THE HONEY-GUIDES 5 



and Peters (1948, p. 63) have come to a similar conclusion, but they also 

 present an arrangement for the other piciform families, superfamilies, 

 and suborders. They consider the Indicatoridae and the Capitonidae 

 as forming the superfamily Capitonoidea of the suborder Gabulae, 

 which contains two other superfamilies — the Gabuloidea, with the 

 Bucconidae (puff -birds) and the Galbulidae (jacamars), and the Ramp- 

 hastoidea — containing only the Kamphastidae (toucans) — while the 

 Picidae (woodpeckers) are placed in a separate suborder, Pici. Strese- 

 mann (1934, pp. 839-842), on the other hand, considers the two sub- 

 orders of the order Pici to be the Gabuloidea with the Galbulidae and 

 Bucconidae, and the Picoidea with the Kamphastidae, Indicatoridae, 

 Capitonidae, and Picidae. 



Glenny (1944, p. 188) has studied the arteries of the heart region in 

 two species of Indicator and informs me (in litt.) that the Indicatoridae 

 have not attained as high a level of arterial arrangement pattern 

 evolution as the Capitonidae but that there is a stronger affinity in 

 this respect between these two families than between the former and 

 the Ramphastidae. He considers the Capitonidae and the Picidae 

 closer to each other than either are to the Indicatoridae. Insofar as 

 one may judge relationships from a mere linear listing, it may be noted 

 that Mayr and Amadon (1951, p. 35) separate the Indicatoridae from 

 the Capitonidae by placing between them the Picidae and the 

 Ramphastidae. 



Lowe (1946, p. 110) found that the palatal characters described for 

 Indicator indicator by Garrod, and accepted uncritically by Gadow, 

 Beddard, and others, are incorrect and that the condition existing in 

 that species is a bivomerine version of the aegithognathous palate, the 

 so-called saurognathous type of Parker, similar to that found in the 

 woodpeckers. Inasmuch as an investigator is apt to be more directly 

 impressed by his own discoveries than by those of his predecessors, 

 this finding apparently caused Lowe to consider the honey-guides 

 nearer to the woodpeckers than to the barbets. In fact, he admits to 

 considerable hesitation in deciding to give the honey-guides separate 

 status and not to merge the family directly with the woodpeckers. To 

 Lowe's elucidation of the morphological situation I may here add one 

 more point. In the literature it is said by several authors that in the 

 honey-guides the clavicles remain separate, not ankylosing into a 

 furculum, and agreeing in this respect with the barbets and not with 

 the woodpeckers. Stresemann (1934, p. 841) is one of the few writers 

 who state that the clavicles do form a furculum in the honey-guides. 

 My studies, based on skeletons of /. indicator, I. minor, I. variegatus, 

 I. maculatus, I. exilis, I. xanthonoius, Melichneutes robustus, and 

 Prodotiscus regulus, bear out Stresemann's contention, all of these 



