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

= - | re 288 me ee ae
3 : cat \ a 4 eta
o3 ~

/ ZB A II-ik nemzetkozi Congressus magyar bizottsaga. age
HUNGARIAN COMMITTEE OF II. INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGI J
CONGRESS.
QL (Budapest, Hungarian National Museum. a
Ces ander, Me
dg A vb es 268
"4 he
ecw) ATTEMPTS TO - CLASSI

Pereke b).S:

AN ADDRESS
DELIVERED BEFORE
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS
ON

THE 18txH OF MAY, 1891,

R. BOWDLER SHARPE, LL.D., F.LS., Ere.

(ZOOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, BRITISH MUSEUM. )

lore) 10 7 alata
[PURT Tee

eS. £2

Zz A II-ik nemzetkozi Congressus magyar bizottsaga. Pe
HUNGARIAN COMMITTEE OF II. INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGI J

CONGRESS.
(Budapest, Hungarian National Museum.)
< RE vi ee

0%
oR a Ke

RECENT ATTEMPTS TO CLASSIFY

[Sy Jeg aee Do

AN-ADDEESS
DELIVERED BEFORE
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS
ON

THE 18rn OF MAY, 1891,

R. BOWDLER SHARPE, LL.D., F.LS., Ere.

(ZOOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, BRITISH MUSEUM. )

U0) 3) Bote aaa
[PuURT Ter

ILAMMAM,

PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS,

RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON.

THE

CLASSIFICATION OF BIRDS.

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 Linnzus 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 ‘ Encyclopedia 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, Linneus, 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 Linnean Epoch (1735-1800).

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

The Cuvierian Epoch (1800--1860) .

The activity of the French naturalists i 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,
Levaillant, 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 naturalists “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
Illiger, whose “ classification was quite new, and made a step distinctly in
advance of anything that had before appeared.” His ‘ Prodromus,’ pub-
lished 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, Nitzsch, and Johannes Miiller, 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

~*- allowed 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 year 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
by a perilous siege, and that to make it good they must find new means of defence.
Many bravely maintained their posts, and for them not a word of blame ought to be
expressed. Some few pretended, though the contrary was notorious, that they had
always been on the side of the new philosophy, so far as they allowed it to be 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. New 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 Nature in
producing the beings we see around us from beings more or less unlike them, that had
existed in bygone ages, and had been the parents of a varied and varying offspring—our
fellow-creatures of to-day. Classification for the first time was something more than
the expression of a fancy. Not that it had not also its imaginative side. Men’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 Reptilian
parent whence all Birds have sprung was brought within reach of man’s consciousness.
But, relieved as it may be by reflexions of this kind—dreams some may perhaps still

B 2

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
perceptible.”

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. SAURURZE, Haeckel.
Genus 1. Archeopteryx.

Order Il. RATITAS, Merrem.
Ist Group.
Genus 1. Struthio.
2nd Group.
Genus 1. Rheu.
5rd Group.
Genus 1. Casuarius,
2. Dromeus.
4th Group.
Genus 1. Dinornis,
5th Group.
Genus 1. Apteryx.

Order III. CARINATZG, Merrem.
Suborder I. DROMMOGNATHAN.
Family 1. Trvamrp.

Suborder II. SCHIZOGNATH Ai.
Group 1. Charadriomorphe.

Family 1. CoarapRrup 2.
2. SCOLOPACIDA,

Group 2, Geranomorphe.
Family 1. Grup”.
Intermediate forms: Psophia, Rhinochetus.
Family 2. Rani.
Intermediate forms: Otis, Cariama.

Group 3, Cecomorphe.

Family 1. Lari.
2, PROCELLARIID,
3. COLYMBIDZ,
4, ALCIDA,

Group 4. Spheniscomorphe.
Group 5. Alectoromorphe.
Group 6, Turnicomorphe.
Group 7, Pteroclomorphe.
Group 8, Heteromorphe.

Group 9, Peristeromorphe.

Suborder III. DESMOGNATH Ai,
Group 1. Chenomorphe.

Family 1. Anatip®, with Palamedea.

Group 2. Amphimorphe.
(Genus Phenicopterus.)

Group 3. Pelargomorphe.

Family 1. AnDEIDz.
2, CiconmpDZ”.
3. TANTALID®,

Group 4. Dysporomorphe.
(= Totipalmes, Cuy. ; Steyanopodes, Cuv.)

Group 5. Aetomorphe.
(= Raptores, Cuy.)
Family 1, Striempz.
2, CATHARTIDZ,
3, GYPAETIDZE,
4, GYPOGERANID2.

‘Group 6. Psittacomorphe.

Group 7. Coccygomorphe.

Family 1. Corimpz.

. MusopHAaGip»®.
. CUCULID.
Bucconm 2.

. RHAMPHASTID,
CaPITONID&.

. GALBULIDZ.

. ALCEDINIDZA.
. BUCEROTIDA,
. UpuPip™.

11. Meropimpz.,
12. Momotipz.
13. CoRACTIDm.
14, TROGONIDA.

SCOMDIAAMAP WH

Intermediate Group: Celeomorphe (Picrp2).

——

Suborder IV. AAGITHOGNATHA.
Group 1. Cypselomorphe.

Family 1. TrocHmip2@.
2, CYPSELIDZ.
3. CAPRIMULGID.

Group 2. Coracomorphe (=PASssERES).

Though agreeing with Professor Newton that Sundevall’s ‘ 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 ‘ Encyclopedia’
Professor Newton has given an elaborate summary of Sundevall’s
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 plautar 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
Ploceide and Cuculide, 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. 8. 1874,

p. 116) :-—

Class AVES.
Subclass HOMALOGONAT.

Order I. GALLIFORMES.

Cohort (a) Struthiones.
Family 1. StRUTHIONIDA,
Subfamily 1. Struthionine.
2. Rheine.
Family 2. CaAsuaARmID2.
5, APTERYGIDA,
4, TINAMIDZ.

Cohort (8) Gallinacee.

Family 1. PALAMEDEID2.
2, GALLINZ.
3. RALLIDz.
4, OTIDIDZ,
Subfamily 1, Otidine.
2. Phenicopterine.
Family 5. MusopHAGIDE,
6. CucuLID2.
Subfamily 1. Centropodine
2. Cuculine.

Cohort (y) Psittaci.

Order I, ANSERIFORMES.

Cohort (a) Anseres.
Family 1. ANATIDZ.
2, SPHENISCIDA,
3. CoLYMBIDA.
4, PopICcIPIDz.

Cohort (8) Nasutze.
Family 1. ProcELLARmD#.
2, FULMARIDZ.
Subfamily 1. Fudlmarine.
2. Bulweriine.

Order III. CICONIIFORMES.
Cohort (a) Pelargi.

(8) Cathartide.

(y) Herodiones.

(6) Steganopodes.

Family 1. PHaETHONTID&.

2, PELECANIDA,
3, PHALACROCORACID,
4, FREGATID2.

Cohort (e) Accipitres.
Family 1. FALCoNID.
2. STRIGIDZ.

Order IV. CHARADRIIFORMES.

Cohort (a) Columbee.
Family 1. CoLuUMBID2.
2, PTEROCLID.

Cohort (8) Limicolz.
Family 1. CHaraDRUD®.
2. GRUIDZ.
5. LARID™.
4, ALCIDZ.

Subclass ANOMALOGONATL.

Order I. PICIFORMES.

Family 1. Prcariz.
Subfamily 1. Picide.
2. Rhamphastide.
3. Capitonide.
Family 2. Upupipa.
3, BucEROTID2.
4, ALCEDINIDZ.

Order II. PASSERIFORMES.

Family 1. PASSERES.
2. Bucconip (?).
. TROGONIDA,
. M®ROPID.
. GALBULID&.
. CAPRIMULGIDA,
. STEATORNITHID®.
8. CoRACIIDA.
Subfamily 1. Coraciine.
2, Momotine.
3, Todine (?).

“IQ Ot OO

—

Order III. CYPSELIFORMES,

Family Macrocuires.
Subfamily 1. Cypseline.
2. Trochiline.

Forbes, only four days before his death on the Niger, wrote in his
diary :—“ My final idea as to the classification of birds ” (ef. Ibis, 1884,
p- 119):—

Superorder ODONTORNITHES.

I, Saurure. 1. IIT. Odontoholesx. 1.
II, Odontotormee. 1.

Superorder RHYNCHORNITHES.

IV. Struthiones. 1. XVI. Impennes. 1.

V. Apteryges. 1. XVII. Tubinares, 2.

VI. Rhee. 1. XVIII. Pseudogryphi, 1.
VII. Crypturi. 1. XIX. Herodiones. 3.
VIII. Galline. 3. XX. Accipitres. 1.
IX. Opisthocomi. 1. XXI, Steganopodes. 3.

X. Palamedex. 1. XXII. Pluyiales, 8.
XI. Eudromades (a). 7. XXIII. Columb. 2.

? Odontoglossee. XXIV. Todiformes, 1.
XII. Semigalline. 2. XXYV. Piciformes (¢c). 7.
XIII. Psittaci. 1. XXVI. Coraciiformes. 2.
XIV, Lamellirostres. 1. XXVII. Meropiformes. 8.
XV. Eretopodes (4). 3. XXVIII. Passeres.

(a) EUDROMADES. (c) PICIFORMEs.
Rallidee. Picidee. ols
Psophiide. Capitonidee. mubonics ae
, Gidicnemidee. Bucerotidee. \

Otididee. Upupidee. |

ERE Je En) ‘ Suborder Halcyones.

Serpentariidee. Alcedinide,

Phcenicopteridee. Coliidee. |

Momotide. }

(6) ERETOPODES,

Colymbidee.
Podicipitidee.
Heliornithide.
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 Steatornis by the inter-
position of the Parrots, and the Columbe 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. CARINAT.

Order I. PASSERES.
a. Turdide.
b. Cinclidee.
c. Sylviidee.
d. Paridee.
e. Certhiid.
f. Troglodytidee.
g. Motacillidee.
h, Mniotiltidee.
7, Hirundinide.
yj. Vireonidee.
k. Laniidee.
1. Ampelide.
m. Coerebide.
n. Tanagridee.
o. Fringillide.
p. Alaudide.
q. Icteride.
r, Corvidee.
i MOLIGOMVOD Aer ratte als susie wralererinrace a. Oxyrhamphide.
b. Tyrannide.
ce. Pipride.
d. Cotingide.
e. Phytotomide.
f. Pittide.
g. Philepittide.
h, Eurylemide.
iii, TRACHEOPHONA......cseeeeeeeveres a. Dendrocolaptide.
b, Formicariide.
ce. Pteroptochide.
iy. PSEUDOSCINES 5 occ. sseesenevereweree a. Atrichiide.
b, Menuridee.

Order II. PICARILA.
SAAS ep 5s hod Loli Poy fo pe ae ene a. Picide.
PEO MPBIGULM fet Gti cebhtateye eistote a. Trochilidee.
b. Cypselidee.
e. Caprimulgide.
Oy A NISODACTNIGAG «Santi sts cua a. Coliide.
b. Alcedinide.
c. Bucerotide.
d. Upupidee.
e. Irrisoridee.
J. Meropidee.
gy. Momotidee.
h. Todidee.
z. Coraciidee.
k, Leptosomidee.
1. Podargidee.
m. Steatornithide.
AP HETERODACTYEAR 4. s.cles - a, Trogonide.
Op AXGODAOEVEAT =. w+ clave ohioe a. Galbulide.
b. Bucconide.
c. Rhamphastide.
d. Capitonide.
e. Indicatoridee.
a. Cuculidee.
6. Musophagide.
Order Nir PSEDRACE oo iseecd oo dees cole ». a Cacatuidee.
6. Stringopide.
c. Paleornithide.
d. Psittacide.
Ver SERGI S 5 teed cos asa eartelte meee a. Strigide.
6. Asionidee.
We ACOPPITRES sexccotest vase a. Falconidee.
b. Cathartide.
ce. Serpentariide.
Vil SLEGANOPODES ssccspaeue : chehs a. Fregatide.
6. Phaethontide.
ce. Pelecanide.
d, Phalacrocoracide,
e. Plotide.
VIE AERO DIONES: ous 30s tease a. Ardeide.
6. Ciconiidee.
ce. Plataleide.

Wit ODON TOG ROSSA. ss5;5 cave sate ue Pheenicopterus.
Pe PATA MEDBAS. #2 ysco5 doiehaahs om 4 Palamedeide.
X. ANSERES.
XI, COLUMBE.
TC OLUMB A, Moana htsarw tare hate a. Carpophagide.

6, Columbidee.
ce. Gouride.

d. Didunculidee,
ii, Drp1,

Order XG PLL ROCTE TES i remcdeciecect. Pteroclide.
XIII. GALLIN/E.
TLE RISTEROLODESMeeretti riot a. Cracide.
b. Megapodiidee.
11, PATER CROROPODES pi rei aercer a a, Phasianide.

; b. Tetraonide.
XTVeTOPISTHOCOMGE oi. cers shes tare Opisthocomidee.
NO We BOM OULORBIIL 5 Aas charcoal come Hemipodiidee.
XV AOC ATTAR Soe ass, iis SL see as or a. Rallidee.

6. Heliornithide.
XK Vide OR CTOREDHS. 1 ventieen coas aes a. Aramide.

b. Eurypyegide.
ce. Gruidee.
d. Psophiidee.
e. Cariamidee.
JS. Otidee.

NGV AE TMC OLA Semis oc «iaeememe cae a. CXdicnemide.
b. Parridee.
c. Charadriide.
d. Chionidide.
e. Thinocoride.
Ff. Scolopacidee.

XEN ANN MCA eset c aiaerie ene ee Laride.

PROX BU ENUAGE ETS eisai. oie cues wi Rene Procellariidee.
RO VG OPODHS tees scnieciecte: ate ee a. Colymbidee.
b. Alcidee.
KOT a TV SERIIN IN ES ieteg erator y ati, «acs ote cic are Spheniscide.
DOU OR VEU ear niic ne oe Tinamidee.

Subclass I]. RA TIT.

Order XXIV. APTERYGES.
XxXV. CASUARII.
XXVI. STRUTHIONES.

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

1. SAURURZ, Haeckel. Archeopteryx the only known form.

2, RATITZ, Merrem.
a. With teeth.

a. With biconcave Vertebre s 2245... 0s 0+. As yet unknown.
b'. With saddle-shaped vertebre ............ Hesperornis.
DEMNV WoL bOSL yack. cei svete) eelerohs sUefe Wile ae steel sneuweegs Recent and existing forms.

3. CARINAT ZS, Merrem.
a. With teeth.
a'. With biconcave vertebra ............0... Ichthyornis.
b'. With saddle-shaped vertebre ............ As yet unknown.
PEN LHOUGILCOU NG cr stinicitiatsess c.6 siadae nee ork ese shanna Xecent and existing forms.

He would divide the Ratitz into six Orders :—

ee AE VORINTRERBIS ows sc ls ss « Fam, AAPYORNITHID®.

OP EE HREY. GENS inate acted. ois oo Fam. APTERYGIDZ.

