8 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 223 



ancestoral mannikin stock and part from ancestoral waxbill stock. 

 The former view is favoured." 



The recent studies by Tordoff (1954), Beecher, Mainardi (1958), 

 Wolters (especially 1957), Stallcup (1954), and others, make me 

 wonder whether there is any valid reason for keeping the Ploceidae as 

 a family distinct from the Fringillidae. In view of the general accept- 

 ance of the muscicapine-sylviine-turdine assemblage in one family, it 

 appears that a similar amalgamation may be justified here. 



Such a consolidation seems more appropriate than the opposite type 

 of proposal, such as Steiner's suggestion that the estrildines be made a 

 family apart from the rest of the weavers. Steiner's argument was 

 based to a large extent on behavioral characters. The differences 

 that he cited are, however, by no means as definite and trenchant as 

 he implied. Thus, he wrote that the young of the estrildines take 

 regurgitated food from the crop of the parent bird, while the nestlings 

 of the ploceines are fed by the parents who offer nonpredigested food 

 by inserting their bills into the open mouths of their offspring. Such 

 genera as Ewpledes, Coliuspasser, and Drepanoplectes are considered 

 Ploceine, and yet recently V. D. van Someren (1958, p. 165) recorded 

 that they feed their young by regurgitation in the same way as the 

 estrildine species do. Furthermore, Steiner stated that in the 

 estrildines both parents share in nestbuilding, incubation, and feeding 

 of the young, and in the ploceines most parental duties are done by the 

 female alone. As will be seen from discussion in the next section of 

 the ethological background of the parasitic Viduinae, neither of these 

 groups is at all homogeneous or uniform in their habits. 



If we followed Steiner's suggestion and made the waxbills a family, 

 the Viduinae would be a subfamily of the Estrildidae, as Wolters 

 (1957, p. 91) has already indicated. The Viduinae are nearer to the 

 estrildine than to the ploceine weavers, although distinct from both. 

 Placing the Viduinae in the Estrildidae, however, would largely upset 

 the supposed characters of this family, so it seems better to retain 

 both groups in the Ploceidae. This case is one of those where a study 

 of special groups may weU suggest family distinctions, but an overall 

 survey of the entire weaverbird assemblage cautions against making 

 such splits. 



I also note Stallcup's suggestion to place Estrildinae with the car- 

 dueline finches in the family Carduelidae makes no mention of the 

 viduines, and it is impossible to tell from his discussion whether he 

 would include them with the Estrildinae in his new family or retain 

 them in the Ploceidae. He compared bis estrildine material with 

 species of Passerinae rather than with species of Ploceinae, and it is 

 generally admitted that the Passerinae are a fairly distinct group. 

 Stallcup emphasized that in such a relatively stable, supposedly 



