Lg. Laqueus; FS. Sylvian fissure ; Sp.J. First spinal

which might be”

compared with the Sylvian fissure. There is also very little grey
substance in the surface layers of the hemispheres. Various attempts
have been made, by Tiedemann,! Serres,” Leuret,? and Bumm,* to
compare the weight of the whole brain with that of the body, or

1 Anatomie und Naturgeschichte der Vogel. Heidelberg: 1810.

Anatomie comparée du cerveau. Paris: 1824.

Anatomie comparée du systéme nerveux. Paris: 1839-57.

Das Grosshirn der Vogel. Zeitschr. fiir wissensch, Zool. xxxviii. (1883)
pp. 430-466, tabb. xxiv.-xxyv.

bo

i

64 BRAIN

the weight of the hemispheres with that of other parts of the cen-
tral nervous system, in order to draw conclusions as to the intelli-
gence of various Birds. When Birds are arranged according to the
preponderance of the hemispheres over the rest of the brain, the first
place is taken by the Passeres and Parrots (2°7 or 2:0 to 1), then
follow Geese, Ducks, Waders, and Birds-of-Prey, lastly Fowls and
Pigeons, the proportions in the Common Domestic Pigeon being
0:95 to 1, ze the forebrain weighs less than the rest, while in many
Oscines it weighs nearly three times as much. The attempts to
sort Birds according to the proportion of brain to body have led
to no practical results, chiefly because the variable conditions of fat
and lean subjects have not been considered. The absolute weight
or mass alone of the brain is not a safe guide.

There are twelve pairs of cranial or brain-nerves which arise from
the brain and leave the cranium through special holes. These
pairs, as in other Classes of Vertebrates, are frequently spoken
of by their number, counting from the nasal region backwards
to the occiput.

I. NV. olfactorius forms the anterior and ventral continuation
of the hemisphere of its side, but arises in reality from ganglionic
cells in the thalamencephalon and the midbrain. It leaves the
cranial cavity through a canal in the dorsal and median part of the
orbit and ends in the ganglionic cells of the olfactory membrane of
the nose.

Il. NV. opticus arises from the ganglionic cells of the mantle
of the optic lobes. Immediately in front of the hypophysis is the
optic chiasma, produced by the complete crossing of the fibres
which compose the two optic nerves, those from the right optic
lobe passing over the left, and those from the left lobe to the right
side. From the chiasma start the right and left optic nerves, each
leaving the cranium by the large optic foramen between the orbito-
sphenoid and alisphenoid, entering the orbit near the posterior and
ventral corner of.the orbital septum and ultimately forming the
retina of. the eye.

Ill. WV. oculomotorius arises close behind the hypophysis, near
the medio-ventral line, from the midbrain, enters the orbit behind
or together with the optic nerve (II), and supplies most of the ex-
ternal muscles of the eye, namely the m. rectus superior, inferior,
internus, and obliquus inferior. A ciliary, partly sympathetic,
branch supplies the eyeball and the internal muscles (see EYE).

IV. NV. trochlearis or patheticus is the only one which leaves the
brain on its dorsal surface, namely as a thin thread winding its way
from the midbrain upwards between the cerebellum and the optic
lobes, and entering the orbit through a fine opening close to the
optic nerve (II) in order to supply the m. obliquus superior of the
eyeball.

BRAIN 55

V. NV. trigeminus is next to the optic the thickest nerve, and of
a complex nature, being motory and sensory. It arises from the
sides of the mid- and hindbrain, forms the large Gasserian ganglion
in the wall of the cranium, and leaves the latter in the form of three
branches. ‘The first or ophthalmic branch comes directly out of the
ganglion through a foramen behind the optic (II), runs along the
dorsal corner of the orbital septum, and leaves the orbit at its
inner anterior corner in order to supply the palate, the bill, fore-
head, and the lacrymal gland. It is chiefly sensory, and con-
sequently strongest in birds with tactile bills, like Ducks and
Snipes. The second or upper maxillary branch runs along the
ventral edge of the orbital septum, and besides the palatine and
maxillary regions supplies the eyelids and Harder’s gland. The
third or inferior maxillary branch is the strongest of the three; it
leaves the cranium together with the second through a foramen
between the basi-alisphenoid and petrosal bones and innervates all
the masticatory muscles, the parotid gland, and the whole of the
under jaw.

VI. NV. abducens is a very thin nerve arising from the hindbrain
near the medio-ventral line, entering the orbit through a special
foramen latero-ventrally from the optic foramen, and supplying the
m. rectus externus and the two muscles of the nictitating membrane.
It is entirely motory.

VIL. WV. facialis arises from the side of the hindbrain, possesses
a ganglion (g. geniculatum), passes through the petrosal bone into
the Fallopian canal, and sends the sympathetic sphenopalatine branch
to the second branch of the trigeminal nerve (V). The facial nerve
leaves the tympanic cavity behind the quadrate bone, supplies the
digastric muscle or depressor of the mandible, the little stapedius
muscle of the ear-bones, the mylo- and stylohyoid muscles of the
tongue, and further on connects itself with branches from the first
four cervical nerves and occasionally with branches from the glosso-
pharyngeal nerve (IX), ultimately supplying the skin on the front of
the neck. There are no branches, as in Mammals, to supply the
face, nor is there in Birds a chorda tympani, #.e. a branch of the
facial nerve joining the mandibular branch of the trigeminal nerve(V).

VIII. NV. acusticus arises dorsally from the facial nerve (VII),
of which it is the sensory portion. It is very short and thick,
possesses a little ganglion, and spreads out in the cochlea of the Ear
as the nerve of hearing.

IX. N. glossopharyngeus takes its origin from the dorso-lateral
sides of the medulla oblongata, near the rhomboid fossa. It leaves
the cranium through the foramen jugulare, which lies between the
petrosal and the lateral occipital bones, and also serves as exit for
the vagus nerve (X) and the jugular vein. Here the ninth nerve
forms a big swelling, the ganglion jugulare, and is connected with the

56 BRAIN—BRAMBLE-FINCH

ganglion of the vagus and with the large sympathetic g. cervicale
supremum, receiving a strong branch from the stem of the vagus,
and dividing into two branches :—One, the pharyngeal branch, sup-
plying the upper portion of the pharynx and the gustatory papille
of the palate; the other, or lingual branch, supplying the glottis,
larynx, and the tongue, and acting chiefly as the nerve of taste.

X. N. vagus or pneumogastricus arises behind the glossopha-
ryngeal (IX), and passes likewise through the jugular foramen. Its
ganglion is connected with that of the glossopharyngeal and with
that of the sympathetic system. The stem of this nerve receives a
branch from the. hypoglossal (XII) and takes up the accessory (XI).
It runs down the side of the cesophagus, enters the thoracic cavity
between the brachial nerve plexus and the carotid artery, then
passes between the bronchus and the subclavian artery to the
ventral side of the proventriculus, and joining its fellow from the
other side, spreads out to supply the stomach. Other branches
leave the principal stem of each vagus at the level of the bronchi
to supply the liver, heart, and lungs, and as the recurrent laryngeal
branch also supply the distal portion of the trachea and cesophagus.
Some fibres of the vagus often extend beyond the stomach, and are
connected with the sympathetic nerves of the trunk, supplying part
of the intestinal canal.

XI. N. accessorius, a little nerve taking its origin between
the dorsal and ventral roots of the third cervical nerve, runs
upwards through the occipital foramen into the cranium, and joins
the ganglion of the vagus (X), to leave the cranium with the latter
and to supply the cucullaris muscle or constrictor colli.

XII. N. hypoglossus arises ventro-laterally from the medulla
oblongata, and leaves the cranium by two foramina in the lateral
occipital bone, in front of and sidewards from the occipital condyle.
It supplies the m. complexus, forms a connecting loop with the first
cervical nerve, innervates some of the cervical muscles, and divides
into two branches—one of which supplies most of the muscles of the
tongue and communicates with its fellow on the undersurface of
the tongue, while the other innervates the muscles of the larynx,
and then descends along the side of the trachea to the syrinx in
order to supply the vocal muscles and membranes.

BRAMBLE-FINCH or BRAMBLING (Germ. Brimling), names
of one of the most beautiful of our annual visitors, ringilla monti-
fringilla, which has its home in the birch-forests of Northern
Europe and Asia, whence it yearly proceeds, often in flocks of
thousands, to pass the winter in more southern countries. It is
congeneric with the CHAFFINCH, but is still more brightly coloured,
especially in summer, when the brown edges of the feathers being
shed, it presents a rich combination of black, white, and orange.

BRANT—BROADBILL 57

Even in winter, however, its diversified plumage is sufficiently
striking.

BRANT or BRENT, words of doubtful etymology: the
former spelling is most usually adopted by American, the latter
by English authors, and in Britain the word Goose is generally
added.

BREASTBONE, see STERNUM.

BRISTLE-BIRD, the name given by the colonists to three
species of the genus Sphenura of Lichtenstein (as now restricted)
which inhabit Australia, from the two or three pairs of strong
recurved bristles which project laterally from the gape. They
were formerly considered to belong to the Sylviide ; but latterly,
like many others, have been referred (chiefly on account of their
short wings) to the Timeliide by Mr. Sharpe (Cat. B. br. Mus.
vi. p. 104). Their true position seems yet to be determined.
They mostly conceal themselves in thickets, especially in marshy
places, flying very little, but running very quickly, and carrying
the tail erect. The nest is built of dry grass, globular in form,
and is of large size. 8S. brachyptera, the type of the genus, inhabits
New South Wales, and the two others, S. longirostris and S.
broadbenti, are found in Western Australia and the interior of
South Australia respectively. Allied to Sphenura is Amytis, with
3 or 4 species, also Australian, somewhat Wren-like in form, and
having the gape beset with five pairs of bristles, which, however,
are directed more forwardly, and are weaker.

BROADBILL, Swainson’s name, appropriate as will be seen by
the figure, in 1837 (Classif. B. ii. p. 80), for a remarkable group of
birds comprehending
the genus Lurylenius
of Horsfield (7vrans.
LInnn. Soc. xiii. p. 170)
and some allied forms,
all inhabiting the
Indian Region, and
especially developed
in Malacca, Java, Su-
matra, and Borneo;
but found also in the 3
elevated part of India, EURYLAMUS. ae eee a ALYPTOMENA.
and extending to the
Philippines. The position of this group, which was in 1842
recognized by Baron de Selys-Longchamps as forming a good
Family, Eurylemidx, had long been doubtful, some authors regard-
ing it as allied to the Muscicapide (FLY-CATCHER), others to the
Coraciide (ROLLER), and so forth. By degrees what seems to

58 BRONCHI—BRUBRU
be its true place as belonging to the OLIGOMYODE as that term is
used in this work; but the Hurylemidx, so far as they have been
examined, differ from all other PASSERES in “their retention of a
plantar vinculum,” as first noticed by Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1877, p. 449), which fact led W. A. Forbes to propose for them
further separation as DESMODACTYLI (op. cit. 1880, p. 390). But
what seems to be a stronger reason for separating them is that, as
Mr. Sclater had already shewn (Jbis, 1872, p. 179), the manubrium,
or anterior projection of the sternum, is not forked as in other
PassErES. According to him in 1888 (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiv. pp.
454-470) the Eurylemide comprehend two subfamilies, Calypto-
mening, consisting of the genus Calyptomena only, and Eurylemine,
containing six genera, two of which, Psarisomus and Serilophus,! are
found in India, while examples of all the rest, the Philippine Sarco-
phanops excepted, occur in British territory further to the eastward.
They are nearly all birds of great beauty, and the two species of
Calyptomena are remarkable for their rich green plumage, and the
way in which the frontal feathers project upwards and forwards, so
as almost to conceal the bill, and being adpressed form a disk-like
prominence. They are frugivorous, but the Lurylemine seem to
be insectivorous. Not much is recorded of their habits, but they
are said to be stupid, songless birds, and usually keep in small
flocks. (Cf. Oates, B. Br. Burmah, i. pp. 422-431.)

BRONCHLI, adj. bronchial, from Bpoyxos, the windpipe. The
thoracic end of the TRACHEA is divided into a right and a left
bronchus. Each bronchus enters the lung of its side and passes
through its whole length as mesobronchium, from which go off about
10 secondary bronchi towards the surface of the LuNG. In almost
all birds—the exceptions being the Cathartide, true Storks, and
Steatornis—the bronchi are strengthened by cartilaginous semirings ;
the ends of these rings point towards the median line, and are
closed by the inner tympaniform membrane. ‘The right and left
membranes are connected with each other by an elastic band, called
bronchidesmus. All the rings which partake of the formation of
the pessulus of the trachea belong to the latter, the pessulus thus
marking the beginning of the bronchi (see also TRACHEA and SYRINX).

BRONZE-WING, the name given in Australia to several
species of PIGkON belonging to the genera or so-called genera
Phaps, Geophaps, Lophophaps, and Ocyphaps, from the lustrous coppery
or bronze-like spots they display on their wings.

BRUBRU, the name (apparently originating with Levaillant)
of a conspicuously-coloured SHRIKE, the Nilaus brubru or N. capensis
of modern: ornithology.

1 The style of plumage in this genus recalls that of Ampelis (WAXWING),
but no affinity thereto can be thought to exist.

BRUSH-TURKE Y—BULBUL 59

BRUSH-TURKEY, the Australian name for one of the largest
of the MecapoprEs, Zalegallus lathami,
which has frequently made its mound,
laid its eggs, and reared its young in
the Zoological Gardens, after the manner
described many years ago by Mr. Bart-
lett (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1860, pp. 426, 427).
In earlier days the position of this bird
was a great puzzle to some ornitholo-
gists, who thought from the form of
its bill that it was a Bird-of-Prey, and called it the “ New-Holland
Vulture.”

BUDJERIGAR (spelling doubtful) a corruption of Betcherrygah,
given by Gould as the native name of the pretty little Australian
PARRAKEET, Melopsittacus undulatus, that is now so favourite a
cage-bird. Its name has of late been still further corrupted into
Beauregard !

BUFFLE-HEAD (ie. Buffalo-head) a North-American species
of Duck, Clangula albeola, allied to the GOLDEN-EYE.

BULBUL, from the Arabic through the Persian, in the poetry
of which language it plays a great part, and is generally rendered
“Nightingale” by translators, and rightly so according to Blyth
(Calcutta Review, No. lv. March 1857, p. 153), who says that it “is
a species of true Nightingale.” In this case it is probably that
named Daulias hafizi, in honour of the great Persian poet! But
whatever may have been originally intended, and Yule says

TALEGALLUS. (After Swainson.)

MOLPASTES.

Pycnonotus. PHYLLOSTREPHUS.
(After Swainson.)

(Hobson-Jobson) that the name is derived from the bird’s note,
the word has for a good many years been applied by Anglo-
Indians to various species, all or nearly all of which belong to a
group Lvidx (otherwise Brachypodidex, so-called from their short legs),
and usually referred to the ill-defined “Family” Timeliide. Of
this group the latest authority, Mr. Oates (Faun. Br. India, Birds,

1 Cf. Blanford, Zool. and Geol. Persia, p. 169, pl. x. fig. 2; and Dresser,
Ibis, 1875, p. 338.

60 BULLFINCH—BUNTING

i. pp. 253, 254), makes sixteen genera, one of them, Molpastes, being
that which he considers to contain what may be called the genuine
Bulbuls, formerly included in the genus Pycnonotus, but since
separated therefrom, on characters, however, which seem to be of
the slightest. No fewer than nine species are now recognized as
inhabiting various parts of the Indian Empire and Ceylon, that
found in Bengal and to the northward, I. pygwus or bengalensis,
being perhaps the best known, but Madras, the Punjab, Burma, and
Tenasserim have each its own form or species. They are said to
be familiar garden-birds, and are usually common, going about in
pairs with a melodious chirping.

BULLFINCH, doubtless so called from the thickness of its
head and neck, when compared with other members of the Family
Fringillide (FINCH), to which it belongs—the familiar bird, Pyrrhula
europea, Which hardly needs description. The varied plumage of
the cock—his bright red breast and his grey back, set off by his coal-
black head and quills—is naturally attractive ; while the facility
with which he is tamed, and his engaging disposition in con-
finement, make him a popular cage-bird,—to say nothing of the
fact (which in the opinion of so many adds to his charms) of his
readily learning to “ pipe” a tune, or some bars of one, though this
perversion of his natural notes is hardly agreeable to the orni-
thologist. By gardeners the Bullfinch has long been regarded as a
deadly enemy, from its undoubted destruction of the buds of
fruit-trees in spring-time, though whether the destruction is really
so much of a detriment is by no means undoubted. Northern and
Eastern Europe is inhabited by a larger form, P. major, which
differs in nothing but size and more vivid tints from that which is
common in the British Isles and Western Europe. A very distinct
species, P. murina, remarkable for its dull coloration, is peculiar to
the Azores, aud several others are found in Asia from the
Himalayas to Japan. More recently a Bullfinch, P. cassini, has been
discovered in Alaska, being the first recognition of this genus in
the New World. (Cf. Stejneger, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 1887, pp.
103-110.)

BULLHEAD and BULLSEYE, names applied chiefly in
Ireland and North America to the Golden and Grey PLOVERS ; but
the former also given locally to the GOLDEN-EYE.

BUNTING, Old English “ Buntyle,” Scottish “ Buntlin,” a word
of uncertain origin, properly the common English name of the bird

1 Prof. Skeat (Ztymol. Dict.) has suggested a connexion with the old verb,
still extant as a dialectic form, bunten = to butt ; but this is not very apparent.
He has also cited the Scottish word buntin = short and thick, or plump, which,
however, seems as likely to have been derived from the bird, for the clumsy

BUNTING 61
ealled by Linneus Hmberiza miliaria, but now used in a general sense
for all members of the Family Hmberizidx, which are closely allied
to the Fringillidz (FINCH). The Buntings generally may be out-
wardly distinguished from the Finches by their angular gape,
the posterior portion of which is greatly deflected ; and most of
the Old-World forms, together with some of those of the New
World, have a bony knob on the palate—a swollen out growth of
the dentary edges of the bill. Correlated with this peculiarity
the maxilla usually has the tomia sinuated, and is generally
concave, and smaller and narrower than the mandible, which is
also concave to receive the palatal knob. In most other respects
the Buntings greatly resemble the Finches, but their eggs are
generally distinguishable by the irregular hair-like markings on the
shell. In the British Islands by far the commonest species of
Bunting is the YELLOW HAmmer, E£. citrinella, but the true Bunting
(or Corn-Bunting, or Bunting-Lark, as it is called in some districts)
is a very well known bird, while the Reed-Bunting, £. schwniclus,
frequents marshy soils almost to the exclusion of the two former.
In certain localities in the south of England the Cirl-Bunting, Z.
culus, is also a resident; and in winter vast flocks of the Snow-
Bunting, Plectrophanes nivalis, at once recognizable by its pointed
wings and elongated hind-claws, resort to our shores and open
grounds. This last breeds sparingly on the highest mountains of
Scotland, the fact being placed beyond doubt by the discovery of a
nest and young in 1886 by Messrs. B. N. Peach and L. N.
Hinxman, as briefly recorded soon after by Mr. Harvie-Brown
(Zoologist, 1886, p. 336), and with full details in the Vertebrate
Fauna of Sutherland by that gentleman and Mr. Buckley (pp.
138-143, pl.); but the flocks which visit us come from northern
regions, for it is a species which in summer inhabits the whole
circumpolar area. The ORTOLAN, E. hortu/ana, so highly prized for
its delicate flavour, occasionally appears in England, but this island
- lies outside its proper range. On the continent of Europe, in
Africa, and throughout Asia, many other species are found, while
in America the number belonging to the Family cannot at present
be computed. As already stated, the beautiful and melodious
CARDINAL, Cardinalis virginianus, often called the Virginian
Nightingale, probably has to be included in this Family, but doubts
exist as to the BoBOLINK, though it is commonly known as the Rice-
Bunting. Whether any species of Hmberizide inhabit the Austra-
lian Region is yet to be proved; but it would seem possible that
several genera of Australian birds hitherto classed with the Frin-
gillide may have to be assigned to the Hmbcrizidx.
figure of the true Bunting is very evident to any observer. Any connexion with

~ the German bunt or the Dutch bonte (= pied or variegated) is said to be most
nnlikely.

62 BURROW-DUCK—BUSTARD

BURROW-DUCK, a common local name of the SHELD-DRAKE.

BUSTARD (corrupted from the Latin Avis tarda, though the
application of the epithet! is not easily understood), the largest
British land-fowl, and the Otis tarda of Linneus, which formerly
frequented the champaign parts of Great Britain from East
Lothian to Dorset, but of which the native race is now extirpated.
Its existence in the northern locality just named rests upon
Sibbald’s authority (circa 1684), and though Hector Boethius
(1526) unmistakably described it as an inhabitant of the Merse, no
later writer than the former has adduced any evidence in favour of
its Scottish domicile. The last examples of the native race were
probably two killed in 1838 near Swaffham, in Norfolk, a district
in which for some years previously a few hen-birds of the species,
the remnant of a plentiful stock, had maintained their existence,
though no cock-bird had latterly been known to bear them
company. In Suffolk, where the neighbourhood of Icklingham
formed its chief haunt, an end came to the race in 1832; on the
wolds of Yorkshire about 1826, or perhaps a little later; and on
those of Lincolnshire about the same time. Of Wiltshire, Montagu,
writing in 1813, says that none had been seen in their favourite
haunts on Salisbury Plain for the last two or three years. In
Dorset there is no evidence of an indigenous example having
occurred since that date, nor in Hampshire nor Sussex within the
present century. From other English counties, as Cambridgeshire,
Hertfordshire, and Berkshire, it disappeared without note being
taken of the event, and the direct cause or causes of its extermina-
tion can only be inferred from what, on testimony cited by Mr.
Stevenson (birds of Norfolk, 11. pp. 1-42), is known to have led
to the same result in Norfolk and Suffolk. In the latter the
extension of plantations rendered the country unfitted for a bird
whose shy nature could not brook the growth of covert that might
shelter a foe, and in the former the introduction of improved
agricultural implements, notably the corn-drill and the horse-hoe,
led to the discovery and generally the destruction of every nest,
for the bird’s chosen breeding-place was in wide fields—“ brecks,”
as they are locally called,—of winter-corn. Since the extirpation
of the native race the Bustard is known to Great Britain only by
occasional wanderers, straying most likely from the open country
of Champagne or Saxony, and occurring in one part or another
of the United Kingdom some two or three times every three or
four years, and chiefly in midwinter.

An adult male will measure nearly four feet from the tip of
the bill to the end of the tail, and its wings have an expanse of

1 Tt may be open to doubt whether fardais here an adjective. Several of the
medieval naturalists used it as a substantive.

BUSTARD 63

eight feet or more—its weight varying (possibly through age)
from 22 to 32 pounds. This last was that of one which occurred

Cock Busrarp. (After Wolf.)

to the younger Naumann, the best biographer of the bird (Vdgel
Deutschlands, vu. pp. 12-51), who, however, stated in 1834 that

Cock Bustarp. (After Wolf.)

he was assured of the former existence of examples which
had weighed from 35 to 38 pounds. The female is considerably
smaller. Compared with most other birds frequenting open places

64 BUSTARD

the Bustard has disproportionately short legs, yet the bulk of its
body renders it a conspicuous and stately object, and when on
the wing, to which it readily takes, its flight is not inferior in
majesty to that of an Eagle. The bill is of moderate length,
but, owing to the exceedingly flat head of the bird, appears
longer than it really is. The neck, especially of the male in the
breeding-season, is thick, as shewn in the first figure, and the tail,
in the same sex at that time of year, is generally carried in an
upright position, being, however, in the paroxysms of courtship
turned forwards, while the head and neck are simultaneously
retracted along the back, the wings are lowered, and their shorter
feathers erected. In this posture, which has been admirably por-
trayed by Mr. Wolf (Zool. Sketches, pl. 45), the bird presents, as
will be seen by the second figure, a very strange appearance,
for the tail, head, and neck are almost buried amid the upstand-
ing feathers before named, and the breasts are protruded to a
remarkable extent. The Bustard is of a pale grey on the neck
and white beneath, but the back is beautifully barred with russet
and black, while in the male, at the height of the breeding-season,
a band of deep tawny-brown—in some examples approaching a
claret-colour—descends from either shoulder and forms a broad
gorget on the breast. The secondaries and greater wing-coverts
are white, contrasting vividly, as the bird flies, with the black
primaries. Both sexes have the ear-coverts somewhat elongated
—whence doubtless is derived the name Otis (Gr. é7is)—and the
male is adorned with a tuft of long, white, bristly plumes,
springing from each side of the base of the mandible. The
food of the Bustard consists of almost any of the plants natural
to the open country it loves, but in winter it will readily forage
on those which are grown by man, and especially coleseed and
similar green crops. To this vegetable diet much animal matter
is added when occasion offers, and from an earthworm to a
field-mouse little that lives and moves seems to come amiss to
its appetite.

Though not many birds have had more written about them
than the Bustard, much remains to be determined with regard to
its economy. A moot point, which will most likely always remain
undecided, is whether the British race was migratory or not,
though that such is the habit of the species in most parts of the
European continent is beyond dispute. Equally uncertain as yet
is the question whether it is polygamous or not—the evidence
being perhaps in favour of its having that nature. But one of
the most singular properties of the bird is the presence in some
of the fully-grown males of a pouch or gular sack, opening under
the tongue. This extraordinary feature, first discovered by
James Douglas, a Scotch physician, and made known by Albin

BUSTARD 65

in 1740, though its existence was hinted by Sir Thomas Browne
sixty years before, if not by the Emperor Frederick II, has been
found wanting in examples that, from the exhibition of all the
outward marks of virility, were believed to be thoroughly
mature ; and as to its function and mode of development judgment
had best be suspended, with the understanding that the old supposi-
tion of its serving as a receptacle whence the bird might supply itself
or its companions with water in dry places must be deemed to be
wholly untenable. The structure of this pouch—the existence
of which in some examples has been well established—is, how-
ever, variable ; and though there is reason to believe that in one
form or another it is common in the breeding-season to several
species of the Family Ofididx, it would seem to be as inconstant
in its occurrence as in its capacity. As might be expected, this
remarkable feature has attracted a good deal of attention (Journ.
fiir Ormth. 1861, p. 153; 1862, p. 135; Ibis, 1862, p. 107; 1865,
p- 143; Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 747 ; 1868, p. 471; 1869, p. 140;
1874, p. 471), and the researches of Garrod, the latest investi-
gator of the matter, shew that in an example of the Australian
Bustard, Otis australis, examined by him there was, instead of a
pouch or sack, simply a highly dilated cesophagus—the distention
of which, at the bird’s will, produced much the same appearance
and effect as that of the undoubted sack found at times in the
0. tarda.

The distribution of the Bustards is confined to the Old World
—the bird so-called in the Fur-Countries of North America, and
thus giving its name to a lake, river, and cape, being the Canada
Goosk, Bernicla canadensis. In the Palearctic area we have
the 0. tarda already mentioned, extending from Spain to Mesopo-
tamia at least, and from Scania to Morocco, as well as a smaller
species, O. tetraz, which often occurs as a straggler in, but was
never an inhabitant of, the British Islands. ‘Two species, known
indifferently by the name of Houbara (derived from the Arabic),
frequent the more southern portions of the area. One of them, 0.
houbara, inhabits Mauritania and even some of the Canary Islands,
while the other, 0. macqueeni, though having the more eastern range
and reaching India, has several times occurred in North-western
Europe, and once even in England. In the east of Siberia the place
of O. tarda is taken by the nearly-allied, but apparently distinct,
0. dybovskii, which would seem to occur also in Northern China,
Africa is the chief stronghold of the Family, nearly a score of well-
marked species being peculiar to that continent, all of which have
been by later systematists separated from the genus Ofis. India,
too, has three peculiar species, the smaller of which are there
known as Floricans, and, like some of their African and one if not
both of their European cousins, are remarkable for the ornamental

5

66 BUTCHER-BIRD—BUZZARD

plumage they assume at the breeding-season. Neither in Mada.
gascar nor in the Malay Archipelago is there any form of this
Family, but Australia possesses one large species already named.
From Xenophon’s days (Anab. 1. 5) to our own, the flesh of
Bustards has been esteemed as of the highest flavour. The
Bustard has long been protected by the game-laws in Great Britain,
but, as will have been seen, to little purpose. A few attempts
have been made to reinstate it as a denizen of this country, but
none on any scale that would ensure success. Many of the older
authors considered the Bustards allied to the OSTRICH, a most
mistaken view, their affinity pointing apparently towards the
CRANES in one direction and the PLOVERS in another. The so
called Thick-kneed Bustard is the Stone-CURLEW.

BUTCHER-BIRD, a name that seems at one time to have been
in general use, though latterly usurped, except locally, by SHRIKE,
which last was probably applied by mistake. The former takes its
origin from the bird’s habit of impaling its prey on a thorn while
eating it, and leaving the remains there to decay. A place suitable
for this purpose is often used many times, and, reminding people of
a butcher’s shambles, induced the English name, as well as the Latin
Lanius, conferred, it would appear, by Gesner. The habit is carried
out when the bird is kept in confinement, for jt will then fix its food
to the wires of its cage. One species, L. excubitor, derives its trivial
designation from the use made of it as a sentinel by falconers when
catching wild Hawks. The mode employed is well described by
Hoy (Mag. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 342), but can be only briefly mentioned
here. The Hawk-catcher lies hidden in a hut, watching through a
small hole the Butcher-bird, which is tethered some yards off, and
by its actions not only gives him notice of the approach of a Bird-
of-Prey, but also indicates of what kind the stranger is. Thus the
sentinel is but slightly troubled at a passing Kite, Eagle, or
Buzzard; but beats itself on its perch with screams at the sight
of a Harrier, while on the appearance of a Falcon or Sparrow-Hawk
it drops with cries of distress into a retreat that has been consider-
ately prepared for it. On this the falconer, by pulling long strings,
displays first one and then a second tethered Pigeon, and the
instant the Hawk clutches this last, draws a bow-net over both,
thus securing his prize.

BUTTON-QUAIL, the Anglo-Indian name for a little bird,
Turniz sykesi, and one if not more of its congeners, which, though
for a long while confounded with the true QUAILS, really belong to
a very distinct group, Z’urnicide, and may be more conveniently
treated under the title of HEMIPODE.

BUZZARD, a word derived from the Latin Buteo, through the
French Busard, and used in a general sense for a large group of

BUZZARD 67

Diurnal Birds-of-Prey, which contains, among many others, the
species usually known as the Common Buzzard, Buteo vulgaris, of
Leach, though the English epithet is nowadays hardly applicable.
The name Buzzard, however, belongs quite as rightfully to the
birds called in books “HARRIERS,” and by it one of them, the
Moor-Buzzard, Circus xruginosus,
is still known in such places as
it inhabits. ‘‘Puttock” is also
another name used in some parts
of the country, but perhaps is
rather a synonym of the Krrr,
Milvus ictinus. 'Though ornitho-
logical writers are almost unani-
mous in distinguishing the Buz-
zards as a group from the EAGLES,
the grounds usually assigned for
their separation are but slight, and the diagnostic character that
can be best trusted is probably that in the former, as the
figure shews, the bill is decurved from the base, while in the
latter it is for about a third of its length straight. The head,
too, in the Buzzards is short and round, while in the Eagles
it is elongated. Im a general way Buzzards are smaller than
Eagles, though there are several exceptions to this statement,
and have their plumage more mottled. Furthermore, most if
not all of the Buzzards, about which anything of the kind is
with certainty known, assume their adult dress at the first moult,
while the Eagles take a longer time to reach maturity. The
Buzzards are fine-looking birds, but are slow and heavy of
flight, so that in the old days of falconry they were regarded
with infinite scorn, and hence in common English to call a
man a “buzzard” is to denounce him as stupid. Their food
consists of small mammals, young birds, reptiles, amphibians,
and insects—particularly beetles—and thus they never could have
been very injurious to the game-preserver, though they have fallen
under his ban, if indeed they were not really his friends; but at,
the present day they are so scarce that in this country their effect,
whatever it may be, is inappreciable. Buzzards are found over the
whole world with the exception of the Australian Region, and have
been split into many genera by systematists. In the British
Islands we have two species, one (the B. vulgaris already mentioned)
resident, and now almost confined to a few of the wilder districts ;
the other the Rough-legged Buzzard, Archibuteo lagopus, an irregular
winter-visitant, sometimes arriving in large bands from the north
of Europe, and readily distinguishable from the former by being
feathered down to the toes. The HoNEy-buzzArD, Pernis apivorus,
asummer-visitor from the south, and breeding, or attempting to

Buzzarp, (After Swainson.)

68 BUZZARD—CA:CA

breed, yearly in the New Forest, does not come into the sub-
family Buteoninx, but is probably the type of a distinct group,
Pernine,! of which there are other examples in Africa and
Asia. The so-called “Turkey-Buzzard” is one of the American
VULTURES.

C

CAICA, a pair of blindsacs or lateral dilatations of the gut,
marking the beginning of the rectum. When the ceca are large the
rectum is shut off from the ileum or small intestine by a valvular
sphincter, which allows the feecal matter to ascend from the rectum
into the ceca, but prevents it from passing back into the ileum.
The czca vary extremely in size in the different groups of Birds ;
they attain their greatest size in those that are herbivorous, are
small or hardly functional in most that live on animal food, and are
altogether absent in fruit- and grain-eaters. There are, however, so
many exceptions to this broad generalisation, that an enumeration
is advisable, especially since a certain taxonomic value cannot be
denied to these organs.

It is highly probable that originally all Birds possessed ceeca,
and that, according to the diet, these were either further developed
or reduced in size or even lost ultimately. Hence the mere
presence of ceca in a bird is of less taxonomic value than their
state of development; they are either functional, or without func-
tion ; their absence is only the last step of their degeneration.

1. The ceca are large and of great functional importance in
Struthio, Rhea, Apteryx, Crypturi, Galline, Pteroclide, Gralle, and
Anseres, 7.¢. in birds which are chiefly herbivorous ; also in many
worm-eating Limicole, for instance in the Avoset, Lapwing, Ringed
Plover, didicnemus, Thinocorys, Attagis, and the Corncrake ; lastly in
the Owls, Nightjars, Rollers, Bee-eaters, and Cuckoos, i.¢. birds which,
with the exception of the first group, are strictly insectivorous.

2. The ceca are distinctly functional, but comparatively short,
in Casuarius, Dromeus, Grus, Turnix, many Anatide (vegetable-
eaters with a great predilection for animal food), Limicole and
Rallide, like the Golden Plover, Numenius, Totanus, Gallinago,
Chionis, Porphyrio, Porzana; the piscivorous Spheniscide, Pelli-
canus, Podicipes, Uria, Colymbus ; Merops, and Phcenicopterus.

3. The cxca are quite degenerated and functionless, being
either (a) reduced to small wartlike or vermiform appendages, as
in some Spheniscidx, Herodii, Pelargi, Steganopodes, Laride, Strep-

1 The name Pernis was given in 1817 by Cuvier (Régne Anim. i. p. 822), who
said it was used by Aristotle ; but the latter has only mrrépyis (Hist. Anim. ix. 36).

CECA 69

silas, Limosa, Scolopax, Parra, Rhinochetus, many Columbe, Acci-
pitres, and Passeres ; or (b) they are entirely absent, as in many
Columbz, Psittaci, Musophaga, Corythaix, Pici, Aleedinids, Bucero-
tide, Upupidee, Colius, Cypselidx, and Trochilide.

4. Sometimes one cecum remains in a rudimentary condition
and the other one has disappeared ; this is the rule in almost all
Herodii and in Procellaria, but occasionally met with in Steganopodes,
Podicipes, Strepsilas, and in Atrichia.

The greatest development of the ceca occurs in Struthio, Rhea,
Tinamus, and Meleagris, their aggregate volume equalling or even
surpassing that of the rest of the intestinal canal, the czeca in these
cases, especially in Ratitz, shewing numerous transverse constric-
tions and sacculations, which increase the absorbing surface.

A certain correlation exists between the cca and the length
and width of the rectum.

The examples enumerated above seem to shew that ceca are
not required for the digestion of meat, fruit, and grain. Fish-eating
Ducks have considerably shorter cca than their strictly vegetarian
relations ; the same remark applies to those Waders which live upon
mollusks and other soft-bodied invertebrates. On the other hand,
the well-developed czeca of Coracias, Caprimulgus, Merops, Cuculus,
and those of the likewise insectivorous Todies and Bee-eaters, make
it not improbable that in the ceeca not only cellulosis (as in Mam-
malia) but also chitine is digested.

Lastly, the presence or absence of the czeca being thus explained
by the food, a clew will occasionally be afforded to the systematic
position of birds in which they appear against reasonable expectation.
It is clear that change of diet may be accomplished in a much
shorter time than it takes to modify the various digestive organs. For
instance, the exclusive meat-diet of the Birds-of-Prey has reduced
their ceca to mere rudiments, and it is more than improbable that
the insectivorous habits of many of the smaller Falconide will ever
redevelop these organs, especially since these birds throw out the
indigestible parts in pellets). Owls now cannot be distinguished
from Diurnal Birds-of-Prey by their diet ; they possess large ceca,
and cannot therefore be derived from the Accipitres, which have lost
them, nor is it probable that Owls and Accipitres came from one
common stock and are collateral branches, because in this case both
would be of equal age, and we should have to assume that the meat-
diet had in one branch suppressed and in the other branch preserved
or even increased the ceca. We can only conclude that the Owls
are descendants of a stock of birds which, like the Nightjars, lived
on chitinous insects (Beetles, Moths), and that they, like Podargus,
as shown by its predilection for mice, comparatively recently took
to the flesh of vertebrates.

As might be expected, the members of any large and much

70 CALANDER—CANARY-BIRD

diversified group of birds, like Waders, Pigeons, Spheniscide, and
others, have cxca in various stages of development, but it would
be a hopeless attempt to explain this diversity in particular instances
by reference to the preponderance of animal over vegetable diet, of
which in wild birds we know so very little.

CALANDER (“Chalaundre” and “Chelaundre,” Chaucer,
Romaunt of the Rose), Fr. Calandre, and Ital. Calandra, both from the
Latin caliendrum (a head-dress of false hair), a species of Lark, the
Alauda calandra of Linneus, and the Melanocorypha calandra of
later writers, described by Willughby after Olina, and figured by
Edwards (Gleanings, pl. 268) as coming from Carolina, a curious
mistake, for the bird is not American, but a well-known inhabitant
of Europe, though no proof of its occurrence in Britain has been
given. It may easily be recognized by its large size, thick bill,
and interrupted black collar.

CALAO, the name under which some old writers wrote of the
HornBILLs ; generally adopted for them in French, and found also
in scientific nomenclature.

CALAW or CALLOO—generally followed by “Duck”—a
Shetland name of the Long-tailed Duck.

CALICO-BIRD, one of the many names given to the TURN-
STONE on the east coast of North America (Trumbull, Names and
Portr. of B. p. 186).

CAMPEPHAGA (Caterpillar-eater), the scientific name of a
genus of birds bestowed by Vieillot, and anglified by Gould for
certain Australian
forms, which, if
not belonging tothe
Lanuidx (SHRIKE),
are apparently in-
termediate be-
tween that Family
and the Corvidx
(Crow). By some
writers they are
regarded as a separate group, Campephagidx, to which are attached
several other forms that inhabit not only Australia, but the Indian
and Ethiopian Regions. This view will very likely prove correct ;
but it would be at present premature to trace the limits of the
group, of which Ceblepyris may be an extreme example. One of
their characteristics is the stiffened shaft of the rump-feathers, so
as to feel spinous to the touch (cf. also OXYNOTUS).

CANARY-BIRD, a FINcH so-called from the islands whence it

was apparently first brought, the Mringilla canaria of Linneeus, and

CAMPEPHAGA. CrsBLepyris. (After Swainson.)

CANARY-BIRD 71

Serinus canarius of modern writers, which has long been the com-
monest of cage-birds throughout the world. It abounds not only in
the islands whence it has its name, but in the neighbouring groups
of the Madeiras and Azores. It seems to have been imported into
Europe very early in the sixteenth century. Turner in 1544
speaks of the birds “‘ quas Anglia aues canarias uocat” ; a statement
confirmed by the poet Gascoigne, who died in 1577, and speaks
(Complaint of Philomene, 1. 33) of “Canara byrds.” Gesner had
not seen one in 1555, but he gave an account of it (Ornithol.
p. 234), communicated to him by Raphael Seiler of Augsburg, under
the name of Suckerudgele. The wild stock is of an olive-green,
mottled with dark brown, above, and greenish-yellow beneath.
All the bright-hued examples we now see in captivity have been
induced by carefully breeding from any chance varieties that have
shewn themselves; and not only the colour, but the build and
stature of the bird have in this manner been greatly modified. The
change must have begun early, for Hernandez, who died in 1587,
described the bird (Hist. Anim. Nov. Hisp. cap. xxviii. p. 20) as
being wholly yellow (tota lutea) except the end of its wings.! Of
late the ingenuity of “the fancy,” which might seem to have
exhausted itself in the production of topknots, feathered feet, and
so forth, has brought about a still further change from the original
type. It has been found that by a particular treatment, in which
the mixing of large quantities of cayenne-pepper with the food
plays an important part, the ordinary “canary yellow” may be
intensified so as to verge upon a more or less brilliant flame colour.
Birds which have successfully undergone this forcing process, and are
hence called “ hot canaries,” command a very high price, for a large
proportion die under the discipline, though it is said that they
soon become exceedingly fond of the exciting condiment. But it is
impossible here to treat of this species in its domesticated state.
A small library of books has been written on the subject.”

Very nearly resembling the Canary-bird, but smaller in size, is
the SERIN, Serinus hortulanus, a species which not long since was
very local in Europe, and chiefly known to inhabit the countries
bordering on the Mediterranean. It has of late years pushed its
way towards the north, and has even been several times taken in
England (Yarrell’s Brit. Birds, ed. 4, ii. pp. 111-116). A closely
allied species, S. canonicus, is peculiar to Palestine.

In many different parts of the world the word “Canary” is

1 This book was not published till 1631, and of course there is a possibility of
the passage being an interpolation, but I know no reason to suspect it.

2 Those most to be commended are perhaps The Canary Book by Robert L.
Wallace, Canaries and Cage Birds by W. A. Blackston, and of course Darwin’s
Animals and Plants under Domestication (i. p. 295). An excellent monograph
of the wild bird is that by Dr. Carl Bolle (Journ. fiir Orn. 1858, pp. 125-151).

72 CANVAS-BACK—CAPERCALLY

applied to almost any small bird that is yellow, and not unfrequently
to some that are not. Thus in the Antilles the name is given to
certain species of Dendrwca (WARBLER), in the Cape Colony to
Serinus canicollis, the “Cape Canary,” and some of the Ploceidx
(WEAVER-BIRD),! in New Zealand to the Clitonyx ochrocephala, while
in some districts of Australia the BUDJERIGAR is known as the
“ Canary-Parrot.”

CANVAS-BACK, generally with the addition of “Duck,” the
Anas vallisneria of Wilson, Fuligula or Althyia vallisneriana of
modern ornithology, the North-American bird so famous for its -
delicate flavour—nearly allied to the POCHARD.

CAPERCALLY or CAPERCAILLIE, a word commonly
derived from the Gaelic Capull, a horse (or, more properly, a mare),
and Coille, the genitive of coll, a wood; but with greater likelihood,
according to the opinion with which I was favoured by Dr.
M‘Lauchlan, from Cabher, an old man (and, by metaphor, an old
bird), and Coille—the name of the largest species of Tetraonidx
(GRousE), Zetrao urogallus, which was formerly indigenous to the
north of England, to Scotland, and to Ireland. The word is
frequently spelt otherwise, as Capercalze and Capercailzie (the z, a
letter unknown in Gaelic, being pronounced like y), and the English
name of Wood-Grouse or Cock-of-the-wood has been often applied
to the same bird. ‘The earliest notice of it as an inhabitant of
North Britain seems to be by Hector Boethius, whose works were
published in 1526, and it can then be traced through various
Scottish writers, though to them it was evidently but little
known, for about 200 years, or may be more.? However, Bishop
Lesly, in 1578, assigned a definite habitat to it:—‘In Rossia
quoque Louquhabria [Lochaber], atque, aliis montanis locis” (De
Origine Moribus et rebus gestis Scotorum. Rome: ed. 1675, p. 24).
Taylor, the water-poet, in his Visit to the Brea of Marr (Works,
London: 1630, p. 135) mentions, “ caperkellies” among the meats
provided for the guests of Lord Erskine in 1618; and The Black
Book of Taymouth tells (pp. 433, 434) of one that was sent in 1651
by the laird of Glenorchy to King Charles I], who, being then
at Perth, “accepted it weel as a raretie, for he had never seen
any of them.” Pennant, during his first tour in Scotland, found
that it was then (1769) still to be met with in Glen Moriston and
in the Chisholm’s country, whence he saw a cock-bird. We may
infer that it became extinct about that time, since Robert Gray
(Birds of the West of Scotland, p. 229) quotes the Rev. John Grant

1 A species of Laniarius, one of the SurikeEs, credited with preying upon
some of these little birds, is known as Canariebyter (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 164).

2 For particulars the reader is referred to Mr. Harvie-Brown’s careful volume
The Capercaillie in Scotland (Edinburgh : 1879).

CAPERCALLY 73

as writing in 1794 :—‘“ The last seen in Scotland was in the woods
of Strathglass about thirty-two years ago.”! Of its existence in
Ireland we have scarcely more details. If we may credit the
Pavones sylvestres of Giraldus Cambrensis with being of this species,
it was once abundant there, and Willughby (1678) was told that it
was known in that kingdom as the “ Cock-of-the-wood.” A few
other writers mention it by the same name, and Rutty, in 1772,
says (Nat. Hist. Dublin, i. p. 302) that ‘one was seen in the county
of Leitrim about the year 1710, but they have entirely disappeared
of late, by reason of the destruction of our woods.” Pennant also
states that about 1760 a few were to be found about Thomastown
in Tipperary, but no later evidence is forthcoming, and thus it
would seem that the species was exterminated at nearly the same
period both in Ireland and Scotland.

That the Cock-of-the-wood once inhabited England is a dis-
covery of recent date. It is stated in The Zoologist for 1879 (p. 468)
that its bones had been found among Roman remains at Settle
in Yorkshire, though the authority for their determination is not
given; but the present writer had the pleasure of receiving from
Mr. James Backhouse a considerable number of its bones, some of
them unmistakable, found by him in caves that he was investigating
in Teesdale, and of confirming the conclusion at which he had
already arrived. The remains were those of both sexes, and were
sufficiently numerous to shew that the species had been common in
the neighbourhood, and had contributed not a little to the food of
the people who in a prehistoric age used the caves as dwellings.

When the practice of planting was introduced, the restoration
of this fine bird to both countries was attempted. In Ireland the
trial, of which some particulars are given by Thompson (B. Ireland,
ii. p. 32), was made at Glengariff, but it seems to have utterly
failed, whereas in Scotland, where it was begun in earnest at Tay-
mouth in 1838, it finally succeeded, and the species is now not
_ only firmly established, but has vastly increased in numbers and
range. Lloyd, the well-known author of several excellent works
on the wild sports and natural history of Scandinavia, supplied the
stock from Sweden, but it must be always borne in mind that the
original British race was wholly extinct, and no recent remains of
it are known to exist in any museum.

This species is widely, though intermittently, distributed on the
continent of Europe, from Lapland to the northern parts of Spain,
Italy, and Greece, but is always restricted to pine-forests, which

1 Yet Stephens in his continuation of Shaw’s General Zoology (ix. p. 268),
writing in 1819, says that Montagu was present “when one was killed near the
upper end of Loch Lomond about thirty-five years since.” This would mean that
the species survived until about 1784, but the incident is not mentioned by
Montagu in his own work, and the assertion may be doubted.

74 CAPE-SHEEP—CARACARA

alone afford it food in winter. Its bones have been found in the
kitchen-middens of Denmark, proving that country to have once
been clothed with woods of that kind. More lately its remains
have been recognized from the caves of Aquitaine. Its eastern or
southern limits in Asia cannot be precisely given, but it certainly
inhabits the forests of a great part of Siberia. On the Stannovoi
Mountains, however, it is replaced by a distinct though nearly
allied species, the 7. wrogalloides of Dr. von Middendorff! which is
smaller with a slenderer bill but longer tail.

The Cock-of-the-wood is remarkable for his large size and
glossy-black plumage. He is polygamous, and in spring mounts to
the topmost bough of a tall tree, whence he challenges all comers
by extraordinary sounds and gestures; while the hens, which are
much smaller and mottled in colour, timidly abide below the result
of the frequent duels, patiently submitting themselves to the victor.
While this is going on it is the practice in many countries, though
generally in defiance of the law, for the so-called sportsman stealthily
to draw nigh, and with well-aimed rifle to murder the principal
performer in the scene. The hen makes an artless nest on the
ground, and lays therein from seven to nine or even more eggs.
The young are able to fly soon after they are hatched, and towards
the end of summer and beginning of autumn, from feeding on the
fruit and leaves of the bilberries and other similar plants, which
form the undercovert of the forests, get into excellent condition
and become good eating. With the first heavy falls of snow they
betake themselves to the trees, and then, feeding on the pine-leaves,
their flesh speedily acquires so strong a flavour of turpentine as to
be distasteful to most palates. The usual method of pursuing this
species on the Continent is by encouraging a trained dog to range
the forest and spring the birds, which then perch on the trees ;
while he is baying at the foot their attention is so much attracted
by him that they permit the near approach of his master, who thus
obtains a more or less easy shot. A considerable number, however,
are also snared. Hybrids are very frequently produced between
the Capercally and the Black Grousg, 7. éetriz, and the offspring
has been described by some authors under the name of 7. medius, as
though a distinct species.

CAPE-SHEEP, a name absurdly given by sailors to the
ALBATROS (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 363).

CARACARA, a South-American bird, so called by the natives
of Brazil, first described and figured by Marcgrave (Hist. Nat.
Brazil, p. 211). In 1782 it became the Falco tharus of Molina
(Sagg. Stor. Nat. Chili, p. 264), and is the Polyborus tharus of

1 Not to be confounded with the bird so named previously by Nilsson, which
is an hybrid.

CARACARA 75

modern ornithology,—the representative of a small group of birds,
which from their Falconine structure and Vulturine habit, to say
nothing of certain peculiarities, might be not unfitly regarded as
forming a distinct Family. Three genera, Jbycter which is arboreal,
Milvago which is not, and Polyborus proper are usually admitted ;
but Mr. Sharpe (Cat. 5. Br. Mus. i. p. 34) unites the first two,
though as the figures here given shew, their bills are very differ-
ently formed, while he places as of equal rank in the same sub-

Mitvaco. wtf IBYCTER.
(After Swainson.)

family Cariama (SERIEMA) and Serpentarius (SECRETARY-BIRD).
Mr. Ridgway in a careful monograph of the group (bull. Geol.
Geogr. Surv. Territ. No. 6, pp. 451-473, pls. 22-26) regards a fourth
genus, Phalcobenus, as necessary, and Gurney (List. Diwrn. B. of
Prey, pp. 11-14) would have six genera. These birds, with some
others, are the “Carrion-hawks” so frequently mentioned in
Darwin’s Voyage; but the fullest description of the habits of those
frequenting the southern part of South America is by Mr. W. H.
Hudson (Argent. Ornithology, ii. pp. 74-88) under the names of
“Chimango” and ‘“Carancho”—the former belonging to Milvago
and the latter being the species which more to the northward is
called ‘“Caracara,” namely Polyborus tharus. Still further north-
ward, extending throughout Guiana and thence to Ecuador, as
well as to Central America, California, and the Gulf States of
North America, besides Cuba, a form is found now recognized by
many as a distinct species under the name of P. cheriway or P.
auduboni—the last being applied especially to examples from the
northern side of the Gulf of Mexico; while the Guadelupe Islands
on the coast of Lower California possess what is deemed by Mr.
Ridgway (ut supra) to be a third species, P. Jutosus. All the
members of this group are said to walk or run on the ground—
a peculiarity not possessed in perfection by any of the other
Falconine birds with which they are generally associated. It is
worthy of remark that, according to Mr. Hudson (wf supra), since
the introduction of large herds of cattle to the plains of South
America the abundance of food supplied by their carcases has
produced a great increase in the numbers of these birds.

76 CARDINAL—CAROTIDS

CARDINAL, the name given in different parts of the world to
various birds from their scarlet plumage, but perhaps originally
to the North-American Lozia cardinalis of Linneus, the Cardinalis
virginianus of modern authors, a beautiful and favourite cage-bird,
which, according to Parker, is one of the Hmberizidx (BUNTING).
It is also known as the “ Virginian Nightingale” and “Red Bird.”
In the United States it does not usually occur to the northward of
lat. 40°; but it is common in and one of the most characteristic
birds of Bermuda. Other birds on which the name “Cardinal ”
has been bestowed belong to the Fincuxs, TANAGERS, and WEAVER-
BIRDS.

CARIAMA, see SERIEMA.

CARINATAL, that division of the Class AVES possessing a
“keel” (carina) to the sternum, and accordingly so named by
Merrem in 1812 (Abhandl. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin, 1812-13,
Physik. Kl. p. 238); but generally overlooked by systematists until
prominently brought forward by Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soe.
1867, p. 418) as one of the three “Orders” recognized by him,
and in the present work regarded as forming a Subclass (see
INTRODUCTION). It may here be observed, however, that among
the Carinatz are to be included a few forms such as Cnemiornis
(CEREOPSIS), Didus (Dopo), and Strigops (KAKAPO), in which the
keel of the sternum is nearly or wholly wanting, presumably
through disuse of their volant powers.

CAROTIDS (from xapaéris) are the principal arteries which,
arising from the brachiocephalic arteries, ascend the neck and supply
the head. They exhibit several modifications which have been
investigated chiefly by Nitzsch and by Garrod; but their taxo-
nomic value is limited. ‘They shew the following seven arrange-
ments :—

1. The right and the left carotids converge towards the middle
line and run side by side (or the left covering the right) in a furrow
along the ventral surface of the cervical vertebre. This is
their normal and original condition, and is found in the majority of
Birds.

2. The two carotids fuse into one, for the greater length of the
neck ; this “carotis conjuncta” is generally imbedded in a special
median osseous canal formed by the vertebra; the right and left
root or basal portions are both functional, although one of them
is sometimes weaker, as in Herodii, Phcenicopterus, and some Old-
World Parrots.

3. There is one carotis conjuncta, but the right root, i.e. the
basal portion of the original right carotis, has been obliterated. The
artery is a so-called “carotis primaria sinistra.” Such ‘“ Aves levo-
carolidine ” (Garrod) are very frequent, e.g. Rhea and Apteryx among

CAROTIDS—CARPUS 77

the Ratitz, Podicipes, several Steganopodes, Alca, Otis, Turnix,
Megapodiide, some Old-World Psittaci, Merops, Buceros, Upupa,
Trogonidz, Cypselide, Colius, all the Pici and Passeres.

4, One carotis conjuncta, but the right root alone is present,
the left being obliterated. ‘“ This carotis primaria dextra ” is likewise
deeply lodged, as in the 2nd and 3rd cases, and has hitherto been
observed only in Eupodotis.

In the following three cases, one or two collateral and super-
ficially-placed arteries take the place of one or both deep carotids.

5. A carotis primaria s. profunda dextra coexists with a carotis
superficialis s. collateralis sinistra. All the American and a few
Old-World Parrots are such “ Aves bicarotidine abnormales” (Garrod).

6. Two superficial carotids, a right and left, are present, the
deep or primary vessels being entirely obliterated. Hitherto only

c.p.d. C.p.S. C.p.S.

c.p. d. €.S.S.

DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF SOME OF THE VARIATIONS OF THE CAROTID ARTERIES.
Ao. Aorta; su.d. A. subclavia dextra ; su.s. A. subclavia sinistra; ¢.p.d. A. carotis profunda
dextra; c.p.s. A. carotis profunda sinistra; c.p.c. A. carotis profunda conjuncta; c.s.s. A.
carotis superficialis sinistra.
A, normal condition, two separate deep carotids; B. the two deep carotids fused into one,
e.g. Ardea; C. the same as B, but the root of the left carotid is reduced, e.g. Phoenicopterus ;
D, the left deep carotid is lost, but supplanted by a superficial vessel, e.g. certain Psittaci.

observed by Ottley (P.Z.S. 1879, p. eo as an individual varia-
tion x Bucorvus abyssinicus.

The only carotis is a c. superficialis sinistra, all the other
ones being lost, observed by Forbes in Orthonyx spinicauda (not
in O. ochrocephala), this being the only exceptional case of all the
Passeres hitherto examined.

It is clear that the 2nd case is directly referable to the Ist, that
the 3rd and 4th are each independently developed from the 2nd,
and that the 5th, 6th, and 7th cases are recent and very qualified
modifications. The undoubtedly independent acquisition of these
carotid characters renders them valueless for taxonomic purposes,
except within smaller and well-defined groups, ¢.g. the Parrots (see
also VASCULAR SYSTEM).

CARPUS (adj. carpal), xapros ; the wrist or articulating region
between the forearm, or ulna and radius, and the hand. In adult

(assawarway : (oryat,
frudities Pref. Verses,

bl (WE. Dict. i. p-
tnd thn -- > -

$2),

78 CARR-CROW—CASSOWARY

birds there are only two separate carpal bones, one radial, on the
convex or anterior bend of the wrist, and one ulnar, on the posterior
or inner angle. Originally the carpus is composed, as in Reptiles
and Mammals,-of a greater number of bones, which are also
present in the embryos of Birds, but most of them fuse either
with each other or with the adjoining metacarpal bones (see
SKELETON).

CARR-CROW or CARR-SWALLOW, the name used in
Lincolnshire and perhaps other parts of England for the Black
TERN in the days when it inhabited this country. The former
was written by Willughby—on the authority of his correspondent
Johnson—“ Scare-crow.”

CARR-GOOSE, ‘an old name for the
Great Crested GREBE (Podicipes cristatus).

CASHEW or CUSHEW-BIRD, so
called, according to Edwards (Gleanings, 11.
p- 181, pl. 295), from the likeness of the
blue knob on its forehead to the cushew
or cashew-nut, which is an appendage to
the fruit of Anacardium occidentale, Linn.
The bird is the Pauais galeata of modern
ornithology, one of the CURASSOWS.

CASSOWARY, a corrupted form of the Malayan Suwwari
(Crawtfurd, Gramm. and Dict. Malay Language, ii. pp. 178 and 25),
apparently first printed as,Casoaris by Bontius in.1658 (Hist. nat.
et med, Ind. Orient. p. 71).

"The Cassowaries (Casuariide) and Emeus (Dromxidx)—as the
latter name is now used—have much structural resemblance, and
form the Order Megistunes,! which is peculiar to the Australian
Region. Prof. Huxley has shewn (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 422,
423) that they agree in differing from the other Ratir# in many
important characters, into the details of which it is now impossible
to enter ; but one of the most obvious of them is that each contour-
feather appears to be double, its hyporhachis, or AFTERSHAFT, being
as long as the main shaft—a feature noticed in the case of either
form so soon as examples were brought to Europe. The external
distinctions of the two families are, however, equally plain. The
Cassowaries, when adult, bear a horny helmet on their head, they
have some part of the neck bare, generally more or less ornamented
with caruncles, and the claw of the inner toe is remarkably
elongated. The Emeus have no helmet, their head is feathered,
their neck has no caruncles, and their inner toes bear a claw of
no singular character.

CASHEW-BIRD,
(After Swainson.)

1 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xx. p. 500.

CASSOWARY 79

The type of the Casuariidy is the species named by Linnzeus
Struthio casuarius and by Latham Casuarius emeu. Vieillot sub-
sequently called it C. galeatus, and his epithet has been very
commonly adopted by writers, to the exclusion of the older specific
appellation. It seems to be peculiar to the island of Ceram, and
was made known to naturalists, as we learn from Clusius, in 1597

a

4
y

1)

CrramM Cassowary.1

by the first Dutch expedition to the East Indies, when an example
was brought from Banda, whither it had doubtless been conveyed
from its native island. It was said to have been called by the
inhabitants “Emeu,” or “Ema,” but this name they must have had
from the earlier Portuguese navigators.” Since that time examples

1 The figure is taken, by permission, from Messrs. Mosenthal and Harting’s
Ostriches and Ostrich Farming (London: 1877).

2 It is known that the Portuguese preceded the Dutch in their voyages to
the East, and it is almost certain that the latter were assisted by pilots of the

80 CA T-BIRD—CECOMORPH&

have been continually imported into Europe, so that it has become
one of the best-known members of the subclass Ratite, and a
description of it seems hardly necessary. For a long time its
glossy, but coarse and hair-like, black plumage, its lofty helmet,
the gaudily-coloured caruncles of its neck, and the four or five
barbless quills which represent its wing-feathers, made it appear
unique among birds. But in 1857 Dr. George Bennett certified
the existence of a second and perfectly distinct species of
Cassowary, an inhabitant of New Britain, where it was known to
the natives as the Mooruk, and in his honour it was named by
Gould (. bennett. Several examples were soon after received in
this country, and these confirmed the view of it already taken.
Nine good species, with the possibility of a tenth, are recognized
by Prof. Salvadori in his great work, Ornithologia della Papuasia e
delle Molucche (iii. pp. 473-503), the heads of all of them having
been previously figured by him in an excellent monograph of the
genus (Mem. Accad. Sc. Torino, 1882), from various localities in the
same Subregion. Conspicuous among them from its large size and
lofty helmet is the C. australis, from the northern parts of Queens-
land. Its existence indeed had been ascertained, by the late Mr.
T.S. Wall, in 1854, but the specimen obtained by that unfortunate
explorer was lost, and it was not until 1866 that an example was
submitted to competent naturalists (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 241).

Not much seems to be known of the habits of any of the
Cassowaries in a state of nature; but Prof. Salvadori (ué supri)
has collected, with his usual assiduity, almost everything that can
be said on the subject. Though the old species occurs rather
plentifully over the whole of the interior of Ceram, Mr. Wallace
was unable to obtain or even to see an example. They all appear
to bear captivity well, and the hens in confinement frequently lay
their dark green and rough-shelled eggs, which, according to the
custom of the Latitx, are incubated by the cocks. The nestling
plumage is mottled (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, pl. xlii.), and when
about half-grown they are clothed in dishevelled feathers of a deep
tawny colour.

CAT-BIRD in North America is the name of a common and fami-
liar summer-visitant, Mimus carolinensis, one of the MocKING-BIRDS,
which in addition to the mewing and harsh cry for which it is
notorious, is also a remarkably good songster; in Australia the
birds of the genus Ailuredus (BOWER-BIRD), and especially A. crassi-
rostris, or smithi of some authors, are so called for the same reason.

CECOMORPH 4, the third group of Prof. Huxley’s Suborder
ScuiIzoGNATHA (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 457, 458), composed of

former nation, whose names for places and various natural objects would be
imparted to their employers (see ALBATROS, Boosy, and Dopo),

CEDAR-BIRD—CEREOPSTS 81

the Families Laridx (GULL), Procellariide (PETREL), Colymbida
(Diver), and Alcidx (AUK).

CEDAR-BIRD, a name given in North America to a delicately-
coloured and rather common bird Ampelis cedrorum, or carolinensis of
some authors, for a long while confounded with its larger congener
A. garrulus (WAXWING), which it much resembles in appearance
and characters—-among them the dilatation at the tip of the
secondary wing-quills looking like red sealing-wax ; but it is much
smaller and plainer in plumage.

CELEOMORPH 4, Prof. Huxley’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867,
p- 467) for the group containing the Picidx (\WWOODPECKER) and
Tyngidez (WRYNECK), to which he found it difficult to assign a
place. Parker subsequently (Zrans. R. Microsc. Soc. 1872, p. 219)
raised them to a higher rank as SAUROGNATH2.

CERE or CEROMA (from cera, wax), the soft, generally some-
what swollen skin which covers the base of the upper -bill, especially
well defined in Parrots and Diurnal Birds-of-Prey (see BILL).

CEREOPSIS, a genus founded by Latham in 1801 (Suppl. Ind.
Orn. p. lxvii.) on a single specimen of a bird received from Aus-
~ tralia apparently in poor condition, and placed by him in the Order
GRALLZ. <A truer view of its position
was, however, taken by those who had
observed it in its own country, where it
became known as the ‘“Cape- Barren
Goose” from its occurring at that spot.'
However abnormal in appearance this
bird may be with its short bill thickened
at the base, its rather long legs and
-semipalmated feet, and its grey plumage
spotted with black on the wing-coverts
and scapulars ; in its internal structure, as described by Yarrell (Proc.
. Zool. Soc. 1831, pp. 25, 26), it does not differ in the least important
character from other Geese, and in its habits, whether at large or in
confinement, is a thorough Goosr. It has been introduced into
England for more than 60 years, examples having been transferred
from Windsor, where it had bred freely in the menagerie of King

CEereEorsis. (After Swainson.)

1 According to Sonnini, who calls it ‘‘ Le Cygne cendré” (N. Dict. @hist. nat.
vii. p. 68), it was first noticed by Labillardiére in Espérance Bay on the south
coast of New Holland, during the search by D’Entrecasteaux for La Perouse in
1792. Collins in 1802 (New South Wales, ii. p. 94) ascribes its discovery by the
English settlers to one of the company of the ‘Sydney Cove,’ who took it for a
Swan ; and Flinders, who was there in February 1798, accordingly named from it
two islands on the north coast of Van Dieman’s Land. Bass gave the first intel-
ligible description, stating that it ‘‘was either a Brent or a Barnacle Goose or
between the two.”

6

82 CHACHALACA—CHAFFINCH

George IV, to the Gardens of the Zoological Society at its founda-
tion. Indeed, it is not at all improbable that there are more living
examples at this time in Europe than in Australia, where even
when Gould was there he found it to have been extirpated in places
where a few years before it had been abundant.

Additional interest is imparted to this by the discovery in New
Zealand of remains originally attributed by Sir R. Owen (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1865, p. 488) to the Dinornithine group (Moa) under the
name of Cnemiornis calcitrans, and subsequently fully described by
him (Trans. Zool. Soc. v. pp. 395-404, pls. Ixiii.-Ixvii.). The acquisi-
tion in 1872 of a further collection of bones of this extinct bird
enabled Sir James Hector to recognize in it a large Goose, probably
allied to Cereopsis and of similar habits, but in which the power of
flight had become obsolete, and as such he described it before the
Wellington Philosophical Society, 18th August 1873 (Trans. N. Zeal.
Inst. vi. pp. 76-84, pls. x.-xiv.A), communicating his results also to
the Zoological Society of London, in whose Proceedings for the same
year they will be found (pp. 763-771, pls. Ixv.-lxviii.), as well as to
Sir R. Owen, who lost no time in preparing an additional memoir
on the subject, subsequently published in that Society’s Transactions
(ix. pp. 253-272, pls. xxxv.-xxxix.), and acquiescing in Sir James’s
determination of the position and relations of this remarkable
form. A good many more of its bones have since been obtained,
and no doubt can exist on the subject, though the precise epoch at
which it became extinct cannot be regarded as settled.

CHACHALACA or CHIACALACCA, so called in Texas from its
ery (Coues, Key N. Am. B. p. 573), Ortalis maccalli (see GUAN).

CHAFFINCH, a well-known bird, the Fringilla celebs} of orni-
thology, which may be regarded as the type-form of the Fringillide
(FincH). This handsome and sprightly species, which is so
common throughout the whole of Europe, requires no description.
Conspicuous by his variegated plumage, his peculiar call-note 7, and
his glad song, the cock is almost everywhere a favourite.. In
Algeria our Chaffinch is replaced by a closely-allied species, F.
spodogenia, while in the Atlantic Islands it is represented by two
others, F. tintillon and F. teydea—all of which, while possessing

1 This fanciful trivial name was given by Linneus on the supposition (which
later observations do not entirely confirm) that in Sweden the hens of the species
migrated southward in autumn, leaving the cocks to lead a celibate life till
spring. It is certain, however, that in some localities the sexes live apart during
the winter.

2 This call-note, which to many ears sounds like ‘‘ pink” or ‘‘ spink,” not
only gives the bird a name in many parts of Britain, but is also obviously the
origin of the German Fink and our Finch. The similar Celtic form Pine is said
to have given rise to the Low Latin Pincio, and thence come the Italian Pincione,
the Spanish Pinzon, and the French Pinson.

CHAM A4:A—CHANNEL-BILL 83

the general appearance of the European bird, are clothed in soberer
tints. Another species of true Fringilla is the BRAMBLE-FINCH.

CHAMAHA,! a genus instituted by Gambel (Proc. Ac. N. S.
Philad. 1847, p. 154) for a curious little bird from the coast-district
of California which he had previously described (op. cit. 1845, p.
265) as Parus fasciatus but found to require separation. In the
difficulty of assigning a position to this and a more recently dis-
covered congeneric form, (. henshawi, from the interior of the same
country, systematists have resorted to considering the genus as the
type and sole member of a distinct Family Chamzide, which, if its
validity be allowed, proves to be the only Family of Land-birds that
is peculiar to the Nearctic area. Thus it becomes a factor of some
importance in determining the question whether that area should
rank as a Zoogeographical or at least as an Ornithogeographical
Region. It is impossible here to give details of a matter which has
agitated the best ornithologists of North America, and reference
can only be made to Dr. Shufeldt’s paper “On the position of
Chamea in the System,” published in 1889 at Boston in Massa-
chusetts (Jowrn. Morphol. iii. pp. 475-502), wherein the evidence is
very carefully weighed, and the conclusion reached is to the effect
that it is more nearly related to the Colombian Cinnicerthia than to
any other, but the author abstains from declaring the value of
Chamexidz as a Family, though of the two, to one or other of which
it has generally been referred—namely the Paridz (TITMOUSE) and
Troglodytidz (WREN)—he sees most resemblance to the former. So
far as one can judge from the habits of the birds as described by
observers, they are more those of a Wren than of a Titmouse ;
while the blue eggs which it is said to lay removes it really from
the category of either. In the absence then of any very strong
reason for disputing what has been asserted by no mean authori-
ties, it would seem better for the present to let the Family
Chamexidz stand.

CHANNEL-BILL, Latham’s name in 1802, and since generally
used, for a bird described and figured by Phillips in 1789 (Voy.
Botany Bay, p. 165, pl.) as the “Psittaceous Hornbill,” and by
John White in 1790 (Journ. Voy. N. S. Wales, p. 142, pl.) as the
* Anomalous Hornbill,” which was apparently first obtained 16th
April? 1788, and therefore not long after the foundation of the
colony. Latham seeing the need of a new genus for it, made one,

1 This word not having been accepted as English has strictly no right to head
an article, but the only names applied to the birds to which it refers, ‘‘ Bush-
Tit” and ‘“‘Ground-Wren,” have not enough special meaning to justify their
insertion, while the form, as will be seen in the text, is important enough to
require particular notice.

2 But according to other accounts this species leaves New South Wales in
January, only returning in October to breed.

84 CHAPARRAL-COGK

Scythrops, and as S. nove-hollandiz it has been almost always recog-
nized ever since, though its systematic position has often been
disputed —its large and curiously grooved bill inducing some to
refer it to the bucerotide (HORNBILL), while its zygodactyl feet
caused others to place it among the Rhamphastide (Toucan). It is
now generally allowed to belong to the Cuculidex (Cuckow).

CHAPARRAL-COCK, so called from the chaparral or dwarf
forest which it frequents, the name commonly given by English-
speaking settlers in the south-western dis-
tricts of North America to a curious form
of Cuckow, Geococcyx, of which there
are two species. The first, described by
Hernandez (Hist. Anim. Nov. Hispan. p.
25, cap. lii.) under the. name of Hoitlal-
lotl, and then identified by Buffon with
the Paraka of Barrere (France Equinoz.
p. 140), was mistaken by Latham for
the Parraqua figured by Bajon in 1777
(Mém. pour Phist de Cayenne, i. p. 374, pl.
i.), and became the Phasianus mexicanus
of Gmelin. This, being the southern
form, is presumably that which is
usually called G. affinis. The second, a
larger bird, inhabits New Mexico and the
adjacent part of the United States of
America, and, under the name of Sauro-
thera californiana, was described by
Lesson (Compl. Buffon, vi. p. 420) as one
of the most interesting discoveries of
modern times. The habits of both seem
to be very similar and very remarkable.
They have short wings, and seldom fly
unless suddenly surprised, but run with
great speed, bearing their long tail erect.
Like others of their Family in the New
World they build their own nests, though
clumsily, and lay therein from two to
four white eggs. When tamed, as these
CHAPARRAL-cock. (After Swainson.) birds often are, they become expert

mousers, but are so mischievous, says
Mr. Dresser (bis, 1865, p. 467), as hardly to be suffered in a
house. The name Paisano (countryman) by which this species is
known in some districts is said to be a corruption of Faisan
(Pheasant). “ Road-runner” is another name frequently given to
it. The osteology of the species has been minutely described by

CHARA DRIOMORPHA—CHATTERER 8

UL

Dr. Shufeldt (Journ. Anat. and Physiol. xx. pp. 246-266, pls. vii.-ix.,
and xxi. pp. 101, 102).

CHARADRIOMORPHAK, the first group of Prof. Huxley’s
Suborder Schizognathe (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 457), nearly cor-
responding with the Pressirostres and Longirostres of Cuvier, and the
Limicole or Scolopaces of Nitzsch—or in other words including
almost all the Scolopacide (SNIPE) and Charadriidx (PLOVER) of
other systematists.

CHAT, in England generally used with a prefix as STONECHAT,
WHINCHAT, but in the valley of the Thames
said of itself to signify the Sedge-WARBLER.
In North America it is applied to the two
forms of the genus Icteria (I. virens and ==
I. longicauda), which is generally referred to &
the Family Mniotiltidy, or American WAR-
BLERS, but may possibly not belong to them, = ¢ %= Mig
its stout bill being very unlike that possessed Pe Se
by the rest. Icrerra. (After Swainson.)

CHATTERER, a word that has been used by ornithologists in

a very wide sense, and wholly irrespective of its meaning. Gesner’s
name for the WAxwine, Garrulus Bohemicus (i.e. Bohemian Jay),
having been erroneously rendered by Ray, in his translation of
Willughby’s Ornithology (p. 133), “‘ Bohemian Chatterer” ; and that
bird being also the Ampelis of Aldrovandus, subsequent writers,
Pennant and Latham, used ‘“Chatterer” as the equivalent of
Ampelis, when Linneus had founded a genus with that name, quite
regardless of its inapplicability. This genus being very composite
in its character
was naturally
broken up, and
the name Ampelis
having been re-
tained by the more
accurate writers In
its original sense
for the Waxwing
i and its congeners,
Corinca. ity CA, the name Chatterer
ee a has been generally

conferred, for want of a better, on a group of birds, one of
the most beautiful of which Brisson had termed Cotinga. This
group, all the members of which inhabit the Neotropical Region,
is a very natural one, and has long been regarded as a separ-
ate Family, properly called Cotingidx, though it is closely alled
to the Pipridey (MANAKIN), and together they form the divi-

86 CHEEPER—CHENOMORPARA

sion HETEROMERI of the Mrsomyopr of Garrod and Forbes (see
InrROpUCTION). Mr. Sclater, who adds thereto Rupicola (CocK-oF-
THE-Rock) and an allied genus, which Garrod had put among his
HoMcoMERI, divides the Cotingidx into five subfamilies (Cat. B. Br.

AMPELION, PYRODERUS.
(After Swainson.)

Mus. xiv. pp. 326-405), Tityrine with 3 genera, Lipaugine with 4,
Attiline and Rupicoline each with 2, Cotingine with 11, and Gymno-
derine with 7 (see BELL-BIRD, partim, and UMBRELLA-BIRD). A
considerable number of these birds are remarkable for the extra-
ordinarily abnornal form of some of their wing- quills, and
occasionally of their wing-coverts—a feature in the former case
observable also among the Pipridx, and, where existing, generally
confined to the male sex. Many of them also are brilliantly
coloured, and at least one, Xipholena pompadora—known as the
Pompadour 1 Chatterer, is of a hue scarcely to be seen in any other
bird,

CHEEPER, the young of any kind of bird that cheeps or utters
a low plaintive note, especially used of game-birds, GROUSE,
PARTRIDGES, or PHEASANTS; but also a name of the Tit LARK,
though mostly with a prefix, as Moss-Cheeper or the like.

CHEER or CHIR, the Anglo-Indian name of Phasianus wallichi,
a fine but plainly-coloured PHEASANT, a native of the Western
Himalayas.

CHENOMORPHA,, the first group of Prof. Huxley’s Suborder
DESMOGNATHE (Proc. Zool. Soe. 1867, p. 460), composed of the
Anatidx of most authors—the Ducks and their allies, among which
he includes Palamedea (SCREAMER).

1 So named by Edwards (Gleanings, ii. p. 275, pl. 341) after the celebrated
Madame de Pompadour, to whom it and other birds were being sent, when the
ship that bore them from Cayenne fell a prize to a British cruiser.

CHEPSTER—CHOUGH 87

CHEPSTER, possibly a corruption of Shepster, a STARLING.
CHERRY-BIRD, a name of the CEDAR-BIRD.

CHERRY-PICKER, the Tasmanian name, according to Gould
(Handb. B. Austral, i. p. 565), of a species of Melithreptus (HONEY-
SUCKER.

CHERRY-SUCKER, a name absurdly given in some parts of
England to the Spotted FLycaTcHER.

CHICKADEE, a North American name for various species of
TirtmousE—no doubt from their call-note.

CHICKEN, abbreviated CHICK, the young of any bird, but
generally signifying that of the domestic Fowt.

CHIFFCHAFF, occasionally CHIPCHOP, Phylloscopus collybita,
or rufus of some authors, the smallest of the three native species of
the genus, which are often called collectively Willow- WRENS.
The name is doubtless an attempt to syllable the bird’s ordinary
cry (see SONG), and seems to be first found in Gilbert White’s
Observations (p. 77) published in 1795 after his death by Aiken,

CHOAN 4: (xodvn, a tube or funnel) are the internal openings
of the nasal cavities into the mouth, situated on the palate or roof
of the mouth, generally between the maxillo-palatine and pterygoid
bones.

CHOK, a name used in the Cape Colony for one of the EAGLzs,
Aquila rapaz (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 10).

CHOUGH, a bird much better known, generally with the prefix
“Cornish,” by name than by observation, the Pyrrhocorax or Fregilus
graculus of ornithology, one of the Corvidx (Crow), and formerly
a denizen of the precipitous cliffs of the south coast of England, of
Wales, of the west and north coast of Ireland, of the south of
Scotland, and some of the Hebrides, but now greatly reduced in
numbers, and only found in such places as are most free from the
intrusion of man or of the DAw, Corvus monedula, which last seems to
be gradually dispossessing it of its sea-girt strongholds, and its
present scarcity is probably in the main due to its persecution by
its kindred. In Britain, indeed, it would appear to be only one of
the survivors of a more ancient fauna, for in other countries where
it is found it has been driven inland, and inhabits the higher
mountains of Europe and North Africa. In the Himalayas a larger
form occurs, which has been specifically distinguished, P. hima-
layanus, but whether justifiably so may be doubted. The general
colour is a glossy black with steel-blue reflections, and it has the
bill and legs bright red.1_ Another species, P. alpinus, is altogether

1 Shakespear’s expression, ‘‘russet-pated choughs” (J/ids.-Night’s Dream, act
iii. sc. ii,) has much exercised his commentators. Some see in it that ‘‘ pated”

88 CHUCK-WILLD’S-WIDOW—CITRIL

a mountaineer, and does not affect a sea-shore life.. A single
example has occurred in England, and is figured in Mr. Aplin’s
Birds of Oxfordshire, but the possibility of its having escaped from
captivity is not to be overlooked, though the species has reached a
spot so distant from its home as Heligoland. ‘The Alpine Chough
is somewhat smaller than its congener, and is easily distinguished
by its shorter and bright yellow bill. Remains of both have been
found in French caverns, the deposits in which were formed during
the “Reindeer Age.” Commonly placed by systematists next to
Pyrrhocorax is the Australian genus Corcoraz, represented by a single
species, C. melanorhamphus, but osteologists must be further consulted
before this assignment of the bird, which is chiefly a frequenter of
woodlands, can be admitted without hesitation.

CHUCK-WILL’S-WIDOW, so syllabled in North America from
the bird’s cry. One of the Caprimulgidx (GOATSUCKER), Antrostomus
carolinus, much larger than but congeneric with the WH1p-PooR-
WILL, A. vociferus.

CHURN-OWL, one of the many names of the common NIGHT-
JAR of Europe.

CIRCULATION, or circulatory system, signifies motion of the
blood, which is pumped by the heart through the blood-vessels.
Birds, like Mammals, possess a complete double circulation, namely
(1) that of the body, from the left ventricle of the heart into the
aortic arch, thence through the arteries of the body, returning by
the veins into the right auricle, and (2) the pulmonary circulation,
from the right ventricle into and through the lungs, returning by
the pulmonary veins into the left auricle, and thence into the left
ventricle (see VASCULAR SYSTEM).

CITRIL, the name under which Ray and Willughby in 1663
became acquainted at Vienna with a Finch, and now occasionally
used for it in German, though it is more commonly known as
Citronenfink, the allusion in each case being to the colour of its
plumage, which some consider to be of a citron hue, but is mostly
of a yellowish-green. ‘The bird is the Venturon of the French, the
Chrysomitris citrinella of modern ornithology—a common species in
southern and parts of central Europe, but seldom occurring much
further northward than the Black Forest. It usually frequents
mountainous districts, keeping to the neighbourhood of fir-trees,
though chiefly feeding on the seeds of grasses and other lowly-
growing plants.

meant ‘‘patted” or footed (cf the heraldic croix patée), and that therefore it
refers to this bird with its red feet. Others maintain that ‘‘russet” did not
necessarily mean red, but was frequently used for grey, and accordingly that
the Daw with its grey head was intended.

CLAKIS—CLA WS 89

CLAKIS, a Scottish name for the BERNACLE.

CLAMATORES, the third Order of Birds according to the
arrangement of Andreas Wagner (Arch. fiir Naturgesch. 1841, ii. p.
93), in which he included all the PicaARL& of Nitzsch which were
not ZYGODACTYL or AMPHIBOLIC. Subsequently Prof. Cabanis
(op. cit. 1847, 1. pp. 209-256, and ii. pp. 336-345) gave in greater
detail the Families, subfamilies, and genera which he believed the
“Order” should comprise, and his are the views which have been
_ adopted by most of the systematic writers who have recognized it.

CLAVICLES (Lat. clavicula, the collar-bone). Each clavicle
articulates by its dorsal end with a process on the median side of
the dorsal end of the coracoid, or with the scapula, or with both ;
the ventral ends of the two clavicles generally fuse with each other,
forming the FURCULA, and approach the anterior end of the crest
of the sternum. Between them the CGisopHAGUS and the TRACHEA
pass from the neck into the thoracic cavity (see SKELETON).

CLAWS or NAILS are the horny sheaths of the terminal
phalanges of the toes and fingers, generally curved, and often
sharply pointed. They are produced by a thickening of the Mal-
pighian layer, which forms the “ nailbed” out of which the corneous
cells grow. The toes of most birds are protected by claws or flat
nails, only in the Ostrich the outer toe has no nail, or hardly
any, but the often reduced hallux is frequently unprotected. The
inner side of the nail of the third toe is often serrated like a fine
comb, as in Cormorants, Herons (including Scopus), Ibis, Dromas,
Cursorius, Glareola, also in many Nightjars ; in Podicipes the distal
margin of the third nail is serrated.

Nilsson, Meves, Stejneger, Collett, and Malmgren (cf. Dresser,
BL. Eur, vii. p. 189, pl. 485) have described the periodical shedding
of the claws in Lagopus, which grow to a considerable length during
winter, the seasonal extension dropping off in spring as do the
- horny fringes on the toes in the Black Grouse, Capercally, and allied
birds.

Claws on the tips of the fingers are much rarer. Archzopteryx
had a well-developed hooklike claw on each of its three fingers. In
recent birds such claws are restricted, when occurring at all, to
the pollex and index, being sometimes surprisingly well developed,
although hardly functional. They occur more or less regularly on
the first two fingers in Struthio and Rhea (occasionally as embry-
onic traces even on the third finger), also in Anseres and Birds-of-
Prey (e.g. Milvus and Cathartes). A pollex claw alone has been
found in various Anseres, in Gallus, Birds-of-Prey (especially well
developed in the Kestrel), and individually in the Whitethroat
and in the Blackbird.! An index claw alone occurs in Casuarius,

1 Such an example of the Whitethroat is in Mr. Seebohm’s collection, and

go CLA WS—CLOACA

Dromeus, and Apteryx. Probably many more birds will be found
in which such fingernails have remained dormant as latent germs
and have individually been revived; but the taxonomic value of
these ancestral vestigial structures is nil.

Spurs are claws and nails in a different sense. They are
generally conical, consisting of a horny sheath which surrounds a
bony core produced by the supporting bone. Hereto belong those
on the metatarsus of many Phasianide. Similar structures occur
on the bones of the wrist and hand, namely a long and sharp
spur with strong bony core on the radial side of the first and
one on the second metacarpal bone in Chauna derbiana; on the
first metacarpal in Parra and in Hydrophasianus ; and on the radial
carpal bone in Plectropterus. The large exostoses of the size of a
walnut on the wrist of the male Pezophaps were probably likewise
covered with a thickened horny layer, and were, like all these
structures, used as weapons. Young spurs can be easily grafted on
various parts of other animals.

CLOACA, the dilated terminal portion of the alimentary canal,
which opens through the vent, and besides the feces, discharges
the urine and the genital products. The whole cloaca of most birds
is divided by transverse folds into a vestibulum, a urino-genital
or middle, and a rectal or innermost chamber.

The urino-genital chamber or “ urodeeum” is small, and receives
in its dorso-lateral walls the ureters and the genital ducts, which are
protected by papillz. Above their orifices is a circular fold, most
prominent on the ventral side; below them, towards the vent, is
another well-marked circular fold, which, towards the ventral
aspect, passes into the coating of the copulatory organ, when
such is present. The space between this fold and the outer
anal opening, which is closed by a strong sphincter muscle, lodges
the copulatory organ, and on its dorsal wall leads through a wide
opening into the bursa Fabricii. This organ is peculiar to birds, is
most developed in the young of both sexes, and often becomes
more or less obliterated in the adult; its function is still unknown ;
it certainly is not a lymphatic gland, and the occurrence of sperma
in it is accidental.

The innermost chamber, or “ coprodzeum,” is situated above the
urodzeum, is mostly an oval dilatation of the rectum, and is of
considerable size in those birds whose feces are very fluid, as
Accipitres, Herodii, and Steganopodes. In Casuarius and Rhea
it passes gradually into the rectum above, but in many Carinatee,
as well as in Struthio, the upper end is marked by a strong circular
fold, and the inner surface of the walls is smooth and different from

one of the Blackbird, from Syria, was described by Bonaparte (Comptes rendus,
1856, xliii. p. 412) as a new species under the name of Merula dactyloptera.

CLOACA—COACHW=HIP-BIRD gI

that of the rectum proper. In Struthio this chamber is followed
by another, which is smaller and less defined, resembling in this
respect some Saurians.

It follows from the arrangement described above, that in Birds
the urine is not retained in the small urodeum,
but that, as in Saurians, it passes into the next
chamber above. Through this the feces pass ;
if they are very fluid, they collect in the then
very capacious space, together with the urine,
and transform the chamber into a physiological
cloaca. If the feces are more solid, as for
instance in Geese, they are retained in the
rectum proper, and simply pass through the
cloaca. In the Ostriches defecation and
micturition are mostly separate acts, especially
when the largely-developed and persistent bursa
Fabricii acts as a physiological bladder, A — Drscram or re
true urinary bladder, i.e. a ventral dilatation of — CX°*®* °F * BiBP.
the urodzum, is absent in Birds. tbl Cane -

The copulatory organ in the male, and the Urodeum; P.D. Procto-
corresponding part in the female, are developed d#um; 2. Rectum; u.

é ureter; v.d, vas de-
from the ventral wall of the vestibulum or ferens.
“»roctodeum.” It is present in two different
forms. In the Ratitz, except Rhea, it,consists of a right and left
united half, with a deep longitudinal furrow on the dorsal side, and
strongly resembles the same organ in Crocodiles and Tortoises ; it can
be protruded and retracted by special muscles which in the Ratite
are partly attached to the pelvic bones. In Rhea, and among the
Carinate in the Anseres only, the copulatory organ consists like-
wise of two halves with a longitudinal furrow, but is greatly special-
ized by being spirally twisted and being reversible like the finger
of a glove ; its muscles are derived solely from the sphincter muscle
of the vent. In other Carinate, for instance in the Tinamide,
Cracidx, in Platalea, Ciconia, and Phcenicopterus, the penis is much
smaller and simpler in structure, with all the appearance of a
degraded organ. In the majority of Birds, especially in the highest,
it has disappeared, and the primitive way of everting the cloaca is
resorted to during copulation (H. Gadow, Phil. Trans, 1887,
p. 32).

COACHWHIP-BIRD, so called in eastern Australia from its
loud full note, ending sharply like the crack of a whip, the Psophodes
crepitans of ornithologists, while a second form, P. nigrigularis takes
its place further westward. Beside this curious utterance it has a
low, inward, melodious song. It inhabits the thickest brushwood,
seldom exposing itself to view; but when seen is very animated in

g2 COALMOUSE—COCKATEEL

all its actions, raising its crest and spreading its tail. Originally
described by Latham as a FLYCATCHER, Muscicapa, Vigors and Hors-
field saw the need of founding a new genus for it, though they
admitted their ignorance of its position. Its short rounded wings
induced G. R. Gray to place it among his Crateropodine, and until its
internal structure has been examined there it must remain. If, how-
ever, the eggs be so curiously marked as they are described by Gould
(Handb. B. Austral. i. p. 314), it would seem unlikely to belong to
that group, and that ornithologist placed the genus next to Menura
(LYRE-BIRD)—-not that any affinity thereto follows in consequence.

COALMOUSE (sometimes wrongly spelt ‘“Colemouse ”), Germ.
Kohlmeise, the Coal-Tirmousk, Parus ater, or as some would have
it P. britannicus.

COB, Dutch Kaap and Kobbe, according to Montagu a name for
the Great Black-backed GULL, Larus marinus, but applied in the
present writer’s knowledge to almost any of the larger species of
Sea-Gull. Yarrell says (Br. B. ed. 1, iii. p. 130):—“In the
language of swanherds, the male Swan is called a Cob, the female
a Pen: these terms refer to the comparative size and grade of the
two sexes”; but corroboration of the first statement has been
sought in vain, while the second is hardly intelligible.

COBBLER’S-AWL, a fanciful name given to the AVOSET until its
extermination in the country ; and, according to Gould (Handb. B.
Austral. i. p. 551), now used by the colonists of Tasmania for the
Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris one of the Meliphagidx (HONEY-SUCKER),
known in eastern Australia as the SPINE-BILL. The shape of the
bill has in both cases suggested the name, but it is far less appro-
priate in the latter than in the former.

COCCYGOMORPHA, the seventh section of DESMOGNATHA
according to Prof. Huxley’s scheme (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 466,
467), comprehending 14 Families which are arranged in four groups,
viz. a, Coliid# (MOUSE-BIRD); b, Musophagidx (PLANTAIN-EATER and
Touraco), Cuculide (Cuckow), Bucconide (PUFF-BIRD), tham-
phastide (ToucAN), Capitonide (BARBET), Galbulide (JACAMAR) ;
c, <Alcedinide (KINGFISHER), Lucerotide (HORNBILL), Upupidx
(Hoovor), Meropide (BEE-EATER), Momotide (Mormot), Coraciide
(RoLLER): and d, Trogonide (TRoGoN)—all of which are in the
present work regarded as PICARILE.

COCKATEEL, a bird-fancier’s name lately invented by Mr.
Jamrach, and now in common use, being an English adaptation of
Kakatielje, which in its turn is supposed to be a Dutch sailor’s
rendering of a Portuguese word, Cacatilho or Cacatelho, meaning a
little CocKAToo, and applied to the Australian Cockatoo-Parrakeet,
Calopsitta nove-hollandix, a favourite cage-bird.

COCK A TOO—COCK-OF-THE-ROCK 93

COCKATOO, Malay Kakatiéa, a name used in England and,
with some modification of spelling, in other European countries for
more than 200 years, and undoubtedly taken from the cry of one or
other of the well-known birds so called, though it would be impossible
to say which of them. With the exception of one species which
inhabits the Philippine Islands, the Cockatoos are peculiar to the
Australian Region, and are especially abundant in that portion of
the Malay Archipelago which is included in it, but they do not go
farther eastward than the Solomon Islands. They seem to be a
very natural group of the Order Psittaci (PARROT), and some writers
would regard them as forming a Family Cacatuidx or Plictolophida,
while others consider the lower rank of a subfamily sufficient for
them. Six genera are pretty generally admitted, Cacatua, Callo-
cephalon, Calopsittacus (COCKATEEL), Calyptorhynchus, Licmetis, and
Microglossa—the first containing all the species ordinarily called
Cockatoos and kept in confinement, which are commonly white with
yellow, or pink crests. The second genus has only one species, an
iron-grey bird with a bright red head. The fourth contains the large
black species of Australia, with a long tail banded with scarlet,
yellow or cream-colour. ‘The fifth has a considerable resemblance
to the first, but the birds have a slender bill, while the sixth com-
prises the largest forms to be found in the Order, birds whose
wholly black plumage is relieved by their bare cheeks of bright red.
In striking contrast to these last some systematists would place
among the Cockatoos the smallest of the Parrot-tribe, members of
the genus Vasiterna, from New Guinea and the Solomon Islands,
but that as Dr. Murie has shewn (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 622),
really presents no sort of resemblance to them.

COCK-OF-THE-PLAINS, one of the American Tetraonidx
(GROUSE), Centrocercus wrophasianus.

COCK-OF-THE-ROCK, a “familiar name,” according to Swain-
son in 1837 (Classif. B. ui. p. 76), “long bestowed” on a bird from
the northern parts of South America; but his seems to be the first
rendering into English of the old French Coq-de-roche, or Coc-des-roches
as Barrere (/’r. Equinox. p. 132) has it. The flat-sided crest borne
by the bird was likened by the colonists to that of the Hoopor, and
accordingly he in 1745 (Ornithol. p. 46) placed it in the genus
Upupa, while Edwards a few years after figured its head
(Gleanings, pl. 264) as that of the “ Hoopoe Hen,” having received
it from Surinam under the name of Widdehop (Hoopoe), and thus
Linneus was originally induced to follow their example, though
finally he referred it to the genus Pipra (MANAKIN); but in the
meanwhile Brisson, who first gave a good description and figure of
it, made it in 1760 the representative of a new genus upicola. In
1769 Vosmaer again figured it, expressing his surprise that the

04 COCK-OF-THE-WOOD—COLIN

Dutch authors, who had described so many beautiful creatures from
their possessions in South America, had never mentioned this
remarkable bird. It has now for many years been recognized as
Rupicola crocea, the type of the genus, and is common enough in
museums, where its almost wholly orange-coloured plumage, as well
as its disk-like crest, render it conspicuous. It inhabits Guiana,
and the lower countries of the Amazons; but further to the west-
ward it is replaced by the more deeply-tinted F. peruviana, and a
third species, the blood-red £. sanguinolenta occupies still higher
elevations in Ecuador. The genus is now generally placed in the
Family Cotingide. (CHATTERER), though Garrod, on account of
certain differences in the formation of the crural arteries, which
seem to be of no great taxonomic value (see INTRODUCTION), had
eo penace it from them ; but it may well be regarded, as by Mr.
Sclater (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiv. p. 366) as form-
ing a distinct subfamily, Rupicoliny, the only
question being whether it is not as much
allied to the Pipridx. Next to Rupicola he
places Phenicocercus, containing two species,
P. carnifex from Guiana and the lower Amazons,
and P. nigricollis from the upper portion of the
same valley. Each of these genera exhibits a
curious modification of the primary quills,
which in both the Familes just named are

PHCENICOCERCUS. < ‘
(After Swainson.) subject to so much abnormality. In the males

of Phenicocercus the fourth quill is much
shortened, and terminates in a thickened horny process, while
in Rupicola the first quill is suddenly attenuated towards the tip.

COCK-OF-THE-WOOD, see CAPERCALLY.

CODDY-MODDY (etymology unknown), a local name of con-
siderable antiquity, and still in use for the Black-headed GULL
(Larus ridibundus).

COLDFINCH, a name for which no explanation can be offered,
unless it may have been intended for Coalfinch, but used so long
ago as Willughby’s time for the Pied FLYCATCHER.

COLIN, the Mexican word! which practically signifies QUAIL,
though the Quails of the New World have long been held to form
a group distinct from any of those of the Old. The name seems to
have been first printed in 1635 by Nieremberg (Hist. Nat. p. 232,
cap. Ixxii.); but he says he took it from Hernandez, whose work
was not published until 1651, where it duly occurs (Hist. Anim.
Nov. Hispan. p. 22, cap. xxxix.). Willughby (Ornithol. Lat. p. 304,

1 The French Colin, an old nick-name for a GULL, given in 1555 by Belon
(Ois. p. 167), has no connexion with the Mexican word.

COLOUR 95

Angl. p. 393) quoted from both, and thus the word came into
English use, even to finding its way into an Act of Parliament
(43 and 44 Vict. cap. 35). In the Mexican language it was variously
compounded, as Ococolin (Mountain-Partridge), Acolin (Water-Quail),
and Cacacolin (cf. Hernandez, op. cit. pp. 32, 42). These have not
all been determined ; but it is generally agreed that Colin alone
meant some species of the genus Ortya.

COLOUR, as perceived in the various parts of Birds, is produced
by pigment or by structure or by a combination of the two. Three
classes of colours can therefore be distinguished.

I. The so-called chemical or absorption colours are always due to
colouring matter, which may exist in the form of a solution dif-
fused in the coloured parts, or in the form of pigmented corpuscles,
distributed in and between the cells of the various organs. Such
colours do not vary or change under any position of the light or
eye; and even under transmitted light a red, yellow, brown, or
black feather will always appear the same. Black, red, and brown
always belong hereto, orange and yellow mostly, but rarely green,
and never blue.

The principal colour pigments are :—

Zoomelanin, the black animal colouring matter, distributed in
amorphous little corpuscles, insoluble in Water, Alcohol, Acids,
or Ether, but dissolved and destroyed when boiled in Caustic
Potash and then treated with Chlor; it consists of about 53°5%
of Carbon, 4°6 of Hydrogen, 8:2 of Nitrogen, and 33-7 of Oxygen.

Zoonerythrin, red, hitherto found in the red feathers of Cotinga,
Pheenicopterus, Ibis, Cacatua, Cardinalis, and others, and in the
“rose” round the eyes of the Tetraonide. It is soluble in Ether,
Alcohol, and Chloroform, but not in Acids or in Potash ; the variable
amount of fat or oil in the feathers of the Flamingo causes them
to be more or less intensely coloured.

Zooxanthin, yellow, can be extracted by boiling in absolute
Alcohol, and is a diffused pigment which tinges the shafts, rami,
and radii of the feathers, and is possibly the same in the yellow
feet and bills of Birds-of-Prey and Anseres. Like Zoonerythrin
it is a coloured fatty oil.

Turacin is a most peculiar pigment, discovered by Church in 1867
(Phil. Trans. 1869, pp. 627-636) in the red feathers of the Muso-
phagide, and seems to be restricted to these birds. It consists of the
same elements as Zoomelanin with the addition of from 5 to 8Z of
copper. It can easily be extracted by weak alkaline solutions, such as
Ammonia, and with the addition of Acetic Acid, it can be filtered off
as a metallic red or blue powder. The presence of metallic copper
is indicated by the green flame of the red feathers when burnt.
These birds lose the red colour when washed by the rain, but regain

96 COLOUR

it when dry. When bathing they colour the water red, and the
red feathers, when wet, are distinctly shot with blue.

Turacoverdin is the only instance of a green pigment, and is only
found in the Musophagide ; it contains comparatively much iron,
but no copper.

Brown is the result of a mixture of red and black colouring
matter.

White is never due to pigment ; in every white object its colour
is due to there being an innumerable number of interstices between
its molecules, or the air-cells in its substance. The whole substance
of a white feather, the “ceratine,” is colourless, but its texture forms
a fine network which diffracts and reflects the light.

The gloss of feathers, independent of the colour itself, is the
result of their horny surface being smooth and polished, when
rough they appear more or less dull.

II. Objective structural colowrs are those which are produced by
the combination of a certain pigment with a special structure of
the superimposed colourless parts. Hereto always belong violet
and blue, green almost always, and occasionally yellow. Such a
feather, when examined under transmitted light, ie. held against
the light, appears only in the colour of its pigment. For instance,
the deep blue or green feathers of a Parrot will then appear only
grey or yellowish. The same happens when their polished surface
is scratched or crushed, the blue colour instantly disappears, shew-
ing only the blackish underlying pigment, or yellow pigment in
ereen feathers. When thoroughly wetted in a bath, the feathers
of the back of an Amazon Parrot appear brown without a trace of
green.

Microscopical examination of such colours reveals the following
structures :—

Yellow. The radii and rami of many yellow feathers are in
reality without pigment, but their surface shews a number of
longitudinal ridges and furrows, as for instance in Ara, Rhamphas-
tus, Coereba, Icterus, Xanthomelas, and Picus. Some of the radii of
the yellow fluffy pectoral tufts of Arachnothera have a diameter of
0:007 mm.; their surface exhibits irregular ridges, separated by as
many furrows ; the width of one ridge is less than 0:0007 mm.,
and the distance from ridge to ridge about 0°002, so that the theory
of colours of a system of narrow gratings can well be applied to
explain these colours.

Orange is occasionally produced by red pigment with a yellow
superstructure.

Green, except in the case of the Musophagidz mentioned above,
is always due to yellow, orange, or greyish-brown pigment with a
special superstructure, which consists either of narrow longitudinal
ridges, as in Psittacula and in Pitta, or else, as in Chrysotis, Pitta,

COLOUR 97

and Megaloprepia, the surface of the rami and radii is smooth
and quite transparent, while between it and the pigment exists a
layer of small polygonal bodies, similar to those of blue feathers.

Glue has not yet been discovered as a pigment. Blue feathers
contain only orange or brownish pigment; the blue appears only
on the shafts of the rami and larger radii. The structure of blue
feathers seems to be always the same: (1) a transparent, colour-
less layer of ceratine, from 0°004 to 0:007 mm. in thickness; (2)
a layer of polygonal, more or less pyramidal, and often hexagonal
columnar cells, each of which is colourless itself, and its walls are
highly refractory and not unfrequently striated and ridged ;1 (3)
the horny narrow cells of the inside of the radius, with brown,
black, or orange pigment corpuscles.

The blue naked parts of the skin of Cassowaries contain yellow
or black pigment covered by peculiarly modified epidermal layers.

Til. Subjective structural, prismatic, or metallic colowrs.—These
colours change according to the position of the light and the eye
of the observer, and they always change in the order of those in the
rainbow. ‘They are restricted, as a rule, to the radii without cilia,
and moreover to those parts of the feathers which are not covered by
others. The metallic portions of the radii are composed of one row
of compartments, which often partly overlap each other like curved
tiles. In the inside black or blackish-brown pigment is collected ;
and each compartment is covered with a transparent colourless layer
of extreme thinness, eg. 0°0008 mm. in Sturnus. The surface of
this coat is either smooth and polished as in Nectarinia, or exhibits
very fine longitudinal wavy ridges when the feather is violet, or
numerous small dot-like irregularities as in Galbula. The coating
seems to act like a number of prisms, as indicated in the first
figure. All metallic feathers appear black when their surface is
parallel to the rays of the light in the same level with the eye and
the light. To the eye of the observer at A, in the lower part of
-the first figure, the metallic collar of Ptilorhis magnifica will
appear absolutely black; the eye at B will see it bright coppery
red, and at C rich green; the metallic feathers of the sides of the
breast in the same bird will change from black to green at B, and
to blue at C. The beautiful Pharomacrus mocinno changes from
greenish bronze through golden green, green, and indigo to violet.
Oreotrochilus chimborazo in position B exhibits the whole solar
spectrum, namely, violet and red on the head, followed by orange
and green on the back, blue, violet, and lastly purple on the

1 In Pitta moluccensis I calculated the following measurements: width of
one polygon 0°001 mm., height of same 0°015 mm., thickness of its transparent
coating about 0°0012; distance between two of the longitudinal ridges on the
surface of the polygon 0°0005, thickness of the transparent outer layer of the
radius about 0°005 mm.

7

98 COLOUR

long tail feathers. The red colours of the spectrum lie nearer
towards the position A, the blue colours towards C. The colours
always appear in the same order: no feathers are known, which

t

POSITIONS FOR OBSERVING THE COLOUR OF ‘‘ METALLIC” FEATHERS.
(From the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1882.

when looked at from B towards A, change from the red towards
the blue end of the spectrum. In case two or more of these spectra
(of which we imagine the horny coating to be composed) overlap each
other, only a limited number of colours are able to reach the eye
of the observer. Thus in the theoretical case figured red only will
be visible besides black.

A peculiar case is that of Artamia bicolor; the pure white feathers

Al
MK KKK
pAneee —
ane
ee
As

DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION THROUGH THE BARB OF A ‘‘ METALLIC” FEATHER.
(From the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1882.)

of the underparts have no metallic gloss, but nevertheless they seem

to be prismatic, because in position A the underparts appear bluish-

white, in B delicately pale blue, and in position C pale grey.
Deviation from the normal coloration is more or less patho-

COLOUR 99

logical, and can be conveniently expressed by the term Heterochrosis
(from the Greek érepos and ypécus, colouring). The following are
the chief cases :-—

Albinism, caused by the pathological absence of the black pig-
ment, and often locally produced by a lesion of the pulp of the
growing feather; extreme instances are white Ravens and Black-
birds.

Melanism, produced by the superabundance of black pigment,
mostly causing the feathers to assume a darker or more sooty colour.
Melanistic specimens have been described of many birds, such as
Bullfinch, Skylark, and in particular of the common Snipe, which
in this phase has by some been regarded as a distinct species,
Scolopax sabinii.

Xanthochroism, mostly in originally red or orange feathers; when
the feathers are yellow instead of green, this may possibly be a
reversional step or a case of arrested development because of the
absence of the green-making superstructure.

Erythrism, the abnormal occurrence of red, mostly confined to
originally yellow or orange feathers, occasionally produced by
abnormal food, like cayenne pepper, or directly by the colouring
matter of Rubia tinctoria, one of the madder-worts. <A certain
correlation between green and red is exhibited by the intensely
green adult males of Eclectus polychlorus, the females being bright
red and the young of both sexes being reddish, without any
indication of green in the young male.

In Brazil “ contrafeitos” of the various species of Chrysotis are
fashionable. These are produced by the rubbing in of the cutaneous
secretion of a Toad, Bufo tinctorius, into the budding feathers of
the head, which then turn out yellow instead of green.

Concerning the literature of Albinism and Melanism the reader
may consult Toppan, Bull. Ridgway Club, 1887, pp. 61-77, and
Deane, Bull. Nuttall Orn. Club, 1876, pp. 20-24; “Xanthochroism”
. in Parrots: Meyer, Sitzber. k. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin, 1882, pp.
517-524; and a general account by Pelzeln in Verhandl. zool.-bot.
Gesellsch. Wien, 1865, pp. 911-946. For further information con-
cerning colours see (Bronn’s) Klassen und Ordn. des Thier-Reichs,
Vogel, pp. 575-588, and P. Z. 8S. 1882, pp. 409-421, pls. 27, 28.

The distribution of colour in the feathers and the colour-pattern
of the plumage require some notice.

It is a hitherto unsettled question if the longitudinally striated
or the crossbarred feathers are the older style of coloration.
The general impression of the coloration of a bird is the sum
total of the coloration of all the uncovered parts of the feathers.
This sounds like a truism, but means that crossbarred feathers
can never give the general impression of a striated plumage and vice
versd. Kerschner believes (Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. 1886, p. 681) that

100 COLOUR

the distribution of colouring matter in transverse lines or bars is the
phylogenetically older method, because natural and sexual selection
cannot well have affected the hidden parts of the feathers. On
the other hand, the striated downy or first plumage of the Galline
and Ratitze has been already, by Darwin, taken to be a very old
stage. This appearance, however, as in Struthio, is not due to
striation of the single feathers, but to juxtaposition of colourless
and deeply pigmented downs. To judge from the growth of a
feather, the production of crossbars seems to be the older stage,
since they will result from the intermittent deposition of pigment,
while, on the other hand, the production of shaft-streaks is not yet
satisfactorily explained. At any rate, it must be borne in mind
that possibly various groups of birds have gone independently
through such stages, and that what is primitive or archaic in one
need not be so in all. But a strong proof of the soundness of
Darwin’s views is that we are able to trace the pattern of the most
beautifully-adorned feathers of the Argus-Pheasant or of the Peacock
step by step backwards to longitudinal stripes, spots, crossbars, and
lastly to insignificant and simple irregular little dots.

Natural and sexual selection, whether combining or striving
against each other, have worked marvels in plumage. Significant
colours, as for instance total blackness or whiteness, could be
developed only when higher intellectual qualities, bodily size and
strength, or occasionally even special smallness, guaranteed the
safety of the bird. The females and the young mostly retain a
more sombre garb, and thus remain on a phylogenetically lower
level. It takes the large Gulls several years to change from a
mottled brownish and grey appearance into the beautifully dark
and white colours. ‘The same applies to the white shoulders of
certain Eagles; and many other instances, too well known to be
repeated here, shew clearly how the changes of bygone ages of the
ancestors are recapitulated in the yearly moult of the growing
individual until with maturity its present stage of perfection is
reached—but only its present stage, because its descendants in turn
will be different, either still more beautiful or still better adapted
to the ever-changing conditions of life. ‘This consideration implies
that whole-coloured birds, like Swans and Ravens, have reached their
limit so far as coloration is concerned ; since both black and white
are very conspicuous and are correlated with a considerable amount
of intellectual development. The very early assumption of the
black plumage by the nestlings of Ravens and Crows is a strong
argument for their relatively highest position on the hypothetical
avine tree. Albinos are notoriously shy. The females of birds
which breed in holes, as Rollers, Kingfishers, and Parrots, are fre-
quently as beautifully coloured as the males, because they need
no protection through colour while sitting on the nest. In the

COL Y—CONDOR IOI

green Amazons beauty, intelligence, and safety by protection are
combined. ‘The often surprising adaptation of the coloration of the
plumage to the surroundings is well known. Frequently the con-
spicuously coloured parts are hidden when the bird is at rest, and
are only exposed or shewn—occasionally as “danger signals,” to
use Mr. Wallace’s excellent term—when the bird is on the wing.
It cannot be doubted that the sense of colour is highly developed
in birds, perhaps most so in the female when choosing a mate;
the result of this sexual selection being constantly regulated by
natural selection is exhibited most by the male, but enjoyed by both
sexes, and for the benefit of the whole race.

COLY, Pennant’s rendering of the French Coliou, adapted
by Brisson from Mohring’s Colius ; which, according to Cuvier, is
the Greek xoAovds (see MOUSE-BIRD).

CONDOR, the Spanish way of writing the Peruvian Cuntur, the
Vultur gryphus of Linneus and Sarcorhamphus gryphus of recent
authors, one of the largest of volant birds. The accounts given by
early travellers of its size and ferocity were so obviously exagger-
ated that the cautious Ray would not admit it into Willughby’s
Ornithology, and only included it in his own Synopsis Avium (p. 11)
after proof that such a bird existed had reached him in the shape
of one of its wing-quills brought by Capt. Strong to Sir Hans
Sloane from the coast of Chili. Nearly a century passed before
European ornithologists saw a complete specimen. This was a
female which Capt. Middleton brought from the Strait of
Magellan and deposited in the Leverian Museum, where it was
figured in 1791 by Shaw (Mus. Lev. No. 1, p. 4, pl.) Shortly
after, a second specimen, this time an adult male, found its way
from the same quarter to the same Museum, and was also figured
in 1793 by the same author (op. cit. No. 6, p. 4, pl.)! But the
species was little known on the continent, until in 1806 when
Humboldt communicated his classical Mémoire on the bird to the
French Institute, and as he was certainly the first scientific man
who had made its personal acquaintance in life,” his account of it
deserves the attention with which it has met, and the voracity,
stupidity, and tenacity of life of this huge Vulture have through
him been long known to the world. Its habits have perhaps been
since more fully described by Darwin in his Journal, though that
account of them seems to have been unknown to the latest writer
on the subject, Taczanowski (Ornithol. Pérou, i. pp. 75-80), who
quotes only from D’Orbigny and Stolzmann. Yet a good many

1 Both these specimens passed into the Museum of Vienna, where they are
now preserved (Von Pelzeln, Jbis, 1873, p. 16).

2 As Broderip well remarks Molina can hardly have seen the bird, which he,
like Buffon, took to be the same as the LAMMERGEYER.

102 CONTROSTRES—COOT

years passed before examples became at all common in museums,
and Temminck writing in 1823 (lee. d’Ois. livr. 23) was only able to
refer to a single one at Paris, beside the two originally received in
England. Seven years afterwards he figured a male which was
alive at Paris, and says there was another in Holland. But at or
about the same time the species was exhibited in London (Bennett,
Gard. and Menag. Zool. Soc. ii. p. 8), where it has even bred, though
the only young bird that, after an incubation lasting from 7th May
to 30th June 1846, or 54 days, was hatched lved but six weeks
(Broderip, Leaves from the Note-Book of a Naturalist, pp. 14-16).
The male Condor is remarkable among birds
for the large caruncle which crowns his head,
like an exaggerated cock’s comb, and falling
down on the culmen of the beak often leaves an
open space in front of the base. This and his
Sere bare head and neck of a dull reddish colour,
(After Swainson.) B ° Ab f
wrinkled into many folds, give him a very pecu-
liar expression, and the hard dry appearance of the latter contrasts
with the ruff of white down that separates it from the glossy black of
the rest of the plumage, except the edges of the wing-coverts and the
secondary wing-quills which are white. ‘The range of the Condor
extends from near the mouth of the Rio Negro on the east coast of
Patagonia, through the Strait of Magellan and along the Cordilleras
of the Andes to about lat. 8° N. It is possible that some of the
older Spanish accounts usually taken to refer to the Condor were
based upon the equally-large Vulture of North America, Cathartes
or Pseudogryphus californianus, a species which seems to be rapidly
becoming extinct.

CONIROSTRES, the fourth Family of PAsseres in Duméril’s
arrangement (Zoologie analytique, p. 43), containnmg STARLINGS,
FINCHES, and several other groups; but, though admitted by him
to be a wholly artificial assemblage, it is one that has been for a
long while recognized by systematic writers.

COOT, a well-known British water-fowl, the Fulica atra of
Linneus, belonging to the Family Rallidx (RAL). The word Coot,
in some parts of England pronounced Cute, or Scute, is of uncertain
origin, but perhaps cognate with Scour and ScoreR—both names of
aquatic birds—a possibility which seems to be more likely since the
name Macreuse, by which the Coot is known in the south of France,
being in the north of that. country applied to the Scoter (Hdemia
nigra) shews that, though belonging to very different Families, there
is In popular estimation some connexion between the birds.t The

1 It is owing to this interchange of their names that Yarrell in his British
Birds yefers a description, assigned to Victor Hugo (who, I have the best

COOL 103

Latin Fulica (in polite French, Foulque) is probably allied to fuligo,
and has reference to the bird’s dark colour. The Coot breeds
abundantly in many of the larger inland waters of the northern
parts of the Old World, in winter commonly resorting, and often
in great numbers, to the mouth of rivers or shallow bays of the
sea, where it becomes a general object of pursuit by gunners
whether for sport or gain. At other times of the year it is
comparatively unmolested, and being very prolific its abundance is
easily understood. The nest is a large mass of flags, reeds, or
sedge, piled together among rushes in the water or on the margin,
and not unfrequently contains as many as ten eggs. The young,
when first hatched, are beautiful little creatures, clothed in jet-
black down, with their heads of a bright orange-scarlet, varied with
purplish-blue. Ths brilliant colouring is soon lost, and they begin
to assume the almost uniform sooty-black plumage which is worn
for the rest of their life; but a characteristic of the adult is a bare
patch or callosity on the
forehead, which being
nearly white gives rise
to the epithet “bald”
often prefixed to the J
bird’s name. The Coot Coor. (After Swainson.)

is about 18 inches in length, and will sometimes weigh over
2 lb. Though its wings appear to be short in proportion to its
size, and it seems to rise with difficulty from the water, it is
capable of long-sustained and rather rapid flight, which is performed
with the legs stretched out behind the stumpy tail. It swims
buoyantly, and looks a much larger bird in the water than it really
is. It dives with ease, and when wounded is said frequently to
clutch the weeds at the bottom with a grasp so firm as not even to
be loosened ‘by death. It does not often come on dry land, but
when there, marches leisurely and not without a certain degree of
grace. The feet of the Coot are very remarkable, the toes being
fringed by a lobed membrane, which must be of consider ‘able assist-
ance in swimming as well as in walking over the ooze—acting as
they do like mud-boards.

In England the sport of Coot-shooting is pursued to some extent
on the broads and back-waters of the eastern counties, and in
Southampton Water, Christchurch Bay, and at Slapton Lay, and is
often conducted battue-fashion by a number of guns. But even in
these cases the numbers killed in a day seldom reach more than a
few hundreds, and come very short of those that fall in the officially-

authority for stating, never wrote it), of the “chasse aux Macreuses” to the
Scoter instead of the Coot.

1 Hence also we have Fulizx or Fuligula applied to a Duck of dingy appear-
ance, and thus forming another parallel case.

104 COPPERSMITH—-CORMORANT

organized chasses of the lakes near the coast of Languedoc and Pro-
vence, of which an excellent description is given by the Vicomte
Louis de Dax.! The flesh of the Coot is very variously regarded as
food. To prepare the bird for the table, the feathers should be
stripped, and the down, which is very close, thick, and hard to
pluck, be rubbed with powdered resin; the body is then to. be
dipped in boiling water, which melting the resin causes it to mix
with the down, and then both can be removed together with
tolerable ease. After this the bird should be left to soak for the
night in cold spring-water, which will make it look as white and
delicate as a chicken. Without this process the skin after roasting
is found to be very oily, with a fishy flavour, and if the skin be
taken off the flesh becomes dry and good for nothing (Hawker’s
Instructions to Young Sportsmen; Hele’s Notes about Aldeburgh).

The Coot is found throughout the Paleearctic area from Iceland
to Japan, and in most other parts of the world is represented by
nearly allied species, having almost the same habits. An African
species (F. cristata), easily distinguished by a red caruncle on its
forehead, is of rare appearance in the south of Europe. The
Australian and North American species (f. australis and J. ameri-
cana) have very great resemblance to our own bird; but in South
America half a dozen or more additional species are found which
range to Patagonia, and vary much in size, one (/. gigantea) being
of considerable magnitude. The remains of another large species
have been described by Prof. A. Milne-Edwards (Ann. Sc. Nat. ser.
5, Zool. viii. pp. 194-220, pls. 10-13) from Mauritius, where it must
have been a contemporary of the Dodo, but like that bird is now
extinct.

COPPERSMITH, see BARBET.

CORACOID (named after the coracoid process on the human
shoulder-blade, which was likened in shape by medieval anatomists
to a Raven’s bill) one of a pair of strong bones which connect the
anterior or basal margin of the sternum with the scapula and
clavicle, and form the chief articulation of the humerus with the
shoulder-girdle (see SKELETON).

CORACOMORPH Ai, Prof. Huxley’s name for the large group
of HSBounatHous birds—incomparably the largest of those that
now exist, and for the most part equivalent to the PASsERES of
Linneus and Cuvier, and wholly to the VoLucreEs of Sundevall
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 468-472). (See INTRODUCTION.)

CORMORANT?—from the Latin corvus marinus, through the

1 “Tia Volée aux Macreuses.” Nowveaux Souvenirs de Chasse et de la Péche
dans le midi de la France, pp. 53-65. Paris: 1860.

2 Some authors, following Caius, derive the word from corvus vorans and
spell it Corvorant, but doubtless wrongly.

CORMORANT 105

French (in some patois, of which it is still “cor marin,” and in
certain Italian dialects “corvo marin” or ‘“corvo marino”)—a
large sea-fowl belonging to the genus Phalacrocorax! (Carbo, Halieus,
and Graculus of some ornithologists), and that group of the Linnean
Order Anseres, now pretty generally recognized by Illiger’s term
STEGANOPODES, of which it with its allies forms a Family Phalacro-
coracidx.

The Cormorant, P. carbo, frequents almost all the sea-coast of
Kurope, and breeds in societies at various stations most generally
on steep cliffs, but occasionally
on rocky islands as well as on
trees. The nest consists of a
large mass of seaweed, and,
with the ground immediately
surrounding it, generally looks
as though bespattered with
whitewash, from the excrement
of the bird, which lives entirely on fish. The eggs, from four to six
in number, are small, and have a thick, soft, calcareous shell, bluish-
white when first laid, but soon becoming discoloured. The young
are hatched blind, and covered with an inky-black skin. They
remain for some time in the squab-condition, and are then highly
esteemed for food by the northern islanders, their flesh being said
to taste as well as a roasted hare’s. Their first plumage is of a
sombre brownish-black above, and more or less white beneath.
They take two or three years to assume the fully adult dress,
which is deep black, glossed above with bronze, and varied in
the breeding-season with white on the cheeks and flanks, besides
being adorned by filamentary feathers on the head, and further
set off by a bright yellow gape. The old Cormorant looks as big
as a Goose, but is really much smaller: its flesh is quite uneatable.

Taken when young from the nest, this bird is easily tamed,
‘and can be trained to fish for its keeper, as was of old time com-
monly done in England, where the Master of the Cormorants was
one of the officers of the royal household. Nowadays the practice
is nearly disused, though a few gentlemen still follow it for their
diversion. When taken out to furnish sport, a strap is fastened
round the bird’s neck so as, without impeding its breath, to hinder
it from swallowing its captures.2 Arrived at the waterside, it is
cast off. It at once dives and darts along the bottom as swiftly as

Cormorant. (After Swainson.)

1 So spelt since the days of Gesner ; but possibly Phalarocorax would be more
correct.

2 It was formerly the custom, as we learn from Willughby, to carry the
Cormorant hooded till its services were required, by which means it was kept
quiet. At the present time its bearer wears a wire-mask to protect his eyes and
face from the bird’s beak.

106 CORMORANT

an arrow in quest of its prey, rapidly scanning every hole or pool.
A fish is generally seized within a few seconds of its being sighted,
and as each is taken the bird rises to the surface with its capture
in its bill. It does not take much longer to dispose of the prize in
the dilatable skin of its throat so far as the strap will allow, and
the pursuit is recommenced until the bird’s gular pouch, capacious
as it is, will hold no more. It then returns to its keeper, who has
been anxiously watching and encouraging its movements, and a
little manipulation of its neck effects the delivery of the booty. It
may then be let loose again, or, if considered to have done its work,
it is fed and restored to its perch. The activity the bird displays
under water is almost incredible to those who have not seen its
performances, and in a shallow river scarcely a fish escapes its keen
eyes and sudden turns, except by taking refuge under a stone or
root, or in the mud that may be stirred up during the operation,
and so avoiding observation.!

Nearly allied to the Cormorant, and having much the same
habits, is the Shag, or Green Cormorant of some writers, P. graculus.
The Shag (which name in many parts of the world is used in
a generic sense) is, however, about one-fourth smaller in linear
dimensions, is much more glossy in plumage, and its nuptial
embellishment is a nodding plume instead of the white patches of
the Cormorant. The easiest diagnostic on examination will be
found to be the number of tail-feathers, which in the former are
fourteen and in the Shag twelve. The latter, too, is more marine
in the localities it frequents, seldom entering fresh or indeed inland
waters.

In the south of Europe a still smaller species, P. pygmexus, is
found. This is almost entirely a fresh-water bird, and is not
uncommon on the lower Danube. Other species, to the number
perhaps of thirty or more, have been discriminated from other parts
of the world, but all have a great general similarity to one another.
A large and very richly-coloured species, P. perspicillatus, which
formerly frequented Bering Island off the coast of Kamchatka, was
in 1882 ascertained by Dr. Stejneger to have been extirpated some
thirty years before (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1883, p. 65). A specimen
now in the British Museum was figured by Gould (Voy. ‘ Sulphur,’
pl. 32) and two others (in the Museums of Leyden and St. Peters-
burg respectively), with a few bones, brought to Washington by
Dr. Stejneger, are all the remains of it known to exist. New
Zealand and the west coast of Northern America are particularly
rich in birds of this genus, and the species found there are the
most beautifully decorated of any. All, however, are remarkable
for their curiously-formed feet, the four toes of each being con-

1 See Capt. Salvin’s chapters on ‘‘ Fishing with Cormorants,” appended to
his and Mr. Freeman’s Falconry (London : 1859).

CORRIRA—COURSER 107

nected by a web, for their long stiff tails, and for the absence, in
the adult, of any exterior nostrils. W ion gorged, or when the
state of the tide precludes fishing, they are fond of sitting on an
elevated perch, often with extended wings, and in this attitude
they will remain motionless for a considerable time, as though
hanging themselves out to dry, but hardly, as the fishermen report,
sleeping the while. It was perhaps this peculiarity that struck the
observation of Milton, and prompted his well-known similitude of
Satan to a Cormorant (Parad. Lost, iv. 194); but when not thus
behaving they themselves provoke the more homely comparison of
a row of black bottles. Their voracity is proverbial.

CORRIRA, a bird so named and described by Aldrovandus, as
occurring in Italy; but never, so far as is known, seen since,
and apparently fictitious.

COTINGA, see CHATTERER.

COUCAL, Levaillant’s name, compounded, says Cuvier (Regne
Anim. p. 425, note), of coucow and alouette, adopted by several
English ornithologists,! and especially by Gould (Handb, B. Austral.
i. pp. 634, 636), as the equivalent of Illiger’s Centropus, a widely
spread group of Cuculide (CucKow), chiefly of terrestrial habit,
and having the hallux terminated by a straight spine-like claw,
whence the name and that of “ Lark-heeled” Cuckows applied to
them absurdly by some writers. The Coucals may be taken to
form a very distinct subfamily, Centropodinx, and have been divided
into half-a-dozen genera or more. They inhabit almost all parts of
the Ethiopian Region from Egypt to the Cape Colony, as well as
Madagascar: one Species occurs in India, where it is known as the
“ Crow-Pheasant,” and others range to the eastward as far as China
and throughout the Archipelago to New Guinea and Australia.
They hail! their own nests, and lay eggs with white, chalky shell.

COULTERNEB, a common name of the PUFFIN, from the
likeness of its bill to the coulter of a plough.

COURSER, apparently Lewin’s rendering (B. Gr. Brit. vi.
p. 48) of Latham’s word Cursorius, a genus established by him in
1790 for the Coure-vite of Buffon (H. N. Ois. viii.

p- 128), who had alr eady seen that, though allied
- the Plovers, it required separation. It was first ee
known from an example taken in France (whence Cursorivs.
Gmelin called it Charadrius gallicus), and Buffon in (After Swainson.)
1781 had seen only one other, though that was from Coromandel and
was of a distinct species. The third specimen, which was of the

1 Mr. Sharpe (B. S. Afr. ed. 2, p. 161, pl. v. fig. 1), however, has bestowed
the name on a species, Cewthmocheres australis (P. Z. S. 1873, p. 609), which
apparently does not possess the Lark-like claw whence the name is derived.

\bin (NAH. Birds a. pl. 33,
fig.2), and subsequently by

108 COW-BIRD—COWRY-BIRD

_ same species as the first, was killed in Kent, not later, according to

Mr. Saunders (Yarrell, br. B. ed. 4, iii. p. 239), than 1785, and is now
in the British Museum. The Coursers form a small group of some
nine or ten species, belonging to the Charadriidx (PLOVER), but differ-
ing from all except the PRATINCOLES by their thick and decurved bill.
One species is peculiar to the Indian Region, the rest belong to the
Ethiopian, though that which accidentally visits Europe breeds in
Mauritania and the Canary Islands, as well as in India.

COW-BIRD, in England the yellow WaeralL, Motacilla raii ;
but in North America the name applied to two very distinct
birds. First to one of the Cuckows (Coccyzus carolinenis), next and
far more commonly as an abbreviation of Cowpen-bird, according to
Catesby (NV. H. Carolina, 1. p. 34), who says :—‘ They delight much
to feed in the pens of cattle, which has given them their name,” to
a species which is also spoken of as Cow-Blackbird, Cow-Bunting,
and Cow-Troopial, and is the Molobrus pecoris,) one of the Icteridz,
and particular interest attaches to it from its parasitic habits, first
recorded in 1810 by Alexander Wilson (Amer. Orn. ii. pp. 145-
160), though, as he was careful to say, they had “long been known
to people of observation resident in the country,” and indeed he
cites an instructive series of observations by Dr. Potter of Balti-
more, shewing that that gentleman had for some time made the
bird his study. The species which are the victims of the Cow-
bird’s intruding its eggs into their nests are hardly less numerous
than the dupes of our own Cuckow, but no one seems to have
witnessed the actual displacement of their rightful owner’s progeny.
Further particulars, which it would be impossible to reproduce
here, may be found in the works of Nuttall and Audubon, as well
as in the North American Birds of Messrs. Baird, Brewer, and Ridg-
way, besides Dr. Coues’s Birds of the North-West (pp. 181-185). In
the South American species of Molobrus, Mr. W. H. Hudson, whose
remarks (Argent. Ornithol. 1. pp. 72-97) upon them deserve the best
attention, has observed that the old Cow-birds, both male and
female, destroy many of the eggs in the nests which they visit ;
but extraordinary as it seems, one of the species, M. rufazillaris, is
parasitic upon another, JZ. badius, which makes a nest for itself,
though he believes that this last will not foster the offspring of a
third and eminently parasitical species, MZ. bonariensis.

COWRY-BIRD, the Fingilla punctulata of Linneeus, the Amadina
or Munia punctulata of modern writers. It was apparently first
made known by, Edwards (NV. H. Birds, i. p. 40), who figured it

1 The word was originally misprinted Molothrws, and though Swainson (Faun.
Bor.-Am. ii. p. 277) was at the pains to explain this meaning of it, ‘‘ qui non
vocatus alienas edes intrat,” shewing that Molobrus must have been intended,
the majority of writers prefer following the error.

CRA B-PLOVER—CRANE 109

from an example which he was told had come from the East Indies,
where it “was called a Gowry or Cowry Bird, they being sold for a
small shell apiece, called a Gowry.” It is a common cage-bird
belonging to the Ploceidx (WEAVER-BIRD), and is found throughout
India, Ceylon, and Burma,

CRAB-PLOVER, the Anglo-Indian name for a curious bird of
wide range, frequenting the east coast of Africa from the Red Sea
to Natal, as well as the northern and western shores of the Indian
Ocean, the Bay of Bengal, and many of the intervening islands.
It was described and figured by Paykull in 1805 (K. Vet.-Acad. N.
Handl. xxvi. pp. 182-190, pl. viii.), from a specimen bought by
him at Amsterdam, and said to have come from the East Indies,
under the name of Dromas ardeola, which it has since generally
borne. Several systematists have urged that it should be regarded
as an aberrant form of TERN; but there can be little doubt,
especially after the researches of Van der Hoeven (N. Acta Acad.
L.-C. Nat. Cur. xxxiii.; French Transl. Arch. Néerl. 1868, pp. 281-
295), that it properly belongs to that polymorphic group of Lm
COL&, which comprises the genera Hxmuatopus (OYSTER-CATCHER),
Himantopus (STILT), and Recurvirostra (AvosET)—the last of which it
closely resembles in general coloration and in its webbed toes, while
its bill is as hard and trenchant as in any member of the first,
though of a different form. The possibility of its being with Chionis
(SHEATHBILL) a surviving link between the Charadriidz and the
Laridz is very great. For its habit of breeding in burrows in sand-
hills, see Hume, Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds, ed. 2, iii. pp. 327-330.

CRACKER, a name of the Prntatn, Dajila acuta.

CRAKE (Lat. Crez), generally with a prefix, as Corn-CRAKE, a
common name of the Land-RaIL, and often used for others of the
fallidx, in which the bill is comparatively short.

CRANE (in Dutch, Kraan; Old German, Kren; cognate, as
also the Latin Grus, and consequently the French Grue and Spanish
Grulla, with the Greek yépavos), the Grus communis or G. cinerea of
ornithologists, one of the largest Wading-birds, and formerly a
native of England, where Turner, in 1544, said that he had very
often seen its young (“earum pipiones sxpissime vidi”). Notwith-
standing the protection afforded it by sundry Acts of Parliament,
it has long since ceased from breeding in this country. Sir T.
Browne (0b. 1682) speaks of it as being found in the open parts of
Norfolk in winter. In Ray’s time it was only known as occurring
at the same season in large flocks in the fens of Lincolnshire and
Cambridgeshire ; and though mention is made of Cranes’ eggs and
young in the fen-laws passed at a court held at Revesby in 1780,
this was most likely but the formal repetition of an older edict ;

110 CRANE

for in 1768 Pennant wrote that after the strictest enquiry he found
the inhabitants of those counties to be wholly unacquainted with
the bird, and hence concluded that it had forsaken our island. The
Crane, however, no doubt then appeared in Britain, as it does now,
at uncertain intervals and in unwonted places, shewing that the
examples occurring here (which usually meet the hostile reception
commonly accorded to strange visitors) have strayed from the
migrating bands whose movements have been remarked from almost
the earliest ages. Indeed, the Crane’s aerial journeys are of a very
extended Kind; and on its way from beyond the borders of the
Tropic of Cancer to within the Arctic Circle, or on the return-
voyage, its flocks may be descried passing overhead at a marvellous
height, or halting for rest and refreshment on the wide meadows
that border some great river,! while the seeming order with which
its ranks are marshalled during flight has long attracted atten-
tion. The Crane takes up its winter-quarters under the burning
sun of Central Africa and India, but early in spring returns north-
ward. Not afew examples reach the chill polar soils of Lapland
and Siberia, but some tarry in the south of Europe and breed in
Spain, and, it is supposed, in Turkey. The greater number, how-
ever, occupy the intermediate zone and pass the summer in Russia,
North Germany, and Scandinavia. Soon after their arrival in these
countries the flocks break up into pairs, whose nuptial ceremonies
are accompanied by loud and frequent trumpetings, and the respec-
tive breeding-places of each are chosen.

The nest is formed with little art on the ground in large open
marshes, where the herbage is not very high—a tolerably dry spot
being selected and used apparently year after year. Here the eggs,
which are of a rich brown colour with dark spots, and always two
in number, are laid. The young are able to run soon after they
are hatched, and are at first clothed with tawny down.” In the
course of the summer they assume nearly the same grey plumage
that their parents wear, except that the elongated plumes, which
in the adults form a graceful covering of the hinder parts of
the body, are comparatively undeveloped, and the clear black,
white, and red (the last being due to a patch of papillose
skin of that colour) of the head and neck are as yet indistinct.
During this time they keep in the marshes, but as autumn
approaches the different families unite by the rivers and lakes, and
ultimately form the enormous bands which after much more
trumpeting set out on their southward journey.

1 A beautiful picture, representing a flock of Cranes resting by the Rhine, is
to be seen in Mr. Wolf’s Zoological Sketches.

2 A paper ‘‘On the Breeding of the Crane in Lapland” (JZbis, 1859, pp.
191-198), by the late Mr. John Wolley, is one of the most pleasing contributions
to Natural History ever written.

CRANE Ill

The Crane’s power of uttering the sonorous and_ peculiar
trumpet-like notes, of which mention has been made, is commonly
and perhaps correctly ascribed to the formation of its trachea,
which on quitting the lower end of the neck passes backward
between the branches of the furcula and is received into a hollow
space formed by the bony walls of the carina or keel of the sternum.
Herein it makes three turns, and then runs upwards and backwards
to the lungs. The apparatus on the whole much resembles that
found in the Whooping SWANS, Cygnus musicus, C. buccinator, and
others, though differing in some not unimportant details; but at
the same time somewhat similar convolutions of the trachea occur
in other birds which do not possess, so far as is known, the faculty
of trumpeting. ‘The Crane emits its notes both during flight and
while on the ground. In the latter case the neck and bill are
uplifted and the mouth kept open during the utterance of the blast,
which may be often heard from birds in confinement, especially at
the beginning of the year.

As usually happens in similar cases, the name of the once
familiar British species is now used in a general sense, and applied
to all others which are allied to it. Though by many systematists
placed near or even among the Herons, there is no doubt that the
Cranes have only a superficial resemblance and no real affinity to
the Ardeidx. In fact the Gruidx form a somewhat isolated group.
Prof. Huxley has included them together with the fallidz in his
GERANOMORPH2A; but a more extended view of their various
characters would probably assign them rather as relatives of the
BusTarps—not that it must be thought that the two Families
have not been for a very long time distinct. Grus, indeed, is a
very ancient form, its remains appearing in the Miocene of
France and Greece, as well as in the Pliocene and Post-pliocene of
North America. In France, too, during the “Reindeer Period”
there existed a huge species—the G. primigenia of M. Alphonse
_ Milne-Edwards—which has doubtless been long extinct. At the
present time Cranes inhabit all the great zoogeographical Regions
of the earth, except New Zealand and the Neotropical, and some
sixteen or seventeen species are discriminated. In Europe, besides
the G. communis already mentioned, we have as an inhabitant that
which is generally known as the Numidian Crane or DEMOISELLE.
G. virgo, distinguished from every other by its long white ear-tufts.
This bird is also widely distributed throughout Asia and Africa,
and is said to have occurred in Orkney asa straggler. The eastern
part of the Palearctic area is inhabited by six other species that do
not frequent Europe, G. antigone, G. viridirostris or japonensis, G.
monachus, G. leucauchen, G. nigricollis, and Gt. leucogeranus, of which
the last is perhaps the finest of the Family, with nearly the
whole plumage of a snowy white. The Indian Region, besides

112 CRA NIUM—CREST

being visited in winter by four of the species already named,
has two that are peculiar to it, G. collaris and G@. antigone. The
Australian Region possesses a large species known to the colonists
as the “Native Companion,” G. australasiana ; while the Nearctic
area is tenanted by two species, G. americana and G. canadensis, to
say nothing of the possibility of a fourth, G. schlegeli, a little-known
and somewhat obscure bird, finding its habitat here. In the
Ethiopian Region we have two species, G. paradisea and G. carun-
culata, which do not occur out of Africa, as well as two others
forming the group known as “Crowned Cranes”—differing much
from other members of the family, and justifiably placed in a
separate genus, Balearica. One of these, Bb. pavonina, inhabits
Northern and Western Africa, while the other, B. chrysopelargus or
regulorum, is confined to the eastern and southern parts of that
continent.}

CRANIUM (latinized from xpaviov, a skull) anatomically
applied to the bony and cartilaginous parts of the skull with-
out the jaws and the palato-pterygo-quadrate bones, and therefore
practically equivalent to those parts which enclose the cranial cavity
and the three principal sense-organs (see SKELETON).

CREEPER (Dutch Kruiper, Swedish Krypare, Norsk Kryber), a
term employed by ornithologists in a very vague sense, but chiefly
to render Certhia as used by Linnzeus and his immediate successors,
and thus including forms belonging to more perfectly distinct
Families than can here be named ; for it was customary to thrust
therein almost every outlandish Passerine bird which could not be
conveniently assigned to any other of the then recognized genera,
provided only that it had a somewhat attenuated and decurved bill.
Taken by itself, “Creeper” signifies nothing in modern ornithology,
and provincially it is very frequently used for the NUTHATCH.
With a prefix, as TREE-CREEPER, it has a much more definite
meaning, and in England is the Certhia familiaris of Linneus.

CREST. Feathery crests need no further comment than
that they seem to be entirely ornamental, favourite objects of sexual
selection, and therefore mostly developed in the male sex; they are
generally erectile by the aid of cutaneous and subcutaneous muscles,
notably by the musculus cucullaris. Horny crests, often supported
by swollen cancellous outgrowths of the maxillary, nasal, and
frontal bones (as in Hornbills and Cassowaries), have been de-
scribed in connexion with the Birt. Very peculiar are the entirely

1 An admirably succinct account of all the different species was communi-
cated by the late Mr. Blyth to Zhe Field newspaper in 1873 (vol. xl. p. 631 ; vol.
xli. pp. 7, 61, 136, 189, 248, 884, 408, 418), which has since been published in a
separate form with additions by the editor, Mr. Tegetmeier, as The Natural
History of the Cranes (London: 1881).

CROCKER—CROSSBILL 113

eee ene en
horny, slender, and erectile outgrowths on the forehead of Pala-
medea comuta ; and the similar erectile, long process of Chasmo-
rhynchus, which is partly covered with very small feathers. The
soft crest or comb of many Phasianidze consists, like the wattles of
other birds, entirely of the bare skin, and, being very rich in nerves
and blood-vessels, is, as swelling organs, erectile in a different sense.
Prominent ridges of bones, serving then for the attachment of
powerful muscles, are likewise called “crests,’—for instance the
crista sterni,

CROCKER in England, according to Montagu, a name for the
Black-headed GuLL, Larus ridibundus; but in North America (and
perhaps also in some parts of Britain) used for the BRANT-Goose
(Trumbull, Portr. and Names of Birds, p. 6).

CROP, or ingluvies, the dilatation of the cesophagus before its
entrance into the thorax. The walls of the crop seem to contain
no other glands than the ordinary mucous glands of the cesophagus ;
the crop is used as a receptacle for the food, which therein is
softened and acted upon by water and the saliva and warmth of the
bird. Between a narrow, temporarily-dilated cesophagus and a
permanent crop-like dilatation many intermediate stages exist. A
distinct sac-like crop is present in most seed-eating birds, as
in the Gallinz, Columbe, Pteroclide, in Opisthocomus, Thinocorys,
Attagis, Psittaci, and, among the Passeres, many of the Fringillide
and the Drepanidide. The crop is less marked or only tem-
porary in the Birds-of-Prey, the Cassowary, the Humming-birds, in
Mormon, Pedionomus, and Panurus ; and is represented by a slight
but permanent dilatation in the Cormorant, various Ducks and
Storks, and in the Flamingo. It is absent in all other birds. It
reaches its highest development in the Pigeons, consisting of a right
and a left globular half which are united by an unpaired portion ;
the inner walls possess numerous irregular ridges, and shew during
the breeding-season an extraordinary activity, the cells of the
mucous membrane proliferating and peeling off as a cheesy matter,
with which both sexes feed their nestlings for a considerable time.

The most peculiarly constructed crop is that of Opisthocomus ;
the cesophagus is much widened and forms a long doubled loop,
which rests upon the great pectoral muscles, and almost suppresses
the anterior part of the keel of the breastbone. The walls are
extremely muscular, and are inside furnished with numerous
furrows and ridges, to enable the Hoacrzin to squeeze out the juicy
leaves of the tree, Arum arborescens, upon which it feeds.

CROSSBILL (Fr. Bec-croisé, Germ. Kreuzschnabel), the name
given to a genus of birds, belonging to the Family Fringillide
(FINCH), from the unique peculiarity they possess among the
whole Class of having the horny sheaths of the Dill crossing one

8

114 CROSSBIELE

another obliquely,! whence the appellation Lovia (Aokds, obliquus),
conferred by Gesner on the group and continued by Linnzus. At
first sight this singular structure appears so like a deformity that
writers have not been wanting to account it such,” ignorant of its
being a piece of mechanism most beautifully adapted to the habits
of the bird, enabling it to extract with the greatest ease, from
fir-cones or fleshy fruits, the seeds which form its usual and almost
invariable food. Its mode of using this unique instrument seems
to have been first described by Townson (Zracts on Nat. Hist.
p. 116, London: 1799), but only partially, and it was Yarrell who,
in 1829 (Zool. Journ. iv. pp. 459-465, pl. xiv. figs. 1-7), explained
fully the means whereby the jaws and the muscles which direct
their movements become so effective in riving asunder cones or
apples, while at the proper moment the scoop-like tongue is
instantaneously thrust out and withdrawn, conveying the hitherto
protected seed to the bird’s mouth. Without going into details it
may be observed that in the Crossbills the articulation of the
mandible to the quadrate-bone is such as to allow of a very
considerable amount of lateral play, and, by a particular arrange-
ment of the muscles which move the former, it comes to pass that
so soon as the bird opens its mouth the point of the mandible is
brought immediately opposite to that of the maxilla (which itself is
movable vertically) instead of crossing or overlapping it—the usual
position when the mouth is closed. The two points thus meeting, the
bill is inserted between the scales or into the pome, but on opening
the mouth still more widely, the lateral motion of the mandible is
once more brought to bear with great force to wrench aside the
portion of the fruit attacked, and then the action of the tongue
completes the operation, which is so rapidly performed as to defy
scrutiny, except on very close inspection. Fortunately the birds
soon become tame in confinement, and a little patience will enable
an attentive observer to satisfy himself as to the process, the result
of which at first seems almost as unaccountable as that of a clever
conjuring trick.

1 As an accidental malformation, however, the peculiarity has been many
times observed in other groups of birds, and especially in the Crows (Corvidz).
Such cases may be well compared to the monstrosity often seen in Rabbits and
other members of the Order Glires, wherein the incisor teeth grow to inordinate
length.

2 The special animosity of De Buffon on this point may perhaps be explained
by the existence of a medieval legend (of which, however, be it said, he takes
no notice), best known to English readers by Longfellow’s pretty version of
Mosen’s poem, to the effect that the bird acquired its peculiar conformation of
bill and coloration of plumage in recognition of the pity it bestowed on the
suffering Saviour at the crucifixion. Schwenckfeld in 1603 (Zheriotropheum
Silesiw, pp. 253, 254) gave the fable in the Latin verses of Johannes Major, which
have been reprinted in Notes and Queries (ser. 5, vii. p. 505).

CROSSBILL 115

The Common Crossbill of the Palearctic area, Lovia cur-
virostra, is about the size of a Skylark, but more stoutly built.
The young (which on leaving the nest have not the tips of the bill
erossed) are of a dull olive colour with indistinct dark stripes on
the lower parts, and the quills of the wings and tail dusky. After
the first moult the difference between the sexes is shewn by the
hens inclining to yellowish-green, while the cocks become diversified
by orange-yellow and red, their plumage finally deepening into a
rich crimson-red, varied in places by a flame-colour. Their glowing
hues are, however, speedily lost by examples which may be kept in
confinement, and are replaced by a dull orange, or in some cases
by a bright golden-yellow, and specimens have, though rarely,
occurred in a wild state exhibiting the same tints. The cause of
these changes is at present obscure, if not unknown, and it must be
admitted that their sequence has been disputed by some excellent
authorities, but the balance of evidence is certainly in favour of

the above statement. Depending mainly for food on the seeds of

conifers, the movements of Crossbills are irregular beyond those of
most birds, and they would seem to rove in any direction and ‘at
any season in quest of their staple sustenance. But the pips of
apples are also a favourite dainty, and it stands recorded by the
old chronicler Matthew Paris (Hist. Angl. MS. fol. 252), that in
1251 the orchards of England were ravaged by birds, “ pomorum
grana, & non aliud de eisdem pomis comedentes” ; which, from his
description, “Habebant autem partes rostri cancellatas, per quas
poma quasi forcipi vel cultello dividebant,” could be none other but
Crossbills. Notice of a like visitation in 1593 was published by
Wats (Vit. 2 Offar. &c. 1640, p. 263), but of late it has become
evident that hardly a year passes without Crossbills being observed
in some part or other of England, while in certain localities in
Scotland they seem to breed annually. The nest is rather rudely
constructed, and the eggs, generally four in number, resemble
those of the GREENFINCH, but are larger in size. This species
ranges throughout the continent of Europe,! and, besides occurring
in the islands of the Mediterranean, is permanently resident in
Mauritania and in the fir-woods of the Atlas. In Asia it would
seem to extend to Kamchatka and Japan, keeping mainly to the
forest-tracts.

Three other forms of the genus also inhabit the Old World—
two of them so closely resembling the common bird that their
specific validity has been often questioned. ‘The first of these, of
large stature, the Parrot-Crossbill, L. pityopsittacus, comes occasion-
ally to Great Britain, presumably from Scandinavia, where it is

1 It was obtained by Dr. Malmgren on the desolate Bear Island (lat. 744° N.),
and in the autumn of 1889 enormous flocks were observed migrating southward
along the coast of Portugal by the present King of that country.

116 CROW

known to breed. The second, L. himalayana, which is a good deal
smaller, is only known from the Himalaya Mountains. The third,
the Two-barred Crossbill, ZL. tanioptera, is very distinct, and its
proper home seems to be the most northern forests of the Russian
empire, but it has occasionally occurred in Western Europe and
even in England.

The New World has two birds of the genus. The first, L.
americana, representing our common species, but with a smaller bill,
and the males easily recognizable by their more scarlet plumage,
ranges from the northern limit of coniferous trees to the highlands
of Mexico, or’even further. The other, L. Jlewcoptera, is the
equivalent of the Two-barred Crossbill, but smaller. It has
occurred in England at least thrice.

CROW (Holland. Kraai, Germ. Krihe, Fr. Corbeau, Lat. Corvus),
a name most commonly applied in Britain to the bird properly
called a Rook, Corvus frugilegus, but perhaps originally peculiar to
its congener, nowadays usually distinguished as the Black or
Carrion-Crow, (. corone. By ornithologists it is also used in a far
wider sense, as under the title Crows, or Corvidx, is included a vast
number of birds from almost all parts of the world, and this family
is probably the most highly developed of the whole Class Aves,
Leaving out of account the best known of these, as the CHoUGH,
Daw, JAY, NUTCRACKER, Piz, RAVEN, and Rook, it will be enough
to consider here the species of the Family to which the appellation
is strictly applicable, for of the limits and subdivisions of this
Family it is at present desirable to speak with great caution, if not
doubt. All authorities admit that it is very extensive, and is capable
of being parted into several groups, but scarcely any two agree on
either head. Especially must reserve be exercised as regards the
group Streperinx, or Piping Crows, belonging to the Australian
Region, and referred by some writers to the SHRIKES, Laniidz :
since it is highly probable that Parker’s suggestion (Zrans. Zool. Soe.
ix. p. 327) as to the recognition of these “ Austro-Coraces” as a
distinct Family will prove to be correct. On the other hand, it
seems hardly possible to admit, as some have done, that the Jays
require raising to that rank or even to separate them as a subfamily
from the Pies, Pica and its neighbours, which lead almost insensibly
to the typical Crows, Corvinv. Dismissing then these subjects, we
may turn to what may be literally considered Crows, and attention
must be mainly directed to the Black or Carrion-Crow, Corvus
corone, and the Grey, Hooded, or Royston Crow, C. cornix. Both
these inhabit Europe, but their range and the time of their appearance
are very different. Without going into minute details, it will
suffice to say that the former is, speaking generally, a summer-
visitant to the south-western part of this quarter of the globe, and

CROW 117

that the latter occupies the north-eastern portion—an irregular line
drawn diagonally from about the Firth of Clyde to the head of the
Adriatic roughly marking their respective distribution. But both
are essentially migrants, and hence it follows than when the Black
Crow, as summer comes to an end, retires southward, the Grey
Crow moves downward, and in many districts replaces it during
the winter. Further than this, it has now been incontestably
proved that along or near the boundary where these two birds
march, they not infrequently interbreed, and it is believed that the
hybrids, which sometimes wholly resemble one or other of the
parents and at other times assume an intermediate plumage, pair
indiscriminately among themselves, or with the pure stock. Hence
it has seemed to some ornithologists who have studied the subject,
that these two birds, so long unhesitatingly regarded as distinct
species, are only local races of one and the same dimorphic species.
No structural difference—or indeed any difference except that of
range (already spoken of) and colour—can be detected, and the
problem they offer is one of which the solution is exceedingly
interesting if not important to zoologists in general.'

The views here briefly expressed have been set forth much more
fully in the fourth edition of Yarrell’s British Birds (ii. pp. 274-288) ;
but they seem to be highly distasteful to some writers, whose remarks,
however, shew a curious inability to appreciate the admitted facts of
the question. The mode of life of the Crows needs not to be
described. Almost omnivorous in their diet, there is little edible
that comes amiss to them, and, except in South America and New
Zealand, they are mostly omnipresent. The number of species
described is considerable, but doubtless should and will be ruthlessly
curtailed when a revision of the group is undertaken by any orni-
thologist working with proper materials. The Fish-Crow of North
America, C. ossifragus, demands a few words, since it betrays a taste
for maritime habits beyond that of other species, but our own
Crows of Europe are not averse on occasion from prey cast up by the
waters, though they will hardly draw it thence for themselves.
The so-called “Hooded Crow” of India, C. splendens, is not very
nearly allied to its European namesake, from which it can be
readily distinguished by its smaller size and the lustrous tints of
its darkest feathers, while its confidence in the human race has been
so long encouraged by its intercourse with an unarmed and in-
offensive population, that it becomes a plague to the European
abiding or travelling where it is abundant. Hardly a station or
camp in British India is free from a crowd of feathered followers

1 As bearing upon this question may be mentioned the fact that the Crow of
Australia, C. australis, is divisible into two forms or races, one having the irides
white, the other of a dark colour. It is stated that they keep apart and do not
intermix.

118 CROWN-BIRD—CUCKOW

of this species, ready to dispute with the Kites and the cooks the
very meat at the fire; and when any lengthened settlement is
established the Crows will build their nests of the wire from the
Englishman’s soda-water bottles.

CROWN-BIRD, the name given by some old African travellers
to one or more species of TourAco (cf. Latham, Gen. Hist. B. v.
Dp: ly 6).and also To the Crowned- Crane (Balearica).

CUBITALS (or Secondaries) are those REemIGEs which are
supported by the upper surface of the ulna or cubitus of the
anterior extremity. The rational way of counting them is to
begin with the quill nearest to the wrist-joint, because reduction
and addition in numbers takes place at the proximal end of the
ulna. The number of the cubitals is reduced to 6 in the Trochi-
lide and is increased to 30 and more in some Tubinares; it
stands in direct correlation with the length of the wing bones.
Archeopteryx seems to have possessed 10 cubitals, which probably
approaches closely the original number in true Birds. Of perhaps
some slight taxonomic value is the presence or absence of the
original fitth cubital quill. This peculiarity was discovered by
Gerbe (Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1877, p. 289), and followed up by
Wray, Gadow, and Sclater (P.Z7.S. 1887, p. 343; 1888, p. 655;
and Jbis, 1890, p. 77). Contrary to expectation, the missing fifth
quill shews no trace of its former existence. in embryos, there
being a distinct gap between the fourth and sixth quill, while the
upper and lower fifth coverts remain. This peculiarity is still
unexplained. Wray proposed to call the birds with the fifth quill
normally developed quincubital, those without it aquincubital !

Among the Ratitee with well-developed cubitals, are Struthio,
Rhea, and Apteryx ; and among the Carinate, Psophia, Dicholophus,
and Rhinochetus ; the Gallinze except the Megapodes ; the Turnices
and Crypturi; Opisthocomus, all the Picariz after exclusion of the
Psittaci; all the Passeres, Colius, Trochilide, and Caprimulgine
possess the fifth cubital. In the Alcedinide and some Cypselide
it is variable.

The groups with typically-developed remiges that have uo fifth
cubital are Anseres (including Palamedea), Colymbide, Podicipedide,
Steganopodes, Tubinares, Herodii, Pelargi, Laro-Limicole, Grus,
Aramus, Eurypyga, all the Fulicariz (except Psophia, Dicholophus,
and Rhinochetus), the Pteroclids, Columbide, Accipitres, Psittaci,
and Striges (also see PTERYLOSIS).

CUCKOW, or Cuckoo, as the word is now generally spelt—
though without any apparent warrant for the change except that
accorded by custom, while some of the more scholarly English
ornithologists, as Montagu and Jenyns, have kept the older form—
the common name of a well-known and often-heard bird, the Cuculus

CUCKOW 119

canorus of Linnzus. In some parts of the United Kingdom it is
more frequently called Gowk, and it is the Greek xéxxvé, the Italian
Cuculo or Cucco, the French Coucou, the German Kuckuk, the Dutch
Koekkoek, the Danish Kukker or Gijég, and the Swedish Gék. The
oldest English spelling of the name seems to have been Cuccw.

No single bird has perhaps so much occupied the atten-
tion both of naturalists and of those who are not naturalists,
or has had so much written about» it, as this, and of no bird
perhaps have more idle tales been told. Its strange and, accord-
ing to the experience of most people, its singular habit of
entrusting its offspring to foster-parents is enough to account for
much of the interest which has been so long felt in its history ; but
this habit is shared probably by many of its Old-World relatives,
as well as in the New World by birds which are not in any near
degree related to it (cf. Cow-BirD). In giving here a short account
of this species, there will be no need to refute much of the nonsense
about it which has found access to works even of respectable
authority ; but, besides the known facts of its economy, there are
certain suppositions in regard to parts of its history that are un-
known, which suppositions are apparently probable enough to
deserve notice.

To begin with the known facts. The Cuckow is a summer-
visitant to the whole of Europe, reaching even far within the Arctic
circle, and crossing the Mediterranean from its winter-quarters in
Africa at the end of March or beginning of April. Its arrival is at
once proclaimed by the peculiar and in nearly all languages ono-
matopoetic cry of the cock—a true song in the technical sense of
the word, since it is confined to the male sex and to the season of
love. Ina few days the cock is followed by the hen, and amorous
contests between keen and loud-voiced suitors are to be commonly
noticed, until the respective pretensions of the rivals are decided.
Even by night they are not silent; but as the season advances the
. song is less frequently heard, and the Cuckow seems rather to avoid
observation as much as possible, the more so since whenever it
shews itself it is a signal for all the small birds of the neighbour-
hood to be up in its pursuit, just as though it were a Hawk, to
which indeed its mode of flight and general appearance give it an
undoubted resemblance—a resemblance that misleads some beings,
who ought to know better, into confounding it with the Birds-of-
prey, instead of recognizing it as a harmless if not a beneficial
destroyer of hairy caterpillars. Thus pass away some weeks.
Towards the middle or end of June its “plain-song” cry alters; it
becomes rather hoarser in tone, and its first syllable or note is
doubled. Soon after it is no longer heard at all, and by the middle
of July an old Cuckow is seldom to be found in these islands,
though a stray example, or even, but very rarely, two or three in

120 CUCKOW

company, may occasionally be seen for a month longer. This is
about as much as is apparent to most people of the life of the
Cuckow with us. Of its breeding comparatively few have any
personal experience. Yet there are those who know that diligent
search for and peering into the nests of several of our commonest
little birds—more especially the Pied Wagtail (Jotacilla lugubris),
the Titlark (Anthus pratensis), the Reed- Wren (Acrocephalus
streperus), and the Hedge-Sparrow (Accentor modularis)—will be
rewarded by the discovery of the egg of the mysterious stranger
which has been surreptitiously introduced therein, and waiting
till this egg is hatched they may be witnesses (as was the famous
Jenner in the last century!) of the murderous eviction of the
rightful tenants of the nest by the intruder, who, hoisting them
one after another on his broad back, heaves them over to die
neglected by their own parents, of whose solicitous care he thus
becomes the only object. In this manner he thrives, and, so long
as he remains in the country of his birth, his wants are anxiously
supplied by the victims of his mother’s dupery. The actions of his
foster-parents become, when he is full grown, almost ludicrous, for
they often have to perch between his shoulders to place in his
gaping mouth the delicate morsels he is too indolent or too stupid
to take from their bill. Early in September he begins to shift for
himself, and then follows the elders of his kin to more southern
climes.

Of the way in which it seems possible that this curious habit of
the Cuckow may have originated something will be found else-
where (NIDIFICATION). But in connexion with its successful prac-
tice a good deal yet remains to be determined, most of which,
however probable, is still to be proved. So much caution is used
by the hen Cuckow in choosing a nest in which to deposit her egg
that the act of insertion has been but seldom witnessed. The nest
selected is moreover often so situated, or so built, that it would be
an absolute impossibility for a bird of her size to lay her egg
therein by sitting upon the fabric as birds commonly do; and there
have been a few fortunate observers who have actually seen the
deposition of the egg upon the ground by the Cuckow, who, then
taking it in her bill, introduces it into the nest. Of these, so far at
least as this country is concerned, the earliest seem to be two
Scottish lads, sons of Mr. Tripeny, a farmer in Coxmuir, who
informed Weir, as recorded by Macgillivray (Brit. Birds, iii. pp.
130, 131), that they saw most part of the operation performed, 24th
June 1838. But perhaps the most positive evidence on the point
is that of Herr Adolf Miiller, a forester at Gladenbach in Darm-

1 A wholly unjustifiable attempt has lately been made to impugn Jenner’s
accuracy. His observations as printed in the Philosophical Transactions for 1788
(pp. 227 et segqg.), have been corroborated by others in the most minute detail.

CUCKOW 121

stadt, who says (Zoolog. Garten, 1866, pp. 374, 375) that through a
telescope he watched a Cuckow as she laid her egg on a bank, and
then conveyed the egg in her bill to a Wagtail’s nest. Cuckows
too have been not unfrequently shot as they were carrying a
Cuckow’s egg, presumably their own, in their bill, and this has
probably given rise to the vulgar, but seemingly groundless, belief
that they suck the eggs of other kinds of birds. More than this,
Rowley, who had much experience of Cuckows, declared (Ibis,
1865, p. 186) his opinion to be that traces of violence and of a
scuffle between the intruder and the owners of the nest at the time
of introducing the egg often appear, whence we are led to suppose
that the Cuckow ordinarily, when inserting her egg, excites the
fury (already stimulated by her Hawk-like appearance) of the
owners of the nest by turning out one or more of the eggs that
may be already laid therein, and thus induces the dupe to brood all
the more readily and more strongly what is left to her. Of the
assertion that the Cuckow herself takes any interest in the future
welfare of the egg she has foisted on her victim, or of its product,
there is no evidence worth a moment’s attention.

But a much more curious assertion has also been made, and one
that at first sight appears so incomprehensible as to cause little
surprise at the neglect it long encountered. A‘lian, who flourished
in the second century, declared (De Nat. Anim. III. xxx.) that the
Cuckow laid eggs in the nests of those birds only that produced
eggs like her own—a statement which is of course far too general ;
but in 1767 currency was given to it by Salerne (L’hist. Nat. Ois.
p. 42), who was, however, hardly a believer in it; and it is to the
effect, as he was told by an inhabitant of Sologne, that the egg of
a Cuckow resembles in colour that of the eggs normally laid by the
kind of bird in whose nest it is placed. In 1853 the same notion
was prominently and independently brought forward by Dr.
Baldamus (Nawmannia, 1853, pp. 307-325), and in time became
- known to English ornithologists, most of whom were sceptical as to
its truth, as well they might be, since no likeness whatever is
ordinarily apparent in the very familiar case of the blue-green egg
of the Hedge-Sparrow and that of the Cuckow, which is so often
found beside it.2 Dr. Baldamus based his notion on a series of eggs
in his cabinet, a selection from which he figured (op. cit. 1854, pl. v.)

1 The earliest instance of this in the British Islands seems to be that
reported by Thompson (B. Jrel. iii. p. 472); another was recorded in 1851
(Zool. p. 8145) ; but Le Vaillant seems to have been the first to discover the fact
in a South African species (Ozs. d@’ Afr. v. pp. 47, 48), and untrustworthy witness
as he was, in this case he seems to have spoken truly.

2 An instance to the contrary was recorded by Mr. A. C. Smith (Zoologist, 1873,
p. 3516) on Mr. Brine’s authority, and a few others have since been observed.

3 This series was seen in 1861 by the writer.

122 CUCKOW

in illustration of his paper, and, however the thing may be accounted
for, it seems impossible to resist, save on one supposition, the force of
the testimony these specimens afford. ‘This one supposition is that
the eggs have been wrongly ascribed to the Cuckow, and that they
are only exceptionally large examples of the eggs of the birds in the
nests of which they were found, for it cannot be gainsaid that some
such abnormal examples are occasionally to be met with. But it is
well known that abnormally-large eggs are not only often deficient
in depth of colour, but still more often in stoutness of shell.
Applying these rough criteria to Dr. Baldamus’s series, most of the
specimens stand the test very well, and, though no doubt more
precise and delicate examination, than any to which they seem to
have been submitted, were desirable, there are some other consider-
ations to be urged. For instance, Herr Braune, a forester at Greiz
in the principality of Reuss (Wawmannia, 1853, pp. 307, 313), shot
a hen Cuckow as she was leaving the nest of an Icterine Warbler
(Hypolais icterina). In the oviduct of this Cuckow he found an egg
coloured very like that of the Warbler, and on looking into the
nest he found there an exactly similar egg, which there can be no
reasonable doubt had just been laid by that very Cuckow. More-
over, Herr Grunack (Jour. fiir Orn. 1873, p. 454) has since found
one of the most abnormally-coloured specimens, quite unlike the
ordinary egg of the Cuckow, to contain an embryo so fully formed
as to shew the characteristic zygodactyl feet of the bird, thus
proving unquestionably its parentage. Now these being both of
them extreme cases, Dr. Baldamus may fairly claim attention to his
assertion ; for short of absolutely disbelieving his word we must
admit that he has ground for it. On the other hand, we must
bear in mind the numerous instances in which not the least simi-
larity can be traced—as in the not uncommon case of the Hedge-
Sparrow already mentioned, and if we attempt any explanatory
hypothesis it must be one that will fit all round. Such a one then
seems to be this. We know that certain kinds of birds resent
interference with their nests much less than others, and among
them it may be asserted that the Hedge-Sparrow will patiently
submit to various experiments. She will brood with complacency
the egg of a Redbreast (Hrithacus rubecula), so unlike her own, and
for aught we know to the contrary may even be colour-blind. In
the case of such a species there would be no need of anything
further to insure success—the terror of the nest-owner at seeing her
home invaded by a Hawk-like giant, and some of her treasures
tossed out, would be enough to stir her motherly feelings so deeply
that she would without misgiving, if not with joy that something
had been spared to her, resume the duty of incubation so soon as
the danger was past. But with other species it may be, nay doubt-
less it is, different. Here assimilation of the introduced egg to

CUCKOW 123

those of the rightful owner may be necessary, for there can hardly
be a doubt as to the truth of Dr. Baldamus’s theory (the only
theory, by the way, he has put forth), as to the object of the
assimilation being to render the Cuckow’s egg “less easily recog-
nized by the foster-parents as a substituted one.” But in this place
it is especially desirable to point out that there is not the slightest
ground for imagining that the Cuckow, or any other bird, can
voluntarily influence the colour of the egg she is about to lay.
Over that she can have no control, but its destination she can
determine. It is also impossible that a Cuckow having laid an egg,
should look at it, and then decide from its appearance in what
bird’s nest she should put it. That the colour of an egg-shell can
be in some mysterious way affected by the action of external
objects on the perceptive faculties of the mother is a notion too
wild to be seriously entertained.! Consequently, only one explana-
tion of the facts can here be suggested. Every one who has
sufficiently studied the habits of animals will admit the tendency of
some of those habits to become hereditary. That there is a
reasonable probability of each Cuckow most commonly putting her
eggs in the nest of the same species of bird, and of this habit being
transmitted to her posterity, does not seem to be a very violent
‘supposition. Without attributing any wonderful sagacity to her,
it does not seem unlikely that the Cuckow which had once success-
fully foisted her egg on a Reed-Wren or a Titlark should again
seek for another Reed-Wren’s or another Titlark’s nest (as the case
may be), when she had another egg to dispose of, and that she
should continue her practice from one season to another. It stands
on record (Zoologist, 1873, p. 3648) that a pair of Wagtails built
their nest for eight or nine years running in almost exactly the
same spot, and that in each of those years they fostered a young
Cuckow, while many other cases of like kind, though not perhaps
established on authority so good, are believed to have happened.
Such a habit could hardly fail to become hereditary, so that the
daughter of a Cuckow which always put her egg into a Reed-Wren’s,
Titlark’s, or Wagtail’s nest would do as did her mother. Further-
more it is unquestionable that, whatever variation there may be
among the eggs laid by different individuals of the same species,
there is a strong family likeness between the eggs laid by the same
individual, even at the interval of many years, and it can hardly be
questioned that the eggs of the daughter would more or less
resemble those of her mother. Hence the supposition may be
fairly regarded that the habit of laying a particular style of egg is
also likely to become hereditary. Combining this supposition with
that as to the Cuckow’s habit of using the nest of the same species

1 The misconception of the unreasoning mind on all these points is almost
incredible.

124 CUCKOW

becoming hereditary, it will be seen that it requires but an applica-
tion of the principle of ‘“ Natural Selection” to shew the probability
of this principle operating in the course of time to produce the facts
asserted by Atlian, by the anonymous Solognot of the last century,
and by Dr. Baldamus and others since. The particular gens of
Cuckow which inherited and transmitted the habit of depositing in
the nest of any particular species of bird eggs having more or less
resemblance to the eggs of that species would prosper most in those
members of the gens where the likeness was strongest, and the other
members would (cxteris paribus) in time be eliminated. As already
shewn, it is not to be supposed that all species, or even all
individuals of a species, are duped with equal ease. The operation
of this kind of natural selection would be most needed in those
cases where the species are not easily duped,—that is, in those
cases which occur the least frequently. Here it is we find it, for
observation shews that eggs of the Cuckow deposited in nests of
the Red-Backed Shrike (Lanius collwrio), of the Bunting (Emberiza
miliaria), of the Redstart (Ruticilla phenicura), and of the Icterine
Warbler approximate in their colouring to eggs of those species—
species in whose nests the Cuckow rarely (in comparison with
others) deposits eggs. Of species which are more easily duped,
such as the Hedge-Sparrow, mention has already been made.

More or less nearly allied to our Cuckow are many other forms
of the genus from various parts of Africa, Asia, and their islands,
while one even reaches Australia. How many of these deserve
specific recognition will long be a question among ornithologists
which need not be discussed here. In some cases the chief differ-
ence is said to lie in the diversity of voice—a character only to be
appreciated by those acquainted with the living birds, and though
of course some regard should be paid to this distinction, the possi-
bility of birds using different “dialects” according to the locality
they inhabit (see SONG) must make it a slender specific diagnostic.
All these forms are believed to have essentially the same habits as
our Cuckow, and, as regards parasitism, the same is to be said of
the large Cuckow of Southern Europe and North Africa, Coccystes
glandarius, which victimizes Pies (Pica mauritanica and Cyanopica
cooki) and Crows (Corvus cornix). ‘True it is that an instance of this
species, commonly known as the Great Spotted Cuckow, having
built a nest and hatched its young is on record, but this is a mani-
fest error (cf. Salvadori, Uccelli d'Italia, pl. 42); the later observa-
tions of Dr. A. E. Brehm, Canon Tristram, Stafford Allen, and
others leave no doubt on the subject. It is worthy of remark that
the eggs of this bird so closely resemble those of one of the Pies in
whose nest they have been found, that even expert oologists have
been deceived by them, only to discover the truth when the
Cuckow’s embryo had been extracted from the supposed Pie’s egg.

CUCKOW 125

This species of Cuckow, easily distinguishable by its large size, long
crest, and the primrose tinge of its throat, has more than once
made its appear-
ance as a straggler
in the British Isles.
Equally parasitic
are many other
Cuckows, belong-
ing chiefly to
genera which have
been more or less
clearly defined as
Cacomantis, Chryso- a, CucuLus ; 6, OxyLopHus; ¢c, CHALCITES ; d, e, ZANCLOSTOMA,
cocey, Eu dynamis, J, Praya; g, Cenrropus., (After Swainson.)
Oxylophus, Phanicophaes, Polyphasia, Surniculus, and Zanclostoma, and
inhabiting parts of the Ethiopian, Indian, and Australian Regions ;1
but there are certain aberrant forms of
Old-World Cuckows which unques-
tionably do not shirk parental responsi-
bilities. Among these especially are
the birds placed in or allied to the
genera Centropus (COUCAL) and Cowa—
the latter bearing no English name,
and limited to the island of Madagascar.
These build a nest, not perhaps in a
highly-finished style of architecture,
but one that serves its end.?
Respecting the Cuckows of America, the evidence, though it
has been impugned, is nearly enough to clear them from the
calumny which attaches to so many of their brethren of the Old
World. There are two species very well known in parts of the
United States Ty
and some of \( Liisi.
the West-Indian
Islands, Coceyzus
americanus and
C. erythrophthal-

mus, and each
of them has PH@NICOPHAES. SAUROTHERA. DasyLopnus. (After Swainson.)

Cova. (After Swainson.)

occasionally visited Europe. They both build nests—remarkably
small structures when compared with those of other birds of their
size—and faithfully incubate their delicate sea-green eggs. In the
south-western States of the Union and thence into Central America

1 Rvidence tends to shew that the same is to be said of the curious CHANNEL-

BILL, Scythrops nove-hollandix, but absolute proof seems to be wanting.
2 See Grandidier and Milne-Edwards Oiseaux de Madagascar (p. 140).

126 CUCKOW’S-LEADER—CURASSOW

is found the curious form, Geococcyz (CHAPPARAL-COCK). The genera
Neomorphus, Diplopterus, Saurothera, and Piaya (the last two com-
monly called Rain-birds, from the belief that their ery portends
rain) may be noticed—all of them belonging to the Neotropical
Region ; but perhaps the most curious form of American Cuckows
is Crotophaga (ANI), of which three species inhabit the same Region.
The best-known species (C. ani) is found throughout the Antilles
and on the opposite continent. In most of the British colonies it
is known as the Black Witch, and is accused of various malpractices
—it being, in truth, a perfectly harmless if not a beneficial bird.
As regards its, propagation this aberrant form of Cuckow departs as
much in one direction from the normal habit of birds as do so many
of our familiar friends of the Old World in the other, for several
females unite to lay their eggs in one nest. Full details of its
economy are wanting, but it is evident that incubation is carried on
socially, since an intruder on approaching the rude nest will disturb
perhaps half a dozen of its sable proprietors, who, loudly complain-
ing, seek safety either in the leafy branches of the tree that holds
it, or in the nearest available covert, with all the speed that their
feeble powers of flight permit.

CUCKOW’S-LEADER and CUCKOW’S-MATE, common
names for the WRYNECK.

CURASSOW,}! the ordinary corruption of Curacoa-bird, as the
name was spelt in 1756 by Browne (Civ. and Nat. Hist. Jamaica,
p. 470), and doubtless due to the belief that the birds of this kind
first known to English voyagers came from the island so called.
They form the Linnean genus Cra, and the Family Cracidx, which
is held by Messrs. Sclater and Salvin (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, pp.
504-544) to include three subfamilies—Cracine the Curassows proper,
Penelopine (GUAN), and Oreophasine—the last consisting of but a
single species, the beautiful Oreophasis derbianus of the Volcan de
Fuego in Guatemala, of whose haunts and habits Mr. Salvin has
given an excellent account (Ibis, 1860, pp. 248-253). Prof. Huxley
has shewn (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, pp. 294-319) that the Cracidx
with the Megapodiide (MEGAPODE) form a distinct group of
ALECTOROMORPH or GALLINA, to which he applied the name
Peristeropodes, and thereon based some views of GEOGRAPHICAL

1 Dampier, a good authority on many things but not on orthography, in 1699
and 1703, used Corresso and Curreso (Voy. ii. pt. 2, p. 67, and iii. pt. 1, p. 74) ;
Albin in 1738 wrote (NV. H. Birds, ii. p. 29) of birds of this kind (he having
figured both male and female), ‘‘ They are generally brought from Carassow, from
whence they take their name.” Sloane in 1707 (Voy. p. 802) used Quirizao for
both island and bird; and Linneus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, i. p. 157) used
Gallus curassivicus, which he professedly got from Aldrovandus, in whose work,
. however, I have failed to find it. He figures a species of Crax as Gallus Indicus
lib. xiv. cap. 10).

CURASSOW—CURLEW 127

DISTRIBUTION which are considered elsewhere. But at present to
treat of the Cracinx, the two authors above mentioned recognize 4
good genera :—Craz with a soft cere, and the nostrils placed in
the middle of the maxilla, while the remain-
ing three have the whole of the bill horny
and the nostrils at its base, the lores being
bare in Nothocrax, but feathered in Pauzis
(CASHEW-BIRD) and JMitua, the former of
which bears the
curious _ frontal
knob already
mentioned, while
the latter has the
culmen of its short
and greatly com-
pressed bill ele-
vated and swollen.
Many further par- (After Swainson.)

ticulars of the Curassows may be gathered from two other papers
by Mr. Sclater (Trans. Zool. Soc. ix. pp. 273-288, pls. 40-53, and x.
pp. 543-546, pls. 89-95), which are illustrated copiously and mostly
from living examples, for these birds thrive well in confinement,
though the hopes once entertained of their capacity for domestica-
tion have been disappointed. The Cracidv are one of the most
characteristic Families of the Neotropical Region, outside of which
but few of them and none of the Cracinx go, and are especially
abundant in Central and the north parts of South America, few
being found in Paraguay, and none in Patagonia or Chili.

CURLEW, in French Coulis or Corlieu, a name given to two
birds, of whose cry it is an imitation, both belonging to the group
Limicolx, but possessing very different habits and features.

1. The LONG-BILLED CURLEW, or simply Curlew of most British

- writers, the Numenius arquata? of ornithologists, is one of the

largest of the Family Scolopacidx, or Snipes and allied forms. It
is common on the shores of the United Kingdom and most
parts of Europe, seeking the heaths and moors of the interior and
more northern countries in the breeding-season, where it lays its
four brownish-green eggs, suffused with cinnamon markings, in an
artless nest on the ground. In England it has been ascertained to
breed in Cornwall and in the counties of Devon, Dorset, Salop, and

1 On this see E. S. Dixon, The Dovecote and the Aviary, pp. 223-279 (London :
1851).

2 Some authors have tried to improve on this word by writing arquatus,
which is nonsense, though arcuatus might be right. As a matter of fact, arquata
is a substantive and the name of the bird in medieval Latin, which of course
Linneus knew.

128 CURLEW

Derby—though sparingly. In Yorkshire it is more numerous, and
thence to the extreme north of Scotland, as well as throughout
Ireland, it is, under the name of WHAUP, familiar to those who
have occasion to traverse the wild and desolate tracts that best suit
its habits. So soon as the young are able to shift for themselves,
both they and their parents resort to the sea-shore or mouths of
rivers, from the muddy flats of which they at low tide obtain their
living, and, though almost beyond any other birds wary of
approach, form an object of pursuit to numerous gunners. While
leading this littoral life the food of the Curlew seems to consist of
almost anything edible that presents itself. It industriously probes
the mud or sand in quest of the worms that lurk therein, and is
also active in seeking for such crustaceans and mollusks as can be
picked up on the surface, while vegetable matter as well has been
found in its stomach. During its summer-sojourn on the moor-
lands insects and berries, when they are ripe, enter largely into its
diet. In bulk the Curlew is not less than a Crow, but it looks
larger still from its long legs, wings, and neck. Its bill, from 5 to
7 inches in length, and terminating in the delicate nervous
apparatus common to all birds of its Family, is especially its most
remarkable feature. Its plumage above is of a drab colour
streaked and mottled with very dark brown; beneath it is white,
while the flight-quills are of a brownish black.

Nearly allied to the Curlew, but smaller and with a more
northern range, is the WHIMBREL, NV. phxopus, called in some parts
Jack-Curlew, from its small size—May-fowl, from the month in
which it usually arrives—and Titterel from one of its cries. This
so much resembles the former in habit and appearance that no
further details need be given of it. In the countries bordering on
the Mediterranean occurs a third species, NV. tenwirostris, the home
of which has yet to be ascertained. Some 15 other species, or
more, have been described, but Mr. Seebohm (Geogr. Distrib. Chara-
driidx, p. 321) admits but 11 in all with 2 “subspecies.” The
genus Numenius is almost cosmopolitan. In North America three
very easily recognized species are found—the first, NV. longirostris,
closely agreeing with the European Curlew, but larger and with a
longer bill; the second, NV. hudsonicus, representing our Whimbrel ;
and the third, NV. borealis, which has several times found its way to
Britain, very much less in size. All these essentially agree with
the species of the Old World in habit; but it is remarkable that
the American birds can be easily distinguished by the rufous colour-
ing of their axillary feathers—a feature which is also presented by
the American Gopwits (Limosa). A very singular peculiarity is
afforded by NV. tahitiensis or femoralis, a species which seems to have

1 The name Spowe (cf. Icelandic Spéz) also seems to have been anciently given
to this bird (see Stevenson’s Birds of Norfolk, ii. p. 201).

CURLEW 129

its home in Alaska and winters in the islands of the Pacific. In this
bird the shaft of most of the feathers clothing its legs is produced
into a long glistening bristle.

2. The Curlew of inlanders, or Stonn-CURLEW—called also, by
some writers, from its stronghold in this country, the Norfolk
Plover, and most wrongly and absurdly the
Thick-Knee or Thick-Kneed Bustard—is
usually classed among the Charadriidx, but
it offers several remarkable differences from
the more normal Plovers. It is the Chara-
drius edicnemus of Linneeus, the C. scolopas Stone-CURLEW.
of Sam. Gottl. Gmelin, and the @dicnemus (aberemanene)
crepitans of 'Temminck. With much the same cry as that of the
Numenvi, only uttered in a far sweeter tone, it is as fully en-
titled to the name of Curlew as the bird most commonly so
called. In England it is almost solely a summer - visitor,
though an example will occasionally linger throughout a mild
winter; and is one of the few birds whose distribution with
us is affected by geological formation, since it is nearly limited to
the chalk-country—the open spaces of which it haunts, and its
numbers have of late years been sensibly diminished by their
enclosure. The most barren spots in these districts, even where
but a superficial coating of light sand and a thin growth of turf
scarcely hide the chalk below, supply its needs; though at night
(and it chiefly feeds by night) it resorts to moister and more fertile
places. Its food consists of snails, coleopterous insects, and earth-
worms, but larger prey, as a mouse or a frog, is not rejected.
Without making the slightest attempt at a nest, it lays its two
eggs on a level spot, a bare fallow being often chosen. These are
not very large, and in colour so closely resemble the sandy, flint-
strewn surface that their detection except by a practised eye is
difficult. The bird, too, trusts much to its own drab colouring to
elude observation, and, on being disturbed, will frequently run for
a considerable distance and then squat with outstretched neck so
as to become almost invisible. In such a case it may be closely
approached, and its large golden eye, if it do not pass for a tuft of -
yellow lichen, is perhaps the first thing that strikes the searcher.
As autumn advances the Stone-Curlew gathers in large flocks, and
then is as wary as its namesake. Towards October these take their
departure, and their survivors return, often with wonderful con-
stancy, to their beloved haunts (see MIGRATION). In size this species
exceeds any other European Plover, and looks even still larger than
it is. The bill is short, blunt, and stout; the head large, broad,
and flat at the top. The wings and legs long—the latter present-
ing a singular enlargement of the tibio-tarsal joint, whence the
name (dicnemus has been conferred, The toes are short and fleshy,

9

Pennant in 173
(Gen. 6. P 13)

130 CURSORES—CYPSELOMORPHZ

and the hind-toe, as in most Charadriidx, is wanting. This Curlew
seems to have been an especial favourite with Gilbert White, in
whose classical writings mention of it is often made. Its range
extends to North Africa and India, though examples from the
latter country have been regarded as requiring specific distinctions.
Four other species of Gidicnemus from Africa are recognized by Mr.
Seebohm (op. cit. p. 71). Australia possesses a very distinct species,
(EZ. grallarius, which some writers have raised to a genus Burhinus,
and there are 3 species in the Neotropical Region, @. bistriatus, GZ.
dominicensis, and CE. superciliaris. The analogy of all these birds to
the Otididx (BUSTARD), is manifest, but that they have any really
close affinity to that Family is questionable. An exaggerated form
of @dicnemus is found in A’sacus, of which two species have been
described, one 4’. recurvirostris, from the Indian, and the other, 4.
magnirostris, from the northern parts of the Australian Region.

CURSORES, an Order of Birds proposed by Illiger in 1811
(Prodrom. Syst. Mammal. et Avium, pp. 246-250) to contain the
genera Casuarius (CASSOWARY), Struthio (OSTRICH), RHEA, Otis
(BusTaRD), Charadrius (PLOVER), Calidris (SANDERLING), Himantopus
(Stitt), Hematopus (OYSTER-CATCHER), Jachydromus ( = Cursorius,
CoursER), and Burhinus (Stone-CURLEW). Notwithstanding the
obviously artificial nature of this group, several authors have
accepted it, some entirely, but others with so many modifications
that the meaning of the term has become quite indefinite.

CURUCUL, a Brazilian word adopted, through the French, by
some English authors,for the TROGONS.

CUSHAT, a common name for the Ring- Dove or Wood-

PIGEON. .
CUT-THROAT, see Weaver-bird,

CYPSELOMORPH, Prof. Huxley’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1867, p. 468) for the group of A‘GITHOGNATH# containing the
Families Caprimulgide (GOATSUCKER), Cypselide (SWIFT), and
Trochilide (HUMMING-BIRD), which he considers to be “annectent
forms between the CoRACOMORPH& and the CoccYGOMORPH.”

DABCHICK—DAKER-HEN 131

D

DABCHICK or DOBCHICK, the smallest and most common
European species of Podicipes, which has also a wide range in the
Old World. It is the Little GrEBE of books, and the Podicipes
Jlwiatilis or minor of modern ornithology. In most parts of Britain it
resorts in spring to lakes or even small ponds, building there a nest
of aquatic plants, collected in the pool it frequents, and either
piled up from the bottom near the margin or resting on the
growing water-weeds themselves, while use is occasionally made of
any branch of a tree that may have fallen into the water. In
every case the mass of materials brought together is large compared
with the size of the bird, and is always in a moist condition, even
to the upper part, which is slightly hollowed out in the form of a
cup to receive the seven or eight eggs that are therein laid. These,
as is generally the case with those of other members of the Family,
are symmetrical in form, there being little or no difference between
the two ends, and have a chalky shell, which from being at first of
a pure white are soon stained by the damp weeds forming the nest,
some of which are carefully drawn over it by the parent whenever it is
left, and evenif she be too suddenly disturbed to make this possible,
she will stealthily return at the first opportunity and cover them.

Few birds have a greater faculty of escaping observation than
this, and it often happens that a pair will frequent a small weedy
pond, nigh unto a human habitation, and rear their young there,
without their existence being detected, though they stay for the
whole of a summer. Jn winter the greater part emigrate, and
those that remain betake themselves to rivers, brooks, and ditches
near the sea, which except in very hard frost are free from ice—
using, as a last resort, the tidal waters.

DACNIS, a genus established by Cuvier, with the euagipuahaie
blue and black Motacilla cayana of ihiens <I >o
as its type, belonging to the Cwrebidx. Four-
teen species are recognized by Mr. Sclater :
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xi. pp. 18-27), and the skins Z
of two or three of them, remarkable for their Dacnis.
beautiful blue or bluish-green coloration, are (atten Swaluse)
among the commonest of those sent from South America.

DAKER-HEN, an old and widely-spread name of the Land-
RAIL, referring, it is thought, to the unsteady flight of the bird,
for to “dacker” (Frisian, dakkern, M. Dutch, daeckeren), signifying
to stagger, totter, or hesitate, is a well-known word in Lincolnshire,

132 DARR—DAW

and perhaps in other districts (cf Cordeaux, Zoologist, 1883,
pp. 228, 229).

DARR, a local name applied to some species of TERN.
DARTER, see SNAKE-BIRD.

DASSIE-VANGER (Coney-catcher), the Dutch name for an
EAGLE in South Africa, adopted by English residents — the
“Dassie” being Hyrax capensis (Layard, b. S. Africa, p. 11).

DAW (Old Low Germ. Daha), doubtless from the bird’s ery, as
seems also to be the nickname “Jack” commonly prefixed! The
Jackdaw, to useits vulgar and redundant name, is the smallest as
it is, perhaps, the best known in Britain of the Corvide (Crow) ;
for, though much less numerous than the Rook, it inhabits the
outskirts of even large towns as well as the country ; and, from its
diverting manners, and its aptitude for imitating the sounds it
hears, is often kept in captivity more or less modified. In its
natural state it differs from most of the Corvidx in the choice it
makes of breeding-quarters, nearly always placing its nest in some
hollow tree or convenient corner in a building—a church-tower
(from its being seldom ascended) especially affording a secure posi-
tion. It will equally make itself a home in a rabbit-burrow, a sea-
girt cliff, or contrive to find a suitable receptacle for its progeny
among the sticks that form the base of some huge Rook’s nest
which has been accumulating for years. Gamekeepers view it in
great despite, for it is undoubtedly ready to rob the eggs of other
birds when occasion offers ; but it is as omnivorous as a Rook in
feeding, and there is scarcely a flock of that species that is not at-
tended by more or fewer Daws, who act as the light company of
the heavier regiment. The normal glossy black plumage of the
Corvide is in the Daw, when adult, diversified by its having the
hinder part of the head of a delicate ashy-grey colour,? while
examples from South-Eastern Europe and Asia Minor, having the
nape of a silvery white, have been called C. collaris, and further to
the eastward the birds have not only the collar broader and of a
pure white, but the lower parts of the body white also. These
belong to the species called by Pallas C. dauuricus.

1 Perhaps the earliest instance of nicknaming birds is to be found in Lang-
land’s Piers the Plowman, written soon after 1400, where the Sparrow is called
‘*Philip” ; but the practice, as all know, extended, and Swift in his Descrip-
tion of a Salamander thus mentions it :—

“ As mastiff-dogs in modern phrase are
Call’d Pompey, Scipio, and Cresar ;
As pyes and daws are often stil’d
With Christian nicknames like a child.”

° It is only the hinder part of the head that wears this light tint, a fact
which renders improbable that the ‘‘russet-pated choughs” of Shakespear (J/ids.-
Night's Dream, Act iii. Sc. 2) were birds of this species (see CHoucH).

DA VAL—DEMOISELLE 133

=

DAYAL, or more correctly, it would seem, DHY AL (corrupted
into Dial-bird'), the Hindostani name commonly adopted by
Anglo-Indians for one of the loudest-voiced of their songsters, the
Gracula saularis of Linneeus, and Copsychus saularis of modern orni-
thology, whose plumage, black and white in the male, made
Edwards call it the “Little Indian Pye.” In Nepal it is kept to
exhibit its pugnacity, and a bird that will fight well is highly prized.
Its other habits have been recognized by the best ornithologists as
pointing to an alliance with the Saxicoline group of Yurdidx
(THRusH) or Sylviide (WARBLER), nevertheless a recent writer (Cat.
B. Br. Mus. vii. p. 60) has plunged the genus Copsychus into the
cesspool which he calls 7imeliidx, with the true members of which
it has little in common. The number of species of the genus is
doubtful; but one is certainly peculiar to the Philippine Islands,
and another to the Seychelles, while two are found (to say nothing
of the barely separable Gervaisia) in Madagascar. Other forms are
also very nearly allied to Copsychus, and among them may be men-
tioned the African Cercotrichas, and Cittocincla of the Indian Region,
of which C. tricolor, known throughout India by its Hindostani
name of Shdma, is a favourite song-bird, and deserves mention.

DEMOISELLE, a name fancifully given by the French to
several kinds of birds”; but the only sense in which it has been
used (and that for nearly 200 years*) by English writers is as
applied to the Grus or Anthropoides* virgo, otherwise called the
Numidian CraANg, though it is only a winter visitant to any part of
Africa ; the range of its breeding-haunts extending from the valley
of the Lower Danube eastward through Southern Russia, Turkestan,
and Siberia to China. Examples occasionally stray from its proper
home and have occurred in Germany, Heligoland, and Sweden ;
while two were seen, and one of them shot, in Orkney in May 1863

1 This phonetic spelling has naturally given rise to a series of mistakes. First
used by Albin in 1737 (Suppl. N. H. Birds, i. p. 17, pls. xvii. xviii.), it was sup-
~ posed by Levaillant (Ozs. d’ Afr. iii. p. 50) to refer to the ordinary instrument for
ascertaining the time of day, and by him was accordingly rendered Cadran. Sub-
sequently Jerdon asserted (B. India, ii. p. 116), that Linneus, thinking it had some
connexion with a sun-dial, called it ‘‘ solaris, by lapsus pennex, saularis.” Herein
Jerdon was misled, for the epithet applied by Linneus is but the Latinized form of
‘*Saulary,” the name under which a cock and hen were sent from Madras by E.
Buckley to Petiver, who first described the species (Ray, Synops. Meth. Avium, p.197).

2 Buffon, Hist. Nat. Oiseaux, iii. p. 247; v. p. 487, note, and vii. pp. 313-316.

3 The Natural History of Animals . . . dissected by the Royal Academy of
Sciences at Paris (London : 1702, pp. 205 et seqq.)

4 This name was given by Vieillot, following a misapprehension of the French
Academicians, Du Vernay and Perrault, whose observations were translated in
the work mentioned in the last note. On the questions arising out of the various
names assigned to this species, see Bennett, Gardens and Menagerte of the Zoologi-
cal Society, ii. pp. 231, 232.

134 DENTIROS TRES—DIA MOND-BIRD

(Zoologist, p. 8692). It is considerably smaller than the ordinary
Crane, G. communis, and has a long tuft of white feathers reaching
backward behind each eye, while the black plumes of its breast and
the grey inner secondaries are greatly elongated—the last especially.

DENTIROSTRES, a group of Birds discriminated by Duméril
in 1806 (Zool. Analyt. p. 41), composed of the genera (as then re-
garded) Buceros (HORNBILL), MJomotus (Mormor), and Phytotoma
(PLANT-CUTTER), as having their bills scored with at least three
notches (dentelwres); but in 1817 used in a wholly different sense by
Cuvier (2eegn. Animal, p. 336), so as to contain Laniidx, Tanagride,
Muscicapide, Ampelidx | = Cotingidx]|, Edolius, Turdidx, Pyrrhocoraa,
Oriolidx, Myiothera, Cinclus, Philedon, Gracula, Menura, Pipra, and
Motacilla ; and subsequently adopted with more or less modification
by a great number of systematists.

DERTRUM, the hook of the BILt.

DESMODACTYLI, the name proposed by Forbes (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1880, p. 390) for a group of PASSERES, consisting of the Huryle-
midx (BROADBILL).

DESMOGNATH A, Prof. Huxley’s third Suborder of CARINATA,
composed of seven groups — CHENOMORPHA, AMPHIMORPH#,
PELARGOMORPHA, DYSPOROMORPHA AETOMORPH, PSITTACOMOR-
PHA, and CoccyGOMORPHA—1in all of which the vomer is often
abortive or so small as to disappear; but, when existing, it is
slender, and tapers anteriorly to a point, while the maxillo-palatals
are united (whence the name of the Suborder) across the middle
line, either directly or by the ossification of the nasal septum, and
the posterior ends of the palatals and anterior of the pterygoids
articulate directly with the rostrum. Moreover, the lower larynx
in these birds is never formed on the plan of the PAssErEs. It
may be observed that nothing approaching to this association of
the groups above named had ever before been proposed by any
taxonomer (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 435-448, 460-466).

_ DEVIL-BIRD, a name applied by the English in Ceylon to a
species of OWL, Stria or Syrnium indrani, as well as to a GOATSUCKER,
Caprimulgus kelaartt (Legge, Bb. Ceyl. pp. 155, 337).

DEVILING, a common local name for the SwIFT.

DHYAL or DIAL-BIRD, see DAYAL.

DIAMOND-BIRD, the name bestowed in Australia on the mem-
bers of the genus Pardalotus founded in 1816
by Vieillot (Analyse, p. 31), with Pipra punctata
of Latham as its type, for which in our present
ignorance it is hard to find a place. Gould

DiaMONnD-BIRD. (Handb. B. Austral. i. p. 156) put it with a
(After Swainson.) : . :

mark of doubt under Ampelidx, in whatever

DIAPHRAGM—DICAUM 135

sense (and that is uncertain) he used the word. Dr. Sharpe (Cat.
BL. Br. Mus. x. pp. 3, 54 et seqg.) refers it to the Dicwide—a group
which, he says, “‘cannot be defined in exact terms” (fom. cit. p. 2),
and the genus Pardalotus is made to consist of 9 species. If this
assignment be correct, the name of the Family should be changed,
as the genus Pardalotus antedates Dicmum, and, according to usage,
the Family is called after the oldest genus it contains.

DIAPHRAGM (Greek duddpaypa), the transverse muscular
partition below the heart and lungs and above the liver, stomach,
and rest of the intestinal canal, fully developed in Mammals only.
In Birds it is incomplete and rather differently arranged, consisting
(1) of the pulmonary or transverse, and (2) of the abdominal or
oblique portion. The first arises from the second to the sixth
pairs of ribs near the lateral edge of the lungs, and spreads over
their ventral surface as an aponeurotie membrane, while it is
connected with the vertebral column as the median vertical septum ;
completely separating the lungs and the cervical air-sacs from the
rest of the thoraco-abdominal cavity. Small voluntary muscles
arising from the ribs and from the sternum extend over part of the
aponeurosis. The second or oblique half is entirely membranous
without muscular fibres: it forms the continuation of the ventral
margin of the vertical median septum, and is connected with the
pericardium and with the medio-ventral portion of the sternum,
while the rest extends obliquely through the abdominal cavity to
the posterior and ventral margins of the sternum. The space thus
enclosed is the subpulmonary chamber, divided into a right and a
left half by the vertical septum. Three transverse septa divide
ie either half into four loculi, into each of which one of the three

> four post-bronchial AtR-SAcS extends from the lungs. Con-
ay the whole of the diaphragmatic membranes divide the
entire thoraco-abdominal cavity into three chambers: (1) the
Pulmonary chamber, anteriorly and dorsally from the pulmonary
septum, containing the lungs and cervical air-sacs; (2) the Sub-
pulmonary chamber, anteriorly and ventrally from the oblique
septum, and ventrally from the pulmonary septum, containing
most of the air-sacs; and (3) the Cardio-abdominal chamber,
posteriorly from or below the oblique septum, containing the heart
and the rest of the intestines.

DICAUM, a group differentiated by Cuvier in 1817 (fegne
Anim. i. p. 410) for the Certhia cruentata of Linnzeus
and its allies, several of which inhabit India, and
one of them—D. hirundinaceum—Australia, in which fe
country the scientific name has been accepted as Diceum.
English (Gould, Mandpe Bb. Auciral, i.0p: 081). >be: CAter Syainsqus)
group has since been lane as entitled not only to generic rank,

136 DICK-CISSEL DIGESTIVE (SVSTEM

and subdivided into several sections or genera, but has been of late
advanced to the dignity of a Family, Dicwidx, for which much might
be said ; but several forms have at the same time been erroneously
referred to it (Sharpe, Cat. B. Br. Mus. x. pp. 9-84)—among them
the DIAMOND-BIRDS above mentioned. The Dicaide range from
Nepal through India (where they have been called, but seemingly
without reason, Flower-pickers) and the Malay Archipelago to
China and Australia ; but to this Family have been referred a good
many forms which Dr. Gadow’s researches prove to have no near
relationship to Dicwum proper.

DICK-CISSEL, the nickname familiarly applied to the Black-
throated Bunting of writers, Spiza or Huspiza americana, a species
whose recent disappearance from localities which it formerly fre-
quented has not yet been explained by North-American ornitholo-
gists (of. H. M. Smith, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xiii. p. 171).

DIDAPPER or DIVEDAPPER, an old name (cf. Shakespear,
Venus and Adonis, line 86) for the DABCHICK or Little GREBE.

DIGESTIVE SYSTEM. This consists chiefly of the Ali-
mentary Canal and its glandular appendages, the former, beginning
with the MourH, is successively made up of the CHsopHAGUS, the
STOMACH, the small intestine or “ileum,” and the large intestine
or “rectum” (with the Caca when present), which last opens into
the Ctoaca. The glandular appendages are either proventricular
and other mucous glands, imbedded in the walls of the Canal, or
salivary glands, Liver, and PANCREAS, communicating with it
through special ducts. The function of the System is of two
separate kinds: first the preparation of the food, which is effected
in part mechanically and in part by chemically-acting secretions
of the accessory glands; and_ secondly the absorption of the
“chyle,” or prepared nutritive fluid, by means of the LYMPHATIC
SYSTEM.

The digestive process is as follows:—The food taken into the
mouth is swallowed and passes through the cesophagus into the
stomach, assisted in its descent by the secretions of the salivary
and mucous glands. When there is a Crop, it is therein mixed
with saliva and water, and assisted by the heat of the body is
softened and acted upon in a preliminary way. It then enters the
stomach, where it meets with the secretions of the proventricular or
gastric glands. But beside being acted upon chemically it is
crushed and triturated in the gizzard, especially in graminivorous
and granivorous birds, which possess a strong muscular stomach.
Thus comminuted it is known as “chyme,” and passes through the
pylorus into the small intestine, in the first loop of which, the
“duodenum,” it is mixed with the bile and pancreatic juice, these

DIGESTIVE SYSTEM 137

two fiuids being the secretions of the liver and the pancreas.
Their principal action is to convert its soluble parts into
“eptones,” which are to be conveyed into the Lymphatic System,
and so into the BLoop. Their absorption as chyle is effected by
numerous “villi” or projections which line the walls of the whole
Canal from the pylorus to the cloaca. At the beginning of the
rectum the ceca, when such are functional, receive the remaining
chyme, and it is probable that in them certain hitherto undissolved
matter, as cellulose and possibly chitin, is acted upon by marsh-
gas, so as to extract as much nutrition as possible from the
food. After remaining a due time in the ceca, their contents
return into the rectum, and are finally ejected through the cloaca
as fxces.

The walls of the Alimentary Canal are composed of five layers,
of which the innermost only is of “endodermal” origin, the rest
being “mesodermal” (see EMBRYOLOGY). These layers are: (1)
the tunica serosa or adventitia, which is outermost and consists of
partly elastic connective tissue; (2) a layer of smooth muscular
fibres, transversely or circularly arranged; (3) one of smooth
muscular fibres, longitudinally arranged ; (4) the tunica submucosa
of loose connective tissue, which contains nerves, blood, and
lymphatic vessels; and (5) the tunica mucosa or innermost lining,
composed of epithelial cells, which give rise to mucous and various
specific digestive glands. It is noteworthy that Birds and Reptiles
differ from Mammals in the succession of the two muscular layers
(2 and 3), since in the last the circular fibres are placed on the
inside, next to the submucosa (4), while the longitudinal fibres
together with the serosa (1) form the outer wall. These layers
vary considerably in the different parts of the Alimentary Canal ;
thus the thickening of the walls of the gizzard is due to the
excessive development of the muscular layers, while in the
cesophagus the mwcosa is represented chiefly by ordinary epithelial
cells, comparatively few of which form simple mucous glands,
though in the region of the proventriculus its cells are transformed
into large glands, often closely packed and compressed, constituting
the greater part of the thickened walls. Again, in the gizzard no
such specific, but only mucous glands occur, the hardened secretion
of which invests its cavity with an additional cuticular lining.
Both the small and large intestines are characterized by numerous
villi, protruding into the canal as excrescences of the two innermost
layers, and absorbing the prepared nutritive fluid. Beside the
ordinary mucous glands the mucosa gives rise to two masses of
specific nature which as Liver and PANCREAS grow out of the
walls of the duodenum, and thus indicate their point of origin only
by their respective ducts.

The intestine, or gut proper, begins at the pyloric end of the

138 DIGESTIVE (S VSI

stomach and ends at the cloaca. It may be conveniently divided
into (1) the duodenum or first loop, (2) the dewn or narrowest and
longest portion, equivalent to both the jejunum and ileum of man,
and lastly (3) the rectum, corresponding with his large intestine.
The transition from the ileum to the rectum is marked by a more
or less circular valve (the “‘ileo-cxecal”), so placed as to permit its
contents to pass into the ceca and rectum, but to hinder their
return—their passage throughout the whole intestine being aided by
the peristaltic contractions of the muscular layers of its walls. An
epithelium of cylindrical cells, forming a colourless, structureless
and soft cuticle, lines nearly the whole of the intestine, and is

Ca SK Cr.
De y
z ‘3 1 Bite
EK, Zz, ( LY -¢
V/ Zaj \ \ mms —

DIAGRAM OF THE DIGESTIVE ORGANS OF A BIRD.

T. Tongue; P.G. L.G. Parotid and salivary glands; Tr. Trachea; 1.Br. r.Br. left and right
bronchus ; Cr. Crop; Pr. Proventriculus or glandular stomach ; g. Gizzard or muscular stomach ;
Py. Pylorus; D. Duodenum; L. Liver with gall-bladder and duct; Pa. Pancreas with duct;
C. Ceca; R. Rectum; K. Kidney with Ureter opening into the middle cloacal chamber.

perforated by numerous small pores, opening upon their interstices.
In many parts these cells form very simple and sometimes tubular
glands (“ Lieberktihn’s”), and the greater portion of the walls is
beset with the villi mentioned above. These are very numerous,
and are arranged in various ways—being either uniformly and
thickly spread over the surface, giving it a velvety appearance, or
are longer and more sparingly distributed in lines, which may be
straight or zigzag, transverse or longitudinal. Their arrangement
is occasionally characteristic of different groups of birds; but it
varies also in different parts of the gut. As a rule they are largest
and most numerous in the duodenum, but sometimes in the rectum

DIGESTIVE SVSTEM 139

as well. The structure of these small but important organs will be
best understood by reference to the accompanying figure. Each
villus consists of a finger-shaped prolongation of the tissue of the
submucosa, which contains a ramified central canal conveying the
collected chyle into the lymphatic vessels, which are frequently
connected with a lymphatic follicle for the production of white
BLOOD-corpuscles or lymph-cells. A pair of small arteries and
veins enter the villus, forming a capillary network, while fine
unstriped muscles in its walls contract it and force the chyle into
the lymphatic vessels. In the figure, on one side of the villus is
shewn a Lieberkiihn’s gland, since such are generally associated
with the villi.

Fic. 1.—D1aGRAM OF AN INTESTINAL VILLUS WITH THE CENTRAL ABSORBENT, RAMIFIED CANAL.

L.v. its duct ; Aand v, Artery and vein ascending in Sm. the submucous layer ; Z. Cylindrical
cells of the epithelium of the mucous layer, which at L.G. forms a Lieberkiihn gland; Lg. and
An. Longitudinal and annular or circular muscular fibres ; Se. Serosa or outer layer of connective

tissue, together with the investing peritoneal lamella Pe., which forms the mesentery M. in Fig. 2.
L Follicle at base of villus
Fic. 2.—DIAGRAM OF A TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH THE INTESTINE.

V. Villi; M. Mesentery with blood- and lymphatic vessels.

The capacity of the Intestinal Canal depends upon the nature
of the bird’s food. In order to compare its length in different
forms we require a unit by which to arrive at its relative propor-
tions. The length of the whole vertebral column, or even the dis-
tance from the tip of the bill to that of the tail, has been
frequently used; but this gives only faulty results, since the
length of the neck is obviously not correlated with that of the intes-
tine. Numerous measurements and comparisons have led me to
adopt as the unit the distance from the first thoracic vertebra (7.e.
from the root of the neck) to the anus, and thus the quotient of
the absolute length of the intestine from the pylorus to the anus is
the relative length of the gut. This relative length is very con-
stant in a species, and often gives results of considerable taxo-
nomic value. Of course “short-gutted” and “long-gutted” are

140 DIGESTIVE SVSTEM

arbitrary expressions ; but, if we assume that a relative length not
exceeding 5 indicates a short, and one of more than 8 a long gut,
we find that the Intestinal Canal is very short in all purely frugi-
vorous and insectivorous birds, while it is very long in those which
live upon fishes, carrion, grain, and grass. It must, however, be
remarked that, according to the nature of the food, a short intes-
tinal canal is often compensated by its width either wholly or in
part, as of the rectum, or by the presence of large czca. Conse-
quently all these points have to be considered in using the features
of the intestine for taxonomic purposes. Ceteris paribus, the rela-
tive length of the-canal is as good a character as many others, and
occasionally by it alone closely-allied species can be determined.
The subjoined table shews the measurements of the intestine in a
few forms; but for fuller information the reader may be referred
to (Bronn’s) Kl. & Ordn. Thier-R. Vogel, pp. 590-661 and 700, where
the respective measurements of nearly 400 birds will be found.

Absolute Length Length of
of Intestinal Canal.
1 Cecum.|{ Rectum. | Absolute , Relative
cm. cm. em.
Struthiocamelus . .. . 70 820 1430 20
Casuariusindicus . . . . 3 28 180 3-4
Spheniscus minor . a. 8 2 a 223 16
Anser cinereus, var. dom. . 24 18 260 1,
Procellaria leachi . Oe? 1°5 29 5
Ardea cinerea cane 05 10 OA 10
Gallus bankiva, va7. dom. 17-20 S511 | 186-170 8-10
Syrrhaptes paradoxus. 12 10 80 )
Columba livia, var. dom. 0°8 4 108-182 | 11-13
Pandion haliaetus . 0°3 9 300 18
Astur palumbarius. 07 7 108 6
Corythaix persa. 0 — 42 3-4
Cypselus apus 0 — 17 3
Corvus corax 1°4 5 120 8
Manucodia atra. 0°5 3 29 2-3
Passer domesticus . 0:2 2 Pal 5-6

In early embryonic stages the Intestinal Canal is a straight
tube ; but, as its growth proceeds far more rapidly than that of the
body-cavity, it is necessarily thrown into folds or loops. Moreover,
since it is suspended from the vertebral column by the mesentery, or
lining of the body-cavity, its several folds are thereby connected
with one another in various ways, and their number and shape
depend to a great extent upon the space available in the cavity, as
well as upon the shape, size, and position of the stomach and
neighbouring organs ; but the various ways in which the small in-
testine is stowed away in different birds exhibit types so definite
and constant that they cannot be considered accidental or meaning-
less features. On the contrary, a somewhat exhaustive study of its

DIGESTIVE SVSTEM 14!

convolutions reveals their taxonomic value, and enables me to say
that the Digestive System, taken in its entirety—that is to say,
the crop, glandular and muscular stomach, liver, gall-bladder with
its ducts, ceca, and the relative length and convolutions of the in-
testinal canal—affords more diagnostic features than any other
organic system—the osseous excepted. Moreover, it has the great
advantage that through reference to the food we can in many cases
account for the aberrant features of the digestive organs displayed
by birds otherwise closely allied. So much cannot be said for char-
acters furnished by PrERYLOSIS, and attempts to explain taxonomic-
ally the more important differences observable in the MuscuLar
System have hitherto been futile because of the complex problems
involved. At any rate, we ought not to treat recent birds as if
they were fossil and had left us nothing but their bones, unless,
indeed, the specimens be skinned and all their other important char-
acters thrown away.

It is hoped therefore that a brief general account, condensed
from a paper in the Zoological Proceedings for 1889 (pp. 303-316),
of the chief types of intestinal structure in birds may here have
interest, especially as, with the exception of Cuvier, British Ana-
tomists only! have treated the subject, and since the days of
Macgillivray, who alone attempted it systematically, this branch
of Ornithotomy has been neglected, perhaps from the apparent but
not real difficulty of studying these easily-putrefying organs.

In a typical loop of the intestines of a bird we distinguish
between a descending and an ascending branch ; both meet at the
distal end or apex of the loop, and this forms its turning-point.
The starting-point is the pylorus, the goal the cloaca. Each loop
is either closed or open. It is closed when both the descending
and the ascending branches are throughout the length of the loop
closely bound together by an extension of the mesentery and its
vessels. Of these vessels, as a rule, each principal loop receives
one bigger branch from the middle mesenteric artery. A loop is
open when its two branches are not closely connected by mesentery
and vessels ; the mesentery is wider, and the two branches of the
loop may receive another loop or intestinal fold between them, the
latter then resting upon the mesentery of the former open loop.

The duodenum is always a typically-closed loop. Its first or

1 K. Home, The course of the intestine with the varieties in the form of the
ceca in carnivorous, piscivorous, and granivorous birds, Phil. Trans, 1814. G.
Cuvier, Legons @anatumie comparée, ed. 2, 1835. R. Owen, Todd’s Cyclopedia
of Anatomy and Physiology, article ‘‘ Aves,” 1836. |W. Macgillivray, ‘‘ Obser-
vations on the Digestive Organs of Birds,” Mag. Zool. and Bot. 1837. Occasional
notes on the intestinal canal are extremely numerous, among others by Burton,
Crisp, Duvernay, Forbes, Garrod, Jobert, Leuckart, L’ Herminier, Martin, Nitzsch,
Pavesi, Perrin, and Yarrell.

142 DIGESTIVE S VSP

descending branch lies, when viewed from the ventral side, to the
right of the second or ascending branch; both invariably enclose
the PANCREAS.

A loop which runs in the same way as the duodenum may be
termed right-handed, and one running in the opposite way is left-
handed, i.e. its descending branch lies to the left of the ascending
branch. Again, if the intestine forms a number of (mostly closed)
loops, which run parallel with each other in the long axis of the
body, we term this arrangement orthocwlous, or straight-gutted.

as Bees ; acs. - ae
Va s \ ’
\ Ore \
‘ b Sma | \
t ! ‘ fig f f Wal 1 1 4
; ser /aat 1 i / H [et A
' e/A\Nerie 0 An it ou 1
H ‘ 1 ! 1 ! wd ea H
meleiclairt sa fear toTW hit tf
' H teat i me ii Hh I
1 ' ' 1 1
' 1 t ! 1
1 ' r ' ' | Healt 1
1 1 er Hey at it 1 1
1 H Vien 1 1 if ty 1
1 1 1 ! 1 if toy i
' ' tf tigen a Hien H
H ' fies reat it ip oy \
! 1 ei ie el as eae
; 1 H Hy 1! \, 1 / .
i ‘. ‘
‘ ‘ / = / /
4
x m\v t / ;
@ 6 G d

g h
DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE PRINCIPAL RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE INTESTINAL
Loops WHEN SEEN FROM THE RIGHT SIDE.
a. Isoccelous. b. Anticcelous. c. Anti-Periccelous. d. Iso-Periccelous.
e. Cyclocelous. J, g. Plagioccelous. h. Telogyrous.

The descending branches of the loops are marked by black lines, the ascending or return-
ing branches are dotted.
The first and third loops in fig. b are ‘‘ right-handed,” the second is “‘left-handed”’; in fig. ¢
the second is ‘‘left-,” the third ‘‘ right-handed,” ete.
(From the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1889.)

Tf, on the other hand, some of the loops form a spiral, we dis-
tinguish this formation as cyclocelous.

Of the vrthocwlous type the following modifications deserve espe-
cial remark with reference to the second and third loops; the first,
or duodenal, loop is invariably right-handed, and therefore needs
no further comment.

I. Isocwlous—The second and third, and, if present, also the
fourth loop are all closed and left-handed. The second is most
dorsally situated, the third to the right of it, the fourth to the

DIGESTIVE SYSTEM 143

right of the latter, between it and the duodenum. The ascending
branch of one loop runs side by side with the descending branch of
the next following one.

II. Anticelous.—The second and third loops are closed and
sharply alternating ; the second is left-, the third is right-handed ;
the second lies dorsally, consequently its ascending branch runs side
by side with that of the third.

III. Plagiocwlous.—The second and often more loops are doubled
or turned over with the apices like a horseshoe, giving the loops,
which are generally open, an irregular or convoluted appearance.

IV. Pericelous.—The second loop is left-handed, open, and
encloses the third which is generally straight and closed. This
formation is of especial interest, because it leads quite gradually to
the

V. Cyclocelous formation by the conversion of the second and
third loops into one left-handed spiral. Such a conversion of the
second and third loops into a spiral occurs in the Limicole, Laridex,
and Columbx. ach of these families possesses some genera in which
the spiral is still represented by long, oval, concentric turns, and
even some genera which still exhibit the periccelous type with the
two loops in question still separate, distinct, and more or less
straight.

Not every spiral, however, is formed by the concentration of
two loops. In many instances a spiral is produced by one loop
being curled upon itself, its apex then forming the centre of the
spiral. To the apex is attached the diverticulum cecum vitelli ;
this shews that this spiral is produced by the primitive fold of the
embryonic mid-gut.

Such is the case in all the Passeres, and since there are only
three folds formed by the whole gut, the spiral represents the
middle or second fold ; hence this arrangement may be distinguished
as mesogyrous. ‘The number of turns in such a spiral depends
directly upon the length of the intestine ; while in the short-gutted
_ Sylviz the spiral is just indicated, there are in the Sparrow (with
an intestinal length of 21 em.) 14 direct and 1 retrograde turn,
and in Pinicola enucleator (which possesses an intestine of 99
cm. in length) there are many direct turns.

It is clear that with an original number of only four loops, the
conversion of the two middle ones into a single spiral will cause
such birds as certain Limicolx, Laridx, and Columbx likewise to
assume the mesogyrous feature; but the position of the diverticle
on the original third loop, and the relations of these birds, e.g.
Charadrius and Sterna, shew that this mesogyrous formation has
been brought about in a way different from that of the Passeres.

Lastly, the distal portion of any loop originally straight may be
coiled up into a spiral, while the rest of the loop remains straight,

144 DIGESTIVE “SV ST ii

This feature may be termed felogyrous. With the duodenum this is
very rare, it then invariably forms a right-handed spiral, e.g. in
Buceros, Ciconia, and Milvus ; the duodenum is more irregularly
twisted in certain Pelargi and Accipitres. The ends of the second,
third, and fourth loops are never coiled into a regular spiral, but
rather form irregularly coiled masses, in many Pelargi, Accipitres,
and in the Psittaci.

We see, then, that the cycloccelous (meso- or telogyrous) feature
by itself cannot be taken as a character which indicates the affinity
of the larger groups or Orders of Birds, unless we take the mode
of development of these concentric convolutions into consideration.
In fact, the cycloccelus formation is the highest mode of stowing
in the smallest compass that portion of the gut which had to be
increased in length, the relative length of the mid-gut being
dependent upon the nature and composition of the food. In strictly
orthoccelous birds the increased length of the gut causes the formation
of secondary folds anywhere between the previously existing loops,
whereby frequently a very irregular arrangement of all the convolu-
tions is caused. A similar process has produced the plagiocelous
feature (fig. /), which was probably derived from an orthoccelous
basis.

The highest and perhaps newest mode of stowing an increased
amount of intestinal length is that in which one of the folds already
existing is lengthened and, owing to its interstitial growth, turns
into a spiral; in this way the other loops will undergo the least
possible disturbance.

It is not necessary to give here a long and detailed enumeration
and description of the intestinal convolutions as they occur in the
numerous Orders and Families of birds, because this has been done
elsewhere.!

Secondary shortening and widening of the gut (owing to the
assumption of frugivorous habits) may reduce the number of loops,
and may render the original arrangement quite untraceable, as in
Carpophaga, Rhamphastus, and Manucodia. When a bird has acquired
strictly piscivorous habits, the gut is considerably lengthened and
narrowed and may, as in Pandion and in Haliaetus, render the old
formation quite unrecognizable. These are, however, exceptions,
which are not numerous ; as a rule the lengthening of the pre-
existing loops and the additional intercalation of new ones does not
disturb the typical formation, but rather throws interesting lights
upon the lines of new departure along which certain birds have
become developed, ¢.g. the Alcedinide from a Coraciine stock, now
modified through the acquisition of carnivorous and piscivorous
habits.

1 Jenaische Zeitschrift f. Naturwiss, xiii. pp. 92-117, 339-408, pls. iv.-ix. and
xvi. ; P. Z. S. 1889, pp. 303-316, pl. xxxii,; Bronn’s hierreich.

DIGESTIVE SVSTEAT 145

All the Ratit# agree in having the second loop right-handed,
and the third left-handed ; this is a feature which occurs again only
in the Crypturt, Gallinw, Opisthocomus, and in the Cuculide. More-
over, as with the exception of the duodenum none of the loops are
closed and well defined, the Ratitz represent in this respect the
lowest avine type. ;

The Galline form a well-defined group; lowest among them
stand the Neotropical Cracidx, through which they lead towards
the Crypturi. The Gallinw have also an unmistakable resem-
blance to Opisthocomus and thence to the Cuculide.

The Turnices, to which belongs undoubtedly Pedionomus, are
traceable to a Ralline or low Gralline stock, with assumed
plagioccelous characters of the second loop.

The periccelous assemblage is large. It is typically represented
by the Waders, of which the Limicole and the fallidx form the
principal groups.

The Rallidz with Otis and Gus are connected with the Turnices,
more distantly with the Crypturi, and still more so with Apteryz.
Dicholophus is in all points a Gruine form, like Psophia, and cannot
be separated from them. hinochetus contains Ralline, Limicoline,
and Ibis-like features ; the only bird which it resembles somewhat
closely in its very peculiar intestinal convolutions is Podica.

The Limicolz agree with the Laridx, and also with the Columbx
in all essential points. Each of these three groups contains a number
of forms which lead in an unbroken series from the typically peri-
ccelous birds with four alternating loops to the typically mesogyrous
birds. Most Columbx and Laridz are mesogyrous, but Sterna and
its allies represent periccelous or lower forms. Neither granivorous,
nor insectivorous, nor piscivorous habits have exerted any appreciable
influence upon their intestinal convolutions, although of course the
stomach and the ceca are affected. The presence of the crop of the
Columbz# is repeated in the granivorous Limicoline genera Attagis
and Thinocorys.

Numenius approaches in various ways the Ibises, whence a con-
tinuous line can be traced into Platalea and Phenicopterus on the one
hand and into the Pelargi proper on the other.

Rather different from the Limicole are the Pteroclidx. They
have four loops, which are all closed, left-handed, 7.¢. isoccelous, and
straight ; the second and fourth loops have their apices turned back,
and especially the terminal end of the second resembles somewhat a
plagioceelous formation. The Pteroclide have consequently various
points in common with the Rallidx, Limicolxe, and Columbe.

The Alcidz are pericelous and strictly orthoccelous ; they agree
with the Laro-Limicolx in the configuration of their first three loops,
but they differ from them in the number of loops, which is at least
six, the last three of which are left-handed. They approach in this

10

146 DIGE STAVE. SVS ree

respect the Pygopodes. These (Colymlidw and Podicipedidx) shew
unmistakable affinities with what may be called generalized or low
Gralline forms ; their four or five loops are closed, orthoccelous, and
alternating. The Pygopodes connect the large assemblage of the
Waders with the following congregation, of which the Lerodii,
Steganopodes, Tubinares, and Spheniscidx# are all divergent types. A
very close connexion exists between the Herodii and the Steganopodes,
and this is supported by numerous other characters. The Tubinares
are in more than one respect the most specialized outcome of this
great collective Order, and reach in the typically mesogyrous
Procellariine their highest development.

The Spheniscidx are very specialized. They possess undeniable
characters in common with the Pygopodes, Steganopodes, and Tubinares ;
they are on the whole orthoccelous, but the extreme length of their
gut thrown into numerous straight and oblique, or quite irregular,
convolutions renders comparison very difficult.

The Anseres, to which belongs Palamedea as a probably very old
member, are all orthoccelous and combine peri- and plagioccelous
characters in their second loop. The five or six principal loops are
alternating ; the last four are closed and straight. As typically
orthoccelous, aquatic birds, and as Precoces they agree with the
Pygopodes, and the root of the stock of the Anseres has to be looked
for in this direction alone.

The Pelargi, containing the Hemiglottides (I bis and Platalea),
Phenicopterus, and the Ciconie, are rather diverging forms, which can
be characterized as possessing four very long and mostly closed loops
(with occasional secondary loops intercalated), of which the first three
have a tendency to coil their apical ends into more or less irregular
spirals: this leads sometimes to an almost mesogyrous formation.

The Hemiglottides approach nearest to the Limicolx, although
their points of resemblance with Numenius may possibly be cases of
convergence only. Very closely allied to, in fact inseparable from
the Hemiglottides, and connecting them with Tantalus, and thus with
the Ciconiz proper, is Phenicopterus ; there is not one single feature
in the whole of the Digestive System in which this bird differs from
the Pelargi or resembles the Anseres except in the presence of small
but functional cca, which are nearly lost in the Pelargi. But
these ceca stand in direct relation to the food of the Flamingoes,
which consists of the conferve in the mud of the lagoons. The
zoophagous Pelargi have lost them, the phytophagous Flamingoes
have preserved them.

The Ciconiine proper, represented by Ciconia, and connected with
the former genera by Zantalus, are essentially telogyrous; their second
loop is right-handed, and accompanies the duodenum ; this is a rare
feature, and is of taxonomic value for the diagnosis of the subfamilies
of the Pelargi.

DIGESTIVE SYSTEM 147

The Pelargi are often classed with the Herod, but these two
Families differ from each other in almost every point of primary
importance.

There are also certain resemblances between the Pelargi and the
Accipitres, the chief connexion is formed by the telogyrous character,
the mode in which additional loops of the lengthened gut are stowed
away, and the tendency to convert some or one of the principal
loops into regular spirals. Among the Accipitres, the Old-World
Vultures especially exhibit striking Ciconiine similarities. As
regards the Cathartidzx, I have to deplore want of material.

The Psittact are distinctly telogyrous ; all their five principal
loops are closed and alternating ; this, with the presence of a crop,
and the absence of functional ceca, are features which occur again
together only in the Accipitres. The absolutely vegetable food of
the Parrots would sufficiently account for the differences which exist
between them and the entirely zoophagous Accipitres. However,
this indication of a possible relationship between the Birds-of-Prey
and Parrots is as little binding or satisfactory as other suggestions
based upon other organic systems.

Of the Coccyges the Cuculide possess four intestinal loops, of
which the first and second are right-handed. The loops are on the
whole orthoccelous, but the apices of the two middle ones are often
turned up, or the second loop is plagioccelous. Moreover, they
possess fully-developed ceca. In all these respects they resemble
to a great extent the Gallinw; and this hint is considerably
strengthened by Opisthocomus, which is, barring special features,
exactly intermediate between the Cuculidz and the Gallinw. The
Musophagidex seem to possess but three loops, the original second
loop having been suppressed in connexion with the frugivorous
habits of these birds. The isoccelous feature of the Musophagidx is
therefore reduced to a secondarily acquired one, and to a case of
convergence towards the typically isoccelous birds.

The Pict (Picidx, Capitonidx, and Rhamphastidx) differ, like tho
Epopes (Bucerotidx, and Upupidx), from all the remaining birds in
the alternating position of their four loops, which in the frugivorous
Ehamphastidz, as well as in the extremely short-gutted genus Upupa,
are reduced to three by the suppression of the original second loop.
Xantholema, one of the Capitonidx, has this second loop still indicated.
The total absence of ceca in all these birds is a coincidence, while
there are no obvious characters, besides the anticcelous convolutions,
which point to a close relationship between the Pici and the Epopes.

The remaining birds are all isoccelous. Of them the Coraciidze
stand nearest to the hypothetical ancestral or central stock, because
they are the most generalized group, from which all others can be
derived. The Alcedinidx, which have reached a truly mesogyrous
formation, started in one direction from or out of the Coraciidzx.

148 DIKKOP

The lengthened gut of the Kingfishers in conformity with their
generally piscivorous habits, forms a left-handed spiral by its second
loop, while the fourth loop is long, and in the more piscivorous
members widely open and irregularly placed. The affinity between
the Coraciidx and the Alcedinidx in opposition to other groups may
be expressed by the term Halcyones.

The Striges verge towards the plagioccelous type, but all their
affinities rest with the Coracizdx and Caprimulgidx combined. These
three Families possess long cxeca; the Alcedinidx, Cypselidx, and
Trochilidw, have lost them, the first of these because of their
piscivorous and cancrivorous habits.

The Cypselomorphe (Caprimulgidx, Cypselide, and Trochilidx)
agree very much with each other. They all have only three
intestinal loops, which are short, in agreement with their principally
insectivorous habits. The Zvochilide differ in the possession of a
crop. The Cypselidx and Caprimulgide are somewhat more closely
related to each other, and the latter (including Podargus) turn
towards the Owls. The Cypselidw are sometimes supposed to be
somewhat nearly allied to the Passeres. Their alimentary system
does not altogether favour such a view; but perhaps the ancestors
of Colius once filled this gap, leaving their existing descendants
now in a solitary position.

The Trogonide stand on a lower level than the Cypselidz,
Trochilidx, and Coliidx, on the same level as the Caprimulgidx and
Coraciidx, and connect them all with each other. The Trogons still
possess well-developed czeca like the Coraciidxy, Caprimulgidx, and
Striges, while all the other isoceelous birds have lost them, or have
only functionless remnants of them.

The Passeres are a very uniform group. They all possess only
three loops, without indications of more; the second and third are
left-handed ; the second becomes a left-handed spiral, the turns of
which depend upon the length of the gut; the third loop is always
open, and invariably encloses the duodenum between its descend-
ing and ascending branches, the latter branch being situated on the
ventra] and left side of the descending branch of the duodenum.
This arrangement is invariably the same, even in the Meso-
myodians, and in such otherwise aberrant forms as Jtupicola and
Pitta. There is a special line which leads from the Laniine forms
through the Austrocoraces (Gymnorhina, Graucalus, Strepera, and Para-
diseidx) into the Coraces proper, which latter have produced some
special modifications of the intestinal convolutions, and may be
looked upon as the last and highest blossom of the avine tree.

DIKKOP (Thick-head), the Dutch name for the Stone-CURLEW
of South Africa, Hdicnemus capensis, used also by the English in that
part of the world (Layard, b. S. Afr. p. 288).

DIMORPHISM 149

DIMORPHISM, a term originally used by botanists to express
the fact that in certain plants a difference, whether in form or colour,
more or less considerable, exists between individuals belonging to
the same species, this difference not being attributed to local influ-
ence or of the kind called accidental, but yet one that is constantly
exhibited. As analogous cases are observable in animals, the term
has been adopted by zoologists, and, disregarding other classes, it
will be at once perceived that among Birds there are two kinds of
Dimorphism—one depending upon sex, in which the secondary
sexual characters of the male and female may differ in very many
ways, and the other which is apparently quite independent of
sexual distinction. Of this last kind, which seems to approach
most nearly to the Dimorphism of botanists, there are not many
undisputed instances. The best known is that of some species of
SkuA, in which a parti-coloured bird may be frequently found
mated with one that is (so to speak) whole-coloured—in some cases
the former being the male, the latter the female, and in others just
the contrary, it rarely happening that both partners are alike in
plumage. A similar state of things occurs on the confines of the
districts respectively occupied by the Black and Grey Crows of
the Old World, but here we are met by the difficulty that some
ornithologists consider these two forms to be distinct species, and
the produce of their union to be hybrids. The White-eyed and
Dark-eyed Crows of Australia present a phase intermediate between
that last mentioned and the first; for, though some writers have
regarded them as distinct species, locality seems to have no influ-
ence on the difference, comparatively slight as it is, observable
between them. Another case more resembling the first is that
afforded by the GUILLEMOT, for at nearly every one of its breeding-
resorts a portion of the tenants (perhaps one in a score) will be
found to have a white circle round the eye and a white line stretch-
ing backward from it—these Ringed or Bridled Guillemots being
of either sex and apparently paired with birds of normal plumage,
while no example is known which shews any intermediate condi-
tion.! All these are instances in which Dimorphism is confined
to colour, but it may well be regarded as extending also to size,
though here we again meet with the objection that numerous
writers regard the smaller or larger forms as constituting two local
races if not species. The DUNLIN furnishes us with an instance of
this kind. Ranging throughout the Old World, but in far fewer

1 At one time these Ringed or Bridled Guillemots were looked upon as a
distinct species, called Uria lacrymans, but that view has of late been wholly
abandoned. Similarly the dark, whole-coloured examples of the common species
of SkuA were originally described as forming a separate species, Lestris richard-
soni, but though the name has by many writers been mistakenly retained none
uow believe the birds to be distinct.

150 DIMORPHISM

numbers than the ordinary form, Zringa alpina, is a smaller one
which has received the specific name of TZ. schinzi, while in the
New World our common 7’ alpina is comparatively scarce, and a
larger form, the 7. americana of some authors, is the more abundant.
It is difficult to determine at present whether this is a case of local
races or one of Dimorphism-—though here Trimorphism might be
the more proper word.

Among birds examples of sexual Dimorphism are so numerous
as to make it almost the rule. Yet, as already stated and as is
widely known, this kind of Dimorphism manifests itself in very
many ways—the commonest being that of general coloration, in-
stances of which will occur to every one; but apart from that the
coloration of particular parts is scarcely less often divergent in the
two sexes, while differences of the form or development of certain
portions of the plumage are also very abundant, as witness the
occipital plumes in the male of many birds, while the extraordinary
elongation of the feathers of the lower back in the PEAcocK, of
those on the side of the breast in the BrrpD OF PARADISE, or of the
tail in the BLACKCOCK are notorious. Passing to characters which
may be of greater significance, we have spurs on the metatarsus or
near the wrist, the former only among the Gallinz, but the latter
found in birds of several groups that are not nearly allied. These
are generally and justly admitted to be weapons, and hardly less
effective are the knobs which occupy the like position in other
forms, those of the male Pezophaps being perhaps the most remark-
able. Sexual Dimorphism of the BiLu has been already noticed,
and it extends in various ways to the head, wattles, frontal plates,
protuberances that are permanent or only temporarily erectile, which
are far too numerous to mention; but other much more special
peculiarities are the sublingual bag of biziwra lobata, the seasonal
pouch of the BusTArD, and the inflatable sacs of the Prairie-fowls
(GROUSE), while the convolutions and enlargements of the trachea
in many birds (e.g. MANUCODE) though not externally visible pro-
duce an audible sexual Dimorphism.

Sexual Dimorphism in size is also manifested among birds—
and this in both directions. To ourselves it may seem natural that
the male should be the stronger and therefore the bigger sex, and
among Mammals he generally is; but in Birds this is by no means
su much the rule, the cock being very considerably larger than the
hen only in certain Gallinaceous and Ratite groups, most of which
are polygamous, and hence a possible explanation may be afforded.
On the other hand, though a case in which the female is larger
than the male is hardly to be found among Mammals, instances
occur among Reptiles (notably in Tortoises and Snakes) and very
frequently among Amphibians and Fishes. Among Birds it is
almost universal with the ACCIPITRES, and obtains in several of the

DINORNIS—DIVER 151

LIimicolx, as the DoTTEREL, GODWIT, PHALAROPE, and Rhynchea or
Painted SNIPE, as well as in some of the Turnicide (HEMIPODE).
No single explanation that will fit all these cases seems possible ;
but in those of the Limicolx just mentioned, it is to be remarked
that the females are not only larger but are more conspicuously
coloured than the males, which latter are believed to perform
exclusively the duty of incubation. In the lower classes of Ver-
tebrates the production of the often numerous eggs may be the
original cause of the greater size of the females.

DINORNIS, see Moa.

DIPPER, a name now in general use for the Water-OUSEL,
but apparently invented in 1804 by the author of Bewick’s British
Dirds (ed. 1, ii. p. 17) because “it may be seen perched on the top
of a stone in the midst of the torrent, in a continual dipping motion,
or short courtesy often repeated,” and not (as commonly is sup-
posed) from its habit of entering the water in search of its food.

DISHWASHER, a common name in many parts of England,
especially in the south, by which the Pied WacraiL, Motacilla
lugubris, is known; and given also in Australia to Siswra inquieta
(FLYCATCHER).

DIVER, a name that when applied to a bird is commonly used
in a sense even more vague than that of Loom, several of the Sea-
Ducks or Fuligulin# and MERGANSERS being frequently so called,
to say nothing of certain of the AUKS or Alcid# and GREBES ; but
in English ornithological works the term Diver is generally re-
stricted to the Family known as Colymbidz, a very well-marked
group of aquatic birds, possessing great, though not exceptional,
powers of submergence, and consisting of a single genus Colymbus
(or Eudytes of some writers)’ which is composed of three or four
species, all confined to the northern hemisphere. This Family
belongs to the CkcoMOoRPH# of Prof. Huxley, and is usually sup-
posed to occupy a place between the Alcidx and Podicipedidx ; but
to which of those groups it is most closely related is at present
undecided. Brandt in 1837 (Beitr. Naturgesch. Vogel, pp. 124-132)
pointed out the osteological differences of the Grebes and the
Divers, urging the affinity of the latter to the Auks ; while, thirty
years later, Prof. Alphonse Milne-Edwards (Ois. foss. France, 1.
pp. 279-283) inclined to the opposite view, chiefly relying on the
similarity of a peculiar formation of the tibia in the Grebes and
Divers,” which indeed is very remarkable, and, in the latter group,

1 By these writers the name Colymbus is generally used for what others term
Podiceps, more correctly written Podicipes. Americans of late prefer Urinator.

2 The remains of Colymboides minutus, from the Miocene of Langy, described
by this naturalist in the work just cited, seem to shew it to have been a general-
ized form. Unfortunately its ¢ibia is unknown.

152 DIVER

attracted the attention of Willughby more than two hundred years
since. On the other hand, Brandt, and Rudolph Wagner shortly
after (Naumann’s Végel Deutschlands, ix. p. 683, xii. p. 395), had
already shewn that the structure of the knee-joint in the Grebes
and Divers differs in that the former have a distinct and singularly-
formed patella (which is undeveloped in the latter) in addition to
the prolonged, pyramidally-formed, procnemial process—which last
may, from its exaggeration, be regarded as a character almost
peculiar to these two groups.! The evidence furnished by oology
‘and the newly-hatched young would seem to favour Brandt’s views;
and, without according too much weight to such evidence, it cer-
tainly ought to be considered before a decision is reached. The
abortion of the rectrices in the Grebes, while these feathers are
fairly developed in the Divers, is another point that helps to
separate the two Families; but until their morphology has been
worked out nothing can be safely averred on the subject.

The commonest species of Colymbus is C. septentrionalis, known
as the Red-throated Diver from an elongated patch of dark bay
colour which distinguishes the throat of the adult in summer-dress.
Notwithstanding this ornament, it is the least conspicuous, as it is
also the smallest, species of the genus, the back and upper plumage
being of a blackish-brown with a few insignificant white spots,
while the head and sides of the neck are ash-coloured, bounded by
a long nuchal band, which lower down advances towards the
breast, of feathers marked with black, grey, and white, to form
regular stripes. Immature birds want the bay patch, and have
the back so much more spotted that they are commonly known as
“Speckled Divers.” Next in size is the Black-throated Diver,
C. arcticus, having a light grey head and a gular patch of purplish-
black, above which is a semi-collar of white striped vertically with
black, while two patches on the black back, between the shoulders,
as well as the scapulars, are conspicuously marked with large sub-
quadrangular white spots. Still bigger is the Great Northern
Diver, C. glacialjs or torquatus, with a glossy black head and neck,
two semi-collars of white and black vertical stripes, and nearly the
whole of the black back and upper surface of the wings beautifully
marked with white spots, varying in size and arranged in belts.”
Closely resembling this bird, so as to be most easily distinguished
from it by its ivory-white or yellow bill, is C. adamsi, the specific

1 Garrod, in his tentative and chiefly myological arrangement of Birds
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, p. 117), placed the Colymbidw and Podicipedide in
one Order (Anseriformes) and the Alcidx in another (Charadriiformes) ; but the
artificial nature of this assignment may be realized by the fact of his considering
the other Families of the former Order to be Anatid# and Spheniscidex.

2 The osteology and myology of this species are described by Dr. Coues
(Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. History, i. pp. 181-172, pl. 5).

DIVERTICULUM 153

validity of which is not yet fully recognized. The Divers live
chiefly on fish, and are of eminently marine habit, though invari-
ably resorting for the purpose of breeding to freshwater-lakes,
where they lay their two dark-brown eggs on the very brink; but
they are not unfrequently found far from the sea, being either
driven inland by stress of weather, or exhausted in their migra-
tions. Like most birds of their build, they chiefly trust to swim-
ming, whether submerged or on the surface, as a means of progress,
but once on the wing their flight is strong and they can mount to
a great height, whence on occasion they will rush downward with
a velocity that must be seen to be appreciated, and this sudden
descent is accompanied by a noise for which those who have wit-
nessed it will agree in thinking that thundering is too weak an
epithet. In winter their range is too extensive and varied to be
here defined, though it is believed never to pass, and in few direc-
tions to approach, the northern tropic; but the geographical dis-
tribution of the several forms in summer requires mention. While
C. septentrionalis inhabits the north temperate zone of both hemi-
spheres, (. arcticus breeds in suitable places from the Hebrides to
Scandinavia, and across the Russian empire, it would seem, to
Japan, reappearing in the north-west of North America,! though
its eastern limit on that continent cannot yet be laid down; but it
is not found in Greenland, Iceland, Shetland, or Orkney. C.
glacialis, on the contrary, breeds throughout the north-eastern part
of Canada, in Greenland, and in Iceland. It has been said to do
so in Scotland as well as in Norway, but the assertion seems to
await positive proof, and it may be doubted whether, with the
exception of Iceland, it is indigenous to the Old World,? since the
form observed in North-eastern Asia is evidently that which has
been called C. adamsi, and is also found in North-western America ;
but it may be remarked that three examples of this form have
been taken in England, and two in Norway (Proc. Zool. Soc.
_ 1859, p. 206, Nyt Mag. for Naturvidenskaberne, 1877, p. 218, and
Stevenson’s birds of Norfolk, iii. pp. 268, 269).

DIVERTICULUM (a. cecum vitelli). After the yolk-sac has
been withdrawn into the body-cavity its stalk remains in connection
with the small intestine, and forms an appendix to it like a little
cecum, which often persists throughout life in the NIpIFUGa, and

1 Mr. Lawrence’s C. pacificus scems hardly to deserve specific recognition.

2 In this connexion should be mentioned the remarkable occurrence in
Europe of two birds of this species which had been previously wounded by a
Weapon presumably of transatlantic origin. One had ‘‘an arrow headed with
copper sticking through its neck,” and was shot on thie Irish coast, as recorded
by Thompson (Nat. Hist. Ircland, iii. p. 201); the other, says Herr H. C.
Miller (Vid. Medd. nat. Forening, 1862, p. 35), was found dead in Kalbaksfjord
in the Froes, with an iron-tipped bone dart fast under its wing.

154 DODLET

occasionally, as in the RATIT#, retains a small quantity of de-
generated yolk, while in the NIDICOL& or ALTRICES it is generally
absorbed before maturity.

DODLET, Sir R. Owen’s name, intended to be a diminutive of
Dopo (as its scientific appellation Didunculus is of Didus), for the
Tooth-billed Pickon of the Samoan or Navigators’ Islands, the
hooked bill of which presents an outward resemblance to that of the
celebrated inhabitant of Mauritius; but Didunculus, though by
many writers placed in the Family Dididz, differs remarkably from
them, and is really much more allied to the true Columbidx (Dove,
PrGEoN), though entitled to form a separate Family, Didunculidz
(Phil. Trans. 1869, p. 349).

The name given by Sir R. Owen has fortunately not been
adopted, but for convenience sake this curious bird is here treated
under it. ‘The species must have been first observed in October or
November 1839, when the Samoan Islands were visited by the
United States’ Exploring Expedition under Commander Wilkes
(Narrative, ete. pp. 87-116. London: 1845), and Strickland seems
to have first publicly announced the discovery at the meeting of the
British Association held at York in September 1844, when he stated
(Report, ete. p. 189) that “among other rarities” obtained on the
voyage by Mr. Titian Peale, the naturalist of the expedition, was
“a new bird allied to the Dodo, which he proposes to name Didun-
culus.” The earliest description of it that appeared was accompanied
by a figure, and was published by Jardine (Ann. Nat. Hist. xvi. p.
175, pl. 9), just a year after, under the name of Gnathodon? strigi-
rostris, from a specimen which had been sent home, probably by some
missionary, and was bought in a sale at Edinburgh. This, and
those brought by the American explorers, were for a long while the
only specimens known to have reached any civilized country. In
1847 Reichenbach conferred on this bird a new generic name,
Pliodus, for an invalid reason (see his Vég. Neuholl, ii. p. 158, note),
but courtesy required what custom has acceded, and the oldest
generic name applied to it has been commonly adopted, though the
full title of the Tooth-billed Pigeon, Didunculus strigirostris, was not
bestowed until 1848, when Peale’s work on the zoology of the
Expedition to which he was attached put matters so far straight
enough. Of late many specimens have been brought to Europe,
and they may be seen in many museums. Much has been written
of the habits of Didunculus in its native condition, but little that is
to the purpose, while some seem to have confounded it with the
Carpophaga pacifica or oceanica, which also is peculiar to the Samoan
Islands. The interest taken in this species, chiefly because of its

1 J. E. Gray had already, in 1886, forestalled the use of this name for a genus
of Mollusca,

DODO 155

supposed—but really very slight—affinity to the Dopo, and of the
belief that it would speedily undergo the same fate, has already
caused legends about it to spring up, and statements are made to
the effect that it has changed its habits so as to ensure its safety
from the numerous enemies which civilization has introduced. I
have no means of contradicting such assertions, but according to my
own experience they are very unlikely to be true, and they should
be verified by particular observation and not left to general im-
pression. Living examples have several times been taken to
Sydney, and 3 have been exhibited in the Zoological Gardens in
London. ‘The first of them, obtained through the care of Dr. George
Bennett (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1864, p. 158), laid an egg (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1867, p. 164, pl. xv. fig. 6) which was of the normal Columbine
form and nearly of the normal Columbine colour. It must be con-
fessed that the species, the speedy extinction of which seems prob-
able, was not lively or attractive as a cage-bird.

DODO, from the Portuguese Doudo (a simpleton), a large bird
formerly inhabiting Mauritius, but now extinct—the Didus ineptus of
Linneus. ‘The precise year in which that island was discovered by
the Portuguese is undetermined ; but M. Codine shews (Mém. Géogr.
sur la Mer des Indes, chap. vii. Paris: 1868) that it was probably in
1507, and it was by them called Cerne, after one of their ships
so named from an island mentioned by Pliny (Hist. Nat. vi.
36; x. 9), though many authors have insisted that it was
known to the seamen of that nation as Ilha do Cisne—
perhaps but a corruption of Cerne, and brought about by their
finding it stocked with large fowls, which, though not aquatic, they
likened to Swans, the most familiar to them of bulky birds. How-
ever, that early experience is unfortunately lost to us, no direct
evidence having come to light, and nothing positive can be asserted
of the island or its inhabitants (none of whom, it should be
observed, were human) until 1598, when the Dutch, under Van
Neck, arrived there and renamed it Mauritius. A narrative of
this voyage was published in 1601, if not sooner, and has been
often reprinted. Here we have birds spoken of as big as Swans or
bigger, with large heads, no wings, and a tail consisting of a few
curly feathers. The Dutch called them Walghvogels (the word is
variously spelt), i.e “nauseous birds,” because, as is said, no
cooking made them palatable; but another and perhaps better
reason, for it was admitted that their breast was tender, is also
assigned, namely, that this island-paradise afforded an abundance
of superior fare. De Bry gives two admirably quaint prints of
the doings of the Hollanders, and in one of them the /Valchvogel

1 Alewyn and Collé, in their WVoordenschat der twee Taalen Portugeesch en
Nederduitsch (Amsterdam: 1714, p. 362), render it ‘‘en sot, dwaas, dol, of
uitzinnig mensch.”

156 DODO

appears, being the earliest published representation of its unwieldy
form, with a footnote stating that the voyagers brought an example
alive to Holland. Among the company there was a draughtsman,
and from a sketch of his Clusius, a few years after, gave a figure
of the bird, which he vaguely called “ Gallinaceus Gallus peregrinus,”
but described rather fully. Meanwhile two other Dutch fleets had
visited Mauritius. One of them had a draughtsman on board, and
his original sketches fortunately still exist in a library at Utrecht.
Three or four of them represent the Dodo, and one of them is here

We

Dopo.

Reduced from a tracing by Prof. Schlegel of the original drawing in a M8. journal kept
during Wolphart Harmanszoon’s voyage to Mauritius (4.D. 1601-1602).
reproduced, for the first time, but on a smaller scale. Of the
other fleet, a journal kept by one of the skippers was subsequently
published. This in the main corroborates what has been before
said of the birds, but adds the curious fact that they were now

called by some Dodaarsen and by others Dronten.”

1 On the death of Prof. Schlegel, who announced his intention of publishing

these sketches in fac-simile, I became possessed of his collection of drawings of

the Dodo and other extinct birds of Mauritius, which includes tracings by him
of these curious and interesting sketches (ef, EXTERMINATION).

2 The etymology of these names has been much discussed. The former has
been shewn by Prof. Schlegel (Versl. en Mededeel. K. Akad. Wetensch, ii. pp. 255
et seqg.) to be the homely name of the Dascuick or Little Grebe, Podicipes

DODO 157

Henceforth Dutch narrators, though several times mentioning
the bird, fail to supply any important fact in its history. Their
navigators, however, were not idle, and found work for their
naturalists and painters. Clusius says that in 1605 he saw at
Pauw’s House in Leyden a Dodo’s foot,! which he minutely de-
scribes. Of late years a copy of Clusius’s work has been discovered
in the high school of Utrecht, in which is pasted an original draw-
ing by Van de Venne, reproduced in fac-simile by Herr H. C.
Millies in 1868, and superscribed “ Vera effigies huius avis Walgh-
vogel (que & a nautis Dodaers propter foedam posterioris partis
crassitiem nuncupatur) qualis viua Amsterodamum perlata est ex
Insula Mauritii, Anno M.DC.XXVI.” Nowa good many paint-
ings of the Dodo by a celebrated artist named Roelandt Savery,
who was born at Courtray in 1576 and died in 1639, have long
been known, and it has always been understood that these were
drawn from the life. Proof, however, of the limning of a living
Dodo in Holland at that period had hitherto been wanting. There
can now be no longer any doubt of the fact; and the paintings by
this artist of the Dodo at Berlin and Vienna—dated respectively
1626 and 1628—as well as the picture by Goiemare, belonging to
the Duke of Northumberland, at Sion House, dated 1627, may be
with greater plausibility than ever considered portraits of a captive
bird. It is even probable that this was not the first example
which had sat to a painter in Europe. In the private library of
the late Emperor Francis of Austria is a series of pictures of
various animals, supposed to be by the Dutch artist Hoefnagel,
who was born about 1545. One of these represents a Dodo, and,
if there be no mistake in Von Frauenfeld’s ascription, it must
almost certainly have been painted before 1626, while there is
reason to think that the original may have been kept in the
vivarium of the then Emperor Rudolf II, and that the portion of
a Dodo’s head, which was found in the Museum at Prague about
1850, belonged to this example. The other pictures by Roelandt
Savery, of which may be mentioned that at the Hague, that-in the

minor, of which the Dutchmen were reminded by the round stern and tail dimin-
ished to a tuft that characterized the Dodo. The same learned authority
suggests that Dodo is a corruption of Dodaars, but, as will presently be seen,
we herein think him mistaken. The latter of the two names, which has been
naturalized in France as Dronte, as Dr. Jentink has kindly suggested to me, may
be from the obsolete Dutch verb dronten (cognate with drenten and drinten), to be
swollen (cf. Verwijs and Verdam, Middelnederlandsch Woordenbock, ii. col. 435),
and would indicate the Dodo’s figure as represented by some draughtsmen, and as
described by Herbert.

1 What became of the specimen (which may have been a relic of the bird
brought home by Van Neck’s squadron) is not known. Broderip and the late
Dr. Gray suggested its identity with that now in the British Museum, but on
what grounds is not apparent.

158 DODO

possession of the Zoological Society of London (formerly Broderip’s),
that in the Schénborn collection at Pommersfelden near Bamberg,
and that belonging to Dr. Seyffery at Stuttgart are undated, but
were probably all painted about the same time (viz. 1626 to 1628).
The large picture in the British Museum, once belonging to Sir
Hans Sloane, by an unknown artist, but supposed to be by Roelandt
Savery, is also undated ; while the still larger one at Oxford (con-
sidered to be by the younger Savery) bears a much later date,
1651. Undated also is a picture said to be by Pieter Holsteyn,
and in the possession of Dr. A. van der Willige at Haarlem in
Holland.

In 1628 we have the evidence of the first English observer of
the bird—one Emanuel Altham, who mentions it in two letters
written on the same day from Mauritius to his brother at home.
These, through the intervention of the late Dr. J. B. Wilmot, were
brought to light.t In one the writer says: “ You shall receue...
a strange fowle: which I had at the Iand Mauritius called by ye
portingalls a Do Do: which for the rareness thereof I hope wilbe
welcome to you.” The passage in the other letter is to the same
effect, with the addition of the words “if it liue.” Nothing more
is known of this valuable consignment. In the same fleet with
Altham sailed Herbert, whose 7ravels ran through several editions
and have been long quoted. It is plain that he could not
have reached Mauritius till 1629, though 1627 has been usually
assigned as the date of his visit. The fullest account he gives of
the bird is in his edition of 1638, and in the curiously affected style
of many writers of the period. It will be enough to quote the
beginning: “The Dodo comes first to a description: here, and in
Dygarrois 2 (and no where else, that ever I could see or heare of) is
generated the Dodo (a Portuguize name it is, and has reference to
her simpleness), a Bird which for shape and rareness might be
call’d a Phoenix (wer’t in Arabia :)”—the rest of the passage is
entertaining, but the whole has been often reprinted. Herbert, it
may be remarked, when he could see a possible Cymric similarity,
was weak as an etymologist, but his positive statement, corroborated
as it is by Altham, cannot be set aside, and hence we do not hesi-
tate to assign a Portuguese derivation for the word.’ Herbert also
gave a figure of the bird.

1 Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, pp. 447-449. Iam informed that on the death of Dr.
Wilmot these interesting papers (which, had they been his own property, he
would have willingly made over to some public library) were burnt. I had,
however, taken the precaution to have them accurately transcribed while they
were entrusted to my keeping.

2 J.e. Rodriguez ; an error, as we shall see.

3 Hence we venture to dispute Schlegel’s supposed origin of ‘‘ Dodo.” The
Portuguese must have been the prior nomenclators, and if, as is most likely, some of

DODO 159

Proceeding chronologically, we next come upon a curious bit of
evidence. ‘This is contained in a MS. diary kept between 1626
and 1640 by Thomas Crossfield of Queen’s College, Oxford, where,
under the year 1634, mention is casually made of one Mr. Gosling,
“who bestowed the Dodar (a blacke Indian bird) vpon ye Anatomy
school.” Nothing more is known of it. About 1638, Sir Hamon
Lestrange tells us, as he walked London streets he saw the picture
of a strange fowl hung out on a cloth canvas, and going in to see it,
found a great bird kept in a chamber “somewhat bigger than the
largest Turkey cock, and so legged and footed, but shorter and
thicker.” The keeper called it a Dodo and shewed the visitors
how his captive would swallow “large peble stones . . . as bigge
as nutmegs.”

In 1651 Morisot published an account of a voyage made by
Francois Cauche, who professed to have passed &kteen days in
Mauritius, or “‘Visle de Saincte Apollonie” as he called it, in 1638.
According to 8@ Flacourt the narrative is not very trustworthy,
and indeed certain statements are obviously inaccurate. Cauche
says he saw there birds bigger than Swans, which he describes so
as to leave no doubt of his meaning Dodos; but perhaps the most
important facts (if they be facts) that he relates are that they had
a cry like a Gosling (“il a un cry comme loison”), and that they
laid a single white egg, “ gros comme un pain d’un sol,” on a mass
of grass in the forests. He calls them “oiseaux de Nazaret,” per-
haps, as a marginal note informs us, from an island of that name
which was then supposed to lie more to the northward, but is now
known to have no existence,

In the catalogue of Tradescant’s Collection of Rarities, preserved at
South Lambeth, published in 1656, we have entered among the
“Whole Birds” a “ Dodar from the island Mauritius ; it is not able
to flie being so big.” This specimen may well have been the em-
balmed body of the bird seen by Lestrange some eighteen years before,
but any how we are able to trace the specimen through Willughby,
- Lhwyd, and Hyde, till it passed in or before 1684 to the Ashmolean
collection at Oxford. In 1755 it was ordered to be destroyed, but,
in accordance with the original orders of Ashmole, its head and
right foot were preserved, and still ornament the Museum of that
University. In the second edition of a Catalogue of many Natural
Rarities, &e., to be seen at the place formerly called the Music House,
near the West End of St. Paul’s Church, collected by one Hubert
alias Forbes, and published in 1665, mention is made of a “legge

their nation, or men acquainted with their language, were employed to pilot the
Hollanders, we see at once how the first Dutch name Walghvogel would give
way. The meaning of Doudo not being plain to the Dutch, they would, as is
_ the habit of sailors, convert it into something they did understand, Then
Dodaers would easily suggest itself (¢f ALBATRos and Boosy),

160 DODO

of a Dodo, a great heavy bird that cannot fly; it is a Bird of the
Mauricius Island.” This is supposed to have subsequently passed
into the possession of the Royal Society. At all events such a
specimen is included in Grew’s list of their treasures which was
published in 1681, and it was afterwards transferred to the British
Museum, where it still reposes. As may be seen, it is a left foot,
without the integuments, but it differs sufficiently in size from
the Oxford specimen to forbid its having been part of the same
individual. In 1666 Olearius brought out the Gottorffisches Kunst
Kammer, wherein he describes the head of a Walghvogel, which some
sixty years later was removed to the Museum at Copenhagen, and
is now preserved there, having been the means of first leading
zoologists, under the guidance of the late Prof. Johannes Theodor
Reinhardt in 1843, to recognize the true affinities of the bird.
Little more remains to be told. For brevity’s sake we have
passed over all but the principal narratives of voyagers or other
notices of the bird. A compendious bibliography, up to the year
1848, will be found in Strickland’s classical work,! and the list was
continued by Von Frauenfeld? for twenty years later. The last
evidence we have of the Dodo’s existence is furnished by a journal
kept by Benj. Harry, and now in the British Museum (M/SS. Addit.
3668, 11. D). This shews its survival till 1681, but the writer’s
sole remark upon it is that its “flesh is very hard.” Thesuccessive
occupation of the island by different masters seems to have destroyed
every tradition relating to the bird, and doubts began to arise
whether such a creature had ever existed. Duncan, in 1828, proved
how ill-founded these doubts were, and some ten~ years later
Broderip with much diligence collected all the available evidence
into an admirable essay, which in its turn was succeeded by Strick-
land’s monograph just mentioned. But in the meanwhile little
was done towards obtaining any material advance in our knowledge,
Reinhardt’s determination of its affinity to the Pigeons (Colwmbx)
excepted ; and it was hardly until the late Mr. George Clark’s dis-
covery in 1865 (bis, 1866, pp. 141-146) of a large number of Dodos’
remains, that zoologists generally were prepared to accept that
affinity without question. The examination of bone after bone by
Sir R. Owen (Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. p. 49) and others confirmed the
judgment of the Danish naturalist, and no different view can
now be successfully maintained. In 1889, at the instance of M.
Sauzier, researches on the scene of Mr. Clark’s successes were renewed,
this time by the Mauritian Government, and a vast number of Dodos’
and other bones were recovered from the Mare aux Songes. Some

1 The Dodo and its Kindred. By H. E. Strickland and A. G. Melville.
London : 1848, 4to.

2 New aufgefundem Abbildung des Dronte, u. s. Ww. Von Georg Ritter von
Fraucnfeld. Wien: 1868, fol.

DOE-BIRD—DOTTEREL 161

of these specimens, having been sent by M. Sauzier to Sir Edward
Newton, are now in process of being worked out, and it is clear
that they will add not a little to a better knowledge of the osteo-
logy of the species.

The causes which led to the extirpation of this ponderous
Pigeon are elsewhere discussed (EXTERMINATION), and it will be
remembered that the Dodo does not stand alone in its fate, but
that two more or less nearly allied birds inhabiting the sister
islands of Réunion and Rodriguez (SOLITAIRE) have in like manner
disappeared from the face of the earth.

DOE-BIRD or DOUGH-BIRD, the name given, according to
Nuttall (Jan. Orn. U.S. and Canada, ii. p. 102), indiscriminately
by the English in eastern North America to some species of CURLEW
and Gopwit ; but, says Mr. Trumbull (Names and Portr. B. p. 203),
rightly applied to the small species of the former, Numenius borealis,
commonly called the Esquimaux Curlew.

DOLLAR-BIRD, the Australian name for Hurystomus pacificus,
from the silvery white spot in the middle of the wing, which is dis-
tinctly shewn in flight (Gould, Handd. B. Austral. i. p. 120). The
genus Hurystomus, which is one of the Coraciide (ROLLER), contains
about half a dozen species, belonging to the Indian or Ethiopian
Regions.

DORR-HAWK, a name of the NIGHTJAR, from its feeding on
the mischievous “ Dorr-Beetle ” (Jelolontha solstitialis).

DOTTEREL (variously spelt), the diminutive of Dolt, a bird
so called from its alleged stupidity ; for, as asserted by many old
writers, if the fowler stretched out his arm or his leg, so did the
Dotterel with its homologous limb. So proneis mankind to believe
any silly story of what it is the custom to call “ Animal Instinct,”
-that this foolish notion prevails to the present day among many
who pass for zoologists. Yet the true meaning was told to
Willughby in or before 1676: one Peter Dent, a Cambridge
apothecary, having written to him the information supplied by a
gentleman of Norfolk well acquainted with the “sport” of catching
these birds, to the effect that instead of their aping the gestures
of the men, it was the men who aped those of the birds, as the
latter were being driven into the nets; for, as every one who has
watched the actions of Limicole must know, it is their common
habit as they run to extend a wing and often simultaneously a leg.
This belief in the foolishness of the species has been fostered also
by its name morinellus, bestowed by Caius with a double meaning
—hbeing a diminutive of morus, a fool, and having reference to
Morini, the ancient name of the people of Flanders, where he had

I!

bivanelius and some ntees
forms hase same strucduwe

162 - DOUCKER—DOVE

found the bird common (De rar. Anim. atque Stirp. Hist. Londini:
1570, fol. 21).

The Dotterel, Charadrius or Hudromias morinellus, is one of the
most beautiful of the PLover-kind, and its gradual extinction in
Great Britain is a fact much to be regretted. It has long had the
credit of being a delicacy for the table, and has moreover lain under
the disadvantage of being thought to be in better condition in
spring, or early summer, when it arrives in this island on its way
to its breeding-quarters than when it is returning southward in
autumn. Consequently it has been for years ruthlessly shot down
at the time when its life was most precious for the continuance of
its species, and with the result that always attends such brutal
practice. It used formerly to breed on the Cumberland and West-
moreland feils, but seems to have ceased from doing so for some
years, the birds resorting thither having been destroyed, and its
haunts on the Scottish mountains appear to be devastated by the
“collector ” so soon as they are discovered. So far as is at present
known, the Dotterel,stands alone among the Charadriudz, in the
facts that the posterior processes of the sternum extend backward
nearly as far as the keel does, the outer pair being somewhat everted,
and that the hen birds are larger and more brightly coloured than
the cocks. Furthermore, the Dotterel lays only three eggs, four
being the usual number in the Limicolw. The name Dotterel is
often applied, with or without a prefix, to the Ringed Plover,
Ajgialitis hiaticola, and some of its relations, to all of which it is
wholly inappropriate.

DOUCKER or DUCKER (Germ. Taucher), a word used by
many old writers for any bird that “ducks” or dives, and wholly
without special meaning.

DOVE (Dutch, Duyve; Danish, Due; Icelandic, Dufa; German,
Taube), a name which seems to be most commonly applied to the
smaller members of the group of birds by ornithologists usualiy
called PIGEONS, Columbe ; but no sharp distinction can be drawn
between Pigeons and Doves, and in general literature the two
words are used almost indifferently, while no one species can be
pointed out to which the word Dove, taken alone, seems to be
absolutely proper. ‘The largest of the group to which the name is
applicable is perhaps the Ring-Dove, or Wood-Pigeon, also called in
many parts of Britain Cushat and Queest, Columba palumbus, a very
common bird throughout these islands and most parts of Europe.
It associates in winter in large flocks, the numbers of which (owing
partly to the destruction of predacious animals, but still more to
the modern system of agriculture, and the growth of plantations in
many districts that were before treeless) have of late years increased
enormously, so that their depredations are at times very serious.

DOVE 163

In former days, when the breadth of land in Britain under green
crops was comparatively small, these birds found little food in the
dead season, and this scarcity was a natural check on their super-
abundance. But since the extended cultivation of turnips and
plants of similar use the case is altered, and perhaps at no time of
the year has provender become more plentiful than in winter. The
Ring-Dove may be easily distinguished from other European species
by its larger size, and especially by the white spot on either side
of its neck, forming a nearly continuous “ring,” whence the bird
takes its name, and the large white patches in its wings, which are
very conspicuous in flight. It breeds several times in the year,
making for its nest a slight platform of sticks on the horizontal
bough of a tree, and laying therein two eggs—which, as in all the
Columbidz, are white.

The Stock-Dove (C. wnas of most authors) is a smaller species,
with many of the habits of the former, but breeding by preference
in the stocks of hollow trees or in rabbit-holes. It is darker in
colour than the Ring-Dove, without any white on its neck or wings,
and is much less common and more locally distributed. Formerly
scarce or unknown in the north of England, it has of late years
been found to extend over almost the whole of Scotland.

The Rock-Dove (C. livia, Temm.) much resembles the Stock-
Dove, but is of a lighter colour, with two black bars on its wings,
and a white rump. In its wild state it haunts most of the rocky
parts of the coast of Europe, from the Feroes to the Cyclades, and,
seldom going inland, is comparatively rare. Yet, as it is without
contradiction the parent-stem of all our domestic Pigeons, its
numbers must far exceed those of both the former put together.
In Egypt and various parts of Asia it is represented by what Mr.
Darwin has called “ Wild Races,” which are commonly accounted
good “species” (C. schimperi, C. affinis, C. intermedia, C. leuconota,
and so forth), though they differ from one another far less than do
nearly all the domestic forms, of which more than 150 kinds that
“breed true,” and have been separately named, are known to exist.
Very many of these, if found wild, would have unquestionably
been ranked by the best ornithologists as distinct ‘‘ species,” and

1 Yet one curious fact in connexion herewith has never been satisfactorily
explained. It not unfrequently happens that after Wood-Pigeons have abounded
in a district for some two or three years, so as to be a perfect plague, their
numbers have suddenly dwindled without any assignable cause, for the ordinary
modes of destruction prove wholly futile in checking their multiplication.
Another fact, perhaps worth recording, is the curious increase of late years—say
from 1885, or possibly a little earlier—of this species in St. James’s Park, where
it is now as numerous, if not as familiar, as in what used to be the Gardens of
the Tuileries in Paris. I had long known that it inhabited the singular paradise
afforded by the gardens of Buckingham Palace, but that it should establish
itself even nearer to the centre of London I had not expected.

164 DOVE

several of them would as undoubtedly have been placed in different
genera. These various breeds are classified by Mr. Darwin! in four
groups as follows :—

Group I. composed of a single Race, that of the “ Pouters,”
having the gullet of great size, barely separated from the crop, and
often inflated, the body and legs elongated, and a moderate bill.
The most strongly marked subrace, the Jimproved English Pouter, is
considered to be the most distinct of all domesticated pigeons.

Group II. includes three Races :—(1) “Carriers,” with a long
pointed bill, the eyes surrounded by much bare skin, and the neck
and body much elongated ; (2) “‘Runts,” with a long massive bill,
and the body of great size; and (3) “Barbs,” with a short broad
bill, much bare skin round the eyes, and the skin over the nostrils
swollen. Of the first four and of the second five subraces are
distinguished.

Group III. is confessedly artificial, and to it are assigned five
Races :—(1) “ Fan-tails,” remarkable for the extraordinary develop-
ment of their tails, which may consist of as many as forty-two
rectrices in place of the ordinary twelve; (2) “Turbits” and
“Owls,” with the feathers of the throat diverging, anda short thick
bill; (3) “Tumblers,” possessing the marvellous habit of tumbling
backwards during flight or, in some breeds, even on the ground, and
having a short, conical bill; (4) “ Frill-backs,” in which the
feathers are reversed; and (5) “Jacobins,” with the feathers of
the neck forming a hood, and the wings and tail long.

Group IV. greatly resembles the normal form, and comprises
two Races :—(1) ‘‘Trumpeters,” with a tuft of feathers at the base
of the neck curling forward, the face much feathered, and a very
peculiar voice ; and (2) Pigeons scarcely differing in structure from
the wild stock.

Beside these, some three or four other little-known breeds exist,
and the whole number of breeds and sub-breeds almost defies com-
putation. The difference between them is in many cases far from
being superficial, for Mr. Darwin has shewn that there is scarcely
any part of the skeleton which is constant, and the modifications
that have been effected in the proportions of the head and sternal
apparatus are very remarkable. Yet the proof that all these
different birds have descended from one common stock is nearly
certain. Here there is no need to point out its bearing upon the
doctrine of “ Natural Selection” which that eminent naturalist and
Mr. Wallace have rendered so well known. The antiquity of some
of these breeds is not the least interesting part of the subject, nor
is the use to which one at least of them has long been applied.
The Dove from the earliest period in history has been associated

1 The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. London: 1868.
Vol. i. pp. 131-224.

DOVE 165

with the idea of a messenger (Genesis viii. 8-12), and its employ-
ment in that capacity, developed successively by Greeks, Romans,
Mussulmans, and Christians, has never been more fully made avail-
able than in our own day, as witness the ‘‘ Pigeon-post” established
during the siege of Paris in 1870-71.

Leaving, then, this interesting subject, space does not permit
our here dwelling on various foreign species, which, if not truly
belonging to the genus Columba, are barely separable therefrom.
Of these examples may be found in the Indian, Ethiopian, and
Neotropical Regions. Still less can we here enter upon the in-
numerable other forms, though they may be entitled to the name
of “ Dove,” which are to be found in almost every part of the
world, and nowhere more abundantly than in the Australian
Region. Mr. Wallace (bis, 1865, pp. 365-400) considers that they
attain their maximum development in the Papuan Subregion,
where, though the land-area is less than one-sixth that of Europe,
more than a quarter of all the species (Some 300 in number) known
to exist are found—owing, he suggests, to the absence of forest-
haunting and fruit-eating Mammals.

It would, however, be impossible to conclude this article with-
out noticing a small group of birds to which in some minds the
name Dove will seem especially applicable. This is the group
containing the Turtle-Doves—the time-honoured emblem of tender-
ness and conjugal love. The common Turtle-Dove of Europe,
Turtur communis or auritus, is one of those species which is gradu-
ally extending its area. In England, not much more than a
century ago, it seems to have been chiefly, if not solely, known in
the southern and western counties. Though in the character of a
strageler only, it now reaches the extreme north of Scotland, and
is perhaps nowhere more abundant than in many of the midland
and eastern counties of England. On the continent the same thing
has been observed, though indeed not so definitely ; and this species
has within the last forty years or so appeared as a casual visitor
within the Arctic Circle. The probable causes of its extension
cannot here be discussed ; and there is no need to dwell upon its
graceful form and the delicate harmony of its modest colouring, for
they are proverbial. The species is migratory, reaching Europe
late in April and retiring in September. Another species, and one
perhaps better known from being commonly kept in confinement,
is that called by many the Collared or Barbary Dove, 7. risorius—
the second English name possibly indicating that it was by way of
that country that it was brought to us, for it is not an African
bird. This is distinguished by its cream-coloured plumage and
black necklace. Some uncertainty seems to exist about its original
home, but it is found from Constantinople to India, and is abundant
in the Holy Land, though there a third species, 7. senegalensis, also

166 DOVEKEE—-DREPANIS

occurs, which Canon Tristram thinks is the Turtle-Dove of Serip-
ture.

The “Greenland Dove” of Arctic seamen and of some writers
in the last century is the

DOVEKEE or DOVEKEY (often written affectedly Dovekie),
the whalers’ name for what is called in most books the Black
GUILLEMOT, Uria grylle; but sometimes misapplied to the Little
AUK or Rotche.

DRAW-WATER, a common name given to the GOLDFINCH,
which in captivity learns the trick of pulling a small bucket or cup
of water from a reservoir placed below its cage, the cup being sus-
pended by a string or light chain.

DREPANIS, the scientific name given by Temminck (Man.
@ Orn, ed. 2, i. p. Ixxxvi.) to certain birds of the Sandwich Islands,

Mamo, DREPANIS PACIFICA.

originally referred to the genus Certhia; and subsequently regarded
as belonging to the Family JJeliphagide (HONEY-SUCKER), but lately
ascertained by Dr. Gadow to differ from the latter by possessing a
tongue of a very distinct structure, and to be probably more nearly
allied to the Cerebidx, so that their recognition as a separate
Family, Drepanididz, is justifiable. The genus Drepanis, as latterly
restricted, includes but a single species, D. pacifica, now according
to all accounts extinct, owing, it is believed, to the way in

hot entirely eytincel when sentence written, A second species, D. funeren has since Veen
described fram Maui (P.2 5 1893, p> 690) ‘

~ . ) @ 6a! Wale 0s ete eet

DROMAZOGNATHA—DRONGO 167

which it was destroyed for the sake of its rich yellow feathers,
used in former days to decorate the state robes of the chiefs.+
Specimens were brought to England by the companions of Cook on
his last voyage, when the Sandwich Islands were discovered, and
one of them exists in the Museum of Vienna, while other examples
are to be seen in Honolulu, Paris, Leyden, and Cambridge ; but
probably not more than half a dozen have been preserved. Nearly
allied to this species is the beautiful Scarlet Creeper of Latham,
Vestiaria coccinea, which also provided feathers for the

adornment of the natives, but has escaped the fate of its A=
relative, being still one of the most characteristic birds 7 SS
of the islands; and to the same Family belong several
other genera, among which Hemignathus, with its
upper mandible in some species monstrously prolonged beyond the
lower, is very remarkable (see Wilson and Evans, Birds of the Sand-
wich Islands).

DROMAOGNATH 4, the first Suborder of Carinatx, according
to Prof. Huxley’s taxonomy (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 425, 456),
consisting of the Family 7inamidex (TINAMOU), or Order Crypturi as
some would have it. These birds have a completely Struthious
palate, with a very broad vomer meeting in front with the broad
maxillo-palatal plates as in Dromxus (EMEU), while, behind, it
receives the posterior extremities of the palatals and the anterior
ends of the pterygoids, which thus have a Ratite conformation.

VESTIARIA.
(After Swainson.)

DRONGO, a native name of the Hdolius forficatus of Madagascar
which has been not only adopted into various European languages,
but also used generally for the allied species, several of which are
referred to distinct genera, as Bhringa, Chaptia, Chibia, Dicrurus,
Dissemurus, Melanornis, and so forth, and inhabit Africa, Asia, the
Eastern Archipelago, and
Australia. The Drongos,
known as “ King-Crows ”
to Anglo-Indians, are
commonly placed as a

Dicrurus. (After Swainson.) subfamily among the

Laniide (SHRIKE); but

are fully entitled, so far as the groups of Passeres are concerned, to
rank as a Family, Dicruride. Their colour when adult is almost

‘ Its native name seems to have been Mamo, which was thence applied to
the gorgeous mantles beset with its golden feathers. As the species became rare,
recourse was had for this purpose to the yellow feathers of a very different bird,
the 0-0, the Acrulocercus nobilis of modern ornithologists, belonging, as Dr.
Gadow has shewn, to the wholly-distinct Family Meliphagide# (HoNEY-SUCKER).
Cf. Wilson and Evans, op. cit.

168 DUCTS

invariably black,! and they have but 10 feathers in their tail, the
outer rectrices being in several forms much prolonged and often
more or less involuted, while in some cases the outermost pair are
enlarged at the end in a racquet-like form. Many are crested, and
all have the base of the bill beset by more or fewer strong bristles.
The Drongos seem to be wholly
insectivorous, and are usually re-
‘markable for the courage with
which they will attack and drive
off larger birds, such as Kites or
Crows. Considerable difficulty is
found in discriminating the specific and generic forms of this Family ;
but two, Dierurus (or Buchanga) assimilis and D. ludwigi, inhabit the
Cape Colony, while no fewer than 15, referred by Mr. Oates (Faun.
Br. Ind. Birds, i. pp. 308- 326) to 7 genera, inhabit various parts of
our Indian possessions, among which D). ater or macrocercus is the
King-Crow proper, ranging from Affghanistan to China, though
apparently not found in ‘the Malay Peninsula. Australia is graced,
so far as is known, with a single species, Chibia bracteata, but many
are found in Malasia and the islands of the Malay Archipelago.

: SSS
MELANORNIS. (After Swainson.)

DUCK, a word cognate with the Dutch Duycker (Germ. Tauch-
ente—and in Bavaria Duck-antl), the general English name for a
large number of birds forming the greater part of the Family
Anatide of modern ornithologists. Technically the term Duck is
restricted to the female, the male being called Drake, and in one
species Mallard (Fr. Mala‘).

The Anatide may be at once divided into six more or less
well-marked subfamilies—(1) the Cygiuinw (SWAN), (2) the Anser-
mx (GOOSE)—which are each very distinct, (3) the Anatine or
Freshwater-Ducks, (4) those commonly called Fuwliguline or Sea-
Ducks (PocHARD), (5) the Hrismaturine or Spiny-tailed Ducks, and
(6) the Mergine (MERGANSER). Of the Anatine, which may be con-
sidered the typical group, we propose to treat here only, and
especially of the Anas boscas of Linnzus, the common Wild Duck,
which from every point of view is by far the most important
species, as it is the most plentiful, the most widely distributed, and
the best known—being, without a doubt, the origin of all our
domestic breeds. It inhabits the greater part of the northern
hemisphere, reaching in winter so far as the Isthmus of Panama in
the New World, and in the Old being abundant at the same season
in Egypt and India, while in summer it ranges throughout the Fur-

1G. R. Gray placed in this group the genus Jrene (see BLUEBIRD), ‘‘ most
unfortunately,” as Jerdon states (B. Jnd. ii. p. 104), and herein all who have
any knowledge of the subject agree. The position of the genus may be uncertain,
but among Passeres one less Paifable than this can hardly be found,

DUCK 169

Countries, Greenland, Iceland, Lapland, and Siberia. Most of those
which fill our markets are no doubt bred in more northern climes,
but a considerable proportion of them are yet produced in the
British Islands, though not in anything like the numbers that used
to be supplied before the draining of the great Fen-country and
other marshy places. ‘The Wild Duck pairs very early in the year
—the period being somewhat delayed by hard weather, and the
ceremonies of courtship, which require some little time. Soon after
these are performed, the respective couples separate in search of
suitable nesting-places, which are generally found, by those that
remain with us, about the middle of March. ‘The spot chosen is
sometimes near a river or pond, but often very far removed from
water, and it may be under a furze-bush, on a dry heath, at the
bottom of a thick hedge-row, or even in any convenient hole in a
tree. A little dry grass is generally collected, and on it the
eggs, from 9 to 11 in number, are laid. So soon as incubation
commences the mother begins to divest herself of the down which
grows thickly beneath her breast-feathers, and adds it to the nest-
furniture, so that the eggs are deeply imbedded in this heat-retain-
ing substance—a portion of which she is always careful to pull, as
a coverlet, over her treasures when she quits them for food. She
is seldom absent from the nest, however, but once, or at most twice
a day, and then she dare not leave it until her mate after several
circling flights of observation has assured her she may do so un-
observed. Joining him, the pair betake themselves to some quiet
spot where she may bathe and otherwise refresh herself. Then
they return to the nest, and after cautiously reconnoitring the
neighbourhood, she loses no time in reseating herself on her eggs,
while he, when she is settled, repairs again to the waters, and passes
his day listlessly in the company of his brethren, who have the
same duties, hopes, and cares. Short and infrequent as are the
absences of the Duck when incubation begins, they become shorter
and more infrequent towards its close, and for the last day or
two of the 28 necessary to develop the young it is probable
that she will not stir from the nest at all. When all the fertile
eggs are hatched her next care is to get the brood safely to the
water. This, when the distance is great, necessarily demands great
caution, and so cunningly is it done that but few persons have
encountered the mother and offspring as they make the dangerous
journey.! If disturbed, the young instantly hide as they best can,
while the mother quacks loudly, feigns lameness, and flutters off to
divert the attention of the intruder from her brood, who lie motion-

1 When Ducks breed in trees, the precise way in which the young get to the
ground is still a matter of uncertainty. The mother is supposed to convey them
in her bill, and very likely does so, but further observation on this point is
required.

170 DUCK

less at her warning notes. Once arrived at the water they are
comparatively free from harm, though other perils present them-
selves from its inmates in the form of Pike and other voracious
fishes, which seize the Ducklings as they disport in quest of insects
on the surface or dive beneath it. Throughout the summer the
Duck continues her care unremittingly, until the young are full
grown and feathered; but it is no part of the Mallard’s duty to
look after his offspring, and indeed he speedily becomes incapable
of helping them, for towards the end of May he begins to undergo
an additional Moutt, loses the power of flight, and does not regain
his full plumage till autumn. About harvest-time the young are
well able to shift for themselves, and then resort to the corn-fields
at evening, where they fatten on the scattered grain. Towards the
end of September or beginning of October both old and young
unite in large flocks and betake themselves to the larger waters,
many of which are fitted with the ingenious appliances for catching
them known as decoys.!' These are worked on all favourable
occasions during the winter, but the numbers taken vary greatly—
success depending so much on the state of the weather. If long-
continued frost prevail, most of the Ducks resort to the estuaries
and tidal rivers, or even leave these islands almost entirely. Soon
after Christmas the return-flight commences, and then begins anew
the course of life already described.

The domestication of the Duck is doubtless very ancient, but
evidence on this head is exceedingly imperfect. Several distinct
breeds have been established, of which’the most esteemed from
an economical point of view are those known as the Rouen and
Aylesbury ; but perhaps the most singular deviation from the
normal form is the so-called Penguin-Duck, in which the bird
assumes an upright attitude and its wings are much diminished in
size. A remarkable breed also is that often named (though quite
fancifully) the “‘ Buenos-Ayres” Duck, wherein the whole plumage
is of a deep black, beautifully glossed or bronzed. But this satura-
tion, so to speak, of colour only lasts in the individual for a few
years, and as the birds grow older they become mottled with

1 The origin of this word has given rise to a good deal of speculation, but it
seems to be simply an abbreviation of the Dutch ‘‘cende-coy” —that is to say, duck-
cage or netted enclosure—and it is admitted that the use of Decoys was introduced
into this country from Holland (Spelman’s Posthumous Works, ed. Gibson, ii.
p- 153). If this view be correct, we may justifiably speak of a Decoy-Duck, but
the expression Duck-Decoy is an intolerable pleonasm. Those who are curious
as to the mode of using Decoys should consult Mr. Southwell’s edition of
Lubbock’s Fauna of Norfolk (1879), and Sir R. Payne-Gallway’s Book of Duck-
Decoys (1886), which last is an almost exhaustive treatise on the subject. The
ordinary descriptions and even figures of a Decoy met with in popular works are
almost invariably misleading—the writers having no knowledge of the practice
followed, and misrepresenting it accordingly.

ee a

DUCKER—DULWILLY 171

white, though as long as their reproductive power lasts they
“breed true.” The amount of variation in domestic Ducks, how-
ever, is not comparable to that found among Pigeons, no doubt
from the absence of the competition which Pigeon-fanciers have so
long exercised. One of the most curious effects of domestication in
the Duck, however, is, that whereas the wild Mallard is not only
strictly monogamous, but, as Waterton believed, a most faithful
husband—remaining paired for life, the civilized Drake is notori-
ously polygamous.

Very nearly allied to the common Wild Duck are a consider-
able number of species found in various parts of the world in
which there is little difference of plumage between the sexes—both
being of a dusky hue—such as Anas obscura of North America, 4.
superciliosa of Australia, A. pewcilorhyncha of India, A. melleri of
Madagascar, 4. zanthorhyncha of South Africa, and some others.

It would be impossible here to enter upon the other genera of
Anatine. We must content ourselves by saying that both in
Europe and in North America there are the groups represented
by the SHOVELER, GARGANEY, GADWALL, TEAL, PINTAIL, and
WicEoN—each of which, according to some systematists, is the
type of a distinct genus. Then there is the group 4x with its
beautiful representatives the Wood-Duck (42. sponsa) in America
and the Mandarin-Duck (4. galericulata) in Eastern Asia. Besides
there are the SHELD-DRAKES (Zadorna), confined to the Old World,!
and remarkably developed in the Australian Region ; the Musk-
Duck (Cairina) of South America, which is often domesticated, and

FEX SPONSA. DENDROCYGNA.
(After Swainson.)

in that condition will produce fertile hybrids with the common
Duck ; and finally the Tree-Ducks (Dendrocyyna), which are almost
limited to the Tropics.

DUCKER, see DoucKEr.

DULWILLY, said to be a local name of the Ringed PLOVER,
Aigialitis hiaticola; and, according to Prof. Skeat, signifying dull
of will or stupid, though the application of such a name is not
obvious. (See, however, DOTTEREL.)

1 To these belong apparently the genera Chenalopex and Plectropterus, though
from their size the species of each bears in English the name of Goosr,

172 DUNLIRD—DUNLIN

DUNBIRD, DUNCUR or DUNKER, names of the PocHarp.

DUNLIN, the common name of the commonest of shore-birds,
the Tringa alpina and T. cinclus of Linnzeus, who, not knowing the
great seasonal change of plumage it undergoes, took examples in
their summer dress to be specifically distinct from those in that
which it wears in winter—an error, long shared by many writers,
which Montagu in 1813 (Orn. Dict. Appendix) was perhaps the
first to suspect, though it could hardly be said to have been dis-
pelled until Temminck in 1815 (Man. @Orn., pp. 395-398) boldly
united them, calling the species 7. varialilis.! In its breeding-attire
the Dunlin is a beautiful bird, of a rich reddish-orange above, each
feather having a dark brown median stripe, with a broad black
gorget contrasting with the white of the lower plumage. In this
condition it is generally known to professional gunners as the
Purrz or STINT, though the last name is by authors restricted to
two or three smaller species. ‘The Dunlin breeds sparingly on the
higher hills of the western, midland, and northern counties of
England, and far more abundantly and at lower levels in Scotland,
as well as on the continent from Holland northwards. The ordin-
ary form of Dunlin from the New World has been described
as distinct under the name of 7. americana, and examples of it are
constantly larger than those of Europe, though there is no other
difference between them. A smaller form of Dunlin, by some
writers accounted a species, the 7. schinzi of Brehm,” also occurs
not very rarely on our coasts, and generally in flocks by itself. It
is said to breed on the Cimbric peninsula, but nothing is known of
the limits of its range, and at present it cannot be deemed with
certainty to be even a local race. In the pairing-season the cock
Dunlin, like most of his allies, exercises himself in peculiar flights,
and in the course of them utters a singular whistle, which sounds
like the for-a-time continuous ringing of a small bell with a shrill
note, and notwithstanding its high pitch is pleasing to the ear.
The nest is a simple depression in the ground, to some extent
furnished or enclosed by grass, leaves, or the like, as incubation
proceeds ; and therein are laid four eggs, generally of great beauty,
with varied spots or blotches, but presenting so many differences
that description of them is here impossible. Towards winter Dun-
lins flock in thousands to our shores, especially those which are
fringed by extensive mud-flats, and are thus exposed to much per-
secution on the part of fowlers, both by the gun and the net. In
an aviary they bear confinement well, and at the proper season will
assume their nuptial plumage.

1 This was already a synonym of 7’. alpina, for in 1810 Bernhard Meyer had
so applied it (Zaschenb. deutsch. Végel, ii. p. 397).

2 Not to be confounded with the 7’. schinzt of Bonaparte, now known as 7.
bonapartii, a North-American species belonging to a different group of the genus

DUNNOCK—EAGLE 173

DUNNOCK, a local name of the Hedge-Sparrow.

DUNTER, generally with the addition of ‘‘ Goose,” a name of
the EmEr-DUcK.

DYSPOROMORPH Ai, the third “ Family” of DESMOGNATHOUS
birds according to Prof. Huxley’s classification (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1867, pp. 438-440, 461, 462) answering to the STEGANOPODES of
Illiger, and including two groups, the Pelicanidz in a restricted sense,
and then all the rest—CoRMORANTS, SNAKE-BIRDS, FRIGATE-BIRDS
and Tropic Birps. Whatever be the shape of the bill in all these,
and it varies much, the exterior nares are very small, there are
no basipterygoid processes ; while, behind the posterior nares, the
palatals unite for a considerable distance ; and other characters are
recognizable.

i

EAGLE (French Aigle, from the Latin Aquila), the name
generally given to the larger diurnal Birds-of-Prey which are not
Vultures ; but the limits of the subfamily Aquiline have been very
variously assigned by different writers on systematic ornithology,
and, as elsewhere observed (BUZZARD), there are Eagles smaller
than certain Buzzards. By some authorities the LAMMERGEIER of
the Alps, and other high mountains of Europe, North Africa, and
Asia, is accounted an Eagle, but by others the genus Gypaetus is
placed with the Vuliwridx, as its common English name (Bearded
Vulture) shews. There are also other forms, such as the South-
American Harpy and its allies, which though generally called
Eagles have been ranked as Buzzards. In the absence of any
truly scientific definition of the Aquilinx,' it is best to leave these
and many other more or less questionable members of the group—
such as the genera Spizaetus, Circaetus, Spilornis, Helotarsus, and so
forth—and, so far as space will allow, to treat here of those whose
position cannot be gainsaid.

Eagles inhabit all the Regions of the world except N ew Zealand,
and some seven or more species are found in Europe, of which two
are resident in the British Islands. In England and in the Low-
lands of Scotland Eagles only exist as stragglers; but in the
Hebrides and some parts of the Highlands a good many may yet
be found ; and, though one species is verging upon extermination
as a native, the numbers of the other appear to have rather

1 The nearest approach to a characteristic is perhaps that afforded by the
elongated head, and bill straight at the base, as before remarked (supra, p. 67) ;
but this is possibly not unfailing.

174 EAGLE

increased of late years than diminished ; for the foresters and shep-
herds, finding that a high price can be got for their eggs, take care
to protect the owners of the eyries, which aré nearly all well
known, and to keep up the stock by allowing them at times to rear
their young. There are also now not a few occupiers of Scottish
forests who interfere so far as they can to protect the “king of
birds.” But hardly thirty years ago resort was had without stint
to trapping, poisoning, and other destructive devices, and there

Sea-Eacue. (After Wolf.)

was then every probability that before long not an Eagle of any
kind would be left to add the wild majesty of its appearance to
the associations of the mountain, the cliff, or the lake! In Ireland

1 The late Lord Breadalbane (John, 2nd Marquess of the first creation, and
5th Earl) who died in 1862, was perhaps the first large landowner who set the
example that has been since followed by others. On his unrivalled forest of
Black Mount, Eagles—elsewhere persecuted to the death—were by him ordered
to be unmolested so long as they were not numerous enough to cause consider-
able depredations on the farmers’ flocks. He thought, and all who have an eye
for the harmonies of nature will agree with him, that the spectacle of a soaring

a

oe

EAGLE 175
the extirpation of Eagles seems to have been carried on almost
unaffected by the prudent considerations which in the northern
kingdom have operated so favourably for the race, and except in
the wildest parts of Donegal, Mayo, and Kerry, Eagles in the
sister-island are said to be birds of the past.

Of the two British species the Erne (Icel. Qrn) or Sea-Eagle
(by some called also the White-tailed and Cinereous Eagle), Haliaetus
albicilla, has of late years suffered severe persecution, so that at
the present time there is probably not a single pair left on the
mainland of Scotland, while not fifty years ago it frequented almost
every steep headland on our northern shores. Affecting chiefly the
coast, mostly building its nest on sea-cliffs, it has been at the
mercy of any adventurer, and in the absence of the protection
which the practice of deer-stalking has afforded the other native
species, it has been ruthlessly destroyed, and apparently to the
benefit of nobody in particular, for the species lives in great part
on the fish and refuse that is thrown up on the shore, though it
not unfrequently takes living prey, such as lambs, hares, and
rabbits. On these last, indeed, young examples mostly feed
when they wander southward in autumn, as they yearly do, and
appear in England. The adults are distinguished by their prevalent
greyish-brown colour, their pale head, yellow beak, and white tail
—characters, however, wanting in the immature, which do not
assume the perfect plumage for some three or four years. The
eyry is commonly placed in a high cliff or on an island in a lake—
sometimes on the ground, at others in a tree—and consists of a
vast mass of sticks, in the midst of which is formed a hollow lined
with Luzula sylvatica (as first observed by the late Mr. John Wolley)
or some similar grass, and here are laid the two or three white
eggs. In former days the Sea-Eagle seems to Have bred in several
parts of England—as the Lake district, and possibly even in the
Isle of Wight and on Dartmoor. This species inhabits all the
northern part of the Old World from Iceland to Kamchatka,
and breeds in Europe so far to the southward as Albania. It
is also found in Greenland; but is replaced in the New World
by the White-headed or Bald Eagle, H. leucocephalus, a bird of
similar habits, and the chosen emblem of the United States of
America. In the far east of Asia occurs a still larger and finer
Sea-Eagle, H. pelagicus, remarkable for its white thighs and upper
wing-coverts. South-eastern Europe and India furnish a much
smaller species, H. leucoryphus, which has its representative, 7.

Eagle was a fitting adjunct to the grandeur of his Argyllshire mountain-scenery,
and a good equivalent for the occasional loss of a lamb, or the slight deduction
from the rent paid by his tenantry in consequence. How faithfully his wishes
were carried out by his head-forester, the late Peter Robertson, the present
writer has abundant means of knowing.

176 EAGLE :

leucogaster, in the Malay Archipelago and Australia, and, as allies
in South Africa and Madagascar, H. vocifer and H. vociferoides
respectively. All these Eagles! may be distinguished by their scaly
tarsi, while the group next to be treated of have the tarsi feathered
to the toes.

The Golden or Mountain-Eagle, Aquila chrysaetus, is the second
British species. This also formerly inhabited England, and a nest,
found in 1668 in the Peak of Derbyshire, is well described by

{
\ i \

GOLDEN EaGie. (After Wolf.)

Willughby, in whose time it was said to breed also in the Snowdon
range. It seldom if ever frequents the coast, and is more active
on the wing than the Sea-Hagle, being able to take some birds as
they fly, but a large part of its sustenance is the flesh of animals
that die a natural death. Its eyry is generally placed and built
like that of the other British species,? but the neighbourhood of

1 Much resembling them are the species separated to form the genus

Haliastur, which some authorities regard as more nearly allied to the KirEs.
* As already stated, the site chosen varies greatly. Occasionally placed in a

EAGLE 177

water is not requisite. The eggs, from two to four in number,
vary from a pure white to a mottled, and often highly-coloured,
surface, on which appear different shades of red and purple. The
adult bird is of a rich, dark brown, with the elongated feathers of
the neck, especially on the nape, light tawny, in which imagination
sees a “golden” hue, and the tail marbled with brown and ashy-
grey. In the young the tail is white at the base, whence in this
stage it has been often called the Ring-tailed Eagle, and the neck
has scarcely any tawny tint. The Golden Eagle does not occur in
Iceland, but occupies suitable situations over the rest of the
Palearctic area and a considerable portion of the Nearctic—though
the American bird has been, by some, considered a distinct species.
Domesticated, it has many times been trained to take prey for
its master in Europe, and to this species is thought to belong an
Eagle habitually used by the Kirgiz Tartars, who call it Bergut or
Bearcoot, for the capture of antelopes, foxes, and wolves. It is
carried hooded on horseback or on a perch between two men, and
released when the quarry is in sight. Such a bird, when well
trained, is valued, says Pallas, at the price of two camels. It is
quite possible, however, that more than one kind of Eagle is thus
used, and the services of 4. heliaca (which is the Imperial Eagle of
some writers?) and of A. mogilnik—both of which are found in
Central Asia, as well as in South-eastern EKurope—may also be
employed.

Of the other more or less nearly allied species or races want of
room forbids the consideration, but there is a smaller form on
which a few words may be said. ‘This has usually gone under the
name of 4. nxvia or Spotted Eagle, but is now thought by the best
authorities to include three local races, or, in the eyes of some,
species. They inhabit Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia to
India, and five examples of one of them—J. clanga, the form which
is somewhat plentiful in North-eastern Germany—have occurred in
England. The smallest true Eagle is .4. pennata, which inhabits
Southern Europe, Africa, and India. Differing from other Eagles
of this genus by its wedge-shaped tail, though otherwise greatly
resembling them, is the 4. audax of Australia. Lastly may be

niche in what passes for a perpendicular cliff to which access could only be
gained by a skilful cragsman with a rope, the writer has known a nest to within
ten or fifteen yards of which he rode ona pony. ‘Two beautiful views of as many
Golden Eagles’ nests, drawn on the spot by Mr. Wolf, are given in the Ootheca
Wolleyana, and a fine series of eggs is also figured in the same work.

1 The similarity between this name and the Welsh Barcud, said by Pennant
(Lrit. Zool. Ed. 4, ii. pp. 620, 621) to be Kite or Harrier, but, as Lord Lilford
informs me, really equivalent to Buzzard, is worth noting.

2 Which species may have been the traditional emblem of Roman power, and
the Ales Jovis, is very uncertain.

I2

178 EAR

noticed here a small group of Eagles, characterized by their long
legs, forming the genus Nisueius, of which one species, NV. fasciatus
or bonellii, is found in Europe. The Osprey (Pandion), though
placed by many among the Aquiline, certainly does not belong to
that subfamily.

EAR. 'The whole auditory apparatus is divided into the outer,
middle, and inner ear.

The outer ear or “auditory meatus” is a short, membranous, and
sometimes partly cartilaginous tube. The outer opening is generally
covered by feathers, and rarely naked as in Vultures and Ostriches.
The feathers which surround the ear are often more or less reduced,
and occasionally assume the shape of bristles. ‘There is no external
ear or “concha auris,” but a more or less prominent fold projects
from the outer margin into the meatus, and seems to be used as
a sort of imperfect valve, especially since it possesses several little
muscles. Such a valvular fold attains its largest development in
Owls. Many of these birds present the peculiar anomaly of
having the outer ears very asymmetrically developed, an asym-
metry which often affects also the whole of the temporal region
together with the squamosal, quadrate, and neighbouring bones,
so that the whole skull assumes a lop-sided shape. Collett
(Christiania Videnskabs. Forhandl. 1881, No. 3, pp. 1-38, pls. i.-ili.)
has examined this point in all the North-European species of Owl.
According to him there are three different formations: 1. Skull
and auditory meatus symmetrical, ear-valve absent: Surnia
funerea, Glaucidium passerinum, Nyctea scandiaca, Bubo ignavus.
2. Skull symmetrical, meatus asymmetrical, ear-valve present: Asio
accipitrinus, A. otus, Strix aluco. 3. Skull and meatus asym-
metrical, ear-valve present: Strix uralensis, 8. lapponica, and
Nyctala tengmalmi. Of other, not North-European, Owls, Aluco
flammeus belongs to the first group.!

Another peculiar modification is exhibited by the CAPERCALLY.
It is well known that the cock for several seconds towards the end
of his rutting ecstasy is completely deaf to any external sounds.
This deafness is produced by an erectile fold of the posterior wall
of the auditory meatus; this fold or flap becomes turgid with
blood during the excitement of the bird, and seems moreover to
be assisted in pressing upon the opposite margin of the quadrate
bone, and in thus effectively closing the ear-passage, by the action
of the digastric or depressor muscle of the mandible which is
always widely opened during this stage. The harsh and loud
sounds emitted by the cock, and the blocked ear-passage render
him absolutely indifferent to any other sounds. (See Graff and

1 A large number of figures of North-American species in illustration of this
point is given by Ridgway (North American Birds, iii. pp. 97-102).

—

BD. oe ited &

EAR 179

Wurm, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zoologie, 1885, pp. 107-115, Taf. vii., and
pp. 728-730.)

The middle ear consists of the tympanic cavity, its communi-
cation with the cavity of the mouth through the “ Eustachian tube,”
and the sound-conducting apparatus—the “tympanic membrane ”
and the “columella auris.”

The tympanic membrane or drum is thin and stretched across
the walls of the inner end of the auditory meatus, and shuts
off the latter from the tympanic cavity. This cavity communi-
cates with the mouth through a canal—the Eustachian tube, which
passes between the basisphenoid and _ basioccipital bones, and
opens upon the ventral side of the sphenoid a little behind the
latter’s articulation with the pterygoid bone. The right and left

Hinp VIEW OF THE OssEOUS AUDITORY ORGAN OF AN Owt (Bubo indranee).
About twice the natural size.

Cd. Occipital condyle; F.47. Foramen magnum; L, Lagena; Pter. Right pterygoid bone ;
Q, Quadrate bone; H, S, Horizontal and Sagittal semicircular canals ; Co, Columella auris, its
extra-columellar portion continued towards the basis of the quadrate ; Tb. £ust. Eustachian tube,

canals unite in the middle line into one short membranous duct,
which opens in the roof of the posterior part of the mouth cavity.

The columella is a cartilaginous and partly osseous jointed rod,
which fits with its inner slightly-swollen and disk-like end into the
« seinen ovale” of the capsule of the inner ear. The outer end
of this rod sends out three cartilaginous processes; the dorsal
one is attached to the upper wall of the tympanic cavity close to
the drum; the outermost process leans against the middle of the
drum, and consequently conveys the vibrations of the latter
through the whole rod into the inner ear; the ventral process is
directed downwards, and runs out into a thin thread which can be
traced between pterygoid and quadrate into the inner corner of the
articular portion of the mandible.

180 EAR

Birds possess one muscle belonging to the middle ear; this
muscle acts as a tensor tympani; it arises near the occipital con-
dyle, passes through a hole into the tympanic cavity, attaches its
tendon to the ends of the columellar processes, and also spreads
over the tympanum itself.

The whole columella of Birds is equivalent to the chain of ear-
ossicles of Mammals, the inner end of the columellar rod repre-
senting the stapes, while the outer and lower processes of the
tympanic end correspond with the manubrium and the long process
of the Mammalian malleus. The quadrate bone, so well developed,
and functional as the hinge of the masticatory apparatus in Reptiles
and Birds, has in Mammals lost this function, and in them is
reduced and modified into the comparatively insignificant tympanic
ring, acting only as a frame for the tympanic membrane.

The inner ear is the most important portion of the whole ear,
because it contains the sound-perceiving apparatus. It consists of
the labyrinth or membranous capsule which encloses the end-organs
of the auditory nerve, and of the cartilaginous or osseous capsule
which surrounds and protects the membranous organs. The outer
capsule is consequently more or less a cast of the other, and repeats
all its principal complicated configurations.

The membranous ear is a system of hollow tubes which form
various labyrinthic dilatations and canals, all of which communicate
with each other. The whole is divided into—I. pars superior,
consisting of an utriculus, two sinus, three ampulle, and three semi-
circular canals; each canal connects one ampulla with one of the
two sinus; the anterior canal runs in a vertical and longitudinal
plane, the posterior canal lies in a transverse vertical plane, extend-
ing from right to left, while the external canal stretches out in
a nearly horizontal direction; II. pars inferior, consisting of the
cochlea and the sacculus with the endolymphatic duct. The sac-
culus is a small dilatation or appendix of the utriculus; its walls
are continued as the endolymphatic duct straight into the cranial
cavity, ending in the dura mater in the shape of a flattened sac.
This peculiar arrangement is an imperfect remnant of previous con-
ditions ; because in Selachians the endolymphatic duct of each ear
opens upon the top of the head, through the skin, and indicates the
way by which the primitive ear-capsule (itself, like all the higher
sense-organs, a modification of epidermal and neural cells) has
gradually become transferred into the depth of the skull.

The cochlea ends blindly, with its apex towards the occipital
condyle; instead of being curled into several turns as in Mammals,
it forms in Birds never more than, and often much less than,
half a twist. Its internal structure is most complicated and
intimately connected with the perception of sound, through the
possession of “Reissner’s membrane” and the “organ of Corti.”

EAR—EASTERLING 181

The position of these parts is shewn in the adjoining figure.
The basal portion of the membranous cochlea, the “ductus coch-
learis,” communicates with the sacculus by a canal, the dorsal wall
of which is continued into the
tegmentum vasculosum or
membrane of Reissner, while
the ventral wall contains the
basilar membrane, with its
acoustic papilla or organ of
Corti. The space between the
periosteum of the bony wall of
the cochlea and the tegmentum
is called “scala vestibuli” ;
that between the bone and the
basilar membrane is the “scala

VrerTICAL MrepIAN SECTION OF THE COCHLEA
os or A PIGEON, magnified 30 times. (After Retzius.)
tympani. B.g. Blood-vessels; G. Ganglia in the ramus

The scales are part of the basilaris of the cochlear portion of the acoustic

perilymphatic space between 17 stenrana bsilars ; Mt, Membrana tector
the membranous and the bony P.a.b. Papilla acustica basilaris; Per. Periost of
inner ear, and are filled with the cochlea; Sc.V. Scala vestibuli; Set. Scala
the perilymphatic fluid. tympani; 7'.v, Tegmentum vasculosum.

The acoustic nerve enters the membranous ear near the base of
the cochlea, and terminates by eight macule, papille, and cristz
acusticee in the ampulle and various other dilatations. The cells of
these terminating nervous spots are cylindrical, and end in one or
more extremely fine filaments or hairs; they extend into the
endolymphatic fluid, which fills the whole membranous ear, and
contains, especially in the sacculus, numerous small otolithic crystals
of carbonate of lime. ‘The filamentous and hairy cells take up the
vibrations or waves of sound which are transmitted from the
typanum through the columella to the endolymphatic fluid, and
convey them through the acoustic nerve to the brain.

The whole inner ear is subject to comparatively few and unim-
portant variations, and does not throw much light upon the
affinities of the various groups of Birds, the differences being
restricted chiefly to the relative size of the cochlea and the position
and size of the semicircular canals. It cannot be doubted that the
faculty of hearing is highly developed in Birds, not only the mere
perception of sound, but also the power of distinguishing or under-
standing pitch, notes and melodies, or music.

For further information concerning the minute structure of the
‘ear, see the monumental work of G. Retzius (Das Gehdrorgan der
Wirbelthiere, Stockholm: 1884, ii. pp. 139-198, pls. 15-20).

EASTERLING, according to Latham, a local name for the
WIGEON.

182 EBB—EGGS

EBB, said to be.a local name of the Great BUNTING.

EBB-SLEEPER, a name given by shore-gunners to various
kinds of LimicoLa, though, except on the principle of ducus a non
lucendo, the reason why cannot be explained, for these birds at ebb-
tide are especially active, while they take their rest as high water
approaches ; but so it is.

EDOLIER, Levaillant’s name for a South-African SHRIKE which
some writers have tried to Anglify.

EEE-EVE, in modern spelling Jiwi, the English rendering by
many voyagers of the native name of the beautiful scarlet Vestiaria
coccinea, whose feathers were largely used by the Sandwich-islanders
in the making of their magnificent mantles (cf. DREPANIS).

EGG-BIRD, the name given by many voyagers to the Sooty
TERN, Sterna fuliginosa, but perhaps occasionally used for other
species whose eggs afforded them swpplies.

EGGS. The pains bestowed by such Birds (incomparably the
most numerous of the Class), as build elaborate nests (see NIDIFICA-
TION), and the devices employed by those that, not doing so, display
no little skill in providing for the preservation of their produce,
invite some attention to the eggs which they lay. This attention
will perhaps be more cheerfully given when we think how many
naturalists, not merely ornithologists, have been first directed to
the study of the animal kingdom by the spoils they have won in
their early days of birds’-nesting. With some such men the
fascination of this boyish pursuit has maintained its full force even
in old age—a fact not so much to be wondered at when it is con-
sidered that hardly any branch of the practical study of Natural
History brings the enquirer so closely in contact with many of its
secrets. It is therefore eminently pardonable for the victims of
this devotion to dignify their passion by the learned name of
“Oology,” and to bespeak for it the claims of a science. Yet the
present writer—once an ardent follower of the practice of birds’-
nesting, and still on occasion warming to its pleasures—must
confess to a certain amount of disappointment as to the benefits
it was expected to confer on Systematic Ornithology, though he
yields to none in his high estimate of its utility in acquainting the
learner with the most interesting details of bird-life—without a
knowledge of which nearly all systematic study is but work that
may as well be done in a library, a museum, or a dissecting-room,
and is incapable of conveying information to the learner concerning
the why and the wherefore of such or such modifications and
adaptations of structure. ‘To some—and especially to those who
are only anatomists—this statement may seem preposterous, but it

EGGS 183

is in truth no such thing. What engineer can be said to understand
his business if he knows not the purpose to which the machines he
makes are to be applied and is unacquainted with their mode of
working? We may investigate thoroughly the organs of any
animal, we may trace them from the earliest moment in which they
become defined, and watch them as they develop to maturity, we
may comprehend the way in which every part of a complicated
structure is successively built up; but, if we take not the trouble
to know their effect on the economy of the creature, we as natural-
ists have done but half our task, and abandon our labour when the
fulness of reward is coming upon us. The field-naturalist, properly
instructed, crowns the work of the comparative anatomist and the
physiologist, though without the necessary education he is little
more than an empiric, even should he possess the trained cunning
of the savage on whose knowledge of the habits of wild animals
depends his chance of procuring a meal.

Perhaps the greatest scientific triumph of oologists lies in their
having fully appreciated the intimate alliance of the LimIcoL# (the
great group of Snipes and Plovers) with the GAvi (the Gulls,
Terns, and other birds more distantly connected with them) before
it was recognized by any professed taxonomer—L’Herminier, whose
researches have been much overlooked, excepted; though to such
an one was given the privilege of placing that affinity beyond cavil
(Huxley, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 426, 456-458 ; cf. Ibis, 1868,
p- 92). In like manner it is believed that oologists first saw the
need of separating from the true PASSERES several groups of birds
that had for many years been unhesitatingly associated with that
very uniform assemblage. Diffidence as to their own capacity for
meddling with matters of systematic arrangement may possibly
have been the cause which deterred the men who were content to
brood over birds’ eggs from sooner asserting the validity of the
views they held. Following the example furnished by the objects
of their study, they seem to have chiefly sought to hide their off-
spring from the curious eye—and if such was their design it must
be allowed to have been admirably successful. In enthusiastic zeal
for the prosecution of their favourite researches, however, they have
never yielded to, if they have not surpassed, any other class of
naturalists. If a storm-swept island, only to be reached at the risk
of life, held out the hope of some oological novelty there was the
egg-collector (Faber, Isis, xx. pp. 633-688; Proctor, Naturalist,
1838, pp. 411, 412). Did another treasure demand his traversing
a burning desert (Tristram, [dis, 1859, p. 79) or sojourning for
several winters within the wildest wastes of the Arctic Circle
(Wolley, Jbis, 1859, pp. 69-76; 1861, pp. 92-106; Kennicott,
Rep. Smithson. Inst. 1862, pp. 39, 40), he endured the necessary
hardships to accomplish his end, and the possession to him of an

184 EGGS

empty shell of carbonate of lime,’ stained or not (as the case might
be) by a secretion of the villous membrane of the parent’s uterus,
was to him a sufficient reward. Taxonomers, however, have prob-
ably been right in not attaching too great an importance to such
systematic characters as can be deduced from the eggs of birds, but
it would have been better had they not insisted so strongly as they
have done on the infallibility of one or another set of characters,
chosen by themselves. Oology taken alone proves to be a guide
as misleading as any other arbitrary method of classification, but
combined with the evidence afforded by due study of other particu-
larities, whether ‘superficial or deep-seated, it can scarcely fail in
time to conduct us to an ornithological arrangement as nearly true
to Nature as we may expect to achieve.

The first man of science who seems to have given any special
thought to oology, was the celebrated Sir Thomas Browne, of
Norwich, who already in 1671, when visited by John Evelyn
(from whose diary we learn the fact), had assigned a place in his
cabinet of rarities to a collection of birds’ eggs. The next we hear
of is that Count of Marsigli who early in the eighteenth century
explored, chiefly for this kind of investigation, the valley of the
Danube—a region at that time, it is almost unnecessary to remark,
utterly unknown to naturalists. But there is no need to catalogue
the worthies of this study. As they approach our own day their
number becomes far too great to tell, and if very recently it has
seemed to dwindle the reason is probably at hand in the reflexion
that most of the greatest prizes have been won, while those that
remain to reward the aspiring appear to be just now from one cause
or another almost out of reach. Perhaps at the present time the
Birds-of-Paradise and the Fin-foots form the only groups of any
recognized distinctiveness and extent of whose eggs we know
absolutely nothing—though there are important isolated forms,
such as Africhia, Heteralocha, and others, concerning the eggs as
well as the breeding-habits of which our ignorance is absolute, and
the species of many Families that have hitherto defied the zeal of
oologists are very numerous. ‘These last, however, though including
some common and some not very uncommon British birds, possess
in a general way comparatively little interest, since, the eggs of
their nearest allies being well known, we cannot expect much to
follow from the discovery of the recluses, and it is only to the
impassioned collector that the obtaining of such desiderata will
afford much satisfaction.

The first thing which strikes the eye of one who beholds a large
collection of egg-shells is the varied hues of the specimens. Hardly
a shade known to the colourist is not exhibited by one or more,

1 A small proportion of carbonate of magnesia and phosphate of lime and
magnesia also enters into its composition,

EGGS 185

and some of these tints have their beauty enhanced by the glossy
surface on which they are displayed, by their harmonious blending,
or by the pleasing contrast of the pigments which form markings
as often of the most irregular as of regular shape. But it would
seem as though such markings, which a very small amount of
observation will shew to have been deposited on the shell a short
time before its exclusion, are primarily and normally circular, for
hardly any egg that bears markings at all does not exhibit some
spots of that form, but that in the progress of the egg, through that
part of the oviduct in which the colouring matter is laid on, many
of them become smeared, blotched, or protracted in some particular
direction. ‘The circular spots thus betoken the deposition of the
pigment while the egg is at rest, the blurred markings shew its
deposition while the egg is in motion, and this motion would seem
often to be at once onward and rotatory, as indicated by the spiral
markings not uncommonly observable in the eggs of some Birds-of-
Prey and others—the larger end of the egg (when the ends differ
in form) making way for the smaller.!. At the same time the eggs
of a great number of birds bear, beside these last and superimposed
markings, more deeply-seated stains, generally of a paler and often
of an altogether different hue, and these are evidently due to some
earlier dyeing process. The peculiar tint of the ground-colour,
though commonly superficial, when not actually congenital with the
formation of the shell, would appear to be suffused soon after.
The depth of colouring whether original or supervening is obviously
dependent in a great measure on the constitution or bodily con-
dition of the parent. If a bird, bearing in its oviduct a fully-formed
egg, be captured, that egg will speedily be laid under any circum-
stances of inconvenience to which its producer shall be subjected,
but such an egg is usually deficient in coloration—fright and
captivity having arrested the natural secretions. In lke manner
over excitement or debility of the organs, the consequence of ill
health, give rise to much and often very curious abnormality. It
is commonly believed that the older a bird is the more intensely
coloured will be its eggs, and to some extent this belief appears to
be true. Certain Falconidx, which ordinarily lay very brilliantly-
tinted eggs, and are therefore good tests, seem when young not to
secrete so much colouring-matter as they do when older, and season
after season the dyes become deeper, but there is reason to think

1 That the larger end is protruded first was found on actual experiment by
Mr. Bartlett, Superintendent of the Gardens of the Zoological Society, to be the
case commonly, but as an accident the position may be sometimes reversed, and
this will most likely account for the occasional deposition of markings on the
smaller instead of the larger end as not unfrequently shewn in eggs of the
Sparrow-Hawk, <Accipiter nisus. The head of the chick is always formed at the
larger end (see EMBRYOLOGY).

186 EGGS

that when the bird has attained her full vigour improvement stops,
and a few years later the intensity of hue begins to decline. It
would be weil if we had more evidence, however, in support of this
opinion, which is chiefly based on a series of eggs of one species—
the Golden EAGLE, Aquila chrysaetus, in the writer’s possession,
among which are some believed on good grounds to have been the
produce in the course of about twelve years of one and the same
female. The amount of colouring-matter secreted and deposited
seems notwithstanding to be generally a pretty constant quantity—
allowance being made for individual constitution; but it often
happens—especially in birds that lay only two eggs—that nearly
all the dye will be deposited on one of these, leaving the other
colourless ; it seems, however, to be a matter of inconstancy which
of the two is first developed. Thus of two pairs of Golden Eagles’
eggs also in the possession of the writer, one specimen of each pair
is nearly white while the other is deeply coloured, and it is known
that in one case the white egg was laid first and in the other the
coloured one. When birds lay many mottled, and a fortiori plain,
eggs, there is generally less difference in their colouring, and though
no two can hardly ever be said to be really alike, yet the family-
resemblance between them all is obvious to the practised eye. It
would seem, however, to be a peculiarity with some species—and
the Tree-SpaRROw, Passer montanus, which lays five or six eggs,
may be taken as a striking example—that one egg should always
differ remarkably from the rest of the clutch. In addition to what
has been said above as to the deposition of colour in circular spots
indicating a pause in the progress of the egg through one part of
the oviduct, it may be observed that the cessation of motion at
that time is equally shewn by the clearly defined hair-lines or
vermiculations seen in many eggs, and in none more commonly met
with than in those of most BuNTINGS, Hmberizide. Such markings
must not only have been deposited while the egg was at rest, but
it must have remained motionless until the pigment was completely
set, or blurred instead of sharp edges would have been the result.

1 The principal oological works with coloured figures are the following:
Thienemann, Fortpflanzungsgeschichte der gesammten Vogel (4to, Leipzig: 1845) ;
Lefévre, Atlas des wujs des oiseaux d’ Europe (8vo, Paris: 1845); Hewitson,
Coloured Illustrations of the Eggs of British Birds (8vo, Ed. 3, London: 1856) ;
Brewer, North American Oology (4to, Washington: 1859) ; Taczanowski, Oologia
Ptakéw Polskich (8vo, Warszawa: 1862); Baideker, Die Hier der Huwropiischen
Vogel (fol. Leipzig: 1863); Wolley, Ootheca Wolleyana (8vo, London: 1864)—
some of which have never been completed. The above is not, and does not
profess to be, an exhaustive list, and perhaps some others deserve inclusion in
it; but there are works, chiefly on British oology, which have unfortunately
attained considerable notoriety, though really unworthy of serious notice, either
from the recklessly inaccurate statements to be found in the text which accom-
panies the plates. or the misleading tendencies of the plates. I prefer passing

EGGS 187

The composition of this pigment long excited much curiosity,
and it was commonly and rather crudely ascribed to secretions of
the blood or bile, but unexpected light was shed upon the subject
by the researches of Mr. Sorby (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, pp. 351-365),
who, using the method of spectrum-analysis, ascertained the exist-
ence of seven well-marked substances in the colouring-matter of
eggs, to the admixture of which in certain proportions all their
tints are due. ‘These he named Oorhodeine, Oocyan, Banded
Oocyan, Yellow Ooxanthine, Rufous Ooxanthine, a sixth substance,
giving narrow absorption-bands in the red—the true colour of which
is not yet decided, and lastly Lichenoxanthine. It would be out
of place here to particularize their chemical properties, and it is
enough to say that they are closely connected either with hemo-
globin or bile-pigments, and in many respects resemble the latter
more than do any other group of colouring-matters, but do not
actually agree with them. ‘The first is perhaps the most important
of all the seven, because it occurs more or less in the shells of so
great a number of eggs that its entire absence is exceptional, and
it is of a very permanent character, its general colour being of a
peculiar brown-red. The second and third seem when pure to be
of a very fine blue, but the spectrum of the former shews no
detached bands, while that of the latter has a well-marked detached
absorbent-band near the red end, though the two are closely related
since they yield the same product when oxidized. The fourth and
fifth substances supply a bright yellow or reddish-yellow hue, and
the former is particularly characteristic of eggs of the Emxus,
Dromzxus, giving rise when mixed with Oocyan to the fine malachite-
green which they possess, while the latter has only been met with
in those of the Tinamous, Zinamidx, in which it should be
mentioned that oorhodeine has not been found, or perhaps in those
of a CASSOWARY, Casuarius, and when mixed with Oocyan produces
a peculiar lead-colour. The sixth substance, as before stated, has
not yet been sufficiently determined, but it would seem in combina-
tion with others to give them an abnormally browner tint ; and the
seventh appears to be identical with one which occurs in greater or
less amount in almost all classes of plants, but is more especially
abundant in and characteristic of lichens and fungi. There isa
possibility, however, of this last being in part if not wholly due to
the growth of minute fungi, though Mr. Sorby believed that some
such substance really is a normal constituent of the shell of eggs
having a peculiar brick-red colour. He was further inclined to

over them in silence to exposing their inefficiency. A great number of rare”
eggs are also figured in various journals, as the Proceedings of the Zoological
Society, Nawmannia, the Journal fiir Ornithologie, and Thé Ibis.