Oy ENEREAIN ESP oc. scree cre 8s oo a va Fam. 1. DinorniTHID».
2, PALAPTERYGIDZ.

“\- MORGHISIVAIMIMS! goo eonoescec Fam. 1. CASuARIID.

2, DROMAID &.

Or
=e
an)
ie)
By

Ee CORE IOIin ERO OER: Fam. RHEIDZ.
Ga SERUALETIONES i ereieecies ae Fam. STRUTHIONIDZ.

In discussing the Carinate, 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 Carinate, as proposed by Professor Huxley, in
whose classification they follow the Ratite. He next insists on the
distinctness of the Impennes, He doubts the affinity of the Podici-
pedide with the Pygopodes, and he would associate the latter with the
Gavie and Limicole as one Order, the Tubinares being distinct and
forming a separate Order by themselves.

The Gralla would contain the Fulicarie and Grues, the contents of
the latter being the Gruide, Psophiide, and Aramide, along with Eury-
pyga and Rhinochetus.

The Galline should rank as an Order, the Hemipodii, “ standing
somewhat apart,” the Alectoropodes (normal Galline), and the Peri-
steropodes (Megapodiide and Cracide) forming the three component
Suborders. Opisthocomus is the single representative of a separate
Order.

The Pteroclide 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 Galline and Columbe. The author
does not fail, however, to emphasize the fact of the Dasypedine con-
dition of nestling Sand-Grouse, a fact he has since confirmed in an
interesting memoir in ‘The Ibis’ for 1890 (pp. 207-214, pl. vii.).
The Columbe would possess two Suborders, the Didine birds and the
true Pigeons, with which latter group Didunculus would rank, being
probably connected with the more typical Columbide by the Papuan
genus Otidiphaps.

The Gavie are closely allied to the Limicole ; and the Gralle, through
Eurypyga and Rhinochetus, allied to Limicole in some respects, also
trend towards the Herodiones. The Gavie 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 Ardee, Ciconie, and Platalee.

The Phenicoptert 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 Palamedee.

The Accipitres would embrace the Cathartide, Vulturide, Falconide,
and the Serpentariide, but whether Cariama goes here or not must
remain an open question.

The Striges are not so nearly allied 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 Picarie, especially with Steatornis,
which has branched off from a common ancestor with the Owls.

The Picarie 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 Saurognathe claimed for them by Professor Parker.

The Coccygomorphe he has already alluded to among the “ groups
allied to Galline,” where Opisthocomus indicates an old line of descent,
now almost obliterated, in the direction of the Musophagide, and thence
to the Coccygomorphe, 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 Tracheophone, the abnormal Acromyodi or Pseud-
oscines (Atrichiide and Menuride), and finally the normal Acromyodi
or true Oscines. At the head of the latter he would put the Corvide
in place of the Turdide.

Such is a brief outline of Professor Newton’s scheme of classification
in 1884, and if he had not warned us that he considered that a phylo-
genetic scheme was at that time impracticable, I should have said that
a highly imstructive 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 im 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 ‘Encyclopedia.’ 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 ‘Catalogue’ 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 Turdide such obvious
forms as Pratincola, Copsychus, &c., which had, therefore, to be incon-
gruously accommodated in the Muscicapide and Timeliide.

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.
Gunther, 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.
Order f. BREVIPENNES.

Fam. 1. StRUTHIONIDZ.

Series II. NATATORES.

Order II, URINATORES.

Fam. 2. SPHENISCID.
8. ALCIDZ.
4, COLYMBIDZ.

Order III. LONGIPENNES.

5. PROCELLARIID.
6, LaRIpz.
7, STERNIDZ.

Fam.

Order 1V. STEGANOPODES.,

Fam, 8. GRACULIDZ.
9. SULID A.
10, PELECANIDZ.

Order V. LAMELLIROSTRES.

Fam. 11. Mereips.
12. ANATIDZ.
13. ANSERIDZ.
14. Cygnipm.
15, PALAMEDEIDA.

Series IL GRALLATORES.
Order VI, CURSORES.
Suborder A. Limicole.

Fam. 16. CHARADRIIDA.
17. DRoMADID.
18, ScoLOPACcIDA.

Subfam. A. Himantopodine.
B, Totanine.
C. Scolopacine.

Suborder B. Arvicolee.

Fam, 19. Orrmprp#.
20. GRUIDA.

Suborder C, Calamocole.
Fam. 21. Ratitwz.

Subfam. A. Ralline.
B. Gallinuline.
C. Parrine.

Fam, 22, Eurypyeip™,

Suborder D. Deserticole.

Fam. 23. THrnocoripz®.
24, TURNICIDZ.
25, PTEROCLIDA.

Order VII, GRESSORES.

Fam. 26.
le
28.
29,
30.

51,

Ipip2.

CICONID2.
PHG@NICOPTERID.
Scopipz&.
BaLZNICIPID.
ARDEID,

Series IV.
Order VUI. GYRANTES.
Fam. 32. Dipipz.
39. DIDUNCULIDZ.
34, CARPOPHAGIDZ.

35. GEOTRYGONIDZ.
36. CoLUMBID.2.

Series V. CAPTATORES.
Order IX. CRYPTURI.

Fam. 37. CRYPTURIDZ,

Order X. RASORES.

Fam. 38. MEGAPopID®.
39, CRACIDA.
40, OPISTHOCOMID&.
41, PHASIANID®.
Subfam. A. Pavonine.
B. Phasianine.

Fam, 42, PERDICIDZz.
Subfam. A Perdicine,

B. Odontophorine.

Fam, 43. TrETRAONIDZ,

Order XI, RAPTATORES.
Fam. 44. VULTURID.

Subfam. A. Sarcorhamphine.
B. Vulturine.
C. Gypaetine,

Fam. 45. FALconipz.

Subfam. A. Polyborine.
B. Accipitrine.

Section a. Asturine.
b. Spizaetinee.

Subfam. C, Buteonine.

Section a. Milvine.
6. Buteoninee.

Subfam. D. Falconine.
Fam. 46, Srricipz.

Subfam. A. Bubonine.
B. Ululine.
C. Strigine.

Series VI. FIBULATORES.
Order XII. PSITTACI.

Fam. 47. STRINGOPID&®.
48, PLISSOLOPHID®.
49, PLATYCERCID.
50. MrcRoPsITTACcIDz,
1. TRICHOGLOSSID&.
2, PALMORNITHIDA®.
53. PSITTACIDA.
54. CoNURID#.
5. PIoNIDz.

Order XIII. SCANSORES.
Fam. 56. MusoPpHAGipz.
57. CoLiipz.
58. CROTOPHAGIDZ.
59. CucuLIDz.

Subfam. A. Zanclostomine.
Section a. Geococcyges.
6. Zanclostomine.
Subfam. B, Coccystine.
C. Cuculine.

Fam. 60 InpICcATORID».
61. Bucconripa,
62. TROGONIDZ.

Fam, 63, GALBULID®.
64, RHAMPHASTIDA.
65. CAPITONID,
Section a. American species.
b. Asiatic species.
ec, African species.

Fam. 66. Prcrz.
Subfam. A. Pieumnine.
B. Dendrocopine.
C. Psilorhine.
D. Picine.

Series VII. ARBORICOLZE.
Order XIV. INSESSORES.
Fam. 67. BucrRoTIp®.
68, ALCEDINID 2.
Subfam. A. Halcyonine.

B. Alcedinine.

Fam. 69. Mrropipz,
70. Upupip®.
71, 72. Coracip”.
Subfam. A. Coraciine.
B. Podargine.

Order XV. STRISORES.

Fam, 73. CAPRIMULGID®.
74. CYPSELIDZ.
75. TROCHILIDA,

Subfam. A. Phaethornithine.
B. Trochiline.

Order XVI. CLAMATORES.

Fam. 76, AMPELID2.
Subfam, A. Phytotomine.
B. Ampeline.
C. Lipaugine.
Fam. 77. TYRANNIDZ,
78. ANABATID,
Subfam. A. Dendroeslaptine.
B. Anabatine.
C. Furnariine.

Fam. 79. ER1opoRIDz,

Subfam. A. Hylactine.
B. Eriodorine,

Order XVII. OSCINES.

Fam. 80. HrrRuUNDINID.
81. MuscicaPipz,

Subfam. A. Bombyeilline.
B. Muscicapine.
C. Myiagrine.

Fam. 82. CAMPEPHAGID 2,
83. LANIIDZ.

Subfam. A. Laniine.
B. Malaconotine.

Fam. 84. Corvip@.
Subfam, A. Gymnorhine.
B. Corvine.
C. Garruline.
D, Dendrocittine.
KE. Fregilline.

Fam. 85, PARADISEIDA,
Subfam. A. Paradisene,
B. Tectonarchine.
C. Glaucopine.

Fam, 86. ORIOLID.
87. STURNID.
88. IcTERIDz.
89, PLocEIDZ.
Subfam, A. Ploceine.
B. Spermestine.

Fam. 90. FRINGILLIDZ.

Subfam. A. Pringilline.
B. Pyrrhuline.
C. Coccoborine.
D. Emberixine.

Fam. 91. SyLvIcoLIpz,
Subfam. A. Arremonine.
B. Thraupine.
C. Sylvicoline.
D. Motacilline.

Fam. 92, ALAUDIDZ.
93. BRACcHYPODID.
94, MLIPHAGID®.
95. NECTARINID.
96. DAcCNIDID®.
a. New World forms (Dacnis, &c.).
b. Old World forms (Diceum, &e.).

97, CERTHIIDZ,
98. ParIpz.

Fam, 99, Trem».

Subfam. A. Timeline.

B. Cisticoline.
ts C. Troglodytine.
D. Mimine.
EK. Copsychine.
Fam. 100, Syivirp2.

Subfam. A. Syluine.

B. Turdine.

Section a. Turdiformes.
6, Lusciniformes,

Although 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 illustrative 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 Cursores into “ Limicole” (Plovers and Snipes),
“ Arvicole ” (Bustards and Cranes), “Calamocole” (Rails and Sun-
Bitterns), and ‘“ Deserticole”’ (Thinocori, Hemipodes, and Sand-Grouse).
The Crypturi are considered to be an order of the series Captatores, and
head the Game-birds. The family Vulturide contains three subfamilies,
Sarcorhamphine, Vulturine, and Gypaetine ; and Dr. Reichenow follows
recent classification so far as to place the Polyborine next to the
Vultures, and thence he proceeds to the Accipitrine and Spizaetine, but
Pandion comes into his subfamily Milvine, while, after the subfamily
Buteonine, his Falconine 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 Picarie are divided by Cabanis into four orders —
Oscines, Clamatores, Strisores (Macrochires and Coccyges, auct.), and
Scansores, to which we may add the Psittacit. Reichenow somewhat
modifies this classification. The Passeriformes and Picarie he places
under the heading of two great Series, the Midbulatores and the
Arboricole. The Psittaci remain as an order, with nine families.
His Scansores contain all the Scansores of Cabanis, but he places the
Crotophagide as a separate family, equal im value to the Cuculide, and

from Cabanis’s Strisores he also takes away the Coliide and Musophagide,
and adds them to the Scansores.

With Reichenow the Strisores do not disappear as an order, but,
following the Momotide and Todide, are merged in the Coraciide (with
which the Eurylemide are also classified, in the neighbourhood of
Eurystomus). The Podargine make up the second subfamily of the Cora-
cuide ; and then the Strisores, containing the Caprimulgide, Cypselide,
and Trochilide, appear as an order between the Insessores (Bucerotide,
Alcedmide, Meropide, Upupide, and Coractide) and the Clamatores.
The latter commence with the Ampelide, with the subfamilies Phyto-
tomine, Ampeline, and Lipaugine, and follow the order of the ‘ Museum
Heineanum’ to the Hypocnemide, which contains the Pittas and the
subfamily Myiotherine. The Oscines are by no means the same as in
the ‘Museum Heineanum,’ and many changes are introduced. The
Picarie of modern systematists form merely an order of the Arboricole,
equal in value to the Clamatores and Oscines; and in this arrangement
some seemingly natural families are widely separated, as, for instance,
the Paradiseide from the Corvide &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

PLATE I.
%.
©
Sy Nn
fe) =o, 4). AG
&%, BrRL
1, hey UO Ky
2% 0, ©0620
4 Xo % HOEY
In S% “SQ Ke}
Be: Gy % cy SYLVIIDZ
ty, h, ~, “ye S DACNIDID
So, Miz, Oe os > MELIPHAGID A
O ALAUDIDE
TROCHILIDA.. te* FRINGILLIDZ
ICTERIDZ
CYPSELID oe ORICLIDZ
CORACUDA CE a connie
< RU
UPUPIDA SCAPRIMUL~ r

7 -ERIODORIDAZ
MEROPIDE 2 AMPELIDZ

ABATID4
SE, TYRANNIDZ
ALCEDINIDZ~

BUCEROTID~’

CAPITONID/= PICIDZ
GALBULIDA
iG ~S RHAMPHASTIDZ
2.
CONURIDZ Rio) TROGONID
ARDEDID&
PTEROCLIDZ PION- 2 4
TURNICIDA- -IDZ \\JPSItTA- a) io BUCCONID
-CIDA ro} “ ANDICATORIDA
THINOCORID EURYPYGID 3 PALAOR-\ ZEROTOPHAGID
BALANICIPID4 Uae | J - CUCULIDZ
RALLIDZ GRUIDE pLOSSIDA 2 S f-- MUSOPHAGID
PHOENICOP. SCOPID ~ ae COLIDE
CYGNID/Z TERIDA-~* PHISSOLOPHIDA ‘ ~~ F-~-. MICROPSITTACID4
PALAMEDEID. SGOrOE FALCONID4 ~ ~-~PLATYCERCID4
OTIDIDZ a
DROMAY /GiconlID& -STRINGOPIDAZ
ANATIDZ ANSERID/= =DIDZA Au
i) CHARADRIIDZ “BIDE Omures, ¥-STRIGIDA
PELECANID/= Y - MERGIDE Cc
SULIDAS TETRAONID4 iS
LARIDZ : a
PERDICIDZ opitHo-\ Of © VULTURIDZ
' PHASIAND4 \cCOMIDA =)
Seat oe COLUMBID= m
PROCELLARIID4--\4~ o
B (9) é CRACIDA
COLYMBIDA TERNIDA Es] GEOTRY>
: > \-GONID/E
ALOE { | C \MEGAPODIIDAS CRYPTURIDE
a ii CARPOPHAGIDA.
SPHENISCIDA ° DIDUNCULIDA: fe)
Bod
m
Oo DIDIDZ Ms
>
S a
z e)
:)
> es)
Zz m
ae ”,
STRUTHIONE
D

S PRIMAEVAL BIRDS
A WITH TEETH.

PuyioGgEenrric TREE oF THE Crass “ AvEs.”
From Reichenow’s ‘ Vigel der Zoologischen Girten,’ 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, with 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 foremost rank as an original work.

