Skip to main content

Full text of "A review of recent attempts to classify birds; an address delivered before the Second international ornithological congress on the 18th of May, 1891"

See other formats


A Il-ik nemzetkozi Congressus magyar bizottsaga. 



{Budapest, Hungarian National Museum.) x/L.njS^'^^ /I 

A REVimv 






THE 18 TR OF MAY, 1891, 








A Il-ik nemzetkbzi Congressus magyar bizottsaga. 




{Budapest, Hungarian Xational Museum.) 


A REVimv 


J3 I R D S ; 




THE IStr of mat, 1891, 



(zoological department, BRITISH MUSEUM.) 








Colleagues, — 

It was at first my intention, in addressing you at the present 
Congress on the Classification of Birds, to have laid before you a brief 
history of Ornithology from the time of Linnaeus to the present day. I 
found, however, that this has been so admirably done by Professor 
Alfred Newton in his article ^^ Ornithology,-"^ published in the 18th 
volume of the ' Encyclopaedia Britannica,-" that to have attempted such 
a task would have involved me in the most barefaced plagiarism ; and, 
even if this crime had been condoned, I should have been unable to 
teach you anything that you have not already learnt from his more 
talented pen. From the time of our great master, Linnaeus, and even 
from that of the patriarchs of Science, Professor Newton traces the 
gradual development of Ornithology; and not only do I find little 
to add to this masterly treatise, but my very criticisms are there 
forestalled, and I offer this tribute to the genius of my talented 
countryman, not without a slight feeling of envy at the vigorous English 
in which the memoir is composed, and the truly wonderful way in which 
his facts are marshalled and arranged. With some regret, therefore, 
I have laid aside my exposition of the various schemes of Classification 
which I had intended to place before you, because I feel that I could not 
say anything which Professor Newton has not said ten times better ; 
and although his article may not be " milk for babes," by the earnest 
devotee of Ornithology it will be read with intense interest. 

Since the article appeared in 1884, however, some considerable 
additions to our knowledge have appeared in print, and I propose to-day 
to invite your attention to these important events in what may be 
deemed the " Evolutionary " period in the history of Ornithology. 

There seem to be three great Epochs in the history of our Science, 
which we may call the Linnean Epoch, the Cuvierian Epoch, and 
the Darwinian or Evolutionary Epoch. 

The Linnea7i Epoch (1735-1800). 

In this time the Science was reduced to order, for the successors 
of Liniiffius did but incorporate the additional material which accumu- 
lated through the works of Daubenton, Buff on, Latham, and others, 
the results being always summarized on the Linnean plan. 

The Cuvierian Epoch (1800-1860). 

The activity of the French naturalists in the early part of the present 
century was so marked, and the calibre of the zoologists of France was 
so overpowering, that the Paris Museum became the centre from which 
most of the ornithological work of those days emanated, while the voyages 
undertaken by the French Government resulted in an accumulation of 
specimens which was not to be rivalled in the national museum of any 
other country. Besides Cuvier himself, there were several of his pupils 
and contemporaries who outstripped him in ornithological knowledge, 
and in 1889 I saw in the hands of Mr. Boucard the correspondence of 
Vieillot with the Comte de Riocour, showing that the former must have 
been a man of wide ornithological knowledge, as indeed his articles in 
the ' Nouveau Dictionnaire ' prove him to have been. With Vieillot, 
Ijevaillant, and Lesson at work in France, a great deal was accomplished ; 
but the chief interest, so far as concerns our present subject, centres 
round the classification of Cuvier, which, in spite of slight modifications, 
prevailed down to modern times, so that we find Dr. A. R. Wallace, in 
1874, still talking of naturaUsts ''who have only just freed themselves 
from the trammels of the old ' rostral ' system.'' 

Full justice has been done by Professor Newton to the memory of 
lUiger, whose " classification was quite new, and made a step distinctly in 
advance of anything that had before appeared.'' His ' Prodromus,' pub- 
lislied in 1811, received far less recognition than it deserved; for besides 
his explanation of the technical terms of Ornithology, his classification 
was a truly scientific one, with diagnostic characters for orders, families, 
and genera. Illiger's work, as well as that of other famous German 
naturalists, such as Merrem, Mtzsch, and Johannes Muller, was strangely 
overlooked in England, principally, because our leading zoologists were 
exercising themselves over the precious " quinary " system, while the 
energies of men like Gould, Jardine, and others were devoted more 
to the production of illustrated Faunal and monographic works. The 
later adoption of Cuvier's method by George Robert Gray in the ' Genera 
of Birds' has doubtless been the reason why his classification has 
-' - ^'^Howed down to recent times. 

Darwinian Epoch (1858 to the present day). 

Living as we do in the days when most of us test the result of our 
work by the theory of Evolution, it is not necessary to say anything of 
my own on the early development and spread of our thoughts and 
ideas on this subject. The following paragraph in Professor Newton's 
article embodies all that is necessary to say on this head : — 

''There is no need to enter into details of the history of Evolution; but the 
annalist in every branch of Biology must record the eventful 1st of July, 1858, when 
the now celebrated views of Darwin and Wallace were first laid before the scientific 
world, and must also notice the appearance towards the end of the following j-ear of 
the former's ' Origin of Species/ which has effected the greatest revolution of human 
thought in this or perhaps in any other 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 training 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 
b}' 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 philo- 
sophy 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 irre- 
sistible. But, 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. iSew spirit was given to it. Ornithologists now felt that 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 com- 
parison 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 a shuffling of cards, the ingenious arrangement of counters in a pretty 
pattern. Henceforward it was to be the serious study of the workings of Natm-e 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's minds 
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 primi- 
tive 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 Eeptiliau 
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 will be immediately 

In 1867 Professor Huxley promulgated his celebrated ' Classification 
of Birds, ' and this has been universally recognized as an epoch- 
making memoir in the history of Ornithology. In dealing with the 
Classifications of the last twenty-five years, I may be allowed to 
refer to a few of them in detail, and no sketch of the classificatory 
schemes of the Darwinian epoch would be complete without an epitome 
of Professor Huxley's Classification, the publication of which had im- 
mediate and far-reaching effects. I have also incorporated the results 
of his later memoirs. 

Order I. SAURUR^, Haeckel. 

Genus 1. ArchcBopteryx. 

Order II. RATITiE, Merrera. 
1st Group. 

Genus 1. Stnithio. 
2nd Group. 

Genus 1. Rhea. 
3rd Group. 

Genus 1. Casuarms. 
2. Drotnceus. 
4th Group. 

Genus 1. Dinomis. 

5th Group. 

Genus 1. Apterya:. 

Order III. CARINAT.S:, Merrem. 

Suborder I. DROM^OGNATH^]. 
Family 1, Tinamid^e. 

Group 1. Charadriomorphae. 

Family 1. CHARADRiiDiE. 


Group 2. Geranomorphae. 

Family 1. Gruid^. 

Intermediate forms : PsopJn'a, Rhmochctus. 
Family 2. Rallid.^. 

Intermediate forms : Otis, Curiama. 

Group 3. Cecomorphae. 

Family 1. Labid.ts. 

2. Procellaeiid^. 

3. colymbid^. 

4. Ax.c,ujm. 

Group 4. Spheniscomorphae. 
Group 5. Alectoromorphae. 
Group 6. Turnicomorphae. 
Group 7. Pteroclomorphae. 
Group 8. Heteromorphae. 
Group 9. Peristeromorphae. 

Group 1. Chenomorphae. 

Family 1. Anatid^, with Palamedea. 

Group 2. Amphimorphae. 

(Genus Phoenicoptei-us.) 

Group 3. Pelargomorphae. 

Family 1. Abdeid^. 

2. Ciconub^, 

3. Tantalid^. 

Group 4. Dysporomorphae. 

{z=Tofipcdmes, Cuv. ; Steganopodes, Cuv.) 

Group 5. Aetomorphae. 

{=Rcq)tores, Cuv.) 

Family 1. Stbigid^. 

2. Cathabtid^. 

3. Gypaetid^. 

4. Gypogebanid^. 

Group 6. Psittacomorphae, 

Group 7. Coccygomorphae. 

Family 1. Coliid^. 

2. Mtjsophagid.(E. 

3. CucuiiiD.^. 

4. bucconid^. 

5. Ehamphastid^. 

6. Capitonid^. 

7. Galbulid^. 

8. Alcedinxd^. 

9. bucebotid^. 

10. Upupid^. 

11. Mebopidje. 

12. MojiOTiD-j;. 

13. coeaciid^. 

14. Tbogonid^. 

Intermediate Group: Celeomorphae (Picid^). 


SulDorder IV. ^GITHOGNATH^. 
Group 1. Cypselomorphae. 
Family 1. TBOCHiLiDiE. 

2. Cypselid^. 

3. Capremulgid^. 

Group 2. Coracomorphse (=Passebes). 

Though agreeing with Professor Newton that SundevalFs ' Classifi- 
cation^^ which appeared in 1872^ was not quite what one would have 
expected from a zoologist of his great experience^ at the same time 
workers must feel grateful to any one who helps with diagnoses of Families 
&c. of Birds. If Sundevall's effort cannot be compared in importance 
with the work of Huxley, its many suggestions, if they did not lead to 
any immediate adoption of the author's views, were still useful in 
promoting discussion and study, and therefore the ' Tentamen ' acted 
as a stimulus for further investigation. In the ' Encyclopaedia ' 
Professor Newton has given an elaborate summary of SundevalFs 
results, which can there be consulted, and an English translation by 
Mr. F. Nicholson has recently been published. 

Much was done by Professor Huxley^s successors in the same field. 
Professor Garrod and Mr. Forbes, chiefly in the direction of the 
classification of the " Passeres,^' and the former specially directed his 
attention to the value of certain less-known points in the anatomy and 
osteology of the whole class. The work done by these young inves- 
tigators was progressive, and, but for their untimely deaths, there is no 
doubt that their subsequent labours would have been productive of 
great results, and would have anticipated much of the classification 
which has been proposed since. As it was, the arrangement of the 
Class " Aves '' as set forward by Garrod and Forbes was for the most 
part tentative, the former especially being the more sanguine about the 
value of his results, as those who had the privilege of listening to his 
addresses were wont to recognize. The certainty that the natural 
classification of Birds had been reached by a study of the carotid 
arteries or the nature of the oil-gland was upset soon after by the 
announcement that a more worthy character had been found in the 
ambiens muscle or the deep plantar tendons. The enthusiasm with 
which Garrod attacked his subject is fresh in the memory of all of 
us, and there is no difficulty in imagining what discoveries he would 
have made had death not claimed him as an early victim. To myself 
his decease was nothing less than a disaster ; for he had promised his 
assistance in the classification of the British Museum ' Catalogue,' 
and only just before his death he furnished me with his characters 
for the Order '' Passeres " as they appear in the third volume of that 

work. Unfortunately, he did not give me at the time the equivalents 
for the succeeding groups, and he died before I could ask him for them. 
Forbes possessed one advantage over Garrod, which ornithologists 
who knew both men were not slow to perceive. In addition to his 
great anatomical knowledge, he was very fond of ornithology pure 
and simple, and wrote not only monographic essays, such as those on 
Myzomela and Turnix, but he had got together a large collection of 
Ploceidce and Cuculidce, which he bequeathed to the British Museum, 
and on which he had evidently intended to found monographs of 
these families. He fully recognized the value of studying the life- 
history and habits of birds, and this doubtless led to his undertaking 
his successful journey to Pernambuco and his fatal one to the Niger, 
which ended in his death. 

Garrod^s scheme of classification is here added {cf. P. Z. S. 1874 
p. 116) :- 

Class AVES, 


Cohort (a) Struthiones. 

Family 1. Stbuthionid^. 

Subfamily 1. Struthionince. 
2. Rheince. 
Family 2. Casuaeiid^, 

3. Apterygidje. 

4. TlNAMID-^. 

Cohort (/3) Gallinaceae. 

Family 1. Palamedeid^. 

2. Gaxlin^. 

3. Rallid^. 


Subfamily 1. Otidince. 

2. Phcenicoptermie. 
Family 5. Musophagid^. 
6, CucrLiD-^. 
Subfamily 1. Centroimdmce 
2. Cuculince. 

Cohort (y) Psittaci. 


Cohort (a) Anseres. 
Family 1. Anatid^, 

2. Spheniscdd^. 

3. coltmbid^. 

4. podicipid^. 


Cohort O) NasutSB. 


Subfamily 1. FulmarvKB. 
2. Buhveriincc. 

Coliort (a) Pelargi. 

O) CathartidsB. 
(y) Herodiones. 
(8) Steganopodes. 
Family 1. Phaethontid^. 

2. Pelecanid^. 

3. Phalacrocoracid^. 


Cohort (e) Accipitres. 

Family 1. Falconijo^. 
2. Strigidje. 

Cohort (a) Columbae. 

Family 1. CoLUMBiDiE. 
2. Pteroclidje. 

Cohort (jS) Limicolse. 

Family 1. CHARADRiiDiE. 

2. Gruld^. 

3. Larid^. 

4. AliCIDiE. 


Family 1. Picarl^. 

Subfamily 1. Picidce. 

2. Ithamphasti(l<s , 

3. Capitoniclce. 
Family 2. Upupid^,. 



Family 1. Passeres. 

2. bucconid^ (?). 

3. Trogonid^. 

4. Meropid.^. 


6. Caprimulgid^. 



Subfamily 1. Coraciina. 

2. Momotina. 

3. TodincfX^). 


Family MaCeochires. 

Subfamily 1. Cypselince. 
2. TrochiliiKS. 

Forbes, only four days before his death on the Niger^ wrote in his 
diary : — " My final idea as to the classification of birds " {cf. Ibis, 1884-, 
p. 119):- 

Superorder Odontoenithes. 

I. Sam-urae. 1. TIT. Odontoliolcae. 1. 

II. Odoutotormse. 1. 

Superorder Rhynchobnithes. 














Struthiones. 1. 
Apteryges. 1. 
Rheje. 1. 
Ci'ypturi. 1. 
Galliuee. 3. 
Opisthocomi. 1. 
Palamedeee. 1. 
Eudromades (a). 1 
Semigallinee. 2. 
Psittaci. 1. 
Lamellirostres. 1 . 
Eretopodes {b). 3. 














Impennes. 1. 
Tubinares. 2. 
Pseudogryphi. 1. 
Herodiones. 3. 
Accipitres. 1. 
Steganopodes. 3. 
Pluviales. 8. 
Oolumbae. 2. 
Todiformes. 1. 
Piciformes (c). 7 
Coraciiformes. 2 
Meropiformes. 8. 


(c) Piciformes 





(Irrisoridfe ?). 




Suborder Pici. 

\ Suborder Halcyones, 

(a) Eudromades. 

. CEdicnemidEe. 

(b) Eretopodes. 




As the editors of ' The Ibis ' remark, the numbers placed by Forbes 
after the names of the Orders evidently denote the number of families 
comprised in each Order. 

The next Classification of importance was that of Dr. Sclater, pub- 
lished in ' The Ibis ' for 1880. It depends little on original research, 
and is, as Sclater himself admits^ mainly a revision of Prof. Huxley's 


scheme without any diagnostic characters. In any linear classification 
we must come to a full stop every now and again, and in reality 
Dr. Sclater has softened the number of " breaks " in the system as far 
as could be expected, and the only really serious ones occur at the end of 
the Psittaci, when the Owls are separated from Steaiornis by the inter- 
position of the Parrots, and the Columbcs have to take up the running 
after the Anseres. This memoir brings the subject of the Classification 
of Birds up to date, and embodies the results of all the recent work of 
Huxley and Parker, Garrod and Forbes, Nitzsch and Sundevall ; while, 
as Professor Newton has very justly pointed out, there are some very 
valuable improvements and additions, the results of the author^s own 
long experience. 

The following is Sclater^s proposed arrangement : — 

Class AVES. 

Subclass I. CABIN ATM. 

i. OsciNES a. Turdidae. 

b. Cinclidae. 

c. Sylviidae. 

d. Paridse. 

e. CerthiidEe. 

/. Troglodytidse. 
g, Motacillidae. 
h. Mniotiltidae. 
i. Hirundinidse. 
j. Vireonidae. 
k. Laniidae. 
I. Ampelidae. 
m, Ccerebidse. 
n. Tanagridae. 
0. Fringillidae. 
p. Alaudidae. 
q. Icteridae. 
r. Corvidse. 
ii. Oligomyodje «. Oxyrliamphidae. 

b. Tyrannidse. 

c. Pipridae. 

d. Cotingidae. 

e. Phytotomidae. 
/. Pittida9. 

g. Pliilepittidae. 
h. Eurylaemidae. 
iii. TRACHEOPHONiE «• Dendrocolaptida?. 

b. Formicariidae. 

c. Pteroptochidje. 
iv. PsEUDOsciNES «. Atrichiid^. 

b. Menuridae. 


Order II. PICAEItE. 

Suborder 1. Pici a. Picidae. 

2, Cypseli a. Trochilidae. 

b. Cypselidae. 

c. Caprimulgidfe. 

3, Anisodactyl^ a. Coliidaj. 

h. Alcedinidaj. 

c. BucerotidiB. 

d. Upupidse. 

e. Irrisoridse. 

f. MeropidfB. 
y. Momotidte. 
h. Todidte. 

i. Coraciidse. 
Ic. Leptosomidse. 
I. Podargidse. 
m. Steatornithidae. 

4, Hetekodactyl^ a. Trogonidae. 

5, Zygodactyly a. Galbulidee. 

h. Bucconidfe. 

c. Rliamphastidas. 

d. Capitouidae. 

e. Indicatoridae. 

6, Coccyges a, Cuculidae. 

b. Musophagidae. 
Order III. PSITTACI «. Cacatuidte. 

b. Stringopidae. 

c. Palaeormthidas. 

d. Psittacidae. 
IV. STRIGES a. Strigid*. 

b, Asionidae. 
V. ACCIPITKES a. Falconidc^. 

b. Catliartidfe. 

c. Serpentaiiidae. 
VI. STEGANOPODES «. Fregatid^. 

b. Pliaethontidae. 

c. Pelecauidae, 

d. Plialacrocoracida?. 

e. Plotidae. 
VII. HERODIONES «. Ardeid*. 

b. Ciconiidae. 

c. PlataleidcB. 
VIII. ODONTOGLOSS^ Plicenicopterus. 

IX. PALAMEDE^ Palamedeidfe. 


i. CoLUMB^ a. Carpophagidc-e. 

b. Columbidte. 

c. Gouridae. 

.. ^ d. Didunculid«. 

11. Dim. 


Order XII. PTEROCLETES Pteroclidae. 


i. Peristeeopodes a. Cracidee. 

I). Megapodiidee. 
ii. Alectoeopobes a. Phasiauidae. 

b. Tetraonidse. 

XIV. OPISTHOCOMI Opistliocomid*. 

XV. HEMIPODII Hemipodiidfe. 

XVI. FULICARI^ a. Rallid*. 

b. Helioruitliidse. 

b. Eurypygidse. 

c. Griiidse. 

d. Psophiidse. 

e. Cariamidae. 
/. Otidfe. 

XVIII. LIMICOL^. a. CEdicnemidee. 

b. Parridae, 

c. CliaradriidEe. 

d. Chionididse. 

e. Thinocoridae. 
/. Scolopacidfe. 

XIX. GAVI^ Larida;. 

XX. TUBINARES Procellariidfe. 

XXI. PYGOPODES a. Colymbidfe. 

b. Alcidse. 

XXII. IMPENNES Spheniscidfe. 


Subclass II. RATIT^. 

In the article to wliicli we have made such frequent aUusion, Professor 
Newton concludes his history of Ornithology with some critical remarks 
on the Class Aves. He would divide the Class into three Subclasses : — 

1. SAURUR.ffi, Haeckel. Archceopteryx the only lino wn form. 

2. RATIT.ffi, Merrem. 

a. With teeth. 

«'. With biconcave vertebrae As yet unknovrn. 

b' . With saddle-shaped vertebrae Hesperornis. 

b. AVithout teeth Recent and existing forms. 

3. CARINATiE, Merrem. 

a. With teeth. 

a' . With biconcave vertebrae Ichthyomis. 

V . With saddle-shaped vertebrae As yet unknown. 

b. Without teeth Recent and existinj? forms. 


He would divide the Ratitse into six Orders : — 

1. ^PYORNITHES Fam. ^pyornithid^. 

2. AFTER YGES Fam. Apxeeygid^. 

3. IMJMANES Fam. 1. Dinoenithid^. 

2. Palapterygid^. 

4. MEGISTANES Fam, 1. Casuariid.=e. 

2. Drom^id^. 

5. RHE^ Fam. Rheid^. 

6. STRUTHIONES Fam. Struthionid^. 

In discussing the Carinata, Professor Newton exhibits the utmost 
caution, and is unwilling to commit himself to a new arrangement of 
the Subclass, but he points out that the Crypturi must be considered as 
the first Order of the CarinatcB, as proposed by Professor Huxley, in 
whose classification they follow the Ratita. He next insists on the 
distinctness of the Impennes. He doubts the afiinity of the Podici- 
pedidce with the Pygopodes, and he would, associate the latter with the 
Gavioe and Limicolce as one Order, the Tubinares being distinct and 
forming a separate Order by themselves. 

The Grallce would contain the Fulicaria and Grues, the contents of 
the latter being the Gruidce, Psophiidce, and Aramidce, along with Eury- 
pyga and Rhinochetus. 

The Gallince should rank as an Order, the Hemipodii, " standing 
somewhat apart,^^ the Alectoropodes (normal Gallince), and the Peri- 
steropodes [Megapodiidce and Cracidcs) forming the three component 
Suborders. Opisthocomus is the single representative of a separate 

The Pteroclidce are an intermediate group between the Game-Birds 
and Pigeons, and must either be raised to the rank of an Order, as 
proposed by Huxley and Gadow, or they should belong to one large 
group, which should contain the Gallince and Columbce. The author 
does not fail, however, to emphasize the fact of the Dasypsedine con- 
dition of nestling Sand-Grouse, a fact he has since confirmed in an 
interesting memoir in 'The Ibis' for 1890 (pp. 207-214, pi. vii.). 
The Columbcs would possess two Suborders, the Didine birds and the 
true PigeonSj with which latter group Didunculus would rank, being 
probably connected with the more typical Columbidcs by the Papuan 
genus Otidiphaps. 

The GavicB are closely allied to the Limicolce ; and the Grallce, through 
Eurypyga and Rhinochetus, allied to Limicolce in some respects, also 
trend toM^ards the Herodiones. The Gavice are further allied through 
Phaeton to the Steganopodes. 

Cariama is an indefinite form, possessing some Accipitrine characters. 


and representing possibly the remains of an ancestral type, from which 
the Accipitres and Herodiones have branched off at an early epoch. 

The Herodiones contain the Arde<p, Ciconia, and Platalea. 

The Phoenicopteri so much resemble the Anseres in certain points 
that they should form a Suborder of that group, equal in value to the 
true Anseres and the Palamedece. 

The Accipitres would embrace the Cathartidce, Vulturida, Falconidce, 
and the Serpentariidce, but whether Cariama goes here or not must 
remain an open question. 

The Striges are not so nearly alHed to the Accipitres as most people 
would believe, and should stand independently of that Order, to which 
the Psittaci would be perhaps the nearest allies. The Striges would 
find their closest relations in the Picmia, especially with Steatornis, 
which has branched off from a common ancestor with the Owls. 

The Picaria represent '' chaos," and until the Order has been more 
sufficiently studied, Professor Newton declines to meddle with it, nor 
would he, at the time of writing, grant to the Woodpeckers the high 
position of Sauroffnathce claimed for them by Professor Parker. 