1 Cf. Wilke, Nawmannia, 1858, pp. 393-397, and C. Leconte, Revue e

Magasin de Zoologie, 1860, pp. 199-205.

188 EGGS

think that Oorhodeine is in some way or other closely related to
Cruentine, being probably derived from the red colouring-matter
of the blood by some unknown process of secretion, and likewise that
there is some chemical relation between the Oocyans and the bile.
It was remarked by Hewitson in 1838 (Brit. Oology, Introd. p. 8),
and perhaps he was not the first to make the observation, that
the eggs of many if not of most birds which breed in holes, or
even in covered nests, are of an uniform white ; but the number of
exceptions is so great, that no general rule can be laid down to this
effect. Conversely, the number of birds which lay purely white
eggs in open nests—the multitudinous species of PIGEON being
notorious instances of the fact!—is also large, and in some respects
quite independent of their taxonomic relations, as, for example, the
Little BrrreRN among the Ardeidx, the Virginian QUAIL among
the so-called “ Odontophorinx,” and again among the Gallinw even
the Common Fowl, though some of its breeds, perhaps acted upon by
what is known as “reversion,” lay coloured eggs. The eggs of OWLS
are always white, whether the species be one that breeds in holes,
on the bare ground, or in an open nest ina tree. The egg of the
Gos-HAWK is white, but that of its small relative the Sparrow-
HAWK is always blotched, and sometimes richly, with pigment, the
nest of both being built precisely in the same kind of position,—
but it would be almost endless to cite similar cases. To account
for some, at least, of these anomalies, an ingenious hypothesis has
been set forth by Dr. M‘Aldowie,? starting on the assumption “ that
the pigmentary coat on birds’ eggs came into existence at a very
early period in their life-history, and existed in the eggs of the
progenitors of all the extant species.” It is further taken as proved
that the pigments being “unstable and variable” makes “the pro-
cess of change and decolorization a simple one; and that its
primary use is for protection from the solar rays, but that it
afterwards becomes modified for concealment.” Finally, it is main-
tained “that eggs acquire a highly developed pigmentary layer,
or lose their pigment entirely, according to whether they are ex-
posed to the full glare of the sun or laid in situations inaccessible
to its rays, and that the intermediate degrees of coloration are in
direct ratio to the amount of light to which the eggs are exposed.®

1 Of course, Columba livia, and its allies C. schimpert and C. intermedia,
usually breed in caves, and C. wnas generally though not always places its nest
under cover, but these seem to be the only exceptions in a Family comprising
some 350 species.

” Observations on the Development and the Decay of the Pigment Layer in
Birds’ Eggs, Journ. Anat. and Physiol. xx. (1886), pp. 225-237.

3 It is to be observed that the author bases his hypothesis on a study of the
eggs of British birds only. Considering that in most respects the most instruc-
tive forms of the Class do not belong to our own limited fauna, allowance
must be made for the imperfect information whence his results are drawn.

EGGS 189
In regard to the almost countless cases of spotted eggs in holes
or covered nests, of which so many groups of birds furnish
examples either wholly or in part, the only supposition that could
apparently justify the last statement would be that the species
in question have taken to hiding their treasures in times compara-
tively recent, and have not yet got rid of the ancestral habit of
secreting and depositing pigment. In support of such an argument
might be alleged, among some other cases, the generally pale colour-
ing of eggs of the Daw, Corvus monedula, compared with those of its
kindred, as indicating a step in this direction, while a more con-
clusiveone has been taken by those members of the Hirundinidz as the
Sand-Martin, Cotile riparia, and House-Martin, Chelidon urbica, which
breed in holes or build close nests—their relative the Swallow,
Hirundo rustica, though its nest is rarely exposed to direct light, con-
tinuing to lay eggs that are conspicuously spotted with two or three
tints. But if this supposition be valid some other one, on (it would
seem) a wholly different principle, must be found to explain why
perhaps the eggs that are at once the most delicately and most
richly coloured laid by any bird are those of the Snow-BuUNTING,
Plectrophanes nivalis, which except in rare instances are so sedu-
lously concealed as to be almost beyond the reach of reflected light ;
and again, why the several species of NuTHATCH, Sitta, which must
have been ages in learning the art of masonry they so skilfully
practise, lay eggs more deeply dyed than those of their felt-making
brethren the Paridz (Tirmousk), or their feather-bed cousins the
WRENS and the TREECREEPERS. But the supposition would seem
to break down wholly as an explanation of the variable colouring
offered by eggs of the Fantail-WARBLER, Cisticola cursitans or scheni-
cola—whether the observations of M. Lunel (Bull. Soc. Ornithol. Suisse,
1865, pp. 9-30, pl. 7), referring the marvellous differences they
present to the season of the year at which they were laid, be correct
or not, for the ark-like structure of the nest remains constant. No
more can here be added on this matter, interesting as it is, and
worthy of much more investigation than it has received.
The grain of the egg-shell offers characters that deserve far
more consideration than they have received until the attention of
Herr von Nathusius having been directed to the subject by some

1 Having introduced Hewitson’s name in this connexion, and having pre-
sently to refer to him again, I may say at once that his remarks on the color-
ation of eggs, and some other subjects, have been frequently repeated, of course
with more or less modification and verbose addition, by various plagiarists who
have sometimes forgotten to mention the source of their information. With the
greatest regard for my old friend, I am bound to say that the principles on which
he wrote, more than fifty years since, are such as no man of science can accept
now ; but they were those of his time, and the more recent adaptors of them are
behind theirs.

190 EGGS

investigations carried on by Drs. Landois! and Rudolf Blasius,? he
brought out a series of remarkable papers? in which he arrived at
the conclusion that a well-defined type of shell-structure belongs to
certain Families of birds, and is easily recognized under the micro-
scope. In some cases, as in the eggs of certain SWANS and GEESE
(Cygnus olor and C. musicus, Anser cinereus and A. segetum) even
specific differences are apparent; but more than this, differences
of the same kind are observable in the eggs of the Grey and Black
Crows (Corvus corniz and C. corone), which, in the present writer’s
opinion, are only forms of the same dimorphic species, and, what is still
more wonderful, the eggs of the hybrids or mongrels between these
two forms are recognizable under the microscope by the structure
of the shell, while yet most extraordinary is the general conclusion
that the egg laid by a bird mated with a male of a different species
is recognizable from one laid by the same bird when paired with a
male of her own. The bearing of these researches on classification
generally is of considerable importance and must be taken into
account by all future taxonomers. Here we cannot enter into
details, it must suffice to remark that the grain of the shell is some-
times so fine that the surface is glossy, and this is the case with a
large number of PICARL&, where it is also quite colourless and the
contents of their eggs seen through the semi-transparent shell give
an opalescence of great beauty; but among the TinAmous, Tina-
midz, colour is invariably present and their opaque eggs present
the appearance of more or less globular balls of highly-burnished
metal or glazed porcelain. Most birds lay eggs with a smooth shell,
such as nearly all the Gavixw, Limicolx, and Passeres, and in some
groups, as with the normal Gallinz, this seems to be enamelled or
much polished, but itis still very different from the brilliant surface
of those just mentioned, and nothing like a definite line can be
drawn between their structure and that in which the substance is
dull and uniform, as among the Alcidw and the Accipitres. In
many of the Ratity the surface is granulated and pitted in an
extraordinary manner,* and in a less degree the same feature is

1 Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Zoologie, xv. pp. 1-81.

2 Op. cit. xvii. pp. 480-524.

5 Op. cit. xviii. pp. 19-21, pp. 225-270, xix. pp. 322-348, xx. pp. 106-130,
xxi. pp. 830-335, xxx. pp. 69-77. A summary of these will be found in Jowrn.
fiir Ornith. 1871, pp. 241-260, and the subject has been continued in the same
periodical for 1872, pp. 321-332, 1874, pp. 1-26, 1879, pp. 525-761, 1880, pp.
341-346, 1881, pp. 334-336, 1882, pp. 129-161, 225-315, 1885, pp. 165-178; as
well as in Zool. Anzeiger, 1885, pp. 413-415, 1886, pp. 555-569, 1887, pp. 292-296,
311-316. Some critical remarks by Dr. Kutter are contained in Journ. fiir
Orn. 1877, pp. 896-423, 1878, pp. 300-348, 1880, pp. 157-187; and Orn. Centralbl.
1881, p. 68.

4 It is curious that Ostriches’ eggs from North Africa are to be readily dis-
tinguished from those from the Cape of Good Hope by their smooth ivory-like

EGGS IQ!

observable in the eggs of some other birds, as the STorKS, Ciconiide.
Many Water-fowls, and particularly the Ducks, Anatidz, lay eggs
with a greasy or oleaginous exterior, as the collector who wishes to
inscribe his specimens with marks of their identity often finds to
his inconvenience ; but there are other eggs, as those of the ANIS,
Crotophaga, the GREBES, Podicipedidx, and all of the Steganopodes,
except Phaethon, which are more or less covered with a cretaceous
film, often of considerable thickness and varied by calcareous pro-
tuberances.

In form eggs vary very much, and this is sometimes observable
in examples not only of the same species but even from the same
mother, yet a certain amount of resemblance is usually to be traced
according to the natural group to which the parents belong. Those
of the Owns, Strigidx, and some of the Picariz—especially those
which lay the glossy eggs above spoken of—are often apparently
spherical, though it is probable that if tested mathematically none
would be found truly so—indeed it may be asserted that few eggs
are strictly symmetrical, however nearly they may seem so, one
side bulging out, though very slightly, more than the other. The
really oval form, with which we are most familiar, needs no remark,
but this is capable of infinite variety caused by the relative posi-
tion and proportion of the major and minor axis. In nearly all
the Limicolz and some of the Alcidz the egg attenuates very rapidly
towards the smaller end, sometimes in a slightly convex curve,
sometimes without perceptible curvature, and occasionally in a
sensibly concave curve. The eggs having this pyriform shape are
mostly those of birds which invariably lay four in a nest, and therein
they lie with their points almost meeting in the centre and thus
occupying as little space as possible and more easily covered by the
brooding parent. Other eggs as those of the SAND-GROUSE, Ptero-
cleid#, are elongated and almost cylindrical for a considerable part
of their length, terminating at each end obtusely, while eggs of the
GREBES, Podicipedidx, which also have both ends nearly alike but
pointed, are so wide in the middle as to present a biconical appear-
ance.

The size of eggs is generally but not at all constantly in pro-
portion to that of the parent. The GuiLLEeMmot, Alca troile, and the
RAVEN, Corvus corax, are themselves of about equal size ; their eggs
vary as ten to one. The SNIPE, Scolopax gallinago, and the Black-
bird, Turdus merula, differ but slightly in weight, their eggs remark-
ably. The eggs of the Guillemot are as big as those of an Eagle ;

surface, without any punctures, whereas southern specimens are rough as though
pock-marked (Jbis, 1860, p. 74), yet no other difference that can be deemed specifis
has as yet been established between the birds of the north and of the south.

1 A great deal of valuable information on this and other kindred subjects is
given by Des Murs, 7'raité général d’Oologie ornithologique (8vo, Paris : 1860).

192 EGRET—EIDER

and those of the Snipe equal in size the eggs of a PARTRIDGE, Per-
diz cinerea. Hewitson, from whom these instances are taken,
remarks: ‘The reason of this great disparity is, however, obvious ;
the eggs of all those birds which quit the nest soon after they are
hatched, and which are consequently more fully developed at their
birth, are very large.”! It must be added, though, that the number
of eggs to be covered at one time seems also to have some relation
to their size, and this offers a further explanation of the fact just
mentioned with regard to the Snipe and the Partridge—the former
being one of those birds which are constant in producing four, and
the latter often laying as many as a dozen—for the chicks of each
run as soon as they release themselves from the shell (see EMBry-
OLOGY, INCUBATION).

EGRET (French Aigreite, cognate with Italian Aghirone, and
Provencal Aigron—Latinized LKgretta), a white HERON, remark-
able for the tufts of long filiform feathers? which spring from the
middle and lower part of its back, and take their name from the
bird which produces them. A small bundle of these feathers has
long been used among eastern nations as an ornament, and worn
in front of the turban, caftan, or other head-dress by personages of
high rank, being occasionally mounted with, or its form imitated
by, precious stones ; and the gift of an “egret” so bejewelled has
been one of the most distinguished marks of honour that could be
bestowed by an oriental ruler upon a favourite minister or successful
leader. The fashion has spread among western nations, and in the
“plume” that surmounts or until lately surmounted the “busby”
or “bearskin” of our artillery, hussars, and certain select regiments
of foot, it verges on the ridiculous, all the grace of the original
being lost in the horsehair that counterfeits its form.

In Europe we have two species to which the name Egret
properly belongs. One is of large size, the Ardea alba, the other
much smaller, 4. garzetta. The ‘“ Egrittes” of Archbishop Neville’s
Inthronization feast at York (temp. Edw. IV.) were no doubt
LAPWINGS.

EIDER (Icelandic, 4/Sur), a large marine Duck, the Somateria
mollissima of ornithologists, famous for its down, which, from its

1 Hewitson, op. cit. Introd. p. x.

2 These feathers consist of fine barbs alone, without barbules, and though
soft as silk keep their stiffness. They are assumed only just before the breeding-
season, and hence the procuring of them destroys the birds at a most critical
moment (see EXTERMINATION). In the “plume trade” they bear the name of
“Ospreys” !

3 The ‘‘egret”’ sent by the Sultan to Nelson after the battle of the Nile is
almost historical, and was apparently more valued by the hero than any other
gift he got.

EIDER 193
extreme lightness and elasticity, is in great request for filling bed-
coverlets. ‘This bird generally frequents low rocky islets near the
coast, and in Iceland and Norway has long been afforded every
encouragement and protection, a fine being inflicted for killing it
during the breeding-season, or even for firing a gun near its haunts,
while artificial nesting-places are in many localities contrived for its
further accommodation. From the care thus taken of it in those
countries it has become exceedingly tame at its chief resorts, which
are strictly regarded as property, and the taking of eggs or down
from them, except by authorized persons, is severely punished by
law. In appearance the Eider is somewhat clumsy, though it flies
fast and dives admirably. The female is of a dark reddish-brown
colour barred with brownish-black. The adult male in spring is
conspicuous by his pied plumage of sable beneath, and creamy-
white above ; a patch of shining sea-green on his head is only seen
on close inspection. ‘This plumage he is considered not to acquire
until his third year, being when young almost exactly like the
female, and it is certain that the birds which have not attained
their full dress remain in flocks by themselves without going to the
breeding-stations. The nest is generally in some convenient corner
among large stones, hollowed in the soil, and furnished with a few
bits of dry grass, seaweed, or heather. By the time that the full
number of eggs (which rarely if ever exceeds five) is laid the down
is added. Generally the eggs and down are taken at intervals of a
few days by the owners of the “ Eidér-fold,” and the birds are thus
kept depositing both during the whole season ; but some experience
is needed to insure the greatest profit from each commodity. Every
Duck is ultimately allowed to hatch an egg or two to keep up the
stock, and the down of the last nest is gathered after the birds have
left the spot. The story of the Drake’s furnishing down, after the
Duck’s supply is exhausted, is a fiction.1 He never goes near the
nest. The eggs have a strong flavour, but are much relished by
both Icelanders and Norwegians. In the Old World the Eider
breeds in suitable localities from Spitsbergen to the Farn Islands
off the coast of Northumberland—where it is known as St. Cuth-
bert’s Duck. Its food consists of marine animals (mollusks and
crustaceans), and hence the young are not easily reared in captivity.
The Eider of the New World differs somewhat from our own, and
has been described as a distinct species, S. dresseri. 'Though much
diminished in numbers by persecution, it still inhabits the coast of
Newfoundland and thence northward. In Greenland Eiders are
very plentiful, and it is supposed that three-fourths of the supply
of down sent to Copenhagen come from that country. The limits
of the Kider’s northern range are not known, but the last British

1 Equally fictitious is the often-repeated statement that Eider-down is white,
Mouse-colour would perhaps best describe its hue.

13

194. ELEUTHERODACTYLI—EMBRYOLOGY

Arctic Expedition does not seem to have met with it after leaving
the Danish settlements, and its place is taken by an allied species,
the King-Duck, S. spectabilis, a very beautiful bird which sometimes
appears on the British coasts. The female greatly resembles that
of the Eider, but the male has a black chevron on his chin and a
bright orange prominence on
his forehead, which last seems
to have given the species its
English name. On the west
coast of North America the
Hider is represented by a
Kixc-Duck, § (After Swainson.) Paes e nye with a
; like chevron, but otherwise
resembling the Atlantic bird. In the same waters two other fine
species are also found, S. fischeri and S. sfelleri, the latter of which
also inhabits the Arctic coast of Russia and East Finmark, and has
twice reached England. The Labrador Duck, S. labradoria, which
is now believed to be extinct (see EXTERMINATION), also belongs to
this group.

ELEUTHERODACTYLI, Forbes’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1880,

p. 390) for all the PASSERES except the DESMODACTYLI or
Eurylemide (BROADBILL), but

ELEUTHERODACTYLOUS is sometimes said of any bird
which has its toes free and not connected by a web, or otherwise
bound together ; equivalent to Fissipedal of some older authors.

ELK (Icelandic A//t), a name formerly used, but perhaps now
obsolete, for the ordinary Wild or Whooper-Swan,

EMBER (otherwise IMMER) GOOSE—Dan. Jmber ; Sw. Immer,

and Emmer ; Icel. Himbrim—a name applied in the northern Islands
of Britain to the Great Northern DIVER.

EMBRYOLOGY, from éuBpvov, a growth within. Very few types
of Birds have been studied embryologically, and for obvious reasons
the common Fowl has always been the favourite; but recently
the early development of the Duck, Goose, Pigeon, Starling, Melo-
psittacus, and Apteryx has also been investigated.t Later embryonic
stages being more easily procured and preserved by field-ornitho-
logists have been studied in a greater number of species, such as
the Ostrich, Gulls, Guillemots, and the Rook, besides the forms
mentioned above. ‘These investigations have, however, shewn that
the variations in the early development of different Birds are only
of general importance. Until about the fifth or sixth day of

1M. Braun, ‘“‘Die Entwicklung des Wellenpapageis,” Arbeit. der zool.-bvt.
Inst. Wiirzburg (1879), v. pts. ii. and iii.

EMBRYOLOGY 195

incubation the embryos of the most different Birds still so much
resemble each other that the want of extensive examination need
not be so much deplored. Towards the end of the first week
internal and external differences appear, characteristic of the Order
and Family to which the bird belongs, while, with exceptions, the
generic differences make their appearance during the second week :
specific difference can hardly be expected in the embryos. Of course
the seven days’ embryo of a Sparrow is more advanced than
that of a Duck, which requires four times as many days, or than that
of an Ostrich, which requires more than seven weeks of incubation,
but their several characteristic features can be discerned at the end
of the first third of the whole period of incubation. A comparative
treatise on avine embryology which is to render valuable taxonomic
results will have to restrict itself to the latter half of the embryonic
stages. Such a treatise is still a desideratum, and cannot be under-
taken until a large, well-preserved, well-named, and well-timed
material of embryos of a great number of any birds is at hand.
Prof. Fiirbringer has incidentally drawn attention to the probably
considerable help which may be derived from the resemblances
between middle-aged embryos of certain Families, before their
specialized forms of bill and feet are fixed, and then rather obscure
the affinities of the Birds in question. He mentions the striking
similarity between Laridz and Limicole (the affinities of which
two groups it took Ornithologists a long time to find out), between
Picide and Passeres, Striges and Caprimulgide, and so on. Very
young nestlings of Humming-birds, kindly sent to me by Col. Feilden
are scarcely distinguishable in general appearance from young Swifts,
because their bills are still quite short and broad.

Formation of the Ovum in the Ovary.—Each ovum is a globular
yellow body, consisting mainly of yellow and white yolk, and sur-
rounded by the follicular membrane, which is the bulged-out
continuation of the stroma of the ovary. This membrane con-
_tains numerous blood-vessels, through which the ovum is nour-
ished and enabled to grow. Gradually the growing ovum draws
the follicular capsule out into a stalk, surrounds itself with the
vitelline membrane, and ultimately bursts the capsule, whereupon
it falls into the body-cavity, or rather into the wide funnel-shaped
mouth of the oviduct. ‘The stalk and rest of the burst capsule
shrivel up, and are gradually absorbed without forming a corpus
luteum, as is the case in Mammals. The ovuin is now ripe and ready |
for fertilization. It shews the following composition: A small
amount of white yolk, consisting of small vesicles with albuminous
matter, and a number of globular highly-refractive bodies, forming
a small mass at the centre of the ovum, and continued to the sur-
face by a stalk expanding into a funnel-shaped disk, the edges of
which are continued over the surface of the ovum as a delicate

196 EMBRYOLOGY

layer. Upon the top of the funnel-shaped disk of white yolk lies
the germinal vesicle, which, like the white yolk, consists of numerous
protoplasmatic spherules; part of the contents of this vesicle
shrivels up, and causes the vesicle to assume the shape of a disk,
the “germinal disk.” The rest, the greater portion of the ovum, so
far as it is surrounded by the vitelline membrane, consists of yellow
yolk, composed of numerous granular globules of albuminous and
fatty matter.

The Ovum in the Oviduct.—The ovum, while still in the upper
portion of the oviduct, is surrounded by the spermatozoa which
have worked themselves through the oviduct from the cloaca.
They swarm round the surface of the vitelline membrane, and one
or more spermatozoa find their way into the germinal vesicle, and
fuse with the contents of the latter. Upon this impregnation follows,

DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION oF A FERTILIZED Ecc.

A, Air-chamber at the blunt pole; Bl. Blastoderm; Ch. Chalaze ; S. Shell;
S.M. Shell membrane; Vm, Vitelline membrane.

while the ovum is still within the oviduct, the remarkable process
of “segmentation.” This process consists of the division of the
germinal disk by successive cleavages into a number of cells, which
step by step build up the complex mechanism of the embryo. This
segmentation being restricted to the germinal disk is called ‘“ mero-
blastic,” in opposition to “holoblastic” segmentation, where, as in
the ova of the higher Mammals, the whole material of the egg
becomes segmented.

The egg, having been received into the oviduct, is propelled in
a spiral course by the peristaltic contractions of its walls, and
receives from the glands of its lining membrane an accessory mantle
of albumen, or the “white” of the egg. The average composition
of this albumen is 12 °% of proteid matter, 1:5 fat, 0°5 saline
matter, and 86 * water. The albumen is rapidly added, and
owing to alternating denser and more watery layers, has a spiral

EMBRYOLOGY 197

arrangement, as may be seen in hard-boiled eggs. Some of the
layers of denser albumen, surrounding the fluid layer next the
vitelline membrane, extend as twisted cords or “ chalazex” towards
the two poles of the egg. They do not quite reach the outer layer
of the white, although the cord next the pointed pole of the egg
ultimately becomes somewhat superficially attached to the lining
membrane of the eggshell. The chalaze serve to suspend the yolk
by acting as elastic pads, and thus keeping it in position. The
interior of each cord presents the appearance of a succession of
opaque white knots, hence the name of chalazez or hailstones.

When the egg has arrived at the narrow constriction of the
oviduct (which seems to take place in the common Fowl in from four
to six hours after its entrance into the infundibular upper end of
the oviduct), the mucous membrane of the latter produces a denser
layer of albumen mixed with several laminze of felted fibres, which
approach the nature of connective tissue. This is the shell-mem-
brane which gives the egg its final size and shape, and consists of an
inner and an outer layer, both of which remain permanently in
close apposition over the greater part of the egg, and adhere to the
shell, but at the broad end they tend to separate, and develop an
air-chamber between them. ‘This chamber does not exist in per-
fectly fresh eggs, but makes its appearance and increases in size as
the white of the egg loses in bulk from evaporation.

From the narrow isthmus the egg passes into the uterine or
shell-forming dilatation; here it remains from twelve to twenty
hours. The whole shell is deposited as an accessory sheath by the
thickish white excretions of the glandular walls of the uterus. This
excretion forms an organic basis or matrix, impregnated with cal-
careous matter, which coagulates and crystallizes partly in the shape
of felted strands. The shell rests with so-called mammillary processes
upon and partly in the shell-membrane ; the mammillz themselves
are comparatively poor in inorganic matter. The interstices be-
- tween them and the shell-membrane are continued through the
calcareous layer of the hard shell as vertical canals. These canals
are branched only in the Ostrich, and converge towards the bottom
of the little pits on the surface of the egg; in the Rhea only two
canals seem to open into each pit; in all other birds each pit leads
only into one vertical canal. Besides this mammillary and the
porous layer, the shell of most birds possesses a cuticular layer.
This outermost layer is the most variable part of the shell; it
is apparently structureless, either very poor in calcine salts, and
in this case smooth and shiny, or considerably infiltrated with
calcareous matter, and then exhibiting the well-known chalky and
often rough appearance of the eggs of the Ani, Cormorants, Grebes,
and Flamingos. Even when well developed, this cuticular layer is
always extremely thin. In the Ostrich and in Rhea it is very

198 EMBRYOLOGY

hard and brittle, like the glaze of pottery; in the common Fowl
and Turkey it is parchment-like ; in Auks, and apparently in Gulls,
it is absent. The cuticle is spread over the whole surface of the
egg, extending unbroken over and into the pits or surface ends of
the air-canals, which are therefore closed when such a cuticle is pre-
sent. The latter, however, readily admits the passage of air when
dry, but when wet or moist is impermeable to air.

The colour of the shell is produced by pigment-corpuscles, which
may be deposited in various levels of the shell. Sometimes the
pigment is restricted to the cuticular membrane, or when the
latter is absent it is deposited on. the surface of the porous or
calcareous layer. In most eggs pigment exists also in the deeper
strata of the calcareous layer; interrupted deposition produces
the spots, those which are deepest being naturally modified m
appearance through the superimposed surface-colour, or they may
not be visible at all. ‘The Gallinzee seem to be the only birds in
which the spots, when such occur at all, are restricted to one
stratum, while the spots of other birds’ eggs are both deep and
superficial. In many eggs, whether spotted or plain, the deepest
strata of the porous layer of the shell are uniformly coloured. As
a rule spots are more frequent and larger towards the blunt pole
of the egg, and there exists a distinct resemblance between the
eggs, even between those of successive clutches, laid by the same
bird (see Eas).

Abnormal eggs, occasionally of the most perplexing shape, are
of common occurrence in domesticated birds where, especially in
Fowls, the artificial overproduction of eggs tends to overstrain
and to exhaust the oviduct. Want of calcareous food may explain
the soft-shelled or “wind” eggs. Sometimes eggs with two yolks,
but otherwise normal, are met with, and that twins have been hatched
out of such an egg has been observed beyond doubt (see also
MonstTROsITIES). Eggs which contain intestinal worms, blood clots,
inorganic concretions, and similar strange enclosures are quite abnor-
mal. Such substances, when once inside the oviduct, seem to
stimulate its walls like an ovarian egg and receive the ordinary
albuminous and calcareous supplementary coatings.

When the eggshell is completed, the egg is protruded into the
cloaca and out through the vent, by the violent contractions of the
uterine and cloacal walls, head foremost, i.e. the blunt pole appears
first (cf. p. 185, note), and not the pointed end, as some have stated.
Controversies have often arisen ‘on this point. Mechanical
reasons plainly indicate, not the impossibility, but the greater
difficulty of an egg moving with its pointed end forwards. A
wedge or a cone enclosed within or driven into an elastic substance
slips out towards its broad basis, not in the direction of its apex.}

1 Direct observations of hens when in the act of laying are rare and not free

EMBRYOLOGY 199

The production of eggs does not necessarily depend upon previous
fertilization by the male, as shewn by numerous instances of birds
which have laid eggs although they had been kept in absolute
celibacy.

A most important, but still unexplained, allegation is that
eggs, containing hybrids, are not exactly like the eggs of the race
or species of the female, but more or less resemble also the eggs of
the race or species to which the fertilizing male belongs. Instances
of such mongrel eggs are mentioned by Nathusius (Zeitschrift f.
wissensch. Zoologie, xvii. p. 229); and other well-authenticated
instances would form valuable contributions to any of our scientific
periodicals.

During the descent of the fecundated egg along the oviduct,
where it is exposed to the temperature of the bird (about
40° C.=104°F.) the germinal disk has already undergone important
changes; repeated divisions, or segmentation having transformed
the disk into a large number of small rounded masses of protoplasm,
or cells. Between this segmented disk or “blastoderm” and the bed
of white yolk on which it rests, a space containing fluid makes its
appearance. The central, greater part of the disk, so far as it
overlies the fluid-containing space, is transparent and distinguished
as the area pellucida from the area opaca or opaque rim of the disk,
which rests immediately upon the white yolk within the vitelline
membrane.

When the egg is laid and becomes cold these changes all but
entirely cease, and the blastoderm remains inactive until, under
the influence of the higher temperature of incubation, the vital
activities of the germ are again brought into play, ushering in
the series of events by means of which the development of the
individual bird is accomplished. No better description of them, as
they occur in the Common Fowl, can be found than that given in
Foster and Balfour’s Elements of Embryology, of which the following
is a condensed account, and to that admirable book! the student
may be referred for further detailed information.

It is convenient to begin with a preliminary general sketch of the
development of the embryo. The embryo itself is formed entirely

in the area pellucida; the structures to which the area opaca gives

from deception, but the ingenious and simple experiment made by Mrs. A. Ernst
(cf. Zoologischer Anzeiger, viii. 1885, p. 718) could easily be repeated. The birds
were kept upon moist sand and charcoal, and when the cackling of a hen indi-
cated her safe delivery, the egg was inspected and invariably found to be black-
ened at the blunt end. Unless it be assumed for argument’s sake that the egg
while dropping had time to turn round with its heavier pole downwards, this
test seems to be conclusive, but of course it does not exclude wrong presentations,

1 Chaps. ii.-ix. Second edition, revised by A. Sedgwick and W. Heape,
London: 1883.

200 EMBRYOLOGY

rise are to be regarded as appendages which sooner or later
disappear or are ultimately cast off.

The blastoderm, consisting originally of two layers, is soon
transformed into three fundamental germinal layers; the upper,
middle, and lower layers, or epiblast, mesoblast, and hypoblast. Three
similar germinal layers are found in the embryos of all animals
with the exception of the lowest invertebrate forms, and_ their
history is one of the most important subjects of comparative
Embryology.

The epiblast gives rise to the epidermis with its derivatives, to
the whole of the nervous system, and to the most important parts
of the special sense- organs. ‘The hypoblast furnishes the whole
secretory layer and epithelial lining of the alimentary canal and
its glands, with the exception of part of the mouth and anus, which
as invaginations of the outer layer are lined by the epiblast. Out
of the mesoblast the whole of the vascular, muscular, and skeletal
systems, and the connective tissue of all parts of the body are
developed, as well as the excretory organs and the generative glands.
The blastoderm gradually and uniformly expands as a_ thin
circular sheet over the yolk immediately beneath the vitelline
membrane. At last by the end of the seventh day of incubation,
the whole mass of the yellow yolk becomes enclosed in a bag
formed by the blastoderm. This bag is formed chiefly by the area
opaca, the mesoblast of which produces numerous blood-vessels and
becomes transformed into the area vasculosa.

The embryo itself is formed by a folding-off of the central portion
of the area pellucida from the rest of the blastoderm ; a semilunar
groove or tucking-in of the blastoderm appearing at the head end of
the future embryo is spoken of as the “headfold.” In an egg placed
before us with its blunt end towards the right-hand side, the head-

LONGITUDINAL AND VERTICAL SECTIONS THROUGH TRUNK OF AN Embryo, £ (shaded),
ON THE SEconpD, FourtnH, AND S1xra Days.

a.A.F. Anterior amniotie fold ; p.A.F. Posterior amniotic fold ; ce, Pleuro-peritoneal cavity ;
y.s. Yolk-sac ; Al. Allantois.

fold invariably looks away from us, and the longitudinal axis of
the future embryo stands at right angles to the long axis of the

EMBRYOLOGY 201
egg. In a vertical section along a line which will afterwards
become the axis of the embryo, the whole headfold is in the shape
of an ©. The authors named above ingeniously suggest the
making of a rough model in order to render the somewhat compli-
cated matter easier to comprehend. Spread a cloth ont flat to
represent the blastoderm, and by placing the left hand underneath
it mark the axis of the embryo, and then tuck in the cloth from
above under the tips of the fingers. The fingers, covered with the
cloth and slightly projecting from the level of the rest of the cloth, —
will represent the head, in front of which will be the semicircular
or horseshoe-shaped groove of the headfold.

A similar, but shallower fold, appears at the hind end of the
embryo. This, the “tailfold,” travelling forwards and the “headfold”
gradually extending backwards, and a pair of lateral folds uniting
the two and moving inwards, ultimately succeed in forming a

A.R. Am

TRANSVERSE SECTIONS THROUGH THE TRUNK OF AN EMBRYO ON THE THIRD AND S1xTH Days.
A,F. Anterior amniotic fold ; Al. Allantois ; Am. Amniotic cavity; Ch, Chorda dorsalis ;
m, Spinal marrow ; Se. Membrana serosa.

tubular sac seated upon and connected by a continually-narrowing
hollow stalk, with that larger sac which is formed by the extension
of the rest of the blastoderm over the whole yellow yolk. The
smaller or upper sac contains, or rather forms the embryo, the
larger or lower sac is the yolk-sac. As incubation proceeds the
contents of the yolk-sac are gradually assimilated by nutritive
processes into the tissues forming the growing walls of the embry-
onic sac. Consequently the latter becomes larger and larger at
the expense of the former. Within a few days of the hatching of
the chick, when the embryo is nearly complete, the yolk-sac is still
of some considerable size, and is slipped into the body of the
embryo through the umbilicus or navel. In the article ALTRICES
it has been pointed out that in the Nidifuge a considerable
amount of this yolk still exists when the embryo is hatched, while
in the Nidicole this food-yolk has been completely, or nearly so,
used up by the time the embryo is ripe.

The whole mass of the white of the egg, between the shell and

202 EMBRYOLOGY

the vitelline membrane, has soon after the beginning of incubation
become very fluid and its albumen is like the contents of the yolk-
sac assimilated into the tissues of the growing embryo. Already
a few days before hatching it is used up completely, so that by
this time the embryonic sac and its enclosing membranes fill up
the whole egg.

The embryo, as explained above, is formed by a folding-off of
the portion of the blastoderm from the yolk-sac. The tubular sac
of the embryo, while everywhere acquiring thicker walls, undergoes
many modifications through local thickening, budding, and folding,
and is gradually moulded into the proper shape of the body of
the chick.

First there appears, on the upper side, a longitudinal canal, the
neural tube, the walls of which become transformed into the brain
and spinal cord. Below and parallel with this tube appears an
axis represented by the vertebre. Underneath this, again, is
another tube, closed in above by the axis, and on the sides ‘and

below by the body-walls. Enclosed in this second tube, and
suspended from the axis, is a third tube, consisting of the

alimentary canal with its diverticular appendages, the _ liver,

pancreas, lungs, etc. The cavity of the outer tube is the body- or

pleuro- peritoneal cavity; it also contains the heart and other

parts of the vascular system, together with the genital glands and

M the kidneys, which are all folded or budded-

off portions of the inner walls of the body-
cavity.

Thus a transverse section of a chick, or in

=e ® fact of « vertebrate animal, always shews

uct of any vertebra ; y

the same fundamental structure; above a

single tube, below a double tube, the latter

consisting of one tube enclosed within another,

the inner being the alimentary canal, the

DIAGRAMMATIC, TRANSVERSE
SECTION OF THE Bopy OF ANY
VERTEBRATE.

Ao, Aorta; c, Peritoneal
cavity ; g, Gut-cavity; Gg.
Genital glands; K, Kidneys;
M, Spinal marrow contained
in the vertebral column, the
vertebre and ribs’ being
shaded.

outer the general cavity of the body. Into
such a triple tube the simple tubular embry-
onic sac of the chick is converted by a series
of changes of a remarkable character.

The upper or neural tube begins at a
very early period by the raising up of the
epiblast of the blastoderm into two ridges,
which run parallel to the long axis of the
future embryo and enclose a shallow longi-
tudinal groove. These medullary folds

eventually meet and coalesce dorsally in the middle line, thus
converting the groove into a canal which becomes closed at either
end. The cavity of the tube becomes the cerebro-spinal canal, its
walls are transformed into the spinal cord and through thickenings

EMBRYOLOGY 203

and swellings at the head-end into the Brain. Its walls are
entirely formed of epiblast.

The tube of the alimentary canal and that of the general body-
cavity are formed in a totally different way. They are, broadly
speaking, the result of the junction and coalescence of the funda-
mental embryonic folds, the head-, tail-, and lateral folds. It is
obvious that the folding in of a single sheet of tissue, such as we
hitherto considered the blastoderm tube, can only result in the
production of a sac with a single cavity, and would not explain
the formation of the double tube. The blastoderm, however, soon
splits throughout its greater part into a double sheet, an upper and
a lower leaf. In the neighbourhood of the axis or future vertebral
column, beneath the neural tube, this cleavage is absent. In fact
the cleavage begins at some little distance on either side of the axis,
and thence spreads through the mesoblast horizontally to the
margin. ‘The upper leaf or half of the mesoblast remains united
with the epiblast, and from its forming the body-walls, is called the
somatopleure ; the lower half of the mesoblast, together with the
hypoblast, forms the alimentary canal and its tributary viscera, and
is therefore called the splanchnopleure. ‘The space between the two
pleura or flaps is the general body- or pleuro-peritoneal cavity.

This cleavage of the mesoblast into a somato- and splanchno-
pleure is uot confined to the region of the embryo, but extends in
time over the whole of the yolk-sac. Hence the yolk-sac comes
ultimately to have an inner splanchnopleuric and an outer somato-
pleuric coat, and since, as we have seen above, the embryonic sac is
connected with the yolk-sac by a continually narrowing hollow stalk,
this stalk must be likewise double, consisting of a smaller inner
stalk within a larger and outer one. ‘The narrow space between
these two investments of the yolk-sac is continuous with the pleuro-
peritoneal cavity. Long before hatching the inner stalk becomes
obliterated, so that the material of the yolk can no longer pass
directly into the alimentary canal (the walls of which were con-
tinuous with the walls of the inner stalk), but has to find its way
into the body of the chick by absorption through the blood-vessels,
which by this time have spread over the yolk-sac. ‘The outer or
somatic stalk remains widely open for a long time as a thin and
insignificant continuation of the somatopleure. When in the last
days of incubation the greatly diminished yolk-sac, with its
splanchnic investment, is withdrawn into the rapidly enlarging
abdominal cavity of the embryo, the walls of the abdomen (them-
selves somatopleuric) close in and unite without regard to the
shrivelled, emptied, somatopleuric investment of the yolk-sac, which
is cast off as no longer of any use. The place where this has
happened is the outer umbilicus or navel, long visible on the middle
of the belly of the young bird. Remnants of the stalk between the

204 EMBRYOLOGY

inside of the navel and the alimentary canal, sometimes with a little
degenerated yolk, persist in many, chiefly nidifugous, birds as the
DIVERTICULUM cecum vitelli; it is attached somewhere to the
middle of the small intestine, and, especially when still hollow, rather
closely resembles in shape, size, and colour the degraded ceca of
Crows, Storks, and diurnal Birds-of-Prey.

All Birds, Reptiles, and Mammals possess in their embryonic
state an AMNION and an ALLANTOIS. The Amunion is a peculiar
membrane enveloping the embryo and taking its origin from the
somatopleure only. Its development is closely connected with the
cleavage of the mesoblast. At an early period the somatopleure
forms a semilunar fold in front of the headfold; it consists of a
very thin membrane (epiblast and somatic mesoblast), which in-
creases in height, and is gradually drawn backwards over the
developing head of the embryo. At the same time a similar fold
starts behind the tail and extends with its arms sidewards from the
embryo, meeting the corresponding lateral continuations of the
anterior fold. All are drawn over the body of the embryo, or
rather the embryo seems to sink into these folds, which ultimately
meet above it, and completely coalesce with each other, all traces of
their junction becoming absorbed. Thus the united folds form a
sac, within which the embryo lies. The sac is the amnion; the
cavity between the embryo and the inner wall of the amnion is the
cavity of the amnion. As will be seen from the diagram (p. 200),
each fold of the amnion consists of two lamelle or flaps, but in one
the epiblast looks towards the embryo, while in the other it looks
away from it. The space between the two flaps or walls of the
folds is, according to their mode of formation, part of the cleft
between the somato- and splanchnopleure, and consequently continu-
ous with the future pleuro-peritoneal cavity. When the several folds
coalesce above the embryo, the double septum of their junction
becomes absorbed, so that the inner flaps of each fold form a
continuous inner membrane or sac round the body of the embryo;
this is the amniotic sac, or amnion proper; while the fluid which
collects in it, and in which the embryo lies, is the liquor amnii.
The space between this inner and the outer sac is, of course, part
of the general mesoblastic cleft. The wall of the outer sac, above
the embryo, lies closely under, and fuses with, the vitelline mem-
brane, while marginally it is continued into the somatopleuric
investment of the yolk-sac, as has been described above. As the
white of the egg is gradually used up, the outer sac or false amnion
gradually approaches the inner shell membrane, and ultimately
lines it.

The Allantois is a diverticulum of the alimentary canal, and
opens immediately in front of the anus. It forms a flattened
sac or bulging out of the splanchnopleure of the ventral wall of the

EMBRYOLOGY 205

alimentary canal, and is consequently lined inside by hypoblast.
The sac extends forwards into the peritoneal cavity, until it reaches
the stalk connecting the embryo with the yolk-sac, whereupon it
grows rapidly, and pushes its way into the space between the true
and false amniotic sacs. Curving over the embryo, the allantois
comes to lie partly above the embryo, separated from the shell by
nothing more than the thin false amnion. Being thus situated most
superficially, and in close proximity to the air which penetrates the
porous shell, the allantois, besides acting as a receptacle for the
urine, becomes highly vascular, and performs the functions of a
respiratory organ. Towards the end of incubation, when the
embryo is already able to breathe through its lungs, the allantois
shrivels up and is cast off, together with the shell, but its narrowed
and elongated stalk, from the gut to the navel, remains for some
time as the urachus upon the inside of the abdominal wall.

Chronological and Special Account of the Development of the Embryo
of the Common Fowl.

First day. 1st to 8th hour of incubation.—Scattered cells appear
between the epiblast and hypoblast, as the beginning of the middle
layer or mesoblast ; they are confined to the posterior part of the
area pellucida, and cause this part, called now the embryonic shield,
to become somewhat opaque.

8th to 12th how.—The three embryonic fundamental layers
are more distinctly established ; the embryonic shield grows fainter,
and vanishes after there has appeared within it, through a thicken-
ing of the median portion of the blastoderm, the primitive streak, which
is a structure of significance still little understood. The hitherto
pellucid area becomes oval, its narrow end corresponding with the
future hind end of the embryo. If an egg be placed with its broad
end to the right hand of the observer, the head of the embryo will
in nearly all cases be found pointing away from him.

12th to 16th howr.—The pellucid area becomes pear-shaped ; the
primitive streak is marked by a shallow median longitudinal furrow,
known as the primitive groove.

16th to 20th howr.—An important structure, the notochord, found
in all vertebrate animals, makes its appearance in the median line
in front of the primitive streak. The axial part of the epiblast,
above the notochord, and in front of the streak, forms two longi-
tudinal folds, which enclose the medullary groove. In front of this
groove appears the semilunar headfold, and in front of this again
the amniotic fold begins to make its appearance.

20th to 24th houwr.—The semilunar headfold enlarges rapidly,
and rises above the level of the blastoderm; the medullary folds
come into contact with each other on the dorsal side, and tend to

206 EMBRYOLOGY

transform the groove into a tube, beginning at the head end, while
the posterior arms of the medullary folds remain asunder, and take
the front end of the primitive streak between them. In the mean-
time the cleavage of the lateral or more marginal portions of the

FB.

\
Pr.S.

EMBRYO OF THE ComMMoN Fowt,
FROM THIRTY TO THIRTY-SIX HOURS OF
INCUBATION, FROM ABOVE. Magnified
fifteen times. (After Balfour.)

F.B. MB, HB, Vesicles of the fore-,
mid-, and hind-brain; 0.V, Optic
vesicle; Au.P, Auditory Pit; A.P.
Area pellucida; Pv.V, Protovertebree
(mesoblastic somites); MC, Medullary
canal in region of sacral rhanboid
sinus; Pr.S. Rest of the primitive
streak ; T.F’. Tail-fold of the amnion.

opaca has been spreading over
the whole blastoderm at the end
attained the size of a sixpeuce.

mesoblast into an outer and an inner
layer has taken place, the cleft being
the future pleuro-peritoneal cavity (¢f.
p. 203). This cleavage does not ex-
tend throughout the whole of the
mesoblast, but stops at some little
distance to the right and left from
the medullary groove and the noto-
chord. These uncleft mesoblastic por-
tions are called the vertebral plates,
in opposition to the lateral plates or
split portions of the mesoblast. At
first the right and left vertebral plates
remain unbroken along their length,
but soon transverse constrictions ap-
pear in them, and cut them up into
a series of cubical masses. These
cubes are called the mesoblastic som-
ites or protovertebre ; they are the
basis out of which the voluntary mus-
cles of the trunk and limbs, and the
bodies of the vertebrae are formed.
The first pair of somites rises in level
of the anterior end of the primitive
streak, the next pairs are added on
between the first and the streak, so
that the latter seems continually car-
ried back, the lengthening of the em-
bryo always taking place between the
front end of the streak and the last
somite. All that part of the embryo
which is in front of the first somite
corresponds to the future head, and
the rest to the neck, body, and tail.
During all these changes the area
the surface of the yolk, so far that
of the first day of incubation, has

Vessels appear in the area opaca

in the immediate neighbourhood of the embryo.
Changes during the 2nd day.—During the first half of this the

medullary folds are closing r
the neural canal, closed in front, but still open behind.

apidly ; the groove is converted into
The portion

EMBRYOLOGY 207

of the tube in front of the first somite forms four successive swell-
ings, the cerebral vesicles, from the foremost of which (the forebrain)
a pair of lateral processes (the optic vesicles) grows out; near
the end of the future head a pair of shallow pits (the auditory
pits) is visible. The number of somites increases from four or
five to as many as fifteen during the second day. Eventually about
fifty are present.

Another most important feature of the first half of the second
day is the formation of the heart and of the principal blood-vessels.
The whole heart is developed out of the inner or splanchnic layer
of the mesoblast on the ventral side of the future throat. To
understand this complicated developmental feature, we have to
remember the G-shaped headfold, with the sinus below the head
(cf. p. 201), and have also to resort to transverse sections. The right
and left splanchnopleuric layers bulge inwards, and meet each other
in the medio-ventral line, thus shutting off a space, the foregut or
anterior end of the alimentary canal, lined with hypoblast. The
mesoblastic portion of the walls of the right and left recesses, below
the foregut and above the splanchnopleuric extension over the yolk-
sac, bulge out, thicken, and become hollow; each tube being con-
tinued forwards as an aorta, and backwards, at right angles to the
axis of the embryo, as the vitelline vein. Thus the heart consists
originally of a right and a left tube; the median septum, which
separates the two, becomes absorbed, and the now single heart
begins to beat, first with slow and rare pulsations. In front the
two primitive aortz, into which the contractions of the heart pump
the fluid, bend upwards round the sides of the foregut, and then run
backwards towards the tail; each of these aortz gives off a vitelline
artery, which is distributed over the pellucid and vascular areas of
the blastoderm. Round the margin of the vaseular area of the
blastoderm runs a red line, the vena terminalis, through which and
other vessels spread over the blastodermic layer of the yolk-sac
the blood is collected into the two vitelline veins, and by them con-
veyed into the hinder or venous end of the heart.

During the second half of the second day all the changes initiated
during the first half become more advanced or completed. Besides
the headfold, the tailfold appears; in addition, the amnion grows
rapidly, and the allantois begins to be formed (cf. p. 204).

Changes during the 3rd day.—This is the most eventful day of the
embryonic chick, because the rudiments of so many important
organs now first make their appearance. The blastoderm spreads
over about half the yolk. The white of the egg decreases consider-
ably, consequently the vessels of the vascular area are brought near
the shell, and act as the chief organ of respiration. The blood
leaving the body by the vitelline arteries is carried to the small
vessels of the vascular area, where it is exposed to the influence

208 EMBRYOLOGY

of the atmosphere; it returns through the vena terminalis into
the heart as oxidized or arterialized blood. Besides this complete
circulation of the yolk-sac, the body of the embryo itself has received
a circulation. A pair of anterior and posterior cardinal veins collect
the blood from the body, and convey it through a right and a left
Cuvierian duct into the heart. The two primitive aorté are united
into one median dorsal aorta, but in the region of the neck, instead of
the single right and left aortic stems, several aortic arches appear—six
on each side, although not more than three or four are present at
the same time. From them are sent off the carotid arteries into
the head ; these and other subsequent important modifications of
the aortic arches will perhaps best be understood by reference to
the accompanying diagrams. ‘The first, second, and fifth transverse
arches obliterate very early ; the third pair is continued along the
neck and into the head as the internal and external CAROTIDS
and also sends off the subclavian arteries for the anterior extremities.
The fourth arch of the right side is transformed into the ascending
arch of the big aorta, while the corresponding parts of the left side
disappear. ‘The last or sixth pair is transformed into the pulmonary
arteries; the connexion of the right pulmonary with the aortic
trunk remains for some time as the “ductus Botalli.” Simul-
taneously with these changes goes the transformation of the simple
tubular heart into a four-chambered organ. The heart-tube assumes
an S-shaped twist; a septum begins to grow out from the inner
wall, and indicates the division of the bulged-out middle portion of
the heart into a right and left ventricle ; and to complete this part
of the subject it may be added that this division is completed on
the fifth day, when a similar septum separates the posterior or
venous portion of the heart into a right and left atrium, each with
a lateral dilatation or auricle. ‘This atrial septum is not completed
before the twelfth day, the right and left atrium communicating.
with each other until this time by the “foramen ovale.” On the
fifth day a longitudinal continuation of the ventricular septum into
the anterior or arterial portion of the heart and into the root of the
ventral aorta divides this bulbus arteriosus into a truncus arteriosus
and a truncus pulmonalis. As the lungs are being formed, pul-
monary veins also make their appearance, and become connected
with the left atrium of the heart. By the end of the fifth day
most of the principal arteries and veins of the body have likewise
been developed.

The remaining changes on the 3rd day are as follows :—

The appearance of the vesicles of the cerebral hemispheres ; the
separation of the hindbrain into cerebellum and medulla oblongata.

The lens of the eye is formed by involution of the optic vesicle,
and the eyeball appears as the secondary optic vesicle,

First appearance of the nasal pits.

EMBRYOLOGY 209

Cranial and spinal nerves appear as lateral outgrowths of the
central nervous system.

The foregut and the hindgut are completed; the former is
divided into cesophagus, stomach, and duodenum, the hindgut into
large intestine and cloaca.

The formation of the lungs from a ventral diverticulum of the
alimentary canal immediately in front of the stomach.

The diverticular outgrowths from the duodenum form the liver
and the pancreas, the ducts of these glands being the lengthened
stalks of the outgrowths.

A pair of primitive excretory organs appears in the proximal
corners of the walls of the pleuroperitoneal-cavity, as the
“ Wolffian” ducts and bodies.

The embryo itself has turned over so that it now lies on its left
side.

Changes during the 4th day.—Owing to the still further
diminution of the white of the egg, the embryo les almost in im-
mediate contact with the shell membrane. ‘The vascular area is
about as large as a halfpenny, and the whole blastoderm embraces
more than half of the yolk. The amnion completely encloses the
embryo, which by this time has been so much folded-off from the
yolk-sac, that the connecting stalk is much constricted. The inner
or splanchnic stall is now called the vitelline duct.

The head of the embryo is bent ventralwards at more than a
right angle, forming the cranial flexure. The tail is curved inwards
and forms a conspicuous feature, the whole embryo being somewhat
spirally curled up on itself.

The anterior and posterior extremities make their appearance
as flattened conical buds.

The cerebral hemispheres and the optic vesicles have enormously
increased in size.

The nose, ears, and jaws become more distinct. The ovary,
kidneys, and ureters are formed. The allantois projects as a small
pear-shaped bag and receives allantoic vessels from the vitelline
veins and from the dorsal aorta.

Changes during the 5th day.—

The blastoderm has spread over the whole of the yolk-sac, and
the yolk is thus completely enclosed in a bag, whose walls, however,
are excessively delicate and easily torn. ‘The vascular area extends
over about two-thirds of the yolk. The splanchnic stalk or vitelline
duct has been reduced to a narrow solid cord. The allantois
serves already as the chief organ of respiration, and stretches far
over the right side of the embryo in the cavity between the two
amniotic layers. The embryo, lying on its left side, remains ex-
tremely curved, so much that the head and tail are nearly in
contact. The fore- and hindlimbs have become lengthened, elbow

14

210 EMBRVOLOGY

and knee are formed, but all the limbs are still exceedingly alike in
shape. Most of the skeletal parts make their appearance as car-
tilages ; especially the cartilaginous cranium, the visceral arches
like the jaws and hyoids, the vertebree with the ribs, and the frame-
work of the limbs. The changes affecting the vascular system have
already been mentioned.

Changes from the 6th day onwards.—

The sixth day marks a new epoch in the development of the
chick, for distinctly avine characters then first make their appear-
ance, the embryo of a Bird being until this period strikingly like
that of any other amniotic vertebrate, for instance, that of a Mammal
or still more like that of a four-footed Reptile. The avine specializa-
tion begins of course very gradually. But on the sixth day for the

An. ae

EmpBryo or Fowt ON THE SIxTH Day. UMBILICAL REGION OF THE SAME.
Natural size and position, Magnified.
Am. Amnion; Al. Allantois; G, Gut; 7, Tail; IV, Wing; y.s. Yolk-sac.

first time become visible the main features of the characteristically
avine wing and foot; the crop and the intestinal ceca make their
appearance, the stomach is differentiated into a proventriculus and
a gizzard; the nose begins to develop into a beak; and the com-
mencing bones of the skull arrange themselves after an avine
type.

During the seventh day the amniotic cavity has assumed con-
siderable dimensions, the fluid increasing within it ; obvious move-
ments begin to appear in the amnion itself as slow vermicular
contractions which creep rhythmically over it. The amnion in fact
begins to pulsate slowly and rhythmically, and by its pulsations the
embryo is rocked to and fro in the egg. The allantois, which at a
later period shews similar movements, has spread out rapidly in
all directions and is filled with fluid. The vascular area loses
its terminal sinus; both vitelline arteries and veins now pass to
and from the body of the chick as single trunks, assuming more

EMBRYOLOGY 211

and more the appearance of mere branches of the by this time
advanced mesenteric vessels. The yellow yolk has become quite
fluid, and its bulk has increased owing to its having absorbed much
of the rapidly-diminishing white of the egg. During the next days
the yolk diminishes rapidly in bulk, it being taken up by the
abundantly-developed blood-vessels ; the yolk-sac becomes flaccid,
and by the eleventh day is thrown into a series of internal folds.
The intestine has by elongation formed a number of convolutions
and loops, some of which are hanging down into the somatic stalk,
but by the fifteenth day these loops are gradually withdrawn into
the cavity of the abdomen, the walls of which have by this time
been definitely established like the walls of the chest. The allantois
now fills most of the amniotic cavity and lies close under the shell,
being separated from the shell membrane only by the thin false
amnion and the remains of the vitelline membrane, with which it
fuses. When the egg is opened the pulsations of the allantoic
arteries at once attract attention. By the nineteenth day the white
of the egg has entirely disappeared, and the yolk-sac is withdrawn
into the abdomen.

Concerning the changes of the embryo itself it is to be observed,
that by the seventh day the head, which is still disproportion-
ately large, ceases to grow more rapidly than the body. The
tongue appears on the floor of the mouth; the visceral clefts on the
sides of the now more distinctly-marked neck are closed. On the
eighth day a white patch of calcareous matter appears on the tip
of the nose; the latter is by the twelfth day transformed into a
horny but still soft beak. On the following day nails are visible
at the ends of the toes and some of the fingers, and scales on the
anterior surface of the feet and toes. Beak, claws, and scales become
harder and more horny by the sixteenth day. Feathers begin to
protrude as early as the ninth day from the surface of the skin as
papille, especially prominent on the middle line of the back and on
the thighs. By the thirteenth day the feathers are distributed over
most parts of the body, and acquiring the length of a quarter of an
inch appear to the naked eye as feathers, their thin horny sheaths
allowing their pigmented contents to shew through. The sheaths
are not pierced until a day or two before hatching, when some of
them are nearly an inch in length. The cartilaginous skeleton is
completed by the thirteenth day, and the muscles can be made out
with tolerable clearness. Ossification begins already much earlier
in various parts of the bones of the limbs, but much of the skeleton
remains cartilaginous or imperfectly ossified long after the bird has
been hatched. The whole embryo changes its position on the
fourteenth day so as to lie lengthways in the egg, with its beak
touching the shell-membrane where this forms the inner wall of
the rapidly-increasing air-chamber at the broad end. On about the

212 EMEU

twentieth day the beak, furnished with the hard “egg-tooth,” is
thrust through the inner shell membrane, and the bird begins to
breath the air contained in the chamber. Thereupon the pulmonary
circulation becomes functionally active and blood ceases to flow
through the umbilical vessels from and to the allantois. The latter
shrivels up, the navel becomes completely closed, and the chick by
repeated filing motions pierces the shell at the broad end of the egg
with its egg-tooth. A small crack in the shell is sufficient to destroy
the surprising strength of the intact egg, the chick casts off the
dried, now no longer useful, remains of allantois and amnion, and
steps out into the world.

The length of the period of incubation seems to depend upon, first,
the state of perfection in which the young bird leaves the egg, the
Nidifugee requiring a much longer time than the Nidicole ; secondly,
the size of the bird,—large birds requiring more days than small
birds; thirdly, climate and season, because an occasional slight
cooling of the eggs retards the development of the embryo. The
amount of cooling will naturally be greater in cold than in hot
climates, while the temperature of the sitting bird varies within
small limits only. However, there seem to be no observations
made on the question if there is a difference in the length of in-
cubation between polar and tropical individuals of the same
species. Experience with artificial incubators has shewn that
during the earliest days of incubation the growth of the embryo
can be much retarded or even be stopped temporarily by a tempera-
ture below the normal point; on the other hand, a higher than
normal temperature does not shorten the time of incubation but is
rather detrimental to the embryo’s life (cf W. Evans, Jdis, 1891, pp.
52-93).

EMEU, evidently from the Portuguese Hma,! a name which has
in turn been applied to each of the earlier-known forms of Ratite
Birds, but has in all likelihood finally settled upon that which
inhabits Australia, though, until less than a century ago, it
was given by most authors to the bird now commonly called
CASSOWARY.

1 By Moraes (1796) and Sousa (1830) the word is said to be from the Arabic
Nadma or Naéma, an Ostrich (Struthio camelus) ; but no additional evidence in
support of the assertion is given by Dozy in 1869 (Glossatre des mots espagnols et
portugais dérivés de Varabe. Ed. 2, p. 260). According to Gesner in 1555 (lib.
iii. p. 709), it was the Portuguese name of the Crane, Grus communis, and had
been transferred with the qualifying addition of ‘‘di Get” (i.e. Ground-Crane)
to the Ostrich. This statement is confirmed by Aldrovandus (lib. ix. cap. 2).
Subsequently, but in what order can scarcely now be determined, the name was
naturally enough used for the Ostrich-like birds inhabiting the lands discovered
by the Portuguese, both in the Old and in the New World. The last of these
are now known as Rheas, and the preceding as Cassowaries.

EMEU ie

Of the Emeus (as the word is now restricted) the best-known
is the Causuarius nove-hollandivx of Latham, made by Vieillot the
type of his genus Dromeus,! whence the name of the Family,
Dromxidx, is taken. This bird immediately after the colonization
of New South Wales (in 1788) was found to inhabit the south-
eastern portion of Australia, where, according to Hunter (//ist.
Journ. ete. pp. 409, 413), the natives called it Maracry, Marryang,

Esev. (From Mosenthal and Harting’s Ostriches, etc.)

or Maroang; but it has now been so hunted down that not an
example remains at large in the districts that have been fully
settled. It is said to have existed also on the islands of Bass’s
Straits and in Tasmania, but it has been extirpated in both,

1 The obvious misprint of Dromeicus in this author’s work (Analyse ée.,
p- 54) has been foolishly followed by many naturalists, forgetful that he corrected
it a few pages further on (p. 70) to Dromatus—the properly latinized form of
which is Dromeus.

214 EMEU

without, so far as is known, any ornithologist having had the
opportunity of determining whether the race inhabiting those
localities was specifically identical with that of the mainland or
distinct! Next to the OsrricH the largest of existing birds, the
Emeu is an inhabitant of the more open country, feeding on
fruits, roots, and herbage, and generally keeping in small com-
panies. The nest is a shallow pit scraped in the ground, and from
nine to thirteen eggs, in colour varying from a light bluish-green
to a dark bottle-green, are.laid therein. ‘These are hatched by the
cock-bird, the period of incubation lasting from ##=8486- days.
The young at birth are striped longitudinally with dark mark-
ings on a light ground. A remarkable structure in Dromzxus is a
singular opening in the front of the windpipe, communicating with
a tracheal pouch. This has attracted the attention of several
anatomists, and has been well described by Dr. Murie (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1867, pp. 405-415).2 Various conjectures have been made as
to its function, the most probable of which seems to be that it is
an organ of sound in the breeding-season, at which time the hen-
bird has long been known to utter a remarkably loud booming
note. Due convenience being afforded to it, the Emeu thrives
well, and readily propagates its kind in Europe. Like the South
American RuHEA it will take naturally to the water, and examples
have been seen voluntarily swimming a wide river. (Rhee alse swims eivees)

The existence in Australia of a second species of Dromxus had
long been suspected, and Broderip in 1842 stated (Penny Cyclop.
xxi. p. 145) that Mr. Gould had even supplied a name (D. parvulus)
for it; but there can be little doubt that this suggestion was
founded on a mistake. However, in 1859 Mr. Bartlett described,
under the name of D. irroratus, what has since been generally
admitted to be a good species, and it now seems certain that
this fills in Western Australia the place occupied by the older-
known form in the eastern part. It is a more slender bird, and
when adult has the feathers barred with white and dark-grey
ending in a black spot which has a rufous margin, while those of
D. novx-hollandix are of a uniform blackish grey from the base to
near the tip, which is black with a broad subterminal rufous band.
Both species have been figured from admirable drawings by Mr.
Wolf (Trans. Zool. Soc. iv. pls. 75, 76), and interesting particulars
as to their domestication in England are given by Mr. Harting
(Ostriches and Ostrich Farming, pp. 131-174).

1 Latham (Gen. Hist. B. viii. p. 884, pl. 138) in 1828 described and absurdly
figured what he called ‘‘ Van Diemen’s Cassowary ” from one of two young birds
exhibited alive in London; but there is nothing to shew that they really came
from Tasmania, and as they were apparently the only Emeus he had ever seen,
he had no means of determining whether they differed from the Australian form,

2 Sce also Gadow (Zoolog. Jahrb. v. pp. 636-638), and above, AIR-SACs.

EMMET-HUNTER—EX TERMINATION Zs

EMMET-HUNTER, a common local name of the WRYNECK.

ERN or ERNE, Scandin. (rn, the Sea-EAGLE; but hardly used
now except in poetry or as the name of a pleasure-yacht.

ERODY (corrupted from Herodias, a Heron) Latham’s name
(Gen. Hist. B. ix. p. 139) for Dromas ardeola (CRAB-PLOVER).

EROLIA, a genus proposed by Vieillot (Nouv. Anab. p. 55),
and the name Englished by Stephens in 1819 (Shaw’s Zoology, xi.
p. 497), but believed to be founded on a specimen of Tringa subarquata
(SANDPIPER) which had lost its hind toes.

ERYTHRISM, the abnormal replacement of other colours,
generally green or yellow, by red (see COLOUR and HETzROCHROSIS).

ESTRIDGER, an old word signifying a Falconer.

EXTERMINATION, literally a driving out of bounds or ban-
ishment, is a process which, intentionally or not, has been and still
is being carried on in regard to many more species of Birds than
most people—not excepting professed ornithologists—seem to
recognize, and one that has frequently led to the Extinction,! or
dying out, of the species affected. The inhabitants of islands are
especially subject to this fate. In them each species has long been
brought into harmony with its circumstances, and relations with its
fellow-creatures have so far become mutually adjusted that in the
long run the balance between them is preserved, and the stock of
each remains the same one year with another. But the appearance
on the scene of man, and especially of civilized man, upsets the equili-
brium. Even if he do not immediately begin to bring the virgin
soil under cultivation by felling the primeval forest or burning the
brushwood, he almost always introduces certain animals which
make war on the aboriginal population—directly in the case of
Cats and Rats, indirectly in that of Goats and Rabbits, or both
ways in that of Hogs. Against such enemies, whether forcibly
attacking them or insidiously robbing them of food, the most part
of the indigenous species are unprepared and absolutely helpless. In
the majority of instances each of the islands so colonized has its own
peculiar Fauna, largely consisting, that is, of species not found
elsewhere, and if the island be small it is soon overrun by the
newcomers, and its ancient inhabitants with difficulty preserve their
existence, or wholly succumb.

The best known if not the most remarkable case of this kind is
that of the Dopo, Didus ineptus, which, on the rediscovery of Cerne,

1 In some instances the still stronger word, Extirpation, or rooting out,
might be appropriately used ; but this would be most applicable in those where
destruction of the species is purposely intended, and attempts of that kind have
rarely proved to be successful, unless carried on for a long period of time, or by
poison.

216 EXTERMINATION
or Mauritius, by the Dutch under Van Neck at the end of the 16th
century, was found to inhabit that island. Voyagers have vied
with each other in describing or depicting its uncouth appearance,
and its name has almost passed into a byword expressive of all
that is effete. Clumsy, flightless, and defenceless, it soon suc-
cumbed, not so much to the human invaders of its realm as to the
domestic beasts—especially Hogs !—which accompanied them, and
there gaining their liberty, unchecked by much of the wholesome
discipline of nature, ran riot, to the utter destruction (as will be
seen) of no inconsiderable portion of the Mauritian fauna.

Extinct CresTED Parrot or Mauritius, Lophopsittacus mauritianus. Adapted from a tracing
by M. A. Milne-Edwards of the original drawing in a MS. Journal kept during Wolphart
Harmanszoon's voyage to Mauritius, a.p. 1601-1602 (¢f. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, p. 350).

But the Dodo is not the only member of its Family that has
vanished. The little island which has successively borne the name
of Mascaregnas, England’s Forest, Bourbon, and Réunion, and lies
to the southward of Mauritius, had also an allied Bird, now dead

1 In La Roque’s account of the Voyage de Vl Arabie Heureuse (Paris: 1715) in
1708-10 (the first made by the French) it is stated that the ships touched at
Mauritius in September 1709 and that ‘‘de Vautre cdté de Visle audelA’ des mon-
tagnes on trouvoir force sangliers, qui faisoient un tel dégat, qu’on avoit depuis
peu ordonné une chasse générale pour les détruire, & que les habitans s’étant
assemblez, on en tua en un jour plus de quinze cens” (p. 175). A few days after
he writes: ‘fen me promenant dans leur jardin, j’eus le plaisir de voir de derriere
la haye plus de quatre mille singes dans le champ voisin” (p. 183). In regard to

EXTERMINATION 217

and gone. Of this not a relic has been handled by any naturalist.
The latest description of it, by Du Bois,! is meagre in the extreme,
and though two figures—one by Bontekoe (circa 1646) and another
by Pierre Witthoos (0). 1693) have been thought to represent it
(Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. p. 373, pl. 62), their identification is but
conjectural. Yet the existence of such a bird is indubitable.

Far to the eastward of these two sister islands lies a third
—Rodriguez. Here there formerly lived another Didine bird,
sufficiently distinct from the Dodo of Mauritius to form a genus of
its own— Pezophaps solitarius, the SOLITAIRE of Leguat, a Huguenot
exile who, passing some time in 1691-93 on that island, has left,
with a very inferior figure, a charmingly naive account of its
appearance and habits, the general truth of which has been amply
substantiated by Sir Edward Newton’s discovery in large numbers
of its bones (Phil. Trans. 1869, p. 327). These have since been
supplemented by those collected by Mr. H. H. Slater in 1874 (op. cit.
vol. 168, p. 438), and now nearly complete specimens may be seen
in several of the principal Museums of this country, the most
perfect being one of each sex in that of the University of Cam-
bridge.

Nor does this group of Didine birds contain all the lost forms
of the Mascarene islands. From Mauritius have disappeared at
least two species of Parrot, a Dove,” a large Coot, and a second
Ralline bird, abnormal, flightless, and long-billed —Aphanapterys.
A painting of this last was found by Von Frauenfeld in the
emperor's library at Vienna, and some of its bones rescued by Sir
Edward Newton from the peat of the Mare aux Songes, have been
fully described by Prof. A. Milne-Edwards. Remains of the Coot
and one of the extinct Parrots were found also in the same spot,
while skins of the other Parrot and of the Dove still exist in a few
museums. Réunion, also, once had other birds now lost, and so
had Rodriguez. In the former, a somewhat abnormal STARLING,
Fregilupus, existed until some forty years ago, and its skin and
skeleton are among the treasures of three or four museums.®

this last statement allowance may perhaps be made for some exaggeration, but
a Monkey, the Macacus pileatus, still inhabits Mauritius, and though I know no
record of its introduction, introduced it must have been from Ceylon, to which
island the species is peculiar. We may be certain that there were no Monkeys
in Mauritius or any of the Mascarene Islands at the time of their discovery.

1 Les Voyages faits par le Sieur D. B. aux Isles Dauphine ou Madagascar, &
Bourbon, ou Mascarenne, és années 1669.70. 71. & 72. p. 170. (Paris: 1674.)

2 Alectorenas nitidissima. For a notice of the specimen in the Museum of
Science and Art in Edinburgh, and the only one known to exist in the United
Kingdom, see Proc. Zool. Soc. 1879, pp. 2-4.

3 The only known skeleton is in the Museum of the University of Cambridge,
and has been minutely described by Dr. Murie (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, pp. 474-
488). In 1889 the British Museum obtained, at the dispersal of the Riocour

218 EXTERMINATION

Perhaps, also, there were other Ralline birds, but the evidence on
this head is inconclusive. From Rodriguez, the greater part of its
original Avifauna has vanished. 'There was a small but peculiar
OwL, Athene murivora, a big Parrot, Necropsittacus rodericanus, a
Dove, Erythrana (1% sp. ign.), a large brev ipennate ALERON, Ardea
megacephala, and a singular RAIL, described as Axerpibess lequati,
but perhaps not penerically. distinet from the Mauritian Aphanapteryx
—hesides other birds of which we know from old voyagers,! though
their remains, from the numerous caverns of the island, have not

EXTINcT STARLING OF REvNION, Fregilupus varius, adapted from figures by Daubenton,
Levaillant, and others. Reduced,

yet been determined, as those of the species above mentioned have
been. A second Parrot, or rather Parrakeet, Palwornis exsul, still
exists, but in very small numbers, and the only two specimens
known to have been obtained are in the Museum at Cambridge.
(ibis, 1872, p. 31 1875, p. 342, pl. vir.)

With the examples of these Mascarene Islands before us, it is
not without reason that we suppose a like fate to have befallen
many of the feathered inhabitants of other places exposed to similar

collection, the only skin believed to be in the British Islands. For a notice of
other specimens see Salvadori, Atti Soc. Torino, xi. pp, 481-488.
1 Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, pp. 39-42.

EXTERMINATION 219

ravages. We cannot read the accounts not merely of the earliest
voyages to the Antilles, but even of those performed within the last
hundred years, without being aware that the writers met with many
birds which are not now known to inhabit them. These lost
species, there is some ground for believing, were mainly, if not
wholly, peculiar to the locality, and after having made good their
existence, maybe, for ages, fell easy and helpless victims to the
forces which European civilization brought into play. Chief among
these forces was fire. In all countries and at all times it has been
the habit of colonists, as before hinted, to burn the woods surround-
ing their settlements—partly to clear the ground for future crops,
and partly (in tropical climates especially) to promote the salubrity of
their stations. When fire was set to the forest and bush of a small
island, the whole of which could be burned at once, the disastrous
effect on its Fauna can easily be conceived. Even the animals which
happened to escape the conflagration itself would speedily starve,
owing to the at least temporary destruction of the native Flora
whence, either directly or indirectly, they derived their wonted
sustenance. Thus in certain of the Virgin Islands the “dead”
shells of many species of terrestrial Gasteropods are everywhere
found in astounding numbers, while not a living individual of
several of the species has ever been met with by the conchologists
of our day. The only assignable cause of the extinction of these
creatures lies in the fact that these islands are known to have been
laid waste by fire. The shells have resisted destruction, but how
many more animals have perished without leaving a trace of their
existence ? Even at the present time, few parts of the world so over-
run by people of European descent are from a naturalist’s point of
view so little known as the West-India Islands. Still less is known
of their state a century ago; and it would be a long and wearisome
task to collect from old voyages the meagre, scattered, and often inac-
curate information they contain as to the zoology of these islands.
One example may, perhaps, be sufficient. Ledru accompanied an
expedition sent out in 1796 by the French Government to the West
Indies. In his work he gives a list of the birds he found in the
islands of St. Thomas and St. Croix (Voyage aua Isles de Teneriffe, &c.,
Paris: 1810, ii. p. 29). He enumerates fourteen kinds of birds as
having occurred to him there. Of these there is now no trace of
eight of the number ; and, if he is to be believed, it must be supposed
that within fifty or sixty years of his having been assured of their
existence, they have become extinct.1 And yet the period just

1 One of the survivors (a Parrakeet), now regarded by Count T. Salvadori as
the true Conwrus pertinax, is or was a few years ago restricted to a single hill-top
in St. Thomas, and so reduced in numbers that the present writer was ridiculed by
many of the inhabitants for believing that such a bird ever existed in the island.
Found, however, it was, but it must be regarded as verging upon extinction.

220 EXTERMINATION

mentioned was long subsequent to that in which the primeval
woods of the islands were burnt. What, then, must not have been
the changes which the forest-fires produced ?

If this be not enough we may cite the case of the French
islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, in which, according to M.
Guyon (Comptes Rendus, |xiii. p. 589), there were once found six
species of Psittaci, all now exterminated ; and it may possibly be
that the Maccaws stated by Gosse (B. Jamaica, p. 260) and Mr.
March (Proc. Acad. N. S. Philad. 1863, p. 283) to have formerly
frequented certain parts of Jamaica, but not apparently noticed
there for many years, have fallen victims to colonization and its
consequences.?

But from the North Atlantic seas two species have disappeared
within the lifetime of men who are not yet very old, and one of them
was a truly British bird. This was the GARE-FOWL, or Great Auk,
Alca impennis, whose bones have been found in the kitchen-middens
of Denmark, and afterwards in similar deposits in Caithness and
Oronsay, and in a cave on the coast of Durham. This species
seems to have become extinct since 1844, in which year the
last two examples known to have lived were taken on a rocky
islet-—one of a group called Fuglaskér, or Fowl-skerries, off the
south-west point of Iceland. ‘Ten years before, one had been
caught alive at the entrance of Waterford harbour; and in 1821
one was taken on the west side of St. Kilda,* to which lonely
island, as appears from old authors, the bird had been accustomed
to resort in the breeding season. In 1811 and 1812 a pair were
killed at Papa-Westray, and the stuffed skin of the last of them is
preserved in the British Museum, while that of the Waterford
specimen may be seen in the museum of Trinity College, Dublin.
In the Feroes the species was formerly common, but it certainly
ceased from appearing there about the beginning of the present
century. In the Iceland seas there are three localities called after
the bird’s name, but on only one of them has it been observed for
many years, having probably been as long extirpated in the others as
in the Feroes. On the locality where it continued latest, there is
ample evidence to shew that it once was plentiful. ‘There was a
large skerry—the Geirfuglaskér proper—on which, in 1813, the
crew of a Froese vessel made a descent and slaughtered a large
number of Gare-fowls; but this, like the rest of the group, was a
place very difficult of access, and in 1821, Faber, the well-known
faunist of Iceland, failed to land upon it, though some of his
companions reached the Geirfugladrangr, a smaller islet lying further

1 For other instances of extermination, effected or threatened, in the Antilles,
see note at p. 227, infra.

* Another one seems to have been caught and killed on Stack an Armin, about
1840, but the year is uncertain. In 1887 I saw the man who said he killed it.

EXTERMINATION 221

to seaward. In 1830 the large skerry, through a submarine volcanic
eruption, disappeared beneath the waves, and immediately after a
colony of Gare-fowls was discovered on another rock lying nearer
the mainland, and known as Eldey.'! In the course of the next
fourteen years, not fewer probably than sixty birds were killed on
this newly-chosen station, and a nearly corresponding number of
eggs were brought off ; but the colony gradually dwindled until, as
above said, in 1844 the last two were taken (Zvis, 1861, p. 374).

In Greenland, for the last three hundred years, the Gare-fowl has
only been known as an occasional straggler, but it would appear
that in 1574 a party of Icelanders found it so plentiful at a spot on
the east coast—since identified with Danell’s or Graah’s Islands—
that they loaded their boats with their captives. All recent
explorations of this inhospitable coast prove the utter vanity of the
notion that the Gare-fowl is able there to find an asylum.

But it was in the seas of Newfoundland that this species, known
to the settlers and fishermen as the “ Penguin,”—a corruption of the
words “ pin-wing,’—was most abundant, as a reference to Hakluyt’s
and similar collections of voyages will prove. In 1536, or forty
years after the discovery of the country, we find an island taking its
name from the bird, and others are even now so called. English
and French mariners alike resorted to these spots, driving the
helpless and hapless birds on sails or planks into a boat, “as many
as shall lade her,” and salting them for provision. The French
crews, indeed, trusted so much to this supply of victual, as to take,
it is said, but “small store of flesh with them.” ‘This practice, we
learn from Cartwright (Journ. Labrad. ui. p. 55), was carried on
even in 1785, and he then foresaw the speedy extirpation of the
birds, which at that time had only one island left to breed upon.
In, 1819, Anspach reported their entire disappearance, but it is
possible that some few yet lingered. On Funk Island, their last
resort, rude inclosures of stones are, or recently were, still to be
seen, in which the “ Pin-wings” were impounded before slaughter ;
and a large quantity of their bones, and even natural mummies,
preserved partly by the antiseptic property of the peat and partly
by the icy subsoil, have been discovered. One of the last has
furnished the chief materials from which the osteology of the
species has been described (Zrans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 317).?

Far less commonly known, but apparently quite as certain, is
the doom of a large Duck which until 1842 or thereabouts was
commonly found in summer about the mouth of the St. Lawrence

1 Whether on the subsidence of the large skerry another portion of the birds
which frequented it colonized the outermost islet is not known, for this spot does
not seem to have been visited by any naturalist since Faber’s time.

2 The latest account of this locality and of the deposit of Penguins’ bones
thereon found is by Mr. Lucas (Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus. 1887-88, pp. 493-529),

EXTERMINATION

i)
is)
iS)

and the coast of Labrador, migrating in winter to the shores of Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, New England, and perhaps further south-
ward. There is no proof, according to the best-informed American
ornithologists, of a single example being met with for many years past
in any of the markets of the United States, where formerly it was
not at all uncommon at the proper season, and the last known to
the present writer to have lived was killed by Col. Wedderburn in
ee ae —>Halifax harbour in the autumn of 1852.1 This bird, the Anas
is, see uk, 1614, yp labradoria of the older ornithologists, was nearly allied to the EIDER-
Duck, and like that species used to breed on rocky islets, where it

Prep Duck, Somateria labradoria, Male and Female.

1 It is needless to observe that no one at that time had any notion of its
approaching extinction. The skin of this example is in Canon Tristram’s collec-
tion, its sternum, which was figured by Rowley (Orn. Miscell. pp. 205-223), is in
the Cambridge Museum. Mr. Dutcher (Auk, 1891, pp. 208, 211) reports three
specimens supposed to have been obtained between 1857 and 1861; but the in-
formation of the former owner of two of them points to an earlier time, and that
respecting the third is somewhat vague. Still more uncertain are the rumours,
though properly printed by him (pp. 214, 215), of examples said to have been
obtained in 1871 and 1878, but since lost. If they could be recovered, a mistake
would probably be found to have been made. Modern American authors profess
their inability to explain the extirpation of this species. I have little doubt that
the cause mentioned in the text and published by me in 1875 is the true one.
The shooting down of nesting-birds, witnessed by Audubon when he was among
the islands of the Labrador coast, and year by year carried on with increasing
intensity, could produce no other result.

EXTERMINATION 223

was safe from the depredations of foxes and other carnivorous
quadrupeds. This safety was, however, unavailing when man began
yearly to visit its breeding-haunts, and, not content with plundering
its nests, mercilessly to shoot the birds. Most of such islets are,
of course, easily ransacked and depopulated. Having no asylum to
turn to, for the shores of the mainland were infested by the four-
footed enemies just mentioned, and (unlike some of its congeners)
it had pot, a. high northern range, its fate is easily understood.
Some +hirtyscteht specimens are computed to exist in museums.

A very similar case is that of the largest known species of

PHILLIP-ISLAND Parrot, Nestor productus.

CorMoRANT, Phalacrocorax perspicillatus, which in 1882 Dr. Stej-
neger learned from the natives of Bering Island in the North Pacific
had become extinct some thirty years before, having previously
been abundant there. It is said to have been killed for food, and
thus its fate is identical with that of its better known countryman,
Steller’s Manatee, Rhytina gigas. Four skins and a few bones
are all that remain of this fine bird. (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vi. p.
65, xii. pp. 83-94; Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 29, pp. 180, 181.)
Another bird which became extinct about the middle of this
century is one of a group of Parrots (NESTOR) peculiar to the New-
Zealand Region, and though some of its congeners still exist in the
less-frequented and alpine parts of that country, this species,

224 EXTERMINATION

N. productus, seems to have been confined to Phillip Island. The
last known to have lived, according to information supplied to the
present writer by Gould, was seen by that gentleman in a cage in
London about the year 1851. Not many more than a dozen
specimens are believed to exist in collections.

In respect of Extermination leading immediately to Extinction,
the present condition of the New-Zealand Fauna is one that must
grieve to the utmost every ornithologist who cares for more than
the stuffed skin of a bird on a shelf. In the Fauna of that
Region the Class Aves holds the highest rank! (GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRIBUTION), and though its mightiest members (Moa) had
passed away before the settlement of white men, what was left of
its Avifauna had features of interest unsurpassed by any others.
It was indeed long before these features were appreciated, and
then by but few ornithologists, yet no sooner was their value
recognized than it was found that nearly all of their possessors
were rapidly expiring, and the destruction of the original Avifauna
of this important colony, so thriving and so intellectual, is being
attended by circumstances of extraordinary atrocity. Under the
evil influence of what was some thirty years ago called “ Accli-
matization,” not only were all sorts of birds introduced, which
being of strong species speedily established themselves? with the
usual effect on the weak aboriginals, but in an evil day Rabbits
were liberated. These, as was anticipated by zoologists, soon
became numerous beyond measure and devoured the pasture
destined for the Sheep, on which so much of the prosperity of the
country depended. Allowing for a considerable amount of
exaggeration on the part of the Sheep-owners, no one can doubt
that the Rabbit-plague has inflicted a serious loss on the colony.
Yet a remedy may be worse than a disease, and the so-called
remedy applied in this case has been of a kind that every true
naturalist knew to be most foolish, namely the importation from
England and elsewhere and liberation of divers carnivorous Mam-
mals *—Polecats or Ferrets, Stoats, and Weasels! Two wrongs do
not make a right even at the Antipodes, and from the most authentic
reports it seems, as any zoologist of common sense would have

1 The various reports of an indigenous Mammal, to which some writers have
attached importance, seem to be all due to misconception-on the part of persons
who did not know how very like a quadruped a Kiwi or a WEKA can look when
thick herbage or broken ground hinders a clear view.

2 Sir Walter Buller has told me that within some miles of the larger towns
not a single native species of bird is now to be seen, while foreigners abound.

3 Unhappily when the idea of sending out these predacious creatures was
first promulgated, it was encouraged by one who passed in England for a great
naturalist. Well-informed persons knew better, but their warnings were
slighted. *

EXTERMINATION 225

expected, that the bloodthirsty beasts make no greater impression
upon the stock of Rabbits in New Zealand than they do in the
mother-country, while they find an easy prey in the heedless and
harmless members of the aboriginal Fauna, many of whom are
incapable of flight, so that their days are assuredly numbered.
Were these indigenous forms of an ordinary kind, their extirpation
might be regarded with some degree of indifference; but un-
fortunately many of them are extraordinary forms—the relics of
perhaps the oldest Fauna now living. Opportunities for learning
the lesson they teach have been but scant, and they are vanishing
before our eyes ere that lesson can be learnt. Assuredly the
scientific naturalist of another generation, especially if he be of
New-Zealand birth, will brand with infamy the short-sighted folly,
begotten of greed, which will have deprived him of interpreting
some of the great secrets of Nature, while utterly failing to put an
end to the nuisance—admittedly a great one.!

Another noticeable case though free from the culpable blind-
ness just recounted is that which is offered by the Sandwich
Islands, where it appears that several of the land-birds are actually
extinct, while many more are doomed to disappear within a very
few years. In this instance the reasons assigned are the destruction
of the indigenous Flora, effected directly on the lowlands by
cultivation of sugar-canes and other plants, and on the forest-
covered hills by the large stock of horned cattle which not only
destroy the existing brushwood but check the growth of young
trees to replace the elders that yet stand. Of the species of birds
known to be extinct one, however, has met its fate from a different
cause. This is the Mamo (DREPANIS), whose beautiful feathers,
as elsewhere stated, have led to its extirpation; but no such cause
can be assigned for the extinction (of which the writer is assured)
of a plain-coloured bird like Chetoptila angustipluma, of which
perhaps not more than three or four specimens have been
preserved, or some other species that a recent collector has been
unable to find.

An instance of apparent extinction more unaccountable than
the last named is that of the bird described and figured by Latham
(Gen. Synops. Birds, iii. p. 172, pl. 82) under the name of White-
winged Sandpiper, as having been found on Cook’s last voyage on
the islands of Tahiti and Eimeo, where it seems to have been not
uncommon. Though it has been often sought no specimen seems
to have been obtained since, and indeed the only one known is in
the Museum at Leyden. Placed by Bonaparte in a separate genus
Prosobonia, it was supposed by him to belong to the Rallidx ; but

1 The provoking part of the thing is that as shewn by Mr. Sclater (Nature
xxxix. p. 493) there exists a way, the discovery of Mr. Rodier, at once simple,
natural, and efficacious of reducing the Rabbit-pest.

15

226 EXTERMINATION

more recent writers refer it as Latham did to the Scolopacidzx. Its
rediscovery, should it still survive, would therefore be of some
interest, and it is just possible that the localities for it are
erroneously given.

From birds which have recently become altogether extinct we
naturally turn to those that have of late been exterminated in
certain countries though still surviving elsewhere. Several such
instances are furnished by the British Islands. First there is the
CRANE which in Turner’s time (1544) was described as breeding in
our fens. Then the SPoONBILL, said by Sir Thomas Browne
(1688) to breed in Suffolk, as it formerly had done in Norfolk and
shewn by Mr. Harting (Zoologist, 1877, p. 425 ; 1886, p. 811) to have
anciently had breeding-stations in Sussex and in Middlesex. The
CAPERCALLY, we know to have frequented the indigenous pine-
forests of Ireland and Scotland. In the former it had most likely
become extinct soon after 1760, and in the latter not much later.
Not a single specimen of the British stock of this bird is known
to exist in any museum, but the species has been successfully
introduced from Sweden into Scotland during the last forty years,
and is now certainly increasing in numbers. ‘The BuSTARD, which
once tenanted the downs and open country of England from Dorset
to the East Riding of Yorkshire, vanished from Norfolk, its last
stronghold as a British Bird, in 1838. “From other counties it had
before disappeared. It is worthy of note that three of the four
species just mentioned were protected to a certain degree by Acts
of Parliament, but these laws only gave immunity to their eggs
and none to the parent-birds during the breeding-season, thus
shewing how futile is protection to the former when compared with
the safety of the latter, since there are very many species whose
nests from time out of mind have been and are yearly pillaged
without any disastrous consequences arising from the practice.!

It would be impossible here to name the many Birds which,
once numerous in the British Islands, have now so much
diminished as to be rightly considered scarce, or to recount the
various causes to which their diminution is due. The persecution
of Birds-of-Prey seems to have begun with the keepers of poultry,
to whom the Kits, and the Hen-HArRRtkr, Circus cyaneus, were a
sore trouble,’ but it has been actively followed up by game-

1 The singular wisdom of the old command (Deut. xxii. 6)—the most ancient
‘‘game-law”’ (using the term in its widest sense) in existence—has here a
curious exemplification.

* Schaschek, a Bohemian who visited England about 1461, says he had
nowhere seen so many Kites as around London Bridge (Bibl. Lit. Ver. Stuttgart,
vii. p. 40). And the statement is confirmed by Belon, who in the later editions
of his Observationes (book ii. chap, xxxvi. note) says that they were scarcely
more numerous in Cairo than in London, feeding on the garbage of the streets

EXTERMINATION 227

preservers, and this to their own cost, as the ravages of the
Grouse-disease testify! To the reclaiming of waste lands, the
enclosure of open spaces, and the greater care bestowed on timber
trees (by removing those that being decayed are much infested
with insects) must, however, be attributed the extermination or
rarification of far more species than the direct action of man has
been able to effect.? Still what we lose in one direction we gain
in another, and while Birds-of-Prey and Wild-fowl are being
banished, the smaller denizens of the woodlands, gardens, and
arable fields are unquestionably more numerous than ever.* The
change is, of course, not satisfactory to the naturalist or to the
lover of wild scenery, but to some extent it seems inevitable; yet
well-directed laws for the protection of those birds which suffer
worst in the unequal contest may delay their impending fate, and
preserve to our posterity the most pleasing features of many a
landscape and the grateful opportunities of studying many a
curious and interesting species. Thanks, perhaps, to the stronger
constitution of most Palearctic birds, the votaries of “ acclimatiza-
tion” have obtained little success in these islands, for the exotic
species which it has been attempting to introduce have, almost
without exception, failed to establish themselves. The efforts
made in some British colonies*—especially in Australasia, apart
from the sinfulness already mentioned in regard to the Rabbit-
plague—are unfortunately too likely not to be successful ; and,
when their own peculiar Fauna has been half extirpated, our fellow-
subjects at the Antipodes will probably have good reason to lament

and even of the Thames. From the same writer (Hist. Nat. Oyseaux, p. 131) it
would seem that at that time (1555) they, and Ravens also, were protected by
law in the City! The Hen-Harrier’s name is enough to shew what was thought
of it in days when it abounded.

1 In Transbaikalia, the Bearded Vulture, Gypaetus barbatus, which was
formerly common, has of late been completely exterminated, through persecution
prompted by the desire to obtain its feathers, which are highly valued.— Von
Middendorff, Szbir. Reise, iv. p. 851.

2 The extermination from Europe of the FRANCOLIN, Francolinus vulgaris, has
been treated at some length by Lord Lilford (/dis, 1862, p. 352) without his
being able to assign any cause for the fact.

3 Report from the Select Committee on Wild Birds’ Protection, dc. (House of
Commons), 1873. Appendix, pp. 188-193.

4 Unintentionally, it would seem, a carnivorous Marsupial has been in-
troduced into the island of Dominica and there appears to have extirpated one of
the Prerrets which formerly bred numerously in the mountains, where it was
called the ‘‘Diablotin” and is known to have been Mstrelata hesitata (cf.
Feilden, Trans. Norf. Norw. Nat. Soc. v. pp. 24-39). The intentional intro-
duction of the Mongoose is said to be likely to effect the destruction there of
the allied species @. jamaicensis. It has already greatly diminished the
numbers of “ John-Crow” VULTURES, by the destruction of their eggs or young,
for the nests are placed on the ground.

228 EXTERMINATION

the extraordinary sentiment that has led them to introduce from
other countries birds which, in the absence of their natural checks,
will be nothing else than a positive nuisance; for so reckless is
the manner in which they have been imported, that species
possessing few or exceedingly doubtful recommendations to begin
with have been carried over in abundance, and some of these
cannot fail to become permanent settlers equally with those for the
transportation of which the would-be “acclimatizers” might find
themselves excused. All, however, in the battle of life will
contribute first to the subdual and by degrees to the disappearance
of the original inhabitants, which had hitherto constituted a Fauna,
from a scientific point of view, perhaps the most interesting on the
face of the globe.

One other cause which threatens the existence of many species
of birds, if it has not already produced the extermination of some,
is the rage for wearing their feathers that now and again seizes
civilized women who take their ideas of dress from interested
milliners of both sexes—persons who, having bought a large stock
of what are known as “plumes,” proceed to make a profit by
declaring them to be “in fashion.” ‘The tender-hearted ladies who
buy them little suspect that some of the large supplies required
by the “plume-trade” are chiefly got by laying waste the homes
of birds that breed in society, and that at their very breeding-
time. The slaughter which formerly took place at many of the
chief resorts of sea-birds on the British coasts was fortunately
checked by Act of Parliament in 1869; but the infamous practice
is still to some extent surreptitiously followed in secluded places
(and they are not so few in number) where it can be pursued with
impunity. However, no havoc in these islands approaches that
which is perpetrated in some other countries, especially, it is surmised,
in India—though there now contrary to law; and the account of
the ravages of a party of “ bird-plumers” at the breeding-stations on
the coast of Florida, given by Mr. W. E. D. Scott,) who in former
years had seen them thronged by a peaceful population, is simply
sickening. All efforts to awaken the conscience of those who
tacitly encourage this detestable devastation, and thereby share in
its guilt, have hitherto failed, and unless laws to stop it be not
only passed but enforced it will go on till it ceases for want of
victims—which indeed may happen very shortly. Then milliners

1 Auk, 1887, pp. 185-144, 218-222, 273-284; 1888, p. 128. This series of
papers is the more valuable because Mr. Scott records what he saw and learnt on
the spot in the calmest language. Did we not know what his feelings were,
one might, in reading his terrible narrative, lose patience with him for not
expressing more strongly his detestation of the barbarities he recounts. But
his abstention is doubtless attributable to the fact that his narrative appears in a
strictly scientific journal, where sentimental expressions would be out of place.

EVE 229

will doubtless find that artificial feathers can be made, even as
artificial flowers now are, and there will be a fine opening for the
ingenious inventor. The pity is that he does not at once begin.

EYE. The eyeball of Birds is far less globular than that of
Mammals, resembling rather the tube of a short and thick opera-
glass. It consists externally of three successive portions. A basal
or posterior, an intermediate, and an anterior portion. The wall of
the anterior portion is formed by the transparent cornea, and is more
strongly curved than that of the basal portion, which like the inter-
mediate portion is formed by the white and opaque sclera. Within
the walls of the sclera exists cartilage with occasional ossifications.
Such an ossification, the posterior sclerotic ring, surrounds in many
birds, especially in the Pici and in the Passeres, the entrance of -the
optic nerve. Nearly all birds possess an anterior sclerotic ring which
is composed of from 10 to 17, generally from 13 to 15, bony scales
which overlap each other in various ways, and form the somewhat
conical intermediate or connecting portion of the walls of the eye.

The outer surface of the cornea is covered by the likewise quite
transparent conjunctiva, a continuation of the mucous membrane
lining the inside of the eyelids. The inner surface of the cornea
is covered by the “membrana Descemeti,” a structureless film
which seems to be the continuation of the chorioid membrane.

The inner surface of the sclerotic wall is covered by the chorioid
membrane, a thin membrane, which is rich in blood-vessels and is
dark or black owing to the number of pigment-cells. It is morpho-
logically the continuation of the pia mater or innermost sheath of
the optic nerve, which enters the middle of the posterior segment
of the eye and then spreads itself out as the retina upon the inner
surface of the chorioid membrane. ‘The latter is consequently
situated between the sclera and the retina. Level with the
junction of the cornea and the sclera, i.e. at the anterior margin of
the intermediate portion of the eye, the chorioid membrane leaves
the wall of thé eye by turning away at a right angle and hanging
like a circular curtain, the iris, over the anterior surface of the /ens,
into the anterior chamber of the eye. The central hole in this
diaphragma-like curtain is the pupil. The iris is a thin plate of
connective tissue; its hinder surface is covered like the chorioid
with a layer of black pigment, while its anterior side is coloured in
various ways, either by pigment corpuscles or by coloured drops of
fat. Often beautifully bright, it adds much to the expression of
birds ; it is, for instance, vividly yellow in Lamprocolius, Botaurus,
and Picus martius ; red in Chrysotis and in Nycticorax; green in
the Cormorant ; white in the Grey Parrot and in Harelda; grey in
Balearica pavonina and in Fratercula ; bluish in Cypselus ; black in
Cacatua, and so on. In most young birds the colour of the iris is,

‘iwisin Haveldg sad Febe Syaw-coloe in winter, dark hazel
‘th summer. ERS. Elliot Bull- BO. Club, 20 Hay 1996.

230 EVE

however, brown, and attains brighter tints with maturity occasionally
in the male only ; for instance, yellow in the males of Ploceus, but
brown in the females ;
greyish-brown in the
females and young of
the Golden Oriole, and
carmine-red in the old
males.

The iris contains a
sphincter and a dilator
muscle. The sphincter
consists of concentrical
fibres which constitute
a considerable portion
of the whole iris, while
the fibres of the dilator
are arranged in a radi-
ating way. Those of

Prey. About twice the natural size. (After H. Muller.) the former are supplied
A.ch. Anterior chamber; P.ch. Posterior chamber; C, by branches from the
Cornea; Ch. Chorioid; Co, Conjunctiva; ¢e.m. Crampton’s oculomotory or third

muscle; 7, Iris; L, Lens; P, Pecten; N.O. Optic nerve ;
R, Retina; Se. Sclerotic, with embedded osseous ring.

HorIZONTAL SECTION THROUGH THE EYE OF A BIRD-OF-

pair of cranial nerves,
; and are in Birds, in
opposition to the Mammalia, under the control of the will. The
dilator muscle is supplied by sympathetic nerve fibres. Both
sorts of nerve fibres enter the posterior wall of the eye, ascend
between the chorioid and sclera, and supply these parts together
with the iris and the ciliary muscle. The shape of the pupil,
when fully dilated, is round in all birds; when partly contracted
it is either likewise round in most birds, or obliquely oval as in
some Gallinzi.

The corpus ciliare is that part of the chorioid which covers the

1 Numerous notes concerning the colour of the iris in reference to age and sex
have been published by Th. A. Bruhin in Zoolog. Garten, 1870, pp. 290-295. A
curious observation by the late Mr. J. H. Gurney is recorded in Mr. Southwell’s
continuation of Stevenson’s Birds of Norfolk (iii. p. 207). On removing a living
male Pochard (Fuligula ferina) from one pond to another, while the bird was held
in the hand the ordinary cherry-colour of its irides was seen to be replaced by
yellow, hardly, if at all, tinged with red. When this bird was released, the
normal colour was gradually but speedily resumed. In this species it will be
remembered the red iris is peculiar to the male, that of the female being of a dark
brown.

The four nearly-allied species of the genus Hypsipetes inhabiting Madagascar
and the Mascarene Islands differ, according to the observation of Sir Edward
Newton (Orn. Miscell. ii. p. 52, pl. xlii.), in the colour of their irides, which in H.
madagascariensis are bright red, in H. borbonicus whitish, in H. olivaceus (of
Mauritius) orange, and in H. crassirostris (from the Seychelles) dark red.

EVE 231

anterior sclerotic ring; it is thrown into numerous radiating folds,
and immediately behind the base of the iris surrounds the margin
of the lens, which it connects through the ligamentum pectinatum
with the anterior margin of the sclerotic ring, and thus holds the
lens in position.

The ciliary muscle is of importance for the accommodation of the
eye to varying distances. It consists of numerous striated or volun-
tary muscular fibres, which are situated partly within the corpus
ciliare. The whole muscle consists of several portions. The
anterior one, “‘Crampton’s muscle,” arises from the anterior margin
of the sclerotic ring and is inserted upon a small circular ridge of the
cornea. The chief portion, ‘“Miiller’s muscle,” extends from the same
ridge backwards into the chorioid ; other fibres likewise arising from
this ridge pass into the ligamentum pectinatum. The mechanism of
the accommodation of the eye is very complicated ; it amounts to
this that it can be most rapidly adjusted to different distances, not
through a change in the convexity of the cornea or through a forward
or backward motion of the lens, but through a change in the con-
vexity of the lens itself.

The pecten, comb or fan of the eye, is a peculiar lamella of
the chorioid which projects from the entrance of the optic nerve
far into the posterior chamber of the eye. It is present, so far
as known, in all birds except Apteryx, and is a wedge-like or
rhomboid, deeply-pigmented black lamella, which is thrown into a
variable number of folds. The number of these folds (3 in Capri-
mulgus, 4 in Dromeus, 14 to 20 in Struthio, 20-30 in Crows) varies
in closely-allied birds, and is of no systematic value. The use of
this organ, which is absent in Mammals and most Reptiles, is not
the screening off of light, but the vascular supply or alimentation of
the vitreous humor.

The lens is a biconvex absolutely colourless and transparent body
of considerable refractory power. Its broad diameter amounts to
about 1°3 of its axis; the anterior surface is more convex than
the posterior ; the lens is composed of numerous mostly concentric-
ally-arranged layers.

The lens, being held in position by the ligamentum pectinatum
of the corpus ciliare, divides the whole of the inner space of the
eye into an anterior and a posterior chamber. The anterior cham-
ber is filled with the colourless aqueous humor, while the vitreous
humor, which fills the posterior larger chamber, is of a more
gelatinous but likewise colourless consistency.

The retina is a thin expansion of the optic nerve over the inner
surface of the chorioid membrane, and extends over the posterior
or basal portion of the eye, ending at the beginning of the ciliary
body. The retinal membrane is scarcely 0°3 of a millimetre in
thickness, and is, as continuation of the optic nerve, composed of

232

EVE

nerve fibres, with the addition of intercalated ganglionic cells, each

fibre ending either as a

“ee

cone” or as a “rod.” Both, cones and

rods, look, however, outwards, 7.c. away from the inside of the eye,
being inserted into the pigment layer of the chorioidea.
The retina is transparent, devoid of blood-vessels, and, except

certain cones,
layers :—

colourless.

It consists of the following nine

1. Membrana limitans interna, an extremely thin colourless

VERTICAL SECTION
THE RETINA OF A
Highly magnified.

THROUGH
SPARROW.

L.e. Membrana limitans exter-
na, perforated at its base by the
rods and cones; L.i. Membrana
limitans interna; P. Black pig-
ment on the top of the rods and
cones (9); 2, Layer of the fibres
of the optic nerve ; 3, 5, 7, Inner,
middle; and outer ganglionic
layers; 4, 6, Inner and outer
molecular layers.

membrane, which separates the retina from
the corpus vitreum, and sends out fine
radial fibres between the retinal fibres.

2. Layer of the optic fibres ; they enter
the eye at the fovea ceca, or blind spot, indi-
cated by a small funnel-shaped depression
in the middie of the optic nerve, whence
they spread out at right angles; the fibres
nearly lose their myelin sheaths, and con-
sist chiefly of thin axial cylinders.

3. Layer of inner ganglionic cells, inter-
calated into the axial cylinders.

4. Inner molecular or granular layer,
a molecular substance, penetrated by the
nerve fibres.

5. Middle ganglionic layer, consisting
of small cells which connect the 3rd with
the 7th layer.

6. Outer molecular or granular layer.

7. Outer ganglionic layer, consisting of
bipolar cells, continued through

8. Membrana limitans externa, a colour-
less membrane, into

9. A layer of cones and rods; these
elongated cylindrical bodies are the real
light-perceiving end-organs of the optic
nerve fibres. Into each of the bodies is

intercalated a small lens-like body which possesses a higher refractory

power than the surrounding parts.

The cones contain drops of fat,

mostly red or yellow in colour.
Near the posterior pole of the eye, but somewhat excentrically

placed, is the fovea centralis (the “ yellow spot” of Mammals), a slight
depression in the retina, and composed chiefly of cones; it is the
spot of most acute visuality. Many birds possess a second fovea
more towards the outer or temporal side of the eye. One pair
of these foveze seems to be used for monocular the other for binocular
sight, so that the whole field of vision of birds possesses three
points where vision is most acute.

EVE

233

The muscles of the eyeball and of the third eyelid are 8 in

number, of which 6 serve to moye the eyeball.

Four recti, viz.

superior, inferior, internus, and externus arise from the orbit in the
vicinity of the optic nerve ; the first three are innervated by the

Lert EYE or THE ComMMON FOWL FROM FRONT AND BEHIND.
0.if. Musculus obliquus inferior; R.if. R.int. R.s. R.e. M. rectus inferior, internus, superior,
and externus ; Q. M. quadratus; P. M. pyramidalis.

n. oculomotorius or 3rd cranial nerve, and the externus by the n.

abducens, or 6th cranial nerve.

The m. obliquus superior arises from the ethmoidal margin of
the orbit, passes between the olfactory and the first branch of the
trigeminal nerve, is supplied by the n. trochlearis or 4th cranial
nerve, and is inserted upon the upper and inner side of the

eyeball.

The m. obliquus inferior arises below the optic nerve, and is

inserted laterally from the inferior
rectus ; it is supplied by the 3rd
cranial nerve.

The nictitating membrane is
moved by two muscles, both of
which are innervated by the 6th
cranial nerve. The m. quadratus
is a trapezoid muscle, arising with
a broad base from the hinder sur-
face of the eyeball, and forming
with its narrow margin, which is
directed towards the optic nerve,
a pulley for the long tendon of
the m. pyramidalis. The latter
arises from the nasal or median
surface of the eyeball, passes into
a tendon, which runs above the
optic nerve through the pulley and
goes over on the anterior side of
the eye into the nictitating mem-
brane.

VENTRAL VIEW OF THE NERVES OF THE
Lert EYEBALL oF Rhea americana.

V.r.7. First branch of nervus trigeminus ;
VI, Nervus abducens, innervating the mus-
culus rectus externus, m. pyramidalis, and
m. quadratus; R.s. R.inf. Rint. Obl. inf.
Branches of the nervus oculomotorius (see
Brain); ciliares, Ciliary nerves supplying the
internal muscles of the eye, e.g. Crampton’s
muscle ;—the swelling at the root of these
nerves is the ciliary ganglion.

The latter is a transparent, slightly whitish membrane,

which arises with a broad base from the upper outer margin of the

eye as a duplication of the conjunctiva.

Contraction of the pyra-

234 EVES

midal muscle pulls the nictitating membrane obliquely over the
anterior surface of the eye, from the outer lower towards the upper
inner angle. Contraction of the quadrate muscle adjusts this
motion, and at the same time prevents pressure of the optic nerve.
During relaxation of the muscles the nictitating membrane with-
draws through its own elasticity.

The upper and lower eyelids are simply folds of the skin, being
attached to the orbital margins and hanging over the eye. The
outer surface of these lids is sometimes covered with fine down-like
feathers, as in Sula, more frequently, however, it is naked. The
margins of the lids carry sometimes rudimentary feathers without
barbs ; such eyelashes being especially well developed in the Ostrich,
the Amazon Parrots, in the Hornbills, and Crotophaga. The inner
surface of the lids is transformed into a sort of mucous membrane,
and is continuous with the conjunctiva. In most birds only the
lower eyelid is movable, and contains frequently a rather large
saucer-shaped cartilage, the so-called ‘“ tarsus palpebralis ”; the latter
is large in Ratite, Birds-of-Prey, and Galline; but is absent in
Parrots. The eyelids are moved by a circular sphincter, a levator,
and a depressor muscle, which partly arise from the walls of the orbit,
and are supplied by the oculomotor and trigeminal nerves. In all
birds the margins of the upper and lower eyelids are fused to-
gether during the greater part of their embryonic stage. The lids
become separated either shortly before the bird is hatched, as is
the case in most Nidifugz, or the blind condition prevails during
a longer or shorter time in the young Nidicole.

Glands of the eye. The surface of the cornea is kept moist and
bathed by the secretions of two glands situated within the orbit.

The lacrymal gland rests as a mostly small roundish and reddish
body upon each eyeball near the outer or hinder corner of the eye,
and opens upon the inner wall of the eyelids through a small
slit; the secretion, the tears spread over the cornea, and are col-
lected near the inner corner of the eye through two slits into the
wide naso-lacrymal canal, which, situated below the skin and
between the lacrymal and nasal bones, opens into the nasal cavity
immediately above the choanz or inner nares.

Besides these lacrymal and the NAsAL glands (q.v.) birds
possess a pair of so-called Harderian glands, which produce a slimy
fluid, which escapes below the nictitating membrane at the inner
corner of the eye. This gland is yellowish white, always placed
within the orbit upon the median and upper surface oz the eyeball,
and is of an irregular, often considerable size.

FALCON 235

F

FALCON (Latin, Falco ;1 French, Faucon ; Teutonic, Falk or
Valken), a word now restricted to the high-couraged and long-winged
Birds-of-Prey which take their quarry as it moves; but formerly it
had a very different meaning, being by the naturalists of the last
and even of the present century extended toa great number of
birds comprised in the genus Valco of Linnzus and writers of his
day,” while, on the other hand, by falconers, it was, and still is,
technically limited to the female of the birds employed by them in
their vocation, whether “‘long-winged ” and therefore ‘ noble,” or
“ short-winged ” and “ ignoble.”

According to modern usage, the majority of the Falcons, in the
sense first given, may be separated into jive very distinct groups :
—(1) the Falcons pure and simple (Falco proper); (2) the large
northern Falcons (Hierofalco, Cuvier) ; (3) the “ Desert Falcons”
(Gennea, Kaup) ; (4) the MERLINS (salon, Kaup) ; and (5) the
Hoxgsres (Hypotriorchis, Boie). The precise order in which these
should be ranked need not concern us here, but it must be mentioned
that a sixth group, the KesTreLs (Z%innunculus, Vieillot), is often
added to them. This, however, appears to be justifiably reckoned
a distinct genus, and its consideration may for the present be de-
ferred.

The typical Falcon is by common consent allowed to be that
cosmopolitan species to which unfortunately the English epithet
“peregrine ” (2.¢. strange or wandering) has been attached. It is the
Falco peregrinus of Tunstall (1771) and of most recent ornithologists,
though some® prefer the specific name communis applied by J. F.
Gmelin a few years later (1788) to a bird which, if his diagnosis
be correct, could not have been a true Falcon at all, since it had
yellow irides—a colour never met with in the eyes of any bird now

1 The earliest use of this word, which is unknown to classical writers, is
said to be by Servius Honoratus (circa 390-480 a.p.) in his notes on din.
lib. x. vers. 145. It seems possibly to be the Latinized form of the Teutonic
Falk, though falz is commonly accounted its root. (falco, a54man's Name, was in earlier use),

2 The nomenclature of nearly all the older writers on this point is extremely
confused, and the attempt to unravel it would hardly repay the trouble, and
would undoubtedly occupy more space than could here be allowed. What many
of them, even so lately as Pennant’s time, termed the ‘‘ Gentle Falcon” is cer-
tainly the bird we now call the Gos-Hawk (i.e. Goose-Hawk), which name itself
may have been transferred to the Astur palumbarius of modern ornithologists,
from one of the long-winged Birds-of-Prey.

3 Among them Dr. Sharpe, who, in the first volume of the Catalogue of the
Birds in the British Museum, has besides rejected much of the evidence that the
experience of those who have devoted years of study to the Falcons has supplied.

236 FALCON

called by naturalists a “ Falcon.” This species inhabits suitable
localities throughout the greater part of the globe, though examples
from North America have by some received specific recognition as
I’. anatum—the ‘ Duck-Hawk,” and those from Australia have been
described as distinct under the name of F. melanogenys. Here, as
in so many other cases,
it is almost impossible
to decide as to which
forms should, and
which should not, be
accounted merely local
races. In size not sur-
passing a Raven, this
Falcon is perhaps the
most powerful Bird-of-
Prey for its bulk that
flies, and its courage is
not less than its power.
It is the species, in
Europe, most com-
monly trained for the
sport of hawking.
Volumes have been
written upon it, and
to attempt a complete
account of it is, within
PEREGRINE Fatcon. (After Wolf.) the limits now avail-

able, impossible. The

plumage of the adult is generally blackish-blue above, and white, with
a more or less deep cream-coloured tinge, beneath—the lower parts,
except the chin and throat, being barred transversely with black,
while a black patch extends from the bill to the ear-coverts, and
descends on either side beneath the mandible. The young have the
upper parts deep blackish-brown, and the lower white, more or less
strongly tinged with ochraceous-brown, and striped longitudinally
with blackish-brown. From Port Kennedy, the most northern part of
the American continent, to Tasmania, and from the shores of the Sea
of Ochotsk to Mendoza in the Argentine territory, there is scarcely a
country in which this Falcon has not been found. Specimens have
been received from the Cape of Good Hope, and it is only a ques-
tion of the technical differentiation of species, whether it does not
extend to Cape Horn. Fearless as it is, and adapting itself to
almost every circumstance, it will place its eyry as equally on
sea-washed cliffs, craggy mountains, or (though more rarely) the
drier spots of a marsh in the northern hemisphere, as on trees (says
Schlegel) in the forests of Java, or in the waterless ravines of Aus-

FALCON 237

tralia. In the United Kingdom it was formerly very common, and
hardly a high rock from the Shetlands to the Isle of Wight but had
a pair as its tenants. But the British gamekeeper has long held
the mistaken faith that it is his worst foe, and the number of pairs
which are now allowed to rear their brood unmolested in these
islands must be small indeed. Yet its utility to the game-
preserver, by destroying those of his precious wards that shew any
sign of infirmity, can hardly be questioned by reason, and no one
has more earnestly urged its claims to protection than Mr.
G. E. Freeman (Falconry &c. p. 10).!_ Nearly allied to this Falcon
are several species of which it is impossible here to treat at length,
such as F, barbarus of Mauritania, F. minor of South Africa, the
Asiatic F, babylonicus, F. peregrinator of India—the “Shaheen,” and
perhaps /*. cassini of South America, with some others.

Next to the typical Falcon comes a group known as the “ great
northern” Falcons (Hierofalco). Of these the most remarkable is
the GYRFALCON, J’. gyrfalco, whose home is in the Scandinavian
mountains, though the young are yearly visitants to the plains of
Holland and Germany. In plumage it very much resembles F.
peregrinus, but its flanks have generally a bluer tinge, and its
superiority in size is at once manifest. Nearly allied to it is the
Icelander, F. islandus, which externally differs in its paler colour-
ing, and in almost entirely wanting the black mandibular patch.
Its proportions, however, differ a good deal, its body being elongated.
Its country is shewn by its name, but it also inhabits South Green-
land, and not unfrequently makes its way to the British Islands.
Very close to this comes the Greenland Falcon, F. candicans, a
native of North Greenland, and perhaps of other countries within
the Arctic circle. Like the last, the Greenland Falcon from time
to time occurs in the United Kingdom, but it is always to be dis-
tinguished by wearing a plumage in which at every age the prevail-
ing colour is pure white. In North-Eastern America these birds
are replaced by a kindred form, F. labradorus, first detected by
Audubon,’ and lately recognized by Mr. Dresser (Orn. Miscell. i. p.

1 It is not to be inferred, however, as many writers have done, that Falcons
habitually prey upon birds in which disease has made any serious progress. Such
birds meet their fate from the less noble Accipitres, or predatory animals of many
kinds, their death being often caused by the parasites which infest them, for no
sooner is the condition of their ‘‘ host” lowered than they gain an increased power
and multiply in numbers. But when a bird is first affected by any disorder, its
power of taking care of itself is at once impaired, and hence in the majority of
cases it may become an easy victim under circumstances which would enable a
perfectly sound bird to escape from the attack even of a Falcon.

2 Recent American authors call this form #. sacer, identifying it with the
‘Speckled Partridge-Hawk” of J. R. Forster (Phil. Trans. |xii. p. 383) which
he wrongly referred to the ‘‘ Sacre” of Brisson (Orn. i. p. 337), though stating
that its “irides are yellow”, a fact which shews it to have been a Gos-hawk!

238 FALLOW-CHAT—FANTAIL

135). It is at once distinguished by its very dark colouring, the
lower parts being occasionally almost as deeply tinted at all ages
as the upper.

All the birds hitherto named possess one character in common.
The darker markings of their plumage are longitudinal before the
first real moult takes place, and for ever afterwards are transverse.
In other words, when young the markings are in the form of stripes,
when old in that of bars. The variation of tint is very great,
especially in F. peregrinus ; but the experience of falconers, whose
business it is to keep their birds in the very highest condition,
shews that a Falcon of either of these groups if light-coloured in
youth is light-coloured when adult, and if dark when young is also
dark when old—age, after the first moult, making no difference in
the complexion of the bird. The next group is that of the so-
called ‘‘ Desert-Falcons” (Gennxa), wherein the difference just
indicated does not obtain, for long as the bird may live and often
as it may moult, the original style of markings never gives way to
any other. Foremost among these are to be considered the LANNER
and the SAKER (commonly termed Ff. lanarius and F. sacer), both
well known in the palmy days of Falconry, but only within the last
fifty years or so re-admitted to full recognition. Both of these
birds belong properly to South-eastern Europe, North Africa,
and South-western Asia. ‘They are, for their bulk, less powerful
than the members of the preceding group, and though they may
be trained to high flights are naturally captors of humbler game.
The precise number of species belonging here is very doubtful, but
among the many candidates for recognition are especially to be
named the Luggar, F. jugger, of India, and the Prairie-Falcon,
F. mexicanus, of the western plains of North America.

The systematist finds it hard to decide in what group he should
place two somewhat large Australian species, J’. hypoleucus and F.
subniger, both of which are rare in collections—the latter especially ;
and, until more is known about them, their position must remain
doubtful.

FALLOW-CHAT, a local name of the WHEATEAR.

FANTAIL, the name of a well-known breed of domestic
Dovxs, but also given by the English in India, Australia, and
New Zealand to several species of the genus Fhipidura of Vigors
and Horsfield, supposed to belong to the Family Muscicapide
(FLYCATCHER), and containing more than thirty species which have
the habit of expanding their tail, generally a much-developed
feature, by a sidelong flirt. By some the Indian and Malayan
forms are separated as a genus Leucocerca (cf. Jerdon, Bb. Ind. i. pp.
450-454 ; Gould, Handb. 2. Austral. i. pp. 237-246).1

1 Fantail-WARBLER is a name that has been given to the Cisticola schenicola

FASCEDDAR—FEATHERS 230

FASCEDDAR (Gaelic Fasgadair, a squeezer), the bird first
described in English as the Arctic Gull, for which the name of
Richardson’s SKUA has been commonly but wrongly appropriated.

FAUVETTE, a French word especially applied by Buffon (Hist.
Nat. Ois. v. p. 117) to what is now known to be the female of the
Orphean WARBLER, Sylvia orphea, and with some qualification to
several other allied species. In 1831 Rennie in his edition of
Montagu’s Ornithological Dictionary (p. 176) tried to make it the
English name of what had hitherto and since been known as the
Garden-WARBLER, 8. salicaria or hortensis.

FEATHER-POKE (i.e. pocket or bag of feathers) a common
and not inappropriate name of the nest of the Long-tailed Trr-
MOUSE, whence it has been transferred to the builder.

FEATHERS, like CLAWS, spurs, and hairs, are horny products
of the epidermal cells of the skin, and may consist of the following
parts :—(1) a Barrel or calamus ; (2) a principal Shaft or rhachis ;
(3) an AFTERSHAFT or hyporhachis ; (4) Barbs or rami ; (5) Barbules
or radii; and (6) Barbicels or cilia, some of which last may end in
Hooklets or hamuli. The calamus, together with the rhachis, is
often called the main stem, quill, or scapus, while the rami, radii,
and cilia compose the inner and outer web, vane, or vevillum of the
feather.

(1) The calamus is hollow and transparent: its base is the
umbilicus inferior, whence a series of colourless horny “caps”?!
extends to the umbiliciform pit or wmbilicus superior, which marks
the point of junction with the rhachis and hyporhachis.

(2) The rhachis is opaque, filled with a pithy substance, and
roughly quadrangular in transverse section, with a longitudinal
furrow along its inner surface, or that which is towards the body.

(3) The hyporhachis is, according to its development and posi-
tion, the “ventral” counterpart of the rhachis, and may bear rami
and radii, though no cilia; but it varies considerably in different
birds. For reasons presently to be given, it is probably not a
primitive feature but one acquired secondarily ; while its absence
in many forms is certainly due to reduction.

(4) The rami or barbs consist each of a slender lamella, the thin
end of which is turned toward the body, while its upper. margin is
thicker and rounded. The lamelle of the outer web though shorter
are higher and stronger than those of the inner web. Their number
of course depends chiefly on the length of the whole feather: on

of the Mediterranean basin, a little bird that builds one of the most remarkable
nests known.

1 This series of ‘‘caps” has no name in English. In German it is known as
die Seeie, that is, the ‘‘soul]” of the feather.

240 FEATHERS

the inner web of one of the primaries of a Crane (Grus), 38 em.
long, I found about -650.
(5) The radi or barbules are attached in two opposite rows to the
i thick upper rim of the
| i wy rami, and like them point
: toward the tip of the
i feather. Hach radius is a
thin lamella, about 1 mm.
in length, the upper sur-
face of which is not, how-
ever, thickened like that
of the rami, but doubled
up. Their number is
enormous: every ramus
of the Crane’s feather just
mentioned bore about
600 pairs—making nearly
800,000 radii for the
inner web alone, and cer-
tainly more than a million
for the whole feather.

(6) The cilia or barbicels
with their hamuli or hooks
areoutgrowths of the radii.
The hamuli are of the
greatest importance in
regard to the faculty of
FLicut, because by their
means alone the radii, and
consequently the rami,
are connected to form a
coherent almost air-tight
surface. The hamuli grow
only on the distal rows of
the radu, that is, the rows
which look toward the tip
of the feather, and those
of one radius reach over

Part of the barrel has been cut away to shew the and hook on Lo thedoubled-
series of horny cups (p) continued (as p’) through the Up Margin of the radii
wnbiliciform pit, whence arises the Aftershaft. D, (themselves hookless) of
downy portion of the web. the proximal row of the
next ramus, as shewn in the opposite figures. Cilia which are not
furnished with hooks frequently have shapes which may possibly
prove to be characteristic of different groups of birds.

From their varying forms feathers are usually divided into

hy
i!
'
i
'
i)
<— + ~~~
; Ne

ConTOUR-FEATHER, WITH AFTERSHAFT.

FEATHERS 241

“contour feathers” (penne or plume), “downs” (plumule), “ half-
downs ” (semiplumex) and “ hairlike feathers” (/iloplumx), but numer-
ous intermediate stages connect these principal forms; and there
must also be added as a special feature the nestling feathers.

The ‘‘Contour-feathers,” as their name implies, are those which
appear on the surface of the bird. As a rule they have a com-

PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF A PORTION OF TWO ADJACENT Barss (B, B) LOOKING FROM THE SHAFT
TOWARDS THE EDGE OF THE FEATHER.

bd, distal barbules; bp, proximal barbules.

OBLIQUE SECTION THROUGH THE PROXIMAL BARBULES IN A PLANE PARALLEL TO THE DISTAL
BARBULES OF THE LAST FIGURE.

Letters as before ; 1, 2,8, Barbicels and hamuli of the ventral side of the distal barbule ;
4, Barbicels of the dorsal side of the sane, without hamuli.

From The Ibis, 1887, plate xii.

paratively strong shaft, with both inner and outer webs complete,
and they attain their fullest development as rectrices and remiges.
Many Contour-feathers, especially those which are ornamental, have
no cilia, and therefore no hamuli, while occasionally the radii are
rare, so that their webs are disconnected and have a more or less
“fluffy” appearance, such as is shewn by the pectoral tufts of the
Brrps-0F-PARADISE, the dorsal plumes of the EGrets, and the crest
of the PEAcocKs and Crowned Cranes, The cilia of “metallic”
16

242 FEATHERS

feathers consist of a series of flattened and comparatively thick
compartments (see CoLouR). The distal part of the rami is often
broadened and modified into a blue-producing structure, bearing
no cilia. The rhachis of some of the median rectrices of certain
BIRDS-OF-PARADISE, the LYRE-BIRD, and others, has no web, and
consists of the shaft alone, while the same applies to the rictal
bristles of most birds and the eyelashes of those that possess them,
and to the peculiar strong and black quills of the Cassowaries’ wings.
The expanded tip of the shaft of some feathers which gives the
WAXWING its well-known name, and the similar structure of the
neck-hackles of -some Galling, are special modifications. Nitzsch
having stated (Pterylogruphie, p. 17; Engl. ed. p. 13) that the
Contour-feathers of Struthio and Rhea have no cilia or hamuli, and
that radii! are wanting on some of the rami in Cusuarius and
Dromxus, the assertion has been often repeated as shewing an
important differential character between Carinatz and Matitx, and
assigning a more primitive stage to the plumage of the latter. But
Fiirbringer has pointed out (Beitriige, p. 1482) that the statement
needs considerable qualification. In fact, the remiges of [thea have
numerous though small cilia, some of them even ending in hooklike
nodules, while the nestling-feathers are abundantly furnished with
well-developed cilia. The double shafts of Dromwus and Casuarius
carry rami only on their distal portion, but the more basal rami
of both webs bear numerous radii. The same applies to the
plumage of the Penguins. We have therefore to conclude that
the feathers of the fatitw and Sphenscide have undergone a
degenerating process through the loss of hamuli, cilia, and occa-
sionally of radii—a reduction that is most apparent on the remiges,
but finding a parallel in numerous instances of reduced Contour-
feathers. .

The “Downs” are almost always concealed by the Contour-
feathers, and are smaller, more fluffy, and more numerous. They
may be characterized by the absence of hamuli, though generally
possessing all the other parts of a typical feather, except that they
frequently have no rhachis, in which case all their long rami start
at the same level from a short calamus. ‘They thus approach the
condition of the so-called nestling-feathers of many birds, and it
can hardly be doubted that Downs represent a lower or more primi-
tive stage than Contour-feathers, although of course many Downs
are elaborate, and highly specialized. A peculiarly modified kind
are the POWDER-DOWNS.

The “Filoplumes” consist of a short calamus and a very thin
hairlike rhachis with few or no rami. Such feathers are always
associated with Contour-feathers, close to the base of which one or

1 There is an accidental misprint in the English version of the passage (loc.
eit.) of *‘barbicels” for barbules,

FEATHERS 243

more Filoplumes arise. Their development shews them to be
- degenerate and not primitive feathers. In most cases they are
concealed, but not unfrequently a few elongated Filoplumes project
beyond the feathers of the neck, as in Fringilla, Sylvia, Turdus, and
above all in Criniger. According to Nitzsch, the delicate white
feathers om the neck and thighs of the CORMORANT in breeding-
plumage are comparatively little degenerated and rather specialized
Filoplumes.

The first clothing of the newly-hatched bird consists of more
or fewer soft feathers, on the whole resembling the Downs of adult
birds ; but possessing several characters which make it advisable to
distinguish them, by the name of “ Neossoptiles” (veorads, a chick),
from those feathers which subsequently appear, and may be called
“Teleoptiles ” (réAcos, mature), the former being as it were the first
generation to which others follow in constant succession (MOULT), so
long as the bird lives.

Neossoptiles are characterized by (1) a very short calamus, (2)
an insignificant or ill-defined rhachis—if there be one at all, (3)
the almost universal absence of cilia, (4) long and slender rami, and
(5) absence of an aftershaft, except in Dromexus. 'To the combina-
tion of these characters is due the soft or downy structure of these
feathers.

Teleoptiles, whether Contour-feathers or Downs, are each originally
preceded by a Neossoptile, the base of which is in direct continuity
with the tips of the rami of its succeeding final feather ; but, owing
to a shortened process of development or czenogenetic conditions
(as before described, p. 14), many, or even all Neossoptiles may
occasionally be suppressed, so that the tips of the first feathers
which appear are actually those of the second generation. This is
the case with Passeres, and many of the other NipicoLa which breed
in holes, and thus seem not to need a nestling plumage. In these
(Passeres and Psittaci especially) the Neossoptiles, complicated
structures as they are, grow on but a few parts—notably on the
top of the head, the humeral and spinal tracts. Subsequently they
appear on the extremity of the future wing and tail-quills, but
they are very sparse on the ventral surface. In the Kingfishers
and Woodpeckers, and probably in other PIcARL®, the Neossoptiles
are almost wholly suppressed. On the whole, this plumage is best
developed in the NipiruG#, and is naturally thickest in those of
them which early take to an aquatic life; but it is thick at the
time of hatching in Latitx, Galline, Spheniscidx, Anseres, Phent-
copterus, Colymbo-Podicipedes, Lavo-Limicolx, Picrocleide and Grallx, as
well as in Accipitres and Striges among the Nidicolx, while on the
other hand in the majority of the last—even in the Pelargi,
Herodii, and Steganopodes—it is at birth very scanty or even absent.
Lastly, in the Megapodiidx the Neossoptiles are cast off before the

244 FEATHERS

birds are hatched, so that they are born clothed in a plumage of
the second generation.

There can be no doubt that the nesting habits and various
other circumstances are closely correlated with the condition of
the first plumage, and that this, taken as a whole, can only be
used as a taxonomic character with great caution, while its con-’
stituent parts, the Neossoptiles themselves, are far less adaptive
and therefore afford surer characters.

The following types of Neossoptiles may be distinguished :—

(1) The lowest and most primitive type is that of the Columba,
and probably of Various Limicole. A newly-hatched Pigeon looks

PEATHER OF NESTLING (Nyclicorax), Magnified.
1. Sh. Horny sheath, not wholly shed, enclosing the base of eleven rami. Natural size.
2. Single ramus of the same, supported by a ramus of the Teleoptile.

very naked because each of its long feathers has a_bristle-hke
appearance, being still enclosed in its sheath. When this is shed
the feather spreads out in form of a brush, composed of about seven
long and thin uniform branches, beset with very few lateral rays,
and all springing without any rhachis from a short cylindrical
portion, representing the calamus, which passes into the tips of the
as yet hardly begun Teleoptile.

(2) In Ciconia, Colymbus, Nycticorax, Phenicopterus, the Spheniscidx,
and in Sula, the Neossoptile consists of a very short calamus,
whence spring about a dozen long and delicate rami, each of which

FEATHERS 245

is beset with two series of numerous radii, forming a fluffy plumage
which is still more characteristic of the young in Accipitres, Pusseres,
Psittaci, and Striges.

(3) In Galline there are from 10 to 12 somewhat stiff radius-
bearing rami, springing from a slender rhachis.

(4) In Anseres a feeble rhachis bears all the biserially radiated
rami, forming feathers which closely resemble the Downs of mature
birds, and are devoid of an Aftershaft.

The Neossoptiles differ much in the various groups of
Ratite. In Struthio they attain a length of 10 cm., and consist of
a calamus | cm. long, which may carry as many as 30 rami, each
biserially beset with radii, and these again are furnished with cilia.
The distal part of some of the rami is flattened and bears no radii.
In the absence of any trace of rhachis these feathers agree with
our second type. In Lthea the Neossoptiles measure 6 cm. in
length and are composed of a feeble shaft carrying numerous rami
with their radii—the tips of the former being split into two or
three thickened ends. In Casuariws each primitive feather consists
of a long and slender rhachis bearing two series of rami, and con-
sequently resembling exactly one-half of the double Final feather.
In Dromxus each Neossoptile, which may be 4 cm. long, has a
short calamus carrying a long dorsal rhachis and a much shorter
ventral Aftershaft—each of them furnished with from 5 to 9 rami
measuring from 1 to 2 cm. in length, and these again beset with
numerous radii without cilia. This is the only known instance of
a Neossoptile with an appendage, and it is significant that the
latter is smaller than the principal shaft, and only in its final stage
equals the rhachis in size.

If we consider the condition of the various types of Neosso-
ptiles, above described, with reference to the presence or absence
of an Aftershaft in the Teleoptiles, we are led to conclude that
this appendage, and consequently
also the double feathers of certain
fatite, are secondarily acquired
and not primitive features.

The first indications of feathers
appear about the fifth or sixth day
of incubation as slight pimples on
the still semi-transparent skin of Loncrruprar Section oF AN EARLY
the embryo. Each pimple is pro- é gee oe age th

FE, Epitrichium; M, Malpighian cells ;
duced by a cluster of dermal cells, P, Pulp; S.c. Stratum corneum; *, Place
covered by a few layers of epi- where the Malpighian cells grow downward
dermal cells, the outermost of ' frm the follicle.
which forms a single layer of flattened cells, the epitrichiwm, while
the rest, the stratum Malpighii proper, are cylindrical and soon
increase to form several layers. All the cells of the whole

x

246 FEATHERS

pimple or “ feather-papilla” multiply rapidly and cause it to take

"A\ Sh. -
\\ \ Nee
\\ \
\

ANS

AWRY

ee

~

the shape of a cone,
the apex of which
is directed backward.
The base of the papilla
then sinks more deeply
into the skin, chiefly
owing to the down-
ward growth of the

““s-, mass of Malpighian

cells, which arrange
themselves into two
halves—an (1) outer
one, lining the invagin-
ated mass of cells of
the “ feather-follicle”
and directly continuous
with the Malpighian
stratum at the surface;
and (2) an inner one
which, like a mantle,
surrounds the whole

LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF A VERY YOUNG TELEOPTILE central mass This

or A Piceon. Magnified.

C, Cutis; ZH, Epitrichium; J/, Malpighian cells; 141,

mass or “pulp” is

Middle stratum of inner half of the Malpighian mass of cells ; wholly a product, of
M.F. Outer half of Malpighian cells forming the follicle; P, the cutis, and therefore

Pulp; Rm, Rami; Sh. Sheath; St.c./.Stratum corneum of the

follicle continued into St.c. at the surface of the skin.

of mesodermal origin,
and its upper portion

is gradually transformed into a delicate meshwork which 1s
filled with blood—the plasma necessary for the nutrition of the

epidermal parts. In fact, the pulp is
the nutritive organ of the whole
feather.

The mantle of Malpighian cells
which surrounds the pulp differentiates
itself into three strata of unequal thick-
ness. The innermost and thinnest
stratum forms a transparent sheath for
the pulp, and persists ultimately as
the series of “caps” or “soul” before
mentioned. The middle stratum is
the thickest and becomes the feather
itself, while the outermost forms a
transparent and coherent cylindrical
sheath, which encloses the growing

TRANSVERSE SECTION OF THE SAME
FEATHER THROUGH 1). Magnified.

A.S. Cells forming the future After-
shaft ; C, Cutis; J’... Malpighian cells
of the follicle; P.S. Cells of the prin-
cipal shaft; R, Rami; Sh. Sheath ;
St.c.F. Stratum corneum of the follicle.

feather, giving it its well-known spine-like appearance, until, peeling

FEATHERS 247

off as scurf, it sets free the rami of the young product. While

the papilla grows to the length the young feather is to reach, the
cells of the middle stratum arrange themselves in longitudinal rows,
causing the pulp to assume in transverse section a somewhat star-
shaped appearance. These rows are transformed into the hair-like
rami of which most Neossoptiles consist, and their formation pro-
ceeds from the apex downwards, while the radii seem to be
produced by secondary splitting. Ultimately all the rami meet
at the base of the feather and there form, with the basal
portion of the sheath, a very short cylindrical tube, which is the
calamus of the Neossoptile, while the pulp having fulfilled its
function has withdrawn towards the base of the follicle, leaving
only its horny sheath in the form just above stated, its projecting
portion.

The development of the feathers of adults is merely a con-
tinuation of the process now described, because each Teleoptile is
produced by the same pulp and Malpighian cells as gave rise to
its predecessor of the first generation. The short calamus of
a Neossoptile is not closed at its base, but is again split into a
number of columns of cells, which though not yet horny are the
tips of the rami of its successor. As a rule the whole follicle
sinks deeper into the skin, and thus comes to lie in a sort of
pocket, which, occasionally reaching the periosteum of underlying
bones, produces on the ulna the well-known roughnesses that
correspond with the number of cubital quills.

Those papille which give rise to the larger feathers, such as
the rectrices, become much thickened and greatly elongated, each
being surrounded by a horny sheath which peals off as the feather
attains maturity. A transverse section shews nearly the same
conditions as those of the growing Neossoptiles, but both on the
dorsal and ventral side are two columns longer than the rest,
and especially the two on the former which are transformed into
the rhachis, while the two on the latter give rise to the hypo-
rhachis.- The intermediate columns and their secondarily-split
parts form the rami. A transverse section of the growing feathers
shews that both rhachis and hyporhachis pass into the calamus,
but that the former occupies by far the greater part of the ring,
or the whole of it when there is no hyporhachis. It is moreover
observable in an entire quill that the rami of both outer and inner
webs converge toward the ventral side and ultimately surround the
umbiliciform pit. In fact, the rhachis is only a vast elongation
and thickening of more than the dorsal half of the growing
calamus which during its rapid increase carries with it most of the
rami, while only those nearest the ventral median line of the quill
remain in their original position, unless an hyporhachis. be
developed as a ventral elongation of the calamus. The pulp

248 FEDOA—FEMUR

extends through the umbiliciform pit along the ventral side of the
rhachis to its tip, but the part within the calamus being expanded
shrivels in the way before described. When the apex of the
feather is finished, and its elements have become horny and firm,
the outer follicular sheath bursts from the tip backward, so as
to liberate the rami, but these continue to carry the Neossoptile
until after a longer or shorter time it is rubbed off. Part of the
withdrawn follicle, consisting of the pulp and the mantle of Mal-
pighian cells, remains in a dormant condition until the time of
Moutr awakens it to renewed action, when the old feather is
pushed out and a new one produced in its place. These feathers
from the second generation onward are not in direct continuity
with their successors, for the base of the calamus or wmbilicus
inferior becomes more or less constricted and is closed by a plug
formed by the lowest caps of the now retired pulp; though in
Dromexus and Casuarius the tip of each new feather extends into
the short calamus of its predecessor, which as it is being pushed
out still adheres to its successor, so that these birds for a long time
wear their old coat over their new one. The reproductive power
of this follicle seems to be unlimited unless it be mechanically
injured. It is hardly diminished by age, but is affected at once by
want of food or wrong diet. It is well known that the action of
the follicle is generally revived by the accidental loss of a feather,
so that, regardless of its being in the season of Moult or not, the
missing feather is speedily replaced—a matter of great importance
to a bird when its life may depend upon its undiminished power
of flight. On the other hand, it is not so generally known that
the enormously-developed rectrices of the Cocks of some Japanese
poultry are artificially produced by the Moult being checked, in
some way at present unknown to Europeans, so that the feathers
instead of being shed go on continuously growing and reach the
length of ten or twelve feet.

FEDOA, the Latinized form of some English name of the
GoDWiT, now lost apparently beyond recovery, but so written by
Turner in 1544. From him the word got into ornithology, where
it has been several times misapplied, and misunderstood. The
only suggestion as to its origin that presents itself is in connexion
with the fact that Godwits used to be caught alive and fed to
fatten them for the table.

FEMUR, the thigh-bone made up of the globular Head articulat-
ing with the acetabulum of the pelvis, and connected by the Neck
with the Shaft, which terminates in“an outer and inner Condyle for
articulation with the Trp1A. Between these condyles, on the anterior
side, and partly imbedded in the tendon of the great extensor
muscle lies the Patella. On the median side of the proximal end

FERN-BIRD—FIELDFARE 249

of the Shaft there is often a small pneumatic foramen for the
entrance of an AIR-SAC into its then hollow and cancellated interior.

FERN-BIRD, the name in New Zealand of Sphenwacus punctatus.
FERN-OWL, one of the many local names of the NIGHTJAR.

FIBULA, the bone on the outer side of the Trpr, thick at its
proximal end, but very slender and pointed towards the ankle-joint,
which, however, is never normally reached, the distal portion of the
Fibula being already deficient in the Embryo. The Fibula and
Tibia are frequently more or less coalescent.

FIELDFARE, Anglo-Saxon /ealo-for (= Fallow-farer), a large
species of THRUSH, the Zurdus pilaris of Linneeus—well known as
a regular and common autumnal visitor throughout the British
Islands and a great part of Europe, besides Western Asia, and even
reaching Northern Africa. It is the Veldjakker and Veld-lyster of
the Dutch, the Wachholderdrossel and Kramisvogel of Germans, the
Litorne of the French, and the Cesena of Italians. This bird is of
all Thrushes the most gregarious in habit, not only migrating in
large bands and keeping in flocks during the winter, but even
commonly breeding in society—200 nests or more having been
seen within a very small space. The birch-forests of Norway,
Sweden, and Russia are its chief resorts in summer, but it is known
also to breed sparingly in some districts of Germany. Though its
nest has been many times reported to have been found in Scotland,
there is perhaps no record of such an incident that is not open to
doubt ; and unquestionably the Mistletoe-Thrush, 7° viscivorus, has
been often mistaken for the Fieldfare by indifferent observers.
The head, neck, upper part of the back, and the rump are grey ;
the wings, wing-coverts, and middle of the back are rich hazel-
brown ; the throat is ochraceous, and the breast reddish-brown—
both being streaked or. spotted with black, while the belly and
lower wing-coverts are white, and the legs and toes very dark
brown. The nest and eggs resemble those of the BLACKBIRD,
T. merula, but the former is usually built high up ina tree. The
Fieldfare’s call-note is harsh and loud, sounding like ?chat-fchat:
its song is low, twittering, and poor. It usually arrives in Britain
about the middle or end of October, but sometimes earlier, and
often remains till the middle of May before departing for its
northern breeding-places. In hard weather it throngs to the berry-
bearing bushes which then afford it sustenance, but in open winters
the flocks spread over the fields in search of animal food—worms,
mollusks, and the larve of insects. In very severe seasons it will
altogether leave the country, and then return for a shorter or
longer time as spring approaches. From the author of William of
Palerne to the writers of our own day the Fieldfare has occasionally

250 FIG-EATER—FINCH

been noticed by British poets with varying propriety. Thus
Chaucer’s association of its name with frost is as happy as true,
while Scott was more than unlucky in his well-known reference to
its “lowly nest” in the Highlands.

Structurally very like the Fieldfare, but differing greatly in
many other respects, is the bird known in North America as the
“Rosin ”—its ruddy breast and familiar habits reminding the
early British settlers in the New World of the household favourite
of their former homes. ‘This bird, the Yurdus migratorius of
Linneus, has a wide geographical range, extending from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, and from Greenland to Guatemala, and,
except at its extreme limits, is almost everywhere a very abundant
species! As its scientific name imports, it is essentially a migrant,
and gathers in flocks to pass the winter in the south, though a few
remain in New England throughout the year. Yet its social
instincts point rather in the direction of man than of its own kind,
and it is not known to breed in companies, while it affects the
homesteads, villages, and even the parks and gardens of the large
cities, where its fine song, its attractive plumage, and its services as
a destroyer of noxious insects, combine to make it justly popular.

FIG-EATER, Ray’s rendering in 1678 of the Italian beccafico,
a name commonly and almost indiscriminately given to any of the
little birds which towards autumn resort to gardens, whether to eat
figs or not, and are themselves caught by various devices, to be
eaten as delicacies. According to the best recent authorities the
true Beccafico is our Garden-WARBLER, Sylvia salicaria or hortensis ;
but the bird which Buffon calls by the corresponding French term,
Bec-figue, is the female Pied FLycaTcHER, Muscicapa or Ficedula
atricapilla—one that may be safely said never to eat a fig.

FINCH (German fink, Latin Fringilla), a name applied (but
almost always in composition—as BULLFINCH, CHAFFINCH, GOLD-
FINCH, HAWFINCH, and so forth) to a great many small birds of
the Order Passeres, and now pretty generally accepted as that of a
group or Family—the Fringillidx of most ornithologists. Yet it-is
one the extent of which must be regarded as being uncertain.
Many writers have included in it the Buntines (Emberizidz),
though these seem to be quite distinct, and the grounds of their
separation have been before assigned, as well as the LARKS
(Alaudidx), the TANAGERS (Tanagridx), and the WEAVER-BIRDS
(Ploceidx)—the mode in which these last three differ having in due
time to be shewn in these pages. Others have separated from it
the CROSSBILLS, under the title of Zoziidxv, but without due cause,

1 Tt is recorded as having occurred a few times in Europe, and once even in
England (Zool. 1877, p. 14); but whether in any case it has been a voluntary
visitor is doubtful.

FINCH 251

while again some systematists have placed among the Finches the
MOoUuSE-BIRDS (Colizdzx)—an allocation which a very slight study of
osteological characters would have proved to be unsound; and a
group which has no English name, including probably the genera
Panurus (the so-called Bearded Tirmouss), Paradoxornis, and, per-
haps, a few others, has also been occasionally referred to the
Finches, but to all appearance erroneously. The difficulty which
at this time presents itself in regard to the limits of the Fringillidx
arises from our ignorance of the anatomical features, especially
those of the head, possessed by many exotic forms.

Taken as a whole, the Finches, concerning which no reasonable
doubt can exist, are not only little birds with a hard bill, adapted
in most cases for shelling and eating the various seeds that form
the chief portion of their diet when adult, but they appear to be
mainly forms which predominate in and are highly characteristic of
the Palearctic Subregion ; moreover, though some are found else-
where on the globe, the existence of but very few in the Notogean
area can as yet be regarded as certain.

But even with this limitation, the separation of the undoubted
Fringilidx+ into groups is a difficult task. Were we merely to
consider the superficial character of the form of the bill, the genus
Loxia (in its modern sense) would be easily divided not only from
the other Finches, but from all other birds. The birds of this
genus—the Crossbills—when their other characters are taken into
account, prove to be intimately allied on the one hand to the
GROSBEAKS (Pinicola) and on the other through the REDPOLLS
(4igiothus) to the Linnets (Linota)—if indeed these two can be
properly separated. ‘The Linnets, through the genus Leucosticte,
lead to the Mountain-Finches (Montifringilla), and the Redpolls
through the SIsKINS (Chrysomitris) to the Goldfinches (Carduclis) ;
and these last again to the Hawfinches, one group of which (Cocco-
thraustes) is apparently not far distant from the Chaffinches (Prin-
gilla proper), and the other (Hesperiphona) seems to be allied to the
Greenfinches (Ligurinus). Then there is the group of SERINS
(Serinus), to which the CANARY-BIRD belongs, that one is in doubt
whether to refer to the vicinity of the Greenfinches or that of the
Redpolls. The Mountain-Finches (before named) may be regarded
as pointing first to the Rock-Sparrows (Petronia) and then to the
true Sparrows (Passer); while, returning to the Grosbeaks, we
find them passing into many varied forms which regard to space
forbids our here naming, and throwing out a very well marked
form—the Bullfinches (Pyrrhula). But the reader must be pre-
pared to take all this as problematical. Some of the modifications
of the Family are very gradual, and therefore conclusions founded

1 About 200 species of these have been described, and perhaps 150 may really
exist.

252 FINFOOT

on them are likely to be correct ; others are further apart, and the
links which connect them, if not altogether missing, can but be
surmised.

FINFOOT, Latham’s name in 1824 (Gen. Hist. B. x. p. 10) for
two birds which he then rightly associated. One of them from
America, the size of a small Teal, had been long known, and
formerly referred by him to the genus Plofus (SNAKE-BIRD), while
Pennant in 1776, in Peter Brown’s Illustrations of Zoology (pl. 39,
p. 98), had described it as the “Surinam Tern,” and it was figured
by Daubenton (P77. enl. 893) and described in 1781 by Buffon as the
Grebe- Foulque. In 1790 the ill-fated
Bonnaterre established the genus Heli-
ornis+ for it. Its affinities remained
uncertain until the publication in 1839
of Brandt’s Beitriéige zur Kenntniss der
Naturgeschichte der Vogel, communicated
to the Academy of St. Petersburg,
wherein he shewed (pp. 117-122) that
they were rather towards the RaAILs ;
but people have been slow to admit the
force of his osteological evidence, though it has since been confirmed
in the case of another species of the group by Jerdon (Bb. Ind. iii. p.
721). In the meanwhile Prince Maximilian of Wied had in 1832
published his observations on the bird’s habits (Beitr. zur Naturgesch.
Brasilien, iv. pp. 827, 828), and very curious some of them are, for
he says that he himself had shot a cock-bird, under the wings of
which were two newly-hatched, naked young. ‘The old birds swim
and dive adroitly, but their flight is heavy, though they run swiftly
on land, and they are addicted to perching on trees. The proper
name of this species is Heliornis fulica, though it appears In some
works as Podoa surinamensis. It has an extensive range in the
Neotropical Region from Guatemala to Paraguay (Proc. Zool. Soe.
1868, p. 469); but it is not found in the Patagonian Subregion.

The second species described, as above stated, by Latham, and
as he thought for the first time, is a much larger bird from
Western Africa, made known by Vieillot in 1817 (N. Dict. d’ Hist.
Nat. ed. 2, xiv. p. 277) as Heliornis senegalensis, but in 1831 Lesson
put it in a genus by itself which he called Podica. 'The differences
between them, though of no real importance, are yet sufficient to
warrant the separation ; and this P. senegalensis is said to be repre-
sented on the opposite side of the African continent by a yet
bigger species, P. peivrsi or mosambicuna, ranging from Natal north-

Henrornis. (After Swainson.)

1 This name seems to have arisen from a mistake of Latham’s (Synops. B. iii.
p- 626) who in 1785 supposed the ‘‘ Oiseau de Soleil,” so translated by Fermin in
1769 (Deser. Surinam, ii. p. 192) from the Dutch Sonne-vogel, to be the present
bird, whereas it is obviously the Hurypyga (SUN-BITTERN).

FIRECRES T—FLAMINGO 253

ward.t In 1848 another species, wholly distinct, was described as
P. personata by G. R. Gray, from a specimen obtained in Malacea,
and it has since been found to inhabit Tenasserim, Burma, and
Assam, though not yet recognized in India properly so called.
These birds are certainly entitled to form a distinct Family
Heliornithide, allied to the Rails, but probably, as their geographical
distribution suggests, a more ancient and therefore more general-
ized group, which would well repay further anatomical examination.?
Examples are by no means common in museums, though it can
hardly be that the birds are not in their own haunts sufficiently
numerous ; and their seeming scarcity may be attributed to their
shyness and means of escaping observation (cf. W. Davison, Stray
Feathers, vi. p. 465). Nothing is known of their nidification or eggs.

FIRECREST, a colloquial abbreviation of Fire-crested Wren,
Regulus ignicapillus (see GOLDCREST).

FIRETAIL, a common English name of the REDSTART; and,
according to Gould (Hand-b. B. Austral. i. p. 406), given in Tas-
mania to Zonxginthus bellus, a small Finch-like or WEAVER-BIRD.

FISCAL, the name given in the Cape Colony to a SHRIKE,
Lanius collaris, from its rapacity, which no revenue-officer could
exceed (cf. Latham, Gen. Hist. B. ii. p. 22; Layard, B. S. Afr.
p. 157).

FISH-HAWK, a name for the OsprRry, especially given to it
in North America.

FLAMINGO (Portuguese Flamingo, Spanish Flamenco), a bird
conspicuous for the bright flame-coloured or scarlet patch upon its
wings, and long known by its classic name Phenicopterus as an
inhabitant of most of the countries bordering the Mediterranean
Sea, in some of which it is still far from uncommon.? Other
species have since been discovered, and both its common and

1 Dr. Biittikofer’s evidence (Notes Leyd. Mus. x. pp. 103-105) is to the effect
that there is only one species in Africa.

2 Brandt’s investigations above mentioned were confined to the head and feet
of Heliornis ; Jerdon had apparently seen the whole skeleton of P. personata. I
myself have the sternum of a male and female of P. petersi, sent to me by Mr.
Layard from Natal. The characters of this part of the skeleton are certainly
Rail-like in a general way, but yet offer a good many peculiarities. The result
of Mr. Beddard’s examination (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1890, pp. 441, 442) of P. senegalensis
is to shew that the osteological and myological characters are almost in antagonism ;
but he concludes that the Heliorni‘hidxe form a distinct Family ‘‘ which has
traversed for a certain distance the branch leading from the Rails to the
Colymbidz and has then diverged rather widely in a direction of its own.”

3 In Greece and Asia Minor, however, it is rare, and to this cause is most
likely to be attributed Aristotle’s silence concerning it, though it was known, by
name at least, to Aristophanes,

254 FLAMINGO

scientific names are now used in a general sense. The true posi-
tion of the Flamingos (Phanicopteridx) has been much debated, and
ornithologists are as yet by no means agreed upon it. Prof.
Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 460) considered the form ‘so
completely intermediate between the Anserine birds on the one

SS ee == ——— pas
5 = z ——— 2
LTTE WORTH 8 NEATH SC : a =a i SS ae —

FLAMINGO.

side, and the Storks and Herons on the other, that it can be ranged
with neither.” And he put it by itself as the type of a group
AMPHIMORPH® under the larger assemblage of DESMOGNATHA:.
To Prof. Fiirbringer and Dr. Gadow its affinity to the Spoonbills,

1 Thus confirming the opinion of Linneus a century old (Syst. Nat. ed. 12, 1.
p. 230) :—** Medium inter Anseres et Grallas, si quis ad precedentem ordinem
_referat, forte non errat.” He himself places it among the latter.

FLAMINGO 255
Ibises and Storks seems to be the strongest ; but that it should stand
as a distinct Family is manifest.

Though not a few birds have in proportion to the size of their
body very long legs and a very long neck, yet the way in which
both are employed by the Flamingo seems to be absolutely singular.
In taking its food this bird reverses the ordinary position of its
head so as to hold the crown downwards and to look backwards.
The peculiar formation of the bill, which to the ordinary observer
looks as if broken, is of course correlated with this habit of feeding,
as well as the fact that the mazilla is (contrary to what obtains in
most birds) not only highly movable, but is much smaller than the
mandibula—while the latter is practically fixed. Both jaws are,
however, beset with Janellx, as in most of the Duck-tribe, and the
food is thereby sifted out of the mud as the Flamingo wades with
its long neck stretching to the bottom of the shallow waters it
frequents. Still more extraordinary is one of the alleged uses of
its long legs. Dampier asserts as of his own observation near
Querisao (i.e. Curaciio) prior to 16831 that the hen stands upon them
while performing that duty which in other birds is rightly called
“sitting,” and the statement, being confirmed by other writers,?
remained unquestioned for a century and a half. Crespon in 1844
(Fauna Meérid. ii. p. 69) was one of the first to raise a doubt on the
subject, though he had before (Ornithol. du Gard, p. 397) accepted
what was and still is the prevalent belief in Southern France (J)is,
1870, p. 441); but he now went so far as to declare that Fla-
mingos did not build a nest at all, and only laid their eggs on a

1 The passage is too quaint and interesting not to be quoted :—“ They build
their Nests in shallow Ponds, where there is much Mud, which they scrape
together, making little Hillocks, like small Islands, appearing out of the Water,
a foot and a half high from the bottom. ‘They make the foundation of these
Hillocks broad, bringing them up tapering to the top, where they leave a small
hollow pit to lay their Eggs in ; and when they either lay their Eggs, or hatch
them, they stand all the while, not on the Hillock, but close by it with their
Legs on the ground and in the water, resting themselves against the Hillock, and
covering the hollow Nest upon it with their Rumps: For their Legs are very
long ; and building thus, as they do, upon the ground, they could neither draw
their legs conveniently into their Nests, nor sit down upon them otherwise than
by resting their whole bodies there, to the prejudice of their Eggs or their young,
were it not for this admirable contrivance, which they have by natural instinct.
They never lay more than two Eggs, and seldom fewer. The young ones cannot
fly till they are almost full grown ; but will run prodigiously fast ; yet we have
taken many of them.”—Dampier, New Voyage rownd the World, ed. 2, corrected,
i. p. 71, London: 1699.

2 Thus Catesby (Nat. Hist. Carol. i. p. 73), though apparently got from the
information of others; but Pallas (Zoogr. Lioss.-Asiat. ii. p. 208), obviously from
his own observation, says :—‘‘ Vera est Dampier observatio, eos in stagnis marinis
vadosis corradere colles sesquipedali altitudine, quorum summitati cavatae im-
ponunt ova vulgo bina, que colli adstantes pectore fovent.”

256 FLAMINGO

slight elevation so as to be out of the water, sitting upon them with
their legs doubled under the belly. Part of this assertion was
proved to be false by Lord Lilford (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1880, pp. 446-
450), who obtained from Andalusia one of the mud-built nests (just
as they were described by Dampier) and gave it to the British
Museum, where it may be seen; but he was unable to offer per-
sonal evidence as to the position of the bird during incubation,
though he doubted the probability of its being with the legs
“stretched out behind,” as had in the meanwhile been stated (Zbis,
1871, p. 394). Of late the old story has been absolutely contra-
dicted both in.regard to the Mediterranean species and that of
North America. Mr. Abel Chapman described and figured (op. cit.
1884, p. 88, pl. iv.) a breeding-place of the former seen by him in
Andalusia, and then Sir Henry Blake gave an account (op. cit. 1888,
pp. 151, 152) of a visit paid by him to one of the latter on Abaco in
the Bahamas. Both of these observers knew of the prevalent belief,
and seem to have expected to find it borne out; but one of them
writes of the birds as sitting on the nests with their “long red legs
doubled under the body,” while the other states that “in every
instance the legs were folded under the bird in the usual manner.”
Most of the nests seen by Mr. Chapman, and all apparently that Sir
Henry saw, were on mud,—and in the latter case they were only
eight inches high, so that it would be impossible for the birds to sit
on them in the way described—moreover, none of Mr. Chapman’s
contained eggs, and therefore he did not see a bird actually
incubating. The question cannot be regarded as settled, and
further observation must be awaited.!

It is of course only under very favourable circumstances that
such nests as these can be built. When time or place is wanting,
the hens seem to drop their eggs at random, and in the south of
both France and Spain years seem to pass when, from want of
sufficient water, or the persecution of the people, no Flamingos are
able to breed, so that more than one beholder of the magnificent
sight afforded by them as they flock has wondered in vain concern-
ing their birthplace. Late in the summer the adults shed all their
quill-feathers, and being thus rendered flightless, are easily cap-
tured. Under these circumstances, both the European and the
North-American species may be expected to become rare, if not
extinct. Flamingos are eminently gregarious. Their favourite
resorts are salt-lakes—indeed these may be said to be a prime
necessity ; and when, as often happens, they are diminished by
drought, the birds have to take long flights in quest of new haunts.
Thus some of the wanderers occasionally get separated from the

1 Since the above was in type, Mr. Saunders has shewn me Mr. Maynard’s
account (Nat. in Florida, 1884, No. 1) of a breeding-place in the Bahamas, where
among hundreds of sitting birds none had its legs ‘‘ hanging down.”

FLAMINGO 257

main body, and appear in various unwonted spots.t On the wing
the Flamingo is described as presenting a singular appearance, its
neck and legs being stretched out in a continuous straight line.
When feeding or at rest, a flock of these birds, owing to their red
plumage, has often been likened to a body of British soldiers. The
young appear to be a long time in arriving at the full beauty of
their plumage, and as the sexes are said to differ greatly in size,
some of the difficulties which the determination of species in this
genus presents may be excused. No fewer than four species of
Phenicopterus have been described as inhabiting the Old World.
There is the large bird known to the ancients, Temminck’s P. anti-
quorum, which certainly ranges from the Cape Verd Islands to the
Caspian and to India, if not further. The P. erythreus of Jules
Verreaux has been described as differing in its brighter plumage,
and is supposed to be a native of Southern and Western Africa, but
it is also said to have strayed to Europe. Then two smaller species
(P. minor, Geoffroy, and P. rubidus, Feilden)—the one from Africa
the other from India—have also been described, but whether their
existence can be substantiated remains to be seen. Four species
have likewise been indicated as belonging to the New World.
There is first a large and very brilliantly-coloured bird to which
the Linnean name P. ruber? has been continued, inhabiting suitable
localities from Florida southwards to an undetermined latitude.
To this species Mr. Salvin (Zrans. Zool. Soc. ix. p. 498) refers the
P. glyphorhynchus of G. R. Gray, founded on a specimen from the
Galapagos. Then there is the P. chilensis of Gmelin (P. ignipalliatus
of later writers), in colouring more like the European species, and
found in various parts of South America. Lastly comes the P. andinus
of Philippi, easily distinguished from all others through the want
of a back-toe, and regarded by Bonaparte as meriting generic
separation under the name of Phenicoparrus. ‘This appears to have
its home on the salt-lakes of the elevated desert of Atacama.

The fossil remains of a Flamingo have been recognized from
Lower and Middle Tertiary beds in France, and the species, which
appears to have been very close to that commonly called P. anti-
quorum, has received the name of P. croizeti from Prof. Gervais.
But a more interesting discovery is that by Prof. A. Milne-
Edwards of no fewer than five species of an extinct form of
Phenicopteride, named by him Palzlodus (Ois. Moss. de la France, i.
p. 58). These are from lacustrine deposits of the Miocene epoch.

1 The Flamingo has been added by Mr. Saunders to the “British” list (Yarrell,
Br, B. ed. 4, iv. p. 244) from examples observed at several places in England ; but
the evidence to shew that these were voluntary visitors is weak.

2 Linneus referred all the accounts of Flamingos known to him to a single
species, under this name, wherein he was decidedly wrong, but the reason for
assigning it to an American species has yet to be explained by ornithologists,

17

258 FLAX-BIRD—FLICKER

The same distinguished zoologist also refers to this Family remains
designated by him Agnopterus, and those of the “ Elornis” (properly
Helornis) of M. Aymard (cf. Fossth Birps).

FLAX-BIRD, the North-American Goldfinch or “ Yellow Bird,”
Chrysomitris tristis (congeneric with our SISKIN), so “called in the
back parts of Carolina” as Latham (Gen. Hist. B. vi. p. 120) was
informed by Abbot ; but the name seems to have dropped out of use.

FLICKER, one of the most characteristic, common, and con-
spicuous birds of the greater part of North America, the Golden-
winged WoopPECKER of books, the Picus auratus of Linnzus, and
Colaptes auratus of
modern ornithology.
Its habits have been
well described by
Wilson, Audubon,
and other writers,
but there is no space here to dwell upon them, engaging as the topic
is, for the mention of this bird suggests a more important theme.
Widely distributed as it is from the Atlantic coast, so far southward
as Louisiana, to Canada, and thence across the Rocky Mountains, and
still further northward to Alaska, its place is taken on the greater
part of the Pacific side by a species which, avoiding Southern
California, reaches the tablelands of Mexico—a_ species more
brilliantly tinted, for ruby appears in its plumage instead of gold, the
C. mexicanus or rubricatus* of authors. But in an intervening broad
belt running north-westward from Texas to British Columbia there
occur birds presenting almost every combination of the distinctive
coloration of the two species just named,” and though one of these
intermediate specimens had been long before figured and described
as CU. ayresi by Audubon (8. Amer. vii. p. 348, pl. 494), yet Baird
was so much persuaded that all these puzzling birds were hybrids,
that he used (Kapl. de. Railroad Route, ix. p. 122) the name
C. hybridus to cover the whole of them.* It must be admitted that

CoxaPtTes. (After Swainson.)

1 By some writers identified with the P. cafer of Gmelin, founded on Latham’s
description of a specimen said to have come from South America; but most likely
the locality assigned is wrong.

? The series contained in the Museum of the Smithsonian Institution in
1857 was in that year shewn to me and descanted upon by my highly esteemed
friend the late Prof. S. F. Baird. He did not convince me of the truth of
his views, and I afterwards saw greater reason to doubt their correctness ; but
they were probably the only views in those days consonant with philosophy to
any one not in the confidence of Mr. Darwin, whose secret was not revealed till
the next year.

3 Cassin at that time was inclined to believe that they could be broken up
into several distinct ‘‘species”’; but I do not know that he ever published
this opinion,

FLICKER 259

this is a view which cannot at present be disproved; but it also
must be admitted that neither has it been proved. Mr. J. A. Allen
was supposed to explain the difficulty (Bull. Mus. Harvard, iii. p. 118)
as arising from climatic influences, while Dr. Coues was formerly
(B. North-West, p. 294) inclined to support that view, but sub-
sequently (Key N.-Am. B. p. 492) followed Mr. Ridgway’s suggestion
(Orn. Forticth Parallel, p. 556, note) that these birds might be
“remnants of a generalized form.” If so, a case would be found
analogous to that presented by certain forms of Coracias (ROLLER),
and a good many of the Phasianidx, to say nothing of other groups—
though strictly intermediate forms are not often met with. So much
has been written on what is called the “interbreeding ” of species by
persons who seem ignorant of the fact that all specialized forms must
have sprung from more generalized ancestors, that the careful
zoologist will abstain from invoking a theory of “ interbreeding” to
account for every difficulty that presents itself in the differentiation
of species. Granted that most of these generalized forms are by this
time become extinct, there is no reason, even allowing for the going
on of specialization, why some of them should not still exist, and
thus such forms of Colaptes, Coracias, Kuplocamus, and Phasianus sur-
vive to this time. Against this view, however, may be set the fact
that examples of C. ayresi or hybridus offer some characters so very
pronounced! that those who favour the hybrid origin have appar-
ently a strongish case.” But then it may be reasonably alleged that
zoologists, to their shame, are so absolutely ignorant of the laws
that govern hybridity in animals, that no argument can be founded
on a presumption that has positively no foundation—for no zoologist
has as yet carried out any such series of experiments as has again
and again been done by botanists to the very great advancement of
their study. Consequently the phenomena of hybridity in animals
can only be interpreted—and possibly wrongly interpreted—by
those observed in plants. Among the few experiments hitherto
made in regard to Birds, some unmistakably shew how strongly the
principle of Reversion works.

Another interesting fact relating to the genus is that at least
one of the South-American members of it, C. agricola, inhabiting
the treeless plains of La Plata and Patagonia, has succeeded in
accommodating itself to cireumstances,—as recorded among others by
Darwin (Origin of Species, chap. vi.) under the name of C. campestris,
which seems rightfully to belong to a more northern form. Since
Azara’s time it has been known to frequent the open country, seek-

1 For instance, an example may be all mexicanws on one side and all auratus
on the other !

2 Since this was in type, Mr. Allen has published (Bull. Am. Mus. N. H., iv.
pp. 21-44) the results of an elaborate investigation which he says ‘‘ tend strongly
to confirm Baird’s startling hypotheses of hybridization on a grand scale.”

260 TING AA:

ing its food on the ground, and to breed in holes which it excavates
in cliffs, the banks of streams, or in old walls; but latterly, accord-
ing to Mr. Hudson (Argent. Ornithol. ii. p. 25), it has taken to make
its nest in trees, reverting presumably to the habit of its ancestors.
The fact rests on the best of evidence, but any inference is open to
criticism. Curiously enough, a very similar state of things is pre-
sented by an apparently cognate bird from South Africa, Geocoluptes
olivaceus or arator, which bears a strong superficial resemblance
and possibly (though this has not yet been ascertained) a deep-
seated affinity to the American forms. This Woodpecker, as Mr.
Layard remarks (B. 8. Afr. p. 239), “never pecks wood, but bores
its way into the banks of rivers, sides of hills, or the walls of mud-
buildings, in search of its prey, and for a home for its young.”
Mr. Buckley states ([bis, 1874, p. 369) that in Natal he never
noticed it among trees; but found it on the open hills and sitting
among stones. Considering how few Woodpeckers there are in the
Ethiopian Region, the occurrence at its southern extremity of this
simulacrum of a New-World type raises more than one question of
the deepest interest.

FLIGHT.! Birds have three chief modes of flight, each differ-
ing from the others in certain important particulars. ‘These are—
' I. By gliding or skimming, supported on the extended wings,
which do not flap up and down. Most probably all birds that fly
can move in this manner. It requires a certain velocity of motion
of the bird through the air (relative velocity), which is acquired
(1) by previous strokes of the wings, (2) by descending from a
higher to a lower level, or (3) by commencing flight in a wind of
sufficient velocity.

II. By active strokes of the wings. The manner in which this
mode of progression is carried out varies in detail in different birds,
and in the same bird at different times, but its main features appear
to be the same for all.

III. By sailing or soaring with motionless extended wings. This
appears to be only possible for certain birds, and is not described
as taking place except in a wind of a certain minimum velocity,
and differs from ordinary gliding in the fact that the bird
does not necessarily lose either in velocity or in vertical posi-
tion, as a result of the resistance of the air to the bird’s passage
through it. .

1] am indebted for this article to my colleague Prof. Roy, who remarks
that, in it, he has ‘‘sought to avoid inaccuracy of fact or method of statement,
the main object being to put the matter in as simple a form as possible, so as not
to confuse the non-scientific reader. The references given to the most important
authorities on the subject will enable those who wish to pursue it further to do
so °—A. N.

FEIGHT 261

Before analyzing these modes of aerial locomotion, it is desirable
to refer to some of the conditions under which birds are placed, since
these must be taken into account if it be desired to understand the
problems of flight. What, in the first place, is known about the
relation between the weight of birds and the area of their wings,
and how do birds differ from one another in this respect? This
subject has been carefully studied by Miillenhoff+t and others. It
has been found that the relation of the wing- or rather sail-area to
the weight of the bird varies greatly. As might be expected, the
greater the sail-area, the more powerful, other things being equal,
is the flight.

Another matter in which birds differ greatly is the strength of
the muscles which move the wings. It may be assumed that the
strength of these muscles corresponds with their weight. The
relation between the weight of the pectoral muscles and that of the
whole bird has been investigated among others by Legal and
Reichel,? who found that the pectoral muscles weigh on an average
about one-sixth of the whole bird; but that in different types of
birds there may be considerable difference in this respect. For
instance, in a House-Pigeon the proportion was 45 Riven, while
in a Herring-Gull it was only +6=per-eent.” Some birds therefore
have much more powerful wing-muscles than others.

The shape of the wing, moreover, varies considerably also in
different birds. Some, like the Swallow, have long and narrow
wings, while others, like the Quail, have short and broad wings.
The wings of some soaring birds, as Eagles and Vultures, are
rounded at the points, and the primary feathers are separated from
one another at their tips, giving a notched appearance to the end
of the extended wings. A typically flying bird, such as a Falcon, on
the other hand, has pointed wings with little separation of the tips
of the primary feathers. These differences correspond to differences
in the power and mode of flight.

Birds, as well as all other animals that fly, may be divided into
categories according (a) to the ratio between the sail-area and the
weight, (b) to the strength of the pectoral muscles, and (c) to the
shape of the wings. Of these categories or “types” Miillenhoff

1 “Tie Grosse der Flugflichen.” Archiv fiir die gesammte Physiologie
(Pfliiger’s), xxxv. (1885) pp. 407 e¢ seqg. Miillenhoff follows Harting, Legal and
Reichel, Marey, and others in estimating the ratio between the sail-area of Birds
and their weight by the formula A?/P?=c, in which A is the area (in square
centimetres) of the out-stretched wings and tail as well as of the body,
spread out on a flat, surface, while P is the weight of the bird (in grammes).
The values found for o in different birds range from 2°85 (Golden-Eye) to 6-735
(Barn-Owl).

2 Verhandlungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fiir vaterlind-Cultur. Breslau :
1882.

262 FLIGHT

distinguishes siz,—namely the Quail, Pheasant, Sparrow, Swallow,
Vulture, and Gull.

In considering birds from the point of view of their flying
capacities, it should be kept in mind that their anatomical structure
is such as to give them great stability in the air. The wings are
attached to the highest part of the thorax, so that the centre of
gravity of the bird is as low as possible beneath the centre of
suspension on the wings, and also that the same object is assisted
by the light organs, viz. the lungs and air-sacs, being placed high,
while the heavy organs of digestion, and above all the heavy
pectoral muscles, are placed as low as possible. ‘The shape of a
bird’s body, moreover, is such that it offers little resistance to its
passage through the air.

We must here say something about the resistance offered by
the air to the passage of a body through it. As Newton first
shewed, this resistance increases with the syuare of the velocity of
the body. It increases also directly with the sectional area at
right angles with the axis of motion (the geometrical form of the
body being similar), and this velocity and area multiplied by one
another and by a numerical coefficient gives the resistance.’

Of the greatest importance for the flight of birds is the fact
that the resistance offered to the motion of a flat body in a
direction at right angles to the plane of its surface is very greatly
increased if it be made to move at the same time through the air
rapidly in a direction parallel with its surface.

As a clear comprehension of this matter is important, an
illustration may be given from Sir George Cayley.2 Supposing a
flat surface, such as a piece of cardboard, with a superficial area of
one foot and inclined at an angle of six degrees to the line of
movement, be carried forwards horizontally, as in the case of the
wings of a gliding bird, it is found that with a rapidity of 23°6
feet per second the pressure perpendicular to its surface is ‘4 of a
pound, while if the speed be increased to 27°3 feet per second, it is
equal to one pound. A Rook, whose weight and wing-area were
found by Cayley to be, roughly speaking, in the ratio of one pound
to the square foot, would therefore be able to glide horizontally
whenever it had a velocity of 27°3 feet. But a Rook usually flies

1 Expressed more exactly, the resistance, R, offered by the air to the passage of
pm sin? a
4+ rsina
numerical coefficient, S the surface, V the velocity, p thewensity of the air,
and a the angle of the surface with the line of motion. It must be understood
here that the resistance is to the forward movement of the surface, ¢.e. the
resistance in the line of motion.

2 “On Aérial Navigation.” Jowrnal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, and
the Arts (Nicholson’s), xxiv. p. 164 (1809).

a flat surface through it may be stated as R= KS V?

; K being the

FLIGHT 263

faster than this, about 35 feet per second according to Cayley, and
can glide horizontally for a short distance whenever it likes.

We can now proceed to consider the different modes of aerial
locomotion employed by birds, and in doing this it will be con-
venient to take first (I.) gliding flight, as this is the simplest. Its
commonest form is when a bird, having acquired a certain velocity,
intermits the flapping of its wings, and, with them and its tail
extended, floats or skims forward in the air. This is especially
common with such birds as Herons, Storks, Buzzards, Gulls, and
others with a relatively large sail-area. The required velocity
of movement may be obtained by descending; as for example,
when a Pigeon flies from the roof of a house to the ground below
it usually glides or skims down. ‘The movement is, from its
nature, a temporary one, involving as it does a loss either in
vertical height or in relative velocity, 7e. in motion through the
air. The direction of the trajectory may be up as well as down.
In the case of a Falcon, which swoops down on its quarry, the
altitude which is lost may, in case of its missing its prey, be in
great part recovered by gliding upwards on extended wings. As
was long ago known by falconers, these swoops involve little
exertion on the part of the birds, which do not pant as they do
after severe effort. Here the velocity acquired by descending with
the wings close to the body is used to raise the bird again. If
a bird moving in a horizontal line seeks to glide upwards, the
height to which it will be able to rise will correspond with the
square of the initial velocity.

We can get some idea of the efficacy of this mode of flight by
observations on the rapidity of motion of birds which descend in
gliding for some distance obliquely in a straight line. This has
been done by Bretonniére,? who found that Storks were in the habit

1 This illustration is given because, besides being of historical interest, it is
clear and easily comprehensible. It was accurate enough for the time when
written, but is now open to criticism from several points. For instance, the
sail-area of the Rook ought to include an allowance for the area of the body
measured in the plane of flight as well as the area of the wings. The support-
ing force, ¢.e. the thrust upwards on the Rook’s wings and body, can be sufli-
ciently accurately expressed by the formula

3 opm Sin a cosa
oS LSS raring
where M is the force on the plane at right angles to the direction of motion,
and the other letters are as before.

By some curious oversight, Cayley stated that an increase of speed from 23°6
ft. to 27°3 ft. per second will give an increase in the supporting force sufficient to
raise it from *4 of a pound to one pound. It ought to be 37:3 instead of
27°38.

2 «“¥tudes sur le vol plané,” ZL’ Aéronaute, juillet 1889. Reproduced by
Marey, Vol des Oiseaux, p. 296.

264 FLIGHT

of descending obliquely from the high rock on which the town of
Constantine is built by a gliding flight; that they usually followed
a straight line, and, with a constant velocity, progressed thus more
than a kilometre before reaching the ground. The rate of motion
was found to be about 20 metres per second, and the trajectory
was at an angle of 10 degrees with the horizon, which gives a
descent of about 1 in 5. This corresponds with other observations.

We now come to the question how a bird guides its motion during
the act of gliding, and here we must refer to the Law of Avanzini,!
illustrated by the annexed diagrams, shewing that a plate (AB)

N i yf DEA
| |

Fig. 1. Mie. 2

falling vertically through the air (as in Fig. 1) encounters the
maximum of resistance (indicated by the greater length of the
lower series of arrow-heads) at the centre, the resistance decreasing
toward the margin, whereas if the direction in which the plate falls
be oblique (as in Fig. 2), the maximum of resistance is no longer
at the centre but the fore end of the plate, which therefore has a
tendency to tilt up. In the case of a bird which has no horizontal
motion, but is falling slowly with extended wings, it is known that
the point of maximum upward pressure by the air on the lower
surface of each wing will correspond with the centre of its area ;
and the same is the case when a bird gives a downward stroke of
the wing, if the bird has no forward motion through the air. If,
however, the bird be gliding forward, the point of maximum
upward pressure is changed and is placed nearer the anterior
margin of the extended wing, and the faster the bird is moving the
further forward is the position of maximum upward thrust. The
result of this is that any increase of velocity tends to thrust up the
front part of a gliding bird’s wings; and in the same way and

1 “Resistenza dei fluidi,” Mem. Istit. Naz. Ital. Bologna, i. p. 199. A more
recent account of the same subject is that by Lord Rayleigh ‘‘On the Resistance
of Fluids,” Philos. Mag. ser. 5, ii. p. 430 (1876), ”

FLIGHT 265

for the same reason as a sheet of paper which is allowed to fall
tends to describe curves with their concavities upwards, so also
does a gliding bird tend to rise in the air whenever its velocity is
increased. This tendency the bird can counteract in various ways.
It can, in the first place, change the position of its centre of
gravity forwards in relation to the position of its centre of support
by the outstretched wings. It can do this in the case of such a
bird as a Heron by extending its neck, which is usually bent with
the head retracted, but which, when the bird strives to fly fast, is
stretched out forward to the full extent. In the case of most
birds, however, the short neck does not allow of this means of
moving forward or backward of the centre of gravity, and what the
bird does is to move forward or backward the extended wings.
As a matter of fact, it had been noted long before the true reason

Fic. 3. (From Marey.)

was understood that birds which glide slowly (Fig. 3) had their
wings much further forward than the partially flexed wings of
birds which — glide
rapidly (Fig. 4)
through the air.?

A similar effect is
obtained by spread-
ing out the tail-
feathers, which
moves back the cen-
tre of the plane of
suspension formed
by the wings, body, Fic. 4. (From Marey.)
and tail, thereby
relatively advancing the centre of gravity of the bird. Change
of direction, upward or downward, can in this way be obtained

1 This fact (that the point of maximum resistance is moved forward when a
flat surface strikes a fluid, with at the same time a movement parallel with the
plane of the surface) seems to us well fitted to explain why it is that the shafts of
the primary wing-feathers, which during extension of the wing make a great angle

266 FLIGHT

by moving backwards or forwards the centre of gravity in rela-
tion to the centre of suspension, and this does not involve any
change in the angle which the under surface of the wings or
tail makes with the line of flight. It involves, moreover, only
slight muscular exertion, and therefore comparatively little ex-
penditure of energy on the part of the bird in guiding its motion.
By raising or lowering the expanded tail the direction can also be
changed, but either of these movements tends to destroy equilibrium,
and they do not seem to be used in ordinary gliding. In order
to turn to the right or left a gliding bird has only to move its
centre of gravity to one or other side of its centre of suspension.
This it can do in a variety of ways ; for instance, by turning its head
to one side, when, as was observed by Leonardo da Vinci, the
course of the gliding turns in the same direction. A still more
effective way is to change the centre of suspension by partially
flexing one wing, which causes the bird to turn towards the same
side. A similar effect is produced by raising one side of the
extended tail and lowering the other. Any or all of these move-
ments give the bird power to turn to either side.

We should not have considered it necessary to say so much
about the gliding flight of birds had it not been that what we have
said on this mode of aerial locomotion is equally true when the
bird moves by active strokes of the wings or by sailing.

with the line of flight, are placed so much nearer the anterior margin of the
feathers than is the case with the secondary feathers, which lie in a line more

Fia. 5. (From Marey.)

nearly parallel with the axis of flight, as is shewn in the annexed figure (Fig. 5)
of a fully extended eagle’s wing. Were it otherwise, the outer or anterior vane
would bend upwards more than the posterior vane and make forward movement,
as a result either of the passive extension in gliding or the active down stroke,
an impossibility. This explanation of the different shape of the primary and
secondary feathers of the wing seems to have been hitherto overlooked.

PRAGA: 267

Il. Flight by actwe strokes of the wings. It is very much
easier for a bird to sustain itself in the air by active flight, if it
have a certain initial relative velocity, than if it seek to begin flying
from a position of relative rest or want of motion. This leads all
birds to rise from the ground with their heads towards the wind.
If there be not wind enough, the bird seeks to gain initial velocity
by running or springing, or both. In the case of aquatic birds
the velocity is obtained in part by striking the water with their
wing-tips during the first few strokes. In “hovering,” which is
only possible for very powerful flyers, the great exertion can be
seen from the rapidity with which the wing-strokes follow one
another. Birds with short legs and long wings, as the Condor and
Albatros, cannot, in the absence of wind, rise at all from the
ground unless they have room to run, and Condors can be easily
caught by tempting them with food within a narrow enclosure.
Even the strong-flying Pigeon, after being made to rise from the
ground and fly a short distance for five or six times in succession,
refuses to rise again, and remains on the ground panting with open
beak. Marey, who observed this in his own Pigeons, calculates
that the energy expended per second in a Pigeon when taking
flight is five times as great as when it has acquired a certain velo-
city. The bird at starting makes rapid strokes with its wings,
which move through a large angle,—in the case of the Pigeon
striking one another above the back at the end of the up stroke,
and nearly touching with their tips at the end of the down stroke.
When velocity has been acquired, the flaps are slower, and the
angle which they describe round the shoulder-joint is a very much
smaller one. The reason why so much more energy is required to
fly when they have little or no initial velocity relative to the air is
due to the increased support afforded by the air if the wing-surface
which strikes it be at the same time travelling through the air in a
line more or less parallel to its surface. ‘This gain in resistance to
the wing-stroke increases, as we have already pointed out, with the
square of the velocity of the wing in a direction parallel with the
axis of flight.

‘With regard to the manner in which a bird uses its wings
during flight we are indebted chiefly to Marey, who employed
much more exact methods of observation than had previously been
made use of. As can be seen from the annexed figure (Fig. 6),
which shews a Gull photographed at successive intervals of one-
fiftieth of a second, the wings during the down stroke move forward
as well as downward. It can be shewn that the outer end of the
humerus describes a kind of ellipse(Fig. 7) round a straight line passing
through the shoulder-joints, the long axis of which ellipse is inclined
slightly downwards from the horizontal. During the down stroke,
which is made along the front half of the ellipse, the surface of the

268 FLIGHT

remiges, shewn by the short lines in the figure, taken in a line
parallel to the trajectory of the bird, is inclined at an angle with

A

the line of flight, so that their under surface looks downwards
and backwards. The exact angle is not known, but it is certainly a
small one, and _ probably
varies with the velocity of
the bird’s motion. Having
made the down and forward
stroke, the wing moves
backward, being still ex-
tended, and_ still inclined
slightly backwards. The
diagram indicating a bird
flying from left to right,
though not to be taken as
more than approximately
exact, gives an idea of what
is known regarding the tra-
jectory of the wing and the inclinations of its plane Ww ith the axis
of flight. The down stroke, it should be added, takes a longer time
than the up stroke. In making the latter, as can be seen from the
figure (Fig. 8), the wing passes at first backwards, and then, becom-
ing partially flexed with a w hiplike action, it rises upwards, the plane
of the wing being altered during the up stroke, so that it looks
down and for Ww ard. If the bird he flying fairly rapidly through the
air, the up stroke is mainly a passive movement, the bird continuing
to rest on the wings, and the velocity of the forward motion of its
body diminishing, to be increased again with the next down stroke.
At starting, and before the bird has acquired velocity, the up
stroke is an active one, and the primary feathers can be proved
to separate from one another, facilitating thereby the movement
by reducing the resistance offered by the air to the back of the
wing. The above description applies mainly to the Pigeon and

Fia. 7. (From Marey.)

FLIGHT 269

Gull, on which the observations have for the most part been made,
but there is at present no reason for supposing that the active
flight of other birds differs from that described in any essential

Fic. 8.—PHOTOGRAPHIC TRAJECTORY OF THE TIP OF A Crow’s Winc. The little arrows shew
(Fig. ic inverted) the direction of the tip’s movement. (From Marey.)

particulars, though there is still a good deal to be learned about the
mechanics of active flight, and data sufficient, for example, to enable
us to calculate the work done by a bird in flying through the air
are still wanting. We have, however, in the above given only a
very incomplete sketch of what has already been learned on the
subject.

III. We now come to the interesting subject of soaring or sailing.
The typical soaring birds come under Miillenhoff’s ? “ Vulture-type,”
whose sail-area in relation to the total weight of the bird is a large
one. In this category come such birds as the larger Corvidx, viz.
the Raven and Crow, the Falcons and Vultures, the Owls, Pelicans,
and Storks. Those of them which can soar are mostly large birds,
with a relatively large wing-area, and few of them are commonly
visible in this country, which is possibly one reason why the whole
subject of soaring flight is still so obscure.

The main characteristics of the soaring flight of such birds
have, however, been recorded by a number of trustworthy
observers, and are no longer seriously disputed. A certain
amount of wind appears to be essential, soaring flight not being
observed in a dead calm. Observers seem to agree also in this,
that the soaring bird, with motionless outstretched wings (having
raised itself some distance from the ground or sea by active wing-
strokes), describes in its flight, curves or circles which lead it to
alternately sail up the wind and down the wind. It describes
wide curves, and loses in vertical position while it is directed down

1 Tom, cit, p. 425.

270 FLIGHT

the wind, while in going up into the wind it rises higher in the air.
The bird may, in describing these curves or circles, rise as high or
higher than the point from which it started, and may be as far or
further to windward, and this without any very evident expenditure
of mechanical work on the part of the bird. This at first sight looks
sufficiently startling, and one’s first impulse would naturally be to
question® the facts. There appears, however, to be no sufficient
reason for doubting the main points above stated. Other modes of
soaring have, indeed, been described, but it is unnecessary to go
into these latter, since any explanation of how it is that a bird, with
what may be described as little or no mechanical work? on its part,
can not only keep itself up in the air but can actually rise higher,
or, keeping about the same level, can progress to windward, will
presumably cover all the varieties of soaring.

Now the theories with which we are acquainted as to the
mechanics of soaring may be divided into two categories—those,
in the first place, evolved by observers who have noted certain
prominent facts and have sought to explain these by reasonings
which have been in some cases wildly disregardful of the elements
of dynamics. Such theories may, indeed must, be put to one side,
although the facts on which they are based cannot be left out of
consideration. The second category of theories are those made by
physicists and mathematicians, and which are characterized by
being in harmony with what is known of the laws of nature, and
also, with certain important exceptions (to be presently considered),
by being inadequate to explain facts which had been noted by a
consensus of trustworthy observers. We cannot go over these two
series of theories in detail, and can only find room to consider two,
drawn from our second category. ‘These are, first, the theory of
upward currents of air ;* and, secondly, the theory of varying velocity of
the wind at different heights from the land or water. There is a good
deal to be said for both of these possible explanations—which,
of course, involves the conclusion that the data required to decide
the matter are still wanting. Nevertheless, the subject is too
interesting and important to justify us in seeking to evade the
difficulties of the problem before us, and we will try to put seriatim
the reason for and against these two (so far as we know only)
possibilities.

1 While resting on its motionless extended wings a bird may be doing no
mechanical work, but it is nevertheless expending energy in keeping up a certain
degree of contraction of its pectoral muscles. This work, which is real enough of
its kind, is expended in the muscles themselves, and concerns the physiologist
rather than the mechanician. It is called internal work by physiologists.

2 W. Froude, Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. xv. pp. 256-258 (19 March 1888). [A con-
tinuation of this note has since appeared (op. cit. xviii. pp. 65-72, 5 January
1891),—-A. Nw ;

FLIGHT 27it

Upward currents of air are to be met with, when there is a
wind, on the windward side of a sloping mountain, or a house,
or the sail of a ship, or as a result of the inequalities of surface
produced by waves on the sea. For example, Gulls may be
seen to soar for a prolonged period of time in front of or above
cliffs on the shore when the wind comes from the sea. This,
however, cannot be taken as an example of soaring proper, seeing
that Gulls can only remain suspended in the air without loss of
relative horizontal motion under special conditions which do not
apply in the case of the typical soaring birds. Gulls are not seen
to soar except under conditions which point toward upward cur-
rents, being a very obvious explanation of the phenomenon. In
the case, on the other hand, of typical soaring birds, such as those
named above, soaring is observable under conditions and at heights
where there is no sufficient reason to assume that upward cur-
rents exist. For example, Eagles and Adjutants are seen to rise
continuously by soaring for miles above the surface of the ground
or sea. To explain such cases as being due to upward currents
would, we are of opinion, require a good deal more evidence of
continuous upward currents of air from the plains or seas than is
at present available. That the direction of the wind even at great
heights, and above a comparatively smooth sea or plain, is by no
means always parallel with the surface of the globe is more than
probable ; but we know of no reason for assuming that the upward
currents are sufficiently predominant over the downward currents
to justify us in looking on the former as capable of explaining
observed facts as to soaring. In other words, the theory of upward
currents of the air as an explanation of sailing or soaring flight
requires more support in the way of facts than have been so far
produced.

The theory of wnequal velocity of the air at different heights as an
explanation of soaring is based on the fact that the motion of a
wind is retarded by the surface of the earth, so that considerable
variations in velocity may and do occur at different heights above the
ground. The matter is put very clearly by Hubert Airy,! although
we are indebted, in this country at all events, to Lord Rayleigh for
having first formulated it. Airy says: “Suppose a bird at the
highest point of one of its gyrations, when it has mounted against
the wind and is wheeling to one or other side preparatory to the
descent with the wind... . Let us regard the air at the level
of the bird, at this turning-point, as still. Then, relative to this
point, the lower strata of air have a horizontal velocity in the
opposite direction to the wind (as perceived on earth); and the
bird in falling apparently down the wind will really be meeting
stronger and stronger adverse currents, and when it has reached

1 Nature, xxvii. pp. 534 and 591.

272 FLIGHT

the lowest point of the ‘circle’ it will have a greater horizontal
velocity relative to the air at that level than if the whole air
through which it had fallen had been still. . . . Suppose the bird
as it rises wheels gradually round and faces the wind. Then in
rising it will enter successive strata of air, having successively
greater and greater velocity relative to itself (the bird) than if the
air had no internal movement, and therefore the air-resistance,
which is the lifting force, will ever be greater than that due to
(or corresponding with) the height gained by the bird if in still
air.” As Rayleigh noted, the gain to the bird corresponds, not
with the increments in velocity, but with the increments in the
square of velocity.

This theory fits in very well with most of the facts noted by
different observers in soaring birds. It especially agrees with the
fact that soaring birds appear always in making their horizontal
curves to alternately rise and descend in the manner above de-
scribed. Against this theory, on the other hand, is the fact that
birds may be seen to soar a great height above the surface of the
globe—too high to justify us in assuming that different strata of
the wind travel with such differences in velocity as have been
observed nearer the earth. This is a matter, however, on which
we have as yet insufficient information ; and it is worth noting
that any local variations in the velocity of neighbouring currents
of air will be capable of being of use to a soaring bird in a manner
analogous to that described by Airy.

In the meantime we are inclined to accept Rayleigh’s theory ;
but the facts, it appears to us, want investigation with more exact
methods than have hitherto been employed. What is needed is to
learn exactly the course of a soaring bird both in the vertical and
horizontal dimensions in each part of its course, as well as the
exact velocity and direction of the wind in the strata of air through
which the bird progresses. }

Much has been written on size as influencing the power of flight
in different birds, but this is a subject into which we cannot here
enter. ‘Two opposite views regarding it will be found stated at
length by Miillenhoff (op. cit.) and Strasser.+

Finally, it is important to note that frictional resistance, which,
as the late Mr. W. Froude has shewn, plays so great a part in
obstructing the movement of a ship through water, seems, from
recent observations by Langley? and Maxim,? to have very slight
influence in hindering the passage of a bird through the air.

CHARLES S. Roy.
' Ueber den Flug der Vogel, pp. 404-417 (Jena; 1885),

2 Comptes Rendus de l’ Acad. Se. exiii. pp. 59-63 (1891).
3 Century Magazine, xlii. pp. 829-836 (Oct. 1891).

FLORICAN—FLYCATCHER 273

FLORICAN or FLORIKEN,! the Anglo-Indian name for the
smaller BuSTARDS, the origin of which neither Jerdon (B. Ind. ii.
p. 625) nor Yule (Hobson Jobson, p. 270) can trace. The latter
shews that it was used in 1780 (Munro, Narrative, p. 199), and
says “it looks like Dutch”; but from analogy a Portuguese deriva-
tion would seem more likely.

FLOWER-PECKER, the name given by Indian ornithologists
to species of the genus Dic@uM and others supposed to be allied to
it (cf. Jerdon, B. Ind. i. pp. 373-378; Oates, Fauna Br. Ind. Birds,
ii. pp. 376-386).

FLUSHER, said by Ray in 1674 (Coll. Engl. Words, p. 83) to
be a name given in Yorkshire to the BUTCHER-BIRD or Red-backed
SHRIKE; but he probably should have written ‘“ Flesher ”—that
being a common North-country word for butcher.

FLYCATCHER, a name introduced in ornithology by Ray,
being a translation of the Muscicapa of older authors, and applied
by Pennant to an extremely common English bird, the M. grisola of
Linneus. It has since been used in a general and very vague way
for a great many small birds from all parts of the world, which
have the habit of catching flies on the wing, and thus ornithologists
who have trusted too much to this characteristic and to certain
merely superficial correlations of structure, especially those exhibited
by a broad and rather flat bill and a gape beset by strong hairs or
bristles, have associated under the title of Muscicapide an exceed-
ingly heterogeneous assemblage of forms that, though much reduced
in number by later systematists, has scarcely yet been sufficiently
revised. Great advance has been made, however, in establishing
as independent Families the Zodidw (Topy) and Eurylemidx
(BROADBILL), as well as in excluding from it various members
of the Cotingidx (CHATTERER), Tyrannidx, Vireonidx, Mniotiltidx
(American WARBLER), and perhaps others, which had been placed
within its limits. These steps have left the Muscicapide a purely
Old-World Family of the Order Passeres, and the chief difficulty
now seems to lie in separating it from CAMPEPHAGA, with its rela-
tions, and from the Laniidy (SHRIKE). Every ornithologist must own
that its precise definition is at present almost impossible, and must
await that truer knowledge which comes of investigating structural
characters more deeply seated than any afforded by the epidermis.
But here want of space forbids the pursuit of this kind of enquiry,

1 Some form of this word, variously spelt by authors, doubtless gave rise to
“* Flercher,” which Latham in 1787 said (Syn. B. Suppl. p. 229) was used in
India ‘‘by some of the English,” and is probably due to a misprint or wrong
reading. Jerdon says that he was once informed that the Little Bustard was
“sometimes called Flanderkin” ; but I am not able to find such a name for it.
May Florican, after all, arise from a mispronunciation of FRANCOLIN ?
18

274 EE MCAT GEER

and for the same reason only a very few of the forms of Flycatchers
(which, after all the deductions above mentioned, may be reckoned
to include some 60 genera or subgenera, and perhaps 250 species)
can be even named.*

The best known bird of this Family is that which also happens
to be the type of the Linnzan genus Muscicapa—the Spotted or
Grey Flycatcher, MJ. grisola, already mentioned. It is a common
summer - visitant to nearly the whole of Europe, and is found
throughout Great Britain, though less abundant in Scotland than
in England, as well as in many parts of Ireland, where, however,
it seems to be but locally and sparingly distributed. It is one of
the latest of our migrants to arrive, and seldom reaches these islands
till the latter part of May, when it may be seen, a small dust-
coloured bird, sitting on the posts or railings of our gardens and
fields, ever and anon springing into the air, seizing with an audible
snap of its bill some passing insect as it flies, and returning to the
spot it has quitted, or taking up some similar station to keep watch
as before. It has no song, but merely a plaintive or peevish call-
note, uttered from time to time with a jerking gesture of the wings.
It makes a neat nest, built among the small twigs which sprout from
the bole of a large tree, or fixed in the branches of some plant
trained against a wall, or placed in any hole of the wall itself that
may be left by the falling of a brick or stone. The eggs are from
four to six in number, of a pale greenish-blue, closely blotched or
freckled with rust-colour. Silent and inconspicuous as is this bird,
its constant pursuit of flies in the closest vicinity of our houses
makes it a familiar object to almost everybody. A second British
species is the Pied Flycatcher, J. atricapilla,—called by some
writers the Coldfinch—a much rarer bird, and in England not often
seen except in the hilly country extending from the Peak of Derby-
shire to Cumberland, and more numerous in the Lake district than
elsewhere. It is not common in Scotland, and has only once been
observed in Ireland. More of a woodland bird than the former,
the brightly -contrasted black and white plumage of the cock,
together with his agreeable song, readily attracts attention where
it occurs. It is a summer visitant to all Western Europe, but
further eastward its place is taken by a nearly allied species,
M. collaris, in which the white of the throat and breast extends

1 Of the 30 genera or subgenera which Swainson included in his Natural
Arrangement and Relations of the Fanily of Flycatchers (published in 1838), at
least 19 do not belong to the Muscicapidx at all, and one of them, Todus,
not even to the Order Passeres. It is perhaps impossible to name any ornitho-
logical work whose substance so fully belies its title as does this treatise. Swain-
son wrote it filled with faith in the so-called ‘‘ Quinary System” (see INTRODUC-
TION), and, unconsciously swayed by that bias, his judgment was warped to fit
his hypothesis.

FLYCATCHER 275

like a collar round the neck. A fourth European species, I. parva,
distinguished by its very small size and red breast, has also strayed
several times to the British Islands. This last belongs to a group
of more eastern range, which has received generic recognition
(possibly well deserved) under the name of Erythrosterna, and it has
several relations in Asia and particularly in India, while the allies
of the Pied Flycatchers (Ficedula of Brisson) are chiefly of African
origin, and those of the Grey or Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa
proper ') are common to almost the whole Palearctic area.

One of the most remarkable groups of Muscicapidx is that known
as the Paradise Flycatchers, forming the genus Terpsiphone of
Gloger (Tchitrea of Lesson). In nearly all the species the males
are distinguished by the growth of exceedingly long feathers in their
tail, and by their putting on, for some part of the year at least, a
plumage generally white, but almost always quite different from
that worn by the females, which is of a more or less deep chestnut
or bay colour, though in both sexes the crown is of a glossy steel-
blue. They are found pretty well throughout Africa and tropical
Asia to Japan, and seem to affect the deep shade of forests rather
than the open country. The best-known species is perhaps the
Indian 7. paradisi; but the Chinese 7. incii, and the Japanese
T. princeps, from being very commonly represented by the artists
of those nations on screens, fans, and the like, are hardly less so ;
and the cock of the last named, with his bill of a pale greenish-
blue and eyes surrounded by bare skin of the same colour—though
these are characters possessed in some degree by all the species—
seems to be the most beautiful of the genus. 7. bourbonnensis,
which is peculiar to the islands of Mauritius and Réunion, appears
to be the only species in which the outward difference of the sexes
is but slight. In TZ. corvina of the Seychelles, the adult male is
wholly black, and his middle tail-feathers are not only very long
but very broad. In 7. mutata of Madagascar, some of the males
are found in a blackish plumage, though with the elongated median
rectrices white, while in others white predominates over the whole
body ; but whether this sex is here actually dimorphic, or whether
the one dress is a passing phase of the other, is at present undeter-
mined. Some of the African species, of which many have been
described, seem always to retain the rufous plumage, but the long
tail-feathers serve to mark the males ; and the whole group deserves
more investigation than it has yet received, as it is likely to reveal
facts of importance in regard to the theory of ‘‘ Sexual Selection.”

On the other groups of the Family there is not room to descant.
A few are distinguished by the brilliant blue they exhibit, as
Myiagra azurea, and others, as Piezorhynchus chrysomelas, by their

1 By some writers this section is distinguished as Butalis of Boie, but to do
so seems contrary to rule.

>

276 FOOL’S-COAT—FORK TAIL

golden-yellow. Arses has the skin round the eyes bare and of some
bright colour. The Australian forms assigned to the Muscicaprdx

a, CRYPTOLOPHA ; b,c, ,e, My1acRa; f, TERPSIPHONE; g, Muscrcapa; h, Hyiiora.
(After Swainson. )

are very varied, and probably require much further scrutiny.
Sisura inquicta, for instance, has some of the habits of a Water-
WacraiL, Motacilla, and hence has received from the colonists the

PIEZORHYNCHUS CHRYSOMELAS, PLATYSTIRA, ARSES TELESCOPHTHALMUS.
(After Swainson.)

name of “ Dishwasher,” bestowed in many parts of England on its
analogue ;! and the many species of Rhipidura or F antailed Fly-
catchers, ‘which occur in various parts of the Australian Region,
have manners still more singular—turning over in the air, it is
said, like a Tumbler Pigeon, as they catch their prey; but con-
cerning the mode of life of the majority of the JM/uscicapidx, and
especially of the numerous African forms, hardly anything is known.

FOOL’S-COAT, according to Sir Thomas Browne (/Vorks, ed.
Wilkin, iv. p. 323), a name of the GOLDFINCH, referring of course
to its gaudy and particoloured plumage.

FORKTAIL, of old time used in England for the Kirr, but
now applied in India to the birds of the genus Henicurus,? a small
group, the position of which has long been doubtful, several system-
atists referring it to the Motacillidx (WAGTAIL), to some members
of which there i is undoubtedly a strong outward resemblance, while
other methodists, as Blyth (Cat. B. Mus. Asiat. Sov. p. 159), Cabanis
(Mus. Hein. i. p. 11), and Sundevall (Tentam. p. 5) placed it next to

1 Another name for it is GRINDER.
9 Ovid . . site .
* Originally and even now sometimes written Hnicurus, but incorrectly.

FOKRTYeS-LOL—FOSSTL BIRDS 277

Cinelus (Water-OUSEL), and Dr. Sharpe, as usual in similar cases
of difficulty, has put it (Cat. -

B. Br. Mus. vii. p. 312) among y
the Timeliidx, making two
other genera, Hydrocichla and
Microcichla. These are adopted
by Mr. Oates, who (Faun. Br.
Ind. Birds, ii. p. 81) refers all
to the Ruticilline group (RED-
START) of Zurdidx. With but
few exceptions their plumage
is wholly black and white;
and, save in Microcichla, the forked tail. which is constantly in
motion is a marked characteristic. These birds are found along
the whole of the Himalayan range and its eastward extensions to
China in the north, and further south in the mountains of the
Malay Peninsula, Java, Sumatra, and Borneo. They form, says
Mr. Elwes (Jbis, 1872, p. 251) “a conspicuous feature in Himalayan
scenery, being usually found either singly or in pairs flitting from
rock to rock by the side of the most rapid torrents.” They are
said to build a large nest, placed under a stone or fallen ‘tree close
to the water, and their eggs are of a dull greenish-white freckled
with rusty brown.

FORTY-SPOT, the name in Tasmania, to which the species is
peculiar, of Pardalotus quadraginta (DIAMOND-BrrD).

FOSSIL BIRDS.! Footprints or casts of footprints, at the time of

their in pehpre) and long afterwards, supposed to be those of Birds, were
in or be Shir c
found #heet the year 1835 in the Triassic sandstone of the valley
of the Connecticut in New England, and were described by Messrs.
exter : 5 =

Deane and, Marsh. Sabsequontty Prof. Hitchcock and Mr. Warren
contributed to the elucidation of these tracks, which were ascribed
to various genera of the Class that received the names of Amblonyz,
Argozoum, Brontozoum, Grallator, Ornithopus, Platypterna, Tridentipes,
and others. No portion of any of the animals to which these traces
are due seems to have been met with,” and most American palee-
ontologists are now inclined to attribute them rather to Dinosaurian
Reptiles than to Birds. Whatever may be thought of the rest, it
appears that the creatures designated as Platypterna and Tridentipes
were certainly not ornithic. Brontozoum must have been a colossal

Henicurvus. (After Swainson.)

1 JT am obliged to my friend Mr. Lydekker for this article, which, though
founded upon one that appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica, has been by
him so entirely remodelled, that he may be considered its sole author.—A. N.

2 The only known bones from this deposit were exhibited by Prof. W. B.
Rogers at the first meeting of the British Association in Bath (Rep. Br. Ass. .
1864, Trans. Sect. p. 66). (Many other vemains trove this deposat nave been described by fof. Marsh)

278 FOSSLE BIRDS

animal, its footprint measuring nearly 17 inches in length and its
stride some 8 feet.

An enormous space of time separates these reputed Ornithich-
nites, as they are called, from the first undoubted fossil Bird. This

~made Khewn Pes . . .

was discovered in 1861 by Andreas Wagner in the lithographic
slate of Solenhofen in Bavaria, belonging to the Jurassic system, and
is commonly known by the name of Archwopterya,' though that of

Gryphosaurus was given by him to the original specimen now in the

SLAB WITH REMAINS OF ARCHAOPTERYX, from the original in the British Museum. Reduced.

British Museum, which remained unique until 1877, when a second,
now in the Museum of Berlin,? was found in the same locality.” Since

1 Hermann von Meyer had previously described a fossil feather from the
same formation, to the owner of which he gave this name. Its specific, generic,
not to say ordinal, identity with the creature whose remains were subsequently
found is of course problematical, but the received laws of nomenclature fully
justify the common usage.

2 W. Dames, Ueber Archxopteryx (Pal. Abhandl. Band. ii. Heft 3), Berlin:
1884; and Geol. Mag. 1884, p. 410.

° Future investigations may shew that the two specimens belong to distinct
species if not genera (cf. Seeley, Geol. May. 1881, p. 454).

FOSSTE BIRDS 279

these two specimens supplement one another in the parts that are
exposed, we can form a fair notion of what the animal was like.

PoRTION OF THE SAME SLAB, SHEWING THE EXTREMITY OF THE Birp’s Tait, Natural size.

About the size of a Rook, its most obvious peculiarity is a long
Lizard-like tail of 24 vertebree, from each of which springs a pair of
well-developed rectrices. The
bill was short and blunt; the
upper jaw being furnished with ;
13, and the lower with 3 teeth i
on each side, all implanted in
distinct sockets. The vertebrze
of the neck and back were
biconcave, the sternum seems
to have been keeled, and the AED
matius had 3 free digits. The Maver Anmanrrstton eerie ft
tibia and fibula do not coal-

esce, and the former was furnished with a series of feathers
very similar to those of the tail.1_ Though presenting many

1 J, Evans, On Portions. . . of the Archxopteryx. London: 1881.

280 POSSI. "BIRDS:

Reptilian features which cannot be here noticed, few zoologists
since Sir R. Owen’s description of the original specimen (Phil. Trans.
1863, p. 33) have
hesitated to accept
Archxopteryz as a
Bird ; but to suggest
anything of its more
immediate affinities
or habits were vain,
except that the form
of its feet indicates
a more or less ar-
boreal mode of life.
It is not easy to un-
derstand the use of
the singular _ tail,
which appears a clumsy appendage—a notion which is perhaps
justified by the certainty that such tails had disappeared in the
birds next known to have existed.?

These belong to the Cretaceous epoch, and since (with the
exception of the Wealden) freshwater deposits of that age are rare
in Europe, true ornithic remains are there uncommon. Many bones
formerly referred to Birds have since proved to belong to Pterodac-
tyls, and among them Cimoliornis from the English Chalk, Cretornis
from that of Bohemia, and the so-called Palxornis? of the Sussex
Wealden. But in 1858 Barrett discovered in the Upper Green-
sand of Cambridgeshire remains described by Professor Seeley in
1866 (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, xviil. p. 100) under the
preoccupied name Pelagornis,? but in 1867 renamed Enaliornis
(Index to Aves and Rep. Camb. Mus.; Q. Journ. Geol. Soc. xxxil.
p- 509). These indicate a bird apparently allied to Colymbus, and
not improbably to Hesperornis, of which more presently. Prof.
Dames (K. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Handl. Bihang, xvi. pt. 4, No. 1) has
described some remains from the Chalk of Southern Sweden under
the name of Scaniornis, resembling those of Palzxlodus, to be again
mentioned. From the Cretaceous rocks of North America, a much
larger number of Bird-fossils have been described by Prof. Marsh,
by whom they are referred to seven genera—A patornis, Baptornis,

WING-BONES OF ARCHZOPTERYX. (After Vogt.)

ec, Carpus ; h, Humerus; 2, m, Metacarpals; 7, Radius ;
u, Ulna; 1, 2, 3, first, second, and third Digits.

1 Certain remains from the Upper Jurassic of Wyoming being regarded as
ornithic have received the name Laopteryx from Prof. Marsh (Am. Journ. Sci.
ser. 8, xxi. p. 341), but in the absence of full description and figures our judg-
ment may be suspended.

2 Mantell, Medals of Creation, ed. 2, p. 804 (1844)—not to be confounded with
Palxornis, Vigors, a Parrakeet—and = Pterodactylus clifti, Bronn, Ind. Pal. p. 895.

3 This name had already been given by Lartet (Comptes Rendus, 1857, p. 740)
to a different fossil noticed below.

_————

FOSSIL BIRDS 281
Graculavus, Palxotringa, Telmatornis, Hesperornis, and Ichthyornis.
The last two—occurring in the Cretaceous Shales of Kansas—are
placed by him in a distinct “Subclass” of Birds, ODONTORNITHES.}
The affinities of the others can scarcely yet be determined. Baptornis
seems to be allied to Enaliornis ; Graculavus in the first notice was
referred to the STEGANOPODES; and Palzotringa and Telmatornis
respectively to the LimicoL@ and fallidz ; it is, however, highly
probable that all were toothed. Laornis, from the Cretaceous Marls
of New Jersey, was as large as a Swan.

The Lower Eocene furnishes still more Ornitholites. First in
point of size are those of Gastornis, found by M. Gaston Planté and
soon after by M. Herbert in a conglomerate below the Plastic Clay
(Woolwich beds) of Bas-Meudon. It has lately been recognized by
Dr. V. Lemoine in beds of nearly the same age at Rheims, and by
Mr. E. T. Newton in England near Croydon (Trans. Zool. Soc. xii.
p- 143). Much difference of opinion has obtained as to the affinities
of this bird, which was far larger than an Ostrich, but it was
certainly incapable of flight, and was probably one of the Latitx.
The owner of an imperfect cranium from the London Clay, for
which Sir R. Owen (Z7ans. Zool. Soc. vii. p. 145) proposed the
name Dasornis, as well as Prof. Cope’s Diatryma (Proc. Ac. N. 8.
Philad. 1876, p. 11) seem to have been other members of the same
group. LPhororhacos and Brontornis, giant-birds,? from the Lower
Tertiary of South America should also be named here. The
London Clay of Sheppey has likewise supplied some long but
broken humeri, described by Sir R. Owen (Q. Journ. Geol. Soc.
xxxly. p. 129) as Argillornis, whose nearest affinities seem to lie
with the Steganopodes, and not, as had been supposed, with the
Diomedeidx (ALBATROS), especially if a skull from the same deposits
be rightly referred. To the same bird belong, apparently, remains
described under the preoccupied names of Lithornis and Megalornis ;
and from the same locality the zoologist last-named has also added
(op. cit. xxix. p. 511) a yet more remarkable bird in the Odontopteryx
toliapica, the edges of whose jaws were serrated like those of
certain Tortoises, but the general character was Steganopodous,
with a similar division of the horny sheath of the mandible into
several pieces. A small skull, also from Sheppey, was described by
him as Halcyornis, and regarded as allied to the KINGFISHER, but it
seems more nearly related to the GULLS, further evidence to this
effect being afforded by an undoubtedly Larine humerus probably
belonging to the genus described. The equivalent beds at High-
gate have supplied the sternum of a Heron-like bird, for which
the name Proherodius has been suggested by the writer; a tarso-

1 Am. Journ. Sci. ser. 3, x. p. 403.
2 See Mercerat and Moreno, An. Mus. La Plata, i. (1891), and Ameghino,
Revist. Argent. Hist. Nat. i. pp. 441-453.

282 FOSSIL BIRDS

metatarsus from the London Clay near St. James’s Park confirming
its Ardeine relationship. Several associated bones of a bird from
Sheppey were described by Sir R. Owen as Lithornis and provision-

Remains OF Heap or Odontopteryz, from the original in the British Museum. Side view.
2 natural size.

THE SAME, seen from above,

ally referred to the Accipitres. The shale of Plattenberg at Glarus
has produced the skeleton of a bird probably belonging to the
Passeres, and called by Von Meyer Pro-
tornis, but since renamed Osteornis by M.
Gervais.

The bird-bones of the Upper Eocene
of the Paris Basin deserve fuller notice.
First brought to light towards the end
of the last century, many of the remains
fell under the notice of Cuvier, by whom
they were more or less exactly determined.
Following his investigations, the labours
of MM. Gervais, Blanchard, and Desnoyers
added considerably to our knowledge of these ornitholites, till
finally Prof. A. Milne-Kdwards,! having compared all the specimens,

THE SAME, Seen from behind.

‘TI cannot let the name of this distinguished naturalist pass without
acknowledging the very many tokens of friendship received at his hands in connce-
tion with the present subject. His magnificent work on the Fossil Birds of France
is known to all, and together with his article on Fossil Ornithology, in the second
edition of D’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire wniverselle a’histoire naturelle, has been of

FOSSIL, BIRDS. 283

referred them to the genera Agnopterus, Coturniz, Cryptornis, Falco,
Gypsornis, Laurillardia, Limosa, Palxgithalus, Palxocircus, Palzxortyz,
Pelidna, Phalacrocorar, Rallus, and (?) Tringa. Of these the extinct
genera are the first, which was probably distantly allied to the
Flamingos; the third, believed to be a Hornpitt (A. Milne-
Edwards, Ois. Foss. Fr. 11. p. 547); the fifth a Ralline form; the sixth
now shewn to be allied to Hartlaubia of Madagascar ;1 the eighth
(originally identified with Sita) probably connecting Parus (Tir-
MOUSE) and Sylvia (WARBLER); and the ninth and tenth re-
spectively referable to the Accipitres and the Gallinw. The
equivalent beds of Hordwell in Hampshire have yielded remains
of several birds,” including an Accipitrine, Actiornis, Agnopterus (?),
Colymboides, Elornis (2), Geranopsis, Girus, Ibidopsis, of which the
second being allied to the Cormorants, the fifth to the Cranes,
and the last to the Ibises, are peculiar to these deposits. The
third, fourth, and fifth, are mentioned below. Nothing can be
said as to the affinities of the bone from the same beds described
as Macrornis by Prof. Seeley. Gus (Palxogrus) also occurs in the
Italian Eocene. The Marl beds of Aix in Provence, belonging to
this epoch, have yielded fossil eggs and feathers, but as yet no
bones of Birds; and to the same period must probably also be
assigned the lacustrine calcareous deposits of Armissan, in
Languedoc, whence M. Gervais recovered remains originally
referred to Tetrao (GROUSE), but subsequently to a distinct though
allied genus Yaoperdiz. The bird-bones of the Upper Eocene
Phosphorites of Central France, although numerous, have as yet
been only partially described. They include remains of Passeres,
Picarix, and Accipitres, together with Palxortyz, the Stork-like
Propelargus, and Avgialornis, the last being apparently allied to the
Gulls, but with a shorter wing. From the Eocene of Wyoming
Prof. Marsh (dm. Journ. Sci. ser. 3, iv. p. 256) has described five
birds varying in size from a Flamingo to a Woodcock, all of which
are referred to an extinct genus Alefornis, presumably allied to the
Gruidx (CRANE). Remains referred to Bubo and Charadrius, as well
as the extinct Uintornis, referred to the Picide (WOODPECKER) and
Palxospiza, have likewise been obtained from the Eocene of the
United States. Our list of birds of this epoch closes with Palxeu-
dyptes, a giant PENGUIN from New Zealand described by Prof.
Huxley (Q. Journ. Geol. Soc. xv. p. 670).

The freshwater beds of Hempstead in the Isle of Wight, as
well as those of Ronzon near Puy-en-Velay, form a transition from

the greatest use in preparing the present summary. To Prof. Seeley also I have
owed much assistance.—A. N.

1 See Flot, Mém. Soc. Géol. France, Pal. i. fasc. 6.

* These, together with some of the ornitholites of the Phosphorites, are de-
seribed in the Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus. 1891.

284 FOSSIL BIRDS

the Upper Eocene to the Lower Miocene. ‘The coracoid from the
former described by Prof. Seeley (Ann. and Mag. N. H. ser. 3, xviii.
p- 109) as Ptenornis cannot be definitely placed. From the Marls
of Ronzon several ornitholites have been recognized by M. Aymard,
who refers them to the genera Camascelus, Dolichopterus, Hlornis
(3 spp.), and Zeracus. Of these the first was declared to be allied
to the Plovers (Charadriidx), the second to the Gulls, the third to
the Flamingos, and the fourth to be a Falconine; but Prof.
Milne-Edwards considers the first and second to be probably
identical. From the same beds M. Gervais has described eggs and
imprints of feathers, as well as a pelvis, referred by him to Mergus,
but regarded by M. Milne-Edwards as a Sula. This naturalist has
also described from the typical Lower Miocene beds of Allier and
Puy-de-Déme an enormous number of ornitholites (loc. cit.), referring
them to nearly 50 species. Besides the already-mentioned
Palzxortyz (3 spp.), Limnatornis, Palxohierax, Pelargopsis,: Ibidopodia,
Elornis, Palzlodus, Hydrornis, and Colymboides, are the extinct genera
described by him ; to which the writer (Cat. Foss. B. Br. Mus. p. 169)
has added Milnea. Of these the second is referred to the Upupidx
(Hoopor); Palxohierar was allied to Aquila; Pelargopsis! was
StorK-like; while Jbidopodia connects the Storks and _ Ibises ;
Milnea being allied to Zdicnemus (Stone-CURLEW) and Llornis to
Limicola. The remarkable Palxlodus (5 spp.) was a generalized
form to which the FLAMINGO is allied, but having shorter legs.
Hydrornis was an aquatic bird of uncertain affinity ; while Colymboides
may be placed in the Colymbidx. The existing genera include Anas,
Aquila, Bubo, Collocalia, Columba, Cypselus, Fuligula, Ibis, Lanius,
Larus, Milvus, Motacilla, Pelecanus, Phalacrocorax, Phenicopterus,
Picus, Psittacus, Pterocles, Rallus, Serpentarius, Strix, Sula, Totanus,
Tringa, and above all Trogon. In addition to these, remains (as yet
undescribed) referable to Himantopus, Leptoptilus, Otis, and Puffinus,
are also said to occur in these beds. Several of the birds of the
Allier are represented in equivalent deposits of the basin of Mainz.
From the Middle Miocene of Bordeaux and other parts of the
south of France humeri of an elongated type, described as
Pelagornis, indicate a bird closely allied to the Eocene drgillornis.
From that of Sansan in the Gers we have as extinct forms
Homolopus, allied to the Picidx, Necrornis, which seems to belong
to the Musophagide—a Family now limited co Africa—and Palao-
perdix (3 spp.) a Gallinacean ; while among existing genera we have
represented Aquila, Halixtus, Strix, Corvus, Phasianus (2 spp.)—a
genus generally supposed to have been introduced into Europe in
historic times—Rallus, Numenius, Ardea, and Anas. The same
Phasianus and a species of Palxortyx have been recorded by Dr.
Depéret from the equivalent beds of Grive-St.-Alban in the Isére ;
1 This name being preoccupied, the writer has proposed Pelargodes in its place.

FOSSIL BIRDS 285

while from Steinheim and other places in Bavaria we have several
kinds of birds recorded by Dr. Oscar Fraas,! and the writer (loc.
cit.) These include Anas, Ardea, Elornis, Ibis, Larus, Otis, Palx-
lodus, and Pelecanus. Anas apparently has also been recorded by
Count T. Salvadori (Mem. Acc. Torino, ser. 2, xxiv. p. 225) from the
Middle Miocene of Monte Bamboli in Italy; while Chenornis
described by Prof. Portis (op. cit. xxxvi. art. 3, p. 6) from other
Miocene beds of Ceva, in the same country, may belong to the
Anseres. From the Miocene of Radaboj, in Croatia, the foot of a
bird has been assigned by Hermann von Meyer to Fringilla; while
a humerus from that of Germany has been made the type of the
genus Ardeucites by Haushalter, being apparently allied to the
Herons. From the Upper Miocene of iningen, on the border of
Baden and Switzerland, we have remains of Anas, Anser, Phasianus,
and Yotanus. In the Miocene of Colorado and New Jersey Prof.
Marsh has detected bones of Meleagris, Puffinus, Sula, and Uria, all
existing genera; but the first being especially suggestive, since it
is one of the most characteristic forms of the New World.

The Pliocene ornitholites, possibly from less favourable con-
ditions for their preservation, are less numerous than those of the
Miocene. From Pikermi in Attica Prof. Gaudry has described a
Gallus, somewhat larger than G. sonnerati (the grey Jungle-FowL of
India), a Phasianus, a large Grus, and an undetermined Stork.
Amphipelargus of the present writer (Cat. Foss. B. Br. Mus. p. 68)
is a large Stork from the equivalent beds of Samos. From the
Sivalik Hills, on the southern flanks of the Himalayas, we have a
Struthio (OSTRICH) and a Ratite with three toes, to which he has
given (op. cit. p. 354) the name of Hypselornis, as well as Leptoptilus,
Pelecanus and Phalacrocorax. The fossil egg of a bird, called
Struthiolithus by Prof. Alexander Brandt (Bull. Ac. Sc. Pétersb.
xvill. pp. 158-161; Jbis, 1874, p. 4), and found near Cherson,
possibly belongs also to Struthio. Very noteworthy is the discovery
of Diomedea (ALBATROS) in the Suffolk Crag (Q. Journ. Geol. Soc.
xlili. p. 366). From the Upper Pliocene of the Val d’Arno Prof.
Portis has recorded Fuligula, Totanus, and Uria; but from that of
France the only well-determined form is a Gallus from Auvergne,
though traces of other birds have been noticed. From the Pliocene
of North America Prof. Marsh has described remains of Aquila,
Grus, and Phalacrocoraz; while others, among them a GROUSE,
Palxotetriz, are reported by Dr. Shufeldt.

By far the greater portion of the remains of Birds from the
Plistocene seem to be generically if not specifically identical with
those now inhabiting the district in which they occur, and it
must suffice here to mention those which shew a former range more
extensive than at present, or have become extinct, presumably with-

1 Die Fauna von Steinheim. Stuttgart: 1870,

286 FOSSTE BIRDS

out human intervention—those that are known to have met their fate
at the hand of man having been before treated (EXTERMINATION).

At an uncertain but (geologically speaking) recent epoch there
flourished in Madagascar huge birds referable to the /tatitz. The
first positive evidence of their former existence was made known
in 1851 by Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, who gave the name of
Aipyornis maximus to a species represented by an enormous egg
sent a short time before to Paris, and the discovery soon after of
some bones of corresponding magnitude proved to all but the
prejudiced the kinship of the producer of this wonderful specimen,
which not unnaturally recalls the Roc of Arabian romance.!_ Three
species of the genus have now been characterized from remains
found in the drifted sands of the southern part of that island.

Next we may turn to our antipodes. In New Zealand Birds’
bones of gigantic size seem to have been first made known in 1838
by Polack, who resided there between 1831 and 1837, and in 1839
the fragment of one was placed by Mr. Rule in the hands of Sir R.
Owen, by whom it was described under the name of Dinoriis, as will
be elsewhere found mentioned (Moa). In the same formations as
those which hold the relics of this wonderful bird and its allies,
have been found, but less abundantly,remains of others scarcely less
remarkable, Pseudapteryx, near akin to the Ktwr; and, belonging to
the Carinatx, there is Harpagornis, a Bird-of-Prey of stature sufficient
to make the largest Dinornis its quarry, then Cnemiornis, a big
Goose, flightless, and allied to CEREOPSIS, together with <Aptornis
and Notornis, both also incapable of flight and belonging to the
Rallidx (RAIL), and the latter still maintaining its existence in the
mountainous tract at the south-west of the South Island. Here
also must be mentioned the Australian Dromornis, which indicates
a distinct group of LRatite (Cat. Foss. B. Br. Mus. p. 35), and Pro-
goura, allied to the Crowned Pigeons (GOURA).

A great number of Birds’ bones have been discovered in caves.
Those of Minas Gerdes in Brazil yielded to the laborious explora-
tions of Lund a vast collection now in Copenhagen, which has been
described by the late Dr. O. Winge (Fugle fra Knoglehuler 1 Brasilien,
Kjébenhavn: 1887, 4to), who determined at least 126 species, of
which all but three (and those of existing genera) survive, though
some two dozen no longer inhabit the district. Results more im-
portant follow the investigation of cave-bones in Europe. From
France we have a large and extinct species of Crane, Grus primi-

1 Sir Henry Yule well remarked of the story of the Roc, Rue, or Rukh, as told
by Marco Polo, that the circumstance which for the time localized it in Mada-
gascar—the fable being widely spread—was perhaps some rumour of these great
fossil eggs. Some of the Malagasy are reputed to believe that the bird still
exists, but as they also attribute to it great power of flight, the belief must be
an invention (cf. The Book of Ser Marco Polo, ii. p. 350).—A. N.

FOSSIL (BIRDS 287
gemia, with which the Italian G. turfu is probably identical ; but
more interesting than that are the very numerous relics of two
species, the concomitants even now of the Reindeer, which were
abundant in that country when this beast flourished there and have
followed it in its northward retreat. There are the Willow-GRoUSE,
Lagopus albus,}and the Snowy Owl, Nyctea scandiaca—a single bone
of the latter, found in the historic deposits of Kent’s Hole near
Torquay, giving indication that a similar state of things once
existed in our island, while yet another fact quite as suggestive is
afforded by the recognition of many bones of the CAPERCALLY,
Tetrao urogallus, from caves explored by the late Messrs. Backhouse
in Teesdale, as well as from Kent’s Hole by the present writer.?

It is not a little singular that remains of the species last men-
tioned have also been found in another country which it now no
longer inhabits and under circumstances very different; for the
next ancient Birds’ bones that have to be mentioned are those from
the kitchen-middens of Denmark, among which occur those of this
bird, shewing the co-existence with it of pine-forests in that country,
though on other evidence it is plain that such forests cannot have
existed there for many centuries. Bones of the GARE-FOWL, Alca
impennis, found in the same deposits perhaps do not prove more
than that the surrounding seas, though cold, were free from ice in
the summer-time. The Birds’ remains hitherto recovered from the
ruins of the Swiss lake-dwellings are all of species which now occur
more or less commonly in the same neighbourhoods, and are there-
fore of comparatively little interest.

On the other hand, the Fens of East Anglia have yielded proofs
of a form now extinct not only in England but even in Northern
Europe. ‘This is the Pelican, of which two humeri, one from
Norfolk and the other most likely from the Isle of Ely, are pre-
served in the Museums of Cambridge. Whether the species
be identical with either of those now inhabiting the South of
Europe, it was undoubtedly a true Pelecanus, and apparently only
differed from P. onocrotalus by its larger size. The immature condi-
tion of one of the specimens leads to the inference that the bird
was a native of the locality.

To sum up this brief survey of our present imperfect knowledge
of Fossil Birds, it may suffice to state that nearly all the Plistocene
species still survive, at least on continents, for the exceptions lie

1 T am not aware of any difference between the bones of ZL. albus and L.
scoticus. It may well be that those from the caves of Teesdale, and naturally
ascribed to the iatter, may be those of the former, in which case the identity of
conditions once obtaining in England and France could be more clearly made
out ; but Reindeer remains are rare in this country.—A. N.

2 A bone from the Forest-bed of Norfolk is provisionally referred to a young
example of this species (Cat. Foss. B. Br. Mus. p. 133),

288 FOSSIL, BIRDS

chiefly in forms confined to islands; and this is a result in full
accordance with that already attained in the foregoing treatise on
EXTERMINATION. In Europe a not very remote glacial epoch
has left its indubitable trace in the former southerly extension of
some forms whose home is now in more northern districts. The
comparatively-few known Pliocene Birds are mostly referable to
existing genera, though the majority of the species are extinct ;
but in the Lower Miocene we meet with a considerable number of
extinct genera; while, both here and in the Upper Eocene, the
occurrence in Europe of genera either identical with or nearly
allied to those which now inhabit only the tropics or lands lying
even further to the southward is particularly instructive. Some
of them are at present peculiar to the Ethiopian Region, and among
these are especially to be noted Laurillardia, Psittacus (PARROT), and
Serpentarius (SECRETARY-BIRD), With perhaps Cryptornis—a supposed
HoRNBILL, and Necrornis—referred to the PLANTAIN-EATER.
Others have their modern representatives in Asia, as Gallus
and Phasianus; while others again have now a still wider range,
though no longer occurring anywhere in the temperate zones,
as Collocalia (Swirt), Leptoptilus (ADJUTANT), and, perhaps most
suggestive of all, TRoGON, for the Family to which it belongs,
though inhabiting both the Ethiopian and Indian Regions, is now
more largely developed in the Neotropical Regions than elsewhere.
This last case is in some measure analogous to that of the Tapiridx
among Mammals, though no African Tapir is known. But in a
general way all the lessons which Fossil Ornithology so far teaches
seem to be in perfect harmony with what we learn from a study
of Fossil Mammals; and, when palzontologists generally come to
admit the fact, which some of their leaders have long since recog-
nized,! that their study, though one of infinitely great meaning to
the geologist, is but a branch of Zoology, no one can doubt of
the valuable results that will follow from their co-operation.
But letting this pass, it is important to notice that already
in the Lower Miocene, if not in the Upper Eocene periods,
there is sufficient evidence to shew that many of the chief groups
of Birds as we now know them had been already established, and

1 The views of the elder Agassiz on this point are notorious ; those of Prof.
Alphonse Milne-Edwards were declared prior to the publication of his great
work, which itself is a perpetual witness of their truth. Prof. Huxley many
years ago in a speech, which though never fully reported is well remembered
by some of those who heard it, most rightly asserted that ‘‘ Paleontology is
simply the biology of the past; and a fossil animal differs only in this regard
from a stuffed one, that the one has been dead longer than the other, for ages
instead of for days” (Jbis, 1866, p. 418). The present petrified condition of
some geologists requires a life-imparting impulse, and they—be it said with all
due respect—need bringing into touch with those who would gladly accept their
assistance or even their guidance.—A. N,

FOUR-O’CLOCK—FOWL 289

perhaps it will eventually shew that nearly all were! It is also
worth remembering that it was during these epochs that the Ratitz
(just as the Marsupials among Mammals) were represented in the
European Fauna. In the Cretaceous period we come to Birds
differing very widely from existing forms, and apparently indicat-
ing distinct Ordinal groups, while the two known Jurassic specimens
clearly belong to a distinct Subclass—SAURUR&.
RICHARD LYDEKKER.

FOUR-O’CLOCK, one of several names given in Australia to
Philemon corniculatus (FRIAR-BIRD).

FOWL (Danish Fugl, German Vogel), originally used in the
sense that BIRD now is, but, except in composition—as Sea-Fowl,
Wild-Fowl, and the like—practically almost confined? at present
to designate the otherwise nameless species which struts on our
dunghills, gathers round our barn-doors, and stocks our poultry-
yards—the type of the genus Gallus of ornithologists, of which
four well-marked species are known. The first of these is the Red
Jungle-Fowl of the greater part of India, G. ferrugineus—called by
many writers G. bankiva—which is almost undoubtedly the parent
stock of all the domestic races (cf. Darwin, Animals and Plants
under Domestication, 1. pp. 233-246). It inhabits Northern India
from Sindh to Burma and Cochin China, as well as the Malay
Peninsula and many of the islands as far as Timor, besides the
Philippines. It occurs on the Himalayas up to the height of
4000 feet, and its southern limits in the west of India proper are, ee
according to Jerdon, found on the Raj-peepla hills to the south of <7 e hills (s
the Nerbudda, and in the east near the left bank of the Godavery, «ereess
or perhaps even further, as he had heard of its being killed at
Cummum. ‘This species greatly resembles in plumage what is
commonly known among poultry-fanciers as the “ Black-breasted
Game” breed, and this is said to be especially the case with
examples from the Malay countries, between which and examples
from India some differences are observable—the latter having the
plumage less red, the ear-lappets almost invariably white, and
slate-coloured legs, while in the former the ear-lappets are crimson,
like the comb and wattles, and the legs yellowish. If the Malayan
_ birds be considered distinct, it is to them that the name G. bankiva
properly applies. This species is said to be found in lofty forests
and in dense thickets, as well as in ordinary bamboo-jungles, and
when cultivated land is near its haunts, it may be seen in the fields

1 The graphic representations given by Professor Fiirbringer in his great
work, Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der Vogel (plates xxix. A
and B, xxx.), make this very clear to the eye.—A. N.

2 Like Deer (Danish Dyr, German Thier). Beast, too, with some men has
almost attained as much specialization.

19

290 FOWL

after the crops are cut in straggling parties of from 10 to 20. The
crow to which the cock gives utterance morning and evening is
described as being just like that of a BANTAM, but never prolonged
as in some domestic birds. The hen breeds from January to July,
according to the locality; and lays from 8 to 12 creamy-white
eggs, occasionally scraping together a few leaves or a little dry
grass by way of a nest. The so-called G. giganteus, formerly taken
by some ornithologists for a distinct species, is now regarded as a
tame breed of @. ferrugineus or bankiva. The second good species is
the Grey Jungle-Fowl, G. sonnerati, whose range begins a little to
the northward of the limits of the preceding, and it occupies the
southern part of the Indian peninsula, without being found else-
where. The cock has the shaft of the neck-hackles dilated, forming
a horny plate, the terminal portion of which is lke a drop of
yellow sealing-wax. His call is said to be very peculiar, being a
broken and imperfect kind of crow, quite unlike that of G. ferru-
gineus, and impossible, says Jerdon, to describe. The two species,
where their respective ranges overlap, occasionally interbreed in a
wild state, and the present readily crosses in confinement with
domestic poultry, but the hybrids are nearly always sterile. The
third species is the Cingalese Jungle-Fowl, G. stanley: (the G. lafay-
ettii of some authors), peculiar to Ceylon. This also greatly
resembles in plumage some domestic birds, but the cock is red
beneath, and has a yellow comb with a red edge, and purplish-red
cheeks and wattles. He has also a singularly different voice, his
crow being dissyllabic. This bird crosses readily with tame hens,
but the hybrids are said to ke infertile. The fourth species,
G. varius (the G. furcatus of some authors),
inhabits Java and the islands eastwards
as far as Flores. This differs remarkably
from the others in not possessing hackles,
and in having a large unserrated comb
of red and blue, and only a single chin-
wattle. The predominance of green in
its plumage is another easy mark of
distinction. | Hybrids between _ this
species and domestic birds are often
produced, but they are most commonly sterile. Some of them
have been mistaken for distinct species, as those which have received
the names of G. xneus and G. temminck.

Several circumstances seem to render it likely that Fowls were
first domesticated in Burma or the countries adjacent thereto, and
it is the tradition of the Chinese that they received their poultry
from the West about the year 1400 B.c. By the Institutes of
Manu, the date of which is variously assigned from 1200 to
800 B.c., the tame Fowl is forbidden, though the wild is allowed

GALLUS VARIUS. (After Swainson.)

FRANCOLIN 291

to be eaten—shewing that its domestication was accomplished
when they were written. The bird is not mentioned in the Old
Testament nor by Homer, though he has ‘AXéxrwp (Cock) as the
name of a man, nor is it figured on ancient Egyptian monuments.
Pindar mentions it, and Aristophanes calls it the Persian bird, thus
indicating it to have been introduced to Greece through Persia,
and it is figured on Babylonian cylinders between the 6th and 7th
centuries B.C. It is sculptured on the Lycian marbles in the
British Museum (circa 600 B.c.), and Blyth remarks (bis, 1867,
p. 157) that it is there represented with the appearance of a true
Jungle-Fowl, for none of the wild Galli: have the upright bearing of
the tame breeds, but carry their tail in a drooping position.

FRANCOLIN, from the French, and that, says Littré, from the
Italian Francolino, which others think is cognate with the Portuguese
Frango or Frangiio, a cockerel; but according to Olina,! in 1622
(Uccelliera, p. 33), whose opinion is confirmed by Count T. Salvadori in
1887 (Elenco Uce. Ital. p. 198), signifying, as Willughby’s translator
indeed has it (Ornithol. ed. Angl. p. 174), a “Free Fowl”, because
princes granted it freedom of living, common people being for-
bidden to take it. This explanation, had not the accomplished
Italian author last named given his adhesion to it, might be justly
set aside ; but he has suggested that the species was not improbably
introduced in the time of the Crusades from Cyprus into Sicily, an
opinion not shared by Prof. Giglioli (Avifaun. Ital. p. 515). How-
ever this may be matters little now, for by all accounts, as first
shewn by Lord Lilford (Jdis, 1862, pp. 352-356), the species is,
and has been for some time past, extinct in every part of Italy,
though the cause of its extinction may be inexplicable. The word
Francolin seems to have been first used as English in 1757 by
Edwards (Glean. N. H. i. p. 75, pl. 246), who figured a male from
Cyprus. The species is the Tetrao francolinus of Linneus, and
- Francolinus vulgaris of Stephens. The evidence adduced by Lord
Lilford shews that it was once numerous in Spain, and in Barbary,
from Tangier to Tunis, as well as in Sardinia, Sicily, Italy, and
Greece, but its most western limit must now be Cyprus, and even
there, he thinks (Jbis, 1889, p. 335), it is probably “doomed to
extinction.” Mr. Danford also states (Dresser, B. Hur. vii. p. 124) that
it seems “to be fast disappearing in Asia Minor.” It, however,
ranges thence through Armenia, Persia, and Beluchistan to
Northern India, where it is well known to the English as the
“ Black Partridge,” from the colour of the throat and breast of the
cock. In Southern India it is replaced by an allied species,

1 His words are: “Credesi con l’allusione alla franchezza de viuer, che ha
rispetto alle bandite, e rigorosi editti, che per conto di quello da Prencipi si
fanno,””

292 FRENCH PIE—FRIAR-BIRD

F. pictus. Specimens from Assam are said to be specifically
identical with those from Cyprus. More than forty species of the
genus (the several subdivisions of which may be questioned) have
been described, a number probably far in excess of those that
exist ; but still there are undeniably a good many—most of them
belonging to the Ethiopian Region, and no fewer than ten being
found within the limits of the Cape Colony, /. levaillanti, the
“Redwing” of English settlers, being especially numerous. They
are all attractive to sportsmen.

FRENCH PIE, given by Montagu in 1802 (Orn. Dict.) as a
local name of Lanius excubitor (SHRIKE), but much more commonly
applied to one or other of the Pied WoopprEcKERS, Dendrocopus
major especially.

FRIAR-BIRD, an Australian species, so called from early
colonial days, and not inaptly, considering its bare head, the
semblance of a hood about its shoulders, formed by a ruff of soft
recurved feathers, and the sad hue of its plumage. According to
Latham (Synops. B. Suppl. i. p. 151) it was first brought to Eng-
land by Banks, who returned with Cook in 1771, but it was not
described until 1790, when it received the name of Merops corni-
culatus from Latham (Ind. Orn. i. p. 276), and “ Knob-fronted Bee-
Eater” from John White (Voy. NV. South Wales, p. 190), who also
figured it. That it was no BEE-EATER, but one of the Meliphagide
(HONEY-EATER), became in time apparent, and Vigors and Horsfield
(Trans. Linn. Soc. xv. p. 323) founded for it a new genus, J’ropido-
rhynchus, not knowing that Vieillot had anticipated them in 1816
(Nouv. Anal. p. 47) by the establishment of Philemon with a species
strictly congeneric as its type. This is the “ Polochion” of Mont-
beillard (Hist. Nat. Ois. vi. p. 477) found by Commerson ? in Bouru,
one of the Moluccas, and hence named by Gmelin Merops moluccensis.
It was subsequently redescribed by Mr. Wallace (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1863, p. 31, and Malay Archipelago, ti. p. 151) as a new species,
Tropidorhynchus bourouensis, and mention of it must be elsewhere
made (Mimicry). Dr. Gadow in 1884 (Cat. B. Br. Mus. ix. pp.
269-281) recognized 16 species, with two subspecies, of the genus
Philemon, to which another has since been added by Mr. E. P.
Ramsay, making, according to the latter’s views, six? which inhabit

1 Commerson had said that the word Polochion, which expressed the cry and
was the name of the bird, signified ‘‘ baisons-nous,” and hence proposed to call it
Philemon or Philedon. Vieillot, as above stated, adopted the one, Cuvier, a year
later, the other.

2 In this number is not included the Merops monachus of Latham (Ind. Orn.
Suppl. p. 84), for that is the young of Philemon corniculatus ; but it is in con-
nexion with this supposed species that the name ‘‘ Friar” first appears (Synops.
B. Suppl. ii. p. 155).

FRIGATE-BIRD 293

Australia, while the rest are natives of various islands from Lom-
bock to New Caledonia. With their stout bill, mostly surmounted
by a horny excrescence, and their head and
neck frequently bare of feathers and black,
these birds seem to be the most abnormal
forms of the Family Meliphagide. The com-
monest species in Australia, which is found
from Rockingham Bay to Victoria, is, accord-
ing to Gould (Handb. B. Austral. i. p. 546),
generally dispersed, and may be seen perching on the top of high
trees, or clinging to their branches in every variety of attitude,
being also of ‘powerful flight, and attacking boldly every predatory
bird that may approach. Its loud cries have given it the additional
names of “Poor Soldier,” “ Pimlico,” and Four. o'clock,” which
words they are thought to resemble, while its naked head and
neck have also suggested those of “Monk” and ‘“ Leather-head.”
The other species seem to have similar habits, and the plumage of
all is of an almost uniform drab colour, though the young exhibit
more or less of a yellow tinge on some parts of it. Several of
them, however, have the head feathered.

FRIGATE-BIRD, the name apparently first printed by Albin
in 1739-40 (Nat. Hist. B. iii. p. 75), but now commonly given by
our sailors, on account of the swiftness of its flight, its habit of
cruising about near other species and of daringly pursuing them, to
a large Sea-bird‘—the Fregata aquila of most ornithologists—the
Frégate of French and the Labihorcado of Spanish mariners. It was
placed by Linneus in the genus Pelecanus, and its assignment to
the Family Pelecanide was never doubted until Prof. Mivart declared
(Trans. Zool. Soc. x. p. 364) that, as regards the postcranial part of
its axial skeleton, he cannot detect sufficiently good. ¢ pears to
unite it with that Family in the group named by t
STEGANOPODES. There seems to be no ground for disputing this
decision so far as separating the genus Pregata from the Pelecanidx
goes; but systematists will probably pause before they proceed
to abolish the Steganopodes, and no doubt the Frigate -Birds
form a distinct Family, Fregatidx, in that group. In one very
remarkable way the osteology of Fregata differs from that of all
other birds known. The furcula coalesces firmly at its symphysis
with the carina of the sternum, and also with the coracoids at the
upper extremity of each of its rami, the anterior end of each cora-
coid coalescing also with the proximal end of the scapula. Thus
the only articulations in the whole sternal apparatus are where the

PHILEMON,
(After Swainson.)

1 “‘ Man-of-war-Bird” is also sometimes applied to it, and though an older it
is a less distinctive name, some of the larger kinds of Albatros being so called,
while, in books at least, it has generally passed out of use.

204 FRIGATE-BIRD

coracoids meet the sternum, and the consequence is a bony frame-
work which would be perfectly rigid did not the flexibility of the
rami of the furcula permit a limited amount of motion. That this
mechanism is closely related to the faculty which the bird possesses
of soaring for a considerable time in the air with scarcely a per-
ceptible movement of the wings can hardly be doubted, but the
particular way in which it works has yet to be explained.

Two species of /regata are considered to exist, though they
differ in little but size and geographical distribution. The larger,
F, aquila, has a wide range all round the world within the tropics,
and at times passes their limits. The smaller, F. minor, appears to
be confined to the eastern seas, from Madagascar to the Moluccas,
and southward to Australia, being particularly abundant in Torres
Strait,—the other species, however, being found there as well.
Having a spread of wing equal to a Swan’s and a comparatively
small body, the buoyancy of this bird is very great. It is a beau-
tiful sight to watch one or more of them floating overhead against
the deep blue sky, the long forked tail alternately opening and
shutting like a pair of scissors, and the head, which is of course
kept to windward, inclined from side to side, while the wings are
to all appearance fixedly extended, though the breeze may be con-
stantly varying in strength and direction. Equally fine is the
contrast afforded by these birds when engaged in fishing, or, as
seems more often to happen, in robbing other birds, especially
Boostks, as they are fishing. Then the speed of their flight is
indeed seen to advantage, as well as the marvellous suddenness
with which they can change their rapid course as their victim tries
to escape from their attack. Before gales Frigate-Birds are said
often to fly low, and their appearance near or over land, except at
their breeding-time, is supposed to portend a hurricane.! Generally
seen singly or in pairs, except when the prospect of prey induces
them to congregate, they breed in large companies, and Mr. Salvin
has graphically described (/bis, 1864, p. 375) one of their settle-
ments off the coast of British Honduras, which he visited in May
1862. Here they chose the highest mangrove-trees? on which to
build their frail nests, and seemed to prefer the leeward side. The
single egg laid in each nest has a white and chalky shell very like
that of a Cormorant’s. The nestlings are clothed in pure white
down, and so thickly as to resemble puff-balls. When fledged, the
beak, head, neck, and belly are white, the legs and feet bluish-white,
but the body is dark above. The adult females retain the white
beneath, but the adult males lose it, and in both sexes at maturity

1 Hence another of the names— ‘ Hurricane-Bird’ —by which this species is
occasionally known.

2 Capt. Taylor, however, found their nests as well on low bushes of the
same tree in the Bay of Fonseca (bis, 1889, pp. 150-152).

FROG-MOUTH—FULMAR 295

the upper plumage is of a very dark chocolate brown, nearly black,
with a bright metallic gloss, while the feet in the females are pink,
and black in the males—the last also acquiring a bright scarlet
pouch, capable of inflation, and being perceptible when on the
wing. The habits of F. minor seem wholly to resemble those of
F. aquila. According to Bechstein (Orn. Taschenb. pp. 393, 394),
an example of this last species was obtained at the mouth of the
Weser in the winter of 1792, and it has hence been included by
some ornithologists among European birds !

FROG-MOUTH, Jerdon’s rendering (B. Ind. i. p. 189), since
adopted by Anglo-Indian writers, of Gould’s Batrachostomus, a genus
which he instituted in 1838 (Lcones Avium, pt. ii.) for some NIGHT-
JARS, apparently allied to Podargus (MoREPORK), and found in
India and some parts of the Malay Archipelago.

FULFER, a corrupt form of FIELDFARE.

FULMAR, from the Gaelic Falmair or Fulmaire, the Fulmarus
glacialis of modern ornithologists, one of the largest of the Pro-
cellartidex (PETRELS) of the northern hemisphere, being about the
size of the Common Gull (Larus canus) and not unlike it in general
coloration, except that its primaries are grey instead of black.
This bird, which ranges over the North Atlantic, is seldom seen on
the European side below lat. 53° N., but on the American side
comes habitually to lat. 45°, or even lower. It has been commonly
believed to have two breeding-places in the British Islands,
namely, the group of islands collectively known as St. Kilda, and
South Barra; but, according to the late Mr. Robert Gray (B. WV.
Scotl. p. 499), it has abandoned the latter since 1844, while he was
assured of its now breeding in Skye.t Northward it established
itself about 1838 on Myggenzs Holm, one of the Feroes, while it
has several stations off the coast of Iceland and Spitsbergen, as
well as at Bear Island. Its range towards the pole seems to be
only bounded by open water, and it is the constant attendant upon
all who are employed in the whale- and seal-fisheries, shewing the
greatest boldness in approaching boats and ships, and feeding on
the offal obtained from them. By our seamen it is commonly
ealled the “ Molly Mawk” ? (corrupted from the Dutch Mallemugge),
and is extremely well known to them, its flight, as it skims over
the waves first with a few beats of the wings and then gliding for
a long way, being very peculiar. It only visits the land to deposit
its single white egg, which is laid on a rocky ledge, where a

1 Messrs. Harvie-Brown and Buckley (Vert. Faun. Out. Hebrid. p. 157)
mention a report of a settlement of the species having been effected in the
Flannan Islands, but proof of it is wanting. There is, however, reason to believe
that it breeds in North Rona.

2 A name misapplied in the southern hemisphere to some of the smaller
species of ALBATROS (see MALLEMUCK).

296 FURCULA—FURZE-CHAT

shallow nest is made in the turf and lined with a little dried grass.
Many of its breeding-places are a most valuable property to those
who live near them and take the eggs and young, which, from the
nature of the locality, are only to be had at a hazardous risk of
life. In St. Kilda it is said that from 18,000 to 20,000 young are
killed in one week of August, the only time when, by the custom
of the community, they are allowed to be taken. These, after the
oil is extracted from them, serve the islanders with food for the
winter. This oil, says Mr. Gray, having been chemically examined
by Mr. E. C. C. Stanford, was found to be a fish-oil and to possess
nearly all the qualities of that obtained from the liver of the cod,
with a lighter specific gravity. It, however, has an extremely
strong scent, which is said by some who have visited St. Kilda to
pervade every thing and person on the island, and is certainly
retained by an egg or skin of the bird for many years. Whenever
a live example is seized in the hand it ejects a considerable
quantity of this oil from its mouth. Though abounding in certain
seasons on the banks of Newfoundland, where, according to
Montagu (Suppl. Orn. Dict.), it was called by the fishermen “John
Down,” it seems to have no breeding-place on the east coast of
America, but it has several, which are thronged, on either side of
Baffin’s Bay. The Fulmar is said by Mr. Darwin (Origin of Species,
ed. 4, p. 78) to be the most numerous bird in the world; but on
whose authority the statement is made does not appear, and to
render it probable we should have to unite specifically with the
Atlantic bird, not only its Pacific representative, F. pacificus, which
some ornithologists deem distinct, but also that which replaces it
in the Antarctic seas and is considered by most authorities to be a
perfectly good species, /. glacialioides. The differences between
them are, however, exceedingly slight, and for Mr. Darwin’s
purpose on this particular occasion it matters little how they are
regarded. It is a more interesting question whether the statement
is anyhow true, but one that can hardly be decided yet.

FURCULA, a name for the two CLAVICLES when coalescent, as
generally is the case among Birds; in English commonly known
as the Merrythought or Wishbone.!| Some very peculiar forms of
the Furcula are presented in certain species of CRANE, GUINEA-FOWL,
and SWAN, chiefly adaptations to convolutions taken by the TRACHEA,
as well as in the FRIGATE-BIRD, HOACTZIN, and some others.

FURZE-CHAT, a name often given to the STONE-CHAT.

1 Cotgrave, in his Dictionary (1660), explains the former name as “ the forked
craw-bone of a bird which we use in sport to put on our noses.” The latter comes
from the practice of two persons, mostly children, each holding one prong of the
furcula and expressing a wish before breaking it asunder. The one who carries
off the greater portion expects the fulfilment of his or her wish.

GABBLE-RATCHET—GADWALL 297

G

GABBLE-RATCHET. In many parts of England, but
especially in Yorkshire, the cries of some kind of Wild Gooss,!
when flying by night, are heard with dismay by those who do not
know the cause of them, and are attributed to “ Gabriel’s Hounds,”
an expression equivalent to “Gabble-ratchet,” a term often used
for them, as in this sense gabble is said to be a corruption of Gabriel,
and that, according to some medizval glossaries, is connected with
gabbara or gabares, a word meaning a corpse (cf. Way, Promptorium
Parvulorum, p. 302, sub voce “ Lyche”); while ratchet is undoubtedly
the same as the Anglo-Saxon racc and Middle English racche or
rache, a dog that hunts by scent and gives tongue. Hence the
expression would originally mean “corpse-hounds,” and _ possibly
has to do with legends, such as that of the Wild Huntsman, on
which it would be out of place here to dwell. The sounds are at
times very marvellous, not to say impressive, when heard, as they
almost invariably are, on a pitch-dark night, and it has more than
once happened within the writer’s knowledge that a flock of Geese,
giving utterance to them, has continued for some hours to circle
over a town or village in such a way as to attract the attention of
the most unobservant of its inhabitants, and inspire with terror
those among them who are prone to superstition (cf Atkinson,
Notes and Queries, ser. 4, vu. pp. 439, 440, and Cleveland Glossary,
p- 203 ; Herrtage, Catholicon Anglicum, p. 147; Robinson, Glossary
Whitby (Engl. Dial. Soc.), p. 74; and Addy, Glossary Sheffield (Engl.
Dial. Soc.), p. 83). Mr. Charles Swainson (Prov. Names Br. B.
p- 98), gives “Gabble-Ratchet” as a name of the NIGHTJAR; but
satisfactory proof of that statement seems to be wanting.

GADWALL, a word of obscure origin,? the common English
name of the Duck, called by Linneeus Anas strepera; but, from

1 Presumably the BRANT, on the rare occasions when, losing its way, it comes
inland, for the call-notes proceeding from a flock of this species curiously resemble
the sound of hounds in full cry (Thompson, B. Jrel. iii. p. 59), though some
hearers liken them to the yelping of puppies. The discrepancy may to some
extent depend on distance.

2 Webster gives the etymology gad well=‘‘go about well”—which is non-
sense. The late Dr. R. G. Latham suggested that it is taken from the syllables
quedul, of the Latin querquedula, a Teal. The spelling ‘‘ Gadwall” seems to be
first found in Willughby in 1676, and has been generally adopted by later
writers ; but in 1667 Merrett (Pinax Rerum naturalium Britannicarum, p. 180),
had ‘‘Gaddel,” saying that it was so called by bird-dealers. The synonym
‘‘Gray,” given by Willughby and Ray, is doubtless derived from the general
colour of the species, and has its analogue in the Icelandic Grdénd, applied

298 GADWALL—GALL-BLADDER

the fine comb-like “teeth” with which its maxille are furnished,
considered by many modern ornithologists to require removal from
the genus Anas to that of Chaulelasmus or Ctenorhynchus, of which
it is the typical species. Its geograph-
ical distribution is almost identical with
that of the common Wild Duck or
Mallard, since it is found over the
greater part of the Northern Hemi-
sphere; but, save in India, where it
is said to be perhaps the most plentiful species of Duck during the
cold weather, it is hardly anywhere so numerous; and both in the
eastern parts of North America and in the British Islands it is rather
rare than otherwise. Its habits also, so far as they have been ob-
served, greatly resemble those of the Wild Duck; but its appear-
ance on the water is very different, its small head, flat back, elongated
form, and elevated stern rendering it recognizable by the fowler
even at such a distance as hinders him from seeing its very
distinct plumage. In coloration the two sexes agree much more
than is the case with any of the European Freshwater-Ducks,
Anatine—one only, the Anas marmorata, excepted ; but on closer
inspection the drake exhibits a delicate ash-coloured breast, and
upper wing-coverts of a deep chestnut, which are wholly wanting in
his soberly clad partner. She, however, has, in common with him,
a pure white patch on the wings, which forms one of the most
readily-perceived distinctive characters of the species. The Gadwall
is a bird of some interest, since it is one of the few that have been
induced, by the protection afforded them in certain localities, to
resume the indigenous position they once filled, but had, through
the draining and reclaiming of marshy lands, long since abandoned.
In regard to the present species, this fact is due to the efforts of the
late Mr. Andrew Fountaine, on whose property, in West Norfolk,
and its immediate neighbourhood, the Gadwall has, since 1850,!
annually bred in constantly increasing numbers, so that it may
again be accounted, in the fullest sense of the word, an inhabitant
of England ; and, as it has been always esteemed one of the best of
wild fowl for the table, the satisfactory result of its encouragement
by this gentleman is not to be despised. A second species, C. coues?,
from Washington Island, one of the Fanning group, has been
described (Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, i. p. 46).

GapwaLu. (After Swainson.)

GALL-BLADDER, the receptacle of the bile secreted by the
LIVER, on the right lobe of which it is situated, between that and
the proventriculus. When large it hangs down on the right side of

almost indifferently, or with some distinguishing epithet, to the female of any of
the I'reshwater-Ducks, and especially to the present.
1 Stevenson and Southwell, Birds of Norfolk, iii. pp. 160-162.

GALLE Y-BIRD—GAMBET 299

the stomach into the beginning of the two arms of the duodenal
loop. It is present in most Birds, but generally absent in the
Columbidx, Psittact, and Trochilidx, as also in Cuculus, Numida,
Struthio, and Rhea. Its absence has also been noted as an individual
peculiarity in Grus, Mergus, Numenius, Tringa, and others; while as
a like individual peculiarity it has, on the other hand, been known
to occur in Cockatoos, Cuculus, Pigeons (despite the almost proverbial
belief to the contrary), and hea—a fact which shews it to be of
minor importance. Its shape is very variable, and in the Capitonide,
Picidx, and Rhamphastide it is very peculiar, being a long narrow blind
sac, accompanying the duodenum far down. The bile, on leaving
the liver, enters the duodenal loop of the intestine by two “ hepato-
enteric” ducts (of which that coming from its left lobe most. fre-
quently opens into the middle of the loop or its ascending branch,
and but rarely—as in Struthio and the Columbidx—near the pyloric
end) ; while the right duct forms by its dilatation the gall-bladder,
and consists therefore of a cysto-hepatic and a cysto-enteric duct.
When the gall-bladder is absent the right lobe of the liver is
emptied by a simple hepato-enteric duct. Sometimes one of these
ducts is obliterated, as the right one is in Struthio, or one of them
is double, as in certain Cracidx, so that three ducts enter the
duodenum (see DIGESTIVE SYSTEM).

GALLEY-BIRD, given as a Sussex name for a WOODPECKER
by Mr. Charles Swainson (Prov. Names Br. B., pp. 99, 100), but
not mentioned as such by Mr. Borrer or Mr. Knox.

GALLIN Ai, the fifth Order of the Class Aves in the arrange-
ment of Linnzeus, and taken as a whole a very natural one, com-
prehending all that are commonly known as Gallinaceous Birds, or
those allied to the common Fow. (Gallus). Other systematists
have varied its title to Gallinacex or Gailinacei, and it is practically
equivalent to the ALECTOROMORPH# of Prof. Huxley. By adding to
the Order, as defined by Linneus, the Coluwmbx (Dove) and Crypturi
(T1namov), Illiger in 1811 formed an Order which he called
RASORES, a name adopted by many writers for more than half a
century, but now generally admitted to be inadmissible.

- GALLINEY, a local name for the domestic GUINEA-FOWL.

GALLINULE, a name given in books to the Moor-HeEn, and
thence occasionally, with qualification, to others of the Rallidz

(RaIz).

GAMBET, Fr. Gambetie, Ital. Gambetta (Lat. gamba), which last
is said by modern Italian writers to be the common name of the
Rurr. The word was anglified by Pennant, and applied to what,
in Montagu’s opinion (Orn. Dict. Suppl.), was a bird of that species

300 GANDER—GANNET

in one of its varied stages of plumage; but it has since been used,
especially by American writers, indiscriminately for several SAND-
PIPERS.

GANDER (Anglo-Saxon, Gandia), the male GoosE.

GANNET (Anglo-Saxon, Ganot) or SOLAN Gooss,! the Pelecanus
bassanus of Linnzeus and the Sula bassana of modern ornithologists,
a large sea-fowl long known as a numerous visitor, for the purpose
of breeding, to the Bass Rock at the entrance of the Firth of Forth,
and to certain other islands off the coast of Britain, of which four
are in Scottish -waters—namely, Ailsa Craig, at the mouth of the
Firth of Clyde; the group known collectively as St. Kilda ;?
North Barra or Sulisgeir (otherwise Suleskerry), some 40 miles
north of the Butt of Lewis; and the Stack,? about the same distance
westward of Stromness. It appears also to have two Irish stations,
the Skellig Islands off the coast of Kerry, and the Bull Rock off that
of Cork,‘ and it resorts besides to Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel
—its only English breeding-place, though in Wales a considerable
settlement occupies Grassholm, off the coast of Pembrokeshire.®

1 The phrase ganotes bed (Gannet’s bath), a periphrasis for the sea, occurs in
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in reference to events which took place 975 A.D., as
pointed out by Prof. R. O. Cunningham, whose learned treatise on this bird °
(Ibis, 1866, pp. 1-23) nearly exhausts all that could then be said of its history
and habits. The name, like Gander and Goose in English and German Gans, is
from an old base gan, which also supplied the Greek yi, and the Latin anser.
Solan is no doubt from the Scandinavian Sula, whatever that may mean.

Prof. Cunningham (ué supr. p. 15) noticed the wonderful mistake of Robert
Browning, which surpasses the licence ordinarily taken on any subject, save
natural history, by poets. In Paracelsus (part iii.) ‘‘ we find Festus referring to
his son Aureole’s glee when some stray Gannet builds amid the birch trees by
the lake of Geneva !”

2 Gannets frequent Rockall in the breeding-season, as Basil Hall, in his well-
known account of that distant rock, states, and as the late Mr. Gwyn Jeffrey told
me, but whether they breed there is not known.

3 Cruising round this place in June 1890, my companions and I remarked the
large proportion (compared with what we had seen elsewhere) the birds which
had not attained their full plumage bore to those perfectly adult. The most likely
explanation of the fact seems to be that, the station being so rarely visited and
its inhabitants so free from molestation, a greater number of young would yearly
grow up; and I was glad to find afterwards that this way of accounting for it is
thought to be right by Mr. Harvie-Brown, whose experience is far greater than
that of any one else (cf. Buckley and Harvie-Brown, Vertebr. Fauna of Orkney,
p. 160).

4 This last seems to have been but recently colonized. Whether it ever bred
upon the Stags of Broadhaven, off the coast of Mayo, as has been stated, is
doubtful (cf. Barrington and Ussher, Zool. 1884, pp. 473-481).

5 The history of this settlement is very obscure. Its existence was practically
unknown to ornithologists until 1890, when a wanton massacre of its inhabitants

GANNET 301

Further to the northward its settlements are Myggenss, the most
westerly of the Feeroes, and various small islands off the coast of
Iceland, of which the Vestmannaeyjar, the Reykjanes Fuglaskér,
and Grimsey are the chief. On the western side of the Atlantic it
appears to have now but three stations, and on them the population is
so reduced in numbers that there is every chance of the species ceasing
to exist in those parts unless proper steps are taken to protect it.
In old times the birds existed in extraordinary numbers, and even
in 1860 the late Dr. Bryant reckoned the population of Gannets on
the Great Bird Rock at 50,000 pairs. In 1887 not more than
10,000 birds were said to be there, and the numbers, according to
Mr. Lucas (Auk, 1888, pp. 129-135), are yearly decreasing both there
and on Bonaventure Island, the only other considerable settlement,
owing to the brutality of the fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
There seems to be no recent account of the settlement in the Bay
of Fundy. On all these places the bird arrives about the end of
March or in April, and departs in autumn when its young are ready
to fly ; but even during the breeding-season many of the adults may
be seen on their fishing excursions at a vast distance from their
home, while at other times of the year their range is greater still,
for they not only frequent the North Sea and the English Channel,
but stray to the Baltic, and, in winter, extend their flight. to
Madeira, while the members of the species of American birth
traverse the ocean from the shores of Greenland to the Gulf of
Mexico.

Apparently as bulky as a Goose, and with longer wings and
tail, the Gannet weighs considerably less. The plumage of the
adult is white, tinged on the head and neck with buff, while the
outer edge and principal quills of the wing are black, and some
bare spaces round the eyes and on the throat reveal a dark blue
skin. The first plumage of the young is of a deep brown above,
but paler beneath, and each feather is tipped with a triangular
white spot. The nest is a shallow depression, either on the ground
itself or on a pile of turf, grass, and seaweed—which last is often
conveyed from a great distance. The single egg it contains has a
white shell of the same chalky character as a CORMORANT’S. The
young are hatched blind and naked, but the slate-coloured skin with
which their body is covered is soon covered with white down,
replaced in due time by true feathers of the dark colour already
mentioned. The mature plumage is believed not to be attained for
some three years. ‘Towards the end of summer the majority of
Gannets, both old and young, leave the neighbourhood of their
breeding-place, and, betaking themselves to the open sea, follow the
shoals of herrings and other fishes (the presence of which they are

attracted attention. Its discovery was made only a short time before by Mr. J.
T, Neale (ef. T. H. Thomas, 7’rans. Cardiff Nat. Soc. xxii. part 2).

302 GANNET

most useful in indicating to fishermen) to a great distance from land.
Their prey is almost invariably captured by plunging upon it from
a height, and a company of Gannets fishing presents a curious and
interesting spectacle. Flying in single file, each bird, when it comes
over the shoal, closes its wings and dashes perpendicularly, and

GANNET, or SOLAN GOOSE.

with a velocity that must be seen to be appreciated, into the waves,
whence it emerges after a few seconds, and, shaking the water from
its feathers, mounts in a wide curve, orderly taking its place in the
rear of the string, to repeat its headlong plunge so soon-as it again
finds itself above its prey.?

1 The large number of Gannets, and the vast quantity of fish they take, have
been frequently animadverted upon, but the computations on this last point are

GARDENER-BIRD—GARE-FOWL 303

Structurally the Gannet presents many points worthy of note,
such as its closed nostrils, its aborted tongue, and its toes all
connected by a web—characters which it possesses in common
with most of the other members of the group of birds (STEGANO-
PODES) to which it belongs. But more remarkable still is the
system of subcutaneous air-cells, some of large size, pervading
almost the whole surface of the body, communicating with the
lungs, and capable of being inflated or emptied at the will of the
bird. This peculiarity has attracted the attention of several
writers—Montagu, Sir R. Owen (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1831, p. 90), and
Macgillivray ; but a full and particular account of the anatomy of
the Gannet is still to be desired.

In the southern hemisphere the Gannet is represented by two
nearly allied but somewhat smaller forms—one Sula capensis, in-
habiting the coast of South Africa, and the other, S. serrator, the
Australian seas. Both much resemble the northern bird, but the
former seems to have a permanently black tail, and the latter a
tail the four middle feathers of which are blackish-brown with
white shafts.

Apparently inseparable from the Gannets generically are the
smaller birds well known to sailors by the name of Boosy, which
has passed into an English byword, though few know its Por
tuguese origin.

GARDENER-BIRD, see BowEr-Birp.

GARE-FOWL! (Icelandic, Geirfugl; Gaelic, Gearbhul), the
anglicized form of the Hebridean name of a large sea-bird, for-

perhaps fallacious. It seems to be certain that in former days fishes, and
herrings in particular, were at least as plentiful as now, if not more so, notwith-
standing that Gannets were more numerous. Those frequenting the Bass were
reckoned by Macgillivray at 20,000 in 1831, while in 1869 they were computed
at 12,000, showing a decrease of two-fifths in 38 years. On Ailsa in 1869 there
were supposed to be as many as on the Bass, but their number was estimated at
10,000 in 1877 (Report on the Herring Fisheries of Scotland, 1878, pp. xxv. and
171),—being a diminution of one-sixth in eight years, or nearly twice as great as
on-the Bass. The falling-off has since been still greater, but I have no means of
computing it.

1 “Avis Gare dicta, Corvo Marino Similis, Ovo maximo” is included in
Sibbald’s treatise De Animalibus Scotiw (p. 22), published in 1684, being the
first printed notice of this bird as British, and apparently on information
derived from a MS. description of the Western Islands by Dean Munro, drawn
up about 1549 (cf. J. A. Smith, Proc. Soc. Antig. Scotl. xiii. p. 84, and xiv.
p. 4386). A modified, not to say corrupt, version of a transcript of this MS.,
now in the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh, was printed in 1809 by Pinkerton
(Coll. Voy. and Trav. iii. p. 730), who used the same spelling. In 1698 Martin
(Voy. to St. Kilda, p. 48) had the name ‘‘Gairfowl.” Sir R. Owen, in 1864,
adopted the form ‘‘ Garfowl,” without, as would seem, any precedent authority.
Mr. Alexander Carmichael (Harvie-Brown and Buckley, Vertebr. Faun. Outer

304 GARE-FOWL

merly a native of certain remote Scottish islands, the GREAT AUK
of most English book-writers, and the Alcea impennis of Linneeus.
Of this remarkable creature mention has been already made
(EXTERMINATION), but since the species has a mournful history
and several egregious misconceptions prevail concerning it, a few
more details may not be unacceptable. In size it was hardly less
than a tame Goose, and in appearance it much resembled its
smaller and surviving relative the RAZor-BILL, 4. torda; but the

GARE-FowL, or GREAT AUK.

glossy black of its head was varied by a large patch of white
occupying nearly all the space between the eye and the bill, in

Hebrides, p. 158) gives the correct Gaelic spelling as Gearr bhul or An Gearra-
bhul, meaning ‘‘the strong, stout bird with the spot”; but others may think
the word to be a rendering of the old Norsk name. According to Pennant,
Carfil is the generic word in Welsh for any of the Alcidx. It may be observed
that just as ‘‘ Penguin” (or Pin-wing), being the first English name applied to
this species, on its discovery in America, has been transferred to birds of a very
different Order, so also has Gorfou, the French corruption of Geirfug?, been
applied to some of the same.

GARE-FOWL 305

place of the Razor-bill’s thin white line, while the bill itself bore
eight or more deep transverse grooves instead of the smaller
number and the ivory-like mark possessed by the species last
named. Otherwise the coloration was similar in both, and there
is satisfactory evidence that the Gare-fowl’s winter-plumage dif-
fered from that of the breeding-season just as is ordinarily the case
in other members of the Family Alcidx to which it belongs. The
most striking characteristic of the Gare-fowl, however, was the
comparatively abortive condition of its wings, the distal portions
of which, though the bird was just about twice the linear dimen-
sions of the Razor-bill, were almost exactly of the same size as in
that species—proving, if more direct evidence were wanting, its
inability to fly.

The most prevalent misconception concerning the Gare-fowl is
one which has been repeated so often, and in books of such gener-
ally good repute and wide dispersal, that a successful refutation
seems almost hopeless. This is the notion that it was a bird
possessing a very high northern range, and consequently to be
looked for by Arctic explorers. How this error arose would take
too long to tell, but the fact remains indisputable that, setting
aside general assertions resting on no evidence worthy of attention,
there is but a single record deserving any credit at all! of a single
example of the species having been observed within the Arctic
Circle, and this, according to the late Prof. J. T. Reinhardt, who
had the best means of ascertaining the truth, is open to grave
doubt.2 It is clear that the older ornithologists let their imagina-
tion get the better of their knowledge or their judgment, and
their statements have been blindly repeated by most of their
successors. Another error which, if not so widely spread, is at
least as serious, since Sir R. Owen (Lncyel. Brit. ed. 8, xvii. p. 176 ;
Palxontology, p. 400) unhappily gave it countenance, is that this
bird “has not been specially hunted down like the dodo and
dinornis, but by degrees has become more scarce.” Now, if any
reliance can be placed upon the testimony of former observers, the
first part of this statement is absolutely untrue. Of the Dopo we
know that the mode of its extinction is open to conjecture, a strong
suspicion existing that though indirectly due to man’s acts it was
accomplished by his thoughtless agents. The extinction of the
Dinornis (Moa) lies beyond the range of recorded history, and
evidence that the whole population of Moas was done to death by

1 I cannot attach importance to the later statements of Herr L. Brodtkorb
(Mitth. Orn. Ver. Wien, 1884, pp. 67-69). His story was sifted nearly 30 years
before by the late Mr. Wolley.

2 The specimen is in the Museum of Copenhagen ; the doubt lies as to the
locality “where it was obtained, whether at Diseo, which is within, or at
Fiskernis, which is without, the Arctic Circle.

20

306 GARE-FOWL

man, however likely it may seem, is wholly wanting. The con-
trary is the case with the Gare-fowl. In Iceland there is the
testimony of a score of witnesses, taken down from their lips by
one of the most careful naturalists who ever lived, the late John
Wolley, that the latest survivors of the species were caught and
killed by expeditions expressly organized with the view of sup-
plying the demands of caterers to the various museums of Europe.
In like manner the fact is incontestable that its breeding-stations
in the western part of the Atlantic were for three centuries regu-
larly visited and devastated with the combined objects of furnish-
ing food or bait to the fishermen from very early days, and its
final extinction, foretold in 1792 by Cartwright (Labrador, iii. p. 55),
was due, according to Sir Richard Bonnycastle (Newfoundland in
1842, i. p. 232), to “the ruthless trade in its eggs and skin.”
No doubt that one of the chief stations of this species in Icelandic
waters disappeared, as has been before said (pp. 220, 221), through
volcanic action—

‘A land, of old upheaven from the abyss
By fire, to sink into the abyss again ”—

and that the destruction of the old Geirfuglaskér drove some at
least of the birds which frequented it to a rock nearer the main-
land, where they were exposed to danger from which they had in
their former abode been comparatively free; yet on this rock
(Eldey = fire-island) they were “specially hunted down” whenever
opportunity offered, until the stock there was wholly extirpated in
1844, and whether any remained elsewhere must be deemed most
doubtful.

A third misapprehension was that entertained by Gould who,
in his Birds of Great Britain, said that “formerly this bird was
plentiful in all the northern parts of the British Islands, par-
ticularly the Orkneys and the Hebrides. At the commencement
of the present century, however, its fate appears to have been
sealed ; for though it doubtless existed, and probably bred, up to
the year 1830, its numbers annually diminished until they became
so few that the species could not hold its own.”

Now of the Orkneys, we know that Low, who died in 1795,
says in his posthumously-published Fauna Orcadensis (p. 107) that
he could not find it was ever seen there ;! and on Bullock’s visit in
1812 he was told, says Montagu (Orn. Dict. App.), that one male
only had made its appearance for a long time. This bird he saw and
unsuccessfully hunted, but it was killed in the following year, and its

1 However, from his more recently published (Kirkwall: 1879) Zowr, made in
1774 at the instance of Pennant, we learn that he did not visit Papa Westray,
the only locality assigned for the bird. His negative evidence is therefore not to
be taken as conclusive,

GARE-FOWL 307

stuffed skin is now in the British Museum,! while its mate had been
killed before his arrival. None have been seen there since. As to
the Hebrides, St. Kilda is the only locality recorded for it, and
there but two examples are believed to have been taken during
the present century, one being a living bird given in 1821 by Mr.
Maclellan of Glass to Fleming, who not being aware of the par-
ticulars of its capture, erroneously recorded them (Hdinb. Phil.
Journ. x. p. 96). These have now been ascertained. The second
was killed about 1840.2. That the Gare-fowl was not plentiful in
either group of islands is sufficiently obvious, as also is the im-
possibility of its continuing to breed “up to the year 1830.”
: But mistakes like these are not confined to British authors.
As on the death of an ancient hero myths gathered round his
memory as quickly as clouds round the setting sun, so have stories,
probable as well as impossible, accumulated over the true history
of this species, and it behoves the conscientious naturalist to exer-
cise more than common caution in sifting the truth from the large
mass of error. Americans at one time asserted that the specimen
which belonged to Audubon (now at Vassar College) was obtained
by him on the banks of Newfoundland, though there was Macgilli-
vray’s distinct statement (Brit. Birds, v. p. 359) that Audubon
procured it in London. The account given by Degland (Orn.
Europ. ii. p. 529) in 1849, and repeated in the last edition of his
work by M. Gerbe, of its extinction in Orkney, is so manifestly
absurd that it deserves to be quoted in full:—“II se trouvait en
assez grand nombre il y a une quinzaine d’années aux Orcades;
mais le ministre presbytérien dans le Mainland, en offrant une
forte prime aux personnes qui lui apportaient cet oiseau, a été
cause de sa destruction sur ces iles.”. The same author claims the
species as a visitor to the shores of France on the testimony of
Hardy (Annuaire Normand, 1841, p. 298), which he grievously
misquotes both in his own work and in another place (Nawmannia,

1 Bullock’s own account, all he ever published on the subject, appeared in
1814 (Companion to the London Museum, ed. 16, pp. 75, 76), and is as follows:
‘Of this rare and noble bird, we have no account of any having been killed on
the shores of Britain, except this specimen, for upwards of one hundred years.
It was taken at Papa Westra in Orkney, to the rocks of which it had resorted for
several years, in the summer of 1813, and was finely preserved and sent to me by
Miss Trail of that island. . . . I had the pleasure of examining this curious bird
in its native element ; it is wholly incapable of flight, but so expert a diver that
every effort to shoot it was ineffectual.” Fuller details will be found in Messrs.
Buckley and Harvie-Brown’s Vertebrate Fauna of Orkney (pp. 245-257). I have
reason to believe that the breeding-place of this last pair was on the Holm
of Papa Westray, though the survivor was killed on the main island of that
name. .

* For the whole story see Messrs. Harvie-Brown and Buckley’s Vertebrate
Fauna of the Outer Hebrides (pp. 158-160).

308 GARE-FOWL

1855, p. 423), thereby misleading an English writer (Nat. Hist. Rev.
1865, p. 475) and numerous German readers.

In further addition to this account already given it may be
here mentioned that in 1874 Prof. Milne visited Funk Island, the
famous resort in old times of this bird, in the Newfoundland seas,
a place where bones had before been obtained by Stuvitz, and
natural mummies so lately as 1863 and 1864, and landing there
at the risk of his life, he brought off a rich cargo of its remains,
belonging to no fewer than fifty birds, some of them in size
exceeding any that had before been known. His collection, since
dispersed, most of the specimens finding their way into various
public museums in this country, has, however, been far exceeded
by that made in 1887 by Mr. Lucas."

1 A literature by no means inconsiderable has grown up respecting the
Gare-fowl. Neglecting works of general bearing, few of which are without
many inaccuracies, and omitting some to which reference has been already
made, the following treatises may be especially mentioned :—J. J. S. Steen-
strup, ‘Et Bidrag til Geirfuglens Naturhistorie og sxrligt til Kundskaben om
dens tidligere Udbredningskreds,” Naturh. Foren. Vidensk. Meddelelser (Copen-
hagen], 1855, p. 33; E. Charlton, ‘‘On the Great Auk,” Trans. Tyneside Nat.
Field Club, iv. p. 111; ‘‘ Abstract of Mr. J. Wolley’s Researches in Iceland
respecting the Gare-fowl,” Jbis, 1861, p. 874; W. Preyer, ‘‘ Ueber Plautus
impennis,” Journ. fiir Orn. 1862, pp. 110, 337; K. E. von Baer, ‘‘ Ueber das
Aussterben der Thierarten in physiologischer und nicht physiologischer Hin-
sicht,” Bull. de ? Acad. Imp. de St. Pétersb. vi. p. 518; R. Owen, ‘‘ Description
of the Skeleton of the Great Auk,” Zrans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 317; ‘‘The Gare-
fowl and its Historians,” Nat. Hist. Rev. v. p. 467; J. H. Gurney, jun., ‘‘On
the Great Auk,” Zoologist, 2nd ser. pp. 1442, 1639 ; H. Reeks, ‘‘ Great Auk in
Newfoundland,” &c., op. cit., p. 1854; V. Fatio, ‘‘Sur ?Alca impennis,” Bull.
Soc. Orn. Suisse, ii. pp. 1, 80, 147; “On existing Remains of the Gare-fowl,”
Ibis, 1870, p. 256; J. Milne, ‘‘ Relics of the Great Auk,” Hie/d, 27 March,
3 and 10 April 1875; J. A. Allen, ‘‘ The Extinction of the Great Auk at the
Funk Islands,” 4m. Nat. 1876, p. 48; Robert Gray, “On the Great Auk,”
Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. x. pp. 668-682 ; Symington Grieve, ‘‘ Discovery of Remains
of the Great Auk... on... Oronsay,” Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zoology) xvi. pp.
479-487, The Great Auk or Garefowl (Edinburgh : 1885, 4to) [Reviews, Nature,
xxxii. p. 545, Auk, 1886, p. 262], ‘‘Recent Notes on the Great Auk,” J’rans.
Edinb. Field Nat. and Microscop. Soc. 1888, pp. 93-119; W. Blasius, “ Ueber
die letzten Vorkomnisse des Riesen-Alks,” Ver. f. Naturw. zu Brawnschweig, iii.
pp- 89-115, ‘‘Zur Geschichte der Ueberreste von Alca impennis,” Journ. fiir
Orn. 1884, pp. 58-176, ‘‘Neue Thatsachen in Betreff der Ueberreste von
Alcea impennis,” Tagebl. Naturf. Vers. Magdeburg, 1884, pp. 3821-3823; R.
Collett, ‘‘ Ueber Alca impennis in Norwegen,” Mitth. Orn. Ver. Wien, 1884,
pp. 65-69, 85-89; F. A. Lucas, ‘Great Auk Notes,” Auk, 1888, pp. 278-283,
‘Expedition to the Funk Island, with Observations upon the History and
Anatomy of the Great Auk,” Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus, 1887-88, pp. 493-529 ;
F. Hardy, ‘‘ Testimony of Some Early Voyagers on the Great Auk, duk, 1888,
pp. 380-884; P. Leverkiihn, ‘‘ Wann starb der Grosse Alk aus?” Monatsschr.
Deutsch. Ver. Schutze Vogelwelt, 1888, pp. 388-390; Baron d’Hamonville, ‘‘ Note

GARGANE Y—GARROT 309

GARGANEY! (North-Italian, Garganello), or SuMMER-TEAL,
the Anas querquedula and A. circia of Linneus (who made, as did
Willughby and Ray, two species out of one), and the type of
Stephens’s genus Querquedula. This is one of the smallest of the
Anatidz, and has gained its common English name from being
almost exclusively a summer-visitant to this country, where nowa-
days it only regularly resorts to breed in some parts of Norfolk,
though probably at one time found at the same season throughout
the great Fen-district. About the same size as the common THAL,
A. crecca, the male is readily distinguished therefrom by its
peculiarly-coloured head, the sides of which are nutmeg-brown,
closely freckled with short whitish streaks, while a conspicuous
white curved line descends backwards from the eyes. The upper
wing-coverts are bluish-grey, the scapulars black with a white shaft-
stripe, and the wing-spot (speculum) greyish-green bordered above
and below by white. ‘The female closely resembles the hen Teal,
but possesses nearly the same wing-spot as her mate. In Ireland
or Scotland the Garganey is very rare, and though it is recorded
from Iceland, more satisfactory evidence of its occurrence there is
needed. It has not a high northern range, and its appearance in
Norway and Sweden is casual. Though it breeds in many parts of
Europe, in none can it be said to be common; but it ranges far to
the eastward in Asia—even to Formosa, according to Swinhoe—
and yearly visits India in winter. ‘Those that breed in Norfolk
arrive somewhat late in spring, and mostly make their nests in the
vast reed-beds which border the Broads—a situation rarely or never
chosen by the Teal. The labyrinth or bony enlargement of the
trachea in the male Garganey differs in form from that described
in any other drake,? being more oval and placed nearly in the
median line of the windpipe, instead of on one side, as is usually
the case.

GARROT, a French name of the GOLDEN-EYE, which some
writers, beginning in 1829 with Griffith (Anim. Kingd. viii. p. 609)
sur les quatre ceufs d’Alca impennis appartenant & notre collection,” A/ém. Soe.
Zool. France, 1889, pp. 224-227, “ Addition 4 une Note,” &c. Bull. Soc. Zool.
France, 1891, pp. 105-109. Lastly, reference cannot be omitted to the happy
exercise of poetic fancy with which Charles Kingsley was enabled to introduce
the chief facts of the Gare-fowl’s extinction (derived from one of the above-
named papers) into his charming Water Babies.

1 The word was introduced by Willughby from Gesner (Orn. lib. iii. p. 127),
but, though generally adopted by authors, seems never to have become other
than a book-name in English, the bird being invariably known in the parts ot
this island where it is indigenous as “Summer-Teal.”

2 I have found no mention of this part in the Blue-winged Teal of North
America, A. discors, which in plumage has some resemblance to the Garganey ;
but did its labyrinth differ from the ordinary form, I think some one would have
noticed the fact.

310% GA ULDING—GA VIA

have tried to make an English word. The origin of the French
word was unknown to Littré; but its application to this bird is
probably due to its rapid flight, one meaning of garrot being a
crossbow-bolt.

GAULDING or GAULIN, a word variously spelt, of unknown
etymology and originally of doubtful meaning. What seems to
be the same word appears as “Goldeine,” “Goldynis” (plur.), and
“Goldynhis” in an Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1555, accord-
ing to Langmuir and Donaldson (Jamieson’s Scott. Dict. ed. 2), but
without explanation, though a connexion is suggested with the
Icelandic Gulgnd, which is the GOOSANDER. In an Act of 1600
(16 Jac. VI. cap. xxiii.) it stands as “Golding,” and there at pre-
sent it must be left; but ‘“ Gaulding,” most generally pronounced
“Gaulin,” is used in the Antilles, and perhaps elsewhere, for any
of the smaller 4rdeidx, be they BITTERNS or HERONS.

GAUNT, said to be applied in some parts of England to the
Great Crested GREBE, and possibly corrupted from GANNET.

GAVIA, an Order of the Class Aves, proposed by Bonaparte
in a Conspectus Systematis Ornithologiv, which appeared in a tabular
form in 1850, and in 1853 was published in a more convenient
shape in the Comptes Rendus (xxxvii. pp. 643, 647), as well as in
the Annales des Sciences Naturelles (ser. 4, 1. pp. 107, 142). At
first it was made to include two tribes, Totipalmi (STEGANOPODES)
and Longipennes, consisting of Procellaruidx, Laridx, and “ Chionidxe”
(SHEATHBILL), but to these was afterwards added a third, Urin-
atores, formed of <Alcidx, Colymbidw, and “ Podicipidx.” By
some recent writers the term Gavix has been restricted to
the GULLS and TERNS, or these together with the AuUKS; but
its original signification should be always borne in mind; and
here it may be remarked that, almost from the beginning of
Systematic Ornithology, the word Gavia! has been used in several
senses—for instance, in 1752, by Mohring (dv. Gen. p. 66), as
equivalent to the Linnean Larus; in 1760 by Brisson (though
not generically) for the middle-sized and smaller Gulls, together with
the Noppy; in 1788 by J. R. Forster (Enchirid. Hist. Nat. p. 38)
for a genus of Water-birds of which he did not specify the type ;?
by Boie (Jsis, 1822, p. 563) as the generic name of the short-legged
Gulls, Larus eburneus and L. rissa ;3 and by Gloger in 1842 (Hand-
und Hilfsh. f. Naturgsch. p. 433) for the Lapwine (Vanellus) and

1 Gavia seems to be still an Italian word signifying Gull, though the deriva-
tive Gabbiano is more commonly used.

? His diagnosis indicates that he meant what is most commonly called
Colymbus (DIVER).

3 Boie subsequently (Jsis, 1822, p. 876; 1826, p. 980; and 1844, p. 191) used
the word in other senses.

Sal

| ' _” aN
ia

coke saa

sphere se as

_—

a“
iA

: <n Sphere, > ee onto a we a ¥ \ cs *
Pe) ' mr 1] ‘ . q . re a
=) t 1 : :

AOU a Bees M [Aw ay ;
OR. 8 OB rg DOE =: :

Bas

=
iar ae. A T Siege

EC SDS | RT :
om. | 4H alee cane a)

ORTH

Pl tae

ssp ort
Pu

H

ioe
‘

=.

cekrmac

Wee th

ey

2 ¥t-3

ar A o
} 4 nom.
(Gears
le ae : ee

if { TLANTAC\ o¢e

= ‘

Gone I?

GEELBEC—GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 311

its allies, while in 1834 Naumann (Vég. Deutschl. vii. p. 248) chose
Gaviz as the name of a group consisting of the Grey PLOVER.

GEELBEC (Yellow beak), the Dutch name used by Englishmen
in the Cape Colony for Anas flavirostris, the common Wild Duck of
South Africa.

GELINOTTE, diminutive of the old French Geline (Lat. Gallina,
a Hen), often used in English for what is otherwise called the
Hazel-hen or Hazel-GrousE—the one species, perhaps, whose intro-
duction, were it possible, to this country might be desirable.

GEMITORES, Macgillivray’s name (Br. B. i. pp. 97, 249) for
the Order of Birds consisting of PIGEONS.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. In regard to no group
of animals did the desire to know the details of what is commonly
styled Geographical Distribution become earlier manifest than the
Class Aves. One probable reason of this is the obvious fact that
no group as a whole possesses such faculties for extensive locomo-
tion, and the appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of species
after species, whether according to orderly MIGRATION or as casual
stragglers to any particular spot or country, naturally led men of
enquiring mind to wonder where the resort for the rest of the year
of these visitants might be. By degrees this wonder gave way to
scientific investigation ; and, after the futile attempts (which may
here be passed over) of students or quasi-students of other branches
of Zoology, it was with lively satisfaction that ornithologists found
the first reasonable and philosophical explanation of the subject
furnished by one of their own body, Mr. Sclater.1 Though here and
there in the writings of his predecessors truths are doubtless apparent,
it is certain that no one had hitherto taken the question seriously
in hand, and that such truths as had been reached were rather by
favour of fortune than by application of knowledge ; and this is
markedly shewn even in the brilliant speculations of Buffon, the first
writer who seems to have formed any general ideas on the subject.

Now Mr. Sclater’s success is to be attributed to the method in
which his investigations were carried on. Instead of looking at
the earth’s surface from the point of view hitherto adopted by most
writers, mapping out the world according to degrees of latitude
and longitude, determining its respective portions of land and
water regardless of their products, or adhering to its political divi-
sions, he endeavoured to solve the problem simply as a zoologist

1 Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc. (Zoology) ii. pp. 130-145. Mr. Sclater’s latest views on
the subject may be read in The Ibis for 1891 (pp. 514-557), being a modification
of an Address communicated by him to the International Ornithological Congress
held at Budapest ; and, like an Address delivered by him at Bristol in 1875 to the
Biological Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, it
has an Appendix giving a very useful list of works on Geographical Ornithology.

312 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

should. He took up the branch of the subject with which he
was best acquainted, and pointed out and defined the Regions
of the globe in conformity with the various aspects of ornithic
life as known to him. But herein there was at once a great difli-
culty to be met. Birds constituting the most vagrant Class of
animals in existence, it was necessary for him to eliminate from
consideration those groups of them, be they large or small, which
are of more or less universal occurrence,! and to ground his results
on what was at that time commonly known as the Order Jnsessores,
comprehending those birds that are now generally differentiated as
the groups or Orders, Passeres, Picariz, and Psittaci.

On this basis, then, Mr. Sclater, after dwelling on the great
distinction he thought observable between the Fauna of the Old
World and of the New, was enabled to set forth that the surface of
the globe exhibited siz great Regions, each in a marked manner
differing from all the rest, though the difference was not always
equally important. These Regions he termed respectively the
Palxarctic, Ethiopian, Indian, Australian, Nearctic, and Neotropical—
names which, so far as may be possible, it is convenient to preserve—
and proof that the method he followed was the true one is afforded
by the fact that these Regions have met with very general acceptance
at the hands of those who study other groups of animals.” Without,

1 Not but that even in the most widely-spread groups are contained others—
subfamilies, genera, or species—strictly limited to certain localities. Some of
them will be noticed further on.

? This is a thing on which few writers seem to have dwelt sufficiently. What-
ever be the causes, and it would be out of place here to discuss them, it must be
admitted that what may be taken as a ‘‘law” of Geographical Distribution for
one group of beings is not necessarily applicable to other groups. Botanists
have shewn no disposition to accept the territorial divisions of their zoological
brethren. It seems difficult to defend the position so often assumed that the
boundaries set up for one group of animals are true for another, or still less that
they are universally true. This fact has indeed had to be recognized in the case
of some marine forims—for instance, Fishes, which, it is confessed, cannot be made
subject to the limitations of terrestrial forms (cf. Giinther, Introduction to the
Study of Fishes, pp. 259, 260), though Dr. Gill (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4,
Xv. pp. 254, 255) recognizes for this Class what are practically the same divisions
as those of Prof. Huxley—New Zealand, however, being placed with Australia.
As regards the Land-Mollusks, malacologists demur to the geueral principles of
Distribution which students of most Classes of Vertebrates accept, while even
among Vertebrates themselves, and excluding Fishes, what is the best division
of the Earth’s surface into Regions, Subregions, Provinces and so on, for Birds
may not be the best for Mammals, Reptiles, or Amphibians. It would appear
preferable to consider the case of each of these Classes on its own merits, and
thus in what follows the territorial divisions adopted are in accordance with
what it is supposed we know or seem to know of the Class Aves, and it may
even be open to question whether the best division for one Subclass or Order of
Birds is the best for another.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 363

however, troubling ourselves on that score, or attempting a com-
plete history of the subject since his treatment of it, it is proper to
remark that Prof. Huxley pointed out (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, pp.
313-319) that there was reason to divide the earth’s surface lati-
tudinally, rather than longitudinally as Mr. Sclater had done, and
that four primary Regions were better than stz—these four being: I.
Arctogea, comprising Mr. Sclater’s Indian, Ethiopian, Palearctic,
and Nearctic Regions; II. Austro-Columbia, corresponding with the
Neotropical Region; III. Australasia; and IV. New Zealand—this
last being cut off from that gentleman’s Australian Region. Eight
years later, Mr. Wallace in his great work,! for which zoologists
can never be too thankful, disregarding Prof. Huxley’s scheme,
adopted with some very slight modifications the plans of Mr.
Sclater, which had been already followed in the main by many
others, and among them by the present writer in a contribution
to the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the course, however, of com-
piling that contribution a considerable number of doubts arose in
his mind. Some of them he at the time intimated ; but it was not
until several years after that he saw how the chiefest of them should
be dispelled. The full force of Prof. Huxley’s reasoning is now
evident to him, and he has to urge the recognition of New Zealand
as a primary division, while the recent ornithological investigation
of Alaska, shewing that it is peopled in summer by so many Passeres
hitherto supposed to be of purely Palearctic type, has convinced
him that Prof. Huxley’s statement of the Nearctic area being far
more nearly allied to the Palearctic than to the Neotropical
Region is not only true but has a still deeper meaning, for that it
is impossible justifiably to separate the Palearctic and Nearctic
areas as “Regions,” though we may keep the epithets as con-
veniently indicating geographical portions of one enormous but
continuous Region, to which the name WHolarctic may be fitly
applied.2, Some rectification of the hitherto-accepted frontier of
the Neotropical Region may thereby be required, but that is a
comparatively unimportant consideration, and it is not proposed

1 The Geographical Distribution of Animals. 2 vols. London: 1876. My
own gratitude to the author for allowing me at a critical time tosee the manu-
script of this work prior to its publication has been before expressed (Lncyclop.
Brit, ed. 9, iii. p. 737); but will never be forgotten.

2 I have to thank Prof. Heilprin, who had originally (Proc. Ac. Philad.
1882, p. 334) bestowed the name ‘‘Triarctic ” on this combination, for so readily
adopting (Nature, xxvii. p. 606) my suggestion to call it ‘‘ Holarctic,” under
which name it appears in the excellent defence of his position (Proc. Ac. Philad.
1883, pp. 266-275) as well as in his work (The Geographical and Geological
Distribution of Animals. New York: 1887). The objections raised to this
combination by Mr. Wallace and Dr. Gill will be found in Nature (xxvii.
p. 482, xxviii. p. 124).

314 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

here to go much into details! The question, often mooted, of
recognizing a distinct Circumpolar Region need not be discussed,
for it has not become practical; and whatever may be the case
as regards other Classes, it seems almost impossible for the orni-
thologist reasonably to refuse recognition, as regards Birds, of the
siz Geographical Regions—New-Zealand, Australian, Neotropical,
Holarctic, Ethiopian, and Indian, brigading, if he so please, the
first three as Notogxva, and the last three as Arctogxa, but always
bearing in mind that the differences between each of the component
parts of the former, and especially the differences between New
Zealand and all the rest of the world, are not only more striking,
but far more essential than those presented by the component parts
of the latter.

It is admitted by nearly all naturalists that the study of the
extinct organisms of any country leads the investigator to a proper
appreciation of its existing Flora or Fauna; while on the other hand
a due consideration of the plants or animals which predominate
within its bounds cannot fail to throw more or less light on the
changes it has in the course of ages undergone. ‘That is to say,
the Distribution of living creatures in Time is so much connected
with their Distribution in Space that the one can hardly be con-
sidered without the other. Granting this as a general truth, it
must yet be acknowledged as a special fact already foreshadowed
when treating of Foss, Birps, that we at present have in them
but scanty means of arriving at precise results which would justify
bold generalization as regards the Distribution of the Class. Com-
pared with other Vertebrates, fossil remains of Birds are exceedingly
scarce, and have been until lately little investigated. However
suggestive be the discovery in France of somewhat early remains
of Birds allied to those which we at present only know as living
denizens of tropical countries, and the recognition of far later
remains of species identical with those that now flourish in arctic
lands, these facts merely corroborate what is from other sources
within the cognoscence of every geologist—the vicissitudes, namely,
to which that part of Europe has been subjected. Even the former
existence of RATIT# in England and other countries where they are
not now found only proves that they were once not confined to their
present limits, and possibly pervaded the greatest part of the earth.
Almost the same is to be said of every other case, and perhaps in
the whole range of zoology there is no Class from the fossil
remains of which we learn less as regards the physical history of
our planet than we do from the Birds. We therefore have to turn
to the other side of the question and try to find whether the

1 Prof. Heilprin has stated (loc. primo cit.) the probability that “ portions

of California, Texas, and Florida will have to be relegated to the Neotropical
realm.” Mexico would naturally follow ; but hereon more will be said hereafter.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 315

evidence which is from one point of view so evidently deficient may
not be supplied by enquiry into existing Avifaunx, and this signifies
that.a knowledge of the Geographical Distribution of living or recently
extinct Birds becomes a matter of prime importance to every one
who would exercise intelligently the calling of an Ornithologist.

Of the six Regions above adopted it seems fitting to begin with
that in the Fauna of which Birds play the principal part, since of
indigenous terrestrial Mammals it has none,! and that Class is
represented only by Bats or Seals.

I. The New-Zealand Region presents, in Mr. Wallace’s words
(Island Life, p. 442), “the most remarkable and interesting of insular
Faunas,” and leads to the inference that this portion of the globe
shews a longer period of isolation than any other of equal magni-
tude—an isolation possibly anterior to the time when terrestrial
Mammals first appeared, or at least appeared in any land which
could have been then connected with it. Beside the two large
islands and one of moderate size (Stewart’s), known in the aggre-
gate as New Zealand, numerous satellites belong to the Region, as
Lord Howe’s, Norfolk and Kermadoe Islands, with the Chatham,
Auckland, and Macquarrie groups, as well as Antipodes Island. It
possessed until recently two perfectly distinct Orders (or, as some
rank them, Families) of Ratttx—the Immanes? (Moa) and Apteryges
(Krw1), of which the latter still exists, while the former, now
extinct, contained, according to the latest revision by Mr. Lydekker
(Cat. Foss. B. Br. Mus. pp. 219-351), about a score of species that
may require 5 genera for their reception, and certainly exhibit no
inconsiderable modification of a tolerably uniform structure, while
some of their members reached a stature that may be almost called
colossal. Moreover, these two Orders seem to be absolutely peculiar
to the Region.®

Turning to the Carinatx, we have a very remarkable genus in
Ocydromus (WEKA) which, Ralline as it is, affords in the loss of its
power of flight and corresponding structural modification evidence
of considerable antiquity. The Limicolex present a quite unique
form in the highly specialized Anarhynchus (WRYBILL), and the
Anseres in Cnemiornis, a large flightless Goose, now extinct and
apparently allied to the Australian CEREOPSIS, while the Accipitres
shew Harpagornis, a bird half as big again as an Eagle, and stout
enough to make Moas its prey—indeed it possibly owes its ex-
tinction to their disappearance, finding no fit quarry when they and
Cnemiornis were gone. Sceloglaua is a very peculiar genus of Striges

1 See above (p. 224, note 1).

2 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xx. p. 400.

3 Positive assertion to this effect cannot be made, since a portion of a fossil
femur from Queensland, said to appear indistinguishable from Dinornis, has been
described and figured (Proc. R. Soc. Queensi. i. p. 27, pis. iit. iv.)

316 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

(OwL), and the Psitiaci have in NESTOR and Stringops (KAKAPO)
two others that may fairly be regarded as types of as many
Families. Very noteworthy also is the presence of the Family
Acanthidosittide (SPINE-BILL), represented by two genera, Acanthi-
dositta and Xenicus, proved by W. A. Forbes to belong to the Meso-
myodian (INTRODUCTION) section or suborder of Passeres, which is
most largely developed in the Neotropical Region. Of the higher
Passeres, or what appear to be such, there is a proportionate allowance,
but some of them are of a character so generalized that systematists
strain their principles when bringing them under Families that exist
elsewhere. TZurnagra, avery generalized Thrush, has been permitted
to stand as the type of a separate Family, though Glaucopis has been
referred to the Corvidx; Creadion and Heteralocha (Huta), not
without violence, to the Sturnide (STARLING); Miro, Myiomoira,
and GERYGONE to Muscicapidey or Sylviidx ; Certhiparus to Paridzx
(Titmouse) ; Clitonyx to Timeliidx, and so on. With less hesitation
can Prosthemadera, Anthornis (BELL-BIRD), and Pogonornis (STITCH-
BIRD) be placed under Meliphagidx, so largely dispersed throughout
the Australian Region. Alongside of these we have the cosmopolitan
genus Anthus (PipIt), almost certainly a settler of comparatively
recent days, since it has undergone so little modification ; while a
species of ZOSTEROPS has, within the recollection of men still living,
made its way over from Australia, and shews that the tendency
to colonize is not confined to the human race. Another and
apparently modern immigrant is offered by the genus Coturnix
(QUAIL), but its representative has been long enough in the country
to become specifically differentiated. Though abundant not many
years ago, it has lately suffered so much from the practice of firing the
grassy plains it frequented, that some believe it to be now extinct.
Notornis, an exaggerated form of Porphyrio, is probably another, but
a more ancient settler, since it has lost the use of its wings, though
it possesses the purple plumage of its relatives. It is remarkable
for being a bird which was originally described from fossil remains,
and only some years later was found to exist, though in very small
numbers and in certain restricted localities. A second species which
inhabited Norfolk Island seems to have become extinct since the early
years of this century. Its white plumage is likely to have hastened
its doom. Of other forms there is not space here to treat, but it
will be noticed that many which are most characteristic of the
Australian Region are wholly wanting, a fact that helps to justify
the separation of New Zealand as a primary Region on the ground
of its complete isolation from a very remote time. Mention has
been already made (EXTERMINATION) of the unhappy fate which
awaits the surviving members of the New-Zealand Fauna, and its
inevitable end cannot but excite a lively regret in the minds of all
ornithologists who care to know how things have grown. ‘This

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 317

regret is quite apart from all questions of sentiment; but just as
we lament our ignorance of the species which in various lands have
been extirpated by our predecessors, so our posterity will want to
know much more of the present avifauna of New Zealand than we
can possibly record, for no one can pretend to predict the scope of
investigation which will be required, and required in vain, by
naturalists in that future when New Zealand may be one of the
great nations of the earth.?

Il. The Australian Region has but little intimate connexion with
New Zealand, and is as trenchantly divided from the Indian,
which geographically, and possibly geologically, seems to be conter-
minous with it, by the narrow but deep channel that separates the
small islands of Bali and Lombok, and will be found to determine
the boundary between these two distinct Regions. Midway along
this channel we may draw an imaginary line, and produce it ina
north-north-easterly direction through the Strait of Macassar, dividing
Borneo from Celebes. An interchange of animal forms in the two
islands last named is indeed to be observed, and even a slight inter-
mingling of the productions of the two former seems to be now
going on, but to a much less degree than obtains between any other
two Regions, while the characteristic, not to say peculiar, zoological
types which occupy either side of this line, are so divergent that it
may be fairly deemed more definite than any to be found elsewhere.
Between Bali and Lombok, as above stated, it has been shewn by
Mr. Wallace to be all but perfect, and in his honour this boundary
was most justly named by Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868,
p. 313) “ Wallace’s Line.” As it proceeds northward it becomes
less definite, though we know it to run between the Philippine
Islands and Sanguir, and again between the former and the Palau
(Pelew) group, its further progress in that direction being to the
westward of the Ladrones. But hereabouts we lose it, until we
reach the Sandwich Islands, the Fauna of which, in deference to
usage, may perhaps be still accounted Australian, though apparently
Neogean at bottom, and subsequently overlaid by Holarctic forms.®
Thence the line must be drawn so as to include all of what is

1 See Sir Walter Buller’s Birds of New Zealand. London: 1873, 4to (with
beautifully coloured plates); ed. 2, London: 1888, 2 vols. fol. ; and Manual of
the Birds of New Zealand. New Zealand: 1882, 8vo, as well as many papers
by various authors in the 7ransactions of the New Zealand Institute from 1868
onward.

? Its existence was first indicated by Mr. Wallacein The Ibis for 1859 (p. 450).
He subsequently (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, p. 481) insisted on its importance, which
was fully shewn in his Malay Archipelago.

3 Cf. Dr. Gadow’s ‘‘ Remarks on the Structure of certain Hawaiian Birds” in
Wilson’s Birds of the Sandwich Islands. A similar conclusion had been before
reached by Messrs. Sharp and Blackburn in their memoir on Hawaiian Coleoptera
(Trans. R. Dubl. Soc. ser. 2, iii. part 6, pp. 119-300).

318 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

commonly called Polynesia, avoiding, however, the northern outliers
of the New-Zealand Region, and so return to encompass Australia
proper and Tasmania.

Though the characteristic Mammals of the Australian Region
are highly remarkable, comprehending as they do the whole of the
most peculiar (Ornithodelphia) of the three Subclasses and nearly all
of a second (Didelphia), by far the largest portion of the area it covers
is weak if not wanting in Mammalian life, and its zoological features
are nearly as well exhibited by its Birds. Nor can mention be here
omitted of the remarkable Ganoid Fish, Ceratodus, a genus which
has come down to us unaltered from Mesozoic times,—all facts
serving to shew that the isolation of Australia is probably the next
oldest in the world to that of New Zealand, having possibly
existed since the time when no Mammals higher than Marsupials
had appeared on the face of the earth.t

The prevalent zoological features of any Region are of two kinds
—negative and positive. It is therefore just as much the business
of the zoogeographer to ascertain what groups of animals are wanting
in any particular locality (altogether independently of its extent) as
to determine those which are forthcoming there. Of course, in
the former case, it would be idle to regard as a valuable physical
feature of a district the absence of groups which do not occur except
in its immediate neighbourhood ; but when we find that certain
groups, though abounding in some part of the vicinity, either
suddenly cease from appearing or appear only in very reduced
numbers, and occasionally in abnormal forms, the fact obviously has
an important bearing. Now, as has been above stated, mere
geographical considerations, taken from the situation and configura-
tion of the islands of the Indian or Malay Archipelago, would
indicate that they extended in an unbroken series from the Strait of
Malacca to New Guinea, or even further to the eastward. Indeed,
the very name Australasia, often applied to this part of the world,
would induce the belief that all those countless islands were but a
southern prolongation of the mainland of Asia—broken up, it is true.
But so far from this being the case a very definite barrier is inter-
posed. A strait, some 15 or 20 miles wide, dividing, as just stated,
the two otherwise insignificant islands (Bali and Lombok), makes
such a frontier as can hardly be shewn to exist elsewhere. The
former belongs to the Indian Region, the latter to the Australian,
and between them there is absolutely no true transition—that is, no
species are common to both which cannot be easily accounted for
by the various accidents and migrations that in the course of time

1 It will be borne in mind that fossil remains shew that Marsupials once in-
habited Europe. They are now restricted to Australia with the exception of one
group, which inhabits the Neotropical Region, a single species ranging also over
the temperate parts of North America.

GEOGRAPAICAL DISTRIBUTION 319

must have tended to mingle the productions of islands so close to
one another. The Faunas of the two are as distinct as those of
South America and Africa, and it is only because they are separated
by a narrow strait instead of a wide sea that they have become
slightly connected by the interchange of a few species and genera.
This narrow strait, it scarcely needs to say, must be of uncommon
antiquity.

Space does not permit our dwelling at any length on the groups of
Birds which prevail throughout the Indian Region, but are wholly
wanting in the Australian.! It must here be enough to mention
that among them are the Jzidx (Ixus), Phyllornithine, Megalemine
(BARBET), Vulturide (VULTURE), and Phasianide (PHEASANT). Some
would add fringillide, but the real position of the so-called
“FIncHES” of Australia must still be considered doubtful, and it
may prove that they are the less- modified descendants of the
generalized group whence sprung both the true Fringillide and the
Ploceidzx(WEAVER-BirD), if indeed these can be justifiably separated.
Then of forms weakly represented are the otherwise abundant
Turdidz? (THRUSH), and above all the Picidx (WOODPECKER), of
which some 4 or 5 species out of more than 350 just cross the boundary
and occur in Lombok, Celebes, or the Moluccas, but are unknown
elsewhere in the Region.

Turning to the Families, which are most characteristic of the
Region, we find among those that are almost but not absolutely
peculiar? to it, first the Meliphagide (HONEY-SUCKER), one that,
though not so polymorphic as has often been alleged, abounds in
genera and species of diverse aspect, while only 3 of the former
belong to the New-Zealand Region, and but a single species—
Ptilotis imbata, which is common from Timor to Lombok—crosses
the sea to Bali and trespasses upon the Indian Region. To this
may be added the Pachycephalide (THICKHEAD), Campephagidx
(CAMPEPHAGA), Artamidz and Cacatuide (CocKATOO), of which last
but a single species ever passes the line by appearing in the Philip-
pines, and the Megapodiidw (MEGAPODE), though they have a repre-
sentative in the group last named, as well as in Borneo, and another
in the Andaman Islands ; but are otherwise peculiar to the Australian

1 Tn this and other like cases such forms have been called ‘‘lipotypes” by
Mr. Sclater (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, pp. 311, 312).

2 It is almost certain that no satisfactory limits can be laid down between
this so-called Family and Sylviide (WARBLER), but as the latter have few if any
members in the Region now under notice, the result would hardly be affected.
Indubitable Thrushes are, however, scattered among many of the chief groups
of islands throughout the Pacific Ocean.

3 It may be proper to state that here, and wherever the subject of Geographical
Distribution is concerned, this word ‘‘ peculiar” has the technical meaning of
“not occurring elsewhere.”

320 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Region; while the Kingfishers and Doves exhibit a wonderful variety
of form that is only equalled by the beauty of their coloration.
Of the Families which are absolutely peculiar may first be cited
the Casuariidz (CASSOWARY) and Dromxidx (EMEU), both Ratite,
and together forming the Order MEGISTANES, and then the Rhino-
chetide (KAGU), a very generalized type, consisting of a single
genus and species inhabiting New Caledonia, and having appar-
ently its nearest living ally in the Hurypyga (SUN-BITTERN) of
South America. The Order Columbzx furnishes a very distinct and
monotypic Family in Didunculidw (DODLET) and the Psittaci, the
gorgeous brush-tongued Parrots, known as Loriidx or Trichoglossidx
(Lory). The Families of true Passeres are at present so ill-defined
that in many cases to cite them is only to mislead, but one is
pretty safe in relying upon the Drepanidide (DREPANIS) and Para-
diseide (BIRD-OF-PARADISE) as good examples of peculiar groups,
while Australia itself furnishes the only known members of the
section of Passeres called “ Pseudoscines” in Atrichidx (SCRUB-BIRD),
and Menuridex (LYRE-BIRD).! However, the number of peculiar
groups of Passeres proper is too numerous to be here told, and there
are many beautiful and singular forms of Columbx, such as Goura,
Leucosarcia (WONGA-WONGA), Lophophapeg Chrysena, and others,
while among the most curious Land-birds, beside those already
named, may be specially recorded Megacephalon, Lipoa, and
Talegallus among the MercApopres; Tribonyx, Pareudiastes, and
Habroptila—the two last brevipennate RatLs; while Pedionomus,
the position of which has long been disputed, proves (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1889, p. 310) to be one of the TJwurnicide. The existence of a
BustTarD (Eupodotis) in Australia presents a suggestive example of
interrupted distribution, since none of the Otidide is found nearer
than the Continent of India.

The Australian Region may be taken to include 3, if not 4,
Subregions, to which the names of Papua, Australia proper, and
Polynesia may be attached, but the boundaries of the first and
second are not yet to be clearly defined, and the Peninsula of Cape
York, though a part of Australia, is by many included in the Papuan
Subregion. To this Subregion may be assigned, though with doubt,
the wonderful island of Celebes, presenting perhaps more anomalies
than any other in the world, and yet anomalies which, by the use of
strictly scientific inference (as Mr. Wallace has shewn us), may
possibly tell a story that sounds so romantic and yet will satisfy
those who would judge it most severely.”

1 The precise relation of these two forms is very doubtful, and their connexion
with others, GRALLINA for example, is, as I write, equally uncertain.

2 A modern work on the Birds of Australia is much needed, Gould’s Handbook,
good for the time it appeared (1865), being in many respects obsolete, and
Mr. Diggles’s Ornithology of Australia leaving much to be desired. Dr. E. P.

GEOGKAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 321

III. Zhe Neotropical Region completes the great division
(Notogxa) proposed by Prof. Huxley. It presents certain alliances
to the Australian, and some to New Zealand ; but these are-of a
different kind, and there is no community between them. Looking
to the extreme remoteness of the time when this Region could even
by the most roundabout route have been connected with either (if
such a connexion ever existed), it is perhaps wonderful that any
resemblance remains. Asa matter of fact the resemblance lies rather
in the comparatively low rank (morphologically speaking) that is
indicated by some of its most peculiar and at the same time
characteristic forms than in any positive affinity that they display,
for it must be evident that in the course of ages the ancient types
—at that epoch, may be, the most highly developed of their kind on
the earth—if they survive at all to the present day must have
become more and more specialized as various influences came to
bear upon them. Enough, however, remains to point with certainty
to the fact that South America, that is to say, the most important
part of the Neotropical Region, retains a greater proportion of these
less-modified descendants of generalized ornithic types than does any
other portion of the globe—the two Regions before mentioned only
excepted. The hint afforded by the continued existence of an
Order (or, as some would have it, only a Family) of Marsupials—
the Pedimana, comprehending the animals to which the name
Opossum was first applied, ought to suffice for this. It has before
been suggested that there seems to have once been a period in
which the Didelphia formed the highest group of Mammalian and
therefore of animal life on the globe, and pervaded all parts of it that
were accessible. New Zealand, as has been indicated, was at that
time already cut off, and the Marsupials had no means of reaching it ;
but they spread over what is now represented by Australia and also
arrived in South America. It is reasonable to suppose that in each
of these countries they differentiated, and in Australia, from its sub-
sequent isolation, flourished in the way that has there produced the

Ramsay’s Tabular List of the species known to him in 1888 is useful in shewing
their distribution, but gives little more information. The Records of the
Australian Musewm as well as some other journals contain, however, many
valuable papers by him, laying the foundation of future work, and Mr. A. J.
North’s Descriptive Catalogue of the Nests and Eggs of Australian and Tasmanian
Birds (Sydney: 1889) cannot be passed over in silence.

For other parts of the Region must be mentioned the Beitrag zur Fauna
Centralpolynesiens by Drs. Hartlaub and Finsch (Halle: 1867), treating of the
ornithology of Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga, but very much has since been done in
these and other groups of islands which cannot be here particularized, while the
Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche by Count T. Salvadori (Torino:
1880-82), with its Aggiwnte (1889-91), is a most carefully executed work. A
complete list of Polynesian Birds by Mr. L. W. Wiglesworth appeared in 1891
at Dresden.

21

322 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

numerous forms of which we are cognizant. But in South America
a direct connexion with the northern soil must have been _per-
petuated, and when Monodelphians appeared in what we now call
Arctogea they must have made their way further south, and thus
checked the efflorescence of the older stock, restricting it in the New
World to the one Order which we now find there. Without
calling in, as so many are apt to do, the aid of a Glacial Epoch,
it seems that, granting the general continuity of land between
North and South America,! the older and weaker Marsupial popula-
tion would give way before the newer and stronger Placental
population that had become developed in the North. Part of the
latter established itself in the South, but of the feebler population
which it dispossessed only a scant remnant exists. Now we may
not unfairly suppose that the same kind of process went on as
regards the Birds. It is justifiable to conceive that at one time the
whole of America was occupied by the ancestors of those forms
that we now find chiefly displayed in its southern portion, no incon-
siderable proportion of which still yearly seek their ancient home,
migrating northward every spring, and returning at the end of
summer or towards the fall of the year, their original seat being
occupied by the higher and comparatively recent forms that con-
stitute part of the Holarctic Fauna—of whose invasion more must
presently be said. ‘The consequence of all this is that each of the
Americas presents a mixed population, puzzling to account for until
the way in which it has been brought about is perceptible. On the
hypothesis here given, however, the chief difficulties should dis-
appear, and no evolutionist will regard it as unlikely, forced, or
impossible—though we may freely grant that its proof requires
further evidence, but that evidence is of a kind that the marvellous
success which has attended paleontological research in North
America induces one to hope may be forthcoming.

It has just been stated that the general character of the
Neotropical Fauna is morphologically low. In regard to the Class
Aves this is shewn by the presence of an Order of Fatitx, consist-
ing of 3 species of Ruka, and next by the fact that among the
Carinate the Region claims all the Zinamidx (TINAMOoU)—the
DRoM&O0GNATH of Prof. Huxley, which, if we carry out his
principles, ought to be regarded as the equivalent of an Order in
the usually-accepted sense—and also a unique, very remarkable,
and generalized form Opisthocomus (HOACTZIN), which he has satis-
factorily shewn to be so unlike every other that it can only be
conveniently classed by itself as the sole representative of HETERO-

1 There can be hardly any assumption here. The existence of corals on the
Atlantic side of the Isthmus of Panama and their absence on the Pacific Coast
shews the antiquity of that bridge between the continents, even though it may
have been sometimes broken down.

“

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 323
MORPHA. Both the Dromxognathe and Heteromorphxe are indubit-
ably of low developmental rank; in that respect, though in no
other, resembling certain Australian and New-Zealand groups ; but
the similarity between the Avifaunas of the three Regions composing
his Wotogxa seems to be further borne out by the same fact being
observable in other South-American Families forming the lower
sections or suborders of Passeres, to which the names of OLIGo-
MYyop%and TRACHEOPHONA have been applied—the Neotropical
Region having a complete monopoly of the latter and a large pro-
portion of the former,’ according to our present knowledge. Of
the species of Passeres, belonging to the Region, we find that a little
more than one-half have to be classed under the highest sections of
that Order, while nearly one-half must be ranked under its two lowest
sections.” This is a state of things that exists nowhere else, and it
is believed that much the same result would appear from a close
scrutiny of other Orders, especially of the Picarivx. But more than
this, if we examine the true Passeres we find similar indications.
Their highest group, the Corvidx, is only just represented in the
northern portion by its highest genus Corvus, and even its lower forms,
belonging to the subfamily Garruline (JAY), only occur in parts of the
rest: the Fringillide though inhabiting the Region are vastly out-
numbered by the Tanagridx, and the Mniotiltide occupy the position
elsewhere taken by the Sylviide.

Leaving, however, this question as in some degree hypothetical,
though its probability can hardly be denied, we have as genera,
Families, or even larger groups, a great many remarkable forms
that are characteristic of or peculiar to the Neotropical Region in
part if not asa whole. Of Families there are more than a score
absolutely restricted to it, beside some half-dozen which, being
peculiar to the New World, extend their range into the Nearctic
area, but are there so feebly developed that wherever they may
have originated in bygone ages, they may be safely ascribed now
to South America. First in point of numbers come the Zvochilidx
(HUMMING-BIRD) with, according to some systematists, nearly 150
genera, of which perhaps only 3 occur in the Nearctic area.
Then the 7yrannidx (KING-BIRD) with above 70 genera, yet scarcely
more than 10 ranging into the Holarctic Region. To these follow
the Tanagride (TANAGER) with 40 genera, only 1 of which crosses
the border ; and, in addition to those before mentioned the various
Families of Conopophagide, Cotingidx, Dendrocolaptidx, Formicaride,
Furnaviide (OVEN-BIRD), Pipridw (MANAKIN), and Pleroptochide

1 The exceptions are Tyrannidx, which occur in comparatively small pro-
portion in North America, Pittide, Philepittide, Acanthidosittidz, and Euryle-
mide.

