ployed in the Nomenclator' as still the most convenient to be adopted, and to place the Acromyodi abnormales of Garrod (which, being extra-American, were not included in the 'Nomenclator') at the end of the Passerine series under the name Pseudoscines. The arrangement would then come out as fol

We thus get the advantage of having what are certainly the most anomalous forms of Passerine birds yet known at the end of the series.

We must now approach the still more vexed question of the division of the Oscines into families. The difficulty here obviously arises from the fact that the Oscines are all very closely related to one another, and, in reality, form little more than one group, equivalent to other so-called families of birds. As, howthere are some 4700 species of Oscines known, it is absolutely necessary to subdivide them; and the task of doing this in the most convenient and natural way is not an easy one.

ever,

Sundevall, who has certainly devoted more time and attention to the external characters of the Passeres than any other naturalist of this century, in his last work (Methodi Naturalis Avium disponendarum Tentamen,' Stockholm, 1872) divided his "Oscines laminiplantares" (which are equivalent to the Passeres here considered, with the exception of the Larks) into six Cohortes," as follows:

Sundevall's characters are derived partly from the structure of the bill and partly from other points, and his six primary divisions seem to me to be very naturally conceived. On the other hand, Mr. Wallace's well-known arrangement of the Passeres, first proposed in this Journal,* and subsequently followed in his great work on distribution, is based entirely upon the

* Ibis, 1874, p. 406.

structure of the wing. Mr. Wallace's Formicaroid and Anomalous Passeres correspond nearly with what I call the Oligomyoda, Tracheophone, and Pseudoscines, whilst the Oscines are distributed in his arrangement under three heads, as follows: —

Series A. TYPICAL OR TURDOID PASSERES.

Wing with 10 primaries, the first always more or less markedly reduced

Wing with 9 primaries, the first of which is fully developed and usually

66

The objection to this arrangement is that it separates some very nearly allied forms far too widely. The spurious primary" which Mr. Wallace relies upon to divide his Tanagroids and Sturnoids is not always even a generic character. In Vireo, for example, it varies in the different species, being present in some and absent in others. Mr. Wallace puts the Alaudidæ amongst his Sturnoids; but in some larks (Calandrella &c.) the spurious primary is altogether wanting. The Ploceida and Fringillidæ, which are barely distinguishable as families, fall under different heads, as do the Sturnidæ and Icteridæ. Yet there cannot be a doubt as to the intimate connexion of the two last-named families.

In my opinion Sundevall's groups of the Oscines are therefore far more naturally conceived; and in our 'Nomenclator' I have nearly followed them, using only the more familiar expressions ending in rostres,' throughout the divisions.

Thus :

:

No species of Sundevall's "Certhiomorpha" being found in the New World, I have not given that group any equivalent designation. But calling these "Oscines curvirostres," for uniformity's sake, and keeping the Larks apart on account of their peculiar planta I should propose to arrange the Oscines as follows:

These six groups may, I think, be separated without much difficulty. But when we come to attempt to subdivide them, there is room for endless varieties of opinion as to the nearest allies of many of the forms. It would, I fear, be impossible to discuss the best arrangement of the different subdivisions of these groups within the limits of this paper.

The second suborder of Passeres, the Oligomyodæ, are not nearly so numerous as the Oscines. It embraces, however, according to the present state of our knowledge, some 550 species, belonging to 8 families, most of which are restricted to the New World.

*Mr. Sharpe's "Coliomorpha" (Cat. Birds, iii. pp. 3,4) is quite a different group from that designated by Sundevall (‘Tentamen,' p. 37) by the same name. Sundevall's Coliomorphæ is nearly equivalent to my "Oscines cultrirostres (Sundevall's group includes Irrisor, on which point see above, p. 343), and consists of the following families (according to my nomenclature): - Icterida, Sturnidæ, Buphagidæ, Paradiseidæ, and Corvida. But Mr. Sharpe puts in his “Coliomorphæ" only the last two of these five families, and adds to them the Oriolidæ, Dicruridæ, and Prionopida. The first two of these belong to Sundevall's Cichlomorphæ (i. e. my Dentirostres); the last consists of a heterogeneous assemblage of genera, mostly also Dentirostres, but having, in my opinion, no sort of connexion together.

Of these the Eurylamidæ must be deemed, without doubt, the most aberrant, on account of the non-freedom of the flexor halucis, above alluded to, which is unique in the order of Passeres.

The third suborder of Passeres, the Tracheophone, distinguished by the peculiar structure of the syrinx, first described by Johann Müller, is entirely confined to the New World. According to my views, the 500 species which it comprehends should be divided into three families, the last of which is peculiar among all the Passeres in having a double notch at the posterior margin of the sternum. They are:

The fourth and last section of the Passeres, which I have proposed to call Pseudoscines, contains only the anomalous Australian forms Atrichia and Menura, which are each fully worthy of family rank. When some of the other obscure Australian forms (such as Orthonyx) have been further examined, it is very possible that additions will have to be made to this series.

2. CYPSELI Sive MACROCHires.

It is now universally admitted that the Cypseli, although not Passerine, come near to that great Order in many particulars. Nitzsch in 1829,* first constituted the group, to contain the Cypselidæ and Trochilidæ, and called them "Macrochires," from the peculiar elongation of the bones of the manus. Sundevall, in 1836, adopted the term, and used the same limits. In his ⚫ Pterylographie,' Nitzsch reduced the rank of the Macrochires to a family of his Picariæ a group to which, however, he expressly states that he can assign no single peculiar pterylographic character. If we allow due value to palatal structure, we must keep the Macrochires and Pici apart from the rest of the Picaria of

*'Obs. de Avium arteria carotide communi.' Halæ, 1829.

Nitzsch, as Prof. Huxley has shown,* although he appears not to have fully realized the structure of the palate in the Trochilidæ.† In the Nomenclator' four families are assigned to the Order Macrochires the Trochilidæ, Cypselidæ, Caprimulgidæ, and Steatornithidæ. Of these it is now quite certain, from Garrod's researches, that the last named must be removed to another situation, the palate being strongly desmognathous.‡ The best place, therefore, for Steatornis, according to my present opinion, is either as a family next to the Podargidæ, or, as the form presents so many strong peculiarities, as an independent order next to the Striges.

The Macrochires will therefore consist only of three families the` Trochilidæ, Cypselidæ, and Caprimulgidæ. No one, I believe, will now deny the close alliance of the first two of these families. As regards the Caprimulgidæ, they differ from the typical Macrochires not only in the lesser comparative development of the manus, but also in possessing cæca, and their position will require further consideration.

3. The Pici were first constituted a separate order by Sundevall in 1835,§ to consist of two families, the Picida and Iyngidæ. They are the exact equivalent of Prof. Huxley's Celeomorphæ. Garrod (P. Z. S. 1874, p. 123 et alibi) would associate with them the Rhamphastidæ and Capitonidæ, as "not in any point presenting family differences;" but if we follow Prof. Huxley in assigning a high value to the structure of the palate, it is quite evident that they should stand alone (cf. Huxley, P. Z. S. 1867, p. 468). There is no difficulty in distinguishing the Pici from all other birds the structure of the tongue and of the feet is quite peculiar; and I think they must remain as an independent order or suborder.

[To be continued.]

*P. Z. S. 1867, p. 468.

+ Cf. Parker, Trans. Linn. Soc. ser. 2, Zool. i. p. 116.

Cf. Garrod, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 530.

§ K. Vet. Ak. Handl. 1835, p. 68.