The Coccygomorphce he has already alluded to among the " groups 
allied to Gallincej" where Opisthuconius indicates an old line of descent, 
now almost obliterated, in the direction of the Musophagida, and thence 
to the Coccygomorphce, following Huxley. 

Finally, in the arrangement of the Passeres, Professor Newton 
acknowledges the value of the work done by Garrod and Forbes, and 
adopts in the main their conclusions and those of Sclater. 

The Passeres would therefore include three main Suborders, viz. : — 
the Oligomyodi, the Tracheophonce, the abnormal Acromyodi or Pseud- 
oscines [Atrichiidce and Menuridce), and finally the normal Acromyodi 
or true Oscines. At the head of the latter he would put the Corvidce 
in place of the Turdida. 

Such is a brief outline of Professor Newton's scheme of classification 
in 1884, and if he had not Avarned us that he considered that a phylo- 
genetic scheme was at that time impracticable, I should have said that 
a highly instructive one could have been drawn up from the details 
which he had himself got together in the memoir from which every 
ornithologist can draw inspiration and ideas. 

Professor Newton's article is apparently designed to bring down the 
history of Ornithology to the year in which it was published, but a 
supplement is necessary, for he makes no reference whatever to the 
'Catalogue of Birds,' then in course of publication by the British Museum, 
although at least eight volumes had been published when he wrote in 
the ' Encyclopsedia.' The first volume, containing a monographic 
revision, with descriptions and full synonymy, of the Diurnal Accipitres, 
was published by the Trustees in 1874. That this was considered an 


important work by the late Mr. John Henry Gurney, who had devoted 
a lifetime to the study of the Birds of Prey, is proved by the pains 
with which he reviewed it in a series of essays extending over a period 
of seven years (Ibis, 1875-1882) ; and it will ever be a source of satis- 
faction to the author of this first volume of the ' Catalosrue ' that its 
publication was the cause of Mr. Gurney^s review, which gave to the 
ornithological world the result of the years of study which the greatest 
authority on Accipitrine birds of our day had accumulated, and which 
otherwise might have died with him. 

The second volume of the ' Catalogue ' contained a monographic 
description of the Striges, and with the third volume was commenced 
the description and synonymy of the Passeriformes. It was the inten- 
tion of the author, as already hinted {antea, p. 6), to have followed 
in the main the classification of Garrod, with the subdivisions of 
Wallace and Sundevall, but this system of classification soon broke 
down, owing to the refusal of Mr. Seebohm, who wrote the fifth 
volume of the ' Catalogue,' to receive into the Turdid<e such obvious 
forms as Pratincola, Copsychus, &c., which had, therefore, to be incon- 
gruously accommodated in the Muscicapidce and Timeliidai. 

As for myself, I may say that the reception which has been accorded 
to my labours on the 'Catalogue^ has been most gratifying, for my 
colleagues everywhere have been generous enough to recognize in the 
most kindly manner the work to which I have devoted the best years 
of my life. 

The ' Catalogue of Birds ' was initiated by the Keeper of the Zoolo- 
gical Department of the British Museum, my respected chief. Dr. 
Giinther, and designed by him on the plan of his celebrated ' Catalogue 
of Fishes.^ In the year 1872, when I commenced the Catalogue, the 
Classification of Birds was in a transitional state, as anyone who 
studies the history of Ornithology can discover, and in starting with the 
Accipitres I reverted to the older form of arrangement. Thus the 
Accipitres were selected for the initial volume, and the Passeriformes 
followed. That the arrangement of the latter is scientifically faulty, no 
one, least of all the author of the principal volumes, will deny, but for 
this he will contend, that it is something to correlate the synonymy 
of the genera and species of Birds, and to have described all the 
known species up to date, a task not attempted for more than sixty 
years. The classification of the higher groups and families will follow 
when more material for a definite conclusion has been obtained. 

In 1882 appeared Dr. Reichenow's ^Die Vogel der Zoologischen 
Garten,' with a scheme of arrangement of birds, which also seems to 
have escaped Professor Newton's notice. It contains a phylogenetic 
tree, and the location of the families displays some rather novel 


ideas. As this classification has attracted considerable attention in 
Germany, and has been followed by some recent writers, I here repro- 
duce Dr. Reichenow^s scheme : — 

Series I. 


Fam. 1. Struthionid^. 



Fam. 2. Spheniscid^. 

3. Alcid.^. 



Fam. 5. Pbocellabiid^e. 

6. Laeid^. 

7. Sternid^. 

Fam. 8. GiiACULiDiE. 

9. SULID^. 

10. Pelecanid^. 


Fam. 11. Mebgid^e. 

12. Anatid^. 

13. Ansebid.^. 

14. Cygnid^e. 

15. Palajiedeid.^j. 

Suborder A. Limicolae. 

Fam. 16. Chabadbiid-e. 

17. Dbomadid^. 

18. scolopacid^. 

Subfam. A. HimantopocUntx. 

B, Totanince. 

C. Scolopacincs. 

Suborder B. Arvicolse. 

Fam. 19. Otididje. 
20. Gbuid^. 


Suborder C. Calamocolae. 

Fam. 21. Rallid^. 

Subfam. A. Rallince. 

B. Gallinulince. 
0. Parrincs. 

Fam. 22. Etjeypygid^. 

Suborder D. Deserticolae. 

Fam. 23. Thinocoeid^. 

24. turnicid^. 

25. Pteroclid^. 

Fam. 26. Ibid^. 

27. ClCONID^. 

28. Phcenicopteeid^e. 

29. ScopiD^. 

30. Bal.enicipidjE. 

31. Ardeid.5;. 

Series IV. 

Order \U1. GYRANTES. 
Fam. 32. Didid.e. 



35. Geotrygonidje. 

36. columbid^. 


Fam. 37. Cbyptubid^. 

Order X. RASORES. 

Fam. 38. Megapodid^. 

39. Ceacid^. 

40. Opisthocomidje. 


Subfam. A. Pavonince. 
B. Phasianmce. 

Fam. 42. Perdicid^. 

Subfam. A Perdicince, 

B. Odontophorimc, 

Fam. 43. Tetrao.vid-e. 



Fam. 44. Vulturid^. 

Siibfam. A. SareorhmnphincB. 

B. Vulturince. 

C. GypaetincB. 

Fam. 45. Falconid^. 

Subfaiu. A. Polyhorince. 
B. Accipitrince, 

Section a. Asturinee. 
h. Spizaetinse. 

Subfam. C. Buteonince, 

Section a. Milvinae. 

b. Biiteoninee. 

Subfam. D. Falconince. 

Fam, 46. SiRiGiDiE. 

Subfam. A. Buhonince. 

B. TJlulvnce. 

C. Strujince. 



Fam. 47. SxRiNGOPiDiE. 

48. Plissolophid.^. 

49. Platyceecii)^. 


51. Teichoglossid.^. 

52. Pal^oenithidj?^;. 

53. psittacid^. 

54. CoNUEIDiE. 

55. PlONIDJE. 


Fam. 56. Musophagid^. 

57. COLIID^. 

58. Ceotophagid^. 

69. CUCULID^. 

Subfam. A. Zanclostomince. 

Section a. Geococcj'ges. 

b. Zanclostominfe. 

Subfam. B. Coccystince. 
C. Cticiilince. 

Fam. 60 Indicatoeid.1;. 

61. bucconid^. 

62. Teogonid^. 


Fam. 63. Galbulid^. 


65. Capitonid^. 

Section a, American species. 
h. Asiatic species. 
c. African species. 

Fam. 66. Picid^. 

Subfam. A. Picumnincc. 

B. Dendrocopince, 

C. Psilorhince. 

D. Picincs. 



Fam. 67. BucEROTiDiE. 
68. Alcedinid^. 
Subfam. A. Halcyonince. 
B. Alcedinince, 

Fam. 69. Meropid^. 

70. Upupid^. 

71, 72. coraciidje. 
Subfam. A. Coraeiince. 

B. Podar(fin<e. 


Fam. 73. Oapeimulgid^. 

74. Cypselid^. 

75. Trochilid^. 

Subfam. A. Phaethoinuthina;. 
B. Trochilince. 

Fam. 76. Ampelid^. 

Subfam. A. Ph\jtotomin<c, 

B. AinpeUme. 

C. Lipaugince. 

Fam. 77. Tyrannid^. 
78. Anabatic^. 
Subfam. A. Dendrvcjlaptiiuc, 

B. Anabatliice. 

C. Furnariince. 

Fam. 79. Eriodorid^, 
Subfam. A. Hylactince. 
B. Eriodorince. 




Fam. 80, Hirundinid^. 


Subfam. A. BomhyeilUnce. 

B. Muscicapince. 

C. Myiayrince. 

Fam. 82. Campephagid^. 
83. Laniid^. 

Subfam. A. Laniince. 

B, Malaconotince . 

Fam. 84. Cobvid^. 

Subfam. A. Gymnorhince. 

B. Corvincp,. 

C. Garrulince. 

D. Dendi'ocittince. 

E. FregilUncB. 

Fam. 85. Paradiseidje. 

Subfam. A. Paradiseince, 
B. TectonarcJiince. 
0. Glauoopince. 

Fam. 86, Oriolid^^. 

87. Sturnid-^. 

88. ICTERID^. 

89. Ploceid^. 
Subfam. A. Ploceince. 

B. Spennestince, 

Fam. 90, Fringillidje. 

Subfam, A. Fringillince. 

B. Pyrrhulince. 

C. CoccoborincE. 

D. Emberizince. 

Fam. 91. Sylvicolidje. 

Subfam. A. Ai'remonince. 

B. Thraupince. 

C. SylvicoUiia . 

D. Motacittince. 

Fam. 02. Alaxjdid^. 

93. Brachypodib^. 

94. Meliphagid^, 

95. Nectarinid^. 

96. Dacnidid^. 

a. New World forms (Dacnis, &c.). 
6. Old World forms (DiccBum, &c.). 

97. Certhiid^. 

98. Paridje. 


Fani. 99. Timeliid^, 

Subfam. A. Timeliincs. 

B. Ci'sticoluxe. 

C. Troglodytince. 

D. Mimince. 

E. Co]isychince, 

Fain. 100. Sylviid^. 

Subfam. A. Syhiince. 
B. TurdincB. 
Section a. Turdiformes. 
h. Lusciniformes. 

Altliougli there is much that is new and much that is suggestive in 
this classification of Reichenow^s, it is founded on such totally different 
ideas from those generally entertained in England and America that it 
is difficult to institute a comparison between the systems in vogue 
in 1882 and that propounded by our worthy colleague in Berlin. His 
classification, however^ is based on absolute experience, and is accom- 
panied by illustrcitive descriptions. 

Commencing with higher '' Series/' which are equal in most cases to 
the " Sub-Classes " of other systematists, the author is enabled to obtain 
high rank for his '^ Orders '' and '^ Suborders/^ and it is particularly a 
feature of the classification employed by Reichenow that natural 
characteristics are considered of primary importance, as, for instance, 
when he divides his Cur sores into " Limicolse ^^ (Plovers and Snipes), 
" Arvicolse " (Bustards and Cranes), " Calamocolee " (Rails and Sun- 
Bitterns), and '^Deserticolse" (Thinocori, Hemipodes, and Sand-Grouse). 
The Crypturi are considered to be an order of the series Captatores, and 
head the Game-birds. The family Vulturiclce contains three subfamilies, 
^arcorhampMiKB, Vuliurina, a.r\d Gypaetina ; and Dr. Reichenow follows 
recent classification so far as to place the PolyborincB next to the 
Vultures, and thence he proceeds to the AccipitrincB and Sphaetince, but 
Pandion comes into his subfamily Mihince, while, after the subfamily 
Buteo7iince, his Falconince contain only Falco and Hierax. 

Reichenow's classification of the Passeres follows mainly that of his 
celebrated compatriot Professor Cabanis, but the leading divisions 
differ. The suborders known to English naturalists as Passeri- 
formes and Picarke are divided by Cabanis into four orders — 
Oscines, Clamatores, Strisores {Macrochires and Coccyges, auct.), and 
Scansores, to which we may add the Psittaci. Reichenow somewhat 
modifies this classification. The Passer if or mes and Picarue he places 
under the heading of two great Series, the Fibulatores and the 
Arhoricolce. The Psittaci remain as an order, with nine families. 
His Scansores contain all the Scansores of Cabanis, but he places the 
Crotophagidce as a separate family, equal in value to the Cuculidce, and 


from Cabanis's Strisores he also takes away the Coliida and Musophagidae, 
and adds them to the Scansores. 

With Reichenow the Strisores do not disappear as an order, but, 
following the Momotida and Todida, are merged in the Coraciidae (with 
which the EurylcemidfE are also classified, in the neighbourhood of 
Eurystomus) . The Podargina make up the second subfamily of the Cora- 
ciid(S; and then the Strisoi'es, containing the Caprimulgidce, Cypselidce, 
and Trochilida, appear as an order between the Tnsessores [Bucerotlda, 
Alcedinidce, Meropidce, Upupidce, and Coraciidce) and the Clamatores. 
The latter commence with the Ampelidce, with the subfamilies Phyto- 
tominee, Amj)elince, and Lipauginae, and follow the order of the ' Museum 
Heineanum ' to the Hypocnemidce, which contains the Pittas and the 
subfamily Myiotherince. The Oscines are by no means the same as in 
the ' Museum Heineanum/ and many changes are introduced. The 
Picarice of modern systematists form merely an order of the Arboricola, 
equal in value to the Clamatores and Oscines ; and in this arrangement 
some seemingly natural families are widely separated, as, for instance, 
the Paradiseidce from the Corvidce &c., while the arrangement of the 
Oscinine families seems to me a little unnatural. 

What will be of most interest to Ornithologists generally will be the 
phylogenetic tree which the author has given in his introduction. This, by 
the courtesy of Dr. Reichenow, I am permitted to introduce (see p. 23) . 

The year 1884 was signalized by the appearance of Professor Elliott 
Coues's revised edition of the ' Key to North- American Birds,' a work 
the author of which America may be proud to claim as one of her 
children. It is still the Ornithologist's vade-mecum, and the practical 
portion of it, which forms the best introduction now extant to the study 
of birds, has recently been re-issued as a separate work by Messrs. 
Macmillan, so that it is now within the reach of every student. As the 
special portion of the work deals principally with American birds, and 
as many great families are unrepresented in the Nearctic Region, the 
efforts of the author have been chiefly directed towards the elucidation 
of the Avifauna of North America. The " Keys " also are avowedly 
artificial ; but the many hints given throughout the book, and the 
author's intimate acquaintance with his subject, render it a most 
important text-book for the student of the classification of birds. The 
next great American text-book, the ' Standard Natural History,' owes 
much to the influence of Professor Coues's teaching. 

This ' Standard Natural History ' (Boston : Cassino and Co.) was 
issued in 1885. It was edited by Mr. John Sterling Kingsley, and the 
volume devoted to the Birds was apparently intrusted to the care of 
Dr. L. Stejneger, a Scandinavian naturalist who has settled in America. 
The diligence which he has shown in unearthing the work of forgotten 


















Phylogenetic Thee of the Class <'Aves." 
From Reichenow's ' Vogel der Zoologischen Garten,' 1882. (By permission of 

Dr. Reichenow.) 


authors, and the acumen with which he has ferreted out questions 
of priority of nomenclature, have resulted in the most wholesale change 
of names in Ornithology ; and as these determinations have been largely 
accepted in America, but not yet in Europe, there has arisen a wide 
divergence in nomenclatural usage between the Ornithologists of the 
Old World and those of the New, which finds accentuation in the Lists 
of Birds published by the British and American Ornithologists^ Unions 
respectively. Luckily for myself, the present Address does not concern 
itself with nomenclature, and I only mention the subject out of respect 
to the name of Dr. Stejneger, who is responsible for most of the recent 
discoveries which have led to such drastic changes; so that it is not 
surprising to find that, in the scheme of classification which he sets 
forward in the ' Standard Natural History,' a number of perfectly new 
and, as it seems to me, unnecessary names have been showered upon 
the ornithological world, already sufficiently burdened with the task of 
remembering names. 

The following is Dr. Stejneger's scheme in detail; and I must 
emphatically state my conviction that, Avith the exception of some of 
Professor Elliott Coues's essays, there has never been a popular work on 
birds so well conceived as the " Aves " volume of the ' Standard Natural 
History,' or one which, professedly popular in its aims, contains such an 
amount of sterling new and original work. It differs, moreover, from 
most recent schemes in giving diagnostic characters for every Order and 
Family, and is thus entitled to the foretnost rank as an original work. 

Subclass I. SAURURJE. 


{Archceopteryx, Laopten/x ?) 

Order I. PTEllOPAPPT. 

{Ichthyornis, Apatornis). 


Order I. DR0MJ50PAPPI. 

(Hesperornis, &c.) 




Super-family I. Struthioideae. 
Super-family II. Rheoideas. 
Super-family III. Casuaroideae. 

Family 1. Dromaiid^. 
2. Oasuariid.^;. 

Super-fauaily IV. Dinornithoideae. 


Order ni. AFTER YGES. 


Super-Order II. IMPHNXHS. 

Family Spheniscid-s. 



Super-family I. Colymboideae. 

Family 1. Colymbidje. 

(PoDiciPEDiu.?:, auct.) 

Super-family II. Heliornithoideae. 

Super-family III. Alcoideae. 

Family 1. Ueixatobidje, 
■2. Alcid^e. 

Super-family 1\ . Laroideae. 
Family 1. Stercoeariidje. 
2. Larid.e. 

Super-family \. Procellaroideae. 

Family 1. Diomedid.!:. 

2. Pkocellaeud^. 


Order YII. GRALL^. 

Super-family VI. Chionoideae. 

Family 1. Chionid^. 

2. Thtnocorid.^. 

Super-family VII. Scolopacoideae. 

Family 1. Glaeeolidje. 

2. Dbomadid^. 

3. Chaeadeiid.e. 

4. Jac.a:n'id-e. 

5. scolopacid.e. 

6. Gldicxemid.e. 

7. Otidid-e. 

Super-family VIII. Exirypygoideae. 

Family 1. Eubypygid^. 

2. Rhinochetid^je. 

3. 3Iesitid^. 


Super-family IX. Cariamoideae. 
Super-family X, Gruioidese, 
Family 1. Psophiidjs. 

2. Gruid^. 

3. Aeamid^. 

4. Rallied. 


Super-family XI, Anhimoideae. 
Super-family XII. Anatoidese. 
Family 1. Cnemioenithtd^. 

2. Cebeopsid-e. 



5. Anatid^. 

Super-family XIII. Phoenicopteroideae. 

Family 1. Pal^olodontid^. 
2. Phcenicopteeid^. 


Super-family XIV. Ibidoideae. 
Super-family XV. Ardeoideae. 

Family 1. Giconiid^. 
2. ScopiD^. 



Super-family XVI. Pelecanoideae. 

Family 1. Pelecanip^. 

2. StTLIDiE. 

3. Phalaceocobacid^. 

4. Anhingid^. 

SupeMamily XVII. Fregatoideae. 
Super-family XVIII. Phaetontoideae. 


(h-derXII. GALLING. 

Suborder i. Gallinje Alectoeopodes. 

Family 1. TETBAONrD.a!, 
2. Phasianid^. 

Suborder ii. Gallinje Peeisteeopodes. 
Family 1. MEGAPODiiDiE. 



Family 1. DiDiDiE. 


3. GOUEID^. 

4. coluinibid^. 

6. Cakpophagib^. 


Family 1. Gypogeeanid^. 

2. Cathabtid^. 

3, Falconid^. 
Subfamily 1. VuUtirinee. 

2. Aquilince. 

3. Pandionince. 

4. Circmce. 

5. Milvincc. 

6. Polyhorin(B. 

7. AccipitritKB. 

8. Falconinai. 

Family 4. Strigid.^. 
Subfamily 1. Asionince. 
2. Striffince. 


Family 1. Stbingopid.^. 

2. Plictolophid-^. 





Super-family I. Cuculoideae. 

Family 1. Musophagid.i;. 


.Super-family II. Coracoideae. 
Family 1. Steatornitiiid.i:. 



4. coraciid^. 

5. Leptosojiatid.t;. 

Super-family III. Colioideae. 
Siiperfamily IV. Alcedinoideae. 
Family 1. Meropid,?;, 

2. T0DID-<E. 


Family 3. Momotld^. 

4. Alcedinid^. 


S uper-family V. Upupoideas. 

Family 1. Upupid^. 

2. Ieeisorid^. 

Super-family YI. Picoidese. 
Family 1. Bucconid^. 

2. Galbulid-s. 


4. Megaejemii)^. 


6. PlCID^. 

Subfamily 1. Picinmmice. 

2. Picinee. 

3. lymjincb. 

Super-family VII. Trogonoideae. 

Super-family VIII. Micropoideae. 

Family 1. Cypselid^. 
Subfamily 1. Chcetiirince. 
2. Micropoclin(c. 

Family 2. Teochilid^. 


Super-family I. Menuroideas. 

Family I. MENURiDiE. 

2. Ateichoenithid^. 

Super-family II. Eurylaimoideas. 

Super-family III. Tyrannoideae. 
Family 1. Xeniscidje. 

2. Philepittid.^. 

3. Pittidje. 

4. Tyeanxid.e. 



7. Phytotomid.e. 

Super-family 1\. Formicaroideae. 
Faiuily 1. Conopophagid.e. 

2. Pteeoptochidje. 

3. foemicaeiidje. 

4. Dendeocolaptid^. 



Super-family V. Passeroideae. 
Family 1. Alaudid^e. 

2. motacillid^, 

3. Enicurid^. 

4. TlMALIID^. 

o. LioTEiCHU)^. 


7. TUEDID^. 

8. ClXCLID^. 

9. Troglodytid^. 

10. Cham^id^. 

11. MlMID^. 

12. HlRUNDIlSriD.E. 

13. Campephagid^. 

14. DlCRURID^. 

15. Ampelid^. 

16. Artajted^. 

17. Lanxcd-5;. 

18. VlREOOTD^E. 

19. Parid^. 

20. Oriolid^. 

21. Paradiseid^. 

22. CORVID^. 

23. Sturnid^^. 

24. Meliphagid^e. 

25. Nectarinhd^e. 

26. Dic^iD^. 

27. Certhhj)^. 

28. ccerebid^. 

29. jMniotiltid^. 

30. Tanagrid^. 

31. PliOCEID^. 

32. ICTERID^. 

33. Fringillid^, 

Although Dr. Stejneger secured the co-operation o£ such competent 
naturalists as Mr. D. G. Elliot, Mr. W. B. Barrows, and Mr. J. S. 
Kingsley to describe some of the orders in the ' Standard Natural 
History,^ there is no doubt that the original work in the volume is 
almost entirely his own, and he shows a wide insight into the details of 
the subject. Not only does he incorporate all the best recent work of 
contemporary authors, but he leaves plenty of food for reflection to the 
systematist, and no one can doubt that his conclusions have had con- 
siderable weight with many writers who have succeeded him. 

Compared with Dr. Sclater's arrangement, which was tlic immediate 
predecessor of Dr. Stejneger's, there are considerable differences to be 
found in the one proposed by the latter author. Of the Passerine 
series I shall have to speak presently. The Oligomyodce and Tra- 
cheophonce of the former scheme are split up by Stejneger into three 
super-families, each of which is equivalent in value to the Oscines 


(=Passeroide8eof Stejneger). In the treatment of the Picariie there is 
considerable discrepancy, and here it seems that some of Stejneger's 
most enduring work will be found. Both he and Sclater are agreed 
about the Coccyges ( = Cuculoidese of Stejneger), and Sclater's " Zygo- 
dactylcs '' are nearly equal to Stejneger's Picoidece, excepting that the 
Woodpeckers are considered by Stejneger to be merely a family of the 
latter, whereas Sclater places them as a suborder Pici, equivalent to 
Cypseli, &c. Again, the " Heterodactylce" of Sclater= T'ro^owoif/ete of 
Stejneger. The Micropoidea of the latter are not equal to Sclater's 
Cypseli, as the latter contain, besides the Cypselidce and the Trochilidce, 
the family Caprimulgidce, Avhich, according to Stejneger, should come 
with the Coraciidce, &c., in his super-family CoracoidecB. Thus Sclater's 
larger suborder " Anisodactylce " is represented by three super-families 
in Stejneger's scheme. 