2 The section which for want of a better name we have to call ‘‘ Psewdoscines”
has hitherto been found peculiar to Australia,

324 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

(TAPACULO)—all of them low Passeres, which are absolutely pecu-
liar, and of Picarizv, in the like condition, Galbulidw (JACAMAR),
Momotide (Mormot), Shamphastide (Toucan), Steatornithide
(GUACHARO), and Todidx (Toby); while still more significant are
the Palamedeide (SCREAMER), Psophid# (TRUMPETER), certain gen-
eralized Limicole as Attagis and Thinocorys, and above all isolated
forms like Cariama (SERIEMA) and Lurypyga (SUN-BITTERN). We
can scarcely be wrong also in attributing to the Neotropical Region
the Order of Jmpennes (PENGUIN) and the singularly generalized
form Chionis (SHEATHBILL), though both have a wide distribution
in the South-polar seas.

Taking the Neotropical Region to extend from Cape Horn over
the whole continent of South and Central America, but leaving its
northern frontier, if it can be defined at all, to be delimited by
the zoologists of the Nearctic area,’ there is hardly one that
exhibits more variety of physical features, and the Subregions into
which it may be divided cannot be easily traced. The six divisions
suggested to the present writer in 1875 (Hncycl. Brit. ed. 9, il.
p. 744) by Mr. Salvin seem to be better than the four laid down
by Mr. Wallace; and, subject to some uncertain modification, as
just hinted, on the northern boundary, are here again adopted ;
but the confines of all, except one, are of the vaguest. That one
is the Antillean, composed of what are generally known as the
West-India Islands, with the omission of Trinidad and Tobago,
whose Fauna is distinctly continental. Beginning, however, at the
southern point of the Region, we seem to have a Subregion extend-
ing on the east coast to somewhere north of Bahia Blanca, whence
its boundary runs in a north-westerly direction, passing to the east
of Mendoza, and then northward along the eastern and higher
slopes of the Andes, and after trifurcating on either side of the
valleys of the Magdalena and its confluent the Cauca, returns along
the western slope of the Cordillera until it trends seaward and
reaches the Pacific coast about Truxillo. As the peculiarities of
this Subregion are mainly developed in Patagonia, the name
“Patagonian” has been applied to it, though its northern ex-
tremity is so far distant from its eponymous territory. Next we
have what may be called the “Brazilian” Subregion, marching
with the foregoing to somewhere near Potosi, whence it turns to
the north-east, and, avoiding the basin of the Amazons, strikes
the Paranahyba, thence making its way to the Atlantic. Then
comes the “ Amazonian,” consisting of the enormous basin of the

1 As already stated, Prof. Heilprin proposes to annex to the Neotropical
Region a not inconsiderable portion of what has generally been referred to the
so-called ‘‘ Nearctic Region,” as, for instance, the lowlands (tierras calientes)
on either side of the Mexican tableland, Southern California, and some more of
the territory of the United States of America.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 325

river whence it has its name, but the peculiarities of the lower
portion not being observable in the higher tributaries of that
mighty flood, its upper waters must be regarded as draining land
that belongs to another Subregion, which, intervening between the
Patagonian and first the Brazilian and next the Amazonian, in-
cludes all that is left of South America, and has been named the
“Subandean.” ‘To this also belong on the one side the Galapagos
—ever memorable as the place where, as Darwin has told us, there
first dawned on him, from a consideration of their Birds, the
doctrine of Natural Selection, which has led to such fruitful and
stupendous results—and on the other side Trinidad and Tobago,
beside the islands on the northern coast of South America. This Sub-
region reaches the ‘ Central American” in the Isthmus of Panama,
and of the limits of this last none can yet speak with certainty.!
The difficulty of distinguishing these Subregions is very great,
and the close alliance between all but the Patagonian and Antillean
will be plain to any one who analyzes the differences as shewn by
the prevalence in them of the various Families of Birds peculiar
to the whole Region.2 That the most characteristic features are
exhibited by the Patagonian none can doubt, and indeed therein
we find, as might be expected, the nearest resemblance to the
Fauna of New Zealand or the Australian Region, and some of the
best evidence of the antiquity of its population. These are the

1 Messrs. Godman and Salvin, and there can be no better authorities, suggest
(Ibis, 1889, p. 242) that the northern limit of certain species of Psittaci ‘‘ may
be almost said to define the boundary between the Nearctic [Holarctic] and Neo-
tropical Regions.” They also point out that the same limit is practically that of
the T'rogonidz, and on the eastern side that of the Momotidz. It is also the
termination of the Cracidz, with the exception of an Ortalis, and of the Tinamidz,
while among the Passeres the same boundary confines Pachyrhamphus, one of
the Cotingidz, an essentially Neotropical Family, on both sides. ‘‘ From this it
will be seen that the line of demarcation between the two regions, so far as the
birds are concerned, is capable of being defined with some precision, and will be
found to coincide with the northern limits of the forests. These on the eastern
side leave the coast a little north of Tampico, and continue in a narrow belt along
the eastern flank of the mountains in a nearly northern direction almost to
Monterey. On the western side a similar state of things is found, and we.meet
with a number of southern forms extending along the western slope of the
mountains as far as Alamos” in Sonora.

2 It is only in deference to Mr. Salvin’s views that I do not rank the Subandean,
Brazilian, Amazonian, and Central American areas as Provinces, and group them
to form a single Subregion. Recognizing of course the Antillean Subregion, I
hold the existence of a Patagonian Fauna to be unquestionable, whatever be its
geographical limits ; but as regards the rest I am prepared to find that future
consideration will justify the suggestion just made, so that the Neotropical
Region will be deemed to be composed of three Subregions only, the Antillean, the
Patagonian, and one which (comprehending the four areas above named), for
want of a better epithet, might perhaps be called the ‘‘ Columbian.”

326 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Ratitw (HEA) which wander over its solitudes,! and the Jmpennes
(PENGUIN), which haunt its shores and those of the Falkland
Islands, besides the generalized Attagis, Chionis, and Thinocorys, the
Cariamidx, Palamedeidx, Phytotomidx, Pteroptochidx, and other forms
which are wholly or nearly peculiar, while some of the most char-
acteristic ‘Neotropical Families, Cxrebidx, Mniotiltide, Tanagride,
and Vireonidx, are but poorly represented or do not appear at all.
The Antillean being the only Subregion whose precise boundaries
can be definitely laid down, its Fauna, small as it is, is very in-
teresting. The unbroken chain of islands, to which in common
speech the name.‘ West Indies” is wrongly limited, forms geo-
graphically a second connecting line between the two halves of the
American continent, and at once suggests a former communication
by land with Yucatan at one end and Venezuela at the other, to
say nothing of a possible junction with Florida. Yet omitting
other considerations,” the peculiar forms of Bird-life manifested
throughout the chain shew that any such communication, if it ever
existed, must have been exceedingly remote in point of time; for
narrow as are the channels between Cuba and Central America,
between the Bahamas and the south-western peninsula of North
America, and between Grenada and Tobago (the latter, as already
stated, belonging zoologically to South America) the Fauna of the
Antilles, instead of being a mixture of that of the almost con-
tiguous countries, differs much from all, and in some groups
exhibits a speciality which may be not unfitly compared with that
of Oceanic Islands. One might have expected here to find an
extremely varied animal population ; but no instance perhaps can
be cited to show more strikingly the difference between a con-
tinental and an insular Fauna ; since, making every allowance for
extinction since Europeans settled on the soil, possibly no area of
land so highly favoured by nature is so poorly furnished with the
higher forms of animal life, and here once more we have Birds
constituting the supreme Class—the scarcity of Mammals being
the normal effect of insularity. There is no Family of Birds
common to the Nearctic area and the Antillean Subregion without
occurring also in other parts of the Neotropical Region, a fact
which proves its affinity to the latter. Out of about 140 genera
found in the Subregion about 30 are peculiar to it, and these are all
Land-birds, being a ratio very nearly approaching that found in
Madagascar, but in no other subregional district; and the dis-
tribution of some of the peculiar genera is very limited, for 19 out
of the 30 are confined each to a single island or nearly connected

1 Rhea macrorhyncha, however, occupies an isolated station much further to
the north, in the province of Parahyba (Zbis, 1881, p. 361).

* For these see ‘‘'lhree Cruises of the ‘ Blake,’” by Alexander Agassiz, Budd.
Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. xiv. xv. (Cambridge [Mass.]: 1888).

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 327

group of islands. There is one peculiar Family, Jodidx, already
mentioned, and that consists of but a single genus with 4 or
perhaps 5 species—one limited to each of the large islands, Cuba,
Jamaica, Hispaniola, and Porto Rico—the fifth (if it exists) being
from an unknown locality.'| Especially worthy of record is the
presence of 2 species or even genera of TRoGON—Prionotelws peculiar
to Cuba, and Zemnotrogon (which exhibits a remarkable similarity
to the African Hapaloderma) peculiar to Hispaniola. Another of
many singular facts that might be noticed did space admit is that
while Jamaica has no KESTREL at all (its place there being taken, in
winter at least, by the American form of MERLIN) Cuba possesses in
addition to one widely-ranging species of the genus 7'innunculus,?
a second that is peculiar to it, and this last, 7. sparverioides, offers
a great resemblance to the species, 7. gracilis, which is peculiar to
the Seychelles, almost at its antipodes.? Speculation as to the
former history of the Antilles would be at present vain. There
is no portion of the world that has been so long colonized by
Europeans, of which the existing Fauna is so little known, and
though of late as regards the British possessions something more
than ever had been done has been attempted, the results do not
justify more than the belief, which the facts already given may
indicate, that there must have been no ordinary amount of geo-
logical disturbance to account for the present distribution of the
Fauna.+*

With this must end the account here to be given of the several
Notogean Regions, since at present we have few means of deter-
mining the northern limits of the Neotropical Avifauna, nor know

1 A bird of this group, or name at any rate, was one of those asserted by
Ledru (Voyage &c. ii. p. 89. Paris: 1810) to have formerly inhabited St.
Thomas in the Antilles (¢f. EXTERMINATION, p. 219).

2 T am unable to agree with the view taken (Cat. B. Br. Mus. i. pp. 437-442)
as to splitting up the 7. sparverius into several local species or forms, though it
was approved by so good an authority as the late Mr. Gurney.

° This fact is worth consideration relatively to the similarity or asserted affinity
between the two Mammalian genera, Solenodon of the Antilles and Centetes, with
its allies, of Madagascar, while a splendid genus of Lepidoptera, Uranidia or
Urania, which has two species peculiar to Cuba and one to Jamaica, is said to
have its nearest ally in Chrysiridia of the grand African island and of Zanzibar.

4 The Neotropical Avifauna is said to be the richest in the world, and the
literature relating to it is no Jess abundant. While the papers in journals are
almost countless, it would be impossible here to give the titles of even the,
separately-published works, The following list contains the names of the chief
authors of the latter:—Azara, Burmeister, Castelnau, Cory, d’Orbigny, Gay,
Godman, Gosse, Gundlach, Hernandez, Hudson, Lembeye, Léotaud, Marcgrave,
Martius, (Prince) Maximilian (of Wied), Molina, Nierenberg, Oustalet, von Pel-
zeln, de Philippi, Poey, de la Sagra, Salvin, Sclater, Sloane, Spix, Taczanowski,
Tschudi.

328 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

whether it melts insensibly into that of the Nearctic area of the
Holarctic Region. It will be most convenient to consider that
Region next, though strong doubts may be entertained as to the
logical propriety of such a course, for this Holarctic Region seems
to have the most highly developed Fauna, in that it is one from
which the weakest types have generally been eliminated, though
that result is chiefly seen in its Palearctic area, and perhaps espe-
cially in the western part of this, shewing the truth of the poet’s
line happily applied by Mr. Sclater in his classical essay—

“Better fifty years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay.”

IV. The Holarctic Region-—As has been stated in the introduc-
tory portion of this article, the combination intimated by this
phrase, though sanctioned in spirit by Prof. Huxley, wholly con-
travenes the opinion expressed by two of the leading authorities
on the subject—Messrs. Sclater and Wallace. The arguments of
the former being based on positive facts, or at least on what seemed
at the time to be such, must be met by corresponding facts. Those
of the latter having a more hypothetical foundation—the notion
that each of the primary divisions of the earth’s surface should
comprehend about the same extent—require less consideration.
The natural philosopher regards quality rather than quantity, and
things must be weighed as well as measured, analyzed as well as
surveyed. Scarcely any systematist nowadays doubts that among
Mammals the Monotremes, of which only two living Families are
known, form a Subclass at least as important as the Monodelphians,
the existing members of which may number nearly fourscore Families,
even if there be not an opinion that Monotremes are of equal rank
(in one sense of the word) with the Monodelphians and Didelphians
thereto added. But, not to wander from our present business, no
one who will investigate the Avifauna of that part of North: America
lying outside the boundary (if it can ever be traced) of the
Neotropical Region, will find in the Nearctic area more than a
single Family of Birds that is peculiar to it, and that is a Family
of position so doubtful that some of those who have most closely
studied it refer it to one or another of well-known Families—
Paridz or Troglodytide—hboth of which are widely dispersed and
admittedly contain genera that differ considerably. If by way of
accommodating these dissentient views we recognize Chama as the
type of a distinct Family—and in our present state of imperfect
knowledge no other course seems open—the existence of such a
Family, Chamzxidz, still seems precarious. Every other Nearctic
Family is common to the Neotropical Region or to the Palearctic
area, or to both. Of the Passeres common to the Neotropical Region
and the Nearctic area 4 Families are admittedly better represented
in the latter—namely, Wniotiltide by some 13 genera and about 50

ar

ee in

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 329

species, Vireonide by 1 genus and 14 species, [cteridz by 8 genera and
21 species, and 7'yrannidxz by 10 genera and 26 species. The first of
these, however, cam alone be regarded as eminently characteristic of
the area, since that affords a home to all but 3 of the genera, but
at the same time only about half of the described species occur
there. None of the rest can compare with it in this respect, Vir-
eonid# having some 5 genera and 50 species, Jcteridx more than 20
genera and more than 100 species, and Tyrannidz some 70 genera
and over 300 species in the Neotropical Region.

If we extend our investigation from the Families to the genera,
we shall come to results which point the same way. It is confessedly
difficult to make any accurate comparison owing to the tendency
(not wholly modern) of ornithologists to propose the foundation of
genera on very slight excuse ; but, taking the number of Nearctic
genera at 330, which was a very liberal estimate toward the end of
the period signalized by the labours of the late Prof. 8. F. Baird, not
more than two dozen of them seem to be peculiar to the Nearctic
area,! while this has about 128 genera in common with the Palearctic
area and 178 which are also Neotropical. The genera peculiar to
the New World, occurring both in the Nearctic area and in the
Neotropical Region, without appearing in the Palearctic area, must
be divided into two categories in order to obtain a just estimate of
the relations of the first two districts. These categories. consist of
(1) those genera which being only winter visitants to the Southern
Region are not natives of it, and (2) those which breeding in both
districts may fairly be called common to both. The former, some
27 in all, must of course be considered characteristic of the Nearctic
area, and might indeed be appropriately added to the 23 or 24
genera which are peculiar thereto ; but if this be done, the number of
peculiar and characteristic genera taken together reaches only 51—
a smaller number than that of the genera of Land-birds alone (57)
which are common to the Nearctic and Palearctic areas, and con-
siderably less than half the number of all genera which are found
on both, while that of the remaining genera which are common to
the Nearctic area and the Neotropical Region is much larger again,
being 151. Again, the total of peculiar and characteristic Nearctic
genera being (as just said) 51, cannot compare with the 264 (or
perhaps more) genera which are peculiar to the Neotropical Region ;
while no one can pretend that among the former are there any
types of such significance as the latter abundantly afford. Thus
regarded from every ornithological aspect, what has been called
the Nearctic “Region” has no right to be so accounted, since its

1 Of these 2 belong to Turdidx, 1 to Chamxide, Paridx, Troglodytide
respectively, 5 to Emberizidx, 2 to Corvidz, 1 to each of Picidw, Falconidea,
and Columbidz, 5 to Tetraonidx, and 1 to Scolopacide, Anatide, and Laridez
respectively, —

330 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

peculiarity is numerically of less importance than some of the
Subregions of the Neotropical Region, as the following table will shew
more plainly :—

Whole No. | Peculiar | Percentage of

of Genera. | Genera. Peeuliarity.
Patagonian . , ; : ; 290 46 15862 |
Brazilian ‘ ; ‘ : : 396 43 10°857
Amazonian . : H : : 373 27 7°238
Subandean . : : 3 : 469 (y 15°38
Central American . : : . 464 46 9°913
Antillean . ‘ ; ; ‘ 140 30 21°444
Nearctic - A é : 330* 24* 7°272

* These numbers, calculated according to the formerly received boundaries of
the Nearctic ‘* Region,” are certainly overstated, but means of arriving at a more
accurate computation are not now forthcoming.

A considerable majority of the Nearctic Families and genera
seem to be generally distributed throughout the whole area, which
we may fairly call a Subregion, and consequently its division into
Provinces is not easily effected, their delimitations resting rather on
differences of species than of higher groups. Of the many attempts
to subdivide the Subregion, that of Baird! seems to be the most .
successful. He long ago pointed out the existence of three Pro-
vinces in its southern portion, the most easterly of which may be
termed the ‘“ Alleghanian,” since it extends from the Atlantic
across the mountains whence it is named, and over the valley of
the Mississippi and its prairies to about long. 100° W. where the
sterile plains begin. Then its boundary turns northward, crossing
the Platte and intersecting the Missouri about Fort Lookout.

1 “The Distribution and Migrations of North American Birds,” Am. Journ.
Sc. and Aris, ser. 2, xli. pp. 78-90, 184-192, 337-347 (January, March, and May,
1866). Reprinted /bis, 1867, pp. 257-293. German translation, Journ. fi Orn.
1866, pp. 244-269, 338-352.

* | make this assertion though aware of the views to the contrary expressed
by Dr. Merriam in his ‘‘ Results of a Biological Survey of the San Francisco
Mountain Region and Desert of the Little Colorado, Arizona” (North American
Fauna, No. 8. Washington: 1890). He arrives (p. 24) at the conclusions ‘‘ that
the whole of extratropical North America consists of but two primary life regions,
a Boreal region, which is circumpolar; and a Sonoran or Mexican table-land region,
which is unique.” The-first of these, it will be seen, supports my contention of
the essential unity of the Nearctic and Palearctic areas. The second is one the
probability of which I will not dispute; but I think that at present the facts
adduced in its support are hardly sufficient to warrant its adoption by naturalists,
who, not being Americans, must necessarily be acquainted with them only at
second hand, especially as I am disposed to consider that Dr. Merriam’s enumera-
tion (pp. 26-28) of the ‘‘causes which determine distribution,” however well they
may fit the area of which he treats, may not be of universal application.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 331

Reaching the eastern frontier of Canada, it rapidly inclines west-
ward and loses itself in the Arctic wilds. But this Province melts
away also on its north-eastern border, and cannot there be sharply
distinguished from what may be named the “Canadian,” which
occupies the north-eastern portion of the continent, including the
eastern half of the Dominion, and it must be held to extend across
Davis Strait to Greenland, though it only fringes the shore of that
ice-bound country, while here and there on the continent it follows
the higher ranges southward, even to Fort Burgwyn near lat.
37° N. if not further. Then on the west we have a “ Californian”
Province, the longitudinal extent of which is very indefinite.
Prof. Heilprin would cut off the southern portion, annexing it to
the Neotropical Region, and its eastern boundary would seem to
proceed along the Sierra Nevada and the Cascade Mountains, so
that it is restricted to a mere strip of coast territory, extending,
however, beyond British Columbia. Between this Californian and
the Alleghanian Province is interposed a considerable tract of
country called by many American writers the ‘“ Middle Province,”
a name so vague that it would seem allowable to distinguish it as
the “Missourian” since its characteristic vertebrates culminate
(so to speak) in the wide basin of that greatest of tributaries to
the Mississippi. Occupying the extreme north-west of the con-
tinent, a fifth Province, the ‘“ Alaskan,” must be recognized, and
this from a zoogeographical point of view is the most important
of all, since it is characterized by the presence of Mammals and
Land-birds, which are not only specifically identical with those of
Asia, but among them some individually have an Asiatic resort.
The list of Birds observed in this Province, which may be taken as
beginning about Cape St. Elias, and thence extending northward to
the Icy Sea, seems (after such revision as can at present be made)
to number 227,? of which 112, or very nearly one-half, are also
Asiatic. Dividing the whole into Water-birds and Land-birds, we
find that of the former (127) more than 66 and of the latter (100)
exactly 27 per cent. are found on both sides of the Pacific. More-
over no fewer than 11 of the 100 species of Land-birds, belonging

1 Indication of its being the focus (if such a thing can now exist) of purely
Nearctic types is not wanting, since here we find at least one generalized or
undifferentiated genus, Colaptes (FLICKER), which both to the north and to the
south separates itself into specific forms.

2 The gross number given in 1887 by Messrs. Nelson and Henshaw in their
Report upon Natural History Collections made in Alaska (pp. 19-226) is 255, but 28
of these should be deducted as not being known to occur to the northward of Cape
St. Elias or the Alaska Mountains, where apparently a very natural frontier exists.
This Report contains a useful bibliography of Alaskan ornithology. In making
the estimates given in the text above, all the subspecies or conspecies recognized
by the authors have been treated as true species. Were it otherwise the results
would still more favour the views here expressed.

332 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

to 3 if not 4 genera of Pusseres, are found nowhere else in the New
World,! and their occurrence there does not preclude us from set-
ting them down as essentially Palearctic forms. Indeed they all
belong to genera widely distributed throughout the greater part
of Europe and Asia, while if the species be not identical they are
represented by others that are closely cognate—as in the case of
the WAGTAILS? and the BULLFINCH. Some are summer immigrants,
and therefore must yearly cross and recross Bering’s Sea, since they
assuredly do not winter upon the American side. To these last
may even be added the WHEATEAR, Sazicola cwnanthe, for though
that species is. known as a regular annual visitant to Greenland?
and Labrador (where it breeds), and almost annually appears as a
straggler in the maritime provinces of Canada, in Maine, and in
New England, the flocks which throng the stony hill-tops of Alaska
in spring are not likely to have performed a north-west passage
from Europe, and indeed it is stated that specimens from Norton
Sound differ considerably from those obtained in Greenland. All
these birds are unseen in British Columbia,‘ and as all are migratory,
the inference that they make some part of Asia their winter quarters
is almost irresistible ;° but the point to be observed is that an orni-
thologist passing in summer from Kamchatka or the eastern extremity
of Siberia would on landing in Northern Alaska find himself in the
midst of an Avifauna of which nearly one-half, namely 112 out of
227 species, was identical with that which he had left on the other
side of the Pacific.® :

1 These are Pyrrhula cassini, Leucosticte griseinucha, Anthus cervinus,
Budytes leucostriatus, Motacilla ocularis, Parus obtectus, Phylloscopus borealis,
Cyanecula suecica, Surnia funerea, Strix lapponica, and Archibuteo lagopus.
The purely American species which occur accidentally in Europe are of course
left out of consideration. It is to be remarked that at present there is no trace
of the accidental occurrence of any purely American species in Northern Asia,
though such are quite likely to come under the notice of future observers.

2 “Several small birds of the water-wagtail genus” came on board one of
Cook’s ships, 16 August 1778, when in lat. 69.57 N. and long. 166.19 W., being
then off Cape Lisburn on the northern coast of Alaska (W. Ellis, Narrative of a
Voyage &c. i. p. 340).

3 Though Messrs. Nelson and Henshaw (op. cit. p. 222) state that the present
writer ‘‘ assumes that the bird reaches North-west America by the way of Green-
land,” he does not remember having entertained or expressed any such opinion.
On the contrary, he used the very words above printed in his article “ Birds”
published in the Encyclopedia Britannica (ed. 9, iii. p. 753) in 1875.

4 They seem not to occur to the southward of Cape St. Elias, the presumed
limit of the Province.

> This remark must be taken as not influencing the argument, or the example
of Egypt presently to be cited would thereby be affected.

§ It may be observed that in order to avoid the least appearance of overstating
the case, forms like the TREE-CREEPER and Osprey have been counted as though
distinct. If these and some others were regarded as specifically identical, and

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 333

Perhaps there is nothing very surprising in this, when we con-
sider the narrowness of the channel which here divides America
from Asia, and furthermore the fact that the water of Bering’s
Strait is shallow suggests a still closer connexion in bygone times
of the two continents. The Aleutian Islands, though they look
like a series of stepping-stones from one to the other, do not seem
to furnish a route of communication, for Mr. Dall (Proc. Californ.
Acad. Sc. 14 March 1874) calls special attention to the fact that
no intrusion of Asiatic forms occurs towards the western end of the
chain, while observing that its Avifauna is reinforced beyond
Ounalaska by several Arctic species not.possessed by the more
eastern islands. The other islands belonging to the Nearctie Sub-
region, the Prybilof in the Northern Pacific, and the Bermudas
nearly in the middle of the Northern Atlantic Ocean, do not need
any particular remark here. Greenland may be regarded as coming
almost into the same category, and though there, as might be
expected, the influence of the Old World is strong, that of the New
World just prevails, since of the 45 genera to which belong the
feathered denizens of the fringe of habitable soil on its western
coast (which is all that is offered by that land of desolation)
none is especially characteristic of the former, while one, Zonotrichia,
is peculiar to the latter, and a similar result follows from an investi-
gation of the species—a bare majority being Nearctic.1

It has been already stated that more than one-third of the
genera of Nearctic birds are common also to the Palearctic Sub-
region. If we take the number of Nearctic species at 700, which
is perhaps an exaggeration, and that of Palearctic at 850, we find
that, exclusive of stragglers, there are about 120 common to the
two areas. Nearly 20 more are properly Palearctic, but occa-
sionally occur in America, and about 50 are Nearctic, which from
time to time stray to Europe or Asia.” This, however, is by no
means the only point of resemblance. Of many genera, the so-
- ealled species found in the New World are represented in the Old
by forms so like them that often none but an expert can distinguish
them, and of such representative “species” about 80 might be
enumerated.

this the writer fully believes them to be, more than one-half the Avifauna of
these portions of the two continents would be the same.

1 Any one at all curious in these questions should consult Prof. Palmén’s
tables at the end of his contribution to the ornithology of the Siberian coast,
printed in the fifth volume of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of the ‘ Vega.’

2 Baird, in the essay before cited, has reasonably accounted for this dispro-
portionate reciprocity between Europe and America ; but perhaps more than he
has allowed for must be set down to the comparative want until lately of records
in the newer country. This want is being speedily supplied by the increased
study of Ornithology of recent years in Canada and the United States.

334 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Since, as above indicated, the avifauna of the Nearctic Sub-
region shews its intimate connexion with that of the Palearctic by
the yearly interchange that obtains between Alaska and the north-
eastern portion of Asia, it would seem most fitting to begin the
consideration of the Palzarctic Subregion at that part of it. As
in the Nearctic Subregion difficulty was found in defining the
limits of its several Provinces, so there is difficulty here, and
perhaps it is even greater in this far vaster area. The very fulness
of details we possess in regard to some of the countries of our own
Subregion, those of its western or European portion especially,
makes the scarcity of information in respect of others all the more
conspicuous, and renders comparison useless. In the eastern
portion, its southern frontier cannot be as yet determined. Grant-
ing that it includes the whole of Japan, the line of demarcation on
the continent is open to much doubt: Mr. Wallace would place its
commencement about Ningpo, just to the southward of Chusan,
whence it would have to enclose the basin of the Yang-tse-Kiang,
and then turn suddenly northward to skirt the valleys of the rivers
which drain Cochin China, Siam, and Burma, as they undoubtedly
belong to the Indian Region. Thence it would make for the
eastern end of the Himalayas, on reaching which its course becomes
fairly plain so far as the Hindoo Koosh; here it trends to the
southward to include Afghanistan and the greater part if not
the whole of Beloochistan. Skirting the northern shore of the
Persian Gulf, it continues westward, passing to the north of Arabia,
but comprising Mesopotamia and Palestine, with a remarkable
exception to be presently noticed, and reaching the south-eastern
corner of the Mediterranean Sea. Here its land-boundary is inter-
rupted, but it may be taken up again in Tunis, if not in Tripoli,
and, including all the ancient Mauritania—that is, the portion of
Africa north of the Great Desert—meets the Atlantic Ocean about
Mogador. The Subregion includes the Atlantic Islands (Canaries,
Madeiras, and Azores), as well as Iceland, but otherwise its western
and northern limits are those of Europe and Asia, with the more or
less explored Arctic lands lying to the northward of them.

Of the Provinces into which this vast area may be separated,
there is first the ‘“ Siberian,” beginning on Bering’s Strait, and
extending across the northernmost part of Asia to the confines of
Europe, where what passes for the Ural Mountains may be found
a convenient though probably an arbitrary boundary. Guided by
the investigations of the late Capt. Blakiston and Mr. H. Pryer,! we
find that the Strait of Tsugaru, between Yezo and Nipon (occa-
sionally called Hondo), constitutes a boundary between two Pro-
vinces, the more northern being that first named, while the more

1 Trans. Asiat. Soc. Japan, x. pp. 84-186 (1882), and Amended List of the
Birds of Japan (London: 1884).

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 335

southern has been termed the “ Mongolian.” Where the line just
indicated may reach the continent of Asia is as yet very doubtful.
Some would make it round the Corean peninsula; but a careful
scrutiny of all that is known of the ornithology of that country, as
stated by Professors Giglioli and Salvadori, and the late Dr.
Taczanowski,' forbids it being so drawn, and there seems a prob-
ability of the Stannovoi first, and then the Altai Mountains
marking their respective limits, while further inland the great deserts
can scarcely fail to interpose a barrier almost impassable for
resident birds. The ‘“ Mongolian” Province may be taken to
extend between the frontiers thus vaguely sketched until it reaches
the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, but the chain of mountains that
forms the western continuation of the Himalayas, separates it from a
third Province, which, beginning on the shores of the Gulf of Oman,
includes the rest of Asia, all the portion of Africa that lies in the
Palearctic Subregion, as well as the three great European penin-
sulas, so that the northern boundaries of its western part would be
the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the Balkan range. Looking to the
importance of the sea which penetrates this Province more than
half way from west to east, the name “ Mediterranean ” may not
inaptly be conferred upon it. The rest of Europe, having an Avifauna,
as all will admit, differing enough from the “ Mediterranean,” will
form another Province, and though on its eastern side it might well
have a more decided boundary, we must accept the Ural Mountains
for want ofa better, and the Kirghiz Desert, while the Caspian Sea,
the Caucasus, and the Euxine complete its circuit on the south.
That a desert should form, as just hinted, a proper boundary to
a Fauna will not be gainsaid by any one who takes the trouble to
consider what is thereby meant. It will be enough to point out
that the southern border of the western portion of the Palearctic
Subregion has, in the Great Desert of Africa, commonly known as
the Sahara, a boundary hardly inferior to a coast-line in the precision
~ with which it may be laid down, and in the influence which it exerts.
That indeed may be an extreme instance, but the existence of many
others more or less nearly approaching it is certain. Moreover, some
of these are likely to lead to a misapprehension, against which it is
advisable to guard the unwary, and in no part of the world more
so than in relation to that now under consideration. It is well

1 The list of Corean birds by the first two authorities (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1887,
pp. 580-596) consists wholly of species, chiefly Water-birds, obtained at a season
when the migrants from the north would predominate over the actual natives ;
and hence, though of value in some other respects, fails to shew the real character
of the Avifauna of Corea. If the lists of the third writer (op. ci¢. 1887, pp. 596-611 ;
1888, pp. 450-469) be closely examined, it will be seen that, though he ascribes a
Siberian character to the avifauna, the species obtained by the collector in spring
or summer, and these are of course the natives, belong to the Chinese Fauna.

336 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

known that wherever there are deserts they are inhabited by what
is called a “ Desert Fauna” consisting of animals belonging to many
Classes—Vertebratesand Invertebrates—which are especially adapted
to their surroundings ; but hitherto there has been no need to notice
this fact in the present work. However, in the Palearctic Subregion,
and especially in its eastern portion, as well as in the Ethiopian
Region, next to be treated, deserts are so extensive that some
zoologists have been inclined to deem them guides in the matter of
Geographical Distribution. For very limited districts there is
perhaps no great harm in so doing, though there is always the risk
of thereby confounding what botanists have long since seen to be
essentially different, namely station and habitat; but a wholly wrong
notion would be conveyed were deserts to be accounted factors in
determining the value of geographical areas. These, as Mr. Wallace
has laid down (Geogr. Distr. Anim. i. pp. 3 and 4), do not depend on
physical features, though physical features may affect them. Further-
more, it is observable of Desert Faunas that most of the animals
composing them are very nearly related to those which inhabit the
country bordering on the desert—in some cases the difference
between the two is only that of tint and must again be mentioned
(VARIATION), in others it is greater and may extend to stature or
the proportional size of various organs, as in Birds in the length and
thickness of the Bini. Again, it may be greater stiil, and instead
of regarding the animal asa local race, we have to recognize its
specific or generic validity as, among Birds, several LARKS, »
SPARROWS, STARLINGS, and WHEATEARS, or even as a well-marked
form like the CourSERS, a Family like the SAND-GROUSE, or an Order
such as the OSTRICH represents. But it seems clear that the right
way to regard these and other inhabiters of the desert is to view
them as we do the denizens of the great oceans. We do not
determine the Avifauna of Polynesia by the oceanic birds which
sweep over its waters or even lodge upon its coral-reefs ; but by the
birds which inhabit its islands. Now oases are to deserts what
islands are to oceans, and it is therefore by the dwellers in the
oases that the characteristic fauna of a tract! which includes desert
must be judged, while that of the wastes which surround them is
but the result of local causes. Were it otherwise we should have to
recognize a Desert Province (or rather a Region, even) in the Old
World, which starting from the mountain range lying to the west-
ward of Pekin would stretch in a wide belt over Asia, and crossing
Arabia, as well as Africa at its widest part, be terminated only by

1 Canon Tristram seems to be the first who drew the special attention of
ornithologists to Desert Forms, the precise value of which he set forth admirably
in his famous remarks (bis, 1859, pp. 429-483)—too long to be here quoted—
on their bearing on the then half-revealed Darwinian hypothesis of Natural
Selection.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 337

the shores of the Atlantic, for throughout that immense tract species
of Passeres are found that wear the Desert uniform and scarcely differ
from one end to the other.

Having already indicated the component parts of the Subregion,
it is time to say somewhat of its ornithic characters. - Like the
Nearctic, it seems to produce but a single peculiar Family of Birds
—the Panuridz, the type of which is the beautiful species known
to most Englishmen as the Bearded Titmouse, Panurus biarmicus? ;
but this fact need excite no surprise when we remember that along
almost the whole of its southern frontier, extending from long. 120°
E. to 10° W., it is conterminous with the Indian or the Ethiopian
Region, whereas the Nearctic Subregion presents not more than 20°
of latitude to the Neotropical Region.?_ Indeed, the wonder rather is
that the Palearctic Subregion should have even a single peculiar
Family, for we ought to bear in mind that all the Families of the
Holarctic Region consist of stronger forms than those inhabiting
the Regions which abut upon it, so that the faculty of extending
their range is possessed in a greater degree by the former. The
whole number of Palearctic Families may be taken to be 67, and of
the genera 323, about which there can be little doubt, or if any
exist, it is that the number is understated. Of these, as before
stated, 128 are common to the Nearctic Subregion. Species of 51
more seem to occur as true natives within the Ethiopian and Indian
Regions, and besides these, 18 appear to be common to the Ethiopian,
without being found in the Indian, and no fewer than 71 to the
Indian without occurring in the Ethiopian—a result that might be
expected from geographical considerations, since the latter Region
is cut off by a wide desert, constituting (as above stated) a barrier
as hard to pass as a sea, while the former Region, though in fact
separated by one of the highest mountain-ranges in the world, is
in almost its whole length conterminous.

Taking the Provinces separately, we find that the Siberian has
but one genus peculiar to it—Hurynorhynchus, the Spoon-billed
Sandpiper, a bird of wide wanderings, whose home was finally dis-
covered by the companions of Baron Nordenskjéld on the mainland
opposite to Burney Island (long. 174° W.) during the memorable
voyage of the ‘Vega.’ The Mongolian seems to have the largest
number of peculiar genera of any Palearctic Province, there being
no fewer than 13, which may be assigned as follows—Fringillidz,

1 This bird is most unhappy in its names. It has nothing whatever to do
with the Tirmoust-Family, Paridz, and its specific title, signifying of or belong-
ing to Biarmia, the district of Perm in Russia, is just as inapt.

2 As the southern boundary of both Subregions lies in much the same latitude
(say roughly 30° N.), the degrees of longitude are practically equal in either case.

3 Paimén, Bidrag till Kannedomen om Sibiriska Ishafskustens Fogelfauna.
Vega-Expeditionens vetenskapliga Iakttagelser, v. pp. 326, 327.

22

338 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

3; Sturnide, Panuridx, Ixide and Sylviidx, 1 each; Timeliide and
Phasianidz, 2 each; and “ Péerocleidx” + and Anatidx, 1 apiece.?
The Mediterranean Province appears to have peculiar to it 4
genera of Sylviidx, and 1 genus of Laridx; but some 23 more
belong to it and to no other part of the Subregion, though having
a wider range outside of the latter. Of these, 8 are common to the
Ethiopian and Indian Regions, while confined to the former and the
Province are 11, and having the same relation to the latter 2.
Finally, it has a genus of Anatidx, Hrismatura, which is represented
in Australia and America, as well as in Africa.

The Atlantic Islands,? which must be regarded as belonging to
the Mediterranean Province, offer some peculiarities of great interest.
First we have the Azores, the subject of an excellent monograph by
Mr. Frederick Godman,* who shews that there is a general tendency
among their birds to vary more or less from their continental repre-
sentatives, especially in having almost always a darker plumage, a
stouter bill and stronger legs, and in one instance, a BULLFINCH,
Pyrrhula murina, the variation justifies its specific distinction. The
same tendency is not so observable in the Madeiras, but these have
at least two peculiar species, and recent researches in the Canaries ®
prove that there differentiation is carried on to a still greater extent,
and that certain local forms are often confined to a particular island,
while again there are some species that occur in all the islands with
little or no sensible variation. It is almost indubitably proved that
all those groups have been colonized from the mainland of the
Mediterranean Province, and the changes which the colonists have
undergone may be in some cases a measure of the period that has
elapsed since one species after another has settled upon them. In
no case does the colonization of Land-birds seem to be very ancient,

1 By strict rule, this Family should be called Syrrhaptide, Syrrhaptes being
the earliest-named genus belonging to it. But one species of this genus overran
Europe in astonishing numbers in 1863 and again in 1888, both times breeding in
its new-found quarters (see SAND-GROUSE).

2 Information on the ornithology of this Province gathered by recent Russian
travellers has been mostly published in their own language. Nevertheless, Dr.
Severzov’s notes on the Birds of Turkestan have been rendered into English by
Messrs. Crimers and Dresser (Zbis, 1875, pp. 96, 286, 3832 ; and 1876, pp. 77, 171,
319, 410), and an English translation by the former of those gentlemen of the
ornithological portion of Prjevalsky’s travels was given by the late Mr. Rowley in
his Ornithological Miscellany, vols. ii. and iii.

3 Among these Mr. Wallace groups the Cape-Verd Islands; but whatever
may be the case with other Classes of animals, their Birds shew a preponderance
of Ethiopian forms, and here they must be referred to that Region.

4 Natural History of the Azores or Western Islands. London : 1870.

5 i. G. Meada-Walde, Zbis, 1889, pp. 1-18, 503-520 ; 1890, pp. 429-438 ; H. B.
Tristram, op. cit. 1889, pp. 18-32; and A. Konig, Journ. fiir Orn. 1889, pp. 199,
263 ; 1890, pp. 257-488, tabb. i.-viii.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 339

as no indication of loss of wing-power, which is one of the effects of
protracted isolation, has been observed among them, though, as is
well known, many of the Insects are said to shew it remarkably.
Moreover, the colonization seems to be going on still, and it happens
not unfrequently that when an island has a well-established local
race it is yet more or less regularly visited by individuals of the
normal and parental form.

The European Province does not seem to possess a single genus
that can be accounted peculiar to it, but it has one consisting of a
single species, Mergulus alle (ROTCHE), which does not elsewhere
occur in the Palearctic Subregion, though it inhabits the northern
parts of the Canadian Province of the Nearctic. It would, how-
ever, extend too far for the present article to dwell upon more
than a very few of the curiosities of distribution revealed by the
continued observation of birds in Europe. There is no need to
travel out of our own island to meet with some of the most
remarkable among them, and we may take the case of the NiGut-
INGALE as an example. In England the western limit of this
incomparable songster’s range seems to be formed by the valley of
the Exe, which is only overstepped on rare occasions. But even
in the east of Devon it is local and rare, as it also is in the north
of Somerset, though plentiful in other parts of that county. Cross-
ing the Bristol Channel, it is said to be not uncommon at times
near Cowbridge in Glamorganshire ; but this seems to be an isolated
spot, or at any rate there is no evidence of its being found else-
where in Wales, or between that place and Tintern on the Wye,
where it has been reported to be plentiful. Thence there is more
or less good testimony of its occurrence in Herefordshire, Shrop-
shire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, and so on, to about 5 miles
north of York, but not further, that is to say in the ordinary
course of things, for Mr. Wolley-Dod, an unquestionable authority,
recorded one that he heard singing at Malpas in Cheshire in May
1889.1 Along the line thus sketched out, and immediately to the
south and east of it, the appearance of the Nightingale, even if
regular, which may be doubted, is rare, and the bird is very local ;
but in many parts of the midland, eastern, and southern counties
it is abundant, and the woods, coppices, and gardens ring with that
thrilling song which has been the theme of writers in all ages.
There are many assertions of its occurrence in England further to
the northward, but some of them rest on anonymous authority
only, and all must be regarded with the greatest suspicion. Still
more open to doubt are the statements which have been made as
to its visits to Scotland, while in Ireland there is no pretence even
of its appearance. No reasonable mode of accounting for the

1 Others were reported to have been heard about the same time in Flintshire
and near Rhyl. ;

340 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

partial distribution of the Nightingale has hitherto been pro-
pounded; there is no -peculiar kind of soil which it especially
affects, or none, so far as we know, that it especially avoids; and
the same may be said of its relations to the Flora of this country.
It is not so entirely adscriptus glebe that it will not readily betake
itself to new localities suited to its liking, when these have been
formed within its natural limits, though they may be miles away
from its ancient haunts. On the contrary, it is often one of the
first birds to establish itself when a heath has been broken up, and
plantations of trees thereon made have grown sufficiently to afford
it the sheltering covert that it loves.. This instance taken from a
bird whose habits have been so closely studied both in captivity
and at large, and one’ which is so familiar and in many places so
numerous, that abundant opportunities are given for observing all
that can be observed about it, shews how futile would be the
expectation that in most cases we could at present, even if ever,
satisfactorily account for the existing causes which limit the dis-
tribution of species. A vast majority of them, we know, have
each its bounds, which virtually it cannot pass, and the case of the
Nightingale in England, beyond the fact that its distribution is
extremely well marked, and therefore has long attracted especial
attention, has really nothing out of the common way in it) In
Europe, the neighbourhood of Copenhagen is the most northern
point which our Nightingale is asserted to reach; but on the
continent its range is less extended, and though abundant in
Mecklenburg, it is not found in that part of Pomerania which lies
to the north of the Peene valley, nor does it stretch so far eastward
as Danzig.? It occurs, however, sparingly on the Polish frontier,
near Thorn, and is observed in Austria, Upper Hungary, and
Galizia. In Russia its distribution cannot be laid down with any
degree of accuracy, but it does not reach the Governments near
the Ural, though it is said to be plentiful in that of Kharkov, and
it is known to visit the Crimea. Records of its occurrence still
further to the eastward are probably incorrect, as it seems to be

1 When the history of the earth shall be really well and minutely under-
stood, it seems quite possible that as much light will be shed on this and other
particular cases of the same kind by a knowledge of the various changes and
displacements which sea and land have undergone as has already been done by
the same means in regard to many of the general facts of Distribution. The
results of the labour of the geologist are doubtless just as necessary to and
closely connected with the work of the biologist, as those of the investigation of
the historian are to and with the efficiency of the statesman ; while, in return,
the researches of the biologist are, or ought to be, of the greatest use to the
geologist. The history of the earth is for a long period of time that of its
inhabitants.

2 From the Rhine valley eastward the range of the other European species
overlaps that of the present.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 341

replaced in Circassia and Persia by another form; but southward
of this imperfectly-drawn line our Nightingale may be found as
a winter-visitant in Nubia and Abyssinia, as well as in Algeria,
where it is reported as breeding, and it would seem to migrate
thence so far as the Gold Coast. It is abundant in Spain and
Portugal; but it is a stranger to Britanny, the western penin-
sula of France, just as it is to the western peninsula of England.1

One other example we may take, and this, though much less
familiar, is equally instructive as exhibiting some of the as yet
unexplained. peculiarities of Distribution. It shall be that of a
bird belonging to a very different Order from the last, having
habits entirely dissimilar, and presenting in most ways a great
contrast. The Kentish PLover, Agialitis cantiana, a species first
determined from specimens obtained on the coast of that English
county whence it takes its specific name, has its breeding-place
in Britain limited to the pebbly beach between Sandwich and
Hastings, and in other parts of this kingdom only occurs as a
chance straggler. Yet this species has a very wide range, breeding
not only abundantly along the greater part of the coasts of the
temperate and warmer portions of the Old World north of the
Equator, but also occasionally in the interior, as at the base of the
Caucasus and in the chotts of the North-African plains; while
in its regular migration it wanders to the Malay Archipelago and
South Africa, and is hardly to be specifically separated from a
Plover which inhabits the coast of China, or from another which is
found on the west coast of America from California southward,
though the former has been described as distinct under the name of
44. dealbata, and the latter under that of 4. nivosa.

A remarkable case of restricted range is that of the Red
Grouse, Lagopus scoticus, found—and in certain districts, as every
one knows, numerously—in each of the three kingdoms, as well as
in Wales. The details of its local distribution, as of that of all

» other birds which breed in Great Britain, were carefully and con-

cisely given by Mr. More (Ibis, 1865, pp. 1-27, 119-142, 425-458),
and there is no need to dwell upon them here; but what is worthy
of remark is that this particular species differs in no other essential
character save coloration from the Willow-GrRouss, L. albus, which
is an abundant bird throughout the whole of the northern parts
of the Holarctic Region, from Norway to Kamchatka, and again
from Alaska to Newfoundland. Its remains, as before stated
(FossiL Birps), have been found in the south of France associated
with those of the Snowy Owl and the Reindeer ; and, deferring for
the present any hypothetical discussion, it is impossible to resist
the inference that our own bird, though fully entitled to the rank of
a “species,” is a local form of the widely-spread Willow-Grouse.
1 Cf. Yarrell, British Birds, ed. 4, i. pp. 315-318.

342 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Other instances there are in which British-born examples of
species common to the Continent are, though in a less degree,
distinguishable from those of neighbouring countries. The Coal-
TitMovsE of England is to be recognized from that of Europe, Parus
ater, and accordingly by some ornithologists it is regarded as a
distinct species, P. britannicus; but the scanty remnants of the
ancient pine-forests of Scotland are inhabited by birds between
which and continental specimens no difference can be established.
The homebred Bottle-TirmousE of Britain, too, has, from its
darker coloration, been accorded specific rank; but it is now
known that birds of this species, Acredula cauduta, from southern
and central Europe vary in this respect, and the specific validity
of the British form, 4. rosea, can hardly be with consistency main-
tained. Indeed, as a matter of fact, nearly all of our smaller birds
can be distinguished by an expert from their continental brethren,
and this mainly through the duller or darker plumage of the
former.’ The difference is by no means so great as obtains in the
birds of the Atlantic Islands above mentioned, but it exists to a
greater or less degree, and it is certain that an analogous state of
things is observable in regard to some of the birds of Japan, a
country which is subject to many of the game climatic conditions
as the British Islands. It will be for future investigators to deter-
mine the cause of this similarity, it is enough here to record the
fact ; but another remarkable instance of the forms of the western
portion of the Subregion being repeated in the far east is found in
the range of the two kindred species of the genus Cyanopica—
the Blue Pre of Portugal and Spain, C. cooki, being replaced in
Amoorland and Japan by one, C. cyana, so closely allied that some
authorities have refused to acknowledge their distinctness, and
yet throughout 130° of longitude no representative of either is
found.”

Here it would be convenient to refer to the subject ot local
variation, which is, however, of general application, though it has
naturally received most notice in regard to the Birds of the Hol-
arctic Region. ‘The questions it involves were treated many years

1 The difference is of course most striking if specimens of brightly-coloured
species be compared—for example, the Chaffinch or the Yellow-Hammer.

2 A well-known writer has declared the ‘‘obvious” explanation of ‘‘ this
anomalous fact” to be ‘‘that the Chinese Blue Magpie was brought from China
to Spain, precisely in the same manner as the Chinese Ringed Pheasant was
introduced into England.” No evidence in support of this assertion being
adduced, charity forbids my here naming the author or his work. Should he
ever turn his attention to Mammals he will perhaps account for the interrupted
distribution of the genus 7'apirus by suggesting that the Portuguese carried
T. indicus from the Malay countries to Brazil, where ‘‘in consequence of the
greater rainfall” it may have ‘‘ become browner” and the adult indeed have lost
its picbald coloration ‘‘ by protective selection.”

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 343

since by Gloger,! and perhaps as satisfactorily as the evidence at
his command would permit. In North America the late Prof.
Baird seems to have been the first to turn his attention to this
topic, the importance of which gradually impressed itself upon him
as the several collections of specimens made during the explora-
tions for a railway-route to the Pacific Ocean came under his eyes.
He was content to register the results, and, so far as the writer knows,
abstained from theorizing upon them. His example was followed
by many of the enthusiastic and painstaking ornithologists wha
sprang up around him,? and they, rejoicing in a wealth of speci-
mens such as had never before been amassed, have undeniably
shewn that it was not lost upon them. With scarcely an excep-
tion they too have exhibited as much caution in regard to specula-
tions as did their venerated leader. The great fact was established
that, given a species, especially of a Land-bird, which had a wide
range on a continent, the variation exhibited by individuals from
different localities is generally so considerable that it is hardly
possible to predicate its amount, while almost every intermediate
form may be found if the series of specimens be large enough.
One of the first results which naturally followed was the abolition
of a great number of what had hitherto passed as distinct ‘ species,”
and the recognizing them as local forms, any two or more of which
should be united under one heading. It is of course true that to
some extent naturalists were already aware of the fact that “ miss-
ing links” were from time to time found between what had borne
an unsullied reputation as good “species” ; but this had happened
in a comparatively small number of cases, whereas it now became
plain that it was of very common occurrence. Moreover, some
“laws” were more or less manifest—for instance, examples of a set

1 Das Abiindern der Vigel durch Einfluss des Klimas. Breslau: 1833.

2 These are too numerous to name ; but the labours of Mr. J. A. Allen can-
not be passed without recognition. His essay ‘‘On the Mammals and Winter
Birds of East Florida,” published in 1871 (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoél. ii. No. 3),
entered into details of part of this question more thoroughly than had been
before attempted ; and the views therein expressed have been confirmed on
additional evidence in his ‘‘ Notes of an Ornithological Reconnaissance of por-
tions of Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah” (op. cit. iii. No. 6), as well as
in his ‘‘ Geographical Variation in North American Birds” (Proc. Boston Soc.
Nat. Hist. xv. pp. 212-219). He also notices the fact, since observed in regard
to the Red Grouse in Great Britain, that considerable variation may exist inde-
pendently of locality.

3 It could be wished, however, that the North-American ornithologists had
not latterly, by many innovations in the established theory and practice of
scientific nomenclature, rendered so much of their excellent work unintelligible
to all but the expert, and not readily understood by him. This proceeding was
the more extraordinary as it is so contrary to the practical character of citizens of
the United States.

344 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

of several species of different genera from, say, a locality in the
north varied in the same way from examples of a set of the same
species from the south, and so with eastern and western examples.
In principle this was not novel or unexpected. Indeed it had been
noticed in some instances in Europe, particularly, as the writer can
testify, by the late Mr. Gould many years ago; but the small size
of our own quarter of the globe compared with that of North
America, and still more the short series of specimens which existed
even in the largest of our collections, forbade the generalizations
that at once became possible and almost suggested themselves
when the vast aggregations obtained by Baird and the elder
Agassiz were studied and compared. In the meanwhile, however,
European, and especially English, ornithologists had been growing
dissatisfied with the shortcomings of their coliections, and took
pains to enlarge them, but there were special difficulties in the way
of obtaining specimens from the eastern portion of the Palearctic
area, and Central Asia was practically an unknown country. That
their efforts were more or less successful may be seen by Mr.
Dresser’s Birds of Europe, the publication of which marked an
enormous forward stride, but still the dearth of sufficient series of
specimens from Eastern Europe, and particularly from the Asiatic
portion of the Russian Empire, continues to be keenly felt. The
zeal shewn by Mr. Seebohm to meet this want deserves high
commendation, and of late Russian ornithologists have turned their
attention to the question of local races. The immediate effect has
been no little confusion, but that is unavoidable, and none can
doubt that much of it will disappear, so that we may hope our
knowledge of the ornithology of the Palearctic area will in a few
years be on a level with that which Americans possess as regards
the Nearctic. Buta word of warning may be uttered in respect of
both. Many writers on natural history find it hard to realize the
fact, undeniable according to the principles of the doctrine of
Evolution, that if all the individuals of any genus that ever existed
could be set before a naturalist, he would be unable, even though
gifted with the most critical eye, to separate them into species, for,
however unlike the extremes might be, the means would shew an
unbroken series between them. It must be obvious that these
intermediate individuals are the ancestral, generalized forms, while
the rest shew a greater and greater tendency to specialization in
one way or another.- In the course of ages many of these inter-
mediate forms disappear, and then it is right to regard those that
survive without near relations as good species. But others there
may or will be that, however they may vary locally, are still un-
mistakably linked. ‘The forms that connect them continue the
nearest heirs of the ancestral stock, and present its more general-
ized features. Thus to assume, as some do, that these connecting

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 345

forms are the result of interbreeding between the extremes is
to begin at the wrong end, and virtually to mistake cause for
effect.1 In reality there is no need to make any assumption whatever.
It is far better, certainly at the present time, to stick to the plain
facts of each case, so far as we can acquaint ourselves with them,
and there is every appearance of each case having to be treated
upon its own merits. But opportunities for generalization will, of
course, come at last, and meanwhile we shall possibly not be far
wrong in expecting, as one result of the facts already known and
undoubtedly to be multiplied by increased observation, an elucida-
tion of what has seemed to so many an insoluble puzzle—the
repetition, so to speak, of similar forms in Western Europe and in
Eastern Asia without their appearance in the intermediate terri-
tory, or cases of, to use another expression, “interrupted distribu-
tion ”—be the interruption as in that of Cyanopica, already
mentioned, absolute, or modified more or less as in so many other
instances.

V. The Ethiopian Region is by no means easily divided. In
treating of it in 1875 (Encyclop. Brit. ed. 9, iii. pp. 757-760), the
present writer followed in the main the guidance kindly afforded
him by Dr. Sharpe, whose knowledge of its Avifauna is hardly, if at
all, exceeded by that of any other ornithologist, and recognized five
Subregions. The progress of geographical discovery, which has of
late years laid open so much of the wilds of Central Africa, has
shewn a much greater homogeneity than was before expected in the
_ Fauna of the several parts of that continent, though it is true that
the explorers of its interior have in few cases had any zoological
knowledge or even taste, and that to at least one of the most cele-
brated of them scientific research of any kind is repellent. It must
also be remembered that nearly all of those few zoological explorers
have forfeited their life? in their zeal for investigation, and, with
the notable exception of Emin Pasha, scarcely one has survived to
carry on his observations or to make collections for any length of
time. Consequently the vast area of Equatorial Africa, and the
districts immediately conterminous, are ornithologically almost
unknown. Meanwhile we do know that nearly all the most

1 The seeming inability to grasp this position detracts greatly from the
value of nearly all that Mr. Seebohm has written on the geographical distribu-
tion of birds in the Palearctic Subregion and elsewhere, leading him to con-
clusions of the most erroneous kind, which have been uncritically accepted by
several other writers.

2 It would be impossible here to name even the naturalists who from Mungo
Park downwards have fallen victims to African exploration ; yet, in an ornitho-
logical work, William Alexander Forbes must be especially mentioned, as it was
the pure love of ornithology that led him up the Niger, where he suecumbed ta
fever in the very prime of life.

346 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

characteristic types of the continental portion of the Ethiopian
Region shew themselves, and (so far as we can judge) dwell alike in
the southern as well as the northern parts, the eastern as well as the
western—the chief differences observable being not even generic, but
mostly specific. The OsTRIcH, for example, extends, or extended,
from the Karroo to the Belka, and still further to the eastward,}
and no more essentially characteristic form of the continental portion
of the Ethiopian Region can be found than this highly specialized
bird, the sole representative of one Order of the subclass Ratitz,
for whether we accept the difference exhibited by the Ostrich of the
north and that of the south as specific, or admit the validity of a third
alleged species in Somaliland, all will agree that these differences
are in quality of the slightest. When this is to be said of a bird
having the peculiarity of habit and structure possessed by Sfruthio,
it seems vain to talk of regarding its range as extending over Sub-
regions. The highest term we are justified in applying to these
portions of its continental area, which for one reason or another it
may be convenient to speak of separately, is Province. And thus
it seems better to merge the whole of Africa and that part of Asia
which belongs to the Ethiopian Region into one Subregion, which
may be called the “ African,” unless some better name be suggested,
instead of breaking it up into four as was done formerly by the
author, or into three as has been done by Mr. Wallace. These
districts, be they four or three in number, may perhaps be termed
Provinces, and thus we may recognizea “Libyan”? Province
extending from the easternmost border of the Ethiopian Region,
wherever we may place that, comprehending the whole of Arabia,
Egypt, and all Africa from Cape Guardafui in the east to Cape
Verd in the west, reaching northward to the Mediterranean
Province of the Palzarctic Subregion, while scarcely an approxima-
tion can be made to tracing its southern limits. For the rest of
Africa, seeing that we have a fair knowledge of the birds of the
seaboard, and for some distance up a few of its more considerable
rivers, we may justifiably divide that portion which les immediately
to the southward of this indefinite area, and comprehending the
greater part of its equatorial tract, into two Provinces, a ‘ Guinean ”
on the west, and a “ Mosambican” on the east, though it is quite
possible that these two may with the progress of discovery have to be
united, and even now there seems nothing to indicate any boundary
between the belt they would form if combined and the territory

1 For all that can be said as to the former extent of the Ostrich’s range in
Asia see the Végel Ost-Afrikas (pp. 597-607) of Drs. Finsch and Hartlaub,
forming the fourth volume of Von der Decken’s Reise in Ost-Afrika (Leipzig and
Heidelberg: 1870). Remains of Struthio not to be distinguished from S. camelus
have been recognized from the Sivalik Hills in India (cf Fossiz Brrps).

2 Tn using this name I follow Blyth (Nature, iii. p. 428, 30 March 1871).

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 347

)

lying still further south and extending to the Cape of Good Hope.
However, of the species which inhabit part of this territory, the
Cape Colony and some of its adjoining lands, we may say that our
acquaintance is as good as we have with the Avifauna of almost
any country outside of Europe and North America, and though it
has some clear characteristics at its extremity, these melt away
gradually towards the north and seem finally to be lost. Still their
existence ought to be taken into account, and therefore we may
recognize a “Cafirarian”! Province. In 1884 Dr. Sharpe, when
writing the preface to the second edition of Mr. Layard’s Birds of
South Africa, considered the “natural limits” of what he termed
the “South African Subregion” (which is practically equal to the
Caffrarian Province just mentioned) to be the Zambesi River on
the east and the Quanza or Coanza on the west. Now it ought to
be obvious that no river (however wide) can form the “natural
limit” of any zoological area,? and indeed the cases are rare
in which a river limits the range of any species of land-animal.
This proposed boundary, therefore, however convenient for some
purposes, is as artificial and arbitrary as that of the 28th parallel
of south latitude adopted by Mr. Layard in 1867 for the first edition
of his work, and indeed it is pretty evident that no boundary
is yet to be laid down, even if one is ever to be found.®

So large a portion of the Ethiopian Region lies between the
Tropics that no surprise need be expressed at the richness of its
Fauna relatively to that of the Holarctic last considered. Between
50 and 60 Families of Land-birds alone are found within its
limits, and of them at least 9—Buphagidx, Eurycerotidx, Philepittidx,
Musophagidz, Rhinopomastidx, Leptosomidx, Coludx, Serpentarvidx, and
_ Struthiomdx—are peculiar; but it is a singular fact that only the
first three of them belong to the Order Passeres, a proportion which
is not maintained in any other Tropical Region. The number of
peculiar genera is too great for them to be named here; some of
the most remarkable, however, especially of those belonging to the
insular or Madagascarian Subregion, where Bird-life has been
differentiated to a degree that is very extraordinary, will presently
be mentioned.

1 Acain following Blyth (Coc. cit.)

2 Unless indeed the river be a channel left by the silting up of an inland sea,
as is said to be the case with the lower Amazon.

3 Should its delimitation be ever effected, it will probably be done by taking
tognizance of other Classes than that of Birds. The extraordinary diversity of
forms shewn by certain groups of Mammals, and especially of the hollow-horned
Ruminants, generally known as Antelopes, towards the southern extremity of
the African continent can hardly fail to be of use in this investigation, coupled
also with the absence of so well-marked and apparently so ancient a Family of
Edentates as the Manidx, and the non-occurrence of any representative of the
Ganoids among Fishes in the more southern rivers of Africa.

348 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Further subdivision seems only possible in the case of the first
of these four Provinces above named—the Libyan, which may
perhaps be broken up into four subprovinces—an Arabian, an
Egyptian, an Abyssinian, and a Gambian; but no boundaries can be
assigned for any but the first, and that has precisely the fewest
possible characteristics, so that the propriety of its recognition,
except on purely geographical grounds, is most questionable. We
may doubt whether it has more than half a dozen peculiar species
if we exclude from the number those of the Ghor, or the valley of
the Jordan and the depressed basin of the Dead Sea, which we
must regard as an outlier of the Province ; but then we know very
little of the zoology of any part of Arabia, save the peninsula of
Sinai, the desert of the Tih, and a few places on the sea-coast.1 The
species of Birds which seem to be peculiar to the Jordan basin are
said to be eleven in number,? many of them showing Indian consan-
guinity, though the Ethiopian element on the whole predominates,
and especially in Amydrus tristrami, the name of which commemor-
ates the naturalist to whom we owe most of our information as
to the Fauna of this singular district.

The Egyptian subprovince, so far as regards the valley of the
Lower Nile, is remarkable for being overrun by migrants from the
north during the winter, and since it is chiefly from the observa-
tions of travellers at this season that most of our knowledge is
derived, it is perhaps not very wonderful that some zoogeographers
have included this district within the Palearctic area. But a little
reflexion will shew that to obtain a right estimate of the Fauna of
any country we should take count of the animals which are its
natives and have their home there rather than of those which resort
to it as visitors, without remaining to breed within its limits. Now
the number of species of Birds which appear in Egypt and Nubia,
as given by Captain Shelley,? who is still the latest and best author-
ity, is 352, though many of them, he says, are of doubtful occur-
rence. Of these more than 230 are natives of the Palearctic
Subregion, but only between 50 and 60, or about one-quarter of
them, remain to breed in Egypt, and of this number a considerable
proportion do not breed in Europe, but only in the Barbary States.
The Palearctic species, which are only winter-visitors, to the number
say of 180, should therefore be left out of the reckoning. On the other
hand, more than 70 species, which are not Palearctic, are true

1 Considering our ignorance of the Fauna of Arabia, I have not been able to
see why Mr. Wallace assigned the northern extratropical portion of it to the
Palearctic area. With our present want of information, any line of demarcation
drawn across the country must be purely arbitrary, for I am not aware of any
evidence favouring such a division.

2 Tristram, Fauna and Flora of Palestine (pref. pp. ix. x.) London: 1884.

3 Handbook to the Birds of Egypt. London: 1872.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 349

natives of Egypt,! and among them members of some 8 or 10
good genera, not a species of which rightly belongs to the northern
area—such as Nectarinia, Chrysococcyz, Centropus, Qtogs yps, Tantalus,
Ibis, Chenalopex, Eupodotis, Pluvianus, and Rhyncheca,” “The Ethiopian
character of the truly Egyptian Avifauna seems to be thus fully
established.

Respecting the Abyssinian subprovince very full particulars are
included in the work of Von Heuglin,” supplemented as regards
Shoa, by the labours of Count T. Salvadori,? based upon the
explorations of Antinori and Dr. Ragazzi, but the precise features
of its Avifauna are not easily ascertained from the former, since he
has not discriminated between it and the Egyptian. Still it would
seem that nearly 220 species may be peculiar to this part of the
subprovince, and among them that most wonderful form Balzniceps
(SHOE-BILL). A remarkable feature in the Abyssinian Avifauna is the
occurrence there, not as migrants but as actual natives of its moun-
tains, of several birds which would otherwise be deemed purely
Palearctic, as, for example, both the Cornish and the Alpine
CHoucH (Fregilus). The presence of these northern forms in the
Abyssinian highlands induced a hope that some of them might
extend to the still loftier lands of Kilima-njaro and its neighbouring
heights, which would therefore have to be included in the sub-
province, but that hope has been disappointed by the zoological
survey of Mr. Johnston (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1885, pp. 219-239), which
unfortunately produced nothing of the kind. Indeed, it seems as
if we might suspect that the Fauna of this district, which reaches
the highest elevation in Africa, may have greater affinity to, if it
be not practically identical with that of the Caffrarian Province far
away to the southward. ‘To the Abyssinian subprovince, however,
must probably be assigned the island of Socotra, whereon out of
two dozen species that have been observed, one-third—and all
of them Passeres—seem to be peculiar, two of them belonging to a
peculiar genus Rhynchostruthus.

Of the Gambian subprovince not much is to be said. M. de
Rochbrune* has enumerated 686 species of Birds as occurring in
the French portion of it, but none of them are peculiar, while 423,
or more than sixty per cent., seem to be common to the north-east
of Africa, 112 to the Gaboon district, and 274 to Angola, thus
leading directly to the Province next to be mentioned. But to the
Gambian subprovince belong the Cape Verd Islands, which out of

1 There can be hardly a doubt that this number would be increased were
further researches carried on during the breeding-season.

2 Ornithologie Nordost Afrika’s. Cassel: 1859-1875.

3 Uccelli dello Scioa. Genova: 1884 ; and Catalogo di una collezione di Uccelli
dello Scioa. Genova: 1888.

4 Faune de la Sénégambie, Oiseaux. Paris: 1884.

350 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

17 or 18 Land-birds enumerated by Dr. Dohrn (Journ. fiir Orn. 1871,
pp. 1-10) seem to have 2 peculiar species, both of the Order
Passeres.

The “Guinean” Province occupies what is commonly called the
“ West Coast” of Africa, and may extend from Sierra Leone to the
south of the Congo valley. Hitherto no catalogue of its Birds has
been published, for the work of Dr. Hartlaub! comprehends also
those of the subprovince just treated, while admirably executed as
it was at the time of its appearance, so much has since been done
by collectors in this part of Africa, and by those who in Europe
have examined their collections, especially Prof. Barboza du
Bocage, Dr. Biittikofer, and Dr. Sharpe, that its results must be
regarded as out of date. Yet no good and much harm would follow
from any attempt to generalize on the facts thus recorded, at various
times and in various publications, except it were made by one
thoroughly conversant with the details of African ornithology.
Here we must be content to notice as very characteristic forms of
this district, A gelastes and Phasidus, both allied to Numida (GUINEA-
Fow.), that very characteristic form of the whole Ethiopian
Region. However, the first of the three naturalists last named has
published an excellent ornithology of Angola and Loango,? whence
it appears that out of 698 species about 220 are peculiar, but he
states that it would be premature to establish any divisions. The
Avifauna of Loango leans to that of Gaboon, while Angola in like
manner shews an affinity to South Africa—a result which was only
to be expected. Something may be said with more confidence of
the islands which pertain to the Province. Of them, Fernando Po
was once believed to possess a very remarkable Avifauna, but further
investigation seems to prove that it has no peculiar species what-
ever. Prince’s Island has been declared to have 6 peculiar species,
and it is asserted that it is not inhabited by any Diurnal Bird-of-
Prey, every one being driven off by the Grey Parrots (Psittacus
erithacus) which there abound. The island of St. Thomas, lying
just under the Equator, is also said to have 6 peculiar species
besides one found on Prince’s Island as well, but nowhere else.

The ‘“Caffrarian” Province, as before stated, has no more
definite inland boundary than either of the preceding, yet its dis-
tinctive features are more marked—a fact doubtless due to so large
a portion of it lying without the Tropic. Though this part of
Africa has for more than a century received attention from ornitholo-
gists,> their several labours in its various districts require careful

1 System der Ornithologie West Africa’s. Bremen: 1857.

2 Ornithologie @ Angola. Lisbonne: 1881.

3 Levaillant’s Oiseaux d’ Afrique (Paris: 1799-1808) is notorious for its un-
trustworthiness, as manifested by Sundevall’s critical review of it in the
Handlingar of the Academy of Stockholm (ii. No, 3, pp. 16-60). Mr. Salvin

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 351

collation and comparison before their bearings can be understood.
Such results as have been obtained are quite out of proportion to
the extent of country whence they have been gathered. As it is,
there cannot have been fewer than 800 species observed in what
may be deemed to be this Province, but we must bear in mind that
the number, even at the very extremity of Africa, is swollen by the
inclusion of many which have their home in the Palearctic Sub-
region, and should be by no means reckoned as belonging to the
Ethiopian Region. ‘These are not limited to birds of well-known
wandering habit like the TURNSTONE, the WHIMBREL, and numerous
Limicolx, or those possessing powers of endurance like the Cuckow
or the NIGHTJAR, or of strong and speedy flight as the SwirT
and the SwALLow, but they include many of the more weakly-
winged (as commonly considered) of our summer-visitants, the
SEDGE-BIRD, the Willow-WREN, the Garden-WARBLER, and others.
Nor is this seasonal influx confined to birds of European birth,
which need not greatly diverge from their meridian in their
journey ; the most eastern part of Asia sends its representatives, of
which Lrythropus amwrensis is a remarkable example. <A revised
list of South-African Birds has yet to be made out before we can
state with any accuracy what are to be deemed members of the
Caffrarian Avifauna.

Only one island can with certainty be affiliated to this Province,
and that is St. Helena, where the indigenous Land-birds, if any
there were, have probably been extirpated with most of its original
and peculiar flora. Yet it seems to be a curious fact that this
isolated spot possesses a peculiar Water-bird, albeit of a group that
greatly affects dry places. This is the so-called WIRE-BIRD, a
Ringed Plover, Agialitis sanctx-helenx ; and, though belonging to a
genus the members of which are remarkable for very wide distri-
bution, it is not known to have occurred off the island. Tristan da
Cunha, commonly assigned to this Region, and therefore to this
Province, seems to have at least as much aftinity to the Neotropical,
and Ascension appears to have no indigenous Land-birds whatever,
so that its appropriation must remain in doubt.

collected the ornithological papers contributed by the late Sir Andrew Smith to
The South African Journal between 1830 and 1834, and they were reprinted in
1880 by the Willughby Society, but neither these nor the volume containing
the Birds in the Illustrations of the Zoology of South Africa, published by that
excellent naturalist (London: 1838-1849) give a connected account of the
ornithology of this Province. The most comprehensive work is that by Mr.
Layard before mentioned, and next to it Andersson’s Notes on the Birds of
Damara Land (London: 1872), edited by the late Mr. Gurney, who also com-
municated to The bis a long series of valuable articles on the Birds of Natal
based on the observations and collections of Mr. Ayres. Finally may be men-
tioned the Beitrige zur Ornithologie Sudafricas, by HH. Holub and yon
Pelzeln (Wien: 1882).

352 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

The “ Mosambican” Province next follows; but its claims for
recognition are perhaps more shadowy than any of those of the
preceding. The general uniformity of distribution which obtains
among the Birds of all Tropical Africa, especially noticed by Sir
John Kirk (Zbis, 1864, p. 307) in treating of those of Zambesia,
requires more geographical details than are as yet available to
entitle us to form any decided opinion, though the work of Drs.
Finsch and Hartlaub (wi supra) gives ample information as to the
literature and description of the 448 species, which, according to
them, constitute its Avifauna. Considerable additions have been:
made by Dr. Reichenow (Orn. Ceniralbl. 1879, pp. 107, 114, 138,
155). Lying off its coast are three considerable islands, Pemba,
Zanzibar, and Monfia, but there is no reason to expect that they
are of any very great importance from a zoogeographical point of
view. Zanzibar is the best known, and that seems to have but one
species peculiar to it, /rancolinus kirki, but further observation may
prove that it also occurs on the mainland.

There remains for consideration the Subregion formed by
Madagascar and its satellite islands, the remarkable peculiarities of
which fully deserve the attention that has been paid to them.
Except New Zealand, there is no part of the earth’s surface of like
dimensions that can compare with Madagascar for interest, and the
latter far surpasses the former in the wealth and multifariousness
of its ornithic population. More than one high authority has
regarded Madagascar as forming a distinct primary Region, but
of that something must be said hereafter. It once possessed, in
Aipyornis, a form of Ratit# which, if not actually gigantic, greatly
exceeded the Ostrich in size, and, though some writers would fain
see in the fossil remains of this bird a realization of the fabulous
Roc, not a vestige has been recovered which seems to belong to any
period that history or even legend can reach! (see Fossiu Birps).

This Subregion is easily divided into two Provinces, Madagascar
itself, to which the Comoros must be attached, and the Mascarene
Islands, of which more presently. Long studied as the Birds of
Madagascar have been, the island has until quite recently produced
one novelty after another, and some of them of the most unexpected
kind. It would perhaps be premature to say that the supply is
exhausted, but since the completion of the ornithological portion of
M. Grandidier’s magnificent work? little or nothing of importance
has come to light. Herein the authors enumerate 238 species as
belonging to the island, of which 129 are peculiar to it, and among

1 Bianconi, Memorie delle Accad. delle Scienze dell’ Istituto di Bologna, 1862-
1874.

2 Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar, vol. xii. Histoire
naturelle des Oiseaux par MM. Alphonse Milne-Edwards et Alfred Grandidier.
Paris: 1875-84.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 353

these there are no fewer than 35 peculiar genera. Great as is this
amount of peculiarity, the present writer believes it to be rather
understated than exaggerated ; but it is sufficient to shew all that
is here needed, though he would add that, in his opinion, at least
3 of the genera, Huryceros, Philepitta, and Mesites, must be regarded
as forming the types of as many distinct Families, the first belong-
ing to the normal Acromyodian Passeres, the second to the Oligo-
myodian section of the same Order, and the third, though of kin to
the Rallidz (RAIL), can hardly be kept in that Family. It is quite
possible too that Falculia, which apparently had allies in Mregilupus
and Necropsar (both recently extinct) of the Mascarene Islands,
though commonly referred to the Sturnide (STARLING), and
Brachypteracias, with Atelornis and Geobiastes, which are generally
included among the Coraciidx (ROLLER), should be removed from
those Families, and recognized as forming distinct Families, which
would have to take the names of Fregilupide and brachypteraciidx
respectively, while Heliodilus is an OWL, belonging to the Strigine
Family, <Aluconidx, which hitherto had but one known repre-
sentative, the widely-spread Aluco flammeus. But the Avifauna
of Madagascar is not entirely composed of such singularities as
these. We have homely genera, even among the true Passeres,
occurring there—such as <Alauda, Acrocephalus, Motacilla, and
Praticola, while the Cisticola madagascariensis is only distinguishable
from the well-known Fan-tailed Warbler, C. schenicola, of Europe,
Africa and India, by its rather darker coloration. But there are
also species, though not Passerine, which are absolutely identical
with those of Britain—Aluco flammeus, Coturmx communis, Porzana
pygmea, and Podicipes fluviatilis—all of them common and apparently
resident in the island.

The Comoros, as might be expected, are influenced by their
proximity to the African continent. The latest list of their Fauna,
by Messrs. A. Milne-Edwards and Oustalett in 1888 accords them
79 species or local races, of which 59 are Land-birds— but at
least 5 of these have certainly been imported, and one is in-
cluded by mistake. Of the remainder 2 are common to South
Africa, 22 to Madagascar, and 29 seem to be peculiar, one forming a
peculiar genus, but nearly all have their nearest allies in Madagascar,
and with them have doubtless a common ancestry, and indeed
the Comoro Islands furnish one of the best examples in the
world where species may be seen in the process, so to speak, of
specification.

1 Nouv. Arch. du Muséum, ser. 2, x. pp. 219-298, pls. iv.-ix. Earlier notices
by the same naturalists are in Comptes Rendus, ci. pp. 218-222, and Ann. Se.
Nat. ser. 7, ii. pp. 213-238; and still earlier, by other hands, are Sclater, bis,
1864, p. 292; E. Newton, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, pp. 295-302, pls. xxxill. XXxXiv. ;
and Shelley, op. cit. 1879, pp. 673-679.

23

354 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

The three chief Mascarene Islands have had their original Fauna
so largely destroyed by colonization (see EXTERMINATION) that its
peculiarities can hardly yet be accurately judged, and that chiefly
from remains which, if not strictly fossil, have been recovered from
the earth. Mauritius and Réunion, better known by its older name
Bourbon, lying within sight of each other, and possessing about the
same number of existing species, seem to have not more than three
Land-birds in common, and there is one genus, OXYNOTUS, peculiar
to these two islands and represented in each by a distinct species.
Réunion had also, within the memory of men yet living, two peculiar
genera, a Parrot, Mascarinus, and Fregilupus, perhaps allied to Falculia
of Madagascar, and still more nearly to. Necropsar of Rodriguez.
The Avifauna of this last and remote island has been so reduced
that it has left only 3 species of native Land-birds; these are
all peculiar, one being the Parrakeet, Palxornis exsul before men-
tioned (p. 218) as being on the verge of extinction, and another an
aberrant form of Dryme«ca, pointing possibly to a common origin
with Indian species. The Land-birds of Seychelles which have not
been introduced are 16 in number, and of these 14, according to
Sir Edward Newton,! are peculiar, but there is perhaps not one
good genus that may be so termed. ‘Taken as a whole, we cannot
but be struck with the force of the evidence as to the land-connexion
which seems to have once existed—though not necessarily all at
once—between the various units forming the whole Subregion.
Even the scanty remnant that is left shews how the denizens of
its most distant parts represent one another, a clear token of
their long-continued isolation and the working of a differentiating
force.

But before leaving this area reference must be made to an
hypothesis which has obtained considerable support in various
quarters, and has been accepted as an easy solution of a difficult
problem. By dwelling on the peculiarities of the Fauna of Mada-
gascar, regarding it as perfectly distinct from that of Africa, and
looking to the fact that in that island are collected in great abund-
ance the chief forms of those Mammals known as Lemurs, belonging
to the Suborder Prosimix, while another group of the same Sub-
order occupies the Indo-Malay Islands, the idea was conceived of
there having once been not only a land-connexion between those
countries, but that they must be the relics of a vast continent now
submerged, to which the name of “ Lemuria” was assigned, and
it has been counted as one of the primary Regions of the earth’s
surface. The fallacy of the argument on behalf of this conjecture
has been exposed by Mr. Wallace, who has not only shewn that
the hypothesis of a Lemurian continent was alike unnecessary to

1 “Vist of the Birds of the Mascarene Islands, including the Seychelles,”
Trans. Norf. and Norw. Nat. Soc. iv. pp. 548-554.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 355
explain one portion of the facts presented by the Fauna of Mada-
gascar, and inadequate to explain the rest ; but he has demonstrated,
so far as can be, that the existence of such a continent was impossible.
Here there is only room to indicate the line he has taken (Island
Ihfe, pp. 390-399). He incontestably shews (1) that Madagascar
must have been united to Africa in very ancient days, (2) that it
must have received its stock of Lemurs thence at a time when
Lemurs inhabited not only Africa but Europe (for Lemurian remains
have been found fossil in France—if not in England), and probably
Asia, (3) that Lemurs made their way to the Indo-Malay Islands
by passing through Asia, just as they passed through Africa to
Madagascar, (4) that Madagascar must have been separated from
Africa before the now prevailing African types overran that con-
tinent, and (5) finally, that the Indian facies of the Fauna of Mada-
gascar, which is chiefly shewn by certain Birds, and is of course
very striking to an ornithologist, is caused by forms of existing
Indian genera, and by species very closely allied to those of India,
this last fact shewing their comparatively recent arrival in the
Mascarene Islands and Madagascar, where they must be regarded
as colonists. The hypothesis of a “Lemuria” is in fact exactly
like that of an “ Atlantis,” which was for a long while thought
requisite for the explanation of the Fauna of the Atlantic Islands,
but has proved to be untenable in the face of more complete
knowledge.

VI. The Indian Region! completes our survey of the globe; and
its boundaries, so far as they can be defined, have been already
sketched out when treating of the adjoining areas. Large as is
its extent and varied as are its physical features, it would seem to
have but 2 peculiar Families of Birds, Phyllornithide and Eury-
lemidx, out of upwards of 70 which occur within its limits. There
is peculiar difficulty in settling the Subregions and Provinces into
_ which it should be separated. While the Fauna of some districts
has been studied so that we possess a very fair knowledge of them,
the greater part is no better known zoologically than the centre
of Africa. Yet we cannot treat this Indian Region with the same
audacity of ignorance that we did the Ethiopian, for our acquaint-
ance with it is such as to shew that there are in it districts, large
or small, which have an unmistakable affinity to one another and

1 It must be mentioned that objection has been taken, and not without show
of reason, to the name ‘‘Indian” applied to this Region, since what is correctly
ealled “India” forms but a small and perhaps not the most characteristic part
of it. Mr. Wallace has used the name ‘‘ Oriental,” against which it may be
urged that it errs on the side of vagueness, just as ‘‘ Indian” does on the side of
particularity. Though in this use he has had several followers, it seems on the
whole that ‘‘ Indian,” being the distinguishing term first applied to this Region,
had better be retained for it.

356 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

yet seem to be cut off from all communication with their neigh-
bours. We may indeed account for this on the ground that the
similarity observed is due to corresponding elevation above the
sea-level, and that throughout the whole Region the hill-countries
are as a rule disconnected ; but such an explanation does not make
the task easier. We find the characteristics of the Himalayan
Avifauna shewing themselves not only on the highlands of Southern
India and Ceylon, but far away to the eastward also in Formosa,
Hainan, and Cochin China, and again repeated in a lesser but still
perceptible degree to the southward in the mountains of Malacca
and Sumatra. This being the case, it seems better to follow for
the primary divisions a scheme set forth by Mr. Elwes (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1873, pp. 645-682), especially as in the main it has the approval
of Mr. W. T. Blanford,! whose further subdivisions, so far as they
go, it would be wise to adopt. In this way we have three Sub-
regions—the ‘“ Himalo-Chinese,” the “Indian” (proper), and the
‘¢ Malayan.” ?

The Himalo-Chinese Subregion, according to this view, includes
the southern slopes of the Himalayas from their base to the limit
of the growth of trees; and, beginning with Cashmere, extends
through Nepal and Bhotan, thence marching with the as_ yet
undetermined frontier of the Mongolian Province of the Palearctic
Subregion until it reaches the coast of China. It includes all
Burma so far as the middle of Tenasserim, and for the rest its
southern and eastern boundaries are those of the Asiatic con-
tinent, while to its Chinese portion also belong the islands of

1 The Fauna of British India. Mammalia. London: 1888. Introduction,
pp: iv. v.

2 Here it may be stated that since want of space forbids the enumeration of
the many publications on the ornithology of the British possessions and pro-
tectorates in India, it would be still less possible to attempt a summary of the
results which they produce. No one wishing to study the Avifauna of any
portion of India can do so successfully without consulting the original records,
mostly published in that country. The Jowrnal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal
generally quoted as J. A. S. B.), the Calcutta Journal of Natural History, the
Madras Journal of Literature and Science have each contained many valuable
papers on Indian ornithology, while Stray Feathers, entirely devoted to that
subject, and edited by Mr. Allan Hume, is a magazine of which ten volumes and
a half have appeared since 1873. That gentleman also published in 1873-75
Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds, of which a second and enlarged edition was
brought out in 1889-90 by Mr. Oates. Jerdon’s Birds of India, the appear-
ance of which, in 1862-64, gave new life to the study of ornithology in that
country, by consolidating the scattered work that had been before done,
is never to be mentioned but with respect, though in many ways it will be
superseded by the portion, begun by Mr. Oates, of The Fauna of British
India, mentioned in the preceding note. While mentioning all these, the -
important contributions to Indian ornithology by Mr. Hodson and Blyth must
not pass unnoticed.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 357

Hainan and Formosa. In its western part it is a mere strip of
territory, and this alone can at present be recognized as a Pro-
vince—the “ Himalayan ”—but as already remarked its influence
is felt in widely-separated upland districts, though here it is
impossible to give details of them. Few countries seem to have a
richer Avifauna than those which compose this Himalayan Pro-
vince. Cashmere, the most westerly of them, is said to produce
more than 170 species of Land-birds, of which 70 are peculiar to
the district. Nepal, which is the next of which any satisfactory
account can be given, has more than 550 species of Land-birds,
80 of which are peculiar to or characteristic of the Himalayan
Province, a number that in Sikkim rises to 270. Further to the
eastward our information is less, for though Mr. Hume has pub-
lished (Stray Feathers, xi. pp. 1-353) a list of the Birds of Manipur,
Assam, Sylhet, and Cachar, which shews that these countries have
in the aggregate a rich population, his results have unfortunately
not been tabulated, and none that were trustworthy could be
educed but by some one possessed of local knowledge. Burma
must be taken next, but its highlands may be said to be ornitho-
logically unexplored, for Blyth’s catalogue (J. 4. 8. B. 1875, part ii.
pp. 54-167), edited after his death by the late Mr. Arthur Grote,
with notes by the late Lord Tweeddale, and Mr. Oates’s Birds of
British Burmah (London: 1883), good as they are, only treat of the
lower part of that country. Still they furnish a very fair account
of the valley of the Irrawadi so far as the British frontier then
reached, that is to say to the limits of Pegu, together with the
adjoining state of Karennee, and Tenasserim, to the isthmus of
Krau. All this district is especially rich in species of the peculiarly
Indian Family, Hurylemidx (BROADBILL) possessing a majority
of the known forms.

We ought now to retrace our steps northward and _ notice
China, but this is a branch of the subject on which it is as yet
- impossible to form an opinion. The late Mr. Swinhoe was un-
questionably one of the chief authorities on Chinese ornithology,
but his duties confined him almost entirely to the coast, so that he
had only the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the out-
skirts of that interesting country. Moreover, death prematurely
cut short his labours, and the results of his multitudinous con-
tributions to our knowledge have never been tabulated. It would
be impossible to eliminate from his latest Catalogue of the Birds of
China (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, pp. 337-343) those of the 675 species
therein enumerated which do not strictly belong to the part of the
Celestial Empire lying within our present bounds, to say nothing
of the difficulty, which he himself seems to have felt, of separat-
ing the Birds-of-passage from the natives. A more successful
attempt has been made by the Abbé David, who had much better

358 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

opportunities of becoming acquainted with the interior of the
country. In finally publishing the observations which a residence
of twelve years in central and western China enabled him to make,
he had the advantage of M. Oustalet’s co-operation, and their joint
work, Les Oiseau de la Chine (Paris: 1877), with its many illustra-
tions, is naturally a most valuable addition to our knowledge of
the subject. By these gentlemen the number of species observed
in China is raised to 807, of which 158 are said to be found in
Europe, 148 in Palearctic Asia, and 248 in Southern Asia. More
important than this is the statement that 249 species are peculiar
to China, which for the occasion is trisected into a Northern with
92, a Tibetan with 58, and a Southern district with 169 peculiar
species. It seems as if these last only would come within our
Indian Region, the rest or most of them belonging truly to the
Palearctic area ; but unfortunately the authors do not trace their
geographical boundaries, and indeed, as has been more than once
hinted in the preceding paragraphs, our existing knowledge seems
not to admit of this being done.

The two principal islands off the Chinese coast are happily in a
different position. In Formosa Swinhoe found 144 species refer-
able to 102 genera, of which 98 occur in the continental part of
this Subregion and 70 in the Indo-Malayan, while Hainan has 130
species belonging to 96 genera, of which 93 are common to the
Himalo-Chinese Subregion and 86 to the Malayan, thus shewing in
each case a decided predominance. Formosa has no fewer than
34, and Hainan 16 species believed to be peculiar, but it is needless
to say that they are more or less nearly allied to those of the
mainland.

The truly Indian Subregion, according to Mr. Blanford’s latest
determination, consists of the whole Peninsula from the base of
the Himalayas, and of the island of Ceylon. It contains two
districts which we may call Provinces—the first, the ‘ Indian,” ?
excepts the Malabar coast but includes the northern part of Ceylon,
while the second, called by him “ Malabar or Ceylonese,” takes in
what is left of both peninsula and island. But he also remarks
that further subdivision may be required, for the Fauna of what
are politically called the ‘“ North-Western Provinces” and of the
Punjab differs considerably from that of Southern India, and both
areas exhibit zoological distinction from the forest-clad tracts of
South-western Bengal. Since the publication of Jerdon’s never-to-

1 It is of course inconvenient having to apply this epithet to a Region, a
Subregion, and a Province. But that is not the fault of those who regard its
prior application to the first by Mr. Sclater. Practically the inconvenience is
not so great as it might seem, for the word being an adjective, requires a
substantive in apposition, and that should always signify which of the three is -
meant.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 359
be-forgotten work, so much has been announced by the many
labourers, both at home and in the Empire, whom he inspired,
that there are parts of both Subregions as well known ornithologic-
ally as are most of the countries of Europe, while on the other
hand there are some districts wholly or almost wholly uninvesti-
gated. ‘The enormous collection of Mr. Hume, now in the British
Museum, would, if examined by an expert, no doubt yield results
as profitable in their way as those which Baird educed from the
examination of the North-American collections before mentioned ;
but that process has yet to be gone through, and in the meanwhile
little has been extracted from them to advance in a wide sense the
study of Geographical Distribution, though their importance as to
details of what is commonly and irreverently called “species-
mongering” by those who are incapable of appreciating its utility,
cannot be called in question. At present the lesson which this
collection, notwithstanding all the expense and care bestowed on
its formation, has to teach is yet to be learnt,! and there is no
help for it but to regard the literature of Indian ornithology as a
collection of local monographs containing—some of them admirable
—materials which awaits a master hand to work into a scientific
and serviceable fabric.

Under these circumstances it would serve no useful purpose
here to enter into details of the various local Faunas which have
appeared, nearly all in journals of one kind or another,” and indeed
mischief could hardly be avoided were those details treated by
any one who had not especially devoted himself to the elucidation
of the subject, and was therefore competent to treat it in a reason-
able fashion.

Ceylon has profited by the residence, by no means continuous,
of a series of naturalists who make as respectable a show as can be
said for those of any other exotic country. Beginning with Loten,
who was governor for the Dutch while they held possession in the
island, and formed a collection of zoological drawings, some of

1 It is greatly to be regretted that on the acquisition by the British Museum
of this collection, which of its kind can never have been surpassed, a catalogue
of it was not immediately made and published ; for thereby such encouragement
to the study of Indian ornithology would have been given, as can hardly occur
again. But the opportunity was missed. If the exigencies of the Government
service in which he is employed have not permitted Mr. Oates to finish the
work he so well began, some recompense is to be found in the thought that Mr
Blanford will complete it.

2 See, as before mentioned, the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and
especially Blyth’s contributions to it, from 1841 to 1874. When Stray Feathers
began to appear, it, as might be expected, carried off much of the ornithological
contributions which had enriched the older publication. Many excellent papers
are contained in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society and The Ibis ; but the
whole are too numerous to specify here.

360 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

which were published by Pennant in 1769,1 we have had in our
own time Mr. Layard, Mr. Holdsworth, and finally Colonel Legge,
whose Birds of Ceylon (London: 1878-80) is one of the best books of
its class). He has traced in considerable detail the curious dis-
tribution of its Avifauna in the four districts into which he divides
the island. He recognizes 233 species of Land-birds as certainly
belonging to it, 47 of which seem to be peculiar, though there is a
possibility that 2 may occur on the mainland. A genus Elaphrornis
and a subgenus Sturnornis are considered by him to be restricted to
the island.

Two groups of islands in the Bay of Bengal require notice. <A
very full account of their ornithology was given by Mr. Hume
(Stray Feathers, ii. pp. 29-324), who visited them in 1873, and
furnished a valuable analysis of their Avifauna as he then found it,
subsequently publishing some additional information about it
(op. cit. iv. pp. 279-294), which does not seem, however, to affect
materially his earlier conclusions. About one-fourth of the species
observed seem to be peculiar; but he maintains that the character
of the whole is essentially “Indian” as distinct alike from ‘“ Indo-
Burmese ” and “ Indo-Malayan.” About 20 species (letting alone
races) appear to be peculiar to the Andaman Islands, and about 12
to the Nicobars, while 9 are peculiar to the two groups in common.
The Birds of the Andamans need have no peculiar remark, but the
Nicobars have a very singular PIGEON, Calanas nicobarica (of wide
range, however), and what is still more worthy of notice, a MEGA-
PODE, MJegapodius nicobariensis, said to be distinct from any species
found elsewhere, and certainly the most western member of that
curious Family.”

The Indo-Malayan Subregion remains for consideration, with a
rich Fauna of great interest. On geographical grounds alone we may
here easily recognize at least 5 Provinces, formed by the peninsula of
Malacca, the great islands of Sumatra, Java, and Borneo, and the
Philippine Archipelago. The difficulty is to choose the order in
which they should be treated ; but it may be most conveniént to
begin with the first, though we know little ornithologically about it
except in its western half, which the efforts of Mr. Hume? (Stray

1 The 12 plates and 14 pages of letterpress which then appeared form the
basis of the Zoologia Indica Selecta published by J. R. Forster at Halle in 1781,
a modified English translation of which, with great additions, is the Jndian
Zoology of Pennant (London: 1790-91). A Latin version of that by Forster was
brought out as Faunula Indica at Halle in 1795.

* Mr. Wallace (Geogr. Distrib. Anim. ii. p. 342) thinks that it must have
been introduced by the Malays.

3 An older list of the Birds of the Wellesley Province (J.4.S.B. 1870, pp.
277-334), by Stoliczka, may be usefully consulted, but the remarks upon it of
Lord Walden (Zbis, 1871, pp. 158-177) should also be read,

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 361

Feathers, viii. pp. 37-72, 151-163 ; ix. pp. 107-132) and the personal
experience of Captain Kelham (Jbis, 1881, pp. 362-395, 501-532 ;
1882, pp. 1-18, 185-204) have investigated. Of Perak and the
adjoining district Dr. Sharpe has rendered an account of some
collections made there (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1886, pp. 350-353; 1887,
pp. 431-443), and Herr Hartert has recorded his impressions (Journ.
fiir Orn. 1889, pp. 379-407); while Herr August Miiller has very
fully recounted researches in the island of Salanga (op. cié. 1882,
pp. 354-448). The result arrived at by the first of these gentle-
men shews a considerable amount of peculiarity in the Avifauna,
since of the 459 species which he finally accepted, 115 (or just
over one-fourth) had not been observed elsewhere in British
India or its dependencies, but it is doubtless true, as the second
of them remarks, that the rest of it has much in common with
India and Ceylon, though the eastern slopes of the peninsula
shew a strong relationship to Borneo, the Malay Archipelago,
and even China,

The Philippine Islands for more than a century have supplied
ornithologists with materials for study, but the first attempt to
compile a list of their Birds, made by Prof. von Martens (Journ. fiir
Orn. 1866, pp. 5-31) was manifestly imperfect. In 1875 appeared
what was for the time a careful account of their Avifauna by the
late Lord Tweeddale, then known as Lord Walden (Zrans. Zool.
Soc. 1x. pp. 125-252), which he shewed to have a great amount
of peculiarity. Yet so much has since been done that his results
cannot be now accepted, especially as Palawan and the Sooloos—
islands which connect the Philippines with Borneo—were then
unexplored. To him is probably due the interest in the subject
almost ever since kept up, and indeed he contributed a long series
of papers upon it, which after his death was continued by his
nephew and ornithological heir, Captain Wardlaw-Ramsay,? while
Dr. Sharpe has contributed nearly as many more,® and the recent
. investigations in Palawan of Dr. Platen recorded by Prof. W.
Blasius,* and of Dr. Steere, the final results of which last have not
yet appeared, shew that the subject is not exhausted. Until this
mass of information has been digested by a competent ornithologist
it will be obvious that no useful end can be attained by attempting
a summary here. Perhaps the chief thing to note is the presence
here of a MecApopE, Megapodius cumingi, as it is the most northern
locality for any member of the Family, and indeed it was in the

1 Proc. Zool. Soc. 1878, pp. 106-114, 280-288, 339-346, 379-381, 429, 430,
611-624, 708-712, 936-954 ; 1879, pp. 68-73.

2 Ibis, 1884, pp. 380-335 ; 1886, pp. 155-162.

3 Trans. Linn. Soc. (2) i. pp. 307-355; Lbis, 1884, pp. 316-322 ; 1888, pp.
193-204, 383-396 ; Proc. Zool. Soc. 1888, pp. 268-281.

4 Ornis, 1888, pp. 301-320.

362 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Philippine Islands that this interesting form was first brought to
the knowledge of Europeans.

Much the same has to be said of Borneo, that magnificent
island, larger than Great Britain and Ireland. Though its Avi-
fauna was carefully investigated by Count T. Salvadori, who pub-
lished his results in 1874,! so much has since been done both
abroad and at home? that the number of species observed there was
raised from 392, of which 325 were Land-birds, to 472, including
386 Land-birds, in 1886 by Dr. Vorderman,? and 570 in 1889 by
Mr. A. H. Everett,* the two last having alone among the various
writers of recent memoirs visited the island. Yet there seem
to be only four unquestionable peculiar genera, Pityriasis, a
singular form generally referred to the Laniidx, Schwaneria be-
longing to Muscicapidx, Heterococcyx to Cuculidx, and Lobiophasis to
Phasianide.® A species of MrcapopE, M. lowi, is said to be
peculiar to Borneo and the adjacent island of Labuan. On
the whole the character of the Avifauna is much what would be
expected from its geographical position, but a resemblance to that
of Malacca and Sumatra preponderates, though to that of Java
there is considerable affinity, yet a remarkable feature of Borneo
is presented by the number of species of Pittidz, a Family of wide
range throughout the Old World, but therein exhibiting its
maximum, and the comparatively little-known island of Banca,
lying between Borneo and Sumatra produces 2 species of the
same Family, one representing a form which inhabits the whole
Subregion and extends to China and Siam, the other allied to
2 species, the first ranging from Nepal to Malacca, and the second
inhabiting the Philippines, Borneo, and Sumatra.°

Sumatra must be considered next, and perhaps it ought to have

1 Annali del Museo Ciwico di Storia Naturale di Genova, v. pp. 1-430.

2 It is perhaps needless here to specify all the papers on this subject. Dr.
Sharpe has communicated more than a dozen to The Ibis and Zoological Pro-
ceedings, beginning with the year 1876 ; Herr von Pelzeln three to the publica-
tion of the Zoologico-botanical Society of Vienna, in which also appeared in
1883 an excellent list by Prof. W. Blasius; while in conjunction with Herr
Nehrkorn and the late Dr. Kutter others will be found in the Journal fir
Ornithologie and Yearbook of the Natural History Society of Brunswick ; and
in that of the similar Society of Bremen for 1876, 1877, and 1878 Dr. Briigge-
mann has published three more.

3 Natuurkundig Tijdschrift von Nederlandsch-Indié. Deel xlvi. Aflev. 3.
This is a mere list of names: for a more critical catalogue see that of Prof.
Blasius.

4 ‘A List of the Birds of the Bornean Group of Islands,” Journ. R. Asiat.
Soc. Straits Branch, No. 20, pp. 91-212, and map (1889).

5 A reputed fifth, Anais, referred to Artamidzx, is suspected to be founded on
a manufactured specimen !

6 On this point compare Mr. Hume’s remark (Stray Feathers, ii. p. 475).

GERANOMORPHZ 363

been taken after Malacca, from which it is divided by so narrow a
channel. The northern part of this island is still little known,
but the ornithology of some districts at each of its ends has of late
been more or less examined,! with the effect of setting aside details
formerly accepted though not of announcing new results. All that
can be said’ here is that its Avifauna is much allied to that both of
Malacca and Borneo, but it seems to have less peculiarity than
the latter’s. No Megapode has yet been found in the island, and
but three species of Pitta.

We then have Java, the best-explored, the most thickly-peopled,
and, proportionately to its Avifauna, the most peculiar, perhaps, of
the Indo-Malay Islands. According to Dr. Vorderman, who in
1884 summarized a long series of valuable papers published
by him in the Natural-history Journal of Netherlandish India by
issuing a List of the Birds from Java,’ which are 404 in number,
whereof 307 are Land-birds. He simultaneously put forth an alpha-
betical index to the species which have been recorded from Batavia,
and has since produced two other papers? on Birds obtained at as
many stations in Western Java. Still a comparison of the Avifauna
with that of the neighbouring islands is yet to be made, and it is to
be hoped that this naturalist from his intimate acquaintance with
this part of the Subregion will in due time accomplish it. General
remarks from a compiler would here be futile, but it may be men-
tioned that several Burmese species which have been said not to
occur in the Malay Peninsula south of Penang reappear in Java—
among them a beautiful Peacock, Pavo muticus.

Of Bali, so interesting as the southern limit of the Indian
Region, we only know from Mr. Wallace that he saw there several
Birds highly characteristic of Javan ornithology, but whether the
island has any peculiar species nowhere appears; it will be seen, how-
ever, from the preceding statements that Bali stands not alone in the
Indo-Malay Archipelago as requiring further investigation, and a
comparative view of the Avifauna of its cemponent parts is still
greatly needed. We are now brought to the brink of that remark-
able Strait through which runs ‘ Wallace’s Line,” and crossing it
we find ourselves in the Australian Region, of which we have
already treated.

GERANOMORPH &, the second group of Prof. Huxley’s Sub-
order SCHIZOGNATH (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 457), of which he

1 Of. Tweeddale, Zbis, 1877, pp. 283-323 ; Wardlaw-Ramsay, Proc. Zool. Soc.
1880, pp. 13-16 (Mr. Carl Bock’s collection) ; Nicholson, Jbis, 1882, pp. 51-65
(Mr. H. O. Forbes’s collection) ; Salvadori, Ann. Mus. Genova, xiv. pp. 169-253,
(2) iv. pp. 514-563 ; Biittikofer, Motes Leyden Mus. ix. pp. 1-96.

2 Of. Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederlandsch-Indié, xliv. Aflev. 3.

8 Op. cit. xlv. Aflev. 3; xlvi. Aflev. 1.

364 GERFALCON—GNAT

considered the CRANES and RalIts the typical forms. Whether the
BusTARDS and SERIEMA should be also added seemed questionable ;
but the former connect it with the CHARADRIOMORPH& and the
latter with the AETOMORPHA.

GERFALCON, see GYRFALCON.

GERYGONE, Gould’s name, now used as English, for a genus
of uncertain position, generally placed among the Muscicapidx
(FLYCATCHER), but shewing great resemblance to some Sylviidx
(WARBLER), and especially to the Hypolais-group. Six species were
recognized by him as inhabiting Australia, and nearly two dozen
more, from the -Philippines, Borneo, New Guinea, Norfolk Island,
New Zealand, and other islands, have been referred to this genus,
most of which Dr. Sharpe has since separated (Notes Leyd. Mus.
1879, p. 29) under the name of Pseudogerygone. The Australian
and New-Zealand forms are inconspicuous little birds, building a
pensile domed nest, and are among the commonest foster-parents of
the Cuckows of their respective countries (cf. North, Descr. Cat.
Nests & Eggs of B. Austral. pp. 97-100; Buller, B. New Zeal. ed. 2,
i. pp. 45-48).

GIER-EAGLE (Dutch Geter, Vulture), the rendering by English
translators of the Bible of the Hebrew Racham (Levit. xi. 18;
Deut. xiv. 17), said by Canon Tristram to be the equivalent of the
Arabic Rachmah, the vernacular name of the Egyptian VULTURE,
Nephron percnopterus.

GILLY-HOWLET, a Scottish nickname for the Barn-OWL,
Aluco flammeus, “Gilly” being an abbreviation of Gillian ( = Juliana),
comparable with Jack-DAw, Mag-Pin, Robin-REDBREAST, Tom-TIr,
and others.

GLASOOGJE (= Glass-eye), the name given by the inhabitants
of the Cape Colony to the common species of ZOSTEROPS, Z. capensis,
found in that country (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 116); but the

GLASS-EYE of Jamaica is a TuHrusH, 7'urdus jamaicensis (see
Gosse, B. Jamaica, p. 142). In the. former case the name is given
from the ring of white feathers surrounding the eye, in the latter
from the colour of the iris.

GLEAD or GLED (AS. Glida; Sw. Glada), an old English
name not wholly obsolete for the Kire, referring to its gliding
flight.

GNAT, the same as Knor,! according to Sir Thomas Browne

1 Tn this connexion Mr. Charles Swainson (Prov. Names Br. B. p. 194) un-
happily quotes the line

“The little Gnat-snap, worthy princes’ boords,”
to be found in the translation by Josuah Sylvester, who died in 1618 ( Works, ed.

GNAT-CATCHER—GODWIT 365

(Works, ed. Wilkin, iv. p. 319). The similar double use of the
French Maringouin, for a gnat or mosquito and a small shore-
bird (Descourtilz, Voyage @un Natural. ii. p. 249), is an analogous
case, and would tend to shew that the supposed derivation of Knot.
from Cnut or Canute may be dismissed as a fable; but

GNAT-CATCHER was the name applied by Richardson in 1831
(Faun. Bor.-Am. ii. p. 223) to birds of the genus Setophaga, com-
monly called in North America RepsTARts, though belonging to a
very different Farnily (Mniotiltidx) from the rightful owner of the
name. It has been revived of recent years in a wholly different
sense for members of the genus Polioptila, so called (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1855, p. 11) from their characteristic hoary-grey colouring, whereof
three species are found in the United States, while some half-dozen
others, or perhaps more, are natives of the Neotropical Region.
The genus Polioptila is referred to the Family Sylviide (WARBLER),
and the birds belonging to it were in 1837 called by Swainson
(Classif. B. 1. p. 37)

GNAT-SNAPPER, but the name has not become current in
England.

GOATSUCKER, one of the most common names of the NIGHT-
JAR, having an equivalent in almost every European language, and
thereby testifying to the widespread belief in the malpractice it
attributes to its unfortunate bearer.

GODWIT, a word of unknown origin,! the name commonly
applied to a marsh-bird in great repute, when fattened, for the
table, and formerly abundant in the fens of Norfolk, the Isle of Ely,
and Lincolnshire. In Turner’s davs (1544) it was worth three
times as much as a Snipe (see FEDOA), and at the same period Belon

Grosart, The Divine Workes and Weakes, 5th day, 1st week, i. p. 67, line 714) of
a poem by Du Bartas; but the word thus rendered, is in the original (line 657)
Bennaric, explained by French editors or commentators to mean a Lecquefigue or
Ficedula (Fic-EATER), and by Bulfon and Rolland, who spell it Bennarie, referred
to the OrroLaN ; but in neither case has it anything to do with the bird called
Gnat or Knot in English.

1 In the absence of any plausible derivation of this word or explanation of its
meaning it may be allowable to point out that the Greek Alyoxépanos, Latin
Aigocephalus, signifying Goathead, was long ago the name of some bird, and that
Belon, who knew the Greek of his day, believed some species of Limosa to be
thereby understood. Philologists, on whose province I have no wish to intrude,
may perhaps shew that the word Goathead, if ever used in this country, was capable
of being corrupted into Godwit. At the same time it may be remarked that the
original Zgocephalus was possibly the SNIPE, whose Goat-like bleating song has
obtained for it in many countries such names as BLEATER, Chévre-volant, and
others. Sundevall, however, suggests that the Alyoxédados of Aristotle is a
miswriting for Alyo#i\as = Caprimulgus.

366 GODWIT

said of it— C’est vn Oyseau es delices des Frangoys.” Casaubon,
who Latinized its name “ Dei ingenium” (Ephemerides, 19th September
1611), was told by the “ ornithotrophxus” he visited at Wisbech that
in London it fetched twenty pence. Its fame as a delicacy is per-
petuated by many later writers, Ben Jonson among them, and
Pennant says that in his time (1766) it sold for half-a-crown or five
shillings. Under the name Godwit two distinct species of British
birds are included, but that which seems to have been especially
prized is known to modern ornithologists as the Black-tailed
Godwit, the Scolopax limosa of Linneus, the Limosa belgica, xgoce-
phala, or melanura of other authors, formerly called, from its loud
ery, a Yarwhelp,! Shrieker, or Barker, in the districts it inhabited.
The practice of netting this bird in large numbers during the spring
and summer, coupled with the gradual reclamation of the fens, to
which it resorted, has now rendered it but a visitor; and it
probably ceased from breeding regularly in England in 1824 or
thereabouts, though under favourable conditions it may have occa-
sionally laid its eggs for some thirty years later or more (Stevenson,
B. Norf. ii. p. 250). This Godwit is a species of wide range, reach-
ing Iceland, where it is called Jardrxka ( = earth-raker), in summer,
and occurring numerously, it is said, in India in winter. Its chief
breeding-quarters seem to extend from Holland eastwards to the
south of Russia. The second British species is that which is
known as the Bar-tailed Godwit, the Scolopax lapponica of Linnzeus,
the L. lapponica or rufa of modern authors,? and this seems to
have never been more than a bird of double passage in the United
Kingdom, arriving in large flocks on the south coast about the
12th of May (hence known as Godwit-day), and, after staying a
few days, proceeding to the north-eastward. It is known to breed
in Lapland, but its eggs are of great rarity. Towards autumn the
young visit our coasts, and a few of them remain, together with
some of the other species, in favourable situations, throughout the
winter. One of the local names by which the Bar-tailed Godwit is
known to the Norfolk gunners is Scamell, a word which, in the
mouth of Caliban (Tempest, act ii. scene 2), has been the cause of
much perplexity to Shakespearian critics.

The Godwits belong to the group Limicolz, and are about as big
as a tame Pigeon, but possess long legs, and a long bill with a slight
upward turn. In the genus Limosa the female is larger and more
conspicuously coloured than the male, who is believed to take the
chief duty of incubation on himself. While the winter plumage is
of a sober greyish brown, the breeding-dress is marked by a pre-

! This name seems to have survived in Whelp Moor, as part of the fen between
Ely and Brandon used to be called.

2 LT. meyert of some authors seems to be the male of this species in his in-
cubating plumage.

GOLDCREST 367

dominance of bright bay or chestnut, rendering the wearer a very
beautiful object. The Black-tailed Godwit, though varying a good
deal in size, is constantly larger than the Bar-tailed, and especially

Gopwir. (After Swainson.)

longer in the legs. The species may be further distinguished by
the former having the proximal third of the tail-quills pure white,
and the distal two-thirds black, with a narrow white margin, while
the latter has the same feathers barred with black and white alter-
nately for nearly their whole length.

America possesses two species of the genus, the very large’
Marbled Godwit or Marlin, L. fedoa, easily recognized by its size
and the buff colour of its axillaries, and the smaller Hudsonian
Godwit, Z. hudsonica, which has its axillaries of a deep black. This
last, though less numerous than its congener, seems to range over
the whole of the continent, breeding in the extreme north, while it
has been obtained also in the Strait of Magellan and the Falkland
Islands. The first seems not to go further southward than the
Antilles and the Isthmus of Panama.

From Asia, or at least its eastern part, two species have been
described. One of them, L. melanuroides, differs only from L. belgica
in. its smaller size, and is believed to breed in Amurland, wintering
in the islands of the Pacific, New Zealand, and Australia. The
other, L. uropygialis, is closely allied to and often mistaken for L.
lapponica, from which it chiefly differs by having the rump barred
like the tail. This was found breeding in the extreme north of
Siberia by Dr. von Middendorff, and ranges to Australia, whence it
-was first described by Mr. Gould.

GOLDCREST, a commonly used abbreviation of Golden-crested
(also called Golden-crowned) Wren, the Motacilla regulus of Linnzeus,
and Regulus cristatus of most modern ornithologists. This species
is the type of a small genus! generally placed among the Sylviidx
or true WARBLERS, but by certain writers it is referred to the
Paridx (Tirmouss). That the Reguli possess many of the habits
and actions of the latter is undeniable, but on the other hand they
are not known to differ in any important points of organization or
appearance from the former—the chief distinction being that the

1 The name Kinglet, a literal rendering of Regulus, has been applied to the
birds of this group in many books, but cannot be said to have become in this
sense an English word.

368 GOLDEN-EVE

nostril is covered by a single bristly feather directed forwards.
The Golden-crested Wren is the smallest of British birds, its whole
length being about 3 inches and a half, and its wing measuring
only 2 inches from the carpal joint. Generally of an olive-green
colour, the top of its head is bright yellow, deepening into orange,
and bounded on either side by a black line, while the wing-coverts
are dull black, and some of them tipped with white, forming a
somewhat conspicuous bar. The cock has a pleasant but weak
song. The nest is a beautiful object, thickly felted of the softest
moss, wool, and spiders’ webs, lined with feathers, and usually built
under and near the end of the branch of a yew, fir, or cedar, sup-
ported by the interweaving of two or three laterally diverging and
pendent twigs, and sheltered by the rest. The eggs are from six
to ten in number, of a dull white sometimes finely freckled with
reddish-brown. The species is particularly social, living for the
most of the year in family-parties, and often joining bands of any
species of Titmouse in a common search for food. Though to be
met with in Britain at all seasons, the bird in autumn visits the
east coast in enormous flocks, apparently emigrants from Scandi-
navia, while htindreds perish in crossing the North Sea, where they
are well known to the fishermen as ‘‘ Woodcock’s Pilots,” from
their generally preceding by a few days the advent of those regular
immigrants. A second and more local European species is the
Fire-crested Wren, R. ignicapillus, easily recognizable by the
black streak on each side of the head, before and behind the eye,
and conspicuous white streak above it, as well as by the deeper
colour of its crown. A third and fourth species, R. maderensis and
LR. teneriffz, inhabit Madeira and the Canary Islands, being peculiar
to each group respectively ; and examples from the Himalayas and
Japan have been differentiated as £. himalayensis and Rh. japonicus.
North America has two well-known species, £. satrapa, very like
the European R. ignicapillus, and the Ruby-crowned Wren, £&. calen-
dula, which is remarkable for a loud song that has been compared
to that of a Canary-bird or a Sky-lark, and for having the character-
istic nasal feather in a rudimentary or aborted condition.!

GOLDEN-EYE, a name indiscriminately given in many parts
of Britain to two very distinct species of Ducks, from the rich
yellow colour of their irides. The commonest of them—the Anas
fuligula of Linnzeus and Fuligula cristata of most modern ornitholo-

1 Under the name of &. modestus, or ‘‘ Dalmatian Regulus” of some English
authors, two very distinct species are now known to have been confounded, both
belonging really to the group of W1LLow-Wrens, and having nothing to do
with Regulus. One, which has occurred in Britain, is the Motacilla superciliosa
of old or Phylloscopus superciliosus of modern authors, and is a native of northern
Asia, visiting Europe nearly every year, and the other, also of Asiatic origin, is
the Motacilla or Phylloscopus proregulus.

GOLDEN-EVE 369

gists—is, however, usually called by English writers the Tufted
Duck, while “ Golden-eye” is reserved in books for the 4. clangula
and 4. glaucion of Linneus, who did not know that the birds he so
named were butexamples of the same species,
differing only in age or sex ; and to this day
many fowlers perpetuate a like mistake,
deeming the “ Morillon,” which is the female
or young male, distinct from the ‘“ Golden-
eye” or “Rattlewings” (as from its noisy
flight they oftener call it), which is the adult
male. This species belongs to the group
known as Diving Ducks, and is the type of the very well-marked
genus Clangula of later systematists, which, among other differ-
ences, has the posterior end of the sternum prolonged so as to
extend considerably over, and, we may not unreasonably suppose,
protect the belly —a chanacter possessed in a still greater degree
by the Merginw (MERGANSER), while the males also exhibit
in the extraordinarily developed bony labyrinth of their trachea
and its midway enlargement another resemblance to the members of
the same subfamily. The Golden-eye, C. glaucion of modern writers,
has its home in the northern parts of both hemispheres, whence in
winter it migrates southward ; but as it is one of the Ducks that con-
stantly resorts to hollow trees for the purpose of breeding, it hardly
transcends the limit of the Arctic forests on either continent.?

The adult male is mostly black above, but with the head, which
is slightly crested, reflecting rich green lights, a large oval white
patch under each eye, and elongated white scapulars; the lower
parts are wholly white and the feet bright orange, except the webs,
which are dusky. In the female and young male, dark brown
replaces the black, the cheek-spots are indistinct, and the elongated
white scapulars wanting. The Golden-eye of North America has
been by some authors deemed to differ, and has been named C.
americana, but apparently on insufficient grounds. That country,
however, has in common with Greenland and Iceland a very dis-
tinct species, C. islandica, often called Barrow’s Duck, which is but
a rare straggler to the continent of Europe, and not, so far as
known, to Britain.2 In Iceland and Greenland it is the only

GOLDEN-EYE. (After Swainson.)

1 So well known is this habit to the people of the northern districts of Scan-
dinavia that they very commonly devise artificial nest-boxes for its accommoda-
tion and their own profit. Hollow logs of wood are prepared, the top and
bottom closed, and a hole cut in the side. These are affixed to the trunks of
living trees in suitable places, at a convenient distance from the ground, and,
being readily occupied by the birds in the breeding-season, are regularly robbed,
first of the numerous eggs, and finally of the down they contain, by those who
have set them up.

* The recorded instance (Zool. p. 9038) is on worthless authority.

24

370 GOLDFINCH

habitual representative of the genus, and it occurs from thence to
the Rocky Mountains. In breeding-habits it differs from the
commoner species, not placing its eggs in tree-holes; but how far
this difference is voluntary may be doubted, for in the countries it
frequents trees are wanting. It is a larger and stouter bird, and
in the male the white cheek-patches take a more crescentic form,
while the head is glossed with purple rather than green, and the
white scapulars are not elongated. The New World also possesses a
third and still more beautiful species of the genus in. .C. albeola,
known in books as the Buffle-headed Duck, and to Aswertcan fowlers
as the “Spirit-Duck” and “ Butter-ball”—the former name being
applied from its rapidity in diving, and the latter from its exceed-
ing fatness in autumn. This is of small size, but the lustre of the
feathers in the male is brilliant, and exhibits a deep plum-
coloured gloss on the head. It breeds in trees, and is supposed to
have occurred more than once in britain.

GOLDFINCH (German Goldjink+) the Fringilla carduelis of Lin-
nus and the Carduelis elegans of later authors, an extremely well-
known bird found over the greater parts of Europe and North Africa,
and eastwards to Persia and Turkestan. Its gay plumage is matched
by its sprightly nature ; and together they make it one of the most
favourite cage-birds among all classes. As a songster it is indeed
surpassed by many other species, but its docility and ready attach-
ment to its master or mistress make up for any defect in its vocal
powers. In some parts of England the trade in Goldfinches is very
considerable. In 1860 Mr. Hussey reported (Zool.: p. 7144) the
average annual captures near Worthing to exceed 11,000 dozens—
nearly all being cock-birds; and a witness before a committee of
the House of Commons in 1873 stated that, when a boy, he could
take forty dozens in a morning near Brighton. In these districts
and others the number has of late years become much reduced,
owing doubtless in part to the fatal practice of catching the birds
just before or during the breeding season; but perhaps the
strongest cause of their growing scarcity throughout the kingdom
has been the constant breaking-up of waste lands, and the extirpation
of weeds (particularly of the Order Compositz) essential to the im-
proved system of agriculture; for in many parts of Scotland, East ~
Lothian for instance, where Goldfinches were once more plentiful
than Sparrows, they are now only rare stragglers, and yet there they
have not been thinned by netting. Though Goldfinches may
occasionally be observed in the coldest weather, incomparably the
largest number leave Britain in autumn, returning in spring, and
resorting to our gardens and orchards to breed, when the lively

1 The more common German name, however, is Distelfink (Thistle-Finch) or
Stieglitz.

GOLDING—GOOSE 371

song of the cock, and the bright yellow wings of both sexes,
quickly attract the notice of even the unobservant. The nest is a
beautifully neat structure, often placed at no great height from the
ground, but generally so well hidden by the leafy bough on which
it is built as not to be easily found, until, the young being hatched,
the constant visits of the parents reveal its site. When the broods
leave the nest they move into the more open country, and fre-
quenting pastures, commons, heaths, and downs, assemble in large
flocks towards the end of summer. Eastward of the range of
the present species its place is taken by its congener C. caniceps,
which is easily recognized by wanting the black hood and white
ear-coverts of our own bird. Its home seems to be in Central Asia,
but it moves southward in winter, being common at that season in
Cashmere, and it is not unfrequently brought for sale to Calcutta.
The position of the genus Carduelis in the Family Fringillide
(FINCH) is not very clear. Structurally it would seem to have
some relation to Chrysomitris (SISKIN), though the members of the
two groups have very different habits, and perhaps its nearest kin-
ship lies with Coccothraustes (HAWFINCH).

GOLDING, see GAULDING.

GOM-PAAUW (Gum-Peafowl) the colonial name for Otis
cristata or kori, the largest species of BusTarpD inhabiting South
Africa (Layard, B. S. Africa, p. 283), so called because it is
believed to feed largely on the gum of the Mimosa-bushes growing

on the plains which it affects.
600 EY, (prov. Engl. fore Supid or awkure rd person), a saiders' name for en AlbaTros.

GOOSANDER, or, as formerly spelt,t| GOSSANDER, probably
from old Norsk Gas (A.S. Gés) and @nd, pl. Andir (Dan. And),
meaning therefore “ Goose-Duck,” the ordinary name of the largest
species of Mergus (MERGANSER), apparently applied first in Lincoln-
shire, where so many words of Scandinavian origin have lingered ;
_ but now in general use.

GOOSE (A.S. Gs), the general English name for a considerable
number of birds, belonging to the Family Anatide of modern
ornithologists, which are mostly larger than Ducks and less than
- Swans. ‘Technically the word Goose is reserved for the female, the
male being called GANDER, while the young is a Gosling.

The most important species of Goose, and the type of the genus
Anser, is undoubtedly that which is the origin of our well-known
domestic race, the Anser ferus or A. cinereus of most naturalists,
commonly called in English the Grey or Grey Lag? Goose, a bird

1 Drayton (1622) Polyolbion, Song xxv. ; Merrett (1667) Pinaz, p. 184.
2 The meaning and derivation of this word Zag had long been a puzzle until
Prof. Skeat suggested (Jbis, 1870, p. 301) that it signified late, last, or slow,

372 GOOSE

of exceedingly wide range in the Old World, apparently breeding
where suitable localities are to be found in most European countries
from Lapland to Spain and Bulgaria. TEastwards it extends to
China, but does not seem to be known in Japan. It is the only
species indigenous to the British Islands, and in former days bred
abundantly in the English Fen-country, where the young were
caught in large numbers and kept in a more or less reclaimed con-
dition with the vast flocks of tame-bred Geese that at one time
formed so valuable a property to the dwellers in and around the
Fens. It.is impossible to determine when the wild Grey Lag
Goose ceased from breeding in England, but it certainly did so
towards the end of the last century, for Daniel, in or about 1802,
mentions (2wral Sports, iii. p. 242) his having once obtained two
broods in a season. In Scotland this Goose continues to breed
sparingly in several parts of the Highlands and on certain of the
Hebrides, the nests being generally placed in long heather and the
eggs seldom exceeding five or six in number. It is most likely the
birds reared here that are from time to time obtained in England,
for at the present day the Grey Lag Goose, though once so
numerous, is, and for many years has been, the rarest species of
those that habitually resort to the British Islands. The domestica-
tion of this species, as Mr. Darwin remarks (Animals and Plants
under Domestication, 1. p. 287), is doubtless of very ancient date,
and yet scarcely any other animal that has been tamed for so long
a period, and bred so largely in captivity, has varied so little. It
has increased greatly in size and fecundity, but almost the only
change in plumage is that tame Geese lose the browner and darker
tints of the wild bird, and are invariably more or less marked with
white—being often indeed wholly of that colour! The most
generally recognized breeds of domestic Geese are those to which
the distinctive names of Emden and Toulouse are applied; but a
singular breed, said to have come from Sevastopol, was introduced

as in laggard, a loiterer, dagman, the last man, lagtecth, the posterior molar or
“‘wisdom” teeth (as the latest to appear), and dagclock, a clock that is behind
time. Thus the Grey Lag Goose is the Grey Goose which in England when the
name was given was not migratory but lagged behind the other wild species at
the season when they betook themselves to their northern breeding-quarters.
In connexion with this word, however, must be noticed the curious fact men-
tioned by the late Mr. Rowley (Orn. Miscell. iii. p. 213), that to this day the .
flocks of tame Geese in Lincolnshire are urged on by their drivers with the cry
of ‘‘Lag’em, Lag’em.”

1 From the time of the Romans white Geese have been held in great estima-
tion, and hence, doubtless, they have been preferred as breeding stock ; but the
detestable practice of plucking Geese alive, continued for so many centuries, has
not improbably also helped to perpetuate this variation, for it is well known to
bird-keepers that a white feather is often produced in place of one of the natural
colour that has been pulled out.

GOOSE 373

into Western Europe about the year 1856. In this the scapulars
are elongated, curled, and spirally twisted, having their shaft
transparent, and so thin that it often splits into fine filaments,
which, remaining free for an inch or more, often coalesce again.}
The other British species of typical Geese are the Bean-Goose,
A. segetum, the Pink-footed, 4. brachyrhynchus, and the White-
fronted, A. albifrons. On the continent of Europe, but not yet
recognized as occurring in Britain, is a small form of the last, A.
erythropus, which is known to breed in Lapland. All these, for the
sake of discrimination, may be divided into two groups—(1) those
having the “nail” at the tip of the bill white, or of a very pale
flesh colour, and (2) those in which this “nail” is black. ‘To the
former belong the Grey Lag Goose, as well as A. albifrons and A.
erythropus, and to the latter the other two. A. albifrons and A.
erythropus, which hardly differ but in size,—the last being not
much bigger than a MALLARD,—may be readily distinguished from
the Grey Lag Goose by their bright orange bill and legs, and their
mouse-coloured upper wing-coverts, to say nothing of their very
conspicuous white face and the broad black bars which cross the
belly, though the two last characters are occasionally observable to
some extent in the Grey Lag Goose, which has the bill and legs
flesh-coloured, and the upper-wing coverts of a bluish-grey. Of the
second group, with the black “nail,” 4. segetwm has the bill long,
black at the base and orange in the middle; the feet are also
orange, and the upper wing-coverts mouse-coloured, while dA.
brachyrhynchus has the bill short, bright pink in the middle, and the
feet also pink, the upper wing-coverts being nearly of the same
bluish-grey as in the Grey Lag Goose. Eastern Asia possesses in
A. grandis a third species of this group, which chiefly differs from
A. segeium in its larger size. In North America there is only one
species of typical Goose, and that belongs to the white-“ nailed”
group. It very nearly resembles 4. albifrons, but is larger, and
-has been described as distinct under the name of A. gambeli.
Central Asia and India possess in the Bar-headed Goose, 4. indicus,

1 Want of space forbids our entering on the breeding of tame Geese, which
was formerly so largely practised in some English counties, especially Norfolk
and Lincoln. It was no uncommon thing for a man to keep a stock of a
thousand, each of which might be reckoned to rear on an average seven Goslings.
The fiocks were regularly taken to pasture and water, just as sheep are, and the
man who tended them was called the Gooseherd, corrupted into Gozzerd. The
birds were plucked five times in the year, and in autumn the flocks were driven
to London or other large markets. They travelled at the rate of about a mile an
hour, and would get over nearly ten miles in the day. For further particulars
the reader may be referred to Pennant’s British Zoology ; Montagu’s Ornithological
Dictionary ; Latham’s General History of Birds ; Stevenson’s Birds of Norfolk ;
and Rowley’s Ornithological Miscellany (ili. pp. 206-215), where some account
also may be found of the Goose-fatting at Strassburg.

374 GOOSE

a bird easily distinguished from any of the foregoing by the char-
acter implied by its English name; but it is certainly somewhat
abnormal, and, indeed, under the name of Hulabia, has been
separated from the genus Anser, which has no other member
indigenous to the Indian Region, nor any at all to the Ethiopian,
Australian, or Neotropical Regions.

But the New World possesses by far the greatest wealth of
Anserine forms. Beside others, presently to be mentioned, its
northern portions are the home of all the species of Snow-Geese
belonging to the genus Chen. It is true that two of these are
reported as haying appeared, and that not unfrequently, in Europe
and Asia; but they possibly have been but stragglers from America.
The first of these is C. hyperboreus, the Snow-Goose proper, a bird of
large size, and when adult of a pure white, except the primaries,
which are black. This has long been deemed a visitor, and some-
times in considerable numbers, to the Old World; but the later

Snow-GoosE, Brant GOOSE.
(After Swainson.)

discovery of a smaller form, C. albatus, scarcely differing except in
size, throws some doubt on the older records, especially since
examples which have recently been obtained in the British Islands
undoubtedly belong to this lesser bird, and it would be satisfactory
to have the occurrence in the Old World of the true C. hyperboreus
placed on a surer footing. So nearly allied to the species last
named as to have been often confounded with it, is the Blue winged
Goose, C. cxrulescens, which is said never to attain a snowy plumage.
Then we have a very small species, long ago described as distinct
by Hearne, the Arctic traveller, but until 1861 discredited by
ornithologists. Its distinctness has now been fully recognized, and
it has received, somewhat unjustly, the name of C. rossi. Its face
is adorned with numerous papille, whence it has been removed by
Mr. Elliot to a separate genus, Hzanthemops, and for the same
reason it has, for more than a century, been known to the European
residents in the Fur Countries as the “ Horned Wavey ”—the last
word being a rendering of a native name, /Vawa, which signifies
Goose. Finally, there appears to belong to this section (though it
has been frequently referred to another, Chloephaga, and has also
been made the type of a distinct genus, Philacte) the beautiful
Painted or Emperor Goose, C, canagica, which is almost peculiar to

GOOSE 375

the Aleutian Islands, though straying to the continent in winter,
and may be recognized by the white edging of its remiges.

The southern portions of the New World are inhabited by about
half-a-dozen species of Geese, akin to the foregoing, but separated
as the genus Chloephaga. The most noticeable of them are the
Rock- or Kelp-Goose, C. antarctica, and the Upland-Goose, C.
magellanica. In both of these the sexes are totally unlike in colour,
the male being nearly white, while the female is of a mottled
brown, but in others a greater similarity obtains! Very nearly.
allied to the birds of this group, if indeed that can be justifiably
separated, comes one which belongs to the northern hemisphere,
and is common to the Old World as well as the New. It contains
the Geese which have received the common names of BERNACLE or
BrAnt, and the scientific appellations of Bernicla and branta—for
the use of either of which much may be said by nomenclaturists.
All the species of this section are distinguished by their general
dark sooty colour, relieved in some by white of greater or less
purity, and by way of distinction from the members of the genus
Anser, which are known as Grey Geese, are frequently called by
fowlers Black Geese. Of these, the best known both in Europe and
North America is the Brant-Goose—the Anas bernicla of Linneus,
and the B. torqguata of many modern writers—a truly marine bird,
seldom (in Europe at least) quitting salt water, and coming south-
ward in vast flocks towards autumn, frequenting bays and estuaries
on our coasts, where it lives chiefly on sea-grass (Zostera maritima).
It is known to breed in Spitsbergen and in Greenland. A form
which is by some ornithologists deemed a good species, and called
by them B. nigricans, occurs chiefly on the Pacific coast of North
America. In it the black of the neck, which in the common Brant
terminates just above the breast, extends over most of the lower
parts. The true Bernacle-Goose,? the 5. lewcopsis of most authors,
is only a casual visitor to North America, but is said to breed in
Iceland, and occasionally in Norway. Its usual incwnabula, how-
ever, still form one of the puzzles of the ornithologist, and the
difficulty is not lessened by the fact that it will breed freely in
semi-captivity, while the Brant-Goose will not. From the latter

1 See Sclater and Salvin, Proc. Zool. Society, 1876, pp. 361-369.

2 The old fable, perhaps still believed by the uneducated in some parts of the
world, of Bernacle-Geese being produced from the Bernacles (Lepadidw) that
grow on timber exposed to salt-water, is not more absurd than many that in
darker ages had a great hold of the popular mind, and far less contemptible than
the conceited spirit in which many modern zoologists and botanists often treat
it. They forget that there are still adherents to the doctrine of spontaneous
generation, which seems to be hardly less extravagant than the notion of birds
growing from ‘‘ worms,” as they were then called. The mistake of our fore-
fathers is of course evident, but that is no reason for deriding their innocent
ignorance as some writers are fond of doing.

376 GOOSE

the Bernacle-Goose is easily distinguished by its larger size and
white cheeks. Hutchins’s Goose, b. hutchinsi, seems to be its true
representative in the New World. In this the face is dark, but a
white crescentic or triangular patch extends from the throat on
either side upwards behind the eye. Almost exactly similar in
coloration to the last, but greatly superior in size, and possessing
18 rectrices, while all the foregoing have but 16, is the common
wild Goose of America, B. canadensis, which, for some two centuries
or more, has been introduced into Europe, where it propagates so
freely that it has been included by nearly all the ornithologists of
this quarter of the globe as a member of its fauna. An allied
form, by some deemed a species, is b. leucopareia, which ranges over
the western part of North America, and, though having 18 rectrices,
is distinguished by a white collar round the lower part of the neck.
The most diverse species of this group of Geese are the beautiful
B. ruficollis, a native of North-eastern Asia, which has occasionally
strayed to Egypt! and Western Europe, and has been obtained
more than once in Britain, and that which is peculiar to the
Hawaiian archipelago, B. sandvicensis.

The largest living Goose is that called the Chinese, Guinea, or
Swan-Goose, Cygnopsis cygnoides, and it seems to be the stock
whence the domestic Geese of several Eastern countries have
sprung. It may not unfrequently be seen in English farmyards,
and it is found to cross readily with our common tame Goose, the
offspring being fertile, and Blyth has said that these crosses are very
abundant in India. The true home of the species is in Eastern
Siberia or Mongolia. It is distinguished by its upright bearing,
which has been well rendered by Bewick’s figure. ‘The Ganders of
the reclaimed form are distinguished by the knob at the base of the
bill, but the evidence of many observers shews that this is not found
in the wild race. Of this bird there is a perfectly white breed.

Lastly must be mentioned the curious form CEREOPSIS, with its
apparently exaggerated ally the extinct Cnemiornis of New Zealand,
a bird of great size and, as said before (p. 82), unable from the
shortness of its wings to fly. In connexion with this loss of power
may also be noted the dwindling of the keel of the sternum.

Birds of the genera Chenalopex (the Egyptian and Orinoco
Geese), Plectropterus, Sarcidiornis, Chlamydochen, and some others,
are commonly called Geese. To the writer it seems almost certain
that they are allied to the SHELD-DRAKE. The males of all appear to
have that curious enlargement at the junction of the bronchial
tubes and the trachea which is so characteristic of the Ducks or
Anatine and is wanting in the Anserine or true Geese. As much
may be said for the genus Nettapus.

1 Its portraits are recognizable in what is said to be one of the oldest pictures
in the world see (INTRODUCTION).

—~

GORCOCK—GOURA 377

GORCOCK, a Scottish name for the male of the Red GroussE.
GOS-HAWK, ic. Goose-Hawk, the Astur palumbarius of

ornithologists, and the largest of the short-winged Hawks used in
Falconry. Its English name, however, has possibly been trans-
ferred to this species from one of the long-winged Hawks, or true
Falcons, since there is no tradi-
tion of the Gos-Hawk, now so
called, having ever been used in
Europe to take Geese or other
large and powerful birds. The
genus Astur may be readily dis-
tinguished from Falco by the
smooth edges of its beak, its
short wings (not reaching beyond
about the middle of the tail),
and its long legs and _ toes
though these last are stout and comparatively shorter than in
the SpARROW-HAWKS, Accipiter. In plumage the Gos-Hawk has
a general resemblance to the Peregrine FALCON, and it undergoes a
corresponding change as it advances from youth to maturity—the
young being longitudinally streaked beneath, while the adults are
transversely barred. The irides, however, are always yellow, or in
old birds orange, while those of the Falcons are dark brown. The
sexes differ greatly in size. There can be little doubt that the
Gos-Hawk, nowadays very rare in Britain, was once common in
England, and even towards the end of the last century Thornton
obtained a nestling in Scotland, while Irish Gos-Hawks were of old
highly celebrated. Being strictly a woodland-bird, its disappear-
ance may be safely connected with the disappearance of our ancient
forests, though its destructiveness to Poultry and Pigeons has
doubtless contributed to its.present scarcity. In many parts of the
continent of Europe it still abounds. It ranges eastward to China,
and is much valued in India. In North America it is represented
by a very nearly allied species, 4. atricapillus, chiefly distinguished
by the closer barring of the breast. Three or four examples cor-
responding with this form have been obtained in Britain. A good
many other species of Astur (some of them passing into Accipiter)
are found in various parts of the world, but the only one that need
here be mentioned is the 4. nove-hollandix of Australia, which is
remarkable for its dimorphism—one form possessing the normal
dark-coloured plumage of the genus, and the other being perfectly
white, with yellow or red irides. It must be stated, however, that
some writers hold these two forms taybe distinct species, and call the
dark-coloured one 4. cinereus or A. rait.

Gos-Hawk. (After Swainson.)

GOURA, the name (apparently of Eastern origin) applied in

378 GOWK—GRACKLE

1776 by Sonnerat (Voy. Nouv. Guinée, pl. 104) to the Great-
Crowned PiGEON, Columba coronata of Linneus, given by Stephens
in 1819 (Gen. Zool. xi. p. 119) to a genus, and by him and others
used also as an English word. The species inhabits New Guinea
and some of the neighbouring islands, whence it has been frequently
brought alive to Europe, and though it has even bred in captivity,
it has as yet evinced no readiness to domestication, which is to be
regretted when we consider its large size and the becoming appear-
ance it makes with its erect crest, its colouring of lavender-grey
with a chestnut mantle and white wing-patch, to say nothing of its
stately gait. -A second and even finer species, G. victoria, now
known to come from the islands of Jobie and Missorie, was de-
scribed by Fraser (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1846, p. 136), and since then
three, or perhaps four, others, all from the Papuan Subregion, if not
from New Guinea itself, have been discovered (Salvadori, Ornitol.
Papuas. iii. pp. 191-209). The species of Goura are the largest of
the existing Columbe.

GOWK (Dan. Gjgg; Norsk. Gjgk ; Swed. Gok), a common name
of the Cuckow in the northern part of Britain.

GRACKLE (Latin, Gracculus or Graculus, a Daw), a word
which has been much used in ornithology, but generally in a vague
sense, though restricted to members of the Families Sturnidx
(STARLING) belonging to the Old World, and Jcteridx belonging to
the New. Of the former those to which it has been most com-
monly applied are the species variously known as Mynas, Mainas,
and Minors of India and the adjacent countries, and especially the
Gracula religiosa of Linnzeus, who, according to Jerdon and others,
was very probably led to confer this epithet upon it by confound-
ing it with the Sturnus or Acrido-
theres tristis,?, which is regarded by
the Hindus as sacred to Ram Deo,
one of their deities, while the true
Gracula religiosa does not seem to
be anywhere held in veneration.
This last is about 10 inches in
length, clothed in a plumage of
glossy black, with purple and green reflexions, and a conspicuous
patch of white on the quill-feathers of the wings. The bill is

GRACULA RELIGIOSA, (After Swainson.)

1 Some old writers translated Water-Crow, or its equivalent in their own
language, by Graculus marinus, whereby Linneus was originally led to make
Graculus the name of a genus containing the CorMOoRANT and its like; and
though he afterwards corrected the mistake, certain systematists continued to
use the name in its erroneous sense.

> By some writers the birds of the genera Acridotheres and Temenuchus are
considered to be the true Mynas, and the species of Gracula are called ‘‘ Hill
Mynas ” by way of distinction.

GRALLA 379

orange and the legs yellow, but the bird’s most characteristic feature
is afforded by the curious caruncles of bright yellow, which, begin-
ning behind the eyes, run backward in form of a lappet on each
side, and then return in a narrow stripe to the top of the head.
Beneath each eye also is a bare patch of the same colour. This
species is common in southern India, and is represented further to
the north, in Ceylon, Burma and some of the Malay Islands by
cognate forms. ‘They are all frugivorous, and, being easily tamed
and learning to pronounce words very distinctly, are favourite
cage-birds. In Africa they are perhaps represented by a somewhat
similar genus, which authors generally continue to call Dilophus,

CREATOPHORA CARUNCULATA. (After Swainson.)

though that name has long been preoccupied. There is but one
species, the Creatophora carunculata of Lesson (Descr. Mammif. et Ois.
p. 308), the common Locust-BIrRD of South Africa.

In the New World the name Grackle has been applied to
several species of the genera Scolecophagus and Quiscalus, though
these are more commonly called in Canada and the United States
“Blackbirds,” or Maize-birds, and some of them “ Boat-tails.”
They all belong to the Family Jcteridz. The best known of these
are the Rusty Grackle, S. ferrugineus, which pervades almost the
whole of North America, and Q. purpureus, the Purple Grackle or
Crow-Blackbird, of more limited range, for though abundant
enough in most parts to the east of the Rocky Mountains, it seems
not to appear on the Pacific side. There is also Brewer’s or the
Blue-headed Grackle, 8. cyanocephalus, which has a more western
range, not occurring to the eastward of Kansas and Minnesota,
while a fourth species, @. major, is found to inhabit the Atlantic
States as far as North Carolina. All these birds are of exceedingly
omnivorous habit, and though undoubtedly destroying large num-
bers of pernicious insects are in many places held in bad repute
from the mischief they do to the corn-crops (see ICTERUS).

GRALLA, the fourth Order of Birds in the Linnzan system,
composed of the genera Phwnicopterus (FLAMINGO), Platalea (SPOON-
BILL), Palamedea (SCREAMER), Mycteria (JABIRU), Tantalus (IBIS),
Ardea (Heron), Recurvirostra (Avoset), Scolopax (Woopcocr),

1 Dilophus was used for a genus of Diptera in 1803 by Meigen (Mag. f.
Insektenk. ii. p. 264). The bird was originally described by Walch in 1777
(Naturf. xi. p. 9)asa Tringa! It is the Cockscomb Stare of Latham (Synops.
li. p. 8).

ee

o

380 GRALLATORES—GRASS-BIRD

Tringa (SANDPIPER), Fulica (Coor), Parra (JACANA), Rallus (RAIL),
Psophia (TRUMPETER), Cancroma (BOAT-BILL), Hematopus (OYSTER-
CATCHER), Charadrius (PLOVER), Olis (BUSTARD), and Struthio
(OSTRICH).

GRALLATORES, Iliger’s modification (in 1811) of the pre-
ceding, dividing it into 8 Families and 32 genera. For some fifty
years this arrangement met in its main points with pretty general
acceptance, but systematists at last came to the conclusion that the
Order was an unnatural assemblage, and the name Grallatores is
now scarcely used by any writers of authority.

GRALLINA, a genus founded by Vieillot in 1816 (Analyse,
p. 42), for what he thought was a new form of bird from New
Holland, G. melanoleuca ; but it had been already twice described in
1802 by Latham (Gen. Synops. Suppl. 1. pp. 117 and 130, and Jnd.
Orn. Suppl. pp. 25, 29) as Corvus cyanoleucus and Gracula picata, and
again in 1811 by Oppel, who also figured it (Denkschr. Akad.
bayer. Wissensch. iii. pp. 156-166, pl. viii.) as a new genus and
species, Zanypus australis. This generic term being preoccupied,
Vieillot’s has to be adopted, and it has been accepted as an English
word. Placed as it had been among Crows, Grackles, and
Thrushes, Gould shewed great discrimination (Handb. B. Austral.
i. 187) in not referring it to any group; but Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br.
Mus. iil. p. 272) assigned it to Prionopidxe, even then a doubtful
position and a doubtful Family ; and Dr. Gadow has since ascer-
tained that its vocal organs are not those of the normal Oscines.

Grallina picata is generally dispersed over Australia, where it is
known as the Magpie-Lark, frequenting the alluvial plains and
sides of rivers, but being of a familiar disposition and constantly
visiting homesteads, when it is said to run along the roofs like a
Wagtail. Gould describes its flight as unlike that of any other
bird known to him, being “in a straight line with a heavy flapping
motion of the wings.” It builds a large cup-like nest of mud or
earth, more or less mixed with grass, so as to look like a massive
clay vessel, and this is generally placed on a bare horizontal branch,
without attempt at concealment, though sometimes a few twigs or
leaves partially hide the structure. The eggs, 3 or 4 in number,
vary considerably in tint and markings (North, Cat. Nests and Eggs,
B. Austral. p. 79).. This bird seems to be purely insectivorous. <A
second species, G. bruijni, has been described from New Guinea
(Salvadori, Ann. Genov. vil. p. 929).

GRAPE-EATER, a name given in Australia to one or more of
the species of ZOSTEROPS.

GRASS-BIRD, a general name in America, from Canada to the
Antilles, for the smaller SANDPIPERS, or some of them at least ; but

GRASS-QUIT—GREBE 381

applied by Gould (Handb. B. Austral. i. pp. 399, 400) to two
species of Australian birds which he referred to the genus
Spheneacus of Strickland (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1841, p. 28), the type of
which is the Motacilla africana of Gmelin and bird known in the
Cape Colony as “Idle Jack” and “ Lazy Dick” (Layard, B. S. Afr.
p- 96). Other species from various localities, and especially one
from New Zealand, where it is known as the Fern-bird, have been
assigned to the same genus, but whether rightly or not remains to
be shewn. One of the Australian species, S. granvineus, has been
generically separated by Prof. Cabanis as Poodytes. Dr. Sharpe
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. vii. p. 93) includes Spheneacus among the
Timeludx, but any attempt to arrange these birds must at present
be guesswork, and it is quite likely that their association is due
only to their outward resemblance. They mostly have their tail-
feathers stiff in the shaft and the webs not connected ; the plumage
above is striated, and they skulk in thick grass so as to be seldom
seen, flying but a short way when forced to take wing.

GRASS-QUIT, applied in Jamaica to some species of the genus
Phonipava, or, as some have it, Hucthia, apparently belonging to the
Family Hmberizidx, one of which, P. bicolor, of wide range in the
Antilles, shews itself in Florida.

GRAUCALUS, Cuvier’s name for a genus of birds, to which
have been assigned a score of species, found from West Africa east-
ward to the coast of China in the north and Tasmania in the south,
while one occasionally strays to New Zealand, and for those
inhabiting Australia the name has been Anglified by Gould. The
genus is generally referred to the Campephagide ; but its position
must be regarded as uncertain. ‘The Australian species are said
to be subject to several changes of plumage, that of the young,
assumed after leaving the nest, differing as much from that of the
nestling as from that of the adult; but as a rule the plumage is
mostly grey, diversified by black and white.

GRAY (Icelandic Grdjnd), a name of the GADWALL (Willughby,
Orn. (Lat.) p. 287) now perhaps obsolete.

GREBE (French Grebe), the generally accepted name for all the
birds of the Family Podicipedidz,' belonging to the group Pygopodes
of Illiger, members of which inhabit almost all parts of the world.
Some systematic writers have distributed them into several so-called
genera, but, with one exception, these seem to be insufficiently
defined, and here it will be enough to allow but two—Podicipes and

1 Often, but erroneously, written Podicipide. The word Podiceps, as com-
monly spelt, being a contracted form of the original Podictpes (cf. Gloger, Journal
fiir Ornithologie, 1854, p. 430, note), a combination of podex, podicis, and pes,
pedis, its further compounds must be in accordance with its derivation.

382 GREBE

the Centropelma of Messrs. Sclater and Salvin. Grebes are at once
distinguishable from all other Water-birds by their very short body,
and the peculiar structure of their feet, which are not only placed
far behind, but have the tarsi flattened and elongated toes furnished
with broad lobes of skin.

In Europe we have five well-marked species of Podicipes, the
commonest and smallest of which is the very well-known DABcHICK
of our ponds, P. fluviatilis or minor, found throughout the British
Islands, and with a wide range in the Old World. Next in size are

GREAT CRESTED GREBE.

two species known as the Eared and Horned Grebes, the former of
which, P. nigricollis, is a visitor from the south, only occasionally
shewing itself in Britain, while the latter, P. auritus, has a more
northern range, breeding plentifully in Iceland, and is a not un-
common winter-visitant. Then there is the larger Red-necked
Grebe, P. griseigena, also a northern bird, and a native of the sub-
arctic parts of both Europe and America, while lastly the Great
Crested Grebe, P. cristatus, or Gaunt—known as the Loon on the
meres and broads of Kast Anglia,! and some other parts of England,
is also widely spread over both Worlds; and, though apparently

1 Cf. Stevenson and Southwell, Birds of Norfolk, iii. pp. 233-254,

GREENFINCH 383

not found within the tropics, is known in the extreme south as a
native of Australia and New Zealand. North America is credited
with seven species of Grebes, of which three (P. cristatus, P. griseigena,
and P. auritus) are admitted to be specifically inseparable from those
already named, and two (P. occidentalis and P. californicus) appear
to be but local forms; the remaining two, P. dominicus and P.
ludovicianus, may, however, be accounted good species, and the last
differs so much from other Grebes that many systematists make it
the type of a distinct genus, Podilymbus. South America seems to
possess four or five more species, one of which, the P. micropterus of
Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1858, p. 220), has been separated from the
genus Podicipes by Messrs. Sclater and Salvin (Lzot. Ornithology,
p. 189, pl. xcv.), owing to the form of its bill, and the aborted con-
dition of its wings, which seem to render it absolutely flightless.
Lake Titicaca in Bolivia is, so far as is known at present, its only
habitat. Grebes in general, though averse from taking wing, have
much greater power of flight than would seem possible on examina-
tion of their alar organs, and are capable of prolonged aerial
journeys. Their plumage is short and close. Above it is com-
monly of some shade of brown, but beneath it is invariably white,
and so glossy as to be in much request for muffs and the trimming
of ladies’ dresses. Some species are remarkable for the crests or
tippets, generally of a golden-chestnut colour, they assume in the
breeding season. JP. auritus is particularly remarkable in this
respect, and when in its full nuptial attire presents an extraordinary
aspect, the head (being surrounded, as it were, by a nimbus or
aureole, such as that with which painters adorn saintly characters),
reflecting the rays of light, and glittering with a glory that passes
description. All the species seem to have similar habits of nidifica-
tion. Water-weeds are pulled from the bottom of the pool, and
piled on a convenient foundation, often a seminatant growth of bog-
bean (Menyanthes), till they form a large mass, with a shallow cup
in the centre, wherein the eggs, with a chalky white shell almost
equally pointed at each end, are laid—the parent covering them,
whenever she has time to do so, before leaving the nest. Young
Grebes are beautiful objects, clothed with black, white, and brown
hair, disposed in streaks, and their bill is often brilliantly tinted
with orange or yellow. When taken from the nest and placed on
dry ground, it is curious to observe the way in which they progress—
using the wings almost as fore-feet, and suggesting the notion that
they must be quadrupeds instead of birds (/éis, 1889, p. 577). In
water, however, they equal if not surpass their parents in the power
of diving, which is a special accomplishment of all Grebes.

GREENFINCH (German Griinfink) or Green Linnet, as it is
very often called. a common European bird, the Fringilla chloris of

384 GREENLEEK—GREENSHANK

Linnzeus, ranked by many systematists with one section of HAw-
FINCHES, Coccothraustes, but apparently more nearly allied to the
other section Hesperiphona, and perhaps justifiably deemed the type
of a distinct genus, to which the name Ligur-
inus or Chloris has been applied. The cock,
in his plumage of green and gold, is among the
most finely coloured of our common birds, but
he is rather heavily built, and his song is
CeCe hardly to be praised. The hen is much less
erica brightly tinted. Throughout Britain, as a
rule, this species is.one of the most plentiful, and is found at all
seasons of the year. It pervades almost the whole of Europe, and
in Asia reaches the river Ob. It visits Palestine, but is unknown in
Egypt. It is, however, abundant in Mauritania, whence specimens
are so brightly coloured that they have been deemed to form a dis-
tinct species, the Ligurinus awrantiventris of Dr. Cabanis, but that
view is now generally abandoned. In the north-east of Asia and
its adjacent islands occur two allied species—the Fringilla sinica of
Linneus, and the F. kawarahiba of Temminck. No species of Green-
finch is found in America; but what seems to be an exaggerated
form, differentiated as a distinct genus, Chloridops, has been described
from Hawaii in the Sandwich Islands (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1888, p. 218).

GREENLEEK, according to Gould, the local name in New
South Wales of Palxornis or Polytelis barrabandi, the scarlet-breasted
PARRAKEET.

GREENLET, a word originating apparently with Swainson in
1831 (Faun. Bor.-Am. ii. p. 233) as an English rendering of VIREO,
and not uncommonly used in America for birds of that genus and
its allies.

GREENSHANK, one of the largest of the birds commonly
known as Sandpipers, the Zotanus glottis! of most ornithological
writers. Some exercise of the imagination is, however, needed to
see in the dingy olive-coloured legs of this species a justification of
the English name by which it goes, and the application of that
name, which seems to be due to Pennant, was probably by way of
distinguishing it from two allied but perfectly distinct species of
Totanus (T. calidris and T. fuscus), having red legs and usually called
REDSHANKS. The Greenshank is a native of the northern parts of
the Old World, but in winter it wanders far to the south, and
occurs regularly at the Cape of Good Hope, in India, and thence

! There seems no reason to dispute the application of this specific name by
Linneus, who may be pardoned for recognizing the well-known GJutt of his own
country in the Glottis of classical authors, since Belon and Gesner saw in the
latter some kind of aquatic bird. Sundevall has, however, shewn that the
ywrris of Aristotle was a WRYNECK.

GRE YBACK—GROSBEAK 385

throughout the Indo-Malay Archipelago to Australia. It has also
been recorded from North America, but its appearance there must
be considered accidental. Almost as bulky as a Woodcock, it is of
a much more slender build, and its long legs and neck give it a
graceful appearance, which is enhanced by the activity of its
actions. Disturbed from the moor or marsh, where it has its nest,
it rises swiftly into the air, conspicuous by its white back and rump,
and uttering shrill cries flies round the intruder. It will perch on
the topmost bough of a tree, if a tree be near, to watch his pro-
ceedings, and the cock exhibits all the astounding gesticulations in
which the males of so many other Limicole indulge during the
breeding-season—with certain variations, however, that are peculiarly
its own. It breeds in no small numbers in the Hebrides, and parts
of the Scottish Highlands from Argyllshire to Sutherland, as well
as in the more elevated or more northern districts of Norway,
Sweden, and Finland, and probably also from thence to Kamchatka.
In North America it is represented by two species, Totanus semipal-
matus and T. melanoleucus, there called Willets, Telltales, or
Tattlers, which in general habits resemble the Greenshank of the
Old World.

GREYBACK, in England a common name of the Grey form of
Crow, Corvus cornizx; but in North America applied by gunners to
the Knot.

GREY HEN, the female of the Blackcock or Black GROUSE.

GRIFFON (Fr. Griffon, Lat. Gryphus, Gr. ypt~—a fabulous
monster with a hooked beak, an Eagle’s wings, and a Lion’s body) the
name applied in 1666 by certain French academicians to a VULTURE,
which they dissected, and continued by Buffon for what is now
known as Gyps fulvus, being finally adopted as its English dis-
tinctive name by Bennett in 1831 (Gard. and Menag. Zool. Soc. ii.
pon)

GRINDER, one of the names given in Australia to Stsura
inguieta, a form very similar to Lhipidwra (FANTAIL) and like that
generally assigned to the Muscicapidw (FLYCATCHER). Caley noticed
(Trans. Linn. Soc. xv. p. 250), the resemblance of the noise made
by this bird, though how it is produced is not said, to that caused
by a razor-grinder at work, and Gould adds (Handb. B. Austral. i.
p. 247), on Gilbert’s authority, that its general note is a loud harsh
cry, several times repeated, but it also utters a clear whistle. Its
flight is very remarkable, and its habit of hovering, at which time
is caused the sound that gives it this name, very peculiar.

GROSBEAK (French, Groshec), a name very indefinitely applied

1 The Griffin of heraldry is the same word, but that is represented with Bat-
like wings.
25

386 GROSBEAK

to many birds belonging to the Families Mringillide and Ploceidx of
modern ornithologists, and perhaps to some members of the
Emberizide and Tanagridx, but always to birds distinguished by
the great size of their bill. ‘Taken alone it is commonly a synonym
of HAWFINCH, but a prefix is most usually added to indicate the
species, as Pine-Grosbeak, Cardinal-Grosbeak, and the like. By
earlier writers the word was generally given as an equivalent of
the Linnzan Lozia, but that genus, as first established, has been
found to include many forms which, according to more recent
notions, cannot possibly be placed in the same Family.

The PINE-GRosBEAK, Pinicola enucleator, is, with the exception
of the Hawfinch just mentioned, the best known species to which
the name is applied. It inhabits the conifer-zone of both the Old
and the New Worlds, seeking, in Europe and probably elsewhere, a
lower latitude as winter approaches—often journeying in large
flocks; and stragglers are said to have occasionally reached the
British Islands, though the records of not more than four or five
such occurrences can be trusted (Yarrell, Br. Birds, ed. 4, i. pp.
177-179). In structure and some of its habits much resembling a
BULLFINCH, but much exceeding that bird in size, it has the
plumage of a CROSSBILL, and appears to undergo exactly the same
changes as do the members of the restricted genus Lozia,—the
young being of a dull greenish-grey streaked with brownish-black,
the adult hens tinged with golden-green, and the cocks glowing
with crimson-red on nearly all the body-feathers, this last colour
being replaced after moulting in confinement by bright yellow.
Nests of this species were found in 1821 by Zetterstedt near
Juckasjiirvi in Swedish Lapland, but little was really known with
certainty concerning its nidification until 1855, when the late Mr.
Wolley, after two years’ ineffectual search, succeeded in obtaining
in the not very distant district of Muonioniska well-authenticated
specimens with the eggs, both of which are like exaggerated Bull-
finches’ (Hewitson, Higgs Br. B. ed. 11. p. 210%, pl. lii.*). The food
of this species seems to consist of the seeds and buds of many sorts
of trees, though the staple may very possibly be those of some kind
of pine. The cock has a clear and pleasing song, which makes him
in many countries a favourite cage-bird ; and the notes of the hen
may even be deemed to qualify her as a musician of no small merit.

Allied to the Pine-Grosbeak are a number of species of smaller
size, but its equals in beauty of plumage! These have been
referred to several genera, such as Carpodacus, Propasser, Bycanetes,

1 Many of them are described and beautifully figured in the Monographie des
Louiens of Bonaparte and Schlegel (Leyden and Diisseldorf: 1850), a work which
includes, however, all the Crossbills, Redpolls, and Linnets then known te the
authors, while it excludes many birds that an English writer would have to call
** Grosbeaks.””

GROSBEAK 387

Uragus, and others; but possibly Carpodacus is sufficient to contain
all. Most of them are natives of the Old World, and chiefly of its
eastern division, but several inhabit the western portion of North
America, and one, C. githagineus (of which there seem to be at least
two local races), is an especial native of the deserts, or their borders,
of Arabia and North Africa, extending even to some of the Canary
Islands—a singular modification in the habitat of a form which one
would be apt to associate exclusively with forest trees, and
especially conifers. Other species of the Old World, though com-
monly called ‘“Grosbeaks,” certainly belong to the Ploceidx
(WEAVER-BIRD).

The CARDINAL Grosbeak, or Virginian Nightingale of many
writers, Cardinalis virginianus, claims notice here, though doubts
may be entertained as to the Family to which it really belongs.
No less remarkable for its bright carmine attire, and the additional
embellishment of an elongated crest of the same colour, than for its
fine song, it has been an object of attraction almost ever since the
settlement of its native country by Europeans. All American
ornithologists speak of its easy capture and its ready adaptation to
confinement, which for nearly three centuries have helped to make
it a popular cage-bird on both sides of the Atlantic. The vocal
powers possessed by the cock are to some extent shared by
the hen, though she is denied the vivid hues of her partner, and
her plumage, with exception of the wings and tail, which are of a
_ dull red, is light olive above and brownish-yellow beneath. It is
represented in the south-west of North America by other forms
that by some writers are deemed species, and in the northern parts
of South America by the C. pheniceus, which would really seem
entitled to distinction. Another kindred bird, placed from its
short and broad bill in a different genus, and known as Pyrrhuloaia
sinuata or the Texan Cardinal, is found on the southern borders of
the United States and in Mexico; while among North-American
“Grosbeaks ” must also be named the birds belonging to the genera
Guiraca and Hedymeles—the former especially exemplified by the
beautiful blue G. cwrulea, and the latter by the brilliant rose-
breasted H. ludovicianus, which last extends its range into Canada.

This may be the fittest place to mention a small but interesting
group of birds containing the genera Geospiza, Camarhynchus and
Cactornis, some of which are truly Grosbeaks in the literal meaning
of the name. They are peculiar to the Galapagos, where they were
discovered by Mr. Darwin, who in his Jowrnal of Researches (chap.
xvii.) dwelt on the “perfect gradation in the size of the beak” in
the different species of Geospiza, shewn here by the figures inserted.
It is indeed curious to find the beak, generally considered to be the
most useful and important feature of a bird’s organization, subject
to so much variation in closely-allied species, living, so far as we

388 GROUND-THRUSH—GROUSE

know, under very similar conditions. Nine species of Geospiza have
been described, five of Camarhynchus and four of Cactornis. All these
birds have a sombre coloration, in many deepening to a pitch-black.
Further particulars respecting them are to be found in the Zoology
of the Voyage of the ‘ Beagle,” and in Mr. Salvin’s paper ‘On the
Avifauna of the Galapagos Archipelago” (Trans. Zool. Soc. 1x. pp.
447-510), from which last the accompanying illustrations are
borrowed.

G. G. fortis.

G. fortis. G. fuliginosa. G. parvula,

SERIES OF FORMS OF GEOSPIZA.
(From the Transactions of the Zoological Society.)

GROUND-THRUSH, a name long ago used for birds of the
genus Pirra and its allies (Jerdon, B. Ind. i. p. 502); but latterly
an attempt has been made (Cat. B. Br. Mus. v. p. 147) to foist it
on a composite group of some 40 species of THRUSHES which have
been referred to a ghost-like genus Geocichla, the characters and
type of which continue to defy discovery.!

GROUSE, a word of uncertain origin,? now used generally by
ornithologists to include all the “rough-footed” Gallinaceous birds,

1 The assertion (loc. cit.) that Kuhl, to whom the establishment of this sup-
posed genus is attributed, founded it ‘“‘in some popular Dutch periodical,” is
unconfirmed by evidence, and is contradicted by all we know of his strictly
scientific practice.

2 It seems first to occur (fide O. Salusbury Brereton, Archexologia, iii. p. 157)
as ‘‘Grows” in an ordinance for the regulation of the royal household dated
‘‘apud Eltham, mens. Jan. 22 Hen. VIII.” (i.e. 1531), and considering the
locality must refer to Black game. It is found in an Act of Parliament 1 Jae. I.
cap. 27, § 2 (i.e. 1603), and, as reprinted in the Statutes at Large, stands as now

GROUSE 389

but in common speech applied almost exclusively, when used alone,
to the Yetrao scoticus of Linneus, the Lagopus scoticus of modern
systematists—more particularly called in English the Red Grouse,
but not a century ago almost invariably spoken of as the Moor-fowl
or Moor-game. The effect which this species is supposed to have
on the British legislature, and therefore on history, is well known,
for it is the common though mistaken belief that parliament in
these days always rises when the season for Grouse-shooting begins ;
but even of old time it seems to have excited on one occasion a
curious kind of influence, for we may read in the Orkneyinga Saga
(ed. Jonzus, p. 356; ed. Anderson, p. 168) that events of some
importance in the annals of North Britain followed from its pursuit
in Caithness in the year 1157. The Red Grouse is found on moors
from Monmouthshire and Derbyshire northward to the Orkneys, as
well as in most of the Hebrides. It likewise inhabits similar
situations throughout Wales and Ireland, but it does not naturally
occur beyond the limits of the British Islands,’ and is the only
species among birds absolutely peculiar to them. The word
“species” may in this case be used advisedly; since the Red
Grouse invariably “ breeds true,” it admits of an easy diagnosis, and
it has a definite geographical range ; but scarcely any zoologist who
looks further into the matter can doubt of its common origin with
the Willow-Grouse, Lagopus albus (L. subalpinus or L. saliceti of some
authors),? that inhabits a subarctic zone from Norway across the
whole continent of Europe and Asia, as well as’ North America
from the Aleutian Islands to Newfoundland.? The Red Grouse
indeed is rarely or never found away from the heather on which
chiefly it subsists, and with which it is in most men’s minds
associated ; while the Willow-Grouse in many parts of the Old
World seems to prefer the shrubby growth of berry-bearing plants

commonly spelt, but by many writers or printers the final ¢ is now omitted. In
1611 Cotgrave had ‘‘ Poule griesche. A Moore-henne; the henne of the Grice
[in ed. 1673 ‘‘Griece”] or Mooregame” (Dictionarie of the French and English
Tongues, sub voce Poule). The most likely derivation seems to be from the old
French word Griesche, Greoche, or Griais (meaning speckled, and cognate with
griseus, grisly or grey), which was applied to some kind of Partridge, or accord-
ing to Brunetto Latini (7’rés. p. 211) to a Quail, ‘‘porce que ele fu premiers
trovée en Grece” !

1 It was successfully, though with much trouble, introduced by Baron
Dickson, on a tract of land near Gottenburg in Sweden (Svenska Jégarférbundets
Nya Tidskrift, 1868, p. 64 et alibz), and seemed likely to maintain itself there,
so long at least as the care hitherto bestowed upon it is continued ; but of its
present condition I know nothing.

° It is to this species that belong, almost without exception, the thousands
of birds sold in our markets as ‘‘ Ptarmigan.”

3 Examples from Newfoundland have been described (Auk, 1884, p. 369) as
forming a ‘‘subspecies,” L. alleni.

390 GROUSE

(Vaccinium and others) that, often thickly interspersed with willows
and birches, clothes the higher levels or the lower mountain-slopes,
and it contrives to flourish in the New World where heather
scarcely exists, and a “heath” in its strict sense is unknown. It
is true likewise that the Willow-Grouse always becomes white in
winter, which the Red Grouse never does; but then we find that
in summer there is a considerable resemblance between the two
species, the cock Willow-Grouse having his head, neck, and breast
of the same rich chestnut-brown as his British representative,
and, though his back be lighter in colour, as is also the whole
plumage of his mate, than is found in the Red Grouse, in other

ass

N
My)

> Ae rt
CE

—
=

Ear:

22

RED GROUSE.

respects than those named above the two species are precisely alike.
No distinction can be discovered in their voice, their eggs, their
build, nor in their anatomical details, so far as these have been
investigated and compared. In connexion too with this matter it
should not be overlooked that the Red Grouse, restricted as is its
range, varies in colour not inconsiderably, and game-dealers of
experience assert that they are able to pronounce at sight the
native district of almost any bird that comes to their hands.’

1 A very interesting subject for discussion would be whether Lagopus scoticus
or L. albus has varied most from the common stock of both. I can here but
briefly indicate the more salient points that might arise. Looking to the fact
that the former is the only species of the genus which does not assume white
clothing in winter, an evolutionist might at first deem the variation greatest in
its case ; but then it must be borne in mind that the species of Lagopus which

GROUSE 391

Other peculiarities of the Red Grouse—the excellence of its
flesh, and its economic importance, which is perhaps greater than
that of any other wild bird in the world—hardly need notice here,
and there is not space to dwell upon that dire malady to which it
is from time to time subject, primarily induced, in the opinion of
many, by the overstocking of its haunts and the propagation of
diseased offspring by depauperized parents.1

turn white differ in that respect from all other groups of the Family Tetraonide.
Furthermore it must be remembered that every species of Lagopus (even L.
leucurus, the whitest of all) has its first set of remiges coloured brown. These
are dropped when the bird is about half-grown, and in all the species but Z.
scoticus white remiges are then produced. If therefore, as is generally held, the
successive phases assumed by any individual animal in the course of its progress
to maturity indicate the phases through which the species has passed, there may
have been a time when all the species of Lagopus wore a brown livery even when
adult, and the white dress donned in winter has been imposed upon the wearers
by causes that can be easily suggested, for it has been freely admitted by
naturalists of all schools that the white plumage of the birds of this group
protects them from danger during the snows of a protracted winter. On the
other hand, it is not at all inconceivable that the Red Grouse, instead of perpetu-
ating directly the more ancient properties of an original Lagopus that underwent
no great seasonal change of plumage, may derive its ancestry from the widely-
ranging Willow-Grouse, which in an epoch comparatively recent (in the geo-
logical sense) may have stocked Britain, and left descendants that, under conditions
in which the assumption of a white garb would be almost fatal to the preserva-
tion of the species, have reverted (though doubtless with some modifications)
to a comparative immutability essentially the same as that of the primal
Lagopus.

That Red Grouse, especially when in full winter-plumage—a fact of import in
regard to what has just been said—are subject to greater variability than most
species of birds has been proved by Mr. Buckley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, pp. 112-
116), and moreover that this variability does not wholly depend on locality as had
been frequently surmised, for he found that birds differing most remarkably from
each other occurred on the same ground or were at least near neighbours.
Having seen his series of specimens, I can state that he has not exaggerated the
variations they present, which are far greater than between those offered by some
of the so-called local forms of Lagopus. On the other hand, a general uniformity
seems to pervade Irish examples, as a large number submitted to me by Mr.
A. G. More shews. Indeed Irish specimens could be picked out by the practised
eye almost without fail from their plumage being duller and more snuff-coloured
(if the phrase be allowable). This hue is occasionally seen in English birds, but
not to my knowledge in Scottish, though I should not be surprised if it were to
occur. Whether the fact, as I take it to be, can be correlated with the more
equable climate which the sister-island enjoys, I do not pretend to say, but the
consideration seems worthy of attention. Several varieties and hybrids are figured
in Mr. Millais’s Game Birds and Shooting Sketches (London: 1892).

1 On the Grouse-disease the papers of Prof. Young in Proc. Nat. Hist. Soe.
Glasgow, i. p. 225, and Dr. Farquharson, Edinb. Med. Jowrnal, No. 263, p. 222,
may be consulted ; but especially Dr. Klein’s Reports in The Field (23 July 1887
and 15 June 1889, and his work on the subject (London: 1892).

Gs
sO
to
D
eI
>)
)
DH
by

Though the Red Grouse does not, after the manner of other
members of the genus Lagopus, become white in winter, Scotland
possesses a species of the genus which does. This is the Prar-
MIGAN,! LZ. mutus or L. alpinus, which differs far more in structure,
station, and habits from the Red Grouse than that does from the
Willow-Grouse, and in Scotland is far less abundant, haunting only
the highest and most barren mountains. It is said to have for-
merly inhabited both Wales and England, but there is no evidence
of its appearance in Ireland. On the continent of Europe it is
found most numerously in Norway, but at an elevation far above

\ SN Ss =< == NS
PTARMIGAN

the growth of trees, and it occurs on the Pyrenees, and on the
Alps. It also inhabits northern Russia, but its eastern limit is

1 James I. (as quoted by Mr. Gray, B. W. Scotland, p. 230) writing from
Whitehall in 1617 spelt the word ‘‘ Termigant,”’ and in this form it appears in
one of the Scots Acts in 1621. Taylor the ‘‘ water poet,” who (in 1630) seems
to have been the first Englishman to use the word, has ‘‘Termagant.’’ How the
unnecessary initial letter has crept into the name is more than is known to me.
I can only trace it to Sibbald in 1684. The word is admittedly from the Gaelic
Tarmachan, meaning, according to some, ‘‘a dweller upon heights,” but
thought by Dr. T. M‘Lauchlan to refer possibly to the noise made by the bird’s
wings in taking flight. It has of course really nothing to do with the name of
the idol which early medieval writers supposed to be worshipped by Pagans.

GROUSE 3093

sented by a very nearly allied form—so much so indeed that it is
only at certain seasons that the slight difference between them can
be detected. This form is the L. rupestris of authors, and it would
appear to be found also in Siberia (Ibis, 1879, p. 148).2 Spits-
bergen is inhabited by a large form which has received recognition
as L. hemileucurus, and the northern end of the chain of the Rocky
Mountains is tenanted by a very distinct species, the smallest and
perhaps the most beautiful of the genus, L. leucurus, which has all
the feathers of the tail white. The very curious and still hardly under-

ihe

BLACKCOCK,

stood question of the MouLr of the Ptarmigan could not be discussed
here, and reference can only be made to the shedding of its CLAWS.

The bird, however, to which the name of Grouse in all strict-
ness belongs (see p. 388, footnote 2) is Tetrao tetrix—the Blackcock
and Greyhen, as the sexes are with us respectively called. It is
distributed over most of the heath-country of England, except in
East Anglia, where attempts to introduce it have been only par-
tially successful. It also occurs in North Wales, and very generally

1 Examples from Greenland have borne the name of L. reinhardti, others
from Newfoundland Z. welchi, and the islands of Unalaska and Atka are said to
present local forms distinguishable as nelsoni and atkhensis respectively (cf.
Ridgway, Man. N. Am. B. p. 201).

2 T am indebted to Prof. Mitsukuri for specimens from Japan ; but I dare not
yet characterize them.

304 GUACHARO

throughout Scotland, though not in Orkney, Shetland, or the Outer
Hebrides, nor in Ireland. On the continent of Europe it has a
very wide range, and it extends into Siberia. In Georgia its place
is taken by a distinct species, on which a Polish naturalist (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1875, p. 267) has unhappily conferred the name of 7.
mlokosiewiczt. Both these birds have much in common with their
larger congeners the CAPERCALLY and its eastern representative.
We must then notice the species of the genus Bonasa, of which
the European JB. sylvestris, the Hazel-hen, is the type. This does
not inhabit the British Islands ; unfortunately so, for it is perhaps
the most delicate game-bird that comes to table. It is the Gelinotte
of the French, the Haselhuhn of Germans, and Hjerpe of Scandi-
nayians. Like its transatlantic congener B. wmbellus, the Ruffed
Grouse or Birch-Partridge (of which there are three other local
forms, B. togata, B. wmbelloides, and B. sabinii), it is purely a forest-
bird. The same may be said of the species of Canachites, of which
two forms are found in America, C. canadensis, the Spruce-Partridge,
and C. franklini, and also of the Siberian C. falcipennis. Nearly
allied to these birds is the group known as Dendragapus, containing
three large and fine forms, D. obscurus, D. fuliginosus, and D.
richardsoni—all peculiar to North America. Then we have Cen-
trocercus urophasianus, the Sage-cock of the plains of Columbia and
California, and Pediocxtes, the Sharp-tailed Grouse, with its three
forms, P. phasianellus, P. columbianus, and P. campestris, while finally
Tympanuchus, the Prairie-hen, also with three local forms, 7. cupido,
now nearly extinct, 7. americanus, and T. pallidicinctus, is a bird that
in the United States of America possesses considerable economic
value, as witness the enormous numbers that are not only consumed
there, but exported to Europe. It will be seen that the great
majority of Grouse belong to the northern part of the New World,
and it is to be regretted that space here fails to do justice to these
beautiful and important birds, by enlarging on their interesting
distinctions. They are nearly all figured in Mr. Elliot’s Monograph
of the Tetraoninx, and an excellent account of the American species,
so far as then known, is given in Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway’s
North American Birds (iii. pp. 414-465), while the Manual of the
last of these authors concisely notices the forms lately recognized.

GUACHARO,! the Spanish-American name of what English
writers have lately taken to calling the OrL-Brrp, the Steatornis
caripensis of ornithologists, a very remarkable bird, first described
by Alexander von Humboldt (Journ. de Physique, hii. p. 57; Voy.
aux Rég. équinoxiales, i. p. 413, Engl. transl. iii. p. 119; Obs.
Zoologie, ii. p. 141, pl. xliv.) from his own observation and from

1 This is said to be an obsolete Spanish word signifying one that cries,
moans, or laments loudly.

GUACHARO 395

examples obtained by Bonpland, on the visit of those two travellers,
in September 1799, to a cave near Caripé (at that time a monastery
of Aragonese Capuchins) in the Venezuelan province of Cumana on
the northern coast of South America. A few years later it was
discovered, says Latham (Gen. Hist. Birds, 1823, vii. p. 365), to
inhabit Trinidad, where it appears to bear the name of Diablotin ;}
and much more recently, by the receipt of specimens procured at
Sarayacu in Ecuador, Caxamarea in the Peruvian Andes, and
Antioquia in New Grenada (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1878, pp. 139, 140;
1879, p. 532), its range has been shewn to be much greater than
had been supposed. ‘The singularity of its structure, its curious
habits, and its peculiar economical value have naturally attracted
no little attention, and it has formed the subject of investigation
by a considerable number of zoologists both British and foreign.
First referring it to the genus Caprimulgus, its original describer
soon saw that it was no true NIGHTJAR. It was subsequently
separated as forming a subfamily, and has at last been regarded as
the type of a distinct Family, Steatornithide—a view which, though
not put forth till 1870 (Zool. Record, vi. p. 67), seems now to be
generally accepted. Its systematic position, however, can scarcely
be considered settled, for though on the whole its predominating
alliance may be with the Caprimulgidx, nearly as much affinity may
be traced to the Striges, while it possesses some characters in
which it differs from both (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1873, pp. 526-535).
About as big as a Crow, its plumage exhibits the blended tints of
chocolate-colour and grey, barred and pencilled with dark brown or
black, and spotted in places with white, that prevail in the two
groups just named. The beak is hard, strong, and deeply
notched, the nostrils are prominent, and the gape is furnished with
twelve long hairs on each side. The legs and toes are compara-
tively feeble, but the wings are large. In habits the Guacharo is
wholly nocturnal, slumbering by day in deep and dark caverns
which it frequents in vast numbers. Towards evening it arouses
itself, and, with croaking and clattering that has been likened to
that of castanets, it approaches the exit of its retreat, whence at
nightfall it issues in search of its food, which, so far as is known,
consists entirely of oily nuts or fruits, belonging especially to the
genera Achras, Aiphanas, Laurus, and Psichotria, some of them sought,
it would seem, at a very great distance, for M. Funck (Bull. Acad.
Se. Bruxelles, xi. pt. 2, pp. 371-377) states that in the stomach of
one he obtained at Caripé he found the seed of a tree which he
believed did not grow nearer than 80 leagues. The hard, in-
digestible seeds swallowed by the Guacharo are found in quantities
on the floor and the ledges of the caverns it frequents, where many

1 Not to be confounded with the bird so called in the French Antilles, which
isa PETREL, Wstrelata hesitata (see EXTERMINATION, p. 227, note 4).

396 GUAN

of them for a time vegetate, the plants thus growing being etiolated
from want of light, and, according to travellers, forming a singular
feature of the gloomy scene which these places present. The
Guacharo is said to build a bowllike nest of clay, in which it lays
from two to four white eggs, with a smooth but lustreless surface,
resembling those of some Owls. The young soon after they are
hatched become a perfect mass of fat, and while yet in the nest are
sought by the Indians, who at Caripé, and perhaps elsewhere, make
a special business of taking them and extracting the oil they con-
tain. ‘This is done about midsummer, when by the aid of torches
and long poles many thousands of the young birds are slaughtered,
while their parents in alarm and rage hover over the destroyers’
heads, uttering harsh and deafening cries. The grease is melted
over fires kindled at the cavern’s mouth, run into earthen pots, and
preserved for use in cooking as well as for the lighting of lamps.
It is said to be pure and limpid, free from any disagreeable taste or
smell, and capable of being kept for a year without turning rancid.
In Trinidad the young are esteemed a great delicacy for the table
by many, though some persons object to their peculiar scent, which,
says Léotaud (Ois. de la Trinidad, p. 68), resembles that of a cock-
roach (blatta), and consequently refuse to eat them. The old birds
also, according to Mr. E. C. Taylor (Zbis, 1864, p. 90) have a strong
Crow-like odour. But one species of the genus Steatornis is known.!

GUAN, a word apparently first introduced into the ornithologist’s
vocabulary about 1743 by Edwards,” who said
that a bird he figured (Nat. Hist. pl. xiii.) was
“so called in the West Indies,” and the name has
hence been generally applied to all the members
of the subfamily Penelopine, which are distin-
guished from the kindred subfamily Cracinx or
( ore eae Curassows by the broad postacetabular area of
2 ainson.) : .
the pelvis, as pointed out by Prof. Huxley (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 297), as well as by their maxilla being wider than

1 In addition to the works above quoted valuable information about this
curious bird may be found under the following references :—L’Herminier, Ann.
Se. Nat. 1836, p. 60, and Nouv. Ann. Mus. 1838, p. 321; Hautessier, Rev. Zool.
1838, p. 14; J. Miiller, Monatsh. Berl. Acad. 1841, p. 172, and Archiv fir
Anat. 1862, pp. 1-11; Des Murs, Rev. Zool. 1848, p. 32, and Ool. Orn. pp.
260-263 ; Blanchard, Ann. Mus. 1859, xi. pl. 4, fig. 30; Konig-Warthausen,
Journ. fiir Orn. 1868, pp. 384-387 ; Goering, Vargasia, 1869, pp. 124-128 ;
Murie, Jbis, 1873, pp. 81-86 ; Sclater, Zbis, 1890, pp. 335-339.

* Edwards also gives ‘‘Quan” as an alternative spelling, and this may be
nearer the original form, since we find Dampier in 1676 writing (Voy. il. pt. 2,
p. 66) of what was doubtless an allied if not the same bird as the ‘‘Quam.”
The species represented by Edwards does not seem to have been identified by the
latest authorities. (Mr. 0. GranT makes ft quan o€ Edwards To be Renclope exist, ata.)

GUILLEMOT 397

it is high, with its culmen depressed, the crown feathered, and the
nostrils bare—the last two characters separating the Penelopinz
from the Oreophasine, which form the third subfamily of the
Cracidx,' a Family belonging to that taxonomer’s division Peristero-
podes? of the group ALECTOROMORPH.

The Penelopine have been separated into seven genera, of which
Penelope and Ortalis (erroneously Ortalida), containing respectively
about sixteen and nineteen species, are the largest, the others
numbering from one to three only. Into their minute differences
it would be useless to enter; nearly all have the throat bare of
feathers, and from that of many of them hangs a wattle; but one
form, Chamezxpetes, has neither of these features, and Stegnolema,
though wattled, has the throat clothed. With few exceptions the
Guans are confined to the South American continent ; one species
of Penelope is, however, found in Mexico and at Mazatlan, Pipile
cumanensis inhabits Trinidad as well as the mainland, while three
species of Ortalis occur in Mexico or Texas, and one, which is also
common to Venezuela, in Tobago. Like Curassows, Guans are in
great measure of arboreal habit. They also readily become tame,
but all attempts to domesticate them in the full sense of the word
have wholly failed, and the cases in which they have even been
induced to breed and the young have been reared in confinement
are very few.? Yet it would seem that Guans and Curassows will
interbreed with poultry (Jdis, 1866, p. 24; Bull. Soc. Invp. @ Acclim-
atation, 1868, p. 559; 1869, p. 357), and there is the more
extraordinary statement that in Texas the hybrids between the
Chiacalacca, Ortalis vetula, and the domestic Fowl are asserted to be
far superior to ordinary Game-cocks for fighting purposes. More
information on this subject is very desirable.

GUILLEMOT (French, Guillemot*), the name accepted by

1 See the Synopsis, extensively laid under contribution for this article, by
Messrs. Sclater and Salvin (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, pp. 504-544), while further
information on the Cracinzx has since been given by the former of those gentle-
men (7’rans. Zool. Soc. ix. pp. 273-288, pls. xl.-liii.) Some additions have since
been made to the knowledge of the Family, but none of very great importance.

2 It would be here out of place to dwell upon the important bearings on the
question of GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION (p. 313) which the establishment of this
division has tended to shew. For this reference must be made to Prof. Huxley’s
original paper (wt supra), or to the epitome of it given in the Zoological Record
(v. pp. 34 and 99).

3 Cf. E. S. Dixon (The Dovecote and the Aviary, pp. 223-273. London : 1851),
who argues that the reported success of the Dutch towards the end of the last
century in domesticating these birds was an exaggeration or altogether a mistake.
His two chapters are well worth reading.

4 The word, however, seems to be cognate with or derived from the Welsh
and Manx Guillem, or Gwilym as Pennant spellsit. The association may have
no real meaning, but one cannot help comparing the resemblance between the

398 GUILLEMOT

nearly all modern authors for a Sea-bird, the Colymbus troile of
Linneus, and the Uvria or better Alca troile of later writers, which
nowadays it seems seldom if ever to bear among those who, from
their vocation, are most conversant with it, though, according to
Willughby and Ray his translator, it was in their time so called
“by those of Northumberland and Durham.” Around the coasts
of Britain it is variously known as the Frowl, Kiddaw or Skiddaw,
Langy (cf. Icelandic, Langvia), Lavy, Marrock, Murre, Scout (cf.
Coor and Scorsr), Scuttock, Strany, Tinker or Tinkershire, and
Willock. The number of local names testifies to the abundance of
this bird, at least of old time, in different places, but it should be
observed that in certain districts some of them are the common
property of this species and the Razor-BrLu. In former days the
Guillemot yearly frequented the cliffs on many parts of the British
coasts in countless multitudes, and this is still the case in the
northern parts of the United Kingdom ; but more to the southward
nearly all its smaller settlements have been rendered utterly desolate
by the wanton and cruel destruction of their tenants during the
breeding-season, and even the inhabitants of those which were more
crowded had become so thinned that, but for the intervention of
the Sea Birds Preservation Act (32 and 33 Vict. cap. 17), which
provided under penalty for the safety of this and certain other
species at the time of year when they were most exposed to danger,
they would unquestionably by this time have been exterminated so
far as England is concerned. The slaughter, which, before the
passing of that Act, took place annually on the cliffs of the Isle of
Wight, near Flamborough Head, and at such other stations fre-
quented by this species and its allies the Razor-bill and Puffin, and
the Kittiwake-Gull, as could be easily reached by excursionists from
London and the large manufacturing towns, was in the highest
degree brutal. Nouse whatever could be made of the bodies of the
victims, which indeed those who indulged in their massacre were
rarely at the trouble to pick out of the water; the birds shot were
all engaged in breeding ; and most of them had young, which of
course starved through the destruction of their parents, inter-
cepted in the performance of the most sacred duty of nature, and
butchered to gratify the murderous lust of those who sheltered them-
selves under the name of “sportsmen.”

Part of the Guillemot’s history is still little understood. We
know that it arrives at its wonted breeding-stations on its accus-
tomed day in spring, that it remains there till, towards the end of
summer, its young are hatched and able, as they soon are, to
encounter the perils of a seafaring life, when away go all, parents
French Guil/emoi—though that appears to have been originally applied to the

young of the Golden PLover (Belon, Mist. d’Oys. p. 262)—and Guillawme with
that between the English Willock, another name for the bird, and William.

GUINEA FOWL 399

and progeny. After that time it commonly happens that a few
examples are occasionally met with in bays and shallow waters.
Tempestuous weather will drive ashore a large number in a state of
utter destitution—many of them indeed are not unfrequently
washed up dead—but what becomes of the bulk of the birds, not
merely the comparatively few thousands that are natives of Britain,
but the hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, that are in
summer denizens of more northern latitudes, no one can yet say.
This mystery is not peculiar to the Guillemot, but is shared by all
the Alcidxe that inhabit the Atlantic Ocean. Examples stray every
season across the Bay of Biscay, are found off the coasts of Spain
and Portugal, enter the Mediterranean and reach Italian waters, or,
keeping further south, may even touch the Madeiras, Canaries, or
Azores ; but these bear no proportion whatever to the mighty hosts
whose position and movements they no more reveal than do the
vedettes of a well-appointed army. The common or Foolish (as it
is often named) Guillemot of both sides of the Atlantic is replaced
further northward by a species of a stouter build, the 4. arra or
A. bruennichi of ornithologists, and on the west coast of North
America by the A. californica. ‘These have essentially the same
habits, and the structural resemblance between all of them and the
AUKS is so great that of late several systematists have relegated
them to the genus Alca, confining the genus Uria to the Guillemots
of a very distinct group, of which the type is the U. giylle, the
Black Guillemot of British authors, the DoveKrEy or Greenland
Dove of sailors, the Tysty of Shetlanders. This bird assumes in
summer an entirely black plumage with the exception of a white
patch on each wing, while in winter it is beautifully marbled with
white and black. Allied to it as species or geographical races are
the U. mandti, U. columba, and U. carbo. All these differ from the
larger Guillemots and other members of the genus, Alca, as here
used, by laying two or three eggs, which are generally placed in
some secure niche, while the latter lay but a single egg, which is
invariably exposed on a bare ledge.

GUINEA FOWL, a well-known domestic gallinaceous bird, so
called from the country whence in modern times it was brought to
Europe, the Meleagris and Avis or Gallina Numidica of ancient
authors.1 Little can be positively stated of the wild stock to which
we owe our tame birds, nor can the period of its reintroduction

1 Columella (De Re Rustica, viii. cap. 2) distinguishes the Meleagris from the
Gallina Africana or Numidica, the latter having, he says, a red wattle (palea,
a reading obviously preferable to galew), while it was blue in the former. This
would look as if the Meleagris had sprung from what is now called Nwmida
ptilorhyncha, while the Gallina Africana originated in the NV. meleagris,—species
which, as will be seen by the text, have a different range, and if so the fact
would point to two distinct introductions—one by Greeks, the other by Latins.

400 GUINEA FOWL

(for there is apparently no evidence of its domestication being con-
tinuous from the time of the Romans) be assigned more than
roughly to that of the African discoveries of the Portuguese.’ It
does not seem to have been commonly known till the middle of the
16th century, when Caius sent a description and figure, with the
name of Gallus Mauritanus, to Gesner, who published both in his
Paralipomena in 1555, and in the same year Belon also gave a notice
and woodcut under the name of Poulle de la Guinée; but while the
former authors properly referred their bird to the ancient Meleagris,
the latter confounded the Meleagris and the TURKEY.

The ordinary Guinea Fowl of our poultry-yards is the Numida
meleagris of ornithologists, and is too common a bird to need
description. The chief or only changes which domestication seems
to have induced in its appearance are a tendency to albinism
generally shewn in the plumage of its lower parts, and frequently,
though not always, the conversion of the colour of its legs and feet
from dark greyish-brown to bright orange. That the home of this
species is West Africa from the Gambia” to the Gaboon is certain,
but its range in the interior is quite unknown. It appears to have
been imported early into the Cape Verd Islands, where, as also in
some of the Greater Antilles and in Ascension, it has run wild.
Representing the species in South Africa we have NV. coronata, which
is very numerous from the Cape Colony to Ovampoland, and JN.
cornuta of Drs. Finsch and Hartlaub, which replaces it in the west
as far as the Zambesi. Madagascar also has its peculiar species,
distinguishable by its red crown, the WN. mitrata of Pallas, a name
which has often been misapplied to the last. This bird has been
introduced to Rodriguez, where it is now found wild. Abyssinia
is inhabited by another species, the N. ptilorhyncha,? which differs
from all the foregoing by the absence of any red colouring about
the head. Very different from all of them, and the finest species
known, is the JV. vulturina of Zanzibar, conspicuous by the bright
blue in its plumage, the hackles that adorn the lower part of its
neck, and its long tail. By some writers it is thought to form a
separate genus, dcryllium. All these Guinea Fowls are charac-
terized by having the crown bare of feathers and elevated into a
bony “helmet,” but there is another group (to which the name

1 Edwards, writing about 1760 (Gleanings, ii. p. 269), says that ‘‘Guiney
Hens, which were shewn as rarities when I was a boy, are now become a common
domestick Fowl in England.”

2 Specimens from the Gambia are said to ‘be smaller, and have been described
as distinct under the name of N. rendalii.

3 Mr. Darwin (Anim. and Pl. wnder Domestication, i. p. 294) gives this as the
original stock of our modern domestic birds, but herein I venture to think he has
been misled. As before observed, it may possibly have been the true pedeaypis
of the Greeks.

GUIRA—GULL 401

Guttera has been given) in which a thick tuft of feathers ornaments
the top of the head. ‘This contains four or five species, all inhabit-
ing some part or other of Africa, the best
known being the JN. cristata from Sierra
Leone and other places on the western
coast. This bird, apparently mentioned by
Maregrave more than 200 years ago, but
first described by Pallas, is remarkable for
the structure—unique, if not possessed by
its representative forms—of its FURCULA, Guinea Fowl.
where the head, instead of being the thin mast tes se
plate found in all other Gallinz, is a hollow cup opening upwards,
into which the trachea dips, and then emerges on its way to the
lungs. Allied to the genus Numida, but readily distinguished
therefrom among other characters by the possession of spurs, are
two rare forms, Agelastes and Phasidus, both from Western Africa.
Of their habits nothing is known. All these birds are beautifully
figured in Mr. Elliot’s Monograph of the Phasianidx, from drawings
by Mr. Wolf.

GUIRA, a Spanish-American name, occasionally to be found
since Willughby’s time in English books, but applied to so many
birds of different kinds as to convey no definite meaning unless with
a qualification, and then possibly not always.

GUIT-GUIT, a name, presumably in imitation of the cry of a
bird, used almost indefinitely for any species of the Neotropical
genera Cwreba, DACNIS and their allies (cf. QUIT).

GULL (Welsh, Guwylan; Breton, Gowlen; French, Goeland) the
name now commonly used, to the almost entire exclusion of the
old English Mew (Icelandic, Mdfur; Danish, MJaage; Swedish,
Mase; German, Meve ; Dutch, Meeww ; French, Mouette), for a group
of Sea-birds widely and commonly known, all belonging to the
genus Larus of lLinneeus, which subsequent systematists have
broken up in a very arbitrary and often absurd fashion. The
Family Laridx is composed of two chief groups, Larine and
Sternine—the Gulls and the TERNS, though two other subfamilies
are frequently counted, the Skuas (Stfercorariing), and that formed
by the single genus Phynchops, the SKIMMERS ; but there seems no
strong reason why the former should not be referred to the Larine,
and the latter to the Sternine.

Taking the Gulls in their restricted sense, Mr. Howard
Saunders, who subjected the group to a rigorous revision (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1878, pp. 152-211), admitted forty-nine species of them,
which he placed in five genera instead of the many which some
prior investigators had sought to establish. Two or three more
species might now be added. Of the genera recognized by him,

26

402 GUEL

Pagophila and [hodostethia have but one species each, Lissa and Xema
two, while the rest belong to Larus. The Pagophila is the so-called
Ivory-Gull, P. eburnea, names which hardly do justice to the
extreme whiteness of its plumage, to which its jet-black legs offer a
strong contrast. The young, however, are spotted with black. An
inhabitant of the most northern seas, examples find their way in
winter to more temperate shores. Its breeding-places have seldom
been discovered, and the first of its eggs seen by ornithologists was
brought home by Sir L. M‘Clintock in 1853 from Cape Krabbe
(Journ. R. Dubl. Soc. i. p. 60, pl. 1); two others? were obtained by
Dr. Malmgren in Spitsbergen in 1868, and, in August 1887, the
captain of a Norwegian ship found from 100 to 150 nests on Storé,
an islet on the extreme north-east of that country? (bis, 1888, pp.
440-443, pl. xiii.) Of the species of Jtissa, one is the abundant
and well-known Kuirriwake, f. tridactyla, of circumpolar range,
breeding, however, also in comparatively low latitudes, as on the
coasts of Britain, and in winter frequenting southern waters. The
other is 2. brevirostris, limited to the North Pacific, between Alaska
an@ Kamchatka. The singular fact requires to be noticed that in
the former of these species the hind toe is generally deficient, but
that examples, and especially those from Bering’s Sea, are occa-
sionally found in which this functionless member has not wholly
disappeared. We have then the genus Larus, which ornithologists
have hitherto attempted most unsuccessfully to subdivide. It
contains the largest as well as the smallest of Gulls. In some
species the adults assume a dark-coloured head every breeding-season,
in others any trace of dark colour is the mark of immaturity. The
larger species prey on eggs and weakly birds, while the smaller
content themselves with a diet of insects and worms. But how-
ever diverse be the appearance, structure, or habits of the ex-
tremities of the series of species, they are so closely connected by
intermediate forms that it is hard to find a gap between them that
would justify a generic division. Of the forty-five species of this
genus now recognized by Mr. Saunders it would be here impossible
to attempt to point out the peculiarities. About seventeen belong

1 The white Gulls reported to Gunner (Leem, De Lapp. Comment. p. 285),
and called by him Larus albus, may have been as he thought identical with the
Rathsherr of Marten (Spitsb. Rein. p. 56), which undoubtedly was the Ivory-
Gull ; but there is nothing to prove that they were. Hence I cannot adopt that
specific name, as recent American writers do. From what has been before said
as to GAviA, they seem to be also wrong in using that word as a generic name
in place of Pagophila. :

2 One of these has long been in my possession.

3 The Norwegian pilot of the yacht in which I visited Spitsbergen told me
that the crew of a boat which visited Giles’s Land in 1859 found many Ivory-
Gulls’ nests on its shore (Zbis, 1864, p. 508).

GULLET—GYMNORHINA 403
to Europe and fourteen to North America, of which (excluding
stragglers) some five only are common to both countries. Our
knowledge of the geographical distribution of several of them is
still incomplete. Some have a very wide range, others very much
the reverse: as witness L. fuliginosus, believed to be confined to the
Galapagos, and L. scopulinus and L. bulleri to New Zealand—the
last indeed perhaps only to the South Island. The largest species
of the group are the Glaucous and Greater Black-backed Gulls, L.
glaucus and L. marinus, of which the former is circumpolar, and the
latter nearly so—not having been hitherto found between Labrador
and Japan. ‘The smallest species is the European L. minutus, though
the North-American ZL. philadelphia does not much exceed it in size.
Many of the Gulls congregate in vast numbers to breed, whether
on rocky cliffs of the sea-coast or on heathy islands in inland
waters. Some of the settlements of the Black-headed or “ PEEwiIT”
Gull, L. ridibundus, are a source of no small profit to their proprietors,
—the eggs, which are accounted a delicacy, being often taken
on an orderly system up to a certain day, and the birds carefully
protected. Ross’s or the Roseate Gull, Lhodostethia rosea, forms a
well-marked genus, distinguished not so much by the pink tint of
its plumage (for that is found in other species) but by its small
Dove-like bill and wedge-shaped tail. It used to be an exceedingly
scarce bird in collections; but it was met with abundantly in the
autumn of 1881 off Point Barrow by Mr. Murdoch of the United
States’ Polar Expedition (Report, &c., p. 123, pls. 1. i1.), and a large
series of specimens was obtained. Its Arctic home, however, has
not yet been found, but it has been seen, if not procured, in
summer in Boothia Felix, and off the coast of Spitsbergen and on
Franz Josef Land. More rare still is one of the species of Xema,
X. furcatum, of which only five specimens, all but one believed to
have come from the Galapagos, have been seen. Its smaller
congener Sabine’s Gull, X. sabinii, is more common, and has been
found breeding both in Arctic America and in Siberia, and many
examples, chiefly immature birds, have been obtained in the British
Islands. Both species of Xema are readily distinguished from all
other Gulls by their forked tail.

GULLET, see CGESOPHAGUS.
GWILLEM, see GUILLEMOT.

GYMNORHINA, G. R. Gray’s name in 1840 (List Gen. B.
p. 37) for a genus apparently allied to Strepera and belonging to the
“ Austro-Coraces” of Parker (Zrans. Zool. Soc. ix. p. 327), a group
of birds that has not yet been properly defined. They have fre-
quently been called ‘“ Crow-Shrikes,” or, from their loud voice,
“Piping Crows,” while dealers know them as “ Australian Magpies,”

404 GYPAETE—HALLUX

their plumage being black and white. G. tibicen has a wide range in
Australia, while G. leuconota is
restricted to its southern and
western parts. Tasmania has
a smaller race of the former,
or distinct species, as some
regard it: the Organ-bird of
the colonists, G. hyperleuca, to
Xs correct the name originally
SSES5) bestowed on it by Gould

% (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1836, p. 106),

or organica.

GYPAETE, intended as an Anglified form of Gypaetus (LAM-
MERGEYER).

\
5

GyMNORHINA. (After Swainson.)

GYRFALCON, from the Low Latin Gyrofalco, but the etymology
of that is doubtful, the best authorities differing concerning it.
Some would have it from the verb gyrare, to circle, others from
Geier, a Vulture, and this from the Old High German giri, greedy,
while others again say that Greer is allied to gyrare. All agree,
however, in denying that there can be any derivation from Hiero-
falco, which is a hybrid word of modern invention (see FALCON).

Hf

HACKBOLT, HAGBOLT, and HAGDOWN, names said to be
given by the people of Scilly and Man to the larger of the species
of SHEARWATER with which they meet, if indeed they recognize any
distinction, and in one form or other used, it would appear, also on
the east coast of North America.

HALCYON, Greek dAxvev (the h being redundant), a poetical
name for the KINGFISHER.

HALF-BIRD, a common fowler’s name for the smaller kinds of
Duck, especially the TEAL, which bring only half-price, or something
like it, when sold.

HALLUX, the first digit of the foot, commonly known as the
“hind toe” from its backward direction in most birds. When
fully developed it consists of only two phalanges, its metatarsal
is reduced to the distal portion, and is only loosely attached to the
inner and hinder surface of the other three coalesced metatarsals.
As regards position, structure and size, the Hallux is the most

HAMMER-HEAD 405

variable of all the toes, and its taxonomic value is very limited.
In Hesperornis (ODONTORNITHES), the Spleniscide (PENGUIN) and
STEGANOPODES it is turned forward, and joined to the second
digit by a web, as is also the case to a certain extent in the
Colymbide (DivER). In some of the Cypselide (Swirt) all four
toes are directed forward, but they are free at the base; and in
certain of the Caprimulgide (NIGHTJAR) and in the Coliidx (MOUSE-
BIRD) the Hallux is reversible. In the TUBINARES and the “ three-
toed” WoopPECKERS (Picoides, Sasia and Tiga) it is reduced to
a small subcutaneous nodule ; and in most LoitcoL®, though visible,
it is in a scarcely functional condition, while in some of them, as
Calidris (SANDERLING) and many Charadriide (PLOVER), it is wholly
absent, as it is also in the Alcidxe (AuK), Otididx (BUSTARD) and all
the existing RATIT& except Apteryx (Kiwi). In Rissa (KITTIWAKE)
its condition varies almost individually from being nearly functional
to absence (see TOES).

HAMMER-HEAD or HAMMER-KOP, names given in the

Cape Colony to the Scopus umbretta of ornithology, called by

HAMMER-HEAD, Scopus wmbretta.

Pennant and some writers the “Umbre.” This was discovered by
Adanson, the French traveller in Senegal, about the middle of the
eighteenth century, and was described by Brisson in 1760. _ It has
since been found to inhabit nearly the whole of Africa and

406 HANG-BIRD—HARELD

Madagascar. Though not larger than a Raven, it builds an
enormous nest, occasionally some six feet in diameter, and placed
either in a tree or ona rocky ledge.! The structure is a mass of
sticks, roots, grass and rushes, compactly piled together, with a
flat-topped roof, the interior being neatly lined with clay, and a hole
for entrance and exit, The bird, of an almost uniform earthy-brown
colour (umber), whence the French Ombrette, slightly glossed with
purple, and its tail barred with black, has a long occipital crest,
generally borne horizontally, so as to give rise to its expressive
colonial name, for the likeness of its head to that of a hammer is
obvious. It is somewhat sluggish by day, but displays much
activity at dusk, when it will go through a series of strange per-
formances. Scopus has hitherto
been generally referred to the
group Pelargi (STORK), but recent
investigations point out that its
affinity is rather to the Herodiones
Briu oF Scopus. (After Swainson.) (HERON), though it can hardly
enter into the Family <Ardeide,
and its flight is described as not being Heron-like (Ibis, 1863, p. 170).
The late Prof. Reinhardt (op. cit. 1862, pp. 158-175) thought that
Baleniceps (SHOE-BILL) was its nearest ally.

HANG-BIRD or HANG-NEST, common names in North
America for the beautiful Baltimore Oriole and its allies (see
IcTERUS), from the pensile nests they build.

HANNA, the usual name in British Guiana for the HoActTzin.

HAPLOOPHON, Garrod’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, pp.
517, 518) for a division of the Passeres MESOMYODI, containing the
Families Tyrannidx (IKING-BIRD), Rupicolide and Pittidx, to which
Forbes subsequently added (op. cit. 1880, pp. 389-391, and 1882,
pp. 569-571) the Philepittide of Madagascar and the Xenicide (or
more correctly Acanthidosittidy) of New Zealand. Together with
the TRACHEOPHON, they form the group HoMa@oMERI as opposed
to the HETEROMERI.

HARELD (corruptly HERALD), apparently the invention in
1824 of Stephens, who (Gen. Zool. xii. pt. 2, p. 174) so rendered
the generic name Harelda which he bestowed upon the Long-tailed
Duck, Anas glacialis of Linnzus, misspelling (whether purposely or
not), the Havelda of Ray (Synop. Av. p. 145) which was nearly
Worm’s (Mus. Worm. p. 302) Latinized form of Hdvelle (pro-
nounced Hauvadla) the common Icelandic name for the bird, having

1 Holub and Von Pelzeln (Leitr. Orn. Sudafrikas, p. 279) give two figures of
the nest, one of which is reproduced in the accompanying illustration.

© On ancfowy
afFiny bres of 5
cf. Beddard, |
\88 4, p. SH3

HARLE—HARPY 407

reference to the trilling sound of its musical notes. The name is
current in Orkney ; but with it must be noticed

HARLE, the name given, both there and in Shetland, to one of
the MERGANSERS, and probably cognate if not identical with the
French Harle or Herle (Belon, Hist. Oys. p. 164) which has the same
meaning, though how a French word should reach and come into
use among a Scandinavian population is not easily explained, except
on the supposition that Harle is a contracted form of Hdvelle (as
above), and the name has been transferred from one species to
another.

HARLEQUIN (with the suffix) DUCK was Forster’s rendering
in 1791 (Cat. Anim. N. Am. p. 16) of Anas histrionica of Linneus,
and since maintained as the common English name of that beauti-
ful species, which inhabits the northern part of the Holarctic Region
from Iceland westward to some undetermined limit in Siberia ; but
is unknown, except as a rare wanderer, to the British Islands or
Continental Europe. It belongs to the subfamily Fuliguline
(PocHARD), and has been often placed in the genus Clangula
(GOLDEN-EYE), from which, however, it differs sufficiently to deserve
separation as Cosmonetta or Histrionicus. 'The epithet Harlequin has
been applied by Gould to one of the Australian Bronze-wing
PIGEONS, Phaps histrionica, and by Gurney to an African QUAIL,
Coturnia delegorguit.

HARPY, a large diurnal Bird-of-Prey, so named after the
mythological monster of the classical poets,\—the Thrasaetus harpyia
of modern ornithologists,—an inhabitant of the warmer parts of
America from Southern Mexico to Brazil. Though known for
more than two centuries, its habits have come very little under the
notice of naturalists, and what is said of them by the older writers
must be received with some suspicion. A cursory inspection of the
bird, which is not unfrequently brought alive to Europe, its size,
and its enormous bill and talons, at once suggest the vast powers of
destruction imputed to it, and are enough to account for the stories
told of its ravages on mammals,—sloths, fawns, peccaries, and
spider-monkeys. It has even been asserted to attack the human
race. How much of this is fabulous there seems no means at
present of determining, but some of the statements are made by
veracious travellers—D’Orbigny and Tschudi. It is not uncommon
in the forests of the isthmus of Panama, and Mr. Salvin says (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1864, p. 368) that its flight is slow and heavy. Indeed
its Owllike visage, its short wings and soft plumage, do not indicate
a bird of very active habits, but the weapons of offence with which,

1 But the pry or harpa of their prose-writers seems to have been the
LAMMERGEYER.

408 HARRIER

as above stated, it is armed, shew that it must be able to cope with
vigorous prey. Its appearance is sufticiently striking—the head and

Harpy.

lower parts, except a pectoral band, white, the former adorned with
an erectile crest, the upper parts dark grey banded with black, the
wings dusky, and the tail barred ; but the
hugs bill and powerful scutéllated legs most
of all impress the beholder. The precise
affinities of the Harpy cannot be said to
have been determined. By some authors it
is referred to the EAGLES, by others to

But oF Harpy. the Buzzarps, and by others again to the
tee Season Hawks; but possibly the first of these

alliances is the most likely to be true.

HARRIER or HEN-HARRIER, from their habit of harrying
poultry, names given to certain Birds-of-Prey which were formerly
very abundant in parts of the British Islands. The first of these
names has now become used in a generic sense for all the species
ranked under the genus Circus of Lacépéde, and the second confined

HARRIER 409

to the particular species which is the Falco cyaneus of Linneeus and
the Circus cyaneus of modern ornithologists.

On the wing Harriers have much resemblance to Buzzards, using
the same flapping stroke of the pinions, and wheeling or sailing
aloft as they fly. One European species indeed, C. xruginosus,
though called in books the Marsh-Harrier, is far more commonly
known in England and Ireland as the Moor-Buzzard. But
Harriers are not, like Buzzards, arboreal in their habits, and always
affect open country, generally, though not invariably, preferring
marshy or fenny districts, for snakes and frogs form a great part of
their ordinary food. On the ground their carriage is utterly unlike
that of a Buzzard, and their long wings and legs render it easy to

Hen-Harrier (Male and Female).

distinguish the two groups when taken in the hand. All the
species also have a more or less well-developed ruff or frill of small
thick-set feathers surrounding the lower part of the head, nearly like
that seen in OWLS, and accordingly many systematists consider that
the genus Circus, though undoubtedly belonging to the Falconidz,
connects that Family with the Striges. No osteological affinity,
however, can be established between the Harriers and any section
of the Owls, and the superficial resemblance will have to be
explained in some other way. MHarriers are found almost all over
the world,! and fifteen species are recognized by Dr. Sharpe (Cat.
BL. Br. Mus. 1. pp. 50-73). In most if not all the Harriers the sexes

1 The distribution of the various species is remarkable, while the range of
some is exceedingly wide, that of others is very limited—C. maillardi, for
instance, seems to be confined to the island of Réunion (Bourbon).

410 HAWFKINCH

differ greatly in colour, so much so that for a long while the males
and females of one of the commonest and best known, the C. cyaneus
above mentioned, were thought
to be distinct species, and were
or still are called in yarious
European languages by different
names. The error was main-
tained with the greater persist-
ency since the young males, far
more abundant than the adults,
wear much the same plumage as
their mother, and it was not
until after Montagu’s observa-
tions were published at the beginning of the present century
that the “Ringtail,’ as she was called (the Falco pygargus of
Linnzus), was generally admitted to be the female of the “ Hen-
Harrier.” But this was not Montagu’s only good service as regards
this genus. He proved the hitherto unexpected existence of a
second species,! subject to the same diversity of plumage. This
was called by him the Ash-coloured Falcon, but it now generally
bears his name, and is known as Montagu’s Harrier, C. cineraceus.
In habits it is very similar to the Hen-Harrier, but it has longer
wings, and its range is not so northerly, for while the Hen-Harrier
extends to Lapland, Montagu’s is but very rare in Scotland, though
in the south of England it is the most common species. Harriers
indeed in the British Islands are rapidly becoming things of the
past. Their nests are easily found, and the birds when nesting are
easily destroyed. In the south-east of Europe, reaching also to the
Cape of Good Hope and to India, there is a fourth species, the C.
swainson of some writers, the C. pallidus of others. In North
America C. cyaneus is represented by a kindred form, C. hudsonius,
usually regarded as a good species, the adult male of which is
always to be recognized by its rufous markings beneath, in which
character it rather resembles O, cineraceus, but it has not the long
wings of that species. South America has in C. cinereus another
representative form, while China, India, and Australia possess more
of this type. Then there is a section in which the males have a
strongly contrasted black and grey plumage, and finally there is a
group of larger forms allied to the European C. xruginosus, wherein
a grey dress is less often attained, of which the South African C.
ranivorus and the New Zealand C. gouldi are examples.

HAWFINCH, a bird so called from the belief that the fruit of

Crrcus. (After Swainson.)

1 A singular mistake, which has been productive of further error (Cat. B. Br.
Mus. i. p. 64), was made by Albin, who drew his figure (Hist. B. ii. pl. 5)
from a specimen of one species and coloured it from a specimen of the other.

HAWK 4It

the hawthorn (Cratxgus oxyacantha) forms its chief food, the Loria
coccothraustes of Linnzeus, and the Coccothraustes vulgaris of modern
ornithologists, one of the largest of the Fincu Family (ringillide),
and found over nearly the whole of Kurope, in
Africa north of the Atlas, and in Asia from
Palestine to Japan. It was formerly thought
to be only an autumnal or winter-visitor to
Britain, but later experience has proved that,
though there may very likely be an immigra-
tion in the fall of the year, it breeds in nearly
all the English counties to Yorkshire, and
abundantly in those nearest to London. There
is also good reason for supposing that it is yearly extending its
range in the British Islands. In coloration it bears some resem-
blance to a CHAFFINCH, but its much larger size and enormous
beak make it easily recognizable, while on closer inspection the
singular bill-hook form of some of its wing-feathers will be found
to be very remarkable. Though not uncommonly frequenting
gardens and orchards, in which as well as in woods it builds its
nest, it is exceedingly shy in its habits, so as seldom to afford
opportunities for observation. As the genus Coccothraustes is now
commonly restricted, it includes only two species,—the Japanese
form, at one time regarded as distinct, being considered by later
authorities to be inseparable from that of the continent—but
examples from North-Western India have been described by Dr.
Sharpe (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1886, p. 97) as forming a second.

HAWK (Anglo-Saxon, Hafoc), a* word of indefinite meaning,
being often used to signify all diurnal Birds-of-Prey which are
neither VULTURES nor EAGLES, and again more exclusively for
those of the remainder which are not BuzzaArps, FALCONS,
Harriers, or Kites. Even with this restriction it is compre-
hensive enough (for the definition of these groups is uncertain),
and will include more than a hundred species, which have been
arrayed in genera varying in number from a dozen to above a
score, according to the fancy of the systematizer. Speaking gener-
ally, Hawks have been characterized by possessing comparatively
short wings and long legs, a bill which begins to decurve directly
from the cere (or soft bare skin that covers its base), and has the
cutting edges of its maxilla (or upper mandible) sinuated’ but never
notched. If the word be taken with the limitation of signifying
only the groups to which the Gos-HAwk and Sparrow-Hawk
with their immediate allies belong, this is true enough, and then to
these characters may be added others, structurally perhaps of less

HAWFINCH.
(After Swainson.)

1 In one form, Nisoides, which on that account has been generically separated,
they are said to be perfectly straight.

412 HAWK

value, but in other respects quite as important, that the sexes differ
very greatly in size, that in most species the irides are yellow,
deepening with age into orange or even red, and that the im-
mature plumage is almost invariably more or less striped or
mottled with heart-shaped spots beneath, while that of the adults
is generally much barred, though the old males have in many
instances the breast and belly quite free from markings. Nearly
all are of small or moderate size—the largest among them being
the Gos-Hawk and its immediate allies, and the male of the
smallest, Accipiter tinus, is not bigger than a Song-THRusH. They
are all birds of great boldness in attacking a quarry, but if foiled
in the first attempt they are apt to leave the pursuit. Thoroughly
arboreal in their habits, they seek their prey, chiefly consisting of
birds (though reptiles and small mammals are also taken), among
trees or bushes, patiently waiting for an unwary victim to shew
itself, and, when it appears, gliding upon it with a rapid swoop,
clutching it in their talons, and bearing it away to eat it in some
convenient spot.

It is impossible to enter into details of the numerous forms
which, notwithstanding the limitation above adopted, are to be
called Hawks, or to describe the distinguishing characters, so far
as any have been given, of the different groups or sections into
which it has pleased systematic ornithologists to break them up,
since hardly any two are agreed in the latter respect. There
is at the outset a difference of opinion as to the scientific name
which the most numerous and best known of these sections should
bear—some authors terming it Nisus, and others, who seem to
have the most justice on their side, Accipiter,

In a wider sense the word, Hawk, includes a considerable
number of forms which cannot be positively assigned to any of the
groups already named, one instance of which,
out of several that could be cited, is seen in
the Neotropical genus Harpagus, whose deeply
and doubly-notched bill! has caused it to be
often put in the subfamily Falconine. But there
its short and rounded wings, and the style of
its successive plumages make it strangely out
of place, so that its true position must be regarded as undetermined.
The same characters, added to that afforded by its “amber” irides
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, p. 623), indicates that the rare form which
had the misfortune to be named Spiziapteryx (Ibis, 1862, pl. i.) is
a near ally of Harpagus, notwithstanding all that has been said to
the contrary. One species of Harpugus is subject to MIMICRY.

HARPAGUS.
(After Swainson.)

1 The ‘‘denticulations” are not merely superficial, as is the case with many
birds possessing them, but exist, as Mr. Ridgway has shewn (Bull. U. S. Geol.
and Geogr. Survey, ser. 2, no. 4, pl. xii. fig. 8), in the bone of the premaxilla.

HA Y-BIRD—HEART 413
HAY-BIRD and HAY-JACK, common local names in many
parts of England for species of the restricted genus Sylvia (or
Curruca as some would have it)—especially the BLACKCAP and
Garden-WARBLER, on account of the beautiful nests like open
basket-work they build, chiefly of bents, but having a portion of
other plant-stems, and hairs interwoven. The first name is also
often given to the WILLOW-WREN ; but apparently by confounding
it with the birds to which it properly applies.

HEART, a muscular tube interposed between the central ends
of the veins and arteries, forming the pump that forces all the
blood through every part of the body, by its contractions, which are
much quicker in Birds than in any other animals, numbering about
120 in the minute when the bird is at rest, and, when it is flying
or has just alighted, beyond count by the ear—even the first stroke
of the wings nearly doubles the rate of pulsation, and in accordance
with this rapid metabolism of the avine organism the Heart is com-
paratively larger than in other Vertebrates. In shape it is conical,
with the apex directed towards the tail, its long axis being parallel
to that of the trunk, and it lies in the middle line of the body in
the thoracic cavity, partly surrounded by the lobes of the Liver.

The walls of the Heart consist of three layers, of which the
principal (1), forming the greater part of the whole, is composed of
striped muscular fibres, differing from voluntary muscular fibres, and
peculiar in so far that they are individually ramified and con-
nected with each other like network—most of them describing a
figure of 8, starting at the base of the Heart and passing the apex
with a spiral twist. The next layer (2) is the endocardium, lining
the cavities of the organ, and composed of endothelial cells, elastic
tissue and unstriped muscular fibre. Lastly (3) is the pericardium
viscerale, a continuation of the peritonwum, and covering the Heart
like any other viscus (cf. DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, p. 139, fig. 2). This
visceral layer is prolonged from the base of the organ to the
pericardium parietale or cxternum, forming a closed bag filled with a
little serous fluid in which the Heart lies. This is the pericardium
proper and is part of the cardio-abdominal chamber, severally con-
nected with the membranes of the DIAPHRAGM. Owing to this
arrangement the whole ventral surface of the pericardium is exposed
when the sternum is removed.

The Heart of Birds like that of Mammals consists of two com-
pletely divided halves, each of which again is composed of an atrium
and a ventricle. The right half receives and discharges only venous,
the left only arterial blood (cf. CIRCULATION, p. 88). The two atria
form the basal division of the Heart—thin-walled and darkly-
coloured. The two ventricles, lighter in colour and with thicker
walls, form the greater part of the cone. These two divisions are

414 HEART

marked externally by a transverse girdle of fat, indicating the
course of the coronary vessels, or those arteries and veins which, as
vasa vasorum, supply the Heart itself.

The right atrium occupies the upper right quarter of the organ,
its thin walls having numerous muscular ridges (muscult pectinati)
projecting into its cavity and presenting a honeycombed appearance.
It receives the 3 great venous trunks of the body—namely (1) the
vena cava superior dextra to the right and above, (2) the vw ¢ sup.
sinistra more dorsally, and (3) the v. ¢ inferior more to the right
and below. ‘The entrance of the last is guarded by two prominent
valves, corresponding functionally with the valvula Eustachi of
Mammals. ‘The orifices of the other veins are in many Birds without
a valve, and are subject to many modifications.

The right ventricle occupies the ventral portion of the organ
from the coronary sulcus to near the apex, and its walls are smooth
internally, except in the distal corner, where the ventral wall passes
into the septum ventriculorum, and sends out retiform muscular and
tendinous projections. This ventricle communicates with the right
atrium through the ostiwm atrio-ventriculare deatrwm, which is furnished
with a peculiar valve that hinders the return of the blood. This
valve, valvula cardiaca dextra, represents the tricuspid valve of
Mammals in function but not in shape or structure, since it consists
chiefly of an oblique prominent reduplication of the muscles with
the endocardiac lining of the right ventricle, while the opposite
dividing wall is convex, and forms no wlwm, papillary muscles, or
chordx tendinew. ‘The right anterior corner of the right ventricle
passes into the two pulmonary arteries, the short and still un-
divided stem of which is guarded by three semilunar valves.

The left atrium is less capacious but more muscular than the
right. From its dorsal wall, a membranaceous and partly muscular
projection partially divides its cavity into two portions—that on
the right having smooth walls and receiving through one orifice the
two pulmonary veins, and that on the left with numerous pectinate
muscles—this projection directs the arterialized pulmonary blood
towards the left ventricle.

The left ventricle extends to the apex of the Heart and is
covered ventrally by the right ventricle, and anteriorly by the left
atrium. Its cavity is larger and its walls three or four times
thicker than those of the right ventricle. Two or three elaborate
membranaceous flaps, held by numerous chordx tendinex, form a
true mitral valve and allow the blood to pass through the left
ostium atrio-ventriculare and enter the root of the aorta through three
semilunar valves.

The interventricular septum is always very thick, smooth and
complete. In the corner which it forms with the ventral walls of
the ventricles, trabecule carnex are often numerously developed.

HEATH-COCK—HEMIPODE 415

The interatrial septum is likewise complete, and is generally
wholly membranaceous, though in the fatitz and some others
partly muscular. In the middle it is thinner and more transparent,
but there is no depression or fossa ovalis as in Mammals.

HEATH-COCK and HEATH-HEN, originally names by which
what we now know as the Blackcock and Greyhen were called ;
but on the North-American continent, though there no heather
grows, applied to one or more species of GROUSE inhabiting the
open country.

HEATHER-BLEAT or HEATHER-BLITE, names given to
the SNIPE in the breeding season, from the sound made by the
eock-bird when performing his love-flight. Coe rea ee

HEMIPODE, a recognized English rendering of Temminck’s
generic name Hemipodius (1815), which was anticipated by Bon-
naterre’s Jurniz (1790), for a small group of birds some of which
Anglo-Indians often call “ Bustard-Quails” or “ Button-Quails.”
Their complete distinction from the true QUAILS, and therefore
from the GALLINA (or RASoRES of some systematists), which had
already been asserted, was proved by Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1868, pp. 303, 304), who established for them an independent
croup, TURNICOMORPH&, differing in his opinion “much more
from the Alectoromorphx, Pteroclomorphx, and Peristeromorphe than
these groups do from one another.” This view is no doubt in
the main correct ; but most systematists have not gone so far,
and deem the TZurnicide to be but a Family of Gallinv. The
genus Turniz is the subject of a very special monograph by Mr.
Ogilvie-Grant (Ibis, 1889, pp. 446-475; 1892, p. 346), in which
23 species are admitted, but some points of great interest are
therein but lightly treated. This being one of the few groups of
birds in which the females are generally more finely coloured than
the males—the sex supposed, and probably with truth, to perform
the duty of incubation—the author’s chief conclusions are that
specific distinctions are afforded rather by the females than by the
males, which generally so much resemble the young of the other
sex as to furnish few specific characters, while the former when adult
often differ widely ; then, that the variegated markings (in some
species very notable) tend to disappear with age; next, that the
males seem to retain the characters of youth longer than the
females; and, lastly, that the characteristic adornments of the
adult females denote maturity, and are permanent. Members of
this genus are found from Spain and Sicily throughout Africa and
Madagascar, southern Asia to China, the Indian Archipelago and
Australia. The species from the western part of the Mediterranean
Province is 7. sylvatica, known in the Iberian peninsula by the

4

416 HERON

name of Torillo, from the note it utters, which is like the subdued
bellowing of a Bull.’

HERN, HERNSER, HERNSHAW, names of the

HERON 2—French, Héron; Italian, Aghirone, Airone; Latin,
Ardea; Greek, épwdids; Anglo-Saxon, Hragra; Icelandic, Hegre ;
Swedish, Héiger; Danish, Here; German, Heiger, Reiher, Heergans ;
Dutch, Reiger—a long-necked, long-winged, and long-legged bird,
the representative of a very natural group, the Ardeidx, which
through the neglect or ignorance of ornithologists has been for
many years encumbered by a considerable number of alien forms,
belonging truly to the Gruidx (CRANE) and Cicontid# (STORK), whose
structure and characteristics are wholly distinct, however much
external resemblance some of them may possess to the Herons.
Eliminating these intruders, it is difficult or even impossible to
estimate with any accuracy the number of species of <Ardeidze
which exist. Schlegel in 1863 enumerated 61, besides 5 of what
he termed “conspecies,” as contained in the collection at Leyden
(Mus. des Pays-Bas, Arde, 64 pp.),—on the other hand, G. R. Gray
in 1871 (Hand-list, iii. pp. 26-34) admitted above 90, while Dr. Reich-
enow (Journ. f. Orn. 1877, pp. 232-275) recognizes 67 as known,
besides 15 “‘sub-species” and 3 varieties, arranging them in 3 genera,
Nycticoraz, Botaurus, and Ardea, with 17 subgenera. But it is diffi-
~ cult to separate the Family, with any satisfactory result, into genera,
if structural characters have to be found for these groups, for in
many cases they run almost insensibly into each other—though in
common language it is easy to speak of Herons, EGREeTS, BITTERNS,
NicHTt-H&ErRons, and BoaTsBILts. With the exception of the last,
Schlegel retained all in the genus Ardea, dividing it into eight
sections, the names of which may perhaps be Englished—Great
Herons, Small Herons, Egrets, Semi-egrets, Rail-like Herons, Little
Bitterns, Bitterns, and Night-Herons. It may be expedient here
to adopt this arrangement, though the present writer would give
it only partial and provisional assent.

The common Heron of Europe, Ardea cinerea of Linnezus, is
the type of the Family, and it may also be regarded as that of
Schlegel’s first section. The species inhabits suitable localities

1 Three examples of it are said to have occurred in England (Ann. Nat. Hist.
xiv. pp. 459, 460; Proc. Zool, Soc. 1868, p. 210), and easily- satisfied persons
have admitted the species as a ‘‘ British Bird.”

2 Generally pronounced ‘‘ Hern,” and in many parts of England called
‘‘Hernser ’—being a corruption of ‘‘ Heronsewe,” which, as Prof. Skeat states
(Etymol. Dict. p. 264), is properly a distinct word from ‘‘ Heronshaw” (a shaw
or wood in which Herons breed), commonly confounded with it. The further
corruption of ‘‘Hernser” into ‘“‘handsaw,” as in the well-known proverb, was
easy in the mouth of men to whom hawking the Heronsewe was unfamiliar,

HERON 417

throughout the whole of Europe, Africa, and Asia, reaching Japan,
many of the islands of the Indian Archipelago, and even Australia.
Though not so numerous as formerly in Britain, it is still common
enough to render a description of it almost unnecessary, and there
must be few persons who have not seen it rising slowly from some
river-side or marshy flat, or passing overhead in its lofty and
leisurely flight on its way to or from its daily haunts ; while they
are many who have been entertained by watching it as it sought

z fo)
its food, consisting chiefly of fishes (especially eels and flounders)

SSUTTERWOR HE NEATH

HERON (Ardea cinerea).

and amphibians—though young birds and small mammals come
not amiss—wading midleg in the shallows, swimming ! occasionally
when out of its depth, or standing motionless to strike its prey
with its formidable and sure beak. When sufficiently numerous it
breeds in societies, known as Heronries, which of old time were
protected both by law and custom in nearly all European countries,
on account of the sport their tenants afforded to the falconer. Of
late years, partly owing to the withdrawal of the protection they

1 The medizval belief, expressed in the line, quoted by Rolland (Fawne pop.
Fr. ii. p. 373),
Ardea culpat aquas quia nescit nare per illas,
is unfounded, as many observers can testify.

27

418 HERON

had enjoyed, and still more, it would seem, from agricultural im-
provement, which, by draining meres, fens and marshes, has
abolished the feeding-places of a great population of Herons, many
of the larger Heronries have broken up—the birds composing them
dispersing to neighbouring places and forming smaller settlements,
most of which are hardly to be dignified by the name of Heronry,
though commonly accounted such. Thus the number of so-called
Heronries in the United Kingdom, and especially in England and
Wales, has become far greater than formerly, but no one can doubt
that the number of Herons has dwindled. Mr. Harting gave, in
1872 (Zoologist, s.s. pp. 3261-3272 ; with additions and corrections,
pp. 3404-3407), a list of those existing in the three kingdoms,
more than 200 in number, of which a little over one-half are in
England and Wales, more than 50 in Scotland, and nearly 50 in
Ireland. The sites chosen by the Heron for its nest vary greatly.
It is generally built in the top of a lofty tree, but not unfrequently
(and this seems to have been much more usual in former days)
near or on the ground among rough vegetation, on an island in a
lake, or again on a rocky cliff of the coast. It commonly consists
of a huge mass of sticks, often the accumulation of years, lined
with twigs, and in it are laid from four to six sea-green eggs. | The
young are clothed in soft flax-coloured down, and remain in the
nest (NrprcoL#) for a considerable time, therein differing remark-
ably from the “pipers” of the Crane, which are able to run almost
as soon as they are

ee
hatched. The first = :
a SS
feathers assumed by ao eras
young Herons in a ee ee

general way resemble
those of the adult,
but the fine leaden-grey back, the pure white breast, the black
throat-streaks, and especially the long pendent plumes, which char-
acterize only the very old birds, and are most beautiful in the cocks,
are subsequently acquired. The Heron measures about 3 feet from
the bill to the tail, and the expanse of its wings is sometimes not
less than 6 feet, yet it weighs only between 3 and 4 Ib,

Large as is the common Heron of Europe, it is exceeded in size
by the Great Blue Heron of America, Ardea herodias, which
generally resembles it in appearance and habits, and both are
smaller than the 4. sumatrana or A. typhon of India and the Malay
Archipelago, while the A. goliath, of wide distribution in Africa and
Asia, is the largest of all. The Purple Heron, 4. purpurea, as a
well-known European species having a great range over the Old
World, also deserves mention here. Of the species included in
Schlegel’s second section, little need now be said. They inhabit
the tropical parts of Africa, Australia and America. The Egrets,

Bitt or Heron. (After Swainson.)

HERON AI9

forming his third group, require more notice, distinguished as they
are by a more slender bill, their pure white plumage, and, when in
breeding-dress, by the beautiful dorsal tufts of decomposed feathers
that ordinarily droop over the tail, and are in such request as
ornaments by eastern
magnates and western
milliners,the latterand
their customers caus-
ing some of the most
abominable cruelty
practised in the animal world (see above, pp. 192, 228). The
largest species is A. occidentalis, chiefly known from Louisiana,
Florida and Cuba ; but one not much less, the Great Egret, 4. alba,
belongs to the Old World, breeding regularly in south-eastern
Europe, and occasionally straying to Britain. <A third, 4. egretta,
represents it in America, while much the same may be said of two
smaller species, 4. garzetta, the Little Egret of English authors, and
A. candidissima; and a sixth, A. intermedia, is common in India,
China and Japan, besides occurring in Australia. The group of
Semi-egrets, containing some nine or ten forms, among which the
Buff-backed Heron, A. bubulcus, is the only species that is known to
have occurred in Europe, is hardly to be distinguished from the
last section except by their plumage being at certain seasons varied
in some species with slaty-blue and in others with rufous. The
Rail-like Herons form Schlegel’s next section, but it can scarcely be
satisfactorily differentiated, and the epithet is misleading, for its
members have no Rail-like affinities, though the typical species,
which inhabits the south of Europe, and occasionally finds its way
to England, has long been known as A. ralloides.1 Nearly all these
birds are tropical or subtropical. Then there is the somewhat
better defined group of Little Bitterns (4rdetta) containing about a
dozen species—the smallest of the whole Family. One of them, 4.
minuta, though very local in its distribution, is a native of the
greater part of Europe, and formerly bred in England. It has a
close counterpart in the 4. exilis of North America, and is repre-
sented by three or four forms in other parts of the world, the 2.
pusilla of Australia especially differing very slightly from it.
Ranged by Schlegel with these birds, which are all remarkable for
their skulking habits, but more resembling the true Herons in their
nature, are the common Green Bittern of America, 4. virescens, and
itsvery near ally the African A. atricapilla, from which last it is almost
impossible to distinguish the 4. javanica, of wide range throughout
Asia and its islands, while other species, less closely related, occur

Brut oF Ecrer. (After Swainson.)

1 Itis the ‘‘ Squacco-Heron ” of modern British authors—the distinctive name,
given “‘Sguaceo” by Willughby and Ray from Aldrovandus, having been mis-
spelt by Latham.

420 HETEROCHROSTS

elsewhere as 4. fluvicollis,—one form of which, 4. gouldi, inhabits
Australia.

The true Bitterns, forming the genus Botaurus, have been
already noticed (pp. 40-42); and of the Night-Herons Schlegel
recognized six species, all to be reasonably placed in the genus
Nycticorax, characterized by a shorter beak and a few other
peculiarities, among which the large eyes deserve mention. ‘The
first is N. griseus, a bird widely spread over the Old World, and
not unfrequently visiting England, where it would undoubtedly
breed if permitted. The same author united with it the common
Night-Heron of America; but this, though very closely allied, is
generally deemed distinct, and is the NV. nexvius or N. gardeni of
most writers. A clearly different. American species, with a more
southern habitat, is the NV. violaceus or N. cayennensis, while others
are found in South America, Australia, some of the Asiatic Islands,
and in West Africa. The Galapagos have a peculiar species, J.
pauper, and another, brevipennate and no doubt peculiar, NV. mega-
cephalus, existed in Rodriguez at the time of its being first colonized,
but is now extinct. To this section undoubtedly belongs the Boat-
BILL (p. 45), though it deserves generic distinction as Cancroma.!

Bones of the common Heron and Bittern are not uncommon in
the peat of the East-Anglian fens. Remains from Sansan and
Langy in France have been referred by M. Alphonse Milne-Edwards
to Herons under the names of Ardea perpleaa and A. formosa; a
tibia from the Miocene of Steinheim by Dr. Fraas to an A. similis,
while Sir R. Owen recognized a portion of a sternum from the
London Clay (see above, pp. 281, 282) as approaching this Family.

It remains to say that the Herons form part of Prof. Huxley’s
section Pelargomorphex, belonging to his larger group Desmognatha,
and to draw attention to the singular development of the patches
of “ powder-down ” which in the Family Ardeide attain a magnitude
hardly to be found elsewhere. Their use is utterly unknown.

HETEROCHROSIS, the collective term signifying the occur-
rence of abnormal coloration which may be due to one or other of
various causes, such as

1. The partial or total absence of pigment producing a paler
hue or even a complete ALBINO.

2. The overproduction of pigment resulting in a more intense
tint or the introduction of a new colour. ‘

3. The absence of or change in the surface overlying the pigment.

There seems to be a certain correlation of colours in most cases
of Heterochrosis: for instance, feathers with a yellow pigment
have a tendency toward orange and red; green feathers exhibit

1 The Sun-BiTTERN (Lurypyga), by some systematists considered to belong to
the Ardeidx, certainly forms a Family by itself.

HETEROMERI—HOACTZIN 421

xanthochroism ; while blue, in the absence of the colour-producing
surface, may appear brownish or grey. The pale coloration of
“ Desert-forms” (supra, p. 336), and the seasonal and sexual changes
of colour in many species, though perhaps ultimately referable to
acts of Heterochrosis, are not covered by this term since they are
now become normal features (see COLOUR, p. 99).

HETEROMERI, Garrod’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, pp. 517,
518) for a group composed of Cotingidx (CHATTERER) and Pipridx
(MANAKIN) which differ from most other birds in having the
femoral artery developed instead of the sciatic, wherein they are
opposed to the Homa@omeri, but both combined form his
MESOMYODI.

HETEROMORPH, Prof. Huxley’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1868, p. 311) for an ornithological section consisting, so far as
known, of a single genus, Opisthocomus (HOACTZIN).

HEWEL,? HEWHOLE, HICKWALL and HIGH-HOLDER,
names given in various places to a WOODPECKER of one kind or
another. The first two are said to be corrupted from the third,”
the older form of which, ‘ Hickwaw” (Hollyband) and “ Hickway,”
“ Heigh-hawe” and “ Highawe” (Cotgrave), can hardly have come
from anything but the Anglo-Saxon Higera or Higere (T. Wright’s
Vocabularies, pp. 29, 62, 281) meaning a laugher, and doubtless
referring to the cry of the Green Woodpecker, Gecinus viridis.
Hewhole was, however, in use in 1544, as shewn by Turner, who
Latinized it Huhola ; and in North America it has taken the further
modifications of High-hole and High-holder for the FLICKER
(Audubon, Orn. Biogr. i. p. 191; Ingersoll, Bull. Nuttall Club, 1881,
p- 184). For further information on these and other English
synonyms of Woodpecker see Yarrell (Br. B. ed. 4, ii. pp. 461-463).?

HOACTZIN or HOATZIN, a bird of tropical South America,
thought by Buffon to be that indicated by Hernandez under these
names, the Opisthocomus hoazin or O. cristatus of modern ornitho-
logists—a very curious and remarkable form, which has long
exercised the ingenuity of classifiers. Placed by Buffon among his
“« Hoccos ” (CURASSOW), and then by P. L. 8. Miiller and Gmelin in

1 For this Andrew Marvell on (Nun) Appleton House (lines 557 e¢ seqg.) may
be cited.

2 If Hewhole be a corruption of Hickwall it has been obviously brought in by
the bird’s habits ; but we must not forget that Wolzhawer is a German equivalent
(Bechstein, Gemeinn. Naturgesch. Deutschi. ii. p. 1007).

3 The derivations of the many names of the Woodpecker in the earlier
editions of Yarrell’s work are extremely erroneous, being the werk of some
anonymous authority in days before the study of words was placed on a sure
basis.

422 HOACTZIN

the Linnean genus Phasianus, some of its many peculiarities were
recognized by Illiger in 1811 as sufficient to establish it as a dis-.
tinct genus, Opisthocomus ; but various positions were assigned to it
by subsequent systematists, whose views, not being based on any
information respecting its internal structure, do not here require
particular attention. L’Herminier, in 1837, was the first to give
any account of its anatomy (Comptes Rendus, v. p. 433), and from
his time our knowledge of it has been successively increased by
many authors.!

After a minute description of the skeleton of Opisthocomus, with
the especial object of determining its affinities, Prof. Huxley (loc.

Hoactzin.

cit.) declared that it ‘resembles the ordinary Gallinaceous birds and
Pigeons more than it does any others, and that when it diverges
from them it is either sw generis or approaches the Musophagide.”
He accordingly regarded it as the type and sole member of a group,
named by him HETEROMORPHA, which sprang from the great
Carinate stem later than the Zinamomorphe, Turnicomorphe, or
Charadriomorphx, but before the Peristeromorphex, Pteroclomorphx, or
Alectoromorphx. This conclusion is substantially the same as that

1 Johannes Miiller, Ber. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin, 1841, p. 177; Deville,
Rev. Zool. 1852, p. 217; Gervais, Hxpéd. Amérique du Sud, Zool. Anat.
(Castelnau), p. 66; Huxley, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 804 ; Garrod, op. cit. 1879,
p- 109; Perrin, Trans. Zool. Soc. ix. p. 583; Parker, op. cit. xiii. pp. 43-85 ;
C. G. Young, Notes Leyd. Mus. x. pp. 169-174, pl. 8; Quelch, Zbis, 1890, pp.
327-335 ; Gadow, Trans. R. Irish Acad. ser, 3, ii. pp. 147-154, pls. vil, viii.

HOACTZIN 423

at which Garrod subsequently arrived after closely examining and
dissecting specimens preserved in spirit; but the latter has gone
further and endeavoured to trace more particularly the descent of
this peculiar form and some others, remarking that the ancestor of
Opisthocomus must have left the parent stem very shortly before the
true Galline first appeared, and at about the same time as the inde-
pendent pedigree of the Cuculidex and Musophagide commenced—
these two groups being, he believed, very closely related, and
Opisthocomus serving to fill the gap between them. Still more
recently Dr. Gadow has shewn that the very singular modification
of the sternal structure in this form is chiefly due to the extra-
vagant enlargement of its crop.

It would be impossible here to state at length the facts on
which these views are grounded, and equally impossible to give
more than a very few details of the anatomy of this singular form.
The first thing that strikes the spectator of its skeleton is the
extraordinary structure of the sternal apparatus, which is wholly
unlike that of any other bird known. The keel is only developed
on the posterior part of the sternum—the fore part being aborted,
or, as it were, cut away, while the short furcula at its symphysis
meets the manubrium, with which it is firmly consolidated by means
of a prolonged and straight hypocleidium, and anteriorly ossifies
with the coracoids. This unique arrangement seems to be corre-
lated with the enormously capacious crop, which rests upon the
furcula and fore part of the sternum, and is also received in a cavity
formed on the surface of each of the great pectoral muscles. Further-
more this crop is extremely muscular, so as more to resemble a
gizzard, and consists of two portions divided by a partial constric-
tion, after a fashion of which no other example is known among
birds.

The Hoactzin appears to be about the size of a small Pheasant,
but is really a much smaller bird. The beak is strong, curiously
denticulated along the margin of the maxilla near the base, and is
beset by diverging bristles. The eyes, placed in the middle of a
patch of bare skin, are furnished with bristly lashes, resembling
those of Hornbills and some few other birds. The head bears a
long pendent crest of loose yellowish feathers. The body is olive-
coloured, varied with white above, and beneath is of a dull bay.
The wings are short and rounded. The tail is long, and tipped
with yellow. The legs are long, the feet stout, the tarsi reticulated,
and the toes scutellated; the claws long and slightly curved.
According to all who have observed the habits of this bird, it lives
in bands on the lower trees and bushes bordering the streams and
lagoons, seldom taking wing, and then flying weakly, feeding on
leaves and various wild fruits, especially, says the late Mr. Bates
(Nat. Amaz. i. p. 120), on those of a species of Psidium, and it is

424 HOBBY

é

also credited with eating those of an aroid (Montrichardia arborescens),
which grows plentifully in its haunts. “Its voice is a harsh, grating
hiss,” continues the same traveller, and ‘it makes the noise when
alarmed, all the individuals sibilating as they fly heavily away from
tree to tree, when disturbed by passing canoes.” It exhales a very
strong odour — wherefore it is known in British Guiana as the
“Stink-bird” 1—compared by him to “musk combined with wet
hides,” and by Deville to that of a cow-house. The species is said
to be polygamous; the nest is built on trees, of sticks loosely placed
above one another, and softer materials atop. Therein the hen
lays her eggs to the number of three or four, of a dull yellowish-
white, somewhat profusely marked with reddish blotches and spots,
so as to resemble those of some of the Fallidx (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867,
pl. xv. fig. 7, p. 164). The nestling has a claw on the index as
well as the pollex, sufficiently developed to be functional, and enable
the bird to creep about, and even raise itself by their aid, which
is more than a young GREBE is able to do. In the valley of the
Amazon it is called the “Cigano” or Gipsy, and in no part of the
country where it occurs does it seem to be regarded with much favour.
Only one species of the genus is known to have existed, for Mr.
Wallace’s statement (Geogr. Distrib. Animals, i. p. 164) that remains of
a second have been found in Brazilian caves originated in a mistake.

HOBBY (Fr.2 Hobreaw and Hobereau, Old Fr. Hobé, Hoberel,
Aubreau, Aubrier, Oubrier, and other forms; Provengal, Alban; Italian,
Albanella®) one of the smallest and most graceful of the British
Faucons, the Falco or Hypotriorchis subbuteo of ornithology, the type
of a very distinct group of Falconidz comprising a considerable num-
ber of forms, in life at once recognizable by their bold upstanding
posture, and at any time by their long wings. The Hobby is a
bird of great power of flight, chiefly used in the capture of insects,
which form its ordinary food. It is a summer-visitant to most parts
of Europe, including these islands, frequenting woodland districts,
and is most wantonly and needlessly destroyed by ignorant game-
keepers. A second European species of the group is the beautiful
F. eleonorx, which hardly comes further north than the countries

1 According to Mr. Quelch, whose notes (Joc. cit.) on the habits of the bird
are very valuable, the name most commonly used is ‘‘ Hanna.”

2 According to Littré, the French names are derived from the English, which,
as Prof. Skeat kindly informs me, is allied to hober (whence, hover), to stir or
move from place to place, and from the same root also come hobby, a small (active)
horse, hobeler, a light horseman, and some other words.

3 This name seems to belong properly to birds of the genus Circus (HARRIER),
but has been misappropriated in the same way as the German Weissbdcklein, to
say nothing of Subbuteo and Hypotriorchis (which Gesner says should be Gypotri-
orchis). Seeing how very distinct Hobbies and Harriers are in behaviour, haunts
and appearance, the confusion or change of name is inexplicable.

‘4

HOLMCOCK—HOMGOMERI 425

bordering the Mediterranean, and, though in some places abundant,
is an extremely local bird. There is no member of this section in

Hospsy, (After Wolf.)

North America, but the largest species belonging to it seems to be
the Neotropical H. femoralis, for H. diroleucus, though often assigned
here is now supposed to be one of the group of typical Falcons.

HOLMCOCK, HOLM-THRUSH, names of the Mistletoe-
THRUSH from its seeking the berries of the Holm or Holly-tree.

HOLORHINAL, the epithet bestowed by Garrod (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1873, p. 33) in his first taxonomical paper, on what seemed to
him a “Subclass” of Birds ; and, although given up by him very soon
after (op. cit. 1874, pp. 111-123), it-has been absurdly used since
by some systematizers, who have thereby made the introduction of
the word here necessary.

HOMALOGONATA,, the first of the two Subclasses, the other
being called ANOMALOGONATA, into which Garrod at one time
divided Birds, according as they possessed an AMBIENS muscle
or not (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, pp. 116-118), though he admitted
that “there are a few undoubtedly homalogonatous birds in which
the ambiens muscle is absent.” For the groups contained in these
categories see INTRODUCTION.

HOMCEOMERI, Garrod’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1876, pp. 517,
518) for a group of Birds consisting of the HAPLOOPHON and
TRACHEOPHON, and differing from the HETEROMERI in that the

426 HOMRAI—HONE Y-BUZZARD

sciatic is the artery of the thigh, but with the last named forming
the combination Mrsomyopt, as opposed to the AcRomyopI, the
other great section of PASSERES.

HOMRAT, the Nepalese name, often used by Anglo-Indians, of
the Great Indian HORNBILL.

HONEY-BIRD, an expression of respectable antiquity, since it
was used by Sylvester early in the seventeenth century (Du Bartas,
Weeke I1.), but with no attempt at precision, and since applied in-
discriminately to birds of various sorts (see HONEY-EATER).

HONEY-BUZZARD, the English name in Willughby’s day ot
a bird which he thought he was describing for the first time; but
herein he was wrong, for it was the Boudree! of Belon (1555). It
is the Falco apivorus of Linneeus, generically separated in 1817 by
Cuvier, together with the crested eastern species from Java, as
Pernis, which word, as before stated (p. 68, note) should be written
Pternis.2 Willughby spoke of it as being not unfrequent in this
country, and the statement need not be doubted, but the destruction
of our old forests, and the depredations of gamekeepers, who foolishly
look upon this innocent bird as an enemy, have almost extirpated it
in England, though a few pairs return every summer with the intent
(generally frustrated) to breed in some of our larger woods, while
towards the fall of the year young birds of the season visit this
island on the way to their winter-quarters ; and, through ignorance
or wantonness, are generally killed. The home of these autumnal
visitants can be only vaguely surmised to exist in some north-
eastern country, for the species is not ordinarily common in Scandi-
navia; but its yearly passage, often in great numbers, over Heligoland
in August and September is one of the most remarkable ornithological
features of that remarkable ornithological spot.*

1 In modern French Bondrée, which, according to Littré, is from the old word
bondir, to cry out ; but he takes no notice of the more ancient form, and that
may perhaps be supposed to be related to bouder, to be alone or withdraw from
company (cf. the French boudoir and the English ‘‘ withdrawing-room”)—in a
secondary sense to sulk.

2 The mistaken spelling is much older than Cuvier, for Gaza the first trans-
lator of Aristotle has Pernix (Hist. Anim. ix. 86, Venetiis: 1525, fol. 34).
Gloger in 1842 (Hand- und Hilfshuch der Naturgesch. p. 215) noticed this error,
but seems himself to have been the victim of a misprint. The eastern species
was not technically denominated by Cuvier in his work, but was doubtless, after
his custom, named in the Paris Museum, whence Vieillot in 1823 (Zncyclop.
Méthod@p. 1225) described it as Buteo cristatus. In the same year it was
described and figured by Temminck and Laugier (PJ. col. 44) as Falco ptilorhyn-
chus, a specific name so bad, that unless its priority be clearly established it
should be given up for cristatus.

3 Herr Giitke (Vogelw. Helgoland, p. 190) records one extraordinary instance,
During the forenoon of the 19th of September 1858 parties of from 5 to 10 were

HONE Y-BUZZARD 427

The name Honey-Buzzard is admittedly misleading, for honey
forms no part of its food, though the immature stages of Wasps
and Humble-bees have a particular attraction for it; and it may be
seen on the ground, where it runs swiftly like a Barndoor-Fowl,
scratching out their nests, and feeding on the living contents of the
combs, regardless of the stings of the infuriated owners, against
which the short, rounded and closely-adpressed feathers covering its
face are said to form a protective vizor. The species is still further
remarkable for the great difference of coloration exhibited by indi-
viduals belonging to it, which have hitherto defied all attempts at
reduction to what passes for “law” ;1 but the widest variation is
observable in young birds of the year, while the assumption of an
ashy-grey head is held to indicate maturity. Whether these cases can
be justifiably attributed to what is called POLYMORPHISM remains to
be proved ; but that obviously could only be done after a series of
attentive observations which can hardly be carried out in England on
a scarce species that is dwindling in numbers, as this is. The Honey-
Buzzard occupies a nest in a high tree, and therein lays 3 richly-
coloured eggs. When the young are hatched the parents surround
it with leafy boughs, renewed as they wither, but whether intended
as a screen or a barrier is unknown; though the former is believed
to be the object of this habit, and may possibly have given rise to
the old French name of the species.

Two other species of the genus beside those mentioned are recog-
nized by Mr. Gurney (List Diurn. B. of Prey, p. 87)—one from
Burma and the adjacent countries, P. brachypterus or tweeddalii, and

CYMINDIS. BAZA. AVICIDA.
(After Swainson.)

one from Celebes, P. celebensis; but it is asserted to have also
several other allies, some of which lead off to the Milvinw (KiTE),

seen on passage, constantly increasing in numbers and with greater frequency ;
while from 3 to 6 o’clock in the afternoon a continuous stream of greater and
greater flocks from 50 to 80 or even more was maintained. All came from the
east and passed westward (cf. Cordeaux, Jbis, 1875, pp. 175, 176). Similar
flocks have been observed crossing the Strait of Gibraltar by Favier and Lord
Lilford (bis, 1865, p. 177; Irby, Orn. Str. Gibralt. p. 49).

1 Herein see the late Mr. Gurney’s notes (Zbis, 1880, pp. 195-204), wherein
are references to many other authorities.

428 HONE Y-EATER

and others to the true FALcons. Yet it may be doubted whether
further observation of such forms as Leptodon or Cymindis, and Baza
or Avicida will admit of their being placed very near to the present
genus. The last named inhabits the south-eastern portion of the
Old World; while the first belongs to the Neotropical Region.

HONEY-EATER or HONEY-SUCKER, names applied by many
writers in a very loose way to a large number of birds, some of
which have no intimate affinity ; but here to be used for the Family
Meliphagidx in a restricted sense—excluding therefrom the Cvrebidx
(Dacnis), Dicxidx, (Dic&uM), Drepanidide (DREPANIS), and Necta-
rintide (SUN-BIRD), as well as the genera Promerops and Zosterops
with whatever allies they may possess. Even with this restriction,
the extent of the Family must be regarded as indefinite, owing to
the absence of materials sufficient for arriving at a satisfactory con-
clusion, though the existence of such a Family may be indisputable.
Making allowance then for the imperfect light in which they must
at present be viewed, it includes some of the most characteristic
forms of the ornithology of the New-Zealand and Australian
Regions — but a single species only, Ptilotis limbata (which just
crosses ‘‘ Wallace’s Line” to Bali), being said to occur outside
their limits. They all possess, or are supposed to possess, a long
protrusible tongue with a frayed, brush-like tip, differing in its
quadruple or multiple structure, and laciniated outer border (cf.
Gadow, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, p. 66) from that found in any other
bird, and capable of being formed into a suctorial tube, by means
of which honey is absorbed from the nectary of flowers, though it
would seem that insects attracted by the honey furnish the chief
nourishment of many species, while others undoubtedly feed to a
greater or less extent on fruits. The Meliphagidx, as now con-
sidered, are for the most part small birds, none exceeding a Jay in
g size—Entomyza cyanotis, the
“Blue-eye” of Australian
colonists, being one of the
largest. They have been

Entomyza, _ Myzometa. divided into some 24 genera,
Cen ee containing about 150 species,

of which only a few can here be particularized. Most of the forms
have a very confined range, being found perhaps only on a single
island or group of islands, but there are a few which are more widely
distributed. In plumage they vary much. The species of Ptilotis are
generally characterized by a tuft of white, or in others of yellow,
feathers springing from behind the ear. In the greater number of the
genus Myzomela the males are recognizable by a gorgeous display of
crimson or scarlet, which has caused one species, JM. sanguinolenta, to
be known as the Sé###er Brrp to Australian colonists ; but in others

HONE Y-GUIDE 429

no brilliant colour appears, and those of several genera have no
special ornamentation, while some have a particularly plain appear-
ance. One of the most curious forms is Prosthemadera—the Tui or
PARSON-BIRD of New Zealand. ‘The BELL-BrRD of the same country
(supra, p. 31), Anthornis melanura, is another member of this
Family, and unfortunately seems to be fast becoming extinct, a fate

ANTHORNIS. MELITHREPTSS VALIDIROSTRIS.
(From Buller.) (After Swainson.)

that is said to have already befallen the SrircH-BirD, Pogonornis,
of the same country. But it would be impossible here to enter
much further into detail, though the WATTLE-BIRDS, Anthochera, of
Australia have at least to be named, and the FRIAR-BIRDS, Philemon,
already mentioned (supra, pp. 292, 293), must again be noticed
(Mimicry). Melithreptas, with 5 or 6 species, all but one peculiar
to Australia or Tasmania, considered by some writers to be allied
to Zosterops, probably belongs here.

HONEY-GUIDKE, a bird so called from its habit or supposed
habit of pointing out to man and to the ratel (MJellivora capensis)
the nests of bees. Stories to this effect have often been told, and
may be found in the narratives of many African travellers, from
Bruce to Livingstone. Yet Mr. Layard says (B. S. Africa, p. 242)
that the birds will not unfrequently lead any one to a leopard or a
snake, and will follow a dog with vociferations,! so that at present
judgment may perhaps be suspended on the matter, though its
antics and noisy cry unquestionably have in many cases the effect
signified by its English name. If not its first discoverer, Sparrman,
in 1777, was the first who described and figured this bird, which
he met with in the Cape Colony (Phil. Trans. Ixvii. pp. 42-47, pl.
i.), giving it the name of Cuculus indicator, its feet with the toes
placed in pairs—two before and two behind—inducing the belief
that it must be referred to that genus. Vieillot in 1816 elevated
it to the rank of a genus, Indicator ; but it was still considered to
belong to the Family Cuculide (its asserted parasitical habits lending
force to that belief) by all systematists except Blyth and Jerdon,
until it was shewn by Mr. Blanford (Obs. Geol. and Zool. Abyssinia,

1 This is also a well-known habit with some Corvidx —the Jays and Pies for
example.

430 HOODIE—HOOPOE

pp. 308, 309) and Mr. Sclater (/dis, 1870, pp. 176-180) that it was
more allied to the Capitonidx (BARBET), and, in consequence, was then
made the type of a distinct Family, ndicatoride, The correctness
of this view was proved by Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1878, pp. 930-
935). In the meanwhile other species had been discovered, some
of them differing sufficiently to warrant Sundevall’s foundation of
a second genus, Prodotiscus, of the group. The Honey-Guides are
small birds, the largest hardly exceeding a Lark in size, and of plain
plumage, with what appears to be a very Sparrow-like bill. Captain
Shelley in 1891 ee B. Br, Mus, xix. pp. 1-12) recognized nine
species and one subspecies of the genus
Indicator, and two of Prodotiscus. Four of
the former, including J. sparrmani, which
was the first made known, are found in
South Africa, and one of Prodotiscus. The
rest inhabit other parts of the same con-
tinent, except I. archipelagicus, which belongs
to Borneo and Malacca, and J. zanthonotus,
which occurs on the Himalayas from the borders of Afghanistan
to Bhotan. The interrupted geographical distribution of this genus
is an instructive fact.

InpicaTor. (After Swainson.)

HOODIE, properly the Scottish name for the Grey or Hooded
Crow, but occasionally used also for the Black form.

HOOPOE (French Huppe, Latin Upupa, Greek exroy—all names
bestowed apparently from its cry), a bird long celebrated in litera-
ture, and conspicuous by its variegated plumage and its large
erectile crest,! the Upupa epops of naturalists, which is the type of
the very peculiar Family Upupidx, placed by Prof. Huxley in his
group Coccygomorphx, but considered by Dr. Murie (Jbis, 1873, p.
208) to deserve separate rank as Epopomorphe. This species has an
exceedingly wide range in the Old World, being a regular summer-
visitant to the whole of Europe, in some parts of which it is abun-
dant, as well as to Siberia, mostly retiring southwards in autumn
to winter in equatorial Africa and India, though it would seem to
be resident throughout the year in North-Eastern Africa and in
China. Its power of wing ordinarily seems to be feeble ; but it is
capable of very extended flight, as is testified by its wandering
habits (for it occasionally makes its appearance in places very far
removed from its usual haunts), and also by the fact that when
pursued by a Falcon it will rapidly mount to an extreme height and
frequently effect its escape from the enemy. About the size of a
Thrush, with a long, pointed, and slightly arched bill, its head and

1 Hence the secondary meaning of the French word huppe—a crest or tuft
(cf. Littré, Dict. Francaise, i. 2067).

HOOPOE 431

neck are of a golden-buff—the former adorned by the crest already
mentioned, which begins to rise from the forehead and consists of
broad feathers, gradually increasing in length, tipped with black,
and having a subterminal bar of yellowish-white. The upper part
of the back is of a vinous-grey, and the scapulars and flight-feathers
are black, broadly barred with white, tinged in the former with
buff. The tail is black with a white chevron, marking off about
the distal third part of its length. The legs and feet are as well
adapted for running or walking as for perching, and the scutella-
tions are continued round the whole of the tarsi. Chiefly on account
of this character, which is also possessed by the Larks, Sundevall

Hoopor

(Tentamen, pp. 53-55) united the Upupide and Alaudidx in the
same “cohors,” Holaspidex. Comparative anatomy, however, for-
bids its being taken to signify any real affinity between these
groups, and the resemblance on this point, which is by no means
so striking as that displayed by the form of the bill and the colora-
tion in certain Larks (of the genus Certhilauda, for instance), must
be ascribed to analogy merely, though at present no explanation of
the why and the wherefore can be offered.

Pleasing as is the appearance of the Hoopoe as it fearlessly
parades its showy plumage, its habits are much the reverse. All
observers agree in stating that it delights to find its food among
filth of the most abominable description, and this especially in its
winter-quarters. But where it breeds, its nest, usually in the hole

432 FIORNBILL

of a tree or of a wall, is not only partly composed of the foulest
material, but its condition becomes worse as incubation proceeds,
for the hen scarcely ever leaves her eggs, being assiduously fed by
the cock as she sits; and when the young are hatched, their feces
are not removed by their parents,! as is the case with most birds,
but are discharged in the immediate neighbourhood of the nest, the
unsanitary condition of which can readily be imagined. Worms,
grubs, and insects generally, form the Hoopoes’ food, and upon it
they get so fat in autumn that they are esteemed a delicate morsel in
some of the countries of Southern Europe, and especially by the
Christian population of Constantinople.”

Not a year passes but the Hoopoe makes its appearance in some
part or other of Britain, most often in spring, and if unmolested
would doubtless stop to breed here, for a few instances are known
in which it has done so. But its remarkable plumage always
attracts attention: it is generally shot so soon as it is seen, and
before it has time to begin a nest, which there is reason to think
would not in a temperate climate become so offensive a nuisance as
it is in more southern latitudes. Eight or nine so-called species of
the genus have been described, but the existence of five only can
be established (Dresser, B. Hur. v. p. 184). Beside the Upupa
epops above treated, these are U. indica, resident in India and
Ceylon ; U. longirostris, which seems to be the form of the Indo-
Chinese countries; U. marginata, peculiar to Madagascar; and U.
africana or minor, which inhabits South Africa to the Zambesi on
the east and Benguela on the west coast. In habits and appearance
they all resemble the best-known and most widely-spread species,
and their particular differences need not be here pointed out.?

HORNBILL, the English name long ago given to all the birds
of the Family Bucerotidz of modern ornithologists, from the extra-
ordinary horn-like excrescence (epithema) developed on the bill of
most of the species, though to which of them it was first applied
seems doubtful. Among classical authors Pliny had heard of such
animals, and mentions them (Hist. Nat. lib. x. cap. xlix.) under the
name of Zragopan; but he deemed their existence fabulous, com-
paring them with Pegasi and Gryphones—in the words of Holland,

1 This indeed is denied by Naumann, but by him alone; and the statement
in the text is confirmed by many eye-witnesses.

2 Under the name of Dukipath, in the authorized version of the Bible trans.
lated ‘‘ Lapwing” (Lev. xi. 19, Deut. xiv. 18), the Hoopoe was accounted un-
clean by the ‘‘ Jewish law.” Arabs have a great reverence for the bird, imputing
to it marvellous medicinal and other qualities, and making use of its head in
their charms (cf. Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible, pp. 208, 209).

8 The genera Rhinopomastus and Irrisor are generally placed in the Family
Upupide, but Dr. Murie (/.c.), after an exhaustive examination of their osteology,
regards them as forming a group of equal value.

HORNBILL 433

his translator (i. p. 296)—“I thinke the same of the Tragopanades,
which many men aflirme to bee greater than the Algle; having
crooked hornes like a Ram on either side of the head, of the colour
of yron, and the head onely red.” Yet this is but an exaggerated
description of some of the species with which doubtless his inform-
ants had an imperfect acquaintance. Medizval writers! found
Pliny’s bird to be no fable, for specimens of the beak of one species
or another seem occasionally to have been brought to Europe, where
they were preserved in the cabinets of the curious, and thus Aldro-
vandus was able in 1599 to describe and figure (Ornithologia, lib.
xii. cap. xx.) under the name of “ Rhinoceros Avis,” the head of
what is now called Buceros rhinoceros, though the rest of the bird
was unknown to him. When the exploration of the East Indies
had extended further, more examples reached Europe, and the
“Corvus Indicus cornutus” of Bontius became fully recognized by
Willughby and Ray, under the title of the “Horned Indian Raven
or Topaw called the Rhinocerot Bird.” Since their time our know-
ledge of the Hornbills has been steadily increasing, but on many
points there is still great lack of precise information, though the
completion in 1882 of Mr. Elliot’s Monograph of the Bucerotidx sup-
plied a great want, for much diversity of opinion long prevailed as
to how many real genera the Family comprises, or how many a
The group, though no doubt can be entertained as to its limits,?
contains many bulky birds, and has never been attractive to private
collectors, while several of the species were, and still are, rare even
in public museums. Some authors appeared to despair of dividing
it satisfactorily, and left all the described species in the Linnzan
genus Buceros, others split that genus into more than a score, while
Sundevall (Tentamen, pp. 96, 97) recognized only three genera; but
it is unquestionable that more should reasonably be admitted, and
the present writer, though here adopting Mr. Elliot’s determinations,
is not prepared to state how many are required.

That gentleman divides them into two subfamilies, Bucorving,
with one genus Bucorvus, and Bucerotine with 18 genera, 8 of which
belong wholly to the Indian Region, 4 to the Ethiopian and 2 to
the Australian, while 3 have members in both the Ethiopian and
Indian Regions, and one genus occurs in both the Indian and the
Australian, though no species is common to any two Regions. The
genus Bucorvus (or Bucoraz as some write it), and consequently the
subfamily Bucorvine, is confined to Africa, and contains 3 species
distinguishable among other characters by their longer legs and
shorter toes—the Ground-Hornbills of English writers. From the

1 #.g. Cardanus, De Subtil. lib. x. (ed. 1611, p. 601), Scaliger, Hxercit. 251, 3.
2 Such genera as Euryceros, Scythrops, and others, together with the whole
Family Momotidx, which had been at times placed by systematists among the
Bucerotidx, have no affinity to them.
28

cert what Herr Kartert
us Taldns (dF. 0. 854,
p 366-366).

434 HORNBILL

ee

days of Bruce there are few travellers in that country who have
not met with and in their narratives said more or less of one or
other of these birds, whose large size and fearless habits render
them conspicuous as they walk or run on the ground, or when
disturbed perch on trees. The precise range of the several forms is
not known, but the genus is found from Abyssinia to Natal, and from
the Gold Coast to Zambesia. The northern forms differ from the
southern, B. cafer—the “Brom-vogel” of European colonists in
South Africa—in having the epithema open in front, and thereby
presenting an appearance quite unique among birds.

Of the Bucerotinx, all of which are thoroughly arboreal in habit,
Mr. Elliot recognizes only two species of Buceros, one B. rhinoceros
(being, as already said, that whose head, with its unique up-turned
epithema, was known to Aldrovandus) from Malacca, Sumatra, and
Borneo, and the other, B. silvestris (with the epithema straight)
peculiar to Java. Hardly less extraordinary than the first of these
is the single species separated to form the genus Dichoceros, in which
the epithema is a broad plate, slightly convex in the middle and
rising on either side in a prominent ridge ending in two projecting
points. This is D. bicornis, the “ Homrai ” of Anglo-Indian writers,
found not only in the hilly forests of India but throughout the
Malay Peninsula and reaching Sumatra. The genus Hydrocorax
seems hardly separable from the last, but, with its 3 species, is
peculiar to the Philippine Islands, and thus these genera contain
the largest species of the Bucerotine. Then comes Rhinoplax, which
seems properly to contain but one species, the Buceros vigil, B.
scutatus, or B. galeatus of authors, commonly known as the Helmet-
Hornbill, a native of Sumatra and Borneo. This is easily distin-
guished by having the front of its nearly vertical and slightly
convex epithema composed of a solid mass of horn * instead of a thin
coating of the light and cellular structure found in the others. So
dense and hard is this portion of the “helmet” that Chinese and
Malay artists carve figures on its surface, or cut it transversely into
plates, which from their agreeable colouring, bright yellow with a
scarlet rim, are worn as brooches or other ornaments. This bird,
which is larger than a Raven, is also remarkable for its bare neck
and long graduated tail, having the two middle feathers nearly
twice the length of the rest. Nothing is known of its habits, Its
head was figured by Edwards in 1755, but little else was known

1 Apparently correlated with this structure is the curious thickening of the
« prosencephalic median septum ” of the cranium as also of that which divides
the ‘‘prosencephalic” from the ‘* mesencephalic chamber,” noticed by Sir R.
Owen (Cat. Osteol. Ser. Mus. Coll. Surg. Engl. i. p. 287); while the solid
horny mass is further strengthened bya backing of bony props, directed forwards,
and meeting its base at right angles. This last singular arrangement, not per-
ceptible in the skull of any other species, does not seem to have been described.

HORNBILL 435

of it until 1801, when Latham described the plumage from a
specimen in the British Museum, and the first figure of the whole
bird, from an example in the Museum at Calcutta, was published
by Hardwicke in 1823 (Trans. Linn. Soc. xiv. pl. 23). Yet over
twenty years eiapsed before French naturalists had seen more
than its head. Under Rhinoplax Sundevall places the Buceros
comatus of Raffles; but this would seem to be a wrong position for
that species, the type of Bonaparte’s genus Berenicornis, since it does
not appear to possess a frontlet of solid horn, and Mr. Elliot puts
it in the genus Anorrhinus.

Of other forms of Hornbill there is not room here to treat at
length. In some, as the Indian Anthracoceros and the Ethiopian
Bycanistes, the epithema grows out in such wise as to make the
bird seem as if it had two beaks, one superimposed upon the other.
Great as is the wonder which this arouses among stay-at-home
ornithologists, it has failed, as in other cases, to excite enough
curiosity among those that have opportunities of observation to
enable them to provide the least hint as to the use it serves in the
bird’s economy. In other forms the epithema is hardly developed,
and indeed a fairly complete series may be traced from (setting
aside Bucorvus) Buceros to certain species of Z'occus in which it may
be said not to appear. In some of the intermediate forms it is
curiously corrugated, and the ridge and furrow surface extends in
Cranorrhinus to the mandible. The development, however, of this
most characteristic feature of the Family depends in some species,
as might be expected, more or less on age and sex; and, important
as it undoubtedly is, too much weight should not be assigned to it
or other means of diagnosis neglected on its account. That excel-
lent observer Tickell in his manuscript Birds of India (in the library
of the Zoological Society of London) divides the Hornbills of that
country into two genera only, Buceros and Aceros, remarking that
the birds of the former fly by alternately flapping their wings and
sailing, while those of the latter fly by regular flapping only.1
Several differences of structure are presented by the sternal
apparatus of the various Bucerotidy, and it is quite possible that
these differences may be correlated with Tickell’s observations so as
to furnish, when more is known about these birds, a better mode of
classing them, and the same may be said of those of the African
group containing the genus Toccus and its allies.

As a whole the Hornbills, of which more than 60 species have
been described, form a very natural and in some respects an isolated
group, placed by Prof. Huxley among his Coccygomorphe. It has

1 The noise made by the wings of some of the large species in their flight is
compared by Mr. Wallace, in an admirable article on the Family (Jnéellectual
Observer, 1863, pp. 310 et segg.), to the puffing of a locomotive steam-engine when
starting with a train, and can be heard a mile off.

436 HORNBILL

been suggested that they have some affinity with the Upupide
(Hoopor), but even if that view be good the affinity cannot be very
near. Their supposed alliance to the Rhamphastide (TOUCAN) rests
only on the apparent similarity presented by the enormous beak,
and is contradicted by important structural characters. In many of
their habits, so far as these are known, all Hornbills seem to be
much alike, and though the modification in the form of the beak,

Homral or GREAT INDIAN HoRNBILL (Dichoceros bicornis). After Tickell’s drawing in the
Zoological Society’s library.

and the presence or absence of the extraordinary excrescence,!
whence their name is derived, causes great diversity of aspect
among them, the possession of prominent eyelashes (not a common

1 Buffon, as was his manner, enlarges on the cruel injustice done to these
birds by Nature in encumbering them with this deformity, which he declares
must hinder them from getting their food with ease. The only corroboration his
perverted view receives is afforded by the observed fact that Hornbills, in cap-
tivity at any rate, never have any fat about them.

HORN-PIE—HUIA 437

feature in Birds) produces a uniformity of expression which makes
it impossible to mistake any member of the Family. Hornbills are
social birds, keeping in companies, not to say flocks, and living
chiefly on fruits and seeds; but the bigger species also capture and
devour a large number of snakes, while the smaller are great
destroyers of insects. The older writers say that they eat carrion,
but further evidence to that effect is required before the statement
can be believed. Almost every morsel of food that is picked up is
tossed into the air, and then caught in the bill before it is swallowed.
They breed in holes of trees, laying large white eggs, and when the
hen begins to sit the cock plasters up the entrance with mud or
clay, leaving only a small window through which she receives the
food he brings her during her voluntary imprisonment.

This remarkable habit, almost simultaneously noticed by Dr.
Mason in Burma, Tickell in India, and Livingstone in Africa, but
since confirmed by other observers, especially Mr. Wallace? in the
Malay Archipelago, has been connected by Mr. Bartlett (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1869, p. 142) with a peculiarity as remarkable, which he was
the first to notice. This is the fact that Hornbills at intervals of
time, whether periodical or irregular is not yet known, cast the
epithelial layer of their gizzard, that layer being formed by a
secretion derived from the glands of the proventriculus or some
other upper part of the alimentary canal. The epithelium is
ejected in the form of a sack or bag, the mouth of which is closely
folded, and is filled with the fruit that the bird has been eating.
The announcement of a circumstance so extraordinary naturally
caused some hesitation in its acceptance, but the essential truth of
Mr. Bartlett’s observations has been abundantly confirmed by
Professor Flower (tom. cit. p. 150), and especially by Dr. Murie (op.
cit. 1874, p. 420), and what seems now to be most wanted is to
know whether these castings are really intended to form the hen-
bird’s food during her confinement.

HORN-PIE, a local name for the LAPWING, the first syllable refer-
ring to its crest which the bird in fullest vigour sets up on high, and the
last to its plumage that on the wing appears to be black and white.

HOWLET, a form of Owlet, the diminutive of OWL, which has
preserved the prefixed aspirate in some way that etymologists find
hard to explain.

HUIA, the Maori name, adopted by the English in New
Zealand, of a bird of that country, the only member of its genus,

1 In his interesting work (i. p. 213), he describes a nestling, of the species
above figured, which he obtained as ‘‘a most curious object, as large as a pigeon,
but without a particle of plumage on any part of it. It was exceedingly plump
and soft, and with a semi-transparent skin, so that it looked more like a bag of
jelly, with head and feet stuck on, than like a real bird.”

438 HUIA

Heteralocha,! and very remarkable for the sexual difference in the
bill, which is so great as to have led Gould to describe the male
and female as distinct species (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1856, pp. 144, 145).
First referred, like so many other curve-billed birds, to the Upupidx
(Hoopog), it was placed by Prof, Cabanis in 1850 (Mus. Hein. i. p.
218) among the Corvidx, but Garrod atter dissection (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1872, pp. 643-647) found its relation to the Sturnidw (STARLING)
to be very intimate, and its structure clearly not allied to the
Corvide, among which, however, Dr. Sharpe included it in 1877
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. iii. p. 143) though the year before (Voy. ‘ Erebus’
and ‘Terror, App. p. 27) he had followed Garrod. Probably the

Huis, Female and Male. (From Buller.)

right view, as indicated by Prof. Cabanis’s remarks on this very
subject (loc. cit.), is that it is an ancient and generalized form, which
cannot really be assigned to any of the more differentiated
Families. According to the personal observation of Sir W. Buller,
who enters at length on the natural history of the Huia (Bb. NV. Zeal.
ed. 2,1. pp. 7-17), its favourite food is the grub of a timber-boring
beetle, and the male bird with his short stout bill attacks the more
decayed portions of the wood, and chisels out his prey, while the
female with her long slender bill probes the holes in the sounder
part, the hardness of which resists his weapon ; or, when he, having
removed the decayed portion, is unable to reach the grub, the female
comes to his aid and accomplishes what he has failed to do. The
Huia is entirely a forest-bird, and is doubtless one of those doomed
to extinction, though at present it seems to maintain its existence.
Except a white terminal band on the tail, the whole plumage is
in both sexes black, with a green metallic gloss: the bill is ivory-
white, and the large rounded wattles at the gape are of a rich orange.
1 Originally named by Gould Neomorpha, a term which was preoccupied.

HUMERUS 439

HUMERUS, the upper arm-bone in Birds, articulating by its
head with the coracoid and scapula at the glenoid cavity, and by

S.anc. 2,
Err:

OTrats

S.ancm.

Lert Humerus or Goose. Lateral and median aspects.

£. pn. lee AS
Cr. inf. To. a

Lert Humerus or Ravey. Lateral and median aspects.

br. it. Insertion of M. brachialis inferior ; Cup. Caput humeri; Cr. inf., Cr. l. and Cr. sup.
Crista inferior, lateralis and superior ; Ect. and Entep. Ectepicondylar and Entepicondylar pro-
cess; F. pn. Forainen pneumaticum ; Ine. c. Incisura capitis ; lat. d. Insertion of M. latissimus
dorsi ; pect. Insertion of M. pectoralis; S. ane. l., S. anc. m, and S, tr. Sulcus anconei lateralis,
medius and transversus ; swp. c. Insertion of M. supracoracoideus; Tb. e., Tb. i. and Tb. m. Tuher-

culum externum, internum, and medium; 7. or Tr, 7. and 7. or Tr. u. Trochlea radicalis and
ulnaris.

440 HUMMING-BIRD

its inner and outer condyle at the distal end with the radius and
ulna. Its crests, ridges and processes present so many obvious
modifications, characteristic of various groups, that its configuration
appears to be of considerable taxonomic value. Assuming it to be
in its natural position when the wing is folded, the glenoid surface
of its head is bordered above by the tuberculum superius (insertion
of the musculus supracoracoidus), and in the middle and below by
the tuberculum inferius (insertion of muse. coraco-brachialis posterior).
From the former extends the large crista superior (insertion of muse.
pectoralis major on its outward dorsal edge, and of muse. deltoides
major on its median surface). The ventral portion of the neck of
the Humerus is formed by the strong crista inferior, on the median
side of which, between the lower tubercle there is mostly a deep
depression (fossa subtrochanterica) at the bottom of which air is
admitted to the bone (cf. AIR-SACKS, p. 4) by means of a hole or
holes. Among Anseres and Striges there is a very large orifice ; in
Accipitres and Otididew the foramina are so numerous as to be
cribriform; but in the Sphenisci (PENGUIN), Colymbidx, Alcidz,
Laridx, many Tubinares and occasionally in Phenicopterus (FLAMINGO)
foramina pneumatica are either very small or do not exist, while in
Columbx and Galline the depression is very shallow and the foramen
is almost on a plane surface.

On the outer side of the Humerus, between the head and the
crista inferior, is a groove lodging one of the coraco- humeral
ligaments. This groove is very deep in Steganopodes, Ardeidz,
Ciconidx, Phenicopterus, Rallidx, Laridx, Columbidx, Striges, Cypseli
and Parrots, but very shallow in Gruidx, Otididx, Tubinares,
Sphenisci, Coracias (ROLLER), Buceros (HORNBILL) and Caprimulgus,
and scarcely marked in Gallinw, Anseres and Accipitres. Distally
the humerus ends in a trochlea, composed of a larger roundish
condyle for the articulation of the Ulna, and a smaller and more
elongated knob for that of the Radius. A little above this knob
there is frequently present an ectepicondylar process, serving for
the origin of the tendons of some of the radial and ulnar flexors.
This process is best developed in Laridx, most Limicolx, Turnicidx,
Tubinares, Passeres, Pict and Cypselide: it is small in Striges, most
Accipitres and Columbide, and minute or absent in Pteroclidz,
(Edicnemus, Otis, Dicholophus, Grus, Rhinochetus, Eurypyga, Rallide,
Tinamide, Galline, Colymbidx, Podicipedidx, Alcidx, Sphenisci, Stegano-
podes, Ardeidx, Ciconiidx, Phenicopterus and Anseres. It is variable
in the PICARIA (see SKELETON).

HUMMING-BIRD, a name in use for more than two centuries,
and possibly ever since English explorers first knew of the beautiful
little animals to which, from the sound occasionally made by the
rapid vibrations of their wings, it is applied. Among books that are

HUMMING-BIRD 441

ordinarily in naturalists’ hands, the name seems to be first found in
the Museum Tradescantianum, published in 1656, but it therein
occurs (p. 3) so as to suggest its having already been accepted and
commonly understood ;! and its earliest use, as yet discovered, is
said to be by Thomas Morton in the New English Canaan, printed
in 1632—a rare work reproduced by Peter Force in his Historical
Tracts (vol. ii. Washington: 1838). Thevet, in his Singularitez de
la France antarctique (Paris: 1558, fol. 947), has been more than
once cited as the earliest author to mention Humming-birds, which
he did under the name of Gofiabuch or Gonambuch ; but it is quite
certain that Oviedo, whose Hystoria general de las Indias was pub-
lished at Toledo in 1525, preceded him by more than thirty years,
with an account of the “paxaro mosquito” of Hispaniola, of which
island “the first chronicler of the Indies” was governor.? This
name, though now apparently disused in Spanish, must have been
current about that time, for we find Gesner in 1555 (De avium
natura, lil. p. 629) translating it literally into Latin as Passer
muscatus, owing, as he says, his knowledge of the bird to Cardan,
who (De Subtil. lib. x.) had called it by the same name, and
tells us (Comment. in Ptolem. de astr. judiciis, Basilie: 1554, p.
472) that, on his return to Milan from professionally attending
Archbishop Hamilton at Edinburgh, he visited Gesner at Zurich,

1 Sir Thomas Browne in 1646 wrote (Pseudodoxia Epidemica, Bk. 6, chap.
viii.): “‘So have all Ages conceaved, and most are still ready to sweare, the
Wren is the least of birds, yet the discoveries of America, and even of our own
Plantations shewed us one farre lesse, that is, the Hum-bird, not much exceeding
a Beetle.” The name Hum-bird was in use fifty years later. Mr. Benjamin
Buttivant, writing from Boston in New England to Pettiver on 15 January
1697/8, says (Phil. Trans. xx. p. 168): ‘‘ The Huwm-bird I have shot with
sand, and had one some Weeks in my keeping. I put a Straw for a Perch
into a Venice Glass Tumbler, ty’d over the Mouth with a Paper in which
I cut holes for the Bird’s Bill (about as long and as small as a Taylor's
Needle), and laying the Glass on one side, set a Drachm of Honey by it, which
it soon scented, and with its long Tongue put forth beyond its Bill, fed
daily ; it muted the Honey pure, and was a Prospect to many Comers ; it flew
away at last.”

2 Not having seen a copy of this first edition, I take the reference from the
reprint of M. Gaffarel (Paris: 1878, p. 249).

3 In the edition of Oviedo’s work, published at Salamanca in 1547, the
earliest I have seen, the account (lib. xiv. cap. 4) runs thus :—‘‘ Ay assi mismo
enesta ysla vnos paxaricos tan negros como vn terciopelo negro muy bueno & son
tan pequefios que ningunos he yo visto en Indias menores/ excepto el que aca se
llama paxaro mosquito. El qual es tan pequefio que el bulto del es menor harto
0 assaz que le cabeca del dedo pulgar de la mano. Este no le he visto enesta Ysla
pero dizen me que aqui los ay: & por esso dexo de hablar enel pa lo dezir déde
los he visto que es en la tierra firme quado della se trate.” A modern Spanish
version of this passage will be found in the beautiful edition of Oviedo’s works
published by the Academy of Madrid in 1851 (i. p. 444).

4

442 HUMMING-BIRD

about the end of the year 1552.1. The name still survives in the
French Oiseau-mouche ; but the ordinary Spanish appellation is, and
long has been, Yominejo, from tomin, signifying a weight equal to
the third part of an adarme or drachm, and used metaphorically for
anything very small. Humming-birds, however, have been called
by a variety of other names, many of them derived from American
languages, such as Guainumbt, Ourissia and Colibri, to say nothing
of others bestowed upon them (chiefly from some peculiarity of
habit) by Europeans, like Picaflores, Chuparosa and Froufrou.
Barrere, in 1745, conceiving that Humming-birds were allied to the
Wren, the Trochilus, in part, of Pliny, applied that name in a
generic sense (Ornith. Spec. novum, pp. 47, 48) to both. Taking the
hint thus afforded, Linnzus very soon after went further, and,
excluding the Wrens, founded his genus 7’rochilus for the reception
of such Humming-birds as were known to him. The unfortunate
act of the great nomenclator cannot be set aside; and, since his
time, ornithologists with but few exceptions have followed his
example, so that nowadays Humming-birds are universally recog-
nized as forming the Family Z7vochilidz.

The relations of the Zrochilide to other birds were for a long
while very imperfectly understood. Nitzsch first drew attention to
their agreement in many essential characters with the Cypselidx
(Swirts), and placed the two Families in one group, which he
called Macrochires, from the great length of their manual bones, or
those forming the extremity of the wing. The name was perhaps
not very happily chosen, for it is not the distal portion that is so
much out of ordinary proportion to the size of the bird, but the
proximal and median portions, that in both Families are curiously

1 See also Prof. Morley’s Life of Girolamo Cardano (ii. pp. 152, 153).

2 Under this name Pliny perpetuated (Hist. Nat. viii. 25) the confusion that
had doubtless arisen before his time of two very distinct birds. As Sundevall
remarks (Z'entamen, p. 87 note), tpoxiAos was evidently the name commonly given
by the ancient Greeks to the smaller Plovers, and was not improperly applied by
Herodotus (ii. 68) to the species that feeds in the open mouth of the Crocodile—
the Pluvianus zgyptius of modern ornithologists—in which sense Aristotle (Hist.
‘Anim. ix. 6) also uses it. But the received text of Aristotle has two other
passages (ix. 1 and 11) wherein the word appears in a wholly different connexion,
and can there be only taken to mean the Wren—the usual Greek name of which
would seem to be épxiAos (Sundevall, Om Aristotl. Djwrarter, No. 54). Though
none of his editors or commentators have suggested the possibility of such a
thing, one can hardly help suspecting that in these passages some early copyist
has substituted tpoxidos for SpxAos, and so laid the foundation of a curious error.
It may be here remarked that the Crocodile of St. Domingo is said to have the
like office done for it by some kind of bird, which is called by Descourtilz
(Voyage, iii. p. 26) a “‘ Todier,” but, as Geoffr. St. Hilaire observes (Descr. de
VEgypte, ed. 2, xxiv. p. 440), is more probably a Plover. Unfortunately the
fauna of Hispaniola is not much better known now than in Oviedo’s days.

HUMMING-BIRD 443

dwarfed. Still the manus, in comparison with the other parts of
the wing, is so long that the term JJacrochires is not wholly in-
accurate. ‘The affinity of the Zrochilide and Cypselidx, once pointed
out, became obvious to most careful and unprejudiced investigators,
though there are a few systematists who refuse to admit its
validity.1_ More than this, it is confirmed by an examination of
other osteological characters. The “lines,” as a boat-builder would
say, upon which the skeleton of each form is constructed are pre-
cisely similar, only that whereas the bill is very short and the head
wide in the Swifts, in the Humming-birds the head is narrow and
the bill long—the latter developed to an extraordinary degree in
some of the Tvrochilidxy, rendering them the longest-billed birds
known.?__ Prof. Huxley considers these two Families, together
with the Caprimulgidx (NIGHTJAR), to form the division Cypselo-
morphxe—one of the two into which he separated his larger group
Ajgithognathe. However, the most noticeable portion of the
Humming-bird’s skeleton is the sternwm, which in proportion to
the size of the bird is enormously developed both longitudinally
and vertically, its deep keel and posterior protraction affording
abundant space for the powerful muscles which drive the wings in
their rapid vibrations as the little creature poises itself over the
flowers where it finds its food.*

So far as is known, all Humming-birds possess a protrusible
tongue, in conformation peculiar among the Class Aves, though to
some extent similar to that member in the Picidw (WOODPECKER)?
—the “horns” of the HYOID apparatus upon which it is seated
being greatly elongated, passing round and over the back part of
the head, near the top of which they meet, and thence proceed
forward, lodged in a broad and deep groove, till they terminate in
front of the eyes. But, unlike the tongue of the Woodpeckers,
that of the Humming-birds consists of two cylindrical tubes, taper-
ing towards the point, and forming two sheaths which contain the
extensile portion, and are capable of separation, thereby facilitating
the extraction of honey from the nectaries of flowers, and with it,
what is of far greater importance for the bird’s sustenance, the

1 Especially Dr. Shufeldt (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1885, pp. 886-915, pls. lviii.-lxi., and
Journ. Linn. Soc. xx. pp. 299-894, pls. xxi.-xxiv:) On the other side may be
cited the views of Mr. Lucas (Auk, 1886, pp. 444-451).

2 Thus Docimastes ensifer, in which the bill is longer than both head and
body together.

3 This is especially the case with the smaller species of the group, for the
larger, though shooting with equal celerity from place to place, seem to flap
their wings with comparatively slow but not less powerful strokes. The differ-
ence was especially observed with respect to the largest of all Humming-birds,
Patagona gigas, by Mr. Darwin.

4 The resemblance, so far as it exists, must be merely the result of analogical
function, and certainly indicates no affinity between the Families.

444 HUMMING-BIRD

small insects that have been attracted to feed upon the honey.?
These, on the tongue being withdrawn into the bill, are caught by
the mandibles (furnished in the males of many species with fine,
horny, saw-like teeth?), and swallowed in the usual way. The
stomach is small, moderately muscular, and with the inner coat
slightly hardened. There seem to be no ceca. The trachea is
remarkably short, the bronchi beginning high up on the throat, and
song-muscles are wholly wanting, as in all other Cypselomorphex.®
Humming-birds, as is well known, comprehend the smallest
members of the Class Aves. The largest among them measures no
more than 8 inches and a half,* and the least 2 inches and three-
eighths in length, for it is now admitted generally that Sloane
must have been in error when he described (Voyage, ii. p. 308) the
“Least Humming-bird of Jamaica” as “about 14 inch long from
the end of the bill to that of the tail”—unless, indeed, he meant
the proximal end of each, an interpretation, however, that will not
save Edwards and Latham from the charge of careless misstate-
ment, when they declare that they had received such a bird from
that island. Next to their generally small size, the best known
characteristic of the 7Trochilide is the wonderful brilliancy of the
plumage of nearly all their forms, in which respect they are sur-
passed by no other birds, and are only equalled by a few, as, for
instance, by the Nectariniide (SUN-BIRD) of the tropical parts of
the Old World, in popular belief so often confounded with them,
and even by some mistaken naturalists thought to be their allies.
The number of species of Humming-birds now known to exist
considerably exceeds 400; and, though none depart very widely
from what a morphologist would deem the typical structure of the
Family, the amount of modification, within certain limits, presented
by the various forms is surprising and even bewildering to the un-
initiated. But the features that are ordinarily chosen by systematic
ornithologists in drawing up their schemes of classification are

1 It is probable that in various members of the Zrochilidx the structure of
the tongue, and other parts correlated therewith, will be found subject to several
and perhaps considerable modifications, as is the case in various members of the
Picide. At present there are scarcely more than half a dozen species of Humming-
birds of which it can be said that any part of their anatomy is known.

2 These are very plain in Rhkamphodon nevius and Androdon xquatorialis.

3 Gosse (B. Jamaica, p. 180) says that Mellisuga minima, the smallest species
of the Family, has ‘‘a real song”’—but the like is not recorded of any other.

4 There are several species in which the tail is very much elongated, such
as the well-known Aithurus polytmus of Jamaica, and the remarkable Loddigesia
mirabilis of Chachapoyas in Peru, which last was for many years only known
from a unique specimen (Zd7s, 1880, p. 152; Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881, pp. 827-834,
fig.) ; but ‘‘trochilidists” in giving their measurements do not take these extra-
ordinary developments into account.

HUMMING-BIRD 445

found by the “trochilidists,” or special students of the 77ochilidz,
insufficient for the purpose of arranging these birds in groups, and
characters on which genera can be founded have to be sought in
the style and coloration of plumage, as well as in the form and
proportions of those parts which are most generally deemed
sufficient to furnish them. Looking to the large number of species
to be taken into account, convenience has demanded what science
would withhold, and the genera established by the ornithologists of
a preceding generation have been broken up by their successors
into multitudinous sections—the more adventurous making from
150 to 180 of such groups, the modest being content with 120 or
thereabouts, but the last dignifying each of them by the title of
genus. It is of course obvious that these small divisions cannot
be here considered in detail, nor would much advantage accrue by
giving statistics from the works of the latest trochilidists, Messrs.
Gould,! Mulsant,? and Elliot.2 It would be as unprofitable here
to trace the successive steps by which the original genus 7’rochilus
of Linneus, or the two genera Polytmus and Mellisuga of Brisson,
have been split into others, or have been added to, by modern
writers, for not one of these professes to have arrived at any final,
but only a provisional, arrangement ; it seems, however, expedient
to notice the fact that some of the authors of the last century
supposed themselves to have seen the way to dividing what we
now know as the Family Trochilidx into two groups, the distinction
between which was that in the one the bill was arched and in the
other straight, since that difference has been insisted on in many
works. This was especially the view taken by Brisson and Buffon,
who termed the birds having the arched bill “ Colibris,” and those
having it straight “ Oiseawa-mouches.” The distinction wholly
breaks down, not merely because there are Tyochilidx which possess
almost every gradation of decurvation of the bill, but some which
have the bill upturned after the manner of an Avoset,® while
it may be remarked that several of the species placed by those
authorities among the “Colibris” are not Humming-birds at all.®

1 4 Monograph of the Trochilide or Humming-birds, 5 vols. imp. fol.
London: 1861 (with Introduction in 8vo).

2 Histoire naturelle des Oiseaux-Mouches ou Colibris, 4 vols. with supplement,
imp. 4to, Lyon-Genéve-Bale: 1874-77.

3 Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, No. 317, A Classification and
Synopsis of the Trochilidz, 1 vol. imp. 4to, Washington: 1879.

+ Salerne must be excepted, especially as he was rebuked by Buffon for doing
what we now deem right.

5 For example Avocettula recurvirostris of Guiana and A. ewryptera of
Colombia.

6 Mr. Salvin’s list (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xvi. pp. 27-433), and Mr. Ridgway’s
work (Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1890, pp. 253-380) can only be named here, as neither
appeared in time for the results to be utilized in this article.

446 HUM MING-BIRD

The extraordinarily brilliant plumage which most of the 7'rochi-
lide exhibit has been already mentioned, and in describing it
ornithologists have been compelled to adopt the vocabulary of the
jeweller in order to give an idea of the indescribable radiance that
so often breaks forth from some part or other of the investments
of these feathered gems. In all save a few of other birds, the most
imaginative writer sees gleams which he may adequately designate
metallic, from their resemblance to burnished gold, bronze, copper,
or steel, but such similitudes wholly fail when he has to do with
the Trochilidy, and there is hardly a precious stone—ruby, ame-
thyst, sapphire, emerald, or topaz—the name of which may not
fitly, and without exaggeration, be employed in regard to Hum-
ming-birds. In some cases this radiance beams from the brow, in
some it glows from the throat, in others it shines from the fae
coverts, in others it sparkles from the tip only of elongated feathers
that crest the head or surround the neck as with a frill, while
again in others it may appear as a luminous streak across the cheek
or auriculars. The feathers that cover the upper parts of the
body very frequently have a metallic lustre of golden-green, which
in other birds would be thought sufficiently beautiful, but in the
Trochilide its sheen is overpowered by the almost dazzling splen-
dour that radiates from the spots where Nature’s lapidary has set
her jewels. ‘The flight-feathers are almost invariably dusky—the
rapidity of their movement would, perhaps, render any display of
colour ineffective ; while, on the contrary, the feathers of the tail,
which, as the bird hovers over its food-bearing flowers, is almost
always expanded, and is therefore comparatively motionless, often
exhibit a rich translucency, as of stained glass, but iridescent i ina
manner that no stained glass ever is—cinnamon merging into
crimson, crimson changing to purple, purple to violet, and so to
indigo and hottle-ereen. But this part of the Humming-bird is
subject to quite as much modification in form as in colour, though
always consisting of ten rectrices. It may be nearly square, or at
least but slightly rounded, or wedge- shaped with the middle quills
prolonged beyond the rest; or, again, it may be deeply forked,
sometimes by the overgrowth of one or more of the intermediate
pairs, but most generally by the development of the outer pair.
In the last case the lateral feathers may be either broadly webbed
to their tip, or acuminate, or again, in some forms, may lessen to
the filiform shaft, and suddenly enlarge into a terminal spatulation
as in the forms known as “ Racquet-tails.”” The wings do not offer
so much variation; still there are a few groups in which occur
diversities that require notice. The primaries are invariably ten
in number, the outermost being the longest, except in the single
instance of Aithurus, where it is shorter than the next. The group
known as “Sabre-wings,” comprising the genera Campylopterus,

HUMMING-BIRD 447

Eupetomena and Sphenoproctus, present a most curious sexual
peculiarity, for while the female has nothing remarkable in the
form of the wing, in the male the shaft of two or three of the
outer primaries is dilated proximally, and bowed near the middle
in a manner almost unique among birds. The feet again, diminu-
tive as they are, are very diversified in form. In most the tarsus
is bare, but in some groups, as Hriocnemis, it is clothed with tufts of
the most delicate down, sometimes black, sometimes buff, but more
often of a snowy whiteness. In some the toes are weak, nearly
equal in length, and furnished with small rounded nails; in others
they are largely developed, and armed with long and sharp claws.

Apart from the well-known brilliancy of plumage, of which
enough has been here said, many Humming-birds display a large
amount of ornamentation in the addition to their attire of crests of
various shape and size, elongated ear-tufts, projecting neck-frills,
and pendent beards—forked or forming a single point. But it
would be impossible here to dwell on a tenth of these beautiful
modifications, each of which as it comes to our knowledge excites
fresh surprise and exemplifies the ancient adage—mazime miranda
in minimis Natura. It must be remarked, however, that there are
certain forms which possess little or no brilliant colouring at all,
but, as most tropical birds go, are very soberly clad. These are
known to trochilidists as “ Hermits,” and by Mr. Gould have been
separated as a subfamily under the name of Phaethornithinx, though
Mr. Elliot says he cannot find any characters to distinguish it from
the Trochilidz proper. But sight is not the only sense that is affected
by Humming-birds. The large species known as Pterophanes
temmincki has a strong musky odour, very similar to that given off
by the Petrels, though, so far as appears to be known, that is the
only one of them that possesses this property.!

All well-informed people are aware that the Tvochilidw are a
Family peculiar to America and its islands, but one of the com-
monest of common errors is the belief that Humming-birds are found
in Africa and India—to say nothing even of England. In the first
two cases the mistake arises from confounding them with some of
the brightly-coloured Nectariniide (SUN-BIRD), to which British
colonists or residents are apt to apply the better-known name; but
in the last it can be only due to the want of perception which dis-
ables the observer from distinguishing between a bird and an insect

1 The specific name of a species of Chrysolampis, commonly spelt by many
writers moschitus, would lead to the belief that it was a mistake for moschatus,
i.e. “musky,” but in truth it originates with their carelessness, for though they
quote Linnzus as their authority they can never have referred to his works, or
they would have found the word to be mosquitus, the ‘‘mosquito” of Oviedo,
awkwardly, it is true, Latinized. If emendation be needed, muscatus, after
Gesner’s example, is undoubtedly preferable,

448 HUMMING-BIRD

—the object seen being a Hawk-Moth (Jucroglossa), whose mode of
feeding and rapid flight certainly bears some resemblance to that of
the Trochilidx, and hence one of the species (JZ. stellarwm) is very
generally called the “Humming-bird Hawk-Moth.” But though
confined to the New World, the Yrochilidw pervade almost every
part of it. In the south Hustephanus galeritus has been seen flitting
about the fuchsias of Tierra del Fuego in a snowstorm, and in the
north-west Selatophorus ! rufus in summer visits the ribes-blossoms of
Sitka, while in the north-east Trochilus colubris charms the vision of

MELLISUGA MINIMA ON NEST, natural size. (After Gosse.)

Canadians as it poises itself over the althzea-bushes in their gardens,
and extends its range at least so far as lat. 57° N. Nor is the
distribution of Humming-birds limited to a horizontal direction
only, it rises also vertically. Oreotrochilus chimborazo and O. pichincha
live on the lofty mountains whence each takes its trivial name, but
just beneath the line of perpetual snow, at an elevation of some
16,000 feet, dwelling in a world of almost constant hail, sleet and
rain, and feeding on the insects which resort to the indigenous
flowering plants, while other peaks, only inferior to these in height,
are no less frequented by one or more species. Peru and Bolivia
produce some of the most splendid of the Family—the genera

* Commonly but in error written Selasphorus,

HUM MING-BIRD 449

Cometes, Diphlogena and Thaumastura, whose very names indicate
the glories of their bearers. The comparatively gigantic Patagona
inhabits the west coast of South America, while the isolated rocks
of Juan Fernandez not only afford a home to the Hustephanus before
mentioned, but also to two other species of the same genus which
are not found elsewhere. The slopes of the Northern Andes and
the hill country of Colombia furnish perhaps the greatest number of
forms, and some of the most beautiful, but leaving that great range,
we part company with the largest and most gorgeously arrayed

PHAETHORNIS EURYNOME, AND NEsT. (After Gould.)

species, and their number dwindles as we approach the eastern
coast. Still there are many brilliant Humming-birds common
enough in the Brazils, Guiana and Venezuela. The Chrysolampis
mosquitus is perhaps the most plentiful. Thousands of its skins are
annually sent to Europe to be used in the manufacture of ornaments,
its rich ruby-and-topaz glow rendering it one of the most beautiful
objects imaginable. In the darkest depths of the Brazilian forests
dwell the russet-clothed brotherhood of the genus Phaethornis—the
“Hermits” ; but the great wooded basin of the Amazons seems to
be particularly unfavourable to the Zvochilidx, and from Para to
Ega there are scarcely a dozen species to be met with, There is

29

450 HUMMING-BIRD

no island of the Antilles but is inhabited by one or more Humming-
birds, and there are some very remarkable singularities of geo-
graphical distribution to be found. Northwards from Panama, the
highlands present many genera, whose names it would be useless
here to insert, few or none of which are found in South America—
though that must unquestionably be deemed the metropolis of the
Family, and advancing towards Mexico the numbers gradually fall
off. Seventeen species have been enrolled in the fauna of the
United States, but some perhaps on slender evidence, while others
only just cross the frontier line.

But little room is left to speak of the habits of Humming-birds,
which is perhaps of the less consequence since the subject, as regards
most of the species which in life have come under the observation
of ornithologists, has been so ably treated by writers like Waterton,
Wilson, and Audubon, to say nothing of Gosse, Bates, Mr. Wallace,
and some others, while, whatever novelty further investigation may
supply, it is certain that at present we lack information that will
explain the origin or the function of the many modifications of
external structure of which mention has been made. But there is
no one appreciative of the beauties of nature who will not recall to
memory with delight the time when a live Humming-bird first met
his gaze. The suddenness of the apparition, even when expected,
and its brief duration, are alone enough to fix the fluttering vision
on the mind’s eye. The wings of the bird, if flying, are only
visible as a thin grey film, bounded above and below by fine black
threads, in form of a St. Andrew’s cross,—the effect on the observer’s
retina of the instantaneous reversal of the motion of the wing at
each beat—the strokes being so rapid as to leave no more distinct
image. Consequently an adequate representation of the bird on the
wing cannot be produced by the draughtsman. Humming-birds
shew to the greatest advantage when engaged in contest with
another, for rival cocks fight fiercely, and, as may be expected, it
is then that their plumage flashes with the most glowing tints. But
these are quite invisible to the ordinary spectator except when very
near at hand, though doubtless efficient enough for their object,
whether that be to inflame their mate or to irritate or daunt their
opponent, or something that we cannot compass. Humming-birds,
however, will also often sit still for a while, chiefly in an exposed
position, on a dead twig, occasionally darting into the air, either
to catch a passing insect or to encounter an adversary ; and so
pugnacious are they that they will frequently attack birds many
times bigger than themselves, without, as would seem, any pro-
vocation.

The food of Humming-birds consists mainly of insects, mostly
gathered in the manner already described from the flowers they
visit ; but, according to Mr. Wallace, there are many species which

HURGILA—HYLACOLA 451

he has never seen so occupied, and the “ Hermits” especially seem
to live almost entirely upon the insects which are found on the
lower surface of leaves, over which they will closely pass their bill,
balancing themselves the while vertically in the air. The same
excellent observer also remarks that even among the common flower-
frequenting species he has found the alimentary canal entirely filled
with insects, and very rarely a trace of honey. It is this fact
doubtless that has hindered almost all attempts at keeping them in
confinement for any length of time—nearly every one making the
experiment having fed his captives only with syrup, which is wholly
insufficient as sustenance, and seeing therefore the wretched creatures
gradually sink into inanition and die of hunger.

The beautiful nests of Humming-birds, than which the work of
fairies could not be conceived more delicate, are to be seen in most
museums, and will be found on examination to be very solidly and
tenaciously built, though the materials are generally of the slightest
—cotton-wool or some vegetable down and spiders’ webs. They
vary greatly in form and ornamentation—for it would seem that
the portions of lichen which frequently bestud them are affixed to
their exterior with that object, though probably concealment was
the original intention. They are mostly cup-shaped, and the singular
fact is on record (Zool. Journal, v. p. 1) that in one instance as the
young grew in size the walls were heightened by the parents, until
at last the nest was more than twice as big as when the eggs were
laid and hatched. Some species, however, suspend their nests from
the stem or tendril of a climbing plant, and more than one case
has been known in which it has been attached to a hanging rope.
These pensile nests are said to have been found loaded on one side
with a small stone or bits of earth to ensure their safe balance,
though how the compensatory process is applied no one can say.
Other species, and especially those belonging to the “Hermit”
group, weave a frail structure round the side of a drooping palm-
leaf. The eggs are never more than two in number, quite white,
and having both ends nearly equal. The solicitude for her offspring
displayed by the mother is not exceeded by that of any other birds, but
it seems doubtful whether the male takes any interest in the brood.

HURGILA, Hind. Hargila, see ADJUTANT.
HURRICANE-BIRD, see FRIGATE-BIRD.

HYLACOLA, Gould’s. name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1842, p. 135) for a
genus of Australian birds, and subsequently used by him and others
as English. It has been placed near Aérichia (SCRUB-BIRD) ; but
its true position is unknown. There are two species, one, //. cauta,
confined to South Australia and Victoria, the other, H. erythropygia,
of wider range. Gould saw in them some resemblance to the

452 HYOID

Hedge-Sparrow as they rapidly trip on the ground or, along the
horizontal branches of fallen trees ; but unlike that bird they carry
the tail erect. Mr. Ramsay has described (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.
Wales, ii. p. 109) their nest and eggs: the former has a dome,
and the latter, like those of so many Australian small birds, are
salmon-coloured with light chocolate-brown markings. The males
have an agreeable song.

HYOID (Greek soediys, shaped like Y) Apparatus, the collective

Gecinus. Dorsal view. PHENICOPTERUS, dorsal, and left Common Fowl.
lateral view of Corpus and Urohyal.

bb. Basibranchial ; c. Corpus linguz or Basihyal; cb. Ceratobranchial; ent. Os entoglossum ;
u.h. Urohyal.

name of the cartilaginous and bony framework of the tongue, con-
sisting of

HYOID 453

(1) the “ Basihyal” (copula or corpus lingux) or unpaired middle
portion, forming the basis of the framework ;

(2) the “ Urohyal,” likewise unpaired, applied to the posterior
end of the former, often wholly cartilaginous, and resting ventrally on
the larynx, to which it is attached by muscles or ordinary connective
tissue. In a few forms as Rhea, Sula and the Picide, it is absent ;

(3) the “ Os entoglossum,” originally paired, but coalescing into an
arrow-headed piece, attached to the anterior end of the basihyal,
and lodged in the tongue proper. Equivalent to the ceratohyals,
or anterior hyoid horns of Mammals ;

CyYPSELUS.
Dorsal view.

Strrincops. Ventral view. Ruea. Dorsal view.

bb. Basibranchial ; c. Corpus lingue or Basihyal; cb. Ceratobranchial ; ent. Os entoglossum ;
u.h. Urohyal.

(4) a pair of “Thyrohyals,” homologous with the posterior
hyoid horns of Mammals ; and, as the most developed pair in Birds,
commonly called the “Hyoid Horns.” Each of them consists of
two or three pieces, placed end to end, of which the basal one articu-
lates upon a facet of the posterior lateral corner of the basihyal.

From the unpublished papers of Nitzsch, Giebel in 1858
described and figured (Zeitschr. ges. Naturwissensch, x1. pp. 19-51, tabb.
i.-vill.) the Hyoid bones of a great many birds, drawing attention
to the taxonomic value of the modifications they present. Thus is
shewn an unmistakable resemblance between Steganopodes and
Tubinares, between Gulls, Guillemots and Divers, between Glareola
and (Hdicnemus, Menura and the true Oscines, while on the other
hand it is easy to distinguish the Hyoid apparatus of Panurus from
those of the Paridx, and occasionally even closely allied species, as

454 HYPOPTERON—IBIS

the Martin and the Swallow, exhibit marked differences, and some
of those observed in the Picidx are described by Macgillivray
(Audubon, Orn. biogr. v. pp. 542, 543, and B. Am. iv. pp. 223,
224, 289).

HYPOPTERON, Sundevall’s name for the lower humeral
coverts (see AXILLA).

I

IBIS, one of the most sacred birds of the ancient Egyptians,
which in modern times was identified by Bruce (Zvravels, v. p. 1738,
pl.) with the Abou-Hannes or “Father John” of the Abyssinians,
and in 1790 received from Latham (Jnd. Orn. p. 706) the name of
Tantalus axthiopicus. This determination was placed beyond all
question by Cuvier (Ann. du Muséum, iv. pp. 116-135) and Savigny
(Hist. Nat. et Mythol. de Ibis) in 1805. They, however, shewed the
removal of the bird from the Linnean genus Zantalus to be neces-
sary, and, Lacépéde having some years before founded a genus
Ibis, it was transferred thither, and is now generally known as J.
xthiopica, though some speak of it as J. religiosa. No useful purpose
would be served by dwelling on the vain attempts of older writers
to discover what the much venerated bird was, as on that score all
doubt has long ceased, or on the other synonyms applied to it by
later ornithologists, some of whom (and among them not the most
remote) have shewn little acquaintance with the literature of the
subject. Nor can the Ibis be here treated from a mythological or
antiquarian point of view. Savigny’s memoir (above noticed) con-
tains much interesting matter on the subject. Wilkinson (Ancient
Egyptians, ser. 2, ii. pp. 217-224) has thereto added some of the
results of modern research, and latest of all Mr. Renouf in the
Hibbert Lectures for 1879 (pp. 116 and 237) concisely explains how
the bird came to be regarded as representing Thoth or Tehuti, the
moon-deity.

The Ibis is chiefly an inhabitant of the Nile basin in Nubia,
from Dongola southward, as well as of Kordofan and Sennaar ;
whence (according to Savigny, whose opportunities for observation
seem to have been greater than those enjoyed by any European
since his time) about midsummer, as the river rises, it moves north-
wards to Egypt, and reaches the delta,’ passing over the inter-

1 Tt has been said to occur occasionally in Europe (Greece and southern
Russia), but further evidence is needed before the assertion can be taken as
proved.

IBIS 455
mediate districts, in a way not unknown elsewhere among migratory
birds. In Lower Egypt it bears the name of Abou-mengel, or
“Father of the Sickle,’ from the form of its bill, but it does not
stay long in that country, disappearing by all accounts when the
inundation has subsided. Hence doubtless arises the fact that
almost all European travellers have failed to meet with it there,’
since their acquaintance with the birds of Egypt is mostly limited
to those which frequent the country in winter, and consequently
writers have not been wanting to deny to this species a place in its
modern fauna (cf. Shelley, B. ELyypt, p. 261); but, in December
1864, Von Heuglin (Journ. fiir Orn. 1865, p. 100) saw a young
bird which had been shot at Gata in the delta, and subsequently
Mr. E. C. Taylor (Ibis, 1878, p. 372) saw an adult which had been
killed near Lake Menzaleh in November 1877. ‘The old story
told to Herodotus of its destroying snakes is, according to Savigny,
devoid of truth,? and that naturalist found, from dissection of the
examples he obtained, that its usual food was fresh-water univalve
mollusks; but Cuvier asserts that he discovered partly-digested
remains of a snake in the stomach of a mummied Ibis which he
examined, and there can be little doubt that insects and crustaceans,
to say nothing of other living creatures, enter on occasion into the
bird’s diet.

The Ibis is somewhat larger than a Curlew, Numenius arquata,
which bird it in appearance calls to mind, with a much stouter bill
and stouter legs. The head and greater part of the neck are bare
and black. The plumage is white, except the primaries which are
black, and a black plume, richly glossed with bronze, blue and
green, which curves gracefully over the hind-quarters. The bill
and feet are also black. The young lack the ornamental plume,
and in them the head and neck are clothed with short black
feathers, while the bill is yellow. The nest is placed in bushes or
high trees, the bird generally building in companies, and in the
middle of August Von Heuglin (Orn. Nordost-Afrika’s, p. 1138)
found that it had from two to four young or much incubated eggs.
These are of a dingy white, splashed, spotted, and speckled with
reddish-brown.

Congeneric with the typical Ibis are two or three other species,

1 Mr. E. C. Taylor remarked some years ago (Jbis, 1859, p. 51), that the
Buff-backed Heron, Ardea bubuleus, was made by the tourists’ dragomans to do
duty for the ‘‘ Sacred Ibis,” and this seems to be no novel practice, since by it,
or something like it, Hasselqvist was misled, and through him Linnzus.

2 The suggestion that the ‘flying serpents” whose remains were seen by
Herodotus (Hut. 75) were locusts is perhaps plausible, but there is considerable
difficulty in accepting it.

3 The Ibis has more than once nested in the gardens of the Zoological Society,
and even reared its young there (Ibis, 1878, pp. 449-451, pl. xii.)

456 IBIS
the F. melanocephala of India, the £ molucca, or ‘i strictipennis, of
Australia, and the §. bernieri of Madagascar, all of which closely
resemble §. xthiopica; while many other forms not very far re-
moved from it, though placed by authors in distinct genera,! are
also known. Among these are several beautiful species such as the
Japanese Creronticus nippon, the Lophotibis cristata of Madagascar, and
the Scarlet Ibis,? Hudocimus ruber, of America; but here there is
only room to mention more particularly the Glossy Ibis, Plegadis
falcinellus, a species of very wide distribution in both hemispheres,
being found throughout the Antilles, Central and the south-eastern
part of North America, as well as in many parts of Europe (whence
it not unfrequently strays to the British Islands), Africa, Asia and
Australia. This bird, which is no doubt the second kind of Ibis
spoken of by Herodotus, is rather smaller than the Sacred Ibis, and
mostly of a dark chestnut or deep bay colour with brilliant green
and purple reflexions on the upper parts, exhibiting, however,
when young little of this glossiness. One of the most remarkable
things about this species is that it lays eggs of a deep sea-green
colour, having wholly the character of Herons’ eggs, and it is to be
noticed that it often breeds in company with Herons, while the
eggs of all other Ibises whose eggs are known, ‘resemble those of
the Sacred Ibis. Congeneric with the Glossy Ibis, some three or
four other species, all from South America, have been described ;
but the propriety of deeming them distinct is questioned by some
authorities.

Much as the Ibises resemble the Curlews externally, there is no
real affinity between them. The Jbididx are more nearly related to
the Ciconiidz (STORK), and still more to the Plataleidx (SPOONBILL),
with which latter many systematists consider them to form one
group, the Hemiglottides of Nitzsch. They belong to the Pelargo-
morphx of Prof. Huxley, one of the divisions of his Desmognathe,
while the Curlews are Schizognathous. The true Ibises above
spoken of are also to be clearly separated from the Wood-lbises,
Tantaidx, of which there are four or five species, by several not
unimportant structural characters, which cannot here be particu-
larized for want of space. Fossil remains of a true Ibis, J. pagana,
have been found in considerable numbers in the middle Tertiary
beds of France. »

1 For some account of these may be consulted Dr. Reichenow’s paper in
Journ, fiir Orn. 1877, pp. 143-156; Mr. Elliot’s in Proc. Zool. Society, 1877,
pp. 477-510; and that of M. Oustalet in Nowy. Arch. du Muséum, ser. 2, 1.
pp. 167-184.

* It is a popular error—especially among painters, as almost every annual
exhibition of the Royal Academy witnesses—that this bird was the Sacred Ibis
of the Egyptians. It was of course utterly unkuown in the Old World until the
discovery of the New.

IBVCTER—ICTERUS 457

IBYCTER, see CARACARA.
ICTERIA, see CHAT.

ICTERUS, a bird so called by classical authors, and supposed
by Pliny to be the same as the Galgulus, which nearly all writers
agree in considering to be what we now know as Oriolus galbula
(ORIOLE). At any rate it signified one in the plumage of which
yellow or green predominated, and hence Brisson did not take an
unhappy liberty when he applied it in a
scientific sense to some birds of the New
World of which the same could be said.
These are now held to constitute a distinct
Family, Icteridex ; and, while many of them
bear the vulgar name of Troopials (the English
equivalent of the French Troupiales, first used
by Brisson), others are known as the American
GRACKLES. The typical species of Jcterus is
the Oriolus icterus of Linneus, the Icterus
vulgaris of Daudin and modern ornithologists,
an inhabitant of northern Brazil, Guiana,
Venezuela, which seems to have been intro-
duced into some of the Antilles, and occa-
sionally, it is said, visits the United States.
Thirty-eight species of the genus Jcferus alone, and ninety others
belonging to 28 genera, are recognized by Mr. Sclater (Cat. Bb. Br.
Mus. xi. pp. 308-405), most of them belonging to the Neotropical
Region, though a few have their home to the northward, whither
they repair to breed in summer. It would be impossible here to
dwell upon them, but Hucorystes, Cassicus and Ageleus may perhaps be
named as the most remarkable. They are nearly all gregarious
birds, many of them with loud and melodious notes, rendering them

IctERUS. (After Swainson.)

AGELEUS. (After Swainson.) STURNELLA,

favourites in captivity, for they readily learn to whistle simple tunes,
which are admirably reproduced by their clear voice. Some have
a plumage wholly black, others are richly clad, as is the well-known
Baltimore Oriole, Golden Robin, or Hangnest of the United States,

458 ICTINIA—IMPEVAN

Icterus baltimore, whose brightly contrasted black and orange have
conferred upon it the name it most commonly bears in North
America, those colours being, says Catesby (B. Carol. i. p. 48), the
tinctures of the armorial bearings of the Calverts, Lords Baltimore,
the original grantees of Maryland, but probably more correctly those
of their liveries. The most divergent form of Icteridxw seems to be
Sturnella} (though Leistes comes near it in that respect), containing
some four or five species or local races, of which the Meadow-Lark,
S. magna or ludoviciana of North America, and its western ally S. neglecta
are the best known. These are birds which in aspect and habits
have considerable resemblance to the Alaudidz (LARK) of the Old
World, and a still greater outward likeness to the members of the
African and especially Caffrarian genus Macronyz (KALKOENTJE),
usually referred to the Motacillide (WAGTAIL), though there can
be no affinity between them.? Dolichonyx oryzivorus, the BOBOLINK
or Rice-bird, with its very Bunting-like bill, is not much less
aberrant. The genus Molobrus containing, among other species of
parasitic habits, the well-known Cowpen-bird (Cow-BIrD) of North
America, also belongs to this Family. The Icteridx are commonly
supposed to represent in the New World the Sturnidx (STARLING)
of the Old; but no clear affinity between them seems to have been
proved, while by several characters the former are clearly allied
to the Emberizidx (BUNTING).