Subclass I. SAURURZS.
Order I. ORNITHOPAPPI.
(Archeopteryx, Laopteryx ?)
Subclass II. ODONTOTORMAZS.
Order I. PTEROPAPPI.
(Ichthyornis, Apatornis).
Subclass HI. ODONTOHOLCZE.
Order I. DROMAZOPAPPI.
(Hesperornis, &c.)
Subclass 1[V. HURHIPIDUR J.
Super-Order I. DROM HOGNATHA,
Order I. STRUTHIONES.
Super-family I. Struthioidez.
Super-family II. Rheoidez.
Super-family III. Casuaroidez,

Family 1. DrRomMAmDs”.
2. CASUARIIDA,

Super-family 1V. Dinornithoidez.

Order II, A2PYORNITHES.
Order II]. APTERYGES.
Order IV. CRYPTURI.

(Order GASTORNITHES.)

Super-Order I]. LMPENNES.
Order V. PTILOPTERI.
Family SPHENISCID2&.

Super-Order I. HUORNITHES.
Order VI. CECOMORPH A.
Super-family I. Colymboidez.

Family 1. CoLyMpip.
(PoDICIPEDID&, auct.)

Super-family II. Heliornithoidez.
(Heliornis.)

Super-family IIT. Alcoidez.

Family 1. UrnmvatTorip&.
2, ALCIDZ.

Super-family [V. Laroidez.
Family 1. STERCORARIID.
2. LARiIpz.

Super-family V. Procellaroidez.

Family 1. Diomepipz.
2, PROCELLARIID®,
3. PELECANOIDID®.

Order VII. GRALL.

Super-family VI. Chionoidez.

Family 1. CHIoNID.
2. THINOCORID.

Super-family VII. Scolopacoidez.

Family 1. GLARFOLID.
. DROMADID®.

. CHARADRIID®.
. JACANIDZ.

. SCOLOPACID®.
6. CEDICNEMID®.
. Ormip»®.

Or we Co bo

Super-family VIII. Burypygoidee.

Family 1. EurypyGIpz.
2, RHINOCHETID®.
3, MEsITIp»®.

Super-family IX, Cariamoidez.

Super-family X. Gruioidez.

Family 1. PsopHrpz.
2. GRUIDZ.
3. ARAMIDZA.
4, RALLIDZ.

Order VIII. CHENOMORPHK.
Super-family XI. Anhimoidee.

Super-family XII. Anatoidez.

Family 1. CNEMIORNITHID&.
2, CEREOPSID &,
3. ANSERANATID®,
4, PLECTROPTERID.
5. ANATIDA.

Super-family XIII. Phoenicopteroidez.

Family 1. PALAZOLODONTIDA.
2, PH@NICOPTERID®.

Order IX. HERODII.
Super-family XIV. Ibidoidez.
Super-family XV. Ardeoidez.
Family 1, Crconripz.
2. Scopipz.

3. BAL NICIPITIDA.
4, ARDEIDZ®.

Order X. STEGANOPODES.
Super-family XVI. Pelecanoidez.

Family 1. PELECANID.
2. SULIDZ,
3. PHALACROCORACID®.
4, ANHINGID®.

Super-family XVII. Fregatoidez.

Super-family XVIII. Phaetontoidez.

Order XI. OPISTHOCOMI.
Order XIT. GALLIN A.
Suborder i. GALLINE ALECTOROPODES.
Family 1. TeETRAONIDE.

2, PHASIANIDZ.

Suborder ii. GALLIN] PERISTEROPODES.

Family 1. MeGapopup”.
2, CRACID.

Order XIII. PTEROCLETES.
Order XIV. COLUMBA,

Family 1. Diniz.
2. DIDUNCULID®.
3. GOURIDA.
4, COLUMBID.
5. CARPOPHAGID®.

Order XV. ACCIPITRES,

Family 1. GypoGERANID™.
2, CATHARTID®.
3. FALCONID.
Subfamily 1. Vulturine.
. Aquiline.
. Pandionine.
. Circine.
. Milvine.
. Polyborine.
. Accipitrine.
. Falconne.

Co NI S OU mB OH bO

Family 4, STRIGID®.

Subfamily 1. Astonine.
2. Strigine.

Order XVI. PSITTACI.

Family 1. SrRINGOPID®.

2, PLICTOLOPHID.
. PLATYCERCID
. PALHORNITHID #.
. PsITTACIDZ.
. CONURIDZ.

Oo Ot hm OO

Order XVII. PICARLA.
Super-family I. Cuculoidez.

Family 1. MusopHacip as.
2. CUCULIDZ.

Super-family I. Coracoidez.
Family 1. SrEATORNITHID:.

PoDARGID 2.

. CAPRIMULGID®.

CoraciIp.

. LEPTOSOMATID®.

or Co bo

Super-family III. Colioidez.

Superfamily [V. Alcedinoidez.

Family 1. MERopID#.
2, TopIpz.

Family 3. MomorTipz.
4, ALCEDINIDE.
5. BucERorip.

Super-family V. Upupoidee.

Family 1. Upupip2.
2, IRRISORID®.

Super-family VI. Picoidez.
Family 1. Bucconp2.
2, GALBULIDZ.
3. RHAMPHASTIDA,
4, MEGAL@MID#.
5. INDICATORIDS.
6. Pictp».
Subfamily 1. Picumnine.
2. Picine.
3. Lyngine.

Super-family VII. Trogonoidez.

Super-family VIIT. Micropoidez.

Family 1. CypsELipm.

Subfamily 1. Cheturine.
2. Micropodine.

Family 2. TRocHILID2.

Order XVIII. PASSERES.
Super-family I. Menuroidez.

Family 1. Menuripz.
2, ATRICHORNITHIDZA,

Super-family IT. Eurylaimoidez.

Super-family IIT. Tyrannoidez.
Family 1. XENISCIDZ.

PHILEPITTID®.

3. PITTIDs.

4, TYRANNID®.

5, PIPpRIDs.

6. CoTINGID2.

7. PHYTOTOMID®.

Super-family IV. Formicaroidez.
Family 1. CoNoPoPHAGID®,
2, PTEROPTOCHID®.
3. FoRMICARIID&.
4, DENDROCOLAPTID®,
5, FURNARIID®.

Super-family V. Passeroidee.
Family 1. ALAuDIDz.

2. MoracILLip#.
ENICURID2.
TIMALIID.
LIoTRICHID®,
MuscIcaPIp&.
TURDIDZ.

. CINCLID.

9, TROGLODYTIDZ.
10. CHAMAIDZ.
11. Mimipz,
12. HrRunDINID2.
13. CAMPEPHAGID,
14, Dickurm».
15, AMPELIDZ.
16, ARTAMID®.
17. Lanop2.
18. VIREONIDZ.
19. Paripz.
20. OrIoLIDZz.
21. PARADISEID®.
22. CoRvIDz.
23. STURNIDZ.
24, MELIPHAGID&.
. NECTARINIID 2.
Dic#ID®.
CERTHIIDZ.
. C@REBIDZ.
. MNIoTILTID».
TANAGRIDZ,
. PLOCEIDZ.
32, IcTERIDZ.
. FRINGILLIDZ,

ND OUP gt

» OO

MN OD Or

10 4)

9 BS hb bo b&b bo
ive}

uo 09
S

LY O98 CO
CO RD

Although Dr. Stejneger secured the co-operation of 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 the 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 Oligomyode and Tra-
cheophone of the former scheme are split up by Stejneger into three
super-families, each of which is equivalent in value to the Oscines

(=Passeroidee of Stejneger). In the treatment of the Picarie 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 (=Cuculoidez of Stejneger), and Sclater’s “ Zygo-
dactyle” are nearly equal to Stejneger’s Picoidee, 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, &e. Again, the ‘‘ Heterodactyle” of Sclater=Trogonoidee of
Stejneger. The Micropoidee of the latter are not equal to Sclater’s
Cypseli, as the latter contain, besides the Cypselide and the Trochilide,
the family Caprimulgide, which, according to Stejneger, should come
with the Coraciide, &c., in his super-family Coracoidee. Thus Sclater’s
larger suborder “ Anisodactyle ” is represented by three super-families
in Stejneger’s scheme.

In both arrangements the Psittact and the Accipitres follow the
Picarie ; but then comes divergence, for whereas Sclater follows with
the Steganopodes to the Herodiones and Anseres, after the Huxleyan
method, Stejneger interposes the Columbe and Galline, 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. Elhot 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 Hury-
pygide, Cariamide, and others, as to whether they are Ralline or
Gruine; but it should be pointed out that, whereas Sclater places the
Heliornithide as a family of Rails, Stejneger considers them of the
value of a super-family (Heliornithoidee), and puts them between his
Colymboidee and Alcoidee.

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 Fiirbringer published three years ago, under the title ‘ Unter-
suchungen zur Morphologie 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. Fiirbringer
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 ‘Stammbiume,’ 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 résumé in ‘ Nature’ (vol. xxxix. pp. 150-152, 177-181).

It seems to me, looking at Prof. Furbringer’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
Firbringer 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-
poits 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 Palamedez 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, J. c.).
With Seebohm they form a Suborder of his Galliformes.

Firbringer also made an “ Intermediate Suborder” of the Penguins.
Once more I quote Gadow’s most useful summary :—

“The Penguins are a very old family, because the genus Paleeudyptes 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, Fiirbringer calls the
Penguins Trit-Aptenornithes, indicating that they, like the Great Auk, the Dodo,
Ocydromus, and others, haye lost their power of flight later than the Ratite, A sharp
line between Deutero- and Trit-Aptenornithes cannot, however, be drawn, since
Cnemiornis, Gastornis, &e., 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,’ z, e. phylogenetically reduced and

“eprdtorpog
*BpIqUAyor)
‘epryyiatoredsa Ty
“RPI PUALOT[VUGL
‘eplrywuy

‘BPIJIULOPSVr)

‘eplopoulryeg

‘eprqgiuto<dgp7

(‘eeprqyraio wo. +
Bpwnsey + wvpreawo4y)

‘xprLoyy

‘Rpuoryynszg

‘eprodreydoarpary
“ATLUTR T

(8881 20q

‘''"*" sajtdtorpog-oquiAjop

eC o00 souyturo10odsoxy f

Feteseeeeeees+ gouqruzorpeuny

‘'* SorJSOIT[OUIe'T 10 sorosuy

SouiIUIOYsEy

‘+ gopourleleg

Ot O8b:9 O-Ouo- OC Doi olo Ss auyIUIOAd Ay

ails) elie) elieiieeeleeefaliavelians co

Sieh 6) bieece)seisica) oiene seleue sou OtyyNT1S

5
|

presse ss STW WOATLIGIOICOg

Seen i ata satel ie SANWWOATUHSNY

hee tec SANWOATA CHUN V'TV

—: Ioplogqng oyvrpeulreyuy

SANWUWOFJTHLINGYOAd HP

—-! IepLoqng oyerpowieyuy

Se tisirials SUNWOTINOIHLAULY

WUNHLINGO Sssvpo-qus “TI

soSArojdoxuo1y
“‘SUOX)

SHUNUOAIDAUHLAOWHOUY

“loprloqng

WUNANVS Ssse[o-qng ‘|

ES ASV SESE)

DANN , “MOLY *4))

SHHLINGOADLOUW TV dd TA

(sie ees kaise eke SHALINGOWNA

ore eee

SHHLINYOMLLOALS

SHHLINGOHWVLV
“IapIO

‘dabugingy 07 Gurpsoran ‘spug fo uoynoryissny) ay,

SDIDU OS le nas kann eee

‘MprULawoIpsp
‘VPI ]
‘RPoooury, J,
pes DION)

ee pirery,
“SpIpraorgs)
‘pIpRurol(y
“RP POIVpr)
‘RpPlIpRieyo

‘Rprypitoyedy
“epi UoAYYOT

‘eprdpouaidy

“RPULAV [TOIL

‘VpryRooly
‘epluvde[oq
‘BPOVLOI.LOVpeY
‘epryyuopovy
‘eprmooye q-od Ax)
‘ep ryaeyyeO
‘epruvtacod Any
‘eoprqidrormeayeg,
‘TIPOLoP] Lo Bplopry
‘eepidoog

‘Lolv]Oq LO BpIUodI{)

|
\

O80) 1) 0 a0 C8O)0..0) Oe 00. Ga Gen

“TLIpereyy |

sepno

LIIeg

> ee [OOLUIT]-O1e'T

‘* soujyIuLroAyyzyoy

** souuedwy 10 soyApousidy

SOIVUIQNY, 10 Ltre][eE001g

|
Pees sis 9" se podouecese
|

)
|
|

|
|
|
U >
la
|
|

‘SOpL}JOLSMoPy Lo eapropezepg |”

‘epitoydoomeay
“Sprpojoe ed

(

(‘sabod

-myobhiunag ‘sabodanyouawayzy )

ee eres egene ec SOTA TCLTIOO Wind

Tress ss “TH OTOPF-OS1eoOg

C40 belie n eae Tre OOMMeCOUL

|
|
|
|

SANUOAITUAV UV)

SANWOATN LINVOAH LHOT

— Iop1oqng oVIpeut1ozUy

SUNUMOAILACOND LAV

—: Ioploqug opPVIpsuatepUy

SUNUOTITUY TTL OU

—: lep.oqng ayBrIpow1oy uy]

SUMMOATINODT/)

PLS SS

see eee

(‘SHHLINUOTV ING )

SHHLINYOTUC Vu VA

** SHHLINYOOV Tad

34:

‘eproryisd

‘eprqumpoy | .....,

“epIpll |
“Bprpoo1elg

‘sapodo1oyoeTy 10 Bpry[Vr)

‘eplowiyy

‘eprpodesoyy

‘epungdaty)
‘xLpryPULoUl(y |
epiakieydy {

‘eprrpodimoyy |
EpHIseN |

epUTeL |
‘ApLyULOLPTL |

‘RPV
‘xpuydosgy
EOE)
‘epryyimioyd y
‘eprlyoyoouryyy ;
sepioAddinny |
*ATIUUR T

“9s Toes

oo oto nu “ eequintog |

ieee tal ails) leielielenre Pees)

“xpruroocoujstdoO ?

eprrey, |

sosAr0idy

een eg
i
LILO N |

dodononmaddaoda OULU song

oe ee eeee

w2sAd Ang
J

*SUdx)

—: dopLoqnyg a}eIpsULtejUy

* SANWOAIANNTO;)

—: doptoqug OP BIPIULtopJUT

SUIMOAITTY +) )

‘ SUNUOTIUALIAUY

SHNUOFIDAUNA LAV J

“"* SHINUMONTTIVAT

— Laplogng oyVIpstttoyuy

eae SHINUOMTAU)

—: oplOqug o}V1psttopUy]

‘Lapxoque

(paniiquoo) BAN LINGO ssse[Q-qug “TT

*(panurquod) ST AV SIsse[g

*(ponuyu0d) worgnaifissDj) § Lahursguny

(‘SHHLINUOUNV HAD)
SHHLINYOUOLOW TV

‘IOPIO

‘BPLBIS PONONC.0) ook, sree leis ee so8tg )
*BPLIIVpO
TEs} Oe ton CoM eMiey ys POC DOO DO Bot POCO Te WaeopaCoh4o) MW capnouovac SUNT OATIOVUO()
‘aprLopnoriadey [

‘eeprutosoydery l

Miao pve GoverLo< 6 * *eprpez0
‘BpPoVloy) | ; 2)

eect rete cote decn eps Foti OOK, OT oieN gy, |
|

VpPTLOULOT — SUdt) oPVIPOUCoJU]
‘eprdore yy @ 6 fe) :0) 61/6) 00. 0) efe,cefe) 6) e110 oe sodo.1oyr
!
‘Bpryo.1da1
pu U5 lal LES eater ernie sojoreong | eat P
‘epidndy | > SAUNUOTINOAD TVET
|
“UPTO OO TW bee estes viene ¢ ec nneren |
* souofoTe
‘epruodoyezy | tas ; )
a ap alauie ta Wrenn a eanus as (‘SUHLINUOWANA(T
‘PIUOSOLT, fas souogoxy, Soba. eis Nee + =
— sex) 0}VIPOULtoz UT SHHLINGOO VEO
‘eprllpoy Sie) 0).8).4).0 Oe) Tr OOO Oi F @ (py el ree ee) .6 1a 5 (ere) ) t
CASES ho) Mecsoanhson aot <Cameyarcia ny | |
‘eeprjosd ayy |
‘SoLOSsBq IO Bplosseq } ,, )
s
‘souTosOpnos,y | aad Pit '** SUNWOLITISSV J-OO1g |
Menta \. " soresseg-ootg
EQORONO MNT CS ace |
‘eprysvy dure yyy | wid | |
‘epruoqide) y }
OH ce |
‘eeprmooong, | ; x[nqiep |
: —suleH) 0} VIpeuttezUT
ago) Ube eairats) slat evoke) otac's ema terete ge8fo009 ‘99+ goMrogTNx0000 |
‘aprseydosnqy | J

ontogenetically retarded ; e. g. the structure and distribution of the feathers, the fir-
like anterior extremities, the broad scapula, and, according to Fiirbringer, even the
metatarsus. The resemblances with Podiceps and Colymbus 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 Carinate. On his plate 29a they are represented asa 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 Auks 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 Alcide, that it is difficult to
regard the Penguins as far removed from the Gallo-Gralle.”