In both arrangements the Psittaci and the Accipitres follow the 
Picarice ; but then comes divergence, for whereas Sclater follows with 
the Steganopodes to the Herudiones and Anseres, after the Huxleyan 
method, Stejneger interposes the Columbce and GallincB, as well as the 
Opisthocomi, before he reaches the Steganopodes. 

The disadvantage of dividing the authorship of a systematic work on 
birds, which leaves the principal author at the mercy of colleagues who 
may hold totally different opinions from his own, is shown in this book, 
where, either by Mr. Elliot or Dr. Stejneger, the Hemipodii are totally 
omitted. There is a figure of Turnix sylvatica, but the Hemipodes are 
otherwise not mentioned ; so I cannot tell where Stejneger would have 
placed this debatable family. It is not worth while to follow our two 
systematists as to the value which they respectively assign to the Eury- 
pygidce, Cariamidce, and others, as to whether they are Ralline or 
Gruine; but it should be pointed out that, whereas Sclater places the 
Helio7'nit1iid(B as a family of Rails, Stejneger considers them of the 
value of a super-family {HeliornitJioidea) , and puts them between his 
Colymboidea and Alcoideae. 

The year 1888 may truly be said to be an '' epoch-making " one in 
the history of Ornithology, for the wonderful book which Professor 
Max Furbringer published three years ago, under the title ^Unter- 
suchungen zur Morphologic und Systematik der Vogel,' contains such 
an amount of information that it would take a separate essay to sum- 
marize it, even if the present speaker had the knowledge requisite for the 
task, which he has not ; but, luckily for our purpose. Prof. Furbringer 
has published a ' Versuch eines genealogischen Vogelsystemes ' at the 
end of his great work, by which we are able to comprehend his con- 
clusions ; and his arrangement of the Orders of Birds, allowing as it 
does for the intercalation of the main groups of fossil forms, enables 


Ornithologists to acquire a far more" complete view of evolutionary 
classification than was previously at their disposal^ and the interest is 
heightened by the ' Stammbaume/ in which he endeavours to trace the 
apparent development of the Class ^^Aves" from its primitive ancestors. 
It will be many years before anything so elaborate as Prof. Fiirbringer's 
work meets the eye of the student of Ornithology, and for the better 
comprehension of his conclusions Prof. Hans Gadow has given a very 
timely resume in ' Nature ' (vol. xxxix. pp. 150-152, 177-181). 

It seems to me, looking at Prof. Fiirbringer's ' Stammbaume/ that 
he fairly fulfils our notion of what may have been the gradual evolution 
of the Class " Aves " from its parent stem or stems in the distant 
past. The little assistance afforded by the geological record points to 
the conclusion that the most ancient forms differed no more radically 
(if we except the possession of teeth) from existing birds than many of 
the latter do from each other at the present day, whilst the loss of the 
intervening links must have been enormous. 

First let us take the aberrant and outlying forms which caused 
FUrbringer to rank them as Intermediate Suborders or Gentes. There 
comes first in order his Suborder Palamedeiformes. Dr. Gadow para- 
phrases the author^s ideas as follows : — ^'They show many connecting- 
points with the Anseres, Steganopodes, and Pelargo-Herodii ; but their 
reception into the Pelargornithes is rendered impossible by various funda- 
mental and primitive peculiarities. Through their intestines and 
pterylosis they somewhat resemble Rhea. "Whether we place them 
nearer to the Anseres than to the Pelargi depends upon the taxonomic 
value which we happen to attribute to their skeletal, muscular, intes- 
tinal, or external features.^' 

Mr. Seebohm {vide infra) places the Palamedese with the Lamelli- 
rostres, but the lack of uncinate processes to the ribs shows that they 
are a very aberrant group. 

Another assemblage of birds which troubled Fiirbringer was the 
Petrels, which he puts as an Intermediate Suborder Procellariiformes. 
" They are certainly a very old and isolated group " [cf. Gadow, /. c.) . 
With Seebohm they form a Suborder of his Galliformes. 

Fiirbringer also made an " Intermediate Suborder" of the Penguins. 
Once more I quote Gadow^s most useful summary : — 

" The Penguins are a very old fauiiiy, because the genus Palcsetidi/ptes shows that 
they had become specialized into diving and swimming birds, with total loss of the 
power of flight, in the Eocene period, or probably even earlier. Fiu-briiiger calls the 
Penguins Trit-Apteuornithes, indicating that they, like the Great Auk, the Dodo, 
Ocydromus, and others, have lost their power of flight later than the Ratitas. A sharp 
line between Deutero- and Trit-Aptenornithes cannot, however, be drawn, since 
Cnemiornis, Gastomis, &c., are intermediate forms, just as Stringops is now on the 
way to be Aptenornithic. Many of the characters of the Penguins, generally con- 
sidered as primitive, are partly ' pseudo-primitive,' i. e. phylogenetically reduced and 





+ S 





:73 o 



SB o 

s a 

P P 

a fi 









a '3 







o o 














a> O 


o « 


























t; CO 
O H 




M o 



















1— I 














I— ( 

1 S 
I P 






• iH 









o O 

^^ ^ 

(J) ^^ 

.S Ph 

































K ^ 

^ S ■" -S 

fl^ P^ Ph O 

'S ^ '« 

p. & 

o 8 

a3 ^ =3 

M^^FP OOO Cnfl^eLi 


3 3 « 

S8 & 

si ^ si 

3 ^ rt -s s s 




S a^ a 9 '« '^ 




S eS O -rt fH o 


O O P O H^l <1 








o g , 






"g « 



m M (Dm 

o J 2 Q 


IT ^ l-Ni ^-^ 

•43 <! ;j2 hi 









. ^ se 



tJ -t-^ '3 



&( o G 




3 'r3 P-> 




pq P^ <1 




S cS 173 

S ^ 


. a^ 


SB ^ 
<1 P 




P; o 




6^ ^-" 

























































s & 

f^ « 















1— t 
































3 3 

Q ;q 3 




















H a «ii D p; 



aj i-i 




































S o 


D 2 


ontogenetically retarded ; e. g. the structure and distribution of the feathers, the fir- 
like anterior extremities, the broad scapula, and, according to Flirbringer, even the 
metatarsus. The resemblances with Podiceps and Colymhns are superficial only, but 
he cannot tell to which of recent birds the Penguins approach nearest. All that the 
author contends against is the removal of the Penguins into a Subclass, equivalent to 
the rest of the Oariuatae. On his plate 29 a they are represented as a lonely group." 

Mr. Seebohm, in 1890, places them in his Galliformes, with ^'at 
least five characters,, each of which is diagnostic.^' He says that they 
" represent/^ in the Antarctic Ocean, the Puffins and the Anks which 
abound in the Arctic Ocean, and "it is difficult to believe that they are 
not distantly related. The bones of the palate are so very similar in 
the Impennes, the Pygopodes, and the Alcidae, that it is difficult to 
regard the Penguins as far removed from the Gallo-Grallse.'"' 

The next '^'Intermediate Suborders " which exercise Prof. Fiirbringer 
are the Gruiformes and the Ralliformes. "The Gruiformes/-' para- 
phrases Dr. Gadow, " are connected with the Charadriiformes by 
Eurypyga, with the Ralliformes by Aramus. They seem to have 
reached their culminating period in the Miocene age. Dicholophus is 
the most highly specialized form, and has assumed peculiar raptorial 
characters isomorphic with those of Gypogeranus, which is a true Bird 
of Prey.'^ 

''The Ralliformes flourished as early as the Eocene period. The 
Fulicarise, consisting of the Rallidae and Heliornis, are more nearly 
related to the Hemipodii and the Crypturi. The Suborder of the 
Ralliformes takes therefore a position intermediate between Grui- 
formes, Crypturiformes, and Apterygiformes. The latter two Suborders, 
together with the Galliformes, constitute the Order Alectorornithes. 
The relationship of the Crypturi with the Apteryges is real, and bridges 
over the gulf between Carinate and Ratite birds, especially through 
cranial and pelvic structures.'" 

Mr. Seebohm [vide infra) keeps the Apteryges in his Struthioni- 
formes, and his Grallse"^, which are almost co- extensive with the Grui- 
formes of Flirbringer, he puts between his Suborder LimicolcC and the 
Suborder Fulicarii, the latter leading on towards the Pygopodes. 
According to Seebohm, the Pteroclidse and Turnicidse are Gralline, 
while Fiirbringer places the latter with his Ralliformes and the former 
with his Columbiformes. 

This is Prof. Fiirb ringer's opinion of the Columbiformes, according to 
Dr. Gadow : — " They stand between Charadriiformes and Peristeropodes, 
perhaps nearer the former through the Pterocletes, which are un- 
doubtedly the more primitive group, whilst the Columbse, beginning with 
the Miocene age, are still on the ascending scale, and are birds of the 

* "The EaUs and their allies leally belong to the same group as the Cranes and 
their allies, but for convenience they may be allowed to form a separate section 
characterized by their holorhinal nasals " (Classif. B. p. 40). 


future, Didus and Pezophups are degenerate ColumbsB; not necessarily 
very old forms," Mr. Seebolun [vide infra) places his Columbse in his 
Subclass Passeriformes, and this he does in both his " Schemes." 

Lastly we have the Psittaciformes of Prof, Flii'bringer, an Inter- 
mediate Suborder placed by him between the Alectororuithes (like the 
Columbiformes) and Coracornithes. Mr. Seebohm makes them an 
Order of his Falconiformes. 

Prof. Fiii'briuger has given an arrangement of his Orders, which I 
have put into the form of a map (p, 38) for the sake of comparison 
with Mr. Seebohm's arrangement, for which I have also prepared a 
map [vide infra, p, 48). 

The model on the table will give the best idea of the phylogenetic 
scheme which Professor Fiirbringer has constructed for the elucidation 
of the probable evolution of Birds. By his kind permission I am also 
able to reproduce here (Plates III., lY.) reduced figures of the " Stamm- 
baume " in his celebrated work, from which the model has been taken. 
He strikes three horizontal sections through his '' tree," and the diagrams 
of these he has also given me leave to reproduce (Plates V., VI., \II.). 
In the first section (Plate V.) we find that the Archornithes (represented 
by ArchcEopteryx) have not survived, but that the Struthiornithes, 
Kheornithes, Hippalectryornithes, and probably also the vEpyornithes 
have branched off from the main body of the tree. The stems of the 
Alectororuithes (with the Apterygidee, Diuoruitliidi\i, Crypturiformes, 
Galliformes, and Ralliformes), Charadriornithes, and Pelargoruithes 
are already flourishing, and independent branches show that the Pala- 
medeiformes, Aptenodytiformes, Procellariiformes, Ichthyornithiformes, 
Gruiformes, Columbiformes, and Psittacifonnes have developed for 
themselves- a separate growth. The Coracornithes are only commencing 
to be evolved. 

The second or middle section of the tree (Plate VI.) shows us that 
several forms have not persisted. Dead branches indicate the Enali- 
ornithes, Dinornithidae, and the Ichthyornithiformes, but all the other 
branches have developed new twigs, many of gi'eat size. Thus the 
Galliformes have developed four '' family " branchlets, and the Gallidse 
alone have four large twigs ; and so on Avith all the larger groups. 

The third or topmost section (Plate VII.) shows the development 
of the Coracornithes, with the Striges as a large outlying group of 
the Coraciiformes. I do not proceed further with the subject of 
Professor Furbringer's pedigree of the Class " Aves," as, by means of 
his courtesy, the readers of this Addi-ess will be able to study for them- 
selves the maps which he has drawn up for the explanation of his views. 
They can of course be still better studied in the Professor's larger work ^, 
but I must tender him my sincere thanks for allowing me to place the 
accompanying illustrations before my readers. 

* <Bijdrageu tot de Dierkuude,' Amsterdam, Afl. xv. (1888). 



(rheornithes I 


Ax Attejipted Ahraxgemext of Furbeinger's Scheme in the form of a Map, 
taken from p. 1568 of the ' Bijdra^en,' for comparison with those of Seebohm 
fp. 48) and my own (Phite IX.). TN.B. — Prof. Fiirbringer is not responsible for 
tlais arrangement in circles, and it is to be noticed that the Psittaciformes should 
have been placed nearer to the Coracornithes, and the Coliimbiformes nearer to 
the Alectorornithes.'j 



PLATE III. — VEBriCAL Aspect of Fcrbringer's PHVLouEXEric Tbee of Birds 
from the side of the Strathiornithes, Rheornithe?, Pelargornithes, Hippalectrj- 
ornithes, CTriiiformes, and Ralliformes. [Copied, by the Author's permission, from 
his memoir entitled '' Uutersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systemitik der 
Vogel,' published in the *Bij dragon tot de Dierkunde/ Anistirdam, vol. xv. Taf. 
xxvii. (1S88).1 


PLATE IV. — Vertical Aspect of Furbrixger's Phylogenexic Thee of 
Birds from the side of the Aptenodytiformes, Procellariiformes, Oharadriiformes, 
Columbiformes, and Galliformes, [Copied, by the Author's permission, from 
his memoir entitled " Uutersuchmigen zur Morphologie uud Systematik der 
Vogel," published in the ' Bijdrageu tot de Dierkunde/ Amsterdam, vol. xv. Taf. 
xxvi. (1888).] 




Cnpturiformes / 





... ,. . .-., / I 

i! Ga]]ifomes. 1 %^'' /,'' n\ 

\j>^ /. ^y ( \ 

\S,_ ,'y^ N ; Ealliformes. 1! 

''""N {1'^'"^"' ■■7'S'\ '^~''' 

f \ •/''™ire,'/^^^^,!j> .Coracoraillies 

jColunilifornKi'i ***' ^^°£d&^ ,''""■*« 

^i=^-- JGiiiiforfflesi 


(Oliiles);! *• '' 

V^ V — ^'/ Gcoiiiifoniics •?^. t^ i 

Charadriornithes...];/ V^-i <i?^^«-- (wa;- "^"' 

Charadriiformes .-.A r^'y //In ™^fkC>vV> t,i n . — 

•A. J/,^ X'Xi?''''°''"X!i,"™j)V ^r^ix il]ieoriu(lies...^^^>i:;i> 

Rlieifunnes. . . 4&ciiw| j 

Elieae i^=S' 

irmes " — 

lliea &!»«/' '^ri>-ii!y^^y " '' d i -.i 

^»^sl^ ■"" *oiMii^\ /•— -reiargoMimLCS 

formes /(ruiimorrs); i;,,— ^ /^^ 

>\. /' /'/Eii.iIiiA (KisperorVi 

>iT:^ \\nnkl..\ mats ): 

Jditfyornilliea <wi«i' 

Procellariiformes //ruiimorrs); i;,,— ^ /^^ 




SUuUiionjforuies....»ll mat)]'] 

Sliuliiioiies— ^'\:|3^' 

LowEB Horizontal Peojection of Furbringeb's Phylogenetic Tree 
OF Birds. (Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, vol. xv. Taf. xxix. a.) 




Ilei!odeles-J/^^^^^^''/L .7\\ i^'^'A \^^\ \\ 

""•<^. ,'CryptOTi ApUrygifonnes 

*'*--... ;'J)inDpni.'. • | 

'/^^^^^^ xfere')) J-i-Ralliformes 

f / EaUidae ] /<.' --riJu 

ColumWormes— "-"'■■ — ''' .^.jormB,'©v.-_^-' \'\Vs!liV///--'' T''" ' jV^^.' 

///;?^^5>v*«"r:'~'^-^ Coracdrnitlies. ^-^ ' y (qII?)) H:-*™^ /^"rHli 


CLaradriomitlies— j > , 

I ,' I /Glareoli 


laro Limlcdlae - -/ — J^ 
/ I 
/ / 
/ / 
/ / 


Pelargomithes— >-^ '' v;:=i^Si-^^ "' V 
Poflicipitiformes— V-j ColymVo.Podicipites *«^ \ 
InaiLornitlics— ;-4/(&oii«ri\ ,»— 



Middle IIomzontal Projection of Fubbbingieb's Phylogenetic Tree 
OF Birds. (Bijdragen tot de Dierkimde, vol. xv. Taf, xxix. i.) 






Upper Horizontal Projection of Furbringer's Phylogenetic Tree 
OF Birds, (Bijdragen tot de Dierkimde, vol. xv. Taf. xxx.) 


Last year (1890) Mr. H. Seebohm published his ' Classification 
of Birds; an attempt to diagnose the Subclasses, Orders, Suborders, 
and some of the Families of existing Birds,' Several papers on classifi- 
cation in ' The Ibis ' were contemporaneous with or paved the way for 
this completed scheme. Like Dr. Stejneger, Mr. Seebohm gives 
diagnoses for every one of his divisions ; and he arranges his classifi- 
cation in a most convenient tabular form, by which can be seen at a 
glance the diagnostic characters of each Suborder, so that it is possible 
to see to what extent these characters are shared by the other Sub- 
orders of Birds. 

Mr. Seebohm discards the fossil birds entirely, differing in this 
respect from Prof. Fiirbringer. I do not agree with him altogether, 
but I reproduce his reasons : — 

" Once for all it must Le uoted that auy attempt to bring all fossil birds into the 
same sj^stem of classification as those now living is bound to fail. Between every two 
closely-allied groups of existing birds there must have been birds now extinct, the 
common ancestors of both, most probably differing from both, and partly resembling 
both, and incapable of being classified with either. To encumber the classification of 
existing birds with a few scattered links in endless chains of intergrading forms can 
only create confusion. The classification of fossil birds is a most interesting inquiry, 
and might be called the study of a vertical section of the bird-life which has existed 
in past geological ages. The classification of existing birds is the study of a horizontal 
section of the great bird-mass of the world, and ought to form a different and distinct 
system confined to the horizon of the present time." 

He then divides the Class 'Aves' into six Subclasses, 14 Orders, 
and 36 Suborders, as follows : — 






i. Pico-Passehes 



vi. PiCAEI.E. 


(^ vii. Cathaetes*. 


1. Passeres. 

2. Eurylsemi. 

3. Trochili. 

4. Scansores. 

5. Upupse. 

6. Trogoues. 

7. Columbse. 

ii. COLUMB^ 

... „ f B. Musophagi. 

111. Coccyges ■{ ^ „ ^. " 

L 9. Cuculi. 

r 10. Serpentarii. 

11. Accipitres. 

12. Striges. 

13. Psittaci. 

14. Halcyones 

15. Coracise. 

16. Bucerotes. 

17. Cathartes. 

* Afterwards changed to Mimogypes. 






Order. Suborder. 

r 18. Steganopodes. 
viii. Pelecano-Hehodioxes J 19. Herodioues. 

[ 20. PlatalefB. 
f 21. Phoenicopteri. 

ix. Lajiellirostres ^ 22. Anseres. 

I 23. Palamedefe. 

X. TuBiNARES 24. Tubinares. 

xi. Impennes 26. Impennes. 

|- 26. Gavise. 

27. Limicolse. 

28. Grallfe. 
j^ 29. Fulicaripp. 

30. Pygopodes. 

31. Gallinae. 
1^ 32. Crypturi. 

f xiii. Apteeyges 83. Apteryges. 

I f 34. Rbeas. 

I xiv. Ratit.^: \ ^^- Casuarii. 

I (^ 36. Struthionea. 

xii. Gallo-Grall-E 

Mr. Seebohm then offers an " alternative scheme," founded principally 
on the condition of the young when hatched. This character has 
before been considered of value by naturalists, and the late Professor 
Sundevall made use of it in his classification ; but it is liable to excep- 
tions, and even now is sufficient to break down some of Mr. Seebohm's 
diagnoses. In this " alternative scheme " the linear sequence of the 
Orders is slightly altered and only five Subclasses are recognized. The 
result is as follows : — 

Subplass. Older. Suborder. 


( f 10. Haley cues. 

PiCARi.E I 11. Coracife. 

2. CORACIIFORMES .. i i V ^ \ 

'^ 12. Bucerotes. 

(^ Cathartes 13. Cathartes. 

f PsiTTACi 14. Psittaci. 

I j 15. Striges. 

Raptores ■{ 10. Accipitres. 

( 17. Serpen tarii. 

3. CICONIIFOR.MES . . -( f 18. Platalese. 

I Pelecano-IIerodioxes ■{ 19- Herodioues. 

I I 20. Steganopode?!. 

I Tubinares 21. Tubiuares. 

'^ Ijipennes 22. Impeunes. 

r ( 23. Palamedcjie. 

4. GALLIFORMES ....\ La-i-lirostres ^ ^ ^''^- . 

j I 2o. Phoenicopteri. 

I Gallo-Grall^ 20-32. 



The diagnosis of tlie Passeriforraes is vitiated by the genus Menura, 
whichj although said to belong to the Passeri formes, has a downy nestling 
like that of a Petrel ; and as Mr. Seebohm bravely stands or falls by his 
diagnosis, this portion of his scheme at least will require reconsideration. 

As a matter of fact he soon returns to his first scheme, for in the 
' Birds of the Japanese Empire ' he admits six Subclasses, but the order 
is somewhat modified : — 







The Trogones are raised from a suborder to the rank of an order. 
The subclass Coraciiformes is placed between the Passeriformes and 
the Falconiformes , which brings the Hahyones after the Coccyges, the 
Mimogypes, however, still coming next to the Bucerotes and being 
followed by the Psittaci in the Falconiformes. 

The chief objections to Mr. Seebohm's classification appear to be 
the placing of the ColumhcB among the Passeriformes, the separation of 
the Upupce from the Bucerotes, and the location of the Mimogypes in 
the Coraciiformes. 

The Columhce may not have downy young like those of a Hawk or a 
Game-bird, but they certainly have a very different nestling from that 
of an ordinary Passerine bird ; and I am sure that this character alone, 
if properly examined, will separate the Columbce from all the suborders 
with which Mr. Seebohm has allied them. Further than this, Mr. 
Ogilvie Grant, who is studying Game-birds, has drawn my attention to 
Gould's ' Handbook,' where the nestlings of Geophaps are distinctly 
stated to be Dasypsedic. 

Mr. Seebohm places the Upupce in the Passeriformes because they have 
the plantars Passerine ; but he does not attach equal importance to the 
Galline character of the perforation of the episternal process, though they 
share this character in common with the Meropes and the Bucerotes. 
The Desmognathous palate is also a. character of the two last-named 
groups. The Hoopoes have a tufted oil-gland, but the forked spinal 
feather-tract is shared by the Hornbills and not by the Bee-eaters. 

The Hoopoe lays whitish, unspotted eggs, and its nesting-place is 
in a hole, either of a tree, a wall, or a bank. The Hornbill has a white 
egg, which is laid in the hole of a tree. The male fastens up his mate 
and feeds her during the time of incubation^ bearing the burden of the 
support of his wife, his nestling, and himself ! But the habits of the 
Hoopoe during the nesting-season are somewhat Bucerotine (c/. Scott, 
Ibis, 1866, p. 222). 