ICTINIA, see KITE.

IDLE JACK, a local name in the Cape Colony for Sphenwacus
africanus (GRASS-BIRD).

ILEUM, part of the intestine (see DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, p. 138) ;
but

ILIUM, or os ilei, the most dorsal and largest of the three bones
on each side of the PELVIS, which it connects with the sacral
vertebre.

IMBER- or IMMER-GOOSE, see EMBER GOOSE.

IMPENNES, Illiger’s name in 1811 for a “Family” of Birds
consisting of the genus Aptenodytes, and since often employed as
that of the group containing the PENGUINS.

IMPEYAN, mistakenly used by the ignorant, as though a sub-
stantive, for any species of Lophophorus, the first s#d=bes¢-known of

1 Truptialis has been separated from Sturnella on very slight grounds.

2 It is impossible not to remark on the coincidence of this resemblance (so
striking that did the birds occur in the same area it would be set down to
Mimicry) with that afforded by the American genus Colaptes (FLICKER) and the
South-African Geocolapies already mentioned (supra, p. 260).

INDEX—INTESTINES 459

which, L. impeianus (MONAL) was brought into notice by Sir Elijah
and Lady Impey (¢f. Latham, Gen. Synops. B. Suppl. p. 209).

INDEX, the second finger, in Birds always the best developed
of the digits of the fore-limb. It frequently possesses the original
number of three phalanges, and often bears a horny CLAW, especially
in Ravir# and in the embryos of Accipitres and Anseres (see
SKELETON).

INDIGO-BIRD, so called from its deep blue colour, in part
tinged with green, a well-known North-American species, the
Cyanospiza, Spiza or Passerina of modern authors,! belonging to a
small group of Finches or Buntings (for anatomy has not decided
which), mostly of great beauty, rivalling some of the Tanagers in
their bright plumage. American ornithologists give full accounts
of the habits of this bird, together with those of its equally gay
congener the Lazuli Finch, C. amena, and the still more gaudy
Painted Bunting or NONPAREIL, C. ciris.

INEPTI, Illiger’s name in 1811 for a “Family” of Birds
consisting of the genus Didus (Dopo).

INERTES, an “Order” proposed by Temminck in 1820 to
contain the genera Apteryx (Kiwi) and Didus (Dopo).

INSECTIVORES, Temminck’s third “ Order” of Birds in 18202
(Man. d’Orn. ed. 2, i. pp. lvi-lxix. and 139), a name that has
been used by a few other writers, but long since disregarded, not
only as containing a very unnatural congeries of Birds, but as having
been anticipated in 1817 by Cuvier’s Order of Mammals, Jnsectivora.

INSESSORES,? the name given by Vigors in 1823 (Trans.
Linn. Soc. xiv. p. 405) to the second Order of Birds in his classifica-
tion containing nearly all the Pica and Passrres of Linneus, and
practically equal to the Ambulatores of Illiger. Though long
accepted without hesitation by most British | and many foreien
authors, the composite nature of the group has now been recognized,
and the use of the name is generally abandoned.

INTESTINES originally signified all the soft parts within the

1 Cyanospiza seems to be the right name, since Bonaparte in 1827 expressly
stated (Specchio Comp. Orn. di Roma e di Filadelfia, p. 47) that the type of his
Spiza was the Emberiza americana of Gmelin, which is not congeneric with the
present species, though afterwards (Comp. List B. Eur. & N. Am. p. 35) retain-
ing Spiza for this group. Passerina though older than either is by ancient
practice wholly inadmissible, having been long before used in Botany.

2 Often stated to have been given by him in 1815 (Man. d@’Orn. ed. 1, p. xx.).
but he then used Canori for what is practically the same group.

3 From the Latin inszdére to perch, not tncedere to walk, as is often supposed.

460 7. IRIS—IVORY-BILL

body, but generally now restricted to the organs of the DIGESTIVE
SYSTEM.

IRIS (plural Irides), the coloured ring surrounding the pupil of
the EYE.

IRRISOR, the generic name, since adopted as English, pro-
posed by Lesson in 1831 (Zraité @ Orn. p. 239) for an African bird,
the Upupa erythrorhynchus of Latham, which had hitherto been so
variously assigned that its affinities were uncertain, and so they
remained until Dr. Murie (Jhis, 1873, pp. 181-211, pls. v.-vii.)
proved that the surmise of its original describer and of Strickland
(Ann. Nat. Hist. xu. pp. 238-243) in referring it to the Upupide
(Hoopor) was not far wrong, though, along with Rhinopomastus an
allied genus named by Andrew Smith and established by Jardine
in 1828 (Zool. Journ. iv. p. 2, pl. 1.), it might be justifiably placed in
a separate Family. No fewer than 10 species of Jrrisor, one of
which has been further generically distinguished as Scoptelus, have
been described, and 3 of Rhinopomastus; but perhaps there are
not really so many. All are African, recognizable by their more
or less curved bill, glossy purple or steel-blue plumage, with a white
patch on the wing, and white on at least the outer feathers of the
tail, which is commonly elongated. They are wholly arboreal in
their habits, thereby differing from the Upudidx, and unceasingly
seek their food in the insects that frequent the bark of trees. The
commonest species of the Cape Colony, J. erythrorhynchus has, ac-
cording to Mr. Layard (B. S. Africa, p. 73), a harsh cry, and is
ealled by the Dutch Kackela, meaning “chatterer.” Another, £.
cyanomelas, also occurs in South Africa.

ISCHIUM, or Os ischii, the posterior and ventral, or middle
bone of the three that form each half of the PELVIS, and meet at
the acetabulum or cup which receives the head of the FEMUR.

IVORY-BILL, an abbreviation of Ivory-billed WoopPEcKER,
so called from the colour of its beak, Picus or Campephilus prin-
cipalis, the largest
species of the
Family inhabiting
the United States
of America, and
except its more
southern relative P. or C. imperialis the largest of the Picidz.
Though said to have been met with in Maryland, North Carolina
seems to be the northern limit of its ordinary range in the east, and

CAMPEPHILUS PRINCIPALIS. (After Swainson.)

' In this case the name of the Family should be Family Rhinopomastide
from the oldest genus in it, not Jrrisoride as often given.

IXUS 461

Ohio in the west. It affects the most thickly wooded districts and
especially the cyprus-swamps. ‘The male has a crest of fine scarlet,
but otherwise his plumage is black and white, as is also that of the
female. Beside the two species just named Mr. Hargitt (Cat. B.
Br. Mus. xviii. pp. 460-480) includes 12 others in the genus, all
of smaller size.

IXUS, incorrectly written Jzos by Temminck, who proposed it
in 1825 (Rec. de Pl. col. dOis. livr. 64) as a generic term for a
section of Thrush-like (“ Z’urdoide”) birds which he had indicated two
years before (op. cit. livr. 12), and a word used occasionally in
English, particularly in regard to a species which he in 1840
(Man. @Orn. iv. p. 608) called J. obscurus, believing it to be new
and to be found in Europe. Some writers have been so much
puzzled as to the precise application of the term that they have
dropped its use, for Temminck made it include forms that are not
congeneric, and did not define it until he described the species just
mentioned, which has since been identified with the Zurdus barbatus
of Desfontaines (Jém. Acad. Koy. Sc. 1787, p. 500) discovered by
him in Algeria, and not known to occur to the north of the Medi-
terranean, while it certainly cannot be placed in the same genus as
the bird of Java to which the term was first applied. This last,
which has been referred to a genus Hemixus by Dr. Sharpe (Cat.
B. Br. Mus. vi. p. 53), should still retain Temminck’s title of
I. virescens, while his J. obscurus has been rightly referred to the
genus Pycnonotus (BULBUL) and now stands as P. barbatus. Though
the section “'Turdoide ” was no doubt meant to be equivalent to the
genus which Kuhl called Pycnonotus,! as Boie witnesses (Isis, 1826,
p. 973), Temminck expressly states that his genus Jaus contained
birds which had not a thickly-feathered back, the eponymic
character of Pycnonotus, and therefore the two genera are not
identical as some have thought. The so-called ‘Dusky Ixus,”
P. barbatus of English authors, is a common bird in parts of Algeria
and Morocco where its habits have been observed by several
competent ornithologists whose accounts have been conveniently
collected by Mr. Dresser (B. Eur. iii. pp. 353-355). A nearly
allied species, P. xanthopygius, inhabits Palestine, and a single
example of one from the Cape of Good Hope, P. capensis, is said to
have strayed to Ireland (Yarrell, br. B. ed. 4, i. p. 247).

1 Kuhl did not live to publish this name, and Boie is the authority for its
bestowal. In their days it was not uncommon for naturalists to ticket a specimen
in a museum with a name that, though accessible to a visitor, might not find its
way into print for many years. The assertion, unsupported by any evidence, and
contradicted by all we know of Kuhl’s severely scientific method, that a generic
name given by him was published ‘‘in some popular Dutch periodical” can
only raise a smile,

462 JABIRU

J

JABIRU, according to Maregrave! the Brazilian name of a
bird, subsequently called by Linneus Mycteria americana, one of
the largest of the Ciconiide (Stork), which occurs from Mexico

f!
}

JaBiru, Mycteria americana.

southwards to the territory of the Argentine Republic. It stands
between 4 and 5 feet in height, and is conspicuous for its massive
bill, slightly upturned, and its entirely white plumage; but the
head and neck are bare and black, except for about the lower third

1 An apparently accidental transposal of two of the figures given by this
author (Hist. Nat. Brasilixw, pp. 200, 201) misled several of his successors from
Piso to Brisson, until noticed by Buffon (Hist. Nat. Ois. vii. pp. 280-286).

JACAMAR 463

part of the latter, which is bright red in the living bird. Very
nearly allied to Dycteria, and also commonly called Jabirus, are
the birds of the genera Xenorhynchus and Ephippiorhynchus—the
former containing one or (in the opinion of some) two species,
A. australis and X. indicus, and the latter one only, ZL. sene-
galensis. These belong to the countries indicated by their names,
and differ chiefly by their feathered head and neck, while
the last is sometimes termed the Saddle-billed Stork from the
very singular shape of its beak. Somewhat more distantly
related are the large birds belonging to the genus Leptoptilus
(ADJUTANT).

JACAMAR,! a word formed by Brisson from Jacameri, the
Brazilian name of a bird, as given by Marcgrave, and since adopted
in most European tongues for the species to which it was first
applied and others allied to it, forming the Family Galbulidx? of
ornithologists, the precise position of which is uncertain. All will
agree that the Jacamars belong to the great heterogeneous group
called by Nitzsch PIcAR1I#, but further into detail it is hardly safe
to go. The Galbulide have zygodactylous feet, like the Cuculidx
(Cuckow), Bucconide (PUFF-BIRD), and Picidx (WOODPECKER),
they also resemble both the latter in laying glossy white eggs, but
in this respect they bear the same resemblance to the Momotidx
(Mormot), Alcedinide (KINGFISHER), Meropide (BEE-EATER), and
some other groups, to which affinity has been claimed for them.
In the opinion of Mr. Sclater,? the Jacamars form two groups—one
consisting of the single genus and species Jacamerops aureus (J.
grandis of most authors), and the other including all the rest,
namely, Urogalba with two species, Galbula with ten, Brachygalba
with six, and Jacamaralcyon and Galbalcyrhynchus with one each.
They are all rather small birds (the largest known being little over
10 inches in length), with a sharply pointed bill, and the plumage in
every case more or less resplendent with golden or bronze reflexions,
but at the same time comparatively soft. Jacamaralcyon tridactyla
differs from all the rest in possessing but three toes (as its name
indicates) on each foot, the hallux being deficient. With the
exception of Galbula melanogenia, which is found also in Central
America and southern Mexico, all the Jacamars inhabit the tropical
portions of South America eastward of the Andes, Galbula ruficauda,
however, extending its range to the islands of Trinidad and Tobago.4

1 [In this word the c should be sounded soft, as s.

2 Galbula was first applied to Marcgrave’s bird by Mehring. It is another
form of Galgulus, and seems to have been one of the many names of the Golden

ORIOLE.

3 4 Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds (London: 1879-82) ; and
Cat. B. Br. Mus. xix. pp. 161-177.

4 The singular appearance, recorded in 1853 by Canon Tristram (Zoologist,

464 JACANA

Very little is known of the habits of any of the species. They are
seen sitting motionless on trees, sometimes solitarily, at other times
in companies, whence they suddenly dart off at any passing insect,
catch it on the wing, and return to their perch. Of their niditica-
tion almost nothing has been recorded, but the species above-
mentioned as occurring in Tobago is said by Mr. Kirk (Ann. and
Mag. Nat. Hist. xix. p. 80)—apparently the only European observer
of the mode of propagation in these birds—to make its nest in
marl-banks, digging a hole about an inch and a half in diameter
and some 18 inches deep. From the accounts received by other
travellers we may possibly infer that more of the Family possess
the same habit.

JACANA,! the Brazilian name, according to Marcgrave, of
certain birds, since found to have allies in other parts of the world,
which are also very generally called by the same appellation. They
have been most frequently classed with the Rallidx (AIL), but are
now admitted to form a separate Family, Parridx,? whose leaning
is towards the Limicolx, as apparently first suggested by Blyth, a
view supported by the osteological observations of Parker (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1863, p. 513), though denied by Prof. A. Milne-Edwards
(Ois. Foss. France, ii. p. 110). The most obvious characteristic of
this group of birds is the extraordinary length of their toes and
claws (the latter being turned upwards), whereby they are enabled
to walk with ease over water-lilies and
other aquatic plants growing in rivers
and lakes. It is also remarkable for
the carpal spurs with which its mem-
bers are armed. The Family has been
divided into four genera, — of which
Parra, as now restricted, inhabits South
America; IMetopidius, hardly differing from it, has representatives in
Africa, Madagascar and the Indian Region ; Hydralector, also very
nearly allied to Parra, belongs to the northern portion of the
Australian Region ;° and Hydrophasianus, the most extravagant
form of the whole, is found in India, Ceylon and China — the

Parra. (After Swainson.)

p- 3906), of a bird of this species in Lincolnshire requires notice. No instance
seems to be known of any Jacamar having been kept in confinement or
brought to this country alive.

' In pronunciation the ¢ is soft, and the accent placed on the last syllable.

* The classic Parra is by some authors thought to have been the Golden
ORIOLE, while others suppose it was a Jay or Pie. The word seems to have been
imported into Ornithology by Aldrovandus, but the reason which prompted
Linneus to apply it, as he seems first to have done, to a bird of this group,
cannot be satisfactorily stated.

* The species inhabiting Queensland, H. cristatus or gallinaceus, is said to be
there known as the ‘‘ Lotus-bird” (Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p: 22).

JACKASS 465

draughtsmen of the country last named making it a favourite
subject of their pictures, in which its flowing tail and the very
peculiar filamentous appendages to the tip of its first and fourth
primaries are generally faithfully represented. In habits the
Jacanas have much in common with the Water-hens, but that fact
is insuflicient to warrant the affinity asserted to exist between the
two groups ; for in their osteological structure, as already implied.
there is much difference, and the resemblance seems to be only that
of analogy. The Parridx, or at least such of them as have been
sufficiently observed, lay very peculiar eggs, of a rich olive-brown

wy, AN Nog

INDIAN Jacana, Hydrophasianus chirurgus.

colour, in most cases closely marked with dark lines, thus presenting
an appearance by which they may be readily known from those of
any other birds, though an approach to it is occasionally to be
noticed in those of certain Limicolw, and especially of certain
Charadrviide. The genus Palamedea (SCREAMER) was at one time
thought to be allied to this Family, but is now, by almost common
consent, allowed to have nothing to do with it.

JACKASS, two species of PENGUIN (resembling one another
so nearly as to have been long confounded) Spheniscus demersus and
S. magellanicus, so called by sailors and by the people of the
Falkland Islands 1—the latter “from its habit, while on shore, of
throwing its head backwards, and making a loud strange noise, very
like the braying of an ass.” (Darwin, Journal of Researches, chap. 1x.)
With the prefix “Laughing,” the name is commonly applied to a
large Australian KINGFISHER, Dacelo gigas, which makes, says Caley

1 An older name there was Jumping Jack (Clayton, Phil. Trans. \xvi. p. 103).
fe)

t2

466 JACKDAW—JAY

(Trans. Linn. Soc. xv. p. 204), “a loud noise somewhat like laugh-
ing,” whence, together with its uncouth appearance, it probably
received its extraordinary appellation from the settlers on their first
arrival in the country.

JACKDAW, the common nickname of the Daw, Corvus
monedula.

JACK-SNIPE, so called either from its small size, or from being
accounted the male of the common SNIPE.

JAVA SPARROW, one of the best-known of exotic cage-birds,
Padda or Munia oryzwora, belonging to the Family Ploceide (WEAVER-
BIRD) and a species which has been naturalized in many countries,
where it is often very injurious to crops of rice or other grain. It
is said to have been brought to Europe from China, whither it was
conveyed from Java many years before, and a living bird possessed
by Sloane in 1740 was described and figured by Edwards (Wat.
Hist. Uncom. B. pl. 41). It is-easily recognized by its pink bill,
red orbits, slate-coloured body, and black crown, beneath which is
generally a pure white patch on the check, but according to the
observation of Mr. Bartlett as recorded by his son (Monogr. Weaver-B.
pt. 1) these white patches will change to black, and then again
to white, irrespective of age, sex, or season. Examples without
white. patches are often sold as females, but Mr. Edward Bartlett
says he has dissected many and found that both sexes are alike in
plumage, nor has the male any song by which he may be dis-
tinguished.

JAY (French, Géai), a well-known and very beautiful European
bird, the Corvus glandarius of Linnzeus, the Garrulus glandarius of
modern ornithologists. To this species are more or less closely
allied numerous birds inhabiting both areas of the Holarctie Region,
the Indian and the Neotropical, except the southern portion of the
last two. All these birds are commonly called Jays, and form
a group of the Corvide (Crow), which may be considered a
subfamily, Garrulinw. Indeed there are, or have been, systematists
who would, unnecessarily as it seems, elevate the Jays to the rank
of a Family, Garrulide. Some of them have an unquestionable
resemblance to the Piss, if the group now known by that name
can be satisfactorily severed from the true Corvine. In structure
the Jays are not readily differentiated from the Pies ; but in habit,
so far as is known of them, they are much more arboreal, delighting
in thick coverts, seldom appearing in the open, and seeking their
food on or under trees. They seem also never to walk or run when
on the ground, but always to hop. The body-feathers are commonly
loose and soft; and, gaily coloured as are most of the species, in

JAY 467
few of them has the plumage the metallic glossiness it generally
presents in the Pies, while the proverbial beauty of the “ Jay’s
wing” is due to the vivid tints of blue—turquoise and cobalt,
heightened by bars of jet-black, an indication of the same style of
ornament being observable in the greater number of the other
forms of the group, and in some predominating over nearly the
whole surface. Of the many genera that have been proposed by
ornithologists, perhaps about nine may be deemed sufficiently well
established.

The ordinary European Jay, Garrulus glandarius, has of late
years suffered so much persecution in the British Islands as to have
become in many districts a rare bird. In Ireland it seems now to

JAY.

be indigenous to the southern half of the island only ; in England
generally, it is far less numerous than formerly ; and Mr. Lumsden
(Scott. Nat. ili. pp. 230-240) has shewn that in Scotland its
numbers have decreased with still greater rapidity. It would
possibly have been exterminated by this time but for its stock
being supplied in autumn by immigration, and for its shy and wary
behaviour, especially in the breeding-season, when it becomes almost
wholly mute, and thereby often escapes detection. No truthful
man, however much he may love the bird, will gainsay the depre-
dations on fruit and eggs that it at times commits; but the
gardeners and gamekeepers of Britain fall into the usual error of
persons imperfectly acquainted with the ways of Nature, and,
instead of taking a few simple steps to guard their charge from
injury, or at most of killing the individual birds from which
they suffer, deliberately adopt methods of wholesale destruction—

468 JAY

methods that in the case of this species are only too easy and too
effectual—by proffering temptation to trespass which it is not in
Jay-nature to resist, and accordingly the bird runs great chance of
total extirpation. Notwithstanding the war carried on against the
Jay, its varied cries and active gesticulations shew it to be a
sprightly bird, and at a distance that renders its beauty-spots
invisible, it is yet conspicuous by its cimnamon-coloured body
and pure white tail-coverts, which contrast with the deep black
and rich chestnut that otherwise mark its plumage, and even
the young at once assume a dress closely resembling that of the
adult. The nest, generally concealed in a leafy tree or bush, is
carefully built, with a lining formed of fine roots neatly interwoven.
Herein from four to seven eggs, of a greenish-white closely freckled
so as to seem suffused with light olive, are laid in March or April,
and the young on quitting it accompany their parents for some
weeks.

Though the common Jay of Europe inhabits nearly the whole
of this quarter of the globe south of 64° N. lat., its territory in the
east of Russia is also occupied by G. brandi, a kindred form, which
replaces it on the other side of the Ural, and ranges thence across
Siberia to Japan ; and again on the Lower Danube and thence to
Constantinople the nearly-allied G. krynickt (which alone is found
in southern Russia, Caucasia, and Asia Minor) shares its haunts
with it.! It also crosses the Mediterranean to Algeria and Morocco;
but there, as in southern Spain, it is probably but a winter immi-
grant. The three forms just named have the widest range of any
of the genus. Next to them come G. atricapillus, reaching from
Syria to Beloochistan, G. japonicus, the ordinary Jay of southern
Japan, and G. sinensis, the Chinese bird. Other forms have a much
more limited area, as G. cervicalis, the local and resident Jay of
Algeria, G. hyrcanus, found on the southern shores of the Caspian
Sea, and G. taivanus confined to the island of Formosa. The most
aberrant species referred to the true Jays is the G. lidthi of Bona-
parte (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1850, p. 80, Aves, pl. xvii.), which, though
said to come from some part of Japan (Salvadori, 4tti Accad. Torino,
vii. p. 474), seems not to have been met with there, and its proper
country is not known.

Leaving the true Jays of the genus Garrulus, we may next
consider those of a group, named, in 1831, Dysornithia by Swainson
(FP. Bor.-Am. ii. p. 495) and Perisoreus by Bonaparte (Saggio &c.
Anim. Vertebr. p. 43),? containing two species—one the Lanius

1 Further information will possibly shew that these districts are not occupied
at the same season of the year by the two forms.

° Recent writers have preferred the latter term, though it was only used sub-
generically by its author, who assigned to it no characters, which the inventor of
the former was careful to do, regarding it at the same time as a genus.

JA Ve 469

mfaustus of Linneeus and the Siberian Jay of English writers,
which ranges throughout the pine-forests of the north of Europe and
Asia, and the second the Corvus canadensis of the same author, or
Canada Jay, occupying a similar station in America. The first is
one of the most entertaining birds in the world. Its versatile eries
and actions, as seen and heard by those who penetrate the solitude of
the northern forests it inhabits, can never be forgotten by one who
has had experience of them, any more than the pleasing sight of its
rust-coloured tail, which an occasional gleam of sunshine will light
up into a brilliancy quite unexpected by those who have only sur-
veyed the bird’s otherwise gloomy appearance in the glass-case of a
museum. It seems scarcely to know fear, obtruding itself on the
notice of any passenger who invades its haunts, and should he halt,
making itself at once a denizen of his bivouac. In confinement. it
speedily becomes friendly, but suitable food for it is not easily
found. Linneus seems to have been under a misapprehension
when he applied to it the trivial epithet it bears; for by none of
his countrymen is it deemed an unlucky bird, but rather the
reverse. In fact, no one can listen to the cheery sound of its
ordinary calls with
any but a_ hopeful
feeling. The Canada
Jay, or “ Whiskey-
Jack ” (the corruption
probably of a Cree
name), seems to be of
a similar nature, but
it presents a still more
sombre coloration, its
nestling plumage,! in-
deed, being thoroughly
Corvine in appearance
and suggestive of its
being a pristine form.

As though to make
amends for the dull
plumage of the species
last mentioned, North
America offers some
of the most brilliantly ae
coloured of the sub- ren dae:

family, and the com-
mon Blue Jay of eastern Canada and the older States of the Union,

Cyanurus cristatus, is one of the most conspicuous birds of the trans-

1 In this it was described and figured (/. Bor.-Aim. ii. p. 296, pl. 55) as a
distinct species, @. brachyrhynchus.

470 JENNY—JOHN-CROW

atlantic woods. ‘The account of its habits by Alexander Wilson is
known to every student of ornithology, and Wilson’s followers have
had little to do but supplement his history with unimportant details.+
In this bird and its many allied forms, coloration, though almost
confined to various tints of blue, seems to reach its climax, but want
of space forbids more particular notice of them, or of the members
of the other genera Cyanocitta, Cyanocorax, Xanthura, Psilorhinus,
and more, which inhabit various parts of the Western continent. It
remains, however, to mention the genus Cissa, including many beauti-
ful forms belonging to the Indian Region, and among them the
C. speciosa and C. sinensis, so often represented in Oriental draw-
ings, though doubts may be expressed whether these birds are not
more nearly related to the Pies than to the Jays.

JENNY, a child’s nickname of the WREN, in the character of
Robin Redbreast’s wife.

JERFALCON, a vulgar corruption of Gerfalcon, that is GyR-
FALCON. =

JOHN-CROW, the local name in Jamaica for what is elsewhere
in the New World called the Turkey-Buzzard, the Vultur aura of
Linneeus, and Cathartes or Catharista aura of most
writers ; to which, in 1874, Mr. Ridgway (NV.-4m.
B. iii. p. 337) applied the generic term of Lhino-
gryphus, and Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. i. p. 25)

CaTHarTes aura. that of inops. It is the most widely spread of
(After Swainson.) : E :
American VULTURES, ranging from the Sas-
katchewan valley in Canada, under 55° of northern latitude, to
Tierra del Fuego, which is about as far south. This fact shews
its success in the struggle for existence ; but the zoologist should
not neglect the lesson taught by another fact. In Jamaica,
within a few years, the John-Crow, though there protected by
human law, has been nearly extirpated by the introduction of
the Mongoose (EXTERMINATION, p. 227, note 4), shewing how in-
adequately a successful animal can compete with conditions for
which it has not been prepared, and to which it is suddenly
exposed—the result of thus upsetting a natural law being fatal.
No notice of this bird, however brief, should omit allusion to the
controversy that once raged around it, in regard to the sup-
posed olfactory powers ascribed to it and other members of the
Sarcorhamphidx as well as to those of the analogous Family Vultwride.
Happily the whole mystery was dispelled by the simple “conjecture”
(as he modestly called it) of Canon Tristram (Jbis, 1859, p. 280),

1 The ‘‘ Blue Jay ” of a recent American humourist would, however, from the
locality assigned to his inimitable story, appear to be, not this species, but one
of its western kindred—American ornithologists must determine which.

JOHN-DOWN—KAGU 471

and never need again occupy the attention of the ornithologist. It
remains to say that the present species has its common name from
the outward resemblance to a TuRKEY afforded by its bare, red
head and neck, and its generally black plumage. In its near ally
C. burrovianus, of Eastern Brazil, the nape is clothed nearly to the
occiput, and in C. afratus the naked skin of head and neck is black.

JOHN-DOWN, the name given to the FutmMAR by Newfound-
land fishermen.

JOHNNY, the South-Sea sealers’ name! for a PENGUIN,
Pygoscelis papua or txeniata, one of the widely-distributed species ;
but rapidly decreasing in numbers, owing to the destruction to
which it is subjected at its breeding-places. It is disgusting to
read (Phil. Trans. vol. 168, p. 155) that, on the occasion of the
observation of the Transit of Venus in 1874-5 on Kerguelen Land,
where this species had many settlements, a naturalist should have
to write of one of them—‘ The whole of this community of Pen-
guins was subsequently boiled down into ‘hare soup’ for the
officers of H.M.S. ‘ Volage.’” It is obvious that officers of this kind
should not be sent on scientific expeditions.

JUMBY-BIRD, a Negro name for almost any kind that is of
bad omen, but especially for an OWL.

JUNGLE-FOWL, generally accepted as the wild original of the
domestic Fow..

K

KAE, the common Scottish name of the Daw.

KAGU, the native name, since Anglified, of an extremely
curious bird, found, after the French occupation of New Caledonia
in 1852, to be an inhabitant of that island, to which it
is peculiar. It is the Rhinochetus jubatus of ornithology, and the
first specimen brought to the notice of naturalists was sent to the
Colonial Exhibition in Paris in 1860 by Mons. Latour. Its
original describers, Jules Verreaux and Des Murs, regarded it
first as a HERON and then as a CRANE (fev. Zool. 1860, pp. 439-
441, pl. 21; 1862, pp. 142-144); but, on Dr. George Bennett
sending two live examples to the Zoological Gardens, Mr. Bartlett
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1862, pp. 218, 219, pl. xxx.) quickly detected in

1 Modern sailors’ names are hard to trace. Perhaps this may be connected
with ‘‘ Gentoo,” which, Capt. Abbot says (Lbis, 1860, p. 337), is the name given to
the species in the Falkland Islands, and may suggest a Portuguese origin.

472 KAGU

them an affinity to Eurypyga (SUN-BITTERN), and in due time
anatomical investigation shewed him to be right. The Kagu,
however, would not strike the ordinary observer as having much
outward resemblance to the Sun-Bittern, of which it has neither
the figure nor posture. It is rather a long-legged bird, about as
large as an ordinary Fowl, walking quickly and then standing
almost motionless, with bright red bill and legs, large eyes, a full
pendent crest, and is generally of a light slate-colour, paler beneath,
and obscurely barred on its longer wing-coverts and tail with a
darker shade. It is only when it spreads its wings that these are
seen to be marked and spotted with white, rust-colour, and black,

somewhat after the pattern of those of the Sun-Bittern. Like that
bird too, the Kagu will, in moments of excitement, give up its
ordinary placid behaviour and execute a variety of violent gesticu-
lations, some of them even of a more extraordinary kind, for it will
dance round, holding by the bill the tip of its tail or of one of its
wings in a way that no other bird is known to do. Its habits in
its own country were described at some length in 1863 by M.
Jouan (Mém. Soc. Sc. Nat. Cherbourg, ix. pp. 97 and 235), and in
1870 by M. Marie (Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, xxvii. pp. 323-326),
the last of whom predicts the speedy extinction of this interesting
form, a fate foreboded also by the statement of Messrs. Layard
(Ibis, 1882, pp. 534, 585) that it has nearly disappeared from the
neighbourhood of the more settled and inhabited parts.

KAKA—KAKAPO 473

The internal and external structure of both these remarkable
forms, Lhinochetus and Hurypyga, has been treated in much detail by
Parker in the Zoological Proceedings (1864, pp. 70-72) and Transac-
tions (vi. pp. 501-521, pls. 91, 92; x. pp. 307-310, pl. 54, figs.
7-9), as also by Dr. Murie in the latter work (vil. pp. 465-492, pls.
56, 57), and the result of their researches shews that though
separable as distinct Families, Lurypygide and Ihinochetide, they
belong to Prof. Huxley’s GERANOMORPHA, of which they must be
deemed the relics of very ancient and generalized types. Their
inter-relations to the Fallidw (RAIL), Psophiide (TRUMPETER), and
other groups need not to be here considered ; but it may be remarked
that the eggs of both Hurypyga and Rhinochetus have a very strong
Ralline appearance—stronger even than the figures published (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1868, pl. xii.) would indicate.

KAKA, see NESTOR.

KAKAPO, the Maori name, signifying “ Night-Parrot,” and
frequently adopted by English writers, of a bird, commonly called
by British colonists in New Zealand the “Ground-Parrot” or ‘‘ Owl-
Parrot.” The existence of this singular form was first made known
in 1843 by Dieffenbach (Travels in N. Zealand, ii. p. 194), from
some of its tail-feathers obtained by him in the interior of that
country, and he suggested that it was one of the Cuculidx, possibly
belonging to the genus Centropus, adding that it was becoming
scarce, and that no example had been seen for many years. The
late Mr. G. R. Gray, noticing it in June 1845 (Zool. Voy. ‘ Erebus’
and ‘ Terror, part ix. p. 9), was able to say little more of it; but
very soon after a skin was received at the British Museum, of
which, in the following September, he published a figure (Gen.
Birds, part xvii.), naming it Strigops} habroptilus, and rightly placing
it among the Parrots, though he did not describe it technically for
another eighteen months (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1847, p. 61), by which
time some further information concerning it had been furnished by
Sir George Grey (Ann. Nat. Hist. xviii. p. 427) and Strange (Proc.
Zool, Soc. 1847, p- 50); while in the same year Jules Verreaux sent
an example, with an account of its habits, to the museum of Paris,
which was published by Pucheran (Rev. Zool. 1847, p. 385). Various
observers, among whom must be especially named Dr. Lyall (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1852, p. 31), who was the first to record the breeding
habits and obtain the egg of the bird, and Von Haast (Verh. zool.-bot.
Gesellsch. Wien, 1863, p. 1115) supplied other particulars, and so
many specimens have been received in Europe that it is now repre-
sented in most museums, and more than half a dozen examples have

1 This generic term was subsequently altered by Van der Hoeven to
Stringopsis, but Stringops is the spelling now generally adopted.

474 KAKAPO

reached England alive. Yet, though much has been written about
it, there is no detailed description of its internal structure, a fact the
more to be regretted since the bird is obviously doomed to early
extinction, and the opportunity of solving several problems of
interest, which a minute examination of its anatomy might afford,
will be lost if the matter be not speedily taken in hand. Few
existing birds offer a better subject for a monographer, and it is to
be hoped that, if perish the genus and species must, posterity will
not have to lament the want of an exhaustive treatise on the many
and wonderful characteristics of what Prof. Fiirbringer considers
(Journ. fiir Orn. 1889, pp. 239-241) to be one of the primitive
forms of Psittaci.

In habits the Kakapo is almost wholly nocturnal,’ hiding
during the daytime in holes (made in some instances it would
seem by itself) under the roots of trees or rocks, and only issuing
forth about sunset to seek for food, which is solely vegetable in
kind, and consists of the roots, twigs, leaves, seeds, and fruits of
trees, grasses, or ferns—some observers say mosses also. It some-
times climbs trees, but generally remains on the ground, only using
its comparatively short wings to balance itself in running, or to
break its fall when it drops from a tree—though not always then
—being apparently quite incapable of real flight. It thus becomes
an easy prey to the marauders which the colonists have let loose in
New Zealand, so disastrously for its indigenous inhabitants. Sir
G. Grey, writing in 1854, said it had been, within the memory of
old people, abundant in every part of that country ; but was then
found only in the unsettled districts, and thus little hope can be
entertained of its surviving much longer.

The Kakapo is about the size of a Raven, of a green or brownish-
green colour, thickly freckled and irregularly barred with dark
brown, and dashed here and there with longitudinal stripes of light
yellow. Examples are subject to much variation in colour? and
shade, and in some the lower parts are deeply tinged with yellow.
Externally the most striking feature of the bird is its head, armed
with a powerful beak, that it well knows how to use, and its face
clothed with hairs and elongated feathers that sufficiently resemble

1 Tt has, however, been occasionally observed abroad by day ; and, in captivity,
one example at least is said to have been just as active by day as by night.

2 A specimen in the British Museum (Zool. Voy. ‘ Erebus’ and ‘ Terror,’ pl. 7)
has the prevailing green tint replaced by blue of several shades, and has been
described as a distinct species, 8. grey; but it is obviously in an abnormal con-
dition, and its specific distinctness, though admitted by Count T. Salvadori
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xx. p. 601), cannot be maintained without further evidence.
Sir W. Buller (Zoc. cit.) describes several varieties of the Kakapo, and Mr. Reischek
states (Z'rans. N. Zeal. Inst. xvii. p. 196) that examples from the high moun-
tains are larger and brighter in colour than those from the lower grounds.

KALKOENTJE 475

the physiognomy of an Owl to justify the generic name bestowed
upon it. Of its internal structure little has been described, and
that not always correctly. Its
furcula has been said (Proce.
Zool. Soc. 1874, p. 594) to be
“ Jost,’ whereas the clavicles,
which in most birds unite to
form that bone, are present,
though they do not meet, while
in like manner the bird has
been declared (op. cit. 1867, p.
624, note) to furnish among
the Carinatz “the only appar-
ent exception to the presence
of a keel” to the sternum.
The keel, however, is undoubtedly there, as remarked by MM.
Blanchard (4nn. Nat. Sc. Zoologie, ser. 4, xi. p. 83) and A. Milne-
Edwards (Ois. Foss. de la France, ii. p. 516), and, though much reduced
in size, is nearly as much developed as in the Dopo and the WEKA.
The aborted condition of this process can hardly be regarded but in
connexion with the incapacity of the bird for flight, and may very
likely be, as some have supposed, the result of disuse. There can be
scarcely any doubt as to the propriety of considering this genus the
type of a separate Family of Psittaci ; but whether it stands alone, or
some other forms (Pezoporus or Geopsittacus, for example,t which in
coloration and habits present some curious analogies) should be
placed with it, must await future determination. In captivity the
Kakapo is said to shew much intelligence, as well as an affectionate
and playful disposition, soon attaching itself to its master and taking
pleasure in caressing him and being caressed in turn. Unfortunately
it does not seem to share the longevity characteristic of most
Parrots, and none that have been held in confinement appear to
have long survived, while many succumb speedily. For further
details the reader may be referred to Gould’s Birds of Australia (ii.
p. 247) and Handbook (ii. p. 539), Dr. Finsch’s Die Papageien (i. p.
241), but especially to Sir W. Buller’s Birds of New Zealand (p. 26,
ed. 2, i. p. 176), in which last work nearly all the information
hitherto recorded is to be found.

KALKOENTJE (Little Turkey), the Dutch name in South
Africa for the Alauda capensis of Linneeus, the type of Swainson’s
genus Macronyz, which recent authors suppose to be allied to Anthus
(Pipir), and refer to the Family Motacillidx, a position that may be
open to doubt. It is common throughout the open country, and

Kaxkapo. (From Buller.)

1 Dr. Reichenow (Journ. fiir Orn. 1881, pp. 18-16) boldly unites them in a
single Family, but in that case it should bear the name of Pezoporide.

476 KALLEGE—KEEL

has much of the habits of a LARK, except that it does not soar and
has no song, uttering a cry which Levaillant syllabled “ qui vive ?”
and Mr. Layard
terms ‘“mewing.”
The curious similar-
ity in coloration,
which obtains be-
tween this form and
the American Stur-
nella, has been
already noticed (Ic-
TERUS) ; but it must
be understood that
whatever be the
true position of
Macronyx, the two
genera are not allied. Several English names have been suggested
for this bird, and one by which it is said to be called in the Cape
Colony is ‘“Cut-throat Lark,” from the deep orange colour of its
throat. Three other species of Macronyz are known—one, M. crocea,
having a yellow throat, and therefore still more closely resembling
Sturnella magna, being widely spread throughout Africa ; another,
M. flavicollis, inhabiting Abyssinia and the neighbouring countries ;
and the fourth, JZ. amelix, with a red throat, confined to the south-
eastern part of the continent.

KALLEGE?! or KALIJ, the Anglo-Indian name, applied to
about a dozen forms of PHEASANT, constituting the genus Huplocamus
(Gallophasis of some authors), among which the FZ. albicristatus of the
north-western Himalaya and the nearly-allied FE. melanonotus of
Sikhim are those to which it properly belongs. Passing eastwards
they are represented by other forms, as ZL. horsfieldi in Assam, LE.
lineatus in Burma and so on; and, where the range of almost any
two of them is conterminous, so-called “hybrids” are observed.
Others which may be regarded as thoroughly good species inhabit
islands, as Sumatra, Borneo and even Formosa, while parts of China
produce the best-known of all, H. nycthemerus, the Silver Pheasant
of our aviaries, which was introduced to England in the first half
of the 18th century.

Macronyx. (After Swainson.)

KEA, see NESTOR.

KEEL, carina, or crista sterni, a medio-ventral outgrowth from
the two coalescent parts of the sternal cartilaginous plate. — Itself
originally cartilaginous, it subsequently ossifies from the basal
region and from the anterior margin backwards, so as to form a

1 Corrupted into ‘‘ College Pheasant” (Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson).

KEEL-BILL—KESTREL 477

vertical bony septum between the great pectoral muscles, which
mainly rise from it. Its size, and especially its depth, stand in
direct correlation with these, the chief motor muscles of the wing.
Great power of flight, as in Gannets, Petrels, Swifts and Humming-
birds is associated with a deep Keel, while disuse of the wing-
muscles tends to reduce it, as is strikingly illustrated by the thin
and inconspicuous ridge which it takes in Stringops (KAKAPO). In
the fatitz the Keel is altogether absent, without even the least
trace of it in the embryo, and there is no sign of it in the fossil
Hesperornis (ODONTORNITHES). In this last, its absence is in keep-
ing with the very slender humerus, indicating that the well-
developed paddle-like feet were the only organs of locomotion.
On the other hand, its great size in the Penguins is easily explained
by the use they make of their wings, with a semi-rotatory or screw-
like action, as the means of propulsion under water. The con-
figuration of the anterior margin of the Keel is of some taxonomic
value (see STERNUM).

KEEL-BILL, Shaw’s name (Gen. Zool. viii. p. 380) for the ANI

KESTREL (French Cresserelle or Crécerelle, Old French Quer-
cerelle and (uercelle, in Burgundy Cristel), the English name! of one
of the smaller FALCONS, originating probably from its peevish and
languid cry. This bird, though in the form of its bill and
length of its wings one of the true Falcons, and by many ornitho-
logists placed among them under its Linnean name of Falco
tinnunculus, is by others referred to a distinct genus Tinnunculus as
T. alaudarius—the last being an epithet wholly inappropriate. We
have here a case in which the propriety of the custom that requires
the establishment of a genus on structural characters may seem
open to question. The differences of structure which separate
Tinnunculus from Falco are slight, and, if insisted upon, in the way
some systematists have done, must lead to including in the former
genus birds which obviously differ from Kestrels in all but a few
characters arbitrarily chosen; and yet, if structural characters be
not required, the Kestrels form a group readily distinguishable by
several peculiarities from all other Falconidx, and a group that the
instinct of real ornithologists (though this is treading upon danger-
ous ground) does not hesitate to separate from the true Falcons of
the genus Falco, with its subsidiary sections or genera, salon
(MERLIN), Hypotriorchis (HOBBY), and the rest. Scarcely any one
outside the walls of a museum or library would doubt for a moment
whether any bird shewn to him were a Kestrel or not; and the
late Mr. Gurney believed (/dis, 1881, p. 277) that the aggregation

1 Other English names are Windhover and Staniel of which Stannell is a corrup-
tion, and often by mistaken etymology written Standgale (cf Skeat, Zrans.
Etymol. Soc. 1888-90, p. 21).

478 KEST REEL

of species placed by Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. i. pp. 423-448)
under the generic designation of Cerchneis (which should properly be
Tinnunculus) included “three natural groups sufficiently distinct to be
treated as at least separate subgenera, bearing the name of Dissodectes,
Tinnunculus, and Erythropus.” Of these we may say that the first
and last are not at all Kestrels, but are perhaps rather related to
Hypotriorchis. Mr. Gurney’s latest views as shewn in 1884 (List of
the Diurnal Birds of Prey, pp. 96-100) recognized 15 species of
Tinnunculus, with 5 subspecies.

The ordinary Kestrel of Europe, 7. alaudarius, is by far the
commonest Bird-of-Prey in the British Islands, and is too common
and well known to need any description. It is almost entirely a

Kestret. (After Swainson.)

summer migrant, coming from the south in early spring and
departing in autumn, though examples (which are nearly always
found to be birds of the year) occasionally occur in winter, some
arriving on the eastern coast in autumn. It is most often observed
while practising its habit of hanging in the air for a minute or two
in the same spot, by rapid beats of its wings, as, with head pointing
to windward and expanded tail, it looks out for prey—consist-
ing chiefly of mice, but it will at times take a small bird, and the
remains of frogs, insects, and. even earth-worms have been found in
its crop. It generally breeds in the deserted nest of a Crow or
Pie, but frequently in rocks, ruins, or even in hollow trees—laying
four or five eggs, mottled all over with dark brownish red, some-
times tinged with orange and at other times with purple. Though
it may occasionally snatch a young Partridge or Pheasant,! the
Kestrel is quite the most harmless of the Accipitres, if it be not,
from its destruction of mice and cockchafers, the most beneficial.
It is a species of very wide range, extending over nearly the whole
of Europe from 68° N. lat., and the greater part of Asia—though
the form which inhabits Japan and is abundant in north-eastern
China has been by some writers deemed distinct and called 7’
japonicus—and it also pervades the greater part of Africa, becom-

1 Where what are called ‘‘tame”’’ Pheasants are bred, a Kestrel will often
contract the bad habit of infesting the coops and carrying off the young birds.
This evil may easily be stopped ; but it should not lead to the relentless perse-
cution of the species, especially when it is remembered that the Kestrel is in the
first place attracted to the spot by the presence of the mice which come to eat
the Pheasants’ food.

KESTREL 479

ing, however, scarce in southern latitudes, and unknown beyond
Fantee on the west and Mombasa on the east coast (/dis, 1881, p.
457). The southern countries of Europe have also another and
smaller species of Kestrel, 7. tinnunculoides (the T. cenchris and T.
naumanm of some writers), which is widely spread in Africa and
Asia, while examples from India and China are distinguished as
T. pekinensis.

Three! other species are found in Africa as well—Z. rupicola,
T. rupicoloides, and T. alopex—the first of which is a common bird
in the Cape Colony, while the others occur in the interior. Some
of the islands of the Ethiopian Region have peculiar species of
Kestrel, as the 7. newtont of Madagascar, T. punctatus of Mauritius,
and 7. gracilis of the Seychelles ; while, on the opposite side of the
continent, the Kestrel of the Cape Verd Islands has been separated
as 7’. neglectus, and that of the Canaries indulged with subsidiary
recognition (Kénig, Journ. fiir Orn. 1890, p. 285, pl. i.) as Cerchneis
tinnunculus canariensis.

The next species deserving of notice is that of America, 7.
sparverius, commonly known in Canada and the United States as
the “Sparrow-Hawk ”—a beautiful little bird, though not more
courageous than the rest of its relations. Various attempts have
been made to recognize several species, more or less in accordance
with locality, but the majority of ornithologists seem unable to
accept the distinctions elaborated, chiefly by Dr. Sharpe (wt supra)
and Mr. Ridgway (NV.-Am. Birds, iii. pp. 159-175), the former of
whom in 1874 recognized six species, while the latter, in the same
year, and since, has admitted but three, 7. sparverius, T. leucophrys,
and 1’. sparverioides, with five geographical races of the first, viz. the
typical 7. sparverius from the continent of North America, except
the coast of the Gulf of Mexico; 7. australis from the continent of
South America, except the North Atlantic and Caribbean coasts ;
T. isabellinus, inhabiting continental America from Florida to
Cayenne ; 7. dominicensis from the Lesser Antilles as far north-
wards as St. Thomas; and lastly 7. cinnamominus from Chili and
western Brazil. 7. leucophrys is said to be from Hispaniola and
Cuba; and 7. sparverioides peculiar to Cuba only. ‘This last has
been generally allowed to be a good species, though Dr. Gundlach,
the best. authority on the birds of that island, in his latest work,
published in 1876 (Contribucion d& la Ornitologia Cubana, p. 48)
would not allow its validity. More recently it was found (Ibis,
1881, pp. 547-564) that 7. australis and T. cinnamominus cannot
be separated, that Mr. Ridgway’s 7. lewophrys should properly be
called 7. dominicensis, and his 7. dominicensis T. antillarum, while
that gentleman has recorded the supposed occurrence of 7. spar-

1 Mr. Gurney’s 7. arthuri (op. cit. pp. 98 and 156) rests on a single specimen,
and therefore requires confirmation.

480 KIDDA W—KIDNEYS

verioides in Florida.t Of other Kestrels it remains to say that 7.
moluccensis is widely spread throughout the islands of the Malay
archipelago, while 7. cenchroides seems to inhabit the whole of
Australia, and has occurred in Tasmania (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasmania,
1875, pp. 7, 8). No Kestrel is found in New Zealand, but an
approach to the form is made by the very peculiar Harpe nove-
zelandix (of which a second race or species has been described, H.
brunnea or H. ferox) the “Sparrow-Hawk,” “QuAIL-HAwK,” and
“Bush-Hawk” of the colonists—a bird of much higher courage
than any Kestrel, and perhaps exhibiting the more generalized and
ancestral type from which both Kestrels and Falcons may have
descended.

KIDDAW, one of the many local names of the GUILLEMOT.

KIDNEYS, renes, the organs of the Excretory System for the
discharge as urine of the nitrogenous waste-matter of the blood.
In Birds they are comparatively large, weighing about one-
hundredth part of the whole body, and extend from the posterior
margin of the lungs to nearly the end of the pelvis, filling the
cavities between the iliac bones and the sacral vertebre, the trans-
verse processes of which produce deep impressions upon the dorsal
surface of the Kidneys, and divide them into a number of irregular
lobes ; but their ventral surface is almost smooth. Near their
anterior end, and close to the vertebral column, lie the genital
glands (ovaries or festes), the ducts of which (oviduct or vas deferens
as the case may be), run, together with the ureter, upon the
ventral surface of the Kidneys. Resting against these glands, there
is on each side a reddish or yellowish-brown body of irregular
shape, the supra-renal or adrenal capsule, an organ of still problematic
significance. In most Birds each Kidney is more or less divided
into three lobes, of which the anterior is generally the largest, and
the middle one the smallest. Sometimes the two Kidneys partly
coalesce across the vertebral column, so that the unpaired dorsal
aorta and the inferior vena cava are enclosed in their substance ;
but their shape, size and the number of their principal lobes
depend much on the configuration of the sacrum and pelvis, and
are scarcely of practical taxonomic value. The Kidneys are shut
off from the body-cavity by a peritoneal lamella, and their minute
structure as well as their vascular system is very complicated.
Each possesses a transparent sheath of connective tissue, on the
removal of which the dark brown substance of the organ is seen ta
consist of an enormous number of convoluted and tightly-packed
lobules, and each of these lobules is pervaded by renal arteries and
veins with their capillaries, and contains the uriniferous tubules that

1 The absence of any Kestrel from Jamaica is a most curious fact, considering
the abundance of the form in other parts of the West Indies.

KILLDEER 481

ultimately open into the ureter. These tubules begin near the
surface of the lobule, as small invaginated capsules, each surround-
ing a glomerulus of fine arterial blood-vessels, through the walls of
which the urinary matter exudes from the blood into the tubule.
The rest of the arterial blood entering the Kidneys through the
renal arteries (which are branches from the dorsal aorta and from
the sciatic artery) passes through a capillary network, and is thence
conducted through the efferent renal veins into the system of the
inferior vena cava (see VASCULAR SYSTEM).

KILLDEER, a common and well-known American Plover, so
called in imitation of its whistling ery, the Charadrius vociferus of
Linneus, and the Mgialitis vocifera of modern ornitholegists.
About the size of a Snipe, it is mostly sooty-brown above, but
shewing a bright buff on the tail coverts, and in flight a white bar
on the wings; beneath it is pure white except two pectoral bands
of deep black. It is one of the finest as well as the largest of the
group commonly known as Ringed Plovers or “Ring Dotterels,”4
forming the genus Agialitis of Boie. Mostly wintering in the
south or only on the sea-shore of the more northern States, in
spring it spreads widely over the interior, breeding on the newly-
ploughed lands or on open grass-fields. The nest is made in a
slight hollow of the ground, and is often surrounded with small
pebbles and fragments of shells. Here the hen lays her pear-
shaped, stone-coloured eggs, four in number, and always arranged
with their pointed ends touching each other, as is indeed the
custom of most Limicoline birds. The parents exhibit the greatest
anxiety for their offspring on the approach of an intruder: the hen
runs off with drooping wings and plaintive cries, while the cock
sweeps around, gesticulating with loud and angry vociferations.
It is the best-known bird of its Family in the United States,
throughout which it is found in all suitable districts, but less
abundantly in the north-east than further south or west. In
Canada it does not range further to the northward than 56° N.
lat., and it is not known to occur in Greenland, or hardly in
Labrador, though it is a passenger in Newfoundland every spring
and autumn.? In winter it finds its way to Bermuda and to some
of the Antilles, but it is not recorded from any of the islands te
the windward of Porto Rico. However, in the other direction it
goes very’ much further south, travelling down the Isthmus of
Panama and the west coast of South America to Peru.

1 The word Dorrrret is properly applicable to a single species only (see
above, pp. 161, 162).

2 A single example is said to have been shot near Christchurch, in Hamp-
shire, in April 1857 (Zbis, 1862, p. 276), and a female was undoubtedly shot on
Tresco, one of the Scilly Isles in January 1885 by Mr. F, Jenkinson (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1885, p. 835).

31

482 KILLIGRE W—KING-BIRD

This may be the most convenient place to speak of the con-
geners of the Killdeer, of which there are several in America, and
among them may be noticed 4. semipalmata, curiously resembling
the ordinary Ringed Plover of the Old World, 4. Miaticula, except
that it has its toes connected by a web at the base ; and 2. nivosa,
a bird inhabiting the western parts of both the American con-
tinents, which in the opinion of some authors is only a local form
of the widely-spread AY. alexandrina or cantiana, best known as the
Kentish Plover, from its discovery near Sandwich, though it is
far more abundant in many other parts of the Old World (Gxo-
GRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, p. 341). The common Ringed Plover,
Ay. hiaticola, has many of the habits of the Killdeer, but is much
less often found away from the sea-shore, though it has stations
on dry warrens in certain parts of England many miles from the
coast, and in Lapland at a still greater distance. In such localities
it has the habit of paving its nest with small stones, whence it is
locally known as the “Stone-hatch,” a habit almost unaccount-
able unless regarded as an inherited instinct from shingle-haunting
ancestors.

About thirty species all apparently referable with propriety to
the genus A/gialitis have been described, but probably so many do
not exist. Some, as the Kentish Plover above named, have a very
extended distribution, for that, letting alone its supposed Ameri-
can habitat, certainly occurs in greater or less numbers on the
coasts of China, India and Africa
generally. On the other hand
there is one, the A’. sancte-helenx,
which seems to be restricted to
the island whence it takes its
scientific name, and is there called
the “ Wire-bird” (Ibis, 1873, p.
TmNonwts, (From Buller.) 260). Nearly allied to Agialitis

are two genera peculiar to the
New-Zealand Region—Thinornis, which, having been separated on
the slightest grounds, does not call for any particular remark, and
the extraordinary Anarhynchus (WRYBILL).

KILLIGREW, an old name for the CHouGH.

KING-BIRD!? is the epithet almost universally applied in the
United States to the best-known representative of the Tyrannidz,
or the “Tyrant Flycatchers.” In some of the rural districts,

? For this article I have to thank the well-known American ornithologist, Dr.
Shufeldt ; but I have to add that more than one species of TERN is called
‘* King-bird” by sailors, and the name may be often met with in the narratives
of whaling or sealing voyages to the Southern Ocean.—A. N.

KING-BIRD 483

in those quarters of the country where he is a regular migrant,
he is familiarly known as the “Bee-Martin,’ a name he has
earned from his fondness for the denizens of the bee-hive. It is
only occasionally that naturalists refer to him as the TYRANT,
while to ornithologists generally he is known as 7'yrannus carolinensis,
belonging to the group of songless PAssERES called CLAMATORES.
Some recent taxonomists, including the present writer, however,
are inclined to regard the group as a superfamily of the PASSERES,
to be designated the T'yrannoidea1 Dr. Coues has said of the
Tyrannidx that “Only a small fragment of the family is represented
within our limits, giving but a vague idea of the numerous and
singularly diversified forms abounding in tropical America. Some
of these grade so closely toward other families, that a strict defini-
tion of the T7yrannide becomes extremely difficult; and I am not
prepared to offer a satisfactory diagnosis of the whole group”
(Key N. Amer. Birds, ed. 2, p. 428). With respect to our United
States species, however, they are more or less closely affined, and
have usually been all restricted to subfamily grouping—the
Tyrannine. Of the genus Tyrannus, to which the King-bird belongs,
there are some three or four other species or subspecies inhabiting
various geographical areas in the United States, while some range
southward into Mexico. Other North-American genera are Milvulus,
including the handsome fork-tailed Flycatchers; Pitangus, the
elegant Derby Flycatcher; Myiarchus, the Crested Flycatchers ; the
genera Myiozetetes and Myiodynastes are also represented, as well as
Sayornis (PH@BE). The still smaller forms are abundantly present in
the genera Contopus, Empidonax, Pyrocephalus and Ornithion.*

Many of the Tyrannidx have habits in common, while the
King-birds have others that are essentially peculiar to the genus.
To present an account of the most characteristic of these we
may choose the eastern form as an example, and the extraordinary
behaviour of this bird during the entire breeding season is the
most remarkable trait to be noted. From the very day the building
of the nest is first started, until the time when the young finally
shift for themselves, the male of this species gives constant battle,
without discrimination, to every bird that passes within range of his

1 See Dr. Stejneger in Zhe Standard Natural History and elsewhere ; also
Prof. Cope in The American Naturalist (Oct. 1889, p. 873).

2 For the comparative osteology of several of the genera of the N. American
Tyrannidz see the present writer’s ‘‘ Contributions to the Comparative Osteology
of the Families of North American Passeres” (Journ. Morpholog. iii. pp.
81-112). In that memoir some of the striking resemblances in the skulls of
certain Laniidx and Tyrannidz are set forth, which are quite significant ; while
for other points in the anatomy of these birds see Macgillivray in Audubon’s
Orn. Biography, v. pp. 421, 422, and also the classical work of J. Miiller
(Abhandl. K. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin, 1845, pp. 321-495).

484 KING-BIRD

sitting mate and the precious contents of his nest. These sallies are
almost invariably successful, and Wilson writes that “Hawks and
crows, the Bald Eagle, and the great Black Eagle, all equally dread
a rencontre with this dauntless little champion, who, as soon as he
perceives one of these last approaching, launches into the air to meet
him, mounts to a considerable height above him, and darts down on
his back, sometimes fixing there to the great annoyance of his
sovereign, who, if no convenient retreat or resting place be near,

endeavours by various evolutions to rid himself of his merciless
adversary. But the King-bird is not so easily dismounted. He
teases the Eagle incessantly, sweeps upon him from right to left,
remounts, that he may descend on his back with the greater
violence ; all the while keeping up a shrill and rapid twittering ;
and continuing the attack sometimes for more than a mile, till he
is relieved by some other of his tribe equally eager for the contest.”
Other birds meet with a similar fate, but the Purple Martin
(Progne) and the Red-headed Woodpecker are exceptions, the
former escaping by superior flight, the latter by being able to
dodge the little tyrant around the perch where he has taken
refuge. During other times of the year the King-bird entirely

KINGFISHER 485

loses all these belligerent habits, and becomes comparatively quite
a quiet bird. His diet seems to be confined entirely to various
kinds of insects, of which he destroys vast quantities, that would
otherwise be destructive to the products of the farm.' Indeed, he
is one of the husbandman’s best friends, and in his tastes for bees
at a certain season of the year it is not yet proven to the contrary
that he selects only the drones upon which to regale himself.

In appearance the King-bird is a species of plain plumage,
and the sexes are nearly alike. Above he is black, most intense
on the crown, where we also find a semiconcealed, longitudinal,
median dash of flame-coloured feathers, capable of erection, as a
crest, with the rest of the capital plumage. Below he is nearly
white, and his black tail is strongly tipped with the same.
Laterally, the white of the breast is shaded with plumbeous, and
his wings are dusky, bordered with whitish. He has a peculiar
wavering flight, something after the manner of certain small
Hawks; while song he has none, possessing only the twittering
note to which allusion has already been made, and which at times
is very shrill, being heard at some considerable distance. This
bird builds a large, compact nest of twigs, lined with fine grass,
and other materials interspersed throughout, as tow and fine roots.
The place chosen may be quite conspicuous, as in a low tree near
the wayside, or without regard to concealment in the middle of
the orchard, as in an apple-tree. Usually from four to six, the
eggs are of a creamy white, boldly dashed with elegant blotches of
various shades of brown, which chiefly encircle the larger end.

It may with great truth be said, then, that on the whole the
King-bird is not only an interesting and handsome species, but
thoroughly deserving of our protection and encouragement, as he
is likewise useful and brave. R. W. SHUFELDT.

KINGFISHER— Konigsfischer, Germ.” ; Roi-péheux (= pécheur),
Walloon—the <Alcedo ispida of ornithologists, one of the most
beautiful and well-known of European birds, being found, though
nowhere very abundantly, in every country of this quarter of the
globe, as well as in North Africa and South-Western Asia as far as
Sindh. Its blue-green back and rich chestnut breast render it con-
spicuous as it frequents the streams and ponds whence it procures
its food, by plunging almost perpendicularly into the water, and
emerging a moment after with the prey—whether a small fish, a
crustacean, or an aquatic insect—it has captured. In hard frosts

1 Other authorities state. that at times the King-bird is very fond of certain
berries, especially blackberries, but I have not been able to personally verify
this.

2 But more commonly called Hisvogel, which finds its counterpart in the
Anglo-Saxon Jsern or Jsen.

486 KINGFISHER

it resorts to the sea-shore, but a severe winter is sure to Occasion a
great mortality in the species, for many of its individuals seem
unable to reach the tidal waters where only in such a season they
could obtain sustenance; and to this cause rather than any other
(though, on account of its beauty and the utility of its feathers in
making artificial flies, it is shot and netted in great numbers) is
perhaps to be ascribed its general scarcity. Very early in the year
it prepares its nest, which is at the end of a tunnel bored by itself
in a bank, and therein the six or eight white, glossy, translucent
eggs are laid, sometimes on the bare soil, but often on the fish-
bones which, being indigestible, are thrown up in pellets by the
birds ; and, in any case, before incubation is completed these rejecta-
menta accumulate so as to form a pretty cup-shaped structure that
increases in bulk after the young are hatched, but, mixed with
their fluid excretions and with decaying fishes brought for their
support, soon becomes a dripping foetid mass.

The Kingfisher is the subject of a variety of legends and super-
stitions, both classical and medieval. Of the latter one of the
most curious is that having been originally a plain grey bird it
acquired its present bright colours by flying towards the sun on its
liberation from Noah’s ark, when its upper surface assumed the hue
of the sky above it and its lower plumage was scorched by the heat
of the setting orb to the tint it now bears.1 More than this, the
Kingfisher was supposed to possess many virtues. Its dried body
would avert thunderbolts, and if kept in a wardrobe would preserve
from moths the woollen stuffs therein laid, or hung by a thread to
the ceiling of a chamber would point with its bill to the quarter
whence the wind blew. All readers of Ovid (Metam. bk. xi.) know
how the faithful but unfortunate Ceyx and Alcyone were changed
into Kingfishers—birds which bred at the winter solstice, when
through the influence of AXolus, the wind-god and father of the
fond wife, all gales were hushed and the sea calmed so that their
floating nest might ride uninjured over the waves during the seven
proverbial ‘“‘Haleyon Days”; while a variant or further develop-
ment of the fable assigned to the Halcyon itself the power of
quelling storms.?

The common Kingfisher of Europe is the representative of a
well-marked Family of birds, the Alcedinide or Halcyonide of
ornithologists, which is considered by some authorities? to be
closely related to the Bucerotidx (HORNBILL); but the affinity can
scarcely be said as yet to be proved; and to the present writer

1 Rolland, Faune populaire de la France, ii. p. 74.

2 In many of the islands of the Pacific Ocean the prevalent Kingfisher is the
object of much veneration.

3 Cf. Eyton, Contrib. Orn. 1850, p. 80; Wallace, Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2,
xviii. pp. 201, 205; and Huxley, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 467.

KINGFISHER 487

there seems to be at least some ground for believing that a nearer
alliance is to be found in the Galbulide (JACAMAR), Momotidx
(Motmot), Meropide (BEE-EATER), and perhaps some other Families
—though all may possibly be discovered to belong to one and
the same larger group. Be that as it may, the present Family
forms the subject of a work by Dr. Sharpe,! which, though wholly
incomplete as regards their anatomy,” is certainly one of the best
of its class, and reflects infinite credit on its then youthful author,
whose treatment of his subject was most successful. Herein are
described 125 species, nearly all of them being beautifully figured
by Mr. Keulemans, and that number may be taken even now as
approximately correct ; for, while the validity of a few has been
denied, nearly as many have since been made known, and it seems
likely that two or three more described by older writers may yet
be rediscovered. These 125 species Dr. Sharpe groups in 19
genera, and divides into 2 subfamilies, Alcedininw and Dacelonine,?
the one containing 5 and the other 14 genera, the largest being
Halcyon with 36 species ranging from Asia Minor to Japan, and from

HALcyon.

SECEL (After Swainson.)

the Cape Verd Islands to New Zealand. With the then existing
materials perhaps no better arrangement could have been made,
but in the absence of anatomical knowledge it is certainly not to be
deemed conclusive, and indeed the method since published by
Sundevall (Zentamen, pp. 95, 96) differs from it not inconsiderably,
Here, however, it will be convenient to follow that of Dr. Sharpe.
Externally, which is almost all we can at present say, Kingfishers
present a great uniformity of structure. One of their most remark-
able features is the feebleness of their feet, and the union (SYNDAC-
TYLISM) of the third and fourth digits for the greater part of their
length ; while, as if still further to shew the comparatively function-
less character of these members, in two of the genera, dlcyone and

1 4 Monograph of the Alcedinide or Family of the Kingfishers, by R. B.
Sharpe, 4to. London: 1868-71.

2 Some important anatomical points are briefly noticed by Prof. Cunningham
(Proce. Zool. Soc. 1870, p. 280).

3 The name of this latter subfamily as constituted by Dr. Sharpe would
seem to be more correctly Ceycinw—the genus Ceyx, founded in 1801 by Lace-
pede, being the oldest included in it. The word Dacelo, invented by Leach in
1815, is simply an anagram of <Alcedo, and, though of course without any
etymological meaning, has been very generally adopted.

488 KINGFISHER

Ceyx, the second digit is aborted, and the birds have but three toes.
In most forms the bill does not differ much from that of the
common Alcedo ispida, but in Syma its edges are serrated, while in
Carcineutes, Dacelo, and Melidora the maxilla is prolonged, becoming
in the last a very pronounced hook. Generally the wings are short
and rounded, and the tail is in many forms inconspicuous ; but in
Tanysiptera, one of the most beautiful groups, the middle pair of
feathers is greatly elongated and spatulate, while this genus
possesses only ten rectrices, all the rest having twelve. Sundevall
relies on a character not noticed by Dr. Sharpe, and makes its
principal divisions depend on the size of the scapulars, which in
one form a mantle, and in the other are so small as not to cover
the back. The Alcedinidx are a cosmopolitan Family, but only one
genus, Ceryle, is found in America, and that extends as well over a
great part of the Old World, though not into the Australian Region,
which affords by far the greater number both of genera and species,
having no fewer than 10 of the former and 59 of the latter peculiar
to it.? -

In habits Kingfishers display considerable diversity, though all,
it would seem, have it in common to sit at times motionless on the
watch for their prey, and on its appearance to dart upon it, seize it
as they fly or dive, and return to a perch where it may be con-
veniently swallowed. But some species, and especially that which
is the type of the Family, are not always content to await at rest
their victim’s showing itself. They will hover like a Hawk over
the waters that conceal it, and, in the manner already described,
precipitate themselves upon it. This is particularly the way with
those that are fishers in fact as well as in name; but no incon-
siderable number live almost entirely in forests, feeding on insects,
while reptiles furnish the chief sustenance of others. The last is
characteristic of at least one Australian form, which manages to
thrive in the driest districts of that country, where not a drop of
water is to be found for miles, and the air is at times heated to a
degree that is insupportable by most animals. The limits of this
article forbid an entrance upon details of much interest, but the
Belted Kingfisher of North America, Ceryle alcyon, is too character-
istic a bird of that country to be passed in silence, though its habits
greatly resemble those of the European species before described ;
and the so-called “ Laughing Jackass” of New South Wales and
South Australia, Dacelo gigas—with its kindred forms, D. leachi, D.
cervina, and D. occidentalis, from other parts of the country—like-
wise requires special notice. Attention must also be called to the
speculations of Dr. Sharpe (op. cit. pp. xliv.-xlvii.) on the genetic
affinity of the various forms of Alcedinidx, and it is to be regretted
that hitherto no light has been shed by paleontologists on this

1 Of. Wallace, Geogr. Distr. Animals, il. p. 315.

KING HARRY—KITE 489

interesting subject, for the only fossil referred to the neighbour-
hood of the Family is the Halcyornis toliapicus of Sir R. Owen
(Br. Foss. Mamm. and Birds, p. 554) from the Eocene of Sheppey—
the very specimen said to have been previously placed by Konig
(Icon. foss. sectiles, fig. 153) in the genus Larus (FOSSIL-BIRDS, p. 281).

KING HARRY, a local name for the GOLDFINCH.
KINGLET, see GOLDCREST.

KIRR-MEW, a local name for the common TERN, the first
syllable having reference to its cry.

KITE,! Anglo-Saxon Cyta, the Falco milvus of Linneus and
Milvus ictinus of modern ornithologists, once perhaps the most
familiar Bird-of-Prey in Great Britain, and now one of the rarest.
Three or four hundred years ago foreigners were struck with its
abundance in the streets of London, and the evidence of two oi
them, one being the eminent naturalist Belon, has been already
given (EXTERMINATION, p. 226, note 2).2 It was doubtless the scav-
enger in ordinary of that and other large towns (as a kindred species
now is in Eastern lands), except where its place was taken by the
Raven ; for Sir Thomas Browne wrote (circa 1662) of the latter at
Norwich—‘“ in good plentie about the citty which makes so few
Kites to be seen hereabout.” Wolley has well remarked of the
modern Londoners that few “who see the paper toys hovering over
the parks in fine days of summer, have any idea that the bird from
which they derive their name used to float all day in hot weather
high over the heads of their ancestors.” Even at the beginning of
the present century the

“ Kites that swim sublime
In still repeated circles, screaming loud,”

formed a feature of many a rural landscape in England, as they had
done in the days of Cowper. But an evil time soon came upon the
species. It must have been always hated by the henwife, but the
resources of civilization in the shape of the gun and the gin were
denied to her. They were, however, employed with fatal zeal by
the gamekeeper ; for the Kite, which had long afforded the suprem-
est sport to the falconer, was now left friendless,* and in a very

1 Glead or Gled, cognate with glide, is also another English name.

2 Its abundance was almost simultaneously testified by Turner, who added
that it was so rapacious as to snatch meat from the hands of children in our
towns and cities.

3 George, third Earl of Orford, died in 1791, and Col. Thornton, who with him
had been the latest follower of this highest branch of falconry, broke up his hawk-
ing establishment not many years after (¢f Lubbock, Fawn. Norf. ed. 2, pp. 227
231). There is no evidence that the pursuit of tlhe Kite was anywhere reserved to
kings or privileged persons, but the taking of it was quite beyond the powers of the

490 KITE

few years it seems to have been exterminated throughout the
ereater part of England, certain woods in Huntingdonshire and
Lincolnshire and in the Western Midlands, as well as Wales,
excepted.t In these last a small remnant still exists; but
the well-wishers of this beautiful species are naturally chary of
giving information that might lead to its further persecution. In
Scotland there is no reason to suppose that its numbers suffered
much diminution until about 1835 or even later, when the system-
atic destruction of “vermin” on so many moors was begun. In
that kingdom, however, it is now as much restricted to certain dis-
tricts as in England or Wales, and those districts it would be
equally inexpedient to indicate.

The Kite is, according to its sex, from 25 to 27 inches in length,
about one half of which is made up by its deeply-forked tail, capable
of great expansion, and therefore a powerful rudder, enabling the
bird while soaring on its wide wings, more than 5 feet in extent, to
direct its circling course with scarcely a movement that is apparent
to the spectator below. Its general colour is pale reddish-brown or
cinnamon, the head being greyish-white, but almost each feather
has the shaft dark. ‘The tail-feathers are broad, of a light red,
barred with deep brown, and furnish the salmon-fisher with one of
the choicest materials of his “flies.” The nest, nearly always built
in the crotch of a large tree, is formed of sticks intermixed with
many strange substances collected as chance may offer, but among
them rags? seem always to have a place. The eggs, three or four
in number, are of a dull white, spotted and blotched with several
shades of brown, and often lilac. It is especially mentioned by old

ordinary trained Falcons, and in older days practically became limited to those of
the sovereign. Hence the Kite had attached to it, especially in France, the epithet
of ‘‘royal,” which has still survived in the specific appellation of regadis applied
to it by many ornithologists. The scandalous work of Sir Antony Weldon
(Court and Character of King James, p. 104) bears witness to the excellence of
the Kite as a quarry in an amusing story of the ‘‘ British Solomon,” whose
Master-Falconer, Sir Thomas Monson, being determined to outdo the performance
of the French king’s falconer, who, when sent to England to shew sport, ‘‘ could
not kill one Kite, ours being more magnanimous than the French Kite,” at last
succeeded after an outlay of £1000, in getting a cast of Hawks that took nine
Kites running—‘‘never missed one.” On the strength of this, James was
induced to witness a flight at Royston, “but the Kite went to such a mountee as
all the field lost sight of Kite and Hawke and all, and neither Kite nor Hawke
were either seen or heard of to this present.”

? One most fatal way of destroying Kites is described in the curious book pub-
lished in 1814 by Col. George Hanger addressed 7'o all Sportsmen and particu-
larly to Farmers and Gamekecpers (p. 80).

* Thus justifying the advice of Autolycus (Winter's Tale, act iv. sc. 3)—
‘“When the Kite builds, look to lesser linen”—very necessary no doubt to the
laundresses of former days when the bird commonly frequented their drying
grouuds,

KITE 491

authors that in Great Britain the Kite was resident throughout the
year ; whereas on the Continent it is one of the most regular and
marked migrants, stretching its wings toward the south in autumn,
wintering in Africa, and returning in spring to the land of its
birth.

There is a second European species, not distantly related, the
Milvus migrans or M. ater of most authors,! smaller in size, with a
general dull blackish-brown plumage and a less forked tail. In
some districts this is much commoner than the red Kite, and on
one occasion it has appeared in England. Its habits are very like
those of the species already described, but it seems to be more
addicted to fishing. Nearly allied to this Black Kite are the JV.
axgyptius of Africa, the MV. govinda (the Pariah Kite of India), the
M. melanotis of Eastern Asia, and the MW. affinis and M. isurus ; the
last is by some authors removed to another genus or subgenus as
Lophoictinia, and is peculiar to Australia, while JZ afinis also occurs
in Ceylon, Burma and some of the Malay countries as well. All
these may be considered true Kites, while those next to be mentioned
are more aberrant forms. First there is Haliastur containing the
well-known Brahminy Kite of Anglo-Indians, H. indus, which the
late Mr. Gurney retained in this group, though it seems to be rather a

HALIASTUR, ELANOIDES.
(After Swainson.)

fishing Eagle. Less doubtful is the place of Hlanus, the type of which
is EL. cxruleus, a beautiful little bird, the Black-winged Kite of English
authors, that comes to the south of Europe from Africa, and has
several congeners—JL, awillaris and LH. scriptus of Australia being
most worthy of notice. An extreme development of this form is
found in the African Nauclerus riocouri, as well as in Elanoides furcatus,
the Swallow-tailed Kite, a widely-ranging bird in America, and
remarkable for its length of wing and tail, which gives it a marvel-
lous power of flight, and serves to explain the unquestionable fact
of its having twice appeared in Great Britain. To Eilanus also
Ictinia, another American form, is allied, though perhaps mcre

1 Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. i. p. 322) calls it ML korschun; but the
figure of S. G. Gmelin’s Accipiter korschun, whence the name is taken, unquestion-
ably represents the Moor-Buzzarp, Cirews xruginosus.

“=

492 KITTIWAKE

remotely, and it is represented by JI. mississippiensis, the Mississippi
Kite, which is by some considered to be but the northern race of

IcTINIA. : GAMPSONYX.
(After Swainson.)

the Neotropical I. plumbea. Gampsonyx, Rostrhamus, and Cymindis, all
belonging to the Neotropical Region, complete the series of forms
that seem to compose the subfamily Milvine, though there may be
doubt about the last, and some systematists would thereto add the
Honey-Buzzarps, “ Pernine.”

KITTIWAKE,! so called from the plaintive cry that is heard
almost incessantly from its thronged breeding-places, to visit one of
which is among the greatest delights of the real ornithologist—the
Larus rissa and L, tridactylus, the Lissa tridactyla of most authors—
the smallest of the strictly marine GULLS,” and a species that yet
abounds on many of the northern parts of the British coasts, where
the rocks afford it a home, for it seems never to breed but on the
side of a cliff, and there shelf-room is all it needs, though preference
to a niche that is overhung may sometimes be noticed, and the
entry of a cave is almost always a favourite spot. Space is here
wanting to enter into particulars of these resorts, possessing a charm
almost indescribable ; but notwithstanding that, they were for a
long while, and, did not the law interpose, again would be scenes of
sickening slaughter, carried on at first for “sport,” but latterly, and
far more fatally, to obtain “plumes” for women’s dress. The
Kittiwake among other distinguishing characters differs from all
Gulls in that its hind toe (functionless among them) is generally
reduced to a mere tubercle, and it differs from the other marine
Gulls in that the young bear for the first year a dark semi-collar at
the base of the neck, dark patches on the wings and a black tip to
the tail—markings that make the wearer easily recognizable. In
this condition they are very generally called Tarrocks. The adults
on the wing very closely resemble those of the Common Gull, Larus
canus, but under favourable circumstances can be distinguished by

? This spelling of the word, which has long been established, seems to have
been first published by Sibbald in 1684 (Scot. JJlustr. pars 2, lib. iii. p. 26). In
Ray’s Itinerary of 1671 it appears as ‘“‘Cattiwike” in reference to the Farne
Islands. It might just as well be written ‘‘ Pick-me-up.”

* Excepting perhaps Rhodostethia, of whose breeding habits we know nothing.

KITTY—KIWI 493

their primaries not being tipped with white. The species occurs on
both sides of the Atlantic, breeding in great numbers in Spitsbergen
and Greenland, but in Baffin’s Sea not going so far to the northward
as some of the other Gulls. It inhabits also the North Pacific, and
among those which frequent Bering’s Sea, not a few examples have
the hind toe considerably developed, though not enough to be
functional. These have been named /&. kotzebuii, but cannot be
regarded as forming a good species. The A. brevirostris, with red
legs and feet, from the same waters, seems to be distinct, but
whether it is justifiably placed in the genus is another matter.

KITTY, a local nickname of the WREN.

KIWI, or Kiwi-Krw1, the Maori name—first apparently intro-
duced to zoological literature by Lesson in 1828 (Man. d’Orn. ii. p.
210, or Voy. ‘ Coquille,’ Zool. p. 418), and now very generally adopted
in English—of one of the most characteristic forms of New-Zealand
birds, the Apteryx of scientific writers. This remarkable creature
was unknown till Shaw, as almost his latest labour, very fairly
described and figured it in 1813 (Nat. Miscellany, pls. 1057, 1058)
from a specimen brought to him from the southern coast of that
country by Capt. Barcley of the ship ‘Providence. At Shaw’s
death, in the same year, it passed into the possession of the then
Lord Stanley, afterwards thirteenth Lord Derby, and is now with
the rest of his collection in the Liverpool Museum. Considering
the state of systematic ornithology at the time, Shaw’s assignment
of a position to this new and strange bird, of which he had but the
skin, does him great credit, for he said it seemed ‘“‘ to approach more
nearly to the Struthious and Gallinaceous tribes than to any other”!
And his credit is still greater when we find the venerable Latham,
who is said to have examined the specimen with Shaw, placing it
some years later among the Penguins (Gen. Hist. B. x. p. 394), being
apparently led to that conclusion through its functionless wings and
the backward situation of its legs. In this false allocation Stephens
also in 1826 acquiesved (Gen. Zool. xiii. p. 70). Meanwhile in 1820
Temminck, who had never seen a specimen, assorted it with the
Dopo in an Order to which he applied the name of INERTES (Man.
@ Orn. i. p. exiv.) In 1831 Lesson, who had previously (locc. cétt.)
made some blunders about it,” placed it (Traité d’Orn. p. 12), though
only, as he says, “ par analogie et @ priori,” in his first division of Birds
‘Oiseaux Anomaux,” which is equivalent to what we now call Ratitz,
making of it a separate Family “Nullipennes.” At that time no
second example was known, and some doubt was felt especially on

1 Before Merrem nearly all had held the ‘‘Struthious” birds to be ‘‘ Gallin-
aceous,” and his views were not published till 1813 (see InrropUCTION).

2 Much may be forgiven to Lesson for declaring that the sternura of Apteryx
would be ‘‘indubitablement” found to have no keel !

494 KIWI

the Continent, as to the very existence of such a bird !—though
Lesson had himself when in the Bay of Islands in April 1824
(Voy. ‘ Coquille, ut supra) heard of it ;? anda few years later Dumont
d’Urville had seen its skin, which the naturalists of his expedition
procured, worn as a tippet by a Maori chief at Tolaga Bay (Houa-
houa),? and in 1830 gave what proves to be on the whole very
accurate information concerning it (Voy. ‘Astrolabe, ii. p. 107). To
put all suspicion at rest, Lord Derby sent his unique specimen for
exhibition at a meeting of the Zoological Society, 12th February
1833 (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1833, p. 24), and a few months later (fom.
cit. p. 80) Yarrell communicated to that body a complete descrip-

—S
SSS

NorRTHERN Kiwi, Apteryx mantelli.

tion of it which was afterwards published in full with an excellent
portrait (Trans. Zool. Soc. i. p. 71, pl. 10). Herein the systematic
place of the species, as akin to the Struthious birds, was placed
beyond cavil, and the author called upon all interested in zoology
to aid in further research as to this singular form. In consequence
of this appeal a legless skin was within two years sent to the
Society (Proc. 1835, p. 61) obtained by Mr. W. Yate of Waimate,
who said it was the second he had seen, and that he had kept the

1 Cuvier in the second edition of his Regne Animal (1829) only referred to
it in a footnote (i. p. 498).

2 From what he says in his Voyage autour du Monde (ii. p. 348), not published
till 1839, he evidently only knew the bird by Shaw’s description.

3 Cruise in 1822 (Journ. Residence in New Zealand, p. 313) had spoken of an
‘meu’ found in that island, which must of course have been an Apteryz.

KIWI 495

bird alive for nearly a fortnight, while in less than another two
years additional information (op. cit. 1837, p. 24) came from Mr. T.
K. Short to the effect that he had seen two living, and that all Yarrell
had said was substantially correct, except underrating its progressive
powers. Not long afterwards Lord Derby received and in March
1838 transmitted to the same Society the trunk and viscera of an
Apteryx, which, being entrusted to Prof. Owen, furnished him, in
conjunction with other specimens of the same kind received from
Drs. Lyon and George Bennett, with the materials of the masterly
monograph laid before the Society in instalments, and ultimately
printed in its Transactions (ii. p. 257, iii. p. 277). From this time
the whole structure of the Kiwi has certainly been far better known
than that of nearly any other bird, and by degrees other examples
found their way to England, some of which were distributed to the
various museums of the Continent and of America.?

In 1847 much interest was excited by the reported discovery
of another species of the genus (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1847, p. 51), and
though the story was not confirmed, a second species was really soon
after made known by Gould (fom. cit. p. 935; Trans. Zool. Soc. iii.
p. 379, pl. 57) under the name of Apteryx oweni—a just tribute to
the great master who had so minutely explained the anatomy of
the group. Three years later Mr. Bartlett drew attention to the
manifest difference existing among certain examples, all of which
had hitherto been regarded as specimens of A. australis, and the
examination of a large series led him to conclude that under that
name two distinct species were confounded. To the second of
these, the third of the genus (according to his views) he gave the
name of A. mantelli (Proc. 1850, p. 274),? and it soon turned out
that to this new form the majority of the specimens already
obtained belonged. In 1851 the first Kiwi known to have reached
Europe alive was presented to the Zoological Society by Mr. Eyre,
then Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand. This was found to

1 In 1842, according to Broderip (Penny Cyclopedia, xxiii. p. 146), two
skins had been presented to the Zoological Society by the New-Zealand Com-
pany, and two more obtained by Lord Derby, one of which he had given to
Gould. In 1844 the British Museum possessed three, and the sale catalogue of
the Rivoli Collection, which passed in 1846 to the Academy of Natural Sciences
at Philadelphia, included a single specimen—probably the first taken to America.

2 For a wholly insufficient reason, and ignorant of the circumstances of the
ease, Dr. Sharpe has attempted, in the Proceedings of the Wellington Philosophical
Society for 1888 (p. 6), to abolish this name, and to substitute one of his own
conferring. I myself can testify to the fact that Mr. Bartlett gave the name 4.
mantelli to the form from the North Island, of which examples were then com-
paratively common in England, leaving the name 4. australis to that of the
South Island, of which only two specimens were at the time known. The differ-
ence between the two forms was at that time as clear to him as it is to any of us
now.

496 KIWI

belong to the newly described A. mantelli, and some careful observa-
tions on its habits in captivity were published by Wolley and
another (Zoologist, pp. 3409, 3605).1 Subsequently the Society
has received several other live examples of this form, besides one of
the real A. australis (Proc. 1872, p. 861), some of A. oweni, and one
of a supposed fourth species, 4. haasti, characterized in 1871 by the
late Mr. Potts (dis, 1872, p. 35; Trans. N. Zeal. Inst. iv. p. 204,
Vv. p: LD)?

The Kiwis form a group of the Subclass RAtit#, to which the
rank of an Order has been fitly assigned, as they differ in many
important particulars from any of the other existing forms of Ratite
birds. The most obvious feature the Apteryges afford is the pres-
ence of a back toe, while the extremely aborted condition of the
wings, the position of the nostrils—almost at the tip of the bill—
and the absence of an aftershaft in the feathers, are characters
“nearly as manifest, and others not less determinative though more

Heap or APTERYX, (From Buller.)

recondite will be found on examination. The Kiwis are peculiar
to New Zealand, and it is believed that A. mantelli is the repre-
sentative in the North Island of the southern A. australis, both
being of a dark reddish-brown, longitudinally striped with light
yellowish-brown, while 4. owent, of a light greyish brown trans-
versely barred with black, is said to occur in both islands. About
the size of a large domestic Fowl, they are birds of nocturnal
habit, sleeping, or at least inactive, by day, feeding mostly on earth-
worms, but occasionally swallowing berries, though in captivity
they will eat flesh suitably minced. Sir W. Buller writes (b. New
Zeal. p. 362; ed. 2, 11. p. 313) :—

1 This bird in 1859 laid an egg, and afterwards continued to lay one or two more
every year. In 1865 a male of the same species was introduced, but though a
strong disposition to breed was shewn on the part of both, and the eggs, after
the custom of the Ratitz, were incubated by him, no progeny was hatched (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 329).

2 A fine series of figures of all these supposed species is given by Rowley
(Orn. Miscell. i. pls. 1-6). Some others, as 4A. maxima (from Stewart Island),
A. haasti, A. mollis and A. fusca, have also been indicated, but proof of their
validity has yet to be adduced.

KIWI 497

“The Kiwi is in some measure compensated for the absence of
wings by its swiftness of foot. When running it makes wide
strides and carries the body in an oblique position, with the neck
stretched to its full extent and inclined forwards. In the twilight
it moves about cautiously and as noiselessly as a rat, to which, indeed,
at this time it bears some outward resemblance. In a quiescent
posture, the body generally assumes a perfectly rotund appearance ;
and it sometimes, but only rarely, supports itself by resting the point
of its bill on the ground. It often yawns when disturbed in the
daytime, gaping its mandibles in a very grotesque manner. When
provoked it erects the body, and, raising the foot to the breast,
strikes downwards with considerable force and rapidity, thus using its
sharp and powerful claws as weapons of defence. . . . While hunt-
ing for its food the bird makes a continual sniffing sound through the
nostrils, which are placed at the extremity of the upper mandible.
Whether it is guided as much by touch as by smell I cannot safely
say ; but it appears to me that both senses are used in the action.
That the sense of touch is highly developed seems quite certain,
because the bird, although it may not be audibly sniffing, will
always first touch an object with the point of its bill, whether in
the act’ of feeding or of surveying the ground; and when shut up
in a cage or confined in a room it may be heard, all through the night,
tapping softly at the walls... . It is interesting to watch the
bird, in a state of freedom, foraging for worms, which constitute
its principal food : it moves about with a slow action of the body ;
and the long, flexible bill is driven into the soft ground, generally
home to the very root, and is either immediately withdrawn with a
worm held at the extreme tip of the mandibles, or it is gently
moved to and fro, by an action of the head and neck, the body of the
bird being perfectly steady. It is amusing to observe the extreme
care and deliberation with which the bird draws the worm from its
hiding-place, coaxing it out as it were by degrees, instead of pulling
roughly or breaking it. On getting the worm fairly out of the
ground, it throws up its head with a jerk, and swallows it whole.”
The foregoing extract refers to A. mantelli, but there is little
doubt of the remarks being equally applicable to A. australis, and
probably also to A. oweni, though the different proportion of the
bill in the last points to some diversity in the mode of feeding.
Did space allow much more should be said of the Kiwis—perhaps
to ornithologists the most interesting group of birds now existing,
and the more interesting in regard to the melancholy doom of
extinction which almost inevitably awaits them; but there is some
consolation in the thought that their anatomy and development
have been admirably studied and described in the light of existing
scientific methods by Prof. T. Jeffrey Parker (Phil. Trans. 1891,
pp. 25-134, pls. 3-19; 1892, pp. 73-84, pls. 7, 8).
32

498 KNEE—KNOT

KNEE, a term commonly misapplied by many ornithological
writers to the intertarsal (often called tibio-tarsal) joint, hence the
absurd name of THICK-KNEE; but correctly used as in Mammals for
the femoro-tibial joint, which is not usually visible in the living
Bird, owing to the shortness of the thigh and its being hidden
by the flank-feathers.

KNORHAAN (Scolding Cock), the colonial name in South Africa
for several species of BUSTARD, of the genus Hupodotis and especially
E. afra.

KNOT, a Limicoline bird very abundant at certain seasons on
the shores of Britain and many countries of the northern hemisphere.
Camden in the edition of his Britannia published in 1607 (p. 408)
inserted a passage not found in the earlier issues of that work,
connecting the name with that of King Canute, and this account of
its origin has been usually received. But no other evidence in its
favour is forthcoming, and Camden’s statement is merely the expres-
sion of an opinion,! so that there is perhaps ground for believing
him to have been mistaken, and that the clue afforded by Sir
Thomas Browne, who (circa 1672) wrote the name “Gnatts or
Knots,” may be the true one.” Still the statement was so positively
repeated by successive authors that Linnzeus followed them in calling
the species 7ringa canutus, and so it remains with nearly all modern
ornithologists. Rather larger than a SNIPE, but with a short bill and
legs, the Knot visits the coasts of some parts of Europe, Asia and
North America at times in vast flocks; and, though in temperate
climates a good many remain throughout the winter, these are nothing
compared with the numbers that arrive towards the end of spring, in
England generally about the 15th of May, and after staying a few
days pass northward to their summer quarters, while early in autumn
the young of the year throng to the same places in still greater
plenty, being followed a little later by their parents. In winter the

1 His words are simply ‘‘ Knotts, i. Canuti aves, vt opinor e Dania enim
aduolare creduntur.” In the margin the name is spelt ‘‘ Cnotts,” and he possibly
thought it had to do with a well-known story of that king. Knots undoubtedly
frequent the sea-shore, where Canute is said on one occasion to have taken up his
station, but they generally retreat, and that nimbly, before the advancing surf,
which he is said in the story not to have done.

* In this connexion we may compare the French maringouwin, ordinarily a gnat
or mosquito, but also, among the French Creoles of America, a small shore-bird,
either a Tringa or an Afgialitis, according to Descourtilz (Voyage, ii. p. 249).
See also Littré’s Dictionnaire, sub voce.

3 There are few of the Limicole, to which group the Knot belongs, that
present greater changes of plumage according to age or season, and hence before
these phases were understood the species beeame encumbered with many synonyms,
as Tringa cinerea, ferruginea, grisea, islandica, nevia, and so forth. The confusion
thus caused was mainly cleared away by Montagu and Temminck,

KOEL 499
plumage is ashy-grey above (save the rump, which is white) and
white beneath. In summer the feathers of the back are black,
broadly margined with lhght orange-red, mixed with white, those of
the rump white, more or less tinged with red, and the lower parts
are of a nearly uniform deep bay or chestnut. The birds which
winter in temperate climates seldom attain the brilliancy of colour
exhibited by those which arrive from the south; the luxuriance
generated by the heat of a tropical sun seems needed to develop the
full richness of hue. ‘The young when they come from their birth-
place are clothed in ashy-grey above, each feather banded with dull
black and ochreous, while the breast is more or less deeply tinged
with warm buff. Much curiosity has long existed among zoologists
as to the egg of the Knot, of which not a single identified or
authenticated specimen is known to exist in collections. Yet more
than sixty years ago the species was found breeding abundantly on the
North Georgian (now commonly called the Parry) Islands by Parry’s
memorable expedition, as well as soon after on Melville Peninsula
by Capt. Lyons, and again, during the voyage of Sir George Nares,
on the northern coast of Grinnell Land and the shores of Smith
Sound, where Col. Feilden obtained examples of the newly-hatched
young (dis, 1877, p. 407), and observed that the parents fed largely
on the buds of Sazifraga oppositifolia. Gen. Greely subsequently
found that Knots bred in small numbers near Discovery Harbour,
on the northern shore of Lady Franklin Bay, and obtained from the
ovary of an example shot there “a completely formed hard-shelled
egg ready to be laid” (Three Years of Arctic Service, ii. p. 377)—a
specimen, however, which had to be abandoned in the dire distress
to which he and his comrades were subjected. These are the only
localities in which this species is known to breed, for on none of the
arctic lands lying to the north of Europe or Asia has it been
unquestionably observed.1 In winter its wanderings are very
extensive, as it is recorded from Surinam, Brazil, Walvisch Bay in
South Africa, China, Queensland and New Zealand. Formerly
this species was extensively netted in England, and the birds fattened
for the table, where they were esteemed a great delicacy, as witness
the entries in the Northumberland and Le Strange Household Books ;
and the British Museum contains an old treatise on the subject—
“The maner of kepyng of knotts, after Sir William Askew and my
Lady, given to my Lord Darcy, 25 Hen. VIII.” (AZSS. Sloane, 1592,
8 cat. 663).

KOEL, the Hindi name of a well-known Indian Cuckow, the
use of which has been extended to other allied species forming the

1 The Tringa canutus of Payer’s expedition seems more likely to have been
T. maritima, which species is not named among the birds of Franz Josef Land,
though it can hardly fail to occur there.

500 KRAAI—LAMMERGEVER

genus Hudynamis, a peculiarity of which is that the adult males have
a uniform glossy black plumage while the females and young present
avery different aspect, being of some brownish tint, variously
mottled, barred or spotted. Hence in several Indian languages the
two sexes bear different names, The true Koel was long thought
to be the Cuculus orientalis of Linnzeus, but the late Lord Tweeddale
shewed (Ibis, 1869, p. 338) that that name applied to a cognate
form, and it has since been used for the species of the Moluccas
(Salvadori, Ornitol. Papuas.i. p. 359), and the Indian bird, which also
inhabits Ceylon, and stretches across Burma to China (where it has
been called £. maculata) and the Malay Archipelago to Timor, is now
recognized as Hudynamis honorata or nigra—the latter epithet being
especially suited to the male. Australia and New Guinea produce
another species, 1. cyanocephala or flindersi, and some three more
inhabit other eastern localities. The Koel is parasitic, the hens
laying their eggs in Crows’ nests (Hume, Nest & Eggs Ind. B. ed. 2,
il. p. 392).

KRAAI, Dutch for Crow, applied to several species in
South Africa.

L

LADY-FOWL said to be a name of the WIGEON.

LAMMERGEYER (i.e. Lamb-Vulture), or Bearded Vulture,
the Falco barbatus of Linnzeus and the Gypaetus barbatus. of modern
ornithologists, one of the grandest Birds-of-Prey of the Old World
—inhabiting lofty mountain chains from Portugal to the borders of
China, though within historic times, if not within living memory,
it has been exterminated from several of its ancient haunts. Its
northern range in Europe does not seem to have extended further
than the southern frontier of Bavaria, or the neighbourhood of
Salzburg; but in Asia it formerly reached a higher latitude, having
been found even so lately as 1830 in Dauuria (EXTERMINATION, p.
227, note 1), where according to Dr. Radde (Beitr. Kenntn. Russ.
Reichs, xxiii. p. 467) it has now left but its name. It is not
uncommon on many parts of the Himalayas, where it breeds, and
on the mountains of Kumaon and the Punjab, and is the “ Golden
Eagle” of most Anglo-Indians. Returning westward, it is found
also in Persia, Palestine, Crete, and Greece, the Italian Alps, Sicily,
Sardinia and Mauritania; but can scarcely be said to exist any
longer in Carinthia? or in Switzerland.”

1 Of. Keller, Jahrb. nat.-hist. Landesmus. Klagenfurt, 1886, pp. 285-292.

2 Dr. Girtanner has a valuable paper on this bird in Switzerland (Verhandl

LAMMERGE VER 501

In some external characters the Limmergeyer is obviously
intermediate between the Families Vulturidx and Falconidx, and the
opinion of systematists has from time to time varied as to its
proper position ; but as this ought to depend on the decision of
anatomists, who have not yet delivered their verdict, it must be
still left in doubt ; and there would be little advantage in recounting
how one author has referred it to the former group and another to
the latter, since nobody seems to have applied the only sure test—
that afforded by characters which are not superficial! It will
suffice to say that most writers have deemed its Vulturine affinity
the strongest (relying apparently on the form of the beak, which
can scarcely be said to be either Aquiline or Falconine), in spite of
its well-feathered head and tarsi. The whole length of the bird is
from 43 to 46 inches, of which, however, about 20 are due to the
long cuneiform tail, while the pointed wings measure more than 30
inches from the carpal joint to the tip. The coloration of the
plumage is very peculiar ; the top of the head is white, bounded by
black, which, beginning in stiff bristly feathers turned forwards
over the base of the beak, proceeds on either side of the face in a
well-defined band to the eye, where it bifurcates into two narrow
stripes, of which the upper one passes above and beyond that
feature till just in front of the scalp it suddenly turns upwards
across the head and meets the corresponding stripe from the
opposite side, enclosing the white forehead already mentioned,
while the lower stripe extends beneath the eye about as far back-
wards and then suddenly stops. A tuft of =
black, bristly feathers projects beardlike from
the base of the mandible, and gives the bird
one of its commonest epithets in many lan-
guages, as well as an appearance almost unique LiMMERGEYER,
among the whole Class Aves. The rest of the (After Swainson.)
head, the neck, throat, and lower parts generally are clothed with
lanceolate feathers of a pale tawny colour—sometimes so pale
as to be nearly white beneath ;? while the scapulars, back, and
St.-Gall. naturw. Gesellschaft, 1869-70, pp. 147-244). The last killed, by poison,
was near Viege in the Canton Valais in February 1886, since when very few have
been seen, but it is possible that it may yet exist in the Haute Engadine. See
the mournful but interesting account by MM. Fatio and Studer, Cat. Ois. de la
Suisse, pp. 25-46 (Geneve: 1889), and their more recent Cat. distrib. Ois. de la
Suisse, p. 7 (Geneve: 1892).

1 Prof. Huxley’s labours unfortunately were not directed to this particular
point, and therefore throw little or no light on it. He puts the Vulturide and
Falconidex together under the name of Gypaetide, very properly separating from
them the American VuLturEs as Cathartidw, of which the right name is
Sarcorhamphide.

2 Meves (Ofvers. Vet. Akad. Férhandl. 1860, p. 487) asserts that in some
cases, as proved by chemical tests, the red colouring is due to a superficial deposit

502 LAMMERGEVER

wing-coverts generally, are of a glossy greyish-black, most of the
feathers having a white shaft and a median tawny line. The
quill-feathers, both of the wings and tail, are of a dark blackish-
grey. The irides are of a light orange, and the sclerotic tunics,—
equivalent to the “white of the eye” in most animals,—which in
few birds are visible, are in this very conspicuous and of a deep
crimson, giving it an air of great ferocity. In the young of the
year the whole head, neck, and throat are clothed in dull black,
and most of the feathers of the mantle and wing-coverts are broadly
tipped and mesially streaked with tawny or lightish grey.

The Limmergeyer breeds early in the year. The nest is of
large size, built of sticks, lined with soft material, and placed on a
ledge of rock—a spot being chosen, and often occupied for many
years, which is nearly always difficult of access, and not unfre-
quently quite inaccessible, to man, from the precipitous or
overhanging configuration of the cliffs. Here in the month ot
February a single egg is usually laid. ‘This is more than 3 inches
in length by nearly 24 in breadth, of a pale but lively brownish-
orange. The young when in the nest are clad in down of a dirty
white, varied with grey on the head and neck, and with ochraceous
in the iliac region. How long the eggs take in hatching, or
how long the young remain nestlings, seems to be unknown.
Equally unknown is the length of time that elapses before the latter
assume the adult plumage, but it is probable that this period must
at least exceed a twelvemonth.

There is much discrepancy as to the ordinary food of the
Limmergeyer, some observers maintaining that it lives almost
entirely on carrion, offal, and the most disgusting garbage; but
there is no question of its frequently taking living prey, and it is
reasonable to suppose that this bird, like so many others, is not
everywhere uniform in its habits. Its very name shews it to be the
reputed enemy of shepherds, and it is in some measure owing to their
hostility that it has been extirpated in so many parts of its
European range. Its usual mode of proceeding is said to be by
suddenly rushing at the animal, especially if it be young, when in
a somewhat dangerous position, so startling it as to make it lose its
foothold and fall down the precipice.1 But the Limmergeyer has
of oxide of iron on the feathers, and that the colouring-matter on the eggs (to be
presently described) also arises from the same cause. This opinion has, however,
been denied by several other naturalists, though none of them seem to have
tried the experiment ; while Mr. Hume, who has (Scrap Book, p. 46), confirms
Meves’s statement. In confinement, moreover, the bird has been observed
always to lose or not to acquire its tawny tint.

1 Stories are told of its attacking human beings under such circumstances,
and the present writer is not disinclined to believe that some of such stories may

be true, though he is unable to refer to any that rest on testimony sufficient to
dispel all doubt,

LAMELLIROSTRES—LANNER 503

also a great partiality for bones, which when small enough it
swallows and slowly digests. When they are too large, it is said
to soar with them to a great height and drop them on a rock or
stone that they may be broken into pieces of convenient size.
Hence its name Ossifrage,! by which the Hebrew Peres is rightly
translated in the Authorized Version of the Bible (Lev. xi. 13;
Deut. xiv. 12)—a word corrupted into OSPREY and misapplied to
a bird which has no habit of the kind.

The Limmergeyer of north-eastern and south Africa is deemed
by systematists to be specifically distinct, and is known as Gypaetus
meridionalis or G. nudipes. In habits it seems closely to resemble the
northern bird, from which it differs in little more than wanting the
black stripe below the eye and having the lower part of the tarsus
bare of feathers. It is the “Golden Eagle” of Bruce’s 7ravels, and
has been beautifully figured by Mr. Wolf in Riippell’s Syst. Uebers.
der Vogel Nord-Ost-Afrika’s (Taf. 1).

LAMELLIROSTRES, Cuvier’s name in 1817? (Regne Anim.
i. p. 527) for the group composed of the Linnzan genera Anas
(Duck) and Mergus (MERGANSER), the Anatide of modern
ornithologists.

LANNER (Fr. Lanier, Lat. Laniarius, from-laniare to dissever *),
a species of FALCON about which great confusion or ignorance
existed for many years. The older writers on Falconry, to say
nothing of so good a naturalist as Belon, were well acquainted with
it; but, as the sport fell into disuse, knowledge of the different
kinds of birds therein employed was gradually obscured and lost, so
that the Falco lanarius of Linneus (and therefore of precise scientific
nomenclature), whatever it may have been,* was, as he in 1761
admitted (Fauna Suec. ed. 2, p. 22) “distinctissimus a Lanario Italico,”
and therefore certainly not the Lanner, Lanier, or Lanarius of
falconers. In the same way doubt may exist as to the “Lanner” of
some old English authors, though it is not to be questioned that
true Lanners were brought to England and used for Falconry.
Schlegel has the credit of having restored the ancient Lanner to a

1 Among other crimes attributed to the species is that, according to Pliny
(Hist. Nat. lib. x. cap. 3), of having caused the death of the poet Aischylus, by
dropping a tortoise on his bald head, mistaking it for a stone! In the Atlas
range this bird is said to prey chiefly on the Testudo mauritanica, which “‘it
carries to some height in the air, and lets fall on a stone to break the shell” (Zdis,
1859, p. 177). It seems to be the épwn and ¢jv7 of Greek classical writers.

2 In 1805 he (Lee. d’ Anat. comp. tabl. 2) had called this group Serrirostres ;
but whether the word was intended as Latin is doubtful.

3 Some derive the word from Jana (wool), in allusion to the soft character of
the plumage ; but Littré rejected this etymology.

4 Schlegel thought it was an immature GyRFALCON ; but that seems beyond
proof,

504 LAPWING

recognized and recognizable position, which he did in 1841, then
calling it (Abhandl. Geb. Zool. & vergl. Anat. ii. p. 3, pls. x. xi.)
Falco feldeggi, it having been brought to his notice from examples
obtained by the Baron of that name in Dalmatia. In the same year,
however, Sir Gardiner Wilkinson (Mann. & Cust. Anc. Egypt, ser.
2, ii. pp. 121, 210) conferred the name of Falco arocris! on the sacred
Falcon of the ancient Egyptians, which we now know to be the
true Lanner. It is found locally throughout the countries border-
ing the Mediterranean, from Spain eastward, and is known to breed
on the Egyptian Pyramids. Further to the southward it is
replaced by the-allied /. tanypterus (which the late Mr. Gurney
regarded as a local race), and in Western Asia by F’. babylonicus.

LAPWING, Anglo-Saxon Hledpewince ( = “one who turns about
in running or flight,” see Skeat’s Htymol. Dict. p. 321),? a well-
known bird, the Zringa vanellus of Linneus and the Vanellus vulgaris
or V. cristatus of most modern ornithologists. In the temperate
parts of the Old World this species is perhaps the most abundant
of the Charadriidx (PLOVER), breeding in greater or fewer numbers
in almost every suitable place from Ireland to Japan,—the majority
migrating towards winter to southern countries, as the Punjab,
Egypt, and Barbary,—though in the British Islands some are
always found at that season, chiefly about estuaries. Asa straggler
it has occurred within the Arctic Circle (as on the Varanger Fjord
in Norway), as well as in Iceland and even Greenland ; while it
not unfrequently appears in Madeira and the Azores. Conspicuous
as the strongly contrasted colours of its plumage and its very
peculiar flight make it, one may well wonder at its success in
maintaining its ground when so many of its allies have been almost
exterminated, for the Lapwing is the object perhaps of greater per-
secution than any other European bird that is not a plunderer. Its
egos—the well-known “ Plovers’ Eggs” of commerce 3—are taken by

1 It may be doubted whether either of these names can stand, since Gmelin’s
F. griseus in 1788 (Syst. Nat. i. p. 275) is founded on the ‘Grey Falcon” of
Latham and Pennant, the description of which was transmitted to the last by
Thomas Bolton, who subsequently communicated a drawing of the bird to Lewin,
by whom it was reproduced (B. Gr. Brit. ed. 2, i. pl. 17). The figure seems
intended for an adult of the true Lanner, though coloured somewhat to resemble
F. chicquera. The question is intricate, and could not be here discussed. Con-
fusion began early, since Lewin in the first edition of his work figured (No, 15)
a very different bird, and one not agreeing with the description.

2 Caxton in 1481 has ‘‘lapwynches” (Reynard the Fox, cap. 27).

8 There is a prevalent belief that many of the eggs sold as ‘‘ Plovers’”’ are
those of Rooks, but no notion can be more absurd, since the appearance of the
two is wholly unlike. Those of the Redshank, of the Golden Plover (to a small
extent), and enormous numbers of those of the Black-headed Gull, and in certain
places of some of the Terns, are, however, undoubtedly sold as Lapwings’, having

LAPWING 505

thousands or ten-thousands ; and worse than this, the bird, wary
and wild at other times of the year, in the breeding-season becomes
easily approachable, and is (or used to be) shot down in enormous
numbers to be sold in the markets for “Golden Plover.” Its grow-
ing scarcity as a species was consequently very perceptible in this
country until an Act of Parliament in 1872 frightened people into
letting it alone, when its numbers immediately increased, to the mani-
fest advantage of many classes of the community—those who would
eat its eggs, those who would eat its flesh (at the right time of year),
as well as the agriculturists whose lands it frequented, for it is ad-
mitted on all hands that nobird is more completely the farmer’s friend.
What seems to be the secret of the Lapwing holding its position in
spite of slaughter and rapine is the adaptability of its nature to
various kinds of localities. It will find sustenance for itself and
its progeny equally on the driest soils as on the fattest pastures ;
upland and fen, arable and moorland, are alike to it, provided only
the ground be open enough. The wailing cry’ and the frantic
gestures of the cock-bird in the breeding-season will tell any
passer-by that a nest or brood is near; but, unless he knows how
to look for it, little save mere chance will enable him to find it.
Yet by practice those who are acquainted with the bird’s habits
will accurately mark the spot whence the hen silently rises from
her treasure, and, disregarding the behaviour of the cock, which is
intended to delude the intruder, will walk straight to one nest
after another as knowing beforehand the exact position of each.
In many cases they will know, from the hen’s behaviour, the number
of eggs they will find, and whether she has begun to sit. The nest
is a slight hollow in the ground, wonderfully inconspicuous even
a little similarity of shell to the latter, and a difference of flavour only to be
detected by a fine palate. It is estimated that 800,000 Lapwings’ eggs are yearly
sent to England from the one province of Friesland in Holland (see Ornith.
Centralbl. 1877, p. 108).

1 This sounds like pee-weet, with some variety of intonation. Hence the
names Peewit, Peaseweep, and Teuchit, commonly applied in some parts of
Britain to this bird,—though the first is that by which one of the smaller Gulls,
Larus ridibundus, is known in some of the districts it frequents. In Sweden Vipa,
in Germany Kiebitz, in Holland Kiewiet, and in France Dixhwit, are names of the
Lapwing, given to it from its usual cry. Other English names are Green Plover
and Horn-pie—the latter from its long hornlike crest and pied plumage. The
Lapwing’s conspicuous crest seems to have been the cause of a common blunder
among our writers of the Middle Ages, who translated the Latin word Upupa,
properly Hooron, by Lapwing, as being the crested bird with which they were
best acquainted. In like manner other writers of the same or an earlier period
Latinized Lapwing by “grettides (plural), and rendered that again into English
as Egrets—the tuft of feathers misleading them also. A common Italian name
is Pavoncella (Little Peahen), and that has led to some amusing mistakes. The
word Vanellus is said to be from vannus, the fan used for winnowing corn, and
refers to the audible beating of the bird’s wings.

506 LAPWING

when deepened and its margin heightened by the accumulation of
vegetable matter, as is usually the case while incubation continues,
and the black-spotted olive eggs (four in number) are almost in-
visible to the careless or untrained eye unless it should happen to
glance directly upon them. ‘The young when first hatched are
clothed with mottled down so as closely to resemble a stone and to
be thus overlooked as they squat motionless on, the approach of
danger. At a distance the plumage of the adult appears to be
white and black in about equal proportions, the latter predominat-
ing above ; but on closer examination nearly all the seeming black
is found to be 4 bottle-green gleaming with purple and copper ; and
the tail-coverts, both above and below, are seen to be of a bright
bay colour that is seldom visible in flight. The crest consists of
six or eight narrow and elongated feathers, turned slightly upwards
at the end, and is usually carried in «a horizontal position, extending
in the cock beyond the middle of the back; but it is capable of
being erected so as to become nearly vertical. Frequenting (as has
been said) parts of the open country so very divergent in character,
and as remarkable for the peculiarity of its flight as for that of its
cry, the Lapwing is far more often observed in nearly all parts of
the British Islands than any other of the Lim1coL&. The peculiarity
of its flight seems due to the wide and rounded wings it possesses,
the steady and ordinarily somewhat slow flapping of which impels
the body at each stroke with a manifest though easy jerk. Yet on
occasion, as when performing its migrations, or even its almost
daily transits from one feeding-ground to another, and still more
when being pursued by a Falcon, the speed with which it moves
through the air is very considerable ; and the passage of a flock of
Lapwings, twinkling aloft or in the distance, as the dark and light
surfaces of the plumage are alternately presented, is always an
agreeable spectacle to those who love a landscape enlivened by its
wild creatures. On the ground this bird runs nimbly, and is nearly
always engaged in searching for its food, which is wholly animal.
Allied to the Lapwing are several forms that have been placed
by ornithologists in the genera Hoplopterus, Chettusia, Lobivanellus,
Sarciophorus, and so forth ; but the respective degree of affinity they
bear to one another is not rightly understood, and space would
prohibit any attempt at here
expressing it. In. some of
them the hind toe, which
has already ceased to have
any function in the Lap-
BILL AND CARPAL SPUR mL) HOoPLoprervs. wing, is wholly wanting. In
(After Swainson.) i :
others the wings are armed
with a tubercle or even a sharp spur on the carpus. Few have
any occipital crest, but several have the face ornamented by the

LARK 507

outgrowth of a fleshy lobe or lobes. With the exception of North
America, they are found in most parts of the world, but perhaps the
greater number in Africa. Three species occur in Europe—Hoplo-
pterus spinosus, the Spur-winged Plover, and Chettusia gregaria and
C. leucura; but the first and last are only stragglers from Africa
or Asia.

LARK, Anglo-Saxon Ldwerce, German Lerche, Danish Lerke,
Dutch Leeuwerik, a name (perhaps always, but now certainly) used
in a rather general sense, any special meaning being signified by a
prefix, as SKYLARK, TITLARK, WOODLARK, and so forth; though
custom ordains that the first of these, the Alauda arvensis of
ornithology, is intended if no qualification be expressed, since it is
the best known and most widely-spread species throughout Europe.
It scarcely needs description. Of all birds it holds unquestionably
the foremost place in our literature, and there is hardly a poet or
poetaster who has not made it his theme, to say nothing of the
many writers of prose who have celebrated its qualities in passages
that will be remembered so long as our language lasts. It is also
one of the most favourite cage-birds, as it will live for many years
in captivity, and, except in the season of moult, will pour forth its
thrilling song many times in an hour for weeks and months
together, while its affection for its owner is generally of the most
marked kind. Difficult as it is to estimate the comparative
abundance of different species of birds, there would probably be no
error in accounting the Skylark the most plentiful of the Class in
Western Europe. Not only does it frequent almost all unwooded
districts in this quarter of the globe, making known its presence
throughout spring and summer, everywhere that it occurs, by its
gladsome and heart-lifting notes, but, unlike most birds, its
numbers increase with the spread of agricultural improvement, and
since the beginning of the century the extended breadth of arable
land in Great Britain must have multiplied manifold the Lark-
population of the country. Nesting chiefly in the growing corn,
its eggs and young are protected in a great measure from all
molestation ; and, as each pair of birds will rear several broods in
the season, their produce on the average may be set down as at
least quadrupling the original stock—the eggs in each nest varying
from three to five. The majority of young Larks seem to leave
their birthplace as soon as they can shift for themselves, but what
immediately becomes of them is one of the many mysteries of
bird-life that has not been penetrated. When the stubbles are
cleared, old and young congregate in flocks; but the young then
seen appear to be those only of the later broods. In the course of
the autumn they give place to others coming from more northerly
districts, and then, as winter succeeds, in great part vanish, leaving

508 LARK

not a tithe of the numbers previously present. On the approach
of severe weather, in one part of the country or another, flocks
arrive, undoubtedly from the Continent, which in magnitude cast
into insignificance all those that have hitherto inhabited the
district. On the east coast of both Scotland and England this
immigration has been several times noticed as occurring in a
constant stream for as many as three days in succession. Further
inland the birds are observed “in numbers simply incalculable,”
and “in countless hundreds.” On such occasions the bird-catchers
are busily at work with their nets or snares, so that 20,000 or
30,000 Larks are often sent together to the London market, and at
the lowest estimate £2000 worth are annually sold there. During
the winter of 1867-68, 1,255,500 Larks, valued at £2260, were
taken into the town of Dieppe. The same thing happens in
various places almost every year, and many persons are apt to
believe that thereby the species is threatened with extinction.
When, however, it is considered that, if these birds were left to
continue their wanderings, a large proportion would die of hunger
before reaching a place that would supply them with food, and
that of the remainder an enormous proportion would perish at sea
in their vain attempt to find a settlement, it must be acknowledged
that man by his wholesale massacres, which at first seem so brutal,
is but anticipating the act of Nature, and on the whole probably
the fate of the Larks at his hands is not worse than that which
they would encounter did not his devices intervene.

The Skylark’s range extends across the Old World from the
Feroes to the Kurile Islands. In winter it occurs in North China,
Nepal, the Punjab, Persia, Palestine, Lower Egypt, and Barbary.

SkyLarks—<Alauda agrestis and A. arvensis. (From Dresser.)

It sometimes strays to Madeira, and has been killed in Bermuda,
though its unassisted appearance there is doubtful. It has been

1 See Yarrell (Hist. Br. Birds, ed. 4, i. pp. 618-621), where particular refer-
ences to the above statements, and some others, are given.

LARK 509

successfully introduced on Long Island in the State of New York,
and into New Zealand—where it may possibly become as trouble-
some a denizen as are other subjects upon which Acclimatization
Societies have exercised their meddling activity. Allied to the
Skylark a considerable number of species have been described, of
which Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiii. pp. 566-579) deems only
two to be valid, besides a supposed local race, Alauda agrestis, not
recognized by him, the difference between which and the normal
bird (stated at length in Mr. Dresser’s birds of Europe, iv.
pp. 310, 311) is shewn above.

The Woop.Lark, the Alauda arborea of most systematists, has
been by some generically separated as Lullula. It is a much more
local and therefore a far less numerous bird than the Skylark,
from which it may be easily distinguished by its finer bill, shorter
tail, more spotted breast, and light superciliary stripe. Though
not actually inhabiting woods, as its common name might imply,
it is seldom found far from trees. Its song wants the variety and
power of the Skylark’s, but has a resonant sweetness peculiarly its
own. ‘The bird, however, requires much care in captivity, and is
far less often caged than its congener. It has by no means so wide
a range as the Skylark, and perhaps the most eastern locality
recorded for it is Tiflis, while its appearance in Egypt and even in
Algeria must be accounted rare.

Not far removed from the foregoing is a group of Larks char-
acterized by a larger crest, a stronger and more curved bill, a
rufous lining to the wings, and some other minor features. This
group has been generally termed Galerita,’ and has for its type the
Crested Lark, the Alauda cristata of Linneus, a bird common
enough in parts of France and some other countries of the European
Continent, and said to have been obtained several times in the
British Islands. Many of the birds of this group frequent the
borders if not the interior of deserts, and such as do so exhibit a
more or less pale coloration, whereby they are assimilated in- hue
to that of their haunts (cf. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, p. 336).
The same characteristic may be observed in several other groups
—especially those known as belonging to the genera Calandrella,
Ammomanes, and Certhilauda or Alemon, some species of which are
of a light sandy or cream colour. The genus last named is of very
peculiar appearance, presenting in some respects an extraordinary
resemblance to the Hoopor, so much so that the first specimen

1 The name, however, is inadmissible, owing to its prior use in Entomology,
just as is Heterops, conferred without any definition in 1844 by Hodgson or J. E.
Gray (Zool. Miscell. p. 84). Aristotle’s old name, Corydus, was utilized by
Cuvier, in a slightly different form, for a very different bird, or it would have
come in appropriately. Any one coveting the privilege of bestowing a generic
name has here an casy opportunity of distinguishing himself.

510 LARK

described was referred to the genus pupa, and named U. alaudipes.
The resemblance, however, is merely one of analogy. The Hoopoe
belongs to a totally distinct Order of birds, widely differing ana-
tomically and physiologically, and we can hardly yet assume that
this resemblance is the effect of what is commonly called Mmiucry,
though that may ultimately prove to be the case.

There is, however, abundant evidence of the susceptibility of
the Alaudine structure to modification from external circumstances,

LULLULA. CERTHILAUDA,

—in other words, of its “ plasticity”; and perhaps no homogeneous
group of Passeres could be found which better displays the working
of “ Natural Selection.” This fact was recognized many years ago
by Canon Tristram (Jbis, 1859, pp. 429-433), and his remarks
deserve all attention, going, as they go, to the root of the matter.
A monograph of the Family executed by a competent ornithologist
could not fail to be a weapon of force in the hands of all evolu-
tionists. Almost every character that among Passerine birds is
accounted most sure is in the Larks found subject to modification,
The form of the bill varies in an extraordinary degree. In the Wood-
lark, Lidlula, already noticed, it is almost as slender as a Warbler’s ;

va

SO IOE Ya
Vi Z C}r
aaa alt
=>
3 V7

; WAY

Seer

a, Ry) SN :
4 4 YY \
\ \
MELANOCORYPHA, RHAMPHOCORYS.

in Ammomanes it is short ; in Certhilauda and Alxmon it is elongated
and curved ; in Pyrrhulauda and Melanocorypha it is stout and Finch-
like; while in Rhamphocorys it is exaggerated to an extent that
equals almost any Fringilline form (cf. GROSBEAK), exceeding in its
development that found in some members of the perplexing genus
Paradoxornis, and even presenting a resemblance to the same feature
in the far-distant 4nastomus (OPEN-BILL)—the tomia of the maxilla
not meeting those of the mandibula along their whole length, but

LARK SII

leaving an open space between them. The hind claw, generally
greatly elongated in Larks, as exemplified in A/auda and Calendula,

CALANDRELLA BRACHYDACTYLA.

is in Calandreila and some other genera reduced to a very moderate
size. The wings exhibit almost every modification, from the almost

CaLenpuLa. (After Swainson.)

entire abortion of the so-called “first” primary in Alauda to its
considerable development in Mirafra, and from tertials and scapulars
of ordinary length to the extreme elongation found in the Motacillidx

Mrirarra. (After Swainson.)

and almost in certain Limicolew. The most constant character indeed
of the Alaudidxw would seem to be that afforded by the podotheca or
covering of the tarsus, which is scutellate behind as well as in front,
but a character easily overlooked.!

In the Old World Larks are found in most parts of the
Palearctic area as well as in the Ethiopian and Indian Regions ;
but only one species, Mirafra horsfieldi, inhabits Australia, and
there is no true Lark indigenous to New Zealand. In the New
World there is also only one genus, Ofocorys,* one species of which,
found over nearly the whole of North America, is certainly not
distinguishable from the Shore-Lark of Europe and Asia, 0. alpestris ;

1 By assigning far too great an importance to this superficial character (in
comparison with others), Sundevall (Zentamen, pp. 53-63) was induced to array
the Larks, Hoopoes, and several other heterogeneous groups in one “‘ Series,” to
which he applied the name of Scwtelliplantares (see INTRODUCTION).

2 By American writers it is usually called Hremophila, but that name is pre-
ozcupied in natural history. Its osteology is minutely described by Dr. Shufeldt
(Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey, vi. pp. 119-147).

512 LARYNX

while how many others should be recognized is a question far from
being settled. The Shore-Lark is in Europe a native of only the
extreme north, but is very common near the shores of the Varanger
Fjord, and likewise breeds on mountain-tops further south-west,
though still well within the Arctic Circle. The mellow tone of its
call-note has obtained for it in Lapland a name signifying “ Bell-
bird,” and the song of the cock is lively, though not very loud.
The bird trustfully resorts to the neighbourhood of houses, and
even enters the villages of East Finmark in search of its food. It
produces at least two broods in the season, and towards autumn
migrates to lower latitudes in large flocks. Of late years these
have been observed almost every winter on the east coast of Great
Britain, and the species, instead of being regarded, as it once was,
in the light of an accidental visitor to the United Kingdom, must
now be deemed an almost regular visitor, though in very varying
numbers. Several other congeneric forms originally described as
distinct species, but the validity of which has been more than
once denied and reasserted, inhabit south-eastern Europe, Palestine,
and Central Asia; but an admittedly good species is the O. bilopha
of Arabia and Mauritania. All these birds, which have been termed
Horned Larks, from the tuft of elongated black feathers growing
on each side of the head, form a little group easily recognized by
their peculiar coloration, which calls to mind some of the Ringed
Plovers, Ai gialitis.

The name Lark is also frequently applied to many birds which
do not belong to the Alaudidx as now understood. The Mud-Lark,
Rock-Lark, Titlark, and Tree-Lark are Piprrs. The Grasshopper-
Lark is one of the aquatic WARBLERS, while the Meadow-Lark of
America, as has been already said, is an IcrERUS. Sand-Lark and
Sea-Lark are likewise names often given to some of the smaller
members of the Limicole. Of the true Larks, Alaudidx, Dr. Sharpe
(ut supre) makes over 70 species, and more than 40 local
races or subspecies. It is believed to be a physiological character
of the Family that they moult but once in the year, while the
Pipits, which in general appearance so much resemble them,
undergo a double moult, as do others of the Motacillidx, to which
they are most nearly allied.

LARYNX, the upper end of the trachea, into which the air
enters from the mouth through a longitudinal, slit-like opening, the.
rima glottidis. It lies behind the tongue, between the two Hyorp
horns, connected in front by a strong band with the cartilaginous
or bony urohyal, the sides of its dorsal margin being also attached
loosely by connective tissue to the walls of the upper end of the
cesophagus. The cartilaginous or bony part of the Larynx consists
of several pieces, of which the principal or cricoid cartilage forms

LATIROSTRES—LEVER 513
the anterior and lateral boundary, and runs out in a point towards
the urohyal. To this is attached an unpaired procricoid which
articulates with the right and left arytenoid cartilages, that close
the top of the Larynx, and between them encompass the rima
glottidis. The Larynx possesses only two muscles of its own, an
apertor and a sphincter; but other tracheal and hyoid muscles are
attached to it, while the rima glottidis in Birds is devoid of vocal
chords, and hence no voice is produced here, though sounds can be
modulated by the approximation or separation of its rigid margins,
which are protected by pads of fatty tissue with horny, wart-like
hooks upon their surface. An epiglottis, or soft process springing
from the anterior corner of the glottis and capable of shutting
down upon the latter, such as is found in Mammals, is scarcely
developed in Birds, or indicated only by a tranverse fold, which
may, as in Anseres, be supported by a little cartilage. In Birds
the voice is produced by the SYRINX, sometimes called the Lower
Larynx, which is situated at the pectoral end of the TRACHEA.

LATIROSTRES, Cuvier’s name in 1805 for a section consisting
of the SPOONBILL.

LAVEROCK or LAVROCK, a Scottish name for LARK.
LAVY, one of the many local names of the GUILLEMOT.

LEATHER-HEAD, a name for one or more species of FRIAR-
BIRD.

LEVER, or LIVER. Interest has been roused by a statement
which Montagu made in 1813 (Suppl. Orn. Dict.) to the effect that
the present city of Liverpool took its name from a bird called
“Liver” killed on the verge of a “pool,” and said by him to be an
Ipis (Falcinellus igneus). Several writers have uncritically repeated
this story, one part of which is very old, but the identification of
the bird with an Ibis was new.! No one can suppose that this was
his invention, but he unfortunately did not give the source of his
information. The question of the origin of the name Liverpool?
has been often discussed, and occasionally so warmly (Notes and
Queries, ser. 6, ix. pp. 350, 414) that it must here be avoided.
The mysterious bird that figured on the ancient corporation seal
seems to have been an Eagle, the well-known symbol of St. John
the Evangelist (cf. Picton, Memorials of Liverpool, i. p. 18); but
that a bird called Liver or Lever was known to heralds is

1 By most wrifers it had been said to be a Cormorant, for which there is no
authority.

2 Camden gives an Anglo-Saxon form, ‘‘ Lyferpole vulg. Lerpole,” for which
there is said to be no real authority, the oldest form known being temp. Hen. II.
*‘ Lirpul” or “ Litherpul” (Baines, Hist. County Palat. Lancaster, iv. p. 55),

33

514 LIGAMENT—LIMPKIN

shewn by Randle Holme’s Academy of Armory published at Chester
in 1688, wherein he stated (p. 266) that three heads of the Lever
“couped ” were borne by the family of that name,! and identified
the bird with the Lepelaer, Leplar, and Lefler (or Léfflar) of Low and
High Dutch, which last, he remarks, “we more finely pronounce
Lever.” Now all these are well-known names of what we now call
the SPOONBILL, a bird which on incontestable evidence had several
breeding-stations in England, so that places may well have taken
their name from it; but on the other hand, Holme’s assertion that
this bird was ever called Lever or Liver in English wants .confirma-
tion, and is said to contravene all etymological laws.

LIGAMENT, a tis of connective tissue, binding several parts
or organs to one another. Ligaments form an important feature in
all joints where the bones are held together by bands of little
variability, and are especially strong in the region of the shoulder
and the knee. Skeletal Ligaments mostly consist of modified
periosteum and fibrous cartilage, and hence they occasionally ossify,
causing bones that were originally distinct to unite. Sometimes
tendons which have lost their muscles are converted into Ligaments,
or obliterated vessels act as bands between intestinal organs.

LIMICOLA, Illiger’s name in 1811 for a “Family” com-
posed of the genera Numenius, Scolopax, Ereunetes, Actitis, Strepsilas
and Tringa, practically that is the Scolopacide of later authors ;
but since his time used in a general sense for all the Scolopacidx
and Charadridx, the latter of which he had placed in a separate
Family, Littorales.

LIMPKIN, a bird so called in Florida, because, though swift of
foot, some of its movements resemble those of a limping man. It
is the Aramus pictus of modern American ornithologists,? and
together with its southern congener A. scolopaceus, with which it
was long confounded (if indeed they be distinct), is considered to
hold a place midway between the Gruidw (CRANE) and the Rallidx
(RAIL), its osteological (Eyton, Oséeol. Av. p. 200, pl. xiv. K) and
pterylographical characters being those of the former, while its
digestive organs (as described by Macgillivray for Audubon) are
those of the latter. Beside Florida it inhabits the coast-districts
of Central America, and the Greater Antilles, being known in
Jamaica as the “Clucking Hen,” but the French name “ Courlan,”

1 A Lancashire family interesting to ornithologists, since from it sprang Sir
~ Ashton Lever, famous for his Museum. ‘

2 In the belief that it is the species mentioned by William Bartram as being
called by the Indians Lphouskyka (signifying ‘‘ Crying Bird”) and by him
Tantalus pictus ; but neither his description of it nor his drawing, as afterwards
given by Barton (7’rans. Linn. Soc. xii. pl. 1), is very accurate.

LINNET ss

bestowed by Buffon on the South-American form, is often given to
it in books.

LINNET, Anglo-Saxon Linete and Linet-wige, whence seems
to have been corrupted the old Scottish “ Lintquhit,” and the
modern northern English “ Lintwhite,’—originally a somewhat
generalized bird’s name, but latterly specialized for the Fringilla
cannabina of Linneus, the Linota cannabina of ornithology.1 This
is a common and well-known song-bird, frequenting almost the
whole of Europe south of lat. 64°, and in Asia
extending to Turkestan. In Africa it is known
as a winter Visitant to Egypt and Abyssinia, and
is abundant at all seasons in Barbary, as well as
in the Canaries and Madeira. Though the fond-
ness of this species for the seeds of flax (Linum)
and hemp (Cannabis) has given it its common
name in so many European languages,’ it feeds largely, if not
chiefly, in Britain on the seeds of plants of the order Composite,
especially those growing on heaths and commons. As _ these
waste places have been gradually brought under the plough,
and improved methods of cultivation have been applied to all
arable land, in England and Scotland particularly, the haunts and
means of subsistence of the Linnet have been slowly but surely
curtailed, and hence of late years its numbers have undergone
a very visible diminution throughout Great Britain, and its diminu-
tion has also been aided by the detestable practice of netting it in
spring—for it is a popular cage-bird—so popular indeed as to
require no special description. According to its sex, or the season
of the year, it is known as the Red, Grey or Brown Linnet, and
by the earlier English writers, as ,well as in many places now, these
names have been held ‘to distinguish at least two species ; but there
is no question on this point, though the conditions under which the
bright crimson-red colouring of the breast and crown of the cock’s
spring and summer plumage is donned and doffed may still be
open to discussion. Its intensity seems due, however, in some
degree at least, to the weathering of the brown fringes of the
feathers which hide the more brilliant hue, and it is to be remarked
that in the Atlantic Islands examples are said to retain their gay
tints all the year round, while throughout Europe there is scarcely

LINNET.
(After Swainson.)

1 Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xii. p. 235) puts the Linnets and Redpolls
in a genus Acanthis which he assigns to Bechstein (Orn. Taschenb. p. 125), but
the latter founded no such genus, keeping all his species in the Linnean Frin-
gilla, while the Linnets are not even in the section Acanthis, as is evident to
any one who will consult his work, that portion of which is dated 1802 and not
1803 as Dr. Sharpe states (cp. Sclater, Zbis, 1892, pp. 555-557).

2 #.g. French, Linotte ; German, Hinfling ; Swedish, Hampling.

516 LINNET

a trace of them visible in autumn and winter; but, beginning to
appear in spring, they reach their greatest brilliancy towards mid-
summer ; and it is also to be remarked that they are never assumed
by birds in confinement. The Linnet begins to breed in April, the
nest being generally placed in a bush at no great distance from the
ground. It is nearly always a neat structure composed of fine
twigs, roots, or bents, and lined with wool or hair. The eggs, often
six in number, are of a very pale blue marked with reddish or
purplish-brown. ‘Two broods seem to be commonly brought off in
the course of the season, and towards the end of the summer the
birds—the young of course greatly preponderating in number—
collect in large flocks and move to the sea-coast, whence a large
proportion depart for more southern latitudes. Of these emigrants
some return the following spring, and are invariably recognizable
by the more advanced state of their plumage, the effect presumably
of having wintered in countries enjoying a brighter and hotter sun.

Nearly allied to the foregoing species is the Twite, so named
from its ordinary call-note, or Mountain-Linnet, the Linota flavi-
rostris, or L. montium of ornithologists, which can be at once dis-
tinguished by its yellow bill, longer tail, and reddish-tawny throat.
This bird never assumes any crimson on the crown or breast, but
the male has the rump at all times tinged more or less with that
colour. In the breeding-season it seems to affect exclusively hilly
and moorland districts from Herefordshire northward, in which it
partly or wholly replaces the common Linnet, but is very much
more local in its distribution, and, except in the British Islands
and some parts of Scandinavia, it only appears as an irregular
visitant in winter. At that season it may, however, be found in
large flocks in the low-lying countries, and as regards England even
on the sea-shore. In Asia it seems to be represented by a kindred
form, L. brevirostris.

The REpPoLts form a little group placed by many authorities
in the genus Lincta, to which they are unquestionably allied, and,
as before stated (FINCH, p. 251), the Linnets seem to be related
to the birds of the genus Leucosticte, the species of which, in
number uncertain, inhabit the northern parts of North-West
America and of Asia. There is need here to mention only two—
L. tephrocotis, which is generally of a chocolate colour, tinged on
some parts with pale crimson or pink, and has the crown of the
head silvery-grey ; and L. arctoa, which was formerly said to have
occurred in North America, but its proper home is in the Kurile
Islands or Kamchatka. This has no red in its plumage. The
birds of the genus Leucosticte seem to be more terrestrial in their
habit than those of Linota, perhaps from their having been chiefly
observed where trees are scarce; but it is possible that the mutual
relationship of the two groups is more apparent than real. Allied

LIRA—LOGGER-HEAD 517

to Leucosticte is Montifringilla, to which belongs the SNow-FINCH of
the Alps, M. nivalis, so often mistaken by travellers for the SNow-
BUNTING, Plectrophanes nivalis.

LIRA, see LYRA.

LITTORALES, Illiger’s name in 1811 for a “Family” com-
posed of the genera Charadrius, Calidris, Himantopus, Hematopus,
Cursorius and Burhinus.

LIVER, hepar, a large dark reddish or yellowish-brown gland,
consisting of two lobes connected by a commissure of variable
thickness, and resting upon the dorsal side of the sternum so as to
enclose the HEART and Lunes. Bile, the secretion of this gland,
passes through two ducts—that on the right side being, in most
Birds, dilated into the GALL-BLADDER—into the duodenal loop of
the small intestine (DIGESTIVE SysTEM). The relative size of the
two lobes, which varies much in different groups of Birds, might be
used for taxonomic purposes, were it not for the numerous excep-
tions that occur. Thus an equality in this respect is characteristic
of Accipitres, Pelargi and Tubinares; but among the last Puffinus
anglorum (SHEARWATER) has the right lobe about six times as large
as the left; and the right lobe is generally by far the largest
in Columbx, Herodii, Steganopodes, Pici and Passeres, while the
opposite proportion is rare. Of greater and often of considerable
importance is the shape of the two principal lobes, and especially
that of the left: thus the right lobe is deeply cleft in most
-Cypselomorphe and Passeres, while the left is much divided only
in Struthio, in the Gallinw and in the Turnices—the Australian
Pediononus agreeing with the group last named in having the left
lobe doubled, as well as in being twice as large as the right.
Livers of many kinds of Birds are described in (Bronn’s) Klussen
und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs (Vogel, pp. 680-684).

LOBIPEDES, Iliger’s name in 1811 for a “Family” made up
of the genera Fulica (Coot), Podica (FinFooT) and Phalaropus
(PHALAROPE), which as we now know are not nearly allied.

LOCUST-BIRD, a name given in South Africa to three very
different species. Without qualification it signifies Creatophora
carunculata .(GRACKLE); with the prefix “Great,” Ciconia alba
(StorRK) is meant; and with the prefix “Little,” Glareola nord-
manni (PRATINCOLE) (¢f. Layard, B. S. Afr. pp. 177, 291, 314; and
Holub and Von Pelzeln, Beitr. Orn. Siidafr. p. 243).

LOGCOCK, one of the many local names in North America of
Picus pileatus (W OODPECKER).

LOGGER-HEAD, a name applied to several kinds of Birds,
—for instance (1) to a SHRIKE, Lanius or Collyrio ludovicianus or

518 LONGIPENNES—LOOM

carolinensis (Wilson, Am. Orn. iii. p. 57), well known in the eastern
part of North America, as well as to its western representative L.
excubitoroides, Baird ; (2) in Jamaica to two species of TYRANT-BIRD
inhabiting that island, Pifangus caudifasciatus in the Windward
portion, and Myiarchus validus or crinitus in the Leeward (Gosse, B.
Jam. pp. 177, 186); but perhaps originally to (3) a very large
Duck, the Tachyeres! or Micropterus cinereus or brachypterus, on
which have since been bestowed the names of Race-Horse (Byron,
Narrative &e. p. 50) and Steamer-Duck (P. P. King, Voy. ‘Adventure,’
i. p. 36), inhabiting the Falkland Islands and the Strait of
Magellan, where its peculiar habit of rowing itself with its wings .
along the top of the water at great speed has been noticed by
seamen for more than three centuries, and accounts of it may be
read in many narratives. <A second species, 7. patachonicus has been
described (Zool. Journ. iv. p. 100) and said to be capable of flight ;
but Prof. R. O. Cunningham is of opinion (Nat. Hist. Strait Magell.
pp. 91-98) that the volant birds are the young of those which do
not fly, and growing heavier with age lose the power of raising
themselves in the air. This view he ably maintains (Z'rans. Zool.
Soc. vii. pp. 493-501, pls. 58-62), and if it be as correct as it seems
its bearing on the flightlessness of Birds is of great importance.
Doubts, however, have been expressed on the subject, and M.
Oustalet has declared (Miss. Scientif. du Cap Horn, Oiseaux, pp. B.
212-232, pls. 4, 5) his belief in the validity of two species.

LONGIPENNES, Duméril’s name in 1806 (Zool. Analyt. p. 71)
for a “Family” of birds containing the SKIMMER, TERN, AVOSET,
PeTREL, ALBATROS and GULL, which having been adopted by
Cuvier, who had before called (Lec. d@ Anat. Comp. tabl. ii.) this
group, the Avoset excepted, “ Macroptéres,” has been very often
used, though mostly by French authors.

LONGIROSTRES, Cuvier’s name in 1805 (Leg. @ Anat. Comp.
tabl. ii.) for a group containing all the Limicole of modern authors
then known to him except Hematopus (OYSTER-CATCHER).

LOOM, or LOON (Icelandic, Zémr), a name applied to water-
birds of three distinct Families, all remarkable for their clumsy
gait on land.2 The first of them is the Colymbidx, to which the
term DIVER is nowadays usually restricted in books; the second
the Podicipedidz, or GREBES; and the third the Aledx. The form
Loon is most commonly used both in the British Islands and in

1 This name was given to it by Sir R. Owen (Zrans. Zool. Soc. ix. p. 254),
Micropterus being preoccupied.

2 The word also takes the form ‘‘Lumme” (jide Montagu), and, as Prof.
Skeat observes, is probably connected with lame. The signification of loon, a
clumsy fellow, and metaphorically a simpleton, is obvious to any one who has
seen the attempt of the birds to which the name is given to walk.

LORD—LORY 519

North America for all the species of the genus Colymbus, or Eudytes
according to some ornithologists, frequently with the prefix Sprat,
indicating the kind of fish on which they are supposed to prey ;
though it is the local name of the Great Crested Grebe, Podicipes
cristatus, wherever that bird is sufficiently well known to have
one; and, as appears from Grew (Mus. Reg. Soc. p. 69), it was
formerly given to the little Grebe or Dascuicx, P. fluviatilis or
minor, as well. The other form, Loom, seems more confined in its
application to the north, and is said by Mr. T. Edmondston (tym.
Gloss. Shetl. and Orkn. Dialect, p. 67) to be the proper name in
Shetland of Colymbus septentrionalis ;1 but it has come into common
use among Arctic seamen as the name of the species of GUILLEMOT,
Alca arra or bruennichi, which in thousands throngs the cliffs of far
northern lands, from whose (hence called) “loomeries” they obtain
a considerable stock of wholesome food, while the writer believes
he has heard the word locally applied to the RAZORBILL.

LORD, the Newfoundland name for what is now commonly
called the HARLEQUIN-DuckK (Edwards, Nat. Hist. B. i. p. 99).

LORIKEET, the diminutive of

LORY, a word of Malayan origin signifying PArrot,? which is
in general use with slight variation of form in many European
languages, and is the name of certain birds of the Order Psittaci,
mostly from the Moluccas and New Guinea, and remarkable for
their bright scarlet or crimson colouring, though also, and perhaps
subsequently, applied to some others in which the plumage is
chiefly green. Among the birds so called are some that have

1 Dunn and Saxby, however, agree in giving ‘‘ Rain-Goose” as the name of
this bird in Shetland.

2 The anonymous author of a Vocabulary of the English and Malay Lan-
guages, published at Batavia in 1879, in which the words are professedly spelt
according to their pronunciation, gives it Looree. Buffon (Hist. Nat. Ois. vi.
p. 125) states that it comes from the bird’s cry, which is likely enough in the
case of captive examples taught to utter a sound resembling that of the name
by which they are commonly called. Nieuhoff (Voyages par mer et par terre a
differents lieux des Indes. Amsterdam: 1682-92) seems to have first made the
word ‘‘ Lory” known (¢f. Ray, Synops. Aviwm, p. 151). Crawfurd (Dict. Engl.
and Malay Languages, p. 127) spells it nori or nwri; and in the first of these
forms it is used, says Dr. Finsch (Die Pupageien, ii. p. 732), by Pigafetta.
Aldrovandus (Ornith. lib. xi. cap. 1) noticed a Parrot called in Java nor, and
Clusius (Exotica, p. 364) has the same word. This will account for the name
noyra or noira applied by the Portuguese, according to Buffon (ut supra, pp.
125-127) ; but the modern Portuguese seem to call a Parrot generally Lowro, and
in the same language that word is used as an adjective, signifying bright in
colour. The French write the word Lowry (cf. Littré, swb voce). The Lory of
colonists in South Africa is a Touracoo ; and King Lory is a name applied by
dealers in birds to the Australian Parrots of the genus Aprosmictus.

520 LORY

been referred to a considerable number of genera, of which Eclectus,
Lorius (the Domicella of some authors), Hos, and Chalcopsittacus may
be here particularized, while under the equally vague name of
LORIKEETS may be comprehended the genera Charmosyna, Loriculus,
and Coriphilus. By most systematists some of these forms have
been placed far apart, even in different Families of Psitiaci, but
Garrod shewed (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, pp. 586-598, and 1876,
p. 692) the many common characters they possess, which thus goes
some way to justify the relationship implied by their popular
designation. Perhaps the most complete account of these birds is
that of Count 'F. Salvadori (Ornitol. Papuas. parte i. Torino: 1880;
Aggiunte, 1889), who has subsequently treated of them technically
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xx. London: 1891). Of the genus Eclectus the
Italian naturalist admits six species, namely, EH. pectoralis and
E. roratus (which are respectively the polychlorus and grandts of
most authors), £. cardinalis (otherwise intermedius), H. westermani,
and F. cornelia—all no doubt from the Papuan Subregion,
though the precise habitat of the last two is unknown—as well
as EE. riedeli, from Cera or Seirah, one of the Tenimber
group, of which Timor Laut is the chief, to the south-west of New
Guinea, first described by Dr. A. B. Meyer (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881,
p- 917).! Much interest was excited by the discovery in 1873, by
the traveller and naturalist last named, that the birds of this genus —
possessing a red plumage were the females of those wearing green
feathers. So unexpected a disclosure announced by him on the
4th of March 1874,? naturally provoked not a little controversy,
for the difference of coloration is so marked that it had even been
proposed to separate the Green from the Red Lories generically ;%
but now the truth of his assertion is generally admitted, and the
story is very fully told by him in a note contributed to Gould’s
Birds of New Guinea (part viii. 1st October, 1878), though several
interesting matters therewith connected are still undetermined.
Among these is the question of the colour of the first plumage of
the young, a point not without important signification to the
student of phylogeny.*

Though the name Lory has long been used for the species of
Eclectus, and other genera related thereto, some writers would
restrict its application to the birds of the genera Lorius, Hos,

i There seems just a possibility of this, however, proving identical with
either Z. westermani or E. cornelia—both of which are very rare in collections.

2 Verhandl. z.-b. Geselisch. Wien, 1874, p. 179; and Zool. Garten, 1874,
p. 161.

3 Proc. Zool. Soc. 1857, p. 226.

4 The chemical constitution of the colouring matter of the feathers in Helectus
has been treated by Dr. Krukenberg of Heidelberg (Vergl. physiol. Stud. Reihe
ii. Abth. i. p. 161 reprinted in Mittheil. Orn. Ver. Wein, 1881, p. 83).

LOTUS-BIRD—LOVE-BIRD 521

Chalcopsittacus, and their near allies belonging to the so-called
Family of Trichoglosside, or “ Brush-tongued” Parrots, more
correctly termed, as by Count T. Salvadori, Loriidx. Garrod,
however, in the course of his investigations on the anatomy of the
Psittacc was led to attach little importance to the structure
indicated by the epithet “brush-tongued,” stating (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1874, p. 597) that it “is only an excessive development of the
papillz which are always found on the lingual surface.” The birds
of this group are very characteristic of the Papuan Subregion,’ in
which occur, according to Count T. Salvadori, ten species of Lorius,
twelve of Hos, and seven of Chalcopsittacus; but none seem here to
require any further notice,? though among them, and particularly
in the genus Hos, are included some of the most richly-coloured
birds to be found in the whole world; nor does it appear that
more need be said of the so-called Lorikeets.

LOTUS-BIRD, the name given in Queensland to the Australian
JACANA or Parra, Hydralector cristatus.

LOVE-BIRD, a name indefinitely bestowed, chiefly by
dealers in live animals and their customers, on some of the
smaller short-tailed PArrors, from the remarkable affection which
examples of opposite sexes exhibit towards each other, an affection
popularly believed to be so great that of a pair that have been kept
together in captivity neither can long survive the loss of its
partner. By many systematic ornithologists the little birds thus
named, brought almost entirely from Africa and South America,
have been retained in a single genus, Psittacula, though those
belonging to the former country were by others separated as
Agapornis. This separation, however, was by no means generally
approved, and indeed it was not easily justified, until Garrod (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1874, p. 593) assigned good anatomical ground, afforded
by the structure of the carotid artery, for regarding the two
' groups as distinct, and thus removed what had seemed to be the
almost unintelligible puzzle presented by the geographical distribu-
tion of the species of Psitiacula in a large sense, though Prof.
Huxley (op. cit. 1868, p. 319) had indeed already suggested one
way of meeting the difficulty. Nine species of Psittacula are
recognized by Count T. Salvadori (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xx. pp. 240-
252), who places them in his subfamily Conurinx, while he assigns
Urochroma, often considered to be nearly allied, to another sub-
family Pionine—but all these inhabit the New World. On the
other hand, all the seven species of Agapornis, which he admits,
belong to the Ethiopian Region, and all but one, 4. cana (which

1 They extend, however, to Fiji, Tahiti, and Fanning Island.
2 Unless it be Orcopsittacus arfaki, of New Guinea, remarkable as the only
Parrot known as yet to have fourteen instead of twelve rectrices.

522 LOWAN—LUNGS

is indigenous to Madagascar, and thence has been widely dis.
seminated), are natives of Africa. These Old-World forms are the
‘“Love-birds” proper; the others scarcely deserve that designation.

LOWAN, see MEGAPODE.

LUGGAR (Hind. Laggar or Lhagar, the female; Jaggar or
Jhagar, the male), the Falco juggur of ornithology, and well known to
Indian sportsmen as the most common of the large FALcons of
that country. It belongs to the group containing the SAKER and
others, which have been called “ Desert Falcons,”! as they prefer
the plains or open country to the hills or forest districts. The
number of species is uncertain; but, except the Australian F.
hypoleucus (if that be rightly included among them) they may be
recognized by the dull brown colouring of their plumage above,
which does not display the light bluish-grey or rufous tints
assumed by the LANNERS or the Falcons allied to F. peregrinus,
while it is doubtful whether the adults assume the bars or hori-
zontal markings which are generally so characteristic of maternity
in the Falconide. The F. mexicanus or polyagrus of the southern
parts of North America, and the rare F. subniger of Australia have
been referred to this group.

LUMME, see Loom.

LUNDA (Skandin. Lunde), one of the many local names of the
PUFFIN, and doubtless that from which Lundy, the island in the
Bristol Channe!, is called.

LUNGS, pulmones, in Birds are symmetrical and comparatively
small. They occupy the dorsal portion of the thoracic cavity,
above the HEART, Stomach and LIVER, and in front of the
Krpnerys, from the vertebral column to the beginning of the sternal
portion of the ribs, which impress themselves deeply upon the
dorsal surface of the Lungs, while they are covered ventrally with
a serous membrane (pleura). Secondary Bronchi (page 58), besides
opening into AIR-SACS, send off a number of radially-arranged para-
bronchia, all of which extend to and end blindly near the surface of
the Lungs. The walls of these (tertiary) tubes, which form the
chief mass of the ordinary tissue of the organs, are perforated
in all directions by minute tubules (canaliculi aeriferi), which end in
slight swellings, and so far resemble the alveoli of the Mammalian
Lung. With these very fine respiratory passages are felted
together the capillaries of the pulmonary vessels, so that blood and
air, being separated from each other only by the extremely thin

1 Separated by some systematists as a subgenus or genus Gennaia, properly
written Gennza, and a term inadmissible in nomenclature owing to the prior
application of Genngxus to a group of PHEASANTS.

LYMPHATIC VESSELS—LVRE-BIRD 523

walls of these canaliculi and capillaries, exchange their gases by
osmosis. The Lungs, being small, scarcely elastic, and moreover
fixed to the thoracic walls, are capable of very limited expansion,
and the necessary ventilation is secured by the extremely well-
developed Air-sacs.

LYMPHATIC VESSELS, see VAscULAR SYSTEM.

LYRA or LYRIE (Skandin. Lira, Lire or Liri), the Oreadian
name for SHEARWATER.

LYRE-BIRD, one of the most remarkable feathered inhabitants
of Australia, the Menura superba or M. novx-hollandix of ornitholo-
gists. First discovered, January 24, 1798, <=...
on the other side of the river Nepean in
New South Wales by an exploring party
from Paramatta, under the leadership of
one Wilson, a single example was brought
into the settlement a few days after, and
though called by its finders a “ Pheasant ’—from its long tail—the
more learned of the colony seem to have regarded it as a Bird-of-
Paradise.1 A specimen having reached England in the following
year, it was described by Gen. Davies as forming a new genus
of birds, in a paper read before the Linnean Society of London,
November 4, 1800, and subsequently published in that Society’s
Transactions (vi. p. 207, pl. xxii.), no attempt, however, being made
to fix its systematic place. Other examples were soon after
received, but Latham, who considered it a Gallinaceous bird, in
1801 knew of only five having arrived. The temporary cessation
of hostilities permitted Vieillot in 1802 to become acquainted with
this form, though not apparently with any published notice of it,
and he figured and described it in a supplement to his Oiseaux
Dorés as a Bird-of-Paradise (ii. pp. 39-42, pls. 14-16), from drawings
by Sydenham Edwards, sent him by Parkinson, the then owner of
the Leverian Museum.?

It would be needless here to enter at any length on the various
positions which have been assigned to this singular form by different

' Collins, Accownt of New South Wales, ii. pp. 87-92 (London: 1802).

2 Vieillot called the bird ‘‘ Le Parkinson”! and hence Bechstein, who seems
to have been equally ignorant of what had been published in England concern-
ing it, in 1811 (Kurze Uebersicht, p. 134), designated it Parkinsonius mirabilis! !
Shaw also, prior to 1813, figured it (Nat. Miscel. xiv. p. 577) under the name
of Paradisca.parkinsoniana, The name ‘‘ Menwra lyra, Shaw,” was quoted by
Lesson in 1831 (7'r. d’Orn. p. 478), and has been repeated by many copyists of
synonymy, but I cannot find that such a name was ever applied by Shaw.
Vieillot’s principal figure, which has a common origin with that given by
Collins, has been extensively copied, in spite of its inartistic not to say inaccur-
ate drawing. It is decidedly inferior to that of Davies, the first describer and
delineator,

Menvra. (After Swainson.)

524 LYRE-BIRD

~

systematizers who had to judge merely from its superficial
characters. ‘The first to describe any portion of its anatomy was
Eyton, who in 1841 (4nn. & Mag. Nat. Hist. vii. pp. 49-53) per-
ceived that it was truly a member of the Order then called Jnsessores,
and that it presented some points of affinity to the South American
genus Pteroptochus ;} but still there were many who could not take
advantage of this step in the right direction. In 1867 Prof.
Huxley stated that he was disposed to divide his very natural
assemblage the Coracomorphe (essentially identical with Eyton’s
Insessores) into two groups, “one containing Menura, and the other
all the other genera which have yet been examined” (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1867, p. 472)—a still further step in advance.2_ In 1875 the
present writer put forth the opinion (Encycl. Brit. ed. 9, iii. p. 741)
that Menura had an ally in another Australian form, Aiérichia
or Atrichornis (SCRUB-BIRD), which presented peculiarities hitherto
unsuspected, and accordingly regarded them as standing by them-
selves, though each constituting a distinct Family. This opinion
was partially adopted in the following year by Garrod, who (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1876, p. 518) formally placed these two genera together
in his group of Abnormal Acromyodian Oscines under the name of
Menurinz ; but the author sees no reason to change his mind, and
herein he is corroborated by Mr. Sclater, who at once recognized
(Ibis, 1880, p. 345) the alliance and distinctness of the Families
Menuride and Airichiidx, forming of them a group which he un-
luckily called PSEUDOSCINES.

Since the appearance in 1865 of Gould’s Handbook to the Birds
of Australia, little if any fresh information has been published con-
cerning the habits of this form, and the account therein given must
be drawn upon for what here follows. Of all birds, says that
author, the Menura is the most shy and hard to procure. He has
been among the rocky and thick ‘ brushes ”—its usual haunts—
hearing its loud and liquid call-notes for days together without
getting sight of one. Those who wish to see it must advance only
while it is occupied in singing or scratching up the earth and
leaves ; and to watch its actions they must keep perfectly still—
though where roads have been made through the bush it may
be more often observed and even approached on horseback. “The
best way of procuring an example seems to be by hunting it with
dogs, when it will spring upon a branch to the height of ten feet
and afford an easy shot ere it has time to ascend further or escape

1 He subsequently (Osteol. Avium, pp. 97, 98, pl. 3, F and pl. 14) described
and figured the skeleton.

2 Owing to the imperfection of the specimen at his disposal, Prof. Huxley’s
brief description of the bones of the head in Menura is not absolutely correct.
A full description of them, with elaborate figures, is given by Parker in the same
Society’s Transaciions (ix. pp. 806-309, pl. lvi. figs. 1-5).

LYRE-BIRD 525

as it does by leaps. Another method of stealing upon it is said to
be practised by the natives, and is attained by the hunter fixing on
his head the erected tail of a cock-bird, which alone is allowed
to be seen above the brushwood. ‘The greater part of its time is
said to be passed upon the ground, and seldom are more than
a pair to be found in company. One of the habits of the cock is
to form small round hillocks, which he constantly visits during the
day, mounting upon them and displaying his tail by erecting it
over his head, drooping his wings, scratching and pecking at the
soil, and uttering various cries—some his own natural notes, others
an imitation of those of other animals. The wonderful tail, his
most characteristic feature, only attains perfection in the bird’s
third or fourth year, and then not until the month of June,
remaining until October, when the feathers are shed to be renewed
the following season. The food consists of insects, especially
beetles and myriapods, as well as snails. The nest is generally
placed near to or on the ground, at the base of a rock or foot of a
tree, and is closely woven of fine but strong roots or other fibres,
and lined with feathers, around all which is heaped a mass, in
shape of an oven, of sticks, grass, moss, and leaves, so as to pro-
ject over and shelter the interior structure, while an opening
in the side affords entrance and exit. Only one egg is laid,
and this of rather large size in proportion to the bird, of a
purplish-grey colour, suffused and blotched with dark purplish.
brown.!

Incubation is believed to begin in July or August, and the
young is hatched about a month later. It is at first covered with
white down, and appears to remain for some weeks in the nest.
How much more is needed to be known for a biography of this
peculiar and beautiful creature may be inferred by those who are
aware of the diligence with which the habits of the much more
easily observed birds of the northern hemisphere have been
recorded, and of the many interesting points which they present.
It is greatly to be hoped that so remarkable a form as the Lyre-
bird, the nearly sole survivor apparently of a very ancient race of
beings, will not be allowed to become extinct—its almost certain
fate so far as can be judged—without many more observations
of its manners being made and fuller details of them placed on
record. The zoologists of Australia alone can do this, and the
zoologists of other countries expect that they will.

Several examples of Menura have been brought alive to Europe,
but none have long survived in captivity. Indeed a bird of such

1 A nest and egg of Menura albert, now in the British Museum, are figured
in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1853, Aves, pl. 53. The egg of J. victortz is represented in
Journ. fiir Orn. 1856, pl. ii. fig. 18, under the name of JZ. superba, but the real
egg of that species does not seem to have been figured at all.

526 LYRE-BIRD

active habits, and doubtless requiring facilities for taking violent
exercise, could not possibly be kept long in confinement until the
method of menageries is vastly improved, as doubtless will be the
case some day, and, we may hope, before the disappearance from
the face of the earth of forms of vertebrate life most instructive to
the zoologist.

Three species of Menura have been indicated—the old Jf.
superba, the Lyre-bird proper, now known for nearly a century,
which inhabits New South Wales, the southern part of Queensland,
and perhaps some parts of the colony of Victoria; I. victoriz,
separated from the former by Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1862, p. 23),
and said to take its place near Melbourne; and JZ. alberti, first
described by C. L. Bonaparte (Consp. Avium, i. p. 215) on Gould’s
authority ; and, though discovered on the Richmond river in New
South Wales, having apparently a more northern range than the
other two. All those have the apparent bulk of a hen Pheasant,
but are really much smaller, and their general plumage is of a
sooty brown, relieved by rufous on the chin, throat, some of the
ane and the tail-coverts. The wings, containing twenty-
one remiges, are rather short and rounded ;
the legs! and feet very strong, with long,
nearly straight claws. In the immature
and female the tail is somewhat long, though
affording no very remarkable character,
except the possession of sixteen rectrices ;
but in the fully-plumaged male of JZ. superba
and WM. victoriz it is developed in the extra-
ordinary fashion that gives the bird its
common English name. The two exterior
feathers (Fig. 1, a, 6) have the outer web
very narrow, the inner very broad, and they
curve at first outwards, then somewhat in-
wards, and near the tip outwards again,
bending round forwards so as to present
a lyre-like form. But this is not all; their
broad inner web, which is of a lively chest-
nut colour, is apparently notched at regular

Fig. 1. intervals by spaces that, according to the
Portion or Ovrer Tarz- angle at which they are viewed, seem either
Mesa asan ee black or transparent ; and this effect is, on

(a. in ordinary position. 3 :
b. seen edgeways.) examination, found to be due to the barbs
MENURA SUPERBA. at those spaces being destitute of barbules.

The middle pair of feathers (Fig. 2, a, 0) is nearly as abnormal.
These have no outer web, and the inner web very narrow ; near

1 The metatarsals are very remarkable in form, as already noticed by Eyton
(Joc, cit.), and their tendons strongly ossified,

MACAW 527

their base they cross each other, and then diverge, bending round
forwards near their tip. The remaining twelve feathers (Fig. 3)
except near the base are very thinly furnished with barbs, about
a quarter of an inch apart, and those they possess, on their greater

Fig. 2. Fig. 3.
PorTION OF MIDDLE TAIL-FEATHER. PorTION OF INTERMEDIATE TAIL-FEATHER,
MENURA SUPERBA.

part, though long and flowing, bear no barbules, and hence have a
hair-like appearance. The shafts of all are exceedingly strong.
In the male of M. alberti the tail is not only not lyriform, but
the exterior rectrices are shorter than the rest.

M

MACAW, or, as formerly spelt, MAccAw,! the name given to
about a score of species of large, long-tailed birds of the Order
Psittact (PARROT), natives of the Neotropical Region, and forming
a very well-known and in some respects easily recognized group to
which the generic designation Ara is usually applied by orni-
thologists, though some prefer for it Macrocercus or Sittace, while

1 Thus Willughby (1676), Ornithologia, p. 73 ; but an earlier form of the word
is found in the “‘ great blew and yellow Parrat called the Machao, or Cockatoon ”
of Charleton, Onomasticon, p. 66 (1668). Its derivation is shewn by De Laet, who,
in his description of certain Brazilian birds (Novus Orbis, ed. 1633, p, 556), has
‘inter alios [sc. Psittacos] excellunt magnitudine & pulchritudine, quos barbari
Araras & Macaos vocant,” and again (loc, cit.) ‘‘Tertium locum meretur Araruna
vel Machao.” Webster, in his dictionary, says that Macaw, ‘‘ written also Maccao,”
is ‘‘the native name in the Antilles,” but gives no authority for his statement,

528 MACAW

others break it up into three or four genera as is done by Count T.
Salvadori (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xx. pp. 145-169). Most of the Macaws
are remarkable for their gaudy plumage, which exhibits the brightest
scarlet, yellow, blue and green in varying proportion and often in
violent contrast, while a white visage often adds a very peculiar and
expressive character... With one exception the known species
inhabit the mainland of America from Paraguay to Mexico, being
especially abundant in Bolivia, where no fewer than seven of them
(or nearly one-half) have been found (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1879, p. 634).
The single extra-continental species, A. tricolor, is one of the most
brilliantly coloured, and is peculiar to Cuba, where, according to
Dr. Gundlach (Ornitologia Cubana, p. 126), its numbers are rapidly
decreasing, so that there is every chance of its becoming extinct.”
It will be enough here to dwell on the best-known species of
the group, and first the Blue-and-yellow Macaw, 4. ararauna, which
has an extensive range in South America from Guiana in the east
to Colombia in the west. Southwards it is replaced in Paraguay by
the nearly allied 4. caninde. Of large size, it is to be seen in
almost every zoological garden, and is frequently kept alive in private
houses, for its temper is pretty good, and it will become strongly
attached to those who tend it. Its richly-coloured plumage, suffi-
ciently indicated by its common English name, has the additional
recommendation of supplying feathers which are eagerly sought by
salmon-fishers for the making of “flies.” Next may be mentioned the
Red-and-blue Macaw, 4. macao, which is even larger and more
gorgeously clothed, for, beside the colours expressed in its ordinary
appellation, yellow and green enter into its adornment. It inhabits
Central as well as South America as far as Bolivia, and is also a

which, considering that now one West Indian island only is known to possess a
Macaw (and that in that island the bird is known as Guacamayo), is very un-
likely. Some of the older writers, Buffon (Oiseaux, vi. p. 278) for instance, say
that Makavowanne was the name given by natives of Guiana to one species of
Macaw found in that country ; but the Antillean origin of the name cannot at
present be accepted.

1 This serves to separate the Macaws from the long-tailed Parrakeets of the
New World, Conwrus, to which they are very nearly allied; and Count T.
Salvadori (ut supra) places them indeed in the same subfamily, which in that
case should bear the name of Arinz instead of Conurine.

2 There is good reason to think that Jamaica formerly possessed a Macaw
(though no example is known to exist), and if so it was most likely a peculiar
species. Sloane (Voyage, ii. p. 297), after describing what he calls the ‘‘ Great
Maccaw” (A. ararauna, to be spoken of in the text), which he had seen in captiv-
ity in that island, mentions the ‘‘Small Maccaw” as being very common in the
woods there, and Gosse (B. Jamaica, p. 260) gives, on the authority of Robinson, a
local naturalist of the last century, the description of a bird which cannot be
reconciled with any species now known, though it evidently must have been
allied to the Cuban A. tricolor (see EXTERMINATION, p. 220),

MACCARONI—MADGE 529

common bird in captivity, though perhaps less often seen than the
foregoing. ‘The Red-and-yellow species, 4. chloroptera, ranging from
Guatemala to Brazil, is smaller, or at least has a shorter tail, and
is not quite so usually met with in menageries. The Red-and-green,
A. militaris, smaller again than the last, is unfrequent in confine-
ment, and presents the colours of the name it bears. This has the
most northerly extension of habitat, occurring in Mexico and thence
southwards to Bolivia. All the other species are comparatively
rare in a reclaimed condition. Four of them, A. hyacinthina, A.
leari, A. glauca, and A. spixi, are almost entirely blue, while in A.
manilata and A. nobilis the prevailing colour is green, and A. severa
is green and blue.

As is the case with most Neotropical birds, very little is known
of the habits of Macaws in a state of nature. They are said to
possess considerable power of flight, rising high in the air and
travelling long distances in search of their food, which consists of
various kinds of fruits ; but of any special differences of behaviour
we are wholly ignorant. The sexes appear in all cases to be alike
in colouring, and the birds, though constantly paired, are said to
live in companies. Like other Psittaci, they nest in hollow trees,
and the eggs, asserted to be two in number, are white without any
lustre. Of the habits of these birds in confinement it is needless
to speak, as they are so extremely well known. If caged, their
long tail-feathers are sure to suffer, but chained by the leg to a
perch, Macaws seem to enjoy themselves as well as any captive can,
and will live for many years.

MACCARONI, a seaman’s name for one of the crested PrEn-
GUINS, Hudyptes chrysolophus, so-called probably at the time (circa
1769) when the word was a cant term for a fop or exquisite, with
his hair dressed in extravagant fashion, this bird having its head more
conspicuously attired than its congener EH. chrysocome, the Rock-
HOPPER, with which it often consorts (/bis, 1860, p. 327).

MACKEREL-BIRD, -COCK, -GULL or -DIVER, local names—
the first for the WRYNECK (Cecil Smith, B. Guernsey, p. 94), the
second for the Manx SHEARWATER, the third one of the numerous
appellations of the RAZOR-BILL, and the last used on the coast of
North America for a TERN; but all referring to the appearance of
their respective bearers being coincident with that of the well-
known Fish.

MACROCHIRES, Nitzsch’s name in 1829 for a “Family” of
Birds composed of the Zrochili (HUMMING-BIRD) and Cypseli (SwIkT).

MADGE, short for Margaret, a nickname of the Barn OWL,
and also of the PIE; but

34

530 MAGPIE—MALLEMUCK

MAGPIE is far more commonly applied to the latter, beside
being used in combination as MAGPIE-LARK (GRALLINA), -ROBIN,
-SHRIKE, and so on for many birds whose plumage is characterized
by black and white.

MAINA (Hindi), MINOR and MYNAH, see GRACKLE.

MAIZE-BIRD, a local name for Agelxus pheniceus, often called
the Red-winged Blackbird, and in Canada the Field-officer, one of
the commonest and best known of the Icteridx (ICTERUS).

MALEO, seé MEGAPODE.

MALKOHA, according to J. R. Forster (Zool. Ind. 1781, p. 16)
the Cingalese name of the Cuckow now known as Phenicophaes
pyrrhocephalus (see page 125), a species peculiar to Ceylon; but a
name used by Jerdon (B. Ind. i. pp. 345, 346) and other Anglo-
Indian ornithologists for birds belonging to allied forms such as
Zanclostoma, Rhopodytes (cf. Shelley, Cat. Bb. Br. Mus. xix. 384)
and others.

MALLARD, French Malart, the male of the common Wild Duck
and its domesticated races.

MALLEE-BIRD, a name given to Lipoa ocellata (MEGAPODE).

MALLEMUCK, from the German rendering of the Dutch
Mallemugge (which originally meant small flies or midges that madly
whirl round a light), a name given by the early Dutch Arctic
voyagers to the FuLMAR,! of which the English form is nowadays
most commonly applied by our sailors to the smaller kinds of
ALBATROS, about as big as a Goose, met with in the Southern
Ocean — corrupted into ‘ Molly-mawk,” or otherwise modified.”
There is some difference of opinion as to the number of
species, and it is unfortunate that the results of the voyage of the
‘Challenger’ do not clear up the doubts that have been expressed.
Three have been described and figured, the Diomedea melanophrys
and D. chlororhynchus for a long while, while the third, D. culminata,
was discriminated by Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1843, p. 107), who

1 The correct German form, as originally given by Friderich Martens
(Spitzbergische oder Groenlandische Reise Beschreibung, Hamburg: 1675, 4to,
p- 68), is Mallemucke. The anonymous translation of this voyage, under the title
of An Account of several late Voyages and Discoveries to the South and North,
published in London in 1694 (p. 93), was probably the means of the name
becoming known to Ray, in whose Synopsis methodica Aviwm, published in 1718,
it appears (p. 180) as Mallemuck, and thereafter kept its place in English
ornithological works.

2 The application is of some standing and not confined to our own country-
men, for it was mentioned in 1764 by Briinnich (Orn. Boreal. p. 31, note).

MANAKIN 531

stated that the difference between it and the second is so apparent
that he had no difficulty in distinguishing them on the wing. Capt.
Hutton, on the other hand (Jdis, 1865, p. 283), considers all three
to be specifically identical. Others, as appears by the Report on the
Birds of the ‘Challenger’ voyage (pp. 148, 149), while regarding
D. melanophrys as distinct, would seem to unite D. culminata with
D. chlororhynchus. 'The first of these, says Gould, is the commonest
species of Albatros inhabiting the Southern Ocean, and its gregarious
habits and familiar disposition make it well known to every voyager
to or from Australia, for it is equally common in the Atlantic and the
Pacific. The back, wings and tail are of a blackish-grey, but all
the rest of the plumage is white, except a dusky superciliary streak,
whence its name of Black-browed Albatros, as also its scientific
epithet, are taken. ‘The bill of the adult is of an ochreous-yellow,
while that of the young is dark. This species (supposing it to be
one) is said to breed on the Falkland Islands and on Tristan da
Cunha, but the latter locality seems questionable, for, according to
Carmichael (Trans. Linn. Soc. xii. p. 490), D. chlororhynchus is the
bird of this group there found ; while the late Prof. Moseley (Notes
of a Naturalist, p. 130) calls it D. culminata.t Whatever it may be,
the excellent observer just named describes it as making a cylindrical
nest of grass, sedge and clay, with a shallow basin atop and an over-
hanging rim—the whole being about 14 inches in diameter and 10
in height. The bird lays a single white egg, which is held ina
sort of pouch formed by the skin of the abdomen, while she
is incubating. A few other details are given by him, but his
visit was too hurried to enable him to ascertain the more important
and interesting points in the economy of this Albatros which were
neglected by his predecessor, Carmichael, during his four months’
sojourn in 1816-17. JD. culminata is said by Gould to be more
plentiful in the Australian seas than elsewhere, numbers coming
under his notice between Launceston and Adelaide, and being also
frequently observed by him between Sydney and the northern
extremity of New Zealand, as well as in the same latitude of the
Indian Ocean. He describes its bill as having the greyish-yellow
ridge broad and flat, while that of D. chlororhynchus is laterally com-
pressed and the ridge round. All these birds seem to have much
the same habits.

MANAKIN, from the Dutch word Manneken, applied to certain
small birds, a name apparently introduced into English by Edwards
(Nat. Hist. Birds, i. p. 21) in or about 1743, since which time it has
been accepted generally, and is now used for those which form the

1 Mr. Sclater with commendable caution assigns no specific name to the eggs
of the Diomedea found breeding on this island and its neighbour (Report, ut
supra, p. 151).

~

532 MANAKIN

ee

Family Pipridz of modern ornithologists. The Manakins are
peculiar to the Neotropical Region, and are said to have many of
the habits of the Paridw (TITMOUSE), living, says Swainson, in deep
forests, associating in small bands, and keeping continually in
motion, but feeding almost wholly on the large soft berries of the
different kinds of Melastoma. However, as with most other South-
American Passerine birds, little is really known of their mode of
life; and it is certain that the Pipridx have no affinity to the
Paridx, but belong to the other great division of the Order PASSERES,
to which Garrod assigned the name Mersomyop!, and in that
division, according to the same authority, constitute, with the
Cotingide (CHATTERER),’ the group HETEROMERI (Proc. Zool. Soe.
1876, p. 518). The Manakins are nearly all birds of gay appear-
ance, generally exhibiting rich tints of blue, crimson, scarlet, orange,
or yellow in combination with chestnut, deep black, black and white,
or olive-green; and among their most obvious characteristics are
their short bill and feeble feet, of which the outer toe is united to

METOPIA GALEATA, MACHZROPTERUS REGULUS,
(After Swainson.)

the middle toe for a good part of its length. Some few, as Metopia,
are crested. The tail, in most species very short, has in others the
middle feathers much elongated, and in one, Helicura, the outer
rectrices are attenuated and produced into threads. They have been
divided by various authors into upwards of 20 genera, but Mr. Sclater
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiv. pp. 282-325) recognizes only 19, though
admitting 70 species, of which 18 belong to the genus Pipra as now
restricted, the P. Jewcocilla of Linneus being its type. This species
has a wide distribution from the isthmus of Panama to Guiana and
the valley of the Amazon ; but it is one of the most plainly coloured of
the Family, being black with a white head. The genus Macheropterus,
consisting of 4 species, is very remarkable for the extraordinary
form of some of the secondary wing-feathers in the males, in which
the shaft is thickened and the webs changed in shape, as described
and illustrated by Mr. Sclater (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1860, p. 90; Ibis,
1862, p. 175), and shewn in the accompanying figures, in the case
of the beautiful JZ. deliciosus, and it has been observed that the

1 Excluding, however, the genus Rupicola (CocK-oF-THE-Rock), which has
usually been placed among the Cotingide.

MANAKIN 533
wing-bones of these birds are also much thickened, no doubt in cor-
relation with this abnormal structure. A like deviation from the
ordinary character is found in the allied genus Manacus or Chiro-
machexris, comprehending 7 species, and that gentleman believes it
enables them to make the singular noise for which they have for
long been noted (cf. Sona), described by Mr. Salvin (Jbis, 1860,
p. 37) in the case of one of them, J/. candxi, as beginning “with a
sharp note not unlike the crack of a whip,” which is “ followed by a
rattling sound not unlike the call of a landrail” ; and it is a similar
habit that has obtained for another species, J/, edwardsi, the name

Firru, Srxtu, anp SEVENTH SECONDARIES CoRRESPONDING FEATHERS OF THE FEMALE,
OF THE MALE MACHROPTERUS DELICIO- SHEWING THE SAME ASPECT,
SUS; THE FIRST TWO FROM ABOVE, THE
LAST FROM BENEATH.
(From the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1860, p. 90.)

in Cayenne, according to Buffon (Hist. Nat. Oiseaux, iv. p. 413), of
Cassenoisette. 'This view is supported by Mr. Layard, who, writing of
the last species, says (Jdis, 1873, p. 384)—“ They make a curious
rattling noise (I suspect, by some movement of the oddly shaped
wing-feathers), which constantly betrays their presence in the
forests,” while of the congenerie JZ. gutturosus, Mr. J. F. Hamilton
remarks (/tis, 1871, p. 305)—“The first intimation given of the
presence of one of these birds is a sharp whirring sound very lke
that of a child’s small wooden rattle, followed by two or three sharp
snaps.” The same observer adds (loc. cif.) of a member of the
kindred genus Chiroviphia, containing 5 species, that C. caudata is
known to the Brazilians as the Fandango-bird from its “habit of
performing a dance.” ‘They say that “one perches upon a branch
and the others arrange themselves in a circle round it, dancing up
and down on their perches to the music sung [?] by the centre one.”
Exception must be taken to this story so far as regards the mode in
which the “ music ” is produced, for these birds have no true song-

534 MANDARIN DUCK—MANUCODE

muscles ; but the effect is doubtless as described by Mr. Hamilton’s
informant.

MANDARIN DUCK, the name given, says Latham (Synops. iii.
p. 549), by the English in China, to the beautiful species of that
country, Avx galericulata of modern ornithology, figured by Edwards
(Nat. Hist. Uncomm. B. pl. 102) in 1746, from a live bird in
England ; but it was clearly known to Aldrovandus (Orn. lib. xix.
cap. 31) from a drawing of one brought to Rome in his time by
Japanese envoys.

MANDIBLE (Lat. Mandibula) the lower jaw in Birds, consist-
ing of an unpaired V-shaped piece which forms the tip, and some
four or five paired pieces, one of which (0s articulare) articulates
with the quadrate bone, and another (0s dentale) forms the upper
margin of the side of the jaw. In such birds as the Parrots and
Falcons which need a strong beak, all these pieces coalesce in one
mass, in others as Ducks there remain sutures, or again as in Owls
and Gulls, foramina (see MAXILLA).

MANGO-BIRD, in Jamaica Lampornis mango, one of the
Trochilidx (HUMMING-BIRD) ; but in India an ORIOLE, Oriolus kundoo.

MANGROVE-CUCKOW, Coccyzus minor or seniculus of some ;
but

MANGROVE-HEN is in Jamaica, and perhaps in other parts of
the New World, fallus longirostris or some other species of RAIL.

MAN-OF-WAR BIRD, apparently the oldest English name of
what is now called a FRIGATE-BIRD; but also occasionally applied
to one or more of the smaller species of SKUA, and not unfrequently
to an ALBATROS.

MANUCODE, from the French, an abbreviation of Manucodiata,
the Latinized form of the Malay Manukdewata, meaning, says
Crawfurd (Malay and Engl. Dictionary, p. 97), the “bird of the
gods,” and a name applied for more than two hundred years
apparently to BriRDS-OF-PARADISE in general. In the original
sense of its inventor, Montbeillard (Hist. Nat. Oiscaua, ili. p. 163),
Manucode was restricted to the King Bird-of-Paradise and three
allied species; but in English it has curiously been transferred + to

1 Manucodiata was used by Brisson (Ornithologie, ii. p. 130) as a generic
term equivalent to the Linnean Paradisea. In 1783 Boddaert, when assigning
scientific names to the birds figured by Daubenton, called the subject of one of
them (Pl. enlum. 634) Manucodia chalybea, the first word being apparently an
accidental curtailment of the name of Brisson’s genus to which he referred it.
Nevertheless some writers have taken it as evidence of an intention to found a
new genus by that name, and hence the importation of Manucodia into scientific
nomenclature, and the English form to correspond.

MANUCODE 535

a small group of species whose relationship to the Paradiseidx
has been frequently doubted, and must be considered uncertain.
These Manucodes have a glossy steel-blue plumage of much beauty,
but are easily distinguished from other birds of similar coloration
by the outer and middle toes being united for some distance, and
they are very remarkable for the extraordinary convolution of the
trachea, in the males at least, with which singular structure is
correlated their loud and clear voice. The convoluted portion of the
trachea lies on the breast, between the skin and the muscles, much
as is found in the females of the genus Lhynchxa (SNIPE), in the
males of the Cracidx (CURASSOW), and in a few other birds, but
wholly unknown elsewhere among the Passeres. The Manucodes
are peculiar to the Papuan Subregion (including therein the penin-
sula of Cape York), and comprehend, according to Dr. Sharpe (Cat.
B. Brit. Mus. iii. p. 164), two genera, for the first of which, dis-
tinguished by the elongated tufts on the head, he adopts Lesson’s
name Phonygama, and for the second, having no tufts, but the
feathers of the head crisped, that of Manw-
codia; and the late Mr. W. A. Forbes
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, p. 349) observes
that the validity of the separation (which
has not yet been generally acknowledged)
is confirmed by what is now known of
their tracheal formation. Of Phonygamua
Dr. Sharpe recognizes three species, P.
keraudrent (the type) and LP. jamesi, both
from New Guinea, and P. gouldi, the T4™-FEATHERS AND BIL or
Australian representative species ; but the Pee)

first two are considered by Mr. Elhot ;

(Ibis, 1878, p. 56) and Count T. Salvadori (Orn. Papuas. ii.
p- 510) to be inseparable. There is a greater unanimity in
regard to the species of the so-called genus Manucodia proper,
of which four are admitted—JV. chalybeata or chalybea from north-
western New Guinea, J. comrii from the south-eastern part of
the same country, MV. atra of wide distribution within the Papuan
area, and M. jobiensis peculiar to the island which gives it a name.
Little is known of the habits of these birds, except that they are
as already mentioned remarkable for their vocal powers, which, in
P. keraudreni, Lesson describes (Voy. ‘ Coquille, Zool. i. p. 638) as
enabling them to pass through every note of the gamut. Mr.
Wallace (Ann. & Mag. N. H. ser. 2, xx. p. 476) remarked that
M. atra was very powerful and active, clinging suspended to the
smaller branches of trees, on the fruits of which alone it appears
to feed. I. gouldi, according to an informant quoted by Forbes
(ut supri), frequents in pairs the dense palm-forests, perching high
up, uttering a very deep and loud guttural note ; it is graceful in its

530 MARABOU-STORK—MARTIN

movements, evincing more curiosity than timidity on being ap-
proached. As with members of the Paradiseide generally, the
nidification of the Manucodes had been shrouded in mystery, until,
as recorded by Mr. North (Rec. Austral. Mus. ii. p. 32, pl. vii.), the
nest and eggs of Jf. comrii were found, in July 1891, by Mr.
Rickard on Fergusson Island, one of the D’Entrecasteaux group,
off the south-eastern coast of New Guinea.

MARABOU-STORK, Lepitoptilus crumenifer, see ADJUTANT.

MARLIN, apparently a corrupt spelling of MERLIN, of which
it is an ancient form, but applied in the east coast of North America
with qualification to any species of CURLEW or GODWIT.

MARROCK or MARROT, one of the many local names of the
GUILLEMOT and RAZzoR-BILL, perhaps also of the PUFFIN.

MARSH-HEN, used in North America for various species of
RAIL; but especially, it would seem, for fallus elegans and R.
crepitans (Turnbull, Names & Portr. B. pp. 125, 127).

MARTIN formerly MARTLET! (French, Martinet and Mar-
telet), the Hirundo urbica of Linneus and Chelidon urbica of most
modern ornithologists,” a bird very well known throughout Europe,
including even Lapland, where it is abundant, retiring in winter to
the’ south of Africa.? It also inhabits the western part of Asia,
and appears from time to time in large flocks in India; but the
boundaries of its range and those of some of its Eastern congeners
cannot as yet be laid down. The Martin (or House-MarrIN, as it
is often called, to distinguish it from the Sand-Martin presently to
be mentioned) commonly reaches its summer-quarters a few days
later than the SwALLow, whose habits its own so much resemble
that heedless persons often disregard the very perceptible differences

1 Thus Shakespear—
‘¢ Like the martlet,
Builds in the weather on the outward wall.”
Merchant of Venice, Act ii. se. 9.

But the older English form is, except in heralds’ language, almost obsolete, and
when used is now applied in some places to the Swirr. The forms Martyn,
Mertyn, and Morton are found printed in some Scottish Acts of Parliament,
and from the context may be inferred to mean a Bird, but of what kind it is hard
to guess.

2 Of late North-American writers have taken the words Chelidon and Hirundo
in the opposite sense, which is puzzling to readers in the rest of the world.

3 After the publication of the account of this species in Yarrell’s British Birds
(ed. 4, ii. p. 354), the late Mr. Gurney informed me of a specimen obtained out
of a migratory flock flying very high on the Qua’qua’ river, lat. 19° 10’S., by
the expedition of Messrs. Jameson and Ayres, 23rd October 1880, and the fact
has since been recorded by Capt. Shelley (Zbis, 1882, p. 259). Mr. Fairbridge
believes that he has lately found the species breeding in Cape Town.

MARTIN 537

between them, the Martin’s white rump and lower parts being con-
spicuous as it flies or clings to its “loved mansionry ” attached to
our houses, for, as Shakespear wrote—

**No jutty, frieze,
Buttress, nor coign of vantage, but this bird
Hath made his pendent bed and procreant cradle.”
Macbeth, Act i. se. 6.

This nest, made of the same material as the Swallow’s, is, however,
a far more difficult structure to rear, and a week or more is often
occupied in laying its foundations—the builders clinging to the wall
while depositing the mud of which it is composed. But, the base
once securely fixed, the superstructure is often quickly added till
the whole takes the shape of the half or quarter of a hemisphere,
and a lining of soft feathers, mixed with a few bents or straws, fits
it for its purpose. ‘The Martin sets about building very soon after
its return, and a nest that has outlasted the winter’s storms is
almost at once reoccupied; though if a new nest be needed its
construction often involves great delay, for any excess of wet or
drought retards the operation, and the work is often placed in such
an exposed situation that heavy driving rains will wash away the
half-dried walls. However, the bird mostly perseveres against
these and other untowardnesses, contriving in the course of the
summer to raise a second or even, though rarely, a third brood of
offspring—but it is certain that the latest broods often die in the
nest—apparently through failure of food. Yet examples of this
species are observed in England every year so late as November,
and there are several instances of their appearance within a few
days of the winter solstice ; but it is to be remarked that these late
birds are almost certainly strangers, and not natives of the locality
in which they are seen.!

The Sanp-Martin, Hirundo riparia of Linneus and Cotile riparia
of modern writers, differs much in appearance and habits from the
former. Its smaller size, mouse-coloured upper surface, and jerking
flight ought to render it easily recognizable from the other British
Hirundinidx ; but through carelessness it is seldom discriminated,
and, being the first of the Family to return to its northern home, the
“early Swallow” of newspaper-writers would seem to be nearly always
of this species. Instead of using a clay-built nest like the House-
Martin, this bird bores, with a degree of regularity and an amount

1 This is inferred from their not shewing themselves until some time after
the departure of the regular inhabitants. Prof. Giglioli has recorded the ap-
pearance of C. cashmirensis in Italy (Avif. tal. p. 187), though Count T. Sal-
vadori (Uccell: Ital. p. 81) has expressed his doubt as to the determination of
the specimen. It behoves all ornithologists to examine very critically examples
of Martins obtained in Europe late in the year.

538 MARTIN

of labour rarely excelled in its Class, horizontal galleries in a natural
or artificial escarpment. When beginning its excavation, it clings
to the face of the bank, and with its bill loosens the earth, working
from the centre outwards, assuming all sorts of positions—as often
as not hanging head downwards. ‘The form of the boring and its
length depend much on the nature of the soil; but the tunnel may
extend to 4, 6, or even 9 feet. The gallery seems intended to be
straight, but inequalities of the ground, and especially the meeting
-with stones, often cause it to take a sinuous course. At the end is
formed a convenient chamber lined with a few grass stalks and
feathers, the latter always beautifully arranged, and upon them the
eggs are laid. The Sand-Martin has several broods in the year,
and is much more regular than other Hirundinidx in its departure
for the south. The kind of soil needed for its nesting-habits makes
it a somewhat local bird; but no species of the Order Passeres has
a geographical range that can compare with this. In Europe it is
found nearly to the North Cape, and thence to the Sea of Okhotsk.
In winter it visits many parts of India, and South Africa to the
Transvaal territory. In America its range is even still further,
extending (due regard being of course had to the season of. the
year) from Melville Island to Caicara in Brazil, and from New-
foundland to Alaska.

The PurpLe Martin of America,! Progne sulis or purpurea,
requires some remarks as being such a favourite bird in Canada
and in the United States. Naturally breeding in hollow trees, it
readily adapts itself to the nest-boxes which are very commonly
set up for its accommodation ; but its numbers are in some years
and places subject to diminution in a manner which has not yet
been satisfactorily explained. The limits of its range in winter are
not determined, chiefly owing to the differences of opinion as to
the validity of certain supposed kindred species found in South
America ; but according to some authorities it reaches the border
of Patagonia, while in summer it is known to inhabit lands within
the Arctic Circle. The male is almost wholly of a glossy steel-
blue, while the female is much duller in colour above, and beneath
of a brownish-grey.

Birds that may be called Martins? occur almost all over the world
except in New Zealand, which is not regularly inhabited by any
member of the Family. The ordinary Martin of Australia is the
Hirundo or Hylochelidon nigricans of most ornithologists, and another
and more beautiful form is the Ariel or Fairy-Martin of the same
country, Hirundo or Lagenoplastes ariel. This last builds of mud a

1 In 1840 an example is said to have been killed at Kingstown in Ireland,
the skin of which is in the Dublin Museum of Science and Art.

2 The Martin of the French colonists (in the Old World) is an Acridotheres
(GRACKLE).

MAVIS—MEGAPODE 539

bottle-shaped nest, as does also the Rock-Martin of Europe, Hirundo
or Biblis rupestris; but space fails wherein to tell more of these
interesting birds, which are treated of in the beautifully-illustrated
monograph of Hirundinide now in course of publication by Messrs.
Sharpe and Wyatt.

MAVIS, Fr. Mauvis,! a common local name of the Song-THRUSH.

MAXILLA, a rather slender bone on each side of the anterior
part of the head connecting the jugal with the premaxilla, and
forming part of the lateral margin of what is often called the Upper
Mandible, though the word Maxilla is frequently used to express
the whole of the upper jaw. Its palatal processes are of consider-
able taxonomic value (see SKULL).

MAY-BIRD and MAY-FOWL, common names of the WHIMBREL
in England, and the former given on the east coast of North America
to the KNoT as well as to the BOBOLINK, while

MAY-COCK is, in places, applied to the Grey PLover, Squatarola
helvetica ; and

MAY-CHICK, according to Sir T. Browne, was used in Norfolk
for some bird “a little bigger than a Stint, of fatness beyond any.”
This last seems to be obsolete ; but all doubtless refer to the month
in which the birds bearing the names appeared.

MEADOW-CHICKEN and MEADOW-HEN, names given in
North America to more than one species of Ratt or Coor; but the

MEADOW-LARK of the same country is Sturnella magna (see
ICTERUS).

MEGAPODE, the name given generally to a small but remark-
able Family of birds highly characteristic of some parts of the Aus-
tralian Region, to which it is almost peculiar. The MJegapodiidx with
the Cracidx form that division of Gallinw named by Prof. Huxley
Peristeropodes (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 296), and morphologically
seem to be the lowest of the Order, with which apparent fact may
perhaps be correlated their singular habit of leaving their eggs to be
hatched without incubation, either burying them in the ground (as
many Reptiles do) or heaping over them a mound of earth, leaves,

1 Now applied chiefly to the Repwinc, Twrdus iliacus, but also to the Crested
Lark, and the Mauviette of French cookery is always a Lark. The old Norman
form, whence we probably get our word, is said to be Maulvis (Gasté apud Rolland,
Fauune Pop. Fr. p. 243). According to Littré its origin is uncertain; some
supposing it to be the Low Latin Malvitius (= malum vitis, or scourge of the vine,
the Neapolitan Marvizzo), others allege the Low Breton Milvid (a Gull) or
Milhuez (a Lark). The Walloon Mdvi or Maiwi, according to Baron de Selys-
Longchamps a BLACKBIRD, is evidently the same word.

540 MEGAPODE

and rotten wood.! This habit attracted attention more than three
hundred years ago,? but the accounts given of it by various
travellers were generally discredited by naturalists,? and as examples
of the birds, probably from their unattractive plumage, appear not to
have been brought to Europe, no one of them was seen by any
ornithologist or scientifically described until near the end of the first

1 Hence the name of MounD-BIRDs given to them by some writers.

2 Antonio Pigafetta, one of the survivors of Magellan’s glorious but disastrous
voyage, records in his journal, under date of April 1521, among the peculiarities
of the Philippine, Islands, then first discovered by Europeans, the existence of a
bird there, about the size of a Fowl, which laid its eggs, as big as a Duck’s, in
the sand, and left them to be hatched by the heat of the sun (Primo Viaggio
intorno al Globo, ed. Amoretti, Milano: 1800, p. 72; Fr. transl. Premier Voyage
autour du Monde, Paris: A.R. ix. p. 88). More than one hundred years later
the Jesuit Nieremberg, in his Historia Naturx, published at Antwerp in 1635,
described (p. 207) a bird called ‘‘ Daie,” and by the natives named ‘‘ Tapun,”
not larger than a Dove, which, with its tail (!) and feet, excavated a nest in
sandy places and laid therein eggs bigger than those of a Goose. The publication
at Rome in 1651 of Hernandez’s Hist. Avium Nove Hispaniz shews that his papers
must have been accessible to Nieremberg, who took from them the passage just
mentioned, but, as not unusual with him, misprinted the names which stand in
Hernandez’s work (p. 56, cap. 220) ‘‘ Daic,” and ‘‘Tapum” respectively, and
omitted his predecessor’s important addition ‘‘ Viuit in Philippicis.” Not long
after, the Dominican Navarrete, a missionary to China, made a considerable
stay in the Philippines, and returning to Europe in 1673 wrote an account of
the Chinese empire, of which Churchill (Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. i.)
gave an English translation in 1704. It is therein stated (p. 45) that in many
of the islands of the Malay Archipelago ‘‘there is a very singular bird call’d
Tabon,” and that ‘‘ What I and many more admire is, that it being no bigger in
Body than an ordinary Chicken, tho’ long legg’d, yet it lays an egg larger than
a Gooses, so that the egg is bigger than the bird itself. . . . In order to lay its
Eggs, it digs in the Sand above a yard in depth; after laying, it fills up the
hole and makes it even with the rest ; there the Eggs hatch with the heat of the
Sun and Sand.” He adds further information which need not be quoted here.
Gemelli Careri, who travelled from 1663 to 1699, and in the latter year published
an account of his voyage round the world, gives similar evidence respecting this
remarkable bird, which he calls ‘‘ Tavon,” in the Philippine Islands (Voy. du tour
du Monde, ed. Paris: 1727, v. pp. 157, 158). The Megapode of Luzon is fairly
described by Camel or Camelli in his observations on the Birds of the Philippines
communicated by Petiver to the Royal Society in 1703 (Phil. Trans. xxiii. p.
1398). In 1726 Valentyn published his elaborate work on the East Indies,
wherein (deel iii. bk. v. chap. ii. p. 320) he very correctly describes the Megapode
of Amboina under the name of Afoeleoe or Malleoe, and also a larger kind found
in Celebes, so as to shew he had in the course of his long residence in the Dutch
settlements become personally acquainted with both.

3 Thus Willughby (Ornithologia, p. 297), or Ray for him, who had, however
only Nieremberg’s evidence to cite, and they can scarcely be blamed for their
hesitation, considering the number of other marvels narrated by the same worthy
father. Buffon also (Oiseaux, ix. p. 486) was just as sceptical in regard to the
relation of Careri.

MEGAPODE 541

quarter of the present century. The first member of the Family
to receive authoritative recognition was one of the largest, inhabiting
the continent of Australia, where it is known as the BRUSH-TURKEY,
and was originally described by Latham in 1821 under the name
of the New-Holland Vulture, a misleading designation which he
subsequently tried to correct on perceiving its Galline character.
It is the Talegallus lathami of modern ornithologists, and is nearly
the size of a hen Turkey. Six smaller species of the same genus
have since been described, all from New Guinea or the neighbouring
islands, but two of them, 7. pyrrhopygius and T. bruyni, have been
separated to form a group A%pypodius. The Australian bird is of
a sooty-brown colour, relieved beneath by the lighter edging of
some of the feathers, but the head and neck are nearly bare, beset
with fine bristles, the skin being of a deep pinkish-red, passing above
the breast into a large wattle of bright yellow. The tail is commonly
carried upright and partly folded, something like that of a domestic
Fowl.

The next form of which we may speak is another inhabitant of
Australia, commonly known in England as the MALLEE-BIRD, but
to the colonists as Lowan and “ Native Pheasant ”—the Lipoa ocellata
first described by Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1840, p. 126), which has
much shorter tarsi and toes, the head entirely clothed, and the tail
expanded. Its plumage presents a pleasing combination of greys
and browns of various tints, interspersed with black, white, and buff,
the wing-coverts and feathers of the back bearing each near the tip an
oval or subcircular patch, whence the trivial scientific name of the bird
is given, while a stripe of black feathers with a median line of white
extends down the front of the throat, from the chin to the breast.
There is but one species of this genus known, as is also the case with
the next to be mentioned, which is a singular bird long known to in-
habit Celebes, but not fully described until 1846,! when it received
from Salomon Miiller (Arch. 7. Naturgesch. xii. pt. 1, p. 116) the

_ name of Macrocephalon maleo, but, being shortly afterwards figured
by Gray and Mitchell (Gen. Birds, iii. pl. 123) under the generic
term of Megacephalon, has since commonly borne the latter appellation.
This is a very remarkable form, bearing a helmet-like protuberance
on the back of its head, all of which as well as the neck is bare and
of a bright red colour; the plumage of the body is glossy black
above, and beneath roseate-white.

Of the Megapodes proper, constituting the genus Megapodius,
many species have been described, but authorities are greatly at
variance as to the validity of several, and here it would be impossible
to name all that have been supposed to exist. Some are only

1 As we have seen, it was mentioned in 1726 by Valentyn, and a young example
was in 1830 described and figured by Quoy and Gaimard (Voy. ‘Astrolabe’: Oiseauz,
p. 239, pl. 25) as the Megapodius rubripes of Temminck, a wholly different bird.

542 MEGAPODE

known from very young examples—mere chickens ; and some have
even been described from their eggs alone. In 1870 Mr. G. R.
Gray enumerated 20 species, of which 16
were represented in the British Museum,
and several have been described since ;
but ten years later Schlegel recognized
only 17 species, of which examples of 12
were contained in the Leyden Museum
Beg ne eee (Mr us. des Pays-Bas, Vill. Monogr. 41, pp.
(Atte Swainson) 56-86), while M. Oustalet, in his elaborate
monograph of the Family (Aun. Se. Nat.,
Zool. ser. 6, x. and xi.), admits 19 species. The birds of this genus
range from the Samoa Islands in the east, through the Tonga group,
to the New Hebrides, the northern part of Australia, New Guinea
and its neighbouring islands, Celebes, the Pelew Islands, and the
Ladrones, and have also outliers in detached portions of the Indian
Region, as the Philippines (where indeed they were first discovered
by Europeans), Labuan, and even the Nicobars—though none are
known from the intervening islands of Borneo,! Java, or Sumatra.
Within what may be deemed their proper area they are found,
says Mr. Wallace (Geogr. Distr. Anim. ii. p.
341) “on the smallest islands and sand-banks,
and can evidently pass over a few miles of sea
with ease.” Indeed proof of their roaming
disposition is afforded by the fact that the
bird described by Lesson (Voy. ‘ Coquille,’ Zool.
p- 703) as Alecthelia urvillii, but now con-
sidered to be the young of I. freycineti, flew
on board his ship when more than two miles
from the nearest land (Guebé), in an ex-
hausted state, it is true, but that may be
attributed to its extreme youth. The species
of Megapodius are about the size of small
Fowls, the head generally crested, the tail
very short, the feet enormously large, and, with the exception of
M. wallacii (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1860, Aves, pl. 171) from the Moluccas,
all have a sombre plumage.

The extraordinary habit possessed by the Megapodes generally of
relieving themselves of the duty of incubation, as before mentioned,
a habit which originally attracted the attention of travellers,
whose stories were on that very account discredited,—as well as the
highly developed condition of the young at birth, has been so fully

MEGAPODIUS FREYCINETI.
(After Swainson.)

1 M. cumingi occurs on Labuan and other islands off the north cotst of
Borneo, and it is recorded (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881, p. 800) from Sandakan, but
confirmation of the statement is desirable.

MEGG V—MERGANSER 543

described,’ and so often repeated by other writers, as to be very
commonly known, and here there seems no necessity to enter into
further details concerning it.

MEGGY, properly an abbreviation of Margaret, a nickname of
the WHITETHROAT ; but perhaps a corruption of Muaey.

MEGISTANES, Vieillot’s name in 1816 (Analyse, p. 53) for a
group containing the four genera of Ratite birds then known,
Struthio, Rhea, Casuarius, and Dromexus, and since applied (Ann.
& Mag. N. H. ser. 4, xx. p. 500) to the Order composed of the two
last (CASSOWARY, EMEU).

MELANISM (adj. melanistic) the abnormal occurrence of
black or very dark coloured plumage (see CoLouR, p. 99, and
HETEROCHROSIS, p. 420).

MERGANSER, a word originating with Gesner (Hist. Anim.
iii. p. 129) in 1555, and for a long while used in English as the
general name of a group of fish-eating Ducks which possess great
diving powers, and form the genus Mergus of Linneeus, now regarded
by ornithologists as a subfamily,
Mergine, of the Family Anatide.
They have a long, narrow bill, with
a small but evident hook at the tip,
and the edges of both mandibles beset
by numerous horny denticulations, Br or Mercvs. (After Swainson.)
whence the name of “Saw-bill” is
frequently applied to them. Otherwise their structure does not much
depart from the Anatine or rather Fuliguline type. All the species
bear a more or less developed crest or tuft on the head. Three of
them, Mergus merganser or custor, M. serrator, and M. albellus, are found
over the northern parts of the Old World, and of these the first two
also inhabit North America, which has besides a fourth species, J/.
- cucullatus, said to have occasionally visited Britain. J2 merganser,
the GOOSANDER, is the largest species, being nearly as big as the
smaller Geese, and the adult male in breeding-attire is a very beautiful
bird, conspicuous with his dark glossy-green head, rich salmon-
coloured breast, and the upper part of the body and wings black
and white. This full plumage is not assumed till the second year,
and in the meantime, as well as in the postnuptial dress, he much
resembles the female, having, like her, a reddish-brown head, the
upper parts greyish-brown, and the lower dull white. In this con-
dition the bird is often known as the “Dun Diver.” This species

1 See Gould, Handb. B. Austral. ii. pp. 152-175; G. R. Gray, Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1861, pp. 292-296 ; Wallace, Malay Archipelago, i. pp. 415-419; ii. pp.
147-149 ; Guillemard, Crwise of the ‘ Marchesa,’ ii. pp. 193-197 with fig. ; Hick-
son, Naturalist in North Celebes, pp. 94, 95.

544 MERGANSER

breeds abundantly in many parts of Scandinavia, Russia, Siberia
and North America, and of late years has been found to do so in
Scotland, usually making its nest in the stump of a hollow tree or
under a slab of rock. JM. serrator, commonly called the Red-breasted
Merganser, is a somewhat smaller bird ; and, while the fully-dressed
male wants the delicate hue of the lower parts, he has a gorget of
rufous mottled with black, below which is a patch of white feathers,
broadly edged with black. The male at other times and the female
always much resemble the preceding. It is more numerous than
the Goosander, with a somewhat more southern range, and is not so
particular in selecting a sheltered site for its nest. Both these
species have the bill and feet of a bright reddish-orange, while J.
albellus, known as the SMEw, has these parts of a lead colour, and
the breeding-plumage of the adult male is white, with quaint
crescentic markings of black, and the flanks most beautifully
vermiculated—the female and male in undress having a general
resemblance to the other two already described—but the Smew is
very much smaller in size, and, so far as is known, it invariably
makes its nest in a hollow tree, as ascertained first by Wolley (Jdis,
1859, pp. 69 et seq.) This last habit is shared by M. cucullatus, the
Hooded Merganser of North America, in size intermediate between
M. albellus and M. serrator, the male of which is easily recognizable
by his broad semicircular crest, bearing a fan-shaped patch of white,
and his elongated subscapulars of white edged with black. The
conformation of the trachea in the male of M. merganser, M.
serrator, and M. cucullatus is very like that of the Ducks of the
genus Clangula, but M. albellus has a less exaggerated development
more resembling that of the ordinary Fuligula.t From the southern
hemisphere two species of Mergus have been described, M. octosetaceus
or brasilianus, Vieillot (NV. Dict. @ Hist. Nat. ed. 2, xiv. p. 222; Gal.
des Ois. ii. p. 209, pl. 283), inhabiting South America, of which but
few specimens have been obtained, having some general resemblance

1 Four hybrids between, as is presumed, M. albellus and Clangula glaucion,
the GOLDEN-EYE, have been described and figured (Eimbeck, Jsts, 1831, 300;
tab. iii. ; Brehm, Naturgesch. aller Vog. Deutschlands, p. 930; Naumann, Vg.
Deutschlands, xii. p. 194, frontispiece ; Kjerbolling, Jour. fiir Ornithologie, 1853,
Extraheft, p. 29, Nawmannia, 1853, p. 327, Ornithol. Danica, tab. lv. suppl.
tab. 29; F. Schmidt, Arch. Naturgesch. Mecklenbd. 1875, p. 145; Wolschke,
VII. Jahresber. Annab.-Buchholz. Ver. fiir Naturk. ; Kolthoff, Gfvers. K. Vet.-
Ak. Foérh. 1884, p. 185, pls. xxxi. xxxii.) sometimes under the names of
Mergus anatarius, Clangula angustirostris, and Anas (Clangula) mergoides, as
though they were a distinct species; but the remarks of Baron de Selys-
Longchamps (Bull. Ac. Sc. Brux. 1845, pt. ii. p. 354, and 1856, pt. ii. p. 21), and
Prof. R. Blasius (Ifonatsschr. Ver. zu Schutz. der Vogelwelt, 1887) leave little room
for doubt as to their origin, which, when the cryptogamic habit and common
range of their putative parents, the former unknown to the author named last
but one, is considered, will seem to be still more likely.

MERLE—MERLIN 545

to JM. serrator, but much more darkly coloured ; and Jf. australis,
Hombron and Jacquemont (dnn. Sc. Nat. Zoologie, ser. 2, xvi. p.
320 ; Voy. au Pol Sud, Orseaux, pl. 31, fig. 2), long known only by the
unique example in the Museum of Paris procured by the French
Antarctic expedition in the Auckland Islands ; but of which Baron A.
von Hiigel (/bis, 1875, p. 392), obtained two other specimens, and
gave one to the British Museum (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881, p. 1), and
the other to that of the University of Cambridge. This last species
may perhaps be found to visit New Zealand.

Often associated with the Mergansers is the genus Merganetta,
the so-called Torrent-Ducks of South America, of which three species
are said to exist ; but they possess spiny tails and have their wings
armed with a spur. Whether they should be referred to the
Merginx or the Erismaturine—the Spiny-tailed Ducks proper—is a
question that further investigation must decide.

MERLE, the French name of the BLAckprrp (Lat. Merula),
perhaps introduced by the Normans, but scarcely used now as
English except in fiction.

MERLIN, Old Eng. Maruin and MArRLIon 3 Old Fr. Esmerillon

Meruin. (After Wolf.)

and Smirlon, Mod. Fr. Emerillon,) the Falco xsalon of Tunstall,

1 The Icelandic Smiril7 (a comparatively modern word, as Mr. Eirtkr Mag-
nusson tells me), the German Schmer] and corresponding words in Italian,
Spanish and Portuguese are all evidently cognate with the French, the root
being the Latin Merula as in MERLE.

35

546 MEROBLASTIC—MESOMYOD1

in 1771, and ornithologists generally, but the F. lithofalco? of
some—one of the most beautiful of the Falconide (FALCON) and
perhaps the boldest of the Accipitres, not hesitating to attack
birds of twice its own size, and even on occasion threatening
human beings. Yet it readily becomes tame, if not affectionate,
when reclaimed, as it often is for Falconry, and its ordinary prey
consists of the smaller Passeres. Its “pinion of glossy blue” has
become almost proverbial, and a deep ruddy blush suffuses its
lower parts; but these are characteristic only of the male—the
female maintaining very nearly the sober brown plumage she wore
when as a nestling she left her lowly cradle in the heather. It
breeds or used to breed commonly on the moors of the northern
parts of England and on those of Scotland, as well as on the moun-
tainous districts of Ireland ; but of late years has been much reduced
in numbers. In winter the young frequent the lower levels in all
three kingdoms, and strike terror into the small birds that congre-
gate at that season. Very close to this bird comes the Pigeon-
Hawk, F. columbarius, of North America—so close, indeed, that
none but an expert ornithologist can detect the difference. The
Turumti of Anglo-Indians, F. chicquera, and its representative from
Southern Africa, F. rujicollis, also belong to this group, but they are
considerably larger than either of the former.

MEROBLASTIC, the term applied to the ova of certain Verte-
brates, including Birds, in which the process of segmentation is
confined to the germinal disk (see EMBRYOLOGY, p. 196).

MERRY-WING, a North-American fowler’s name for the
GOLDEN-EYE.

MERTYN, an old Scottish spelling of MARTIN.

MESENTERY, the thin transparent membrane composed of
layers of connective tissue that holds together the various loops of
the intestine and other viscera, attaching them to the vertebral
column where it is continuous with the peritoneal lining of the
body cavity.”

MESOBLAST, the middle layer of the three into which the
blastoderm subdivides (see EMBRYOLOGY, p. 200).

MESOMYODI, Garrod’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, p. 507),
for a division of Passerine birds the peculiarities of which were
first to some extent though not fully appreciated by Johannes
Miiller (see INTRODUCTION)—“a mesomyodian bird being one in
which the muscles of the SyRINX join the semi-rings in their

1 Modern American authors call it Falco (or salon) regulus, a name given
in 1773 by Pallas (Reise, w.s.w. i. p. 707).
* This from the common German name Steinfalk.

METACARPUS—MIGRATION 547

middles,” while in the other division, ACRoMyYoDI, the syringeal
muscles are attached to their extremities. Garrod further
divided the Mesomyodi into HOM@oMERI, comprehending 'TRACHEO-
PHONZ and HApPLOOPHON#, and HETEROMERI. Mesomyodian
Families are most characteristic of the Neotropical Region, all but
three, Pittidx, Philepittide and Acanthidosittidx, being, so far as is
known, peculiar to the New World.

METACALRPUS, generally used in Ornithology for the portion
of the wing from the wrist (CARPUS) to the root of the fingers, but
since the distal carpal bones coalesce with the proximal end of the
metacarpals, this part should strictly be called carpo-metacarpus
(see Hand under SKELETON).

METATARSUS, by Ornithologists often applied to that part
of the foot which reaches from the ankle-joint to the root of the
toes and is commonly but wrongly called the Tarsus; the distal
tarsal bones coalescing with the proximal end of the metatarsals
(see Foot under SKELETON).

MEW, Angl.-Sax. Maw, see GULL.

MIGRATION. Strangely confounded by many writers with
the subject of GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION is that of Migration.
True it is that owing to the vast powers of locomotion possessed
by nearly all Birds, we have individuals belonging in the main
to certain groups, but by no means always confined to them, stray-
ing from their proper quarters and occurring in places far removed,
not only from the land of their birth, but from the country whither
they are ordinarily bound in their journeys, to reach which is the
object wherefore such journeys are undertaken. It may be that
in some measure this erraticism is governed by fixed laws, and
indeed indication is not wanting that such laws exist, though as
yet we know much too little to lay them down with any approach
'to confidence. But it is obvious on reflection that granting the
existence of most rigorous laws of this kind—determining the
flight of every winged vagabond—they must be very different from
those which are obeyed by Birds commonly called ‘ Migratory,”
and year after year moving, according to a more or less fixed
rule, from one locality to another with the seasons as they roll.
The former laws would seem to be created or controlled by purely
external circumstances, which if they possess any periodicity at all
possess a periodicity of cycles, and are most likely dependent in the
main on cycles of the weather, but on this point observation has
not yet supplied us with the means of avoiding speculation. We
may indeed say almost without much risk of error that so many
individuals of a foreign species—whether North-American or Asiatic
—will occur in Great Britain so many times in the course of a

548 MIGRATION

term of years; but, though we may safely predict that if they
appear at all they will do so at a certain season, it is impossible to
make a forecast as to the year in which an example will arrive, or
whether in one year some half-dozen may or may not occur. The
matter thus becomes a matter of averages, and like all such is open
to the influence of many perturbants, not that such may not well
be subject to some law of which we are ignorant. JBeside this, the
average is hard to strike, depending as it must on the existence of
favourably-placed and watchful observers. Moreover if we consider
that the number of competent observers, though possibly as great
in England as anywhere, has been at all times small, it is not sur-
prising that little has been effected towards the compassing of any
definite notion on this head. At present we can but attribute the
appearance of some foreign stragglers on our shores, and no doubt
the same may be said of other countries, to the influence of storms
which have driven the wanderers from their course, and though
other more remote causes may possibly be assigned, there seems to
be none but this on which we can safely rely. Consequently until
the periodicity of storms is brought within our knowledge we must
be content to abide in our ignorance of the laws which govern the
appearance of the strangers. Still confining our remarks to the
British Islands, the effect of these laws is in some degree constant.
Singular as it may appear, the greatest number of North-American
Birds—and especially of the Limicolx, which are recorded as having
occurred in this country have been met with in the eastern part of
England or Scotland. There are two ways of accounting for this
fact, the first of which is the comparative scarcity of observers in
Treland and on its western coast especially, and this is by no means
to be overlooked; but it may be remarked that in no part of the
United Kingdom is the profession of the gunner more enthusiastically
followed than in the sister-island, and the men who pursue that
vocation are all alive to the mercantile value of any strange bird
which may fall in their way. Of course they have no means of
knowing what it is, yet as their spoils are sent for sale to the
nearest market, it cannot but happen that if many examples of
North-American species were procured by them, some proportion
of these would find their way to the notice of the amateur naturalist
and by him be recorded in the public prints. Now, as compared
with Great Britain, this so rarely occurs in Ireland that it is by no
means unfair to draw the inference that Transatlantic Birds are
there far less frequently met with. The second mode of account-

1 It seems also not unlikely that the very scarcity of rare birds in Ireland is
one reason why there are so few ornithologists in that country, for here it is not
uncommon for a man to have his attention first called to zoology by meeting
with some strange animal—be it beast, bird, beetle, or butterfly, and for such a
man afterwards to become no mean field-naturalist.

MIGRATION 549

ing for the fact above stated is that the majority of North-American
Birds which occasionally visit Europe are of species which breed in
somewhat high northern latitudes. On their way thence to their
winter-quarters, some are driven out to sea by violent westerly
gales—the strongest winds, be it remembered, that prevail in the
North Atlantic, and thus strike the coast of Norway.t In that
country observers may be said to be practically absent, and fowlers
as a rule unknown. Such storm-beaten wanderers there consort
with the allied species to be found at that season in abundance
on its shores, and in their company pursue the same southerly
course. With them they cross to the east of Great Britain, and
once arrived here are speedily picked out and secured by the
practised gunner. But should they even escape his notice, they
with their comrades follow the shore-line, where they obtain the
best supply of food, until passing round the south coast they find
themselves at the western extremity of England—the district of
the Land’s End, in which, next to Norfolk and Suffolk, the greatest
number of these Transatlantic stragglers have been obtained. This
suggestion may serve to shew what most likely goes on in other
parts of the world, though the materials for establishing its general
truth are not forthcoming.

But returning to the subject of Migration proper, distinguished
as it ought to be from that of the more or less accidental occur-
rence of stray visitors from afar, we have here more than enough
to excite our wonder, and indeed are brought face to face with
perhaps the greatest mystery which the whole animal kingdom
presents—a mystery which attracted the attention of the earliest
writers, and can in its chief point be no more explained by the
modern man of science than by the simple-minded savage or the
poet or prophet of antiquity. Some facts are almost universally
known and have been the theme of comment in all ages and in all
lands. The Hawk that stretches her wings toward the south is as
familiar to the latest Nile-boat traveller or dweller on the Bosphorus
as of old to the author of the book of Job. The autumnal throng-
ing of myriads of Waterfowl by the rivers of Asia is witnessed by
the modern sportsman as it was of old by Homer. Anacreon
welcomed the returning Swallow in numbers which his imitators
of the colder north, to whom the associations connected with it are
doubly strong, have tried in vain to excel. The Indian of the Fur-
Countries in forming his rude calendar names the recurring moons
after the Birds-of-passage whose arrival is coincident with their
changes. But there is no need to multiply instances. The flow and
ebb of the feathered tide has been sung by poets and discussed by
philosophers, has given rise to proverbs and entered into popular

1 Prof. Baird’s remarks on this subject are much to the point (Am. Journ. Se.
ser. 2, xli. pp. 344, 345).

550 MIGRATION

superstitions, and yet we must say of it still that our “ignorance is
immense.”

On one point and one only in connexion with this subject
can we boast ourselves to be clearly wiser than our ancestors.
Some of them fully believed that the seasonal disappearance of the
SWALLOW, the NIGHTINGALE, the Cuckow, and the CORNCRAKE was
due to what is commonly called “ hibernation,” that is to say, passing
the winter in a torpid condition, while others indeed doubted whether
or not this was the true explanation of the fact. It is not so long
since this belief and these doubts were in vogue, but now assuredly
they have no hold upon the mind of any one capable of appreciat-
ing evidence, and this absurd fancy being exploded need not again
trouble us. Yet it recurs again and again to those who will not
take the trouble to reason, and even to some thinking persons who
cannot rid themselves of prejudice. Scarcely a year passes but an
instance of this credulity presents itself to the writer, either in some
public print or in a private communication. Of the same kind is
the equally ancient belief that little birds get themselves conveyed
from one country to another by their bigger brethren. Storks and
Cranes on their Migration are manifest to beholders, but the transit
of lesser birds of feebler flight is seldom evident, and when, as often
happens, large and small birds disappear or arrive simultaneously,
what is more natural than that the ignorant should suppose that
the latter avail themselves of the former as a vehicle? Thus in
1740 the Tartars of Krasnojarsk and the Assanians assured J. G.
Gmelin (Reise durch Sibirien, ii. pp. 393, 394) that when autumn
came each Crane took a Corncrake on its back and transported it
to a warmer land,! while the well-known belief of the Egyptian
peasant that Cranes and Storks bring a living load was not long
since gravely promulgated in this country as a truth!

In considering the phenomena of Migration it will be best first
to take the facts, and then try to account for their cause or causes.
That a very large number of Birds all over the world change their
abode according to the season is well known, and we find that in
all temperate countries there are some species which arrive in spring,
remain to breed, and depart in autumn; others which arrive in
autumn, stop for the winter, and depart in spring; and others
again—~and these are strictly speaking the “ Birds of Passage ”—
which shew themselves but twice a year, passing through the
country without staying long in it, and their transient visits take
place about spring and autumn. People who have given but little
thought to the subject are apt to suppose that these migrants,
which may thus easily be classed in three categories, are acted
upon by influences of different kinds, whereas very little reflection

1 This passage has been adverted to by Buffon (Hist. Nat. Ois. viii. p. 150) and
Pallas (Zoogr. Ross.-Asiat. ii. p. 153).

MIGRATION 551

will shew that all are really affected by the same impulse, what-
ever that may be, and that the nature of their movements at first
sight so dissimilar is in truth almost uniform. The species which
resort to this and to other temperate countries in winter are simply
those which have their breeding-quarters much nearer the poles,
and in returning to them on the approach of spring are but doing
exactly as do those species which, having their winter abode nearer
the equator, come to us with the spring. The Birds-of-passage
proper, like our winter-visitants, have their breeding-quarters nearer
the poles, but, like our summer-visitants, they seek their winter-abode
nearer the equator, and thus perform a somewhat longer Migration.
So far there is no difficulty and no hypothesis—the bringing to-
gether of these three apparently different categories is the result of
simple observation.?

This, however, is not the only fact which is evident on the most
cursory examination. To take the birds of the British Islands as
an example (though exactly similar cases are presented in other
countries), we find that while there are some species, such as the
SwWALLow or the FIELDFARE, of which every individual disappears
at one period of the year or another, there are other species, such
as the Pied WacTalIL or the Woopcock, of which only the majority
of individuals vanish—a few being always present*—and these
species form the so-called “ Partial Migrants.” If we extend our
view and look to birds on the continent of Europe, we find that
many species are there notoriously migrant which are not generally
suspected to be so in this country—such as the Song-THRUSH and
the REDBREAST, both of which species closer observation has proved
to be with us subject to the migratory impulse. In respect of the
former it is known that towards the end of summer or in autumn
our native Song-Thrushes receive a considerable accession in
numbers from the birds which arrive from the north, though the
immigration is by no means so well marked as it is in Belgium,
France, or Germany, where the arrival of the strangers sets all the
fowlers to work, and the beginning of the Chasse aux Grives or

1 One of the first, at least in this country, to set forth the unity of the
migratory movement seems to have been the author of a Discourse on the
Emigration of British Birds, published anonymously at Salisbury in 1780, and
generally attributed to ‘‘George Edwards,” though certainly not written by the
celebrated ornithologist of that name. Mr. A. C. Smith has discovered that the
author—a man in many respects before his time—was John Legg, hitherto un-
known as a naturalist. But the real George Edwards also held opinions on the
subject that are mostly sound, and his remarks gathered from various parts of
his greater works, where they appeared ‘‘in a detached and unconnected form,”
were republished, with a few modifications, in the third of his Essays wpon
Natural History (London: 1770) and may yet be read to advantage.

2 Whether these few be not migrants from another district is a point that
would require further consideration.

552 MIGRATION

Drosselzug is regarded in many places nearly as the Twelfth of
August or the First of September is with us. In most localities
in Britain the new comers depart after a short sojourn, and are
accompanied by so many of the home-bred birds that in some
parts of the island it may be safely declared that not a single
Song-Thrush can be found from the end of November to the end
of January, while in other districts examples can always be seen.
Much the same may be said of the Redbreast. Undeniably resident
asa species, attentive scrutiny will reveal the fact that its numbers
are subject to very considerable variation according to the season
of the year. At no time do our Redbreasts collect in bands, but
towards the end of summer they may be seen in the south of Eng-
land successively passing onward, the travellers being mostly if not
wholly young birds of the year; and so the majority disappear,
departing it may be safely presumed for more southern countries,
since a few weeks later the markets of most towns first in France
and then in Italy are well supplied with this species. But the
migratory influence affects, though in a less degree, many if not
most of the Redbreasts that remain with us. Content during the
autumn to occupy their usual haunts, the first sharp frost has a
decided effect upon their distribution, and a heavy fall of snow
drives them towards the homesteads for the larger supply of food
they find there, while should severe and long-continued hard
weather follow even these birds vanish, leaving only the few which
have become almost domesticated.

These two species have been here chosen as illustrative cases
because they are at once plentiful and familiar, and want of space
only forbids us from citing others, but we shall find on inquiry
that there is scarcely a Bird of the Holarctic Region, whose habits
are at all well known, of which much the same may not be said,
or in other words, that every Bird of the northern hemisphere is to
a greater or less degree migratory in some part or other of its
range. Such a conclusion brings us to a still more general in-
ference—namely, that Migration instead of being the exceptional
characteristic it used formerly to be thought, may really be almost
universal, and though the lack of observations in other, and especi-
ally tropical, countries does not allow us to declare that such is the
case, it seems probable to be so. Before proceeding, however, to
any further conclusions it is necessary to examine another class of
facts which may possibly throw some light on the matter.

It must be within the experience of every one who has ever
been a birds’-nesting boy that the most sedentary of Birds year
after year occupy the same quarters in the breeding-season.! In
some instances this may be ascribed, it is true, to the old haunt

1 Two remarkable instances of this persistency may be noticed. The nest of
a Falcon (Falco peregrinus) on Avasaxa—a hill in Finland somewhat celebrated

MIGRATION 553

affording the sole or the most convenient site for the nest in the
neighbourhood, but in so many instances such is not the case that
we are led to believe in the existence of a real partiality, while
there are quite enough exceptions to shew that a choice is frequently
exercised. ‘The same may equally be said of the most migrant of
Birds, and perhaps the strongest instance that has ever come to the
knowledge of the writer refers to one of the latter. A pair of
Stone-CURLEWS ((Zidicnemus crepitans)—a very migratory species,
affecting almost exclusively the most open country—were in the
habit of breeding for many years on the same spot! though its
character had undergone a complete change. It had been part of
an extensive and barren rabbit-warren, and was become the centre
of a large and flourishing plantation.

With these two sets of facts before us we may begin to try and
account for the cause or causes of Migration. In some cases want
of food would seem to be enough, as it is undoubtedly the most
obvious cause that presents itself to our mind.2 The need which
all animals have of finding for themselves proper and _ sufficient
sustenance is all-powerful, and the difficulties they have to encounter
in obtaining it are so great that none can wonder that those which
possess the power of removing themselves from a place of scarcity
should avail themselves of it, while it is unquestionable that no
Class of animals has this facility in a greater degree than Birds.?
Even among many of those species which we commonly speak of
as sedentary, it is only the adults which maintain their ground

as one of the most southern points whence the midnight sun may be seen—is
mentioned by the French astronomer Maupertuis as having been observed by
him in the year 1736. In 1799 the nest was rediscovered by Skjoldebrand and
Acerbi. In 1853 Wolley found it tenanted, and from enquiries he made of the
neighbours it was evident that such had yearly been the case so far as any one
could remember, and so it was in 1855 as I myself can testify. In 1779 accord-
ing to one account, in 1785 according to another, a pair of the Blue Titmouse
(Parus ceruleus) built their nest in a large earthenware bottle placed in the
branches of a tree in a garden at Oxbridge near Stockton-on-Tees. With two
exceptions only, this bottle, or a second which had been placed close to it, was
tenanted by a pair of birds of this species from the year in which it was first
occupied until 1878, when I saw it (see Yarrell’s British Birds, ed. 4, i. pp.
58, 486) ; but I regret to add that I learnt through Canon Tristram in 1892 that
the occupancy had ceased for four years.

1 At Elveden in Suffolk.

2 Far more so than variation of the temperature, though in popular belief
that probably holds the first place. But Birds generally, as compared with other
Vertebrates, are but slightly affected by extremes of heat or cold, and indeed
(so far as we can judge) by most climatic influences, provided only their supply
of food is not affected thereby (¢f Max Schmidt, Zoolog. Garten, 1865, pp.
330-340).

3 The only animals which approach Birds in the extent and character of their
migrations are Fishes, of which there is no need here to say anything.

554 MIGRATION

throughout the year. It has long been known that Birds-of-Prey
customarily drive away their offspring from their own haunts so
soon as the young are able to shift for themselves. The reason
generally, and no doubt truly, given for this behaviour, which at
first sight appears so unnatural, is the impossibility of both parents
and progeny getting a livelihood in the same vicinity. The
practice, however, is not limited to the Birds-of-Prey alone, but is
much more universal. We find it to obtain with the Redbreast,
and if we watch our feathered neighbours closely we shall perceive
that most of them indulge in it. The period of expulsion, it is
true, is in some Birds deferred from the end of summer or the
autumn, in which it is usually performed, until the following
spring, when indeed from the maturity of the young it must be
regarded as much in the light of a voluntary secession on their
part as in that of an act of parental compulsion, but the effect is
ultimately the same. These cases, however, which make certainly
the exception rather than the rule, we can account for in another
manner. It is to be observed that they are confined to species
having a peculiar mode of life, the individuals associating in family-
parties to form small bands. The members of the TITMOUSE-
Family (Paridzx) offer a good instance of this peculiarity, but it
requires no very abstruse reflection to perceive that the adoption
of this habit is one eminently conducive to the easy attainment of
their food, which is collected, as it were, into particular spots often
far apart, but where it does occur occurring plentifully. Thus a
single Titmouse searching alone might hunt for a whole day with-
out meeting with a sufficiency, while if a dozen are united by the
same motive it is hardly possible for the place in which the food is
lodged to escape their detection, and when discovered a few call-
notes from the lucky finder are enough to assemble the whole
company to share the feast. It is impossible to watch a band of
any species of Titmouse, even for a few minutes, without arriving
at this conclusion. One tree after another is visited by the active
little rovers, and its branches examined: if nothing be forthcoming
away goes the explorer to the next that presents itself, merely
giving utterance to the usual twitter that serves to keep the body
together. But if the object of search be found, another kind of
chirp is emitted, and the next moment the several members of the
band are flitting in succession to the tree and eagerly engaged with
the spoil.”

1 Tt is a very ancient remark about young Ravens that ‘‘ they wander for lack
of meat.”

2 The case is altogether different with those species which in winter form
themselves into large flocks, as most of the Finches (/ringillidz) and Buntings
(Emberizidz). The discoverer of.a favourite morsel perhaps by his actions
betrays what he has obtained, and accordingly his fellows mav repair to the

MIGRATION 555

The mode in which the want of sustenance produces Migration
may best be illustrated by confining ourselves to some of the un-
questionably migrant Birds of our own northern hemisphere. As
food grows scarce toward the end of summer in the most northern
limits of the range of a species, the individuals affected thereby
seek it elsewhere; in this way they press upon the haunt of
other individuals: these in like manner upon that of yet others,
and thus

‘*The waves behind impel the waves before,” 4

until the movement which began in the far north is communicated to
the individuals occupying the extreme southern range of the species
at that season ; though, but for such an intrusion, these last might be
content to stay some time longer in the enjoyment of their existing
quarters.

This seems satisfactorily to explain the southward movement of
many migrating Birds in the northern hemisphere ; but when we con-
sider the return movement which takes place some six months later,
doubt may be entertained whether scarcity of food can be assigned
as its sole or sufficient cause, and perhaps it would be safest not to
come to any decision on this point. On one side it may be urged
that the more equatorial regions which in winter are crowded with
emigrants from the north, though well fitted for the resort of so
great a population at that season are deficient in certain necessaries
for the nursery. Nor does it seem too violent an assumption to
suppose that even if such necessaries are not absolutely wanting, yet
that the regions in question would not supply sufficient food for
both parents and offspring—the latter being, at the lowest com-
putation, twice as numerous as the former—aunless the numbers of
both were diminished by the casualties of travel.2_ But on the

place, but it is without invitation on his part, and the only particular bond of
union not entirely selfish which keeps them together is the ery of alarm with
which a stranger is greeted.

1 Tn regard to Migration the word ‘‘ wave” is only allowable as a poetical
figure of speech, since the particles composing a real wave do not necessarily
move onward.

2 If the relative proportion of land to water in the southern hemisphere were at
all such as it is in the northern, we should no doubt find the birds of southern
continents beginning to press upon the tropical and equatorial regions of the globe
at the season when they were thronged with the emigrants from the north, and
in such a case it would be only reasonable that the latter should be acted upon
by the force of the former, according to the explanation given of the southward
movement of northern migrants. But, though we know almost nothing of the
Migration of birds of the other hemisphere, yet, when we regard the comparative
deficiency of the land in south latitudes all round the world, it is obvious that
the feathered population of such as nowadays exists can exert but little influence,
and its effect may be practically disregarded.

556 MIGRATION

other hand we must remember what has above been advanced in
regard to the pertinacity with which Birds return to their accustomed
breeding-places, and the force of this passionate fondness for the
old home cannot but be taken into account, even if we do not
allow that in it lies the whole stimulus to undertake the perilous
voyage.

Mr. Wallace in some remarks on the subject (Nature, x. p. 459)
ingeniously suggests the manner in which the habit of Migration
has come to be adopted : —

‘« Tt appears to me probable that here, as in so many other cases, ‘survival of
the fittest’ will be found to have had a powerful influence. Let us suppose that
in any species of migratory bird, breeding can as a rule be only safely accom-
plished in a given area ; and further, that during a great part of the rest of the
year sufficient food cannot be obtained in that area. It will follow that those
birds which do not leave the breeding area at the proper season will suffer, and
ultimately become extinct ; which will also be the fate of those which do not
leave the feeding area at the proper time. Now, if we suppose that the two areas
were (for some remote ancestor of the existing species) coincident, but by geo-
logical and climatic changes gradually diverged from each other, we can easily
understand how the habit of incipient and partial migration at the proper seasons
would at last become hereditary, and so fixed as to be what we term an instinct.
It will probably be found, that every gradation still exists in various parts of
the world, from a complete coincidence to a complete separation of the breeding
and the subsistence areas ; and when the natural history of a sufficient number
of species is thoroughly worked out, we may find every link between species
which never leave a restricted area in which they breed and live the whole year
round, to those other cases in which the two areas are absolutely separated.”

A few more particulars respecting migration are all that can
here be given, and it is doubtful whether much can be built upon
them. It has been ascertained by repeated observation that in the
spring-movement of most species of the northern hemisphere the
cock-birds are always in the van of the advancing army, and that
they appear some days, or perhaps weeks, before the hens.? It is
not difficult to imagine that, in the course of a journey prolonged
throughout some 50° or 60° of latitude, the stronger individuals
should outstrip the weaker by a very perceptible distance, and it
can hardly be doubted that in most species the males are stouter,
as they are bigger than the females. Some observers assert that the
same thing takes place in the return-journey in autumn, but on
this point others are not so sure, which is not surprising when we

1 Jn principle Capt. Hutton (Zrans. New Zeal. Inst. 1872, p. 235) had
already foreshadowed the same theory, which some writers have called that of
‘“land-bridges.”

2 This fact, often regarded as a very recent discovery, was made known by
Montagu in 1802 (Orn. Dict. Introd. pp. xxviii., xxx. note), and had also been
observed by Sheppard in 1819 (Zrans. Norf. & Norw. Nat. Soc. iii. p. 391).

MIGRATION 557
consider that the majority of observations have been made towards
what is the northern limit of the range of the Passeres, to which the
remark is especially applicable—in the British Islands, France,
North Germany, and the Russian Empire—for it is plain that at
the beginning of the journey any inequality in the speed of travel-
ling will not have become so very manifest. There is also another
matter to be noticed. It has been suspected that where there is
any difference in the size of birds of the same species, particularly
in the dimensions of their wings, the individuals that perform the
most extensive journeys are naturally those with the longest and
broadest remiges, and in support of this view it certainly appears
that in some of the smaller migrants—such as the WHEATEAR (Sazicola
enanthe) and WILLOW-WREN (Phylloscopus trochilus)—the examples
which reach the extreme north of Europe and there pass the summer
possess greater mechanical powers of flight than those of the same
species which stop short on the shores of the Mediterranean. It
may perhaps be also inferred, though precise evidence is wanting,
that these same individuals push further to the southward in winter
than do those which are less favoured in this respect. It is pretty
nearly certain that such is the case with some species, and it may
well be so with individuals. Canon Tristram has remarked (Ibis,
1865, p. 77) that, in many genera of birds, “those species which
have the most extended northerly have also the most extended
southerly range ; and that those which resort to the highest latitudes
for nidification also pass further than others to the southward in
winter,” fortifying his opinion by examples adduced from the genera
Turdus, Fringilla, Cypselus, and Turtur. But supposing this to be
true for many Birds, it may fairly be doubted whether it is so for
all, and whether in some species certain individuals do not always
occupy the most northern portion of the range and others always
keep to the most southern, no matter what the season of the year
may be, or over what countries the range may extend. On this
point therefore it will be advisable to await further investigation.

For many years past a large number of persons in different
countries have occupied and amused themselves by carefully register-
ing the dates on which various migratory Birds first make their appear-
ance, and certain publications abound with the records so compiled.!
Some of the observers have been men of high scientific repute, others
of less note but of not inferior capabilities for this especial object.
Still it does not seem that they have been able to determine what
connexion, if any, exists between the arrival of birds and the state

1 These are far too numerous to mention here. Perhaps the most remarkable
series of them is that carried on from 1736 to 1810 and again from 1836 to 1874
by four generations of the Marsham family at Stratton-Strawless and Rippon
near Norwich, of which an account is given by Mr. Southwell (Z'rans. Norf. &
Norw. Nat. Soc. ii. p. 31),

558 MIGRATION

of the weather.!. This is not very wonderful, for the movements of
the migrants, if governed at all by meteorological forces, must be
influenced by their action in the places whence the travellers have
come, and therefore to establish any direct relation of cause and
effect corresponding observations ought equally to be made in such
places, which has seldom been done.? As a rule it would seem as
though Birds were not dependent on the weather to any great
degree. Occasionally the return of the Swallow or the Nightingale
may be somewhat delayed, but most Sea-fowls may be trusted, it is
said, as the almanack itself. Were they satellites revolving around
this earth, their arrival could hardly be more surely calculated by
an astronomer. Foul weather or fair, heat or cold, the PUFFINS
(Fratercula arctica) repair to some of their stations punctually on a
given day as if their movements were regulated by clock-work.
Whether they have come from far or from near we know not, but
other Birds certainly come from a great distance, and yet make their
appearance with scarcely less exactness. Nor is the regularity with
which certain species disappear much inferior; every observer
knows how abundant the Swirr (Cypselus apus) is up to the
time of its leaving its summer-home—in most parts of England,
the first days of August—and how rarely it is seen after that time
is past.

It must be allowed, however, that, with few exceptions, the
mass of statistics above spoken of has never been worked up and
digested so as to allow proper inferences to be made from them,
and therefore it would be premature to say that little would come
of it, but the result of those few exceptions is not very encouraging.
The most important is due to Dr. von Middendorff who carefully

1 Herr Gitke in the valuable work presently to be particularly noticed,
attaches much more importance to the effects of weather than I am inclined to
do, though I am far from saying that his opinion may not be borne out by his
experience on Heligoland, where his observations were made. That is a spot so
small that, though exceptionally favoured as a resort for Birds-of-passage, it
might easily be missed (as indeed it frequently is) owing to the wind lying in
such a quarter as would turn them from their usual course. He certainly gives
(p. 85) a remarkable instance of a temporarily reversed movement in March 1879,
doubtless caused by the setting in of bad weather ; but in nearly all cases Birds on
their northward Migration do not retrace their flight but persevere in the efforts
to get forward, even though when they reach their goal they may succumb and
perish for want of food through the severity of the season.

2 To a limited extent it must be admitted that the popular belief as to certain
Birds being the harbingers of severe weather is justifiable. Cold comes out of
the north, and when it is accompanied, as is most generally the case, by heavy
falls of snow, such Birds are of course driven southwards to seek their living.
But as often as not the Birds arrive with the kind of weather they are com-
monly held to prognosticate, while sometimes this does not follow their
appearance.

MIGRATION 559

collated the records of the arrival of migratory Birds throughout
the Russian Empire, but the insight into the question afforded by
his published labours! is not very great. His chief object was to
trace what he termed the isepipteses (icos, = xqualis, erixtnow =
advolatus) or the lines of simultaneous arrival, and in the case of 7
species? these are laid down on the maps which accompany his
treatise. The lines are found by taking the average date of arrival
of each species at each place in the Russian dominions where
observations have been regularly made, and connecting those places
where the dates are the same for each species by lines on the map.
The curves thus drawn indicate the inequality of progress made by
the species in different longitudes, and assuming that the advance
is directly across the isepiptesial lines, or rather the belts defined
by each pair of them, the whole course of the Migration is thus
most accurately made known. In the case of his seven sample
species the maps shew their progressive advance at intervals of a
few days, and the issue of the whole investigation, according to
him (op. cit. p. 8) proves that in the middle of Siberia the general
direction of the usual migrants is almost due north, in the east of
Siberia from south-east to north-west, and in European Russia from
south-west to north-east. Thus nearly all the migrants of the
Russian Empire tend to converge upon the most northern part of
the continent, the Taimyr Peninsula, but it is almost needless to say
that few of them reach anything like so far, since the country in
those high latitudes is utterly unfit to support the majority. With
the exception of some details, which though possessing a certain
special interest, need not here be mentioned, this treatise fails to
shew more; for the fact that there are places that notwithstand-
ing their higher latitude are reached by Birds on their spring
migrations sooner than others in a lower latitude was already
known, and indeed may be to some small extent observed even in
England.

The routes followed by migratory Birds have been the subject
of enquiry by many naturalists, among whom must be especially
named Prof. Palmén, of whose work,® originally published in

1 Die Isepiptesen Russlands. Grundlagen zur Exrforschung der Zugzeiten wnd
Zugrichtungen der Vogel Russlands. St. Petersburg: 1855.

2 Hirundo rustica, Motacilla alba, Alauda arvensis, Oriolus galbula, Cuculus
canorus, Ciconia alba and Grus communis.

3 Om Foglarnes fiyttningsvagar (Helsingfors: 1874). In this and the work
of Dr. von Middendorff, already cited, reference is made to almost every im-
portant publication on the subject of Migration, which renders a notice of its
very extensive literature needless here, and a pretty full bibliographical list is
given in Giebel’s Thesaurus Ornithologiz (i. pp. 146-155). - Yet mention may be
made of Schlegel’s Over het trekken der Vogels (Harlem: 1828), Mr. Hodgson’s ‘‘ On
the Migration of the Natatores and Grallatores as observed at Kathmandu” in

560 MIGRATION

Swedish, some of the chief results + were briefly given in 1875 in
the Lncyclopedia Britannica (ed. 9, i. p. 768), but until its ap-
pearance in a German translation? it attracted little notice. The
author’s views were at first approved by the late Herr Eugen von
Homeyer, an ornithologist of great experience (Journ. fiir Orn. 1876,
pp. 387-391; 1878, p. 113), but then challenged on several points
by him in a separate work,® which called forth a spirited reply
from Prof. Palmén.* Similar researches have been continued in
greater detail by two Russian zoologists, as regards Central Asia

Asiatic Researches (xviii. pp. 122-128), and Marcel de Serres’s Des causes des Migra-
tions des Animaua et particuliérement des Oiseaua et des Poissons (Harlem: 1842).
This last though one of the largest publications on the subject is one of the
least satisfactory. Baird’s excellent treatise On the Distribution and Migrations
of North American Birds has been before-adverted to (supra, p. 380).

1 They may be here repeated : The main routes taken by the most migratory
Birds of the Palearctic area on their return autumnal journey are, according to
Prof. Palmén, nine in number. The first (A—to use his notation), leaving the
Siberian shores of the Polar Sea, Nova Zembla, and the North of Russia, passes
down the west coast of Norway to the North Sea and the British Islands. The
second (B), proceeding from Spitsbergen and the adjoining islands, follows much
the same course, but is prolonged past France, Spain, and Portugal to the west
coast of Africa, The third (C) starts from Northern Russia, and, threading the
White Sea, and the great Lakes of Onega and Ladoga, skirts the Gulf of Finland
and the southern part of the Baltic to Holstein and so to Holland, where it
divides—one branch uniting with the second main route (B), while the other,
running up the valley of the Rhine and crossing to that of the Rhone, splits up
on reaching the Mediterranean, where one path passes down the western coast of
Italy and Sicily, a second takes the line by Corsica and Sardinia, and a third
follows the south coast of France and eastern coast of Spain—all three paths
ending in North Africa. The fourth (D), fifth (E), and sixth (F) main routes
depart from the extreme north of Siberia. The fourth (D), ascending the river
Obi, branches out near Tobolsk—one track, diverging to the Volga, descends that
river and so passes to the Sea of Azov, the Black Sea, and thence, by the Bos-
phorus and Agean, to Egypt ; another track makes for the Caspian by way of
the Ural River and so leads to the Persian Gulf, while two more are lost sight of
on the steppes. The fifth (E) mounts the Jennesei to Lake Baikal and so passes
into Mongolia. The sixth (F) ascends the Lena and striking the Upper Amoor
reaches the Sea of Japan, where it coalesces with the seventh (G) and eighth (0)
which run from the eastern portion of Siberia and Kamchatka. Besides these
the ninth (X), starting from Greenland and Iceland, passes by the Feroes to the
British Islands and so joining the second (B) and third (C) runs down the
French coast. These being the main routes it must be added that, in Prof.
Palmén’s opinion and that of many others, nearly all river-courses form minor
routes. In giving this abstract I wish to state that I do not thereby express my
agreement with all that it contains.

2 Ueber die Zugstrassen der Vogel. Leipzig: 1876.

3 Die Wanderungen der Vogel. Leipzig: 1881.

4 Antwort an Herrn E. F. von Homeyer, beziiglich der ‘ Zugstrassen der
Vogel.’ Helsingfors & Leipzig: 1882.

MIGRATION 561

by the late Dr. Severzoff,! and as regards Eastern Europe by Dr.
Menzbier,”? while other contributions to the subject, too numerous
to be here named, have also appeared.2 It seems even now pre-
mature to criticize minutely the results of these works—conjectural
many of them confessedly are, while some of the details on which
they are founded rest on observations that cannot be regarded as
wholly trustworthy and are doubtless open to correction, but
nearly all is put forward in a way that deserves the fullest atten-
tion. On the part of some writers, we will not say it of Prof.
Palmén, there seems to be a disposition to attach an almost
superstitious importance to the phrase Migration-route. Such
persons should bear in mind Dr. Menzbier’s very true remark that
every species on Migration goes its own way, and what is called a
Migration-route is only the coincidence of the way taken by more
or fewer of them. One of the routes (‘“X”) described by Prof.
Palmén, and one of considerable interest to dwellers in the United
Kingdom, is extremely questionable. Indeed the data to establish
its existence were not forthcoming when he wrote, and probably
are not forthcoming now, though in the interim much has been
done toward the collection of facts at light-houses and light-ships
around our coasts by the “ Migration Committee” appointed by
the British Association in 1880, which continued its exertions for
nine years,* with the result of accumulating a mass of statistics,

1 Etudes sur le passage des Oiseaux dans UV Asie Centrale particuliérement par
le Ferghénah et le Pamir (Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscov, 1880, i. pp. 234-287).

2 Die Zugstrassen der Vogel im europdischen Russland (op. cit. 1886, ii. pp.
291-369). Herein four chief routes of European origin are laid down—(1) a via
norvegica rounding the North Cape, skirting the coast of the Kola Peninsula and
continued along the arctic shores of Russia to Waigats and Nova Zembla: (2)
a via baltica which splits into three lines, one passing up the Gulf of Bothnia
to Torne’ where it bifurcates, one stream ascending the river of that name, the
other proceeding overland to Kola ; a second line passes along the Gulf of Finland
’ to Viborg, and thence along the northern shore of the Ladoga and Onega Lakes
over the White Sea to Nova Zembla; while a third, occasionally anastomosing
with the second, crosses the Gulf of Riga and, passing to the southward of the
two lakes just named, finally arrives also in Nova Zembla: (3) a via pontica
which, leaving the Black Sea, spreads over the whole of Russia, becoming fainter
as it proceeds northward though perceptible within the Arctic Circle in the
Muonio basin, and reaching nearly as far north in the valleys of the Mezen and
Petchora: lastly (4) a via caspia ascending the Volga on the west so far as
Jaroslav, and to the eastward reaching by many anastomosing streams the valley
of the Obi,

3 A good summary of them is given in the Report (Referat iiber den Stand
der Kenntniss des Vogelzuges) drawn up by Prof. Palmén for the International
Ornithological Congress held at Budapest in 1891.

4 When I say the exertions of the Committee I mean chiefly those of its
secretary, Mr. Cordeaux, whose enthusiasm prompted the men at the several
stations to make observations, while his energy in carrying on the laborious

36

562 MIGRATION

the reduction of which to intelligible order is still taxing the
ingenuity and patience of Mr. W. E. Clarke, who has undertaken
the onerous duty. Similar observations have also been organized
since 1883, at stations in Denmark, and the results published by
Prof. Liitken and HH. Oluf and Herluf Winge; while, since 1885,
the example has been followed both in Germany and Russia by
Prof. Rudolf Blasius and Herr E. von Middendorff. In North
America a very praiseworthy piece of work was performed by
Prof. W. W. Cooke, whose Report on Bird Migration in the Missis-
sippi Valley in 1884 and 1885, based on the records furnished by
170 observers, of whom Mr. Otto Widman is especially to be
named, was edited by Dr. C. Hart Merriam.! Some of the facts
herein adduced are highly suggestive, but it must be remarked
that on several points there is a difference of opinion between the
author and the editor. For instance, Prof. Cooke confirms the
statements of European observers as to the young birds of many
species preceding their parents in the autumnal movements, while
Dr. Merriam, trusting to some evidence which appears not yet to
have been published, and to the testimony of Mr. W. Brewster,”
declares to the contrary effect. As the European experience on
this point is indisputable, and a good deal depends upon it, we
trust that the matter will eventually be cleared up.

But the result of all these efforts, good as they are, may be
said to pale before the stupendous amount of information amassed
during more than fifty years by the venerable Herr Gatke of
Heligoland, a place which through his watchfulness has attained
celebrity as a post of observation quite beyond any other in the
world, so that ornithologists may at times wonder whether the man
made the station or the station the man—-so fitted have they been
for one another. It is to be hoped that his work? will one day
appear in an English version, for until then its contents will
remain unknown to most British and North-American ornithologists.
On the author’s theories we would offer but few remarks. It is
his conviction that of effective and successful Migration we see
but little, as it is for the most part carried on at such a height in
the air as to be beyond our ken, and what comes to our perception

correspondence deserves the thanks of every ornithologist. Beside this it was he
and Mr. Harvie-Brown who in 1879 initiated the light-house enquiry, afterwards
adopted by the British Association, and obtained for it the countenance of the
official authorities.

1U, S. Department of Agriculture. Division of Economic Ornithology,
Bulletin No. 2. Washington: 1888.

2 Memoirs of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, No.1. Cambridge, Mass.: 1886.

5 Die Vogelwarte Helgoland. Braunschweig: 1891. A brief summary of the
least interesting part of this volume, being hardly more than a list of the species
that have been observed on the island, is printed in The [bis for 1892, pp. 1-32.

MIGRATION 563
consists chiefly of the abortive or unsuccessful attempts at its
accomplishment, when birds are checked in their course, and being
unable to proceed present themselves to our sight and hearing. H
this be so, the aid of “land-bridges” and river-valleys, the importance
of which is so strongly pressed by certain writers (mostly theorizers)
becomes insignificant.

Now that birds can and do fly at elevations far beyond those
which most people are accustomed to think possible, we have some
indication. Mr. J. Tennant states (Stray Feathers, iii. p. 419) that
at Roorkee on the 23rd Sept. 1875, while looking through a
telescope at the sun, he saw birds, apparently Kites, frequently
pass over its face, some of which were in focus with the sun itself
and must therefore have been several miles high, while the nearest
must have been quite a mile above the earth’s surface. These
birds indeed were only soaring, on the look-out for prey, and not
migrating ; but a stronger case in point is the curious and valuable
observation recorded by Mr. W. E. D. Scott (Bull. Nuttall Orn.
Club, vi. pp. 97-100) when on the night of the 19th Oct. 1880,
he saw through an astronomical telescope, at Princeton, in New
Jersey, great numbers of birds passing across the face of the moon.
Computation shewed that these birds, which were on their autumnal
Migration, must have been travelling at heights varying from a
mile to two miles. Some time later, 16th April 1881, the same
gentleman, in company with Mr. Allen, made some further observa-
tions (tom. cit. p. 188) at the same place; but on this occasion the
birds seen—Swallows, and on their northward journey—were flying
comparatively low. They were also much less numerous, for only
13 passed in three-quarters of an hour, whereas on the former
occasion the average was 4°5 per minute. Again Mr. F. M.
Chapman (4uk, 1888, pp. 37-39), also in New Jersey, watching
for nearly three hours on the evening of the 3rd Sept. 1887, saw
in like manner 262 birds cross the moon’s face. Of these 233
were computed to be at a height of from 1500 to 15,100 feet;
but an especially remarkable thing is that the lowest birds were
“flying upward,” as if they had risen from the immediate neigh-
bourhood and “were seeking the proper elevation at which to
continue their flight.” 2

1 “Most of the birds were the smaller land-birds, among which were plainly
recognized Warblers, Finches, Woodpeckers and Blackbirds [Jcteridx].. .
Among the Finches I would particularly mention Chrysomitris tristis, which
has a very characteristic flight ; and the Blackbirds were conspicuous by the
peculiar shape of the tail, from which characteristic I feel most positive in my
identification of Quiscalus purpureus.”

2 Among the birds recognized on this occasion were 5 Carolina RAtrts,
of which 3 are computed to have been between the limits of 1900 and 10,200
feet, one between 2000 and 11,000, and one between 2600 and 13,500.

564 MIGRATION

It has been objected that owing to the extreme cold known to
prevail at great elevations birds would be unable to travel or even
exist at some of the heights suggested; but on this point we have
not yet enough information, any more than as regards the limit
of cold that birds can endure, which (cf. page 553, note 2) is
much lower than most people imagine.! The mere exertion of flight
would certainly for a time keep the body warm, and it is beyond all
doubt, as Mr. Glaisher’s observations (Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1862, pp.
429, 423) shew, that the older estimate as to temperature regularly
decreasing by a degree of Fahrenheit in about every 300 feet of ele-
vation must be given up, that the decrease is by no means constant,
and moreover that the atmosphere is traversed by currents of various
degrees of heat, so that it would often be in the power of any bird
by raising or lowering its flight to avoid the most chilly stratum.”
Then again, as every one knows, feathers and down form the best
non-conducting clothing that exists, and so clad almost every part
of the bird is not ‘servile to all the skyey influences.” Jt must be
admitted that birds in confinement suffer in their feet and legs from
frost, but.it is not known that birds at liberty, and especially in the
act of taking violent exercise, are so affected.

Tt has long been remarked that on clear and bright nights birds
are rarely heard passing over head, while on nights that are over-
cast, misty and dark, especially if slight rain be falling, flocks may
often be heard almost continuously. It is in such weather that birds
while migrating are most vociferous, doubtless with the result that
thereby the company of fellow-travellers is kept together, and in
such weather that they fly to and often dash themselves against the
glasses of light-houses,® occasionally in astonishing numbers. These
“rushes,” as our light-keepers call them, have been so often recorded
and described that little need here be said concerning them; and

1 It is unfortunate that no definite deductions can be made from the be-
haviour of birds taken up in balloons. Biot and Gay-Lussac, in their celebrated
ascent of the 24th August 1804, at the height of 11,000 feet, or rather above 2
miles, liberated a Greenfinch and a Pigeon, each of which after a few turns disap-
peared downwards through the clouds (Journ. de Phys. lix. p. 318). A similar
experience was that of Mr. Glaisher in his still loftier ascent of 5th Sept. 1862.
A Pigeon thrown out at the height of 3 miles ‘‘extended its wings and
dropped as a piece of paper.” A second at 4 miles “ flew vigorously round
and round.” A third between 4 and 5 miles ‘fell downwards as a stone.”
A fourth at 4 miles ‘‘flew in a circle” and then alighted on the balloon
(Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1862, pp. 385, 386; see also Nature, xix. p. 434, 13
March, 1879).

* The quickness with which animals lower in the scale than Birds will avail
themselves of variation of temperature may be appreciated by any one who has
studied the habits of the common House-Fly.

3 Why Birds or Insects fly at times to a light has never been explained. Birds
are often indifferent to it, as Mr. G. H. Mackay remarks (4wk, 1891, pp. 340-343).

MIGRATION 565
Heligoland, so far as is known, is the place where they recur with the
greatest frequency and intensity. Two instances given by Herr Gitke
may here suffice. From 10 o'clock on the night of the 28th of
October 1882, to the next morning, GoLpDcrEsTs eddied, thick as
flakes in a heavy snow-fall, round the light-house there, on the
morrow literally swarming on every square foot of the island; and
twelve months later Larks in myriads! thronged to its bright beams
for four nights in succession, accompanied by Starlings in hardly fewer
numbers. These great hosts consist usually of many kinds of birds,
congruous only in their congress—Larks and Lapwings, Starlings and
Sandpipers, Fieldfares and Curlews, Golden-crested Wrens and Golden
Plovers, Oyster-catchers and Owls—while the air is filled with their
cries, among which are several that are wholly unrecognizable, for it
would seem that some birds have a language that they use only
while migrating. Otherwise is it with the return of the wanderers
in spring, and then the exciting scenes of autumn are seldom if ever
presented, yet under a moonless and clouded sky the wakeful ear may
often catch positive evidence of what is going on aloft, though owing
to the smaller numbers (for at that season it is only the birds which
are about to breed that pass) and the shorter nights, the movement
attracts far less attention.2 Generally troop after troop of the
travellers succeeds in orderly, and what has been called “ wave-
like”, fashion,® varying indeed in rapidity according to the species,
but taken as a whole in comparatively little else. With some birds
the progress is very leisurely made, while others, there is reason
to think, project themselves northward with a haste that would
seem incredible. But on this as on so many other points we must be
content to await the results of further observation and experiment *

1 Williarden” is the author’s word, but that seems hardly credible.

2 So much less indeed that a writer has flippantly remarked (Contemporary
Review, July 1880, p. 1) that the return of birds in springis ‘‘like the Kingdom
of Heaven which cometh not with observation,” forgetful of the fact that all we
know of Migration is due to observation, and nearly all we do not know to want
of it.

3 Such a ‘‘ wave,” though it was more like a stream, in Nova Scotia has been
described by Mr. Philip Cox (Auk, 1889, pp. 241-243) and a succession of “ waves”
in Pennsylvania and New Jersey with a diagrammatic representation of them by
Mr. Whitmer Stone (op. cit. 1891, pp. 194-198).

4 It is with no little diffidence that I demur to the acceptance of Herr Giitke’s
estimate of the speed at which Birds travel. Against the evidence adduced by
him must be set that collected by others; and from my own experience I am
persuaded that there is much exaggeration—unintentional of course—in many
observations that have been made on this subject. It is very well to believe that in
autumn Grey Crows travelling across Heligoland from east to west, pass over
the island from 8 o’clock A.M. to 2 P.M. ; and it is equally well to believe that
Grey Crows arrive on the coast of Lincolnshire (for which it may be allowed that
the Crows first mentioned are making) from the eastward between 11 A.M. and

566 . MIGRATION

—the latter especially,! for as yet little has been effected of the
kind.

But lay down the paths of migratory Birds, observe their
comings and goings, or strive to account for the impulse which
urges them forward as we will, there still remains for consideration
the most marvellous thing of all—How do the birds find their way
so unerringly from such immense distances? This seems to be by
far the most inexplicable part of the matter. Year after year the
migratory Wagtail will build her nest in the accustomed spot, and
year after year the migratory Cuckow will deposit her eggs in that
nest, and yet im each interval of time the former may have passed
some months on the shores of the Mediterranean, and the latter,
absent for a still longer period, may have wandered into the heart
of Africa? There was a time when the writer had hopes that

5 p.M.; but it is not proved that they are the same birds. If they are, the
distance being about 360 miles they must have flown at the rate of 120 miles
an hour—a speed few will believe it possible for a bird of the Crow-kind to
attain. But Herr Gitke would have even this speed exceeded by the Bluethroat
(of which more presently), believing that it travels from the Delta to Heligoland in
9 hours, while he has ascertained that Curlews, Godwits, and Plovers cross from
Heligoland to the oyster-beds lying to the eastward, a known distance of 22,000
feet, or rather more than 4 English miles, in one minute, or at the rate of over
240 miles an hour! On the other hand, Mr. Tegetmeier declares (iedd, 22 Jan.
1887, p. 114) that the average speed of Carrier Pigeons in 18 matches is
36 English miles an hour, though in two of them a rapidity of about 55
miles was maintained for 4 hours in succession. If I might cite my own
experience, it is to the effect that the Swallow does not ordinarily fy so fast as
the express train from which one may view it, and a train going at no great speed
completely outstrips the Partridges which rise in front of it and fly for a few hundred
yards alongside of it, as I have observed again and again. Yet to do Herr Gitke
justice I must admit his general contention to be sustained by a good observer, Mr.
Oswald Crawfurd, who states (Rownd the Calendar in Portugal, pp. 154-156) in
regard to the wonderful speed with which Turtle-Doves fly on Migration in
autumn, that he once made a calculation to arrive at the pace of their travelling ;
‘“but the result came out in such surprising figures” that he would not set them
down. He convinced himself, however, that, if the flight were continuous, Turtle-
Doves leaving ‘‘ Kent or Surrey at dawn, might easily be the very birds that a few
hours later were skimming over the Portuguese pine-forests on their way to Central
Africa.”

1 At the request of the editor of Zhe Field Mr. Griffith made some trials
which are reported in that journal (19 Feb. 1887, pp. 242, 248), but most of them
cannot be regarded as satisfactory, having been made in a covered gallery, for it
proved that ‘‘ Blue rock” Pigeons and Partridges flew faster in this gallery of
limited length than in the open, so far as the experiments went. The greatest
rapidity, in the 40 yards’ range, was Pigeons and Pheasants 33°8 miles an hour,
Partridges 28°4 ; in the open, Pigeons 27°9, Pheasants 38:1, Partridges 32°1. It
is much to be wished that experiments of this kind could be repeated on a more
extended scale; but of course the difficulty attending such trials is very great.

* Absolute proof of the identity of the particular birds is indeed wanting,

MIGRATION 567

what is called the “homing” faculty in Pigeons might furnish a
clue, but Mr. Tegetmeier and all the best authorities on that sub-
ject declare that a knowledge of landmarks obtained by sight, and
sight only, is the sense which directs these Birds, while sight alone
can hardly be regarded as affording much aid to Birds—and there
is reason to think that there are several such—which at one stretch
transport themselves across the breadth of Europe, or even traverse
more than a thousand miles of open ocean, to say nothing of those
—and of them there are certainly many—which perform their
migrations mainly by night. That particular form of BLUETHROAT
which yearly repairs to breed upon the mosses of the Subalpine
and Northern parts of Scandinavia (Cyanecula suecica) is hardly ever
seen in Europe south of the Baltic.’ Throughout Germany it may
be said to be practically absent, being replaced by a conspicuously
different form (C. leucocyana), and as it is a Bird in which the
collectors of that country, a numerous and well-instructed body,
have long taken great interest, we are in a position to declare that
save in Heligoland, it is hardly known to stop in its transit from
its winter haunts, which we know to be Egypt and the valley of
the Upper Nile, to its breeding-quarters. Other instances, though
none so crucial as this, could be cited from among European Birds
were there room here for them. In New Zealand there are two
Cuckows which are annual visitors: one, a species of Chiysococcya,
probably has its winter quarters in New Guinea, though commonly
supposed to come from Australia, the other, Hudynamis taitensis, is
widely spread throughout Polynesia, yet both these birds yearly
make two voyages over the enormous waste of waters that sur-
rounds the country to which they resort to breed. But space
would utterly fail us were we to attempt to recount all the ex-
amples of these wonderful flights. Yet it seems impossible that
the sense of sight should be the faculty whereby they are so guided
to their destination, any more than in the case of those which
travel in the dark.

Dr. von Middendorff (Jsepipt. Russl. p. 9), from the conclusions
he has drawn, as before mentioned, as to the spring-movement of
all birds in the Russian Empire being towards the Taimyr Penin-
sula, the seat of one of the magnetic poles, has suggested that the
migrating Bird is always aware (he does not exactly explain by

but if that objection be raised the circumstance becomes still more puzzling, for
then we have to account for some mode of communicating precise information by
one bird to another.

1 It has occurred indeed as a straggler in spring about a dozen times in
England, and it arrives twice a year in greater or less numbers in Heligoland as
reported by Herr Gitke. Its autumnal visits to this country, occasionally in
considerable numbers, seem to be almost annual, though of course they are not
always observed.

568 MIGRATION

what means) of the situation of this point, and thus knows how to
steer its course. Not only is this hypothesis unsupported by any
considerations known to the writer, but it is not at all borne out
by the observed facts of Migration in North America, where Birds,
as has been shewn by Prof. Baird (op. cit. p. 347), do not
migrate in the direction of the magnetic pole.

Another and assuredly a more valuable hint was thrown out by
Dr. von Middendorff! (Sibirische Reise, Band iv. Th. 2, pp. 1168,
1169), and it has been accepted by several who have become
acquainted with it, and are competent to express an opinion on the
subject. In principle it is identical with the idea that had long ago
suggested itself to the present writer when he fancied that the
“homing” faculty of Pigeons was akin to that by which
migratory Birds directed their voyages, and he believes that it has
been independently entertained by several others who have con-
sidered the subject ; but, so far as he knows, the merit of first
stating it clearly belongs to the eminent Russian naturalist just
named.

That the sense of direction unconsciously exercised by human
beings varies greatly with individuals is a matter of common
experience, and that it is possessed in a high degree of excellence
by certain races of men is notorious, for travellers without end
have noticed the fact, and no one can deny that this excellence is
attained by those races who have the greatest need to employ it in
their daily vocation—whether they be Samojeds (as in the case cited
by Dr. von Middendorff), American Indians, Bushmen or Aus-

1 The passages containing it have been quoted by both Von Homeyer (op. cit.
p. 304) and Herr Gatke (op. cit. p. 137), and since they do not seem to have been
laid before English readers, a rendering may here be attempted :—

‘In Mammals the remarkable memory for places they enjoy may be of essential
use in finding their way correctly ; but it is not to be doubted that they must also
be conscious of general direction, for they know how to reach their goal, and that
by the shortest route, through places which are wholly strange to them. In the
course of my life I have met with the most decided examples of this sense of
direction in dogs and horses ; but never did experience of this kind strike me so
much as when on the boundless wastes (Zundren) of the high north I per-
ceived the same incomprehensible animal faculty, almost unweakened, among
rude uncivilized men. What Samojeds can do in this way often surpasses all
our comprehension.

‘** Highly pleased with having found among these people my interpreter of the
natural mystery of animals finding their way, I tried to extract from them their
magic art, and pressed them as opportunity afforded. They, however, looked
at me confusedly, wondered at my wondering, and thought a thing of such
everyday occurrence to be self-evident, while our incapacity to direct ourselves
was to them quite unintelligible. At last they wholly disarmed me with the
question ‘How, now, does the little Arctic Fox find its way aright on the great
Tundra and it never goes astray-?’ That was all! I was thrown back on the
unconscious performance of an inherited animal faculty.”

MIGRATION 569

tralians, while among those races who have little or no need to
exercise it, such as people in the highest state of civilization, and of
them especially dwellers in towns, the faculty—comparatively weak
to begin with and undeveloped by practice—perishes through disuse.
If this variability in possessing the sense of direction? in the human
species be thus admitted, there can be no impropriety in inferring
that the lower animals may have the faculty in a degree out of
all proportion with even those people that have it most. Just as some
men surpass others in powers of hearing, sight or smell, and many
animals excel all men in these respects, of all animals the sense of
direction would naturally attain the greatest perfection in Birds,
for they are endowed with and exercise the greatest power of loco-
motion. In urging this opinion there would seem to be no
theorizing: it is merely arguing from the known to the unknown.

Nevertheless it is right to take cognizance of all suggestions
that seem to be reasonable, and among them is one put forth by
Prof. Mébius (Das Ausland, No. 33, pp. 648, 649, 14 Aug.
1882) to the effect that Birds performing long migrations over sea
may be guided by observing the roll of the waves. The possibility
of this cannot be denied if the roll be constantly in one direction as
seems likely to be in that part of the Pacific Ocean to which his
remarks especially refer; but obviously it will not hold good for
the stormy waters of the North Atlantic, where a swell may be set
up from any point of the compass, and the American Golden Plovers
that yearly resort with such punctuality to “the still-vext Ber-
moothes” would assuredly get but little help on their passage
thither, or in its continuation to the Antilles, from the set of the
billows over which they pass—ever varying with the inconstant
winds.

Other authors there are who rely on what they call “instinct ”
as an explanation of this wonderful faculty. This with them is
simply a way of evading the difficulty before us, if it does not
indeed remove the question altogether from the domain of scientific
enquiry. Rejecting such a mode of treatment, Prof. Palmén meets
it in a fairer spirit. He asserts (Mogl. Flyttn. p. 195), that migrants
are led by the older and stronger individuals among them, and,
observing that most of those which stray from their right course
are yearlings that have never before taken the journey, he ascribes
the due performance of the flight to “experience.” But, granting

1 T have no wish to urge this sense of direction as a ‘‘ sixth sense,” as has been
imputed to me by Dr. Weismann (Nature, xix. pp. 579, 580, 24 April 1879).
What it may be called does not concern me in the least. I know that it exists, and
is wholly independent of intellectual forces, as in myself I had proof of the fact
in my younger days, but want of exercise has impaired its efficacy so as to render
it almost obsolete. Some would perhaps attribute the effect to ‘‘ unconscious
cerebration,” and I do not object to the phrase if it seems more explanatory.

570 MIGRATION

the undisputed truth of his observation, his assertion seems to be
only partially proved. That the birds which lead the flock are the
strongest is on all accounts most likely, but what is there to shew
that these are also the oldest of the concourse? Beside this, there
are many Birds which cannot be said to migrate in flocks. While
Swallows, to take a sufficiently evident example, conspicuously con-
gregate in vast flocks and so leave our shores in large companies,
the majority of our summer-visitors slip away almost unobserved,
each apparently without concert with others. It is also pretty
nearly certain that the same species of Bird does not migrate in
the same manner at all times. When Skylarks arrive on our
north-eastern coast in autumn they come flitting over in a constant,
but intermittent stream, not in compact flocks; yeta little later these
same birds collect in enormous assemblages which prosecute their
voyage in company. It is indeed possible that each bird of the
stream intentionally follows that which goes before it, though in a
long sea-passage it must be hard to keep the precursor in sight,
and it may perhaps be granted that the leader of the whole is a
bird of experience. But then we must consider not these cases only,
but also those of Birds which do not migrate in company, and we
must also have regard to what is implied in the word “experience.”
Here it can only signify the result of knowledge acquired on former
occasions, and obtained by sight. Now it was stated by Tem-
minck! many years ago, and the statement has been abundantly
confirmed by Herr Giitke and others, that among migrants the
young and the old always journey apart and most generally by
different routes. The former can have no “experience,” and yet
the greater number of them safely arrive at the haven where they
would be. The sense of sight, essential to a knowledge of land-
marks, as we have above attempted to demonstrate, is utterly
insufficient to account for the success that attends Birds which
travel by night, or in a single flight span oceans or continents.
Yet without it the idea of “experience” cannot be substantiated.
We may admit that inherited but unconscious experience is a
factor in the whole matter—certainly, as Mr. Wallace seems to
have proved, in originating the migratory impulse, but yet every
aspect of the question is fraught with difficulty, and we must leave
to time the discovery of this mystery of mysteries.

There yet remain a few words to be said on what may be
termed Exceptional Migration, that is when from some cause or
other the ordinary practice is broken through. This differs from the
chance occurrence of the waifs and strays with which we began to
consider the question in that the Birds subject to it keep in a great
measure their customary habit of migrating, and yet are compelled
to indulge it in an irregular, or perhaps an altogether novel,

1 Manuel d’ Ornithologie, iii. Introd. p. xliii. note.

MIGRATION 571

manner, though they are not entirely the sport of circumstances.
The erratic movements of the various species of CROSSBILL (Lozia)
and some allied forms afford perhaps the best-known examples.
In England no one can say in what part of the country or at what
season of the year he may not fall in with a company of the com-
mon Crossbill (LZ. curvirostra), and the like may be said of many
other lands. The food of these Birds consists mainly of the seeds
of conifers, and as its supply in any one locality is intermittent or
precarious, we may not unreasonably guess that they shift from
place to place in its quest, and may thus find an easy way of
accounting for their uncertain appearance. ‘The great band of
NuTCRACKERS (Nucifraga caryocatactes) which in the autumn of 1844
pervaded Western and Central Europe! may also have been
actuated by the same motive, but we can hardly explain the
roaming of all other Birds so plausibly. The inroads of the WAx-
WING (Ampelis garrulus) have been the subject of interest for more
than 300 years, and by persons prone to superstitious auguries
were regarded as the forerunners of dire calamity. Sometimes
years have passed without its being seen at all in Central, Western
or Southern Europe, and then perhaps for two or three seasons in
succession vast flocks have suddenly appeared. Later observation
has shewn that this species is as inconstant in the choice of its
summer- as of its winter-quarters, and though the cause of the
irregularity may possibly be of much the same kind as that just
suggested in the case of the Crossbill, the truth awaits further
investigation.2 One of the most extraordinary events known to
ornithologists was the irruption into Europe in 1863 of Pallas’s
SAND-GROUSE, Syrrhaptes paradoxus. Yet this was thrown into
insignificance by the appearance in 1888 of a still vaster horde
which followed on the whole the lines of its predecessor. Specu-
lation has amused itself by assigning causes to these movements,
but the real reason remains in doubt.

We cannot quit the subject of Migration, however, without
remarking that the “rushes” to light-houses and light-ships already
mentioned are not confined to marine stations or to places possess-
ing the fascination of a Pharos. Toward the close of summer,
and well on into autumn, in dark, cloudy, and still weather, it not
unfrequently happens that a vast and, to judge from their cries,
heterogeneous concourse of Birds may be heard hovering over our
large inland towns. ‘The practical ornithologist will recognize the
notes of Plover, Sandpiper, Tern and Gull, now faint with distance
and then apparently close overhead, while occasionally the stroke
of a wing may catch his ear, but nothing is visible in the surround-
ing gloom. Sometimes but a few fitful wails are heard, of which

1 Bull. de Acad. de Brusxelles, xi. p. 298.
2 Of. Yarrell, Brit. Birds, ed. 4, i. pp. 524-532,

572 MILLER—MIMICRY

only an expert listener will know the meaning. At others the
continuous Babel of sounds will ensure the attention of the most
incurious (cf. GABBLE-RATCHET). It is now well known that these
noises proceed from migrating birds, which, it is supposed, having
lost their way, are attracted by the glare of the street-lamps ; but far
too little has been observed to remove the obscurity that in a double
sense surrounds them and to enable us to come to further definite
conclusion. It must be added also that such a concourse has been
noticed where the attraction of light did not exist, for Lord Lilford
has recorded (Jbis, 1865, p. 176) how that once at Corfu he was
startled by an’ uproar as if all the feathered inhabitants of the
great Acherusian Marsh had met in conflict overhead, but he could
form no conception of what birds produced the greater part of it.

MILLER, a name given to the grey males of Circus cyaneus and
C. cineraceus (HARRIER) in days when both were common; and
also locally to the WuITEeTHROAT (cf. Germ. Miillerchen and Dutch
Molenaartje).

MIMICRY, with the prefix UNCONSCIOUS, which in every
department of Zoology should be always expressed or understood,!
signifies the more or less complete likeness, in colouring or form
or in both, which one creature bears to another, so that in
some cases one may easily be mistaken for the other, though
the affinity between them may be very remote. It is probably
among Birds that the earliest example of this kind of Mimicry
was recognized, for Aristotle (Hist. An. vi. 7) noticed the resem-
blance of a Cuckow to a Hawk;? while among insects many
cases have long been known,? and generally spoken of as in-
stances of “mimetic analogy,” whatever that phrase might mean ;
but, as Mr. Wallace has said (Darwinism, p. 240), “the subject was
looked upon as one of the inexplicable curiosities of nature, till Mr.
Bates studied the phenomenon among the butterflies of the Amazon,
and on his return home gave the first rational explanation of it,”

1 Except perhaps in relation to Sone, but this is uncertain.

2 Hence sprang the belief, as old as his time (though discountenanced by
him) and hardly yet given up in some places, that the Cuckow became a Hawk
in winter, resuming its more harmless character in summer ; and of course all
observers know that this belief is still shared by little birds, who on that
account ‘‘mob” the Cuckow whenever it appears.

’ These are far too numerous to be cited here, but reference may be given to
a few of the older examples, as so many people think the discovery to be recent :
Linneus included the Homopterous Aleyrodes proletella in the Lepidopterous
subgenus Tinea ; some remarkable instances are given by Kirby and Spence
(Introd. Entomol. ii. p. 223), who did not hesitate to assign deception as the
motive of the counterfeit presentment, though of course accounting for it in a
way very different from that now generally accepted ; and Prof. Westwood men-
tions (7’rans. Linn, Soc. xviii. pp. 410, 411) others.

MIMICRY 573

in a paper that will always be classical (Trans. Linn. Soc. xxiii. pp.
495-566, pls. 55, 56). The explanation is simply that the weaker
animal, or that which exists under less favourable conditions,
“mimics” the stronger, or that which is more flourishing, the
Mimicry being presumably effected by means of Natural Selection ;
but the difficulties which attend the investigation of the way in
which this result is brought about, so as to render the explanation
in all cases acceptable, are often extremely great, and one ought
not to be surprised that some zoologists are unable to accept this
explanation at all. Indeed it is only by fully appreciating the
enormous advantage which protective coloration confers upon
certain forms of animal life that any zoologist can bring himself to
believe that changes so great, and deviation from the usual appear-
ance of kindred forms so extensive, can be produced in the manner
indicated. The difficulties seem also to be increased by the fact
that instances of Mimicry, though not unfrequent, and found in
many widely differing groups, do not occur oftener !

Cases strictly analogous to those so admirably treated by the
late Mr. Bates were immediately after described by Mr. Wallace
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, pp. 26-28) as existing in Birds, and especially
in certain species of the genus or subgenus known as Mimeta!
(ORIOLE) which inhabit many of the islands of the Malay Archi-
pelago, and so nearly resemble those of the genus Philemon?
(FRIAR-BIRD) inhabiting the same islands as to deceive even some
of the most expert ornithologists. The details have since been
more or less fully given by him in several accessible works (Malay
Archipelago, ii. chap. xxvii. ; Contrib. Theory Nat. Selection, pp. 103-
106 ; Darwinism, pp. 262-264), so that there is no need here to dwell
upon them. It will be enough to state that the two species of
Mimeta, M. bourouensis and M. forsteni, respectively inhabiting the
islands of Bouru and Ceram, are on superficial examination identical
in appearance with two species of Philemon, P. moluccensis or
bourouensis and P. subcornutus, natives of the same islands, the
Oriole and Friar-bird of each island respectively presenting exactly
the same tints—the black patch of bare skin round the eyes of the
latter, for instance, being counterfeited in the former by a patch

1 It is a curious fact that this genus was, in 1827, named Mimetes (that is,
Mimic) by Capt. Philip King (Survey &c. of Australia, ii. pp. 417, 418) under
the belief that the birds composing it belonged to the Family Meliphagidz,
which had assumed the appearance of Orioles, whereas the imitation, as will be
seen by the text, is just the other way !

2 Tropidorhynchus Mr. Wallace calls it, but Philemon is the older name.

8 These of course have judged from external appearance only. By any one
with the opportunity of examining the tongue no mistake should be possible,
for that member in the Meliphagidw (Honry-bATER) to which Philemon or
Tropidorhynchus belongs, is most characteristic.

574 MIMICRY

of black feathers, and even the protuberance on the bill of the
Philemon being imitated by a similar enlargement of that of the
Mimeta. In the same way Mr. H. O. Forbes in Timor Laut found
a corresponding species of Philemon and one of Mimeta so closely
alike that Mr. Sclater did not at first distinguish one from the other
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, p. 199). In these cases it is pretty clear
that the Mimeta, which retains the dull coloration now characteristic
only of the immature among the Oriolidx,! is rightly named the
mimic, since it is a comparatively weak bird, and must benefit by
being mistaken for the strong, pugnacious and noisy Philemon, two
or three of which will drive away Crows and even Hawks that
venture to perch on a tree they have occupied.?

On the information of Mr. Salvin, Mr. Wallace has cited
(Contrib. Nat. Select. p. 107) another very curious case of Mimicry in
Birds. This is furnished by Accipiter pileatus, a widely-ranging
species of SPARROW-HAWK which near Rio Janeiro departs from
the plumage it wears in other places to assume that of Harpagus
diodon (HAWK), a local species of insectivorous habit, with the
object, as suggested, of deluding small birds into the belief that it
is harmless in character. The similarity here extends to both
immature and adult plumages, which are very different.

The most perfect case of resemblance between two Birds of
different groups seems to be one that, though announced a good
many years ago (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, p. 386), has been over-
looked by most writers on the subject. This is exhibited in the
genera T’ylas and Xenopirostris, peculiar to Madagascar,* the former
being indeed of doubtful alliance, but generally admitted to be
very near to Hypsipetes, which is placed either among the Turdidx
(THRUSH) or Pycnonotide® (BABBLER), while Xenopirostris is one of
the Laniide (SHRIKE), of which Family it wears the regular livery
—though apparently dimorphically, for examples of X. polleni may
be either white or buff beneath. But in either plumage this
species is counterfeited, feather for feather, by Tylas eduardi, so
exactly that but for a slight difference in size, and a marked dis-
tinction in the bill and feet—both of which are in Xenopirostris

1 Mr. Wallace speaks of Mimeta ‘‘ having lost the gay colouring” of Oriolus ;
but I think the better way of stating the probability is as above.

2 Mr. Wallace finding a peculiar Mimeta in Gilolo, hazarded the prediction
that a corresponding Friar-bird would be found there, which subsequently proved
to be correct (cf. Salvadori, Orn. Papuas. ii. p. 354).

3 These species are rudely but recognizably figured, PZ. col. 205 and 198.

4 Dr. Sharpe, it is true (Cat. B. Br, Mus. viii. p. 109), merges Mr. Elliot’s genus
Clytorhynchus in Xenopirostris, making the range of the latter extend to New
Caledonia. I venture to doubt the wisdom of this step.

> By Dr. Sharpe (op. cit. vi. pp. 163-166) it is thrust into the bottomless pit,
which he terms ‘‘ Zimeliidw.” THe recognizes 5 species of Tylas, M. Grandi-
dier (Hist. Madag. Oiseaux, pp. 376-381) but one—with 3 local races,

MINA—MOA 575

very stout—the difficulty of telling one from the other would be
exceedingly great,! and according to the canon laid down by Mr.
Wallace Zy/as must be the mimic, because if it be allied to Hypsi-
petes, it has wholly thrown off the sombre and inconspicuous
coloration of that genus to assume one that is of a very normal
Shrike-like character.

It must be borne in mind, however, that all cases of close simi-
larity of plumage are not necessarily cases of Mimicry. Of this
the genera Sturnella (MEADOW-LARK) and Macronyx (KALKOENTJE)
are examples, for these, the latter being a peculiarly African and
the former a peculiarly American form, have no points of contact,
any more than have the Snowy Petrel of the Antarctic and the
equally white Ivory-Gull of the Arctic Seas. In these cases
Mimicry is impossible, but even where it is not only possible but
even probable, we must always remember that the Mimicry, how-
ever produced, is wnconscious.

MINA or MINOR, see GRACKLE.

MINIVET, Blyth’s name, since adopted by Anglo-Indian writers,
for birds of the genus Pericrocotus, a beautiful group of some 20
species or more, wherein the males are generally black and rose-
colour and the females grey and saffron, the tints differing in the
several forms, while a few have no bright colouring at all. The
range of the genus extends from Affghanistan through India,
Burma and China to Manchuria and Japan on the north, and to
Java and Lombock on the south, and some of the islands, as
Loochoo and Hainan, seem to have peculiar species. Pericrocotus
appears to belong to the group containing CAMPEPHAGA, if that be
regarded as distinct from the Laniidz, as it probably is.

MIRE-DROMBLE and MIRE-DRUM, local names of the
BITTERN.

MISSEL-BIRD or MISSEL-THRUSH, vulgar corruptions of
Mistletoe-bird or Mistletoe-THRUSH.

MOA, supposed to be the Maori name for the extinct Ratite
birds comprehending the genus Dinornis and its allies ;* and now

1 Xenopirostris pollent and all the forms of Zylas are described and well
figured in M. Grandidier’s great work just cited (pp. 4382-434, pls. 169, 170 A. fig.
2, 170 B. fig. 2; pp. 376, 379, pls. 141, fig. 2, 141 A. fig. 2, 143, 144, 144 A.)

2 The word, however, has several other meanings, and Sir James Hector has
kindly communicated to this work the suggestion that applied to a Bird it was
probably sounded more like Morah, as latterly pronounced by the natives of the
South Island, for it had dropped out of use among the northern tribes, from
whom the vocabulary was collected by the early missionaries, one of whom
(Bishop Hadfield) said that not conceiving, when so engaged, the former existence
of so large a bird, he had never been able to obtain the precise meaning of the
word, and it is impossible now to be certain as to its sound.

576 MOA

generally accepted in that sense. The earliest published notice of
the Moa seems to be that of Polack, whose New Zealand, a narrative
of his travels and adventures in that country between 1831 and
1837, appeared in 1838, the preface to the work being dated from
London in the month of July of that year. Herein he observes
(i. p. 303) “that a species of the emu, or a bird of the genus
Struthio, formerly existed in the latter [North] island I feel well
assured, as several fossil ossifications were shewn to me when I was
residing in the vicinity of the East Cape, said to have been found
at the base of the inland mountain of Ikorangi” ; stating also that
“the natives added that, in times long past they received the
tradition, that very large birds had existed, but the scarcity of
animal food, as well as the easy method of entrapping them, had
caused their extermination.”! In another passage Polack writes
(i. p. 345), “Petrifactions of the bones of large birds supposed to
be wholly extinct, have often been presented to me by the natives.”
And again (i. p. 346), “Many of the petrifactions had been the
ossified parts of birds, that are at present (as far as is known) extinct
in these islands, whose probable tameness, or want of volitary powers,
caused them to be early extirpated by a people, driven by both hunger
and superstition (either reason is quite sufficient in its way) to rid
themselves of their presence.”

There can be little doubt that the first Moa-bone seen in Europe
was the shaft of a femur brought by Mr. Rule to Sir Richard Owen,
who exhibited it to the Zoological Society on the 12th of November
1839 ; but, though indicating its Struthious affinities, neither in the
abstract of the memoir he read (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1839, pp. 169-171),
nor in the memoir itself as published in 1842, when the fragment
was beautifully lithographed by Mr. Scharf (Trans. Zool. Soc. ui. pp.
29-32, pl. 3), was any scientific name assigned to the bird of which it
had formed part. At two meetings of the same Society in January
1843, Sir Richard having received further information from Messrs.
Cotton and Williams, well-known missionaries in New Zealand,
returned to the subject and exhibited various bones transmitted by
the latter to Buckland, proposing for the bird to which they belonged
the name of Megalornis nove-zealandiz ; though, finding this generic
name to have been already used in another sense, that of Dinornis

1 The amount of traditional evidence as to Moas which has come down to
modern times has been variously stated by different investigators, and some of it
is not unlikely to have been supplied to meet the demands of zealous enquirers,
Still none can doubt that there is enough to prove the survival of the birds until
after the country was peopled by man, and the legends describing them contain
little that can be deemed fabulous. Nevertheless all are agreed that one of the
most ancient of the Maori poems contains a, saying which may be rendered ‘‘ Lost
as the Moa is lost,” shewing that its extirpation was accomplished when that
composition was made.

MOA SEY

was promptly (14th Feb. 1843) substituted for it and has ever since
held ground (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1843, pp. 1, 2, 8-10, 19). In due
time these specimens with others, subsequently received from the
same quarter (tom. cit. pp. 144-146), and referred to five, or rather
six, distinct species of the genus? were fully described and figured
(Trans. Zool. Soc. iii. pp. 235-275, pls. 18-30), forming the first
of that incomparable series of memoirs continued over nearly forty
years which will always be associated with the author’s name,? but
cannot be here further particularized, though mention must be made
of the assistance rendered by Mr. Perey Earl and by Mr. Walter
Mantell.

The Moas inhabited both the North and South Islands of New
Zealand, where they were represented by a considerable number of
species, of which the smallest was scarcely larger than a Turkey,
while the largest had a tibia of more than a yard in length. We
are inclined to estimate the number of species at about 20; Capt.
Hutton (V. Zeal. Journ. i. pp. 247-249; Trans. N. Zeal. Inst.
xxiv. pp. 93-172) admits, indeed, 26 species, but some of
these we should prefer regarding merely as varieties or sexes.
Certain species were peculiar to the North, and others to the South
Island, while some were common to both. A femur described
under the name of D. queenslandix* appears to belong to a Moa, and
if its reputed place of origin be correct, shews that the Family
extended to Australia ;—a fact in distribution which, if true, is of
extreme Importance.

When New Zealand was first systematically explored by
Europeans, Moa-bones were found lying on the surface of the ground
in many districts in great profusion, being especially abundant near
the old cooking-places of the natives, and often shewing traces of
the action of fire. They also occur in the most superficial and recent
deposits, such as blown sands, as well as in caves and swamps.
Many of the latter, such as that of Glenmark, near Canterbury,
when drained have been found to be full of Moa-bones, frequently
in all conceivable positions. In one particular district of the South
Island, where climatic conditions appear to be peculiarly favourable,
skeletons have been found with the bones connected by dried
muscles, ligaments, and integument with the cuticle and feathers.
Fragments of egg-shells, as well as pebbles swallowed by the birds
and contained in their stomachs at their death, together with impres-
sions of footprints, have likewise been discovered. The discovery of

1 Namely D. giganteus, ingens, struthioides, dromeoides, didiformis and otidi-
formis. The original specific name nove-zealandiz was tacitly dropped.

2 This series was issued in 1879 in a separate form under the title of The
Extinct Birds of New Zealand.

3 De Vis, Proc. R. Soc. Queensl. i. p. 27, pls. iii. iv. (1884). Etheridge, Ree,
Geol. Surv. N.S. W. i. p. 128 (1889).

37

578 MOA

remains of a Moa (Anomalopteryx antiqua) in clay on Timaru Downs
seems, however, to carry back the group to the Pliocene, or possibly
the upper part of the Miocene period ; but the age of the beds has
been called in question by Mr. H. O. Forbes. That Moas lived
down to a comparatively recent epoch is abundantly evident, and it
is practically certain that they formed a considerable portion of the
food of the human race by whom New Zealand was first peopled,
and by whom they were in great part or wholly extirpated. Capt.
Hutton considers that in the North Island Moas were extermin-
ated not less than 400 or 500 years ago, while in the South Island
they might have lingered a century later. The larger species
(Dinornis) were always comparatively rare, but many of the smaller
forms were very numerous. How so many became entombed in
the swamps is a question not yet solved ; although it is suggested
that débdcles during a glacial period may have been the chief agents.

As a rule, Moas were destitute of wings, although Capt. Hutton
states that a rudimentary pair existed in Anomalopteryx (Palapteryx)
dromxoides. The nearest allies of the Moas being apparently the
Kiwis, it seems a fair inference that the females were larger than
the males; and this is confirmed by bones differing only slightly,
but constantly, in size! ‘The feathers differ from those of the
Kiwis in having an aftershaft.

Moas are distinguished from all existing Ratit# in having
a bony bridge on the anterior surface of the lower end of the tibia
above the condyles (fig. 1). The tarso-metatarsus (fig. 2) has
three distal trochlez, and in most cases (according to Capt. Hutton
probably all) carried a hallux. The beak (unlike that of the Kiwis)
is short and stout; the form of the lower jaw being either U-like
or V-like. The general form of the pelvis is very like that of the
Kiwis; but the sternum (fig. 3) differs by the absence of the
superior notch, the more divergent lateral processes, and the abor-
tion or disappearance of the grooves for the coracoids.

The most remarkable features which the birds present are the
gigantic dimensions attained by some of them, and the great number
of species occurring in such a limited area as New Zealand. The
absence of Mammals in those islands has doubtless been the chief
cause which has led to this great development, both as regards
species and individuals, of Moas (as well as of other flightless
birds); and it has generally been considered that this development
has taken place entirely within the limits of these islands ;? while Capt.
Hutton suggests that the genera may have been differentiated on
separate islets by subsidence during the Pliocene period. As regards
their introduction into New Zealand, Mr. Wallace (Island Life, pp.
446, 447) is of opinion that Cassowaries, Emeus, Dromornis, Kiwis

1 Capt. Hutton does not admit this sexual difference in size.
* If D. queenslandiz be truly Australian, this view will need modification.

MOA 579

and Moas were derived from an Asiatic stock of Ratite birds; but
Capt. Hutton objects to this view, and suggests that the Moas are
descended from volant birds, allied to the TINAMoUs, which inhabited
New Zealand during the Eocene. The Moas are thus regarded as
the ancestral stock of all the Australasian Ratitz, while those of Asia
and America are supposed to have had a totally independent origin.
There are, however, many objections to this view ; one of the most
obvious being the absence of any evidence of the presumed Tinamou-
like Kocene birds.+

Although, as already mentioned, there is some uncertainty as to
the actual number of species of Moas, yet there is no doubt that the

Fig. 1, Ricur Trera of Euryapteryx gravis (A), 1/6, of Dinornis gracilis (B), 1/8, and Megalapteryx
tenuipes (C), 1/8. Anterior view.
(From Lydekker’s ‘ Catalogue of Fossil Birds in the British Museum.’)

number was.large. The Family may be divided into at least 5
genera, of which the first and last are very widely separated,
although connected to a certain extent by the intermediate forms.”

The typical genus Dinornis, Owen, includes the tallest of the
Moas, and is characterized by the length and slenderness of the

1 It is not easy to reconcile Capt. Hutton’s views as to the impossibility of an
immigration of flightless birds having taken place into New Zealand, while he
admits that emigrations must have happened.

2 Capt. Hutton adopts 7 genera (one of which he subdivides into two sub-
genera), exclusive of one of those noticed below.

580 MOA

tibia (fig. 1, B) and tarso-metatarsus (fig. 2, B), and also by the
broad and flattened beak, the apparent absence of the hallux, and
the width and convexity of the sternum. The typical D. nove-
cealandix (including D. giganteus
and D. ingens ') is mainly confined
to the North Island, and is one
of the largest species, the length
of the tibia of the presumed
female being 35 inches. In the
South Island this Moa was re-
presented by the closely-allied
D. maximus (D. robustus, in part),
which is the largest of all the
species, having a tibia measuring
39 inches, and probably reaching
a height of 12 feet. D. gracilis
(fig. 1, B) and D. struthioides
(fig. 2, B) were considerably
smaller forms, occurring in both
islands, and referred by Hutton
to a distinct subgenus (7ylo-

Fig. 2, Rigur Tarso-meratTarsus of Pachyornis pleryz).

clephantopus (A), and Dinornis struthioides Megalapteryz, Von Haast,
ee, Anterior aspect. (From the same originally referred to the Aptery-
gid, is represented by two much
smaller and imperfectly-known forms from the South Island,
characterized by the extreme slenderness and length of the femur

and tibia (fig. 1, C), and the shorter tarso-metatarsus.
Anomalopteryx, Reichenbach (= Meionornis, Haast) is typically
represented by the small D. didiformis, Owen, and, in our opinion,
may be conveniently taken to include all the smaller species of the
group, although Capt. Hutton prefers to separate Owen’s D. dro-
mexoides as Palapteryx, D. curtus as Cela, and D. didinus as Mesopterya.
On the other hand, Owen’s D. casuarinus, which Von Haast
included in Meionornis, is placed by Capt. Hutton with Hmeus crassus.
Whether included under one or more generic headings, all these
forms are characterized by having the tibia and tarso-metatarsus
considerably shorter and stouter than in Dinornis, while the beak is
narrow and more or less pointed, the hallux present (as in the
following genera), and the sternum (fig. 3, A) very long and
narrow. There is great difficulty in correctly identifying the
various members of this group with the species named by Owen
on the evidence of detached bones. 4. casuarina, with a tibia
measuring 19 inches in length, is the largest form, and 4. (Cela)

1 Tf these forms be regarded as distinct, the name novex-zealandiz should be
adopted for the latter.

MOA 581

oweni, in which the tibia measures only 9°2, the smallest. 4. parva
is the only member of the Family of which there is a perfect
skeleton in English collections. It is identified by Capt. Hutton
with the typical 4. didiformis ; but a skeleton transmitted by Von
Haast to the British Museum and assigned to the latter has a
relatively smaller skull.1_ In the type of A. (Mesopteryx) didina the
integuments of the head and feet are still preserved.

Emeus, Reichenbach, was established on D. crassus, Owen. It isa
rather large species, to which Owen and Von Haast assigned a broad-
billed skull, and although Capt. Hutton states that the skull is
really of the narrow-beaked type of Anomalopterya, we have reason
to believe that the original view is correct. This Moa was confined to
the South Island.

B

Fig. 3. Srernum of Anomalopteryx casuarina (A), and Pachyornis elephantopus (B), 1/6.
a, Costal process ; b, Lateral process. (From the same work.)

Von Haast proposed the name Luryapteryx for the small and
broad-beaked D. gravis, Owen. This species, which is confined to the
South Island, is distinguished from those that follow by the absence
of any inflection of the lower end of the tibia, and the relative
length and straightness of that bone. It therefore seems to be
entitled to generic distinction.? If, therefore, the so-called D.
crassus really have a broad-beaked skull, both that and the present
species may be included under the title of Hmeus.

Lastly we have the genus Pachyornis, Lydekker, likewise typi-
eally confined to the South Island, and including some three or
four species of large size, characterized by the extraordinary
massiveness and sharpness of their limb-bones. The _ tarso-
metatarsus (fig. 2, A) presents a remarkable contrast to the corre-
sponding bone of Dinornis (fig. 2, B); and a similar contrast is

1 Tt is doubtful if this skeleton is altogether authentic.

2 According to Von Haast it is further distinguished by having a sternum of
the type of Anomalopteryx, but Capt. Hutton throws some doubt on the correct-
ness of the restoration of the skeleton by Von Haast.

582 MOAT-HEN—MOCKING-BIRD

exhibited by the tibiz of the two genera, that of Pachyornis being
further distinguished from the corresponding bone of all the
preceding members of the Family by the inflection of its distal end.
The sternum (fig. 3, B) is likewise very different from that of the
other forms, being very wide and flat, with broad and divergent
lateral processes. The skulls found with the limb-bones of P.
elephantopus near Oamaru Point, and transmitted with them to the
British Museum, have pointed beaks, and there is much probability
of their reference to this species by Owen being correct. P.
elephantopus, of which the remains, often charred by fire, are
extremely abundant near Oamaru Point, was a large species, the
tibia measuring 24 inches in length ; but P. immanis was still larger,
with a remarkably wide tarso-metatarsus. R. LYDEKKER.

MOAT-HEN, an old name for the Moor-HEN.

MOCKING-BIRD?! is the name given by naturalists and
others to a number of birds that possess the power of imitating the
notes of other species of the Class. Comparatively speaking,
however, it almost exclusively applies to the Mocking-bird of
America, the Mimus polyglottus of recent ornithologists. This re-
markable bird is regarded by those who have investigated its
structure as belonging to the Family 7'roglodytidx, a group containing
the WRENS, THRASHERS (Harporhynchus), and their allies; a sub-
family, Miminz, within this Family having been created to contain
such birds as are represented in the United States by the last-
named genus, as well as the genera Oreoscoptes, Mimus and Galeo-
scoptes.”

The most TurusuH-like forms among the Troglodytide are more
or less closely related to the Zurdidz, the Family containing the typical
Thrushes, and none more so than are the several genera above
named. Indeed, many ornithologists regard the Mimine as being

1 For this article on a subject which can only be fitly treated by an American
ornithologist Iam again indebted to Dr. Shufeldt. The earlier English naturalists,
Charleton, Ray and Catesby wrote the name ‘‘ Mock-bird” ; and in England
either form, or more often ‘‘ Mock-Nightingale,” is occasionally given to the
BuackeaP, Sylvia atricapilla, and the Sepcr-BirD. In India and Australia the
name is sometimes applied to other species, and even in North America two
Wrens, Thryothorus ludovicianus and T. bewicki seem to be widely known as
** Mocking-birds.”—A. N.

2 In this connexion see the paper by Mr. F. A. Lucas entitled Noles on the
Osteology of the Thrushes, Miminz, and Wrens (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. vol. xi.
1888), and two papers by the present writer, viz. On the Position of Chamexa in
the System (Jour. Morph. vol. iii. No. 3, 1889, pp. 475-502), also Contributions to
the Comparative Osteology of the Families of North American Passeres (Jour.
Morph. vol. iii. No. 1, 1889, pp. 81-114).

MOCKING-BIRD 583

aberrant Turdidx, the former possessing tarsi anteriorly scutellate,
while the latter are characterized by having the tarsal theca fused
into one solid, smooth sheath in front. Itis as well to observe here,
however, that in Galeoscoptes the scutelle of the tarsus are sometimes
quite obsolete. Osteologically the Miminx, Thrushes .and Wrens
possess apparently distinguishing characters of about equal rank and
strength, while in some particulars the several genera almost seem
to intergrade where the affinities are most closely drawn. From
some cause or another, not yet fully determined, adult Mocking-
birds vary considerably in size, especially in length, several
apparently full-grown males ranging from 94 to 11 inches; and it
is also a well-known fact that they likewise vary greatly in their
powers of song.

Although exceedingly plain in the coloration of his plumage,
the Mocking-bird is a strikingly handsome and graceful bird. This
is largely due to the ease and elegance of his every movement, his
neat appearance, and a certain decisive dignity in all his actions.
His eye is full of animation, and his constant bearing full of energy.
The sexes differ but little in colour or size, the female being rather
browner and at the same time smaller, while young birds are
speckled below with dusky, as is the case in the majority of young
Turdide. An adult male is of an ashy-grey above, and a dingy
white below. <A large white space marks the blackish-brown wing,
and the outer tail-feathers are also white, the remainder of the
tail being black, the feathers tipped with white, the same
being graduated from without towards the middle pair of usually
wholly black feathers. The bill and feet are likewise black, and
the irides of a fine golden cream-colour. In form, the bird is trim
and Thrush-like, the tail being rather long and cuneiform.

The habitat of this species may be said to extend across the
entire breadth of the United States, and south into Mexico; but
north of the 38th parallel the bird becomes rare. Over this wide
range the food of the Mocking-bird varies somewhat, although it
may be broadly said that it everywhere consists largely of many of
the smaller fruits, insects and some seeds. In some respects its
nidification agrees with the typical Thrushes, the nest being placed
without much regard to concealment in some bush or low tree ;
being bulky, and built of twigs, dried leaves, fine fibrous roots,
and sometimes to these are added wool or tow when procurable.
The eggs are from four to six, bluish-green in colour, freckled with
blotches of various shades of yellowish-brown. Two broods may
be reared in the season, and in the southern States sometimes
even three. Very often the nest of the Mocking-bird is attacked
by various species of snakes, more especially the black -snake
(Bascaniwm constrictor), which is very partial to the eggs and young
of this and other birds. These attacks are met by J/imus with

~
”

584 MOCKING-BIRD

conspicuous courage, and the intruder is frequently compelled to
withdraw, while the victorious bird announces the result of the
encounter with a perfect medley of his richest vocalizations,
which are usually poured forth from the top of the tree or bush
containing his nest.

Were what we have given in the foregoing account of the
Mocking-bird all that goes to make up his life-history, he would
pass among his Class as a very ordinary representative of it indeed ;
it is not, however, for any of the traits or habits thus far
enumerated that he has become one of the most famous of his tribe.
He is, as every student of nature knows, one of the most extra-
ordinary songstérs of the entire world’s avifauna. As an imitator
of the songs or cries of every other species of bird he has ever
listened to, the Mocking-bird probably stands without a rival in
the entire Class, but in addition to this power he possesses native
notes of great purity, strength, energy, and sweetness. ‘To some
degree these latter resemble the notes of the Brown Thrasher,
Harporhynchus rufus, but are of greater variety and far richer.

For thorough appreciation, one should catch him upon a
dewy morning just as the sun rises, and he flits to the top
of some low tree to pour forth his medley of carols in soul-felt
welcoming. This may be in some quarter of the sunny south,
perhaps near the manor-house of some broad plantation, where
not only can he imitate any individual of the host of native
songsters about him, but vary the strain with any of those familiar
sounds heard about the house and barn-yard. ‘T’o see that little
feathered being so brimful of ecstasy, replete with action and anima-
tion, drooping his wings, spreading his tail, so buoyant as hardly
to be able to retain his perch, while the air is actually filled with
his inimitable musical performances, is a sight not likely to be for-
gotten. Clearly, and with the greatest possible accuracy and
rapidity, and with a mellow strength even exceeding the originals,
he utters the notes and calls of twenty or more birds in succes-
sion, ranging all the way from the plaintive air of the Blue-Bird
to the harsh, discordant cries of Jays, Sparrow-Hawks, and even
with equal compass the vociferations of an Eagle. Catching breath,
and tossing himself lightly into the air above his perch, he alarms
the entire feathered community assembled by his imitating the
cries of a wounded birdling in the talons of a Hawk; this is
followed perhaps by the crowing of a Cock or the vociferous note of
the Whip-poor-will, and the very incongruity appears to put his
feathered listeners to shame at the hoax.

Caging seems hardly to diminish his powers, and he will sing
with the greatest energy the best part of a moonlit night, as
lustily as though he were free in his native haunts. But enough :
to have one appreciate the Mocking-bird he must be heard, and he

@

MOLLY—MONAL 585

must be heard under all circumstances where he best loves to
dwell. To compare him with his only rival, the European Nightin-
gale, seems to me quite out of place, though I will say that my
faith in the powers of the Mocking-bird is so firm, that I believe
were he successfully introduced into those countries where the
Nightingale flourishes, that princely performer might some day
wince as he was obliged to listen to his own most powerful
strains poured forth with all their native purity by this king of
feathered mockers, the subject of the present notice.

In America there are no other birds that at all deserve the
name of a Mocking-bird. The Magpie often imitates bits of human
speech with great accuracy, while the CaAT-BIRD sometimes
makes a feeble effort to bring out the notes of some of the
smaller birds, but they are not to be thought of in connexion with
the powerful productions of Mimus polyglotius, while the cat-like
mewing note of the former is not in imitation of that animal at
all, but only an accidental vocal resemblance.1

R. W. SHUFELDT.

MOLLY and MOLLY-MAWK, corruptions of MALLEMUCK,
applied by modern seamen to the smaller kinds of ALBATROS.

MONAL or MOONAUL (Hind. Mundil),? the Anglo-Indian
name for birds of the genus Lophophorus, some of the largest of the

1 Some twelve or fourteen other species of Mimus have been recognized,
mostly from South America, where the name of ‘‘Calandria” (Lark) is often
applied to them, and Mr. Hudson’s account (Argent. Orn. i. pp. 5-11) of the
three inhabiting the portion of that continent treated of by him is well
worth attention; but M. orpheus seems to be common to some of the
Greater Antilles, and JZ. hilli is peculiar to Jamaica, while the Bahamas have a
local race in M. bahamensis. The so-called Mountain Mocking-bird, Oreoscoptes
montanus, is a form not very distant from Mimus; but, according to Mr.
Ridgway, it inhabits exclusively the plains (overgrown with Artemisia) of the
interior tableland of North America, and is not at all imitative in its notes, so
that it is an instance of a misnomer. Of the other genera allied to Mimus, those
known in the United States as THRASHERS, and belonging to the genus Harpo-
rhynchus—of which six or eight species are found in North America, and are very
Thrush-like in their habits—have been mentioned above ; but there is only room
here to dwell on the Cat-BiIrb, Galeoscoptes or Mimus carolinensis, which is an
imitator of many sounds, with at the same time peculiar notes of its own, from
one of which it has gained its popular name. ‘The sooty-grey colour that,
deepening into blackish-brown on the crown and quills, pervades the whole of its
plumage—the lower tail-coverts, which are of a deep chestnut, excepted—renders
it aconspicuous object ; and though, for some reason or other, far from being a
favourite, it is always willing when undisturbed to become intimate with men’s
abodes. Besides its range on the American continent it is one of the few species
that are resident in Bermuda, while on more than one occasion it is said to have
appeared in Europe, though whether as an unaided visitor may be doubted.—A. N.

2 See Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, pp. 443, 444.

586 MONAL

Phasianidx, the Impeyan PHEASANTS of many writers, so called
because one of them was introduced to notice by Sir Elijah and
Lady Impey on returning from India in 1784.1 But the species
thus made known, the true JL. impeianus, seems to have a re-

LopHOPHORUS REFULGENS. (After Swainson.)

stricted range in southern Cashmere (Chamba), and is not common
in collections, a nearly allied one, LL. refulgens, which frequents
the forests of the southern slopes of the Himalayas, from eastern
Affghanistan to western Bhotan, being generally mistaken for
it.2 Its habits, described by Mr. Frederic Wilson, writing in
1848, as “Mountaineer” in The India Sporting Review (vill. pp.
143-148), and quoted by Jerdon (Bb. Ind. ii. pp. 511-515), are
completely those of an ordinary Pheasant, though it often shews
a greater partiality for perching upon a tree when made to take
wing. In some districts it seems to have been extremely numerous
not so many years ago, but there is reason to fear that, in spite of
the well-intended action of the Indian Government, this is not so
now; for the cocks have been killed by thousands to meet the
“plume” market, and their refulgent feathers are not only largely
used by women to bedizen their persons, but also in the construc-
tion of fans, screens and the like. The hens are fortunately
without special adornment, and carry on their maternal duties
comparatively unmolested in a modest attire admirably adapted
to concealment, and in strong contrast to the brilliant hues of their
mates, whose plumage of shining green and blue over nearly the

1 Cuvier in 1829 (Regne Animal, ed. 2, i. p. 474), and after him Yule (Marco
Polo, i. p. 248), believe that it was described by lian (Nat. Anim. xvi. 2), but what
the last says of his ‘‘Great Indian Cock,” though in several respects fitting the
Monaul, seems too vague to make this certain. Some suppose that lian took
his information from Ctesias, but the fragments of the latter speak only (Indica,
cap. 3) of very big Indian Cocks, a MS. at Munich reading, according to P. J. C.
F, Bahr (Francof. a/M. : 1824, p. 269), drexrpudves ds mpoBara—cocks as big as
sheep! Mr. M‘Crindle, in his edition of Ctesias (Bombay: 1882, p. 36, note),
also thinks he had this bird in view, but woefully misspells its scientific name.

2 ZL. impeianus has the lower part of the back and body generally of a golden-
green, while in LZ. refulgens the former is white and the latter black. The correc-
tion of the common mistake is due to Mr. Ogilvie-Grant (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxii. p.
278), and is the more welcome since the original species had been redescribed
(Ibis, 1884, p. 421, pl. x.) under the new name of L. chambanus.

MONK—MONSTROSITIES 587

whole body, with a gleam of gilded purple on the nape, a snowy-
white rump and rufous tail, offer a marvellously bright combination
of colours. Another striking feature is the crest of feathers formed
almost like those of the common Peacock, and this crest is pos-
sessed also by the true JL. impeianus. In Assam a third species,
L. sclateri, is found (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1870, pl. xiv.; 1879, pl. 1.) crestless,
and having the tail white with a
broad reddish bar near the tip ; while
a fourth, LZ. Phuysi, having a crest of
ordinary feathers, and a dark glossy
green tail (op. cit. 1868, pl. i.), in-
habits Moupin. Other species may
not unlikely reveal themselves as the
North-eastern portion of the Indian Region is explored. According
to Jerdon (op. cit.), one of the Horned Pheasants, Tragopan or
Ceriornis satyrus, is also called “ Monaul” by Europeans at Darjiling.

TRAGOPAN SATYRUS.
(After Swainson.)

MONK, a name in some parts of England for the cock BULL-
FINCH, and in Australia one of many applied to the FRIAR-BIRD.

MONSTROSITIES are naturally more observed in domesticated
than in wild Birds, and are more commonly cases of excessive
than of arrested development. The former may be restricted to
overgrowth of otherwise small parts, such as double feathers, or
may amount to the addition of a whole limb, or even still greater
portion of the body. Frequently such supernumerary parts seem
due to an early splitting of the affected member in the embryo,
but whether caused by mechanical injury or due to an unusual
activity of the growing and multiplying cells it is of course in most
cases Impossible to say. As a rule, such abnormalities are purely
pathological, and not indicative of ancestral conditions, though cases
are known in which latent germs have certainly been awakened
and given rise to organs or parts of organs that in normal individuals
of the species are either absent or rudimentary.

Supernumerary toes, as in the Dorking Fowl, are of common
occurrence. In these cases the additional toe is generally the result
of the HALLUX being split into two, and not the real fifth toe, which
was long ago completely lost by the Reptilian ancestors of Birds.

Three legs are very frequent ; the third limb, which is generally
smaller and with crippled toes, being attached to the caudal
vertebrae, to the pelvis, or even to the femur of one of the proper
legs. Such cases have been many times recorded in the Duck, Fowl,
Sparrow and other common birds, while Lidbeck long ago described
(kK. Vetensk. Acad. Handl. 1762, p. 164) an adult Eagle with three
feet, of which the superfluous foot was placed between the other
two and bore seven toes. A more recent and somewhat similar

5388 MONSTROSITIES

instance is described by Mr. H. K. Coale (Auk, 1887, p. 332), in
which a superfluous toe was loosely attached to the muscles of the
thigh of a Buteo latissimus.1 Monstrous examples with four legs are
known in Fowls, Pigeons, Geese, Sparrows and the Goldfinch, the
supernumerary pair being sometimes correlated with a double vent.
A Chick preserved in the Cambridge Museum has the additional
pair of limbs attached to the end of the stunted tail.

Supernumerary wings, articulating below the normal wings,
likewise occur, but very rarely except the legs be also doubled, so
that the monster possesses eight limbs (Tiedemann, Anat. und
Naturgesch. Vogel, ii. p. 273).

Many other malformations may be seen in various Museums,
but only a few need be here mentioned—such as Chicks with two
bills, three wings and four legs; Geese, Pigeons, and Pheasants
with two or three bills; Chicks, Ducklings and Pigeons with two
heads. Occasionally considerable portions of the trunk are affected
by duplicity, producing not only two heads and necks, but two
vertebral columns and two bellies. Two hearts, within otherwise
normal bodies, have also been described in adult Fowls, Turkeys
and Geese. The Cambridge Museum possesses a nearly adult
example of a Duck which beside the two normal and functional
legs has an extra right leg of the same size as the others, but ending
in five complete toes. Another immature Duck has a cleft in the
middle line of the sternum, separating it together with the keel
into a right half and a left, in this respect continuing the embryonic
condition. Similar cases of arrested development are common, and
one, of a Pigeon, has been figured (Phil. Trans. 1869, pl. xxiii. fig.
172). In the same Museum is an adult male Turnstone (Strepsilas
interpres), which was in perfect plumage when killed, with only one
leg, and not the least trace, as ascertained on dissection, of the other.
Fowls may have their toes more or less united by a web, and Ducks be
without any web between their toes ; the last case is of some curiosity,
insomuch as such birds, as they swim, close their toes during the
back stroke, thus adapting themselves to their abnormal condition.

Questions relating to abnormal excess of structure form what is
called Teratology, on which the works of M. Camille Dareste? and
Mr. Bateson ® may be profitably studied. The former comes to the
following conclusions :—Abnormalities are always due to modifica-
tions of the early embryonic development. Multiple heads are the

1 The same gentleman also records a Dolichonyzx oryzivorus having a horny
spur, of which he gives a figure (fom. cit. p. 333), ‘‘ growing from the thumb tip”
of each wing. This may be compared with the examples already cited (CLAws,
pp- 89, 90), but they scarcely belong to the category of Monstrosities.—A. N.

2 Recherches sur la production artificielle des monstruosités, ou essai de Térato-
génie expérimentale. Paris: 1877.

3 Materials for the Study of Variation. London: 1894.

MOOR-BUZZARD—MOOR-HEN 589

result of arrested development of the anterior cranial vesicle.
Irregular growth of the "AMNION frequently has a disturbing in-
fluence upon various parts of the embryo, and thus abnormalities of
the tailfold (EMBRYOLOGY, p. 201) produce hind limbs abnormal in
shape and position, a crooked vertebral column and so on. Double
or treble monsters, partial or even perfect twins, or triplets, may be
due to any one of three causes :—two or three yolks, each with its
own blastoderm (p. 200) in one common shell; two blastoderms
with one yolk; or one blastoderm upon a single yolk, split by a
subsequent injury, each portion of it producing a more or less
complete counterpart of an embryo or portion of it. M. Dareste
has been able to shew beyond doubt that portions of the blasto-
derm artificially split off, or even parts of more advanced embryos
will occasionally continue growing into a part at least of that
organ, of which the respective embryonic cells were the normal
substratum ; in the case of two blastoderms upon a single yolk,
complete though more or less united embryos will be the result.
According to the present state of our knowledge it is not justifiable
to explain partly multiple monstrosities by the assumption of a fusing
of originally separate embryos, but by a splitting of the blasto-
derm, and if that takes place very early and is complete, each of
its halves, which in Mammals have little or no yolk, may produce
an independent embryo, so that in such a case the flippant saying
that ‘‘ A twin is only the other half” happens to be true.

MOOR-BUZZARD, the common name in England, in days
when the bird was not scarce, for what is called in books the
Marsh-HARRIER.

MOOR-COCK, MOOR-FOWL and MOOR-POULT, old English
names of the bird now well known as the Red GROUSE; but

MOOR-HEN is the commonest name of a common bird, often
called Water-hen, and in books sometimes Gallinule. An earlier
English name was Moat-hen, which was
appropriate in the days when a moat was
the ordinary adjunct of most considerable
houses in the country, and this species
its ordinary denizen. It is the Gallinula
chloropus of ornithologists, and so well
known as hardly to need description.
About the size of a small Bantam-hen, but with the body
much compressed, as is usual with members of the Family
Rallide (RAL) to which it belongs, its plumage above is of a
deep olive-brown, so dark as to appear black at a short distance,
and beneath iron-grey, relieved by some white stripes on the
flanks, with the lower tail-coverts of pure white—these last being
very conspicuous as the bird swims. A scarlet frontlet, especially

Moor-HEN. (After Swainson.)

590 MOOR-HEN

bright in the spring of the year, and a red garter on the tibia of
the male render him very showy. Though often frequenting the
neighbourhood of man, the Moor-hen seems unable to overcome the
inherent stealthy habits of the Rallidx, and hastens to hide itself
on the least alarm ; but under exceptional circumstances it may be
induced to feed, yet always suspiciously, with tame ducks and
poultry. It appears to take wing with difficulty, and may be
often caught by an active dog; but, in reality, it is capable of
sustained flight, its longer excursions being chiefly performed by
night, when the peculiar call-note it utters is frequently heard as
the bird, itself"invisible in the darkness, passes overhead. The
nest is a mass of flags, reeds, or other aquatic plants, often arranged
with much neatness, almost always near the water’s edge, where a
clump of rushes is generally chosen; but should a mill-dam, sluice-
gate, or boat-house afford a favourable site, advantage will be
taken of it, and not unfrequently the bough of a tree at some
height from the ground will furnish the place fora cradle. The
eggs, from seven to eleven in number, resemble those of the Coor.
but are smaller, lighter, and brighter in colour, with spots or
blotches of reddish-brown. In winter, when the inland waters are
frozen, the majority of Moor-hens betake themselves to the tidal
rivers, and many must leave the country entirely, though a few
seem always able to maintain their existence however hard be the
frost. ‘The common Moor-hen is widely spread throughout the
Old World, being found also at the Cape of Good Hope, in India,
and in Japan. In America it is represented by a very closely-
allied form, G. galeata, so called from its rather larger frontal helm,
and in Australia by another, G. tenebrosa, which generally wants
the white flank-markings. Both closely resemble G. chloropus in
general habits, as does also the G. pyrrhorrhoa of Madagascar, which
has the lower tail-coverts buff instead of white. Celebes and
Amboyna possess a smaller cognate species, G. hematopus, with red
legs ; tropical Africa has the smallest of all, G. angulata; and some
more that have been recognized as distinct are also found in other
more or less isolated localities. One of the most remarkable of
these is G. nesiotis, the “Island Hen” of Tristan da Cunha (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1861, p. 260, pl. xxx.), which has wholly lost the power
of flight concomitantly with the shortening of its wings and a
considerable modification of its external apparatus, as well as a
strengthening of its pelvic arch and legs.‘ The same is to be
said of the ‘Mountain Cock” of Gough Island, the Porphyriornis
comert of Mr. Allen (Bull. Am. Mus. N. H. iv. pp. 57, 58), who

1 A somewhat intermediate form seems to be presented by the Moor-hen of
the Island of St. Denys, to the north of Seychelles (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 1036 ;
Trans. Norf. & Norw. Nat. Soc. iv. p. 552, note), hitherto undescribed, and
accordingly now named by me Gadlinula dionysiana.