The next “Intermediate Suborders ” which exercise Prof. Fiirbringer
are the Gruiformes and the Ralliformes. “The Gruiformes,” para-
phrases Dr. Gadow, “are connected with the Charadriformes 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
Fulicarize, consisting of the Rallide 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 Gralle*, which are almost co-extensive with the Grui-
formes of Fiirbringer, he puts between his Suborder Limicolz and the
Suborder Fulicarii, the latter leading on towards the Pygopodes.
According to Seebohm, the Pteroclidee and Turnicide are Gralline,
while Fiirbringer places the latter with his Ralliformes and the former
with his Columbiformes.

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

* “The Rails and their allies 1eally 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 Pezophaps are degenerate Columbe, not necessarily
very old forms.” Mr. Seebohm (vide infra) places his Columb in his
Subclass Passeriformes, and this he does in both his “‘ Schemes.”

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

Prof. Firbringer 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., IV.) reduced figures of the “ Stamm-
baiume” 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., VIL.).
In the first section (Plate V.) we find that the Archornithes (represented
by Archeopteryx) have not survived, but that the Struthiornithes,
Rheornithes, Hippalectryornithes, and probably also the Aipyornithes
have branched off from the main body of the tree. The stems of the
Alectorornithes (with the Apterygide, Dinornithidz, Crypturiformes,
Galliformes, and Ralliformes), Charadriornithes, and Pelargornithes
are already flourishing, and independent branches show that the Pala-
medeiformes, Aptenodytiformes, Procellariiformes, Ichthyornithiformes,
Gruiformes, Columbiformes, and Psittaciformes 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, Dinornithide, and the Ichthyornithiformes, but all the other
branches have developed new twigs, many of great size. Thus the
Galliformes have developed four “family” branchlets, and the Gallide
alone have four large twigs; and so on with 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 Fiirbringer’s pedigree of the Class “ Aves,” as, by means of
his courtesy, the readers of this Address 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.

* «Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde,’ Amsterdam, Afi. xy. (1888).

PTENODYTI
-FORMES

PELARGI-
-FORMES

PODICIPITI-
-FORMES

ANSERI-
-FORMES

-FORMES

STRUTHIOR-

-NITHES

PLATE I.

COLUMBI-

-FORMES

CORACII-
-FORMES

HIPPALECTRY-

-ORNITHES

PSITTACI-
-FORMES

COCCYGI-
-FORMES

MEROPI-
-FORMES

ICI-PASSER Li
-IFORMES Ps
7

~ 2A

RALLI-

-FORMES

: x\

CRYPTURI-

-FORMES

Se ee eee ee

APTERYGI-
-FORMES

-FORMES

FURBRINGER, 1889.

An ATTEMPTED ARRANGEMENT OF FURBRINGER’S SCHEME in the form of a Map,

taken from p. 1568 of the ‘ Bijdra
(p. 48) and my own (Plate IX.).

gen,’ for comparison with those of Seebohm
_N.B.—Prof. Fiirbringer is not responsible for

this arrangement in circles, and it is to be noticed that the Psittaciformes should
have been placed nearer to the Coracornithes, and the Columbiformes nearer to

the Alectorornithes. |

OBERER HORTZONT,

MITTLERER HORIZON,

( Coceygifer=nte
—Patisciormes

&
Zz
Ss
S
=
7
=
=
=
=)
=
J
=
2
—J

oT: = J =

OTOHEREYRNITHES)
DEN OSAURIA

/ cRocgDILs
g oat

3 -“

PLATE II.—Verricat Aspect oF FORBRINGER’s PHYLOGENETIC TREE OF Birps
from the side of the Struthiornithes, Rheornithes, Pelargornithes, Hippalectry-
ornithes, Gruiformes, and Ralliformes. [Copied, by the Author's permission, from
his memoir entitled “ Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der
Vogel, published in the ‘ Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde,’ Amsterdam, vol. xv. Taf.
xxvii. (1888).1

Dscines

Picidae

feo Trochiidse
ichia

Cypselidae

Crotephag® Picidee (perez slat.
iyagin

Jndicotoridae- A - a --- Oscines
Capitonidec a
Rhampho sti

\
Cuculinae. XY Galbnlidse Trochiidae
\ “Vppyinads- S\ Cypselidae

Bucconidae Jrrisormayy zi \ Y
Desmodactyli
SD, Bucerotila x 1
=~ ‘ \ 4 -Lollidee Coli

PERE =
ape S i y -=--Psendescines ) _
i ES AS ~Posseridse sPosseres 3 ptr. f Pasncreg gala
es : Soo J fi ;
> opt $ 4

== Oigomyndi

“Malrochires

Centropodinae Ss

--.Mokrochires
/ / ----. Trogonidae “Lrocones.
: E §
Cuculidae.- . A Wh Passcres

Musophagidas- ; Y ---Pico-Paaseres
Gatbatidae S------YeY k y Z oL 2 - Coll

_. Trogones

OBERER HORIZONT

--Pondioninae

---Steiginar leoninoe « Inte

: } Strigide,

Optathocomidae <—-.e— Gypaclinoe

“MeSractidae } Coraciy

\ li] ff trigndee Striges E ae- Volturinac
Piltacidse \ z gt fi

Picu-Passeriformes -W--|p--—Hf- j hy f Gypogeronida
Haleyouiformes Ne ee Vy, Vi [tea ee
/.. Coriomidae

Dididae
Baloenicipiteg

Ardeidoa
Coccyges- j Cheonfidae $. na fennnerm Cathartideg

Columbae --..) \
\ -Fregatinas

Pholocrocoracinos

Grufnoe
Sulinoe

-- Arominae
Aptormtadae

_j-—Rhinocbetidae
as aidae
uryPy Rh

Pelecanidoe

Thosinninas ------

Tetrauninae Glareolidae, Seaton
1 Scinde i /
Deemadicee vor Plotrune

-s6--Diomedeinse
Procelariinae x str\
--Oceamtinae

Procellariinee slat

-- Cothartidoe
Ggpo Paiconidae

Opisthocumidae ..-.

MITTLERER HORIZONT

Psittact...-—--- >> ae
Podicipidoe.,

/-Procelaridar

Aptencdytidae

Eurypygaenee = \ 3 f | j
A) ‘ \ Holac/ | Analidos lat. 5
) .-Enaliornitthdae Mesperornithidas

Crue \\_\ j
Psittaciformes. ------- \ \ ..\ i a = : Tubinares

Timpenties

--.<.-- Gastornithes
Ena liormUies
Colymbo Podicpites

Crypturiformes ah Se \ i cee : rs perornithes
o Charodriiformes

Apterygidao ——= \ A \ANA F--- , eee eee

pet te ee \ i - Hy J ------. Jehthyornithes
\ : \ E } Charadriornithes
Apteryges \ seen --~ Coracovnithes
rocellariiformes
Aptenodytiformes

————
Dinornithidae Re eae AN \ y onnformes:
\ - Podinpititormes
Apteryqformes -_. -.-.....-SQ \\ Hig .......--— Ansevilormes

JAlectorornlthes: = -=— -eceeca e Pelargornithes.

Palimedeiformes.

Casueriidee__.. > .. Rheidor
Rhese

Cosuorii 7_—--. Rheiformes
Dromoeid y,
Rheornithes

UNTERER HORIZONT,

t
Strathnones
Struthionidae

Ae chaadpteryyiiae.—

Archaeopteryges -——~
Archocopterygiformes
Archornithes.——

DINOSAURIA

CROCODTLIA™. } LACERTILIA

PLATE IV.—Verricat AspECT OF FWURBRINGER’S PHYLOGENETIC TREE OF
Breps from the side of the Aptenodytiformes, Procellariiformes, Charadriiformes,
Columbiformes, and Galliformes. [Copied, by the Author’s permission, from
his memoir entitled ‘Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der
Vogel,” published in the ‘ Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde,’ Amsterdam, vol. xv. Taf.

XXvi. (1888). |

PLATE V.

Aepyornithes?.
-Aepyornithiformes?

Apterygifomes.._...... “

Alectorornithes____-.-.-----.. j
Crypturiformes /

Hi ippaleetryornithes....

: Casuariiformes..
Soe 5 \ Casuarii-_.......---XS

it Galliformes. 1

NN pea \
A Me 1
ee HI
NS a
gers NS e/
‘ See -227

pornanen it Psittaci’ EE
é *-formes// £29) Coracornithes
toluntitine ceo NG /)

Sen”

Ciconiiformes

i fF aaa ij

SN =e

‘S 17 R
& \ J, sass

= \. /Pelar gornithes
\y if \\
\\ LAS

Tchthyornithiformes. \—
Ichthyornithes. sel

Procellariiformes

Aptenodytiformes....- H creel

SSaecel

cots ———-~
Struthiornithes. 47
jtf/Struthio\\\
Struthioniformes...."{("nidae )}})
Struthiones_. W827;
SS

Lower HorizonTAL PROJECTION OF FURBRINGER’S PHYLOGENETIC TREE
oF Birps, (Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, vol. xv. Taf. xxix. a.)

PLATE VI.

ZS Sek
i \, Alectorornithes
ed

(Crypturiformes

Sa ee
a eae
eo o?

Apterygiformes
pee

Pterocletes-./

Leann
( Coraciis . # orm’ /
: wos

e i).
+4 formes, G)
NG See ott ea

See
~~ Tt

i
‘
4
'
‘
H
+ '
Chavadviitf.- Noe eS.
Charadriornithes-.-j Le \. a
M :
Charadriiformes-14 \.-Pelargornithes
Ia . . NS
: i S57 A =_ SS le os
flieey limiedaesost se ee) Soe ig +s Ciconiiformes
/ a ie ee id: S na

teridae
Fo 2),

Ichthyornithiformes

eet.

Procellariiformes-/

'
'
Tubinares.----

Stegano-

“podes ~

haeton
tidae
5
SN

?
‘ fi

; \
Aptenodytiformes-. ,4 Podicipitiformes-—-\4 Colymbo

\ \
Podicipites SN

N
’
s
1
'
‘
‘

Mrppie HortzontTaAL PROJECTION OF FURBRINGER’S PHYLOGENETIC TREE
or Birps. (Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, vol, xy. Taf, xxix. b.)

PLATE VIL.

\
Coracornithes......\

Psittaciformes.

enn
<= ~

Columbiformes.

\_Coracomnithes

PicoP. Hs Pio Tasseriformes.

=, -

- -
rs

Cohinbae.

= Pookie
-‘Pseudoscines,

enna

Oscines

Passeres s. strt.__.4¢ 4//; i Fan
_ Passeres...... 7... Oligomyodi. \

Pico: Passeres._/ / . i%

Pico Passeriformes.

<< **. /Passeres §,st.
...-¢Pico-Passeres,
% Se sPasseres,

~Troqones

/ cosas.

a “Pico Pastimes

meee me

Upper Horizontal PROJECTION OF FURBRINGER’S PHYLOGENETIC TREE
oF Brrps. (Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, 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, differmg in this
respect from Prof. Fiirbringer. I do not agree with him altogether,
but I reproduce his reasons :—

“Once for all it must be noted that any attempt to bring all fossil birds into the
same system 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 :—

Subclass. Order. Suborder.
. Passeres.
. Eurylemi.
. Trochili.
Scansores.
Upupe.
. Trogones,
. Columbe.
. Musophagi.
. Cuculi.
{ 10. Serpentarii.
iv. RAPTORES ...... severe d 11, Accipitres.
| 12. Striges.
PURSIMDACT Racunhanteycrer: 3. Psittaci.
{ 14. Haleyones
Vlg LRAKOMUENEZD Gon Go poo HOOD ! 15. Coracie.
| 16. Bucerotes.
Vit (CAMHATTE SI ©. marie eeraers 17. Cathartes,

1 EICO=CASSERES ane: 4

PASSERIFORMES ....

oc ee,
SIO Or wD

Ti, (CLoNeMANEEVD! 5 o5qg0n00000¢

co OO

rhblg (OKOXGKORMERDIS! GS Gogoncacoae {

FALCONIFORMES ....

CORACITFORMES

ee
a

* Afterwards changed to Munogypes.

Subclass.
(
ANSERIFORMES...... |
(
GALLIFORMES ...... {
|
\
(
STRUTHIONIFORMES. {
|
|
fe

. Pygopodes.
. Gallinee.

Order. Suborder.
( 18. Steganopodes.
vill. PeErEcANO-HrRODIONES J 19, Herodiones.
| 20. Plataleze.
( 21. Phcenicopteri.
ix. LAMELLIROSTRES...... 4 22, Anseres.
| 23. Palamedez.
x. ROBINARERi: <4 a6 os ~ 24, Tubinares.
xi, IMPENNES ..:........; 25. Impennes,
( 26. Gavize.
27. Limicole.
| 28. Gralle.
xii, GALLO-GRALL™ ,,..,, { 29. Fulicariz.

Xill.

Xiv.

APTERYGES ...... suo © BSE

RUAUETAP AIO Gee greyobenor eretee es { 35.

|. 36.

. Crypturi.

Apteryges.

. Rhez.

Casuarii.
Struthiones.