The Bee-eater burrows for itself a hole, lays white eggs, but the male 
is not kuown to box up his wife during the period of incubation. He 
seems to behave very like a Kingfisher. Therefore we may surely link 
the Ujmpa with the Bucerotes, as has before been suggested by many 
naturalists, and place them near the Kingfishers and the Bee-eaters. 
What, then, becomes of the value of the plantar tendons ? The Ujiupce 
have Passerine plantars, but a Galline episternal process. The Bucerotes 
and Meropes have heteromorphous plantar tendons, but have also a 
Galline episternal process. Mr. Seebohm will require a diagnosis for 
these groups, and also for his Mimogypes, which I shall bring back 
once more as a suborder of the Falconiformes. I give the characters 
after his own tabular form : — 


A. Hallux present and connected with ih.Q flexor perforansdigitorum. [This excludes 

all other Suborders except the Salcyones, Coracicp, and Bucerotes.'] 

B. Episternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids. [This 

excludes the above-named Suborders.] 


A. Deep plantar tendons free. [This excludes the Gallince, as well as the MeroiKS 

and the Bucerotes.] 

B. Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids. [This excludes 

the Oscines and Herodiones, which possess character A.] 


A. Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids. [This excludes 

the Mimogypes and all Suborders but the Upupce, Bucerotes, and GidluKe.] 

B. HaUux present and connected Avith the Jle.ror perforans digitorum. [This excludes 

the Gallince and the Upiq^ce.] 

C. Spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, but forked on the upper back. 

[This excludes the Bucerotes.] 


A. Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids. [This excludes 

the Mimoggjyes and all Suborders but the Gcdlina', the Meropes, and the 

B. HaUux present and connected with theJJexorperforans digitorum. [This excludes 

the Gcdlinoi and the Z^pupce.] 

C. Spinal feather-tract not defined on the neck. [This excludes the Meropes.] 

In order to make Mr. Seebohm^s arrangement clearer to my hearers, 
I have drawn up the following map (Plate VIII.) of his scheme for 
comparison with that of Professor Fiirbringer and of my own which 
follows later. 



An attempt to illustrate Mr. Seeboliiu's arraugement of the Class 
' Aves ' by means of a diagrammatic Map. 


Apart from the excellent work wliicli Dr. Hans Gadow has been 
producing in his edition of Bronn's ' Thierreich/ he has written a very 
important paper on the intestines of birds, entitled '^On the Taxonomic 
Value of the Intestinal Convolutions in Birds/^ and published in the 
'Proceedings' of the Zoological Society for 1889. Mr. A. H. Evans 
has given a very concise summary of the results obtained by Dr. 
Gadow, in the ' Zoological Kecord ' for 1889, which seems to express all 
that is necessary : — 

"■ Tlie writer beo^ius this exceptionally lucid and valuable paper with an account of 
the different varieties of intestinal convolutions in Birds and of their nomenclature. 
He next discusses, and represents in the plates, the ' taxonomic value of those 
characters which are exhibited by the modes in which the mid-gut is stowed away in 
the abdominal cavity ' ; and finds that the arrangements, of which he gives a table, 
are much more constant than was formerly supposed, both in species and in whole 
families. He agrees with Fiirbringer in recognizing a combination Coracoruithes. 
Among the conclusions, apart from this group, we may notice especially the deduction 
of an affinity between the Columbce, Limicol(s, and Laridce^ the Steganopodes, Herodii, 
Tubinares, and Spheniscidee, with the intermediate position of the Tubinares between 
the Laro-Limicol<2 and Steganopodes, and, above all, some unexpected resemblances 
between the Pelargi and the Raptores diurni. Within the Coracornithes the Coccyges 
are lowest (somewhat resembling the Gallincs and Ojn'sthocomus) ; the Picidce, 
Capitonidce, and WiampliastidcB may be collectively termed Pici, and the Coraciidce 
and Alcedinidce Halcyones, leaving the other Piearian families in close connectiou, 
with the Striges further off. The Passeres are quite uniform in character." 

A work which also bears upon the classification of the Passeres 
in particular is Mr. Oates's exposition of the order in the 'Fauna 
of British India.'' I have already published a long review of this 
standard work in 'The Field' for 1890^ and have expressed my views 
on the arrangement of Mr. Oates's work. The fundamental character 
on which he arranges his Passeres is the style of plumage of the young. 
The first naturalist to recognize the value of this peculiarity was appa- 
rently Mr. Seebohm, who, by the character of the nestling plumage^ 
separated the Thrushes from the Warblers {cf. Cat. B. Brit. Mus. v. 
pp. 1, 2) . That the coloration of the young plumage is of great value in 
arranging the Passeres will doubtless be admitted sooner or later ; for 
there is no character which gives us so good a clue to the ancient 
plumage of a group of birds as the style of the immature individuals 
at the present day. Thus we can easily imagine that the progenitors of 
the Thrushes, Chats, Eedstarts, Nightingales, &c. were all profusely 
spotted, and that the more uniform plumage has been a matter of 
after-acquirement. In 1871 I pointed out in the ' Birds of Europe ' 
the method by which Kestrels {Cerchneis tinnuncuhis) gain the adult 
plumage, shadowing forth by their change of garb in the present day 
the probable methods by which the first blue-headed and blue-tailed 
males were evolved from a stock wherein both sexes were alike rufous, 
such as is still seen in Cerchneis rupicoloides of South Africa. 



Thus Mr. Gates separates his main families of the Passerine Birds 
under five heads : — 
a. With the plumage of tlie nestlirg resembling that of the adult female, but paler. 

{Corvidce, Crater opodidcn, Sittidce, Dicruridce, CertMid(S, Regididce.) 
h. Plumage of the nestling resembling that of the adult female, but brighter. 


c. Plumage of the nestling cross-barred. {Laniidce.) 

d. Plumage of the nestling streaked. {Oriolidcs, Uulabetidcs, Sturnidce.) 

e. Plumage of the nestling mottled or squamated. {Muscicapidce, Turdidce.) 

The other Passerine families eliminated from those hefore mentioned 
by a different set of characters are the Ploceida, Nectariniidce, Hirundi- 
nid(B, Fringillida, Motacillida, Alaudida, and Dicceida, which make up 
the tale of the Acromyodian Passeres found in the Indian Region. 
I have already reviewed Mr. Oates's ornithological work so fully that 
it is not necessary for me to do more than express my opinion that it 
will rank among the most important of those produced in the latter 
half of this century. There is an additional advantage when a work 
like the ' Fauna of British India ' is written by men of Mr. Oates's 
calibre who combine with a minnte technical knowledge the experience 
of many years spent in the jungle. Thus habits and customs of 
birds are considered of importance in determining their affinities, and 
by this means, perhaps better than by any other mode of classification, 
we shall arrive at sound conclusions. 

Dr. Shufeldt in 1889 published his ' Contributions to the Comparative 
Osteology of the Families of North- American Passeres,' and arranged 
them in the following sequence : — 

OvAev. Suborders. Families. 

Clamatores 1. Tyrannidae. 

2. Lauiidee. 

3. Ampelidae. 
■t. Hirundinidae. 

5. Alaudidse. 

6. Certhiidfe. 

7. Vireonidfe. 

8. Motacillidse. 

9. Sylviidse. 
10. Coerebidfe. 

PASSERES < Oscines -( 11. Mniotiltida?. 

12. Cinclida3. 

13. TroglodytidiB. 

14. Turdidte. 

15. Pavida?. 

16. Taragridfe. 

17. Fringillida^. 

18. Icteridfe. 

19. Sturnidse. 

20. Corvidse. 


I proposed in 1890 the following alternative scheme, so as to 
include all the Old- World representatives. 

1. Corvidae (Crows). I 19. Nectarmiidfe (Sunbirds). 

2. Paradiseidse (Birds of Paradise). [ 20. Dicseidte (Flower-peckers). 

3. PtilonorlijTicliidas (Bower-birds). : 21. Parida? (Titmice). 

4. Sturnidse (True Starlings). | 22. Regulidte (Goldcrests). 

5. Eulabetidse (Tree-Starlings). 23. Laniida^ (Shrikes). 

6. Artamidse (Swallow-Shrikes). 24. Ampelidaj (Chatterers), 

7. Dicruridee (Drongos). 'i 2o. Vireonidse (Greenlets). 

8. Oriolidse (Orioles). j 26. Sylviidje (Warblers). 

9. Icteridae (Haugnests). 27. Tiirdidaj (Thrushes). 

10. Ploceidfe (Weaver-birds). | 28. Cinclidaj (Dippers). 

11. Tanagridse (Tanagers). 29. Troglodytidaj (Wrens). 

12. Coerebidse (American Creepers). 30. Accentoridae (Accentors). 

13. Fringillidffi (Finches). .31. Timeliidje (Babblers). 

14. Alaudidaj (Larks). 32. Pjcnonotida} (Bulbuls). 

15. Motacillidse (Wagtails and Pipits). 33. Campophagidje (Cuckoo-Shrikes). 
IG. Mniotiltidffi (American Warblers). 34. MuscicapidiB (Flycatchers). 

17. Certhiidas (Creepers). 35. Hirundinidse (Swallows). 

18. Meliphagidse (Honey-eaters). 

It may be as well to reproduce the concluding sentences of 'The 
Field ' review of Oates^s book : — 

" As with Dr. Shufeldt's arrangement, so with ours, there are one or two awkwardly 
placed families. It is annoying to have to separate the Paridce so far from the 
Certhiidce ; but we do not see where else to put the MeUphagidce. The Sturnidce, too, 
are further from the Crows than we should prefer to see them; but if we begin with 
the Corvidce, which we think it is desirable to do, the transition to the Paradise-birds 
seems natural, and thence the way is easy thYowgh. Xmitliomelm to Amhlyornis. Then 
comes a break ; for we do not think that there is any real affinity between the Orioles 
and the Bower-birds, and the SturnidcB come here as the nearest position available in 
the vicinity of the Corvidce. Recognizing the sense of Mr. Oates's family Eulabetida;, 
we can pass by way of Calornis to the Oriolidce, and thence to the Arfnjnidce and 
Dicniridce. It would not surprise us if, when the osteology and anatomy of these two 
last families are worked out, they are taken completely away from their present 
position and placed nearer to the Muscicapidce or the Laniidce. At present we do not 
know any better place to put them. That the Orioles of the Old World and the Orioles 
of the New World should come somewhere near each other is convenient, and then the 
passage to the Weavers, Tanagers, and Finches is easy ; but the position of the C'osrebidce 
does not quite please us. The latest exponent of the group. Dr. Sclater, considers that 
they are related to the Tanagridce on one hand and to the Ce)-thiidcB and Mniotiltidce 
on the other. Dr. Shufeldt places them next to the latter family, and it may be that 
their Mniotiltiue will oven-ide their Tauagrine affinities. We have already alluded to 
the connection between the Alandida and Fringillidcs by means of the Horned Larks 
and the Snow or Lapland Buntings, and by placing the MotacilUdce next in order we 
can proceed to the Mniotiltidce by way of Sitmis, as Dr. Shufeldt has pointed out. 
From Mniotilta to Certhia seems an easy transition, and then, no doubt, we ought to 
go to the Nuthatches and Tits. But we can find no more convenient position than 
this for placing the Meliphayidai and the Nedariniidce, and the thread of continuity is 
once more taken up by the Dicceidce, which form a good connecting link with the 
Paridce by way of Prio7iochi!us, Pardalohis, but above all by Oreocharis. From Paridce 

£ 2 


to Laniidce tlie road is bridged by Falcunculus, and probably here will have to come 
some of tbe aberrant Liotriches, wbicb are most puzzling birds to locate. We follow 
Mr. Gates in placing them as Timeliine birds, but both our family Timeliidce of the 
' Catalogue' and Mr. Oates's family Crateropodidcs have too ample limits. 

" The Vireomdo', according to Dr. Shufeldt, are more Mniotiltine than Laniine, and 
the importance of their form of bill has been exaggerated, while the Lrmiidcs have got 
such remarkable osteological characters that Ur. Shufeldt has put them on the 
boundary of his Passeres. Mr. Gates, for quite other reasons, also puts them 
far from the Paridcs. Whether our position for the Shrikes is natural is a fair 
subject for discussion, our chief objection to it being that it separates the SylviidcB 
so far from the MniotiUidfB in the linear series. Once, however, that we have passed 
this break in the natural order, and we arrive at the Sylviidce, the affinities of the 
TurdidcB, CincUdce, and Troglodytidce are evident, the Accentors are probably rightly 
placed in proximity, and the Timeliidce in their comprehensive sense follow. The 
affinities of some of these birds with the Muscicapidce are closer than would be 
imagined ; but Mr. Gates's favourite character of the spotted young is of great use in 
determining the limits of these two families." 

Quite recently has been issued the ' Nomenclator Musei Heineani 
Ornitliologiei/ by Dr. Ferdinand Heine and Dr. Anton Reichenow, 
wbicb, tbougb it bears the date " 1882-1890/' was to all intents and 
purposes only published last year. I myself had never heard of the 
work until it appeared in its completed form. This "^Nomenclator' 
brings once again before our notice the Ornithological Museum which 
has been formed by Ferdinand Heine the elder at Halberstadt. Not 
only is it one of the most famous private collections of birds (5187 
species and nearly 12,000 specimens), but it will also be celebrated to 
all posterity as having furnished the material from which arose much of 
the fame of our venerable colleague, Dr. Cabanis. To us at the present 
day, this new presentment of the contents of Heine's Museum is espe- 
cially interesting, as it is the latest amplification of the systems of 
Dr. Cabanis in the original 'Museum Heineanum/ and of Dr. Reiclie- 
now in the ' Vogel der Zoologischen Garten.' Remembering, too, the 
good work done in times past by Ferdinand Heine, the son of the 
founder of the * Museum Heineanum,' it is pleasing to see that he has 
not lost his interest in Ornithology, but that on the contrary he has 
-joined with Dr. Reichenow in the publication of the ' Nomenclator.' 
The exact share of the two authors in the latter work is not stated, but 
there is apparently more Heine than Reichenow in it. A comparison 
of the system adopted in this work shows that some modifications have 
been introduced into the arrangement of the ' Museum Heineanum ' 
since its first publication (1850-63). Heine is a purist of purists, 
but whether ornithologists will follow him to the bitter end which 
he advocates remains to be seen. 

Speaking for myself, although I feel a kind of satisfaction at seeing 
the unclassical names of Bonaparte (immortalized as the inventor of such 
names as Moquinus tandonus, BIythipicus, Lichtensteinipicus, Graydi- 


dasculus, and numerous otlier barbarities) sent to the wincls^ yet I doubt 
very strongly ^yhetller Dr. Heine, in his classical rage, has not burdened 
us with a quantity of names which will never be used, any more than 
were those which he has superseded. We have in the ' Nomenclator ' 
an example of purism carried to its fu.llest extent. In the Code of 
Nomenclature and Check-list of North- American Birds adopted by the 
American Ornithologists' Union, we have (p. 47) Canon XXXI. : — 
" Neither generic or specific names are to be rejected because of 
barbarous origin, for faulty construction, for inapplicability of meaning, 
or for erroneous signification.'' We may well begin to despair of 
arriving at a uniform system of nomenclature. 

An outline of Reichenow's Classification having been given {antea, 
pp. 16-21), which can be compared with that of the '^ Nomenclator,' I 
will only add a few words concerning the modifications which affect the 
arrangement of the old ' Museum Heineanum.' 

These consist principally in the removal of the subfamily Campe- 
phagiiKS from the neighbourhood of the Muscicapidcs, and their location 
in the Brachypodldce. The Chalyheince (containing Lycocorax and 
Chalyl>eus = Mam(codia) and the EurycerotincE are two new subfamilies 
of the Paradlseidce ; and the Phony gamina of the 'Museum Heineanum' 
become the GymnorhiniiKB of the ' Nomenclator.' The Todi are 
removed from the Todince of yore, for which the name of Triccince is 
now substituted, and the Psarince are now called the Tityrince. Hetero- 
pehna is shifted from the Ampelina; to the Piprinae. The Todidce are 
placed between the Phytotomida and the Priotiitidce. 

The arrangement of the " Scansores " is very differently treated in the 
' Nomenclator,' varying from that of the ' Museum Heineanum ' and 
from that of Reichenow. The Musophagidae and Coliidce are placed among 
the Strisoi^es. The lyngime are a subfamily of the Indicator idee. Opis- 
thocomiis, placed in the ' jNIuseum Heineanum ' between the IndicatoridcB 
and Cuculidce, is now more properly removed to the vicinity of the 
Cracidoe, and it is probable that this will be the proper resting-place of 
the family. 

The later Orders and Families of birds do not occur in the ' Museum 
Heineanum,' and are set forth for the first time in the ' Nomenclator,' 
so that we have to notice some of the modifications which affect the 
classification of Reichenow of 188.2. 

The Order (XI.) Natatores (Nomencl. p. 340) supplants the Orders 
Stega?iopodes (IV.) and Lamellirostres (V.) of Reichenow in 1882, and 
some of the fa.milies recognized at the latter date are now accorded 
the rank o£ subfamilies only. 

The 10th Order, Grallatores, of the ' Nomenclator,' is equivalent to 
Series III. of Reichenow's System of 1882 ; but the order is slightly 
altered, and some new families are introduced, notably the DicholophidcB 


and Psophiida, which are placed near the Gruida, while the Pala- 
medeid(B are removed from the neighbourhood of the Anseres, and 
placed between the Rails and the Cranes. The authors seem also to 
incline to the belief that the Struthious birds are not so remotely- 
connected with the Game-birds (this Mr. Seebohra has also hinted), 
and they arrange their " Brevipennes " to follow the Rasores. Here 
may I suggest to Dr. Heine that if he wishes to preserve his repu- 
tation as the most exacting purist of the day, he must write Ortalis 
(nominative) instead of Ortalida (accusative), as has been pointed out 
by Dr. Henry Wharton (Ibis, 1879, p. 450) ? The Deserticola of 
Reichenow in 1882 are now included in the Order Rasores. They 
formerly consisted of the Pteroclidce, Thinocoridce, and Ortygidce (Hemi- 
podes) and they now appear at the head of the Rasores, following the 
Pigeons and being followed by the Partridges. The Crypturi are only 
considered to be a family of Rasores. 

The Raptatores are divided into the following families, Strigida, 
Falconida, and Vulturidce, much as in Reiclienow^s System of 1882, but 
the disposition of the Subfamilies is different. The Falconida have eight 
Subfamilies : — 1. Accipitrina (to which the following genera, which I 
have placed in other Subfamilies, are said to belong, viz., Rypornis, 
Asturina, Buteola, Leucopter'nis, Asturinula, Harpagus, and Herpeto- 
tlieres); 2. Circina; 3. Falconincs; 4. Milvince; 5. Buteoni?ia; 6. Aqui- 
liiice (wherein occurs Pandion) ; 7. SpizaetincB (with Haipyhaliaetus, 
Morphnus, and Thrasaetus, which I consider Buteonine birds) ; 8. Poly- 
borincB (with which are marshalled Heterospisias, HypomorjjJmus, and 
Erythrocnema) . 

It may be mentioned that the authors of the ' Nomenclator '' do not 
seem to be acquainted with some of the recent American works, or they 
would have superseded my generic names of (Enops and Erythrocnema 
by Rhinogryphus and Antenor of Ridgway, for when, to my disadvantage, 
the first part of my first volume of the ' Catalogue of Birds ' was printed 
off, and my names could not be changed, Professor Ridgway suddenly 
brought out a paper which superseded most of my work as far as 
American Birds of Prey were concerned. 

It would be impossible to close this portion of my subject without 
a reference to the energetic labours of Dr. Shufeldt in America, 
combined with those of Mr. F. A. Lucas, A. Jefferies, and others who 
are working with success at the osteology and comparative anatomy of 

English Ornithologists may be forgiven if they say of some of their 
number that " whom the Gods love, die young,^^ for the inestimable 
loss which Ornithology sustained in the deaths of Garrod and Forbes 
was still further accentuated by the death, at the early age of 24, of 
Mr. Richard Wray, whose papers on Avian Pterylography prove him to 


have been a most accomplished observer. The study of Pterylography 
is being pursued by two British Ornithologists^ Mr. Py craft and 
Mr, Goodchild_, the last-named having recently published an essay- 
on " The Cubital Coverts of the EuornithcB in relation to Taxo- 
nomy •'' in the ^Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh^ (vol. 
X. pp. 317-333). Some of the conclusions arrived at in Mr. Good- 
child's ' Tabular View ' are curious, as, for instance, when he shows 
that the Paradiseida are witliout median coverts, a character peculiar to 
the Cypselidce, Trochilidce, and Trogonidce. The subject is a very inter- 
esting one for systematists, and the characters brought forward by 
Mr. Goodchild may prove of some value in the classification of birds. 

What is wanted now is that a practised osteologist like Dr. Shufeldt 
should give us diagnostic characters for the families, such as Huxley, 
in 1867, and Seebohm, in 1890, have given for the Orders and Suborders 
of Birds, and the benefit to Ornithological Science would be enormous. 

Ladies now, too, are in the field, and foremost among them are 
Miss Lindsay, with an essay on the Avian Sternum (P. Z. S. 1885, 
pp. 681-716) ; Mdlle. Fanny Bignon, who has written a considerable 
memoir in the ^Memoires de la Societe Zoologique de France' (1889), 
pp. 260-320, pis. x.-xiii."^' ; and Miss Mary Walker, whose essay '' On 
the form of the quadrate bone in Birds " was published in 1888 in 
' Studies from the Museum of Zoology in University College, Dundee.' 

Just as this Address was going to press, Mr. Lydekker's ' Catalogue 
of the Fossil Birds in the British Museum' appeared. I have no 
space left to do justice to this work, which will be extremely useful to 
Ornithologists, the arrangement of the Ratitae and the descriptions 
of specimens being very important. 

I have endeavoured in the foregoing pages to take up the parable of 
Professor Newton, and to bring the history of the Classification of Birds 
up to date. I have, of course, not been able, within the limits of a 
Presidential Address, to enter into the subject with the minuteness of 
an author in the ' Encyclopaedia Britannica,' but I have tried to place 
before you the various schemes of classification propounded during the 
last few years ; and if, by accident, I have omitted to mention the 
work of any of my contemporaries, I can honestly say that it is a fault 
of omission, not of intention, and that in a review of a subject like the 
Classification of Birds it is not always certain that one can pick up all 
the threads which are scattered over a very wide area. 

1 now proceed to the more strictly personal portion of my Address ; 
for my colleagues will expect that, having criticized the classifications of 
my forerunners, I should give them some of my own ideas on the 
arrangement of Birds. But I must state at the outset that I would 

* " Contributions a I'etude de la pueumacite cliez les Oiseaiix. Les cellules aeriennea 
cervico-cepkaliques des Oiseaux et de lem-s rapports avec les os de la tete.'' 


rather do this ten years hence^ did I live so loug. Although claiming 
to have some knowledge of Accipitres and Passeres, and certain 
groups of PicaricE, my acquaintance with the other orders is but that 
of every Museum Curator^ and I should have preferred to keep silence 
on the great subject of Classification until^ by the close study o£ the 
Game-birds and Water-foAvl in the ' Catalogue of Birds/ I had gained 
a more intimate acquaintance with these members of the Class '' Aves.^^ 
At the same time it is in the hope that I may add a " brick '' or two to 
the structure of the Classification of Birds that I am emboldened to 
carry the subject of my Address a little further. 

The building-up of the Natural Classification of Birds resembles 
the construction of a buildings to which each earnest labourer in the 
field of Ornithology contributes his quota. Sometimes the structure 
has to be altered and amended, but it is seldom that a labourer^ whose 
soul is in his work^ retires without having added something in the shape 
of useful materials. It takes a long time — it may be years of study — 
before a sound brick is baked; and there is evidently some temptation 
now-a-days to take other people's bricks without acknowledgment^ and 
with them to construct a temjjle of one's own. 