MOOR-HEN 591

has instituted for it a new genus, to which he also refers the preced-
ing bird. A more extreme development in this direction appears to
be exhibited by the singular Habroptila wallacii of Gilolo (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1860, p. 365, pl. clxxii.), and to some extent by the Puareudiastes
pacificus of Samoa (op. cit. 1871, p. 25, pl. ii.), but at present little
is known of either, Of other forms, such as the common Gallinula
(Erythra) phenicura and Gallirex cinerea of India, as well as the
South-American species classed in the genus Porphyriops, there is
not room to speak; but mention must be made of the remarkable
Australian genus Z’7ribonyx, containing three species (Ann. & Mag.
NV. H. ser. 3, xx. p. 123), called by the colonists ‘“ Moor-hen” and
“Native Hen,” which seem to be more terrestrial than aquatic in
their haunts and habits.

Allied to all these is the genus Porphyrio, including the bird so
named by classical writers, and perhaps a dozen other species often
called Sultanas and Purple Water-hens,
for they all have a plumage of deep
blue—some becoming violet, green, or
black in parts, but preserving the
white lower tail-coverts so generally
characteristic of the group; and their
beauty is enhanced by their scarlet
bill and legs. Two, P. allent of the Ethiopian Region and the
South-American P. parva, are of small size. Of the larger species,
P. cxruleus seems to be the “ Porphyrio ” of the ancients, and inhabits
certain localities on both sides of the Mediterranean, while the rest
are widely dispersed within the tropics, and even beyond them, as
in Australia and New Zealand. But this last country has produced
a more exaggerated form, Nofornis, which has an interesting and
perhaps unique history. First described from an imperfect fossil
skull by Owen (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1848, pp. 2,7; Trans. ii. p. 366, pl.lvi.),
and at that time thought to be extinct, an example was soon after
taken alive (Proc. 1850, pp. 209-214, pl. xxi.; Trans. iv. pp. 69-74,
pl. xxv.), the skin of which (with that of another procured like the
first by Mr. Walter Mantell) may be seen in the British Museum.
Other fossil remains were from time to time noted by Prof. Owen ;!
but it began to be feared that the bird had ceased to exist,? until a
third example was taken about the year 1879, the skin and most

PorpuyRio. (After Swainson.)

1 Thus the leg-bones and what appeared to be the sternum were described and
figured by him (Zrans. iv. pp. 12,17, pls. ii. iv.), and the pelvis and another
femur (vii. pp. 369, 373, pls. xlii. xliii.); but the supposed sternum subsequently
proved not to be that of Notornis, and the author’s attention being called to the
fact (Proc. 1882, p. 97) he rectified the error (fom. cit. p. 689) which he had
previously been “inclined to believe” (Z'vrans. viii. p. 120) he had made.

2 Notwithstanding the statement, which certainly presented some incon-

gruities, made by Mr, Mackay (Jbis, 1867, p. 144).

592 MOOR-TITLING—MORILLON

of the bones of which, after undergoing examination by Sir W. Buller
and Prof. T. J. Parker (Trans. N. Zeal. Inst. xiv. pp. 238-258), are
now in the museum of Dresden, where Dr. A. B. Meyer declared
the recent remains to be specifically distinct from the fossil, and while

Notornis. Natural size. (From Buller.)

keeping for the latter the name NV. mantelli gave the former that of NV.
hochstetteri. Athird species ascribed to the genus, NV. alba, is said to have
once inhabited Lord Howe’s and Norfolk Islands, but is now extinct,
a specimen at Vienna (Jdis, 1873, p. 295, pl. x.) being its sole remains. !

MOOR-TITLING, a common local name in Scotland and the
North of England for the Trrnark.

MOORUK, the native name of the species of CASSOWARY
peculiar to New Britain, and adopted as an English word.

MOOSE-BIRD, a name for the Canada JAY.

MOREPORK, in New Zealand the name of an Ow1, Spiloglaua
novee-zedlandix, but in Tasmania that of Podargus cuviert (NIGHTJAR),
in each case from the ery of the bird.

MORILLON, a name commonly given by fowlers to the female
and immature male of the GoLpDEN-EyE, the Clangula glaucion of

1 The genus Aptornis, of which Prof. Owen described the remains from New
Zealand as nearly allied to Notornis and Porphyrio, is considered by Prof. T. J.
Parker (loc. cit.) to be a ‘development by degeneration of an ocydromine type,”
and Mr. Lydekker (Cat. Foss. B. Br. Mus. p. 147) speaks of it as ‘‘allied to
Ocydromus” (WEKA).

'MOSQUITO-HAWK—MOTMOT 593

modern ornithology, under the belief which still very generally
obtains among them, as it once did among naturalists, that they
formed a distinct species of Duck. The mistake no doubt originated
in, and is partly excused by, the facts that the birds called Morillons
were often of opposite sexes, and differed greatly from the adult
male Golden-Eye, whose full and beautiful plumage is not assumed
until the second year. ‘The word is used in French in precisely
the same form, but is in that language applied to the Tufted Duck,
Fuligula cristata, and is derived, according to Littré, from more,
signifying black.

MOSQUITO-HAWK, a name in America for the species of
-Chordiles (NIGHTJAR).

MOSS-CHEEPER, a north-country name of the TITLARK.

MOTHER CAREY’S CHICKEN, GOOSE and HEN—-sailors’
names, the first of any of the small black or black and white PreTrELs,
the second of the Giant Petrel, Ossifraga gigantea, and the third seems
to be applied without much discrimination to any Petrel of middle
size.

MOTH-HAWK, MOTH-HUNTER, names of the NicuTsar.

MOTMOT, according to Hernandez in his Historia Avium Nove
Hispaniz (p. 52), published at Rome in 1651, was the Mexican
name of a bird which he described well enough te leave no doubt
as to what he meant; but the word being soon after printed Momot
by Nieremberg and others gave rise to the Latinized Momotus,
invented by Brisson as a generic term, which has since been
generally adopted by ornithologists! though Motmot has been
retained as the English form. Linnzus knew of only one species
of Motmot, and referred it to his genus fLamphastos (TOuUCAN)
under the name of 2. momota. This is the Momotus brasiliensis
of modern ornithologists, and from its geographical range cannot
be the original Motmot of Hernandez, but is most likely the “ Guira
guainumbi” of Maregrave.

The Motmots have been for many years recognized as forming a
distinct family, Momotidx or Prionitidx, of the heterogeneous assem-
blage known as Picariw or Coccygomorphe ; and the only question
among systematists has been as to their position in that group.
This has been discussed and illustrated with his usual assiduity by
Dr. Murie (Ibis, 1872, pp. 383-412, pls. xili.-xv.), who conclusively
shewed that Yodus (Topy) was the Motmot’s nearest existing
relative, while he believed that both Momotidx and Yodidx might be
placed in one section (Serratirostres) with the Coraciide (ROLLER),
Meropide (BEE-BATER), and Alcedinide (KINGFISHER). ‘To the latter

1 Its barbarous origin induced Illiger to substitute for it the word Prionites,
and his example has been followed by some nomenclatural purists.

38

594 MOTMOT

allocation Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1878, pp. 100-102) partly de-
murred, though admitting the Kingfisher affinity, while upholding
the former, and even declaring that Motmots and Todies form but
a single Family. As the conclusions of both these investigators are
based on the sure ground of anatomical structure, they are of in-
comparably greater value than most of those arrived at by prior
systematists who judged from external characters alone.

In outward appearance the Motmots have an undoubted
resemblance to the Meropidx, but, though beautiful birds, various
shades of blue and green predominating in their plumage, they do
not exhibit such decided and brilliant colours; and while the Bee-
eaters are only found in the Old World, the Motmots are a purely
Neotropical form, extending from southern Mexico to Paraguay,
and the majority of species inhabit Central America. They are
said to be solitary birds, or at most living in pairs, among the gloomy
forests, where they sit on the underwood nearly motionless, or only
jerking their long tail as the cry “ houtou” (or something like it) is
uttered. Their ordinary food is small reptiles, insects, and fruits.
The nest of one species, as observed by Mr. Robert Owen, is at the
end of a hole bored in the bank of a watercourse, and the eggs are
pure white and glossy (dis, 1861, p. 65). Little else has been
recorded of their ways.

The Momotide form but a small group, containing, according
to the enumeration of them in 1873 by Messrs. Sclater and Salvin
(Nomenclator, pp. 102, 103), but 17 species,! distributed into 6
genera, of which last, however, Dr. Murie (/.c.) would only recognize
four—Momotus, Baryphthengus, Hylomanes,and Eumomota—the second
including Urospatha, and the last Prionorhynchus, while Dr. Sharpe
in 1892 (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xvii. pp. 313-332) made an additional
genus, raising the number of genera to 7 and of species to 18.
The distinctions between Dr. Murie’s, and still more Dr. Sharpe’s
groups would require more space to indicate than can here be
allowed; but it may be stated that, while all have a general
resemblance in the serrated edges of the bill and many other
characters, Momotus has the normal number of 12 rectrices, while
the rest have only 10,? which in Hylomanes have the ordinary con-
figuration, but in adult examples of all the others the shaft of the
median pair is devoid of barbs for the space of about an inch a
little above the extremity, so as to produce a spatulate appearance,
such as is afforded by certain HUMMING-BIRDS known as “ Racquet-

1 The same number was recognized by the first-named of these gentlemen in
his review of the Family (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1857, pp. 248-260), where they are all
diagnosed, a species, subsequently described by Dr. Cabanis (Mus. Hein. ii. p.
115), not being adinitted.

2 Dr. Sharpe (Z¢.) makes a different statement, but I believe Dr. Murie,
whose reckoning is here followed, to be right.

MOULT 595

tails,” Kingfishers of the genus Tunysiptera, and PARRots of the
group Prioniturus. Waterton (Wanderings, Journey 2, chap. iii.),
mentioning the species MW. brasiliensis by its native name “ Houtou,”
long ago asserted that this peculiarity was produced by the Motmot
itself nibbling off the barbs, and this extraordinary statement,
though for a while doubted, has since been shewn by Mr. Salvin
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1873, pp. 429-433), on Mr. Bartlett’s authority, to
be perfectly true. The object with which the operation is per-
formed is wholly unknown. _ It is sometimes incompletely executed,
and the tail has then an asymmetrical form. This must have been the
case with the example that Hernandez described (/.c.), and brought on
himself the criticism of Willughby (Ornithologia, p. 298) for so doing.
Much of the bibliography of the family is given in Dr. Murie’s
paper already quoted ; and it may be remarked that in 1734 Seba,
probably misled by wrong information, figured (Rerum Nat. Thesaur.
tab. 67, fig. 2) under the name of “ Motmot” a bird which has been
identified with a species of GUAN, and is the Ortalis motmot of
modern ornithology.

MOULT;,! the change of plumage, or shedding of its old and
often weather-beaten feathers to be replaced by an entirely new
suit, to which almost every individual bird is subject at least once
a year, and a process of the most vital consequence, being possibly
the severest strain to which the life of each is exposed, for to judge
by its effects on those we domesticate, it produces a greater mortality
than temporary want of food may do. Important then as is all
that relates to the subject, it is yet one that has been sadly neglected
by ornithologists, among whom that careful observer the late Herr
W. Meves seems alone to have published any extensive series of ob-
servations,” and it is certainly not to the credit of ornithologists
in general, and especially of those who are afforded facilities by
Zoological Gardens, that so much ignorance of the process should
prevail as undoubtedly is the case, for since his time little advance
has been made in our knowledge, so that questions arising out of
investigations made by him more than forty years ago remain un-
answered and disregarded ; and, apart from general works, in which
the subject is usually but lightly touched, the literature relating to
this branch of ornithology is very small. The structure and mode
‘of growth of FEATHERS has already been sufficiently treated, and

* In Middle English the word (originally a verb) is mowt, the modern Z being
redundant, and it is derived from the Latin mutare, to change.

* His valuable paper is in the @fversigt of the Academy of Sciences of Stock-
holm for 1854 (No. 8), and an English translation of it has been published by
Mr. Dresser (Zoologist, 1879, pp. 81-89), while a German version containing some
modifications and additional matter appears in the Journal fiir Ornithologie for
1855 (pp. 230-238). But the essay treats also of change of colour in feathers
apart from moult.

596 MOULT

here we have briefly to consider the different phases which the act
of Moulting offers.

As a general rule all kinds of Birds are subject to an annual
Moult, and this commonly begins immediately on the close of the
breeding-season, but, as will be presently explained, there are
some which undergo in addition a second or even a third partial
change of plumage, and it is possible that there may be others still
more exceptional: our information respecting these, however, is too
meagre to make it worth while saying anything here about them.
It must be acknowledged that with regard to the greatest number
of forms we can only judge by analogy, and though it may well be
that some interesting deviations from the general rule exist of
which we are altogether ignorant, yet when we consider that the
Ratitx, so far as observed, moult exactly in the same manner as
most other birds,! the uniformity of the annual change may be
almost taken for granted.

It is not intended here to say more (cf. p. 248) of the way in
which a feather dies and a new one succeeds it, nor need we com-
pare the process of moulting with the analogous shedding of the
hair in Mammals or of the skin in Reptiles, though the latter, in
the case of the flipper-like wings of the PeNcuIN—the scaly feathers
of which come off in flakes—Mr. Bartlett (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1879, p.
6) has shewn to be remarkably close. Enough for our present
purpose to see that such renovation is required in Birds, nearly all
of which have to depend upon their quills for the means of loco.
motion and hence of livelihood. It is easy to understand that dur-
able as are the flight-feathers, they do not last for ever, and are
beside very subject to accidental breakage, the consequence of
which would be the crippling of the bird.? It is obviously to pro-
vide against what in most cases would be such a disaster as this last
that we find the remiges, or quill-feathers of the wings, to be nearly
always shed in pairs. ‘They drop out not indeed absolutely at the
same moment, though this sometimes seems to happen, but within
afew days of each other, and, equilibrium being thus preserved,
the power of flight is but slightly deteriorated by their temporary
loss. The same may be observed in a less degree, since there is
less need of regularity, with the rest of the plumage, as a little
attention to any tame bird will shew, and the new feathers grow at
an almost equal rate. In the young of most species the original
quills are not shed during the first year, nor in the young of many
does there seem to be an entire moult during that time, but in the

1 For the knowledge of this fact I am indebted to the vast experience of Mr.
Bartlett.

2 By an ingenious but simple process known as “‘imping,” which properly
means engrafting, and is described in almost every book on hawking, falconers
repair any broken flight-feather, and so restore the bird to its full power.

MOULT 597

typical Gallinzx,' which are able to fly at a very early age, often before
they are one-third grown, the original quills, being proportioned
to the duties required of them, are shed before the bird has
attained its full size and are succeeded by others that serve it when
it has reached maturity. In the Anatide and some other groups,
however, we have a singular exception to what has been above
stated. Most of the former, Ducks, Geese and Swans, shed their
quill-feathers all at once, and become absolutely incapable of flight
for a season,” during which time they generally seek the shelter
of thick aquatic herbage,? and it is further to be particularly
remarked that the males of most of the Family Anatidxy at the
same period lose the brilliantly-coloured plumage which commonly
distinguishes them and “ go into eclipse,” as Waterton happily said,
putting on for several weeks a dingy garb much resembling that of
the other sex, to resume their gay attire only when, their new
quills being grown, it can be safely flaunted in the open air. Here
we have the first instances of Additional Moult to be mentioned.
Another is not less interesting, though ornithologists must confess
with shame that they have not sufficiently investigated it. This is
that of the Ptarmigan, Lagopus mutus (p. 392), both sexes of which not

1 Nothing seems to be known about the moulting of the young Megapodiide,
and information thereon would be very acceptable.

2 A Patagonian form, the LogeEr-HEAD (p. 518, No. 3) Tachyeres cinereus,
seems never to regain the power of flight thus lost (ef. Cunningham, Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1871, p. 262).

3 It is amusing to find from comments on a paper by the Baron d’Hamonville
(Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 1884, pp. 101-106), that the observation of this fact has
been regarded by reviewers and others as a recent discovery. The fact may have
been neglected by some writers ; but it was well known to a monk of the 12th
century (Liber Eliensis, ii. cap. 105), and it is hard to imagine the time when it was
not familiar to ‘‘ divers persons next inhabiting in the countries and places within
this realm, where the substance of the same wild-fowl hath been accustomed to
breed,” for they—to continue the words of an Act of Parliament (25 Hen. viii.
cap. 11) passed in 1533—‘‘in the summer season, at such time as the said old
fowl be moulted, and not replenished with feathers to fly . . . have by certain
nets, engines and other policies yearly taken great numbers of the same fowl, in
such wise that the brood of wild-fowl is almost thereby wasted and consumed.”
It was accordingly declared unlawful to take Wild Ducks or Wild Geese in this
manner between thé last day of May and the last day of August. Another Act
in 1710 (9 Anne, cap. 25, § 4) reinforced this provision for any ‘‘ Fowl commonly
reputed Waterfowl, in any place of resort for wild fowl in the moulting season,”
and in 1737 (10 Geo. ii. cap. 32, § 10), the close time for moulting waterfowl
was extended to the Ist of October.

A similar state of things in the FLAMINGO came under the notice of Pallas
(Zoogr. Ross.-Asiat. ii. p. 207) who therein is corroborated by Crespon (Orn. du
Gard, p. 896); and, more recently, it has been asserted by M. Gerbe (Rev. Zool.
1875, pp..271-277, pl. vi.) to obtain in the Purrin, Fratercula arctica, and in
the Black-throated Diver, Colymbus arcticus.

598 MOULT

only moult after thé breeding-season is over into a grey suit, and
then again as autumn passes away into their snowy winter-clothing,
but, divesting themselves of this last in spring, at that time put on
each a third and most distinctive dress—these changes, however,
do not extend to the quills either of the wings or tail.?

The number of Birds which undergo a more or less entire
Double Moult is very considerable, and the peculiarity is not always
characteristic of Families or even, unless in a very restricted sense, of
genera. Thus while the Garden-WARBLER, Sylvia salicaria, and the
WHITETHROATS, S. rufa and S. curruca, are said to moult twice in the
year the BLAckcapP, S. atricapilla, does so but once. The same may
be said of the HLmberizidex (BUNTING), in which Family both prac-
tices seem to obtain, but on the other hand, the distinction in this
respect between the Alaudidx (LARK) and the Anthine (PIPIT),
belonging to the Family Motacillidx (WAGTAIL), appears, so far as
our knowledge goes, to be invariable, though the habits and general
appearance of both groups are so much alike—the Alaudidx moult-
ing but once and the Anthinx, conforming to the practice of the
normal Motacillide (Motacillinx), twice a year—the quills, be it
understood, excepted. But it would be impossible here to give
more than these few examples, and indeed we scarcely know any-
thing of the subject outside of some groups belonging to the
Northern hemisphere.’

In a large number of species the Additional Moult is very
partial, being often limited to certain portions of the plumage, and
it is yet an unsolved problem how far some of the changes to be
observed are due to actual Moult and how far to the alteration of
colour in the feathers themselves, as also the way by which this
alteration of colour is produced, whether, as certainly happens in
many instances, by the dropping off of the ‘“ barbicels”—the fine
filaments that fringe the “barbules,” which are arranged on the
upper surface of each “barb” composing the web of the feather—
or in some other manner. With either of these last considerations
we need not now concern ourselves. It is unquestionable that there
are innumerable species of birds, the males at least of which put
forth in spring decorative plumes unknown at any other season,
and it would appear that in some of them the feathers which
before clothed the parts whence the newly-donned ornaments grow
are doffed to make room for these paraphernalia of marriage.

1 Macgillivray (Brit. Birds, i. p. 196; and Nat. Hist. of Deeside, p. 405)
thought there were four moults in this species, but that seems to be one too
many. Meves (loc. cit.) and the Abbé Caire (Rev. Zool. 1854, p. 494) independ-
ently made the discovery of the Triple Moult, and almost simultancously
announced it (cf. Gloger, Journ. fiir Orn. 1856, p. 461).

* The fullest list as yet published is that of Meves (Journ. 7. Orr., loc. cit.),
but it is not entirely free from error.

MOULT 599

The subject of Additional Moult is thus intimately connected
with the seasonal adornment of Birds, and as that properly be-
longs to a branch of the great question of Natural Selection it
could not be suitably entered upon here. The reader is accordingly
referred to those excellent chapters in which Mr. Darwin! has
treated the matter with his usual perspicuity, though even he has
far from exhausted its varied points of interest.

It remains to be remarked that though the annual Moult com-
monly takes place so soon as the breeding-season is over, there are
plenty of cases in which the change is delayed to a later period.
This is so with the SwALLow, Hirundo rustica, which has long been
known to moult in our mid-winter or even later, and it is generally
the way with the Diurnal Birds-of-Prey. But unquestionably most
birds accomplish the change much earlier, and before they leave
their breeding-quarters for their winter haunts, thereby starting on
one of their great annual journeys with all the external machinery
of flight renewed and in the best condition for escaping its attend-
ant perils.

But the plumage is not the only part of the Bird’s integument
that undergoes regularly periodical change. Many years ago
Nilsson made known by a communication to the annual report of
the Academy of Sciences of Stockholm on Zoology for 1828 (pp.
104-106) that in certain species of Tetraonide (GROUSE) the CLAWS
grow to an inordinate length in winter and are partly shed or worn
off as spring comes on, and the fact has since received further
attention (cf. Dresser, B. Hur. vii. p. 189, pl. 485). The seasonal
elongation of the bill of REDPOLLS during summer, first announced
as a conjecture by Gloger (Journ. fiir Orn. 1856, pp. 433-440), had
been previously made known to the present writer by Wolley, who
first observed it in 1853-4 (cf. Yarrell, Br. B. ed. 4, ii. p. 139).
In both these cases, however, the getting rid of the extraneous
growth is to a great extent a mechanical process, and therefore in
some measure comparable with the shedding of the fringes of the
feathers before mentioned. Not so does it seem to be with others,
and a far stranger state of things was revealed by the observation,
originally made by Mr. H. G. Palmer about 1865, according to Mr.
Ridgway (U. S. Geol. Explor. 40th Parall. iv. p. 634), who himself
confirmed it in countless instances, that irrespective of sex the
White PrticaAn of North America, during the breeding-season,
bears on the ridge of its bill a curious horny projection, flattened
at the sides and roughly-triangular in shape, which is worn for
about two months only, and then dropping off may be “ gathered
by the bushel” on the nesting-grounds of the species, as recorded
by Baird (Jbis, 1869, p. 350). Still more extraordinary was the

1 The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, chaps. xili.-xvi.
London: 1871.

600 MOUND-BIRD—MOUSE-BIRD

discovery by Dr. Bureau of the PUFFIN moulting the horny sheath
of its BILL, together with the outgrowths over the eyes, while the
fleshy rosette at the corner of the mouth shrinks to insignificance,
completely changing the bird’s physiognomy, and he has since de-
scribed the same astonishing metamorphosis as existing in other
allied forms, including the genera Chimerina, Ombria, and Simorhynchus
(Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 1877, pp. 377-399, pl. v. and 1879, pp. 1-63,
pls. i-vi.) Mr. Harting has given a translation of the first of these
papers, with a reproduction of the remarkable plate (Zool. 1878,
pp. 283-240), and Dr. Coues has published an abstract of both
(Bull. Nutt. Orn, Club, iii. pp. 87-91, and v. pp. 127, 128).

MOUND-BIRD, a name sometimes given to the MEGAPODES in
general, from their mode of nidification, but not applicable to all.

MOUNTAIN,, a prefix to the name of many birds, but often
inappropriate, and seldom used except in books, or by persons
whose knowledge is thereto limited—thus Mountain-Bunting is the
Snow-BuntineG ; Mountain-Cock the CAPERCALLY ; Mountain-Duck
several species of Anatide—and in New Zealand apparently
applied colloquially to Tadorna tadornoides (SHELD-DRAKE) ; Moun-
tain-Finch the BRAMBLING ; Mountain-Parrot the Kea (see NESTOR) ;
Mountain-Sparrow the 'Tree-SPARROW, and so on.

MOUSE-BIRD (Dutch Muisvogel), the name by which in Cape
Colony, Natal, and other parts of British Africa, the members of
Brisson’s genus Colius,! Englished CoLy in 1773 by Pennant (Gen.
B. p. 31), are known—partly, it would seem, from their general
coloration, but probably more from their singular habit of creeping
along the boughs of trees with the whole tarsus applied to the
branch. By the earlier systematists, who had few opportunities of
examining the internal structure of exotic forms, Colius was usually
placed among the Fringillidx; but nearly all travellers who had
seen one or another species of it in life demurred to that view.
Still its position was doubtful till Dr. Murie, in an elaborate treatise
on its osteology and systematic place (bis, 1872, pp. 262-280, pl.
x.) shewed that it was no Passerine, and subsequently (Jdis, 1873,
p. 190, note) proposed to regard the Family Coliidz as the sole repre-
sentative of a distinct group (PAMPRODACTYL&)—this word being
coined to indicate the obvious character of all the toes being
ordinarily directed forwards, though it is by no means the only
peculiar character these birds possess. A few years later most of
Dr. Murie’s views were confirmed by Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876,
pp. 416-419), who added considerably to our knowledge of the
general anatomy of the Family, which he considered to be related
on the one hand to the Picid# (WOODPECKER), and on the other to

1 Some other generic divisions have been suggested, but on grounds so slender
as hardly to merit consideration.

MUGG Y—MUNIA 601

the Alcedinide (KINGFISHER), and Bucerotide (HorNpBILi). The
Coliide are small birds, with a rather Finch-like bill, a more or less
crested head, a very long tail, and are generally of a dun or slate-
coloured plumage that sometimes brightens into blue or is pleasingly
diversified with white or chestnut. They feed almost wholly on
fruits, but occasionally take insects, in quest of which they pass in
bands of fifteen or twenty from tree to tree, and hang in all

a

Mouse-Brrp. (Partly after Mitchell.)

attitudes from the branches as they feed. It is even said that they
sleep suspended by their powerful and versatile toes. Ten species
are recognized by Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xvii. pp. 338-346,
and 500), all belonging to the Ethiopian Region (of which the
Family is one of the most characteristic), and ranging from
Abyssinia southwards. Three species inhabit the Cape Colony,

MUGGY, possibly cognate with the latter part of Grasmiicke
(Grass-Midge), the common German name of the WHITETHROAT,
and allied birds ; but perhaps only a corruption of Mmccy,

MULLET-HAWK, a name for the OSPREY.

MUMRUEFFIVN, said to be a local name of the Long-tailed Trt-
MOUSE.

MUNIA, the general name in many parts of India for several
kinds of small seed-eating birds, commonly placed in the Family

602 MURRE--MUSCULAR SYSTEM

Ploceid (W EAVER-BIRD), which are distinguished for their familiarity
with man, their gregarious habits, their depredations on the rice-
crops, and their ingenious Nxsts, to quote Mr. Hodgson (Asiat.
researches, xix. p. 155), who not only Anglified the word but
Latinized it, making it the title of a genus to which he assigned three
species, while Dr. Sharpe in 1890 (Cat. B. br. Mus. xiii. p. 326)
referred to it no fewer than twenty-six. Many of them are among
the commonest of. exotic cage-birds.

MURRE, a name applied by fishermen indifferently to GUILLE-
MoT and RAZOR-BILL.

MUSCULAR SYSTEM. Muscles constitute what is generally
called “flesh,” and are composed of fibres, each of which is an
elongated cell of contractile tissue surrounded by a thin sheath of
connective tissue, the whole being held together by an outer sheath
of connective, and frequently elastic, tendinous tissue. The fibres
are arranged with their long axes in the direction of the action or
pull of the muscle, and each is intimately connected with a nerve-
cell, stimulation of which causes contraction, and consequently
draws together the parts to which the whole muscle is attached.
In the Muscles of the Skeleton the attachment nearest to the axis
of the body is called the “Head” or ‘‘origin”; the attachment
furthest from the same is the “ Tail” or “insertion ”—no matter
which extremity is the punctum fixum: the intermediate portion
is the “ Belly” or “ Body.”

In Birds, as in other Vertebrates, there are two fundamentally
different kinds of Muscles :—

1. Involuntary or unstriped Muscles, which are generally of slow
or rhythmical action, such as all those of the viscera, and the
true cutaneous Muscles, such as those attached to the root of the
feathers.

2. Voluntary or striped Muscles, in which each fibre under a
microscope seems to consist of a great number of alternate dark
and light disks, which cause a transverse striation.

The Muscle of the HEART is in some degree intermediate between
those two kinds.

The nomenclature of Muscles has always been difficult. Names
like Musculus deltoides or M. gracilis afford no information, and the
physiological method of naming a muscle from its function permits
only a limited application. The most preferable way is to use a
compound word, of which the first portion should indicate the
origin, and the second the insertion, further distinction, when
needed, being secured by an additional adjective—as M. ilio-tibialis
internus. Where the old names of human anatomy can be used
without mistaken homology, they may be well applied to Birds, as
with M. latissimus dorsi or M. biceps, even though the words M.

MUSCULAR SYSTEM 603

———.

spini-humeralis and M. coraco-humero-brachialis would also fix and,
moreover, in a measure describe the muscle ; but the application of
these old names is not always easy, as shewn by the M. supra-
coracoideus of Birds which really is the modified M. supra-
spinatus of Man, and has been called the M. pectoralis minor, M.
p. secundus, M. p. medius and M. subclavicus ; while the M. caud-
ilio-femoralis figures as M. adductor femoris, M. gemellus, M.
pyriformis and M. femoro-caudalis—the last being wrong and _ in-
appropriate in more than one way—that is to say, it has been
mistaken for at least three distinct muscles, and since the nerve-
supply has not been ascertained by the writers who employ those
names, it is generally doubtful which piece of flesh is intended to
be described. Our knowledge of the homologies of avine Muscles
may now be regarded as fairly settled by the present writer in
Bronn’s Thier-reich (Vogel, pp. 91-325), thanks to the previous
labours of Alix, De Man, Fiirbringer, Retzius, Rolleston and
Riidinger, and it is based upon their nerve-supply and a study of
their origin and insertion in a great number of different Birds.

The taxonomic value of Muscles is theoretically great, but
very limited when put toa practical test. Most of them cannot
be understood unless the whole group to which they belong be
examined, and the study of their correlations is a very complicated
problem. ‘To pick out a few of the most variable muscles of the
leg, and to arrange Birds according to their mere presence or
absence, without regarding intermediate stages, is an easy but
scarcely serious mode of investigation, and there is no wonder that
systems built on such simple notions broke down. ‘There is no
reason why a dozen different kinds of Birds should not have lost
the same muscle at different times and independently of each
other, and that other kinds may not lose it in future if its function
be no longer required or can be fulfilled by some other combina-
tion. Similar conditions may possibly have abolished 3 out of
‘the 4 famous thigh-muscles in Cypselus, Trochilus, Striges, Fregata
and Accipitres, and identical circumstances have caused Dicholophus
and Serpentarius to assume the same ‘“ myological formula,” which
in this case means only the loss of the caudal portion of the M.
eaud-ilio-femoralis! It is certain that similar muscular combina-
tions in two or more Birds do not necessarily mean relationship,
while on the contrary similar requirements are often met in
similar ways, that is to say the respective organs are ‘‘isomor-
phous” if in two Birds they are modifications of one and the
same substratum of the same previous condition, but if identical
requirements were in both Birds reached after they had already
differed in their substratum, the later requirement would be
differently met, and the results would be no longer isomorphous.
Thus if in a descendant of the Passeres the hallux became reduced

604 MUSCOLAKY SYSf LAT

and ultimately lost, its so-called “long flexor” muscle would in all
likelihood disappear also, because in existing Passeres its tendon
is unconnected with that of the M. flexor perforans digitorum,
while Birds which lost the hallux before these two tendons were
disconnected have kept both these muscles.

Prof. Fiirbringer, who with enormous labour has exhaustively
studied the muscles of the shoulder-girdle, has tabulated the
chief characters of 14 muscles selected with a view to taxonomic
application, but the results are very small and far less obvious
than those afforded by the muscles of hind limbs. The former,
as the apparatus of Flight, seem to be more uniformly constructed
than the latter, which are more diversified according to the varied
uses of the legs and feet. Fluttering, skimming, sailing, soaring
are motions much more akin to one another, than climbing, grasp-
ing, running, scratching, swimming and wading. ‘The only really
aberrant modifications of the wings and their muscles are found in
the Ratitz, where they are all easily explained by reduction, and
in the Spheniscidy, where bones and muscles are greatly specialized.
The modifications of the hind limbs are many times greater—such
as extremely long legs, with four, three or only two toes—short or
long: very short legs, almost incapable of running or walking, with
all four toes directed forwards, or two or one backwards, and two
or more connected in various ways.

Most Muscles leave an impression upon the bones to which
they are attached, in the shape of ridges, furrows, crests and
processes. These marks, small as they often are, are mostly
significant, and of greater assistance in the recognition of a bone
than its general configuration, as any one will find on trying to
determine the’ kind of bird to which a given bone belongs. The
muscles are not as a rule attached to such crests and ridges
because these happen to be there, but on the contrary they shape
the bone which serves as their passive framework : what is bred in the
flesh comes out in the bone, not vice versd. It is the quality not
the quantity of an organ that determines its taxonomic value,
and adhesion to this principle precludes us from classifying Birds
by trim myological formule which seem to afford easy keys, but
rather obscure than elucidate natural affinities.

Without entering upon genetic and therefore fundamental
differences, the voluntary skeletal muscles may be conveniently
grouped thus :—

A Muscles supplied by spinal nerves.
a. Muscles of the Stem (neck, trunk and tail).
1. Dorso-spinal Muscles, supplied by dorsal branches.
2. Ventri-spinal Muscles, supplied by ventral branches.
B. Muscles of the extremities (limbs) supplied by ventral
branches.

MUSCULAR SYSTEM 605

B. Muscles supplied by cranial nerves.
a. Muscles of the Visceral Skeleton.
1. Muscles of the Jaws.
2. Muscles of the Hyoip apparatus (page 452),
B. Muscles of the Syrmx.
y. Muscles of the Ear (page 178) and Eyx (page 229).

A. The Muscles of the Stem (4.a) and of the Extrem-
ities (4.8) not only exhibit many varieties in different Birds, but
they are also very numerous, about one hundred pairs being recog-
nized. To describe them all adequately would go far beyond the
scope of this work, while simply to name them and devote a few lines
to the general condition of each would, considering their great vari-
ability, be of no practical use, for the dissection and recognition of
Muscles is not easy. In what follows, therefore, only some of
those will be dealt with which, rightly or wrongly, bear the
reputation of being of taxonomic value.

Musculus pectoralis, consisting of a thoracic, propatagial and
abdominal portion—the first forming the chief muscular mass of
the breast and arising from the sternum in the shape of a U—the
two arms of which surround the m. supracoracoideus, the longer
formed by the clavicle, sterno-clavicular membrane and the side
of the keel, the shorter by the body and lateral margin and
membranes, filling the sternal notches, and adjoining parts of the
sternal ribs. All the fibres of this great muscle, which occupies
most of the ventral surface of the sternum, converge toward the
shoulder into one or two tendons, the principal of which is inserted
on the greater tubercle and the upper crest of the humerus, and
the muscle is the chief depressor of the upper arm during the
down stroke, while it also rotates it forwards. This last is especially
its effect in the Spheniscidx, giving their wings the screw-like
motion, and is in conformity with the peculiar fact that the tendon
of the clavicular portion of the muscle is attached to the whole
length of the radial surface of the humerus between its inferior
crest and the head. The weight of both the pectoral muscles
together is said to amount to about 1/14 in Birds-of-Prey and 1/11
in Wild Geese of that of the whole body.

M. supracoracoideus, arising chiefly from the sides of the angle
formed by the keel and body of the sternum, and from part of the
coraco-clavicular membrane, and covered by the m. pectoralis,
ascending from the sternum along the inner and anterior surface
of the coracoid, passing by a strong tendon through the foramen
triossewm and the region over the joint, and inserted on the upper
tubercle of the crest of the humerus, which it rotates and ab-
ducts. This muscle is generally described as a second pectoral or
as the m. subclavius ; but Alix and Fiirbringer have shewn that its

606 MUSCULAR SVSTEM

Mammalian equivalent is the m. supraspinatus. In Ratitx it arises
almost wholly from the coracoid, and scarcely from the sternum:
in Carinatx the lateral margin of its sternal origin is marked by a
ridge beginning near the coracoid and running parallel to the keel,
or converging towards or diverging posteriorly from the latter.
The direction and extent of this ridge afford some taxonomic help,
as shewn thus :—

=

STERNAL RIDGE.
ORIGIN OF
MUuscLE. +

Converging. Parallel. Diverging.

From the whole |Spheniscide, Tinami-|Anseres (pt.), Grues, | Cypseli, Tro-
length of the} de,Galline, Limicole | Columb, Opistho-| chili, Capri-
keel. (pt.) comus, Psittaci. mulgide.

From half to} Limicole (pé.), Lari,

two-thirds. Anseres (pé.), Pheeni-
copterus, Pelargi,
Herodii, Stegano-

podes, Cathartide,
Neophron, Striges,

Steatornis.
From the an-|Acciptres (plurimi\, | Passeres ( pt.) Picarie (plur-
terior third. Colymbida, Tub'- ime), Pici,
nares. Passeres (plur-

imi).

M. propatagialis longus, always present, composed of slips from
the mm. deltoides, pectoralis, biceps and cucullaris. Its strong belly
originates near the shoulder-joint from the clavicle, scapula and
coracoid. Its tendon runs directly to the carpus, forming the
outer margin of the patagium or fold of skin between the anterior
surfaces of the upper and forearm, which it with the m. propatag.
brevis serves to extend, and consists of yellow elastic and blue
non-elastic fibres, the latter radiating into and being attached to
various portions of the patagium. When the wing is extended
the elastic portion is stretched to about three times its ordinary
length, to which it returns when the wing is folded.

M. propatagialis brevis, composed like the last, absent only in
Apteryx, Casuarius, Dromxus and the Spheniscide. In other Birds
it is often very complicated—the simplest condition being in the
Pici, where it consists of a belly and a strong tendon, running
down the anterior and outer side of the upper arm, and attached
to the proximal tendon of the m. eatensor metacarpi radialis longus,
a little below the outer condyle of the humerus. In Cuculus its
tendon is attached simply to the ulnar fascia, below the elbow-
joint. In most other Birds the tendon is split into several portions,
and is further complicated by receiving slips from, and by connexion

MUSCULAR SYSTEM 607

with the m. propatag. longus. Frequently one or more sesamoid
bones are intercalated with these tendons, which shew the most
complicated arrangement in the 7'ubinares.

Garrod devoted much labour to the elucidation of these patagial
muscles, regarding them as of taxonomic value. An obvious and

MuscLes or Lerr Arm. Lateral View. (After Fiirbringer.)

Fig. 1. Anas; 2, Columba; 3, Phenicophxes; 4, Upwpa; 5, Menura ; 6, Cyanocorax.
D, m. deltoides major; D.pt. deltoid portion of m. propatagialis; L.d. m. latissimus dorsi
(portion); Pt.b. and Pt.l. mm. propatagialis brevis and m. longus ; T, m. triceps.
(The m., biceps with its slip to the m. propatagialis is black.)

constant character is the presence or absence of a slip from the m.
biceps to the tendon of the m. propatag. longus, and its value may
be judged from the following lists :—

Present—Gallinx (excl. Cracidx), Columbe, Limicole, Laridxe, Al-
cidx, Rallidx, Grues, Tubinares, Colymbidex, Podicipedide, Phalacrocoraz,
Plotus, Sula, Anseres, Phaenicopterus, Platalea, Caprimulgide, Colius.

Absent—Ratitx, Tinamidxe, Turnices, Cracidx, Otis, Cariama,
Spheniscidx, Phaethon, Fregata, Pelicanus, Palamedea, Herodii, Pelargi,
Accipitres, Psittaci, Striges, Picarix (excl. Caprimulgidx), Steatornis,
Pici, Passeres.

M. metapatagialis, formed by slips from the m. serratus swper-
ficialis and m. latissimus dorsi, and with the addition of the
m. expansor secundariorum extending by its tendons the posterior
patagium or fold of skin between the trunk and the inner surface
of the upper arm. The serratus-portion comes from the ribs and is

608 MUSCULAR S VSTENL

inserted on the patagium and the last cubital quills, the other
splits off from the posterior portion of the latissimus dorsi and acts
indirectly on the patagium by joining the m. anconzus longus.

M. expansor secundariorum or of the cubital quills, arises as a long
tendon from the sterno-scapular ligament, passes the axilla, often
by a fibrous pulley, accompanies the axillary vessels and nerves
along the humerus, and is inserted by a few fleshy fibres on the
base of the last two or three cubital quills, It is, however, more
complicated in many birds, especially Gallinw and Anseres; but
it is scarcely of taxonomic value, being weak or absent in Columbe,
absent in Spheniscidx, Tubinares, Steganopodes, some Herodii, Alcide,
some Accipitres, in Striges, Psittaci, Cypselomorphex, Pict and Passeres.

Pt.br. Bi.

wy Metapatag.
On Gib Tri.
VyUl Lxp.sec.

Wina MuscLes oF A Goosr.

Bi. m. biceps; Elust. sec. vinculum elasticum and Eap, sec. m. expansor secundarforum ; Lig.
ligament ; Metapatag. metapatagium ; Pector. m. pectoralis; Propatag. propatagium ; Pt. br.
and Pt. lg. mm. propatagialis brevis and longus ; Tri. m. triceps.

M. flexor digitorum sublimis, arising fleshy from the inner face of
the long subcutaneous elastic band that extends from the inner con-
dyle of the humerus along the ventral surface of the ulna to the ulnar
carpal, over which the tendon runs and is inserted on the radial
anterior side of the first phalanx of the second digit. Owing to
the elasticity of the humero-carpal band the wing remains closed
without any special muscular exertion, while, when the wing is
extended, this band assists considerably in keeping it taut.+

J. AMBIENS (page 11), long and spindle-shaped, lying immedi-
ately beneath the skin as the most median or internal of all the

1 From its position immediately under the skin, this band may be easily cut,
and though that operation would cause a drooping of the wing, it would suffi-
ciently hinder its being firmly extended, and thus would be the neatest substitute
for the clumsy and barbaric method commonly employed for pinioning Birds.
The power of flight is more effectively destroyed if one wing only be operated
upon than if both are treated,

MUSCULAR SYSTEM 609

muscles extending from the pro-acetabular ilium to the knee. When
typically developed, it arises with a short tendon from the outer face
and the apex of the pectineal process or ilio-pubic spine and runs as
along tendon between the insertion of the m. sartorius and the
patella over the outer surface of the knee-joint, where it is covered
by the origins of the m. flezor perforans and perforatus dig. tii., and
the m. perforatus dig. vi., then perforating the lateral head of the m.
peroneus superficialis, it lastly forms one of the heads of m. flex.
perforat. 1, or vi. Its nerve-supply comes from the last branch but
one of the middle crural plexus. This muscle is subject to many
modifications, and upon their extremes were founded the two
groups ANOMALOGONATE and HoOMALOGONATZ (see also ANATOMY,
page 16). One of the functions of this peculiar muscle, which is
similarly developed in Crocodiles, but absent or not differentiated
from the ilio-tibial and ilio-femoral mass in other Vertebrates, is
that its contraction closes the second and third toes.!

M. caud-ilio-femoralis, when fully developed, consists of two
parts, inserted by a single strong and ribbon-like tendon near the
end of the first third of the hind face of the femur. The caudal
part is longer than the other, and arises from the transverse processes
of one or more caudal vertebre passing externally over the distal
half of the ischium and pubis. The iliac part, which is the ‘‘accessory
femoro-caudal ” of some writers, is more or less triangular and arises
in most cases from the outer face of the distal half or mid-third of
the pro-acetabular ilium. This double-headed condition is the most
primitive and obtains in most NipIFuG#&, but in many of them as
well as in many of the Nrp1coL® either the caudal or the iliac head
is absent, though in very few is the whole wanting. The absence of
the caudal head may possibly be correlated with the strength of the

1 Owen, in 1835, described (Cyclop. Anat, Physiol. i. p. 296) the disposition
of this muscle, which he called the gracilis, as passing ‘‘ first, over the con-
vexity of the knee-joint, and afterwards over the projection of the heel, [so] that
from its connection with a flexor of the toes, these must necessarily be bent
simultaneously with every inflection of the joints of the knee and ankle. As
these inflections naturally take place when the lower extremities yield to the
superincumbent weight of the body, birds are thus enabled to grasp the twigs on
which they rest whilst sleeping, without making any muscular exertion.” This
ingenious explanation of the perching and roosting of Birds was apparently first
given by Borelli (De motu animalium, Rome: 1680-82), and has been copied
and made much of by many subsequent writers, though Sundevall in 1851 drew
attention to the faultiness of the idea, since the ambiens muscle is absent in such
typical perching Birds as the Coccygomorphx and Passercs, while it is present in
the Anseres. Elsewhere I have pointed out (Zhier-reich, Vogel, p. 148) that Birds
possessing it can spread and stretch their toes freely while the leg is also
extended because then only it is not interfered with, and accordingly it is fully
developed in running, wading, swimming and rapacious Birds, but absent in
those which hop and climb.

39

610 MUSCULAR SYSTEM

leg ; but these four principal modifications are linked to each other
by intermediate stages, which moreover frequently occur in closely-
allied genera or even species. Thus the caudal head is very weak
in (Edicnemus superciliaris and (. bistriatus and, as Garrod found,
does not exist in @. grallarius. Dicholophus cristatus, like Otis, has
lost it, but D. burmeisteri the iliac head as well. In Ciconia, the
Striges and Cathartidx the whole muscle is represented only by the
feebly-developed caudal head, and in Leptoptilus this also is lost.
In some of the Limicolx, for instance Charadrius pluvialis and Vanellus
cristatus, the presence of the iliac head is an individual variation.
In Pedionomus the iliac head is very large, while the caudal is
reduced to a very thin and feeble slip that does not even reach the
femur, but merges into the iliac: if this reduction were continued
Pedionomus would agree with Pavo and Meleagris and not with
Turniz, in which the iliac head is absent. Thus the taxonomic
value of this muscle may be judged from the following table,
shewing its four principal modifications :—

Passeres

-
Caudal and Iliac Head Caudal Head alone Iliac Head alone Both Heads
present. present. present. absent.
Ratiti
Tinamidee
Pedionomus Turnix
Gallinz (most) Pavo, Meleagris
Pterocles
Columb (most) Lopholemus
Glareola
Numenius Scolopacinz (most)
Hematopus Tringine
Himantopus Strepsilas
(Edicnemus super- Ci. grallarius
ciliaris, . bistri-
atus
Charadrius Otis
Vanellus Eupodotis |
Crex Grus
Parra Dicholophus — cris- | D. burmeisteri
tatus ;
Sterninee Larine
Aleidee
Ibididee Ciconiinee Phcenicopterus Leptoptilus
Platalea Herodii
Tubinares Steganopodes
Colymbus Podicipes
Spheniscidee
Anatide Accipitres Serpentarius
Striges
Psittaci
Centropus Pici
Cypselomorphze

MUSCULAR SYSTEM 611

M. caudslioflexorius or semitendinosus, subject to many modifica-
tions, but when fully developed, as in Gallinx, arising from the
transverse processes of the first three caudal vertebre and the
lateral margin of the posterior half of the post-acetabular ilium, and
thence extending, as a broad ribbon, mesially from the ischiadic nerve
towards the popliteal region, where it splits into two portions, one
of which, being broad and fleshy, is inserted on the posterior face
of the distal third of the femur, while the other starting at a right

ee A

Lerr TuicH-Muscies (Grus or Rallus). Outer view after removal of the superficial m. ilio-
fibularis and m. ilio-tibialis,

A, caudal, B, iliac portion of m. caud-ilio-femoralis ; X, m. caud-ilio-flexorius ; Y, accessory
or femoral portion of the same; JI. fb. m. ilio-fibularis (cut away); JI. tib. m. ilio-tibialis
(cut away); Js. fl. m. ischio-flexorius ; Is. fm. m. ischio-femoralis; P.i.f. m. pub-ischio-
femoralis ; Sart. m. sartorius; N, nerve.

angle jois the fascia of the inner femoral head of the m. gastro-
cnemius. The divergence of these two portions is marked by a
tendinous intersection, which running in the direction of the
gastrocnemial insertion has caused the femoral portion of the whole
to be wrongly described as the “accessory semitendinosus.” The
extent of the insertion on the femur varies much, occupying more
than its distal half in Phew or confined to the intercondyloid region.
In almost all swimming Birds as well as in some of the Picariz,
there is a complete split between the femoral and crural portions,
the crural tendon being then inserted on the neck of the tibia, and
the original femoral portion forming part of the median femoral
head of the m. gastrocnemius, in which case the “accessory head ” is
generally stated to be absent. The origin of this muscle likewise
varies, arising either from the tail and ilium as in Gallinex, Pteroeles,

612 MUSCULAR SYSTEM

Jumenius and Rhamphastus, or from the ium only as in Larus,
Ardea, Grus, Corythaiz and Podargus. It is frequently connected
aponeuroticaily with the im. ischio-fleorius, and when its “accessory ”
is absent, both are inserted on the tibia by one common tendon.

M. ischioflecorius or semimembranaceus, ribbon-shaped, running
parallel to the posterior margin of the preceding, present in all
Birds, though sometimes much reduced, as in Podicipes, Columbx and
Pierocles, arising chiefly from the outer face of the middle or distal
third of the ischium and inserted by a flat tendon on the neck of
the tibia, whether on its anterior crest or the posterior or inner
face. A slip from the principal tendon frequently descends the leg
and is inserted either separately or jointly with a similar tendon of
the m. caud-ilio-flecorius, being often connected with it in various
ways.

M. iliofibularis or biceps cruris, arising from a great portion of
the lateral and dorsal margin of the post-acetabular ilium, changing
near the knee to a round and strong tendon that, accompanied by
one of the principal stems of the ischiadic nerve, runs over a ten-
dinous pulley! and passing between the outer and middle head of
the m. gastrocnemius is inserted on the tuberosity of the fibula at
about the level of the first fifth of the tibia.

M. extensor digitorum communis, arising from the outer and
anterior face of the crest and proximal half of the tibia, its
roundish tendon passes mesially from that of the m. tibialis anticus
through the transverse ligament along the anterior metatarsal groove,
and, arrived at its distal end, splits into several tendons, according
to the number of front toes, to be inserted on the dorsal surface of
the base of their several phalanges. In Striges and Pandion, where
the fourth toe is reversible, the principal tendon first splits into two,
one for the second toe, the other soon subdividing for the third and
fourth. In the Rhamphastide and Cuculidex, the main stem goes to
the third toe, and sends a short slip to each of the others. In the
Picidzx the tendon for the fourth toe passes through an ossified loop
and over a furrow at the end of the fourth metatarsal, so as to
ensure the extension of this digit with the others notwithstanding
its backward position. In the Psiétact alone the principal tendon
sends a slip to the hallux also, the rest being divided into an inner
and outer half, each of which splits again to be inserted on the
other toes, the third of which therefore receives two such tendons.

M. extensor hallucis, arising from the anterior and inner face
of the proximal part of the second tarso-metatarsal and inserted

1 This pulley or loop on the outer side of the knee is composed of three arms,
two arising from the outer face of the external femoral condyle, the third from
the inner head of the m. perforat. dig. iv. and supporting the outer of two
principal branches. Owing to the pulley the contraction of this muscle does not
merely draw the leg towards the trunk, but also lifts it towards the thigh.

MUSCULAR SYSTEM 613

on the dorsal face of the base of the first phalanx of the hallux.
Generally best developed in Birds with a large hallux, as Apieryz,
Gallinx, Accipitres, Steganopodes and Herodii, but yet very small in
Picus and absent in Psittaci. When the hallux is very small, as in
Pterocles and many Limicolx, this muscle still exists, and though
slender is rather long.

Mm, flexores longi digitorum consist of three principal sets,
each of which is again divided into several muscles, the hallux
having one, the fourth toe two, and the third and second toe three
each, which are conveniently distinguished by the relation to one
another of their respective tendons. Those that are inserted on
the base of the first phalanges are perforated immediately above
the insertion by the tendons of those that are inserted on the
second and third phalanges, which in their turn are perforated by
those that are attached to the terminal phalanges—hence there are
perforati, perforantes et perforati, and perforantes.

Mm. flexores perforati digitorum ii. wi. iv. These three, of which
each anterior toe has one, arise in a variable way, either separately
or partly blended, from almost any part of the region of the knee,
but especially from the posterior intercondylar space of the femur,
from its outer condyle, from the ligaments of the knee and patella,
the proximal part of the tibia and fibula, and lastly from the
tendon of the m. ambiens (page 11), of which in most cases the m.
perforatus iti. partly forms the continuation. Each of them be-
comes a distinct tendon which passes posteriorly over the inter-
tarsal joint, and piercing the pad above mentioned, runs along the
plantar groove of the metatarse to be inserted ventri-laterally on
the base of the first phalanx of the second, third or fourth toe as
the case may be—their insertion being perforated as before stated.
The tendon of the m. perforatus iii. may be easily recognized, first
by its passing the intertarsal joint and the pad the most super-
ficially, and next by its receiving below that joint the lateral
distal tendon of the m. peroneus superficialis. 'The tendon of m.
perforatus it. often passes the pad through a special canal, but in
Struthio is wholly absent, in conformity with the loss of the corre-
sponding toe. The tendon of m. perforatus iv. passes the intertarsal
joint as superficially as that of the third toe, and is often inserted
on all the four proximal phalanges of the fourth toe.

Mm. fleaores perforantes et perforati digitorum wi. et ui., with a
similar origin to the last group, except as regards the m. ambiens
(page 11). The tendon of the second toe pierces the pad by a special
canal, and is inserted on the plantar and lateral faces of the base
of its first or second phalanx, after having perforated that of the
foregoing and being perforated by that of the following muscle.
It is absent in Struthio. The tendon of the third toe in many
Birds receives a vinculum or slip from that of the m. perforatus ti.,

614 MUSCULAR SYSTEM

then passes the pad and is inserted like that of the second toe on
the base of its own second and third phalanges.

In conformity with the separate position of the hallux, the
mass of deep flexors is divided into two principal portions, each
becoming a strong tendon which passes through or posteriorly over
the metatarsal pad and tubercle, then along the metatarsal groove
for insertion in various ways on the plantar face of the last or two
last phalanges, having in its course perforated the more super-
ficial tendons. It is convenient to distinguish these two portions,
the one as m. flexor perforans, the other as m. haiiucis longus.

M. flexor perforans s. profundus, arising from the greater part of
the hind face of the fibula and tibia, and rarely also from the outer
femoral condyle, runs covered by all the other flexors straight to
the intertarsal joint, which it passes more deeply than any of the
rest, entering between the pad and the tibio-tarsus, piercing the
former and immediately after the metatarsal tubercle as well. In
most Birds its tendon divides just above the distal end of the meta-
tarse, sending a slip to each front toe.

M. flexor hallucis longus, regarded as the posterior portion of the
‘ whole mass mentioned above, arises mostly from the intercondylar
space, with its belly resting upon that of the preceding, but slightly
towards the outer or fibular side, and its tendon in most cases
accompanying that of the preceding, there to pass either through
the tarsal pad and hypotarsus, resting in this case on the posterior
surface of the other tendon, or lying a little towards its outer side,
superficially over the pad and tubercle, after which both run down
the metatarsal groove, that of the present resting on the plantar
and fibular side of the other. About half-way down the middle of
the metatarse the tendon of the m. flex. hallucis splits into two
parts, one, continued as the so-called vinculwm to the front tendon,
the other, which is generally the weaker, to be inserted on the last
phalanx of the hallux. It is obvious that the tendon of the m.
flex. hallucis, after passing over the outer part of the ankle, must
cross the deeper tendon obliquely to reach the hallux, a crossing
which is correlated with its reversed position, and is really double,
because the m. flex. hallucis arising more inwardly than the m. flea.
perforans, and thus crossing it laterally, crosses it once above
the joint and then again upon the metatarse, since its tendon
goes to the hallux. It is also clear that, owing to the vinculum,
contraction of the m. flex. hallucis bends not only the hallux but the
other toes as well, while the m. flex. perforans acts on the front toes
only. This m. flex. hallucis is therefore, properly speaking, a m.
flexor conmunis, and the so-called m. flex. perforans is the anterior
portion of the whole mass of deep flexors, a view which is justified
by the fact that the m. flex. hallucis is present regardless of the
absence of the hallux.

MOSCULAR SVSTiM 615

According to the variable configuration of the toes, whether
two, three or four in number, whether the Bird be anisodacty]l,
syndactyl, zygodactyl, heterodactyl, eleutherodactyl or what, the
connexion between the two principal deep flexors and their distri-
bution to the toes exhibits many modifications, almost any com-
bination conceivable occurring in some Bird or other. There can
be no doubt that the various uses of the toes—running, climbing,
grasping, rowing and so on, are the chief determining causes of the
manifold arrangements of these tendons. It is easy to understand
the action of a single muscle by itself, but of the action of a group
of muscles, of their mutual play, and how they partially counteract,
supplant or support one another, we know next to nothing. One
point, however, is certain, and that is that coincidence does not
necessarily indicate affinity. The misconception concerning these
plantar tendons has exaggerated their taxonomic value, culminating
in the separation of the Trochilide from the other Cypselomorphe,
and in the association of the Cathartide with the Alcedinidx, Cora-
ciidx, Caprimulgidxe and Bucerotidz to the exclusion of Upupa.

Sundevall! and Garrod? have done most to describe the modi-
fications of the deep plantar tendons, which are reducible to seven
chief types, most of them connected by intermediate stages. In
the following enumeration, the muscle and tendon of the flexor per-
forans are called A (anterior portion), those of the flexor hallucis P
(posterior portion).

I. Vinculum from P to A. Tendon A splits into 3, going
to toes ii. iii, and iv. Tendon P goes toi., and by the vinculum
ment most commonly found in 4-toed birds, no matter whether
the toes be normally placed, paired or reversible: <Ardex, Ciconix,
Platalea, Gallinx, Ralli, Grues, Rhinochetus, Eurypyga, Otis, Limicolx,
Pterocles, Columbe, Laridx, Alcidx, Opisthocomus, Cuculidx, Muso-
phagidx, Psittaci, Striges, Eurylemide. In Herodit the vinculum is
either very weak or wholly lost, thus leading to type VII.

II. Vinculum very strong and broad, forming the direct and
principal continuation of tendon P, of which the hallux receives
but a slender portion. Tendon P goes to i. by vinculum to ii. iil.
and iv.—ie. it acts on all. Tendon A goes to ii. iii. and iv.
Muscles A and P of equal strength. This is the case in Apteryz,
Tinamidz (Nothura), Spheniscidxe, Steganopodes, Anseres, Colymbi,
Podicipedes and also in Podica.

Ill. Tendons A and P more or less fused throughout the
greater extent of the metatarse. The vinculum and the level of
the actual crossing are shifted to the distal portion of the meta-

1 Forhandl. Skandinav. Naturforsk. 1851, pp. 259-269.
2 Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, pp. 339-348.
3 Thicr-reich, Vogel, p. 195.

616 MUSCULAR SYSTEM

tarse. Tendon A goes to ii. iii, and iv. Tendon P toi. and by
vinculum to ii. also, consequently, owing to the vinculum’s distal
position, its action is confined to two toes. This type, to a certain
extent intermediate between I. and II., is characteristic of Acci-
pitres, except Cathartide (see V.), and Pandion, in which last,
but tendon P splits into 4, sending a slip to each toe directly,
and in this case is therefore a complete fleaor communis.

IV. The prevalent type where the hallux is absent or very
small. Both muscles are strong and almost equally developed,
their tendons inite about the middle of the metatarse, the joint
tendon A+P going to the front toes, the hallux receiving no
tendon, and consequently there is no crossing. This type, genetically
connected with II., occurs in Casuarius, Dromxus, Rhea, Struthio,
Turniz, Pterocles and Phenicopterus, Palamedea, Dicholophus, Tubin-
ares, Colymlr.

VY. Tendons A and P unite at a variable distance below the
ankle joint, passing it in the ordinary way, and there is no crossing
behind the metatarse, tendon P running directly into A from its
fibular side. Muscle A generally much stronger than muscle P.
In the simplest case (V,a) the united tendons A+P split into 4
equally strong tendons, either just above the base of the toes, or
successively first to the hallux and lastly to iv.imas in Buceros,
Cypselus and Colius. Secondly an exaggerated condition of this
(V,a) prevails (as V,b) in Momotidx, Todidx, Meropide and in some
Alcedinide, where the tendon of the hallux is split off directly
from the tibial and ventral side of A above its fusion with P.
Thirdly there is a condition (V,c), hitherto known in the Trochilidx
only, where A and P are completely divided from each other into
a deep mass (A) which goes to i. and iii., and into a plantar mass
supplying i. and iv. Careful and, from their small size, difficult
preparations of this have been made by Prof. Stewart and Mr.
Bourne for the Museum of the College of Surgeons in London, and
any other description and figures of these Trochiline tendons are
either incorrect or misleading. Lastly comes the modification found
in the Cathartidx, where the fusion of the two principal tendons (as
in V,a and V,b) is followed by a splitting into a ventral mass (P) to
li. iii, and iv., and into a deep mass (A) to i. ii. and iii. This
arrangement can be easily derived from type V,a, but almost
equally well from the variable type III., as indicated by Pandion
(fig. XI.) In the latter case the Cathartide would appear as a
peculiar departure from primitive Accipitrine conditions,

VI. Vinculum present, going from P to A. Tendon A single,
going only to iii. Tendon P going to i. ii. and iv., and by the
vinculum to iii. also, 2.2. to all the toes. This most peculiar type
prevails in all the anomalogonatous zygodactyl Birds, Picidx, Rham-

MUSCULAR SYSTEM 617

phastidx, Indicatoride, Bucconide, Capitonide and Galbulide. The
fourth toe being turned backwards behaves like a hallux and
receives a tendon from the flex. hallucis, but this cannot be the only
reason, since the Cuculidx and Psittaci are also zygodactyl, but
possess an ambiens, and belong to type I.

VII. Tendons A and P are entirely disconnected, owing to the

IV Vea

vUUy
KEL AL

VIII IX xX XI oo

AA AWA

iv iii ii
DIAGRAMS SHEWING ARRANGEMENT OF TENDONS OF THE Foor.
A, Tendon of the anterior portion (m. flexor perforans). P, Tendon of the posterior portion (m.
flexor hallucis. The toes are numbered i. ii. iii. iv.

I-VIII, The types numbered according to Garrod, Gadow and Fiirbringer. I, Gallus ; IT,
Apteryx ; III, Falconide ; IV, Rhea; Va, Cypselus; Vb, Momotus; Ve, Trochilus; V4,
Upupa and Irrisor; VI, Picus ; VII, Oscines ; VIII, Harpactes duvauceli ; IX, Dacelo gigas ;
X, Heliornis surinamensis ; XI, Pandion; XII, Cuculi.

(Ve, VIII, IX, after preparations in Mus. R. Coll. Surg. ; X, after Beddard.)

loss of the vinculum. Tendon A goes to ii. iii. and iv. ; Tendon
P only to the hallux, which is always well developed and the only
posterior toe. This type is the most differentiated and also the
simplest. Morphologically therefore it is the highest. It exists in
all the Passeres, except Eurylenidx, and in some Herodit.

618 MUSCULAR SYSTEM

Hitherto it has always been stated that Upupa has free tendons
(as in type VII.) and this has been used as an argument for placing
it among the Passeres ; but, as a matter of fact, in Upupa and Irrisor,
tendon P sends a vinculum to the slips of tendon A which goes to
iii., and this vinculum joins A below, not above, the root of the toes
(see fig. V,d).

VIII. This type is peculiar to the Zrogonidx. 'These Birds are
heterodactyl, the hallux and second toe being reversed, while the
third and fourth are front toes, and their deep flexor tendons like-
wise anomalous. Tendon A goes to the two hind toes i. and ii,
and by the vinculum together with tendon P to iii. and iv.
Analysis of this case means :—fusion of P with A, without any
crossing ; proximal splitting-off of the tendons for i. and i. from
the tibial side of A; and consequently direct derivation from type
V,a, analogous to, but more exaggerated than, V,b.

These eight types are to be genetically grouped as follows :—
I. II. II. IV. and VII. are closely allied to each other; I. and IV.
to be derived from II. and VII. from I., while III. is a compara-
tively primary condition ; V,a shews a primitive stage, whence are
developed in diverging directions V,b, V,c, V,d, VI. and VII.
Any derivation of VI. from VIII. or vice versd is impossible ; and
the same applies to V,c and VI.

B.a. Muscles of the Visceral Skeleton, which according
to their innervation, derivation and function fall naturally into
three groups.

1. Group of the m. mylohyoideus, formed by the most anterior
continuation of the m. cucullaris and m. constrictor colli and consist-
ing of two portions:—(1) m. mylohyoid. anterior, lying between
the branches of the mandible from the inner face of which its
transversely-directed fibres arise to meet in the middle line, and by
their contraction press the tongue and larynx against the palate,
and supplied from the third ramus of the nervus trigeminus, and
(2) m. mylohyoid. posterior, arising from the outer face of the
posterior end of the mandible and sometimes also from the adjoin-
ing part of the occiput, and inserted in the corner formed by the
hyoid horn and the corpus lingux, being supplied by a branch of the
nervus facialis, and drawing the tongue with the larynx upward
and backward. When the tongue is very protractile or very thick
this portion consists of two parts, one, m. serpi-hyoideus, arising
from the serpiform process of the mandible, the other, m. stylo-
hyoideus, from the occiput.

2. Group of the masticatory muscles, supplied by nervus
trigeminus and n. facialis.

M. digastricus or depressor mandibulx, large and often compound,
generally arising from the lateral occipital bone, and inserted on the

MUSCOLAR SYSTEM 619

inner angular process of the mandible, acting on the jaw behind the
articulation so as to open the mouth.

M. temporalis, consisting of a variable number of parts, the chief
of which, arising from the postorbital process and the quadrate, pass
beneath the jugal arch and are inserted on the mandible in front of
the joint, acting mostly as masseters. Two or three smaller muscles,
arising from the deeper region of the orbit and the interorbital
septum to be inserted on the palatal and pterygoid bones, are much
less constant.

M. pterygoideus, arising chiefly from the ventral face of the
pterygoid, palatal and, sometimes, from the maxillary bones, and
inserted on the inner face of the mandibular articulation, close the
bill or, when the mouth is open, flex the upper mandible, as seen in
Psittaci, Anatidxe and others.

3. Group of the Hyoid muscles, supplied solely by nervus hypo-
glossus often very numerous and always attached to the Hyorp
apparatus (page 452), whence they reach backward to the sternum
or to the furcula as mm. sterno-hyoidet or mm. cleido-hyoidei, to the
larynx and trachea as mm. thyreo-hyoidet or mm. tracheo-hyoidei, while
others extend forward to the mandible as mm. genio-hyoidet and genio-
glossus, or lastly they connect the various portions of the Hyoid
apparatus. In most cases their position is indicated by their name.

System of the m. sterno-hyoideus, a long pair of muscles, pre-
senting its least differentiated condition in Apteryx (where no other
sterno-hyoid or sterno-tracheal exists). The broader and more
superficial portion arises from the ventral face of the thyroid
cartilage and the hyoid bones, meeting its fellow without being
attached to the trachea, and is inserted aponeurotically on the
lateral and posterior margin of the sternum, partly covering the
muscles of the shoulder and breast. The deeper portion likewise
begins at the thyroid cartilage, passes down the side of the trachea,
to which it is firmly attached until just above the bronchial fork,
where it leaves it to be inserted near the coraco-sternal articulation.
From the conditions just described are differentiated the more
complex arrangements found in other Birds. By reduction of the
muscular mass about the middle of the neck an upper and lower
portion are formed, the upper then appearing as tracheo-laryngeal or
thyrohyoid muscles—the lower as sterno- or cleido-tracheal, and
through further extension to the bronchi as muscles of the SYRINX.
In many Birds the superficial portion of the whole system remains
as one or two ribbons, m. cleido-hyoideus, running along the side of
the neck and connecting the tongue with the furcula, or other parts
of the scapular arch. The chief retractor of the tongue, M. tracheo-
hyoideus reaches its highest development in some of the Picidx, where
it takes several spiral turns round the trachea.

M. genio-hyoideus, arising from about the middle of the mandi-

620 MUSKET-HAWK—NASAL GLANDS

bular bar, extends as a ribbon to the hyoid bone, round which it
twists loosely ; and, being attached to its dorsal extremity, the con-
traction of the spiral surrounding the hyoid horns protrudes them
with great force, the extent of protrusion depending on their length.
This is greatest in Trochilidx and Picidx, in some of which they pass
round the head and reach forward to the nostrils.

M. genio-glossus, a small protractor of the tongue, connecting the
os entoglossum with the chin, but often absent.

M. ceratoglossus, arising from the dorsal face of the ceratohyal,
inserted by a tendon laterally on the os entoglossum, which it draws
sideways or bends when acting jointly with its fellow.

M. cerato-hyoideus, extending from the inner face of the ceratohyal
to the urohyal, but often absent.

M. hypoglossus, extending from the ventral face of the body of
the tongue to the ventral or lateral face of the os enioglossum.

MUSKET- or MUSQUET-HAWK (O. Fr. mousquet or mouchet),
an old name for the cock Sparrow- HAWK, seemingly given from its
comparatively small size (Fr. mouche, Lat. musca—a fly), and hence,
on the invention of fire-arms, applied to one which was smaller and
handier than the older match-lock.

MUTTON-BIRD, a sailors’ name for at least one species of
SHEARWATER, but especially for Puffinus brevicauda, presumably
because. “the young are literally one mass of fat, which has a
tallowy appearance” (Gould, Handb. B. Austral. iii. p. 462). Mr.
Robert Elwes has given (Jbis, 1859, pp. 397-399) a remarkable
account of one of the most frequented breeding-places of this bird
on an island in Bass’s Strait, which, it is to be feared, no longer
exists as such owing to the devastation wickedly carried on—nearly
60,000 breeding birds having been taken in a single season.

N

NANDU, from Nhandu-guagit, given by Marcgrave and Piso as
the Brazilian name of the RHEA, and occasionally used for that bird
by some English writers.

NASAL GLANDS exist pairwise in almost all Birds, and their
tear-like secretion serves to moisten and cleanse the mucous lining
of the nasal cavities. Each gland has a duct opening into the
vestibulum of the nares below the nasal bone, and passing beneath
the lacrymal bone. ‘These glands vary much in shape, size, position
and colour, in the last respect ranging from bluish-red to red and

NASUTA—NERVOUS SYSTEM 621

pale yellow. They are very large in Limicolx, except Scolopaz, and
are occasionally absent in S. rusticola, Laridx, Colymbidx and Tubi-
nares, resting subcutaneously on the frontals between the eyes, or
above the orbital margin and producing on these bones deep
depressions, the configuration of which, together with lateral notches,
or canals between the nasals, lacrymals and frontals can, with care,
be used for taxonomic purposes. In most Anseres the glands are
small and placed on the upper orbital margin. When they are
small they extend to the orbital cavity only or are restricted to the
maxillary cavity, as in Iatitey, Galline, Columbex, Otis, Sula, Pelargi,
Accipitres, Picariz and Passeres.

NASUTA, Nitzsch’s name in 1840 for the group which Tlliger
had called TUBINARES in 1811.

NATATORES, Illiger’s name in 1811 for an Order of Birds
(including 6 Families and 22- genera), equivalent to the Linnzan
ANSERES. Holding its place, to the exclusion of the older term, for
about fifty years, ornithologists at last perceived that the group
contained many forms which have no affinity, and the word is now
hardly used but by writers who know little of the principle of
Taxonomy.

NATIVE-COMPANION, Grus australasianus (CRANE) ; -HEN,
any species of Z’ribonyx (RAIL); -PHEASANT, Lipoa ocellata (MEGA-
PODE); -SPARROW, Zonexginthus oculeus, one of the WEAVER-
BIRDS ; -THRUSH, Pachycephala olivacea (THICKHEAD); -TURKEY,
Otis australis, a BUSTARD—all names used, according to Gould, by the
English in Australia or Tasmania.

NECK, or cervix, that part of the body which extends from the
head to the thorax, the last cervical vertebra being the one which
carries a pair of ribs that do not join the STERNUM.

NEOPHRON, the generic term given to the Vultur percnopterus
of Linnzeus by Savigny! when separating it
from the other VULTURES, and sometimes
used as an English word.

NEOSSOPTILE, see Fearuers (p. 243).

NERVOUS SYSTEM. This consists of Nrornon.
two parts, (1) a Central portion, composed of tae ee
the Spinal Cord and Bratn, and (2) Peripheral, containing the
Cranial and Spinal Nerves, together with all that pertains to what
is called the Sympathetic.

1 He took the word from the pseudomythological Metamorphoses (or Trans-
Jormationum congeries, Fab. 5) of Antoninus Liberalis, a writer who flourished
about the middle of the second century, Neophron being the name of a man
changed, for a base trick he played, into a Vulture by Zeus.

622 NERVOUS SYSTEM

I. The Spinal Cord or “Marrow” is the continuation of the
medulla oblongata, extending throughout the vertebral canal
to the tail, being swollen at the level of the shoulders by an
accumulation of ganglionic cells to serve the Brachial Nerve
Plexus governing the fore-limbs, and again in the lumbar region
where the nerves of the hind-limbs have their origin. On the
dorsal side of this lumbar swelling, there is a lozenge-shaped slit,
the sacro-rhomboidal sinus, filled with a colourless gelatinous
substance, behind which the cord lessens gradually, ending as
a thin thread in the last free caudal vertebra. The whole of
this System is: encased in a strong, fibrous sheath of connective
tissue, the dura mater, the outer layer of which is closely attached
to and forms the lining of the central vertebral canal, while its
inner layer forms a looser and more meshy tissue. A much thinner
membrane, the pia mater, is immediately attached to the surface of
this System, penetrating its various furrows or sulci, and containing
blood-vessels which nourish the nervous matter. Between the dura
and the pia mater, but partly separated from each by lymphatic
spaces, lies the Arachnoid Membrane.

The composition of the Spinal Cord is best studied in transverse
section :—in the midst is the central canal, on the medio-ventral
and medio-dorsal lines are the anterior and posterior sulci, forming
more or less deep vertical slits which thus divide the cord into a
right and left side. The central portion of the cord, distinctly
grey in colour, being composed of grey nerve-fibres, without axial
cylinders, and interspersed with numerous ganglionic nerve-cells,
arranged in the form of a saltire or St. Andrew’s cross, of which the
ventral pair of limbs contain the ganglia and send out the motory
roots of the spinal nerves, while the dorsal pair contain the ganglia
and send out the sensory bundles of nerve-fibres. This grey matter
is surrounded by a thick mantle of white nerve-fibres, most of them
conducting threads composed of an axial cylinder with a sheath,
and running longitudinally parallel to each other, though at the
so-called commissures a crossing from one side to the other occurs
with many of both white and grey fibres.

II. The Spinal Nerves arise from the medulla by a number of
rootlets, which leave its surface in the form of a dorsal and a
ventral root—the former (with a small swelling, the spinal ganglion,
at its base) containing the sensory, the latter the motory fibres ;
but all the fibres of each issue as a single bundle either between
two vertebre or pass through a hole at the anterior end of a
vertebra. The first spinal or cervical nerve issues between the
occiput and the atlas, and each that follows from the anterior end
of its vertebra—all on leaving the vertebral column separating into
three branches—a dorsal, ventral and visceral. The first two
contain sensory and motory nerves mixed ; but the dorsal branches

NERVOUS SYSTEM 623
are small and innervate the skin and muscles of the dorsal spinal
tract, while the ventral branches are much larger, and, depending
on the muscles they have to supply, are strongest in the region of
the limbs. The visceral branches, or “‘ sympathetic nerves,” supply
chiefly the digestive, vascular and generative organs.

Four or five of the lowest cervical nerves join to form the
Brachial Plexus, whence diverge those that serve the wings and
shoulders ; but the composition of this plexus varies considerably
not only in different species but even individually. The serial
number of the nerves entering into its formation depends chiefly
on the length of the neck, the extremes being found in Cypselus
(10th to the 14th cervical pair), and Cygnus (22nd to 24th), inter-
mediate cases occurring in Columba (11th to 15th), Gallus (13th to
17th), Anas (15th to 18th) and in many Passeres (12th to 15th).
The last nerve of this plexus often marks off the boundary of the
cervical and thoracic regions, by issuing just above the first thoracic
vertebra.

The nerves arising from this plexus are divided into (A) small
dorsal branches supplying the scapular muscles, and (B) thoracic
branches forming a system for the sterno-coracoid and all the wing-
muscles. The thoracic branches (B) send off a group (a) to the
superior and another (b) to the inferior brachial muscles. Among
the former (a), the chief are (1) nervus subcoraco-scapularis for the
m. subcoracoideus, m. subscapularis and m. subcoraco-scapularis, (2)
n. musculi latissimi dorsi, (3) n. axillaris, a strong nerve passing
the humero-scapular joint, running between the humerus and the
m. triceps, and innervating the deltoid muscles, as well as the skin
of the shoulder, upper arm and propatagium, and (4) the n. radialis,
the strongest nerve of all, running spirally round the dorsal side of
the humerus, supplying the m. triceps, and, dividing at the elbow
into a superficial and a deep branch, innervating all the numerous
exterior muscles beside the skin and feathers of the forehead.
Among the latter group (0) are three strong nerves (1) the n. supra-
coracoideus, covered by a membranaceous ligament, crossing the
coracoid and supplying the m. supracoracoideus,! (2) the n. pectoralis
for the large pectoral muscle, and (3) the n. brachialis inferior, which
accompanies the last so far as the axilla, and then passing along the
humerus divides into a n. medianus, supplying the m. biceps and
the radial side of the forearm and hand, and a n. ulnaris, sending
several branches to the ulnar side.

The spinal nerves succeeding to the Brachial Plexus are those
of the intercostal region, their short dorsal branches supply the

1 In many birds the median side of the coracoid has a notch (bridged by a
tendinous ligament) for the passage of the nerve, which in other cases may pass
through a foramen near the inner side of that bone ; but these differences have
little taxonomic importance.

62 NERVOUS SYSTEM

Fig. 1.—Diagrammatic Representation of the peripheral Nervous System of a Bird. Ventral

view. Left side showing the Somatic, right side showing the Visceral Nerves.

ix. N. glossopharyngeus ; X. N. vagus, C. G. H. P. its distribution to the Carotid, the Heart,
Lungs, Stomach and Gut; XII.1, Lingual branch and XII.2, Syringeal branch of N. hypo-
glossus ; Sy. Sympathetic ganglion of the first spinal nerve.

Fig. 2,—Diagrammatic view of a transverse section through the spinal cord on the level of the

exit of a typical spinal nerve.

A.H. and P.H, Anterior or ventral and Posterior or dorsal Horns with ganglia, of the grey sub-
stance ; in the middle of which is seen the central canal; Sp.G. the Spinal Ganglion of the
dorsal root of the spinal nerve; Sy.G. the Sympathetic Ganglion; R.d., R.ve., R.vis,
Dorsal, Ventral and Visceral (or sympathetic) branches of the spinal nerve.

NERVOUS SYSTEM 625

dorsal muscles of the spine, and their long ventral branches run
between the ribs, supplying the intercostal and, further back, the
abdominal muscles.

The Sacral Plexus is formed by the Spinal Nerves in the
pelvic region, and may be conveniently divided into (A) a
Crural or Lumbar, (B) a Sciatic, and (C) a Pudiec portion. The
first (A) is composed of from 2 to 4, but generally of 3 nerves,
the foremost of which sends a long branch to the abdominal
muscles, while the hindmost, n. furcalis, leaving the spinal column,
as a rule, between the 2 last lumbo-sacral vertebra, divides—one-half
going to the Sciatic portion. From the Crural portion spring
several branches forming 3 groups—(1) those that serve the m.
sartorius, m. ambiens and some other muscles of the leg; (2) the
n. olturatorius, supplying the m. obturator and its accessories, as
well as the m. adductor magnus; and (3) a long nerve which runs
down the median side of the thigh to the inner side of the knee,
supplying the latter and passing subcutaneously down the median
side of the leg. This nerve is almost peculiar to Birds, occurring
beside only in Crocodiles and Monotremes.

The Sciatic portion (B) generally consists of 5 or 6 nerves,
which leave the pelvis as a thick stem, passing close behind the anti-
trochanter through the ischio-iliac foramen, where a strong branch
separates itself from the hinder side of the common stem to supply
most of the adductor muscles of the thigh and leg. From the
main stem branches are given off to the ilio-femoral, ilio-tibial, ilio-
fibular and ischio-femoral muscles. The rest of the stem continues
as the Sciatic nerve, accompanied by the great arteries and veins
on the posterior side of the thigh, and below the knee invariably
divides into 3 branches, the first of which (1) is the strongest, and
passes with the tendon of the ilio-fibular muscle through the peculiar
tendinous pulley on the side of the fibula, whereupon it splits into
the superficial and deep peroneal nerves, to supply the extensor
_ and peroneal muscles of the foot and toes; the median branch (2)
soon breaks up into a number of nerves for the deep flexor muscles
of the toes and the inner and middle portion of the m. gastro-
enemius; while the third (3) innervates the outer head of the
gastrocnemius and the rest of the flexor muscles of the toes. As
before stated, the Sciatic portion (B) receives one-half of the n.
furcalis from the Crural (A), while its hindmost spinal stem, leaving
the spinal column, in most birds, between or just below the hind-
most of the 2 primary sacral vertebrae (see Pelvis under SKELETON),
sends a branch to the Pudic portion (C), which is composed of the
post-ischiadic spinal nerves. These are partly imbedded in the
substance of the KrpNrys, and run obliquely outwards, forming
many anastomoses with one another, especially on the hinder parts of
the ischium and pubic bone. This portion chiefly innervates the

40

626 NERVOUS SVSTEM
ventral muscles between the pelvis and tail, together with those of
the cloacal region and the copulatory organs.

The dorsal branches of all the spinal nerves in the whole pelvic
region are restricted to small, cutaneous branches in conformity with
the reduction of the dorso-spinal muscles. The caudal nerves are
also small, their dorsal branches supply the levator and their
ventral the depressor muscle of the tail.

Ul. The Cranial or Cerebral Nerves have been already described
(BRAIN).

IV. The Sympathetic System consists of the visceral branches of
the Cerebro-Spinal Nerves, and supplies chiefly the alimentary and
genital organs and the circulation. ‘The Nerves composing it have
no axial cylinder: they are paler than the white fibres, and are
characterized by the presence of ganglia in their course, each
branch containing one near its base which beside sending off
other ramifications is connected with the corresponding ganglion of
the next metamere, so as to form a “Sympathetic” chain running
along each side of the ventral surface of the vertebral column.
The two chains by means of these connexions somewhat resemble
a ladder, the cross-bars of which are called rami communicantes,
from a mistaken notion that they join the longitudinal “ strand”
or ». sympathicus of their side with the medulla, the fact being
that the cross-bars are the true “rests,” the lateral strands rather
making the connexion between the successive ganglia. In the
region of the NECK each of these strands runs, accompanied by
the vertebral artery of its side, through the transverse foramen of
each of the cervical vertebrae. In the thoracic region each strand
is double, and the basal ganglia are successively connected with the
next by a nervous branch which runs over the head of the rib, and
by another which passes directly through the space between the
head of the rib and its tubercle. In the pelvic region each strand
again becomes single; but, conversely to the single strand of the
cervical region, each is composed of ventral branches only, while
lastly in the caudal region the right and left branches approach
and coalesce in the middle line. From the first thoracic ganghon
there issues a cardiac branch supplying the HEArt, while other
branches starting from neighbouring ganglia form a sort of plexus
which, accompanying the cceliac artery, innervate the stomach, LIVER
and other viscera. Similar branches from the basal ganglia of the
lumbar and sacral regions form a plexus with ganglia numerously
. interspersed, and serve the rest of the Alimentary Canal, the
KIDNEYS (page 480), genital organs and CLoaca (page 90), where
they partly anastomose with the branches of the Pudic portion of
the Sacral Plexus.

From the first pair of cervical ganglia the Sympathetic strands
are continued on either side to the ganglia of the n. hypoglossus,

NESTOR 627

and thence to the ganglion supremum of the combined n. vagus and
glossopharyngeus. From this last, which sends out long sympathetic
branches to the carotids and the throat generally, the Sympathetic
chain extends to the head by complicated connexions with the
ganglia of the 7th, 5th and 3rd pairs of cranial nerves (see BRAIN),
its numerous branches serving chiefly the blood-vessels of the head,
the lacrymal glands and the Eyxs.

NESTOR, the name applied to a small but remarkable group of
Parrots peculiar to the New-Zealand Region, of which the type is
the Psittacus meridionalis of Gmelin, founded on a species described
by Latham (Gen. Synops.i. p. 264), and subsequently termed by him
P. nestor, in allusion to its hoary head, but now usually known as
Nestor meridionalis, the “ Kaka” of the Maories and English settlers
in New Zealand, in some parts of which it was, and even yet may
be, very abundant, though its numbers are fast decreasing. Forster,
who accompanied Cook in his second voyage, described it in his

HEAD or Nestor. (From Buller.)

MS. in 1773, naming it P. hypopolius, and found it in both the
- principal islands. The general colour of the Kaka is olive-brown,
nearly all the feathers being tipped with a darker shade, so as to
give a scaly appearance to the body. The crown is light grey, the
ear-coverts and nape purplish-bronze, and the rump and abdomen of
a more or less deep crimson-red ; but much variation is presented
in the extent and tinge of the last colour, which often becomes
orange and sometimes bright yellow. The Kaka is about the size
of a Crow; but a larger species, generally resembling it, though
having its plumage varied with blue and green, the Nestor notabilis
of Gould, was discovered in 1856 by Mr. Walter Mantell, in the
higher mountain-ranges of the South Island. This is the “ Kea” of
the Maories, and has of late incurred the enmity of colonists by
developing, when pressed by hunger in winter, an extraordinary
habit of assaulting sheep, picking holes with its powerful beak in

628 NESTOR

their side, wounding the intestines, and so causing the animals’
death. The lacerations are said to be made so uniformly in one
place as to suggest deliberate design ; but the bird’s intent has yet
to be investigated, though it is admittedly an eater of carrion in
addition to its ordinary food, which, like that of the Kaka, consists
of fruits, seeds, and the grubs of wood-destroying insects, the last
being obtained by stripping the bark from trees infested by them.
The amount of injury the Kea inflicts on flock-masters has doubt-
less, as always happens in similar cases, been much exaggerated, for
Dr. Menzies states (Trans. N. Zeal. Inst. xi. p. 8377) that on one
“run,” where the loss was unusually large, the proportion of sheep
attacked was about one in three hundred, and that those pasturing
below the elevation of 2000 feet are seldom disturbed.

On the discovery of Norfolk Island (10th October 1774) a
Parrot, thought by Forster to be specifically identical with the
‘“Kaghaa” (as he wrote the name) of New Zealand,—though his
son (Voyage, ii. p. 446) remarked that it was ‘infinitely brighter
coloured,’—was found in its hitherto untrodden woods. Among the
drawings of Bauer, the artist who accompanied Robert Brown and
Flinders, is one of a Nestor marked “ Norfolk Is!. 19 Jan. 1805,” on
which Von Pelzeln in 1860 founded his JV. norfolcensis. Meanwhile
Latham, in 1822, had described, as distinct species, two specimens
evidently of the genus Nestor, one, from the collection of Mr. Thomas
Wilson of Maidenhead, said, but doubtless erroneously, to inhabit
New South Wales, and the other brought by Col. Hunter from
Norfolk Island. In 1836 Gould described an example, without any
locality, in the museum of the Zoological Society, as Plyctolophus
productus, and when some time after he was in Australia, he found
that the home of this species, which he then recognized as a Nestor,
was Phillip Island, a very small adjunct of Norfolk Island, and not
more than five miles distant from it. Whether the birds of the two
islands were specifically distinct or not we shall perhaps never know,
since they are all extinct (EXTERMINATION, pp. 223, 224), and no
specimen undoubtedly from Norfolk Island seems to have been pre-
served ;2 while, now that we are aware of the great diversity in
colour, size, and particularly in the form of the beak, to which the
New-Zealand members of the genus are subject, it would be unsafe
to regard as specific the differences pointed out by Von Pelzeln

1A third form, from an unknown locality, has been distinguished as J.
esslingi (Rev. Zool. 1856, p. 223), and has been regarded by several writers, and
among them Count T. Salvadori (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xx. p. 8), as a good species,
though Sir W. Buller (B. N. Zeal. ed. 2, i. pp. 150-175) believes it to be, like
his own JN. occidentalis and N. superbus, as well as the so-called N. montanus
of Haast, founded on individual variation.

2 Canon Tristram (bis, 1892, p. 557) believes that one in his possession had
this origin, and so it may prove.

NESTS—NIDICOLZE 629

from Bauer’s drawing. The Phillip-Island Nestor may be distin-
guished from both of the New-Zealand species by its somewhat
smaller size, orange throat, straw-coloured breast, and the generally
lighter shade of its tints.

The position of the genus Nestor in the Order Psittact must be
regarded as uncertain. Garrod removed it altogether from the
neighbourhood of the Lories (Proc. Zool. Society, 1874, p. 597), to
which indeed the structure of its tongue, as previously shewn by
him (op. cit. 1872, p. 789), indicates only a superficial resemblance.
Like so many other New-Zealand forms, Nestor seems to be isolated,
and may fairly be deemed to represent a separate Family—WNestoridx
—a view adopted by Count T. Salvadori (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xx.
Introd. p. viii.), and fully justified by a cursory examination of its
osteology, though this has hitherto been only imperfectly described
and figured (Eyton, Osteol. Avium, p. 72; A. B. Meyer, Abbild. von
Vogel-Skeletten, p. 18, pl. 23).

Further knowledge of this very interesting form may be facili-
tated by the following references to the Transactions and Proceedings
of the New Zealand Institute, ii. pp. 64, 65, 387 ; iii. pp. 45-52, 81-
Brea 200.5 vi pps 114, 12851 p..340; x. p. 192; x1. pi
377; and of course to Sir Walter Buller’s Birds of New Zealand,
especially the second edition.

NESTS, see NIDIFICATION.

NIAS (Fr. Niais, and that from the Low Latin Nidaz, a nest-
ling), corruptly “ Eyas” or ‘‘ Eyess,” a falconer’s term for a Hawk
that has been brought up from the nest, in contradistinction to
a “Haggard” or Hawk that has been caught wild.

NIDICOLA:, a word used in this work in no systematic sense,
but as a convenient term to indicate those Birds, the young of
which remain in the nest for a shorter or longer time as opposed to
Nipiruc#, or those whose chicks are hatched in a condition
_ enabling them to leave their birthplace at once. The Midicolz, all
of which have their eyes closed at coming into the world, may be
divided into four categories, according to their initial state and the
way in which they subsequently develop :—

(1) Those born with a clothing of “Neossoptiles” (see
FEATHERS, p. 243), as Accipitres, Alcidx (partly), Caprimulgi, Colum-
bidx, Eurypyga, Heliornis (excl. Podica), Sphenisci, Striges, Tubinares.

(2) Those born naked or nearly so, but soon acquiring a thick
clothing of neossoptiles, often of complicated structure, as Ardex
(+ Scopus), Cathartx, Ciconiz ( + Platalea), Podica, Steganopodes.

(3) Those born naked, but with a few neossoptiles growing out
of the tip of the ‘‘ Teleoptiles” (see FEATHERS, p. 243) as Passeres,
Upupide.

(4) Those born naked and never acquiring neossoptiles, nearly

630 NIDIFICA TION

all being birds that breed in holes, as Alcedines, Bucerotidx, Coracude,
Cuculidx, Cypseli, Meropide, Momotidx, Musophagidx, Pici, Todide,
Trochilide.

The Bucconidx, Coliidx, Eurylemidx, Galbulide and Trogonidx are
probably all naked.

Menura is said to have downy nestlings.

Opisthocomus is born with open eyes, but is fed by its parents,
and has an imperfect nestling plumage.

The interesting correlation between Neossoptiles and permanent
Downs (see FEATHERS, p. 242) is shewn (T'hter-reich, Vogel, Systemat.
Theil, pp. 76:85).

NIDIFICATION, or the building of the nest in which the Eccs
are to be incubated and hatched, is with most Birds the beginning of
the real work of the breeding-season, to which SONG and its con-
comitant actions are but the prelude or the accompaniment; but
with many it is a labour that is sceamped if not shirked. Some of the
AUK tribe place their single egg on a bare ledge of rock, where its
peculiar conical shape is but a precarious safeguard when rocked by
the wind or stirred by the thronging crowd of its parents’ fellows.
The Stone-CURLEW and the NicHTJAR deposit their eggs without the —
slightest preparation of the soil on which they rest; yet this is not
done at haphazard, for no birds can be more constant in selecting,
almost to an inch, the very same spot which year after year they
choose for their procreant cradle! In marked contrast to such
artless care stand the wonderful structures which others build for
the comfort or safety of their young. But every variety of dis-
position may be found in the Class. The Apteryx (Kiw1) seems to
entrust its abnormally big egg to an excavation among the roots of
a tree-fern ; while a band of female OSTRICHES scrape holes in the
desert-sand, and therein promiscuously dropping their eggs cover
them with earth, and leave the task of incubation to the male, who
discharges the duty thus imposed upon him by night only, and
trusts by day to the sun’s rays for keeping up the needful, fostering
warmth. Some MEGAPODES bury their eggs in sand, leaving them,
as many Reptiles do, to come to maturity by the mere warmth of the
ground, while others raise a huge hotbed of dead leaves wherein they
deposit theirs; but in either case the young are hatched without
further care on the part of either parent. The GREBES and some
RAILS seem to avail themselves in a less degree of the heat generated
by vegetable decay (b. Norf. iii. p. 240),? and dragging from the
bottom or sides of the waters they frequent fragments of aquatic

1] make this statement literally on the experience of my brother Edward
and myself, but I believe it will be abundantly confirmed by the evidence of other
observers.

2 Mr. Southwell found the temperature of an unincubated nest of Podicipes
cristatus to be 67°, that of two incubated nests to be 72° and 73° respectively,

NIDIFICA TION 631

plants form of them a rude half-floating mass which is piled on some
growing water-weed—but these birds do not spurn the duties of
maternity. Many of the GULLS, SANDPIPERS, and PLOVERS lay their
eggs in a shallow pit which they hollow out in the soil, and then as
incubation proceeds add thereto a low breastwork of haulm. The
Ringed Plover commonly places its eggs on shingle, which they so
much resemble in colour; but when breeding on grassy uplands it
paves the nest-hollow with small stones. PiGEONS mostly make an
artless platform of sticks so loosely laid together that their pearly
treasures may be perceived from beneath by the inquisitive observer.
The Pre, as though conscious that its own thieving habits may be
imitated by its neighbours, surrounds its nest with a hedge of thorns.
Very many birds of very different groups bore holes in some sandy
cliff, and at the end of their tunnel deposit their eggs with or with-
out bedding. Such bedding, too, is very various in character ;
thus, while the SHELD-DRAKE and the Sand-MarrTIN supply the
softest of materials,—the one of down from her own body, the other
of feathers collected by dint of diligent search,—the KINGFISHER
forms in the course of incubation a couch of the undigested spiny
fish-bones which she ejects in pellets from her own stomach. Other
birds, as the WoopPECKERS, hew holes in living trees, even when
the timber is of considerable hardness, and therein establish their
nursery. Some of the Swirts secrete from their salivary glands
a fluid which rapidly hardens as it dries on exposure to the air
into a substance resembling isinglass, and thus furnish the “edible
birds’ nests” that are the delight of Chinese epicures. In the
architecture of nearly all the PASSERES, too, some salivary secretion
seems to play an important part. By its aid they are enabled to
moisten and bend the otherwise refractory twigs and straws and
glue them to their place. Spiders’ webs also are employed with
great advantage for the purpose last mentioned, but perhaps chiefly
to attach fragments of moss and lichen so as to render the whole
structure less obvious to the eye of the spoiler. The TAILOR-BIRD
deliberately spins a thread, and therewith sews together the edges
of a pair of leaves to make a receptacle for its nest; while the
Fantail WARBLER, by a similar process of stitching—even making
a knot at the end of the thread—unites as a sheltering canopy
above its nest the upper ends of the grass stems amid which it is
built. Beautiful too is the felt fabricated of fur or hairs by the
various species of TrrmousE, while many birds ingeniously weave
into a compact mass both animal and vegetable fibres, forming an
admirable non-conducting medium which guards the eggs from the
extremes of temperature outside. Such a structure may be open
and cup-shaped, supported from below as that of the CHAFFINCH and

and that of a nest of Fulica atra to be 61°, while the maximum temperature of the
air that day was 58° Fahr.

632 NIDIFICA TION

GoLDFINCH, domed like that of the WREN and Bottle-Titmouse, slung
hammock-wise as in the case of the Golden-crested Wren and the
ORIOLES, or suspended by a single cord as with certain GROSBEAKS
and HumMMING-BIRDS. Under such circumstances it is even some-
times needful to balance the nest lest the weight of the growing
young should destroy the equipoise, and, precipitating them on the
ground, dash the hopes of the parents, and compensation in such
cases is applied by loading the opposite side of the structure with
lumps of earth. Certain WARBLERS (Aedon and Thamnobia) for
some unascertained reason invariably lay a piece of snake’s slough
in their nests—to repel, it has been suggested, marauding lizards
who may thereby fear the neighbourhood of a deadly enemy. The
clay-built edifices of the SWALLOW and MARTIN are known to every-
body, and the NUTHATCH plasters up the gaping mouth of its nest-
hole till only a postern large enough for entrance and exit, but easy
of defence, is left. In South America we have the subfamily Pur-
nariine (OVEN-BIRD), which construct of mud on the arching roots
of the mangrove or the branches of other trees globular “ ovens,” so
to speak, wherein the eggs are laid and the young hatched. The
FLAMINGO erects in the marshes it frequents a mound of earth some
two feet in height, with a cavity atop, on which the hen, having
oviposited, is said to sit astride with dangling legs, and in that
remarkable attitude perform the duty of incubation. The females
of the HORNBILLS, and perhaps of the Hoopors, submit to incar-
ceration during this interesting period, the males immuring them
by a barrier of mud, leaving only a small window to admit air and
food, which latter is assiduously brought to the prisoners.

But though in a general way the dictates of hereditary instinct
are rigidly observed by Birds, in many species a remarkable degree
of elasticity is exhibited or the rule of habit is rudely broken.
Thus the noble FALCON, whose ordinary eyry is on the beetling
cliff, will for the convenience of procuring prey condescend to lay
its eggs on the ground in a marsh, or appropriate the nest of some
other bird in a tree. The Golden EAGLE, too, remarkably adapts
itself to circumstances, now rearing its young on a precipitous ledge,
now on the arm of an ancient monarch of the forest, and again on
a treeless plain, making a humble home amid grass and herbage.
HERONS also shew the same versatility, and will breed according to
circumstances in an open fen, on sea-banks or (as is most usual) on
lofty trees. Such changes are easy to understand. The instinct
of finding food for the family is predominant, and where most
food is there will the feeders be gathered together. This explains,
in all likelihood, the associated bands of Ospreys or Fish-Hawks,
which in North America breed (or used to breed) in large companies
where sustenance is plentiful, though in the Old World the same

1 As before noticed (pp. 255, 256), this statement has been impugned.

NIDIFICATION 633

species brooks not the society of aught but its mate. Birds there
are of eminently social predilections. In Europe, excepting Sea-
fowls—whose congregations are universal and known to all—we
have perhaps but the Herons, the FIELDFARE, and the Rook, which
habitually flock during the breeding-season ; but in other parts of
the world many birds unite in company at that time, and in none
possibly is this habit so strongly developed as in the ANIS of the
Neotropical Region, the Republican Swallow of North America,
and the Sociable Grosbeak (WEAVER-BIRD) of South Africa, which
last joins nest to nest until the tree is said to break down under
the accumulated weight of the common edifice.!

In the strongest contrast to these amiable qualities is the para-
sitic nature of the Cuckows of the Old World and the Cow-BirRDs
of the New, but this peculiarity of theirs has been already dwelt
upon. Enough to say here that the egg of the parasite is introduced
into the nest of the dupe,.and after the necessary incubation by the
fond fool of a foster-mother the interloper successfully counterfeits
the heirs, who perish miserably, victims of his superior strength.
The whole process has been often watched, but the reflective
naturalist will pause to ask how such a state of things came about,
and there is not much to satisfy his enquiry. Certain it is that
some birds whether by mistake or stupidity do not unfrequently
lay their eggs in the nests of others. It is within the knowledge
of many that Pheasants’ eggs and Partridges’ eggs are often laid
in the same nest, and it is within the knowledge of the writer that
Gulls’ eggs have been found in the nests of E1prer-Ducks, and vice
versa ; that a REDSTART and a Pied FLYCATCHER, or the latter and
a TITMOUSE, will lay their eggs in the same convenient hole—the
forest being rather deficient in such accommodation; that an OWL
and a GOLDEN-EYE will resort to the same nest-box, set up by a
scheming woodsman for his own advantage ; and that the STARLING,
which constantly dispossesses the Green Woodpecker, sometimes
discovers that the rightful heir of the domicile has to be brought
up by the intruding tenant. In all such cases it is not possible to
say which species is so constituted as to obtain the mastery ; but
just as it is conceivable that in the course of ages that which was

1 There are not many works on nidification, for ‘‘Caliology” or the study of
nests has hardly been deemed a distinct branch of ornithological study. A good
deal of instructive matter (not altogether free from error) will be found in Rennie’s
Architecture of Birds (London: 1831), and there is Mr. Wallace’s most interest-
ing dissertation, ‘‘ A Theory of Birds’ Nests,” originally published in the Journal
of Travel and Natural History (1868, p. 73), and reprinted in his Contributions
to the Theory of Natural Selection (London: 1870). Andrew Murray’s and the
Duke of Argyll’s remarks on this essay are contained in the same volume of the
Journal named (pp. 137 and 276). The late Mr. J. G. Wood’s Homes without
Hands, perhaps the best of his books, contains a popular account of many Birds’
nests, but is devoid of scientific treatment and disfigured by some glaring errors.

634 NIDIFICA TION
driven from its home might thrive through the fostering of its
young by the invader, and thus the abandonment of domestic duties
would become a direct gain to the evicted householder; so the
bird which, through inadvertence or any other cause adopted the
habit of casually dropping her eggs in a neighbour’s nest, might
thereby ensure a profitable inheritance for endless generations of
her offspring. ‘This much granted, all the rest will follow easily
enough, but it must be confessed that this is only a presumption,
though a presumption which seems plausible if not likely.
Incubation is performed, as is well known, by the female of nearly
all Birds, but with most of the Passeres and many others the male
seems to share her tedious duties, and among the RartIrTé,
apparently without exception, the cock ordinarily takes that office on
himself. There are a few groups or perhaps species in which the
same practice is suspected to obtain—certain of the Limicolx for
instance, the Gopwits (Limosa), the PHALAROPES (Phalaropus), and
the DorrerEL (Hudromias morinellus)—and in these it is to be
remarked that the hen is larger and more brightly coloured than
her mate. Owing to the unfortunate neglect of those who have
the best opportunities of making the needful observations,! the
period of incubation has been ascertained in comparatively few
birds, and it is here possible to deal with that subject only in the
most vague and general language. It may be asserted that most of
the smaller Passeres of Europe hatch their young in from 13 to
15 days, but in a few species the term is believed to be shortened
to 10 or 11 days, while in the largest of that Order, the Raven,
it may be lengthened to some 18 or 19 days. The Barndoor-
fowl ordinarily takes 21 days, but the Pheasant, though so
very nearly allied, takes two or three days longer. Most Water-
birds, so far as is known, and the smaller Birds-of-Prey seem
to require as long a time, but the TUBINARES are said (Ibis,
1892, p. 581) to take 35 days, while the Gannet needs at least
39; and in the Swan incubation lasts from 35 to 40 days, and
in the Condor, according to Broderip (Notebook of a Naturalist,
p. 14), 54 days. The temperature of the air is commonly credited
with having something to do either in hastening or retarding
exclusion from the egg, but to what extent, or even whether
justly so or not, seems in the absence of precise experiments
to be doubtful. Certain birds occasionally begin brooding so soon
as the first egg is laid,? and this practice unquestionably has its
advantages, since the offspring being of different ages thereby
become less of a burthen on the parents which have to minister

1 The most valuable papers on the subject are by Mr. William Evans (Jbis,
1891, pp. 52-93; and 1892, pp. 55-58).

2 This scems to be very often the case with the Owls; but, if my observation
is not mistaken, the habit is not constant even with the same individual bird.

NIDIFUG4—NIGHTINGALE 635

to their wants, while the fostering warmth of the earlier chicks can
hardly fail to aid the development of those which are unhatched,
during the absence of father and mother in search of food; but
most birds, and it need scarcely be said, all those the young of
which run from their birth, await the completion of the clutch
before sitting is begun. The care bestowed, by almost every
species, on the infant-brood, is proverbial, and there is hardly any
extremity of danger which one at least of the anxious parents will
not incur to ward off injury from their progeny.

NIDIFUGA/, a word used in this work in contradistinction to
NIDICOL (p. 629) to signify those Birds which are able, at
hatching or immediately after, to leave the nest. They are all
born with their eyes open and are thickly clothed with Neossoptiles
(FEATHERS, p. 243) of simple structure, as Alcidx (portion), Anatide,
Colymbi, Dicholophus, Galline, Grues, Laride, Limicolx, Otidide,
Palamedex, Pheenicopteri, Podicipedide, Pterocles, Ralli, Ratitx, Tinami,
Turnices.

Opisthocomus, though born with open eyes, and able to creep about
on the branches, has but few Neossoptiles and is fed by its parents.

As previously remarked (page 244) the condition of the first
plumage is of little taxonomic value. This applies with still more
force to the difference between Nidicole and Nidifuge. Taken as a
whole the latter comprise most of the phylogenetically older groups ;
but any of them may include some closely-allied members which
have reached the developmental level of the former—the Alcidz,
Pigeons, Plovers and Fowls for example. Most if not all Nidicolx
feed their young, but there are also many Nidifugz which prefer
being fed by their parents though they can feed themselves—
for instance the Gulls.

In order to shew the utterly useless nature of these characters
in the hands of various systematists it will be enough to state that
Newman considered Gulls and Birds-of-Prey to be “ gymnogenous ”
or born naked: Bonaparte held all the Alcidx and the Sphenisci to
be “ PR&cOcES” but the Laridx to be ALTRICES: Sundevall classed
Herons and Storks, Sphenisci and Tubinares among the Pre&coces ;
while Mr. Seebohm informs us (Classif. B. p. 9) that Pigeons do
not pass through a downy stage.

NIGHT-HAWK, locally applied in parts of England to the
NIGHTJAR, and in North America to species of the genus Chordiles.

NIGHT-HERON, see HERON, page 420.

NIGHTINGALE (Anglo-Saxon, Nihtegale, literally “singer of
the night”), the bird justly celebrated beyond all others by
European writers for the admirable vocal powers which, during
some weeks after its return from its winter-quarters in the south, it

636 NIGHTINGALE

exercises at all hours of the day and night. The song itself is inde-
scribable, though several attempts, from the time of Aristophanes to
the present, have been made to express in syllables the sound of its
many notes; and its effects on those that hear it depend so much on
their personal disposition as to be as varied as are its tones. To
some they suggest melancholy ; and many poets have discanted on
the bird (which they nearly always make of the feminine gender)
leaning its breast against a thorn and pouring forth its melody in
anguish. It is accordingly to be observed that the cock alone sings,
and that there is no reason to suppose that the cause and intent of
his SONG, unsurpassed though it be, differ in any respect from that
of other birds. Sadness, therefore, is certainly the last impelling
sentiment that can be properly assigned in this case. In great
contrast to the Nightingale’s pre-eminent voice is the inconspicuous
coloration of its plumage, which is alike in both sexes, and is of a
reddish-brown above and dull greyish-white beneath, the breast
being rather darker, and the rufous tail shewing the only bright
tint. The range of this bird in Europe has already been so fully
described (GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, pp. 339-341) as to render
a further account of it needless. The Nightingale reaches its
English home about the middle of April,t the males (as is usual
among migratory birds) arriving some days before the females; and,
often stopping on their way, letting their song be heard in places
they do not habitually frequent, pass to their proper breeding-
quarters. At this time they run very great danger from bird-
catchers, for their capture is effected with facility, and it is painful
to add that of those then caught nine-tenths are said to die within a
month. Fortunately for the species, it receives great protection from
the practice of game-preserving, which guards from intrusion so many
of the localities it affects, and there is probably no country in which
the Nightingale breeds more abundantly and in greater security
than in England. On the cocks being joined by their partners,
the work for which the long and hazardous journey of both has
been undertaken is speedily begun, and before long the nest is
completed. This is of a rather uncommon kind, being placed on or
near the ground, the outworks consisting chiefly of a great number of

1 Poets and novelists are apt to command at will the song of this bird,
irrespective of season. . If the appearance of truth is to be regarded, it is danger-
ous to introduce a Nightingale as singing in England before the 15th of April or
after the 15th of June. The ‘‘ Early Nightingale” of newspaper paragraphs is
generally a Song-Thrush. Mr. Harting has pointed out to me that the well-known
and beautiful passage in which Izaak Walton speaks of this bird’s song is an
adaptation of one in D’Arcussia’s Lettres de Philoierax & Philofalco (No. 24); but
the way in which Walton turns the idea expressed shews great superiority over
the original, the words of which are ‘‘O quel doit estre le concert des Anges du
Ciel, puis que ces Anges terrestres nous extasient par leurs chants ?”

NIGHTINGALE 637

dead leaves ingeniously applied together so that the plane of most is
nearly vertical, ‘The mass is wrought so as to contain in the middle
a deep cup-like hollow, neatly lined with fibrous roots, but the
whole is so loosely constructed, and depends for lateral support so
much on the stems of the plants among which it is generally built,
that a very slight touch disturbs its beautiful arrangement. Herein
from four to six eggs of a deep olive colour are duly laid, and the
young hatched. If the latter, when nearly fit to fly, be taken from
the nest, they can with proper care be reared by hand, and this is
the only justifiable mode of proceeding for those who wish to keep
this fine songster in confinement, as, if the birds survive their first
moult, they may live for some years in a cage, and the cocks will
in due time exercise their full vocal powers. The nestling plumage
of the Nightingale differs much from that of the adult, the feathers
above being tipped with a buff spot, just as in the young of the
REDBREAST, REDSTART and Hedge-SpaRRow, thereby pointing to
the affinity of all these forms. Towards the end of summer the
Nightingale disappears, and but little has been observed of it in its
winter-retreats, which are presumably in the interior of Africa. One
of the few records of it at that season proves that it visits the Gold
Coast (bis, 1872, p. 291).

The Nightingale is the Motacilla luscinia in part of Linneus, and
the Daulias luscinia of some modern ornithologists. In the east of
Europe a second species occurs which was not discriminated by
Linneus, though long known to German bird-fanciers as the Sprosser.
This, the Sylvia philomela or Daulias philomela of many scientific
writers, is a somewhat larger bird, which fact, and the presence of
some faint spots on its breast, have caused it to receive the English
name of Thrush-Nightingale. Its westward range appears to be
limited to the valley of the Rhine, and the statement that it has
occurred in England is erroneous. Its song is louder than that of
the true Nightingale, but not so sweet in tone or so varied in note.
Still further to the eastward, extending from the Caucasus through
Persia to Turkestan, and occasionally occurring in winter in
India, is a third species, almost simultaneously described in Berlin
and Moscow as Luscinia golzi and L. hafizi (see Radde, Orn. Cawcas.
p. 247, pl. xv. and Oates, Faun. br. Ind. birds, ii. p. 101). The
name Nightingale has been vaguely applied to several other birds.
The so-called ‘‘ Virginian Nightingale” is a species of GROSBEAK
(p. 387), and the REDWING, strangely enough, has been often spoken
of as the “Swedish Nightingale.” ?

1 The Nightingale holds a place in classical mythology. Procne and Philo-
mela were the daughters of Pandion, king of Attica, who in return for warlike aid
rendered him by Tereus, king of Daulis in Thrace, gave him the first-named in
marriage. ‘l'ereus, however, being enamoured of her sister, feigned that his
wife was dead, and induced Philomela to take her place. On her discovering the

638 NIGHT/JAR

NIGHTJAR or GOATSUCKER, a bird from very ancient times
absurdly believed to have the habit implied by one of the common
names it bears in many European tongues besides our own—as
testified by the Greek AiyoOjAas, the Latin Caprimulgus, Italian
Succiacapre, Spanish Chotacabras, French Tettechévre, and German
Ziegenmelker. It is admittedly the type of a very peculiar and
distinct Family, Caprimulgidx, a group remarkable for the flat head,
enormously wide mouth, large eyes, and soft, pencilled plumage
of its members, which vary in size from that of a Lark to that of a
Jay. Its position has been variously assigned by systematists.
Prof. Huxley considered it to form, with two other Families—the
Cypselide (Swikt) and Trochilide (HUMMING-BIRD)—the division
CYPSELOMORPHH. The same view was taken in 1884 by Dr.
Reichenow ; but in 1885 Dr. Stejneger proposed to place it ina
“Superorder ” Coracoidex along with Steatornis (GUACHARO), Coraciidx
(RoLLER) and Leptosomatide ; while in 1888, Prof. Fiirbringer put
it between the Rollers and OWLs, with which it forms in his opinion
a group Coraciiformes. There are two ways of regarding the
Caprimulgide—one including the genus Podargus (MOREPORK) and
its allies, the other recognizing them as a distinct Family, Podargidx,
as is done among others by Mr. Hartert (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xvi.
pp. 519-654). As a matter of convenience the last are here
comprehended in the Caprimulgidx, which will then contain two
subfamilies, Cuprimulgine and Podargine ; for what, according to
older authors, constitutes a third, though represented only by
Steatornis, the singular GUACHARO or Oil-bird, certainly requires
separation as an independent Family.

Some of the differences between the Caprimulgine and Podarginx
were pointed out by Mr. Sclater (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1866, p. 123), and
are very obvious. In the former, the outer toes have four phalanges
only, thus presenting a very uncommon character among Birds, and
the middle claws are pectinated ; while in the latter the normal
number of five phalanges is found, the claws are smooth, and other
distinctions more recondite have also been indicated by him (tom.
cit. p. 582). The Caprimulgine may be further divided into those
having the gape thickly beset by strong bristles, and those in which
there are few such bristles or none—the former containing the

truth, he cut out her tongue to hinder her from revealing his deceit ; but she
depicted her sad story on a robe which she sent to Procne ; and the two sisters
then contrived a horrible revenge for the infidelity of Tereus, by killing and serv-
ing to him at table his son Itys. Thereupon the gods interposed, changing
Tereus into a Hoopoe, Procne into a Swallow, and Philomela into a Nightingale,
while Itys was restored to life as a Pheasant, and Pandion (who had died of grief
at his daughters’ dishonour) as a Bird-of-Prey (see Osprey). The fable has
several variants. Ovid’s version may be seen in the 6th Book of his Jeta-
morphoses (lines 412-676).

NIGHT/JAR 639

genera Caprimulgus, Antrostomus, Nyctidromus, and others, and the
latter. Podager, Chordiles, Lyncornis, and a few more.

The common Nightjar of Europe, C. ewropexus, arrives late in
spring from its winter retreat in Africa, and its presence is soon
made known to us by its habit of chasing its prey, consisting chiefly
of moths and cockchafers, in the evening-twilight. As the season
advances the song of the cock, from its singularity, attracts attention
amid all rural sounds, It seems to be always uttered when the
bird is at rest, though the contrary has been asserted, and is the
continuous repetition of a single burring note, as of a thin lath fixed
at one end and in a state of vibration at the other, loud enough
to reach in still weather a distance of half-a-mile or more. On the

dds

Wise

Nicatsar, Caprimulgus europxus.

wing, while toying with its mate, or performing its rapid evolutions
round the trees where it finds its food, the bird has the habit of
oceasionally producing another and equally extraordinary sound,
sudden and short, but somewhat resembling that made by swinging
a thong in the air, though in what way this noise is produced is not
ascertained. In general its flight is silent, but at times when
disturbed from its repose, its wings may be heard to smite together.
The Nightjar or, to use perhaps its commoner English name,
Goatsucker,! passes the day in slumber, crouching on the ground or
perching on a tree—in the latter case sitting not across the branch
but lengthways, with its head lower than its body. In hot weather,
however, its song may sometimes be heard by day and even at
noontide, but it is then uttered, as it were, drowsily, and without the

1 Other English names of the bird are Churn-Owl, Evejar, Fern-Owl, Night-
Hawk, Puckeridge and Wheel-bird—the last from the bird’s song resembling the
noise made by a spinning-wheel in motion.

640 NIGHT/JAR

vigour that characterizes its crepuscular or nocturnal performance,
Towards evening the bird becomes active, and it seems to pursue its
prey throughout the night uninterruptedly, or only occasionally
pausing for a few seconds to alight on a bare spot—a pathway or
road—and then resuming its career. It is one of the few birds that
absolutely make no nest, but lays its pair of beautifully-marbled
eggs on the ground, generally where the herbage is short, and often
actually on the soil. So light is it that the act of brooding, even
where there is some vegetable growth, produces no visible depression
of the grass, moss, or lichens on which the eggs rest, and the finest
sand almost equally fails to exhibit a trace of the parental act. Yet
scarcely any bird shows greater local attachment, and the precise
site chosen one year is almost certain to be occupied the next
(NIDIFICATION, p. 630). The young, covered when hatched with
dark-spotted down, are not easily found, nor are they more easily
discovered on becoming fledged, for their plumage almost entirely
resembles that of the adults, being a mixture of reddish-brown,
grey, and black, blended and mottled in a manner that passes
description. They soon attain their full size and power of flight,
and then take to the same manner of life as their parents. In
autumn all leave their summer haunts for the south, but the exact
time of their departure has hardly been ascertained. The habits of
the Nightjar, as thus described, seem to be more or less essentially
those of the whole subfamily—the differences observable being
apparently less than are found in other groups of birds of similar
extent.

A second species of Nightjar, C. rujicollis, which is somewhat
larger, and has the neck distinctly marked with rufous, is a summer
visitant to the south-western parts of Europe, and especially to Spain
and Portugal. Hancock recorded (Ibis, 1862, p. 39) the occurrence
of a single example of this bird at Killingworth, near Newcastle-on-
Tyne, in October 1856 ; but the season of its appearance argues the
likelihood of its being but a casual straggler from its proper home.!
Many other species of Caprimulgus inhabit Africa, Asia and their
islands, while one, C. macrurus, ranges very widely and is found: in
Australia. Very closely allied to this genus is Antrostomus,? an
American group containing several species, of which the Chuck-will’s-
widow, A. carolinensis, and the Whip-poor-will, 4. vociferus, of the
eastern United States (the latter also reaching Canada) are familiar
examples. Both these birds take their common name from the cry
they utter, and their habits seem to be almost identical with those of
the Old-World Nightjars. Passing over some other forms which need

1 A third species, C. egyptius, recognizable by its pale coloration, has occurred
about half a dozen times in Europe, and once even in England (Zool. 1883,
pp. 374, 375).

2 Mr. Hartert (op. cit. p. 521) denies its generic validity, and not unjustifiably.

—_—

ae Ae 8 T

NIGHT/JAR 641

not here be mentioned, the genus Vyctidromus, though consisting of only
one species (JV. albicollis) which, though varying somewhat in size and
coloration, ranges from Texas to Southern Brazil, requires remark,
since it has tarsi of sufficient length to enable it to run swiftly on the
ground, while the legs of most birds of the Family are so short that
they can make but a shuffling progress. The South-American
Heleothreptes, with the peculiar form of wing (counting from the
wrist, in which the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th primaries are greatly elongated)
possessed by the male, needs mention ; but a still more exaggerated
condition exists in two African species, referred by some ornithologists

PENNANT-WINGED NicHTsaR, Macrodipteryx.
(After sketch from life by J. Gedge.)

to as many genera (Macrodipteryx and Cosmetornis) though probably
one genus would suffice for both. The males of each of them are
characterized by the wonderful development of the 2nd primary,
which reaches in adult specimens the extraordinary length of 17
inches or more. The former of these, the Caprimulgus macrodipterus
of Afzelius, seems to have the more northern range, occurring across
the continent from Abyssinia to the West Coast, and the shaft of
the elongated remiges is bare for the greater part of its length,
retaining the web, in a spatulate form, only near the tip. The
latter, to which the specific name of vevil/larius was given by Mr.
Gould, inhabits equatorial Africa, and thence to Damaraland on

41

642 NIGHTJAR

the east and Fernando Po on the west, and is reported to have
occurred in Madagascar and Socotra. In this the remigial streamers
do not lose their barbs, and as a few of the next quills are also to
some extent elongated, the bird, when flying, is said to look as
though it had four wings. Specimens of both are rare in collections,
and no traveller seems to have had the opportunity of studying the
habits of either so as to suggest a reason for this marvellous sexual
development, though the late Mr. Joseph Gedge, who accompanied
Sir Samuel Baker’s expedition to the Soudan, on one occasion
observed a Macrodipteryx squatting on the ground with its long
remiges erected perpendicularly, and the accompanying figure is from
a sketch sent by him to his friend Mr. Marlborough Pryor.

The second group of Caprimulgine, those which are but poorly
or not at all furnished with rictal bristles, contains about five genera,
of which there is here only room to particularize Lyncornis of the
Old World and Chordiles of the New. The species of the former
are remarkable for the tuft of feathers which springs from each side
of the head, above and behind the ears, so as to give the bird an
appearance like some of the “ Horned” Owxis—those of the genus
Scops, for example; and remarkable as it is to find certain forms of
two Families, so distinct as are the Strigid# and the Caprimulgidex,
resembling each other in this singular external feature, it is yet
more remarkable to note that in some groups of the latter, as in
some of the former, a very curious kind of DimorpHisM takes place.
In either case this has been frequently asserted to be sexual, but on
that point doubt may be fairly entertained. Certain it is that in some
groups of Nightjars, as in some groups of Owls, individuals of the
same species are found in plumage of two entirely different hues—
rufous and grey. ‘The only explanation as yet offered of this fact is
that the difference is sexual, but, as just hinted, evidence to that effect
is conflicting. It must not, however, be supposed that this common
feature, any more than that of the existence of tufted forms in each
group, indicates any close relationship between them. The resem-
blances may be due to the same causes, concerning which future
observers may possibly enlighten us, but at present we must regard
them as analogies, not homologies. The species of Lyncornis inhabit
the Malay countries, one, however, occurring in Burma and India.
Of Chordiles the best-known species is the Night-hawk of North
America, C. virginianus or popetue, which has a wide range from
Canada to Brazil. Others are found in the Antilles and in South
America.

We have next to consider the birds forming the genus Podargus
and those allied to it, whether they be regarded as a distinct Family,
er as a subfamily of Caprimulgide. As above stated, they have
feet constructed as those of Birds normally are, and their sternum
seems to present the constant though comparatively trivial difference

NIGHT-RAVEN—NODDY 643

of having its posterior margin elongated into two pairs of processes,
while only one pair is found in the Cuprimulgine. Podargus includes
the bird, P. cuviert, known from its cry as Morepork to Tasmanian
colonists, and several other species, the number of which is doubt-
ful, from Australia and New Guinea. They have comparatively
powerful bills, and, it would seem, feed to some extent on fruits and
berries, though they mainly subsist on insects, chiefly Cicade and
Phasmidz. They also differ from the true Nightjars in having the
outer toes partially reversible, and they are said to build a flat nest
on the horizontal branch of a tree for the reception of their eggs,
which are of a spotless white. Apparently allied to Podargus, but
differing among other respects in its mode of nidification, is A’gotheles,
which belongs also to the Australian Region; and further to the
northward, extending throughout the Malay Archipelago and into
India, comes Fatrachostomus, wherein we again meet with species
having “ear”-tufts somewhat like Lyncornis. The Podargine are
thought by some to be represented in the New World by the genus
Nyctibius, of which several species occur from the Antilles and
Central America to Brazil. Finally, it may be stated that none of
the Caprimulgid# seem to occur in Polynesia or in New Zealand,
though there is scarcely any other part of the world suited to their
habits in which members of the family are not found.

NIGHT-RAVEN, a bird frequently met with in fiction, but ap-
parently nowhere else.

NINE-KILLER or NINE-MURDER, old and obsolete render-
ings of the German Neunlédter or Neunmérder, names applied to more
than one species of Lanius (SHRIKE) and due to the belief that each
of the shambles of one of these birds displays the remains of nine
victims (“ Nimmurder” by misprint, Cotgrave, 1611, sub voce
“ Escriere ”).

NODDY, the name applied, originally by sailors, to a sea-bird
from its shewing so little fear of man as to be accounted stupid.’ It
is the Sterna stolida of Linneeus, and the Anous stolidus of modern
ornithology, having the figure of a TERN, and belonging to the sub-
family Sterninx, but is heavier in flight, with shorter wings and the
tail less deeply forked. The plumage is of a uniform sooty hue,
excepting the crown of the head, which is light grey. The Noddy is
very generally distributed throughout the tropical or nearly tropical
oceans, but occasionally wanders into colder climates, and has been
met with even in the Irish Sea. It breeds often in astounding
numbers, on islands, even low cays and coral islets, commonly making

1 Nodden, used by Chaucer, the old form of nod, is to drop the head suddenly
as in falling asleep, and hence comes Sir Thomas Browne’s nodipol—a sleepy
head, a simpleton—the modern noodle. Noddle, a jocular word for the head, is
possibly allied, as I am told by Prof. Skeat.

644 NONPAREIL

a shallow nest of sea-weed or small twigs, which may be placed on
the ground, on a tuft of grass, or in the fork of a tree, while some-
times it lays its eggs on a barerock. Mr. Saunders (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1876, pp. 669-672) admitted four other species of the genus :—
Anous tenuirostris, supposed to be confined to the southern part of
the Indian Ocean, from Madagascar to West Australia; A. melano-
genys, often confounded with the last, but having nearly as wide a
range as the first; and A. leucocapillus, hitherto known only from
Torres Strait and the Southern Pacific. These three have much
resemblance to. A. stolidus, but are smaller in size, and the two latter,
which have the crown white instead of grey, are now considered
to be identical. The fourth species, 4. cxruleus, with which he
then included the A. cinereus of some authors, but subsequently
(op. cit. 1878, pp. 211, 212) recognized the last as distinct, differs
not inconsiderably, being of a dove-colour, lighter on the head and
darker on the back, the wings bearing a narrow white bar, with
their quill-feathers blackish-brown, while the feet are reddish and
the webs yellow. ‘Three more species—A. superciliosus from the
Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, 4. plumbeigularis from the Red
Sea, and A. galapagensis from the Galapagos—were added by Dr.
Sharpe (Philos. Trans. clxviii. pp. 468, 469); while Mr. Rothschild
has described and figured (Avifauna of Laysan, p. 43, pl.) the birds
which frequent the Sandwich Islands as forming a tenth—ZJA.
hawatriensis.

NONPAREIL, the name under which, from its supposed match-
less beauty, a little cage-bird, chiefly imported from New Orleans,
has long been known to English dealers (cf. Edwards, Gleanings,
i. p. 132). It is the Hmberiza ciris of Linneeus and the Cyanospiza,
Spiza or Passerina ciris of recent ornithologists, belonging to a small
group, which, in the present state of knowledge, cannot with
certainty be referred either to the Buntings or to the Finches, while
some authors have regarded it as a TANAGER. The cock has the
head, neck, and lesser wing-coverts bright blue, the upper part of
the back yellow, deepening into green, and the lower parts generally,
together with the rump, bright scarlet, tinged on the latter with
purple. This gorgeous colouring is not assumed until the bird is
at least two years old. The hen is green above and yellow beneath ;
and the younger cocks present an appearance intermediate between
the adults of either sex. The species, often called also the Painted
Bunting, after wintering in Central America or Mexico, arrives in
the southern States of the American Union in April, but does not
ordinarily proceed to the northward of South Carolina. In

1 According to information supplied to Dr. F. Penrose (bis, 1879, p. 280) this
species took up a station in 1878 on the Island of Ascension in large numbers, it
having been hitherto unknown there.

NOPE—NULLIPENNES 645

Louisiana, where it is especially the Pape of the French-speaking
inhabitants (see BISHOP-BIRD, page 40) it is said to be very
abundant; and on its appearance in spring advantage is, or
was, taken of the pugnacious disposition of the males (which so
often accompanies a brilliant sexually-distinct plumage) to capture
them alive in great numbers by means of the stuffed skin of one so
placed in connexion with a cage-trap that they instantly fall into
the latter on attacking what they conceive to be a rival. In this
way many thousands are said to have been taken formerly. The
prisoner usually reconciles himself to his fate, and in a few days
will utter his sprightly though not very powerful song; and, if
provided with a mate and proper accommodation, will breed and
rear a family in confinement. Belonging to the same genus as the
Nonpareil is the INDIGO-BIRD, Cyanospiza cyanea, which, as a summer
visitant, is widely diffused from the Missouri to the Atlantic, and
extends into the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick, being
everywhere regarded with favour. Though wanting most of the
bright hues of its congener, the Indigo-bird has yet much beauty,
the adult cock being nearly. all over of a deep blue, changing,
according to the light, to green. The hen is brown above and
ochreous-white beneath. This species is represented in the western
part of the continent by the Lazuli-Finch, C. amena, the male of
which has the upper parts greenish-blue, the wings barred with
white, a pectoral band of light chestnut extending to the flanks on
each side, and the lower parts white. Of the three remaining
species of the genus, C. versicolor shews in the male a plumage
beautifully varied with brownish-red, violet, and blue ; C. leclanchert
is bluish-green above and yellow beneath, with an orange breast ;
while C. rositx, though quite distinct, comes nearest in coloration to
C. ciris. These three have a more southern range than the other
three; but the first of them is believed occasionally to cross the
Mexican frontier into the United States. None of the species of
Cyanospiza are thought to occur further south than the isthmus of
Panama; but the wonderful Ciridops anna of Hawaii (Wilson and
Evans, Birds of the Sandwich Islands) is possibly allied to this genus.

NOPE, a name of the BULLFINCH, said to be an old corruption
of ALP or some other form of that word (see page 10) which has taken
on an initial n borrowed from the indefinite article an.!

NORFOLK PLOVER, a needless book-name for the Stone-
CURLEW (see page 129), apparently invented by Pennant in 1766.

1 Like @ newt for ‘‘an ewt” (or eft), a nickname for ‘‘an ekename,” a noke
for ‘San oak,” and several other words (cf. Skeat, Htymol. Dict. sub litt. N) ;
but the only case among English birds’ names where the converse process, or loss
of a real initial n, has happened as in adder for ‘‘nadder,” auger for “‘ nauger,”
seems to be that of eyas for ‘‘ N1As.”

646 NUN—NUTCRACKER

NULLIPENNES, Lesson’s name in 1831 (Zr. @Orn. p. 11) for
a group of birds to consist of the genus Apteryx (rw); but lately
applied in error (Century Dictionary, sub voce) to the PENGUINS.

NUN (printed “Non” in Merrett’s Pinaz, p. 183), the adult
male SMEW, from his delicate white and black plumage, and also
said to be a local name of the Blue Titmouse, Parus ceruleus,
according to Charleton (Onomast. p. 90), from its banded head ; but
the French Nonnetie and the German Nonnenmeise are names of the
Marsh-Titmouse, P. palustris.

NUTCRACKER, the name given in 1758 by Edwards (Glean-
ings, i. p. 63, pl. 240) to a bird which had hitherto none in English,
though described in 1544 by Turner, who, meeting with it in the
Rhetic Alps, where it was called “Nousbrecher” (hodie “ Nuss-
brecher ”), translated that word into Latin as Nucifraga. In 1555
Gesner figured it and conferred upon it another designation,
Caryocatactes. Willughby and Ray obtained it on the road from
Vienna to Venice as they crossed what must have been the Sém-
merring Pass, 26th September 1663; and it has a wide range in
the northern parts of the Palearctic area, chiefly keeping to sub-
alpine or subarctic pine-forests, and apparently nowhere numerous,
though roving bands of seventy or one hundred have occasionally
been observed in autumn, at which season it can be often seen in
suitable localities in several European countries. It is the Corvus
caryocatacies of Linneeus, the Nucifraga caryocatuctes of modern orni-
thology.! The first known to have occurred in Britain was, according
to Pennant, shot at Mostyn in Flintshire, 5th October 1753, while
about fifteen more examples have since been procured, and others
seen, in this island. For many years nothing was known of this
bird during the breeding-season, when it seemed to disappear from
sight, and this notwithstanding the interest taken in the search for
its nest and eggs. It is now pretty clear that the discovery was
due to the Abbé Caire of Saniéres in the Lower Alps, but though he
obtained an egg in 1846, he was unable to produce proof of the fact,
and the truth was not ascertained until some sixteen years later by
the Danish oologists HH. Fischer and Erichsen, who after much
labour found and took nests and eggs in the island of Bornholm.?
The Nutcracker breeds very early in the year, long before the

1 A monograph of the species by the Ritter Victor von Tschusi-Schmid-
hoffen was printed at Dresden in 1874 with the title of Der Tannenheher, one of
its many German names.

2 Many other claimants appeared in the meanwhile without making good
their pretensidns. The story of the discovery is told with some details in
Yarrell’s British Birds (ed. 4, ii. pp. 332-337). The egg of the Nutcracker seems
to have been first figured by Bideker (Journ. fiir Orn. 1856, pl. i. fig. 1), but the
first specimen with an undeniable history, being from Bornholm as above stated,
in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society (1867, pl. xv. fig. 2).

NUTHATCH 647

snows are melted, and this fact coupled with that of its becoming, like
a JAY, silent in the breeding-season, when at other times it is rather
noisy than not, will account for the mystery which so long en-
wrapped its domestic arrangements; but, now that the secret has
been divulged, nests and eggs have been found without much diffi-
culty in various parts of Europe, and contrary to what was for
many years believed, the nest seems to be invariably built on the
bough of a tree, some 20 feet from the ground, and is a comparatively
large structure of sticks lined with grass. The eggs are of a very
pale bluish-green, sometimes nearly spotless, but usually more or less
freckled with pale olive or ash-colour. The chief food of the Nut-
cracker, though it at times searches for insects on the ground,
appears to be the seeds of fir-trees, which it extracts as it holds the
cones in its foot, and it has been questioned whether the bird has
the faculty of cracking nuts—properly so called—with its bill,
though that can be used with much force and, at least in confine-
ment, with no little ingenuity. Considerable difference has been
observed in the form and size of the bill of examples of this species,
but as in the case of the Huta (page 437) this is now supposed to
depend on the sex—that of the cock being stout and short, while
in the hen it is long and thin. The bird is about the size of a Jay,
and of a dark sooty-brown colour spangled with white, nearly each
body-feather ending in a tear-shaped patch of that colour. Beside
the European species, which also extends into Northern or Central
Asia, three others, very nearly akin to it, have been described from
the Himalayas. Of their American cousin, Clark’s Crow, as it is
ealled (Picicorvus columbianus), inhabiting only the western slopes of
the Rocky Mountains, and discovered during the famous expedition
of Lewis and Clark to the mouth of the Columbia River in 1804-6,
an excellent account has been given by Dr. Coues (Jlis, 1872, pp.
52-59).

The old supposition that the Nut-crackers had any affinity to
the Picide (WOODPECKER) or were intermediate in position between
them and the Corvidx (CROW) is now known to be wholly erroneous,
for they undoubtedly belong to the latter Family.

NUTHATCH, in older English Nurwack, and locally Nut-
JOBBER, from its habit of hacking or chipping nuts, which it
cleverly fixes, as though in a vice, in a chink or crevice of the
bark of a tree, and then hammers them with the sharp point of
its bill till the shell is broken. This bird was long thought to be
the Sitta europea of Linneus ; but that is now admitted to be the
northern form, with the lower parts white, and its buff-breasted
representative in central, southern, and western Europe, including
England, is known as Sitta cxsia. It is not found in Ireland, and
in Scotland its appearance is merely accidental. Without being

648 NUTMEG-BIRD

very plentiful anywhere, it is generally distributed in suitable
localities throughout its range—those localities being such as afford
it a sufficient supply of food, consisting during the greater part of
the year of insects, which it diligently seeks on the boles and
larger limbs of old trees; but in autumn and winter it feeds on
nuts, beech-mast, the stones of, yew-berries and hard seeds. Being
of a bold disposition, and the trees favouring its mode of life often
growing near houses, it will become on slight encouragement familiar
with men; and its neat attire of ash-grey and warm buff, together
with its sprightly gestures, render it an attractive visitor. It generally
makes its nest in a hollow branch, plastering up the opening with
clay, leaving only a circular hole just large enough to afford entrance
and exit; and the interior contains a bed of dry leaves or the filmy
flakes of the inner bark of a fir or cedar, on which the eggs are
laid. Corsica has a Nuthatch peculiar to itself and remarkable for
its black crown, the S. whiteheadi of Dr. Sharpe, and in the Levant
occurs a third species, S. syriaca, with somewhat different habits, as
it haunts rocks rather than trees; while four or five representatives
of the European arboreal species have their respective ranges from
Asia Minor to the Himalayas and Northern China. North America
possesses nearly as many ; but, curiously enough, the geographical
difference of coloration is just the reverse of what it is in Europe—
the species with a deep rufous breast, S. canadensis, being that which
has the most northern range, while the white-bellied S. carolinensis,
with its western form, S. aculcata, inhabits more southern latitudes.
The Ethiopian Region seems to have no representative of the group,
unless it be the Hypositta corallirostris of Madagascar. Cailisitta and
Dendrophila are nearly allied genera, inhabiting the Indian Region,
and remarkable for their beautiful blue plumage; but some doubt
may for the present be entertained as to the affinity of the Australian
Sittella, with four or five species, found in one or another part of
that continent, which doubt is increased by the late Mr. W. A.
Forbes’s discovery (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, pp. 569-571) that the genera
Acanthidositta (SPINEBILL) and Xenicus, peculiar to New Zealand,
. and hitherto generally placed in the Family Sittidx, belong really
to the Mesomyodian group and are therefore far removed from it.
The true Si/tide seem to be intermediate between the Paridx
(T1TMousE) and the Certhiidz (TREECREEPER), and some authors
comprehend them in either one or the other of those groups.

NUTMEG-BIRD, the dealers’ name in common use for J/uma
punctulata (COWRY-BIRD, page 108), but apparently of somewhat
recent origin.

OAT-FOWL—ODONTORNITHES 649

O

OAT-FOWL, a local name for the Snow-BunTING ; OATSEED-
BIRD for the Yellow WacrTait.

OCCIPUT, properly the hinder part of a bird’s head, from the
crown backward, as opposed to Sincrput, but often used vaguely
for the whole cap.

OCTOBER BIRD, in the Antilles used for the BoBoLtiNK, from its
arriving there in that month (B. Edwards, His?. W. Ind. i. p. 99, note).

OCYDROME, see WEKA.

ODONTOGLOSS 4H, Nitzsch’s name in 1840 (Pterylographie, p.
191) for a group consisting of the genus Phenicopterus (FLAMINGO).

ODONTOLC., see ODONTORNITHES.

ODONTOPHORIN 4, the supposed subfamily containing the
American QUAILS (¢f. COLIN), upon the distinctness of which from
those of the Old World some systematists have laid unnecessary
importance. Dr. Coues (Key N.-Am, Birds, ed. 1884, p. 594) says
that he knows no characters to distinguish the true Quails from the
so-called Odontophorine.

ODONTORNITHES; a term proposed in 1873 by Prof.
Marsh (4m. Journ. Sci. ser. 3, v. pp. 161, 162) to designate a
so-called Subclass of birds, consisting of the genera Hesperornis
and Ichthyornis (both of which had been named in the previous
year) from the cretaceous deposits of Kansas, and characterized
by the presence of teeth (Fig. 1). Its founder after-
wards subdivided this group (op. cit. x. pp. 403-408) .
into the two Orders ODONTOLC® and ODONTOTORM ;
the former, represented by Hesperornis and characterized
by having the teeth (Fig. 2) placed in grooves, hetero-
ccelous vertebra, and the abortion of the carina sterni (
with a generally Ratite conformation of the scapular pig 4,
arch (Fig. 3); while the latter, typified by Ichthyornis, Toorn or
was distinguished by the presence of distinct sockets MPStPROnsIS.
for the teeth (Fig. 5), amphiccelous vertebre (Fig. 6), ieee ee
and the Carinate modification of the sternal apparatus. — Lydekker's
Subsequent writers have disputed the expediency of Palwontolovy,

: 2 Sy foie x 1 i after Marsh.)
this proposal, for Prof. Cope in 1875 (Vert. Cretac.
Form. of the West, pt. iii. p. 245) and Prof. Seeley in 1876 (Q. Journ.

1 Again indebted to Mr. Lydekker’s kindness for an article worthy of the
closest attention, I wish to guard myself against its being taken as the expres-
sion of my own views on one of the hardest subjects that the ornithologist has
to consider, and one still open to various interpretations. —A. N.

650 ODONTORNITHES

Geol. Soc. xxxii. p. 496) referred Hesperornis to the “ Natatores.”
In 1881, M. Dollo (Bull. sc. Départ. dw Nord, ser. 2, iv. p. 300) pro-

Fig. 2.--MANDIBLE OF HESPERORNIS. (As before, after Marsh.)

nounced it to be ‘‘une autruche carnivore aquatique.” This notion
was popularized in 1884 by Prof. Wiedersheim (Biolog. Centralbl.
ii. p. 690), while Prof. Dames in the same year (Palexontol. Abhandl.
ii. pt. 3) took niuch the same view, as did also (though in a different

Fig. 3.—STerRNAL APPARATUS OF HespErornis. (As before, after Marsh.)
e coracoid ; f, furcula; h, humerus; s, scapula; st. sternum.

fashion) an author in the Encyclopedia Britannica (ed. 9, xviii. pp.
43, 44), and Prof. von Zittel (Handb. Palexozool. Abth. I, iii.
pp. 826, 834). Almost simultaneously, however, Prof. Vetter
(Festschr. der Ges. Isis in Dresden, 1885, p. 109) explained Hesper-

Fig. 4.—PrEtvis oF HEespERORNIS. (As before, after Marsh.)
a, acetabulum ; il. ilium ; is. ischium ; », pectineal process ; p’, os pubis.

ornis as a Carinate Bird, exclusively adapted to aquatic life, and
having no affinity to the Ratitx, though since he regarded these last
as reduced Carinatx its mutual relation to the Ratite was obvious,
and people began to confound them, speaking almost in M. Dollo’s

ODONTORNITHES 651

phrase of it as a “Swimming Ostrich.” About the same time it
was found that the presence of teeth was a character apparently
common to all ‘Cretaceous” Birds. The opinions expressed by
Prof. Fiirbringer in the earlier portion of his great work need not
be here adduced, since they were modified in the course of its pro-
gress; but he finally declared (Untersuchungen, u. s. w. pp. 1543,
1565, 1580) that the Odontolew were the ancestral relations of
his ‘“ Colymbo-Podicipites,” with which they formed his Suborder
“ Podicipitiformes,” while a similar view was taken in 1890 by
Prof. D’Arcy Thompson (Stud. Mus. Dundee, No. 10).

As to the Odontotormz Prof. Marsh has displayed commendable
caution. On account of some similarity, the significance of which
may or may not be important, he based his restoration of [chthyornis
on Sterna (TERN), a fact which has led to exaggerated if not mis-
taken views, for he was careful to state that Ichthyornis seemed to
have points of resemblance to Ardea, Ciconia, Colymbus, Phalacro-
corax and even to the Accipitres, while its posterior extremities alone
indicated a structure similar to that of the Laridw# and Alcidz. In
1893 Dr. Gadow (Thier-reich, Vogel, i. p. 119) suggested that the low
characters of Jchthyornis shew it to be the beginning of the Carinatz.

In 1891 the present writer (Cat. Foss. B. Br. Mus. pp. 200 et seqq.),
while fully admitting both the Colymbine affinities of Hesperornis
and the Larine resemblances of Jchthyornis, proposed to retain the
term Odontornithes for a series of Birds ancestral to the modern series
of toothless Carinatx, adopting (op. cit. p. 2) for the latter, but in a
wider sense, Dr. Stejneger’s name (Stand. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 64) of
Ewornithes. In addition to the presence of teeth, the extinct series
differs from the Huornithes by the absence of union between the rami
of the mandible, and between the distal ends of the ilium and ischium.

“Whatever may be the ultimate verdict on these points of
classification, it would seem probable that Hesperornis should be
regarded as an offshoot from the same ancestral stock as the’ one
from which the modern Colymbidx have originated; such ancestral
stock being characterized by the presence of tceth, absence of
ancylosis between the mandibular rami, and want of union
between the spike-like patella and the upwardly-produced cnemial
crest of the tibia. On the other hand, the abortion of the keel of
the sternum, as well as the gencral Ratite modification of the
scapular arch, are features peculiar to Hesperornis, and not common
to the ancestral type; being, in fact, nearly analogous to those
presented by Didus among the Columbe. 'The typical species of
Hesperornis (H. regalis) was of large size, attaining a length of about
six feet; while a second species (H. crassipes) was still more gigantic.
Both were aquatic, and probably very similar in their general
habits to the Divers. Probably more or less closely allied to this
genus was the much smaller Colymbiform bird from the Cambridge

652 ODONTORNITHES

Greensand, named by Prof. Seeley in 1869 Hnaliornis, and the
closely allied Lapiornis from the North American Cretaceous (see
Fossiz Birps). While possessing heteroccelous cervicals, it is
believed that Hnaliornis had its dorsal vertebrae amphiccelous.
‘Retaining in their amphiccelous vertebre evidence of their
reptilian ancestry which is lost in the more specialized Hesperornis,

Fig. 5.—ManbIs_e or Icarnyornis. (As before after Marsh.)

the small Gulllike birds known as Jchthyornis may probably be
regarded as holding a somewhat more intimate relationship to the
modern LimicoL& and GAVL& than is presented by the former to
the Pyaopopxs, the specialization connected with the absence of
flight in the former genus being want-
ing. Traces of affinity with [chthyornis
are, Indeed, indicated by the more
or less markedly opisthoceelous dorsal
vertebre of the Limicole and Gavix ;
-but whereas both these groups have
an ectepicondylar process to the
humerus, and an extensor bony bridge
SUP Vichy, VERTEBRA OW TenEZORNIS, to the. sibio-tarsus; emelther of these
FROM FRONT AND SIDE. .
(As before, after Marsh.) features are present in the cretaceous
genus. The fenestration of the meta-
sarpus characteristic of the Gaviv is, moreover, wanting in
Ichthyornis. Hence it would appear that we must regard all
the above-mentioned features characterizing the existing groups
named as of comparatively late origin; while the differences
between the extinct and living forms appear to the writer far too
important to admit, as has been proposed, of their inclusion in
a single ordinal group. Although Apatornis, from the Yellow Chalk
of Kansas, and as yet imperfectly known, was apparently an allied
type, distinguished by the great development of the acromial pro-
cess of the scapula, and the stouter hind limbs, the remaining
genera of (? toothed) birds from the same horizon referred to the
Odontornithes are named on the evidence of such incomplete
remains, that it is impossible to speak of their affinities with
certainty ; all that can be said for them will be found in their
describer’s magnificent work forming the first volume of the
Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Yale College.
RICHARD LYDEKKER.

Fig. 6.

1 Odontornithes : a Monograph on the Extinct Toothed Birds of North America.
By Othniel Charles Marsh. Fol. New Haven, Conn. : 1880,

ODONTOTORM 4—OIL-GLA ND 653

ODONTOTORM A, see ODONTORNITHES.

(ESOPHAGUS (Greek oicoddyos), so named by Aristotle, the
gullet or “swallow” of plain English (cf DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, page
136), the part of the alimentary canal from the LARYNX (page
512) to the Sromacu. It passes down the right and dorsal side of
the TRACHEA, with which and other adjoining parts it is connected
by loose tissue, entering the thoracic cavity dorsally from the
BRONCHI (page 58), and when not distended it forms numerous
longitudinal folds owing to the yielding nature of the tunica mucosa
(page 137). Deglutition is aided by simple mucous glands, but in
many birds the middle portion of the Cisophagus forms a per-
manent dilatation, the Crop (page 113), to the outer surface of
which thin but broad bands of striped or voluntary muscle are
generally attached. These may arise from the FURCULA (page 296)
as in Pigeons, or from the skin of the neck as in the Gallinz, and
their action assists the conveyance of the food from the crop to the
stomach. During this process, especially if only little and dry food
be left, Birds, Parrots for instance, may be occasionally observed to
stretch their neck and gape widely with their mouth.

OIL-BIRD, see GUACHARO.

OIL-GLA ND (glandula uropygialis), in Birds the only cutaneous
gland except some small organs in the external ear-passages. Con-
sisting of two symmetrical portions, more or less united posteriorly
in shape of a heart—since each half is broad and rounded in front
and pointed behind—it is seated upon the levator muscles at the
root of the tail. Internally it is formed of numerous secretory
tubules which gradually unite in a common cavity opening on the
surface through a variable number of orifices—there being from 3 to
5 of them in many Water-birds, though only one to each half in
Anseres—frequently prolonged in form of a nipple and occasionally
united in a single tube, the double origin of which is, however,
shewn by a median septum. In the Hoopoe alone, according to
Nitzsch, there is but one orifice to the common cavity, wherein the
stinking secretion of the gland, for which the female during incuba-
tion and the young while they stay in the nest are notorious, is
stored. The whole structure, which is surrounded by connective
tissue and unstriped muscular fibres, is innervated by the first
caudo-spinal nerves, and its blood-supply is in connexion with the
caudal arteries and veins.

In the majority of Birds this gland is well developed, being
largest in those of aquatic habit, and especially in the TUBINARES
and STEGANOPODES, as well as in Pandion (OSPREY) ; but it is also
large in Steatornis (GUACHARO). It exists, though hardly in a
functional condition, in certain PIGkONS (Ptilopus), Cacatua cristata
(Cockatoo), and most Caprimulgi (NIGHTJAR), while in other

654 OLD MAN—OLIGOM YODA

Pigeons as Didunculus (DoDLET), Goura and Treron; in other
Cockatoos, in several PARROTS (Chrysotis and Pionus), in Podargus
(NIGHTJAR), Otis, Argusanus and the Fatitx it is absent. This irregu-
larity shews that it has not much value as a taxonomic character ;
but attention to other peculiarities in its form or structure has been
drawn by Nitzsch and Garrod, and especially to the presence or
absence of a circlet of feathers surrounding the nipple-like orifice,
and when that occurs the skin covering the gland is naked, while
when the circlet is wanting the whole is covered with down inter-
spersed with stiff feathers. Among the birds to which the last
condition appliés are the Bucconidx, Caprimulgi (excl. Podargus),
Cariama, Coraciide, Cuculide, Cypseli, Galbulidx, Leptosomus, Mero-
pidzx, Momotidx, Steatornis and Trogonidx, while by far the greater
number of birds possess the tuft.

Analysis of the secretion of the Oil-gland shews that its com-
position closely resembles that of the sebaceous product of Mammals ;
but that it differs from milk through the absence of sugar. Its use
is probably the anointing of the plumage, and the presence of
POWDER-DOWNS in Cacatua, Chrysotis and Podargus may possibly
indicate some correlation between these organs and the oil-gland.1

OLD MAN, the name in Jamaica for Hyetornis pluvialis, one of
the Cuckows which is also called Rain-bird, as are others of the
Family.

OLD SQUAW and OLD WIFE are two of the many names of
the Long-tailed Duck, the former necessarily of transatlantic origin.

OLECRA NON, the proximal end of the ULNA, projecting back-
ward from and beyond its articulation with the HuUMERUS, being
practically equivalent to the point of the elbow. It serves as a
lever during the extension of the wings, the tendons of the triceps
muscle being inserted on the Olecranon.

OLIGOMYOD, Prof. Huxley’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867,
p. 471) for the group of Passerine Birds having but few song-
muscles (SYRINX) which Johannes Miiller had previously called
PICARIL.

1 Tt seems that it would be improper here to overlook a controversy on this
still unsettled question which, though now wholly forgotten, was carried on, to
the amusement of our predecessors, in the later volumes of Loudon’s Magazine
of Natural History, and in the early years of The Zoologist. Waterton, with
the mistaken zeal he so frequently exhibited, maintained that the gland had no
lubricating function, chiefly because he had observed that the so-called ‘‘rump-
less” breed of Fowls, in which the gland is wanting, kept their feathers as glossy
as other Fowls which possessed it. He was easily victorious so long as he had to
deal only with the late Mr. F. O. Morris, but when he met with an adversary
like the late Mr. C. A. Bury, who knew something about birds, was a good
observer and could write rationally, Waterton’s mistaken position seems to have
become plain to him, and he retired from the contest.—A. N.

OLIVE—ORA NGE-BIRD 655

OLIVE, a local name of the OYSTER-CATCHER, and apparently
a corruption of OLAF, which is said also to be used (Christy,
B. Essex, p. 238), and if so the word should be more properly spelt
Olave, that being the English form of the sainted Danish king’s
name. (Cf. KNot, said to be from Cnut.)

OLPH (see ALP and Nope), with the prefix “Blood” a local
name of the BULLFINCH, with that of ‘‘Green” of the GREENFINCH.

OMBRE or OMBRETTE, see HAMMER-HEAD.

O-O (variously spelt), the name given in the Sandwich Islands
to birds of the genus Acrulocercus (Mohoa of some writers), one of
the Meliphagide (HONEY-SUCKER), of which 4 species, inhabiting as
many islands, have been described. The yellow axillary tufts of
one of them, A. nobilis, peculiar to Hawaii, have been greatly
sought for the beautiful featherwork of the natives since the Mamo!
(DREPANIS) became rare.

OPEN-BILL (French Bec-owvert), one of the names” given to
birds of the genus <Anastomus,
allied if not- actually belonging
to the Ciconiide (Stork), but by
some® regarded as constituting a
distinct Family. Two species
have long been known—one In-
dian, parti-coloured, 4. oscitans,
pondicerianus or coromandelianus; the other African and dark
coloured, 4. lamelligerus, so called from the curious flattening
and broadening into shining horny-plates of its feather-shafts,
especially on the lower parts. In 1880, Prof. Alphonse Milne-
Edwards described the form inhabiting Madagascar as distinct,
A. madagascariensis, It differs chiefly from the African in its
smaller size, and the deeper grooving of the bill.

OPISTHOCOMUS, see Hoactrzin.

ORANGE-BIRD, a name in Jamaica for Spindalis (properly
Spindasis) nigricephala, wrongly identified by Gosse (B. Jam. p. 251)
with the Fringilla zena of Linnus (which proves to be peculiar to
Bahama), one of the TANAGERS, and so-called, says the former,
“from the resemblance of its plump and glowing breast to that

Britt or ANasTomMus. (After Swainson.)

1 At pages 166 and 225 this species was mentioned as extinct: an example,
however, was obtained in 1892, and its remains are in Mr, Rothschild’s collec-
tion, }

2 Others, and more recent, are Shell-eater, Shell-Ibis, and Snail-eater, of
which the first two are incorrect, and the latter far from distinctive, though these
birds feed chiefly on mollusks of the genera Ampullaria and Unio.

3 Of. Garney in Andersson’s B. Damara Land, p. 283; Oates in Hume's
Nests and Eggs Ind. B. ed. 2, iii. p. 224.

656 ORGAN-BIRD—ORIOLE

beautiful fruit.” He assigns to it also the name of Cashew-bird ;
but it is not the CASHEW-BIRD of older authors.

ORGAN-BIRD, the name in Tasmania for the species cf
GYMNORHINA there found (Gould, Handb. B. Austral. i. p. 178).

ORGANIST, the English rendering of the Organiste of Buffon
(ist. Nat. Ois. iv. p. 290), though it may be questionable whether
all the information he ates really refers to this species, which is the
Pipra musica of Gmelin, and Huphonia musica of modern ornithology,
an inhabitant of Hispaniola. Other congeneric species inhabit
Jamaica, Porto Rico and some of the Lesser Antilles, though none
is found in Cuba, while many more occur from Mexico throughout
Central and most parts of South America. Mr. Sclater recognizes
33 species in all (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xi. pp. 58-83). ;

ORIOLE, from the Old French Oriol and that from the Latin
aureolus, the name once applied, from its golden colouring, to the
bird generally admitted to be the Vireo or IcTERUS (page 457)
of classical authors—the Oriolus galbula of Linnzeus—but now
commonly used in a much wider sense. The Golden Oriole,
which is the type of the Family Oriolidz of modern ornithologists,
is a far from uncommon spring-visitor to the British Islands ;
but the conspicuous plumage of the male—bright yellow contrasted
with black, chiefly on the wings and tail—always attracts atten-
tion, and usually brings about its death. Yet a few instances are
known in which it is supposed to have bred in England. The nest
is a beautifully interwoven fabric, suspended under the horizontal
fork of a bough, to both branches of which it is firmly attached,
and the eggs are of a shining white sometimes tinged with pink,
and sparsely spotted with dark purple. On the Continent it is a
well-known though not an abundant bird, and its range in summer
extends so far to the east as Irkutsk, while in winter it is found in
Natal and Damaraland. In India it is replaced by a closely allied
form, 0. kundoo, chiefly distinguishable by the male possessing a
black streak behind as well as in front of the eye; and both in
Asia and Africa are several other species more or less resembling
O. galbula, but some depart considerably from that type, assuming
a black head, or even a glowing crimson instead of the ordinary
yellow colouring, while others again remain constant to the dingy
type of plumage which characterizes the female of the more normal
form. Among these last are the aberrant species of the group
Mimetes or Mimeta, belonging to the Australian Region, respecting
which Mr. Wallace pointed out the very curious facts—as yet only
explicable on the theory of “unconscious Mimicry”—of which
mention has already been made (pages 573, 574). The external
similarity of the Mimeta and the Philemon or Tropidorhynchus (FRIAR-
BIRD) of the island of Bouru is perfectly wonderful, and has again

=e Sh

ORNITHICHNITES—ORTHONVX 657

and again deceived some of the best ornithologists, though the
birds are structurally far apart. Another genus which has been
referred to the Oriolidx, and may here be mentioned, is Sphecotheres,
peculiar to the Australian Region, and distinguishable from the
more normal Orioles by a bare space round the eye.

The Baltimore Oriole, Orchard Oriole, and other North-American
birds to which the name has been applied, belong to the wholly
distinct Family Icteridx (ICTERUS).

ORNITHICHNITES, a word compounded from the Greek by
Hitchcock in 1832 (Am. Journ. Se. xxix. p. 315) to signify the fossil
footprints of Birds, and hence taken as the generic name of the
animals which had left those marks, but are now generally believed
to have been Dinosaurs (Fosstt Birps, page 277).

ORNITHOLITE, a stone containing the remains or impression
of the remains of a Bird.

ORNITHOLOGY, from the Greek épv6-, crude form of dpvs,
a bird (cognate with Scandin. %rn and A.S. Earn, whence our ERNe),
and Aoyia, allied to Adyos, commonly Englished a discourse. The
earliest use of the word thus spelt seems to be in the third edition
of Blount’s Glossographia (1670), where it is explained as “the
speaking of birds: the title of a late Book”? (ef. Skeat, Etymol.
Dict. p. 407).

ORNITHOTOMY, the dissection of Birds, and hence the
science thereon founded.

ORTHONYX, the scientific name given in 1820, by Temminck,
to a little bird, which, from the straightness of its claws,—a
character somewhat exaggerated by him,—its large feet and spiny
tail, he judged to be generically distinct from any other form.
Concerning its affinities much doubt long prevailed. The typical
species, O. maculatus or spinicauda, is from eastern Australia, where
it is said to be very local in its distribution, and strictly terrestrial
in its habits. In the course of time two other small birds from
New Zealand, where they are known as the “ WHITEHEAD” and

1 This book was doubtless ‘Ornitho-logie, | or | The Speech of | Birds. |
London, | Printed for John Stafford, and are to | be sold at his House, at the
George at | Flect-bridge. 1655.’ The authorship of the book, of which there are
several later editions, is ascribed by Lowndes (p. 848) to Thomas Fuller ; but
whether he was the celebrated writer of that name is doubtful. Mr, J. E. Bailey
in his Life of that worthy (London: 1874, pp. 761, 762) includes it among his
‘ spurious works,” though a later biographer, Mr. Morris Fuller (London : 1884,
ii. p. 525) accepts it as genuine. Whoever may have been the author, the word
‘Ornithologie ” is used in a sense very different from the meaning applied to it a
few years after, for this treatise is a fable, perhaps, like the agnate ‘ Anthologia’
published with it, ‘‘ Partly Morall, Partly Misticall,” and possibly has also a
political significance.

42

658 ORTOLAN

‘““YELLOWHEAD,” were referred to the genus, under the names of
O. allicillat and O. ochrocephala, and then the question of its affinity
became more interesting. By some systematists it was supposed
to belong to the otherwise purely Neotropical Dendrocolaptide
(PicucuLk), and in that case would have been the sole representa-
tive of the Tracheophone Passeres in the Australian Region. Others
considered it one of the nearest relatives of Menura, and if that
view had been correct it would have added a third form to the
small section of ‘‘PSEUDUSCINES”; while Sundevall, in 1872,
placed it not far from Zimelia, among a group the proper sorting of
which will probably for years tax the ingenuity of ornithologists.?
The late Mr. W. A. Forbes shewed (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, p. 544)
that this last position was the more correct, as Orthonyx proved on
dissection to be one of the true Oscines, but yet to stand, so far as
is known, alone among birds of that group, or any other group of
Passeres, in consequence of the superficial course taken by the (left)
carotid artery, which is nowhere contained in the subvertebral
canal. Whether this discovery will require the segregation of the
genus as the representative of a separate Family Orthonycide—
—which has been proposed by Mr. Salvin (Catal. Coll. Strickland,
p- 294)—remains to be seen.?

The typical species of Orthonyx—for the scientific name has
been adopted in English—is rather larger than a Skylark, coloured
above not unlike a Hedge-Sparrow. The wings are, however,
barred with white, and the chin, throat and breast are in the male
pure white, but of a bright reddish-orange in the female. The
remiges are very short, rounded and much incurved, shewing a
bird of weak flight. The rectrices are very broad, the shafts stiff,
and towards the tip divested of barbs. Two other species that
seem rightly to belong to the genus have been described—0. spal-
dingt from Queensland, of much greater size than the type, and
with a jet-black plumage, and 0. nove-quinex, from the great island
of that name.

ORTOLAN (Old Fr. Hortolan, mod. Fr. Ortolan), the Emberiza

1 It may be charitably conjectured that the nomenclator intended to write
albtcapilla.

2 Dr. Sharpe naturally extended his generous hospitality to Orthonyx and
placed it in his Zimeliidx (Cat. B. Br. Mus. vii. p. 329), but refused entrance to
Clitonyx, which Dr. Gadow had therefore to include (op. cit. viii. p. 75) among
the Paride—a wrong position, according to Sir W. Buller.

3 Forbes also demonstrated that one at least of the two New-Zealand species
above mentioned, O. ochrocephala, had been wrongly referred to this genus, and
they therefore at present stand as Clitonyx. Thisisa point of some little import-
ance in its bearing on the relationship of the fauna of the two countries, for
Orthonyx was supposed to be one of the few genera of Land-birds common to
both,

OSCINES 659

hortulana of Linnzus, a bird so celebrated for the delicate flavour of
its flesh as to have become proverbial, and to have given its name
to others, not all of them nearly related, which are supposed to be
as well-tasted. A native of most European countries—the British
Islands (in which it occurs but rarely) excepted—as well as of
western Asia, it emigrates in autumn presumably to the southward
of the Mediterranean, though its winter-quarters cannot be said to
be accurately known, and returns about the end of April or
beginning of May. Its distribution throughout its breeding-range
seems to be very local, and for this no reason can be assigned. It
was long ago said in France, and apparently with truth, to prefer
wine-growing districts ; but it certainly does not feed upon grapes,
and is found equally in countries where vineyards are unknown—
reaching in Scandinavia even beyond the arctic circle—and there it
generally frequents corn-fields and their neighbourhood. In appear-
ance and habits it much resembles its congener the YELLOW-
HAMMER, but wants the bright colouring of that species, its head
for instance being of a greenish-grey instead of a lively yellow.
The somewhat monotonous song of the cock is also much of the
same kind ; and, where the bird is a familiar object to the country
people, who usually associate its arrival with the return of fair
weather, they commonly apply various syllabic interpretations to
its notes, just as our boys do to those of the Yellow-hammer. The
nest is placed on or near the ground, but the eggs seldom shew the
hair-like markings so characteristic of those of most Hmberindx
(BUNTING). Ortolans are netted alive in great numbers, kept from
the light of day, and fed with millet, oats and other seeds. In a
short time they become enormously fat, and are then killed for the
table. If, as is supposed, the Ortolan be the Miliaria of Varro, the
practice of artificially fattening birds of this species is very ancient.'

In Europe the “ Beccafico” (FIG-EATER), whatever that may be,
shares with the Ortolan the highest honours of the dish, but the
former is not artificially fattened, and on this account is preferred
by some sensitive tastes to the latter.

OSCINES, the third Order of Birds according to the arrange-
ment in 1840 of Keyserling and Blasius (Wirbelth. Europ.
pp. xxxvi. and 80), consisting of forms which, among other less
important characters, are distinguished by the possession of true
song-muscles (of. SYRINX and INTRODUCTION).

1 In France the word is used so as to be almost synonymous with our ‘‘ Bunt-
ing” ; but in some of the Antilles, where French is spoken, the Ortodan is a little
Ground-Dove of the genus Chamezpelia. In North America the name is one of
the many applied to the Bogouink, so justly celebrated for its excellent flavour,
as well as to the Sora or Carolina Ratt; while by Anglo-Indians two species of
Lark (Calandrella brachydactyla and Pyrrhulauda grisea) are commonly called
Ortolans (Jerdon, B. Ind. ii. p. 373).

660 OSPIREN,

OSPRAY or OSPREY,! a word said to be corrupted from ‘ Ossi-

frage,” in Latin Ossifraga or bone-breaker.

(Hist. Nat. x. 3) and some other classical
writers seems, as already said, to have been
the LAMMERGEYER (page 503); but the
mame, not inapplicable in that case, has
been transferred—through a not uncommon
but inexplicable confusion—to another bird
which is no breaker of bones, save Incident-
ally those of the fishes it devours.? The
Osprey is a rapacious bird, of middling
size and of conspicuously-marked plumage,
the white of its lower parts, and often of
its head, contrasting sharply with the dark
brown of the back and most of its upper
parts when the bird is seen on the wing. It
is the Falco haliaetus of Linneus, but un-
questionably deserving generic separation
was, in 1810, established hy Savigny (Cis.
de I Egypte, p. 35) asthe type of a new genus

which he was pleased to term Pandion—a
name since pretty generally accepted. It

has commonly been kept in the Family
Falconidex, but of late regarded as the repre-
sentative of a separate
Family, Pandionide,
for which view not a
little can be said.?
Pandion differs from

1 Jn the so-called

“plume-trade” the word |
is applied to the feathers

taken from the back
certain EGRETS (cf. EXTER-

bridge over the same.
MINATION, p. 228). ie

2 Another supposed old form of the name is ‘‘ Orfraie”’ ;
but that is said by M. Rolland (fwune popul. France,

li. p. 9, note) quoting M. Suchier (Zeitschr. Rom.

Bones or Osprey’s Foor.
of “@, tarsometatarsal bridge over the ex-
tensor muscle of the toes ;

The Ossifraga of Pliny

b, tibial

Philol.

i, p. 482), to arise from a mingling of two wholly different sources:—(1) Ori-

pelargus, Oriperagus, Orprais, and (2) Ossifraga.

‘*Orfraie”’ again is occasionally

interchanged with “fraze (which, through such dialectical forms as Fresaie, Fres-
saia, is said to come from the Latin presaga), the ordinary French name for the
Barn-Owl, Aluco flammeus (see OWL, infra, p. 679, note 2); but the subject is

too complex for any but an expert philologist to treat.

According to Prof. Skeat

(Etymol. Dict. p. 408), ‘‘Asprey” is the oldest English form; but ‘‘ Osprey”

dates from Coterave at least.

* Dr. Sharpe goes further, and makes a ‘‘Suborder” Pandiones ; but the

OSPREY 661

the Falconidx not only pterylologically, as long ago observed by
Nitzsch, but also osteologically, as pointed out by M. Alphonse
Milne-Edwards (Ois. Foss. France, ii. pp. 413, 419), and it is a curious
fact that in some of the characters in which it differs structurally
from the Falconidx, it agrees with certain of the Owls, especially in
possessing a bony bridge or loop (a, in fig.) on the upper part of the
anterior face of the tarsometatarse, through which passes the
common extensor tendon of the toes;' and in having the exterior
toe partly reversible; but the most important parts of its internal
structure, as well as of its ptilosis, quite forbid a belief that there
is any near alliance of the two groups.

The Osprey is one of the most cosmopolitan Birds-of-Prey.
From Alaska to Brazil, from Lapland to Natal, from Japan to
Tasmania, and in some of the islands of the Pacific, it occurs as a
Winter-visitant or as a native. The countries which it does not
frequent would be more easily named than those in which it is
found —and among the former are Ireland, Iceland and New
Zealand. Though migratory in Europe at least, it is generally
independent of climate. It breeds equally on the half-thawed
shores of Hudson’s Bay and on the cays of Honduras, in the dense
forests of Finland and on the barren rocks of the Red Sea, in
Kamchatka and in West Australia. Where, through abundance of
food, it is numerous—as in former days was the case in the eastern
part of the United States—the nests of the Fish-Hawk (to use its
American name) may be placed on trees to the number of three
hundred close together. Where food is scarcer and the species
accordingly less plentiful, a single pair will occupy an isolated rock,
and jealously expel all intruders of their kind, as happens in
Scotland.? The lover of birds cannot see many more enjoyable
spectacles than an Osprey engaged in fishing—poising itself aloft,
with upright body, and wings beating horizontally, ere it plunges
like a plummet beneath the water, and immediately after reappears
_ shaking a shower of drops from its plumage. The feat of carrying

off an Osprey’s eggs is often difficult, and attended with some risk,
but has more than once tempted the most daring of birds’ nesters.
Apart from the dangerous situation not unfrequently chosen by the
birds for their eyry,—a steep rock in a lonely lake, only to be
reached after a long swim through chilly water, or the summit of a

characters on which he founds such an important division are obviously inade-
quate. The other genus associated with Pandion by him has been shewn by Mr.
Gurney (bis, 1878, p. 455) to be nearly allied to the ordinary Sea-EAGLEs
(Ealiactus), and therefore one of the true Falconide.

1 This character is possessed by the group of Owls of the subfamily Strigine,
according to the nomenclature of this work, but not by those of the Alucinz.

2 Two good examples of the different localities chosen by this bird for its nest
are illustrated in Ootheca Wolleyana, pls. B. & H.

662 OSSIFRAGE—OSTRICH -

very tall tree,—their fierceness in defence of their eggs and young
is not to be despised. Men and boys have had their head gashed
by the sharp claw of the angry parent, and this, happening when
the robber is already in a precarious predicament and unable to
use any defensive weapon, renders the enterprise formidable. But
the prize is worthy of the danger. Few birds lay eggs so beautiful
or so rich in colouring: their white or pale ground is spotted,
blotched or marbled with almost every shade of purple, orange
and red — passing from the most delicate lilac, buff and peach-
blossom, through violet, chestnut and crimson, to a nearly absolute
black. A few years ago some of the best-informed ornithologists
were led to think that persecution had extirpated the Osprey in
Great Britain, except as a chance visitant. ‘This opinion proved to
be incorrect, and at the present time the bird is believed still to
breed in at least two counties of Scotland, but the secret of its
resorts should be carefully guarded by those who wish to retain it
as a member of the country’s fauna, for indiscreet publication would
endanger its occupancy.

OSSIFRAGE, see OSPREY.

OSTRICH (Old English, Hstridge ; French, Autruche ; Spanish,
Avestiuz; Latin, Avis struthio). Among exotic birds there can
be hardly one better known by report than the strange, majestic
and fleet-footed creature that “scorneth the horse and his rider,”
or one that from the earliest times to the present has been oitener
more or less fully described ; and there must be few persons in any
civilized country unacquainted with the appearance of this, the
largest of living birds, whose size is not insignificant in comparison
even with the mightiest of the plumed giants that of old existed
upon the earth, since an adult male will stand nearly 8 feet in
height, and weigh 300 pounds.

As to the ways of the Ostrich in a state of nature, not much has
been added of late years to the knowledge acquired and imparted
by former travellers and naturalists, many of whom enjoyed oppor-
tunities that will never again occur of discovering its peculiarities,
for even the most favourably-placed of their successors in recent
years seem to content themselves with repeating the older observa-
tions, and to want either leisure or patience to make additions
thereto, their personal acquaintance with the bird not amounting to
more than such casual meetings with it as must inevitably fall to
the lot of those who traverse its haunts. Thus there are still
several dubious points in its natural history. On the other hand we
unquestionably know far more than our predecessors respecting its
geographical distribution, which has been traced with great minute-
ness in the /’égel Ost-Afrikas of Drs. Finsch and Hartlaub, who have
therein given (pp. 597-607) the most comprehensive account of the

OSTRICH. 663

bird that is to be found in the literature of ornithology.! As are
many conspicuous forms, the Ostrich is disappearing before the per-
secution of man, and this fact it is which gives the advantage to older
travellers, for there are several districts, some of wide extent, known
to have been frequented by the Ostrich within the present century,

OSTRICH.

especially towards the extremities of its African range—as on the
borders of Egypt and the Cape Colony—in which it no longer occurs,
while in Asia there is evidence, more or less trustworthy, of its

1 A good summary of it is contained in the Ostriches and Ostrich Farming of
Messrs. De Mosenthal and Harting, from which the accompanying figure is, with
permission, taken. Von Heuglin, in his Ornithologie Nordost-Afrika’s (pp. 925-
935), has given more particular details of the Ostrich’s distribution in Africa.

664 OS GRICE.

former existence in most parts of the south-western desert-tracts,
in few of which it is now to be found. Xenophon’s notice of its
abundance in Assyria (Anabasis, 1. 5) is well known. It probably
still lingers in the wastes of Kirwan in eastern Persia, whence
examples may occasionally stray northward to those of Turkestan,}
even near the Lower Oxus; but the assertion, often repeated, as to
its former occurrence in Baloochistan or Sindh, though not incredible,
seems to rest on testimony as yet too slender for acceptance.
Apparently the most northerly limit of the Ostrich’s ordinary range
at the present day cannot be further than that portion of the Syrian
Desert lying directly to the eastward of Damascus ; and, within the
limits of what may be called Palestine, Canon Tristram (Fauna and
Flora of Palestine, p. 139) regards it as but a straggler from central
Arabia, though we have little information as to its appearance and
distribution in that country. Africa, however, is still, as in ancient
days, the continent in which the Ostrich most flourishes, and from
the confines of Barbary to those of the European settlements in the
south it appears to inhabit every waste sufficiently extensive to
afford it the solitude it loves, and in many wide districts, where the
influence of the markets of civilization is feebly felt, to be still
almost as abundant as ever. Yet even there it has to contend with
deadly foes in the many species of wild beasts which frequent the
same tracts and prey upon its eggs and young—the latter especially ;
and Lichtenstein long ago remarked that if it were not for its
numerous enemies “the multiplication of Ostriches would be quite
unexampled.” The account given of the habits of the species by
this naturalist, who “had excellent opportunities of observing it
during his three years’ travels in South Africa, is perhaps one of the
best we have, and since his narrative? has been neglected by. most
of its more recent historians we may do well by calling attention
thereto. Though sometimes assembling in troops of from thirty to
fifty, and then generally associating with zebras or with some of the
larger antelopes, Ostriches commonly, and especially in the breeding-
season, live in companies of not more than four or five, one of which
is a cock and the rest are hens. All the latter lay their eggs in one
and the same nest, a shallow pit scraped out by their feet, with the
earth heaped around to form a kind of wall against which the outer-
most circle of eggs rest. As soon as ten or a dozen eggs are laid,
the cock begins to brood, always taking his place on them at night-
fall surrounded by his wives, while by day they rclieve one another,

1 Drs. Finsch and Hartlaub quote a passage from Remusat’s Remarques sur
Vextension de V Empire Chinoise, stating that in about the seventh century of our
era a live ‘‘ camel-bird” was sent as a present with an embassy from Turkestan
to China.

2M. H. K. Lichtenstein, Reise im siidlichen Africa, ii. pp. 42-45 (Berlin;
1812).

OSTRICH 665

more it would seem to guard their common treasure from jackals
and small beasts-of-prey than directly to forward the process of
hatching, for that is often left wholly to the sunt Some thirty
eggs are laid in the nest, and round it are scattered perhaps as many
more. ‘These last are said to be broken by the old birds to serve
as nourishment for the newly-hatched chicks, whose stomachs cannot
bear the hard food on which their parents thrive. The greatest
care is taken by them not only to place the nest where it may not
be discovered, but to avoid being seen when going to or from it,
and their solicitude for their tender young is no less. Andersson
in his Lake N’gami (pp. 253-269) has given a lively account of the
pursuit by himself and Mr. Francis Galton of a brood of Ostriches,
in the course of which the father of the family flung himself on the
ground and feigned being wounded to distract their attention from
his offspring. Though the Ostrich ordinarily inhabits the most arid
districts, it needs water to drink; and, moreover, it will frequently
bathe, sometimes even, according to Von Heuglin, in the sea.

The question whether to recognize more than one species of
Ostrich, the Struthio camelus of Linnzus, has been for some years
agitated without leading to a satisfactory solution.? It has long
been known that, while eges from North Africa present a perfectly
smooth surface, those from South Africa are pitted (see page 190,
note 4). It has also been observed that northern birds have the
skin of the parts not covered with feathers flesh-coloured, while
this skin is bluish in southern birds, and hence the latter have been
thought to need specific designation as S. australis. More recently
examples from the Somali country have been described as forming
a distinct species under the name of S. molybdophanes,® from the
leaden colour of their naked parts.

The genus Struthio forms the type of one group of the Subclass
RATIT#, which differs so widely from the rest, in points that have
been concisely set forth by Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867,
p. 419), as to justify us in regarding it as an Order, to which the
- name Struthiones may be applied; but that term, as well as

1 By those whose experience is derived from the observation of captive
Ostriches this fact has been disputed. But, to say nothing of the effects of the
enforced monogamy in which such birds live, the difference of the circumstances
in which they find themselves, and in particular their removal from the heat-
retaining sands of the desert and its burning sunshine, is enough to account
for the change of habit. Von Heuglin also (p. 933) is explicit on this point.
That hen Ostriches while on duty crouch to avoid detection is only natural, and
this habit seems to have led hasty observers to suppose they were really brooding.

2 Dr. Gadow tells me that the discrepancy of several accounts of the Ostrich’s
anatomy is such as to suggest the possibility of more than one species.

3 Apparently first noticed in a Berlin newspaper (Sonntagsb. d. Norddeutsch.
Allgem. Zeitung) by Dr. Reichenow, 16th Sept. 1883, and later, Mitth. Orn. Ver.
Wien, 1883, tab., and Jowrn. f. Orn. 1883, p. 399.

666 OUSEL

Struthionidx, has been often used in a more general sense by system-
atists, even to signify the whole of the Ravir#! The most
obvious distinctive character presented by the Ostrich is the pres-
ence of two toes only, the third and fourth, on each foot,—a
character absolutely peculiar to the genus Struthio.?

The great mercantile value of Ostrich-feathers, and the in-
creasing difficulty, due to the causes already mentioned, of pro-
curing them from wild birds, has led to the formation in the Cape
Colony and elsewhere of numerous “ Ostrich-farms,” on which these
birds are kept in confinement, and at regular times deprived of
their plumes. In favourable localities and with judicious manage-
ment these establishments are understood to yield very considerable
profit; while, as the ancient taste for wearing Ostrich-feathers
shews no sign of falling off, but seems rather to be growing, it is
probable that the practice will yet be largely extended.®

OUSEL or OUZEL, Anglo-Saxon Osle, equivalent of the German
Amsel (a form of the word found in several old English books, and
perhaps yet surviving in some parts of the country), apparently the
ancient name for what is now more commonly known as the BLACK-
BIRD, the Turdus merula of ornithologists, but at the present day
not often applied to that species, though, as will immediately be
seen, used in a compound form for two others. The adult male of
this beautiful and well-known bird scarcely needs any other descrip-
tion than that of the poet :—

“The Ousel-cock, so black of hue,
With orange-tawny bill.”
—Midsummer Night’s Dream, act iii. se. 1.

But the female is of an uniform umber-brown above, has the chin,
throat and upper part of the breast orange-brown, with a few dark
streaks, and the rest of the plumage beneath of a hair-brown. The

1 At one time it was not uncommon to include the BusTarps among the
Struthionide !

2 Remains of a true Ostrich have been recognized from the Sivalik formation
in India, and the petrified egg of an apparently allied form, Struthiolithus, has
been found in the south of Russia (see Fosstt Brrps, p. 285).

3 Among the more important treatises on this bird may be mentioned :—E.
D’Alton, Die Skelete der Straussartigen Vogel abgebildet wnd beschrieben, folio,
Bonn: 1827; P. L. Sclater, ‘‘On tle Struthious Birds living in the Zoological
Society's Menagerie,” Trans. Zool. Soc. iv. p. 353, containing the finest representa-
tion (pl. 67), by Mr. Wolf, ever published of the male Struthio camelus ;
Prof. Mivart, ‘‘On the Axial Skeleton of the Ostrich,” op. cit. viii. p. 385; Prof.
Haughton, ‘‘On the Muscular Mechanism of the Leg of the Ostrich, dan. Nat.
Hist. ser. 3, xv. pp. 262-272—a subject more fully treated by M. Alix in his
Essai sur Uappareil locomoteur des Oiseaux (Paris: 1874); and Prof. Macalister,
‘On the Anatomy of the Ostrich,” Proc. R&. Irish Acad. ix. pp. 1-24.

OUSEL 667

young of both sexes resemble the mother. The Blackbird is found
in every country of Europe, even breeding—though rarely—beyond
the arctic circle, and in eastern Asia, as well as in Barbary and the
Atlantic islands. Resident in Britain as a species, its numbers yet
receive considerable accession of passing visitors in autumn, and in
most parts of its range it is very migratory. The song of the cock
has a peculiarly liquid tone, which makes it much admired, but it
is too discontinuous to rank the bird very high as a musician. The
species is very prolific, having sometimes as many as four broods in
the course of the spring and summer. ‘The nest, generally placed
in a thick bush, is made of coarse roots or grass, strongly put
together with earth, and is lined with fine grass. Herein are laid
from four to six eggs of a light greenish-blue closely mottled with
reddish-brown. Generally vermivorous, the Blackbird will, when
pressed for food, eat grains and seeds, while berries and fruits in
their season are eagerly sought by it, thus earning the enmity of
gardeners. More or less allied to and resembling the Blackbird are
many other species which inhabit most parts of the world, except
ing the Ethiopian Region, New Zealand and Australia proper, and
North America. Some of them have the legs as well as the bill
yellow or orange ; and, in a few of them, both sexes alike display a
uniformly glossy black. The only one that need here be particu-
larized is the RinG-OUSEL, Turdus torquatus, which is at once dis-
tinguishable from the Blackbird by its conspicuous white gorget—
whence its name. It has also very different habits, frequenting
wild and open tracts of country, shunning woods, groves and planta-
tions, and preferring the shelter of rocks to that of trees. Its dis-
tribution is accordingly much more loeal, and in most parts of
England it is only known as a transitory migrant in spring and
autumn —from and to its hardly as yet ascertained winter
quarters.!

The WaAvTER-OUSEL, or Water-Crow—now commonly named the
“ Dipper ”—is the Cinclus aquaticus of most ornithologists, and the
type of a small but remarkable group of birds, the position of
which many taxonomers have been at their wits’ end to determine.
It would be useless here to recount the various suppositions that
have been expressed ; suffice it to say that most ornithologists are
now agreed in regarding the genus Cinclus” as differing so much

1 The Ring-Ousel of central and southern Europe presents several differences,
having most of its feathers edged with white, and is regarded by some authorities
(Stejneger, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 1886, pp. 365-372 ; Salvadori, Boll. Mus. Zool.
Torino, viii. No. 152) as a distinct species, 7. alpestris (Brehm); but Mr.
Seebohm says (Jbis, 1888, pp. 310, 311) that intermediate forms occur, and that
further to the eastward, as in Caucasia and Persia, examples shew a still greater
divergence, forming a local race to which he applies the name orientalis.

2 Some writers have used for this genus the name Hydrobata.

668 OUSEL

from other birds that, though essentially one of the true PASSERES
(i.e. OSCINES), it forms a distinct Family, Cinclidy, which has no
very near allies. That some of its peculiarities (for instance, the
sternum in adult examples having the posterior margin generally
entire, and the close covering of down that clothes the whole body
—a, character fully recognized by Nitzsch) are correlated with its
aquatic habit is probably not to be questioned; but this fact
furnishes no argument for associating it, as has often been done,
with the 7urdidx (THRUSH), the Troglodytide (WREN), or much less
with other groups to which it has undoubtedly no affinity. The
Dipper haunts recky streams, into which it boldly enters, generally
by deliberately wading, and then by the strenuous combined action
of its wings and feet makes its way along the bottom in quest of
its living prey—freshwater mollusks, and aquatic insects in their
larval, pupal or mature condition. By the careless and ignorant it
is accused of feeding on the spawn of fishes, and it has been on that
account subjected to much persecution. Innumerable examinations
of the contents of its stomach have not only proved that the charge
is baseless, but that the bird clears off many of the worst enemies
of the precious product. Short and squat of stature, active and
restless in its movements, silky black above, with a pure white
throat and upper part of the breast, to which succeeds a broad
band of dark bay, it is a familiar figure to most fishermen on
the streams it frequents, while the cheerful song of the cock,
often heard in the hardest frost, helps to make it a favourite with
them in spite of the
obloquy under which
it labours. The Water-
Ousel’s nest is a very
curious structure,—out-
wardly resembling a
Wren’s, but built on a
wholly different prin-
ciple,—an ordinary cup-
shaped nest of grass
lined with dead leaves,
placed in some con-
venient niche, but en-
cased with moss so as
to form a large mass
CINCLUS MEXICANUS. that covers it completely

except only a small hole

for the bird’s passage. The eggs laid within are from four to
six in number, and are of a pure white. These remarks refer
to the Water-Ousel of central and western Europe, including
the British Islands; but, except as regards plumage, it is be-

OVARY—OVEN-BIRD 669

lieved that they will apply to all the other species, about a
dozen in number, which have been described. These inhabit
suitable places throughout the whole Palsarctic area as well
as the southern slopes of the Himalaya and the hill-country of
Formosa, besides the Rocky Mountains and a great part of the
Andes. Mr. Salvin, in a very philosophical paper on the genus
(Ihis, 1867, pp. 109-122), refers these species—some of them
wholly black and one slate-coloured—to five well-marked forms, of
which the other members are either “representative species” or
merely “local races”; but all seem to occupy distinct geographical
areas,—the C. mexicanus represented in the accompanying figure
having a wide range along the mountainous parts of North America
to Mexico ; and it is quite possible that their number may yet be
increased, for the general habits of the birds preclude much invasion
of territory, and thus produce practical isolation.

OVARY, OVIDUCT, see REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS.

OVEN-BIRD, a name locally given to several species that build
domed nests in England, especially to the Willow-WREN, and in

Nesr OF OVEN-BIRD (Furnarius).

(From specimen given to the Cambridge Museum by Mr. J. Young.)

North America to Sturus auricapillus, otherwise known as the
Golden-crowned Thrush; but by most ornithologists applied to
birds of the genus Furnarius, belonging to the Neotropical Family
Dendrocolaptide (PIcuUCULE), the best known of which is F. rufus,
the Hornero (Baker) or Casera of the Spanish-speaking population.

670 OVEN-BIRD

It seeks no concealment, for its wonderful nest! is placed in the
most conspicuous situations, on the top of a post, a bare rock or a
leafless branch, being a massive structure with strong thick walls,
composed of mud mixed with bits of straw or fibres, roughly

‘“\ ‘ort
“

Ne Pek
A cpilgg e

SrcTion OF OVEN-BIRD’s NEST.

globular in form with an upright opening in front whence a
partition extends nearly to the back, forming an ante-chamber to
the portion which contains the 4 or 5 white eggs, laid on a bed of
soft dry grass. The habits of this species have been mentioned
by Mr. Darwin (Nat. Voy. chap. v.) and described at some length
by Mr. Hudson (4rgent. Orn. 1. pp. 167-170), beside Durnford (Lis,

GEOBATES, GEOSITTA.
(After Swainson.)

1877, p. 179) and Mr. E. Gibson (op. cié. 1880, pp. 16-18), to say
nothing of Burmeister (Syst. Uebers. Th. Brasil: Vogel, iti. pp. 3, 4)
and Dorbigny (Voy. Amér. Meérid. Ois. p. 250).

Alhed to /urnarius are the genera Geobates and Geositta, of which

' Not many figures of this have been given. There is one, such as a child
might draw, in Molina’s Compendio (tav. 2, Bologna: 1776), and that in a
Natural History (iv. p. 113) edited by Duncan is hardly more instructive;
Dr. Goldi’s figures (Zool. Gart. 1886, pp. 268, 271) are fair,

OWL 671

last one species, G. cunicularia, with many of the habits of a
WHEATEAR, bores a hole from 3 to 6 feet long in a bank or the
side of a biscacha’s burrow, placing its nest at the end; but
Geobates, which is peculiar to the grassy plains (campos) of South-
eastern Brazil, has much the habits of a LARK or PIpiT, together
with the elongated cubital feathers characteristic of those forms,
while another, Upucerthia, inhabits the most sterile of the upland
deserts. None of these birds is of any particular beauty, but to
the ornithologist they form a most interesting group, the position
of which was for a long while wholly mistaken, and it was only
when their anatomical structure came to be known that their place
was determined among the TRACHEOPHON”.

OWL, the Anglo-Saxon Ule, Swedish Uggla, and German Lule—
all allied to the Latin Ulula, and evidently of imitative origin—the
general English name for every nocturnal Bird-of-Prey,! of which
group nearly two hundred species have been recognized. The Owls
form a very natural assemblage, and one about the limits of which
no doubt has for a long while existed. Placed by nearly all
systematists for many years as a Family of the Order Accipitres (or
whatever may have been the equivalent term used by the particular
taxonomer), there has been of late a disposition to regard them as
forming a group of higher rank. On many accounts it is plain that
they differ from the ordinary diurnal Birds-of-Prey, more than the
latter do among themselves; and, though in some respects Owls
have a superficial likeness to the NIGHTJARS,? and a resemblance
more deeply seated to the GUACHARO, even the last has not been
made out to have any strong affinity to them. A good deal is
therefore to be said for the opinion which would rank the Owls as
an independent Order, or at any rate Suborder, Striges. Whatever
be the position assigned to the group, its subdivision has always
been a fruitful matter of discussion, owing to the great resemblance
obtaining among all its members, and the existence of safe characters
' for its division has only lately been at all generally recognized.
By the older naturalists, it is true, Owls were divided, as was first

1 The poverty of the English language—generally so rich in synonyms—is here
very remarkable. Though four well-known if not common species of Owls are
native to Britain, to say nothing of half a dozen others which occur with greater
or less frequency, none of them has ever acquired an absolutely individual name,
and various prefixes have to be used to distinguish them. It is almost the same
in other countries where English is spoken, though North America has its
‘*Saw-whet”’ and New Zcaland its ‘‘Morepork ’—each name from the bird’s
call-note. In Greece and Italy, Germany and France, almost each indigenous
species has had its own particular designation in the vulgar tongue. The English
Owlet or Howlet is of course a simple diminutive only.

2 In many parts of England the Nightjar is known as the Churn-Owl or
Fern-Owl,

672 OWL

done by Willughby, into two sections—one in which all the species
exhibit tufts of feathers on the head, the so-called “ears” or
“horns,” and the second in which the head is not tufted. The
artificial and therefore untrustworthy nature of this distinction was
shewn by Isidore Geoffroy-St. Hilaire (Ann. Sc. Nat. xxi. pp. 194-
203) in 1830; but he did not do much good in the arrangement of the
Owls which he then proposed ; and it was hardly until the publica-
tion, ten years later, of Nitzsch’s Pterylographie that rational grounds
on which to base a division of the Owls were adduced. It then
became manifest that two very distinct types of pterylosis existed
in the group, and further it appeared that certain differences,
already partly shewn by Berthold (Beir. Anat. pp. 166, 167), of
sternal structure coincided with the pterylological distinctions. By
degrees other significant differences were pointed out, till, as summed
up by Prof. Alphonse Milne-Edwards (Ois. foss. de la France, ii. pp.
474-492), there could no longer be any doubt that the bird known
in England as the Screech-Owl or Barn-Owl,! with its allies, formed
a section which should be most justifiably separated from all the
others of. the group then known. Space is here wanting to state
particularly the pterylological distinctions which will be found
described at length in Nitzsch’s classical work (Eng. trans.
pp. 70, 71), and even the chief osteological distinctions must be
only briefly mentioned.? These consist in the Screech-Ow] section
wanting any manubrial process in front of the sternum, which has
its broad keel joined to the clavicles united as a furcula, while
posteriorly it presents an unbroken outline. In the other section,
of which the bird known in England as the Tawny or Brown Owl
is the type, there is a manubrial process ; the furcula, far from being
joined to the keel of the sternum, often consists but of two stylets
which do not even meet one another; and the posterior margin
of the sternum presents two pairs of projections, one pair on each
side, with corresponding fissures between them. Furthermore the
Owls of the same section shew another peculiarity in the bone
usually called the tarsus. This is a bony ring or loop bridging the
channel holding the common extensor tendon of the toes—which,
as already noticed, is possessed by the OSPREY, but does not appear
in the Secreech-Owl section any more than in the majority of birds.
The subsequent examination by M. Milne-Edwards (Nowy. Arch.
Mus. Mém. ser. 2; i. pp. 185-200, pls. 4, 5) of the skeleton of an
Owl known as Phodilus (more correctly Photodilus) budius, hitherto
attached to the Screech-Owl section, shewed that, though in most of
its osteological characters it must be referred to the Tawny-Owl

1 The Owl, however, which commonly breeds in barns in Sweden and perhaps
some other parts of Europe is our Tawny Owl, Strix stridula.

2 A few more distinctive characters are shewn by Mr. Beddard in his paper
on the classification of this group (/bis, 1888, pp, 335-344).

OWL 673
section, in several of the particulars mentioned above it resembles
the Screech-Owls, and therefore we are bound to deem it a con-
necting link between them. The pterylological characters of
Photodilus seem not to have been fully investigated,! but it is
found on the one hand to want the singular bony tarsal loop, as
well as the manubrial process, while on the other its clavicles are
not united into a furcula to meet the keel, and the posterior margin
of the sternum has processes and fissures like those of the Tawny-
Owl section. Photodilus having thus to be removed from the
Screech-Owl section, Prof. Milne-Edwards has replaced it by a new
form, Heliodilus, from Madagascar (Comptes Rendus, 1887, p. 1282),
described at length by him in M. Grandidier’s great work on the
natural history of that island (Ocseaua, i. pp. 113-118, pls. xxxvi.
a-c). The unexpected results thus obtained preach caution in regard
to the classification of other Owls, and add to the misgivings that
every honest ornithologist must feel as to former attempts to
methodize the whole group—misgivings that had already arisen
from the great diversity of opinion displayed by previous classifiers,
hardly two of whom seem able to agree. Moreover, the difficulties
which beset the study of the Owls are not limited to their respective
relations, but extend to their scientific terminology, which has long
been in a state so bewildering that nothing but the strictest
adherence to the very letter of the laws of nomenclature, which
until lately have been approved in principle by all but an insignifi-
cant number of zoologists, can clear up the confusion into which the
matter has been thrown by heedless or ignorant writers—some of
those who are in general most careful to avoid error being not wholly
free from blame in this respect.

A few words are therefore here needed on this most unprofitable
subject.2, Under the generic term Sta, Linneus placed all the Owls
known to him; but Brisson most justifiably divided that genus, and
in so doing fixed upon Strix stridula—the aforesaid Tawny Owl—as
- its type, while under the name of Asio he established a second
genus, of which his contemporary’s S. ofus, presently to be men-
tioned, is the type. Some years later Savigny, who had very
peculiar notions on nomenclature, disregarding the act of Brisson,
_ chose to recognize the Linnean S. flammea—the Screech-Owl before
spoken of—as the type of the genus Striz, which genus he further
dissevered, and his example was largely followed until Fleming gave
to the Screech-Owl the generic name of Aluco,? by which it had been
known for more than three hundred years, and reserved Stria for
the Tawny Owl. He thus anticipated Nitzsch, whose editor (Bur-

1 Mr. Beddard has noticed a few points (Zbzs, 1890, pp. 293-294).

* It was dealt with at greater length in 7’he Ibis for 1876 (pp. 94-105).

3 The word seems to have been the invention of Gaza, the translator of Aris-
totle, in 1503, and is the Latinized form of the Italian Allocco,

43

674 OWL

meister) was probably unacquainted with this fact when he allowed
the name Hybris to be conferred on the Screech-Owl. No doubt
inconvenience is caused by changing any general practice ; but, as
will have been seen, the practice was not
universal, and such inconvenience as may
arise is not chargeable on those who abide by
the law, as it is intended in this article to do.
The reader is therefore warned that the word
Striz will be here used in what is believed to
be the legitimate way, for the genus contain-
Fe in Gees © A ema NOR DIED Sire stridula of Linneeus, while Aluco

Gatton Swainson) is ‘retained for that including the S. flammea

of the same naturalist.

Except the two main divisions just mentioned—Striginw and
Alucine—any further arrangement of the Owls must at present be
deemed tentative, for the ordinary external characters, to which
most systematists trust, are useless if not misleading! Several
systematizers have tried to draw characters from the orifice of the
ear, and the parts about it; but hitherto these have not been
sufficiently studied to make the attempts very successful. If it be
true that the predominant organ in any group of animals furnishes
for that group the best distinctive characters, we may have some
hope of future attempts in this direction,? for we know that few
birds have the sense of hearing so highly developed as the Owls, and
also that the external ear varies considerably in form in several of
the genera which have been examined. Thus in Surnia, the Hawk-
Gels and in Nyctea, the Snowy Owl, the external ear is simple in
form, and, though proportionally larger than in most birds, it pos-
sesses no very remarkable peculiarities,—a fact which may be cor-
related with the diurnal habits of these Owls—natives of the far
north, where the summer is a season of constant daylight, and to
effect the capture of prey the eyes are perhaps more employed than
the ears.° In Bubo, the Eagle-Owl, though certainly more nocturnal
in habit, the external ear, however, has no very remarkable develop-

1 Tt is much to be regretted that an interesting form of Owl, Sceloglaux
albifacies, peculiar to New Zealand, the Whekau of the Maories, should be
rapidly becoming extinct, without any effort, so far as is known, being made to
ascertain its affinities. It would seem to belong to the Strigine section, and is
remarkable for its very massive clavicles, that unite by a kind of false joint,
which in some examples may possibly be wholly ancylosed, in the median line.

* This hope is strengthened by the very praiseworthy essay on the Owls of
Norway by Herr Collett in the Forhandlinger of Christiania for 1881.

3 But this hypothesis must not be too strongly urged ; for in Carine, a more
southern form of nocturnal (or at least crepuscular) wabite: the external ear is
perhaps even more normal. Of course by the ear the real organ of hearing is here
meant, not the tuft of feathers often so called in speaking of Owls,

OWL 675

ment of conch, which may perhaps be accounted for by the
ordinary prey of the bird being the larger rodents, that from their
size are more readily seen, and hence
the growth of the bird’s auditory
organs has not been much stimulated.
In Sérix (as the name is here used),
a form depending greatly on its sense
of hearing for the capture of its prey,
the ear-conch is much enlarged, and BIVESAND EAS OU BUES:

: (After Swainson.)

it has, moreover, an elevated flap or

operculum. In Aszo, containing the Long-eared and Short-eared
Owls of Europe, Asia and America, the conch is enormously exag-
gerated, extending in a semicircular direction from the base of the
lower mandible to above the middle of the eye, and is furnished in
its whole length with an operculum.' But what is more extraordinary
in this genus is that the entrance to the ear is asymmetrical—the
orifice on one side opening downwards and on the other upwards.
This curious adaptation is carried still further in the genus Nyctala,
containing two or three small species of the Northern hemisphere,
in which the asymmetry that in 4szo is only skin-deep extends, in
a manner very surprising, to several of the bones of the head, as
may be seen in the Zoological Society’s Proceedings (1871, pp. 739-
743), and in the large series of figures given by Messrs. Baird,
Brewer and Ridgway (N.-Am. Birds, iii. pp. 97-102).

Among Owls are found birds which vary in length from 5
inches—as Glaucidium cobanense, which is therefore much smaller
than a Skylark—to more than 2 feet, a size that is attained by
many species. Their plumage, none of the feathers of which pos-
sesses an aftershaft, is of the softest kind, rendering their flight al-
most noiseless. But one of the most characteristic features of this
whole group is the ruff, consisting of several rows of small and
much-curved feathers with stiff shafts—originating from a fold of
the skin, which begins on each side of the base of the beak, runs
above the eyes, and passing downwards round and behind the ears
turns forward, and ends at the chin—and serving to support the
longer feathers of the “disk” or space immediately around the
eyes, which extend over it. A considerable number of species of
Owls, belonging to various genera, and natives of countries most
widely separated, are remarkable for exhibiting two phases of colora-
tion—one in which the prevalent browns have a more or less rusty-
red tinge, and the other in which they incline to grey. Another
characteristic of nearly all Owls is the reversible property of their
outer toes, which are not unfrequently turned at the bird’s pleasure

1 Figures of these different forms are given by Macgillivray (Brit. Birds, iii.
pp. 896, 403, and 427), and of Asio otws in the Fourth Edition of Yarrell’s British
Birds (i. p. 162),

676 OWL

quite backwards. Many forms have the legs and toes thickly
clothed to the very claws; others have the toes, and even the tarsi,
bare, or only sparsely beset by bristles. Among the bare-legged Owls
those of the Indian genus Ketupa are conspicuous, and this feature is
usually correlated with their fish-catching habits; but certainly
other Owls that are not known to catch fish present much the same
character.

From the multitude of Owls there is only room here to make
further mention of a few of the more interesting. First must be
noticed the Tawny Owl—the Strix stridula of Linneeus, the type, as
has been above said, of the whole group, and especially of the
Strigine section as here understood. ‘This is the Syrnium aluco of
many authors, the Chat-huant of the French, the species whose
tremulous hooting “tu-whit, to-who,” has been celebrated by
Shakespear, and, as well as the plaintive call, “keewick,” of the
young after leaving the nest, will be familiar sounds to many readers,
for the bird is very generally distributed throughout most parts
of Europe, extending its range through Asia Minor to Palestine, and
also to Barbary—but not belonging to the Ethiopian Region or to
the eastern half of the Palearctic area. It is the largest of the
Owls indigenous to Britain, and chiefly affects woodlands, only occa-
sionally choosing any other place for its nest than a hollow tree.
Its food consists almost entirely of small mammals, especially rats ;
but, though on this account most deserving of protection from all
classes, it is subject to the stupid persecution of the ignorant, and
is rapidly declining in numbers.! Its nearest allies in North
America are the S. nebulosa, with some kindred forms, one of which,
the S. occidentalis of California and Arizona, is here figured ; but
none of them seems to have the “merry note” that is uttered by
the European species. Common to the most northerly forest-tracts
of both continents (for, though a slight difference of coloration is
observable between American examples and those from the Old
World, it is impossible to consider it specific) is the much larger
S. cinerea or S. lapponica, whose small eyes, with their yellow iris,
iron-grey plumage, delicately mottled with dark brown, and the con-
centric circles of its facial disks make it one of the most remarkable
of the group. Then may be noticed the genus Bubo—containing
several species which from their size are usually known as Eagle-Owls.
Here the Nearctic and Palearctic forms are sufficiently distinct—

1 All Owls have the habit of casting up the indigestible parts of the food
swallowed in the form of pellets, which may often be found in abundance under
the Owl-roost, and reveal without any manner of doubt what the prey of the bird
has been. The result in nearly every case shews the enormous service they
render to man in destroying rats and mice. Details of many observations to this
effect are recorded in the Bericht iiber die XIV. Versammlung der Deutschen
Ornithologen-Geselischaft (pp. 30-34).

OWL 677

the latter, B. ignavus,' the Duc or Grand Duc of the French, ranging
over the whole of Europe and Asia north of the Himalayas, while the
former, Bb. virginianus, extends over the whole of North America.
A contrast to the generally sombre colour of these birds is shewn by
the Snowy Owl, Nyctea scandiaca, a circumpolar species, and the only
one of its genus, which disdains the shelter of forests and braves
the most rigorous arctic climate, though compelled to migrate south-
ward in winter when no sustenance is left for it. Its large size and
white plumage, more or less mottled with black, distinguish this

SrRIx OCCIDENTALIS.

from every other Owl. Then may be mentioned the birds commonly
known in English as “ Horned” Owls—the Hibous of the French,
belonging to the genus Asio. One, A. ofus (the Otus vulgaris of
some authors), inhabits woods, and, distinguished by its long tufts,
usually borne erected, would seem to be common to both America
and Europe—though experts profess their ability to distinguish
between examples from each country. Another species, 4.

1 This species bears confinement very well, and propagates freely therein. The
Owls so well known as formerly kept at Arundel Castle were always referred to
it, until Mr. Borrer (B. Sussex, Introd. p. xvii.) shewed that they belonged to the
kindred B. virginianus.

678 OWL

accipitrinus (the Otus brachyotus of many authors), has much shorter
tufts on its head, and they are frequently carried depressed so as
to escape observation. This is the ‘“‘ Woodcock-Owl” of English
sportsmen, for, though a good many are bred in Great Britain, the
majority arrive in autumn from Scandinavia, just about the time
that the immigration of Woodcocks occurs. ‘This species frequents
heaths, moors, and the open country generally, to the exclusion of
woods, and has an enormous geographical range, including not only
all Europe, North Africa, and northern Asia, but the whole of
America,—-reaching also to the Falklands, the Galapagos and the
Sandwich Islands,—for the attempt to separate specifically examples
from those localities only shews that they possess more or less ill-
defined local races. Commonly placed near Asio, but whether
really akin to it cannot be stated, is the genus Scops, of which nearly
forty species, coming from different parts of the world, have been
described ; but this number should probably be reduced by one
half. ‘The type of the genus, S. giu, the Petit Duc of the French, is
a well-known bird in the south of Europe, about as big as a Thrush,
with very delicately-pencilled plumage, occasionally visiting Britain,
emigrating in autumn across the Mediterranean, and ranging very
far to the eastward. Further southward, both in Asia and Africa,
it is represented by other species of very similar size, and in the
eastern part of North America by 8S. asio, of which there is a
tolerably distinct western form, S. kennicotti, besides several local
races. SS, asio is one of the Owls that especially exhibits the
dimorphism of coloration above mentioned, and it was long before
the true state of the case was understood. At first the two forms
were thought to be distinct, and then for some time the belief
obtained that the ruddy birds were the young of the greyer form
which was called S. nevia; but now the “Red Owl” and the
‘‘ Mottled Owl” of the older American ornithologists are known to
be one species.t One of the most remarkable of American Owls is
Speotyto cunicularia, the bird that in the northern part of the con-
tinent inhabits the burrows of the prairie-dog, and in the southern
those of the biscacha, where the latter occurs—making holes for
itself, says Darwin, where that is not the case,—rattlesnakes being
often also joint tenants of the same abodes. The odd association
of these animals, interesting as it is, cannot here be more than
noticed, for a few words must be said, ere we leave the Owls of this
section, om the species which has associations of a very different
kind—the bird of Pallas Athene, the emblem of the city to which
science and art were so welcome. ‘There can be no doubt, from the

1 See the remarks of Mr. Ridgway in the work before quoted (B. N. America,
iii. pp. 9, 10), where also response is made to the observations of Mr. Allen in the
Harvard Bulletin (ii. pp. 838, 339), as well as the former’s elaborate review of
the American species of the genus (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. i. pp. 85-117.)

OWL 679

many representations on coins and sculptures, as to their subject
being the Carine noctua of modern ornithologists, but those who
know the grotesque actions and ludicrous
expression of this veritable buffoon of birds
can never cease to wonder at its having been
seriously selected as the symbol of learning,
and can hardly divest themselves of a sus-
picion that the choice must have been made

HEAD OF CARINE. in the spirit of sarcasm. This Little Owl (for

OS ae that is its only English name—though it is
not even the smallest that appears in England), the Chevéche of
the French, is spread throughout the greater part of Europe, but
it is not a native of Britain.! It has a congener in C. brama, a bird
well known to all residents in India.

Finally, we have Owls of the second section, those allied to the
Screech-Owl, Aluco flammeus, the Effraie® of the French. This,
with its discordant scream, its snoring, and its hissing, is far too
well known to need description, for it is one of the most widely-
spread of birds, and is
the Owl that has the
greatest geographical
range, inhabiting almost
every country in the
world, — Sweden and
Norway, America north
of lat. 45°, and New
Zealand being the prin-
cipal exceptions. It
varies, however, not in-
considerably, both in
size and intensity of
colour, and several orni-
thologists have tried to
found on these varia-
tions more than half a
dozen distinct species.
Some, if not most of
them, seem, however,
hardly worthy to be considered geographical races, for their differences
do not always depend on locality. Dr. Sharpe, with much labour and

Atuco FLAMMEUS. (After Wolf.)

1 A very large number have first and last been liberated in this country by
Lord Lilford and Mr. Meade-Waldo ; but though they have been known to breed
in their feral state, they can hardly be said to have established themselves.

2 Through the dialectic forms Fresaie and Presaie, the origin of the word is
easily traced to the Latin prasaga—a bird of bad omen ; but it has also been
confounded with Orfraie, a name of the OsPREY.

680 OX-BIRD—OX-PECKER

in great detail, has given his reasons (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. ii. pp. 291-309 ;
and Ornith. Miscell. i. pp. 269-298 ; ii. pp. 1-21) for acknowledging
four “subspecies” of 4. flammeus, as well as five other species. Of
these last, 4. tenebricosus is peculiar to Australia, while 4. nove-
hollandiw inhabits also New Guinea, and has a “subspecies,” 4.
castanops, found only in Tasmania ; a third, 4. candidus, has a wide
range from Fiji and northern Australia through the Philippines
and Formosa to China, Burma and India; a fourth, 4. capensis, is
peculiar to South Africa ; while 4. thomensis is said to be confined
to the African island of St. Thomas. There is also the extinct A.
sauzier’ of Mauritius (Trans. Zool. Soc. xiii. p. 286), and to these will
perhaps have to be added a species from New Britain, described by
Count T. Salvadori as Striz aurantia, though it may prove on further
investigation not to be an Alucine Owl at all.

OX-BIRD, a common name for the DUNLIN, and in connexion
therewith Mr. Harting, in the Introduction (p. xvii.) to Rodd’s Birds
of Cornwall, reasonably refers OXEN-AND-KINE, by which name
some apparently small wildfowl were of old times known in the
west country (cf. Carew, Survey of Cornwall, fol. 35, and a curious
paper printed in the Camden Miscellany,’ iv. pp. 10, 26).

OX-EYE seems once to have been synonymous with Ox-BIRD,
but is now only known as a local name for the Great TrrmousE
(of. Sw. Talgoxe = fat ox).?

OX-PECKER, a rendering of the French Pique-beuf, bestowed
on a small, dull-coloured bird discovered by Adanson in Senegal,
, the BDuphaga africana of Linnzeus, which has
been almost invariably referred to the Family
s Sturnide (STARLING), chiefly, it would seem,
= because it flies in flocks, and settles on the
- back of cattle in search of the bots or ticks
with which they are infested. Though the
animals are at first alarmed at the visitation,

OxproKer. they soon get over the fright, regarding, it is

Sse ainsi said, with evident pleasure the way in which

the birds creep about them and rid them of the pests. A second

1 The Editor of this, Mr. W. D. Cooper, suggests that the birds were Ruffs and
Reeves, but there is no evidence that those birds were ever to be had in Devon or
Cornwall ; however, Mr. C. Swainson (Prov. Names Br. B. p. 195) accepts the
suggestion as if it were a fact. Mr. Sclater (List Vert. Anim. Gardens of the
Zool. Soc. 18838, p. 246) applies ‘‘Ox-bird” to Textor albirostris or alecto, one of
the WEAVER-BIRDs.

2 A copy of Belon’s Portraits d’ Oyseauxr (1557) in the Public Library of the
University of Cambridge (M. 15. 43) has the English names of many of the birds
written in an ancient hand. To the figure of Himantopus (Sritr) the name
Ox-eye is applied.

OX YNOTUS—OVSTER-CATCHER 681

species, B. erythrorhyncha, with a wholly red instead of a yellow
bill was afterwards found in Abyssinia, and thought for some time
to be peculiar to the more northern part of Africa, but it is now
known to occur so far south as Natal, while the first has been
observed in Damaraland and the Transvaal. Very little more
seems to be known of the habits of either, and the systematic
position of the genus must be held uncertain.

OXYNOTUS, the name of a genus of birds now ascertained
to be peculiar to two of the Mascarene Islands— Mauritius and
Réunion (Bourbon)—where the name of Cuisinier is applied to
them, and remarkable for the fact, nearly if not quite unique in
Ornithology, that, while the males of both species are almost
identical in appearance, the females are wholly unlike each other.
Though the habits of the Mauritian species, 0. rufiventer, have been
very fairly observed, there seems to be nothing in them that might
account for the peculiarity. The genus Oxynotus is generally placed
in the group known as Campephagidx, most or all of which are
distinguished from the Laniidx (to which they seem nearly
allied) by the feathers on the lower part of the back and on the
rump having the basal portion of the shaft very stiff and the distal -
portion soft—a structure which makes that part of the body, on
being touched by the finger, feel as though it were beset with blunt
prickles. Hence the name of the genus conferred by Swainson,
and intended to signify “prickly back.” The males, which look
rather like miniature Grey Shrikes (Lanius excubitor and others), are
—except on close examination, when some slight differences of
build and shade become discernible—quite indistinguishable ; but
the female of the one species has a reddish-brown back, and is
bright ferruginous beneath, while the female of the other species is
dull white beneath, transversely barred, as are the females of some
Shrikes, with brown. Both sexes of each species, and the young of
one of them, are described and figured in The [bis for 1866 (pp.
275-280, pls. vii. and viii.)

OYSTER-CATCHER, a bird’s name which does not seem to
occur in books until 1731, when Catesby (Nat. Hist. Carolina, i.
p. 85) used it for a species which he observed to be abundant on
the oyster-banks left bare at low water in the rivers of Carolina,
and believed to feed principally upon those mollusks. In 1773
Pennant applied the name generically, though he and for nearly two
hundred years other British writers had called the allied British
species the “Sea-Pie.” The change, in spite of the misnomer—for,
whatever may be the case elsewhere, in England the bird does not

1 The only other instance cited by Darwin (Descent of Man, ii. pp. 192, 193)

is that of two species of Paradisea ; but therein the males differ from one another
to a far greater degree than do those of Oxynotus.

682 OYSTER-CATCHER

feed upon oysters—met with general approval, and the new name
has, at least in books, almost wholly replaced what seems to have
been the older one! The Oyster-catcher of Europe is the Hxma-
topus * ostralegus of Linnzus, belonging to the group now called
Iimicolz, and is generally included in the Family Charadrudz ;
though some writers have placed it in one of its own, Hamatopodidzx,
chiefly on account of its peculiar bill—a long thin wedge, ending in
a vertical edge. Its feet also are much more fleshy than are gener-
ally seen in the Plover Family. In its strongly-contrasted plumage
of black and white, with a coral-coloured bill, the Oyster-catcher is
one of the most conspicuous birds of the European coasts, and in
many parts is still very common. It is nearly always seen paired,
though the pairs collect in prodigious flocks ; and, when these are
broken up, its shrill but musical cry of “ tulup,” “ tu-lup,” some-
what pettishly repeated, helps to draw attention to it. Its wari-
ness, however, is very marvellous, and even at the breeding-season,
when most birds throw off their shyness, it is not easily approached
within ordinary gunshot distance. The hen-bird commonly lays
three clay-coloured eggs, blotched with black, in a very slight
hollow on the ground, not far from the sea. As incubation goes
on the hollow is somewhat deepened, and perhaps some haulm is
added to its edge, so that at last a very fair nest is the result.
The young, as in all Limicolx, are at first clothed in down, so
mottled in colour as closely to resemble the shingle to which, if
they be not hatched upon it, they are almost immediately taken by
their parents, and there, on the slightest alarm, they squat close to
elude observation. ‘This species occurs on the British coasts (very
seldom shewing itself inland) all the year round ; but there is some
reason to think that those we have in winter are natives of more
northern latitudes, while our home-bred birds leave us. It ranges
from Iceland to the shores of the Red Sea, and lives chiefly on
marine worms, crustacea, and such mollusks as it is able to obtain.
It is commonly supposed to be capable of prizing limpets from their
rock, and of opening the shells of mussels; but, though undoubt-
edly it feeds on both, further evidence as to the way in which it

1 It seems however very possible, judging from its equivalents in other
European languages, such as the Frisian Oestervisscher, the German Austermann,
Austernfischer, and the like, that the name ‘‘ Oyster-catcher”” may have been not
a colonial invention but indigenous to the mother-country, though it had not
found its way into print before. The French Hwitrier, however, appears to be a
word coined by Brisson. ‘‘Sea-Pie” has its analogues in the French Pie-de-Mer,
the German Meerelster, Seeelster, and so forth.

2 Whether it be the Hxematopus whose name is found in some editions of
Pliny (lib. x. cap. 47) is at best doubtful. Other editions have Himantopus ;
but Hardouin prefers the former reading. Both words have passed into modern
ornithology, the latter as the generic name of the STILT; and some writers have
blended the two in the strange and impossible compound Hemantopus.

PAAUW—PALATE 683

procures them is desirable. Mr. Harting informs us that the bird
seems to lay its head sideways on the ground, and then, grasping
the limpet’s shell close to the rock between the mandibles, use
them as scissor-blades to cut off the mollusk from its sticking-place.
The Oyster-catcher is not highly esteemed as a bird for the table.

Differing from this species in the possession of a longer bill, in
having much less white on its back, in the paler colour of its
mantle, and in a few other points, is the ordinary American species,
already mentioned, H. palliatus. Except that its callnote, judging
from description, is unlike that of the European bird, the habits of
the two seem to be perfectly similar; and the same may be said
indeed of all the other species. The Falkland Islands are fre-
quented by a third, H. leucopus, very similar to the first, but with
a black wing-lining and paler legs, and Mr. Ridgway (duh, 1886,
p. 331) thinks the Galapagos have a distinct species, H. galapagensis,
while the Australian Region possesses another, H. longirostris, with
a very long bill as its name intimates, and no white on its primaries.
China, Japan and possibly eastern Asia in general have an Oyster-
catcher which seems to be intermediate between the last and the first.
This has received the name of H. osculans; but doubts have been
expressed as to its deserving specific recognition. Then we have a
group of species in which the plumage is wholly or almost wholly
black, and among them only do we find birds that fulfil the implica-
tion of the scientific name of the genus by having feet that may
be called blood-red. H. niger, which frequents both coasts of the
northern Pacific, has, it is true, yellow legs, but towards the
extremity of South America its place is taken by H. afer, in which
they are bright red, and this bird is further remarkable for its
laterally compressed and much upturned bill. The South-African
H. capensis has also scarlet legs; but in the otherwise very similar
bird of Australia and New Zealand, H. unicolor, these members are
of a pale brick-colour.

P

PAAUW (Peafowl), the Dutch name applied generally in South
Africa to some of the BUSTARDS.

PADDA, see JAVA SPARROW.

PADDY-BIRD, the Anglo-Indian name for any of the smaller
Ecrers, from their frequenting the rice-fields (padda).

PALAMEDKEA, see SCREAMER.

PALATE, the roof of the mouth, whence PALATAL (commonly
Palatine) Bones, being the pair of bones which connect the MAXILLA

684 . PAMPRODACTYLZ—PARROT

with the PreryGoIDs, and rest by articulating facets on the ventral
side of the sphenoidal rostrum of the SkuLL. They have consider-
able taxonomic importance.

PAMPRODACTYLA, Dr. Murie’s name (Ibis, 1873, p. 190,
note) for the group consisting of the Coliidw (MoUSE-BIRD).

PANCREAS, a conglomeration of glands, forming one or more
lobes, and placed between the two branches of the duodenal loop
(DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, pages 141-143). Its secretion, the Pancreatic
Juice, contains a ferment important for digestion and enters the
duodenum through from one to three short ducts, which in most
birds open into ‘its ascending branch between the hepato-enteric and
cystico-enteric ducts. The size and position of the Pancreas are
very variable and of little general interest.

PARADISE-BIRD, see Brrp-oF-PARADISE; -DUCK, see SHELD-
DRAKE.

PARAKEET, variously spelt, see PARROT.
PARAPTERON, Sundevyall’s name for the row or rows of

feathers commonly known as upper wing-coverts.
PARDALOTE, see DIAMOND-BIRD.
PARRA, see JACANA.

PARROT, according to Prof. Skeat (Hiym. Dict. p. 422), from
the French Perrot or Pierrot, a proper name and the diminutive of
Pierre, the name given generally to a large and very natural group
of Birds, which for more than a score of centuries have attracted
attention, not only from their gaudy plumage, but, at first and
chiefly it would seem, from the readiness with which many of them
learn to imitate the sounds they hear, repeating the words and even
phrases of human speech with a fidelity that is often astonishing.
It is said that no representation of any Parrot appears in Egyptian
art, nor does any reference to a bird of the kind occur in the Bible,
whence it has been concluded that neither the painters nor the writers

1 «Parakeet ” (in Shakespear, 1 Hen. IV. ii. 3, 88, ‘‘Paraquito”’) is said
by the same authority to be from the Spanish Periquito or Perroqueto, a small
Parrot, diminutive of Perico, a Parrot, which again may be a diminutive from
Pedro, the proper name. Parakeet (spelt in various ways in English) is usually
applied to the smaller kinds of Parrots, especially those which have long tails,
not as Perroquet in French, which is used as a general term for all Parrots,
Perruche, or sometimes Perriche, being the ordinary name for what we call
Parakeet. The old English ‘‘ Porprnsay” and the old French Papegaut have
almost passed out of use, but the German Papaget and Italian Papagaio still
continue in vogue. Some trace these names to the Arabic Babaghd ; but others
think that word a corruption of the Spanish Papagayo. The Anglo-Saxon name
of the Parret, a river in Somerset, is Pedreda or Pedrida, which at first sight looks
as if it had to do with the proper name, Petrus ; but Prof. Skeat believes there is
no connexion between them—the latter portion of the word being rid, a stream.

PARROT 685

concerned had any knowledge of it. Aristotle is commonly sup-
posed to be the first author who mentions a Parrot; but this is an
error, for nearly a century earlier Ctesias in his /ndica (cap. 3),1 under
the name of Birraxos (Bitiacus), so neatly described a bird which
could speak an “Indian” language—naturally, as he seems to have
thought—or Greek—if it had been taught so to do,—about as big
as a Sparrow-Hawk (Hieraz), with a purple face and a black beard,
otherwise blue-green (cyaneus) and vermilion in colour, so that there
cannot be much risk in declaring that he must have had before him
a male example of what is now commonly known as the Blossom-
headed Parakeet, and to ornithologists as Palzxornis cyanocephalus, an
inhabitant of many parts of India. Much ingenuity has been exer-
cised in the endeavour to find the word whence this, and the later
form of the Greek name, was derived, but to little or no purpose.
After Ctesias comes Aristotle’s yirraxn (Psittace), which Sundevall
. supposes him to have described only from hearsay ; but this matters
little, for there can be no doubt that the Indian conquests of Alex-
ander were the means of making the Parrot better known in Europe,
and it is in reference to this fact that another Eastern species of
Palxornis now bears the name of P. alezandri, though from the
localities it inhabits it could not have had anything to do with the
Macedonian king. That Africa had Parrots does not seem to have
been discovered by the ancients till long after, as Pliny tells us
(vi. 29) that they were first met with by explorers employed by
Nero beyond the limits of Upper Egypt. These birds, highly
prized from the first, reprobated by the moralist, and celebrated by
more than one classical poet, as time went on were brought in great
numbers to Rome, and ministered in various ways to the luxury of
the age. Not only were they lodged in cages of tortoise-shell and
ivory, with silver wires, but they were professedly esteemed as
delicacies for the table, and one emperor is said to have fed his
lions upon them! But there would be little use in dwelling longer
on these topics. With the decline of the Roman empire the demand
for Parrots in Europe lessened, and so the supply dwindled, yet all
knowledge of them was not wholly lost, and they are occasionally
mentioned by one writer or another until in the fifteenth century
began that career of geographical discovery which has since pro-
ceeded uninterruptedly. This immediately brought with it the
knowledge of many more forms of these birds than had ever before
been seen, for whatever races of men were visited by European
navigators—whether in the East Indies or the West, whether in
Africa or in the islands of the Pacific—it was almost invariably
found that even the most savage tribes had tamed some kind of
Parrot ; and, moreover, experience soon shewed that no bird was
1 The passage seems to have escaped the notice of all naturalists until Broderip
mentioned it in his article ‘‘ Psittacide"’ in the Penny Cyclopxdia (xix. p. 83).

686 PARROT

more easily kept alive on board ship and brought home, while, if
it had not the merit of “speech,” it was almost certain to be of
beautiful plumage. Yet so numerous is the group that even now
new species of Parrots are not uncommonly recognized, though,
looking to the way in which the most secluded parts of the world
are being ransacked, we must soon come to an end of this.

The home of the vast majority of Parrot-forms is unquestionably
within the tropics, but the popular belief that Parrots are tropical
birds only is a great mistake. In North America the Carolina Para-
keet, Conurus carolinensis, at the beginning of the present century
used to range in summer as high as the shores of Lakes Erie and
Ontario—a latitude equal to that of the south of France ; and even
within the last forty years it reached, according to trustworthy
information, the junction of the Ohio and the Mississippi, though
now its limits have been so much curtailed that its occurrence in
any but the Gulf States is doubtful, and its extirpation as a species
seems to be only a question of time! In South America, at least
four species of Parrots are found in Chili or La Plata, and one,
Conurus or Cyanolyseus patagonus, is pretty common on the bleak coast
of the Strait of Magellan. In Africa, it is true that no species
is known to extend to within some ten degrees of the tropic of
Cancer ; but Pwocephalus robustus inhabits territories lying quite as
far to the southward of the tropic of Capricorn. In India the
northern range of the group is only bounded by the slopes of the
Himalaya, and further to the eastward Parrots are not only abundant
over the whole of the Malay Archipelago, as well as Australia and
Tasmania, but two very well-defined Families are peculiar to New
Zealand and its adjacent islands (KAKAPO and Nestor), while the
genus Platycercus, or that section of it called Cyanorhynchus, has several
representatives in the Region last named, one species, P. erythrotis,
reaching the Macquarrie Islands in lat. 55° 8., the highest attained
by any of the Order. No Parrot has recently inhabited the Pale-
arctic area,” nor are Parrots represented by many different forms
in either the Ethiopian or the Indian Region. In continental
Asia the distribution of Parrots is rather remarkable. None extend
further to the westward than the valley of the Indus, which, con-

1 Of. inter alios, W. W. Cooke, Rep. Bird Migr. Mississippi, p. 124 (1888) ;
W. Brewster, duk, 1889, p. 337; A. W. Butler, op. cit. 1892, pp. 49-56.

2 A few remains of a Parrot have been recognized from the Miocene of the
Allier in France, by Prof. A. Milne-Edwards (Ois. Foss. France, ii. p. 525, pl.
ec.), and are said by him to shew the greatest resemblance to the common Grey
Parrot of Africa, Psittacus erithacus, though having also some affinity to the
Ring-necked Parakeet of the same country, Pa/xornis torquatus. He refers
them, however, to the same genus as the former, under the name of Pstttacus
VETTEAUXI.

3 The statements that have been made, and even repeated by writers of
authority, as to the occurrence of ‘‘a green parrot” in Syria (Chesney, Hxped.

PARROT 687

sidering the nature of the country in Baloochistan and Affghanistan,
is perhaps intelligible enough ; but it is not so easy to understand
why none are found either in Cochin China or China proper; and
they are also wanting in the Philippine Islands, which is the more
remarkable and instructive when we find how abundant they are in
the groups a little further to the southward. Indeed Mr. Wallace
has well remarked that the portion of the earth’s surface which
contains the largest number of Parrots, in proportion to its area,
is undoubtedly that covered by the islands extending from Celebes
to the Solomon group. “The area of these islands is probably not
one-fifteenth of that of the four tropical regions, yet they contain
from one-fifth to one-fourth of all the known Parrots” (Geogr. Distr.
Anim. ii. p. 330). He goes on to observe also that in this area are
found many of the most remarkable forms—all the red Lories, the
great black Cockatoos, the pigmy Nastternx, and other singularities.
In South America the species of Parrots, though numerically nearly
as abundant, are far less diversified in form, and all of them seem
capable of being referred to two or, at most, three sections. The
species that has the widest range, and that by far, is the common
Ring-necked Parakeet, Palzxornis torquatus, a well-known cage-bird
which is found from the mouth of the Gambia across Africa to the
coast of the Red Sea, as well as throughout the whole of India,
Ceylon and Burma to Tenasserim.! On the other hand there are
plenty of cases of Parrots which are restricted to an extremely
small area—often an island of insignificant size, as Conwrus pertinaz,
confined to the island of St. Thomas in the Antilles, and Palzxornis
exsul, to that of Rodriguez in the Indian Ocean (bis, 1872, pp. 31-
34, 1875, p. 342, pl. vil.) —to say nothing of the remarkable instance
afforded by Nestor productus? (see pp. 223, 224 and 628).

Survey Euphrates and Tigris, i. pp. 448, 537) and of a Parrot in Turkestan
(Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, viii. p. 1007) originated with gentlemen who had no
ornithological knowledge, and are evidently erroneous. Some species of ROLLER
possibly gave rise to the assertions.

1 It is right to state, however, that the African examples of this bird are
said to be distinguishable from the Asiatic by their somewhat shorter wings and
weaker bill, and hence they are considered by some authorities to form a distinct
species, P. docilis ; but in thus regarding them the difference of locality seems
to have influenced opinion, and without that difference they would scarcely have
been separated, for in many other groups of birds distinctions so slight are
regarded as barely evidence of local races. Even West-African examples are said
by Count T. Salvadori (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xx. p. 448) to have larger bills than
those from the eastern side, which have been further distinguished as P.
parvirostris.

2 A case very like that of Nestor productus (pp. 223, 628) is presented by the
**Mascarin” (Pl. Zn. 35) a Parrot which formerly inhabited the island of Bour-
bon (Réunion). The last known living example was in the royal menagerie at
Munich and was figured in 1835 by Hahn (Orn. Atlas, Papegeten, p. 54, pl. 39) ;

688 PARROT

The systematic treatment of this very natural group has long
been a difficult subject, and almost the only approach to unanimity
among those who have made it their study, lies in the somewhat
general belief which has grown up within the last half of this
century that the Parrots should be regarded as forming a distinct
Order. <A few systematists, among whom Bonaparte was chief,
placed them at the top of the Class, conceiving that they were the
analogues of the Primates among Mammals. Prof. Huxley has
recognized the Psitlacomorphe as forming one of the principal groups
of Carinatx, and, by whatever name we call them, that much seems
to be evident. It will here, however, be unnecessary to discuss the
rank which the Parrots should hold, and it is quite enough of a
task to consider the most natural or—if we cannot hope at present
to reach that—at least the most expedient way of subdividing
them. It is a reproach to ornithologists that so little satisfactory
progress has been made in this direction, and the result is all
the more disheartening, seeing that there is no group of exotic
birds that affords equal opportunities for anatomical examination,
since almost every genus extant, and more than two-thirds of the
species, have within recent times been kept in confinement in
one or another of our zoological gardens, and at their death have
furnished subjects for dissection. Yet the laudable attempt of M.
Blanchard (Compt. Rend. xlii. 1097-1100 and xliv. 518-521) was not
successful, and it cannot be affirmed that the latest arrangement of
the Psitiaci is really much more natural than that planned by
Buffon in 1779.! He was of course unaware of the existence of some
of the most remarkable forms of the group, in particular of Stringops
and Nestor ; but he began by making two great divisions of those that
he did know, separating the Parrots of the Old World from the
Parrots of the New, and subdividing each of these divisions into
various sections somewhat in accordance with the names they had
received in popular language—a practice he followed on many other
occasions, for he seems to have held a belief that there is more
truth in the discrimination of the unlearned than the scientific are
apt to allow. The end was that he produced a plan which is com-
paratively simple and certainly practical, while as just stated it can-
not be confidently declared to be unnatural. However, not to go very

but all trace of it has since been lost, and the only two specimens that exist in
Museums are at Paris and Vienna respectively—the latter having been obtained
on the dispersal of the Leverian Museum in 1806, when it formed lot 5828 in the
sale catalogue, and was there said to be from America! (Cf. Von Pelzeln, Jdis,
1873, p. 832; A. Milne-Edwards, Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 5, vi. pl. ii. fig. 4, pl. iii. fig.
8; the same and Oustalet in the centenary volume of the Museum of Natural
History at Paris, pp. 7-21, pl. i. ; and W. A. Forbes, Jbis, 1879, pp. 303-307.)

1 This is virtually admitted by Count T. Salvadori (tom. cit. Introd. p. viil.),
the latest reviser of the Order.

PARROT 689

far back: in 1867-68 Dr. Finsch published an excellent monograph
of the Parrots,! regarding them as a Family, in which he admitted 26
genera, forming 5 subfamilies ; but only in the single group NESTOR
did he recognize characters that were not external. In 1874 Garrod
communicated to the Zoological Society the result of his dissection of
examples of 82 species of Parrots, which had lived in its gardens, and
these results were published in its Proceedings for that year (pp. 586-
598, pls. Ixx. lxxi.) The principal points to which he attended were
the arrangement of the CAROTID artery, and the presence or absence
of an AMBIENS muscle, an OIL-GLAND and a FURCULA ; but except as
regards the last character he unfortunately almost wholly neglected the
rest of the skeleton, looking upon such osteological features as the
formation of an orbital ring and peculiarities of the atlas as “ of
minor importance ”—an estimate to which nearly every anatomist
will demur. Indeed the investigations of Prof. A. Milne-Edwards
(Ann. Se. Nat. Zoologie, ser. 5, vi. pp. 91-111; viii. pp. 145-156)
on the bones of the head in Parrots make it clear that these alone,
and especially the maxilla, present features of much significance, and
if his investigations had not been carried on for a special object, but
had been extended to other parts of the skeleton, there is little doubt
that they would have removed some of the greatest difficulties. The
one osteological character to which Garrod trusted, namely, the con-
dition of the furcula, contributes little towards a safe basis of classi-
fication. That it is wholly absent in some genera of Parrots had long
been known, but its imperfect ossification, it appears, is not attended
in some cases by any diminution of volant powers, which tends to
shew that it is an unimportant character, an inference confirmed by
the fact that it was found wanting in genera placed geographically
so far apart that the loss must have had in some of them an in-
dependent origin. Thus grounded, his scheme was so manifestly
artificial that further criticism would here be useless; the greatest
merit of his method is that, as before mentioned (LOVE-BIRD), he
gave sufficient reasons for distinguishing between the genera
‘Agapornis and Psittacula. In the Journal fiir Ornithologie for 1881
Dr. Reichenow published a Conspectus Psittacorum, founded, as so
many others? have been, on external characters only. He made 9
Families of the group, and recognized 45 genera, and 442 species,
besides subspecies. In 1883 he brought to completion a work,*
finely illustrated by Herr G. Miitzel, which forms a concise mono-
graph. His grouping is generally very different from Garrod’s, but

1 Die Pupageien monographisch bearbeitet. Leiden: 1867-68. 2 vols. 8vo.

2 Such, for instance, as Kuhl’s treatise with the same title, which appeared in
1820, and Wagler’s Monographia Psittacorum, published in 1832—both good of
_their kind and time.

3 Vogelbilder aus fernen Zonen. Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Papageien.
Kassel : 1878-83.

44

690 PARROT

displays as much artificiality ; for instance, Nestor is referred to the
Family which is otherwise composed of the Cockatoos. Almost
simultaneously with the last came the arrangement followed by Mr.
Sclater in the List of those exhibited of late years in the gardens of
the Zoological Society, and published in 1883. This seemed to be
a manifest improvement on anything before proposed ; but more
recently we have Count T. Salvadori, who, while cataloguing the
collection of specimens in the British Museum (Cat. B. Brit. Mus.
xx.), came to the conclusion that 6 Families are needed. These are
Nestoridx (NESTOR); Loriidx (LoRy),' with 14 genera and 71 species;
Cyclopsittacide (2 genera, 18 species); Cacatuidw (COCKATOO), with
2 subfamilies—Cacatuine (5 or 6 genera, 26 or 27 species) and
the other consisting of the well-known Calopsitta (COCKATEEL) ;
Psittacidx, with 6 subfamilies — Nasiternine (1 genus, 9 species),
Conurine, including the MAccAws (15 genera, 102 species), Pionine
(10 genera, 91 species), Psittacine (3 genera, 8 species) Palzornithin
(16 genera, 114 species)and Platycercina(11 genera, 50 species); while
Stringopidxe (KAKAPO) completes the group. That this scheme is
worthy of its author’s name none can doubt, but he himself remarks
that materials are not yet “sufficient for a complete study of
Parrots.” The separation of the first and last of these Families is
unquestionably required, since they stand on a very different and
much firmer footing than the other four, and the recognition of
Cacatwidx and Loriidx is probably justifiable, as they can be without
much difficulty defined, but exception may be taken to Cyclopsittacidx
as a Family, and the grouping of the genera of Psittacidx proper is
open to objection. Pionus and Psittacus certainly seem to furnish
two different types, to the former of which, rather than to Conurus,
Psittacula appears to be attached, bearing much the same relation
thereto that Agapornis, placed by the Count near Palxornis, does to
the latter. Details of this kind, however, must be expected to
produce some divergence of opinion. Among the genera Chrysotis,
Palxornis and Psittacus are probably to be found the most highly
organized forms, and it is these birds in which the faculty of so-
called “speech” reaches its maximum development. But too much
importance must not be assigned to that fact ; since, while Psitéacus
erithacus—the well-known Grey Parrot? with a red tail—is the
most accomplished spokesman of the whole group, it is fairly

1 | take this opportunity of correcting an error (p. 520) as to the plumage of
the young of Keclectus, which has been proved by Dr. A. B. Meyer (Zettschr. f.
gesammte Zool. 1882, i. pp. 146-162, 1884, i. p. 274, pl. xvi. and Ibis, 1890, pp.
26-29, pl. i.) to resemble that of the adult.

2 In many foreign works this species is said to be called in English ‘*The
Jacko,” but no such practice is known to me, and the assertion probably originated
in the general application of the name of some particular captive. Bishop Stanley
had a bird so called (Prothero, Life of Dean Stanley, p. 18).

PARSON-BIRD 691

approached by some species of Clrysotis—usually styled Amazons—
and yet its congener P. timneh is not known to be talkative.!
Considering the abundance of Parrots both as species and in-
dividuals, and their wide extent over the globe, it is surprising how
little is known of their habits in a wild state. Even the species
with which Englishmen and their descendants have been more in
contact than any other has an almost unwritten history, compared
‘with that of many other birds ; and, seeing how many are oppressed
by and yielding to man’s occupation of their ancient haunts, the
extirpation of some is certain, and will probably be accomplished
before several interesting and some disputed points in their economy
have been decided. The experience of small islands only fore-
shadows what will happen in tracts of greater extent, though there
more time is required to produce the same result; but, the result
being inevitable, those who are favourably placed for observations
should neglect no opportunities of making them ere it be too late.

PARSON-BIRD (so-called by the English in New Zealand from
the two tufts of curled and filamentary white feathers hanging
beneath its chin, which were supposed to resemble the bands worn
until lately by clerics), the Prosthematodera nove-zealandix of modern
ornithology. Made known on the publication of Cook’s First
Voyage (i. p. 98), where it is figured as the Poe or Poy-bird,? in
1776 it was technically described by Pennant and figured by Peter
Brown (Jilustr. Zool. p. 18, pl. ix.) from a specimen in Tunstall’s
collection still existing in the Museum at Newcastle-on-Tyne (Fox,
Synops. Newc. Mus. p. 1388). The bird belongs to the Mcliphagidx
(HONEY-EATER), and is in many ways one of the most remarkable
of them, being generally of glossy black with vivid green or blue
reflexions, while in addition to the white gular tufts, the feathers on
the sides of the neck are curved forwards and white-shafted, the
greater wing-coverts also being white. It is a fine songster, and
a great favourite in captivity, learning to mimic various noises,

1 Tn connexion with the ‘‘speaking” of Parrots, one of the most curious cir-

cumstances is that recorded by Humboldt, who states (Ansichten der Natur, ed.
3, i. p. 285, Engl. transl. p. 172) that in South America he met with a vener-
able bird which remained the sole possessor of a literally dead language, the
whole tribe of Indians, Atures by name, who alone had spoken it, having become
extinct. This incident was the theme of a poem by Curtius, printed in Hum-
boldt’s volume, and how cleverly it has been worked into a romance by a recent
novelist all well know ; but unfortunately there are people who will have it that
the romance of the story did not begin with Mr. Grant Allen.

2 This name, for a long while used in the books, was given by Cook’s people,
who compared the bird’s remarkable gular tufts to the earrings worn by the
Tahitians, and called Pozes, as the word was then written. But Kago is given as
the native name of the bird, and in the form Koko is still used, though 77 is
the commoner appellation.

692 PARSON-GULL—PARTRIDGE

including the human voice.t In fine weather, as remarked by Mr.
Layard (Lis, 1863, p. 243), this species has the habit of mounting
aloft in parties of half a dozen or more and indulging in various
aerial evolutions. Another merit it possesses is that of being an
excellent bird for the table, but probably few in future will have
the opportunity of tasting its good qualities. Dr. Gadow has de-

PROSTHEMATODERA. (After Buller.)

scribed (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, pp. 67-69, pl. xvi. figs. 6, 7) the
peculiar lingual apparatus and mode of feeding of this bird.

PARSON-GULL, a common name for the adult of either of the
Black-backed GULLS, Larus marinus and fuscus,

PARTRIDGE, in older English Pertriche, Scottish Patrick,
Dutch Patrijs, French Perdria, all from the Latin Perdix, which
word in sound does not imitate badly the call-note of this bird, so
well known throughout the British Islands and the greater part of
Europe” as to need no description or account of its habits here.
The English name properly denotes the only species indigenous to
Britain, often nowadays called the Grey Partridge? (to distinguish
it from others, of which more presently), the Perdix cinerea of

1 Sir W. Buller tells us how that having addressed a Maori assemblage in
the course of a negotiation, at the end of his speech the chief's tame Tui ex-
claimed ‘‘ Tita” (false), whereupon the dignitary remarked that the arguments
were no doubt good, but they had failed to convince his bird.

? More than one local form has been said to exist on the continent if not in
Britain. One such, inhabiting the north-west of Spain, seems worthy of notice.
It was described by Dr. Reichenow (Journ. fiir Orn. 1892, p. 226) as P. his-
paniensis, which Dr. Sharpe (Zool. Rec. xxix. Aves, p. 27) has rendered P. his-
paniolensis.

* In India the name Grey Partridge is used for Ortygornis ponticerianus,
which is perhaps a FRANCOLIN (cf. Jerdon, DB. Ind. iii. p. 569).

PARTRIDGE 693

ornithologists, a species which may be regarded as the model game-
bird—whether from the excellence of the sport it affords in the
field, or the no less excellence of its flesh at table, which has been
esteemed from the time of Martial to our own—while it is on all
hands admitted to be wholly innocuous, and at times beneficial to
the agriculturist. It is an undoubted fact that the Partridge
thrives with the highest system of cultivation ; and the lands that
are the most carefully tilled, and bear the greatest quantity of
grain and green crops, generally produce the greatest number of
Partridges. Yielding perhaps in economic importance to the Red
GROUSE, what may be called the social influence of the Partridge is
greater than that excited by any other wild bird, for there must be
few rural parishes in the three kingdoms of which the inhabitants
are not more or less directly affected in their movements and busi-
ness by the coming in of Partridge-shooting, and therefore a few
words on this theme may not be out of place.

From the days when men learned to “shoot flying” until the
latter half of this century, dogs were generally if not invariably
used to point out where the “covey,” as a family-party of Part-
ridges is called, was lodged, and the greatest pains were taken to
break in the “pointers” or “setters” to their duty. In this way
marvellous success was attained, and the delight lay nearly as much
in seeing the dogs quarter the ground, wind and draw up to the
game, helping them at times (for a thorough understanding between
man and beast was necessary for the perfection of the sport) by
word or gesture, as in bringing down the bird after it had been
finally sprung. There are many who lament that the old-fashioned
practice of shooting Partridges to dogs has, with rare exceptions,
fallen into desuetude, and it is commonly believed that this result
has followed wholly from the desire to make larger and larger bags
of game. ‘The opinion has a certain amount of truth for its base ;
but those who hold it omit to notice the wholly changed circum-
stances in which Partridge-shooters now find themselves. In the
old days there were plenty of broad, tangled hedgerows which
afforded permanent harbour for the birds, and at the beginning of
the shooting-season admirable shelter or “lying” (to use the
sportsman’s word) was found in the rough stubbles, often reaped
knee-high, foul with weeds and left to stand some six or eight
weeks before being ploughed, as well as in the turnips that were
sown broadcast. Throughout the greater part of England now the
fences are reduced to the narrowest of boundaries and are mostly
trimly kept; the stubbles—mown, to begin with, as closely as
possible to the ground—are ploughed within a short time of the
corn being carried, and the turnips are drilled in regular lines,
offering inviting alleys between them along which Partridges take
foot at any unusual noise. Pointers in such a district—and to this

694 PARTRIDGE

state of things all the arable part of England is tending—are simply
useless, except at the beginning of the season, when the young
birds are not as yet strong on the wing, and the old birds are still
feeble from moulting their. quill-feathers, Of late years therefore
other modes of shooting Partridges have had to be employed, of
which methods the most popular is that known as “ driving ”—the
“guns” being stationed in more or less concealment at one end of
the field, or series of fields, which is entered from the other by
men or boys who deploy into line and walk across it making a
noise. It is the custom with many to speak depreciatingly of this
proceeding, but it is a fact that as much knowledge of the ways of
Partridges is needed to ensure a successful day’s “driving” as was
required of old when nearly everything was left to the intelligence
of the dogs, for the course of the birds’ flight depends not only on
the position of the line of beaters, but almost on the station of each
person composing it, in relation to the force and direction of the
wind and to the points on which it is desired that the Partridges
should converge. Again, the skill and alacrity needed for bringing
down birds flying at their utmost velocity, and often at a consider-
able height, is enormously greater than that which sufficed to
stop those that had barely gone 20 yards from the dog’s nose,
though admittedly Partridges rise very quickly and immediately
attain great speed. Moreover, the shooting of Partridges to pointers
came to an end in little more than six weeks, whereas “ driving”
may be continued for the whole season, and is never more success-
ful than when the birds, both young and old, have completed their
moult, and are strongest upon the wing. But, whether the new
fashion be objectionable or not, it cannot be doubted that the old
one could not be successfully restored without a reversion to the
slovenly methods of agriculture followed in former years, and there-
fore is as impossible as would be a return to the still older practice
of taking Partridges in a setting-net, described by Gervase Mark-
ham or Willughby.

The Partridge has doubtless largely increased in numbers in
Great Britain since the beginning of the present century, when
so much down, heath and moorland was first brought under the
plough, for its partiality to an arable country is very evident. It
has been observed that the birds which live on grass lands or
heather only are apt to be smaller and darker in colour than the
average ; but in truth the species when adult is subject to a much
greater variation in plumage than is commonly supposed, and the
well-known chestnut horse-shoe mark, generally considered distinc-
tive of the cock, is very often absent. In Asia our Partridge seems

1 Mr. W. R. Ogilvie Grant has indicated certain characters in the plumage of

the two sexes of this specics whereby they may be unfailingly distinguished. In
the adult cock the sides of the neck are grey, but in the hen olive-brown, while

PARTRIDGE 695

to be unknown, but in the temperate parts of Eastern Siberia its
place is taken by a very nearly allied form, P. barbata, and in Tibet
there is a bird, P. hodgsonix, which can hardly with justice be
generically separated from it. The relations of some other forms
inhabiting the Indian Region are at present too obscure to make
any notice of them expedient here.

The common Red-legged Partridge of Europe, generally called
the French Partridge, Caccabis rufa, seems to be justifiably con-
sidered the type of a separate group.! This bird was introduced
into England toward the end of the eighteenth century, and
has established itself in various parts of the country, notwith-
standing a widely-spread, and in some respects unreasonable
prejudice against it. It has certainly the habit of trusting nearly
as much to its legs as to its wings, and it thus incurred the
obloquy of old-fashioned sportsmen, whose dogs it vexatiously
kept at a running-point ; but when it was also accused of driving
away the grey Partridge, the charge only shewed the ignorance
of those that brought it, for as a matter of fact the French
Partridge rather prefers ground which the common species avoids
—such as the heaviest clay-soils, or the most infertile heaths.
But even where the two species meet, the present writer can
declare from the personal observation of many years that the
alleged antipathy between them is imaginary, and unquestionably
in certain parts of the country the “head of game” has been
increased by the introduction of the foreigner.2 The French
nearly each feather shews a buff shaft-stripe. Again the median upper wing-
coverts in the cock are of a sandy-brown blotched with chestnut and black trans-
verse lines, while in the hen the corresponding feathers are blackish-brown with
conspicuous buff crossbars. I am much indebted to Lord Lilford and Mr. Beilby
Oakes for kindly informing me that, after examining a great many Partridges,
they can wholly confirm Mr. Grant’s observations, which having been originally
published in a newspaper (Field, 21 Nov. 1891 and 9 April 1892), and only
incidentally meutioned by him in a scientific work (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxii. p.
185) will be new to many persons.

1 The late Prof. Parker first (Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 155) and, after him,
Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, pp. 299-3802) pointed out that the true
Galline offer two types of structure, ‘‘one of which may be called Galline,
and the other Tetraonine,” to use the latter’s words, though he is ‘‘ by no means
clear that they do not graduate into one another” ; and, according to the char-
acters assigned by him, Caccabis lies ‘‘on the Galline side of the boundary,”
while Perdiz belongs to the Tetraonine group. Further investigation of this
matter is very desirable, and, with the abundant means possessed by those who
have access to zoological gardens, it might easily be carried out.

2 It is a singular fact that the game-preservers who object most strongly to
the Red-legged Partridge are not agreed on the exact grounds of their objection.
One party will declare that it vanquishes the Grey Partridge, while the other
holds that, thongh the latter, the ‘‘ English” Partridge, is much vexed by the
{utroduced species, it invariably beats off the ‘‘ Frenchman ” !

696 PASSAGE-HA WkK—PASSENGER-PIGEON

Partridge has several congeners, all with red legs and plumage of
similar character. In Africa north of the Atlas there is the
Barbary Partridge, C. petrosa; in southern Europe another, C.
saxatilis, which extends eastward till it is replaced by C. chukar,
which reaches India, where it is a well-known bird. Two very
interesting desert-forms, supposed to be allied to Caccabis, are the
Ammoperdix heyi of North Africa and Palestine and the 4. bonhami
of Persia; but the absence of the metatarsal knob, or incipient
spur, suggests (in our ignorance of their other osteological characters)
an alliance rather to the genus Perdiz. On the other hand the
groups of birds known as FRANCOLINS and Snow-Partridges are
generally furnished with strong but blunt spurs, and therefore prob-
ably belong to the Caccabine group. Of the former, containing
many species, there is only room here to mention, in addition to
what has been before (page 291) said of that which used to occur
in Europe, the possibility, as some think, of its having been the
Attagas or Attagen of classical authors,’ a bird celebrated for its
exquisite flavour. Of the latter it is only to be said here that
those of the genus Tetraogallus, often called Snow-PHEASANT, are the
giants of their kin, and that nearly every considerable range of
mountains in Asia seems to possess its specific form; while the
genus Lerwa contains but a single species, LZ. nivicola, which is
emphatically the Snow-Partridge of Himalayan sportsmen.

By English colonists the name Partridge has been very loosely
applied, and especially so in North America. Where a qualifying
word is prefixed no confusion is caused, but without it there is
sometimes a difficulty at first to know whether the Ruffed GrousE
(Bonasa umbellus) or the Virginian CoLin (Ortyx virginianus) is
intended, while the ‘“ Partridge-Hawk” of the same country is
Astur atricapillus (GOSHAWK), and the “Partridge- Pigeon” of
Australia is a species of Geophaps (BRONZE-WING).

PASSAGE-HAWK, in modern falconers’ language, is one taken
on its passage or migration, generally in Holland. It is therefore
always what in old time was called a “ Haggard,” and when trained
is more valued than a NIAS.

PASSENGER-PIGEON, so-called in books, but in North
America commonly known as the “ Wild Pigeon,” the ctopistes
migratorius of ornithology, the bird so famous in former days for
its multitude, and still occasionally to be found plentifully in some
parts of Canada and the United States, though no longer appearing
in the countless numbers that it did of old, when a flock seen by
Wilson was estimated to consist of more than 2230 millions. The

' However, many naturalists have maintained a different opinion—some
making it a Woopcock, a GopwiITt, or even the Hazel-hen (Grousr). The ques-
tion has been well discussed by Lord Lilford (Zbis, 1862, pp. 352-356).

PASSERES—PASSERINA 697
often-quoted descriptions given by him and Audubon of Pigeon-
haunts in the then “ back-woods” of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana
need not here be reproduced. That of the latter was declared by
Waterton to be a gross exaggeration if not an entire fabrication ;
but the critic would certainly have changed his tone had he known
that, some hundred and fifty years earlier, Wild Pigeons so swarmed
and ravaged the colonists’ crops near Montreal that a bishop of his
own Church was constrained to exorcise them with holy water as if
they had been demons.! The rapid and sustained flight of these
Pigeons is also as well-established as their former overwhelming
abundance—birds having been killed in the State of New York
' whose crops contained undigested grains of rice that must have
been not long before plucked and swallowed in South Carolina or
Georgia. The Passenger-Pigeon is about the size of a common
Turtle-DoveE, but with a long, wedge-shaped tail. The male is of
a dark slate-colour above, and purplish-bay beneath, the sides of
the neck being enlivened by gleaming violet, green and _ gold.
The female is drab-coloured above and dull white beneath, with
only a slight trace of the brilliant neck-markings” (see PIGEON).

PASSERES, the name given by Linnzus to his Sixth Order of
Birds, which though for a time set aside in favour of other designa-
tions, INSESSORES and the like, or modified into such a form as
PASSERIN#:,® has been restored to use of late years, and approximately
in its author’s sense—the genera Certhia, Sitta, Oriolus, Gracula,
Corvus and Paradisea, which he had placed in his Pica, being
added, while Caprimulgus, the portion of Htrundo containing the
SWIFTS, and Colwmba have been removed. For further subdivision
of the Order, which, though offering comparatively little variation of
essential importance, comprehends far more genera and species than
all the others put together, see INTRODUCTION.

PASSERIN 4%, a group so named of Nitzsch in 1820 (Deutsche
Archiv fiir Physiol. vi. p. 253) to include the genera Sturnus, Oriolus,
Lanius, Muscicapa, Aimpelis, Hirundo, Turdus, Accentor, Sylvia, Mota-
cilla, Anthus, Alauda, Parus, Sitta, Certhia (with Tichodroma),

1 Voyages du Baron de la Hontan dans l’ Amerique scptentrionale, ed. 2,
Amsterdam: 1705, vol. i. pp. 93, 94. In the first edition, published at The
Hague in 1703, the passage, less explicit in details but to the same effect, is af
p. 80. The author’s letter, describing the circumstance, is dated May 1687.

2 There are several records of the occurrence in Britain of this Pigeon, but in
most cases the birds noticed cannot be supposed to have found their own way
hither. One, which was shot in Fife in 1825, may, however, have crossed the
Atlantic unassisted by man.

3 The names Passeriformes and lately even Passeridx(!) have been in some
instances employed ; with very slight or no modification they signify the same
thing as Passerine.

698 PASSERINI—PATELLA

Emberiza, Fringilla, Loxia, Cinclus(?) and Corvus—thus differing
somewhat from Johannes Miiller’s application of the cognate term

PASSERINI (Abhandl. K. Akad. Berlin, Phys. Kl. 1847, p.
366), which he regarded as equivalent to the Order INSESSORES
(as it was then called), separating its members into Passerini
PoLyMyopI (or OSCINES), TRACHEOPHONES and Prcaru, though
cautiously declaring these to be not so much the names of groups,
but as merely indicating different laryngeal formations.

PASTOR, Temminck’s generic name in 1815 for a beautiful
bird, the Zurdus-roseus of Linnzeus, very commonly known in Eng-
lish as the Rose-coloured Pastor, one of the Sturnide (STARLING),
which is not an infrequent visitor to the British Islands. It is a

Keg bird of most irregular and erratic
habits—a vast horde suddenly arriv-
ing at some place to which it may
have hitherto been a stranger, and
at once making a settlement there,
S leaving it whoily deserted so soon

Pastor. (After Swainson.) as the young are reared. ‘This
happened in the summer of 1875 at Villafranca, in the province of
Verona, the castle of which was occupied in a single day by some
12,000 or 14,000 birds of this species, as has been graphically told
by Sig. de Betta (Aditi del R. Ist. Veneto, ser. 5, vol. 11.) ; but similar
instances have been before recorded,—as in Bulgaria in 1867, near
Smyrna in 1856, and near Odessa in 1844, to mention only some of
which particulars have been published,! and a concise account of
them will be found in the Fourth Edition of Yarrell’s British Birds
(il. pp. 245-250). The Rose-coloured Starling hardly ever occurs
in Africa, but is a well-known bird in India, over nearly the whole
of which it regularly appears, and generally in the cold weather.

PASTURE-BIRD, a name indiscriminately given in parts of
North America and the West Indies to any of the Stinvrs and
smaller SANDPIPERS met with on their autumnal migration, and
then mostly resorting to the cattle-pastures.

PATELLA, a sesamoid bone interposed in the tendon of the
extensor-cruris muscle, and connected with the upper end of the
TIBIA by the Patellar Ligament, which in old birds is often ossified.
The most remarkable variations of condition are shewn in Colymbus,

1 It is remarkable that on almost all of these occasions the locality pitched
upon has been, either at the time or soon after, ravaged by locusts, which the
birds greedily devour. Another fact worthy of attention is that they are often
observed to affect trees or shrubs bearing rose-coloured flowers, as Nerium
oleander and Robinia viscosa, among the blossoms of which they themselves may
easily escape notice, for their plumage is rose-pink and black shot with blue.

PEACOCK 699

where the Patella is reduced to a small ossicle within the tendon,
its function being taken by the greatly-developed pyramidal pro-
cessus tibialis anterior, and in Podicipes and Hesperornis, where it
is almost as large as the cnemial process with which it freely
articulates.

PEACOCK (the first syllable from the Latin Pav, in Anglo-
Saxon Pawe, Dutch Paauw, German Pfau, French Paon), the bird
so well known from the splendid plumage of the male, and as the
proverbial personification of pride. A native of the Indian penin-
sula and Ceylon, in some parts of which it is very abundant, its
domestication dates from times so remote that nothing can be posi-
tively stated on that score. Setting aside its importation to Pales-
tine by Solomon (1 Kings x. 22; 2 Chron. ix. 21), its assignment
in classical mythology as the favourite bird of Hera or Juno testifies
to the early acquaintance the Greeks must have had with it; but,
though it is mentioned by Aristophanes and other older writers,
their knowledge of it was probably very slight until after the con-
quests of Alexander. Throughout all succeeding time, however, it
has never very willingly rendered itself to domestication, and, retain-
ing much of its wild character, can hardly be accounted an inhabit-
ant of the poultry-yard, but rather an ornamental denizen of the
pleasure-ground or shrubbery ; while, even in this condition, it is
seldom kept in large numbers, for it has a bad reputation for doing
mischief in gardens, it is not very prolific, and, though in earlier
days highly esteemed for the table,’ it is no longer considered the
delicacy it was once thought.

As in most cases of domestic animals, pied or white varieties of
the ordinary Peacock, Pavo cristatus, are not unfrequently to be
seen ; and, though lacking the gorgeous resplendence for which the
common bird stands unsurpassed, they are valued as curiosities.
Greater interest, however, attends what is known as the “ japanned ”
Peacock, often erroneously named the Japanese or Japan Peacock,
a form which has received the name of P. nigripennis, as though it
were a distinct species. In this form the cock, beside other less
conspicuous differences, has all the upper wing-coverts of a deep
lustrous blue instead of being mottled with brown and white, while
the hen is of a more or less greyish-white, deeply tinged with dull
yellowish-brown near the base of the neck and shoulders. It
“breeds true”; but occasionally a presumably pure stock of birds
of the usual coloration throws out one or more having the

1 Classical authors contain many allusions to its high appreciation at the most
sumptuous banquets ; and medieval bills of fare on state occasions nearly always
include it. In the days of chivalry one of the most solemn oaths was taken ‘‘on
the Peacock,” which seems to have been served up garnished with its gaudy
pluinage.

700 PEACOCK

“japanned ” plumage, leading to the conclusion that the latter may
be due to “reversion to a primordial and otherwise extinct condi-
tion of the species,” and it is to be observed that the “japanned ”
male has in the coloration of the parts mentioned no little re-
semblance to that of the second indubitably good species, the
P. muticus (or P. spicifer of some writers) of Burma and Java,
though the character of the latter’s crest—the feathers of which
are barbed along their whele length instead of at the tip only—and

“ JaAPANNED” PEarow.s. (After Wolf in Elliot's ‘ Phasianide.’)

its golden-green neck and breast furnish a ready means of distine-
tion. The late Sir R. Heron was confident that the “japanned”
breed had arisen in England within his memory,' and Darwin
(Anim. and Plants wnder Domestic. i. pp. 290-292) was inclined to
believe it only a variety ; but its abrupt appearance, which rests on
indisputable evidence, is most suggestive in the light that it may

1 This may have been the case as regards England ; but I have a distinct
recollection of having seen a bird of this form represented in an old Dutch
picture, though when or where I cannot state. An instance of its sudden pro-
duction from the ordinary stock oceurred to my own knowledge as mentioned by
Mr. Darwin.

PEASEWEEP—PECTINEAL PROCESS 7O1

one day throw on the question of evolution as exhibited in the
origin of “species.” It should be stated that the “japanned” bird
is not known to exist anywhere as a wild race.

The Peafowls belong to the Gallinx, from the normal members
of which they do not materially differ in structure; and, though
by some systematists they are raised to the rank of a Family,
Pavonidx, most are content to regard them as a subfamily of
Phasiamdx (PHEASANT).! Akin to the genus Pavo is Polyplectrum,
of which the males are armed with two or more spurs on each leg,

POLYPLECTRUM. ARGUS-PHEASANT,
(After Swainson.)

and near them is generally placed the genus Argusianus, containing
the ArGus-Pheasants, remarkable for their wonderfully ocellated
plumage, and the extraordinary length of the secondary quills of
their wings, as well as of the tail-feathers. It must always be re-
membered that the so-called “tail” of the Peacock is formed not
by the rectrices or true tail-feathers, but by the singular develop-
ment of the tail-coverts, a fact of which any one may be satisfied
. by looking at the bird when these magnificent plumes are erected
and expanded in disk-like form, as is his habit when displaying his
beauty to his mates.

PEASEWEEP (spelling uncertain), the Scottish form of PEWIT,
but applied to the LAPWING only.

PECTEN, a fan-like lamella which projects into the posterior
chamber of the Eyk, near the entrance of the optic nerve, and is
found in all Birds except Apteryz.

PECTINEAL PROCESS (so called from the attachment to it of
the Pectineal muscle), a process, near the anterior margin of the
acetabulum (see ODONTORNITHES, fig. 4 a, page 650), and is in Birds
formed by the os pubis alone, by the os pubis and ilium jointly, or
occasionally by the ilium alone. When formed wholly by the pubic
bone and well developed, as in Apteryx and Centrococcyz, it strongly
resembles the so-called ‘“prepubis” of Dinosaurs and _ other
Reptiles.

1 As Mr, Elliot does in his magnificent Monograph of the Phasianide,

702 PEEP—PELICAN

PEEP, used chiefly in North America for any of the STINTS or
small SANDPIPERS from their cry.

PEGGY, a common name of the WHITETHROAT.

PELARGOMORPHS, Prof. Huxley’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1867, p. 461) for that group of DesMOGNATHA which contains the
Storks, Herons, Ibises and Spoonbills.

PELICAN (Fr. Pélican, Lat. Pelecanus or Pelicanus), a large fish-
eating water-fowl, remarkable for the enormous pouch formed by
the extensible skin between the lower jaws of its long, and ap-
parently formidable but in reality very weak, bill. The ordinary
Pelican, the Onocrotalus of the ancients, to whom it was well known,
and the Pelecanus onocrotalus of ornithologists, is a very abundant
bird in some districts of South-eastern Europe, South-western Asia,
and North-eastern Africa, occasionally straying, it is believed, into
the northern parts of Germany and France ; but the possibility of
such wanderers having escaped from confinement is always to be
regarded,} since few zoological gardens are without examples which
are often in the finest condition. Its usual haunts are the shallow
margins of the larger lakes and rivers, where fishes are plentiful,
since it requires for its sustenance a vast supply of them, pursuing
them under water, and rising to the surface to swallow those that
it has captured in its capacious pouch. The nest is formed among
the reeds that border the waters it frequents, placed on the ground
and lined with grass. Therein two eggs, with white, chalky shells,
are commonly laid. The young during the first twelvemonth are
of a greyish-brown, but this dress is slowly superseded by the growth
of white feathers, until when mature almost the whole plumage,
except the black primaries, is white, deeply suffused by a rich blush
of rose or salmon-colour, passing into yellow on the crest and lower
part of the neck in front. A second and somewhat larger species,
P. crispus, also inhabits Europe, but in smaller numbers. This,
when adult, is readily distinguishable from the ordinary bird by the
absence of the blush from its plumage, and by the curled feathers
that project from and overhang each side of the head, which with
some differences of coloration of the bill, pouch, bare skin round the
eyes, and irides give it a wholly distinct expression.2 Two speci-
mens of the humerus of as many Pelicans have been found in the
English fens (Ibis, 1868, p. 363; Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 702),

1 This caution was not neglected by the prudent, even so long ago as Sir
Thomas Browne’s days; for he, recording the occurrence of a Pelican in Norfolk,
was careful to notice that about the same time one of the Pelicans kept by the
king (Charles II.) in St. James’s Park had been lost. Charleton says (Onomast.
p. 94) they came from the Czar.

2 It is also said to have twenty-two rectrices, while the ordinary species has
only cighteen.

PELVIS—PENGUIN 703

thus proving the former existence of the bird in England at no very
distant period, and one of them being that of a young example
points to its having been bred in this country. It is possible from
their large size that they belonged to P. crispus. Ornithologists
have been much divided in opinion as to the number of living species
of the genus Pelecanus (cf. op. cit. 1868, p. 264; 1869, p. 571;
1871, p. 631)—the estimate varying from six to ten or eleven; but
the former is the number recognized by M. Dubois (Bull. Mus. Belg.
1883). North America has one, P. erythrorhynchus, very similar to
P. onocrotalus both in appearance and habits, but remarkable for a
triangular, compressed, horny exerescence which is developed on the
ridge of the male’s bill in the breeding-season, and, as ascertained
by Mr. Ridgway (Ibis, 1869, p. 350), falls off without leaving trace
of its existence when that is over (cf. MOULT, page 599). Australia
has P. conspicillatus, easily distinguished by its black tail and wing-
coverts. Of more marine habit are P. philippensis and P. fuscus, the .
former having a wide range in Southern Asia, and, it is said, reaching
Madagascar, and the latter being common on the coasts of the
warmer parts of both North and South America.?

PELVIS, that part of the trunk to which are attached the
hind limbs, and consisting of a number of fused vertebrae, beside
three coalescent portions on either side of the Median line—the
In1uM, IscuruM and Os PuBIS (see SKELETON).

PEN, said by Yarrell to be the technical name of the hen Mute
SwAN, the cock being called Cos.

PENELOPE, the generic name most inappropriately given by
Merrem to the GUANS and occasionally used as English.

PENGUIN, the name of a flightless sea-bird,? but, so far as is

1 The genus Pelecanus as instituted by Linneus included the Cormorant and
GANNET as well as the true Pelicans, and for a long while these and some other
distinct groups, as the SNAKE-BIRDS, FRIGATE-BIRDS, and TROPIC-BIRDS, which
have all the four toes of the foot connected by a web, were regarded as forming a
single Family, Pelecanidxw ; but this name has now been restricted to the Pelicans
only, though all are still usually associated under the name STEGANOPoDES. It
may be necessary to state that there is no foundation for the venerable legend of
the Pelican feeding her young with blood from her own breast, which has given
her an important place in ecclesiastical heraldry, except that, as Mr. Bartlett has
suggested (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869, p. 146), the curious bloody secretion ejeeted
from the mouth of the FLAMINGO may have given rise to the belief, through that
bird having been mistaken for the ‘‘ Pelican of the wilderness.”

2 Of the three derivations assigned to this name, the first is by Drayton in
1613 (Polyolbion, Song 9), where it is said to be the Welsh pen gwyn, or “‘ white
head” ; the second, which seems to meet with Littré’s approval, deduces it from
the Latin pinguis (fat) ; the third supposes it to be a corruption of ‘‘pin-wing”
{Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, iv. p. 133), meaning a bird that has undergone the
operation of pinioning or, as in one part at least of England it is commonly callea

704 PENGUIN

known, first given, as in Hore’s “‘ Voyage to Cape Breton,” 1536
(Hackluyt, Researches, iii. pp. 168-170), to one inhabiting the seas
of Newfoundland, which subsequently became known as the Great
Auk or GARE-FOWL; and, though the French equivalent Pingowin 4
preserves its old application, at the present day, the word Penguin
is by English ornithologists always used in a general sense for
certain Birds inhabiting the Southern Ocean, called by the French
Manchots, the Spheniscide of ornithologists, which in some respects
form perhaps the most singular group of the whole Class, or at least
we may say of the Carinatx. For a long while their position was
very much misunderstood, some of the best of recent or even living
systematists having placed them in close company with the Alcidx
(AUKs), to which they bear only a relationship of analogy, as indeed
had been perceived by a few ornithologists, who recognized in the
Penguins a very distinct Order, IMPENNES. The view of the latter
is hardly likely to be disputed in future, now that the anatomical
researches of MM. Paul Gervais and Alix (Journ. de Zool. 1877, pp.
424-470), M. Filhol (Bull. Soc. Philomath. ser. 7, vi. pp. 226-248),
and above all of Prof. Watson (Zooloay, Voy. Challenger, part xviii.)
have put the independent position of the Spheniscidex in the clearest
light.2- The most conspicuous outward character presented by the
Penguins is the total want of quills in their wings, which are beside

‘¢pin-winging.” In opposition to the first of these hypotheses it has been urged
(1) that there is no real evidence of any Welsh discovery of the bird, (2) that it
is very unlikely for the Welsh, if they did discover it, to have been able to pass
on their name to English navigators, and (3) that it had not a white head, but
only a patch of white thereon. To the second hypothesis Prof. Skeat (Etymol.
Dict. p. 483) objects that it ‘‘ will not account for the suffix -im, and is therefore
wrong; besides which the ‘Dutchmen’ [who were asserted to be the authors of
the name] turn out to be Sir Francis Drake” and his men. In support of the
third hypothesis Mr. Reeks wrote (Zoologist, ser. 2, p. 1854) that the people in
Newfoundland who used to meet with this bird always pronounced its name
**Pin-wing.” Prof, Skeat’s enquiry (doc. czt.), whether the name may not after
all be South-American, is to be answered in the negative, since, so far as evidence
goes, it was given to the North-American bird before the South-American was
known in Europe.

1 Gorfow has also been used by some French writers, being a corruption of
Geirfugl or Gare-fowl.

2 Though I cannot wholly agree with Prof. Watson’s conclusions, his remarks
(pp. 230-232) on the ‘‘ Origin of the Penguins” are worthy of all attention. He
considers that they are the surviving members of a group that branched off
early from the primitive ‘‘avian” stem, but that at the time of their separation
the stem had diverged so far from Reptiles as to possess true wings, though the
metatarsal bones had not lost their distinctness and become fused into the single
bone so characteristic of existing Birds. The ancestral Penguin, he argues, must
have had functional wings, the muscles of which, through atrophy, have been
converted into non-contractile tendinous bands, and this view agrees practically
with that taken by Prof. Fiirbringer and Dr. Gadow.

PENGUIN 705

as incapable of flexure as the flippers of a Cetacean, though they
move freely at the shoulder-joint, and some at least of the species
occasionally make use of them for progressing on land. In the
water they are most efficient paddles, and are usually, if not always,
worked, as birds’ wings commonly are (cf. FLIGHT, pp. 267-269),
with a rotatory action. The plumage which clothes the whole body,
leaving no bare spaces, generally consists of small scale-like feathers,
many of them consisting only of a simple shaft without the develop-
ment of barbs; but several of the species have the head decorated
with long cirrhous tufts (MACCARONI), and in some the tail-quills,
which are very numerous, are also long. In standing these birds
preserve an upright position, generally resting on the “tarsus” ”
alone, but in walking or running on land this is kept nearly vertical,
and their weight is supported by the toes as well.

The most northerly limit of the Penguins’ range in the Atlantic
is Tristan da Cunha, and in the Indian Ocean Amsterdam Island,
but they also occur off the Cape of Good Hope and along the south
coast of Australia, as well as on the south and east of New Zealand,
while in the Pacific one species at least extends along the west coast
of South America and to the Galapagos ; but north of the equator
none are found. In the breeding-season they resort to the most
desolate lands in higher southern latitudes, and indeed have been
met with as far to the southward as navigators have penetrated.
Possibly the Falkland Islands may still be regarded as the locality
richest in species,? though, whatever may have been the case once,
their abundance there as individuals does not now nearly approach
what it is in many other places, owing to the ravages of man, whose
advent is always accompanied by massacre and devastation on an
enormous scale—the habit of the helpless birds, when breeding, to
congregate by hundreds and thousands in what are called “ Penguin-
rookeries ” contributing to the ease with which their slaughter can

1 The pterylographical characters of the Penguins are well described by Mr.
Hyatt (Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 1871). Mr. Bartlett has observed (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1879, pp. 6-9) that, instead of moulting in the way that birds ordinarily
do, Penguins, at least in passing from the immature to the adult dress, cast off
the short scale-like feathers from their wings in a manner that he compares to
“‘the shedding of the skin in a serpent.”

2 The three metatarsals in the Penguins are not, as in other Birds, united for
the whole of their length, but only at the extremities, thus preserving a portion of
their originally distinct existence, a fact probably attributable to arrest of develop-
ment, since the researches of Prof. Gegenbaur shew that the embryos of all Birds,
so far as is known, possess these bones in an independent condition. More
recently Prof. Marsh has found that in the Dinosaurian genus Ceratosawrus the
metatarsals acquire a condition very similar to that which they present in the
Penguins (Am. Journ. Sc. Aug. 1884).

3 An interesting account of the Penguins of these islands is given by Capt.
Abbott (Zbis, 1860, p. 336).

45

706 _ PENGUIN

be effected. Incapable of escape by flight, they are yet able to
make enough resistance or retaliation (for they bite hard when they
get the chance) to excite the wrath of their murderers, and this only
brings upon them greater destruction, so that the interest of nearly

King-Pencuin. (From living example in the Zoological Gardens.)

all the numerous accounts of these ‘“rookeries” is spoilt by the
disgusting details of the brutal havoc perpetrated upon them (cf.
JOHNNY).

The Spheniscide have been divided into at least eight genera,
but three, or at most four, seem to be all that are needed, and three
can be well distinguished, as pointed out by Dr. Coues (Proc. Ac. N.
Se. Philad. 1872, pp. 170-212), by anatomical as well as by external
characters. They are (1) Aptenodytes, easily recognized by its long
and thin bill, slightly decurved, from which Pygoscelis, as Prof.
Watson has shewn, is hardly distinguishable ; (2) Hudyptes, in which
the bill is much shorter and somewhat broad ; and (3) Spheniscus, in
which the shortish bill is compressed and the maxilla ends in a
conspicuous hook. Aptenodytes contains the largest species, among
them those known as the “Emperor” and “King” Penguins, J.
patagonica and A. longirostris+ Three others belong also to this

1 Some authorities (cf Sclater, Zbis, 1888, pp. 325-334) prefer calling these
species A. forsteri and A. pennanti. An example of the former, weighing 78
pounds, was, according to Dr. M‘Cormick (Voyages of Discovery, i. p. 259),
obtained by the ‘Terror’ in January 1842.

PERCHERS—PETREL 707

genus, if Pygoscelis (JOHNNY) be not recognized, but they seem no
further to require remark. Hudyptes, containing the crested
Penguins (known to sailors as Rock-hoppers or MACCARONIS), would
appear to have five species, and Spheniscus (JACKASS) four, among
which S. demersus, the well-known ‘‘ Cape Penguin,” and S. mendiculus,
which occurs in the Galapagos, and therefore has the most northerly
range of the whole group, alone need notice here.!

PERCHERS, the rendering by popular writers of the word
INSESSORES, now almost wholly abandoned by systematists.

PEREGRINE (Lat. peregrinus, wandering) an adjective often
mistaken for a substantive, and used as an abbreviation of
Peregrine FALCON, an expression that originally meant one of
foreign origin, regardless of the species.

PERISTEROMORPH A, according to Prof. Huxley’s taxonomy
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 459, 460), the sixth group of ScHIZo-
GNATH, consisting of the Columbe (DOVE, PIGEON), but not to be
confounded with his

PERISTEROPODES, a section of ALECTOROMORPH4 established
the year after (op. cit. 1868, p. 296), composed of the CURASSOWS
and MEGAPODES, being so called from the Pigeon-like structure of
their feet, in which the hallux is long and on a level with the
other toes, instead of being short and raised as in the other section,
Alectoropodes, and it was a consideration of this difference that led
to his important conclusions in regard to the GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRIBUTION of Mammals and Birds before mentioned (page 313).

PERITONEUM, a thin layer of connective tissue lining the
whole of the body-cavity, and enveloping the viscera, as well as
attaching the intestinal folds to each other and to the vertebral
column as MESENTERY.

PETREL, the name applied in a general way to a group of
Birds (of which more than 100 species are recognized) from the
habit which some of them possess of apparently walking on the
surface of the water as the apostle St. Peter (of whose name the
word is a diminutive form) is recorded (Matt. xiv. 29) to have
done. For a long while the Petrels were ranked as a Family, under
the name of Procellariidx,? and thought to be either very nearly
allied to the Laridx (GULL), or intermediate between that Family
and the STEGANOPODES ; but this opinion has gradually given way,

1 The generic and specific distribution of the Penguins is the subject of an
excellent essay by Prof. Alphonse Milne-Edwards in the Annales des Sciences
Natwrelles for 1880 (vol. ix. art. 9, pp. 23-81), of which there is a German trans-
lation in the Mittheilwngen of the Ornithological Union of Vienna for 1883 (pp.
179-186, 210-222, 238-241).

2 Most commonly but erroneously spelt Procellaridz.

708 IBID AE,

and it is now hard to resist the conclusion that. they have to be
regarded as an “ Order,” to which the name TUBINARES has been
applied from the tubular form of their nostrils, a feature possessed
in greater or less degree by all of them, and one by which each may
at a glance be recognized. They had been variously subdivided ;
but to little purpose until the anatomy of the group was subjected
to comparative examination by Garrod and W. A. Forbes, the latter of
whom summed up the results obtained by himself and his predecessor
in an elaborate essay (forming part ix. of the Zoology of the voyage of
the ‘Challenger’) which shewed determinations that differed greatly
from any that had been reached by prior systematists. According
to these investigators, the 7'ubinares are composed of two Families,

PETREL, Prion turtur. (After Buller.)

Procellariide and Oceanitidx, whose distinctness had hardly before
been suspected !—the latter consisting of four genera not very much
differing in appearance from many others, while the former includes
as subfamilies Diomedeinx (ALBATROS), with three genera, Diomedea,
Thalassiarche and Phebetria, and the true Petrels, Procellariing, in
which last are combined forms so different externally and in habit
as the Diving-Petrels, Pelecanoides or Halodroma, the Storm-Petrels,
Procellaria, the Flat-billed Petrels, Prion, the FULMAR, the SHEAR-
WATERS and others. Want of space forbids us here dwelling on
the characters assigned to these different groups, or the means which
have led to this classification of it, set forth at great length in the
essay cited where also will be found copious references to previous
studies of the Petrels.”

! Tt is due to Prof. Coues to state that in 1864 he had declared the genus
Oceanites, of which he only knew the external characters, to be ‘‘ the most
distinct and remarkable” of the ‘‘ Procedlariex,” though he never thought of
making it the type of a separate Family.

* Among these may here be especially mentioned those of Quoy and Gaimard
(Ann. Se. Nat. v. pp. 123-155, and Voy. de 0 Uranie et la Physicienne, Zool. pp.
142-169) ; Jacquinot (Comptes Rendus, 1844, pp. 853-358, and Zool. Voy. au Pol
Sud, iil. pp. 128-152); Prof. Coues (Proc. Acad. Philad. 1864, pp. 72-91, 116-
144, and 1866, pp, 25-33, 134-197); Mr. Salvin (Orn. Misced?. ii. pp. 223-238,

PETREL 709

Petrels are dispersed throughout all the seas and oceans of the
world, and some species apparently never resort to land except for
the purpose of nidification, though nearly all are liable at times to
be driven ashore, and often very far inland, by gales of wind.1

CapreD PETREL, Zistrelata hesitata. (From The Zoologist, vol. x. p. 3693.) ~

Wanderers as they may be, there is reason to think that attachment
to their home is a feeling as strong with them as with other birds,
and it is only now beginning to be clear that until we know the
breeding-place or places of each species—and some seem to be
extremely restricted in this respect—we shall know very little to
the point about their geographical distribution. But this knowledge
is not easily obtained, for during the breeding-season many of these
birds are almost wholly nocturnal in their habits, passing the day
in holes of the ground, or in clefts of the rocks, in which they
generally nestle, the hen of each pair laying a single white egg,
sparsely speckled in a few species with fine reddish dots. Of those
species that frequent the North Atlantic, the common Storm-Petrel,
Procellaria pelagica, a little bird which has to the ordinary eye rather
the look of a Swift or Swallow, is the “ Mother Carey’s chicken ” of

249-257; and Zoology, Voy. ‘Challenger,’ pt. viii. pp. 140-149); and the
distribution of the group in the Southern Ocean is treated by Prof. A. Milne-
Edwards (Ann. Se. Nat. 1882, Zool. ser. 6, xiii. art. 4; Germanice, Mitth.
Ornith. Ver. in Wien, 1884).

1 Thus @strelatu hexsitata, the Capped Petrel, a species whose proper home
seems to have been in Guadeloupe and Dominica (where it was known as the
**Diablotin ”), has even occurred in the State of New York, near Boulogne, in
Norfolk and in Hungary (Jbis, 1884, p. 202)! But there is reason to fear that
this species is nearly extinct, though an example is recorded (d4uk, 1893, p. 361)
in Virginia, some 200 miles from the sea, in August 1893, two days after a great
storm, while its congener, @. jamaicensis, runs a risk of the same fate (see Exrer-
MINATION, p. 227, note 4).

710 PETTICHAPS—PEWIT

sailors, and is widely believed to be the harbinger of bad weather ;
but seamen hardly discriminate between this and others nearly
resembling it in appearance, such as Leach’s or the Fork-tailed
Petrel, Cymochorea leucorrhoa, a rather larger but less common bird,
and Wilson’s Petrel, Oceanites occanicus, the type of the Family
Oceanitide mentioned above, which is more common on the American
side. But it is in the Southern Ocean that Petrels most abound,
both as species and as individuals. The Cape-Pigeon or Pintado
Petrel, Daption capensis, is one that has long been well known, while
those who voyage to or from Australia, whatever be the route
they take, are.certain to meet with many more species, some, as
Ossifraga gigantea, as large as Albatroses, and several of them
called by sailors by a variety of choice names, generally having
reference to the strong smell of musk emitted by the birds, among
which that of “Stink-pot” is not the most opprobrious. None of
the Petrels are endowed with any brilliant colouring—sooty-black,
grey of various tints (one of which approaches to and is often called
“blue”), and white being the only hues their plumage exhibits ;
but their graceful flight, and their companionship when no other
life is visible around a lonely vessel on the widest of oceans, give
them an interest to beholders, though this is too often marred by
the wanton destruction dealt out by brutal or thoughtless persons
who thus seek to break the tediousness of a long voyage.

PETTICHAPS, the name under which a bird, supposed to be
that now commonly known as the Garden-WARBLER, Sylvia salicaria
or horlensis, was sent from Yorkshire by Jessop to Willughby
(Ornithologia, p. 158), and hence more or less frequently applied to
that species; or, with the qualification of “Lesser,” to the CHIFF-
CHAFF. The name was known in Lancashire a century later
(Latham, Gen. Synops. ii. p. 413), but seems never to have been in
general use in England. In 1873 the present writer obtained
evidence (Yarrell, Br. B. ed. 4,1. p. 415) that it had not become
obsolete near Sheffield where Jessop lived. It is also given as the
name of a bird by Clare the Northamptonshire poet.

PEWEE, so called from its drawling note,’ a well-known
North-American bird, Contopus virens, one of the Tyrannide (TYRANT-
BIRD), extremely abundant in the eastern side of the continent, and
represented by other species in the remainder of it.

PEWIT, anciently Puet, the ordinary name of what is called in
books the Black-headed GuLu, Larus ridibundus, in the inland
localities affected by it for breeding. The great Pewit-pool at Nor-
bury in Staffordshire visited by Ray and Willughby, 14th May 1662,

1 This is said to be in sharp contrast with that of its relative called in
North America the Pewir.

PHALANGES—PHALAROPE 711

and well known from Plot’s description (Hist. Staffordsh. pl. xix.
pp. 231-233) had ceased to be occupied by the end of the last
century, and most of the other stations throughout the country have
been destroyed, some through drainage, but often by carelessness and
occasionally by greediness—for the eggs are a valuable commodity,
even as the young in old days were accounted !—but there are still
two of considerable size in England, Scoulton in Norfolk, and
Twigmoor in Lincolnshire. The name Pewit, in Scotland Peaseweep,
is now more commonly applied to the LAPwING, but in each case
it was given from the bird’s ery, as it is in North America to one
of the TYRANT-BIRDS, Sayornis fusca, which is a general favourite
there as a recognized harbinger of summer.? ‘To some ears its note
sounds like “phebe,” and as the “ PHa@pE-bird”? it was first
described by Pennant. In certain districts it bears the name of
*‘Bee-eater,” to which it is very likely entitled, and there it is not
very popular with the owners of hives.

PHALANGES, the several bones composing the digits. In
those of the hind limb (or Tors) the original and almost universal
number is 2 for the HALLUX, and 3, 4 and 5 for the second, third
and fourth digits respectively. Exceptions are found in Cypselus
and Panyptila (SwIrT), where the second, third and fourth toes have
each 3 phalanges, in some of the Caprimulgi (NIGHTJAR), and in the
singular genus Cholornis from Western China and of doubtful
affinity, where the fourth digit is reduced to a mere stump. Of the
wing-digits the PoLLEX has 2 phalanges, the index 2 or 3, and the
third 1 or 2—the terminal phalanges being often very small or
represented by cartilage only.

PHALAROPE, Brisson’s maladroit rendering* of the ‘ Coot-
footed Tringa” of Edwards who, in 1741, shewed himself a better
judge of its affinities than many others both before and after him,
since for a long while some of the best authorities thought the
Phalaropes allied to the Coot, whereas they are unquestionably
Limicolz, only somewhat modified in accordance with their habit of
swimming. There are three species, each possessing a peculiarity
of structure sufficient to warrant its being regarded as generic were
the doing so convenient. The type is Phalaropus fulicarius, com-
monly known in England as the Grey Phalarope, from*the prevalent
colour of its winter-plumage, which it has generally donned when

1 They were netted before they could fly, and kept in pens to be killed for
the table as wanted, selling in Ray’s time for five shillings the dozen.

* Not to be confounded with the PEWEE.

3 This name is usually so spelt, but it has nothing to do with the moon-
goddess or any one named after her.

4 His generic term should have been Phalaridopus from ¢anapls, -ldos (cf.
Murdoch, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, iii. p. 150).

72 PHALAROPE

it visits this country, as it does almost every year.’ It wears
a very different aspect in summer, when the whole of the lower
parts are bright bay, while the feathers above are dark brown
broadly edged with light rusty, and hence it has in this condition
been called the Red Phalarope. It is known to breed in Spits-
bergen, in one part at least of Iceland, in Greenland, and presum-
ably throughout Arctic America and Asia, but not on the continent
of Europe. Its wanderings in winter seem to be boundless, since
its appearance is recorded in Chili and in New Zealand. The next
species, known as the Red-necked Phalarope, P. or Lobipes hyper-
boreus, is truly a British bird, breeding in a few spots (which are
best not named) in Scotland and its islands. Of more slender form,
its plumage is comparatively piain, but the bay patch on the side
of the neck contrasts with the white chin to give it a conspicuous
appearance. It does not range northward so far as the last, but it
is found breeding in Scandinavia, Russia, Siberia and America—from
Alaska to Labrador, as well as in Greenland, while in winter it
would seem not to stray quite so far to the south. The third
species, P. or Steganopus tricolor or wilsoni, of still more slender
form, has a very restricted breeding-range in North America, not
being recorded from the Pacific slope and being rare on the Atlantic
coast. In winter, however, it reaches Patagonia. Did space allow,
the various qualities of this beautiful group of birds would be
willingly dwelt upon here. A more entrancing sight to the ornitho-
logist can hardly be presented than by either of the two species
first named. Their graceful form, their lively coloration, and the
confidence with which both are familiarly displayed in their breed-
ing-quarters can hardly be exaggerated, and it is equally a delight-
ful sight to watch these birds gathering their food in the high-
running surf, or when that is done peacefully floating outside the
breakers. The nest, which the male—for in the Phalaropes, as in
the DOTTEREL and the Gopwits, that sex undertakes the duty of
incubation—leaves only to escape being trodden upon, is in itself
a picture that the finder will recall with rapture, while the tameness
of the birds tempts the observer to watch their ways by the hour,
be the weather never so bad ? (see SANDPIPER).

1 In numbers it is very variable. In the autumn of 1866, more than 5C0
were recorded as observed and mostly shot in Britain, according to the Summary
which Mr. J. H. Gurney, junior, was at the pains to compile and publish in 1867.

* Here may be noticed the ‘‘ Barred Phalarope,” described in 1785 by Latham
(Gen. Synops. iii. p. 274) from a specimen in Banks’s collection obtained at
Christmas Island on Cook’s Third Voyage, the Zringa cancellata of Gmelin. It
seems not to have been a Phalarope at all, and in 1859 G. R. Gray (Cat. B. Isl.
Pacif. p. 51) referred to it the 7. parvirostris described and figured by Peale as
found in July 1839, by the United States’ Expedition under Wilkes, abundantly
on some of the Paumotu Islands, where it was breeding and exceedingly tame.
In 1874 Prof. Coues (B. North- West, p. 506) established for it the genus Zch-

PHEASANT 7s

PHEASANT, Mid.-Eng. Fesaunt and Fesaun, Germ. Fasan and
anciently Fasant, Fr. Faisan—all from the Latin Phasianus or Phasiana
(sc. avis), the Bird, brought from the banks of the river Phasis, now
the Rioni, in Colchis, where it is still abundant, and introduced by
the Argonauts, it is said in what passes for history, into Europe. As
a matter of fact nothing is known on this point; and, judging from
the recognition of the remains of several species referred to the
genus Phasianus both in Greece and in France,! it seems not
impossible that the ordinary Pheasant, the P. colchicus of ornitholo-
gists, may have been indigenous to this quarter of the globe. If it
was introduced into England, it must almost certainly have been
brought hither by the Romans; for, setting aside several earlier
records of doubtful authority,” Bishop Stubbs has shewn that by the
regulations of King Harold in 1059 “wnus phasianus” is prescribed
as the alternative of two Partridges
or other birds among the “ pitantiz ”
(rations or commons, as we might now
say) of the canons of Waltham Abbey,
and, as Prof. Dawkins has remarked (J0is,
1869, p. 358), neither Anglo-Saxons nor
Danes were likely to have introduced it
into England. It seems to have been early under legal protection,
for, according to Dugdale, a licence was granted in the reign of

PHEASANT. (After Swainson.)

morhynchus. My. Seebohm (Charadriide, p. 451, pl. xvii.) refers it to the genus
Phegornis, with which it seems to have little in common; but makes some amends
by giving a good figure of it. The only specimens now known to exist appear to
be those at Washington, and there is good reason to fear that the species may
be extinct—the victim, most likely, of rats or other predacious animals that
have found their way to its very confined haunt—a case parallel perhaps to that
of Prosobonia leucoptera of Tahiti (see SANDPIPER).

1 These are P. archiacit from Pikermi, P. altus and P. medius from the
lacustrine beds of Sansan, and P. desnoyersi from Touraine (A. Milne-Edwards,
Ois. foss. de la France, ii. pp. 229, 239-248).

2 Among these perhaps the most worthy of attention is in Probert’s translation
of The Ancient Laws of Cambria (ed. 1823, pp. 367, 368), wherein extracts are
given from Welsh triads, presumably of the age of Howel the Good, who died in
948. One of them is ‘‘ There are three barking hunts: a bear, a squirrel, and a
pheasant.” The explanation is ‘‘ A pheasant is called a barking hunt, because
when the pointers come upon it, and chase it, it takes to a tree, where it is
hunted by baiting.” Ihave not been able to trace the manuscript containing
these remarkable statements so as to find out what is the original word rendered
“Pheasant” by the translator; but a reference to what is probably the same
passage with the same meaning is given by Ray (Synops. Meth. Animal. pp. 213,
214) on the authority of Llwyd or Lloyd, though there is no mention of it in
Wotton and Clarke’s Leges Wallice (1730). A charter (Kemble, Cod. Diplom.
iv. p. 236), professedly of Edward the Confessor, granting the wardenship of
certain forests in Essex to Ralph Peperking, speaks of “ fesant hen” and ‘ fesant
cocke,” but is now known to be spurious.

714 PHEASANT

Henry I. to the Abbot of Amesbury to kill Hares and Pheasants, and
from the price at which the latter are reckoned, in various documents
that have come down to us, we may conclude that they were not
very abundant for some centuries, and also that they were occasion-
ally artificially reared and fattened, as appears from Upton,! who
wrote about the middle of the 15th century, while Henry VIII.
seems from his privy purse expenses to have had in his household
in 1532 a French priest as a regular “fesaunt breder,” and in the
accounts of the Kytsons of Hengrave in Suffolk for 1607 mention is
made of wheat to feed Pheasants, Partridges and Quails.

Within recent years the practice of bringing up Pheasants by
hand has been extensively followed, and the numbers so reared
vastly exceed those that are bred at large. The eggs are collected
from birds that are either running wild or kept in a mew,? and are
placed under domestic Hens; but, though these prove most
attentive foster-mothers, much additional care on the part of their
keepers is needed to ensure the arrival at maturity of the poults ; for,
being necessarily crowded in a comparatively small space, they are
subject to several diseases which often carry off a large proportion,
to say nothing of the risk they run by not being provided with
proper food, or by meeting an early death from various predatory
animals attracted by the assemblage of so many helpless victims. As
they advance in age the young Pheasants readily take to a wild
life, and indeed can only be kept from wandering in every direction
by being plentifully supplied with food, which has to be scattered
for them in the coverts in which it is desired that they should stay.
Of the proportion of Pheasants artificially bred that “come to the
gun” when the shooting-season arrives it is impossible to form any
estimate, for it would seem to vary enormously, not only irregularly
according to the weather, but regularly according to the district.
In the eastern counties of England, and some other favourable
localities, perhaps three-fourths of those that are hatched may be
satisfactorily accounted for ; but in many of the western counties,
though they are the objects of equally unremitting or even greater
care, 1t would seem that more than half of the number that live to
grow their feathers disappear inexplicably before the coverts are
beaten. The various effects of the modern system of Pheasant-
breeding and Pheasant-shooting need here be treated but briefly.
It is commonly condemned as giving encouragement to poaching,
and, especially under ignorant management, as substituting slaughter
for sport. Undoubtedly there is much to be said on this score ;
but in reply to the first objection it has been urged that as a rule

1 Tn his De studio militari (not printed till 1654) he states (p. 195) that the
Pheasant was brought from the East by ‘‘ Palladius ancorista.”

2 In 1883, 134,000 Pheasants’ eggs were sold from one estate in Suffolk,
and 101,000 in 1893, while 9700 birds were killed upon it.

PHEASANT 715

the poacher does not like visiting coverts that he knows to be
effectively preserved, and that coverts containing a great stock of
Pheasants, whose rearing has cost a considerable sum of money, are
probably the most effectively preserved. As to the second objection,
it is to be observed that what constitutes sport is in great measure
a matter of individual taste, and that the reasonable limit of a
sportsman’s ‘‘ bag” is practically an unknown quantity. One man
likes shooting a Pheasant rising at his feet or sprung by his spaniels,
as it flies away from him through the trees and is still labouring to
attain its full speed ; another prefers shooting one that has mounted
to its greatest height, and, assisted perhaps by the wind, is travers-
ing the sky at a pace that almost passes calculation. If skill has to
be considered in the definition of sport, there can be no doubt as to
which of these cases most requires it. In regard to cruelty—that
is, the proportion of birds wounded to those killed—there seems to
be little difference, for the temptation to take “long shots” is about
equal in either case. The Pheasant whose wing is broken by the
charge, if at a great height, is often killed outright by tbe fall,
whereas, if nearer the ground, it will often make good its escape by
running, possibly to recover, or more possibly to die after lingering
in pain for a longer or shorter time. On the other hand, high-
flying Pheasants, having their vital parts more exposed, are often
hit in the body, but not hard enough to bring them down, though
the wound they have received proves mortal, and the velocity at
which they are travelling takes them beyond reach of retrieval.
Formerly Pheasants were taken in snares or nets, and by
hawking ; but the crossbow was also used, and the better to obtain
a “sitting shot,” for with that weapon men had not learnt to ‘ shoot
flying” ; dogs appear to have been employed in the way indicated
by the lines under an engraving by Hollar, who died in 1677 :—

“The Feasant Cocke the woods doth most frequent,
Where Spaniells spring and pearche him by the sent.” 4

The use of firearms has put an end to the older practices, and the
gun is now the only mode of taking Pheasants recognized as
legitimate.

Of the many other species or local races of Phasianus, two only
can be dwelt upon here. These are the Ring-necked Pheasant of
China, P. torquatus, easily known by the broad white collar, whence
it has its name, as well as by the pale greyish-blue of its upper
wing-coverts and the light buff of its flanks, and the P. versicolor of
Japan, often called the Green Pheasant from the beautiful tinge of

1 Quoted by the writer (Broderip ?) of the article ‘‘Spaniel” in the Penny
Cyclopedia. The lines throw light on the asserted Welsh practice mentioned in
a former note.

716 PHILIP—PHEBE

that colour that in certain lights pervades almost the whole of its
plumage, and, deepening into dark emerald, occupies all the breast
and lower surface that in the common and Chinese birds is bay
barred with glossy black scallops. Both of these species have been
to a considerable extent introduced into England, and cross freely
with P. colchicus, while the hybrids of each with the older inhabit-
ants of the woods are not only perfectly fertile inter se, but cross
as freely with the other hybrids, so that birds are frequently found
in which the blood of the three species is mingled. The hybrids of
the first cross are generally larger than either of their parents, but
the superiority-of size does not seem to be maintained by their
descendants. White and pied varieties of the common Pheasant,
as of most birds, often occur, and with a little care a race or breed
of each can be perpetuated. A much rarer variety is sometimes
seen; this is known as the Bohemian Pheasant, not that there is
the least reason to suppose it has any right to such an epithet, for
it appears, as it were, accidentally among a stock of the pure P.
colchicus, and offers an example analogous to that of the “ japanned ”
PEACOCK already noticed, being, like that breed, capable of per-
petuation by selection. ‘To a small extent two other species of
Pheasant have been introduced to the coverts of England — P.
reeves’ from China, remarkable for its very long tail, white with
black bars,! and the Copper Pheasant, P. semmerringi, from Japan.
The well-known Gold and Silver Pheasants, Thaumalea picta and
Euplocamus nycthemerus, are both from China and have long been
introduced into Europe, but are only fitted for the aviary. To the
former is allied the still more beautiful 7. amherstiz and to the
latter about a dozen more species, most of them known to Indian
sportsmen by the general name of KALLEGE. These with the
comparatively plain PuKRAS, Pucrasia, the magnificent MoNALS,
Lophophorus, are elsewhere treated, but the fine Snow-Pheasants,
Crossoptilum, of which there are several species, must, for want of
space, be only mentioned here. All the species known at the time
were beautifully figured from drawings by Mr. Wolf in Mr. Elliot’s
grand Monograph of the Phasianidx (2 vols. fol. 1870-72)—the last
term being used in a somewhat general sense. With a more precise
scope Mr. Tegetmeier’s Pheasants: their Natwral History and Practical
Management (4to, ed. 2, 1881) is to be commended as a very useful
work.

PHILIP and PHILP, old nicknames for the SPARROW (see
page 132, note 1).

PHC:BE, in parts of North America a name for what is there
called also the PEwitT, Sayornis fusca, one of the TYRANT-BIRDS.

1 The introduction of this species by the first Lord Tweedmouth near
Guisachan in Inverness-shire is said to have been remarkably successful.

Pike oon ey a ee ee

PH NIX—PICH 717;
PHCENIX, said by Hesiod (apud Plin. H. N. vii. 49) to be a
bird that lived nine times as long as a Crow ; and, in a passage too
often quoted to need repetition, described by Herodotus (Luterpe,
73) from a picture which he saw in Egypt. To doubt the existence
of this bird was for ages evidence of depravity, for it had been so
entwined by Classical, Rabbinical, Christian and Mahomedan legend,
and so used to illustrate the sublimest doctrine, that we may almost
wonder at belief in it not being enjoined by some confession of
faith or imported into some religious formulary. Moreover though
no Greek, Latin or Arabic author! could vouch for having himself
seen a specimen, and its last appearance on earth was said to be in
the consulship of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Vitellius (7.¢. A.D. 34),
as stated by Tacitus (4nn. vi. 28), yet according to Camden
(Britannia, p. 783, ed. 1607) one of its feathers was sent in 1599
by Pope Clement VIII. to the celebrated Hugh O’Neal, Earl of
Tyrone, then leader of the Irish opposition ; and the writer of the
article “Phoenix” in the Penny Cyclopedia (xviii. pp. 101-103)
declared that even in June 1840, a very learned scholar at Oxford,
subsequently stated (Notes and Queries, ser. 7, vi. pp. 481, 482) to
have been Mr. J. B. Morris of Exeter College, still seriously
believed in the existence of the bird. It was long ago suggested
by Sir Thomas Browne (Vulgar Errors, book III. chap. xii.) that the
Pheenix-story had its origin in a BIRD-OF-PARADISE (p. 38, note
3), and unless the whole was a lie from the beginning this still
seems possible ; but the late Mr. Gurney used to consider that a
“ Bateleur” Eagle (Helotarsus ecaudatus) was the cause of it.”

PICK, the second Order of Birds in the Linnzan system,
composed of the genera Psitiacus (PARROT), Ramphastos (TOUCAN),
Buceros (HORNBILL), Buphaga (OXPECKER), Crotophaga (ANI), Corvus
(Crow), Coracias (ROLLER), Oriolus (ORIOLE), Gracula (GRACKLE),
Paradisea (BIRD-OF-PARADISE), Trogon (TROGON), Bucco (BARBET),
Cuculus (Cuckow), Yuna? (WRyYNECK), Picus (WOODPECKER),

1 Tt was defined by Arabic writers to be a creature ‘‘ whose name was known,
its body unknown.”

2 The literature of the subject is not without interest and very large, though
(possibly through the lack of specimens) it has fallen off of late years. Among
separate works the following may be named :—Dauderstadius, Disput. de Phanice
(Lipsie : 1665); Kirschmaier and Oheimb, De Phenice (Wittemberge : 1660) ;
Kirschmaier, Disputt. zooll. de Basilisco, Unicornu, Phenice &c. (Wittemb.
1661 ; Jene: 1760) ; Lagerlof, Phenicis wvOodoyia (Upsalize : 1689); Mennander,
Dissert. de Phenice Ave (Abow: 1748); Pfeiffer, Dissert. de Phanice Ave (Regio-
monti: 1673); Seuberlich, De Phaenice (Regiom. 1696); Wendler, Dissert. de
Phenice (Gere: 1687); but the above-named article in the Penny Cyclopxdia,
by the late Dr. Greenhill, is especially good.

3 In the preceding edition of the Systema Naturz more cornectly spelt Jynz,
which is the continental way of printing our Jyn.

718 PICA RIA2—PICUCULE

Sitta (NutHATCH), Todus (Topy), Alcedo (KINGFISHER), Merops
(BEE-EATER), Upupa (Hoopok), Certhia (TREE-CREEPER), Trochilus
(HUMMING-BIRD). Of this multifarious assembly the 4th, 6th,
Sth, 9th, 10th, 16th and 21st are now almost unanimously referred
to the Order PASSERES, while the disposition of the rest cannot be
accounted fixed, though, except the Ist, they are referred in this
book to

PICARLAL, a group of Birds, so named by Nitzsch in 1820
(Deutsches Arch. fiir Physiol. vi. p. 255) to include the genera
Coracias, Upupa, Alcedo, Cuculus, Psitiacus, Picus, Yuna, Caprimulgus
and Cypselus: opposed to his PASSERINA, but not to be confounded
with

PICARII, Johannes Miiller’s name (Abhandl. Akad. Berlin,
1845, p. 3883) for what he separated as the third Tribe of his great
Order INSESSORES or PASSERINI (the other two being OSCINES and
TRACHEOPHONES) comprehending the Ampelidw+ and Tyrannide in
addition to those included, actually or consequentially, in Nitzsch’s
PICARIA.

PICI, the name of an Order of Birds proposed in 1810 by
Meyer and Wolf (Zaschenb. deutsch. Vogelkunde, i. p. 115) to include
the genera Picus, Yuna, Sitta, Certhia, Merops and Alcedo, the 3rd
and 4th of which are truly Passerine. Such modern systematists
as retain the term limit it to the WOODPECKERS and WRYNECKS.

PICKCHEESE, a common local name of the Blue TITMOUSE.
PICKET and PICKTARN, local names for the Common TERN.

PICKMIRE, a local name for the PEwir or Black-headed
GULL.

PICUCULLE,? a name given, without reason says Buffon (H. NV.
Ois. vil. p. 82, note), to a bird figured by D’Aubenton (Pl. en.
621)—the Dendrocolaptes certhia or cayennensis of later writers—
continued by Vieillot in 1816 (Analyse, p. 45), and retained in
1820 by Temminck (Man. d’ Orn. ed. 2, i. p. Ixxxi.) in a generic
sense, while it was used as English in Griffith’s translation of
Cuvier’s Animal Kingdom in 1829 (ii. p. 350), and is here adopted
for want of a better, as that of the large Family of TRACHEOPHON &,

1 Meaning what are more correctly called Cotingidw (CHATTERER).

2 Accidentally misspelt (Zncyclop. Brit. ed. 9, iii. p. 748 and perhaps else-
where) ‘‘Piculule.” It would seem that the inventor coined the word as a
combination of Picus and Cuculus. Buffon used ‘‘ Pic-grimpereau,” which is just
as misleading.

° Mr. Hudson, who (Argent. Orn. i. pp. 165-202) tells more of the habits of
the birds of this Family than perhaps any other writer, uses for them collectively
the name ‘‘ Woodhewer,” which seems unhappily applied, as no species appears
able to hew wood, and the word is hardly an accurate rendering of Dendrocolaptes.

PICUCULE 719

Dendrocolaptidx, which is so highly characteristic of the Neotropical
Region. Not one of them was known to Linnzus, and for many
years very erroneous notions were entertained as to their systematic
position. They are mostly small birds of dull appearance, brown
being their prevalent hue, with stiff and often sharply-pointed
rectrices—a character which led the earlier writers to associate
them with the Pict or the Certhiide (TREE-CREEPER), and their
entire difference from both those groups was not admitted until
shewn by Johannes Miiller.
Mr. Sclater (Cat. B. Br. Mus.
xv. pp. 2-175) groups them
in 5 subfamilies, the first of
which, Furnariiny, has been
already mentioned in these S¥N4MAXI. ee ee
z (After Swainson.)

pages (OVEN-BIRD), while the

next three, Synallazine (with 8 genera, including Synallavis and
the curious form Oxyurus), Philydorine (with 17 genera, including
_ Anabatoides and

vurine call for no
particular remark
; here. - The last
ANABATOIDES. PHILYDOR. and most typical

(After Swainson.) subfamily Dendro-

colaptine has, according to the authority just named, 15 genera
(among which are Dendrocolaptes proper and its section Dendrocops,

aS thier:
pS

a, DENDROCOLAPTES ; b, XIPHORHYNCHUS ; c, DENDRocors; d, SirTasomus ; ¢, DENDROPLEX,
(After Swainson.)

Xiphorhynchus, Sittasomus and Dendropler) and some 80 species.
Indeed there is no need here to dwell upon them more than
to point out their importance in the Fauna of Southern tropical
America. Though now ranging all over the Neotropical Region,

720 PICULET—PIE

the Antillean Subregion excepted, and even extending into Mexico,
which according to most zoo-geographers is “ Nearctic,”’—while the
number of forms inhabiting the tropical portion is vastly greater
than that of those now existing within “ Patagonian ” limits, however
liberally the last may be regarded,—this Family will very likely
prove eventually to belong to the more ancient population of the
continent. These forms are essentially of identical nature, but
exhibit many and some extreme modifications of structure, a fact
which furnishes a strong argument in favour of the antiquity of the
original stock. As might be expected, their differences correspond
with much diversity of habit, some of the forms living on the most
sterile uplands, others in the thickest forests, others in reed-beds
and others again on the sea-shore.

PICULET, the name apparently first assigned in 1845 by G.
R. Gray! (Gen. B. ii. p. 432) to birds of the subfamily Picumninz,
composed according to Mr. Hargitt (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xviii.
pp. 8, 521-559) of 4 genera—Picumnus with 33 species, of
which 31 are Neotropical and 2 Indian; Nesoctites with a
single species peculiar to Hispaniola; Verreauzia, also with one
species, confined to the Gaboon country ; and Sasia, with 3 species,
ranging from Nepal through the Malay peninsula to Borneo.
They are all of small size and thorough WOODPECKERS in habit and
appearance, but having the tail short, soft and rounded. The
geographical distribution of the whole subfamily, and especially of
Picumnus proper, as above stated, points to its antiquity, and
interest in the group is enhanced by the fact that Sasia has got rid
of its hallux, thus affording a case parallel to that of Picoides among
the Picinx or true Woodpeckers.

PIE (French, Pie,? in Scotland Piet) or more commonly Magpie,
the prefix being the abbreviated form of a human name (Margaret *)
applied as in so many other instances to familiar animals, as this
bird once was throughout Great Britain, though of late years almost
extirpated in many parts, and now nearly everywhere scarce. Its
pilfering habits have led to this result, yet the injuries it causes
are unquestionably exaggerated by common report; and in many
countries of Europe it is still the tolerated or even the cherished

1 Possibly adapted from the ‘‘ Picule” of Isid. Geoffroy-St. Hilaire (VV. Am.
Mus. 1832, p. 896). Before him Temminck had used the word ‘‘ Picwmne.”

2 The ‘‘ French Pie” of many parts of England is the Great-Spotted or Pied
WoovPeEcKER of authors. When the Linnzan system came to be known in this
country the word ‘‘ Pie” was often used in a general sense as a rendering of Pica,
the name of one of his Orders of Birds.

3 “Magot” and ‘‘Madge,” with the same origin, are names frequently
given in England to the Pie; while in France it is commonly known as Margot,
if not termed, as it is in some districts, Jaquette.

PIE 721
neighbour of every farmer, as it formerly was in England if not in
Scotland also. Though now common enough in Ireland, there
is ample evidence! to prove that it did not exist in that country in
1617, when Fynes Morison 2 wrote his Jéinerary, and that adduced
by Mr. Barrett-Hamilton (Zool. 1891, pp. 247-249) shews that
it first appeared about 1676, when “a parcel,” supposed to have
been driven from Wales by stormy weather, landed in Wexford.
It is a species that when not molested is extending its range,
as Wolley ascertained in Lapland, where within the last century it
has been gradually pushing its way along the coast and into the
interior from one fishing-station or settler’s house to the next, as
the country has been peopled.

Since the persecution to which the Pie has been subjected in
Great Britain, its habits have undoubtedly altered greatly in
character. It is no longer the merry, saucy hanger-on of the home-
stead, as it was to writers of former days, who were constantly
alluding to its disposition, but is become the suspicious thief,
shunning the gaze of man, and knowing that danger may lurk in
every bush. Hence opportunities of observing it fall to the lot of
few, and most persons know it only as a curtailed captive in a
wicker cage, where its vivacity and natural beauty are lessened or
wholly lost. At large few European birds possess greater beauty,
the pure white of its scapulars and inner web of the flight-feathers
contrasting vividly with the deep glossy black of the rest of its
body and wings, while its long tail is lustrous with green, bronze
and purple reflexions. The Pie’s nest is a wonderfully ingenious
structure, whether placed in high trees or low bushes, and is so
massively built that it will stand for years. Its foundation consists
of stout sticks, turf and clay, wrought into a deep, hollow cup,
plastered with earth, and lined with fibres; but around this is
erected a firmly-interwoven, basket-like outwork of thorny twigs,
forming a dome over the nest, and leaving but a single hole in the
side for entrance and exit, so that the whole structure is rendered
almost impregnable. Herein are laid from six to nine eggs, of a
pale bluish-green freckled with brown and blotched with ash-colour.
Superstition as to the appearance of the Pie still survives even
among many educated persons, and there are several versions of a
riming adage as to the various turns of luck which its presenting
itself, either alone or in company with others, is supposed to

1 A compendious summary of this will be found in Yarrell’s British Birds,
ed. 4, li. pp. 318-320.
2 His predecessor Derricke, in 1578, said :—
‘‘No Pies to plucke the Thatch from house,
are breed in Irishe grounde :
But worse then Pies, the same to burne,
a thousande maie be founde.”—The Image of Irelande, London : 1581.

46

PIE

NI
NO
to

betoken, for some of these versions contradict one another in details,
though all agree in this that the sight of a single Pie unquestionably
forebodes sorrow.

The Pie belongs to the Corvide (Crow), and is the Corvus pica
of Linneus, the Pica caudata, P. melanoleuca or P. rustica of modern
ornithologists, who have recognized it as forming a distinct genus,
but the number of species thereto belonging has been a fruitful
source of discussion. Examples from the south of Spain differ
slightly from those inhabiting the rest of Europe, and in some points
more resemble the P. mauritanica of north-western Africa; but that
species has a patch of bare skin of a fine blue colour behind the
eye, and much shorter wings. No fewer than five species have
been discriminated from various parts of Asia, extending to Japan ;
but only one of them, the P. leucoptera of Turkestan and Tibet, has
of late been admitted as valid. In the west of North America, from
Alaska to New Mexico, as well as in some of its islands, a Pie is
found which extends to the upper valleys of the Missouri and the
Yellowstone, even ¢ appearing so far to the eastward as Cumberland
House, 1 mn the Province of Winnipeg, and in the State of Michigan,
and was long thought entitled to specific distinction as P. hudsonia ;
but its claim thereto is now disallowed by most American orni-
thologists, and it can hardly be deemed even a geographical variety
of the Old-World form. In California, however, there is a perma-
nent race if not a good species, P. nuttalli, easily distinguishable
by its yellow bill and the bare yellow skin round its eyes; and
it is a curious fact that on two occasions in the year 1867 a bird
apparently similar was observed in Great Britain (Zoologist, ser.
2, pp. 706, 1016).

More or less allied to the genus Pica are some forms that can
hardly be separated from
JAYS, as for instance the
species of Cissa, before men-
tioned (page 470), concerning
the affinity of which opinions
have differed much, but Mr.
Oates (Fauna Br. Ind. Birds,
1. p. 28), declares in favour
of its Pie-like position. On the other hand Dendrocitta with several
kindred genera, all belonging to the Indian Region, are with less
doubt referred to the neighbourhood of Pica, as also is Cyanopica,?

Cissa. (After Swainson.)

1 Dr. Diederich (Ornis, 1889, pp. 280-332, tab. iv.) has treated at length and
illustrated by a map the geographical distribution of the genus Pica.

* Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. iii. p. 67), calls this genus Cyanopolius, citing
as his authority a passage wherein that name does not occur. Bonaparte seems
to have used it only in manuscript (see his Consp. Av. i. p. ZS ; and Waterhouse,
Index Generum Avium, p. 59, note).

PIGEON 72

so remarkable for its discontinuous distribution, already noticed
(p. 342)—one of its two species, C. cooki, being the Blue Pie of the
Iberian Peninsula, and the other, C. cyana, that of Eastern Asia
with Japan.

PIGEON, French Pigeon, Italian Piccione and Pipione, Latin
Pipio, literally a nestling-bird that pipes or cries out, a “ Piper ”—
the very name now in use among Pigeon-fanciers; The word
Pigeon, doubtless of Norman introduction as a polite term, seems
to bear much the same relation to Dove, the word of Anglo-Saxon
origin, that mutton has to sheep, beef to ox, veal to calf, and pork
to bacon ; but, as before stated (p. 162), no sharp distinction can
be drawn between the two, and the collective members of the group
Columbx are by ornithologists ordinarily called
Pigeons. Perhaps the best known species to
which the latter name is exclusively given in
common speech! is the Wild or PASSENGER-
PrGEoN of North America, Ectopistes, already
mentioned; but among the multitudinous
forms very few can here be noticed. A species which seems worthy
of attention as being one that might possibly repay the trouble of
domestication, if any enterprising person would give it the chance,
is the Wonga-wonga or White-fleshed Pigeon of Australia, Lew-
cosarcia picata, a bird larger than the Ring-Dove, of a slaty-blue
colour above and white beneath, streaked on the flanks with black.
It is known to breed, though not very freely, in captivity, and is
said to be excellent for the table. As regards flavour, however,
those who have been so fortunate as to eat them declare that the
green Fruit-Pigeons of the genera Teron and Vinago and their allies
surpass all birds. These inhabit tropical Africa, India, and especi-
ally the Malay Archipelago; but the probability of domesticating
any of them is very remote. Hardly less esteemed are the Pigeons

Ecropistrs. (After Swainson.)

VINAGO. PriLopus. PuHars.
(After Swainson.)

of the featherlegged genus Ptilopus and its kindred forms, which
have their headquarters in the Pacific Islands, though some occur
far to the westward, and also in Australia. Among them are
found the most exquisitely-coloured of the whole Family, and the
Fijian Chrysenas victor with its glorious orange plumage especially

1 It may be observed that the ‘‘ Rock-Pigeons” of Anglo-Indians are SAND-
Grousk, and the ‘‘Cape Pigeon” of sailors is a PETREL.