Mr. Seebohm then offers an “ alternative scheme,” founded principally

on the condition of the young when hatched.

his character has

before been considered of value by naturalists, and the late Professor
Sundevall made use of it in his classification; but it is lable to excep-
tions, and even now is sufficient to break down some of Mr. Seebohm’s

diagnoses.

Orders is slightly altered and only five Subclasses are recognized. ‘The
result is as follows :—
Subclass. Order. Suborder.
Pees ye PE OREO NEE Se cyeis sere elace eam cts aici aut sala, cin aust. evi ele ehatat 1-9.
f ( 10, Haleyones.
: PE CAR Aaa tyen cael iter ty ick aerat 11. Coraciz.
») A 1 DS
2. CORACIIFORMES .. | SE antes
| CATHARTES .............55. 13. Cathartes.
( PSITTACI ... see eeee eee eeeee _ 14. Psittaci.
| | 15. Striges.
VAPTORES: fo ceeds +eureerns 4 16, Accipitres.
| \ 17. Serpentarii.
3, CICONITFORMES a4 ( 18. Platalez.
| PELECANO-HERODIONES . « 19. Herodiones.
( 20. Steganopodes.
| ANTARINVUROS Gog uoab so anboudat 21. Tubinares.
TAGES: js Son Mhavenrate ct 22. Impennes.
( f 23. Palamedez.
5 STRESS a daratageys 24, Anseres.
Pe CAPIIEOR MES. ©... 4, LSUNiTaRosnEs Lice ee ee
| \ 20. leenicopter.
{ 26-32.

, STRUTHIONIFORMES

GAn10-GRATI AS we Pheeisiers

aleve: o)¥ie 8) abla iep 0] 6107.0) b) 86 8 818) Oh egerey aie s/s

In this “alternative scheme” the linear sequence of the

The diagnosis of the Passeriformes is vitiated by the genus Menura,
which, although said to belong to the Passeriformes, 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 :—

. PASSERIFORMES.

. CORACITFORMES.

. FALCONIFORMES.

. ANSERIFORMES.

. GALLIFORMES.

. STRUTHIONIFORMES.

CO Non

aD oO -

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 Halcyones 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 Columbe among the Passeriformes, the separation of
the Upupe from the Bucerotes, and the location of the Mimogypes in
the Coraciiformes.

The Columbe may not have downy young like those of a Hawk ora
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 Columbe 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 Dasypzedic.

Mr. Seebohm places the Upupe 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 (¢f. Scott,
Ibis, 1866, p. 222).

The Bee-eater burrows for itself a hole, lays white eggs, but the male
is not known to box up his wife during the period of incubation. He
seems to behave very like a Kingfisher. Therefore we may surely link
the Upupe 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 Upupe
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 :—

MIMOGYPES.

A, Hallux present and connected with the flexor perforans digitorum. {This excludes
all other Suborders except the Halcyones, Coracie, and Bucerotes. |

B. Episternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids, [This
excludes the above-named Suborders. |

UPUP.

A. Deep plantar tendons free. [This excludes the Galline, as well as the Meropes
and the Bucerotes. |

B. Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids. [This excludes
the Oscines and Herodiones, which possess character A. |

MEROPES.

A. Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids. {This excludes
the Mimogypes and all Suborders but the Upupe, Bucerotes, and Galline. |

B, Hallux present and connected with the fleror perforans digitorum. {'This excludes
the Galline and the Upupe. |

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

[This excludes the Bucerotes. |

BUCEROTES.

A. Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids. {This excludes
the Mimogypes and all Suborders but the Galline, the Meropes, and the
Opupe. |

B. Hallux present and connected with the flevor penforans digitorum. [This excludes
the Galline and the Upupe. }

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.

PLATE VIII.

SayVNIGNL Se
etme 7
Pe Hf
= Bas vie ¢
ee an ie
Be ‘

‘068! ‘WHOgaZaS

Ps Sg
/ heoaee S
C) |

eee oe ae ee ee

SAWYOSIYASSVd

eS \

SAYOSNYVOS ‘

Boao
W =\
1/ \
il WIOVYOO
'
‘|
H
sad0d-

-ONVDSLS Ssayassvd-oo0ld

Need N \

gement of the Class

Mr. Seebohm’s arran

trate

8 ~
‘Ayes’ by means of a diagrammatic Map.

An attempt to illu

Apart from the excellent work which 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 Record’ for 1889, which seems to express all
that is necessary :—

“ The writer begins 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 Coracornithes.
Among the conclusions, apart from this group, we may notice especially the deduction
of an atlinity between the Columbe, Limicole, and Laride, the Steganopodes, Herodii,
Tubinares, and Spheniscide, with the intermediate position of the Tubinares between
the Laro-Limicole 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 Galline and Opisthocomus); the Picide,
Capitonide, and Rhamphastide may be collectively termed Pici, and the Coraciide
and Alcedinide Halcyones, leaving the other Picarian families in close connection,
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, whe, 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, Redstarts, Nightingales, &c. were all profusely
spotted, and that the more uniform plumage has been a matter of
after-acquirement. In 1871 I poimted out in the ‘Birds of Europe’
the method by which Kestrels (Cerchneis tinnunculus) 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. Oates separates his main families of the Passerine Birds

under five heads :—

a, With the plumage of the nestling resembling that of the adult female, but paler.
(Corvide, Crateropodide, Sittide, Dicruride, Certhiide, Regulide.)

b, Plumage of the nestling resembling that of the adult female, but brighter.
(Sylviide.)

c. Plumage of the nestling cross-barred. (Laniide.)

d. Plumage of the nestling streaked. (Oriole, Eulabetide, Sturnide.)

e. Plumage of the nestling mottled or squamated. (Muscicapide, Turdide.)

The other Passerine families eliminated from those before mentioned
by a different set of characters are the Ploceide, Nectariniide, Hirundi-
nide, Fringillide, Motacillide, Alaudide, and Diceide, 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 minute 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 :—

Order. Suborders. Families.
(7 es sane . Tyrannide.
. Laniide.
. Ampelidee.
. Hirundinidee.
| . Alaudide.
| Certhiide.
| . Vireonidee.
. Motacillidee.
. Sylviidee.
. Coerebide.
. Mniotiltide.
. Cinclide.
. Troglodytide.
. Turdide.
. Paride.
16. Tanagridee.
. Fringillide.
. Icteride.
. Sturnide.
. Corvidee.

ret
ODOANA AH WN

PASSERES ......

ONS
(e)
n
Q
pas
=]
(0)
n
NS
pe
oo bk

=
Or

Se ee
co on =

ed
)

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

1. Corvidee (Crows). _ 19. Nectariniide (Sunbirds),

2. Paradiseide (Birds of Paradise). 20. Diczidze (Flower-peckers).
3. Ptilonorhynchide (Bower-birds). 21. Paride (Titmice).

4. Sturnide (True Starlings), 22. Regulidze (Goldcrests).

5, Eulabetidee (Tree-Starlings). 23. Laniidz (Shrikes).

6. Artamide (Swallow-Shrikes). 24, Ampelidz (Chatterers).

7. Dicruride (Drongos). 25. Vireonide (Greenlets).

8. Oriolidze (Orioles). 26. Sylviidee (Warblers).

9. Icteridze (Hangnests). 27. Turdide (Thrushes).

10. Ploceidee (Weaver-birds). 28. Cinclidz (Dippers).

11. Tanagride (Tanagers). 29, Troglodytidz (Wrens).
12. Coerebidz (American Creepers). 30. Accentoride (Accentors).
13, Fringillide (Finches). 31. Timeliide (Babblers).

14. Alaudide (Larks). 32. Pycnonotide (Bulbuls).
15. Motacillidee (Wagtails and Pipits). 38, Campophagide (Cuckoo-Shrikes),
16. Mniotiltidze (American Warblers). 34, Muscicapide (Flycatchers).
17. Certhiide (Creepers). 35, Hirundinide (Swallows).
18. Meliphagidze (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 Paride so far from the
Certhiide ; but we do not see where else to put the Meliphagide. The Sturnide, too,
are further from the Crows than we should prefer to see them; but if we begin with
the Corvide, which we think it is desirable to do, the transition to the Paradise-birds
seems natural, and thence the way is easy through Xanthomelus to Amblyornis. Then
comes a break ; for we do not think that there is any real affinity between the Orioles
and the Bower-birds, and the Sturnid@ come here as the nearest position available in
the vicinity of the Corvide. Recognizing the sense of Mr. Oates’s family Eulabetide,
we can pass by way of Calornis to the Oriolide, and thence to the Artamide and
Dicruride. 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 Muscicapide or the Lanitde. 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 Cerebide
does not quite please us. The latest exponent of the group, Dr. Sclater, considers that
they are related to the Tanagride on one hand and to the Certhitde and Mniotiltide
on the other. Dr. Shufeldt places them next to the latter family, and it may be that
their Mniotiltine will override their Tanagrine affinities. We have already alluded to
the connection between the Alaudide and Fringillide by means of the Horned Larks
and the Snow or Lapland Buntings, and by placing the Motacillide next in order we
can proceed to the Mniotiltide by way of Sturus, 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 Meliphagide and the Nectarinide, and the thread of continuity is
once more taken up by the Diceide, which form a good connecting link with the
Paride by way of Prionochilus, Pardalotus, but above all by Oreocharis. From Paride

to Laniide the road is bridged by Falcunculus, and probably here will have to come
some of the aberrant Liotriches, which are most puzzling birds to locate. We follow
Mr. Oates in placing them as Timeliine birds, but both our family Timeliide of the
‘Catalogue’ and Mr. Oates’s family Crateropodide have too ample limits.

“The Vireonide, according to Dr. Shufeldt, are more Mniotiltine than Laniine, and
the importance of their form of bill has been exaggerated, while the Lanwde@ have got
such remarkable osteological characters that Dr. Shufeldt has put them on the
boundary of his Passeres. Mr. Oates, for quite other reasons, also puts them
far from the Paride. Whether our position for the Shrikes is natural is a fair
subject for discussion, our chief objection to it being that it separates the Sylvude
so far from the Mniotiltide in the linear series. Once, however, that we have passed
this break in the natural order, and we arrive at the Sylviide, the affinities of the
Turdide, Cinclide, and Troglodytide are evident, the Accentors are probably rightly
placed in proximity, and the 7 imeliide in their comprehensive sense follow. The
affinities of some of these birds with the Muscicapide are closer than would be
imagined ; but Mr. Oates’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
Ornithologici,’ by Dr. Ferdinand Heine and Dr. Anton Reichenow,
which, though 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. Reiche-
now in the ‘ Végel der Zoologischen Garten” Remembering, too, the
eood 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
joimed 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 init. 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 Moguinus tandonus, Blythipicus, Lichtensteinipicus, Graydi-

dasculus, and numerous other barbarities) sent to the winds, yet I doubt
very strongly whether 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 fullest 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 (anted,
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-
phagine from the neighbourhood of the Muscicapide, and their location
in the Brachypodide. Thé Chalyheine (contaiming Lycocorax and
Chalybeus= Manucodia) and the Eurycerotine are two new subfamilies
of the Paradiseide ; and the Phonygamine of the ‘Museum Heineanum?’
become the Gymnorhinine of the ‘ Nomenclator.’ The Todi are
removed from the Todine of yore, for which the name of Triccine is
now substituted, and the Psarine are now called the Tityrine. Hetero-
pelma is shifted from the Ampeline to the Piprine. The Todide are
placed between the Phytotomide and the Prionitide.

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 Musophayide and Coliide are placed among
the Strisores. The Iyngine are asubfamily of the Indicatoride. Opis-
thocomus, placed in the ‘ Museum Heineanum ’ between the Jndicatoride
and Cuculide, is now more properly removed to the vicinity of the
Cracide, 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 1882.

The Order (XI.) Natatores (Nomencl. p. 340) supplants the Orders
Steganopodes (1V.) and Lamellirostres (V.) of Reichenow in 1882, and
some of the families recognized at the latter date are now accorded
the rank of 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 Dicholophide

and Psophiide, which are placed near the Gruide, while the Pala-
medeide 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. Seebohm 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 Deserticole of
Reichenow in 1882 are now included in the Order Rasores. They
formerly consisted of the Pteroclide, Thinocoride, and Ortygide (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 Fasores.

The Raptatores are divided into the following families, Strigide,
Falconide, and Vulturide, much as in Reichenow’s System of 1882, but
the disposition of the Subfamilies is different. The Falconide have eight
Subfamilies :—1. Accipiirine (to which the following genera, which I
have placed in other Subfamilies, are said to belong, viz., Rypornis,
Asturina, Buteola, Leucopternis, Asturinula, Harpagus, and Herpeto-
theres); 2. Circine; 3. Falconine; 4. Milvine; 5. Buteonine; 6. Aqui-
line (wherem occurs Pandion); 7. Spizaetine (with Harpyhaliaetus,
Morphnus, and Thrasaetus, which I consider Buteonine birds) ; 8. Poly-
boring (with which are marshalled Heterospizias, Hypomorphnus, 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 Ginops and Hrythrocnema
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
birds.

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. Pycraft and
Mr. Goodchild, the last-named having recently published an essay
on “The Cubital Coverts of the Huornithe im relation to Taxo-
nomy ” in the ‘ Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh’ (vol.
X. pp. 317-333). Some of the conclusions arrived at i Mr. Good-
child’s ‘Tabular View’ are curious, as, for instance, when he shows
that the Paradiseide are without median coverts, a character peculiar to
the Cypselide, Trochilide, and Trogonide. 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. 8S. 1885,
pp. 681-716) ; Mdlle. Fanny Bignon, who has written a considerable
memoir in the ‘ Mémoires de la Société Zoologique de France’ (1889),
pp- 260-820, pls. x.-xii.* ; and Miss Mary Walker, whose essay “On
the form of the quadrate bone in Birds” was published m 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 Ratite 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 ‘ Encyclopedia 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 41’étude de la pneumacité chez les Oiseaux. Les cellules aériennes
cervico-céphaliques des Oiseaux et de leurs rapports avec les os de la téte.”

rather do this ten years hence, did I live so long. Although claiming
to have some knowledge of Accipitres and Passeies, and certain
groups of Picarie, 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 of the
Game-birds and Water-fowl 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 building, 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 temple 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 durmg 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 English poet, Sir Edwin
Arnold :-—

“Live day by day
By little and by little swelling
Thy tale of duty done—the 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
“prick”? 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

BALAENIC-

PLATE IX.
-IPITIDES

PSEUDO- SD PLATALEA
-GRYPHI
ARDEA (ss) PALAMEDE

PANDIONES
PHALACRO-
(x) -CORACES
astray @
-ARII oS

DICHOLOPHI

PARR
TUBINARES)

. ‘sotossug
“ree Aangy es 2 ce
‘BMUOT ~
See

‘souooong

Aa
‘so.oqvorpuy
‘souozideg —_
‘sopyseydmeyyy
eed
‘Tmong
‘seydosnyy
‘soUOSO.LY,
HATO)

TOOL,

SIAN A
s,

“Hapeaeyy
‘soprsuyyy

“sopruorttg
‘gapewo1q3—_——

—

== @ . i a

an author’s construction is a cheap way of gaining notoriety; but to
show what should have been done originally, and to replace the
damaged “ brick” by a sound one,

“ Hoe opus, hic 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 in my map of the Class will be found later on (infra, pp. 67-
88), where I have re-drawn my scheme (Pl. XII.), taking mto account
the classifications of Fiirbringer 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; andit will be seen that I have not treated my subject quite
on the same lines as those pursued by Reichenow and Fiirbringer. [or
this reason: by the model of the “ tree” which is on the table, we see
that Firbringer, 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, we 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
Fiirbringer.