It is certain, however, that by this " brick '""-making materials for the 
structure of the Classification of Birds will be slowly gathered ; and 
our difficulty at the present day lies in the fact that so many of our 
foundations are insecure, irretrievably buried in the sands of the past. 
At the same time, it is impossible to look back upon the history 
of Ornithology during the past twenty years without recognizing 
that an immense amount of good work has been done, that a number 
of sound " bricks " have been made ; and the materials seem to be 
gradually accumulating from which a solid structure may be built. It 
is not for me to say more on this subject, regarding as I do at this 
moment the faces of so many Ornithologists who have helped to build 
up our science. Rather let me add some words of advice which concern 
every one of us, in the words of our great Enghsh poet, Sir Edwin 
Arnold : — 

" Live day by day 
By little and by little swelling 
Thy tale of duty done — tbe way 

The wise ant-people build their dwelling." 

And, further, I would remark that no critic should interfere with the 
building of our structure who does not give reasons for his spoliation of 
the work. In later years we have had too much criticism, but few 
attempts at reconstruction. This may be due, no doubt, to the wise 
caution of the writers who never commit themselves, who pull down, or 
at least try to do so, but who never reconstruct — who damage a 
"brick" in the building, but never replace it by a new one. To 
criticize is the easiest thing in the world ; to damage the " bricks " of 


PSEUDO- 1 /''~~\( ^^°^' ) (PLATALE/t) 

I CICONII )^-:rr 


AccipiTREs FREGAT/t 

( SUL/E j 





SOPHI/E ) /' X / \ , „ „ 

' ( \ (glareol^) '^"'^sorm 


S,';°" ] Z" X ( PARR/E 1 z' \ / \ 

( LARI I / ALC^ j 


a a 

CD !3 S ^ 

1 1 h 1 


ii*- ii I ^ L I s t i . 1 1 f < I ^. 1 . 1 1 „ j . 


to i t . a 1 1 lit 


an author's constructiou is a cheap way of gaining notoriety ; but to 
show what should have been done originally, and to rexjlace the 
damaged " brick " by a sound one, 

" Hoc opus, liic labor est." 

In Plate IX. I venture to put forward an arrangement of the Class 
'' Aves " framed on a somewhat different idea from those of my pre- 
decessors; and it will be observed that I have not attempted an 
arrangement under the headings of Subclasses or Orders^ with their 
accompanying minor groups. Here are merely the birds which now exist, 
with some of their allies which have perished ; and the groups which are 
un-named ia my map of the Class will be found later on {infra, pp. 67- 
88), where I have re-drawn my scheme (PI. XII.), taking into account 
the classifications of Flirbringer and Seebohm. 

From the map (Plate IX.) which is here presented I have drawn up a 
phylogenetic scheme (Plate X.) to test the correctness or incorrectness 
of my views ; and it will be seen that I have not treated my subject quite 
on the same lines as those pursued by Reichenow and Fiirbringer. For 
this reason : by the model of the '' tree " which is on the table, we see 
that Fiirbringer, and before him Reichenow, adopted the figurative notion 
of a tree literally ; and this plan, excellent in every other respect, seems 
to me to fail in one particular, in that it subordinates the fact of the 
persistence of certain types to the present day. Such types may be of 
ancient differentiation — that no one may question ; but the fact remains 
that they exist in our own Epoch. 

Thus, if it were possible, Ave should stand at the foot of the Avian 
tree — or, to speak more correctly, of the main Avian branch of the 
tree when the Birds had split off from the Reptiles. We could look 
up into the many spreading branches and twigs of '' Aves," could 
note those which had died out or were expiring, and nowhere should we 
get this allegory more completely fulfilled than in the pictures of 

But the ornithological tree is a different one from a natural tree. It 
is one in which all the surviving branches have reached the same 
level, and the only difi'erence in their appearance, as avc see them on the 
topmost horizon, is that whereas one bough has struggled to the top, 
and many of its branches have died off in the process, another bough 
comes to the summit of the tree full of smaller branches and flourishing 

Thus we ought, if we wish to arrive at a knowledge of the present 
state of our ornithological tree, after standing at its base and studying 
the development of its many branches in different directions, to take a 
flight in an imaginary balloon, from which to look down upon the 
summit of the tree, so as to see what branches have attained to the top. 
The result would, I hope, be something like the map which I place before 


you this evening ; and my faitli in this form of illustration has not been 
shaken since the time when_, little more than a' boy, I adopted the 
method for showing the evolution of Kingfishers in 1871 (see p. xlv of 
my Introduction to the ^Monograph/ and fi-ontispiece) . 

It may, however, be said that this is all very good in theory, but how 
do you propose to put your ideas into practical shape ? This, I confess, 
touches the root of the matter. My arrangement of the Class " Aves '' 
is derived from a conviction that the only practical method of teaching 
or studying Ornithology in the present day is from the standpoint of 
Evolution, and it is a simple duty to try and arrange the groups of birds 
on this plan. 

Let us therefore imagine ourselves called upon to take charge of a 
collection of birds for the instruction of students and of the public in 
Ornithology. No Museum that I have seen as yet is so constructed 
that this plan is feasible, and such an arrangement as I have suggested 
in my map is at present impossible ; nor would it be right to bind 
posterity by the erection of buildings for the illustration of our own pet 
theories, which may be upset in the course of time, as theories have often 
been before now. There may, however, come a day when wall-cases will 
play a subordinate part, and the illustration of natural objects be carried 
out by the exhibition of groups, such as Dr. Giinther has adopted 
in his delineation of our British birds at the Natural History Museum 
in South Kensington. 

The realization of my ideal plan of a Museum of Bii'ds would require 
a fivefold division of the subject. 

The first exhibition should be strictly rudimentary, and should 
instruct the student merely in the technique of Ornithology. This is 
rapidly being accomplished by Professor Flower at our Natural History 
Museum in London. A final step perhaps would be to arrange a 
series of illustrations which should represent the history of the Classifi- 
cation of Birds from the time of Linnseus to the present day. 

But having instructed our public in the rudimentary and elementary 
facts connected with Ornithology, it now remains to prepare the figura- 
tive cases which are to illustrate the forms of birds which now inhabit, 
or have inhabited, the earth. If the system of teaching by arti stic groups 
be adopted, then only the principal forms would require illustration, 
and a representation of the leading type of each order or suborder 
would suffice. A supplementary gallery might be provided, in which 
types of each family, subfamily, and genus of birds would be 
exhibited, but lower than genera I would never descend in a public 

The student of species should find his material in the ^'^study " 
series, which should be under the special care of the Curator, and there 
each species should be amply illustrated by actual specimens showing 


the plumage of both sexes at all times of the yeav, young birds in all 
stages^ moulting individuals^ and a full series exhibiting the complete 
geographical distribution and variation in the species, even if this requires 
a series of specimens. The days have gone by when the description of 
new species was the be-all and end-all of an ornithologist's hopes. The 
warfare over priority of nomenclature is fast showing signs of waning, 
and we can afford to leave to those who care for such distinction the cheap 
notoriety which attaches to the re-shuffling of names and the coining of 
new synonyms. Not but what I think, as I have always thought, that 
a great injustice has been done in many instances by the ignoring of the 
good work of many of our predecessors ; and that their writings have 
not been recognized is surely not their fault, but the fault of their 
successors who have overlooked them. It is time, however, that by 
some such means as an International Congress of Ornithologists the 
names of the species of birds were settled once and for all, in order that 
we may turn our attention to the far more important facts of geographical 
distribution and life history of species. We are approaching a time 
when the study of rainfall and climate, of altitude and locality, and even 
the conditions of weather under which a specimen was procured, will be 
considered indispensable for the minute study which is to be our portion 
in the not very distant future. 

To return to our proposed arrangement of birds in a Museum. I 
should begin with the Saururce, as the most archaic form universally 
recognized as such by modern systematists. Thus Arcliceopteryx would 
first engage the attention of the student, and casts and pictures of the 
two known fossil specimens would be necessary, with, if possible, a 
restoration of a tail-feather, to show the absolutely different equipment 
of the earliest bird. A geological table would explain the age of the 
deposits in which Arcliceopteryx was found, and it ought not to be 
impossible to picture a restoration. 

Next in order as archaic forms, with no very near relations in the 
present day, would come the Ratiice, represented by natural groups of 
the Ostriches, Rlieas, Emus, and Cassowaries, which should not only 
be illustrated naturally with their surroundings, their young and their 
eggs, but copious maps showing the past and present distribution of the 
groups, and references to the peculiar characteristics of these birds, 
should be made to an introductory series, where should be found 
illustrations of the Struthious skull, &c. Explanatory labels would 
draw attention to the external characteristics which separate the great 
groups of Struthious birds. 

It will be impossible to illustrate the last-named groups without 
placing in juxtaposition some representatives of the Dinornithes, and an 
account at least of the jEpyornithes, so far as is known. 

A little further afield we should come to the Apteryges, and here 


attention should be drawn to the Ralline tendencies of these abnormal 
RatitcE, with all those other peculiar characteristics on \yhich it is not 
necessary here to dilate at length. 

In a similar manner our student would next be directed to the 
Tinaraous or Crypturi, which should be placed on the path to the Game- 
birds, as Galline forms in which certain Struthious characters have 
persisted, while the peculiar nature of their eggs would not fail to 
excite comparisons with those of the neighbouring groups. The 
Tinamous are, in fact, Struthious Partridges, and the habits of some 
of them are thoroughly Partridge-like {cf. Hudson, in ' Argentine 
Ornithology,' ii. p. 210). 

From the Crypturi the transition to the true Game-birds is natural, 
and here we should find several groups which, though classed together 
by most systematists, seem to me as well worthy of distinct recognition 
as the Crypturi. We may ask — What has aMegapode in common with 
a Pheasant ? Or wherein lies the affinity of the Ciirassow, with its nest 
in a tree and its white egg, with a Partridge ? Of course, we shall be 
referred to certain osteological and myological characters which demon- 
strate the affinity of these groups, and we do not deny their importance. 
But the result of our cases, showing the Megapode with its mound, the 
Pheasant with its numerous eggs on the ground, and the Curassow with 
its nest and two white eggs on a tree, would bs sufficient to demonstrate 
how widely separated these three groups of Game-birds really are, 
while we should appeal to our maps of distribution to help us 
in their recognition. 

Not far from the Quails among the Phasiani, we should come to the 
Hemipodii, a little group of Quail-like birds, with a skull akin to that of 
Pterocles * and with Galline nestling. My colleague Mr. Ogilvie Grant 
is about to draw attention to several points in the osteology of the 
Hemipodes which show their truly Galline affinities. They lay, more- 
over, a double- spotted egg, which is also a Pterocline character. 

Before leaving the true Game-birds it will be well to proceed a little 
further to the left of our imaginary Museum, to study the Sand- 
Grouse, which, although possessing a perfectly Galline nestling, yet 
exhibit osteological characteristics which are strikingly Columbine. 
They lay, however, a double-spotted egg, which is peculiar among 
Game-birds, and their habits and general surroundings are also empha- 
sized enough to allow us to regard them as a perfectly separate 
group from both the Game-birds and the Pigeons. The latter would 
stand quite by themselves, and it should not be very difficult by means 
of a series of well-mounted groups to illustrate the economy of all the 
various forms which are included under the comprehensive title of the 
Columbse. More especially must we illustrate the Geophapes, with 
their Galline nestling. 

* Parker describes the palate of Tiirnix as incompletely segithognathous. 


It will now be necessary to return to the vicinity of the AjHeryges to 
follow up the main stem of our phylogenetic arrangement, if we are to 
accept the weighty dictum of Professor Fiirbringer^ who places these 
Ratite birds in close proximity to the Rails, an arrangement which I 
have no difficulty myself in accepting, especially when the habits of 
Apteryx are considered : they answer very well to what we should 
expect from a Ralline bird of ancient pedigree, though I confess that 
the size and colour of the egg does not help us much. Any one who 
saw Apteryx in confinement, and knew nothing of its Struthious 
affinities, would consider it to be a clumsy kind of Rail. 

Of the bii'ds in our present category, Opisthocomus is the most curious, 
with its general appearance of a Curassow and its Gallinuline nest ; Avhile 
its faculty of climbing when young by means of its claw on the pollex 
and index digit, which has gained for it the name of the " Mammalian 
Bird,^^ is also known to be shared by nestling Porphyrio, and Professor 
Newton has recorded an instance of a nestling Grebe [Podiceps fluviatilis) 
using its fore limbs as instruments of progression (Ibis, 1889, p. 577). 

Proceeding next to the true Ralli, we should require to delineate the 
Rails with several illustrative groups of Gallinules, Coots, Rails, and 
Crctkes, while by means of Podica and the Heliornithes our path would 
lead to the Podicipedides and Pygopodes, which would not require many 
cases, as the habits and nesting of the species of these two groups 
are almost the same. 

Here, however, we should find ourselves in the vicinity of two gi'oups 
of birds, the Penguins and the Petrels, which seem to stand apart 
from all the other Pelagic Birds and must be illustrated separately. In 
the case of the Impennes this is not difficult, as one group would suffice ; 
but for the Tubinares at least three cases would be required, that of the 
DiomedeidiB demanding great space, while the Shearwaters and Stormy 
Petrels would also require considerable attention. 

The next great groups to be arranged consist of the Limicola, the 
Lari, and the Alca. I do not agree with placing the Auks with the 
Lari*. They seem to me to constitute quite a group by themselves, 
differing in habits, nestlings, eggs, and other characters from the Gulls ; 
while in Mormon we have probably the nearest existing ally to the 
Tubinares, judging from its burrowing nesting-habits, its white egg, 
and the style of its downy nestling. Thus the Auks would require 
separate illustration as a group, and they must be placed furthest away 
from the Ralli, not far from the Pygopjodes, and the nearest of all the 
groups to the outlying Tubinares. 

* Their diving habits and short wings should separate them from the long--\vinged 
Gulls and Terns. Some of the latter, however, lay an q^^^ iu style of coloration like 
that of a Guillemot (e. g. Sterna heryii), with almost an equal variation in colour and 


Admitting the close affinity of the Charadrii and the Lari, there 
intervenes between the Charadrii and the Ealli the very interesting 
gronp of the Parr a or Jacanas, which ^ though Pluvialine in es- 
sential structure, yet have so many Ealline affinities that it is impos- 
sible to deny to them a rank equal in value to the whole groups of 
Charadrii and Ralli. 

The Lai'i are equally well defined, and would require at least four 
illustrative groups, to show Stercorariida (Skuas), Laridce (Gulls and 
Terns), and Skimmers [Rhynchopidce) . 

The principal groups of the Charadrii could be easily disposed of : 
Plovers with their nest, or want of nest, their four pyriform eggs ; and a 
few groups illustrative of the Snipes, with nests and eggs ; while a 
separate section must be devoted to the Painted Snipes (Rhynchaa) and 
other minor forms of interest {Strepsilas and such like) . 

In the vicinity of the La7'i and the Charadrii should be found a little 
congeries of forms, which, as they cannot rightly be said to belong to 
either one or other of the two groups named, must be treated as inde- 
pendent groups, though they are represented by but few individual genera. 
The group of Pratincoles contains but the genus Glareoia, a Plover- 
like bird of singular habits and structure, connecting the true Charadrii 
with the Coursers {Cursorii) , which lead on to the Thick-knees {(Edicnemi), 
and thence to the Bustards {Otides), and later on to the Cranes {vide 
infra). Dramas ardeola, the single representative of the Dromades, is 
in habits a Plover, in many points of structure Larine, but it burrows in 
the sand and lays a white egg, like that of a Petrel — surely a combination 
of characters which demand that it shall have a separate rank as the 
representative of a definite Suborder. 

The Sheathbills {Chionides), too, stand equally alone. Their egg is 
something like those of a Thick-knee {QLdicnemus) or of an Oystercatcher 
[Hcematopus] , though diff'ering from both. The chicks show no likeness 
to the nestlings of those of either a Plover or a Gull, being entirely covered 
with slaty-grey down, and in structure they are intermediate between 
the Charadrii and the Lari, possessing also distinctive characters, 
which render them fit subjects for separation as a Suborder. 

The same may be said of Attagis, which is Larine in some characters, 
and yet in habits and in other points of structure it is an aberrant kind 
of Plover, so that the best idea of its position is gained by keeping the 
genus also as a representative of a distinct group. 

From the great division of the Limicoline birds we can approach the 
Grues, with their outlying allies. The true Cranes, of whose nesting- 
habits it might be difficult, but ought not to be impossible, to obtain an 
illustration, would also require considerable space; Avhile Aramus, which 
we should treat as an intermediate group, to be termed Arami, would be 
placed between the Cranes and the Ralli, as representing the most 
Ralline of the Cranes. 


The Trumpetei's {Psophieh) stand alone, being the most Galline of all 
the Crane-like birds. The peculiar Mesites of Madagascar also requires 
to be kept apart, as also the Sun-Bittern (Eurypyga) and the Kagu {Rhi- 
nochetus) of New Caledonia. All these are probably isolated survivors of 
Heron -like Cranes, of which the bulk have perished from the earth. 

One of the most puzzling forms to locate naturally is the Cariama or 
Seriema, which I make to stand alone as the representative of the group 
DichoIopJii. It has an outward resemblance to the Secretary-bird 
{Serpent arius) of South Africa, but has characters which, according to 
Seebohm, make it a Ralline bird, while Stejueger and others con- 
sider it to be Gruine. I place it as an independent form between the 
Cranes and the Accipitres, to which it apparently leads by way of 

My friend, Mr. Howard Saunders, carefully watched the habits of 
the Cariama when it was living in the Zoological Gardens. The curious 
way in which the Secretary-bird pounds a rat to pieces by jumping on 
it is shared by the Cariama. On the other hand, the latter roosts like 
a Game-bird, or a Bustard, with its feet folded under it, and not like a 

The Secretary-bird must also be admitted as a peculiar Accipitrine 
form, connected with the general body of Hawks by the Caracaras 
{Poli/bori) ; and it is doubtful whether we ought not to separate the 
Old-World Vultures as a distinct group. As, however, no one has 
found osteological or other characters of sufficient value for this 
'' divorce,^^ I still keep them with the other Accipitres, though their 
external appearance and habits go far to warrant their '^ judicial separa- 
tion.^' They at least would require recognition as a distinct body of 
Birds of Prey in a separately mounted group, which should display 
their nesting-habits and carrion-loving propensities. After admitting 
that it would have been better in 1874, when I wrote my first volume of 
the ' Catalogue of Birds,' to have taken more heed of Huxley's wise 
separation of the New-World Vultures and the Secretary-bird as dis- 
tinct groups, I have seen no reason to modify the rest of my classifica- 
tion of the Accipitres. The most Vulture-like of all the Hawks are the 
Pohjborinee, and from them to the Long-legged Hawks and Harriers 
{Accipitrina) is an easy transition. The Buzzards and Eagles form 
another tolerably well-defined congeries of genera, and from them to the 
Kites and thence to the true Falcons by way of Baza and Pernis does 
not seem to me in any ways difficult. 

I still maintain the correctness of my opinion that the Ospreys are 
not Eagles at all, but represent an intermediate group between the 
Accipitres and the Striges. Their skeleton is in many respects Owl- 
like, and they have other characters in which they resemble the Sti'iges ; 
but as their habits are those of a Fishing-Eagle and the egg is coloured 


like that of many Jccipit7-es, I keep them as a separate group^ 
Pandiones. The placing of Polioaetus along with Pandion in the 
' Catalogue of Birds ' was an error^ based on a misconception of facts. 

Leading from the Pandiones we should next come across the Striges, 
but at a far distance with regard to space^ for the Owls form a well- 
marked group by themselves. As a rule they lay white eggs in the hole 
of a tree or a wall; but the day-flying Owls^ Nyctea and Surnia, and 
some others are exceptions, and therefore several illustrative groups 
would be necessary to show the very different forms which make up the 
aggregate of the Striges. 

Further away still we should find the Pseudogrypln* {Mhnogypes, 
Seebohm) or American Vultures. Their habits as carrion-eaters make 
them the representatives of the Vultunda in the New World ; but 
there are so many characters in which they difiFer essentially, even to the 
arrangement of the deep plantar tendons, which induces Mr. Seebohm 
to place them near the Bucerotes, that it is impossible to locate them 
very close to the true Accipitres. The egg of Rhinogryphus, too, is 
very different from that of any true Accipitrine bird, being white, 
spotted all over with black. 

On the other side of the Accipitres, the visitor to my ideal Museum 
would find the Frigate Birds [Fregata;), the most Aquiline of the great 
division of the Steganopodes, or birds which have their four toes con- 
nected by a web. All the groups are well characterized, but I would 
also keep the Gannets distinct as a group {Sulce) of equal value to the 
Pelecani, Fregatce, and Phaet/wntes, the latter in their mode of life, nidi- 
fication, and colour of their egg being decidedly different from all the 
others. If the Sida are allowed to represent a group, the same rank 
cannot be denied to the Cormorants (Phalacro cor aces) . 

Of the Heron-like birds, at least Scopus and Balceniceps, as well 
as the Ciconii or Storks, must be considered to rank as distinct 
from the general mass of the Herons [Ardece], and instructive groups 
illustrating the mode of life of all these birds would be necessary. 

From the Herons we should pass to the grouj) of Platalece, of which 
the Spoonbills and Ibises are the examples, and groups of both these 
forms of bird-life would have to be provided. 

Then to the right of the Platalece would come those curious and 
anomalous birds, the Flamingoes, with some characters Duck-like, 
others Stork-like, which, combined with a nest and mode of life alto- 
gether peculiar, justify us in regarding them as an isolated group, which 
can be called Phoenicopteri. Their Anserine affinity is proved by the 
nestling and by many other well-known features. 

The Anseres may probably have to be split up into several minor 
groups of higher rank than is now generally admitted. As they are birds 
* Forbes's name has priority {vide anteci, p. 9). 


to wliicli I have as yet given very little close study^ I will not venture 
to pronounce any definite opinion on the svibject ; but the various forms 
of Ducks and Geese would require several illustrative cases^ while at 
some distance from the true Anseres would be placed the Screamers 
[Palamedece), Avhich every one now admits to be aberrant Geese-like 

Having thus followed our arrangement to the extreme end of a series, 
we have to consider the vast mass of birds which under the general 
names of Picariw and Passeres seem to have no connection with any of 
the birds which we have hitherto been talking about. Of these, one 
group at least stands apart, that of the Parrots [Psittaci), which with 
certain Accipitrine characters combines a zygodactyle foot like so 
many members of the Picarian assemblage. 

The Parrots, however, do not appear to have any very close allies. 
In the character of the nestling they are not in the least Accipi- 
trine, and the development of their feathers is carried on in true Picarian 
fashion — that is to say, that the new feathers are enclosed in the sheath 
till they attain almost their normal length ; and in this respect the 
Parrots resemble Kingfishers and other Picarian birds. The mode of 
nesting, too, is Picarian. 

All the remaining groups possess characters which distinguish them 
one from the other; but the Picarise have one feature in common 
which is characteristic of nearly the whole Order, and that is, that they 
lay white eggs, which are concealed in the hole of a tree or a bank, 
being in the latter case often tunnelled by the birds themselves. 

The principal exceptions to this rule are the Cocajges, consisting of 
the Cuciili and Musophagi, which are either parasitic, or build open 
nests of rough- construction, and lay eggs, sometimes of varied colours, 
and sometimes white. These birds, however, though zygodactyle, 
possess other characters which seem to show that at the present day, at 
least, they have little to do with the other so-called Picarice, and in 
many respects exhibit Galline affinities. The CaprimuJgi also are an 
exception to the Picarian rule as regards the colour of their eggs. 