724 PIGEON

deserves attention, but the beautiful “ Bronze-wings” of Australia,
belonging to the genus Phaps, and some others are in their way
hardly inferior. Then may be mentioned the strange Nicobar
Pigeon, Calenas, an inhabitant of the Indian archipelago, not less
remarkable for the long lustrous hackles that clothe its neck than
for the structure of its gizzard, which has been described by Sir
W. Flower (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1860, p. 330), though this peculiarity
is matched or even surpassed by that of the same organ in the
Phenorrhina goliath of New Caledonia (Rev. Zool. 1862, p. 138) and
in the Carpophaga latrans of Fiji, wherein the surface of the epithelial
lining is beset- by horny conical processes, adapted, it is believed,
for crushing the very hard fruits of Onocarpus vitiensis on which the
bird feeds (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1878, p. 102). The modern giants of

yn

——wy

N

nN»)
yy.”

=

mit ded) 1)
|) yd)

sey ot

<i)

tl

i

> D

tyes

I

=F

dddelecl

oe)

Ce

P.cEons’ FEET, HALLUX OF
shewing amount of feathering of the “tarsus.” ENGYPTILA AND PTILOPUS.
(After Swainson.) (After Swainson.)

the group, consisting of about half a dozen species of the genus
Goura and known as Crowned Pigeons have been already noticed,
and all that need be added here is to mention the reticulated
instead of scutellated covering of their “tarsi.” In contrast to
them may be mentioned the African (Hina capensis, the “ Namaqua
Duif” of the Dutch colonists, which if not the smallest is one of the
most graceful in form of all the Columbe.

A very distinct type of Pigeon is that represented by Didunculus
strigirostris, the “‘ Manu-mea ” of Samoa, absurdly called the DODLET,
and still believed by some to be the next of kin to the Dopo, though
really presenting only a superficial resemblance in the shape of its
bill to that effete form, from which it differs osteologically quite as
much as do other Pigeons (Phil. Trans. 1869, p. 349). It remains
to be seen whether the Papuan genus Ofidiphaps, of which several
species are now known, may not belong rather to the Didunculidy
than to the true Columbidx,

PILWILLET—PINTADO 725

At least 500 species of Pigeons have been described, and many
methods of arranging them suggested. The most recent is that by
Count T. Salvadori (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xxi. London: 1893), but
though elaborated with the usual skill of that careful worker, it
cannot be deemed satisfactory since it is based only on some
external characters, and of these the amount of feathering of the
“tarsus,” which is relied upon by a good many authors, receives
but little notice. Perhaps, however, no other method is at present
possible, for certainly the partial attempt of Garrod (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1874, pp. 249-259) was not very successful. The Count,
rightly premising that “the Pigeons constitute a very homogeneous
Order,” divides it into two Suborders, Columbx and Didi, asserting
that the former of them “does not admit of division into easily
definable or sharply defined groups” (but to this statement Didunculus
proves a striking exception), recognizing it as composed of 5
Families, Treronide and Columbide with 3 subfamilies cach; Peris-
teridex with 7, and Gourid# and Didunculidx, each consisting of a
single genus, and the last of a single species. Of genera he admits
on the whole upwards of 60, to say nothing of subgenera, and it
would be useless here to give even their names, since want of space
forbids anything useful being said of them. The older works on
the group, such as Temminck’s folio (Paris: 1808-11), with its con-
tinuation (in 1838-43) by Florent Prévost, and Selby’s more modest
Natural History of the Columbidxe (1835) are of course out of date,
and a new monograph of the Pigeons, containing all the recent dis-
coveries, would be a desirable acquisition.

PILWILLET, one of the many names of the WILLET, Symphemia
semipalmata, but also applied, according to Mr. Dresser (bis, 1886,
p. 34), in Galveston Bay to the North-American OYSTER-CATCHER,
Hezmatopus palliatus.

PIMLICO, one of the names given to the Australian FRIAR-

_ BIRD.

PINC-PINC (or rather “'Tinc-tine”), the name which a South-
African bird, Drymeca or Cisticola teatriz, has given itself from its
ringing metallic cry, often uttered as it hovers in the air (Layard,
B.S. Afr. p. 85), and a species chiefly known to English readers
from the often-repeated copy of Le Vaillant’s figure (Ois. d’ Afr.
pl. 131) of a beautiful nest, which he wrongly assigned to it as its
fabricator, the real builder of the wonderful structure being
(Layard, op. cit. pp. 86, 114) the Kapok vogel (Cotton-bird), Agi-
thalus capensis, a near ally of Ay. pendulinus, the so-called Penduline
Titmouse of Europe.

PINK, otherwise Spink, a well-known name of the CHAFFINCH.

PINTADO, a Portuguese word, meaning painted or mottled,

720 PINT AIL—PIPIT

commonly applied in some parts of England, and especially by
some English writers, to the GUINEA-FOWL, but also by sailors to
the so-called Cape-Pigeon, Daption capensis (PETREL).

PINTAIL, properly the well-known Duck, the male of which
has the two middle tail-coverts very much elongated and pointed,
the Anas acuta of Linneus and Dafila acuta of modern writers, one
of the most graceful and beautiful of
the Anatine or so-called ‘“ fresh-water ”
Ducks, though not distinguished by the
brilliance of its plumage. The drake
has a brown head, whence a dark stripe
runs down the nape, contrasting with the pure white of the throat
and breast, which is continued upward along the side of the neck
almost to the base of the skull. The upper parts generally are
clothed with feathers marked with fine undulating bars of black and
very light grey, so as to look as of a lavender-colour at a distance,
against which the long and pointed scapulars, of a deep black with
a broad edging of greyish-white, shew conspicuously: the blue-
green speculum of the wing is bordered above by a rust-coloured
and below by a white bar. The female is still more modestly clad,
but the characteristic speculum and a somewhat elongated tail easily
serve to her recognition. The Pintail is common to both areas of
the Holarctic Region, and though not reaching its extreme circum-
polar lands, breeds over most of the northern parts of both New
and Old Worlds ; but few unquestionable instances of its doing so in
the british Islands, except as a captive, are known. Three other
species of the genus Dajila exist, and they resemble D. acuta in the
slenderness of their form, which extends even to the bill, and their
pointed tail. Two belong to South America (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876,
pp. 392, 393), and the third is the ‘“‘Red-billed Teal” of South Africa.

The name Pintail is applied in the colonies and elsewhere by
English-speaking sportsmen to several other birds, as to one of the
GrousE of North America, Pediocewtes, and to one of the SAND-
GROUSE, Pterocles setarius.

PIPING CROW, see GYMNORHINA.

PIPIRI, one of several local names of Tyrannus griseus or donwn-
censis, a TYRANT that is widely spread throughout most parts of the
West Indies.

PIPIT, French Pipit, cognate with the Latin Pipio (see PIGEON,
p- 723), the name applied by ornithologists to a group of birds
having a great resemblance both in habits and appearance to the
LARKS, with which they were formerly confounded by systematists
as they are at the present day in popular speech, but differing from
them in several important characters ; and, having been first separ-

—— ZZ

———

3ILL OF PinTaIL. (After Swainson.)

PIRAMIDIG—PITTA 727
ated to form the genus Anthus, which has since been much broken
up, are now generally associated with the WAGTAILS in the Family
Motacillide. Pipits, of which over 30 species have been described
(cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. Br. Mus. x. pp. 534-623), occur in almost all parts
of the world, even New Zealand having its peculiar species, but in
North America are represented by only two forms — Neocorys
spraguit, the Prairie-Lark of the north-western plains, and Anthus
ludovicianus, the American Titlark, which last is very nearly allied to
the so-called Water-Pipit of Europe, 4. spipoletta. To most English
readers the best-known species of Pipit is the TIrLARK or Meadow-
Pipit, 4. pratensis, a bird too common to need description, and
abundant on pastures, moors and uncultivated districts generally ;
but in some localities the Tree-Pipit (to which the name Pipit seems
properly to belong), the A. trivialis, or A. arboreus of some authors,
takes its place, and where it does so it generally attracts attention
by its loud song, which is not unlike that of a Canary-bird, but
usually delivered (as is the habit of most or all the Pipits) on the
wing and during a short circuitous flight. Another species, the
Rock-Lark, A. obscurus, scarcely ever leaves the sea-coast and is
found almost all round the British Islands. The South African
genus Macronyz (KALKOENTJE), remarkable for the extreme length
of its hind claw, is generally placed among the Pipits, but differs
from all the rest in its brighter coloration, which has a curious
resemblance to the American genus Sturnella (ICrERUS), though the
bird is certainly not allied thereto.

PIRAMIDIG, a Creole name, according to Gosse (B. Jamaica,
p. 33), of Chordiles virginianus, or more properly C. minor
(NIGHTJAR), being an imitation of its cry uttered during its re-
markable flight, which was minutely described by Osburn (Zool.
1860, pp. 6837-6841).

PIRENET, said to be a local name of the SHELD-DRAKE.
PIRREE, a name often given, from its cry, to a TERN.

PITTA, from the Telugu Pitta, meaning a small Bird, latinized
by Vieillot in 1816 (Analyse, p. 42) as the name of a genus, and
since adopted by English ornithologists as the general name for a
group of Birds, called by the French Bréves, and remarkable for their
great beauty.2. For a long while the Pittas were commonly sup-

1 Pipits can be distinguished from Larks by having the hind part of the
‘‘ tarsus” undivided, while the Larks have it scutellated.

2 In Ornithology the word is first found as part of the native name, ‘ Pon-
nunky pitta” of a Bird, given in 1718 by Petiver, on the authority of Buckley,
in the ‘‘ Mantissa” to Ray’s Synopsis (p. 195). This bird is the Pitta bengalensis
of modern ornithologists, and is said by Jerdon (2. Jnd. i. p. 503) now to
bear the Telugu name of Pona-inki.

728 PIETA

posed to be allied to the Z'urdidx, and some English writers applied
to them the names of “GROUND-THRUSHES ” (page 388), ‘‘ Water-
Thrushes” and ‘ ANT-THRUSHES ” (page 20), to the first of which
the group has some prescriptive right; but the second and third
are misapplied since there is no evidence of their having aquatic
habits, or of their preying especially upon ants. The fact that they
had nothing to do with THRUSHES, but formed a separate Family,
was gradually admitted. In 1847 Prof. Cabanis (Arch. f. Naturg.
xiii. 2,1. p. 216) placed them under the CLAMATORES, and their
position was at last determined by Garrod, who, having obtained
examples for dissection, proved (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, pp. 512, 513)
that the Pittide belonged to that section of Passerine Birds which
he named Mesomyopi. ‘This in itself was an unexpected de-
termination, for all the other birds of the group, as then known,
inhabit the New World, where no Pittas occur. But it is borne
out by, and may even serve to explain, the sporadic distribution of
the latter, which seems to indicate them to be survivors of a some-
what ancient and lower type of Passeres. Indeed except on some
theory of this kind the distribution of the Pittas is almost inex-
plicable. They form a very homogeneous Family, most of its
members bearing an unmistakable resemblance to each other—
though the species inhabit countries so far apart as Angola and
China, India and Australia; and, to judge from the little that has
been recorded, they are all of terrestrial habit, while their power of
flight, owing to their short wings, is feeble. In 1888 Mr. Sclater
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiv. pp. 411-449) recognized 4 genera. They are
Anthocincla with a single species from Tenasserim, remarkable for
the tuft of elongated feathers on each side of its nape ; Pitta with 43
species (to which by now more than one has to be added) of wide
distribution ; Hucichla with 5 species, all from the Indo-Malay
countries ; and “ Melampitta” (Schlegel),’ with a single species from
New Guinea, which after all may not belong to the Family. Most
of the true Pittas are from the Malay archipelago, between the
eastern and western divisions of which they are pretty equally
divided ; and, in Mr. Wallace’s opinion, they attain their maximum
of beauty and variety in Borneo and Sumatra, from the latter of
which islands comes the species, Pitta elegans, here represented.
Few Birds can vie with the Pittas in brightly-contrasted coloration.
Deep velvety black, pure white, and intensely vivid scarlet, tur-
quoise-blue and beryl-green — mostly occupying a considerable
extent of surface—are found in a great many of the species,—to
say nothing of other composite or intermediate hues; and, though

1 Objection has been taken to this name, which is quite correct in form
(witness Afelampus), and Mellapitta (Stejneger, Stand. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 466), Coraco-
pitta (Sclater, wt supr. p. 449) and Coracocichla (Sharpe, op. cit. xvii. p. 7) have
been proposed in its stead,

-PITTA 729

in some a modification of these tints is observable, there is scarcely

a trace of any blending of shade, each patch of colour standing out
“ee Tf

distinctly. This is perhaps the more remarkable as the feathers

PITTA ELEGANS, male and female. (After Schlegel.)

have hardly any lustre to heighten the effect produced, and in
some species the brightest colours are exhibited by the plumage of
the lower parts of the body. Pittas vary in size from that of a Jay
to that of a Lark, and generally have a strong bill, a thickset form,
which is mounted on rather high legs with scutellated “ tarsi,” and
a very short tail. In many of the forms there is little or no ex-
ternal difference between the sexes.!

Placed by some authorities among the Pittidx is the genus Phile-
pitta, consisting of two species peculiar to Madagascar, while other
systematists would consider it to form a distinct Family. This last
was the conclusion, the propriety of which can hardly be questioned,
arrived at by W. A. Forbes (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1880, pp. 387-391),
from its syringeal characters, which, though shewing it to be allied
to the Pittas, are yet sufficiently different to justify its separation
as the type of a Family Philepittidey. The two species which com-
pose it have little outward resemblance to the Pittas, not having

1 All the species then known were figured in Mr. Elliot’s Monograph of the
Pittide, completed in 1863; but so many have since been described, that
he is now bringing out a revised and enlarged edition of this work, as several of
those lately discovered are figured only in Gould’s Birds of Asia and Birds of New
Guinea. Mr. Sclater’s Catalogue above quoted will be found very useful.

730 PLANTAIN-EATER—-PLOVER

the same style of coloration and being apparéntly of more arboreal
habits. The sexes differ greatly in plumage, and the males have
the skin round the eyes bare of feathers and carunculated.!

PLANTAIN-EATER, Latham’s translation (Suppl. tw. Gen.
Synops. p. 104) in 1802 of Isert’s generic name Musophaga (Musa
being the botanical name of the genus which contains the Plantains
and Bananas) in 1788 (Deobacht. Gesellsch. naturf. Freunde, iil. pp.
16-20, pl. 1), see TouRACO.

PLANT-CUTTER, Latham’s rendering in 1802 (Suppl. ii. Gen.
Synops. p. 212) of Phytotoma, the generic name given by Molina in
1782 (Sagg. Stor. Nat. Chili, p. 254; Eng. transl. 1809, i. p. 210)
to a bird called, from its harsh and broken cry, “ Rara” by the
people of Chili, who bear it no goodwill from its habit of cutting
off growing plants close to the ground with its strongly-serrated bill,
often, says the latter, from sheer wantonness, without eating a
single leaf, and it is said to be also very destructive to the buds of
trees. For a long while classed among the /ringillidx, Musophagidx
or Tanagridzx, its ‘complete difference from any one of these Families
became at. last evident, and, chiefly from the position of the song-
muscles,? it is now regarded as forming a Family of its own,
Phytotomidz, one of the undeveloped or lower forms of PASSERES so
abundant in and so characteristic of South America—not to say
Patagonia. Mr. Sclater (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiv. pp. 406-408) recog-
nizes 3 more species—P. angustirostris from Bolivia, P. raimondu
from the west coast of northern Peru, and P. ruéila of the Argen-
tine territory and Patagonia, where it is common, according to
Mr. Hudson, who gives (Argent. Orn. p. 164, pl. viii.) a brief but
lively account of its habits, and pretty figures of both sexes.

PLATYSTERN Ai, Nitzsch’s name, first published in 1840
(Pterylographia, p. 170), for what Merrem had already termed
RAtTITA.

PLOVER, French Pluvier, Old French Plovier, which doubtless
has its origin in the Latin pluvia, rain (as witness the German
equivalent Legenpfeifer, Rain-fifer); but the connexion of ideas
between the words therein involved, so that the former should
have become a bird’s name, is doubtful. Belon (1555) says that
the name Pluvier is bestowed “pour ce qu’on le prend mieux en
temps pluvieux qu’en nulle autre saison,” which is not in accord-

1 It may be remarked that nomenclatural purists, objecting to the names
Pitta and Philepitia as ‘‘ barbarous,” call the former Colobwris and the latter
Laictes. Brachywrus also has frequently been used for Pitta ; but is inadmis-
sible, having been previously applied in another sense.

? This fact was ascertained and published by Eyton (Zool. Voy. Beagle, Birds
p. 153), from a specimen brought home by Mr. Darwin.

PLOVER 731

ance with modern observation, for in rainy weather Plovers are
wilder and harder to approach theme in fine. Others have thought
it is from the spotted (as though with rain-drops) upper plumage of
two of the commonest species of Plovers, to which the name espe-
cially belongs—the Charadrius pluvialis of Linneus, or Golden

CHARADRIUS (head and foot). SQquaTaROLa (bill and hind toe).
(After Swainson.)

Plover, and the Squatarola helvetica of recent ornithologists, or Grey
Plover. Both these birds are very similar in general appearance,
but the latter is the larger and has an aborted hind-toe on each
foot,! while its axillary feathers, which in the Golden Plover are
pure white, are black, and this difference often affords a ready
means of distinguishing the two species when on the wing, even at
a considerable distance. The Grey Plover is a bird of almost
circumpolar range, breeding in the far north of America, Asia and
eastern Europe,” 2 frequenting | in spring and autumn the coasts of the
more temperate parts of each continent, and generally retiring
further southward in winter—examples not unfrequently reaching
the Cape Colony, Ceylon, Australia and even Tasmania. Charadrius
pluvialis has a much narrower distribution, though where it occurs
it is much more numerous as a species. Its breeding-quarters do
not extend further than from Iceland to western Siberia, but include
the more elevated tracts in the British Islands, w hence in autumn
it spreads itself, often in immense flocks, over the cultivated districts
if the fields be sufficiently open. Here some will remain so long as
the absence of frost or snow permits, but the majority make for the
Mediterranean basin, or the countries beyond, in which to winter ;
and, as with the Grey Plover, stragglers find their way to the

1 But for this really unimportant distinction both would doubtless have been
kept in the same genus, for they agree in most other structural characters. » As
it is they have long been sundered.

2 The earliest account of its breeding in America was no doubt mistaken, but
it was found there by Mr. MacFarlane in 1864. The first discovery of its eggs
was by Von Middendorff in 1843, who described them (Sib. Heise, ii. p. 209,
pl. xix. fig. 1), while another obtained by him has since been figured (Proc. Zool,
Soe. 1861, p. 398, pl. xxxix. fig. 2). Subsequently it was found breeding in
Europe by Messrs. Harvie-Brown and Seebohm (dis, 1876, pp. 222-230, pl. v.).

732 PLOVER

southern extremity of Africa. The same may be said, mutatis
mutandis, of two other cognate forms, C. virginicus and C. fulvus, which
respectively represent C. pluvialis in America and Eastern Asia, where
they also are known by the same English name. The discrimination
of these two birds from one another requires a very acute eye, and
room is here wanting in which to specify the minute points in
which they differ ;+ but both are easily distinguished from their
European ally by their smaller size, their greyish-brown axillary
feathers, and their proportionally longer and more slender legs.
All, however,—and it is the same with the Grey Plover,—undergo
precisely the same seasonal change of colour, greatly altering their
appearance and equally affecting both sexes. In the course of
spring or early summer nearly the whole of the lower plumage
from the chin to the vent, the greater part of which during winter
has been white, becomes deep black. This is partly due to the
growth of new feathers, but partly to some of the old feathers
actually changing their colour, though the way in which the
alteration is brought about is still uncertain.? A corresponding
alteration is at the same season observable in the upper plumage ;
but this seems chiefly due (as in many other birds) to the shedding
of the lighter-coloured margins of the feathers, and does not produce
so complete a transformation of appearance, though the beauty of
the wearer is thereby greatly increased.

The birds just spoken of are those most emphatically entitled
to be called Plovers; but the DorrTEeREL, the group of Ringed
Plovers before mentioned (KILLDEER) and the LApwiING, with
their allies, have, according to usage, hardly
less claim to the name, which is also ex-
tended to some other more distant forms
that can here have only the briefest notice.
Among them one of the most remarkable
is the Pluvianus or Hyas xgyptius of orni-
thologists, celebrated for the services it is said to render to the
crocodile—a small bird whose plumage of delicate lavender and cream-

Puouvianus. (After Swainson.)

1 Schlegel (Mus. Pays-Bas, Cursores, p. 53) states that in some examples it
seems impossible to determine the form to which they belong; but ordinarily
American specimens are rather larger and stouter, and have shorter toes than
those from Asia.

* It is much to be regretted that ornithologists favourably situated in regard
to zoological gardens have not used more extensively opportunities which might
there be enjoyed of conducting useful observations on this subject and others of
the kind. Elsewhere it would be hardly possible to carry on such an investiga-
tion, and even in the best circumstances it would not be easy and would require
unremitting attention. The results of some partial observations superintended
by Yarrell in the gardens of the Zoological Society of London are given in its
Transactions (i. pp. 18-19). Little of this nature has been done there since.

PLOVER 733

colour is relieved by markings of black and white.1 This probably
belongs to the small section generally known as COURSERS, Cursorius,
allied to which are the curious PRATINCOLES, also peculiar to the
Old World, while the genera Thinocorys and Attagis form an outlying
group peculiar to South America, that is by some systematists
regarded as a separate Family “ Thinocoridx,” near which are often
placed the singular SHEATHBILLS. By most authorities the Stone-
CURLEWS, the OYSTER-CATCHERS and TURNSTONES are also re-
garded as belonging to the Family Charadriidx, and some would
add the AVosETS and STILTS, among which the CRAB-PLOVER or
“Cavalier,” Dromas ardeola—a form that has been bandied about
from one Family and even Order to another—should possibly find
its place.

Though the various forms here spoken of as Plovers are closely
allied, they must be regarded as constituting a somewhat indefinite
group, for no very strong line of demarcation can be drawn be-
tween them and the SANDPIPERS and SNIPES. United, however,
with both of the latter, under the name of LIMICOL&, after the
method approved by recent systematists, the whole form an
assemblage the compactness of which no observant ornithologist
can hesitate to admit, even if he be not inclined to treat as its
nearest relations the BUSTARDS on the one hand and the “GAvIa”
on the other.?

1 The elder Geoffroy-St. Hilaire (Mém. du Mus. xv. pp. 466, 467) in 1827
was apparently the first to identify this bird with the tpoxédos of Herodotus (cf.
HuMMING-BIRD, p. 442, note 2), and did so from having actually seen it enter
the Crocodile’s mouth, while his testimony is confirmed by the experience of
Dr. A. E. Brehm, who says (Thierleben, Vogel, ed. 2, iii. p. 216) that he had
repeatedly seen it thus act. In the face of the positive assurance of two such com-
petent witnesses it would be rash to conclude that another observer, who seems
to be no ornithologist, is right in attributing (Ibis, 1893, p. 277) the part of the
“‘Crocodile-bird” to Hoplopterus spinosus (LAPWING), though Dr. A. L. Adams
(Tbis, 1864, p. 29) and Mr. A. C. Smith (Attractions of the Nile, ii. pp. 255,
256)—neither of whom had witnessed the feat— had already made the same
suggestion. However, other ornithological observers of equal, if not sreater
repute, such as Mr. E. C. Taylor (Ibis, 1859, p. 52; 1867, p. 68), Von Heuglin
(Orn. Nord-ost Afrika’s, pp. 978, 979), and M. d’Aubusson (Echassiers d’ Egypte,
pp- 16-18), without professing personal experience, hold to Pluvianus rather
than Hoplopterus being the reptile’s benefactor, and so the matter must be left,
though the balance of scientific opinion is sufficiently declared.

2 In this connexion it is necessary to mention Mr. Seebohm’s lavishly illus-
trated Geographical Distribution of the Family Charadriidex (4to, London: without
date, but published in 1887), under which term he comprises all the ordinary
Plovers, Sandpipers and Snipes, but excludes Aétagis, Chionis, Dromas and
Thinocorys. It would be out of place here to dwell upon his speculations, and
it is enough to state his arrangement of the forms he includes. Professing to
despise ‘‘structural characters,” upon them he yet chiefly grounds nearly all
his groups, but chooses characters which most taxonomers regard as of minor

734 PLOVERS PAGE—POCHARD

PLOVER’S PAGE, a local name for the DUNLIN from its
curious habit of flying in company with a Golden PLOVER, as
though waiting upon it, when both species are breeding on the
same part of a moor. The common Icelandic name Léuprell
(anciently Léarprel/) has a like origin, Léa being a Plover and
prell (Anglice thrall) a servant.

POCHARD, POCKARD or POKER, names properly belonging
to the male of a species of Duck (the female of which is known as
the Dunbird), the Anas ferina of Linneus, and Nyroca, Athyia or
Fuligula ferina of later ornithologists—but names very often applied
by writers in a general way to most of
the subfamily ‘“ Fuliguline,” commonly
called Diving or Sea-DucKs, the mem-
bers of which can be readily distin-
guished by the greater development of
the lobe of the hallux from those of
the Anatine or Freshwater - Ducks.
The Pochard in full plumage is a very
handsome bird, with a coppery-red head, on the sides of which

a, HALLUX OF “‘SEa-”;
b, or ‘f FRESHWATER ”-DUCK.

(After Swainson.)

importance, while those which seem far more significant are entirely neglected,
so that his remark that his subdivisions are ‘‘ very probably artificial” will not
provoke dissent. In diagnosing his three subfamilies (p. 66), his ‘‘ Scolopacinz”
are distinguished by having the ‘‘toes all cleft to the base”—his other two,
‘* Totanine” and ‘‘ Charadriine,” by having the ‘‘middle and outer toes con-
nected by a web at the base.” Yet having assigned so much value to the pre-
sence or absence of the interdigital web, which seldom exists but in a rudimentary
state, when it becomes most developed he proceeds to disregard it wholly by
uniting in one genus the AvosEers and the Srixrs, and no reason is given for
this inconsistency. What to most ornithologists seems a character of some
significance, as directly affecting the bird's economy, is by him wholly disregarded.
This is the structure of the bill—whether it be a hard and horny chisel as in an
OYSTER-CATCHER or a TURNSTONE, or a sensitive organ of perception as in a
SNIPE ora Gopwit. Thus we find Hematopus grouped with Limosa, and Strep-
silas with Scolopax, while Tringa and Erewnetes are severed. It would not be
so very great an exaggeration of Mr. Seebohm’s practice to say that when two
species have very different bills it is expedient to put them in the same subfamily,
if not (as in the cases of Anarhynchus and Afgialitis, and of Eurinorhynchus
and 7’ringa) in the same genus. If results like these legitimately follow—though
this I take leave to doubt—from the teaching of ‘‘the new school of modern
ornithologists” (p. iv.), a man who has any regard for common sense, not to say
for science, may congratulate himself on not being imputed a member of it. Yet
the many beautiful figures given by Mr. Seebohm will always make his work
acceptable to ornithologists of all schools, despite his numerous vagaries,

1 The derivation of these words, in the first of which the ch is pronounced
hard, and the o in all of them generally long, is very uncertain. Cotgrave has
Pocheculier, which he renders ‘‘ Shoueler,” nowadays the name of a kind of
Duck, but in his time meaning the bird we commonly call Spoonsitn. Littré
gives Pochard as a popular French word signifying drunkard. That this word

POCHARD 735

sparkle the ruby irides of his eyes, relieved by the greyish-blue
of the basal half of his broad bill, and the deep black of his
gorget, while his back and flanks appear of a light grey, being
really of a dull white closely barred by fine undulating black
lines. The tail-coverts both above and below are black, the quill
feathers brownish-black, and the lower surface of a dull white. The
Dunbird has the head and neck reddish-brown, with ill-defined whitish
patches on the cheeks and chin, brown irides, the back and upper tail-
coverts dull brown, and the rest of the plumage, except the lower
tail-coverts, which are brownish-grey, much as in the Pochard.
This species is very abundant in many parts of Europe, northern
Asia, and North America, generally frequenting in winter the larger
open waters, and extending its migrations to Barbary and Egypt,
but in summer retiring northward and inland to breed, and is
one that has certainly profited by the legislative protection lately
afforded to it in Britain, for, whereas during many years it had
but a single habitual breeding-place left in England, it is now
known to have several, to some of which it resorts in no incon-
siderable numbers. American examples seem to be slightly larger
and somewhat darker in colour, and hence by some writers have
been regarded as specifically distinct under the name of JN. or F.
americana ; but America has a perfectly distinct though allied species
in the celebrated Canvas-back Duck, NV. vallisneriana, a much larger
bird, with a longer, higher and narrower bill, which has no blue at
the base, and, though the plumage of both, especially in the females,
is very similar, the male Canvas-back has a darker head, and the
black lines on the back and flanks are much broken up and further
asunder, so that the effect is to give these parts a much lighter
colour, and from this has arisen the bird’s common though fanciful
name. Its scientific epithet is derived from the freshwater plant,
a species of Vallisneria, usually known as “wild celery,” from feed-
ing on which its flesh is believed to acquire the delicate flavour that
is held in so great a repute. The Pochard and Dunbird, however,
in Europe are in much request for the table (as the German name
of the species, Zafelente, testifies), though their quality in this
respect depends almost wholly on the food they have been eating,
for birds killed on the sea-coast are so rank as to be almost worth-
less, while those that have been frequenting fresh water are generally
well-tasted.1

would in the ordinary way become the English Pochard or Poker may be regarded
as certain ; but then it is not known to be used in French as a bird’s name.

1 The plant known in some parts of England as ‘‘ willow-weed”’—not to be
confounded, as is done by some writers, with the willow-wort (pilobiwm)—one
-of the many species of Polygonum, is especially a favourite food with most kinds
of Ducks, and to its effects is attributed much of the fine flavour which distinguishes
the birds that have had access to it.

736 POCHARD

Among other species nearly allied to the Pochard that frequent
the northern hemisphere may be mentioned the ScAaup-Duck, UN.
marila, with its American representative JV. affinis, in both of which
the male has the head black, glossed with blue or green; but these
are nearly always uneatable from the nature of their food, which is
mostly gathered at low tide on the “scaups” or “scalps”!—as
the banks on which mussels and other marine mollusks grow are in
many places termed. ‘Then there are the Tufted Duck, J. cristata
—black with a crest and white flanks—and its American equivalent
N. collaris, and the White-eyed or Castaneous Duck, NV. castanea or
F. nyroca, and the Red-crested Duck, WV. rujina—both peculiar to the
Old World, and the last, conspicuous for its red bill and legs, well
known in India. In the southern hemisphere the genus is repre-
sented by three species, WV. capensis, N. australis and N. nove-zealandiz,
whose respective names indicate the country each inhabits, and in
South America exists a somewhat divergent form which has been
placed in a distinct genus as Metopiana peposaca.

Leaving the Scorers for further consideration, a few words
may be here added to what has been already said of the small
group known as the ErpERS, which, though generally classed with
the “ Fuligulinz,” differ from them in several respects: the bulb at
the base of the trachea in the male, so largely developed in the
members of the genus Nyroca, and of conformation so similar in
all of them, is here much smaller and wholly of bone; the males
take a much longer time, two or even three years, to attain their
full plumage, and some of the feathers on the head, when that
plumage is completed, are always stiff, glistening and of a peculiar
pale-green colour. This little group of hardly more than half a
dozen species may be fairly considered to form a separate genus
under the name of Somateria. Many authors indeed have—un-
justifiably, as it seems to the present writer—broken it up into
three or four genera. ‘The well-known Eider, S. mollissima, is the
largest of this group, and, beautiful as it is, is excelled in beauty
by the King-Duck, S. spectabilis, and the little S. stellert. Space
fails here to treat of the rest, but the sad fate which has overtaken
one of them, S. labradoria, has been before mentioned (EXTERMINA-
TION, pp. 221-223) ;? and only the briefest notice can be taken of

1 Cognate with scallop, and the Dutch schelp, a shell.

2 The statements made at this reference have been criticized by Mr. Dutcher
(Auk, 1894, pp. 4-12). In the main they are confirmed by what he says,
though he adduces evidence, which it is not for me to dispute, as to examples
of the species, subsequently adding (tom. cit. p. 176) one more, having been
obtained since 1852, the latest year that had been known to me as a certainty
for its existence. Whether it survived (as is now, to use the American idiom,
‘‘claimed’’) until 1875 signifies little. That it is extinct I think no one will
justifiably deny, though no one would be better pleased than myself to learn that

PODARGUS—POPELER 737

that most interesting form generally, but obviously in error, placed
among them, the LOGGER-HEAD (p. 518), Racehorse or Steamer-
Duck, Tachyeres or Micropterus cinereus of the Falkland Islands and
Straits of Magellan—nearly as large as a tame Goose, and subject,
as is asserted, to the, so far as known, unique peculiarity of losing
its power of flight after reaching maturity.

PODARGUS, a genus of birds so named by Vieillot in 1819,
being based on the Podarge of Cuvier, and used by Gould and
other writers as an English word (see MorEpoRK, p. 592, and
NIGHTJAR, p. 638).

POE-BIRD, another name for the PARSON-BIRD.

POLLEX, the thumb or first digit of the wing, never consisting
of more than two phalanges, of which the terminal one is often
aborted or absent; but, when fully developed, it often bears a
horny cLAW. From the basal phalanx grows the so-called ‘“ bastard
wing.”

POLYMYODI (or POLYMYOD® if a feminine termination
be needed), Johannes Miiller’s name (Abhandl. k. Akad. Berlin, Phys.
Kl. 1847, p. 366) for the first of his three groups of PASSERINI,
from the many song-muscles they possess, equivalent to the OSCINES
of Keyserling and Blasius.

POMPADOUR,! the name given by Edwards in 1759
(Gleanings, ii. p. 275, pl. 341) to one of the most beautiful of
the Ootingide (CHATTERER), and since generally adopted, though
prior to his publication of the species it had been already described
and figured by Brisson (Ornithol. ii. p. 347, pl. xxxv. fig. 1). It
is the Ampelis pompadora of Linnzeus, referred now to the genus
Xipholena, a native of Guiana, Surinam and Cayenne, and easily
recognized by the shining crimson-purple of its plumage, set off
by its white wings. Two other allied species, X. atripurpurea and
X. lamellipennis, inhabit Brazil (cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiv.
pp. 387-389).

POOL-SNIPE, said to be a local name of the REDSHANK.
POOR SOLDIER, a name for the Australian FRIAR-BIRD.

POPE, one of the many local names of the PUFFIN, Fratercula
arctica, as well as of the BULLFINCH.

POPELER, an old name for the SPOONBILL, Platalea leucorodia,

it is not so; but anybody who has taken the trouble to investigate the history
of an exterminated species will find that to determine the time when it ceased
from appearing is no easy thing.

1 Aga bird’s name in French, Pompadour signifies a breed of domestic poultry,
apparently that which we call the Polish.

47

738 POPIN/JA Y—POWDER-DOWNS

possibly a mispronunciation of the Dutch Lepelaar, which means
the same bird.

POPINJAY, a word of respectable antiquity since it is used
in some manuscript copies of Chaucer (Canterb. Tales, 13,299),
while the French Papegai, written ‘“ Papejay,” is used in others.
Prof. Skeat, whose remarks (Htymol. Dict. p. 456) deserve all
attention, concludes “that F. papegai, a talking jay, was modified
from the older O. F. papegau, a talking cock,” akin to the Italian
Papagallo—the first half of all these words being cognate with
“babble.” Originally the name signified PARROT, but since most
of the best-known Parrots are green, it has in this country been
transferred to the Green WOODPECKER. It was also the wooden
figure of a bird set up as a mark to be shot at. The Arabic
babaghé (a Parrot), from which some derive Papagaw and other
forms, seems itself to be a corruption of the Spanish Papagayo.

PORT-EGMONT HEN, the Southern Great Skua, so called
by seamen in the last century from its familiarity about the place
of that name in the Falkland Islands (cf. Latham, Gen. Synops.
iii. p. 386),

POST-BIRD, a local name of the Spotted FLYCATCHER,
Muscicapa grisola, from its habit of sitting on posts when looking
out for prey (see p. 274).

POTOO, the Creole name for one of the NicutTsArs, Nyctibius
jamaicensis (Gosse, B. Jamaica, p. 41).

POWDER-DOWNS are so called from the powder produced
by the continuous disintegration of the numerous brush-like barbs
and barbules, into which the barrel is constantly splitting as it
grows without forming a principal shaft. In size, form and
situation they vary much. In the Psittact they are very short
tufts, the barrel hardly projecting from the skin, while in Botawrus
the barrel is nearly half an inch long, and bears a short tuft of
very fine filaments. In Podargus they attain their extreme size
and complexity, being about two inches long. In some cases
Powder-downs occur over the greater part of the body, among the
contour-feathers as well as on the featherless spaces, in others they
grow in more or less distinct tracts or in compact patches. The
appearance of these peculiar organs, scattered as it were through-
out various groups—Tinamous, Herons, Diurnal Birds-of-Prey,
Parrots and in a few members of other groups—seems to be
rather an illustration of isomorphism than an indication of affinity.
Hitherto they have been found to exist as follows :

Crypturi—interspersed among the contour-feathers of the large
dorsal tract.

POWEE—PRAIRIE-CHICKEN 739

Ardeidx—all the Herons and Bitterns possess them in pairs,
forming large thick patches on the breast, the lower back and
frequently on the abdomen. ‘These patches are greasy and yellow
at the base, but the tufts are very fine, grey or blackish, and
produce a bluish powder.

Balxniceps—a pair of large patches on the middle of the lower
back.

Lhinochetus and Ewrypyga—numerous, forming tracts as well as
detached spots.

Mesites—five pairs of patches, the arrangement of which some-
what resembles the distribution of the powder-downs in the two
genera last named.

Accipitres—at present only found in Elanus, Cymindis and
Circus, as a large united patch on the lower back or as a pair on
the same part. Nitzsch states that Gypaetus has scattered powder-
downs during its immaturity, and probably many other Accipitres,
especially of the Vultwridzx, will on further examination have to be
included.

Psittaci— numerous scattered tracts and separate tufts on the
neck, shoulders and sides of the trunk, in the Cacatuinx, in Chry-
sotis and in Psittacus.

Podargus—a pair of extremely developed patches on the lower
back.

Leptosoma—resembles the last in the distribution of the patches,
but Coracias has only scattered powder-downs.

Passeres—in this enormous group Aztamus is the only genus
known to possess them. They occur in all the species, in patches
on the sides of the breast, the thighs and lower back, and have a
strong barrel, one-third of an inch long.

(See FEATHERS, PTERYLOSIS.)

POWEE, commonly applied in the West Indies to Crax alector,
if not to the CURASSOWS generally, and said in 1769, by Bancroft,
' who spells the word ‘‘Powese” (Nat. Hist. Guyana, pp. 198-195),
to be so called “by the natives from their cry, which is similar to
that name.” Frisch in 1763 (Vorstell. Vog. Deutschl. u. s. w. Haupt-
Art. ix. Abth. 2, No. iv.) has the word Poes, which Buffon (Hist.
Nat. Ois. ii. p. 374) misprinted Pocs, while P. L. S. Miiller
(Natursyst. 11. p. 465) spells it Pawwis. It seems possible that the
Dutch Paauww (Peacock) may be the origin of the word.

PRAECOCES, the name given by Sundevall (K. Vet.- Acad.
Handl. 1836, p. 70), to his second section of the Class Aves,
in contradistinction to ALTRICES, but subsequently abandoned by
him.

PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, PRAIRIE-HEN, names given by the

740 PRATINGOLE

English in North America to what is known in books as the
Pinnated GROUSE, the Zympanuchus americanus of recent authors ;
or, where that does not occur, to forms of the allied genus Pediocextes
—the Sharp-tailed GROUSE ; but, according to Mr. Trumbull (Names
and Portr. of Birds, Index, p. 218), the term “ Prairie” is prefixed
by American sportsmen to many more kinds of birds than there is
need here to specify.

PRATINCOLE, a word invented in 1773 by Pennant (Gen. B.
p- 48), beingan English adaptation of Pratincola, applied in 1756 by
Kramer (Hlenchus, p. 381) to a bird which had hitherto received no
definite name, though it had long before been described and even
recognizably figured by Aldrovandus (Ornithologia, xvii. 9) under the
vague designation of “ hirundo marina.” It is the Glareola pratincola of
modern ornithologists, forming the type of a genus Glareola, founded
by Brisson in 1760, and unquestionably belonging (as is now
generally admitted) to the group LIMIcoL&, being either placed
among the Charadriidx(PLOVER,) orregarded as constitutingaseparate
Family Glareolidx. 'The Pratincoles, of which Mr. Seebohm (Chara-
driidx, pp. 252-269) recognizes ten species—the last resting on a
single specimen procured by the late Emin Pasha and described by
Captain Shelley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1888, p. 49)—are all small birds,
slenderly built and mostly delicately coloured, with a short stout
bill, a wide gape, long pointed wings and a tail more or less forked.
In some of their habits they are thoroughly Plover-like, running
very swiftly and breeding on the ground, but on the wing they
have much the appearance of Swallows, and like them feed, at least
partly, while flying! The ordinary Pratincole of Europe, @.
pratincola, breeds abundantly in many parts of Spain, Barbary and
Sicily, along the valley of the Danube, and in Southern Russia, while

1 This combination of characters for many years led systematists astray,
though some of them were from the first correct in their notions as to the
Pratincole’s position. Linnzus, even in his latest publication, placed it in the
genus Hirwndo ; but the interleaved and annotated copies of his Systema Naturx
in the Linnean Society’s library shew the species marked for separation and
insertion in the Order Grallx—Pratincola trachelia being the name by which he
had meant to designate it in any future edition. He seems to have been induced
to this change of view mainly through a specimen of the bird sent to him by
John the brother of Gilbert White ; but the opinion published in 1769 by Scopoli
(Ann. I. hist. naturalis, p. 110) had doubtless contributed thereto, though the
earlier judgment to the same effect of Brisson, as mentioned above, had been dis-
regarded. Want of space here forbids a notice of the different erroneous assign-
ments of the form, some of them made even by recent authors, who neglected the
clear evidence afforded by the internal structure of the Pratincole. It must
suffice to state that Sundevall in 1873 (Zentamen, p. 86) placed Glareola among
the Caprimulgidx, a position which its osteology shews cannot be maintained
for a moment.

PRIMARIES 741

owing to its great powers of flight it frequently wanders far from
its home, and more than a score of examples have been recorded
as occurring in the British Islands. In the south-east of Europe a
second and closely-allied species, G. nordmanni or G. melanoptera,
which has black instead of chestnut inner wing-coverts, accompanies
or, further to the eastward, replaces it ; and in its turn it is replaced
in India, China and Australia by G. orientalis. Australia also
possesses another species, G. grallaria, remarkable for the great
length of its wings and much longer legs, while its tail is scarcely
forked—peculiarities that have led to its being considered the type
of a distinct genus or subgenus Stfiltia. 'Two species, G. lactea and
G. cinerea, from India and Africa respectively, seem by their pale
coloration to be desert-forms, and they are the smallest of this
curious little group. The species whose mode of nidification is
known lay either two or three eggs, stone-coloured, blotched, spotted
and streaked with black or brownish-grey. The young when
hatched are clothed in down and are able to run at once—just as
are young Plovers.

PRIMARIES, the larger quill-feathers of the wing growing
from the manus, the rational mode of counting which is to begin, as
with the CUBITALS, at the wrist, but to proceed outwards, so that the
distal quill is the last, and not the first as in the popular way of
enumeration. The number of Primaries varies little. Most Birds
possess 10 or 11; but 12 are found in Podicipes, Phenicopterus and
some of the Ciconiidx, as Anastomus, Leptoptilus, Mycteria and Tantalus.
As a rule the first 6 quills rest upon the united metacarpal bones
ii. and iii., and when there are 12 Primaries 7 of them so originate,
but the following Primary is always borne by the first phalanx of digit
ili., while the next two quills are attached in all Carinatx to the first
phalanx of digit ii., its second phalanx carrying the rest—3 in
Struthio, 2 in birds with 11, and only 1 in those with 10 Primaries ;
but here are to be mentioned certain special conditions. Struthio
has as many as 16 Primaries, 8 of which belong to the metacarpals,
while Rhea has the normal 12, and in Casuarius only 2 or 3 are
attached to the manus, the rest of its barbless quills being really
Cubitals. Archxopteryx apparently had only 6 or 7 Primaries, but
it is doubtful whether they proceeded from the index and its
metacarpal alone, or chiefly from the third digit and its metacarpal.”
Peculiar conditions, hitherto unexplained, prevail also in the Sphenisei,

1 In a wider sense the stiff feathers, from 2 to 4 in number, which grow from
the POLLEX, and form the alu/da or ‘‘ bastard wing,” may also be accounted
Primaries.

2 As before stated (p. 279) the manus of Archxopteryax had 3 free digits ; but
I conceive the figure from Vogt (p. 280) to be fanciful and erroneous. The main
point is the regularly-increasing number of the phalanges—the pollex having 2,
the index 3 and the third digit 4.

742 PRION

which seem to have no true remiges, the posterior edge of their
flipper-like wings being formed of a greatly increased number of
little stiff feathers.

The number of Primaries indicates a gradual reduction beginning
at the distal end. Omitting the few birds with 7 metacarpal quills,
we find that the 11th or terminal quill is never fully developed and
often scarcely functional. It is always much shortened and con-
cealed between its upper and lower covert, being not unfrequently
shorter and weaker than its covert, which in that case is sometimes
stiff. In some Rails and in many Passeres the 11th quill is
very small indeed, or may be wholly absent. In this case, how-
ever, the upper covert is present as an apparently supernumerary
feather, provided that the 10th quill is not much reduced. This
last shews every intermediate stage between the largest develop-
ment possible as in Larus and Cypselus, and a degenerate condition
as in many of the so-called ‘ Oscines novempennatex,” + where the 10th’
primary is supposed to be absent or at least extremely small and
concealed. In reality it is always present, even in the Dicaidz,
while in some Hirundinidx it is more than half an inch, and in
Icteridex may be more than an inch long. In fact there are few
birds in which this “absent” quill does not measure the third of
an inch in length (see REMIGES).

PRION, a genus of PETRELS established by Lacépéde (Mém. de
PInst. i. p. 514), on account of the denticulated or serrated edges

<>

Prion virratus. (After Buller.)

of their mandibles, and used as an English word by many writers.
To it are referred the Procelluria vittata of Gmelin and several other

1 Equivalent to the ‘‘Tanagroid Passeres” of Mr. Wallace (bis, 1874, p.
410), or the ‘‘ Passeres Fringilliformes”’ of the Catalogue of the Birds in the
British Musewm, vols. X.-Xil.

PROMEROPS—PSITTACOMORPHA: 743
species, all—with perhaps one exception, the P. brevirostris of Gould
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1855, p. 88, pl. xciii.), if indeed that be distinct,
as seems very doubtful, from his P. ariel—belonging to the southern
hemisphere. They are remarkable also for the breadth of their
bill at the base.

PROMEROPS, a name, long since Anglicized, invented by
Réaumur, says Brisson (Ornithol. ii. p. 460, pl. xii. fig. 2), who used
it ina generic sense for a small South-African bird with plain
plumage and a remarkably long tail. Without having seen a
specimen Linneeus referred it to the genus Upupa (Hoopor), but
also described the same species, from a drawing sent to him by
Burmann, as a Merops (BEE-EATER). Promerops, however, has
nothing to do with either, though perhaps its true affinity is not
yet correctly determined. Most modern systematists think it allied
to the Sun-BIRDS! (cf. Layard, B. S. Afr. pp. 74, 75, and Shelley,
Monogr. Nectariniidx, p. 377, pl. 121), though it has none of the
brilliant hues that distinguish most of that group, its yellow vent
being all that enlivens the soberly-mottled white of its lower parts,
while above it is of a uniform greyish-brown. A considerable
number of birds, having apparently no affinity at all to it, have
been referred to the genus Promerops, which probably should be
regarded as the type of a Family. Natal furnishes a second species,
P. gurneyi, described and figured by Verreaux (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871,
p. 135, pl. viii.)

PROUD TAILOR, a local name for the GOLDFINCH.

PSEUDOSCINES, Mr. Sclater’s name (Jdis, 1880, p. 345) for
the abnormal ACRoMYODI of Garrod ; but, being of hybrid derivation,
Dr. Gadow (Thier-reich, Vogel, System. Th. pp. 173, 177) substituted
SUBOSCINES in its stead, correlative with his SUBCLAMATORES.

PSILOPAEDES, a name proposed in 1872 by Sundevall
(Tentamen, p. 1) for his first division (agmen) of the Class Aves, being
the Birds whose young are naked before their feathers grow: in
1873 changed (tom. cit. p. 158) to Gymnopexdes, to prevent confusion
with PTILOPADES.

PSITTACI, given in 1826-8 as the name of a Family or group
consisting of the PARROTS, by Ritgen (N. Act. Acad. L.-C. Nat. Cur.
xiv. part i. pp. 231, 243), and afterwards adopted as that of an
Order by Bonaparte and other authors, equivalent therefore to the

PSITTACOMORPH 4H of Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867,
pp. 465, 466), by whom it was regarded as the sixth group of his
DESMOGNATH.

1 In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Musewm (vol. ix.) Promerops is
placed among the Meliphagine ; but apparently not with the approval of the
author (tom. cit. p. 209).

744 PTARMIGAN—PTERYVLOSIS

PTARMIGAN, Gael. Tarmachan, see GROUSE (p. 392, note).

PTEROCLETES,! Mr. Sclater’s name (bis, 1880, p. 407) for
the Order composed of the SAND-GROUSE, equivalent to the

PTEROCLOMORPH of Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868,
p- 303), which itself was anticipated as a group by Bonaparte’s
Pediophili in 1831 (Saggio &e. p. 54).

PTERYGOIDS, a pair of bones in the roof of the mouth of every
bird, articulating with the QUADRATES and the anterior end of the
PALATALS, as well as, directly or indirectly, with the Basi-sphenoid
and other parts of the SKULL. ;

PTERYLOSIS signifies plumage considered in regard to the
distribution of its
growth. In only a
few Birds do the
FEATHERS grow over
the whole body, but
they are generally
restricted to well-
defined patches or
tracts, which in 1833
received from Nitzsch
(Pterylographix Avium
pars prior, p. 11) the
name of preryla(arepoy,
pluma ; brn, sylva) or
“‘feather-forests,” in
opposition to the ap-
teria, or featherless
spaces, which inter-
vene. Presumably
the first bird-like crea-
tures had their skin
uniformly — clothed ;
but the /tatite, Sphen-
asct and Palamedea are
almost the only exist-
ing forms having the

‘ Contour - feathers ”

Boravrus steLiaris. Ventral and dorsal aspect. (p. D4 1) evenly dis-

The dark patches shew the ‘‘ Powder-downs.”
(After Nitzsch.)

posed over the body.
It would be, however,

' Tt is no more easy to find a plural for the word Prerocles than for Patrocles,
Themistocles or many others, but we may be quite sure that it would not take
this form. Sundevall many years ago (A. Vet.-de Handl. 1836, p- 119) had
Fteroclides, which is perhaps possible.

PILRVEOSTS. 745

a fallacy to look on this feature as proof of an archaic condition
in them, since fully-developed embryos of both Struthio and Apteryx
have well-defined pteryle. If treated skilfully, Pterylosis is of prime
taxonomic importance in Ornithology, though more in the investi-
gation of small than of large groups. Unfortunately it can seldom
be described in a few words, and hence it is chiefly or only those
among its characters which can be expressed in terse and trim
formule that appeal most
to the mechanical con-
structor of classifications.1

The principal pterylex
or feathered tracts are as
follows :—

(1) Spinal tract (pt.
spinalis), extending along
the vertebral column from |
neck to tail, bordered by |,
the lateral, cervical and
trunk apteria or featherless
spaces. This tract is one
of the most variable, its
modifications, of which
Nitzsch enumerated 17,
being practically count-
less. It is rarely of the
same width throughout,
and is most frequently
dilated on the back or
between the shoulders,
with or without a featherless space in the midst, the position and
size of which varies much. In Pelecanus, Fregata, Phaethon and Ardea
the space is narrow, and extends from the neck to the tail, in others
as Podicipes, Cuculi, Cypselus, Coracias and Opisthocomus it is re-
stricted to the back, in Sula to the interscapular region, in Colymbus
to the neck. In some birds this apteriwn, whether interscapular,
dorsal or lumbar, is rhomboidal, and it may become so large as to
interrupt the spinal pferyla, which may end in an interscapular fork
and begin again with a sacral bifurcation, or as a single streak ; but
there is no apterium in the spinal pteryla of the following :—Latite,
Sphenisci, Phalacrocorax, Plotus, Palamedea, Tinami, Galline (pt.),

Sieey ON

i

.

. 3

CHARADRIUS PLUVIALIS. Ventral and dorsal aspect.
(After Nitzsch.)

1 Even this has taken place within comparatively few years, for Nitzsch’s
great work on the subject Plerylographie (Halle: 1840, 4to), which after his death
was edited by Burmeister, excited but little and mostly unfavourable notice for
nearly a quarter of a century after its publication. An English translation by
the late Mr. Dallas was brought out in folio by Mr. Sclater for the Ray Society
in 1867,

746 TERM ASO SLES,

Grues (pt.), Pterocles, Alcedinidxe, Momotidxe, Todidx, Colii, Trogones,
Menura, Atrichia and most Oscines.

(2) Ventral tract (pt. ventralis). This is nearly as diverse as
the foregoing, and is next to it in taxonomic value. It always has
a longitudinal median apterium of variable extent, but in Stegano-
podes this is only a narrow space extending from the furcula to the
vent, while in Ardea each half of the pteryla is but a narrow band.
The presence and shape of a lateral pectoral branch is also an
important feature.

(3) Neck-tract (pt. colli). This is unbroken in Ratitx, Spheniscr,
Colymbus, Podicipes, Steganopodes, Ciconiidx, Plataleidx, Phwnicopterus,

ee CoLumMBA Livia. Ventral and dorsal aspect.
(After Nitzsch.)

Anseres, Palamedea, Dicholophus, Otis tarda (not O. tetrax), Eupodotis,
Eurypyga, Podica, Rhynchea, Opisthocomus and Buceros. All other
birds have lateral cervical apteria of variable length, sometimes in
addition to the median cervical apteria which, whether dorsal or
ventral, are often long. What Nitzsch called pteryle colli laterales,
divided by a very broad dorsal and a ventral cervical apteriwm, occur
only in the Herons and in Otis tetraz.

4, Wing-tract (pt. alaris), composed of the RemicES with their
coverts, and hence of great importance.

5. Tail-tract (pt. caudalis), composed chiefly of the RECTRICES
with their upper and lower coverts.

6. Shoulder-tract (pt. humeralis), always well marked, consist-
ing of the feathers, often called tertials, which grow from the

PTERYLOSIS 747

humerus, and with the SCAPULARS forming a narrow band across
the upper arm parallel to the shoulder-blade.

7. Femoral or Lumbar tract (pt. femoralis s. lumbalis), forming
an oblique band on the outer side of the thigh.

_ 8. Crural tract (pt. cruralis), clothing the legs so far as they
are feathered.

9. Head-tract (pt. capitis), that which covers the head.
Remarkable and of rare occurrence is a well-defined occipital
apterium as is seen in Colius and Trochilide.

10. Tract of the OIL-GLAND (pf. wropygii).

The description of the Pterylosis of any bird is not exhausted
by an enumeration of the
pterylex and apteria, but should
also include the disposition of
Downs, other than POWDER-
Downs, both in the young
and the old. The distribution
of Downs on the featherless
spaces as well as among the
contour-feathers is a primary
feature, and is characteristic
of the following— Accipitres,
Alcidx, Anseres, Cathartide,
Ciconiide, Colymbidxe, Dicho-
lophus, Eurypyga, Gruide,
Laridx, Opisthocomus, Pala-
medea, Phanicopterus, Plata-
leidxe, Podica, Podicipedide,
Psittaci, Rallide, Rhinochetus,
Sphenisci, Steganopodes, Tubin-
ares—curiously also in Cinclus
and in the aquatic members
of the Alcedinide. Restric-
tion of Downs to the apteria GEcINUS virIDIS. Dorsal aspect.
is found in the adults of
Ardeidx, Caprimulgidx, Cypselidx, Cuculidex, Gallinx, Otididx, Passeres
(except Cinclus), Pteroclidx, Scopus, Striges and Turnicide. In
the Tinami only are Downs confined to the pterylx ; but in them
they are sparsely and frequently thinly developed, as is also the
case with the Cuculidx, Dicholophus, Gallinx, Limicolx, Opisthocomus,
Pteroclidxe, Turnicide and some Passeres, while they are wholly
absent in Africhia, Bucerotidy, Capitonide, Coliidx, Columbide,
Coraciide, Eurylemide, Galbulide, Menura, Meropidide, Momotide,
Picidx, Ratitx, Rhamphastide, Todidex, Trochilide, Trogonidx, Upupide
and in most Passeres.

748 PTILOPZDES—PUCKERIGE

The figures here inserted serve to shew some of the differences
of Pterylosis presented by various birds; but it will be obvious

ARACHNECHTHRA
and CINNYRIS
oBscuRA. Dor-

CinnyrRis CHLOROpyaIA. Ventral and dorsal aspect. sal tract.

that a very long series would be required to exhibit even the
principal types observable in the whole Class.1

PTILOPALDES, a name proposed in 1872 by Sundevall
(Tentamen, p. 102) for his second division (agmen) of the Class Aves,
being the Birds whose young are thickly covered with down before
their feathers grow: in 1873 changed (tom. cit. p. 158) to
Dasypxdes, to prevent confusion with PstLopaDEs.

PTILOSIS, the learned word for Plumage.
PUBIS (properly Os pubis) or PUBIC Bones, the anterior,

most ventral and slenderest of the three component parts of the
PELVIS.

PUCKERIGE (possibly connected with the A.S. puca, a goblin

1 Since the time of Nitzsch additional descriptions of the Pterylosis of certain
birds have appeared, but no special work on the subject, though it has by no
means been exhausted, and such a work would be of considerable taxonomic
utility if it were amply illustrated (little text being needed) and special attention
paid to the numerous transitional forms that connect the chief types. <A great
and revised mass of information is to be found, however, in Prof. Fiirbringer’s
Untersuchungen der Morphologie und Systematik der Vogel.

PUDDING-POKE—P UF F-BIRD 749

or demon), a name of the NIGHTJAR, and also of the disorder in
the udders of cattle that it has been said to cause.

PUDDING-POKE, 1.c. Pudding-bag, properly the nest of the
Long-tailed TITMOUSE ; but in common use transferred to the bird
itself.

PUFF-BIRD, the name first given, according to Swainson (Zool.
Illustr. ser. 1, ii. text to pl. 99), by English residents in Brazil
to a group known to ornithologists as forming the restricted Family
Bucconidx, but for a long time confounded, under the general name
of BARBETS, with the Capitonidx of modern systematists, who regard
the two Families as differing very considerably from one another.
Some authors have used the generic name Capito in a sense pre-
cisely opposite to that which is now commonly accorded to it, and the
natural result has been to produce one of the most complex of the
many nomenclatural puzzles that beset Ornithology. Fortunately
there is no need here to enter upon this matter, for each group
has formed the subject of an elaborate work—the Capitonidx being
treated as before stated (p. 27) by the Messrs. Marshall, and the
Bucconide by Mr. Sclater1—-in each of which volumes the origin
of the confusion has been explained, and to either of them the
more curious reader may be confidently referred. The Bucconidx
are zygodactylous Birds belonging to the large heterogeneous
assemblage in the present work called PICARL#, and are commonly
considered nowadays to be most nearly allied to the Galbulidx
(JacAMAR). Like them they are confined to the Neotropical
Region, in the middle parts of which, and especially in its
Sub-Andean Subregion, the Puff-birds are, as regards species,
abundant; while only two seem to reach Guatemala and but one
Paraguay. As with most South-American Birds, the habits and
natural history of the Bucconidy have been but little studied, and
of only one species, which happens to belong to a rather abnormal
genus, has the nidification been described. This is the Chelidoptera
tenebrosa, which is said to breed in holes in banks, and to lay white
eges much like those of the Kingfisher and consequently those
of the ‘Jacamars. From his own observation Swainson writes
(Joc. cit.) that Puff-birds are very grotesque in appearance. They
will sit nearly motionless for hours on the dead bough of a
tree, and while so sitting “the disproportionate size of the
head is rendered more conspicuous by the bird raising its feathers
so as to appear not unlike a puff ball. . . . When frightened their
form is suddenly changed by the feathers lying quite flat.” They
are very confiding birds and will often station themselves a few
yards only from a window. The Bucconide almost without ex-

1 4 Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds, or Families Galbulide and
Bucconide. London: 1879-82, 4to.

750 PUFFIN

ception are very plainly coloured, and the majority have a spotted
or mottled plumage suggestive of immaturity. The first Puff-bird
known to Europeans seems to have been that described by Mare-
grave under the name of “ Tumatia,” by which it is said to
have been called in Brazil, and there is good reason to think that
his description and figure—the last, comic as it is in outline and
expression, having been copied by Willughby and many of the
older authors—apply to the Bucco maculatus of modern Ornithology .
a bird placed by Brisson (Ornithologie, iv. p. 524) among the
Kingfishers. But if so, Maregrave described and figured the same

y
Wz

a, MALACOPTILA ; 0, MONACHA ; c, CHELIDOPTERA ; d, BUCCO MACULATA; é, B. TAMATIA.
(After Swainson.)

species twice, since his “ Muatuitui” is also Brisson’s ‘ Martin
pescheur tacheté du brésil.”

Mr. Sclater in his Monograph divided the Family into 7 genera,
of which Lucco is the largest and contains 20 species. The others
are Malacoptila and Monacha each with 7, Nonnula with 5, Chelido-
ptera with 2, and Micromonacha and Hapaloptila with 1 species each,
treating them precisely in the same way in 1891 (Cat. b. br. Mus,
xix. pp. 178-208). The most showy Puff-birds are those of the
genus Monacha with an inky-black plumage, usually diversified by
white about the head, and a red or yellow bill. The rest call for
no particular remark.

PUFFIN, the common English name of a sea-bird, the Frater-
cula arctica of most ornithologists, known, however, on various parts
of the British coasts as the Bottlenose, Coulterneb, Pope, Sea-Parrot,
and Tammy-Norie, to say nothing of other still more local desig-
nations, some (as Marrott and Willock) shared also with allied
species of Alcidx, to which Family it has, until very lately, been
invariably deemed to belong. Of old time Puftins were a valuable
commodity to the owners of their breeding-places, for the young

PUFFIN 751

were taken from the holes in which they were hatched, and
“being exceeding fat,” as Carew wrote in 1602 (Survey of Cornwall,
fol. 35), were “kept salted, and reputed for fish as coming neerest
thereto in their taste.” In 1345, according to a document from
which an extract is given in Heath’s Jslands of Scilly (p. 190) those
islands were held of the crown at a yearly rent of 300 Puffins? or
6s. 8d., being one-sixth of their estimated annual value. Some
years later (1484), either through the birds having grown scarcer
or money cheaper, only 50 Puffins are said (op. cit. p. 196) to have
been demanded. It is stated by both Gesner and Caius that they
were allowed to be eaten in Lent. Ligon, who in 1673 speaks
(Hist. Barbadoes, p. 37) of the ill taste of Puffins ““which we have
from the isles of Scilly,” and adds, “this kind of food is only for
servants.” Puffins used to resort in vast numbers to certain stations
on the coast, and are still plentiful on some,” reaching them in spring
with remarkable punctuality on a certain day, which naturally varies
with the locality, and after passing the summer there, leaving their
homes with similar precision. They differ from most other Alcidx
in laying their single egg (which is white, with a few grey markings,
when first produced but speedily begrimed by the soil) in a shallow
burrow, which they either dig for themselves or appropriate from
a rabbit, for on many of their haunts rabbits have been introduced.
Their plumage is of a glossy black above—the cheeks grey, en-
circled by a black band—and pure white beneath ; their feet are of
a bright reddish-orange, but the most remarkable feature of these
birds, and one that gives them a very comical expression, is their
huge bill. This is very deep and laterally flattened, so as, indeed,
to resemble a coulter, as one of the bird’s common names expresses ;
but moreover it is parti-coloured—blue, yellow and red—curiously
grooved and still more curiously embossed in places, that is to say,
during the breeding-season, when the birds are most frequently

1 There can not be much doubt that the name Puffin given to these young
birds, salted and dried, was applied on account of their downy clothing, for an
English informant of Gesner’s described one to him (Hist. Aviwm, p. 110) as
wanting true feathers, and being covered only with a sort of woolly black
plumage. It is right, however, to state that Caius expressly declares (Rarior.
animal. libellus, fol. 21) that the name is derived ‘‘a naturali voce pupin.”
Prof. Skeat states that the word is a diminutive, which favours the view that it
was originally used for these young birds. The parents were probably known by
one or other of their many local names.

2 In 1893 I took some trouble to make an estimate, though from the nature
of the case a very rough one, of the number of Puffins which had their home in
one locality among the Hebrides. The calculation worked out to be three miilions,
and my friend Mr. Henry Evans, to whose kindness I was indebted for the
opportunity of visiting the place, considered that number not to be excessive.
In 1894 I was again at the same spot and was inclined to think that I had

before underrated the number.

752 PUKRAS

seen. But it had long been known to some observers that such
Puffins as occasionally occur in winter (most often dead and washed
up on the shore) presented a beak very different in shape and
size, and to account for the difference was a standing puzzle.
Many years ago Bingley (North Wales, i. p. 354) stated that Puffins
“are said to change their bills annually.” The remark seems to
have been generally overlooked ; but it has proved to be very near
the truth, for after investigations carefully pursued during some
years by Dr. Bureau of Nantes he was in 1877 enabled to shew
(Bull. Soc. Zool. France, ii. pp. 377-399)! that the Puffin’s bill
undergoes an annual MOULT, some of its most remarkable appen-
dages, as well as certain horny outgrowths above and beneath the
eyes, dropping off at the end of the breeding-season, and being
reproduced the following year. Not long after the same naturalist
announced (op. cit. iv. pp. 1-68) that he had followed the similar
changes which he found to take place, not only in other species of
Puffins, as the Fratercula corniculata and F. cirrhata of the Northern
Pacific, but in several birds of the kindred genera Cerorhyncha, the
Horn-billed AUK, and Simorhynchus inhabiting the same waters, and
consequently proposed to regard all of them as forming a Family
distinct from the Alcide—a view which has since found favour
with Dr. Dybowski (op. cit. vii. pp. 270-800 and viii. pp. 348-350),
though there is apparently insufficient reason for accepting it.

The name Puffin has also been given in books to one of the
SHEARWATERS, and its Latinized form Puffinus is still used in that
sense in scientific nomenclature. This fact seems to have arisen
from a mistake of Ray’s, who, seeing in Tradescant’s Museum and
that of the Royal Society some young Shearwaters from the Isle of
Man, prepared in like manner to young Puffins, thought they were
the birds mentioned by Gesner (Joc. cit.), as the remarks inserted in
Willughby’s Ornithologia (p. 251) prove ; for the specimens described
by Ray were as clearly Shearwaters as Gesner’s were Puffins.

PUKRAS, from its name in one of the dialects in the North-
western Himalaya, a species of PHEASANT (well-known to Anglo-
Indian sportsmen, by whom it is also called the “ Koklas”), the
Pucrasia macrolopha of most ornithologists. The cock is remarkable
for his very long ear-tufts of glossy black, which contrast with the
large spot of pure white on each side of the neck; but the rest of
his plumage is comparatively unobtrusive, while the hen, as usual
among the Pheasants, is very plainly coloured. Beside a local
form which seems to be peculiar to Cashmere and Gilgit, Mr.

1 A translated abstract of this paper—containing an account of what is per-
haps the most interesting discovery of the kind made in Ornithology for many
years—is given in the Zoologist for 1878 (pp. 233-240) and another in the Bulletin
of the Nuttall Ornithological Club for the same year (iii. pp. 87-91).

PULEASTRZAE—PYVGOSTYLE 753

Ogilvie Grant (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxii. pp. 310-316) recognizes 5
other species, one inhabiting Affghanistan, a second Nepal and the
rest Tibet or China.

PULLASTRA#, an Order proposed by Sundevall (K. Vet.-Acad.
Handl. 1836, pp. 69, 116) to contain the CurAssows, LYRE-BIRD,
PLANTAIN-EATERS and PIGEONS ; subsequently abandoned by him ;
but in the meanwhile brought forward by Prof. Lilljeborg (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1866, pp. 11, 15), with the addition of the MmEGAPODES
and omission of Menura and Musophagide.

PURRE (AS. Pur, Wright’s Vocabularies, i. p. 21), a common
name for the DUNLIN in its winter-dress, especially among pro-
fessional gunners, who are apt to believe, as did ornithologists for a
long while, that the Purre and the Dunlin are distinct species.

PUTTOCK, an old name for the KiTE and BuzzarD, suggested
by Prof. Skeat (Ztymol. Dict. p. 480) to signify Poot- or Poult-Hawk,
that is to say the Hawk that especially preys on the young of
Gallinaceous birds.

PYGOPODES, Illiger’s name in 1811 for a group consisting of
the genera Colymbus (= Podicipes, GREBE), Hudytes (= Colymbus,
Diver), Uria (GUILLEMOT), Mormon (PUFFIN), and Alca (AUK), and
by many writers regarded as a reasonably natural group or Order.

PYGOSTYLE is the terminal bony expansion of the last 6 or
7 caudal vertebre which in almost all Carinatx coalesce into a
subtriangular upright plate or blade carrying the RECTRICES.
Archxopterye (pp. 278-279) shews the most primitive condition
by possessing about 21 free post-sacral vertebre, of which
each, from the 9th to the 20th, supports a pair of well-
developed rectrices. In all other Birds, as yet known, the number
of post-sacral vertebrz is considerably diminished, partly by the
fusion of about 6 of them with the PELVIS, and partly by reduc-
tion at the distal end, so that not more than some 13 caudal
vertebre are left, of which about one-half are free while the rest
form the Pygostyle—a result possibly due to the greater use and
development of the rectrices. However, Hesperornis (pp. 649-650),
the Ratite and Tinamidx retain, even when adult, 13 free
vertebre, which diminish in size towards the tip of the tail, and
thus these birds present in that respect an embryonic condition,
though it is more probable that in them the absence of a Pygostyle
has been brought about in a secondary way by the gradual loss or
reduction of once strongly-developed rectrices, than that it should
be the retention of a primitive feature. A Pygostyle has been
occasionally observed in Apteryx, and the specimen of an old Ostrich
in the Cambridge Museum has one, some 2 inches high and
nearly an inch and a half long. In Ichthyornis (p. 651) it is very

48

754 PYLSTAART—QUAIL

small. All this tends to shew that the distinction expressed by the
term SAURURA, in opposition to “-Ornithure,” is based on an
erroneous supposition.

PYLSTAART, from the Dutch, signifying a tail like the shaft
of an arrow, and apparently applied originally to the long-tailed
SKUAS, but now more frequently to the TROPIC-BIRDS.

Q)

QUA-BIRD, so-called from its cry, one of the names given to
the North-American Night-HERON, Nycticorax nevius (page 420).

QUADRATE BONES form in Birds, as in Reptiles, Amphi-
bians and Fishes, the suspensorial apparatus of the mandibles, while
in Mammals they are transformed into the tympanic ring and lose
their jaw-bearing function. The dorsal or proximal end of the
Quadrate invariably articulates with the squamosal, and often with
the lateral occipital bone also. In Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Ratitez
and Tinamidz the articulation is formed by a single convexity,
while in all other birds it consists of an outer and an inner knob,
though the existence of an inner knob, small and sometimes
indistinct, is indicated in Hesperornis, Rhea and the Peristero-
podes. The ventral or distal end of the Quadrate has two
oblong knobs for articulation with the mandible, as well as two
small facets, one on the lateral side for the jugal bone, and the
other, which is prominent, on the median side for articulation with
the posterior end of the PrERYGOID. From the anterior surface of
the shaft of the Quadrate projects the orbital process serving for
the attachment of one of the masseter muscles. This process
differs greatly in various birds, being large and strong in most
aquatic forms, pointed in the Birds-of-Prey and scarcely developed
in the Nightjars. Since, as in Lizards and Snakes, the whole
Quadrate is movable, protrusion of its distal end helps, by means
of the jugal bone, to raise the upper jaw (cf. SKULL). That
the general shape of the Quadrate can be advantageously used for
taxonomic purposes has been shewn by the excellent figures of Miss

M. Walker (Stud. Mus. Dundee, 1888).

QUAIL (Old Scottish Quailzie, Old French Quazlle, Mod. French
Caille, Italian Quaglia, Low Latin Quaquila, Duteh Kwakkel and
Kwartel, German /Vachtel, Danish Vagtel), a very well-known bird
throughout almost all countries of Europe, Asia and Africa,—in
modern ornithology the Coturnia communis or C, dactylisonans,

QUAIL 755

This last epithet was given from the peculiar three-syllabled call-
note of the cock, which has been grotesquely rendered in several
European languages, and in some parts of Great Britain the species
is popularly known by the nickname of “ Wet-my-lips” or “ Wet-
my-feet.” The Quail varies somewhat in colour, and the variation
is rather individual than attributable to local causes; but gener-
ally the plumage may be described as reddish-brown above, almost
each feather being transversely patched with dark brown inter-
rupted by a longitudinal stripe of light buff; the head is dark
brown above, with three longitudinal streaks of ochreous-white ;
the sides of the breast and flanks are reddish-brown, distinctly
striped with ochreous-white ; the rest of the lower parts are pale
buff, clouded with a darker shade, and passing into white on the
belly. The cock, besides being generally brighter in tint, not un-
frequently has the chin and a double throat-band of reddish or
blackish-brown, which marks are wanting in the hen, whose breast
is usually spotted. Quails breed on the ground, without making
much of a nest, and lay from nine to fifteen eggs of a yellowish-
white, blotched and spotted with dark brown. Essentially migra-
tory by nature,! in March and April they cross the Mediterranean
from the south on the way to their breeding-homes in large bands,
but these are said to be as nothing compared with the enormous
flights that emigrate from Europe towards the end of September.
During both migrations*immense numbers are netted for the
market, since they are almost universally esteemed as delicate
meat. On capture they are placed in long, narrow and low cages,
darkened to prevent the prisoners from fighting, and, though they
are often so much crowded as to be hardly able to stir, the loss by
death that ensues is but trifling. Food, usually millet or hemp-
seed, and water are supplied in troughs hung in front, and thus
these little birds are transported by tens of thousands from the
shores of the Mediterranean for consumption in the most opulent
and populous cities of Europe. The flesh of Quails caught in
spring commonly proves dry and indifferent, but that of those
taken in autumn, especially when they have been kept long enough
to grow fat, as they quickly do, is excellent. In no part of the
British Islands at present do Quails exist in sufficient numbers to
be the especial object of sport, though there are many places in
which a few, and in some seasons more than a few, yearly fall to
the gun. When made to take wing, which is not always easily
done, they rise with great speed, but on such occasions they seldom
fly far, and no one seeing them only thus would be inclined to
credit them with the power of extensive migration that they
possess, though this is often overtaxed, and the birds in their

1 Yet not a few Quails pass the winter in the northern hemisphere and even
in Britain, and many more in southern Europe.

756 QUAIL

transmarine voyages frequently drop exhausted into the sea or on
any vessel that may be in their way. In old days they were taken
in England in a net, attracted thereto by means of a Quail-call,—a
simple instrument,! the use of which is now wholly neglected,—on
which their notes are easily imitated.

Five or six other species of the restricted genus Coturnix are
now recognized; but the subject of the preceding remarks is
generally admitted to be that intended by the author of the book
of Exodus (xvi. 13) as having supplied food to the ‘Israelites in
the wilderness, though a few writers have thought that bird to
have been a SAND-GrousE. In South Africa and India allied
species, C. delegorguii and C. coromandelica, the latter known as
the Rain-Quail, respectively occur, as well as the commoner one,
which in Australia and Tasmania is wholly replaced by C. pectoralis,
the Stubble-Quail of the colonists. In New Zealand another
species, C. nove-zealandix, was formerly very abundant in some
districts, but is considered to have been nearly if not quite
extirpated within the last thirty years by bush-fires. Some fifteen
or perhaps more species of Quails, inhabiting the Indian and
Australian Regions, have been separated, perhaps unnecessarily,
to form the genera Syn@cus, Perdicula, Excalphatoria and so forth ;
but they call for no particular remark.

America has some forty species of birds which are commonly
deemed Quails, though by some authors placed in a distinct Family
or subfamily Odontophoriny.2 The best known is the Virginian
Quail, or CoLIN, as it is frequently called—that being, according
to Hernandez, its old Mexican name. It is the Ortyx virginianus
of modern ornithology, and has a wide distribution in North
America, in some parts of which it is known as the “ Partridge,” as
well as by the nickname of ‘“ Bob-White,”® aptly bestowed upon
it from the call-note of the cock. Many attempts have been made
to introduce this bird to England (as indeed similar trials have
been made in the United States with Quails from Europe) ; but,
though it has been turned out by hundreds, and has been frequently
known to breed after liberation, its numbers rapidly diminish
until it wholly disappears. The beautiful tufted Quail of Calli-
fornia, Lophortyx californicus, has also been tried in Europe without
success ; but is well established in New Zealand and the Sandwich
Islands. All these American Quails or Colins seem to have the habit
of perching on trees, which none of the Old-World forms possess.

Interesting from many points of view as is the group of Birds

1 One is figured in Rowley’s Ornithological Miscellany (ii. p. 363).

2 They form the subject of a monograph in folio by Gould, published
between 1844 and 1850.

3 T learn from a kindly critic (duk, 1893, p. 358) that this name has
lately been adopted as generic.

QUAIL-DOVE—QUAIL-HAWK 757

last mentioned, there is another which, containing a score of species
(or perhaps more) often termed Quails, is of still greater im-
portance in the eyes of the systematist. This is that comprehended
by the genus Zurniz (HemrpopE). It is characteristic of this
genus to want the hind toe; but the African Ortyxelus and
the Australian Pedionomus which have been referred to its neigh-
bourhood have four toes on each foot, and, though nothing is
known of the anatomy or habits of the first, the second, after
much discussion, has been decisively shewn by Dr. Gadow (Lee.
Austral. Mus. 1891, pp. 205-211) to be closely allied to Turnax.

QUAIL-DOVE and QUAIL-SNIPE, both book-names—the
former for Starnenas cyanocephala a Cuban species which occasionally
strays to the Florida Cays, and the latter for species of the
Neotropical genus Thinocorys, one of the LimicoL&, by some writers
referred to the Charadriidx (PLOVER, p. 733), and by others regarded
as forming with d#tagis a self-standing Family.

QUAIL-HAWK, the name given by colonists to the Falco
nove-zealandix of Gmelin, by later writers referred to the genus
Hieracidea or even placed apart as Harpe,' a fine Falconine bird,

QuaiL-Hawk. (From Buller.)

the precise affinities of which it would be very interesting to know,
and one must hope that they may be determined before the
extirpation of the form, since there seems to be a chance of its
proving to bea less modified descendant of an ancient stock whence
the true genus Falco and others have sprung, while on the other
hand it may turn out to be only an early settler from Australia or
elsewhere. Several authorities, and among them Sir Walter Buller,
recognize a second species, the Falco ferox of Peale or brunneus of
Gould, which seems scarcely to differ from the first but in its
smaller size, its habit of frequenting the bush rather than the open,
and its comparative abundance in the North Island, where the

1 This name has long been preoccupied by conchologists, and that in the
very form, Harpa, to which Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. i. p. 372) changed it.

758 QUAKER—QUEZAL

larger one is seldom if ever seen. Both appear to be equally
courageous, and their thoroughly Falconine aspect is shewn by the
annexed figure.

QUAKER, a sailors’ name for the Dusky Albatros, Phebetria
Fuliginosa.

QUAKETAIL, a book-name invented for the Yellow WaAGTAIL
and its allies, after they had been generically separated from
Motacilla as Budytes.

QUAM or QUAN, old ways of spelling what is now written
GUAN.

QUA-QUA, the Creole name in Tobago, for a species of
Thamnophilus (ANT-THRUSH, p. 21) there found.

QUEEST or QUIST, an abbreviated corruption of CuSsHAT.

QUESAL or QUEZAL the Spanish-American name for one of
the most beautiful of birds, abbreviated from the Aztec or Maya
Quetzal-tototl, the last part of the compound word meaning fowl, and
the first, also written Cuetzal, the long feathers of rich green with
which it is adorned.! The Quezal is one of the TROGONS, and was
originally described by Hernandez (Historia, p. 13), whose account
was faithfully copied by Willughby. Yet the bird remained
practically unknown to ornithologists until figured in 1825, from a
specimen belonging to Leadbeater,? by Temminck (Pl. col. 372)
who, however, mistakenly thought it was the same as the T'rogon
pavoninus, a congeneric but quite distinct species from Brazil, that
had just been described by Spix (Av. Bras. i. p. 47, pl. xxxv.) In
1832 the Registro Trimestre, a literary and scientific journal printed
at Mexico, of which few copies can exist in Europe, contained a com-
munication (pp. 43-49) by Dr. Pablo de la Llave, describing this

1 Dr. Tylor informs me that the Mexican deity Quetzal-coat] had his name,
generally translated ‘‘ Feathered Snake,” from the quetzal, feather or bird, and
coatl, snake, as also certain kings or chiefs, and many places, e.g. Quetzalapan,
Quetzaltepec, and Quezaltenango, though perhaps some of the last were named
directly from the personages (cf. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
vol. v. Index). Quetzal-itzli is said to be the emerald.

2 This specimen had been given to Mr. Canning (a tribute, perhaps, to the
statesman who afterwards boasted that he had ‘‘called a New World into
existence to redress the balance of the Old”) by Mr. Schenley, a diplomatist,
and was then thought to be unique in Europe; but, apart from those which
had reached Spain, where they lay neglected and undescribed, James Wilson
says (Lllustr. Zool. pl. vi. text) that others were brought with it, and that one
of them was given to the Edinburgh Museum. On the 21st day of the sale of
Bullock’s Museum in 1819, Lot 88 is entered in the Catalogue as ‘The Tail
Feather of a magnificent undescribed Trogon,” and very likely belonged to this
species. It was bought for nineteen shillings by Warwick, a well-known
London dealer.

QUEZAL 759

QuEzaL, male and female.

760 QUEZAL

species (with which he first became acquainted prior to 1810, from
examining more than a dozen specimens obtained by the natural-
history expedition to New Spain and kept in the palace of the
Retiro near Madrid) under the name by which it is now commonly
known, Pharomacrus mocinno,! in memory of a Mexican naturalist,
Dr. Mocino. This fact, however, being almost unknown to the
rest of the world, Gould, while pointing out Temminck’s error (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1835, p. 29), gave the species the name of J'rogon
resplendens, which it bore for some time. Yet little or nothing
was generally known about the bird until Delattre sent an account
of his meeting- with it to the Echo du Monde Savant for 1843
(reprinted Fev. Zool. for that year, pp. 163-165). In 1860 the
nidification of the species, about which strange stories had been
told to the naturalist last named, was determined, and its eggs, of
a pale bluish-green, were procured by Mr. Robert Owen (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1860, p. 374; Ibis, 1861, p. 66, pl. ii. fig. 1); while further
and fuller details of its habits (of which want of space forbids even
an abstract here) were made known by Mr. Salvin (/dis, 1861, pp.
138-149) from his own observation of this very local and remark-
able species. Its chief home is in the mountains near Coban in
Vera Paz, but it also inhabits forests in other parts of Guatemala
at an elevation of from 6000 to 9000 feet.

The Quezal is hardly so big as a Turtle-Dove. The cock has a
fine yellow bill and a head bearing a rounded crest of filamentous
feathers ; lanceolate scapulars overhang the wings, and from the
rump spring the long flowing plumes which are so characteristic of

? M. Sallé translated De la Llave’s very rare and interesting memoir (Rev. et
Mag. de Zool. 1861, pp. 23-33). Bonaparte stated (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1837, p.
101) that in 1826 he had proposed the name paradiseus for this species, and
had communicated a notice of it to an American journal. There seems no
reason to doubt his statement, and the journal was most likely the Contribu-
tions of the Maclurian Lycewm, published at Philadelphia (1827-29), to which,
as he says in his Sulla seconda edizione del Regno Animale del Barone Cuvier
Osservazionit (Bologna: 1830, p. 80), he sent some remarks on Swainson’s
Synopsis of the Birds of Mexico, and believed they had been printed there. But
these Contributions unfortunately came to an end with the third number, and
the only article by Bonaparte they contain is a Catalogue of the Birds of the
United States (pp. 8-34), so that his criticism of Swainson’s paper (which had
appeared in the Philosophical Magazine for 1827), though doubtless accepted for
publication, has never seen the light. Dr. Hartlaub has printed (Nawmannia,
1852, Hft. 2, p. 51) part of a letter from Duke Paul of Wiirtemberg, in which
the writer says that in 1831 he communicated a description of P. mocinno to
Cuvier, who thought that its long train-feathers had been put together arti-
ficially. He possibly had in mind the celebrated feather treasured in the
Escurial as having come from the wing of the Archangel Gabriel. This might
be thought to have been a Quezal’s, but the author of Vathek who saw it in
1787, says (Italy with Sketches of Spain, ii. p. 325) it was rose-coloured.

OUILE—OULT 761

—

the species, and were so highly prized by the natives prior to the
Spanish conquest that no one was allowed to kill the bird when
taken, but only to divest it of its feathers, which were to be worn
by the chiefs alone. These plumes, the middle and longest of
which may measure from three feet to three feet and a half, are with
the upper surface, the throat and chest, of a resplendent golden-
green,! while the lower parts are of a vivid scarlet. The middle
feathers of the tail, ordinarily concealed, as are those of the Pea-
cock, by the uropygials, are black, and the outer white with a black
base. In the hen the bill is black, the crest more round and not
filamentous, the uropygials scarcely elongated and the vent only
scarlet. The eyes are of a yellowish-brown. Southern examples
from Costa Rica and Veragua have the tail-coverts much narrower,
and have been needlessly considered to form a distinct species
under the name of P. costaricensis, There are, however, three good
congeneric species, P. antisianus, P. auriceps and P. pavoninus, from
various parts of South America, and, though all are beautiful birds,
none possesses the wonderful singularity of the Quezal.

QUILL, properly that part of FEATHER which is often called
the “barrel” ; but in common use applied to any feather that has
a barrel of considerable size, and especially to the large feathers of
the tail and wing (see RECTRICES, REMIGES).

QUILL-TAIL COOT, a local name in North America for £7is-
matura rubida, one of the Spiny-tailed Ducks (p. 168).

QUINCK-GOOSH, a fowlers’ name of the BRANT-GOOSE (pp.
57, 375).

QUISCALUS, said to be from the Low Latin Quiscula or
Quisquilla, which like Quaquila are supposed to be renderings of
Quagila or some such word, and to mean QUAIL, but the first is used
as the scientific name of the genus to which belong the Boat-TarL
GRACKLES, and also occasionally as an English word.

QUIT, a name applied in Jamaica, and perhaps some others of
the British Antilles, to several very different kinds of birds,
probably from the note they utter (¢f. Guit-cuit). Thus the
Banana Quit is the SUGAR-BIRD, the Blue Quit is Huphonia jamaica,
one of the TANAGERS, the Grass-Quits are species of Phonipara
allied if not belonging to the Hmberizide (BUNTING), and the
Orange-Quit is Glossoptila rujicolls, one of the Cxrebide.

1 Preserved specimens, if exposed to the light, lose much of their beauty in
a few years, the original glorious colour becoming a dingy greenish-bJue.

762 RACE-HORSE—RATL

R

RACE-HORSE, a name applied by seamen to the Loccsr-
HEAD Duck (p. 518) for more than a century, but of late years
superseded by that of Steamer-Duck.

RACQUET-TAIL, a name given to several of the Mormors,
and by Gould to Humminc-Birps of the genus Spathura.

24 DIUS, the straighter and more slender of the two bones of
the forearm (the other being the ULNA). Its proximal end forms a
shallow cup for articulation with the outer condyle of the HUMERUS,
while the distal end bears a knob which fits into the radial bone
of the CARPUS.

LAFTER-BIRD, a local name of the Spotted FLYCATCHER.

RAIL (German Jealle, French Jtdle, Low Latin Lallus), origin-
ally the English name of two birds, distinguished from one another
by a prefix as Land-Rail and Water-Rail, but latterly applied in a
much wider sense to all the species which are included in the
Family Rallide.

The LANpD-RaIL, also very commonly known as the Corn-Crake,
and sometimes as the Daker-Hen, is the Rallus crex of Linneus
and Crea pratensis of later authors. Its monotonous grating cry,
which has given it its common name in several languages, is a
familiar sound throughout the summer-nights in many parts of
the British Islands; but the bird at that season very seldom shews
itself, except when the mower lays bare its nest, the owner of
which, if it escape beheading by the scythe, may be seen for an
instant before it disappears into the friendly covert of the still-
standing grass. In early autumn the partridge-shooter not un-
frequently flushes it from a clover-field or tangled hedgerow ; and,
as it rises with apparent labour and slowly flies away to drop into
the next place of concealment, if it fall not to his gun, he wonders
how so weak-winged a creature can ever make its way to the
shores if not to the interior of Africa, whither it is almost certainly
bound; for, with comparatively few individual exceptions, the
Land-Rail is essentially migratory—nay more than that, it is the
Ortygometra of classical authors—supposed by them to lead the
QUAIL on its voyages—and in the course of its wanderings has now
been known to reach the coast of Greenland, and several times that
of North America, to say nothing of Bermuda, in every instance we
may believe as a straggler from Europe or Barbary. An example has
even been recorded from New South Wales (Jtec. Austral. Mus. ii.

RAIL 76

Oo

p- 82). The Land-Rail needs but a brief description. It looks about
as big as a Partridge, but on examination its appearance is found to
be very deceptive, and it will hardly ever weigh more than half as
much. The plumage above is of a tawny brown, the feathers
being longitudinally streaked with blackish-brown ; beneath it is
of a yellowish-white ; but the flanks are of a light chestnut. The
species is very locally distributed, and in a way for which there is
at present no accounting. In some dry upland and corn-growing
districts it is plentiful; in others, of apparently the same character,
it but rarely occurs ; and the same may be said in regard to low-
lying marshy meadows, in most of which it is in season always to
be heard, while in others having a close resemblance to them it is
never met with. The nest is on the ground, generally in long
grass, and therein from nine to eleven eggs are commonly laid.
These are of a cream-colour, spotted and blotched with hght red
and grey. The young when hatched are thickly clothed with
black down, as is the case in nearly all species of the Family.

The WATER-RAIL, locally known by several names as Bilcock
or Skiddy, is the Lallus aquaticus of Ornithology, and seems to be
less abundant than the
preceding, though that is
in some measure due to
its frequenting places into
which from their swampy
nature men do not often
intrude. Having a general
resemblance to the Land-Rail,! it can be in a moment distinguished
by its partly red and much longer bill, and the darker coloration of
its plumage—the upper parts being of an olive-brown with black
streaks, the breast and belly of a sooty-grey, and the flanks dull
black barred with white. Its geographical distribution is very wide,
extending from Iceland (where it is said to preserve its existence
during winter by resorting to the hot springs) to China ; and though
it inhabits Northern India, Lower Egypt and Barbary, it seems not
to pass beyond the tropical line. It never affects upland districts
as does the Land-Rail, but always haunts wet marshes or the close
vicinity of water. Its love-note is a loud and harsh ery, not con-
tinually repeated as is that of the Land-Rail, but uttered at
considerable intervals and so suddenly as to have been termed
“explosive.” Besides this, which is peculiar to the cock-bird, it
has a croaking call that is froglike. The eggs resemble those of
the preceding, but are more brightly and delicately tinted.

Rauius. (After Swainson.)

1 Formerly it seems to have been a popular belief in England that the
Land-Rail in autumn transformed itself into a Water-Rail, resuming its own
character in spring. I have met with several persons of general intelligence
who had serious doubts on the subject.

764 RAIL
The various species of Rails, whether allied to the former or
latter of those just mentioned, are far too numerous to be here
noticed. Hardly any part of the world is without a representative
of the genera Crex or Fallus, and every considerable country has
one or perhaps more of each—though it has been the habit of
systematists to refer them to many other genera, the characters of
which are with difficulty found. Thus in Europe alone three
other species allied to Crea pratensis occur more or less abundantly ;
but one of them, the Spotted Rail or Crake, has been made the
type of a so-called genus Por-
cand, and the other two, little
birds not much bigger than
Larks, are considered to form
a genus Zaporma. The first

PORZANA, ZAPORNIA. :

(Attar Siraiuséne) of these, which used not to
be uncommon in the eastern
part of England, has a very near representative in the Carolina
Rail or Sora, Crex carolina, of North America, often there miscalled
the Ortolan, just as its
European analogue, C.
porzana, is in England
often termed the Dot-
terel. Then there is the
widely-ranging [Hypote-
nidia, having a repre-
sentative almost every-
where from India to
China, and far away
among the islands to the
south-east, even to New Zealand, while at least one example has
been known to reach Mauritius. But, passing over these as well as
some belonging to genera that can be much better defined, as the
Coor and Moor-HEN, to say nothing of other still more interesting
forms of the Family, as the already extinct Aphanapteryx and
Erythromachus! (EXTERMINATION, pp. 217, 218), Ocydromus
(WEKA) and certain other members of the Family which there
is reason to think are doomed to extirpation, brief notice must
be taken of the curious genus Mesites of Madagascar, which has
been referred by Prof. Alphonse Milne-Edwards (din. Se. Nat.
ser. 6, vil. art. 2) to the neighbourhood of the Rails, though
offering some points of resemblance to the Herons.2 On the

Hyrorenipia. (From Buller.)

1 By an oversight this genus was called Miserythrus in the passage quoted.
(For it see Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, p. 41.)

* The Finroors and JAcANAs, by some systematists formerly placed with
the Rallide, to which the former certainly have some affinity, should be
regarded as forming distinct Families, Heliornithide and Parride. The

RAIN-BIRD—RASORES 765

whole the fallidx constitute a group of birds which, particu-
larly as regards their relations to some other remarkable forms,
of which the SuN-BITTERN, Ewurypyga, and Kacu, Rhinochetus,
may especially be named, well deserve greater attention from the
systematist, and any ornithologist in want of a subject could
hardly find one more likely to reward his labours if he were only
to carry them out in a judicious way. Based on the safe ground
of anatomy, but due regard being also had to the external
characters, habits and other peculiarities of this multifarious
group, a monograph might be produced of surpassing interest, and
one that in its bearings on the doctrine of evolution would be
likely to prove a telling record.+

RAIN-BIRD, RAIN-GOOSE and RAIN-QUAIL, the first
applied in England locally to the Green WoopPECKER, but in
Jamaica to Cuckows of the genera Piaya and Saurothera; the
second in Orkney to the Divers, and preferably to Colymbus septen-
trionalis ; the third in India to Coturnix coromandelica, because of its
abundance in some parts of the country during the rainy season ;
but the others seem to be used because the birds in question are
supposed to predict rain by their frequent cries.

RAPACES, RAPTATORES, RAPTORES, names proposed
for the Order containing the Birds-of-Prey (both diurnal and
nocturnal), and therefore nearly equivalent to the ACCIPITRES of
. Linneus. The first was conferred in 1777 by Scopoli (Introd.
Hist. Nat. p. 478), and included the genera Strix, Falco, Vultur,
Buceros and Lhamphastos. 'Temminck adopted it, properly exclud-
ing the last two, and gave it currency. The second name was
invented in 1811 by Illiger (Prodr. System. p. 194), who so termed
his Third Order, consisting of the genera Striz, Falco, Gypogeranus,
Gypaetus, Vultur and Cathartes; and the third, being only a gram-
matical alteration of the second, by Vigors in 1823 (Zrans. Linn.
Soc. xiv. p. 405, note). No one of the three is used by the latest
taxonomers of repute.

RASORES, Illiger’s name in 1811 (Prodr. System. p. 195) for
his Fourth Order, made to contain 5 Families :—(1) Gallinacez, with
the genera Numida, Meleagris, Penelope, Craz, Opisthocomus, Pavo,
Phasianus, Gallus, Menura, Tetrao and Perdix; (2) Epollicati, com-
posed of Ortygis ( = Turnia) and Syrrhaptes ; (3) Columbini, consisting

Limekin, Aramus, also, though its position is not so decided can hardly be
kept among the Rails. Mr. W. H. Hudson’s notes on the habits of these
birds, which he (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, pp. 102-109) considers to be Rails, as
well as others that undoubtedly are so, deserve the best attention.

1 The most recent revision of the Rallidx is that by Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B.
Br. Mus. xxiii. pp. 1-228), who has found it necessary to recognize 61 genera,

766 RATITE—RAVEN

of Columba; (4) Crypturi of Crypturus (= Tinamus) ; and (5) Inepta
of Didus.

RATIT4, that division of the Class AVES whose sternum
developing no “keel” resembles a raft or flat-bottomed boat (raézs),
and accordingly so named by Merrem (Abhandl. Akad. Wissensch.
Berlin, 1812-13, Physik. Kl. p. 259) in contradistinction to his
CARINAT& (p. 76), though to it he admitted only the single
genus Struthio. The extraordinary neglect of this important dis-
tinction is elsewhere dwelt upon (INTRODUCTION), and to Prof.
Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 418) is due the full recognition
of Merrem’s meyits. According to the views! adopted in this
volume the Subclass Ratite comprehends of existing forms the
Orders Apteryges (Kiwt), Megistanes (CASSowARY, EMEU), Rhex
(RHEA) and Sfruthiones (OSTRICH), together with the extinct
Aipyornithes (Roc) and Immanes (Moa). As regards the relation of
other older forms to the fatitz it seems best at present to use
reserve (see FossiL Brrps, ODONTORNITHES and STEREORNITHES).

RATTLE-WINGS, a fowlers’ name for the GOLDEN-EYE (p.
369).

RAVEN (Anglo-Saxon Hrexfn, Icelandic Hrafn, Danish Ravn,
Dutch Raaf, German Labe), the largest of the Birds of the Order
Passeres, and probably the most highly developed of all Birds.
Quick-sighted, sagacious and bold, it
must have followed the prehistoric
fisher and hunter, and generally with-
out molestation from them, to prey on
the refuse of their spoils, just as it
now waits, with the same intent, on
the movements of their successors ;
while it must have likewise attended
the earliest herdsmen, who could not have regarded it with equal
indifference, since its now notorious character for attacking and
putting to death a weakly animal was doubtless in those days
manifested. Yet the Raven is no mere dependent upon man,
being always able to get a living for itself; and moreover a
sentiment of veneration or superstition has from very remote
ages and among many races of men attached to it—a sentiment
so strong as often to overcome the feeling of distrust not
to say of hatred which its deeds inspired, and, though rapidly
decreasing, even to survive in some places until the present time.”

Raven. (After Swainson.)

See Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xx. pp. 499, 500.

There is no need to dwell on the association of this bird with well-known
characters of history sacred or profane—Noah or Elijah, Odin or Flokki, the
last of whom by its means discovered Iceland. The Raven is even said to have

1
2

RAVEN 767

Notwithstanding all this, however, the Raven has now fallen upon
evil days. The reverence with which it was once regarded has all
but vanished, and has been very generally succeeded by persecu-
tion, which in many districts has produced actual extirpation, so
that it is threatened with extinction, save in the wildest and most
unpeopled districts.

The Raven breeds very early in the year, in England resorting
to its nest, which is usually an ancient if not an ancestral structure,
about the middle or towards the end of January. Therein are
laid from five to seven eggs of the common Corvine coloration,
and the young are hatched before the end of February. In more
northern countries the breeding-season is naturally delayed, but
everywhere this species is almost if not quite the earliest of birds
to enter upon the business of perpetuating its kind. The Raven
measures about 26 inches in length, and has an expanse of wing
considerably exceeding a yard. Its bill and feet are black, and
the same may be said of its whole plumage, but the feathers of the
upper parts as well as of the breast are very glossy, reflecting a
bright purple or steel-blue.2 The species inhabits the whole of
Europe, and the northern if not the central parts of Asia; but in
the latter continent its southern range is not well determined. In
America ® it is, or used to be, found from the shores of the Polar

played its part in the mythology of the Red Indian ; and none can wonder that
all this should be so, since, wherever it occurs and more especially wherever it
is numerous, as in ancient times and in thinly-peopled countries it must have
been, its size, appearance and fearless habits would be sure to attract especial
attention. Nor has this attention wholly ceased with the advance of en-
lightenment, for both in prose and verse, from the time of Shakespear to that
of Poe and Dickens, the Raven has often figured, and generally without the
amount of misrepresentation which is the fate of most animals which celebrated
writers condescend to notice.

1 That all lovers of nature should take what steps they can to arrest this
sad fate is a belief which I strongly hold. Without attempting to deny the
loss which in some cases is inflicted upon the rearers of cattle by Ravens, it is
an enormous mistake to suppose that the neighbourhood of a pair of these
birds is invariably detrimental. On this point I can speak from experience.
For many years I had an intimate knowledge of a pair occupying an inland
locality surrounded by valuable flocks of sheep, and abounding in rabbits and
game, and had ample opportunities, which I never neglected, of repeatedly
examining the pellets of bones and exwviz that these, like all other carnivorous
birds, cast up. I thus found that this pair of Ravens fed almost exclusively
on Moles. Soon after I moved from the neighbourhood in which they lived
the unreasoning zeal of a gamekeeper (against, it is believed, the orders of his
master) put an end to this interesting couple—the last of their species which
inhabited the county.

2 Pied examples are not at all uncommon in some localities and wholly
white varieties are said to have been seen.

3 American birds have been described as forming a distinct species under

768 KAZOREILE

Sea to Guatemala if not to Honduras, but is said hardly to be
found of late years in the eastern part of the United States. In
Africa its place is taken by three allied but well-differentiated
species, two of which (Corvus umbrinus, readily distinguished by its
brown neck, and C. affinis,! having its superior nasal bristles up-
turned vertically) also occur in South-Western Asia, while the
third (C. leptonyx or C. tingitanus, a smaller species characterized by
several slight differences) inhabits Barbary and the Atlantic
Islands. Further to the southward in the Ethiopian Region three
more species appear, whose plumage is varied with white—(C.
scapulatus, C. atbicollis and C. crassirostris—the first two of small
size, but the last rivalling the real Raven in that respect.

RAZORBILL or RAzoR-BILLED AUK, known also on many
parts of the British coasts as the Marrot, Murre, Scout, Tinker, or
Willock—names which it, however, shares with the GUILLEMOT,
and to some extent with the PurriN—a common sea-bird of the
Northern Atlantic,? but not having a very high northern range,
resorting in vast numbers to certain stations on rocky cliffs for the
purpose of breeding, and, its object being accomplished, returning
to deeper waters for the rest of the year. It is the Alca torda of
Linnzus*? and most modern authors, congeneric with the GARE-
FOWL, if not the true Guillemots, between which two forms it is
intermediate—differing from the former in its small size and in
retaining the power of flight, which that had lost, and from the
latter in its peculiarly-shaped bill, which is vertically enlarged,
compressed and deeply furrowed, as well as in its elongated,
wedge-shaped tail. A fine white line, running on each side from
the base of the culmen to the eye, is in the adult bird in breeding-

the name of Corvus carnivorus, C. cacolotl or C. principalis, of which there are
several forms, and the myology of one, the Mexican C. sinwatus, is the subject
of a volume by Dr. Shufeldt published in New York and London in 1890.

1 Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. ili. p. 45) separates C. affinis as form-
ing a distinct genus Rhinocorax; but it is a hard task on any reasonable
ground to break up the genus Corvus as long accepted by systematists.

2 Schlegel (Mus. des Pays-Bas, Urinatores, p. 14) records an example from
Japan ; but this must be an error.

3 The word Alca is simply the Latinized form of this bird’s common Teutonic
name, Alke, with which Auk is the English cognate term. It must therefore
be held to be the type of the Linnean genus Alca, though some systematists
on indefensible grounds have removed it thence, making it the sole member of
a genus named by Leach, after Aldrovandus (Ornithologia, bk. xix. chap. xlix.),
Utamania—an extraordinary word, that seems to have originated in some
mistake from the equally mistaken Vuttamaria, given by Belon (Observations,
livr. i. ch. xi. (as the Cretan name of some diving bird (which certainly could
not have been the present species) and, as Mr. H. F. Tozer has kindly informed
me, it should have been written Vutanaria, that being the proper transliteration
of the Modern Greek Bourayapia, a diver—from Boutifw, mergo.

—

RECOLLET—RECTRICES 769

apparel (with a few very rare exceptions) a further obvious
characteristic. Otherwise the appearance of all these birds may
be briefly described in the same words—head, breast and upper
parts generally of a deep glossy black, and the lower parts and tip
of the secondaries of a pure white, while the various changes of
plumage dependent on age or season are alike in all. In habits
the Razorbill closely agrees with the true Guillemots, laying its
single egg (which is not, however, subject to the same amazing
variety of coloration that is pre-eminently the Guillemot’s own) on
the ledges of the cliffs to which it repairs in the breeding-season,
but it is said, as a rule, when not breeding, to keep further out to
sea. On the east side of the Atlantic the Razorbill has its stations
on convenient parts of the coast from the North Cape to Britanny,
besides several in the Baltic, while in winter it passes much further
to the southward, and is sometimes numerous in the Bay of
Gibraltar, occasionally entering the Mediterranean but apparently
never extending to the eastward of Sicily or Malta. On the west
side of the Atlantic it breeds from 70° N. lat. on the eastern
shore of Baffin’s Bay to Cape Farewell, and again on the coast of
America from Labrador and Newfoundland to the Bay of Fundy,
while in winter it reaches Long Island.

RECOLLET, the name given by the French-speaking popula-
tion of Canada to Ampelis cedrorum (CEDAR-BIRD), from the
resemblance of its occipital tuft to the hood worn by members of
the Franciscan order of friars.

RECTRICES, the quill-FEATHERS of the tail in Birds, so called
from their action in directing FiicHtT. They grow in pairs ;! and
what seems to have been their original arrangement is shewn by
Archxopteryx (Fosstt Brrps, pp. 278, 279).2 Crowding upon a
shorter basis seems to have produced the fan-shaped tail and
PYGOSTYLE of most recent birds. Absence of this last implies an
irregular arrangement of the tail-feathers, which in such cases, as
among the Ratir# and TINAMOUS, can scarcely be called Rectrices ;
but the reverse does not always occur, as witness those of the
GREBES and PENGUINS. The normal number of Rectrices is 6
pairs, but a few birds possess 10 or 11; several 9, 8 or 7; many
only 5, and Crotophaga (ANI) only 4—the diminution being brought
about by the suppression of the outer pair or pairs, as is indicated
by their often dwindling dimensions, as may be seen in the
WOODPECKERS and WRYNECKS when compared with the BARBETS

1 Where an odd number is found, as not rarely happens in Swans and some
other birds, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that through an injury the
germ of one of them has perished,

2 It was there incorrectly stated that each of the 20 vertebre bore a pair of
rectrices, whereas only 12 of them are so furnished.

49

770 RECTUM—REDBACK

(Capito) on the one hand and the Purr-Birps (Monacha) on the
other. Though the smaller number may be a later and higher
stage of the tail’s development, it certainly does not confer a higher
morphological rank on the forms that bear it, as is shewn by the
fact that the majority of PICARI& have but 5 pairs, and also some of
the lower PASSERES as Acanthidositia and Xenicus, while it is certain
that the possession of more than 6 pairs is not an ancestral feature,
the increase being a comparatively recent acquisition. Indeed the
number of Rectrices seems to have but little signification, very
nearly-allied species differing in this respect. Thus of Oreocincla
(THRUSH) two species have 7 pairs, and all the rest 6. Among the
CorMORANTS the common Phalacrocorax carbo has 7 pairs and the
smaller P. graculus (SHAG) 6 pairs. Still greater diversity obtains
among the SNIPES, the ordinary species of the Old World, Gallinago
celestis, has 7, that of North America, G. wilsont (otherwise not
readily distinguished from the former) has 8, as also has G. major,
while G. gallinula, the Jack Snipe, but 6, though in the last two
cases accompanied by osteological differences, and the Pin-tailed
Snipe of Asia, G. stenuwra, sometimes exhibits 14 pairs. Several
other similar cases are on record and many must exist that have
not been detected. A difference too may depend upon sex, as
with the PEACOCK, which has 10 pairs, being one more than the
Peahen.

Of the varied forms and functions of the Rectrices there is little
need to speak. The differences displayed by the first are obvious
to all who have the least acquaintance with Birds. The forked tail
of a SWALLOW is proverbial, and the pointed tail of a PARAKEET
hardly less familiar, while the erect tail of the Cock with its gallant
streamers affords a striking contrast to the flattened tail of the
Goose that feeds beside him in the poultry-yard. Similarly as to
function: in the Peacock, QUEZAL and some other birds the
rectrices serve but as a support to the showy train that covers and
hides them: in the WoopPECKERS, TREE-CREEPERS, and many
forms not allied to either, they are of the greatest importance in
the bird’s economy, as without their support it would be unable to
obtain a living ; but many are the cases in which ingenuity is at a
loss to assign the reason for some remarkable peculiarity offered by
the Rectrices.

RECTUM, the portion of the intestine (DIGESTIVE SYSTEM,
p. 138) between the insertion of the c#CA and the cLoaca. Birds,
the Latitz and Palamedea excepted, have no colon, and the Rectum
descending along the right KIDNEY is generally shorter than the
distance from the upper end of the kidneys to the cloaca. In the
Ostrich, however, it is of enormous length (p. 140) and width.

REDBACK, a name applied in North America to the DUNLIN

REDBIRD--REDBREAST 771

of that country, Zringa americana (p. 172); but at best only applic-
able to it in summer-plumage.

REDBIRD, a name of Cardinalis virginianus (CARDINAL), and
with the prefix “Summer” of a species of TANAGER, Pyranga xstiva,
since it occurs at that season only within the United States of
America.

REDBREAST, the name of a bird which from its manners, no
less familiar than engaging, has for a long while been so great a
favourite among all classes in Great Britain as to have gained an
almost sacred character. The pleasing colour of its plumage—one
striking feature of which is expressed by its ancient name—its
sprightly air, full dark eye, enquiring and sagacious demeanour,
added to the trust in man it often exhibits, but, above all, the
cheerful sweetness of its song, even “ when winter chills the day”
and scarce another bird is heard—combine to produce the effects
just mentioned, so that among many European nations it has
earned some endearing name, though there is no country in which
“ Robin Redbreast” is held so highly in regard as England. Well
known as is its appearance and voice throughout the whole year in
the British Islands, there are not many birds which to the
attentive observer betray more unmistakably the influence of the
migratory impulse; but somewhat close scrutiny is needed to
reveal this fact. In the months of July and August the hedgerows
of the southern counties of England may be seen to be beset with
Redbreasts, not in flocks as is the case with so many other species,
but each individual keeping its own distance from the next >—all,
however, pressing forward on their way to cross the Channel. On
the European continent the migration is still more marked, and the
Redbreast on its autumnal and vernal passages is the object of
hosts of bird-catchers, since its value as a delicacy for the table has
long been recognized.? But even those Redbreasts which stay in
Britain during the winter are subject to a migratory movement
easily perceived by any one that will look out for it. Occupying
during autumn their usual haunts in outlying woods or hedges, the

1 English colonists in distant lands have gladly applied the common nick-
name of the Redbreast to other birds that are not immediately allied to it.
The ordinary ‘“‘ Rosin” of North America is a Thrush, Turdus migratorius
(FIELDFARE, p. 250), and the BLurBirps of the same continent belonging to
the genus Sialia in ordinary speech are Blue ‘‘ Robins”; while the same
familiar name is given in the various communities of Australasia to several
species of Petraca and its allies, though some have no red breast.

2 It is a very old saying that Unum arbustum non alit duos Erithacos—one
bush does not harbour two Redbreasts.

3 Of late years an additional impulse has been given to the capture of this
species by the absurd fashion of using its skin for the trimming of ladies’
dresses and ‘‘ Christmas cards.”

772 REDBREAST

first sharp frost at once makes them change their habitation, and a
heavy fall of snow drives them towards the homesteads for such
food as they may find there, while, should severe weather continue
long and sustenance become more scarce, even these stranger birds
disappear—most of them possibly to perish—leaving only the few
that have already become almost domiciled among men. On the
approach of spring the accustomed spots are revisited, but among
the innumerable returning denizens Redbreasts are apt to be
neglected, for their song not being powerful is drowned or lost, as
Gilbert White well remarked, in the general chorus.

From its abundance, or from innumerable figures, the Redbreast
is too well known to need description, yet there are very few
representations of it which give a notion of its characteristic
appearance or gestures—all so suggestive of intelligence. Its
olive-brown back and reddish-orange breast, or their equivalents
in black and white, may be easily imitated by the draughtsman ;
but the faculty of tracing a truthful outline or fixing the peculiar
expression of this favourite bird has proved to be beyond the skill
of almost every artist who has attempted its portraiture. The
Redbreast exhibits a curious uncertainty of temperament in regard
to its nesting habits. At times it will place the utmost confidence
in man, and again at times shew the greatest jealousy. The nest,
though generally pretty, can seldom be called a work of art, and is
usually built of moss and dead leaves, with a moderate lining of
hair. In this are laid from five to seven white eggs, sprinkled or
blotched with light red.

Besides the British Islands, the Redbreast (which is the Mota-
cilla rubecula of Linneus and the Lrithacus rubecula of modern
authors) is generally dispersed over the continent of Europe, and
is in winter found in the oases of the Sahara. Its eastern limits
are not well determined. In Northern Persia it is replaced by a
very nearly allied form, Hrithacus hyrcanus, distinguishable by its
more ruddy hues,! while in Northern China and Japan another
species, £. akahige, is found of which the sexes differ somewhat in
plumage—the cock having a blackish band below his red breast,
and greyish-black flanks, while the hen closely resembles the
familiar British species—but both cock and hen have the tail of
chestnut-red.?

1 A similar intense coloration distinguishes some of the resident Redbreasts
of the Canary Islands (Tristram, dts, 1890, p. 72), and one of them from
Tenerife has been described as distinct under the name 7’. superbus (Konig,
Journ. f. Orn. 1889, p. 183, 1890, pl. iii. figs. 1, 2).

2 A beautiful bird now known to inhabit the Loochoo Islands, the Sylvia
komadort of Temminck, of which specimens are very scarce in collections, is
placed by some writers in the genus Hrithacus, but whether it has any affinity
to the Redbreasts remains to be proved. Itis of a bright orange-red above, and

REDCAP—REDPOLL 773

REDCAP, a local name of the GOLDFINCH.

REDHEAD, a name often given by gunners to the male of the
POCHARD and of the WIGEON, as well as in North America to a
Wooprecker, Melanerpes erythrocephalus.

REDLEG, in England a common name for the French or Red-
legged PARTRIDGE (p. 695), Caccabis rufa, and occasionally of the
REDSHANK (when it is generally used in plural form); but in North
America said to be applied to the TURNSTONE.

REDPOLL, a very well-known native of Britain, the Zinota
rufescens of recent authors, for a long while confounded with the
Fringilla linaria of Linneus, the Mealy or Stone-Redpoll of English
bird-catchers, which last is hardly more than an irregular winter-
visitant to this country, while the former, often called by way of
distinction the Lesser Redpoll, is resident in Scotland and a great
part of England, changing its haunts, however, according to the time
of year, and being moreover subject to much variability in the
places it affects, without our being able to account for the fact
otherwise than on the general supposition that the choice is
influenced by the supply of food, just as with the CrossBILLs, to
which in several respects the Redpolls have no small affinity.
Thus this pleasing little bird may be found nesting abundantly, for
it is of a social disposition, in a locality for perhaps two or three
seasons in succession, and then may be altogether wanting for
several years, though this is especially observable of it in the more
southerly parts of its breeding-range, for in the more northerly it
exhibits a greater constancy. The Lesser Redpoll is too weil
known to need description here, for even those who have not had
the happiness of studying its habits afield, especially in the breeding-
season (and there are few small birds in this country that afford the
observer more enjoyment), must have seen it caged scores of times ;
but the lively colours which glow upon the cock-bird at liberty are
in confinement lost at the first moult and never resumed, so that.
the very name Redpoll becomes a misnomer—the top of the head
changing to dark orange, hardly visible in some lights. The
geographical range of the Lesser Redpoll is apparently limited to
Western Europe, and it cannot be confidently said to breed except
in the British Islands. On the other hand, the Mealy Redpoll,
which yearly visits us, though in variable numbers, and seems to be
always distinguishable by its call-note as well as by the “mealy ”
appearance of its back, is much more widely distributed, breeding
abundantly throughout northern Scandinavia, though, further to

white beneath, the male, however, having the throat and breast black. Dr.
Stejneger (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 1886, p. 615) considers it, with another
equally scarce species from Japan, to form a separate genus Icotwrus.

774 REDSHANK

the eastward, what seems to be a recognizably distinct form, L.
exilipes becomes more frequent if not wholly replacing it. Yet both
these forms occur in North America, as well as another, the largest
of all, L. hornemanni, which has two or three times visited England.!
A remarkable peculiarity in the Redpolls is the fact ascertained by
Wolley in Lapland that the size and especially the length of the
bill varies according to the food of the birds, that organ growing
inordinately in summer when they are almost wholly insectivorous,
and being ground short in winter by the hard seeds that then form
their only fare. (See also LINNET.)

REDSHANK, the usual name of a bird—the Scolopax calidris of
Linneus and Yotanus calidris of modern authors—so called in
English from the colour of the bare part of its legs, which, being
also long, are conspicuous as its flies over its marshy haunts or runs
nimbly beside the waters it affects. In suitable localities it is
abundant throughout the greater part of Europe and Asia, from
Iceland to China, mostly retiring to the southward for the winter,
though a considerable number remain during that season along the
coasts and estuaries of some of the more northern countries.
Before the great changes effected by drainage in England it was a
common species in many districts, but at the present day there are
very few to which it can resort for the purpose of reproduction.
In such of them as remain, its lively actions, both on the ground
and in the air, as well as its loud notes, render the Redshank, during
the breeding-season, one of the most observable inhabitants of what
without its presence would often be a desolate spot, and invest it
with a charm for the lover of wild nature. At other times the
cries of this bird may be thought too shrill, but in spring the love-
notes of the male form what may fairly be called a song, the
constantly repeated refrain of which—leero, leero, leero (for so it may
be syllabled)—rings musically around, as with many gesticulations
he hovers in attendance on the flight of his mate; or, with a slight
change to a different key, engages with a rival; or again, half
angrily and half piteously complains of a human intruder on his
chosen ground. The body of the Redshank is almost as big as a
Snipe’s, but its longer neck, wings and legs make it appear a much

1 Full details of the Redpolls most likely to be met with by European
naturalists will be found in Dresser’s Birds of Europe (iv. pp. 37-57) and
Yarrell’s British Birds (ed. 4, ii. pp. 133-152); and, resting upon considerable
experience, may be recommended as trustworthy. Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus.
xii. pp. 245-247) recognizes two ‘‘species” of Redpoll—Acanthis linaria, with
3 “subspecies” holbelli, rostrata and rufescens, and A. exilipes with a “‘sub-
species” hornemanni ; but the reasons for taking this view of a confessedly very
difficult subject are not clearly stated, and it would seem as if the specimens
enumerated by him were chiefly sorted according to the length of their wing,
which he is careful to give.

1A BIOS ISLE 775
larger bird. Above, the general colour is greyish-drab, freckled
with black, except the lower part of the back and a conspicuous
band on each wing, which are white, while the flight-quills are
black, thus producing a very harmonious effect. In the breeding-
season the back and breast are mottled with dark brown, but in
winter the latter is white. The nest is generally concealed in a
tuft of rushes or grass, a little removed from the wettest parts of
the swamp whence the bird gets its sustenance, and contains four
eggs, usually of a rather warmly-tinted brown with blackish spots
or blotches ; but no brief description can be given that would point
out their differences from the eggs of other birds, more or less akin,
among which, those of the LAPWING especially, they are taken and
find a ready sale.

The name Redshank, prefixed by some epithet as Black, Dusky,
or Spotted, has also been applied to a larger but allied species—the
T. fuscus of ornithologists. This is a much less common bird, and in
Great Britain as well as the greater part of Europe it only occurs
on its passage to or from its breeding-grounds, which are usually
found north of the Arctic Circle, and differ much from those of its
congeners—the spot chosen for the nest being nearly always in the
midst of forests and, though not in the thickest part of them, often
with trees on all sides, generally where a fire has cleared the under-
growth, and mostly at some distance from water. This peculiar
habit was first ascertained by Wolley in Lapland in 1853 and the
following year. The breeding-dress this bird assumes is also very
remarkable, and seems (as is suggested) to have some correlation
with the burnt and blackened surface interspersed with white
stones or tufts of lichen on which its nest is made—for the head,
neck, shoulders and lower parts are of a deep black, contrasting
vividly with the pure white of the back and rump, while the legs
become of an intense crimson. At other times of the year the
plumage is very similar to that of the common Redshank, and the
legs are of the same light orange-red.

REDSTART, a bird well known in Great Britain, in many
parts of which it is called Firetail—a name of almost the same
meaning, since “start” is from the Anglo-Saxon steort, a tail.)
This beautiful bird, the Ruticilla phenicurus of most ornithologists,
returns to England about the middle or towards the end of April,
and at once takes up its abode in gardens, orchards and about old
buildings, when its curious habit of flirting at nearly every change
of position its brightly-coloured tail, together with the pure white

1 On this point the articles ‘‘Stark-naked” and ‘‘Start” in Prof. Skeat’s
Etymological Dictionary may be usefully consulted ; but the connexion between
these words would be still more evident had this bird’s habit of quickly moving
its tail been known to the learned author.

776 REDSTART

forehead, the black throat and bright bay breast of the cock,
renders him conspicuous, even if attention be not drawn by his
lively and pleasing though short and intermittent song. The hen
is much more plainly attired; but the characteristic colouring and
action of the tail pertain to her equally as to her mate. The nest
is almost always placed in a hole, whether of a tree or of a more or
less ruined building, and contains from five to seven eggs of a
delicate greenish-blue, occasionally sprinkled with faint red spots.
The young on assuming their feathers present a great resemblance
to those of the REDBREAST at the same age; but the red tail,
though of duller hue than in the adult, forms even at this early
age an easy means of distinguishing them. ‘The Redstart breeds
regularly in all the counties of England and Wales; but, except in
such localities as have been already named, it is seldom plentiful.
It also reaches the extreme north of Scotland; but in Ireland it is
of very rare occurrence. It appears throughout the whole of
Europe in summer, and is known to winter in the interior of
Africa. To the eastward its limits cannot yet be exactly defined,
as several very nearly allied forms occur in Asia; and one, f.
aurorea, represents it in Japan.

A congeneric species which has received the name of Black
Redstart,! Fe. titys,2 is very common throughout the greater part of
the European continent, where, from its partiality for gardens in
towns and villages, it is often better known than the preceding
species. It yearly occurs in certain parts of England, chiefly along
or near the south coast, and curiously enough during the autumn
and winter, since it is in central Europe only a summer visitor, and
it has by no means the high northern range of f. phanicurus. The
males of the Black Redstart seem to be more than one year in
acquiring their full plumage (a rare thing in Passerine birds), and
since they have been known to breed in the intermediate stage, this
fact has led to such birds being accounted a distinct species under
the name of R. cairii, thereby perplexing ornithologists for a long
while, though now almost all authorities agree that these birds are,
in one sense, immature.

More than a dozen species of the genus futicilla have been
described, and the greater number of them seem to belong to the
Himalayan Subregion or its confines. One very pretty and
interesting form is the R. moussieri of Barbary, which no doubt

1 The author of a popular work on British birds has suggested for this
species the name of ‘‘ Blackstart,’’ thereby recording his ignorance of the
meaning of the second syllable of the compound name as already explained, for
the Black Redstart has a tail as red as that of the commoner English bird.

* The orthography of the specific term would seem to be titis, a word
possibly cognate with the first syllable of TirnaArk and TirmovusE (Ann. Nat.
Hist. ser. 4, x. p. 227).

REDTAIL—REDWING 277

allies the Redstart to the Stonre-CuHars, Praticola, and of late
some authors have included it in that genus. In an opposite
direction the BLUETHROATS, Cyanecula, are apparently nearer to the
Redstarts than to any other type. By the ornithologist of toler-
ably wide views the Redstarts and Bluethroats will be regarded
as forming with the NIGHTINGALE, Redbreast, Hedge-Sparrow,
Wheatear and Chats a single group of the “Family” Sylviidz,
which has been usually called Sawicolinx, and is that which is most
nearly allied to the THRUSHES.

In America the name Redstart has been not unfittingly
bestowed upon a bird which has some curious outward resem-
blance, both in looks and manners, to that of the Old Country,
though the two are in the opinion of some systematists nearly as
widely separated from each other as truly Passerine birds well can
be. The American Redstart is the Setophaga ruticilla of authors,
belonging to the purely New-World Family Mniotiltidx, and to a
genus which contains about a dozen species, ranging from Canada
(in summer) to Bolivia. The wonderful likeness, coupled of course
with many sharp distinctions, upon which it would be here impos-
sible to dwell, between the birds of these two genera of perfectly
distinct origin, is a matter that must compel every evolutionist to
admit that we are as yet very far from penetrating the action of
Creative Power, and that especially we are wholly ignorant of the
causes which in some instances produce analogy.

REDTAIL, in North America the Buteo borealis (BUZZARD).

REDTHROAT, the name in Australia for the Pyrrholemus
brunneus of Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1840, p. 173; B. Austral. i.
pl. 68), a little bird, akin to Acanthiza, whose habits are well
described by Mr. North (Nests and Eggs of B. Austral. pp. 145,
146).

REDWING, Swedish Rédvinge, Danish Réddrossel, German Loth-
drossel, Dutch Koperwiek, a species of THrusH, the Jurdus iliacus of
authors, which is an abundant winter visitor to the British Islands,
arriving in autumn generally about the same time as the FIELDFARE
does. The bird has its common English name,' from the sides of

1 Many old writers assert that this bird used to be known in England as the
‘‘Swinepipe”; but except in books, this name does not seem to survive to the
present day. ‘There is no reason, however, to doubt that it was once in vogue,
and the only question is how it may have arisen. If it has not been corrupted
from the German /Veindrossel or some other similar name, it may refer to the
soft inward whistle whieh the bird often utters, resembling the sound of the
pipe used by the swineherds of old when collecting the animals under their
charge, whether in the wide stubbles or the thick beech-woods ; but another
form of she word (which may, however, be erroneous) is ‘‘ Windpipe,” and this
might lead to a conclusion very different, if indeed to any conclusion at all.

778 REED-BIRD—REED-THRUSH

its body, its inner wing-coverts and axillaries being of a bright
reddish-orange, of which colour, however, there is no appearance on
the wing itself while the bird is at rest, and not much is ordinarily
seen while it is in flight. In other respects it is very like a Song-
Thrush, and indeed in France and some other countries it bears the
name Mauvis or Mavis, often given to that species in some parts of
Britain ; but its coloration is much more vividly contrasted, and a
conspicuous white, instead of a light brown, streak over the eye at
once affords a ready diagnosis. The Redwing breeds in Iceland, in
the subalpine and arctic districts of Norway, Sweden and Finland,
and thence across Northern Russia and Siberia, becoming scarce to
the eastward of the Jenisei, and not extending beyond Lake
Baikal. In winter it visits the whole of Europe and North Africa,
occasionally reaching Madeira, while to the eastward it is found at
that season in the north-western Himalayas and Kohat. Many
writers have praised the song of this bird, comparing it with that of
the NIGHTINGALE; but herein they seem to have been as much
mistaken as in older times was Linnzus, who, according to Nilsson
(Orn. Svecica, i. p. 177, note), failed to distinguish in life this species
from its commoner congener 7’. musicus. The notes of the Redwing
are indeed pleasing in places where no better songster exists ; but
the present writer, who has many times heard them under very
favourable circumstances, cannot but suppose that those who have
called the Redwing the “ Nightingale” of Norway or of Sweden
have attributed to it the credit that properly belongs to the Song-
Thrush ; for to him it seems that the vocal utterances of the Red-
wing do not place it even in the second rank of feathered musicians.
Its nest and eggs a good deal resemble those of the Blackbird, and
have none of the especial characters which distinguish those of the
Song-Thrush.

In South Africa the name Redwing is applied to a very different
kind of bird, one of the FRANCOLINS, Francolinus levaillanti, a
valuable game-bird, not only for the sport it affords, but for the
excellence of its flesh.

REED-BIRD, a name variously bestowed in different countries
on almost any species of small bird affecting reeds. In England it
is generally the Reed- WARBLER or Reed-Wren, Acrocephalus streperus ;
in North America the BoBoLInK, while the English in South Africa,
in India and Australia seem to use it without much specialization.
REED-BUNTING and REED-SPARROW are in England names
of Emberiza scheniclus often called the Black-headed BUNTING ;
REED-THRUSH is the book-name of 4. arundinaceus (otherwise

‘‘Whindle” and ‘‘ Wheenerd” have also been given as two other old English
names of this bird (Harl. Miscellany, ed. 1, ii. p. 558), and these may be re-
ferred to the local German Weindrustle and Winsel.

REED-PHEASANT—REGENT-BIRD 779
turdoides), while REED-PHEASANT is the local name in East
Anglia for the unhappily-called Bearded Trrmouse.

REEL-BIRD or REELER, a local name for what in books is
called the Grasshopper-WaRBLER, Locustella nevia, while the prefix
“Night” signified what is usually known as Savi’s WARBLER,
Potamodus luscinioides, in the days when it inhabited the English
Fen-country. In either case the name was applied from the resem-
blance of the bird’s song to the noise of the reel used by the hand-
spinners of wool.

REEVE, the hen Rurr, a word that puzzles philologists as
offering an apparently inexplicable vowel-change (¢f. Skeat, Htymol.
Dict. 8.v.).

REGENT-BIRD, a very beautiful and by no means abundant
inhabitant of the eastern part of Australia, conspicuous for the
deep golden-yellow and velvety-black of the male’s plumage.
Originally described in 1801 by Latham (Jnd. Orn. Suppl. p. xliv.)
from a specimen in Lambert’s collection, as a Thrush, 7'urdus melinus,
it was figured and again described in 1808 by J. W. Lewin (B. N.
Holl. p. 10, pl. vi.) as Meliphaga chrysocephala, the Golden-crowned
Honey-sucker ; a name changed by him in the subsequent issue of
his work in 1822 (Bb. N. S. Wales, p. 6) to King Honey-sucker. In
1823, Quoy and Gaimard (Ann. Sc. Nat. v. p. 489), referred it to
the Orioles as Oriolus regens. In 1825 Swainson (Zool. Journ. i. p.
476), though not removing it from the Orioles, perceived in it some
affinities to the Birds-of-Paradise, and founded for it a new genus,
Sericulus, which has since been generally accepted, while in 1845
G. R. Gray (Gen. B. i. p. 233), aided probably by access to the un-
published drawings of Lambert, was able to establish the identity of
Lewin’s species with Latham’s (which must have been from a female
specimen), and thus the bird became the Sericulus melinus of ornith-
ology.? Still its affinities remained in doubt until Mr. Coxen’s
account in 1864 of the discovery by Mr. Waller of Brisbane that it

1 From their more elaborate account (Voy. de ?Uranie et de la Physicienne,
Zool. pp. 46, 105, pl. 22) it appears that when they were in Australia in 1819
the colonists called the bird the ‘‘ Prince Regent,” and this indicates the origin
of its present name. A few years later Lesson (Voy. de la Coquille, Zool. p. 641)
confirmed their statement, but improved upon it by mistakes of his own which
have gained currency in this country. He supposed it to have been discovered
during the Regency (which only began in 1810), and declared that Lewin (the
number of whose plate he misquotes) had called it “ King’s Honey-sucker” after
a former governor of that name, whereas the change, as mentioned in the text,
was doubtless due to the Regent becoming King in 1820. The earliest appearance
of the name Regent-bird known to me is in the list of Australian animals
included in the Geographical Memoirs of New South Wales, edited in 1825 by
Barron Field (p. 503).

2 Stephens (Gen. Zool. x. p. 240) has the name meddinus, and the spelling,

780 REGULUS—REMIGES

was a BOWER-BIRD (Gould, Handb. B. Austral. i. pp. 458-461)—a
fact confirmed shortly after by Mr. E. P. Ramsay (J0is, 1867, p. 456)
who had really observed it earlier. The “bower” of this bird,
however, does not seem to be so elaborate as are the structures
raised by its allies, but it is applied to exactly the same uses, and
has nothing whatever to do with the nest, which is built in a tree.
The name “ Mock Regent-bird” is said to be given to one of the
Australian HONEY-SUCKERS, Meliphaga phrygia, from its black and
yellow plumage.

REGULUS, a genus founded in 1800 by Cuvier (Leg. d’ Anat.
comp. tab. ii.) for the Motacilla regulus of Linnzeus (GOLDCREST), and
often used as an English word; but it is to be noted that the
regulus of classical or at least medizeval writers was the WREN.

REMIGES, the principal FEATHERS of the wing by which the
bird is sustained and rowed forward in FLIGHT, consisting of two
serles—PRIMARIES or “manuals,” and CUBITALS commonly called
“secondaries,” according as they are borne by the bones of the
manus or the ulna.! If the method of enumeration before recom-
mended (pp. 118, 741) be adopted, as long ago suggested by Forbes
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1879, p. 256, note 2), but as yet followed only by a
few scientific writers, vague and often contradictory expressions are
obviated. The taxonomic value of Remiges is not to be despised,
being as good as that of many internal characters ; but it is curious
that their least important features are made most of by ordinary
ornithological writers, while the really useful information they give
is persistently ignored. The phylogenetic development of the
Remiges furnishes an interesting problem. The late Mr. Wray
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1887, pp. 343-357, pls. xxix.-xxxii.) discovered that
in the embryo the first traces of wing-feathers appear on the dorsal
surface in successive rows, of which the last but one or last but
two grows more rapidly than the rest, and in conjunction with the
growing tendinous fascia at the posterior margin of the wing, the
stronger series develops into the Remiges, while the weaker becomes
the “reversed” TECTRICES.

The earliest Reptilian Birds? most likely possessed a somewhat
uniform covering of feathers on their fore limbs, those of the lower
surface being softer and more downy, those of the upper firmer and
smoother, while the first that grew out strong and large were those
on the upper hind margin of the forearm, with the effect of
protecting the sides of the body and possibly of occasionally serving
as a parachute, these advantages being preserved and increased by

since adopted by G. R. Gray and Prof. Cabanis may be grammatically more
correct if the word, not a common one, really signifies honey-coloured.

1 ««Tertials,” spoken of by many writers, have no separate existence.

2 «« Hernetornithes,” Gadow, Thier-Reich, Vogel, ii. p. 86.

REMIGES 781

Natural Selection, just as the scales on the hind margin of Turtles’
paddles are elongated and flattened out. Subsequently their
lengthening and strengthening extended to the feathers of the
metacarpus and so on to the digits, which at this stage were still
free (Archxopteryx). If these ancestral Birds possessed a patagium
or duplication of the skin which would assist as a parachute, it was
gradually restricted to the proximal region between the fore limb
and the trunk, or it might interfere with the folding of the limb
now become a wing. Already in the Reptiles the PoLLEX had
shewn a tendency to shorten, and it remained outside the series of
the other fingers, taking part only to a slight extent in the forma-
tion of the wings. The metacarpals became elongated and
coalesced because of their simultaneous and one-sided use. The
other bones of the mid-hand and of the fifth, fourth and in part
of the third digits were reduced in size and number, since the
newly-gained and much-strengthened axis required their presence
the less, and moreover the full development of those digits
would have hindered the folding of the wing, which is effected
by a strong abduction towards the ulnar side. From purely
mechanical causes the primaries grew into quills stronger and larger
than the cubitals. In the embryos of many Birds the Remiges of
the forearm appear earlier and for some time grow more rapidly
than those of the manus, until they are overtaken by the primaries
—thus repeating their phylogenetic development.

After the reduction and partial ancylosis of the bones of the
manus have once taken place it is as impossible to free or separate
the coalesced metacarpals again as it is to restore the lost digits.
Neither the soft Remiges of the Ostrich nor the vane-less quills of
the Cassowaries could ever have produced their typically “ Neor-
nithic” wing-skeleton.!

1 As bearing on this important subject the following references may be of
use :—E. Alix, ‘“‘Sur les plumes ou rémiges des ailes des Oiseaux,” Jowrn. Soc.
Philomath. 1874, p. 10; J. Cabanis, ‘‘ Ornithologische Notizen,” Arch. /f.
Naturg. xiii. (1847), pp. 16, 256 ; E. Coues, ‘‘ On the number of the primaries in
Qscines,” Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, i. p. 60 (1876); H. Gadow, ‘*‘ Remarks on the
numbers and on the phylogenetic development of the Remiges of Birds,” Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1888, p. 655; J. G. Goodchild, ‘‘ Observations on the disposition of
the cubital coverts in Birds,” op. cit. 1886, p. 184; J. A. Jeffries, ‘‘On the
number of primaries in Birds,” Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, vi. p. 156 (1881); W. P.
Pycraft, ‘‘ Contribution to the pterylography of Birds’ Wings,” Trans. Leicester
Lit. and Philos. Soc. ii. pt. 8 (1890) ; C. J. Sundevall, ‘“‘Om Foglarnes vingar,”
K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1843, p. 303 (Engl. transl. Ibis, 1886, p. 389); J. Vian,
“De la plume bitarde dans les Oiseaux,” Rev. Mag. Zool. 1872, p. 83; A. R.

- Wallace, ‘‘On the arrangement of the Families constituting the Order Passeres,”’
bis, 1874, p. 406; R. S. Wray, ‘‘On some points in the morphology of the
wings of Birds,” Proc. Zool. Soc. 1887, p. 343; with of ccurse the great works
of Nitzsch and Prof. Fiirbringer.

782 REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS

tHEPRODUCTIVE ORGANS, or those which serve for pro-
pagation, consist of the germ-producing glands and their efferent
ducts, and are best considered according to sex.

I. In the Female, a pair of Ovaries are developed, but with rare
exceptions only that on the left side becomes functional. The
mass of embryonic eggs (see page 195) of which each is composed
presents the appearance of a cluster of grapes, situated at the
anterior end of the KIDNEY of the same side, immediately below
the posterior end of the Liver, and is separated from its fellow by
the descending AORTA, whence it receives its supply of blood,

REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS OF PIGEON.

Fig. 1.—Female. cl?, second cloacal chamber in urodéum ; cl?, inmost chamber; k, kidney ;
l.od, left oviduct; lod’, opening of the same into the urodeum; /.od’, infundibulum ;
l.od’’, opening of the same into the body cavity; ov, ovary; r.od, abortive right oviduct ;
ur, ureter ; wr’, opening of the same into the urodeum. (About 2/3 of the natural size.
After T. J. Parker.)

Fig. 2.—Male. 1, 2,3, the three principal lobes of the kidney ; Ep, epididymis ; SR, suprarenal
bodies ; 7, testes ; w, ureter; v, vena cava posterior ; v.d, vas deferens with a swelling at S,
(Natural size.)

while it discharges into the posterior vena cava. The number of
germs which form the ovary frequently amounts to several hundred,
which during the breeding-season exhibit all stages of development
from a mere microscopic object to a full-grown ripe ovum, with its
large amount of yolk. The germs which do not ripen during the,
season undergo a process of resorption, and this is accompanied by
the dwindling in size of the whole ovary, so that during winter the
determination of the sex of any particular bird may be a doubtful

REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS 783

if not a difficult matter. The ripe eggs are received by the
Oviducts, which furnish them with the ‘ white albumen,” the shell-
membrane and the shell, before expelling them into the CLOACA
(pp. 197, 198). In young birds both oviducts are almost equally
developed, but the right one soon becomes reduced to an insignifi-
cant ligamentous strand along the ventral side of part of the
Kidney. ‘This one-sided suppression of the organs may possibly
be referable to the inconvenience that might be caused were each
oviduct to contain an egg ready to be deposited. Practically the
Oviduct is a gut-like tube suspended by its own mesentery and open-
ing by a wide slit-like infundibulum into the body-cavity near the
Ovary. ‘This upper portion of the Oviduct, corresponding with the
Fallopian tube of human anatomy, has extremely thin walls, while
peritoneal elastic lamelle attach it to the hinder margin of the left
LUNG in such a way as to secure the reception of any ripe egg that
may burst from the Ovary. The next portion of the Oviduct is
much narrower with thick glandular walls, which, twisting and
turning irregularly, secrete the albumen, and it is connected by a
constricted portion, the isthmus (p. 197), with a dilated ‘‘ uterus,”
situated on the ventral and partly on the right side of the Recrum
and cloaca. The walls of the isthmus deposit the shell-membrane,
while those of the uterus secrete the calcareous shell and the pigment,
and the uterus leads into a rather glandless portion, the “ vagina”
(which in a common Fowl is about an inch, and in a Goose two
inches in length) opening into the dorsal wall of the urodzeum
(p. 90) to the left of the urethral papilla.

Microscopically examined, the structure of the parts above
mentioned is seen to be as follows—The whole duct consists of four
layers: (1) an outer peritoneal, mesenteric lamella; (2) a layer of
smooth unstriped muscular and, for the most part, longitudinal
fibres, most numerous in the uterus and the vagina, but scanty or
absent in the infundibulum; (3) connective tissue with blood-
vessels ; and (4) the tunica mucosa, mucous membrane, which in
the infundibulum is thin and contains numerous cells with cilia,
the vibrating motion of which propels the ovum downward. In
the other portions of the duct the mucous membrane forms from
ten to twenty or even more folds, and contains numerous secreting
glands.

During the breeding-season the whole Oviduct is in a state of
hypertrophic turgescence. In the common Fowl at the period of
rest it will be only some six or seven inches long and scarcely a

1 This is so often the case that the usual notes on the labels which collectors
attach to their specimens are at that season mostly the expression of fancy. The
vicinity of the suprarenal capsules, which are of a pale yellow colour and
‘‘sranular” in appearance, makes them liable to be mistaken for ovaries, or
more often for the testes when in a dormant and much reduced condition.

784 RETINA

line wide, but at the time of laying eggs it becomes more than two
feet in length and nearly half an inch in width, thus increasing its
volume about fifty times; and this remarkable change takes place
annually.

II. In the Male, the Testes are a pair of whitish-yellow glands,
of oval or globular shape—occasionally (as in Cypselus) vermiform—
and lie at the anterior end of the KIDNEYS, being kept in position
by an enveloping peritoneal lamella, whence septa extend into the
interior. Within the meshwork thus formed are embedded the
spermatic vesicles or fubuli seminiferi, which combine toward the
median side of each testis into wider tubes that in their turn leave
it, and joining numerous convoluted canals, the whole constitute
the Epididymis, which is irregular in shape and as a rule of a
deeper colour. Generally the left testis is bigger than the right,
although both are equally functional. During the breeding-season
they are greatly enlarged, as has been most often remarked in the
case of the House-Sparrow, where they increase from the size of a
mustard-seed to that of a small cherry, temporarily displacing the
usual arrangement of intestine, liver and stomach. The canals of
each epididymis unite to form a narrow tube, the vas deferens, that,
with small undulations, passes laterally along the ureter of the
same side, over the ventral surface of the kidney, and opens upon
a small papilla into the urodeum of the CLoAcA (p. 90). The
walls of the vasa deferentia are furnished with unstriped muscular
fibre, but are devoid of glands, and there are no accessory glands,
seminal or prostate. In many birds, especially the Passeres, the
vasa deferentia increase considerably in length during the breeding-
season, and form a closely convoluted mass which often causes
a protrusion of the cloacal walls, a peculiarity that is particularly
remarkable in some of the Ploceidx,! and has been observed in
Accentor collaris.

The spermatozoa of Birds, though extremely minute, have a
complicated structure, the different parts of which present so many
differences of shape, size and proportion in various groups, that
they may possibly afford characters of no mean taxonomic value (cf.
Ballowitz, Anat. Anzeiger, 1886, pp. 363-376, and Arch. mikrosk.
Anat, xxxil. pp. 402-473, tabb. 14-18).

RETINA, the visual or perceptive screen formed by the
terminal expansion of the optic nerve and lining the inner
chamber of the EYE.

1 The external protrusion thus caused in certain of the South-African
Weaver-birds is often visible in their prepared skins, for it dries into a hard
hook-shaped excrescence and has given rise to various absurd and speculative
explanations.

RHEA 785

RHEA, the name given in 1752 by Méhring! to a South-
American bird which, though long before known and described by the
earlier writers—Nieremberg, Marcgrave and Piso (the last of whom
has a recognizable but rude figure of it)—had been without any
distinctive scientific appellation. Adopted a few years later by
Brisson, the name has since passed into general use, especially
among English authors, for what their predecessors had called the
American Ostrich; but on the European continent the bird is com-
monly called Nandu,? a word corrupted from a name it is said to
have borne among the aboriginal inhabitants of Brazil, where the
Portuguese settlers called it Hma (cf. Emev). The resemblance of
the Rhea to the OSTRICH was at once perceived, but the differences
between them were scarcely less soon noticed, for some of them are
very evident. The former, for instance, has three instead of two
toes on each foot, it has no apparent tail, nor the showy wing-
plumes of the latter, and its head and neck are clothed with feathers,
while internal distinctions of still deeper significance have since
been dwelt upon by Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 420-
422) and the late Mr. W. A. Forbes (op. cit. 1881, pp. 784-787),
thus justifying the separation of these two forms more widely even
than as Families ; and there can be little doubt that they should be
regarded as types of as many Orders—Sitruthiones and Rhexw—of the
Subclass Ratira#.? Structural characters no less important separate
the Rheas from the Emeus, and, apart from their very different
physiognomy, the former can be readily recognized by the rounded
form of their contour-feathers, which want the AFTERSHAFT that in
the Emeus and CAssowARrIESs is so long as to equal the main shaft,
and contributes to give these. latter groups the appearance of being
covered with shaggy hair. ‘Though the Rhea is not decked with
the graceful plumes which adorn the Ostrich, its feathers have yet
a considerable market-value, and for the purpose of trade in them
it is annually killed by thousands, so that it has been already
. extirpated from much of the country it formerly inhabited,‘ and its
total extinction as a wild animal is probably only a question of
time. Its breeding-habits are precisely those which have been

1 What prompted his bestowal of this name, so well known in classical
mythology, is not apparent.

2 The name TYouyou, also of South-American origin, was applied to it by
Brisson and others, but erroneously, as Cuvier shews, since by that name, or
something like it, the JABIRu is properly meant.

3 Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xx. p. 500.

4 Mr. Harting, in his and Mr. De Mosenthal’s Ostriches and Ostrich Farming,
from which the woodcut here introduced is by permission copied, gives (pp. 67-72)
some portentous statistics of the destruction of Rheas for the sake of their
feathers, which, he says, are known in the trade as ‘‘ Vautour” to distinguish
them from those of the African bird.

50

786 RHEA

already described in the case of other Ratite birds. Like most of
them it is polygamous, and the male performs the duty of incuba-
tion, brooding more than a score of eggs, the produce of several
females—facts known to Nieremberg more than two hundred and
fifty years since, but hardly accepted by naturalists until recently.

Aa \
~S SN
SS x \

a

\
Vi
A

4

From causes which, if explicable, do not here concern us, no
examples of this bird seem to have been brought to Europe before
the beginning of the present century, and accordingly the descriptions
previously given of it by systematic writers were taken at second
hand, and were mostly defective if not misleading. In 1803
Latham issued a wretched figure of the species from a half-grown

RHEA 787

specimen in the Leverian Museum, and twenty years later said he
had seen only one other, and that still younger, in Bullock’s collec-
tion (Gen. Hist. B. viii. p. 379)... A bird living in confinement at
Strasburg in 1806 was, however, described and figured by Hammer
in 1808 (dnn. du Muséum, xii. pp. 427-433, pl. 39), and, though he
does not expressly say so, we may infer from his account that it had
been a captive for some years. In England the Report of the
Zoological Society for 1833 announced the Rhea as having been
exhibited for the first time in its gardens during the preceding
twelvemonth. Since then many other living examples have been
introduced, and it has bred both there and elsewhere in Britain,
but the young do not seem to be very easily reared.”

Though considerably smaller than the Ostrich, and, as before
stated, wanting its fine plumes, the Rhea in general aspect far more
resembles that bird than the other Latitw. The feathers of the
head and neck, except on the crown and nape, where they are dark
brown, are dingy white, and those of the body ash-coloured tinged
with brown, while on the breast they are brownish-black, and on
the belly and thighs white. In the course of the memorable voyage
of the ‘ Beagle,’ Darwin came to hear of another kind of Rhea,
called by his informants Avestruz petise, and at Port Desire on the
east coast of Patagonia he obtained an example of it, the imperfect
skin of which enabled Gould to describe it (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1837,
p. 35) as a second species of the genus, naming it after its dis-
coverer. thea darwini differs in several well-marked characters
from the earlier known &. americana. Its bill is shorter than its
head ; its tarsi are reticulated instead of scutellated in front, with
the upper part feathered instead of being bare; and the plumage
of its body and wings is very different, each feather being tipped
with a distinct whitish band, while that of the head and neck is
greyish-brown. A further distinction is also asserted to be shewn
by the eggs—those of L. americana being of a yellowish-white, while
those of £. darwini have a bluish tinge. Some years afterwards
Mr. Sclater described (op. cit. 1860, p. 207) a third and smaller
species, more closely resembling the &. americana, but having
apparently a longer bill, whence he named it £2. macrorhyncha, more
slender tarsi and shorter toes, while its general colour is very much
darker, the body and wings being of a brownish-grey mixed with
black. The precise geographical range of these three species is
still undetermined. While &. americana is known to extend from
Paraguay and southern Brazil through the state of La Plata to an
uncertain distance in Patagonia, f. darwint seems to be the proper

1 The ninth edition of the Companion to this collection (1810, p. 121) states
that the specimen ‘‘ was brought alive” [?to England].

2 Interesting accounts of the breeding of this bird in confinement are given,
with much other valuable matter, by Mr. Harting in the work already cited,

4

788 RHINOCEROS-BIRD—RIBS

inhabitant of the country last named, though M. Claraz asserts (op.
cit. 1885, p. 324) that it is occasionally found to the northward of
the Rio Negro, which had formerly been regarded as its limit, and,
moreover, that flocks of the two species commingled may be very
frequently seen in the district between that river and the Rio
Colorado. On the “pampas” #. americana is said to associate with
herds of deer (Cariacus campestris), and R. darwini to be the constant
companion of guanacos (Lama huanacus)—just as in Africa the Ostrich
seeks the society of zebras and antelopes. As for &. macrorhyncha,
it was found by Forbes (Jbis, 1881, pp. 360, 361) to inhabit the
dry and open’ “sertoes” of north-eastern Brazil, a discovery the
more interesting since it was in that part of the country that
Marcgrave and Piso became acquainted with a bird of this kind,
though the existence of any species of Rhea in the district had been
long overlooked by or unknown to succeeding travellers.

RHINOCEROS-BIRD, an old book-name for one or more of
the HoRNBILLS (p. 433), and occasionally used by modern South-
African travellers for the OX-PECKER (p. 680).

RIBS, if typically developed, have a double attachment to the
vertebra—a capitulum or “head” articulating with the centrum of
a vertebra, and a tuberculum or knob movably applied to the trans-
verse process of the same vertebra. The portion next to the
“head” is known as the “neck,” and to it succeeds the shaft,
composed of two pieces, the dorsal or vertebral (to the posterior
margin of which is generally attached an UNCINATE PROCESS) and
the ventral, which is sometimes called the sternal or sterno-costal
rib. If this ventral piece reaches and articulates with the sternum,
the whole is called a “true” Rib; but if the sternum is not reached,
the whole is called a “false” Rib, even if the ventral piece be
present.

According to their position Ribs are usually distinguished as
(1) Cervical Ribs possessing only a short shaft, while both head and
tubercle are immovably fused with the vertebra; (2) Cervico-dorsal
Ribs movably attached to the vertebra, being in number from 1 to
4 on each side, with a shortened shaft which may in some cases
carry a small ventral piece; (3) Thoracic Ribs, connecting the
vertebral column with the sternum, from 3 to 9 in number—as

1 Beside the works above named and those of other recognized authorities
on the ornithology of South America such as Azara, Prince Max of Wied, Prof.
Burmeister and others, more or less valuable information on the subject is to be
found in Darwin’s Voyage ; Dr. Bécking’s ‘‘ Monographie des Nandu” in (Wieg-
mann’s) Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (1863, i, pp. 2138-241) ; Prof. R. O. Cunning-
ham’s Natural History of the Strait of Magellan and paper in the Zoological
Society’s Proceedings for 1871 (pp. 105-110), as well as Dr. Gadow’s still more
important anatomical contributions in the same journal for 1885 (pp. 308 et seqq.)

|

RICE-BIRD—RIFLEMAN-BIRD 789

3 or 4 in Columbidz, 4 or 5 in Passeres and most Picariv, 4 to 7 in
Steganopodes and 4 to 9 in Anseres ; (4) Luinbar Ribs, following the
Thoracic, and often consisting only of a short dorsal piece which is
thus frequently fused with the overlapping part of the In1um. The
number of Ribs varies (not so much as a whole, but according to
the regions to which they belong) among closely-allied species as
well as among individuals of the same species. Usually an
increased number of cervical or lumbar “false” Ribs means a
reduced number of “true” or thoracic Ribs, and vice ver'sd. Speak-
ing generally, a greater number of Ribs, and especially of thoracic
Ribs, indicates a lower and therefore phylogenetically older condition,
a feature which is found in the Bird not only in its embryonic but
even during its adolescent stage. From a taxonomic point of view
Ribs are valueless.

RICE-BIRD, one of the many names of the BoBoLINK (p. 46),
and perhaps locally applied in the East Indies to others not at all
allied (cf. PADDY-BIRD, p. 683).

RICHEL-BIRD (etymology! and spelling doubtful) said to be
a local name of the Lesser TERN.

RIFLEMAN - BIRD, or RIFLE-BIRD, names given by the
English in Australia to a very beautiful inhabitant of that country,”
probably because in coloration it resembled the well-known uniform
of the rifle-regiments of the British army, while in its long and
projecting hypochondriac plumes and short tail a further likeness
might be traced to the hanging pelisse and the jacket formerly
worn by the members of those corps. Be that as it may, the cock
bird is clothed in velvety-black generally glossed with rich purple,
but having each feather of the abdomen broadly tipped with a
chevron of green bronze, while the crown of the head is covered
with scale-like feathers of glittering green, and on the throat
gleams a triangular patch of brilliant bluish emerald, a colour that
reappears on the whole upper surface of the middle pair of tail-
quills. The hen is greyish-brown above, the crown striated with
dull white ; the chin, throat and a streak behind the eye are pale
ochreous, and the lower parts deep buff, each feather bearing a
black chevron. According to James Wilson (Jil. Zool. pl. xi.),

1 “*Rekels”(Cathol. Angl. p. 302), ‘‘Richelle” or ‘‘Rychelle” (Prompt. Parvul.
pp- 66, 433), derived from reke or reek (smoke), is an old word for incense, but
no connexion with the bird’s name is apparent.

2 Its English_name seems to be first printed in 1825 by Barron Field
(Geog. Mem. N. S. Wales, p. 503). In 1828 Lesson and Garnot said (Voy.
de la Coquille, Zool. p. 669) that it was applied ‘‘ pour rappeler que ce fut
un soldat de la garnison [of New South Wales] qui le tua le premier,”—which
seems to be an insufficient reason, though the statement as to the bird’s first
murderer may be true. The Rifleman of New Zealand is Acarthidositta chloris.

790 RING-DOVE—RING-PLOVER

specimens of both sexes were obtained by Sir T. Brisbane at Port
Macquarie, whence, in August 1823, they were sent to the Edinburgh
Museum, where they arrived the following year; but the species
was first described by Swainson in January 1825 (Zool. Journ. i.
p- 481) as the type of a new genus Péiloris, more properly written
Ptilorrhis,) and it is generally known in ornithology as P. paradisea.
It inhabits the northern part of New South Wales and southern
part of Queensland as far as Wide Bay, beyond which its place is
taken by a kindred species, the P. victorix of Gould, which was
found by John Macgillivray on the shores and islets of Rockingham
Bay. Further to the north, in York Peninsula, occurs what is
considered a third species, P. alberti, very closely allied to and by
some authorities thought to be identical with the P. magnifica
(Vieillot) of New Guinea—the “PRomERoPS” of many writers.
From that country a fifth species, P. wilsont, has also been described
by Mr. Ogden (Proc. Acad. Philad. 1875, p. 451, pl. 25). Little is
known of the habits of any of them, but the Rifleman-bird proper
is said to get its food by thrusting its somewhat long bill under
the loose bark on the boles or boughs of trees, along the latter of
which it runs swiftly, or by searching for it on the ground beneath.
During the pairing-season the males mount to the higher branches
and there display and trim their brilliant plumage in the morning
sun, or fly from tree to tree uttering a note which is syllabled
“yass ” greatly prolonged, but at the same time making, apparently
with their wings, an extraordinary noise like that caused by the
shaking of a piece of stiff silk stuff. In February 1887 Mr. A. J.
Campbell of Melbourne described (Vict. Nat. ii. p. 165) the egg of
the Queensland species, P. victorivw, which he had lately received
from Rockingham Bay, being apparently the first authentic
account of the nidification of any species of the genus ever
given. The nest is said to have been an open one, placed in dense
scrub, and containing two eggs of a light flesh-colour with subdued
spots and small blotches of dull red or brown. The genus Ptilorrhis
is now generally considered to belong to the Paradiseidx, or
Brirps-OF-PARADISE, and in his Monograph of that Family all the
species then known are beautifully figured by Mr. Elliot, as will
doubtless be the case also in the similar work by Dr. Sharpe
now in course of publication.

RING-DOVE, properly Columba palumbus, see Dove (p. 162);
but a name often misapplied to the Collared or Barbary Dove (p. 165).

RING-OUSEL, Z'urdus torquatus, see OUSEL (p. 667).
RING-PLOVER, A gialitis hiaticola, see PLOVER (p. 482). This

1 Some writers have amended Swainson’s faulty name in the form Pédlornis,
but that is a mistake,

RING TAIL—ROC 791

bird Sir Thomas Browne called “Ringlestones,” the derivation of
which word is open to conjecture; but Prof. Skeat thinks it may
refer to the bird’s habit of “ranging” (an old form of arranging) the
stones for its nest.

RINGTAIL, the old name for the female HARRIER (p. 410),
long thought to be specifically distinct from the male; but also
occasionally applied to the immature Golden EAGLu (p. 177).

RIPPOCK or RITTOCK (Icelandic Ritur), a local name for a
TERN.

ROAD-RUNNER, a name for the CHAPARRAL-CocK (p. 84).

ROBIN, a well-known nickname of the REDBREAST, which in
common use has almost supplanted the stock on which it was
grafted, while it has been transplanted as well to the oldest as to
the newest settlements of England beyond sea, as to Jamaica in the
case of the Green Topy, to North America where the Robin pure
and simple is Zurdus migratorius (p. 250), but with the prefix Blue
signifies some member of the genus Sialia (BLUEBIRD), in conse-
quence only of their red breast, while in Australia the name is
applied, irrespective of that character, to several species of Petrwca,
Melanodryas and others (WHEATEAR), and in New Zealand to some
of the birds of the probably kindred genera Miro and Myiomoira,
which have no red at all about them. Robin-Snipe in North
America is the KNOT in summer-plumage, when it is in winter-
dress the prefix White is added.

ROC, RUC and RUKH, transliterations of the name of the
colossal bird celebrated in the Arabian Nights, which as everybody
knows could carry off elephants in its clutch ; and according to the
best authorities frequented Madagascar and its neighbourhood !
Discoveries of the last half-century, or thereabouts, have shewn
that what so long passed for an idle tale was possibly founded on
fact, however gross have been the exaggerations. In November
1849 Strickland, who had already cited (The Dodo dc. p. 60) the
testimony of Flacourt in 1658 (Histoire de la grande isle Madagascar,
p. 165) as to a large bird, called “ Vouwron patra,” a kind of Ostrich
said to frequent the south of that island, published in 1849 (dna,
Nat. Hist. ser. 2, iv. p. 338) information received through Mr.
Joliffe, an English naval officer, from a French trader named
Dumarele, that he had seen in Madagascar the shell of an enormous
egg capable of holding 13 wine-quarts, and used as a vessel for
liquor by the natives (Sakalaves), who declared that such eggs
were but rarely found and the bird which laid them still more
rarely seen. Strickland remarked on the coincidence of this
gigantic egg being in the locality to which the great traveller Marco
Polo had referred the Roc. In January 1851 Isidore Geoffroy-

792 ROG.

St. Hilaire exhibited to the French Academy of Sciences (Comptes
Rendus, xxxii. pp. 101-107; Eng. transl. Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, vii.
p. 161) some fossils—two eggs and a few fragments of bone, which
had just been brought to Paris from Madagascar by Capt. Abadie,
—referring them to a bird which he named Aipyornis maximus and
declared to be a “ Rudipenne ”—or allied to the Ostrich. He soon
after republished (Ann. Sc. Nat. Zool. ser. 3, xiv. pp. 205-216) his
original remarks, together with some additional information of con-
siderable interest to the effect that, in 1832, Sganzin, who resided
for some years in Madagascar, sent thence to Jules Verreaux, then
at Capetown, a full-sized drawing of a gigantic egg, but this was
lost at sea with all his collections; while in 1834, Goudot, another
traveller in that island, obtained some fragments of egg-shells which
Gervais had mentioned in 1841 (Dict. Sc. Nat. Suppl. i. p. 524) as
resembling Ostriches’. In 1861, Prof. Bianconi (Mem. Accad. Bologna,
xil. pp. 61-76) seriously took up the question of the identity of the
Roe, described by some one to Marco Polo (for the great Venetian
himself did not see it); of the “Chrocko” (which is only another
form of the same word) mentioned on the map of Fra Mauro (1450)
whose egg was as big as a butt; and of the dpyornis of ornithology,
declaring the latter to be no Struthious bird but a Vulture—an
opinion which he steadily maintained throughout a long series
of papers. .The matter has therefore attracted some scientific
attention, especially as other remains have come to light; but none
can doubt after the masterly treatise of MM. Alphonse Milne-
Edwards and Grandidier (Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 5, xii. pp. 167-196,
pls. 6-16) that the original determination was right; and therefore,
according to the views taken in the present work, a group or Order
Aipyornithes should be recognized as of equal rank with the
Struthiones and others that form the Subclass Ratira. A consider-
able number of eggs, which from their enormous size—being the
largest eggs known—are conspicuous objects, and no small number
of fossil bones have now been discovered, and have been attributed
to five species of which AY. maximus, medius and modestus are
indicated by the eminent naturalists last named, who think it
possible that one of the smaller species may have survived long
enough for a tradition of its existence to be transmitted, especially
since some of the bones found shew marks of a cutting instrument,
evidently the work of a human hand and presumably made on the
recently-killed bird! Sir Henry Yule (Book of Ser Marco Polo, i.
pp. 346-354) treated the question in his usual happy style and,

1 They cite froma French work of fiction published in 1696 under the title
of Furterianaa passage describing enormous birds inhabiting Madagascar and
there carrying off sheep and human beings, so that the latter had to walk about
with tame tigers for their own protection! This modern embellishment of the
old Arabian stories is hardly an improvement if probability is to be regarded.

ee eee ee

i es

ROCKIER—ROLLER © 793

acting on the hint first given by Strickland, suggested that the
story of the Ruc, though it may have originated much further to
the eastward, became localized in Madagascar through some
rumour of A/pyornis and its stupendous eggs, one of which (now in
the British Museum, and measuring more than 13 inches by 9°5)
he figured of the natural size ;! but there seems no doubt that the
largest species of Apyornis as yet found by no means equalled in
bulk or height the larger forms of Dinornithes. Herr R. Burck-
hardt (Palzontol. Abhandl. vi. Heft 2, 1893) has referred some
remains obtained by the late Dr. Hildebrandt to a fifth species
4. hildebrandti.

ROCKIER, the name of a Pigeon, presumably Columba livia,
commonly called the Rock-DovE; but (teste Gilb. White, N. Z.
Selborne, Lett. xliv. to Pennant) applied to the Stock-Dove,
C. enas, so long confounded with it (p. 1638).

RODE-GOOSE (Germ. Rotgans), a local name given by fowlers
to the BRANT-GOOSE (pp. 57, 375).

ROERDOMP, the Dutch name of the BiTTERN (p. 40), commonly
used by colonists in South Africa.

ROLLER, a very beautiful bird, so called from its way of
occasionally rolling or turning over in its flight,? somewhat after
the fashion of a Tumbler-Pigeon. It is the Coracias garrulus of
ornithology, and is widely though not very numerously spread over
Europe and Western Asia in summer, breeding so far to the north-
ward as the middle of Sweden, but retiring to winter in Africa. It
occurs almost every year in some part or other of the British
Islands, from Cornwall to the Shetlands, while it has visited Ireland
several times and is even recorded from St. Kilda. But it is only
as a wanderer that it comes hither, since there is no evidence of its
having ever attempted to breed in Great Britain; and indeed its
conspicuous appearance—for it is nearly as big as a Daw, and very
brightly coloured—would forbid its being ever allowed to escape
the gun of the always-ready murderers of stray birds. Except the
back, scapulars and inner cubitals, which are bright reddish-brown,
the plumage of both sexes is almost entirely blue—of various shades,

1 One possessed by the late Mr. Rowley was said to measure 12°25 by 9°75
inches. He referred it to a distinct species which he named 4. grandidieri.
Dr. von Nathusius has described (Zettschr. wissensch. Zool. 1871, pp. 330-834, pl.
xxy.) the microscopical examination of the ege-shell in Apyornis.

2 Gesner in 1555 said that the bird was thus called, and for this reason, near
Strasburg, but the name seems not to be generally used in Germany, where the
bird is commonly called Rake, apparently from its harsh note. The French have
kept the name Rollier. It is a curious fact that the Roller, notwithstanding its
occurrence in the Levant and conspicuous appearance, cannot be identified with
any species mentioned by Aristotle.

704 ROODEBEC

from pale turquoise to dark ultramarine—tinted in parts with
green. ‘The bird seems to be purely insectivorous. The genus
Giga for a long while placed by systematists among the Chom,
has re eally no affinity whatever to them, and is now properly con-

CoRACIAS. > EuRYSTOMUS.
(After Swainson.)

sidered to belong to the PIcARr&, in which it forms the type of the
Family Coraciidx ; and its alliance to the Meropidx (BEE-HATER) and
Alcedinide (KINGFISHER) is very evident. Some eleven other
species of the genus have been recognized, one of which, C. leuco-
cephalus or abyssinus, is said to have occurred in Scotland. India
has two species, C. indicus and C. affinis, of which thousands upon
thousands are annually destroyed to supply the demand for gaudy
feathers to bedizen ladies’ dresses. One species, C. femminchi, seems
to be peculiar to Celebes and the neighbouring islands, but other-
wise the rest are natives of the Ethiopian or Indian Regions.
Allied to Coracias is the genus Eurystomus with some eight species,
of similar distribution, but one of them, /. pacificus, has a wider
extent, for it ranges from Celebes through. New Guinea to Tasmania
and strays to New Zealand. Madagascar has five or six very remark-
able forms, belonging to the genera brachypteracias, Geobiastes and
Atelornis, which are considered to belong to the Family; and,
according to Prof. A. Milne-Edwards, no doubt should exist on that
point. Yet if doubt may be entertained it is in regard to Leptosomus
discolor, with the cognate L. gracilis of the Comoros, which on
account of its zygodactylous feet some authorities place among the
Cuculidx, while others have considered it the type of a distinct
Family Leptosomatide. Brachypteracias and Atelornis present fewer
structural differences from the Rollers, and perhaps may be
rightly placed with them; but the species of the latter have long
tarsi, and are believed to be of terrestrial habit, which Rollers
generally certainly are not. These very curious and in some
respects very interesting forms, which are peculiar to Madagascar,
are admirably described and illustrated by a series of twenty plates
in the great work of MM. Grandidier and A. Milne-Edwards on
that island (Oiseaua, pp. 223-250), while the Family Coracidex is the
subject of a monograph, published in 1893, by Mr. Dresser, as a
companion volume to that on the Meropide.

ROODEBEC (Red beak), the colonial name of a bird in South
Africa, Estrilda astrild, belonging to the WEAVER-BIRDS and akin to

ROOK 795

the AMIDAVAD (p. 11), while Vidua principalis (W1DOW-BIRD) is the
“Koning Roodebec” or King of the same (cf. Layard, B. S. Afr.
pp. 192, 188).

ROOK (Anglo-Saxon Hréc, Icelandic Hrékr,! Swedish Raka,
Dutch Loek, Gaelic Rocas), the Corvus frugilegus of ornithology, and
throughout a great part of Europe the commonest and best-known
of the Crow-tribe. Beside its pre-eminently gregarious habits, which
did not escape the notice of Virgil (Georg. 1. 382)? and are so unlike
those of nearly every other member of the Corvidx,® the Rook is at
once distinguishable from the rest by commonly losing at an early
age the feathers from its face, leaving a bare, scabrous and greyish-
white skin that is sufficiently visible at some distance. In the
comparatively rare cases in which tliese feathers persist, the Rook
may be readily known from the black form of Crow by the rich
purple gloss of its black plumage, especially on the head and neck,
the feathers of which are soft and not pointed. In a general way
the appearance and manners of the Rook are so well known, to
most inhabitants of the British Islands especially, that it is needless
here to dwell upon them, and particularly its habit of forming com-
munities in the breeding-season, which it possesses in a measure
beyond that of any other land-bird of the northern hemisphere.
Yet each of these communities, or rookeries, seems to have some
custom intrinsically its own, the details of which want of space
forbids any attempt to set before the reader. In a general way the
least-known part of the Rook’s mode of life are facts relating to
its migration and geographical distribution. Though the great
majority of Rooks in Britain are sedentary, or only change their
abode to a very limited extent, it is now certain that a very consider-
able number visit this country in or towards autumn, not necessarily
to abide here, but merely to pass onward, like most other kinds of
birds, to winter further southward; and, at the same season or even a
little earlier, it cannot be doubted that a large proportion of the young
of the year emigrate in the same direction. As a species the Rook
on the European continent only resides during the whole year

1 The bird, however, does not inhabit Iceland, and the language to which the
word (from which is said to come the French Frewx) belongs would perhaps be more
correctly termed Old Teutonic. There are many local German names of the same
origin, such as Rooke, Rouch, Ruch and others, but the bird is generally known
in Germany as the Saat-Krihe, i.e. Seed- (=Corn-) Crow. In Pomerania it was
formerly Korrock (A. von Homeyer, Zeitschr. fiir Orn. xiv. p. 136).

2 This is the more noteworthy as the district in which he was born and
educated is almost the only part of Italy in which the Rook breeds. Shelley
also very truly mentions the ‘“‘legioned Rooks,” to which he stood listening
‘‘mid the mountains Euganean,” in his Lines written among those hills.

3 The winter-gatherings of one of the Americar species, though sufficiently
remarkable, seem to be in no way comparable to those of the Rook.

796 ROSEHILL—ROTCHE

throughout the middle tract of its ordinary range. More to the
northward, as in Sweden and northern Russia, it is a regular
summer-immigrant, while further to the southward, as in southern
France, Spain and most parts of Italy, it is, on the contrary, a
regular winter-immigrant. The same is found to be the case in
Asia, where it extends eastward as far as the upper Irtish and the Ob.
It breeds throughout Turkestan, in the cold weather visiting
Affghanistan, Cashmere and the Punjab, and Sir Oliver St. John
found a rookery of considerable size at Casbin in Persia. In
Palestine and in Lower Egypt it is only a winter-visitant, and Canon
Tristram noticed that it congregates in great numbers about the
mosque of Omar in Jerusalem.

There are several moot points in the natural history of the
Rook which it is impossible here to do more than mention. One is
the cause of the curious shedding on reaching maturity of the
feathers of its face, and another the burning question whether
Rooks are on the whole beneficial or detrimental to agriculture. In
England the former opinion seems to be generally entertained, but in
Scotland the latter has long been popular. ‘The absence of suffi-
cient observations made by persons at once competent and without
bias compels the naturalist to withhold his judgment on the matter,
but the absence of such observations is eminently discreditable to
the numerous Agricultural Societies of the United Kingdom.

ROSEHILL (often corrupted by dealers into ROSELLE), an
Australian PARAKEE?, Platycercus eximius, so called from the place of
that name in New South Wales where, if it was not (as is possible)
first obtained, it was formerly abundant. The nearly allied P.
icterotis of Western Australia also frequently bears the same name.

ROTCHE (German or Dutch Rotges?—ostensibly from its ery,
“rot-tet-tet”), a bird familiar to all Arctic navigators, the Little
AvK of books, and Mergulus alle of ornithology. It is, or used to
be, abundant almost beyond belief at many of its breeding-haunts,

1 It is right to mention that the Canon considers the Rook of Palestine
entitled to specific distinction as Corvus agricola (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1864, p. 444 ;
Ibis, 1866, pp. 68, 69). In like manner the Rook of China has been described as
forming a distinct species, under the name of C. pastinator (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1845, p. 1), from having the feathers of its face only partially deciduous.

2 Thus spelt the name is given by Friderich Martens (Spitsbergische oder Groen-
landische Reise Beschreibung. Hamburg : 1675, p. 61) who voyaged to Spitsbergen
in a Friesland ship in 1671, and is, like the others used by him, confessedly (p. 55) of
Dutch origin, though possibly in a German form. Yet the word seems not to be
recognized as Dutch by authorities on that language. An English translation of
Martens’s narrative appeared in London in 1694 in an anonymous volume bearing
the title of An Accownt of several Late Voyages and Discoveries to the South and
North, dedicated to Samuel Pepys, Secretary of the Admiralty and author of the
well-known Diary, by whom its pubkication was probably instigated.

ae ie

RUDDER-BIRD—RUDDOCK 707

and in 1818 Beechey (Voy. Dorothea and Trent, p. 46) estimated
that he frequently saw a column in Magdalena Bay which he
calculated to consist of “nearly four millions of birds on the wing
at one time! These numbers may have dwindled at the present
day through the depredations of sealing and whaling crews; but
some of the most recent voyagers yet speak of countless congrega-
tions, though it must be remembered that, as with the Alcidx in
general, the breeding-places are comparatively few in regard to the
extent of coast, and especially so in the case of the Rotche, which
lays its bluish-white and generally spotless egg not on a ledge of
rock, but in a cavity worn by the weather, or in the “scree” of
loose stones at the foot of high cliffs. Consequently suitable
stations are by no means common, but often many miles apart, and
are, moreover, not unfrequently situated at some distance from the
sea, security against foxes being apparently one great object sought
in their selection. In Smith Sound the Rotche is said not to
breed below lat. 68° or above 79°, and not even to occur in the
so-called Polar Basin; but it goes much further northward in the
Spitsbergen seas and is included among the birds of Franz-Josef
Land, as presumably nesting there. Though it frequents the shores
of Nova Zembla (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 29), it is not found east
of the Kara Sea, and thus its breeding-range is not so very wide,
while the most southern locality at which its eggs have been taken
is Grimsey on the north coast of Iceland, an island which is just
cut by the Arctic Circle. In winter stray examples are not at all
_ unfrequently met with on the shores of the British Islands, or are
driven by stress of weather far inland, and they have occurred even
in the Azores and Canaries (Godman, Ibis, 1866, p. 102; 1874,
p. 224), but these are mere accidental wanderers from the vast
hosts that must somewhere exist, and what becomes of the enor-
mous number of birds of this and other kindred species at that
season is a problem as yet unsolved, though it is obvious that they
must resort to some part of the North Atlantic when the waters
near their homes are frozen.

The Little Auk is a compactly-built bird, some 8 inches in
length, with the general coloration of its Family, glossy black above
and pure white beneath, the latter in winter-plumage extending to
the chin. The squab young, with their dark blue skin thinly
clothed with black down, are strange-looking objects.

RUDDER-BIRD or -DUCK, a name for Hrismatura rubida, one
of the Spiny-tailed Ducks (p. 168).

RUDDOCK, A.S. Rudduc, a well-known name for the REp-
BREAST.

1 This result may seem incredible ; but from my own experience (Jbis, 1865,
p- 204) I do not feel justified in doubting it (¢f supra, PUFFIN, p. 751, note 2),

798 RUFF
RUFF, so called from the very beautiful and remarkable frill of
elongated feathers that, just before the breeding-season, grow
thickly round the neck of the male,’ who is considerably larger
than the female, known as the REEVE. In many respects this
species, the Zringa pugnax of Linneeus and the Machetes pugnax of
the majority of modern ornithologists, is one of the most singular
in existence, and yet its singularities have been very ill appreciated
by zoological writers in general? These singularities would require
almost a volume to describe properly. The best account of them
is unquestionably that given in 1813 by Montagu (Suppl. Orn.
Dict.), who seems to have been particularly struck by the extra-
ordinary peculiarities of the species, and, to investigate them,
expressly visited the fens of Lincolnshire, possibly excited thereto by
the example of Pennant, whose information, personally collected there
in 1769, was of a kind to provoke further enquiry, while Daniel
(Rural Sports, ii. p. 234) had added some other particulars, and
subsequently Graves (Brit. Orn. i.) in 1816 repeated in the same
district the experience of his predecessors. Since that time the
great changes produced by the drainage of the fen-country have
banished this species from nearly the whole of it, so that Lubbock
(Fauna Norf. pp. 68-73; ed. 2, Southwell, pp. 102, 103) and
Stevenson (Birds Norf. ii. pp. 261-271) can alone be cited as
modern witnesses of its habits in England, while the trade of
netting or snaring Ruffs and fattening them for the table has for
many years ceased.?
The cock-bird, when out of his nuptial attire, or, to use the
fenman’s expression, when he has not “his show on,” and the hen
at all seasons, offer no very remarkable deviation from ordinary

1 This ‘‘ruff” has been compared to that of Elizabethan or Jacobean costume,
but it is essentially different, since that was open in front and widest and most
projecting behind, whereas the bird’s decorative apparel is most developed in
front and at the sides and scarcely exists behind. It seems to be at present
unknown whether the bird was named from the frill, or the frill from the bird.
In the latter case the name should possibly be spelt Rough (cf. ‘‘ rough-footed ”
as applied to Fowls with feathered legs), as in 1666 Merrett (Pinaz, p. 182)
had it.

2 Mr. Darwin, though frequently citing (Descent of Man and Sexual Selection,
i. pp. 270, 306 ; ii. pp. 41, 42, 48, 81, 84, 100, 111) the Ruff as a witness in various
capacities, most unfortunately seems never to have had its peculiarities presented
to him in such a form that he could fully perceive their bearings. Though the
significance of the lesson that the Ruff may teach was hardly conceivable before
he began to write, the fact is not the less to be regretted that he never elucidated
its importance, not only in regard to ‘‘ Sexual Selection,” but more especially
with respect to ‘‘ Polymorphism.”

3 I can well recollect considerable numbers, both alive and dead, being
annually imported from Holland ; but I believe that this practice is now given

up.

RUFF 799

Sandpipers , and outwardly! there is nothing, except the unequal
size of the two sexes, to rouse suspicion of any abnormal peculiarity.
But when spring comes all is changed. In a surprisingly short
time the feathers clothing the face a the male are shed, and their
place is taken by papillx or small caruncles of bright yellow or pale
pink. From each side of his head sprouts a tuft of stiff curled
feathers, giving the appearance of long ears, while the feathers of
the throat change colour, and beneath and around it sprouts the-
frill or ruff alr eady mentioned. The feathers which form this
remarkable adornment, almost unique among birds, are, like those

RUFF.

of the “ ear-tufts,” stiff and incurved at the end, but much longer—
measuring more than two inches. They are closely arrayed, capable
of depression or elevation, and form a shield to the front of the
breast impenetrable by the bill of a rival. More extraordinary than
this, from one point of view, is the great variety of coloration that
obtains in these temporary outgrowths. It has often been said
that no one ever saw two Ruffs alike. That is perhaps an over-
statement ; but, considering the really few colours that the birds
exhibit, the variation is something marvellous, so that fifty examples
or more may be compared without finding a very close resemblance

1 Internally there is a great difference in the form of the posterior margin of
the sternum, as long ago remarked by Nitzsch.

800 RUFF

between any two of them, while the individual variation is increased
by the “ ear-tufts,” which generally differ in colour from the frill,
and thus produce a combination of diversity. The colours range
from deep black to pure white, passing through chestnut or bay,
and many tints of brown or ashy-grey, while often the feathers are
more or less closely barred with some darker shade, and the black
is very frequently glossed with violet, blue or green —or, in
-addition spangled with white, grey or gold-colour. ‘The white, on
the other hand, is not rarely freckled, streaked or barred with
grey, rufous-brown or black. In some examples the barring is
most regularly concentric, in others more or less broken-up or un-
dulating, and the latter may be said of the streaks. It was ascer-
tained by Montagu, and has since been confirmed by the still wider
experience and if possible more carefully-conducted observation of
Mr. Bartlett, that every Ruff in each successive year assumes tufts
and frill exactly the same in colour and markings as those he wore
in the preceding season ; and thus, polymorphic as is the male as a
species, as an individual he is unchangeable in his wedding-garment
—a lesson that might possibly be applied to many other birds.
The white frill is said to be the rarest.

That all this wonderful “show” is the consequence of the
polygamous habit of the Ruff can scarcely be doubted. No other
species of Limicoline bird has, so far as is known, any tendency to
it. Indeed, in many species of Limicole, as the DOTTEREL, the
GODWITS, PHALAROPES and perhaps some others, the female is
larger and more brightly coloured than the male, who in such cases
seems to take upon himself some at least of the domestic duties.
Both Montagu and Graves, to say nothing of other writers, state
that the Ruffs, in England, were far more numerous than the
Reeves, and their testimony can hardly be doubted; though mm
Germany Naumann (Vég. Deutschl. vii. p. 544) considers that this
is only the case in the earlier part of the season, and that later the
females greatly outnumber the males. It remains to say that the
moral characteristics of the Ruff exceed even anything that might
be inferred from what has been already stated. By no one have
they been more happily described than by Wolley, in a communica-
tion to Hewitson (Hogs of Brit. Birds, ed. 3, p. 346), as follows :—

“The Ruff, like other fine gentlemen, takes much more trouble with
his courtship than with his duties as a husband. Whilst the Reeves are
sitting on their eggs, scattered about the swamps, he is to be seen far
away flitting about in flocks, and on the ground dancing and sparring
with his companions. Before they are confined to their nests, it is
wonderful with what devotion the females are attended by their gay
followers, who seem to be each trying to be more attentive than the rest.
Nothing can be more expressive of humility and ardent love than some of
the actions of the Ruff. He throws himself prostrate on the ground, with

ee ee a

RUNNER—SADDLE-BACK 801

every feather on his body standing up and quivering ; but he seems as if
he were afraid of coming too near his mistress, If she flies off, he starts
up in an instant to arrive before her at the next place of alighting, and
all his actions are full of life and spirit. But none of his spirit is
expended in care for his family. He never comes to see after an enemy.
In the [Lapland] marshes, a Reeve now and then flies near with a
scarcely audible ka-ka-kuk ; but she seems a dull bird, and makes no
noisy attack on an invader.”

Want of space forbids a fuller account of this extremely inter-
esting species. Its breeding-grounds extend from Great Britain !
across northern Europe and Asia; but the birds become less
numerous towards the east. They winter in India, reaching even
Ceylon, and Africa as far as the Cape of Good Hope. The Ruff
also occasionally visits Iceland, and there are several well-authen-
ticated records of its occurrence on the eastern coast of the United
States, while an example is stated (Jbis, 1875, p. 332) to have been
received from the northern part of South America.

RUNNER, a local name for the Water-RAIL (p. 763).

SACRUM, see SKELETON.

SADDLE-BACK, in Britain and North America, a local name
for the adult of either of the Black-backed GULLS, Larus marinus and
fuscus ; but in New Zealand applied to Creadion, a genus founded in
1816 by Vieillot (Analyse, p. 34) of which the Sturnus carunculatus
of Gmelin, based on the
Wattled Stare of Latham

(Gen. Synops. iii. p. 9, pl.
36) is usually considered
the type.2 Its real affinity
must be regarded as doubt-
ful; for, like several other
forms of the New-Zealand

Region, it does not enter rf
readily into any of the recognized Families of Birds, and thus has

been placed among the Sturnidx or Corvidx, while it very possibly

Creapion. (From Buller.)

1 In England of late years it has been known to breed only in one locality,
the name or situation of which it is not desirable to publish.

2 This is not to be confounded with the Anthochera carunculata, which has
also been called Creadion carunculatus (Vieillot, Encycl. Méthod. ii. p. 874) and
is a HONEY-SUCKER.

51

802 SAGE-COCK—SAKER

represents an earlier and more generalized form from which both
may have sprung. That point must be left to future examination
(which may be hoped for before extirpation has done its work), mean-
while it is enough to remark that the habits, as described by Sir W.
Buller (B. New Zeal. ed. 2, i. pp. 18-20), of the Saddle-back of New
Zealand shew little trace of agreement with those of either of the
Families to which it has been assigned, and that the bird derives
its name from the distribution of its strongly-contrasted colours,
black and ferruginous, of which the latter covers the shoulders
and back in a way suggestive of saddle-flaps. A second species
described by Sir Walter in 1865 (Essay Orn. N. Z. p. 10), under
the name of C. cinereus, was subsequently repudiated by him
(B. N. Z, ed. 1, p. 149), but in 1888 was restored (op. cit. ed. 2,
i. p. 21). It is said to be known as the Jack-bird.

SAGE-COCK, Centrocercus wrophasianus (GROUSE, p. 394), the
“sage” being an Artemisia.

SAINT CUTHBERT’S DUCK, a local name of the Emerr
(p.1'92)).

SAKER, Fr. Sacre—said to be from the Arabic Sagr (= Falcon)
and to have no connexion, as was once thought, with the Latin Sacer,
a translation of tépaé (= Hawk)—a species of FALCON which was
allowed to drop almost out of knowledge with the neglect of
Falconry, so that though some of the older systematists recognized a
Falco sacer,1 they had but little acquaintance with it, and mostly
described it at second hand, It had been especially confounded
with the LANNER, and figured under that name in the works of
Naumann and Gould. To Schlegel, in 1844 (Rev. Crit. pp. iL 9 ;
Traité de la Fauconnerie, pp. 17-19, pl.), is due the disentangle-
ment of the complication, and the placing of the species on a sound
base, yet doubt may still be entertained as to the scientific name it
should bear.? In Europe it inhabits only the south-eastern portion,
beginning with Bohemia,? but in North Africa it ranges from

1 The F. sacer of J. R. Forster (Phil. Trans. \xii. p. 883) was evidently the
young of the American GosHAwK, and neither (as he thought) the Sacre of
Brisson and Buffon, nor (as has lately been supposed) the young of F. gyrfalco.
Schlegel took it to be the young of F. candicans, which he at that time believed
to be brown.

2 It cannot be F. sacer, Gmelin 1788, since that was anticipated by Forster
in 1772 (see preceding note). According to most synonymies, /. cherrug, J. E.
Gray (Zil. Ind. Zool. pl. 25), is next in point of time, and perhaps should stand.
It is certainly the /. cyanopus of Thienemann (Rhea, pp. 39, note, and 62, pls. i.
and ii.) in 1846-49. oe:

3 Messrs. Salvin and Brodrick (Falconry in the British Islands, p. 96) say
that in 1848 Mr. A. C. Cochrane obtained breeding birds in Hungary, and twelve
years later Mr. Hudleston took a nest in the Dobrudska (/dis, 1860, p. 377,
ple xi Agel).

SANDERLING 803

Morocco to Egypt, and thence across Asia to north-eastern China,
being highly esteemed by the falconers of that tract of country, as
well as by those of India, to whom it is known as the Cherrug,
though it there occurs only as a cold-weather visitant (¢f. Jerdon,
Ibis, 1871, pp. 238-240), its place as a native being taken by its
smaller relative the LUGGAR, which it a good deal resembles in its
generally dull-coloured plumage. Falcons, however, are met with
as large as the Saker or larger, but coloured almost like a hen
KESTREL, and on such a bird was founded the /. milvipes of
Hodgson, published as a bare name in 1844 (Zool. Miscell. p. 81).
Some authors appear still to consider this a distinct species, but the
late Mr. Gurney referred it to the Saker (bis, 1882, pp. 444-447 ;
List Diurn. B. Prey, p. 110). In India the Saker is flown chiefly at
hares, small deer and the larger birds, as Bustards, Cranes and
Kites, often shewing remarkable sport with the last, yet in its wild
state it preys chiefly on rats, lizards and even insects, and when
trained for a more powerful quarry it has to be drugged to give it
courage.

SANDERLING (Icel. Sanderia'), one of the commonest and
most widely-ranging of the LrwicoLa that frequent our shores, and
one in which great interest has been manifested, from the fact that
for a very long while naturalists were unable to reach its breeding-
haunts, though they were asserted to have been found in the Parry
Islands; and Iceland was also suspected to be one of them. All
doubt was, however, put aside when it became known that, in June
1863, its nest and eggs had been discovered near Franklin Bay by
Mr. MacFarlane (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. xiv. p. 427), a discovery the
more fortunate since the species is rare in that quarter, and he was
never able to obtain a second nest. One of the eggs, on being sent
to England by the Smithsonian Institution (for whom that gentle-
man, at the instigation of the late Prof. Baird, was collecting) was
described and figured? (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 76, pl. iv. fig. 2).
Shortly after, the eggs collected by the German North-Pole Expedi-
tion were received in this country and among them were ten, in a
more or less fragmentary condition, obtained by Dr. Pansch on the
east coast of Greenland, which, by an exhaustive process, were
shewn (tom. cit. p. 546; Wissensch. Ergebn. deutsch. Nordpolarfahrt,
pp. 204, 240-242) to be those of this species, while the series also ©
served to corroborate the suspicion before entertained of the breed-

1 A name often confounded with Sand-léa, the Icelandic name of the Ringed
PLovER, whereby several mistakes have arisen.

2 The egg had been professedly figured before both by Thienemann (Fortpflanz.
gesanmt. Vogel, t. xii. fig. 2) and Bedeker (Hier Europ. Vogel, t. Ixxi. fig. 5),
but no doubt their specimens had been wrongly assigned, as were many others in
various collections.

804 SANDERLING

ing of this species in Iceland, since they shewed that an egg which
had been brought thence in 1858 could hardly belong to any other.
In the Arctic Expedition of 1875-6 Col. Feilden (Zbis, 1877, p. 406,
and Nares, Voyage to the Polar Sea, ii. p. 210, pl.) found a nest
with two eggs, which fully agree with the rest. Thus it will appear
that the breeding-range of this species, so far as is at present known
with certainty, extends only from Iceland (say long. 15° W.) to
Point Barrow (say long. 155° W.), and that interruptedly, though it
is just possible that some part of the Arctic coast of Asia may have
to be included, but not that of Europe, Nova Zembla or Spits-
bergen. In autumn the Sanderling is well known to pass south-
ward across, or along the coast of all the great continents, though it
winters in no inconsiderable numbers in temperate climes, our own,
for example; but, while it reaches Patagonia in the New World and
the Cape of Good Hope in the Old, it seems mostly content to stay
on the northern margin of the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, only
rarely venturing to Ceylon or Burma; and, hitherto unknown to
the Malay Peninsula, has been observed but on two of the islands
(Borneo and Java) of that Archipelago. Yet it appears on the
Chinese sea-board generally, and has even been obtained in New
South Wales, while its occurrence, perhaps more or less accidental,
has been recorded at spots distant enough from its true home—such
as the Sandwich Islands, the Galapagos and the Marshall group in
the Pacific, the Lacdivies, Aldabra and Madagascar in the Indian
Ocean, and the Canaries, Madeira and Bermuda in the Atlantic, to
say nothing of the Antilles. Observation seems to shew that in
such outlying places it appears less frequently and more irregularly
than several of its wandering kindred, and wherever it tarries,
whether on passage or to winter, it rather prefers the drier sandy
shores, where it consorts with PLovErs of the genus 4 ialitis, to
the expanses of mud or marsh that so many of its allies affect.

The Sanderling belongs to the group Tringinw (SANDPIPER) but
is always recognizable by wanting the small hind toe, a distinction
that justifies its generic separation, and it has long been the Calidris
arenaria of ornithology.2 It undergoes a seasonal change quite as
remarkable as the KNor and some others, its winter-suit being of a
beautiful silvery-grey, making the bird at times look almost wholly
white, but in spring the head, back and breast become mottled with
rust-colour and black, the former predominating in the form of a
broad edging to the feathers; but the belly and lower parts are
white all the year round.

1 It is pretty obvious that there must be places in high northern latitudes
where the Sanderling, the Knot and several other allied species breed in
profusion.

* Linneus described it twice, first asa Charadrius and then as a Tringa. “The
absence of the hallux induced many systematists to put it among the Plovers.

SAND-GROUSE 805

SAND-GROUSE, the name! by which are commonly known
the members of a small but remarkable group of birds frequenting
sandy tracts, and having their feet more or less clothed with
feathers after the fashion of GROUSE, to which they were originally
thought to be closely allied, and the species first described were by
the earlier systematists invariably referred to the genus Tetrao.
Their separation therefrom is due to Temminck, who made for
them a distinct genus which he called Pterocles,? and his view, as
Lesson tells us (T’raité, p. 515), was subsequently corroborated by
De Blainville ; while in 1831 Bonaparte (Saggio &c. p. 54) recognized
the group as a good Family, Pediophili or Pteroclide. Further
investigation of the osteology and pterylosis of the Sand-Grouse
revealed still greater divergence from the normal GALLINA, as well
as several curious resemblances to the Pigeons; and Prof. Huxley
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 303) for sufficiently weighty reasons, pro-
posed to regard them, under the name of PTEROCLOMORPH, as
forming a group equivalent to the ALECTOROMORPH& and PERISTER-
OMORPH&.*? The group consists of two genera *— Pterocles, with
about fifteen species, and Syrrhaptes, with two. Of the former, two
species inhabit Europe, P. arenarius, the Sand-Grouse proper, and
that which is usually called P. alchata, the Pin-tailed Sand-Grouse.
The European range of the first is practically limited to Portugal,
Spain and the southern parts of Russia, while the second inhabits
also the south of France, where it is generally known by its
Catalan name of “ Gunga,” or locally as “ Grandaulo,” or, strange to
say, “Perdriz d Angleterre.” Both species are also abundant in
Barbary, and have been believed to extend eastwards through Asia
to India, in most parts of which country they seem to be only
winter-visitants ; but in 1880 Herr Bogdanow pointed out (Bull. Ae.
Sc. Petersb. xxvii. p. 164) a slight difference of coloration between
eastern and western examples of what had hitherto passed as
P. alchata ; and the difference, if found to be constant, may require
the specific recognition of each. India, where these birds are com-
monly known to sportsmen as “ Rock-Pigeons,” moreover, possesses

1 It seems to have been first used by Latham in 1783 (Gen. Synops. iv. p. 751)
as the direct translation of the name Zetrao arenarius given by Pallas.

2 He states (Man. d’Orn. ed. 2, ii. p. 474, note) that he published this name
in 1809; but hitherto research has failed to find it used until 1815.

3 Some more recent writers, recognizing the group as a distinct Order, have
applied to it the name of ‘‘ PrerocueEres,” while another calls it Heteroclitz.
The former of these words is based on a grammatical misconception, while the
use of the latter has long since been otherwise preoccupied in zoology. If there
be need to set aside Prof. Huxley’s term, Bonaparte’s Pediophili (as above
mentioned) may be accepted, and indeed has priority of all others.

4 Bonaparte (Compt. rend. xiii. p. 880) proposed to separate the Pin-tailed
Sand-Grouse as Pteroclurus, and therein has been followed. by Mr. Ogilvie Grant
(Cat. B. Br. Mus, xxii. pp. 2, 6), but this separation seems needless,

806 SAND-GROUSE

five other species of Pterocles, of which however only one, P. fasciatus,
is peculiar to Asia, while the others inhabit Africa as well, and all
the remaining species belong to the Ethiopian Region—one, P.
personatus, being peculiar to Madagascar, and four occurring in or
on the borders of Cape Colony.

Syrrhaptes, though in general appearance resembling Pterocles,
has a conformation of foot quite unique among birds, the three
anterior toes being encased in a common “ podotheca,” which is
covered to the claws with hairy feathers, so as to look much like

SYRRHAPTES PARADOXUS. (From the Prospectus of Yarrell’s British Birds, ed. 4.)

a fingerless glove, while the hind toe is wanting. The two species
of Syrrhaptes are S. tibetanus—the largest Sand-Grouse known—
inhabiting the country whence its trivial name is derived, and S.
paradoxus, ranging from Northern China across Central Asia to
the confines of Europe, which it occasionally, and in a marvellous
manner, invades, as has been already mentioned (MIGRATION, p.
571). Here the subject, which has a large literature of its own,"
must be treated very concisely. Hitherto known only as an
inhabitant of the Tartar steppes, a single example was obtained at

1 Dr. Leverkiihn has been at great pains to compile a bibliography of Syrrhaptes
which will be found in the Monatsschrift des Deutschen Verein zum Schutze der
Vogelwelt for 1888-92.

SAND-GROUSE 807
Sarepta on the Volga in the winter of 1848. In May 1859 a pair
is said to have been killed in the Government of Vilna on the
western borders of the Russian Empire, and a few weeks later five
examples were procured, and a few others seen, in Western Europe
—one in Jutland, one in Holland, two in England and one in
Wales, beside which a sixth was killed near Perpignan at the foot
of the Pyrenees in the October following (Jdis, 1871, p. 223). In
1860 another was obtained at Sarepta; but in May and June 18638
a horde, computed to consist of at least 700 birds, overran Europe
—reaching Sweden, Norway, the Fxroes and Ireland in the north-
west, and in the south extending to Rimini on the Adriatic and
Biscarolle on the Bay of Biscay. On the sandhills of Jutland and
Holland some of these birds bred, but war was too successfully
waged against the nomads to allow of their establishing themselves,
and a few survivors only were left to fall to the gun in the course
of the following winter and spring.t. In 1872 and 1876 there were
two small visitations ; but from the former, observed in only two
localities—one on the coast of Northumberland, the other on that
of Ayrshire, both in the month of June—no specimen is known to
have been obtained, while the latter was observed in three localities
—one near Winterton in Norfolk in May, another near Modena in
Italy in June, and the third in the county Wicklow in Ireland,
where at least one was killed. In 1888 occurred an irruption in
numbers quite incalculable. ‘The excess of observations over those
of 1863 is no doubt due in some measure to the increased attention
paid to it, mainly in consequence of a warning issued (29th April)
by Prof. R. Blasius of Brunswick so soon as the movement was
known to him, but still there is proof of the invasion being on a
much larger scale. Most of the features of 1863 were repeated,
and the general line taken was much as in that year, suggesting the
same “radiant point” (to use an astronomical phrase) in both
cases ;? but, owing to the meagre reports that have reached us from
the East, that point is still to seek, and its determination must
await another opportunity. Some differences, however, are to be
noted: the event took place nearly a month earlier in the year,
and the passage across Europe soon expanded more widely. In the
north-east the Gulf of Finland was crossed to Helsingfors, but the
most northerly (Roraas in Norway) and westerly (Belmullet in Ire-
land) points reached were only a little further than the limits of
1863. Southward a great extension was shewn not only in Italy

1 Tbis, 1864, pp. 185-222. A few additional particulars which have since
become known to me are here inserted.

2 But the species seems to have established itself in 1876 on the left bank of
the Lower Volga (K. G. Henke, Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1877, i. p. 119), and the
incursionists of 1888 may have had their origin there. South-west of the
Caspian the species is a rare visitant. P

808 SAND-GROUSE

(Santa Severa, not far from Rome) but in Spain (Albufera of
Valencia), that country being now invaded for the first time. If
records are to be trusted, flocks of many hundreds appeared on the
steppes of Orenburg at the end of February (qu. O.S. ?), all moving
due westward, and a month later a bird was killed at Saratov
(Baron A. von Kriidener, Zool. Gart. 1888, p. 282). On the 4th
April, from 30 to 40 were seen at Selb on the boundary of
Bohemia and Bavaria. On the 17th Husum in Sleswick was
reached, and Heligoland on the 8th May—but there is reason to
believe that one of the Farne Islands was visited on the 6th, and
certainly within a very few days the British Islands were com-
pletely occupied,! while after that dates become of little value since,
as before, the movement was practically unchecked, though doubt-
less here and there affected in some measure by local causes. Just
as when a billow has broken upon the beach it is a thousand
accidents that determine the way in which the spray is scattered,
so was it with these birds, for no sooner had they arrived than
they were hastening in one direction or another in quest of food,
and with their wonderful wing-power the search was pretty easy.
A suitable place being found, they occupied it in parties of from 6
to 8, or 20 to 30—and so far as Britain is concerned it was plain
that they were nearly all paired and ready to breed. ‘This object
they effected in several localities, both here and on the continent ;
but many false rumours, some of them intentionally set about, were
current. As regards England, two nests were certainly found in
the East Riding of Yorkshire,? and in Scotland a young bird was
found by Mr. Scott, a gamekeeper, on the Culbin Sands in Moray.
This was not preserved, but in the following year he obtained
another, which was subsequently exhibited at the Newcastle meet-
ing of the British Association, and from it the first description and
figure of the chick were published? Notwithstanding the destruc-
tion carried on, small parties or even considerable flocks were
observed from time to time during the autumn of 1888 in one part
of Europe or another, but gradually their numbers dwindled, and
the spring and summer of 18894 saw but few remaining. Some,

1 Mr. W. Evans computes the garrison of Scotland at from 1500 to 2000 birds.

* I was indebted to the kindness of Mr. J. C. Swailes for the opportunity of
seeing the eggs there obtained.

3 In numerous instances, especially in Germany, the young of Crex pratensis
seem to have been taken for those of Syrrhaptes. Some old birds taken alive
bred in the aviary of Herr J. B. Christensen, near Copenhagen, and after an
incubation of 23 days several eggs were hatched, from which, in 1891, one young
bird reached maturity, as he kindly informed me. In the zoological garden of
Amsterdam eggs were also laid and some hatched after an incubation of 28 days ;
but it does not appear that any produce was reared (Jbis, 1890, p. 466).

4 In 1888 an Act of Parliament was passed to protect these birds, but as it
was not to come into operation until February 1889 it was a futile measure.

SAND-GROUSE 809

however, contrived to get through another winter in Great Britain,
and if rumour may be credited, all had not disappeared even in
1892, but this is by no means certain. The interest attaching to
the several European irruptions has almost made ornithologists for-
getful of the somewhat similar inroad upon the plains between
Pekin and Tientsin in China in the autumn of 1860, which affords
another proof of the propensity of the species to irregular

migration.+
Externally all Sand-Grouse present an appearance so distinctive
that nobody who has seen one of them can be in doubt as to any
of the rest. Their plumage assimilates in general colour to that of
the ground they frequent (¢f. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, p. 336),
being above of a dull ochreous hue, more or less barred or mottled
by darker shades, while beneath it is frequently varied by belts of
deep brown intensifying into black. Lighter tints are, however,
exhibited by some species—the drab merging into a pale grey, the
buff brightening into a lively orange, and streaks or edgings of an
almost pure white relieve the prevailing sandy or fawn-coloured
hues that especially characterize the group. The sexes seem
always to differ in plumage, that of the male being the brightest
and most diversified. The expression is decidedly Dove-like, and
so is the form of the body,

iC but their appearance when
Fé 1G flying in a flock is more like
(f& that of Plovers.2_ The long
iC : g 1@ wings, the outermost primary
of which in Syrrhaptes has

its shaft produced into an
attenuated filament, are in
all the species worked by
exceedingly powerful muscles, and in several forms the middle
rectrices are likewise protracted and pointed, so as to give to their
wearers the name of Pin-tailed Sand-Grouse. The nest is a shallow
hole in the sand. Three seems to be the regular complement of eggs
laid in each nest, but there are writers who declare (most likely in
error) that the full number in some species is four. ‘These eggs are
of peculiar shape, being almost cylindrical in the middle and nearly
alike at each end, and are of a pale earthy colour, spotted, blotched

SYRRHAPTES ON THE WING.
(Wilton, Norfolk, Sth October 1888.)

1 It appears to be the “‘ Barguerlac” of Marco Polo (ed. Yule, i. p. 239) ; and
the ‘‘ Loung-Kio” or “‘ Dragon’s Foot,” so unscientifieally described by the Abbé
Hue (Souvenirs d’un Voyage dans la Tartarie, i. p. 244), can scarcely be any
thing else than this bird.

2 I write with especial reference to Syrrhaptes, a flock of which may be easily
mistaken for one of Golden Plovers, as the figure shews, though the former have
the wing more curved and keep stroke with far more regularity, their ‘‘ time”
(as an oarsman would say) being absolutely perfect,

810 SANDPEEP—SANDPIPER

or marbled with darker shades, the markings being of two kinds,
one superficial and the other more deeply seated in the shell. The
young are hatched fully clothed in down (P. Z. S. 1866, pl. ix. fig.
2), and though not very active would appear to be capable of
locomotion soon after birth. Morphologically generalized as the
Sand-Grouse undoubtedly are, no one can contest the extreme
specialization of many of their features, and thus they form a very
instructive group. The remains of an extinct species of Pterocles,
P. sepultus, intermediate apparently between P. alchata, and P.
gutturalis, have been recognized in the Miocene caves of the Allier
by Prof. A. Milne-Edwards (Ois. foss. France, p. 294, pl. clxi. figs.
1-9); and, in addition to the other authorities on this very interest-
ing group of birds already cited, reference may be made to Mr.
Elliot’s “Study” of the Family (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1878, pp. 233-264)
and Dr. Gadow, ‘On certain points in the Anatomy of Pterocles”
(op. cit. 1882, pp. 312-332).

SANDPEEP, used in America for SANDPIPER,
SANDPIPER (Germ. Sandpfeifer), according to Willughby in

1676 the name given by Yorkshiremen to the bird now most
popularly known in England as the ‘‘Summer-Snipe,’—the Tringa
hypoleucos of Linneeus and the Totanus, Actitis or Tringoides hypoleucus
of later writers,;—and probably even in Willughby’s time of
much wider signification, as for more than a century it has
certainly been applied to nearly all the smaller kinds of the group
termed by modern ornithologists LimicoL& which are not PLOVERS
or SNIPES, but may be said to be intermediate between them.
Placed by most systematists in the Family Scolopacide, the birds
commonly called Sandpipers seem to form three sections, which
have been often regarded as subfamilies—Totaniny, Tringine and
Phalaropodinx, the last of which has
already been treated (PHALAROPE), and
in some classifications takes the higher
rank of a Family — Phalaropodide.
The distinctions between Totaninx
and Yringinx, though believed to be
real, are not easily drawn, and space
is wanting here to describe them
minutely. Both of these groups have
been the sport of nomenclators and
systematists, so that a vast mass of
synonymy, puzzling to unravel, and
many superfluous genera have been
introduced. The most obvious dis-
tinctions may be said to lie in the form of the tip of the bill (with
which is associated a less or greater development of the sensitive nerves

Trinca. (After Swainson.)

SANDPIPER 811

running almost if not quite to its extremity, and therefore closely
connected with the mode of feeding) and in the style of plumage—
the Tringine, with blunt and flexible bills, mostly assuming a
summer-dress in which some tint
of chestnut or reddish-brown is
very prevalent, while the 7otanin,
with more acute and stiffer bills,
display no such lively colours.
Furthermore, the 7ringinx, except when actually breeding, frequent
the sea-shore much more than do the Totaninx.!_ To the latter belong
the GREENSHANK and REDSHANK, as well as the Common Sandpiper
of English books, the ‘“‘Summer-Snipe” above-mentioned, a bird
hardly exceeding a Skylark in size, and of very general distribution
throughout the British Islands, but chiefly frequenting clear streams,
especially those with a gravelly or rocky bottom, and most generally
breeding on the beds of sand or shingle on their banks. It usually
makes its appearance in May, and thenceforth during the summer
months may be seen in pairs skimming gracefully over the water
from one bend of the stream to another, uttering occasionally a
shrill but plaintive whistle, or running nimbly along the margin, the
mouse-coloured plumage of its back and wings making indeed but
little show, though the pure white of its lower parts often renders
it conspicuous. The nest, in which four eggs are laid with their
pointed ends meeting in its centre (as is usual among Limicoline
birds), is seldom far from the water’s edge, and the eggs, as well
as the newly-hatched and down-covered young, so closely resemble
the surrounding pebbles that it takes a sharp eye to discriminate
them. Later in the season family-parties may be seen about the
larger waters, whence, as autumn advances, they depart for their
winter-quarters. The Common Sandpiper is found over the greater
part of the Old World. In summer it is the most abundant bird of
its kind in the extreme north of Europe, and it extends across Asia
to Japan. In winter it makes its way to India, Australia and the
Cape of Good Hope. In America its place is taken by a closely-
kindred species, which is said to have also occurred in England—7.
macularius, the ‘ Peetweet,” or Spotted Sandpiper, so called from its
usual cry, or from the almost circular marks which spot its lower
plumage. In habits it is very similar to its congener of the Old
World, and in winter it migrates to the Antilles and to Central and
South America. Of other Zotanine, one of the most remarkable is
that to which the inappropriate name of Green Sandpiper has been

Toranus. (After Swainson.)

1 There are unfortunately no English words adequate to express these two
sections By some British writers the 7ringinx have been indicated as ‘‘ Stints,”
a term cognate with Stunt and not wholly applicable to all of them, while recent
American writers restrict to them the name of ‘‘Sandpiper,” and call the
Totaning, to which that name is especially appropriate, ‘‘ Willets.”

812 SANDPIPER

assigned, the Totanus or Helodromas ochropus of ornithologists, which
most curiously differs (so far as is known) from all others of the
group both in its osteology 1 and mode of nidification, the hen laying
her eggs in the deserted nests of other birds—Jays, Thrushes or
Pigeons—but nearly always at some height (from 3 to 30 feet) from
the ground (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, pp. 529-532). This species
occurs in England the whole year round, and is presumed to have
bred here, though the fact has never been satisfactorily proved, and
our knowledge of its erratic habits comes from naturalists in
Pomerania and Sweden ; yet in the breeding-season, even in England,
the cock-bird has been seen to rise high in air and perform a variety
of evolutions on the wing, all the while piping what, without any
violence of language, may be called a song. ‘This Sandpiper is
characterized by its dark upper plumage, which contrasts strongly
with the white of the lower part of the back and gives the bird as
it flies away from its disturber much the look of a very large
House-Martin. ‘The so-called Wood-Sandpiper, 7’. glareola, which,
though much less common, is known to have bred in England, has
a considerable resemblance to the species last mentioned, but can at
once be distinguished, and often as it flies, by the feathers of the
axillary plume being white barred with greyish-black, while in the
Green Sandpiper they are greyish-black barred with white. It is
an abundant bird in most parts of northern Europe, migrating in
winter very far to the southward.

Of the section Tringine the best known are the DUNLIN, the
Kwnor and the SANDERLING (the last to be distinguished from every
other bird of the group by wanting a hind toe), while the Purple
Sandpiper, Zvinga striata or maritima is only somewhat less numerous,
but is especially addicted to rocky coasts. The Curlew-Sandpiper,
T. subarquata, appears not unfrequently, and is of especial interest
since its nest has never been discovered, and none can point even
approximately to any breeding-place for it, except it be, as Von
Middendorff supposed, on the tundras of the Taimyr. The Little
and Temminck’s Stints, 7. ménuta and 7’. temmincki, are more regular
in their visits, and have been traced to their homes in the most
northern part of Scandinavia and the Russian Empire, but want of
space forbids more than this record of their names; and, for the
same reason, no notice can be taken of many other species, chiefly
American, belonging to this group, with the exception of 7. maculata
or pectoralis, concerning which a few words must be said on account
of the extraordinary faculty, first noticed by the late Mr. Edward
Adams (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1859, p. 130), possessed by the male of
puffing out its cesophagus, after the manner of a Pouter-Pigeon.

1 Tt possesses only a single pair of posterior ‘‘emarginations ” on its sternum,

in this respect resembling the Rurr. Among the PLovers and Snipes other
similarly exceptional cases may be found.

SAND-PLOVER—SARUS 813

This habit, unique, so far as is known, among the group, is indulged
in during the breeding-season, and the inflation is accompanied by
the utterance of a deep, hollow and resonant note, as subsequently
observed by Mr. EK. W. Nelson (4wk, 1884, pp. 218-221), who
afterwards figured the bird (NV. H. Collect.
Alaska, pp. 108, 109, pl. vil.) in this extra-
ordinary condition, when it presents almost
the appearance of a hurr, while his experi-
ence has been corroborated by Mr. Murdoch
(Rep. Internat. Pol. Exped. Point Barrow, p.
111). Two other forms must however be
mentioned! These are the broad-billed
Sandpiper, 7. platyrhyncha, of the Old World,
which seems to be more Snipe-like than any
that are usually kept in this section, and the
marvellous Spoon-billed Sandpiper, Huwryno-
rhynchus pygmeus (cf. Harting, Ibis, 1869,
pp. 426-434), the true home of which
has still to be discovered, according to the
experience of Baron Nordenskjéld in the HRC:
~memorable voyage of the ‘ Vega.’ ? (From The Ibis.)
SAND-PLOVER, a name given locally to PLovers of the
genus A’gialitis.

SAND-RUNNER, like the foregoing, but perhaps sometimes
used more for SANDPIPER.

SAPSUCKER, a common name in North America for many of
the smaller WoopPECKERS, Dendrocopus pubescens, villosus and others,
but strictly only applicable to Sphyropicus varius, which with its
local forms, nuchalis and ruber, and congener thyroideus, has a lingual
structure, first described by Macgillivray for Audubon (Orn. Biogr. v.
pp. 537, 538), very different from that of most Picidx, and a Lapse of
feeding to correspond (cf. Coues, Birds of the North West, pp. 285-289).

SARUS (Hind. Saras and Sarhans), often corrupted into
“Cyrus,” the ordinary name for Girus antigone, one of the finest of
the CRANES (p. 112).

1 Reference has already been made to the presumably extinet AZchmorhynchus
(p. 712, note 2) and Prosobonia (pp. 225, 226), if the latter really belonged to
this group.

2 Mr. Seebohm’s volume before mentioned (p. 733, note 2) The Geographical
Distribution of the Family Charadriidex, or the Plovers, Sandpipers, Snipes and
their allies, contains an account of every species and figures of a great many of the
Sandpipers. Yet a good work on the subject is still to be desired, especially if it
will describe accurately the range of the various species, distinguishing between
their summer-homes and their winter-resorts, while recording also their occasional
wanderings.

814 SA TIN-BIRD—SCAMEL
SATIN-BIRD, one of the Bowrr-Birps (p. 49), Ptilorhynchus
violaceus or holosericeus, so-called from its glossy plumage.

SATIN-SPARROW, the name in Tasmania for Myiagra nitida,
a FLYCATCHER.

SAURIURA or SAURIURI, Prof. Hickel’s names in 1866
(Gen. Morphol. i. p. exxxix.) for the first of his two Subclasses of
Aves, consisting so far as is at present known of <Archxopteryx
(FosstL Birps, pp. 278-280), his second Subclass being named
Ornithure, and composed of two “Legions,” (1) Autophage or
NiwiruG&, the latter therefore not used in the same sense as in the
present work (p. 635); and (2) Padotrophe or INSESSORES (p. 459),
which last differs from the meaning attached to it by Vigors.
Prof. Huxley having adopted the modified term SAURURA# as
one of his Orders (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 418), it has come into
general use, while Ornithure may be said to have lapsed.?

SAUROGNATH, the late Prof. W. K. Parker’s name (Trans.
R. Micros. Soc. 1872, p. 219) for the CELEoMoRPHa of Prof.
Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1867, p. 456), consisting of the Picidx
(WooDPECKER) and Jynginx (WRYNECK), thereby raising them to
the same rank as the latter’s other Suborders of CARINATA.

SAVANNA BLACKBIRD, a common West-Indian name of
Crotophaga ani (ANI).

SAWBILL, a name commonly given to the GOOSANDER and
MERGANSER, and also used in some books for the Mormorts.

SAW-SHARPENER, a widely-spread local name for the Great
TirmousE, Parus major, from the peculiar song of the cock.

SAW-WHET, a little OWL, Nyctala acadica, so-called in Audubon’s
words (Orn. Biogr. ii. p. 567) from “the sound of its love-notes
bearing a great resemblance to the noise produced by filing the
teeth of a large saw.”

SAYSIE, a name applied in South Africa to several FINCHES of
the genus Crithagra (Layard, B. S. Afr. ed. 2, pp. 485-487).

SCALE-DUCK, a local name for the SHELD-DRAKE.

SCAMEL, a word, used once by Shakespear (Tempest, Act II.
Se. ii., line 176), that has given rise to many conjectures (cf. Wright,
Cambr. Shakesp. i. p. 51); but is commonly accepted as a bird’s
name, a signification rendered more lkely by the fact that at
Blakeney, on the coast of Norfolk, it was applied to a Gopwir
(Stevenson, B. Norf. ii. p. 260), though it is not to be supposed that
Shakespear used it in that sense. It seems to be otherwise

1 Botanists, however, had made a prior application of Sawrurez.

SCANSORES—SCA UP 815

unknown, and the most plausible suggestions are that the word was
a misprint for “Seamel” (ae. SeEA-MEw) or for “Stannel” (a
KESTREL).

SCANSORES, Illiger’s name in 1811 (Prodr. p. 194) for his
First Order, made to contain 5 Families :—(1) Psittacini, with the
genera Psittacus and Pezoporus; (2) Serrati, made up of Ramphastos,
Pteroglossus, Pogonias, Corythaiz, Trogon and Musophaga; (3) Amphiboli,
including Crotophaga, Scythrops, Bucco, Cuculus and Centropus; (4)
Sagittilingues, formed by Iyna and Picus; and (5) Syndactyli, con-
sisting of Galbula.

SCAPULARS, a set of feathers on each side of a bird’s dorsal
surface, so called as lying along the scapulx or shoulder-blades ;
but by some writers termed Humerals, since they run across the
humert. These feathers form part of the PARAPTERON of Illiger and
Sundevall, and in some groups of birds are very conspicuous and
characteristic.

SCARF (Icel. Skarfr), otherwise SCART, a local name for a
CORMORANT or SHAG.

SCAUP, the wild-fowlers’ ordinary abridgment of ScAup-Duck,
meaning a Duck so called “because she feeds upon Scaup, i.e.
broken shel-fish,” as may be seen in Willughby’s
Ornithology (p. 365); but it would be more
proper to say that the name comes from the
“‘Mussel-scaups,” or “ Mussel-scalps,’+ the beds
of rock or sand on which mussels (Mytilus edulis,
and other species) are aggregated —the Anas
marila of Linneus and Nyroca or Fuligula maria
of modern ornithology, a very abundant bird around the coasts of
most parts of the northern hemisphere, repairing inland in spring for
the purpose of reproduction, though so far as is positively known
hardly but in northern districts, as Iceland, Lapland, Siberia and the
fur-countries of America. It was many years ago believed (Edinb.
N. Philos. Journ. xx. p. 293) to have been found breeding in Scotland,
but assertions to that effect have not been wholly substantiated,
though apparently corroborated by some later evidence (Proc. N. H.
Soc. Glasg. ii. p. 121, and Proc. Phys. Soc. Edinb. vii. p. 203). The
Scaup-Duck has considerable likeness to the PocHARD, both in
habits and appearance; but it much more generally affects salt-
water, and the head of the male is black, glossed with green, and
hence the name of “ Black-head,” by which it is commonly known
in North America, where, however, a second species or race, smaller
than the ordinary one, is also found, the NV. or /. affinis. The

Bitt oF Scaup-Duck.
(After Swainson.)

1 “Scalp” primarily signifies a shell; ¢f Old Dutch schelpe and Old Fr.
escalope (Skeat, Etymol. Dictionary, p. 528).

816 SCA URIE—SCIZZORS-TAIL
female Scaup-Duck can be readily distinguished from the Dunbird
or female Pochard by her broad white face.

SCAURIE or SCOREY. In Orkney the young of the Herring-
GULL is so-called (Niell, Tour through Orkney and Shetland, p. 201),
and the name is perhaps elsewhere applied (Montagu, Suppl. Orn.
Dict.) to that of some other species.

SCHIZOGNATH 4, Prof. Huxley’s second Suborder of CaRI-
NAT&, composed of six groups — CHARADRIOMORPHA, GERANO-
MORPH, CECOMORPHA, SPHENISCOMORPHA, ALECTOROMORPHA
and PERISTEROMORPHA—1in all of which the vomer, however
variable, always tapers to a point anteriorly, while behind it
embraces the basisphenoidal rostrum between the palatals; but
neither these nor the pterygoids are borne by its posterior divergent
ends. The maxillopalatals are usually elongated, and, bending
backward along their inner edge, leave a fissure (whence the name
of the Suborder) between the vomer and themselves. In addition
to these characters, the birds composing this group often want
intrinsic muscles in the lower larynx, and never possess more than
a single pair of them. With the exception of Podicipes (GREBE) all
the genera which he had examined have two carotid arteries (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 426-435; 456-460).

SCHIZORHINAL, the epithet bestowed by Garrod (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1873, p. 36), in his first and crude systematic arrangement of
Birds, on what appeared to him to be a “Suborder,” in contra-
distinction to those possessing what he called the HOLORHINAL
structure. This view was virtually abandoned by him within little
more than twelve months (op. cif. 1874, pp. 111-123); but that
fact has not hindered some writers from continuing to use these
terms as if they had any taxonomic signification.

SCIZZORS-TAIL, Milvulus forficatus, one of the most beautiful
of the Tyrannidx (TYRANT), so called in some of the Southern
States of North America from its habit of opening and closing its
long and deeply-forked tail like the blades of a pair of scissors.
It is only an accidental wanderer to the Northern or even the
Middle States, but is or was abundant on the prairies of Texas, and
inhabits Mexico and Central America as far as Costa Rica. With-
out possessing any tints that may be called brilliant in its plumage,
the delicate harmony of lavender-grey and rose-red that it displays
—and it is very fond of the display—as well as its graceful form
combine to make its appearance most engaging, and almost justify
its being known, according to Mr. Dresser (Jbis, 1865, p. 472), in
Western Texas as the “ Bird-of-Paradise ”—for its long tail (10
inches) helps to give it that name, and its habits render it con-
spicuous. It is of a fearless disposition and quarrelsome towards
its fellows, though it will join with them in playful and lofty

SCOBB Y—SCOTER 817

flights, in which all will shoot rapidly upwards, making the strokes
of their wings resound so as to be heard at a considerable distance.
The same kind of behaviour has been observed in the allied J/.
tyrannus, a more soberly -coloured and even longer -tailed bird,
which, though properly a native of Central and pretty generally of
South America, occasionally strays to the northern part of that
continent, and has occurred more than once within the limits of the
United States. Mr. Hudson (Argent. Orn. i. p. 161; Nat. in La
Plata, pp. 271, 272) states that the birds of this species, though
not gregarious, rise just before sunset to the tree-tops, and after
calling to one another with loud and excited chirps, “mount
upwards like rockets, to a great height in the air; then, after
whirling about for a few moments, they precipitate themselves
downwards with the greatest violence, opening and shutting their
tails during their wild zigzag flight, and uttering a succession of
sharp, grinding notes.”

SCOBBY, a north-country name for the CHAFFINCH (p. 82).

SCOLDER—perhaps from Icel. Skjéldr (¢f. SHELD-DRAKE), or
possibly from Icel. Ljaldr; Feroese Zjaldur,—in Orkney a name
for the OYSTER-CATCHER (p. 681); but, according to Mr. Trumbull

(Names & Portr. B. p. 89), on the east coast of North America for
the Long-tailed Duck (see HARELD, p. 406).

SCOOPER, said to have been a local name for the AVOSET
(p. 23).

SCOTER, a word of doubtful origin, perhaps a variant of
SCOUT—one of the many local names shared in common by the

Scorer. Surr-Duck.
(After Swainson. )

GUILLEMOT and the RAZORBILL,—or perhaps primarily connected
with Coot,—the English name of the Anas nigra of Linneus,
which with some allied species has been justifiably placed in a

1 In the former case the derivation seems to be from the O. Fr. Escoute, and
that from the Latin auscultare (cf. Skeat, Etymol. Dict. p. 533), but in the
latter from the Dutch KAvet (Coor), which is said to be of Celtic extraction—
Cwtiar (op. cit. p. 134). The French Macreuse, possibly from the Latin macer,
indicating a bird that may be eaten in Lent or on the fast days of the Roman
Church, is of double signification, meaning in the south of France a Coot and in
the north a Scoter. By the wild-fowlers of parts of North America Scoters are
commonly called Coots.

818 SCOUTI-ALLEN—SCRABER

distinct genus, @demia (often misspelt Oidemia)—a name coined in
reference to the swollen appearance of the base of the bill. The
Scoter is also very generally known around the British coasts as
the “ Black Duck,” from the male being, with the exception of a
stripe of orange! that runs down the ridge of the bill, wholly of
that colour. In the representative American form, GZ. americana,
the protuberance at the base of the bill, black in the European
bird, is orange as well. Of all Ducks the Scoter has perhaps the most
marine habits, keeping the sea in all weathers, and rarely resorting
to land except for the purpose of breeding. Even in summer small
flocks of Scoters may generally be seen in the tideway at the mouth
of any of the larger British rivers or in mid-channel, while in
autumn and winter these flocks are so increased as to number
thousands of individuals, and the water often looks black with
them. <A second species, the Velvet- Duck, @. fusca, of much
larger size, distinguished by a white spot under each eye and a
white bar on each wing, is far less abundant than the former, but
examples of it are occasionally to be seen in company with the
commoner one, and it too has its American counterpart, @.
velvetina ; while a third, known only to Europe as a straggler, the
Surf-Duck, @. perspicillata, with a white patch on the crown and
another on the nape, and a curiously-shaped and particoloured bill,
is a not uncommon bird in North-American waters. All the species
of Gdemia, like most of our other Sea-Ducks, have their true home
in arctic or subarctic countries, but the Scoter itself is said to breed
in Scotland (Zool. 1869, p. 1867; Vert. Faun. Sutherl. &c. pp.
194, 195). The females display little of the deep sable hue that
characterizes their partners, but are attired in soot-colour, varied,
especially beneath, with brownish white. The flesh of all these
birds has an exceedingly strong taste, and, after much controversy,
was allowed by the ecclesiastical authorities to rank as fish in the
dietary (cf. Graindorge, Traité de Vorigine des Macreuses, Caen:
1680; and Correspondence of John Ray, Ray Soc. ed. p. 148).

SCOUTI-ALLEN, variously spelt, a name in Orkney for the
Arctic Gull (SxkuA).?

SCRABER (Gael. Sgrab), a name given in St. Kilda to the
DovEKEY (Martin, Si. K. p. 58); but said to be used in the other
Hebrides for the Manx SHEARWATER, which is possibly the more

1 This varies much in extent (J. H. Gurney, Zool. 1894, pp. 292-295).

* The allied species known to English ornithologists as Buffon’s Skua is
commonly called Skaiti by Lapps and Quens in Finmark, and the subjacent
parts of Finland and Sweden, though I have not found that word in any printed
book, and know not whether it can have any connexion with the Orcadian name.
We are told, and doubtless rightly, that Scandinavian words beginning with Sk
lose the S when adopted by Finns; but for all that I have heard this uttered
many times and seen it in manuscript still oftener.

SCRA YE—SCREAMER 819

correct application since the word seems to be the same as the
Norsk Skrape (Icel. Scrofa), which in some form or other is the
ordinary Scandinavian name for a Shearwater.

SCRAYE, from its cry, a name for a TERN.

SCREAMER;! a bird inhabiting Guiana and the Amazon valley,
so called in 1773 by Pennant (Gen. Birds, p. 42) “from the violent
noise it makes,”—the Palamedea? cornuta of Linneus. First made
known in 1648 by Maregrave under the name of “ Anhima,” it
was more fully described and better figured
by Buffon under that of Kamichi, still
applied to it by French writers. Of about
the size of a Turkey, it is remarkable for
the “horn” or slender caruncle, more
than three inches long, it bears on its
forehead, the two sharp spurs with which
each wing is armed, and its elongated toes.
Its plumage is plain in colour, being of »
an almost uniform greyish-black above,
the space round the eyes and a ring round the neck being varie-
gated with white, and a patch of pale rufous appearing above
the carpal joint, while the lower parts of the body are white.
Closely related to this bird, known as the ‘“ Horned Screamer,”
is another first described by Linneus as a species of Parra
(JACANA), to which group it certainly does not belong, but
separated therefrom by Illiger to form the genus Chauwna, and
now known as (. chavaria, or in English very generally as the
“Crested Screamer,”® though that name was first bestowed
on the SEerrEMA. This bird inhabits the lagoons, swamps,
and open level country of Paraguay and Southern Brazil, where
it is called “Chaja” or “Chaka,” and is smaller than the pre-
ceding, wanting its “horn,” but having its head furnished with
a dependent crest of feathers. Its face and throat are white, to
_ which succeeds a blackish ring, and the rest of the lower parts are
white, more or less clouded with cinereous. According to Mr.
Gibson (/bis, 1880, pp. 165, 166), its nest is a light construction of
dry rushes, having its foundation in the water, and contains as
many as six eggs, which are white tinged with buff. The young
are covered with down of a yellowish-brown colour. A most
singular habit possessed by this bird is that of rising in the air
and soaring in circles at an immense altitude, uttering at intervals

ALAMEDEA. (After Swainson.)

1 In some parts of England the Swit is called ‘‘ Screamer.”

* This name was adopted from Mohring ; but why it was given is unknown.

3 Under this name its curious habits have been well described by Mr. W. H.
Hudson (Gentleman's Magazine, Sept. 1885, pp. 280-287; Argent. Orn. ii. pp.
119-122 ; Nat. in La Plata, chap. xvii.).

820 SCREECH—SCRUB-BIRD

the very loud cry of which its local name is an imitation. From
a dozen to a score may be seen at once so occupying themselves.
The young are often taken from the nest and reared by the people
to attend upon and defend their poultry, a duty which is faith-
fully? and, owing to the spurs with which the Chaka’s wings are
armed, successfully discharged. Another very curious property of
this bird, which was observed by Jacquin, who brought it to the
notice of Linnzeus,” is its emphysematous condition,—there being
a layer of air-cells between the skin and the muscles, so that on
any part of the body being pressed a crackling sound is heard. In
Central America occurs another species, C. derbiana, chiefly dis-
tinguished by the darker colour of its plumage. For this a
distinct genus, Ischyrornis, was proposed, but apparently without
necessity, by Reichenbach (Syst. Aviwm, p. xxi.).

The taxonomic position of the Palamedeidzx, for all will allow
to the Screamers the rank of a Family at least, has been much
debated, and cannot be regarded as fixed. Their Anserine relations
were pointed out by Parker (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, pp. 511-518),
and Prof. Huxley (op. cit. 1867, pp. 436, 460) placed them among
his CHENOMORPH2; but this view was contravened by Garrod
(op. cit. 1876, pp. 189-200), to whom it seemed that “the
Screamers must have sprung from the primary avian stock as an
independent offshoot at much the same time as did most of the
other important families.” Accordingly in 1880 Mr. Sclater
regarded them as forming a distinct ‘“ Order,” Palamedex, which
he, however, placed next to the true ANSERES, from the neighbour-
hood of which they can hardly be removed.

SCREECH or SCREECH-BIRD, the Mistletoe-THrusu, Turdus
viscivorus (cf. SHRIKE); SCREECH-OWL, properly the Barn-Ow1,
Aluco flammeus ; but not unfrequently misapplied to the SwirT.

SCRUB-BIRD, the name (for want of a better, since it is not
very distinctive) conferred upon the members of an Australian
genus, one of the most curious ornithological types of the many
furnished by that country. The first examples were procured by
the late Mr. Gilbert between Perth and Augusta in West Australia,
and were described by Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1844, pp. 1, 2) as
forming a new genus and species under the name of Atrichia clamosa, .
the great peculiarity observed by that naturalist being the absence
of any. bristles around the gape, in which respect alone it seemed
to differ from the already-known genus Sphenura. In March
1866 Mr. Wilcox obtained on the banks of the Richmond river

1 Hence Latham’s name for this species is ‘‘ Faithful Jacana,”—he supposing
it to belong to the genus in which Linneus placed it.

* «Tacta manu cutis, sub pennis etiam lanosa, crepat ubique fortiter” (Syst.
Nat, cd 1251. p. 260):

SCRUB-BIRD 821

on the eastern side of Australia some other examples, which
proved the existence of a second species, described by Mr. Ramsay
(op. cit. 1866, pp. 438-440) as A. rufescens; but still no suspicion
of the great divergence of the genus from the ordinary Passerine
type was raised, and it was generally regarded as belonging to the
Maluride or Australian Warblers. However, the peculiar forma-
tion of the sternum in 4frichornis—as the genus has to be called,
since Atrichia had long been preoccupied in zoology '—attracted
the present writer’s attention almost as soon as that of 4. clamosa
was exhibited in the museum of the College of Surgeons, and at

ATRICHORNIS CLAMOSA. (After Gould.)

his request Mr. Ramsay a little later sent to the museum of the
University of Cambridge examples in spirit of 4. rufescens, which
shewed a similar structure. The Scrub-birds were consequently
declared in 1875 (Encyclop. Brit. ed. 9, iii. p. 741) to form a distinct
Family, Atrichiidx, standing, so far as was known, alone with the
LYRE-BIRDS as “abnormal Passeres.”2 Much the same view was also
taken by Garrod, who (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, pp. 516, 518, pl. lii.

1 This fact seems to have been detected by Dr. Stejneger (Stand. Nat. Hist.
iv. pp. 459, 462).

* Mr. Sclater (Jbis, 1874, p. 191, note) remarked on the peculiar form of
sternum ; but, writing doubtless from memory, ascribed to it two emarginations
on each side of the posterior end, which it has not. The sternum is fairly
figured and briefly described by Eyton in 1874 (Osfeol. Av. Suppl. ii. pl. 20,

822 SHA-—SECRETARY-BIRD

figs. 4-7), further dwelt on the taxonomic importance of the
equally remarkable characters of the syringeal muscles exhibited
alike by this form and J/enura, which he accordingly placed
together in a division of the Acromyodian Passeres, differing from
all the rest and since recognized by Mr. Sclater (Ibis, 1880, p. 345)
as a Suborder PSEUDOSCINES—the SUBOSCINES of the present
work. <A detailed anatomical description of Atrichornis has, how-
ever, yet to be given, and a comparison of many other Australian
types is needed?! before it can be certainly said to have no nearer
ally than Jenura. Both the known species of Scrub-bird are
about the size of a small Thrush—JA. clamosa being the larger of
the two. This species is brown above, each feather barred with
a darker shade; the throat and belly are reddish white, and there
is a large black patch on the breast; while the flanks are brown
and the lower tail-coverts rufous. 4. rufescens has the white and
black of the fore-parts replaced by brown, barred much as is the
upper plumage. Both species are said to inhabit the thickest
“scrub” or brushwood forest; but little has been ascertained as
to their mode of life except that the males are noisy, imitative of
the notes of other birds and given to violent gesticulations. The
nest and eggs seem never to have been found, nor indeed any
example of the female of either species to have been procured,
whence that sex may be inferred to escape observation by its
inconspicuous appearance and retiring habits.

SEA- used as a prefix in more birds’ names than can here be
mentioned, and often without much precision. ‘Thus in one part
of the country SEA-CROW may be the Cuoucu, in another the
CoRMORANT, and very generally (especially inland) a GULL, while
in America it may mean either a CooT or a SKIMMER according to
locality. SEA-DOTTEREL and SEA-LARK are names of the
Ringed Prover, SEA-MALL, -MEL (ef. ScamEL) or -MEW have
been used indifferently for GULLS: SEA-PARROT is the PUFFIN,
SEA-PHEASANT the Prntait, SEA-PIE the OyYSTER-CATCHER,
SEA-SWALLOW a Tern, and so on.

SECONDARIES, see Cusira.s (p. 118).

SECRETARY-BIRD, a very singular African form, first accur-
ately made known, from an example living in the menagerie of
the Prince of Orange, in 1769 by Vosmaer,? in a treatise published

fig. 1, p. 29); but a fuller description is needed, and the figure in Garrod’s
paper, presently noticed in the text, is bad.

1 Forbes shewed (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, p. 544) that OnrHoNnyx (p. 657) did
not belong to the group as at one time had been suspected.

2 Le Vaillant (Sec. Voy. Afrique, ii. p. 273) truly states that Kolben in 1719
(Caput Bonz Spet hodiernum, p. 182, French version, ii. p. 198) had mentioned

SECRETARY-BIRD 823

simultaneously in Dutch and French, and afterwards included in
his collected works issued, under the title of Regnwm Animale, in
1804. He was told that at the Cape of Good Hope this bird was
known as the “Sagittarius” or Archer, from its striding gait being
thought to resemble that of a bowman advancing to shoot, but that
this name had been corrupted into that of “Secretarius.” In
August 1770 Edwards saw an example (apparently alive, and the
survivor of a pair which had been brought to England) in the pos-
session of Mr. Raymond near Ilford in Essex ; and, being unac-
quainted with Vosmaer’s work, he figured and described it as “ of

SECRETARY-BIRD,

anew genus” in the following year (Phil. Trans, Ixi. pp. 55, 56,
pl. ii.) In 1776 Sonnerat (Voy. Now. Guinée, p. 87, pl. 50) again

this bird under its local name of ‘‘ Snake-eater” (Slangenvreeter, Dutch transla-
tion, i. p. 214); but that author, who was a bad naturalist, thought it was a
Pelican and also confounded it with the Spoonbill, which is figured to illustrate
his account of it. Though he doubtless had seen, and perhaps tried to describe,
the Secretary-bird, he certainly failed to convey any correct idea of it. Latham’s
suggestion (loc. infra cit.) that the figure of the ‘‘Grus Capensis cauda cristata”
in Petiver’s Gazophylacium (tab. xii. fig. 12) was meant for this bird is negatived
by his description of it (p. 20). The figure was probably copied from one of
Sherard’s paintings and is more likely to have had its origin in a Crane of some
species. Vosmaer’s plate is lettered ‘‘ Amerikaanischen Roof-Vogel,” of course
by mistake for ‘‘ Afrikaanischen.”

824 SECRETARY-BIRD

described and figured, but not at all correctly, the species as found
also in the Philippine Islands, whither, if that be true, it must have
been brought. <A better representation was given by D’Aubenton
(Pl. Enl. 721): and in 1780 Buffon (Oiseaua, vii. p. 330) published
some additional information derived from Querhoent, saying also
that it was to be seen in some English menageries ; and the follow-
ing year Latham (Synops. i. p. 20, pl. 2) described and figured it
from three examples which he had seen alive in England. None
of these authors, however, gave the bird a scientific name, and the
first conferred upon it seems to have been that of Falco serpentarius,
inscribed on a.plate bearing date 1779, by John Frederick Miller
(lil. Nat. Hist. xxviii.), which plate appears also in Shaw’s Cimelia
Physica (No. 28) and is a misleading caricature. In 1786 Scopoli
called it Otis secretarius—thus referring it to the Bustards,! and
Cuvier in 1798 designated the genus to which it belonged, and of
which it still remains the sole representative, Serpentarius. Suc-
ceeding systematists have, however, encumbered it with many
other names, among which the generic terms Gypogeranus and
Ophiotheres, and the specific epithets reptilivorus and cristatus, re-
quire mention here. The Secretary-bird is of remarkable appear-
ance, standing nearly 4 feet in height, the great length of its legs
giving it a resemblance to a Crane or a Heron; but the expert
will at once notice that, unlike those birds, its tibiz are feathered
all the way down. From the back of the head and the nape
hangs, loosely and in pairs, a series of black elongated feathers,
capable of erection and dilation in periods of excitement. The
skin round the eyes is bare and of an orange colour. The head,
neck and upper parts of the body and wing-coverts are bluish-grey,
but the carpal feathers, including the primaries, are black, as also
are the feathers of the vent and tibize,—the last being in some
examples tipped with white. The tail-quills are grey for the
greater part of their length, then barred with black and tipped
with white; but the two middle feathers are more than twice as
long as those next to them, and drooping downwards present a
very unique appearance.

The habits of the Secretary-bird have been very frequently

1 Curiously enough, Boddaert in 1783 omitted to give it a scientific name.

2 Ogilby’s attempt to distinguish three species (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1835, pp.
104, 105) has met with no encouragement; but examples from the north of the
equator are somewhat smaller than those from the south.

3 The scientific synonymy of the species is given at great length by Drs.
Finsch and Hartlaub (Végel. Ost-Afr. p. 93) and later by Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Brit.
Mus. i. p. 45) ; but each list has some errors in common.

4 It is from the fancied resemblance of these feathers to the pens which a -
clerk is supposed to stick above his ear that the bird’s name of Secretary is really
derived.

SEDGE-BIRD—SENEGALI $25

described, one of the best accounts of them being by Verreaux
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1856, pp. 348-352). Its chief prey consists of
insects and reptiles, and as a foe to snakes it is held in high esteem.
Making every allowance for exaggeration, it seems to possess a
strange partiality for the destruction of the latter, and successfully
attacks the most venomous species, striking them with its knobbed
wings and kicking forwards at them with its feet, until they are
rendered incapable of offence, when it swallows them. The nest is
a huge structure, placed in a bush or tree, and in it two white eggs,
spotted with rust-colour, are laid. The young remain in the nest
for a long while, and even when four months old are unable to
stand upright. They are very frequently brought up tame, and
become agreeable not to say useful pets about a house, the chief
drawbacks to them being that when hungry they will help them-
selves to the small poultry, and the liability of their legs to fracture,
which follows on any sudden alarm, and causes death. The
Secretary-bird is found, but not very abundantly and only in some
localities, over the greater part of Africa, especially in the south,
extending northwards on the west to the Gambia and in the
interior to Khartum, where Von Heuglin observed it breeding.

The systematic position of the genus Serpentarius has long been
a matter of discussion, and is still one of much interest, though of
late classifiers have been pretty well agreed in placing it in the
Order Accipitres. Most of them, however, have shewn great want
of perception by putting it in the Family Falconidx. No anatomist
can doubt its forming a peculiar Family, Serpentariidz, differing
more from the Falconide than do the Vultwridw; and the fact of
Prof. A. Milne-Edwards (Ois. foss. Fr. ii. pp. 465-468, pl. 186,
figs. 1-6) having recognized in the Miocene of the Allier the fossil
bone of a species of this genus, S. robustus, proves that it is an
ancient form, one possibly carrying on a direct and not much
modified descent from a generalized form, whence may have sprung
not only the Falconidx but perhaps the progenitors of the Ardeidx
and Ciconiidx, to say nothing of others.

SEDGE-BIRD, the common name for what in most books is
called the Sedge-WARBLER.

SEGGE, Angl.-Sax. Sugge (especially in composition as Heges-
sugge), an old name, apparently for any small bird, that seems still
to survive in places for the Hedge-Sparrow ; but taking also the
form Heysuck (cf. HAy-JACK) and even corrupted into Isaac.

SENEGALIT, a dealers’ name which should properly belong to
the Fringilla senegala of Linneus, the Estrilda or Lagonosticta senegala
of some modern writers, but seems to be often applied in a general
way to small species of Ploceidx (WEAVER-BIRD) from West Africa,
or perhaps even other countries.

826 SERIEMA

SERIEMA, otherwise Cartama,! a South-American bird, suffi- ‘
ciently well described and figured in Maregrave’s work (Hist. Rer.
Nat. Brasilix, p. 203), posthumously published by De Laet in 1648,
to be recognized by succeeding ornithologists, among whom Brisson
in 1760 acknowledged it as forming a distinct genus Cariama,

SERIEMA,

while Linneus regarded it as a second species of Palamedea
(SCREAMER, p. 819), under the name of P. cristata, Englished
in 1785 by Latham (Gen. Synops. v.. p. 20) the ‘Crested
Screamer,’—an appellation, as already observed, since transferred
to a wholly different bird. Nothing more seems to have been
known of it in Europe till 1803, when Azara published at Madrid
his observations on the birds of Paraguay (Apuntamientos, No. 340),
wherein he gave an account of it under the name of “Saria,” which
it bore among the Guaranis,—that of “ Cariama” being applied to
it by the Portuguese settlers, and both expressive of its ordinary
cry.2_ It was not, however, until 1809 that this very remarkable

1 In this word the initial C, as is usual in Portuguese, is pronounced soft,
and the accent laid upon the last syllable.

* Yet Forbes states (Jbis, 1881, p. 358) that Seriema comes from Siri, ‘‘a
diminutive of Indian extraction,” and Hma, the Portuguese name for the Rhea
(cf, EmEU, p. 212, note.1), the whole thus meaning ‘‘ Little Rhea.”

SERIEMA 827

form came to be autoptically described scientifically. This was
done by the elder Geoffroy-St. Hilaire (4nn. du Muséum, xiii. pp. 362-
370, pl. 26), who had seen a specimen in the Lisbon museum ; and,
though knowing it had already been received into scientific nomen-
clature, he called it anew Microdactylus marcgravii. In 1811 Illiger,
without having seen an example, renamed the genus Dicholophus—
a term which has since been frequently applied to it—placing it in
the curious congeries of forms having little affinity which he called
Alectorides. In the course of his travels in Brazil (1815-17) Prince
Max of Wied met with this bird, and in 1823 there appeared from
his pen (NV. Act. Acad. L.-C. Nat. Curiosorum, xi. pt. 2, pp. 341-350,
tab. xlv.) a very good contribution to its history, embellished by a
faithful life-sized figure of its head. The same year Temminck
figured it in the Planches Coloriées (No. 237). It is not easy to say
when any example of the bird first came under the eyes of British
ornithologists; but in the Zoological Proceedings for 1836 (pp.
29-32) Martin described the visceral and osteological anatomy of
one which had been received alive the preceding year.*

The Seriema, owing to its long legs and neck, stands some two
feet or more in height, and in menageries bears itself with a stately
deportment. Its bright red beak, the bare greenish blue skin
surrounding its large yellow eyes, and the tufts of elongated
feathers springing vertically from its lores, give it a pleasing and
animated expression; but its plumage is generally of an in-
conspicuous ochreous-grey above and dull white beneath,—the
feathers of the upper parts, which on the neck and throat are long
and loose, being barred by fine zigzag markings of dark brown,
while those of the lower parts are more or less striped. The wing-
quills are brownish-black, banded with mottled white, and those of
the tail, except the middle pair, which are wholly greyish-brown,
are banded with mottled white at the base and the tip, but dark
brown for the rest of their length. The legs arered. ‘The Seriema
inhabits the campos or elevated open parts of Brazil, from the
neighbourhood of Pernambuco to the Rio de la Plata, extending
inland as far as Matto Grosso (long. 60°), and occurring also, though
sparsely, in Paraguay. It lives in the high grass, running away in
a stooping posture to avoid discovery on being approached, and
taking flight only at the utmost need. Yet it builds its nest in
thick bushes or trees at about a man’s height from the ground,
therein laying two eggs, which Burmeister likened to those of
the Land-Rail in colour.2. The young are hatched fully covered

1 The skeleton has been briefly described and figured by Eyton (Osteol.
Avium, p. 190, pls. 8, K, and 28 bis, fig. 1).

2 This distinguished author twice cites the figure given by Thienemann
(Fortpflanzungsgesch. gesammt. Vogel, pl. Ixxii. fig. 14) as though taken from
a genuine specimen; but little that can be called Ralline in character is

828 SERIEMA

with grey down, relieved by brown, and remain for some time in
the nest. ‘The food of the adult is almost exclusively animal,—
insects, especially large ants, snails, lizards and snakes; but it
also eats certain large red berries.

Until 1860 the Seriema was believed to be without any near
relative in the living world of birds ;! but in the Zoological Pro-
ceedings for that year (pp. 334-336) Dr. Hartlaub described an
allied species discovered by Prof. Burmeister in the territory of the
Argentine Republic. This bird, which has since been regarded as
entitled to generic division under the name of Chunga burmeistert
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, p. 466, pl. xxxvi.), and seems to be known
in its native country as the “Chunnia,” differs from the Seriema
by frequenting forest or bushy districts. It is also darker in
colour, has less of the frontal crest, shorter legs, a longer tail and
the markings beneath take the form of bars rather than stripes.
In other respects the difference between the two birds seems to be
immaterial.

There are few birds which have more exercised the taxonomer
than this, and the reason seems to be plain. The Seriema must
be regarded as the not greatly modified heir of some very old type,
such as one may fairly imagine to have lived before many of the
existing groups of birds had become differentiated. Looking at it
in this light, we may be prepared to deal gently with the sys-
tematists who, having only the present before their eyes, have
relegated it positively to this, that or the other Order, Family or
other group of birds. There can be no doubt that some of its
habits point to an alliance with the BusTarD or perhaps certain
PLOVERS, while its digestive organs are essentially, if not absolutely,
those of the HeRon. Its general appearance recalls that of the
SECRETARY-BIRD; but this, it must be admitted, may be merely
an analogy and may indicate no affinity whatever. On the one
hand we have had authorities, starting from bases so opposed as
Prof. W. K. Parker (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, p. 516) and Sundevall,
placing it among the Accipitres, while on the other Nitzsch, Bur-
meister,? Martin (ué supra), and Dr. Gadow (Journ. f. Orn. 1876,

observable therein. The same is to be said of an egg laid in captivity at Paris ;
but a specimen in Mr. Walter’s possession undeniably shews it (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1881, p. 2).

1 A supposed fossil Cariama from the caves of Brazil, mentioned by Bona-
parte (Comptes Rendus, xliii. p. 779) and others, has since been shewn by Rein-
hardt (Jbis, 1882, pp. 821-332) to rest upon the misinterpretation of certain
bones, which the latter considers to have been those of a Rhea.

2 Near Tucuman and Catamarea (Burmeister, Reise durch die La Plata
Staaten, ii. p. 508).

3 Nitzsch, as Burmeister stated in his masterly contribution to the natural
history of this bird (Abhandl. naturf. Gesellsch. Halle, i. pp. 1-68, pls. 1, 2),

SERIN—S HAG 829

pp. 445, 446) have declared in effect that this view of its affinities
cannot be taken. Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 455)
expressed himself more cautiously, and, while remarking that
in its skull “the internasal septum is ossified to a very slight
extent, and the maxillo-palatine processes may meet in the middle
line, in both of which respects it approaches the birds of prey,”
added that “the ossified part of the nasal septum does not unite
below with the maxillo-palatines,” and that in this respect it is
unlike the Accipitres ; finally he declared (p. 457) that, as Otis con-
nects the Geranomorphx with the Charadriomorphx, so Cariama con-
nects the former with the <Aetomorphe, “but it is a question
whether these two genera may be better included in” the Gerano-
morphx, “or made types of separate groups.” The latter course is
followed by Prof. Fiirbringer (Untersuchungen, p. 1566) and Dr.
Gadow (Thier-reich, Vogel, i. pp. 184-186), who unhesitatingly regard
the Seriema as the type of a distinct Family, whose nearest living
allies may be found in the Gruidz (CRANE), Psophiide (TRUMPETER)
and Otididx (BUSTARD)—a determination which is probably final.

SERIN, Fr. Serin, O.F. Serene, Provenc. Serena, supposed to be
from Siréne (Lat. Siren), and applied to the bird from its agreeable
song—the Fringilla serinus of Linneus and Serinus hortulanus of
recent ornithologists—a small Fincu long known to inhabit
Southern Europe with Northern Africa, and of late years observed
to be extending its range on the continent and to have appeared
in England (Yarrell, Br. B. ed. 4, ii. p. 111). Its habits have
been described by Mr. Dresser (Bb. Hur. iii. pp. 551-553) from his
personal observation, and by no one better. It is nearly allied to
the CANARY-BIRD, though recognizable by its tints, its larger size,
proportionally shorter wings and longer tail. Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B.
Br. Mus. xii. p. 370) accounts the latter a “subspecies” of the
Serin, but without giving his reason for departing from the general
practice of considering them distinct species, and thus one is unable
to appreciate the validity of his judgment. He however admits
18 other species of the genus.

SHAG, the English name commonly applied all over the world
to members of the genus Phalacrocorax in general; but specialized
by British ornithological writers for P. graculus, the smaller of the
two species which inhabit the coasts of these islands (CORMORANT,
p- 106). In breeding-plumage the Shag, with its plumage of
uniform glossy green, its tufted crest—the feathers of which curve

in 1834 saw a defective skeleton sent to Munich by the Brazilian travellers
Spix and Martius. His description of it was not, however, published until
1853. To it is appended a description by Dr. Creplin of some Hntozoa found in
the Seriema, but this unfortunately seems to give no help as to the systematic
position of the bird.

8390 SHEARWATER
forwards—the deep yellow of the bare skin about its face, and its
beryl-coloured eyes, is one of the most beautiful of sea-birds,

SHEARWATER, the name of a bird first published in
Willughby’s Ornithologia (p. 252), as made known to him by Sir
T. Browne, who sent a picture of it with an account that is given
more fully in Ray’s translation of that work (p. 334), stating that
it is “a Sea-fowl, which fishermen observe to resort to their
Vessels in some numbers, swimming! swiftly to and fro, backward,
forward, and about them, and doth as it were radere aquam, shear
the water, from whence perhaps it had its name.”? MRay’s mis-
taking young birds of this kind obtained in the Isle of Man for
the young of the Coulterneb, now usually called PUFFIN, has already
been mentioned (p. 752); and not only has his name Puffinus
anglorum hence become attached to this species, commonly described
in English books as the Manx Puffin or Manx Shearwater, but the
barbarous and misapplied word Puffinus has come into regular use
as the generic term for all birds thereto allied, forming a well-
marked group of the Family Procejlariidx (PETREL, p. 708), dis-
tinguished chiefly by their elongated bill, and numbering some
twenty species, if not more—the discrimination of which, owing
partly to the general similarity of some of them, and partly to the
change of plumage which others through age are believed to
undergo, has taxed in no common degree the ingenuity of those
ornithologists who have ventured on the difficult task of determin-
ing their characters.? Shearwaters are found in nearly all the seas
and oceans of the world,* generally within no great distance from
the land, though rarely resorting thereto, except in the breeding-
season. But they also penetrate to waters which may be termed
inland, as the Bosphorus, where they have long attracted attention

1 By mistake, no doubt, for flying or ‘‘hovering,” the latter being the
word used by Browne in his Account of Birds found in Norfolk (Mus. Brit.
MS. Sloane, 1830, fol. 5. 22 and 31), written in or about 1662. Edwards
(Gleanings, iii. p. 315) speaks of comparing his own drawing ‘‘ with Brown’s
old draught of it, still preserved in the British Museum,” and thus identifies
the latter’s ‘‘Shearwater”’ with the ‘‘ Puffin of the Isle of Man.”

2 Lira, Lyra or Lyrtm (all three forms being found) appears to be the most
common local name for this bird in Orkney and Shetland ; but ScRABER and
Scraib are also used in the Hebrides. These are from the Scandinavian Skrape
or Skrofa, and considering Prof. Skeat’s remarks (Etym. Dict. p. 546) as to the
alliance between the words shear and scrape it may be that Browne’s hesitation
as to the derivation of ‘‘Shearwater” had more ground than at first appears.

3 Mr. Salvin’s catalogue of the specimens of Procellariid# in the British
Museum, which is understood to be in a forward condition, will doubtless throw
much light on this difficult question.

4 The chief exception would seem to be the Bay of Bengal and thcrice
throughout the western part of the Malay Archipelago, where, though they
may occur, they are certainly uncommon.

SHEATHBILL 831

by their daily passage up and down the strait, in numerous flocks,
hardly ever alighting on the surface, and from this restless habit
they are known to the French-speaking part of the population as
dmes damnées, it being held by the Turks that they are animated
by condemned human souls. Four species of Puffinus are recorded
as visiting the coasts of the United Kingdom; but the Manx
Shearwater aforesaid is the only one that at present is known to
occur commonly or breed in the British Islands. It is a very
plain-looking bird, black above and white beneath, and about the
size of a Pigeon. Some other species are considerably larger,
while some are smaller, and of the former several are almost whole-
coloured, being of a sooty or dark cinereous hue both above and
below. All over the world Shearwaters seem to have precisely
the same habits, laying their single purely white egg in a hole
under ground. The young are thickly clothed with long down,
and are extremely fat. In this condition they are thought to be
good eating, and enormous numbers have been caught for this
purpose in some localities, especially of a species commonly known
as the MutTron-BirD, P. brevicauda, which used to frequent the
islands off the coast of Australia; but is probably meeting if it
has not already met the fate of its congener P. audubont in Ber-
muda, where the latter was known as the “Cahow ” (variously spelt)
and was once abundant.!

SHEATHBILL, a bird so-called in 1781 by Pennant (Gen. B.
ed. 2, p. 43) from the horny case ? which ensheathes the basal part

1 Details of the mournful and instructive story of the almost complete
annihilation of this species on those islands can be gathered from Lefroy’s
Memorials &c. of the Bermudas or Somers Islands (i. pp. 18, 18, 35, 36, 76,
137, 330, 331; ii. p. 578), where many extracts, chiefly from Purchas’s Pil-
grimes and Smith’s Virginia, are given. The swine, let loose in early days
by the original Spanish discoverers, produced the usual effect, but the birds
still abounded on the smaller islets, where there were no hogs, and in 1614
(apparently) the settlers being reduced to distress by famine and fever, the
English Governor sent 150 of the ‘‘most weake and sicke”’ to Couper’s Isle,
where were ‘‘infinite numbers of Birds called Cahowes.” But through the
‘hunger and gluttony” of these poor people ‘‘ those heavenly blessings they
so much consumed and wasted by carelessness and surfeiting”’ that many died.
The next Governor, in 1616 apparently, had to issue ‘‘a Proclamation against
the spoile of Cahowes, but it came too late, for they were most destroyed before.”
Almost all knowledge of such a bird in the colony had vanished according to
Mr. J. M. Jones (Nat. in Bermuda, pp. 94-96) when, in 1849, Sir John
Campbell-Orde and a brother-officer visited the Black Rock, near Cooper’s
Island, and found three birds, the sole remnant of those that had once crowded
every available part of the group. In 1874 Capt. Reid (Zool. 1877, p. 491)
found two nests, and considered that a few pairs of the birds still frequented the
islands. How many may be there now I know not.

2 A strange fallacy arose early, and of course has been repeated late, that
this case or sheath was movable. It is absolutely fixed.

$32 SHEA THBIEL

of its bill. It was first made known from having been met with
on New-Year Island, off the coast of Staten Land, where Cook
anchored on New Year’s eve 1774.1. A few days later he dis-
covered the islands that now bear the name of South Georgia, and
there the bird was again found,—in both localities frequenting the
rocky shores. On his third voyage, while seeking some land
reported to have been found by Kerguelen, Cook in December
1776 reached the cluster of desolate islands now generally known
by the name of the French explorer, and here, among many other
kinds of birds, was a Sheathbill, which for a long while no one
suspected to he otherwise than specifically identical with that of
the western Antarctic Ocean; but, as will be seen, its distinctness
has been subsequently admitted.

The Sheathbill, so soon as it was brought to the notice of
naturalists, was recognized as belonging to a genus
hitherto unknown, and the elder Forster in 1788
(Enchirid. p. 37) conferred upon it, from its snowy
plumage, the name Chionis, which has most properly
received general acceptance, though in the same year
the compiler Gmelin termed the genus Vaginalis, as
a rendering of Pennant’s English name, and the
species alla. It has thus become the Chionis alba of
ornithology. It is about the size of and has much
the aspect of a Pigeon ;? its plumage is pure white,
its bill somewhat yellow at the base, passing into
pale pink towards the tip. Round the eyes the
skin is bare, and beset with cream-coloured pa-
pillee, while the legs are bluish-grey. The second
or eastern species, first discriminated by Dr. Hartlaub (Lev. Zool.

BILL OF CHIONIs,
from above.

(After Swainson.)

1 Doubtless some of the earlier voyagers had encountered it, as Forster
(Descr. Anim. p. 330) suggests and Lesson (Man. d’Orn. ii. p. 343) asserts ;
but for all practical purposes we certainly owe its discovery to the naturalists
of Cook’s second voyage. By some error, probably of transcription, New Zea-
land, instead of New-Year Island, appears in many works as the place of its
discovery, while not a few writers have added thereto New Holland. Hitherto
there is no real evidence of the occurrence of a Sheathbill in the waters of
Australia or New Zealand ; but one (C. alba) was shot by the lighthouse-keeper
at Carlingford in Ireland, 2 Dec. 1892, as recorded by Mr. Barrington (Zool.
1893, p. 28; Proc. Zool. Soc. 1893, p. 178). Examples of this species have
been often brought alive to this country, and the bird thus killed may well
have escaped from confinement.

* In the Falkland Isles it is called the ‘‘ Kelp-Pigeon,” and by some of the
earlier French navigators the ‘‘ Pigeon blanc antarctique.” The cognate
species of Kerguelen Land is named by the sealers ‘‘Sore-eyed Pigeon,” from
its prominent fleshy orbits, as well as ‘‘ Paddy-bird”’—the last perhaps from
its white plumage resembling that of some of the smaller Egrets, often so
called.

Sel BAT Talal Fe 833

1841, p. 5; 1842, p. 402, pl. 2)! as C. minor, is smaller in size,
with plumage just as white, but having the bill and bare skin of
the face black and the legs much darker. The form of the bill’s
“sheath” in the two species is also quite different, for in C. alba it
is almost level throughout, while in C. minor it rises in front like
the pommel of a saddle. Of the habits of the western and larger
species not much has been recorded. It gathers its food, consist-
ing chiefly, as Darwin and others have told us, of seaweeds and
shell-fish, on rocks at low water ; but it is also known to eat birds’
eggs. ‘There is some curiously conflicting evidence as to the flavour
of its flesh, some asserting that it is wholly uneatable, and others
that it is palatable,—a difference which may possibly be due to
the previous diet of the particular example tasted, to the skill of
the cook or the need of the taster. Though most abundant as
a shore-bird, it is frequently met with far out at sea, as by
Fleurieu (Voy. de Marchand, i. p. 19), in lat. 44° S., some 260
miles from the eastern coast of Patagonia. It is not uncommon
on the Falkland Isles, where it is said to breed (Jbis, 1861,
p. 154), though confirmation of the report is as yet wanting,
and from thence is found at both extremities of the Strait of
Magellan, and southward to Louis-Philippe Land in lat. 60° S.
On the other hand, thanks to the naturalists of the British and
United States expeditions to Kerguelen Land for the observation
of the transit of Venus in 1874, especially Mr. Eaton (Philos. Trans.
elxviii. pp. 103-105) and Dr. Kidder (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1875,
No. 2, pp. 1-4), much more has been recorded of the eastern and
smaller species, which had already been ascertained by Mr. Layard
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 57, pl. iv. fig. 7) to breed on the Crozet
Islands,? and was found to do so still more numerously on Ker-
guelen, while it probably frequents Prince Edward’s Islands for
the same purpose. The eggs, of which a considerable number have
now been obtained, though of peculiar appearance, bear an unmis-
_takable likeness to those of some Plovers, while occasionally ex-
hibiting a resemblance—of little significance, however—to those of
the Tropic-birds.

The systematic position of the Sheathbills has been the subject
of much hesitation—almost useless since 1836, when De Blainville
(Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 2, vi. p. 97) made known certain anatomical
facts proving their affinity to the OysTER-CATCHERS, though

1 Lesson (Joc. cit.) cites a brief but correct indication of this species as
observed by Lesquin (Lycée Armoricain, x. p. 86) on Crozet Island, and, not
suspecting it to be distinct, was at a loss to reconcile the discrepancies of the
latter’s description with that given of the other species by earlier authors.

2 A previous announcement of the discovery of its egg (bis, 1867, p. 458)
was premature, the specimen, now in my possession, proving to be that of a
Gull—a fact unknown to the American writer named above,

33

834 SHELD-DRAKE

pointing also to a more distant relationship with the GULLS.
These he afterwards described more fully (Voy. ‘ Bonite’ Zoolog. i.
pt. 3, pp. 107-132, pl. 9), so as to leave no doubt that Chionis was
a form intermediate between those groups. Yet some writers con-
tinued to refer it to the Gallinv and others to the Columbe. The
matter may now be regarded as settled for ever. In 1876 Dr.
Reichenow in Germany (Jour. f. Orn. 1876, pp. 84-89) and in
America Drs. Kidder and Coues (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 3, pp.
85-116) published elaborate accounts of the anatomy of C. minor,
the first wholly confirming the view of De Blainville, the last two!
agreeing with him in the main, but concluding that the Sheathbills
formed a distinct group “ Chionomorphe,” in rank equal to the
CECOMORPHA and CHARADRIOMORPH of Prof. Huxley, and re-
garding this group as being “still nearer the common ancestral
stock of both.” These authors also wish to separate the two
species generically ; but their proposals are considered needless by
Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 417) and Prof. Milne-Edwards
(Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 6, xiii. art. 4, p. 24). The osteology of C.
minor has further received the attention of Dr. Shufeldt (Journ. Anat.
& Physiol. 1891, pp. 508-525, pls. xi. xii.) who has also (Auk,
1893, pp. 158-165) reviewed the various opinions entertained as
to the systematic position of this form. The views of De Blain-
ville and Dr. Reichenow are borne out by the observations of Mr.
Eaton (loc. cif.), and no one knowing the habits of an Oyster-catcher
can read his remarks without seeing how nearly related the two
forms are. Their differences may perhaps justify the separation
of each form into what is vaguely called a “Family,” but the
differences will be seen by the comparative anatomist to be of
slight importance, and the intimate affinity of the Gavix and Limi-
colx, already recognized by Prof. W. K. Parker as well as by
some of the best taxonomers, is placed beyond dispute.”

SHELD-DRAKE, or, as commonly spelt in its contracted form,
SHELDRAKE, a word whose derivation® has been much discussed,

1 In some details their memoir is unfortunately inaccurate.

2 The little group of very curious birds, having no English name, of the
genera Thinocorys and Attagis (PLOVER, p. 733), which are peculiar to certain
localities in South America and its islands, are by some systematists placed in
the Family Chionididz and by others in a distinct Family ‘‘Thinocoridx” (more
correctly Thinocorythidx). They are undoubtedly Limicoline, though having
much the aspect of Sand-Grouse, but their precise pcsition and rank remain at
present uncertain (cf. Garrod wt supra, and Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc. x. pp.
301 ef seqg.), though it is pretty clear that they are generalized and some-
what ancient forms-—a fact which accords with their GroGRAPHICAL DISTRIBU-
TION (p. 324).

3 Ray in 1674 (Engl. Words, p. 76) gave it from the local ‘‘sheld” (= parti-
coloured), which, applied to animals, as a horse or a cat, still survives in East
Anglia. This opinion is not only suitable but is confirmed by the bird’s

SHELD-DRAKE 835

one of the most conspicuous birds of the Duck tribe, Anatidz, called,
however, in many parts of England the “ Burrow-Duck” from its
habits presently to be mentioned, and in some districts by the
almost obsolete name of “Bergander” (Dutch, Berg-eende, Germ.
Bergente), a word used by Turner in 1544. Other local names are
SKEEL-DUCK and SKELDER.

The Sheldrake is the Anas tadorna! of Linneus, and the
Tadorna cornuia or T. vulpanser of modern ornithology, a bird some-
what larger and of more upright stature than an ordinary Duck,
having its bill, with a basal fleshy pro-
tuberance (whence the specific term cornuta)
pale red, the head and upper neck very
dark glossy green, and beneath that a
broad white collar, succeeded by a still
broader belt of bright bay extending from
the upper back across the upper breast.
The outer scapulars, the primaries, a median
abdominal stripe, which dilates at the vent,
and a bar at the tip of the middle tail-quills are black; the inner
secondaries and the lower tail-coverts are grey ; and the speculum
or wing-spot is a rich bronzed-green. The rest of the plumage is
pure white, and the legs are flesh-coloured. There is little external
difference between the sexes, the female being only somewhat
smaller and less brightly coloured. The Sheldrake frequents the
sandy coasts of nearly the whole of Europe and North Africa,
extending across Asia to India, China and Japan, generally keeping
in pairs and sometimes penetrating to favourable inland localities.
The nest is always made under cover, usually in a rabbit-hole
among sandhills, and in the Frisian Islands the people supply this
bird with artificial burrows, taking large toll of it in eggs and down.
Barbary, south-eastern Europe and a large part of Asia are in-
habited by an allied species of more inland 1 range and very different
coloration, the T. casarca or Casarca* rutila of ornithologists, the

TaporNna. (After Siahiean

- Old Norsk name Skjéldungr, from Skjéldr, primarily a patch, and now
commonly bestowed on a piebald horse, just as Skjalda (Cleasby’s cel.
Dict, sub voce), from the same source, is a particoloured cow. But
some scholars interpret Skjéldungr by the secondary meaning of Skjéldr,
a shield, asserting that it refers to ‘‘the shield-like band across the breast” of
the bird. Ifthey be right the proper spelling of the English word would be
**Shield-drake,” as some indeed have it. A third suggested meaning, from
the Old Norsk Skjél, shelter, is philologically to be rejected, but, if true, would
refer to the bird’s habit, described in the text, of breeding under cover.

1 This is the Latinized form of the French Tadorne, first published by Belon
(1555), a word on which Littré throws no light except to state that it has a
southern variant Tardone.

* Bonaparte in 1838 separated this species from the genus Tadorna, but
neither he nor his successors have shewn any good reason for doing so.

836 SHELD-DRAKE

Ruddy Sheldrake of English authors—for it has several times strayed
to the British Islands,—and the “Brahminy Duck” of Anglo-Indians,
who find it resorting in winter, whether by pairs or by thousands,
to their inland waters. ‘This species is of an almost uniform bay
colour all over, except the quill-feathers of the wings and tail, and
(in the male) a ring round the neck, which are black, while the
wing-coverts are white and the speculum shines with green and
purple; the bill and legs are dark-coloured.! A species closely
resembling the last, but with a grey head, 7. cana, inhabits South
Africa, while in some of the islands of the Malay Archipelago, and
in the northern parts of Australia, there is a fourth species,
T. radjah, which almost equals the true Sheldrake in its brightly-
contrasted plumage, but yet wants some of the lively colours the
latter displays—its head, for instance, being white instead of dark
green. Further to the southward in Australia occurs another
species of more sombre colours, the TY. tadornoides; and New
Zealand is the home of a sixth species, 7. variegata, still less
distinguished by bright hues. In the last two the plumage of the
sexes differs not inconsiderably, but all are believed to have
essentiaily the same habits as the 7. cornuta.?

It is not without a purpose that these different species are
here particularized. Sheldrakes will, if attention be paid to their
wants, breed freely in captivity, crossing if opportunity be given
them with other species, and an incident therewith connected pos-
sesses an Importance hardly to be overrated by the philosophical
naturalist, though it seems not to have met with the attention it
deserves. In the Zoological Society’s gardens in the spring of
1859 a male of 7. cornuta mated with a female of 7. cana, and,
as will have been inferred from what has been before stated, these
two species differ greatly in the colouring of their plumage. The
young of their union, however, presented an appearance wholly
unlike that of either parent, and an appearance which can hardly
be said, as has been said (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1859, p. 442), to be “a
curious combination of the colours of the two.” Both sexes of
this hybrid have been admirably portrayed by Mr. Wolf (tom. cit.
Aves, pl. 158); and, strange to say, when these figures are com-
pared with equally faithful portraits by the same master (op. cit.

1 Jerdon (BL. Ind. iii. p. 793) tells of a Hindu belief that once upon a time
two lovers were transformed into birds of this species, and that they or their
descendants are condemned to pass the night on opposite banks of a river,
whence they unceasingly call to one another: ‘‘ Charkwa, shall I come?” ‘‘No,
Charkwi.” ‘‘Charkwi, shall l come?” ‘‘No, Charkwa.’”’ As to how, in these
circumstances, the race is perpetuated the legend is silent.

? The Anas scutellata of the Indo-Malay countries is by several authorities
considered to be a Tadorna, but this view is denied by others, among them by
Mr. Hume (Stray Feathers, viii. p. 158).

SHELD-DRAKE 837
1864, pls. 18, 19) of the Australian and New Zealand species, 7’.
tadornoides + and T. variegata, it will at once be seen that the hybrids
present an appearance almost midway between the two species last
named—species which certainly had nothing to do with their pro-
duction. The only explanation of this astounding fact seems to
be that afforded by the principle of ‘‘reversion,” as set forth by
Mr. Darwin, and illustrated by him from examples of certain
breeds of Doves, domestic Fowls and Ducks (dnim. and Pl. under
Domestic. i. pp. 197-200, 1. p. 40), as well as, in the matter of
domestic Fowls, by Mr. Cambridge Phillips (Zool. 1884, p. 331).
It is a perfectly fair hypothesis that the existing animals of New
Zealand and Australia (cf. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, pp. 315-
317) retain more of their ancestral character than do those
of countries in which we may suppose the struggle for life to
have been fiercer and the action of natural selection stronger.
Why it is so we cannot say, yet experiment proves that the
most widely-different breeds of Pigeons and other poultry, when
crossed, produce offspring that more resembles the ancestral wild
species from which the domesticated forms have sprung than
it resembles either of the immediate parents. This mysterious
agency is known as the principle of “reversion,” and the example
just cited proves that the same effect is produced in species as well
as in ‘“races,’—indicating the essential identity of both,—the
only real difference being
that “species” are more
differentiated than are
“races,” or that the dis-
tinction between them,
instead of being (as many
writers, some of the first
repute, have maintained)
qualitative, is merely quan- Prectroprervs. (After Swainson.)
titative, or one of degree.”

The genus Tadorna seems to be most nearly related to Chenalo-
pex, containing the bird so well known as the Egyptian Goose, C.
axgyptiaca, and an allied species C. jubata, from South America.
As shewn by their tracheal characters, the genus Plectropterus,
composed of the Spur-winged Geese of Africa, and perhaps the
Australian Anseranas and the Indo-African Sarcidiornis, also appear
to belong to the same group, which should be referred rather to
the Anatine than to the Anserine section of the Anatide.

1 By inadvertence this species was assigned (p. 600) to New Zealand.

2 It is further worthy of remark that the young of 7. casarca when first
hatched closely resemble those of 7. variegata, and when the latter assume their
first plumage they resemlle their father more than their mother (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1866, p. 150).

838 SHELDER—SHOE-BILL

SHELDER (Icel. Skjéldr=piebald), a local name for the
OYSTER-CATCHER (cf. SCOLDER, p. 817, and SHELD-DRAKE, p. 835).

SHELL-APPLE, a name for the CRossBILL, but occasionally
for the CHAFFINCH, though in that case SHELLY is commoner.

SHEPSTER, a local name for the STARLING (cf. CHEPSTER),
possibly an abbreviated form of Sheep-stare, from the bird's habit
of accompanying flocks of sheep.

SHERIFF'S MAN, a nickname of the GoLDFINCH, from its
gaudy colouring.

SHIRL ( = Shrill, cf. SuRiKE), a name for the Mistletoe- THRUSH.

SHOE-BILL or SHOE-BIRD, renderings of the Arabic name
Alu-markub (Father of a Shoe) that have been given by travellers
to one of the most remarkable-looking of Central-African birds,
Baleniceps rex, also called by some writers the Whale-headed Stork
—the bird’s huge bill,1 in shape not unlike a whale’s head, and
tipped with a formidable hook, suggesting all these names. It
was first brought to Europe by Mr. Mansfield Parkyns? from the
White Nile, and was regarded by Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851, pp.
1, 2, Aves, pl. xxxv.), who described and figured it, as an abnormal
Pelican. This view was disputed by Reinhardt (op. cit. 1860, pp.
377-380) and wholly dispelled by Parker (Trans. Zool. Soc. iv. pp.
269-351, pls. 64-67), though these two authors disagreed as to its
affinities, the former placing it near Scopus (HAMMER-HEAD) with
the Srorks, and the latter assigning it to the Herons. More
recent views either halt between these two opinions (Reichenow,
Journ. fiir Orn. 1877, p. 231; Stejneger, Stand. Nat. Hist. iv. p.
171), or incline to the latter (Fiirbringer, Untersuchungen, p. 1565 ;
Beddard Proc. Zool. Soc. 1888, p. 289; Gadow, Thier-reich, Vogel,
System. Th. p. 137). There should be no hesitation in regarding
it as the representative of a distinct Family Balzxnicipitide, on
account of its many structural peculiarities, and in singularity of
aspect few birds surpass it, with its gaunt grey figure, some five
feet in height, its large head surmounted by a little curled tuft,

' Jardine (Contr. Orn. 1851, pl. 68, p. 11) gave a full-sized figure of it.

* This traveller only incidentally mentions (Life in Abyssinia, ii. pp. 304,
305) the bird, and indecd was never in the country it inhabits. His specimens,
according to Von Heuglin (ut infra), were bought of a slave-dealer in Khartoum,
whither they had been brought. It is reasonably supposed that to this species
belonged the extraordinary bird, as big as a young Camel, with a Dill like a
Pelican’s, though wanting a pouch, which Ferdinand Werne (Laped. zur
Enideck. der Quellen des Weissen Nil, p. 143) tells us was seen by his people,
15th December 1840, while he was asleep, and they were unwilling to awaken
him. His countryman Baron F. W. von Miiller (Nawmannia, 1852, i. p. 85)
was more fortunate, in that in 1848 he saw two, but was unable to procure
them. On his return to Khartoum he saw in a collection the two specimens
afterwards bought by Mr. Parkyns, for which a high price was asked.

SHOE-BILL 839

the scowling expression of its eyes, and above all its wonderful
bill of which enough has been already said. In 1860 two living
examples were brought to England by Mr. Petherick, and exhibited

= = =

SnHoer-Bitt. (After Wolf in Trans. Zool. Soc.)

in the Zoological Gardens. He also discovered its mode of nidifi-
cation, and obtained its eggs, which are white like those of Storks ;1
but the fullest account of the bird is that given by Von Heuglin
(Orn. Nordost-Afrika’s, pp. 1095-1099).

1 Proc. Zool. Soc. 1860, pp. 196-199 ; and Egypt, the Soudan, &c. pp. 365,
475-478 (London: 1861).

840 SHOOI—SHOVELER

SHOOI, a name in Shetland (Edmondston, Zetland Islands, ii.
p- 281) for the Arctic Gull (SkuA),

SHORT BILL, the inexpressive name given by Swainson in
1820 (Zool. Lllustr. pl. 31) to a curious bird, first described by Vieil-
lot (Analyse, p. 68) as Phibalura! flavirostris, one of the Cotingide
(CHATTERER), but easily recognized by its long,
forked tail. Its coloration, though somewhat resem-
bling that of Ampelion, is peculiar, the olive-green
feathers of the upper parts being tipped with bright
yellow, following a subterminal black bar, while
those of the throat and breast are white with a
similar black bar and no yellow tip: the crown of
», the head is crimson, more or less concealed by a
* thick growth of dark feathers. There is only one
species of the genus which inhabits open spaces in
the forests of South-eastern Brazil; but until the
appearance of Dr. Géldi’s notes (Jdis,
1894, pp. 484-490) next to nothing was
known of its habits, and what he tells
us leaves much to be desired. He found
that the bird devours enormous quanti-
ties of certain berries having a viscous
pericarp, and he obtained a nest with
two eggs on which the parent was sitting. These were of a clear
greenish-blue with an irregular crown of neutrally-tinted spots at
the larger end, but the illustration representing the nest, eggs and
young is disappointing. ‘The nest is almost concealed by the sawn-
off branches of the tree in which it was built, the eggs from the
small scale shew no characters, and the young are nearly as
insignificant.”

PurBpatura. (After Swainson.)

SHOVELER, formerly spelt SiovELAR, and more anciently

1 Some writers object to this word as senseless, so that in 1827 Gloger
(Notizen a. d. Geb. d. Natur, xvi. p. 278) proposed Chelidis instead, and Prof.
Cabanis (Arch. f. Naturgesch. 1847, i. p. 233), thinking that too much like
Chelidon, suggested Amphibolura as an amendment, unaware that the last had
been preoccupied by Wagler in Herpetology ; but no change seems needed, for
piBaros (gracilis, exilis), though not commonly given in lexicons, is to be found
in that of Constantine (1592), and combined with ovpda is appropriate enough—
this being the very etymology Vicillet gave (N. Dict. @hist. nat. xxiv. p. 107).

2 Many years ago Mr. A. G. More drew my attention to a figure in the
Dublin Penny Journal (i. p. 253) for 2 Feb. 1833 which he had recognized
as representing a bird of this species, professedly taken from one said to have been
shot two or three years before at Powerscourt in Ireland, where it was flying
about with some Swallows! The specimen was said to be in the possession of a
gentleman at Dublin; but, though the description is accurate, the contributor
did not give his name, and his statement is hard to believe.

SHOVELER 841

SHOVELARD, a word by which used to be meant the bird now
almost invariably called SPOONBILL, but in the latter half of the
17th century transferred to one hitherto generally, and in these
days locally, known as the Spoon-billed Duck—the Anas clypeata
of Linnzeus and Spatula or Rhynchaspis clypeata of modern writers.
All these names refer to the shape
of the bird’s bill, which, combined
with the remarkably long lamellx
(not wholly incomparable with the
“whalebone” of the toothless Ceta-
ceans) that beset both maxilla and
mandible, has been thought sufficient
to remove the species from the
Linnean genus Anas. Except for

SSSA,

this exaggerated feature, which car- :

J eas Bru or SHoveter. (After Swainson.
Reswithiitapchumeye look«the male, stor SHovetes, Cotter Swanson.)

Shoveler would pass for one of the most beautiful of this generally
beautiful group of birds. As it is, for bright and variegated colouring,
there are few of his kindred to whom he is inferior. His golden eye,
his dark green head, surmounting a throat of pure white and suc-
ceeded by a breast and flanks of rich bay, are conspicuous ; while
his deep brown back, white scapulars, lesser wing-coverts (often mis-
called “shoulders”) of a glaucous blue, and glossy green speculum
bordered with white, present a wonderful contrast of the richest
tints, heightened again by his bright orange feet. On the other
hand, the female, except the blue wing-coverts she has in common
with her mate, is habited very like the ordinary Wild Duck, 4.
boscas (pp. 168-170). The Shoveler is not an abundant species,
and in Great Britain its distribution is local; but its numbers have
remarkably increased since the passing of the Wild-Fowl Protection
Act in 1876, so that in certain districts it has regained its old
position as an indigenous member of our Fauna. It has not
ordinarily a very high northern range, but inhabits the greater part
of Europe, Asia and America, passing southwards, like most of the
Anatide, towards winter, constantly reaching India, Ceylon,
Abyssinia, the Antilles and Central America, while it is known to
have occurred at that season in New Granada, and, according to
Gould, in Australia. Generally resembling in its habits the other
freshwater Ducks, the Shoveler has one peculiarity that has been
rarely mentioned, and one that is perhaps correlated with the
structure of its bill. It seems to be especially given to feeding on

1 Prior to that year there was perhaps only one district in England wherein
the Shoveler could be said to breed regularly, and thereto only a few pairs
resorted. Ten years later there must have been a dozen counties in which it
nested, and in some of them the pairs breeding might be reckoned by the score,
while at the present time the number of counties might be safely doubled,

842 SHOVELER

the surface of the water immediately above the spot where Diving
Ducks (PocHARD) are employing themselves beneath. On such
occasions a pair of Shovelers may be watched, almost for the hour
together, swimming in a circle, about a yard in diameter, their
heads turned inwards towards its centre, their bills immersed
vertically in the water, and engaged in sifting, by means of the
long lamelle before mentioned, the floating matters that are dis-
turbed by their submerged allies and rise to the top. These
gyrations are executed with the greatest ease, each Shoveler of the
pair merely using the outer leg to impel it on its circular course,
and to the observer the prettiest part of the performance is the pre-
cision with which each preserves its relative distance from its
partner.

Four other species of the genus Spatula, all possessing the
characteristic light blue “shoulders,” have been described :—one, S.
platalea, from the southern parts of South America, having the
head, neck and upper back of a pale reddish-brown, freckled or
closely spotted with dark brown, and a dull, bay breast with inter-
rupted bars ; a second, S. capensis, from South Africa, much lighter
in colour than the female of S. clypeata; a third and a fourth, S.
rhynchotis and S. variegata, from Australia and New Zealand
respectively,—these last much darker in general coloration, and
the males possessing a white crescentic mark between the bill and
the eye,’ but so much resembling each other that their specific dis-
tinctness is denied by good authority (cf. Salvadori, Cat. B. Br. Mus.
xxvii. p. 315). In these last two the sexual difference is well
marked by the plumage; but in the South-American and South-
African species it would seem that both male and female have much
the same appearance, as is the case with so many species of the re-
stricted genus Anas, though this cannot yet be asserted with certainty.

Apparently allied to the genus Spatula is Malacorhynchus
membranaceus, the “ Pink-eye”
of Australians—so called from
a spot of that colour, so un-
common in birds, just behind the
eye in the drakes—which has a
soft and flexible maxilla, having
near the end on either side a triangular cutaneous flap. It has
lamelle highly developed; but its fasciated plumage of greyish-
brown and white has no resemblance to that of any member of
the genus Spatula. Another bird possessing somewhat similar

Bit oF MALAcoRuYNcHUs. (After Swainson.)

1 This mark is observable in several forms of Anatidex, and especially in the
Blue-winged and Cinnamon Trats of America, Anas or Querquedula discors and
cyanoptera, species which not only exhibit in a still greater degree the blue
‘“‘shoulders” of the Shoveler, but also have very well-developed damed/x on the
basal half of the bill.

SHRIEKER—SHRIKE 843

though smaller maxillary flap, and marked by a very peculiar
style of coloration, is the “Blue Duck” of New Zealand, /Hymeno-
lemus nalacorhynchus, from its lobated hallux generally placed among

HyMenotamus. (After Buller.)

the Nyrocine or Fuliguline (POCHARD), but having a tracheal con-
formation very similar to that of the Anatine and of Somateria.

SHRIEKER, an old name for the Gopwir.

SHRIKE, a bird’s name so given, on the authority of Sir
Francis Lovell, by Turner (1544, sub voce Molliceps), who said he
could not find any one else who so called it, and had seen the bird
but twice in England, though in Germany often. There can be little
doubt that Turner’s informant was mistaken, and that the name,
signifying a bird that screeches or shrieks (A.-S. Scric, old Norsk
Skrikja, mod. Scand. Skrika—a Jay) probably applied originally to
the Mistletoe-THRUSH, known to Charleton in 1668 (Onomast. p. 83)
as SHREITCH, and to Willughby as SHRITE—a name it still bears
in some parts of England, to say nothing of cognate forms such as
SCREECH-BIRD and SHIRL. However, the word Shrike? was caught
up by succeeding writers ; and, though hardly used except in books
—for BUTCHER-BIRD (p. 66) is its popular synonym—it not only
retains a position in literary English, but has been largely extended
so as to apply in general to all birds of the Family Laniidx and others
besides. The name Lanius, in this sense, originated with Gesner *
(1555), who thought that the birds to which he gave it had not

1 As this page is passing through the press I am indebted to Capt. Hutton
for a specimen which enables me to make the above remark. G. R. Gray shewed
(Ann. Nat. Hist. xi. pp. 369-371) that it has no affinity to Malacorhynchus, to
which Wagler (Jsis, 1832, p. 1235) referred it.

2 Few birds enjoy such a wealth of local names as the Shrikes. M. Rolland
(Faune Pop. France, ii. pp. 146-151) gives upwards of ninety applied to them in
France and Savoy ; but not one of these has any affinity to our word ‘‘ Shrike.”

3 He does not seem to have known that Butcher-bird was an English name ;
and indeed it may have been subsequently invented (¢f. FLusHER).

844 SHRIKE

been mentioned by the ancients. Sundevall, however, considers
that the Malacocraneus of Aristotle was one of them, as indeed
Turner had before suggested, though repelling the latter’s supposi-
tion that Aristotle’s Tyrannus was another, as well as Belon’s
reference of Collyrion.

The species designated Shrike by Turner is the Lanius excubitor
of Linneeus and nearly all succeeding authors, nowadays! commonly
known as the Greater Butcher-bird, Ash-coloured or Great Grey
Shrike,—a bird which visits the British Islands pretty regularly,
though not numerously, in autumn or winter, occasionally prolong-
ing its stay into the next summer; but it has rarely if ever been
ascertained to breed here, though often asserted to have done so.
This is the more remarkable since it breeds more or less commonly
on the Continent from the north of France to within the Arctic Circle.
Exceeding a Song-Thrush in linear measurements, it is a much less
bulky bird, of a pearly-grey above with a well-defined black band
passing from the forehead to the ear-coverts ; beneath it is nearly
white, or—and this is particularly observable in Eastern examples
—hbarred with dusky. The quill-feathers of the wings, and of the
elongated tail, are variegated with black and white, but are mostly
of the former, though what there is of the latter shews very con-
spicuously, especially at the base of the remiges, where it forms
either a single or a double patch.?, Much smaller than this is the

1 According to Charleton, Willughby and Ray, it was in their day called in
many parts of England ‘‘ Wierangle” (Germ. Wiirgengel and Wiirger, the
Strangler) ; but it is hard to see how a bird which few people in England could
know by sight should have a popular name, and Chaucer’s use of it in his
Assemblye of Foules may be ascribed to his fondness for outlandish words.

? On this character great store has been laid by some recent writers, who
maintain that the birds presenting only a single patch, with some other minor
distinctions, as the barred breast above mentioned, come from the far East and
deserve specific recognition as the Lanius major of Pallas. But it is admitted
that every intermediate form occurs, and Prof. Collett has now shewn (Jdis,
1886, pp. 30-40) that the typical Z. excwbitor and typical LZ. major may be found
in one and the same brood, and also that this occasional divergence is duc neither
to age nor sex. That it does depend to some extent on locality is allowed ; for,
though examples with the single patch (Z. major) occasionally reach Great
Britain, it is asserted that nearly all the specimens from Eastern Siberia are so
marked. But it is also found that by almost insensible degrees other (and some-
times more important) distinctions are manifested, and the extreme terms of the
several series have been exalted to the rank of ‘‘ species ””—or at least local races.
These are too many to be here enumerated, but it may be mentioned that the
Great Grey Shrike of North America, which ordinarily has the lower plumage
strongly barred, and is usually known as JZ. borealis, seems to be only one of
these divergent forms, though perhaps the most divergent, as might be expected
from the wholly distinct area it occupies. Yet occasionally examples occur in the
Old World, which there is no reason to suppose have an American origin, indis-
tinguishable from the typical Z. borealis, and an uninterrupted series from one

SHRIKE 845

Red-backed Shrike, L. collwrio, the best-known species in Great
Britain, where it is a summer visitor, and, though its distribution is
rather local, it may be seen in many parts of England and occasion-
ally reaches Scotland. The cock is a sightly bird with his grey
head and neck, black cheek-band, chestnut back and pale red
breast, while the hen is ordinarily of a dull brown, barred on the
lower plumage. A more highly-coloured species is called the
Woodchat, LZ. auriculatus or rutilus, with a bright bay crown and
nape, and the rest of its plumage black, grey and white. ‘This is
an accidental visitor to England, but breeds commonly in many
parts of Europe.

The limits of the Family Laniidx have been very variously
regarded, and agreement between almost any two systematists on
this point seems at present out of the question. The latest synopsis
is that by Dr. Gadow (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. viii. pp. 88-321), who
frankly states that it is “quite impossible to give a concise diagnosis
of what we are to understand by” the Family. For his purpose he

NILAUS. LANIARIUS. TELEPHONUS.
(After Swainson.)

makes it to include about 250 species and divides it into five sub-
families :—Gymnorhininx, Malaconotine—including such forms as
Nilaus, Laniarius and Telephonus, Pachycephaline—of which Falcunculus
may serve as an example, Laniinw and
Vireonine. Of these doubts may be
especially entertained as to the affinity
of the first and last. He, but for the
crude plan to which he was compelled
to conform, would not have separated
Strepera from GYMNORHINA, but the
former had been already included, to
the exclusion of the latter, among the
Corvidx, and even placed among the normal Corvinw. The need
of exercising reserve on this matter has been before stated (Crow,
p. 116); but the number of ornithologists who think that these
two genera should be placed in different Families must be small.

Faucuncutus. (After Swainson.)

extreme to the other can be found. The differences when compared with those
observable in other animals are, as a whole, too slight to justify the epithet
‘“‘polymorphic” to L. excubitor as a species ; but enough has been said to shew
that it indicates a tendency in that direction.

846 SHUFFLE-WING—SISKIN

The view taken by the late Prof. Parker seems to be the most
reasonable: these genera— doubtless with others and most of
them Australian—are morphologically inferior to the true Corvidz,
and perhaps deserve some such designation as that of ‘ Noto-
Coracomorphe” suggested by him (Trans. Zool. Soc. ix. p. 327).4
At the same time their relationship to the Laniidw appears to be
evident, and they may perhaps be best regarded as the less-altered
descendants of an old type, whence both the true Crows and the
true Shrikes have sprung, each to develop into higher morphological

COLLYRIOCINCLA, EURYCEPHALUS. TEPHRODORNIS.
(After Swainson.)

rank, and by the way to throw out numerous other branches. As
to the VIREOS it would seem almost certain that they have little
or no connexion with the Laniidx; but on the other hand no
inconsiderable number of forms, which some recent systematists
have regarded as a Family, Prionopidx, appear to be hardly separable
from the Shrikes, and among them Collyriocincla, Eurycephalus and
Tephrodornis here figured.

SHUFFLE-WING, an appropriate name for the Hedge-SPARRow,
from its ‘peculiar shake of the wing” (Knapp, Journ. Nat. p. 151).

SILVER-EYE, the name given in New Zealand to the species
of ZOSTEROPS (Z. lateralis) which was first recognized there in 1856
(Buller, Essay on Orn. New Zeal. 1865, p. 9).

SINCIPUT, the fore part of the head to the crown, as opposed
to OCCIPUT (p. 649).

SISKIN (Dan. Sidsken; Germ. Zeisig and Zeising), long known
in England as a cage-bird, since, in 1544, Turner mentioned it in
that character under this name,” and said that he had only once
met with it at large—the Fringilla spinus of Linnzus, and Carduelis
spinus of many modern writers.? In some of its structural characters

1 By an oversight (e.g. p. 403) this group was designated ‘‘ Austro-Coraces”
—the term by which Prof. Parker often spoke of it, though ‘‘ Austro-corvines ”
(Trans. Zool, Soc, x. p. 252) is his nearest approach to it in print that I can find.
In the earlier passage cited in the text his expression is as above given.

? It is also called by bird-fanciers ‘‘ ABADAVINE” or ‘‘ ABERDUVINE ” (page 1).

* Those who would separate it from Carduelis should use the name Spinus,
not, as commonly, Chrysomitris, and then our bird becomes S. viridis.

SISKIN 847

it is most nearly allied to the GOLDFINCH, and both are often placed
in the same genus by systematists ; but in its style of coloration,
and still more in its habits, it resembles the REDPOLLS, though
without their slender figure, being indeed rather short and stout of
build. Yet it hardly yields to them in activity or in the grace of
its actions, as it seeks its food from the catkins of the alder or birch,
regardless of the attitude it assumes while so doing. Of an olive-
green above, deeply tinted in some parts with black and in others
lightened by yellow, and beneath of a yellowish-white again marked
with black, the male of this species has at least a becoming if not a
brilliant garb, and possesses a song that is not unmelodious, though
the resemblance of some of its notes to the running-down of a piece
of clockwork is more remarkable than pleasing. The hen is still
more soberly attired ; but it is perhaps the Siskin’s disposition to
familiarity that makes it so favourite a captive, and, though as a
cage-bird it is not ordinarily long-lived, it readily adapts itself to
the loss of liberty. Moreover, if anything like the needful accom-
modation be afforded, it will build a nest and therein lay its eggs,
but it rarely succeeds in bringing up its young in confinement. As
a wild bird it breeds constantly, though locally, throughout the
greater part of Scotland, and has frequently done so in England,
but more rarely in Ireland. The greater portion, however, of the
numerous bands which visit the British Islands in autumn and
winter doubtless come from the Continent—perhaps even from far
to the eastward, since its range stretches across Asia to Japan, in
which country it is as favourite a cage-bird as with us. The nest
of the Siskin is very like that of the Goldfinch, but seldom so neatly
built ; the eggs, except in their smaller size, much resemble those
of the GREENFINCH.

A larger and more brightly coloured species, C. spinoides, inhabits
the Himalayas, and another, C. tibetana, is found in Sikhim ; but the
Siskin has many more relatives belonging to the New World, and
in them serious modifications of structure, especially in the form of
the bill, occur. Some of these relatives lead almost insensibly to
the Greenfinch and its allies, others to the Goldfinch, the Redpolls
and so on. Thus the Siskin perhaps may be regarded as one of the
less modified descendants of a parent stock whence such forms as
those just mentioned have sprung. Its striated plumage also
favours this view, as an evidence of permanent immaturity or
generalization of form, since striped feathers are so often the earliest
clothing of many of these birds, which only get rid of them at their
first moult. On this theory the Yellowbird- or North-American
“Goldfinch,” C. tristis, would seem, with its immediate allies, to
rank among the highest forms of the group, and the Pine-Goldfinch,
C. pinus, of the same country, to be one of the lowest,—the cock of
the former being generally of a bright jonquil hue, with black

848 SKART—SKELETON

crown, tail and wings—the last conspicuously barred with white,
while neither hens nor young exhibit any striations. On the other
hand, neither sex of the latter at any age puts off its striped garb—
the mark, it may be pretty safely asserted, of an inferior stage of
development. ‘The remaining species of the group, mostly South-
American, do not seem here to need particular notice.

SKART, see ScarF and Scart (p. 815).

SKEEL-DUCK, SKEEL-GOOSE, SKEELING and SKELDER
(see SHELDER), local names for the SHELD-DRAKE, the last also
applied to the OYSTER-CATCHER,

SKELETON, the bony framework of a Bird or other vertebrate
animal which, from the ease with which it can be freed from the
more perishable soft parts of the body and durably preserved, has
long attained a pre-eminent place in anatomical study. This pre-
eminence is still further justified not only from the numerosity of
the bones composing the skeleton—the very number alone affording
great amplitude of differential variability—but because each indi-
vidual bone is modelled by its neighbouring soft parts, and notably
by the muscles, so that its shape reflects (so to speak) important
features of the various organic systems (page 604). Most bones,
either in their shape generally, or from the processes, tuberosities,
crests or foramina they exhibit, are so characteristic that it is
frequently possible to determine not only the Family but even the
genus or species of Bird to which they belong. Unfortunately it
often happens that the characters selected for taxonomic purposes
are those which are the easiest to describe rather than those which
are the most important. For convenience of treatment the Skeleton
may be regarded as made up of three chief portions—the Head, the
Trunk and the Limbs. Frequently a distinction is made between
the Axial and the Appendicular Skeleton— the former being
restricted to the Vertebral Column and the Cranium proper, while
the latter comprises the Riss, Breastbone (STERNUM), Limbs and
their arches, the Hyo1p apparatus and the Jaws.

THE VERTEBRAL CoLUMN has for its chief function the support
of the Head and Limbs, as well as the protection of the Spinal
Cord, the Vertebras being its constituent units. These last are
distinguished, according to the several regions of the trunk, as
Cervical, Dorsal, Sacral or Pelvic, and Caudal, and may be defined
as follows :—

I. Cervical Vertebre are all those that lie between the SKULL
and the first vertebra which is connected with the sternum by a
pair of complete ribs; but they may be subdivided into

(a) Cervical Vertebre, in the strict sense — either without
rudimentary ribs, as the Atlas, or having rudimentary ribs which
are fused with the vertebra ; and

SKELETON 849

(b) Cervico-dorsal Vertebree, with movable ribs which do not
reach the sternum. Their number may vary from 1 to 5, often
individually and then in smaller limits.

IL. Dorsal Veitebre begin at the first that is connected with the
sternum by a pair of complete ribs, and end at the last that is not
fused with the ILIUM.

III. Pelvic Vertebre are all those that are fused with the iliac
portion of the PELVIS, some of the anterior of them frequently
bearing long and often complete and movable ribs, occasionally
reaching the sternum. Hence it follows that “Thoracic” Vertebre,
or those which are connected with the sternum, are not neces-
sarily Dorsal Vertebrze, and therefore unless clear definitions are
strictly adopted, a promiscuous application of those terms will lead
to much confusion. This remark applies with still greater force to
the terms ‘“dorso-lumbar” and “lumbar” Vertebra, which have
a well-defined meaning in Mammals and in most Reptiles; but are
absolutely inapplicable to Birds, as will presently be seen (page 855).!

_ IV. Caudal Vertebrx, those following the last, and not connected
with the ilium.

A typical Bird’s vertebra consists of the centrum, an arch and
two ribs. Roughly speaking, the arch encloses the spinal cord, and
frequently extends dorsally into a spinous process, the size and
position of which vary considerably in the different regions of the
vertebral column. The arch also sends out a pair of anterior and
a pair of posterior oblique processes (commonly called preezyga-
pophyses and postzygapophyses), as well as a right and a left trans-
verse process. The oblique processes terminate in facets, which
articulate with those of the adjoining vertebra, so that the facets of
the preezygapophyses look upwards and forwards and are overlapped
by those of the postzygapophyses of the vertebra next in front.
When the vertebre are free this rule is absolute, except in the case

1 TABLE SHEWING THE NUMERICAL DIVERSITY OF THE SEVERAL
VERTEBRAL REGIONS IN SOME FORMS OF BIRDs.

3 } s ra 3 S
ee lecaning ies meee gal ga ie
sap eecl Biss Bi llsezsn his yes
fe) om A a 6) ore 5 =
Apteryx 4 ae elo bEAPANT SPs yae| ac! Treron olax. cs foals 2 3 3
Dromeus - |20, 21] 2-4 5-7 5 Didide : plo 2 3 4
Struthio 20 eres | a 5 Falconide . . {14 Doe 4scO Ose
Anser cinereus 18 2 4 7, 8 || Striges : . | 14 Leezialico: 4,5
Cygnus olor 23 2 4.9) 8 Psittaci a eS Le 23) aol oaG
Sula 17 1 3 4,5 || Coceyges . o | LAso 23s ae bee aarG
Ciconia 17 2 4,5 | 5 Cypselide . Bea ee Ay |e er 0 | ee)
Phenicopterus 18,19} 2 a5 OG Caprimulgidw . |13,14} 1,2 | 3,4 | 4,5
Larus . 15 2 5 6,7 || Trochili . 5, |e! 2 4 5
Alea . S wel: 2 6-8 Gay, Buceros 6 sl: 2; 4 4,5
Limicolz (most). | 15 2 5,6 | 6 Upupa. 5 . | 14 2 4 4,5
Otish o: 5 16 2 5 5 Ricci. A Le 3 5 6
Rallide 15 1 7,8 | 5-7 || Eurylemus. = ald 3 4,5 | 4
Gallus . 16 2 4 4 Bittaye. A Bal ial) 3 AR Sreltce
ge abe livia Lt 2 44 Passeres (most) . | 1 2, A 5

54

850 SKELETON

of the Atlas to be mentioned presently, and the position of the facets
at once distinguishes the anterior from the posterior end of the bone.
The transverse processes articulate with the tuberculum of the corre-
sponding rib, while the capitulum of the latter does the like with a
knob or facet on the side of the anterior portion of the centrum.
When the vertebre are free the centrum of each articulates with
that of those next to it by complicated joints, exhibiting four kinds
of configuration, in accordance with which the vertebra are distin-
guished as

1. Heterocelous, or those which have saddle-shaped articular
facets. In them the anterior surface is concave in a transverse,
but convex in a vertical, direction, while the posterior surface
shews the condition reversed. When looked at from the ventral
side the joints appear to be “proccelous,” but “‘ opisthoccelous ”
when seen from the side. This heteroccelous formation is the most
perfect one attained by the vertebral column, and is typical of, and
restricted to, Birds. ‘There are however a few exceptional cases
in which the joints are not heteroccelous.

2. Amphicelous, or those in which each end of the vertebra is
concave. ‘This is the lowest condition, and is rapidly passed
through by recent Birds in the embryonic stage; but Archexopteryx
seems to have had biconcave vertebre of this kind, and the dorsal
and cervico-dorsal vertebrae of Ichthyornis were undoubtedly thus,
while the few well-preserved cervicals of the latter indicate transi-
tional steps towards the heteroccelous condition. Among recent
Birds the caudal vertebree alone are occasionally more or less amphi-
ceelous, but this may not be a primitive feature.

3. Procelous, or concave in front—a condition found only in the
Atlas.

4. Opisthocelous, or concave behind, so as to receive a corre-
sponding knob on the anterior face of the following vertebra,
instances of which occur in the thoracic region of the Sphentsc2, and,
though in a much less degree, in various Steganopodes, Lari, Limicole,
Psittaci and Steatornis.

The Proccelous and Opisthoccelous types are not to be regarded
as fundamentally important, as they are not primary features, but
produced by adaptation to functional requirements. Neither of them
necessarily indicates a Reptilian descent for Birds, nor can their
modifications be used as valid characters in determining the affinities
of various groups of the Class. The prevalent type among Reptiles
is the Proccelous, while Opisthoccelous vertebra are common among
Mammals.

The articulations of the vertebre are further complicated by
the presence of a ring or pad of fibrous or cartilaginous tissue
interposed between the centrum of each vertebra and of that next
to it. These pads vary much; when fully developed they are

SKELETON 851

thickest on the ventral side, becoming thinner dorsally and enclosing
a central opening, through which passes the ligamentum suspensorium
—hbeing the remnant of the notochord (see page 205) and its sheath
—connecting the several vertebre together. In well-macerated pre-
parations its former existence is indicated by a pinhole-like pit
exactly in the middle of the articular surface. The pad is frequently
incomplete dorsally, and then being half-moon shaped, has obtained
the name of meniscus, by which it is often known. It is morpho-
logically the homologue of the pair of basiventral elements, which by
their lateral extension give origin to the corresponding ribs. As in
Birds, however, the ribs are removed backward on the centrum, and,
attached also by the tubercle to the dorsilateral process of the dorsal
arch, these basiventrals are relieved, so to speak, of their original
function, and are reduced to intervertebral pads. This explains
why these pads fuse with the anterior end of the vertebra to which
they belong, forming there in fresh or imperfectly macerated skeletons
a fibrous or cartilaginous non-ossified covering. Often, however,
especially when the flexibility of the vertebral column is reduced or
lost, the pads fuse with both the apposed surfaces of the adjoining
vertebre and then resemble the annulus fibrosus of the Mammalian
vertebra. Lastly, when as in the sacrum the vertebre are wholly
ossified together, all trace of the intervertebral disks is lost.

Besides these primary ligaments, there is a considerable number
of additional bands (probably produced by the muscles which move
the vertebral column) connecting the various bony processes of
successive vertebrae with each other. It is chiefly owing to them
that Birds can retain the neck in the well-known S-shaped curve
without muscular exertion.

In this place it may be more useful to treat specially the several
vertebre in succession than to enter further upon generalities
respecting them.

The First Cervical, called, as in other Classes of Vertebrates, the
Atlas—since it bears that important portion the Head—is the only
one that retains very primitive features. It consists of three
elements, each ossifying from its own centre. These are a pair of
lateral pieces joining above the spinal cord to form a simple neural
arch, without any spinous process, and a single ventral piece,
morphologically equivalent to the pair of basiventral elements.
The Atlas has no ribs, and with rare exceptions has no transverse
foramina for the passage of vertebral arteries. The unpaired
median piece is incompletely ossified, the rest of it standing up as a
halfmoon-shaped cartilage, called the ligamentum transversum atlantis.
It is really the first intervertebral meniscus clinging round the
centrum of the Atlas, and fused with the two portions of the
neural arch. These last display on their anterior surface a cup-
shaped cavity which receives the occipital condyle of the head.

852 SKELETON

The Second Cervical, known as the Axis or Epistropheus, as being
the pivot on which the Atlas and Head turn, is composed of seven
separate elements, the first of which is really the centrum of the
Atlas, but fused with the second, the centrum of the Axis, so as to
form the “odontoid process.” The third and fourth are the pair of
pieces which form the neural arch, and generally bear a prominent
spinous process. The fifth and sixth are a pair of rib-elements, each
of which is perforated by a transverse arterial foramen, and fuses with
the antero-lateral portion of the centrum and neural arch. The
seventh element is a single median piece wedged ventrally between
the anterior end of the axial centrum and the Odontoid process,
and is really equivalent to the second pair of basiventral elements,
having formed in the embryo the intervertebral pad connecting the
Odontoid with the body of the Axis, which last frequently carries on
its ventral side a single hypapophysis. The neural arch of the Axis

DIAGRAM OF First THREE CERVICAL VERTEBR/& DIAGRAM OF ATLAS FROM
FROM THE LEFT SIDE. THE FRONT.

Cc. Centrum ; C.3, Odontoid process; B. Basiventral element ; B.,, the ventral half of the Atlas
ying ; B.o, the first so-called Intercentrum ; B.3, the meniscus of Vertebra 3; Ch. Chorda
dorsalis; M. spinal canal; Lt. Ligamentuin transversum ; N. Neural arch.

possesses a pair of postzygapophyses to articulate with the pre-
zygapophyses of the Third Vertebra, but owing to the reduced con-
dition of the Atlas the preezygapophyses of the Axis are insignificant
or aborted, and in most of the Bucerotide the Atlas is fused with
the Axis. In general the Axis, which owing to the Odontoid
process is really the compound of a vertebra and a half, is consider-
ably longer and larger than any one of

The next succeeding Cervical Vertebre, which have many features
in common. Each of them consists of a centrum, a right and left
basidorsal piece, forming a neural arch above the spinal cord and
frequently sending out a long single or short bifurcated spinous
process, a pair of ribs and an intervertebral pad ; but the ribs have
mostly lost their shaft and are fused by their head and tubercle
with corresponding short knobs of the centrum or with larger
processes of the neural arch. A transverse foramen is always
present, and is a rather characteristic feature. The centra frequently

SKELETON 7 853

send out paired or single ventral processes (hypapophyses), which
are extremely varied in shape and size, affording valuable help
in the determination of the bones. When unpaired, these hypa-
pophyses either remain in the shape of vertical knobs, processes or
blades,' and serve for the attachment of the powerfully-developed
flexor muscles of the neck, especially the m. longus colli anticus.
Sometimes, as in certain vertebree of Palamedex (SCREAMER) and many
Passeres, they have the shape of L. When however they are paired,

A CERVICAL VERTEBRA SEEN FROM THE DorRSAL AND ANTERIOR SIDE.

A.Z. Anterior or Prezygapophysis ; P.Z. Posterior or Postzygapophysis ; C.a. anterior articulat-
ing surface of the centrum; Cap. articular surface for capitulum of rib; C.p. posterior
articulating surface of the centrum; F.t. Foramen transversariumn ; H. Hypapophysis; M.
spinal canal; Sp. dorsal spinous process ; Tb. articular surface for the capitulum.

and in such cases restricted to the ends of the centra, they are
utilized for the better protection of the deep CAROTIDS (page 76), as
is especially shewn by the Steganopodes, Ardeidx (excl. Scopus), most
Ciconiidz and some Pici which possess completely closed osseous

1 They form vertical blades on some of the lower cervicals of Sphenisci, Cora-
ctidx, Aleedinidx, Meropide, Todidx, Cypseli, Trogones, Galbulidx, Bucconide,
Pici, Capitonide and Passeres.

854 SKELETON
canals for their arteries. Movable ribs are borne by one or more of
the lower Cervical Vertebre, thus forming a gradual transition to

The Dorsal Vertebrx, which are composed of the same elements,
but are marked by the high longitudinal crest into which their
spinous process rises, while each of the dorsilateral processes of the
neural arch (which are mostly large) possesses an articular facet for
the tubercle of the rib, and a short ventrilateral knob near the
anterior end of the centrum has a similar facet for the attachment
of the head of the rib, Between the head and the tubercle is a
large foramen, the serial homologue of the f. transversarium, protecting
a continuation of the deep lateral strand of the Sympathetic Nervous
System (page 626). Dorsal vertebra frequently exhibit a ventral
outgrowth of the centrum, very variable in shape and extent.
These outgrowths (Hypapophyses) may be simple vertical.blades, or
i-shaped, or paired knobs—such modifications often occurring in
the same bird—and they serve for the attachment of the thoracic
origin of the m. longus colli anticus, reaching their greatest develop-
ment in Sphenisci and the Colymbide. In many birds the thoracic
vertebrae shew a tendency to more rigid junction, which is often
effected in old individuals by the ossification of the various ligaments
connecting the processes of adjoining vertebra, or even by the
ossification of the attached tendons of the spinal muscles. In other
cases consolidation is carried further by the co-ossification not only
of the centra but also of the spinous, tranverse and zygapophysial
processes of adjoining vertebra, so that in extreme cases the whole
dorsal region may become one continuous mass of bone. The
number of such synosteotically-connected vertebra varies consider-
ably not only in closely-allied Families, genera and species, but
even in individuals. It is however a character that with care will
yield good taxonomic results, and thus may be depended upon as a
common feature in many Ciconix, Gruidx, Rallide and Podicipedide.
In most Columbxe the 15th, 16th and 17th vertebra, being gener-
ally the three middle thoracics, are consolidated. In Crypturi and
most Galline, in Phenicopterus and Pterocles the last cervical and
the first 3 or 4 thoracics coalesce, and in many Accipitres the first
4 thoracics.

The Sacral Vertebre in the widest sense are all those that are
overlaid by and partly fused with the iliac bones (cf. IL1UM, PELVIS)
which are originally attached to not more than two of them situated
just behind the Acetabulum, and are the primitive or true Sacrals.
The iliac bones, however, during development extend considerably
both forwards and backwards, gradually coming into contact with a
variable number of others, which thus become presacral or post-
sacral vertebrae, while all those that are not reached by the anterior
extension of the ilia remain as Dorsals. Thus it follows that no
absolute line of demarcation can be drawn in regard to these

SKELETON 855

vertebrae, their definition being rather practical, and applicable to
particular skeletons, tlian of general morphological value.

It has been already pointed out (p. 849) that dorsal and thoracic
vertebr are not necessarily identical, and in like manner the most
anterior preesacrals may bear complete ribs and thus become thoracic
also, or they may bear movable ribs which, though possessing dorsal
and ventral portions, do not reach the sternum, and are therefore
floating or false ribs, or again ribs reduced to short dorsal pieces
which may or may not fuse with the superimposed iliac bones. As
a rule the centrum and the spinous process of all sacral vertebrae
are ossified into one continuous mass.

The most important features of the Sacrum are best seen on a
ventral view and may be thus grouped :—

(1) The anterior or crural portion composed of vertebrae connected
with the ilium by strong dorsilateral and ventrilateral processes.
The first of these vertebrae often bears a complete thoracic rib, and
is followed by others bearing aborted ribs having a tendency to lose
their “head” and “neck,” while the shaft fuses with the ventral
surface of the iliac expansions. Between the transverse processes
of the successive vertebre are foramina through which pass the
spinal nerves forming the crural plexus.

(2) The second or ischiadic portion, composed of vertebrae which
have neither ribs nor ventrilateral processes, but only dorsilateral,
and these last reduced to thin transverse blades extending obliquely,
or sometimes almost vertically, upwards, and ultimately reaching the
dorsal median rim of the iliac bones. The safest guide to the number
of vertebrae composing this portion is afforded by the number of fora-
mina through which pass the nerves forming the ischiadice plexus.
In most Birds the number is from 3 to 5. Owing to the absence of
ribs and ventrilateral processes, the space between the fused centra
of the vertebre and the right and left iliac bones constitutes a large
hollow or fovea wherein is imbedded part of the KIDNEYS.

(3) The third portion is connected with the dorsimedian rim of
each ilium by transverse dorsiventral and ventrilateral bony bridges.
The first two vertebre of this portion are the primitive or true
Sacrals before mentioned, and they lie just behind a line which
might be drawn from one acetabulum to the other. Their lateri-
ventral buttresses are not outgrowths of the centra, but are ribs,
though their true nature is only revealed in embryos or very young
birds.

(4) The postsacral portion consists of vertebrae which in many
birds, Pavo, for example, behave partly as do the primitive sacrals,
and partly come by degrees to resemble the caudals. Dorsilateral
and ventrilateral processes are always present, and, fusing with each
other, abolish the transverse foramen, while they abut upon the
dorsal rim of the postacetabular part of the ilia. The first post-

856 SKELETON

sacral not unfrequently retains a pair of rib-elements which either
abort or form a third primary sacral vertebra, while on the other
hand only one primary sacral may exist. The general tendency of
modern Birds seems to be towards an increase in the number of
postsacrals at the expense of the preesacrals, and especially of those
of the ischiadie portion (2).

So far then the general plan of the Sacrum is easily understood,
but since it is composed of numerous vertebre and those of each of
its constituent portions are variable in number, beside shewing
many modifications in the development, fusion or suppression of
their processes, it follows that the whole Sacrum of not only every
Family but even genus and almost species of Bird may have its
own characteristic points. These however are difficult to describe,
and their morphological meaning is still more difficult to recognize.
Thus this part of the Skeleton has hitherto escaped the pursuit
of the claptrap hunter of taxonomic formule. The few illustrations
here introduced will serve to indicate some of the differences.

The Caudal Vertebre have strong transverse processes, and the
spinous process often shews a slight bifurcation at the end. ‘Their
hypapophyses, whether double or single, are mostly restricted to
the last which are free and to the first of those which fuse to form
the PYGOSTYLE (page 753). They articulate almost entirely by the
centrum, which has slightly heteroccelous or concave facets, with the
interposition of a fibrocartilaginous disk, the ventral side of which
frequently displays in embryos, but rarely in the adult, a median
osseous nodule, the last remnant of the basiventral elements com-
monly called the intercentrum.

THE PECTORAL ARCH, or Shoulder-Girdle as some term it, con-
sists of the Sternum and a pair of CoRACOIDS (page 104), Scapulee
and CLAVICLES (page 89), which last three meet and form the fora-
men triosseum, through which passes the tendon of the m. supracora-
coideus (pages 605, 606) to the tuberculum superius of the HUMERUS
(pages 439, 440). The configuration of the various processes of these
bones is manifold, and of great taxonomic importance, as has been
exhaustively shewn by Prof. Fiirbringer, in whose Untersuchungen
zur Morphologie und Systematik der Vogel about one hundred figures
of this articulation in different Birds are given.

The Coracoid is one of the most characteristic bones of the
ornithic Skeleton. At its upper end is the Acrocoracoidal pro-
cess, on the inner surface of which the proximal portion of the
clavicle nearly always rests; but more important is the Preecora-
coidal process, of variable size and shape, arising from the inner
surface of the “neck” of the bone, and the remnant of an originally
independent element, the Preecoracoid—a bone which is almost
typically complete, although soon fused at either end with the

SKELETON 857

Coracoid, in the Ostrich alone of Birds. This przecoracoidal pro-
cess is of some taxonomic value,! and near its base is either a notch
or a small foramen for the passage of the nervus supracoracoideus
which supplies the muscle of the same name, and indicates the
boundary between Coracoid and Precoracoid. A strong ligament,
sometimes partly
ossified, frequently
extends along the
inner marginof both
coracoid and pree-
coracoid to the 7os-
trum of the sternum.
In most birds the
right and left Cora- |
coids do not touch |
each other, but in Pe
some groups they
meet, as In certain BuBo IGNAVUS. CoRVUS CORAX.
Tulinares, Cathar- (Inner view.)

tidx, some Falcon- Aed. Acrocoracoid ; Acm. Acromium } Clav. Clavicle ;

ide, Laride, Opistho- P. Precoracoid process ; Sc. Scapula.

comus, some Gallinx, Bucerotidex, Upupa and Trogonidx, while in some
other groups one overlaps the other, the right lying ventrally upon
the left, as Dromxus, Ichthyornis, Apatornis, certain Tubinares, some
Steganopodes, Ardeide and Ciconix, Phenicopterus, some Fulconide,
some Galline, Musophaga, Striges and Meropide. From the distal
third part of the lateral margin of the Coracoid a long process often
projects, overlapping the neighbouring part of the anterior margin
of the sternum, examples of which may be especially seen in
Tubinares and Pici.