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 difference in their appearance, as we 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
twigs.

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 tosee 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 faith 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 frontispiece).

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 asimple 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 Birds 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 Linnzeus 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 haveinhabited, the earth. If the system of teaching by artistic 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
exhibition.

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 year, 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 Sawrure, as the most archaic form universally
recognized as such by modern systematists. Thus Archeopteryx 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 tie
deposits in which Archeopteryx 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 Ratite, represented by natural groups of
the Ostriches, Rheas, 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 Aipyornithes, 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
Ratite, with all those other peculiar characteristics on which it is not
necessary here to dilate at length.

In a similar manner our student would next be directed to the
Tinamous 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 (ef. Hudson, in ‘ Argentine
Ornithology,’ 11. 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 a Megapode in common with
a Pheasant? Or wherein lies the affinity of the Curassow, 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 be 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
Columbe. More especially must we illustrate the Geophapes, with
their Galline nestling.

* Parker describes the palate of Turniv as incompletely egithognathous.

It will now be necessary to return to the vicinity of the Apteryges to
follow up the main stem of our phylogenetic arrangement, if we are to
accept the weighty dictum of Professor Firbringer, 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 falline bird of ancient pedigree, though I confess that
the size and colour of the egg does not help us much. Any one who
saw Apterye in confinement, and knew nothing of its Struthious
affinities, would consider it to be a clumsy kind of Rail.

Of the birds in our present category, Opisthocomus is the most curious,
with its general appearance of a Curassow and its Gallinuline nest ; while
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 Ra/li, we should require to delineate the
Rails with several illustrative groups of Gallinules, Coots, Rails, and
Crakes, 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 groups
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 Jmpennes this is not difficult, as one group would suffice ;
but for the Tudbinares at least three cases would be required, that of the
Diomedeide demanding great space, while the Shearwaters and Stormy
Petrels would also require considerable attention.

The next great groups to be arranged consist of the Limicole, the
Lari, and the Alce. 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 Pygopodes, and the nearest of all the
groups to the outlying Tudbinares.

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

Admitting the close affinity of the Charadrii and the Lavi, there
intervenes between the Charadrii and the Ralli the very imteresting
group of the Parre or Jacanas, which, though Pluvialine in es-
sential structure, yet have so many Ralline affinities that it is impos-
sible to deny to them a rank equal in value to the whole groups of
Charadrii and Ralli.

The Lari are equally well defined, and would require at least four
illustrative groups, to show Stercorariide (Skuas), Laride (Gulls and
Terns), and Skimmers (Rhynchopide).

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 (Rhynchea) and
other minor forms of interest (Strepsilas and such like).

In the vicinity of the Lari 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 Glareola, a Plover-
like bird of singular habits and structure, connecting the true Charadrii
with the Coursers (Cursorii) ,which lead on to the Thick-knees (idicnemi),
and thence te the Bustards (Otides), and later on to the Cranes (vide
infra). Dromas 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 (Aidicnemus) or of an Oystercatcher
(Hematopus), though differing 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 gamed 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; while Aramus, which
we should treat as an intermediate group, to be termed Aram, would be
placed between the Cranes and the Ralli, as representing the most
Ralline of the Cranes.

The Trumpeters (Psophie) 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 (Hurypyga) 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
Dicholophi. It has an outward resemblance to the Secretary-bird
(Serpentarius) of South Africa, but has characters which, according to
Seebohm, make it a Ralline bird, while Stejneger 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
Serpentarius.

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
Hawk.

The Secretary-bird must also be admitted as a peculiar Accipitrine
form, connected with the general body of Hawks by the Caracaras
(Polybori) ; 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
Polyborine, and from them to the Long-legged Hawks and Harriers
(Accipitrine) 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 Sériges ;
but as their habits are those of a Fishing-Hagle and the egg is coloured

64.

like that of many Accipitres, 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-flymg 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
ageregate of the Striges.

Further away still we should find the Pseudogryphi* (Mimogypes,
Seebohm) or American Vultures. Their habits as carrion-eaters make
them the representatives of the Vulturide in the New World; but
there are so many characters in which they differ 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 (Fregate), 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 (Swle) of equal value to the
Pelecani, Fregate, and Phaethontes, the latter in their mode of life, nidi-
fication, and colour of their egg being decidedly different from all the
others. If the Sule are allowed to represent a group, the same rank
cannot be denied to the Cormorants (Phalacrocoraces).

Of the Heron-like birds, at least Scopus and Baleniceps, as well
as the Ciconit or Storks, must be considered to rank as distinct
from the general mass of the Herons (Ardee), and instructive groups
illustrating the mode of life of all these birds would be necessary.

From the Herons we should pass to the group of Platalee, 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 P/atalee 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 Phenicoptert. ‘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 (vde anted, p. 9).

to which I have as yet given very little close study, I will not venture
to pronounce any definite opinion on the subject ; 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
(Palamedee), which every one now admits to be aberrant Geese-like
birds.

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 Picari@ 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 Accipitrme 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 Picarie 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 Coccyges, consisting of
the Cuculi 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 Picarie, and in
many respects exhibit Galline affinities. The Caprimulgi 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 their 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 Caprimulgi, whence
we should pass to the Cypseli in one direction.

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

Madagascar.

The Kingfishers (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 them in two 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 Upupe show im 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 Galbulide and Bucconide are put wide apart from each other ;
while the Woodpeckers (Pic?), the Barbets (Capitones), Toucans (Rham-
phastides), and Honey-Guides (Jndicatores) must all be placed close
together, as was long ago insisted upon by Garrod in 1878. The
Trogons (Trogones) and the Colii are two somewhat separate groups,
the former being perhaps the most isolated of any of the Pico-Passeres,
while the Colies must also stand alone, a little group, between the
Cypseli and the larger group of Halcyones &c., but without any very
near relations.

To my arrangement of the Passeres, as published in the before-
mentioned review of Oates’s ‘Fauna of British India,’ I have little to
add, but one or two corrections are necessary. Through the kind
assistance of my friend, Professor Stewart, who 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 light.

The ossification of the olfactory capsule in the Laniide 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 leucogaster
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 Artamide near the Sturnide
and Oriolide was altogether wrong.

The Campophagide in their osteology prove to have little or no
affinity with the Laniide, but must be placed near the Muscicapide.

The Dicruride, 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 Oriolide and
Dicruride 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 Firbringer and Seebohm,
I have given a second Map (Plate XII.) of my arrangement of Birds
with the limits of Fiirbringer coloured in d/ue, 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. SAURURZ.
Order I. ARCHEOPTERYGES, (Fossil.)

Subclass I]. RATITZE.
Order I. RHEIFORMES. (Neotropical.)
Order III. STRUTHIONIFORMES. (Ethiopian.)
Order IV. CASUARIFORMES. (Australasian.)

Suborder i. Dromee.

Suborder ii. Casuarii.

Order V. APTERYGIFORMES,. (Australasian.)
Suborder iii. Apteryges.

Subclass ITT. CARINATZS *.
Order VI. CRYPTURIFORMES fF.
Suborder iv. Tinami. (Neotropical.)
Order VII. GALLIFORMES tf.
Suborder v. Megapodii§. (Australasian and Indo-Malayan.)
Suborder vi. Craces ||. (Neotropical.)
Suborder vii. Phasiani 4.

Fam. 1. PHastanip®. (Palearctic and Indian.)
2. TrTRAONIDH. (Paleearctic and Nearctic.)
3. Prrpicipm. (Cosmopolitan.)
4, Numipip™., (Hthiopian.)
5. Meteacripa. (Nearctic and Neotropical.)

* Euriphidure, Gill et auct. recent., a name drawing attention to the shape of the
tail in contrast to that of Arch@opteryx.

+ &. 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, and on each side a still narrower xiphoid process, the three processes occupying
four-fifths of its entire length.” The cartilage which connects the ilium 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. Pterylosis 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
erass-leaves ” (Hudson, in Argent. Orn, il. p. 210). Note of Rhynchotus rufescens a
‘‘ mellow flute-like sound, so expressive that it is, perhaps, the sweetest bird-music
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 different from that of the true Gadd, and more resembles that of Apteryx.

{ The Megapodii and Craces are the Peristeropodes of Huxley's celebrated paper on
the Classification and Distribution of the Alectoromorphe (P. Z. 8. 1868, pp. 294-319).
The Phasiani are Huxley’s Alectoropodes.

§ Episternal process perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; nasals holorhinal ;
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, J...) Nest none. Eggs deposited in a mound raised by many of the birds
in concert. Young hatched without the intervention of the parent bird, and able to
fly almost from birth.

|| 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, and its basal phalanx as long as that of the third toe;
oil-gland tufted. (Cf. Seebohm, /.c.) Nest ina tree. Eggs white, two in number.

q 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

69
Suborder viii. Hemipodii*, (Sub-temperate and Tropical
portions of the Old World.)
Fam. TURNICID2.

Suborder ix. Pterocletes}+. (Sub-tropical portions of the
Palearctic Region, Indian Region, Ethiopian
Region.)

Suborder x. Geophapes {. (Australasian.)

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

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, and able to run in a few
hours.

* Turnicomorphe, Huxley, P. Z. 8. 1868, p, 303. Maxillo-palatines not coalesced
with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizorhinal; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous ;
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 none. Eggs numerous, double-spotted. Nestling Galline,
covered with down in a pattern.

“Incomplete ‘ Aigithognathism’ occurs in the ‘ Turnicimorphs’ (Hemipodius 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. Soe. 2nd ser., Zool. p. 111.)

+ Pteroclomorphe, Huxley, P. Z. 8. 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. 255.

As far as their osteology goes the Sand-Grouse are very Columbine, and had they
occurred in a fossil state only they would probably have been placed in the Columbze
(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. Young clothed with down like the
young of a Partridge, but more variegated with white tufts.

{ The diagnostic characters of the Geophapes 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 July 1891). Nest none. Egg white. Young hatched covered
with down and able to run soon after birth (cf. Gilbert’s note on G. smithii in Gould’s
Handb. B. Austr. ii. p. 154), Gilbert was one of Gould’s best collectors and a man of
excellent observation.

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

Order IX. OPISTHOCOMIFORMESf. (Neotropical.)
Suborder xiii. Opisthocomi.
Fam. OpIsTHOCOMIDA.
Order X. RALLIFORMES f{. (Cosmopolitan.)
Suborder xiv. Ralli.

Fam. 1. GALLINULID2.
2. RALLIDzA.
3. ORTYGOMETRIDZ.
4, Popicm,

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

Fam. HELIORNITHID.

* Palate schizognathous; nasals schizorhinal; basipterygoid processes present ;
basal portion of bill 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 (/. ¢.). I
have not attempted to indicate the Families of the Columbe, as there exists so far no
actual classification based on diagnostic characters. Eggs two, white. Nesta slight
structure, composed of twigs, generally placed in a tree, though exceptions to this
rule are known.

+ Heteromorphe, Huxley, P. Z.S. 1868, p. 303, Palate schizognathous; nasals
holorhinal ; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous ; 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 (ef. 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 (ef. Quelch, /.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. 8.
ix. p. 355 et seq.).

{ Palate schizognathous; nasals holorhinal; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous ; 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 holorhinal; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous; epi-
sternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids ; posterior process of
the ilia separated sutficiently 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 (ef. Neuwied, Beitr. Orn, Bras. iv. p. 827). This last character suggests an
affinity with Opisthocomus.

Order XII, PODICIPEDIFORMES*, (Cosmopolitan.)
Suborder xvi. Podicipedides.

Fam, PopicIrEeDID»,

Order XII. COLYMBIFORMES +, (Arctic and Sub-Arctic.)
Suborder xvii. Colymbi.

Fam. CoLyMBIDZ®.

Order XIV, SPHENISCIFORMES f.
Suborder xviii. Impennes.

Fam. APTENODYTIDZ.

Order XV. PROCELLARITFORMES§. (Cosmopolitan: Pelagic.)
Suborder xix. Tubinares.

Fam. 1. DIoMEDEID.
2, PROCELLARIIDA.
3. PELECANOIDZ.

* 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 schizognathous; cervical vertebr 17 to 21 in number; anchylosed
sacral vertebrae preceded by a free vertebra, in front of which are four anchylosed dorsal
vertebree ; 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.

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

t Palate schizognathous ; first digit of manus fused with the second in the adult ;
scapula very broad, not differing very much in size from the keel of the sternum;
three metatarsal bones of tarsus very shert and separated from each other throughout
by deep grooves; bones of forearm all flattened. (Seebohm, ¢. 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 aburrow. Eggs two, white or
greenish white. Young when hatched thickly covered with down.

§ External nostrils produced into tubes; nasals holorhinal; dorsal vertebree hetero-
ccelous ; basipterygoid processes absent in Diomedeide and Procellariide, but present
in Pelecanoide; hallux absent or reduced to one phalanx, the other toes directed
forwards; spinal feather-tract well-defined on neck ; oil-gland tufted. (Seebohm, #. c.
p. 34, and Stjeneger, ¢.c. p. 84.) Nest none; egg usually concealed in a hole or

Order XVI. ALCIFORMES*. (Circumpolar.)
Suborder xx. Alcz.
Fam, ALCIDA.

Order XVII. LARIFORMES.
Suborder xxi. Larit. (Cosmopolitan.)

Fam. 1. STERCORARIIDZ,
Fam, 2. LARID®.

Subfam. Larine.
Subfam. Sternine.
Subfam. Rhynchopine.

Order XVIII. CHARADRITFORMES. (Cosmopolitan.)
Suborder xxii. Dromades}{. (Ethiopian and Indian.)
Fam. DroMaDIp&.
Suborder xxiii. Chionides §. (Antarctic.)
Fam. CHIONIDIDE.

Suborder xxiv. Attagides ||. (Neotropical.)

Fam. 1. ATTAGIDZ.
2. THINOCORIDZ.

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 schizognathous; 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. (Cf. Seebohm, t, e.
p- 87.) A double moult in the year (ef. Stejneger, ¢.c. p. 69).

+ Palate schizognathous; nasals schizorhinal; basipterygoid processes absent;
spinal feather-tract forked on the upper back; feet webbed. (Cf. Seebohm, ¢.¢. 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
parents.

t Palate schizognathous; nasals schizorhinal; no occipital foramina; no_basi-
pterygoid processes. Nest none, the single white egg placed at the end of a long
burrow.

§ Palate schizognathous; nasals schizorhinal ; basipterygoid processes absent; no
occipital foramina ; spinal feather-tract forked on the upper back. (Seebohm, @.¢. p. 87.)
For other characters see Stejneger, /.c. p. 92. Nest in holes or behind rocks, Kggs
somewhat like those of Hematopus, but thickly blotched with purple. Nestling
covered with greyish down.