It was an old fancy that, because of a certain similarity in the style of 
plumage and because also of theii* crepuscular habits, the Caprimulgi 
and the Striges were nearly allied; and though this idea is now 
scouted, it would seem that the nearest approach to the Striges among 
the various groups which we are now considering will be found in 
the Steatornithes ; and following on from them we should find, as 
separate groups, the Podargi and, at a distance, the Caprimidgi, whence 
we should pass to the Cypseli in one direction. 

The Rollers [Coracice) seem to come next to the Goatsuckers, being 
somewhat connected with them by means of the peculiar Leptosomati of 


The Kingfisliers {Alcedines), Motmots (Momoti), and the Todies 
( Todi) are also well-marked groups, and the first of them might be 
arranged at no great distance from the Hornbills (Bucerotes). Nor can 
the Bee-eaters (Meropes) be placed far off the Kingfishers, though Mr. 
Seebohm puts themintwo different Subclasses, because of the arrangement 
of the deep plantar tendons. To do this, however [antea, p. 44), he was 
compelled to ignore other characters apparently of equal importance, 

I should be unwilling to banish the Bucerotes far from the great 
mass of Picarian groups, as they possess many characters beside the 
plantar tendons in common with these birds, though their peculiar 
nesting-habits render them unique in the series of the class. 

Apart from the other affinities which the Upupce show in structure to 
the Bucerotes, it is also to be observed that they seem to have somewhat 
similar inclinations to feed the female on the nest during the period 
of incubation {cf. Scott, ' Ibis,' 1866, p, 222). This surely must count 
for something in making the Hoopoe an ally of the Hornbills. 

I need not detain you long with an account of the other groups, for 
their identity and even their order in the natural arrangement are agreed 
upon by most of us. The Jacamars (Galbuli) and the Puff -birds {Buc- 
cones), though belonging to the Pico-Passeres, yet have a certain amount 
of connection with some of the foregoing groups, and may be placed 
somewhat in juxtaposition, though they are as different in outward 
appearance as birds well can be, and it will not surprise me if some 
day the Galhulidce and Bucconida are put wide apart from each other ; 
while the Woodpeckers {Pici), the Barbets (Capitones), Toucans {Rham- 
phastides), and Honey-Guides {Indicatores) must all be placed close 
together, as was long ago insisted upon by Garrod in 1878. The 
Trogons [Trogones) and the Coin are two somewhat separate groups, 
the former being perhaps the most isolated of any of the Pico-Passeres, 
while the Colics must also stand alone, a little group, between the 
Cypseli and the larger group of HaJcyones &c.j but without any very 
near relations. 

To my arrangement of the Passeres, as published in the before- 
mentioned review of Gates' s ' Fauna of British India,' I have little to 
add, but one or two corrections are necessary. Tln-ough the kind 
assistance of my friend. Professor Stewart, Avho has recently made some 
beautiful preparations of the skulls of birds to illustrate my forthcoming 
Catalogue of the Osteological Collection in the Museum of the Royal 
College of Surgeons, some very important characters have been brought 
to liglit. 

The ossification of the olfactory capsule in the Laniidce and the 
posterior spiny process of the palatines are characters which have al- 
ready been brought into prominent notice by Dr. Shufeldt in his essay on 


the 'Comparative Osteology of the Families of North- American Passeres/ 
and now we find^ from a preparation of the skull of Artamus leucog aster 
recently made by Professor Stewart, that in the bony olfactory capsule 
and in the spine-like process of the palatines, Artamus is Shrike-like. 
Consequently my proposal to place the Artamida near the Sturnidce 
and OrioUda was altogether wi'ong. 

The Campophagida in their osteology prove to have little or no 
affinity with the Laniida, but must be placed near the Muscicapidce. 

The Dicrio'idce, judging from their skulls, are also not Shrikes, but 
aberrant Flycatchers. From their style of nest, they may be allied to 
the Orioles, and their proper position can only be ascertained by a 
careful comparison of the osteological characters of the Oriolidce and 
Dicrnridce carried out by some competent anatomist. 

In concluding this Address, therefore, I proceed to submit my scheme 
of the linear arrangement of the Class " Aves,'' in accordance with the 
views propounded in the preceding pages ; and that this arrangement 
can be tested by the recent classifications of Fiirbringer and Seebohm, 
I have given a second Map (Plate XII.) of my arrangement of Birds 
with the limits of Fiirbringer coloured in blue^ and Seebohm^s in red. 

The few diagnostic characters given below of the groups and families 
are nearly all borrowed from the works of other writers, notably those 
of Seebohm and Stejneger, whose synopses of characters are useful as 
summarizing much of the work of their predecessors. The diagnoses 
are, of course, not by any means exhaustive, and merely are intended to 
detail some of the leading features of the principal divisions. 

Class AVES. 

Subclass I. SAURUR.S1. 

Order I. AECH^OPTEEYGES. (FossU.) 

Subclass II. RATIT.^]. 

Order n. EHEIFORMES. (Neotropical.) 

Order III. STRUTHIOXIFOEMES. (Etbiopian.) 

Order IV. CASUARIIPOEMES. (Australasian.) 
Suborder i. Dromeae. 
Suborder ii. Casuarii. 

Order V. APTEEYGIFOEMES. (Australasian.) 

Suborder iii. Apteryges. 



Subclass ni. CARINAT^ *. 


Suborder iv. Tinami. (Neotropical.) 

Suborder v. Megapodii §. (Australasian aud Indo-Malayan.) 
Suborder vi. Graces ||. (Neotropical.) 
Suborder vii. Phasiani ^. 

Fam. 1. Phasianid^. (Palsearctic and Indian.) 

2. TETEAONiDiE. (Patearctic and Nearctic.) 

3. Peedicid^. (Cosmopolitan.) 

4. NusnDiD^, (Ethiopian.) 

5. Meleagrid^. (Nearctic aud Neotropical.) 

* EuripMdurce, Gill et auct. recent., a name drawing attention to the shape of the 
tail in contrast to that of Archceopteryx. 

t Cf. Parker, Tr. Z. S. v. pt. 3, pp. 149-241. The order containing the Tinamous 
consists of a number of Partridge-like birds peculiar to the Neotropical Region. 
They are Game-birds with a Struthionine palate and pelvis, but have a well-developed 
keel to the sternum, which " has a narrow median xiphoid process to support the 
keel, aud on each side a still narrower xiphoid process, the three processes occupying 
four-fifths of its entire length.'' The cartilage which connects the ihum with the 
ischium behind the acetabulum is not ossified. The vomer coalesces with the maxillo- 
palatines in front, and with the pterygoids and palatines behind. Pteryhsis Galline, 
and not in the least Struthionine, the feather-tracts being well differentiated from 
the bare tracts both on the upper and under parts. \_Cf. Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 43.] 

An excellent summary of the characters of the Crypturi is also given by Stejneger 
(Stand. Nat. Hist., Birds, p. 52). Nest "a mere scrape, insufficiently lined with a few 
grass-leaves " (Hudson, in Argent. Orn. ii. p. 210). Note of Rltynchotus rufescens a 
" mellow flute-like sound, so expressive that it is, perhaps, the sweetest bird-mu.^ic 
heard on the pampas" (Hudson, /. c). Eggs brown, greenish, purple, or blue, with 
a peculiar gloss ; but the minute structure of the shell, according to Dr. Nathusius, 
is quite dilferent from that of the true Qalli, and more resembles that of Apteryx. 

X The Megapodii and Graces are the Peristerojwdes of Huxley's celebrated paper on 
the Classification and Distribution of the Alectoromo)ph(r; (P. Z. S. 1868, pp. 294-319). 
The Phasiani are Huxley's Akdoropodes. 

§ Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; nasals holorhiual ; 
sternum more than twice the length of its inner notch ; hallux on the same level as the 
other toes, and its basal phalanx as long as that of the third toe ; oil-gland nude. {Cf. 
Seebohm, I. c.) Nest none. Eggs deposited in a mound raised by many of the birds 
in concert. Young hatched without the intervention of the parent bird, aud able to 
fly almost from birth. 

II Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; nasals holorhinal ; 
inner notch of sternum less than half the length of the whole sternum ; hallux on 
the same level as the other toes, aud its basal phalanx as long as that of the third toe ; 
oil-gland tufted. (Cf. Seebohm, l. c.) Nest in a tree. Eggs white, two in number. 

% The Pheasants, Grouse, and Partridges, with the Turkeys and Guinea-fowl, 
make up the limits of the Suborder, as far as we know at present. They nest on the 


Suborder viii. Hemipodii *. (Sub-temperate aud Tropical 
portions of the Old World.) 

Fam. TuBNiciD^. 

Suborder ix. Pterocletes f. (Sub-tropical portions of the 
Pal^arctic Region, Indian Region, Ethiopian 

Suborder x. Geophapes J. (Australasian.) 

ground and lay a number of eggs, which vary in type of coloration according to the 

Palate schizognathous ; basipterygoid processes articulating with the pterygoids as 
far from the quadrates as possible ; episternal process perforated to receive the feet of 
the coracoids ; nasals holorhinal ; inner notch of sternum more than half the length of 
the whole sternum ; hallux raised above the level of the front toes, and its basal 
phalanx shorter than that of the hind toe. (Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 42.) Oil-gland 
tufted. Young when hatched covered with patterned down, aud able to run in a few 

* Turnicomorphce, Huxley, P. Z. S. 1868, p. 303. Maxillo-palatines not coalesced 
with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizorhiual ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; 
sternum with a deep notch on either side of the posterior margin ; no powder-down 
patches ; oil-gland tufted ; spinal bare tract not reaching to the neck, though the three 
other tracts do. {Cf. Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 39.) A well-developed episternum, 
receiving the feet of the coracoids, but not perforated (W. R. Ogilvie Grant in ' Ibis ' 
for July 1891). Nest noiie. Eggs numerous, double-spotted. Nestling Galline, 
covered with down in a pattern. 

" Incomplete ' ^-Egitliognathism ' occurs in the ' Turnicimorphs ' (Hemijwdius and 
Turnix). Here the vomerine cartilages are very large and completely ossified ; and the 
broad double vomer has a septo-maxillary at each angle ; but these bones are only 
strongly tied to the •' ali-nasal ' cartilage, and do not graft themselves upon it." 
(Parker, Tr.-Linn. Soc. 2nd ser., Zool. p. 111.) 

t PteroclomorphcB, Huxley, P. Z. S. 1868, p. 303. Maxillo-palatines not coalesced 
with each other or with the vomers ; nasals schizorhinal ; dorsal vertebrae hetero- 
coelous ; sternum with two notches on each side of the posterior margin of the sternum, 
(Cf. Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 39.) For a further summary of characters, cf. Stejneger, 
Stand. Nat. Hist., Birds, p. 235. 

As far as their osteology goes the Sand-Grouse are very Colmnbine, and had they 
occurred in a fossil state only they would probably have been placed in the Columbae 
(W. R. Ogilvie Grant, in ' Ibis ' for July 1891). Oil-gland nude. No powder-down 
patches ; no lateral bare tracts on the neck. Nest none. Eggs three, double-spotted, 
equally rounded at both ends. Nestling Galline. Youog clothed with down hke the 
young of a Partridge, but more variegated with white tufts. 

X The diagnostic characters of the Geophajies are not yet defined ; but the sternum 
presents an aberrant Columbine form very similar to that of a Hemipode {cf, Ogilvie 
Grant, in ' Ibis ' for Jidy 1891). Nest none. Egg white. Young hatched covered 
with down and able to run soon after birth (cf. Gilbert's note on O. smithii in Gould's 
Handb. B. Austr. ii. p. 134). Gilbert was one of Gould's best collectors and a man of 
excellent observation. 


Order VIII. COLUMBIFORMES*. (Cosmopolitan.) 
Suborder xi. Columbae. 
Suborder xii. Didi. 

Order IX. OPISTHOCOMIFORMESf. (Neotropical.) 
Suborder xiii. Opisthocomi. 
Fam. Opisthocomid^. 

Order X. RALLIFORMES X- (Cosmopolitan.) 
Suborder xiv. Ralli. 

Fam. 1. Gaxlinulid-S!. 

2. Rallid^. 

3. Obtygometrid^. 

4. PODIC^. 

Order XI. HELIORNITHIFORMES§. (Neotropical.) 
Suborder xv. 

Fam. Helioenithid^. 

* Palate scbizognatbous ; nasals schizorhinal ; basiptervgoid processes present ; 
basal portion of biU with a fleshy membrane; "sternum narrow, with two notches on 
either side, the outer one deep, the inner one often reduced to a foramen " (Elliot, 
Stand. Nat. Hist., Birds, p. 287) ; other characters are given by Mr. Elliot Q. <?.). I 
have not attempted to indicate the Families of the Columbcs, as there exists so far no 
actual classification based on diagnostic characters. Eggs two, white. Nest a slight 
structure, composed of twigs, generally placed in a tree, though exceptions to this 
rule are known. 

t Heteromorph(B, Huxley, P. Z. S. 1868, p. 30-3. Palate schizognathous ; nasals 
holorhiual ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; episternal process not perforated to receive 
the feet of the coracoids ; posterior processes of the ilia sufficiently separated to show 
a broad sacrum; hallux large. {Cf. Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 40.) Oil-gland tufted. 
Nesting-habits Gallinuline {cf. Quelch, Ibis, 1890, p. 327). Eggs three, whitish, with 
scattered reddish-brown blotches, more closely placed at the obtuse end. Young 
hatched naked. Pollex and index digit provided with a claw, with which the bird 
can climb {cf. Quelcli, I. c, also cf. Bingham, as quoted by Stejneger, Stand. Nat. 
Hist., Birds, p. 197 ; and for the Myology of O. cristatus, J. Beswick Perrin, Trans. Z. S. 
ix. p. 353 et seq.). 

X Palate schizognathous ; nasals holorhiual ; dorsal vertebrai heterocoelous ; epis- 
ternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids; posterior process 
of the ilium sufficiently perforated to show a broad sacrum ; sternum with one notch 
on each side of the posterior margin. {Cf. Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 40.) Long lateral 
bare tracts on the neck ; oil-gland tufted. Young hatched covered with down, and 
able to run or swim in a few hours. 

§ Palate schizognathous ; nasals holorhiual ; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous ; epi- 
sternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; posterior process of 
the ilia separated sufficiently to show a broad sacrum ; sternum with one notch on each 
side of the posterior margin. (Cf. Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 40.) Young, two, hatched 
naked {cf. Neuwied, Beitr. Orn, Bras. iv. p. 827). This last character suggests an 
affinity with Opisthocomits, 


Order XII. PODICIPEDIFORMES *. (Cosmopolitan.; 
Suborder xvi. Podicipedides. 
Fam. PoDicrpEDiD^. 

Order XIH. COLYMBIFOEMES f. (Arctic and Sub-Arctic.) 
Suborder xvii. Colymbi. 


Suborder xviii. Impennes. 
Fam. Aptenodytid^. 

Order XV. PROCELLARIIFORMES§. (Cosmopolitan: Pelagic.) 
Suborder xix. Tubinares. 
Fam. 1. DiOJiEDEiD.^. 

2. Procellaeiid^. 

3. Pelecanoid^. 

* Cnemial process of tibia produced forwards to a remarkable degree; posterior 
process of the ilium approximated to such an extent that the sacrum is almost entirely 
concealed ; palate scliizogiiatbous ; cervical vertebrte 17 to 21 in number ; anchylosed 
sacral vertebrae preceded by a free vertebra, in front of which are four anchylosed dorsal 
vertebras ; median xiphoid process of sternum abruptly truncated, so that the lateral 
processes extend behind it. {Cf. Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 41.) Spinal feather-tract not 
defined on neck ; ambiens and femoro-caudal muscles absent. For other characters 
cf. Stejneger, S. N. H. p. 66. Toes lobate ; rectrices obsolete. Nest, a mass of stalks 
and rubbish floating on the water. Eggs white. Young covered with down when 
hatched, and able to swim at once. Plumage of nestlings striped. 

t Cnemial process and posterior processes of the ilium as iu the Podicipedides ; no 
anchylosed vertebrae in front of the anchylosed sacral vertebrae ; median xiphoid pro- 
cess of sternum projecting behind the lateral processes ; number of cervical vertebrae 
14 or 15. (Seebohm, Classif. B. p. 41.) Ambiens and femoro-caudal muscles present. 
Toes four ; legs placed far back. Nest in freshwater lakes. Eggs two, dark olive- 
brovsTi. Young hatched covered with down. 

X Palate schizognathous ; first digit of manus fused with the second iu the adult ; 
scapula very broad, not differing very much in size from the keel of the sternum ; 
three metatarsal bones of tarsus very sh:rt and separated from each other throughout 
by deep grooves ; bones of forearm all flattened. (Seebohm, t. c. p. 35.) Spinal feather- 
tract not defined on nape ; none of the wing-feathers differentiated in quills. For 
numerous other characters see Watson's ' Challenger ' Report, and Stejneger, S. N. H. 
p. 56, Nest a rude structure of grass in the open or in a burrow. Eggs two, white or 
greenish white. Young when hatched thickly covered with down. 

§ External nostrils produced into tubes ; nasals holorhinal ; dorsal vertebras hetero- 
coelous ; basipterygoid processes absent in Biomedeidce and Procellariida, but present 
in Pelecanoidee ; hallux absent or reduced to one phalanx, the other toes directed 
forwards ; spinal feather-tract well-defined on neck ; oil-gland tufted. (Seebohm, t. c. 
p. 34, and Stjeueger, t. c. p. 84.) Nest none ; egg usually concealed in a hole or 


Order XVI. ALCIFORMES*. (Circumpolar.) 
Suborder xx. Alcae. 
Fam. Alcibje. 


Suborder xxi. Larif. (Cosmopolitan.) 
Fani. 1. Stebcoeariidje, 
Fam. 2. Labid^, 

Subfam. Larince. 

Subfani. Sternin(S. 

Subfam. Ithynchopince. 

Order XVIII. CHARADRIIFORMES. (Cosmopolitan.) 
Suborder xxii. DromadesJ. (Ethiopian and Indian.) 

Fam. DrOjMadid^. 
Suborder xxiii. Chionides §. (Antarctic.) 
Fam. Chionidid^. 

Suborder xxiv. Attagides ||. (Neotropical.) 

Fam. 1. AxTAttiD^. 

2. Thinocoeid^. 

under a boulder ; with the Albatrosses, however, the nest is open, and composed of mud 
and grass. Young, when hatched, covered with down, and unable to provide for 
themselves for a long period. 

* Palate schizoguathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; nasals schizorhinal ; lateral 
occipital fontanelles present ; feet webbed ; spinal feather-tract forked on the upper 
back; toes three. Egg single, white when in a burrow, otherwise of varied and 
beautiful colour and markings when laid on a rock. Young, when hatched, covered 
with down, and unable to provide for themselves for a long period. (C/. Seebohm, t. c. 
p. 37.) A double moult in the year {cf. Stejneger, t. c. p. 69). 

t Palate schizoguathous; nasals schizorhinal; basipterygoid processes absent; 
spinal feather-tract forked on the upper back ; feet webbed. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 37, 
and Stejneger, t. c. p. 74.) Nest none, or a scanty structure of grass ; eggs double- 
spotted. Young, when hatched, covered with down, and fed for some days by the 

X Palate schizoguathous ; nasals schizorhinal ; no occipital foramina ; no basi- 
pterygoid processes. Nest none, the single Avhite egg placed at the end of a long 

§ Palate schizoguathous ; nasals schizorhinal ; basipterygoid processes absent ; no 
occipital foramina ; spinal feather-tract forked on the upper back. (Seebohm, t. c. p. 37.) 
For other characters see Stejneger, I. c. p. 92. Nest in holes or behind rocks. Eggs 
somewhat like those of Ha'matojms, but thickly blotched with purple. Nestling 
covered with greyish down. 

II Palate schizoguathous ; nasals holorhinal ; basipterygoid processes absent ; special 
feather-tract forked on the upper back. (Seebohm, t. c. p. 37.) The vomer broad 
and anteriorly rounded. Habits Quail-like, but with the flight of a Plover. Eggs 


Suborder xxv. Charadrii *. (Cosmopolitan.) 

Fam. 1. ILaiMATOPODiD^. 

2. Chabadriid^. 

3. scolopacid-^. 

Suborder xxvi. Glareolae t- (Ethiopian ; Mediten-aneo-Persic'; 
Indian; Australian.) 

Suborder xxvii. Cursorii J. (Ethiopian ; Mediterraneo-Persic ; 

Suborder xxvii i. Parrae §. (Neotropical; Ethiopian; Indian; 

Suborder xxix. CEdicnemi||. (Nearly Cosmopolitan.) 

Suborder xxx. Otides ^. (Temperate and Tropical portions of the 
Old World.) 

pale stone-colour, very thickly speckled vrith light and dark brown ; nest a slight de- 
pression in the ground, sometimes lined vrith a few blades of grass (Dumford, Ibis, 
1878, p. 403). 

* Palate schizognathous ; dorsal vertebrae opisthocoelous ; basipterygoid processes 
present; spinal feather-tract forked on upper back. (C/. Seebohm, t.c. p. 38, and 
Stejneger, t. c. p. 98.) Eggs generally four, pyriform, double-spotted. Nest none, or 
a scanty one of grass. 

t Palate schizognathou^s ; nasals schizorhinal ; no basipterygoid processes (c/. 
Seebohm, t.c. p. 38) ; no occipital foramina; wings very long; tarsi short. Nest 
a slight hollow on bare or sandy ground. Egg thickly mottled, resembling that of a 
Courser {Cursorim) . 

X Palate schizognathous ; nasals schizorhinal ; basipterygoid processes absent ; 
spinal feather-ti-act forked on the upper back (Seebohm, t. c. p. 37) ; tarsi long. Nest 
a slight hollow scraped in the ground. Egg double-spotted and thickly mottled. 
Nestling densely clothed in pale down with very little darker pattern. 

§ Palate schizognathous ; dorsal vertebrae opisthocoelous ; basipterygoid processes 
present ; no occipital foramina ; spinal feather-tract forked on the back. (Seebohm, t. c. 
p. 38; Stejneger, Stand. Nat. Hist. p. 103.) Skeleton like that of a Plover. General 
aspect that of a Rail. Nest a floating mass of grass and weeds. Eggs pear-shaped 
and very glossy ; uniform olive-brown in Hydrophasianus, and extensively scrawled 
all over with black writings in the other species. 

II Palate schizognathous, but nasals holorhinal; no basipterygoid process; spinal 
feather-tract not forked on the upper back ; feet not webbed ; hind toe absent. ( Cf. 
Seebohm, t. c. p. 37.) Nest none. Eggs two, stone-colour with black markings, closely 
resembling the surrounding stones in the open where the eggs are laid. Yoimg, when 
hatched, covered with very close-set down, pale sandy with longitudinal black streaks. 

^ Palate schizognathous ; nasals holorhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; episternal 
process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids; posterior process of the 
ilia separated sufliciently to show a broad sacrum ; sternum with two notches on each 
side of the posterior margin ; oil-gland absent ; no lateral bare tracts on the neck ; 
hallux absent. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 40.) Nest a slight depression under tuft of 
grass, with or without lining. Eggs double-spotted, olive, with obsolete brown shading. 
Young hatched covered with light down, but tolerably weU mottled with black. 



Suborder xxxi. Grues*. (Nearly Cosmopolitan, but absent in 
Neotropical Region.) 

Suborder xxxii. Arami f- (Neotropical.) 

Suborder xxxiii. Rhinochetides J. (Confined to New Caledonia.) 

Suborder xxxiv. Mesitides §. (Confined to Madagascar.) 

