by the above characters in which, for the most part, it approximates to one or another of the following lower groups, from which, severally, it is distinguished by the inapplicability of the characters noted beyond. My divisions of
Picariæ correspond respectively to the
Cypselomorphæ,
Coccygomorphæ, and
Celeomorphæ of Huxley, from whom many of the characters are borrowed.
12
Groups G., H., and I. are respectively equal to the Charadriomorphæ, Pelargomorphæ, and Geranomorphæ of Huxley.
13
In the true conirostral or fringilliform genera the under mandible has high strong tomia, bent at an angle near the base; the corresponding portion of the upper mandible is deep, so that the nostrils are nearer the culmen than the tomia. The whole bill is more or less bent in its axis from the axis of the cranial base, so that the palate curves down, or is excavated or, as it were, is broken into two planes meeting at an angle,—one plane the anterior hard imperforate roof of the mouth, the other the back palate where the internal nares are situate (Sundevall). The single North American genus of Tanagridæ (Pyranga) is here conventionally ranged on account of its high nostrils and conic bill, although it does not show angulation of the tomia. The Icteridæ, with obviously angulated tomia, shade into the Fringillidæ in shortness and thickness of bill, and into other families in its length and slenderness.
14
These two genera, Psilorhinus and Gymnokitta, of the family Corvidæ, have naked nostrils, as under dd, but otherwise show the characters of Corvidæ.
15
With the Paridæ the authors of this work include the Nuthatches as a subfamily Sittinæ, which I prefer to dissociate and place as a group of equal grade next to Certhiidæ.
16
In the genus Ampelis and part of the Vireonidæ it is so extremely short as to appear absent, and is displaced, lying concealed outside the second (apparently first) primary, like one of the primary coverts; however, it may always be detected on close examination, differing from the coverts with which it is associated in some points of size and shape, if not also of color.
17
In Ampelis there is tendency to subdivision of the lateral plates; in Myiadestes the anterior scutella are obsolete.
18
Excepting Picoides, in which the true hind toe (hallux) is wanting; the outer or fourth toe being, however, reversed as usual, and taking the place of the hind toe.
19
Excepting Sphyrapicus, in which the tongue is not more protrusible than in ordinary birds.
20
Our species falls rather in a restricted family Aridæ, as distinguished from Psittacidæ proper.
21
In a perfectly fresh specimen of Turdus mustelinus, the basal half of the first phalanx of the inner toe is connected with the first joint of the middle toe by a membrane which stretches across to within two fifths of the end of the latter; there appears, however, to be no ligamentous adhesion. The basal joint of the outer toe is entirely adherent, and a membrane extends from nearly the basal half of the second joint to the distal end of the first joint of the middle toe. When this connecting membrane becomes dried the division of the toes appears considerably greater.
When the toes are all extended in line with the tarsus, the hind claw stretches a little beyond the lateral and scarcely reaches the base of the middle claw.
The plates at the upper surface of the basal joints of the toes are quadrangular and opposite each other.
22
See Baird, Review American Birds, I, 1864, 7, 8.
23
Harporhynchus ocellatus, Sclater, P. Z. S. 1862, p. 18, pl. iii.
24
C. ardesiacus, Salvin, Ibis, N. S. III, 121, pl. ii.
25
C. pallasi, Temm. Man. d’Orn. I, p. 177.—Salvin, Ibis, III, 1867, 119. (Sturnus cinclus, var. Pallas, Zoögr. R.-As. I, 426.)
26
S. azurea, Baird, Rev. Am. Birds, 1864, 62. (S. azurea, Swainson.)
27
Parus meridionalis, Sclater, P. Z. S. 1856, 293.—Baird, Rev. 81.
28
Parus sibiricus, Gmel. S. N. 1788, p. 1013.