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

Suborder xxy. Charadrii*. (Cosmopolitan.)

Fam. 1. Hamatopropip#.
2, CHARADRIIDZ.
3. SCOLOPACIDA.

Suborder xxvi. Glareole +. (Hthiopian ; Mediterraneo-Persic ;
Indian; Australian.)

Suborder xxvii. Cursorii{. (Ethiopian; Mediterraneo-Persic ;
Indian).

Suborder xxviii. Parree §. (Neotropical; Ethiopian; Indian;
Australian.)

Suborder xxix. G&dicnemi||. (Nearly Cosmopolitan.)

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

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

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

{ Palate schizognathous; nasals schizorhinal; no basipterygoid processes (ef.
Seebohm, ¢.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 (Crsorius).

{ Palate schizognathous; nasals schizorhinal; basipterygoid processes absent;
spinal feather-tract forked on the upper back (Seebohm, ¢. 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 vertebrz opisthoccelous; basipterygoid processes
present ; no occipital foramina ; spinal feather-tract forked on the back. (Seebohm, ¢. ¢.
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.

|| 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, ¢.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. Young, when
hatched, covered with very close-set down, pale sandy with longitudinal black streaks,

{| Palate schizognathous ; nasals holorhinal ; dorsal vertebrx heteroccelous ; episternal
process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids; posterior process of the
ilia separated sufficiently 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, ¢ ¢ 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 well mottled with black.

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

Suborder xxxii. Aramit. (Neotropical.)

Suborder xxxili. Rhinochetides }. (Confined to New Caledonia.)
Suborder xxxiv. Mesitides §. (Confined to Madagascar.)
Suborder xxxy. Hurypyge ||. (Neotropical.)

Suborder xxxvi. Psophiz ]. (Neotropical.)

Suborder xxxvil. Dicholophi **. (Neotropical.)

* Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizo-
rhinal; dorsal vertebre heteroccelous; 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, ¢.c. p. 39.) For convolutions of trachea in
some species, cf. Stejneger, ¢. c. p. 128. Nest on the ground or in shallow water.
Eges double-spotted, light, with reddish-brown spots. Young, when hatched, covered
with light down and soon able to run.

+ Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer; nasals
schizorhinal; dorsal vertebre heteroccelous; 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, ¢.c. p. 59.) (Cf also Stejneger, ¢. ¢. p. 127.)
Nest among rushes in a marsh. Hggs ten or twelve; “large as a Turkey’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. 11. p. 160).

{ Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer; nasals schizo-
rhinal; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous; sternum with no posterior notch; oil-gland
nude; a powder-down patch on each side of the rump ; four bare body-tracts extending
some way up the neck. (Cf. Seebohm, ¢. c. p. 39.) (Cf. also Stejneger, ¢. c. p. 118.)
Nesting-habits and egg unknown.

§ Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizo-
rhinal; dorsal vertebre heteroccelous; 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, ¢. c. p. 89.) Nests and eggs not authentically known.

|| Maxillo-palatines not coalesced with each other or with the vomer ; nasals schizo-
rhinal; dorsal vertebra heteroccelous; 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, ¢.c. p, 39.)
(Cf. also Stejneger, ¢. c. p. 116.) Egg like that of a Woodcock. Nestling Plover-like
and covered with down. Young birds fed by parents for some weeks after they are
hatched.

q Palate schizognathous ; nasals holorhinal; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous ;
episternal process not perforated to receive the feet of the coracoids; posterior pro-
cesses of the ilia separated sufficiently to show a broad sacrum; sternum with no
notch on the posterior margin; long lateral bare tracts on sides of neck. (Cf.
Seebohm, ¢. c. p. 40, and Stejneger, @. ¢. p. 128.) Nest on the ground.

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

Order XX. PELARGIFORMES.
Suborder xxxviii. Ardez *, (Cosmopolitan.)
Suborder xxxix. Ciconiit. (Nearly Cosmopolitan.)
Suborder xl. Balznicipetides {. (Ethiopian.)
Suborder xli. Scopi§. (Ethiopian.)
Suborder xlii. Platalez ||. (Cosmopolitan).

Fam. 1. PLATALEIDZ.
Fam. 2. [srpipz2.

of the ilia separated sufliciently 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, ¢. c. p. 40, and Stejneger, ¢.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, #.c. p. 27.) Eggs generally blue. Nest roughly constructed, and
generally placed in a tree. Young when hatched covered with hair-like down ; fed in
the nest for a long time by their parents.

+ 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; 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

birds.

{ Palate desmognathous ; spinal bare tract reaching far up the neck; mandible not
produced behind its articulation with the quadrate ; basipterygoid processes absent ; a
pair of powder-down patches (cf. Seebohm, ¢. 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 slight 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. (Cf Seebohm,t¢.c.p.27.) Fora
comparison of characters, myological &c., between Scopus and the Storks and Herons,
of. Stejneger, l.c. p. 170. Nest a structure of great bulk, with chambers inside, built
of branches and twigs, and five or six feet in diameter, capable of bearing the weight
ofaman. Eggs white. Nestling unknown.

|| Palate desmognathous; nasals schizorhinal; basipterygoid processes absent ;
spinal feather-tract not defined on the back (¢f. Seebohm, ¢. 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 (ef. Stejneger. ¢.c. p. 158). Nest on
a tree or among reed-beds. Eggs greenish white in Platalea with spots, in Zbis green.

Order XXI. PHAOSNICOPTERIFORMES *. (Temperate and
Tropical portions of both hemispheres.)

Suborder xliii. Phoenicopteri.

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

Fam. 1. CNEMIORNITHIDZ.
Fam, 2. ANSERANATIDA,
Fam. 3. PLECTROPTERID.
Fam. 4. ANATIDA.

Subfam. Anserine.
Subfam. Cygnine.
Subfam. Anatine.
Subfam. Mergine.

Suborder xlv. Palamedez {. (Neotropical.)

Fam. ANHIMID&®.

Order XXITJ. PELECANIFORMES,. (Cosmopolitan.)
Suborder xlvi, Phaethontes §.

Fam, PHAETHONTID&.

* Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes absent or very rudimentary ;
nasals holorhinal; mandible much produced and recurved behind its articulation with
the quadrate (cf Seebohm, ¢.¢. p. 50). Lachrymo-nasal region elongated; frontalia
narrow, not covering the orbits above ; grooves for orbital glands present; ceeca well
developed ; bill with lamellze like a Duck (cf. Stejneger, ¢. c. p. 153). Nest built of
mud, exposed, in a lake. KHgg one, white. Young covered with whitish down and
able to run soon after being hatched.

+ 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. (Cf. Seebohm, ¢. c, p. 31.) Toes webbed; bill lanceolate. Nest of rough
construction, variously situated. Eggs numerous, creamy buff or greenish white or
pure white. Young covered with down when hatched, and able to run or swim
at once.

+ Palate desmognathous ; no uncinate processes to the ribs; cervical vertebrae more
than 18; plumage of upper parts with no spinal bare tract. (Cf. Seebohm, ¢. ec. p. 32.)
For a comprehensive description of myological and other anatomical characters, cf.
Stejneger, fc. p. 138. Nest of rushes of slight construction, the foundation in the
water. Hggs 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, ¢.c. p. 26.) An excellent review of myological
and other characters is given by Stejneger, ¢.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.

dad
4a

Suborder xlvii. Sulz *.

Fam. SuLIpz.

Suborder xlviii. Phalacrocoraces +.
Fam. 1. PHALACROCORACID,
Fam, 2. PLotip™.

Suborder xlix. Pelecani t.
Fam, PELECANID®.

Suborder 1. Fregati §.

Fam, Freeatipm, (Temperate and Tropical Seas of both
Hemispheres. )

* 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 not anchylosed to sternum; carotid arches on cervical
vertebree ; dorsal vertebrae without ventral processes; plumage of neck continuous;
no bare tracts ; hallux united to the second digit hy a web; front plantar not leading
to hallux. (Seebohm, ¢. c. p. 26.) On the proportions of the toes and other characters
of. Stejneger, 7. c. p. 188. Nest a rough structure of grass or seaweed. Egg, one

only, white with a chalky texture. Young, when hatched, fed by the old birds for
a long time.

+ 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 vertebrae opisthoccelous, with ventral processes ; plumage
of neck continuous; no bare tracts ; hallux united to the second digit by a web; front
plantar not leading to hallux. (Seebohm, ¢. ec. p. 26.) Bill hooked at the end of the
culmen; tail-feathers stiffened. For other characters, ¢f. Stejneger, ¢. c. p. 190.
For those of the Plotide, see Garrod, P. Z. 8. 1876, p. 335 et seg. Eggs four, white
or light blue with a chalky texture. Nest generally a-huge pile of seaweed; ona
rock or in a.tree. Young, when hatched, naked.

{ 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 vertebrx heteroccelous ;
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, ¢. c. p. 185, for other characters.) Nest in trees or on the
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
Pelecanide, Trans. Z. 8. x. p. 315 et seq.)

§ Palate desmognathous; mandible not produced and recurved behind its articu-
lation with the quadrate; no basipterygoid processes; sternum not perforated to
receive the feet of the coracoids ; clavicle anchylosed to sternum ; no complete carotid
arches on cervical vertebrae ; plumage of neck continuous; no bare tracts; hallux
united to second digit by a web; front plantar not leading to hallux. (CA Seebohm
t. c. p 26.) Tarsus feathered, as also the toes; tarsus abnormally short, &c. (cf.
Stejneger, ¢. c. p. 183). N esting generally in rookeries; the nest on rocks or trees.
Ege, 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 *. (Neogean.)
Suborder li. Pseudogryphi.

Fam. CATHARTIDZ.

Order XXV. ACCIPITRIFORMES.
Suborder lii. Serpentarii+. (Ethiopian.)

Suborder hii. Accipitres }. (Cosmopolitan.)

Fam. 1, Vouuturtpm. (Mediterraneo-Persic ; Ethiopian ;
Indian.)
Fam, 2. FaLconipa.

Subfam. Polyborine.
Subfam. Accipitrine.
Subfam. Buteonine.
Subfam. dgwiline.
Subfam. Falconine.

* 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 flexor perforans digitorum, small and elevated above the level of
the other toes. Pseudogryphi of Forbes, Mimogypes of Seebohm. Spinal feather-tract
not defined on neck; semitendinosus and accessory semitendinosus muscles are present ;
oil-gland nude; ceca none. (Seebohm, ¢. ¢. p. 23.) Nest on the ground, or in hollow
of stump (Rhinogryphus), or at the side of a precipice (Sarcorhamphus). Eggs two, white
with spots (Rhinogryphus), or entirely white (Sarcorhamphus). Young, when hatched,
naked (Sarcorhamphus) or covered with down (Rhinogryphus and Catharistes).

+ Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes present; femoro-caudal muscle
absent; accessory femoro-caudal present ; semitendinosus and accessory semitendinosus
muscles present; deep plantar tendons Galline; hallux present, connected with the
flexor longus hallucis, and not with the flexor perforans digitorum; spinal feather-
tract wel Idefined on the neck; oil-gland tufted. (Seebohm, ¢.c. p. 16.) 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.

{ Palate desmognathous'; basipterygoid process absent; dorsal vertebrae hetero-
ceelous; hallux present, connected with the fleror longus hallucts, and not with the
flevor perforans digitorum; the two tendons bound together by a fibrous vinculum ;
spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck. (Cf. Seebohm, ¢.c. p. 16.) A cere always
present ; outer toe not reversible ; eyes placed laterally in the head. Female generally
larger than the male (¢f. 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

time.

1 Dy. Shufeldt has recently shown that Elanuws has a non-desmognathous palate
[Ibis, 1891, p. 230].

79
Suborder liv. Pandiones *. (Nearly Cosmopolitan.)

Suborder ly. Striges +. (Cosmopolitan.)

Fam. 1. BuBoNIDz.
Fam, 2. STRIGID™.

Order XX VI, CORACITFORMES.

Suborder lvi. Steatornithes {. (Neotropical.)
Suborder lvii. Podargi§. (Australasian.)

Suborder lvyiii. 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.

+ Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes present; flexor longus hallucis
leading to hallux, flexor perforans digitorum to second, third, and fourth digits ; spinal
feather-tract well defined on the neck; oil-gland present, but nude. (Cf Seebohm, ¢. 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, 8. 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.

{ Palate desmognathous, the palatines meeting across the median line, each being
folded upon itself behind the junction, the lateral posterior processes absent ; basiterygoid
processes present; dorsal vertebrae opisthoccelous ; sternum with two notches on the
posterior margin ; hallux present, and connected with the flevor perforans 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. 8. 1889, p. 161; also ef. Seebohm,
t.c. p. 21, and Stejneger, S. N. Hist. pp. 371, 385.) Nest ina 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 perforans digitorum; spinal feather-tract well-defined on the
neck, but forked on the upper back; oil-gland none; a powder-down patch on each side
of the rump. (Cf. Seebohm, ¢. c. p. 21; cf also Stejneger, ¢. ¢ p. 385.) A flat
nest of sticks on the fork of a branch. Eggs two, white.

|| Hallux connected with the flevor 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 Centropodine in appearance.

Suborder lix. Coraciz*. (Palzogzean.)

Suborder Ix. Haleyones +. (Cosmopolitan.)

Suborder lxi. Bucerotes{. (Ethiopian; Indian; Austro-Malayan.)
Suborder Ixii. Upupe §. (Palearctic; Indian ; Ethiopian.)

Suborder lxiii. Meropes ||. (Paleeogzean.)

* Feet anisodactyle ; no powder-down patches; nostrils placed near the base of the
upper mandible and hidden by bristles. Hallux connected with the fleror penforans
digitorum, and not with the flexor longus hallucts; 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.

+ Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes absent; ceca none; accessory
semitendinosus muscle absent; feet syndactyle; hallux connected with the flexor
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 Tanysiptera, 10). Nest, a rough construction of
fish-bones, or none, situated in a hole. Eggs white. Young hatched naked and
helpless.

{ 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 flevor perforans digitorum instead of the flexor longus
hallucis ; tail-feathers 10; carotids one, or two (in Bucezos, none) ; spinal feather-tract
not defined on the neck, which has no lateral bare tracts either; no aftershaft to the
feathers; ceca none; bill with a casque, more or less developed, generally cellular,
sometimes solid (Rhinoplax). 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 ;
ceca none. Nest in hole of a tree or wall. Eggs white or whitish. Female almost
entirely fed by male during incubation. (C#. Murie, Ibis, 1873, pp. 181-211, pls. vi., vii.)

|| Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid 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 flevor perforans digitorum, and not with the flexor longus hallucis; ceca
present; spinal feather-tract well defined on the neck, but forked on the upper back ;
oil-eland nude; tail-feathers 10, Nest none, a hole being tumnelled in a bank by the
birds themselves, as with the Kingfishers. Ege white. Young, when hatched,
naked, the feathers, when developed, inclosed in a sheath until nearly fullgrown, as
with Kingfishers and other Picarie.