Suborder xxxv. Eurypygae ||. (Neotropical.) 

Suborder xxxvi. Psophiae^. (Neotropical.) 

Suborder xxxvii. Dicholophi **. (Neotropical.) 

* Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizo- 
rhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heteroccBlous ; no notches on posterior margin of sternum ; 
no powder-down patches ; four bare tracts on the body extending for some distance up 
the neck ; oil-gland tufted. ( Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 39.) For convolutions of trachea in 
some species, cf. Stejneger, t. c. p. 123. Nest on the ground or in shallow water. 
Eggs double-spotted, light, with reddish-brown spots. Young, when hatched, covered 
with light down and soon able to run. 

t Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer; nasals 
schizorhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; sternum with no posterior notches ; 
no powder-down patches ; oil-gland tufted ; four bare tracts on the body, extending 
some way up the neck. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 39.) {Cf. also Stejneger, t. c. p. 127.) 
Nest among rushes in a marsh. Eggs ten or twelve ; "large as a Tm-key's, slightly 
elliptical, sparsely marked with blotches of pale brown and purple on a dull white 
ground, the whole egg having a powdered or floury appearance " (Hudson, in Argent. 
Orn. ii. p. 160). 

X Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizo- 
rhinal ; dorsal vertebraj heterocrelous ; sternum with no posterior notch ; oil-gland 
nude ; a powder-do^vn patch on each side of the rump ; four bare body-tracts extending 
some Avay up the neck. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 39.) {Cf. also Stejneger, t. c. p. 118.) 
Nesting-habits and egg unknown. 

§ Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizo- 
rhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; sternum with a deep notch on each side of 
the posterior margin ; oil-gland nude ; five pairs of powder-down patches on different 
parts of the body ; four bare tracts on the body, extending for some distance up the neck. 
{Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 39.) Nests and eggs not authentically known. 

II Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizo- 
rhinal ; dorsal vertebrte heterocoelous ; sternum with a notch on each side of the 
posterior margin ; oil-gland nude ; powder-down patches present ; none of the bare 
tracts of the body extending beyond the base of the neck. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 39.) 
{Cf. also Stejneger, t. c. p. 116.) Egg like that of a Woodcock. Nestling Plover-Uke 
and covered with down. Young birds fed by parents for some weeks after they are 

^ Palate schizognathous ; nasals holorhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; 
episternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids : posterior pro- 
cesses of the ilia separated sufficientlj- to show a broad sacrum ; sternum with no 
notch on the posterior margin; long lateral bare tracts on sides of neck. {Cf. 
Seebohm, t. c. p. 40, and Stejneger, t. c. p. 123.) Nest on the ground. 

** Palate schizognathous ; nasals holorhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; 
episternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; posterior process 



Suborder xxxviii. Ardeae*. (Cosmopolitan.) 

Suborder xxxix. Ciconiif. (Nearly Cosmopolitan.) 

Suborder xl. Balaenicipetides J. (Ethiopian.) 

Suborder xli. Scopi §. (Ethiopian.) 

Suborder xlii. Plataleae ||. (Cosmopolitan). 

Fam. 1. Plataleid^. 
Fam. 2. Ibidid^. 

of the ilia separated sufficiently to show a broad sacrum ; sternum with one notch on 
each side of the posterior margin ; no lateral bare tracts on neck ; oil-gland nude. 
(Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 40, and Stejneger, t. c. p. 120.) 

* Palate desmognathous ; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articu- 
lation with the quadrate ; interclavicle projecting conspicuously within the angle of 
the furcula ; basipterygoid processes absent ; spinal bare tract reaching far up to the 
neck ; a large powder-down patch on each side of the rump ; no lateral bare tracts on 
neck, {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 27.) Eggs generally blue. Nest roughly constructed, and 
generally placed in a tree. Young when hatched covered with hair-like doAvn ; fed in 
the nest for a long time by their parents. 

t Palate desmognathous ; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articu- 
lation with the quadrate ; basipterygoid processes absent ; uo interclavicular process 
within the angle of the furcula ; front plantar not leading to the hallux ; no lateral 
bare tracts on the neck; no powder-down patches. Eggs white. Young, when 
hatched, not covered with down, and requiring to be fed for some time by the parent 

X Palate desmognathous ; spinal bare tract reaching far up the neck ; mandible not 
produced behind its articidation with the quadrate ; basipterygoid processes absent ; a 
pair of powder-down patches {cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 27) ; culmen grooved ; toes without 
basal membrane. For other characters of skeleton, cf. Stejneger, /. c. p. 172. Nest in 
reeds or high grass near the water's edge. Egg chalky white, with sliglit markings. 
Young, when hatched, helpless and fed by parent birds for some time. 

§ Palate desmognathous ; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articu- 
lation with the quadrate ; basipterygoid processes absent ; no interclavicular process 
within the angle of the furcula ; front plantar not leading to the hallux ; bare tracts 
on the neck well defined ; no powder-down patches, ((y. Seebohm,^. c. p. 27.) For a 
comparison of characters, myological &c., between Scopus and the Storks and Herons, 
cf. Stejneger, I. c. p. 170. Nest a structure of great bidk, with chambers inside, built 
of branches and twigs, and five or six feet in diameter, capable of bearing the weight 
of a man. Eggs white. Nestling unknown. 

II Palate desmognathous; nasals schizorhinal ; basipterygoid processes absent; 
spinal feather-tract not defined on the back {cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 28). Posterior angle 
of mandible recurved; occipital foramina present; edge of cranium above orbits 
truncate, indicating the position of the nasal glands; sternum with four posterior 
notches ; accessory femoro-caudal muscle present (cf. Stejnegor. t. c. p. 158). Nest on 
a tree or among reed-beds. Eggs greenish white in Platalea a\ ith spots, in Ibis green. 


Order XXI. PHCENICOPTERIFORMES *. (Temperate aud 
Tropical portions of both hemispheres.) 

Suborder xliii. Phoenicopteri. 

Order XXII. ANSERIFORMES. (Cosmopolitan.) 
Suborder xliv. Anseres f. 

Eam. 1. Cnemiobnithid^. 
Fam. 2. Anseranatidje. 
Fam. 3. Plectroptebid.^. 
Fam. 4. Anatid^. 

Subfam. Anserince. 

Subfam. CygnincB. 

Subfam. AnatincB. 

Subfam. Mercjince. 

Suborder xlv. Palamedeae J. (Neotropical.) 
Fam. ANHiMiDiE. 

Order XXIII. PELEOANIFORMES. (Cosmopolitan.) 
Suborder xlvi. Phaethontes §. 
Fam. Phaethontid^. 

* Palate desmoguathous ; basipter3'goid processes abseut or very rudimentary ; 
nasals holorhinal ; mandible much produced and recurved behind its articulation with 
the quadrate (e/. Seebohm, t. c. p. 30). Lachrymo-nasal region elongated ; frontalia 
narrow, not covering the orbits above ; grooves for orbital glands present ; cseca well 
developed; bill with lamellae like a Duck (cf. Stejneger, t. c. p. 153). Nest built of 
mud, exposed, in a lake. Egg one, white. Young covered with whitish down and 
able to run soon after being hatched. 

t Basipterygoid processes on the rostrum of the basisphenoid which articulate with 
the pterygoids as near the palatines as possible ; maxillo-palatines completely coalesced 
across the middle line ; mandible produced and recurved behind its articulation with 
the quadrate ; sternum with only one shallow notch on the posterior margin ; oil- 
gland tufted. (C/". Seebohm, f. c. p. 31.) Toes webbed ; bill lanceolate. Nest of rough 
construction, variously situated. Eggs numerous, creamy buff or greenish white or 
pure white. Yoimg covered with down when hatched, and able to run or swim 
at once. 

\ Palate desmognathous ; no uncinate processes to the ribs ; cervical vertebrte more 
than 18 ; plumage of upper parts with no spinal bare tract. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 32.) 
For a comprehensive description of myological and other anatomical characters, cf. 
Stejneger, t. c. p. 133, Nest of rushes of slight construction, the foundation in the 
water. Eggs six, white. Young covered with yellow down, and able to provide for 
themselves in a few days {cf. Gibson, Ibis, 1880, p. 165). 

§ Palate desmognathous ; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articu- 
lation with the quadrate ; no basipterygoid processes ; nasal apertures large ; palatines 
not coalesced ; sternum not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; plumage of 
neck continuous ; no bare tracts ; hallux united to second digit by a web ; front plantar 
not leading to hallux. {Cf Seebohm, t. c. p. 26.) An excellent review of myological 
and other characters is given by Stejneger, t. c. p. 181. Nest none. Egg one only, 
mottled, reddish brown. Young hatched covered with down, and fed by the parent 
birds for some time. 

Suborder xlvii. Sulae*. 
Fam. SuLiDJE. 

Suborder xlviii. Phalacrocoraces f. 
Fam. 1. Phalacrocoracib^. 
Fam. 2. Plotid^. 

Suborder xlix. Pelecani J. 
Fam. Pelkcanid-t:. 

Suborder 1. Fregati §. 

Fam. Fregatid^. (Temperate and Tropical Seas of both 

* Palate desmognathous ; maudible not produced and recurved behind its articulation 
-with the quadrate ; no basipterygoid pi'ocesses; sternum not perforated to receive the 
feet of the coracoids ; clavicle not anchjlosed to sternum ; carotid arches on cervical 
vertebrpe ; dorsal vertebrte without ventral processes ; plumage of neck continuous ; 
no bare tracts ; haHus miited to the second digit by a web ; front plantar not leadino- 
to hallux. (Seebohm, t. c. p. 26.) On the proportions of the toes and other characters 
cf. Stejneger, t. c. p. 188. Nest a rough structm'e of grass or seaweed. Egg, one 
only, white with a chalky texture. Young, when hatched, fed by the old birds for 
a long time. 

t Palate desmognathous ; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articulation 
with the quadrate ; no basipterygoid processes ; sternum not perforated to receive the 
feet of the coracoids ; dorsal vertebrte opisthocoelous, with ventral processes ; plumage 
of neck continuous; no bare tracts ; hallux united to the second digit by a web ; fi'ont 
plantar not leading to hallux. (Seebohm, t. c. p. 26.) Bill hooked at the end of the 
culmen; tail-feathers stiffened. For other characters, cf. Stejneger, t. c. p. 190. 
For those of the Plotidae, see Garrod, P. Z. S. 1876, p. 335 et seq. Eggs four, white 
or light blue with a chalky texture. Nest generally a huge pile of seaweed ; on a 
rock or in a.tree. Young, when hatched, naked. 

X Palate desmognathous ; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articulation 
with the quadrate ; no basipterygoid processes ; sternum not perforated to receive the 
feet of the coracoids; clavicle anchylosed to sternum ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; 
plumage of neck continuous ; no bare tracts ; hallux united to second digit by a web ; 
front plantar not leading to hallux. (Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 26.) Tail-feathers 24, and 
soft. {Cf. also Stejneger, t. c. p. 185, for other characters.) Nest in trees or on tlie 
ground. Egg, one only, white with a chalky texture. Young hatched naked, and fed 
by the old birds for some time. (See also Mivart on the Axial Skeleton of the 
Pelecanidffi, Trans. Z. S. x. p. 315 et seq.) 

§ Palate desmognathous ; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articu- 
lation with the quadrate ; no basipter} gold processes ; steruum not perforated to 
receive the feet of the coracoids ; clavicle anchylosed to sternum ; no complete carotid 
arches on cervical vertebrpe ; plumage of neck continuous ; no bare tracts ; liallux 
united to second digit by a web ; front plantar not leading to hallux. (Cf. Seebohm 
f. c. p 26.) Tarsus feathered, as also the toes; tarsus abnormally short, &c. (c/*. 
Stejneger, t. c. p. 183). Nesting generally in rookeries; the nest on rocks or trees. 
Egg, one only, white, much smoother than those of Sula. Young, when hatched, 
helpless, and requiring to be fed by the parents for many days. 


Order XXIV. CATHARTIDIFORMES *. (Neogcean.) 
Suborder li. Pseudogryphi. 
Fam. Cathaetid^. 


Suborder lii. Serpentarii f. (Ethiopian.) 

Suborder liii. Accipitres|. (Cosmopolitan.) 

Fam. 1. VtTLTURiDiE. (Mediterraneo-Persic ; Ethiopian ; 

Fam. 2. Falconid^. 

Subfam. Polyhorince. 
Subfam. Accipitrince. 
Subfam. Buteonince. 
Subfam. Aquilmcp. 
Subfam. Falconince. 

* Palate desmognathous ; nostrils perforated; the maxillo-palatines wide apart, 
and though the distance is bridged over by an ossified nasal septum, the ossification 
does not prevent the nostrils being pierced ; basipterygoid processes present ; hallux 
connected with the^e.ror perforans digitoi'um, small and elevated above the level of 
the other toes. Pseudoyryphi of Forbes, Mimogypes of Seebohm. Spinal feather-tract 
not defined on neck ; semitendinosus and accessory semitendinosus muscles are present ; 
oil-gland nude ; caeca none. (Seebohm, t. c. p. 23.) Nest on the ground, or in hollow 
of stump {Bhinogryphus), or at the side of a precipice {Sarcorhmnphus). Eggs two, white 
with spots (Bhinogryphus), or entirely white {Sarcorhamphus). Young, when hatched? 
naked (Sarcorhamphus) or covered with down {Bhinogryphus and Catharistes). 

t Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes present; femoro-caudal muscle 
absent ; accessory femoro-caudal present ; semitendinosus and accessory semitendinosus 
muscles present ; deep plantar tendons Galliue ; hallux present, connected with the 
Jiexor longus hallucis, and not with ih.Q flexor perforans digitorum; spinal feather- 
tract wel Idefined on the neck; oil-gland tufted. (Seebohm, if. e. p. 15.) Head crested 
and ornamented with pendent occipital plumes ; centre tail-feathers produced ; toes 
connected by a membrane. Habits terrestrial. Nest placed on a tree. Eggs two, 
white with light brown dots at the obtuse end. Nestling undescribed. 

X Palate desmognathous ' ; basipterygoid process absent ; dorsal vertebrae hetero- 
coelous- hallux present, connected with the flexor longus hallucis, and not with the 
flexor perforans digitorum ; the two tendons bound together by a fibrous vinculum ; 
spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 16.) A cere always 
present ; outer toe not reversible ; eyes placed laterally in the head. Female generally 
larger than the male {cf Sharpe, Cat. B. i. p. 1). Nest in various positions, on a tree, 
or on the ground, often on the side of a precipice. Egg varying in colour. Young 
hatched helpless and covered with down ; fed in nest by parent birds for a considerable 

^ Dr. Shufeldt has recently shown that Elanus has a non-desmognathous palate 
[Ibis, 1891, p. 230], 


Suborder liv. Pandiones *. (Nearly Cosmopolitan.) 

Suborder Iv. Strigesf. (Cosmopolitan.) 
Fam. 1. BuBONiD^. 
Fam. 2. Stbigid^. 


Suborder Ivi. Steatornithes J. (Neotropical.) 
Suborder Ivii. Podargi §. (Australasian.) 
Suborder Iviii. Leptosomati ||. (Lemurian.) 

* Differ from the Accipitres in having the outer toe reversible, and the proportions 
of the tibia and tarsi are Owl-like; no after-shaft to the contour-feathers. Nest 
a huge structure on rocks or buildings, or on a tree. Egg very richly coloured. 
Young hatched covered with down. 

t Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes present ; flexor lojigus hattucis 
leading to hallux, _/?e,ror perforans digitorum to second, third, and fourth digits ; spinal 
feather-tract well defined on the neck ; oil-gland present, but nude. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. 
p. 17.) Outer toe reversible ; eyes directed forwards and encircled by a facial disk ; 
no after-shaft to the contour-feathers. (Sharpe, Cat. B. ii. p. 1 ; Barrows, S. N. Hist, 
pp. 321-343.) Nest generally in hole of a tree or wall. Eggs white. Young, when 
hatched, covered with down, and fed for a long time by the parent birds. 

X Palate desmognathous, the palatines meeting across the median line, each being 
folded upon itself behind the junction, the lateral posterioi- processes absent ; basiterygoid 
processes present ; dorsal vertebrfe opisthocoelous ; sternum with two notches on the 
posterior margin ; hallux present, and connected with ihe flexor perfoirois digitorum; 
spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, but forked on the upper back ; oil-gland 
not tufted; tail-feathers ten. {Cf. Parker, P. Z. S. 1889, p. 161; also cf. Seebohm, 
t. c. p. 21, and Stejneger, S. N. Hist. pp. 371, 385.) Nest in a cave, a hard block 
shaped like a cheese. Eggs four, white. Nestling unknown. 

§ Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; hallux present, and con- 
nected with the flexor jyerforans digitorum; spinal feather-tract well-defined on the 
neck, but forked on the upper back ; oil-gland 7ione ; a powder-down patch on each side 
of the rump. {Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 21; cf also Stejneger, t. c. p. 385.) A flat 
nest of sticks on the fork of a branch. Eggs two, white. 

II Hallux connected with the flexor perforans digitorum, and not with the flexor 
longus hallucis ; palate desmognathous ; vomer externally attenuated ; basipterygoid 
processes rudimentary ; sternum with four notches on posterior margin, and having a 
pointed episternal apophysis ; spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck by lateral 
bare tracts, but dividing into two tracts on the upper back; oil-gland nude; ambiens 
muscle absent ; tail-feathers 12 ; feet semi-zygodactyle ; a powder-down patch on each 
side of the rump ; nasal apertures exposed and linear, situated in the middle of the 
upper mandible, a horny plate across the nasal opening instead of a membrane. Nest, 
in a hole, of rushes. Egg white (Milne-Edw. and Grand. Hist. Nat. Madag., Ois. 
p. 227). Young, judging from the figure in Grandidier and Milne-Edwards's plate 84, 
very Centropodiue in appearance. 


Suborder lix. Coraciae*. (Palreogrean.) 

Suborder Ix. Halcyones t- (Cosmopolitan.) 

Suborder Ixi. Bucerotes|. (Etbiopian; Indian; Austro-Malaj'an.) 

Suborder Ixii. Upupae §. (Paleearctic ; Indian; Ethiopian.) 

Suborder Ixiii. Meropes ||. (Palaeogsean.) 

* Feet anisodactyle ; no powder-down patches ; nostrils placed near the base of the 
upver mandible and hidden by bristles. Hallux connected with the fiexor perforans 
digitorum, and not with the j^ea or longus hallvcis ; palate desmognathous ; vomer exter- 
nally attenuated ; basipterygoid processes rudimentary ; sternum with four notches 
on posterior margin, and having a pointed episternal apophysis; spinal feather-tract 
well defined on the neck by lateral bare tracts, but dividing into two tracts on the 
upper back ; oil-gland nude ; ambiens muscle absent ; tail-feathers 12. Young hatched 
helpless. Nest in hole of tree. Egg white. 

t Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; CEeca none ; accessory 
semitendinosus muscle absent; feet syndactyle ; hallux connected with the ^* 
perforans digitorum ; no aftershaft to the contour-feathers ; spinal feather-tract well 
defined on neck, and not forked on the back ; ventral feather-tract not only split in the 
centre but also on each side of the breast by bare tracts ; oil-gland tufted ; feet ani- 
sodactyle ; tail-feathers 12 (except in Tamjsiptera, 10). Nest, a rough construction of 
fish-bones, or none; situated in a hole. Eggs white. Yoimg hatched naked and 

\ Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes present; episternal process perforated 
to receive the feet of the coracoids ; sternum with two posterior notches ; hallux pre- 
sent, and connected with the Jfcxor perforans digitorum instead of the fiexor longus 
hallucis ; tail-feathers 10 ; carotids one, or two (in Buceros, none) ; spinal feather-tract 
not defined on the neck, which has no lateral bare tracts either ; no aftershaft to the 
feathers ; cseca none ; bill with a casque, more or less developed, generally cellular, 
sometimes solid {Bhinoi^lax). Nest none. Female enclosed in hole of tree during 
incubation and fed by male. Egg white. Young hatched perfectly naked and fed 
by the male, who brings food in a fig-like envelope for the support of the female and 
single youngster. 

§ Palate desmognathous ; episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the 
coracoids ; manubrial process pointed ; sternum with two deep notches on the posterior 
margin ; deep plantar tendons free ; tarsus with the planta scutellate (Alaudine) ; left 
carotid only present ; spinal feather-tract forked on the upper back ; oil-gland tufted ; 
caeca none. Nest in hole of a tree or wall. Eggs white or whitish. Female almost 
entirely fed by male during incubation. {Cf. Murie, Ibis, 1873, pp. 181-211, pis. vi., vii.) 

II Palate desmognathous ; basipterj^goid processes absent ; episternal process forked 
(as in most of the Passeres), and perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; 
sternum with four notches on its posterior margin ; hallux present, and connected 
with the fiexor perforans digitorum, and not with the fiexor longus hallucis ; caeca 
present ; spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, but forked on the upper back ; 
oil-gland nude ; tail-feathers 10, Nest none, a hole being tunnelled in a bank by the 
birds themselves, as with the Kingfishers. Egg white. Young, when hatched, 
naked, the feathers, when developed, inclosed in a sheath until nearly fullgrown, as 
with Kins:fishers and other Picarice. 


Suborder kiv. Momoti *. (Xeotropical.) 
Suborder Ixr. Todi f. (Antilles.) 

Suborder Ixvi. Caprimulgi f . (Xearly Cosmopolitan.) 

Fam. 1. Nyctibiidj2. 
Fam. 2. Capeimi'lgid^. 

Suborder Ixvii. Cypseli §. (Cosmopolitan.) 

Suborder Ixviii. Trochili ||. (Xeogsean.) 

* Palate desmognathousj basipterygoid processes absent; sternum with four 
notches on posterior margin, converted into foramina ; two carotid arteries present ; 
spinal feather-tract well defined on neck, and not forked on the upper back ; after- 
shaft of contour-feathers present ; cajca absent ; hallux always present, and connected 
with the Jiexor perforans diyitorum. Bill serrated. ( Cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 20 ; 
Stejneger, t. c. p. 395 ; Mm-ie, Ibis, 1S72, pp. 383-412, pis. xiii.-xv.) 

t Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; sternum with four 
notches on the posterior margin, open, and not converted into foramina as in the 
Momoti; cseca large; ambieus muscle abs -nt ; no carotid arteries present; hallux 
present and connected with the Jiexor perforans digitorum ; spinal feather-tract well 
defined on neck, and not forked on the back; oil-gland with well-developed tufts. 
Nest none, a hole being tunnelled by the birds themselves. Eggs four, white. 

X Palate schizognathous, the vomer trun:ated behind ; basipterygoid processes 
present ; semitendinosus muscle present ; ambieus muscle absent : hallux present and 
connected with the Jiexor perforans digitorum ; feet anisodactyle ; spinal feather-tract 
well defined on the neck, but forked on the upper back ; oil-gland not tufted. Xest 
none. Eggs white, with scroll-like markings and spots. Young hatched helpless, 
but covered with down. 

§ Palate segithognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; caeca absent ; semiten- 
dinosus muscle absent ; all four toes directed forwards ; hallux present and connected 
with the Jiexor perforans digitorum ; sternum wdth a high keel and an unnotched 
posterior margin ; spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, but forked on the 
upper back; no median coverts {cf Goodchild, Proc. R. Phys. Soc. Edinb. x. p. 331) ; 
oil-gland nude. {Cf. also Stejneger, S. X. Hist. p. 430.) Form of nest various (differing 
with the genera) — concealed (^Cypsebis, Chcetura), pendent, with a tube {Panyptila), 
cup-shaped, in a cave {CoUocalia), exposed on a stump {^Dendrochelidon). Egg white. 
Young, when hatched, naked. 

