12 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUIM BULLETIN 2 23 



the fact that it has become differentiated into a niimer of geographic 

 races indicates a considerable antiquity for the genus. Recently 

 Delacour and a few other workers reduced Steganura to a subgenus of 

 Vidua, but Steganura appears to merit generic status by itself on the 

 basis of its highly peculiar rectricial gi'owth, the arrangement of the 

 mouth markings in the nestling, the marked discontinuity in size 

 between it and the other viduines, and its different, almost larklike 

 aerial display (for further details of its very different rectricial struc- 

 ture, see the discussion of the genus on pp. 137-139). 



Insofar as it is possible with present incomplete knowledge of every 

 member of the group to attempt a phylogenetic scheme within the 

 Viduinae, the arrangement would be: 1, Subgenus Hypochera; 2, Vidua 

 proper; and 3, Steganura. The diagi*am below represents the apparent 

 phyletic relations of the included forms. In considering this diagram, 

 one should keep in mind that the names of existing species are used 

 in a broad sense. They imply not merely the species as it is today 

 but also the stock from which it developed. 



STEGANURA 



VIDUA REGIA 



VIDUA MACROURA 



VIDUA FISCHERI 



VIDUA HYPOCHERINA 



"HYPOCHERA" 



Less may be said with certainty as to the systematic position of the 

 other parasitic weaverbijd, the cuckoo finch, Anomalospiza imberbis. 

 It is clearly not closely related to the Viduinae. In his most recent 

 treatment Chapin (1954, p. 407) placed the cuckoo finch next to 

 Quelea because itsyoung arenot known to haveanymouth spots (which 

 if present would suggest a relationship with the Estrildinae), and 

 because its outermost primary is greatly reduced. Actuallj^, we do not 

 know that its young do not have any mouth markings, as no one has 

 recorded anything about them. In life the cuckoo finch looks and 

 acts much like the species of Evplectes or Coliuspasser in "off season" 