Suborder lxiv. Momoti*. (Neotropical.)
Suborder lxv. Todi. (Antilles.)
Suborder Ixyi. Caprimulgi{. (Nearly Cosmopolitan.)

Fam. 1. Nycrinup».
Fam. 2. CaprimvuLGip».

Suborder Ixvii. Cypseli §. (Cosmopolitan.)
Suborder lxviii. Trochili ||. (Neogzean.)

* Palate desmognathous; 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 ; czeca absent; hallux always present, and connected
with the fleror perforans digitorum. Bill serrated. (Cf. Seebohm, t.c. p. 20;
Stejneger, ¢.c. p. 395; Murie, Ibis, 1872, pp. 383-412, pls. xiii—xy.)

+ Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes absent; sternum with four
notches on the posterior margin, open, and not converted into foramina as in the
Momoti; ceca large; ambiens muscle absent; no carotid arteries present; hallux
present and connected with the Slexor 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. Eves four, white.

¢ Palate schizognathous, the vyomer truncated behind; basipterygoid processes
present ; semitendinosus muscle present; ambiens muscle absent; hallux present and
connected with the flexor perforans digitorum ; feet anisodactyle ; spinal feather-tract
well defined on the neck, but forked on the upper back; oil-gland not tufted. Nest
none. Eggs white, with scroll-like markings and spots. Young hatched helpless,
but covered with down.

§ Palate egithognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent ; ceca absent; semiten-
dinosus muscle absent ; all four toes directed forwards ; hallux present and connected
with the flexor perforans digitorum; sternum with 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 (¢f. Goodchild, Proc. R. Phys. Soc. Edinb. x. p. 331) ;
oil-gland nude. (Cf. also Stejneger, S. N. Hist. p.456.) Form of nest various (differing
with the genera)—concealed (Cypselus, Chetura), pendent, with a tube (Panyptila),
cup-shaped, in a cave (Collocalia), exposed on a stump (Dendrochelidon}. Egg white.
Young, when hatched, naked.

|| 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; cxca absent; tongue extensile, the hyoid bones
curved 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.) Nest generally cup-shaped, on a branch, sometimes attached to the side
ofarock. Eggs white, oval, two in number.

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

type.
G

Suborder lxix. Colii*. (Ethiopian.)
Order XXVII. TROGONES }. (Neotropical; Indian ; Ethiopian.)
Order XXVIII. COCCYGES.

Suborder lxx. Musophagi {. (Ethiopian.)

Suborder Ixxi, Cuculi §.

* Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes absent; cca none; ambiens
muscle absent; left carotid only present; sternum with four notches on the posterior
margin; feet pamprodactylous (Stejneger, ¢.¢. p. 371), all four toes being directed
forwards, the first one probably reversible; hallux present, and connected with the
flexor perforans digitorum; 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, pl. x.)

+ Palate schizognathous; basipterygoid processes present; sternum with four in-
dentations on the posterior margin ; no median wing-coverts (Goodchild, ¢. c. p. 331) ;
left carotid only present ; ambiens muscle absent; feet heterodactylous (cf. Stejneger,
t.c. p. 369) ; 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—
t.e. the flevor hallucis supplies the first and second digits, and the flevor perforans
the third and fourth (cf. Seebohm, ¢.c. p. 8); spinal feather-tract very Passerine,
well-defined from nape to oil-gland, and not forked ; aftershaft of contour-feathers
very large; ceca present ; oil-gland nude. Nest in hole of tree. Eggs white.

t Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes absent; cseca none; ambiens
muscle present; tail-feathers 10; feet zygodactyle (semi-zygodactyle, according to
Seebohm); plantars Galline ; hallux always present, and connected with the flexor
longus hallucis, and not with the flexor longus digitorum, which leads to the second,
third, and fourth digits; the two tendons united at their crossing point by a vinculum,
z.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. 485-456.) Nest open, like that of a Pigeon. Egg white. Young unknown.

§ Palate desmognathous; basipterygoid processes absent; ceeca present; both
carotids present; ambiens muscle present; tail-feathers generally 10, 8 in Gucra
and Crotophaga; plantars Galline; hallux always present, and connected with the
flevor longus 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, 8. N. Hist. p. 373);
feet zygodactyle ; contour-feathers without aftershaft ; oil-gland nude; syrinx varied
(bronchial, tracheo-bronchial, or pseudo-bronchial) (ef. Stejneger, ¢t.c. p. 373). Nest
of rough construction. Habits generally parasitic. (Great varieties in nesting-habits.)
Eee 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.)

Order XXTX, PSITTACIFORMES#.
Suborder lxxii. Psittaci.

Fam. 1. Nesroripz.t
2. Lorupz.
3. CYCLOPSITTACID®.
A, CACATUIDA.
5. PsIrracip®.
6. STRINGOPIDZ.

Order XXX. SCANSORES.
Suborder Ixxili, Rhamphastides{. (Neotropical.)

Suborder lxxiv. Capitones §. (Neotropical ; Ethiopian; Indian.)

Suborder lxxy. Indicatores ||. (Ethiopian; Indian.)

* 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 Picarie.

t+ The following order of Families has been kindly supplied to me by my friend
Count Salvadori. He proposes it in his forthcoming volume of the British Museum
‘Catalogue of Birds,’

{ 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; cieca
absent ; left carotid only present; tail-feathers 10; feet zygodactyle; flexor perforans
digitorum as in Buccones ; wing-coverts Oscinine; caudal muscles peculiar, as also the
terminal caudal vertebree (cf. Stejneger, ¢.¢. 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, lc. p. 415; Sclater, Cat. B. Brit.
Mus. xix. pp. 124-160.) Oil-gland tufted. Nest in hole of tree. Egg white.

§ Palate sometimes egithognathous, 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; czca none; left carotid only present ; tail-feathers 10; feet zygodactyle ; flevor
perforans digitorum leading to third digit only ; flexor longus hallucis 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. Ege white.

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

1 Prodotiscus is probably not a member of this Suborder.

84.

Order XXXI. PICIFORMES.

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

Suborder Ixxvii. Buccones}. (Neotropical.)

Suborder xxviii. Galbulz {. (Neotzopical.)
Order XXXII. EURYLASMI §. (Indian; Austro-Malayan.)

Order XXXII. MENURA®||. (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 Picarie (cf. Sharpe’s ed.
Layard’s B, 8. Afr. p. 168). Egg white.

* Palate saurognathous; vomer slender, pointed, split; basipterygoid processes
absent ; manubrial rostrum of sternum bifurcate ; czeca none ; left carotid only present;
feet zygodactyle; flevor perforans digitorum as described in the Indicatores; tongue
extensile, long, worm-like, capable of great protrusion, the hyoid cornua extending
backwards over the skull (except in Sphyropicus 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.)

+ Palate desmognathous; vomer present; basipterygoid processes absent; cca
present; both carotids present ; ambiens muscle present; tail-feathers 12; feet zygo-
dactyle; flexor longus digitorum 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.)

} Palate desmognathous ; basipterygoid processes absent; no yomer ; genys
rounded; ventral feather-tract without gular branch ; czeca present; feet zygodactyle ;

flexor verforans digitorum leading to third digit only ; flexor 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) back; 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 egithognathous; nasals holorhinal; dorsal vertebrae heteroccelous ; flexor
longus hallucis leading to hallux after sending down a tendon to the flexor perforans
digitorum, 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, ¢. e. p. 4.)

|| 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 hooklets; tensor patagit brevis
muscle Picarian ; intrinsic muscles fastened to the ends of the semi-rings (Acromyo-
tine) ; plantar tendons free. (Cf. Sharpe, Cat. b, xiii. pp. 661-663.)

Order XXXIV. PASSERIFORMES *. (Cosmopolitan.)

Section A. Oscines.

Fam. 1. Corvin f.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iii. pp. 1-152.)
2, PARADISEID# f.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. Birds, iii. pp. 153-186.)
3, PTILONORHYNCHID®.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 8380-396,)
4, STURNID! §,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 1-92.)
5. EULABETID ||.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 93-157.)
6. EURYCEROTID™.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iii. p. 326.)
. DIcRURID 4.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iii. pp. 229-269.)
8. ORIOLIDH.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iii. pp. 188-226.)
9. IcTERIDZ.
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xi. pp. 808-405.)
10, PLocrrpz&,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 198-511.)
ll, TanaGrip»,
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xi. pp. 49-807.)

* Palate egithognathous; cervical vertebrae not exceeding 15 in number; ambiens
and accessory femoro-caudal muscles absent ; deep plantar tendons free; hallux always
present, and connected with the flevor longus hallucts and not with the flexor perforans
digitorum ; spinal feather-tract well detined on neck ; spinal feather-tract not forked on
the upper‘back ; oiJ-gland present, but nude,

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

} The difference in the proportion of the toes, adopted from Sundevall’s ‘Tentamen ’
(p. _ ), toseparate 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 difficult 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 Paradiseide, like Parotia for instance, have “ playing-
grounds” like Tectonornis and other “ Bower ” builders.

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

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

{| 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. C@REeBIpz.
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. pp. 1-48.)
13, FRINGILLIDE *,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xii. pp. 1-816.)
14, ALAUDIDz *,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 512-658.)
15, Moracriirip ff,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 456-629.)
16. MNIoTILTID.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 225-455.)
17. CeERTHUD”.
(Cf. Gadow, Cat. B, vill. pp. 322-566.)
18. MeLIpHAGID».
(Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. ix. pp. 204-290.)
19, NECTARINIIDE.
(Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. ix. pp. 1-146.)
20. Dicasrp za.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 2-84.)
21. ZOSTEROPIDZ §,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. ix. pp. 146-203.)
22, PaRiIp# ||.
(Cf. Gadow, Cat. B, viii. pp. 1-79.)
23, REGULIDA.
(Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. viii. pp. 79-87.)
24, Lannp# .
(Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. viii. pp. 88-291.)

* The boundaries between this family and the Tanagrid@ are very feebly defined at
present.

+ The Buntings of the family Mringillide approach the Alaudide through Plectro-
phenax, which would appear to be somewhat like Otocorys. The scutellate planta
tarsi separate the Alaudide from all other Oscines.

+ In their elongated secondaries and in their nesting-habits the Wagtails and Pipits
resemble the Alaudide. They have, however, a very remarkable Sylviine characteristic
in having a spring moult as well as an autumn one. This fact I 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 trivialis), 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 Honey-sucker. Tor the present,
therefore, I am inclined to keep the White-eyes asa separate family, though Mr, Oates,
in the ‘ Birds of British India,’ places the genus Zosterops near Yuhina.

\| For Chamea, 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 Lande 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 Prionopide, will
have to be carefully examined. Some of the genera may have to be located with the
Flycatchers.

Fam. 25. ARTAMIDz*,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. xiii. pp. 3-21.)
26. AMPELIDA,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 211-224.)
27, VIREONID®.
(Cf. Gadow, Cat. B. vii. pp. 292-321.)
28, SYLViuDz fF.
(Cf. Seebohm, Cat. B. v. pp. 1-145, and Sharpe,
Cat. B. vil. pp. 93-310, for Cisticoline and Bra-
dypterine.)
29, TuRDIDz ft.
(Cf. Seebohm, Cat. B. v. pp. 146-401.)
30. CINCLIDZ.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 306-321.)
31. TRoGLoDYTID™.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 180-305.)
32. Mimipz f.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 322-867.)
33. TIMELIID® §.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vii. pp. 312-647.)
34, PYycNONOTID&.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. pp. 1-179.)
35, CAMPOPHAGID®.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iv. pp. 8-110.)
36, Muscicarip™®.
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. iv. pp. 111-468.)
357. HiRUNDINID,
(Cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. x. pp. 85-210.)

Section B. Oligomyode.

Fam. 1. TyRANNIDZ.
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 1-279.)
2, OXYRHAMPHID®.
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 280-282.)

* The Artamide have a Shrike-like ossification of the olfactory capsule, but they
have a curious modification of the palate, as has been discovered by Professor Stewart.
The vomer is egithognathous, but the palate is desmognathous.

+ For Pratincola and Cryptolopha, &c., ef. Sharpe, Cat. B. iv. pp. 178 and 593, and
for Copsychus and allied Turdine 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 Turdide. For Accentor, cf. Sharpe, Cat. B. vil. pp. 648-670 ; and for MWyiadectes,
see Sharpe, Cat. B. vi. p. 368.

{ The recent researches of Mr. Lucas into the osteology of the Thrushes and Wrens
(Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xi. pp. 178-180) show that there is good foundation for keeping
the Mimide as a distinct family.

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

Fam. 3. PrpripZ.

(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 283--325.)
4, CoTINGID®.

(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 327-405.)
5. PHyYTOTOMID™.

(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 406-408.)
6. PHILEPITTID®.

(&. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 409-411.)
7. Prrripz.

(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xiv. pp. 411-449.)
8. XENISCIDA,

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

Section C. Tracheophone.
Fam. 1. DENDROCOLAPTID®.
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xv. pp. 2-175.)
2, ForMIcAaRup®.
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xv. pp. 176-336.)
3. PTEROPTOCHID®.
(Cf. Sclater, Cat. B. xv. pp. 387-352.)

Section D. Atrichiidze*.

The accompanying Map (Plate XI.), which is a modification of my
arrangement of 1890, will give some idea of the affinities of the Oscines,
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 I 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 tive 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-
gation.

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 Menure as a separate group of birds, the Atrichiide
stand alone. It is hardly likely that they possess the downy nestling of Menwra, and
they are at present, therefore, the sole representatives of the Passeres Abnormales of
Garrod (P. Z. 8. 1876, p. 518).

89
PLATE Xt.

PYaNsdNv
PAINVLYY

VAIINIYVLOIN

YAINVA

SNINONNOAV

Vd!dOysLS0z

VYaIVHdMaWw |

VYdqia00 7d
VAYOVNVL

SSWYOsSITIONINS

SIYVYHOOOXO

PYaisz010

/
oY
oS
Nie -7

VYAIAYOO

3\Ay09

AO as ta a ag dt

VHdO1-
“Old AYO

PAWATAS

WOIHo-

“NAHYONOTI Lg

f OscINEs.

Map to show the supposed relationships of the Families 0

investigation ; but it is certainly not a subject which should be attacked
ina 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 the 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 admit, 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 forforty 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 (anted, p. 56), I may
add a hope that this réwnion 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 towards the consummation of
our hopes, the present speaker will feel more than satisfied.

_ PLATE XIl.
~

.
PSEUDO-
-GRYPHI

NX /
*K% ec yeikORMES.
‘ AEDES

,
s

\ \
te
| PHALACRO-
: -CORACES
\

)

Ons.
eprticee
LO
20
C)
bo)
nw
=
~
=
aor
peer a

‘
'
H
RB bi
rN
; ‘
Ta \ 3
Bi on:
| ke
hE to
H ' ' t \
‘ DROMADES | 1 { =
i 1 ’
| ~
'
i]
< '(PARRZ } \
e x
AN ; i
<5. a ‘ /
‘ Ao we
: ee
i
*.) 4 7) ,
x
a
Be PODICIPE-
ee -TIDES
\“N

Paes
a

“=~

oe
IFORMES}
7

oO
2]
>
! &
| fe}
iS
<
a. wt
|

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

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