The Scapula or shoulder-blade is more or less sabre-shaped,
usually ending in a point, but its extremity being much curved in
the Pici. It extends backward from the humeral joint over the ribs,
lying almost parallel to the vertebral column. The median anterior
knob is the acromion. In the fatitz and Didus the Scapular and
Coracoid are fused, which might be regarded as correlative with
the loss of flight, were it not that the same fusion is observable in

CYGNUS OLOR.

Aci.

1 It approaches the Acrocoracoidal process in Cnemiornis, Falco, Asio, Merops,
Trrisor and Cuculus ; fusing with it and forming a complete osseous bridge across
the supracoracoid sulcus, in Musophaga, Corythaix, Merops, Upupa, Buceros and
Alcedo ; while in Didus and Opisthocomus it fuses with the Clavicle, of which in
Hesperornis it is the sole support. In Dromexus and Caswarius it is small and
bears the clavicular remnant. It varies much in size and, as above stated, is
complete in Struthio only. It is large, though without meeting the Clavicle, in
Ichthyornis, Sula, Grus, Trichoglossus and others ; but very small or absent in
Apteryx, Tinamus, Steganopodes, Galline and Passeres.

858 SKELETON

a very marked way in Fregata, one of the most powerful fliers of the
world (FRIGATE-BIRD, pages 293, 294).

The Clavicles when united, as is generally the case, are known
as the FURCULA (page 296). Their dorsal extremity may be vari-
ously attached to the Scapula and Coracoid or to one only,! and
here is a wide field for variation, which seems however constant
enough in the different groups. When Clavicles do not fuse at
their ventral extremity, they are occasionally joined by semiossified
cartilage or fibrous tissue, admitting of slight motion, as in Hesper-
ornis, Ocydromus, Cariama, Didus, Carpophaga, many Psittact and
Striges, Musophagidx, Buceros, Alcedo, Rhamphastos and Capito; but
in by far the greater number of Birds the Clavicles are drawn out
at their symphysis into a median projecting blade, knob or rod, the
Hypocleidium, which frequently ossifies from a centre of its own.
The hypocleidium often touches the keel of the Sternum, leading to
a syndesmosis or even synostosis therewith, asin many Tudbinares,
Steganopodes, Ardex, Ciconix, Gruidx, Striges, Gypogeranus, Cuculus and
Buceros. 'The peculiar connexion in Opisthocomus has already been
mentioned (HOACTZIN, page 423). In a considerable number of
Birds of various groups the Clavicles are more or less degenerated,
their dorsal portion being alone retained, while the ventral is repre-
sented by a long ligament extending to the keel of the Sternum.
This condition exists both in Birds that fly and those that cannot,
as In Dromzus, Casuarius, many of the Psittaci—as Stringops and
nearly all the Platycercinx, Capito and, among the Passeres, Atrich-
ornis. In extreme cases both clavicles are wholly lost, as in Din-
ornis, Apteryx, Struthio, Rhea and Mesites.

THe ANTERIOR Limss or Wings are composed of three principal
portions: (1) the Humerus, of which enough has been already

1 The connexion of Coracoid, Scapula and Clavicle with each other is subject to

many modifications, the chief of which may be conveniently expressed as follows :—

Clavicle connected with—

(1) Precoracoid process only :—Hesperornis.

(2) Preecoracoid chiefly, hardly with Acromion :—Zatitz.

(8) Acrocoracoid only :—many Alcidx, Steganopodes, Ardex, Ciconix, Gruide,
Vultur, Gypaetus, Cathartes, Cypselus.

(4) both Precoracoid and Acrocoracoid:—some Lari, Limicolw, Gruidex,
Rallide, Turnix, Opisthocomus, Columbex, Psittaci, Striges, Trochilus,
many Picariz and Falconidz.

(5) Acrocoracoid and Acromion—

(a) attached to the anterior margin of the Acromion :—Sphenisci,
Tubinares, Crypturt, Galline, Psittaci and many others.

(b) reaching further back, beyond the dorsal margin of the Acromion, and
even over the neck of the Scapula :—Colymbus, Podicipes, Anseres.

(c) attached to the inner surface of the Acromion :—Pici, Alecdinidx
Meropidx, Coractide, Todidx and.all Passeres.

SKELETON 859

said (pages 439, 440); (2) the forearm, consisting of the Raprus,
before mentioned (page 762) and ULNA; and (3) the Carpus
(page 77, 78), Meracarpus (page 547) and Digits, which last
three form the hand. According to Prof. Gegenbaur, the original
arrangement of the wrist-bones consisted of (a) three proximal ele-
ments—the carpale ulnare, c. intermedium and c¢. radiale; (b) one
median element ; and (c) five distal carpals, each of which carried a
metacarpal with a digit. In Birds these elements are much reduced
by fusion and suppression, so that there are now only two free
carpals—one, generally termed the “radial,” but resulting from the
fusion of the ¢. radiale with the
c. intermedium, and articulating with
the distal end of both radius and
ulna; and the other, the so-called
“ulnar,” which is really the centrale
and ulnare combined, and articu-
lates with a small portion of the
ulna only. The distal carpals are
now reduced to three, the fourth
and fifth being lost. They fuse in
the embryo with the proximal end
of the three first metacarpals, and
all trace of their originally separate
existence disappears when the hand
is completely ossified.

Common Fowt, Embryo and Adult.
The greatest reduction of the ¢4¢, distal carpals 1-3; H. Humerus; M.

carpal bones prevails in the Ratifx. Metacarpals 1-4; R. Radius ; r. radial carpal ;

Setting aside the Dinornithes, of V: Uta ™ winar carpal.

which only remnants of a humerus are known, Caswarius galeatus has
only one separate carpal, which is probably the ¢. wlnare, while in
Apteryx owen and in Dromexus even this is suppressed.

The Metacarpus is composed of three bones, the first, second
and third metacarpals, while trace of a fourth has been observed
in embryos. The first of these is the shortest, and bears the
POLLEX (page 737). In most Birds it fuses throughout its length
with the inner margin of the second, which, as well as the third,
is much longer. The ends of these fuse, the proximal first and
the distal later, leaving as a rule a space between the shafts. The
second is by far the strongest, generally straight, and bears the
INDEX (page 459), while the third is outwardly bowed and much
more slender, being in a degenerate condition. In embryos it
sometimes still shews two phalanges, but these are soon reduced
to one, which, resting closely against the proximal phalanx of the
second digit, occasionally fuses with it. Curiously enough this

1 Of all Birds Archzxopteryx alone is known to have had 3 free metacarpals,
and 8 free digits, with 2, 3 and 4 phalanges respectively.

860 SELLE TON

much aborted digit seems in embryonic Ostriches to bear a CLAW
(page 89). In the Sphenisct the pollex is more or less completely
fused with the index, which latter is made up of two long pha-
langes, while the third digit consists of one long phalanx. Casuarius,
Dromxus and Apteryx retain only the index, the first and third
digits being either lost or reduced to insignificant traces.1

THE PELVIC ARCH is the portion of the PELVIS (page 703)
which is made up of the ILIUM (page 458), ISCHIUM (page 460) and
0s PUBIS (page 748), the last three being paired bones which meet
on each side at the acetabulum or cup that receives the head of the
FEMUR (page 248), coalescing with each other at an early stage.
The ilium may be conveniently divided into a preacetabular and
a postacetabular part, the relative proportions of which afford some
useful characters ; thus in the Gallinw they are nearly equal, but

Common Fowt, Embryo and Chick.

Ac, Acetabulum ; Fis, Foramen ischiadicum ; Pr.p. Processus pectinealis.

in the Accipitres the anterior is longest, while in Colymbus, where
most of the pelvis is drawn out backward, it is only half the length
of the posterior. ‘To the inner surface of the ilium, and in most
cases near its ventral margin, are attached the lateral processes of
the cruro-sacral vertebrae (page 855), while near its dorsal rim is
attached all the rest of the sacrum. The outer surface of the
preacetabular portion forms a broad vertical blade with a more or
less deep concavity which serves for the origin of the external
iliac muscles (often mistakenly called gluteal). In rare cases the
right and left preeacetabular portions fuse with each other along
their dorsal edge above the spinous processes of the neighbour-
ing vertebre and enclose a canal on each side. In front of the

1 As an appendix to the account of this part of the Skeleton, mention should
here be made of the Sesamoid Bones. These are not disconnected portions of
the framework, but cartilaginous or osseous formations either within the
capsules of joints, as the hwmero-scapular bone in the capsule of the joint of
that name, or within the inserting tendons of muscles, as the patella of the
knee and the patella ulnaris of the Sphenisci, and osseous or cartilaginous nodules
in the tendons of the long muscles of the toes, of the muse. extensor metacarpt
radialis and of the muse. propatagialis.

SKELETON 861

acetabulum a thick process of the ilium descends to meet the os
pubis, and behind a similar process meets the ischium. Behind
the acetabular rim is a considerable thickening of the ilium, which
frequently bears a facet on which plays the great trochanter of
the femur. The postacetabular ilium is very variable in shape,
either broadened out vertically only as in Columba and Rhea, or

transversely, in the latter case forming a plain dorsal surface most

Antitroch a!
Fovea tliaca

anterior

PAVO CRISTATUS.

pronounced in Pavo. The ischium originally extends backward,
parallel to the postacetabular illum, and with it encloses the
ischiadic notch. Among recent Birds this primitive condition
persists only in Latite and Crypturi. In all others the distal por-

COLYMBUS ARCTICUS.

tions of the ilium and ischium meet so that this notch becomes a
foramen, through which pass the big stems of the ischiadic nerves
(page 625) and most of the chief blood-vessels of the hind limb.!
The os pubis consists of an anterior and a posterior portion, the latter
being long and slender, and running backwards more or less parallel

1 A unique modification occurs in Rhea: the two ischia fuse in the middle
line forming a long ischiadic symphysis which lies above the intestines separating
them from the K1IpNEys. In adults the distal ends of the ilia fuse with these
united ischia, forming foramina, and herewith is correlated a still more striking
feature, namely the gradual resorbtion as maturity approaches of nearly the whole
postsacral vertebral column, so that the caudal vertebre seem to be attached to
the united ischiadic and iliac ossification.

862 SKELETON

to the ischium. The proximal portion of the space thus enclosed
almost always forms a foramen, called the f. obturatum, because it
serves for the passage of the tendon of the m. obturator and the n.
obturatorius (page 625), which supplies that muscle, and the m. pub-
ischio-femoralis (page 611), or principal adductor of the thigh. The
rest of the opposed margins of ischium and pubis are connected with
each other to a variable
extent, either by mem-
branes only or, if the
bones touch, by more or
less extensive ossification,
which in extreme cases, as
Pr.pect. in some Anatidx, leads to
the obliteration of the
For.obt, Middle portion of the
shaft of the pubis, so that
its distal portion appears
in a prepared skeleton as
aseparate bone. The dis-
tal end of the pubis is
mostly bowed inwards and
broadened, serving for the
attachment of the lateri-
ventral muscles of the tail
(m. pubo-coccygeus). In
Struthio only the end of
Pub. the pubis meets that of
the other side, forming a
dagger-shaped symphysis
upon which rests a great
part of the weight of the
abdominal intestines. The
7 spina pubica or anterior

PAVO CRISTATUS. COoLYMBUS ARCTICUS. .
I, II. the Sacral Vertebree ; C. 1-5, Crural Vertebre ; Cd. Process of the oo pubis,
1-5, Caudal; Cp. Cp.2, Capitular attachment of the last often called the pectineal
free nee Ts. Ischiadic Vertebres ; IPS. RO (of. p- 650, fig. 4, ve) is

Vertebree ; Rec.il. Diac recess; Tb. Tubercular part ee

or thetibl morphologically of great —
interest, because it is the
element which in Dinosaurs is described as the “ prapubis,” while
in recent Reptiles it is represented by the pubis proper, the
“pubis” of Birds being in reality homologous with the postpubis
of Dinosaurs and the processus lateralis pubis of other Reptiles. It
serves for the origin of the AMBIENS muscle (page 11), though
that not unfrequently extends to the adjoining part of ilium, or
further down to the shaft of the pubis, and hence has been
preserved when that muscle is present; but the process is very

SMELET ON 863

variable in extent, being comparatively largest in the Gallinw and
some of the Cuculi and Musophagidx, while it is hardly indicated in
many Grues, Ciconix, Phenicopterus, Columbxe, Lari, Psittaci, Bucerotidx:
and Passeres. It may grow wholly from the pubis, or from that
and the ilium, or in extreme cases from the last only.

THE Posterior Limes or Legs, like the anterior, are composed
of three principal portions (1) the Femur, which has been
already mentioned (pages 248, 249), and the figures here intro-
duced will shew some of its more important features ; (2) next the
Trpra and FIpuLA; and lastly (3) the bones of the Feet. The
proximal end of the Tibia has two facets, of which the inner is
concave and articulates with the inner condyle of the Femur,
while the outer is convex, and partly fits into the intercondylar
suleus and partly articulates with the inside of the outer femoral
condyle. It also supports the Fibula. From the anterior surface
of its upper end arises a crest formed by two ridges, of which the
inner is generally the more prominent. They serve for the origin
of part of most of the extensor muscles of the leg, the tendon of
the chief of which, musc. femori-tibialis, is inserted on the upper
part of the crest, and within this tendon is intercalated the PATELLA
(page 698). In Colymbus
and Podicipes is developed
a long triangular process
which stands high above
the head of the tibia, and
in the latter the almost
equally -high triangular
patella rests with its base
on the intercondylar
femoral sulcus, and_ its
whole side against the
outer surface of the crest.
On the outer side of the
tibia is the peroneal ridge
serving for a lateral attach- f i iis ae
ment to the Fibula, the yA os CRIS Toes ree Secbwias Seni Sud
fusion of which with the

T.m.

ISVs ae eh

Bi. Loop for Biceps cruris ; C.e. C.i. exterior and interior

Tibia is generallyindicated Condyles ; F.p. Fossa poplitea; Fib. Fibular facet; f-t.
1m] } } : 'o-tibi : 24 tic foramina ;

as ar ce situs d Femoro-tibial attachment ; Fo, Pheuma :
by a simil 4 ridge : ee Ga. Gastrocnemial tendons; H. head of Femur;
further down. The distal Il. fm. ilio-femoral ; Is. fm. ischio-femoral ; NV. Neck ;
end of the Tibia is com- p.i.f. Pubischio-femoral muscle; ob. Obturator

muscle insertion.

pletely fused with several
of the proximal tarsal bones, which form an inner and an outer
condyle, separated by a sulcus, and articulate with the “ tarso-
metatarsus.” On the anterior surface a little above the sulcus just

864 SKELETON

mentioned is a deep cavity crossed by a transverse bridge, acting as
a pulley for the tendon of the muse. extensor digitorum communis
(page 612) which passes beneath it. In the majority of Birds
this bridge is ossified, as in Dinornithes (page 579), Phororhacos,
rastornis (page 281) and the other Carinate not named below, but
it remains tendinous or cartilaginous, and is thus often described
as non-existent, ina good many, as Struthio, Rhea, Dromeus, Casuarius,
Aipyornis, Brontornis, Opisthoconus, Striges, Todus, Buceros, Caprimulge
and Trochili ; while it varies, being either soft or osseous, in Apterya,
Podicipes and Psittact. 'The Fibula articulates by its head with the
outer condyle of the Femur, leaning also on the lateral knob on the
head of the Tibia, and lower down is connected with the peroneal
ridge by a rough surface. The distal end of the Fibula is always
much reduced and fuses more or less completely with the outer
side of the tibio-tarsus, generally ending in a sharp point.!

The Metatarsus, or “ Tarsus” as it is commonly but incorrectly called
by ornithologists, is a compound structure made up of the second,

LO;

MCs
Pavo. Tibia and Tarso-metatarsus, Proxiiialiacendiaeotmelest
front view. Tarso-metatarsus, back
F, Fibula; [.a.c. and O.a.c. inner and view.—F.p. groove and
outer anterior crest; m.i. mae. canal for m. flexor pro-
inner and outer malleolus; Sp. fundus; P.p. groove for
exostosis, carrying spur; T.a. in- deep peroneal; T'.4.
sertion of Tibialis anticus. ridge for tendo Achillis.

1 Dr. Shufeldt (Jbis, 1894, p. 361) takes exception to the statement previously
made in this volume (page 249) describing and partly figuring some cases, that
appear to me exceptional if not abnormal, in which the Fibula is ‘‘ complete
and reaches the tarsal epiphysis of the tibio-tarsus.”’ But my statement appears
to have been misunderstood, and I may repeat that the ankle-joint ‘‘is never
normally reached” by the Fibula, nor, for the matter of that, by the Tibia
either. A complete account of these features was published in 1891 (7Thier-
reich, Vogel, pp. 980, 981), wherein also exceptional occurrences of a complete
Fibula in Birds are mentioned.

SKELETON 865

third and fourth metatarsal bones, which are fused together and
bear on their proximal end an epiphysis-like mass containing several
of the distal tarsal bones. Except in Sphenisci and to a certain
extent in Pszitaci, the three metatarsals do not lie in the same plane,
the middle one, which is the third, having its upper end thrust
backward and its lower forward, consequently the malleolus of the
third toe is more prominent on its anterior surface than its neigh-
bours, while on the same surface of the upper half or more of the
“metatarsus” there is a deep longitudinal furrow, and on the
posterior surface of the proximal end is found the “ Hypotarsus.”
Articulation with the tibio-tarsus is effected by an inner and an outer
concave facet for the corresponding “ tibial” condyles, while these
two facets are separated in front by a knob which fits into the inter-
condylar sulcus. Two rough surfaces near the upper end of the
anterior metatarsal sulcus indicate the position of a transverse liga-
ment, beneath which passes the common extensor tendon of the toes.
In one section of OWLS (page 672) and in the OSPREY (page 660)
this ligament becomes a strong bony bridge. A little lower than
the inner end of this ligament or bridge is a small tuberosity in-
dicating the insertion of the muse. tibialis anticus.

The Hypotarsus is of some taxonomic value from its ridges which
end in furrows or canals for the passage of the several flexor
tendons, but in regarding its characters we must remember that the
conversion of a furrow into a canal is often due to extended ossi-
fication progressing with age. The Hypotarsus is simple, possessing
only one wide groove lying between two low ridges, in Sphenisci,
Ciconiine, Plataleine, Phenicopteri, Palamedex, Accipitres (excl. Pan-
dion), Crypturi, Cariama and Rhinochetus. It is also simple, though
with an additional median ridge, in Striges, Cypseli and Trochili ; but
complex, with high ridges and a canal or more than one in most
other birds, exhibiting numerous modifications, each of them directly
connected with the arrangement of the flexor tendons, and the size,
position and function of the toes. Intermediate forms are of
course numerous, and their careful study gives a valuable hint as to
the group to which any particular form belongs: in the Colymbi,
for instance, the two lateral ridges are very high and almost
completely enclose a wide triangular space.

In the Sphenisci the three tarso-metatarsal bones are almost in
‘the same plane and are incompletely co-ossified, a feature frequently
regarded as primitive because of its likeness to embryonic and
therefore phylogenetically ancestral conditions. It may, however, be
reasonably conjectured that we have here a case of relapse, indeed a
pseudo-archaic formation produced in adaptation to the peculiar
plantigrade functions of the feet in these birds. An analogous con-
dition obtains in Fregata.?

1 The morphological meaning of the bones of the Bird’s foot is best understood

55

866 SKELETON

The Toes are generally four in number, and no trace of a fifth
has been or is likely to be discovered, considering the extreme
reduction and ephemeral occurrence of the fifth metatarsal element.
The number of phalanges typically increases in arithmetical series
from 2 on the first or HALLUX (pages 404, 405) to 5 on the fourth

by a short sketch of their development, and its comprehension may be assisted
by the accompanying diagram shewing the typical plan in the pentadactyl Bird,
which mutatis mutandis
may be made equally ap-

i vs ." Zr, plicable to the Bird’s

; “‘hand.” There are first

t f I three proximal tarsals

Rk es (ihe On (6 which fuse with each

or Oey 45 %@ other and then with the
Vi oa distal end of the tibia,
Yy Ws | Mtg while that of the fibula
O | Za withdraws from direct

?
A i] [] \\ \y i \\ Mt LIT contact with the outer or
fibular tarsal. The united

\ mass of these then sends
q out an ascending process
q which fuses with the front

of the tibial intercon-

dylar furrow. At an early

period the five distal tarsals fuse into one cartilaginous mass, in which only
one centre of ossification appears, wheretipon it fuses with the upper end of
the 2nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsals. These being originally separate, soon
press backwards the upper end of the 8rd, and fuse together from above
downwards. The 5th or outer metatarsal element has only been observed
in early embryos, soon disappearing by resorbtion, and the same may be
said of its distal tarsal. The 1st metatarsal remains separate on the inner side
of the 2nd—a condition which persists in the Penguins; but in other 4-
toed Birds it does not keep up with the lengthening growth of the 2nd, 8rd
and 4th, but loses its proximal position and thereby its connexion with the
tarsal region, lying in the majority of Birds along the inner hind margin of the
lower end of the united ‘‘metatarsus,” retaining (or regaining) its position in
their plane in Steganopodes.

Besides the 3 proximal and 5 distal tarsals just mentioned, the diagram
shews a ninth element—a central tarsal, which is sometimes double. Appearing
in the embryo as distinct cartilaginous nodules, they are soon buried in the
fibrous interarticular pad, and in the majority of birds ultimately vanish.
However one of them occasionally persists, as in the Ratite and Crypturt,
developing into a separate bone which is wedged in from behind between the
tibio-tarsal and tarso-metatarsal surfaces. This bone was described many years
ago by Owen either as a calcaneus or calcaneal sesamoid, but now properly by
Gegenbaur (Untersuchungen zur vergleichenden Anatomie, i. p. 104) and Morse
(Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. New York, x. p. 141) as the central tarsal, the latter figur-
ing it as found in Tyrannus. Sir Walter Buller (BP. N. Zeal. ed. 2. ii. pp. 338,
334, pl. xlix.) was unfortunately induced to figure and describe it in Dinornis as
“‘an astragalus-like bone.”

LV

SKELLY—SKIMMER 867

Toe ; but in Cypselus the number never exceeds 3, being reduced
during embryonic development. The proximal phalanx of the
fourth toe is resorbed, while the 2nd and 3rd phalanges of the
third toe, and the original 3rd and 4th of the fourth fuse together
respectively. The same number of phalanges obtains in Pany-
ptila. Further reduction in the number of toes begins with the
hallux, which, as may be gathered from what has been already
stated, represents almost every intermediate condition from being
the strongest, as in Accipitres, to total loss. The second toe is
absent in Struthio only, though its malleolus is present, but in a
very degenerate condition. This Bird indeed seems to be on the
way to becoming one-toed, for though the fourth still exists, long
and functional, its phalanges decrease in length and strength towards
the extremity, and the terminal one is frequently reduced to a mere
nodule, devoid of a claw. Such an example has therefore already
reached a one-hoofed condition. Cholornis, a rare form from Thibet,
of doubtful affinity, seems to offer the only instance of the loss of
the fourth toe, which is said to be reduced to a mere stump. The
proportional length of the phalanges, especially when the reduction
in length affects the basal and next following phalanges without the
terminal, is of some taxonomic value, for a special account of which
reference may be made to the account in Bronn’s Thier-reich (pp.
508-521), but above all to Kessler’s Osteologie der Vogelfiisse, in
the Bulletin of the Naturalists’ Society of Moscow for 1841 (pp.
467, 628).

SKELLY, or SHELLY, a local name for the CHAFFINCH.
SKIDDAW, another form of Kippaw (see GUILLEMOT).

SKIDDY, otherwise SKITTY-Cock, a name applied to the
Moor-HEN and Water-Raltrt.

SKIMMER, the English name bestowed by Pennant?! in 1773
on a North-American bird which had already been figured and
described by Catesby
(B. Carol. i. pl. 90) under
that of “ Cut-water,’—
as it appears still to be
called on some parts of
the coast,2— remarkable
for the unique forma- 2g
tion of its bill, in which Ruyncuops. (After Swainson.)
the maxilla, or so-called upper mandible, is capable of much vertical

1 “J gall it Skimmer, from the manner of its collecting its food with the
lower mandible as it flies along the surface of the water” (Gen. of Birds, p. 57).

2 Other English names applied to it in America are ‘“*Razorbill,” ‘‘ Scissor-
bill,” and ‘‘ Shearwater.”

868 SKOOI—SK UA

movement, while the lower mandible, which is considerably the
longer of the two, is laterally compressed so as to be as thin as a
knife-blade. This bird is the Rhynchops nigra of Linneus, who,
however, united with it what proves to be an allied species from
India that, having been indicated many years before by Petiver
(Gazoph. Nat. tab. 76, fig. 2), on the authority of Buckley, and named
by J. R. Forster in 1781, was only technically described in 1838 by
Swainson (Anim. Menag. p. 360) as L. albicollis. A third species, R.
flavirostris, inhabits Africa; and examples from South America, though
by many writers regarded as identical with &. nigra, are considered
by Mr. Saunders (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, p. 522) to form a fourth,
Ff. melanura of Swainson (ut supra, p. 340), and he has now separated
southern examples as a fifth, £2. intercedens. All these resemble one
another very closely, and, apart from their singularly-formed bill,
have the structure and appearance of TERNS. Some authors make
a Family of the genus, but it seems needless to remove it from
the Laridx (GULL). In breeding-habits the Skimmers agree with
the Terns, the largest species of which group they nearly equal
in size, and indeed only seem to differ from them in the mode of
taking their food, which is well described by Mr. Darwin (Journ.
of Researches, chap. vii.) from his own observation, and is of course
correlated with the extraordinary formation of their bill.

SKOOI, see SKUA.
SKRABA, see SCRABER.

SKUA,! the name for a long while given to certain of the
Laridx, which sufficiently differ in structure, appearance and habits
to justify their separation as a distinct genus, Stercorarius (Lestris of
some writers), subfamily, or even, according to a late author, a
Family—Stercoraruidx. Swift of flight, powerfully armed and
intrepid, they pursue their weaker cousins, making the latter dis-
gorge their already-swallowed prey, which is nimbly caught before
it reaches the water; and this habit, often observed by sailors and
fishermen, has made these predatory and parasitic birds locally
known as “ Teasers,” ‘‘ BOATSWAINS,” and, from a misconception of
their intent, “Dunghunters.” On land, however, whither they
resort to breed, they seek food of their own taking, whether small
mammals, little birds, insects, or berries; but even here their
uncommon courage is exhibited, and they will defend their homes
and offspring with the utmost spirit against any intruder, repeatedly
shooting down on man or dog that invades their haunts, while

1 Thus written by Hoier (circa 1604) as the name of a Freroese bird (hodie
Skuir), an example of which he sent to Clusius (Zxotic. Auct. p. 367). The word
being thence copied by Willughby has been generally adepted in English, and
applied to all the congeners of the species to which it was originally peculiar,

SKUA 869

every bird almost, from an Eagle downwards, is repelled by buffets
or something worse.

The largest European species is the Stercorarius catarrhactes of
ornithologists—the “Skooi” or “Bonxie” of the Shetlanders, a
bird in size equalling a Herring-GuLL, Larus argentatus. The sexes
do not differ in colour, which is of a dark brown, somewhat
lighter beneath; but the primaries have at the base a patch of
white, visible even when the wings are closed, and forming, when
they are spread, a conspicuous band. ‘The bill and feet are black.
This is a species of comparatively limited range, breeding only in
some two or three localities in the Shetlands, about as many in the
Feroes,! and hardly more in Iceland. Out of the breeding-season
it shews itself in most parts of the North Atlantic, but never seems
to stray further south than Gibraltar or Morocco, and it is there-
fore a matter of much interest to find the Southern Ocean inhabited
by a bird—the “ Port Egmont Hen” of Cook’s Voyages—which so
closely resembles the Skua as to have been for a long while
regarded as specifically identical with it, but is now usually recog-
nized as distinct under the name of S. antarcticus. ‘This bird,
characterized by its stout, deep bill and want of rufous tint on its
lower plumage, has an extensive range, from the Falkland Islands
past Kerguelen Land to Australian waters and those of New
Zealand, while occasionally visiting the coast of Madagascar and
the Cape of Good Hope as well perhaps as Ceylon. Another allied
species hitherto only met with near the south-polar ice is recognized
by Mr. Saunders (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxv. p. 321, pl. i). On the
western coast of South America, making its way into the Straits of
Magellan, and passing along the coast so far as Rio Janeiro, is found
S. chilensis, distinguished among other characters by the cinnamon
tint of its lower plumage. All these are now placed by Mr. Saunders
(tom. cit. p. 313) in a distinct genus—WMegalestris.

Three other smaller species of Stercorarius are known, and
each is more widely distributed than those just mentioned, but
the home of all is in the more northern parts of the earth,
though in winter two of them go very far south, and, crossing the
equator, shew themselves on the seas that wash the Cape of Good
Hope, Australia, New Zealand and Peru. The first of them is
S. pomatorhinus (often and originally mis-spelt pomarinus), about the

1 It has long been subjected to persecution in these islands, a reward being
paid for its head, and but very few pairs now exist there. On the other hand,
in the Shetlands a fine was exacted for its death, as it was believed to protect
the sheep against Eagles. Yet for all this it would long ago have been extir-
pated there, and have ceased to be a British bird in all but name, but for the
special protection afforded it by several members of two families (Edmondston of
Unst and Scott of Melby), whose exertions on its behalf deserve the praise of all
ornithologists, and*were recognized in 1891 by the award to their representatives
of the silver medal of the Zoological Society of London.

870 SKULL

size of acommon Gull, Larus canus, and presenting, irrespective of sex,
two very distinct phases of plumage, one almost wholly sooty-brown,
the other particoloured—dark above and white on the breast, the
sides of the neck being of a glossy straw-colour, and the lower part
of the neck and the sides of the body barred with brown; but a
singular feature in the adults of this species is that the two median
tail-feathers, which are elongated, have their shaft twisted towards
the tip, so that in flight the lower surfaces of their webs are pressed
together vertically, giving the bird the appearance of having a disk
attached to its tail. The second and third species so closely
resemble each other, except in size, that their distinctness was for
many years unperceived, and in consequence their nomenclature is
an almost bewildering puzzle. Mr. Saunders (tom. cit. p. 322) thinks
that the larger of them, which is about the size of a Black-headed
Gull, should stand as S. crepidatus, and the smaller as S. parasiticus,
though the latter name has been generally used for the larger when
that is not termed, as it often is, S. richardsoni—a name that
correctly applies only to whole-coloured examples, for this species
too is dimorphic. Even its proper English name? is disputable,
but it has been frequently called the Arctic Gull or Arctic Skua,
and it is by far the commonest of the genus in Britain, and perhaps
throughout the northern hemisphere. It breeds abundantly on
many of the Scottish Islands,? and in most countries lying to the
northward. The nest is generally in long heather, and contains
two eggs of a dark olive colour, suffused with still darker brown
patches. Birds of either phase of plumage pair indiscriminately,
and the young shew by their earliest feathers whether they will
prove whole or particoloured ; but in the immature dress of the last
the upper surface is barred with pale reddish-brown. The smallest
species, commonly known in English as the Long-tailed or Buffon’s
Skua, rarely exhibits the remarkable DIMORPHISM (p. 149) to which
the two preceding are subject, but one instance (Ibis, 1865, p. 217)
apparently being on record. It breeds abundantly in some seasons
on the fells of Lapland, its appearance depending chiefly on the
presence of Lemmings, on which it mainly preys. All these three
species occasionally visit the southern coasts of Europe in large
flocks, but their visitations are highly irregular.

SKULL, the comprehensive word for all the bones of the head,
which may be conveniently grouped as those forming the CRANIUM

1 It is the Fasceppar or Fasgadair of the Hebrides, the SuHoor of the Shet-
lands, and the ScouTI-ALLEN of the fishermen of Orkney and on the east coast
of Scotland.

2 Pennant was the first to discover that it bred in the British Islands, by
finding it on the Ist of July 1772 on Jura, which, thanks to the protection
accorded to it, it still inhabits, and this must be the most southerly point in its
breeding-range.

SKULL 871
(p. 112), and those belonging to visceral arches which give rise to the
Hyorp apparatus, the palate and the jaws (MAXILLA, MANDIBLE).
Being a most complicated structure, the composition of the Skull
will be better understood if the description of its adult condition be
prefaced by a short account of its general development. The first
trace of the Cranium appears towards the end of the fourth day of
incubation (EMBRYOLOGY, p. 209), and on the seventh (p. 211) its
essential shape is completed. Roughly speaking, the ventral half of
the cranial capsule consists of a mass of cartilage in which no separate
elements are distinguishable, while its side-walls and roof, though
continuous with that mass, are still in a membranaceous condition,
being formed of indifferent connective tissue. The inmost layer of
this membranaceous covering remains throughout life as the dura
mater (NERVOUS SYSTEM, p. 622), while the outer and thicker layer
ossifies, of course to form membrane BONE (p. 47), and the
greater part of the cartilaginous framework is likewise converted
into bone. Though so unlike in their origin, it is not always easy
to distinguish between these two sorts of bone, owing to the con-
densed or abbreviated way in which stages of development are
hurriedly passed through and to other cnogenetic changes
(ANATOMY, p. 14) which obscure and sometimes completely alter
the proper phylogenetic procedure. ‘Thus bones originally cartila-
ginous are overlaid by direct ossification of membrane, and often
have their cartilage more or less suppressed, so that they appear
from the beginning as formed from membrane and not from
cartilage. This applies to most of the jaw-bones, as well as those
of the roof of the mouth or palate. Most of the bones of the Skull
ossify each from one centre, and originally all are paired.

Analysis of the Cranium shews it to be constituted thus :—

I. The basis of the cranial capsule, composed of the following
(cartilaginous) elements, which, proceeding from behind forwards,
are—(1) Basioccipital ; (2) Basisphenoid; (3) Prasphenoid ; (4)
continuation of the last into the interorbital and internasal Septum.

IL. The right and left sides, formed by the (cartilaginous) paired
—(1) Lateral Occipitals (Exoccipitals of many authors) ; (2) Peri-
otics ; (3) Alisphenoids ; (4) Orbitosphenoids ; (5) Ethmoids.

III. The roof of the capsule, formed by the following (membrane)
bones in pairs—(1) Supra-occipitals;1 (2 and 3) Parietals and
Squamosals ; (4) Frontals ; (5) Lacrymals ; (6) Nasals.

IV. Additional (membrane) bones on the ventral side of the
base of the capsule—(1) a pair of Basitemporals, amalgamated
with the Basisphenoids ; (2) an unpaired investment of the likewise

1 Jn several species of CoRMORANT a peculiar, long, pyramidal sesamoid bone
is loosely attached to the supra-occipital, serving apparently to increase the
surface of attachment of the musc. complexus capitis and of part of the temporal
muscle,

872 SHULL

unpaired Presphenoid, forming with it the rostrum of the basis
cranit; (3) the Vomer, paired or unpaired, resting upon the septum.

V. Bones derived from, or developed upon, visceral arches, form-
ing the appendicular apparatus of the Skull—(1) the unpaired

ANALYTICAL DIAGRAM OF A Birp’s SKULL.

Premaxilla ; (2) the right and left Maxille; (3, 4, 5) the right
and left ‘“ Palatines,” Pterygoids and Quadrates—these being, as well
as (6, 7) the right and left Jugals and Quadrato-jugals, modifica-
tions of the dorsal half of the first visceral arch; (8) the bones
forming the right and left Mandibule (or the lower jaw)—namely,
the Dentals, Splenials, Supra-angulars, Angulars and Articulars—all
these last being modifications of the ventral half of the same (first)
visceral arch; (9) the ossicles of the ear, columella auris (p. 179),

ANALYTICAL DIAGRAM OF THE ViscmraL ArcuEs. The dotted portions are not developed.

being the remnants of the dorsal half of the second visceral arch
(=the Ist branchial arch), while the remnant of its ventral half
is transformed into the os entoglossum (p. 453); (10) the rest of the
Hyoip apparatus formed by the third visceral (= 2nd_ branchial)
arch,

SACOTGL 873

And now to proceed to a more detailed description of the various
regions of the Skull. The Occripur proper is formed by the Basi-
occipital, right and left lateral and supra-occipital, all of which
enclose the foramen magnum, through which passes the medulla
oblongata (p 51), and, as in Reptiles, the Skull articulates by a single
globular or kidney-shaped knob with the Atlas (cf. SKELETON,
p- 848), the condyle being formed almost wholly by the basi-
occipital, the lateral occipitals taking but little share in it, and thus
constituting a fundamental distinction between the Amphibians on
the one hand and Mammals on the other, where the articulation of
the head with the neck is effected wholly by the lateral occipitals.

SKULL oF Common Fowl FROM THE SIDE. (After Parker.)

Part of the membranaceous roof between the supra-occipital and
parietal bones frequently remains unossified and in the macerated
Skull presents the appearance of a pair of fontanelles, which are
- common features in Limicole and Anseres, but of variable occurrence
in closely-allied genera. In the majority of Pigeons and also in
some Owls and Parrots, the supra-occipital contains a single small
median foramen for the passage of a blood-vessel, Further forwards
the occiput joins the Basisphenoid, Alisphenoid and Periotic bones,
this portion of the Cranium being roofed-in by the Parietals and
Squamosals, the latter as a rule forming the posterior outer margin
of the Orbits, and frequently continued into two lateral downward
processes enclosing the temporal fossa. Of these the anterior,
known as proc. orbitalis posterior, frequently combines with a similar
outgrowth of the Alisphenoid, and in Cockatoos and Tinamous is
continued forwards so as to meet a process of the Lacrymal bone,
and thus forms an infra-orbital bridge ; while the posterior, known

874 SKULL

as proc. zygomaticus, is very variable in size, being largest in the
Ostrich, Gallinw and Parrots, and smallest in Anseres. In many
Gallinex both pro-
cesses meet at their
distal end and trans-
form the temporal
fossa into a foramen.

The Periotic
Bones, enclosing the
inner EAR (p. 178)
occupy a space
bounded — beneath
by the Basioceipital
and Basisphenoid,
in front by the Al-
sphenoid and Squa-
mosal (which last to
a great extent over-
laps and hides them
when viewed from
without), behind and
above by the lateral
and supra-occipitals
and parietals. The
Periotics consist of
three distinct ele-
ments, which in size,
relative position and
in regard to the sur-
rounding bones ex-
hibit many modifi-
Sb, cations, forming a
very difficult chapter
of ornithic anatomy
which as yet has been touched by few,! though an exhaustive study
of them promises results of prime taxonomic importance. The
Prootic (Petrosal of some writers) abuts upon the Alisphenoid, and
with the latter encloses the foramen ovale, through which: passes the
3rd branch of the nervus trigeminus, while between the posterior margin
of the Prootic and the anterior border of the Lateral Occipitals les
the fenestra ovalis,? into which fits the base of the Colwmella of the ear,
and the fenestra rotunda, Dorsally the Prootic adjoins the Epiotic

SKULL OF ComMMON FOWL FROM BENEATH. (After Parker.)

1 Among them are the late Prof. W. K. Parker in several of his numerous
papers, Prof. Huxley in his Hlements of Comparative Anatomy and Prof. Selenka
(Bronn’s) Thier-Reich.

* Inadyvertently called foramen ovale on p. 179.

SKULL 875

(sometimes the Mastoid of Parker), which is often very small and
only develops several irregular ossifications that soon fuse with the
supra-occipital. The Opisthotic (Mastoid of Selenka) lies between
the Epiotic and the Lateral Occipitals, with which last it ultimately
fuses, and in some birds—Larus (GULL) for example—it actually
helps to bound the foramen magnum.

The Basisphenoids are ventrally overlaid by a pair of membrane-
bones, the Basitemporals of some authors, and laterally they help
to form the lower and anterior border of the auditory meatus
(HAR, p. 176), while each Eustachian tube (/. ¢.) is, roughly speaking,
accompanied and partly covered by a canal for the passage of the
CAROTIDS (p. 76) and some of their branches. The Basisphenoids
frequently articulate with the Pterygoids by the BASIPrERYGOID
PROCESSES (p. 28), and their dorsal surface supports the greater
portion of the base of the Brain, forming with the adjoining end of
Presphenoids the sella turcica (p. 52). Dorsi-laterally the Basi-
sphenoid is joined by the Alisphenoid, which takes the greater
share in forming the posterior wall of the orbit. Between the
Alisphenoid and the Prootic the 2nd and 3rd branches of the nervus
trigeminus issue through one or two foramina, and laterally the
Alisphenoid joins the Squamosal, which in most cases separates it
from contact with the Parietal, while dorsally it meets the Frontal.
Forwards the Basisphenoid and Alisphenoid are continued into the
Presphenoid and Orbitosphenoid respectively, and these last, except
at their posterior end, are practically unpaired—the right and left
half being, so to say, pressed together by the extraordinarily
developed eyeballs into a median interorbital septum, which is
dorsally overlaid by the Frontals, while it is continued forwards
as the internasal septum; but complications are produced by the
development of lateral outgrowths, which as Turbinals or nasal
conche serve partly to enlarge the surface and partly as protective
chambers of the olfactory and nasal mucous membranes. ‘There
is often no sharp line of demarcation between the Orbitosphenoid
and Presphenoid, because the extent to which the cartilaginous
septum ossifies is subject to individual variation ;+ but the foramen
opticum for the passage of the optic nerve (EYE, p. 233) always lies
near the base of the Orbitosphenoid. The junction of this last
named with the Alisphenoid is also marked by a variable number

1 An incomplete internasal septum produces what are known as nares perviz,
characteristic of Colymbus, Podicipes, Phacthon (alone among the Steganopodes),
Ardeidz (excl. Balwniceps and Cancroma) Scopus, Ciconia, Phenicopterus,
Anseres, Palamedea, Cathartide, Rallide, Gruide, Cariama, Otis, Eurypyga,
Podica, not in Rhinochetus, Limicole, Laride, Alcidx, and various Passeres.
When the septum is complete these are of course nares impervie, no matter
whether it remains cartilaginous or ossifies more or less, as in many Striges,
Podargus, Steatornis and Trogonide.

876 SAGO LL:

of smaller foramina for the exit of the Ist branch of the nerv.
trigeminus and of the 3rd, 4th and 6th Cranial Nerves. Frequently,
however, one or more of these leave the cranial cavity together
with the optic nerve, converting in such cases the optic foramen
into a foramen Jlacerwi anterius. The olfactory or Ist pair of
cranial nerves leave the cranial cavity at the point where the
Orbitosphenoid meets the Frontal, and reach the nasal cavities
by passing above the interorbital septum.

The Frontals form the greater portion of the upper surface of
the Skull, and by their forward, lateral or backward expansion
come into contact with a great number of bones, such as the
Parietals, Squamosal and Opisthotic, Ali-orbitosphenoid, Ethmoid,
Lacrymal and Nasal, Maxillary and Premaxillary. In most em-
bryos the Frontals and Nasals are originally separated by the
upper portion of the Ethmoid, which appears on the surface, and
this condition is persistent in Struthio; but otherwise the Ethmoid
is overlaid by expanding growths of the Pramaxille and the Nasals
until these reach the Frontals. Posteriorly the Frontals combine
with the Squamosal and Alisphenoid in forming the postorbital
process ; and, as this part often ossifies from a separate centre, it
possibly represents the postfrontal of other Vertebrates. The space
between the Frontal, Orbitcsphenoid and Ethmoid is filled by the
Lacrymal, which always forms part of the anterior border of the
orbit (processus orbitalis anterior), and has a perforation through
which pass the secretions of the lacrymal and various orbital glands.
The Lacrymal exhibits many modifications which seem to be of some
taxonomic value: most generally it fuses with the Frontal and
Nasal, but it may fuse with the former and articulate with the
latter, or vice versa as in Vanellus; or it may articulate with both as
in Ardea, or may fuse with the much-expanded Maxilla, as in
Balxniceps and Podargus; or it may fuse with the Ethmoid as in
Corvus coraz, or again may articulate with the Palatal as in
Struthio, or with the Jugal as in Corvus, Psittaci and Accipitres.
Many birds, as most Accipitres, several Callinv, beside Grus and
Struthio, possess Supraorbital bones which are loosely attached, one
or more on either side, to the posterior margin of the Lacrymal and
the adjoining side of the Frontal. 'To the same category as these
belong the Infraorbitals, which join the Jugal or downward process
of the Lacrymal, and protect the lower side of the eyeball.

The Nasals, which are always conspicuous, send out three
processes—(1) a preemaxillary which joins laterally the posterior
dorsal praeemaxillary process and forms the upper margin of the
nasal cavity, (2) a lateral one, descending and joining the Maxilla
so as to border the nasal cavity behind, and (3) a frontal process
which, uniting with its fellow on the other side, overlaps the upper
surface of the Ethmoid and frequently fuses with the anterior

=

SKULL 877

median end of the Frontals. In the majority of birds the Nasals!
fuse with the Frontal, Ethmoid, Maxiila and Premaxilla, making
this part of the Skull more or less solid, though generally springy,?
but many birds possess a transverse fronto-nasal joint, often very
conspicuous and admitting of the vertical movement of what is
commonly known as the “upper mandible” of the bill. This joint
is just anterior to the Frontals and Lacrymals, but behind the
Nasals and Premaxille, and is a modification that stands in direct
correlation with the mode of feeding, and is consequently very
variable in closely-allied groups.®

The Preemaxilla (or Intermaxilla) is in Birds an unpaired bone,
its right and left component halves being fused from the beginning.
It forms the anterior and largest part of the so-called “upper
mandible,” of which it is the most important factor, though the
outward shape of the BILL (p. 32) depends chiefly on its rhamphotheca,
and being therefore intimately connected with the bird’s economy
is subject to very great variation in proportion and strength. Each
half of the Premaxilla sends out three processes—(1) one which
fuses with the Maxilla and forms the anterior part of the upper
jaw, (2) one which contributes to the formation of the anterior
part of the palate, and (3) one which together with its fellow on
the opposite side forms the culmen (p. 33) and extends backward
to the Frontals.

The paired Maxillaries form, as just stated, part of the upper
jaw, contributing also to the floor of the nasal cavity, and always

1 The mutual relations of the processes of the Nasals to those of the neigh-
bouring bones induced Garrod in 1893 (see INrRopuCcTION) to distinguish Birds
as HOLORHINAL (p. 425) where the anterior margin of the Nasal is concave, and
’ SCHIZORHINAL (p. 816) where this posterior border of the nasal cavity is con-
tinued backward into a slit which extends beyond the frontal processes of the
Premaxilla. To use this feature as a primary taxonomic character is an error,
as he himself speedily saw, but otherwise it is as good as many others, though
closely-allied birds differ in this respect. The typically schizorhinal birds are the
Limicolx, excluding Gdicnemus but including Parra, Laridx, Alcidx, Ptcroclide,
- Columbe, Turnices, Grues, including Eurypyya and Rhinochetus but not Psophia,
Mesites and Ibis, An approach to the holorhine structure is present in some
individuals of Platalea, and among Passeres in the Furnariidx. All schizorhinal
birds are also schizognathous, of which more presently ; but the reverse is by no
means the case.

2 The flexible part commonly lies behind the nasal cavities, but in Zrochili
and Scolopacidz far in front of the nostrils, so that only the anterior part of the
‘upper mandible” is movable, and motion can be effected while the mouth is
closed. In some Plovers and Ibises, and probably a few other birds also, such a
flexible region exists beside the usual fronto-nasal one.

3 The joint is most developed in certain Psittaci, Striges, Caprimulgide,
Anseres, Steganopodes, several Ciconix—for instance Tantalus, though not in
Ibis ov Platalea,—Corydon sumatranus, and is more or less developed in many
other birds, among them not a few Pringillide.

878 SK OLL

fuse with the Premaxillary, Nasals, Palatines and Jugals, frequently
also with the Vomer and Lacrymals. Each Maxillary is usually
pyramidal in shape, having an outer, inner and ventral surface, the
anterior corner of which joins the Premaxilla, the posterior the Jugal,
and the dorsal the descending process of the Nasal. It varies much
in size: very small in the Gallinx, it is in the Ardex next to the
Preemaxilla the most conspicuous bone of the Skull. Inwardly
each Maxilla sends out a more or less horizontal transverse process,
the proc. maxillo-palatinus, of which more presently.

The so-called Palatines are long, and for the most part flat
and horizontally-placed bones, always fused at their anterior end
with the Premaxilla, and frequently with the ventral surface of
Maxille and their maxillo-palatine process, just mentioned, while
posteriorly they rest movably on the Przesphenoid rostrum, articu-
lating also, in most Birds, with the anterior end of the Pterygoids.
The Palatines form the greater portion of the palatal roof of the
mouth, and border the CHOAN# (p. 87) or inner narial openings.

The Vomer, a median bone, rests on the Preesphenoidal rostrum,
and to the ventral view appears between the Palatines. It is very
variable in shape and size, being wholly absent or reduced to a
mere trace in the Gallinx, Pteroclidx, Columbx, Psittaci, Musophagidzx,
Alcedinidx, Todidx, Coliidex, Upupide and Bucerotide, while it is
small in the Coractide and Meropidx. In Pici it is secondarily re-
solved into a right and left half, which in Galbulide and Bucconide
are very much reduced in size.?

1 On the various bones of the palate, Prof. Huxley based his classification of
CARINATS, published in 1867 (see INTRODUCTION), dividing them into four
sub-orders—DROMHOGNATH®H, SCHIZOGNATH®, DESMOGNATH® and ANGITHO-
GNATHS. As details of the cranial structure have become better known, many ~
additions to and corrections of the original scheme have been rendered necessary,
chiefly through the labours of Parker, Garrod and Forbes, Profs. Magnus and
Fiirbringer and Dr. Shufeldt. Doubtless the most primitive formation is the
Schizognathous, whence has arisen the Desmognathous—either by direct
approach of the Palatines in the middle line, or by the help of the Ethmoid
and internasal septum. Desmognathism therefore does not necessarily imply
blood-relationship, but has been reached independently in various groups, while
a like consideration applies to the Hgithognathous feature, which is also derived
from earlier Schizognathous conditions. Thinocorys and T'urnix, for instance,
are incompletely Aigithognathous, and the same may be said of Menura, while
the Indicatoride and the Cypselidew are as completely Agithognathous as the
true Passeres, exclusive of the Schizognathous Furnariing. Among certain
Passeres, such as Gymnorhina, Paradisea, Artamus, Dendrocolaptes, Thamno-
philus and Phytotoma, what may be called compound Agithognathism prevails,
in that fusion of the Palatines with each other at their anterior end and with
the internasal septum leads to a sort of Desmognathous condition.

According to our present knowledge, the following forms and groups are
Schizognathous :—Struthio, Apteryx, Crypiuri, Sphenisci, Tubinares, Colymht,
Podicipedidx, Alcidx, Laridx, Limicolx (excl. Thinocorys above named), Ptero-

SKULE 879

The PreryGorps are rod-shaped bones articulating in front
with the posterior end?! of the Palatines, or also with the adjoining
part of the sphenoidal rostrum, and behind with a process of the
Quadrates. In many birds an additional articulation exists between
the Pterygoids and the Basisphenoid by means of the BASIPTERY-
GOID PROCESSES (p. 28).

The QUADRATES connect the lower jaw with the cranium, beside
serving for the posterior end of the Pterygoids, and lastly are con-
nected with the Maxilla and Premaxilla by two thin rod-shaped
bones—the Quadrato-jugal and the Jugal.

The Mandibula forming the lower jaw is composed of a con-
siderable number of bones, most of which developing from membrane
invest the primitive cartilaginous portion, known as Meckel’s Car-
tilage, and soon fuse with each other. The os articulare forms the
articulation with the Quadrate, and bears on its inner side the
processus mandibularis internus, which serves for the insertion of
part of the digastric muscle, or that which opens the mouth. The
os angulare forms the posterior end of the mandible, and is frequently
produced into a processus mandibularis posterior, likewise serving for
the insertion of the digastric muscle. Its shape and size are of
taxonomic value. The greater part of the Mandible is formed by
the Dentary, so called because in it the teeth when present are
lodged. In Hesperornis, Ichthyornis and apparently Gastornis the
two halves of the Mandible were movably connected at the distal
end: in recent birds they are fused together and ossify from the
point of meeting. The Supra-angular or Coronoid element fills the
space between the Articular and Dentary on the upper or anterior
side, and serves for the insertion of part of the temporal or masseter

clidz, Columbe, Turnix, Ralli, Grues (excl. Cariama and Rhinochetus, which
are incompletely Desmognathous), Gallinew, Opisthocomus, Trogonide, many
Striges, Trochili, Caprimulgus, Nyctibius, Pici, Megalema and, as first men-
tioned, Purnariing.

Parker drew attention to the existence of three kinds of Desmognathism :—

(1) Direct —where the maxillo-palatine processes fuse directly with each
other, either incompletely as in Cariama, or completely as in most Accipitres
and Anseres, with or without additional help from the internasal septum,

(2) Indirect—where the fusion of these processes is effected solely by that
septum, either incompletely as in Megalema, or completely as in Aquila,
Vultur, several Striges and Alcedinidx.

(8) Double—where those processes and the palatines meet in the middle line
and form a broad solid roof, as in Podargus and Buceros.

The following are Desmognathous :—Dromezus, Anseres, Steganopodes, Herodit,
Pelargi, Accipitres, Psittaci, Coccyges, Alcedinidx, Meropide, Todide, Upupide,
Bucerotide, Coliidex, Bucconidz, Galbulidw, Steatornis, Chordiles, Podargus
and Rhamphastidz ; lastly, the incompletely Desmognathous Cracidz, Cariama,
Rhinochetus and various Striges.

1 At page 744 the ‘‘anterior end” was inadvertently stated,

880 : SK VLARK—SNAKE-BIRD

muscle. Additional Splint bones, the os operculare and os comple-
mentare, rest on the median side of the lower jaw, filling the gap
between the Dentary and Angular, and between the Supra-angular
and Articular.

SKYLARK. Alauda arvensis, see LARK, pages 507-509.

SLANGENVREETER or SLANGVRETER (Snake-eater), the
Dutch name, adopted by many English residents in the Cape Colony,
for the SECRETARY-BIRD (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 33).

SLIGHT-FALCON (Germ. schlicht, plain, simple or homely), a
name once in common use (Sebright, Observations on Hawking, pp. 3,
33) for what is now called the Peregrine FALCON. Schlegel (Zraité de
Fauconnerie, p. 26) has pointed out the mistake of deriving it from
the German Schlacht or schlect.

SMEW, the commonly-accepted name for the smallest of the
MERGANSERS, JV. albellus (p. 544), though not unfrequently applied
in this country to some other Anatide as the .WIGEON and
PocHarD; but then generally in the form of SMEE-DUCK (¢f.
Dutch Smiente= Wigeon) or SMETHE, while in America one or
other of these variants is locally used for the PryTatn (Trumbull,
Names and Portr. B. . 38). Originally it would seem to have been
used for the female (Willughby, Orn. Engl. Ed. p. 337) of the
species to which it is now ordinarily applied, while the male was
the NUN.

SNAIL-EATER, an absurd name given to a_ species of
Anastomus (OPEN-BILL).

SNAITH or SNYTH, Orcadian for Coor.

SNAKE-BIRD, in many parts of England a name for the
WRYNECK, from the hissing noise it utters while in its nest; but
applied to a very different kind of bird by the English in North
America, because of its “long slender head and neck,” which, its
body being submerged as it swims, “appear like a snake rising
erect out of the water” (Bartram’s MS., quoted by Ord in Wilson’s
Am. Ornithology, ix. p. 81). It is the “ Darter” of many authors,
the Plotus anhinga} of ornithology, and is the type of a small but
very well-marked Family of Birds, Plotidz, belonging to the group
STEGANOPODES, and consisting of but a single genus and three or
four species. They bear a general resemblance both outwardly
and in habits to CORMORANTS, but are much more slender in form,
and have both neck and tail much elongated. The bill also,
instead of being tipped with a maxillary hook, has its edges beset
with serratures directed backwards, and is sharply pointed,—in

’

1 “ Anhinga,” according to Marcgrave, who first described this bird (Z/ts¢,
her, Nat. Brasil. p. 218), was the name it bore among the natives,

SNAKE-BIRD 881

this respect, as well as in the attenuated neck, likening the Snake-
birds to the Herons; but the latter do not generally transfix
their prey as do the former,

The male of the American species, which ranges from Illinois
to the south of Brazil, is in full breeding-plumage a very beautiful
bird, with crimson irides, the bare skin round the eyes apple-green
and that of the chin orange, the head, neck and most part of the
body clothed in black glossed with green ; but down each side of
the neck runs a row of long hair-like white feathers, tinged with

INDIAN SNAKE-BIRD. After Tickell’s drawing in the Zoological Society’s library.

pale lilac. The much elongated scapulars and the small upper
-wing-coverts bear each a median white mark, which on the former
is a stripe pointed at either end, and on the latter a broad ovate
patch.t The larger wing-coverts are dull white, but the quill-
feathers of the wings and tail are black, the last broadly tipped
with brownish-red, passing into greyish-white, and forming a con-
spicuous band when the tail is spread in form of a fan, as it often
is under water.?- The hen differs much in appearance from the

1 These feathers are very characteristic of each species of the genus, and in
India, says Jerdon, are among the Khasias a badge of royalty. =

2 This peculiarity, first pointed out to me by Mr. Bartlett, who observed
it in birds in the Zoological Society’s possession, doubtless suggested the name
of ‘‘ Water-Turkey” by which in some places Plotus anhinga is said to be
known,

c6

882 SNAKE-BIRD

cock, having the head, neck and breast of a more or less deep buff,
bounded beneath by a narrow chestnut band; but otherwise her
plumage is like that of her mate, only not so bright in colour. The
habits of this species have been repeatedly described by American
writers, and those of its congeners, to be immediately mentioned,
seem to be essentially the same. The Snake-bird frequents the
larger rivers or back-waters connected with them, where it may be
seen resting motionless on some neighbouring tree, generally choos-
ing a dead branch, or on a “snag” projecting from the bottom,
whence it plunges beneath the surface, in pursuit of its fishy prey,
to emerge, in the manner before related, shewing little more than
its slender head and neck. Its speed and skill under water are
almost beyond exaggeration, and it exhibits these qualities even in
captivity, taking—apparently without effort—fish after fish that
may be introduced into its tank, however rapidly they may swim
and twist, and only returning to its perch when its voracious appe-
tite is for the moment appeased or its supply of food temporarily
exhausted. Then, after adjusting its plumage with a few rapid
passes of its bill, and often expanding its wings, as though, Cor-
morant-fashion, to dry them, it abandons itself to the pleasurable
and passive process of digestion, reawaking to activity at the call
of hunger. Yet at liberty it will indulge in long flights, and those
of the male at the breeding-season are ostentatiously performed
in the presence of his mate, around whom he plays in irregular
zigzag courses. The nest is variously placed, but almost always
in trees or bushes overhanging the water’s edge, and is a large
structure of sticks, roots and moss, in which are laid four eggs
with the white chalky shell that is so characteristic of most
Steganopodous birds. Not unfrequently several or even many
nests are built close together, and the locality that suits the Snake-
bird suits also many of the Herons, so that these, its distant rela-
tives, are often also its near neighbours.! The African Snake-bird,
P. congensis (or levaillanti of some authors), inhabits the greater
part of that continent from Natal northwards; but, though met
with on the White Nile, it is not known to have occurred in Egypt,
a fact the more remarkable seeing that Canon Tristram found it
breeding in considerable numbers on the Lake of Antioch, to which
it is a summer-visitor, and it can hardly reach its home without
passing over the intervening country. The male is easily dis-
tinguishable from that of the American species by its rufous
coronal patch, its buff throat and its chestnut greater wing-coverts.
A third species, P. melanogaster, ranges from Madagascar to India,

1 The curious but apparently well-attested fact of the occurrence in England,
near Poole, in June 1851, of a male bird of this species (Zoologist, pp. 3601,
3654) has been overlooked by several writers who profess to mention all cases of
a similar character,

SNIPE 883

Ceylon, Borneo, Java and China, This so closely resembles the
last-mentioned that the differences between them cannot be briefly
expressed.!_ The Australian Region also has its Snake-bird, which
is by some regarded as forming a fourth species, P. novx-hollandix ;
but others unite it to that last-mentioned, which is perhaps some-
what variable, and it would seem (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 349)
that examples from New Guinea differ somewhat from those in-
habiting Australia itself.

The anatomy of the genus Plotus has been dealt with more
fully than that of most forms. Beside the excellent description
of the American bird’s alimentary canal furnished to Audubon by
Maegillivray, other important points in its structure have been
well set forth by Garrod and Forbes (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, pp.
335-345, pls. xxvi-xxvill.; 1878, pp. 679-681; and 1882, pp.
208-212), shewing among other things that there is an appreciable
anatomical difference between the species of the New World and
of the Old; while the osteology of P. melanogaster has been admir-
ably described and illustrated by Prof. Milne-Edwards in M.
Grandidier’s great work (Ois. Madag. pp. 691-695, pls. 284, 285).
In all the species the neck affords a feature which seems to be
unique. The first seven of the cervical vertebrae form a continuous
curve with its concavity forward, but the eighth articulates with
the seventh nearly at a right angle, and, when the bird is at rest,
lies horizontally. The ninth is directed downwards almost as
abruptly, and those which succeed present a gentle forward con-
vexity. The muscles moving this curious framework are as
curiously specialized, and the result of the whole piece of mechanism
is to enable the bird to spear with facility its fishy prey.

SNIPE, or SNITE—the latter being also its Anglo-Saxon form
(Icel. Snipa, Dutch Snip, Germ. Schnepfe)—one of the commonest
Limicoline birds, in high repute no less for the table than for the
exciting sport it affords. It is the Scolopax gallinago of Linnzus,
- but by many later writers separated from that genus, the type of
which is the Woopcock, and hence has been variously named
Gallinago celestis, G. media, or G. scolopacina. Though considerable
numbers are still bred in the British Islands, notwithstanding the
diminished area suitable for them, most of those that fall to the
gun are undoubtedly of foreign origin, arriving from Scandinavia
towards the close of the summer or later, and many will outstay
the winter if the weather be not too severe, while the home-bred
birds emigrate in autumn to return the following spring. Of late
years our markets have been chiefly supplied from abroad, mostly
from Holland.

1 Remains of a still smaller species, P. nanus, now extinct, have been found
in Mauritius (Trans. Zool. Soc. xii, p. 288).

884 SNIPE
The Snipe is fortunately too well known to need description,
for a description of its variegated plumage, if attempted, would be
long. It may be noticed, however, as subject to no inconsiderable
variation, especially in the extent of dark markings on the belly,
flanks and axillaries, while examples are occasionally seen in which
no trace of white, and hardly any of buff or grey, is visible,—the
place of these tints being taken by several shades of chocolate-
brown. Such examples were long considered to form a distinct
species, the S. sabinii, but its invalidity is now generally admitted.
No fewer than 55 specimens of this abnormality have been reckoned
by Mr. Barrett-Hamilton (Irish Nat. 1895, pp. 12-17), and every one
as yet examined seems to be a bird of the year. Other examples
in which buff or rust-colour predominates have also been deemed
distinct, and to these has been applied the epithet russata. Again,
a slight deviation from the ordinary formation of the tail, whose
rectrices normally number 14, and present a rounded termination,
has led to the belief in a species, S. brehm, now wholly discredited.
But, setting aside two European species, to be presently noticed
more particularly, there are at least a score, more or less nearly
allied, belonging to various parts of the world, for no considerable
territory is without its representative. Thus North America pro-
duces G. delicata or wilsoni, so like the English Snipe as not to be
easily distinguished except by the possession of 16 rectrices, and
Australia has G. australis, a larger and somewhat differently
coloured bird with 18 rectrices. India, while affording a winter
resort to multitudes of the common species, which besides Europe
extends its breeding-range over the whole of northern Asia, has
the so-called Pin-tailed Snipe, G. stenwra, in which the number of
rectrices is still greater, varying from 20 to 28, it is said, though
22 seems to be the usual number. ‘This curious variability, deserv-
ing more attention than it has yet received, only occurs in the outer
feathers of the series, which are narrow in form and extremely stiff,
there being always 10 in the middle of ordinary breadth.

Those who only know the Snipe as it shews itself in the shoot-
ing-season, when without warning it rises from the boggy ground
uitering a sharp note that sounds like scape, scape, and, after a
few rapid twists, darts away, if it be not brought down by the gun,
to disappear in the distance after a desultory flight, have no con-
ception of the bird’s behaviour at breeding-time. Then, though
flushed quite as suddenly, it will fly round the intruder, at times
almost hovering over his head. But, if he have patience, he will
see it mount aloft and there execute a series of aerial evolutions of
an astounding kind. After wildly circling about, and reaching a
height at which it appears a mere speck, where it winnows a random
zigzag course, it abruptly shoots downwards and aslant, and then
as abruptly stops to regain its former elevation, and this process

SNIPE 885

it repeats many times. A few seconds, more or less according to
distance, after each of these headlong descents a mysterious sound
strikes his ear—compared by some to drumming and by others to
the bleating of a sheep or goat,! which sound evidently comes
from the bird as it shoots downwards, and then only ; but how the
sound is made is a question on which many persons are still unde-
cided. There are those who maintain that it proceeds from the
throat, while some declare it is produced by the wings, which
sharp-sighted observers say they can see in tremulous motion.
Others, again, assert that it is caused by the vibration of the webs
of the outer rectrices, and these last have in support of their
opinion the fact that a similar sound may be made by affixing those
feathers to the end of a rod and drawing them rapidly downwards
in the same position as they occupy in the bird’s tail while it is
performing the feat.2 But, however it be produced, the air will
also ring with loud notes that have beén syllabled tinker, tinker,
tinker, while other notes in a different key, something like djepp,
djepp, djepp rapidly uttered, may be heard as if in response. ‘The
nest is always on the ground and is a rather deep hollow wrought
in a tuft of herbage, and lined with dry grass-leaves. The eggs
are four in number, of a dark olive colour, blotched and spotted
with rich brown. The young when freshly hatched are beautifully
clothed in down of a dark maroon, variegated with black, white
and buff.

The Double or Solitary Snipe of English sportsmen, S. major, a
larger species, also inhabits northern Europe and may be readily re-
cognized by the white bars on its wings and by its 16 or occasionally
18 rectrices. It has also a very different behaviour. When flushed
it rises without alarm-cry, and flies heavily. In the breeding-
season much of its love-performance is exhibited on the ground, and
the sounds to which it gives rise are of another character; but the
exact way in which its ‘‘ drumming” is effected has not been ascer-
tained. Its gesticulations at this time have been well described by
. Prof. Collett in a communication to Mr. Dresser’s birds of Europe
(vii. pp. 635-637). It visits Great Britain every year at the close
of summer, but in very small numbers, and is almost always seen
singly—not uncommonly in places where no one could expect to
find a Snipe.

1 Hence in many languages the Snipe is known by names signifying ‘‘ Flying
Goat,” ‘‘Heaven’s Ram,” as in Scotland by ‘‘ Heather-bleater.” One may
almost suspect that the aiyoxépados of the ancients was really this bird, though
the applicability of the name would be unknown to any one unacquainted with
its breeding habits.

2 Of. Meves, Gifvers. K. Vet.-Akad. Férh. 1856, pp. 275-277 (transl. Nawman-
nia, 1858, pp. 116, 117), and Proc. Zool. Soc. 1858, p. 202, with Wolley’s
remarks thereon, and Zool. Garten, 1876, pp. 204-208.

886 SNIPE

The third species of which any details can here be given is the
Jack,! or Half-Snipe, S. gallinula, one of the smallest and most
beautifully coloured of the group. Without being so numerous as the
common or full Snipe, it is of frequent occurrence in Great Britain
from September to April (and occasionally both earlier and later) ;
but it breeds only, so far as is known, in northern Scandinavia and
Russia; and the first trustworthy information of that subject was
obtained by Wolley in June 1853, when he found several of its nests
near Muonioniska in Lapland.? Instead of rising wildly as do most
of its allies, it generally lies so close as to let itself be almost trodden
upon, and then takes wing silently, to alight at a short distance (if
it escape the gin), and to return to the same place on the morrow.
In the breeding-season, however, it is as noisy and conspicuous as
its larger brethren while executing its aerial evolutions.

Asa group the Snipes are in several respects highly specialized, |
but here there is only
space to mention the
sensitiveness of the
bill, which, though to
some extent notice-
able in many SAND-
PIPERS is in Snipes
carried to an extreme
by a number of filaments, belonging to the fifth pair of nerves,
which run almost to the tip, and open immediately under the soft
cuticle in a series of cells that give this portion of the surface of
the premaxillaries, when exposed, a honeycomb-like appearance.
Thus the bill becomes a most delicate organ of sensation, and by
its means the bird, while probing for food, is at once able to dis-
tinguish the nature of the objects it encounters, though these are
wholly out of sight. So far as is known, the sternum of all the
Snipes, except the Jack-Snipe, departs from the normal Limicoline
formation, a fact which tends to justify the removal of that species
to a separate genus, Limnocryptes.

The so-called Painted Snipes, forming the genus Lostratula, or
I?thynchexa, demand a few words. Three species are now admitted,
natives respectively of South America, Africa and southern Asia,

BILu or Snxrpé from the side and beneath.
(After Swainson.)

? Though this word is clearly not intended as a nickname, such as is the
prefix which custom has applied to many birds, one can only guess at its origin
or meaning. It may be, as in Jackass, an indication of sex, for it is a popular
belief that the Jack-Snipe is the male of the common species ; or, again, it may
refer to the comparatively small size of the bird, as the ‘‘ jack” in the game of
bowls is the smallest of the bowls used, and as fishermen call the smaller Pikes
Jacks. Possibly this may account for Curlew-Jack as a name of the WHIMBREL.

* His account was published by Hewitson in May 1855 (Eygs Br. Birds, ed.
3, ll. pp. 856-358).

SNO W-BIRD—SOLITAIRE 887

and Australia. In all of these it appears that the female is larger
and more brilliantly coloured than the male, and in the last two
species she is further dis-
tinguished by what in most
birds is emphatically a mas-
culine property, though its
use is here unknown,—
namely a complex TRACHEA,
while the male has that organ simple. He is also believed to
undertake the duty of incubation.

BILu oF ParntTep Snipe. (After Swainson.)

SNOW-BIRD, a name variously applied in different parts of the
world, but perhaps originally to the Snow-buntTiNG, Plectrophanes
nivalis, Which is also known as SNOW-FINCH (through that name
being by some writers assigned to Montifringilla nivalis of the Alps,
which is often mistaken for it) and SNOW-FLAKE. SNOW-
COCK is an Anglo-Indian name for Tetraogallus himalayensis,
which others call SNOW-PARTRIDGE or SNOW-PHEASANT,
but the last is restricted by some to the birds of the beautiful genus
Crossoptilum.

SOLAN-GOOSE (Icel. Sula, Gael. Stdaire), often spelt SOLAND,
a very common name for the GANNET. The supposition that the
bird takes its name from the channel known as the Solent has
nothing to justify it.

SOLDIER-BIRD, a name in Australia for Myzomela sanguinoleuta,
also called BLooD-BIRD (p. 44), one of the Meliphagide (HONEY-
EATER, p. 428).

SOLITAIRE,! the name used by the French colonists for the
Didine bird of Bourbon (EXTERMINATION, p. 217), as we learn
from Du Bois (Voyages faits par le Sieur D. B. Paris: 1674, p. 170)
and Carré (Voyages dans les Indes Orientales, Paris: 1699, i. p. 12)
who were there in 1668 and the following years. In 1691 Leguat
arrived in Rodriguez, where he resided more than two years, and
in the narrative of his adventures he applied the same name to the
Didine bird he found there, of which he is the first known to have
given an account.2 This was rescued from obscurity by Buffon’s

1 According to Littré the first application of the word to a’ Bird is in the
Psalter (Ps. 101, 8, or 102, 7 of the Anglican version), the species there men-
tioned having been long identified with the Blue Rock-Turusu, MJonticola
cyanus. The name is also used in Jamaica (Gosse, B, Jai. p. 200) for Myiadectes
solitarius, possibly one of the Ampelidx, and has been carried on by Dr. Sharpe
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. vi. pp. 370-377) to other species of the genus.

2 T cannot but suspect there was some other, from what is said of a land-bird
that could not fly by the author of The Isle of Pines, a fictitious work ascribed by
Wood (Athen. Oxon. 918 ; cf. Rigg, Dict. Nat. Biogr. xl. pp. 259, 260) to Henry

Nevile, of which two editions appeared in 1668. Herbert (A Lelation of some

888 SOLITAIRE

ereat work in 1770, though the writer? regarded much of it as
fabulous, and hence, through Latham, Gmelin in 1788 accorded
technical recognition to Leguat’s bird as Didus solitarius, while
Strickland, sixty years after, referring it to a distinct genus,
Pezophaps, continued the latter’s name for it as an English word.
For want of space the de-
lightful account given by its
discoverer cannot be here
reproduced.2, Except a
brief notice by D’ Heguerty
(Mém. Soc. Se. Nancy, 1.
p. 79) in 1751, which adds
little to Leguat’s account,
and a manuscript report by
Pingré, who observed the
transit of Venus of 1761
in Rodriguez, to the effect
that the bird was then sup-
posed still to exist though
withdrawn to the most
inaccessible parts of the

yeeres Travatle, p. 211) must
have heard of it in 1634 or
Sess CIYLLE earlier, but thought it was the
: SE Gy Dopo (p. 158), which certainly
GG As tty was not in “Dygarroys” (=
ne Rodriguez), though it possibly
gave the hint to Nevile.
1 In the ‘‘ Zable” of the
original edition the article is
~.. assigned to Buffon ; but Sonnini,
=~- in his edition (iv. p. 343), says
it was by Guéneau de Mont-
b beillard.
Souitarre or Ropricuez. (After Leguat.) * Voyage et avuntures de
Francois Lequat, &c, 2 vols.
Londres: 1708. An English translation, made, according to Fennell (field-Nat.
ii. p. 185, note), by one Thompson, appeared in London the same year ; and this
has been edited for the Hakluyt Society (in 2 vols. 1891) with notes and many
additional illustrations by Capt. Oliver. Copious extracts from both French and
English versions are given by Strickland (Zhe Dodo and its Kindred, pp. 46-50),
and some passages have often been reprinted elsewhere. A Dutch translation
was published at Utrecht in 1708, and a German at Frankfurt and Leipzig in
1709. A mutilated French version appeared at Paris, without date, but after
1759, and was reissued there in 1883, with notes by M. Eugene Muller. M.
Théodore Sauzier has done a great service to the admirers of Leguat by discovering
and reprinting a very rare tract to which he refers, Un projet de république (Paris :
1887), written by Du Quesne and published anonymously at Amsterdam in 1689.

_ a

SOLITAIRE 889

island,! the only other documentary evidence forthcoming is in an
anonymous manuscript Lelation de Ile Rodrigue discovered, in 1874
by Mr. Rouillard of Mauritius, in the archives of the Ministry of
Marine at Paris (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, pp. 39-42), and believed
by Prof. Milne-Edwards (Comptes Rendus, xxx. pp. 1212-1216, and
An. Sc. Nat. ser. 6, ii. art. 4) to have been written about 1729. Even
this does not say very much of the Solitaire, though a great deal con-
cerning other birds of the island, and we are thrown back on
Leguat’s description, the accuracy of which, so long impugned, has
been wonderfully confirmed by recent discoveries. So early as 1789
certain bones encrusted with stalagmite and obtained from a cave in
Rodriguez by a resident named Labistour, came into the hands of
Desjardins, who in 1830 sent five of them to Cuvier. He, believing
them to be those of the Dodo, and to have been found in Mauritius
under a bed of lava, laid them before the French Academy of Sciences
(Rev. Bibliogr. Ann. Sc. Nat. 1830, p. 104; Edinb. Journ. Nat. Se.
iil. p. 31); but their true story was presently told to the Mauritian
Society by Desjardins himself (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1832, p. 111). In
1831 Mr. Eudes, at the instance of Telfair, dug from the same cave
a dozen bones (op. cit. 1833, p. 31), six of which were given to the
Andersonian Museum of Glasgow, and five (now in the British
Museum) to the Zoological Society, while a sixth was subsequently
presented by Bojer to Strickland, together with one from the
older “find” (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, iv. p. 326).2 Three other
bones, more or less imperfect, probably obtained by Telfair, were
in 1860 sent from the Museum at Port Louis by Bouton, who
rightly determined them, to Owen, in whose possession they re-
mained till 1877, when he handed them to Sir Edward Newton,
to be returned to their proper place? Thus just 21
specimens of bones ascribed to this bird were known to exist when
the gentleman last named visited Rodriguez, and entering a cave
on the 2nd November 1864, with the intention of seeking for
more, happily found two — one fragmentary the other perfect,
while Capt. Barclay afterwards gave him a third which he had picked
up (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, pp. 199-201; Ibis, 1865, p. 152). En-
couraged by this discovery, Sir Edward persuaded Mr. Jenner, the
resident magistrate in the island, to make further search, with the

1 This astronomer and his colleague Le Monnier dedicated a southern con-
stellation to the Solitaire ; but instead of tracing its outline, as they might well
have done from Leguat’s figure, they followed the ecclesiastical tradition and
chose that given by Brisson (Orn. ii. fol. xxviii. fig. 1) of the Philippine Rock-
Thrush, Monticola solitarius.

2 These two last are now in the Cambridge Museum.

3 Owen was wholly wrong in his belief (7'’rans. Zool. Soc. vii. p. 519, note ;
Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, ix. pp. 168, 241, 321) that he had returned these
specimens before.

890 SiOLTLAT Ture.

result that 85 more specimens were obtained in the following year
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, pp. 715-718). Moreover, the British Associa-
tion was induced by Mr. Sclater to supply Sir Edward with the
means of more extended exploration, and this, carried on by Mr.
Jenner’s orders, under the supervision of Sergeant Morris, pro-
duced nearly 2000 examples, which were in due time described
and figured (Phil. Trans. 1869, pp. 327-362, pls. xv.-xxiv.) That
the results obtained were important needs hardly to be said, but in
nothing were they more striking than in the testimony they bore
to the truth of Leguat’s account of the bird, even in parts which
had been thought too extraordinary for belief :—the rugosity at the
base of the bill indicated a caruncular ridge that he likened to “a
widow’s peak” and represented in his figure: the curved outline
of the pelvis is in accordance with the bird’s “hind part” being
“rounded like the crupper of a horse”: the long neck and legs
could not fail to produce “their fine mien” and the “stateliness
and good grace” with which they walked: but, more unexpected
than anything else was the “little round mass” of bone on the
wing “as big as a musket ball”—largely developed in the males
and forming a formidable weapon in the combats which took place
among rivals. All this, together with the difference of the sexes in
size which, though not positively stated, may be inferred from his
words, was just as he had said; and the variability of colour he had
noticed in the females—“ some fair, some brown ”’—was paralleled
by the marvellous variability displayed by almost every bone of the
skeleton. Mr. Jenner was good enough to continue his services,
and at least as many more specimens were obtained from the caves
in 1871. On the occasion of the Transit of Venus Expedition to
Rodriguez in 1874, Mr. H. H. Slater was commissioned by the
Royal Society to renew the exploration, and brought back a
collection as large as his predecessors had obtained, which to-
gether with the second acquisition of Mr. Jenner was dealt with
by Sir E. Newton and Mr. J. W. Clark (Phil. Trans. elxviii. pp.
448-451), while in 1875 the late Mr. J. Caldwell visited the
island (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, pp. 644-647) and excavated for him-
self not only at least two complete skeletons (since unhappily lost)
but also found associated with them 3 or 4 examples of the
stone which Leguat had said the bird always bore in its gizzard
(op. cit. 1878, p. 291) and thus crowned the work of establishing
his veracity.

Notwithstanding Leguat’s description and the fact that we know

1 This sexual inequality was first recognized by Sir E. Newton; but not
until it had misled Mr. Bartlett (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851, pp. 280-284, pl. xlv.),
Strickland (7’rans. Zool. Soc. iv. pp. 187-196, pl. 55) and myself. Even after my
brother had shewn it, Sir R. Owen fell into the same error, which he subse-
quently but tacitly acknowledged (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, i. p. 94).

SOLITAIRE 891

almost every bone? of the Solitaire’s skeleton, it is not easy to
picture its appearance in our imagination. Whatever be its source,
the figure given by him, and here reproduced as the only one
professing any originality, must be a caricature,* for it wholly wants
the beauty which he says was so characteristic of the bird. All
that can be said with certainty seems to be that it had nothing of
the clumsiness nor the prodigious beak of the Dedo, while the head
was rather flat than elevated at the top. The largest males
weighed from 40 to 50 lbs. and must have stood fully 2 feet 9
inches high ; the females were shorter by at least six inches. The
general colour of the former was brownish-grey, darker on the
back; while the latter varied from blonde to brunette, with the
swelling breast much whiter. The eyes were black, and according
to the anonymous author of the felation before cited the frontal
band was like black velvet, and black indeed it appears in Leguat’s
figure, though he is commonly understood to say that it was of a
tan colour, but his language seems open to the meaning that it was
the bill which was of that tint. The flank feathers were thick and
rounded at the end like shells, but generally the plumage must have
been soft (“ni plumes ni poils”) and it was kept extremely neat.
So much for the appearance of the birds, of their habits it may be
said that they were generally found singly or in pairs, but the
young, of which only one seems to have been hatched yearly,
accompanied its parents for some time. The nest was a heap of
palm-leaves, a foot and a half high, and therein a single egg was
laid, both parents incubating it in turn. The male birds, were very
pugnacious, and the number of bones that had been broken and
united during life contained in the collections brought to this
country is very considerable, shewing the effects of the cestus-like
armature of the wing. ‘The quarrels were no doubt between rival
birds, and they indulged in curious gesticulations, whirling round
20 or 30 times in succession, during which time they made
a loud noise with their wings. It would seem too that between
. the time of Leguat and that of the later observers the birds had
learnt to resent injurious treatment by biting.

1 The hyoids, the tip of the wing and the tail are, I think, the only exceptions.

? Leguat’s figures are neither works of art nor of authority, and no doubt
contributed to the ill repute under which he so long laboured. His marvellous
‘*Géant” is obviously taken from an engraving by Francis Barlow (cf Rowley,
Orn. Miscell. ii. p. 182), which is itself but a poor copy of one by Adrian Collaert
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, p. 194). Schlegel’s restoration of the Solitaire (Album
der Natwur, 1854, Aflev. ii. p. 344) is vitiated by his mistaken belief in the
Struthious affinity of the Dididx. Still it is the work of an artist and an orni-
thologist, which is more than can be said of one (produced, I believe, in France
but by whom I know not) that has of late years obtained a popular circulation,
as often happens with inferior work, and must be at least as wide of the mark as
Leguat’s.

892 SONG

These are meagre details, but they amount to more than we
know of the Dodo, while perhaps no species has had its osteology
examined on so great a scale as the Solitaire.

SONG plays a most important part in the economy of Birds,
though the word in a treatise like this has to be used in a general
sense, and not limited to the vocal sounds uttered by not more than
a moiety of the feathered races which charm us by the strains they
pour from their vibrating throat (¢/. SyYRINX),— strains indeed denied
by the scientific musician to come under cognizance as appertaining
to his .art, but strains which in all countries and in all ages have
conveyed a feeling of true pleasure to the human hearer, and
strains of which by common consent, in the Old World at least,
the NIGHTINGALE is the consummate master. It is necessary in
a scientific spirit to regard every sound made by a Bird under
the all-powerful influence of love or lust as a “Song.” It seems
impossible to draw any but an arbitrary line between the deep
booming of the Emu, the harsh ery of the GUILLEMOT (which,
proceeding from a thousand throats, strikes the distant ear in a con-
fused murmur like the roar of a tumultuous crowd), the plaintive
wail of the LAPWING, the melodious whistle of the WIGEoN, “ the
Cock’s shrill clarion,” the Cuckow’s “wandering voice,” the scream of
the EAGLE, the hoot of the OWL, the solemn chime of the BELLBIRD,
the whip-cracking of the MANAKIN, the CHAFFINCH’S joyous burst,
or the hoarse croak of the RAVEN, on the one hand, and the bleat-
ing of the SNIPE or the drumming of the Ruffed GROUSE, on the
other. Innumerable are the forms which such utterances take.
In many birds the sounds are due to a combination of vocal and
instrumental powers, or, as in the cases last mentioned, to the latter
only. But however produced—and of the machinery whereby
they are accomplished this is not the place to speak—all have
the same cause and the same effect. ‘The former has been already
indicated, and the latter is its consummation. Almost coinstan-
taneously with the hatching of the Nightingale’s brood, the song of
the sire is hushed, and the notes to which we have for weeks
hearkened with rapt admiration are changed to a guttural croak,
expressive of alarm and anxiety, inspiring a sentiment of the most
opposite character. No greater contrast can be imagined, and no
instance can be cited which more completely points out the purpose
which Song fulfils in the economy of the bird, for if the Nightin-
gale’s nest at this early time be destroyed or its contents removed,
the cock speedily recovers his voice, and his favourite haunts again
resound to his bewitching strains. For them his mate is content
again to undergo the wearisome round of nest-building and incuba-
tion. But should some days elapse before disaster befalls their
callow care, his constitution undergoes a change and no second

SONG 893

attempt to rear a family is made. It would seem as though a mild
temperature, and the abundance of food by which it is generally
accompanied, prompt the physiological alteration that inspires
the males of most birds to indulge in the Song peculiar to them.
Thus after the accomplishment of the annual MoULT, the most
critical epoch in the life of any bird, cock THRUSHES, SKYLARKS
and others begin to sing, not indeed with the jubilant voice of
spring, but in an uncertain cadence which is quickly silenced by
the supervention of cold weather.t Yet some birds we have which,
except during the season of moult, hard frost and time of snow,
sing almost all the year round. Of these the REDBREAST and the
WREN are familiar examples, and the Cuirr-CHAFF repeats its two-
noted cry, almost to weariness, during the whole period of its
residence in this country.?

Akin to the “Song” of Birds, and undoubtedly proceeding from
the same cause, are the peculiar gestures which the males of many
perform under the influence of the approaching season of pairing,
but these again are far too numerous here to describe with particu-
larity. It must suffice to mention a few cases. The RurrF on his
hillock in a marsh holds a war-dance. The Snipe and some of his
allies mount aloft and wildly execute unlooked-for evolutions
almost in the clouds. The Woopcock and many of the NIGHTJARS
beat evening after evening the same aerial path with its sudden and
sharp turnings. The Ring-DovVE rises above the neighbouring trees
and then with motionless wings slides down to the leafy retreat
they afford. The CAPERCALLY and BLACKCOCK, perched on a
commanding eminence, throw themselves into postures that defy
the skill of the caricaturist ’—other species of the Grouse-tribe
assume the strangest attitudes and run in circles till the turf is
worn bare. The PEACOCK in pride spreads his train so as to shew
how nearly akin are the majestic and the ridiculous. The BowEr-
BIRD, not content with his own splendour, builds an arcade, decked
with bright feathers and shining shells, or arranges a trim garden

with moss and newly-plucked flowers, through and around which
he paces with his gay companions. The LARKS and PIPITs never
deliver their song so well as when seeking the upper air. RooKs
rise one after the other to a great height and, turning on their

1 Jenyns (Obser. Nat. Hist. pp. 86-102) has some good notes on the singing of
Birds, and particularly as to the time of its beginning in the morning.

2 A curious question, which has as yet attracted but little attention, is
whether the notes of the same species of Bird are in all countries alike. From my
own observation I am inclined to think that they are not, and that there exist
‘¢ dialects,” so to speak, of the song. (Cf Gloger, Jour. fiir Orn. 1859, p. 398 ;
Allen, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoél. Harvard, ii. pp. 166, 167.)

3 The singular fact that during the paroxysms that attend this performance of
the Capercally the bird becomes deaf has long been known to foresters, but it
has been only of late explained (cf. HAr, p. 178).

Bo4 SONG

back, wantonly precipitate themselves many yards towards the
ground, while the solemn Raven, does not scorn a similar feat, and,
with the tenderest of croaks, glides supinely alongside or in front
of his mate.!

Yet there are cases in which these gestures are not confined to
the males, but are shared by both sexes. Any one who has
watched a pair of Wild Ducks of any species in spring can hardly
fail to have been entertained by their proceedings, in which the
most affectionate caresses are mingled with acts to all appearance
of violence, and these last are, as often as not, begun by the female.
The same may be said of GrEBES, which like Ducks will swim in
circles with the head, now raised aloft, now laid flat on the water.
Many of the movements are simultaneously performed by both
partners, others by each alternately, and solemn bows are exchanged
with ludicrous regularity. Suddenly a playful attack is made by
one bird on the other, and then all the spectator sees is a splash or
series of splashes in the water, while his ears are struck by the loud
and harsh cries of the actors in this display.2, But there are other
birds in which gesticulations are carried much further, and it would
seem that JACANAS and some of the RAILS join in festive dances
that can be only likened to balls, the performers becoming excited
almost to frenzy, and with loud cries and outstretched wings
rushing from side to side for several minutes. Still more strange
are said to be some of the actions of the Cayenne LAPWING, where
one bird of a pair leaving his own mate will pay a visit toa
neighbouring pair, by whom he is received with ceremonious
courtesy: the three form a procession, the stranger walking in
front and his hosts following-—all keeping step and uttering
resonant drumming notes. Presently the march stops, the stranger
elevates his wings, and stands motionless, while the other two,
exactly abreast, halt behind him, drop their voice to a murmur,
touch the ground with the bill, as though making obeisance, and in
this posture remain for some time. ‘Then the ceremony is over,
and the visitor retires to his own ground and mate, to receive
another visitor in exactly the same way.

1 No comprehensive account of the Song of Birds seems ever to have been
written. The following may be cited among the principal treatises on the subject:—
Barrington, Phil. Trans. 1773, pp. 249-291 ; Kennedy, NV. Abhandl. baier. Akad.
(Phil. Abhandl.) 1797, p. 169; Blackwall, Mem. Lit. and Phil. Soc. Manch.
1824, pp. 289-323 ; Savart, (Mroriep’s) Notizen wu. s. w. 1826, pp. 1-10, 20-25 ;
Brehm and Hansmann, Nawmannia, 1855, pp. 54-59, 96-101, 181-195, and
Journ. fiir Orn. 1855, pp. 848-3851, 1856, pp. 250-255. The notes of many of
our common birds are musically expressed by Mr. Harting, Birds of Middlesex
(London: 1866); and Prof. Paolucci, 22 Canto degli Uccelli (Milano: 1878).

2 Cf. Stevenson and Southwell, B. Norf. iii. p. 239.

8 Cf. Mr. Hudson’s interesting Naturalist in La Plata (chap. xix.) whence are

|

*)

hme » >

SORA—SPARROW 895

SORA or SOREE, the name given in North America to a RAIL,
Porzana carolina.

SORE-FALCON or HAWK (Fr. sor or saure; Low Latin
saurius), a bird of the first year that has not moulted, but properly
applicable only to those species which in that condition have
reddish plumage, and hence more often called “ Red Hawks.” The
ordinary spelling “Soar” (as though from the French essorer and
supposed Low Latin exawrare) is misleading, for the word has
nothing to do with flight but only colour, and is apparently akin
to “sorrel” applied to a horse. (Cf. Littré, sud voce. citt.)

SOUTH-SOUTHERLY, one of the many names of the Long-
tailed Duck.

SPARLIN-FOWL, a name of the female or immature Goos-
ANDER, as old as Willughby’s time but apparently now obsolete.
Sparlin or Sparling is a local name of the Fish more commonly
called Smelt, Osmerus eperlanus.

SPARROW (A.-S. Spearwa ; Icel. Spérr; Old High Germ. Sparo
and Sparwe), a word perhaps (like the equivalent Latin Passer)
originally meaning almost any small bird, but gradually restricted in
signification and nowadays in common English applied to only four
kinds, which are further differentiated as Hedge-Sparrow, House-
Sparrow, Tree-Sparrow and Reed-Sparrow—the last being a
BUNTING (p. 61)—though when used without a prefix the second
of these is usually intended.

1. The Hepcr-Sparrow, called DUNNOCK in many parts of
Britain, the Accentor modularis of ornithologists, is the little brown-
backed bird with an iron-grey head and neck that is to be seen in
nearly every garden throughout the country, unobtrusively and
yet tamely seeking its food, which consists almost wholly of insects,
as it progresses over the ground in short jumps, each movement
being accompanied by a slight jerk or shuffle of the wings, and
_ hence another local name, SHUFFLEWING. Though on the Continent
it regularly migrates, it is one of the few soft-billed birds that
reside throughout the year with us, and is one of the earliest
breeders,—its well-known greenish-blue eggs, laid in a warmly-
built nest, being recognized by hundreds as among the surest signs
of returning spring ; but a second or even a third brood is produced
later. The cock has a sweet but rather feeble song ; and the species
has long been accounted, though not with accuracy, to be the most
common dupe of the Cuckow. Several other species are assigned to
the genus Accentor ; but all, except the Japanese A. rubidus, which is
the counterpart of the British Hedge-Sparrow, inhabit more or less

taken the particulars of the last three birds above mentioned, Parra jacana,
Aramides ypecaha and Vanellus cayennensis, all of them being therein figured,

896 SPARROW

rocky situations, and one, 4. collavis or alpinus, is a denizen of
the higher mountain-ranges of Europe, though it has several times
strayed to England. The taxonomic position of the genus is
regarded by some systematists as uncertain; but there seems no
good reason for removing it from the group which contains the
THRUSHES and WARBLERS (7'urdidxw and Sylviidex), to which it was
long referred without doubt.

2. The HousE-SpARROW, the Fringilla domestica of Linnzeus and
Passer domesticus of modern authors, is far too well known to need
any description of its appearance or habits,
being found, whether in country or town, more
attached to human dwellings than any other
wild bird ; nay, more than that, one may safely
assert that it is not known to thrive anywhere
far away from the habitations or works of

Fr nr men, extending its range in such countries as

a ae Northern Scandinavia and many parts of the
Russian empire as new settlements are formed and land brought
under cultivation. Thus questions arise as to whether it should not
be considered a parasite throughout the greater portion of the area
it now occupies, and as to what may have been its native country.
Moreover, of late years it has been inconsiderately introduced to
several of the large towns of North America and to many of the
British colonies, in nearly all of which, as had been foreseen by orni-
thologists, it has multiplied to excess and has become an intolerable
nuisance, being unrestrained by the natural checks which partly
restrict its increase in Europe and Asia. Whether indeed in the older
seats of civilization the House-Sparrow is not decidedly injurious to
the agriculturist and horticulturist has long been a matter of discus-
sion, and no definite result that a fair judge can accept has yet been
reached. It is freely admitted that the damage done to growing crops
is often enormous, but as yet the service frequently rendered by the
destruction of insect-pests cannot be calculated. Both friends and
foes of the House-Sparrow write as violent partisans,? and the

1 The ornithologists of the United States had timely warning from their
English brethren to beware of this species, but some of them persisted in allowing
or even advocating its introduction—the main object of which was alleged to be
the destruction of ‘‘ measuring worms”’—the common name applied to the larve
of certain of the Geometride, and the bird’s arrival was hailed in an ode by so dis-
tinguished a poet as Bryant. Having found their new colonist a failure, it seems
too bad of them to distinguish it emphatically as the ‘‘ English” Sparrow, for
we, in this country, know what feeling that epithet expresses among the less-
educated class of citizens of the great Republic ; and, as hinted in the text,
the House-Sparrow is in all likelihood not indigenous to England. On its
introduction to America Messrs, Baird, Brewer and Ridgway gave it its correct
designation.

2 Some of the more recent attacks upon it are contained in several issues of

SPARROW-HAWK 897

truth will not be known until a series of experiments, conducted
by scientifically-trained investigators, has been instituted, which, to
the shame of our numerous agricultural and horticultural societies,
has not yet been done. It is quite likely that the result will be
unfavourable to the House-Sparrow, from what has been said above
as to its being so dependent on man for its subsistence ; but, while
the evil it does is so apparent,—for instance, the damage to ripen-
ing grain-crops,—the extent of the counterbalancing benefit is
quite uncertain, and from the nature of the case is* often over-
looked. In the South of Europe the House-Sparrow is in some
measure replaced by two allied species, P. hispaniolensis and P.
italiz, whose habits are essentially identical with its own; and it is
doubtful whether the Sparrow of India, P. indicus, is specifically
distinct ; but Africa has several members of the genus which are
decidedly so.

3. The TREE-SPARROW, the Fringi/la montana of Linnzus, and
Passer montanus of modern writers, in appearance much resembling
the House-Sparrow, but easily distinguishable by its reddish-brown
crown, the black patch on the sides of its neck and its doubly-
barred wings,’ is a much more local species, in England generally
frequenting the rows of pollard-willows that line so many rivers
and canals, in the holes of which it breeds; but in some Eastern
countries, and especially in China, it frequents houses, even in
towns, and so fills the place of the House-Sparrow. Its geo-
graphical distribution is extensive, and marked by some curious
characters, among which may be mentioned that, being a great
wanderer, it has effected settlements even in such remote islands as
the Feroes and some of the Outer Hebrides.

That the genus Passer properly belongs to the Fringillidx is
admitted by most ornithologists, yet there have been some who
would refer it to the Ploceidze (WEAVER-BIRD), if they are to be
accounted as forming a distinct Family. The American birds called
“Sparrows” have little in common with the members of the genus
Passer, and probably belong rather to the Family Emberizide than
to the Iringillidx (cf. TOWHEE).

SPARROW-HAWK, Sw. Sparrhék, Dutch Sperwer, Germ.
Sperber, O. H. G. Sparvari, O. Fr. Esprevier, Mod. Fr. Epervier (all

the Report of Observations of Injurious Insects and Common Crop Pests, annually
made by Miss Ormerod, and in a little volume, with the title of The Housc-
Sparrow, published in 1885, which consists chiefly of three essays by Mr. J. H.
Gurney, jun., the late Lieut.-Col. C. Russell, and Prof. Coues, but the last has
only reference to the behaviour of the bird in the United States of America,
where, from the reason above assigned, its presence was expected by almost all
well-informed persons to be detrimental.

1 A more important difference is that the two sexes have almost the same
plumage, while in the House-Sparrow they are unlike in this respect,

57

898 SPARROW-HAWK

akin to the Gothic Sparva, SPARROW), perhaps the commonest Bird-
of-Prey now left in the British Islands, and the only one that in
these days can be said to be practically detrimental to the game-
preserver. It is the Accipiter nisus of most modern authors, stand-
ing as the type of the genus of that name (HAWK, p. 412). Too
well known to need description here, there must be few observers
of nature who have net at one time or another witnessed the con-
sternation that prevails among small birds on the unexpected and
rapid dash among them of a Sparrow-Hawk which, still and motion-
less in some convenient tree or bush, has been biding its oppor-
tunity, while the victim, which the aggressor rarely misses, is

Sparrow-Hawk. Male and female.

as speedily snatched away to be eaten in covert seclusion, for the
Sparrow-Hawk shews itself in the open as little as possible. The
species is widely distributed throughout the palarctic area
from Ireland to Japan, extending also to northern India and
Egypt, while a second species 4. brevipes (by some placed in the
group Micronisus and by others called an Astur), only appears in
the south-east of Europe and the adjoining parts of Asia Minor
and Persia. In North America the place of the former is taken by
two very distinct species, a small one, 4. fuscus, known in Canada
and the United States as the Sharp-shinned Hawk, and 4. coopert
(by some placed in another genus, Cooperastur), which is larger and
has not so northerly a range. In South America there are four or
five more, including 4. tinus, before mentioned (p. 412) as the
smallest of all, while a species not much larger, 4. minullus, together

SPARROW-OWL—SPHENISCOMORPHA 899

with several others of greater size, inhabits South Africa. Mada-
gascar and its neighbouring islands have three or four species sufli-
ciently distinct, and India has 4. badius. A good many more forms
are found in South-eastern Asia, in the Indo-Malay Archipelago,
and in Australia three or four species, of which 4. cirrhocephalus
most nearly represents the Sparrow-Hawk of Europe and Northern
Asia, while A. radiatus and A. approximans shew some affinity to
the Gos-HAwKk (p. 377) with which they are often classed. The
differences between all the forms above named and the much larger
number here unnamed are such as can be only appreciated by the
specialist, and could not possibly be pointed out within the limits of
this work. It may be observed in conclusion that the so-called
“ Sparrow-Hawk” of New Zealand (QUAIL-HAWK, p. 757) does not
belong to this group of Falconidx, and that of America is an un-
doubted KESTREL (p. 477).

SPARROW-OWL, a name applied by some writers to Carine
noctua, though more suited to Glaucidium passerinum, and in North
America to Nyctala richardsont.

SPECULUM (Germ. Spiegel, Fr. miroir), a long-established name
for any patch of feathers on the wing of a bird differing remark-
ably in colour from those that are near them, and especially applied
to the lustrous patch, called the “beauty spot” by some writers
and even now by gunners, formed by the cubital remiges in the
freshwater-DUCKS (Anatinz).

SPEICHT (Hollyband, Dict. Fr. and Engl. sub. voc. “ Pie”),
SPEIGHT or corruptly SPITE, generally with the prefix “ Wood”
(Germ. Specht, Fr. Epeiche) names of a WOODPECKER, generally
Gecinus viridis, but sometimes Dryocopus major.

SPEKVRETER (Fat-eater), a bird so called in South Africa as
it is supposed to pick the grease from the waggon-wheels (Layard,
B. S. Afr. p. 108), a species of Saaicola (WHEATEAR), for a long
while thought to be the Sylvia sperata of Latham, which is founded
on the ‘“ Traquet du cap de Bonne-espérance” of Buffon (H. NV. Cis. v.
p. 233), but his description so ill accords with the former that
Messrs. Blanford and Dresser (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, p. 237)
referred it to the Erythropygia galton of Strickland (Contr. Orn.
1852, p. 147), shewing that it cannot be the Luticilla familiaris
of Stephens, as some authors had alleged, and it now stands as
S. galtons.

SPENCY, a local name for the Storm-PETREL (cf, p. 709).

SPERVEL (from the Dutch) the name in South Africa for a
FALCON, probably Falco minor (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 19).

SPHENISCOMORPH, according to Prof. Huxley’s arrange-

goo SPIDER-CA TCHER—SPOONBILL

ment (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 456, 458) the fourth great group of
SCHIZOGNATHA, consisting of the birds now known as PENGUINS.

SPIDER-CATCHER or -HUNTER, a book-name given to the
larger forms of SUN-BIRD. .

SPIKE-TAIL, a local name in North America for the PINTAIL.
SPINAL CORD, see Nervous System (p. 622).

SPINE-BILL, the name given in Australia to birds of the
genus Acanthorhynchus, one of the Meliphagide (HONEY-EATER), and
in New Zealand to the very peculiar Acanthidositta.

SPINE-TAIL, as a prefix to Duck or Swirt signifies re-
spectively birds of the genus Lrismatura, of wide distribution, and
Acanthyllis, but used alone by Mr. Hudson (Argent. Orn. i. pp.
174-188) for several species of Synallaxis (PICUCULE, p. 719).

SPINK, a very common local name of the CHAFFINCH (p. 82).

SPIRIT-DUCK, a name widely given by gunners to species of
Clangula (GOLDEN-EYE, p. 368), but in Canada especially to C.
albeola, from their instantly diving at the flash of a gun or the
twang of a bow (¢/. Richardson, Faun. Bor.-Am. ii. p. 437).

SPLEEN, a small pulpy mass of oval or worm-like shape, and
generally of a bluish-red colour, which in most Birds rests upon and
is loosely attached to the right side of the proventricular or
glandular STOMACH; but the form, size, position and colour of
this organ, which apparently plays an important part in the economy
uf the blood-corpuscles, vary much in different birds.

SPOONBILL. The bird now so called was formerly known in
England as the POPELER, Shovelard or Shovelar, while that which
used to bear the name of Spoonbill is the SHOVELER (p. 840) of
modern days—the exchange of names having been effected about
200 years ago, when the subject of the present notice, the Platalea
leucorodia of ornithology, was doubtless better known than now,
since it evidently was, from ancient documents, the constant con-
comitant of Herons, and with them the law tried to protect it! The
Calendar of Patent [olls of Edw. I. shews (p. 546) the issue in
1300 of a commission to enquire who carried off the eyries of these
birds (“poplorum”) at several places in Norfolk, and Mr. Harting

1 Nothing shews better the futility of the ancient statutes for the protection
of birds than the fact that in 1534 the taking of the eggs of Herons, Spoonbills
(Shovelars), Cranes, Bitterns, and Bustards was visited by a heavy penalty,
while there was none for destroying the parents in the breeding-season. All the
birds just named, except the Heron, have passed away, while there is reason to
think that some at least might have survived had the spirit of the Levitical
law (Deut. xxii. 6) been followed. In 1894 an Act of Parliament was passed,
reviving (at the will of a County Council, subject to the approval of a Secretary
of State) the principle of the old law which had proved so insufficient.

ay

petty

SPOONB/LL gol

(Zool. 1886, pp. 81 et seqg.) cites a case from the “ Year-Book” of 14
Hen. VIII. (1523), wherein the Bishop of London (Cuthbert Tunstall)
maintained an action of trespass against a tenant at Fulham for
taking Herons and “Shovelars” that made their nests on the trees
there, and has also printed (Zool. 1877, p. 425) a document shewing
that ‘“Shovelers” bred in certain woods in west Sussex in 1570.
In George Owen’s Description of Penbrokshire, written in 1602
(ed. 1892, p. 131), the “Shovler” was stated to breed “on highe
trees” in that county, and nearly sixty years later (circa 1662) Sir
Thomas Browne, in his Account of Birds found in Norfolk (Works, ed.
Wilkin, iv. pp. 315, 316), stated of the ‘‘Platea or Shouelard” that it
formerly “built in the Hernerie at Claxton and Reedham, now at
Trimley in Suffolk.” This last seems to be the latest known proof of
the breeding of the species in England; but that it was in the fullest
sense of the word a “native” of England and Wales is thus incon-
testably shewn; though for many years past it has only been a
more or less regular visitant, not seldom in considerable numbers,
which would doubtless, if allowed, once more make their home here ;
but its conspicuous appearance renders it an easy mark for the
gunner and the collector. What may have been the case on the
continent formerly is not known, except that, according to Belon, it
nested in his time (1555) in the borders of Britanny and Poitou ;
but as regards north-western Europe it seems of late years to have
bred only in Holland, and there it has been deprived by drainage
of its favourite resorts, one aiter the other, so that it must shortly
become merely a stranger, except in Spain or the basin of the
Danube and other parts of south-eastern Europe.

The Spoonbill ranges over the greater part of middle and
southern Asia, and breeds abundantly in India, as well as on some
of the islands in the Red Sea, and seems to be resident throughout
Northern Africa. In Southern Africa its place is taken by an
allied species with red legs, P. cristata or tenuirostris, which also
goes to Madagascar. Japan, Corea and Eastern China possess
also a smaller species, P. minor, while a distinct one, P. intermedia,
is said to be found in New Guinea. Australia has two other species,
P. regia or melanorhynchus, with black bill and feet, and P. flavipes,
in which those parts are yellow. The very beautiful and wholly
different P. ajaja is the Roseate Spoonbill of America, and is the
only one found on that continent, the tropical or juxta-tropical
parts of which it inhabits. The rich pink, deepening in some parts
into crimson, of nearly all its plumage, together with the yellowish-
green of its bare head and its lake-coloured legs, sufficiently marks
this bird; but all the other species are almost wholly clothed in
pure white, though the English has, when adult, a fine buff pectoral
band, and the spoon-shaped expanse of its bill is yellow, contrasting
with the black of the compressed and basal portion. Its legs are

go2 SPOWE—STANIEL

also black. In the breeding-season a pendent tuft of white plumes
further ornaments the head of both sexes, but is longest in the male.
The young of the year have the primary quills dark-coloured.

The Spoonbills form a natural group, Plataleida, allied, as before
stated (p. 456), to the Jbididz, and somewhat more distantly to the
Storks. They breed in societies, not only of their own kind, but
in company with Herons, either on trees or in reed-beds, making
large nests in which are commonly laid four eggs,—white, speckled,
streaked or blotched, but never very closely, with light red. Such
breeding-stations have been several times described, and among the
more recent accounts of one of them are those of Messrs. Sclater
and W. A. Forbes (/bis, 1877, p. 412), and Mr. Seebohm (Zool.
1880, p. 457), while a view of another has been attempted by
Schlegel (Vog. Nederland, taf. xvii.). The latest systematic revision
of the group is by Mr. Grant (bis, 1889, pp. 32-58, pl. i.).

SPOWE, Icel. Spc, an old name, though apparently yet extant,
for the WHIMBREL; but SPOWSE is an ancient corruption of
Sparrowes, 7.¢. SPARROWS.

SPRAT-LOON, a gunner’s name for a DIVER in immature or
winter-plumage—the Red-throated Diver, Colymbus septentrionalis, as
the commonest species, being that which is generally meant.

SPRIG-TAIL, a name for the Prnram (p. 726), and perhaps
also for the Long-tailed Duck (HARELD, p. 406), though that is a
species much less common than the other.

SPRITE, see SPEICHT (p. 899).

SPUR-FOWL, the Anglo-Indian name for birds of the genus
Galloperdix, allied to Gallus (FOWL, p. 289), but remarkable for the
two, or sometimes even three, pairs of spurs that the cock bears
on his legs, while the hens are similarly armed. Three species are
known, of which the first described is peculiar to Ceylon, and is the
Perdix bicalcarata of J. R. Forster in 1781 (Ind. Zool. p. 25, pl. xiv.),
the other two inhabiting the mainland of India; but their respective
range seems not to have been yet defined with precision (Hume,
Nests and Eggs Ind. B. ed. 2, iii. pp. 423-425). One of them, G.
spadicea, was originally described as from Madagascar; but, as Dr.
Hartlaub shewed in 1861 (Orn. Beitr. Madag. p. 69), evidently by
mistake.

SQUACCO, the mis-spelling of Latham (Gen. Synops. iii. p. 74,
in place of Sguacco, the Italian name of a HERON (p. 419, note),
Ardea ralloides or comata, which was correctly given by Willughby
and Ray (though they had not seen the bird) from Aldrovandus.
The error has, however, established itself firmly.

STANIEL, STANNEL and STONEGALL (Germ. Steingail),

STARLING 903

J

variations of a local name of the KESTREL, commonly, but according
to Prof. Skeat (7rans. Philolog. Soc. 1888-90, pp. 20-22) erroneously,
referred by guessing etymologists to “Stand-gale” (cf. WINDHOVER)
—its real meaning being the bird that yells or cries from a stone
or rock,

STARLING (A.-S. Str, Stearn and Sterlyng; Lat. Sturnus ;
Fr. Htournecau), a bird long time well known in most parts of
England, and now, through the extension of its range within the
present century, in the rest of Great Britain, as well as in Ireland,
where, though not generally distri-
buted, it is very numerous in some
districts. It is about the size of a
Thrush, and, though at a distance it
appears to be black, when near at
hand its plumage is seen to be
brightly shot with purple, green and
steel-blue, most of the feathers when freshly grown being tipped
with buff. These markings wear off in the course of the winter,
and in the breeding-season the bird is almost spotless. It is the
Sturnus vulgaris of ornithologists.

To describe the habits of the Starling! within the limits here
allotted is impossible. A more engaging bird scarcely exists, for
its familiarity during some months of the year gives opportunities
for observing its ways that few others afford, while its varied song,
its sprightly gestures, its glossy plumage, and, above all, its character
as an insecticide—which last makes it the friend of the agriculturist
and the grazier—render it an almost universal favourite. The
worst that can be said of it is that it occasionally pilfers fruit, and,
as it flocks to roost in autumn and winter among reed-beds, does
considerable damage by breaking down the stems.” The congrega-
tions of Starlings are indeed very marvellous, and no less than the
aerial evolutions of the flocks, chiefly before settling for the night,
have attracted attention from early times, being mentioned by
Pliny (Hist. Nat. x. 24). The extraordinary precision with which
the crowd, often numbering several hundreds, not to say thousands,
of birds, wheels, closes, opens out, rises and descends, as if the
whole body were a single living thing—all these movements being
executed without a note or ery being uttered—must be seen to be
appreciated, and may be seen repeatedly with pleasure. For a

Srurnus. (After Swainson.)

1 They are dwelt on at some length in Yarrell’s British Birds, ed. 4, vol. ii.
pp. 229-241. ,

2 A most ridiculous and unfounded charge has been, however, more than
once brought against it—that of destroying the eggs of Skylarks. There is little
real evidence of its sucking eggs, and much of its not doing so; while, to render
the allegation still more absurd, it has been brought by a class of farmers who
generally complain that Skylarks themselves are highly mjurious.

go4 SAN SEE REORN GALES:

resident, the Starling is rather a late breeder. The nest is commonly
placed in the hole of a tree or of a building, and its preparation is
the work of some little time. The eggs, from 4 to 7 in number,
are of a very pale blue, often tinged with green. As the young
grow they become very noisy, and their parents, in their assiduous
attendance, hardly less so, thus occasionally making themselves dis-
agreeable in a quiet neighbourhood. The Starling has a wide range
over Europe and Asia, reaching India ; but examples from Kashmir,
Persia and Armenia have been considered worthy of specific dis-
tinction, and some of them are suspected to occur occasionally in
England (cf. Sharpe, Cat. Bb. Br. Mus. xiii. pp. 26-38, and Journ.
fiir Orn. 1891, pp. 307, 308), while the resident Starling of the
countries bordering the Mediterranean is generally regarded as a
good species, and called S. wnicolor from its unspotted plumage.

Of the many forms allied to the genus Sturnus, some of which
have perhaps been needlessly separated therefrom, those known as
GRACKLES (p. 378) and the beautiful Pasror (p. 698), which last,

LAMPROCOLIUS. ; LAMPROTORNIS.
(After Swainson.)

as suggested by Cuvier, seems to have been the Selewcis of the
ancients, have been already mentioned; but the so-called Glossy
Starlings of Africa, Lamprocolius and Lamprotornis, yet need that
their names should appear here.

STARN or STERN, see TERN.

STEGANOPODES, Illiger’s name in 1811 for a group consist-

ing of the genera Pelecanus (PELICAN), Haleus (= Phalacrocoraz,
CorMORANT), Dysporus ( = Sula, GANNET) Phaethon (TROPIC-BIRD), and
Plotus (SNAKE-BIRD); by many writers reasonably regarded as a
natural group or Order, though the application of the word can
hardly be commended by an etymologist, for oreyavés (roofed,
covered or, in some cases, firm) can only be forced to signify the
connexion of all the toes by asingleweb. The FRIGATE-BIRDS were
included by Illiger in the genus Haleus.

STEREORNITHES,! the name conferred in 1891 by Sefiores
Moreno and Mercerat (Anales del Museo de La Plata, Paleontologia
Argentina, i. pp. 20, 837) on a proposed new Order of Birds, from

1 For this article 1am once more obliged to Mr. Lydekker, who enjoys the
enviable privilege of having twice visited South America to examine the
marvellous fossil remains some of which are here briefly treated. —A. N.

a,
i
i
j
}

me

STEREORNITHES 905

remains, mostly of gigantic size, found in the Tertiary strata of Santa
Cruzin Patagonia. They were considered to combine the.characters
of Anseres, Herodiones and Accipitres, to shew a transition from the
Anatidx to the Vulturidz, and to be separable into nine genera, which
were grouped in four Families: In a critical review of this memoir,
published in the same year, Dr. Florentino Ameghino (fevist. Argent.
Hist. Nat. i. pp. 441-453) came to the conclusion that the whole
series of remains might be referred to two genera, Phororhacos! and
Brontornis, both included in the family Phororhacidx, which he placed
among the Jtatitz, a third genus, named Opisthodactylus from a
peculiarity in the position of the facet for the hallux, being at the
same time proposed. These views were provisionally accepted by
the present writer (/bis, 1893, pp. 40-47) ;-but an examination of
the specimens in the Museum of La Plata induced him (Nat. Sc.
1894, p. 125) to consider the retention of the Order Stercornithes
desirable, and also to declare that the Santa Cruz beds were in all
probability not older than the Upper Oligocene ; while here it may
be mentioned that the group of Birds is also represented in the
somewhat newer deposits of Monte Hermoso near Bahia Blanca.
The most important information regarding these Birds is that given
in 1895 by Dr. Ameghino (Bole. del Inst. Geograf. Argent. xv. 11,
12), where a considerable number of their remains, obtained by his
brother in Patagonia, are figured ; the validity of the group Stereor-
nithes is admitted, and nine genera” are referred to it, Phororhacos
with six species, Pelecyornis with three, Brontornis with one or two,
and the others with one each; all but Opisthodactylus, which is
regarded as forming a distinct Family, being grouped as Phororhacide.
The most conspicuous peculiarity of the Séereornithes is the
enormous size and ponderous structure of the skull, which is quite
unlike that of any recent Bird, and seems out of all proportion to
the limbs, gigantic as are some of the leg-bones. ‘The upper jaw is
remarkable for its extreme lateral compression, and yet is of great
depth, its extremity terminating in a hook, while that of the man:
dible turns upward There is no ossified interorbital septum, and
the orbits apparently communicate with the preorbital vacuity,
while the nostrils, which are situated high up, are pervious. The
1 This, with the spelling Phorysrhacos, had been originally described in 1887
by Dr. Ameghino (Bolet. Mus. de la Plata, i. p. 24) from its mandible as an
Edentate Mammal ; but its ornithic nature was declared by him four years later
(Revist. Argent. Hist. Nat. i. p. 255). As to the etymology of the name, con-
jecture only can be entertained. That which is next to it in point of time is
Mesembriornis, Moreno (Progresos del Mus. la Plata, p. 29. Buenos Aires: 1889.)
2 These are by no means the same as the nine before proposed by Sefiores
Moreno and Mercerat, all but two of which are submerged, while others are
proposed.
’ 8 Sefiores Moreno and Mercerat figured the mandibles as upper jaws (op. cit.
pls. v. fig. 3, vi. fig. 2, viii. fig. 4, ix. fig. 2, pp. 20, 21).

906 STEREORNITHES

quadrate articulates with the squamosal by two distinct heads, a

PHORORHACOS INFLATUS. Head from the side. (After F. Ameghino.)

condition of which remnants may be traced in Lea and Dromexus,
though not in other atitx, and the mandible has its hinder end
truncated as in thea. Unfortunately the
sternum is still unknown, but the coracoid
is narrow and elongated, the furcula very
slender and almost rudimentary, yet the
wings, though relatively small, are com-
pletely developed. The pelvis is very re-
markable, being narrow and elongated, and
has the ischia produced beyond the ilia,
with which they are fused. Its preace-
tabular portion is short and the postace-
tabular very narrow. ‘The tail is long with
a relatively considerable number of separate
vertebre. There is no pneumatic foramen
in the femur. The tibio-tarsus has a pro-
minent cnemial crest, a distal extensor
bridge and a deep intercondylar groove, the
condyles themselves being very prominent.
The tarso-metatarse is moderately or con-
siderably elongated, with the proximal
intercotylar tuberosity strongly developed,
and the upper part of the anterior surface
deeply grooved. In all cases a hallux is
present.

In Phororhacos the mandible is character-
ized by the length and narrowness of the
trough-like symphysis, and the moderate

PHORORHACOS [NFLATUS. 3 : ¢
Head from above. divergence of the rami. In the typical P.

After F. Ameghino. atts l
(After epee) longissimus the whole length of the mandible

is about 21 in., and the medium breadth of the symphysis 2°5 in.

=

STEREORNITHES 907

In a smaller species, P. inflatus, of which more remains than of any
other have been recovered, the entire head measures 340 mm., or
nearly 13°5 in. The tarso-metatarsus of what Dr. Ameghino considers
to be a species of intermediate size, P. sehuensis, is about 14°25 in.
long and 3 in. wide; and he figures an example of the tibio-tarsus
of P. inflatus which he says is 400 mm., or say 15°75 in. in length.
The femur measures 230
mm., or about 9 in.

In brontornis the
mandibular symphysis is
shorter, wider and more
sharply curved upward
at the tip, while the
rami are more divergent,
their approximate length
being 5°5 in., and maxi-
mum width 4 inches.
The tarso-metatarse in
this genus is relatively
shorter and stouter than
in Phororhacos, having a
length of about 15:5 in.,
and a maximum distal
width of 5-25 in. The
associated tibio-tarsus of
Brontornis, measures 30°5
in. and the former 15°5
in. The species, JB.
burmeisteri, therefore at-
tained a stature approxi-
mately equal to that
assigned to A’pyornis
maximus.

On the remaining PHORORHACOS INFLATUS,
members of this Family a, coracoid ; 6, proximal end of scapula; ¢, distal end of

: P huinerus; d, ulna; e, metacarpus. (After F. Ameghino.)
and of Opisthodactylus
there is no need now to dwell, for the remains discovered are
insufficient to admit of their being considered to any useful purpose.

With regard to the general affinities of the Stereornithes it is
impossible to say much at present ; but more than one writer has
remarked on the resemblance in several points offered to Gastornis
of the European Lower Eocene, the tibio-tarsus of the latter having a
distal bridge and a deep intercondylar furrow, while its tarso-meta-
tarsus has a prominent intercotylar tuberosity, and the relative length
of the distal trochlee is similar. It is true that the distal end of the
tibio-tarsus is inflected in the European genus; but the example of

908 STERNUM

the Moas (p. 579) shews that this feature may not be of more than
generic value. The little that is known of the skull of Gastornis
suggests — though the suggestion depends perhaps chiefly on its
size—that it may have had some resemblance to that of the Phororha-
cidx, although of a more depressed form ; and the coracoid of Gast-
ornis is as elongated and narrow as that of Phororhacos. 'That the
Stereornithes were flightless may be considered certain, but whether
they should rank as a Subclass with the Ratity and Carinatx, or
should merely form an Order in one or other of these groups cannot

" W) yy
yD iy i, Wf y

I A
We WYLGLL

Wy fe PR rie -
ACG a 77

PHORORHACUS INFLATCS. Pelvis from the side and above. (After F. Ameghino.)

as yet be determined, though the view taken by Dr. Gadow (Thier-
reich, Vi dgel, Syst. Th. pp. 106- 114), who has placed the European
Remiornis, Gastornis and Dasornis, together with the North-American,
Diatryma—all of them being Eocene forms—among the Stereornithes,!
receives support from the evident connexion between the peculiar
and specialized Ungulates of South America and the Eocene Perisso-
dactyl Ungulates of the Old World and North America.
RICHARD LYDEKKER.

STERNUM, or Breastbone, that part of the SKELETON which
is connected with the vertebral column by the thoracic ribs and
serves for the support of the CoRAcoIDS. Genetically it is wholly
of costal origin. In the chick, towards the end of the first week of
incubation (EMBRYOLOGY, p. 211), about 10 pairs of Rips are con-
siderably elongated, so that their free ventral half extends forward
and approaches the middle line. The distal ends of each right and
left series soon meet and fuse, so as to form a “sternal band” of

1 This alliance was first suggested by the writer, who, in 1889 (Nicholson and
Lydekker, Man. Palwontol, ii. p. 1229), referred both Diatryma and Mesembriornis
to the Gastornithide.

STERNUM 909

cartilage on either side. Thereupon the lateral portion of the first
2 or 3 Ribs is absorbed, so that the anterior portion of each band
loses its connexion with the vertebral column, and is transformed
into a ribless process, the future processus lateralis anterior of the
Sternum, the dorsal part of these reduced Ribs remaining as cervico-
dorsal Ribs (p. 788). A similar reduction or withdrawal of 2
or 3 Ribs takes place at the posterior end of each band, trans-
forming it into the processus lateralis posterior. In the mean-
while both bands have met in the middle line, and fuse together,
from the anterior end backward, thus forming the sternal plate or
body of the Breastbone. The inner margins of the bands, how-
ever, do not unite smoothly, but turn downward, producing two

ZEAL:

Earty AND LATER STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHICK’s STERNUM.

C.B. sternal bands ; Mt. Metasternum ; P.l.a. P.l.p. and P.obl. Processus lateralis anterior
posterior and obliquus; R. Rostrum; 2.1-10, Ribs.

median ridges which are the foundation of the future Keel (cf,
CARINATA, p. 76). The sternal plate now develops considerably
posteriorly, forming the Mefasternum, which, not being directly caused
by withdrawing Ribs, is not homologous to the Xiphosternum of other
Vertebrates, whose equivalent is the two posterior lateral processes.
This Metasternum grows to a great length in many Birds, so that,
as in the Gallinx, it may form the most conspicuous part of the
whole, and the same remark applies to the posterior lateral processes
from the lateral margin of which grows out in many Birds a processus
obliquus. The anterior end of the Sternum receives in facets the
distal end of the Coracoids, between which grows out a median
apophysis, the rostrum or spina sternalis, which serves chiefly for the
attachment of the ligaments which connect it with the CLAVICLEs,
and also close the whole space between them and the Coracoids,

910 STERNUM

saving that the partition is traversed by the TRACHEA and ESOPHAGUS.
The spina sternalis is not, as often stated, the homologue of the
manubrium sterni of Mammals, for that is equivalent to the right and
left anterior lateral processes.' It is to be understood that so far
all these structures are cartilaginous.

Ossification of the Sternum does not begin till after it has
attained its final shape, and proceeds from various centres, which,
notwithstanding the elaborate studies of Geoffroy St.-Hilaire,
L’Herminier and Parker cannot always be recognized in the different
groups of Birds, chiefly owing to the variable situation of these
centres—one or another being suppressed and its place taken by
the extension of its neighbours. As a rule ossification begins
earliest where the greatest strength or resistance is needed. Thus
in Rhea, Galline, Turnix, Lestris and the Passeres, each anterior
lateral process has its pro-osteon (Parker), but in many other forms,
as Ardea, Rallide and Ibis, these processes possess no special centre
of ossification, and are converted into bone by the extension of the
plewrostea, which last occur in the majority of Birds, though absent
in Turnia and the Gallinx, and lie in the lateral margin of the
Sternum, where the ribs are attached: coracostea occur sometimes
at the anterior end of the Sternum, near the articulation of the
Coracoids, and in some Birds metostea are the centres whence the
posterior lateral processes ossify, while the lophosteon (Parker), which
may be single, multiple or paired, is the centre of ossification for
the keel.

The Duck and the common Fowl may be cited in particular
illustration of this variability. In the former no trace of ossifica-
tion is visible before the bird is about 6 weeks old, when the
centres appear in the anterior lateral processes. By the end of
the 7th week ossification extends over the lateral rib-bearing
margin. A few days later it reaches the coracoidal portion, and in
the course of the following weeks numerous irregular patches of

1 The synonymy of the various parts of the Avine Sternum being somewhat
perplexing, the following may be of some use :—

Processus lateralis anterior=proc. costalis of various authors ; prosternal latéral,
L’Herminier ; proc. sterno-coracoideus or precos-
talis, Fiirbringer.

posterior=lateral xiphisternal process, Parker ; trabecula intcr-
media and trab. lateralis, Fiirbringer.

93 obliquus=trab. lateralis, Fiirbringer.
Metasternum=iphosternwm of various authors; median xiphisternal process,

” 29

Parker.
Spina sternalis=rostrwm, wrongly called manubriwm by many ; episternum,
Owen.

externa=manubrium, rostrum, episternal process, apophyse sous-
épisternale or supériewre, inferior rostrum.
interna =apophyse sousépisternale, superior rostrum.

9 29

37 39

STERNUM git

calcareous matter appear in the body of the Sternum, at the base
and in the anterior part of the keel ; but the whole does not become
bone until about the 20th week, and even then the posterior rim
may yet remain unossified. In the Chick an unpaired /ophosteon
in the anterior basal portion of the keel and a pair of metostea
appear a few days before emerging from the shell; and on
the day of hatching a pair of pro-ostea is added, all these five
centres extending so as to coalesce
about 9 days later. On the 18th
day half of the keel is ossified,
after which follows the spina; but
ossification is not complete before
the bird is 5 or 6 months old. A
comparison of a Duck’s Breastbone
with that of a Fowl shews at a
glance that in the latter the
consolidation is much less, more
than two-thirds of it being formed
by the metasternum and the pos-
terior lateral as well as the oblique
processes—all of them persisting
as outgrowths and being connected
only by non- cartilaginous mem-
branaceous tissue. In the macer-
ated skeleton the spaces between
these outgrowths appear as deep

** notches ee or, if distally closed STERNUM OF A Younc Fowt.
by bone or cartilage, as fenestrx. F.c. coracoidal facet ; K. Keel; Sp.e. and Sp.i.
Moreover, in many Birds an addi- ae and interna (other letters

tional process appears between
the metasternum and the posterior lateral processes: the presence
of such a processus intermedius divides each posterior “ notch” into
two, and when a processus obliquus is wanting it is often hard to
determine whether there is such an intermediate process. These
posterior “notches” and fenestre have for many years been used by
the hunter for neat ‘ characters,” and undue value has been attri-
buted to them, notwithstanding that authorities such as Parker and
Prof. Selenka have insisted on the far greater taxonomic importance
of the configuration of the anterior portion of the Sternum.t The
variable mode of connexion of the Fwrcula with the keel of the
Sternum has already been dealt with (SKELETON, p. 858).

The spina sternt often consists of an inner (dorsal) and an outer
(ventral) portion; but sometimes they are confluent, or one of
them may be absent. The shape of the anterior free margin is

1 This view has also been strongly urged in Phi7. Trans, 1869, p. 337, as
well as by Prof. Fiirbringer.

gi2 STERNUM

generally of importance, and it may be pointed or truncated or bifid.
Some of the more important modifications can be formulated thus :—

A spina interna is present, although very small, in Pteroclidx,
Columb and Trochili.

Both a spina interna and a spina eaterna occur, fusing to form a
spina communis, which in most cases contains a cavity into which the
inner corners of the Coracoids fit, in Gallinx, Meropidx, Bucerotide,
Upupidx and Cypselidx.

A spina externa only, which is (1) very short, slightly U-shaped
at its free end in Colymbi, Podicipedes, Tubinares, Cicontidx, Plataleine
(partly), Palamedex and Accipitres; (2) Y-shaped in Steganopodes
(mostly), Phenicopterus, Coracudx, Alcedinide, Todidx, Trogonidz,
Galbulidx, Pici, Menura and Passeres generally ; or (3) L-shaped in
Sphenisci, Ardeidx, Scopus, Plataleine (partly), -Anseres, some
Cuculidx, Eurylemide and Lhamphastide.

No spina externa in some Steganopodes, Crypturi, Turniz, some
Rallidx, Otidide, Columbx (partly) and Caprimulgide. It would,
however, be a great mistake to suppose that the presence, absence
or form of the spina sterni is enough to determine the systematic
position of a Bird. The Breastbone taken as a whole, regard being
paid more to the anterior than to the posterior portion, no doubt
affords excellent taxonomic help ; but it is obvious that its numerous
processes and ridges are only the result of special requirements.
Thus the number of Ribs naturally affects the length of the side
of the Sternum, while the development of the muscles is inti-
mately connected with the various irregularities of its surface.
It is easy to make sweeping generalizations based upon a few
evident facts, but such generalizations become hard when put to
the crucial test of extended research. As an instance may be cited
the anterior lateral processes which are scarcely developed in
Dinornis, Gus, Psophia, Cathartes and Vultur, while they attain a
great size in Dromxus, Apteryx, Aptenodytes, Botaurus, Rallus, Cryptura,
Galline, Cuculidx, Todus, Merops, Upupa, Buceros, Colius, Pict,
Atrichornis, Menura and the Passeres. As a rule these processes
seem to be smallest in the Birds which are capable of long enduring
flight, and largest in those not remarkable for that power. They
are obviously most intimately correlated with the development of
the sternocoracoid muscles (cf. p. 605) which arise from them
and are inserted on the basal portion of the Coracoids, acting
as levatores of the Ribs, aind therefore aiding respiration ; but what
really determines the numerous modifications of these muscles
we do not know. Birds which fly well may in a general way
be said to have the Breastbone more consolidated than those which
fly badly. A good instance of this is shewn by the Tubinares with
their generally enormous wing-area, and above all by Fregata, which
have a very short Sternum, while this is much longer in proportion

2 (and oe <2-

a ee

Ne lw

SWI SULTE: 913

to its breadth in the heavy-bodied and comparatively short-winged

Alcide.
STILT, Longshanks or Long-Legged Plover, a bird so called

for reasons obvious to any one who has seen it, since, though
no bigger than a Snipe, the length of its legs (their bare part
measuring 8 inches), in proportion to the size of its body, exceeds
that of any other bird’s. The first name, a rendering of the French
Echasse, given in 1760 by Brisson (Orn. v. p. 33), seems to have
been formally conferred by Rennie in 1831; but, recommended by

BLACK-NECKED AMERICAN STILT, (After Gosse.)

its definiteness and brevity, it has wholly supplanted the others.?
The bird is the Charadrius himantopus? of Linneeus, the Himantopus
candidus or melanopterus of modern writers, and belongs to the group
Limicolx, having been usually placed in the Family Scolopacidz,
and is certainly not very distant from [ecurvirostra (AVOSET).

The very peculiar form of the Stilt naturally gave Buffon occasion
(Hist. Nat. Ois. viii. pp. 114-116) to lament the shortcomings of

? According to Wilson (Am. Orn. vii. p. 50) it was already in use in 1813
in his adopted country ; but it must have been through adaptation from the
French, or coincidence, and not, like OysTrR-caTcHER (p. 682, note 1), an
English name that had been carried thither. The old and perhaps singular
application of Ox-EYE to this bird has been already mentioned (p. 680, note 2),

* The possible confusion by Pliny’s transcribers of this word with Hamatopus
has been already mentioned (p. 682, note 2). Himantopus, with its equivalent
Loripes, ** by an awkward metaphor,” as remarked by Gilbert White, ‘‘ implies
that the legs are as slender and pliant as if cut out of a thong of leather,”

58

gI4 STILT—STINK-BIRD
Nature in producing an animal with such ‘enormous defects,’—
its long legs in particular, he supposed, scarcely allowing it to reach
the ground with its bill. But he failed to notice the flexibility of
its proportionately long neck, and admitted that he was ill-informed
as to its habits. No doubt, if he had enjoyed even so slight an
opportunity as occurred to a chance observer (Jbis, 1859, p. 397),
he would have allowed that its structure and ways were in complete
conformity, for the bird obtains its food by wading in shallow water
and seizing the insects that fly over or float upon its surface or the
small crustaceans that swim beneath, for which purpose its slender
extremities are, as might be expected, admirably adapted. Widely
spread over Asia, North Africa and Southern Europe, the Stilt has
many times visited Britain—though always as a straggler, for it is
not known to breed to the northward of the Danube valley,—and
its occurrence in Scotland (near Dumfries) was noticed by Sibbald
(Scot. Illustr. Il. iii. p. 18) so long ago as 1684. It chiefly resorts
to pools or lakes with a margin of mud, on which it constructs a
slight nest, banked round or just raised above the level so as to
keep its eggs dry (Jbis, 1859, p. 360); but sometimes they are laid
in a tuft of grass. They are four in number, closely resembling
those of the Avoset, and, except in size, the Oyster-catcher. The
bird has the head, neck and lower parts white, the back and wings
glossy black, the irides red and the bare part of the legs pink. In
America the genus has two representatives, one closely resembling
that just described, but rather smaller and with a black crown
and nape. This is H. mexicanus or nigricollis,? and occurs from New
England to the middle of South America, beyond which it is re-
placed by ZH. brasiliensis, which has the crown white. The Sandwich
Islands appear to be the home of a species peculiar to them, H.
knudsent. The Stilt inhabiting India is now recognized to be #.
candidus, but Australia possesses a distinct species, H. leucocephalus
or nove-hollandix, which also occurs in New Zealand, though that
country has in addition a species peculiar to it, H. nove-zelandix or
melas, differing from all the rest by assuming in the breeding-season
wholly black plumage, to say nothing of a possible third species, the
H. albicollis of Sir W. Buller. Australia, however, presents another
form, which is the type of the genus Cladorhynchus, and differs from
Himantopus both in its style of plumage (the male having a broad
bay pectoral belt), in its shorter tarsi and in having the toes
(though, as in the Stilts’ feet, three in number on each foot)
webbed as in the Avosets.

STINK-BIRD, a name given to the Hoacrzrn (p. 421): STINK-
POT, STINKER, sailors’ names for some of the PETRELS (p. 710).

1 Sibbald was unfortunate in his draughtsman, who gave the bird a hind-toe.

2 This species was made known to Ray by Sloane, who met with it in
Jamaica, where in his day it was called ‘‘ Longlegs.”

STINT—STOCK-DOVE QI5

STINT (akin to Stunt), a common name for any of the smaller
SANDPIPERS (p. 812), but especially for the DUNLIN (p. 172). By
British authors it is almost restricted to Tringa iminuta and T.
temmincki, both of which occur yearly on our coasts.!

STITCH-BIRD, one of the most interesting of the Ieliphagide
(HONEY-EATER, p. 428) of New Zealand, so called from uttering a
“sharp clicking sound like the striking of two quartz stones together,”
which “has a fanciful resem-
blance to the word stitch,” the
Pogonorniscincta of ornithology.
The male is remarkable for
the tuft of white feathers stand-
ing out behind each eye in
contrast with his glossy black
head and neck, to which suc-
ceeds a band of deep yellow,
narrow in front but broadening at the sides, while the same
colour is shewn in some of the wing-feathers ; but for the most
part the rest of the plumage is olive-brown variegated with dark
streaks and a white patch on the cubitals. The species, which
was only made known in 1839, seems to have had a limited range
on the North Island of New Zealand, where it is believed to be
now extinct, and though a small number may still exist on some of
the off-lying islets, its extirpation can be only a question of a few
years, yet its cause one can but guess. However, before the days
of colonization, the bird seems to have been a good deal persecuted
for the sake of its fine yellow feathers, which were sought by the
Maories to deck the robes of their chiefs, even as those of the
DREPANIS (p. 166) were in the Sandwich Islands (cf Buller,
B. N. Zeal. ed. 2, i. pp. 101-105).

STOCK-DOVE (cf. p. 163), the Columba wnas of ornithologists,
most likely so called from the mistaken belief in its being the origin
of the domestic Pigeon, just as for a similar reason STOCK-DUCK
is a local name for the common Wild Duck (p. 169); but some
suppose that the Dove has its name from its habit of frequently
breeding in the stocks of trees, and it must be allowed that the
German Holztaube and some other cognate names in Teutonic
tongues, to say nothing of STOCK-EIKLE (a corruption of Stock-
HiIckKWALL and itself corrupted into Stock Eagle) a local name of a
WoopPECKER, favour that view.

Poconornis. (After Buller.)

1 The first authenticated eges of the latter were probably taken by Schrader
in East Finmark in 1842 (Jowrn. fiir Orn. 1853, p. 808), though its breeding-
ground was found there in 1840 by Von Middendorff (Beitr. Kenntn. Russ. Reichs,
viii. p. 207), who in 1843 discovered in the Taimyr peninsula the nest of the
former (Sib. Reise, ii. 2, p. 221, and Proce. Zool, Soc, 1861, p. 398).

g16 STOMACH

STOMACH. This important organ in the DIGESTIVE SYSTEM
(p. 136) consists of an anterior portion, the Proventriculus, which is
glandular, and a posterior, the Ventriculus or Gizzard, which is
muscular—the former being characterized by specific glands, and in
size standing in inverse proportion to the latter. In many Birds,
however, especially those which feed upon Tishes, both portions are
wide and pass gradually into one another; but in the majority the
Proventriculus is much the smaller, and is separated from the
Gizzard by a marked constriction, devoid of glands. The
glands themselves vary greatly in size and position, being
however generally packed close together in a broad ring ; but, when
the Proventriculus is wide, as in Casuarius, Aptenodytes and the
Tubinares, either scattered with wide interstices, or collected in
patches leaving the greater part of the walls free. In Leptoptilus
argala, in Phalacrocoraz and in Plotus levaillanti two such patches
exist, while in P. anhinga they are gathered into one globular mass,
as big as a hazel-nut, attached to the outside of the Stomach, and
opening into the right dorsal wall of the Proventriculus. Shea
possesses a round dorsal patch, and one similar occurs in the
embryo of Sfruthio, but is subsequently drawn out into a dumb-bell
shaped area, which, owing to the peculiar distortion of the whole
Stomach, eventually occupies the greater part of the dorsal wall.
In most carnivorous and piscivorous Birds, in the Laro-Limicole,
Columbx and Passeres, the individual glands are small and simple;
but larger and more complicated in most herbivorous and grani-
vorous Birds, especially the Ratitz and Gallinz.

The Gizzard occupies most of the middle and left part of the
abdominal cavity, its Cardia or upper end looking toward the
vertebral column, and slightly inclined to the left side, while the
Pylorus or lower end is turned toward the right. The surrounding
muscular fibres are disposed in more or less. regular spirals, possess-
ing in their course two tendinous intersections, producing as many
tendinous opercula, one on each side ; and though, taken as a whole,
they form only one muscle, the entire mass is generally spoken of
as consisting of a right and a left muscle. The Gizzard varies
greatly in size, shape, strength and position—chiefly according to
the kind of food. When the organ is very muscular, as in
Pigeons, Fowls and Ducks, it takes the form of a biconvex lens,
with a sharp dorsal and ventral margin. On the whole the walls
retain the same layers as those of the rest of the alimentary canal (p.
137); but the muscular layer is more strongly developed, while the
tunica mucosa contains mucous glands alone, and none producing any
specific or chemically-acting secretion. The function of the Gizzard,
beyond serving as a receptacle of food, is therefore purely mechanical.

The Pylorus (cf. p. 138, fig.) is almost always guarded by a
special muscular sphincter and several inner valve-like ridges, pre-

STOMACH 917

venting substances such as grass, fragments of bone, or sharp
stones from entering the small intestine, while smooth seeds,
however hard, pass freely.

What may be deemed a third compartment of the Stomach is
possessed by many birds. This is the so-called pyloric bulb,
belonging to the Gizzard and not to the Duodenum, since it
contains the same cuticular lining as the former; and, although as
regards the latter cut off by a constriction, ending towards it by
the typical pyloric sphincter. This arrangement is possessed by
Casuarius, Dromexus, Sphenisci, Podicipedidx, Steganopodes, Herodiones,
Pheenicopterus and Ciconix ; and, though less apparent, by Lhea,
Mergus and the fallidx. Since most of the birds thus furnished
are piscivorous, it seems more reasonable to connect this arrange-
ment with their very watery food than to regard it as a Reptilian,
notably Crocodilian, feature.

Two kinds of Gizzard, the Simple and the Compound, may be
conveniently distinguished, though they are connected by inter-
mediate stages, and thus only the extreme forms are fit for general-
ized description.

1. The Simple Gizzard may be oval, globular or sack-shaped,
each of the slightly-flattened sides containing a weak operculum,
while the walls are always thin, capable of considerable distention,
and mostly of a pale bluish-yellow, rarely reddish, colour. The
tunica mucosa contains numerous simple glands, secreting a soft
cuticular lining which is continuously renewed and easily peels
off as a viscous yellow coating. Such a Gizzard is possessed
by the birds that feed chiefly on fish, flesh, soft fruits and insects.
In many piscivorous birds, such as Ardea and Phalacrocoraz, it is
transformed into a long oval sack occupying the greater part of the
ventral and left space of the abdominal cavity, and reaching to the
cloacal region. In other piscivorous birds, however, Phaethon,
Pelecanus and Sula, as well as in Casuarius and Dromzxus, and in certain
Tanagers, Huphones, the Gizzard is much reduced in size, while its
functions are assumed by the much enlarged Proventriculus. The
relation between the strength of the Stomach and the nature of the
food is clearly shewn by Manucodia, which feeds on soft fruit and
has very thin walls to its Gizzard, whereas in the omnivorous
Corvide they are very muscular.

2. The Compound Gizzard possesses conspicuous tendinous
opercula, a pair of intermediate and a pair of strong lateral muscles.
The interior is lined with a thick brownish cuticle, formed by the
hardened secretion of the tunica mucosa, and consisting of numerous
lamellz, which are continuously reproduced by the secreting cells to
supply those that are worn down by constant trituration of the
food through the action of the lateral muscles. The cuticular
covering of the middle muscular or part of each of these muscles

918 STONE-CHAT

forms a thickened pad which by contraction of the spirally-arranged
muscular fibres presses upon and slides over the opposite corre-
sponding pad. Péiilopus, one of the PIGEONS, possesses four such
pads, and the cavity of its Gizzard appears cross-shaped in a trans-
verse section. The cuticle between the pads generally shews
irregular folds which end suddenly towards the Cardia and the
Pylorus. Occasionally it assumes peculiar shapes: in Carpophaga
latrans, another of the Pigeons, and in some Tulinares, it forms
conical processes which have been wrongly described as horny
structures (p. 724); in Plotus the pyloric chamber is beset with
hair-like filaments which permit nothing but fluid matter to pass
into the duodenum.

As a rule the cuticle, which exists also in the Simple Gizzard,
though there not hardened, is continuously wearing away and being
reproduced, but many cases are known in which most of the lining
is suddenly cast off and ejected through the mouth, as has been
observed in Pastor roseus, Sturnus vulgaris, Turdus viscivorus, Carine
noctua, Cuculus canorus, and especially in Luceros. Another peculi-
arity is that the Gizzard of Cuculus canorus and of Harpactes is fre-
quently lined with the broken-off hairs of the Caterpillars swallowed,
which, penetrating the cuticle, assume a regular spiral arrangement
due to the rotatory motion of the muscles. The Compound
Gizzard is most typically developed in Struthio, Rhea, the Anseres,
Phenicopterus, Tantalus, Grus, the Columbe, Galline and in many
Passeres, that is to say in Birds which mainly live on grass and
seeds, and therefore need a mechanical apparatus to prepare the
food for the action of the several digestive secretions, to aid which
preparation stones are very frequently swallowed and retained in the
organ. The compound muscular stomach, a substitute for the
wholly lost TEETH, is a peculiarity of Birds.

STONE-CHAT, the Motacilla, Saxicola or Praticola rulbicola of
ornithology, one of the few “soft-billed” birds that are perenially
resident as a species in this country. The black head, ruddy breast
and white collar and wing-spot of the cock render him a conspicuous
object on almost every furze-grown heath or common in the British
Islands, as he sits on a projecting twig or flits from bush to bush,
uttering a cheery song or the alarm-note whence he takes his name.
This species has a wide range in Europe, and several others more or
less resembling it inhabit South Africa, Madagascar, Réunion, and
Asia—both the mainland and some of the islands from those of the
Indian Archipelago to Japan. The genus Praticola is no doubt
nearly allied to /uticilla (REDSTART, p. 775), and only somewhat
more distantly to Sawicola (WHEATEAR), though for some occult
reason Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. iv. p. 113) referred it to the
Muscicapide (FLY-CATCHER, p. 273).

STONE-CURLE W—STORK 919

STONE-CURLEW, (dicnemus scolopax or crepitans (CURLEW,
p. 129); STONEHATCH, a name for the Ringed Plover, Agialitis
hiaticola, given to it in places where, breeding on the turf, it paves
the hollow it makes for its nest with small stones before laying its
eggs (cf. Salmon, Mag. N. H. ix. p. 521, Stevenson, B. Norf. 11. p.
85); STONERUNNER, another name for the same bird, but given

to it at its seaside resorts.

STORK (A.-S. Store; Germ. Storch), the Ciconia alba of ornith-
ology, and, through picture and story, one of the best known of
foreign birds ; for, though often visiting Britain, it has never been
a native or even inhabitant of the country. It is a summer-visitant
to most parts of the European Continent,—the chief exceptions
being France (where the native race has been destroyed), Italy and
Russia,—breeding from southern Sweden to Spain and Greece, and
being especially common in Poland.! It reappears again in Asia
Minor, the Caucasus, Persia and Turkestan, but further to the
eastward it is replaced by a larger, black-billed species, C. boyciana,
which reaches Japan. ‘Though occasionally using trees (as was
most likely its original habit) for the purpose, the Stork most
generally places its nest on buildings,? a fact familiar to travellers
in Denmark, Holland and Germany, and it is nearly everywhere a
cherished guest, popular belief ascribing good luck to the house to
which it attaches itself. Its food, consisting mainly of frogs and
insects, is gathered in the neighbouring pastures, across which it
may be seen stalking with an air of quiet dignity ; but in the
season of love it indulges in gestures which can only be called
grotesque,—leaping from the ground with extended wings in a kind
of dance, and, absolutely voiceless as it is, making a loud noise by
the clattering of its mandibles. At other times it may be seen
gravely resting on one leg on an elevated place, thence to sweep
aloft and circle with a slow and majestic flight. Apart from its
considerable size,—and a Stork stands more than three feet in
height, —its contrasted plumage of pure white and deep black, with
its bright red bill and legs, makes it a conspicuous and beautiful
object, especially when seen against the fresh green grass of a
luxuriant meadow. In winter the Storks of Europe retire to

1 In that country its numbers are said to have greatly diminished since about
1858, when a disastrous spring-storm overtook the homeward-bound birds. The
like is to be said of Holland since about 1860.

2 To consult its convenience a stage of some kind, often a cart-wheel, is in
many places set up and generally occupied by successive generations of tenants.

3 Its common Dutch name is Ootjevaar, which can be traced through many
forms (Koolmann, Wérterb. d. Ostfries. Sprache, i. p. 8 swb voce * Adebar”) to the
old word Odeboro (‘the bringer of good”). In countries where the Stork is
abundant it enters largely into popular tales, songs and proverbs, and from the
days of Alsop has been a favourite in fable.

920 STORM-COCK—STRUTHIONES

Africa,—some of them, it would seem, reaching the Cape Colony,—
while those of Asia visit India. A second species with much the
same range, but with none of its relative’s domestic disposition, 1s
the Black Stork, C. nigra, of which the upper parts are black,
brilliantly glossed with purple, copper and green, while it is white
beneath,—the bill and legs, with a patch of bare skin round the
eyes, being red. This bird breeds in lofty trees, generally those
growing in a large forest. Two other dark-coloured, but somewhat
abnormal, species are the purely African C. abdimii, and the C.
episcopus, Which has a wider range, being found not only in Africa,
but in India, Java and Sumatra. The New World has only one
true Stork, C. maguari,s which inhabits South America, and
resembles not a little the C. boyciana above mentioned, differing
therefrom in its greenish-white bill and black tail. Both these
species are very like C. alba, but are larger, and have a bare patch
of red skin round the eyes.

The Storks form the Pelargi of Nitzsch, as separated by him
from the Herons and the Ibises, but all three are united by Prof.
Huxley in his group PELARGOMORPH (p. 702). The relations of the
Storks to the Herons may be doubtful ; but.there is no doubt that the
former include the ADJUTANT (p. 2) and JABIRU (p. 462), as well as
the curious genus Anastomus (OPEN-BILL, p. 655). The relationship
of two other remarkable forms, Bulwiniceps (SHOE-BILL, p. 838) and
Scopus (HAMMER-HEAD, p. 405), is more questionable.? In all the
Storks, so far as is known, the eggs are white, and in most forms
distinguishable by the grain of the shell, which, without being
rough, is closely pitted with pore-like depressions.

STORM-COCK, the Mistletoe-THrusu ; STORM-FINCH, the
Storm-PETREL (p. 709), but rather a landsman’s than a seaman’s name.

STRANY, one of the many local names of the GUILLEMOT.

STRIGES, Wagler’s first Order of Birds in 1830 (Natur. Syst.
der Amphib. u.s.w. p. 80), composed of the OWLS (p. 671) as distinct
from the ACCIPITRES (p. 1) with which they had before been united.

STRLISORES, an Order of Birds proposed by Prof. Cabanis
(Arch. fiir Naturgesch. 1847, 1. pp. 308, 345, 346) to consist of the
Families Trochilidx, Cypselidx, Caprimulgidxe, Opisthocomide and
Musophagidz (see INTRODUCTION).

_ STRUTHIONES, the sixth Order of Birds in the classification
of Latham in 1790 (dnd. Orn. pp. xv. 662), comprehending the
genera Didus, Struthio, Casuarius and hea.

1 This was formerly, but erroneously (cf Schlegel, Rev. Crit. p. 104), believed
to have occurred in Europe.

2 Cf. Beddard (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1884, pp. 543-553). Mr. Bartlett informs me
that Scopus has a loud voice, while all Storks are dumb.

pe
>

es ee fe

SUBCLAMATORES—S UGA R-BIRD g21

SUBCLAMATORES, the name proposed in 1893 (Gadow,
Thier-reich, Vogel, System. Th. pp. 273-276) for a division of
PASSERES formed by the Family Lurylemidx (BROADBILL, p. 57).

SUBOSCINES, proposed, like the last (tom. cit. pp. 272, 277,
278), in place of PSEUDOSCINES (p. 743).

SUGAR-BIRD, the English name commonly given in the West
India Islands to the various members of the genus Certhiola,}
generally regarded as belonging to the Family Cwrebide (cf. Gurt-
GUIT, p.401),? from their habit of frequenting the curing-houses where
sugar is kept, apparently attracted thither by the swarms of flies.
These little birds on account of their pretty plumage and their
familiarity are usually favourites. They often come into dwelling-
houses, where they preserve great coolness, hopping gravely from
one piece of furniture to another and carefully exploring the
surrounding objects with intent to find a spider or insect. In their
figure and motions they remind a northern naturalist of a NUTHATCH
(p. 647), while their coloration—black, yellow, olive, grey and white
—recalls to hima Tirmousg. They generally keep in pairs and build
a domed but untidy nest, laying therein three eggs, white blotched
with rusty-red. Apart from all this the genus presents some points
of great interest. Mr. Sclater (Cat. Bb. Br. Mus. xi. pp. 36-47)
recognizes 18 “species,” therein following Mr. Ridgway (Proc. U. 8.
Nat. Mus. 1885, pp. 25-30), of which 3 are continental with a joint
range extending from southern Mexico to Peru, Bolivia and south-
eastern Brazil, while the remaining 15 are peculiar to certain of the
Antilles,? and several of them to one island only. Thus C. cabvti is
limited, so far as is known, to Cozumel (off Yucatan), C. tricolor to
Old Providence, C. flaveola (the type of the genus) to Jamaica, and
so on, while islands that are in sight of one another are often
inhabited by different “species.” Further research is required ;
but even now the genus furnishes an excellent example of the
effect of isolation in breaking up an original form, while there is
comparatively little differentiation among the individuals which
inhabit a large and continuous area. The non-appearance of this
genus in Cuba is very remarkable.

1 American ornithologists have lately taken to use the name Cwxreba (or Cereba,
as they and others spell it) in place of Certhiola, but Mr. Sclater (Zbis, 1893, p.
247) successfully defends the older practice.

2 The Guitguit of Hernandez (Rer. Medic. N. Hisp. Thes. p. 56), a name said
by him to be of native origin, can hardly be determined, though thought by
Montbeillard (Hist. Nat. Ots. v. p. 529) to be what is now known as Cereba cxrulea,
but that of later writers is C. cyanea. The name is probably from the bird’s
note, like Quit (p. 761), applied in Jamaica to several species.

3 More recently, in 1889, Mr. Cory (Birds of the West Indies, pp. 61-67)
admitted only twelve species as Antillean.

922 SUGGE—SUN-BIRD

SUGGE (Prompt. Parvul. ed. Way, p. 483), the apparently
obsolete form of SEGGE (p. 825) which still persists.

SUMMER-DUCK, a name in America for 4x sponsa (p. 171) ;
-SNIPE, the commonest name of the common SANDPIPER, Actitis
hypoleuca (p. 811); -TEAL, the GARGANEY (p. 309).

SUN-BIRD, a name more or less in use for many years,! and
now generally accepted as that of a group of over 100 species of
small birds, but when or by whom it was first applied is uncertain.
Most of them are remarkable for their gaudy plumage, and, though
those known to the older naturalists were for a long while referred
to the genus Certhia (TREE-CREEPER), or some other group, they
are now fully recognized as forming a valid Family Nectarinide,
from the name Nectarinia invented in 1811 by Illiger. They
inhabit the Ethiopian, Indian and Australian Regions,” and, with
some notable exceptions, the species mostly have but a limited
range. They are considered to have their nearest allies in the

NECTARINIA, ANTHREPTES,
(After Swainson.)

Meliphagide (HONEY-EATER, p. 428) and the members of the genus
ZOSTEROPS ; but their relations to the last require further investiga-
tion. Some of them are called “ Humming-birds” by Anglo-Indians
and colonists, but with that group, as before indicated (HUMMING-
BIRD, pp. 442, 443), the Sun-birds, being true Passeres, have nothing
to do. Though part of the plumage in many Sun-birds gleams
with metallic lustre, they owe much of their beauty to feathers
which are not lustrous, yet almost as vivid,? and the most wonderful
combination of the brightest colours—scarlet, crimson, purple,
blue, green or yellow—is often seen in one and the same bird.
One group, however, is dull in hue, and but for the presence in

' Certainly since 1826 (cf. Stephens, Gen. Zool. xix. pt. 1, p. 229). Swainson
(Classif. B. i. p. 145) says they are ‘so called by the natives of Asia in allusion
to their splendid and shining plumage,” but gives no hint as to the nation or
language wherein the name originated. By the French they have been much
longer known as Sowimangas, from the Madagascar name of one of the species
given in 1658 by Flacourt as Sowmangha.

* One species occurs in Beloochistan, which is perhaps outside of the Indian
Region (¢f. suprd, p. 334), but the fact of its being found there may be a reason
for including that country within the Region, just as the presence of another
species in the Jordan valley induces zooeraphers to regard the Ghor as an outlier
of the Ethiopian Region.

° Cf. supra, pp. 97, 98, and Gadow, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, pp. 409-421, pls.
XXvii. xxviii.

SUN-BITTERN 923

some of its members of yellow or flame-coloured precostal tufts,
which are very characteristic of the Family, might at first sight be
thought not to belong here. Graceful in form and active in motion,
Sun-birds flit from flower to flower, feeding chiefly on small insects
which are attracted by the nectar; but this is always done while
perched, and never on the wing as is the habit of Humming-birds.
The extensible TONGUE, though practically serving the same end in
both groups, is essentially different in its quasi-tubular structure,
and there is also considerable difference between this organ in the
Nectariniide and the Meliphagide.! The nests of the Sun-birds, domed
with a penthouse porch, and pensile from the end of a bough or
leaf, are very neatly built. The eggs are generally three in
number, of a dull white covered with confluent specks of greenish-
grey.

The Nectariniide formed the subject of a sumptuous Monograph by
Capt. Shelley (4to, London: 1876-1880), in the coloured plates of
which full justice was done to the varied beauties which these glori-
ously arrayed little beings display, while, almost every available source
of information having been consulted, and the results embodied, the
text left little to be desired, and of course superseded all that had
before been published about them. He divided the Family into
three subfamilies :—Neodrepaninx, consisting of a single genus and
species peculiar to Madagascar ; Nectariniine, containing 9 genera,
one of which, Cinnyris, has more than half the number of species in
the whole group ; and Arachno-
therine (sometimes known as
“‘Spider-hunters”), with 2
genera including 11 species—
all large in size and plain in ARACHNOTHERA. (After Swainson.)
hue. To these he also added
the genus PROMEROPS (p. 743), the affinity of which to the rest can
as yet hardly be taken as proved. According to Mr. Layard, the
habits of the Cape Promerops, its mode of nidification and the
character of its eggs are very unlike those of the ordinary Necta-
riniide. In 1883-84 Dr. Gadow (Cat. B. Br. Mus. ix. pp. 1-126, and
291) treated of this Family, reducing the number of both genera
and species, though adding a new genus discovered since the publi-
cation of Capt. Shelley’s work, and additional species have since
been described.

SUN-BITTERN, the Lurypyga helias of ornithology, a bird that
has long exercised systematists and one whose proper place can
scarcely yet be said to have been satisfactorily determined.

According to Pallas, who in 1781 gave (V. nérdl. Beytr. ii. pp.
48-54, pl. 3) a good description and fair figure of it, calling it the

1 Cf. Gadow, op. cit. 1883, pp. 62-69, pl. xvi.

924 SUN-BITTERN

“Surinamische Sonnenreyger,” Ardea helias, the first author to
notice this form was Fermin, whose account of it, under the name
of “ Oiseau de Soleil,” was published at Amsterdam in 1769 (Deser,
ec. de Surinam, ii. p. 192), but was vague and meagre. In 1772,
however, it was satisfactorily figured and described in Rozier’s
Observations sur la Physique, dc. (v. pt. 1, p. 212, pl. 1), as the Petit
Paon des roseawa—by which name it was known in Cayenne A
few years later D’Aubenton figured it in his well-known series (Pl.
enl. 782), and then in 1781 came Buffon (H. NV. Ois. vii. pp. 169,
170, pl. xiv.), who, calling it “ Le Caurale? ou petit Paon des roses,”

Sun-Birrern (Lurypyga helias).

announced it as hitherto undescribed, and placed it among the Rails.
In the same year appeared the above-cited paper by Pallas, who,
notwithstanding his remote abode, was better informed as to its
history than his great contemporary, whose ignorance, real or
affected, of his fellow-countryman’s priority in the field is inexplic-
able ; and it must have been by inadvertence that, writing “roses”
for “roseaux,” Buffon turned the colonial name from one that had
a good meaning into nonsense. In 1783 Boddaert, equally ignorant

1 This figure and description were repeated in the later issue of this work in
1777 (i. pp. 679-681, pl. 1).

2 The name, he says, was intended to mean Rdle & queue, that is, a tailed
Rail!

po

.

Soe ier Oe,

im

Tew

——— eo Gh hae «

SURF-BIRD 925

of what Pallas had done, called it Scolopax solaris! and in referring
it to that genus he was followed by Latham (Gen. Synops. iii. p. 156),
by whom it was introduced to English readers as the “ Caurale Snipe.”
Thus within a dozen years this bird was referred to three perfectly
distinct genera, and in those days genera meant much more than
they do now. Not until 1811 was it recognized as forming a genus
of its own. ‘This was done by Illiger, whose appellation Hurypyga
has been generally accepted.

The Sun-Bittern is about as big as a small Curlew, but with
much shorter legs and a rather slender, slightly decurved bill, blunt
at the tip. ‘The wings are moderate, broad and rounded, the tail
rather long and broad. The head is black with a white stripe over
and another under each eye, the chin and throat being also white.
The rest of the plumage is not to be described in a limited space
otherwise than generally, being variegated with black, brown, chest-
nut, bay, buff, grey and white—so mottled, speckled and belted
either in wave-like or zigzag forms as somewhat to resemble certain
moths. The bay colour forms two conspicuous patches on each
wing, and also an antepenultimate bar on the tail, behind which is
a subterminal band of black. ‘The irides are red ; the bill is greenish
olive; and the legs are pale yellow. As in the case of most South-
American birds, very little is recorded of its habits in freedom,
except that it frequents the muddy and wooded banks of rivers,
feeding on small fishes and insects. In captivity it soon becomes
tame, and has several times made its nest and reared its young,
which when hatched are clothed with mottled down (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1866, p. 76, pl. ix. fig. 1), m the Zoological Gardens, where
examples are generally to be seen and their plaintive piping heard.
It ordinarily walks with slow and precise steps, keeping its body in
a horizontal position, but at times, when excited, it will go through
a series of fantastic performances, spreading its broad wings and
tail so as to display their beautiful markings. This species inhabits
Guiana and the interior of Brazil; but in Colombia and Central
America occurs a larger and somewhat differently coloured form
which is known as EF. major.

For a long while it seemed as if Hwrypyga had no near ally, but,
on the colonization of New Caledonia by the Irench, an extremely
curious bird, known as the Kacu (p. 471), was found inhabiting
most parts of that island, and a few years later the affinity of the
two forms, though not very close, was made manifest.

SURF-BIRD,? Audubon’s name, since generally adopted, for

1 Possibly he saw in the bird’s variegated plumage a resemblance to the
Painted SNIPES (p. 886). His specific name shews that he must have known how
the Dutch in Surinam called it.

2 In thanking the author for this article, I must express my dissent from the
proposal with which it concludes.—A, N.

926 SWALLOW

the Aphriza virgata of ornithology, a peculiar Limicoline form
found on the Pacific coast of America from Alaska to Chili (Gay,
Fauna Chilena, p. 408). It was referred to the genus Tinga by
Latham, who in 1785 (Gen. Synops. 11. p. 180) described a specimen
brought from Sandwich Sound (most likely by the survivors of
Cook’s last voyage), but was lost sight of for many years until
Townsend obtained a single example, in November 1836, at the
mouth of the Columbia River, and sent it to Audubon, who re-
described the species as new, founding thereon a new genus Aphriza.
It has since been frequently observed, but the most recent explorers
of north-western America have failed to find its breeding-grounds,
which are probably, as the natives told Mr. Nelson (Rep. V. H. Coll.
Alaska, iii. p. 128), though he mistrusted them, on the bare moun-
tains of the interior ; and little is known of its habits, except that
it frequents the sea-shore, seeking its food in the surf, undeterred
by the spray of the breaking waves, and hence it has received both
its scientific (dppds, foam, (dé, I live) and English names. The
bird is about as large as a KNov, and not unlike one in its winter-
dress, though much darker in colour above, with a conspicuous
white bar on the wings and a white rump, and it undergoes little
if any seasonal change. Its osteology, as examined by the present
writer (Journ. Morphol. 1888, pp. 311-340, pl. xxv.), shews that its
affinity is rather to the smaller SANDPIPERS than to the PLOVERS,
and still less than to the TURNSTONES or OYSTER-CATCHERS, among
which it has been generally placed, and therefore it is proposed to
be regarded as in itself forming a separate Family Aphrizide.
R. W. SHUFELDT.

SWALLOW (A.-S. Swalewe, Icel. Svala, Dutch Zwaluw, Germ.
Schwalbe), the bird which of all others is recognized as the harbinger
of summer in the northern hemisphere ; for,
though some differences, varying according
to the meridian, are usually presented by
the birds which have their home in Europe,
in northern Asia and in North America
respectively, it is difficult to allow to them a
specific value; and consequently a zoologist
of wide views, while not overlooking this
local variation, will regard the Swallow of
all these tracts as forming a single species,
the Hirundo rustica of Linnzus.! Returning,
usually already paired, to its summer-haunts,

SwatLtow. (After Swainson.)

1 Tt has been already noticed that recent American authors would apply to
the Swallow the generic term of Chelidon, generally accepted for the House-
Martin (p. 536), and to the latter Hiruwndo. Herein they are technically
incorrect, for one of the first principles of zoological nomenclature has always

i ia all Oly

SWALLOW 927

after its winter-sojourn in southern lands, and generally reaching
England about the first week in April, it at once repairs to its old
quarters, nearly always around the abodes of men; and about a
month later, the site of the nest is chosen, resort being had in most
cases to the very spot that has formerly served the same purpose—
the old structure, if still remaining, being restored and refurnished.
So trustful is the bird, that it commonly establishes itself in any of
men’s works that will supply the necessary accommodation, and a
shed, a barn or any building with an open roof, a chimney! that
affords a support for the nest, or even the room of an inhabited
house—if chance should give free access thereto—to say nothing of
extraordinary positions, may be the place of its choice. Where-
soever placed, the nest is formed of small lumps of moist earth,
which, carried to the spot in the bird’s bill, are duly arranged and
modelled, with the aid of short straws or slender sticks, into the
required shape. ‘This is generally that of a half-saucer, but it varies
according to the exigencies of the site? The materials dry quickly
into a hard crust, which is lined with soft feathers, and therein are
laid from four to six white eggs, blotched and speckled with grey
and orange-brown deepening into black. Two broods are usually
reared in the season, and the young on leaving the nest soon make
their way to some leafless bough, whence they try their powers of
flight, at first accompanying their parents in short excursions on
the wing, receiving from them the food they themselves are as yet
unable to capture, until able to shift for themselves. They collect
in flocks, often of many hundreds, and finally leave the country
about the end of August or early in September, to be followed,
after a few weeks, by their progenitors. ‘The Swallows of Europe
doubtless pass into Africa far beyond the equator,? and those of
Northern Asia, H. gutturalis and #H. tyéleri, though many stop in

been that a generic term, to be valid, must be defined. In the absence of
definition such a term may be, by courtesy, occasionally accepted; but this
courtesy has never been, nor except in America is likely to be, extended to the

misapplication here in question. :

1 Hence the common English name of ‘‘ Chimney-Swallow.” In North
America it is usually the ‘‘ Barn-Swallow,” as in Sweden.

2 In 1870 M. Pouchet announced to the French Academy of Science (Comptes
Rendus, \xx. p. 492) that the ‘‘ Hirondelles” building in the new part of Rouen
had adapted themselves to the modern style of architecture there used, and so
saved much of the mud which was necessary when they builtin the old part of the
city, whence he inferred that they had reasoning powers. It fell to M. Noulet
(op. cit. Ixxi. p. 77) to shew this was an illusion: the Hirondelles of the new
town were H. rustica, those of the old H. or Chelidon urbica! (Cf. Ann. N. H.
sér. 4, v. p. 807, vi. p. 270; and Yarrell, Br. B. ed. 4, ii. p. 350, note.)

3 It must be noted that the Swallow has been observed in England in every
month of the year; but its appearance from the beginning of December to the
middle of March is an extremely rare occurrence,

928 SWALLOW

India. or Burma, even further to the southward, occasionally
‘reaching Australia, while those of North America, H. erythrogastra,
extend their winter-wanderings to Southern Brazil; but, whither-
soever they then resort, they during that season moult their
feathers, and this fact affords one of the strongest arguments
against the popular belief (which, curious to say, is still partly if
not fully entertained by many who should know better) of their
becoming torpid in winter, for a state of torpidity would suspend
all animal functions.1 The chestnut forehead and throat, the shining
steel-blue upper plumage and the dusky-white—in some cases
reddening so as almost to vie with the frontal and gular patches—
of the lower parts are well known to every person of observation, as
is the markedly-forked tail, which is become provérbial of this bird.

Taking the word Swallow in a more extended sense, it is used
for all the members of the Family Hirundinidx,? excepting a few
to which the name MARTIN (p. 536) has been applied, and this
Family includes more than 100 species, which have been placed in
many different genera. The true Swallow has very many
affines, some of which range almost as widely as itself, while others
(as the form resident in Egypt, Hl. savignit) seem to have curiously
restricted limits, and much the same may be said of some of its
more distant relatives. But altogether the Family forms one of the
most circumscribed and therefore one of the most natural groups of
OSCINES, having no near allies; for, though in outward appearance
and in some habits the Swallows bear a considerable resemblance
to SwIirFTs, the latter belong to a very different Order, and are
not Passerine birds at all, as their structure, both internal and
external, proves. It has been sometimes stated that the Hirun-
dinide have their nearest relations in the Muscicapidx (FLYCATCHER,

1 See John Hunter’s Hssays and Observations in Natural History, edited by
Sir R. Owen in 1861 (ii. p. 280). An excellent bibliography of the Swallow-
torpidity controversy, up to 1878, was given by Prof. Coues (Birds of the
Colorado Valley, pp. 878-390), who seemed still to hanker after the ancient
faith in ‘‘ hibernation,” as do apparently some other writers not so well informed.

2 An enormous amount of labour was bestowed upon the Hirundinidz by
Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. x. pp. 85-210), only commensurate, perhaps,
with that required for an understanding of the results at which he arrived. It
was to be hoped that in the finely-illustrated Monograph of the Family which he
and Mr. Wyatt have published (2 vols. 4to, London: 1885-94), more of the
many puzzles which the group offers would have been cleared up, but it still
remains an intricate maze to tempt the adventurous. Mr. Wyatt's figures are
very beautiful, but he is apparently one of those who believe that birds when
flying at full speed do not extend their legs behind them. A curious omission
of the authors is any reference in the work, with its copious bibliography, to
the admirable account of the British Hirundinidex contributed by Gilbert White
to the Royal Society (Phil. Trans. lxiv. pp. 196-201; lxv. pp. 258-276) and
afterwards reprinted in the Natural History of Selborne (1789).

SWAN 929

p. 273); but the assertion is very questionable, and the supposition
that they are allied to the Ampelide (WAXWING), though possibly
better founded, has not as yet been confirmed by any anatomical
investigation. An affinity to the Indian and Australian Artamus
(the species of which genus are often known as Wood-Swallows, or
Swallow-Shrikes) has also been suggested; and it may turn out
that this genus, with its neighbours, may be the direct and less
modified descendants of a generalized type, whence the Hirundinidx
have diverged ; but at present it would seem as if the suggestion
originated only in the similarity of certain habits, such as swift
flight and the capacity of uninterruptedly taking and swallowing
insect-food on the wing.

Swallows are nearly cosmopolitan birds, inhabiting every consider-
able country except New Zealand, wherein only a stray example,
presumably from Australia, occasionally occurs.

SWAN (A.-8. Swan and Swon, Icel. Svanr, Dutch Zwaan, Germ.
Schwan), a large swimming-bird, well known from being kept in a
half-domesticated condition throughout many parts of Europe,
whence it has been carried to other countries. In England it was
far more abundant formerly than at present, the young, or Cygnets,!
being highly esteemed for the table, and it was under especial
enactments for its preservation, and regarded as a “ Bird Royal”
that no subject could possess without licence from the crown, the
granting of which licence was accompanied by the condition that
every bird in a “game” (to use the old legal term) of Swans should
bear a distinguishing mark of ownership (cygninota) on the bill.
Originally this privilege was conferred on the larger freeholders
only, but it was gradually extended, so that in the reign of Elizabeth
upwards of 900 distinct Swan-marks, being those of private persons
or corporations, were recognized by the royal Swanherd, whose
jurisdiction extended over the whole kingdom. It is impossible
here to enter into further details on this subject, interesting as it is
from various points of view.” It is enough to remark that all the

1 Here, as in so many other cases (ef. PIGEON, p. 723), we have what may be
called the ‘‘table-name” of an animal derived from the Norman-French, while
that which it bore when alive was of Teutonic origin. I find Yarrell’s assertion,
as to the use of Cop and PEN, on which I threw doubt (p. 92), confirmed by
pes (NV. Engl. Dict. ii. p. 559).

2 At the present time the Queen and the Companies of Dyers and vi intners still
maintain their Swans on the Thames, and a yearly expedition is made in the month
of July or August to take up the young birds—thence called ‘‘Swan-upping”
and corruptly ‘‘Swan-hopping”—and mark them. The largest Swannery in
England, indeed the only one worthy of the name, is that belonging to Lord
Ilchester, on the water called the Fleet, lying inside the Chesil Bank on the
coast of Dorset, where from 700 to double that number of birds may be kept—a
stock doubtless too great for the area, but very small when compared with the
numbers that used to be retained on various rivers in the country. The Swanpit

59

930 SWAN

legal protection afforded to the Swan points out that it was not
indigenous to the British Islands, and indeed it is stated (though on
uncertain authority) to have been introduced to England in the
reign of Richard Cceur de Lion; but it is now so perfectly natural-
ized that birds having the full power of flight remain in the country.
There is no evidence to shew that its numbers are ever increased
by immigration from abroad, though it is known to breed as a wild
bird not further from our shores than the extreme south of Sweden
and possibly in Denmark, whence it may be traced, but with con-
siderable vacuities, in a south-easterly direction to the valley of the
Danube and the western part of Central Asia. In Europe, however,
no definite limits can be assigned for the natural range of the species,
since birds more or less reclaimed and at liberty consort with those
that are truly wild, and either induce them to settle in localities
beyond the boundary, or of themselves occupy such localities, so
that no difference is observable between them and their untamed
brethren. From its breeding-grounds, whether they be in Turkestan,
south-eastern Europe or Scania, the Swan migrates southward
towards winter, and at that season may be found in north-western
India, in Egypt and on the shores of the Mediterranean.

The Swan just spoken of is by some naturalists named the Mute
or Tame Swan, to distinguish it from one to be presently mentioned,
but it is the Swan simply of the English language and literature.
Scientifically it is usually known as Cygnus olor or C. mansuetus. It
needs little description: its large size, its spotless white plumage,
its red bill, surmounted by a black knob (technically the ‘ berry ”)
larger in the male than in the female, its black legs and stately
appearance on the water are familiar, either from figures innumer-
able or from direct observation, to almost every one. When left to
itself its nest is a large mass of aquatic plants, often piled to the
height of a couple of feet and possibly some six feet in diameter.
In the midst of this is a hollow which contains the eggs, generally
from five to nine in number, of a greyish-olive colour. The period
of incubation is between five and six weeks, and the young when
hatched are clothed in sooty-grey down, which is succeeded by
feathers of dark sooty-brown. This suit is gradually replaced by
white, but the young birds are more than a twelvemonth old before
they lose all trace of colouring and become wholly white.!

at Norwich seems to be the only place now existing for fattening the Cygnets for
the table—an expensive process, but one fully appreciated by those who have shared
the result. The English Swan-laws and regulations have been concisely but
admirably treated by the late Serjeant Manning (Penny Cyclopedia, xxiii. pp.
271, 272), and the subject of Swan-marks, elucidated by unpublished materials
in the British Museum and other libraries, is one of which a compendious account,
from an antiquarian and historical point of view, would be very desirable.

1 Tt was, however, noticed by Plot (WV. H. Staffordshire, p. 228) 200 years

SWAN 931

Thus much having been said of the bird which is nowadays
commonly called Swan, we must turn to other species, and first to
one that anciently must have been the exclusive bearer in England
of the name. This is the Whooper, Whistling or Wild Swan! of
modern usage, the Cygnus musicus or C. ferus of most authors, which
was doubtless always a winter-visitant to this country, and, though
nearly as bulky and quite as purely white in its adult plumage, is
at once recognizable from the species which has been half domesti-
cated by its wholly different but equally graceful carriage, and its
bill—which is black at the tip and lemon-yellow for a great part of
its base. This entirely distinct species is a native of Iceland,
eastern Lapland and northern Russia, whence it wanders southward
in autumn, and the musical tones it utters (contrasting with the
silence that has caused its relative to be often called the Mute
Swan) have been celebrated from the time of Homer to our own.

ago and more that certain Swans on the Trent had white Cygnets; and it was
subsequently observed of such birds that both parents and progeny had legs of a
paler colour, while the young had not the ‘‘blue bill” of ordinary Swans at the
same age that has in some parts of the country given them a name, besides offer-
ing a few other minor differences. These being examined by Yarrell, led him to
announce (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1838, p. 19) the birds presenting them as forming a
distinct species, C. ¢mmutabilis, to which the English name of ‘‘ Polish” Swan
had already been attached by the London poulterers. There is no question so
far as to the facts; the doubt exists as to their bearing in regard to the validity
of the so-called ‘‘species.” Though apparently wild birds, answering fairly to
the description, occasionally occur in hard winters in Britain, north-western
Europe and even in the south-east (Zbzs, 1860, p. 351), their mother-country has
not yet been ascertained,—for the epithet ‘‘ Polish” is but fanciful,—and most
of the information respecting them is derived only from reclaimed examples,
which are by no means common. Those examined by Yarrell are said to have
been distinctly smaller than common Swans, but those recognized of late years
are as distinctly larger. The matter requires further investigation, and it may
be remarked that occasionally Swans, so far as is known of the ordinary stock,
will produce one or more Cygnets differing from the rest of the brood exactly in
the characters which have been assigned to the so-called Polish Swans as specific
-—namely, their white plumage slightly tinged with buff, their pale legs and
flesh-coloured bill (Zool. 1887, p. 463 ; 1888, p. 470). It may be that here we
have a case of far greater interest than the mere question of specific distinction,
in some degree analogous to that of the so-called Pavo nigripennis before
mentioned (PEACOCK, pp. 699, 700). The most recent authorities on the Polish
Swan are Stevenson (B. Worf. iii. 111-121), and Southwell (Zrans. Norf. & Norw.
Nat. Soc. ii. pp. 258-260), as well, of course, as Dresser (B. Hur. vi. pp. 429-433,
pl. 419, figs. 1, 2). Gerbe, in his edition of Degland’s Ornithologie Européenne
{ii. p. 477), makes the amusing mistake of attributing its name to the
‘* fourreurs” (furriers) of London, and of rendering it ‘‘ Cygne du pile” !

1 In some districts it is called by wild-fowlers ELK (p. 194), cognate with the
Icelandic 4Zft and the Old German Zibs or Elps (cf. Gesner, Orn. pp. 358, 359),
though by modern Germans Zlb-schwan seems to be used for the preceding
species.

932 SWAN

Otherwise in a general way there is little difference between the
habits of the two, and closely allied to the Whooper is a much
smaller species, known as Bewick’s Swan, C. bewicki. This was first
indicated as a variety of the last by Pallas, but its specific validity
is now fully established. Apart from size, it may be externally
distinguished from the Whooper by the bill having only a small
patch of yellow, which inclines to an orange rather than a lemon
tint; while internally the difference of the vocal organs is well
marked, and its cry, though melodious enough, is unlike. It has
a more easterly home in the north, first ascertained by Messrs.
Harvie-Brown and Seebohm (/dvs, 1876, p. 440), than the Whooper,
but in severe winters frequently occurs in Britain.

Both the species last mentioned have their representatives in
North America, and in each case the Transatlantic bird is con-
siderably larger than that of the Old World. The first is the
Trumpeter-Swan, C. buccinator, which has the bill wholly black,
and the second the C. columbianus or americanus |—greatly resem-
bling Bewick’s Swan, but with the coloured patthes on the bill of
less extent and deepening almost into scarlet. South America
produces two very distinct birds commonly regarded as Swans,—
the Black-necked Swan and that which is called Cascaroba or Cos-
caroba. ‘This last, which inhabits the southern extremity of the
continent to Chili and the Argentine territory, and visits the
Falkland Islands, is the smallest species known,—pure white in
colour except the tip of its primaries, but having a red bill and red
feet.2 The former, C. melanocorypha or nigricollis, if not discovered
by earlier navigators, was observed by Narbrough 2nd August 1670
in the Strait of Magellan, as announced in 1694 in the first edition
of his Voyage (p. 52). It was subsequently found on the Falkland
Islands during the French settlement there in 1764-65, as stated
by Pernetty (Voyage, ed. 2, ii. pp. 26, 99), and was first technically
described in 1782 by Molina (Saggio sulla Stor. Nat. del Chile, pp.
234, 344). Its range seems to be much the same as that of the
Cascaroba, except that it comes further to the northward, to the
coast of southern Brazil on the east and perhaps into Bolivia on the
west. It is a very handsome bird, of large size, with a bright red

1 Examples of both these species have been recorded as occurring in Britain,
and there can be little doubt that the first has made its way hither. Concerning
the second, more precise details are required.

2 Dr. Stejneger (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1882, pp. 177-179) has been at much
pains to shew that this is no Swan at all, but merely a large Anatine form.
Further research may prove that his views are well founded, and that this, with
another very imperfectly known species, C. davidi, described by Swinhoe (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1870, p. 430) from a single specimen in the Museum of Peking, should
be removed from the subfamily Cygninw. Of C. coscoroba Mr. Gibson remarks
(Zbis, 1880, pp. 86, 37) that its ‘‘note is a loud trumpet-call,” and that it swims
with ‘‘the neck curved and the wings raised after the true Swan model.”

7

SWAN 933

nasal knob, a black neck and the rest of its plumage pure white.
It has been introduced into Kurope, and breeds freely in confinement.

A greater interest than attaches to the South-American birds
last mentioned is that which invests the Black Swan of Australia.
Considered for so many centuries to be an impossibility, the know-
ledge of its existence seems to have impressed (more perhaps than
anything else) the popular mind with the notion of the extreme
divergence—not to say the contrariety—of the organic products of
that country. By a singular stroke of fortune we are able to name
the precise day on which this unexpected discovery was made. The
Dutch navigator Willem de Vlaming, visiting the west coast of
Zuidland (Southland), sent two of his boats on the 6th of January
1697 to explore an estuary he had found. ‘There their crews saw at
first two and then more Black Swans, of which they caught four,
taking two of them alive to Batavia ; and Valentyn, who several years
later recounted this voyage, gives in his work! a plate representing
the ship, boats and birds, at the mouth of what is now known from
this circumstance as Swan River, the most important stream of the
thriving colony of Western Australia, which has adopted this very
bird as its armorial symbol. Valentyn, however, was not the first to
publish this interesting discovery. News of it soon reached Amster-
dam, and the burgomaster of that city, Witsen by name, himself a
fellow of the Royal Society, lost no time in communicating the
chief facts ascertained, and among them the finding of the Black
Swans, to Martin Lister, by whom they were laid before that society
in October 1698 (Phil. Trans. xx. p. 361). Subsequent voyagers,
Cook and others, found that the range of the species extended over
the greater part of Australia, in many districts of which it was
abundant. It has since rapidly decreased in numbers, and will
most likely soon cease to exist as a wild bird, but its singular and
ornamental appearance will probably preserve it as a modified
captive in most civilized countries, and perhaps even now there are
more Black Swans in a reclaimed condition in other lands than are
~at large in their mother-country. The species scarcely needs
description: the sooty-black of its general plumage is relieved
by the snowy white of its flight-feathers and its coral-like bill
banded with ivory.

The Cygnine admittedly form a well-defined group of the Family
Anatidx, and there is now no doubt as to its limits, except in the
case of the Cascaroba above mentioned. This bird would seem to
be, as is so often found in members of the South-American fauna, a
more generalized form, presenting several characteristics of the
Anatinex, while the rest, even its Black-necked compatriot and the

1 Commonly quoted as Oud en Nicuw Oost Indien (Amsterdam: 1726). The

incidents of the voyage are related in Deel iii. Boek i. Hoofdst. iv. (which has
for its title Beschwijvinge van Banda), pp. 68-71.

934 SWIFT

almost wholly Black Swan of Australia, have a higher morphological
rank. Excluding from consideration the little-known C. davidi, of
the five or six} species of the Northern hemisphere four present the
curious character, somewhat analogous to that found in certain
CRANES (p. 111), of the penetration of the sternum by the
TRACHEA nearly to the posterior end of the keel, whence it returns
forward and upward again to revert and enter the lungs; but in
the two larger of these species, when adult, the loop of the trachea
between the walls of the keel takes a vertical direction, while in the
two smaller the bend is horizontal, thus affording an easy mode of
recognizing the respective species of each.2 Fossil remains of more
than one species of Swan have been found. The most remarkable
is C. falconeri, which was nearly a third larger than the Mute Swan,
and was described from a Maltese cave by Prof. Parker (Zrans. Zool.
Soc. vi. pp. 119-124, pl. 30).

SWIFT,’ a bird so called from the extreme speed of its flight,
which apparently exceeds that of any other British species, the
Hirundo apus of Linnzeus and Cypselus apus or murarius of most
modern ornithologists, who have at last learned that it has only
an outward resemblance but no near affinity to the SWALLOW
(p. 926) or its allies. Well known as a summer-visitor throughout
the greater part of Europe, it is one of the latest to return from
Africa, and its stay in the country of its birth is of the shortest, for

1 The C. unwini doubtfully described by Mr. Hume (Jbis, 1871, pp. 412, 413)
from India, though recognized by Dr. Stejneger (ut supra), seems to be only the
immature of the Mute Swan.

? The correct scientific nomenclature of the Swans is a matter that offers many
difficulties, but they are of a kind far too technical to be discussed here. Dr.
Stejneger, in his learned ‘‘ Outlines of a Monograph” of the group (ut supra),
has employed much research on the subject, with the result (which can only be
deemed unhappy) of upsetting nearly all other views hitherto existing, and pro-
pounding some which few ornithologists outside of his adopted country are likely
to accept. In the text, as above written, care has been taken to use names which
will cause little if any misunderstanding, and this probably is all that can be
done in the present state of confusion.

’ The bird has many local names, of which perhaps DEviLIne and ScrEECH-
OwL are the commonest. Black Manrtry, House-Martin and Marr.er are
also used, the last especially in Heraldry.

4 An attempt has been lately made to revive the generic name Jicropus con-
ferred in 1810 by Meyer and Wolf (Zaschenbd. i. p. 280), ignorant that it was
already used in Botany, and by the laudable practice of those days inadmissible,
as Meyer himself apparently recognized when he, in 1815 (Vég. Ltv- und
Esthiands, p. 143), substituted Brachypus for it ; but meanwhile Illiger had come
in with his Cypselus, which Meyer in 1822, in the supplement to his former work
(p. 255), accepted. Both Micropus and Brachypus have since been applied
in several zoological and even ornithological groups; but the use of either is
contrary to customary law.

SWIFT 936

it generally disappears from England very early in August, though
occasionally to be seen for even two months later.

The Swift commonly chooses its nesting-place in holes under the
eaves of buildings, but a crevice in the face of a quarry, or even a
hollow tree, will serve it with the accommodation it requires. This
indeed is not much, since every natural function, except sleep,
oviposition and incubation, is performed on the wing, and the
easy evolutions of this bird in the air, where it remains for hours
together, are the admiration of all who witness them. Though
considerably larger than a Swallow, it can be recognized at a
distance less by its size than by its peculiar shape. The head
scarcely projects from the anterior outline of the pointed wings,
which form an almost continuons curve, at right angles to which
extend the body and tail, resembling the handle of the crescentic
cutting-knife used in several trades, while the wings represent the
blade. The mode of flight of the two birds is also unlike, that of
the Swift being much more steady, and, rapid as it is, ordinarily
free from jerks. The whole plumage, except a greyish-white patch
under the chin, is a sooty-black, but glossy above. Though its
actual breeding-places are by no means numerous, its extraordinary
speed and discursive habits make the Swift widely distributed ;
and throughout England scarcely a summer’s day passes without
its being seen in most places. A larger species, C. melba or alpinus,
with the lower parts dusky white, which has its home in many of
the mountainous parts of central and southern Europe, has several
times been observed in Britain, and two examples of a species of a
very distinct genus, Acanthyllis or Chetura, which has its home in
northern Asia, but regularly emigrates thence to Australia, have
been obtained in England (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1880, p. 1).

Among other peculiarities the Swifts, as long ago described
(probably from John Hunter’s notes) by Home (Pil. Trans. 1817,
pp. 332 et seqq., pl. xvi.), are remarkable for the development of
their salivary glands, the secretions of which serve in most species
to glue together the materials of which the nests are composed,
and in the species of the genus Collocalia form almost the whole
substance of the structure. These are the “edible” nests so
eagerly sought by Chinese epicures as an ingredient for soup, and
their composition, though announced many years since by Home
(ut swprd), whose statement was confirmed by Bernstein (Act. Soc.
Sc. Indo-Neéerl. iii. Art. 5, and Journ. fiir Orn. 1859, pp. 111-119),
has of late been needlessly doubted in favour of the popular belief
that they were made of some kind of sea-weed, Algx, or other
vegetable matter collected by the birds.! It may be hoped that the
examination and analysis made by Dr. J. R. Green (Journ. of Physiol.
vi. pp. 40-45) have settled that question for all time. These re-

1 Hence one species has been called Collocalia fuciphaga.

936 SWIFT

markable nests consist essentially of mucus, secreted by the salivary
glands above mentioned, which dries and looks like isinglass. Their
marketable value depends on their colour and purity, for they are
often intermixed with feathers and other foreign substances. The
Swifts that construct these “edible” nests form a genus Collocalia,
of which the number of species is uncertain; but they inhabit
chiefly the islands of the Indian Ocean from the north of Madagascar
eastward, as well as many of the tropical islands of the Pacific so
far as the Marquesas,—one species occurring in the hill-country of
India. They breed in caves, to which they resort in great numbers,
and occupy them jointly and yet alternately with Bats—the
mammals being the lodgers by day and the birds by night.1

The genus Cypselus, as noted by Willughby, with its American
ally Panyptila, exhibits a structure of the foot not otherwise ob-
served among birds. Not only is the hind-toe constantly directed
forwards, but the other three toes depart from the rule which

CyYPSELUS. ACANTHYLLIS. MACROPTERYX.
(After Swainson.)

ordinarily governs the number of phalanges in the Bird’s foot,—a
rule which applies to even so ancient a form as Archxopteryx (FOSSIL
Brrps, p. 278),—and in the two Cypseline genera just named the
series of digital phalanges is 2, 3, 3, 3, instead of 2, 3, 4, 5, which
generally obtains in the Class dives. Other Swifts, however, do not
depart from the normal arrangement, and the exception, remarkable
as it is, must not be taken as of more value than is needed for the
recognition of two sections or subfamilies admitted by Mr. Sclater
in his monographical essay on the Family (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865,
pp. 5938-617). Mr. Hartert (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xvi. pp. 434-518)
recognizes three subfamilies with nine genera and 78 species.
Their geographical distribution is much the same as that of the
Hirundinide (SWALLOW, p. 926); but it should be always and most
clearly borne in mind that, though so like Swallows in many respects,
the Swifts have scarcely any part of their structure which is not
formed on a different plan ; and, instead of any near affinity existing
between the two groups, it can scarcely be doubted by any un-

1 Mr. H. Pryer has given one of the latest accounts of some of these caves
in North Borneo (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1885, pp. 532-538), which may be read to
advantage.

SWIFT FOOT—S YRINX 937

prejudiced investigator that the Cypselide not only differ far more
from the Hirundinide than the latter do from any other Family of
Passeres, but that they belong to what in the present state of
ornithology must be deemed a distinct Order of Birds—that which
in the present work has been called Picariz. That the relations of
the Cypselidex to the Trochilide (HUMMING-BIRD, pp. 442, 443) are
close, as has been asserted by L’Herminier, Nitzsch, Burmeister and
Prof. Huxley, is denied by Dr. Shufeldt (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1885, pp.
886-914 ; Ibis, 1893, pp. 84-100), but the views of the last are con-
troverted by Mr. Lucas (Auk, 1886, pp. 444-451; Ibis, 1893, pp.
365-371). ;

SWIFT FOOT, Selby’s name in 1825 (Brit. Orn. i. p. 334) for
what was already known as the CouRSER (p. 107).

SWINEPIPE, an old name for the REpwinc, Turdus iliacus
(p. 777, note 1).

SYNALLAXIS, the name of a genus instituted in 1819 by
Vieillot (NV. Dict. dH. N. xxxii. p. 309), and used as English in
1825 by Stephens (Shaw’s Zool. xiii. p. 227) (cf. PicucuLs, p. 719).

SYNDACTYLI, one of Illiger’s groups of SCANSORES (p. 815)
in 1811 (Prodr. Syst. p. 207) consisting only of the genus Galbula
(JACAMAR, p. 463).

SYRINX, the organ of voice, and a peculiarity of the class
AVES, in so far as it is a modification of the lower end of the
TRACHEA and adjoining parts of the Broncul (p. 58), whence it is
frequently called the Lower Larynx (p. 513). The essential
features of such an organ are, first, membranes stretched between
the several parts of a cartilaginous or bony framework, and next,
special muscles which by their action vary and regulate the tension
of the membranes.

In the majority of Birds the median wall of each bronchial
tube is formed by a membrana tympaniformis interna, while a variable
number of membranz tympaniformes externe exist on the outer side,
either between neighbouring bronchial semirings, or between the
first bronchial semiring and the last tracheal ring, or between the
last two tracheal rings. ‘The two inner tympaniform membranes
mostly meet at the pessulus (p. 58), whence they often extend into
the lower end of the Trachea as a semilunar fold. When there is
no pessulus these two membranes meet directly and are attached to
the ventral and dorsal corners of the last tracheal ring or rings.
The position of the bronchidesmus (p. 58) varies considerably. In
Anseres it lies very near the pessulus, and is easily overlooked, while
in Galline it is placed further back and is very conspicuous: in
Ardea, Buteo, Cuculus and Cypselus it is situated at the 5th pair of
bronchial semirings, but at the 8th in Picus and Podicipes.

All the muscles of the Syrinx (grouped as B. £. at p. 605) are

938 SVRINX

supplied by a long branch of the Hypoglossal, or 12th pair of
cranial nerves (xii. 2 of diagr. p. 624). A branch descends on
either side of the Trachea, being often accompanied along its whole
length by thin muscles which extend from the Upper Larynx and
the Hyoid apparatus (p. 452) to the Syrinx, and the Syringeal
muscles proper are in fact the distal portion of such a long lateral
mass as in the majority of Birds is now restricted to the lower
third part of the Trachea, and is there separated into a variable
number of pairs; but there are also others which, though belonging
to the same category, only act upon the Syrinx indirectly. Of
these there is in all Birds one pair, but in Anseres, including
Palamedex, two pairs, of slender muscles, which arise at about the
beginning of the lower third of the Trachea and are inserted upon
the arms of the Furcula or upon the lateral processes of the
STERNUM (p. 909), or again, but rarely however, on neighbouring
soft parts and not upon bones. ‘These are the tracheo-clavicular
and sterno-tracheal muscles.

The proper vocal muscles, being those which are inserted upon
the lower end of the Trachea or upon the Bronchi, shew an extra-
ordinary amount of modification. Their number varies from one
pair to seven, and they are either inserted upon the middle or lateral
portion of the bronchial semirings (MESOMYODI, p. 546), or attached
to the end of those semirings where they pass into the inner tym-
paniform membrane (AcRoMyYODI, p. 1). The former is morphologic-
ally the more primitive condition, and is found in an overwhelming
majority of Birds; while the latter, with few exceptions, is restricted
to the OSCINES (p. 659). But there are also other conditions—
“ Anacromyodian,” “Catacromyodian” and “ Diacromyodian ” —
according as these muscles are inserted on the dorsal, the ventral
or on both ends of the semirings. Hence the distinction between
OLIGOMYOD& (p. 654) and PoLyMyop& (p. 737), depending on the
presence of few or many song-muscles, even if applied to Passeres
only, cannot be maintained, for that group includes forms with any
number of pairs from 1 to 7. Nor is the distinction between
Mesomyodi and Acromyodi always safe. The Yyrannidxe for in-
stance are anacromyodian, while the Pipridw and Cotingidx are
catacromyodian, and these modifications can be shewn to have
been derived (comparatively recently) from the weak mesomyodian
and oligomyodian condition which prevails in the majority of the
so-called Oligomyodx. On the other hand, the diacromyodian type
can only have been developed from a strong muscular basis which
could split into a dorsal and a ventral mass. Moreover, there
are no Pusseres known to be intermediate between those that are
diacromyodian and those that are not. We have therefore to
distinguish between

(1) Passeres diacromyodi, in which some of the syringeal muscles

SVRINX 939

are attached to the dorsal and some to the ventral ends, those ends
being, so to say, equally treated; this form comprises the SUB-
OSCINES (p. 921) and OSCINES; and

(2) Passeres anisomyodi, in which the muscles are unequally
inserted, either in the middle, or upon only one or the other,
dorsal or ventral, end of the semirings; this form comprises the
SUBCLAMATORES (p. 921) and CLAMATORES.

In this way we can arrive at a natural classification of the
Passeres, and avoid the obviously illogical shortcomings which result
from attempts to sort them into two groups by the application of
two distinct taxonomic principles, one being the number of the
muscles and the other the mode of their insertion, in addition to
the over-estimate of the tracheophonous type.

The following list shews the number of muscles attached to the
lower end of the Trachea or to the Syrinx (except the tracheo-
clavicular and sterno-tracheal muscles) in various groups of Birds.

I. Trachea and Syrinx devoid of muscles :—Casuarius, Dromxus,
Apteryx, Struthio, most Steganopodes, Ciconiide, Cathartide and some
Galline. This is not a primitive feature, but one brought about
by loss.

II. One pair of muscles inserted on the distal end of the
Trachea :—Anseres, with Pulamedea, Scopus, Limosa, most Galline,
Columbex, Pteroclidx, Opisthocomus, Rhamphastidx, Bucconidx, Momo-
tidx, Todidx, Cypselus, some Pteroptochide and Formicariide.

III. One pair of tracheo-bronchial muscles, arising mostly from
the Trachea and attached to one or more of the bronchial semirings :
—Thea, Sphenisci, Colymbus, Podicipedidx, Phalacrocorax, Tubinares,
Ardeidx, Phenicopterus, Ralli, Grues, Limicolx, Laridx, Alcidx, Mega-
cephalon, Lophortyx, most Falconidx, Cuculidx, Coraciide, Upupide,
Coliidx, some Trochilidx, Pict, Capitonidx, Todidx, Striges, Caprimulgi,
some Pteroptochidx and Formicariidx, Conopophagidex, Cotingidex, Pittidx,
Philepittide, Eurylenide, various Pipride and Tyrannidz.

IV. Two pairs of short tracheo-bronchial muscles :—Gallinago
cxlestis, Falco, some Trochilidx, various Pipride and Tyrannide,
Dendrocolaptide and Furnarudx, and Atrichornis—the last having
one pair inserted dorsally and the other ventrally, and being there-
fore diacromyodian.

V. Three pairs :—Psittaci, with tracheal and tracheo-bronchial
muscles; Menura and Poodytes,! with two dorsal and one ventral
tracheo-bronchials.

VI. Four pairs or more :—Grallina, with two dorsals and two
ventrals ; Prosthematodera, with two or three dorsals and two ventrals.

1 This is the Sphenwacus of Gould and other writers ; but the type of that
genus is a South-African species which I can scarcely believe to be nearly allied ;
I have therefore adopted the generic name which applies to the Australian form.
The species I examined seems to be P. galuctodes.

940 SYRINX

VII. Most of the Oscines seem to possess five or seven pairs of
syringeal muscles—no case of six pairs being known. In the
Corvide they are arranged as follows:—(1) m. tracheo-bronchialis
ventralis, from the Trachea to the anterior ventral end of the 2nd
semiring ; (2) m. tr.-bronch. obliquus, to the ventral end of the 3rd
semiring ; (3 and 4) m. tr.-bronch. dorsalis longus et brevis, to the
dorsal end of the 2nd semiring, and to the inner tympaniform mem-
brane near the pessulus ; (5) m. syringeus ventralis, to the ventral end
of the 2nd semiring—shorter than and covered by No. 1; (6) m.
syr. ventri-lateralis, covered by No. 2, inserted on the membrane
between the 2nd and 3rd semirings; (7) m. syr. dorsalis, to the
dorsal end of the’ 2nd semiring.

According to the position of the sound-producing membranes,
three types of Syrinx are distinguishable :—Tracheal, Bronchial
and Tracheo-Bronchial.

DIAGRAM OF A TRACHEAL AND A BRONCHIAL SYRINX.
t.c. tracheo-clavicular muscle.

I. Syrinz trachealis, in which the lower portion of the Trachea
consists of thin membranaceous walls, about six of the rings being
extremely thin or, as often happens, deficient. Both inner and
outer tympaniform membranes exist in the Bronchi as well as
some vibratory tracheal membranes. The few muscles, generally
but one pair, are wholly lateral. The birds thus furnished are the
TRACHEOPHON, their voice is very loud, and while it is being
sounded the lower part of the throat swells out. They belong
entirely to the Neotropical Region, and comprising the Dendro-
colaptidxe, Formicartide, Pteroptochide and Conopophagidx, form a
tolerably well-marked group of the Passeres Clamatores. Indica-
tions of such a tracheophonous Syrinx exist in various Cotingidx
and Pittidx, as well as in Columbx and Galline—but the last cases
are clearly only analogous.

Il. Syrinx bronchialis, in which outer tympaniform membranes
exist between two or more successive bronchial semirings, while an

SVRINX 941

inner tympaniform membrane may also be present. In typical
cases the Trachea has no sounding membranes, and to such belong
Steatornis, various Caprimulgi and Cuculi—notably Batrachostomus,
Podargus, Crotophaga, Piaya and Guira ; but there are other members
of these groups, as Agotheles, Nyctidromus, Cuculus and Centropus,
in addition to certain Striges, as Asio accipitrinus, which shew stages
intermediate between the typical Bronchial and Tracheo-bronchial
Syrinx, in so far as the lower part of the Trachea has incomplete
rings only, with no pessulus, and is, as in Centropus, split into a right
and left half, so that it assumes the Bronchial character.

III. Syrina tracheo-bronchialis, which may be regarded as the
normal form, the other two being modifications of it, yet it is

Raven. LaTeraL AND DorsaL VIEW OF SYRINX.
Bur. mt. rv. second, third and fourth bronchial rings ; Nos. 7-7, as on page 940.

difficult to give such a diagnosis of it as will apply to all its modi-
fications. The essential feature is that the proximal end of the
inner tympaniform membrane is attached to the last pair of tracheal
rings. In the Oscines the four or five distal tracheal rings are solidly
fused into a little box which communicates with the Bronchi; the
first and second bronchial semirings are closely attached to the
Trachea; and the spaces between the second and third and third
and fourth semirings are generally closed by outer tympaniform
membranes. Similar arrangements exist in many other birds ; but
the chief outer membrane is frequently formed between the last
tracheal and the first bronchial ring, as in Rhea, Anseres, Sphenisct,
Perdix, Cypselus, Aluco flammeus and Rupicola. Most peculiar
features are shewn by Gallus and the Psittaci; but in fact the
modifications are very numerous, as may well be expected from the

942 SVRINX—TAILOR-BIRD

number of rings, semirings, muscles and membranes that enter into
the composition of the Syrinx. The essential requirement of a vocal
organ, the presence of vibratory membranes, can be met in many
ways; but how these membranes act in particular, and how their
tension is modified by the often numerous muscles we do not know.
Various dilatations of the Trachea no doubt assist the modulation
of the voice, and the same may be said of the upper Larynx ; but
the TONGUE plays no part in the voice of Birds, with the possible
exception of Parrots, and the slitting of that member or the cutting
of its frenum cannot possibly add to the faculty of articulation.

T

TAILOR-BIRD, the Motacilla sutoria of Pennant, who in 1769
(Indian Orn. p. 7, pl. viii.) described and figured its wonderful
nest,! built in a cone which is formed by the sewing together of the
leaves of plants, as may be seen in almost every museum, and read
of in many books. A good summary of what has been written on
the subject is given by Mr. Oates (Hume’s Nests & Eggs, Ind. B.
ed. 2, i. pp. 231-235); but though the progress of building has
been watched and recorded almost day by
day, few seem to have observed the birds
at work upon their fabric, and no one has
explained how they make the threads (when
they do make them) with which they sew,
or the bunches at the ends acting as knots
Se renal to hinder the threads from being drawn
tan Se out. The briefest account must here suffice.

Of the common Indian Tailor-bird, Orthotomus sutorius or Sutoria
longicauda, Jerdon (b. Ind. ii. p. 166) writes that it “makes its nest
of cotton, wool and various other soft materials,’ and “draws
together one leaf or more, generally two leaves, on each side of the
nest, and stitches them together with cotton, either woven by itself,

1 He was wrongly informed as to what the bird was like, for he says it was
“light yellow,” whereas it has a chestnut crown, the back of a bright olive-green,
and is white beneath. The cock has the two middle tail-feathers elongated ; but
in the hen they do not surpass the rest. J. R. Forster, a dozen years later,
breught out a German version of Pennant’s work (the original edition of which
was never completed), and therein referred (p. 17) to an earlier description of the
bird and its nest by Walter Schouten (Voy. Jnd. Orient. ii. p. 513, pl. xv.) under
the name of ‘* Tati ow Oiseau-mouche.”

2 The figure was drawn from a specimen in the Paris Museum ; but Dr. Sharpe
(ut supra, p. 219, note) says he has ‘‘not succeeded in identifying” the species to
which it belonged.

TAISTE V—TANAGER 943

or cotton thread picked up; and after passing the thread through
the leaf, it makes a knot at the end to fix it.” Species of Tailor-
bird more or less nearly allied are found throughout the greater part
of the Indian Region ; but some of them would appear not always
to build their nests in this fashion ; and birds of the genus Cisticola,
to which belongs the FANTAIL-WARBLER, C. cwrsi/ans, that inhabits
the South of Europe, ply the same trade on stems of grass,
confining them by stitches above the nest, which is built among
them and takes a globular form. Both Orthotomus and Cisticola
are remarkable for the variation in colour of the eggs they lay,
which in the case of the latter is said to depend on the season
of the year (cf. Eacs, p. 189). All these birds are referred by
most systematists to a subfamily of Sylviidx (WARBLER) known as
Drymecine, but at present nothing can be said with certainty on
that point. Dr. Sharpe (Cat. b. Br. Mus. vii. p. 215) places them
-in his Timeliidx, with the true members of which group they seem
to have little in common.

TAISTEY or TYSTY (spelling uncertain), Icel. peista, the
Shetland name for the DoveKey of sailors (p. 166) and Black
GuILLEMoT of books (p. 399), Uria grylle.

TAKAHE, the Maori name of Notornis (cf. MooRHEN, pp. 591,
592), adopted by the settlers in the South Island of New Zealand,
where it is supposed still to exist.

TALENTER, used fancifully for Hawk (Thos. Middleton, The
World Tost at Tennis, 1620), as having “ talents,” ze. talons—these
words being often confounded, or played upon, as by Shakespear
(Love’s Labour's Lost, iv. 2, 65).

TAMMY-NORIE, a northern form of Tom-Noppy, and a name
for the PUFFIN (p. 750).

TANAGER, a word adapted from the quasi-Latin Tanagra of
Linneus, which again is an adaptation, perhaps with a classical
allusion, of Zangara, used by Brisson and Buffon, and said by
Marcgrave (Hist. Rer. Nat. Bras. p. 214) to be the Brazilian name
of certain birds found in that country. From them it has since been
extended to a great many others mostly belonging to the southern
portion of the New World, -now recognized by ornithologists as
forming a distinct Family of Oscines, and usually considered to be
allied to the Fringillide (FINCH, p. 250); but, as may be inferred
from Prof. Parker’s remarks (Z’rans. Zool. Soc. x. pp. 252, 253 and
267), the Tanagride are a “feebler” form, and thereby bear out
the opinion based on the examination of many types both of Birds
and Mammals as to the lower morphological rank of the Neotropical
Fauna as a whole (GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, pp. 321-323).

The Tanagers are a group in which Mr. Sclater has for many

944 TANAGER

years interested himself, and his latest treatment of them (Cat.
Lr, Mus. xi. pp. 49-307) admits the existence of 375 species, which
he arranges in 59 genera, forming six subfamilies— Procniatine,
Euphoniine, Tanagrine, Lamprotine, Phenicophiline and Pityline.
These are of very unequal extent, for,
while the first of them consists of but
a single species, Procnias tersa,—the
position of which may be for several

LLY
Procnias. (After Swainson.) reasons still open to doubt,—the
third includes more than 200. Nearly

all are birds of small size, the largest barely exceeding a Song-
Thrush. Most of them are remarkable for their gaudy colouring,
and this is especially the case in those forming the genus called

==
ye

EUPHONIA MUSICA. TANAGRA CYANOPTERA,
(After Swainson.)

by Mr. Sclater, as by most other authors, Calliste, a term inad-

missible through preoccupation, to which the name of Tanagra

of right seems to belong, while that which he names Tanagra
co) =)

Li REN
Eg

PYRANGA RUBRA.

CYPSNAGRA RUFICOLLIS. NEMOSIA.
(After Swainson.)

should probably be known as TYhraupis.! The whole Family is
almost confined to the Neotropical Region, and there are several

1 All this appears clearly from what Mr. Sclater himself says in the Introduc-
tion (pp. vil. vill.) to his beautiful Monograph of the genus (London; 1857).

———<— ee

ee

TANAGER 945

forms peculiar to the Antilles ; but not a tenth of the species reach
even southern Mexico, and not a dozen appear in the northern
part of that country. Of the genus Pyranga, which has the most
northern range of all, three if not four species are common summer
immigrants to some part or other of the United States, and two of

LAMPROTES, SALTATOR,
(After Swainson.)

them, P. rubra and P. xsliva,—there known respectively as the
Scarlet Tanager and the Summer RepBIRD (p. 771),—reach even
the Dominion of Canada, visiting as well, though accidentally,
Bermuda. P. xstiva has a western representative, P. cooper, which
by some authors is not recognized as a distinct species. The males
of all these are clad in glowing red, P. rubra having, however, the
wings and tail black. The remaining species, P. ludoviciana, the
males of which are mostly yellow and black, with the head only

PIryLus FULIGINOSUS. ScHISTOCULAMYs.
(After Swainson.)

red, does not appear eastward of the Missouri plains, and has not
so northerly a range. Another species, P. hepatica, has just shewn
itself within the limits of the United States. In all these the
females are plainly attired; but generally among the Tanagers,
however bright may be their coloration, both sexes are nearly alike
in plumage. Little has been recorded of the habits of the species
of Central or South America, but those of the north have been as
closely observed as the rather retiring nature of the birds renders
possible, and it is known that insects, especially in the larval con-
dition, and berries afford the greater part of their food. They have

60

946 TAPACULO

a pleasing song, and build a shallow nest, in which the eggs, generally
three in number and of a greenish-blue marked with brown and
purple, are laid.

The figures here given will shew the varied proportion of the
bill in some of the genera of this Family, and as a whole the
Tanagride may perhaps be considered to hold the same relation to
the Fringillidx as the Icteridzx do to the Sturnide (STARLING), and the
Mniotiltide to the Sylviide (WARBLER) or Turdide (THRUSH), in
each case the purely New-World Family being the “feebler” type.

TAPACULO, the name! given in Chili to a bird of singular

TOM

TAPACULO.

appearance,—the Pteroptochus albicollis of ornithology,—and_ in this
work (p. 324 and INTRODUCTION) applied in an extended sense to

1 Of Spanish origin, it is intended as a reproof to the bird for the shameless
way in which, by erecting its tail, it exposes its hinder parts. It has been some-
times misspelt ‘‘Tapacolo,” as by Mr. Darwin, who gave (Journ. Res. chap. xii.)
a short but entertaining account of the habits of this bird and its relative
Iylactes megapodius, called by the Chilenos ‘‘ £2 Turco,” while Mr. Hudson
(Argent. Orn. i. p. 206) has briefly described those of the Patagonian ‘‘ Gallito”
(Little Cock), Rhinocrypta lanceolata,

TAPACULO 947

its allied forms, which are now found to constitute a small Family,
Pteroptochidx, belonging to the 'Tracheophonous division of Passeres,
and therefore peculiar to South America. About 20 species, dis-
posed by Mr. Sclater (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xv. pp. 337-352) in 8 genera,
are believed to belong to this group.

The species of the Family first made known is Scytalopus
magellanicus, originally described in 1783 by Latham (Gen. Syn. iv.
p- 464) as a Warbler. Even in 1836 Gould not unnaturally took
it for a Wren, when establishing the genus to which it is now
referred ; but some ten years after Johannes Miiller found that
Scytalopus, together with the true Tapaculo, which was first described
by Kittlitz in 1830, possessed anatomical characters that removed
them far from any position previously assigned to them, and deter-
mined their true place as above given. In the meanwhile a kindred
form, Hylactes, also first described in 1830, had been shewn by
Eyton to have some very exceptional osteological features, and
these were found to be also common to Pteroptochus and Scyta-
lopus. In 1860 Professor Cabanis recognized the Pteroptochidex as a
distinct Family, but made it also include MJenura (LYREBIRD, p.
523), while some years later Mr. Sclater (bis, 1874, p. 191, note)
thought that Atrichornis (SCRUB-BIRD, p. 820) might belong here.
It was Garrod in 1876 and 1877 who finally divested the Family of
these aliens, but, until examples of some of the other genera have
been anatomically examined, it may not be safe to say that they all
belong to the Pteroptochide.

The true Tapaculo, P. albicollis, has a general resemblance in
plumage to the females of some of the smaller SHRIKES (p. 845), and
to a cursory observer its skin might pass for that of one; but its
shortened wings and powerful feet would on closer inspection at
once reveal the difference. In life, however, its appearance must
be wholly unlike, for it rarely flies, hops actively on the ground or
among bushes, with its tail erect or turned towards its head, and
continually utters various and strange notes,—some, says Mr.
Darwin, are “like the cooing of doves, others like the bubbling of
water, and many defy all similes.” The “ 7’wrco,” its fellow-country-
man, Hylactes megapodius, is larger, with greatly developed feet and
claws, but is very similar in colour and habits. Two more species
of Hylactes are known, and one other of Pteroptochus, all of which
are peculiar to Chili or Patagonia. The species of Scytalopus are
as small as Wrens, mostly of a dark -
colour, and inhabit parts of Brazil
and Colombia, one of them occur- :
ring so far northward as Bogota." “Nagy x
ConopopHaca, (After Swainson.)

1 This may be the most convenient
place to mention another South-American Family, Conopophagide, suggested by
Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1877, p. 452), and subsequently shewn by Forbes (op. cit.

948 LTARNE V—TEAL

TARNEY, TARRACK and TARRET, said to be local names
of the common TERN; but the second, spelt

TARROCK, is generally used for the KiTTrwakE (p. 492) in
immature plumage.

TARSEL and TASSEL (Romeo and Juliet, ii. 2, 160) corruptions
of TERCEL.

TARSUS, in common descriptive ornithology the third and
most conspicuous portion of the Bird’s leg, whence the toes spring.
For its actual composite nature see SKELETON (p. 864).

TATLER, ‘a name applied in North America to various species
of SANDPIPER (p. 810); but generally with a distinctive prefix. Its
first recognition as an ornithological term seems to be in 1831 by
Richardson and Swainson (Faun. Bor.-Amer, ii. p. 388), but it was
probably used before colloquially (¢/. TELLTALE).

TEAL (Old English Tele), a word of uncertain origin, but
doubtless cognate with the Dutch Zaling (formerly Talingh and
Telingh), and this apparently with the Scandinavian Atteling- And
(Briinnich, Orn. Bor. p. 18) and Atling, which it seems impossible
not to connect with the Scottish
ATTEAL (p. 22), though this last
word (however it be spelt) is gener-
ally used in conjunction with Teal,
as if to mean a different kind of
bird ; and commentators have shewn
a marvellous ineptitude in surmising
what that bird was.

The Teal is the Anas ecrecca of
Linneus, and the smallest of the
European Anatide (Duck, p. 168),
as well as one of the most abundant and highly esteemed for the
table. It breeds in many parts of the British Islands, making its
nest in places very like those chosen by the Wild Duck, 4. boscas ;
but there is no doubt that by far the greater number of those that
are taken in decoys, or are shot, during the autumn and winter are
of foreign origin. While the female presents the usual inconspicuous
mottled plumage of the same sex in most species of Anatinx, the male
is one of the handsomest of his kind; but too well known to need
description. It inhabits almost the whole of Europe and Asia,
from Iceland to Japan,—in winter visiting Northern Africa and
India, and occasionally occurring on the western shores of the
Atlantic ; but its place in North America is taken by its repre-
sentative, 4. carolinensis, the male of which is easily to be recognized
1881, p. 435) to be sufficiently remarkable (cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Br. Mus. xv. pp.
329-336).

Bitu or Test. (After Swainson.)

TEASER—TECTRICES 949

by the absence of the upper buff line on the side of the head and
of the white scapular stripe, while he presents a whitish crescentic
bar on the sides of the lower neck just in front of the wings.
Species more or less allied to these two are found in most other
parts of the world, and among such species are some (for instance,
the 4. gibberifrons of the Australian region and the A. eatoni of
Kerguelen Island) in which the male wears almost the same incon-
spicuous plumage as the female. But the determination of the
birds which should be technically considered “ Teals,” and belong
to the subgenus Neftiwm (generally misspelt Nettion), as distinguished
from other groups of Anating, is a task not yet accomplished, and
confusion has possibly been caused by associating with them such
species as the GARGANEY (p. 309) and its probable allies of the
group Querquedula. Others again have not yet been discriminated
from the WIGEONS, the PINTAILS (p. 726), or even from the typical
form of Anas, into each of which groups Neétiwm seems to pass
without any great break. In ordinary talk “Teal” stands for
any Duck-like bird of small size, and in that sense the word is
often applied to the members of the genus Netfopus, though system-
atists will have it that they are Geese, which the formation of their
trachea shews they are not. In the same loose sense the word is
often applied to the two most beautiful of the Family Anatide,
belonging to the genus 47 (commonly misspelt 47#)—the Carolina
or Wood-Duck of North America, 4. sponsa (not to be confounded
with the above-named Anas carolinensis or Nettium carolinense), and
the Mandarin-Duck of China, 4. galericulata. Hardly less showy
than these are the two species of the group named Hunetta,—the
Faleated Duck, EH. falcata, and the Baikal Teal, #. formosa,—both
from Eastern Asia, but occasionally appearing in Europe. Some
British authors have referred to the latter of these well-marked
species certain Ducks that from time to time occur, but they are
doubtless hybrids, though the secret of their parentage may be
unknown; and in this way a so-called Bimaculated Duck, Anas
bimaculata, was for many years erroneously admitted as a good
species to the British list, but of late this has been properly dis-
carded (cf. Suchetet, Hist. du Bimaculated Duck, Lille: 1894).

TEASER, a local name for the Arctic Gull (SkuA).

TECTRICES (sing. tectrix), the feathers that cover the base of
the quill-feathers of the wing (REmicgEs, p. 780) and of the tail
(RECTRICES, p. 769), in each case divisible into Upper and Lower,
according to their position on the dorsal or ventral surface ; but
the tail-coverts need little further notice, while those of the wing
deserve much attention. Setting aside the marginal feathers, each
group of wing-coverts, whether Upper or Lower, comprises three
series—known as the Greater, Middle and Lesser—the two first

950 LPECLRIGES,

consisting of only one row of feathers, which in the case of the
Greater agrees in number with that of the Remiges, each tectrix
being placed on the proximal side of its corresponding remex.
When the 11th or terminal quill is absent its Upper covert remains
as a supernumerary, as for instance the well-known stiff ‘ painter’s
feather” of the Woodcock. The Lower 11th tectrix is less constant,
and in the Gallinw, for example, is absent. Similar conditions are
found in the 10th Greater covert of many Pusseres, and sometimes

STERNA. PLotus.

C, supplementary ; D, posterior row of Middle Upper wing coverts ; x shews the point of
change in the overlap. (After Goodchild.)
(From the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1886.)

the terminal Upper covert is even larger than the corresponding
quill. The Upper covert of the first or proximal digital (“ primary ”)
quill is often very small or even absent, being completely overlaid
or represented by the corresponding Middle covert, an arrangement
probably produced by the mechanical conditions necessary to the
folding of the wing. The Upper Greater coverts of the cubital
(‘secondary ”) quills likewise grow from the proximal side of their
remiges, but they cross the latter in an outward direction. The
Lower tectrices are also inserted proximally, but those of the Greater
series do not cross their remiges, though they are crossed inwards

TECTRICES 951

and very obliquely by those of the Middle series, which are inserted
each between a remex and its corresponding Greater covert. The
Lower coverts arise from the fleshy part of the wing, and the
marginals clothe the propatagiwm or anterior part of the wing to
which they are restricted.

The Greater and Middle rows of Lower coverts have their con-
cave surface downwards, thus agreeing with the remiges and with
the Upper coverts. They are the fectrices averse of Sundevall, and
the explanation of the apparent anomaly they present has been
given by Wray, who found that they are originally situated on the
dorsal side of the wing, but that, during the growth of the embryo,
they are gradually pushed’ over to the ventral side, so as to
assume the position of Lower coverts (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1887,
pp. 343-357). This shifting is probably initiated through the
greater development of the feathers on the upper surface which
become the remiges, and to the formation of the tendinous band
(elast. sec. fig. p. 608) connecting their bases.1

The overlapping of wing-coverts presents some curious features.
Feathers are said to overlap proximally when the inner vane or web
of any one is overlapped by the outer vane of its proximal or inner
neighbour. This is the case with (1) all the remiges, as well as in
the so-called bastard wing, (2) all the Greater coverts, both Upper
and Lower, (3) the Upper Middle coverts of the hand, and frequently
those of the arm, (4) those of the PARAPTERON (p. 684) or upper
humerals, and (5) the marginals, both Upper and Lower. On the
other hand, feathers overlap distally when the inner vane covers the
outer vane of the one next to it. Such a row of feathers therefore
seems to run ina direction opposite to that of the remiges and Greater
coverts, and of this kind are (1) all the Middle and Lesser Lower
coverts, (2) the feathers of the HYPOPTERON (p. 454), (3) very fre-
quently the Lesser Upper coverts, and (4) in many birds the Middle
Upper coverts. The number and position of these distally-over-

1 Owing to Wray’s ingenious discovery it is easier to understand the relations
between remiges and tectrices majores and tectrices medi in the Ratitx and
Sphenisci, and moreover to arrive at a possible explanation of the development
of the remiges as such. Struthio and the Oscines have only one row of inverted
Lower coverts ; Rhea and the Sphenisci have none. In the last there are more
than 30 rows of little scale-like feathers on each surface of the wing, the largest
of them not being, as in most Birds, the last series, but the last series but one on
the hand, and the second and third last on the dorsal side of the forearm.
This suggests the probability that in the Penguins no rows of feathers have been
turned ventrally round the posterior margin of the wing, which is to say, that
these birds retain a condition which in the others is characteristic of embryonic
life. Struthio possibly represents an intermediate stage, in which only one row
has been turned ventrally, unless indeed a reduction from several rows to one row
has taken place, and such a reduction has probably been effected in Ahew and
the Oscines,

952 Tie CLRIGES:

lapping wing-coverts were shewn many years ago by Sundevall? to
have a taxonomic value, and the later researches of Mr. Goodchild
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1886, pp. 184-203) have carried the matter further.
The latter distinguishes seven different types of arrangement in the
wing-coverts :

1. All the Upper feathers overlap proximally: only 3 or 4
transverse rows owing to the absence of the Lesser coverts, which
are represented by enlarged marginals—Cypselidx and Trochali.

2. Lesser coverts absent, marginals enlarged and overlapping
proximally : Middle Upper coverts reduced to one row and over-
lapping distally—Oscines.

3. One row af Middle and 5 or 6 rows of Lesser Upper coverts,
all overlapping proximally —Cuculidx, Musophagidx, Coracias, Indi-
cator and Caprimulgus.

4. One row of Middle and from 2 to 4 rows of Lesser coverts
overlapping distally—Picidx, Rhamphastidx, Alcedinide and Chasmo-
rhynchus.

5. The Middle row and from 3 to 6 Lesser rows overlap distally,
except the feathers toward the elbow, which overlap proximally—
—the meeting-place of these two differently-disposed groups being
generally very conspicuous. This is the most common and possibly
the most generalized type, from which all the rest may be derived,
and occurs in Falconidx, Psittaci, Striges, Herod, Phalacrocoraz,
Anseres, Meleagris and many Gulline, Gouru, Rallidx, Limicolx, Ciconia,
Platalea and Ibis.

6. The whole row of Middle coverts overlaps proximally ; numer-
ous rows of Lesser, but those which overlap distally are restricted
to a patch on the middle of the Upper surface—Columba, Ptero-
clidx, Laridx, Sula, Serpentarius.

7. Numerous rows of Upper coverts all overlapping proximally
—Mycteria, Leptoptilus, Fregata, Plotus, Diomedea, Ossifraga, Puffinus,
Cathaurtide.

Considering that all the birds of this last type are remarkable
for the length of their wing-bones, and consequently the great
number of remiges, as well as the fact that other Ciconizw, Tubinares
and Steganopodes belong to a different type, it seems reasonable to
think that the character of this group is the result of specialization,
and has been independently acquired, without indicating any rela-
tionship. On the other hand, the agreement between Cypselidx
and T'rochili, Columbe and ~Pleroclidx, both indicating a reference to
Limicolz, and the similarity between Cathartidxe and Steganopodes as
well as Pelargi are at least suggestive of taxonomic value ; but for
further information Mr. Goodchild’s treatise, whence some figures
are here introduced, should be consulted.

1 Kk. Vetensk.-Ak. Handi. 1843, pp. 803-384. A translation of this memoir by
Dallas appeared in 7he bis, 1886, pp. 389-457, pls. x. xi.

LOSS 2 IAIN Sb ae) DI g & 953

TEETAN, TEETING, Orkney and Shetland names for the
TITLARK.

TEETH are so generally possessed by Vertebrata as naturally to
induce the supposition that the older Birds must have had them,
and many anatomists had been looking out for their traces.
Already in 1821 Etienne Geoffroy St.-Hilaire announced the dis-
covery, on the edges of the mandible and premaxilla in embryos of
Palxornis torquatus, of papille, rich in blood-vessels and nerves and
containing globular bodies, which he likened to dental germs, His
son, Isidore, and Cuvier thought that these “ germs” became sup-
pressed by the later development of the horny sheath of the bill.
In 1860 Blanchard (Comptes Rendus, 1. pp. 540-542) made micro-
scopical investigations on Cacatwa and Melopsitiucus, and described
plates of dentine, sent out from the edge of the underlying bone
and partly surrounding the papille, which last were directly con-
nected with the periosteum. Subsequently Prof. W. Marshall
(of. Thier-reich, Vogel, i. p. 499) examined a nestling of Nymphicus and
found clusters of calcareous deposit in the papille of the still carti-
laginous mandible. He observed similar papille in an embryo of
Aptenodytes, and his attention was drawn to a longitudinal groove ex-
tending along the edges of both the upper and lower jaw in the adult.
Dr. M. Braun (Arb. Zool. Inst. Wiirzburg, 1879, pp. 161-204, pls. viii.
ix.) described and figured similar papillee in Melopsittacus, explaining
the so-called plates of dentine as calcified horn, and comparing the
papillz themselves with the horny serrations on the bill of the
Anseres. In 1880 Dr. Paul Fraisse (SB. Phys. Med. Verh. Wiire-
burg, Xv. pp. ll.-ix.) re-examined these papille, and concluded that
they were but cutaneous outgrowths, projecting into the super
imposed horny layers; which, being situated between the Malpighian
layer and the periosteum, became connected with the latter, the
capsule of supposed dentine consisting of peculiarly-modified and
occasionally calcified cells of the horny layer. ‘Thus they bear a
striking but only a superficial resemblance to the germs of Teeth.
After all, then, Dr. Finsch’s practical suggestion (Die Papageien,
p. 138) is right, and these papille only ensure the firmer connexion
and better nourishment of the thick horny beak. They can be
easily seen by macerating a Parrot’s beak and tearing off the cover-
ing, and are comparable with the long cutaneous papille which
extend into the hoof of a horse. They occur numerously only in
Psiitact and to a lesser degree in Anseres, but not in Latitx, Galline,
Columbx, Accipitres or Corvidx, though present in the form of a
single long and soft projection at the tip of the pramaxilla and
mandible of many Birds with strong and hooked beaks.

The total absence of dental germs in all recent Birds is of
course no proof that their ancestors did not possess such organs,

954 TELEOPTILE—TENUIROSTRES
and in fact Archxopteryz (FOSSIL BirDs, p. 278) and the Cretaceous
forms of North America (ODONTORNITHES, p. 649) had teeth. It is
highly probable that Teeth were a more or less universal feature in
all Birds of that period, that their loss took place at or shortly
before the beginning of the Tertiary period, and moreover that
their suppression was caused by the gradually increasing strength
of the horny sheath of the jaws, asin Tortoises and in young
Monotremes ; but it is not permissible to divide the Class Aves into
Birds with Teeth (Odontornithes) and Birds without. In Hesperornis
regalis there are 33 Teeth (p. 650) in each mandible and 14 in each
maxilla, while the premaxilla is toothless and was probably
covered with horn. All the Teeth stand in a groove (whence Prof.
Marsh’s name Odontolcx), but bony processes between them indicate
a future alveolar condition. Each Tooth is curved backward, con-
tains a pulp-cavity, and consists of dentine with an enamel coating
just as in the case of the normal Reptilian Tooth, and another truly
Reptilian character is shewn by the succession of the Teeth, younger
and still imperfect Teeth being found on the inner side of the base
of the old or functional set. The Teeth of Jchthyornis are likewise
restricted to the mandibles and maxille ; but they stand each ina
separate socket or alveolus (whence the name Odontotormz is applied
to this group of Birds), and the young or reserve Teeth are con-
tained in the pulp cavity of the older set, growing from the same
base just as in Crocodiles and in Mammals. The much more ancient
and still more Reptilian Archexopteryx had few Teeth, and those but
small.

TELEOPTILE, see FEATHERS (p. 243).

TELLTALE, the name long used in North America for Totanus
melanoleucus and T. flavipes (SANDPIPER, p. 810) from “ their faith-
ful vigilance in alarming the Ducks with their loud and shrill
whistle on the first glimpse of the gunner’s approach,” and accord-
ingly detested by him (Wilson, 4m. Orn. vii. p. 57).1

TENDON, see under MuscuLar System (cf. 602-620).

TENUIROSTRES, a French word used by Cuvier in 1805
(Lee. @ Anat. Comp. tabl. 2) for a group of Passeres, containing the
genera Sitta, Certhia, Trochilus, Upupa, Merops, Alcedo, and Todus ;?
but its Latin application seems due to Illiger in 1811, who restricted
it to the genera Nectarinia (SUN-BIRD), Tichodroma and Upupa

1 For the same reason the RepsHANK, 7’. calidris, is known as Tolk (inter-
preter) in Danish and Swedish (cf. TURNSTONE).

2 In the following year Duméril (Zool. Analyt. pp. 46, 47, 64, 65, used the
word (also as French) in a double sense—first almost precisely as Cuvier had
done, but next for a group composed of Recurvirostra, Tringa, Charadrius,
Numenius and Scolopax.

TERCEL—TERN 955

(Hoopor). In the Cuvierian sense it has since been largely em-
ployed, and can hardly be said to have been wholly dropped
except by those who have some knowledge of real characters, for
it was used in 1888 by Olphe-Galliard (Faun. Orn. Eur. occid.
fasc. xxiii.), who referred to it Oriolidx, Upupidx, Tichadromadida,
Certhiide and Sittide.

TERCEL and TIERCEL (corruptly Tarsen and TasseEx), Fr.
Tiercelet, the male of many Birds-of-Prey ;1 but especially of those
used in Falconry—except the GyRFALCON, Hoppy, LANNER, MERLIN,
SACRE and SPARROW-HAWK. It is commonly thought to signify
that a Hawk of that sex was “a third part lesse then the female”
(Cotgrave); but some writers, as Tardif and De Thou, maintain that
it referred to a belief that every brood of Hawks consists of 3 birds,
whereof 2 were females and the 3rd was a male, or that this
was the last hatched (cf. Schlegel, Zrait. de la Fauconnerie, p. 1,
note 3).

TERMAGANT or TERMIGANT, the earliest English and
Scottish forms of the name now written PTARMIGAN (cf. GROUSE,
p. 392, note).

TERN (Norsk Texrne, Tenne or Tende; Swedish Térna; Dutch
Stern”), the name now applied generally to a group of sea-birds, the
Sternine of modern ornithology, but, according to Selby, properly
belonging, at least in the Farne Islands, to the species known by
the book-name of Sandwich Tern, all the others being those called
Sea-Swallows—a name still most commonly given to the whole
group throughout Britain from their long wings, forked tail and
marine habit. In Willughby’s Ornithologia (1676), however, the
word Tern is used for more than one species, and, though it does
not appear in the older English dictionaries, it may well have been
from early times as general a name as it is now.

Setting aside those which are but occasional visitors to the
British Islands, six species of Terns may be regarded as indigenous,
though of them one has ceased from ordinarily breeding in the
United Kingdom, while a second has become so rare and regularly
appears in so few places that mention of them must for prudence
sake be avoided. This last is the beautiful Roseate Tern, Sterna
dougalli; the other is the Black Tern, Hydrochelidon nigra, belonging

1 Chaucer applies the name to an EAGLE (Parlement of Fowles, line 393).

2 STARN was used in Norfolk in the middle of this century for the bird known
by the book-name of Black Tern, thus confirming Turner, who, in 1544, described
(sub cap. ‘‘De Gavia”) that species as ‘‘nostrati lingua sterna appellata.” In
at least one instance the word has been confounded with one of the old forms
of the modern Sraruine (p. 903). To Turner’s name, repeated by Gesner and
other authors, we owe the introduction by Linneus of Sterna into scientific
nomenclature. ‘‘Ikstern” is another Dutch form of the word.

956 TERN

to a genus in which the toes are only half-webbed, and the birds
of small size and dark leaden-grey plumage. It is without doubt
the Sterna of Turner, and in former days was abundant in many
parts of the fen country,} to say nothing of other districts. Though
nearly all its ancient abodes have been drained, and for its pur-
poses sterilized these many years past, not a spring comes but it
shews itself in small companies in the eastern counties of England,
evidently seeking a breeding-place. All around the coast the
diminution in the numbers of the remaining species of Terns
within the last 50 years is no less deplorable than demonstrable.
The Sandwich Tern, S. sandvicensis or S. cantiaca—named from
the place of its discovery, though it has long since ceased to inhabit
that neighbourhood—is the largest of the British species, equalling
in size the smaller Gulls and having a dark-coloured bill tipped
with yellow, and dark legs. Through persecution it has been ex-
tirpated in all its southern haunts, and is become much scarcer in
those to which it still resorts. It was, however, never so abundant
as its smaller congeners, the so-called Common and the Arctic Tern,
—two species that are so nearly alike as to be beyond discrimina-
tion on the wing by an ordinary observer, and even in the hand
require a somewhat close examination.? The former of these has
the more southern range, and often affects inland situations, while
the latter, though by no means limited to the Arctic circle, is
widely distributed over the north and mostly resorts to the sea-
coast. Yet there are localities where, as on the Farne Islands, both
meet and breed, without occupying stations apart. The minute
diagnosis of these two species cannot be briefly given. It must
suffice here to state that the most certain difference, as it is the
most easily recognizable, is to be found in the tarsus, which in the
Arctic Tern is a quarter of an inch shorter than in its kinsman.
The remaining native species is the Lesser Tern, S. minuta, one of
the smallest of the genus and readily to be distinguished by its per-
manently white forehead. All the species already mentioned,
except the Black Tern, have much the same general coloration—

1 It was known there as Carr-Swallow, Carr-Crow and Blue Darr (qu. =
Daw 2).

2 Linneus’s diagnosis of his Sterna hirundo points to his having had an
** Arctic” Tern before him ; but it is certain that he did not suspect that specific
appellation (already used by other writers for the ‘‘Common” Tern) to cover a
second species. Some modern authorities disregard his name as being insufficiently
definite, and much is to be said for this view of the case. Undoubtedly
‘“‘hirundo” has now been used so indiscriminately as to cause confusion, which
is avoided by adopting the epithets of Naumann (Jsis, 1819, pp. 1847, 1848),
who, acting on and confirming the discovery of Nitzsch (the first detector of the
specific difference), called the more southern species S. flwviatilis and the more
northern S. macrura. Temminck’s name, S. arctica, applied to the latter a year
later, has been until lately most generally used for it, notwithstanding.

TERTIALS—THICKHEAD 957

the adults in summer plumage wearing a black cap and having
the upper parts of the body and wings of a more or less pale
grey, while they are mostly lighter beneath. They generally breed
in association, often in the closest proximity—their nests, contain-
ing three eggs at most, being made on the shingle or among
herbage. The young are hatched clothed in variegated down, and
remain in the nest for some time. At this season the parents are
almost regardless of human presence and expose themselves freely.

At least half-a-dozen other species have been recorded as occurring
in British waters, and among them the Caspian Tern, S. caspia,
which is one of the largest of the genus and of wide distribution,
though not breeding nearer to the shores of England than on Sylt
and its neighbouring islands, which still afford lodging for a few
pairs. Another, the Gull-billed Tern, S. anglica, has also been not
unfrequently shot in England. All these species are now acknow-
ledged, though the contrary was once maintained, to be inhabitants
of North America, and many go much further.

Mr. Saunders (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxv. pp. 4-152) recognizes 11
genera of the subfamily—Hydrochelidon with 4 species ; Phaethusa,
Gelochelidon, Hydroprocne and Seena with one each—these being
hitherto most generally placed in Sterna, to which last he allots 33
species, including among them 3 or 4 that are called in books
“Sooty Terns,” but by sailors Eac-Brrp (p. 182), or, from their cry,
WIDE-AWAKES, and seem as much entitled to generic separation as the
four above named ; Nenia, a very aberrant form, consisting of but
one species, the Inca Tern, peculiar to the west coast of South
America ; Procelsterna, Anous and Micranous containing the various
species of Noppy (p. 643), of which he now admits but 7; and
(ygis, composed of 2 species of purely white birds, et restricted
to the southern hemisphere.

TERTIALS, a name now almost wholly abandoned, but applied
by older writers to the innermost or proximal cubital REMIGES
(p. 780), especially when, as in many groups of Birds, they are
distinctly longer than the more distal or outer.

TEUCHET and TEWFITT, local names of the LAPWING (p. 504)

from its cry.

THICKHEAD, Swainson’s rendering in 1837 (Classif. B. ii. p.
249) of his own Pachy-
cephala, a genus named
by him in 1824 (7rans.
Linn. Soc. xiv, p. 444,
note), to which about
50 species, all charac- PACHYCEPHALA. EoPsALTRIA.
teristic of and mostly (After Swainson.)
peculiar to the Australian Region, have been referred, while some

958 THICK-KNEE—THRASHER

other genera as Falcunculus (SHRIKE), Oreeca and Eopsaltria seem to
be nearly allied (cf. Gadow, Cat. B. Br. Mus. viii. pp. 172-227). By
many systematists they are placed among the Lanidz ; but they seem
to differ much in habit from the SHRIKES, of an older and more
generalized form of which they may be survivors, and they certainly
deserve grouping as a subfamily at least. No fewer than 12 species
of Pachycephala and 4 of Hopsaltria occur in one part or another of
Australia; but the latter are said by Gould (Hand-b. B. Austral. i.
p. 292) to be “very nearly related” to the genus Petraca (WHEATEAR),
while the former are described by him (tom. cit. p. 206) as differing
in habit from most other insectivorous birds, ‘ particularly in their
quiet mode of hopping about and traversing the branches of trees
in search of larve,” caterpillars forming a large part of their food.
The name THICKHEAD is, however, given in other parts of the
world to very different birds, and in South Africa especially to
(Hdicnemus capensis (DIKKoP, p. 148), the Stone-CURLEW of that
country, and if not complimentary, it is at least not inaccurate, as is

THICK-KNEE, absurdly applied to our own bird by Leach in
1816 (Syst. Cat. Mamm. & B. Br. Mus. p. 28), being an abbrevia-
tion of Pennant’s still more misleading “Thick-kneed Bustard”
conferred by him in 1776 (Brit. Zool. ed. 4, i. p. 244).

THISTLE-BIRD, -FINCH and -WARP, names of the Gonp-
FINCH (p. 370), -COCK in Orkney for the Great BUNTING (p. 60).

THRASHER, THRESHER, or THRUSHER,! names given to a
bird well known in the eastern part of North America, the 7'urdus
fuscus of the older and Harporhynchus fuscus of later ornithologists,
some of whom have dissociated it altogether from the 'THRUSHES, to
which it was long held to belong, placing it with J/imus (MOCKING-
BIRD, pp. 582-585) among the “ 7roglodytine” (WREN), and those
among the “ 7imeliidx,’ which is an admission of taxonomic inability.
Valid reasons there may be for separating Harporhynchus, of which
there are several species in North America, from the T'urdidx, and
the osteological grounds are temperately advanced by Mr. Lucas
(Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. xi. pp. 173-180); but little value can be
attached to what had previously been urged as the strongest point,
namely, that in 7wrdus, and its nearest allies, the tarsus is covered
anteriorly with a continuous plate, while in the A/imus-group the tarsus
is anteriorly scutellated, generally with 7 scales; for Baird (Lev.
Am. B. p. 3) shewed that this might be an individual peculiarity,

1 These words are doubtless derived from Turusu, if they be not corrup-
tions of it. An esteemed American correspondent has suggested to me that
Thrusher originated in the wish to indicate that the bird so called was bigger
than an ordinary Thrush, of which word it might be said to be (if the expression
be allowable) the ‘‘comparative degree.” In that case the other two must be
regarded as corruptions. They have nothing to do with threshing.

THRICECOCK—THRUSH 959

citing a specimen of J. carolinensis with a leg as much “booted” as in
the true Thrushes, while in a species of Mimocichla, the divisions of
the scutell are appreciable though they are all fused into one plate.!

THRICECOCK, a local name for the Mistletoe-THrusu.
THROSTLE (A.-S. prosle), now nearly obsolete, apparently the

diminutive form of

THRUSH (A.-S. prysce, Icel. préstr, Norw. Trast, O. H. Germ.
Drosce, Mod. Germ. Drossel),? the name that in England seems to
have been common to two species of birds, the first now generally
distinguished as the Song-Thrush, but known in many districts as
the Mavis,? the second the Mistletoe-Thrush, but having many
other local designations, of which more presently.

The former of these is one of the finest songsters in Europe,
but it is almost everywhere so common that its merits in this
respect are often disregarded, and not unfrequently its melody,
when noticed, is ascribed to the prince of feathered vocalists, the
NIGHTINGALE (p. 635). The Song-Thrush is too well known to
need description, for in the spring and summer there is hardly a
field, a copse or a garden that is not the resort of a pair or more ;
and the brown-backed bird with its spotted breast, hopping over the
grass for a few yards, then pausing to detect the movement of a
worm, and vigorously seizing the same a moment after, is one of
the most familiar sights. | Hardly less well known is the singular
nest built by this bird—a deep cup, lined with a thin but stiff coat-
ing of fragments of rotten wood ingeniously spread, and plastered
so as to present a smooth interior—in which its sea-green eggs
spotted with black are laid. An early breeder, it builds nest after
nest during the season, and there can be few birds more prolific.
Its ravages on ripening fruits, especially strawberries and goose-
berries, excite the enmity of the imprudent gardener who leaves
his crops unprotected by nets, but he would do well to stay the
hand of revenge, for no bird can or does destroy so many snails, as
is testified to the curious observer on inspection of the stones that
it selects against which to dash its captures,—stones that are be-
smeared with the slime of the victims and bestrewn with the frag-
ments of their shattered shells. Nearly all the young Thrushes
reared in the British Islands—and this expression includes the

1 TJ have no experience of Harporhynchus, hut close to it is usually placed the
Antillean genus Margarops of Mr. Sclater, and no one who has made its acquaint-
ance in life can doubt that form being a true THrusH.

2 For many interesting facts connected with the words ‘‘Thrush” and
‘*Throstle” which cannot be entered upon here, the reader should consult Prof.
Skeat’s Htymological Dictionary.

3 Its diminutive is Mawviette, the modern table-name of the Skylark, and
perhaps Mavis was in English originally the table-name of the Thrush.

960 LATICO SED:

Outer Hebrides, though not Shetland—seem to emigrate as soon as
they are fit to journey, and at a later period they are followed by
most of their parents, so that many parts of the kingdom are
absolutely bereft of this species from October to the end of January.
On the continent of Europe the autumnal influx of the birds bred
in the North is regarded with much interest, as has been already
stated (MIGRATION, p. 551), for they are easily ensnared and justly
esteemed for the table, while their numbers make their appearance
in certain districts a matter of great importance.

The second species to which the name applies is distinguished
as the MISTLETOE-THRUSH, corrupted into MIssEL-THRUSH (p. 575).!
This is a larger species than the last, of paler tints, and conspicuous
in flight by the white patches on its outer tail-feathers. Of bold dis-
position, and fearless of the sleety storms of spring,” as of predatory
birds, the cock will take his stand on a tall tree, “like an enchanter
calling up the gale” (as Knapp happily wrote), and thence with
loud voice proclaim in wild and discontinuous notes the fervour of
his love for his mate ; nor does that love cease when the breeding-
season is past, since this species is one of those that appear to pair
for life, and even when, later in the year, it gathers in small flocks,
husband and wife may be seen in close company. In defence of
nest and offspring, too, few birds are more resolute, and the Daw,
Pie or Jay that approaches with an ill intent speedily receives
treatment that causes a rapid retreat, while even the marauding cat
finds the precincts of the ‘“‘master of the coppice” (Pen y llwyn), as
the Welsh name this Thrush, unsuitable for its stealthy operations.
The connexion of this bird with the mistletoe, which is as old as
the days of Aristotle, is no figment, assome have tried to maintain.
Not only is it exceedingly fond of the luscious viscid berries, but it
seems to be almost the only bird that will touch them. Of other
British Thrushes, the FIELDFARE (p. 249), REDWING (p. 777) and
the BLACKBIRD (p. 42) and Ring-OUSEL (p. 666), have been before
noticed in these pages, as has been (under the first of those headings)
the so-called “ Rosin” (pp. 250, 791) of North America.

1 There is no doubt of the bird taking its name from the plant Mistletoe
(Visewm album), about the spelling of which there can be no uncertainty—A.-S,
Misteltan, the final syNable originally signifying ‘‘ twig,” and surviving in the
modern ‘‘ tine,” as of a fork or of a deer’s antler.

2 It is known also in many districts as the ‘‘Storm-cock,”’ from its habit of
singing in squally weather that silences almost all other birds, and ‘‘ Holm- (é.e.
Holly-) Thrush,” while the harsh cries it utters when angry or alarmed have
given it other local names, as ‘‘ Screech,” ‘‘Shrite,” and ‘‘Skrike,” all traceable
to the Anglo-Saxon Scric. And it is likely that the word Surike (p. 843) may
have been originally applied to the Mistletoe-Thrush. In several of the Anglo-
Saxon Vocabularies dating from the 8th to the 11th century, as printed by
Thomas Wright, the word Seric, which can be hardly anything else than the
early form of ‘‘Shrike,” is glossed Turdus.

THYMUS GLAND—TICHICRO 961

The Thrushes have been generally considered to form a distinct
Family, Zurdidx, which is placed by some taxonomers the highest
in rank among birds. The fallacy of this last view is pointed out
elsewhere (INTRODUCTION). Though many modern systematists will
admit the close connexion of the 7'urdidx and some of the so-called
Family Sylvide (WARBLER), the abolition or modification of the
latter, by wholly or partially merging it in the former, has not yet
been satisfactorily effected. Mr. Seebohm (Cai. B. Br. Mus. v. p.
1), being compelled by the conditions previously laid down by Dr.
Sharpe (op. cit. iv. pp. 6, 7) to unite them, protested against doing
so. His own assignment of the subfamily Turdinw was into li
genera, of which, however, 6 only would be commonly called
Thrushes, and it must be borne in mind that in establishing these
he regarded coloration as the most valid character. They are Geo-
cichla (a phantom name) with 40 species, Zurdus with 48, Merula
with 52, Mimocichla with 3, Catharus with 12 and Monticola with
10. These last, well known as Rock-Thrushes, make a very near
approach to the RepsTart (p. 775) and WHEATEAR.

THYMUS GLAND, a body of obscure significance; but
wrongly called a gland. It is best developed in young birds, and is
a yellowish mass extending on either side from each bronchus along
the jugular vein and ending like a thread. In adults it becomes
much reduced and is not unfrequently lost.

THYREOID GLAND, like the last, is of unknown function
and wrongly called a gland. It is a small, oval, reddish-yellow
body situated on either side of the root of the neck, loosely covered
by the skin and attached to the carotid artery and jugular vein.
In an adult Swan it is about three-quarters of an inch long.

TIBIA, in common descriptive ornithology the third and
generally the longest portion of the Bird’s leg, intervening between

- the Femur and the so-called “Tarsus.” For its actual composite

nature see SKELETON (p. 863).

TICHICRO, the name (given from its note) in Jamaica of a
small bird, the Fringilla savannarum of Gmelin, now referred either
to the genus Coturniculus, of which the very closely allied /’. passerina
of Wilson, the Yellow-winged Bunting of North America, is the type,
or to Ammodromus, founded for the Sharp-tailed Finch, 4. caudacutus.
Both belong to a group of New-World forms hitherto ill defined,
and considered by some to be FINCHES and by others BUNTINGS.
Of somewhat Lark-like habit, the Tichicro is said by Gosse (b.
Jam. p. 245) to have the habit of running on the ground, and to
perch but seldom, in which respect it differs from both normal
Finches and Buntings (c/. TOWHEE).

61

962 TIDEE

TIMELIA

TIDEE, TIDIF, TYDIF and TYTYFR (spelling uncertain),
obsolete names, but the second and third are used by Chaucer (¢/.
Skeat’s ed. iii. p. 76, iv. p. 479, v. p. 386), and most likely signify
a TITMOUSE.1

TIDLY-GOLDFINCH, said to be a name for the Goldcrest.

TIMELIA, amended from 7%malia,? the generic name, since
used as English, apphed by Horsfield in 1820 (Zrans, Linn. Soe.
xiii. p. 150) to a small bird he discovered in Java, and two years
later figured and more fully described (Zool. Res,
pl. 43, fig. 1)—T. pileata. It has a strong bill,
arched and much compressed, the wings short
and much incurved, the plumage generally long
and lax, a rather long and graduated tail and
moderately stout feet. The sexes are outwardly
alike, except in point of size, and it is a pretty
bird with a bright bay crown, and a white line

TIMELIA. from the base of the black bill over the eye,
(After Horstel-) contrasting also with the black lore, while the
rest of the upper parts are olive, the rectrices darker and trans-
versely barred by a deeper shade: the cheeks, throat and neck
are white—the last with fine longitudinal black streaks, while the
breast and other lower parts are of a pale tawny. The species,
declared by Mr. Oates (Faun. Br. Ind. i. p. 131) to be the only one
of the genus, is now admitted to have a widish range on the
Asiatic continent from Cochin-China to Nepal ; but the statements,
though made on good authority (Jerdon, B. India, uu. p. 24, and
Sharpe, Cat. Br. B. vi. p. 508) of its occurrence in Malacca, are
doubted by Mr. Oates (wf supra, p. 132). It has a pleasant song,
and is described as affecting the neighbourhood of cultivation in
Java, but in India its habits seem to be more retiring, for though
said to be an active, bright bird, it keeps creeping about the grass
near the ground, and seldom shews itself. It builds a domed nest
in a lowly position and therein lays 3 eggs, white speckled with
brown.

These particulars are dwelt wpon because this little bird has of
late years been set in such a position as none other has ever occu-
pied. Around it, or upon it, have been heaped, one after another,
or whole groups at a time, many of the most incongruous forms of
Passeres from all parts of the world, until the “Family Timeliidx”
became a confused mass, the like of which had not been seen since
systematic ornithology began. The practice of referrmg some

DAT PRAI ta j

! In the copy before mentioned (p. 680, note 2) of Belon’s Portraits, the figure
of Parus major is inscribed ‘‘ Collmouse, A Tydie.”

2 The derivation suggested is Tyudw, I honour, and fos, the sun. The
correction is Sundevall’s in 1872 (Zentamen, p. 11).

Passerine birds which did not well agree with the best known
European or American types to the neighbourhood of the genus
Timelia, and of founding a subfamily or even a Family for them,
was at first harmless, and, indeed, where new forms of the Indian
Fauna like Stachyris and others were concerned was praiseworthy ;
but the practice was presently abused and
its reduction to absurdity effected in the
Sixth and Seventh volumes of the British
Museum Catalogue of Birds, wherein toler-
ably homogeneous groups of various kinds
that had long been accepted by system-
atists were broken up and flung upon the
heap—the Troglodytide (WREN), for in-
stance, were referred to the Timeliidex,
whereas if their union were necessary the
Timelias should have been referred to the Wrens. The sole
character all these birds were supposed to possess in common
was one shared by many others that were excluded, namely, wings
short, rounded and “concave,” so as to fit close to the body, the last
epithet being intended to signify that the remiges were incurved.'

STACHYRIS THORACICA.
(After Swainson.)

TINAMOU, the name given in Guiana to a certain bird as
stated in 1741 by Barrere (France Equinowiale, p. 138), from whom
it was taken and used in a more general sense by Buffon (//ist. Nat.
Ois. iv. p. 502). In 1783 Latham (Synops. ii. p. 724) adopted it as
English, and in 1790 (Index, i. p. 633) Latinized it Zinamus, as the
name of a new and distinct genus. The “Tinamou” of Barrere
has been identified with the ‘“‘ Macucagua ” described and figured by
Maregrave in 1648, and is the 7inamus major of modern authors.”

1 Tt is due to Dr. Sharpe to observe that he indicates (op. cit. vii. p. 1) the
existence of some hidden power against which he was helpless, and that his
‘Group VIII. Timelie” (p. 504) does not differ very much from that which Mr.
Oates subsequently tried with some success to define as a subfamily Timediine
(with 25 genera found in India alone) of Crateropodide# ; but even that ‘“‘ Group”
still includes forms that it is impossible to believe are allied, and the Doctor,
in his Address to the International Congress of 1891 (p. 87), though referring
with approval to Mr. Oates’s attempt, and adopting a few other modifications,
stated that he was ‘‘not prepared at the present moment to reconsider the
Timeliide.” Out of a heap of road-sweepings a skilful gardener will make a
compost that shall produce fragrant flowers, while untended it remains a bed
that grows nothing but noisome weeds. Let us hope that Dr. Sharpe, with
the extraordinary resources at his command, will one day treat this festering
mass so as to obtain from it results that will cause the former unhappy failure
to be forgotten and a crop of fair blooms secured that will be worthy of him,
for a solution of the Timelian difficulty will indeed be a great feat.

2 Brisson and after him Linneus confounded this bird, which they had never
seen, with the TRUMPETER.

964 TINAMOU

Buffon and his successors saw that the Tinamous, though
passing among the European colonists of South America as “ Part-
ridges,” could not be associated with those birds, and Latham’s
step, above mentioned, was generally approved. The genus he had
founded was usually placed among the Galline, and by many
writers was held to be allied to the Bustards, which, it must be
remembered, were then thought to be “Struthious.” Indeed the
likeness of the Tinamou’s bill to that of the RHA (p. 785) was
remarked in 1811 by Hliger. On the other hand, L’Herminier in
1827 saw features in the Tinamou’s sternum that in his judgment
linked the bird to the fallidz. In 1830 Wagler (Nat. Syst. Amph.
u. $.w. p. 127) placed the Tinamous in the same Order as the
Ostrich and its allies; and, though he did this on very insufficient
grounds, his assignment has turned out to be not far from the mark,
as in 1862 the great affinity of these groups was shewn by Prof.
Parker (Trans. Zool. Soc. v. pp. 205-232, 236-238, pls. xxxix.-xli.),
and a few years later further substantiated by him (Phil. Trans.
1866, pp. 174-178, pl. xv.). Shortly after this Prof. Huxley (Proc.
Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 425, 426) was enabled to place the matter in a
clear light, urging that the Tinamous formed a very distinct group
of birds which, though not to be removed from the CARINATA,
presented so much resemblance to the Ratira as to indicate them
to be the bond of union between those two great divisions.! ‘The
group from the resemblance of its palatal characters to those of the
Emevu (p. 212), Dromexus, he called DROMHOGNATH, and _ his
decision, if not his name, has since been widely accepted.

The Tinamous thus—by whatever name we call them, Dromxo-
gnathx, Tinami or Crypturi—will be seen to be of great importance
from a taxonomer’s point of view, though in regard to numbers they
are comparatively insignificant. In 1873 Messrs. Sclater and Salvin
(Nomencl. Av. Neotrop. pp. 152, 153) recognized nine genera and
thirty-nine species; but in 1895 Count T. Salvadori (Cat. B. Br.
Mus. xxvii. pp. 494-569) admitting the nine genera, acknowledged
but sixty-six species. They are especially characteristic of the
Patagonian or Chilian portion of the Neotropical Region—four
species only finding their way into Southern Mexico and none
beyond. Some of them inhabit forests and others the more open
country ; but setting aside size (which in this group varies from
that of a Quail to that of a large common Fowl) there is an unmis-
takable uniformity of appearance among them as a whole, so that
almost anybody having seen one species of the group would always
recognize another. Yet in minor characters there is considerable
difference among them; and before all the group may be divided

1M. Alix also has from an independent investigation of the osteology and
myology of Nothura major come to virtually the same conclusion (Jowrn. de
Zoologie, iii. pp. 169 and 252, pls. viii.-xi.)

TINAMOU 955

into two subfamilies, the first, 77maminzx, having four toes, and the
second, Zinamotidine, having but three—the latter containing, so
far as is known, but two genera, Calopezus with a single species
and Tinamotis with two, while the former, according to Messrs.
Sclater and Salvin (ut supra), may be separated into seven genera,
two being Zinamus and Nothocercus, characterized by the roughness
of their posterior tarsal scales, the others, Crypturus, Rhynchotus,
Nothoprocta, Nothura and Taoniscus, having smooth legs.

RuFous TinamMou (Rhynchotus rufescens).

To the ordinary spectator Tinamous have much the look of
Partridges, but the more attentive observer will notice that their
elongated bill, their small head and slender neck, clothed with very
short feathers, give them a different air. The plumage is generally
inconspicuous: some tint of brown, ranging from rufous to slaty,
and often more or less closely barred with a darker shade or black,
is the usual style of coloration ; but certain species are characterized
by a white throat or a bay breast. The wings are short and
rounded, and in some forms the feathers of the tail, which in all
are hidden by their coverts, are soft. In bearing and gait the birds
shew some resemblance to their distant relatives the Ratitxy, and Mr,
Bartlett shews (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 115, pl. xii.) that this is
especially seen in the newly-hatched young. He also notices the
still stronger Ratite character, that the male takes on himself the
duty of incubation. The eggs are very remarkable objects, curiously

966 TINKER—TITMOUSE

unlike those of other birds; and, as before stated (p. 187), their
shell? looks as if it were of highly-burnished metal or glazed
porcelain, presenting also various colours, which seem to be constant
in the particular species, from pale primrose to sage-green or light
indigo, or from chocolate-brown to pinkish-orange. All who have
eaten it declare the flesh of the Tinamou to have a most delicate
taste, Just as it has a most inviting appearance, the pectoral muscles
being semi-opaque. Of their habits not much has been told. Darwin
(Journal, chap. iii.) has remarked upon the silliness they shew in
allowing themselves to be taken, and this, being wholly in accord-
ance with what Parker observes of their brain capacity, is an
additional testirhony to their low morphological rank. At least
one species of Tinamou has bred not unfrequently in confinement,
and an interesting account of what would have been a successful
attempt by Mr. John Bateman to naturalize this species, Lhynchotus
rufescens, in England, at Brightlingsea in Essex, appeared in The
Field (23rd Feb. 1884 and 12th Sept. 1885). The experiment un-
fortunately failed owing to the destruction of the birds by foxes.

TINKER or TINKERSHIRE, one of the many names of the
GUILLEMOT.

TINKLING or TIN-TIN, the name in Jamaica for one of the
American GRACKLES (p. 379), Quiscalus crassirostris (Gosse, B. Jam.
p. 217) belonging to the Family Icteridx.

TIT,? Icel. Titr (obsol.), Norsk Tifa, Old. Engl. TIDEE and
other forms (p. 962), a vulgar abbreviation of TITMOUSE, apparently
first used, except as a provincialism (when it often means the
WREN and possibly gave rise to the nickname Kirry), in 1831 by
Rennie (Architect. Birds, p. 184); but from its derivation, which
involves the idea of something small, equally applicable to

TITLARK or TITLING, Icel. 7itlingr, common names for what
books call the Meadow-Prrit (p. 727), Anthus pratensis.

TITMOUSE® (A.-S. Mase and Tytmase, Germ. Meise, Swed. Mes,
Dutch Mees, French Mésange), the name long in use for several
species of small English birds, which are further distinguished
from one another by some characteristic appellation. These go to
make up the genus Parus of Linnzus, and with a very uncertain

1 Herr von Nathusius has described its microscopic structure (Journ. fir
wissensch. Zoologie, 1871, pp. 330-355).

2 It had been thought cognate with the Greek rivis, which criginally meant
a small chirping bird (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, x. p. 227); but Prof. Skeat informs
me that no connexion between them is possible.

8 It is by false analogy that the plural of Titmouse is made 7%/mice ; it should
he Titmouses. A nickname is very often added, as with many other familiar
English birds, and in this ease it is ‘*Tom.”

TITMOUSE 967

number of other genera form the Family Paridw of modern
ornithology. Its limits are, however, very ill-defined; and here
only the species best known to English readers can be noticed.

I. The first to be mentioned is that called from its comparatively
large size the Great Titmouse, P. major, but known also in many
parts as the OX-EYE (p. 680), conspicuous by its black head, white
cheeks and yellow breast, down which runs a black line, while in
spring the cock makes himself heard by a loud love-note that
resembles the noise made in sharpening a saw. It is widely
distributed throughout the British Islands, and over nearly the
whole of Europe and northern Asia. The next is the Blue
Titmouse, Blue-cap or NUN (p. 646), P. cvruleus,t smaller than the
last and more common. Its names are so characteristic as to make
any description needless. A third common species, but not so
numerous as either of the foregoing, is the Coal-Titmouse, P. ater,
distinguished by its black cap, white cheeks and white nape.
Some interest attaches to this species because of the difference
observable between the race inhabiting the scanty remnants of the
ancient Scottish forests and that which occurs throughout the rest
of Britain. The former is more brightly tinted than the latter,
having a clear bluish-grey mantle and the lower part of the back
greenish, hardly either of which colours are to be seen in the same
parts of more southern examples, which last have been described
as forming a distinct species, P. britannicus. But it is to be
observed that the denizens of the old Scotch fir-woods are nearly
midway in coloration between the dingy southern birds and those
which prevail over the greater part of the Continent. It would
therefore seem unreasonable to speak of two species only: there
should be either three or one, and the latter alternative is to be
preferred, provided the existence of the local races be duly
recognized. Much the same thing is to be noticed in the next
species to be mentioned, the Marsh-Titmouse, P. palustris, which,
sombre as is its plumage, is subject to considerable local variation
in its very extensive range, and has been called P. borealis in
Scandinavia, P. alpestris in the Alps and P. lugubris in south-eastern
Europe, to say nothing of forms like P. baicalensis, P. camchatkensis
and others, whose names denote its local variations in northern
Asia, while no great violence is exercised if to these be tacked on
P. atricapilla with several geographical races which inhabit North
America. A fifth British species is the rare Crested Titmouse, P.
cristatus, only found in limited districts in Scotland, though common
enough, especially in pine-woods, in many parts of Europe.

It is impossible to state how many species of Parus exist, their

1 Canon Tristram informs me that the historic bottle at Oxbridge (supra,
p- 553, note) was reoccupied in 1895, making a tenancy, though not quite con-
tinuous, of at least 110 years.

968 TITMOUSE

recognition at present being wholly subjective to the view taken
by the investigator of the group. Dr. Gadow (Cat. B. Br. Mus.
viii. pp. 3-53) in 1883 recognized forty-eight, besides several sub-
species, while others have since been described.! North-American
ornithologists include some fifteen as inhabitants of Canada and the
United States ; but scarcely two writers agree on this point, owing
to the existence of so many local forms. Of the species belonging
to the Indian and Ethiopian Faunas there is no space here to
treat, and for the same reason the presumably allied forms of
Australia and New Zealand must be left unnoticed. During the
greater part of the year the various species of the genus Parus
associate in family parties in a way that has been already described
(MIGRATION, p. 554), and only break up into pairs at the beginning
of the breeding-season. The nests are nearly always placed in a
hollow stump, and consist of a mass of moss, feathers and hair,
the last being worked almost into a kind of felt. Thereon the
eggs, often to the number of eight or nine, are laid, and these have
a translucent white shell, freckled or spotted with rust-colour.
The first plumage of the young closely resembles that of the
parents ; but, so far as is known, it has always a yellower tinge,
very apparent on the parts, if there be such, which in the adult
are white. Few birds are more restless in disposition, and if
“irritability ” be the test of high organization, as one systematist
asserts, the Paridx should stand very near the top of the list.
Most of the European species and some of the North-American
become familiar, haunting the neighbourhood of houses,” especially
in winter, and readily availing themselves of such scraps of food,
about the nature of which they are not particular, as they can get.®

Akin to the genus Parus, but in many respects differing from

1 Some of the most interesting, to the European ornithologist, of this genus,
as well as of Acredula, presently to be mentioned, are figured by Mr. Dresser in
the Supplement to his Birds of Lurope (pls. 655-661).

2 By gardeners every Titmouse is generally regarded as an enemy, for it
is supposed to do infinite damage to the buds of fruit-trees and bushes ; but
the accusation is wholly false, for the buds destroyed are always found to be
those to which a grub—the bird’s real object—has got access, so that there can
be little doubt that the Titmouse is a great benefactor to the horticulturist,
and hardly ever more so than when the careless spectator of its deeds is supposing
it to be bent on mischief.

3 Persons fond of watching the habits of birds may with little trouble provide
a pleasing spectacle by adopting the plan, practised by the late Mr. A. E. Inox,
of hanging a lump of suet or tallow by a short string to the end of a flexible rod
stuck aslant into the ground close to the window of asitting-room. It is seldom
long before a Titmouse of some kind finds the dainty, and once found visits are
made to it until every morsel is picked off. The attitudes of the birds as they
cling to the swinging lure are very diverting and none but a Titmouse can
succeed in keeping a foothold upon it.

a

TODY 969

it, is Acredula, containing that curious-looking bird the Long-tailed
or Bottle-Titmouse, with its many local races or species inhabiting
various parts of the Palearctic area, which must be here passed
over without a word. The bird itself, having its tail longer than
its body, is unlike any other found in the northern hemisphere,
while its nest is a perfect marvel of construction, being in shape
nearly oval with a small hole in one side. The exterior is studded
with pieces of lichen, worked into a firm texture of moss, wool

fh
Pp

.

j

PARUS. JEGITHALUS.
(After Swainson.)

and spiders’ nests, and the inside is profusely lined with soft
feathers—2379 having been, says Macgillivray, counted in one
example. Not inferior in beauty or ingenuity is the nest built by
the Penduline Titmouse, Agithalus pendulinus, of the south of
Europe, which differs, however, not merely in composition but in
being suspended to a bough, while the former is nearly always
placed between two or more branches.

The general affinities of the Paridx seem to lie rather with the
Sittide (NUTHATCH, p. 647) and Certhiide (TREE-CREEPER) ; and
those systematists who would ally them to the Laniidx (SHRIKE,
p- 843), or still more interpose the last between the former Families,
have yet to find grounds for so doing.

II. The so-called ‘‘ Bearded Titmouse,” Panurus biarmicus, has
habits wholly unlike those of any of the foregoing, and certainly does
not belong to the Family Paridx, though its real affinity has not
yet been clearly shewn. It was formerly found in many parts of
England, especially in the eastern counties, where it bore the name
of Reed-Pheasant;! but through the draining of meres, the
destruction of reed-beds, and (it must be added) the rapacity of
collectors, it now only exists as a native in a very few localities.
It is a beautiful little bird of a bright tawny colour, variegated
with black and white, while the cock is further distinguished by a
bluish-grey head and a black tuft of feathers on each side of the
chin. Its chief food seems to be the smaller kinds of freshwater
mollusks, which it finds among the reed-beds it seldom quits.

TODY, Pennant’s rendering in 1773 (Gen. B. p. 17) through the

1 The names given to this bird are so very inapplicable that it is almost a
pity that ‘‘Silerella” (from si/er, an osier) bestowed upon it by Sir T. Browne,
its discoverer (ef. Ray, Collection of English Words, London: 1674), cannot be
restored, though it is less a frequenter of willow-garths than of reed-beds
(ef. Yarrell, Brit. B. ed. 4, i. pp. 511-522).

97° LODY:

French Todier of Brisson (Orn. iv. p. 528) of the somewhat obscure
Latin word Yodus,) not unhappily applied in 1756 by Patrick
Browne (List. Jamaica, p. 476) to a little bird
remarkable for its slender legs and small feet,
the “Green Sparrow” or ‘Green Humming-
Bird” of Sloane (Voy. ii. p. 306). The name,
having been taken up by Brisson in 1760, was
adopted by Linnzus, and has since been recog-
nized by ornithologists as that of a valid genus,
though many species have been referred to it which are now known
to have no affinity to the type, the 7. viridis of Jamaica, and ac-
cordingly have since been removed from it. The genus, from its flat
bill, was at one time placed among the Muscicapide (FLYCATCHER) ;
but Dr. Murie’s investigations (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1872, pp. 664-680,
pl. lv.) have conclusively proved that it is not Passerine, and is
nearly allied to the MJomotide (Mormot, p. 593) and Alcedinidx
(KINGFISHER, p. 485), though it should be regarded as forming a
distinct Family Todidx, peculiar to the Greater Antilles, each of
which islands has its own species, all of small size, the largest not
exceeding four inches and a half in length.

Of the species already named, 7. viridis, Gosse (B. Jam. pp.
72-80) gives an interesting account. ‘ Always conspicuous from
its bright grass-green coat, and crimson-velvet gorget, it is still a
very tame bird; yet this seems rather the tameness of indifference
than of confidence ; it will allow a person to approach very near,
and, if disturbed, alight on another twig a few yards distant .
commonly it is seen sitting patiently on a twig, with the head
drawn in, the beak pointing upwards, the loose plumage puffed
out, when it appears much larger than it is. It certainly has an
air of stupidity when thus seen. But this abstraction is more
apparent than real; if we watch it, we shall see that the odd-
looking grey eyes are glancing hither and thither, and that ever

Topus. (After Swainson.)

1 In Forcellini’s Lewicon (ed. De Vit, 1875) we find ‘‘ Todus genus parvissime
avis tibias habens perexiguas.” Ducange in his Glossariwm quotes from Festus,
an ancient grammarian, ‘‘Toda est avis que non habet ossa in tibiis; quare
semper est in motu, unde Todius (al. Todinus) dicitur ile qui velociter todet
et movetur ad modum tod, et todere, moveri et tremere ad modum todae.”
The evidence that such a substantive as Todus or Toda existed seems to rest
on the adjectival derivative found in a fragment of a lost play (Syrws) by
Plautus, cited by this same Festus. It stands ‘“‘cum extritis [extortis] talis,
cum todillis [fodinis] crusculis” ; but the passage is held by scholars to be
corrupt. Among naturalists Gesner in 1555 gave currency (Hist. Anim. iil.
p. 719) to the word as a substantive, and it is found in Levins’s Manipulus
Vocabulorum of 1570 (ed. Wheatley, 1867, col. 225) as the equivalent of the
English ‘‘ Titmouse.” Ducange allows the existence of the adjective todinus.
Stephanus suggests that todi comes from tvrGol, but his view is not accepted.
The verb federe may perhaps be Englished to ‘‘ toddle”!

LOD 971

and anon, the bird sallies out upon a short feeble flight, snaps at
something in the air and returns to his twig to swallow it.” He
goes on to describe the engaging habits of one that he for a
short time kept in captivity, which, when turned into a room,
immediately began catching all the insects it could, at the rate
of about one a minute. The birds of this Family also shew their
affinity to the Kingfishers, Motmots and Bee-eaters by burrowing
holes in the ground? in which to make their nest, and therein

Be

Topus viripis. (After Gosse.)

laying eggs with a white translucent shell. The sexes differ little
in plumage. All the four species of Todus, as now restricted,
present a general similarity of appearance, and, it may be presumed,
possess very similar habits.2, Apart from their structural peculiar-

1 This habit and their green colour has given them the French name of
Perroquet or Todier de terre, by which they have been distinguished from other
species wrongly assigned to the genus by some systematists ; and, if we may
believe certain French travellers, they must in former days have inhabited some
of the Lesser Antilles ; but that is hardly probable.

* Dr. Sharpe has treated of the genus (bis, 1874, pp. 344-355 and Cat. B.
Br, Mus. xvii. pp. 333-337); but he was misled by an exceptionally bright-
coloured specimen to add a fifth and bad species to those that exist—and even
these, by some ornithologists, might be regarded as geographical races. The
Cuban form is 7. multicolor ; that of Hispaniola is 7. swbulatus or dominicensis ;
and that of Porto Rico, originally named in error 7’. mexicanus, has since been
called hypochondriacus.

972 LOES

ities, one of the chief points of interest attaching to the Todidz
is their limitation, not only to the Antillean Sub-region, but, as
is now believed, to its greater islands.

TOES, forming that part of the foot on which a Bird rests,
naturally exhibit countless modifications—in number, size or in
the way in which they are connected by the podotheca or integu-
ment of the foot, for it is obvious that these modifications depend
chiefly on the kind of life the bird leads, and whether it uses its
Toes to catch prey, to perch, climb, run, scratch, wade or swim.
Earlier ornithologists, having no better characters on which to rely,
attached to the.structure of the Toes a value out of all proportion
to their real taxonomic importance, and thus a superabundance
of technical terms was created, some quite illogically, even by
systematists of the modern school.! In a great many Birds either
the HALLUX (p. 404) or the Fourth Toe is reversible—the latter
for instance can not only be turned back at will by the OwLs
(pp. 675, 676), but is frequently so carried by some of them.
To a less extent the Musophagide (Touraco) and Leptosoma
(RoLLER, p. 794) have the same faculty. In all these birds the
feet shew a more or less temporary condition which has become
permanent in groups that are called “zygodactylous” and placed
together as SCANSORES. There can scarcely be a doubt that this
form of “climbing” foot has been acquired independently by several
groups of birds, just as others have independently developed the
webs that form a “swimming” foot, and so, regardless of essential
differences of structure, have been combined as NATATORES. In
Colius (MOUSE-BIRD) the hallux can be turned forward and the
Fourth Toe backward, so that this pecuhar form can put on at
will the normal, the zygodactylous or the ‘ pamprodactylous ”
type—the last being permanent in certain SwIFts, and in a less
degree some NIGHTJARS.

Originally the four Toes may be presumed to be placed on the
same level, and this condition prevails in most if not all of the
Birds in which the hallux is large and functional, such as Pala-
medea, Steganopodes, Herodii, Scopus, Megapodiide, Cracidx, Porphyria,
Accipitres, Columbx, Striges, Picarizw and Passeres. When, however,
the hallux is reduced in size and importance it is often moved
higher up, so that it does not seem to rise from the same level as”
the fore-toes, as is the case in Tubinares, Colymbidx, most Anseres,

1 Thus DesMopactyLt (p. 134) and ELEUTHERODACTYLI (p. 194) are names
given to groups, not because one has the Toes externally joined and the other Toes
free to the base, but because one has a vinewlum to the deep plantar tendons and
the other has not (cf. p. 615, Type I.). ANisopacryLi (p. 19), Hétérodactyles
(Blainville, Budd. Soc. Philomat. 1816, p. 110), PAMPRODACTYL (p. 684), SYNDAC-
TYLI (p. 937) and Zycopacryut, with their derivatives, are other cases in point.

TOM—TONGUE 973

Phenicopterus, Cicontidx (less so in Ibididex), Podica, Heliornis, Fulica,
Tribonyxz, Ocydromus, Aramus, Grues and their allies (as Psophia,
Eurypyga, Ehinochetus and Cariama), Laro-Limicole (not Dromas),
Cathartide and Gypogeranus. This modification seems to be a
character easily adapted according to the nature of the bird’s
resting-place, and to be of as little taxonomic importance as the
comparative length of the toes.

TOM, a nickname applied to several birds: In Jamaica
Myiarchus stolidus is the TOMFOOL, while a larger and a smaller
species, M. validus and Contopus pallidus are respectively dis-
tinguished as the Great and Little Tomfool (Handb. of Jam. 1881,
p. 107), all three belonging to the Tyrannidz (TYRANT-BIRD). In
the same island TOM-KELLY, or as Patrick Browne (Nat. Hist.
Jam. p. 476) in 1756 has it, “‘ WHIP-TOM-KELLY ” has been said to be
the creole name of Vireosylvia calidris, one of the Vireonidx (VIREO) ;
but Gosse (B. Jam. p. 195) never heard it so called and could not
believe that the bird’s note could be so written.) TOMMY,? and
TOM-NODDY (cf. TAmmy-Norig), mean the Purrin. TOMTIT
is a very common name in England for almost any kind of Trr-
MOUSE, but preferably perhaps to Parus cxruleus as the best known.

TONGUE, one of those organs which in Birds presents almost
endless modifications, not only in size and shape, but also in gross
and minute structure. As a whole it consists of the Hyorp
(p. 452) framework, with its attached muscles (pp. 619, 620), the
sensory terminal corpuscles® of a branch of the glossopharyngeal

1 Yet March (Proc. Ac. Philad. 1863, p. 294) uses the name, and Wilson
(Am. Orn. ii. p. 35) declares of an allied continental form, V. olivacea, that it
‘requires but little of imagination to fancy that you hear it pronounce these
words ‘Tom-Kelly! Whip-Tom-Kelly!’ very distinctly,” a statement denied
by Nuttall (ddan. Orn. U. S. and Canada, i. p. 818), who also says (tom. cit. p.
238) that this call is uttered by Parws bicolor, the Tufted Trrmovuse.

2 Tomor, or Tymor (for both readings occur) appears to be a bird’s name,
and though there is nothing to shew its signification, needs mention here since
it is included in several works and has been misprinted Jornor by Hartshorne
(Ancient Metrical Tales, p. 177). The authority for each form of the word is a
MS. poem without title in the Public Library of the University of Cambridge
(the first being given in Ff. 5. 48. fol. 69, b, line 6 ; the second in Ff. 2. 38. fol.
57, col. 2, line 22). They are rightly cited by Halliwell (Dict. Arch. & Prov.
Words, ii. pp. 880, 898), but Thomas Wright (Dict. Obsol. & Prov. Engl. pp
968, 988) wrongly assigns them to the old poem of True Thomas.

3 The Tongue is commonly supposed to be the chief organ of taste ; but it is
certainly not so in Birds, where it is, with a few exceptions, subservient to
deglutition, being also in some cases (Honey-eaters, Humming-birds and Wood-
peckers) the means of taking up the food. It is true that the Tongue of Birds is
very rich in sensory bodies, the so-called Pacinian or Herbst’s corpuscles, which
are the terminal organs of sensory nerves ; but these corpuscles are frequently
imbedded deeply in and beneath the impervious horny sheath, so that they

974 LONGUE

nerves (p. 627), together with glands, blood-vessels and the tegu-
mentary sheath, which last is composed of horny epidermal cells,
and is frequently frayed out on the margins or at the tip, in various
ways according to the use to which it is put, but mainly connected
with the mode of feeding. A similar if not identical modification
of the Tongue seems to have been brought about in Birds belonging
to widely-different groups from adaptation to the same circum-
stances; but here we must restrict ourselves to a notice of the
more striking or aberrant types, only remarking that generalizations
as well as conclusions from the shape of the bill and from the
nature of the food are very unsafe.

The Tongué is frequently small in Birds which have the bill,
mouth and gullet very large, so that bulky food can be swallowed
whole and quickly. In Pelecanus and Sula, for instance, the free
part of the Tongue is reduced to a little nodule. A similar
diminution is apparent in the Ratitz and Crypturi, in some Sphenisci
and Z'ubinares, in Numenius, Ciconix, [bididx, Cancroma, Bucerotidz,
Upupidx, Alcedinide and Caprimulgidx. On the other hand the
most marked development of the organ is found in the Anseres and
Phenicopterus. In the former it ends in a horny scoop, concave
above, convex beneath, while its sides are beset with a row or rows
of horny papillz like very short bristles or denticulations, which fit
more or less into the similarly-serrated edges of the rhamphotheca or
sheath of the BILL; but its upper surface is furnished with short
and soft papille sometimes of velvety appearance. Along the
middle of the Tongue runs a furrow bordered on each side by a
horny ridge, beset more or less thickly with hard papille which aid
in swallowing the food. On the under side of the root lies a pair
of cushion-like swellings, filled with fat. In most Birds-of-Prey the
Tongue is thick, soft and spoon-shaped, but short; in the Puc
(WoopPECKER) it is long, round, narrow, pointed at the end and,
in the most insectivorous forms of the group, beset with spines or
hooks directed backward. The elaborate apparatus already de-
scribed (pp. 452, 619) serves to protrude the organ, by means of
which the bird is able to stir up and, in Mr. Lucas’s neat phrase

cannot serve as organs of taste though they may act as organs of touch. More-
over, corpuscles of the same kind are generally distributed not only in the palate
and bill (as in the Snipes for instance, and in the nail-like tip of the beak in
Anseres), but also in great numbers in different parts of the body—as near the
roots of the contour-feathers, especially the rectrices and remiges, in the cloaca,
in the mesentery and, last though not least, in the joints of the skeleton, but
above all in the periosteum of the tibia. However, ‘‘ taste” is one of the diffuse
senses.

1 The extraordinary reduction of the Tongue in Jbis and Platalea induced
Nitzsch (Pterylographie, p. 193) to combine those genera in one group as
Hemiglottides.

TORRENT-DUCK—TOT-O'ER-SEAS 975

(Bull. U. S. Dept. Agricult. Orn. No. 7, p. 38), “coax” out of their
hiding-places the grubs which form its food. The sides and back
of the Tongue contain many Herbstian corpuscles, and according to
that gentleman the number and distribution of the hooks and soft
papillz vary much in closely-allied species, while the elongation of
the organ and the development upon it of the spines apparently
takes place during adolescence.!

In many groups of Birds, but chiefly among the Meliphagide
(HONEY-EATER), Nectarinudx (SUN-BIRD) and Tvochili (HUMMING-
BIRD) the horny sheath of the Tongue reaches its greatest develop-
ment (¢f. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, pp. 62-69, pl. xvi.). In the last
group each side of it is bordered by a long thin lamella, the outer
edge of which curls up like a roll of paper, so as to form a right
and left tube; while in the second group the inner or median
margin is laciniated or frayed out, and in the first group the sheath
continues splitting dichotomously, producing a complicated brush.
Unfortunately, and to the shame of observers, the precise way in
which these tongues are used is still imperfectly known. Provided
that the birds really eat honey, it is possible that the nectar of
flowers is sucked up by capillary attraction, and therefore that what
is thus taken is pressed out in the mouth; but the stomach of
these birds almost always contains small insects and larve, and it
seems possible that the Tongue may be used as a brush to dislodge
and collect insects, which are then nipped by the jaws, the margins
of which are, as in Meliphagide and Nectariniide, finely serrated.
The same consideration applies to the Cxrebide (QUIT-QUIT, SUGAR-
BIRD) and to the Drepanididx (DREPANIS). Some of the Psittaci
(Lory and NEsToR) possess a short brush-like fringe of soft papille,
which possibly act as a tactile and suctorial apparatus. The Tongue
of the Rhamphastide (ToucAN) is about as long as the enormous
bill, but is very slender and narrow, not protusible, and having
the sides of the horny covering frayed out into numerous short
bristles.

TORRENT-DUCK, a book-name given to birds of the South-
American genus Merganetta and the Papuan Salvadorina, which
seem doubtfully referable to the Mergine (MERGANSER). (Cf.
Salvadori, who places with them Hymenolemus, supra p. 843, Cat.
B. Br. Mus. xxvii. p. 455.)

TOT-O'ER-SEAS, a name by which Regulus cristatus (GOLDCREST)
is said to be known on some parts of the east coast, where it often
arrives in countless numbers when on its autumnal migration.

1 A minute account of the Woodpecker’s Tongue is given by Prince Ludwig
Ferdinand of Bavaria (Sitzungsber. K. Bayr. Akad. 1884, pp. 183-192, figs. 1-10,
and in his grand work Zur Anatomie der Zunge, 4to, Miinchen: 1884—the part
relating to Birds being pp. 67-76, and pls. xxiv. xxv.).

976 TOUCAN

TOUCAN, the Brazilian name of a bird,! long since adopted
into nearly all European languages, and apparently first given
currency in England (though not then used as an English word) in
1668? by Charleton (Onomast. p. 115); but the bird, with its
enormous beak and feather-like tongue, was described by Oviedo
in his Sumario de la Natural Historia de las Indias, first published at
Toledo in 1527 (chap. 42),? and indeed so remarkable a bird must
have attracted the notice of the earliest European invaders of
America, the more so since its gaudy plumage was used by the
natives in the decoration of their persons and weapons. In 1555
Belon (Hist. Nat. Oys. p. 184) gave a characteristic figure of its
beak, and in 1558 Thevet (Stngularitez de la France Antarctique, pp.
88-90) a somewhat long description, together with a woodcut (in
some respects inaccurate, but quite unmistakable) of the whole
bird, under the name of ‘‘Toucan,” which he was the first to
publish. In 1560 Gesner (cones Avium, p. 130) gave a far better
figure (though still somewhat incorrect) from a drawing received
from Ferrerius, and suggested that from the size of its beak the
bird should be called Burhynchus or Ramphestes. 'This figure, with
a copy of Thevet’s and a detailed description, was repeated in the
posthumous edition (1585) of his larger work (pp. 800, 801). By
1579 Ambroise Paré (Guvres, ed. Malgaigne, iil. p. 783) had
dissected a Toucan that belonged to Charles IX. of France, and
about the same time Léry (Voy. Bresil, chap. xi.), whose chief object
seems to have been to confute Thevet, confirmed that writer’s
account of this bird in most respects. In 1599 Aldrovandus (Orn.
i. pp. 801-803), always ready to profit by Gesner’s information,
and generally without acknowledgment, again described and _ re-
peated the former figures of the bird; but he corrupted his pre-
decessor’s Iamphestes (which was nearly right) into Ramphastos, and
in this incorrect form the name, which should certainly be hamphestes
or Rhamphastas, was subsequently adopted by Linneeus and has since
been recognized by systematists. Into the rest of the early history

1 Commonly believed to be so called from its ery; but Prof. Skeat (Proc.
Philolog. Soc. 15th May 1885) adduces evidence to prove that the Guarani T'wcd
is from ¢7, nose, and cing, bone, t.e. nose of bone.

2 In 1656 the beak of an ‘‘ Aracari of Brazil,” which was a Toucan of some
sort, was contained in the Museum Tradescantianum (p. 2), but the word
Toucan does not appear there.

’ T have only been able to consult the reprint of this rare work contained in
the Biblioteca de Autores Espamioles (xxii. pp. 473-515), published at Madrid in
1852. To quote the translation of part of the passage in Willughby’s Ornithology
(p. 129), ‘‘there is no bird secures her young ones better from the Monkeys,
which are very noisom to the Young of most Birds. For when she perceives the
approach of those Enemies, she so settles her self in her Nest as to put her Bill
out at the hole, and gives the Monkeys such a welcom therewith, that they
presently pack away, and glad they scape so.”

TOUCAN 977

of the Toucan’s discovery it is needless to go.!_ Additional particulars
were supplied by many succeeding writers, until in 1834 Gould com-
pleted his Monograph of the family? (with an anatomical appendix
by Owen), to which, in 1835, some supplementary plates were added;
and in 1854 he finished a second and improved edition. The latest
systematic work on Toucans is by Mr. Sclater (Cat. B. Br. Mus.
xix. pp. 122-160), which agrees for the most part with that of
Cassin (Proc. Acad. Philad. 1867, pp. 100-124), and five genera
and 59 species of the Family are recognized. There can be little
doubt that the bird first figured and described by the earliest
authors above named is the /. toco of nearly all ornithologists, and
as such is properly regarded as the type of the genus and therefore
of the Family. It is one of the largest, measuring 2 feet in length,
and has a wide range throughout Guiana and a great part of
Brazil. The huge beak, looking like the great claw of a lobster,
more than 8 inches long and 3 high at the base, is of a deep orange
colour, with a large black oval spot near the tip. The eye, with
its double iris of green and yellow, has a broad blue orbit, and is
surrounded by a bare space of deep orange skin. The plumage
generally is black, but the throat is white, tinged with yellow and
commonly edged beneath with red; the upper tail-coverts are
white, and the lower scarlet. In other species of the genus, 14 in
number, the bill is mostly particoloured—green, yellow, red,
chestnut, blue and black variously combining so as often to form
a ready diagnosis; but some of these tints are very fleeting and
often leave little or no trace after death. Alternations of the
brighter colours are also displayed in the feathers of the throat,
breast and tail-coverts, so as to be in like manner characteristic of
the species, and in several the bare space round the eye is yellow,
green, blue or lilac. The sexes are almost alike in coloration, and
externally differ chiefly in size, the males being largest. The tail
is nearly square or moderately rounded. The so-called Hill-
Toucans form another genus, Andigena, and consist of 6 species

1 One point of some interest may, however, be noticed. In 1705 Plot (WV. /7.
Oxfordsh. p. 182) recorded a Toucan found within two miles of Oxford in 1644,
the body of which was given to the repository in the medical school of that
university, where, he said, ‘‘it is still to be seen.” Already in 1700 Leigh
(Lancash. i. p. 195, Birds, tab. 1, fig. 2) had figured another which he said had
been found dead on the coast of that county about two years before ; but his
figure is copied from Willughby. The bird is easily kept in captivity, and no
doubt from early times many were brought alive to Europe. Beside the one
dissected by Paré, as above mentioned, Joh. Faber, in his additions to Hernan-
dez’s work on the Natural History of Mexico (1651), figures (p. 697) one seen
and described by Puteus (Dal Pozzo) at Fontainebleau.

2 Of this the brothers Sturm in 1841 published at Nuremberg a German
version.

62

978 TOUCAN

chiefly frequenting the slopes of the Andes and reaching an eleva-
tion of 10,000 feet, though one, 4. bailloni, remarkable for its
yellow-orange head, neck and lower parts, inhabits the lowlands
of southern Brazil. Another very singular form is 4. laminirostris,
which has affixed on either side of the maxilla, near the base, a
quadrangular ivory-like plate, forming a feature unique among
Birds. In Pteroglossus, the “‘ Aracaris” (pronounced Arassari), the
sexes more or less differ in appearance, and the tail is graduated.
The species are smaller in size, and nearly all are banded on the
belly, which is generally yellow, with black and scarlet, while
except in two the throat of the males at least is black. One of
the most remarkable and beautiful is P. beauharnaisi, by some
authors placed in a distinct genus and called Beauharnaisius
ulocomus. In this the feathers of the top of the head are very
singular, looking like glossy curled shavings of black horn or
whalebone, the effect being due to the dilatation of the shaft and its
coalescence with the consolidated barbs. Some of the feathers of
the straw-coloured throat and cheeks partake of the same structure,
but in a less degree, while the subterminal part of the lamina is of
a lustrous pearly-white.t The beak is richly coloured, being green
and crimson above and lemon below. The upper plumage generally
is dark green, but the mantle and rump are crimson, as are a broad
abdominal belt, the flanks and many crescentic markings on the
otherwise yellow lower parts.2. The group or genus Selenidera,®
proposed by Gould in 1837 (Icones Avium, pt. 1), contains some
7 species, having the beak, which is mostly transversely striped,
and tail shorter than in Pteroglossus. Here the sexes also differ in
coloration, the males having the head and breast black, and the
females the same parts chestnut; but all have a yellow nuchal
crescent (whence the name of the group). The genus <Aulaco-
rhamphus, or ‘Groove-bills,” to which 14 species are assigned, con-
tains the rest of the Toucans.*

1 This curious peculiarity naturally attracted the notice of the first discoverer
of the species, Poeppig, who briefly described it in a letter published in Froriep’s
Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur (xxxii. p. 146) for December 1831.

2 Readers will recollect the account and illustration given by Bates (Nat.
Amaz. ii. p. 3844) of his encounter with a flock of this species. His remarks on
the others with which he met are also excellent.

3 Some other name is needed for this genus, as Gould’s was preoccupied by an
entomologist.

4 The monstrous serrated bill that so many Toucans possess was by Buffon,
after his manner, accounted a grave defect of Nature, and it must be confessed
that no one has given what seems to be a satisfactory explanation of its precise
use, though none will now doubt its fitness to the bird’s requirements. Solid as
it looks, its weight is inconsiderable, and the perfect hinge by which the maxilla
is articulated adds to its efficiency as an instrument of prehension. Swainson
(Classif. Birds, ii. p. 138) imagined it merely ‘‘ to contain an infinity of nerves,

TOURACO 979

As the foregoing shews, Toucans are a Neotropical form, and
by far the greater number inhabit the northern part of South
America, especially Guiana and the valley of the Amazons. Some
three species occur in Mexico, and several in Central America.
One, f. vitellinus, which has its headquarters on the mainland, is
said to be common in Trinidad, but none are found in the Antilles
proper. The precise place of the Family in the heterogeneous
group Picariz cannot yet be determined. Its nearest allies perhaps
exist among the Capitonidx ; but none of them are believed to have
the long feather-like tongue which is so characteristic of the
Toucans, and is, so far as known, possessed besides only by the
Momotidx (Motmot, p. 593). But of these last there is no reason
to deem the Toucans close relatives, and, according to Swainson
(Classif. B. p. 141), who had opportunities of observing both, the
alleged resemblance in their habits has no existence. Those of the
Toucans in confinement have been well described by Broderip and
Vigors (Zool. Journ. i. p. 484; li. p. 478), and indeed may be
partially observed in many zoological gardens. Though feeding
mainly on fruits, little seems amiss to them, and they swallow
grubs, reptiles and small birds with avidity. They are said to
nest in hollow trees, and to lay white eggs.

TOURACO, the name, evidently already in use, under which
in 1743 Edwards figured a pretty African bird,! and presumably

disposed like net-work, all of which lead immediately to the nostrils,” and add
to the olfactory faculty. This notion seems to be borrowed from Trail (Zvrans.
Linn. Soc. xi. p. 289), who admittedly had it from Waterton, and stated that it
was ‘‘an admirable contrivance of nature to increase the delicacy of the organ of
smell;” but Owen’s description shews this view to be groundless, and he
attributes the extraordinary development of the Toucan’s beak to the need of
compensating, by the additional power of mastication thus given, for the absence
of any of the grinding structures that are so characteristic of the intestinal tract
of vegetable-eating birds—its digestive organs possessing a general simplicity of
formation. The question is one worth deciding, and would not be difficult to
decide by those who have the opportunity. The nostrils are placed so as to be
in most forms invisible until sought, being obscured by the frontal feathers or
the backward prolongation of the horny sheath of the beak. The wings are
somewhat feeble, and the legs have the toes placed in pairs, two before and two
behind. The tail is capable of free vertical motion, and controlled by strong
muscles, so that, at least in the true Toucans, when the bird is preparing to
sleep, it is thrown forward and lies almost flat on the back, on which also the
huge bill reposes, pointing in the opposite direction.

1 Apparently the first ornithologist to make the bird known was Albin, who
figured it in 1738 from the life, yet badly, as ‘‘ The Crown-bird of Mexico.” He
had doubtless been misinformed as to its proper country ; but Touracos were
called ‘‘Crown-birds” by the Europeans in West Africa, as witness Bosman’s
Description of the Coast of Guinea (1721), ed. 2, p. 251, and W. Smith’s Voyage
to Guinea (1745), p. 149, though the name was also given to the Crowned
Cranes, Baleavica.

980 TOURACO

that applied to it in Guinea, whence it had been brought alive. It
is the Cuculus persa of Linneus, and Turacus or Corythaix persa of
later authors, who perceived that it required generic separation.
Cuvier, in 1799 or 1800, Latinized its native name (adopted in
the meanwhile by both French and German writers) as above, for
which barbarous term Illiger, in 1811, substituted a more classical
word; but in 1788 Isert had described and figured a bird, also
from Guinea, which he called Musophaga violacea (PLANTAIN-EATER,
p. 730), and its affinity to the original Touraco being soon recog-

TuRACUS CORYTHAIX. (After Schlegel.)

nized, both forms have been joined by modern systematists in the
Family MJusophagide.

To take first the Plantain-eaters proper, or the genus Musophaga
of which only two species are known. One about the size of a
Crow is comparatively common in museums, and is readily recog-
nized by having the horny base of its fine yellow bill prolonged
backward over the forehead in a kind of shield. The top of the
head, and the primaries, except their outer edge and tip, are deep
crimson ; a white streak extends behind the eye; and the rest of
the plumage is of a rich glossy purple. The second species, J.
ross, which is rare, chiefly differs by wanting the white eye-streak.
Then of the Touracos—the species originally described is about
the size of a Jay, and has the head, crest (which is vertically com-
pressed and tipped with red), neck and breast of a fine grass-green,

TOURACO 981

varied by two conspicuous white streaks—one, from the gape to
the upper part of the crimson orbit, separated by a black patch
from the other, which runs beneath and behind the eye. The
wing-coverts, lower part of the back and tail are of a bright steel-
purple, the primaries deep crimson, edged and tipped with bluish-
black. Over a dozen other congeneric species, more or less
resembling this, have now been described, and all inhabit some
district of Africa ; but there is only room here to mention that found
in the Cape Colony and Natal, where it is known as the “ Lory”
(cf. p. 519, note 2), and, though figured by Daubenton and others,
was first differentiated in 1811 by Wagler as Turacus corythaia,
but renamed in 1841 by Strickland (Ann. Nat. Hist. vii. p. 33)
fT. albicristatus—its crest having a conspicuous white border, while
the steel-purple of 7. persa is replaced by a rich and glossy bluish-
green of no less beauty. In nearly all the species of this genus
the nostrils are almost completely hidden by the frontal feathers ;
but there are two others in which, though closely allied, this is not
the case, and some systematists would place them in a separate
genus Gallirex ; while another species, the giant of the Family, has
been moved into a third genus as Corythxola cristata. This differs
from any of the foregoing by the absence of the crimson coloration
of the primaries, and seems to lead to another group, Schizorrhas,
in which the plumage is of a still plainer type, and, moreover, the
nostrils here are not only exposed but in the form of a slit, instead
of being oval as in all the rest. This genus contains four species,
one of which, S. concolor, is the Grey Touraco of the colonists in
Natal, and is of an almost uniform slaty-brown. Lastly a genus
Gymnoschizorrhis, with a bare forehead, has also been proposed. A
good deal has been written about these birds, which form the
subject of one of the most beautiful monographs ever published—
De Toerako’s afgebeld en beschreven,—by Schlegel and Westerman
(Amsterdam: 1860); while more recent information is contained
in an elaborate essay by Herr Schalow (Jour. f. Orn. 1886, pp. 1-77),
and the specimens in the British Museum were catalogued in 1891
by Capt. Shelley (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xix. pp. 435-456). Still much
remains to be made known as to their distribution throughout
Africa, and their habits. They seem to be all fruit-eaters, and to
frequent the highest trees, seldom coming to the ground. Very
little can be confidently asserted as to their nidification, but at
least one species of Schizorrhis is said to make a rough nest and
therein lay three eggs of a pale blue colour.'

1 An extraordinary peculiarity attends the crimson coloration which adorns
the primaries of so many of the I/usophagide. So long ago as 1818, Jules
Verreaux observed (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 40) that in the case of 7. corythaix
this beautiful hue vanishes on exposure to heavy rain and reappears only after
some interval of time and when the feathers aredry. The fact of this colouring

982 LOWHEE

The Musophagide form a very distinct Eel of Prof, Huxley’s
Coccygomorphe, having perhaps the Coliide (Mouse. BIRD, p. 600) and
Cuculide, as their nearest allies.1 ‘The bill of nearly all the species
is curiously serrated or denticulated along the margin, and the feet
have the outer toe reversible. No member of the Family is found
outside of the continental portion of the Ethiopian Region.

TOWHEE, so called from one of its notes, a well-known North-
American bird, Pipilo erythrophthalmus, one of the ‘ Columbian”
forms which as yet cannot be positively
assigned to the Mringillide (FINCH) or the
Emberizide (BUNTING), though commonly
regarded as belonging to the latter group,
and indeed genera presumably allied have
been named Lmberizoides and Embernagra.
The number of “species” of Pipilo is by no means certain, for many
local races occur in various parts of the country, and it is thus a
matter of opinion whether 8 or 10 or nearly twice as many should
be recognized (cf. Coues, Key N. Am. B. ed. 2, pp. 395-398; Ridgway,
Man. N. Am. B. pp. 435-441), while examples of these races are
not easily distinguished. In some the sexes are nearly alike in
plumage, but this is not so in the eastern bird to which the English
name, now extended to all the rest, was originally given. There is
also a considerable difference in their call-note, for P. megalonyx, the
prevalent form in the south-west, is said to mew like a CATBIRD,
while the more northern P. arcticus will occasionally utter one of the
cries of P. erythrophthalmus, which has procured for that species the
name of Chewink, by which as well as Ground-Robin it is also known.
The colour of the iris too varies in some cases according to locality.

Pirino. (After Swainson.)

matter being soluble in water was, by Mr. Tegetmeier, brought to the notice of
Prof. Church, who published in 1868 (Student and Intellectual Observer, i. pp.
161-168) an account of it as ‘‘ Turacin, a new animal pigment containing copper.”
He has since dealt with it more fully in two communications to the Royal
Society (Phil. Trans. 1869, pp. 627-636, and 1893, pp. 511-530), in the last of
which he intimates a doubt as to the existence as an independent pigment of
**Turaco-verdin” (cf. CoLour, p. 96) as announced by Dr. Krukenberg (Vergi.-
physiol. Stud. ser. 2, i. p. 151). The subject has received much attention from
others, and the peculiar property is possessed by the crimson feathers of all the
birds of the Family.

1 Eyton pointed out (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, ii. p. 458) a feature possessed
in common by some of the Cuculidw and the Musophagidx, in the “‘ process
attached to the anterior edge of the ischium,” which he likened to the so-called
“marsupial” bones of Didelphian Mammals. J. T. Reinhardt also noticed
(Vid. Meddels. Naturhist. Foren. 1871, pp. 326-341) another Cuculine character
offered by the os wncinatwm affixed to the lower side of the ethmoid in the Plan-
tain-eaters and Touracos ; but too much dependence must not be placed on that,
since a similar structure is presented by the FRIGATE-BIRD and some PETRELS.
A corresponding process seems also to be found in Trocon.

TKACHEA 983

TRACHEA or Windpipe, the flexible tube, composed of a
great number of rings, originally cartilaginous but ossifying more
or less with age, through which Birds breathe and utter most of
their characteristic notes. Its upper end is modified into the
LARYNX, and it continues subcutaneously down the neck to the
thorax, which it enters between the two branches of the FURCULA,
and bifurcates into the two BRONCHI, each of which passes to the
LUNG of its own side. The tracheal rings frequently overlap each
other in various ways, and, except a few adjoining the larynx, are
dorsally complete ; but in Dromexus several in the third quarter of
the length of the tube are incomplete ventrally, and permit its
inner mucous lining to bulge out so as to form the pouch before
mentioned (EMEU, p. 214) which occurs in both sexes and may
be 12 inches in length. In the T'rochili, Platalea, many Tubinares
and Sphenisct a great portion of the tube is divided by a median,
vertical, cartilaginous septum, extending forward from the bronchial
bifurcation, and consisting of rings which pass laterally into those
of the walls, thus perpetuating a condition that in other Birds
exists for a short time only in their embryonic development, before
the septum has been reduced to the pessulus marking the beginning
of the bronchi. Frequently the Trachea is depressed or flattened
dorso-ventrally, as in Psittaci, Accipitres, Ciconiw and Ratitx ; but a
very common feature, found in many groups not at all allied to
each other, is the dilatation of a portion, generally near the middle,
as may be seen in several Cotingidx, Chauna and the males of many
Anseres—some of the last-named group presenting even a second
dilatation, which may be as in (demia fusca close to the larynx,!
but is more usually near the lower end. Still further modifications
are exhibited by the males of many or most of the Anseres, some
6 or 8 of the lowest rings being fused together and forming what is
known as the bulba ossea or labyrinth. Its simplest form seems to
be that presented, according to Eyton (Monogr. Anat. p. 125, pl. ii.
fig. 2), by Anas or Querquedula formosa, where the enlargement is
very slight, but essentially similar to that found generally in the
genus Anas? and its many subdivisions, the GARGANEY (p. 309 ®)

1 This structure is, so far as known, quite unique: the enlargement next to
the larynx surrounds the tube which communicates with it by an aperture on
each side. The lower enlargement, in shape of a flattened bulb, is formed of
expanded tracheal rings firmly ossified together. It is the more remarkable
since the allied @. nigra has a very simple trachea. The male of Aletopiana
peposaca has a bulbous enlargement just above the middle of the trachea very
similar to the lower one in @. fusca.

2 The statement (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871, p. 651) as to the female of A. punctata
possessing a labyrinth originated in a mistake (op. cif. 1882, p. 454).

3 Since the footnote on this page was printed Mr. Lucas has most obligingly
examined the labyrinth of . discors, which has uothing exceptional about it.

984 TRACHEA

excepted, a single ampulla often of considerable size being thrown
out on one side—usually the left. This structure obtains ap-
parently throughout all the “Freshwater Ducks” or Anatiny, as
well as in Somateria and Tachyeres, but it is subject to great
exaggeration and, though occasionally absent as in Gdemia, becomes
very complicated in the group of “Diving Ducks,” forming
in many cases a tympanum, whose bony walls are fenestrated and
the spaces filled with a resonant membrane,! while it attains its
ereatest magnitude in the Merging. Tudorna has two bony ampullz,
one on each side, and dilatations are also present in Chenalopea,
Sarcidiornis and, according to Eyton (op. cit. p. 83, pl. i. figs. 1, 2),
in Chloephaga magellanica. In Dendrocygna the labyrinth is com-
posed of two oblong chambers, and takes the form of a symmetrical
shield-shaped box ([bis, 1859, p. 366).

Quite as remarkable is the lengthening of the Trachea in some
birds during adolescence, so that to be contained conveniently it is
looped, and this formation is frequently, though not always, con-
fined to one or the other sex. In the male of Yetrao urogallus
(CAPERCALLY) and in the female of Axnserunas there is a simple
subcutaneous loop. In the female of the Old-World Painted
SNIPES (p. 887), Lostrutula, the loop extends ventrally over the
furcula, and more or less over the pectoral muscles (cf. Wood-
Mason, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1878, p. 745), and a similar arrangement is
found in the males of most Cracinx (CURASSOW), while it occurs in
both sexes of Penelope jacucaca, though most of the Penelopine
(GUAN) have no loop at all. Among Passeres a series of coils is
found in both sexes of Phonygama, and in the males of Manucodia
(MANucODE). In the male of Anseranas the convolutions of the
Trachea lying outside the pectoral muscles are not only subject
to variation in number, but they may be placed on either side of
the body (cf. Yarrell, Zrans. Linn. Soc. xv. pp. 383, 384, pls.
xii. xiv.), the form of the coracoid on that side being modified
accordingly. A curious peculiarity is exhibited by the Crested
GUINEA FOoOwLs (supra, p. 401), in both sexes of which the
symphysis of the furcula is dilated so as to lodge a short tracheal
loop (tom. cit. pl. ix.).

The furcula and coracoids are not, however, the only bones
which are modified by the excessive lengthening of the 7rachea.
As has long been known, some of the SwANs and CRANES have
their sternum invaded by it; but each in a different way—the

1 Very remarkable is the tracheal structure of Harelda and Rhodonessa, but
want of space renders it impossible to particularize all the pecullarities in this
group of Anatide. Reference may be made to the classical papers of Latham and
Yarrell (Zrans. Linn. Soc. iv. pp. 90-128, and xv. pp. 378-388), as well as to
Kyton’s Afonograph above cited, and the observations of Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soa
1875, pp. 151-156) and Forbes (op. cil. 1882, pp. 347-353).

TRACHEOPHONES—TREE-CREEPER 985

looping being preclavicular in the former and postelavicular in the
latter. In both sexes of Cygnus buccinator, C. musicus, C. americanus
and C. bewicki the Trachea runs ventrally beneath the symphysis of
the furcula, which bends dorsally to permit its passage, to enter
the swollen keel, which in old birds it penetrates to the furthest
extremity,' and thence returns, still keeping below the fureula, on
its way to the thorax. In all the other Swans the Trachea is
simple. Among the Cranes almost every degree of development
may be found, from Balearica where there are no convolutions at
all, to Anthropoides where the keel is hollowed into a cavity open at
the sides, to Grus americana and G. communis where it is penetrated
to its utmost extremity by the Trachea; but no part of the Trachea
passes ventrally over the furcula. Such a postclavicular loop exists
in Platalea leucorodia, but not in P. uwjaja, and in the male of Tantalus
iis, but not that of 7. loculator. For the thoracic, voice-producing
end of the Trachea see SYRINX (p. 937).

TRACHEOPHONES (by some written Tracheophonx or Tracheo-
phont) Johannes Miiller’s name (Abhandl. k. Akad. Berlin, Phys. Kl.
1847, p. 367) for the second of his three groups of PASSERINI,
having the trachea furnished with but one or two pairs of vocal
muscles, and those lateral (cf. SYRINX, p. 940).

TREE-CREEPER, one of the smallest of British birds, and,
regard being had to its requirements, one very generally distributed.
It is the Certhia familiaris of ornithology, and
remarkable for the stiffened shafts of its long
and pointed tail-feathers, aided by which, and
by its comparatively large feet, it climbs
nimbly in a succession of jerks the trunks or
branches of trees, invariably proceeding up- Tren-Crerrmr. (After
wards or outwards and generally in a spiral meee’
direction, as it seeks the small insects that are hidden in the
bark and form its chief food. When, in the course of its search,
it nears the end of a branch or the top of a trunk, it flits to
another, always alighting lower down than the place it has left,
and so continues its work.

_ Inconspicuous in colour, for its upper plumage is mostly of
various shades of brown mottled with white, buff and tawny, and
beneath it is a silvery white, the Tree-Creeper is far more common
than the incurious suppose; but, attention once drawn to it, it can
be frequently seen and at times heard, for though a shy singer
its song is loud and sweet. The nest is neat, generally placed in
a chink formed by a half-detached piece of bark, which secures it

1 In C. buccinator and C. musicus the return loop is vertical ; in C. bewicki
and apparently C. americanus it is horizontal.

986 TREE-CREEPER

from observation, and a considerable mass of material is commonly
used to stuff up the opening partly and give a sure foundation for
the tiny cup, in which are laid from six to nine eggs of a trans-
lucent white, spotted or blotched with rust-colour. The Tree-
Creeper inhabits almost the whole of Europe as well as Algeria,
and has been traced across Asia to Japan. It is now recognized
as an inhabitant of the greater part of North America, though for
a time examples from that part of the world, which differed slightly
in the tinge of the plumage, were accounted specifically distinct
(cf. Ridgway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1882, pp. 111-116). It there-
fore occupies an area not exceeded in extent by that of many
Passerine birds; and is one of the strongest witnesses to the in-
separability of the Holarctic Fauna.

Allied to Certhia, but wanting its lengthened and stiff tail-
feathers, is the genus Tichodroma, the single member of which is
the Wall-Creeper, 7. muraria, of the Alps and some other moun-
tainous parts of Europe and Asia, and occasionally seen by the
fortunate visitor to Switzerland fluttering like a big butterfly
against the face of a rock, conspicuous from the scarlet-crimson of
its wing-coverts and its white-spotted primaries. Its bright hue
is hardly visible when the bird is at rest, and it then presents a
dingy appearance of grey and black. It is a species of wide range,
extending from Spain to China; and, though but seldom leaving
its cliffs, it has wandered even so far as England.!

The genus Certhia as founded by Linneus contained 25 species,
all of which, except the two above mentioned, have now been
shewn to belong elsewhere; and for a long while so many others
were referred to it that it became a most heterogeneous company.
At present so few are the forms left in the Family Certhide
that systematists (¢f. Gadow, Cat. B. Br. Mus. viii. pp. 322-340)
are not wanting to unite it with the Sctidw (NUTHATCH), for the
two groups, however much their extreme members may differ, are
linked by forms which still exist, and little violence is done to the
imagination by drawing upon the past for others to complete the
series of descendants from a common and not very remote ancestor,
one that was possibly the ancestor of the WRENS as well. Two
things, however, have especially to be noticed here. The Certhiide
have not the least affinity to the Picidx (WOODPECKER), but are
strictly Passerine, and also that the Australian genus Climacteris
may possibly not belong to them.

1 Merrett (Pinax, p. 177) in 1667 included it as a British bird, and the
correspondence between Marsham and Gilbert White (Proc. Norf. and Norw.
Nat. Soc. ii. p. 180) proves that an example was shot in Norfolk, 30th October
1792 (cf. Stevenson and Southwell, B. Worf. iii. p. 380, pl. v.), while another is
reported (Zoologist, ser. 2, p. 4839) to have been killed in Lancashire, 8ti
May 1872. Its reputed occurrence in Abyssinia seems doubtfal.

TROCHILI—TROGON 987

TROCHILI, the Twelfth Order of Birds in Wagler’s classifica-
tion of 1830 (Nat. Syst. d. Amphib. wu. s. w. p. 81) and frequently
used since by those who would raise the Family Trochilide (HuM-
MING-BIRD) to higher rank.

TROGON,! a word apparently first used in English? by Shaw
(Mus. Lever. p. 177) in 1792, and for many years accepted as the
name of certain birds forming the Family Trogonidx of ornithology,
the species Trogon curucui of Linneus being its type.*

The Trogons are birds of moderate size: the smallest is hardly
bigger than a Thrush and the largest less bulky than a Crow. In
most of them the bill is very wide at the gape, which is invariably
beset by recurved bristles. They seize most of their food, whether
caterpillars or fruits, on the wing, though their alar power is not
exceptionally great, their flight being described as short, rapid and
spasmodic. Their feet are weak and of a unique structure, the
second toe being reverted. ‘The plumage is very remarkable and
characteristic. ‘There is not a species which has not beauty be-
yond most birds, and the glory of the group culminates in the
QUEZAL (p. 758). But in others golden-green and steely-blue,
rich crimson * and tender pink, yellow varying from crimson to
amber, vie with one another in vivid coloration, or contrasted, as
happens in many species, with a warm tawny or a sombre slaty- .
grey—to say nothing of the delicate freckling of black and white,
as minute as the marblings of a moth’s wing—the whole set off
by bands of white, producing an effect hardly equalled in any
group. The plumage is further remarkable for the large size of
its contour-feathers, which are extremely soft and so loosely seated
as to come off in scores at a touch, and there is no down. The
tail is generally a very characteristic feature, the rectrices, though
in some cases pointed, being often curiously squared at the tip,

1 Trogonem (the oblique case) occurs in Pliny (H. NV. x. 16) as the name of
a bird of which he knew nothing, save that it was mentioned by Hylas, an
augur, whose work is lost ; but some would read Z7’rygonem (Turtle-Dove). In
1752 Mohring (Av. Gen. p. 85) applied the name to the “‘ Curucui” (pronounced
“Suruqua ” fide Bates, Nat. Amaz. i. p. 254) of Marcgrave (Hist. Nat. Brasil.
p- 211), who described and figured it in 1648 recognizably. In 1760 Brisson
(Orn. iv. p. 164) adopted Z’rogon as a generic term, and, Linnzus having followed
his example, it has since been universally accepted.

2 Pennant in 1769 (nd. Zool. p. 4) anglicized the word Curucul as Couroucou,

3 Since doubts exist as to whether this is that which was subsequently called
by Vieillot 7’. collaris or the 7. melanurus of Swainson, though evidence is in
favour of the former (Cabanis, Mus. Hein. iv. p. 117, and Finsch, Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1870, p. 559), several writers have dropped the Linnzan specific term.

4M. Anatole Bogdanoff (Comptes Rendus, 2 Nov. 1857, xlv. pp. 688-690)
determined the red pigment of the feathers of Pharomacrus auriceps to be a sub
stance which he called ‘‘ zooxanthine.’”’ (See CoLouR, p. 95.)

988 TROGON

and when this is the case they are usually barred ladder-like with
white and black.t According to Gould, they are larger and more
pointed in the young than in the old, and grow squarer and have
the white bands narrower at each succeeding moult. He also
asserts that in the species which have the wing-coverts freckled,
the freckling becomes finer with age. So far as has been observed,
the nidification of these birds is in holes of trees, wherein are laid
without any bedding two roundish eggs, generally white, but cer-
tainly in one species (Quezal) tinted with bluish-green.

The Trogons form a very well-marked Family, belonging to the
multifarious group here treated as PICARL# ; but, instead of being
(so far as is known) lke all the rest of them and, as Prof. Huxley
believed, “desmognathous,” they have been shewn by W. A.
Forbes (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881, p. 836) to be “schizognathous ”—
thus demonstrating, in the words of the latter, “that the structure
of the palate has not that unique and peculiar significance that
has been claimed for it in the classification of birds.” Perhaps the
explanation of this anomaly may lie in the fact that the Trogons
are a very old form. The remains of one, 7’. gallicus, have been
recognized by Prof. A. Milne-Edwards (Ois. foss. de la France, ii. p.
395, pl. 177, figs. 18-22) from the Miocene of the Allier, and it
may not be too much to suppose that the schizognathous structure
was more ancient than the desmognathous (cf. supra, p. 878, note).
Again too this fortunate discovery seems to account for the re-
markable distribution of the Trogons at the present day. While
they chiefly abound, and have developed their climax of magnifi-
cence, in the tropical parts’ of the New World, they yet occur in
the tropical parts of the Old. The species now inhabiting Africa,
forming the group Hapaloderma, are clearly allied to those of the
Neotropical Zrogon, and the difference between the Asiatic forms, if
somewhat greater, is still comparatively slight. It is plain then
that the Trogons are an exceptionally persistent type; indeed in
the whole Class few similar instances occur and perhaps none that
can be called parallel. The extreme development of the type in
the New World just noticed also furnishes another hint. While
in some of the American Trogons (Pharomacrus, for instance) the
plumage of the females is not very much less beautiful than that
of the males, there are others in which the hen-birds retain what
may be fairly deemed a more ancient livery, while the cocks flaunt
in brilliant attire. . Now the plumage of both sexes in all but two
of the Asiatic Trogons resembles rather that of the young and of those
females of the American species which are modestly clothed. The
inference from this fact would seem to be that the general colora-

1 In the Trogon of Cuba, Prionotelus, they are most curiously scooped out,

as it were, at the extremity, and the lateral pointed ends diverge in a way
almost unique among birds.