II Palate schizognathous ^ ; basipterygoid processes absent ; nasals holorhinal ; 
sternum with a deep keel, rounded at the posterior end, without indentations ; left 
carotid present ; oil-gland nude ; caeca absent ; tongue extensile, the hyoid bones 
cm-ved over the back of the skull as in the Woodpeckers ; front plantar leading to 
three front toes ; hind plantar leading to hallux ; primaries 10, the secondaries very- 
short ; tail-feathers 10 ; no median coverts. {Cf. Goodchild, Proc. R. Phys. Soc. Edinb. 
x. p. 331.) Xest generally cup-shaped, on a branch, sometimes attached to the side 
of a rock. Eggs white, oval, two m number. 

' Professor Stewart, from dissections which he has recently made, considers the 
palatine arrangement of the Trochili to be merely a modification of the segithognathous 


Siilaorder Ixix. Colli *. (Ethiopian.) 

Order XXVII. TROGONES f. (Neotropical ; Indian ; Ethiopian.) 


Suborder Ixx. Musophagi J. (Ethiopian.) 
Suborder Ixxi. Cuculi §. 

* Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; cseca none ; ambiens 
muscle absent ; left carotid onl_v present ; steruum with four notches on the posterior 
margin ; feet pamprodactylous (Stejneger, t. c. p. 371), all four toes baing directed 
forwards, the first one probably reversible ; hallux present, and connected with the 
jiexor perforans digitormn ; the two plantar tendons blended ; tail-feathers 10 ; spinal 
feather-tract well defined on neck, and not forked on the back ; no bare tracts on the 
breast ; oil-gland tufted. Nest cup-shaped, in a ■ bush. Eggs white. ( Cf. Murie, 
Ibis, 1872, pp. 262-280, pi. x.) 

f Palate schizognathous ; basipterygoid processes present ; sternum with four in- 
dentations on the posterior margin ; no median wing-coverts (Goodchild, t. c. p. 331) ; 
left carotid only present ; ambiens muscle absent ; feet heterodactylous (c/". Stejneger, 
t. c. p. 869) ; second digit reversed ; the front plantar splits into two to lead to the 
two front toes, and the hind plantar does the same to lead to the two hind toes — 
i. e, the Jiexor hallucis supplies the first and second digits, and the Jiexor perforans 
the third and fourth {cf. Seebohm, t. c. p. 8) ; spinal feather-tract very Passerine, 
well-defined from nape to oil-gland, and not foi'ked ; aftershaft of contour-feathers 
very large ; caeca present ; oil-gland nude. Nest in hole of tree. Eggs white. 

\ Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; Cfeca none ; ambiens 
muscle present ; tail-feathers 10 ; feet zygodactyle (semi-zygodactyle, according to 
Seebohm) ; plantars Galline ; hallux always present, and connected with the Jiexor 
lo7igns hallucis, and not Avith the Jiexor lonr/tis digitormn, which leads to the second, 
third, and fourth digits ; the two tendons united at their crossing point by a vinculum, 
i, e. the arrangement is desmopelmous ; spinal feather-tract well defined on neck, and 
not forked on back ; oil-gland tufted ; contour-feathers with aftershafts. Wing-feathers 
in many species red, from which Turacin is extracted. {Cf. Shelley, Cat. B. xix. 
pp. 435-456.) Nest open, like that of a Pigeon. Egg white. Young unknown. 

§ Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; cteca present ; both 
carotids present ; ambiens muscle present ; tail-feathers generally 10, 8 in Guira 
and Crotophaga ; plantars Galline ; hallux always present, and connected with the 
Jiexor longtis hallucis, and not with the flexor perforans digitorum, which leads to the 
second, third, and fourth digits ; the two tendons united at their crossing point by a 
vinculum, this arrangement being desmopelmous {cf. Stejneger, S. N. Hist. p. 373) ; 
feet zygodactyle ; contour-feathers without aftershaft ; oil-gland nude ; syrinx varied 
(bronchial, tracheo-brouchial, or pseudo-bronchial) {cf. Stejneger, t. c. p. 373). Nest 
of rough construction. Habits generally parasitic. (Great varieties in nesting-habits.) 
Egg of various colours, differing according to genera. Young hatched naked : in 
many instances fed by foster-parents, but in other cases reared by parent birds, 
{Cf. Shelley, Cat. B. xix. pp. 209-434.) 


Suborder Ixxii. Psittaci. 
Fam. 1. NESTOEiD^.f 

2. LOEHDiE. 

3. Cyclopsittacid-e. 

4. Oacatuid^?;. 

5. PsiTTACIDiE. 

G. Steingopidje. 


Suborder Ixxiii. Rhamphastides J. (Neotropical.) 

Suborder Ixsiv. Capitones §. (Neotropical ; Ethiopian; Tudian.) 

Suborder Ixxv. Indicator es ||. (Ethiopian ; ludiau.) 

* Palate desmognathous ; upper mandible movable, loosely articulated to the skull ; 
a distinct cere at base of bill ; dorsal vertebrae opisthoccelous ; deep plantar tendons 
Galline ; feet zygodactyle ; tail-feathers 10 ; spinal feather-tract well defined on neck, 
and forked on upper back ; oil-gland tufted or absent. Nest in hole of tree. Egg 
white. Young, when hatched, naked, the feathers remaining in the sheath until nearly 
full-grown, after the manner of nestling Picari<e. 

t The following order of Families has been kindly supplied to me by my friend 
Count Salvador!. He proposes it in his forthcoming volume of the British Museum 
' Catalogue of Birds.' 

X Palate desmognathous ; vomer truncated ; basipterygoid processes absent ; manu- 
brial process pointed ; bill very large, but very light, being filled with cellular bony 
tissue ; tongue long and feather-like, the margins being obliquely notched ; casca 
absent ; left carotid only present ; tail-feathers 10; feet zygodactyle; Jlexor perforans 
digitoriim as in Buccones ; wing-coverts Oscinine ; caudal muscles peculiar, as also the 
terminal caudal vertebrae (c/. Stejueger, t. c. p. 415) ; spinal feather-tract well defined 
on the neck, and forked on the lower (not the upper) back ; postscapular feather-tracts 
separated on lower back and rump. {Cf. Stejneger, I. c. p. 41o ; Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. 
IMus. xix. pp. 124-lGO.) Oil-gland tufted. Nest in hole of tree. Egg white. 

§ Palate sometimes fegithognathous, sometimes desmognathous ; vomer single, 
bifid ; basipterygoid processes absent ; manubrial process pointed ; femoro-caudal and 
accessory semitendinosus muscles present ; ambiens and accessory femoro-caudal ab- 
sent ; cpeca none ; left carotid only present ; tail-feathers 10 ; feet zygodactyle ; Jlexor 
ferforans digitorum leading to third digit only ; Jlexor longus haUueis first sending a 
tendon to the other plantar, then a second to fourth digit, after which it splits into 
two tendons, one leading to the hallux, the other to the second digit ; spinal feather- 
tract well defined on the neck, and forked on the lower (not on the upper) back ; ventral 
feather-tract forked on the throat and on each side of breast ; oil-gland tufted. Nest 
in hole of tree. Egg white. 

II Palate eegithognathous ; vomer bifurcate ; basipterygoid processes absent ; ma- 
nubrial process pointed ; femoro-caudal and accessory semitendinosus muscles present ; 
ambiens and accessory femoro-caudal absent ; cfcca absent ; left carotid only present ; 
tail-feathers 12 (in Prodotiscus ^ 10) ; feet zygodactyle ; Jlexor perforans digitorum as 

^ Prodotiscus is probably not a member of this Suborder. 



Suborder Ixxvi. Pici *. (Cosmopolitan, but is absent in Australian 


Suborder Ixxvii. Bucconest. (Neotropical.) 

Suborder Ixxviii. Galbulae J. (Neotropical.) 

Order XXXII. EURYL.^MI §. (Indian ; Austro-Malayan.) 

Order XXXIII. MENUR^ 1|. (Australian.) 

described in Buccones ; spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, and forked on 
the lower (not the upper) back ; ventral feather-tract forked on throat, but not on 
each side of breast ; oil-gland tufted. {Cf. Shelley, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xix. pp. 1-12.) 
Nest in hole of tree ; ? parasitic on Barbets and other Picarice (cf. Sharpe's ed, 
Layard's B. S. Afr. p. 168). Egg white. 

* Palate saurognathous ; vomer slender, pointed, split ; basipterygoid processes 
absent; man ubrial rostium of sternum bifurcate ; ctecanoue; left carotid only present; 
feet zygodactyle ; jiexor perforans digitorum as described in the Indicatores ; tongue 
extensile, long, worm-like, capable of great protrusion, the hyoid coruua extending 
backwards over the skull (except in Sphyropkus and Xenopicus). Spinal feather-tract 
well-defined on the neck, and forked on the lower (not the upper) back ; oil-gland 
tufted; femoro-caudal and semitendinosus muscles present; ambiens and accessory 
femoro-caudal muscle absent ; tail-feathers 12. Nest in holes. Eggs white. Young 
hatched helpless, but soon able to climb. {Cf. Hargitt, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. vol. xviii.) 

t Palate desmognathous ; vomer present ; basipterygoid processes absent ; cseca 
present ; both carotids present ; ambiens muscle present ; tail-feathers 12 ; feet zygo- 
dactyle ; Jiexor longus diyitortiin as described in the Indicatores ; wing-coverts non- 
Oscinine (Sundevall) ; spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, and forked on the 
lower (not on the upper) back; no clavicular feather-tract; no aftershaft to the 
contour-feathers; genys rounded ; ventral tract without gular branch; oil-gland nude. 
Nest in holes. Egg white. {Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. vol. xix. pp. 178-208.) 

J Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; no vomer ; genys 
rounded ; ventral feather-tract without gtilar branch ; caeca present ; feet zygodactyle ; 
Jiexor perforans digitorum leading to third digit only ; Jiexor longus hallucis first sending 
a tendon to the other plantar, then a second to fourth digit, after which (if hallux 
present) splitting into two tendons, one leading to the hallux, the other to the second 
digit ; spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, and forked on the lower (not on 
upper) bfick ; a narrow clavicular feather-tract on each side of the breast ; a small after- 
shaft to the contour-feathers ; oil-gland nude. Nest in holes of banks or of stumps 
of trees. Eggs two, white. {Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xix. pp. 161-177.) 

§ Palate segithognathous ; nasals holorhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heterocoelous ; flexor 
longus hallucis leading to hallux after sending down a tendon to i\i% Jiexor perforans 
digitor?tjn, which leads to the three front digits ; oil-gland present, but nude. Nest a 
bulky purse-like structure, of large size. Egg white, or dull white, thickly speckled 
with minute spots and specks of rusty brown. {Cf Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xiv. 
pp. 455-470 ; Seebohm, t. c. p. 4.) 

II Nestling thickly covered with down. Furcula complete ; sternum with a slight 
indentation near the outer edge of posterior margin ; plantar tarsi strongly scutellated ; 
tail-feathers greatly produced, and mostly devoid of booklets ; tensor patagii brevis 
muscle Picarian ; intrinsic muscles fastened to the ends of the semi-rings (Acromj'o- 
tine) ; plantar tendons free, {Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 661-063.) 


Order XXXIV. PASSERIFORMES *. (Cosmopolitan.) 
Section A. Oscines. 

Fam. 1. CoRViD.E f. 

{Cf. Sliarpe, Cat. B. iii. pp. 1-152.) 

2. Paradiseid^ \. 

{Cf. Sharps, Cat. Birds, iii. pp. 153-186.) 

3. Ptilonobhynchid.te. 

{(Jf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 380-390.) 

4. Stuknid^e §. 

(Cy. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 1-92.) 


{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 93-157.) 


(C/. Sharpe, Cat. B. iii. p. 32G.) 

7. DlCRURID^ ^. 

{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iii. pp. 229-209.) 

8. OniOLiDiE. 

{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iii. pp. 188-226.) 


{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xi. pp. 308-405.) 

10. Ploceid^. 

{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 198-511.) 

11. Tanageid^. 

{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xi. pp. 49-307.) 

* Palate segithognathous ; cervical vertebrse not exceeding 15 in number; ambiens 
and accessory femoro-caudal muscles absent; deep plantar tendons free; hallux always 
present, and connected with \\\^jiexor longus hallucis and not with thejlexor perforatis 
dif/itonan ; spinal feather-tract well defined on neck ; spinal feather-tract not forked on 
the upper -back ; oil-gland present, but nude, 

t Dr Shufeldt thought that the presence of a bony siphonium was peculiar to the 
Coi-vidce, but recent dissections made by Professor Stewart prove that this character 
is found in all the higher Oscines. 

X The difference in the proportion of the toes, adopted from Sundevall's ' Tentamen ' 
(p. ), to separate the Birds of Paradise from the Crows, will probably be found to 
break down when carefully examined. Mr. Goodchild's character of the absence of 
median wing-coverts may be useful in the diagnosis, but the limits of the family are at 
present badly defined, and it is diiHcult to draw a line of distinction between some of 
the Bower-birds and the Birds of Paradise (e. g. Xanthomelus and Amblyornis), and 
it is certain that some forms of Paradiseidce, like Parotia for instance, have " playino^- 
grounds" like Tectonornis and other " Bower " builders. 

§ Ambulatorial. Mandible with the angular much prolonged. First primary feebly 
developed. Eggs uniform, bluiah. 

§ Arboreal. Eggs spotted. {Cf. Oates, Faun. Brit. Ind., Birds, i. p. 509.) 

Tl As before mentioned, a more minute comparison of the osteology of this family is 
necessary before determining its proper place in the natural system. 


Fam. 12. Ccerebidje. 

(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Miis. pp. 1-48.) 

13. Feingillid^ *. 

{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xii. pp. 1-816.) 

14. Alaudidje f. 

{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 512-058.) 


{Cf. Sliarpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 456-629.) 

16. MxiOTILTIDiE. 

{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 225-455.) 

17. Cebthiid.e. 

{Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. viii. pp. 322-3G6.) 

18. Meliphagidje. 

{Cf Gadow, Cat. B. ix. pp. 204-290.) 

19. NectaeiniidyE. 

{Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. ix. pp. 1-146.) 

20. DlC^IDiE. 

{Cf. Sliarpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 2-84.) 


{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. ix. pp. 146-203.) 

22. PARiDiE II, 

{Cf Gadow, Cat. B. viii. pp. 1-79.) 

23. Eegulid^. 

{Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. viii. pp. 79-87.) 

24. LANIIDiE ^. 

{Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. viii. pp. 88-291.) 

* The boundaries between this family and the Tanagridce are very feebly defined at 

f The Buntings of the family FringiUidce approach the Alaudidce through Plectro- 
phenax which would appear to be somewhat like Otocorys. The scutellate planta 
tarsi separate the Almidkke from all other Oscines. 

+ In their elongated secondaries and in their nesting-habits the Wagtails and Pipits 
resemble the AUmdidce. They have, however, a very remarkable Sylviine characteristic 
in havino- a spring moult as well as an autumn one. This fact 1 drew attention to in 
1885 {cf. Cat. B. x. p. 460) ; but it has been proved beyond a doubt this year, when 
a pair of Tree-Pipits {Anthus trkinlis), which have lived through the winter in my 
daughter Dora's aviary, went through a complete moult in March. 

§ An examination of the tongue of Zosterops shows that it resembles that of a Tit 
and has no similarity to the " brush " tongue of the Iloney-sucker. For the present, 
therefore, I am inclined to keep the "White-eyes as a separate family, though Mr. Gates, 
in the 'Birds of British India,' places the genus Zosterops near Tuhma. 

II For Charncea, cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. vii. p. 311. 

^ The ossification of the olfactory capsule and the spine-like process on the posterior 
end of the palatines are characters almost confined to the Laniidce alone. ( Cf. Shufeldt, 
Journ. Morph. iii. p. 99, 1889.) The palate and nasal aperture in the skull of the 
Wood-Shrikes, which I formerly kept distinct under the heading of Prtono2nd(e, will 
have to be carefully examined. Some of the genera may have to be located with the 


Fam. 25, Artamid^ *. 

{Cf. Sliarpe,Cat. B. xiii. pp. 3-21.) 


{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 211-224.) 

27. VlREONID^E. 

{Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. vii. pp. 292-321.) 

28. SYLVIID^t. 

{Cf. Seebohm, Cat. B. v. pp. 1-145, and Sharpe, 
Cat. B. vii. pp. 93-310, for Cistkolmfs and Bra- 

29. TUEDID.?^ t. 

{Cf. Seebolim, Cat. B. v. pp. 146-401.) 

30. ClNCLID^. 

{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 306-321.) 

31. Troglodytid.e. 

{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 180-305.) 

32. MiMiD.^ X. 

{Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 322-307.) 

33. TlMELHD.E §. 

{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. vii. pp. 312-647.) 

34. Pycnonotid^. 

{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 1-179.) 


{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. iv. pp. 8-110.) 

36. MusciCAPiD^. 

{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. iv. pp. 111-468.) 

37. HlRUNDlXID.^. 

{Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 85-210.) 

Section B. Oligomyodae. 

Fam. 1. Tyeaxxid^. 

{Cf Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 1-279.) 


{Cf Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 280-282.) 

* The Artcnnidce have a Slirike-like ossification of the olfactory capsule, but they 
have a curious modification of the palate, as has been discovered by Professor Stewart. 
Tlie vomer is ajgithognathous, but the palate is desmoguathous. 

t For Pratincola and Cryptohpha, &c., cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iv. pp. 178 and 303, and 
for Copsychus and allied Turdiue forms, cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vii. pp. 1-92. The 
Accentors are probably not deserving of separate family rank, and are now merged in 
the Turdidte. For Accentor, cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vii. pp. 648-670 ; and for Myiudectes, 
see Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. p. 368. 

X The recent researches of Mr. Lucas into the osteology of the Thrushes and Wrens 
(Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xi. pp. 173-180) show tbat there is good foundation for keeping 
the Mimidce as a distinct family. 

§ I am not prepared at the present moment to reconsider the Timeliidse, but I would 
refer students to an excellent attempt to subdivide the family by Mr. Gates in the 
' Fauna of British India, Birds,' i. p. 71. 

Fam. 3. PiPUiDiE. 

{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 283-..3i'o.) 


{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 327-405.) 

5. Phytotomid^. 

{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 40G-408.) 


{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 409-411.) 

7. PlTTID.^3. 

{Cf Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 411-449.) 

8. Xeniscid^. 

{Cf Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 450-453.) 

Section C. Tracheophonae. 

Fam. 1. Dexdkocolaptid^. 

{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xv. pp. 2-175.) 


{Cf Sclater, Cat. B. xv. pp. 176-336.) 

3. Pteroptochid*^. 

{Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xv. pp. 3.37-352.) 

Section D. Atrichiidge*. 

The accompanying Map (Plate XI.), which is a modification of my 
arrangement of 1890, will give some idea of the affinities of the Osciues, 
as I conceive them. I should have been glad, had time permitted, to 
have attempted a more definite diagnosis of the families of Passeres, 
after the manner of Mr. Seebohm; but this is a work which will 
require much thought and labour, and more leisure than 1 have at my 
command at present. It has been in fact very fortunate for me that 
Mr. Seebohm has published his summary of diagnostic characters for 
the higher Orders and Groups of Birds, and that so much has been 
likewise done in this direction by Dr. Stejneger, for I should never 
have had time to compile these facts myself; and, even now, in most 
cases I have not been able to verify my references. But I hope to be 
able to attack the subject again at some future time, and I merely put 
forward my present scheme as a kind of foundation for future investi- 

The study of the natural classification of Birds is a most absorbing 
one, and will well repay any ornithologist who pursues this line of 

* Intrinsic muscles of the voice-organ fixed to the end of the bronchial semi-rings ; 
sciatic artery present; furcula rudimentary. {Cf Sharpe, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xiii. 
p. 659.) By the removal of the Menurce as a separate group of birds, the Atrichiidce 
stand alone. It is hardly likely that they possess the downy nestling of Menura, and 
they are at present, therefore, the sole representatives of the Passeres Abnonnales of 
Garrod (P. Z. S. 1876, p. 518). 


Map to show the supposed relationships of the Families of OscmES. 


investigation ; but it is certainly not a subject which should be attacked 
in a hurry. On the contrary, it seems to me that years of close applica- 
tion are necessary for an acquisition of the requisite knowledge^ before 
anyone can venture to speak with authority concerning tlie natural 
arrangement of Birds. I am, moreover, certain that a lifetime is 
necessary to master the subject in all its details^ and I would point out 
what the study of systematic ornithology means to a man who sets 
himself to acquire an actual knowledge of every species of bird. By 
working very hard for 300 out of 365 days in a year, and by burning 
much midnight oil, it is just possible to describe and to work out 
the synonymy of one species a day — not more. That is the average 
which a man can attain to by very close application ; and if he 
can describe and collect together the synonymy of 300 species every 
year, it will be good work indeed. Of course I mean taking one 
species with another into consideration; and it will surprise any 
one who has not gone deeply into the subject to find what a mass of 
synonymy belongs to even an African or Indian species, and what a 
long time it takes to verify the references. I have had^ as you will 
all admitj some experience of systematic work with the ' Catalogue 
of Birds/ and this is the result of my calculations — that a man can 
hope to acquire some practical knowledge of species and their literature 
by unswerving application to work for forty years ! This will leave him 
but little leisure either for the study of comparative anatomy or osteology ; 
and it is evident that a comprehensive work on the comparative osteology 
of birds would be extremely useful at the present time. It is to be 
hoped, as I said before^ that Dr. Shufeldt or some equally competent 
anatomist will consider the advisability of publishing a ' Handbook of 
Avian Osteology/ but to be of use it must be diagnostic. 

The publication of the ' Catalogue of Birds ' will, I trust, render it 
unnecessary in the future to spend weeks and months in the hunting up 
of synonymy. This part of the ground at least has been cleared, and 
the student of the next generation will benefit by the drudgery 
which so many of us have had to perform in our day. To return, 
in conclusion, to my simile of " brick ^^ building [antea, p. 56), I may 
add a hope that this reunion of Ornithologists, and the interchange of 
ideas which is taking place between us, will strengthen the bond of 
sympathy which exists between ornithologists all over the world, and 
that the outcome of the session of the Second Ornithological Congress 
in this beautiful and hospitable city of Budapest will result in the con- 
tribution of many ^' bricks " towards the completion of the great Orni- 
thological structure which we have in hand. If the present Address be 
considered as adding even ever so little towai'ds the consummation of 
our hopes, the present speaker will feel more than satisfied. 


I /BAL/ENIC-l ^---^ 

^ — ^ ^ — y 

\ ( ARDE/E ) 

^. \ AN S ERIFOR M ES. I V, / / 

ANSERESV'' / \\ < 

ACCIPITREslllFREGATit) ^ ^ /pmalACRO-\ \ / 

■V J / \ 1-COKACES I , / 

•^ (PELECANlj ^^_^ y 

! '^ ^-^r\ /\ 

"~1'A X^e/ .^^'•'' '• 

,,0^"^%. ■ i 

" r^->--^ -■- i 

pRYPYGEa \ • 



V )\\\ ! 

jKj f \ I \ GLAREOiyt 

<: (arami ' \\ J 
— --\ J '' ' Y 

\ \ / \ OTIDES I \ / ' » I i 

'/^LAREOL*) (^^"^S°7_ (CHIONIDE^ I j j'. 

I ! I 

i I 

f \ I / 


'""--^^ y\ ) j ^'\ (IMPENNES) / 


r \ \Zy y 






\\ a. ,_ ^\ !/^~\ / /■(Zju% ■'' 


W\ ■-•■...^"^ORN/THE 

.^.'^^iS^aS!^^ i