TROOP/JAL—TROPIC-BIRD 989

tion of the T'rogons prior to the establishment, by geographical
estrangement, of the two types was a russet similar to that now
worn by the adults of both sexes in the Indian Region, and by a
portion only of the females in the Neotropical. The Ethiopian
type, as already said, very closely agrees with the American, and
therefore would be likely to have been longer in connexion there-
with. Again, while the adults of most of the American Trogons
(Pharomacrus and Euptilotis excepted) have the edges of their bill
serrated, their young have them smooth or only with a single
notch on either side near the tip, and this is observable in the
Asiatic Trogons at all ages. At the same time the most distinctive
features of the whole group, which are easily taken in at a glance,
but are difficult to express briefly in words, are equally possessed
by both branches of the Family, shewing that they were in all
likelihood—for the possibility that the peculiarities may have been
evolved apart is not to be overlooked—reached before the geo-
graphical sundering of these branches (whereby they are now
placed on opposite sides of the globe) was effected.

It remains to say that Gould in the second edition of his
Monograph of the Family (1875) recognized about sixty species,
dividing them into 7 genera; but Mr. Grant’s revision in 1892
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xvii. pp. 429-497, 501, 502) gives 8 genera and
49 species, though admitting several made known since his pre-
decessor’s time. Pharomacrus, Euptilotis and Trogon inhabit the
mainland of tropical America, no species passing to the northward
of the Rio Grande nor southward of the forest district of Brazil,
while none occur on the west coast of Peru or Chili. Prionotelus
and J'metotrogon, each with one species, are peculiar respectively
to Cuba and Hispaniola. The African form Hapaloderma has
three species, one found only on the west coast, another on the
east coast and the third of more general range. The Asiatic
Trogons, Harpactes (with eleven species according to the same
authority), occur from Nepal to Malacca and Cochin China, in
Ceylon, and in Sumatra, Java and Borneo, while one species is
peculiar to some of the Philippine Islands, and /apalarpactus has a
species in Borneo, with another in Sumatra.

TROOPIAL, from the French Troupiale! ; apparently the inven-
tion of Bonaparte (Am. Orn. i. p. 27) in 1825, and used as the
equivalent of ICTERUS.

TROPIC-BIRD, so called of sailors from early times,” because, as
Dampier (Voy. i. p. 53) among others testifies, it is “never seen far

1 Brisson (Orn. ii. p. 85) in 1760 says that the word was already applied in
America to some of the birds of his genus Jcterus.

2 More recently sailors have taken to call it ‘‘ Boatswain-bird”—a name
probably first bestowed on the Arctic Skua.

990 TROPIC-BIRD
without either Tropick,” and hence, indulging a pretty fancy,
Linneus bestowed upon it the generic term, continued by modern
writers, of Phaethon, in allusion to its attempt to follow the path
of the sun.t There are certainly three well-marked species of this
genus, but their respective geographical ranges have not yet been
definitely laid down. All of them can be easily known by their
totipalmate condition, in which the four toes of each foot are
united by a web, and by the great length of the two middle tail-
quills, which project beyond the rest, so as to have gained for the
birds the names of ‘‘Rabijunco,” ‘ Paille-en-queue” and “Pijlstaart”
among mariners of different nations. These birds fly to a great
distance from land and seem to be attracted by ships, frequently
hovering round or even settling on a mast-head.

The Yellow-billed Tropic-bird, P. flavirostris or candidus, appears
to have habitually the most northerly, as well, perhaps, as the
widest range, visiting Bermuda yearly to breed there, but also
occurring numerously in the southern Atlantic, the Indian and a
great part of the Pacific Ocean. In some islands of all these three
it breeds, sometimes on trees, which the other species are not
known to do. However, like the rest of its congeners, its lays but
a single egg, and this is of a pinkish-white, mottled, spotted and
smeared with brownish-purple, often so closely as to conceal the
ground-colour. This is the smallest of the group, and hardly
exceeds in size a large Pigeon; but the spread of its wings and its
long tail make it appear more bulky than it really is. Except
some black markings on the face (common to all the species
known), a large black patch partly covering the scapulars and
wing-coverts, and the black shafts of its elongated rectrices, its
general colour is white, glossy as satin, and often tinged with
roseate. Its yellow bill readily distinguishes it from its larger
congener P. aethereus, but that has nearly all the upper surface of
the body and wings closely barred with black, while the shafts of
its elongated rectrices are white. This species has a range almost
equally wide as the last; but it does not seem to occur in the
western part of the Indian Ocean. The third and largest species,

1 Occasionally, perhaps through violent storms, Tropic-birds wander very
far from their proper haunts. In 1700 Leigh, in his Lancashire (i. pp. 164,
195, Birds, tab. i. fig. 3), described and figured (after Willughby) a ‘‘ Tropick
Bird” found dead in that county. Another is said by Mr. Lees (Zool. ser. 2, p.
2666) to have been found dead at Cradley near Malvern—apparently before 1856
(J. H. Gurney, jun. op. cit. p. 4766)—which, like the last, would seem (W. H.
Heaton, op. cit. p. 5086) to have been of the species known as P. aethereus.
Naumann was told (Rhea, i. p. 25) of its supposed occurrence at Heligoland,
and Col. Legge (B. Ceylon, p. 1174) mentions one taken in India 170 miles from
the sea. The case cited by MM. Degland and Gerbe (Ornith. Europ. ii. p. 363)
seems to be that of an Albatros.

TRUMPETER 991

the Red-tailed Tropic-bird, P. rubricauda or phenicurus, not only
has a red bill, but the elongated and very attenuated rectrices are
of a bright crimson-red, and when adult the whole body shews a
deep roseate tinge. The young are beautifully barred above with
black arrow-headed markings. This species has not been known
to occur in the Atlantic, but is perhaps the most numerous in the
Indian and Pacific Oceans, in which last great value used to be
attached to its tail-feathers to be worked into ornaments.

That the Tropic-birds form a distinct family, Phaethontide, of
the STEGANOPODES was originally maintained by Brandt, and is
now generally admitted, yet it cannot be denied that they differ a
good deal from the other members of the group; indeed Prof.
Mivart (Zool. Trans. x. p. 364) will hardly allow Fregata and
Phaethon to be steganopodous at all; and one curious difference is
shewn by the eggs of the latter, which are in appearance so wholly
unlike those of the rest. The osteology of two species has
been well described and illustrated by Prof. Milne-Edwards in
M. Grandidier’s fine Ozseawa de Madagascar (pp. 701-704, pls.
279-2814).

TRUMPETER, or TRuMPET-BIRD, the literal rendering in
1747, by the anonymous English translator of De la Condamine’s
travels in South America (p. 87), of that writer’s ‘Oiseau
trompette” (Mém. Acad. Sc. 745, p. 473), which he says was
called ‘“ Trompetero” by the Spaniards of Maynas on the Upper
Amazons, from the peculiar sound it utters. He added that it
was the “ Agami” of the inhabitants of Para and Cayenne,! wherein
he was not wholly accurate, since the birds are specifically distinct,
though, as they are generically united, the statement may pass.
But he was also wrong, as had been Barrere (France Equinoz.
p. 132) in 1741, in identifying the ‘“Agami” with the “ Macu-
cagua ” of Marcgrave, for that is a TINAMOU (p. 963) ; and both still
more wrongly accounted for the origin of the peculiar sound just
mentioned, whereby Barrere was soon after led (Orn. Spec. Nov.
pp. 62, 63) to apply to the bird the generic and vulgar names of
Psophia and “ Petteuse,” the former of which, being unfortunately
adopted by Linnzus, has ever since been used, though in 1766
and 1767 Pallas (Miscell. p. 67, and Spicileg. iv. p. 6), and in
1768 Vosmer (Descr. du Trompette Américain, p. 5), shewed that
the notion it conveys is erroneous. Among English writers the
name “‘ Trumpeter ” was carried on by Pennant, Latham, and others
so as to be generally accepted, though an author may occasionally
be found willing to resort to the native ‘“ Agami,” which is that
almost always used by the French.

1 Not to be confounded with the ‘‘ Héron Agami” of Buffon (Ois. vii. p. 382),
which is the Ardea agami of other writers.

992 TROMPETER

Messrs. Sclater and Salvin in their Nomenclalor (p. 141) admit
6 species of Trumpet-birds—(1) the original Psophia crepitans of
Guiana ; (2) P. napensis of eastern Ecuador (which is very likely
the veritable “Oiseau trompette” of De la Condamine); (3) P.
ochroptera from the right bank of the Rio Negro; (4) P. leucoptera
from Peru and the right bank of the Upper Amazons; (5) P.
viridis from the right bank of the Madeira; and (6) P. obscura, the
distinctness of which is denied by Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus.
xxiii. p. 281), from the right bank of the Lower Amazons near
Para. And they have remarked (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p.

PSOPHIA LEUCOPTERA. (After Mitchell.)

592) on the curious fact that the range of the several species
appears to be separated by rivers, a statement confirmed by Mr.
Wallace (Geogr. Distr. Anim. ii. p. 358); and in connexion there-
with it may be observed that these birds have short wings and
seldom fly, but run, though with a peculiar gait, very quickly. <A
seventh species, P. cantatriz, from Bolivia, has since been indicated
by Prof. W. Blasius (Journ. f. Orn. 1884, pp. 203-210), who has
given a monographic summary of the whole group worthy of
attention. The chief distinctions between the species lie in colour
and size, and it will be here enough to describe briefly the best
known of them, P. crepitans. This is about the size of a large |
barndoor Fowl; but its neck and legs are longer, so that it is a

TUBINARES 993

taller bird. The head and neck are clothed with short velvety
feathers ; the whole plumage is black, except that on the lower
front of the neck the feathers are tipped with golden green, chang-
ing according to the light into violet, and that a patch of dull
rusty-brown extends across the middle of the back and wing-
coverts, passing into ash-colour lower down, where they hang over
and conceal the tail. The legs are bright pea-green. The habits
of this bird are very wonderful, and it is much to be wished that
fuller accounts of them had appeared. The curious sound it utters,
noticed by the earliest observers, has been already mentioned, and
by them also was its singularly social disposition towards man
described ; but the information supplied to Buffon (Otis. iv. pp.
496-501) by Manoncour and De la Borde, which has been repeated
in many works, is still the best we have of the curious way in
which it becomes semi-domesticated by the Indians and colonists
and shews strong affection for its owners as well as for their living
property—poultry or sheep—though in this reclaimed condition
it seems never to breed.t Indeed nothing can be positively
asserted as to its mode of nidification ; but its eggs, according to
Mr. E. Bartlett, are of a creamy-white, rather round and about
the size of Bantams’. Waterton in his Wanderings (Second
Journey, chap. iii.) speaks of falling in with flocks of 200 or 300
““Waracabas,” as he called them, in Demerara, but added nothing
to our knowledge of the species; while the contributions of Trail
(Mem. Wern. Soc. v. pp. 523-532) and Dr. Hancock (Mag. Nat.
Hist. ser. 2, 11. pp. 490-492) as regards its habits only touch upon
them in captivity.

To the Trumpeters must undoubtedly be accorded the rank of
a distinct Family, Psophiide; but like so many other South-
American birds they seem to be the less specialized descendants of
an ancient generalized group—perhaps the common ancestors of
the Rallidx and Gruidx—and they therefore rightly come into Prof.
Huxley’s GERANoMORPH. The structure of the syrinx is stated
by Trail (ut supra) to be unique; but Mr. Beddard says that no
trenchant characters distinguish it from many Rails and Cranes,
nor kas he found any such modification of the trachea as is
described by Trail (ué supra) to exist in some but not all males
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1890, pp. 329-341).

TUBINARES, Illiger’s name in 1811 (Prodr. p. 273) for the
group containing the ALBATROSES and PETRELS, for a long while

1 In connexion herewith may be mentioned the singular story, received by
Montagu (Orn. Dict. Suppl. Art. ‘‘Grosbeak, White-winged”’), from the then
Lord Stanley, of one of these birds, which, having apparently escaped from con-
finement, formed the habit of attending a poultry-yard. On the occasion of a
pack of hounds running through the yard, the Trumpeter joined and kept up
with them for nearly three miles !

63

994 TUI—TURKEY

considered to be allied to the Laridx (GULL), but now regarded by
the best authorities as having little to do with them.

TUI, the common name in New Zealand for the PARSON-
BIRD (p. 691).

TURKEY,! an abbreviation for TURKEY-Cock or TURKEY-HEN
as the case may be, a well-known, large, domestic, gallinaceous bird.
How it came by this name has long been a matter of discussion,
for it is certain that this valuable animal was introduced to Europe
from the New World, and in its introduction had nothing to do
with Turkey or with Turks, even in the old and extended sense in
which that term was applied to all Mabometans. But it is almost
as unquestionable that the name was originally applied to the bird
which we know as the GUINEA-FOWL (p. 399), and there is no
doubt that some authors in the 16th and 17th centuries curiously
confounded these two species. As both birds became more common
and better known, the distinction was gradually perceived, and the
name “Turkey” clave to that from the New World—possibly because
of its repeated call-note—to be syllabled turk, turk, turk, whereby
it may be almost said to have named itself (cf. Notes and Queries,
ser. 6, iii. pp. 23, 369). But even Linnzus could not clear himself
of the confusion, and, possibly following Sibbald, unhappily mis-
applied the name J/eleagris, undeniably belonging to the Guinea-
Fowl, as the generic term for what we now know as the Turkey,
adding thereto as its specific designation the word gallopavo, taken
from the Gallopavus of Gesner, who, though not wholly free from
error, was less mistaken than some of his contemporaries and even
successors.”

The Turkey, so far as we know, was first described by Oviedo
in his Sumario de la Natural Historia de las Indias® (cap. xxxvi.),
said to have been published in 1527. He, not unnaturally,
includes both Curassows (p. 126) and Turkeys in one category,
calling both ‘“ Pavos” (Peafowls); but he carefully distinguishes
between them, pointing out among other things that though the
latter make a wheel (hacen la rueda) of their tail, this was not so
grand or so beautiful as that of the Spanish ‘“ Pavo,” and he gives
a faithful though short description of the Turkey. The chief

1 For Turkey-Buzzard see VULTURE.

2 The French Cog and Poule d’ Inde (whence Dindon) involve no contradiction,
looking to the general idea of what India then was. One of the earliest German
names for the bird, Kalekuttisch Hiin (whence the Scandinavian Kalkon), must
have arisen through some mistake at present inexplicable ; but this does not
refer, as is generally supposed, to Calcutta, but to Calicut on the Malabar coast
(cf. Notes and Queries, ser. 6, xX. p. 185).

3 Purchas (Pilgrimes, iii. p. 995) in 1625 quoted both from this and from the
same author's Hystoria General, said to have been published a few years later,
I know Oviedo’s earlier work only by the reprint of 1852,

TURKEY 995

point of interest in his account is that he speaks of the species
having been already taken from New Spain (Mexico) to the islands
and to Castilla del Oro (Darien), where it bred in a domestic state
among the Christians. Much labour has been given by various
naturalists to ascertain the date of its introduction to Europe, to
which we can at present only make an approximate attempt ;! but
it is plain that evidence concurs to shew that the bird was established
in Europe by 1530—a very short time to have elapsed since it
became known to the Spaniards, which could hardly have been
before 1518, when Mexico was discovered. The possibility that it
had been brought to England by Cabot or some of his successors
earlier in the century is not to be overlooked, and reasons may be
assigned for supposing that one of the breeds of English Turkeys
may have had a northern origin;? but the often-quoted distich
first given in Baker’s Chronicle (p. 298), asserting that Turkeys
came into England in the same year—and that year by reputation
1524—as carps, pickerels and other commodities, is wholly
untrustworthy, for we know that both these fishes lived in this
country long before, if indeed they were not indigenous toit. The
earliest documentary evidence of its existence in England is a
“constitution” set forth by Cranmer in 1541, which Hearne first
printed (Leland’s Collectanea, ed. 2, vi. p. 38). This names “ Turkey-
cocke” as one of “the greater fowles” of which an ecclesiastic
was to have “‘but one in a dishe,” and its association with the
Crane and Swan precludes the likelihood of any confusion with the
Guinea-Fowl. Moreover the comparatively low price of the two
Turkeys and four Turkey-chicks served at a feast of the serjeants-
at-law in 1555 (Dugdale, Origines, p. 135) points to their having
become by that time abundant, and indeed by 1573 Tusser bears
witness to the part they had already begun to play in “ Christmas
husbandlie fare.” In 1555 both sexes were characteristically
' 1 The bibliography of the Turkey is so large that there is here no room to
name the various works that might be cited. Recent research has failed to add
anything of importance to what has been said on this point by Buffon (O¢s. ii.
pp. 132-162), Pennant (Arct. Zool. pp. 291-300),—an admirable summary,—
and Broderip (Zool. Recreat. pp. 120-137)—not that all their statements can
be wholly accepted. Barrington’s essay (Miscellanies, pp. 127-151), to prove
that the bird was known before the discovery of America and was transported
thither, is an ingenious piece of special pleading which his friend Pennant did
him the real kindness of ignoring.

2 In 1672 Josselin (New England’s Rarities, p. 9) speaks of the settlers
bringing up ‘‘ great store of the wild kind” of Turkeys, ‘‘ which remain about
their houses as tame as ours in England.” The bird was evidently plentiful
down to the very seaboard of Massachusetts, but it is not likely to have been
domesticated by the Indian tribes there, as, according to Hernandez, it seems
to have been by the Mexicans. It was probably easy to take alive, and, as we
know, capable of enduring the voyage to England,

996 TURNICOMORPH4—TURNSTONE

figured by Belon (Oyseaux, p. 249), as was the cock by Gesner in
the same year, and these are the earliest representations of the bird
known to exist.1

The genus Meleagris is considered to enter into the Family
Phasiamdex, in which it forms a subfamily Meleagrinx, peculiar to
North and Central America.? The fossil remains of three species
have been described by Prof. Marsh—one from the Miocene of
Colorado, and two, one much taller and the other smaller than the
existing species, from the Post-Pliocene of New Jersey. Both the
last had proportionally long and slender legs.

TURNICOMORPHAL, Prof. Huxley’s name (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1868, p. 304) for the group of Birds containing the genus Turnia
(HEMIPODE, p. 415).

TURNSTONE, the name long given ° to a shore-bird, from its

1 There is no need to describe here a bird so familiar and in these days so
widely distributed. As a denizen of our poultry-yards there are at least two
distinct breeds, though crosses between them are much commoner than purely-
bred examples of either. That known as the Norfolk breed is the taller of the
two, and is said to be the more hardy. Its plumage is almost entirely black,
with very little lustre, but the feathers of the tail and some of those of the
back have a brownish tip. The chicks also are black, with occasionally white
patches on the head. The other breed, called the Cambridgeshire, is much
more variegated in colour, and some parts of the piumage have a bright metallic
gloss, while the chicks are generally mottled with brownish-grey. White, pied
and buff Turkeys are also often seen, and if care be taken they are commonly
found to ‘‘breed true.”” Occasionally Turkeys, the cocks especially, occur with
a top-knot of feathers, and one of them was figured by Albin in 1738. It has
been suggested with some appearance of probability that the Norfolk breed may
be descended from the northern form, Meleagris gallopavo or americana, while
the Cambridgeshire breed may spring from the southern form, the JZ. mexicana of
Gould (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1856, p. 61), which indeed it very much resembles,
especially in having its tail-coverts and quills tipped with white or light
ochreous,—points that recent North-American ornithologists rely upon as
distinctive of this form. If this supposition be true, there would be reason to
believe in the double introduction of the bird into England at least, as already
hinted, but positive information is almost wholly wanting. The northern form
of wild Turkey, whose habits have been described in much detail by all the
chief writers on North-American birds, is now extinct in the settled parts of
Canada and the eastern States of the Union, where it was once so numerous ;
and in Mexico the southern form, which would seem to have been never
abundant since the conquest, has been for many years rare. Still further to
the south, on the borders of Guatemala and British Honduras, there exists a
perfectly distinct species, JZ. ocellata, whose plumage almost vies with that of
a Peacock in splendour, while the bare skin which covers the head is of a deep
blue studded with orange caruncles (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1861, pl. xl.).

° The results of a comparison of the skulls of wild and domesticated Turkeys
are given by Dr. Shufeldt in Journ. of Comp. Medicine and Surgery, July 1887.
* The name seems to appear first in Willughby’s Ornithologia (p. 231) in

TURNS TONE 997

habit of turning over with its bill such stones as it can to seek its
food in the small crustaceans or otheranimals
lurking beneath them. It is the Tringa
interpres* of Linneus and Strepsilas interpres
of most later writers, and is remarkable as
being perhaps the most cosmopolitan of
birds; for, though properly belonging to
the northern hemisphere, there is scarcely
a sea-coast in the world on which it may not occur: it has been
obtained from Spitsbergen to the Strait of Magellan and from
Point Barrow to the Cape of Good Hope and New Zealand—
examples from the southern hemisphere being, however, almost
invariably in a state of plumage that shews, if not immaturity,
yet an ineptitude for reproduction. It also, though much less
commonly, resorts to the margins of inland rivers and lakes ; but
it is very rarely seen except in the neighbourhood of water, and
salt water for preference.

The Turnstone is about as big as an ordinary Snipe; but,
compared with most of its allies of the group Lim1coLa, to which it
belongs, its form is somewhat heavy, and its legs are short. Still
it is brisk in its movements, and its variegated plumage makes it a
pleasing bird. Seen in front, its white face, striped with black,
and broad black gorget attract attention as it sits, often motionless,
on the rocks; while in flight the white of the lower part of the
back and white band across the wings are no less conspicuous even
at a distance. A nearer view will reveal the rich chestnut of the
mantle and upper wing-coverts, and the combination of colours
suggests the term ‘‘tortoise-shell” often applied to it, while the
quill-feathers are mostly of a dark brown and its lower parts pure
white. The deeper tints are, however, peculiar to the nuptial
plumage, or are only to be faintly traced at other times, so that in
winter the adults—and the young always—have a much plainer
appearance, ashy-grey and white being almost the only hues
observable. From the fact that Turnstones may be met with at
almost any season in various parts of the world,” and especially on

TuRNsTONE. (After Swainson.)

1676 ; but he gave as an alias that of Sea-Dottrel (i.e. Ringed Plover) under
which name a drawing, figured by him (pl. 58), was sent to him by Sir Thomas
Browne.

1 Linneus (G7. och Gothlindska Resa, p. 217), who first met with this bird
on the island of Gottland, 1st July 1741, was under the mistaken belief that it
was there called Tolk (=<nterpres). But that name properly belongs to the
REDSHANK, from the cry of warning to other animals that it utters on the
approach of danger (cf. TELLTALE).

2 The authors of The Water Birds of North America (i. p. 123) in reference
to this fact raise the pertinent question, ‘‘ Do birds, after they have become old,
effete, or barren, prefer to stay in a warm climate ?”

998 TURTLE—TYRANT

islands as the Canaries, Azores and many of those in the British
seas, it has been inferred that these birds may breed in such places.
In some cases this may prove to be true, but in most evidence to
that effect is wanting. In America the breeding-range of this
species has not been defined. In Europe there is good reason to
suppose that it includes Shetland; but it is on the north-western
coast of the continent, from Jutland to the extreme north of Nor-
way, that the greatest number are reared. The nest, contrary to
the habits of most Limicolx, is generally placed under a ledge of
rock which shelters the bird from observation,! and therein are laid
four eggs, of a light olive-green, closely blotched with brown, and
hardly to be mistaken for those of any other bird. A second
species of Turnstone is admitted by some authors and denied by
others. This is the S. melanocephalus of the Pacific coast of North
America, which is said to be on the average larger than S. interpres,
and it never exhibits any of the chestnut colouring.

Though the genus Sfrepsilas seems to be rightly placed among
the Charadriide (PLOVER), it occupies a somewhat abnormal posi-
tion among them, and in the form of its pointed beak and its
variegated coloration has hardly any very near relative.

TURTLE or TURTLE-DOVE, Fr. Tourterelle, Germ. Turteltaube,
Lat. Turtur, see Dove (p. 165). Greenland Turtle and Sea-Turtle
are sailors’ names for the Black GUILLEMOT (p. 399).

TWITE, the name apparently first recorded by Albin (NV. JZ.
Birds, iii. pl. lxxiv. p. 69) in 1737 for what is often known as the
Mountain-LINNET (p. 516).

TWOPENNY-CHICK, a creole name in Jamaica for the
White-chinned THrusH of that island, Zurdus aurantius or Semi-
merula aurantia (cf. Latham, Gen. H. B. x. p. 32; Gosse, B. Jam.
plas):

TYRANT or TYRANT-BIRD, in its modern sense a name
originating in 1731 with Catesby (NV. H. Carol. 1. p. 55), who applied
= it solely to what is now generally known

as the KING-BIRD (p. 482), of which
enough has been said, but apparently
as much in reference to its bright crown,
resembling that of the GOLDCREST,? as
to its tyrannical behaviour to other
birds. On this species, being the Jusci-
capa tyrannus of Linneus, was founded
the genus Tyrannus of Cuvier, and sub-

LicHenops. (After Swainson.)

1 There is little external difference between the sexes, and the brightly-
contrasted colours of the hen-bird seem to require some kind of concealment.
* The rvpavvos of Aristotle was undoubtedly the Goldcrest, the Latin Regulus,

Eee

TVRANT 999

sequently the Family, Tyrannidx, in which Mr. Sclater (Cat. B.
Br. Mus. xiv. pp. 2-280) includes over 400 species, all peculiar
to the New World, and as already stated (p. 483) belonging
to the group CLAMATORES (TRACHEOPHONS). These he pro-
visionally arranges in four subfamilies — Txvniopterinw with 21
genera of more or less terrestrial habit, including Lichenops and
Copurus ; Platyrhynchine with 20 genera, having very broad bills

PLATYRHYNCHUS. HAaAPALOcERCUS.
(After Swainson.)

and weak feet, including Platyrhynchus and Hapalocercus ; Elainine
having the gape without bristles and almost confined to the
Neotropical Region ; and Tyrannine with 28 genera, among which
he places blacicus and Myiarchus (ToMEOOL) and their near ally
Contopus (PEEWEE) together with Hmpidias, to which he refers the
well-known Sayornis fuscus (PHBE) while keeping Sayornis in his
first subfamily, as well as JZilvulus (SCISSORS-TAIL!) and of course
Tyrannus.”

In several respects some of these birds resemble the SHRIKES ;
but it must be clearly understood that the likeness? is but
of analogy, and that there is no near affinity between the
two Families Laniide and Tyrannidx, which belong to wholly
distinct sections of PASSERES; and, while the former is a com-
paratively homogeneous group, as much diversity of form and
habits is found among the latter as among the Dendrocolaptide
(PICUCULE), testifying to the antiquity of the Fauna of which both
are so characteristic. Similarly many of the smaller 7yrannidx
bear some analogy to certain Muscicapide (FLYCATCHER), with
which they were at one time confounded; but the difference

French Roitelet, German Kéniglein (ef. D. W. Thompson, Gloss. Greek Birds,
p- 174), and-of course had nothing to do with the birds now called Tyrants.

1 Accidentally misspelt Sctzzors-TAIL, p. 816.

2 Nearly akin to the King-bird is the Petchary or Chicheree, so called from
its loud and petulant cry, Tyrannus dominicensis, or T. griseus, one of the
most characteristic and conspicuous birds of the West Indies, and the earliest to
give notice of the break of day. In habits, except that it eats a good many
berries, it is the very counterpart of its congener, and is possibly even more
jealous of any intruder. At all events its pugnacity extends to animals from
which it could not possibly receive any harm, and is hardly limited to any
season of the year.

3 It is curious that in at least some instances this likeness extends to
the eggs.

1009 TYRANT—UMBRELLA-BIRD

between them is deep seated.1 Nor is this all, for out of
the 80 genera, or nearly, into which the Tyrannidw have been
divided, a series of forms can be selected which find a kind of
parallel to those found in the OscinES; and the genus J'yrannus,
though that from which the Family is named, is by no means a
fair representative of it; though it would be hard to say which
genus should be so accounted. The birds of the genus Musci-
saxicola have the habits and almost the appearance of WHEATEARS ;
the genus Alectorurus calls to mind a WaAcTAIL; Luscarthmus may
suggest a Titmouse, Elainca perhaps a Willow-WREN; but the
greater number of forms have no analogous bird of the Old World
with which they- can be compared ; and, while the combination of
delicate beauty and peculiar external form possibly attains its
utmost in the long-tailed Milvulus, the glory of the Family may be
said to culminate in the king of King-birds, Musecivora regia, and its
three allied species.

U

ULNA, the more curved and stouter of the two bones of the
forearm (the other being the RADIUS, p. 762). Its proximal end
forms the OLECRANON (p. 654) process, and its distal end articulates
with two bones of the carpus (p. 77). The attachment of the
CUBITAL remiges (p. 118) often causes rugosities on its dorsal
surface. (See SKELETON, p. 859.)

UMBRE, Pennant’s rendering in 1773 (Gen. B. p. 44) of Bris-
son’s Ombrette (cf. HAMMER-HEAD, p. 405, and STORK, p. 920).

UMBRELLA-BIRD,? the Cephalopterus ornatus of Geoffroy-St.
Hilaire (Ann. Mus. xiii. p. 228, pl. 15) the “ Umbrella’d Chatterer ” of
Shaw (Wat. Misc. xxi. pl. 897), so called from the remarkable crest
of feathers it wears, the shafts of which, when it is displayed, says

1 This is not the place to dwell upon the essential nature of the difference ;
but two easy modes of discriminating them externally may be mentioned. All
the Lantide and Muscicapide have but nine primary quills in their wings,
and their tarsi are covered with scales in front only; while in the 7yrannidz
there are ten primaries, and the tarsal scales extend the whole way round. The
more recondite distinction in the structure of the trachea seems to have been
first detected by Macgillivray, who wrote the anatomical descriptions published
in 1839 by Audubon (Orn. Biog. v. pp. 421, 422); but its value was not
appreciated till the publication of Johannes Miiller’s celebrated treatise on the
vocal organs of PAssprEsS (Abh. k. Ak. Berlin, 1845, pp. 321-405).

* I find this name first in print, Proc. Zool, Soc. 1850, p. 91; but Gould
there uses it for the bird as being ‘‘commonly so called.” In 1836 Swainson
(Classif. B. i, p. 41) likened its crest to an umbrella.

UNCINATE PROCESS—URINATORES 1ool

Mr. Wallace (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1850, p. 206) radiate on all sides,
reaching beyond the tip of the bill, and forming a perfect dome,
some 5 inches in length by 4 or 4.5 in width. Another curious
appendage is a cylindrical fleshy process, an inch and a half long,
pendent from the front of the neck, and clothed with imbricated
feathers. The bird is about the size of a Crow, and wholly black,

CEPHALOPTERUS, GyMNOCEPHALUS.
(After Swainson.)

glossed with blue in places and especially on the crest and dew-
lap. This species inhabits Colombia, Guiana, a great part of
Brazil and Eucador ; but, in the western districts of the country
last named, a second species, C. penduliger, occurs, with a still more
extraordinary feathered dewlap nearly as long as the whole bird
(bis, 1859, pl. ui.); and in Veragua and Costa Rica, a third, C.
glabricollis, in which the throat, of a reddish-orange, and dewlap are
bare of feathers, except at the tip of the latter (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1850, pl. xx.), but all have the plumage black and the parasol-like
crest. The genus belongs to the Cotingidxw (CHATTERER, p. 86), and
is nearly allied to the genera Pyroderus, Gymnocephalus, Gymnodera
and Chasmorhynchus (BELL-BIRD, p. 80). (Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Br.
Mus. xiv. pp. 397-408).

UNCINATE PROCESS, a thin bony blade attached, either
movably or firmly, to the posterior margin of each of the true hips
(p. 788) except the last. Originally cartilaginous, these processes sub-
sequently ossify each from a special centre, and extend backward to
overlap the next succeeding Rib. With the sole exception of the
Palamedeide (SCREAMER) they are present in all Birds, as well as in
some Reptiles, as Hatteria and the Crocodiles.

UNICORN-BIRD (Bates, Nat. Amaz. i. 277), a name for Pala-
medea cornuta (SCREAMER, p. 819).

URETER, the duct which conducts the urine from the KIDNEY
(p. 480) to the CLOACA (p. 90), there being no urinary bladder in
Birds (see also figs. pp. 138, 782).

URINATORES, Vieillot’s name in 1816 (Analyse, p. 64) for a
group of Birds composed of the genera Heliornis, Podiceps | Podicipes|
and Colymbus.

1002 UROIONI—VARIATION

UROIONI (properly Uraoni), Owen’s name in 1868 (Anat.
Vertebr. iii. p. 849) for the group consisting of Archxopteryz,

UROSTYLE, see PYGOSTYLE, p. 753.
UTICK, a local name for the WHINCHAT, from its call-note.

Vv

VALK, Dutch for FALcon or HAwK, and so used in the Cape
Colony—Slaauwe Valk (Blue Hawk), being especially the name of
Melieraz musicus, the so-called “Chanting Falcon,” which has a
mellow, piping whistle (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 31).

VARIATION is a seductive subject that must here be treated
briefly and with the view of bringing forward a few only of its known
facts, the consideration of its supposed causes, which are often glibly
and positively assigned by some writers to account for its origin,
being wholly out of place, while questions involving the definition
of “species,” though immediately arising, cannot be entertained—
since experience shews that they can be rarely answered to the satis-
faction of any but the respondent. Presuming that readers of
this article are acquainted with what has been published on the
subject by Darwin and Mr. Wallace, there will be no need to
enter at length on the observed facts of Variation as set down by
those able naturalists. The former of them many years ago de-
clared (Origin of Species, chap. v.), “Our ignorance of the laws of
Variation is profound,” and in 1894 Mr. Bateson (Materials for the
Study of Variation, p. 13) had still to regret that “ Darwin’s first col-
lection of the facts of Variation has scarcely been increased.”1 Yet

1 It may perhaps be convenient here to adduce in the most concise way, yet
almost in Darwin’s own words, what these facts—‘‘ Laws” they have sometimes
been called—are as enunciated by him :—

I. (1) Wide-ranging, much diffused and common Species vary most.

(2) Species of the larger Genera in each country vary more frequently than
the Species of the smaller Genera.

(3) Many of the Species of the larger Genera resemble Varieties in being very
closely, but unequally, related to each other, and in having restricted
ranges (Origin of Species, chap. ii.).

II. (4) Multiple, Rudimentary and Lowly-organized Structures are the most
variable.

(5) A Part developed in any Species, in an extraordinary way, compared with
the same Part in allied Species, tends to be highly variable.

(6) Specific characters are more variable than Generic characters.

(7) Secondary sexual characters are very variable.

(8) Distinct Species present analogous Variations ; and a Variety of one

VARIATION 1003

as in times past there are endless records, among which Orni-
thology has its full share,’ of individual irregularities of all sorts,
from those which are to be entitled MoNSTROSITIES (p. 587) down
to the abnormal colouring of a single feather; but no considerable
approach has been made to the methodizing of the different observa-
tions since the remarkable essays published in 1871 and 1872 by Mr.
J. A. Allen,? which naturally attracted the attention of Mr. Wallace,
who (Darwinism, chap. iii.) by means of a series of diagrams reduced
to a concrete and convenient form some of the elaborate tables of
measurements, for, as treated by the author, they are not very easily
mastered. Few, if any other writers, however, have availed them-
selves of the vast store of statistics collected with enormous toil by
Mr. Allen, and hence the publication of other similar series has
unhappily been discouraged. Every one knows the use which has
been made of facts like these, but the study of Variation has
perhaps suffered from the way in which it has been connected with
theories of Evolution instead of being pursued for its own sake.
Whether those theories be true or not, the existence of Variation is
undoubted, and it behoves ornithologists among other naturalists to
learn all they can of its facts apart from any speculation that may
be raised upon them. Many persons regard Variation as being so
much due to domestication that they are apt to overlook the extent
to which wild creatures vary. It would be almost safe to assert
that no two creatures are ever produced which are absolutely alike,
however hard it may be for any one to define the difference
between them; but it may be positively stated as the result of con-
siderable experience in ornithology that the greater the number of
individuals that are closely examined the more they are found to
differ. The differences may be minute, but differences they are, and

Species often assumes some of the characters of an allied Species, or
reverts to some of the characters of an early progenitor (op. cit.
chap. v.).

Several modifications of the above statements seem requisite.

1 With Ornithology rests perhaps the honour of producing the earliest
treatise on part, at least, of the subject, that by Gloger before cited (Gro-
GRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, p. 343).

2 To these reference has been already made (p. 343, note 2). An apprecia-
tive analysis of the first was given in Zhe Zoological Record (viii. pp. 24, 25),
and a critical notice in Zhe Ibis (1872, pp. 189-191). Mr. Ridgway followed
with some good observations (Am. Journ. Sc. ser. 3, iv. pp. 454-460, v. pp.
39-44), which led to the criticism of Prof. Coues (Am. Nat. 1878, pp. 415-
418), and a rejoinder by the author (fom. cit. pp. 548-555).

3 As an instance I may refer to the experience gained by the study of an
enormous series of bones of the SOLITAIRE (p. 887), not one of which but was
liable to greater or less individual Variation of some kind or other. This was
not confined to absolute size, but extended to the relative proportion of divers
parts of the bones, to processes or depressions upon them commonly held to be

1004 VARIATION

perceptible to the carefully-trained eye! It isa trite remark that ina
flock of sheep the ordinary man sees nothing to distinguish one animal
from another, while the shepherd knows each unfailingly, and those
who look after birds kept in captivity are soon able to do the same
in regard to their charges, though both shepherd and bird-keeper
would often find it impossible to point out wherein the difference
lay. Yet because the difference cannot be expressed in words, its
existence is not to be denied, and indeed for all practical purposes
we may assume its existence except in rare cases. ‘Thus, believing
Variability to be general, the question naturally arises as to its
limits, if it has any. Some there are who would boldly declare it
to be in one sense boundless, and others would define its limits as

geographical. Much is to be said for this last point of view, which |

was that taken by some of the earliest investigators of Variation ; but
then it must be admitted that those who adopt it have a very summary
way of treating the subject, though it is eminently practical and
perhaps at present indispensable.

When a definite structure or coloration of any form is observed
to be associated with a definite area, and to cease on that area being
overpassed, the systematist will generally say at once that we have
two distinct species of the form; but, on the other hand, he is often
puzzled how to regard a form that ranges over an area, mostly
large, at one end of which it exhibits certain well-marked characters
which gradually vanish as the centre is approached, and are as
gradually replaced by different but equally well-marked characters,
until at the other end it generally, though not always, assumes a
wholly distinct appearance, the intervening space being thus occupied
by individuals more or less intermediate between the extremities of
the series. The reflective naturalist will perceive the probability of
both these categories being reducible to the same principle—only
in the latter case the Variation is continuous and in the former
discontinuous; but it has taken ornithologists a long while to
recognize this probability.

Conditions such as these are furnished in cases far too numerous
to name,” and their proper recognition and full appreciation (if that
specifically characteristic, so that it was utterly impossible to declare the limits
of individual modification, while the Variability did not wholly depend on age
or sex (Phil. Trans. 1869, pp. 830, 831). Subsequent examination of a still
larger series of specimens confirmed the former statement (op. cit. vol. 168, p.
451). Yet all this amount of Variation was exhibited by the individuals of a
single species, confined to a small island, and apparently all living at about the
same period and under the same conditions.

1 The more minutely a specimen is described the less chance there is 0
another specimen being found to agree with it. Hence the value of a proper
diagnosis, in the old sense of the word, compared with a description—a fact
which some modern ornithologists are apt to overlook.

* They are mostly found among the Oscines, but possibly because that group

VARIATION 1005
may be considered to have been reached) are, since in Europe
Gloger’s attempt had failed to produce any effect,! mainly due to the
ornithologists of North America, and especially to Baird as before
said. Definite results soon followed, and in 1872 Mr. Allen in his
summing up was able to say truly (Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H. xv. p.
218), “Gradual differentiation is now known in so many cases that
it amounts to the demonstration of climatic variation as a general
law by means of which a species may be safely predicted to take on
a given character under certain specific climatic conditions.”2 It
would be impossible here to enter into particulars, suffice it to state
that species after species, as well as genus after genus, is proved to
be subject to this kind of geographical Variation, which is noticeable
not only in regard to the Size of the whole bird, but to the propor-
tion of its several parts, as Bill, Claws, Tail and Wing, as also to
Colour. Difference in the length of Wing had, it is true, been
noted in some species of the Old World, but the results were not
brought together nor their meaning made evident. As regards the
geographical Variation of Colour, Mr. Allen proved that in America
northward of Mexico it was reducible to two phases of modification,
a general increase of intensity toward the south and development
of dark markings at the expense of the light intervening spaces, so
that of brightly-coloured species southern individuals are the most
brightly coloured, and some tints, which to the northward cannot be
called brilliant, become vivid in a lower latitude. In respect of longi-
tude Variation occurs with like regularity, the differences appearing to
hold a direct relationship to the humidity of the climate. Thus on the
dry plains of the middle and western parts of the continent birds have
a pallid complexion, while on the Pacific slope they resume nearly
the tints of the eastern form, though further to the northward, in the
rainy belt that extends along the coast of British Columbia, they
acquire a depth of colour far in excess of that which they display
on the Atlantic border. The value of Mr. Allen’s results is very
much increased when we find that similar observations had long
before been made in regard to the Old World, only no one had been
at the trouble of collecting them. Thus Temminck in 1835 (Man.
d Orn. iii. p. liv.) had noticed the more lively coloration of indi-
has immeasurably the most abundant forms. The remarkable cases offered by
the genus Colaptes have been already mentioned (FLICKER, p. 258), and others of
hardly less interest occur in the RotiErs (p. 793) and KALLEGE Pheasants (p. 476).

1 The only notices of it I know are those by F. Boie (Jsis, 1834, pp. 386-
396), and Fries (Arsberiittelse om nyare zoologiska Arbeten, 1834, pp. 38-45), the
last being in Swedish.

2 He also has some remarks shewing that the usual way of accounting for such
variation by hybridity is untenable, though this explanation has lately been
revived in England by some writers, who substitute ‘‘interbreeding” for hybridity,
and by the shallowness of their argument prove their small capacity for reasoning
on the subject (cf. supra, pp. 344, 345).

1006 VARIATION

viduals from the south of Europe; the peculiarities of Desert-forms
had been dwelt upon by Canon Tristram (supra, p. 336, note) ; and
the darkening tendency of a rainy climate observed by Mr. Vernon-
Harcourt (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851, p. 142) and Mr. Godman (supra,
p. 338); while it had even been suggested to account for the
similarity between British and Japanese birds in much the same
way (Ibis, 1863, p. 189).

Other and still more important modifications are connected with
insulation, and we can scarcely doubt are brought about by it.
Many instances could be cited of Birds in distant islands shewing a
tendency to a shortening of the wing, in some to the extent of its
becoming unfit for flight, while concomitantly the size of the bill
increases. The Dopo may be adduced as the extreme case of this
process, andit would seem excusable, as indicating the initiation of such
a series of modifications as might end in something like that extinct
form, to regard the 7'urtur rostratus peculiar to the Seychelles, but differ-
ing as yet in little more than its bigger bill and somewhat rounded
wing (bis, 1867, p. 355) from the more widely-ranging 7. picturatus.
Other analogous cases could be advanced, the Lophopsittacus of
Mauritius (p. 216), the Wycticoraa megacephalus of Rodriguez (p. 420),
the Gallinula nesiotis of Tristan da Cunha (p. 590), and perhaps the
Nesonetta of the Auckland Islands, which appears to be little else
than a brevipennate form of the Anas chlorotis of New Zealand (Gf.
Salvadori, Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxvii. p. 290). This branch of the subject
cannot be pursued further here; but it should be obvious that it
gives rise to problems of the greatest interest, and more light is
likely to be thrown on the origin and cause of Variation by study-
ing facts of this kind than by the abstract conjectures in which so
many indulge.

Remarkable as is the modification of colour exhibited by Desert-
forms, or by those which inhabit rainy districts, it is comparatively
speaking intelligible ; but so much cannot be said for the Variation
that comes under the title of DmmorpHism! (p. 149), a very few
cases of which have already been instanced. Many kinds of OWLS of
different groups and of different countries, as before remarked (p.
675), are subject to this curious kind of variability, which shews
itself in enduing them with a plumage in which either grey or
rufous predominates (p. 678); but strange to say a precisely similar
Variation in colour is found to obtain among certain NIGHTJARS (p.
642). It is impossible to suggest any way of accounting for this
parallelism, the nocturnal habits of the majority of each group afford-
ing the only similarity between them. An equally extraordinary
Dimorphism is now known to occur in some of the HERONS (p. 419),

1 This term is here used in a very wide sense, and in the cases under considera-
tion ‘* Dichromatism ” would be more precise.

VARIATION 1007

especially in certain American species, where part will be arrayed in
snowy white and part are deeply coloured—blue, of some shade o1
other, or reddish-brown as the case may be.! In most of these
examples the Variation is discontinuous, for it rarely happens that
intermediate forms are found ; and, in regard to these Herons, like
the SkuAs before mentioned (p. 870), no question of locality has to
be considered, for birds of opposite colours have been observed
paired and breeding together. Variation indeed may be quite
independent of locality, as shewn by the remarkable series of speci-
mens of Lagopus scoticus collected almost entirely in one district by
Mr. Buckley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, pp. 112-116). The differences
therein observable would almost entitle the Red Grouse in that part,
at least, of Scotland to be called polymorphic, and yet in Ireland its
coloration seems to be monotonous (p. 391, note).”

In regard to CoLour (p. 99) Variation of a stronger kind is
shewn by abnormalities which are collectively spoken of as examples
of HETEROCHROSIS (p. 420), and some of them are the delight of
many collectors. The most common are those that tend to become
ALBINOS (p. 9), which occur in almost every group of birds, and occa-
sionally take permanent form, as the Australian Astur novx-hollandizx
(GosHAWK, p. 377), a species which may be properly considered
dimorphic, and the extinct Notornis alba (p. 592). The direct cause of
Albinism is easily found, and it is not much more difficult to account
for many cases of MELANISM (p. 542),? but that of ERYTHRISM
(p. 215)* and “‘ XANTHOCHROISM” cannot be positively assigned

1 It had long been known that the smaller Blue Heron of America, Ardea
(or Florida) cerulea, like the widely-ranging A. sacra of Polynesia, was white in
its young state and adopted its deep tints as it grew older; and it began to be
suspected that 4. (Demiegretta) rufa and A. pealii might be subject to the same
change of colour, when in 1875 the late Dr. Brewer was able to prove that the
latter was but a white phase of the former, and three years later Mr. Ridgway
(Bull. U. S. Geol. & Geogr. Survey, iv. pp. 219-248) shewed the same relations
to exist between the North-American A. wuerdemanni and <A. occidentalis.
Other writers have fully accepted this view, while Dr. Stejneger even suggests
| (Stand. Nat. Hist. B. p. 7) the existence of a third phase in what has been
called A. wardi, so that we should here have a case of ‘‘ trichromatism” which
would be very interesting if proved.

2 T well remember observing at the end of two very successful days’ Partridge-
shooting in Suffolk, in January 1859, the extraordinary amount of Variation
presented by the contents of the “ bag ””—approaching 500 in number, and nearly
all examples of Perdiz cinerea. I much regret that circumstances did not permit
my taking note of the details. At that season the birds had assumed their full
plumage.

3 Melanism, it is well known, can be induced in some cage-birds by feeding them
with hemp-seed. Among wild birds perhaps the best known case is that of the
so-called Sabine’s SNIPE (p. 884), which is almost peculiar to the British Islands
and has been oftener obtained in Ireland than elsewhere.

* American ornithologists speak of the ‘‘red” form of Owls (and Nightjars)

1008 VASCULAR SVSTE Mh

and it is conceivable that they may be induced in more than
one way.!

VASCULAR SYSTEM, the comprehensive term for the vessels
conducting the blood and the lymph, and composed of (A) the
HEART (p. 413), ARTERIES (p. 22) and VEINS, and (B) the
Lymphatic Vessels. The walls of the blood-vessels have three
layers, of which the outermost consists wholly of connective tissue,
the middle one is made of annular unstriped muscular fibres, inter-
woven with elastic bands, and is the thickest, while the inmost is a
thin endothelial lining, forming the valves which are so arranged
as to hinder the reflux of the blood. In considering the Vascular
System it is convenient to divide it as follows :—

A. Blood-System, consisting of— —

I. The Pulmonary Circulation, or that of the LUNGS (p. 522), The
right and left pulmonary Arteries arise with a short common stem,
guarded at its base by three valves, from the right ventricle of the
Heart, and each accompanied by its BRONCHUS (p. 58) enters the
Lung of its own side, there breaking up into capillary vessels, which
again combine and convey the arterialized blood into the right and
left pulmonary veins respectively. These ultimately, as the vena
pulmonalis conmunis, enter the left atrium.

Il. The Systemic Circulation, or that of the body, divisible into
Arterial and Venous.

i. Arterial. The left ventricle sends all its blood into the
truncus aortx, the base of which is guarded by 3 valvulx semilunares.
The trunk is very short, sending off the right and left coronary
arteries to nourish the heart itself, and then the left arteria anonyma
or brachio-cephalica, while the rest of it, considerably thicker, divides
into the right a. anonyma and the arcus ascendens aortx. 'The latter,
situated between the TRACHEA and the right lung, runs headward
and over the right bronchus, reaching the ventral surface of the

as coming under this term or ‘‘ Erythrochroism” (Stejneger, tom. cit. p. 8); but
it seems to me due to a cause of quite another kind than that which produces
the change from normal yellow or orange, let alone green, to some shade of
scarlet, and should therefore bear another name. Real ‘‘ Erythrism” is not
common in species of the Holarctic Fauna. The Crosspriu (p. 114) is partly
subject to it, and then has been regarded as specifically distinct under the name
of Loxia rubrifasciata, and the Green Woodpecker, Gecinws viridis, has heen
known to exhibit it (Zool. 1853, p. 3800; 1854, p. 4250); but perhaps the
most abnormal case on record, if it belong to this category, is that of the
pink-headed Pastor roscus described by Dr. A. B. Meyer (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1890,
p- 590).

1 For its bearings, more or less direct, on Variation Mr. Keeler’s Essay on the
Evolution of the Colors of North American Land Birds (published as No. III. of
the ‘‘ Occasional Papers of the Californian Academy of Science.” San Francisco:
1893) should also be consulted.

VASCULAR SYSTEM 1009

vertebral column along which it passes, as the aorta descendens, to the
tail, where it ends as arteria coccygea.

Each brachio-cephalic artery divides and subdivides thus—

a. Truncus caroticus, further separating into

a. Arteria vertebralis, ascending the neck, running through
the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae (SKELETON,
pp. 852, 853), and anastomosing in the head with the
cephalic branches of the CAROTIDS (p. 76) ;

B. Arteria carotis communis, subdivided into the car. externa
or facialis, and car. interna or cerebralis ;

b. The Arteria subclavia also separating into

a. The sterno-clavicular and thoracic arteries ;

f. The axillary artery, subdivided into the scapular, humeral
and brachial—the last being composed of the a. wlnaris and
a. radialis, or principal arteries of the forearm and manus.

The aorta descendens gives off in succession—

A variable number of small vessels to the @SOPHAGUS, and inter-
costal vessels, generally in pairs, to the RIBS and their muscles,
as well as the strong unpaired cceliac artery for the STOMACH,
SPLEEN, LIVER and duodenum (pp. 141, 142) beside an a.
mesenterica superior, also unpaired, supplying most of the small
intestine. To them follow the right and left principal renal
arteries, and those for the REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS, while a pair of
crural arteries each penetrating the first lobe of the KIDNEY and,
after sending a branch (a. pelvica) in the PELVIS and some of its
viscera, leaving that bone in front of the ilio-pubic spine, are con-
tinued as femoral arteries, running along the crural vein on the
posterior side of the thigh and supplying chiefly the extensor
muscles. Next to them come a pair of ischiadic arteries, each
running ventrally past the kidneys and sending branches into their
middle and lower lobes, as well as to part of the oviduct, after which
it leaves the pelvis together with the ischiadic nerve through the
ischiadic foramen and ultimately descends the leg, separating into the
~ anterior and posterior tibial arteries. Lastly there are a pair of
arterix pudendx communes, branches of which supply the lateriventral
muscles of the tail, the CLOACA and copulatory organs, and near the
place where this pair originate arises also the unpaired a. mesenterica
inferior, which supplies most of the rectum, part of the C4iCA and part
of the cloacal region—a peculiar branch, the a. coccygo-mesenterica,
being directly connected with a branch of the superior mesenteric
artery.

ii. Venous. It has been already stated (p. 414) that the venous
blood is collected and conveyed to the right atrium of the heart by
3 great trunks. These are composed as follows :—

Each vena cava superior consists of (1) a vena jugularis which,
running subcutaneously along the trachea and cesophagus, collects

64

a Visub,
Keg
| \ Sy Z = aeOres
\ | 2 a.pulm.
\| |
Meath
ee amy v.pulm.
an UAE He
\ || LL fi | cut.uln. Tee
| \\ ca Ly a
\ \ ES li .
Noe SY ered.
AN

a. desc.

DIAGRAM oF A Brrp’s VASCULAR SysTEM. VENTRAL ASPECT.

The two halves of the Heart are drawn as if separate to shew the complete double circulation.
L.A. and L.V. Left Atrium and Ventricle ; R.A. and 2.7. Right Atrium and Ventricle.
The Arteries, except the Pulmonary (a.pulm.) which is dotted, are shaded :—aaa, arcus

VASCULAR SYSTEM IOII

the blood from the head and neck; (2) a vena vertebralis which
drains the brain, anastomoses by numerous and wide branches with
the cephalic portions of the jugulars and, being lodged in the trans-
verse foramina of the cervical vertebra, which it also drains, runs
along the neck; and (3) a vena subclavia which receives the blood
from the thorax, beside a vena humeralis, v. radialis and »v. ulnaris,
combining to form the v. brachialis, and this again unites with the
subcutaneous ulnar vein of the wing as the v. azillaris.

The vena cava inferior receives the blood from all the rest of the
body with its viscera, entering the heart as an unpaired trunk, and
close to it receiving the pair of wv. hepatice magnx which carry the
blood from the liver, while the rest of the venous trunk is known
as the vena cava posterior, and is formed by the two wv. iliace com-
munes, each of which is composed of a v. cruralis or iliaca externa
and a v. hypogastrica or tliaca interna. The former of these carries
the blood from the hind limb through the »v. tibialis antica and v.
tibialis postica, as well as through a v. femoralis, while it also receives
an epigastric vein from the walls of the abdomen and its AIR-SACS
(p. 4). Immediately after the v. iliac. externa has entered the pelvis,
near the pectineal process (pp. 861, 862) it is joined by the ».
iliac. interna, which drains the blood from the tail, vv. coccygex, from
the pelvis and most of the viscera therein embedded, including
the kidneys. Much of the venous blood is however conveyed
directly into the venx iliace communes, and numerous veins, very
variable, send blood from the generative glands, from the suprarenal
capsules and from the liver into the v. cava posterior.

The Hepatic Portal System remains to be mentioned. <A Bird’s
liver receives nearly all the blood from the stomach, gut, pancreas
and spleen, as well as from the liver itself. This blood enters the
right hepatic lobe by a v. portalis dextra, composed of the mesenteric
and coccygeo-mesenteric veins, and those from the pancreas, duo-
denum, proventriculus and spleen; while the left lobe receives the
v. portalis sinistra with blood from the stomach. Having entered
the liver, both portal veins break up into innumerable small vessels
which combine again within this organ, and leave it as the w.
hepatice magnx, which, as stated before, join the v. cava posterior, the

ascendens Aorte ; a.bre. Art. brachialis; a.desc. Aorta descendens 3 A.f. Art. femoralis ; A.sub.
Art. subclavia ; A.v. Art. vertebralis ; C.c. Carotis communis ; C.e. Carot. externa ; C.i. Carot.
interna ; c.ms. Vena coccygomesentrica ; coel. Art. cceliaca; cr. Vena cruralis; cul.abd. Vena
cutanea abdominalis ; cut.uln. V. cut. ulnaris ; gast. Art. gastralis ; hp. Art. hepatica ; hyp.
Ven. hypogastrica ; il. Art. iliaca; tl.ex. Vena iliaca externa ; il.int. V. il. interna; isch. Art.
ischiadica ; Jug.d. V. jugularis dextra ; Jug.s. V. jug. sinistra ; ms.7. Art. mesenterica inferior ;
ms.s. Art. mesent. superior; 7. renal arteries and veins; rad. Art. radialis ; tib.a. Art. tibialis
antica; tib.p. Art. tib. postica; thor. Art. thoracica; T’r.aort. truncus Aorte; uln. Art.
ulnaris ; V.Br. Vena brachialis ; V.c.i., v.c.p., v.c.s. Vena cava inferior, posterior and sinistra ;
v.f. Vena femoralis; V.H. V. hepatica; v.il.c. V. iliaca communis; v.pulm. V. pulmonaria ;
V.sub. V. subclavia ; V.v. V. vertebralis,

1OI2 VASCULAR SVSTEM

combined trunk being then known as the v. cava inferior. But the
left v. hepatica magna receives also the v. wmbilicalis, a long unpaired
vein arising in adult birds from the walls of the abdomen and its
air-sacs, and frequently anastomosing with the epigastric veins. Its

Cente of he stem runs nearly midway along

vena hepatica the visceral surface of the abdo-

dextraand sinistra minal wall, passing first to the
v.hep. sinistra right of the stomach and then
:.LeftLiverlobe between the two lobes of the

Mess liver, finally joining the left hep-
atic vein. ‘This peculiar vessel is
the remnant of one which played
an important part in the embryo,
for it originally collected all the
blood of the yolk-sac (p. 211)
into one stem which passed along
the left side of the gut; and,
after receiving the mesenteric
vein, entered the right auricle
of the heart as the v. omphalo-
mesaraica. "This stem, however,
soon became surrounded by the
liver, and began to form the
4, hypogastr. Hepatic Portal System by partly
stnistra breaking up into capillaries, while
the mesenteric developed more
and more, until the primitive ves-

sel persists only as the umbilical
DIAGRAM OF A Birp’s PorTAL VENOUS vein.
System. Ventral Aspect.

yebtlical

vein

=
v.port. |v
dext,

v.mesent.

(W.cocerg.

Owing to the numerous anas-
tomoses set up by veins on the confines of their several districts,
some of these connexions are often used by the blood as “short
cuts,” and then become wider channels, while the original vessels
suffer atrophy, so that quite new modifications are brought about.
Such variations are so common, especially in the cervical and
pelvic regions, that they deprive the Venous System of much of
its taxonomic value.!

B. Lymphatic System.

The Lacteal or Absorbent vessels arise in the villi of the
intestine, whence they convey the chyle into the Lymphatics
(p. 139), together with the white blood or lymph corpuscles
(p. 43), which are produced in the follicles at the base of the villi

1 A careful, minute and amply illustrated description of the venous system
of numerous birds—‘‘ Systema venosum Avium cum eo Mammalium et inprimis
Hominis collatum’’—was published by Neugebauer in 1844 (Nov. Act. L.-C.
Acad. xxi. pp. 517-698, tabb. xxxvi.-1.).

VAS DEFERENS—VIREO 1013

(p. 139, Fig. 1, Z.). Lymphatics and lacteals unite, and generally
follow the course of the bigger arteries and veins, often surrounding
them with anastomosing network. The lymph vessels of the tail
and hinder parts of the body enter the hypogastric veins, and at
the point of junction a small contractile “lymph-heart” is regularly
developed in the embryo and persists in many forms until maturity.
The lymphatic vessels of the trunk and intestines chiefly accompany
the aorta descendens and the mesenteric and cceliac arteries, finally
opening into the two superior ven cave, as also do the branches of
the lymphatic stems that come down from the head and neck, accom-
panying the jugular veins into which they partly enter.

VAS DEFERENS, see REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS (p. 784 and fig.
p. 782).

VEERY, a name in North America (Nuttall, Man. Orn. 1.
p. 349) for what is otherwise known as Wilson’s THRusH, Z'urdus
Suscescens.

VEIN (adj. venous). Veins are the vessels through which
the blood flows into the HEART, no matter if this blood be venous,
or arterial like that which returns purified from the LUNGS through
the pulmonary veins. The walls of the veins are thinner than
those of the ARTERIES, and, especially toward the extremities,
contain numerous valves to hinder the reflux of the blood.
Similar veins guard the entrance to the heart, but there are none in
the jugular, trunk and cutaneous veins (see p. 1008).

VERTEBRAL, see SKELETON (p. 848).

VIREO, the name of a genus proposed by Vieillot in 1807, and
long since used as English, for some North-American birds, sometimes
called GREENLETS. With some allied genera they seem to form
a small but recognizable Family, very character-
istic of the “Columbian” Fauna. They are
mostly inconspicuous in their olive-green plumage,
but lke the Alaudidx (LARK) are instructive to
the taxonomer, teaching him not to depend on ESOS
the number of primary quills, and also shewing Sere ga
a considerable amount of differentiation of form within certain
limits, though some of the species are not easily distinguished.
By most systematists they are supposed to be allied to the Laniidx
(SHRIKE), and by some are even included in that Family, but
on grounds that are at least debatable. Baird in 1866 (Rev. Am.
B. pp. 321-400) insisted forcibly on the distinctness of the Vireo-
nidx, to which he assigned 7 genera and some subgenera, being
therein followed in 1873 by Messrs. Sclater and Salvin (Nomencl.
Av. pp. 11-13); but Sundevall in 1872 (Tentamen, p. 13) had

1014 VISCHF-ANGER—VOMER

assigned another place to two of them, Hylophilus and Cyclorhis,
so that the position of Vireosylvia, Vireo, Neochloe, Laletes and
Vireolanius only can be regarded as undisputed; and it is in the
first of these that the tenth (usually numbered the first) primary is
always small and frequently wanting,’ the type species, commonly
called V. olivacea,” being, it is said, variable in this respect (Ridgway,
Man. N. Am. B. p. 469, note). This bird, the Red-eyed Fly-
catcher of many writers, is a well-known summer-immigrant to
eastern North America which has even reached Greenland, and has
been recorded as accidentally occurring in England (E. Brown, in
Mosley’s Nat. Hist. Tutbury, p. 385, pl. vi.). The type of Vireo, in
which the wing has 10 undoubted primaries, is the White-eyed Fly-
catcher of many writers, V. noveboracensis, also a native of North
America, but having a more southerly range, and being abundant
all the year round in Bermuda. Of these two genera, 17 species or
races were recognized as found in the territory of the United States
by Prof. Coues in 1884, and 21 by Mr. Ridgway in 1887. All seem
to have much the same habits, among which must be mentioned the
utterance of loud and melodious notes, in some cases sufficiently
connected to form a real song, and the peculiar structure of their
nests, which are built in the fork of a horizontal branch, between
the prongs of which the beautifully-woven fabric is suspended, just
as among the Oriolidx, and it is to be remarked that the eggs are
very similar in coloration and markings to those of the true
OrioLEs. Of the rest, Neochloe, if that really belongs here, is
Mexican, and Laletes peculiar to Jamaica, each of them having but
a single species, while of Vireolanius there are four ranging from
Mexico southward to Ecuador (Cat. B. Br. Mus. viii. pp. 292-316).

VISCHFANGER (Fish-catcher), the Dutch name used in the
Cape Colony for Haliaetus vocifer (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 17), an
EAGLE (p. 176).

VOCAL ORGANS, see LARYNX and TRACHEA.

VOLUCRES, Bonaparte’s name in 1850 (Comp. Av. i. p. 57)
for the first of the two “ Zribus” into which he divided the Order
PASSERES, the second being OscINES, making the former to include
all the Picariz of this work as well as the TRACHEOPHONZ.

VOMER, a median bone of the SKULL (p. 871), so called from
its general resemblance to a ploughshare in shape, though varying
much in that respect, as well as in comparative size and its con-
nexion with other bones, so as to be of considerable taxonomic
value,

1 On this Baird’s note (op. cit. p. 825) is important, shewing a great advance
on the statements of other taxonomers.
? Whether it should bear this name is questionable.

VOLTURE Iol5

VULTURE, the name of birds whose best-known characteristic
is that of feeding upon carcases, and, owing to this obscene habit,
are regarded with favour as useful scavengers in many hot countries.
The genus Vuliur, as instituted by Linnzeus, is now restricted by
ornithologists to a single species, V. monachus, of which more
presently, the other species included therein by him, or thereto
referred by succeeding systematists, being elsewhere relegated ;
but the most important taxonomic change that has been introduced
is that by Prof. Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 462-464), who

KinG-VULTURE (Gypagus papa).

pointed out the complete structural difference between the Vultures
of the New World and those of the Old,! regarding the former
as constituting a distinct Family, Cathartidw (more properly
named Surcorhamphidx), while he united the latter with the ordinary
diurnal Birds-of-Prey as Gypactidy (LAMMERGEYER, p. 501, note).
This arrangement overlooks the signification of some considerable
distinctions, and it would appear more reasonable to recognize the
existence of a Family Vulturidz, confined to the true Vultures of

1 This separation had already been made by Brandt (Journ. fiir Orn. 1853,
p- 181), but he contented himself with dividing the Vultures into two subfamilies,
Temnorhines or Sarcorhamphine and Holorhines or Vulturine.

1O16 VULTURE

the Ancient Continent, equal in rank to the Falconidx, while fully
admitting the claim made on behalf of the New-World forms for
the same standing.

I. The American Vultures include five genera: —(1) Sarcorhamphus,
the gigantic Conpor (p. 101), the male distinguished by a large
fleshy comb and wattles; (2) Gypagus, the King-Vulture, with its
gaudily-coloured head and nasal caruncle ; (3) Catharista, generally
known as the Black Vulture or “Carrion Crow,” C. atrata, of the
warmer parts of America; (4) Cathartes, containing the so-called
JOHN Crow (p. 470), or Turkey-Buzzard of English - speaking
Americans, with its allies ;1 and (5) Pseudogryphus, the great Cali-
fornian Vulture—of very limited range on the western slopes of
North America and, through the use of poison, threatened with
speedy extinction. Though all these birds are structurally so
different from the true Vultures of the Old World, in habits the
Vulturidz and Sarcorhamphide are much alike, and of several of the
latter—particularly of the Condor and the Turkey-Buzzard—
we possess elaborate accounts by excellent observers, as Darwin,
Alexander Wilson and Gosse—whose works are readily accessible.

II. The true Vultures of the Old World, Vultwride in the
restricted sense, are generally divided into five or six genera, of
which NEOPHRON (p. 621) has been not unjustifiably separated as
forming a distinct subfamily, Neophroniny,—its members, of com-
paratively small size, differing both in structure and habit consider-
ably from the rest. One of them is the so-called Egyptian Vulture
or Pharaoh’s Hen, N. perenopterus, a bird whose delicacy of build and
appearance contrasts forcibly with its choice of the most filthy food.
It is a well-known species in some parts of India,? and thence west-
ward to Africa, where it has an extensive range. It also occurs on
the northern shores of the Mediterranean, and on three occasions
has strayed to such a distance from its usual haunts as to have
twice suffered capture in England, and once even in Norway. Of
the genera composing the other subfamily, Vulturine, space is want-
ing to say much. Gyps numbers seven or eight local species and
races, on more than one of which the English name GRIFFON (p.
385) has been fastened. The best known is G. fulvus, which by
some authors is accounted “ British,” from an example having been
taken in Ireland, though in circumstances which suggest its appear-
ance so far from its nearest home in Spain to be due to man’s
intervention. The species, however, has a wider distribution on
the European continent (especially towards the north-east) than the

1 The birds of these two genera are easily to be distinguished on the wing
at a considerable distance (ef. Coues, B. North West, pp. 381, 382).

2 In the eastern part of the Indian peninsula it is replaced by a smaller race
or (according to some authorities) species, W. gingianus, which has a yellow
instead of a black bill.

WAGELL 1017

Egyptian Vulture, and in Africa nearly reaches the Equator, extend-
ing also in Asia to the Himalayas; but both in the Ethiopian and
Indian Regions its range inosculates with that of several allied forms
or species. Pseudogyps with two forms—one Indian, the other
African—differs from Gyps by having twelve instead of fourteen
rectrices. Of the genera Ofogyps and Lophogyps nothing here need
be said; and then we have Vultur, with, as mentioned before, its
sole representative, V. monachus, commonly known as the Cinereous
Vulture, a bird which is found from the Strait of Gibraltar to the
sea-coast of China. Almost all these birds inhabit rocky cliffs, on
the ledges of which they build their nests,”

W

WAGELL,? the Cornish name of a bird of which Ray and Wil-
lughby were told, 30th June 1662, on Godreve Island near St. Ives
in Cornwall (Memorials of Ray, ed. Lankester, p. 188, and Ray,
Collection of Words, p. 93). From what is said of it the Arctic
Gull (Skua, p. 870) seems to have been meant, but they took it
to be the young of what we now know as Larus marinus, and so the
name has been attached to that species by subsequent writers.4

1 The geographical range of the various species of Vultures has been treated
by Dr. Sharpe (Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool. xiii. pp. 1-26, pls. i.-ix.).

2 The question whether Vultures in their search for food are guided by sight
of the object or by its scent has long excited interest. Without denying to them
the olfactory faculty, it is now generally admitted, notwithstanding the assertions
to the contrary of Waterton and a few more, that the former is in almost every
case sufficient to account for the observed facts. It is known that directly a
camel drops dead, as the caravan to which it belonged is making its way across
the desert, Vultures of one sort or another appear, often in considerable numbers,
though none had before been observed by the traveller, and speedily devour the
carcase over which they are gathered together. The mode in which communica-
tion is effected between the birds, which are soaring at an immense height, seems
at first inexplicable, but Canon Tristram suggested (Zbis, 1859, p. 280) a simple
solution of the supposed mystery :—‘‘The Griffon who first descries his quarry
descends from his elevation at once. Another, sweeping the horizon at a still
greater distance, observes his neighbour’s movements and follows his course. A
third, still further removed, follows the flight of the second ; he is traced by
another ; and so a perpetual succession is kept up so long as a morsel of flesh
remains over which to consort.”

3 The derivation and pronunciation of this word are unknown to me. It is
spelt indifferently by Ray with one Z or two. I preserve the latter form as pos-
sibly indicating a stress to be laid on the last syllable.

+ See Additions to Borlase’s Natural History (reprinted from Journ. R. Inst.
Cornwall, Oct. 1865), Truro: 1865, p. 46.

1018 WAGTAIL

WAGTAIL (Wagsterd and Wagstyrt, 15th cent. fide Th. Wright,
Vol. Vocabul. ii. pp. 221, 253; Uuagtale, Turner, 1544, p. 53), the
little bird that delights us equally by its neat coloration, its slender
form, its nimble actions and its sprightly notes! Since it is so
generally dispersed, especially in summer, throughout the British
Islands, it needs no further description.

The Pied Wagtail of authors, it is the Motacilla? lugubris of
modern ornithology, or JZ. yarrella of some writers, and has for its
very near ally—if indeed it be not merely a local race of—the M.
alba of Linnzus, which has a wide range in Europe, Asia, and
Africa, visiting England almost yearly, and chiefly differing from
the ordinary British form in its lighter-coloured tints,—the cock
especially having a clear grey instead of a black back. Eleven
other more or less nearly-allied species are recognized by Dr. Sharpe
(Cat. B. Brit. Mus. x. pp. 456-496), who has laboriously treated the
complicated synonymy of this group of birds. Eight of them are
natives of Asia, several wintering in India, and one, J. ocularis,
even reaching Alaska, while the rest are confined to Africa. No
colours but black, grey or white enter into the plumage of any of
the foregoing ; but in the species peculiar to Madagascar, M. flavi-
ventris, as well as in that which it much resembles, the so-called
Grey Wagtail of Britain, M. melanope (M. boarula or sulphurea of
some authors), a great part of the lower surface is yellow. This is
one of the most graceful of birds, and though having a very wide
range in the world at large is curiously local in its distribution in
Britain, being almost wholly confined in the breeding-season to the
neighbourhood of rocky streams in the west and north, and a line
drawn from the Start Point, slightly curving to include the Derby-
shire hills, and ending at the mouth of the Tees, will, it is believed,
mark off its breeding-range in England. ‘Then there is a section
which by some systematists has been raised to the rank of a genus,
Budytes, containing the Wagtails in which yellow takes a still more
prominent part in their coloration. Of these, 8 species, besides
several subspecies, are recognized by Dr. Sharpe (ut supra, pp. 503-
532). One of these is the common Yellow Wagtail of England,

1 It is the Dishwasher of some parts of England, in others it has the endear-
ing nickname of Molly or Polly Washdish, with which may be compared the Ice-
landic Mariu-erla, and of course the French Lavandiére and Batte-lessive.

2 The genus Motacilla (an exact rendering of the English ‘‘ Wagtail,” the
Dutch Kwikstaart, the Italian Codatremola and other similar words), which, as
originally founded by Linneus, contained nearly all the ‘‘soft-billed” birds of
early English ornithologists, was restricted by various authors in succession, fol-
lowing the example set by Scopoli in 1769, until none but the Wagtails remained
in it. Most of the rest are now commonly classed as Sylviide (WARBLER), while
the Wagtails with the Pipirs, and possibly some others, constitute the Family
AMotacillidx.

|

WALL-BIRD—WARBLER 1019
M. rau (by some mistakenly called M. campestris), which, though
very generally distributed throughout the country, is much less
numerous than the Pied Wagtail, and more addicted to wet
* meadows ; but, just as I. lugubris is regarded by some as a local
form of the more widely-ranging JZ. alba, so does M. raii hold the
same relation to M. flava, the Blue-headed Wagtail, which has a
very extensive distribution in the Old World, and even crosses the
Pacific to Alaska, presenting also a great number of varieties or
races (most of them treated by Dr. Sharpe as real species) differing
from each other chiefly, if not solely, in the colour of the head, a
character which in this section can hardly be deemed specific, while
their geographical range intersects and inosculates in a most
puzzling manner. Credit is due to the author just named for the
enormous trouble he has taken, after study of a vast series of speci-
mens, to clear up the questions herein involved ; but it will probably
be long before ornithologists can agree on many of the disputed
points, and it is certain that the last word has by no means been
spoken concerning them.

WALL-BIRD, a common local name of the Spotted FLYCATCHER
(p. 274); WALL-CREEPER see under TREE-CREEPER (p. 986).

WARBLER, the name bestowed in 1773 by Pennant (Gen. Birds,
p. 35) on the birds removed, in 1769, by Scopoli from the Linnzan
genus Motacilla (WAGTAIL) to one founded and called by him Sylvia,
—the last being a word employed by several of the older writers in
an indefinite way,—that is to say, on all the species of Motacilla
which were not Wagtails. ‘ Warbler” has long been used by Eng-
lish technical writers as the equivalent of Sylvia, and consequently
generally applied to all members of the Family Sylviidx thereon
raised, which has since been so much subdivided as to include a vast
number of genera, while species almost innumerable have from time
to time been referred to it.

Until recently ornithologists had come to agree pretty well as to
which forms should be considered to belong to the Family Sylviidz,
—the “American Warblers” (Mniotiltidx), to be presently con-
sidered, being therefrom segregated ; but some writers, seeing the
difficulty of separating the remainder from the Zurdidx (THRUSH),
tried to get over it by proposing to erect an intermediate Family
for the WHEATEAR and some similar forms, under the name Sazi-
colidx.| But the affinity, seeming or real, to the Turdidx does not

1 Tn truth the difficulty was thereby doubled, for, if it was before hard to dis-
tinguish between Sylvitde and Turdidx, it has since become harder to dis-
tinguish on the one hand between Sylviidz and Sawicolidxe, and on the other
between Saxicolide and Turdidx. The confusion thus caused is chiefly due to
the adoption in a more or less modified form of the views put forth by Sundevall
in 1872, and revised by him in 1874 (cf Inrropucrion). Yor him, however, it is

1020 WARBLER

offer the only difficulty. The resemblance shewn by some other
forms, such as TIMELIA (p. 962) and its allies, often placed with the
Sylvudx, is equally if not more puzzling. Again, a small group of
birds, almost wholly peculiar to the Australian Fauna, have been
sometimes separated as Maluridx, and of these more must be said
presently. Lastly, there are certain genera that, though formerly
included without hesitation among the Sylviidx, have lately been
designated “ FLY-CATCHERS,” on grounds, however, that have not
been explained ; but to deal with this theme in satisfactory detail
would require far more space than can here be allowed, for the
failures of later systematists would have to be shewn by a series of
minute criticisms.

I. All things considered, it would seem best at present to regard
the “ WARBLERS ”—-without pledging our faith to the recognition
of a “Family” Sylviide—from the point of view which obtained
before the more recent and perplexing (because ill-defined) opinions
were introduced. Such an aspect is afforded by the scheme
furnished by Canon Tristram to Mr. Wallace (Geogr. Distr. Anim. i1.
pp. 257-260); but these limits will only permit us to touch upon a
few of the most prominent members in addition to those which
have been or will be the subject of separate articles. In this sense
then the first ‘‘ Warblers” that may be mentioned are those forming
a group of more or less aquatic habit, often called Calamoherpine, but
more correctly Acrocephalinx, the commonest of which in England
is the well-known SEDGE-BIRD or SEDGE-WARBLER, Acrocephalus
schenobxnus, whose chattering song resounds in summer-time from
almost every wet ditch in most parts of Britain. As is the case
with so many of its allies, the skulking habits of the bird cause it
to be far more often heard than seen; but, with a little patience, it
may be generally observed flitting about the uppermost twigs of
the bushes it frequents, and its mottled back and the yellowish-
white streak over its eye serve to distinguish it from its ally the
REED-WREN or REED-WARBLER, A. streperus, which is clad in a
wholly mouse-coloured suit. But this last can also be recognized

to be said that he at least proceeded in a fashion that had long been recognized,
and gave reasons, whether good or bad, for the system he propounded ; but his
imitators have omitted so obvious a requirement, and leave to any one who would
use their results the task of discovering how they have been reached. Hence it
has been suggested that some of the alterations introduced since Sundevall’s time
are purely arbitrary, if indeed they do not proceed from considerations of per-
sonal convenience, or occasionally even through mischance. Still the greatest
allowance must be made for those who attempt to reduce to order such a multi-
tudinous assemblage of forms—forms which present an almost endless variety of
small differentiating characters, pointing in numerous directions—while the
essential structure of all is apparently so similar that at present there is hardly
hope of assistance from the anatomist or the morphologist.

WARBLER 1021

by its different song, and comparatively seldom does it stray from
the reed-beds which are its favourite haunts. In them usually it
builds one of the most beautiful of nests, made of the seed-branches
of the reed and long grass, wound horizontally round and round so
as to include in its substance the living stems of three or four reeds,
between which it is suspended at a convenient height above the
water, and the structure is so deep that the eggs do not roll out
when its props are shaken by the wind.’ Of very similar habits is
the REED-THRUSH or great Reed-Warbler, 4. arwndinaceus, a loud-
voiced species, abundant on the Continent but very rarely straying
to England. Much interest also attaches to the species known in
books as Savi’s Warbler, Potamodus luscinioides, which was only
recognized as a constant inhabitant of the Fen-district of England
a few years before its haunts were destroyed by drainage. No
example seems to have been obtained in this country since 1856.
Its nest is peculiar, placed on the ground and formed of the blades
of Glyceria so skilfully entwined as to be a very permanent struc-
ture, and it is a curious fact that its nests were well known to the
sedge-cutters of the district which it most frequented, as those of a
bird with which they were unacquainted, long before the builder
was recognized by naturalists.2 In coloration the bird somewhat
resembles a Nightingale (whence its specific name), and its song
differs from that of any of those before mentioned, being a long
smooth trill, pitched higher but possessing more tone than that of the
Grasshopper-Warbler, Locustella nvia, which is a widely-distributed
species throughout the British Isles, not only limited to marshy
sites, but affecting also dry soils, inhabiting indifferently many
kinds of places where there is tangled and thick herbage, heather
or brushwood.? The precise determination of this bird—the Grass-
hopper-Lark, as it was long called in books, though its notes if once
heard can never be mistaken for those of a grasshopper or cricket,
and it has no affinity to the Larks—as an English species is due to
the discernment of Gilbert White in 1768. In its habits it is one
of the most retiring of birds, keeping in the closest shelter, so that
it may be within a very short distance of an eager naturalist without
his being able to see it,—the olive-colour, streaked with dark brown,
of its upper plumage helping to make it invisible. The nest is
very artfully concealed in the thickest herbage. The foreign

1 Of late years the nearly-allied MarsH-WARBLER, A. palustris, is said to
have been recognized in several parts of England, but I have not seen a specimen
obtained in this country or had the good fortune knowingly to hear its song, which
all agree in saying is very different from that of the Reed-Wren.

2 See Yarrell, Br. B. ed. 4, i. pp. 389-397, where the history of the species
was first told.

3 In those parts of England where each of the two species last mentioned was
formerly most abundant it was known as the Reel-bird or Reeler (p. 779).

1022 WARBLER

forms of Aquatic Warblers are far too numerous to be here
mentioned.

It seems expedient to recognize a subfamily Drymeciny, which
may include some 15 genera and nearly 200 species; but about its
composition and limits much doubt cannot fail to be entertained.
If its existence be acknowledged, the remarkable genera Orthotomus
(TAILOR-BIRD) and Cisticola (FANTAIL) may be fairly admitted as
belonging to it; but of them enough has been said (pp. 238, 942)
and it is obviously impossible to dwell here on the rest.

In the group Drymecinx is placed by some authors the Australian
genus Malurus, to which belong the birds aptly named as “ SUPERB
WARBLERS,” since in beauty they surpass any others of their
presumed allies. Part of the plumage of the cocks in breeding-
dress is generally some shade of intense blue, and so glossy as to
resemble enamel, while black, white, chestnut or scarlet, as well as
green and lilac, are also present in one species or another, so as to
heighten the effect. But, as already stated, there are systematists who
would raise this genus, which contains some 15 species, to the rank
of a distinct Family, though on what grounds it is as yet hard to say.

Of the other subfamilies, Savicolinw, Sylviine and Phylloscopine
will be conveniently treated under WHEATEAR, WHITETHROAT and
WILLOW-WREN, while the Ruticilline have been already mentioned
under NIGHTINGALE, REDBREAST and REDSTART, and the Accen-
torine under HEDGE-SPARROW (p. 895).}

II. The birds known as ‘“ AMERICAN WARBLERS,” forming what
has now been long recognized as a distinct Family,? Mniotiltide,
remain for consideration. They possess but nine instead of ten
primaries, and are peculiar to the New World. More than 130
species have been described, and these have been grouped in 20
genera or more, of which members of all but three are at least
summer visitants to North America. As a whole they are
much more brightly coloured than the Sylviide (Malurus, if it
belongs to them, always excepted); for, though the particular
genus Mniotilta (from which, as the fortune of nomenclature will
have it, the Family takes its right name)*® is one of the most

1 It is to be hoped that before long some competent ornithologist will take on
himself the task, necessary if toilsome and perhaps ungrateful, of revising the
work that has lately been done in regard to these birds and the Thrushes, and,
setting aside all preconceived notions, fixing the limits of the Family or Families,
if Families they be, and at the same time adjust the relations of the hitherto
indefinite group of Timelias. :

2? Some American authors have called the Family ‘‘ Wood-Warblers”, an
inappropriate name, and inconvenient since it has long since been specialized
in England.

% By some writers the Family is called Sylvicolidx, a practice which contra-
venes ordinary usage, since the name SyZvicola was preoccupied in conchology.

—

WARBLER 1023

abnormal—its colours being plain black and white, and its habits
rather resembling those of a TREE-CREEPER—in other groups chest-
nut, bluish-grey and green appear, the last varying from an olive
to a saffron tint, and in some groups the yellow predominates to an
extent that has gained for its wearers, belonging to the genus
Dendreca, the name of “Golden” Warblers. In the genus Seto-
phaga, the members of which deserve to be called “ Fly-catching”
Warblers, the plumage of the males at least presents yellow, orange,
scarlet or crimson, and recalls the Repsrarts of the Old World.
Dr. Coues (Key NV. Am. Birds, ed. 2, p. 288), following on the whole
the arrangement of Baird, Brewer and Ridgway (NV. Am. birds, 1.
p. 178), separates the Family (for which he wrongly retains the
name Sylvicolidx) into three subfamilies, Sylvicoline (= Mniotiltine),
Icteriine. and Setophagine, grouping the genera Mniotilta, Parula and

DENDRECA, MNIOTILTA. SETOPHAGA.
(After Swainson.)

Peucedromus as “Creeping Warblers”; Geothlypis, Oporornis and
Siurus as “Ground-Warblers” ; Protonotaria, Helminthotherus and
Helminthophila as “ Worm-eating Warblers” ; Setophaga, Cardellina
and Myiodioctes as “Fly-catching Warblers” ; Jcteria (CHAT, p. 85),
which perhaps may not belong to the Family, standing alone; and
Dendreca as “ Wood-Warblers.” 4

The Mniotiltidx contain forms exhibiting quite as many diverse
modes of life as do the Syiviide. Some are exclusively aquatic in
their predilections, others affect dry soils, brushwood, forests and
soon. Almost all the genera are essentially migratory, but a large
proportion of the species of Dendraca, Setophaga and especially
Basileuterus, seem never to leave their Neotropical home ; while the
genera Leucopeza, Teretristis and Microligia, comprising in all but 5
species, are peculiar to the Antilles. The rest are for the most part
natives of North America, where a few attain a very high latitude,”

1 In 1887 Mr. Ridgway (Man. N. Am. B. pp. 480-532) recognized 20 genera
as belonging to the United States, while another comes very near their southern
boundary, but he made no attempt to separate subfamilies.

2 Seven species have been recorded as wandering to Greenland, and one,
Dendreca virens, is said to have occurred in Europe (Nawmannia, 1858, p. 425) ;
Gitke, Vogelwarte Helgoland, p. 326; Eng, trans. p. 315,

1024 WARE-GOOSE—WATTLE-BIRD

penetrating in summer even beyond the Arctic Circle, and thence
migrate southward at the end of summer or in the fall of the year,
some reaching Peru and Brazil, but a few, as, for instance, Parula
pitiayumi and Geothlypis velata seem to be resident in the country
last named.

WARE-GOOSE, a name for the BRENT Goose (pp. 57, 375)—
“ware” being a local term for some kind of seaweed.

WARIANGLE and WIERANGLE (with other variations of
spelling) O.H.G. Werkengel, mod. Germ. Wiirgengel and /Viirger (the
Worrier or Throttler) an obsolete name for the Great Ash-coloured
SHRIKE (p. 844, note; of. Cotgrave, 1611, sub voce. “ Engrouée,”
“Escrire” and “ Pie”).+

WARWINCKLE, used in 1633, by Simon Latham (Faulconry, ii.
p. 144), apparently for a Pied WacratL (p. 1018), as certainly are

WASHDISH and WASHTAIL (Holinshed, Deser. Engl. chap.
li. ed. 1586, p. 223): the former very frequently with the prefix
“Molly” or “Polly,” according to the common custom of nick-
naming favourite birds.

WASKITE,? given, with the description “from Virginia,” in 1655
by Izaak Walton (Compleat Angler, ed. 2. p. 18) as the name of a
Hawk in Falconry, but otherwise unknown.

WATCHY-PICKET, a Creole name in Jamaica for Icterus
leucopteryz (Sloane, Voy. Jam. i1. pp. 299, 300 ; Gosse, B. Jam. p. 226).

WATER., a prefix to the name of many birds, especially to
some of the fullidx: thus Water-cock is Gallicrex cinerea or cristata
(Jerdon, Bb. Ind. ii. p. 718), Water-hen, a very common equivalent
of Moor-HEN (p. 589), Water-Partridge is Porzana concolor (Gosse, B.
Jam. p. 369, and we have Water-RAIL (p. 763); while Water-Crow
and -OUSEL (p. 677) are Scottish and English names for Cinclus
aquaticus ; the Water-Thrush of the English in North America is
Sturus noveboracensis, one of the Mniotiltide (WARBLER, p. 1019), and
the Water-Turkey is Plotus anhinga (SNAKE-BIRD, p. 880).

WATTLE-BIRD, the name given by Cook’s people to a species
they found during his second voyage in New Zealand (G. Forster,
Voy. i. p. 148), and adopted in 1781 by both Pennant (Gen. B. ed.
2, p. 9) and Latham (Gen. Synops. i. p. 364, pl. xiv.) for what they
rightly considered a new genus, which was technically termed in

1 In the copy of Belon’s Portraits before mentioned (pp. 680, 913 notes) the
figure of Lantus excubitor is named WARRIANGLE.

2 The Century Dictionary (1891) includes the word ‘‘ Waspkite” explained as
Pernis apivorus (Honey-Buzzarp, p. 67), but no authority is cited for it, nor
does such a name seem to be known in England. There is no bird like it in
Amcrica.

WATTLE-BIRD 1025

1788 by J. R. Forster (Hnchiridion, p. 35) Callwas, and by Gmelin
(Syst. Nat. i. p. 363) Glaucopis.1 The Kokako of the Maories, it is
now commonly known as the Wattle-Crow, and two species are
recognized—the original C. or G. cinerea, belonging to the South
Island, and the C. or G. wilsoni, which represents it in the North,
almost the sole
difference between
them being the
colour of the bare
lobes or wattles
that depend from
the gape, which
in the latter are
wholly blue, but
in the former blue
at the base only,
the rest being
orange. The genus is usually placed in the Corvidx, but its fringed
and ciliated tongue, which was duly noticed by the elder Forster,
and is figured, though very indistinctly, by Latham, tends to throw
doubt upon that assignment ; yet Dr. Gadow finds (cf. Buller, B. New
Zeal. ed. 2, p. 4) that osteologically it is one of the Austrocoraces
or Noto-Coracomorphe (cf. BIRD-OF-PARADISE, page 39, note ; GYMNO-
RHINA, page 403; and SHRIKE, page 846, note). Both birds are
about as big asa Jay, of a dark ash-colour, inclining to brown beneath
and on the lower part of the back, and have the face black. They
feed mostly on berries, and are very locally distributed. The males,
in each species said to be smaller than the females, have loud and
varied notes, one of them of great depth and richness.

The Wattle-birds of Australia and Tasmania belong to a very
different group, the Meliphagide (HONEY-EATER). The first of them
was discovered at Port Jackson, 17th April 1788, and was de-
scribed in 1789 by Phillip (bot. Bay, p. 164), as also in the next
year by John White (Voy. New South Wales, p. 144), as a Bee-eater,
receiving from Latham the name of Merops carunculatus. It is now
the Anthochxra carunculata of ornithology, and is widely distributed in
Australia, having a comparatively short red wattle hanging below the
eye, while a second species, .4. inauris, is peculiar to Tasmania, and has
a much longer pendant, white at the root deepening into orange.
These birds are among the largest of the Meliphagidx, and have a
very inconspicuous plumage of dull brown streaked with white..
Allied to them are two other genera, Acanthogenys with a single
species, and Anellobium with two, the members of which are often

CattzHas. (After Buller.)

1 Forster’s preface is dated 15th February, Gmelin’s 16th March. One can-
not but wish that priority of publication rests with the former, as one of the
discoverers of the bird.

65

1026 WAVE V—WAX WING

called Wattle-birds though not possessing any appendage to justify
the name (cf. Gould, Hand. b. Austral. i. pp. 534-544 ; Gadow,
Cat. B. Br. Mus. ix. pp. 262-266), while the rare and apparently
extinct Chetoptila angustipluma of Hawaii, though from a locality so
far off, wonld seem to be near of kin (cf. Wilson and Evans, B.

Sandw. Isl.).

WAVEY, a name long used by the residents in the Hudson’s
Bay Territory, apparently for any species of Wild Goosk (p. 374),
but especially for those of the genus Chen (Hearne, Journey, p. 442).

WAXBILL, the name in use in Edwards’s time (1751) for the
well-known little cage-bird, the Loxia astrild of Linnxus and Estrilda
astrild of modern ornithology, one of the Ploceide (WEAVER-BIRD),
but also applied to several other species, more or less allied, which
have the bill like sealing-wax, though they are placed by Dr. Sharpe
(Cat. B. Br. Mus, xiii.) in almost as many distinct genera.

WAXWING, apparently first so-called by Stephens in 1817
(Gen. Zool. x. 420), having been before known as the ‘Silk-tail ”
(Phil. Trans. 1685, p. 1161)—a literal
rendering of the German Sceidenschwanz
—or “Chatterer”—the prefix ‘‘German,”
“Bohemian” or “ Waxen” being often
also. apphed. Stephens’s convenient
name has now been generally adopted,
since the bird is readily distinguished
from almost all others by the curious expansion of the shaft of
some of its wing-feathers at the tip into a flake that looks like
scarlet sealing-wax, while its exceedingly silent habit makes the
name ‘‘CHATTERER ” wholly inappropriate (cf. page 85). It is the
Ampelis garrulus of Linnzus and of more recent ornithologists.!

The Waxwing is a bird that for many years excited vast in-
terest. An irregular winter-visitant, sometimes in countless hordes,
to the central and some parts of southern Europe, it was of old
time looked upon as the harbinger of war, plague, or death, and,
while its harmonious coloration and the grace of its form were
attractive, the curiosity with which its irregular appearances were

Waxwine. (After Swainson.)

1 Linneus had, as is well known, no conception of what is meant by the
modern idea of a ‘‘ type” ; but none can doubt that, if such a notion had been
entertained by him, he would have declared his type-species to be that to which
the name was first applied, viz. the present, and hence those systematists are
wrong who would remove this to a genus variously called Bombycilla, Bombict-
phora, or, most absurd of all, Bombicivora. The birds which ought to be re-
moved from his Ampelis are those which are now generally recognized as forming
a Family Cotingide (CHATTERER), allied to the Pipride (MANAKIN), and like
them peculiar to the Neotropical Fauna, in which they constitute a very natural
group (INTRODUCTION).

WAXWING 1027

regarded was enhanced by the mystery which enshrouded its birth-
place, and until the summer of 1856 defied the searching of any
explorer. In that’ year, however, all doubt was dispelled, through
the successful search in Lapland, organized by the late John
Wolley, as briefly described by him (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1857, pp. 55,
56, pl. exxii.).t In 1858 Mr. Dresser found a small settlement of
the species on an island in the Baltic near Uleaborg, and with his
own hands took a nest. It is now pretty evident that the Wax-
wing, though doubtless breeding yearly in some parts of northern
Europe, is as irregular in the choice of its summer-quarters as in
that of its winter-retreats. Moreover, the species exhibits the same
irregular habits in America. Mr. Drexler on one occasion, in
Nebraska, saw it in “millions.” In 1861 Kennicott found it breed-
ing on the Yukon, and later Mr. MacFarlane had the like good
fortune on the Anderson River.

Beautiful as is the bird with its drooping crest, its cinnamon-
brown plumage passing in parts into grey or chestnut, and relieved
by black, white and yellow—all of the purest tint—the external
feature which has invited most attention is the “sealing-wax”
which tips some of the secondary or cubital quills, and occasionally
those of the tail.2 This is nearly as much exhibited by the kindred
species, 4. cedrorum—the well-known CEDAR-BIRD of North America
—which is easily distinguished by its smaller size, less-black chin-
spot, the yellower tinge of the lower parts and the want of white
on the wings. In the 4. phenicoptera of south-eastern Siberia and
Japan the remiges and rectrices are tipped with red in the ordinary
way without dilatation of the shaft of the feathers,

Both the Waxwing and Cedar-bird seem to live chiefly on in-
sects in summer, but are greatly addicted to berries during the rest
of the year, and will gorge themselves if opportunity allow. Hence
they are not pleasant cage-birds, though quickly becoming tame.
The erratic habits of the Waxwing are probably due chiefly to the
supplies of food it may require, prompted also by the number of
mouths to be fed, for there is some reason to think that this varies
greatly from one year to another, according to season. ‘The flocks
which visit Britain and other countries outside the breeding-range of
the species naturally contain a very large proportion of young birds.®

1 A fuller account of his discovery, illustrated by Hewitson, is given in The
Ibis (1861, pp. 92-106, pl. iv.).

2 The structure of these appendages has been carefully described by Herr
Andersen (Gfvers. K. Vet.-Ak. Forhandl. 1859, pp. 219-231, pl. ii). Their
development seems chiefly due to age, though, as Wolley shewed, they are per-
ceptible in the nestlings. Mr. Turner states (Contr. Nat. Hist. Alaska, p. 177)
that the Eskimo name of the Waxwing means a ‘‘killer of small birds,” these
appendages being held to be “‘ the clotted blood of its victims” !

° The systematic position of the genus Ampelis is very doubtful. It can

1028 WEAVER-BIRD

WEAVER-BIRD, the name! by which a group of some 250
species is now usually called, from the elaborately interwoven
nests that many of them build, some of the structures being of the
most marvellous kind. By the older systematists such of these
birds as were then known were distributed among the genera
Oriolus, Loxia, Emberiza and Fringilla; and it was Cuvier who in
1817 first brought together the scattered forms, comprising them
in a genus Ploceus. Others were subsequently referred to its

SYCOBROTUS. PLOCEus.
(After Swainson.)
neighbourhood, and especially the genus /idua (WIDOW-BIRD) with
its allies, so as to make of them a subfamily Ploceinx, which in
1847 was raised by Prof. Cabanis to the rank of a Family Ploceide,
equivalent to that of Fringillide (FINCH) in which they had been
included, on the ground that the Finches have but nine primary
quills in their wing, while the Weaver-birds have ten. Following
Sundevall, Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xiii. pp. 198-511) divides
the Ploceide into two subfamilies—Viduine (with 42 genera and

PYRENESTES, : PYROMELENA.
(After Swainson.)

156 species) having the outermost primary very short, and Ploceine
(with 20 genera and 92 species) in which it is large—a_ proceeding
that is confessedly artificial and not to be recommended, since it
obscures the very natural group of Viduine proper by associating

hardly be said to have any near ally, for neither of the Neotropical and Antil-
lean genera, Ptilogonys and Myiodectes (often erroneously spelt Myiadestes), can
as yet be safely declared of kin to it, as has been alleged.

1 First bestowed in this form apparently by Stephens in 1826 (Gen. Zool. xiv.
p- 34); but in 1782 Latham (Synopsis, 1. p. 435) had called the ‘‘ Zroupiale du
Sénégal” of Buffon the ‘‘ Weever Oriolo,” from its habit of entwining the wires
of the cage in which it was kept with such vegetable fibres as it could get, and
hence in 1788 Gmelin named it Oriolus textor, In 1800 Daudin used the term
“* Tisserin” for several species of the Linnean genus Loxia, and this was adopted
some years later by Cuvier as the equivalent of his Ploceus, as mentioned in the text.

WEAVER-BIRD 1029

with them a promiscuous company far better left as it was by Gray
and others in a distinct group as Spermestinw, or more correctly
Estrildine, composite though this group may be and requiring the
separation of its Australian members, Donacilda and Poophila, known
as Grass-Finches and certainly not true Viduxw, to say nothing of
others often included with Lstri/dinx, but apparently not belonging
to them, as Pyrenestes and Euplectes or Pyromelxna, which seem
closely to approach Ploceus and Symplectes or Sycobrotus.

Where so many forms are concerned, only a few of the most im-
portant can now be mentioned. The type of Cuvier’s genus is’
certainly the Loxia philippina of Linnzeus, so termed from the islands
whence it was received but to which it is not indigenous. But the
typical Weaver-bird of Latham (not that he had the name in that
precise form) is the Hyphantornis cucullata or textor of modern writers,
an African species, and it is to the Ethiopian Region that by far
the greatest number of these birds belong, while in it they seem to
attain their maximum of development. They are all small, with,
generally speaking, a Sparrow-like build ; but in richness of colour-
ing the males of some are very conspicuous—glowing in crimson,
scarlet or golden-yellow, set off by jet-black, while the females are
usually dull in hue. Some species build nests that are not very
remarkable, except in being almost invariably domed—others (such
as the Ploceus philippinus just named, or P. baya as some call it)
fabricate singular structures! of closely and uniformly interwoven
tendrils or fine roots, that hang from the bough of a tree often over
water, and, starting with a solidly-wrought rope, open out into a
globular chamber, and then contract into a perpendicular tube
several inches in length, through which the birds effect their exit
and entrance. But the most wonderful nests of all, and indeed the
most wonderful built by birds, are those of the so-called Sociable
Grosbeak, Philhetxrus socius, of Africa. They are composed wholly
of grass, and are joined together to the number of 100 or 200—
indeed 320 are said to have been found in one of these aggregated
masses, which usually take the form of a gigantic mushroom,”
affording a home and nursery to many pairs of the birds which
have been at the trouble of building it. These nests, however,
have been so often described and figured by South-African travellers
that there is no need here to dilate longer on their marvels. It
may be added that this species of Weaver-bird, known to French
writers as the Républicain, is of exceptionally dull plumage.

1 These differ from those built by some of the OrroLEs and other birds, whose
nests may be compared to pensile pockets, while those of these Weaver-birds can
best be likened to a stocking hung up by the ‘‘toe,” with the “‘heel” enlarged
to receive the eggs, while access and exit are obtained through the ‘‘leg.”

2 But at a distance they may often be mistaken for a native hut, with its
grass-roof,

1030 WEAVER-BIRD

The group of Widow-birds,! Vidwine, is remarkable for the
extraordinary growth of the tail-feathers in the males at the breed-
ing-season. In the largest species, Vidua or Chera procne, the cock-
bird, which, with the exception of a scarlet
and buff bar on the upper wing-coverts, is
wholly black, there is simply a great elonga-
tion of the rectrices, and the same obtains in
Coliopasser or Penthetria which is now generic-
ally separated ; but in /. paradisea the form of
the tail is quite unique. The middle pair of
feathers have the webs greatly widened, and
through the twisting of the shafts their in-
ferior surfaces are vertically opposed. These
feathers are comparatively short, and end in a
<\, hair-like filament. The next pair are produced
to the length of about a foot—the bird not
being so big as a Sparrow—and droop grace-
fully in the form of a sickle. But this is not
all: each has attached to its base a hair-like
filament of the same length as the feather, and
this filament originally adhered to and ran along the margin of
the outer web, only becoming detached when the feather is full
grown.” In another species, . principalis, the two middle pairs of
rectrices are equally elongated, but their webs are convex, and the
outer paircontains the inner,
so that when the margins of
the two pairs are applied a
sort of cylinder is formed.®
The females of all the
Widow-birds differ greatly
in appearance from the
males, and are generally clothed in a plumage of mottled brown.

The vast group of small seed-eating forms that make up the true
Estrildine comprehend the numerous species so commonly seen in
cages, and known as AMADAVATS, Cowry or NUTMEG-BIRDS; WAX-
BILLS, CUTTHROATS, Amadina fasciata, the JAVA SPARROW and

CHERA PROCNE.
(After Swainson.)

VIDUA PRINCIPALIS. PENTHETRIA ARDENS,
(After Swainson.)

It has been ingeniously suggested that this name should he more correctly
written Whydah bird—from the place on the West Coast of Africa so named ;
but Edwards, who in 1745 figured one of the species, states that he was informed
that ‘‘the Portuguese call this bird the Widow, from its Colour and long Train”
(Nat. Hist. Birds, i. p. 86).

2 This curious structure was long ago described by Brisson (Orn. iii. p. 123),
and again more fully by Strickland (Contr. Orn. 1850, pp. 88 and 149, pl. 59).

% Both these species seem to have heen first described and figured in 1600 by
Aldrovandus (lib. xv. capp. 22, 23) from pictures sent to him by Ferdinando de’
Medici, duke of Tuscany.

WEETWEET—WEKA 1031

many more than can here be named. Some of these genera are
common to Africa and India, and some are imputed also to Australia,
but the last seems to have several genera peculiar to itself, the true
affinity of which requires further investigation.!

WEETWEET, a name in North America for the Spotted SAND-
PIPER, Actitis macularia.

WEKA, the Maori name, accepted in English, of some flightless
New-Zealand RaI1s, the first known of which was found, in March
1773, by Cook’s people on his second voyage (i. p. 97) to abound
on the shore of Dusky Bay, and was called by them ‘ Wood-hen.”
In 1785 Latham (Gen. Synops. iti. p. 229) published a description
of it as the Troglodyte Rail, and it was in 1788 scientifically
designated Rallus troglodytes by Gmelin.” In 1830 Wagler (Nat. Syst.
Amphib. u. s.w. p. 98) made it the type of a separate genus Ocydromus.

Wexka. (From Buller.)

Sir W. Buller (B. WV. Zeal. ed. 1, p. 174; ed. 2, ii. p. 113) declares
there can be no doubt as to this species being that which, nearly
60 years after, Du Bus (£sy. Orn. pl. 11) figured and described as
Gallirallus fuscus,? a specific term that has generally been preferred,
in the belief that the /. troglodytes was identical with the f. australis,
figured and described in 1784 by Sparrman * (Aus. Carlson. i. no. 14);
but the two birds appear to be distinct, both in coloration (though
this in each is variable) and habit—the former frequenting the sea-

1 A Monograph of the Weaver-Birds by Mr. Edward Bartlett was begun in 1888,
but unfortunately remains unfinished.

2 Aname given byJ. R. Forster, from whom Latham states that his information
was derived. To the shame of English authorities Forster’s manuscript was not
published until 1840.

3 In the meanwhile it had received another name,. G. brachypterus, from
Lafresnaye (Rev. Zool. 1841, p. 243 ; Mag. de. Zool. 1842, pl. 24) the type of which
has been examined by Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxiii. p. 67).

4 What Sparrman’s bird was may yet be open to doubt. His localities are
not trustworthy, and his specimen differed, by its yellow legs, from all other
known Ocydromi.

1032 WEKA

shore (whence one of its names—Kelp-hen) and feeding chiefly
on shell-fish and other marine products, while that which is
commonly identified with the latter ranges widely through the
interior of the South Island of New Zealand—examples from
the western side of the Alps being however apparently distinguish-
able by wanting the barred flanks, and in that respect resembling
another form which inhabits the North Island, and is, according
to Sir W. Buller who named it 0. greyi, peculiar thereto.t That
these three or four forms should be justly considered good species
is very probable; but that more species should exist in New
Zealand seems unlikely. What was presumably an Ocydromus, and
if so was doubtless a distinct species, inhabited Norfolk Island,
when discovered by Cook (uf supré, ii. p. 148), but it must have been
long extinct, and no specimen is known to exist.” Another species,
O. sylvestris, smaller and lighter in colour than any we now have,
was found in 1869 to linger yet in Lord Howe Island (Proc. Zool. Soc.
1869, p. 472, pl. xxxv.), where the existence of such a bird was long
ago known, and the remains of a few individuals are preserved in
collections.? A remarkable form from New Caledonia, originally
described as Gallirallus lafresnayanus, was referred by Mr. Sclater

1 It was for some time called O. earli, the name under which Dr. Sharpe
(tom. cit. p. 66) still has it, but Sir Walter (B. NV. Zeal. ed. 2, ii. p. 105) states
that the type of that form (Jb7/s, 1862, p. 238) agrees with some specimens from
the South Island, and he recognizes it as a distinct species. He also admits an
O. brachypterus which is certainly not that of Lafresnaye, and if distinct should
probably be called O. hectori. An extinct species has been indicated by Mr. H. 0.
Forbes (Tr. NV. Z. Inst. 1892, p. 188) from the Chatham Islands.

2 The subject of Sparrman’s figure, above mentioned, may possibly have been
from this island, the birds of which were distinguished by their bright colouring
(cf. NESTOR, p. 628).

3 It has lately been referred by Dr. Sharpe, though its affinity is not explained,
to the genus Cabalus, the type of which is Radlws modestus, a small species
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxiii.
p- 331, pl. vi.) perhaps
still surviving on one of
the Chatham Islands,
which some ornitholo-
gists have refused to
acknowledge, holding it
to be the young of R.
dieffenbachi (itself also

AQ" referred occasionally to
\ \\\ \ Ocydromus, but being
apparently a modified
Hypotenidia), known
from the unique specimen in the British Museum; but the judgment of its
original describer, Capt. Hutton, is now admitted, and should never have been
doubted after his full account of it (Zbis, 1873, pp. 849-352).

RALLUS DIEFFENBACHI. (From Buller.)

WET-M Y-FOOT—WHA UP 1033

(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869, p. 431) to Ocydromus, and has certainly some
resemblance thereto (¢f. Layard, bis, 1882, p. 535). Subsequently
placed by Gray in Lulabeornis (Brenchley, Cruise of the ‘ Curacoa,’
pl. xxi.), Dr. Sharpe has more recently proposed for it a distinct genus
Tricholimnas. Akin to Ocydromus must have been Diaphorapteryz, a
recently extinct form made known by Mr. H. O. Forbes from one
of the Chatham Islands, where its bones were found in plenty.
He at first referred it to the Mauritian genus Aphanapteryx
(EXTERMINATION, p. 217), but subsequently (Nature, xlv. p. 416)
separated it therefrom, a course which has been justified by Prof.
Milne-Edwards (Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 8, ii. pp. 117-136, pls. xi.-xv.),?
and Mr. Andrews (Novit. Zool. 1896, pp. 73-84, pl. iii.).2 There is
a curious analogy between the two forms, but the latter, which was
mentioned by Herbert, and is the Poule rouge of some of the old
writers, had a slender head, a long bill, and tall, thin legs, while the
head of Diaphorapteryx is large, and its bill and legs shorter and
stouter in comparison, so that the appearance of the two birds must
have been very unlike.

The chief interest attaching to the Ocydromes is their inability
to use in flight the wings with which they are furnished, and hence
an extreme probability of the form becoming wholly extinct in a
short time.*? It is to be hoped that the naturalists of New Zealand
will not allow this to happen if any effectual means can be taken to
perpetuate it; but, should that fate be inevitable, it at least behoves
the present generation to see that every possible piece of information
concerning the birds be recorded, and every possible preparation
illustrating their structure be made, while yet there is time ; for,
though much has been written on the subject, it is obvious from
one of the latest papers (Trans. N. Z. Inst. x. p. 213) that there is
still more to be learned, some of which may throw further light on
the affinities of the extinct genus Aptornis (pages 286, 592, note).

WET-MY-FOOT, or -LIPS, names for the QuAIL (page 754), in
imitation of its call-note.

WHALE-BIRD, a sailors’ name for PETRELS of the genus
PRION (pages 34, 742).

WHAUP, formerly Quhaip, Dutch /Vulp, the common name in
Scotland for the Long-billed CURLEW, and there accounted “uncanny”
or a bird of ill-omen.*

1 This memoir was read to the Zoological Congress at Leyden, Sept. 1895.

2 I wholly concur in the general conclusions reached by this gentleman, based
as they are on those of Dr. Gadow (Thier-retch, Vogel, ii. p. 101).

3 Of this inability there are other instances among the Rallidx (see Moor-HEN,
p- 590) ; but here we have coupled with it the curious fact that in the skeleton
the angle which the scapula makes with the coracoid is greater than a right angle,
a peculiarity shared only, so far as is known, among the Carinatz by the Dovo.

4 The call of the Whaup brings melancholy associations to many people, who,

1034 WHEATEAR

WHEATEAR, as a bird’s name perhaps of doubtful meaning,!
though Taylor, the “ water poet” (0). 1654), in whose writings it
seems first to occur, and Willughby explain it (in the words of Ray,
the latter’s translator) as given “because [in] the time of wheat
harvest they wax very fat.”?

The Wheatear, the Saxicola cnanthe of ornithologists, is one of
the earliest migrants of its kind to return to its home, often reach-
ing England at the end of February and almost always by the
middle of March. The cock with his bluish-grey back and light
buff breast, set off by black ear coverts, wings and part of the tail,
is rendered still more conspicuous by his white rump as he takes
short flights in-front of those who disturb him, while his sprightly
actions and gay song harmonize so well with his delicately-tinted
plumage as to render him a welcome object to all who delight in
an open country. When alarmed both sexes have a sharp mono-
syllabic note that sounds like chat; and this has not only entered
into some of the local names of this species and of its allies, but has
caused all to be spoken of as Coats. ‘The nest is constantly placed
under ground ; the bird taking advantage of the hole of some other

if they are imaginative, are apt to ascribe the same feelings to the bird that utters
it. Thus we have writers finding in it a resemblance to “the wail of a lost
spirit ””—that being presumably a sound with which they are acquainted. One
author terms Curlews ‘‘ Plaintive creatures who pity themselves on moorlands ”
—a pretty poetic fancy maybe, but sheer nonsense as every naturalist knows.
Given the moorland, the Whaup leads a happy life ; without it, he would have
good reason to pity himself. The unsuspecting traveller no doubt may be
occasionally startled at the sudden and loud cry, especially at night when the
bird is invisible, and this species is probably in many instances the cause of
the widely-spread belief, if one may so call it, in the mysterious ‘‘ Seven
Whistlers,” though the Golden Plover, and perhaps other night-flying Limicole
oN MIGRATION (pages 571, 572) may contribute to the consternation of the
listener.

1 The supposition that it is an euphemism of an Anglo-Saxon name (cf.
Bennett’s ed. of White’s Nat. Hist. Selb. p. 69, note) must be rejected until it be
shewn that such a name ever existed. It is true that ‘‘ Whittaile” (cf Dutch
Witstaart and French Culblanc) is given by Cotgrave in 1611; but the older
names, according to Turner, in 1544, of ‘‘ Clotburd ” (=Clod-bird) and “‘Smatch”
(=Chat) do not point in that direction. ‘‘Fallow-chat” is another old name
still locally in use, as is ‘‘ Coney-chuck.”

* It would seem also from this author to have been originally the local name
for the species in Sussex, on the South Downs of which county its capture in a
very simple kind of trap has been the occupation of many generations of shepherds,
who thereby have made an excellent trade, since Wheatears in their proper
season, from the end of July till towards the end of September, are justly
esteemed for the table and fetch a price that for many years has been continually
rising owing to the failing supply, which is chiefly due to the bringing under
tillage of so much of the sheep-walk, heath, down and other open country that
was formerly in a natural condition.

WHEATEAR 1035

animal, the shelter of a clod in a fallow-field, or a recess beneath a
rock. <A large amount of soft bedding is therein collected, and on
it from 5 to 8 pale blue eggs are laid. The Wheatear has a
very wide range throughout the Old World, extending in summer
far within the Arctic Circle, from Norway to the Lena and Yana
valleys, while it winters in Africa beyond the Equator, and in
India. But it also breeds regularly in Greenland and some parts
of North America. Its reaching the former and the eastern coast of
the latter, as well as the Bermudas, may possibly be explained by the
drifting of individuals from Iceland ; but far more interesting is the
fact of its continued seasonal appearance in Alaska without ever
shewing itself in British Columbia or California, and without ever
having been observed in Kamchatka, Japan or China, though it is
a summer resident in the Tchuktchi peninsula. Hence it would
seem as though its annual flights across Bering’s Strait must be in
connexion with a migratory movement that passes to the north and
west of the Stanovoi mountains, for Mr. Nelson’s suggestion (Cruise
of the ‘Corwen, pp. 59, 60) of a north-west passage from Boothia
Felix, where Ross observed it, is less hkely.?

More than 60 other species more or less allied to the Wheatear
have been described,” but probably so many do not really exist.
Some 8 are included in the European fauna; but the majority are
inhabitants of Africa. Several of them are birds of the desert ;
and here it may be remarked that, while most of these exhibit the
sand-coloured tints so commonly found in animals of like habitat, a
few assume a black plumage, which, as explained by Canon Tristram,
is equally protective, since it assimilates them to the deep shadows
cast by projecting stones and other inequalities of the surface.

Of genera allied to, and by some writers included in, Sazicola
there is only need here to mention Praticola, which comprises
among others two well-known British birds, the STONECHAT and
Wurncuat, P. rubicola and P. rubetra.

MYIOMOIRA.

(From Buller.)

Placed near these forms by most systematists is the group con-
taining the Australian genus Petrwca, containing about a dozen

1 See Dr. Stejneger’s observations in his ‘‘ Ornithological Exploration of
Kamtschatka,” (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 29, pp. 349-351), and those of Prof,
Palmén (Vega-Exped. Vetensk. Iakttag. v. pp. 260-262).

2 Of, Blanford and Dresser (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, pp. 213-241).

1036 WHEW—-WHITEHEAD

species,—the “ Robins” of the colonists, some of them remarkable
for their bright plumage ; and possibly allied to them, as indeed is
generally thought, with 5 or 6 species peculiar to New Zealand,
are the genera Miro and Myiomoira. But the late Prof. Parker
(Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 152) saw in the osteology of the first inferior
characters which appeared to separate them from their presumed
colleagues, and he termed them “Struthious Warblers.” Like so
many other forms from the same countries, they probably preserve
the more generalized structure of earlier and lower types, and
should possibly be distinguished as a separate subfamily Petrwcine.

All the birds above mentioned form the group Saaicoline of
most authors. -Some, however, raise them to the rank of a distinct
Family Sazicolide (cf. WARBLER, p. 1019); and Dr. Sharpe (Cat.
B. Brit. Mus. iv. pp. 164-199) has placed Petreca and Praticola in
the Family Muscicapide (FLYCATCHER).

WHEW or WHEWER, common names of the WIGEON from its
call-note.

WHIMBREL, “the bird that keeps on uttering a cry imitated by
whim” (Skeat, Trans. Philolog. Soc. 1888-90, p. 22),—a name made
known to Willughby as being used at the mouth of the Tees, and
generally adopted in English for Numenius pheopus (CURLEW,
page 128).

WHIN-CHAT, the Motacilla, Sazxicola or Praticola rubetra of
ornithology, a well-known summer-visitant to this country, in many
parts of which it is common, and from its call-note named Utick.
It has much of the habit of the STONE-CHAT, especially in perching
upon whin-bushes, though more affecting enclosed lands and fields
reserved for hay ; but, unlike that bird, it has no very near ally.
As a species it has an extensive range, reaching India and generally
wintering in Africa almost under or perhaps beyond the Equator.
In spring the cock is very conspicuous with a white streak over the
eye and another on the side of the throat, his back being of a
mottled brown and his breast of a delicate buff colour.

WHIP-POOR-WILL, so named in North America from its ery.
One of the Caprimulgidxe (NIGHTJAR, page 640), Antrostomus vociferus.

WHIP-TOM-KELLY, see under Tom.

WHISKEY-JACK, apparently a ludicrous adaptation of the Cree
name ‘‘ Whiske-shawneesh” (Swains. and Richards. /. Bor.-Am. ii.

p- 295) of Dysornithia or Perisoreus canadensis, the common JAY (page
469) of Canada, occasionally visiting the United States in winter.

WHITE-EYE, see ZosTEROPS.

WHITEHEAD, the name in New Zealand for a little bird
peculiar to the North Island, and now verging on extinction, a

WHITE THROAT 1037

result, to be especially regretted since its affinities are undetermined.
Originally described as a Fringilla, it was next placed in the genus
Parus, and for a long while was supposed to belong to ORTHONYX
(page 658), a purely Australian form, but is now referred, with its
supposed representative in the South Island
(YELLOWHEAD), to a distinct genus Clitonyz,
which the late Mr. W. A. Forbes (Proc. Zool.
Soc. 1882, pp. 544-546) ascertained to be
“nerfectly Oscinine.” The Whitehead, C. albi-
capilla, from being one of the commonest is
now one of the rarest species in its country,
and its diminution ending in its inevitable destruction seems due,
as Sir W. Buller (5. NV. Zeal. ed. 2,1. p. 55) suggests, to the intro-
duction of exotic birds, which, being morphologically higher and
constitutionally stronger, establish themselves at the expense of
the lower, weaker and earlier, but far more instructive native forms.

Ciironyx. (From Buller.)

WHITETHROAT, a name commonly given to two species of
little birds, one of which, the Motacilla silvia of Linneeus and Sylvia
rufa+ or S. cinerea of some recent authors, is regarded as the type,
not only of the genus Sylvia, but of the so-called family Sylviide
(WARBLER).

Very widely spread over Great Britain, in some places common,
and by its gesticulations and song rather conspicuous, it is one of
those birds which has gained a familiar nickname, and “ Peggy
Whitethroat ” is the anthropomorphic appellation of schoolboys and
milkmaids, though it shares “ Nettle-creeper” and other homely
names with perhaps more than one congener, while in books it is
by way of distinction the Greater Whitethroat. Its song, except
by association with the season at which it is uttered, can scarcely
be called agreeable, some of its notes being very harsh; but the
performer may be seen to be always in earnest, erecting the feathers
of his crown, puffing out those of his throat, shaking his wings
and making other rapid movements expressive of his feelings.
Occasionally he will deliver his song as he flies up in a peculiar
fashion, describing small circles in the air, stopping with a jerk,
and then returning to the spot whence he arose.

The Lesser Whitethroat, Sylvia curruca,? is both in habits and
plumage a much less sightly bird: the predominant reddish-brown
of the upper surface, and especially the rufous edging of the wing-
feathers, so distinctive of its larger congener, are wanting, and

1 This specific term has been often but inaccurately and absurdly used for a
very different bird, the Chiffchaff (cf [Willow] Wren). Its only proper applica-
tion is to the Whitethroat.

* This is not the curruca of ancient writers, that being almost certainly the
Hedge-Sparrow (page 895), in England the ordinary dupe of the Cuckow.

1038 WHITETHROAT -

the whole plumage above is of a smoky-grey, while the bird in its
movements is never obtrusive, and it rather shuns than courts
observation, generally keeping among the thickest foliage, whence
its rather monotonous song, uttered especially in sultry weather,
may be continually heard without a glimpse of the vocalist being
presented. The nests of each of these species are very pretty
works of art, firmly built of bents or other plant-stalks, and usually
lined with horsehair; but the sides and bottom are often so finely
woven as to be like open basket-work, and the eggs, splashed,
spotted or streaked with olive-brown, are frequently visible from
beneath through the interstices of the fabric. This style of nest-
building seems to be common to all the species of the genus Sylvia,
as now restricted, and in many districts has obtained for the builders
the name of “ Hay-Jack,” quite without reference to the kind of
bird which puts the nests together, and thus is also applied to the
BuLackcaP, 8. atricapilla, and the Garden-Warbler or PETTICHAPS.
All these four birds, as a rule, leave Great Britain at the end of
summer to winter in the south. Two other species, one certainly
belonging to the same genus, S. orphea, and the other, S. nisoria, a
somewhat aberrant form, have occurred two or three times in Great
Britain. The rest, numbering perhaps a dozen, must be passed
over.

Nearly allied to Sylvia is Melizophilus, which consists of two
species, one of them the curious Dartford Warbler of English
writers, J/. undatus or provincialis. This is on many accounts a
very interesting bird, for it is one of the few of its family that
winter in England,—a fact the more remarkable when it is known
to be migratory in most parts of the Continent. Its distribution
in England is very local, and chiefly confined to the southern
counties, where it has of late years become so scarce that its
extermination seems probable. It is a pretty little dark-coloured
bird, which here and there may be seen on furze-grown heaths
from Kent to Cornwall. In spasmodic gesticulations the cock
surpasses the Whitethroat; but these feats are almost confined to
the pairing season, and at other times of the year the bird’s habits
are retiring. For a species with wings so feebly formed it has a
wide range, inhabiting nearly all the countries of the Mediterranean
seaboard, from Palestine to the Strait of Gibraltar, and thence
along the west coast of Europe to the English Channel ; but every-
where else it seems to be very local.

This may be the most convenient place for noticing the small
group of Warblers belonging to the well-marked genus Hypolais,
which, though in general appearance and certain habits resembling
the Phylloscopi (| Willow] WrREN), would seem usually to have little
to do with those birds, and to be rather allied to the Sylviine,
if not to the Acrocephaline (WARBLER, page 1020). ‘They have a

WHITWALL—WIGEON 1039

remarkably loud song, and in consequence are highly valued on the
continent of Europe, where two species at least spend the summer.
One of them, H. icterina, has occurred more than once in the
British Islands, and their absence as regular visitors is to be re-
gretted. Among the minor characteristics of this little group is
one afforded by their eggs, which are of a deeper or paler brownish-
pink, spotted with purplish-black. Their nests are beautiful
structures, combining warmth with lightness in a way that cannot
be fully appreciated by any description.

A great number of other more or less allied forms, interesting
as they are in various ways, cannot for want of space be here
mentioned.

WHITWALL (spelling various), see WOODPECKER.

WHOOP, a local name for the BULLFINCH: WHOOPER, the
ordinary Wild Swan.

WHYDAH-BIRD, by mistake for Wipow-BIRD (see WEAVER-
BIRD).

WIDE-AWAKE, a seamen’s name for certain TERNS (page 957)
differing a good deal from the rest in habit and appearance—laying
but a single egg in their nest and being of a sooty colour above.
By some writers they have been placed in a distinct genus, Ony-
choprion, which Mr. Saunders (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, p. 666; Cat. B.
Br. Mus. xxv. p. 110) refuses to recognize, especially in view of
the connecting link afforded by the Sterna aleutica. They form, how-
ever, an easily recognized group—sS. lwnata, hitherto found only in the
Pacific Ocean, and S. anaxstheta and S. fuliginosa having a very wide
distribution within and near the tropics. These crowd at certain
seasons in innumerable multitude to certain suitable islands, where
they breed, and the wonderful assemblage at present known as
“Wide-awake fair” on the island of Ascension has been more
or less fully described from very ancient times. Dampier in his
voyage to New Holland in 1699 particularly described and figured
the Sooty Tern (Voyages, iii. p. 142), discriminating it from the
Noddy, from which it had not before been distinguished.

WIDOW-BIRD, see WEAVER-BIRD (p. 1030).

WIGEON (Fr. Vigeon, Lat. Vipio1), the Mareca penelope of modern
ornithology, one of the most abundant species of Ducks throughout
the greater part of Europe and northern Asia, reaching northern
Africa and India in winter. A good many pairs breed in the north
of Scotland ; but the nurseries of the vast numbers which resort in

1 Just as PicEon is from Pipio. Other French names, more or less local, are,
according to M. Rolland, Vignon, Vingeon, Wagne, Woinge, Wignet, Wuiot,
Vioux and Digeon. In some parts of England the small teasing flies, generally
called midges, are known as ‘‘ wigeons.”

1040 WILLET—WILLOW-BITER

autumn to the waters of temperate Europe are in Lapland or further
to the eastward. Comparatively few breed in Iceland.

Intermediate in size between the TEAL and the MALLARD, and
less showy in plumage than either, the drake Wigeon is a beautiful
bird, with the greater part of his bill blue, his forehead cream-colour,
his head and neck chestnut,! passing into pinkish-grey below and
above into lavender-grey, which last, produced by the transverse
undulations of fine black and white lines, extends over the back
and upper surface of the wings, except some of the coverts, which
are conspicuously white, and shews itself again on the flanks. The
wings are further ornamented by a glossy green speculum between
two black bars.; the tail is pointed and dark; the rest of the lower
parts is white. The female has the inconspicuous coloration
characteristic of her sex among most of the Freshwater-Ducks. In
habits the Wigeon differs not a little from most of the Anating. It
greatly affects tidal waters during the season of its southern stay,
and becomes the object of slaughter to hundreds of gunners on
the coasts of Britain and Holland; but, when it resorts to inland
localities, as it also does to some extent, it passes much of its time
in grazing, especially by day, on the pastures which surround the
lakes or moors that it selects.

The Wigeon occurs occasionally on the eastern coast of North
America, and frequently, it would seem, in Alaska. But the New
World has two allied species of its own. One of them, JZ. americana
(a freshly-killed example of which was once found in a London
market), inhabiting the northern part of that continent, and in
winter reaching Central America and the West Indian islands as
far as Trinidad, resembles its Old-World congener wholly in habits
and much in appearance. But in it the pale frontlet and the rich
chestnut are mingled into, as it were, a compromise of light warm
brown, the white wing-coverts are less extensive and nearly all the
plumage is subdued in tone. The other species JM. sibilatrix or
chiloensis, inhabits the.southern portion of South America and its
islands, from Chili on the west to the Falklands on the east, and is
easily recognized by its nearly white head, nape glossy with purple
and green and other differences.

WILLET, a name in North America originally given, from its
ery, to what is known in books as the Semipalmated Sandpiper,
Symphemia semipalmata, but by recent writers of that country applied
to all the Totaniny (SANDPIPER, page 811, note).

WILLOCK, one of the many names of the GUILLEMOT and
RAZOR-BILL.

WILLOW-BITER (corruptly Billy-biter), a local name of the
Blue TrrmousE (page 967): WILLOW-WREN, see WREN.

1 Hence come the additional local names ‘‘ Bald-pate”’ and ‘“ Red-head,”

WINDHOVER—WOOD-CHAT 1041

WINDHOVER, a common name for the KEsTREL (page 477).
WINDLESTRAW, a local name for the WHITETHROAT.
WINDPIPE, see TRACHEA ; but also, with

WIND-THRUSH, WINE-THRUSH (Germ. Wein-drossel) and
WINNARD, a name of the REDWING (page 777).

WING, see Carpus, CUBITALS, FLIGHT, HUMERUS, PRIMARIES,
Rapius, REMIGES and ULNA.

WIRE-BIRD, a PLoveER of the genus gialitis (KILLDEER, p.
482) peculiar to the island of St. Helena, on the arid plains of
which, more or less covered with “ wire-grass ” (Cynodon dactylon), it is
aresident. It is allied to and, until Mr. Harting (/Lis, 1873, pp. 266-
269, pl. ix.) shewed its distinctness, was confounded with 4’. pecuaria,
a species widely distributed in Africa. 4. sanctx-helene is however
the larger of the two, and like most birds peculiar to oceanic islands
has broader and comparatively shorter wings.

WITTE KRAAI (White Crow) and WITTE OOGJE (White-
eye), Dutch names adopted by colonists in South Africa for NEo-
PHRON percnopterus (page 621) and ZOSTEROPS capensis respectively.

WOBBLE, a bird so called by some of the early voyagers to
North America, and supposed to be the GARE-FOWL, but almost as
likely to refer to any other species of Alcidw which flutter their
wings. (Cf. Skeat, Etymol. Dict. sub wabble, another form of the
word.)

WONGA-WONGA, a large and fine PIGEON, Leucosarcia picata,
inhabiting the eastern part of Australia, which from its esculent
qualities would apparently be well worthy of domestication, if that
end could be attained, which is not improbable seeing that the
species will breed in confinement. It is said to feed mostly on the
ground on the seeds and fruit-stones that have fallen from the trees
among which it lives. Of a deep slaty-grey above, with a white
‘gorget bordered above and below by deep black, black triangular
spots on its white flanks, and buff lower tail coverts, to say nothing
of its pink bill and legs, it is rather a noble-looking bird.

WOOD-CHAT, a name for which no earlier use can be traced
than to Ray’s posthumous work (Synops. Meth. Av. p. 19) published
in 1713, when it is applied to a species of SHRIKE (p. 843), Lanius
auriculatus or rufus, which has since borne it, though how this bird,
being only a chance visitor to Britain, came to earn a distinctive
English name, and one so unmeaning, is not easily understood.*

1 Wald-Katze, is one of its German names. Ray may have rendered this
literally ‘‘ Wood-Cat,” and his Editor (Derham), or the printer, not knowing what
was intended, may have turned the last syllable into Chat.

66

1042 WOODCOCK

WOODCOCK (A.-S. Wude-coce, Wudu-coc and Wudu-snite), a
bird as much extolled for the table, on account of its flavour, as by
the sportsman, who, from its relative scarcity in regard to other
kinds of winged game, the uncertainty of its occurrence, as well as
the suddenness of its appearance and the irregularity of its flight,
thinks himself lucky when he has laid one low. Yet, under favour-
able conditions, large bags of Woodcocks are made in many parts
of Great Britain, and still larger in Iveland, though the numbers
are trifling compared with those that have fallen to the gun in
various parts of the European Continent, and especially in Albania
and Kpirus. In England of old time Woodcocks were taken in nets
and springes, and, though the former method of capture seems to
have been disused for many years, the latter was practised in some
places until nearly the middle of the present century (cf. Knox,
Game-birds and Wild Fowl, pp. 148-151) or even later.

The Woodcock is the Scolopax rusticula? of ornithology, and is
well enough known to need no minute description. Its long bill,
short legs and large eyes—suggestive of its nocturnal or crepuscular
habits—have often been the subject of remark, while its mottled
plumage of black, chestnut- and umber-brown, ashy-grey, buff and
shining white—the last being confined to the tip of the lower side
of the tail-quills, but the rest intermixed for the most part in
beautiful combination—could not be briefly described. Setting
aside the many extreme aberrations from the normal colouring
which examples of this species occasionally present (and some of
them are extremely curious, not to say beautiful), there is much
variation observable in the plumage of individuals, in some of which
the richer tints prevail while others exhibit a greyer coloration.®

1 In the legal sense of the word, however, Woodcocks are not ‘‘ game,” though
Acts of Parliament require a ‘‘ game licence” from those who would shoot them.

2 By Linneus, and many others, misspelt 7usticola: the correct form of Pliny
and the older writers seems to have been first restored in 1816 by Oken (Zoologie,
ii. p. 589).

3 This variation is often, but not always, accompanied by a variation in size
or at least in weight, which last is very great, though it seems to have been
exaggerated by some writers. <A friend who has had much experience told me
that the heaviest bird he ever knew weighed 16} oz., and the lightest 9 oz. and
a fraction. The paler birds are generally the larger, but the difference, whether
in bulk or tint, cannot be attributed to age, sex, season or, so far as can be ascer-
tained, to locality. It is, notwithstanding, a very common belief among sports-
men that there are two ‘‘species” of Woodcock, and many persons of experience
will have it that, beside the differences just named, the ‘‘little red Woodcock ”
invariably flies more sharply than the other. However, a sluggish behaviour is
not really associated with colour, though it may possibly be correlated with weight
—for it is quite conceivable that a fat bird will rise more slowly, when flushed,
than one which is in poor condition. It may suffice here to say that ornitho-
logists, some of whom have taken a vast amount of trouble about the matter, are

WOODCOCK 1043

Though there are probably few if any counties in the United
Kingdom in which the Woodcock does not almost yearly breed,
especially since a “close time” has been established by the legis-
lature, there can be no doubt that by far the greater number of
those shot in the British Islands have come from abroad,—mostly,
it is presumed, from Scandinavia. ‘These arrive.on the east coast
in autumn—generally about the middle of October—often in an
exhausted and impoverished state. Most of them seem to cross
the sea by night, and at that season it is a brutal practice for men
to go out in the morning and kill the helpless and almost starving
wanderers, who are often found seeking refuge in any shelter that
may present itself. If unmolested, however, they are soon rested,
pass inland, and, as would appear, in a short time recover their
condition. Their future destination seems to be greatly influenced by
the state of the weather. If cold or frost stop their supply of food
on the eastern side of Great Britain, they press onward and, letting
alone Ireland into which the immigrant stream is pretty constant,
often crowd into the extreme south-west, as Devonshire and Corn-
wall, and to the Isles of Scilly, while not a few betake themselves
to the unknown ocean, finding there doubtless a watery grave,
though instances are on record of examples having successfully
crossed the Atlantic and reaching Newfoundland, New Jersey and
Virginia. To return, however, to the Woodcocks which breed in
Britain, whose habits have been much more frequently observed
since the folly and cruelty of killing them in spring has been re-
cognized, and it may be hoped abandoned. Pairing takes place
very early in February and the eggs are laid often before the middle
of March. These are four in number, of a yellowish cream-colour
blotched and spotted with reddish-brown, and seldom take the
pyriform shape so common among those of Limicoline birds. The
nest—always made on the ground amid trees or underwood, and
usually near water or at least in a damp locality—is at first little
more than a slight hollow in the soil, but as incubation proceeds
‘dead leaves are collected around its margin until a considerable
mass is accumulated. During this season the male Woodcock
performs at twilight flights of a remarkable kind (Sone, p. 893),
repeating evening after ev ening (and it is believed at dawn also)

peasy unanimous in declaring against the existence of two ‘‘species” or even

‘races,’ and moreover in agrecing that the sex of the bird cannot be determined
from its plumage, though there are a few who believe that the young of the year
can be discriminated from the adults by having the outer web of the outer primary
marked with angular notches of a light colour, while the old birds have no trace
of this ‘‘vandyke” ornament. Careful dissections, weighings and measurings
seem to shew that the male varies most in size; on an average he is slightly
heavier than the female, yet some of the lightest birds have proved to be cocks.
Cf. Hoffmann’s Die Waldschnepfe, ed. 2, p. 35 (Stuttgart : 1887).

1044 WOODCOCK

precisely the same course, generally describing a triangle, the sides
of which may be a quarter of a mile long or more. On these
occasions the bird’s appearance on the wing is quite unlike that
which it presents when hurriedly flying after being flushed, and
though its speed is great the beats of the wings are steady and
slow. At intervals an extraordinary sound is produced, whether
from the throat of the bird, as is commonly averred, or from the
plumage is uncertain. To the present writer the sound seems to
defy description, though some hearers have tricd to syllable it.
This characteristic flight is in some parts of England called “ road-
ing,” and the track taken by the bird a “cock-road.”+ In England
in former times advantage was taken of this habit to catch the
simple performer in nets called ‘‘cock-shutts,” which were hung
between trees across the open glades or rides of a wood,? and in
many parts of the Continent it still is, or was till very lately, the
disgraceful habit of persons calling themselves sportsmen to lie in
wait and shoot the bird as he indulges in his measured love-flight.
A still more interesting matter in relation to the breeding of Wood-
cocks is the fact, asserted by several ancient writers, but for long
doubted if not disbelieved, and yet finally established on good
evidence, that the old birds transport their newly-hatched offspring,
presumably to places where food is more accessible. The young
are clasped between the thighs of the parent, whose legs hang down
during the operation, while the bill is to some extent, possibly only
at starting, brought into operation to assist in adjusting the load if
not in bearing it through the air.?

1 The etymology and consequently the correct spelling of these expressions
seem to be very uncertain. Some would derive the word from the French réder,
to rove or wander, but others connect it with the Scandinavian rode, an open
space in a wood (see Notes and Queries, ser. 5, ix. p. 214, and ser. 6, viii. pp.
523, 524). Looking to the regular routine followed by the bird, the natural
supposition would be that it is simply an application of the English word road ;
but of course natural suppositions are often wrong, and they always require the
support of evidence before acceptance.

2 There is an interesting passage, to which Lord Lilford kindly drew my atten-
tion, in George Owen’s Description of Penbrokshire, written in 1602 and printed in
1892 as No. 1 of the ‘Cymmrodorion Record Series’ (pp. 129, 180), shewing the
marvellous ‘‘plentie” of Woodcocks, from Michaelmas to Christmas, in that
county, where they were taken ‘‘in cock shoote tyme (as yt is tearmed) w° is
the twylight,” when ‘‘yt ys no strange thinge to take a hundred or sixe score in
one woodd in xxiiij°" houres,” and another MS. speaks of one wood having 13
cock-shots. In explanation of this abundance the great extent of forest which
then prevailed in England may be borne in mind. One can hardly doubt that
very many more Woodcocks were then bred here than we have any notion of at
present, while the birds would, as they now do, make in autumn for the western
part of the island. It is expressly stated by Owen that they were not reared in
Wales, for he says that the species is ‘‘not our countryeman borne.”

3 Cf. Harting, Zoologist, 1879, pp. 433-440, and Mr. Wolf's excellent illustra-

WOOD-DUCK—WOODPECKER 1045

The Woodcock inhabits suitable localities across the northern
part of the Old World, from Ireland to Japan, migrating southward
towards autumn. Asa species it is said to be resident in the Azores
and other Atlantic Islands; but it is not known to penetrate very
far into Africa during the winter, though in many parts of India
it is abundant during the cold weather, and reaches even Ceylon
and Tenasserim. The popular belief that Woodcocks live “by
suction” is perhaps hardly yet exploded; but those who have ob-
served them in confinement know that they have an almost insatiable
appetite for earthworms, which the birds seek by probing soft ground
with their highly sensitive and flexible bill! This fact seems to
have been first placed on record by Bowles,? who noticed it in the
royal aviary at San Hdefonso in Spain, and it has been corroborated
by other observers, and especially by Montagu, who discovered that
bread and milk made an excellent substitute for their ordinary food.

The eastern part of North America possesses a Woodcock, much
smaller than though generally (and especially in habits) similar to
that of the Old continent. It is the Scolopax minor of most authors ;
but, chiefly on account of its having the outer three primaries remark-
ably attenuated, it has been placed in a separate genus, Philohela.
In Java is found a distinct and curiously-coloured species, described
and figured many years ago by Horsfield (Z'rans. Linn. Soc. xiii. p.
191, and Zool. Res. pl.) as S. satwrata. To this Mr. Seebohm (Geogr.
Distr. Charadr. p. 506, pl.) referred the S. rosenbergi of Schlegel
_(Nederl. Tijds. Dierk. iv. p. 54) from New Guinea; but, as the
culpable destruction of the type-specimen of the former (during its
transfer from the old museum of the East India Company to the
British Museum) has made a comparison of the two impossible, the
identification can scarcely be said to be free from doubt. Another
species is S. rochusseni from the Moluccas, but this last, though
resembling the other Woodcocks in most of the characters which
distinguish them from the SNIPES, has like the latter the lower
part of the tibia bare of feathers.

WOOD-DUCK, 4x sponsa (page 171): WOOD-HEN (see
WEKA, page 1031): WOODLARK (pages 509, 510).

WOODPECKER, a bird that pecks or picks holes in wood, and
from this habit is commonly reputed to have its name; but since
it is in some parts of England also known as ‘ Woodspeight ”

tion. Sir R. Payne-Gallwey, in the ‘Badminton Library’ (Shooting, ii. p. 118,
note), states that he himself has witnessed the performance.

1 The pair of muscles said by Loche (Zxpl. Scient. de ? Algérie, ii. p. 293) to
exist in the maxilla, and presumably to direct the movement of the bill, do not
seem to have as yet been precisely described.

2 Introduccion a la Historia Natural y a la Geografia fisica de Espaiia, pp.
454, 455 (Madrid: 1775).

1946 WOODPECKER

(erroneously written ‘Woodspite”)—the latter syllable being
cognate with the German Specht and the French Epeiche, to say
nothing possibly of the Latin Picws—the vulgar explanation, seems
open to doubt.1 More than 300 species of Woodpecker have been
described, and they have been very variously grouped by systema-
tists; but all admit that they form a very natural Family Picidz.
Huxley (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 467) separated the Woodpeckers
still more under the name of Celeomorphx, and Prof. Parker (Trans.
R. Microsc. Soc. 1872, p. 219) raised them still higher as Sauro-
gnathe.? They are generally of bright particoloured plumage, in
which black, white, brown, olive, green, yellow, orange or scarlet
—the last conimonly visible on some part of the head—mingled in
varying proportions, and most often strongly contrasted with one
another, appear ; while the less conspicuous markings take the form
of bars, spangles, tear-drops, arrow-heads or scales. Woodpeckers
inhabit most parts of the world, with the exception of Madagascar
and the Australian Region, save Celebes and Flores ; but no member
of the group is recorded to have occurred in Egypt.

Of the three British species, the Green Woodpecker, Gecinus
viridis, though almost unknown in Scotland or Ireland, is the
commonest, frequenting wooded districts, and more often heard
than seen, its laughing cry (whence the name “ Yaffil” or “ Yaffle,”
by which it is in many parts known) and undulating flight afford
equally good means of recognition, even when it is not near enough
for its colours to be discerned. About the size of a Jay, its scarlet
crown and bright yellow rump, added to its prevailing grass-green
plumage, make it a sightly bird, and hence it often suffers at the
hands of those who wish to keep its stuffed skin as an ornament.
Beside the scarlet crown, the cock bird has a patch of the same
colour running backward from the base of the lower mandible, a
patch that in the hen is black. Woodpeckers in general are very

1 The number of English names, ancient and modern, by which these birds
are known is very great, and even a bare list of them could not be here given.
The Anglo-Saxon was Higera or Higere, and to this may plausibly be traced
‘“* Hickwall,” nowadays used in some parts of the country, and the older ‘‘ Hick-
way,” corrupted first into ‘‘ Highhaw,” and, after its original meaning was lost,
into ‘‘ Hewhole,” which in North America has been still further corrupted into
‘‘Highhole” and more recently into ‘‘ High-holder.” Another set of names in-
cludes “ Whetile”’ and ‘‘ Woodwale,” which, different as they look, have a common
derivation perceptible in the intermediate form “ Witwale.” The Anglo-Saxon
Wodake (=Woodhack) is another name apparently identical in meaning with
that commonly applied to Woodpecker (cf. Yarrell, Br. B. ed. 4, ii. pp. 461-463).

2 Cf. Shufeldt, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1891, pp. 122-129.

3 A patch of conspicuous colour, generally red, on this part is characteristic of
very many Woodpeckers, and careless writers often call it ‘‘mystacial,” or some
more barbarously “moustachial.” Seeing that moustaches spring from above
the mouth, and have nothing to do with the lower jaw, the term is misleading.

WOODPECKER 1047

shy birds, and to observe the habits of the species is not easy. Its
ways, however, are well worth watching, since the ease with which
it mounts, almost always spirally, the vertical trunks and oblique
arms of trees as it searches the interstices of the bark for its food,
flying off when it reaches the smaller or upper branches—either to
return to the base of the same tree and renew its course on a fresh
line, or to begin upon another tree near by—and the care it shews
in its close examination, will repay a patient observer. The nest
almost always consists of a hole, chiselled by the bird’s strong beak,
impelled by very powerful muscles, in the upright trunk or arm of
a tree, the opening being quite circular, and continued as a horizontal
passage that reaches to the core, whence it is pierced downward for
nearly a foot. There a chamber is hollowed out in which the eggs,
often to the number of six, white, translucent and glossy, are laid
with no bedding but a few chips that may have not been thrown
out... The young are not only hatched entirely naked, but seem to
become fledged without any of the downy growth common to most
birds. Their first plumage is dull in colour, and much marked
beneath with bars, crescents and arrowheads.

Of generally similar habits are the two other Woodpeckers which
inhabit Britain—the Pied or Greater Spotted, and the Barred or
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker—Dendrocopus major and D. minor—each
of great beauty, from the contrasted white, blue-black and scarlet
that enter into its plumage. Both of these birds have an extra-
ordinary habit of causing by quickly-repeated blows of their beak
on a branch, or even on a small bough, a vibrating noise, louder
than that of a watchman’s rattle, and enough to excite the attention
of the most incurious. ‘Though the Pied Woodpecker is a resident
in Britain, its numbers receive a considerable accession nearly every
autumn.

The three species just mentioned are the only Woodpeckers
that inhabit Britain, though several others are mistakenly recorded
as occurring in the country—and especially the Great Black
Woodpecker, the Picus murtius of Linneeus, which must be regarded
as the type of that genus.? This fine species considerably exceeds

1 It often happens that, just as the Woodpecker’s labours are over, a pair of
STARLINGS will take possession of the newly-bored hole, and, by conveying into
it some nesting-furniture, render it unfit for the rightful tenants, who thereby
suffer ejectment, and have to begin all their trouble again. It has been stated of
this and other Woodpeckers that the chips made in cutting the hole are carefully
removed by the birds to guard against their leading to the discovery of the nest.
I have had ample opportunity of observing the contrary as regards this species
and, to some extent, the Pied Woodpecker next to be mentioned. Indeed there
is no surer way of finding a nest of the Green Woodpecker than by looking on the
ground in the presumed locality, for the tree which holds the nest is always
recognizable by the chips scattered at its foot.

2 The expression Picus martius was by old writers used in a very general

1048 WOODPECKER

the Green Woodpecker in size, and except for its red cap is wholly
black. It is chiefly an inhabitant of the fir forests of the Old
World, from Lapland to Galicia, and across

Siberia to Japan.t In North America this &g=———-—__
species is replaced by P. pileatus, there a —
generally known as the Logeock, an equally
fine species, but variegated with white ; a
and further to the southward occur two that are finer still, P. or
Jampephilus principalis, the IVORY-BILL? (p. 460), and P. imperialis.
The Picine indeed flourish in the New World, nearly one-half of the
described species being American, but out of the large number that
inhabit Canada and the United States there is here room to mention
only one at any length.

This is the Californian Woodpecker, Jelanerpes formicivorus,
which has been said to dis-
play an amount of providence
beyond almost any other bird
in the number of acorns which
it collects and, as shewn in
the accompanying figure, fixes
tightly in holes which it pur-
posely makes in the bark of
trees, and thus ‘‘a large pine
forty or fifty feet high will
present the appearance of
being closely studded with
brass nails, the heads only
being visible.” An extraor-
dinary thing is that this is not
done to furnish food in winter,
for the species migrates, and
after journeying a thousand
miles or more only returns in
spring to the forests where
its supplies are laid up. It has been asserted that the acorns thus
stored are always those which contain a maggot, and, being fitted
into the sockets prepared for them cup-end foremost, the enclosed

CALIFORNIAN WOODPECKER
(Melanerpes formicivorus).

sense for all birds that climbed trees, not only Woodpeckers, but even the
NuruHatcnH and TREE-CREEPER. The adjective martius loses all its significance
if it be removed from Picus, as some even respectable writers have separated it.

1 The persistency with which many writers on British birds have for years
included this species among them is a marvellous instance of the durability of
error, for not a case of its asserted occurrence in this country is on record that will
bear investigation, and the origin of the mistake has been more than once shewn.

? On the threatened extinction of this species, cf Hasbrouck, Auk, 1891,
pp. 174-186.

WOODPECKER 1049

insects are unable to escape, as they otherwise would, and are thus
ready for consumption by the birds on their return from the south.
But this statement has again been contradicted, and moreover it
is alleged these Woodpeckers follow their instinct so blindly that
“they do not distinguish between an acorn and a pebble,” so that
they ‘fill up the holes they have drilled with so much labor, not
only with acorns but occasionally with stones” (cf. Baird, Brewer
and Ridgway, V. Am. B. ii. pp. 569-571). Another remarkable
North-American form is the genus Colaptes, of which enough has
been said above (FLICKER, pages 258-260),1

The Picide have offered a fruitful ground for taxonomical
speculation ; but three subfamilies are admitted by all modern
systematists—the Woodpeckers proper, Picine; the PIcuLETs,
Picumnine (page 720) and the Wrynecxs. The most recent
examination of the Family is that by the late Mr. Hargitt (Cat. B.
Br, Mus. xviii.), who admitted 45 genera and 343 species or subspecies

Britt AnD Foot or Ceteus. (After Swainson.) Foor or PIcoIpEs.

of the first group.2 Having devoted himself for many years to the
study of the Picidx, and having the largest collection of them in the
world to work upon, his results are doubtless more correct than those
of any of his predecessors,* but it seems obvious that until the aid of
the anatomist is invoked no satisfactory arrangement can be supplied,
and it is not certain that even then will the desired end be reached,
for Macgillivray, who furnished Audubon with elaborate descriptions
of parts of the structure of several North-American forms, found
considerable differences to exist between species which can hardly

be but nearly allied.*

1 When more is known it will very likely be found that a state of things
somewhat similar to that of Colapies exists in the Palearctic area in regard to the
various local races of, or ‘‘species” allied to, Dendrocopus major and D. minor
respectively.

2 That some Woodpeckers, as in the well-known genus Picoides, have only three
toes is as little significant as is the same fact in certain KINGFISHERs (p. 488).

3 Malherbe, Monographie des Picidées, 4 vols. folio, Metz: 1859-62 ; Cabanis,
Museum Heineanum, iv. Heft 2; Sundevall, Conspectus Avium Picinarum,
Stockholm: 1866.

4 Some of the most striking of these differences often lie in the form and
development of the hyoid bones, and of the muscles which work the extensile

1050 WOOD-PIE—WREN

WOOD-PIE, WOOD-SPEIGHT and WOODWALL (see Woop-
PECKER, page 1045); WOOD-PIGEON (see Ring-Dove, page 162).

WOOD-SW ALLOW, the name in Australia for birds of the genus -

Artamus, the systematic position and true affinities of which must be
regarded as undetermined. Some writers place it in a Family of its
own, Artamidx, others refer it as a subfamily Artamine to Laniudx
(SHRIKE), while again some see in it a relationship to the ORIOLES,
and others to the STARLINGS. The species of Artamus, and 17 are
recognized by Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. xvii. pp. 2-21), range from
India through most of the intervening countries and islands to
Australia, and have many of the habits and to some extent the
appearance of SWALLOWS (not that there seems to be any afiinity
between the groups), passing much of their time on the wing, and
taking insects as they fly. Two species, 4. fuscus and A. leucorhynchus
or /eucogaster occur in India, the former reaching to the Philippines
and Hainan, the latter from the Andamans to Queensland, and eight
others are found in Australia, while one is peculiar to the Fijis.
They are plain-looking birds, mostly of a slate-colour with more or
less white beneath. Some forms from Madagascar, as Artamia,
Oriolia and others, as well as the curious Pseudochelidon from
Western Africa, have been referred to the group, but it may be
questioned whether they have anything to do with it. By Anglo-
Indian ornithologists these birds are generally called Swallow-
Shrikes.

WRANNOCK, WRANNY, Orcadian and Cornish, for the

WREN (A.-S. Vrenna and Wrenne, Icel. Rindill), the inquisitive
and familiar little brown bird—with its short tail, cocked on high—
that braves the winter of the British Islands and even that of the
European continent, and, except in the hardest of frosts, will daily
sing its spirit-stirring strain.1 It is the Moiacilla or Sylvia troglo-

tongue. For a long while the subject was not pursued by any other investigator,
but lately an excellent though too brief treatise on the subject by Mr. Lucas has
been printed by the Agricultural Department of the Government of the United
States, together with a valuable preliminary Report by Mr. Beal on the food of
Woodpeckers (Washington: 1895), the result of whose investigations is much
against the popular view of the alleged mischief done by these birds. It may be
mentioned that some limited researches on the pterylosis, conducted by Kessler
(Bull. Soc. Nat. Muscou, xvi. p. 285), in addition to those of Nitzsch, indicate
that as being also a promising line of enquiry, though one that has scarcely been
attempted by other workers.

1 The interest taken in this bird throughout all European countries is scarcely
exceeded by that taken in any other, and, though in Britain comparatively few
vernacular names have been applied to it, two of them—‘‘Jenny” or “‘ Kitty-
Wren”’—are terms of endearment. M. Rolland records no fewer than 139
local names for it in France ; and Italy, Germany and other lands are only less
prolific. Many of these carry on the old belief that the Wren was the King

ale lily Nii:

WREN 1051

dytes of the earlier systematists, and the T’roglodytes parvulus, europaus
or vulgaris of most later writers.1 Here it hardly needs descrip-
tion, and its domed nest, apparently so needlessly large for the
size of the bird, is a well-known object, for it is built with
uncommon care, and often (though certainly not always) in such
a fashion as to assimilate its exterior to its surroundings, and so
to escape observation. Very curious, too, is the equally un-
accountable fact, that near any occupied nest may generally be
found another nest, or more than one, of imperfect construction.
The widespread belief concerning these unfinished fabrics is implied
by their common name of ‘cocks’ nests,” but evidence to that
effect is not forthcoming. The breeding-habits of the Wren were
most closely studied and accurately reported by Mr. Weir to
Macgillivray (Brit. Birds, iii. pp. 23-30) in a way that leads every
ornithologist to wish that the same care might be bestowed on
other kinds of birds.

The range of the Wren in Europe? is very extensive, though
it seems to stop short of the Arctic Circle; but it occurs in
Algeria, Madeira and, according to Bolle, in the Canaries. It also
inhabits Palestine. Further to the eastward its limits are difficult
to trace, because they inosculate with those of a considerable
number of local races or species. As might be expected, the form
inhabiting Japan, 7. fumigatus, seems to be justifiably deemed a
species. In North America, 7. alascensis occurs in the extreme

of Birds, a belief connected with the fable that on one occasion the fowls of the
air in general assembly resolved to choose for their leader that one of them
which should mount highest. This the Eagle seemed to do, and all were ready
to accept his rule, when a loud burst of song was heard, and perched upon him
was seen the exultant Wren, which unseen and unfelt had been borne aloft by
the giant. The curious association of this bird with the Feast of the Three
Kings, on which day in South Wales, or, in Ireland and in the south of France,
on or about Christmas Day, it was customary for men and boys to ‘‘hunt the
Wren,” addressing it in a song as “‘the King of Birds,” is very remarkable, and
has never yet been explained (cf. Yarrell, Br. B. ed. 4, i. pp. 465, 466).

1 A few, who ignore not only common sense but also the accepted rules of
scientific nomenclature, by a mistaken view of Vieillot’s intention in establish-
ing the genus Troglodytes, reserve that term for some American species—
which can hardly be generically separated from the European form,—and have
attempted to fix on the latter the generic- term Anorthura, which is its strict
equivalent, and was proposed by Rennie on grounds that are inadmissible.

2 Some interest was excited by the discovery, announced by Mr. Seebohm
(Zool. 1884, p. 333), that the Wren, for nearly 200 years known to inhabit St.
Kilda, differed in hue from that of the other British Islands and of the con-
tinent of Europe, and he described it as a distinct species, 7. hirtensis. It had
for more than 20 years been known that the Wren of the Feroes and Iceland,
T. borealis (Fischer, Journ. fiir Orn. 1861, p. 14, pl. i.), deserved separation
from the ordinary 7. parvulus, by being larger, and especially by having larger
and stouter feet.

1052 WREN

north-west, and is replaced further to the southward by YT.
pacificus. Eastward of the Rocky Mountains, the form is 7.
hyemalis—the well-known Winter-Wren of Canada and the United
States. The number of species inhabiting North America is, how-
ever, very considerable, though authorities are by no means
agreed as to how many should be reckoned valid, and they have
been segregated into six or seven genera. Here the House-Wren,
T. domesticus or aedon, can alone be mentioned. It is a very
common summer-visitant to most parts of the Eastern States, and
where it occurs is of a very familiar disposition, entering into the
closest relations with those that cultivate its acquaintance. It is
represented in the West by 7. parkmanna.

The Troglodytidx, regarded as a distinct Family, predominate in
the New World (no fewer than 60 species being enumerated in the
Nomenclator of Messrs. Sclater and Salvin as belonging to the Neo-
tropical Region), and seem to have the Certhitd# (TREE-CREEPER, page
986) for their nearest allies. To place them among the 7%melidz,
as has been done (Cat. B. Br. Mus. vi. pp. 1 et segq.) is, as already
observed (TIMELIA, page 963), preposterously unfitting, and to
suppose them related to the Water-OUSEL (page 688) is absurd.

The Troglodytidx, however, by no means contain all the birds to
which the name “Wren” is applied. Several of the Sylvudex
(WARBLER) bear it, especially the beautiful little Golden-crested
Wren (KINGLET) and the group commonly known in Britain as
“ Willow-Wrens ”—forming the genus Phylloscopus. Three of these
are habitual summer-visitants, which differ much more in their
manners than in their look. The largest, usually called the Wood-
Wren, P. sibilatriz, is more abundant in the north than in the
south of England, and chiefly frequents woods of oak or beech.
It has a loud and very peculiar song, like the word twéé, sounded
very long, and repeated several times in succession—at first slowly,
but afterwards more quickly, and near the end accompanied by a
peculiar quivering of the wings, while at uncertain intervals comes
another note, which has been syllabled as chea, uttered about three
times in succession. The Willow-Wren proper, P. trochilus, is in
many parts of Great Britain the commonest summer-bird, and is
the most generally dispersed. In spring its joyous burst of song
is repeated time after time, until all around thrills with the loud
and merry chorus, and yet never tires the ear. The restless but
graceful activity of the bird, as it flits from twig to twig, adds to
the charm of its appearance, which Hewitson so well appreciated.'
The third species, P. collybita or minor (frequently but most
wrongly called Sylvia rufa or P. rufus), commonly known as the
CuirrcHarr, from the peculiarity of its constantly repeated two-
noted cry, is very numerous in the southern and western part of

1 It seems to be the ‘‘ Green Linnet”’ of Wordsworth’s poem,

WRYBILL—WRVNECK 1053

England, but seems to be scarcer northward. These three species
make their nest upon or very close to the ground, and the build-
ing is always domed. Hence they are commonly called “OvxEN-
BIRDS” (page 669), and occasionally, from the grass used in their
structure, “Hay-jacks,’ a name common to the WHITETHROAT
(page 1037) and its allies.

WRYBILL, Anarhynchus frontalis, one of the most singular birds
known, peculiar to New Zealand and, as Mr. Harting, in an admirable
account of its history (Jizs, 1869, pp. 304-
310, pl. vui.), shewed, allied to the genus
Afgialitis (KILLDEER, page 182). It has its
English name from its bill being congenitally
(Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, p. 674) bent in the
middle and diverted to the right side—a
formation supposed to give the bird greater
facility in seeking its food, chiefly arthropods
that lurk under stones, round which it may
be seen running from left to right. An excel-
lent account of its habits as observed by the
late Mr. Potts was given by Sir W. Buller
(B. N. Zeal. pp. 217-219), who also asserts
that the black pectoral band worn by the bird
is “generally widest on the left side.” Be
that as it may, it does not detract from the
wonderful nature of this asymmetry of the sii AAMAS STUN
bill, which is comparable indeed with that wavars, Aautt and Chick.
found in so large a number of Cetaceans among (From The Ibis, and Proc,
mammals, but with nothing known among 7°?
birds, for neither in the CROSSBILLS nor the members of the genus
Loxops, little birds peculiar to the Sandwich Islands, are the bones
of the mandibles affected, nor is the distortion of the ear-bones in
certain Owls (page 675) externally visible.

WRYNECK (Germ. Wendchals, Dutch Draaihalzen, French
Torcol), so called from its wonderful way of writhing its head and
neck, especially when captured, as it may easily be, on its nest in
a hollow tree. The Jynx! torquilla of ornithology, it is a regular
summer-visitant to most parts of Europe, generally arriving a few
days before the CucKow, and it is in many countries known by a
name associating it with that well-known bird—as in England
“ Cuckow’s leader” and “ Cuckow’s mate ”—but in some places it is
called ‘‘Snake-bird,” not only from the undulatory motions just
mentioned, but from the violent hissing with which it seeks to repel
an intruder from its hole.?

1 Frequently misspelt, as by Linneus in his later years, Yuna.
* The peculiarity was known to Aristotle, and possibly led to the cruel use of

1054 WYPE

The very unmistakable note of the Wryneck, without having
any musical merit, is always pleasant to hear as a harbinger of
spring. It is merely a repetition of what may be syllabled que, que,
que, many times in succession, rapidly uttered at first, but gradually
slowing and in a continually falling key. This, however, is only
heard during a few weeks, and for the rest of the bird’s stay in
Europe it seems to be mute. It feeds almost exclusively on insects,
especially on ants, and may often be seen on the ground, busily
engaged at their nests. Somewhat larger than a Sparrow, its
plumage is not easily described, being beautifully variegated with
black, brown, buff and grey—the last produced by minute specks
of blackish-brown on a light ground—the darker markings disposed
in patches, vermiculated bars, freckles, streaks or arrow-heads—and
the whole blended most harmoniously, so as to recall the coloration
of a NIGHTJAR or of a Woopcock. The Wryneck builds no nest,
but commonly lays its translucent white eggs on the bare wood of a
hole in a tree, and it is one of the few wild birds that, by abstracting
its eges day after day, will go on laying, and thus upwards of forty
have been taken from a single hole—but the proper complement is
from six to ten.1 As regards Britain, the bird seems to be becoming
rarer, owing probably to the destruction of hollow trees in orchards,
but is most common in the south-east, its numbers decreasing rapidly
towards the west and north, so that in Cornwall and Wales and
beyond Cheshire and Yorkshire its occurrence is but rare, while it
appears only by accident in Scotland and Ireland.

Three other species of Jynz are recognized by Mr. Hargitt
(Cat. B. Br. Mus. xviii. p. 560), the so-called J. japonica being in-
distinguishable from /. torguilla; while that designated, through a
mistake in the locality assigned to it, 1. indica, is identical with the
I. pectoralis of South Africa. Near to this is J. pulchricollis, discovered
by Emin Pasha in the east of the Bar-el-Djebel (Ibis, 1884, p. 28, pl.
ii.). Another distinet African species is the J. xquatorialis, originally
described from Abyssinia. As already stated (WOODPECKER, p. 1049),
they form a subfamily Jyngine of the Picidx, from the more normal
groups of which they differ but little in internal structure, but much
in coloration and in having the tail-quills flexible, or at least not
stiffened to serve as props as in the climbing Picine.

WYPE (Sw. Vipa) often Pie-wype, a name of the LAPWING.

the bird as a love-charm,; to which several classical writers refer, as Pindar (Pyth.
iv. 214; Nem. iv. 35), Theocritus (iv. 17, 30), and Xenophon (Memorabilia, 111.
xi. 17,18). In one part at least of China a name, Shay-ling, signifying ‘‘ Snake’s
neck,” is given to it (bis, 1875, p. 125).

1 Dr. Giinther (Jbis, 1890, p. 411) has noticed a curious pad, beset with
tubercles, on the heel of the newly-hatched bird,

|
|
|

XANTHOCHROISM—VELLOW 1055

xX

XANTHOCHROISM, the abnormal replacement of another
colour, generally green, by yellow, not unfrequently seen in
Parrots ; but said to be often induced artificially (¢f CoLour,
page 99).

XENICUS, the generic name! of a little bird from New Zealand,
long known as the Long-legged Warbler (Latham, Synops. ii. p. 465)
or Motacilla longipes of Gmelin, and exciting little curiosity until
A. W. Forbes shewed (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, pp. 569-571) that it,
as well as Acanthidositta*—the RirLEMAN of the colonists (supré

ACANTHIDOSITTA. XENICUS.
(From Buller.)

p. 789, note), to which genus it had sometimes been referred—had
not the characteristic vocal organs of the OSCINES, and belonged to
the group which Garrod termed Mrsomyopr. X. longipes is the
Bush-Wren of the colonists, while a second species, their Rock-Wren,
X. gilviventris, inhabits the Southern Alps. The existence of these
two, morphologically-low genera, forming a Family which should
rightly be called Acanthidosittide is a very significant feature in
New-Zealand ornithology (cf. Buller, B. NV. Zeal. ed. 2, pp. 108-115).

bs

YAFFIL, YAFFINGALE, variously spelt, names of the Green
WOODPECKER (page 1046).

YARWHELP, an old name for the Black-tailed Gopwit when
it inhabited this country (¢/. WHAUP).

YELLOW, used in combination in the name of many kinds ;

1 Said by G. R. Gray (Cat. Gen. B. p. 31) in 1855 to have been bestowed by
him in 1853 ; but no publication at that date is known, and the genus was not
really described till some years later (bis, 1862, p. 218).

? Originally miswritten by Lafresnaye (Mag. de Zool. 1842, Ois. pl. 27)
Acanthisitta,

1056 VELPER=ZOSTERORS

thus YELLOWBIRD is the North-American SISKIN (page 847) ‘and
perhaps more than one of the Mniotiltidy (WARBLER, page 1022):
YELLOWHAMMER, Germ. Goldammer (with many variant forms,
as YELLOW YELDROCK, YOLDRIN, YOWLEY and more), is
the Yellow-BUNTING (page 61) of this country, and in North America,
one of the WooppEcKERS; YELLOWHEAD in New Zealand is
Clitonyx ochrocephalus, the representative in the South Island of
the WHITEHEAD (page 1037) of the North; YELLOWLEGS is
an American SANDPIPER, Zotanus. flavipes; YELLOWPOLL and
YELLOW-RUMP are American WARBLERS (page 1022), Dendreca
astiva, coronata and maculosa; while another of that group, Z'richas

marylandica is the YELLOWTHROAT.

YELPER, an old name for the AvosET and also for the Black-
tailed Gopwir (cf. YARWHELP).

YOKEL and YUKEL, local names of the Green WOODPECKER
(page 1046).

V)

ZOSTEROPS,! originally the name of a genus founded by
Vigors and Horsfield (Zrans. Linn. Soc. xv. p. 235) on an Australian
species called by them Z. dorsalis,” and latterly Anglicized in the
same sense, being applied, whether as a scientific or a vernacular

CS

ZostErors. (After Swainson.)

term, to a great number of little birds,* which inhabit for the
most part the tropical districts of the Old World, from Africa to
most of the islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and north-
ward in Asia through India and China to Amurland and Japan.

1 The derivation is fwornp and SY, whence the word should be pronounced
with all the vowels long. The allusion is to the ring of white feathers round
the eyes, which is very conspicuous in many species, and hence by most English-
speaking people in various parts of the world the prevalent Zosterops is commonly
called ‘‘ White-eye” or ‘‘ Silver-eye.”’

2 Subsequently shewn to be identical with the Certhia cwrulescens, and also
with the Sylvia lateralis, previously described by Latham.

3 In 1883 Dr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. ix. pp. 146-203) admitted 85 species,
beside 3 more which he had not been able to examine,

ZOSTEROPS 1057

The birds of this group are mostly of unpretending appearance,
the plumage above being generally either mouse-coloured or
greenish-olive ; but some are sufticiently varied by the white or
bright yeliow of their throat, breast or lower parts, and several
have the flanks of a more or less lively bay, while, as the annexed
figures shew, the bill often differs in form. It is remarkable
that several islands are inhabited by two distinct species, one
belonging to the brown and the other to the green section, the
former being wholly insular. The greater number of forms seem
to be confined to single islands, often of very small area, but others
have a very wide distribution, and much interest has been excited
by the undoubted fact that the type-species, Z. cxrulescens, has of
late years largely extended its range.?

All the species of Zosterops are sociable, consorting in large
flocks, which only separate on the approach of the pairing season.
They build nests, described as being variously placed—sometimes
suspended from a horizontal fork and sometimes fixed in an upright
crotch—and lay (so far as is known) pale blue, spotless eggs,
thereby differing wholly from several of the groups of birds to
which they have been thought allied. Though mainly insectivorous,
the birds of this genus will eat fruits of various kinds, and in such
quantities as to be at times injurious. The habits of Z. cxrulescens are
well described by Sir W. Buller, and those of a species peculiar to
Ceylon, Z. ceylonensis, by Col. Legge (B. Ceylon, p. 586), while those
of the widely-ranging Indian Z. palpebrosa and of the South-African

1 First described from New South Wales, where it is very plentiful, it had
been long known to inhabit all the eastern part of Australia. In 1856 it was
noticed by naturalists as occurring in the South Island of New Zealand, when
it became known to the Maories by a name signifying ‘‘Stranger,” and to the
English settlers as the ‘‘ Blight-bird,” from its clearing the fruit-trees of a
blight by which they had lately been affected. It soon after appeared in the
North Island, where it speedily became common, and it has thence spread not
only to the Chatham Islands, but, as Sir W. Buller states (B. NW. Zeal. ed. 2,
i. p. 79), it has been met with in considerable numbers 300 miles from land,
as though in search of new countries to colonize. Yet this author believes it to
be indigenous to the west coast of the South Island, and Sir James Hector
joins in that opinion. If they be right, it is, however, pretty certain that
until the year before mentioned it must have been confined to an extremely
small district, and the only assignable cause of its spreading so rapidly, when
it did extend its range, is that of a large surplus population unable to find a
‘ living at home. It is known to propagate at a high rate of increase, and at
times numbers have been found dead, apparently for want of food. In any
case it is obvious that this Zosterops must be a comparatively modern settler
in New Zealand, though Sir W. Buller says that he and Mr. Gould were able
to pick out New Zealand examples from a series otherwise made up of Australian
specimens. Hence it would seem as if a slight amount of differentiation had
been set up; but the variation would doubtless have been greater had the species
been an ancient colonist.

67

1058 ZYGODACTYLI

Z. capensis have been succinctly treated by Jerdon (B. Ind. ii. p. 266)
and Mr. Layard (B. S. Afr. p. 116) respectively.?

The affinities of the genus Zosterops are by no means clear.
Placed by some writers, with the Paridx (T1rTMOUSE), by others
among the Meliphagide (HONEY-EATER), and again by others with
the Nectariniide (SUNBIRD), the structure of the tongue, as Dr.
Gadow (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, pp. 63, 68, pl. xvi. fig. 2) shews,
wholly removes it from the first and third, and from most of the
forms generally included among the second. It seems safest to
regard the genus, at least provisionally, as the type of a distinct
Family—Zosteropidx—as Families go among Passerine birds ; but,
whether the Australian genera Melithreptus and Plectrorhamphus
(otherwise Plectrorhyncha) should be included under that heading, as
has been done, remains to be proved, and in the meanwhile may be
reasonably doubted.

ZYGODACTYLI, Vieillot’s name in 1816 (Analyse, p. 25) for
the birds having two toes before and two behind, which he placed
as the First “¢ribu” of his Second Order, and thus made the group
practically equal to Illiger’s SCANSORES, being composed of 7
Families—(1) Psittacini, with the genera Psittacus, Macrocercus and
Plyctolophus ; (2) Macroglossi, with Picus and Yunz; (3 and 4)
Aureoli and Pteroglossi, consisting respectively of Galbula and Ram-
phastos ; (5) Barbati, made up of Trogon, Pogonia, Bucco, Capito, Monasa
and Phenicophaus; (6) Imberbi, including Saurothera, Scythrops,
Leptosomus, Coccyzus, Cuculus, Indicator, Corydonyxz and Crotophaga ;
and (7) Frugivori, formed by Musophaga and Opexthus.

1 Tt is a remarkable and, if capable of explanation, would doubtless be an
instructive fact that the largest known species of the genus, Z. albigularis,
measuring nearly six inches in length, was confined to so small a spot as Norfolk
Island, where also another, Z. tenwirostris, not much less in size, occurred ; while
a third, of intermediate stature, 7. strenwa, inhabited the still smaller Lord Howe
Island. <A fourth, 7. vatensis, but little inferior in bulk, is found on one of the
New Hebrides ; but, after these giants of their kind, the rest fall off considerably,
and some of the smaller species hardly exceed 3} inches from end to end.

INDEX

Oxns.—-Where a name is repeated in the course of an article, reference is given only

to its first use, except for some special reason.

Families or Subfamilies of

Birds should be sought under the genus whence their name is taken :—as
Acanthidosittide under Acanthidositia, Alcedinidw# under Alcedo, Anatidxe
under Anas, and so on.

AASVOGEL, 1
Abadavine, 1
Aberduvine, 1
Abou-Hannes, 454
Abou-mengel, 455
Absorbent Vessels, 1012
Acanthidositta, 316, 323,
406, 547, 648, 770, 789,
900, 1055
Acanthis, 515, 774
Acanthiza, 1, 777
Acanthogenys, 1025
Acanthorhynchus, 92, 900
Acanthyllis, 935
Accentor, 1, 120, 697, 784,
895
Accipiter, 185, 377, 412,
491, 574, 898
Accipitres, 1, 2, 11, 18, 33,
40, 69, 90, 118, 144, 147,
150, 190, 248, 244, 282,
315, 440, 459, 478, 517,
546, 603, 606, 607, 610,
613, 616, 621, 629, 651,
671, 739, 747, 765, 825,
829, 854, 865, 867, 876,
912, 972, 983
Aceros, 435
Acetabulum, 248, 460
Acolin, 95
Acorn-Duck, 1
Acredula, 968
Acridotheres, 378, 538
Acrocephalus, 120,
1020
Acrocoracoid, 856
Acromium, 857
Acromyodi, 1, 426, 547,
743, 938 ,
Acrulocercus, 167, 655
Acryllium, 400

778,

Actinodura, 28

Actiornis, 283

Actitis, 514, 810

Adjutant, 2, 5, 21, 271,
288, 451, 463, 536

Aichmorhynchus, 713, 813

Aedon, 632

Aidur, 192

Aigialitis, 162, 171, 341,
351, 481, 498, 512, 734,
790, 804, 813, 919, 1041

Aigialornis, 283

A&giothus, 251

ZEgithalus, 725, 969

Agithognathe, 2, 130, 443

Aigocephalus, 365, 885

Aigotheles, 365, 638, 941

Aipyornis, 286, 352, 791

Zpyornithes, 766, 792

Aipypodius, 541

Alsacus, 130

Aisalon, 235, 477, 546

ABthyia, 72, 734

Aetomorphe, 2, 134, 364,
829

ix, 1, 171, 534, 949

Aftershaft, 3, 17

Agami, 991

Agapornis, 521, 689

Ageleus, 457, 530

Agelastes, 350, 401

Aghirone, 192, 416

Agnopterus, 283

Aigle, 173

Aigrette, 192

Aigron, 192

Ailureedus, 80

Airone, 416

Air-sacks, 3, 522

Aithurus, 444

Aix, 949

Alzmon, 509

Alauda, 70, 250, 353, 431,
458, 475, 507, 559, 598,
697

Alban, 424

Albanella, 424

Albatros, 6, 45, 74, 80,
281, 518, 5380, 534, 585,
758, 993

Albinism, 99

Albino, 9, 420, 1007

Albitross, 6

Alcea, 11, 18, 22, 35, 42,
77, 81, 151, 190, 7145,
191, 220, 287, 304, 310,
898, 405, 440, 518, 607,
610, 615, 629, 635, 651,
704, 747, 750, 753, 768,
797, 875, 876, 878, 9389

Alcaduz, 6

Alcatraz, 6

Alcedo, 30, 69, 92, 118,
144, 147, 463, 485, 593,
601, 615, 616, 630, 718,
746, 794, 853, 857, 858,
879, 912, 952, 974

Aleyon, 404

Aleyone, 486

Alecthelia, 542

Alectorides, 9, 827

Alectoromorphe, 9, 26, 299,
397, 422, 707, 805, 816

Alectorurus, 1000

Alectryon, 586

Ales Jovis, 177

Aletornis, 283

Alft, 931

Algatross, 6

Alisphenoid, 871

Alk, 9,.22

Alke, 768

1060

Allantois, 9, 11, 13

Ailoco, 677

Alp, 10, 645, 655

Alph, 10

Altrices, 10, 154, 635, 739

Aluco, 178, 353, 364, 660,
678, 820, 941

Amadavat, 11, 23

Amadina, 108

Amazon, 11

Ambiens, 11, 16, 19, 425,
608, 862 %

Amblonyx, 277

Amblyornis, 49

Ambulatores, 459 -

American Warblers, 1022

Amidavad, 11, 795

Ammodromus, 961

Ammomanes, 509

Ammoperdix, 696

Amnion, 9, 11, 13, 589

Ampelion, 840

Ampelis, 58, 81, 85, 134,
571, 697, 718, 737, 769,
1026

Amphibole, 12, 89

Ampbiboli, 12, 815

Amphiccelous, 850

Amphimorphe, 12,
254

Amphipelargus, 285

Ampulla, 983, 984

Amydrus, 348

Amytis, 57

Anabatoides, 719

Anacromyodian, 938

Anais, 362

Analogy, 15

Anarhynchus, 35, 315, 482,
734, 1053

Anas, 68, 72, 86, 152, 168,
190, 222, 284, 295, 309,
311, 329, 368, 371, 406,
407, 503, 543, 597, 600,
607, 610, 619, 623, 635,
726, 734, 815, 817, 835,
841, 983, 984

Anastomus, 84, 510, 655,
741

Anatomy, 12

And, 371

Andigena, 977

Androdon, 444

Anellobium, 1025

Angulars, 872

Anhima, 19, 819

Anhinga, 19, 880

Ani, 12, 19, 42, 126, 191,
197, 477, 633, 769, 814

Anisodactyli, 19, 972

Anisomyodi, 939

134,

Ankle, 19, 864

Anomalogonate, 11, 19,
425, 609

Anomalopteryx, 578

Anorrhinus, 435

Anorthura, 1051

Anous, 643

Anser, 140, 168, 190, 285,
300, 371

Anseranas, 984

Anseres, 3, 10, 11, 18, 19,
29, 32, 33, 34, 68, 89,
91, 95, 105, 118, 243,
245, 254, 285, 315, 440,
459, 518, 606, 608, 615,
621, 653, 746, 747, 789,
820, 858, 873, 874, 875,
879, 912, 918, 937, 939,
941, 952, 953, 983

Anseriformes, 152

Anthochera, 429,
1025

Anthocincla, 728

Anthornis, 31, 316, 429

Anthracoceros, 435

Anthreptis, 922

Anthropoides, 133, 985

Anthus, 120, 316, 332, 475,
598, 697, 727

Anticclous, 142

Antrostomus, 88, 639, 1036

Ant-Thrush, 20, 728, 758

Ant-Wren, 20

Aorta, 21

Apatornis, 280, 652, 857

Apex, 83

Aphanapteryx,
1033

801,

217, 764,

Aphriza, 926

Aprosmictus, 519

Aptenodytes, 458, 706, 912

Apteryges, 315, 766

Apteryx, 21, 68, 76, 90,
118, 194, 231, 405, 459,
493, 580, 607, 613, 615,
617, 619, 630, 646, 701,
745, 758, 857, 858, 859,
860, 878, 912 (cf. Kiwi)

Aptornis, 286, 592, 1033

Apus, 38

Aquila, 87, 173, 284, 879

Ara, 96, 527

Aracari, 976

Arachnothera, 96, 748, 923

Aramides, 895

Aramus, 118, 514, 765,
973

Arara, 527

Araruna, 527

Archeopteryx, 13, 21, 37,
89, 118, 278, 741, 753,

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

769, 781, 814, 850, 859,
954, 1002

Archibuteo, 67, 332

Arctogea, 313

Ardea, 46, 111, 140, 188,
192, 218, 284, 310, 379,
406, 416, 440, 455, 612,
651, 739, 745, 746, 825,
853, 857, 875, 902, 912,
917, 937, 939

Ardeacites, 285

Arde, 615, 629, 858

Ardetta, 42, 419

Arend, 21

Argala, 21

Argillornis, 281

Argozoum, 277

Argus, 21, 100

Argusianus, 654, 701

Argus-Pheasant, 701

Arremon, 945

Arses, 276

Artamia, 98, 1050

Artamus, 22, 319, 362, 739,
878, 929, 1050

Arterial circulation, 1008

Arteries, 22, 1008

Articular, 872

Asio, 178, 675, 857 941

Asprey, 660

Astragalus, 866

Astrarchia, 39

Astur, 140, 235, 877, 696,
898

Atelornis, 353, 794

Atlas, 851

Atling, 22, 948

Atrichia, 1, 69, 184, 320,
451, 524, 746, 747, 820

Atrichornis, 821, 858, 939

Attagas, 696

Attagen, 696

Attagis, 68, 113, 145, 324,
733, 757, 834, 878

Atteal, 22

Atteile, 22

Atteling, 948

Atteling-And, 22

Attila, 86

Attile, 22

Aubreau, 424

Aubrier, 424

Auk, 9, 18, 22, 81, 151;
166,198, 304, 310, 399,
630, 704, 752, 768, 796

Aulacorhamphus, 978

Aureoli, 1058

Austermann, 682

Austernfischer, 682

Australian Region, 317

Austro-Columbia, 313

INDEX

1061

Austrocoraces, 59, 116, 148, | Batte-lessive, 1018

403, 846, 1025
Autophage, 814
Autruche, 662
Avaduvat, 11, 23
Aves Diomedex, 6
Avestruz, 662, 787
Avian, 23
Avicida, 428
Avine, 23
Avis, 23
Avis Numidica, 399
Avis struthio, 662
Avocetta, 23
Avocettula, 445
Avoset, 20, 23, 28, 34, 68,

92, 109, 317, 379, 445,

518, 733, 913
Avosetta, 23
Awbe, 10
Axilla, 25
Axis, 852

Bapaaui, 684, 738

Babbler, 25

Babelard, 26

Babillard, 26

Bacbakiri, 26

Baia, 29

Baleniceps, 34, 46, 349,
406, 739, 838, 875, 876

Baldpate, 26, 1040

Balearica, 112, 229, 985

Baltimore Oriole, 457, 657

Banana Quit, 761

Bantam, 27, 290

Baptornis, 280, 652

Barbati, 1058

Barbet, 12, 27, 92, 104,
319, 4380, 749, 769

Barbu, 27

Bareud, 177

Bargander, 28

Barker, 24, 28, 366

Barley-bird, 28

Barnacle, 31

Barnicle, 31

Barn-Owl, 261, 672, 820

Barrel, 761

Barwing, 28

Baryphthengus, 594

Basileuterus, 1023

Basioccipital, 871

Basipterygoid, 875

Basipterygoid Processes, 28

Basisphenoid, 871

Basitemporal, 871

Batara, 21

Bateleur-Eagle, 31, 717

Batrachostomus, 295, 643,
941

Baya, 29, 428

Bay-bird, 29

Beach-bird, 29

Beak, 29, 32

Beam-bird, 29

Bearcoot, 177

Bearded Titmouse, 779

Bearded Vulture, 500

Beauharnaisius, 978

Beauregard, 59

Beccafico, 250, 659

Bec-croisé, 113

Bec-figue, 250

Bec-ouvert, 655

Becquefigue, 365

Bee-eater, 29, 68, 92, 292,
463, 487, 598, 711, 743

Beef-eater, 30

Bee-Martin, 483

Bell-bird, 30, 80, 86, 316,
429, 892, 1001

Bengali, 31

Bennaric, 365

Bennarie, 365

Berenicornis, 435

Bergander, 28, 835

Berg-eende, 835

Bergente, 835

Berghaan, 31

Bergut, 177

Bernaca, 31

Bernacle, 31, 81, 89, 375

Bernekke, 31

Bernicla, 65, 375

Betcherrygah, 59

Bhringa, 167

Bieder, 29

Biblis, 539

Bienenfresser, 29

Bilcock, 32 .

Bill, 82, 134

Bill-joint, 877

Billy-biter, 1040

Birch-Partridge, 394

Bird, 36

Bird-of-Paradise, 37, 51,
150, 184, 241, 523, 534,
717, 790, 816

Bird-of-Passage, 550

Bird-of-Prey, 1, 2, 3, 32, 40,
95, 605, 635, 754, 738

Bishop-bird, 40

Bishop Tanager, 40

Bitorius, 40

Bittacus, 685

Bittern, 40, 310, 416, 575,
739, 790

Bittour, 40

Biziura, 5, 150

Blacicus, 999

Blackbird, 36, 42, 89, 99,
191, 249, 539, 545, 563,
666

Blackeap, 42, 413, 582, 598

Blackcock, 43, 150, 393,
415, .893

Black Duck, 818

Black game, 388

Blackhead, 815

Blackstart, 776

Bleater, 43, 365

Blight-bird, 43, 1057

Blood, 43

Blood-bird, 44

Blood-Olph, 10, 44

Blood-Pheasant, 44

Bluebird, 44, 168, 771, 791

Bluecap, 45, 967

Blue Darr, 956

Blue Jay, 469

Blue Quit, 761

Bluethroat, 45, 566, 777

Boat-bill, 34, 45, 380, 416

Boatswain, 46, 989

Boat-tail, 46, 761

Bob-Lincoln, 46

Boblink, 46

Bobolink, 46, 61, 458, 539,
649, 778, 789

Bobo, 48

Bob- White, 47, 756

Beeuf d’eau, 40

Bombiciphora, 1026

Bombycilla, 1026

Bonasa, 394, 696

Bondrée, 426

Bone, 47

Bonxie, 48, 869

Booby, 48, 80, 294

Boreal Region, 330

Botaurus, 229, 416, 420,
738, 744, 912

Botley-bump, 40

Botor, 40

Bottlenose, 750

Bottle-Titmouse, 632

Boudree, 426

Bower-bird, 26, 39, 48, 80,
780, 814, 893

Brachial Plexus, 623

Brachygalba, 463

Brachypteracias, 353, 794

Brachypus, 59, 934

Brachyurus, 730

Bramling, 56

Brahminy Duck, 836

Brahminy Kite, 491

Brain, 51

Bramble-Finch, 56, 83

Brant, 57, 81, 118, 297,
375

1062

Branta, 375

Brant-Goose, 761, 793

Breastbone, 57

Brent, 57

Bréve, 727

Brid, 36 :

Bristle-bird, 57

Broadbill, 57, 134, 194,
2738

Bronchi, 58, 937

Brontornis, 281, 905, 907

Brontozoum, 277

Bronze-wing, 58, 696, 724

Brown Owl, 672

Brubru, 58 3

Brush-tongued Parrots, 521

Brush-Turkey, 59, 541

Bubo, 178, 283; 674, 857

Bucco, 12, 27, 92, 463,
617, 630, 654, 717, 749,
815, 853, 879, 939

Buceros, 86, 69, 77, 84, 92,
134, 144, 147, 432, 486,
601, 615, 616, 630, 717,
746, 747, 765, 852, 857,
858, 863, 879, 912, 918,
974

Buchanga, 168

Bucorax, 433

Bucorvus, 77, 433

Budjerigar, 59, 72

Budytes, 332, 758, 1018

Buffle-head, 59, 370

Bulba ossea, 983

Bulbul, 59, 461

Bullfinch, 10, 44, 60, 99,
250, 332, 338, 386, 587,
645, 655, 737

Bullhead, 60

Bullseye, 60

Bunting, 47, 60, 76, 124,
182, 186, 250, 458, 459,
554, 598, 659

Bunting-Lark, 61

Buntlin, 60

Buntyle, 60

Buphaga, 347, 680, 717

Burhinus, 130, 517

Burhynchus, 976

Burrow- Duck, 62

Bursa Fabricii, 90

Busard, 66

Bush-Hawk, 480

Bush-Tit, 83

Bush-Wren, 1055

Bustard, 5, 9, 62, 129, 130,
150, 226, 273, 320, 364,
880, 621, 666, 683, 803,
828

Bustard-Quail, 415

Butalis, 275

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Butcher-bird, 66, 273, 843 | Campephilus, 460
Buteo, 40, 66, 426, 588, | Campylopterus, 446

777, 937

Butio, 40

Butor, 40

Butter-ball, 370

Butter-bump, 40

Button-Quail, 66, 415

Buttour, 40

Buzzard, 40, 66, 173, 263,
408, 409, 411, 426, 753,
777

Bycanetes, 386

Bycanistes, 435

CABALUS, 10382

Cacacolin, 95

Cacatelho, 92

Cacatilho, 92

Cacatua, 938, 95, 229, 299,
319, 653, 690, 7389, 953

Caccabis, 695, 773

Cacomantis, 125

Cactornis, 387

Cadran, 133

Ceca, 16, 68

Cenogenetic Development,
14

Cereba, 96, 131, 166, 326,
401, 428, 761, 921, 975

Cahow, 831

Caille, 754

Cairina, 171

Calander, 70

Calandra, 70

Calandre, 70

Calandrella, 509, 659

Calandria, 585

Calamus, 239

Calao, 70

Calaw, 70

Calcaneus, 866

Calendula, 511

Calico-bird, 70

Calidris, 130, 405, 517, 804

Caliology, 633

Calleeas, 1025

Callisitta, 648

Callista, 944

Callocephalon, 93

Calloo, 70

Caloenas, 360, 724

Calopezus, 965

Calopsitta, 92, 93, 690

Calyptomena, 57

Calyptorhynchus, 93

Camarhynchus, 387

Camascelus, 284

Campanero, 30

Campephaga, 70, 273, 319,
381, 575, 681

Canachites, 394

Canada Goose, 65

Canara byrd, 71

Canariebyter, 72

Canary-bird, 70, 251, 829

Canary-Parrot, 72

Cancroma, 84, 45, 380, 875,
974

Canori, 459

Canuti aves, 498

Canvas-back Duck, 72, 735

Cape Barren Goose, 81

Cape Canary, 72

Cape Pigeon, 710, 723

Capercaillie, 72

Capercally, 72, 89, 94, 178,
226, 287, 394, 600, 892

Capercalze, 72

Caperkellie, 72

Cape-sheep, 74

Capito, 27, 92, 147, 299,
430, 617, 747, 749, 770,
853, 858, 939

Caprimulgi, 629, 658, 939,
941

Caprimulgus, 82, 69, 88,118,
130, 134, 148, 195, 231,
365, 395, 405, 440, 442,
606, 607, 615, 607, 638,
654, 697, 711, 718, 740,
754, 879, 912, 952, 974

Caracara, 74, 457

Carancho, 75

Carbo, 105

Carcinentes, 488

Cardellina, 1023

Cardia, 916

Cardinal, 61, 76, 381

Cardinalis, 61, 95, 387, 771

Carduelis, 251, 370, 846

Carfil, 304

Cariama, 75, 76, 324, 607,
654, 826, 858, 865, 875,
879,973 (cf. Dicholophus)

Carina, 476

Carinate, 2, 76, 134, 167,
242, 286, 315, 650, 688,
704, 766, 814

Carine, 674, 899, 918

“| Carolina Duck, 1

Carotid, 76

Carpodacus, 386

Carpophaga, 144, 154, 724,
858, 918

Carpus, 77, 859

Carr-Crow, 78, 956

Carr-Goose, 78

Carrier, 164

Carrion-bird, 1

INDEX 1063
Carrion-Crow, 116 Certhiparus, 316 Chevéche, 679
Carrion-Hawk, 75 Cervix, 621 Chévre-volant, 365
Carr-Swallow, 78, 956 Ceryle, 488 Chewink, 982
Caryocatactes, 646 Cesena, 249 Chiacalacca, 82
Casarea, 835 Ceuthmocheres, 107 Chibia, 167
Casearoba, 932 Ceyx, 486 Chicheree, 999
Casera, 669 Chachalaca, 82 Chickadee, 87
Cashew-bird, 78, 127, 656 | Chetoptila, 225, 1026 Chicken, 87
Cassenoisette, 533 Chetura, 935 Chicquera, 546
Cassicus, 457 Chaffinch, 56, 82, 250, 411, | Chiffchatf, 87, 710, 893,
Cassowary, 3, 48, 78, 97,| 681, 725, 817, 892 1052

118, 180, 187, 212, 242,
820, 548, 578, 592, 781,
785

Casuarius, 68, 78, 89, 90,
180, 140, 187, 242, 245,
820, 543, 607, 616, 741,
858, 859, 860, 917, 939

Cata-bird, 21

Catacromyodian, 938

Cat-bird, 80, 585

Caterpillar-eater, 70

Catharista, 470, 1016

Catharte, 629

Cathartes, 3, 29, 33, 89,
102, 147, 470, 501, 606,
610, 615, 616, 747, 765,
857, 858, 875, 912, 939,
952, 973, 1016

Catharus, 961

Cattiwike, 492

Caudal end, 14

Caurale, 924

Cavalier, 733

Ceblepyris, 70

Cecomorphe, 80, 151, 816,
834

Cedar-bird, 81, 87, 769,
1027

Cela, 21, 580

Celeomorphe, 2, 81, 814,
1046

Celeus, 1049

Centrocercus, 93, 394, 802

Centrococcyx, 701

Centropelma, 382

Centropus, 12, 107, 125,
349, 473, 610, 815, 941

Cephalic end, 14

Cephalopterus, 1000

Ceratorhina, 23

Cerchneis, 478

Cercotrichas, 133

Cereopsis, 76, 81, 286, 315,
376

Ceriornis, 22, 587

Cerorhyncha, 23, 752

Certhia, 112, 135, 166, 648,
697, 718, 719, 985

Certhilauda, 431, 509

Certhiola, 921

Chaja, 819

Chaka, 819

Chalaundre, 70

Chalcites, 125

Chalcopsittacus, 520

Chamea, 83, 328, 582

Chamepelia, 659

Chamepetes, 397

Champore cock, 27

Channel-bill, 12, 83, 125

Chanting Falcon, 1002

Chaparral-cock, 84, 126,
791

Chaptia, 167

Charadriiformes, 152

Charadriomorphe, 85, 364,
422, 816, 829, 834

Charadrius, 85, 107, 109,
129, 180, 148, 162, 283,
380, 405, 465, 481,. 540,
514, 517, 610, 682, 731,
740, 745, 757, 804

Charkwa, 836

Charmosyna, 520

Chasmorhynchus,
113, 952, 1001

Chat, 85, 777, 1034

Chat-huant, 676

Chatterer, 30, 85, 98, 107,
278, 421, 460, 532, 718,
737, 1001, 1026

Chaulelasmus, 298

Chauna, 9, 90, 819, 983

Cheeper, 86

Cheer, 86

Chelaundre, 70

Chelidon, 189, 536, 926

Chelidoptera, 749

Chen, 300, 374, 1026

Chenalopex, 349, 376, 837,
984

Chenomorpha, 86, 134, 820

Chenornis, 285

Chepster, 87

Chera, 1030

Cherrug, 803

Cherry-bird, 87

Cherry-picker, 87

Cherry-sucker, 87

Chettusia, 506

30, 80,

Chimango, 75

Chimerina, 600

Chionis, 68, 109, 310, 324,
732, 832

Chionomorphe, 834

Chipchop, 87

Chir, 86

Chiromacheris, 533

Chiroxiphia, 532

Chlamydera, 49

Chlamydochen, 376

Chloephaga, 374, 984

Chloridops, 384

Chloris, 384

Choanez, 33

Chok, 87

Cholornis, 711, 867

Chordiles, 573, 635, 639,
727, 879

Chorion, 11

Chotacabras, 638

Chough, 87, 116, 132, 482,
822

Chrocko, 792

Chrysococcyx, 125, 349,567

Chryseenas, 320, 723

Chrysolampis, 447

Chrysomitris, 88, 251, 258,
371, 563, 846

Chrysotis, 11, 96, 99, 229,
654, 690, 739

Chuck-will’s-widow, 88

Chunga, 828

Chunnia, 828

Chuparosa, 442

Churn-Owl, 88, 639, 671

Ciconia, 91, 144, 191, 244,
416, 440, 456, 462, 517,
559, 610, 651, 655, 741,
746, 747, 825, 853, 854,
875, 912, 919, 952, 973

Ciconie, 146, 615, 629,
857, 858, 863, 917, 939,
974, 983

Cigano, 424

Cilia, 239

Cimoliornis, 280

Cinclorhamphus, 25

Cinclus, 134, 277, 667,
698, 1024

1064

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Cinnyris, 748, 923

Cireaetus, 173

Circulation, 88

Circus, 67, 408, 424, 491,
572, 739

Ciridops, 645

Cirl-Bunting, 61

Cisne, 155

Cissa, 470, 722

Cissopis, 945

Cisticola, 189, 238, 725,
1022

Citril, 88

Citronenfink, 88

Cittocincla, 133

Cladorhynchus, 914

Clakis, 89

Clamatores, 21, 89, 483,
728, 939

Clangula, 59, 369, 407,
544, 592, 900

Clark’s Crow, 647

Clavicle, 89, 296, 858, 909

Claw, 89, 393, 459, 599

Climacteris, 986

Clinker, 24

Clitonyx, 72, 316, 658,
1037, 1056

Cloaca, 90

Clotburd, 1034

Clucking Hen, 514

Clytorhynchus, 574

Cnemiornis, 76, 82, 286,
815, 376, 857

Cnott, 498

Coachwhip-bird, 91

Coalfinch, 94

Coalmouse, 92, 967

Cob, 92, 703, 929

Cobbler’s-awl, 24, 92

Coccothraustes, 251, 371,
384, 411

Coceyges, 11, 147, 879

Coceygomorphe, 92, 130,
184, 430, 485, 593, 609

Coccystes, 124

Coceyx, .119

Coceyzus, 108, 534

Coc-des-roches, 93

Cock, 892

Cockateel, 92, 690

Cockatoo, 34, 92, 93, 687

Cockatoon, 527

Cock-of-the-Plains, 93

Cock-of-the-Rock, 86, 93,
532

Cock - of - the - Wood,
94

Codatremola, 1018

Coddy-moddy, 94

Coleus, 101

72,

Colaptes, 258, 831, 458,
1005

Coldfinch, 94

Colemouse, 92

Colibri, 442

Colin, 94, 649, 696

Coliopasser, 1030

Coliou, 101

Colius, 12, 69,77, 92, 101,
118, 148, 251, 347, 405,
600, 607, 616, 630, 684,
746, 747, 879, 912, 939,
972

College Pheasant, 476

Collocalia, 284, 935

Collyrio, 517

Collyriocincla, 846

Coloburis, 730

Colour, 95, 99, 215, 1007

Columba, 11, 26, 118, 140,
154, 160, 162, 188, 243,
284, 299, 329, 378, 440,
606, 612, 623, 697, 723,
747, 766, 789, 790, 793,
915, 939, 952

Columbe, 18, 29, 69, 143,
145, 820, 517, 615, 621,
651, 707, 724, 854, 863,
876, 879, 912, 918, 940,
953, 972

Columbini, 765

Columella, 179, 872, 874

Coly, 101

Colymbi, 615, 616, 621, 912

Colymboides, 151, 283

Colymbo-Podicipites, 651

Colymbus, 11, 68, 81, 118,
146, 151, 248, 244, 280,
310, 898, 405, 440, 518,
597, 606, 607, 610, 621,
635, 651, 698, 745, 746,
747, 753, 765, 854, 858,
860, 861, 862, 868, 865,
875, 878, 902, 939, 973

Cometes, 449

Condor, 101, 634

Coney-catcher, 132

Coney-chuck, 1034

Conirostres, 102

Conopophaga,
940, 947

Contopus, 483, 710, 973

Conurus, 219, 528, 686

Cooperastur, 898

Coot, 27, 35, 102, 217,
880, 398, 517, 539, 711,
817, 822

Coot-footed Tringa, 711

Coppersmith, 28, 104

Coprodzeum, 90

Copsychus, 133

323, 939,

Copurus, 999

Coq d’Inde, 994

Coq-de-roche, 93

Coraces, 148

Coracias, 25, 80, 57, 69, 92,
147, 161, 259, 440, 593,
615, 680, 638, 654, 717,
718, 739, 745, 747, 7938,
858, 912, 939, 952

Coraciiformes, 638

Coracocichla, 728

Coracoid, 104, 856, 909

Coracoidex, 638

Coracomorphe, 2, 104, 180,
524

Coracopitta, 728

Coracostea, 910

Corbeau, 116

Corcorax, 88

Coriphilus, 520

Corlieu, 127

Cor marin, 105

Cormorant, 33, 89, 104,
118, 173, 197, 223, 229,
243, 283, 378, 703, 770,
815, 822, 829

Corn-Bunting, 61

Corn-Crake, 68, 109,
762

Corresso, 126

Corrira, 107

Corvo marino, 105

Corvus, 70, 87, 104, 114,
116, 124, 182, 140, 190,
191, 816, 329, 380, 385,
429, 438, 466, 646, 697,
698, 717, 722, 768, 795,
801, 857, 876, 940, 553

Corvus Indicus, 433

Corydon, 877

Corydus, 509

Corythaix, 69, 140, 612,
815, 857, 980

Coscaroba, 932

Cosmetornis, 641

Cosmonetta, 407

Cotile, 189, 538

Cotinga, 30, 85, 93, 95, 107,
184, 278, 823, 421, 532;
718, 737, 988, 989, 940,
983, 1001

Cotton-bird, 725

Coturniculus, 961

Coturnix, 283, 316, 353,
407, 754, 765

Coua, 125

Coucal, 107, 125

Coucou, 119 ®

Coulterneb, 107, 750, 830

Coure-vite, 107

Courlan, 514

550,

Courlis, 127

Couroucou, 987

Courser, 107, 130, 733

Coverts, 949

Cow-bird, 108, 458, 633

Cow-Blackbird, 108

Cow-Bunting, 108

Cowpen-bird, 458

Cowry-bird, 108, 648

Crab-Plover, 100, 215, 733

Cracker, 109

Crake, 109

Crane, 66, 109, 212, 226,
241, 283, 296, 364, 416,
471, 514, 550, 621, 803,
813, 829

Cranial Nerves, 54

Cranium, 112, 870

Crateropus, 25, 45, 92, 963

Crax, 91; 126; 299) 325,
396, 535, 539, 607, 739,
765, 808, 879, 972, 984

Creadion, 316, 801

Creatophora, 379, 517

Crécerelle, 477

Creeper, 112, 167

Creeping Warblers, 1023

Cresserelle, 477

Crest, 112

Cretornis, 280

Crex, 109, 610, 762

Criniger, 26, 243

Crista sterni, 476

Cristel, 477

Crithagra, 814

Crocker, 113

Crocodile-bird, 733

Crossbill, 113, 250, 386,
571, 1053

Crossoptilum, 716, 887

Crotophaga, 12, 19, 42,
126, 190, 234, 717, 814,
815, 941

Crow, 70, 87, 100, 114,
116, 124, 132, 149, 190,
231, 269, 430, 500, 565,
647, 722, 795

Crow-Pheasant, 107

Crow-Shrike, 403

Crown-bird, 118, 979

Crowned Crane, 112

Crowned Pigeon, 378, 724

Crying-Bird, 514

Cryptolopha, 276

Cryptornis, 283

Crypturi, 10, 11, 28, 68,
118, 145, 167, 299, 738,
766, 854, 858, 865, 912

Crypturus, 878, 965

Ctenorhynchus, 298

Cubitals, 118, 741

INDEX

Cucco, 119
Cuceu, 119
Cuckoo, 118
Cuckow, 12, 19, 68, 84, 92,
107, 108, 118, 351, 378,
463, 530, 534, 550, 566,
572, 638, 654, 765, 892
Cuckow’s Leader, 126,
1053
Cuckow’s Mate, 126, 1053
Cuculi, 745, 863, 912, 941
Cuculo, 119
Cuculus, 12,
107, 118,
422, 463,

19, 29, 84, 92,

145, 147, 299,

473, 429, 500,
559, 612, 615, 617, 630,
654, 717, 718, 747, 815,
857, 858, 912, 918, 937,
939, 941, 952

Cuetzal, 758

Cuisinier, 681

Culblane, 1034

Culmen, 33

Cuntur, 101

Curacoa-bird, 126
Curassow, 78, 126, 396,

421, 707, 739, 753, 994
Curlew, 24, 127, 161, 456,
526, 565, 1033, 1036

Curlew-Jack, 886

Curreso, 126

Curruca, 438, 413

Cursores, 130

Cursorius, 89, 107, 180, 517,
733

Curucui, 130, 987

Cushat, 130, 162, 758

Cushew-bird, 78

Cute, 102

Cwtiar, 817

Cyanecula, 45, 332, 567,
777

Cyanocitta, 470
Cyanocorax, 470, 607
Cyanolyseus, 686
Cyanopica, 124, 342, 722
Cyanopolius, 722
Cyanorhamphus, 686
Cyanospiza, 459, 644
Cyanurus, 469
Cycloceelous, 142
Cyclopsittacus, 690
Cyclorhis, 1014 ~
Cygnet, 929
Cygnopsis, 376
Cygnus, 111, 168, 190, 623,
930, 985
Cymindis, 428, 492, 739
Cymochorea, 710

1065

Cypselomorphe, 2, 130,
148, 443, 517, 608, 610,
615, 638

Cypselus, 69, 77, 118, 130,
140, 148, 229, 284, 405,
442, 529, 557, 603, 616,
617, 623, 638, 711, 718,
742, 745, 858, 878, 912,
934, 937, 939, 941, 952

Cypsnagra, 944

Cyrus, 813

Cyta, 489

DaBcHIcK, 131, 136, 156,
382, 519

Dacelo, 465, 487, 617

Dacnis, 131, 401, 428

Dafila, 109, 726

Daha, 132

Daie, 540

Daker-hen, 131, 762

Dances, 894

Daption, 710, 726

Darr, 132

Darter, 132

Dartford Warbler, 1038

Dasornis, 281, 908

Dassie-vanger, 132

Dasylophus, 125

Dasypedes, 748

Daulias, 59, 637

Daw, 87, 116, 132, 466,
471

Dayal, 133, 134

Decoy, 170

Dei ingenium, 366

Demiegretta, 1007

Demoiselle, 111, 133

Dendragapus, 394

Dendrocitta, 722

Dendrocolaptes, 323, 658,
669, 718, 878, 939, 940

Dendrocops, 719

Dendrocopus, 292,
1047

Dendrocygna, 171, 984

Dendreeea, 72, 1023, 1056

Dendrophila, 648

Dendroplex, 719

Dentals, 872

Dentirostres, 134

Dertrum, 33, 134

Desert-Falcon, 235, 522

Desert Forms, 336, 421

Desmodactyli, 58, 134, 194,
972

Desmognathe, 2, 12, 86,
92, 134, 173, 254, 420,
456, 702, 743, 878

813,

Cypseli, 11, 18, 440, 606, | Devil-bird, 134
630, 654, 853, 865, 867 | Deviling, 134, 934

1066

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Dhyal, 133, 134

Diablotin, 227, 395

Diacromyodian, 938

Dial-bird, 133, 1384

Diamond-bird, 184, 136,
277

Diaphorapteryx, 1033

Diaphragm, 135, 413

Diatryma, 281, 908

Diceum, 135, 273, 428

Dichoceros, 434

Dicholophus, 9, 29, 118,
145, 440, 603, 610, 616,
635, 746, 747, 827 (cf.
Cariama)

Dick-Cissel, 136

Dicrocercus, 30, 741

Dicrurus, 167

Didapper, 186

Didi, 725

Didunculus, 154, 320, 654,
724

Didus, 76, 154, 155, 215,
459, 651, 766, 857, 858,
888

Digeon, 1039

Digestive System, 136

Dikkop, 148

Dilophus, 379

Dimorphism, 36, 149, 642,
1006

Dindon, 994

Dinornis, 151, 286, 315,
575, 858, 866, 912

Dinornithes, 798, 859, 864

Diomedea, 6, 45, 201, 530,
708, 952

Diphlogena, 449

Diploe, 47

Diplopterus, 126

Dipper, 151, 667

Dishwasher, 151, 276, 1018

Dissemurus, 167

Dissodectes, 478

Distal, 14

Distelfink, 370

Divedapper, 136

Diver, 4, 33, 81, 151, 194,
310, 453, 518, 597, 765

Diverticulum, 153

Diving-Duck, 734

Diving-Petrel, 708

Dixhuit, 505

Dobchick, 131

Docimastes, 443

Dodaers, 157

Dodar, 159

Dodlet, 154, 724

Dodo, 76, 80, 154, 155,
215, 459, 475, 493, 724,
1006, 1033

Doe-bird, 161

Dolichonyx, 46, 458, 588

Dolichopterus, 284

Dollar-bird, 161

Domicella, 520

Donacilda, 1029

Dorking-fowl, 587

Dorr-Hawk, 161

Dorsal side, 14

Dotterel, 150, 161, 171,
481, 634, 712, 732, 800

Doucker, 162, 171

Doudo, 155

Dough-bird, 161

Dove, 26, 154, 162, 217,
238, 820, 399, 659, 723,
790

Dovekey, 166, 813

Down, 242

Draaihalzen, 1053

Drake, 168

Draw-water, 166

Drepanis, 1138, 166, 182,
225, 320, 428, 655, 915,
975

Dromxognathe, 167, 322

Dromeus, 68, 78, 90, 167,
187, 218, 231, 242, 2438,
245, 320, 548, 607, 616,
857, 858, 859, 860, 879,
912, 917, 939, 983

Dromaieus, 213

Dromas, 89, 215, 733, 973

Dromeicus, 213

Dromornis, 286, 578

Drongo, 167

Dronte, 156

Drymeeca, 354, 725, 1022

Dryocopus, 899

Due, 671

Duck, 4, 52, 72, 86, 118,
151, 168, 191, 194, 297,
311, 368, 404, 406, 407,
508, 518, 530, 534, 587,
593, 597, 654, 726, 797,
817

Duck-antl, 168

Ducker, 162, 171

Duck-Hawk, 236

Due, 162

Dufa, 162

Dukipath, 432

Dulwilly, 171

Dunbird, 172, 816

Duneur, 172

Dun Diver, 543

Dunker, 172

Dunlin, 149, 172, 680,
784, 753, 770, 812, 915

Dunnock, 173, 895

Dunter, 173

|

Duycker, 168

Duyve, 162

Dysornithia, 468, 1036
Dysporomorphe, 134, 173
Dysporus, 904

BaGur, 153; 20,0 2/omolle
66, 87, 100, 132, 173,
191, 215, 261, 408, 411,
500, 587, 632, 892

Eagle-Owl, 674

Kar, 178

Earn, 657

Earthlinger, 40

Easterling, 181

Ebb, 182

Ebb-sleeper, 182

Echasse, 913

Eclectus, 99, 520, 690

Ectopistes, 696, 723

Edible birds’ nests, 631

Edolier, 182

Edolius, 134, 167

Eee-eve, 102

Eende-coy, 170

Effraie, 660, 679

Egg-bird, 182

Egg-tooth, 36

Eggs, 182

Egret, 192, 241, 416, 505,
660, 683, 683, 832

Egretta, 192

Eerettides, 505

Egritte, 192

Hider, 178, 192, 222, 633,
736, 802

Eisvogel, 485

Elainea, 999, 1000

Elanoides, 491

Elanus, 491, 739

Elaphrornis, 360

lbs, 931

Eleutherodactyli, 194, 972

Elk, 931

Elornis, 258, 283

Elps, 931

Ema, 79, 212, 785, 826

Ember Goose, 194

Emberiza, 47, 61, 76, 124,
186, 250, 329, 381, 458,
459, 554, 598, 644, 658,
690, 761, 778

Emberizoides, 982

Embernagra, 982

Embryology, 18, 194

Emerillon, 545

| Emeu, 8, 5, 78, 167, 187,

212, 320, 494, 543, 576,
785, 892

Emeus, 580

Emmer, 194

INDEX

1067

Emmet-hunter, 215

Empidias, 999

Empidonax, 483

Enaliornis, 13, 280, 652

‘* English” Sparrow, 896

Engrouée, 1024

Engyptila, 724

Enicurus, 276

Entomyza, 428

Eopsaltria, 957

Kos, 520

Epeiche, 1046

Epervier, 897

Ephippiorhynchus, 463

Ephouskyka, 514

Epimachus, 39

Epiotic, 874

Epiphyses, 48

Epistropheus, 852

Epithema, 432

Epollicati, 765

Epopes, 11, 147

Epopomorphe, 430

Epops, 430

Eremophila, 511

Ereunetes, 514, 734

Eriocnemis, 447

Eriodora, 20

Erismatura, 168, 338, 545,
761, 797

Erithacus, 45, 122, 771

Erne, 175, 215, 657

Erodius, 416

Erody, 215

Erolia, 215

Hrythra, 591

Erythrism, 99, 215, 1007

Erythrochroism, 1008

Erythromachus, 218, 764

Erythropus, 478

Erythropygia, 899

Erythrosterna, 275

Escoute, 817

Escriere, 643

Escrire, 1024

Esmerillon, 545

Esprevier, 897

Kstridge, 662

Hstridger, 215

Estrilda, 11, 31, 794, 825,

1026, 1029
Ethiopian Region, 345
Ethmoid, 871, 876
Eucichla, 728
Eucorystes, 457
Eudocimus, 456
Eudromias, 162, 634
Eudynamis, 125, 500, 567
Eudyptes, 529, 706
Eudytes, 151, 519, 753
Euethia, 381

Eulabeornis, 1033

Eulabia, 374

Eule, 671

Eumomota, 594

Eunetta, 949

Euornithes, 651

Eupetomena, 447

Euphones, 917.

Euphonia, 656, 761, 944

Euplocamus, 259, 476, 716

Eupodotis, 77, 320, 349,
498, 610, 746

Euptilotis, 989

Eurlemus, 57

Euryapteryx, 579

Eurycephalus, 846

Euryceros, 847, 433

Kurylemus, 134, 194, 273,
323, 355, 615, 617, 630,
747, 912, 939

Eurynorhynchus, 34, 337,
734, 813

Eurypyga, 118, 252, 320,
324, 440, 472, 615, 629,
739, 746, 747, 765, 875,
923, 973

Eurystomus, 161, 794

Euscarthmus, 1000

Euspiza, 136

Eustachian tubes, 5, 179

Eustephanus, 448

Evejar, 639

Evéque, 40

Exanthemops, 374

Eixcalphatoria, 756

Exoccipital, 871

Extermination, 215

Extinction, 215

Extirpation, 215

Eyas, 629, 645

Eye, 229

Fatsan, 84

Falcinellus, 513

Faleo, 16, 29, 33, 69, 74,
235, 261, 283, 329, 404,
409, 424, 426, 477, 489,
501, 503, 522, 545, 552,
617, 660, 757, 765, 824,
857, 858, 939, 950, 952

Falcon, 66, 235, 410, 411,
424, 477, 490, 5038, 522,
536, 632, 802

Falculia, 353, 354

Faleunculus, 845, 958

Falk, 235

.Fallow-Chat, 238, 1034

Falmair, 295

Fantail, 238, 276, 385, 943
Fantail (Pigeon), 164
Fantail-Warbler, 189, 631

Fasan, 713

Fasant, 713

Fasceddar, 239, 870

Fasgadair, 239, 870

Father John, 454

Father-of-the-Sickle, 455

Faucon, 235

Fauvette, 239

Fealo-for, 249

Feather, 239, 761

Feather-poke, 239

Fedoa, 365

Feet, 863

Femur, 248, 708, 863

Fern-bird, 249, 381

Fern-Owl, 269, 629, 671

Fesaun, 713

Fesaunt, 713

Fibula, 249

Ficedula, 250, 275, 365

Fieldfare, 269, 295, 551,
633, 777

Field-officer, 530

Fig-eater, 250, 365, 659

Filoplume, 242

Finch, 61, 70, 76, 82, 88,
102; 113, 250; 253, 319)
411, 459, 516, 554, 563,
814, 829

Fin-foot, 184, 252, 517,
764

Fink, 82, 250

Firecrest, 253

Firetail, 253, 775

Fiscal, 253

Fish-Hawk, 632, 661

Vissipedal, 194

Flamenco, 253

Flamingo, 8, 12, 20, 33, 95,
113, 197, 253, 283, 379,
597, 632, 649, 703

Flanderkin, 273

Flax-bird, 258

Flercher, 273

Flesher, 273

Flicker, 258, 458,
1040

Flight, 260

Florican, 273

Florida, 1007

Flower-picker, 136, 273

Flusher, 2738, 843

Flycatcher, 29, 57, 87, 92,
94, 151, 288, 250, 273;
364, 385, 482, 633, 738,
762, 814, 918

Fly-catching Warblers, 1028

Flying Goat, 885

Fool’s-coat, 276

Foramen magnum, 873

Foramen ovale, 179, 874

1005,

1068

Forktail, 276

Formicarius, 20, 328, 930,
940

Formicivora, 20

Forty-spot, 277

Fossil Birds, 277

Foulque, 103

Fourmilier, 20

Four-o’clock, 289, 293

Fowl, 4, 37, 53, 87, 198,
233, 248, 289, 452, 634,
783

Francolin, 227, 273, 291,
692, 778

Francolino, 291 s

Francolinus, 227, 291, 352

Frangito, 291

Frango, 291

Fratercula, 229, 558, 597,
737, 750

Free-fowl, 291

Frégate, 293, 603, 607,
745, 858, 865, 952

Fregilupus, 217, 853, 354

Fregilus, 87, 349

French Partridge, 695

French Pie, 292, 720

Fresaie, 660, 679

Freshwater-Duck, 734

Fressaia, 660

Freux, 795

Friar-bird, 289, 292, 429,
513, 573, 587, 725,
737

Frigate-bird, 173, 293, 296,
534, 703

Frill-back, 164

Fringilla, 31, 56,60, 61, 70,
82, 108, 1138, 243, 250,
285, 319, 370, 383, 386,
411, 515, 556, 600, 655,
690, 730, 773, 825, 829,
846, 896

Frog-mouth, 295

Frontal, 871, 876

Fronto-nasal joint, 877

Froufrou, 442

Frowl, 398

Frugivori, 1058

Fugl, 289

Fulfer, 295

Fulica, 102, 380, 517, 631,
973

Fulicarie, 118

Fuligula, 72, 103, 151,
168, 230, 284, 368, 407,
544, 593, 734, 815

Fulmaire, 295

Fulmar, 295, 471, 530

Fulmarus, 295

Fureula, 296, 401

Furnarius, 323, 632, 669,
719, 877, 878, 879, 939
Furze-Chat, 296

GABBIANO, 310

Gabble-ratchet, 297, 572

Gaddel, 297

Gadwall, 171, 297, 381

Gairfowl, 303

Galbaleyrhynchus, 463

Galbula, 30, 92, 97, 324,
408, 487, 617, 630, 654,
747, 749, 815, 853, 879,
912

Galeoscoptes, 582

Galerita, 509

Galgulus, 457, 463

Gall-bladder, 298, 517

Galley-bird, 299

Gallicrex, 591, 1024

Gallina, 311

Gallina Africana, 399

Gallina Numidica, 399

Gallinacee, 299

Gallinacei, 9, 299, 765

Galline, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18,
29,.68, 113, 126,. 145,
147, 188, 190, 198, 234,
242, 243, 245, 283, 299,
401, 415, 422, 440, 517,
539, 597, 606, 607, 608,
610, 611, 613, 615, 621,
635, 695, 699, 745, 747,
805, 854, 857, 860, 863,
874, 879, 912, 918, 937,
939, 940, 952

Gallinago, 68, 770, 883, 939

Galliney, 299

Gallinula, 299, 589

Gallirallus, 1031

Gallito, 946

Gallopavus, 994

Galloperdix, 902

Gallophasis, 476

Gallus, 89, 126, 140, 285,
289, 299, 617, 623, 765,
902, 941

Gallus Mauritanus, 400

Gallus peregrinus, 156

Gambet, 299

Gambetta, 299

Gambette, 299

Gampsonyx, 492

Gander, 300, 371

Gandra, 300

Ganga, 805

Gannet, 3, 33, 48, 300, 310,
477, 634, 703

Ganot, 300

Gans, 800)

Garden-Warbler, 43

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Gardener-bird, 49, 303

Gare-fowl, 22, 220, 287,
303, 704, 768, 1041

Garganello, 309

Garganey, 171, 309, 949

Garrot, 309

Garrulus, 85, 323, 466

Gas, 371

Gasserian ganglion, 55

Gastornis, 281, 864, 907.

Gaulding, 310

Gaulin, 310

Gaunt, 310, 382

Gavia, 310, 402

Gavie, 33, 183, 190, 310,
652

Gearbhul, 803

Gearrabhul, 304

Gecinomorphe, 2

Gecinus, 421, 452, 747,
899, 1046

Geelbec, 311

Geier, 364, 404

Geirfugl, 303, 704

Geline, 311

Gelinotte, 311, 394

Gemitores, 311

Gennea, 235

Genneus, 522

Gennaia, 522

Gentle Falcon, 235

Gentoo, 471

Genys, 33

Geobates, 670

Geobiastes, 353, 794

Geocichla, 388, 961

Geococcyx, 84, 126

Geocolaptes, 458

Geographical Distribution,
311

Geophaps, 58, 696

Geopsittacus, 475

Geositta, 670

Geospiza, 387

Geothlypis, 1023

Geranomorphex, 111, 363,
473, 816, 829

Geranopsis, 283

Geranos, 109

Gerfalcon, 364

Geronticus, 456

Gervaisia, 133

Gerygone, 316, 364

Giant Petrel, 593

Gier-Hagle, 364

Gilly-Howlet, 364

Gizzard, 916

Gjardiniere, 49

Gjég, 119, 378

Gjok, 378

iGlada, 364

Glareola, 9, 89, 453, 517,
610, 740

Glasoogje, 364

Glass-eye, 364

Glaucidium, 178, 675, 899

Glaucopis, 316, 1025

Glead, 364, 489

Gled, 364, 489

Glida, 364

Globicera, 35

Glossoptila, 761

Glottis, 884

Glutt, 384

Gnat, 364, 498

Gnat-catcher, 365

Gnat-snapper, 365

Gnathodon, 154

Goathead, 365

Goatsucker, 88, 130, 134,
365, 638

Godwit, 24, 28, 128, 150,
161, 248, 365, 536, 566,
634, 696, 712, 734, 800,
814

Gok, 119, 378

Goeland, 401

Goldammer, 1056

Golderest, 253, 367, 489,
565

Goldeine, 310

Golden-crested Wren, 632

Golden-crownedThrush,669

Golden Eagle, 176, 186,
500, 791

Golden-eye, 59, 60, 261,
309, 368, 407, 544, 546,
592, 633

Golden Plover, 505, 565,
731, 734, 809

Golden Robin, 457

Golden Warblers, 1023

Goldfinch, 250, 258, 276,
370, 489, 632, 773, 838

Goldfink, 370

Golding, 310, 371

Goldyn, 310

Gom-Paauw, 371

Gonabuch, 441

Gonambuch, 441

Gonys, 33

Goosander, 310, 371, 543

Goose, 32, 53, 81, 91, 168,
190, 194, 286, 297, 300,
315, 371, 489, 588, 597,
605, 770

Gooseherd, 373

Gorcock, 377

Gorfou, 304, 704

Gés, 371

Gos-Hawk, 188, 235, 377,
411, 696, 802

INDEX

Gosling, 371

Gossander, 871, 814

Goulen, 401

Goura, 286, 320, 877, 654,
724, 952

Gowk, 119, 378

Gowry-bird, 109

Gozzerd, 373

Gracculus, 378

Grackle, 42, 46, 878, 457,
517, 530, 538, 761, 904

Gracula, 138, 134, 380,
697, 717

Graculavus, 281

Graculus, 105, 378

Gralle, 3, 10, 11, 29, 33,
68, 81, 248, 254, 379,
740

Grallaria, 20

Grallator, 277

Grallatores, 380

Grallina, 25, 320, 380, 530,
939

Grandala, 44

Grandaulo, 805

Grand Duc, 677

Graénd, 297, 381

Grape-eater, 380

Grass-bird, 380, 458

Grasshopper- Lark, 512

Grasshopper-Warbler, 779,
1021

Grassmniicke, 601

Grass-Quit, 381, 761

Graucalus, 148, 381

Gray, 297, 381

Great Auk, 220, 304, 704

Grebe, 18, 33; 78, 131,
136, 151, 156, 191, 197,
310, 381, 424, 518, 630,
769, 816, 893

Grébe-Foulque, 252

Greenfinch, 10, 251, 383,
655

Greenland Dove, 166, 399

Greenland Turtle, 998

Greenleek, 384

Greenlet, 384, 1013

“Green Linnet,” 1052

Green Olph, 10

Green Plover, 505

Greenshank, 28, 384, 811

Greoche, 389

Greyback, 385

Greyhen, 385, 393, 415

Grey Partridge, 692

Grey Plover, 731

Griais, 389

Grice, 389

Griece, 389

Griesche, 389

1069

Griffon, 385, 1016

Grinder, 276, 385

Groove-bill, 978

Grosbeak, 251, 385, 510,
632, 637

Grosbee, 385

Ground-Parrot, 473

Ground-Robin, 982

Ground-Thrush, 388, 728

Ground-Warblers, 1023

Ground-Wren, 83

Grouse, 43, 74, 86, 89, 93,
150, 283, 311, 341, 377,
885, 388, 415, 599, 693,
740, 802

Grows, 43, 388

Grue, 109

Grues, 606, 607, 615, 635,
746, 863, 879, 939, 973

Grulla, 109

Griinfink, 383

Grus, 25, 68, 109, 118, 133,
145, 212, 240, 283, 299;
416, 440, 514, 559, 610,
612, 621, 747, 813, 829,
854, 857, 858, 875, 876,
912, 918, 985

Grus Capensis, 823

Gryphosaurus, 278

Gryphus, 385

Gryps, 385

Guacamayo, 528

Guacharo, 394, 638, 671

Guainumbi, 442

Guan, 82, 396, 703, 758

Guillem, 397

Guillemot, 22, 149, 166,
166, 191, 194, 397, 453,
480, 513, 519, 536, 602,
768, 817, 892

Guinea-fowl, 296, 299, 399,
726, 994

Guira, 401, 593, 941

Guiraca, 387

Guit-guit, 401, 761, 921

Gull, 3, 4, 33, 43, 81, 92,
94, 100, 113, 194, 198,
239, 261, 281, 310, 401,
453, 492, 505, 518, 534,
539, 547, 571, 631, 635,
692, 710, 718, 801, 816,
818, 822, 834

Gullet, 403

Gulénd, 310

Gum-Peafowl, 371

Gwillem, 403

Gwilym, 397

Gwylan, 401

Gymnocephalus, 1001

Gymnodera, 86, 1001

Gymnopedes, 743

1070

Gymnorhina, 148, 403, 656,
845, 878, 1025

Gypaetus, 8, 173, 227, 404,
500, 501, 739, 765, 858,
1015

Gypagus, 1016

Gypogeranus, 3, 765, 824,
858, 973

Gypotriorchis, 424

Gyps, 385, 1016

Gypsornis, 283

Gyrfaleon, 237, 404, 470,
503

Gyrofalco, 404

HABROPTILA, 320, 591

Hackbolt, 404

Hiiger, 416

Hemantopus, 682

Hematopus, 109, 130, 380,
517, 518, 610, 682, 725,
734, 918

Hampling, 515

Hinfling, 515

Hagbolt, 404

Hagdown, 404

Haggard, 629, 696

Halcyon, 404, 486

Halcyones, 11, 147

Halcyornis, 281, 489

Haleus, 904

Half-bird, 404

Haliaetus, 27, 144,175, 284

Haliastur, 176, 491

Halieus, 105

Hallux, 404, 587, 972

Halodroma, 708

Hammer-head, 405, 838

Hammer-kop, 405

Hamuli, 239

Hang-bird, 406

Hang-nest, 406, 457

Hanna, 424

Hapalarpactus, 989

Hapalocercus,, 999

Hapaloderma, 327, 989

Hapaloptila, 750

Haploophone, 406,
547

Harderian Glands, 55, 234

Hareld, 406, 817

Harelda, 229, 406, 984

Hargila, 2, 21, 451

Harild, 902

Harle, 407

Harlequin-Duck, 407, 519

Harpa, 407, 757

Harpactes, 617, 918, 989

Harpagornis, 286, 315

Harpagus, 412, 574

Harpe, 480, 503, 757

425,

Harporhynchus, 582, 958

Harpy, 407

Harrier, 66, 67, 177, 226,
408, 411, 424, 572, 589,
791

Hartlaubia, 283

Haselhuhn, 394

Havelda, 406

Havelle, 406, 407

Haversian Canals, 47

Hawfinch, 250, 371, 384,
386, 410

Hawk, 1, 8, 408, 411, 490,
549, 572, 629, 897

Hawk-Owl, 674

Hay-bird, 413

Hay-jack, 413, 825, 1053

Hazel-hen, 311, 394, 696

Heart, 413, 1008

Heath-cock, 415

Heath-hen, 415

Heather-bleat, 415

Heather-bleater, 885

Heather-blite, 415

Heaven’s Ram, 885

Hedge-Sparrow, 1, 26, 120,
178, 452, 687, 777, 825,
895

Hedymeles, 387

Heergans, 416

Hegessugge, 825

Hegre, 416

Heiger, 416

Heigh-haw, 421

Heire, 416

Heleothreptes, 641

Helicura, 532

Heliodilus, 353, 673

Heliornis, 252 617, 629,
764, 973

Helmet-Hornbill, 434

Helminthophila, 1023

Helminthotherus, 1023

Helodromas, 812

Helornis, 258

Helotarsus, 31, 173, 717

Hemiglottides, 146, 456,
974

Hemignathus, 167

Hemipode, 66, 415, 757

Hemipodius, 415

Hemixus, 461

-| Hen-Harrier, 408

Henicurus, 276

Hepatic Portal
1011

Herald, 406

Herbst’s corpuscles, 973

Herle, 407

Hermit, 447

Hern, 416

System,

DICTIONARY :OF BIRDS

Hernser, 416

Hernshaw, 416

Herodias, 215

Herodii, 10, 11,18, 68, 69,
76, 90, 118, 146, 248,
517, 606, 607, 610, 613,
615, 617, 879, 952, 972

Herodiones, 406, 917

Heron, 8, 12, 33, 41, 98,
192, 215, 218, 254, 281,
310, 379, 406, 416, 455,
471, 632, 635, 702, 73,
764, 828

Heronry, 410

Heronsewe, 416

Heronshaw, 416

Herpetornithes, 780

Herring-Gull, 816

Hesperiphona, 251, 384

Hesperornis, 13, 280, 405,
477, 649, 699, 753, 754,
857, 858, 954

Heteralocha, 36, 184, 316,
438

Heterochrosis, 99, 215, 420,
1007

Heteroclite, 805

Heterococcyx, 362

Heteroceelous, 856

Heterodactyles, 972

Heteromeri, 86, 406, 421,
425, 5382, 547

Heteromorphe, 322, 421,
422

Heterops, 509

Hewel, 421

Hewhole, 421, 1046

Heysuck, 825

Hibou, 677

Hickwall, 421, 915, 1046

Hickwaw, 421

Hickway, 421, 1046

Hieracidea, 757

Hierax, 685, 802

Hierofaleo, 235, 404

Higera, 421, 1046

Highawe, 421

Highhaw, 1046

High-holder, 421, 1046

High-hole, 421, 1046

Himantopus, 100, 130, 284,
517, 610, 680, 682, 913

Himbrim, 196

Hirondelle, 927

Hirundo, 189, 536, 559,
599, 697, 740, 741, 926

Hirundo marina, 740

Histology, 12

Histrionicus, 407

Hjerpe, 394

Hledpewince, 504

Hoactzin, 9, 12, 296, 322,
421, 914

Hobby, 235, 424, 477

Hobé, 424

Hobereau, 424

Hoberel, 424

Hocco, 421

Hoitlallotl, 84

Holarctic Region, 313, 378

Holaspidez, 431

Holm-cock, 425

Holm-Thrush, 425

Holorhinal, 425, 816, 877

Holorhines, 1015

Holzhauer, 421

Homalogonate, 11, 19, 425,
609

Homodynamous, 15

Homeeomeri, 86, 406, 421,
425, 547

Homology, 15

Homolopus, 284

Homrai, 426, 434

Honey-bird, 426

Honey-Buzzard, 67, 426,
492

Honey-eater, 292, 428, 915,

5

Honey-guide, 27, 429

Honey-sucker, 31, 87, 92,
166, 428, 655, 779, 801

Hoodie, 430

Hoopoe, 92, 93, 284, 4380,
436, 438, 460, 505, 509,
632, 653, 748

Hoplopterus, 506, 733

Hornbill, 4, 35, 47, 70, 83,
92, 112, 184, 234, 283,
426, 432, 486, 601, 632,
788

Horned Owls, 677

Horned Pheasant, 587

Hornero, 669

Horn-Pie, 437, 505

Hortolan, 658

House-Martin, 536

House-Sparrow, 896

Houtou, 595

Howlet, 437, 671

Hrefn, 766

Hrafn, 766

Hragra, 416

Hrée, 795

Hrékr, 795

Huhola, 421

Huia, 36, 316, 437, 647

Huitrier, 682

Hum-bird, 441

Humerus, 439

Humming-bird, 18, 32, 43,
113, 130, 195, 328, 440,

INDEX

1071

477, 529, 534, 594, 632, | Impennes, 11, 18, 29, 324,

638, 762
Huppe, 430
Hurgila, 451
Hurricane-bird, 294, 451
Hyas, 732
Hydralector, 464, 521
Hydrobata, 667
Hydrochelidon, 955
Hydrocichla, 277
Hydrocorax, 434
Hydrophasianus, 90, 464
Hydrornis, 284
Hylacola, 451
Hylactes, 946
Hyliota, 276
Hylochelidon, 538
Hylomanes, 594
Hylophilus, 1014
Hymenolemus, 843, 975
Hyoid, 452, 512
Hypapophyses, 854
Hyphantornis, 1029
Hypocleidium, 858
Hypolais, 122, 364, 1038
Hypopteron, 454
Hyporhachis, 3, 239
Hypositta, 648
Hypotenidia, 764, 1032
Hypotarsus, 865
Hypotriorchis, 235, 424,

477
Hypselornis, 285
Hypsipetes, 230, 574
Hystornis, 654

IBrpoPoptia, 284

Ibidopsis, 283

Ibis, 34, 89, 95, 146, 283,
349, 3879, 454, 513, 610,
702, 877, 952, 973, 974

Ibycter, 74, 457

Ichthyornis, 281, 649, 753,
754, 850, 859, 954

Icoturus, 773

Icteria, 85, 457, 1023

Icterus, 42, 46, 96, 329,
378, 406, 457, 476, 512,
530, 539, 563, 657, 727,
741, 1024

Ictinia, 458, 491

Idle Jack, 381, 458

Tiwi, 182

Ikstern, 955

Tleum, 458

Ilium, 458

Imber, 194

Imberbi, 1058

Imber-Goose, 458

Immanes, 315, 766

Immer-Goose, 194, 458

458, 704

Impeyan Pheasant, 458, 586

Imping, 596

Index, 459

Indian Cock, 586

Indian Raven, 433

Indian Region, 312, 355

Indicator, 27, 429, 617,
878, 952

Indigo-bird, 40, 459, 645

Inepti, 459, 766

Inertes, 459, 493

Insectivores, 459

Insessores, 312, 459, 524,
697, 698, 707, 718, 814

Intermaxilla, 877

Interpres, 997

Intestines, 459

Trena, 45, 168

Tris, 460

Irrisor, 432, 460, 617, 618,
857

Isaac, 825
Ischium, 460
Tsen, 485
Isepiptesis, 559
Isern, 485
Island Hen, 590
Isoceelous, 142
Ithaginis, 44
Ivory-bill, 460
Ivory-Gull, 575
Ixus, 59, 319, 461
Tynx, 81, 1053

JABIRU, 2, 379, 462

Jacamar, 30, 92, 463, 487,
749

Jacamaralcyon, 463

Jacameri, 463

Jacamerops, 463

Jacana, 380, 464, 521, 764,
819, 893

Jackass, 465

Jack-bird, 802

Jackdaw, 132, 364, 466

Jacko, 690

Jack-Snipe, 466, 886

Jacobin, 164

Jaggar, 522

Jaquette, 720

Jardreka, 366

Java Sparrow, 466

Jay, 116, 3823, 429, 466,
592, 647, 722, 812

Jenny-Wren, 470, 1050

Jerfalcon, 470

Jhagar, 522

John - Crow,
1016

227, 470.

1072

John-Down, 471
Johnny, 471
Jugals, 872
Jumby-bird, 471
Jumping Jack, 465
Jungle-Fowl, 471
Jynx, 717, 814, 815

Kaap, 92

Kackela, 460

Kae, 471

Kago, 691

Kagu, 82, 320, 471, 765,
925

Kaka, 473,627 .

Kakapo, 76, 316, 473, 477,
686

Kakatielje, 92

Kakatua, 93

Kalekuttisch Hiin, 994

Kalij, 476

Kalkoentje, 458, 475, 575,
727

Kalkon, 994

Kallege, 476, 716, 1005

Kamichi, 819

Kapok-vogel, 725

Kea, 476, 600, 627

Keel, 476

Keel-bird, 477

Kelp-hen, 1032

Kelp-Pigeon, 832

Kentish Plover, 341

Kestrel, 89, 235, 327, 477,
815, 903

Ketupa, 676

Kiddaw, 398, 480

Kidney, 361, 480

Kiebitz, 505

Kiewiet, 505

Killdeer, 481

Killigrew, 482

King-bird, 482

King-Crow, 167

King-Duck, 194

Kingfisher, 30, 92, 100,
243, 281, 320, 404, 463,
465, 485, 593, 601, 631,
749

King Harry, 489

Kinglet, 367, 489, 1052

King-Lory, 519

King-Vulture, 1015

Kirr-Mew, 489

Kite, 66, 67, 118, 176,
226, 364, 411, 458, 489,
563, 7538, 803

Kittiwake, 398, 402, 492

Kitty, 493, 966

Kitty Wren, 1050

Kiwi, 3, 4, 224, 286, 315,

459, 493, 578, 630,
646
Knee, 498

Knorhaan, 498

Knot, 864, 385, 498, 539,
655, 791, 804, 812

Kobbe, 92

Koekkoek, 119

Koel, 499

Koniglein, 999

Konigsfischer, 485

Koet, 817

Kohlineise, 92

Koklas, 752

Koko, 691

Koning Roodebec, 795

Koperwiek, 777

Korrock, 795

Kraai, 116, 500

Kraan, 109

Krihe, 116

Kren, 109

Kramtsvogel, 249

Kreuzschnabel, 113

Kruiper, 112

Kryber, 112

Krypare, 112

Kuckuk, 119

Kukker, 119

Kwakkel, 754

Kwartel, 754

Kwikstaart, 1018

LABRADOR DUCK, 222, 736

Labyrinth, 984

Lacrymal, 871, 876

Lacteal Vessels, 1012

Lady-fowl, 500

Liimmergeyer, 21, 101, 404,
407, 500, 501, 1015

Lerke, 507

Lagenoplastes, 538

Laggar, 522

Lag Goose, 371

Lagonosticta, 825

Lagopus, 89, 287, 341, 389,
597

Laletes, 1014

Lamellirostres, 503

Lampornis, 534

Lamprocolius, 229, 904

Land-Rail, 109, 131, 762

Langvia, 398

Langy, 398

Laniarius, 72, 503, 845

Lanier, 503

Lanius, 31, 66, 70, 116,
124, 134, 167, 253, 284,
292, 362, 468, 483, 517,
574, 575, 643, 681, 697,
843, 1041

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Lanner, 503, 522, 802

Laornis, 281

Lapwing, 68, 192, 310,
432, 504, 565, 701, 711,
732, 775, 892, 898, 1054

Lapwynches, 504

Lari, 850, 858, 863

Lark, 6, 70, 250, 431, 458,
476, 507, 513, 539, 565,
598, 659, 671, 726

Lark-heeled Cuckow, 107

Laro-Limicole, 118, 973

Larus, 10, 11, 29, 68, 81,
92, 94, 109); Hilay elas
145, 195, 243, 284, 310
329, 401, 440, 492, 505,
606, 607, 610, 612, 615,
621, 635, 651, 707, 710,
742, 747, 801, 857, 875,
876, 878, 939, 952

Larynx, 512, 937

Lateral, 15

Latirostres, 513

Laughing Jackass, 465

Laurillardia, 283

Lavandiére, 1018

Laverock, 513

Lavy, 398, 513

Lawerce, 507

Lazy Dick, 381

Leather-head, 293, 5138

Leeuwerik, 507

Lefler, 514

Leistes, 458

Lemuria, 355

Lepelaar, 514, 738

Leplar, 514

Leptodon, 428

Leptoptilus, 2, 5, 284, 463,
536, 610, 741, 952

Leptosoma, 3847, 688, 654,
739, 972

Lerche, 507

Lerwa, 696

Lestris, 149, 868

Leucocerca, 238

Leucopeza, 1023

Leucosarcia, 320,
1041

Leucosticte, 251, 332, 516

Lever, 513

Levesque, 40

Lhagar, 522

Lichenops, 998

Lichenoxanthine, 187

Licmetis, 93

Ligament, 514

Ligurinus, 251, 384

Limicole, 10, 29, 33, 68,
85, 109, 148, 145, 150,
161, 182, 183, 190, 191,

4
‘

a

723, |

195, 243, 281, 315, 366,
385, 405, 440, 464, 498,
511, 514, 518, 548, 606,
607, 610, 6138, 615, 621,
635, 652, 682, 733, 740,
747, 757, 800, 810, 850,
858, 873, 875, 876, 878,
939, 952

Limuatornis, 284

Limosa, 69, 128, 283, 365,
634, 734, 939

Limpkin, 514, 765

Linete, 515

Linet-wige, 515

INDEX

Lophortyx, 756, 939
Lophosteon, 910
Lophotibix, 456
Lord, 519
Loriculus, 530
Lorikeet, 519, 520
Loripes, 913

Lorius, 320, 520, 690
Lory, 519, 687
Lotus-bird, 464, 521
Louro, 519

Loury, 519
Léuthrell, 734
Love-bird, 521, 689

Linnet, 251, 383, 386, 515, | Love-gestures, 892, 893

774
Linota, 251, 515, 773
Linotte, 515
Lintquhit, 515
Lintwhite, 515
Lipaugus, 86
Lipoa, 320, 530, 541, 621
Lipotypes, 319
Lira, 517, 523, 830
Lire, 523
Liri, 523
Lithornis, 281
Litorne, 249
Little Auk, 796
Little Bittern, 188
Little Owl, 679
Littorales, 514, 517
Liver, 513, 517
Léa, 734
Léarthrell, 734
Lobiophasis, 362
Lobipedes, 517
Lobipes, 712
Lobivanellus, 506
Locust-bird, 379, 517
Locustella, 779, 1021
Loddigesia, 444
Lofilar, 514
Logcock, 517, 1048
Logger-head, 517, 597, 737
Loggerhead Duck, 762
Lémr, 518
Longipennes, 310, 518
Longirostres, 85, 518
Longlegs, 914
Long-tailed Duck, 70
Loom, 151, 518, 522
Loon, 382, 518
Looree, 519
Lophogyps, 1017
Lophoictinia, 491
Lopholemus, 610
Lophophaps, 58, 320
Lophophorus, 458,
716

585,

Lowan, 522, 541

Loxia, 114, 250, 386, 571,
698

Loxops, 1053

Luggar, 238, 522, 803

Lullula, 509

Lumme, 518, 522

Lunda, 522

Lunde, 522

Lungs, 522

Luscinia, 637

Lymphatic System, 1012

Lymphatic Vessels, 1008

Lyncornis, 639

Lynx, 717

Lyra, 523, 830

Lyre-bird, 2, 9, 92, 242,
320, 523, 753, 821

Lyric, 523, 830

Maace, 401
Macao, 527
Macaw, 527
Maccao, 527
Maccaroni, 529
Maccaw, 220, 527, 690
Macheropterus, 532
Machao, 527
Machetes, 798
Mackerel-bird, 529
Mackerel-cock, 529
Mackerel-Diver, 529
Mackerel-Gull, 529
Macreuse, 102, 817
Macrocephalon, 541
Macrocercus, 527
Macrochires, 16, 29, 442,
529
Macrodipteryx, 641
Macronyx, 458, 475, 575,
727
Macroptéres, 518
Macropteryx, 936
Macrornis, 283
Macucagua, 963

Lophopsittacus, 216, 1006 | Madge, 529, 720

68

1073

Mew, 547

Mafur, 401

Magot, 720

Magpie, 364, 403, 530, 720

Magpie-Lark, 530

Magpie-Robin, 530

Magpie-Shrike, 530

Maina, 378, 530

Maiwi, 539

Maize-bird, 5380

Makavouanne, 528

Malacocereus, 25

Malaconotus, 845

Malacoptila, 750

Malacorhynchus, 842

Malart, 168, 530

Maleo, 530

Malkoha, 580

Mallard, 168, 530

Mallee-bird, 530, 541

Mallemuck, 9, 293, 580,
585

Mallemugge, 295, 530

Malleoe, 540

Malurus, 821, 1022

Malvitius, 539

Mamo, 167, 225, 655

Mamuco-Diata, 38

Manacus, 533

Manakin, 85, 93, 421, 531,
892

Manchot, 704

Mandarin-Duck, 534

Mandible, 534

Mango-bird, 534

Mangrove-Cuckow, 534

Mangrove-hen, 534

Manneken, 531

Man-of-war bird, 6, 253,
5384

Manorhina, 31

Manucode, 40, 150, 534

Manucodia, 140, 144, 534,
917 f

Manucodiata, 38, 534

Manukdewata, 534

Manu-mea, 724

Mase, 401

Marabou-Stork, 536

Maracry, 213

Mareca, 1039

Margarops, 959

Margot, 720

Maringouin, 865, 498

Mariu-erla, 1018

Marlin, 367, 536, 545

Marlion, 545

Maroang, 213

Marrock, 398, 536

Marrot, 586, 750, 768

Marryang, 213

1074

DICTIONARTS OF BILD S:

Marsh-Harrier, 409

Marsh-hen, 536

Martelet, 536

Martin, 189, 454, 536, 632,
928, 934

Martin (Fr.), 538

Martinet, 536

Martlet, 536, 934

Marvizzo, 539

Mascarin, 687

Mase, 966

Mastoid, 875

Matuitui, 750

Mauviette, 539, 959

Mauvis, 539, 778

Mavi, 539 :

Mavis, 539, 778, 959

Maxilla, 539

May-bird, 539

May-chick, 539

May-cock, 539

May-fowl, 539

Meadow-chicken, 539

Meadow-hen, 539

Meadow - Lark, 512, 539,

575

Median, 15

Meerelster, 682

Mees, 966

Meeuw, 401

Megacephalon, 320, 541,
939

Megalema, 28, 319, 879

Megalapteryx, 579

Megalestris, 869

Megaloprepia, 97

Megalornis, 281, 576

Megapode, 59, 522, 530,
539, 600, 621, 630, 707,
753

Megapodii, 118

Megapodius, 77, 126, 248,
319, 860, 361, 539, 597,
972

Meggy, 543, 601

Megistanes, 78, 320, 543,
766

Meionornis, 580

Meise, 966

Melampitta, 728

Melanerpes, 773, 1048

Melanism, 99, 542, 548,
1007

Melanocorypha, 70, 510

Melanodryas, 791

Meleagris, 69, 285, 399,
610, 765, 952, 994

Melidora, 488

Melierax, 1002

Meliphaga, 31, 32, 38, 44,
92, 166, 292, 316, 428,

573, 655, 691, 748, 779,
975

Melithreptus, 87, 429, 1058

Melittophagus, 30

Melizophilus, 1038

Mellisuga, 444

Mellopitta, 728

Melopsittacus, 59,
953

Menura, 2, 9, 92, 134, 320,
458, 528, 607, 630, 746,
747, 753, 765, 822, 878,
912, 939

Merganetta, 545, 975

Merganser, 151, 168, 369,
371, 407, 5038, 543, 814

Mergulus, 839, 796

Mergus, 168, 284, 299,
369, 871, 508, 543, 917,
984

Merle, 545

Merlin, 235, 477, 536, 545

Mero, 791

Meroblastic, 546

Meropogon, 30

Merops, 29, 68, 77, 92,
292, 463, 487, 593, 616,
630, 654, 718, 743, 747,
794, 853, 857, 879, 912,
912

Merrythought, 296

Merry-wing, 546

Mertyn, 546

Merula, 42, 545, 961

Mes, 966

Mésange, 966

Mesembriornis, 905

Mesentery, 546

Mesites, 353,
858, 877

Mesoblast, 546

Mesomyodi, 86, 406, 421,
426, 532, 546, 728, 938

Mesopteryx, 580

Metacarpus, 547, 859

Metasternum, 910

Metatarsus, 547, 864

Metopia, 532

Metopiana, 736, 983

Metopidius, 464

Metostea, 910

Meve, 401

Mew, 401, 547

Microdactylus, 827

Microglossa, 34

Microligia, 1023

Micromonacha, 750

Micronisus, 898

Micropterus, 518, 737

Micropus, 934

Migration, 547

194,

730, 764,

Milhuez, 539

Miliaria, 659

Miller, 572

Milnea, 284

Milvago, 74

Milvid, 539

Milvulus, 483, 816, 999

Milvus, 67, 89, 144, 284,

489

Mimeta, 573, 656

Mimetes, 573

Mimicry, 572

Mimocichla, 959, 961

Mimus, 80, 582, 958

Mina, 575

Minivet, 575

Minor, 878, 530, 575

Mirafra, 511

Mire-dromble, 40, 575

Mire-drum, 575

Miro, 316, 791, 1035

Miroir, 899

Miserythrus, 218, 764

Missel-bird, 575

Missel-Thrush, 575

Mistletoe-Thrush, 249, 425,

575, 820, 848, 960

Mitua, 127

Mniotilta, 85, 273, 328,
328, 365, 777, 1022

Moa, 3, 82, 151, 226, 286,
315, 575

Moat-hen, 582, 589

Mock-bird, 582

Mocking - bird, 26, 80,
582

Mock-Nightingale, 582

Mock Regent-bird, 780

Moeleoe, 540

Mohoa, 655

Molenaartje, 572

Molly, 585

Molly-Mawk, 9, 295, 530,
585

Molly-Washdish, 1018

Molobrus, 108, 458

Molothrus, 108

Molpastes, 59

Momotus, 30, 92, 184,
324, 433, 463, 487, 593,
616, 617, 654, 746, 747,
939

Monacha, 750, 770

Monal, 459, 585, 716

Monk, 293, 587

Monstrosities, 587, 1003

Monticola, 45, 887, 889,
961

Montifringilla,
887

Moonaul, 585

251, 517,

Moor-Buzzard, 409
491, 589
Moorcock, 589
Moore-henne, 389
Moor-fowl, 389, 589
Moor-game, 389
Moor-hen, 299, 582, 589
Moor-poult, 589
Moor-Titling, 595
Mooruk, 80, 592
Moose-bird, 592
Morah, 575
Morepork, 295, 592, 643,
671
Morillon, 369, 592
Mormon, 118, 753
Mosquito-Hawk, 593
Moss-cheeper, 86, 593
Motacilla, 45, 108, 120,
131, 1384, 151, 276, 284,
332, 367, 381, 458, 475,
511, 559, 598, 637, 697,
727, 758; 772; 780,
1018
Mother Carey’s
593, 709
Mother Carey’s Goose, 593
Mother Carey’s Hen, 593
Moth-Hawk, 593
Moth-hunter, 593
Motmot, 30, 92, 134, 463,
487, 543, 762, 814
Mottled Owl, 678
Mouchet, 620
Mouette, 401
Moult, 170, 398, 595
Mound-bird, 540, 600
Mountain-Bunting, 600
Mountain-cock, 31,
600
Mountain-Duck, 600
Mountain-Finch, 251, 600
Mountain-Parrot, 600
Mountain-Quail, 295
Mountain-Sparrow, 600
Mouse-bird, 12, 92, 101,
251, 600, 684
Mousquet, 620
Mouth, 136
Mud-Lark, 512
Muggy, 543, 601
Muisvogel, 600
Miillerchen, 572
Mullet-Hawk, 601
Mumruflin, 601
Munal, 585
Munia, 108, 466, 601, 648
Murre, 398, 602
Muscicapa, 57, 92, 134,
238, 273, 316, 362, 364,
885, 697, 738

67,

?

Chicken,

590, |

INDEX

Muscivora, 1000

Muscular System, 602

Musk-Duck, 171

Musket-Hawk, 620

Musophaga, 12, 18, 35,
OR, hy ele ee
284, 347, 422, 615, 630,
780, 753, 815, 857, 858,
863, 952, 972, 980

Musquet-Hawk, 620

Mutton-bird, 620, 831

Myeteria, 4, 379, 462, 741,

952

Myiadectes, 887, 1028

Myiadestes, 1028

Myiagra, 275, 814

Myiarchus, 483, 518, 973,

999

Myiodioctes, 1023

Myiodynastes, 483

Myiomoira, 816, 791, 1035

Myiothera, 134

Myiozetetes, 493

Myna, 378

Mynah, 530

Myzomela, 44, 428, 887

Na’kma, 212

Na’éma, 212

Nail, 89

Namaqua Duif, 724

Nandu, 620, 785

Nares perview, 875

Nasal Glands, 620

Nasals, 871, 876

Nasiterna, 98, 687

Nasute, 621

Natatores, 621, 650, 972

Native - companion, 112,
621

Native-hen, 621

| Native-Pheasant, 541, 621

Native-Sparrow, 621

Native-Thrush, 621

Native-Turkey, 621

Nauclerus, 491

Nearctic, 312, 329

Neck, 621

Necropsar, 353, 354

Necropsittacus, 218

Necrornis, 284

Nectarinia, 97, 349, 428,
444, 743, 922, 975

Nemosia, 944

Neochloe, 1014

Neocorys, 727

Neomorpha, 438

Neomorphus, 126

Neophron, 364, 606, 621,
1016

Neossoptile, 243, 629, 635

1075

Neotropical, 312, 321

Nervous System, 621

Nesoctites, 720

Nesonetta, 1006

Nest, 630

Nestor, 228, 316, 473,
476, 600, 627, 686

Nettium, 949

Nettle-creeper, 1037

Nettopus, 376, 949

Neunmorder, 643

Neuntodter, 643

New-Holland Vulture, 59,
541

New-Zealand Region, 315

Nhandu-guagu, 620

Niais, 629

Nias, 629, 645, 696

Nicobar Pigeon, 724

Nidax, 629

Nidicole, 10,
234, 243, 629

Nidification, 630

Nidifuge, 10, 153, 212,
234, 248, 635, 814

Night-Hawk, 635, 639

Night-Heron, 45, 416, 635,
754

Nightingale, 6, 45, 59, 339,
550, 635, 777, 778, 892

Nightjar, 17, 68, 88, 89,
161, 295, 297, 351, 365,
895, 442, 592, 593, 630,
635, 638, 671, 738, 749

Night-Parrot, 473

Night-Raven, 643

Nihtegale, 635

Nilaus, 58, 845

Nine-killer, 643

Nine-murder, 643

Nisaetus, 178

Nisoides, 411

Nisus, 412

Noddy, 310, 643

Noira, 519

Non, 646

Nonnenmeise, 646

Nonnette, 646

Nonnula, 750

Nonpareil, 459, 644

Nope, 645, 655

154, 212,

Nor, 519
Norfolk Plover, 129, 645
Nori, 519

Nothocercus, 965

Nothocrax, 127

Nothoprocta, 965

Nothura, 615, 964

Noto-Coracomorphe, 39,
846, 1025 (cf Austro-
coraces)

1076

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Notogea, 314

Notornis, 286, 316, . 591,
592, 1007

Nousbrecher, 646

Noyra, 519

Nucifraga, 571, 646

Nullipennes, 493, 646

Numenius, 25, 68, 127, 145,
146, 148, 161, 284, 299,
514, 610, 612, 1036

Numida, 299, 399, 765

Nun, 646, 967

Nuri, 519

Nussbrecher, 646

Nutcracker, 116, 571, 646

Nuthack, 647

Nuthatch, 112, 189, 632,
647, 1048

Nutjobber, 647

Nutmeg-bird, 648

Nyctala, 178, 675, 899,
814

Nyctea, 178, 287, 674

Nyctibius, 643, 738, 879

Nycticorax, 33, 45, 229,
244, 416, 754

Nyctidromus, 639, 941

Nyctiornis, 30

Nyroca, 734, 815

Oat-FOWL, 649
Oatseed bird, 649
Occipitals, 870
Occiput, 649, 873
Oceanites, 710
October-bird, 649
Ocydromeé, 649
Ocydromus, 315, 592, 764,
858, 973, 1031
Ocyphaps, 58
Odontoglosse, 649
Odontoid, 852
Odontolex, 640, 954
Odontophorinz, 188
Odontophorus, 649, 756
Odontopteryx, 281
Odontornithes, 281,
954
Odontotorme, 649, 655,954
(idemia, 86, 817, 983,
984
(Hdicnemus, 68, 129, 148,
284, 440, 458, 610, 877,
919, 958
Gina, 871, 724
(Enops, 470
Cirn, 175, 215, 657
(Esophagus, 653
Oestervisscher, 682
Cistrelata, 227, 395, 709
Oil-bird, 394, 638, 653

649,

Oil-gland, 653

Oiseau-de-soleil, 252, 924

Oiseau-mouche, 442

Oiseau-trompette, 992

Olaf, 655

Old man, 654

Old squaw, 654

Old wife, 654

Olecranon, 654

Oligomyode, 58, 323, 654,
938

Olive, 655

Olph, 10, 655

Ombre, 655

Ombrette, 406, 655,.1000

Ombria, 600

Onocrotalus, 702

Ontogeny, 18

Onychoprion, 1039

O-o, 167, 655

Oocyan, 187

Ooijevaar, 919

Oorhodeine, 187

Ooxanthine, 187

Open-bill, 510, 655

Ophiotheres, 824

Opisthoceelous, 850

Opisthocomus, 9, 12, 29,
118, 118, 145, 147, 322,
421, 606, 615, 630, 635,
655, 745, 746, 747, 765,
857, 858, 879, 939

Opisthodactylus, 905, 907

Opisthotic, 875

Oporornis, 1023

Orange-bird, 655

Orange-Quit, 701

Orbitosphenoid, 871, 876

Orchard-Oriole, 657

Orchilus, 442

Oreocincla, 770

Orececa, 31, 958

Oreophasis, 126, 397

Oreopsittacus, 521

Oreoscoptes, 582

Oreotrochilus, 97, 448

Orfraie, 660, 679

Organ-bird, 404, 656

Organist, 656

Organiste, 40, 656

Oriental Region, 355

Oriol, 656

Oriole, 230, 406, 457, 463,
573, 632, 656, 1029

Oriolia, 1050

Oriolus, 134, 230, 457, 534,

559, 574, 656, 697, 717,
779
Ornithichnites, 657
Ornithion, 483
Ornitholite, 657

Ornithology, 657

Ornithopus, 277

Ornithotomy, 657

Ornithure, 754, 814

Ortalida, 397

Ortalis, 82, 325, 397

Orthoceelous, 142

Orthonyx, 77, 657, 822,
1036

Orthotomus, 942, 1022

Ortolan, 47, 61, 865, 658

Ortygis, 765

Ortygometra, 762

Ortygornis, 692

Ortyx, 47, 95, 696

Ortyxelus, 757

Oscines, 1, 380, 4538, 617,
659, 668, 698, 718, 737,
746, 939, 940, 951

Os entoglossum, 872

Osle, 666

Ospray, 660

Osprey, 178, 192, 253,
832, 503, 601, 632, 660,
672, 679

Ossification, 47

Ossifraga, 598, 660, 710,
952

Ossifrage, 5038, 660, 662

Osteornis, 282

Ostrich, 3, 33, 66, 89,
91, 130, 190, 194, 197,
212, 234, 285, 346, 380,
630, 651, 662, 770, 781,
785

Otidiphaps, 724

Otis, 9, 62, 77, 180, 145,
284, 320, 871, 380, 405,
440, 607, 610, 621, 635,
654, 746, 747, 824, 829,
875, 912

Otocorys, 511

Otogyps, 849, 1017

Otus, 678

Oubrier, 424

Ourissia, 442

Ousel, 277, 666

Ouzel, 666

Ovary, 669

Oven-bird, 632, 669, 1053

Oviduct, 660

Ovum, 195

Owl, 1, 8, 16, 33, 47, 68,
178, 184, 188, 191, 218,
287, 816, 353, 364, 409,
437, 471, 529, 534, 565,
592, 634, 638, 642, 671,
892

Owl (Pigeon), 164

Owlet, 671

Owl-Parrot, 473

Ox-bird, 680
Oxen-and-Kine, 680
Ox-eye, 680, 913, 967
Ox-pecker, 30, 680, 788
Oxlophus, 125
Oxynotus, 70, 353, 681
Oxyurus, 719
Oyster-catcher, 109, 130,
380, 518, 565, 655, 681,
725, 7383, 817, 822, 833,
838, 913

Paauw, 683, 699, 730

Pachycephala, 319,
957

Pachyornis, 580

Pachyrhamphus, 325

Pacinian Corpuscles, 973

Padda, 466, 683

Paddy-bird, 683, 789, 832

Pedotrophe, 814

Pagophila, 402

Paictes, 730

Paisano, 84

Palearctic, 312, 329, 384

Paleeudyptes, 283

Palegithalus, 283

Palelodus, 257, 280, 284

Palelogrus, 283

Paleocircus, 283

Paleohierax, 284

Palzoperdix, 284

Paleornis, 218, 280, 354,
384, 685, 953

Paleortyx, 283

Paleospiza, 283

Paleotetrix, 285

Paleotringa, 281

Palamedea, 9, 86, 113, 118,
146, 324, 379, 465, 607,
616, 635, 683, 744, 745,
746, 747, 770, 819, 826,
865, 875, 939, 972, 1001

Palamedex, 853, 912

Palapteryx, 578

Palate, 683

“Palatine,” 872

Pamprodactyle, 600, 684,
972

Pancreas, 684

Pandion, 140, 144, 178,612,
616, 617, 653, 660, 865

Panurus, 113, 251, 337,
453, 969

Panyptila, 711, 986

Paon, 699

Paon des roseaux, 924

Papagaio, 684

Papagallo, 738

Papagau, 738

Papagayo, 684, 738

621,

INDEX

Papagei, 684

Pape, 40, 645

Papegai, 738

Papegau, 738

Papegaut, 684

Papejay, 738

Paradisea, 38, 51, 148, 320,
528, 5384, 681, 697, 717,
790, 878

Paradise-bird, 684

Paradisornis, 39

Paradoxornis, 251, 510

Paraka, 84

Parakeet, 684, 770, 796
(cf. Parrakeet)

Parapteron, 684

Paraquito, 684

Pardalote, 684

Pardalotus, 134, 277

Pareudiastes, 320, 591

Parietal, 871

Parisomus, 58

Parkinson, 523

Parkinsonius, 523

Parra, 60, 90, 380, 464,
521, 610, 684, 764, 819,
877

Parrakeet, 59, 218, 384 (cf.
Parakeet).

Parraqua, 84

Parrot, 3, 16, 32, 54, 76,
93, 96, 216, 229, 234,
473, 521, 527, 534, 653,
684, 738, 743

Parson-bird, 429, 691

Parson-Gull, 692

Partridge, 86, 192, 566,
633, 692, 756, 773

Partridge-Hawk, 237, 696

Partridge-Pigeon, 696

Parula, 1023

Parus, 45, 83, 92, 189, 283,
316, 3829, 332, 367, 453,
532, 648, 658, 697, 814,
967

Pashara boues, 48

Passage-Hawk, 696

Passenger-Pigeon, 696, 723

Passer, 140, 186, 251, 895

Passeres, 1, 3, 4, 11, 18, 19,
2; 29) 325 3a, 389), 53,
58, 69, 77, 102, 104,
118, 184, 148, 148, 167,
183, 190, 194, 195, 229,
243, 244, 250, 282, 312,
406, 426, 459, 483, 510,
517, 532, 535, 538, 582,
603, 607, 610, 617, 618,
621, 623, 621, 629, 684,
660, 697, 728, 730, 739,
742, 747, 784, 789, 821,

1077

853, 858, 863, 875, 912,
918, 988, 972, 984

“ Passeridee,” 697

Passeriforines, 697

Passerina, 459, 644

Passerine, 697

Passerini, 698, 718, 737

Passer muscatus, 441

Pastor, 698, 904, 918

Pasture-bird, 698

Patagona, 443

Patella, 698

Patrick, 692

Patrijs, 692

Pauwis, 739

Pauxis, 78, 127

Pavo, 363, 610, 699, 765,
855, 861, 862, 863, 864,
994 ’

Pavo sylvestris, 73

Pavoncella, 505

Pawe, 699

Paxaro mosquito, 441

Paxaros bobos, 48

Peacock, 21, 100, 150, 241,
699, 716, 739, 770, 931

Peafowl, 701

Peaseweep, 505, 701, 711

Pecten, 701

Pectineal Process, 701

Pectoral Arch, 855

Pediocetes, 394, 726, 740

Pedionomus, 1138, 145, 320
517, 610, 757

Pediophili, 744, 805

Peep, 702

Peetweet, 811

Peewit, 403, 505

Peggy - Whitethroat,
1037

Pelagornis, 280

Pelargi, 10, -11,- 68, 118,
144, 145, 243, 406, 517,
606, 607, 621, 879, 952

Pelargodes, 284

Pelargomorphe, 134, 420,
456, 702

Pelargopsis, 284

Pelecanoides, 708

Pelecanus, 68, 284, 293, 300,
607, 702, 745, 917, 974

Pelican, 4, 269, 287, 599,
702

Pelicanus, 173, 702, 904

Pelidna, 283

Pellorneum, 25

Pelvie Arch, 860

Pelvis, 703, 860

Pen, 92, 703, 929

Penelope, 126, 396, 703,
765, 984

702,

1078

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Penguin, 33, 221, 283, 458,

471, 477, 493, 529, 596, |

646, 703, 769

Penguin-Duck, 170

Penis, 91

Penthetria, 1030

Perchers, 707

Perdicula, 756

Perdix, 44, 192, 692, 765,
902, 941

Perdrix, 692

Perdrix d’Angleterre, 805

Peregrine Falcon, 236, 707

Peres, 503

Pericelous, 142

Pericrocotus, 575 :

Periotic, 871, 874

Peri juito, 684

Perisoreus, 458, 1036

Peristera, 725

Peristeromorphe, 422, 707,
805, 816

Peristeropodes, 126, 897,
539, 707, 754

Peritoneum, 707

Pernis, 67, 426, 492, 1024

Pernix, 426

Perriche, 684

Perroquet, 684

Perroquet-de-terre, 971

Perroqueto, 684

Perrot, 684

Perruche, 684

Pertriche, 692

Pessulus, 940

Petchary, 999

Petit Duc, 678

Petrel, 32, 81, 227, 295,
395, 477, 518, 575, 593,
707, 728, 726, 742, 830,
993

Petreeca, 771, 791, 958,
1035

Petrosal, 874

Pettichaps, 710

Peucedromus, 1023

Pewee, 710, 711

Pewit, 701, 710, 716, 718

Pezophaps, 90, 150, 888

Pezoporus, 475, 815

Pfau, 699

Pheenorrhina, 724

Phaethon, 33, 46, 190, 607,
745, 875, 904, 917, 990

Phaethornis, 447

Phalacrocorax, 105, 223,
283, 607, 651, 745, 770,
829, 904, 917, 939, 952

Phalanges, 711, 866

Phalaridopus, 711

Phalarope, 150, 711, 800

Phalaropus, 517, 684, 711,
810

Phaleobenus, 75

Phaps, 58, 407, 723

Pharomacrus, 97, 760, 987

Phasiana avis, 713

Phasianus, 44, 84, 86, 90,
113, 259, 284, 319, 362,
422, 586, 701, 713, 765

Phasidus, 350, 401

Pheasant, 21, 86, 262, 476,
478, 522, 523, 541, 566,
586, 588, 6338, 701, 718,
752

Phegornis, 713

Phene, 503

Phibalura, 840

Philacte, 374

Philedon, 134, 292

Philemon, 289, 292, 429,
578, 656

Philepitta, 323, 347, 353,
406, 547, 729, 939

Philheterus, 1029

Philip-Sparrow, 132, 716

Phillip-Island Parrot, 223

Philp, 716

Philydor, 719

Phodilus, 672

Phebe, 483

Pheebe-bird, 711, 716

Pheebetria, 708, 758

Pheenicocercus, 94

Pheenicoparrus, 257

Pheenicophaes, 125, 530,
607

Pheenicopterus, 12, 18, 20,
29, 68, 76, 91, 145, 248,
253, 284, 379, 440, 452,
606, 607, 610, 616, 635,
649, 741, 746, 747, 854,
857, 863, 865, 875, 912,
917, 918, 939, 978

Phoenix, 38, 717

Phonipara, 381, 761

Phonygama, 535, 984

Phororhacos, 281, 864, 905,
908

Phorysrhacos, 905

Photodilus, 672

Phyllornis, 319, 355

Phylloscopus, 87, 332, 368,
557, 1022

Phyllostrephus, 59

Phylogeny, 13

Phytotoma, 134, 730, 878

Piaya, 125, 265, 941

Pica, 124, 722

Pice, 19, 459, 697, 717,
720

Picaflor, 442

Picarie, 20, 89, 92, 118,
190, 191, 243, 283, 312,
440, 463, 593, 607, 611,
616, 621, 718, 749, 770,
789, 794, 858, 972

Picarii, 654, 698, 718

Piccione, 728

Pic-grimpereau, 718

Pichat, 718

Pici, 11, 29, 69, 77, 229,
440, 517, 607, 610, 680,
718, 719, 853, 857, 879,
912, 939, 974

Picicorvus, 647

Pickcheese, 718

Pickmire, 718

Picktarn, 718

Picoides, 405, 720, 1049

Picucule, 658, 669, 718

Picule, 720

Piculet, 720, 1049

Piculule, 718

Picumnus, 720, 1049

Picus, 81, 96, 147, 195.
229, 258, 283, 299, 319,
329, 443, 453, 460, 463,
517, 600, 612, 613, 617,
619, 620, 647, 717, 718,
720, 747, 814, 815, 937,
952, 1046

Pie, 116, 429, 466, 529, 631
720, 1024

Pie-de-mer, 682

Pied Duck, 222

Pierrot, 684

Piet, 720

Pie-wype, 1054

Piezorhynchus, 275

Pigeon, 3, 16, 32, 53, 58,
66, 154, 162, 188, 194,
246, 261, 286, 311, 378,
407, 564, 588, 631, 635,
653, 696, 723, 726, 753,
782, 793, 812

Pigeon blanc, 832

Pilwillet, 725

Pimlico, 293, 725

Pine, 82

Pincio, 82

Pincione, 82

Pine-pine, 725

Pine-Goldfinch, 847

Pine-Grosbeak, 386

Pingouin, 704

Pinicola, 148, 251, 386

Pink, 725

Pinkeye, 842

Pinson, 82

Pintado-Petrel, 710, 725

Pintail, 109, 171, 726, 822

Pin-wing, 221

INDEX

Pinzon, 82

Pionus, 521, 654, 690

Piper, 723

Pipile, 397

Pipilo, 982

Piping Crow, 116, 403, 726

Pipio, 109, 723, 726, 1039

Pipione, 723

Pipiri, 726

Pipit, 316, 475, 512, 598,
671, 726

Pipra, 85, 86, 93, 134, 323,
421, 532, 656, 928, 939

Pique-beeuf, 680

Piramidig, 727

Pirenet, 727

Pirree, 727

Pitangus, 483, 518

Pitta, 21, 96, 148, 323,
362, 388, 406, 547, 727,
939, 940

Pitylus, 945

Pityriasis, 362

Plagioccelous, 142

Plantain-eater, 35, 92, 288,
730, 753, 980

Plant-cutter, 134, 730

Platalea, 91, 145, 146,
379, 456, 607, 610, 615,
629, 737, 746, 747, 865,
877, 900, 912, 952, 974,
983, 985

Platea, 900

Platycercus, 686, 796, 858

Platyrhynchus, 999

Platysterne, 730 ~

Platystira, 276

Plectrophanes,
517, 887

Plectropterus, 90, 376, 837

Plectrorhamphus, 1058

Plectrorhyncha, 1058

Plegadis, 456

Plictolophus, 93

Ploceus, 29, 31, 72, 109,
230, 250, 319, 386, 466,
602, 784, 825, 1028

Plotus, 252, 607, 745, 880,

61, 189,

904, 918, 950, 952,
1024
Plover, 32, 60, 66, 85,

130, 162, 171, 183, 284,
308, 311, 380, 481, 504,
539, 571, 631, 682, 730,
740, 810, 828

Plover’s Page, 734

Plovers’ eggs, 504

Plovier, 730

Pluvianus, 349, 442, 732

Pluvier, 730

Plyctolophus, 628

Pochard, 22, 72, 168, 172,
230, 407, 734, 773, 815

Pocheculier, 734

Pockard, 734

Pocs, 739

Podargus, 32, 33, 69, 148,
295, 592, 612, 638, 639,
654, 737, 738, 875, 876,
879, 941

Podica, 145, 252, 517, 615,
629, 746, 747, 875, 973

Podiceps, 151, 310, 381

Podicipedes, 912

Podicipes, 11, 18, 68, 77,
78.89, 118) 131, 146:
151, 156, 190, 243, 353,
381, 440, 518, 607, 610,
612, 615, 630, 635, 699,
741, 745, 746, 747, 753,
816, 854, 858, 863, 875,
878, 917, 937, 939

Podicipitiformes, 651

Podilymbus, 383

Podoa, 252

Podotheca, 511

Poe-bird, 691, 737

Peeocephalus, 686

Poes, 739

Pogonias, 815

Pogonorhynchus, 27

Pogonornis, 316, 429, 915

Poker, 734

Polioptila, 365

Pollex, 737, 741, 781

Polly Washdish, 1018

Polochion, 292

Polyborus, 74

Polymorphism, 798

Polymyode, 737, 938

Polymyodi, 1, 698, 737

Polyphasia, 125

Polyplectrum, 701

Polytelis, 384

Polytmus, 445

Pompadour Chatterer, 86,
737

Pona-inki, 727

Ponnunky pitta, 727

Poodytes, 381, 939

Pool-Snipe, 737

Poophila, 1029

Poor-soldier, 293, 757

Poot-Hawk, 753

Pope, 737

Popeler, 737

Popinjay, 684, 738

Porphyrio, 68, 316, 591,
972

Porphyriornis, 590

Portal Venous
1012

System,

1079
Port-Egmont Hen, 738, 869
Porzana, 68, 353, 764,

895, 1024

Post-bird, 738

Potamodus, 77, 1021

Potoo, 738

Poule d’Inde, 994

Poule rouge, 1033

Poulle de la Guinée, 400

Poult-Hawk, 753

Pouter, 164

Powder-down, 420, 738

Powee, 739

Powese, 739

Poy-bird, 691

Precoces, 10, 635, 739

Precoracoid, 856

Premaxilla, 872

Presphenoid, 871

Prairie-Chicken, 739

Prairie-Falcon, 238

Prairie-fowl, 4

Prairie-hen, 739

Praticola, 777, 918, 1035,
1036

Pratincola, 740

Pratincole, 9,
733, 740

Presaie, 679

Pressirostres, 85

Primaries, 741

Prion, 34, 708, 742

Prionites, 593

Prioniturus, 595

Prionodura, 51

Prionops, 380, 846

Prionorhynchus, 594

Prionotelus, 327, 988

Procellaria, 69, 81, 140,
146, 295, 310, 707, 742,
830

Procellaries, 708

Procnias, 944

Procelous, 850

Proctodeum, 91

Prodotiscus, 430

Progne, 484, 538

Progoura, 286

Proherodius, 281

Promerops, 428, 743, 790,
923

Pro-ostea, 911

Prootic, 874

Propasser, 386

Propelargus, 283

Prosobonia, 225, 713, 813

Prosthemadera, 316, 429

Prosthematodera, 691, 939

Protonotaria, 1023

Protornis, 282

Proud tailor, 743

108, 517,

1080

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Proventriculus, 916

Proximal, 14

Pseudapteryx, 286

Pseudochelidon, 1050

Pseudogerygone, 364

Pseudogryphus, 102, 1016

Pseudogyps, 1017

Pseudoscines, 1, 320, 524,
743, 822, 921

Psilopedes, 743, 748

Psilorhinus, 470

Psittace, 685

Psittaci, 11, 18, 29, 34,
69, 77, 93, 118, 118, 144,
147, 220, 243, 244, 299,
312, 440, 474, 519, 527,
606, 607, 610, 612, 613,
615, 617, 619, 629, 688,
738, 739, 748, 747, 850,
858, 863, 865, 879, 939,
941, 952, 958, 975

Psittacini, 815

Psittacomorphe, 134, 688,
743

Psittacula, 96, 521, 689

Psittacus, 286, 850, 627,
685, 717, 718,739, 815

Psophia, 9, 118, 145, 324,
380, 473, 829, 912, 973,
992

Psophodes, 91

Ptarmigan, 889, 597, 744

Ptenornis, 284

Pternis, 68, 426

Pterocles, 10, 11, 29, 68,
113, 118, 145, 191, 248,
284, 440, 610, 611, 612,
618, 615, 616, 635, 726,
746, 747, 805, 854, 877,
879, 912, 939, 952

“ Pterocletes,” 744, 805

Pteroclides, 744

Pteroclomorphe, 422, 744,
805

Pteroclurus, 805

Pteroglossus, 815, 978

Pterophanes, 447

Pteroptochus, 25, 323, 524,
939, 940, 946

Pterygoid, 744, 872, 879

Pterylosis, 744

Ptilogonys, 1028

Ptilopedes, 743, 748

Ptilopus, 563, 723

Ptilorhynchus, 49, 814

Ptiloris, 790

Ptilorrhis, 97, 790

Ptilosis, 748

Ptilotis, 819, 428

Pubis, 748

Puckeridge, 639, 748

| Pucrasia, 716, 752
Pudding-poke, 749
Puet, 719
Puff-bird, 12, 92, 463, 749,
770
Puffin, 22, 35, 107, 398,
522, 5386, 556, 597, 737,
750, 768, 797, 822, 830,
973
Puffinus, 284, 517, 620,
752, 830, 952
Pukras, 716, 752
Pullastre, 753
Pulmonary Circulation, 1008
Purple Water-hen, 591
Purre, 753
Puttock, 67, 753
Pyenonotus, 59, 461, 574
Pygopodes, 10, 29, 146,
381, 652, 753
Pygoscelis, 471, 706
Pygostyle, 7538, 769
Pylorus, 916
Pylstaart, 754
Pyranga, 771, 944
Pyrenestes, 1028
Pyrocephalus, 483
Pyromelna, 1028
Pyrrhocorax, 87, 184
Pyrrholemus, 777
Pyrrhula, 60, 251,
338
Pyrrhulauda, 659, 510
Pyrrhuloxia, 387
Pytelia, 31

332,

Qua-BIRD, 754

Quadrate Bone, 754, 872,
879

Quaglia, 754

Quail, 47, 66, 94, 261, 316,
389, 407, 415, 649, 754,
761, 762

Quail-Dove, 757

Quail-Hawk, 480, 757

Quail-Snipe, 757

Quaille, 754

Quailzie, 754

Quaker, 758

Quaketail, 758

Quam, 396, 758

Quan, 396, 758

Qua-qua, 21, 758

Quaquila, 754, 761

Queest, 162, 758

Quercelle, 477

Quercerelle, 477

Querquedula, 297, 309, 983,

Quesal, 758

Quetzal-tototl, 758

Quezal, 758, 770, 987

Quhaip, 1033

Quill, 761

Quill-tail Coot, 761

Quinck-Goose, 761

Quirizao, 126

Quiscalus, 46, 3879, 563.
761, 966

Quisquilla, 761

Quist, 758

Quit, 401, 761, 921

RaaF, 766

Rabe, 766

Rabihoreado, 293

Race-horse Duck, 518, 737,
762

Racham, 364

Rachmah, 864

Racquet-tail, 446, 594, 762

Radii, 239

Radius, 762, 859

Rafter-bird, 762

Rail, 4, 218, 286, 320,
364, 380, 464, 473, 514,
539, 563, 589, 621, 630,
659, 742, 762

Rain-bird, 654, 765

Rain-Goose, 519, 765

Rain-Quail, 765

Rake, 793

Rile, 762

Ralli, 615, 635, 879, 939

Rallus, 102, 109, 111, 145,
225, 281, 299, 380, 424,
440, 464, 473, 514, 534,
536, 589, 607, 747, 762,
854, 858, 875, 912, 917,
952

Rami, 239

Ramphastos, 598, 717, 815,
976 (cf. Rhamphastos)

Ramphestes, 976

Raka, 795

Rapaces, 765

Raptatores, 765

Raptores, 2, 40, 765

Rara, 730

Rasores, 9, 299, 415, 765

Rathsherr, 402

Ratite, 4, 10, 11, 28, 37,
58, 77, 78, 91, 145, 154,
190, 234, 242, 245, 281,
815, 405, 459, 477, 493,
578, 604, 610, 621, 634,
635, 650, 654, 665, 744,
745, 746, 747, 753, 754,
766, 769, 770, 785,. 792,
857, 859, 951, 958, 974,
983

Rattlewings, 369

Raven, 99, 191, 227, 269,

INDEX

439, 489, 554, 634, 766, | Rhamphocorys, 510
892

Rayn, 766
Razorbill,

817, 867
Recollet, 769
Rectrices, 769
Rectum, 770

Recurvirostra, 20, 23, 109,

379, 913
Redback, 770
Redbeak, 794
Redbird, 76, 771
Redbreast, 45, 122, 551,

Cai Mil; 19, 197,

893

Redeap, 773

Redhead, 773, 1040

Redleg, 773

Red Owl, 678

Redpoll, 251,
599, 773

Redshank, 384, 737, 778,
774, 811

Redstart, 45, 124, 253,
277, 365, 633, 637, 775,
918, 1023

Redtail, 777

Redthroat, 777

Redwing, 539, 687, 777

Reed-bird, 778

Reed-Bunting, 43, 778

Reed-Pheasant, 779, 969

Reed-Sparrow, 778

Reed-Thrush, 778, 1021

Reed-Warbler, 778

Reed-Wren, 120, 778, 1020

Reel-bird, 779, 1021

Reeler, 779, 1021

Reeve, 680, 779, 798

Regenpfeifer, 730

Regent-bird, 49, 779

Regent-Oriole, 779

Regulus, 258, 367, 780,
998

Reiger, 416

Reiher, 416

Remiges, 780

Remiornis, 908

Reproductive Organs, 782

Républicain, 1029

Republican Swallow, 633

Retina, 784

Rhachis, 239

Rhamphastos, 27, 84, 92, 96,

386, 515,

144, 147, 299, 324, 436,
612, 617, 747, 765, 858,

879, 912, 989, 952, 975,
976 (cf. Ramphastos)
Rhamphoceelus, 944

22, 304, 398,
519, 529, 537, 602, 768,

Rhamphodon, 444
Rhamphotheca, 877
Rhea, 3, 68, 69, 76, 89,
90, 118, 130, 197, 233,
242, 245, 299, 322, 453,
543, 611, 616, 617, 620,
741, 754, 785, 858, 917,
918, 939, 941, 951
Rhee, 766, 785
Rhinoceros Avis, 433
Rhinoceros-bird, 788
Rhinochetus, 32, 60, 118,
145, 320, 440, 471, 615,
739, 747, 765, 865, 875,
879, 973
Rhinocorax, 768
Rhinocrypta, 946
Rhinogryphus, 470
Rhinoplax, 434
Rhinopomastus, 347, 432,
460
Rhintaces, 38
Rhipidura, 238, 276, 385
Rhodonessa, 984
Rhodostethia, 402, 492
Rhopodytes, 530
Rhopotrope, 20
Rhynchea, 150, 349, 535,
746, 886 (cf. Rostratula)
Rhynchaspis, 841
Rhynchops, 35, 401, 867
Rhynchostruthus, 349
Rhynchotus, 965
Rib, 788
Rice-bird, 458, 789
Rice-Bunting, 46
Richel-bird, 789
Rifle-bird, 789 .
Rifleman-bird, 40, 789
Rindill, 1050
Ring-Dotterel, 481
Ring-Dove, 1380, 162, 790
Ring-Ousel, 667, 790
Ringed Plover, 171, 481,
732, 808, 822
Ring-Plover, 790
Ringlestones, 791
Ringtail, 791
Rippock, 791
Rissa, 402, 405
Rittock, 791

Ritur, 791

Road-runner, 84, 791

Robing 22505 7 lj= 9s
1036

Robin-Redbreast, 364, 470
Robin-Snipe, 791

Roc, 286, 791

Rocas, 795

Rock-Dove, 163, 793

1081

Rock-hopper, 529

Rockier, 793

Rock-Lark, 512

Rock-Pigeon, 723, 805

Rock-Sparrow, 251

Rock-Wren, 1055

Rode-Goose, 792

Réddrossel, 777

Rodvinge, 777

Roek, 705

Roerdomp, 793

Roi-péheux, 485

Roitelet, 999

Roller, 80, 57, 68, 92,
100, 161, 259, 593, 638,
687, 798, 1005, 792

Rollier, 793

Roodebec, 794

Rook, 116, 132, 194, 504,
633, 795, 893

Rooke, 795

Rosehill, 796

Roselle, 796

Rostratula, 886, 984 (cf.
Rhynchea)

Rostrhamus, 492

Rostrum, 32

Rostrum carine, 909

Rotche, 22, 166, 796

Rotgans, 793

Rotges, 796

Rothdrossel, 777

Rouch, 795

Rough, 798

Rue, 791

Ruch, 795

Rudder-bird, 797

Ruddock, 797

Ruddue, 797

Rudipenne, 792

Ruff, 299, 680, 779, 798,
813, 893

Ruffed Grouse, 394, 696

Rukh, 791

Runner, 801

Rupicola, 86, 93, 148, 406,
532, 941

Ruticilla,
775, 899

Saat-KrAuHeE, 795
Sabine’s Snipe, 884, 1007
Sabre-wing, 446
Sacer, 802

Sacral Plexus, 625
Sacre, 237, 802
Sacred Ibis, 455
Sacrum, 855
Saddle-back, 801
Sage-cock, 802
Sagittarius, 823

45, 124, 277,

1082

DICTIONATRN (OF BIRDS,

Sagittilingues, 815

Saint Cuthbert’s Duck, 802

Saker, 238, 522, 802

Saltator, 945

Salvadorina, 975

Sanderla, 803

Sanderling, 29, 130, 803,
812

Sand-Grouse, 191, 571,
723, 744, 756, 805

Sand-Lark, 512

Sand-léa, 803

Sand-Martin, 537, 631

Sandpeep, 810

Sandpfeifer, 810, 818

Sandpiper, 215, 300, 380,
631, 698, 702, 712, 713,
733, 810

Sand-Plover, 813

Sand-runner, 813

Sapsucker, 813

Saqr, 802

Saras, 813

Sarcidiornis, 376, 837, 984

Sarciophorus, 506

Sarcophanops, 58

Sarcorhamphus, 101, 470,
501, 1016

Sarhans, 813

Saria, 826

Sarus, 813

Sasia, 405, 720

Satin-bird, 49, 814

Satin-Sparrow, 814

Saulary, 133

Sauriure, 814

Sauriuri, 814

Saurognathe, 81, 814, 1046

Saurothera, 84, 125, 765

Saurure, 754, 814

Savanna Blackbird, 814

Savi’s Warbler, 1021

Sawbill, 814

Saw-sharpener, 814

Saw-whet, 671, 814

Saxicola, 557, 777, 899,
918, 1022

Sayornis, 488, 711, 716,
999

Saysie, 814

Scamel, 814, 822

Scamell, 366

Scaniornis, 280

Scansores, 19, 815, 972

Seapula, 857

Scapular, 857

Scarecrow, 78

Searf, 815

Scart, 815

Scaup-Duck, 736, 815

Scaurie, 816

Sceloglaux, 315, 674

Schistochlamys, 945

Schizognathe, 9, 80, 85,
863, 707, 816, 878

Schizorhinal, 816, 877

Schmerl, 545

Schneppe, 883

Schwalbe, 926

Schwan, 929

Schwaneria, 362

Scissor-bill, 867

Scissors-tail, 816, 999

Sclerurus, 719

Scobby, 817

Scolder, 817

Scolecophagus, 379

Scolopax, 69, 85, 99, 127,
191, 226, 329, 366, 379,
514, 610, 621, 734, 774,
810, 883, 1042

Scooper, 24, 817

Scops, 642, 678

Scoptelus, 460

Scopus, 33, 89, 405, 629,
747, 838; 853, 875, 912,
920, 939, 972

Scorey, 816

Scoter, 35, 102, 398, 736,
817

Scout, 398, 768, 817

Scouti-Allen, 818, 870

Seraber, 818, 830

Seraib, 830

Scraye, 819

Screamer, 4, 9,
465, 819, 826

Screech-bird, 820, 8438

Screech-Owl, 672, 820, 934

Serie, 843, 960

Scrofa, 819, 830

Serub-bird, 1,
820

Scute, 102

Scutelliplantares, 511

Scuttock, 398

Scytalopus, 947

Scythrops, 12, 84,
433, 815

Sea-Crow, 822

Sea-Dotterel, 822

Sea-Dottrel, 997

Sea-Duck, 734

Sea-Eagle, 174

86, 379,

320, 451,

125,

| Sea-fowl, 633

Sea-Lark, 512, 822
Sea-Mall, 822
Seamel, 815, 822
Sea-Mew, 815, 822
Sea-Parrot, 750, 822
Sea-Pheasant, 822
Sea-Pie, 681, 822

Sea-Swallow, 822

Sea-Turtle, 998

Secondaries, 118

Secretary-bird, 8, 75, 822,
828

Sedge-bird, 351, 582, 825,
1020

Sedge-Warbler, 85, 1020

Seeelster, 682

Segge, 825, 922

Seidenschwanz, 1026

Selasphorus, 448

Selatophorus, 448

Selenidera, 978

Seleucis, 904

Semimerula, 998

Semioptera, 39

Senegali, 825

Serena, 829

Serene, 829

Sericulus, 49, 779

Seriema, 9, 75, 76, 364,
819, 826 (cf. Cariama)

Serilophus, 58

Serin, 70, 251, 829

Serinus, 70, 251, 829

Serpentarius, 29, 75, 284,
347, 603, 610, 824, 952

Serrati, 815

Serratirostres, 593

Serrirostres, 503

Sesamoids, 47, 860

Setophaga, 365, 777, 1023

Seven Whistlers, 1034

Sgrab, 818

Sguacco, 419, 902

Shag, 106, 770, 815, 829

Shama, 133

Shay-ling, 1054

Shearwater, 6, 404, 523,
529, 620, 708, 752, 818,
830, 867

Sheathbill, 109, 310, 733,
831

Sheld-drake, 28, 62, 171,
376, 600, 631, 727, 817,
834, 838

Shelder, 838

Shell-apple, 838

Shell-eater, 655

Shell-Ibis, 655

Shelly, 838, 867

Shepster, 87, 838

Sheriff’s man, 838

Shirl, 838

Shoe-bill, 406, 838

Shoe-bird, 46, 838

Shooi, 840, 870

Shore-Lark, 511

Shortbill, 840

Shoulder-Girdle, 856

Shovelard, 900

Shoveler, 84, 171, 734, 840,
900

Shreitch, 843

Shrieker, 366, 843

Shrike, 21, 25, 26, 31, 40,
58, 66, 70, 72, 116, 124,
G7, 182; 253) 273; 292)
517, 574, 648, 681, 843,
960, 999, 1024, 1041

Shrite, 843

Shufflewing, 846, 895

Sialia, 44, 771, 791

Sidsken, 846

Silerella, 969

Silk-tail, 1026

Silver-eye, 846, 1056

Simorhynchus, 600

Sinciput, 649, 846

Siréne, 829

Siskin, 1, 28, 251, 258, 371,
846, 1056

Sisura, 151, 276, 385

Sitta, 189, 283, 647, 697,
718

Sittace, 527

Sittasomus, 719

Sittella, 648

Siurus, 669, 1023, 1024

Skaiti, 818

Skarfr, 815

Skart, 848

Skeel-duck, 835, 848

Skeeling, 848

Skelder, 835, 848

Skeleton, 848

Skelly, 867

Skiddaw, 398, 867

Skiddy, 867

Skimmer, 35, 401 518, 822,
867

Skitty-cock, 867

Skjéldr, 817

Skjoldungr, 835

Skooi, 868, 869

Skraba, 868

Skrape, 819

Skrika, 843

Skrikja, 843

Skua, 46, 68, 149, 239,
401, 534, 738, 754, 818,
840, 868, 1017

Skuir, 868

Skull, 871

Skylark, 99, 507, 880

Slangenvreeter, 823, 880

Slangenvreter, 880

Slight-Falcon, 880

Smatch, 1034

Smee-Duck, 880

Smew, 544, 646, 880

INDEX 1083
Smirill, 545 | Speicht, 899
Smirlon, 545 Speight (Wood-), 899
Snail-eater, 655, 880 Spekvreter, 899
Snaith, 880 Spency, 899
Snake-bird, 132, 173, 252, | Sperber, 897
703, 880, 1053 Spermestine, 1029
Snake-eater, 823, 880 Spervel, 899
Snake’s neck, 1054 Sperwer, 897
Snipa, 883 Sphecotheres, 657
Snipe, 43, 55, 85, 99, 151,|Sphenisci, 10, 68, 629,
183, 191, 865, 415, 466, 741, 744, 745, 746, 747,
733, 770, 810, 883 850, 853, 854, 858, 861,
Snite, 883 865, 912, 917, 939, 941,
Snow-bird, 887 951, 983
Snow-Bunting, 61,189, 517, | Spheniscomorphe, 899
649, 887 Spheniscus, 140, 146, 152,

Snow-cock, 887

Snow-Finch, 517, 887

Snowflake, 887

Snow-Goose, 374

Snow-Partridge, 696, 887

Snow-Pheasant, 696, 887

Snowy Owl, 674

Snyth, 880

Sociable Grosbeak, 633

Soland, 887

Solan-Goose, 300, 887

Soldier-bird, 428

Solitaire, 161, 217, 887,
1003

Somateria, 192, 222, 736

Song, 892

Song-Thrush, 26, 551, 636,
959

Sonnenreyger, 924

Sonne-Vogel, 252

Sonoran Region, 330

Sora, 659, 895

Soree, 895

Sore-eyed Pigeon, 832

Sore-Falcon, 895

Souimanga, 922

South-southerly, 895

Sparlin-fowl, 895

Sparo, 895

Sparrhék, 897

Sparrow, 132, 195, 232,
251, 262, 587, 716, 784,
895

Sparrow-Hawk, 66, 185,
188, 377, 411, 479, 574,
620, 897

Sparrow-Owl, 899

Sparva, 897

Sparvari, 897

Sparwe, 895

Spathura, 762

Spatula, 841

Spearwa, 895

Specht, 1046

Speculum, 899

242, 243, 405, 440, 465,
610, 615, 704, 878
Sphenceacus, 381, 458, 939
Sphenoproctus, 447
Sphenura, 57, 820
Sphyropicus, 813
Spider-catcher, 900
Spider-hunter, 900, 923
Spiegel, 899
Spike-tail, 900
Spiloglaux, 592
Spilornis, 173
Spina externa, 912
Spina interna, 912
Spina sternalis, 909, 911
Spinal Cord, 622
Spinal Nerves, 622
Spindalis, 655
Spindasis, 655
Spinebill, 92, 316, 648, 900
Spink, 725, 900
Spinus, 846
Spirit-Duck, 370, 900
Spite (Wood-), 899
Spiza, 40, 136, 459, 644
Spizaetus, 173
Spiziapteryx, 412
Spleen, 900
Splenials, 872
Spdi, 128, 902
Spoonbill, 226, 254, 379,
456, 518, 514, 702, 734,
737, $00
Sporr, 895
Spowe, 128, 902
Sprat-Loon, 519, 902
Sprig-tail, 902
Sprite, 902
Sprosser, 637
Spruce-Partridge, 394
Spur-Fowl, 902
Squacco-Heron, 419, 902
Squamosal, 871, 876
Squatarola, 539, 731
Stachyris, 963

1084

* Stand-gale,” 477, 903

Staniel, 477, 902

Stannel, 477, 815, 902

Stare, 801

Starling, 87, 102, 194, 217,
316, 438, 458, 565, 633,
680, 698, 903, 1047

Starn, 904, 955

Starneenas, 757

Steamer-Duck,
762

Steatornis, 58, 324, 394,
606, 607, 638, 653, 654,
850, 875, 879, 941

Steganopodes, 3, 10, 11, 29,
33, 68, 69, 77, 90, -105,
118, 146, 1738, 191, 243,
281, 293, 310, 405, 440,
453, 517, 606, 608, 610,
618, 615, 629, 653, 703,
707, 746, 747, 789, 850,
853, 857, 858, 875, 879,
904, 912, 917, 939, 952,
972

Steganopus, 712

Stegnolema, 397

Steinfalk, 546

Steingall, 902

Stercorarius, 46, 48,
868

Stereornithes, 904

Stern, 904, 955

Sterna, 143, 145, 182,
610, 643, 950, 955,

Sternum, 908

Stieglitz, 370

Stilt, 24, 109, 130,
682, 733, 913

Stiltia, 741

Stink-bird, 914

Stink-pot, 710, 914

Stinker, 914

Stint, 539, 698, 702,
915

Stitch-bird, 316, 429, 915

Stock-Dove, 163, 793, 915

Stock-Duck, 915

Stock Eagle, 915

Stock-EHikle, 915

Stomach, 916

Stone-Chat, 48, 85, 296,
777, 918

Stone-Curlew, 66, 128, 130,
148, 284, 553, 630, 645,
7338, 919

Stonegall, 902

Stonehatch, 919

Stonerunner, 919

Store, 919

Storch, 919

Stork, 2,045 U2 Soo. 4G:

518, 737,

401,
401,

1039

680,

811,

58) ils, 190) 254,284,
406, 416, 456, 462, 517,
550, 635, 655, 702, 919

Storm-cock, 920, 960

Storm-Finch, 920

Storm-Petrel, 708, 920

Strany, 398, 920

Strepera, 116, 148, 403

Strepsilas, 68, 514, 588,
610, 997

strives: ellipse 229% ils:
148, 195, 248, 315, 395,
409, 603, 606, 607, 610,
612, 615, 629, 671, 747,
857, 858, 865, 875, 879,
920, 939, 941, 952, 972

Strigops, 76, 473

Stringops, 316, 473, 477,
688, 858

Strisores, 920

Strix, 3, 134, 178, 191, 284,
332, 642, 765

Struthio, 68, 69, 79, 89,
90, 100, 118, 130, 140,
212, 231, 242, 245, 285,
299, 346, 380, 517, 548,
618, 616, 662, 741, 745,
857, 858, 862, 867, 876,
878, 918, 989, 951

Struthiolithus, 285, 666

Struthiones, 665, 766, 785,
920

Struthious Warblers, 1036

Sturnella, 457, 476, 539,
575, 727

Sturnornis, 360

Sturnus, 97, 316, 378, 438,
458, 680, 697, 698, 801,
903, 918

Subbuteo, 424

Subclamatores, 743, 921

Suboscines, 743

Succiacapre, 638

Suckervogel, 71

Sugar-bird, 761, 921

Sugge, 825, 922

Sula, 48, 244, 284, 300,
453, 607, 621, 745, 857,
887, 904, 917, 952, 974

Sulaire, 887

Sultana, 591

Summer-Duck, 922

Summer-Snipe, 810, 922

! Summer-eal, 309, 922

Sun-bird, 428, 444, 743,
922

Sun-Bittern, 252, 472, 765,
923

Superb Warblers, 1022

Supra-angular, 872

Supraoccipital, 871

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Surf-bird, 925

Surf-Duck, 817

Surnia, 178, 332,

Surniculus, 125

Sutoria, 941

Suwari, 78

Svala, 926

Svanr, 929

Svartfugl, 42

Swalewe, 926

Swallow, 184, 261, 454,
538, 549, 599, 632, 770,
926

Swallow-Shrike, 22, 1050

Swan, 4, 35, 92, 100, 111,
155, 168, 190, 296, 597,
634, 703, 769, 929

Swan-Goose, 376

Swedish Nightingale, 637

Swift, 4, 18, 180, 134, 195,
288, 442, 477, 529, 558,
631, 638, 697, 819, 820,
934

Swiftfoot, 937

Swinepipe, 777, 937

Swon, 929

Sycobrotus, 1028

Sylvia, 1, 42, 45, 57, 133,
239, 243, 250, 288, 316,
864, 865, 367, 413, 582,
598, 637, 697, 710, 772,
777, 1019, 1022, 1037

Sylvie, 143

Sylvicola, 1022

Syma, 488

Sympathetic System, 626

Symphemia, 725

Symplectes, 1029

Synallaxis, 719, 937

Syndactyli, 815, 937, 972

Syncecus, 756

Syrinx, 546, 987

Syrnium, 134

Syrrhaptes, 140, 838, 571,
765, 805

Systemic Circulation, 1008

674

TACHYDROMvS, 130

Tachyeres, 518, 597, 737

Tachyphonus, 944

Tadorna, 171, 600, 835,
984

Tadorne, 835

Tarna, 955

Teerne, 955

Tafelente, 735

Tailor-bird, 631, 941

Taistey. 943

Takahe, 943

Talegallus, 59, 320, 541

‘¢Talenter,” 943

Talgoxe, 680

Taling, 22, 948

Tamatia, 750

Tammy-Norie, 750, 943

Tanager, 76, 250, 459, 644,
655, 761, 771, 943

Tanagra, 40, 134, 250, 328,
730, 943

Tangara, 943

Tannenheher, 646

Tantalus, 146, 849, 379,
454, 514, 741, 877, 918,
985

Tanypus, 380

Tanysiptera, 595

Taoniscus, 965

Taoperdix, 283

Tapaculo, 946

Tapun, 540

Tardone, 835

Tarmachan, 392, 744

Tarney, 948

Tarret, 948

Tarrock, 492, 948

Tarsel, 948

Tarsus, 864, 948

Tassel, 948

Taste, 973

Tati, 942

Tatler, 948

Taube, 162

Tauch-ente, 168

Taucher, 162

Taureau-d’étang, 40

Tavon, 540

Tawny Owl, 672

Tchitrea, 275

Teal, 22, 171, 297, 309,
404, 842, 948

Teaser, 949

Tectonarchus, 39

Tectrices, 949

Teetan, 953

Teeth, 453

Teeting, 953

Tele, 948

Teleoptile, 243, 629, 954

Telephonus, 26, 845

Telltale, 954

Telmatornis, 281

Telogyrous, 142

Temenuchus, 378

Temnorhines, 1015

Temnotrogon, 327

Tende,.955

Tendon, 954

Tenne, 955

Tenuirostres, 954

Tephrodornis, 846

Teracus, 284

Teratology, 588

INDEX

Tercel, 955

Teretristis, 1023

Termagant, 392, 955

Tern, 4, 78, 109, 132, 182,
252, 310, 401, 482, 489,
HIS; 5296571, 6435°727,
789, 791, 819, 822, 955

Terpsiphone, 275

Tertials, 957

Tetrao, 72, 93, 95,191, 283,
287, 291, 329, 389, 599,
765, 805, 984

Tetraogallus, 696, 887

Tettechevre, 638

Teuchet, 957

Teuchit, 505

Tewfitt, 957

Textor, 680

Thalassiarche, 708

Thamnobia, 632

Thamnophilus, 20, 758, 878

Thaumalia, 716

Thaumastura, 449

Theista, 943

Thickhead, 621, 957, 958

Thick-knee, 129, 498, 958

Thinocorys, 68, 118, 145,
824, 733, 757, 834, 878

Thinornis, 482

Thistle-bird, 958

Thistle-cock, 958

Thistle-Finch, 370, 958

Thistle-warp, 958

Thrasaetus, 407

Thrasher, 582, 958

Thraupis, 944

Thresher, 958

Thricecock, 959

Throstr, 959

Throsle, 959

Throstle, 959

Thrushy Zils 2b 4b 8383
249, 888, 425, 539, 582,
(PAHs HE TG ler
958, 959

Thrush-Nightingale, 637

'Thrusher, 958

Thryothorus, 582

Thrysce, 959

Thymus, 961

Thyreoid, 961

Tibia, 961

Tichicro, 961

Tichodroma, 697, 986

Tidee, 962, 966

Tidif, 962

Tidly-Goldfinch, 962

Tiercel, 955

Tiga, 405

Tijuca, 85

Timalia, 25

1085

Timelia, 25, 28, 45, 51, 57,
59. 13383 2774, 816; 3c,
574, 658, 962, 1020,
1022, 1052

Tinamomorphe, 422

Tinamotis, 965

Tinamon, 338, 299, 579, 738,
769, 963, 991

Tinamus, 69, 91, 167, 187,
190, 322, 325, 440, 606,
607, 610, 615, 635, 745,
747, 758, 754, 766, 857,
963

Tine-tine, 725

Tinker, 398, 768, 966

Tinkershire, 398, 966

Tinkling, 966

Tinnunculus, 235, 327, 477

Tin-tin, 966

Tisserin, 1028

Tit, 966

Tita, 966

Titis, 966

Titlark, 86, 120, 507, 592,
593, 727, 776, 966

Titling, 966

Titlingr, 966

Titmouse, 48, 45, 83, 87,

OD SO 23 9ha2 Olan 20o5 ae

816, 342, 367, 553, 601,
631, 646, 648, 680, 718,
725, 749, 766, 814, 966,
973

Titr, 966

Tityra, 86

Tjaldr, 22, 817

Tjaldur, 817

Tmetotrogon, 989

Toccus, 435

Todier, 442, 970

Todus, 273, 324, 327, 598,
616, 630, 718, 746, 747,
853, 858, 879, 912, 939,
970

Tody, 69, 273, 791, 970

Toerako, 981

Toes, 866, 972

Tolk, 997

Tomfool, 973

Tomia, 33

Tominejo, 442

Tom-Kelly, 973

Tom-Noddy, 973

Tommy, 973

Tomor, 973

Tomtit, 364, 966, 973

Tongue, 978

Topau, 433

Torcol, 1053

Torillo, 416

Torrent-Duck, 545, 975

1086

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Totanus, 28, 68, 284, 384,
734, 774, 810

Totipalmi, 310

Tot-o’er-seas, 975

Toucan, 27, 34, 35, 84, 92,
436, 976

Touraco, 12, 92, 118, 519, |

730, 979
Touyou, 785
Towhee, 982
Trachea, 937, 983
Tracheophone, 323, 406,
425, 547, 670, 718, 940,
985
Tracheophones, 698, 718,
985 z
Tracheophoni, 985
Tragopan, 22, 432, 587
Tree-creeper, 112, 189, 332,
648, 770, 985, 1048
Tree-Duck, 171
Tree-Lark, 512
Tree-Sparrow, 186, 897
Treron, 654, 723
Triarctic, 313

Tribonyx, 320, 591, 621,
973

Trichas, 1056

Trichoglossus, 320, 521,
857

Tricholestes, 26

Tricholimnas, 1033

Tringa, 150, 172, 215, 283,
299, 879, 880, 498, 504,
.514, 610, 712, 734, 771,
790, 804, 810

Tringoides, 810

Trochili, 18, 118, 606, 865,
879, 912, 952, 975, 983,
987

Trochilus, 69, 130, 148, 299,
323, 442, 529, 534, 603,
615, 617, 620, 630, 638,
718, 733, 747, 858, 989,
950

Troglodytes, 838, 329, 582,
668, 1050

Trogon, 11, 77, 92, 180,
148, 284, 325, 327, 618,
630, 654, 717, 746, 747,
798, 815, 875, 879, 912,
987

Trogones, 853, 857

Trompetero, 991

Trompette, 991

Troopial, 457, 989

Tropic-bird, 46, 173, 703,
754, 989

Tropidorhyuchus, 292, 573,
656

Troupiale, 457, 989

Trumpet-bird, 991

Trumpeter, 9,164, 380, 473,
963, 991

Trupialis, 457, 458

| Tubinares, 6, 10, 11, 29,

32, 118, 146, 405, 440,
453, 517, 606, 610, 616,
621, 634, 629, 635, 653,
708, 747, 857, 858, 878,
912, 918, 939, 952, 973,
974, 983, 993

| Tucd, 976

Tufted Duck, 936

Tui, 429, 691, 994

Tumbler-Pigeon, 164, 276

Turacin, 95, 982

Turacoverdin, 96, 982

Turacus, 980

Turbit, 164

Turco, 946

Turdoide, 461

Turdus, 20, 22, 42, 45, 133,
134, 191, 243, 249, 277,
319, 329, 364, 461, 539,
557, 574, 583, 666, 668,
697, 698, 771, 779, 791,
820, 918, 950, 961

Turkey, 198, 400, 588, 994

Turkey-Buzzard, 68, 470,
994, 1016

Turnagra, 316

Turnices, 29, 118, 145, 517,
607, 635

Turnicomorphe, 415, 422,
996

Turnix, 66, 68, 77, 150,
320, 415, 440, 610, 616,
747, 757, 765, 858, 879

Turnstone, 29, 70, 351, 588,
733, 773, 996

Turtle-Dove, 165, 566, 998

Turtur, 165, 557, 998

Turumti, 546

Twin-structures, 589

Twite, 99S

Twopenny-chick, 998
|'Tydie, 962
| 'Tydif, 962
| Tylas, 574
| Tylopteryx, 580

Tymor, 973

''ympanuchus, 394, 740

Tympanum, 984

Tyrannus, 273, 323, 329,
482, 710, 718, 726, 816,
866, 938, 939, 998

Tyrant-bird, 482, 518, 711,
716, 726, 816, 973, 998

Tysty, 399, 943

Tytmase, 966

Tytyfr, 962

Uac.a, 671

Ule, 670

UIna, 859, 1000

Ulula, 671

Umbre, 405, 1000

Umbrella-bird, 86, 1060

Uncinate Process, 788, 1001

Unicorn-bird, 1001

Upucerthia, 671

Upupa, 69, 77, 92, 147,
284, 430, 436, 438, 460,
505; 51055607, 61/55, Gili,
618, 629, 718, 748, 747,
857, 879, 912, 939, 974

Uregnathus, 31

Uragus, 386

Ureter, 1001

Uria, 68, 149, 166, 285,
398, 753

Urinator, 151

Urinatores, 310, 1001

Urochroma, 521

Urodum, 90

Ureeoni, 1002

Urogalba, 463

Uroioni, 1002

Urospatha, 594

Urostyle, 1002

Utamania, 768

Utick, 1002

Uuagtale, 1018 (cf Wagtail)

VAGINALIS, 832

Vagtel, 754

Valk, 1002

Valken, 235

Vanellus, 504, 610, 876,
895

Variation, 342, 1002

Vascular System, 1008

Vas deferens, 782,
1013

Vautour, 785

Veery, 1013

Veins, 1008, 1013

Veldjakker, 249

Veld-lyster, 249

Velvet-Duck, 818

Venous Circulation, 1009

Ventral side, 14

Ventriculus, 916

Venturon, 88

Verreauxia, 720

Vertebrie, 848

Vestiaria, 167, 182

Vidua, 795, 1028

Vigeon, 1039

Vignon, 1039

Vinago, 723

Vingeon, 1039

Vioux, 1039

784,

Vipa, 505, 1054

Vipio, 1039

Vireo, 273, 326, 329, 384,
973, 1013

Vireolanius, 1014

Vireosylvia, 1013

Virginian Nightingale, 61,
76, 637

Virginian Quail, 188

Vischfanger, 1014

Vocal Organs, 1014

Vogel, 289

Volucres, 104, 1014

Vomer, 871, 872, 878, 1014

Vourun patra, 791

Vultur, 33, 101, 319, 470,
501, 621, 739, 765, 825,
858, 879, 912

Vulture, 1, 2, 4, 68, 178;
227, 261, 364, 385, 411,
470, 500, 1015

Vutanaria, 768

Vuttamaria, 768

WACHHOLDERDROSSEL, 249

Wachtel, 754

Wagell, 1017

Wagne, 1039

Wagsterd, 1018

Wagstyrt, 1018

Wagtail, 28, 108, 120, 151,
276, 332, 458, 551, 598,
649, 727, 758, 1018

Wald-Katze, 1041

Waldschnepfe, 1042

Walghvogel, 155

Wallace’s Line, 317, 363

Wall-bird, 1019

Wall-creeper, 986, 1019

Waracaba, 993

Warbler, 1, 25, 45, 72, 85,
133, 238, 239, 250, 273,
283, 351, 364, 365, 367,
413, 563, 598, 632, 710,
779, 825, 1019

Ware-Goose, 1024

Wariangle, 1024

Warriangle, 1024

Warwinckle, 1024

Washdish, 1024

Washtail, 1024

Waskite, 1024

Waspkite, 1024

Watchy-picket, 1024

Water-cock, 1024

Water-Crow, 667, 1024

Water-hen, 589, 1024

Water-Ousel, 26, 151, 667,
1024

Water-Partridge, 1024

Water-Quail, 95

INDEX

Water-Rail, 762, 1024
Water-Thrush, 728, 1024
Water-Turkey, 881, 1024
Wattle-bird, 429, 1024
Wavey, 374, 1026
Wawa, 374
Waxbill, 1026
Waxwing, 58, 81, 85, 242,
571, 1026
Weaver-bird, 11, 29, 31, 72,
76, 109, 250, 253, 387,
466, 602, 621, 633, 680,
794, 825, 1028
Weetweet, 1031
Weever-Oriole, 1028
Weindrossel, 777
Weindrustle, 778
Weissbicklein, 424
Weka, 224, 315, 475, 764,
1031
Wendehals, 1053
Werkengel, 1024
Wet-my-feet, 755
Wet-my-foot, 1033
Wet-my-lips, 755
Whale-bird, 34, 1033
Whaup, 24, 128, 1033
Wheatear, 238, 557, 671,
777, 918, 1034
Wheel-bird, 639
Wheenerd, 778
Whekau, 674
Whetile, 1046
Whew, 1036
Whimbrel, 34,
539, 886, 1036
Whin-Chat, 85, 1038
Whindle, 778
Whip-poor-will, 88, 1036
Whip - Tom - Kelly, 973,
1036
Whiske-shawneesh, 1036
Whisky-Jack, 469, 1036
White-eye, 1036, 1056
Whitehead, 657, 1036
Whitethroat, 26, 438, 89,
543, 572, 598, 601, 702,
1037
Whittaile, 1034
Whitwall, 1039
Whoop, 1039
Whooper, 931, 1039
Whydah-bird, 1030, 1039
Widdehop, 93
Wide-awake, 1039
Widow-bird, 1030
Wierangle, 844, 1024
Wigeon, 171, 181, 500, 773,
892, 1039
Wignet, 1039
Wild Pigeon, 696

128, 351,

1087

Willet, 725, 811, 1040

Willock, 3898, 750,
1040

Willow-biter, 1040

Willow-Grouse, 389

Willow-Wren, 87, 351, 413,
557, 669, 1040, 1052

Windhover, 777, 1041

Windlestraw, 1041

Windpipe, 777, 1041

Wind-Thrush, 1041

Wine-Thrush, 1041

Wing, 1041

Winnard, 104]

Winsel, 778

Wire-bird, 351, 482, 1041

Wishbone, 296

Witstaart, 1034

Witte Kraai, 1041

Witte oogje, 1041

Witwall, 1046

Wobble, 1041

Wodake, 1046

Woinge, 1039

Wonga-wonga, 723, 1041

Wood-Chat, 1041

Woodcock, 379, 551, 696,
1042

Woodcock-Owl, 678

Woodcocks’ Pilot, 368

Wood-Duck, 1, 171, 1045

Wood-Grouse, 72

Woodhack, 1046

Wood-hen, 1031, 1045

Woodhewer, 718

Woodlark, 507, 1045

Woodpecker, 3, 81, 248,
258, 283, 292, 299, 319,
421, 443, 460, 463, 517,
568, 600, 631, 647, 718,
720, 738, 765, 769, 773,
813, 814, 915, 1045

Wood-Pie, 1050

Wood - Pigeon,
1050

Wood-speight, 1045, 1050

Woodspite, 1046

Wood - Swallow,
1050

Woodwall, 1046, 1050

Wood-Warbler, 1022

Wood-Wren, 1052

Worm - eating Warblers,
1023

Wrenna, 40, 1050

Wrannock, 1050

Wranny, 1050

Wren, 21, 26, 40, 83, 189,
367, 441, 470, 493, 582.
893, 966, 1050

Wrenne, 1050

768,

130, 162,

22, 929;

1088

Wrybill, 35, 315, 482, 1053

Wryneck, 28, 81, 126, 215,
384, 529, 718, 769, 814,
1053

Wude-coce, 1042

Wudu-coe, 1042

Wudu-Snite, 1042

Wiirgengel, 844, 1024

Wiirger, 844, 1024

Wuiot, 1039

Wulp, 1033

Wype, 1054

XANTHOCHROISM, 99, 1007,
1055

Xantholema, 28, 147

Xanthomelas, 96

Xanthura, 470

Xema, 402

Xenicus, 316, 406, 648, 770,
1055

Xenocichla, 26

Xenopirostris, 574
Xenorhynchus, 463
Xipholena, 86, 737
Xiphorhynchus, 719
Xiphosternum, 910

YAFFIL, 1046, 1055

Yaflingale, 1055

Yafile, 1046

Yarwhelp, 24, 3866, 1055

Yaup, 24

Yeldrock, 1056

Yellow-bird, 258, 1056

Yellow-Bunting, 1056

Yellow - hammer, 61, 659
1056

Yellowhead, 658,1037, 1056

Yellowlegs, 1056

Yellowpoll, 1056

Yellowrump, 1056

Yellowthroat, 1056

Yelper, 1056

THE END

DICTIONARY OF BIRDS

Yokel, 1056

Yoldrin, 1056
Yowley, 1056
Yréiling, 40

Yukel, 1056

Yunx, 717, 718, 1058

ZANCLOSTOMA, 125, 580

Zapornia, 764

Zeisig, 846

Ziegenmelker, 638

Zoneginthus, 253, 621

Zooerythrin, 95

Zoomelanin, 95

Zooxanthin, 95

Zooxanthine, 987

Zosterops, 48, 316, 364,
380, 428, 1056

Zwaan, 929

Zwaluw, 926

Zygodactyli, 19, 89, 972,
1058

Printed by R. & R. CLARK, LimireD, Edinburgh.

<
'
Cis " +
*
’
H .
a 1

Wise |
a

eae